INTERNATIONAL COFJUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION
OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY
IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
(CANADAIUNITEDSTATESOF AMERICA)
VOLUMEVI
OralProceedings
COUR INTERNATIONDEJUSTICE
MEMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DE LA DÉLIMITATION
DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME
DANS LA RÉGION DU GOLFE DU MAINE
VOLUMEVI
Procéderale INTERNATIONAL COUTFJUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORALARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
CASECONCERNINGDELIMITATION
OFTHE MARITIMEBOUNDARY
IN THEGULF OF MAINE AREA
(CANADANNITED STATESOF AMERICA)
VOLUMEVI
Oral'roceedings
COUR INTERNATIONALEUSTICE
MÉMOIRES. PLAIDOIRIEDOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DE LA DÉLIMITATION
DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME
DANS LA RÉGION DU GOLFEDU MAINE
VOLUMEVI
Procéduerale The case concemine Delimitation of the Maritime Boundarvin the Gulf of
Muine Area. entered on the Court's ~éneral List on25 ~ovemher 1981und&
number 67. was the subject of 21Judgment delivered on I? October 1984hy
ihr Chamber constituted bv the Order made bv the Court on 20 Januarv 1982
(Delimitation of the ~arithe Boundatyin théGulf of Maine Area. ~ui~ment.
I.C.JReports1984.p. 246).
The pleadings and oral arguments in the case are being published in the
following order:
Volume 1.Special Agreement: Memorial ofcanada.
Volume II.hlemorial of thc United Statesof America
Volume III. Counter-Memorial of Canada.
Volume IV. Counter-Memorial of the United Statesof ,\merica.
Volume V. Replies of Canada and the United Statesof America.
Volume VI. Commencement of Oral Areumenis
Volume VII. Conclu5ion of Oral ~r~ukents: Documenis submitied io the
Court after closure of ihe written proceedings: Correspondcnce.
Volume VIII. Maps, charts and illustrations.
Canada filed its deadines both in Enelish and in French. Althoueh Canada
has IWO official la&uages:only the ~ngli<h iexi of thosc documenïs is repro-
duced on ihe ensuing psges of ihese \olumes. as Canada has informed the
Rea-.tw that the Ene-ish text should be seenas authoritative for th. .urvoses
of interpretation.
Certain pleadings and documents of this edition are reproduced photo-
araohicallv from the or-.inal orinted text.
- lnaddiiion io the normal continuous pagination, the Volumes feature on the
inner margin of pagesa hrackcted indication of the original paginaiion of thc
Mcmorials. the Counier-hlemorials. the Renlies and certain Annexes.
Ininterna1references,hold Roman numeials (in ihe texi or in the margin)are
used to refer to Volumes of this edition: if thcy are immediately folloued by a
paeereference. this relatesto the new oaeination of the Volumein auestion. On
ihëother hand; the pagenumhers whichare preceded by a refereice io one of
ihe pleadings relate to the original paginaiion of ihatcument and accord-
ingly refer to the bracketed of the document in question.
The main maps and charts are reproduced in a separateVolume (Vol. Vlll),
with a renumhering, indicated by ringed numerals, that is also added in the
margin in Volumes 1-VI1 wherever corresponding references appear; the
absenceof such marginal reference means that the map or illustration is not
reproduced in the presentedition.
Neither the typography nor the presentation may be used for thepurpose of
interpreting the texts reproduced.
L'affaire de laDélimitationdelafrontière maritimedansla régiondugoljedu
Maine. inscrite au rôle eénéralde la Cour sous le numéro 67 le 25 novembre
1981.a fait l'objet d'unarrirendu le 12octohre 1984par la Chambre consii-
tuéepar ordonnance de la Cour du 20janvier 1982(Dél~mrtation delafintiere
maritimedansla regiondugoljedu Maine. arrér.C.I.J. Recueil1984.p. 246).Vlll GULF OF MAINE -GOLFE DU MAINE
Lespiècesde procédure écriteei les plaidoiries relatives à cetteaffaire sont
publiées dansl'ordre suivant:
Volume 1. Comnromis: mémoiredu Canada
Volume II. ~éioire des Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
Volume III.Contre-mémoiredu Canada.
Volume IV. Contre-mémoiredes Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
Volume V. Répliquesdu Canada et des Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
VolumeVI. Débutde la procédureorale.
Volume Vil. Suite et fin de la orocédureorale: documentsorésentés à laCour
aprèsla fin de la procédure'écrite;correspondance.
Volume VI11. Cartes et illustrations.
Le Canada a déposé sespiècesde procédure écriteen anglais et en français.
Bienaue le Canadaait deux laneuesofficielles. seulle texte anelaisdesesécri-
iurer ;si reproduit dani les volhnes ci-dessus;le Canada ayant fail savoir au
Greffe que. en cas d'interprétation. c'eiaii le texte anglais qui devait faire foi.
certaines niècesdela niésenteéditionsontohotoer&h-.es d'aorèsleur texte
impriméoriginal.
Outre leur pagination continue habituelle, les volumes comportent, entre
crochets surlebord intérieur despages,l'indication de la paginationoriginale
desmémoires,descontre-mémoires,desrépliqueset de certaines de leurs an-
nexes.
S'aeissantdes renvois. les chiffres romains gras (dans le texte ou dans la
marg;) indiqueni le volume de la présenteédiGon:>ils sont immédiaiement
suivis par une référence de page,cette référencerenvoie i la nouvelle pagina.
lion du volume concerné.En revanche.les numérosde naeeoui sont oréiédés
de I'indicaiion d'une piècede procédurevisent lapagination originalede ladiie
pièceet renvoient donc a la pagination enire crochetsde la piéce mentionnée.
Lesprincipales cartessont reproduitesdansun volume séparé (Vlll)où elles
ont reçu un numérotagenou\,eau indiqué par un chiffre cercle. Dans les \O-
lumes I ;iVll, les rinlois aux cartesel illustraiionr du volume Vlll sont portés
enmareeseloncenouveaunumérotaae.et l'absencedetout renvoi àla orésente
éditionsignifie qu'une carie ou illus6ation n'est pasreproduite.
Ni la typographie nila préseniaiion nesauraieniétre utiliséeaux fins de I'in-
terprétationdes textesreproduits CONTENTS ..TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Oral Arguments . Plaidoiries
FIRSTPUBLIC SrITING OF THE CHAMBER
STATEMEN BYTMR .LEGAUL(T CAKADA) ............
Introduction of the Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Canada
Opening remarks ..................
Briefsummary of Canadian position ............
Summary of Canada's four main arguments .........
Equity and law ...................
ARGUMEN OTFMR .LEGAUL(T CANADA) ............
. Introduction ..................
I. General legal rules and principles...........
II. Specific principles for an equitable result in the Gulf of Maine
area .....................
IV .The role of Article6 ...............
V. The basis of appurtenance .............
I.Natural prolongation ..............
2 .The distance principle ..............
3. Theabutting coasts ...............
(a) The abutting coasts versusthe false hierarchy proposed
by the United States .............
(b) The abutting coasts and the myth ofthe natural boundary
VI. Relevant circumstances in law ............
The relevant area ................
(a) Established patterns of fishing .........
(6) The 1979 Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources
VI1. The Canadian line as the equitable result in the Gulf of Maine
area .....................
VI11. Conclusion ..................
Geography ....................
Introduction ...................
1.The definition of the appropriate geographical framework . .
II.The general configuration of the coasts.........
A . The falsehierarchy of coasts ...........
B. The general configuration of the coasts of the Gulf of Maine
area ...................X CONTENTS . TABLE DFS MATIERFS
III. The presence of incidental special features and the nature of
specialcircumstances ...............
A . Scaleand size ................
Siimmary .................
The presence of incidental special features and the nature of
specialcircumstances (cont.) ..........
B. The "cut-off" efect ..............
IV . The relationship of Georges Bank to the coasts of the Parties
Conclusion ....................
Economic geography .................
1. The legal relevance of economic considerations ......
II. A comparison of the relevant economic circumstances ....
A .Comparative presence on Georges Bank .......
B. Comparative impact of loss of access ........
III. The "equitable result"
IV . Conclusion ....
PLAIDOIR IEEM .FORTIER (CANADA )............
Le milieu marin ...................
Introduction ...................
1. Vued'ensemble .................
II. Le sous-sol ..................
III. Le fond de la mer .................
IV . La colonned'eau: caractéristiquesphysiques .......
V . La colonne d'eau: caractéristiques biologiques ......
I.Plancton el benthos ..............
2.Poissons et invertébrésd'importance commerciale ....
VI . «Gestion par un seul Etatn .............
VI1 . Conclusion ..................
ARGUMEN TFPROFESSO BRROWNLI(E CANADA) .........
Acquiescenceand estoppel ...............
Introduction ...................
Key elements relating to acquiescenceand estoppel ......
Factual elements relating to acquiescence and estoppel .....
Admissions made hy the United States in confirmation of Canada's
position ....................
The legalprinciple of acquiescence ...........
The doctrine of estoppel ...............
Conclusion ...................
ARGUMEK TFPnomsso~ Boum (CANADA) ..........
Conduct of the Parties .................
Introduction ...................
lrrelevant conduct ................. Relevant conduct ..................
ICNAF ....................
The 1979Fisheries Agreement ............
Conduct in relation to continental shelfrights .......
The BLMline ..................
Conclusion ....................
PLAIDOIR IE M .WEIL(CANADA) ..............
Le tracéde la frontièremaritime unique ...........
Introduction ...................
1. Lescaractéristiquesde la délimitationdemandéeàla Chambre .
A. Une délimitationpartielle ............
1. L'explicationde la formule de l'article II du compromis
2 . Lesimplications du point A et du triangle .....
Lesimplications du point A ..........
Lesimplications du triangle ..........
B. Une frontièremaritime unique ..........
C. Une délimitation conforme «aux principes et règles du
droit international applicables en la matière entre les
Parties)).................
1. Une délimitationfondéesur ledroit .......
2. Les règlesde droit applicablescentre lesParties))..
3. Les règlesde droit applicables«en la matière))....
II. Les lignesen présence ..............
A . La ligneaméricaine ..............
I. La version de 1976 .............
2 . La versionde 1982 .............
La ligneperpendiculaire de départ ........
Les ajustements de la ligne perpendiculaire de départ
B. La lignecanadienne ..............
1. Lescritiques américainescontre la lignecanadienne . .
Le thèmede la trahison de la configuration c6tière . .
Le thèmede la méconnaissancede la frontière terrestre
Le thèmede la concavité génératrice d'empiétement . .
2. La lignecanadienne est équitable ........
Le segment intérieur ............
Le segment extérieur ............
Conclusion ...................
PLAIDOIR DIEM .MALINTOP(PC IANADA) ...........
Tests de l'équité ...................
1. Ledroit ...................
II. La régionàdélimiteret leszonesqui la composent .....
III. Lescadres de référencd ees Etats-Unis .........
IV . Lescadres de référencc eanadiens ..........
V . Lesautres resrsde l'équité .............XII CONTENTS-TABLE DES MATIÈRES
ARGUMEN OTFMR .LEGAUL(T CANADA) ............
Summary of Canada's case ...............
Affirmation of Canada's suhmissions ............
ARGUMEN OTFMR .ROBINSO(N UNITED STATFS) .........
lntroductory statement ................
Overview .....................
1. History of the dispute between the Parties........
Continental shelf ................
United States and Canadian permit programmes .....
200-milefisheriesjurisdiction ............
The expanded Canadian claim ...........
The 1979failedagreement .............
The lems of the SpecialAgreement ..........
II. Other aspects of Canada's unreasonable claim ......
III. The reasons why the United States is entitled to Georges Bank
in ils entiretv.................
IV The b<,undLrsproposcd hg [hi.Ilniicd States ...
V Roiid m;lp and cùncluding reniarkz . . . ....
Legalissuesseparating the Parties .............
Introduction ...................
The function of the Chamber and the applicable law ......
The fundamental rule of maritime delimitation ........
The nature of equitable principles ............
Applicable equitable principles proposed by the United States...
I.Boundary mus1respect relationship with Coast ......
Non-encroachment ...............
Proportionality ................
Natural prolongation ..............
?.I>climilaiiori shuuld Fiicililaicconseriaiion ofrcsources . 263
3 I>eliniitationshould rnininiizcpoiential for disputîs. . 265
4.Boundarv must take account of relevant circumstances in the
area .................... 266
The equitable principles proposed hy Canada ........ 267
I.Distance principle ............... 267
2.Maintenance of established patterns of fishing . 270
3.Res~ect for indicia of what Parties have considered eauitahle 273
Theidentificationofrelevantcircumstances ......... 274
Geographical circumstances ............. 274
Circumstances relating to the marine environment ..... 276
Geological circumstances .............. 277
Activitiesin the area................ 278
Conductof the Parties ............... 280
Economic circumstances .............. 280
Balancing-up of relevant circumstances .......... 280 CONTENTS-TAULE DES MATleRES Xlll
The singlemaritime boundary and the applicable legal principles
Methods of delimitation .............
ARGUMEN OTFMR .COLSON (UNI'TED STATES) ..........
Geographical circumstances ...............
1. The relevant area and the relevant geographical circumstances
A. The definition of the relevani area.........
B. The relevant geographical circumstances .......
I.The large coastal concavity thai is the Gulf of Maine
2. The location of the land boundary and the international
houndary terminus between the Parties in the Gulf of
Maine area ................
3.The general direction of the coast ........
4 .The relationship of the Parties' coasts to one another
5.The comparability of the Parties' coasts in relation to
one another and in relation to the land houndary...
6. The relationship of the Bay of Fundy to the relevant
area, the area in which the delimitation takes place and
the proportionaliiy test area.........
II. The cut-off effect................
A. A geometrical analysis of the cut-off effect.....
B. Thecut-off effectin the Gulfof Mainearea ......
III. The nature of an equitable resul...........
A. Stdte practice ................
B. TheGulf of Maine area ............
Coastal fronts ................
Primary and secondary coasis ..........
Preferred direction ..............
Proposed United Statesmethod of delimitation ....
The perpendicular method ...........
The United States' adjusted perpendicular line.....
ARGUMEN OTFMR .FELDMA(N UNITEDSTATES ..........
Introduction ....................
The proportionnlity test ................
Canada's objections .................
The relevant coasts and areas ..............
Issuesdividing the Parties...............
Bearing of perpendicular linesdefining lateral limits of test a.ea.
Treatment of the Bay of Fundy .............
Particularcoasts andareas to be included in proportionality tests
ARGUMEN OTFMn .LANCASTE (RNITED STATES) .........
Fishing activities on Georges Bank ............
Leeal relevanceof fishine activitv............
canada's emphasis on c&temporary fishery
Hisinrical hxkground on the iishcr) on Georges Bank ....
Curreni ii<hcr)on CieorgcsBank .......XIV CONTENTS -TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Suggested frame of reference for consideration of fishing activities
Preponderance in favour of UnitedStates .........
ARGUMEN OF MR.RASHKOW (UNITED STATES) .........
Activities of the two Governments in relation to the Gulf of Maine
area ......................
1. Activities of the Parties in support of their maritime interests
Chartingand surveying ..............
II. ICNAF introduction ..............
Canada's Charter Membership on Panel 5 is no1 evidence of
a significant Canadian interest in the fishencs of Georges
Bank ...................
Canada's status as a coastal State for purpose of occasional
allocation under ICNAF is not evidenceof a significantCan-
adian interest in the fisheries ofGeorges Bank.....
Demonstraiion of United States predominant interests ...
The history of the activities of the Parties under ICNAF
demonstrates the predominant interest of the United States
in the fisheriesofGeorges Bank ..........
1979East Coast FisheriesAgreement .........
III. Continental shelfactivitie.............
Canada's rejection of specificUnited States arguments ...
Lack of notoriety of Canada's issuanceof oiïshore permits. .
A. Canada's issuance of oiïshore permits lacked noioriety and
constituted unilateral acts that cannot support claims of
acquiescenceand estoppel ............
The United States did not receiveactual notice of Canada's
purported claim ..............
The United States did not receive constructive notice of
any purportcd Canadian claim .........
B. There wasno clearconduct hy the United States 10establish
acquiescence in Canada's exercise of jurisdiction on the
basis ofan equidistance line...........
C. The Officialupon whoseconduct the claimsof acquiescence
and estoppel are founded did not have the authority 10
bind the State................
D. The acquiescenceof the United States was not of sufficient
duration .................
E. Canada did not rely to its detriment upon the acquiescence
of the United States or inactio..........
Tlx coniinenil ~heli;icii\iiiOC ihr Cniicil St.itcr pro\ idcno indicia
thxi an equidisi;int boundary in theGulfof Maincarcd isequiidblc
.........
ARGUMEN OF MR.FI~LDMA (NNITEIS)TATES)
Socio-economicarguments of Canada ...........
Special economic dependence upon Georges Bank fisheriesasserted
by Canada ...................
lrrelevant as a matter of law............. The facts do not support Canada's claim ofeconomic dependence
upon the Georges Bankfishery . . . . . . . . . . .
Econoniic importance of Georges Bank fisheries10Cana.a.
Southwest Nova Scotia's potential for adjustment to loss of
Georges Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relativeeconomic impact upon New England and Nova Scotia .
ARGUMEN OF MR.LANCASTE (RNITED STATES) . . . . . . . .
Introduction of Dr. Edwards (witnessand expert. . . . . .
EVIDENC OF DR. EDWARD(S WIT~~ AND EXPERT) . . . . . . . .
Examination by Mr. Lancaster . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cross-examination by MI. Fortie. . . . . . . . . . . . .
The conservation of the resources of Georges B. . . . . . .
1. Commercially important fisheries stocks are resident on
Georges Bank and are divided by the Northeast Channel
from othcr stocks of the same spec. . . . . . . . .
II. The fish stocks of Georges Bank are a classic example of a
common-pool resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. The matter of"administrativeconvenienc. . . . . . .
IV. Oiland gas and fish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ORALARGUMENTS
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC S17TINGS
held al the PeacePalace. TheHague,
on 29January 1982and/ron~ 2 Io 19 April 1984,
President the Chamber.Judge Ago, presiding
PLAIDOIRIES
tenuesau palais de laiLa Haye,
le 29janvier 1982ei du 2 au 19avril 1984.
sous la présidenM.dAgo. présidentde la Chambre FIRST PUBLIC SITTING (29 182, 11 am.)
Present:Acting PresidenEtLIAS;TheChamber: Judge Aco, President;Judges
GROS,MOSLERS,CHWEBEJLu,dge adhoc COHEN;Registrar TORRES BERNARDEZ.
Alsopresent:
For the Governmenotf Canada:
Mr. Leonard H. Legault, as .4gent;
H.E. Mr. Georges H. Blouin, Ambassador of Canada to the Netherlands,
Mr. Franco Pillarella, Counsellor, Embassy of Canada, The Hague,
Mr. L. A. Willis, Department of Justice, Ottawa.
For the Governmentof the UnitedStatesof America:
Mr. Davis R. Robinson, as Agent;
Mr. David A. Colson, as Deputy-Agent;
Mr. Lord Stuart Allan, First Secretary, Embassy of the United States of
America, The Hague. FIRST PUBLICSIïTING OF THE CHAMBER
ACTING PRESIDENT ELIAS: It falls to me, as Acting President of the
International Court of Justice, to make this preliminary statement before the
first public meeting of the Chamber which the Court has formed, under
Article 26, paragraph 2,of ils Stalute, to deal with a particular case, namely the
case concerning Deliniitaiion of the Maritime Boundaryin the Gulf of Maine
Area.
Not only is this the first lime that a case has ever, in the whole of the present
Court's history, been submitted to a chamher, but il is also the first time that
such a special chamber has ever been constituted.
It has heen formed al the request of the Governments of Canada and the
United States of America. whichnotified a Special Agreement' to the Court on
25 November 1981.
Thereupon, it was my dutyto ascertain the viewsof the Parties as to the com-
position of the Chamber, in accordance with Article 17, paragraph 2, of the
Rules of Court.An election was held pursuant to Article 18.paragraph 1,of the
Rules, and at a subsequent meeting, on 20lanuary 1982,an Order2 was adopted
formally declaring thc Chamber constituted with the following composition:
Judges Gros, Ruda, ivlosler, Ago and Schwehel.
Accordine-to the Order. it had also been mv dutv. under Article 17.
pliragrilph 2oi the Kulcs. IOtïke such >tepsas mighi bc necesur) IO giv?clTcci
IO the prutisions of Ariiclc 31.plirilgrli3.oithe Stlitute. In the circumstlinces.
this enlailcd ni! hlitinr! Io rcuucii one of the iudees rleii10 ihe Chliniber to
give place in dhe couGe to the person specidly Ehosen by Canada to sit as a
judge adhoc in the case. I addressed my request to Judge Ruda who, as the
Order recorded, expressed his readiness to step down when the time came.
The Court has since been informed that Canada has chosen a distineuished
telicheroi international Iau,. Prufesior MasueIl Cohen. 10 si13sjudge odhnc in
ihecase and, as Judge Ruda has fultillcdhi>undertaking Io wiihdrau.. Ih~vethe
pleasure to observeïoday the presence of Professor Cohen among the members
of the Chamber.
Just prior to this public occasion, the Chamber held ils first private meeting
and 1am informed that, in accordance with Article 18,paragraph 2,of the Rules
it has elected Judge Ago to be its President.
It only remains for me therefore to congratulate Judge Ago and cal1upon him
to address you in the name of the Chamber.
Le PRFSIDENT DF: LA CHAMBRE. \Ionsieur le PrCsiJcnt, je buudrais
tout d'2bord. au nom (lela Chambre de 1~Cour aui vieni d'étreconstiiuee et uui
tient en ce moment sa première séancepublique;vous exprimer notre gratitide
d'avoir bien voulu être parmi nous aujourd'hui. Par votre présence, non
seulement vous ajoutez à la solennitéde cette séance maisencore vous soulignez
que la Chambre est la Cour et que la Cour considère laChambre comme une
partie d'elle-même.Nous inaugurons aujourd'hui une nouvelle expérience
conque par quelques juristes très respectés quiont voulu offrir à la Cour de
'1,pp.3-26.
'I.C.J. Report1982.p. 3. OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS 5
nouvelles possibilitésde développerson Œuvre, venant s'ajouter aux possibili-
tés traditionnellement utilisées depuis l'origine dans le cadre de la Cour
olénière. II me nlar~~~~ r~ooele..en oarticu.~~~ les noms de sir Gerald
Fitzmaurice, de PhilipJessup, d'AndréGros que nous avons le grand honneur
de compter parmi nous comme doyen de la Chambre, de Sture Petrén, de
Manfred Lachs. d9Eduardo Jiménezde Aréchaea aue i'a-.,e olaisir de saluer
Jan3 I'.issistan~c.ci iout ~pi.cialcnicnidr. \Ir Humphrcy Wcildock. r(.ccinmcnt
disparu aprr.5dioir t:int 1;iitpour la conit~tuti<>nJe Ir prCs:titc Chanihrc. Ces
hommes gCnCreu\ oni im-igin(. 12 possibiliir: pour I:i Cour J'Ciahlir des
chdiiibrcs c,,mpo,i.es d'un nonihrc Iimiie dc se3 nicmbrc\. aprCr c<insult;iiion
Je. pariics intcre~\cc~,ci cc,dfiiiJ'ccu\ rcr a la wlution de difirends juridiques
particuliers, répondant en cela aux vŒuxsouvent expriméspar les Etats et par
les milieux iuridioues internationaux. Nous souhaitons. Monsieur le Président.
que c:tle cxpCriencc riussisse plcincmrnt ci qiic nou%pui,ions :iioir p.ir Ii
conirihu(. ;idc\r.lopper Ic r>glemeni dr.5cr1ntliirinicrriationaur par la v6iicdu
ilririi. C<imineic l'aidit. lx Chambre est 1.1Cour. C'e\i au noni Jc IciCiidr que
la Chambre asra et rendra son arrêt. C'est à ce titre aue sa décisionauram
U~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
caractère obligatoire. Ce sont là des points fort importants, qu'il convient de
ne pas oublier. Représentant au sein de la Cour la tradition du droit romain, je
voudrais reorendre la formule de vŒuxaue les anciens Romains ~rononcaient
tr;iditii>nncllemcnt quand ils ahorJ~ir.nt dnr. r.nircpri>e nuuvelle QI~<!L~J,~I.Y
~iiu..ru,»/;,rruniiru,,iyui oPuisic I;ichancc courire i cctic c\pi.ricnce. pi~isiIr.
petit vaisseau que nous confions aujourd'hui aux flots de l'océanparvenir
paisiblement à bon port.
Je voudrais maintenant rappeler que cette première séancede la Chambre a
pour objet de répondre auxdispi~sitionsdes articles 20 et 31, paragraphe 6, du
Statut de la Cour aux termes desauels un iuee , . adhoc doit. avant d'entrer en
fonction,. prendre solenncllcment en public, iiinsi que les membres de 13 Cour
I'oni f:lii a\mi lui. I'eng.ipementJ'c\crier %esaicribution. en pleine inip3rii.ilitr:
ri en ioutc cimaciencc En coniCuiicncc. i'inviic M. \taxuell Cohen i Nirc si1
déclaration solennelle ainsi qu'il'est p;e&rit à l'article 8, paragraphe 2, du
Règlementet j'invite toutes les personnes présentes à bien vouloir se lever.
JUDGE COHEN: 1 solemnly declare that I will perfom my dulies and
exercise my powers as judge horiourably, faithfully, impartially and conscien-
tiously.
Le PRÉSIDENT DE LA CHAMBRE: Veuillezvous rasseoir. Je prends acte
de la déclaration solennelle que vient de prononcer M. Cohen en sa qualité de
juge udhoc dument désignéc ,onformément à l'article31 du Statut de la Cour,
pour êtremembre dela Chambre constituéeen vue deconnaître de I'afiairede la
Délimitationde lafrontière muririmedansla régiondugare du Maine entre le
Canada et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique.Je suis heureux de saisir cette occasion
pour dire à M. Maxwell Cohen combien les membres de la Chamhre et de la
Cour se réjouissentde voir au sein de la Chambre un collèguesi estimédans les
milieuxjuridiques spécialiséd sans le règlement judiciairedes différendsinterna-
tionaux. J'estime inutile de faire ici son élogeet de rappeler en détailla carrière
du savant professeur que nous admirons et du collègue siaimable qui vient de
nous joindre. Nous le saluons comme membre de cette Chambre, de laquelle il
complètesi heureusement la composition.
Je constate la présencedes représentantsdes Parties en l'affaire, enparticulier
de M. Léonard H. Legault, agent du Canada, et de M. Davis R. Robinson,
agent des Etats-Unis d'Amérique. LaChambre serait heureuse d'entendre toutes
observations qu'ils désireraientformuler en la circonstance.6 GULF OF MAINE
Mr. LEGAULT: Mr. President of the Court. Mr. President of the Chamber.
Honourable Members of the Couri and [hi. i:hamher. Ii therï 15 an). Pauli
in\ol!ed in the f;iilure IO üchic!i. a nr,gotiatcd seitlemsnt in the Gulf of Maine
Round.ir) dispiire, dcspiie the hest elforts oicanad~ and the United Statc~.ihcn
IIisa h;ippy fault lri~r culpu.A happy C~ultbe:;iuse itproiides ihc opportunit!.
Il>ruur tuo countrici IO appear beforc the Internatiunsl Cuurt <iiJustice 2nd so
atfirni our trui in and support ior th)\ ercai inriiiuiion and for the rulc oi la\\
which it has done so much to oromote and~ma~~ta~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Canada and the United tat té havse a long tradition of peaceful settlement of
disputes but this is the first tirne that we have called upon the Court to help us
resolve a oroblem that is of the erea-est imoortance io hoth sides and to the
future de\cl<ipmïni oi international Iaw. and pariicularly ihe I~uof m3niime
boundaries I dm sonsciuur of the honour dune to me b) ni). Go\ernment in
entrusting me with the carriage of this case. 1am also conscious above al1of the
heavy weight of responsibility that rests upon me. That weight is lightened,
however, hy the confidence my Government and 1place in the wisdom of this
Court.
There aremany historic "firsts" involvedinthe present case but 1wishto refer
to only one more. With Judge Cohen's swearing-in this morning, this is the first
time that Canada has been represented on the International Court of Justice
since the retirement of Judge Read. Judge Cohen is a distinguished Canadian
and a distineuished international iurist. 1 know he will be worthv of his
prcdrco,or &il thlit IikeJuJge ~ead he uill niake a nutcuorthy contribution IO
the annal,:of ihe Csuri. Iofir him m) warmc\t congratulalions and besi wishes.
1suppose too that 1niust now in effectsay goodbyeto him for perhaps the next
~~w ,e~~~~-~
Finally, 1mus1express my Government's profound gratitude to Judge Elias
for his inspired leadershio and for the rare qualitv of human understandina he
has disolaced throuehouithe nrocess that hai culminated in the formation octhe
r~~~~~~
firstchamber in the"history of the lnternational Courtof Justice. May 1add too
a word of thanks to our distineuished Reaistrar, Mr. Torres Bernardez, for his
advice and assistance in hrineGe us to where we are todav. 1should also note
that my colleague, the ~~e% Tor the United States of Amenca, has heen
unfailingly courteous and CO-operativethroughout this process and that 1look
fonvard-to maintainine this same relationshiowith him as wemove fonvard in10
another phase of the Gulf of Maine case.
Mr. ROBINSON: Mr. President, Mr. President of the Chamber, distin-
guished Members of the International Court of Justice, Ambassador Legault,
Ambassador Blouin, members of the diplomatic community, ladies and gentle-
men. It is an extraordinary honour for me to be here today to represent my
country hefore the International Court of Justice and its duly constituted
Chamher established under the Statu~e~ ~d Rules of Court. This is a verv
important occasion for ihe Govcrnments of the Uniteil Staic, and Canada and
iiir iurthcring the pcaceful rcsolution of dispute\ heiween nüiions II is \cry
importani for the United States and Canada hesaus the constiiuiion of a
Chamher of ihe Iniernationlil Court of Jusiicc sets in motion a process fur
drriding a vers difficultbil;iter;lldispute between neighbuuri and clore allies and
ïrirndi. IIIS also iiii~ortant bewuse iodav mark.- the heginninc of a iianific~nt
experiment in international dispute settlement which is &ing watched croselyhy
the world cominunity.
The establishment by the Court of its first Chamber to hear a particular case
is characteristic of this Court's leadership role in the peaceful resolution of 7
OPENINC OF THE ORAL PROCEEDlNGS
disputes between States. In this regard, we are particularly grateful for the good
officesand inspiration of the Acting President. We also thank the Registrar for
his guidance. And, we welcome Judge Cohen and the other Members of the
Chamher.
As Ae-nt for the United States of America. 1am committed to the successful
implr.nieni,~tioni)irhir proicd~rs csi,iblishhy the Siiii~icand Hulci <~I'('ourt
dnd I an assurr. >JU th:ii Idndni).Gu\crnnicni i\.continue io so-opcr;iic u,iih
[hi\ Court so :isio F~cilitxicthe oor.r.iiion 01ihc Ch.1mbc.r Sa~line.unchartcd
waters is alwavs difficult. but the court has demonstrated its couriue. invent-
ijencss and lexlrriliip in rcspon(lin2 io thç coiiccrns and iniereiti ol'thc P~rticr
ti)thii case. 1tirn:ly bclie\c thai ilic csi~bltshmcni <<:hnibcr uill enhance
the role of the court and will open a new era of recourse to dispute settlement
before this body.
Le PRÉSIDENT DE LA CHAMBRE: Avant de lever la séance,je voudrais
vous dire, Monsieur le Président,que notre gratitude d'avoir bien voulu nous
honorer de votre présencejusqu'au bout à la présenteséanceest d'autant plus
grande que nous savons que vos responsabilités dans une autre importante
affaire vous occupent particulièrement en ce moment. le voudrais aussi adresser
nos remerciements au Greffier de la Cour et à ses collèguessans le concours
de qui la Chambre n'aurait pu prendre un si heureux départ, ainsi qu'aux
représentantsdes Parties et à tous ceux qui ont bien voulu assister à la séance.
L'audienceest levéeà IIh 35 SECOND PUBLIC SI'ITING (2 IV 84, 3 p.m.)
Presenr: Judge Aoo, Presidenrof the Chamber; Judges GROS,MOSLER,
SCHWEBEJL u,ge ad hoc COHEN;Registrar TORRES BERNARDEZ.
Alsopresenl:
For rheGovernmenrof Canada:
The Hon. 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 AKairs,as Agenrand Counsel;
MI. Blair Hankey, Department of Exiernal AKairs, as Depury-Agen1and
Counsel;
Mr. L. Alan Willis, Department of Justiceas Counsea l ndSpecialAdviser;
MF.W. 1.C. Binnie, Q.C., Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Justice,
Professor Derek W. Bowett, Q.C., Whewell Professor of Law, Queens'
College, Cambridge,
Professor lan Brownlie, Q.C., F.B.A., Chichele Professor of International
Law, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford,
Mr. Yves Fortier, Q.C., Member of the Quebec Bar, Past President of the
Canadian Bar Association,
Professor Dr. Gunther Jaenicke, Professor of International Law at the
University of Frankfurt-am-Main,
Professor Ronald Si. 1. Macdonald, Q.C., Dalhousie University,
Professor Antonio Malintoppi, University of Rome,
Professor Prosper Weil, Professeuà l'université de droit, d'économie etde
sciences sociales de Parias Counsel;
Mr. Lawrence Herman, Member of the Ontario and Saskatchewan Bars,
Professor D. M. McRae, University of British Columbia,
Dr. Jan Schneider, Memher of the New York and District of Columbia Bars,
as SeniorLegal Adris6.r~;
Commander E. J. Cooper, Consultant in maritime boundary delimitation,
Ottawa,
Dr. M. Sinclair, Halifax Fisheries Research Laboratory, Department of
Fisheries and Oceansas E.rperrs;
Dr. A. R. Longhurst, Bedford lnstitute of Oceanography, Dartmouth,
Dr. R. D. W. Macdonald, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,
Dr. M. P. Shepard, Fishenes Consultant, Victoria,
Mr. D. F. Sherwin, Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Ottawa,
Ms. Patricia Smith, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa,
Dr. R. Trites. Bedford lnstitute of Oceanography, Dartmouth,as Scienrific
and Technical Advisers;
Mr. Ross Hornby, Department of External Afairs,
Ms. Valerie Hughes, Member of the Ontario Bar,
Ms. Sarita Verma. Department of External AKairs,as Legal Advisers; OPENlNG OF THE ORAL PROCEEOINGS 9
Mr. C. Hanjon Dowrll, OC.. Spc~.idlr\dviscr. Go\ernmcni [ii Nova Scotia.
Mr. D. A. Macle;in. Dcpui!~ M~nisier. I>cparimeni of tiihcrier. Go\erniiienr
of Nova Scotia,
Mr. Henri LégaréD , eputy Minister, Department of Fisheries, Governmentof
New Brunswick, as Advisers.
For the Governmentof the UnitedStates of Americu:
The Hon. Davis R. Robinson, Legal Adviser, United States Department of
State, as Agent and Counsel;
Mr. David A. Colson, Assistant Legal Adviser for Oceans, International
Environmental and ScientificAffairs, Officeof the Legal Adviser, United States
Department of State, as Depuly-Agentand Counsel;
Mr. Bruce C. Rashkow, Director of the Office of Canadian Maritime
Boundary Adjudication, Officeof the Legal Adviser, United States Department
of State, as SpecialCounsel;
The Hon. John R. Stevenson, Member of the Bars of New York and the
District of Columbia, formerly Legal Adviser, United States Department of
State, and formerly United States Ambassador to the Third 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 University Law Center,
Washington, D.C., and formerly Deputy Legal Adviser, Office of the Legal
Adviser, United States Department of State,
Mr. Ralph 1. Lancaster, Meniber of the Bars of Maine and Massachusetts,
Regent for Canada and the New England States of the Amencan College of
Trial Lawyers, and formerly President of the Maine Bar Association,
Professor John Norton Moore. Me~~~. of~ ~ the Bars of Florida. Illinois.
Virginia and the Disirict of C<,liimhi3.Walter L. Brown Profcssor oi Ldiv 2nd
Direcior of ihe Cenicr oiOce~n, I.aw and Policy. Unii,crsii) of Virginia Schtiol
of Law. formerlt Ciiunselor oii Iniernation31 LaIr. Ortiçcoithe Lee31A~lvi\çr.
~nited~tates ~ë~artment of State, and formerly United States ~mbassador to
the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Professor Stefan Riesenfeld, Member of the Bar of Minnesota, Professor of
Law. Universitv of California. Sc.no~ ~~ ~aw~ Berkelev. California and the
~asi'in~s~ollekc<ofihe 1.a~.S.in Francisco, California. S~D. iHar\ard). JU D
(Breslau),llori. in Giur. (Milanoi. and i<irnicrl)Coun\elor on Internaiion31Lau.
Oiiice of the 1.eg~lAd\iser. Uriiied Siaics Departmeni of Siaic. <L>('ou~ict~l;
Lieutenant-Commander Peter Ward Comfort, Judge Advocate General's
Corps, United States Navy, oii detail to the Office of Canadian Maritime
Boundary Adjudication, Officeof the Legal Adviser, United States Department
.~ State.
Mr. ~ichael John Danaher, Officeof the Assistant Legal Adviser for Oceans,
lnternational Environmental and Scientific Affairs. Officeof the Lea.l Adviser.
United States Department of State,
Ms. Mary Wild Ennis, Officeof Canadian Maritime Boundary Adjudication,
Officeof 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,10 GULF OF MAINE
Office of the Legal Adviser, United States Department of State, as Artorney-
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 Administra-
tion, United States Department of Commerce,
Mr. William Hezlep, Ofice of the Geographer, Bureau of Intelligence and
Research, United States Department of Slate,
Dr. Jonathan T. Olsson, Officeof the Geographer, Bureau of Intelligence and
Research, United States Department of State,
Ms. Sandra Shaw, Chief, Cartography Division, Office of the Geographer,
Bureau of Intelligence and Research, United States Department of State,
Dr. Robert W. Smith, Chief, International Boundary and Resource Division,
Office of the Geographer, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, United States
Department of State, as SuecialAdvisers:
I>r Robert L. Edu..irds, Spciixl Assisiilni io th? A,sisi>ni Administr~ior of
Firheric,, Nortlieilsi 1-iihcric\ C'enter.Nati<~nal\larine Fi\hr.rics Scnicc. Na-
tional Ocelinoera~hic and .4imosr.hrric Adniinisiraiion. Cnircd Siais, Dcvürt-
ment of commerie, as Expert;
assisted hy:
Professor Steven J. Burton, Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of
Law, Iowa City, Iowa,
Professor Jonathan Charnev. Professor of Law. Vanderbilt Universitv School
of ~~aw,Nashville, ~ennessee: '
MI. Raph J. Gillis, Member of the Bars of Massachusetts and the District of
Columbia, Plymouth, Massachusetts,
Professor Bernard H. Oxman, Professor of Law, University of Miami, School
of Law, Miami, Florida,
Professor Ted L. Stein, Professor of Law, University of Washington, School
of Law, Seattle, Washington, as Legal Consultants;
Dr. Geoffrey Bannister, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and the Graduate
School, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts,
Dr. Louis DeVorsey, Jr., Professor of Geography, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia,
Dr. K. O. Emery, Henry Bryant Bigelow Oceanographer, Woods Hole
Oceanoeraohic Institution. Woods Hole. Massachusetts.
Mr. CiichardC. ~enneiuth, ~ahorat& Director, Woods Hole Lahoratory,
Northeast Fishenes Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanoeraohic and Atmos~heric Administration. United States Deoartment of
Commerce..
MI. James Kirkley. Woods Hole Laboratory, Northeast Fisheries Center,
National Marine Fishenes Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, United States Department of commerce,
Dr. Kim D. Klitgord, Geophysicist, United States Geological Survey, United
States Department of the Interior,
Dr. Daniel McFadden, James R. Killian Professor of Economics, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Dr. Richard B. Morris, Gouverneur Morris Professor of History, Columbia
University, New York, New York, OPENING 01' THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS II
Lieutenant-Conimander Robert Pawlowski,Commissioned Corps, Northeast
Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service,National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administratiori, United States Department of Commerce,
Dr. Giulio Pontecorvo, Professor of Economics, Graduate School of Busi-
ness, Columbia University, New York, New York,
Dr. John S. Schlee,Geologist, United States Geological Survey,United States
Deoartment of the Interior.
MI. WilliamL. Sullivan, Jr., PolicyAdviser for International Marine Affairs,
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, United States
Department of Commerce,
Dr. Manik Talwani, Geological Consultant, Houston, Texas,
Dr. Elazar Uchupi, Senior Scientist, Geology and Geophysics Department,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts,
Dr. James Wilson, Professor of Economics, University of Maine, Orono,
Maine,
Dr. Julian Wolpert, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Geography, Public AtTairs,
and Urban Planning, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, as Advisers. OUVERTUREDELAPROCCDUREORALE
Le PRÉSIDENT DE LA CHAMBRE: En ma qualitéde présidentde la
Chambre constituéepar la Cour internationale de Justice pour connaître de
l'affaire de laDélimitationde lafrontière maritinte dansla régiondu gare du
Maine, je déclareouverte la procédureorale en ladite affaire.
Au moment où lesaudiences vont commencerje tiensàsaluer la présence dans
cette salledes reorésentantsdes deux Etats oarties à l'affaireet en oarticulier des
agenis. MM. ~&:iuli ci Robinson. auxquél j'adresie unc cordi;le bienvenue
Par I,imCmeocca\ion. je \uudrais souligner quc c'cri In prernicrefois qu'une
aflairc c\t ob31dkJetani une chambre dc IiCour. soécialerncntcon5tilu6c i la
derniindedes Piirticsen applicïiion de I'ariicle26. paragraphe 2. du Statut de13
Cour ci des articlr., 17ci 18Je $on Reglement. afin de connaiire d'une afiire
determinée.
De surcroît. c'est aussi nour la nremière fois au'une affaire norte sur la
dctcrminiitiund'une ir<intiC'reniarii;rnc unique CI ion par sirnpl~rnentsur la
dGtiniiiondrs Iimiier de ?ones de platedu c~~ntincntalou de zone>de peche.
1.3Chambre a Cic crcCeci I'alhirc introduiir 5 13 suite de Id noiificdiion
conjointe à la Cour, le 25 novembre 1981,d'un compromis' entre le Gouverne-
ment du Canada et le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis d'Amérique, signéà
Washington le 29 mars 1979et entréen vigueur le 20 novembre 1981.En vertu
de l'article II du comoromis. la chambre de la Cour dont on demandait la
s~~nsiiiutionZiait priéeJe \i:itucr. conforml:rncnLX rL:gIeet principesdu droii
intern3tional applis~hlcen 13maiicrc enirc le5parile,. sur la quesiion \ui\i<nie
.~
«Quel est le tracéde la frontière maritime unique divisant le plateau
continental et leszonesde pêchedu Canada et des Etats-Unis d'Amériqueà
partir d'un point situépar 44' 11'12 de latitude nord et 67" 16'46" de
longitude ouestjiisqu'à un point devantêtrefixépar lachambre àl'intérieur
d'une zone délimitée par des lignesdroites reliant lescoordonnéesgéogra-
phiques 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?»
Dans la lettre conjointe notifiant le compromis', le Gouvernement du Canada
faisait en outre part de son intention d'exercer la facultéque lui confère I'ar-
ticle 31 du Statut de désignerun juge ad hoc. Conformément à l'article 17,
paragraphe 2,du Règlement,lePrésidenten exercicede laCour s'estinformédes
vues des Parties et a pris toutes dispositions nécessairespour assurer I'applica-
lion de I'article31, paragraphe 4, du Statut.
Ayant procédél,e 15janvier 1982,à l'électiondes membres de la chambre, la
Cour, par ordonnance du 20 janvier 198Z3,dont les considérantsreproduisent
notamment des explications et éclaircissementscomplémentairesfournis par les
Parties, a décidé d'accéderà la demande des deux gouvernements et a déclaréla
Chambredùment constituéepour connaitre de I'affaire.L'ordonnance indiquait
le nom des juges éluspour siégerà la Chambre, à savoir MM. Gros, Ruda,Mosler, Ago et Schwebel,et prenait acte de ce que, dans l'exercicedes pouvoirs
qu'il tient de l'article 31,paragraphe 4, du Statut, le Présidenten exercicede la
Cour avait priéM. Ruda de cédersa place, le moment venu, au juge ud hoc
désigné par leGouvernement duCanada,et que M. Ruda s'étaitdéclaréprêtàle
faire.
Par la suite, le Gouvernement du Canada a désignéM. Maxwell Cohen pour
siégercomme juge ud hoc en l'affaire. M. Ruda s'étant retircomme il s'y était
engagé,M. Cohen a fait la déclaration solennelle prévueet a été officiellement
installédans ses fonctions lors de la première séance publique tenue par la
Chambre le 29janvier 1982. Lemême jour, en séanceprivée,la Chambre. réunie
sous la présidencede son doyen M. Gros, m'avait fait l'honneur de me choisir
. .r nrésident.
En \.criu de I'iiriiclr.II, paragr;iphc 3,du comproI;iC'h;inihr. iaitd'~utrt
p31lpriée Jc nonln~criinr.rpcri iï~hniquc. déiignr:coniiiinizmcni par Ir.,Pariics,
koour l'aiderdans la considération des-auestionstechniaues et nitamment dans
la préparation de la description de la frontière maritime et des cartes. ..» Par
ordonnance du 30mars 1984', la Chambre a nommélecapitaine de frégateàla
retraite Peter Beazley, de la marine britannique, pour remplir les fonctions
d'expert techniquede la Chambre en la présenteaffaire. M. Beazleyassisteraà ce
titre à l'ouverture et aux phases saillantes de la procédure orale.
En conformité avec l'article 43, paragraphe 2, du Statut de la Cour, et de
l'article 46, paragraphe 1, de son Règlement,le compromis prévoyaitle9épOt
par les Parties de mémoireset de contre-mémoires2et de toute autre qiece de
procédurejugée nécessaire par la Chambre. Les mémoireset contre-memoires
ont étédûment déposésdans les délaisfixés.Par ordonnance du 27juillet 19833,
le présidentde la Chamhre, considérant que les deux gouvernements en cause
souhaitaient être autorisésà soumettre une piècede procédureadditionnelle, a
fixéau 12 décembre 1983 la date d'expiration d'un délaipour le dépot des
répliques4. Les répliquesayant été déposéedsans le délai prévu,I'affaire se
trouve désormaisen état.
Conformément à l'article 53, paragraphe 2, du Règlement de la Cour, la
Chambre, après s'êtrerenseignéeauprès des Parties, a décidéque les piècesde
nrocédure et documents annexés seront accessibles au ouhlic à dater de
i'ouverture de la présenteprocédure orale.
Après consultation des Parties, il a étédécidé,conformément à l'article 58,
paragraphe 2, du Règlement,que la Chambre entendrait d'abord les représen-
tants du Canada.
'C.I.J. Recueil1983p.165.
'C.I.J. Recueil1983p.6.21;111,pp.3-456,et IV,pp. 3-482
*V,pp.3-371et pp.375-707. STATEMENT BY MR. LEGAULT
AGENT FOR THEGOVERNMENTOF CANADA
MI. LEGAULT: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, my first duty today is
to present to the Chaniber the Attorney-General of Canada, who willopen these
proceedings on behalf ofCanada. Beforedoing so, however, 1wishto extend my
respectful greetings to this distinguished Chamber and also to rny distinguished
friends and colleagues representing the United States. 1am happy to salute them
on this historic occasion and to emphasi;.~the ties of friendship that link their
great country and my own. For it is friendship, MI. President, and no other
factor that has motivated the Parties to bnng before this Chamber their
difference regarding the placement of the single maritime boundary in the Gulf
of Maine area, and1should like to take this opportunity to wish my colleague
and friend Davis Robinson very well in these proceedings. ARGUMENT OF MR. MACGUlGAN
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENTOF CANADA
Mr. MAcGUIGAN: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, 1am honoured ta
open these historic proceedings in the Great Hall of Justice on behalf of Canada.
The late Judge John E. Read was one of the early advocates of a flexible
chamber system within the International Court of Justice. So it is especially
appropriate that Canada's first case before the Court should be the first case
heard hv a Chamher formed under Article 26. oaraeraoh. -.of the Statute.
C'est cplilrmeni la prcniicre iois qu'un tribunal internationiil est appel; i
arréterune ironiicre niüriiime unique qui diiise ;ila ioi, leplütrau continent~let
les7oncsde pcchc Je 200niillesfl'Etati ci~liersioisins. Ainsi donc. ils'acit Je Id
nremièredécmitation internat~ ~~ ~~~~diciaire de la zone économiouee~cl~sive
,
depuis I'qqxïriiion de cc nouveau csinccptdiini la praiiquc des Etais et dans 1.1
ci>n\eniiiinJe; Kxtions Unies ,ur ledr<)iidc 13nier iioi d6lihL:rationhiciauront
vraisemblablement une influence profonde sur le développement dii droit
international. Monsieur le Président,le Canada et les Etats-Unis n'on1jamais
auparavant soumis une question de frontièreou toute autre question qui a pu se
ooser entre eux à la Cour internationale de Justice. Pourtant les deux oavs dans
. .
IJ conduite Je Ie~rirclillinn; bildlér~lc,uni eu l'occasionde se Familiari~era\e;
le. procéduresde règlenientpxr tierce partie. En Fïii. il\ont choisi de réglerleurs
litiges par arbitrage, à maintes occasions par le passé, encommençant par le
différend frontalier dans la rivière Sainte-Croix en 1798. La présenteaffaire
s'inscrit dans la longue tradition de délimitation pacifiqueet progressive des
frontièresdu Canada et des Etats-Unis.
Mr. President. 1wish to make clear at the outset what it is that brines the
Pliriie. hcfare ihe Chxniher un iliis,iccasion. In t!io uurJ,, ii 1.(ieorgcs bank
The uriiten plclidingsof bath Pdrties Iedveno rooni for douht ihdt the cihjcciof
ihcir dispute is Cieurres IPJnk Xlnre s~eiificall$. the dis~ute centres on the
abundani fisheryresoirces and the poteniial hyd&carbon resources of this large
detached bank seaward of the Gulf of Maine, off the coasts of Nova Scotia and
Massachusetts.
Canada has claimed lessthan half of Georges Bank sinceit first began to issue
ail and gas permits in the Gulf of Maine area in 1964.The United States has
claimed the whole of the Bank since 1976.This difference in the extent of the
claims of Canada and the United States is more than a simple quantitative
difference.Whatever may be the outcome of the present proceedings, the United
States will not cease to be preseiit on Georges Bank, since the Canadiaii claim
itself leaves more chan half of the Bank to the United States. If the Chamber
were to acceot the United States claim. however. the result would he Canada's
tviciion froni the Hank as il rinole. Canïdidn fishermeii would he hanished
:niirely irom ttiis trxditionïl fiiliing groiind on uhich the) depend tod.iy ünd
h3\e denended iur man! !eïrs. Lone-ilandin,! <:3nïdiïn offbhorepermiic u~uid
become'worthless overÏ&ht. The Fffecton canada - and especially on Nova
Scotia - would be a heavy one. No decision hy the Chamber could produce a
sirnilar result for the United States.
There is accordingly an essential difference - a qualitative difference - in what
is at stake for the Parties in these proceedings. This was already the case in
relation to the claims defended by the Parties when they concluded the Special16 GULF OF MAINE
Agreement in 1979.The United States widened the gap still further in cldiming
its "adjusted perpendicular line" in 1982. In 1979as in 1982, however, the
United States claimencompassed the wholeof Georges Bank. The United States
line has advanced further towards Canada but the United Slates objective
remains the same. And it was precisely the extravagance of the United States
claim that made urudence and reasonableness seemunnecessarvto those United
States intcresis thai Iobbied again,! ratificaiion <ifthe 1979~ireemcnt on East
Coasi Fishery Resourccs. which was negotiatçd and concluded hy the Parties ai
the same lime as the Special Agreemenl.
The 1979fisheries agreement reflected a long history of co-operation in the
fisheriesrelations of Canada and the United States. Ils antecedents can be traced
hack to the Treaty of Pans of 1783.It waseltplicitlyrecognized as a fair deal hy
both Parties. If it had come in10 force, the impact of the boundary issue on
comwtine fisheries interests would ohvio~~~. have ken ereatlv lessened. This
app;oachy howe\,er. was relected bs the opponents ihé 1979 fisheries
agreement in the United Siïtcs. It uas rcjccicd besausc ihcse opponcnts
considercd ihat the United Staies could aKo(d 3 "winner take aII" annroîch. in
which the fishing rights of the Parties wnuld be settled exclusi;~ly hy the
boundary line to be fixedby the Chamber. For the United States, of course. no
boundary to be fixed hy the Chamber could possihly resuli in a total lossof
access to Georges Bank. As a result, the United States failed to ratify the 1979
fisheries agreement, although it did not fail to hedge its bels by ils later
expansion of its claim to the "adjusted perpendicular line".
For Canada, however, the 1979 fisheries agreement represented the single
most important bilateral issue in its relations with any country at that time. It
was in these terms that 1descrihed the agreement to the Canadian public and
Parliament as Canada's then Secretarv of State for External Aiïairs. And it was
only Canada'j prof<iunJ conlidense in thc internaiional judicial process ihat
finïlly led m) C;o\crnmeni io acccpt the dissociation of ihc fishcricsagreement
from ihc S~ecialAarecmcnt and i<ienirurt this Chamber uith the determinaiion
of the single mariFime houndary and thereby the disposition of the Parties'
fishing interests.
Georges Bank, Mr. President, is more than the ohject of the dispute now
before the Chamher. It is also for hoth Parties the benchmark. the crucialtest of
an cquitahle delimitation in thcic procecdingi. The Uniied Siaies maintains that
C~niida'sclaim i5 incquitahle h) thc ter! fact ihai11includes piirt01Georgcs
Hiinkand dires no1Ic:ive ital1to the Uniied Sutcs Canada. on the other hïnd.
maintains that the United States claim is ineauitahle. not simnlv becduse it
compnscs the uhijle of Gcorges Bank but becatke ildenier IOcinida that part
of the Bank whcreCanada has undcniahle right, 2nd eitahlishcd intere\ts Allou
me to enauire brieflv into these two confliciina notions of . .itv hv which the
Partie~ ~ ~ ~ ~resoive the fate of Georges ~ack.
Surely ihc most importû"l fcature of ïn equitahlc result is thiimusi be no1
only equitable in the senseof king "fair" hui also cqui~ahl~unthln the l3u. The
Spëciai Agreement highlightsthisrequirement in the present case by requesting
the Chamber to determine the singlemaritime boundary "in accordance with the
principlesand rules of international law applicable in the matter as between the
Parties" (1,p. 10,SpecialAgreement, Art. II, para. 1).The Court itselfstated the
same requirement very clearly in the 1969 Norrh Seo Conrinenral Sheljcases
when it noted that a judicial decision mus1 find "ils objective justification in
considerations lying not outside but within the rules" (I.C.J. Reporis 1969,
pp. 48-49, para. 88). While a maritime houndary delimitation mus1 end in
equity, it mus1 begin in law. The emphasis on an equitable result cannot be ARGUMENT OF m. MAcGUIGAN 17
allowed to obscure the requirement that that result be founded in law. In the
words of Frederic William Maitland, equity comes "not to destroy the law but
to fulfill i(Lectureson Equity, 1909).
The marriage ofequity and lawunderlies Canada's claim to the edstern part of
Georges Bank. This may be seen from Canada's four main arguments in these
proceedings:
First.Canada maintains that an euuidistance boundarv for Georees Bank is
rcquircd by Article 6 of ihc 1958~A\.rniiun on ihc ~o;iiincnlal ~lhclf.which
rcprcsents a binding rule of ireaty Iau ior hoth P3rties. Cnder Article 6. the
euuidi>i;inccmcihod isthe firsi choicc and3% thc Court of Arhiiraii<insiaied in
the Anglo-French Continental Shelf award, it becomes obligatory if no special
circumstances render it inequitahle (para. 70). The Court of Arbitration also
made clear that Article6 represents a particular expression of the general norm
that maritime boundaries are to be determined on equitable principles (ibid.).
The Canadian line established on the hasis of equidistance gives appropriate
expression to the geographical configuration of the Gulf of Maine area and to
the coastal relationships of the Parties.
Second, Canada maintains that an equidistance boundary for Georges Bank is
consistent with the distance pnnciple as the legal basis of title to the 200-mile
zone. This point is of fundamental importance. From the Court's reasoning with
regard to the continental shelf in the 1982 ContinentalSheif (TunisialLibyan
Arab Jarnohiriyu) case, it is clear that the principles and rules of international
law thai may be applied for the delimitation of exclusiveeconomic zones mus1be
denved from iheconcept of the exclusiveeconomiczone itself, as understood in
international law(I.C.J. Reports 1982,para. 36). The distance principle figures
among the most important elements of this concept, and it provides an essen-
tial frame of reference for a truly jundical delimitation of a single maritime
houndarv.
Third,Canada maintains that its much greater economic dependence on the
fisheries of theisputed area of Georges Bank represents a relevant factor and
an eauitable consideration to be taken into accoÜnt bv the Chamher. The leeal
rclc\;nce of ihir sirnsideration again fluwsfrom the \ch conccpi of the cxclu\;\e
cconomic zone. Unlikc ihc soniincnial shcli. ihc cxclusii.ecconi>micziine is nui
terraincognitoor terradeserta.It is, in a sense, inhabited by the fishermenof the
coastal State- and especially bythe fishermen ofsouthwest Nova Scotia wiihin
the disputed area in the present case. Its resources are known and exploited.
They support established patterns of fishing that may be of vital importance to
adjacent coastal communities. This is certainly true of the fishery resources of
Georges Bank in relation to southwest Nova Scotia, far beyond any comparison
with the situation in Massachusetts.
Fourth. Canada maintains that the historv of the dis~ute ~rovides further
support for ihrCanadian chini. lntcrndiiond hm,xek, 16 uph<ildstahility and
pood iaiih in rclaiions beiwïen Siiiies. II rçsogniles ioo ihai ihc best indication
of an euuitable result in a maritime boundary delimitation may come from the
conduci of the Parties themselves. And the conduct of the ~Gties. over manv
ycars. in Iaci demi~nsiratcsthcir acceptancc of equidibiance as ihe propcr hagis
for an ~qu113blcrcsull An cquidisiancï houndan fur Georges Bank is ihus the
only boundary ihat can satisfy these tests of law and equity
Mr. President, whatever may be the advantages or disadvantages of equidis-
tance, it has never before been descnbed as an e.vaequoet bono method of
delimitation. Yet the United States attempts to present Canada's claim in this
light. The reason is clear. The United States seeks to make a virtue of the fact18 GULF OF MAINE
that ils own claim incoroorates the whole of Georees Banku extended ,f~co~rs~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
to the "adjusted perpeidicular line" in an effort 10provide it with additional
tactical protection on the perimeter. For the United States, the non-division of
Georaes Bank becomes an eauitable nrincinle in ils own rieht. clothed in the
theon'es of the "natural b6undary3; and'"single-State management". The
measureof equiiy becomesthe length of Georges Bank, as the lengthof the Lord
Chancellor's foot became the measure of eauiïv when the then seoarate svstems
of equity and law drew too far apart in ~&lind.
Neither equity nor law provides a basis for such an extraordinary view of
equitable principles. The theory of a natural boundary defining and dividing
both the continental shelf and the exclusiveeconomic zone does no1fit within
the legal framework of either concept. The duty to conserve resources and the
duty to avoid disputes are duties that apply to al1neighbouring States. They
limit the exercise of a State's rights. But they havenothing to do with the
delimitation of the area in whichthese rights may beexercised.Otherwise,tbings
would really be too easy for the party claiming the whole pie. That party, in
effect,would be given a ready-made recipe for a monopolistic claim.
The United States claim to the whole of Georges Bank also relies upon a
theon, of "com~lete dominance" over the Gulf of Maine area. constructed on
~~, ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
the basis of taie activities in no way related to the history of the dispute. The
notion of dominance, however, has nothing to do with the leaal réaimeof the
continental shelf. It wascategorically rejectëd in the developmënt of se concept
of the exclusiveeconomic zone. More important still, it is repugnant to the very
idea of equity. "Equality is equity", says the English maxim (Richard Francis,
Maxims of Eouilv. 1728).and international law adds onlv that eaualitv mus1be
reckoned-wiihii the same plane and mus1 not imply any réfash;oning of
geography (I.C.J. Reports 1969,para. 91).
Mr. Presideni, the notion of dominance is imnlicit even in the United States
viewof geography, and the refashioning of geography is preciseiy what follows
from the United States doctrine of primary and secondary coasts. For the
United States gives the coast of Maine a dominant character because it is
alleaedlv a "orimarv" coast. And the coast of Nova Scotia must vield to this
dominakc b;.ç;iurc~t1sallegedlya -secondary" coasi. Despiic ihc host carcful
reading of the United Siiiics plrading,. WC musi say ihai wecannoi undersiand
the reasons for this unusual proposition, nor find any legal authority advanced
in ils support.
The implications of the United States approach go beyond the future
development of international law. They touch upon the very possibility of
international CO-oper;itionin fieldsthatarecriticalto international order. If it is
an equitable principle ofmaritime boundary delimitation that CO-operationin
defence or search and rescue activities may prejudice a State's claims of
jurisdiction or sovereign rights, then no State will wish 10CO-operatein these
fields unless it is the dominant nartv in the relationshin. If it is an eauitable
principle of maritime boundary 'delimitation that the résultmust exclide any
need for CO-operationin the management of overlapping fishs..cks. then there
can be little~hope for CO-operatcon in the management of shared natural
resources anywhere. And if it is an equitable principle of maritime boundary
delimitation that nature or providence draws the lines, then we will have
returned to one of the most troublesome doctrines that has ever provoked
conflict amone States.
All of this. Gr. Preiident. is step backuard. noi a sicp forwnrd -a neu form
~Cisulaiionism.and no form of lau And any kind ~Cisolaiiunismi oui of place
in the relations <ifihr. Parties. Canada and the Uniicd Stnies shars one of the ARGUMtiNTOF MR. MAcGUIGAN 19
longest, most artificial, and so to speak, most porous land boundaries in the
world. In the words of Presidenl Reagan, it is"A border no1which divides us,
but a border which joins us" (Address to Joint Session of the Houses of
Parliament,Ottawa, II March 1981).President Kennedy elahorated on the same
theme in the following statement:
"Geography has made us neigbbours. History has made us friends.
Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies."
(Address to Joint Sessionof Housesof Purliament,Ottawa, 17 May 1961.)
The present dispute, of course,bas also made us litigants for a lime. But il is
preposterous to suggest that a buffer zone is required betweenCanada and the
United States in the Gulf of Maine (II,United States Memonal, paras. 255 and
256). We have done very well without such huîïer zones along the 8,891
kilometres of Our common land boundary. The extension of a maritime
boundary 200nautical milesinto the sea hardly requires their introduction now.
A better view of the situation in the Gulf of Maine area has recently been
expressed by a fisherman from Gloucester, Massachusetts:
"If il wereup to the fishennen themselves,wewould keepthe waters open
between the two countries. We get along with the Canadians. Historically
we'vefishedin each other's watersand helpedeach otherout. The only war
we've had is who could catch the most fish." (Compass Point, National
Geographic Society, 28 Decemher 1983.)
MI. President, the boundary proposed hy Canada for the Gulf of Maine area
isa reasonable and balanced one whoseorigins date back to 1964.It results from
the application of lawto geography. Its equitable character isconfirmed by non-
geographical relevant circumstances that are rooted in legalprinciplesproper to
the zones to be delimited. The conduct of the Parties themselvesattests to these
facts. And the tradition of co-operation between the Parties is the most solid
foundation for the rational management of the variety of resources that will
inevitably be divided by any single maritime boundary the Chamber, in ils
wisdom, may establish. ARGUMENT OF MR. LEGAULT
AGENT FOR THEGOMRNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. LEGAULT: Mr. President, distinguished Judges.
1. l~~nooucrro~
As Legal Adviser to Canada's Department of External Affairs, 1can conceive
of no greater honour than the opportunity to plead before this distinguished
forum. And 1 can conceive of no greater responsibility than the conduct of
Canada's first international boundary case since the 1903 Alaska Boundary
Award, and Canada's first caseever in the International Court of Justice.
This case, Mr. President, will break new ground in international law. The
uniquenessof the legal subject-matter is immediately apparent from the question
set outin ArticleIIof the Special Agreement (1,p. 10). It lies in the delimitation
of a 200-mile fishing zone. Even more significantly, illiesin the concept of a
single maritime boundary that will apply to the 200-mile fishing zone and the
continental shelf - in effect, to the exclusive economic zones of the Parties,
whether actual or poiential.
In a sense, the development of the present dispute mirrors the generdl
development of the 1;iwof the sea over the last 20-odd years. In ils origins, the
dispute bore exclusively upon the continental shelf. In 1964, with the full
knowledee and acauiescenceof the United States.Canada beeanto issueoil and
gaspermytsgrantiig exclusiveoffshore rights in nhat is now ihe disputed arca.It
u,asin ihis coniexi ihai Canada adopted the useof the r'quidisiancç method for
ihe adminisiraiion of the contincntal shelf in that area. again niih ihe full
knowledge and acquiescenscol'ihe Unitcd Siaies. In November 1969.honever.
the United Siaies sought iu reservï 11snghis in ihis maiier and ihc seedsof 3
dispute were planted.
But the later evolution of the disuute reflected the develooments that were
ihcn taking placeai iheThird ~niied'Naiions conferencc on the Law of the Sei.
A dispuie concr'rning the coniinental shclf wasgradually expandcd into ilne thai
in\,i~lvedihe future oithe George, Bank fishr'rv asuell. The crîaiion of ihe 200.
mile fishine zoneshv eachof théParties in eariv 1977made the settlement of the
dispute a katter if urgent necessity. ~hile'the exploitation of the sea-bed
remained a possibility for the future, the fishery was already an established fact.
This new urgency led to the appointment of Ambassadors Cadieux and Cutler as
Special Negotiators in 1977.Their efforts were among the most intensive ever
undertaken in the bilateral relations of the two countries. The result was a
package,comprising both the 1979Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources
and the Special Agreement now before the Chamber.
Later on, Mr. President, 1 shall have more to say about the 1979 fisheries
agreement. For the moment 1only wish to emphasizethat the novel features of
the Soecial Agreement can be traced both to the recent develooment of the law
of th; seadnzlo the parallel, concurrent e\,oluiion of ihe pre;ent dispuie And
so the rcsulting eomhin.ition of issues hûselementsin common wiih the known
lawof delimitation, but raisesimportant new considerations as well.
These new considerations of law are matched by new considerations of fact,
and indeed by an entirely new dimension in relation to other continental shelf ARGUMENTOF MR. LEGAULT 2 1
boundaries that have come before the Court. For the delimitation of the fishine u
zoncs of the Pariics aliccts an rxisting rcaliiy. and not a hopc for the fuiurc. For
the firsrtinic cvcr the boundary Io be lixed here will have a direct Impact on ihc
vrescni li\clihood ofcoï5tal communiiics. The Gulf of Maine arca idcntified in
ihe Special Agreement is even today the "situs of relevant resources and
activities", in the words of the United States Memonal (p. 145,para. 258 (Ji)).
The coasts we see on the map are not empty, and the neighbouring sea is not a
remote frontier awaitine discoverv. 11is the dailv workolace of thousands o~ ~ ~
fishermen.This human d;mension,'this human imkediacy'alone would make the
present case quite unlike the continental shelfcases that have long sincebecome
familiar. -
Mr. President, iny task today and tomorrow will he fourfold. Firsr, 1 shall
present a very brief summary of Canada's views on the general legal rules and
principles that are applicable to this case, including a summary of Canada's
approach to the concept of equity within the law. Second, 1 shall outline the
specificprinciplesthat Canada hasadvanced as the basisofan equitable result in
the particular circumstances of the Gulf of Maine area. Third, against this
background, 1shall provide the Chamber with an overview ofthe Canadian case
from the perspective ofcertain major legal issuesthat divide the Parties, namely:
the role of Article 6 of the Continental Shelf Convention in the present pro-
ceedings; the legal basis of coasial State title, and the criteria for identifying
relevant circumstances. Fourrh, 1 shall examine the Canadian claim itself, the
actual line on the map, and seek Io demonstrate ils equitable character. The
third and fourth branches of my argument will take up the greater part of this
statemeni and will provide the essential setting for the statements to be made by
succeeding speakers on the Canadian delegation. For at the oral stage of the
proceedings, it becomes more important than ever, in Ourview, to approach the
legal issues in terms of their real bearing on the claims of the Parties.
Mr. President, 1 begin with niy brief summary of general legal rules and
principles.
There is far more disagreement than agreement between the Parties on the
leeal rules and mincides to be a~~iiedin this case. But one rule is so clearlv
csiablishcd that'there'c<in be nodoubt as IO its application: the delimiiatii,n
must produce an cquiiable reiuli u,iihin ihc law - a rcsuli ihai iscquiiable in ihc
linht of al1 the relevant circumstances, but a result that also resvects and is
dërived from the aoolicable law.
The applicable lgk musi be lbund. of course. in any relevant ireaiy rule of
delimiiaiion ihai is binding upon the Parties. To the cxtcni ihai no ireaty rule of
dclimiiaiion is direçtly applicahlc. ir& cq~iull~ ~/<~<rhror rhe Iuwmusr hr drrnrd
/runi rlir concrpr ojrhzjurrrdrcrro» ru he <Irlrniirrdur undrrrroud rninrrrnurrunul
luw.The Court said as much in 1982 (I.C.J. Reporrs 1982.p. 43. pars. 36).
For the boundary must respect this concept of the jurisdiction; mus1respect
the basis of title it embodies. and the ournoses for which it was intended and the
guidance ii proi,idc\ ior ihc idcntitkaijon of legally rclc\,ant circumstünccs.
Without ihis complcmcnt. the fundamenial nom of mariiimc boundary dclimi-
tation would he largely devoid of legal content.
This capsule description, Mr. President, sums up the basic legalpropositions
that Canada developed in its Couiiter-Memorial and reaffirmedin its Reply (III,
Canadian Counter-Memorial, p. 227, para. 545; IV, Canadian Reply, p. 18,
para. 42). 1shall not go over that whole ground again. Instead, 1shall only make22 GULF OF MAINE
a fewobservations on the meaning of equity within the law, before going on to
outline the specificprinciples which, inCanada's view,willproduce an equitable
result in the circumstances of this case.
Equity in the delimitation of maritime boundaries is not a technical notion,
MI. President. It retains ils ordinary, common-sense meaning, with al1 ils
connotations of reasonableness and fairness. The Court, in fact, has used the
terms "reasonable" and "equitable" without distinction (I.C.J. Reports 1982,
o. 46. oara. 72).
~he'a~~lica;ionof cquit) uithin thc Iau,,u,iihin ihr rules. does no1dciriict in
an).\la) irom ihis notion ofrquiiy ac whai is fair and re~sonablr.in a pliriisular
case. ~hat it means. in Canada'sview, is that the eauitable result is a necessary
but not a sufficientcondition. The equitable resuli must also conform to the
treaty rule of delimitation and - especially to the extent that no treaty rule is
directly applicable - to the legal basis of title or appurtenance and to the legal
nature of the rights in issue (Canadian Counter-Memonal, pp. 15-18,paras. 41-
44; p. 27, para. 546; Canadian Reply, pp. 17-19,paras. 40-43).
There is a striking contras1 in the way the Parties viewthis notion of equity
within the rules. The Canadian claim is based uoon the aoolication of a leeal
mle, the equidistance-special circumstances mle'embodied'in Article 6 of rhe
Continental Shelf Convention. To the extent that the issues are not directly
governed by that Convention, morcover, the Canadian claim relies upon the
,~~i~i~ ~c~ ~ent of the zonesto be delimited.And. as 1hooe to demonstrate. the
equliy of the rcsult produccd by the applicliiion ul'thesc principlcs is confimicd
in ihc Iirhi of thc full range of rclevant circumsiancr.i, hoih yeographical and
non-e--.raohical. The Canadian line. in other words. meetsthe two conditions
in\,ol\ed in the notion of cquii) uiihin ihc rule,. t'frsrils\Cr) construclion is
foundrd upon lcgal rules and principlci. And srcon</, iielïccts a resuli thni is
equitable within ihe concrete meaning of that term.
How then does the United States claim measure up against this dual standard
of equity, but equity within the rules?
Mr. President, the objective of the United States claim is monopoly, and of
equity it contains no trace at all. We have used the word "monopoly" advisedly,
and not as a matter of rhetoric.
Consider the real eKectand the real objective oftwo of the equitable principles
in the United States canon: the idea that the boundary should facilitate the
conservation of resources, and the idea that it should minimize disputes (II,
United States Mernorial,p. 3, para. 8; pp. 101-102,para. 167;pp. 142-145,paras.
247-256; IV, United States Counter-Memorial, pp. 217-226, paras. 349-373;
V, United States Reply, pp.79-88,paras. 133-154).Both of these are seemingly
innocent, indeed praiseworthy goals. Both, however,are to be attained by
avoiding the division of any resource-richarea between two or more States - in
other words, by givingthe entire area to a single State, even where the geogra-
nhical and other circumstances mieht sueeestthe divisionof the area. 1sthis not
konopoly? 1suggest that il is. AClaimïo the whole of a resource-bearingarea
would necessarilybe favoured overa claim to only a portion of that area. Indeed,
a claim to the wholeof the area would benefitfram a legalpresumption - a legal
presumption over a claim of more modest proportions. Under this approach, the
United States claimitselfbecomesan equitable principle,from the veryfact that il
embraces the wbole of Georges Bank. The logic is somehow evocative of
Descartes thinking bimself in10existence.
Wbat then of the other side of the equation, the requirement that the
delimitation be carried out within the mles? Later in this statement 1will show
that the United States pays lip-serviceto the 1958Continental ShelfConvention, ARGUMENT OF MR. LECAULT 23
but ignores it completely in ils argument and in its claim. 1will also show, or
attempt to show, that the United States would rejectnot only the basis of title,
but the entire juridical content of the 200-milezone as a source of law. Yet the
Court said very clearly in 1982 that under customary law, the rules for
delimitation must be derived from the concept of the continental shelf, the
jurisdiction in question on that occasion, as understood in international law
(I.C.J.Reports1982, p. 43, para. 36).Otherwise theentire exerciseisdeprived of
a truly legal character. Since the United States gives no practical effectto the
treaty law, and since it expressly repudiates the source from which customary
law principlesmus1 be derived, ils entire case is left floating in a legal vacuum.
111.SPECIFICPRINCIPLI FO,R AN EQUITABL REESULT
IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
Mr. President, distinguishedudges, 1shall now tum to the second part ofmy
task and review the specific principles which, inCanada's estimation, would
produce an equitable result in the Gulf of Maine area. These principles anse
from the application of Canada's basic legal propositions to the particular
circumstances of this case. They summarize the essential elements of Canada's
argument and were set out in the Canadian Counter-Memorial (p. 252, para.
608). as follows:
1. ln rhegeographical and orher<:ircumsrance osf rhiscase,theboundaryshould
leavero eachParty the areasrhar are closesrro irs coast, providedrhar due
accounris takenof thedisrortirtgeffectsof particular geographicfaelaiirresin
rherelevantarea.
2. Theboundaryshouldallowfor thm e aintenanceof esrablbhedpairernosfjshing
rharare of viral importancro ixasral communirieswirhintherelevaniarea.
3. The boundary should respecithe indicia of equity, the indicia of whar ihe
Partiesthemseli'eshaveconsidtrredequitableasrevealedby rheirconducr.
Each of these three principles is grounded in fact - in the relevant circum-
stances - and in the applicable law as well.
The first principle summarizes Canada's viewof the geographical side of this
case. The boundary should leave to each Party the areas closest to ils coast,
except where incidental features would have a disproportionate effect. This is
not a general proposition of law. It is a statement about the nature of an
eauitable result in the Gulf of Maine area. But it has a solid foundation in
general legïl pnnciples. a3 I hope to demonstrate
The geographical aspect of Canada's claim is supported b) Article 6 of the
Continent~l Shcll Convention It is also aroundcd in the basis of title. and
esoeciallvthe hasisof title to a 200-milezonéwhereno treatv mle of delimitation
is directly appliçdblc. For uc çannot agrce with the cxrraordinar) assertion of
the United States that the "juridicdl contcnt" of a 200-milezone is unrelated 10
delimitation iUnited Statrs Rc.l...n. 56. nara86).This 3rsertion. ïrwe shall
see,amounts io a repudiation of the reaso;ing oftheCourt, not only in 1969but
in 1982as well.
In discussingproximity in a generalsenseas one facetof Canada's case,1shall
of course deal with the objections our opponents have made to il. And 1shall
also deal with the radically different scheme of appurtenance the United States
has proposed in opposition to Canada's equidistance claim. That scheme is a
complex and novel mix of continental macrogeography, "primary" and "sec-
ondary" coasts, unidirectional seaward extensions, and "ecological régimes".Il
will thusbe necessary to review it in some detail.24 GULF OF MAINE
Canada's second principle, Mr. President, deals withthe real interests at stake.
It seeks to promote a measure of stahility through the maintenance of
established patterns of fishingthat are of vital importance to coastal communi-
ties within the relevant area.
This second principle reflects the special nature of this dispute. It centres on
the Georges Bank fisheryand its importance to nearby coastal communities. 1
shall leave aside factual issues in this instance, and address only the United
States argument that established patterns of fishingare legallyirrelevant despite
their being al the verv heart of the disoute. Il will bv mv submissionfirst.that
legal stanjards for déterminingwhat js relevant are implied from théjundical
content of thejurisdiction to be delimited; and second, that in the light of these
criteria the economic inlerests associated with the Canadian fisheryon Georges
Bank constitute a relevant circumstance that is entitled 10considerable weight.
The third pnnciple 1have stated kars on the conduct of the Parties in relation
to both the continental shelf and the 200-mile fishing zone. Such conduct
reoresents one of the most imoortant indicia of e~uitv. But 1want to make clear
thit ihis brînch of oiir case h'astwo distinct and eqklly imporiant dimensions.
The Court's Judgmeni in the Tunoi~r,/.ih,.case drew aiieniion to the role oi'
the conduci of the Panics uithin the frsmework of equitahlç principler.ascineof
the indisia ihît may provide evidcnceof ihe elcments of an equirable soluiion.
This 1,une part of Cînîdî's argument. and it iouchcs equ~ll) on the continental
shelf and the larer hisiory of the 200-milefishine lone Of equal importance.
however, is Canada's reliance on more general and older principles~ofinter-
national law - the principles of acquiescenceand estoppel. We contend that the
United Stateshas ayuiesced in Canada'sexerciseof continental shelfjurisdiction
up Ioan equidistancelineon Georges Bankand in the Gulf of Maine (1,Canadian
Memorial, pp. 159-160,paras. 387-390;pp. 172-177,paras. 412-418; 111,Cana-
dian Counter-Memonal, pp. 143-155, paras. 360-381; V, Canadian Reply,
pp. 86-98, paras. 206-233). The United States cannot now, under accepteci
orincivlesof international law. beheard to denv the validitv ofthat iurisdiction.
Ând the singlemaritime boundary now to k éstablishedihould be.compatible
with the rights that have vested inCanada through this pattern of conduct.
That summarizes the basic elements of the Canadian case and the leeal niles
and principleson which they depend. 1shall now turn, with your perrni~sion,to
the third part of my task. and provide the Court with an overview of the
Canadian case, focusing on the differences betweenthe Parties in relation to
the role of Article 6 in these vroceedinas. the basis of title..r annurtenance. and
the criieria for identifying reieiani cir~umhtînces My discussion ol'ihcse issues
will.of course. be informed b) the ihrw specificprinciples 1have lunt re\ie\ved.
IV. THEROLE OF ARTICLE 6
Mr. President, 1now take up the question of Article 6of the Continental Shelf
Convention and ils avvlication in these oroceedinas. The eauidistance-soecial
circumstances rulc embodied in this ~rtiie is obvi&sly one of the grounds for
Canada's principle thai the boundary in ihis case should leîve IOcaih Party the
areas closest to ils Coast, except where incidental features would have a
distorting effect.
Both Parties agree that Article 6 is binding upon them, and that it applies to
the delimitation of the continental shelf of the Gulf of Maine area. The United
States Reply asserts unequivocally that the delimitation in this case should
k consistent with the principles embodied in Article 6 (United States Reply,
pp. 70-71,para. 116:1C . anada, for its part, has emphasized the importance of ARGUMENTOF MR. LEGAULT 25
Article 6 as the sole explicitrule of positive law that is applicable in this case. It
orovides a ooint of moorine in othenvise unfathomed waters (Canadian Re~iv.
, ,.
pp. 22-23,paras. 54-56).
We rely on Article 6 in two ways. Thus, Article 6 is directly applicable to the
continental shelf as a component of the single maritime boundary. Moreover,
according to the Court of Arhitration in the Anglo-French Continental Shelf
award, the rule in Article 6 is a "particular expression of a general norm", and in
that sense it is relevant to the single maritime boundary as a whole (para. 70).
Even if one were to accent the United States view that the sinele maritime
boundar) ijIO bc dctcrnii~cd csclusiicly on continental sheli priniiplra e\r.n
ihrn. ihr adhcrcnic ol'ihc Partir.,10 ihc 1958Coni,cntion nic;ini thai Article 6 is
the source from which such nrincinles mus1 'ce taken in this case.
hlr. Prcsidcnt, Article 6 hjs beéninterprcied and dpplicd si>iar in ciiiriglc
inst.incc. the Atlsntis rcgion in the :\nglo-French C<intinent-11 Shcll'duard
The Court iiiArhiirÿtion round. in effect. th;it rticlc 6 crciitcs a sombiiicd
eouidistance-snecial circumstances rule that ooerates within. and no1in onnosi-
tion to, the findamental norm of equitable 'principles.~t'the same ti& the
Court of Arbitration held that under Article 6 the equidistance niethod
ultimatelv Dossessesan "oblieatorv force" that il does not have under customarv
inicrnati;&il Id\!(para. 70)'~hai [hi\ iiimr.. doun in. in ihc Canadian bicw.
thai ihc equidisuiicc mcthod is IO bc uscd in thosc ciiscsiihcre itproduccs 3n
euuitahlc rcsult Whcrc irdocs not producc .incauiiûhle resuli. a \xri3iion oiihc
method should be tried. Finally, ii the circumsiances requirea total abandon-
ment of equidistance, an entirely different method may he used. This is the
approach that underlies the Canadian case.
What the United States oosition amounts to. as we understand it. is that
Article 6 applies in principlébut that in practice'it is wholly meaningi'ess.The
United States makes a cursory bow in the direction of the Convention, but
ignores its clear requirement that equidistance is to be used "unless another
boundary isjustified by special circumstances" -and this whether the coÿsts are
opposite or adjacent.
This United States attempt to drain the words of the Convention of any real
meaning is inconsistent with the balanced reasoning of the Court of Arhitration
in the 1977award. It is even more inconsistent with the principles of the North
Seu Continental Shelf cases, where so much of the reasoning was devoted
precisely to the question whether the rule in Article 6 was applicable. And the
finding that the rule did not apply was obviously treated as important, if not
decisive.Later in theseproceedings Canada willshow that the United Stateshas
tried to use the North Sea ConriizenialShelfcases in a way that is hased on a
misconception ofthe special nature of thefacts in those cases. But the United
States has also chosen to overlook a crucial distinction in the luw that was
considered and applied in 1969.
Mr. President, 1have already touched upon the significanceof Article 6 for
the Canadian claim. But how does the United States claim measure up when
judged in the light of this very same provision? The answer, 1 suggest, is that
there is no discernible connection at all. For the only way in which the United
States case can possibly he reconciled with Article6 is on the premise that
Nova Scotia in its enrireiy, is a special circumstance and one that dictates a
radical departure from equidistance - in fact, a total abandonment (United
States Counter-Memorial, p. 24, para. 31; United States Reply, pp. 101-104,
oaras. 169-179).The status. scaleand extent of the orovince and the full sweeoof
;rscoails maki ihisa uhiill;, unieiiahlc propn5ition'.In Canada's ~uhmission.'thc
onl) specialcircumrtance ihai juriificj a dcpariure frim rquidirtanrc in this arc-26 GULF OF MAINE
is the attenuated configuration of Cape Cod and Nantucket, with its radical
deoarture from the eeneral confieuration of the coasts wirhinthe relevant area.
My final observatyonon ~rticle6 is a more general one It is that not only the
boundary proposal of the United States, but the entire structure of its leaal
-
argument ls ai odds with the 1958Convention.
To begin with, the United States pleadings adopt a position that requires a
roralrejecrion of proximity as a criterion for an equitable delimitation. In a truly
remarkable overstatement, the United States says that the "Court and Arbitral
Tribunals have rejected proximity as a basis for delimitation" (United States
Reply, p. 53, paras. 78-79). And, it asserts that Canada's reliance on equidis-
tance constitutes an attempt to overturn established law (United States Reply,
p. 53, para. 78).
Now, how does this square with the rule in Article 6? The fact is that the
United States position amounts to a wholesale repudiation of the equidistance
branch of the combined rule. For if it be true that oroximitv - even oroximitv
mea~urzdfriim an c\icn\i\e coasr i. J"relcctcd" norion \i,iih no plxic in the
Iaw, ihen ihr.equiJictance hr~nchof the rule ha\ .imply los111scniirc rationalr.
And ihis. I submit. is 3 conclusion th~t anno1 rcJsondbl\ be redd inIo the
iuris~rudence or in10 the Convention.
. .In addition, Mr. President, the United States has attempted to substitute for
the equidistance-special circumstances rule a very particular notion of what it
calls "coastal-front extension" - a rigidly geometr-icalconception based upon
perpendicularity to a single, hypothetical general direction of the coast (United
States Counter-Memorial, pp. 191-192, paras. 307-311: United States Reply,
pp. 145-148,paras. 246-255). Equidistance is ruled out of order in this scheme
regardless of the presence or absence of special circumstances. Or, to put it
another way, specialcircumstances are deemed to exist in every case where the
equidistance line fails to coincide witb the perpendicular extension of a
"~rimarv" coastal front - that is to sav. in everv case where the coastal con-
liguraiiin is irregular (Cniicd Sixtes R~~I~p .. 14d. p3r3 255).This rlppro:ich
makcr 3 ira\,cri) of ihc rulc in Arlicl6. 4s uas .taled in ihc ClnaJian Rcply.
the net rcsult uould k ihc crcaiion of 3 ~~cr~cn~icuI;1riis.;ncc1 iiLum.
stances" rule to serve in the place of the equidistaice-special circ;mstances rule
actually stated in the 1958Convention (Canadian Reply, p. 31, para. 78).
The United States says of course that regardless of the application of
Article 6. eauidistance cannot oroducean eauitable result in this case. It mounts
its attack on equidistance laigely by misinterpreting the jurisprudence, and
especially the findings in the Norrh Sea Conrinenral Shelf cases. And 1would
therefore like to take a fewmoments to reviewthese findinns- because in fact the
rrser\ations ahout cquidiitancc ihai aere ehpresszd in thc .l'<irrhSLVIo~irin~~~iriil
ShrIjJuJgmsni currrrp<ind io a lir>iirr,Isnd.,pr~~hrrange oipotsntwl prohlems.
Inou propose io Jeal wiih ihcsc briefl,. andIO +hou ihai nirtonc oithem ian hr.
associated with the ~eonraohv of theGulf of Maine area
As to ihe etlccis oFri,n<.<ri.. r. Prcsidcnt. l would suggcstthat thcrc arc tuo
rcasons u hy the analog) ihc IJnitcJ Siaies hdsaitçmpicd 10 drau on this hasis is
misplaccd: and both of ihcni arc cqu~ll) conclusi\c The tirsi rz.i,on is ih;ir ihe
C'ouriiiscli nisde clear th31cquidistancc uould hd\c bccn pcrfcctly 3ppropriatc
in the Niirih Su, ijo~ili. ri<,Srur6~.h~dil h<.irini.<iliid.Reicrring to the undue
curiailmeni of ihc Cermxn ioniincnial bh~li,ihr.Ciiuri ohier\cJ "neither oiihc
lines in question, taken by itself, would produce this effect, but only both of
them together" (I.C.J. Reports 1969,p. 17,para. 7). The second reason why the
analogy does not apply is, if anything, more fundamental. It is that when the
land boundary meets the coast at the bock of a deep coastal concavity, the effect ARGUMENT OF MR. LEGAULT 27
of the concavitv is shared hv both coastal States - with the conseauence that the
effectof any "&t-off" resufiing fi-omthe concavity isalso shared.'~nd the effect
of the concavity isevidently offselto a much greater degree if both coastal States
-
have convex coasts on either side of the concavity.
Let me demonstrate this point in the light ofwhat the Court actually said in ils
1969 Judgment. The Court described the situation where the effect of equi-
distance was "10 pull the line of the houndary inwards, in the direction of the
concavity" (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 17,para. 8). How could that effect possibly
arise in the Gulf of Maine area, where the line actually beginsat the back of the
concavity? And the Court went on to discuss the inequity that equidistance
might impose on onecountry, where "the coasts of adjacent countries protruded
immediatelyon eirl~erside ofir" (I.C.J. Reports 1969,p. 17,para. 8).Again, how
could that effectpossibly arise in the Gulf of Maine area, where the line outside
the concavity is controlled by convex formations on the coasts of both Parties
and where, of course, only two States are involved? The language actually used
by the Court in 1969shows that the situation in the North Sea and the situation
in the Gulf of Maine area could hardly he more different.
These points are much more clearly hrought to light by Figure 31D of the
@
Canadian Reply, distrihuted to the Chamber today and found in the red
manuals' on the hench as Figure 1 of the oral proceedings. This illustration
shows that if the land boundary in the North Sea had met the coast at the back
of the conc~~ ~v formed hv the German coast. there would clearlv have heen no
problem - assumi& of coirse a two- ta situteion. 1&"ld ask he Chamher to
consider as well the more ahstraci.demonstration of the same point in panel C of
@ the same figure I have jus1 referred 10. In the present case, of course, the
stgntficant facts are that the boundary does meet the coast at the back of the
concavity; it is a two-State situation; and each State dors have a convex coast
where the sides of the concavity meet the outer area.
Another no.e-~~a~ ~ ~~~in the eauid~.tance method. in certain situations of
u4,liri.entCoast,.1,u ha1I w<)uId ~311 the magnitic;itionclTcci.Thi\ occurs whsn d
co.istal fcature of modcst prdporiionb iirst beyins 10 influcncc thc coursi of an
equidistance line in an area close to shore, and-then continues to control the line
for a great distance out to sea. The effect of such a feature is modest and
proportionate at first. But as the line moves out to sea, the effectis progressively
magnified until it hecomes disproportionate and causes the equidistance line to
"swing out laterally" in front of the neighhouring coast. This, of course. is the
effectreferred to in the Judgment in the Norrh Seo ConiinentalShelfcases (I.C.J.
Reports 1969, pp. 31-32,para. 44). It is the effect illustrated in the graph hased
@) upqn Professor Jaenicke's argument in that case, as shown in Figure 5 of the
United States Reply, distributed to the Chamher today as Figure 2 of the oral
proceedings.
All of this is overly familiar, Mr. President. But none of it is applicable to the
equidistance line in the geographical situation of the Gulf of Maine area. In the
first place, hecause of the predominant oppositeness of the coasts in this area, a
successionof hasepoints controls much of the line. This is plainly nota situation
where the same baseooints control both the inshore nortions of the line and
thosc tir out to ,c;i Moreo\cr, the ha,cpoints thai control the {iuterportions of
ihr hound:iry arc .itti;itcil on opposirr~cu~\t- each of ihcni ucll mer 100milc
rd ' T1eiIlitvç I~th UCal rrgurnrnl.cp~ V L"01rbcenrcproduu.d(.'lidnmapr)orhillurtratiun
~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~folderisreiiroduccJ inihr mana \rilun>r.ofthe orc<cnl >cricsIVIIII th,,ii
indicatedin themargin Of the text[Nole bi the Regirtry] ' 28 GULF OF MA~NE
from the equidistance line where they first come in10 play. In short. there is
simply no element here of a coastal feature first exerting a proportionate effect
close to shore, and then a progressively exaggerated effect as the line moves
seaward. A mere glance al Professor Jaenicke's diagram shows how totally
@ ~~.r~~irohl~.. .. .. ...-ulf of Maine area.
Yet another potential pitfall in the use of the equidistance method is this:
there ma" be situations where il fails to take sufficientaccount of differencesin
scole.A blind application of the method can givethe same effectto an incidental
feature - for example, an off-lying islet- as to a substantial coast. In the
circumstances of the Gulf of Maine area, the ahutting coasts of both Parties are
extensive and they are bscked in each case by a substantial landmass. There
is one and only one feature that would exercise an influence upon a strict
equidistance line that would be out of proportion 10its scale. 1refer, of course,
10the configuration of Cnpe Cod and Nantucket.
Finallv. there is oite more factor that should alwavs be borne in mind in
considerkg the suitability of equidistance in any partichar situation. In a sense,
that factor is simply another way of stating the point 1have just made. Thus,
there are situationswhere the nearest basepoint -the one that would have to be
used under a srriciapplication of the equidistance method- may not reRectthe
real configuration of the coast. Or, ifmay put it this way, the nearest basepoint
may be "aberrant" in terms of the true direction of the coast. In such a case,
even though equidistance gives a mathematically precise measurement of
proximity, it fails to giae(ruereflection of proximity to the abutting coast as a
whole. There is one and only one case in the Gulf of Maine area where the
nearest hasepoints disregard the coastal configuration as a whole. Again 1refer
to Cape Cod and Nantucket.
Figure 50B of the Canadian Counter-Memorial, distributed to the Chamber
@ today as Figure 3 of the oral proceedings, demonstrates that none of the base-
ooints used bv Canada is inaoorooriate in terms of the eeneral direction of the
ÿbuiting coasis. This ~i~urr'appiies a lest inspired byUlheCourt iiself in the
,\'ortEu Cunrinenro lhcsl/cases-that is. insiead of using the nîarcst points of
land. an cquidistancc boundar) mighi bc drawn from baselines reprereniing the
colirtal fronts ofihc Partie(1.C.J. Reporrq1969,p 52.para. 98) The test clîÿrly
shous that ihe hliscpointr u5ed h) C~nada 3re representati\e of the true con-
figuration of the coasts and do not distort geography.
These, Mr. President, are the potential problems that rule out the use of
equidistance in some circumstances, and require that its application be modified
in other circumstances. 1 hope to have shown - though Mr. Hankey and
Professor Weilwillsupplement my remarks - that not one of them is applicable
in the Gulf of Mainearea, with the exception ofthe adjustment required 10offset
the distorting effectof the Cape Cod-Nantucket configuration. There is, in sum,
a solid basis in law and in fact for the application of the equidistance method in
the Gulf of Maine area, within the framework of the rule of Article6.
The Chambero~ournedjrom 4.25p.m. ro 4.40 p.m.
With your permission, Mr. President, 1shall tum now to the question of the
hasis of title or appurtenance and its relevance to delimitation. Like Artic6,
this question too is fundamental to Canada's pnnciple that the boundary in this
case should leave to each Party the areas closest to its coast, except where
incidental features would have a distorting effect. ARGUhlENT OF MR. LEGAULT 29
1shall deal with this topic under three subheadings:firsr, in terms of natural
~rolonaation and ils relevance to the continental shelf; second, in terms of the
distance principle - or, if you prefer, geographical adjacency measuredin terms
of proximity from the Coast; and rhird, in terms of the significance of the
abutting coasts.
Allowme to sum up Canada's general position on the relevanceof the basisof
title, beforeadding some observations on natural prolongation and the distance
principle.
A legaldelimitation mustbe basedupon legalstandards. Where the conventional
lawnrovidesa soecificmle.this reauirement issatisfiedhvtheao~licationof themle
..
in qucrtion. Tu ihc çxteni that no convcniional mle applics.legal~wnJards must
nmswnly h derited from the legalconieni of thejuridiction - in piirticular.the
hÿsisof title.This general approiich.as WC hart argucdinour pleadinps.isrquired
bytheCoun's rcabuninginthe Norrh SeoC<~nrl~ienS tulrlr~l/wresand uas cuniirmerl
in the TWIWIL IiI.1~case As u.e pui it in ihc Canadian Rcpl), delimiiaiion is a
prccess of definingin exactlywhaÏ areas each of two opposite or adjacent States
may validlyassert a title (Canadian Reply, p.24, para. 58). In the absenceof a
wnventional mle, a delimitationthat failsto take account of the hasisof titleisan
apportionment of shares,as the Court put it in 1969,and no1a delimitationhased
unon the law(I.C.J. Reoorrs1969.on. 21-22.nara. 18).
'~his is not'io adopi the \icv %i the oihr cxtreinc. IO the cnèci ihai ihe
delimitation isonly a matter olfinding and appl)ing ihr hasizofiiilc. What the
hssii <iitiilc nrotidcs isJ twofold siandard. II scrvcs io identiii the houndary
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r~en~ial overbio in whichmore than one State has a ~lausihie
hasis ofc1aim. And ihcn. in association u,iih uiher relr\.ant cireumsianccs and
cquitahlc con\idcration\. IIpruiides an obiecti\c legalstandard for detcrmining
which State has the stroneer claim within-the bouidarv area.
Against this background Ishall now reviewthe tradiÏional concept of natural
prolongation as a basis of title to the continental shelf.
1. Narural Prolongarion
Natural prolongation remains the general basis of title to the continental
shelf, although, according to the observations of the Court in the TunisialLibya
case, it is no longer the solebasisof title withinthe 200-milelimit (I.C.J. Reports
1982,pp. 48-49, paras. 47-48). Its role, moreover, is limited to the shelf. It can
provide no basis for the delimitation of the 200-mile fishingzone or the exclusive
economic zone. Consequentiy it cannot be looked to as a general doctrine that
govems the drawing of a single maritime boundary.
This leavesus with two basicquestions. Firsr,as a matter of Ion',how does the
concept of natural prolongation lit into the framework of Article 6? And second,
as a matter offacr, does the concept of natural prolongation provide any real
guidance in the circumstances of this case?
The relationship of natural prolongation to Article 6 is, 1submit, fairly clear.
Where two States have coasts that abut on the same continental shelf. factors
rclatcd IO natural prolongaiion can jusiify a departure frum equidiswnce only if
iwo closely reliiied requiremcnis arc met. The first requircment is thai such
factors would have Io constitute "special circumstances"within the meaning of
the Convention. They would, in other words, have to be sufficientlydecisivein
rhemseivesto make the equidistance method inequitable. The second require-
ment is a corollary of the first. It is that a delimitation under Article 6' like a
delimitation under customary law, is always designed to secure an equitahle
result. And accordingly, an Article 6 delimitation based upon natural prolonga-30 GULF OF MAINE
tion, and not upon equidistance, would equally have Io fulfil the need for an
eqnitahle solution - and one that would be clearly more equirabie than a
delimitation based upon equidistance.
The facts are equally clear on this hranch of the case. There is a single and
continuouscontinental shelfin the Gulf of Maine area, without any break in the
natural prolongation of hoth Parties. The United States has conceded this point,
in its Memorial and more recently in its Reply (United States Memorial, p. 201,
para. 315; United States Reply, p. 127,para. 215). The situation resemhles the
one in the TunisialLibyacase, where the Court found no relevant cntena in
the physical structure of the sea-bed. This is a case where, in the words of the
disposiifof the TunisialLibyaJudgment,
"the area relevant for the delimitation constitutes a singlecontinental shelf
as the natural ~roloneation of the land territom of bath Parties. so that in
the present caie, no Criterion for delimitation O? shelf areas can be derived
from the principle of natural prolongation as such" (I.C.J. Reports 1982,
p. 92, para. 133A (2)).
Both the 1982 and 1977 cases show that where two neighhouring States
foming part of the same continental landmass ahut on the same continental
shelf,natural prolongation seldom if everprovides a criterion of delimitation. In
a more general sense, however, the iu.isor.dence sugges.. that the concept of
nliiural prolongation CU» gt>r po.>rrrir.iupporrrupr<~vitiiir~ in the delimii<tii<)n
process This is the case where the naturnl pr<ilongati<insof iwo Siair.,, in ihc
uords of the 1969 Judgment. "mcct and <>verlap".In ihc\c ~.ircum~i~n~.ctsh,e
Court said that a median line must be used, because only in this way would an
eaual division be ohtained (I.C.J. Reoortr, .. -. ., .. 36. oara. 57). This over-
lGping of natural prolongat;ons is as much in evidencei; situations where the
coasts of two States face each other across a rulf as it is when they face each
other across a body of water that is open at ei'therend.
The United States, in short, has disregarded the only real implication that
natural prolongation can possihly have in this case. It has fastened on an
incidental feature on the surface of the sea-hed and has ignored the far more
dominant characteristic of ils deep-seated overall continuity. The only signifi-
cance that natural prolongation can have in this case lies in this factor of
continuity,with its connotation of convergence in the area midway between the
two coasts in the central part of the Gulf, and then ofthese same coasts in the
area immediately to seaward.
MI. President, 1have been speaking of natural prolongation as that term has
traditionally been used - as reflecting, though not necessarily synonymous
with. the ohvsicol factor that links the cont~~~~~~.~~helf Io the land territorv of
thc adjacîni colistal Siare. The United States Rcply, ho\iever, h3s iakrn a new
turn in 11sireaiment of nliiural prolongation II concedes thai thc gsologicûl
and geomorphological aspects of naturd prolongation were "clearly suhordi-
nated" hy the Court in the TunisialLibyacase. Indeed, the Court said, and the
United States Reply quotes with approval,that in order to govern a boundary
delimitation, geomorphological features mus1constitute such a marked inter-
ruption as to constitute an indisputable indication of the limits of two
continental shelves (United States Reply, pp. 63-64,para. 101).So much, then,
for the Northeast Channel as a geomorphological feature that can govern a
houndary delimitation. So mnch, in short, for the theory of a natural
boundarv.
But having ahandoned natural prolongation as a hasis for its Northeast
Channel claim, the United States reintroduces the doctrine in support of its ARGUMENTOF MR. LEGAULT 31
theory of perpendicularity as the basis of coastal-front extension. Somewhat
surprisingly, then, natural prolongation now figures in the United States
argument not in support of ils theory of a natural boundary, but as thejuridical
basis of a scheme of perpendicularity intended to serve as a principle of
delimitation.
The new United States argument has already been answered in the Canadian
Reply (pp. 27-28,paras. 69-70). It is true that natural prolongation stands in a
eeneral sense - and not necessarilv in a rieorouslv scientific sense - for the
kniinu~tion oithe land irrriiory under the cFî ~hic'isthesorreii meaning Io be
attachcd Io the Judgmcnt of the Court in 1969 HJI thc Court nouhcrc equatcd
this principle with the very particular notion of the perpendicular extension of
coastal fronts that we see depicted in the United States pleadings. Nor did it
suggest that any single geometrical formulation of the principle would have a
general validity, or even be possible.
2. Tlie DisruncePrinciple
1turn now to a discussion of the distance principle.
~ ~~ ~ ~mo~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -that il is orimarilv in terms of the 200-mile
zone that the basisoiiitlicalls ior consideration, owingespecially to the absence
of a treatv rule directlv applicable to the delimitation of these zones.
. ..
At the same lime. however. the distance orinciole is bv no means irrelevant Io
ihe delimitation of ;he ioniinrnrul shelj lt'was. of cou~sc.in the contcxt of the
coniinent~lhcliihat the Court calleJ atienii~~nio the distance pnnciple in 1982.
The Court sîid thcn ihat disiance from the bascline.mcasured on the wrface of
~he~s~~.~~as he~~-e i~ ce~ ~in circumstances the basis oftitle: that the new Law
i>fthe Sea Ci,nrention departs irom the principle that natural prolongation is
the sole bais of titlc: and. further, th31the Iegalconcept of thecontinental \helf
as a '~soccicsof nlatform" has been modified bv this criterion (1.C J. Rrnorrr
1982.pp. 48-49. ;>aras.47-48).
Nor is the distance principle extraneous to the application of Article 6. In the
1977Anglo-French Continental Shelfaward, the Court of Arbitration was faced
with the contention that the exclusiveeconomiczone had, in efiect,extinguished
the régimeof the continental shelf and with it the provisions of the 1958
Convention. That argument was rejected. But the Court of Arbitration took the
occasion to observe that new develooments could be taken into account in the
application of Article 6 It held that'thc applicdtion of the Gcncvû Con\cntion
Jid not dcbîr ihc Court of Arbitration from taking account of rcccni dcvclop-
ments in customarv law: "On the contrarv", it said. "the Court has no doubt
that it should take due account of the evolution of the lawof the sea in so far as
this may be relevant in the context of the present case" (para. 48). And the
significant thing is that the Court of Arbitration made these observations
specificallyin the context of the relationship of Article 6 to the emergenceof a
200-milerégimein the new lawof the sea.
But ifthe distance pnnciple is relevant to the continental shelf, 1 suggestthat il
is an indispensubleconsideration for the 200-milezone. Becausehere wehave no
bindine treatv. no authoritative tex1al hand to eiveus a readv-made framework.
WCmkt sca;ch out the applicable lawin the IC&I concept ofihelunsdiciion and
ecpeci3llyin the lepal b~sisof iitlc And for the 200-milezone the wlr basis of
tiileisgëographic~ïadjacency measured in terms ofdistance from theCoast - the
"distance principle", as the Court has so aptly named il.
The practical consequences we derive from the distance principle have been
fully discussed in the Canadian pleadings, Mr. President. The first such ARCUMEPITOF UR. LECAULT 33
basepoints really do correspond to the overall configuration. And it is the
rationale of Ouradjustment of the line to take account of the distorting effectof
Cape Cod and Nantucket.
1 submit, then, that Our opponent's description of proximity as a "rejected
notion" is based on a misreadine of the cases. On the one hand. the United
States mistakes the exceptions fo;the rule. And on the other hand, the United
States confuses the strengths and weaknesses of a technical method with the
more fundamental idea of proximity to extensive stretches of the coastline as
a legally relevant factor. And quite apart from ils misreading of the pas1
jurisprudence, the United Statesdisregards the new legalframework imposed by
the distance principle- the idea ofgeographical adjacency measuredin terms of
distance from the coast.
Let me turn then to the second inferencethat Canada drawsfrom the distance
principle - that a seaward extension is generated with equal force in every
direction from the coast and that no single direction is legally preferred
(Canadian Counter-Memorial, pp. 62-63, paras. 151-152;pp. 233-237, paras.
564-568; Canadian Reply, p. 29, para. 73).
This proposition, of course, is wholly at odds with the special United States
conceotion of a coastal-front extension as the basis of a scheme of oeroendicu-
larii) 'And IIthcrciore gocs Io the he3ri of the Cniicd Siaici case Aiai;. 1rcfcr
hcrs no1 IO pcrpciidiçullirii) 3;i~iicihodol'dclimit:iii~nbu1iciihc morc gcncr31
idea of perpendicularity as a principle of appurtenance.
For the essence ofthe United States oosition is chat the seaward extension of
Nova Scotia is to be abolished or cut short in rwodisrincrsenses. On the one
hand. the seaward extension of Nova Scotia'scoast within the Gulf of Maine is
to belargelynullifiedunder the custom-madedoctrine ofsecondary coasts. 1will
deal with this branch of the argument in a fewmoments. On the other hand, the
United States version of coastal-front extension creates a dramaiicgap in the
maritime areas appertaining to Nova Scotia ourside the Gulf of Maine. Here 1
@ would ask the Chamber to look at Figure 31 of the United States Memorial,
reproduced as Figure 23 in the Counter-Memorial. and distributed to the
Chamher today as Figure 4 in the oral proceedings. This Figure purports to
show the existence of a vast sweeo of ocean soace immediatelvto the south of
Nova Scotia where the canadian' coast is sa;d to have no seaward extension
whatsoever.There is a sudden and total interruption in the seaward extensionor
natural prolongation of Nova Scotia - precisebin ihe area where inaciualfacr
ifs ~roieciionroivordsCeoree.~ Bank is mosroronounceil .his excluded area. as
~ ~,~
the Chamber caisee, is foked by a right kgle whose apex is located al cape
Sable,and whichopens out into a broad area thai jus1happe.. to encompass the
whole of Georges Bank.
Now al1of this is plainly too convenient, too self-serving,to warrant serious
consideration. But, Mr. President, thisconception of perpendicular coastal-front
extensions represents the whole substance of the United States contention that
Nova Scotia has no seaward extension on Georees Bank - and this in soite of
N0\3 Siotia'~ pro~imii) and II\ rçr" considerahie cxieni.
The Chamhcr u,illha$c notcd that this vmi arc3 Io ihc ruuth of Cape Sdblcis
no1simply cwludcd friim the sc;iu,~rdcricniion of SL.J~I;iIn ihc I:nitcd
States depiclion. This entire excluded area is then placed within the "seaward
extension" of the United States - even the Canadian territorial sea just off the
Nova Scotia coast, at a distance of over 100 nautical miles from the nearest
United States territorv. The absurditv is manifest. And it is inherent in the
linitcd StliicsconccPii~nofcoasial-ir&i cxtenrion ivhcnapplicd IOa gcograph-
ical ,ituaiion of this kind. As uc said in Our Reply. thc United Statci \iewmusr 34 GULF OF MAINE
produce this result if a scheme of perpendicular seaward extensions is to be
maintained in this sort of geographical sitiiation. The United States has been
forced to this extreme position for one simple reason. Once the Canadian coast
is allowed to heein oroiectine in the direction of Georees Bank. there is no con-
-
ceimble rclison why itshould not pr<ilrytîs iar in thai direction lisdo the corrcs-
ponding porlions of ihe United States cgyasi(Canadian Reply. p. ?Y.para 75).
The artilicialiiv of the United State, schenie of wroendiçular extensions has
been amply deinonstrated in the Canadian pleadings. 'Forexample, 1would ask
the Chamher 10 look at what was distributed today as Figure 5 of the oral
proceedings, and was Figure 41A of the Canadian Counter-Memorial. This
Figure shows that the United States scheme leaves large gaps in the seaward
extension of the coasi wherever there are major changes in itsdirection - in other
words, whenever the coast turns a corner. This also shows that the scheme is
unworkahle in the Gulf of Maine area. wherc the United States itselfhas stressed
the four-fold changes in direction of'the Cianadian coarr. Figure 6 of the arlil
@ prucccdings diilribuied to the Chamher toddy - which corresponds IO Figure I
of th? Canîdian Red, - illusiraies an e\en mure remdrkable eflcct. whcre the
United States schemé sysiemotical/.v attaches maritime areas seaward of a
concavity to the most distant coast. These are astonishing results. But we have
just seen that they constitute an exact representation of the United States
conception of coastal-front extension as applied to the Gulf of Maine area.
The United States scheme, Mr. President, is as inconsistent with the law as it
is with common sense. And this is because the law provides for a seaward
extension of equal strength in every direction from the coast. We have termed
this, in irregular configurations such as the one hefore the Court, the radial
projection of the coasts, as illustrated in Figure 7 of the oral proceedings,
@ distributed to the Chamber today, which corresponds to Figure 15 of the
Canadian Counter-Memorial. The distance orinciple orovides for coastal-State
jurisdiction throughout al1areas lying withi; 200miies of the baselines of the
territorial sea. Il is incompatible with the idea of an extension in a single
direction only, and with the idea that a seaward extension in any particular
direction is l- ..lv oreferred.
But there is nothing really novel in this concept of the radial extension of the
coasts. It draws new support from the distance principle, but it also reflects an
elementarv and rather obbious ee"metrical truth! a truih that necessarilva,ol..s
under sny concepiiuii of geographiçïl :idjaçency. Perpendicularity as 3 schcme
of iippurtcnlince auiumaticîll) Içai.ei gîps in the seduîrd extension of the cwdit
in areas where the coast changes direction. And the greater the change in
direction the wider the eau. Such eaos are hoth inexolicable and indefensible.
W . -.
eiiher asd millier of geogrïphicïl common scnre or as a mlitter oI'Iau. Cïnada',
diagramr hliw sh0u.n this IO bc truc .ii igencral proposiil<?n.And 1-igure -1of
V the illuitrationi di\tributed tudas -Fiaure II <ifthe Cniied States Mernorial -
shows even more vividly that ihe ~nited States scheme of appurtenance is
wholly inapplicable 10 the Gulf of Maine area.
We facea clear-cul choice here. One of the Parties has got badly oK the track
in interoretin".the basis of coastal-State title. Either the United States is r-eht.
and the Iîw dut*$coniemplîtc there toiîl gapj ai \,arious points dong the coî.t -
gap, ihîi could put î mariiime ared under the control uf a foreign Siate more
thîn ien iimei furiher auav thîn ihe adiîceni coastal Siîie Or else ihe United
States scheme is incomoatihle with thebasis of aoourtenance i~ ~nternatio~al~~ ~ ~
law. Canada, at least, can see no middle ground on this question.
To recapiiulate, Canada draws two practical consequences from the distance
principle:$rsr, the importance of distance from thecoist, and second, the idea of ARGUMIiNT OP MR. LEGAULT 35
the radial projection of the coast. These practical consequencesare as valid for
the continental shelf as they are for the 200-milezone. They place the primary
emphasis where il belongs - on geographical adjacency measured from the coast
as the common factor linking the régimes of the water column and the
continental shelf. Thev reflect the doctrine of the Court that the eeoera--.cal
corrclaiion ulthecolisi and the ,ci i.the harisof title. and thai thesoast niurr hc
the siarting point itir Jelimitaiion. And ihc) ledd td sirarncuork ihat I\ plainl!
in harrnony uith ihr principlcs of Arii~le h oithe C;cnc\a Con\enri<in on the
continental Shelf.
3. The Abuiting Coasrs
(a) Theabuirin~coasts versus thefalse hierarchyproposed by rhe UniredSrares
1 turn now, Mr. President, io a closely related aspect of the basis of
appurtenance: the identification of the coasts that are legally relevant to the
drawine of each Dortion of the boundarv. The ouestion is alwavs imoortant. It
hecomcscr1t1~3u 1hcn the grograph) is~omplrx. Iiircspeciall) so uhrn the are3
cxhihit. J 1~ihof gcogr~phisdl h~imogcitcity.so th;ii iidiLides inio niore thïn
one identifiable sector:
Thc idcntificliiiun<IIihs leg;illyrclcvant coa,ts mas addrcsied in the \nglo-
French C<iniincnt;ilShclf auard of 1977 Thç Court of Arhitr~tion na\ ç3lled
upon Io deicrminr the actu.ilco;isialdreJ>th31contro11eJthedelimitaiion in ihc
Atlantic region. It held that the method of delimitation must be one that relates
to the coasts of the Parties "actually abutting" on the shelf of the region. And
these it held Io be the most proximate coasts of Cornwall and Finistère. It
rejected the viewthat the Channel coasts lyingbehindthe Atlantic region should
affectthe outer boundary area, either by virtue of their comparative length or by
virtue of their general direction. And it said that this rejected approach would
have detached the delimitation "almost completely from the coasts which
actually abut on the continental shelf of the Atlantic region" (para. 246).
The same viewis implicit in the TunisialLibyacase. North of about the 34th
parallel the Court determined that the change in direction of the Tunisian coast
had to be taken into account (I.C.J. Re~orrs1982. DD.88-89. oaras. 127-128).
The inipliciiçriicriun isobtiuu!. 11ivui rhr.Rrc<rrc~rpn;.;i»ii,of ihc nurihern half
01 the G~lf of Gak> ciilistlins 1.1the ~cauard portion of the houndar). This
<oa\idl scpnicnt wa, an "ahuiiinp coait" in rçlliiion IO the arc,i north oithc 34th
oarallel. lidid not have this ~..iertv.,however. until it moved into a nosition of
relative pro~imiiy io the buundar) ared.
Thcse consider;itioni piiini up J critiç~lRliu in ihç United SVJICF argument.
The central riroposition of thc Ilnitecl Siaics asthai a sinelecc~~stI.ocatcd 31 ihc
back of a déepCoastalconcavity, must control the bouidary in both the inner
and outer areas. And it mus1do so at the expenseof the more proximate coastal
areas - that is, at the expense of the coastal wings of Nova Scotia and
Massachusetts that actually ahut the outer area, including Georges Bank
(United States Memorial, p. 19,para. 26; p. 20, para. 29; p. 173,paras. 286-287;
United States Counter-Memorial. pp. 23-24, paras. 30-32; p. 183, para. 292;
pp. 184-193,paras. 296-302; United States Reply, pp. 146-48,paras. 251-255).
In the United States canon, the furthest land must dominate the sea. The back
controls the front.
How can this be so, Mr. President? Whyshould the more rernote coasts at the
back of a deep coastal concavity control the outer area, and not the extensive
coastlines of both countries that actually lieclosest to the area concerned?This
is the fundamental paradox of the United States case.36 GULF OF MAINE
The United States itself has recognized, and indeed it has insisredupon the
characteiization of the Gulf of Maine as a deeo coastal concavitv. This is an
cxpreccion uied repeaicdly in the Unitcd Stdtcr bleadings (rce C'diLdidnRcply.
p 41, noie 1) And ihc dercripiion simpl) reflcctsihc ebideni fdc1thai ihc codsts
in ihe Jeci>esiDortionof the Gulf arc furthcr auav from Geurees Hdnk[han drc
the coasta'lwiRgs - the areas on either side of théGulf. ~hesecoastal wings of
Nova Scotia and Massachusetts represent extensive coastal areas. They are not
incidental or special features. And in viewof their greater proximity to Georges
Bank, they mus1control the delimitation of that area. They are, in short, the
abutting coasts.
The United States has been forced to extreme measures in order to deny these
abuttine coasts anv role in the delimitation of Gcorres Bank. It has been forced
1%)IIIV&Inot one hut tu.0 arbitrary dcviccsto propÜp its ariiticidl claim. Onc OC
thcsc hasjus1ixcn discussrd I rcfcrto ihe schcmcof perpendiculariiy ihat lcavcs
a gap of enormous dimensions in the seaward extension of Nova Scotia outside
the Gulf - precisely, as 1said, in the area where its projection towards Georges
Bank is most pronounced. But that by itself is no1 enough to meet the
requirements of the United States approach. It isequally necessary as a 6rst step
to abolish Nova Scotia's seaward extension within the Gulf. And for this an
equally arbitrarydevice must be found. The United Stateshas invented just such
a device in ils novel doctrine of primary and secondary coasts (United States
Counter-Memorial. pp. 23-24, paras. 30-32; United States Reply, pp. 146-148,
paras. 251-255).
Permit me 10 go into a little more detail. The United States scheme quite
obviously depends upon a radical curtailment of Nova Scotia's seaward
extension within the Gulf. Oniy in this way can there he an uninterrupted
perpendicular extension from thecoast of Maine, straight through the Gulf and
out to eastern Georges Bank. Becausea glance at the United States claim makes
il obvious that with a perpendicular extension of this kind, most of Nova
Scotia's offshoreentitlement within the Gulf must simply be wiped off the map.
Now such a result clearly requires that the coast of southwest Nova Scotia
mus1 be given a legal slatus that is infenor to that of the coast of Maine. And
this. of course. is exactlv what the United States auiie boldlv asserts. This is the
sole<ibjcri of ils novcl iheory of primary and ,cchndary so~sis. This is the fdsc
hicrarchy thai givesthe coast of Maine ihc spccial biatitneed, to force ils u~y
ihrourh Nova Scoiia'sseaward exicnrion uiihin the Gulf. and then 10 aiscrt ils
exclu$ve dominion over the outer area in ils entirety. The maxim is no longer
that the land dominates the sea. The maxim is now that onecoasrdominares
anorher.
Canada has attempted to deal with the novel conception of primary and
secondary coasts in ils pleadings. We have been given no authority for tbis
theory by the United States. We have ken given no explanation. We have
nothing more than the bare assertion of the United States pleadings. And that,
Mr. Prcsident, is no1 good enough.
1do no1propose to enter into a detailed legal discussion ofthe United States
concept, because we have been given no argument to answer. 1have only two
eeneral comments. The first is that the notion of first-class and second-class
Eoastswiih uncqual offshore eniiilcmcnts is simply unknown to the law. Indccd.
il goes agdinst the law. It isno more than a prctcxi for disrcgarding the pnnciplc
of non-encroachment. which is thereby repealed for the purposes of these
nroceedine-. Because the essence of ihe distinction betieen ~rimarv and
secondary coasts - ils only function- is to legitimizethe encroachment of a so-
called primary coast iipon the seaward extension of a so-called secondary coast. ARGUMENTOF MR. LEGAULT 37
That is the definition of a secondarv coast: a coast that is arhitrarilv. .orived of
the benefit of the principle of non-éncroachment.
My second comment on this concept is that it is wholly dependent upon the
adoption of a macrogeographical frame of reference. As we understand it, the
Gulf coast of Nova Scotia has been defined as a secondary coast because it
departs from the general direction of the North American coast on a continental
scale (United States Memorial, p. 19,para. 26; p. 173,para. 287; United States
Counter-Memorial, pp. 184-189,paras. 296-298; United States Reply, pp. 146-
148.oaras. 251-2551.This aooroach is leeallv wrone. as 1willexolain in ereater
detaii later on. It détachestye delimitati& f;om the relevant aria and from the
coasts that actually abut the rclcvant area. At bottom, the ohject 1ssimply to
portrayNova ~cotia as an incidental or special feature - a protrusion in the iegal
sense - by submerging it in the vastness ofthe entire North American Continent
and so obscuring the true dimensions, the true scale of the Nova Scotia
landmass. And it is this impressionistic device that underlies the United States
theory of primary and secondary coasts.
1recapitulate. Despite the fact that no legal basis for the notion of primary
and secondary coasts has even been proposed, it is ahsolutely indispensable 10
the whoJeUnited States case. IfOuropponentscannot showthat the concept of
secondary coasts is sound in law, their whole argument simply falls to the
ground, and with it their objection to the direction taken hy the Canadian line.
For if Nova Scotia's coast is no: a secondarv one - if that theow is leeallv
unsound - then Nova Scotia's seaward extinsion into the Gulf.canno? bé
confined to the inshore waters immediately off its coast. And it follows that the
coast of Maine cannot he given an unlimired seaward extension that would
encroach on the entitlement of Nova Scotia within the Gulf. The boundary must
follow a course that leavesas much space off the coast of Nova Scotia as it does
off the coast of Maine. In the configuration of the Gulf of Maine, this translates
into a line that extends diagonally towards the centre of the closing line that
definesthe outer limit of the Gulf. Thisconfieuration is olainlv inconsistent with
a line that is&rpendicular to the coasts at tie back of ihe Ghf, because such a
line would automatically deprive Nova Scotia of a normal seaward extension
into the Gulf
The United States case is therefore based, as 1suggested a few moments ago,
on the combined application of Iwo arbitrary devices. One is the notion of
pnmary and secondary coasts. And theother, of course, is the total interruption
in the seiiward extension of Nova Scotia ourside the Gulf. The first device is
needed to bnng the coast of Maine straight out to the threshold of Georges
Bank, the real disputed area. And the second device provides the only basis on
which the coast of Maine can dominate eastern Geories Bank from its position
~ ~~ ~ b~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Presidcnt. di,tinguished Judges. ihe United Sta1r.rwi)ulJ no1have had to
inteni th15disiinciion bctiicen ~rimar, 2nd secondar) coasts if itsclaim could be
defended in any other way. ~he 1~nitédStates claimcannot be supported under
the known and accepted law of maritime boundary delimitation becausc the
notion of pnmary and secondary coasts is unheard of, unprecedented and
contrary to accepted principles of international law, and in the circumstances il
is surely not unreasonable to expect that the United Statesshould demonstrate
why it should even be considered. This onusrhe United Storeshas no1even
atrempred10discharge.
Let me return, then, to the real law of maritime delimitation and to the idea
of the abutting coasts as the controlling factor. The Gulf of Maine area
is characterized by what the Court in 1982 called a lack of "geographical38 GULF OF MAINE
homoeeneitv" (I.C.J. Reoorts1982.o. 82.Dara. 114).The Parties bave aereed on
ihis hysicpoint. Indeed. ihr) ha\e airecd ihdt the a;ca isconiposed of liner and
outer sccturs di\,idcd by a closine linc from Cape Sable tu N.intuckct. In this
division into two distinct sectors.-the situation here closelv resembles the areas
<:onsidercdin btith th? 1977and 1982c~ics And a cent131élementin hoih thoic
ciiscsuas th31 IIIsuih 3 \ituaiion diiïcrcni segmentsof theco<isilinrmuïi control
diiïerent portions of the boundary. 1repeat, a central elementin both those cases
was that in such a situation different seements ofcoastline must control different
pi~rtionsof the boundar). It iaimposiihlc IO rcconcilc this appru3sh wilh ihc
Uniicd Siÿtes \leu thiit 3 single jireich ofcwüst sho~ldcontrol the delimii<iiion>
of both the inner and outer areas.
The central eeou~-uhic.l issue~ ~ ~his case is whether Georees Bank is
appurtenant 10 the coast of Maine or whether it is appurtenant to the more
proximale and immediately abutting coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts.
in Canada's submission. thedis~ute2 area - the area of easrernGeorees Bank -
is appurtenant to the coasts of Southwest Nova Scotia for three basrc reasons:
- First.this ~ortion of the outer area iscloserto Nova Scotia than to anv other
coast apa;t from the effect ofCape Cod and Nantucket.
- Second,this proximity isdecisive inthe present case because the Nova Scotia
coast is extensive and backed bv a substantial landmass.
- Third, Canada's \pccial intcrcst; in eastern (ie<irge, Rank. which ha\c been
rccogniled in the conduct of the Pîrtie\, coniirm thc close relationship ihat
links southwest Nova Scotia to this area of the sea
In sum, the Canadian claim is based on the controlling position of the
abutting coasts. The United States disregards the law by subjugating both the
inner and outer areas to a single stretch of coast, located in the most remote
portion of the inner area, and hy nullifyingthe role of the immediately abutting
coasts.
(b) Theaburtingcoasts and themyrh of thenatural boundary
There is one more respect in which the United States has disregarded the
maxim that the land dominates the sea, and its corollary that the basis of title
lies in the "geographical correlation" of the coast and the offshore areas to be
delimited. 1 refer to the United States theory of the natural boundary (United
States Memorial, pp. 144-145,para. 256; pp. 175-176,paras. 292-296; p. 201,
para. 315; p. 206, para. 322; United States Counter-Memorial, pp. 198-203,
para. 315; United States Reply, p. 88, para. 155; p. 127,para. 215). With your
permission, 1shall now review this theory from the perspective of the basis of
appurtenance and the role of the abutting coasts.
We have already seen that the United States Reply has abandoned any
reliance upon geomorphology as an aspect of natural prolongation. Even more
broadly, it has stressed the very limited relevanceaccorded to geomorphology in
the jurisprudence. There is nothing equivocal about the United States position
on this point (United States Reply, pp. 63-65,paras. 101, 103and 105).
Canada welcomes this development. It should properly have led to the
ahandonment of the entire natural boundary argument, for theNorrheasrChan-
nel is norhing if noi a geomorphologicalfeaiure though a superficial one, of
course. But the United States has chosen not to follow its reasoning to a logical
conclusion. And so 1 must ask the Chamber to consider whether the United
States theory - quite apart from its factual deficiencies - is compatible with the
law.40 GULF OF MAINE
clearlvin Canada's Counter-Memorial (D.222. vara. 531).For the use of natural
fraiuks on land ha3gcncr;ill) hecn h.~\>don ~rdciir..ilc;>nridcr.iiionrih~i hai,c
no counierpari ai sca delence. communications. eJsc of demarcdiion. and $0
on. Moreover, as 1have alreadv said. the use of oiïshore features as a basis of a
maritime boundarv would ienore the status of these maritime areas as an
adjunci or dcpendenr) or ihc adjacent Iand - ilic idcd ih.11ihc land duminatei
ihc sca. uiih 11, implication that ihc ss;i as a ph),ic~l cniii! cdiinut proiidc iis
oun cnterir of dclimitaiiiin. tinall). ;untrüry to ihc burdçn oiihe Uniicd Si3ics
.irgumcnt. ihe use u1natural fe3iurc\ un Iand has mu.1 ufien becn prompicrl b)
thc ~bjccii\ï uf.il~uri»uihe cconomic bcnctii oithe feature in qucitiun llcncc.
for cxamiile, the di\ision <iirii,er, and hkcs ihai ~rc\ails in the I~ndboundaric5
of canada and the United States, and in many other parts of the world.
1 think 1can put al1this a little more plainly. Maritime boundaries are not
established with the aid of a thermometer, or by salinity tests, or by the
imperatives of the spawning season. The whole "ecological régime"approach is
foreign to the spirit of the law. It would frustrate or hopelessly confuse the
delimitation of maritime boundaries, especially intbose parts of the world where
the offshore environment iseven lessperfectly known and understood than is the
case in the Gulf of Maine area. And it would transform the doctrine of the
equitable result into a chimera.
The Northeast Channel is a sim~le,incidental fact of nature that is unrelated
to coastal geography. It is not theedge of the world, as might be suggested hy
the almost pre-Columhian description it is given hy the United States. Nor does
it mark a division between two worlds or two dominions, of the kind once
sanctioned by Pope Alexander VI, as might again be suggested hy the
description it is given by the United States. To accord this superficial depression
anyimportance in its own right would beto disregard the basis of title; to detach
the delimitation from the abutting coasts; and to "run counter to the whole
tendency of State practice on the continental shelf in recent years", as the Court
of Arbitration stated in 1977(para. 63).And to regard it as one of the elements
of an equitable solution would he to stand equity on its head.
For there is nothing inherently equitable or inequitable about the Northeast
Channel itself. It cannot confer an eauitahle character unon an ineouitable
resuli lis only mcrii or demcrii dcrord;ng to the point of \,ii\ddiiptcd 1 isih~i
an!. bo~ndar) ihüt look iiinio dccouni uould gt\c ihc whulcoiGcorpcs knk io
the Uniicd Si.itcr. And the cauii3ble or incriuii3ble char.icier of such a re,uli
must be iudeed on ouite o~he;~ ~ ~-~s~ ~ ~ ~
~nd ti~s;~roun& arc no1proi,idcd b) ihc ,O-cüllcdcquiiahl~,principlcs rhdt
ihc L'niieJ Siries has c<rllcciii~el)cniiilcd 'singlc-Statc mrnagcmcni" (Unitrd
States Mcniori~l. p. 143.pürd. 250; Uniicd Siaics Repl). pp. 81-82. parü.l38)
Al1ihis slogan icll, us. of courbe. is 1h;itd resource-ri~h arca shi~uldnevcr be
diiided, kcausc diiisian requircs co-vpcraiion. "Single-Si.iic nianagemeni" is
sim~lv another name for sinele- tat owenershio. and that surelfis simnlv
anoiGer name for monopoly. if the natural houndary can cloak itielf with'no
other legaljustification than this, then 1mus1suggest, like the child in the fairy
tale, that the emperor has no cloihes.
Before leavine this tovic of the so-called natural houndarv. 1,.ould like to
add a fcw commcnis an ils relation ta ihc cqu.~llyunrcn3ble ih',or) of coasial-
front criension ai thc baris of 3 schcmc 01 perpcndicu13rit). ki)r thcsc iuu
ihcories oiihe 1:nited Siaies arc toiüll) coniradicior!. Thc theor\ of the nïiur~l
boundary cdnnot Iogic~ill)siand iogcther uiih the Cniied Sk~icsvcrri~n of
coasial-iront cxtensiun in the f~ciual<irL.unisiaii:csof ihc Gullof Mlinc arca I
say this for the following reasons ARGUMENT OF MR. LEGAULT 41
According to the United States scheme, Georges Bank is entirely within the
seaward extension of Maine. According to this view, Georges Bank does not
appertain physically or legallyto the more proximate coasts of Nova Scotia and
Massachusetts. Now the fact is that the Gulf of Maine Basin, which liesbetween
thecoast of Maine and Georges Bank, isa deeperand broader geomorphological
feature than the Northeast Channel. A glance at any bathymetric chart of the
area immediately shows this to he true.
It follows, I submit, that if the Gulf of Maine Basin fails to interrupt the
seaward extension of Maine, there is even less ground for arguing that the
shallower depression of the Northeast Channel can interrupt the seaward
extension of Nova Scotia. And it followsmore generally that geomorphological
features on this scale, in the context of a singlecontinental shelf,cannot provide
a basis for delimitation. And yet another conclusion is equally inescapahle. It is
that the geomorphologically-based claim advanced by the United States in 1976
- the claim that confronted Canada throughout the negotiations and that
remained the officialUnited States position until 1982 -is now conceded to have
had no possible basis in law.
MI. President, the theory of the Northeast Channel as a natural houndary has
been repudiated by the United States itself. The United States admits that
geomorphology cannot he decisive.The United States assumes that the seaward
extension of the coast of Maine cdn vault a depression that is more pronounced
than the Northeast Channel. The United States assumes as wellthat the seaward
extension of Maine can vault the so-called "ecological régime"of the Gulf of
Maine Basin. It remains onlv for the United States to admit that the coast of
Nova Scoiir - 2nd noi the coÿit a>l'S1üine - should cnlc>y A "naiural" üdi';inl.igc
in [hi, game of le~pfrogor ~utir<~-r~i<irr üin.diur;il ïJ\aniayc ïrom ihc FACoIf ils
nearerproximity io Gëorges Baiik.
M~ ~Pre~ident. . ha~ ~~~ne with mv discussion of the~ba~ ~ ~ ~the aoourte..
dnse And ira relevdnceio clclimii~iioii.l shA1pdusc here iiir a brief rcvic\voi my
principal con;liisions on Ihis sulijra beforc lurning io ihc criicria for dchning
iegall; relevant circumstances \vbich 1 would propose to pursue tomorrow
morning with your permission, Mr. President, after this very brief recapitula-
lion.
My conclusions, then, are as follows. Firsi, the natural prolongation in the
Gulf of Maine area is continuoils and provides no support for the Northeast
Channel claim of the United States, and no support for its theory of the
perpendicular extension of coastal fronts. Second, the distance principle as the
hasis of title to a 200-milezonemakes distance from the coast a centralfactor in
delimitation and necessarily implies a radial and not a perpendicular seaward
extension of the coast. Third, the law does not recognize any distinction of
primary and secondary coasts. Fourrh, the maritime boundary in the outer part
of the Gulf of Maine area must he controlled by the ahutting coasts of Nova
Scotia and Massachusetts. Andfifth, and finally, the natural boundary theory of
the United States would detach the delimitation from the abutting coasts and
disregard the requirement for an equitable result.
VI. RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANC IPSLAW
1 will then move 10 the discussion, Mr. President, of factual circumstances
that are legally relevant or irrelevant in law. This is a further area of major
disagreement between the Parties on questions of law. The issue here is whether
or not there existlegalcriteria for determining what is relevant or irrelevant, and
for determining the weight to he given to those circumstances that are deemed to42 GULF OF MAINE
be relevant. This issue bears upon al1three principles Canada has advanced as
the hasis for an eauitahle delimitation in the Gulf of Maine area.
The notion of'relevant circumstances within a framework of equitable
principlesis a hroad one. But it cannot be infinite.The law does provide criteria
for identifyingand weighingthe relevantcircumstances -no1rulesof admissihil-
ity and exclusion, but guidelines of a more general nature. Thus, the law as
applied in thejurisprudence givesussome notion of the relevant geography - the
relevant area. Moreover, the legal nature and suhject-matter of the jurisdiction
gives us a hasis for identifying the non-geographical factors that are relevant,
and fordetermining how much weightthcy should he given. 1 shall deal firstwith
the relevant area.
The RelevanlArea
The geographical frame of reference - the relevant area - is central to the law
of maritime houndaries. And on this issue,the differencesbetween the Parties
could not he more pronounced.
A wide range of issuesdivides the Parties on this hranch of the case. One, of
course, is the definition of the Gulf of Maine area itself.Another is whether it is
legitimate to resort to a diîïerent relevant area for each category of relevant
circumstances, as our opponents have done - that is to change the geographical
frame of reference to suit the purposes of each particular argument (Canadian
Reply, pp. 45-47, paras. 118-123).
The one question 1want to pursue, because it is so central to some of the
issues 1 have already discussed, is the legal relevance of macrogeography.
Otherwisestated, the question iswhether the legallyrelevant geographical frame
of reference is the Gulf of Maine area referred to in the Soecial Aereement. or
whether it includes the entire North American continent from-~tlantic to
Pacificand from Florida to the far north.
Exceot, of course,Alaska. For the United Stateshas excluded Alaskafrom the
stage-&tting it has constructed for this case (United States Memorial, p. II,
para. 20; United StatesCounter-Memorial, pp. 22-23,para. 29). But ifCalifornia
is tobe included, why not Alaska? One might wellask. But the reasons for the
banishment of Alaskafrom the macroe.eoeraohicconceotion of the United States
remain shrouded in mystery. 1shall be-hoidénough,hiwever, 10hazard my own
answer to this riddle.Alaska, like Nova SEotia,is in the wrong place.
The United States, of course, has invoked macrogeography on the vas1scale
of the North American Continent for a sinele ournose: to overcomethe effectof
Nova Scotia, indeed 10overcome the pre&nce oi~ova Scotia.
A number of critical United Statesarguments depend entirely upon the useof
a continental frame of reference.All of thesearguments are directed to the same
over-ridine ournose.
We are told, for instance, that Nova Scotia'scoast within the Gulf of Maine is
a secondary coast. This is so - again we are told - because this portion of the
Nova Scotia coast is "aberrantw to the assumed overall direction of the North
Amerisan rolistline 1h3te lilrclid) denli uiih ihc notion of seconrlarycoasts as a
mitier of latv But the noiion is detoid ofci,en a geogrliphiclilmeaning unlcss
the irame ol're~crcnccis taken far bevond the Gulfof Maine area to encomosss
the entire Atlantic seahoard.
Again, we are told that the position ofthe Nova Scotialandmass to the south
of either the land houndary terminus or the international houndary terminus
should be a decisive factor: But we are not told why the latitude and no1 the
longitude of this terminal point should have any relevance at all. ARGUMllNT OF MR. LEGAULT 45
matier of common scnsc. But common senw wiih a leplilgrounding. B:c~u,c the
tcsi uc should apply ic uhcthcr the circumjtancc> rclicd upon hdvea cuttiiienily
close connection whh the leea- nature and content of the rights andjurisdiction
in issue.
The need for this kind of scrutiny is made obvious by the strangely inverted
priorities given to the relevant - and irrelevant - circumstances in the United
States oleadines. We are told that fish are relevant but that fishermen are not.
~orrcciion, MY .rc5idcni: u,r are iold that IYih-ccniur" tishcrmcn are rele\~ni
but ihat iuddy'r fiihcrmzn arc net. We are told that high cca~aitiviiicr long
bsforc the niodcrn Iaw of the svd had c\ol\ed lire rslcvant, but that Ciindda'.;
contemporary fishery isnot. We are told that the early origins of the fisheryare
decisive, but again that the reality of the present day has virtually no
significance.We are told that hygone co-operativearrangements on matters that
even todav have nothine to do with the 200-milezone should preiudice Canada's
claim. buithat 3 1979~grccmcntilirecil) rclaied io this \cr)diiputc and 10 th!
fishcnes ol'Grorges Bank mdsi be ruled inadmissihlc, ior the sole rcnson ihat 11
ijincon,isicni wiih ihr ilaim olthc Cnitcd States IV, Cniied Siaies Reply. p. 21.
r~~~~~~-,.
Now al1of this, 1suggest with great respect, is an affront to common sense.
And il is an affront to common sense precisely hecause it takes no real account
of the leeal framework
I shalînot diicu\c ihc United States ihcor) of ..zomplcte domindncc" wer thc
Gulf of Mainc ;arc;!.Ihe Aii<irne"-General ior Canada hiicalrraJy sa~Jal1ihat
necd hc said for the tinic bcinz ori thai iiniuriunatç and unroundcd \,icu oi Iciiv
and reality. Nor shall 1 speid long on that vast array of plainly irrelevant
activities invoked in the United States pleadings - defence, cartography, aids to
navigation and the rest. These activitiescan be ruled out on every possiblecount
- their leeal context. their remoteness in time. and their lack of anv connection
u,iih the regalconteni of ihc~urisdiction c\cn ioJay. What dirposc; of the issue
~uite dccisi\cl) is that the pliiiern ihesc açtiiiiier uerc supposcd10 disilo\e ha\
been shown to he factually incorrect. We note, that the arguments in question
have largely disappeared from the United States Reply.
(a) Esiablished Pairerns of Fishing
1turn now to the other end of the spectrum, to a matter of the very highest
importance. 1 refer to the contemporary fishery on Georges Bank. Canada
argues that its fisheryon Georges Bank and its vital economicimportance to the
people of the adjacent Nova Scotia coasts are legally relevant factors that are
central to the equities of this dispute. The United States, on the other hand,
challenges the legal relevance of these factors and asks the Chamher to set them
aside.
I suhmii that ihr coniempor;irv fijhcry and ils eionomic importance arc
rclcvani for e\ieniially one ha\ic rcastin. Thcl rcprcicnt the hedri oiihe sais, the
reiilobiccr of thc disoutc The rira-rial impact oithc dccision Io bc #\en hy the
chamber is very laigely a maiter of the hture status of the fishery on eastern
Georges Bank.
Let me say first that, despite appearances, the differences betweenthe Parties
on this issueare reallv auite narrow. The United States aerees with Canada that
the fishing activities are'among the factors that "are at the heart of the facts of
this case". 1quote from the overall Conclusions of the United States Reply at
paragraph 287 (p. 163). The difference is that for the United States, fishing
activities can only he relevant if they are purely historical. The United States is46 GULF OF MAINE
secking.in ctfect, 10 backdatc ils 200-mileereluri\c econoniic rone by a century
or more And b~auis the cconomic intercsts ofl~ng ago can have no practisal
rcle\ancs todds. the Unitcd States is ohheed to arruc tht the dependencc oi
adjacent communities on the contempor~ry fishery must no1 h&taken in10
account (IV, United States Counter-Memonal, pp. 125-137,paras. 159-191 ;V,
United States Reply. pp. 67-70, paras. 108-114).
Canada has demonstrated in its Counter-Memorial (III) that the fishervand
~~~ ~~~ ~
its importance to coastal communities are factors that'are rooted in the object
and purpose of the zones being delimited (pp. 242-246, paras. 579-587).The
origii aiid history of the exclusive economic zone show that nothing is more
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ole conceot than the economic deoendence of coastal oooula-
tions upon the living resoirces off their shores. It follows that these coisidera.
tions are no1only relevant; they are entitled to considerable weight in the final
halancine -..
The lishzry is a rclet3nt circum,tance, and ils economic importance ir .I \alid
cqtiitablz considrrati<in,not i~prrrrfrom the Irgal hahi; of titlc but in the Iightoi
it.~Noone would contend that an interest in the fishervcan sui>porta claim that
has no reasonable hasis in the coast~l ~ ~ew u . , or-for thaimatter could anv
orher non-geographical factor serve as a substitute for a geographical basis of
claim. And that obviously has never heen Canada's contention.
What Canada argues is-infact auite diiïerent. It is that a claim witha basis in
geography can linduconfirniingsubp<>rt.and potentially decisi\s support. in the
exi\tcncc of an establi\herl tibher) in the dihputed areii. and in the economic
dependcncr ot the cuasul population on th~i tishcr). And uc >uhmitthtii this
sonrlu.ion is virtuall) inesciipahlz in I.iu The jurisprudznce clcarly dsmdn-
strdte, th;it non-geographical factors are eligihlc ior cunsidzr~tion as rele\ant
circumstances. Both Parties have relied upon non-geographical factors in the
present case. And once this principle is conceded it must surely follow that the
singlefactor most closelylinked with the subject-matter of thejurisdiction, with
its object and purpose, can and indeed mus1be taken into account. Equitable
~rincioles surelv must rule out a conce~tion so narrow that it would exclude
from Consider~iiona factual circumstance at the very heart of the dispute.
Mr. President, 1 have heen discussing the Georges Bank fishery and ils
economic importance as if it were a non-geogrnphical factor. But this is not
eritirelythe case. Canada's fisherytakes place squarely within the disputed area
and is conducted from the geographically adjacent coasts. And il highlights the
reality of the connection between these coasts and the disputed area. The
connection is anvth.na bu- fortuitous. The fishervconducted from the adiacent
co;ists is an cxprcisi~n and a consequcncc oi phisical geography. It 1, .iiii,in&
dcmon.tratii)n of the priictic31significanceof geographiral adjacent!
This <ifcoursc ir the tirrt ~udicialdelimitation of a 200-milezone and in that
sensethe Canadian argumentis, as Ouropponents havesaid, "unprecedented (see
United StatesCounter-Memonal, pp. 125-137,paras. 161-191).But al the same
lime, the Canadian argument has solid roots in international law.Two of the
Judgments that helped to develop the doctrine of "equitable pnnciples" - the
Fbheries~~caseand the FisheriesJuri~d~cr~on case - both e..eu~eau~~.~~lrecoenitiou
to economic dependenceas an equitable consideration oflegal significance.And
eventhe Grisbadarna case, whoseattraction for Ouropponentshas seeminplyfaded,. .
suppliesyet another instance of therecognizedrole O? this factor.
Common sense alone requires that the delimitation of a fishing zone on the
hasis of equitable principles should take account of the fishery and related
economic factors. But the United States has raised a variety of arguments
against this proposition. 1 shall now deal with these arguments. ARGUMENTOF MR. LEGAULT 47
The United States Reply contends that "geography alone" determines the
right of a coastal State to a 200-milezone (pp. 67-68,paras. 108-109).Now this
does not tell the whole story. ln fact, it is an incorrect statement of the law. In
boundary areas betweenopposite or adjacent States, the law clearlydoes accord
a roleto non-geographical factors. The 1977award referred Io the "geographical
and oiher circumstanccs" (para. 239). Indeed, of the four so-called equitable
principleslaid down by the United States, only thefirsi isprimarily geographical
in character. But the main point is one 1have already made. Canada does not
rely upon the Georges Bank fisheryand southwest Nova Scotia's dependence
upon that fishery in derogation from the coastal geography or even in isolation
from il. Instead, these factors serve to confirm and reinforce the geographical
aspect of Canada's claim. And. once more, these factors are a practical
consequence of the geography of the relevant area.
The United States goes on 10argue that States are eotitled Io a 200-milezone
whether or not their residents have exploited or even intend to exploit ils
resources (United States Reply, p. 68,para. 110).True enough, but then where
does this leave the United States argument that only historical fisheriesare
relevant 10the delimitation?
The United States also argues that States are entitled to a 200-mile zone
whether or not they are economically dependent on ils resources (ibid.,para.
III). True enough, but essentially beside the point. The fact that economic
dependence is not a precondiiion of title is in no way inconsistent with the
idea that il may bea relevant circumstanc n the delimitation. And to hold,
as Canada does, that the hasis of title is a relevant factor in the boundary
area hardly goes to prove that it has to be considered the only relevant
factor.
The United States also relies upon the Court's observation in 1982,to the
eKectthat considerations of national wealth and Doverlv.in the context of future
oil and gas discoreries. are extriineous (tiniied Siales Heply, p. 69, para. II?).
Herc the nature of ihe Cïnadian argument ij \O radirally difircnt from these
reiecird considcraiions thai WC tind IIxlmost im~ossible 10 arasri ihe United
~iates objection to Canada's position. Relative nitional wealth has no place in
Canada's argument. The issue is not the potential impact of hypothetical
discoveries of hypothetical resources. We are dealing here with established
fishingpatterns, linking the coastal communities of the geographically adjacent
coasts to the disputed area. We are dealing here withan existingactivitythat is a
direct consequence of the geographical relationship. And finally,we are dealing
here with the resources that form the very object of the dispute. Theseare hardly
spcculative considerations. They are everyday facts of life for the fishermen of
southwest Nova Scotia.
(b) The 1979 Agreementon Easi CoastFisheryResources
There is one further aspect of the evidence where the Parties are deeply
dividcd, not on the facts themselvesbut on the question of relevance. 1refer Io
the history of the dispute and the indicia of equity it provides. More specifically,
of course, 1refer to the 1979Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources.
The United States Replydeals with the 1979fisheriesagreement only to givea
selective account of the political objections it cncountered among some New
England interests aftcr il had heen concluded and submitted for ratification
(pp. 21-23,paras. 33-37).That account iswhollyirrelevant Io the real issue- the
equities as seen by the two Governments and their authorized representatives. Il
does no1come to grips al al1with the question whether the 1979agreement can48 GULF OF MAINE
he taken into account as a central element of the negotiating history, as one of
the indicia of equity provided hy the history of the dispute.
Canada's position therefore remains as stated in its Reply (pp. 37-38,
paras. 94-96; pp. 105-107,paras. 248-253 - V). The United States objection to
consideration of the 1979fisheriesagreement amounts to a contention that the
Chamber must disregard the history of the dispute - and indeed the crucialphose
of the history of the dispute as it relates to fisheries. This position is plainly
inconsistent with the jurisprudence, and especially the 1982 Judgment of the
Court, which looked to the conduct of the Parties for indicia of equity (p. 84,
para. 118). It is also at odds with the terms of the Special Agreement, which
excludes one - and only one - aspect of the history of the dispute from the
consideration of the Court: namely, proposals directed to a maritime houndary
settlement or responses thereto (Art. V, para. 1).
Mr. President, the 1979 fisheries agreement was elaborated in conjunction
with the houndary negotiations. It was signed hy the Secretary of State of the
United States sirnultaneously with the Special Agreement. It was strongly
endorsed and commended hy the President of the United States as "fair to
hoth Parties" (1.Canadian Memorial, o. 135,oara. 323). It called for the ioint
management of Georges Bank and the shariig of ils fishery resourcesin a
manner consistent with the Canadian boundary claim. That it was ultimately
withdrawn by a subsequent Administration in no way detracts from its value as
evidence of the equities as seen hy the Parties in the crucial phase of the dispute.
The 1979 fishenes agreement is a relevant circumstance in several distinct
respects. First of all, it constitutes evidence recognized by the United States of
Canada's economic interest and traditional participation in the fisheries of
Georges Bank. The essential ohject of the agreement was the sharing and
management of the Georges Bank fisheries by Canada and the United States,
and the Chamher will recall Ambassador Cutler's testimony that the agreed
shares, viewed in historical perspective, werefair and equitahle. Secondly, the
agreement forms part of a potiern ojconduci, that must beconsidered together
with the record of the continental shelf. For jus1 as the record shows that the
United States accepted Canada's jurisdiction with respect to the continental
shelf of eastem Georges Bank, the 1979 agreement shows that it equally
recognized Canada's equitahle interest in the fishenes of that very same area.
Finally, the 1979 agreement also constitutes evidence that the United States
Administration of the time also recornized that established fishine oatterns
u.ould indeed ne 3 rcle\ani ,-irrumiianîe in the houndary deliniii3~~ik. I/rhc
o~rc<,nirnr incrvIIOrurijinl u~idfaill~di(urne r~iro/i~rr<~his point was made on
severai occasions by Amhss,ador Cuiler in hi.<ir.siimony in fa\,our of raiifica-
tion of the agreement -and the referencesto ~mhassador~Cutler'stestimony are
given in my written statement (Hearings before the Committee on Foreign
Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-Sixth Congress, Second Session,
15Aoril 1980. o. 25).
I muit ;iddi uorh. hui onl) a uord. on the unfortunaie inirodiiciion inio
ihcse proceediiigs of irrclevani foreign polie) diNercnîr.sbeiween ihc P~rtier in
the fieldofihc 13% oi the sra I refer. oi'ioursridthe cniire theme of Chanter 1
of the United States Reply. 1cannottake the time, nor would it be appropriate,
Io answer the substance of this generalized attack on Canada's record over the
pas120-odd years. Accordingly, 1shall do no more than point out - with great
regret- that this excursion into irrelevance is hoth unfair and inaccurate in the
inferences it seeks to draw from Canada's actions in defence of its vital coastal
interests.
Perhaps the most extraordinary inference the United States has attempted to ARGUMENT OF MR. LEGAULT 49
draw is that the oil and gas permits issued hy Canada for Georges Bank
beginning in 1964werepart of a "broader onslaught" on United States maritime
interests (United States Reolv. o. 15. nara. 20). These oetmits were issued in
~ .. . c~ ~
accorddncc wiih a sir~ightfoniard applicaiion of the principlei uf Ariiclc 6 di
the Ceneva Con\eniion un the Continenidl Shelf. II 1,one ihinr to disagrcc uiih
Canada's use of the equidistance method, but to characterize i?as an oÏnslaught
on the interests of a neighbouring State goes rather beyond the bounds of
reasonable argument. And the really striking thing is this: the nature of the so-
called onslaueht was known to and fullv accented bv the Government of the
Cniied ~tatcc.tnd )et I'aileioprotoke e;cn so h~ch a reiertatiun. muïh les,
<rproieit. uniil ihc end of 1969
VII. THECANADIAN LINE AS THE EQUITABLR EESULT
IN THE GULF OF MAINEAREA
1havecompleted my reviewof the main legalissuesdividing the Parties in this
case. 1turn now to the fourth and finalpart of my task- that is, an examination
of the Canadian claim itself, the actual line on the map now illustrated on the
@ lightbox and distributed to the Chamber as Figure 9 ofthe oral proceedings. For
itis this claim that we hold to represent the equitable result within the law in the
present case.
My examination of the Canadian claim will be brief and necessarily incom-
olete. Professor Weil will oursue this tooic in ereater deoth a few davs hence.
' 1uuuld ask the chamber 10 loon tirsi'at ihe;nnermo\;~e~mcnt of CheIine.as
itmo\.cs seau~rd froni Puint A. Thc firsi ihing that uill bc noted is ihat the
coasts of Mxine and Nuva Scutu that control mosi oi th15termeni ui the line
have a rieht-aneled iuxtanosition. In other words. tbev ,ace each other not
dirccrl) hli ai ;inangic ~i~~~roxim~icl~90 And ihc second thkg ihe C'hxnhrr
willnoiice is thai the Cansdrsn Iinevcry roughl) biscas the angle io ïurmcd hy
ihc rcncr~l direction of the 1u.ocoa,ts. In this u3v and [hi\ i\ ihc reallv
important point, Mr. President - in tbis way the canadian line provides thé
same kind of equal division of maritime space between the two coasts as does a
perpendicular line when the coasts are perfectly straight.
1 say the Canadian line roughly bisects the area because in fact il diverges
somewhat from this principle, in favour of the United States. The equidistance
line in this sector uses basepoints on the United States side that are situated on
off-lvine rocks - some at a considerable distance from the United States
mainlaid: 1shall point them out -Mount Desert Rock and Matinicus Rock for
instance. The net result is that theCanadian line here follows a course much
closer to the Canadian mainland than to that of the United States.
There is, in fact, a coastal area in the Gulf of Maine that is seriously
disfavoured by geography, but by no stretch of the imagination is it the Coastof
the United States. It is the coastline of the Bay of Fundy. The concave
confieuration of the Bav of Fundv means that its coasts cannot. even under an
appli;aiion of cquiiabl~pnniiple< be grÿnied a significani scatvard extension of
their own. II is this cod\ilinc alone ihat is d~s;ld\,aniapcrlhy concaiii) in the
geographical situation of the Gulf of Maine.
The loeic of this inner seement of the Canadian line is als~~anoarent in its
general d;rcciion. ~onlr~~~~ioihe false docinne of primary ahb seconddry
cu~sis.the s?au,drd c~tcnsionsof buih Canada and the United Siaics arc eniiiled
in lau IO equal ueighi. The cuarii have cqual gcnerating power In the inner
portion of ihe Gulf. ihe jeau,ÿrd extensions of Mainc and Nova Scutio meci and
o\erlap. But thry meet, noi hcad-m. as ilwere, hut ai an angle - an angle of50 GULF OF MAINE
roughl) 90'. In this type of coilstïl rclation\hip it is difficuliIO sonrïivr of a
ditiding Iineother than one thai culs rluyoniillythrough the ronc ofconi,ergence
created by these overlapping extensions. A line, in other words, that bisectsthe
angle created by the coastal relationship. Only a line that proceeds in such a
direction can respect the equal generating power of the coasts.
Further seaward, in the central part of the Gulf, the geography is, ifanything,
more decisiveand clear-cul. The coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts face
each othcr in LIpcrfcctl) opposite relationship. as the houndary approachcs the
Cape Sahle-Nantucket closing line which ihc Partics have agreed rcprcscnts the
seîward Iimitof the Gulf (Il. United States Mtmonal. p. 12,para. 25. fn. 2: \'.
Canadian Reolv. ,....1-42. vara. 108). Two extensive and oerfectlv oooosi2e ..
co~sts this represcnts an alkobt rlas;ic situation for the ~pplication of the
rquidictancc mcihod, 2nd wï shall secin a moment ihai the Parties arcagr.ed on
the characterization of the geography 1have jus1 given.
The overall effect ofthe Canadian line witbin the Gulf of Maine itself is to
allocate the lion's share of the area 10 the United States. The United States
coastline borderinn the Gulf is extensive.true enounh. But the noint is that ils
cnient is fully rcieciçd in the area the United Gaies obrûins through the
opcration of the Canadian Iinc And this for two rsasuns. One isCanada's useof
off-lsinr base~oinis on the United Silites ride. which 1hîve iuci discusscd. But
the second is more fundamental. It is that the equidistance mëthod as applied in
this type of configuration dividesonly the northeastern portion of the Gulf, and
automatically leaves the entire southwcstern portion totally unaffected by the
Canadian coast. This is because the coasts of the southwestern half of the Gulf
arc entirely Amencan. whilc thosc of the noriheastcrn half arc divided between
Cdnada and the United Stdtcs And the incrcasing con\cxity of the cons1 of
southern New England as it curves outward to form the southwestern entrance
point to the ~ulfjrevents the Canadian coast from exerting any effect beyond
the central area of the Gulf.
In the outer area - the area that includes Georges Bank - the Canadian
pleadings have demonstrated that a predominant opposite relationship of the
coasts is maintained (Canadian Counter-Memorial, pp. 45-48, paras. 107-113;
Canadian Reply, pp. 48-52, paras. 127-131).And here again the even-handed-
ness of the Canadian line is its dominant characteristic.
The Canadian line crossesthe closingline ofthe Gulf- theagreedclosing line of
the Gulf - roughly midway betweenNova Scotia and Massachusetts, as may be
seen from the illustration on the lightbox, which was also distributed to the
Chamber today as Figure 10of the oral proceedings.The position of the Can-
adian lineai this point isjustified by two factors. The first factor is that the abut-
ting coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, each ofthem comparable in
configuration and extent, face each other across the Gulf in a perfectlyopposite
relationship iiithis area. And these are unquestionably the legally relevant and
controlling coasts - their proximity to the boundary area, combined with their
extent, puts the question beyond al1doubt. And the second factor is that an
adjustment in the equidistancelineis required by the distorting effectofthe Cape
Cod-Nantucket configuration,whoseimplications1shalldiscussin a moment.
But what of the directionof the Canadian line beyond the agreed closingline
of the Gulf of Maine and across Georges Bank?
Mr. President, distinguished Judges,the Canadian linechanges direction quite
markedly, as may easily beseen,as it enters the outer area. It turns back towards
the east in the direction of the Canadian coast. This change of direction iscaused
by the convexity of the New England coast - the bulge on the coast of
Massachusetts whereit curvesoutward to formthe southwesternentrance to the ARGUMENT OF MR. LEGAULT 53
A showsthat a line al that distance from the coast, from the coast of Maine, and
in that kind of spatial juxtaposition with that same coast. was deemed to be
equitable by the Parties themselves; and by a necessaryimplication, was also
deemed to create no unacceptable encroachment on either Party. And what
confirms this point beyond any doubt is the southwesterly direction implied by
the alicnment of Point A with the international~b~ ~darv terminus..and ~he
fur1her"neccssar) implisaiion ihai the boundary helond ~:)int A will coniinue
on 3 consistent course. In short, the logic inhercni in the Spesinl Agreemeni itreli
i\ totallv incomoarible uiih ihe idea oia wroncf-l cul-of of the Iainecoasi hv
the canadian lke.
Mr. President. distinguished Judges, 1conclude that the fundamental United
States obiection to Canada's eauidistance line - that it culs off the seaward
extensionof the coast of aine- is unfounded. It is unfounded in the inner area
that liesclosest to the coast of Maine. And ilis unfounded, oforriori, in the area
of Georges Bank.
An interestinc uuestion arises here. Whv is it the United States and not
Canada ihai ha,'i,'keJ the Chnmher io suspéndihe opcrïtion oiihe principle of
non-encro~chnieni uiihin ihe Guliof Maine iisell? Why is ilihc Cniicd Sinies
and noi Canada ihai reeks io Jcprite one of ihr solisis of ihe beneiii oi ihc
nrinciole within this area? ~ecause.as 1 have said. that is the whole obiect and
kt~rsi'of ,lie new ihcory 01'primary snd sesondary conits. noihing more and
noihing lesi. The iniplicaiion isclenr.Ii iihe UniieJ Siaiesclaim. noi Caiiada's.
that violates the principle of non-encroachment.
And the Canadien claim is a proportionate one, as the United Statesclaim is
not. The Canadian claim takes account of the element of proportionaliiy in both
of the geographical sensesin which thejurisprudence has applied this concept.
The Anglo-French Continental Shelf award held that proportionality may
appear in the form of a ratio betweencoastal lengths and the maritime areas 10
be allotted to each Party. "But", as the Court stated,
"it may also appear, and more usually does, asa factor for determining the
reasonable or unreasonable - the equitable or ineauitable - elïects of
particular geographical features or configurations upon the course of an
equidisiance-line boundary" (para. 100).
And in the open-ended and indeterminate circumstances of the outer portion of
the Gulf of Maine area - which resembles in this respect the Atlantic region
in the 1977award - it is undoubtedlv this asoect of.oro.ortionalitv that is nri-
ni3rily rele\nnt Io ihc prcscnt carc. I'he Canadian claim. of course. ha$ been
speciiically consiru~le~ on the basir oiproporiion;ilii) in this senie of the term.
br eliminatinu the dis~ro~ortionïtc cffe:t ol'Cïiie Cod and Nantuckei unon the
course of theeouidisiance line.
~haithen ~<~ro~ortiiinïlii) 3sa mrticr of riiiius bçtu,eencoastal lengths 2nd
offshore areas1Prufessor Malinioppi uill be rcvieuing Ourposition on this p<,int
and on other tests of equity in depÏh. But the canadian pleadings have alceady
set out Our basic views. We have shown, 1 think conclusively, that Canada's
claim more than meetsany such tes1in the Gulf of Maine itself, wbere the area is
sufficiently defined to allow the test to be applied with a reasonable degree of
certaintv. We have exoressedreservations as to whether this aswt of orooor-
rion~lit; can be applird IO the upen-cnded indrierminïte circukriance; of ihc
ouicr area We haw shown ihat the incon<i\iency and the arbitrary characier of
the United States oro~ortionalitv models actuallv demonsrrarethesoundness of
Canada's reservat:ons. But at thésamelime, we haveshown that any reasonable
proportionality model applied to the outer area, or to the Gulf of Maine areaas54 GULF OF MAINE
a whole, confirms the equity of the Canadian claim, and by the same token
demonstrates as well the quite disproportionate nature of the United States
. .
claim.
So far, of course, 1 have ken speaking of the Canadian line in purely
geographical terms. And that indeed is the logical place to start, for the
Canadian line has been constructed on the basis of the coastal geoaraphy of the
relevant area. But ihc uther relevant circumsianse\ hsve iheir own-inSependent
importance. They are rele\ant sircumst3nces in their own nghi. and they
orovide confirminr -uii..rt for a Iineihat is ihe pr<idustof lepal rules applied on
ihe hasis of the relevant geography. And finaily, they provide a te<against
which the equity of the line can he measured.
Apart from physical geography, there are two categories of relevant circum-
stances on which we relv in suoo..t of the eauitable character of the Canadian
claim They are summlirized in iwo of the ihreî basic principles ihat I advanecd
at ihe beginning of this riatemcnl. One is ihc fishery oielistcrn Georges Hdnk
and ils &ono&c importance to the coastal communities of southwest Nova
Scotia. The other is the conduct of the Parties and the indicia of equity so
provided.
1have already dealt with the legal basis for Ourreliance on the Georges Bank
fisheryas a relevant circumstance. And the Canadian pleadings have dealt with
the factual basis of Ourcontentions. My colleague, Mr. Binnie, willbe reviewing
the highlights of Ourevidence. 1shall only touch upon a few points here. What
this evidence shows, in the simplest possible terms, has a number of distinct
dimensions.
First, there is Canada's presence in the fishery of Georges Bank -a presence
whose importance was recognized in the conclusion of the 1979Agreement on
East Coast Fisherv Resources. Next. there is the suecialeconomic dependence of
souihucst Nova ~coiia on this fishcry - ldepend;ncç that is Isrgelyihc produci
of geographical forces And tinxlly,a<a soroll3ry of the la51con\idrr3tion. ihere
is the uucsiion of the rclati\.edearee ointpurr ihat ihe bound~ry could hate on
theecOnomiclife of each ~arty.-
We have demonstrated that the Canadian claim would respect the stahility of
existing situations of fact to the greatest extent possible under the 200-mile
régime.Byleaving over half of Georges Bank to the United States the Canadian
line would minimize disturbance to the existing fisheries of that Party. The
United States line, on the other hand, would wipe out Canada's fishery on the
Bank; it would severelydamage the fishing industry of southwest Nova Scotia,
and with it the entire economic fabric of that reeion. Yet even so.it would secure
marginal benciit\ io the di\ersified econ~my oi New Enpland.
In sum. hlr. President, the Canadian Iine is consisicni uiih the rsiahlished
presence 2nd ihr ç.i:ihlished interests of both P~rticsin the fisher) resourîei of
Georges Hlink.And m(>reo\,cr.if the grciit disparii) in the ssonomicdependenie
of the P~riies on ihere rcsouriss uere full) taken inio account. the Canadian
claim would bealtogether too moderate.
The final consideration that confirms the eauitv of the Canadian claim liesin
the indicia ofcquit) protidcd by the condust i;ithe Pariici the e\idence. in
other uords. thlit iheir oun actions can pro\iJc of thç clcmçnis oian equiiablc
result.
Thejurisprudence recognizesthe relevance, and in fact the potentially decisive
importance, of the conduct of the Parties as one of the indicia of equity. In a
certain sense, this reflects an order of priority established hy the law itself. The
law of maritime boundaries looks first to the agreement of the Parties as a basis
of delimitation, both in Article 6 and in the delimitation provisions of the new ARGUMENT OF MR. LEGAULT 55
Law of the Sea Convention. And in a legalcontext where the agreement of the
Parties is given a privilegedstatus, the evidence of what the Parties themselves
have viewëd as euuitable takes on a snecial sienificance. Moreover. eauit~ ~ ~
inevitably has a subjective elemeiit, an ir;educible-element of appreciation and
~ud-ment. And there can be no better touchstone of equity than how the Parties
themselvesactuallv oerceived the issues in fact and lab. and what anoeared..o
thcm 10 be iair an~'re~sonahle, a\ the case devel<ipcJ.
Ths Fdcludland legdlelemenis of the ionduci of the Partir\ ih.11ue con3ider
important uill be discussed hy I'rofessors Boueil and Bro\inlir. WCrelt on the
hi&orvof this disnute both in-itsearlier nhases. whenthe continental ~h~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
uîs ai iswe. and ;n ils Iaier phases, uhk 11enconipassed the ofshore tiaher) a,
well The scqueiiceof c\cnts weccinsiderdecisivcuith respect to the coniinenidl
ihelf ha3 hecn lcft unconiradicted in 11scs\cntids The faci\ can be suniniari/ed
with a brevity that matches their basic simplicity:
- Canada publicly issued oil and gas permits on Georges Bank using the
equidistance method from 191%onward.
- These permits granted long-term, exclusive resource rights with respect to
specifictracts on Georges Bank.
- The United States had knowledge of these permits a1 the time they were
issued, and the permits were the subject of correspondence hetween the
Parties through hoth administrative and diplornatic channels.
- The United States no1 only failed to protest Canada's permits; it plainly
acquiesced in Canada's use of the equidistance method.
-
What ismore, even the limited evidentiary materials disclosedby the United
States in these proceedingsclearly indicate that the United States authorities
themselves were assuming a boundary hased on the equidistance method
during the crucial period - and even perhaps on a specific equidistance
line known as the so-called "BLM line" (Canadian Reply, pp. 85-105,
paras. 201-247).
Mr. President. the United States acquiescence inCanada's useof equidistance
during the 1960s.and its own assumption of an equidistance method, show that
the United Statesnot only accepted the equitable character of this method in the
Gulf of Maine area, but also recognized it as a proper application of a legal
principle.
The conduct of the Parties with respect Io the fisheries of Georges
Bank provides equally compelling evidence (Canadian Reply, pp. 105-137,
paras. 278-313).1have already discussedthe legalrelevanceof the 1979fisheries
agreement. Nothing is more central to the history of the dispute. Nothing
provides more unequivocal evidence of the real extent and importance of each
Party's interest in the fisheriesofGeorges Bank. Nothing showsmore eloquently
how the Parties viewedthe real equities at stake.
And the 1979fisheriesagreement is virtually a mirror-image of the Canadian
line.That agreement isdead, of course. It binds no-one today. But the corpusof
the agreement remains as eloquent evidence - incontrovertible evidence - of an
equitable result as seen by the severestjudges of them all: the Parties themselves.
For the Parties before the Court today are the same Parriesthat concluded the
1979agreement. The United States, of course, does its best to avoid this fact.
But, Mr. President, Canada did not negotiate and conclude the 1979fisheries
agreement with a third Party. The United States, of course, is entitled to change
its mind, but it is not entitled to split its legalpersonality or to excludeevidence
that it now considers unfavourable.
And so the record is clear on both sides of the ledger. The Canadian claim is56 GULF OF MAINE
consistent with ihr rights that have vestedthrough the conduct of the Parties in
relation IO the ~oniincntal shelf And IIrespectsthe indicia of equity shoun in a
pattern of conduct that has encompassed both the continental shelf and the
fishery of Georges Bank.
VIII. CONCLUSION
1have only a few more rernïrks IO rnïke by uay of conclu\ion. Ihope I have
beenable IO convince the Chamber thal the Canxdiïn Iine is no1only reasonable
and nronortionate but conservativeF . or this is the result one would~exnectfrom
r ~ - r ~ ~ ~~ ~~
the carefulapplication of a legal rule anchored in geography. The application of
a legally recognized method, of a general rule, has a built-in tendency to
modéraiion. ILhas this aualitv nreckelv becauseit is desiened to achieve an
objecti\ely equiiable resuit in the'broade;~ possible rang?of7 ~ircumstances- no1
to achicve a spectal result in a pïrticular sas?.
Equidistance ilself. to the extent that no .pisial circumslances intcrfere. hïs
an inhcrent property ofrquïlity. Onesannot readily ïpply a legal rule. or a le931
method. and expect IO come up uith an exireme clairn - ï claim that cïn be cul
bïck uithoui real sacrificein ordcr Io produce a rcsult that hasan ïppearance or
comoromise. It isclearlv othenvise wiih a claim that hasbeenniecedtoeether on
the hasisof a seriesof Eo-cailed principles. in\snted and co~bincd in-a special
way for thi~caw alone - no1for the orci,rnstonc.esuf this case.but for the United
Statesobjectivesin this case.
-~-~-~~~.t~ ~ r~~~~t caseis not iust a contest between a claim that is founded
in lawand one that is not so founded, though that is clearly the most important
noint. This is also a contest between a claim that has a built-in property of
moderation becauseit is based on the law, and a claim that, in Canada's
submission, is so excessiveand so arbitrary that it can only be described as a
"Split the dilierence" approach that has been carefully designed Io avoid
"splitting" Georges Bank.
Canada's approach is quite dilierent. For dividing Georges Bank is not
splitting the dilierence. It is a result that stems from the application of law,
whose equitable character has beenconfirmed by al1the relevant circumstances,
and es~eciallvbv the conduct of the Partiesthemselvesover a oeriod of 20vears.
~he'~artie; hite corneto this Great Hall of Jubticea$friends and litiganis At
the end of the= proceedings ne will leave as friends. wiih the Iitipation bchind
us. to return to the normalvattern of CO-ooerationin OUF sharedconcernsasco-
tenants of the North /\meRean Contineni For thir litigntion is simply a ripple
on the broad. untroubled strîarn of fncndly relations bctwcen Canada and the
United States. The r..ple vanishes. the strsam endures II hïs endured from
colonial times to the present, surviving every vicissitude, overcoming every
obstacle, and resolving every dispute. In the few caseswhere their interests have
made them opponents for some brief lime, the Parties have been vigorous in
unholdine their noint of view. Their shared leaal tradition makes them stout
adversaGs in théjudicial process.but ii":.,Omàkes them stüunch defenders oC
the rcsult of that process.The ripple bûnishes.the Streamendures
Mr. President, disiinguished Judges. 1th~nk you for your p3lience and your
courtesv throuehout th?slone statëment. And 1 should also like to thank mv
distingkshed oiponents on the other sidefor their patienceand courtesy asweli.
1 look forward with interest, with great interest, to hearing their views on the
matters 1 have raised.
The Chamberadjourned/rom 11.16o.m. IO 11.32a.m. ARGUMENTOF MR. HANKEY
DEPUTY-AGENT OP THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. HANKEY: Mr. President, distinguished Judges. It falls to me to address
the geographical circumstances relevant to the delimitation. Permit me first to
say that 1am deeply honoured by this opportunity to represent Canada before
the highest judicial organ of the international community.
INTRODUCTION
My presentation will he divided into four parts. 1will begin this morning by
defining the appropriate geographical framework. 1 shall then move on to
discuss the eeneral conf-euration of the coasts. After that.. .rooose to examine
the prescncc of incidental icaiurcs or special sircumstanic\. And finally. the
dc:isi\c geographiclil i,suc in this cüsc. the relaiionihip i)iGcorgcs Bank Io the
relc\ani çoïsts oi ihe Parties. This >tructurc iollous the order of the relc\,ani
geogr.iphicü1circumstance~ \ci oui in ihe d~spoirrr/oi the 7Lniq;u1.ih1.acïsc
(1 ('J Ri,pior/.19.92,p. 93, para 133Hj It responds to the logicÿltmpcratite of
fixingthe irlimeuurk and scïlc bciorc distingui\hina bciu.ccnthe eeneral and ihc
The first issuethat must be addressed then, is the definition of the appropriate
geographical framework. It is a deceptively simple, yet unfortunately divisive
issue. After all, the Special Agreement (1) itself names the region in which the
delimitation is to take place. It is the Gulf of Maine area.
Bv comoarison. the comoanion agreement sianed on the same dav was
cniiilcd th; Agreement <int.iit ~oïsikisher) ~e<uurces. But ihr ~hambcr has
no1 hcen aAcJ h) the Parties 10 drau a houndary on the c.iit colisi or on the
Ailaniic 5c:iboiird Thc Psrtrs havc dtrrvied the Court's ;ilteniion io the Gulf of
Maine area. In so doine. the Parties themselves have established the oarticular
geopraphiwl li.amcuorL'in tihich the rclcinni cirium\iïncci arc10be ~dentilied.
Ai the sanie tinic, the) havc sci ihr scxlearilinst which the Court mdy as\er\ the
relative imoortance ofoarticular eeoeraohkal features.their relationihio 10each
othcr. and'thcir prup&iionatc o;di;pr~pi)rtionair ctTeïtupon the deli~it~tiun.
Onc might re~sondblyexpcci that ihc gcographical irilnicuork ior the iÿc is
ihc one ideniiiicd in ihc Sr>eci;il4~reciiient. Thc L'nitedStliics hlemorial in Faci
admits that the Gulf of Maine a&a is "the 'relevant area' for determining the
relevant circumstances of this case"(II,United States Memorial, p. 3, para. 10;
p. 19, fn. 2; p. 169, para. 278; IV, United States Counter-Memorial. p. 13,
para. 16and fn. 2).
But this agreement is more apparent than real. For while the United States
pays lip-serviceto the area identified in the Special Agreement, its real view of
the geographical framework is disclosed in the first substantive sentence of ils
Memorial, which states that the Parties "have asked this Court to resolve a
dispute over the location of their maritime boundary of the east coart of North
America" (United States Memorial, p. 3, para. 6). This formulation stands in
sharp contrast with the corresponding sentence in the Canadian Memorial (1),
which reads: "The subject of this dispute is the course of the single maritime58 GULF OF MAINE
houndary dividing the continental shelf and fishing zones of Canada and the
United States in ihe Gulfof Moine area" (p. 9, para. 2).
And so, MI. President, the most fundamental geographical issue dividing the
Parties is identifiedat the heginning of the two Memonals. In essence, theUnired
Sroresresrsifscaseno1onrhegeographyofihe relevonrareo,butonrhegeography
ofrhe Norrh American Conrinenr.
The United States confirms this position when il sets out ils view of the
.rcle\ani gcographical cirsumstancesihsi musi betaken into awouni". Theseare
said IO hefirsr. ihcrranrconrincnra lurih-souih relïiionship of the 1u.o Srarev;
second. the noriheastcrn ircnd of ihc îasi coast 01'North Atirrrrn~:rhird. Ihe
reduction of Nova Scotia to a "orotrusion" on the eround that it ofends the
iranssoniinenial norih-souih rc~aiionshi~.and/ourrh.ïhe relegaiion ofihe N0t.a
Scoiian coast Io ",vzondary" siaius kause iiis ~3rd10 vtolur~Ihc norihca\iern
irend of the continenial coasi (UniicJ Siaics Memonal. PD. 3-4, para. II)
These same allegedly "relevant circumstances" reap&a;in the ~nited States
Suhmissions as "the relevant geographical circumstances in rhearea" (United
States Memoriai, pp. 213-214, Suhmissions, (B) (1) (a), (b), (d), and (e)).
"What area?: the Court mav ask. One would suooose the "relevant area". the
Gulf of ain né a rutat.e irst two circumstan&s the United States claims as
relevant are continental relationships, and the relevance of the third and fourth
circumstances depends upon thei; alleged deviation from these continental
. .-... ... ...
For the Cnited States, the definition of the relevant area is essentiaa/ormal
exercise, unrelared to the identification of the relevant ae--.aphical circum-
stances.~here is. none the less.a considerable measure of aereement hetween the
Parties as IO u,hai aciually consiiiuies ihe Gulf of Maine crca firsr,ihcy agree
thar ihe u,holc of the conca\,iiy behind a hypoiheiical slosing line from Cape
Sable IO Nantucket Island ioms pari of the relevant area Iemph3size rhcit,hi>lr
ojrhe sroureuhrltindrkr lusin Ii,r.hecause ihc Unitcd Siales. uhile admirting
ihai the Bay ol' Fundy Toms pari of the Gulf of .Vainc are0 (United Siaies
Mernorial, D.19.viir;i 25).denies ihaiii 15vari of ihr CiulfofM<tine(ihrd., p. 19,
fn. 2). ~owever.'numerous eeoeraohic and scientific works. as well as manv
officialUnited Siates puhlica~o~, ;pecifically include the ai of Fundy as pad
of the Gulf of Maine area (III, Canadian Counter-Memonal, p. 53, fn. 70).
In any case, the important point is not the largely semantic question as to
whether the Bay of Fundy can he distinguished geographically from the rest
of the Gulf, but rather the common position of the Parties that the Bay
of Fundy forms part of the relevant area. For the Gulf of Maine area clearly
extends heyond the limits of the geographical feature that is the Gulf of
Maine.
The Parties agree that the southern rim or sill of the Gulf, which lies here
bevond rhe closinnline of rhe Gulf (thai is, seowardof rhe Cape Sable ro
N~~ttiickrtrlo\i~il:litr.,iorms pari of ihe relei,ani arîï. Thcy albi>agree ihïi
some part of the coasis abuiting ihc Ailaniic ouiside the Gulf/orm> purt c~frhe
rclri(rnt(rre,T.he onl, issuedii,idina the Pariiïs on the dciiniiion of the Gulf of
Maine area is the extënr of the rele;ant coasts ahuttine the outer area
In ihc ah>rnce oi gcogr3phical fîïturci thai enclo\e i)r indicaie the Iimiis of
the ouicr arîa, oihcr criicria mïy hc use4 io deierniine the extenii>rthe rcle\ani
coasts. It is clear that these coasts mus1 he defined hy reference to the region
acruallv identified inthe Soecial Aereement. and that anv definition of the Gulf
of \laine area must iakc Asils po&r oj <Izpurrurc the fci;ture thai inconicsiahly
forms ils hîïrt - the Gi,l/oj~Afaincitsclj:Becausethe Gulf fornis ihe iixisof the
Gulfof Maine arc3. the coasis rrlt,irrIO the delimitaiion ouisidc ihe Gulfmusi ARGUMENT OF MR. HANKEY 59
extend a comparable distance on borh sidesof the entrance to the Gulf - that is,
northeast from Caoe Sable and southwest from Nantucket Island.
In the ahscnce i~inaiural gcographicil fcüiures scr\ing io indicütc the prt,<.t,t,
errenr of these outcrcoasts. Canada h3sideniified them h) reierenic tu the ports
thnt aciu311,exploit the fishew re;ourirs tif the <;ull'ofMüincand iiiiis scau~rd
rim. Manv of the most imnoriant norts fishingon Georees Bank are situated on
the coasts abutting the oiter are;. On the basis of th: criterion, the relevant
coasts extend from Lunenhurr. Nova Scotia, at least to Newport, Rhode Island
(Canadian Counter-~emoriax o. 29. vara. 66)
The United States objects tothe usi8f this cherion. ln arguments that willbe
rehutted hy my colleague, Mr. Binnie, the United States argues that economic
geographyis i;relrvani to the delimitation of economiczone;, that a pattern of
jîshery exploitation isirrelevanrto the delimitation ofjîshery zones. How, then,
does the United States define the Gulf of Maine area?
The United States says that the Gulf of Maine area is: "the coasts and
geographical features from Nantucket Island Io Cape Canso, on hoth sides of
the international boundary terminus ..." (United States Memonal, p. 19,
para. 25). It is not easy to understand why, on its southwestern side, the lateral
entent of the Gulfof Maine area should be co-terminus with the entrance point
of the Gulf itself- rhar is, Nantucket Island- while on ils northeastern side, the
limits ofthe area are said to be at Cape Canso, some 430kilometres northeast of
the limit of the Gulf. The United States, Mr. President, has yet 10 provide a
sinele word of exnlanation or iustification as to how it arrived at this aooarentlv
lo$ided dcfinitign of the (iii of hlaine dreü One cün unly assuméihat th;
uhjçcii\,eisto puih the rclciant arca n<irihcasi\vdrdrro thüi an) houndar! I)ing
at thceü\tcrn rnd dithe Gull'uill anricar io he in ihc miildlct>fihe relevant ürea.
As 1hü\,e:ilre;idy i~id.for the llniied States. the derinition of the rele\ant arca
seems 10 be üncsseniiall) forniül exerciseth31has ;IIkjt 3 niarginal conncction
uith the relrsani rrorr~phis31 sir:umsi.inie. Whüi count, icirihs Ilnitcd Siaie\
is the so-called''bToadeeoeraohical relationshio" of the Iwocountries. hv which
itiiieins thcir contine~~l~rel;tionship. II deiiks this rel3iionship in simplisiic
tcrmi a. north-\iiuih, on the hüsis i)Iihe ea\t-uc\t direction iif the houndüry
u,e\i of thc Great I.akc5 un the uesicrn h~lf ul'the continent ~L'niicilStates
Memorial, p. Il. para. 20; p. 20,paras. 28-29; United States ~ounter-~emorial,
@ p. 14,para. 19; pp. 22-23, para. 29). But as you can see here in Figure 13, the
geographical situation on the eastern half of the continent is more complex.
More than 30 ver cent of the United States landmass. excludine Alaska. lies to
ihe nurih oi.p&ts oi~ün3da. Large arra, of Canada. including ;me 70Fr cent
ol'iis popul~ii<~nl.ieto the st~uihiif part\ i>l'iheI,'nitedStatr.. Wholr regi<)n\<ii
Canada~and the United States are alianed in an east-west. rather than a
north-south, juxi'iposition The u hole ofio~thcrn Ont~rio dnd Quebec. ~nclud-
in@the iities ul Toronto. Otiaua and Montreal. lie dircitly to the east oi'
Wisconsin dnd Michigan And rnore 10 ihe point, ihc maritime pro\iiiies lie
directly to the east ofthe New England statei.
Canada's approach to the relationship of the Parties is based on the actual
relationship of their coasts in the area to be delimited, not on the "broad
relationship" of the two States. In so far as the relationship of territories, as
opposed to coasts, may he relevant at all, it must be, as the United States itself
acknowledges "the general geographical relationship of the two States in the
area to be delimited" (V, United States Reply, p. 56, para. 85), or "the geo-
-.avhical balance between the Parties in the relevant area" (United States
hicmorial, p. 209,para 328) Hecüusethe Parties hdi,eügrced rhai the arcü to bc
delimited is not the North American Continent nor the wholeAtlantic seahoard,62 GULF OF MAINE
frsi, the macrogeographical framework;
second, the substitution of the notion of "direction" for the notion of "con-
figuration";
rhird. the orooosition that there is a leeal reauirement to determine a sinele -
general dire'ctionof the coasts throughout the relevant area;
fourth, the determination of the general direction of the coast of the continent,
and then the superimposition of this continental direction onto the geography
of the relevant area;
ffrli, the distinction between primary and secondary coasts on the hasis of their
alienment to this single continental direction, and
/inal&, the proposition ïhat where the extensions of these so-called pnmary and
secondary coasts overlap, the extensions of the primary coasts are to prevail,
at the expense of any extension of the secondary coast
The whole~ ~i-ed~States areume-t with resoect 10the relevant eeoeraohu . .
circumstanccr rcsis upon ihc reduciion of ihc aciuxl mnliguraiiun or the coasir
Io a h)puihetiral singledirection. xnd on the consequcntial disiinciion heiwccn
"orimaiv" and "szcondarv" coasts. Becauseneither of these notions isknown to
t~ ~~ ~ ~-~maritime delimitation. and hecause thev are eiven no iustification in
the United States pleadings, it is "ecessary carefull; to analyse thé~nited States
argument before turning 10 an examination of the actual configuration of the
cists in the relevant aria.
A. The False Hierurchy of Coasis
"The general configuration of the coasts of the Parties, as wellas the presence
oîany special or unusual features" (I.C.J. Reporrs 1969,p. 54,para. 101(d) (1).
disuosirif). was identified as the first of the factors to he taken into account by
ihc court in the Norrh St2u('~nrrtir,nrulShzlfc~scs 2nd ihc Tuni~td1-thiuc3\e, is
ucll3s h) the Court of Arhiiration in the Anglo-French c~sc The <'i>uri,.ind the
Court of Arbitration, saw a clear distinction between the aeneral confiauration
of the coasts and the oresence of incidental. .o.cial or uÏusual featuÏes. The
delimitation must respect the general configuration - the efïect of incidental,
special features may have to be discounted or abated where they would produce
a~resultinconsisteni with the eeneral coastal confieuration. andtherefore lead to
an unrcasonablr rc5ult(sec I?J Xt~porrs1969,pi. 49-51.paras 89.91 2nd 95).
Iiir significanr ihai in al1ihrcc judgmrnih jus1 ciicd. ihc >rmc icrminology
"gcncral confieuraiion oi ihc coilsis" is uscd The word "cunfigurîiion" reflrcij
théincontesta61e fact that, in nature, no single form is morenormal than any
other. In nature, coasts are frequently irregular, and have multiple forms and
shapes. No coastal configuration is, so to speak, geographically preferred.
In its pleadings, Canada has adhered to the tenninology found in the
jurisprudence. However, as far as 1 have been able to discover, apart from a
single reference to the North Seo Conrinenral Sheif Judgment (United States
Memorial, pp. 145-146,para. 259; see also p. 192,para. 310), the United States
pleadings never use the term "general configuration of the coasts". Everywhere,
the term is replaced hy the formulation "general direction of the coasts" (United
States Memorial, p. 3, para. Il; pp. 169-170,paras. 282-283; p. 170, fn. 7;
p. 174,para. 288; p. 179,paras. 301-302; p. 185,para. 304; p. 201, para. 315;
o. 209. Dara. 326: D.214. Submission C (1): United States Counter-Memorial.
p. 4. i&a. 7; p. ii, paras. 17 and 19; P.'I?; paras. 20-22; p. 18,fn. 2; p. 184;
para. 293; p. 193,paras. 301-302; p. 197.fn. 2; p. 198,para. 314; pp. 255-256,
para. 396; p. 261, fn. 1; p. 265, para. 410 (b); p. 267, para. 411; p. 271, ARGUMENT OF MR. HANKEY 63
Submission C (1); United States Reply, p.41. para. 64; p. 91, para. 156;p. 94,
para. 160; pp. 94-97, para. 162; p. 141, paras. 234-236; pp. 145-146,
paras. 246-250;p. 148,para. 256; p. 160,paras. 281-282and fn. 2; p. 164.para.
289; p. 167, Submission C (1)). This formulation also has its place in the
jurisprudence, but not as a substitute for the notion of general configuration.
For in the jurisprudence, it is clear that the general direction of any part of the
coastline is simply one aspect of its overall configuration.
In the North Sea Continental Sheifcases, the only reference to "the general
direction of the coasts" relates 10the method of calculatine their leneth for the
proportionÿliiy icsi (ICJ Rrpijrtr 1969. p. 52. para 98).-~hc use 2 the term
direction of ihc coarls in theTunisur Lihju case cledrlyimplics no prcsumpiion
that coastal configurations can generally be characterized as having a single
direction. On the contrary, the constant association of the term "general
direction" with the notion of a "major" or "radical" chongein the direction of
the coasts, is inconsistent with any legal requirement to determine a single
general direction of the coast for the whole of the relevant area.
MI. President, it is not difficultto discern why Ouropponents have seen fit to
abandon the word "configuration", that encompasses the complexity of the
forms found in nature, in favour of the word "direction", that reflectsthe perfect
symmetry of geometry.
For whilethe term "configuration" can describeany number of forms - linear,
rectangular, circular, semicircular, concave, convex,oval, and so on - the term
"direction" imoliesa o.relv.linear conceot. However. whencoasts form the sides
of 3 sernicircular or rcct3ngul;ir concavity. ihsre is neccs,ilrily an clenicnr of
oppo,iienrss ihat rcnders the Iinear concept clcarly inapplicnblc.This contrlists
'ith the situation where two coasts are aligned along a singlegeneral direction-
that is, along a straight line - and thus are necessarily in an adjacent rela-
tionship. By creating, so to speak, a linguistic presumption that coasts are
normally aligned along a single general direction, the United States seeks to
relegateto an inferior status al1coasts notso aligned, including, bydefinition, al1
coasts displaying any element of oppositeness.
The United States allegesthat the Canadian line ignores the concavity that is
the Gulf of Maine (United States Reply, p. 97, paras. 163, 164; see also ibid.,
p. 94, para. 161; United States Counter-Memonal. p. 183,para. 292; p. 262,
para. 407; p. 265, para. 410 (a); United States Memorial, p. 192,para. 310;
p. 209, para. 328). But, in fact, it is the United States line that ignores the
concavily. Indeed, the very purpose of the United States thesisisto eliminate the
vast concavity of the Gulf of Maine together with the extensive landmasses of
Nova Scotia and Massachusetts that form ils lateral wings.
As we have just seen, the first siep in the development of this new legal-
eeoeraohical thesisis the subtle. but sienificant. chanee the United States brines
ïo the ierminology used in thejurispr;dence; that is?he consistent substitution
of the phrase "general direction of the coast" for the conventional phrase
"generai configuration of the coasts".
The United States then argues that:
"Although it may be difficult in certain situations to define the general
direction of a particular coastline, the law has not hesitated to make such
dererminations." (United States Memorial, p. 169,para. 282.)
It is clear from the United States pleadings that it is referring here to the
determination of a sinale general direction of the coastline for the ivholeof the
relevani arca. The ~n~tc&Staici sites in support of ihis asscnion thc Grlsbo-
ilornuauilrd. ihc provisions for drauing siraighi basclinesin ihc 1958Terriiorial 64 GULF OF MAINE
SeaConvention and in the 1982Convention on the Law of the Sea, and, finally,
the Judgments of the Court in the North Sea Continental Sheifcases and in the
TunisialLibyacase (Ilnited States Memorial, pp. 169-170,para. 282).
What was involved in determining the general direction of the coasts in the
authorities just cited by the United States? First, the Grisbndnrna award. A
reproduction of the niap of the Grisbadarnaarea as shown in the United States
@ Memonal is depicted here in Figure 20. This Grisbadarna map covers an area
7.5 nautical miles by 10nautical miles. If we superimpose this map onto a map
of the Gulf of Maine area, we seethat the whole of the Grisbadarnaarbitration
area very nearly fils into Grand Manan Channel. So this is the micro-
-~o- n ~ ~ ~ -... ~. - ~ ~ ~Grishadarna Tribunal had in mind in determinine a
singlecoastal direction. It should he noted in passing that a perpendicular to the
eeneral direction of the coast in the Grisbadarna case was used only for
&terminine the boundarv whereit ~roceededseaward ofthe islands frineine the
coast. In the inner are;, between'those islands and the mainland coasc an
equidistance line was used.
The next authority cited hy the United States pleadings is the provision on
straight baselinesfound in the 1958and 1982Conventions Io which1have already
referred. There. the criterion of the general direction of the coasts is directly and
exclusivelyrelated to the requirement that the sea areas lying within straight
haselines"rnurt be sufiicientlvcloselvlinked to the land domain to be suhiect to
ihe rGgirneof intc'rndlu3iers". The notion of the gcnerdldirc:tion in ihis~.i)nie.;i
iiclearl) Iimitediu a singlehpcitic purpose. Moreo\,er.thr lcnpthofihe co~stline
io uhich the notion ma\ apply iialro se\crclv Iimitehy the \cr\ doctnnc oithe
straight haseline method. Thus, neither of these Conventions pÏovides even the
remotest support by way of analogy for the United States notion of a single
general direction of the coast for the Gulf of Maine area as a whole.
The next authority cited in the United States Memonal is the North Sea
Continental Sheif Judgment. The only time the term "general direction" was
used in that Judgmerit was in applying the proportionality test (I.C.J. Reports
1969,p. 52, para. 98). The Court stated that "one method" of measuring the
coast was drawine a "series" of straieht haselines on the relevant coasts. This
can hardly be intGpreted as authority'for the proposition that the coasts should
beartificially reduced to a single general direction. Moreover, the Court stated
ex~licitlv that the eeneral coitipiration of the North Sea coasts was oval or
semicirchar (l.~.~.-~e~orts 1<6;, p. 13,para. 3). It was this general configura-
tion that it considered to he legally relevant for determining an equitable
boundary. A circular configuration, far from having a singlegeneral direction, is
bv definition characterized hv a consrantlv chanpinedirection.
'l'he nerr stein ihccon,ir;ciion of ihe L'nited~t~tespr.ogrdphirdl-lcpdlthesis
is the deierminîtion i>fthe singlegeneral dircciion of the coasi ithii~aic The
United States Memorial states that:
"The eeneral direction of the coast in the relevant area, like the general
direction of the east coast of North America, is northeastward, hoth
within and beyond the Gulf of Maine." (United States Memonal, p. 170,
para. 283.)
1 respectfully refer the Court to pages 38 to 42 of the Canadian Counter-
Memorial, where the United States method for deteimining a single coastal
direction is analysed in detail. The important point is that the United States
methodology is ahsolutely dependent upon a continental scale and the super-
imposition of macrogeographical generalizations upon the actual geography of
the relevant area. All of the maps used by the United States to illustrate this sa-called general
185 direction extend either from Labrador Io Florida (United States Reply, Fig. 3)
O or, asshown here in a reproduction oFFigure 27 of the United States Memorial,
@ which isFigure 21 of the Canadian oral argument, from Newfoundland ta the
32 Carolinas (United States Memorial, Figs. 26and 27). The seriesof parallel lines
00 used bv the United States t~ ~~ ~ ~ ~e the euneral direction of the coast isnever
once shown on a map oiihc (iullof Maine .ire.i l'hai ihcre Iinrs hue nothing
uhaie\,cr io do uith thc rr'neralJircciion olihc co,irtsin ihc Ciuli<ilMaine 3re.1
can be demonstrÿted s;mply by showing them on a map of the area. It is
immediately apparent from Figure 22 that these linesdo not follow the coast at
all, but, on the contrary, run away from it.
The issue dividing the Parties is whether the general directionof the east coast
o~ ~o~th Ameriw. or the eeneral confi~~iration of thecoasts of the Gulf of Maine
area, is relevant to the ~ete~mi~iat~oo ~f the boundary in this case. The real
position of the United States is stated with masterful subtlety in its submissions.
There, it includes among the relevant circumstances to be-taken into account
"the general northeastern direction of the east coast of North America, bath
within the Gulf of Maine and seaward of the Gulf" (United States Reply,
o. 166.oara. B I Ibi). 1reoeat. "the northeastern direction of the east coast of
~orth~merirü. bi11huiihin the Ciulfof Mïinc and ccd\i3rd of ihe GulC.' So
according IO ihe Lniicd Siaie,, IIis nat the gener~1configuraiii~noiihe cassis of
the Gulf of Maine area thai 1s10 be taken in[<]dicouni. but ihe eenerïl dire~.tion
o~ ~ ~~ ~s~ coast of North America suoerimoosed onto the Guif of Maine area.
The next step in the construction of ihe ~hited States geographical thesis is ta
caterorize as "primary" coasts the coasts that run parallel ta the continentallv
determined general direction, aiid ta categorize as "secondary" coasts those
coasts that do not run parallel to that general direction. These tenns are first
introduced ta the literature of maritime jurisdiction in paragraph 11 of the
United States Memorial. There it is asserted that a relevant geographical
circumstance ta be taken into account is:
"the radical changes in the direction of the coastline of Canada creating ...
the short secondary Canadian coastline at a right angle to the east coast of
North America" (United States Memorial, pp. 3-4, para. 1I ;pp. 19-20,
paras. 26 and 29; also see p. 173,para. 287).
1reoeat. "at a nrht angle to the east coast of North America". Soit isclear that
the'onl; rationare for rhe categoriration of the coast of southwest Nova Scotia
as "secondary" is that it is not parallel Io the general direction of the east coast
of the continent.
The fifth and final step in the construction of the United States geographical-
legal thesis is ta establish the consequences for maritime delimitation of this
hierarchical categorization of coiists.The United States argues that because the
coast of southwest Nova Scotia allegedly"deviates from the broad geographical
relationship of the Parties" it "should not ... deprive the United States of the
extension of the primary coast lof Maine]" (United States Memorial, p. 191,
para. 309). For when the extensions of the sa-called primary and secondary
coasts overlao. the caste svstem of coasts reauires that the extension of the
primary soa\i musi prevaiiat the crpcn% oiihr sccondary codsr Indecd. the
L'nitedStïtcs ai one point goesso fdras Io suggsst thai Canada 1sno1ent~iled IO
snv continent~l shr'lfor tirhinr rane in the Gullof Maine. hui onl\ io a 12-niile
te&itonal sea (United States ~emorial. D. 179.oara. 302,.
If the ~ourt'had adopted an equivaleni approach in the'~unisia/lib~a case, it
would surely have concluded, on the basis of a macrogeographical perspective, 66 GULF OF MAINE
that the general direction of the north coast of Africa was east-west. And by
parity of reasoning, the whole of the coastline of Tunisia from Ras Ajdir to Cap
Bon ought to have been categorized as a "secondary coast" and allocated only a
territorial sea, since it clearly "deviates" from the east-west generaldirection of
the north coast of Africa.
This. Mr. President. is the United States viewof the coastal eeoeranhv and its
sonsequenccs ior delimitation. 1 hopr I h3i.e demonstraied~that none ilithe
pillars undcrl)iiig the CnitrJ Statcs sysien- ihc m3crogeographicltIfrarne\r'ork.
thc subsiitution ofthc notion oi<hrt~crioti orthc nuticinofn>n/iyurrrtion,and the
caste svstem of coasts - none of these finds anv,suo..rt in ieeal reasonine or
auihohty. For the purposc oia11 oi them 1%ro iubriitutc an arïilici31const~uci
ia~rgeugraphicïl fact. Hd\ing Ji.p<)\ed of ihis no\cl system. wecan non turn to
the nctusl contiguraiit)n of ihc codsts in the Gulf iiiMaine area.
B. The GerieralConfigurarion of the Coasrs of rhe Gulf ofMaine Area
The Parties are agreed that a fact of fundamental importance in this case is
that part of the area to be delimited lies inside a deep coastal concavity (see
Canadian Reply, p. 61, para. 154and fn. 62). The area of the concavity lying
seaward of the Bayof Fundy is twiceas wideas it is deep. It is also agreed that
part of the area to be delimited liesin the open waters of the Atlantic, outside the
concavity. Finally, the Parties are agreed that these inner and outer components
or sectors are divided by a hypothetical closing line betweenCape Sable and
Nantucket Island, as shown here in Figure 23 (United States Memorial, p. 19,
fn. 2; p. 173,para. 285; United States Counter-Mernorial, p. 13, fn. 2; p. 21,
@@ fn. 2; p. 22, fn. 1; p. 184,para. 294; Figs. 21, 36 and 38; United States Reply,
n. 119.nara. 204).
A. hoth Partie, have noted. the di\isi,)n oiihr. relci,ant area into tuo irciurs,
one Iyinguithin the terriidries oi the Pïrtics, and the iither e~tcndinp scauard
frorn their coastsinto the ocen waters of the Atlantic Ocean. evokes an analoav
to the delirnit~tion are3 in ihe Anglo-French Arhitraiion An csscnti;ilelerne%
oi the Cijuri of .Arbiir~tion'slegalanJ geographical reasoning \i3ithr Jr.lirniia-
tion of each area by reference to the coasts that actually abut the area in
question. In the TunisialLibyacase, the Court also divided the delimitation area
into two sectors, and drew the boundary in each sector by referenceto different
coasts.
The Parties have described the Gulf of Maine in several ways. Canada has
described it as anvil-shaped (Canadian Memorial, p. 21, para. 20). The United
States has depicted it variously as having a rectangular or semicircularconfigu-
@ ration, as for example in Figure 21 of the United States Counter-Memorial.
reoroduced here as Fieure 24 of the Canadian oral oroceedin~s. -
The rcïiippertiiining ti)concai,e coasts ha\ ing the general sonfiguraiion of a
circlr'ur semiiirclr.willnc~'esriiro\erlap and converge in ihe centre ur dus oi
the circleor semicircle.It is no1without interest that in an anzlogous situation in
the North Sea,the Court accepted that the natural prolongations of the abutting
coasts overlapped and converged. This conception of the coastal geography of
the North Sea and of the consequent convergence of the continental shelvesof
the littoral States at a central noint was illustrated in Fieure 21' of the German
Mernorial, distributed this making as Figure 25 of theeanadian oral proceed-
ings. Elaborating on this conception, Judge Bustamante y Rivero stated that
'I.C.J. Pleodings,NorrhSea ConiinenrolShel/. Vol. p. 85. ARGUMENT OF MR. HANKEV 67
such a conliguration. "dcmlinds that thcconcept oi'prolongïtion' headaptcd to
the cxigcniia uf the gcography". For
"ln this kindofsonfiguration. the nüturlil prolongation of the territory oi
cich Stlite. siariing from the shore. mobei inlissaward direction towdrds
the central area ofthe sea under consideration... The natural convergence
of the lateral delimitation linesof adjacent shelveshelonging to such seas in
fact precludes the possihility of givingto those lines parallel directions and,
in consequence, of obtaining shelves of a rectangular shape. This conver-
gencetherefore introduces a new factor, one whichthe necessityof avoiding
al1 overlapping or encroachment renders practically inevitable, i.e., the
progressive narrowing of the shelf as it approaches the central apex; the
shelf then takes on approximately the form of a trapezium or triangle ..."
(I.C.J. Reporrs 1969,p. 61, para. 6.)
These were the precise words of Judge Bustamante y Rivero.
He regarded this convergence as "an aspect of the principle of the natural
prolongation of the land territory". It is, infact, a necessaryconsequence of the
application of the fundamental principle of equality within the same order to a
@ particular coastal configuration. As shown earlier in Figure 21 of the United
States Counter-Memorial, distributed this morning as Figure 24 of the oral
proceedings, the application of the equidistance method to such a configuration
results in the division of the area into sectors, which are automatically
proportional to the length of the coasts forming the circumferenceof the circle.
Judge Bustamante y Rivero was of the view that the apexes of such converging
natural prolongations had to he determined by reference to a median point or
line betweenoppositecoasts, sincethe continental shelfof one State, and again 1
quote from his separate opinion, "must not be prolonged heyond the . ..apex of
the shelf of the opposite State" (p. 62, para. 6 (d)).
ln ils Counter-Memorial. ,~e~Un~ted Sta~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~d tbat in a eeoera~hical
situation such as the North Sea, where, "the continental shGv; if the
surrounding States tend to converge in the centre of the seabed, it is impossible
to accord ëach State the entire area in front of its coast". The ~nited States
pointed out that "the sector lines proposed by the Federal Republic were
intended to avoid the cut-off effect that would have been caused hy drawing
equidistant lines from the concave coast" (United States Counter-Memorial.
pp. 237-238,para. 385).It further noted that the negotiated houndanes "closely
approximate" the sector lines proposed by the Federal Repuhlic. The United
States thus recognizesfirsr that the Gulf of Maine area seaward of the Bay of
@ Fundy has a semicircular general configuration as shown in Figure 21 of the
United States Counter-Memorial, and second that in such a configuration the
continental shelves of the surrounding States tend to converge at the centre of
the semicircle,as shown in Figure 21 of the German pleadingswhich the United
States has specificallyapproved.
Returning to the Gulf of Miine area, the point where the apexes of the
converging maritime zones meet should be determined hy reference to the
median line between the o~oosite coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts.
@ Figurc 21 of the Uniicd ~tA;s Countcr-Mcmorial shows thai, in a semicirculïr
gulf the midpoint of the closing Iinc is approximatel) cquidistlint from al1ihc
surroundingcoasts. But the convergenceof the respectivezones al the midpoint
of the closine line is not de~endent uDonanv narticnlar method of delimitation.
Itis rather3s Judgc ~usta&ntc y Rivîro ph'it,'.anexigrnc) of gcogrüph)". In
such a soniigurition, radial liner [rom the coast to thc centre of thc icmicircle
divide the sea area in10sectors that are perfectly proportionate to the length of 68 GULF OF MAINE
the coasts forming ils circumference, as shown here in Figure 268. However, as
shown in Fieure 26C. a line such as the United Statesb..nd.rv orooosal drawn
perpendiîular 10 an alleged genedirectioof continentacoasts produces a
result incompatible with that indicated hy the general configuration of the
relevancoasts. Such a result would be necessdis~rouortionato the length
of the coasts abutting the concavity. As shown in Figure 26D, a line drain
perpendicular to the alleged generaldirection of the east coast of the continent,
as proposed by the United States, would allocate to the United States the sea
areas between the hlack and green lines that are naturally appurtenant to the
Canadian coasts abutting the Gulf of Maine.
The United States has also visualized the Gulf of Maine as having a
@ rectangular general configuration (United States Memorial, Fig;United
States Caunter-Memorial, Figs. 23, 24 and 25; United States Reply, Figs. 2, 3
@@ and 8). This conception of the Gulf is most clearly depicted in Figure 8B
IIIIN of the United States Reply whichwas distributed to the Court this morning as
O0 Figure 27 of the oral proceedings.
@ According 10this conception, the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts
form the lateral sidesof the rectangle whilethe coast of Maine forms its "bac!?.
Becausethe Gulf is twiceas wide as it is deep, this rectangle can be divided into
two squares, one on the eastern, and the other on the western side of the Gulf.
@ As shown in Figure 31 of the United States Memorial and Figure 23 of the
Counter-Memonal, distrihuted to the Court this morninr as Figure 28 of the
oral proceedings. the square on the eastern side of the Gilf is chiracterized by
an overlapping of the natural prolongations of the Canadian and United States
coastal fronts.
Theoptions for drawing a boundary in such a situation were clearlyset out by
the Court in theNorth Sea Contin<nlalSheycases. To use the words of the
Court:
"[Sluch a situation must beaccepted as a givenfact and resolvedeither by
an agreed, or failing that hy an equal division of the overlapping areas,
or by agreements for joint exploitat..." (I.C.JReports1969, p. 52,
para. 99.)
There hdsbccn no agrwd division or arrangemenli~rhc joint exploitation of
oierlapping zonesin theGulrof Maine arzd.Thuai 3ni,nimum. thisarra hcrc,
which even the United States recogiiizesas an area of overlapping extensions,
must be divided equally between the Parties. Where the area of overlap has
roughly the configuration of a square, and where the coasts of the Parties
fronting the area of overlap are aligned approximately at a right angle, the
appropriate method of dividing this area equally is by means of a diagonal line.
As shown in Figure 29 such a line divides the square into two equal triangles.
This partition of the eastern part of the Gulf in10two equal triangles is logical
and eiïects an equitable division of a concavity such as the Gulf of Maine. It is
obvious that a rectanguiar gulf, iwiïe as wide as it is deep, can be divided in10
two equal squares, and that these squares can be subdivided in10 two equal
triangles. The Gulf may then be regarded as comprised of four triangles, with
one triangle appertaining to each of the coasts forming the lateral sides of the
Gulf and two triangles appertaining to the longer coast at its hack. If the
dimensions of the rectangle are fixed hy reference to the agreed closing lineof
the Gulf, then the apexes of the four triangles will meet at the midpoint of the
closing line,as shown here in Figure 30A.
Figure 30 shows that the division of the part of the Gulf lying seaward of
the Bay of Fundy in10 four equal triangles divides il in a manner that is70 GULF OF MAINE
setts, 1 would simply note that after ignoring this relationship in its earlier
pleadings, the United States has acknowedged in ils Reply what can easily he
established hy a glance at the map, namely that the coasts of southwest Nova
Scotia and Massachusetts lie opposite each other (United States Reply, p. 112,
para. 194).
III. THBPRESENC OEF INCIDENTA SPECIAL FEATURES
AND THE NAIIIRE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, having addressed the general configura-
tion of the coast1 would now like10turn to the nature of specialcircumstances
and the oresence of incidental srnial features in the Gulf of Maine ares. In
particular, 1 propose 10 discuis Canada's contention that Cape Cod and
Nantucket constitute special circumstances, and also theUnited States coriten-
lion that Nova Scotia itself constitutes a special circumstance.
The Parties are in agreement that Article 6 of the Continental Shelf
Convention is binding on them and applicable in this case. The question of
special circumstances is consequently a matter of vital importance. For the
aoolicable law reauires the delimitation of the area on the basis of the median or
egkidistance line'unless special circumstances are found to be present. And
because Article 6is the particular expression of a general nom, the question of
specialcircumstancesisalso pertinent to a delimitation effectedunder customary
law.
A. ScaleandSize
Whilc ihcrc is no ton\rniiondl or judisidl definiiion of special cirîumstdnccs
ds such.il15 po,siblc Io JrJuce the mcaningi)Ithe terni from the juri\prudcncc
To use ihe uord. oiihe Court in the \',>rrSeiiConrr~irnrolSI~c~lfc~s ae,rcci~l
circumstance is an "unusual" or "incidental soecial feature" ~I.c.J. ~éoorts
1969, pp. 49-50, para. 91 and disposilifpp. 53-34,para. 101)-one that :pro-
duces results that appear on the face of them to be extraordinary, unnatural or
unreasonable" (D.23. Dara. 24)
The question'is addkessed in some detail in paragraph 89 of that ludgment,
where the key area is the progressivemagnificaiionor exaggeration of the effect
of a particular feature as the boundary extends seaward from the Coast,
producing unreasonahle results (I.C.JReports1969, p. 49, para. 89). The Court
of Arbitration in the Anglo-French case put it this way: "ln the case of lateral
boundaries the effect of any irregularity in the coastline is automatically
mae.. .ed..the-ereater the distance the houndarv extends from the shore". And it
wnt on IOsÿy ih~t this char~ïieristic of ihérquidi,tancc nicihod .'m;irks a
msierial diffcrenccbetwrcn a geographical siiuaiion of 'oppositcStÿies'and one
of 'adlasent Siaies"' (Decirion\.D 55. para. 87).It,ils0 Iinked the question of
"soec~alcircumstances" to oron<rtionafitv. statine that orooortional'itvwas "a
citerion to assess the di~t&tin'~effectsof particzar gesphical feaiures and
the extent of the resulting inequity" (Decisions, p. 117,oara. 250).
The notion of scecial~ircumstances therefore involves the exaeeeration or
»i<rgnrJlcarroof ihi eliciis of an incidental specililfcïturc. thcrchy producing a
disproportioiiaic and unrcÿsonablc resuli. This oïcurs most typicÿlly u,hcre a
boundary extends a great distance seawards from laterallv aligned or adiacent
coasts. althoueh il isnot confined 10such coasts.
~hus the notion of special circumstances necessarily involves questions of
scaleand of size.How can one determine whether the effectof a coastal feature is ARGU~CENTOF MR. HANKEY 71
exauuerated. or w~~ther it nroduces a disnronortionate result? Onlv. I submit.
by tïking in10ïcmunt the ;i?c ofihr fe3t;rc;n quç\iion and its rcl~1i<in\hipto
the gcncr~lconfiguration of the coï>ti, iogcthcr witli the e.dithc sca area
that uould he attributcd tu one Siate or to the oihcrïrcsult oithic fraturc's
effect upon an equidistance line.
In contending that Nova Scotia is a special circumstance, the United States
dismisses the reievance of scale and size.~ltareues that the issue is onlv one of
location (L'niicdSI~~CSepl). p. 107,fri 31.~Lording to thc Unitni ~itcs, the
Court of Arhitration in the Anglo-French case hd~edils dccisiuncuncerning the
pruner elfcci of the Chïnnel and the Scillylsles c~cl~sivclvupun their locütion,
without any regard to their size. Butthe Court of ~rbitrati;on;eferred to the size
of these features several times (I>ecisions,p. 90, para. 187; p. 92, para. 192;
pp. 94-95, para. 199; and p. 116, para. 248), and il clearly gave considerable
weight to this factor in determining the appropriate method of delimitation in
~~~....-~-~~~
In addressing the Canadian suhmission that Cape Cod and Nantucket Island
constitute specialcircumstances.the United States argues that "Cape Cod differs
from the other geographic features to whichCanada would have the Court make
a comparison" hecauseits sizeand population are larger than the ScillyIsles,the
Kerkennahs, or the Channel Islands (United States Counter-Memonal. p. 25,
fn.21.Sincethe United States believesthat the sizeof Cape Cod and Nantucket
1sla"d are legally relevant tu the question whether they constitute special
circumstances, it is difficuseeowhy the same consideration should not apply
to the question whether Nova Scotia constitutes a special circumstance.
Figure 31compares Nova Scotia to severalregions in Europe. It can be seenin
@ Figure 318 that the extent of the Nova Scotia landmass lying behind the coast
@ fronting the Gulf of Maine is equivalent to the breadth of the United Kingdom
from Cornwall in the Westto Kent and East Anelia in the east. The Court of
Arbitrdtion round thai the coast oiCornuall alok uas thccodsi rclc~antto thc
Jelimitation in the Atlxniis rcgion (Decisions. p 114, pïr3 243)I3ut3% ihr
Chamher cïn scc.the coaiial iront dnd Iïndmass of southuciNui3 Scotia that
Canada consideis to be relevaiit to the delimitation of the other area is
substantially greater than the coastal front and landmass of Cornwall. Yet the
Court of Arbitration gave full weight ta the Cornish coast in drawing an
eauidistance line boundaw in the Atlantic reeion.
'~i~urc31 C shous thai Ar extent of ihc Can.ddianco;ist bordcrine thc Gulf of
@ \laineiicquitalent 10ïn arca oinorthucstcrn Frdncc c\icnding irom Finistcrc
in the wcst to P;.rinthc cas1 'TheCourt of Arbiir~ti<inround thïi the ii~sts
relevant to the delimitation in the Atlantic region were essentially those of-
Finistère here,at the western end of the Britanny peninsula (Decisions, p. 116,
para. 248). But it can be seen that the coastal front and landmass of southwest
Nova Scotia are roughly equivalent to those of the whole of Britanny.
@ ,Figure 31C shows that the landmass of peninsular Nova Scotia is suhstan-
tially greater than that of Sardinia and Corsica combined, and that the land-
mass of southern Nova Scotia roughly approximates that of Sardinia.
Finally, in Figure 31F, wecan seethat the extent of the coast and landmass of
@ Nova Scotia is equivalent to that of the whole of southeastern ltaly from the
southern coast of Sicilyto the Aiiriatic coast of Apulia.
These comparisons demonstrate the great expanse of the Nova Scotian
landmass and the sweep of its relevant coasts. The Nova Scotian landmass
hacking its coastal front on the Ciulfof Maine is some 300 nautical miles deep.
This is surely not what the Court had in mind when it referred to "incidental,
special features" or tu coastal "irregulanties" that depart from the general72 GULF OF MAINE
coastal configuration. In the geographical framework of the Gulf of Maine area,
the area relevant to this delimitation. a fcature of this size actuallv defines the
general coastal configuration. In this framework, only features oi'an entirely
different order of magnitude - minor features - can be considered incidental to
the general geographical situation.
Mr. President. Canada ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ra~ed~ ~ ~ ~ wntten lea ad in that Cave
Cod and haniurkct lhnd consiitutr ipr~ial circum?tances Whox ficc1 upon <in
c~uidist3nce Iinc ha$to hc diisi,unied in crdcr to prinlucc an cquitahlr rc3uli in
thiscase. In response, the United States has advanced three arguments. First, the
United States has argued that Cape Cod and Nantucket played an important
role in the history of the United States dunng the 17th, 18th and 19thcenturies
(United States Counter-Memorial. o. 25. Dara. 34and fn. 3). This mav well he
irue, but it is difficultto seewhat riievance it has to specialcircumstances in the
delimitation of a modern 200-mile resource zone. Second, the United States
argues that Cape Cod and Nantucket are larger than features that have been
considered as special circumstances in the jurisprudence (ibid., p. 25, fn. 2).
Again, this is so. But how does it fit with the United States viewthat the issue of
special circumstances "is not one of size but of location and the effect upon an
equidistance line"? (United States Reply, p. 107, fn. 3). Those are the precise
words of the American pleadings. In particular, how does il fit with the United
States contention that Nova Scotia is a special circumstance, given that Nova
Scotia is some 38 limes larger than Cape Cod and Nantucket combined?
Third. the United States areues that Caoe Cod has less effect uoon an
cquidistance Iine than docs ihr %ovü Scotid I;cnin~ula(Cniicd States C~IU~IC~.
.Mcm<irial.p. 25,p3r;i. 34~ndfn 2).Again. ihis ma! ucll bc true, hui cs\eniially
irrelc\,ant l'or. as wilhc dcmonsirated b) m) collc~guc.Prulrss<ir Malinloppi.
ihc cikt of Caps Cod and N~ntuckct upiin ihc ica ared aitrihuicd to the Pdriics
undcr an cquidi\iancc dclimiiaiion ii approximately trn timcr rhc crlect of
wninsular Nova Scotia when the relative sizes of these features are taken into
account. For while oeninsular Nova Scotia attracts. at the exnense of the United
States, asea area eqiiivalent to just over 80 percent of its landmass, Cape Cod
and Nantucket attract, at the expense of Canada, a sea area almost 850percent
of their comhined landmass. ~hëse com~arisons show. 1submit. that it-is Cane
Cod and N.iniusker. and not Koi,a ~co'iia,thai haw J disproporiionais effist
upon ;dcliniitaii<inin the Gulf of Mmnï ;irr.a.It ir these fr.arurcs.and no1So\.r
Scotia. that constitute. in law. a soecial circumstance. or in the lansuase - -
cusioniary lam. "a circumrrancc creative oi incquiiy".
To bricfl) rcvieu Canada's poiiii<inon ihc gcographicÿl i,rucs addrcsscd ihu>
far, our views are as follows:
First, the appropnate geographical framework. Canada submits it is the Gulf
of Maine area.
Second ,he definition of the Gulf of Maine area - for the United States does
recognize forrnall~'at least that the Gulf of Maine area is the relevant area.
Canada defines that area on the basis that the Gulf of Maine forms its axis and
that the relevant coasts ahutting the outer area extend in a comparable distance
on hoih sides of the Gulf of Maine itself.
Third, the general configuration or general direction of the coasts. Both
Parties acknowledge that the coasts ahutting the Gulf of Maine seaward of the
Bay of Fundy may be visualized as having a semicircular or rectangular general
c~~ ~ ~ ~tion.
-
Fourih,with respect to the inner area, Canada submits that the maritime zones
appertaining to coasts with a general configuration such as that of the Gulf of ARGUMENT OF MR. HANKEY 73
Maine overlap and converge towards the centre, this centre king defined by
reference to the median line between the opposite coasts of Nova Scotia and
Massachusetts.
Finolly,Cape Cod and Nantucket are incidental special features that depart
from the general configuration of the coasts of the Gulf of Maine area. and that
produce a distorting eKect upon the course of an equidistance line. They
therefore constitute special circurnstances the disproportionate efiect of which
has to k eliminated in order to achieve an equitable result.
The Chumber rosear 1p.m FOURTH PUBLIC SITTING (4 IV 84, 10 am.)
Present: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
III. THEPRESENC EF INCIDENTA SPECIAL FEATURE SND THE NATURE OF
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANC (ESnt.)
B. The "Cur-Of" Eflecr
Mr. HANKEY: Mr. President. distinguished Judges, yesterday 1addressed
the issuesof the appropriate geographicarframeworkandihe general configura-
tion of the coasts, as well as the presence of incidental features or special
circumstances.
1 had the honour to draw to vour attention the formal agreement of the
Parties ilvat ths (iului Maine arca isthe relr\snt are:! for Jeteriiiining the
rele\ant cirsumsianic, in ihis aa\e. 1 alio hxd the honour Io point out thai
ihc P.rrtic.sJre aerecd lhal rhc Gulioi Xlaincxeiici>m~ri,cJoiii~i~,rclor, or
components, diiided hy a hypothetical closing line heiween Cape Sable and
Nantucket Island. We saw that the territories of the Parties ahutting the Gulf of
Maine area have an essentially east-west juxtaposition, and that their coasts
abutting the Gulf of Maine area seaward of the Bay of Fundy have a
semicircular or rectangular general configuration. Cape Cod and Nantucket
depart radically from the general coastal configuration, and have an effectupon
the equidistance line altogether disproportionate to their size and their links to
the area king delimited. It isequally evident that in the geographical framework
of the Gulf of Maine area, a feature of the sizeand importance of Nova Scotia
establishes the general configuration. But the United States specificallydenies
the relevance of size and scale to the question of special circumstances,
contending that the question is"exclusively one of location and the effectupon
an equidistance line".
The United States contention that Nova Scotia constitutes a special circum-
stance in spite of its substantial size and extensive coastline is apparently hased
on the viewthat Nova Scotia "cuts off" the Coastof Maine from sea areas that
properly appertain to il. Today 1shall hegin my presentation hy addressing the
United Statescontention concerning the "cut off effect. Then 1shall move on
to discuss the relationship of the outer area, and in particular of Georges Bank,
to the relevant coasts of the Parties.
In Canada's view, the United States argument concerning the alleged cut-off
effect of NOVAScotia is hased on a misinterpretation of the North Sea
ContinenralSheif cases, and in particular upon a misunderstanding of the
arguments and diagrams in the German pleadings in that case.
The phenomenon that the United States now calls the "cut-off" eiïect, where
an equidistance line swingsoutlaterally across a State's coastal front, was called
the "diversion" elïect in the German pleadings. It was the convergence of two
such lines hefore the coastal front of a third State situated hetween two other
States that the German pleadings and the Judgrnent - with one exception
(para. 44)- referred to as the "cut-off" effect.Where two States "cul off" a third
State from its full extension to the outer limits of continental shelf or economic
zone jurisdiction, that third State is now said to he "shelf-locked", or "zone-
locked". There is clearly no question of such a "cut-off" in the Gulf of Maine 76 GULF OF MAINE
that the diversion becomes gradually more and more pronounced and dispro-
portionate. This characteristic is easily demonstrated by enlarging the bottom
@ left-hand corner of the graph, shown here in Figure 33. This here then is the
5-mile headland. One can see that within this sauare-shaoed sea area the
equidistance lineeiïects an equal partition byividi& the square into two equal
triangles. Within this area, the relationship of the coasts is ~redominantly
opposite, but as you movc outside the square-shaped area, the kelalionship of
the coasts hecomes predominantly adjacent. And it is only here in the area
outside the square area that there exists the possibility of an unequal treatment
of the two coasts. Within the square area, on the other hand, the two coasts of
equal length are treated equally.
It should be noted that the other diagrams in the German pleadings
demonstrating the diversion eiïect al1included these essential characteristics of
distortion, progressive magnification, and disproportion. In every case, the
distance of thelateral diversion across the longer coastal front is suhstantially
greater than the seaward projection of the shorter convex coast. In the absence
of an oiïsetting convex feature on the coast of the second Stace, the lateral
diversion across ils coast continues indefinitelv. so tha~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~of the convex
coast is progressively magnifiedas the line exténdsseaward. But this magnifica-
tion only occurs where there is no oiïsetting convex feature on the coast of the
second State.
Thus. Mr. Presidciit.iiis the imbalance in ihr configuraiion of the tut) coasis
ihat cnables the firsi Siaie to obtain a dispraporiionaie elfeci froiiiçon\,cx
configuration. Where, however, there is a countervailingfeature on the coast of
6h the second State. as shown here in Fieure 32B. there is no imbalance. no
exaggeration, and no disproportion. ~or"then the'convex configuration on the
coast of the second State transforms into a three-sided concavity what would
otherwise be a two-sided. rieht-aneled indentation. Aeain. this can be seen more
clssrly iipart of ihe diagrni iscnLrgrd. Whcrc ihe c~nc3\iiy ictwiccas uide as
IIir dcep. the equidistance linc bisecis the angle fornicd hy thc conber coast of
the headlrind on the lefi and the coast ai the back of ihe concïviiv. And ius11as
passes through the mouth of the concavity, midway between théconvëx coasts
on either side, the line isdeflected straight out to sea by the convex coast on the
right-hand side of the concavity. The distance the equidistance line is diverted
laterallv in front of the coast al the back exactlv eauals the distance of the
projecGon seaward of the convex coast on the héadland on the left. The two
coasts of equal length are treated equally.1 submit there is no imbalance, no
progressive exaggeration, and no disproportion in the result.
The geographical situation represented in the Jaenicke graph, which isFigure
@ @ 32A, of whicb Figure 33A is the enlargement, bears no comparison with the
actual geographical situation in the Gulf of Maine area. Here in the Gulf
of Maine area the leneth of the Canadian coast abuttine the Gulf is almost
300 nautical milcs. mc&ured by a scries ofstraight Iine segmînis follouing ihr
markcdly concï\c coasi of the Ba) of Fundy. Moreo\er, ïs ihe Unitcd Siaiei
repeatedly emphasizes, the Nova Scotian coastal front al Cape Sable projects
over 100 nautical miles seaward of the coast at the back of the Gulf. This is
20 times the 5-nautical-mile projection seaward of the coast in the Jaenicke
graph.
In ordcr Io replisaic the geogrsphisal siiuation ~hownin ihr Jacnicke graph.
the United Statrscoast in ihc Gulf of Maine would have 10conilnue in ihe same
direction beyond Cape Elizabeih for a distance of some 2,000nauiical milcs IOa
point near Monterrey, Mexico. By the same token, in order to produce a
diversion eiïect in front of the United Statescoast equivalent to that depicted in ARGUMENT OF MR. HANKEY 77
the Jaenicke graph, the equidistance line would have to extend some 4,000
nautical miles seaward from the North American coast. The equidistance line
would then swing out laterally some 900 nautical miles in front of the United
States coast. In the final analysis the whole United States critique of the
Canadian line is absolutely dependent upon a macrogeographical framework
and scale, for only on a continental scale can Nova Scotia be reduced to the
proportion of an incidental headland.
Perhaps the most important dilierence between the laenicke graph and the
actual geographical situation in the Gulf of Maine area is the fact that the
concavity in the Jaenicke graph is two-sided. In other words, both the convex
coasts of Massachusetts and the concave Canadian coast on the Bay of Fundy
are absent from this diagram. If we correct the diagram hy adding a feature
@ representing the Massachusetts coast as shown here in Figure 33B, we see that
the equidistanceliiieis not disproportionately diverted outside the Gulf. As soon
as the line leaves the concavity, any possible diverting eliect that might have
ken caused outside the concavity is prevented or offset by the countervailing
effect of the convex coast on the right-band side of the concavity.
Mr. President. the ina..licabilitv of the "cut-off mode1to the Gulf of Maine
arra 1,demoniir;iied h) laying the Jdenicke gr~ph uver a map tiithe Gulf of
Maine 3rsa Figure 34shoas that ihc equidistan~.cIine produce\ nt, magnitisa-
lion or c\areeration in thc Gulf of Maine are4 In ihe clrstern half of the Gulf.
the eauidiznce line oasses in front of exactlv 101 nautical miles of United
~tater'coasi. B) cornpiri,un. ihe Iincpïsm in f;ont ofa Ihingconcÿvc Canadian
co~st measuring more IhJn 300 nlruiical miles alung a serici of straiyhi-linc
segments. It is aooarent that if anv coast is disadvania~ed bv the eauidistance
1ir;cilii the loné'aiidmarkedly conclr\c Canadian coa\-ion ihe Ikas'ofFundy
The equidiiiancc Iineis pre\.ented from pAs,ingin front of the colrstof Maine
that 3buts the vc~tcrn half of the G~li byihe cunvex coasi 01'Masrachusrits.
which deflects it straieht out to sea. ~he line in the outer area is rouehlv
perpcndisular io ihc ckng Iine of the Gulf.IOihe coa\is of Maine and Ne;
tlrunswick ai the back of the Gulf. and IO ihe average gencral direction of the
Ailaniic coasis of Nova Scoiia and Marvachuseits and Rhode I\llrnd on either
side of the Gulf.
Even if one were to ignore the Bay of Fundy and adopt the United States
approach of representing the Canadian coastal front by a single straight line of
100nautical miles from the international boundary terminus to Cape Sable. the
lengths of the two coastlines in front of which the equidistance line swingswould
be almost exactly equal, 101 nautical miles of the United States coast and 100
nautical miles of the Canadian coast. Thus. the essential characteristic of the
diversionelTeci- ihc magnificaiion or r~3~geralion of a co3slJi irrcgul~rity as
the Iine procecds sdaward - is nui present in the Gulf of .Mainearea. This is
hecause In the area outside the concavity, the equidistance line is not controlled
by the recessive or concave coast al the back of the Gulf, but rather by the
oppositecoasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts that actually ahut the area to
be delimited.
IV. THERGLATIONSH OFPGEORGEB SANK TO THE COASTS OF THE PARTIES
It is in this outer area, off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, that
Georges Bank is round. This brings me to the last issue 1 propose to address,
namely the relationship of Georges Bank to the relevant coasts. This is, of
course, the decisive geographical issue dividing the Parties, since Georges Bank
constitutes the realbject of the dispute. ARGUMENTOF MR. HANKEY 79
Mr. President, the Court has recently noted that:
"The geographic correlation between the coast and suhmerged areas off
the coast is the basis of the coaslal States lecal titl..The coast of each of
thc I'ariics,ilicreforc. ion.iiiuiethe riariing Iinefroni uhich one h:ir tu sci
oiii in orderIO dcir.riiiinchou, C.irihc uhmarine .irc:isiippertaining 10ush
of them extend in a seaward direction, as wellas in relation to neighbouring
States situated either in an adjacent or opposite position." (I.C.J. Reporis
1982,p. 61, paras. 73-74.)
Thus, as a necessary first step to the resolution of this dispute in accordance with
the applicable law, an answer miist be given to the question "To what parts of
the coastlines of the Parties does Georees Bank aooer..in?"
'fhc anrucrs prmiJcJ hy the P~rtiesio ihis qiicsiion could ncithc niorr zleir.
LUI and niorc diffcreni. Throurhuiii ihc courie oi ihc prcrciit dispuic <'anxIa
has ar~ued that the Bank aoo..ains to the coasts of souihwest Nova Scotia and
rouihc.isi hl;isç.i~husctt~.Ilurinp ihc Jiscussions and ncp<>ii.itioliCrumlY70in
1979,llie Uniicd Side> :irgusd illai ihc uholc t>i<ie<irgcr03nh n;i, ihc naiural
prolongation of Massachusetts. However, we now discover from the United
States Memorial that Georges Bank isno longer the natural prolongation of
Massachusetts, or of Nova Scotia,but has become instead the natural prolonga-
tion of Maine and New Hampshire. The result ofcourse isexactly the same - the
whole of the Bank goes Io the United States but the Iegaljustification and the
eeoeraohicai rationale are comoletelv different.
v Why has the United States abandoned its earlier position that Georges Bank
isaoourtenant to Massachusetts in favour ofits current position that the Bank is
ao~;rtenant to Maine? The answer is no1 hard to find. If there exists no
findamental discontinuity in the sea-bed ofthe region - a fact now admitted by
the United States; and if the geographical relationship between the coasts and
the area to he delimited constitutes ihe single most imoortant relevant circum-
\tanCs - ;iidci nuu.also ailmittcd hg the ~nncd Si:iic\: :;nd ~itheco.isis10 !ihich
GsdrgCs flarlk 15gc~~gr.iph~~.iiIlIl)~I~IC.J>rrIhc Oppostle.'o:<iloi N<>\...%(>11;1
and M;iss~:huscit~. thcn itI;~ll<iirIIlcüsi prinia idcic, th.11ihs deliiiiiiaiion oi
the outer area should follow a mïdian line. since the United States now admils
ihdi ii i\ ihs cti.isis. r;iih:r th.in whmarinc ic~iurcs. rh.ii niubi conira>lthe
dcliniitiiiionilohi.i<~u\l!h:is had 11)ih;ingc il>arguniciits. For iConc decepi..
ih.ir ihe hnk appertains io ihc coa,t of 313rs.ichuseiir. ihcrc i> ri<.'~iiiscii.ibl:
rwion iihv it.h<~uldnoi Jpperi'iin cqudlly ICIihcio.~si of No\:i S:c>iia.riiicï iht
Rdnk ij>itu:ttc.l olTand miJ\i.iy t>etuccnihc\c iuocu.ists. In ordcr Io ï\oid ihis
inejc:ip;ihlc onc cl us ionhe Cniicil Siaie, nom iontends ihxi Cicorge, Bank
aooeriains in its entiretv to the relativelv remote coasts at the back ofihe Gulf.
1;'support of this novil proposition, ihe United States has developed a new
doctrine of maritime delimitatioii- a doctrine based on macrogeography and
geopoliticsand upon a caste systemof primary and secondary coasts; a doctrine,
1mieht add. that hitherto has been unknown to either eeonr.ohv.. . . law.
TC , ;in:iili:<npoïiii<,n ihai Gcor~cs hnk Iipperialns io ilir co:iiir of F10\~3
Sciiti:~.ind h1:iss~~huieti~i\h~>cJun iiiorc s~~n\cnti<inas lorisider~iion In th.-
tirii nlaie, the i\hoIe of Gcorcci Bank - ihe iiholc oCGcorevr tkink - Iicscloscr
to NOvaScotia or to ~assaciusetts than any part of aineo o Nrew Hampshire.
This is clearly demonstrated in figures in the United States Counter-Memorial
@@ (Figs.22 and 28). Moreover, the whole of the area of the Bank under Canadian
claim is closer to Nova Scotia than to any part of Maine or of New Hampshire.
Now Canada's claim to the eastern part of Georges Bank does not rest
exclusively on its closer proximity IO Canada than to the United States. But 80 GULF OF MAINE
proximity does represent both the starting point and an important factor
underlying Canada's claim.
The United States rejection of Canada's claim is based on the view that
Canada:
"asks the Court to delimit a vast maritime area on the basis oftwo isolated.
protruding coastal points. ratheron the basis ofthe coasts themselves"
(V, United States Reply, p. 6, para. 9; see also II, United States Memorial,
p. 4, para. 15; p. 149, para. 268; p. 209, paras. 326 and 328; p. 210,
para. 329; United States Reply, p. 56,para. 85; p. 106,para. 185; p. 112,
para. 197; p. 146,para. 250).
But this assertiondemonstrably incorrcct. The whole of the area on Georges
Bank claimed by Canada is significantly closer to extensive stretches of
Canadian coastline and to substantial areas of the Canadian landmass than it is
10 the United States. Since the United States now claims that the whole of
Georges Bank appertains to the coast of Maine, Canada has prepared a simple
demonstration of the relative proximity of the disputed area on the Bank to the
coasts and landmass of Nova Scotia and Maine.
The,method used in this demonstration, as illustrated in Figure 37A, is the
@ extension of two arcs of circlesfrom points on diKerentparts of Georges Bank to
the nearest ooint on the coastal fronts of Nova Scotia and Maine resoectivelv.
Thc poinis on Gcorpr'sBank from which thc arcs Jre exiendcd 8rc th: p<iiniin
ihcdi~puied arcd of ihc Hdnkfurthesl from Canad~. ihe point on Georges Bank
nearesi to Canada; and a point midway between these tio points. ThGe points
have been labelled X. Y and Z.
Hecausc the purpose of the demonsiraiion is to te\t ihc contcnilon ihxt
claim1,h.ire<lonl) on isol~iedpoint, ;iproirudinp cùastlinc".
straight lines representing coastal fronts have been drawn aloiig the mainland
coasts of Nova Scotia and Maine, ignoring islands and promontories that
project seaward of these generalizedcoastal fronts. In order to avoid as much as
possible any dispute regarding the methodology of this demonstration, the
coastal fronts drawn along the Canadian coast are those used in the United
@) atates pleadings (United States Counter-Memorial, Figs. 24 and 25; United
States Reply, Figs. 2 and 3).The coastal front that represents the Maine coast is
@- - a straieht line from the international boundarv terminus to Caoe Elizabeth.
~he-first arc in each case touches the nearést point on the coastal front of
Nova Scotia, and the second arc always touches the nearest point wherever that
hamens to be on the coastal front of~aine. The coasts and land area between
théiwo arcs represent in each case the coast and landmass of Nova Scotia that
arecloser 10the point on the Bank from which the arcs have been extended than
are the coast or landmass of Maine. The distance between the two arcs, in each
case, represents the distance by which the point on the Bank is 10 the
coastal front of Nova Scotia than it is to the coastal front of Maine.
With the Court's permission, 1 would like now to examine the relative
relationship of Maine and Nova Scotia to PointX, the point where the
Canadian line intersects the 200-merrecontour on the seaward edge of Georges
@ Bank. As shown in Figure 378, this poin- the furthest point claimed by
Canada on the Bank -is some 43 nautical miles closer to the coastal front of
Nova Scotia than il is to the coastal front of Maine. The arc X2, which barely
touches the coastal frontof Maine, intersects the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia,
at Central Port Mouton, and the Gulf of Maine coast of Nova Scotia al
Saulnierville,wellto the northeast of Cape St. Marys at the southern entrance to
the Bay of Fundy. The land area of Nova Scotia that liescloser to this point on ARGUMENT OF MR. HANKEY 81
the Bank than any part of Maine comprises over 5,000 square kilometres. It is
almost one and one-half times the land area of Cornwall and the Scilly lsles
combined. The length of the Canadian coasial front that lies nearerto PointX
than does the coastal front of Maine measures 113 nautical,miles - this is a
coastal front measuredby straight line segments,the straight Iine segmentsthat
we found in the United Statespleadings to represent the Canadian coast. This
samecoastline measured along ils sinuosities is 342 nautical miles.
Now, 1 would like to examine the relative relationship of Nova Scotia and
zoa Maine to Point Y. As shown in Figure 37C, this point, ihat lies well within the
O area claimed by Canada on the Bank, is some 60 nautical miles closer 10 the
coastal front of Nova Scotia than it isIOthe coasial front of Maine. Arc YZ,
which just touches the coastal front of Maine, intersects the coastal front of
Nova Scotia at a point between Liverpool and Lunenburg, and il intersectsthe
Gulf of Maine coast of Nova Scotia near the headof St. Marys Bay.The areaof
Nova Scotia, shadedin red, that liescloser to PoiYtthan to any part of Maine,
comorises over 9.000 sauare kilometres. This area is considerably larger than
~or;ira iind equal io the landma\< of C>prus The Canadian c(~a.<iaflrhi ihat
liescloserIOPoint Y thiin dots ihecoiistal front of Malne. siretches 151nautical
miles measured alone two straight line seam-nts, or ifmeasured along its
sinuosities, 481nautical miles. -
Finally, the relative relationship of Canada and of the United States Io the
@ part of GeorgesBank known asthe "northeast peak". As shown in Figure 37D,
Point Z is 80 miles nearer to the coastal front of Nova Scotia than il is to the
co:i\ial irooi Maine. ,\rî %?.uhich harely toucher ihc rw,isi.~Ifroni oi \laini..
interseci, the Ailoniiccoarfroni of i\o\,a Scoi;itLunenburg. and the Culioi
hluineco.ist near ihs hcïd ol'ths Ann;ipoli\ Bï.in. ucll lu thesasi oiDiyRut
the part of Nova Scotia that liescloser io PoZ,tcloser10the northeasipeak of
the Bank than doesany part or Maine, comprisesover 13,000squarekilometres.
It is 25 per cent larger than the landmass of Lebanon. The length of the
Canadian coastal front that lies closer to the northeasi peak of Georges Bank
ihan any part of the coastal front of Maine, measures 182 nauiical miles, or,
if measured along its sinuosiiies, 590nautical miles. This, Mr. President, is
scarcelvan "isolated ooint".
In C'in.id3's subnii;siun ihc iairir~usi demonsir;ited are highly relIOathe
determination "u.iihin ihc rules" ofihc maritime boundary in iheGulFof Maine
xrea Thcv show conclusi\ely thîi. taken as a u,holc. thc dispuicd areï on
Georges Ëank is ~i~nificantiy closer 10 a substantial area of~the Canadian
landmassand to an extensivelength of the Canadian coastal front than il is to
the landmassor coasial froni of the United States.In other words, the disputed
areaon GeorgesBank is more proximale to Canada "in a generalsense"than il
is to the United States. Il is Canadian land. and not United States land. that
dominate\ ihe seao\cr the castern part of Gcorgcs Hank.
Whcn the Court rcjccted "thc id~aofabsolutc proximity" in ils Judpmcnt in
ihe Norrh .Se"C'onri,~,nrSl~clfcîscs.ilsiated thai "the noiion ofadlacency so
constantl2 emo,,~ed in continental shelf doctrine from the star1 onlv im~lies
proximity in a general sense"(I.C.J. Reports1969,p. 30, para. 42). ~eiauséthe
areaclaimed by Canada on Georges Bank is clearly more proximale 10Canada
than to the United States"in a generalsense",this areamus1be regarded,in fact
and law, as adjacent to Canada and no1to the United States.
In the courseof rejectingthe ides of an absolute or complete identity between
the notions of adjacencyandproxirnity the Court statedthat "local geographical
configurations may sometimescausea (point in the sea)to havea closerphysical
connection to the coast to which il is no1in fact closest" (I.C.J. Reports1969, 82 GULF OF MAINE
p. 30, para. 41). But that consideration cannot apply here. The United States
has made no claim that Georges Bank ismoreclosely linked in any way, whether
geologically, physiographically,iologically or economically to the coast of
Maine than it is to the coast of Nova Scotia. In fact, in arguments hased on
depth of water and so-calledecological régimesthat will be dealt with by my
colleague Maître Fortier this afternoon, the United States emphasizes the
separation hetween the coast of Maine and Georges Bank. For the Gulf of
Maine Basin, lying between Maine and the Bank, is both suhstantially deeper
and some four-and-a-half times wider than the Northeast Channel. And under
the United States sçheme of three so-called ecological régimes,the "ecological
régime"here in the Gulf of Maine Basin lieshetween and separates the coast of
Maine from the "ecological régime"on Georges Bank.
What of the human links between the coast of Maine and Georges Bank?
Current and historic fishing patterns support the geographical division of the
Gulf of Maine area into inner and outer sectors. These patterns also confirm the
indications of thephysical geography as to which parts of the coastline are
@ relevant to each sector. As shown here in Figure 38. almost 75 percent of the
total catch by value taken in the inner area is landed on the coasts of the
innermost part of the Gulf, that is to Sayon the coasts of the Bay of Fundy and
of Maine and New Hampshire. with some46 percent of the catch from the inner
area, from the Gulf itself, heing landed on the coasls of Maine and New
Hampshire - 46 per cent in ports in Maine and New Hampshire - and some
27 percent of the catch in the inner area king landed in Canadian ports on the
Bay of Fundy. By comparison, only 25 per cent of the catch from the inner
area is landed on the coastal wings of the Gulf, some 16 per cent in southwest
Nova Scotia, seaword of Cape St. Marys, and almost 10 per cent in ports
in Massachusetts and Rhode lsland on the United States coastal winil.
lhc comerse ritu~iion prciails in rcl<iiitiGci~rgïi Rank asdcmonrtr~tcd
@ hcrc in Figure 39. Hcre almos9U per ccni of the toial c.iich in tcrms of t1,ue
landcd in ihc iao coi~staluings of ihr Gulf. wiih s<~62 pcr scni of ihc toial
Georges Bank çitch - I am no1 rcicrring to ihc di\puir.d arrï: this is the toi;il
c3tch on Cicilrgc, Bank- king landed in ihc ports of southwest Noi.3 Scoti:i
(crcluii\c of porton the BAYof Fundvl and ,Ume 27 r>erscni in ihc norts of
~assachusett's and Rhode lsiand. ~ess-l'hanone half oi I per cent of ihe total
catch on Georges Bank is landed in ports on the coasts of Maine or New
Hampshire - less than one half of I per cent. In fact. one can harely discern in
this graph the catch that is landed in these remote coasts at the back of the Gulf.
The remainder of the Georges Bank catch, some 10 per cent, is landed in
Canadian ports on the lower reaches of the Bay of Fundy. mainly in Digby
County, Nova Scotia (V, Canadian Reply, pp. 56-57, paras. 142-143).
We submit that these facts constitute striking evidence of the practical
importance of proximity in determining land-sea links in the area. They show
that the coastal wings oftheGulf dominate Georges Bank and that Nova Scotia
is the land that doininates the sea over the part of Georges Bank claimed by
Canada.
As to hydrocarbon development, exploratory operations carried out under
United States authority on the western part of Georges Bank, described in the
United States Memorial (pp. 58-60, paras. 93-98), have been conducted from
bases on the Atlaiitic coasts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Detailed
studies by the United States authorities have concluded it highly unlikely that
onshore facilitiesfor oil and gas exploitation on Georges Bank would be located
in the state of Maine. On the contrary, such facilities will he located on the
coastal wings of the Gulf. on the coasts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island ARGUMENT OF MR. HANKEY 83
(Canadian Counter-Memorial. o. 33.oara. 75: oo. 65-66.oara. 161and fn. 107).
tlydroc~rbon dc\clopmcnt on ihe ~Aadian siA; oi ihe 6ank will bc conducicd
(rom thc porir oi'Shelhourne and Yarmouth. Agüin. ihesefaits ,hilu ili;~i ii ii
the coastal wines ofNova Scotiaand Massachuséttsthat dominate the seain the
Georges Bank area.
1 would now like to say a few words about the use of terminology and its
sirnificance to the issue before the Court. The United States case, in simole
le-rm>.I>h!scd on theargumcni ihat Georgcs Hank iiadjaceni or appurtenanito
ihe cna(1of Mainc. bccauie iiIics ..in froni oT" ihat co~si. In conimcnting upon
the rel3iionship bctivern "ihe idea of ahriiluie pruximiiy" and 'ihe rather \acue
and generaltehinology employed in the litera~iureon ihe subject", theCourt in
1969stated:
"ierms suchas'near', 'closeto its shores', 'oiïits coast', 'opposite', 'in front
of the coast', 'in the vicinity oi', 'neighbouring the coast', 'adjacent to',
'contiguous', etc."(I.C.J. Reporrr 1969,p. 30, para. 41).
are terms of a "somewhat imprecise character", and "capable of considerable
Ruiditv of meaninr". At the sametime, the Court siated that theseterms convev
a "reasonably cl& general idea" (p. 30, para. 41). It is obvious from ihe conte;
thai this "general idea" is simply that of an inierconnection or link between the
coast and olilyinr submarine areas. No sinale crilerion can have an absolute
value for assessini the relative strengih or irÏtensity of competing relationships
between a given marine area and diiïerent stretches of coastline. However,
the Court said that this "general idea" is "most freqiiently expressed" in the
term "adjacent ton, and that ildoesimply "proximiiy in a generalsense"(p. 30,
para. 41).
So, while thesevarious terms do imply a general notion of proximity, there is
no suggestion that they imply any particular relationship of alignment or
juxtaposition between the coast and submarine areas OR the coast. In other
words, 1 respectrully submit, the Court was no1 suggesiing that these terms
implied a perpendicular relationship between ihe coast and offlying submarine
areas. However. bv reoeatcd use of the ohrase "in front of the coast" and the
virtual exclusion oioticr tcrms suchas"close 10". "oiïits coast", "adjacent to"
and so on, the United States seeksto create an impression of perpendicularity
which is in no way conveyed by al1of theseterms taken together.
If thesevarious terms convey the "general idea" of some form of association
or link. one would expect to find theseierms usedin the generaland specialized
literature to describe the relationship between a given marine area and the
coastlines to which that area mieht be rerarded as aoourtenant or adiacent. In
particular, one would expect that_ if ~eir~es ~ank' is indeed adjacéntto. or
appurtenant 10, the coastsof Maine or New Hampshire, the land-sea relation-
ship would be deseribed in those terms. At the very least, one would expect to
find Georees Bank described as beine "in front oT" the coast of Maine.
~anadyhlri \carched oi,er 1.500p;blic;itions in Lain for Jn). siich rcfcicii~c.
A\ Cÿriis uc h3,c becnable io discorer. Gcorgcs Bünk had ncter hccndescrikd
in any published work by any geographer. scientist, government official or
journalist -for that matter by anyone- aslying "in front of the coasi of Maine"
until the filing of the United States Memorial in September 1982.Indeed, with
two exceptions, we havenot beenable to find any reference chatrelates Georges
Bank in anv terms. or in anv wav reorraohicallv. to the remotc coasts or
ierriti>ric\ of h1:iincor Ncu Ilanipshire Oneof ihc exceptions.in cigencr'il nork
on C M England urittcn b) 3 rcli-admiticd amiiteur hisiuri3n. dcsirihcs
(icorgcs Bank as iiuated "i~tf ihe Maine and Vasrachu~cttr coarir" (Henry t 84 GULF OF MAINE
Howe, Prologuero NPIVEngiond. New York, 1943, p. 10).The other describes
the Bank as lying "between Maine and Nova Scotia" (Ross D. Exkert, Tite
Enclosureof OceanResourcesE , conomics andIlle Laivof lheSeu,Stanford. 1979.
p. 99). Every other reference we have been able to find either relates Georges
Bank to one or both of the coasial wings of the Gulf, that is to the coasts of
Nova Scotia or Massachusetts, or else relates it more renerallv to the east coasi
of Canada or the coast of New England or the northëasternUnited States.
Mr. President, if one looks from Georges Bank to the coasts of Nova Scotia,
Massachusetts or Maine, or vice versa, there is no predetermined direction that
would attribute a maritime areaexclusively10one coast or the other. Ifa sailor
aboard a ship over Georges Bank were asked which coast was "in front" of his
vessel, he would certainly look to the coast that was nearest to him, and that
would be, depending on his precise location over the Bank, either over
Massachusetts or Nova Scoiia, but never Maine.
So much for the attempt to detach Georges Bank from where it has always
ken - "off" the coastal wings of the Gulf-and to relocate it "in front of" the
remote coasts ai the back of the Gulf.
Since ihc coasis of Nota Scoiiï and \IIhlassachuseiis and Khode Island arc
cenainly ihccoosis tu whichGcorgcs Uink i\ ïppunendni, ihc oppositcor ïdjazcnt
reb~iion>hiio,f ihcw cuasts. \is-&vis Ihcïrc:hedclimiicdon Georges R~nk.1sa
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rial to the delimitation. Canada has "oueht to shed somenew -ieht on
the question of theopposiie or adjacent relationshipof coasts vis-à-vis seaareas
lyinnoffor between themby subjectingthe relationshipto mathematical analysis.1
do iot Drowse to take un ihe lime ofthe Chamber now with further exolanation.
but I db r~spectfullydraw ils attention 10paragraphs 107to 113of thecanadian
Counter-Memonal where the analysisis set out in detail.
The United States has ignored the relationship between the coastal wings vis-
à-vis Georges Bank, preferring instead 10focus its attention on the relationship
of the coasts of Nova Scotia and Maine. The relationship between the Nova
Scotia and Maine coasts is doubtless pertinent to the delimitation within the
Gulf, but it cannot have any rclevance to a delimitation in the outer area, which
does not appertain to these remote coasts at the back of the Gulf. That is why
@ Fjgure 9 of the United States Reply, distributed 10the Chamber this morning as
Fieure 40 of the oral nroceedinas-.auite simnlv misses the ooint. Canada
akly\cd the rclaiionship bciucen ihr ouier ariï'and the colirialu,ingr in 11s
mdihemliiicd1anal)jis oi opporiicnch\ and ïdj~cenc). I'igurc Y of ihc Uniicd
Stïtçi Rrnlv tixss ihe Iimits of ihc zonc «foppuritcncss bvrcfcrcncIO the tuo
coastal iin-gs, but then measures the coastkea relationship from the more
distant coast at the back of the concavity (United States Reply, Fig. 9). This
approach either ignores or misunderstands the premises upon which the
Canadian model is based.
The United States claims that il has "modified" the Canadian model in order
to "represcnt a coastal concavity comparable to the geography of the Gulf of
Maine area". But while the width of the Gulf of Maine is twice ils dcpth - the
part of the Gulf of Maine seaward of the Bay of Fundy is twice as wide asilis
iao deep - the concavity in Figure 9 is three limes as wide as il is deep. This
O distortion has the elTeclof bringing the coast al the back of the concavity
relativelycloser to the outer area and represents yet anotherattempt to refashion
geography.
The United States argues that Canada's mathematical models
"seem to be designed to convince the Court of Arbitration in the Anglo-
French Arbitrdtion that il should overturn ils finding that the Atlantic ARGUMENTOF MR. HANKEY 85
region constituted an area that was off, rather than between,the coasts of
the Parties in that case" (United States Reply, p. 116.para. 200).
Mr. President, those models are not basedonly on mathematical logic: they are
based on common sense.Take the example of the Anglo-French Arbitration.
There. the Court of Arbitration recoenizeuthat the coastsof Great Bri~ai~ ~-d
Francesere iria p-rkcily opposiic siiuatinn $4,-5-\,isihc 'oniincnt:il shcli in be
dcliiiiiic~~insideth< Ch.inne1 In linding th.ii "irithe Ailanti~.rcgion the .itu;itiJn
<copr.iphi.'Jii) 1.;one of lu<> 13icr.ill) rcl:itcd coali\" iDccici,>ni. p 113.
par&. ?JI J.the Couri ol.Arhiir~tiiin surcly could nul h3ic inc:ini 1h;il assi)on sr
one crsijcs 3 h)potheiic;il Iinc at the niouih of ihe Channel bciriccn the
outermost points of Cornwall and Finistère, one moves immediately and
abruptly from a situation of perfect oppositenessto one of perfect adjacency. It
is clear that the Court of Arbitration had no such intention. What the Court
must havemeant was that the furiher one proceedsseawardsfrom the coast, the
more the element of adjacency predominates. Presumably there musc bc some
transition from a situaiion of oerfect oooos..en~ ~w~ ~in the Channel t- o~~ ~ ~
where the element oladja~ency'~redominates "a great distanceseawards" from
the coasts (Decisions, p. 113, para. 241). In part o' this transition zone the
element of oppositenessmust p;edominate.
That the Canadian model is fully consistentwith the reasoningof the Court of
Arbitration is demonstrated by the application of that model to the Western
@ Approaches. Figure 41 showsthai in the greater part of the Atlantic region, at a
great distanceseawardsfrom the i:oast - asthe Court of Arbitration put it - the
element of adjacency does indeed prçdominate.
The samereasoningapplies to the geographical situation in the Gulf of Maine
area. That the coastsof Nova Scotia and Massachusetts are perfectly opposite
vis-à-vis the area to be delimited within the Gulf is too obvious to require
explanaiion. That this relationship of perfect oppositeness should become a
relationship of perfect adiacencv the verv momentone crossesthe hv~othetica..
Cdpc ~ahlr in ~~niuckc~slosi~g Iinc &lie. h<iih log~ 2nd cornmon scnjr.
Thcre mus1hc a /<>neOCiransiti~n wherc the clcnienis oi i>ppojitcncsi and
adjacency are mixed. And, somewherewithin that zone or transition there must
be a point or line where the elcmeiit of oppositenessbecomesmore predominant
than the element of adjacency. The Canadian model simply usesmathematical
logic to determine the line or point along the continuum where the balanceshifts
@ between the elementsof oppositeiiess and those of adjacency. Figure 42 shows
that the relationship of the coasts vis-à-vis the area to be delimited is
predominantly opposite throughout inost of the Georges Bank area.
In concluding my prescntation, I respectfully requestthat in taking account of
the relevant geographical circumstances, the Chamber consider the following
nine points:
Firsr the relevant area for determining the relevant geographical and other
circ~ ~t~nces is the Gul-~of M~ine area:
~ ~.
Szrontl.ihc Gulf of h1:iinc :trc;i is compriscd of two seii<>rs an iiinrr are;!
consisting ulthe rholc of ihr conc~viiy Ixndward oiihc :igrced closing Iinc froin
Capr Sahlc IO Nitntuckei Islnnd. and an ouicr xrci including ihe sî~ward rim or
the Gulf and corrip;irablc lengths olioasilinï~ nhdtting the Ailnniic on eiiher
sideoithe Gulf. etiendinp io 1-uncnburg. Nii\a Sci>ii;i3n<l ;IIIea,i IO Ucs,p<iri.86 GULF OF MAINE
Third,the territories of the Parties abutting the Gulf of Maine area have an
essentially easi-west juxtaposition and are divided by a land boundary with an
essentiallynorth-souih direction;
Fourrl~,the coasts abutting the Gulf of Maine area seaward of the Bay of
Fundy have a semicircular or rectangular general configuration;
Fifrh,the maritime zones appertaining to the coasts of the Gulf overlap and
converge towards a point on a median line situated hetween the opposite coasts
of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts;
Sirrh,the only delimitation that would respect the geographical relationship
and equality of the coasts abutting the Gulf, and therefore prevent the cul-off of
any of them, would be one that permits the overlapping maritime zones of
Canada and the United States to extend up to this point of convergence;
Sevenrh, Georges Bank is "adjacent tomthe coasts to which it is geographic-
ally nearest and to which il ismost closelylinked by natural and human lies- the
coastal wings of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts that actually abut the outer
area; the eastcrn part of Georges Bank, the area under Canadian claim, is
geographically adjacent and most closely linked to the Coastof Nova Scotia;
Eighrh, the coastal wings of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts are in an
essentially symmetrical and predominantly opposite relationship with respect to
Georges Bank, a geographical situation that normally calls for the application of
the equidistance method; and
Finolly,Cape Cod and Nantucket Island are incidental, special features that
depart radically from the general configuration of the coasts of the Gulf of
Maine area and that produce a distorting efect upon the course of an
equidistance line; they thereforeconstitute specialcircumstances. the dispropor-
tionate effect of which has to be eliminated in order to achieve an equitable
result.88 GULF OF MAINE
grounds. 1willfirst of al1lis1the grounds which 1rely upon and 1willthen make
a number of submissions on each of them.
First, economic considerations are inherent in the legal nature and the legal
content of the 200-mileiurisdiction at issue in these proceedings. The fishervand
its economic importance to the populations of adjacent coasti are central io the
object and purpose of what is, for al1practical purposes, an exclusiveeconomic
zone.
Second. the economic resources of the Gulf of Maine area. both of the water
~~~lum2 nnd of the coniincn1;ilslielf. constiiuic the 3cIuirl whjccl-matlc~ 01'Ille
presciii dispute :~ndthe ruhject-matiir ui'a di,puis - ihc \Cr! thing 1h:it hai
hrourlit the P~rties hefore ihc Ch:imhcr c.inn<itb< hruslicd aside. cannot bc
ignorid, if the dclimitation is to respond in a realistic way to the real issues that
divide these two Parties.
Third, economic geography in the Gulf of Maine area cannot be divorced
from the physical geography. Economic activities in this part of the world are
shaped by physical gçography. They reflectit. The economic evidence willassist
theChamher to understand the real significance ofthe physical geography of the
Gulf of Maine area.
Fourth.the sin-le niaritirne boundarv should be drawn. as the Parties aeree. so
a* IO pr,>Jucc an cquitablc result And an iiiiport:int :i,pcct ,~i ihc "cquiiabls
rciult" on the f.icisoiihis caw isthe economic impact thdi ;iproposcd buiinJ;ir)
uould hiric on the e\isiine fishcr, anil on the cu3\iaI . .iriulati~IIIthe C;i.liof
Mainc area.
Fifrh, it is well established in international law that a special condition of
economic dependence of a coastal State on fishery resources in adjacent waters
may constitute a legally relevant circumstance within a framework of equitable
principles.
Sixth, and finally, it is equally well established that a boundary delimitation
should refrain as far as possible from modifying a state of things (such as an off-
shore fishery) "which actually exists and has existed for a long time"; particu-
larly where extensiveprivate interests are in question (J . .Scott,ed., TheHague
Court Reports, 1916,pp. 121, 130).
1propose now to deal in greater detail with each of these six grounds.
The firsl basis of legal relevance is undouhtedly the most important. The
object and the purpose of thejurisdiction over a 200-milezone controls its legal
content. And it is the legalcontent - the very concept of the 200-milezone itself
as understood in international law - which is the source, under customary law,
from which the rules and principles of the delimitation of the zone must be
derived, as the Court held in ils 1982Judgment in the TunisialLibya case (I.C.J.
Reports 1982,para. 36).
An analysis of the object and the purpose of the 200-milezone willprovide the
Chamber with an objective standard by which to judge the relevance and weight
of factual circumstances.
What, then, is the ohject and what is the purpose of thejurisdiction at issue in
this delimitation? The basic conceDtof the 200-milezone isof course economic -
IIi\ro<~icdin ihc rec\i@nirrdinicrcst oiço3slrll States In the niirrincrciourceolT
theirCWJSIS ItIS JISOgcographic It tics the economic interzris oi'a Siaie to iis
geographic reach. ~h~ main~feature of this zone. as now accepted in interna-
tional law, isto reserveto the coastal State the full henefitof the resources within
the zone up to the eatent of its harvesting capacity.
It is therefore, in my submission, inherent in the legal nature of the
jurisdictions which the Parties have asked the Chamher to delimit that the ARGUMENT OF MR. BINNIE 89
recognized economic interest of the coastal communities of the Parties -and 1
s~eaknow in oarticular of the coastal communities of Nova Scotia - in a fisherv
in an dred ddjilccnt IO thc~rco;xst1s J 1cg;ill)rclci..ini f:ictor in ihir dclimit.iti~~n.
cspeciall) u hen tlie Fisher).ts uliish thdi intcrcsi isrclatcd 1sIocaicdcl<iscr 1,)the
co,isis of Nw:i Sci>ti.ithan to .in, r>.irtof the i,id\t\.ii the Ilnitcd Sixles
1turn now to the second basis ofieeal relevance. The written nleadines make
IIclrar th.ii. so (tir4s C'an3Jaand thc Unitcd St;itcr iire coiicerncd. the iuhje~.t-
m.iitcr of the prcrciit proceedingr 1srcsaiirces - rewurzes first. 13rtand li~rcmoit
- the right tobenefit from the economic resources of the water column and the
sea-bed within the Gulf of Maine area and in particular the resources, as 1said,
of Georges Bank. To ignore this factor in the delimitation would be. as Judge
Jessup observed in the North Sea Continent01Shelfcases. to sufïer an "academic
detachment from realities" (1.C.J. Reports 1969,p. 27). The Special Agreement
(1) itself in the present case draws attention to the economic basis of the dispute
by asking the Chamher to draw the single maritime boundary "that divides the
continental shelf and fisheries zones" of the Parties. The importance of this
delimitation is not mere space -- there is ohviously no necessary connection
hetween the extent ofan areaand the extent of itsexploitable resources. What is
at issue, from Canada's point of view, is a known dependence on a known
resource. And the Court in the 1969Norih Sea Con~inen~aS lhe(f'decisionsheld
that such a situation should be taken into account in a delimitation. The
dispositfof the North Seo Conti~ienialShelfcases is emphatic on this point. 11
said that natural resources "so far as known or readily ascertainable" should be
taken into ~cc~ ~t lihid.. n. 54. oara. 100).
The third basis O? legal;ele;a;ice is that economic circumstances within the
Gulf of Mainearea reflectand complement the physical geography and cxplain
its true sienificance.Geoerau . .asvlaved an im~ortant iole~nihefisherv in the
Gulf of Maine area. By virtue of its'reiative proXimityand its relative wëalth in
fish in comparison with alternative ofïshore grounds, Georges Bank has
assumed a major importance in the entire region. It is no accident that the coasts
neares~ ~e-~~es Bank. southwest Nova Scotia and eastern Massachusetts. are
< . ~ ~ . ~ ~
tioiiicto ttieGc~rgcs B4iikti,hiiip dscii. Distancc rcprcwntr iimtind c~peiise 10
.iti,htng-h<idtc:ipi.itn. Ouing in p:irt Io 11sprii\tmii) .i\ucll I<Ithe Iick $11
~ltcrn~ii\c cmplo)mcnt <>pp.>rtuniilci.;~r 11%people. wuthac,t So\a Scoiia hxi
tr.iditi.inill) cnji>):il .id~:int.igcsoter c;isiern M.i,s;ichu~ettr in h:iriesiing thc
Fishiiig,graundsoii III:c3itern h.ili,>iCir.orgcsBank. aliisli isthe 3rcdin d~rputt.
Thc L nitcd Si4ic. rd,, c:<,nomic i.iii<~rdre tr.inritiiry .in4 cphcmcril. Il ir
difficult to understand this argument, Mr. President. hé econoÏnic advantages
of proximity, whatever they may be, willcontinue for so long as Georges Bank
and Nova Scotia remain where tliey arc - and they show no signs of moving.
The United States itself ackiiowlcdged the direct link between physical
geography and economic geography in its Memorial. It was there acknowledged
that the "location of the fishery resources has. in turn, shaped human activities
in the area" (II, United States Memorial, p. 27, para. 38). The attempt of the
United States to isolate Nova Scotia from Georges Bank does not, as the United
States pretends elsewherein its pleadings, fulfilsome geographical mandate. On
the contrary, it squarely contradicts the patterns of human activity which,as the
United States itselfobserved, have been shaped hy the resources within the area
this Chamher has heen asked to delimit. and which thc United States Govern-
ment itself recognized in the 1979fisheriesagreement. Economic factors in the
Gulf of Maine area are thus supportive of the conclusions to he drawn from the
physical geography. Economic factors do not contradict the result which
physical geography would otheru~isetend to favour.90 GULF OF MAINE
The fourth legal ground is no lessfundamental. The object of the delimitation
is an eauitable result within the law. considered in the lieht of al1the relevant
cir<umsi:inccs An imporidnl a,pr.ct urlhc "cquitablc rcsuli" in this cajc ij the
IIllpJCI th31 3 pruposed huundar). \iould h3tc on cua,ial summuniiics in ihc
Gulf 6)iMainc 3rr.J. lhc Chamhrr <\.il1 hatr. noiiccd ihai ihc Ilnitcd Siaie, in iis
pleadings is very solicitous about the ecology and well-beingof the fish. Yet it is
the people of these coastal communitieswho willbe affected bythe result of this
case, not the fish. The fish will be caught, or not, irrespective ofwhat Party gets
this or that area of Georges Bank. But, depending on where the Chamber draws
the line, to the extent that Canada is excluded from the Bank, whole communi-
ties of Nova Scotians will be irreparably damaged.
The United States concedes in its Memorial that the
"lateral delimitation of the 200-nautical-mile fishing zone should reflect
recognition of the relative interests of the coastal States in the living
resources off their coasts ..." (p. 121,para. 195).
It is true that the United States then attempts to limit the "evidence" ofthese
"relative interests" to a historic fishery which no longer exists. But a 19th-
centurv fishervcannot be broueht back to lifebv a 200-milezone. Massachusetts
is not how what it was 150yeak ago. The whoie concept of a 200-milezone is a
very recent innovation. And one that is specifically and solely designed as a
response to modern conditions and the anticipated needs of the future.
In any event the law requires a result based on equity, not history. The equity
of the present dispute is that in economic terms Nova Scotia's single most
important fishing ground is Georges Bank. The eastern limit of Georges Bank
lies within 90 miles of the Canadian coast. All of Georges Bank lies within the
200-mile zone. The United States effort to push the United States 200-mile
jurisdiction to within 26nautical milesof the Nova Scotia coast is tantamount to
a denial of the most fundamental, important, equitable consideration in this
entire case.
Almost 20 years ago Canada put forward a more realistic concept of wbat is
required to achieve ail equitable result - a linedrawn by reference to geography
but confirmed as equitable by its reasonable accommodation of the established
economic interests of the Parties. If the Chamber were to find, as Canada
contends, that the Canadian line permits the continuation, witb a minimum of
disruption, of the established fishing activities of the Parties, and respects to a
reasonable degree the economic dependence to the extent such dependence exists
of the coastal population, whether Canadian or American, while on the other
hand the United States line is designed to destroy the established fishing
activities of one of the Parties. and ignores the economic deoendence of a
Canadian province, then it must be clear-at least from the economic geography
perspective - that the Canadian line achievesan "equitable result" whereas the
United States line does not.
And that. in a nutshell. Mr. President. is how we would define the issue
between the Parties in relation to the req"irement of an equitable result as it
pertains to the fisheries.
The United States bas taken the position, in its oleadinns. that it would be a
novel and unorecedented thine fo; -his ~hamhe; to taEe note of economic ~ ~ ~ ~
iaiior. a. relc\,.tnicircumstanccs in a irimru.ork oicquiiahlc principlcs Hiit iliii
is nuiso. Intcrnitiunal irihunalr have gi\cn IùIIriTccito c<«ns>niicdcpcn<lcnce
in closelyrelated fieldsof i.risp.udence where. as here. the economic inierest has
its rootiin the relevant geography.
My fifth proposition, accordingly, as the Fisheries Jurisdicrion cases of 1974 ARGUMENTOF MR. RlNNlE 91
demonstrate, is that international law has already recognizedthat a condition of
econom~c d~~.ndence~ ~ ~ ~ ~rv resources in adiacent waters constitutes a
leglll) rele\,antcircun1,tancc ivithin ,tfr;imr.\iork of equii;ihlc principle\. Thcw
AÇCS did n.>tnfcoiir.;c in\olve the drlimitatiun ui., 200-milc~~<)nB c.ut the Cour1
did address the very issuesthat only a fewyears later ledto the acceptance of the
200-milezone within internatiorial law. And in the solution it prescrihed, the
Court expresslyliiikedits reasoning to theidea of "an equitablesolution derived
from the applicable law", whichthe Court had previouslyadopted in 1969in the
context of continental shelf delimitation (I.C.J. Reports 1974,p. 202, para. 69).
Its findings are therefore of very great interest in determining what "relevant
circumstances" should be taken into account, along with the geographical
factors, in achieving an equitahle result in the delimitation of a singlemaritime
boundary.
The factors recognized as relevant in the FisheriesJurisdictioncases included
what the Court referred to as the "special dependence" (I.C.J. Reports 1974,
pp. 191-192,para. 44) of a coastal population upon the living resources off its
Coast along with the economic dependence of "whole communities': (I.C.J.
Reports 1974,pp. 197.198,para. 58)on these same resources. Now the issuesin
the Fisheries Jurisdicrion cases auite obviouslv differ from those that arise
hcttieen t\i,ioppu,ite or 3d~3cctitSI.iIc~uithin :ihound;ir) :irc:i, ;is her: Rut
th:it diatincti<~doe. not aiTccithe h.t\ic quç~tiunofpr~nciple Thc Judgmentj in
1974quite clearlv show that an established economic deüendence upon fishery
resourkes has bien specifically recognized by the couri as a legaily relevait
consideration within a frameworkof equitable principles.And 1need hardly add
that the Court's findingsof 1974closely paralleled ils recognition of these same
economic interests in fisheryresources in the 1951Fisheriescase as an equitahle
consideration of legal importance.
The special interest of Canada in the Georges Bank fishery wasaccepted by
the United States over a period of many years within the International
Commissi~ ~for t~ ~ ~ ~hwe~t Atlantic Fisheries in settine catch allocations.
uhich iiot onl! tre:itcd C3n;iJd ara "co.i\txl Stdtr" in rel:~ti<~InIGeorges Hmk.
hut :ilm rcllcctcdrccoznitic>nol'thc <pcci~l\uInerdhilit\ niC.inaci-2'5~~'II!Iejjel
fleet whose offshore oierations were limited 10 fishing grounds in proxiinity to
the Canadian mainland.
There is no doubt on the evidence of this case, Mr. President, which 1 will
come to in a moment, that a condition of special dependence of coastal
communities in Canada on the fisbine erounds of Georees Bank does exist now
and did exist for many years prior ti&e present disp& It is equally clear on
the evidence, incontrast, that the United States is not now, nor has it ever been,
in a condition of "special econoinic dependence" on Georges Bank.
The sixth and final ground of legal relevance that 1 referred to in my
introductory list is the reluctance of the law to upset the stahility of established
situations of fact. It is my suhmission that a boundary delimitation should
avoid, as far as possible, modifying a state of things "which actually exists and
has existedfor a long time", particularly whereextensiveprivate interests are in
question.
This principle has received specificrecognition in the international jurispru-
dence on the law of fisheries.It was expressed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the
Grisbadarnocase in the followinl:words:
"in the law of nations, it isa well-establishednrincinle that il is necessarvto
refrain as far as possible from modifying theslate of things existing in fact
and for a long time; ... that principle has a very particular application92 GULF OF MAINE
when private interests are in question, which, once disregarded, cannot be
prcservcd in an effectivemanner even byany sacrificesofthe State, to which
those interested belong ..." (Wilson, The Hague Arbitrution Cases, 1915,
pp. 111, 129).
Now there is of course a disagreement between the Parties on the historical
duration of Canada's fishery on Georges Bank. But even accepting the United
States view of the matter, which of course we do not, the Canadian fishery on
Georges Bank goes back al substantial levels for more tban a generation of
fishermen. And that is clearly more than sufficient to satisfy the Grisbadarna
principle, in terms of historical stability, as it relates tu an established economic
dependence.
In the 1969 Norrh Sea ConrinenralShelf cases, Judge Jessup quoted with
approval the passage from the Grishadarna case which 1havejust read, and he
went on to consider how il might he applied in a contemporary framework in a
practical way. In discussing the principle, he noted that the FisheriesConvention
of 1964considered a period of only ten years as "habituai" exploitation (I.C.J.
Reports1969, p. 80). During the First and Second Conferences on the Law ofthe
Sea in 1958and 1960,recognition of so-called "historic rights" of non-coastal
fishingStates was based on a fishingpractice of only fiveyears - and this was the
base-period adoptedin the combined United States/Canadian proposal of 1960
(A/CONF.19/C.I./L. 10). And, what is even moreto the point for our purposes,
the 1979fisheriesagreement adopted a base-period of roughly 10 to 13years to
avoid, in the words of SpecialAmhassador Cutler of the United States, "a major
dislocation in the existing fishenes" (Heorings befire the Suhcommirteeon
Fisheriesand M'ildlifeCons~rvotion and rheEnvironmenr, House of Representa-
tives, 1979,p. 42).
The important principle of stability, Mr. President, as referred tu in the
Grisbadarna case in the context of fisheries,isvery relevant to the case before the
Chamber. The reference in the Grisbadarna award to "private interests" is
directly applicable tu the private fishing interests of Nova Scotia "which, once
disreearded". in the words of the Grisbadarna award. "cannot he oreserved in an
cik:ii\e manncr cvcn h) an). racrili~.c-.of ihc Si.itc Io uhich those intcrcstcd
hcloni.". '1hc ber! T.i:,?idcliniiting 3 hoiind;ir), oisoiiric, mcmr ihar ihcrc a.111
be ionie disrupiioii icithr. ii\hermcn ui h,ith i<iuniric,. Hui the C~n:idi:in Iinc
would preser;e the existing fishing of both Parties to the greatest extent
practicable. It would therefore contribute to the stability of economic relations
between our two countries.
1turn now to the question of what weight should be assigned tu the economic
evidence. What importance should economic factors he given in the final
balancing up of "relevant circumstances"? The Chamber will recall that
resterday morning the Agent for Canada referred tu two criteria. Firstlv. how
cliiscl! :ireihc p:irticiilar iticis;issosiaied iiith the ~hlcct~ndpurpose oithc leg.,l
jilri.;di~iio'iAnd çc.undl). hou. imp<>ri.int .irc>lcd.i thche f.1~15pla) in ihc
p:~rti:iil;irzircuriistnnccsoitlic i:irc'!On th!, îrpect ciithc dryunient the Lniled
States amears tu mistake a rule of evidence for a rule ofiaw. it looks at a
numhcr '<;iiIcliniii:iti.~nswhcre e:ononiic coniideratioii? did n,it ph! .i maj,ir
rolc, anil conicr!d.;:t> ::oiiclusiun uil;i\i. ih.ii cconumi; conrideraiions clnnoi
play a major role. But weight isa matter to be determined on the evidence in
each case. and as the Court said in the Norrh SeuContinentalShrlf~ ..~ude<~nt~ .
"The prohleiii <ilihc rclati\c \icii.ht io hc azcordcd
iliiïercni consideraiion,
n.iiur:ill! \arirr iriih ihc zircJm\iancc\ of ihe c9ic" (1 C'J R<yortr IYW, p 51.
para. 93). In the present case economic factors reflect the object and purpose of ARGUMENT OF MR. BtNNtE 93
the 200-milejurisdiction. The boundary line was born of geography, but in the
eyes of the Parties the major test of its equity will be economic. The division of
Georges Bank is the paramount concern, the factor that willdetermine the real
impact of the decision of the Chamber on the Parties. It is, as the Attorney-
General of Canada stated, the very heart of the whole dispute. It was al the
centre of the negotiations betwccn the Parties once the régime ofthe 200-mile
zone had emerged. 1 respectfully submit that economic considerations are
entitled to substantial weight inthe Chamber's consideration of the appropriate
delimitation in this case.
Having outlined in a summary way the nature of economic considerations
which inCanada's viewought to beconsidered "relevant", 1would liketo offer a
number of comments on the type of economic consideration which Canada
regards as wholly irrelevant.
In the first plac~.,Canada's submission that due regard ought to be paid to
Canada's established economic interests has nothing to do with notions of so-
called "equitable apportionment", Mr. President. Over the years, Canadian
fishermen have built up an active fishery over the whole of Georges Bank.
Canada now seeks to retain access to that portion of Georges Bank east of the
Canadian line, closer to Canada than to the United States. on which her
nationals have a special dependence. Canada does not seek a fishery that
Canadian fishermen do not already exploit. The issue in this respect is no1
"equitable apportionment", as the United States has attempted to suggest, but
the protection a State is entitled to expect from international law for major
existing fishing interests in geographically adjacent waters in respect of whichit
mav validlv assert a claim of title.
~ccond,'~anad;i's submisriotiï do no1 rcly ai a11un notions of "rclaiivc
national wcalth". On the sontrary. it1sCanada's vlcwthïi arguments bascd on
conditions extrancous IO the Gulf of Maine area are whollv immaterial. The
United States has made much of macroeconomic arguments, just as in ils
consideration of geography it has used continental scale macrogeographical
arguments, which my colleague Mr. Hankey rebutted yesterday and this
morning. The United States asks in ils written pleadings for special considera-
tion because of the allegedpoverty of its alternative fishinggrounds outside the
Gulf of Maine area (IV, United States Counter-Memorial. p. 216. para. 347).
Even if this claim wereaccurate. which it is not. it would be irrelevant. But
the resuli of ihesc macroesnnoniic arguments mliy be IO Ieavc an crroncous
imprçrsiun with the Chamber - which I would beremissil'l did not correct. The
United States 200-milc"exclusiven'onomic zonc", Mr. Presideni. cncompasïes
an area of more than two million square nautical miles, according to a White
House press release issuedin March 1983(Canadian Counter-Memonal, Anns.,
Vol. IV, p. 12).and the Comptroller-General of the United States noted in his
1976 Report to Congress that a fifth of al1 the world's fisheries resources lie
within exclusive United States jurisdiction (ibid., p. 115, para. 288). So the
United States argument in this respect fails on the facts as well as the Iaw.
The United States also claims in its pleadingsjurisdiction overGeorges Bank
on the basisthat its peopleconsume a good part of the fishthat are caught there.
Undoubtedly the United States offers an immense market for products of ail
kinds from fish to motor cars, tropical fruit to works of art, but the ability of
more than 220 millionpeople to eat a lot of fish has nothing whatsoever to,do
with the physical geography or the economic geography of the Gulf of Maine,
and it is a dangerous proposition in my submission to suggest, as the United
States does suggest (II, United States Memorial. p. 50, para. 82; V, United
States Reply, pp. 84-85,para. 144)that the ability to consume is itself a test of94 GULF OF MAINE
ownership of the thing consumed. It is quite true that relative national wealth is
reflected in relative national purchasing power, but neither should play anv part
. . . . ..
in maritime delimitation.
Up to this point my submissions have been largely directed to the fisheries
resources of the water column. But the Special Agreement also refers to a
division of the continental shelf: and thus votential hvdrocarhon resources. to
the cxtent these arc knoun, musi also bc takcn into considcr~tion.
The acti\,itics of the I'articr in relatiun Io the expluitation of the hydroiarbon
resources is an important element in the conduct of the Parties over the pas1
20 vears. and will be addressed in detail bv Professor Bowett and Professor
Brounlic For my purposcr il 1, ~uliicient ta notc that the h>drosarhon
rciourccs. Iikc thc importüni fishcr) rcsourccr, arc locür'd in ihr !iciniiy of
Gcorccs Hank Thc location of knoun continental rhcli rïsourccs is a relcbant
factor, as the Court pointed out in the 1982 TunisialLibya Judgment (I.C.J.
Reports 1982, pp. 77-78, para. 107).The United States Geological Survey has
acknowledged the undiscovered recoverahle hydrocarhon resources in the North
Atlantic Shelf area, which includes Georges Bank, to be about 4.44 million
million cuhic feet of gas and 890 million harrels of oil (1,Canadian Memorial,
pp. 48-49, para. 87). Some idea of the economic potential of these reserves is
givenby the fact that the 1979leasesale of oil and gas nghts by the United States
on ils own side of the Canadian line, and indeed on its own side of the
equidistance line used by the United States Bureau of Land Management,
fetched 816.5 million dollars. But, Mr. President. unlike the fishenes resources.
oil and gas uealth 15prospectite And potential. Fisheries resources arc prcscnt
and rd. No iswc ;iri\cs in conncction uith the continental ihcli ol cxisting
patterns of exploitlition. 'Io issueariscs of jpecial dc~cndcncc. Cndoubtcdlv. the
existence of oil and eas votential on the sl&es of Georees Bank is a sienificant
kt. but in m) submyssiona factor of Icsscricight in thkc procecdings;hün the
e~ploitation of the knoun fisher) resources Even if hydrocarhons are presïnt.
their economic sirnificance mav las1 10 10 20 vears.~~ronerl. .onserved. the
renewable fishery;esources mai last for ever.
II. A COMPAR~SO OFN THE RELEVANE TCONOMIC CIRCUMSTANCES
1would like 10turn now to a consideration of the precise economic linkages
between the coastal populations of the Parties and the fisheries resources of the
maritime area 10 be delimited, by companng the extent of the Canadian and
United States presence on the fishing grounds, the dependence, if any, of their
coastal communities on harvesting these resources, and the impact that loss of
access 10 the disputed area would have on the communities located on the
relevant geographic coasts.
A. Comparative Presence on Georges Bank
As 10comparative presence, Canada has been on Georges Bank for a long
lime, itspresence has grown as the fisheryhas developed, ils fishingeffort during
any reasonable definition of the "relevant penod" in the context of these
proceedinas has been extensive and continuous.
' Of couric. the Canüdian tishery hat varied through the yeÿrs. So hüs that of
the United States. Such vanations u,erc rccognizcd by the Court in the 1974
Fi.~herierJurivdicrion case as entirely to be cxpceied. Bui that Judgment also
sh0u.s thüt the rclcbant pcnod is the prriod leading up to the disputc and not
somc rcmotc historical fishcry of a hundrcd yeïrs ago ARGUMENT OF MR. BINNIE 95
In the modem period - the relevant period -the fishingactivities of Canada
and the United States have also fluctuated, but these fluctuations have been
within a ranee which inCanada's viewentitles hoth of the Parties to an oneoing
fishery on Georges Bank. The Canadian line satisfies this test of faimes: th:
United States line does not.
Within the period leading up to the dispute the selection of a relevant period
involvesa matter of iudement: firstlv. what leneth of time is lone enoueh to be
representative; secondl< what lengih of time Places before the~hakher the
factual dispute which the Chamber is being asked Io resolve.Canada's choice of
a ten-vear ~enod Dredatine the critical vear of 1979 satisfies both of these
rntcria. It c'oincidesuith the icn-!enr peri&dreferrïrl tiihy Judge Jtssup iithc
Nortli SCSC Uo~iritioiralShrlJc~sei and iihas iiiiporrant precdenti kiueen the
Psrties. When thc Inicrnational C~mmijsiun li~rthe iiorthwest Atlantic Fi,her-
ies introduced a system of quota allocations for its memhers in 1973,it used
what was called "long-run historical catch performance" for the purpose of
determining quota entitlements, and this was based on each party's harvestfrom
the fishery over the preceding ten years. This formula was accepted by al1
ICNAF members, including Canada and the United States. The appropriateness
of the 1969to 1978decade, proposed by Canada as the relevant penod for the
purpose of this deliinitation, isalsoconfirmed by the United States acceptance of
a similarperiod as the hasis for the calculation of many of the entitlements under
the 1979fisheriesagreement. The Comprehensive Environmental Impact State-
ment, prepared by the United States Government, in connection with Senate
ratification proceedings for the 1979 agreement, stated that the entitlements
therein preserved "histoncal fishingpatterns". The United States Chief Negotia-
tor, Amhassador Cutler, explained the percentage entitlements under the 1979
agreement Io the United States Senate on 15 April 1980, in response to a
question from Senator Muskie, as follows:
"Senator Muskie. On what basis were the percentages established? Mr.
Cutler. Thev were established in substantial part on the basis of the actual
fishenes that both countries were in. They were established in substantial
part on the basis of the historical record. The las1fiveyears preceding the
treaty were more or less, for most fisheries, most favourable to the
Canadians. The years back in the 1960era were most favourable to us.
Most of the nuibers came oui quitc close io the 13 )cars preccding the
nïgoti~iion uithe trcat). excrcpt ihttin the s~seof scnllopr u.e wercable to
achiew 3 subrtantial incre~se." (Heorinfr hrfiwe rhr ('un~mirr<~ o n t'orrffn
Relations, United States ~enate,l980, Cp. 45-46.)
Even the opponents of the 1979 treaty did not deny the magnitude of
Canada's interest in the Georges Bank fishery. The decision 10 brush aside
Canada's fisherv on Georees Bank did not occur 10 the United States until
rïlaiivel) recentiy. In 1980ïhc representaiivc of'the Amcrican t'isheric\ Defcnse
Committee. uhich u.a\ ihc major lobb) organi7üiion for Nesr Enpland tishing
intcrrsis opposcd Io ihc 1979 tishcrics 3greemeni. reicrrcd the Inited Stïtes
Scnate tu the long histor) of ti>hcry co-oprdiion betueïn Can3da 2nd the
(Jnittd S[3[cs - ireït) or no trciit)- in ihï f<~II~utng tcrms:
"Canada willinevitahly co-operate in setting limits because it hasjus1as
great an economic interest as the United States in preserving the fisheries
potential of the disputed zone. (Indeed, the total Canadian catch from the
disputed zone has a dollar value fivetimes greater than that of Amencan
fishermen.) (Hearings before the Commitfeeon Foreign Relations, United
States Senate, 15and 17April, 1980, p. 60.) ARGUMENT OF MR. BlNNlE 97
data are missing and the so-called statistical comparison is therefore inconiplete
and misleading.
The second matter of record is the "area of capture". In this connection 1
would also ask the Chamber to refer to the next era-.ic. Fieure 45 to the oral
pr<icrcdingi, iodiid in the Red I)o\iier, which prcsents ihc inform3iion shown
@ on tigure 23 tiithe C~nadian Mcmorial l'hc United Statcb bar chart includcs,
UD unril 1966.al1oi ICSAF Subarcd S.\\hich, as ihc Chdmhcr can sec. rdes 2s
ï;r s~~ihai thc Iaiiiudc of Hdliiniore. Mar)land, and (if uhich onl) 12kr cent
liesin ihc arcd in dispute For the period sincc 1967,the UniteJ Starcs hsr ch~rr
insludcs 311six jr~tistical unit, within SZc.of which. 3s the Chamhcr uill noie.
onlv Iwo-thirds relate to Georges Bank. and one-third. that is 5Zeeand 5Zeo. lie
cntircly ro the wcst Evçntaking the four units uhich in part covsr Gcorgcs H:ink
that is 5Zch. :j, cni and cn ihcrc 1s3.good dcdl ofthc ocem arca Io thc iodth
of George\ Bank \ihich liesentircl) in undi\puird United Siaies jurisdicrion. In
other uùrds, thcc.itchment arsa u\rJ in the L'niicdState,sh:irt goci far he)ond
@ thc arcd in dispute in rhesc prorc-e<lingj.Yct as 17igurc41 shows. the Canddian
catch ironi the whole olihcse foiir IC'NAt'siati~ticalunits in most ofihc \cm
between 196~ ~ ~ ~81exc~eded that of the United States
Third, the hasis of weight calculation. The canadian chart consistently uses
"round weight" for al1species, because that is the form in which the catch is
taken fromthe sea. ~he-United States has adopted an inconsistent approach
using "round weight" for al1 species except scallops, which is the major
Canadian crop. The United States includes scallops in a semi-processed form
called meat weight. In my submission, mixing non-processed weightsand semi-
processed weights in this wayis niisleading because, as the Chamber willreadily
appreciate, the processing operation not only subtracts weight but also adds
value, and value is not reflected anywhere in the United States presentation.
In Canada's submission, Figure 44 accurately portrays the fishingactivities of
@ hoth coasta~ ~-~~~~~o~er~the~whole of Georees Bank - ~n~ ~st~ess that Fieure 44
ijnot thc disputed portion. II1sthc uhol~of~corgc, Bank ani more 'for the
15ycdri leading up io ihe critical diiic ni 1979.and ior tuo )eJrs iificr that date,
to 2nd includini. 1981.1suhmit ihat thcre ir nothinc in Fieuur 44 in ius2,iv the
United tales cÏaim to the whole of Georges ~ank.-
The United States position iseven lessdefensihleif the Chamber were to look
at value instead of weight. For this purpose 1would ask the Chamber Io look a1
@ the next graphic - Figure 46 to the oral proceedings, which wasFigure 26 to the
Canadian Reply. In the previous graphic, based on weight, a pound of codfish
counted as much as a pound of lobster, even though the lobster is worth ten
times the price. Figure46comparesthe annual average value of total catches on
the whole of Georges Bank by Canada and the United States. In the left-hand
column, the 17-year period 1963-1981,the entire period for which adequate
statistics are available, Canada's share was 64 per cent in value on the whole
Bank and 76 percent in the disputed area. In the right-hand column, the IO-year
period 1969.1978, Canada harvested 73 per cent of the value of the total
combined catch of the Parties on the whole of the Bank and 84 per cent of the
value of the catch from the disniited nortion of the Bank.
Eten in ,hi ino,t reccni pcriod ior ;,hich statisrics are iii3ilahle (1978-19XIj.
notuiihstsnding illerçgulsior) v;.cuumpermiticd h) the L'nitcdSiaies, ti)u hich
1reierrcd a nionicni ai.,)and ihç o\crrishine bv United Sraio ~JJIS. C'~n:id~
harvested 59 per cent b; value of the catch-from the whole of the Bank and
72 per cent of the catch from the now disputed portion of Georges Bank (V,
Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II. Tables 23 and 27, pp. 52 and 55). So, Mr.
President, and distinguished Judges, throughout this entire period it is un-98 GULF OF MAINE
deniahle that Canada has maintained a major fishing presence across Georges
Bank.
But these statistics, supportive as they are of the Canadian claim, in fact
understate the Canadian presence because the statistical reporting system used
by Canada did not attribute to Georges Bank an appropnate share of the
offshore catches of the small vesse1fleet, which in moderate weather can and
does travel the approximately 90milesfrom the communities of southwest Nova
Scotia to the eastern portion of Georges Bank.
The question is - how much is enough? What level of fishing effort does a
State have to prove in order to retain accessto a major fishingground, 90 miles
off its coast, well within its 200-milezone, closer to it than to any other State?
Surely in this case, whatever standard of comparison is selected Canada has
more than met the burden of proof. During any plausible "relevant period"
Canada's fishingeffort not only equals that of the United States but exceedsit,
particularly on the eastern portion of Georges Bank. As United States Amhassa-
dor Cutler cautioned the United States Senate in 1980,in words of particular
cogency hefore this Chamher this morning:
"But one of the most important factors that would influence a court of
neutral judges . ..is that Canada has had a very important fishery in that
disputed area for more than 20 years." (Hearingsbeforethe Commirtecon
Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 1980,p. 25.)
The result of al1this evidence can he simply stated:
First,the Canadian fishing presence on Georges Bank is a major element of
the economic geography of the Gulf of Maine area that ought to be taken into
account hy the Chamher as a "relevant circumstance".
Second, at al1 relevant times Canada's catch in the disputed area has been
substantially greater than that of the United States.
Third, in economic terms, the Canadian claim represents considerably less
than its traditional catch on the whole of Georges Bank would justify, having
regard to the fact that the singlemaritime boundary proposed by Canada would
leave more than half of Georges Bank under undisputed United States
jurisdiction.
Fourth, the United States linedoes not even reflectits own version of the catch
statistics. hecause the effect of the United States line is~t~ ~ ~ ~ Canada with
nothing - zeropercentage - of a fisheryin whicheven the United States concedes
Canada has had a major interest for at least 20 years prior to the date of the
present dispute
In short, even putting the United States evidence at its highest, which is
certainly unjustified,the United States line bears no equitahle relationship to the
facts even as the United States has reoresented the facts to he.
I turn now. Ur. President, to the issie ofeconomis Jr~ndence The phgsical
and human gcograph) uf southwesi Noi.3Si~tia 15reminisceniof thc iunditions
that were befurc the Couri in the 1951 I.ishcrir.case. I uuote hriefl, from the
Nonvegian Counter-Memonal in that case:
"As with a consequence of the scarcity of tillable land, and also of the
coastal configuration, Nonvegians have soueht from time immemorial their
livelihood from maritime fishing and hunti&.
Fishing grounds off the coast have been at al1 times one of the rare
natural resources which Nonvay could offer to her population." (Nor-
wegian Counter-Memorial: I.C.J. Pleadings,Fisheries, Vol. 1,p. 219.) ARGUMENTOF MR. BlNNlE 99
In my submission that description applies virtually word for word to southwest
Nova Scotia.
Nova Scotia's dependenceon the sea isdetailed in the evidence presented by
Canada. The next graphic in the Red Dossieris Figure 47to theoral proceedings
- which wasFigure 2to the Canadian EconomicsAnnex.Thisgraphic illustrates
the distribution within Nova Scoiia of fishin-emol..ment - full-limeand oart-
lime. The longest bars represent the larges1concentrations of employed fibher-
men. As the Chamber will note, it is as if the province had been tilted on ils end
and the maioritv of fishermen went slidine over into the southwest corner.
closcsr to Geor&s Bank. It is eiiimîtcd ih; ohout 15 per ccnt of ihc labour
force in souihwest No\,a Scoiia uork in fish hJr\eriing and fish processing
Thcrc is,ofcourse. bnrioiion within the region. Fishingcmplo)mcni iias high as
25 psr ceni in Shclburnc county. That is locaied. ab the Chamhcr willnotice. in
the cxtrcmc souihwest of the province. the closesi landlall io the caitern portion
uiGrorces Bank Rclaied manufaciurine. indusines account for a further 5 pcr
cent. This, without even considering its Ïole in sustaining the broader economy,
including the dependence of businessesthat provide servicesand supplies 10the
fishing industry. fishing generates about 20 per cent or one-fifth of al1employ-
ment in southwest Nova Scotia (Canadian Memorial. Anns., Vol. IV. sec. 1.
Tahle A-X, p Y) IImighi hzuîcf~lto ihc Chdmber 1iput this 20 pcr cent figure
in the conicxi ofciiher cases which ha\e comc bcforc intcrn~tii~nalinhunüls It
may be compared to the situation in lceland where fishing and fish processing
account for about 15percent ofemployment. In Nomay the fishing industry
accounts for only 2 to 3 per cent of employment (ibid.,p. 81,paras. 173-174).
The evidence, Mr. President, demonstrates that the Georges Bank fishery
plays an indispensable role inthe fishingindustry of Nova Scotia generally.The
resources of Georges Bankmake possiblea levelof fishingactivity that supports
a higher level of services and infrastructure - by that 1 mean fish processing
plants, boat building, repair work and so on - than could othemise bejustified.
The incomes generated by Georges Bank are widelydistributed throughout the
coastal communities - incomes that would not be available from any other
source.
The evidence demonstrates that without Georges Bank il would not be
oractical 10 onerate laree se-men~ ~ ~~the offshore fleet. Reduced effort in the
hTshorr &ouid have wydcrepçrcussions Offshore caÏiher\ reprcscnt the main
source of supply for the region's major hsh plînis. There plani are often ihe
onlv huversof fish from the inshore fishcrmcn Wiihout offshore landines manv
ofihcs~plani\ uould cease io be cconomic Without Georges Bank, a lÿrgepari
of ihc offshore Reeiof southwest No\d Scoiia ulould beout of busine%,and the
fishine.industrv that remained would lack ils present cavacity to drive the
regional econoiny. . -
In 1978, in the entire province of Nova Scotia, for every three dollars' worth
of fishlanded, one dollar's worth came from Georges Bank, making il the most
valuable fishing ground available to the province (Canadian Memorial, Anns.,
Vol. IV, sec.1,Table A-6, pp. 7and 205; Canadian Reply,Anns., Vol.II, Part 1,
Table 22, p. 51 and Table 23, p. 52). In that year, $58million worth of scallops
alone were landed from Georges Bank, the singlemost valuable cash crop in the
entire province. (Details of the Canadian fishery, by weightand value for that
year, are set out in Table A-6, Ann. 4 to the Canadian Memorial.) 1978was a
good year. But there were other good years. Over the ten-year period 1969to
1978, landings from Georges Bank represented over one-quarter of Nova
Scotian landings from al1sources of al1species(Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol.II,
Table 16.p. 457). 100 GULF OF MAINE
The Court has made it clear in previous cases, of course, that economic
dependence will he assessed in regional lems where the impact is concentrated
at the regional level. In the 1951 Fisheries case, the Court emphasized, as an
equitahle consideration, the importance of "economic interests peculiar to a
reeion" (I.C.J. Reoorts 1951. o. 1331.And in the 1974FisherierJurisdiclioncase.
th; court emphasized, as 'a decisive factor to he takeninto account, the
"economic dependence ... of whole communities ..." (I.C.J. Reports 1974,
p. 29, para. 66; pp. 197-198,para. 58).
The regional nature of the fisheryisevenmore apparent from the next graphic
@ in the Red Dossier - Figure 48to the oral proceedings, which wasFigure 1to the
Canadian Economics Annex. This graphic shows the distribution of the total
value of landines of fish in N~~~-~cotia in 1979.with southwes~ ~ ~ ~Scotia -
the coast closezto Georges Bank - leading the &ay.Aswas seenin the previous
graphic, over half of the Province'sfishery-relatedemployment is resident inthe
fivesouthwest counties. Eighty per cent of the Georges Ëank offshore fleet and
45 per cent of the inshore fleet land their catch in those five counties -
Lunenhurg, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth and Digby. Seventy percent of the
province's landings are made in that region. It must he obvious that loss of
access to Georges Bank would hit this coast - 190 nautical miles from
Lunenburg 10Dighy - very hard indeed. In 1978Georges Bank accounted for 41
per cent of the total weight of landings of al1species in the five southwestern
counties of Nova Scoiia (Canadian Re~lv.A.n,.. Vol.II. Table 17.D.461.It was
the Iargcsi and mtxi i,liluahlr.,inglr.~wnponcni in ih.11fi,hcr!
Hou.cJn ihc Ch'imbcr assers ihc siyniîicanse io No\r Sc,>ii;itiiihis "pcci31
çondiiion of c:onomic dcocndciicc" on Üeorgcr Bank! The Ed>nomic. Anncir
filed hy Canada contains'references to the standard indicators used hy econo-
mists for this purpose, supported hy detailed analysis. 1 would refer the
Chamher merely to two or three of the more important indicators.
Loss of access to Georges Bank would increase regional unemployment in
southwest Nova Scotia in the order of 50per cent. Such an increase would he of
major significanceanywhere, but its effects would he particularly serious in a
part of the world whichmus1earn its livelihoodby fishingif it is to continue to
su..ort itself.The iohs at risk reoresent 8 oer cent of the ~ot~ ~ ~ ~force of the
fiic iuuthwcsicrn rounric, (Canlidixn Keply. p 127,p3rn 295).
Thr ti5hingindusir" in soiiihacst Yo\a Scot12provides ihr hlrc on i\.hichthe
suoerstructure of the-economv is huilt. Indirect emolo.me,t is zenerated in al1
kinds of serticc industrirs such 3, reiail iiorc.. consiruciion irüdcs. services
whichcxier [Oihc pcoplc dirccil) cmplo)cd in ihe lisher). BL~the" wrr\icci)pc
jobs presuppose the existence of an economic hase to cbeatethe jobs to attract
the population to live in those communities. Every dollar of income earned on
Georges Bank works its way through the regional economy, from fisherman to
grocer to hanker to hoathuilder, multiplying its beneficialeffect as it goes. In
1980,which is the last year for which adequate statistics are availahle, Georges
Bank, directly and iodirectly, accounted for approximately 3.146million and if
this IOSwereconcentrated in southwest Nova Scotia it would represent a decline
of 17 per cent in the regional Gross Domestic Product (ibid., pp. 128-130,
para. 299).Byway ofcomparison, in the sameyear the iron and steelindustry in
the Federal Republic of Germany directly contributed only 2.6 per cent of the
Gross Domestic Product. Automobile production directly contrihuted only
2.3 percent of the Gross Domestic Product ofJapan. The wineindustry directly
contrihuted only 0.6 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product of France (ibid.,
r.131 fn. .~,.
The United States, on the other hand, has no significanteconomicdependence ARGUMENT OF MR. BINNIE 101
on the disputed area, whether viewedat the national, State or regional level.The
residents of Massachusetts, generally speaking, have more profitable things to
do than to fish for a livelihood. Even the temporary surge in United States
fishing effort on Georges Bank after 1978 did not represent any degree of
economic "dependence". On the contrary, United States experts stated in a 1980
studv that the increase was not due to anv ex,ans.on of the New Eneland fleet
but iu ï ..large influxaf ves\els" hum ihe sauthern Cniird Siatci andthat .'the
econoniic bcneliii ICIiïew England ucre minimal" (S.Sedge\iick, C. Collin, ïnd
S. Olien. Cumtnrr<i<iF l tslrinxFuc~~lrtihr~rJ, tn RhoJeI.~lu~i~ Clo~stal Kes~urccs
Centre, ~niversity of ~hde Island, referred 10 in the canadian Counfer-
Memorial, p. 106,fn. II (III)).
1would now askthe Chamber to turn to the next araohic in the Red Dossier,
(;8;) Fieure 49to the oral heannes. whichcomoares emalovment on~ortunities in the
prrmary and secondary sectors of souihwest Gova ~cotia;n the left-hand
column with those of eastern Massachusetts in the right-hand column. It does
not sueuust that the two economies are of comoarabie size - the economv of
eJstern Massachusc'iisisnicinylime\ Iargcr ihdn that of iouihwcst Kova S~.aiia -
but iigiici a prolile oi'thc uorkfor~c 2nd iiillustrltiesthc dcpth anJ di\,ersityof
ihc eL.on<)mo )reasiern h1;issachuictis. As the Chùmhcr willsec.in the primary
and secondary sectors, approximately 86 per cent of the people of-eastern
Massachusetts are employed in a variety of manufacturing activities, whereas
only 1.3 per cent is dependent on fishing and fish processing - which is seen
at the bottom of the column. Southwest Nova Scotia by contrast presents
an entirely difererit profile. Over 46 per cent of its jobs in these two sectors
are related to fishing. What this graphic illustrates is the exceptional degree to
which southwest Nova Scotia is fish-dependent and narrowly hased, and this
explains its specialvulnerability to injury ifit weredeprived of access10Georges
Bank.
The United States has in fact admitted that Georges Bank fishery generates
more jobs and more income in Nova Scotia than in Massachusetts (seeAnn. 4,
Vol. III, to the United States Counter-Memorial). But hecause of the major
diference in the size of the twc~economies, the relative contribution which
Georges Bank makes to each of the two regionsis more significant.With respect
to the regional economy of eastern Massachusetts, Georges Bank accounts for
0.08 per cent of employment (compared with 8 per cent in southwest Nova
Scotia) and 0.1 per cent of the eastern Massachusetts regional Gross Domestic
Product (compared with 17 per cent of the GDP of southwest Nova Scotia).
Maine and New Hampshire do not have a significant presenceon the Georges
Bank fishing grounds (Canadian Reply, p. 127, para. 295 and pp. 128-130,
para. 299), notwithstanding the theory presented by the United States that
Georees Bank somehow lies "in front of" the Maine Coast.The nercentaee of
~a1G.s catch irom ihc 3red dctuall) in di\pute i? practic3lly'non-c.xizent.
Fihemen irom Maine and iïrw Hampshire tend to concentrate on the inihorï
fishery - closer to home.
On this hranch of the case. 1 rasoectfull, sueu.st~t~ ~ ~ ~ Chamber need not
becomeprïi>ccupiedwiih u hiii m;i):appeïr to h: a b3ttlcof suiistics Ewn irthe
I:nited States contention regarding ihe si7cand i,ïlue ~iithe Cdriadian rihhing
effort in the disouted area were accurate. instead of heing a seri.us unde;
stdtenient, ihc linilrd States oun version 01the Tactsesidblishes thai iouihucst
hova Scoiiï 1sdependent on Georges Bank, and crriainl) more dependent than
i, heu. Ene-and ee-cr3llv. and ca>tïrn Mïssachuxtts in partiiular. on the drea
in dispute.
The United States in its written pleadings does no1 attempt to deny the 102 GULF OF MAINE
comparatively greater dependence of southwest Nova Scotia on Georges Bank.
But instead it oKers the irrelevant advice that Nova Scotians should turn their
enereies to other activities. What other activities. it mav be asked:~wh~t ~~.l ~ ~ ~
bringabout the economic miracle foreseen by the United States, and whydid the
economic miracle not happen before now? If counsel for the United States
persists in what must be reparded as a rather fanciful line of argument, 1would
be prepared, if permitted, to return to this aspect of the topic at the second stage
of these hearings.
B. Comparative Impaci of Loss ofAccess
Mr. President, I turn now to the comparative impact of the boundary
delimitation on eastern Massachusetts and southwest Nova Scot~ ~ I~ ~v ~ ~- ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
submission. no test of the "equity of the result" could disregard the impai
which lossof access to Georges Bank would have on the coastal communities of
the Gulf of Maine area. and in oarticular southwest Nova Scotia
Whilc thc oKshorc tlcct of si;uthur>t Novï Scoria is concentrated in eight
major ports. the smïll vesse1Reeti~scïttercd dong the souihu,est culsi in smïll,
"one-induîtry"communitics (Canadian Counter-Mzmonïl. pp 121-124).u hich
ollèr nu suh~t;intiïl emplo)rncnt opporiunitis> apïrt from tishing Nova Scot~a
hüs 19 ports uhich arc dependent for more ihan IUper ccni of their catch on
Gc<irgesHïnk, uhcreas Massïchusetis hÿs only three poris uhich fall inio thai
cateaorv - Boston. Gloucester and New Bedford - and ihese oorts are associated
with-urhïn xras th;it can absorb ihe loss of johs and incorne in the ctcnt that
ïny such loss is sustained, rhich is highly unlikely having regard Io the ample
fishing grounds which uould remain on Georges Bank within United Sutes
iurisdTcGon.Boston without Georges Bank scalioos would still look verv mu~h~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
iike Boston today. Saulnierville O; Lunenhurg wkhout Georges Bank scallops
would be a shadow of their present selves.The evidence before the Chamber is
that in Massachusetts the fishing industry is a relatively minor activity which
today is smaller. in comparison with the growing importance of other economic
sectors, than it was 20 years ago.
The Chamber should be left in no doubt that the fishinggrounds on Georges
Bank Westof the Canadian linecould sustain the New England Reet.Quite apart
from the statistical evidence, there is the striking testimony in the record, not
only of those in the United Stateswho supported Senate ratification of the 1979
fisheries agreement, but of those who opposed it on the basis that the 1979
agreement would produce about the same result, in fishing terms, as the final
boundary line proposed hy Canada. Of course, this is not surprising, because
both the 1979 agreement and the Canadian line were designed for the same
purpose: to respect the established fishingactivitiesofthe Parties. As counsel for
the American Fisheries Defense Committee told the United States Senate in
1980, in opposition to ratification:
"a very good case can be made, and statistics can he brought to bear to
indicate - that even if we lost the boundary and we had to fish Westof the
final boundarv line which Canada claimed. wemieht not do anv worse than
weuould do Gnderihe treaty and in some cases weuuuld cleÿriydo bcltcr"
(Ileurrngr hefi~re ihe Comn~irrevon Foreign Rrlatronc, United Siaie$Sendtc,
1980,p. 53).
It is thus apparent that those who op~osed the 1979 agreement did so not
because they intended merely to secure iheir established fisherybut because they
hoped that in these proceedings the United States would benefit beyond what ARGUMENTOF MR. BINNIE 103
they were entitled to, in the words of Ambassador Cutler, on the basis of the
"historical record".
In the result, the evidence before the Chamber on this point can be
summarized as follows:
Firsi. adoption of the Canadian line would leavethe United States ample
fishinggrouid, ,in Georges Hank io occup) ihc New England flrri and therefore
communities in the United Suie$ uill not be adwrscly .illecicinny stgnilicant
way if the Canadian line is adopted.
Second, in the unlikelyevent that there were any adverse effecton the United
States fishing effort, it would be minimal, and its effectswould be quickly and
easily absorbed in the regional economy of eastern Massachusetts.
Third, communities along the stretch of coastline 190 nautical miles long
between Lunenbure and Diebv would be seriouslvdamaeed bv adootion of the
line proposed by the unitel States, and there is DoproGecl (ha1sich damage
could be absorbed, in the shortrun or in the long run, by the regional economy
of southwest Nova Scotia
The result ofal1this was aptly summarized by a 1978study sponsored by the
Officeof the Geographer of the United States Department of State:
"Nova Scotia has more to lose, inthe short-nin, in the present boundary
dispute becauseit is more dependent upon the Georges Bank for its present
income. In principle, it is harder to have an accustomed resource taken
away than it is to lose a projected one." (Canadian Memorial, p. 61,
para. 119.)
In the longer term the State Department Geographer offered the prospect of
growth in the fisheryon both sidesof the boundary, a topic 1will return to in a
moment.
III. THE"EQUITABLE RESULT"
1 would now liketo address the requirement, recognizedby previous decisions
of the Court, to test the linesproposed by Canada and the United States against
the need to achieve "an equitable result".
Not only does the Canadian line leave to each Party that part of the Bank
whichis closerto it, but it balances the interests of the Parties by leavingto each
Party the fishing grounds most intensively used by its fishermen. The next
@ graphic in the Red Dossier is Figure 50 in the oral proceedings (Fig. 26 of the
Canadian Counter-Mernorial). It shows the distribution of the scallon fishinrr
effort of boih P;irtici in the 1~69.197~pcriod. The Ch~rnberuill noie ththe;
ir cvidcnce of a fishing sll'oriby boih countries on boih sides of the Canadian
Iine.whish appcars as a hlack Iincihrou~hGeorges Hank. But IIuill also he scen
that the canadian fishery, which is théuppe;of the two diagrams, is most
strongly positioned in the eastern portion of the Bank, whereas the Amcrican
effort is concentrated on the Amencan side of the proposed Canadian line. In
1978..3 D.rcent of the Canadian scallo~catch came from Georges -ank. The
important ihing ahout scalli>ps1,thai ihcy arc immobile - the adults ~ustlie in
hed on ihc oiean iloor. If the b~.allgroundi inicn$ivelyhar\crted by C3niid.i
cdst of the (<anadian Iinr werc los1 tu Cxnada it uould hring an end 1,)ihai
tiihrry. Thcre are no ioinp~rable oITshorcscallap grounds in thai pari of thc
Gulf of41ainc which the Cnited Siaics priipojes should hc Icii under Canxdi3n
iunrdisiion. or. for ih3i maiter. compar.ihle scallop groundr elscwherc in104 GULF OF MAINE
The largest component of the United States Georges Bank fishery, on the
other hand, is made up of free-swimming species, not scallops. Many of tbese
free-swimmine soecies soend a substantial oart of the vear in undisouted
-.
Amcrisan uïtcrs. The most imporiant spcsicr prcscntly takrn hy Amcricans on
ihc Cansdisn side oiihc Canadian lincis the yellowiail doundcr But the Cnited
Silier ('ounier-Mcmorial points out lai D. 219) that the stocks i,lvellowtail
Roundcr in Mct spznd musi of the sunl~c~months on ihc Unitcd ~taics side of
the Canadian linc, in arcas which a,ould cuntinuc to bc undcr CniirJ Siaics
jurisdiction if the Canadian line were accepted by this Chamber.
The ooint is that the ~i~ferent nature of the Georees Bank fish~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~
counirks furihcr rcinforces the rquitahlc nature of thé Canadian Iinc.As counscl
Torihc Amcrican FislicricsDeknre Commiticc put itto the Ilnitcd Siaics Scnïtc
Cornmittee in 1980:
"United States access to fish in the nortbeastern tip of Georges Bank is
significantlylessimportantto us than Canada's continued accessto the area
is to its fishennen." (Canadian Memorial, p. 61, fn. S.)
Mr. President, the limitsof the United Statesjurisdiction proposed by Canada
would leave the United States with fishing grounds on Georges Bank whose
long-term optimum yieldssuhstantially exceedtraditional United States catches
for the whole of the Bank. In the penod from 1969to 1978,in those ten years, on
the whole of the Bank, the United States fishermen's annual catch averaged
16.1milliondollars. The Canadian linewould leavewithin United Statesjunsdic-
tion fishing grounds on Georges Bank having long-tenn yields of 48.6 million
dollars annually, allowing a 200 percent increase in United States fishingeffort
on Georges Bank to the south and Westof the Canadian line (see analysis at
pp. 11-12of Canada's Economic Annex). This analysis of growth potential is
corrohorated by independent experts within the United States. A recent analysis
hv the Universitv of Rhode Island referred to in the evidence (Canadian
çicrnorial. p. 12j. plra 317) indicsies that uhrn ihc ti5hcr) rcsources uithin
undisputcd Cnited Siaies jurisdiction rccover from the sci,crc ovcfishing of
rcccnt )eîrs the Ycu Fn~hnd flect could beerpandcd by 2W \csscls.
IV. CONCLUSION
Finallv. Mr. President and distineuished Judzes. what conclusions does
Canadï.ask the Ch:imber io Jrsw l'km al1 of this evidensç xnJ al1 ofthis
înîlyii,? 1havc iakcn thc timc oiihc Chambcr this morning to addrssi the Iegal
relevance of economic considerations, as it is important that the Parties before
the Chamber come to terms with the real issues that have broneht us before vou.
In Canada's view,the use that can properly he made of economic consideraGons
in a boundary delimitation is limited and precise: limited to claims that are
rooted in the geography of the relevant areafprecise in that such factors must be
related to the very nature and concept of the 200-mile jurisdiction; to the
"physical" geography of the Gulf of Maine area; to the true subject-matter of
the dispute hefore the Court; or to the "human dimension" which is essential to
any consideration of the equity of the result. If cconomic geography is properly
addressed hy the Parties, within this framework, three relevant circumstances
emerge as heing, in my submission, of paramount importance.
Firsi,Canada has simajor fisheryon Georges Bank, particularly in the eastern
portion of the Bank which is closer to Canada than to any part of the United
States. ARGUMENTOF MR. BINNIE 105
Second, a special condition of economic dependence exists in that part of
Nova Scotia that is closest to Georges Bank. an eauitable consideration that
eïih and ctery Cnitcd States clam Gnce 1976hïs ignored entirely.
7'lrir2nd finaIl). the C'iinadianIine. drd\rn hy relerence ro ihe ~.onligurii[ion
of ihe rclc\,ant cuasis. nicommod.ites the estdhlished fishine intercsts ol'bofh
the Parties, and ils equitable nature is thus confirmed, not enly for Canada but
for the United States as well.
The Chumber roseal 1p.m CINQUIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (4 IV 84, 15h)
Présents: [Voir audience du 2 IV 84.1
PLAIDOIRIEDE M. FORTIER
CONSEIL DU GOUVERNEMENT CANADIEN
M. FORTIER: Monsieur le Président,Messieurs lesiuees, avant de débuter
ma olaidoirie. i'aimerais vous nrésenterun nouveau~~ ~,~;aui n.us a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
couP de main'ivec la technicitt!de la présentationde la cause du Canada, ils'agit
de Me Ross Hornby du barreau de l'Ontario. J'aimerais vous signaler aussi
avant de débuter aue. .aurai l'occasiondurant ma olaidoirie de me référerau
compendium, au livre rouge' que vous avez devant vous. II y a certaines
illustrations que je commenterai. Etj'utiliserai aussi la boîte àimages, commeje
la qualifie.En deux occasions, et vous en avez une présentement, l'illustration
sur la boîte ne se retrouve pas dans le cahier rouge qui vous a été remis.Ici,
effectivement,vous avez une carte de base de la région concernée.
Alors, Monsieur le Président, Messieurslesjuges, c'està moi, homme de loi,
aue revient cetaorès-midiI'insienehonneur de vous narler du milieu marin dans
ia régiondu gol& du Maine - de vous parler science,Quoi.Tout juriste àqui l'on
demande de discuter d'un sujet ~ui f-it intervenir des questions scientifiques
comolexes doit sùrement oasser Dar la eamme des émotionsaue i'ai.moi>mkme
cpr~\~ér.s.Je mesui>d'abord dc~and2pi)urquoi ié1ai1ncce>saircde rc pcnshçr
sur ces sujçlc kdns ILconlehie aprts tout d'iinc procrdurc judtcidirc qui vise <i
déterminerle principe d'une frontièremaritime unique sur la base de règleset de
-
principes juridiques..
Assurémentla Chambre voudra savoir si elle a affaire à un ou deux plateaux
continentaux dans la régiondu golfe du Maine. Mais, sur ce point central, les
Parties sont d'accord deouis le début.Tant le Canada aue les Etats-Unis ont
reconnu que le platç-iucontincni;il dans cetir. region consiitue un pri,longcnicnt
naturel unique et Vditpartie de la margc continentale continue qui longe toute Id
côte atlantique de l'Amériquedu Nord.
De mêmei,lest évidentque la Chambre voudra avoir une description générale
du milieu marin dans la région du golfe du Maine à des fins de référence,
d'autant plus que c'estla premièrefoisqu'un tribunal est appeléàdéterminerle
tracéd'une frontière maritime aui s'a~olique à la fois entre autres au olateau
conlincntal ri 3 kamnc dc &ch; dei ~UO milles M.ai1 pourquoi FJUI-il(iue drs
honimcs Jr loi dcbaltcnt des queilions qui divisent memc les homme, ds
science?Pourquoi est-il ni:cr.sairc d'dss3hlsr Iü Chambrc dc dirsussiiins intcrnii-
nables et non Concluantesàorooos de la réoartitiondes dénôtsde sable. de vase
et de gravier sur le fond dela mgr? Ou enc&e àpropos de la températureet de la
salinitéde la colonne d'eau? Ou des préférences climatiquesou habitudes de frai
particulièresde micro-organismes tout comme d3organ;smesgéants?
La réponseà ces questions résidedans les allégationsinouïes avancéespar
' Lesdossiers spécialemep nrtéparé s Vinlentionde laChambrepar lesParties pour
illustrer leurs plaidoiriesontpasreproduits.Siunecarte ou illustrationcontenuedans
un dossierestreprisedans levolumedescartesde laprésenteéditio (n III),elestdûment
signaléeen marge du texte[Nore du CreJe.1108 GOLFEDU MAINE
Avant de m'engager dans le vif de mon exposé,il serait utile de répondrede
façon sommaire à cette question en rappelant à la Chambre que les frontières
terrestres elles-mêmesne sont jamais «naturelles» en ce sens qu'elles seraient
dictéespar la nature. Elles sont des faits de l'homme, desfaits politiquesM. le
,uue Jiménezde Aréchaeauaraooe..àcet éeard.ue la.~daneereus- doctrine ...
fronticrcs n3iurellesn a dcji éiécondamnéeau XVIII' siCclrpar Kousse~ii.qui
Fais~itohcervcr«qu'cller;iboutissaienii Furcdt l'ordre politique I'ou\,ragcde la
ruturc,,(C.1.J.Rctui,>l19,$2,D.117.nar. 611.iïousa\uns de notrcc6térari..l-2 Iÿ
cond~m~iiiionprononcéeconire le concept m?mede <<iriiniiCrcn saturellc\s, p.ir
hlhl. Albert de La Pr~dellc et par Whittcmurc Boggs (contre-mCmoirc d~
Canada, par. 529).
1.VUE D'ENSEMBLE
Monsieur le Président, Messieurslesjuges, avant d'entreprendre une discus-
sion détailléedu sous-sol, du fond de la mer et de la colonne d'eau dans cette
régiondu golfedu .M:tinc.pour tenter dedkou\,nr sila nature vjouc un r6lcdanc
la dkterminïlion du iiire jundiquc et dans la délimitaiion.je voudraix\cx voire
permission vous donner une vue d'ensembledu milieu marin dans cette région.
Vous ne serezcertes pas surpris de m'entendre vous exposer que la caractéris-
tique la plus frappante de ce milieu est sa complexité et sa variabilité,tout
particulièrementen ce qui concerne la colonne d'eau. Lesocéanssont une force
dvnamiaue et non statiaue. Les eaux circulent: les eaux se mélaneent: le
plancion est charrie par lecourant: lespoiwins migrent selon lesmwns CI toute
leur VI du. Pour peu que I'on puisse se permettre une g-2n2rali~aiion
quelconque, disons que la régiondu golfe du Maine fait partie d'un continuum
nord-sud le long du plateau continental de l'Amériquedu Nord. Dans le sous-
sol, sur le fond de la mer et dans la colonne d'eau, nous constatons une
continuité auniveau des processus et des propriétésgéologiques,géomorpholo-
giques, océanographiqueset biologiques.
A l'intérieurmime de chacun des étages, dechacun des paliers sous étude,
nous pouvons évidemment discerner une variété de discontinuités. Cesdiscon-
tinuités peuventêtreplus ou moins prononcées selon le cadre de référence
adootéDarl'observateur. Mais ce au'il imoorte de souliener et ce aue ie vais
irniér dÎ i,ous démontrercri aprés:midi.L:'r>ique les d~coniinuit2; q;i sont
eirectii,cnicntprésrniesnc coincidcnt p3s i,eriicïlenicitla foi>dan5 lcsous-sol.
sur le fond de la mer et dans la colonne d'eau. Au sumlus. les discontinuités
varient horizontalement dans chacun des trois étages.~r,'~onsieur lePrésident,
sila thèse américaine de lfrontièrenaturelle étaitmême reconnueen droit,pour
triompher, elle devrait forcémentvaloir pour chacun des étages.Elle ne peut
subir une seule exception à quelque palier que ce soit, sinon elle s'effondre.
11ne fait pas de doute que le banc de Georges est un phénomènephysique
identifiabledans la continuitégénérale du milieu marin de la régiondu golfe du
Maine. C'est un banc de oêchebien connu. situé au large des côtes de la
iïouvcllç-Ecus>e ct du ~3isaihu~ciir. En tant que irait &~siogrnphique ou
top<igraphiqucdu platsau conrinenial unique de la r2gion. le banc Jc Gcorgcs
eii définijla l'oispar lcgrand chenal Sud et par lechcnsl Nord-Est. En tani que
caractéristiaue o&anoeÏaohiaue d'un réeime marin uniaue. le banc es< à
nouveau délinipar ccs dcux mCmeschcn3ux. J'ai bien dit <.défini#,..Monrieurle
Prc,idcnt, et non pas «scparc*. Car le banc dc Cicorgcsfait partie inicgrantc du
milieu qui I'entouie.
Si le banc de Georges accuse des affinités géologiqueso,céanographiquesou
biologiques particulières avecles environs, c'est bien avec le nord-est- autre-
ment dit avec leCanada. Lesespècesque I'ontrouve sur lebanc de Georges sont PLAIDOIRIE DE M. FORT~ER 109
essentiellement horealc;itous les niveaux de la chaine alimentaire. et le binc
lui.mémcest considérccomme faisant partie de la province biogci>graphiqurdr
la Nouvelle-Ecosse Je dois réckier touteïois que la continuitc - et non la
discontinuité-est la caractéristiquepremièrede ia régiondu golfedu Maine. II
en est ainsi de kadistribution du phytoplancton, du zooplancton, du benthos, et
des espècesde poissons, de mémeque pour tous les autres phénomènes.Pour
autant au'il soit oossible d'identifier des discontinuités bioloaiaues.celles-cise
produi,;nt dans larégiondu cap Cod, Icshauts-fond\ de iXa~ttkkrt et le grand
chenal Sud. car c'est la que s'opèreune 1r;insitionentre leseaux froides du nord
et les eaux plus tempéréesdu sud.
Monsieur le Président. c'est avcour toile de fond cette descrioti-n eénérale
du milieumarin dans la régiondu golie du Maine queje mepropose maintenant
d'examiner de faqon un peu plus détaillieles trois paliers qui Iccomposent
II. LESOUS-SOL
Tant le Canada que les Etats-Unis s'accordent pour affirmerque la structure
w~oloeiaue du sous-sol de la ré-ion du e-lfe du Maine est essentiellement
continue. Néanmoins, ce sous-sol présenteeffectivement certaines caractéris-
tiques qui soulignent son affinitéavec des zones situéesau nord et à l'est.Tout
d'abord comme-la Chambre le constatera de visusur cette illustration que nous
@ retrouvons sur la boite à images et qui porte le num52odans le compendium
des plaidoiries orales, deux bassins sédimentaires trèsprofonds longent le
olateau continental deouisle cao Breton iusaue dans la répiondu rolfe du Maine
i>lusau sud. Unedépr&sionstr&turale Gpeiie lecgbas~in?jcoti;in~s'étend verlse
sud-ouest sousla plus grande partie du plateau Scotian. du chenal Nord-Est ci dc
lapartie estde cefameuxbanc deGeorges.où elledonnesur l'archedeYarmouth.
Cette déoressionfournit la oreuve de-l'existence d'affinitéeséoloeiauesentre le
sous-sol;le la partie est du banc dc Georgeset lesous-soldu plate& kotian plus
au nord. Par ailleurs.le bassin Scotianest partiellementséparedu bas~indu banc
de Georees aui s'étendsous la oartie occidentalede ce banc de Georres et sous le
plateau de 1; chte est des ~tati-llnis. Donc. s'ilexiste une discontinÜitédms les
caractéristiquessidimentaires du ,uus-sol. c'cstentre le bassin Ssotiîn et Icb3ssin
du banc de Georges qu'elle seproduit, au milieu du banc lui-même.
@ Avec l'illustration suivante qui porte le num53dans votre compendium et
qui n'estpas reproduite sur la boite àimages,vous pouvezobserver àquel point
lesalignements du soclede la masse terrestre de la Nouvelle-Ecosseet ceux sous
le banc de Georaes sont similaires (réoliaue du Canada. oar. 164-169).Les
altinitésgéologiqÜeentre lesous-sol, la inaise terrcanadienn etelesous-sol
du banc de Georges sont manifestes. S'ilexiste des discontinuités.c'est présdes
monts sous-marins de la Nouvelle-Angleterre (the Ne~vEnplund Seumnunrr,
identifiésau bas de cette illustration n"j3. c'est orèsde ces monts sous-marins.
dis-je,qu'il fautleschercher ~cttcdiscont~nuit~~srindiquéecKecti~~cmcptar le
changement de direction des lignesrouges que vous voyezau sud et d I'ouestdu
banc-de Georges. Nous pouvons voir uneimportante démarcation structurale
dans ce secteur de la margecontinentale au sud et à I'ouestdu banc de Georges.
Cette chaîne de monts sous-marins marque une rupture dans le socle rocheux.
Les scientifiquesimputent ce phénomèneà la présenced'une zone de faiblesse
cmstale aui s'estcrééau fur et à mesurede la séoarationlente mais oroeressive
des Plaqk~ nord-américaineet alhcaine. LesmoRtssous-manns de 1; ~~u\clle-
Angleterre interrompent dans cc inémcsecteur une autre cdractcnstique impor-
tante, que vous pouvez voir sur cette illustration no53. Cette caracté~istiqueest
connuesouslenomd'«anomalie magnétiquedelacôte est». C'esteffectivementle110 WLFE DU MAINE
secteur aui est indiauéen eris le lone du talus continental sur cette illustration.
~ ~ -~~~- ~~ ~
Cette c&actéristiq;e est &éralekGt continue tout le long du conti-
nental de l'AmériqueduNord; c'estce que signifientles petites colonnes grises
aux deux extrémitésde cette anomalie et qui sont reproduites sur I'illustr%ion.
Monsieur le Président, j'espère que ce très bref examen de la structure
géologique dela régiondu golfe du Maine a fait ressortir que, si, je dis bien si,
des caractéristiques quelconques représententune discontinuitédans le sous-sol
de cette region.11~5;e trou\cnt ~u'milicudu banc de Georges ei dans sa partie
occidcniale - bien loin du chenal Nord-Est. Si Junc la nature pou\ait dicter des
frontières aux juristes au niveau du sous-sol, c'est là que nous en trouverions
une.
111.LE FOND DE LA MER
Si vous le permettez, Monsieur le Président, Messieurslesjuges, je voudrais
maintenant monter d'un étaee et examiner brièvement le deuxième niveau du
milieu marin dans la régionWdu golfe du Maine, soit le fond de la mer, plus
particulièrement sa couverture sédimentaire etsa topographie. Vous retrouvez à
nouveau sur la boîte àimagescette carte de base deGcÏituÏes canadiennes qui ne
se trouve pas dans votre compendium.
Je suisdonc au niveau du fond de la mer et je ne m'attarderai pas longuement
sur les sédimentsqui le tapissent. II n'existeaucune différencesignificativeentre
les sédimentsqui recouvrent les diverses parties de la régionen litige. Toute la
région a subi la glaciation, et nous ne voyons pas comment les prétendues
différencesde densitédu sable et du gravier pourraient aider à identifierquelque
frontière aue ce soit dans le cadre du débat dont la Chambre est saisie. Je tiens
cependan; à relever ici que nos adversaires font erreur lorsqu'ils situent au
chenal Nord-Est la ligne de démarcation entre la zone érodéepar les glacierset
la zone d'alluvions proglaciaires (annexes au contre-mémoire des Etats-Unis,
vol. IV, annexe 5). Èn Tait,cette démarcation s'établitle long d'une ligne qui
coupe en diagonale le banc de Georges, de l'ouest à l'est.
Parlons maintenant de la topographie du fond de la mer dans la région
concernée. Ce aui tranche le olus. au suiet de cette toooeraobie. c'est la
transition du plairau de la süte &i, situc au sud du cap Cod ;i dkiourvu dc tout
modelé glaciaire.au plateau glaciaire qui couvre Id règionau nord dc ce mime
cap Cod. Et I'un des aspects les plus remarquables de cette zone glaciaire est la
p&sence d'une sériedi bassins qui bordent la partie intérieure du plateau
continental, et qui est elle-mêmedoubléed'un chapelet de bancs larges et peu
profonds le long du rebord extérieurdu plateau. Vous avez par exemplelebassin
de Wilkinson. le bassin de Georees. le bassin La Have et le bassin Emeraude. et
pour ce qui es1dcs bancs vous a;er é,idemmcni Ir.banc de Georgcs. \eus aver le
bancde Hroun. le banc La Hate ri tinalemeni le banc Fnicraudc. Aiorsj'ai bien
dit qu'il v a une série de bassins qui bordent la partie intérieure du olateau
continenial et qui est elle-mêmedoublée d'un chapelet de bancs le lÔng du
rebord extérieurdu plateau. Le banc de Georges est I'un de ces bancs qui se
trouvent entre Terre-Neuve,je dis bien Terre-Neuve, et le grand chenal Sud plus
au sud-ouest.
E\idcmment. ces bancs peu profonds relativement parlant sont définispar des
chenaux, icls le grand chenal Sud ci le chenal Nord-Est qui. comme je l'ai
suulignc plus i91,encadrent Ichans dc Georgcs ;il'ouest eti I'ç\t respectivement.
~aicces>henaux sont beaucouo moins oro?onds aue les bassins oui bordent les
bancs du ciiit de Iï terre IIcst'donc to;t i faif ikxdct dc préts~;drecomme le
ioni nos üdvcrwires que I'un quelconque de ces chenaux. soit le chenal Nord-
Est, marque une «rupture appréciable» («a significant break))) dans la topo- PLAIDOIRIE DE M. FORTIFR 111
graphie du plateau continental. En fait, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les
juges, comme vous pouvez le constater en lisant la bathymétrie du milieu,
l'élévationdes bancs et des chenaux par rapport aux bassins plus profonds du
c6téde la terre est beaucoun olus sienificative.
Mais mêmecette élévationkt relativement insignifiante. En effet, le plateau
continental de toute la régiondu golfe du Maine présenteune surface virtuelle-
ment plate. Les dénivellations s'y étalent sur de si vastes distances que si le
plateau était asséchéle fond de la mer apparaîtrait comme une plaine unie. II
suffit pour s'en rendre compte d'observer cesdeux images, maintenant sur la
@ boîte, qui ont été produitespar ordinateur. II s'agit de l'illustration no 54 dans
votre comnendium. Dans l'illustration du haut le reliefa été ex-eéré deu fxi~. et
mime avec cetie exagération le talus et le glacis continental ) sont ;1peine
perceptibles. Lorsque Ir relicfesi exagércinq fois.comme dans l'imagedu bas.
iesseÜlsaccidents-topographiques viaiment dignes de mention dansla région
sont le rebord du plateau, la chaîne de monts sous-marins de la Nouvelle-
Angleterre et le bassin de Georges.
Monsieur le Président,Messieurs lesjuges,il est clair, je vous le soumets bien
respectueusement, que pour attacher quelque importance que ce soit à la
topographie du plateau continental dans la régiondu golfe du Maine il faudrait
exagérerla réalitéencore bien au-delà de l'exagération à laquelle nous avons eu
recours nous-mêmespour produire ces images.
IV. LA COLONNE D'iIAU:CARACTÉRISTIQ PHEY?IQUES
Je me o. .ose maintenant d'emorunter à nouveau I'escalieroour atteindre e~ ~~
e.vaminerle troiiiéme CIdernier pdlicr du milieu mann, qui esii 13fois le ni\,eau
le plus complexe CII'élc'menitncdit de la prksente aflaire; j'ai nomm13colonne
d'eau. Si vi1usen Ctcrd'accord. Slunsieur Ic Prisidrni. ie me ocncherai d'abord
sur ses caractéristiques physiques pour ensuite étudier ses caractéristiques
biologiques.
L'océanoer-.hievhv..aue .'est l'étudec . omme vous le savez mieuxaue moi.
de la consiituiion et des propriétr'sphvsiques des océans.Lei océani>graphesse
fondeni sur I'obssrvation des coiir;lnis. des niarées,des 5anationi dc tempCra.
turc. de mèmeque de la sal~niiédes océ3ns.pour construire des hypothése<rur la
nature de la coionne d'eau. Mêmesices hommes de sciencene sont pas touiours
d'accord siir l'importance relative attribuer aux divers ph?nomenes physiques
qu'ils identifieni. ils sont néanmoins unanimesi reconnaitre que l'océanesi un
environnement extrêmement variable.Ses caractéristiquesse modifient dans le
temns et dans I'esoace à mesure aue .ivers ohénomènesse iuxtaoos.nt. .e .~
confondeni. SC s2parcni. puis se rejoignent 3 nouveiu pour ré~pp~r~iiresous une
forme dirfércnte IIne iaurüit eriiier de dis~.ontinuitCsgkopraphiques fixesdans
le milieu mouvant de la mer
Pourisni, en dépitdc sa n;iture fluideci toujouri changeante. lacolonne d'eau
préscnteceriaines raractr'riiique; clCsqu'iC\I p<issihlede circoiiscrire de idcon
certaine.
Parmi les influencesaui s'exercentdans la réeiondu eolfe du Maine. l'unedes
plus importantes est cille des eaux arctiques froides étde faible salinitéqu'y
entraînent les courants du Labrador et de Nouvelle-Ecosse. Les marées consti-
tuent aussi une autre influenceclédans la réeion.Ellessont parmi les plus fortes
du monde en raison a 13foisde I'kiendueci de la ~onfi~urîrion pariiculicre de la
baie de Fundy. Ctimme rkuliat. l'ensemblede la régiondu golfedu Maine okit
à un seul et unique régimede marées.
En fait,Monsieur lePrésident,cesmarées((fundiennesnsont siprononcéesque 112 GOLFE DU MAINE
la constructiond'un barrage dans le bassin des Mines, tout à fait au fond de la
baie de Fundy. affecterait probablement l'amplitude des maréessur le banc de
Georges et même dans le nbrt de Boston. Et d'ailleurs. en 1981.le dénartement
d'~ta7 desEtats-Unis a TJ;Ipdrt au C3ndda de sespréoccup~tio"s i ci égard.el
Ic Sénatdei Et;it\-Unis lui-mtmc a tenu desaudience. I'annéederni;rç, cn 1983.
en vue de déterminer I'imoact a.e oo.rrait avoir sur la côte américaine le
di:\eloppement marCinotcur dc la haieJr Fundy (ri:pliquc du Canada. par. 192).
@ L'illustration n55 dans \otre compendiuni, queje n'ai pasjugénecessairede
rcpr<rduireaur la hiiitei ima~e>.met en rclief l'action rSciorouue. les raonorts
mÜtuelsentre les divers secteursde la colonne d'eau dans larégiondu du
Maine. S'il se produisait un déversementde pétrole sur le banc de Georges
pendant lesmois d'été,la nappe serait véhiculée vers le nord et versPestpar les
marées. lescourants et les vents dominants. et viendrait ainsi souiller la côte
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
canadienne ci Irplairdu Scoiian. Vous pouvez effectivemeni voir le mouvenient
de la napw d'eau sur ladiie illustration. vous pouvezle deriner à tout le moins
Ce5traiectoires du ri-iri>le en surfaceont étéralculéei I'aide d'un modélekiahli
par ordinateur à partir de donnéessur les vents et les courants pendant vingt-
trois étés; c'esltà la signification desdatesque vous voyez sur cette illustration.
Reconnaissant d'ailleurs l'interdépendance qu'imposent les conditions du mi-
lieu. le Canada et les Etats-Unis ont adooté un olan d'ureence en vue de
coordonner leurs actions pour le nettoiemeniet le coAtrôle de lapollution encas
d'accident pétrolier (répliquedu Canada, par. 177-178).
Avec votre induleeice.Monsieur le Président. ie voudrais maintenant me
- ..
pencher sur certains aspects du litige qui divisent encore les Parties en ce qui
concernel'océanographie physiquede la régiondu golfe du Maine. Le Canada a
expliqué dans ses écritures que la colonne d'eau dans la région concernéese
modifie constamment 1 mesureque le%eaux qui sedéplacent;ers le sud le long
du plateauScoiian pcnèircni dan\ le golfe du Maine ci ceàcausede I'interaciion
des marées etdes courants (annexes au contre-mémoire du Canada, livre 1,
V' Dar. 47). L'illuslrationno 56 reoroduite dans votre comnendium comnrend un
diagrammedes tempcratures de la suriace de la mer - l'une desdonnéespnsesen
compte par I'océanographie physique. Cette illustration es1 pariiculiérenient
utile du fait que les deux Parties ont reconnu I'e.~actitudedes données qu'elle
comporte. Elle peul paraitrc de prime abord compltqucc mais j'espérepouvoir
- \,eus demontrer dans quelque temps qu'elle ne l'est pas.
@ Selon nous, cette illustration démontre de façon~convaincante que la zone
comorise entre le olateau Scotian et le banc de Georees nresenteun continuum
océinographique,' empreint de modification constante' mais graduelle de la
température à mesurc que l'on navigue vers le sud-ouest.
La température la olus froide estyeorésentéenar la colonne bleue au bas de
celte illusir;ition. ;i dtCIlla iempératurela plus chaude est représentkcpar ka
colonne rouge. 1.ebanc deGeorgescil représenté par celte colonne de mcmequî
par cette courbe qui sont coloréesen brun ou enjaune orange. Cette illustration
démontre que olus on navieue vers le sud olus l'eau devient chaude. L'eau en
Floride e~t'~lu; chaude quel'eau du ~abra'dor, quoi!
Les Etats-Unis dans le cadre de leur thèsecentrale affirment que la modifica-
tion est très prononcée,ce qui indiquerait l'existence d'une frontière naturelle
dans la colonne d'eau entre le banc de Geore-s e~ ~ ~-~~~~~ ~-~~wn~~c~e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
entre la courbe orange et la courbe rose. Bien respectueusement,nos adversaires
sont dans l'erreur. Comme vous pouvez le constater, lesdifférencesde temera.
ture reflètent un continuum entre-leplateau Scotian et le banc de Georgesei non
@ pas une rupture. Mais, ily a plus. En effet, l'illustration du Canada compare,
entre autres, les températuresprises sur le plateauà cellesmesuréessur le talus PLAIDOIRIEDE M. FORTlER 113
continental (rouge). Nous avons établi cette comparaison des températures
orises sur le olateau de cellesmesuréessur le talus continentalet ilme sembleaue
i'illustratio~démontre que la différence relevéentre leseaux froides du plateau,
qui subissent l'influencedu nord, et leseaux chaudes du talus, qui sont soumises
à l'influencedu Gulf Stream. est bien ~lus imoortante aue l'écartnéelieeable
observéentre les eaux des diverses zones échantillonnéessur le plateau.--
Or, dans la reproduction de l'illustration du Canada que les Etats-Unis
@ présententdans leur annexe (jeme réfèreàla figure2de l'annexe 25àla réplique
des Etats-Unis) nos adversaires, comme par hasard, ont choisi de supprimer la
comparaison entre les eaux du plateau et cellesdu talus. Dans la répliquede nos
alliésaméricains, àl'annexe 25,figure 2, la colonne rouge et la courbe rouge ont
disparu. Le Canada maintient que c'est cette comparaison qui offre la seule
mesure valable de l'importance relative des différencede températureobservées
dans la région.
Cela m'amène, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, à poser une
auestion fort oertinente. Comment cette Chambre oourra-t-elle faire la oart de
l'important eide l'accessoire dans les ~aractéristi~iesphysiques de la Colonne
d'eau si le Canada et les Etats-Unis, alors mémequ'ilssont d'accord sur certains
facteurs. les intemrètent de facon lareement divergente?
Ces di\crgcnç& iicnncni à li natu& nitnic de l'occ~no~ra~hie ('ïrtr., iles1
po<iihlc de 1r;icr.rune Iignc dans n'iniportc quel secteur dr.I'ucc~n.d'ctudicr
I'en\.ironncmcnt ,Ir.part ci d'autre de <cite ligneci de dimonircr qu'ilexi\ie des
difircnces Scion I'cicnduc des zones choi$ies pour Gtahlir Ir., moycnnci. les
dillércnccsFu\cni apprrriirc plu, ou moins niarquées. En termes de \iati\ii-
ques, lesécartswuvent êtreconsidérés comme significatifsou négligeableset, ce
aui est encore olus imoortant. ils Deuventne oai être olusnroLoicés entre les
zones qu'à l'intérieurd'une mêmezone. Ce que je veux faire valoir ici, c'estque
leshommes de science,de facon tout à fait justifiéed'ailleurs, cherchent à isoler
lesphénomènesen fonction des régions,des«compartiments» ou des «régimes»
qu'ils ont choisi d'étudier. Si ce sont là des procédéslégitimessur le plan
théorique,ils n'ont pas étéconçus - et ils ne doivent surtout pas êtreinvoqués-
dans lebut de suggérerl'existencede «discontinuités»ou de «frontières»dans la
texture comolexe d'un environnement marin.
Au .urplus. le procdncquc je siiisde\ rail s3\,uirqu'il es1dani la naiurc niEnic
Jr., sciencesocéanographiquesdc chercher a Jitinir der xnomdlie,. dci disconti-
nuités, desfronts etautrescaractéristiaues distinctives dans un milieu dont tous
s'accordent àreconnaître a,'il ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t oar son ouverture. sa variabili.é.
sa continuitéet son dynamisme. Biensùr, ilexistedes discontinuités;mais celles-
ci sont à la fois diffuses et immensément variables dans leur localisation
eéoeraohia.e. Elles ne sauraient surtout Dasmarquer une frontière uniaue et
fixei I'inicricur inîmc Je lx colonne d'e~u.ci cncorc nloins une frontierr qui se
prol<)ngcraiici \e \uprposcr.iili 13 fois k~ns le fond de la mrr el dan, Ir.sous-
sol.
Je crois qu'il est inutile que je m'attarde davantage sur la multitude des
caractéristiques physiquesde la colonne d'eau. Je voudrais plutôt passer à ses
caractéristiques biologiques.
Depuis un siècledéjà - ce qui constitue une trèslongue périodedans la jeune
histoire de l'Amériquedu Nord -, des étudesscientifiques menéespar des experts
aussi biendu Canada que des Etats-Unis démontrent de façon constante que les
communautés de poissons et d'organismes du fond de la régiondu golfe du114 GOLFE DU MAINE
Maine sont, d'une part, étroitement liéesaux communautés dont l'habitat se
situe au nord età l'estet, d'autre part, tendent à se différencierdes communau-
tés sesituant au sud et à l'ouest.
Ces exoerts ont consicné à maintes remises leurs constatations à I'eiïetau'on
devait désignerla zonëcôtière s'étendant decap Cod jusqu'à la cOte sid de
Terre-Neuve comme la province biogéographique néo-écossaiseet la zone au
sud-ouest de cap Cod comme la province virginienne. Sitant est encore une fois,
Monsieur le Président,qu'une frontièrepouvait êtredictéepar la nature, c'estlà,
selon nous, qu'elle se situerait.
La thèse du Canada selon laquelle le banc de Georges se caractérisepar la
orésenced'esoècesnordiaues ou boréales estcorroboréeoar un ensemble cohé-
rent Je JiinnCci scicniifiq~esqui dcmontre sldircnient lei ;ilfinitesde ce b>\cc
lesduires b~ncsc.in:idicns plus du nord I.e>Et~t.-llnis ciienl d.ini leur conire-
mémoireplusieursauteurs ycompris unouvrage canadien qui, selonleur interpré-
tation, appuieraient leur prétention d'une frontièreau chenal Nord-Est (contre-
mémoire desEtats-Unis, par. 50; voir aussi réplique du Canada, par. 180).
En réalité,aucun de ces textes ne qualifiele chenal Nord-Est de frontière natu-
relleou mêmede lignede démarcation.Par contre, tous mettent en reliefI'impor-
tance de la région nularge du cap Cod en termes biogéographiques. L'unité
faunique du golfe du Maine est incontestable, tout autant que son affinité
avec leseaux canadiennes au nord-est.
1. Plancronet benrhos
Ces considérations d'ordre eénéralmises à oart. ie dois maintenant examiner
brièvementla distribution du Plancton et du 6enthos dans la régiondu golfe du
Maine. Monsieur le Président,je me serais bien dispenséde vous parler, même
brièvement.de ces oetits oreanismes véré-auxaui vivent en susoension dans la
nier. dc ces :inimau\ micrihcopiques qui Jcrii,cnt dans les çouranis deIcirigi<in
du golfe du Maine ri de ses orgJni\mes hcnthiques qiii hahitent Ic liind de la
mer. Ceoendant, comme les Etats-Unis ont fait mention, avec emobase. de ces
organismes pour appuyer leur thèsed'une frontièrenaturelle et deirois régimes
écologiques séparés, distincts et identifiables, je n'ai aucun choix, je dois en
traiter, mais le ferai brièvement.
D'abord. il est évident aue c'est le nroore du olancton. de ces tout oetits
organismes',de se laisser ballotter dans'la mer, de dériveravec les courants de
région en région et non pas de se cantonner géographiquementdans une zone
étanche.
De olus. le Canada a démontré. etne craienez rien. ie n'entends vas vous
donner lecturedcs donnéesscientitiyiiesculligL:esdans nos icriture\. leCan.idn a
dcmontré.dis-lc(annexer au contre-nicnioirc du Canada. livre1.p:ir 79-91). que
le plancton qui dérive dans les courants de la région et le benthos sont
principalement d'origine septentrionale et appartiennent surtout à la commu-
nauté boréale;ils reflètentdonc des affinitéscanadiennes.
J'ouvre une courte parenthèseau sujet des organismes benthiques. Le Canada
a soumis des donnéessur la distribution de cent neuf esoècesdont auatre-vinrt-
onze ser:iient :i oririitation nordique S:lon 1e.rEt<its-Unisnciife,pcces parmi ici
qusire-\inpi-on7c :iuraicnt une aire de d~strihution plus m6ridion:ile que ne
I'inJiuue 1.1~réscntation îÿnadirnnc. ProTilnecn Icimaii2rc. l'ai relci,c a\ee
intérêe it avec un légersourire que deux de ces neuf espèces~~ntestéespar les
Etats-Unis portent les noms scientifiques de Arcrica islandica et Pandalus
borealis.
Pour autant qu'il est possible de discerner une zone de transition biologique PLAIDOIRIE DE M. FORllER 115
pour ces micro-organismes. Mon~icur le Présideni.celle-ci sesiiueraii dans 13
rtgion dcliiniiéepar lecap Cod. leshauts-fonds dc Ndnlucket cl le grand chenal
Sud et non pas au chenal Nord-Est.
Je ne veux oas terminer cette uartie de mon exoosé sans commenter
l'exiraord~nïirc,&riede douze imagc~ralellites produiie par Irs Etars-Unis dani
leur riplique afin. ci je çiie. <<IO confirni the existence of three sep3rïie 2nd
idenrifiableoccanoerar>hicand ccolorical r>rimes,>.IIr'acii de la firurç IIde la
réoliaueaméricainea;i est reoroduze en iartie en ce moment sir la boite à
im'agésN . os techniciens ma1he;reusement $ont pu reproduire lesdouze photo-
graphies, il y en a une pour chaque mois, dans votre compendium. Nous en
avons donc choisi auatÏe oour illustrer chacune des quatre saisons et nous les
exhibons sur la boiie. 1'in;ite donc la Chambre àexaminercette illustration qui
reproduit quatre de ces images. A y regarder de près,je vous suggèrerespec-
tueusement qu'elle prouve tout ;i fait le contraire de ce qu'elle est censée
démontrer.Ce qui saute aux yeux dans ces images,vous l'aurez remarquéj'en
suis certain, c'est la forte accentuation, hautement sélectived'ailleurs, des
courbes de niveau bathymétriques sur le banc de Georges. Mais si l'on fait
abstraction de cet élémentde diversion. on s'aoercoit au'il reste bien oeu de
. .
choses pour ïppu)cr la ihésedes liuis-unis. seion moi. aucune des ~es'~uairî
photognphies p3s plus quc leshuit auires que \,oui avezdé12consuliéesddns 13
ré. .ouedes Euis.Unis nc réussissenimème iihire ar. .dr~iircle chenal 'lord-
Est coninie une caraci~ri~iiqueimportanit dc la région encc qui concerne la
disirihuiion du ph)ioplancion Ces iniagcs réusiisscnt-elles2 faire appar~i~re le
chenal Nord-Est comme une frontière naturelle?
S'il existait vraiment une frontière naturelle au chenal Nord-Est et trois
compartiments distincts dans la régioncomme le prétendentles Etats-Unis, ne
devrions-nous pas voir sur les photographies des lignes distinctes et trois
concentrations distinctesde couleurs? Or, ces imagesn'apportent aucune preuve
convaincante de l'existencesoit de régimesécologiques distinctset reconnais-
sables soit de barrière naturelle. et c'est à cette fin, cependant, qu'elles ont été
invoquéespar les Etats-Unis. Au contraire, elles démontrent d'abord etavant
tout la variabilitédu milieu et ellesétaientainsi plut6t la thèsedu Canada que
celle des Etats-Unis.
2. Poissonset inverrébrisd'importancecommerciale
Monsieur le Président,Messieurs les juges,je crois pouvoir affirmer sans me
tromper que ni I'une ni l'autre des Parties ne s'intéressentvraiment aux micro-
organismes. Leurattention se porte manifestement sur lesressourcesbiologiques
qui ont une valeur économique.Le Canada a analysédans son contre-mémoire
des donnéesde distribution portant sur vingt-huit des espècesd'organismes
marins qui présententle plus d'intérêp tour la péche commercialeet sportive
dans la région dugolfedu Maine. Le Canada en est venu àla conclusion que les
mo~ ~ ~ ~ ~~tribution et de mi~ ~-~ ~ de ces esoèc.sne sauraient êtreconten~~~ ~
dans les limites des trois prétendusrégimesécologiques proposéspar les Etats-
Unis. Si vous le permettez, Monsieur le Président,j'aimerais rappeler ici les
points qu'il impoite selon nous de retenir à cet égard:
- Premièrement, lesmodes de distribution changent a la fois selon lessaisons et
selon les diverses périodesdu cycle vital des espéces.Autrement dit, les
poissons migrent, les poissons nagent et, en règle généralele ,urs migrations
s'effectuentsur degrandesdistances relativement àl'échelle considérée dans la
régiondu golfe du Maine. Les espècessédentairessont l'exceptionet non la
règle.116 GOLFE DU MAlhT
- Deuxièmemenr.les oooulations ou stocks sont définisen fonction des lieuxde
frai; or la pénode'd; frai peut ne durer que quelques semaines. A d'autres
moments de I'année,les poissons de stocks différentsse mélangent et ce
phénomèneest observabledans le cas de bon nombre d'espèces.
- Troisièmemenf,la structure des populations de la plupart des espècesd'impor-
tance commerciale est encore mal connue.
- Et, finalement, qirorrièmemenr.les discontinuités observées chezles popula-
tions ou les stocks varient selon les espèces.II est impossible de les définir
toutes en fonction d'un seul et unique critère.
Les Etats-Unis contestent dans leur réplique les conclusions du Canada
concernant lesesoècesd'imoortance commerciale de la régiondu aolfe du Maine
(réplique des~t;ts.~nia, par. 218-227) Nos amis amcri&ins prsendent que le
Canada secontrcdit sur la «notion de stockn~.qu'il 8 choisi pour eta)er sesthCses
des esvècesdénuéesd'intérête :t. enfin. au'il fait reooser ses arguments sur une
mauvaise interprétation des sources citées (ibid.,par. 223). ~e-me propose de
traiter brièvementde chacune de ces critiques.
Pour ce qui est de la notion de stock, je vous suggère bienrespectueusement,
Monsieur le Président,que ce sont les Etats-Unis qui sont confus et, même,se
contredisent. En effet, nos adversaires confondent science et administration,
tirant des conclusions d'ordre biologique de zones de gestion des pêchesqui
n'ont été établieq sue dans le but de recueillir des statistiques sur les prises. Au
surplus, les Etats-Unis ont eux-mêmesabandonné la notion de stock dans leurs
politiques actuelles de gestion pour la régiondu golfe du Maine.
En fait. le désaccord entre les Parties sur la notion de stock veut être
facilement circonscrit. LeCanada et les Etats-Units conviennent tous deux qu'il
e~istedans la mer dans le domaine des pkheries dcs «siocks*>de poisson\. Ils
reconnaissent tous deux que ce terme se prête à deux définitions,l'une d'ordre
biolo"ia.~~.l'autre du domaine de la eestion. encore aue les Etats-Unis
attribuent à ces deux définitions plus derigidiié et plus de certitude que le
Canada ne considèrejustifiéesdans l'étatactuel de la science.
Mais la divergence-la plus importante entre les Parties surgit en ce que les
Etat~-U~~~~-onnent à~ la notion de st~ ~ ~ne troisième définition.inconnue
jusqu'ici de I'uneet de l'autre Partie, et qui se concrétisedans leur théoriede la
frontière naturelleet des régimesécologiques distinctset reconnaissables. Selon
cette troisième définition.lésstocks seraient confinésà leurs aires de frai non
seulement pendant l'annéedu frai, mais aussi àtous lesstades du cyclevital, des
Œufs, aux larves, aux juvénileset aux poissons adultes. Cette théorie.améri-
caine n'a au'un seul défaut. mais il hi est fatal selon nous: les voissons
nagent, les ;oissons sedéplacent. Les poissons ne secantonnent pas àleurs aires
de frai. Ils migrent et, à la vérité,les migrations sont la règlepour la plupart
des espèces.
Monsieur le Président.le fait de aualifier de stock prouve
des fins de gestion ne renseigne &re sur les modes Jr d;stribuiion et de
migration de ce groupe Je n'en \eux pour exemple que le stock Je harengs dit
stock du hanc de Gçorgcs. Dani leur ré~liauc,ICS Etats-Unis souiienncnt que <le
mélaneu de~ ~ ~~es~ ~~a confusion dei s~'~cksà diverses oériodesde leu; cvcle
d'existence n'affectent pas leur caractère de stocks distincts ..» (répliquedes
Etats-Unis, par. 223).Peu importe que cette affirmation soit ou non vérifiéd eans
les faits. II n'en demeure oasmoins aue les harengs néssur le banc de Georges
traversent plusieurs fois ;u cours de ieur cyclr vit31les frontièresdes prétenduj
régimes.réduisantainsi i néantla theone américainequi postule qu'ilcxiste des
compartiments écologiquesdistinctsetétanchesdans un milieu quise caractérise PLAIDOIRIE DE M. FORTER 117
par sa fluiditéet son dynamisme. Que lespoissons forment ou non desstocks est
sans pertinence lorsqu'il s'agit de déterminer s'ils sont ou non cantonnés à
l'intérieurde orétenduesfrontières naturelles ou cloisons étanches.
De mhe, ie iait de désignerun siock de niorues comme ciÿnt indigine au
h~ncde George\ ne nous rcvélep.is tout ccqui c<~ncerne cestock. IIest tout aussi
important, selon nous, de savoir qu'il se produit des mouvements notables de
morues du banc de Georees vers le banc de Brown àtravers lechenal Nord-Est:
qLe lesmurucr du h~nrde Gcorgei prcsentent rnaniieitemcnt drs lien, hr.~u;oup
plus c'troiisai,ei. les morue, \i\,ant au nord qu'avec celle, qui hahitent les eaux
plus méridionales; etque la principale discorÏlinuitéobservéepour les stocks de
morues dans la régio~"u~ ~ ~~ -u Maine s'établit selonun axe ~ord~ ~ ~ ~
travers le banc de Georges lui-même.
Autrement dit, la désignationdastocks de poissons n'estjamais qu'un épisode
ou un chapitredans une histoire fort complexe. Une biographie de Napoléonqui
commencerait et se terminerait par son lieu de naissance nous dirait certes
quelque chose sur la Corse, mais fort peu sur l'homme et encore moins sur
I'~evÜte.Dans la mêmeveine. nous ne-oouvons esoérerobtenir beaucouo de
-, .
ren,eignementi sur I'uniti ecol~giquc Je la rcgion du golie du Maine eti nous
3rtüch.int cx:lusi\,cmrnt 3 1.1JCtinition de stocks. Ccs renseignementh. nius
devons les chercher aiin< I'ctudeacs niodes dc disinhution et de migwt~onde$
poiswn5. cc que le Cdnùd3 ;t amplement tilt dan, scs 5.riturcs
L'anal!se du <ànsJa porte 5ur jingt-huit cspccesde poii>onr. de miillu~qucs
et de crustacés qui présentent de l'importancepour la pêche commercialeet
sportive dans la régiondu golfe du Maine. Cesvingt-huit espècessont identifiées
sur l'illustration n" 59 qui est incluse dans le compendium et qui n'est pas
projetéesur la boîte à images. C'est l'illustration no 59 dans le livre rouge qui
vous étéremis, Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges. Cette illustration
indique très clairement les aires de distribution connues pour chacune de ces
espèces.
Dans leur réplique,les Etats-Unis critiquent la liste établiepar le Canada,
allé-uantaue douze des esoècesconcernéessont dénuées d'intérê Dtarceau'elles
sont. Ji.ent-ils, d'tinc iniportancs sommcrci.ile mineure dani la rcgion en Iiiipe.
Monsieur le Président,.\lcssieurs les Juge<.depuis quand est-ce que I'impor-
tance commerciale d'un poisson va déterminer s'il est cantonné ou non à
I'intérieurd'une cloison étanche? De ~lus. la Chambre ne manauera oas de
remarquer que les Etats-Unis accepteni d'introduire ici un arguméntéchomi-
que pour étayerleur théorie dela frontièrenaturelle; ils oublient manifestement
au'ilsont ailleurs dans leurs écrituresreietéles areuments économiques invoqués
63r le C3naJd <il'appui de i;icon:eption des so~sidcraiions d'kquitc i prcfidre
en compte pour 13 déliniitdtionde 11Jonc ivonomique :rcluii\e. Mais iettc
contradiction est une dieression. Monsieur le Président.et, iem'en excuse.ceque
je veux démontrer ici >est que la liste de vingt-huit esièces présentée le
Canada, àla différencede lalistede seizeespècesproposéepar les Etats-Unis, se
fonde sur des critères purement objectifs.
Le Canada a effectivement choisid'abord les vingt-cinq espècescommerciales
qui ont fourni les prises les plus importantes dans la subdivision 5Ze de la
CIPAN (qui comprend le banc de Georges et le grand chenal Sud) et ce depuis
1962,c'est-à-dire depuis qu'il existedes statistiques pour cette subdivision. La
liste des Etats-Unis. nar contre. exclut un certain nombre d'esnècesde cette
subdiiision qui sont au main, aui\i importdntes que celles qui y iigurcnt. t.n
outre. les Fiais-L'ni, s'elc\znt contrc I'inclusiondans 13 liste du Canada de iroii
espècesqui ont une importance pour la pêchesportive, le saumon, le thon rouge
et l'alose américaine - sous prétexteque celles-ci ne sont guère pêchées sur le118 GOLFE DU MAINE
banc de Georges. Mais ces espèces,qui migrent aux quatre coins du golfe du
Maine, font autant partie que tout autre de la communautéécologiquede la
région.Le fait qu'ellessoient migratrices, et s'inscriventdont en faux contre la
théoriedes Etats-Unis, ne peut sûrement pas être uneraison valable de les
exclure aux fins de l'analyse en cours.
Monsieur le Président, Messieurslesjuges, après avoirexaminéces critiques,
de mèmeque tous les autres reproches formuléspar les Etats-Unis, le Canada
demeure convaincu que ses conclusions sur la distribution des stocks de pois-
sons et d'invertébrésdans la régiondu golfe du Maine sont irréfutées,étant
solidement fondéesdans les faits. Ainsi qu'il a étédémontrédans le contre-
mémoiredu Canada, des preuves directes, fondéessur la distribution et la
migration des vingt-huit espècesd'importance pour la péchecommerciale et
sportive dans la régionnous permettent d'affirmerque lesstocksde deux espèces
seulement, sur les vingt-huit étudiées,ont effectivement diviséspar le fameux
chenal Nord-Est. Les stocks de toutes lesautres espècesou bien chevauchent ce
chenal, ou bien violent lesfrontières mythiques des prétendusrégimesécolo-
giques de la région.Et qui plus est, en ce qui concerne deux de ces espècesy
compris le homard, le chenal lui-mémefait partie intégrante de la zone de pèche
des pécheurscanadiens.
Encore une fois, lorsqu'il existe des zones de transition à ce troisième et
dernier niveau du milieu marin où la chambre doit délimiter une frontière
maritime uniaue. celles-ci necoïncident nas. Nous avons vu au'il en étaitainsi
que l'environnement soit considéré horizontalement ou verticalement - que la
colonne d'eau. lefond de la mer et le sous-sol soient considércomme un tout
ou sénarémentL . 'unité.lacontinuitéet lacomolexitésont lesthèmesdominants.
Ici ciimme 3illeurs. la nature ne s3~r~itéirccomp;irtimcnir:e dan\ dc petites
case;. IIn'ya pa, dc moule rigidc;I'inténc.~rcs occan.;.C'est bien 15J'ailleurr
cc que 1'~isairtessortir I'anibassndcurCuilcr. nenociaicur \r>tcialdei Eiais-lJnis
la régiondu golfe du Maine, dans un exposé au Sénatdes Etats-
Unis le 15avril 1980.Pour reprendre lestermes de l'ambassadeur Cutler: «while
good fencesmake good neighbours in some situations, there are no fenceson or
beneath the surface of the sea» (Hearinns Before rhe Commitreeon Foreinn
Xrlnti,~n.C,nitcd Siaics Scnatc. '~;nct)-siXih SeciinJ Se,sion. p. 351.
Moniizur Ir.Prkidcni. leCanada csi [ouiiiF~itd'accord aveccciie aitirmaiion
au sujet de l'absencede clôtures dans la mer. Cependant, nous émettonsles plus
sérieuses réserveasuant àla conceotion aue se font lesEtats-Unis desclôtureset
des voisinsdans la pré~cniexfiire. J'arrive donc mxintennni a cc dernier aspect
du rlossicr que j'ai l'honneur d\OUF cxpoier i iawir 1.1ihix inéditede la
«gestion paÏ un seul Etat)) proposéepar les Etats-Unis en tant que principe
équitable dedélimitation.
L'audience,suspendue a 16h 17,estreprise à 16 h 34
VI. KGESTIO NAR UN SEUL ETAI))
Au début de mon intervention, dus tôt cet a~rès-midi.i'ai indiqu.que ..
JCirirai Jans un premier icnips les caractcrisiiqucs c,scniizlles du milicu marin
dan, lx rCgiondu golic du Maine et que jc shcrchcrai dans un dcuxiémcicmp, à
clarifier leurpertinence en droit. Le deuxièmevolet de mon argument, heureuse-
ment, prendra moins de temps à développerque le premier.
Ni le droit ni l'équiténe viennent appuyer la théorie américaine d'une
frontièrenaturelle àtrois étagespour le sous-sol, lefond de la mer et la colonne
d'eau de la zone économiqueexclusive. D'ailleurs, ni le droit ni l'équiténe PLAIDOIRIE DE M. FORTIER 119
viennent appuyer la notion d'une:frontière naturelle, ne serait-ce que pour le
olateau continental sauf veut-ètre dans les cas où il est indubitable aue nous
avons araire à deux plateaux continentaux séparés etdistincts.
Je n'entends pas revenir icisur l'évolutionqui a conduit la théoriedu plateau
continental 1ui:même.oourtant oarticulièrement sensible, en raison de ses
origines hisioriques,i des clcnienis naiurels.i se dccrochrr dr cesderniers pour
s'orienter \ers une concepiion essenticllrmcnt ~uridiquc.rondcc 5ur une cert~ine
distance de la côte.
Je n'insisteraivas sur ceooint.oiii.aue I-aeentdu Canada en a déi..arlé.Mon
collègue, M. Legault, a démontré quele concept de prolongement naturel
pourtant ((introduit par la Cour dans le vocabulaire du droit international de la
mer » dans son arrètde 1969estdevenu un concept decaractère spatial, quiopère
indépendammentde toute caractéristique naturelle.
Je me contenterai donc de souligner qu'une prétendue frontière naturelle
définieDardes orétendusréeimesécoloeiauesdissocierait entièrement ladélimi-
tation descôtes'ou «façade~côtières» O; (extensions dela fa~ademaritime» qui
d'ailleurs,en tout premier lieu,rendent cette délimitationnécessaire. End'autres
termes, la théone américaine de la frontière naturelleest en contradiction
flagrante avec leur oroore thèseau suiet du ((fondement de tout titre àdes zones
m×» et du <ipri'ncipefondamental de la délimitationmaritimes.
Cette théorie dela frontière naturelle est manifestement un échafaudage ex
.,.f facto. une tentative de rationaliser la revendication monooolistiaue des
Etai\-Uni5 à la iotalitt du banc dc Georges En fait. ccitc rs\~end~c3iiun'tr(iu\.e
en elle-mfmc si propre justificiiiion, le fondcnicni juridique de cette rcvcndicï-
tion, c'est la ~e~endicationelle-même.Parce que le banc de Georges est une
caractéristiauenhvsiauement identifiable. ildevient - on ne sait troo comment -
jurid~~uem~nt;n&!i;hle
Jene verse pis dani 13 simplilic3tioni ouir;rncc, Monsie~rle Président.Je me
contente de decrirr:Irs simplitization~exccisive, ai,anïccs par lesEiiits-UnisCiir
le seul revêtementjuridiq"e que ces derniers aient pu trouver pour embellir et
appuyer leur théorie de la frontière naturelle résidedans leur théorie de la
«gestion par un seul Etat». Mais ces deux théories ne se soutiennent pas
mutuellement; elless'écroulent ensembleE .t elles s'écroulent ensemblpearce que
l'uneest tout simplement une redite de l'autre - en fait, la rationalisation d'une
rationalisation.
Mais que signifieexactement la <<gestion par un seul Etal»? L'expressionelle-
même est évocatrice. fidèle en cela à son obiectif oremier. Elle évoaueévidem-
ment leconcept trèsdifférentdela«gestion par I'Etat côtier »,qui faitmaintenant
oartie intégrantedu droit de la mer contemporain. Mais la gestion par I'Etat
côtier et la-gestion oar un seul Etat sont deui conceots radicalement différents.
La notion de ~a'~estiondes ressources halieutihes par I'Etat côtier a été
définiedans la convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer de 1982.Elle
signifietout simplementque1'Etatcôtier a seulautorité pour gérer les ressources
biologiques à l'intérieurde sa zone économiqueexclusive - en d'autres termes,
dans les zones adjacentes à sa côte et ce jusqu'à une distance maximum de
200milles.La gestion par 1'Etatcôtier est un objectifdont la réalisation nécessite
souvent la coooération bilatéraleou répionaleentre deux ou olusieurs Etats
in~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~~~~ ~ ~~-~urces halieutia. , uigratrices ou transfiontières. Dans
ces situations de chevauchement ou de migration, I'Etat côtier est tenu en droit
de collaborer avec les autres Etats ou organisations concernéspour assurer la
conservation efficacedes ressources enquestion.
C'est aussisimpleque cela. Aux termes de la convention de 1982sur le droit
de la mer I'Etat côtier a des droits exclusifs en matière de gestion mais desresponsabilit2; partagees au chapitre de la conseri,xtion. NI iei Jraiti ni ces
rçsponsabilit>r n'inllucni de quelquc facon que L.esoit hur la JClimitation de la
7onccconomique e.xclusi\~e ou zone de péchcde ?IN1niilles. Ils n'ont riÙnLoir
n\ec 13determinstiun de druils iouvrrains ou de 1.juridicli<lnJ'Etats i~iiers qui
se fhnt incc oii qui wni adj.iceni.
Toutefois, sinous voulonstrouver une définitionde la notion de la gestion par
un seulEtat, nous n'avons d'autre choix que de consulter lesécritures desEtats-
Unis. Car cette notion n'ad'autres sources nid'autre autoritéque lesécrituresde
nos amis américains.Or, d'après les Etats-Unis, la gestion par un seul Etat
signifieque les frontièresmaritimes sont tracéesde façon àéviter,dans toute la
mesure du possible. la division de ressources halieutiques entre deux Etats
côtiers voisins (mémoiredes Etats-Unis, par. 16-17, 247, 320, 322; contre-
mémoire desEtats-Unis, par. 10, 128: ré~liauedes Etats-Unis. Dar. 133). En
d'autres termes, toutes lei fois que la chose est possible, I'undes ~tats doit
remporter la part du lion.
Ce postulat est peut-êtred'autant plus étonnantqu'il est mis en avant dans
cette affaireDarnoi adversairessouslëcouvert d'unc~rincioe . .itahle~.Mieux
encore. selon les Etais-llnis. toute conte%txtionJr ce pr2tendu principc doit Arc
automatiquemeni ccartcc. et TC du rcvers Je la main, puisqu'ellccquivaudr~it <i
la revendication d'une part juste et équitable- ce qui n'est pas admis en droit
international.
Toujours selon les Etat-Unis, ce postulat extraordinaire s'appuie sur deux
fondements. Premièremen:, si l'intégralitéd'une ressource est placée sous
l'autoritéd'un seul Etat. il en résulteraautomatiauement une conservation ol.s~ ~
rlliwce. B~uvirnii~nvnr. si Ici Etais son1appel& ic<illahorer2 Iü conser\;ition
d'une ressource pariiipee. il surgir.! incvit.iblement un diferend entre eux.
Mêmes'il estimoossible de trouver en droit auel. . fondement sur leauel
puissent reposer ces'dcuxbalise>du pnncipc ami.ricainJc a la gevtionpdr un ;cul
Etatr. on serait peul-?ire teniéde conclure qu'ilsont i tout le moins une b~se
quelconque dans la realpolitik. Mais une telle conclusion serait-elle vraiment
valable? Je ne lecroispas, Monsieur le Président,surtout pas en ce qui concerne
le Canada et les Etats-Unis.
Cesdeux pays,en effet,ontune longueet généralement fmctueuse tradition de
coopérationdans le domaine de la conservation efficacedes ressources halieu-
tiques. Dans le contre-mémoiredu Canada nous retrouvons quelques exemples
des commentaires élogieux formulés par des fonctionnaires et mêmesdes
pêcheurs américains àI'endroit,entre autres, de la commissioninternationale du
flétandu Pacifique et de la commission internationale des pêcheriesde saumon
du Pacifique (par. 236, 237 et 240). Un examen rigoureux des résultatsde la
recherche menéesous les auspices de commissions bilatérales agaranti l'ohjec-
tivitédu processus et a aidéles deux Parties à résisteraux demandes oarfois
ex~~r'r~es'dleeurs industries h3lieutiquer. qui. eller, ne sont pa$toujour; prktçs
J'emhlee i accepter les restriciii,ns néce\iairc>i Iï conservation Je\ rcssourccs.
Nous reconnaissons qu'il peut survenir parfois dans les pratiques de gestion
des divergencessusceptiblesd'occasionner des difficultés.Nous avons d'ailleurs
mis en relief dans nos écritures les sérieuxproblèmes qui se sont posés,
notamment au niveau de la conservation des pétoncles,après que les Parties
eurent étendu leur juridiction. Ces problèmes tenaientà deux raisons princi-
al es:d'une nart. les Etats-Unis n'ont nas cherché à adooter les mesures d-~
riglcmentation n2icisairer ci, d'autre part. la geition coorJi>nncc qu'aurait
permis J'as\urcr I'a~corJde 1979sur lesrcrulurces hïlieutiquïs de la c6te cst ne
s'estpas matérialiséeM. ais, là aussi, la solution ne setrouve pas dans la «gestion
par un seulEtat». A vrai dire, leproblèmerésidedans ledéfautdegestion par un PLAIDOIRIE DE M. FORTIER 121
scul Eidi Et. encore une foi,, c'coiJans la c<~i~rdinatiocni li co<ipr:r~tiunqu'il
Fautchercher la r<>l~tionL. c.Cansd;i et les Eilits-CIIISont 3nipleiiicnt déinonire
a.'ils.oeuvent coooérer etcoordonner leurs efforts afin d'assurer la conservation
dc rcjsourccs ;iu~qucllcsils :iitü~.hciritous deu\ une importance c<)n.iJI:rahle.
Dlns leur r>plique, Ici Etats-Cnis ne coniestcnt pas Icscreniplcs d'acti\iiér
hil:iti.ralesi~llicacrsque cite le C~n:ida aux chapitres de coopér.iiionci de ILI
conservation (répliqÜedes Etats-Unis, par. 145). Ils ne les contestent pas. Ils
s'attardent plutôt à mettre en relief les problèmes auxquels les Parties se sont
heurtées récemmend tans le cadre de leurs efforts en vue de mettre au point des
ententes prévoyant unecoopération élargiedans le domaine de la conser\,ation
et de la gestion du saumon du Pacifique.
Ces difficultésexistentbel et bien. Et des efforts sont faits des deux côtéspour
arriver à les surmonter. II est toutefois regrettable que les Etats-Unis misent
maintenant sur ces difficultésoour aoouver leur revendication dans la présente
atT~ire.Srlon no",. p~rcilleaiiitudc ;i:csi piis siisccptihlcde jcier küuc&up plu,
de luniicre sir le difirend qui oppihe les deux pa)i dans 13 r2gion du golfe du
M3inc.
J'ai ir.iitc brib\enieni. lonhieur le PrCsiJcnt. hles~icurr Ici ~ugcs. de 13
coopération bil:iiérïledxn\ la gcition des pkhcs. J'ehpirc ious a\oir dr'munirc'
uu'ellca 2121.1nornic ci non I'cxcr~tioiidan, Icr rapport, entre le Canada cl le,
Ètats-unis. dans tous lescas où n3[ntervenaientvasdes auestions de juridiction.
La mêmetiadition de coopérationdans la gestion des ressources traisfrontières
a prévalu ailleursque dans la mer entre ces deux pays. Ainsi, tous les juristes
iniernationaux connaissent le travail de la commission mixte internationale;
depuis sa création, en 1909, cet organisme a joué un rôle crucial dans la
réglementation deseaux frontalières des Parties.
Mais il n'ya pas seulement cette tradition bilatérale.En effet, cette tradition
reflète,et a mêmecontribué, àun Ncorpus>)de plus en plus imposant de règlesde
droit international en matière de gestion de ressources naturelles ou de
ressources transfrontières communes. Cet ensemble de règles, vous le savez
mieux que moi, a étéentérinp éar la Cour dans lesaffairesdu Plareauconrinenral
de la mer du Nord de 1969.
IIest quelque peu étonnant que les Etats-Unis aient choisi de citer les affaires
de la mer du Nord pour appuyer leur théoriede la gestion par un seul Etat. Car
la notion d'«unitéde eisementsn dont ilest fait mention dans ces affaires ne vient
cerles p35 a\:tllx'r la prupJSlllOn scion 13quellele ir~céd:i ironliérer :lu 1:irge
Joii contourner lesSiscmenisde idçon ;ilesÿtir~buerd un seul Etat t:n Fait.dan5
sa décision.la Cour~aadoptéprécisémenlta position contraire en insistant sur la
nécessitéd'une forme qÛelconque de coofération pour préserver l'unitédes
gisements là où le tracéd'une ligne de démarcation pouvait les traverser. La
Cour a statuécomrne suit:
%.ifaut acceptrr ~.ctte.ituüli<~ncomme.une Jonn2e de 1'31ci la résoudre soit
o3r unedi\ision de\ 7onci de chei,liuîhemcni elkctuk par \uic,d'accoid ou.
a défaut,.ar D.rtséeales.soit oar des accords d'exoloitation en commun.
cette dernière solutron Paraissant appropriée lorsqu'ii
s'agitde préserver I'unité d'unisement » (C.I.J.Recueil1969, p. 52,par. 99).
Dans son opinion individuelle, M. lejuge Jessup a fait sienne l'opinion de la
Cour. IIa ég-lement enchaîné et fait allusionàdes accords existanls relatifs à la
mer du Nord et triiii.int de I'erploii~iion en ci)mmun, ain\i qu'a d'autres accords
bilatiraux Je coopi.raii<>ni l'extérieurde la régionde ILimcr du Nord d;in. le
ccidredesquels Ir., lignes Je Jclimitaii~in IraversJicnr des giscmcnis d'h)droaar-
bures. E~-M. le juge Jessup a rappelé «that the principle of international122 GOLFE DU MAINE
cooperation in the exploitation of a natural resource is well established in other
international practicen (C.I.J. Recueil 1969, D.82).
L'éventaildes exemples de coopération dans la gestion de ressources com-
munes citépar M. lejuge Jessup est trèsinstructif. Sesexemples - il parle entre
autres du règlement d'Helsinki - viennent réfuter carrément l'allégationdes
Etats-Unis selon laquelle le droit international appuie leur théoriede la gestion
par un seul Etat.
Bref, le concept de I'unitéde gisement signifietout simplement que, là où les
ressources en mer sont diviséesou peuvent êtrediviséespar une ligne de
délimitation déterminéesur la base de rèeles i-ridi-ues. l.s E,ats en cause
doivent coopérera leur conservation.
Or, comme les Etats-Unis le reconnaissent eux-mêmes,toute frontière mari-
time dans la réaion du golfe du Maine divisera des ressources (réoliaue des
Etats-Unis, par.'146). ~ùiune ligne unique ne peut partager inéluctablementla
myriade des ressources en cause. La coopération entre le Canada et les Etats-
Unis s'imposerade toute façon,non seulement en cequi a trait aux ressources de
pêchemais aussi très vraisemblablement en ce qui concerne les ressources
minéraleset les ressources en hydrocarbures. Au niveau de la protection du
milieu marin, la coopération devra êtrela règle. Voilà pourquoi, selon le
Canada, Monsieur le Président,la théoriede la gestion par un seul Etat postulée
par les Etats-Unis ne tient pas dans les faits et encore moins dans de droit. Elle
susciterait les problèmes mêmes qu'elle prétend vouloir éviter.
Je conclus niaintenant mon exposépar quelques remarques d'ordre général.
Comme ie lementionnais cet après-midiau début de monexoosé.le conceDt
~ ~l~ frontière naturelle est deoufs lonetemos reieté endroit et'en nratiaue s"r
terre. IIn'a jamais été reconnu dans la mer. Mêmeen ce qui concerne le plateau
continental, c'est-à-direlajuridiction maritime où, sous lecouvert de «prolonge-
ment naturel)). la «nature» a DU a un moment donnéiouer uncertain rôle danila
dCtcrniination du tiirc lurtdiiuc cl dans la dr:lirnii<iii',n.le, fiiiIddndturc ont
pr<igrerri\cmcni cédé Iî place 3ux hii, ,uridi~uei Si I'idcntificdiiùn du Pr<>-
lonccmcni <n;iiurclr ncsiirlit plu\;<dCicrmincrIcir;iccd'unc fr,mii2rcsur lefimd
de ia mer. encore olus vain aooara..-il de ooursuivre l'identification d'une
quclcùnqiic Iiniitc ~~naturçlls~c~nirc deux juridictions biatiquei \ur Iii ~.olonnc
d'eau. LavGritCcsiqii'iln'ya tout simplcmcntaucune rupiurc<<nalurclle~,dans lx
mer.
Cette théoriede la frontière naturelle estd'autant plus redoutable en l'espèce
qu'elles'accompagne de son doppelgonger, son aller ego,soit la «gestion par un
seul Etat ».Nous ne pouvons demander àdes hommes de sciencede sesubstituer
aux plaideurs et aui juges. Agir ainsi necontribue en rien ni à la science ni au
droit.
La science,surtout dans lesecteur relativementjeune des pêchese ,st lesiègede
nombre de controverses légitimes.Mais les doutes scientifiques sedissipent dès
que des frontièresnaturelles sont introduites dans I'équation.Tout devient noir
et blanc, toutes les nuances disparaissent. Et même side telles simplifications
excessivesétaient acceptéespour argent comptant, elles ne sauraient certes se
substituer ni au droit ni à I'ésuité.
Monsieur le Président,~eisieurs les juges, en lisant les écritures des Etats-
Unis, nous serions portésa croire que le chenal Nord-Est est l'unedes merveilles
naturelles du monde - au même titreque les chutes du Niagara, ou encore le
Grand Canyon du Colorado ou encore la Grande Barrièreen Australie. Nous PLAIDOIRIE DE M. PORTIER 123
serions portés à croire qu'un phénomènenaturel d'une telle ampleur - qui,
prétend-on, constituerait une frontière naturelle mêmepour les activitéshu-
maines - aurait une place de choix dans la littératurescientifiqueet mêmedans
la littératurepopulaire. Or, ce n'est pas le cas. On a beau fouiller les écritsqui
font autorité, il n'est aucunement fait mention du chenal Nord-Est dans ces
termes.
1.aconclubi<inqiie leCaniida tire de ti%~tcch. c'estquc le milieumarin ne peut
Jictrr une ironticrc maritime unique dans la régiiindu golfedu Mciine Ddns les
faits.Iü c.iracieristiauc dominant<.de cc niilicuest ,a ciimplexitéet YJ \,aridhlliik
à l'intérieurd'un ensemble intéeré.En droit. sa caractéristiaue véritablement
pertinente est l'unité incontestée duplateau Continental et An prolongement
naturel commun aux deux Etats. Cette réalitésuffirait à elle seule à détruire la
théorie de la«frontière naturelle» oroooséevar les Etats-Unis
Qui plus cil, Ichanc de George'.monire heiucoup d'affinitr:~ pariiculicrcsa\.cc
d'3utrr.s7onc\ canadiennes au norcI-c\t. sur les plan, géologique,géoph)siquc.
océanonraohiaue et bioloniaue. Ces affinitéstiennent à la structure du bassin
ScotiaK ai transport d'eaux arctiques dans la régionpar les courants de la
Nouvelle-Ecosseet du Labrador et àl'influencedes maréesde la baie de Fundy.
Comme nous l'avons vu un peu plus tôt cet après-midi, ces affinitéssont par
ailleurs observables à tous les échelonsde la chaîne alimentaire depuis le
phytoplancton jusqu'aux poissoiis, où les espècesdominantes sont d'qrigine
boréale.
C'estdans ce sens, Monsieur lePrésident,que la nature confirmela logiquede
la revendication canadienne~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oartie est du banc de Georees. Mais la
revendication du Canada est fondée'surle droit et non sur la «na&re» selon la
conception que s'en font les Etats-Unis. Ainsi, la revendication du Canada
resoecte l'élémentde l'ordre naturel auauel le droit attache une imnortance
prip~ndirantc ;isaidir 1.1configuration ilesc6tes. Par contre, la re,eidicdtion
des Fidis-llnis dissocie la Jelimiiation de cet aspccl \ilal de l'ordre naturcl Jans
la régiondu golfe du Maine.
En fait, non seulement les Etats-Unis ne tiennent-ils aucun compte des côtes,
mais ils ont aussi une perception erronée du milieu marin. Ils ont réussià
compliquer le concept simple de l'unité duplateau continental tout en simpli-
fiant à l'excèsles comolexités inhérentesà la colonne d'eau. Comme i'esoère . .
I'a~oirdén~ontrc,la rialité ne correjpond pas $ ceirc dcwnprion. mènicsi Ir
droit r.1l'équitércçonnuissalent I;ithcoric dc II Irontiere ndturelle prC~.unis6cpar
les Etats-Unis.
La réalité ne corresnond vas davantaee àcette théoriede la frontièrenaturelle
tout le long de la fr~nii~ret~rrsstrcque ~artagcnt leCanada et lesEtats-Unis Lc
traiiéde Paris de 1783a reparti Ixcsci ri\itres entre lesdeux pas, sur de longues
Giend~esde 13ironiiCrc trrrcsirs Diins la récionaui s'étend immédiatement3u
nord du golfe du Maine, la frontière ferrit&ale-établie par le traitéde Pans
consiste en une ligne tiréeau rnilieu de la rivière Sainte-Croix, depuis son
embouchure dans la baie de Fundy jusqu'à sa source. Ce mêmetraitéstipulait en
outre que, plus avant dans lesterres, la lignede délimitation devait passerpar le
milieudu fleuveSaint-Laurent pour rejoindre le lac Ontario, puis du lac Ontario
passer par le milieu du lac Eriéet du lac Huron et, pour une bonne partie du
reste du tracé,par lemilieudu lac Supérieur.Le tracéprécisde cette frontière, et
celuide la frontièreaui s'ét~n~du lac Suoérieurau lac des Bois. a étéarrêté var
Istraitéde Gand en i814 et, plus tard, par le tr~iiéWchstsr-A,hburton de lG2.
1.i encore. la maicure parue de la lignc de d>limitatlon est conslitu~e par la
médiane équidistante desnves oppost?esdes rivièreset des lacs.
En d'autres termes, Monsieur le President, ni les frontières naturelles ni la124 GOLFE DU MAINE
gestion par un seul Etat n'ont jamais jouéun r6le important dans les relations
entre les Parties deouis aue les Etats-Unis ont acquis leur indéuendance. Ce
serait nier l'histoire'et le droit que d'introduire ces concepts dans'la détermina-
tion des derniers 200 millesde frontièreentre le Canada et les Etats-Unis, dans
une mer en perpétuel mouvement ARGUMENTOF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE
C'OUNSELFOR THE COVERNMENT OF CANADA
Professor BROWNLIE: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, it is my task
this afternoon to examine the conduct of the Parties in this case from the point
of view of the law relating to acquiescence and estoppel. In making my
presentation, 1am assisted by my colleague, MissValerie Hughes of the Ontario
Bar.
The Canadian position has two aspects, which are independent but comple-
mentarv. MI. Lerault has alreadv outlined the law of the sea hasis of the single
maritime boundarv as defined in.the submissi~ ~of the Government of canada
which concludes the Canadian Reply.
In addition Canada rests her case on the principles of acquiescence - or
recognition - and estoppel. These pnnciples are of course part of general
international law and have an independent role in confirming and reinforcing
the legal validity of the Canadian claim.
Evidentlv. the conduct of the Parties also forms part of the relevant
circumstan~esof which account is to be taken in achievi& an equitable result,
and this aspect of the matter will be examined by my colleague, Professor
Bowett.
It will behelpful to the Chamher if l commencewith my main propositions of
law.
The conduct of the United States from 1965to 1969-and indeed from 1964to
1969 - constitutes acquiescencein or recognition of the use of the equidistance
method in the delimitation of the continental shelf inthe Gulfof Maine area and
the exerciseof Canadian jurisdiction over Georges Bank, and creates an estoppel
in favour of Canada; consequently, the single maritime houndary to be
determined by the Court should he compatible with the rights that vested in
Canada dunng that period.
The keyelements in Canada's position in respectof acquiescenceand estoppel
can be stated in summary form, thus:
Firsr,Canada began issuing permits for the continental shelfon the northeast
portion of Georges Bank beginning in 1964, based on the assumption of an
equidistance boGdary.
Second,Canada's issuance of permits up to the equidistance line in 1964and
actually straddling the equidistance line in 1965 was widely publicized in
publications transmitted to United Statesauthorities through the United States
Embassy in Ottawa and othenvise. The Bureau of Land Management letters,
among other things, constitute iriefutable evidence of actual knowledge of the
Canadian permits by United States officiaisat least by I April 1965.
Third t,e United States did no1 make any reservation of rights until
November 1969. No specific alternative to an equidistance houndary was
formulated hy the United States until il put fonvard its Northeast Channel line
in 1976.
Fourth, Canada relied upon United States acquiescence and did not take
immediate steps to fix, in the words of the United States, "the exact location of
the boundary", according to the equidistance method then accepted by both
Parties (1, Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. III, Ann. Il, p. 64). Canada also126 GULF OF MAINE
look certain \tep\ uiih rcgdrd to II\pcrmils uhch hound ihe Go\eriiiiient and
:ilio ciir.ndr.J pri\;tti. rights 2re:iieJ h) ihe periiiiir.
t'lll/ln the cirium\iancei - the iiublic acti\itb\ C'andd:iin l\<iiine Perinit~
in respect of Georges Bank and ihe prolongid absence of any reiirvation
of rights on the part of the United States - the validity of the Canadian
line is opposable to the United States on the basis of the legal principles of
acquicsccnce and estoppel.
Canada's position thus summarized reflects important realities and is not an
artificial construct. Ahove all, Canada's Iine is consistent with her previous
positions and has not been invented for the purposes of this case. Moreover, in
the material period the United States itselfassumed an equidistance boundary in
granting permission to conduct geophysical surveys on Georges Bank.
Mr. President, what is particularly striking is the general compatibility -
indeed, the conformation - of the administrative practice of the two Parties in
the material period in relation of the Gulf of Maine area.
The absence of protest by the United States in faceof Canadian public activity
based upon an equidistance line is perfectly understandable when it is appreci-
ated that the practice of the two States was coincident.
It was the United States alone which was eventually to have second thoughts
about the principle of the equidistance lineboundary. But these second thoughts
were slowto mature and have never cohered, as the state of the pleadings shows.
No reservation of rights occurred until late in 1969(Canadian Memorial, Anns.,
Vol. III. Ann. 13, p. 67); the specific formulation of a line other than the
equidistance line only took place in November 1976 (ibid A.,ns., Vol. 11,
Ann. 30, p. 213); and the so-called adjusted perpendicular line appears as
recently as 1982.
These are the realities of the dispute which are reflectedin Canada's line and
which provide the underpinning to her position concerning acquiescence and
estoppel.
Canada's reliance upon these principles is to be seen also as a reflection of the
practical needs of the system of international relations. The general concept of
acquiescence lies within the hest traditions of international law in matters
of delimitation.
The principles of acquiescenceand estoppel rest after al1upon the concepts of
stabilitv and fairness. and no1 uoon a narrow leealism.
gai nit thir baikpround - the actual hirtoryif the dirpute .ind the gcnerdl
;onsistene) <iCsii3d:i'. position c6imparr.Jaith that (ifihr.oiher Part) - Ic.in
now turn to an examination of the essential factual elements relating to
acquiescence and estoppel in this case.
The details of the Canadian permit programme have been set forth in
Canada's written pleadings. Canadian "permits" are long-term instruments
conferrine the ovtion of exclusive oroduction riehts. Thev are thus auite
ditlerent rriini ihéicinporAry. non-cxïlusiie auth<i~ïïiions r&cd upiin h) the
Uniied Sixtes iiiits krgumcnt concerning its geoph!sicdl survev 'permits". My
colleaxue I'rofewnr Roustt uiII exrilain thcre ditlercncr.~in tcrniinulue,
Canada issued oil and eas oermits for Georees Bank based on a reiianeular
grid s)stem. heginning in'mii-1964. H) th: end <iithxt )car pcrmiis h.idlhecn
i$rucJ zxtending cldsc 10and in wnic CJSCS dctually abuiting on an cquidi\tancc
line t:arl\ in 1005C;ind\la iisucd additional ~ermits str~ddlina ihc cuuidisiancç
line. By that lime a total of 35 permits had been issued coveing th; northeast
portion of Georges Bank, al1to major United States oil companies.
Mr. President, the figurewhich has been on the lightbox for someminutes isa ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 127
representation of a part of the permit map attached to theetter of 8 April 1965
from the Canadian Department of Northern Affairs of National Resources to
l% the United States Denartment of the Interior. and it aooears as Fieure 60 of the
w dossier of Canadian ;llu\traiions to the oralharing; '~he tigurGs non being
@ rcplaccd hy Figurc61, whirh ,hous thcs.imcdistritiution ofpcrmitsrt thnt date,
8 Anril 1965,deoicicd more cunvenicntlt and in more \ii,id iorm <i3 C~nadian
basémapof the.Gulf of aine area.
The Canadian permit prograrnme, which involved an express and direct
concem with legal nghts of exploration and exploitation in respect of the
mineral resources of the continental shelf. was imolemented with the amount of
puhliciiy ih31 u,ould he norm;il in the circumsiaiices. anditis no matter ior
iurprisc lhdlilwiiskn<iun to the iclevrnt oflicialsof rhc Unitrd StltIlUJ~ in
evcrs scnw a nuhlis acti\its and11afictcd ~.ontinentalshcliareJs thxi ivere the
obj&t of atteition hy leadi& corporations intent on carrying out oil exploration
on both the United States and Canadian sides of the equidistance line.
The Canadian Govemment promptly published information on ils permits in
the Monthly Oil and Cas Report (III, Canadian Counter-Memorial, Anns.,
Vol. III,Chap. 1,App. 5, p. 217)including the location of the permits, the name
of the permit holders and other matters. The Monrhly Oil and Cas Report was
circulated to a wideranee of recinients. includine the United States Emhassv in
Ott3u.~.and major somi>anicsan? Irade 3ssocia~ons in the 011and gas indu&).
The Canrdian Go\crnmcnt 13suedniaps shi>\i,inpthe George, Bank pernilis anil
other Canadian permits.
In a sensethe question whether the Canadian programme was a public activity
is rather academic, since there 1sa considerable body of direct evidence to the
effect that the United States Government had full knowledge of the issue of
Canadian permits.
The principal, but by no means the only, evidenceof the knowledge of United
Statesofficialsisthe correspondence which look place in the penod 1965to 1969
(ref. generally to Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. III, Anns. 1-14,pp.et seq.).
The first reaction to the issuing of permits was a letter dated I April 1965from
the United States Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the
Interior. In this letter, the Bureau's Assistant Director for Lands and Minerals
statcd that:
"me have information that the Canadian Federal Government recently
has issued offshore permits forneral prospecting on the Outer Continen-
tal Shelf.
Some of the suhmerged lands we understand you have leased under
offshore permits are approximately 125nautical miles east of Cape Cod."
As a consequence, the letter requested information for the specific purpose of
locating the permits in the context of
"the median line as defined in Article 6 of the Convention on the
Continental Shelf, agreed upon at the 1958United Nations Conference on
the Law of the Sea al Geneva" (ibid., Anns., Vol. 111,Ann. 1, p. 1).
On 8 April 1965, Canada complied with the request for information by
sending detailed maps showing the location of Canada's oil and gas permits, off
both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and also a sketch map showing the areas
under permit on Georges Bank (ibid., Ann., Vol. III, Ann. 2, p. 5).
Mr. President, this distribution of the permits as al 8 April 1965is shown on
@ Figure 61, already on the lightbox.
On 14 May 1965,the United States Bureau of Land Managemerit acknow- 128 GULF OF MAINE
ledged receiptof the maps showing the location of the permits and proceeded to
raise a particular question:
"Inasmuch as the Iocorionof a median line might be subiect to different
interpretations, we suggest that you check the iocations of your permits
which approach submerged lands under United Statesjurisdiction to see if
they are within Canadian jurisdiction under an application of Article 6 of
the Convention on the Continental Shelf of the 1958Geneva Conference."
The letter continues:
"This communication is king written solely in the interest of seeing if
there is a basis for disagreement as to the location of a median line
separating Our respectivejurisdictions on the Outer Continental Shelf. As
an operating Bureau, we, of course, have no authority to enter into any
formal discussion of the location of a median line in case of a dispute.
However, weare hopeful that there could be a simplemisunderstanding on
either our part or yours, of the elementsposilioninga median linf this is
the case, then the matter could be amicably determined without resort to
high authority." (Ibid., Anns.. Vol.III, Ann. 4, p. 26; emphasis added.)
The implications of this letter are absolutely clear. The United States
Department of the Interior, of which the Bureau of Land Management was a
part, was well aware of the legal implications of the Canadian permit pro-
gramme and was concerned not to challenge the principle of a median line, but
to raise the question of the precise location, the elements positioning a median
line. The context was the application of Article 6 of the Convention on the
Continental Shelf.
The Canadian reply Io this letter dated 16June 1965was unamhiguous. It
assured the United Statesthat Canada had utilizeda median line"constmcted in
accordance with the equidistance priiciple as defined in ~rticle 6" of the
Continental Shelf Convention, and went on to explain the operation of the
Canadian grid system (Canadian Mernorial, Anns., Vol. 111,Ann. 6, p. 32).
On 16 August 1966, an official of the United States Embassy in Ottawa
telephoned the Director of the Research Development Branchof the Canadian
Department of Mines and Technical Surveys requestinginformation conceming
Canadian permits in the Gulf of Maine area. This request was confirmedhy a
letter fromthe United States Embassy to the Canadian Government of the same
date (ibid., Anns., Vol. III, Ann. 7, p. 33).
In order to leaveno doubt as to the formal and clearly definedposition of the
Canadian Government on the boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, the
Canadian Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs replied to this enquiry
hy the United States Embassy. In his letter dated 30 August 1966,the Under-
Secretary affirmedprevious explanations of Canadian policy,and referred to the
median line "which divides the areas of jurisdiction between Canada and the
United States...". Once again the Canadian grid system was described,and it
was noted that "the exact position" ofthe median line "mightbe open to some
interpretation" (ibid., Anns., Vol. III, Ann. 8, p. 36).
Attached to this letter was a map of the Canadian permits relating to the
Georges Bank area issued al that lime, the pattern of which clearly indicates
the existence of an eauidistance line divid-ne Geo.~es Bank (see ibid.. Anns..
Vol. III, Ann.8, p. 3<).
@ ,MI. President, Figure 62, which is also present in the dossiea,representa-
tion of part of the permit map attached to the letter of 30August 1966from the
Canadian Department of External Affairs to the United States Embassy in ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORRROWNLIE 129
Ottawa. and this isconvenientlydepicted on a Canadian basemapof the Gulfof
Maine area.
This correspondence shows that the United States had detailed knowledge of
the Canadian permit programme and of the existence of an equidistance
boundary from some lime before April 1965.
Even after the corresoondence of the oeriod 1965-1966.the oosition relatinr
to perniiis rem~ined ;nîhan@cd ior anoiher ihrec )cars. d;rin- which ni;
challenge uar made 10 ihe equiilij1;inceline
,\Unitcd Si.itcs aide-m2m~ircor IO '43, 1968 rcfcrs tn ihc nccd in ieck an
agreement on the "exact location" of the b6undary "in the area of the northern
half oftheGeorges Bank", and does no1question the v;ilidityoftheequidistance
line (ibid., Anns., Vol. III, Ann. II, p. 63).
In spite of the correspondence going back to carly 1965 and the several
transmissions of maps by Canada showing the pattern of permits, the United
States made no rescrvation of riglits until the appcarance of an aide-mémoireof
5 November 1969 (ibid.,Anns, Vol. III, Ann. 13.p. 67).
That thisaide-mémoire constitutedthe first reservation ofrights was explicitly
recognized by the United States in a diplomatic note or 20 May 1976 (ibid..
Anns.. Vol. III, Ann. 32, p. 115).
The rescrvation of nghts late in 1969comcs aftcr a period or more than five
years during which Canada's well-publicizedprogramme of permits had elicited
no protest as to the principle of Canada's equidistance line.
It is notable, too, that the reservation of righis of 1969was in general terms
and it was no1 until late in 1976that the United States formulated a line other
than equidistance.
The United States has sought to deny its acquicscence in the use of
eauidistance for the delimitation of a boundarv on the continental shelf in the
Ciulioi Iainc arca hy rcic,rringiciit,ciwnr.<inductJuritig the rcle\;int pcrioii in
grantinggcoph)sicaI sur\cy permit,. Thirconduii. it issaid. cstabl~shcsthitt the
Uniicd SI~ICI I<,UZ~pcrmils cirer thc 'niirthe.iitcrn poriiginoi Gc<irgcsBank"
durine the oeriod in which the Uriited States is alleee10 have acauieiced in an
equid;stan& boundary (IV, United States counier-hemorial. p. 176,para. 280).
However, as my colleagueProfessor Bowett willdemonstrate in detail, a close
examination of the unitid States eeoohvsical survev oermits reveals conduct
substantially consistent with acqu'Gscéncein canada's reliance on the equi-
distance method for delimitation in the Gulf of Maine area. Such examination
demonstrates - as was implicit in the correspondence of the Bureau of Land
Manaeement. the BLM corresnondenee- that the United States Bureau of Land
~anagement'was itself using an equidistance line on Georges Bank.
The existence of the "BLM line" reinforces the Canadian argument on
acquiescence. for itconfirms that the United States was no1disposed to protest
the Canadian equidistance line;and the location of the BLM lineslightly to the
norihcast of the Canadian line explains the queries raised by the United States
about the "exact location" oc, and "elements positioning", an equidistance line
(Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. 111,Anns. 4 and II, pp. 26 and 64). As
Professor Bowett will explain, the diFerence bctwcen the BLM linc and the
Canadian equidistance line appears to have been due 10 failure to make
allowance for scaledistortion on a Mercator projection - the "simple misunder-
standing" mentioncd in the BLM letter of 14May 1965(ibid., Anns., Vol. III,
Ann. 4, p. 26).
Mr. President, the BLM linehas been illustrated in Figure 21of the Canadian
@ Reply and this is reproduced now as Figure 63 of the dossier of Canadian
illustrations to theoral hearings. The continuous green linerepresents the lineon130 GULF OF MAINE
which United States administrative practice was based in the material period,
and the pecked black linerepresents the strict equidistance line in the Gulf of
Maine area.
When the United States Geological Survey,another agency within the lnterior
Department, began issuing geophysical survey permits for Georges Bank,
reference was made to the BLM line. Again, Professor Bowett will describe in
detail what cari be seen from the United States survev oer,i.s for laree co-u ~ ~
operative surveys by several dozen oil companies. The important point for
present purposes is that throughout the 1960s-and indeed until 1972 - none of
those permits impinged significantly upon the northeast portion of Georges
Bank.
The United States seeks to escape from the consequences of ils conduct by
diminishing the role of the Department of the Interior with respect to continen-
tal shelfoolicv. The extent of the lnterior De~artment's mandate in this regard.
. . u ~-,
however,was rçcently reaffirmed whenon 8 ~ecember 1982it published a notice
of jurisdiction in the United States Federal Repisrer announcing United States
jurisdiction for leasing and otherwise regulatGg the recovery of polymetallic
sulfides on the continental shelf and sea-bed off the Westcoast of the United
States (V, Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II, Part IV, Ann. 21, p. 783). Canada
promptly protested to the United States Department of State regarding this
apparent assertion ofjurisdiction over an area lyingpartly within the continental
shelf of Canada, and over other areas beyond the seaward limit of the
continental margin and beyond the seaward limit of the 200-mile fishing zone
(ibid., Anns., Vol. 11, Part IV, Ann. 22, p. 790). The lnterior Department
subsequently published a clarification limiting United States continental shelf
jurisdiction to 200 miles. Significantly, however, in the face of the Canadian
diplomatie protest the United StatesState Department did not seek to deny that
the claims made by the Department of the Interior were made on behalf of the
United States (ibid., Anns., Vol. II, Anns. 21-23, pp. 783-798).
Moreover, the United States contentions concerning the authority of the
Interior Department are designed to obscure certain realities: namely, the fact
that a number of agencies within the United States Government had actual
knowledge of the Canadian permit programme, and that their collective
behaviour was fully consistent with acquiescence in Canada's use of the
equidistance method. In 1965 it was the United States Bureau of Land
Management which had two separate exchanges of correspondence with Cana-
dian officialsregarding the Canadian permits. In 1966,it was the United States
State Department, acting through the United States Embassy in Ottawa, which
telephoned and wrote to Canadian officials - and which receiveda reply from
the highest levelswithin the Canadian Department of External Aiïairs. Subse-
quently, there is evidence that, in 1969,the Bureau of Land Management was
still using an equidistance line on Georges Bank, and that the United States
Geological Survey was issuing geophysical surveypermits with reference to the
R1.M -i~~~~-
Even with these manifestations of United States acquiescence, Canada was
nevertheless vigilant in the protection of ils own rights. When in late 1969it
came to the attention of Canadian officials that a United States company,
Exploration Surveys Inc., planned todo research on the Canadian side of the
equidistance line without securing the proper Canadian licence, the company
was informed immediately of the requirements of Canadian law (Canadian
Memorial, Anns., Vol. II, Ann. 50, pp. 576-583). Canada did not, of course,
have to make anyenquiries of the United StatesGovernment. The aide-mémoire
of 5 November 1969assured Canada with respect to the "northern portion of ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 131
theCie,irge>Bank ioniinenirl shelr' thdi "ihe L'niicdSiïies hss refraincd irom
ïiiihori7ing mincr.il cxplur:iiion or e\pli)ii:iiii>nin ihe ïrrï" (ih~d..Ann,.. Vol.
III, Ann. i3, p. 68).
11might he added that when the United States later issued its own leases on
Georges Bank - United States "leases" being roughly equivalent in their
creation of legal rights to what Canada calls "permits" in 1976,no leaseswere
issued for the area north of the strict equidistance line on Georges Bank. The
Easrern Uniied States Coasfal aiid Ocean Zones Dara Arlas, published by the
United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, depicts both
United States leases and Canadiiin permits on Georges Bank.
The relevant plate from the Data Atlas 1 have just referred to appears as
@ Figure 64 in the dossier handed to the Chamber. As the Chamher will observe,
this. Iike the other figures. shows a divided Georees Bank. In the dossier. anart
rrom ihc rcpri>duciion.,f ihc plais from ihc ~<i,u>rlur, ihere 1,ïls<>a copy
p.iri of this pl;iie ~hich ir so io spc'ik placcd on ils sidc The rcson for th:it ir
sinipl! IOrcniind ihc Ch~nibcr ol uhai isddniiiicdl, rdihcr obvious. th~i unlikc
theiiher figures which 1have shown during my piesentation, this figure is not
on a north-south alignment. The other figures, al1 related to a north-south
alignment, have to he compared with some care when one is thinking of the
angle at which the line divides Georges Bank. So the figure in the Dota Atlas is.
solo spc~k. aligncd iou3rds ihs coiri rathcr ihdn on north-south alipnmcni.
The map ironi ihe 1)~ir~A iil<is,iios on thc Iightbox. shows buih ihceqd~iion
i~iI.'nitrd Sidlcs Jrdws rlnd Cilnadian permiis, :ind ihat ~hz IR,)iirc di\iJrd hy
an equidistance houndary on Georgei Bank. Thus, an equidistance hounda6
would be fully consistent both with past conduct hy the two Governments
concerned and with existing private rights.
Before 1leave the particulars of United States knowledge of and acquiescence
in the Canadian equidistance line in the period 1964onwards, there are two
other aspects of the evidence to be recorded.
In the first place the terms of the United States aide-mémoireof 5 Novemher
1969are of ereat interest. For. in makine a reservation of rieh"s. the United
Siaie.. ior the tirsi limerdii.,d qursIi<~nrhoui ('anrdidn rightr in rrspcci oi
paris oTCicorgcsHank In XIIihc correspondense prior lo ihii. ci,in ihc pr:içiicc
oiihe Cnit:d Si:iiesiiscli.IIh.idbccn.issunicd thai ïrubstan11:ilpari cf Gcoracs
Bank was suhject to Canada's exclusive entitlement. In a five-year period, Ïhe
only issue was the precise location of the delimitation between the two areas of
entitlement on Georges Bank.
The concluding item of evidenceconsists of the admissions to be found in the
tex1of the United StatesCounter-Memorial (pp. 95-105, 171-177,paras. 107-120
and 267-284), where considerahle attention is given to the Canadian permit
programme.
The following iinportant admissions are made in confirmation of Canada's
position on some key issuesof fact:
Firsr, that the United States Government knew of the Canadian permit
programme and its implications al least hy April 1965.
Second,that the activitieson Georges Bank under Canadian auspices involved
the exercise of continental shelf rights.
Third, that the United States did not make any reservation of rights until
5 November 1969.
Fourth, and last, that during the period from 1964 to the late 1970s the
Canadian position was not opposed by a delimitation based on the Northeast
Channel.132 GULF OF MAINE
The United States Counter-Memorial makes no referenceto a view,much less
a claim, which wouldexcludeCanada from Georges Bank. Indeed, according to
the United States Memonal (pp. 86-89, paras. 150-15101)) the claim to a line
based upon the Northeast Channel was first formulated in 1976. In fact the
diplomatic correspondence did not reflect the claim until 1977 (Canadian
Memorial, Anns., Vol. III, Ann. 51, p. 171).
Mr. President, this concludes my review of the essential factual elements
relatinrIO acauiescence and esio~wl in this case.
~enrral io the Tactsis ihe knowl;dge of ihc Uniied States Go\ernmeni of the
Cünïdian pcrmii programme and the absence of proiesi or rrsrn,aiion on the
part of the United States when a protest or reservation was called for.
And, if the United States did not - as it now asserts - truly accept the
equidistance method for Georges Bank during the material period, then a
protest or resewation was called for. since the im~lications of the oermit
programme uere ob\,ious. The issuingof penn~lsdirecily related to the eierçise
of legal rights in reipecl of the mineral resources oi ihs c<intinenial\helf. and
official5on boih side, ïppreciated iheir leg31implications for delimiiation. The
course of conduct on the part of hoth Governments involved the implementa-
tion of policies which assumed the existence of an equidistance line.
The fact that each side had a marginally divergent technical version ofan
equidistance line is all-important. The restricted nature of the divergence
indicates a suhstantial concordance of view as to the nature and extent of
C~nada's legîl rights in rcspesi of arcas oi the Georges Hank.
This concordance <ii\ieu isei,idcncedby the terms of the Uniicd Si.ites aide-
mcimoirçof 5 Novemher 1969.This importani documeni form3llv assureri the
Canadian Government that, with regard 10 the "northern portion of the
Georges Bank continental shelf", "the United States has refrained from
authorizing mineral exploration or exploitationin the area"(ibid Anns., Vol.
III, Ann. 13, p. 68).
So much for the fzictsrelevant to the issues of acquiescence and estoppel. 1
now turn, Mr. President, to the legal principle of acquiescence. It would he
impertinent to offer the Chamber a lengthy disquisition on the doctrine, and 1
shall confine myself to a hrief statement of the principle.
The essence of the principle is that one government's knowledge, actual or
constructive, of the conduct or assertion of rights ofthe other party to a dispute,
and the failure to protest in the face of that conduct, or assertion of rights,
involvesa tacit acceptance of the legal position represented by the other pany's
conduct or assertion of rights.
The elements of special importance are first, that the conduct which is
acquiesced in should be a public activity aiiecting legal nghts as between the
parties, and, secondly, that in face of this public activity there should be an
absence of protest or reservation of rinhts. The result of havinr knowledre. or
the means of knowledee. and keeninésilent is a tacit acceotaice of the-lieal
posit~on There is no quesiion 01'2 &insaction and conse~ucntly ihere is no
que\tion of duihoniy on the part of officialsio bind the State as in the coniexi of
treatv-makinr
~he authohties on the subject of acquiescencedo not contain any referenceto
a condition that officialsshould have authority 10 bind the acquiescent State.
Far from propounding such a principle, the law treats governments as integral
units for the purposes of the law relating to acquiescence.No curtains aredrawn
between different departments of government or between senior and junior
officials.
Governments are treated as integral units for the purposes of the law of ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBROWNLIE 133
acquiescencein another connection. Theduty to protest iscreated not only when
actual knowledge is established but also when knowledge mav be inferred in
situations in which rea~ ~ ~le ~ ~ortunities for knowinèof thécondiict of ~he .~.. .
other party cxisted. In the ~nglo:~orwegian FisheriescaFethe Court stated that
in the circumstances "the United Kingdom could not have heen ignorant of the
Decree of 1869which had at once provoked a request for enpla~ations by the
French Government" (I.C.J. Reports 1951, pp. 138-139).
It may be recalled that the United States possessed actual knowledge of the
Canadian permit programme in April 1965,whereas this programme had been
operating before that date. The pertinent maps were available earlier and
puhlicity for the programme had been given invarious forms in oiland gas trade
publications. Consequently, knowledge of the Canadian programme in April
1965 was preceded by a period of access to knowledge of the public aciivity
which the issuing of gas and oil exploratory permits necessarily involves.Thus it
can he inferred that knowledge existed earlier than April 1965.
Knowledge creates a duty to protest, but the United States failure to protest
is well established. No reservation of rigbts by the United States took place
prior to the aide-mémoireof 5 November 1969.Before this the conduct of the
United States had been consistent, but in the 1970sa change of front began to
Jc\cli~p.
'lhc F~ilitrcIo pri>ic\i. ihc .icquics.'cncc.niu4 hc c%tdhlihcJ h) the ciiJcn~e
and II 111sproicd. the pdssdg: of .iccri.iiii pcrioii of tinip,.r,< i noi rcquircil It
13 clr,ar irom the auih<)rilie. th.11in :r,rlxin iirk.um~l~riir.s .if~ilurc ii>i>ri,lrii
even in the short run mav he critical.
On the facts of the present case a period of five-and-a-half years, and even
more, is a substantial period of tiine, given the bureaucratic focus upon oil and
gas resources, and g&en the importance of continental shelf rights to both
Parties.
The letters exchanged in 1965 and 1966 provide sufficient evidence of
acquiescence in the Canadian equidistance line in the first phase of the five-and-
a-half years of silence. Given the nature of the maps transmitted by Canada to
Washington in this phase, the continuing failure to protest is particularly
striking.
Mr. President, it is Canada's position that the facts disclose a strong case of
acquiescence and that, on this eround alone. the single maritime boundary
should he compatible with the equidistance line as it was established in the
period 1964to 1969.At the same lime, Canada contends that the silenceof the
United States also crcates an estoppel in favour of Canada with consequences
similar to those of the case based upon acquiescence.
Canada's views on the doctrine of estoppel have been set forth in her
Mernorial, and it is not my purpose to repeat what is said there.
In the opinion of a proportion of the authorities on the subject, the concept of
estoppel is the alter ego of acquiescence. and on this view nothing needs io be
added.
However, certain authorities have asserted the existence of a more rigorous
form of estoppel which isa separate rule with criteria not in al1respects identical
with the content of acquiescence. In particular, in this mode the essential
condition for the operation of estoppel is that the party invoking the rule mus1
have relied on the statements or conduct of the other party either to ils own
detriment or to the other's advantage.
On the assumption - which mitst be open to doubt - that this condition is
established in the kiw, it has certainly been satisfied on the facts of the present
case. Canadian detrimental reliance takes the following forms:134 GULF OF MAINE
In the first place, as early as April 1965.Canada was given io understand that
no dispute cxistcd as to the principle of the equidistancc line dividing Georges
Bank. This adoptioii by the United Staies of an equidistance line caused a
relative"disarmamerit" in the legalposture of the Parties. Canada was givenno
warning thai ilie United States would produce a radical revision of ils stance on
delimitation, and had no reason to expcct a switch to a line based upon the
Northeast Channel. Indeed, in November 1969,as we have scen, Canada was
assured that the Unitcd Staies had refrained from authorizing mineral cxplora-
tion and exploitation in the area.
Second. the issuingof permits relaling to the areas of Georges Bank which,in
the period 196410 1969fell within the line acquiesced in by the United States,
involved a deirimeiit for Canada. For the holders, the permits involved
legitimalç çxpeçtaiions oi conversion to leases with long-tcrm oil and gas
production rights. In reliance on the equidistance line Canada created legal
relationships. recognizable as acquired rights. in areas which, subsequeni lo
changes of policyon the part of the United Siaies. liein the disputed area 10the
west ofthe Northeast Channel line broughi 10light in 1976.The requirement of
detrimental reliance - if it bea requirement recognizcd by the law - is amply
fulfilledin the circumsiances of the present case.
For more than five years the United States failed to protest the Canadian
position. As a resuli, Canada was lulled into passiviiy on a matler which
otherwise would have bcen an issue of urgent priority, and privatc rights were
created and extcnded. Moreover, there is evidence indicating that the United
States. inils own adininistrative oractice relatine to oil and eas aciivities durine
that time, was utilizing an equihistance meihod on Geor&s Bank. Thus, n;
only was there acquiescence by the United States, and an estoppel created, there
was a conformitvof the administrative ~ractice of the two ~aities
In concluding the argument on the question of acquiescence and estoppel, 1
would make one final point. Canada's conduct has been stable and consistent
over a substantial ~eriod of time. Canada has not wavered in its adherence to the
equidist3nic princ~plcand IOAriiclc h oiihc Coniincnial ShclfConvention fhc
Canadian Iinehas ;iiirm ba,is in law ai ucll:Ircontinuii) in ihc diploni:itic and
administrative history of this case.
United States statements and conduct were likewisestable and consistent for a
significant period. In 1965and later years - indeed as laie as 1969 - Canada is
given assurances which on any reasonable view excluded the possibility of a
claim to the whole of Georges Bank.
Late in 1969a reservation of rights in general terms was formulated by the
United States.
It is only in 1976that a line other than equidistance is claimed by the other
Party, namely a claim based upon the Northeast Channel. In 1982,a further
claim line - the so-called adjusted perpendicular line - appears in the United
States Memorial.
The scale of the United States change from an equidistance line in 1969io
monooolistic claims to the whole of Georges Bank in 1976and aaain in-1982 is
remarkahlc Changes of cuchmagniiudc cngagc in a dramiiiic uay ihc prinriples
ofsiabiliiy riidr~ling and ofgood kliih uhich conriiiuie the policy foundaiion,
of the law relating ti, acquiescence and estoppel.
As Judge Hersch Laulerpacht has said:
"Tnhe far-reachine effectof the failure to Drotesiis not a mere artificialitv
of the.1,~. it is an &sential requirement of stability - a requirement ev&
more important in the international than in other spheres; it isa precept of ARCUMEPIT OF PROFESSOR BROWNLIE 135
fair dealing inasmuch as it prevents states from playing fast and loose with
situations alïecting a state from the contingency ofincurring responsibilities
and expense, in reliance on the apparent acquiescence of others, and being
subsequently confronted witti a challenge on the part of those very states."
(British YeorBook of Internotionol Law',Vol. 27, 1950,pp. 395-396.)
These principles of stability and good faith form part of the legal framework
within which delimitation in accordance with equitable principles mus1 take
place. When al1is said and done, good faith and consistency are consonant with
equity.
These principles of stability and fairness have particular significance in the
context of delimitation of submarine areas which are the object of grants to
private interests. Both the Canadian Government and private companies have
incurred numerous responsibilities and considerable expense in connection with
the Canadian oermits on the northeast oortion of Georees Bank. In the present
ciç the ~an;di.in ind Ilnitcd Stiiç, çq~idi,t.incç Iinc,. iihiçli u:rc onl! lifcu
miles.ip:irt for J c.iiiridcr:ihle psr~od.reprcscnted .i~vnjoini biisi, idr c\pli>ir:i-
lion i)I'ihçitriili ~>iGç~-rccR>ank an. .ienant 1,)<.and2 and ilic Uniicd Siaies
respectively.
The importance of the incidenccand location of concessionsin the conlext of
delimitation is widelyappreciated by international lawyers and negotiators. The
factor was referred Io by Judge Jessup in his separate opinion in the North Seu
Continental Sheycases (I.C.J. Reports 1969,pp. 79-80)and by the Judgment of
the Court in the TunisiaILibyacontinental shelf case, with referenceto the "line
of adioinine concessions. whichwas tacitlv resoected for a number of vears" and
whici conrtituted "a circumstance of ireai relevance for the del'imitation"
(I.C.J. Reports 1982,p. 71, para. 96).
Mr. President. 1am near the conclusion of mv prese..ation. The Canadian
argument based upon acquiescenceand estoppel is built upon classicalelements.
The facts are simple enough. Since the early 1960sgas and oil operations have
been conducted in the area of GecirgesBank in the interest of a large number of
coroorations. At least until 1972both the United States and Canada assumed
ihc .ipplic.iiion of:i~iequid~si.incclincili!iiling Gc,>rgc,H.ink35 the hil>iricirrhc
crcr~iseoi'coiitineiii:iI$hclij~rlsdl~t1~~1r\1lthou$h th^icchnie:ilpr~\cn.lncç ;inil
prcci>c.irticulaiion oi thc Jclimit:.ii<~iihlired upoii cquiJist;incciiar ihc siibjcci
if disagreement, the practice of the two States was &bstantially concordant.
In November 1969the United States made the first reservation of rights on
Georges Bank but did not formulate a claim of its own - based upon the
Northeast Channel - until 1976.
It is clear that in the early part of the 1970sthe United States was considering
a change of position and was everitually seduced by the sircns of the Northeast
Channel. In consequence ofthis, the United States geophysical surveydocumen-
tation begins to refer to the area beyond equidistance as the "extended area" on
Georges Bank (Canadian Reply, p. 102, para. 241). This development is of
considerable interest. What is remarkable, is that the concept of the "extcnded
area" involves an assumption of the existence of a criterion of division of
Georges Bank prior to the extension. 1now come to my finalconclusions on this
part of Canada's case.
fisr, the condoct of the United States from 1964 to 1969 constituted
acquiescencein or recognition of the use of the equidistance method in the Gulf
of Maine area and the exercise of Canadian jurisdiction over Georges Bank.
Second, in so far as detrimental reliance may be a necessarycondition for the
operation of the doctrine of estoppel, on the facts there was a detrimental136 GULF OF MAINE
reliance by Canada on the existence of a maritime houndary, and thus the
existence of estoppel in its more rigorous form is estahlished.
Third, the first formulation of a line claiming Georges Bank in its entirety on
the part of the United States took place in 1976, 12years after the beginning of
the Canadian ~ermit oroeramme in 19M. But hefore 1976 the maritime
. ..
hliundary ha4 upon equirliridncc h:id hc~.oniclepally<~ppi>,.ihli:n the Uiiiic.J
Siaics nn ili:hasir ~~lxcquiciccnce:ind -riuppel.
The condusi liithe I'ariie, hiiaconsidc~r.ihlc.i~nifiriinccin otlicr rc,riccioC
course, and these other matters will be expiored tomorrow hy my cblleague
Professor Bowett.
The Chnmber rose al 6 p.m. SlXTH PUBLIC SITTING (5 IV 84, 10am.)
Present: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
ARGUMENTOF PROFESSORBOWETî
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Professor BOWETT: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, may 1express the
senseof privilegewhich it givesme to address a Chamher of thisdistinction. This
morning 1shall be assisted by Miss Valerie Hughes, of the Ontario Bar.
My task this morning is to review the conduct of the Parties. 1do so no1as a
basis for an argument that the United States is estopped, hy its conduct, from
denying that the correct houndary in law is the equidistance line. That is the
argument already put to the Chamber by Professor Brownlie. 1do so hecause in
the conduct of the Parties the Chamber willdiscern three things of fundamental
importance to its task of achieving an equitable result. The first is that the
Parties themselves have over many years identified those interests which any
equitable result must protect. The second is that the Parties have also demon-
strated their attitudes towards what would be a fair or equitable halancing of
their respective interests. The thirdis that, for the purposes of oil and gas
exploration, the Parties have esiablished a defacto maritime limit. 1do not say
that the Parties ever reached total agreement onhese las1two matters: had they
done so we should not be here today. But they reached certain conclusions, as a
result of their many contacts and negotiations over the years, which set the
limits, as it were. to their disaereement over what would be eauitable. So the
Chamber can seéplainly, fromthis conduct, the parameters of:the "equitable
problem", if 1may use that tem.
The probative value of this conduct is beyond question. In the recent
Judement of the Court in the 1982 TunisiaILibvacase the Court deemed such
con~uct "highly relevant to the rieterminaiion of the method of delimitation"
(I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 83, para. 117). But, of course, the Court's use of the
Parties' conduct as a test of what appears to have been mutually accepted as
reasonable goes back much further. It can be seen in the Anglo-Norwegian
Fisheriescase (I.C.J. Reports 195/), in which the Court analysed in detail the
conduct of both Norway and the United Kingdom in relation to Norway's
adootion of straieht baselines. II can eauallv be seen in the Award of the
~crnianent ~ourt;>~ Arhiirlition in the ti;,rh;durntcase (J 13 Scoti.cJ, 7Jw
tlo~ai,Court Xc,p,,rr.IJl6). hoih in relatio10 tijhing prÿ;tirer and ihs Iighiing
of the Banks bf Sweden
Yet if condict is regarded as having probative value, for the purpose of
demonstrating what the Parties themselves conceivedto he an equitable result,
there still remain three critical, preliminary questions.
Firsr. whose conduct are we concerned with? 1s it onlv that of the two
Governments, or is the conduct of private parties relevant?
Second, by what test may we distinguish relevant from irrelevant conduct?
and
Third,at what time is the conduct most relevant? Specifically,are we more
concerned with conduct in, say, the las120 years, or in the last century?138 GULF OF MAINE
Let me deal with those three questions in turn:
Firsr, it is State conduct alone which can afford evidence of what the two
States regarded as an equitable, reasonable accommodation of their respective
interests. The views of private persons are wholly irrelevant to that issue.
However, if one seeks to identify the real interests at stake, the interests which
the States sought to accommodate, then one necessarilyhas to take account of
the activities ofprivate parties. For. at least in that area of the world. it is private
parties who fish'andexplore the se;-bed for oil and gas. As weshall see, iome of
the most telling evidence relates to how the Parties visualized a reasonable,
equitable accommodation of these private interests and activities.
Second. no1al1Stateconduct is relevant: it has to he conduct eermane Io this
-
Jispuie. Nou the dispute is eiseniially oi'er uhich of ihe Pariies has so\ereign
rights, orjurisdiciion. over the iisherie\2nd minerdl resourcesof the area. So the
conduci rnusi he relrisd Io ihs nature and purr>oseof ihe Icra1récimesoTeiiher
fishery zones or the continental shelf. ~ecessarily, therifore; we shall be
concerned with State conduct which either asserts such sovereign rights or
jurisdiction for those purposes, or recognizessuch rights in the other. Asweshall
see.conduct whichis nothine more than a hieh se-sactivitv. involvineneither an
iissertion of soiereign righis or jurisdisiion nor a recognition tif such righis. is
cssenii311yirrclevani for uur purposc Equal~) ir~elev3ni 1scondusi u,hich iiikei
place quite outside the relevant area.
Third,we are concerned with a contemporary issue, and il must be right for
the Chamber to place the primary weight on the present interests of the Parties
and their contemporary conduct with regard to those interests. 1say this for a
number of reasons. So far as the houndary is concerned, the record shows quite
clearly that neither Party took active steps to negotiate a boundary, or expressa
view about a boundary, before the mid-1960s. Thus, there simply is no State
conduct directly relevant to the issue of where an equitable boundary might be
drawn pre-1964. For the first permits abutting on the equidistance line were
issued by Canada on 30 December 1964. As regards the interests at stake, the
interests in offshore oil and gas began at about the same lime. This is scarcely
surprising, for it is commonplace for the concern over the boundary to develop
only whentechnology makes exploration feasible. Ofcourse, the fishinginterests
are of much greater antiquity, and both Parties had estahlished fisheries on
Georges Bank by the beginning of this century. But the boundary issue is very
recent, for the concept of a 200-mile exclusive fishingzone - and the need for a
houndary to demarcate adjacent zones - came after the continental shelf
doctrine was estahlislied law. In fact, Canada's 200-milefishingzone dates from
Ilanuary 1977,followed by the United States three months later (1,Canadian
Memorial, p. 100,para. 224).
The purpose of thesezonesis unquestionahly to allowcoastal States to protect
contemporary and potential fishing practices. Ta assume, as apparently the
United Statesdoes~ ~hat these ~ ~es are desiene- to orotect 19th-centurvfishine -
,>auuns -or ejen pre-1945tishtngpr;iciice> - isreiill)io ignorcthe uhole eiho, i)i
theThird Lsw ol'the SedConference.The deielopmeni ol'ihs exîlusi\c ccononiic
zone wasnot designedto preservethe status quo of the 19thcentury,but rather to
promote the aspirations of coastal States basedon existing,contemporary needs.
Moreover, in settlingcontemporary fishing disputes Statessensihlyavoid major
economicdisruption that would causehardship. Thepoint wasmade forcibly,and
clearly,by Mr. Cutler when he addressedthe Congressional Committee in June
1979to explain the virtues of the 1979fisheriesagreement:
"it could not be expected that any sharingarrangement could be negotiated ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 139
that would cause a major dislocation in the existing fisheriesof one country
that would redound to the benefit of the other country. Thus, the recenr
historical catch data was considered to be of more relevance to the
negotiation of entitlement sbires than data from earlier periods." (Empha-
sis added.) (Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. II, Ann. 44, p. 311.)
Now that made good sense. But the United States has now changed its mind.
The United States would now have the Chamber disregard that Canadian
fishingon Georges Bank because, as they say in their Reply, it "did not become
significant until the 1960s" (V, United States Reply, p. 139, para. 231). Now
even if this were factually correct ~(whichil is not, because the United States had
already recognized the Canadian lishing presence inthe 1950s;II, United States
Memorial, p. 41, para. 61). and even ifthe United Stateshad consistently taken
this view (which it has not), is this no1 an extraordinary assertion? To ask the
Chamber to withhold iudicial recoeni-ion from a substantial fishine o. .tice. bv
3 cri~stalSiliic. oi more thlin?O )e~ri' duraiigin. is an exira<irdinar) rcqiiesi. II
ma? hcrcc;illeJ thlii. during ihe Fir,i dnd Scïond Conl'ercn~cson ihc Law oilhc
Sra in I95h and 1960.recogniiioii i~l'\o-cdlled"hi,ii)ric ridhts" or non-c<iastal
fishing States was based on-a fishing practice of only fiveyears. That was the
"base-period adopted in the combined United States/Canadian proposal of
1960. Indeed, this very question of the "base-period" arose in the discussions
between the Parties in November 1977.The specificissuewas the base-period to
be used Io determine entitlements Io groundfish in ICNAF areas 3 and 4.
Canada wanted a short base-period, but the United States expressed a prefer-
ence for a period between 10and 20 years. And the reason given was no1 that
Canada's recent fishingwas legallyirrelevant, but rather that, in the viewof the
United States, the recent levels of fishing for scallops was artificially high
because of alleged government subsidies by Canada. But at no time, during the
whole of these neeotiations on both boundaries and resources, was it ever
suggcstcd ihlii a Iirhing pr;iciiçr s.lahlishcd ovc?O )c:lrr ci>uldhc ignorcd. Sei
ih.1115privisely uhai the Ciiiicd Siaics now propow\ Io ihis Chamber. N'ha1ij
in issue between the Parties is not a dispute over whether the relevant base-
period should be 3 years, 10years, or 20 years. The United States line would
ignore al1 Canadian fishing on the Bank, regardless of its duration or ils
intensity. The proposal is so patently unreasonable that it will, 1 trust, be
reiected outriaht bv this Chamber. Canada can find no orecedent. in any
tiihcrics dispuLeheriecn cosiül SI~~CS f,r igniiring so !icll-c;ilihlished a tishini
praciicc. II rcprcscnis the invesiincni ol'millions oi Jolldrs, ii rcprcrenir the
Iiiclih,iiiui 1u.ogcneciiicins oiianïdi~n tishernirn; 2nd ilrepreicnir. in !bis
case, a legal interest which is central Io the dispute.
1turn now, MI. President, to examine the different categories of conduct on
which the two Parties have relied. As 1 indicated earlier, not al1 conduct is
relevant to this dispute: and 1must first mention, if only to set aside, certain
cateeories of conduct invoked bv the United States. but. in Canada's view.
lotiy irrelevant tc>this dispute., . ,
In its Memorial. the United States developed a theory of "dominance" over
the entire Gulf of Maine. The arr!ument aooeared to be that the United States
had provided the early cartograihic work;ihe bulk of the navigational aids to
vessels and aircraft, the main services for search and rescue, and had also
assumed the main burden of defending the area (pp. 63-74,paras. 102-132).And
so, it was implied, the Gulfhad become a sort of "mare nostrum" under United
States dominance. The implication of the argument was, therefore, that the
Chamber should preserve this "dominance" by according most of the Gulf Io140 GULF OF MAINE
the Cnited Suies. in Iine siiih the I:niicd States claim. Niiu Ciin.id3 hds dsdlt
fullv wiih thi, raiher disiasiciul ihçory in ils Co~nter-Mcniorial.31 pdrlgr3phs
431 t<i 455(III). and riicn that rhis oariicular Iine oi reÿsoninr ha\ not been
repeated in Sub~e~uen~~leadin~s1, dÔnot propose to deal with;t further now.
Sufficeit to say that, in addition to king largely erroneous on the facts, the
particular forms of conduct relied on hy the United States are wholly irrelevant
to the oresent disoute. As 1mentioned earlier. relevance turns on the extent to
ii,hichihe Sidic c;nduct involsej ù claim oiso;,ereign riehi. oflunsdiçiion. 'loi
one of the formr or conduci invokrd h) the Cnitcd Siaici involi,cd an) such
claim.Thev wereeither high seas activitiesoDento anv nation - such as chartinp
or surveying - or they were activities undertaken-pursuant to co-operativë
agreements - such as the LORAN-C navigational aids agreement of 1964,or the
operational agreements on air and sea rescueor air defence. But al no stage did
either Party ever consider that these activities carried any significance for the
question of maritime boundanes.
1 turn now to the relevant conduct. In Canada's view the relevant conduct
relates to fisherieson the one hand, and to exploration for oil and gas on the
other. 1deal first with fisheries.
1need not repeat my reasons for concentrating on the contemporary situation.
Nor do 1 need to review the facts of the situation: that has been done
exhaustivelyby mylearned colleague, Mr. Binnie.1intend to concentrate on two
phases of the relationship of the Parties on fishing matters: their co-operation
in ICNAF until 1977 and their negotiations leading up to the 1979 fisheries
aereement. For il is here that one sees most clearlv how the Parties identified
ihcir rcrpecii\c intercsts. and ho\\ the) iisualizadre~son3hle and cquiiable -
acconiniodni~onoi iho\c inicresis might hc acconiplished.
1i.ike ICNAF 1ir.t. I ihink the Chxmhcr uill iilread\,hd\c ideniitied the ihree
central issues.
The first is whether, in relation to Georges Bank, the United States had
conceded within ICNAF that Canada was a coastal State, with legitimatefishing
interests, to he treated on a basis of parity with the United States. If the
Chamher will look ai this map, which is Figure 65 in your dossier, you will see
that Georges Bank lies within subdivision 5Ze. That area fell within the res-
ponsihility of Panel 5 of ICNAF, and the membership of any Panel was to be
based on two cnteria: the first was "current substantial ~x~.oitation" and the
sccunJ wa\ ihii "cach High Ciintraciing Party a,ith coxsilinc contiguuuï Io ;i
sub-nredshall hase the ripht ~)frcpresenrniion . .."(Cdnxdiiinhlemonxl. Anns .
Vol. II, Ann. II, p. 53).
The draft Convention which was hefore the International Conference was a
United Statesproposal, dated I Octoher 1948 - 1ask the Chamber to mark the
year- 1948.The United States proposed two States for membership of what was
to hecome Panel 5: the Iwo werethe United States and Canada. At the meeting
on 4 February 1949,the following exchange look place between the Canadian
representative and the United States Chairman:
"Mr. Bares(Canada): ... the areas in which we fish intensively noware
Areas 3,4 and 5, and we would claim representation on these because of
contiguity, .. ." (Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. II, Ann. 15, p. 101).
Now there followed a hnef exchange to clarify the position off Labrador, and
then there came the following comment from the United States delegate: "Mr.
Chapmon (Chairman): Oh, yes; thank you." (IbidA .n,ns., Vol. II, Ann. 15,
p. 101.)So, in 1949Canada claimed to fishintensivelyand to have a contiguous
coastline to Georges Bank. And the United States reply was "Oh, yes; thank ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWEIT 141
you". The Chamher may find if difficult to reconcile that reply with the United
States pleadings in this case which assert first that the United States fished
Georges Bank exclusivelyuntil the 1950s(IV, United States Countcr-Memorial,
p. 51, para. 63) and second, that Canada is nota coastal State vis-à-visGeorges
Bank (ibid., p. 75, paras. 92-96).
Nor did the matter end there. For later, in 1972, when the question of
allocating national quotas for fishing on Georges Bank arose, the claim was
made for preferential treatment for coastal States. In Subarea 5 those States
were the United States and Canada. lndeed in 1972 the United States itself
proposed a coastal State preference forCanada for herring. In 1973Canada was
given a coastal State preference for mackerel and cod, and in 1974for mackerel
(V, Canadian Reply, pp. 108-109,para. 257 and fn. 86).
The United Siates now argues thai the coastal State concept meant nothing
more than a distinction betwcen North American and distant water fleets. And
she seeks to support that argument hy suggesting that the United States was
equally a coastal State for Suharea 4, of Nova Scotia (United States Counter-
Memorial, p. 75, para. 92). But that won't do. For the United States member-
ship of Panel 4 was quite legitimately hased on an established fishingpractice in
that area, and also on coastal State status. And coastal State status meant
proximity to the fishery. The weslern houndary of Suharea 4 in fact lies closeto
the Coastof Maine, and indeed the Canadian equidistance line, as you will see,
would place part of Subarea 4 within the United States zone. So Canada has
nevercontested the legitimate interest of the United States in Subarea 4. The real
question is how can the United States contest Canada's legitimate interest, hoth
as a coastal State and a fishing State, in Suharea 5, the Georges Bank fishery?
The second ICNAF issue relates to the statistical evidence provided hy
ICNAF as to the extent of the Canadian fishing interests in the Georges Bank
area. Here the United States makes a number of assertions. She says (United
States Memorial, p. 49, para. 79) that ICNAF statistics in 1952 show that
Georges Bank was fished exclusively by the United States. That assertion is
simolv wrone. The ICNAF statistics were hased on data ~rovided hv Canada,
even in relation to groundfish, the statistics show where the catch was landed,
no1where it was caught. And from this fact flowsthe further fact that landings
from the Georges Bank were ahsorhed into a total figure which represented
landings at ports al1along the coasts of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Nova Scotia
and New England: everythingexcept the Grand Bank catches in fact. This total
figure was simply attributed by ICNAF to what is now essentially Subarea 5.
The details are set out in the Canadian Reply, Annexes, Volume II, Part 11,
pages 290 f. The essential point is, however, that those ICNAF statistics do not
prove an exclusiveUnited States lishery. The United Statesunderstood this well
enough, and accepted the fact of an established Canadian fishery. Why else
would the United States concede Canada's claim to membership of Panel 5 in
1949on the basis of intensive fishing? But letus move on to more relevant times.
1 turn to recent times. In the United States pleadings we find a use of the
statistical evidence whichjustifies al1the lawyer'straditional distrust of statistics.
It contains two fundamental flaws. First, it uses statistics for the whole of
Suharea 5. The point has heen fully explained by MI. Binnie, so I need no1
labour it. But perhaps 1may remind the Chamber that, as they willseefrom this
map (Fig. 65), Subarea 5 includes vas1areas which have nothing to do with the
Bank, nothing to do with the area in dispute, and are far removed from the
Canadian claim-line. What possible purpose can such statistics serve, except to regulations in one area simply would have little or no effect on the fish
stocks in one of the other areas ..."
He went on to concede (at para. 34) that:
"From the biological standpoint it is realized that the presently proposed
areas mdy noi be the proper ones. It might be quite necessary,as more
evidence cornes in, to change the boundaries of the areas."
That record makes a number of things clear. First, no one was talking about
monopolies or exclusive claims: these were high seas fisheries. Two factors
deterrninedthe zones or areas.The first was which nations fished there and the
second was this assumotion. the tentative assu~~ ~ ~. about bioloeical homo-
geneity. As we have seen,théUnited Statesproposed canada as a jGnt founder
member of Panel 5 because Canada fished there. And the assumption of
biological homogeneity, of the separation of stocks, hasproved inaccurate asthe
Chairman intimated might happen. But, clearly, the areas were areas of
convenience, for purposes of stock management. Everyone knew of Georges
Bank and Browns Bank - the terrns were in common useand their location well
known. So il seemedsensibleenough 10draw a line, for management purposes,
between them, and even though scientific knowledge later destroyed any
assumption of the separation of the stocks on those Banks. But the lines were
simolv lines of convenience. To sueeestthat the dividine lines can now be used
io i'ueport 3 United States clainiio erclu\i\r righis inihe area is soniething
which u,ould hate amaicd and shosked ihc participants at ihc 1949Conierence.
1u,ant now. Mr. Prcsidcni, tu Irari I<:NAI: snd Io iurn io the secondohajc of
the relationship of the Parties on fishery matters: by thisI mean the negotiations
culminating in the abortive 1979 fisheries agreement.
1should preface my remarks by saying that Canada respectsArticle V of the
Soecial Aereement (1.o. II). Accordinelv. nothine that 1 shall sav will divulee
any propGal made by éither'Party with&ard to asettlement of théboundar;~
am concerned, essentially, with two questions. First, did the negotiations reflect
acommon acceotanceofa Canadian oresencein the Georees ~aik fisherv which
an agrecment hid io respect! And. seiond, u,hat wasihe ~seiamcni mad; by the
I'ariics 01'thr. qUJnIUn1or extent ni ihat interesi which an agrsemcni should
reasonably - or equitably - protect?
Now, plainly, the United States is somewhat embarrassed by this agreement
of 1979.It figures 1101 al al1in the United States Memorial. In the United States
Counter-Memorial we are told that no obligations can arise from an unratified
agreement (p. 151' para. 266). But of course! We do no1 argue that they do!
Then we are told ihat if the Chamber takes notice of a failed agreement this
would be detrimenial to negotiations on the settlement of disputes (United
States Memorial, p. 153, para. 230). That, with respect, is nonsense. It is
common-form for a Court to consider. and for the oarties to exnlain. the historv
<)fadisp~tr. including ncgoti~tion~ uhich failed. uli;maiely. to producea hindini
agreement And so I dsk the Chamher io look un ihis ph~seof the histor) of ihc
dispute, as part of the dispute and a very revealing part at that.
Of course the United States seeksto dilute the relevanceof the aereement bv
w)ing thai ilcoi,ercd tishcries from Sorth Cdrolinr IO ~eufoundla~d. So IIdij
in .imarginal u;i) Uui ihe rc~l djspute ~.is o,,rr Georges Bank. and both sides
re3lizr.d thai. if ihz allocaiion on the Bdnk could bc agreed, the rest u,asin\ial.
As we shall see.of the ihreî catçgunes of stocks, caiegories A and B conurned
princip3lly the Georges Hank stocks; and iiwas IO theseiwo c3iegorics thai joint
management u;is applied. The third caicgory. C. included stocks "clearly off the 144 GULF OF MAINE
cu~siofonly one couniry" - 1use the phrÿc uf the Joini Report of 21 Osiobsr
1977(Canadian Memorixl. Anns , Vol II. Ann. 36, p. 246). Si) ihr carcgurv C
stockswerenot in the areas in dispute, and hencesingle-nationmanagement was
acceptable. But the A and B categories were in the disputed area, and that was
Georges Bank.
Moreover, in economic ternis, the dispute was over Georges Bank. The
~otential annual value of the Georees Bank stocks was about 97 Dercent of the
value of al1entitlements under the agreement. Thus, ta be reaistic, the 1979
agreement has to be seen as an agreement over the equitable sharing of the
resources of Georees Bank,
The vital questiRn is "How were they to be shared?" There were in fact two
aspects of sharing. There was sharing of management, and there was sharing of
stocks hy quota.
As ta management, the category A stocks came under the fulljoint manage-
ment of bath Parties. The stocks were mackerel, pollock, cusk and lobster. The
geographical area for mackerel is shown here on this map (Fig. 66A), in
Subareas 3, 4, 5 and 6 (virtually the whole of the area on this map). The shares
were: United States 60 per cent; Canada 40 per cent. The area for pollock is
shown on the next figure (Fig. 66B), in divisions 4V,4W and 4X, and also in
Subarea 5 - that is, the wholeof this area shaded in pink. The shares there were:
United States 25.6percent; Canada 74.4percent. 1turn now to cusk, which is
located in subdivision 5Ze, again shaded pjnk (Fig. 66C). The shares were:
United States 34 per cent; Canada 66 per cent. So for the category A stocks
coverine this laree area of the Bank. Canada's interest is recoenized to iustifv
* ,
joint mÜnügemc~and 3 shilreranging irim 40 pcr ceni io 74pe;cent (Canadian
.Memorixl,i\nii\.. Vol. 1. Ann ?U.pp. 294 and 296).
Il'unc iurns io ihc cateeor, B siosks. ihcse included herrine. cod. haddock.
silier hdke. red h3ke. argriiitk. white h~ke.iquid and, abwc 21, scallop\. Hcrc
iherc is qualiiird joint manJgcmeni, uiih one or oiher Party hc~ngar>igncdthe
"lead role" because of ils primary interest in the stock.
If 1can show the Chamber the area for herring, Canada was assignedprimary
interest in Divisions4W, 4X and the Grand Manan Banks, the area shown here
in red (Fig. 67). Canada was to have 100per cent of that catch. However, in
Division 5Y - the green area here, excluding the Grand Manan Banks - the
United States had primary interest and 100percent ofthecatch. Yet the areas of
real significanceare Division 52 and Subarea 6 - the pink areas - for these lie
within the area now claimed exclusivelyhy the United States. Although the
United States had ~rimarv interest in that area. Canada was allowed to fish as
13r3\68' 30. W longitud~- ihc rcd Iineherc onihr map - up io a liniii of 2,llOO
ions, plus 3 ihxre in an) >urplusowr the annual pcrmissihlr cummcrcul catch
ior ihc uhole arcil. So 311of ihai Cdnadian ii,hcrv lieswiihin the 3rcl o\.er u hich
the United States now claims an exclusivefisheiv. And the Un~ted ~t-t~ ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~~-~~~-
turn was allowed to fish up to 66" W longitude - the green line here - for the
remainder of the allowable catch (Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. 1,Ann. 20.
pp. 298 and 300).
1turn now to deal with cod. With cod, lyingin Division 5Z, here coloured in
pink, the United States had primary interest, but the catch was to he split
between the United States, with 83percent, and Canada with 17percent of the
allowahle catch (Fig. 68A). Again, the Chamber will note the recognition of
Canadian fishingrights wellwithin the United States claim-line.With haddock,
in Subarea 5, again coloured pink, the split was the United States, 79 per cent,
Canada, 21 percent (Fig. 68B). With silver and red hake in Division 5Ze, the
United States had 90percent, and Canada 10percent (Fig. 68C).The Chamber ARGUMENTOF PROFEXOR BOWTT 145
will note that most of Subarea 5, and indeed, of Division 5Ze, lies welloutside
the disputed area, in waters which are indisputahly United States waters, so that
allocaïion of the major share to the United States is not surprising.
Correspondingly. with argentine, in Divisions4V, 4W and 4X and also some
argentine in Subarea 5 also, illustrated here in this pink area, the lion's share
goes to Canada: Canada gels 75 percent of the argentine (Fig. 68D) (Canadian
Memorial, Anns., Vol. 1,Ann. 20, pp. 302, 304and 306).
There is also one category C stock which 1should mention - and that is the
Atlantic redfish. 1say this because this was a stock in category C and therefore
assumed to lie"clearly offthe Coastof only one country", and wastreated hy the
Joint Report as lying outside the area in dispute. The agreement refers to the
stock as located in Divisions4V, 4W and 4X. Of this stock, Canada was to have
65percent and the United States 35percent, and Canada had solemanagement
(ibid.. Anns.. Vol. 1.Ann. 20. oo. 310. 312and 314).The ooint of interest is that
ihe agreement assumed 4X -;;rrounded by ihüt iine thire - IO be outside thc
ares of dispute and Io lie slearly ofï ihe cuast of Canada (Fig 65). Now. ilis
auite clear. if ihc Chamber will luok ai the United States cliim-line. that the
~nited taies now claims part of this area and also denies that the area liesoff
Canada's coasts. So we have here veryclear evidence ofthe radical shift in the
United States position since 1979: the inconsistencyis inescapable.
But the sto~k~ ~ which 1 would ask the Chamber to attach the ereatest ~ ~ ~~ u
significanccisthe scallops incaregory R: and reallyfor two reasons. II is far and
awüythe most v~luablcof al1the stocks - for Canübü il represents 85percent of
the value of al1stock Ianded from the Gsorres Hank Ii was worth 58 million
dollars in 1978:it is the Georges Bank stock par excellence.It is the stock which
is located essentially in the disputed area.
Now the question is, what did the agreement have to say about this stock?
the area shown in nink on vour Fieure 70. It
The area is s~bd~ ~~ion 5~e.~. ~
includes ihc disputed area. plus a considerahle a& of ~n;~ed ~i&s waier,,
which Canada does no1claim Canada is the Party with primary interesi: thai's
the poini The furiher point is ihai the saich quotas are Canada 73.35wr içnt;
~niied States 26.65 kr cent. Moreover, thk figure of 73.35 per cent was a
reduction in the Canadian share, as compared with pas1years. For the bargain
struck was that Canada was to have ils scallop catch reduced and to be given
comoensation in the eroundfish elsewhere. ButCanada was entiiled to take its
73 ceni catch anywhere up iciihis red line.the linc lyingfar wesiof the Cana-
dian claim-line (k'ig.70) (Cünadian Memorial, Anns. i'ol l, Ann 20. p. 302).
Yei. even at 73 iicrcenr. that is a sinkine figure. For if ihis was a necotiaied.
fair compromise, ihe question arises: "~6aÏhas happened to our notions of
fairness that the United States now claims 100per cent of this stock?"
Now it may he said that the 1979 agreement was not concerned with
boundanes. That is true. But Canada asked ils scientists the followingquestion.
Can you indicate what lines would provide the same allocation of these fish
speciesas the 1979agreement?The scientistssaid they could, and the full details
of their method are set out in Annex III of Volume V (pp. 745-765) of the
Canadia~ ~oun-e~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~
Even allowing for the lawyer'ssuspicion of statistics and computer analysis,
the results are highly interesting. What the scientistsdid was to take the United
States figuresfoÏsize of stocksand value (these are reproduced in Annex 110in
the same volume (pp. 741-743)).Then, for each of 13 different species,they
produced a line which woulddivide the area within whichthe particular species
is found in the same proportions as the species was divided in the 1979
agreement. But of course that gave us 13difïerent lines. So the next step was to 146 GULF OF MAINE
produce one composiie Iinc io represent the o\,erall piciurc. And ihis was done
by ueighting eiichlins by ils economic value. givingmore weight to ihe \aluabls
s~ecies.lesswcieht in ihe les4\aluablc The result u,hichemerecs.the finalresult.
ihich ke haveialled the "composite" or "aggregate" line, Lanbe seen on this
map here, which is Figure 71 in your dossier (Canadian Counter-Memorial,
1s p. 300f.; Fig. 54).It isthe broken red line. Now that linewould allocate 35.1per
O cent of the value of the resource for these 13fishspeciesto Canada : and I think
the Chamber may wish to bear in mind that the United States own Environmen-
ta1Impact Statement in 1980arrived al a somewhat similar figure,38.3percent,
as an estimate of what the 1979 agreement would have allocated to Canada
(ibid.Anns., Vol.V, Ann. 110,pp. 741-743).Sowe believethat this exercisehas
a certain validity. What it shows is that something like the Canadian line would
be necessary to achieve the results which the Parties had provisionally agreed in
the 1979aereement.
The conrlusion whichemergcr lrom this bneireview of the 1979agreement is
strikingly obvious. In 1979the Parties considered that3 fair. equitable solution
to the fishineoroblem reauired a sharine of the Georges Bank ksources: and in
terms OFreaÏ.'economic \.alue Canada \ras to haie ihe major share. Il iiquite
impossible tu reconcile th181979concept OFf3irnr.u uith this nsu 1984Cniicd
Statesconceniion of Fdirnessor euuiiv ivhichini,olvesa Cnited Siaies monopo.\ .
over al1the Georges Bank fisheries.
There is one further feature of the 1979agreement to which I would cal1the
attention of the Chamber. Clearly, the agreement accepted the feasibility and
desirabilitv of co-ooerative. ioint manaeement over shared resources. Indeed.
the systc&wasdesiincd io ;&leet. in a sphemcForjoint Uniied ~iatey~dnïdia~
management. the principlessontaincd in the United Siaies Fisher) Cunsi,ri.aiion
unrlManagrmcnrAcr of 1976 Why. ihereforc. does the Uniisd Siaics now argue
thai co-operation in managemcni is imprüstical. incficicni and likely to lead 10
disputes. and ih~t a monopoly is the ansu,cr" I conless uc hase )et to hear a
satisfactory aiiswer to that question.
Now it is common knowledge that the United States did not ratify the
agreement and did no1 even press for ratification within the United States
Senate. The reasons, we are told in the United States pleadings, are that it was
deemed fundamentally unfair (Counter-Memorial, pp. 213-214,para. 338). and
it did not respect the exclusivejurisdiction of the United States within its 200-
mile zone. 1 have to say, Mr. President, that Canada finds these reasons
incomprehensible and totally unacceptable. The terms of the agreement could
no1 possibly have been deemed fundamentally unfair by the United States
negotiating team - and it should be remembered that this team was in
continuous contact with the United States east Coast fishing interests. And
certainly the team was fully aware of the United States 200-mileclaim, made
earlier in 1977. Moreover, the two Governments approved - yes. the word
used in the official Joint Report was approved - the Cutler/Cadieux Report
of 21 October 1977, on which the 1979 agreement was based (Canadian
Memorial. Anns.. Vol. II. Ann. 26. o. 242). Indeed. when the United States
Presideni, Mr Carter. transmiiied theagreement io the Senate on 3 Ma) 1979.
he commended the Agreement.And in the follùuing lems
"These treaties will make an important contribution 10 good relations
between the United States and Canada by resolving, in a wayrharisfair 10
borhParties, a vexingdispute over fisheriesand the maritime boundary .. .
1believethat tbese treaties are in the best interests of the United States."
(Ibid.,Anns., Vol. II, Ann. 43, p. 309; emphasis added.) ARGUMENTOFPROFESSOR BOWFIT 147
And Mr. Cutler, the negotiator, addressing the House Committee on Merchant
Marine and Wildlife on 22 June 1979,said the following:
"the entitlement sharesestablished by the Agreement are fair and equitably
balanced. With one minor exception, each U.S. entitlement to stocks found
on Georges Bank exceedsthe ihare of the total catch which the U.S. look
over the 1965-77period." (Ibid., Anns., Vol.II,Ann. 44, p. 313; emphasis
added.)
So what went wrong?
TheChamber will havenoted the rather extraordinary suggestionin the United
StatesCounter-Memorial (p. 212, para. 334) that it wasCanada's fault - because
Canada bad unilaterally tenninated reciprocal fishing in June1978 and this had
eroded support for the amment within the United States.Now that explanation
simply will-not do. It is ?actually incorrect - or at least incomplf&ewhat in
fact happened was that, pending the entry into force of the 1978 renewal
agreement,a numkr of disputesarose. Many of thesehad nothing to do with the
Gulf of Maine. There were WestCoast oroblems. orincioallv the United States
rçstnctions on Canadian balmontrolling ;n ~uifts"k ~iïnk and ihc intensification
oiUniied Statcsfishing for groundtish ofTWsshingron Siatc. Ofcoursc. in theexci
thcrc ucre also $rrlous ~rohicms. ansin* [rom the inieniilicaiion ai' United Slavs
fishing for scallop and proundfish. ~nfin Canada's view this ovefishing by the
United States jeopardized the interim agreement on reciprocal fishing and
damaged Canadian fishing. There was, in eKect, a regulatory vacuum on the
United States side. Moreover. both Parties at lhat stage assumedthat the 1979
agrmmcnl uould enter inIo force and ,tahilizc the posi<nn. So Canada'sdnlsion
IO tcrminatc resiprocal fishing wss thr.rcforc takcn asa temporag mcasurein self-
protection and with great reluctance. And as to the suggesiion that it was
Canada's insistenceon a oermanent aereementwhich causedthe onnosition to it
(United Stain ~ounter-hnonal. pp~21?-213.par3 335). 1cïn s;&pls wp that
Cïnsda h3d always envisagcda pçrmancnt fishcncsagrrcment And w hsd boih
sidcs dunnr the ncaotiaiions. Thc Cadicux-Cutlcr Joini Rc~ort oi 21 Oïtober
1977 stated'that "the two sides directed their attention to ihe basic principles
of long-term resource arrangements for fishenes" (Canadiail Memorial, Anns.,
Vol. II,Ann. 36, p. 244). What in fact happened, at quite a late stage in the
ne-otiations. was that the New Enel-nd Fisheries Council uree- a temoor.rv. ,.
thrw-)cïr agreementun ihc Lnitea Siaie\ negoliator. Amhasbador Cutler, plus a
furthcr rr'strictiiin of Cïnadian \~.dllop fishing back Io thc so-called "Kennedy
Iinc" Now this had ni)t becnpan of theollicisl ncgotiating position ofcithcr side.
and ccnainly not part of the agreemcnt. The introduction of this qu~ie new
elemeni came from the Unircd Statcsside via the Regional Council. although the
United States did eventuallv propose a ten-vear aareement rather than a ihree-
year agreement.But it is quke'wr&g to impG that ?anada had somehow created
some new barrier to agreernent.
But wbatever the rights and wrongs of the decision hy both Parties ta
terminate reciprocal fishing, this was not the reason for non-ratification of the
1979agreement. Indeed, Ambassador Cutler certainly expressedthe view that
that situation made the rapid conclusion of the 1979agreement more necessary.
And ifone looks al the various statements of United States Senators,which are
reproduced al parag~aphs35 ta 36 of the United States Reply (pp. 21-23), none
of them give the termination of reciprocal fishing as the reason for their
opposition 10 the agreement.
The truth seemsto be, Mr. President, that the United States Administration
simply look a political decision no1 to risk antagonizing certain New England 148 GULF OF MAINE
iiitere,li \'iea,s rrercJi\idcd lNeri Engl~nJ (jus1 ci;ihr-).\ir.re hdt.3 S:oii;i).
hui \iherui C'.iii:id~iia\ prepdred io i:ike a de~,iriun IIIthe n.<ti.>n~ilnicre,-
.in<(:ilthe riih sialicn.iiinc iert3iii 3e;tional interelib ihe Cniieil Sicite, aa,
not. But this was pure politics. The 1979agreement had heen negotiated under
one Administration and inherited by another. So perhaps that is one reason for
the rolie-face.Perhaps the United States decided to take a gamble. After all, if
they win they get al1of the Bank. If Canada wins, the United States stillgets half
of the Bank. But he that as it may, it is simplyunacceptable for the United States
to pretend that the terms of the 1979agreement, representing a reasonable, fair
compromise to the many persons involved on both sides, had suddenly.
somehow. become ineauitable and unfair in 1980.
I hclie\e I ctn no\\, Ira\e the iiiblc~.toi ii\hc,ries;ind ticithe rectiiid rii;iin
:irc.i<iic<induci,whtch ihniii. Iighton h~ii ihr.I':irt~ri\i\uili~r.d ihe cqiiiioi>
ilitsituatiun I reier ilieirconduci in reliti,in toconiincni:il >heli-irliis. t1,i
to say, to their exploration and exploitation for oil and gas.
May 1first say a word about the terminology used by the Parties in their
offshore granis and authorizations? This is necessary because the terminology
thev use isdifferent. and it isimoortant to be clear about what each Partv was in
faci doing. The canadian "periits" upon which Canada has relied inChiscase
are very different from the United States "geophysical survcy permits".
The Canadian régimeis long-standing, deriving from the Oil and Gas Land
Regulations enacted in 1961,now supplemented by the 1982Oil and Gus Aci. It
uses fwo types of legal instruments of interest here:
First, there are the exploratory licences - these are short-term instruments,
which expire on 31March of each year and they authorize geophysical research.
This research is exploratory, using scismictechniques, but it also allows drilling
down to 305 nietres. Butthe licenseeacquires no exclusiveor proprietary rights.
And then there are permits - these are long-tenn instruments that confer an
exclusiveoption to obtain a lease; and this would grant exclusivelong-term oil
and gasexploitation rights in a specificportion of the Canadian continental shelf.
There arealsotwo typesof United Stateslegalinstruments relevantin this case:
First, the geophysical survey permits - thcsc are, like the Canadian explor-
atory licences,temporary and non-exclusiveauthorizations to Carryout offshore
research; and they expire at the end of each year.
And then second, there are leases - these convey exclusiveexploitation rights
to a specificportion of the United States continental shelf.
For present purposes, 1think it is sufficientto remember that the Canadian
"permits" are more like what in the United States system are called "leases".
The United States "geophysical survey permits"on the other hand are roughly
equivalent to Canadian "exploratory licences". That is the broad comparison to
keeo in mind. Thus. when Canada relieson Canadian "oermits". the referenceis
1,)l,'in!-ieriiiinsirunieni, ini.til\.iiighiiidin~c~iiimiimrnis <inthe piri oi.hi,ih the
:onip.in! uhich h:is been granicd e~~luri\.. rigliij ;ind ihr. C~nsdian Gwcrn-
iiient H\ ;oninri. ihe L'niieJ Staie..'re~inh\sic.il,iir\e, pcrmtt," do 1101 \e,t
any long-term rights; they merely givejeinhsion to conduct research.
But let me now tiirn to a description of the actual activity of the two Parties.
The Canadian seisinic exploration by both licensees and permittees can be
seen in these three successive diagrams (Canadian Counter-Memorial, Anns.,
211 113 Vol. III, Chal>. 1,pp. 4-5). Figure 72A covers the years 1965-1969,Figure 728
O0 the years 1970-1973.and Figure 72C the years 1974-1979,and the Chamber will
@ note the intensification of effort in these later years. The permits issued can be ARCUMEST OF PROFESSORAOWETT 149
seen in the next diagram, Figure 72D. These Canadian permits date from
O 20 Mav 1964,that was the earliest oermit to Texaco Exoloration Comoanv. uo
to 24 ~ovember 1971,the permit ifssuedto Fairholme ~evelopment ~td.'~nd
the Chamber will note that these Canadian permits broadly respected the strict
equidistancc line.
1 would cmphasizc that the activities undcrtaken pursuant to these permits
have been costly, and undertaken in good faith. The aitempt by the United
States in ils Counter-Memorial, paragraph 119 (p. 105) to represent the
Canadian activity as of minimum financial significanceis quite wrong. Expendi-
tures have been considerable. Nor is it correct to describe the activities as
"dormant" (United States Counter-Memonal. p. 77, para. 97). The fact is that
the activities have progressed as far as il is reasonably prudent to go until this
dispute is settled. But meanwhile, the permit-holders retain al1their propnetary
rights.
You will recall that before the break 1was outlining the Canadian activity. 1
want now to turn to the United States activity. 1 do so with rather less
confidence, simplybecause, as weshall see,a good deal of the evidenceprovided
by the United States is ambiguous.
The first striking fealure is that, as the United States candidly admits
(Memorial. pp. 60 and 63. paras. 97 and 99), no leases whatever have been
granted by the United States in any area claimed by Canada. So there is nothing
really comparable to the Canadian permits. This means that al1the description
in the United States pleadings of the Call for Nominations in 1975,or the offer
of leasesin 1979(ihid.,pp. 58-63,paras. 94-95)isquite irrelevant. No leasesal al1
have ken granted in any area claimed by Canada: that is the point!
But the United States did grant some geophysical survey permits on Georges
Bank. So let me deal with those. The treatment will have to be rather detailed
and - 1hope- meticulous. But 1hope, Mr. President. that you willhear with me,
because these permits form an importantpart ol the case for the United States. I
simply cannot aford to ignore them, or treat thcm lightly. The Chamber will
remember that the United States has made some rathcr grandiose claims in ils
pleadings concernir~gdata collected under United States geophysical permits in
the "northeast poriion" of Georees Bank (ihid.. Anns., Vol. II. Ann. 40). The
imn,r~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~n that term "nn~ ~~eastnortjon". be.au~ ~ ~ ~ueees-- that iiis the
area claimed by Canada.
Annex 40 to the United States ,Memonal and Annex 26 to the United States
Counter-Memorial lis1a number of permits upon which the United States has
based these claims. The United States geophysical survey permit alleged to
contain the larges1number of line miles inthe "northeast portion" of Georges
Bank is permit No. E3-75.Canada has carefully traced the history ofthis group
survey permit through its predecessor group survey permits. 1should add that
group surveys are surveys conducted on behalf of a number of oil companies
actingjointly. Whai emerges fromthisexamination is that. al least prior to 1972,
exploration work done on Georges Bank under Unitcd States authorization
resoected an eauidistance boun~a~ ~~~his. of course. would accord - or almost -
wiih theaisurahe given by the ~nited tat t o canada in November 1969.The
Chamber will recall that the United States in an aide-mémoire of5 November
1969assured Canada that it had refrained from authorizine mineral exoloration
or exploitation in the northern area of Georges Bank Ganadian Mernoriai,
Anns., Vol. III, Ann. 13. p. 67).150 GULF OF MAINE
Nevertheless, we are left with an enigma. For the United States pleadings do
say that, since 1964, extensive collection of geophysical data, under United
States permits, has taken place "in the northeastern part of Georges Bank"
(United States Memonal, p. 58,para. 93).The United States has confirmed that
they mean by this that part claimed by Canada (1 refer to Enclosure 1 to the
United States Agent's letter to the Registrar of 27 Fehruary 1984'). How then
can we reconcile this assertion with the permits actually issued and the
categorical assurance given hy the United States in Novemher 1969that they
had refrained from authorizing work in the area?
The answer is hoth simple and surprising. The fact is, as we shall see shortly,
that United States oil comnanies. in aoolv.. .for"oermits. did refer to the
..norihcliat xrex" urihc ~3nk Huiby ihai the) mcani the norrheasi arca i)iihr
United Siaies portion of the Bank. The c\idcncs clzÿrly shuus ihai whcn ihsy
referred to the northeast area thev meant the area north of the Great South
Channel and extending to the medTanline. Ican only presume fhat the authors
of the United States pleadings wereunaware of what the oil companies actually
meant when they reièrred to the "northeast area" of the Bank.
The truth of the matter seems to he that the United States was in fact
operating on the hasis of an equidistance line: although, in fact. there were two
equidistance lines. Let me explain.
There was tirs1 a line adooted hv the Bureau of Land Management. and
rcferrsd to as ihs BLM Iine ~his ua; an cquidirtance Iincüppiircnïly meaiurcd
from Caps CoJ IOSial Island. I in\,itcihc Chamher ru givep3rticular scrutin) Io
thc u5e OC th13Iineb\ the Uniicd Starcs I)cr>arimrntof the Inicrior. olwhiih the
-~re~ ~wasa~,art. as wasalso the United States Geoloeical Survev which issued
the permiis. Thcn thcrc u,asanothçr equidisi3ncc Iinc uscd by the (IIIcomp3nics
for thçir sur\c)s This. ioo. wa.:an cquidisiancc Iinc. but 11was meaiurcd irum
Cane Cod 10 the Sotî Scoiian mÿinland. disreeardine boih Seal Idand and
cape Sable Island. lt lay a few milesfurther norlheast Than the BLM line.
It appears that when permits were granted by the United States Geological
Survey, they allowed surveysto go as far as the BLM line or, if the companies
reauested. as far as this further comoanv eauidistance line. Whv. vou mav
w;nder, shoul~iheydo ihai! Il sccmsihai ihcri.arç IWO reasons. ~hefikt isih;
ihc Uniicd Siaies assumed il could rcgulîic gcophy\iial sunc)s by ihcir oun
nationals on the bîsis olnaiiiinaliiy. uithoui claiming iiileIOihr shçliarea. and
thcrc is ciidsniç 1,)support that The second is ihat perhaps rhc Uniicd Siaics
uas not iuo rrluciaiii to mo\c IO a more ambitiuu>cquidisiancc Iinc. noiwiih-
standing thaf il ignored relevant basepoints.
In anv event. whether the line we tind is the BLM line or the comoanv . .
equidist~ncc lin;. ihc mcihod was equidistüncc. And al1 rhii surve) milesgc.
uhish the Uniicd Sr~icshas \O painiiakingly Iistcd in Atiachmcnt I 10 ils leltcr
of ?7 t'cbruarv anneZr\. on examinaiion. io bc on the Ilnited Srarcs sidc of onc
or other of these équidistancelines. W; do not have real evidence of surveys
being conducted on the northeastem part of the Bank, beyond these equi-
distance lines. at least prior to 1972. The full history of this United States
practice is set out in the Canadian Reply, Annexes,Volume II, pages 539to 667.
1now tum to a very summary and chronological surveyof this permit activity
which will, 1hope, clanfy matters for the Chamber.
The first United States geophysical survey permit listedhy the United States is
E3-67, granted to Chevron in 1967.As depicted on the "Reproduction Map",
supplied by the United States Agent - that was an attachment to his letter of
'See VII,Correspondence,No. 84. ARGUMENT OF PROFESSOR BOWETT 151
20 January 1983' to the Registrar - the area of the survey under permit E3-67
terminated at a northeastern boundary slightly to the southwest of a strict
@ equidistance line, and if the Chamher will look at Figure 73, it can he seen in
green on this map here. This same map also shows in red the area of a
companion survey conducted by the same company, Chevron, but under
Canadian exploratory licence 927 two years earlier. There were also two
extensions to the area under the United States permit, one for some lines
extending inIo the Gulf of Maine area here to the north and also for a few
additional lines into deeper waters on the Georges Bank slope. But neither
appears to have intruded on to the northeastern portion of Georges Bank
beyond the original survey area.
Mr. President, in 1969Chevron made a further application, this time as agent
for Digicon Inc., a United States surveycorporation, and received UnitedStates
permit E2-69. This was in fact a major programme on behalf of 27 oil
companies, and it was called the 1969 East Coast Joint Survey. We have
obtained and deposited a progranime map, showing the actual survey lines that
@ were proposed for permit E2-69.You have on the lightbox and in Figure 74 of
your dossier a reproduction of this programme map. Now we have transposed it
onto a Canadian basemao. The documentation relatine -o this oermit wassie-ed
b) the olfisial isuing the permit,a Mr. 1)upont. and IIcontains a signific3nt
phrase - iisays '.purtions of tuo a~fthe lincsektend to ihc Canadian ride ulihc
BLM linc" (Cünadi~n Repls, Ann5.. Vol II, Pari 111. 1)574) NOUthe portions
referred to are obviouslyihese and these. If you lookat these Iines- these are
surveylines -you seethat survey line437is running parallel to, but of course on
the United States side of the equidistance line. Survey lines 440, 441, 442
terminate before the eauidistance line: and two lines. 438 and 439. trespass
asru~stheequidistance Iinc.So uc cdn losaie the R1.Mlinequite asiuraiclv, and
iiisan equidiriancc line And oiioursç this pariicular ircspars acrosr the RLM
Iine occurs lust ai the time uhen thc Cnited Siates \vas bcainnine to chnllrnrc
the Canadian claim to eauidistarice. The Chamber ~ ~l r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ it was in
5Novemher 1969that the'united States aide-mémoiresignalledthe first uniGd
States reservation about equidistance, but at the same time assured Canada that
thev were not authorizini survev work hevond the eauidistance line. But.
clearly. ihr United States (ad itsrl? kcn opekting on ihr'haJis ofequidirtîncc.
fiir that uas u,har the RLhl Iine u3s. and îlso the company equidisiance Iine.
Now. ihc BLM Iinc is ob\iou,l, nümcd afier the United Siates Bureau ul'
Land Management, which at the the relevant herewas responsible for United
Statescontinental shelf policy. Letmejus1add, in parenthesis, that the BLM line
differed slightlyfrom the Canadian strict equidistance line, but only hecauseit
did not allow for the scale distortion of the Mercator projection. The United
States was using a Mercator projection: Canada was using a Lambert Confor-
mal Map.
In the same year. 1969,Chevron obtained authorization to conduct explora-
tion nursuant to Canadian exnloratorv licence No. 1283.coverine the area on
the canadian side of the canadian eqkdistance line, and so ~hecron acquired
Canadian authority for exploratii~non the Canadian shelf. Clearly, Chevron
was taking no chances.
In the following year, 1970, Chevron, again acting as agent for Digicon,
applied for a continuation of permit E2-69,and the United States permit El-70
was issued to Digicon as a continuation. As shown on the "Reproduction
Map" supplied by the United States Agent - and this was an attachment to the
'See VII,Correspondence , o. 49. 152 GULF OF MAINE
Iciier' of 20 Januïr) 1983io ihe Hcgiitrar- the Iimit of ihc surve) 3re3 under
~ennii El-70 seems IO siop short of3 sirici equidisiance Iincon Cjcorges U~nk
NOW on the nroeramme ma^ deuosited bv Canada, however, there do seem to
he some cxicnsions 10this pemiit io co\,er ~dditionïl .uri.ey Iunhiçh xppcar
io hai,e transgressed the ULM Iine. but by ahout ihe same disiance 3s ihe Iwo
earlier lines the year before.
The next group surveylistedin the United StatesAnnexes wasconducted under
United States permit El-71, again with Digicon as the surveying company. The
lines shown on this programme map again crossed the BLM line by about the
same distance as had their predecessors under permits E2-69 and El-70.
When the terminal points of al1 these lines and indeed of the subsequent
Digicon group survey lines are plotted, it readily becomes apparent that these
survevs extended to an eauidistance line on Georges Bank, or iust slightly
beyond as you can seefrom'Figure 75.Now the numbers which youcan idëntify
are the numbers of the surveylines; the little points, or crosses, attached to those
numhers indicate the terminal points of those survey lines.
Obviously, the companies were planning their programmes under these
United States geophysical survey permits to cover the maximum possible
equidistance claim that could he advanced by the United States. It might help
the Chamber 10 see these three different equidistance lines heing used al this
in lime. Theyare illustrated on Figure 76,the map now behind me,and you willsee
O krst the company eqiiidistance lin-the linein light green, based on a mainland
to mainland measurement. Then there is the BLM line, the line in dark green.
Then you have the Canadian strict equidistance line, the line in light grey. And
then, jus1for purposes of comparison, we have also added the present Canadian
claim, which is the black lin- here. 1believe it can be said that, if there is an
area of dispute, it is most realistically portrayed by those lines.
Then in 1972Digicon itselfapplied for and ohtained United States permit E2-
72, on behalf of a large group of oil companies. Themap supplied by the United
States Agent (this was an attachment to the letter of 20 January 1983 to the
Registrar) does show that this permit did cover al1 of Georges Bank. But if
one examines the actual survey lines, it is clear that a rather extraordinary
development occurred. The original survey lines mostly stayed south of the
eauidistance line. But out of some 30lines. four of them continued over on to the
~;nadiiiii sideof the cumpan) equidiitancc lineand one Iinc 73- ucni uholl)
acres) the compdny equidiitancc Iine This xppelrs IO be the Tirsisubstdnii~l
incursion betond ihr eauidistÿncc Iinc.authori7ed under3United si ai^^ permli
So 1972reafly marks the first real breach of equidistance.
After these original survey lines had been agreed for this permit E2-72, one
company apparently suggested some 380 miles of additional survey programme
but still covering the same area of Georges Bank. Now this was objected to by
companies with operating entities in Canadian waters.
As a result, the 380-mileextension wasdivided in10two parts: there were to be
246 milesin "United States" waters, and 134miles in "Canadian" waters. If the
@ Chamber willlook at Figure 77, on the map behind me, the original survey lines
are in black. For the extension, the lines in Canadian waters are in red and the
lines in United States waters are the green lines crossing the BLM line. A ballot
was circulated to the comuanies involved, and some 28 com~anies expressed a
uillingncs~iu p3rticip~icin the .'United Siaics" cxiensioand somc 25 bec;ime
participani%in the "C,inadian" exiension And the division hetuecn thc United
Siates uater5 and the Canadian uaicrs uas an equidisinnce Iine
' SeeVII,Correspondence ,o. 49. ARGUMENT OFPROFESSORBOW 153
But alter 1972, things began ta change despite the dispute. Despite al1the
implications of a "critical date", the United States set about improving its
position: it became more and more expansionist. Yet, as we shall see.even then
the United States essentially kept equidistance as the true limit of the United
States shelf. The forays into Canadian waters, beyond any equidistance line,
were characterized as "extensions". And that meant extensions into Canadian
waters on the northeast portion of the Bank. But let me no1 anticipate1will
resume the narrative.
In 1974, Digicon obtained Uiiited States permit E1-74, for another large
participation survey.The sketch submitted by the United States Agent (attach-
ment to his letter of 20 lanuary 1983to the Registrar) is a rough one and not
easy to follow. But Canada has obtained and deposited an original Dinicon
map, and this is rcproduced here behind me on ~i~urë 78,
reproduced on the Canadian basemap. Now, it is clear that the survey was in
Iwoparts: there wasone area. "D, extending approximately ta an equidistance
line, and then a second area, labelled "DS", embracing what was called the
"Georges Bank Slope". But these areas coincided broadly with those of the
earlier permits in 1970,1971and 1972;il was restrictedto the southwest portion
of the Bank. However, Digicon shol some three additional lines in 1974-and
@) the? are labelled DXI, DX2 and the return is DX3 (Fig. 79). These three lines
projected northeast into an area, coloured pink, which in the following year,
1975,was granted to Digicon as ;in "extension". And the word "extension" is,
again, a referenceta an extension into the northeaslern portion of the Bank, into
what mus1have been regarded an Canadian waters. The programme for 1975
covered an original programme, shown in green here, and an extension
programme, shown here in pink.
1 should add that the surveysalong these three DX linesextending far to the
northeast, as well as some work in parts of the "Dand the "DS areas. were
authorized by Canadian exploratory licence No. 2245 - that was issued to
Digicon on i August 1974,and this can be found at Tab. 18of the Canadian
licencematerials deposited with the Court (12 December 1983).And that licence
clearly shows these DX lines.
The 1975Group Survey is of particular interest because it is claimed in the
United States Annexes to conlain the larges1 number of line miles on this
northeast portion of Georges Bank (United States Memorial and Counter-
Memorial, Anns. 40 and 26). This is the survey by Digicon under United States
permit E3-75.There were, infact. two areas involved in this survey. Although
the original area of the survcy appears from the map supplied by the United
States Agent (attachment to letter of 20 January 1983to the Registrar) ta be
bounded by a line slightly Io the southwest of a strict equidistance line on
Georges Bank, the actual orogramme maD shows a division at about the
comGny equidistance line, ihe finepreviousiy followed by the companies. The
two areas can be seen here (Fig. 80), the green and the pink. The second -rea
the pink area- was an extended area encompassing the northeast portion of
Georges Bank. But again, for this "extended area". across the equidistance line,
Digiconobtained Canadian exploratory licence2414.1should add that the areas
covered by the United States geophysical survey permit, and by the Canadian
@ licence for this survey, are depicted in Figure 22 of the Canadian Reply,
reproduced in your dossier as Figure 81. That is the map behind me, with the
Canadian licence areas shown here in pink.
1 would ask the Court lo mark some very interesting terminology which
appears on Digicon's own map. The original 1975survey area (which corres-
ponded to the "D area from the yeÿr before, on the southwestern portion of154 GULF OF MAINE
Georges Bank) was, curiously, referredto by the companies as "1975 Georges
Bank Programme (Northeast Area)". So what the companies referred to as the
"Northeast Area" (Fig. 82) was only the northeast area of the United States
portion of Georges Bank. It did no1extend heyond the equidistance line and the
true northeast portion, that is on the Canadian, or northeast side of the median
line, was lahelled differently. Il was lahelled "1975 Georges Bank Extension
Programme". And this "extension programme" hegan in 1974 following the
extended United States claims.
That completes the lis1of group surveys contained in Annexes 40 and 26 to
the United States Memonal and Counter-Memorial, or referred to in the
documents suoolied hv the United States Aeent in resoonse to Canada's reouest
for informati;; of I< Dcccniber 1982' ihat the p;ogr~mmc maps l'orihcsc
suri,e)r ihow hc)ond 3nydouht is ihc 3ssumption of rhccquidijiancc merhod of
delimitation, ofan equidistance boundary on Georges Bank.
If you will allow me, 1ought to Saya few words about the single-company
surveys, as opposed to the group surveys.They, too, are either listed in United
States Annexes 40and 26, or they can he found in the materials supplied by the
United States Agent in response to Canada's 1982request. An examination of
the single-company surveysprovides a virtually identical picture.
The first such single-company permit was E4-64 issued to the Mohil Oil
Company. That was hounded to the north by latitude 41" 00'; so that does not
impinge upon the northeastern portion of Georges Bank. The map for the
second single-companypermit, El-65, issued tu the ShellOil Company, is very
rough, but il appears to be hounded by some sort of equidistance line; and
certainlv not hv the Northeast Channel line. Mobil's a~~lication letter for the
third sinàlc-ci~kpan) pcrmii ai iswc. El-66. did ihc wholc of Gcorgcs
Bank, bui rhc conipiin) noicd ihai iiwa, appl)ing 10ihc Canadian authorities
for vermission to Gnduct survevwork on the Canadian side of what was called
an "offshore projection" of thé United StatesICanadian houndary. But that
houndary, or rather, ils projection, was no1 further specified. So this permit
signifiesnothing, either way.
Finallv. the fourth and las1 oermit in auestion was E2-68. eranted to
~x~lora&onSurveys,Inc. in 1968.'Thisis the oneexception to the staGment that
the United States did not authorize geophysical research north of an equidis-
tance line prior to 1972.As explained-in OUI written pleadings, when the iurvey
proposed to he conducted by ES1 on Georges Bank came Io the attention of
the Canadian authorities in October 1969, they wrote to the Company on
5 November 1969 explaining the need for a Canadian licence (Canadian
Memorial. Anns.. Vol. II. Ann. 50. 00. 576-583).Canada did not. of course.
have 16,raire the question \rith ihc L'ktcd ~taics'~ovcrnrncni. ha\ing recci\c~
on the .Arne&y. 5 No\cmher 1969,a iormal aidc-mémoireassuring C~nada,
uith rr\peci tu ihr "northcrn portion of the Georges hnk". that rhc Cnitcd
States had "rcfraincd froni ïuihorizing rnincrdl exploraiion or fipliiiiaiion in
ihc arcd" (Ihld..Aniis.. Vol. III. Ann 13,p. 68) In addition, thc Iciicr from the
liniicd Statei <ic~>loric31Surse). praniinp. pcrrnii E2-68 to tSI. coniaincd a
iurisdictional caveat érantine authirizatioi onlv for that area which was oart
of ihc Uniicd ~iateiouicr c<iniincntrl bhell (u'niid Siatcs Mcrnorial, ~ins.
Vol II, Ann. 40) So ihc Cnited Siair\ ulir niir prcparzd to guardntry thatithad
title over this area of shelf.
Mr. President, as sou know, after the submission of ils Reply, Canada asked
'See VII,Correspondence,Nos. 48 and 49. ARGUMENTOF PROFESSOR BOWETT 155
the United States on 9 January 1984' for certain original maps for use in these
oral proceedings, ta avoid the great time and expense entailed in obtaining or
reconstructing these maps. On 27 February 1984,instead of supplying a single
one of the maps requested by Canada, the United States entered what looked
like a fourth written pleading. Not a shred of documentation was submitted in
support of the allegations set forth in that letter until las1week, on 29 March.
Moreover, the United States letter of 27 February 19842mentions a fewnew
oermits not mentioned in United States Annexes 40and 26. or in the material
;upplied to the Court and Canada in response to canada's December 1982
request for documents. These new permits in fact support Canada's contentions.
Nothing in this new matenal invalidates Canada's argument in any way.
Let meillustrate by referring to United States permit E5-66.The programme
map for this survey wasalready iricludedin Annex 74to the Canadian Counter-
Memorial (Vol. V, p. 474). and you have a copy in your folder; it is lahelled
Fieure 83. If 1can iust ask vou to look at it. vou willseeclearlv that this survev
re;pcstcd a sinct Guidi,tancc line un ~eur&s Hank I'hïi is kiyurc 83 in yo&
dossier The reconstruction is, of courre. superimposed upon nmap so thdi )ou
can identify the limits of the survey.
The two other newgroup surveysmentioned by the United States Agent in his
letter of 27 Fehruary are those led by the Humble Oil Company and hy the
Continental Oil Company - Conoco - under United States geophysical survey
permits El-67 and El-68. These surveys, which respectedthe Company equi-
distance line, which 1illustratediifewmoments aga, are already shown on the
cumulative programme and shot point maps deposited by Canada with its
Reply, so there is really nothing new there.
But let me perhaps stress something which is much more important. All of
these United States permits which 1 have lahoriously examined - and 1 do
apologize ta the Chamber - they are al1 purely temporary instruments,
authorizing geophysical surveys. Ofcourse, the same is true of the Canadian
licences. Butnot one of them conferred any property rights and, moreover, they
are now al1 expired, at least to the best of my knowledge. They have an
im~ortance.certainlv. asoart of the historv of the conduct of the Parties: but we
rrf clearly nui delilinguiihliiiiuaiion in uhich thcrc arc proprietar) rights and
fuiurc cxpcciaiions. which ihc Chanibcr might fcel ,iboundar) oughi to rcspesi.
With the United States lea<cs.and ihc Can~dian pcrniits. the matier is quitr
diffcrcni, for rht,rt,ihcrc .ire propriciar) rights So it ma) bc niorc irnportdnt,
and indccd Canada bclie\,csit is more important, ta look at the siiuation of the
long-term leases.
The overall picture with the long-term leases can he seen on this map here
@ (Canadian Counter-Memorial, p. 146, Fig. 31), which is Figure 84 in your
dossier. The map is from an official United States Data Atlas, published by
NOAA - that is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -
published in 1980 (Fig. 84): and it shows the United States leases and the
Canadian permits. It shows the comparable activities of the two Parties. And
again, 1invite the Chamber to mark the year, 1980. Asyou can see,the division
between the United States and the Canadian activities is clear. Il goes straight
through the middle of George!; Bank, clearly respecting the equidistance
principle.
1cannot properly end this discussion -particularly of the BLM line - without
drawing to the Chamber's attention the affidavitof Mr. Harry A. Dupont, filed
' SeeVII, CorrespondenceN , o. 80.
SeeVII, CorrespondenceN , o84.156 GULF OF MAINE
with the letter liom the United Staics Agent of 27 Fehruary. hlr Dupont was
the 011 and G~s Supervisor responsible for issuing the United States permits
from 1966 until 1977.What he~sayson affidavit, in eiïect, is that he used the
ohrase "BLM line" simolv to remind himself that hevond that line Canadian
, , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
iermits had been issued and that he had obtained this information from the
Bureau of Land Management. He also says that at no time did he everconsider
anv tvoe of median lin;to be the boundarv: he savshe had alwavs oresumed the
boLLdary "would have taken advantage of thé Northeast ~hannei, beyond
Georges Bank". Now Mr. Dupont is clearly a remarkable man, and 1am only
sorry he is not here as a witness so that 1might ask him a question or two.
Mr. Dupont made those annotations in 1969. Considering that the State
Department itself did not decide upon the Northeast Channel tactic until late
1969at the earliest, andCanada knew of it only in the year 1976,Mr. Dupont's
~rescienceis remarkable.
But his memory is anything but remarkablc: in faci. itlooks duunriphi
unreliable. 1hate herea rupy ofa letter he wrote to Mr. Juhn Crook of the State
Der>srtmenton 3Octobcr 1974.the letter can beround in the Canadian Re~lv.
~nhexes, Volume II, at page 620. In his letter he is referring to corresponde&e
with Digicon over survey lines, and he refers to "four additional lines, none of
which are near the median line in the Georges Bank area" and a little later he
refers to a line "east (on the Canadian side) of the median line between the
United States and Canada". For a man who says that he never considered
the median line to be the boundary, but always assumed the boundary wasthe
Northeast Channel, that is very strange language: and 1am afraid 1mus1invite
the Chamber to place no reliance whatever on that affidavit by Mr. Dupont.
1can only ask the Chamber IO look at the whole of the evidenceand 10draw
its own conclusions. The evidencejust does not bear out Mr. Diipont's memory
of these events. Whatever the line is called. and wherever its exactlocation. the
facts indinite bcyond question thai the ~n;ted Suter was respcctingsvme form
of equidiit<inceline (lividing the Bsnk. until 1972 - and therealler. gradulilly
hegan to authorize permits going beyond it.
Mr. President, ifwe can emerge from al1this detail, the question is,what does
it al1show? In Canada's viewit shows two things.
It shows, first, that the United States has never granted anything but
exploratory permits in the disputed area: no rights of a proprietary character
have-h...~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It shows, secondly, that even the exploration activities authorized by the
United States reswted equidistance at leastuntil 1972.and in al1essentialsuntil
todav. Of course-.as theiTnited States chaneed its oosition and as it became
mor;a~bitious inils claims from 1972onwarzs. wefihdincrcasingc\idence ofs
tendency IO trerpass over on to the Csnadian side But the oil companics. the
wrmit-holdeh. were takina no chances. Thev tîtleast res~ccted the Canadian
ilaim and the; look good-care to gel a canadian licencéor permit for their
activities on the Canadian shelf.
The use of equidistance, particularly in granting leases, has a significance
which goes far beyond that of evidence of what the Parties believed to be an
equitahle result. Il was, ineiïect, a defoc10maritime limit for purposes of oil and
gas exploration. 1 do no1 need to remind the Chamber of the significance it
attached 10 the 26" line in the Tunisio/Lic baye (I.C.J. Report1 s982, p. 71,
para. 96). Butthat was a line betweentwo grants of concessionby the Parties to
one Company.Here wehave evidenceof a defacto limit of a far more persuasive
character. For it is evidence of repeated relianceon equidistance over several
years - from the early 1960sto 1972-and is supported by grants ofeither leases ARGUMENT OF PROFESSORBO~TI 157
or oermits hv hoth Parties to dozens of oil cor~ ~n-~~~ There is vet a further
feaiure in thépresent case which inakes it far stronger than the ~u~isian/~ihyan
26"line. In this case, it isclear that the Parties not only had a de facto agreement
on the line. but thev also aereed on the leeal orincioie which dictated ïhat line.
The fact that it \;as an equidistance fne'was not accidental. It was an
equidistance line hecause hoth Parties believed the equidistance principle to he
the correct pnnciple in law, in al1the circumstances of this case.
MI. President, distinguished Judges, 1helieve1have reached the point when 1
can suggest Io you the broad conclusion which emerges from this survey of the
conduct of the Parties.
If we add al1of this conduct toeether - hoth in relation to fisheriesand to oil
and gas - what conclusions are Ge offered? The conclusions are quite inescap-
able. Canada's interests on Georges Bank - both in fish and oil- wereaccepted
hv the United States for manv. manv vears. And not onlv as a auestion of fact.
aithoiigh th.11 1,iriie eni>ugh.'hutcq;all) clcarly ds J maiter ofihat the United
Siaies rccognizr.d IO hc rca\on~hle and cquitlihle. in soniorniit) uith thc Ikiu.
I il<n%>rtay ihat the re;ard tics ihc Cniicd Siatcs d0u.n 10a \m.citir.Iinc The
fisheries conduct was not of that kind. And even on oil and gas, the conduct
reflected an agreement on principle, rather than on an absolutely specificline.
The principle, of course, was the equidistance principle, consistent with the
obligations of the Parties under the 1958 Convention. How, ultimately, one
applies that principle so as ta take account of "special circumstances", or, to use
more contemporary language, to he consistent wirh equitahle principles, is a
matter 1happily leave to my friend and colleague, Professor Weil. PLAIDOIRIEDE M. WEIL
CONSEIL DU MUVERNEMENT CANADIEN
M. WEIL: Monsieur IçPrésidrni.Messieurs Issjupes. pcrmettçl-moi avant dc
commencer d'exprimer mes vifs remerîicmenis i M' Ross Hornhy qui a contri-
buéde manière efficaceet compétente à la préparation des élémentscartogra-
phiques que je vais étreamené à utiliser dans mon exposé et qui va m'aider
maintenant à les présenterà la Chambre.
LE TRACE DE LA FRONTIÈRE MARITIME UNIQUE
II m'aooartient d'exnoser les vues du Canada sur le tracé de la frontière
maritimeinique que lachambre est appeléeà définir.
Cette responsabilité,dont ie mesure tout le poids, me vaut l'honneur et me
orocure le vlaisir de orendreia oarole auiourd'hui devant la Chambre.
Cet honneur et ce plaisir sont d'aulani plu, gr~ndsque la prkçnir anliirr met
en cause deux grands pays amis qui donneni I'exemplcdu reglement pacifique
olus aue cela. serein - des différends aui les oo~osent. Ce ohénomènede
fraternitéprofonde par-delà les divergencèsde vue; 'occasionnellésest trop rare
pour que je ne ressente pas pleinement le privilèged'ètre associé,mème très
modesiement, à la présente procédure.
Si c'esttoujours un honneur, pour un professeur de droit, de se voir confier la
défense d'intérêts nationaux importants devant la juridiction internationale,
cet honneur ne trouve pas seulement sa source, pour moi, dans le cas présent,
dans la personnalitéde I'Etat qui m'a honoréde sa confiance, mais également
dans celle de I'Etat dont il m'appartient de combattre les thèses sur le plan
noble et élevédu droit. Plaider pour le Canada est pour moi un rare privilège;
plaider contre les Etats-Unis en est un autre, non moins précieux, tant sont
nombreux et profonds les liens qui m'attachent aux deux pays. Qu'il me soit
permis de dire ici au Gouvernement canadien ma gratitude pour me procurer
cette joie.
La Chambre ayant été saisiepar voie de compromis, c'est, pour emprunter
les formules bien connues de la Cour permanente (affaires du Lotus,C.P.J.I.,
série A no9, p. 12,et des Zonesfranches dela Haute-Savoieet duPaysdeGex,
C.P.J.I.. sériAIB no46, p. 163). «dans les termes de ce compromis», qui
~renrésentela volontécommune des Parties)). qu'il convient de rechercher les
poiRts précissur lesquels la Chambre doit se
C'est donc dans le cadre du compromis qu'il convient de situer les revendica-
tions des Parties, et c'est au regard des dispositions pertinentes du compromis
qu'ilimporte d'apprécierlesconclusions finalesformuléespar chacune d'ellesen
ce qui concerne le tracéde la ligne de délimitation.
Par le compromis les Parties demandent à la Chambre une délimitationdont
les trois caractéristiaues orincioales me oaraissent êtreles suivantes:
. .
Fremi6rzmrnr la Chamhre est appclk i délimiterIJ fronticre müriiime enire
les deux pays dans la régiondu golfe du Maine sur une partie e eu le mdie son
parcours.
Deuxièmement a frontière à délimiter est une«frontière maritime uniaues.
Troisièmement :ette frontière doit êtredéfiniesconformément aux règieset
principes du droit international applicables en la matière entre les Parties)). PLAII>OIKIEDE M. WEIL 159
C'est à l'analysede ces trois élémentsqui émanentde la volonté communedes
Parties et qui dessinent les contours de la juridiction de la Chambre que je
consacrerai la première partiede mon exposé.
A la lumièrede cette analyse, il me sera ensuite possible, dans une seconde
partie, d'examiner le tracéproposé par chacunedes Parties au différend.
1. LIS CARACT~~~IST~QUD EIS! LA DÉLIMITATIONDEMAND~EÀ LA CHAMBRE
A. Une&linliralion partielle
Abordons tout de suite le premier trait distinctif: le tracéque la Chambre est
appeléeà définir ne représentera qu'une partidee la frontière maritimedans la
région du golfe du Maine. C'est à trois points de vue que la délimitation
demandéeà la Chambre est ~artielle.
La délimitationdemandé; est partielle, d'abord, en ce sens qu'un premier
segment de la frontièremaritime a étédélimité conventionnellement entre 1908
et1925 et ne fait donc plus problème.
La délimitationdemandéeest partielle en ce senségalementque ce n'estpas à
partir du point terminal de la frontière maritime convenu en 1925 que la
Chambre est priéede tracer la frontière maritime unique, maisseulementàpartir
d'un point situéplus bas définid'un commun accord par les Parties. II restera
donc àcombler par voiede négociation,ou autrement, à une date ultérieure,un
hiatus d'environ 39milles marins, entre le terminus de la frontière maritime
délimitée en 1925et le point de départde la délimitationque la Cour est priée
d'établir(cf. V, réplique desEtats-Unis, par. 275).
La délimitationdemandéeest partielle, enfin,en ce sens qu'elle devra ètre
ultérieurement,c'est-à-dire après I'arrètde la Chambre, prolongéeau-delà du
point que celle-ci fixeraà l'intérieurdu triangle, «sur une aussi grande distance
verslelarge que lesParties lejugent souhaitablea. Si I'ontient compte de ce que
le rebord extérieurde la marge continentale dans cette région sesitue à des
distances variant de 45 à plus de 150 milles marins au-delà des limites des
200 milles,on constate que la délimitationqui restera àeffectueraprèsI'arrétde
la Chambre est considérable.
Ceci me conduit à une observation importante. La Chambre n'estpas invitée
Darle comoromis à déterminerauels esDacesmaritimes relèventreswtivement
Les~iais-unis et du Canada dans l'ens~mbled'une régiondonnce Élleest pnk
seulementd'établirle tracéde la rrontièremaritime burun segmentdonné.dCtini
par un point au nord et unezone en formede triangleau sud, laissant ainsiàplus
tard le tracédes segments manquants, en amont et en aval; et c'est seulement
une fois que le tracéde la frontière maritime entre les deux pays aura été
complètement défin-idonc bien aprèsI'arrèt - que I'onsaura quelle partie de la
réaiondu aolfe du Maine tom& sous la iuridiction des Etats-Unis et quelle
pake tomGesous lajuridiction du Canada.
Cette constatation évidenteà la lecture du compromis conduit à s'interroger
successivementsur l'explicationde la formule ainsi prévuepar lecompromis et
sur les implications de cette formule pour le choix du tracé.
1. L'explicationde laformule de l'articlII du compromis
Voyonsd'abord. Monsieur le Presideni.comment s'expliquentlepoint et le
triangle. c'est-i-dire lesdeux extrr'niilesde ce segment de la frontiérem;iritime
que 13Cour est pnkr par les Parties de tracer. Sur la raison d'étrede ces deux
caractérisiqueï.lesCcriture, des Parties soni la fois pariaiternent claires.
Ainsiqu'il ressortde la figure85de la procédureorüle. le point choisipar les160 GOLFE DU MAINE
Parties comme point de départde la délimitation demandéeà la Chambre - et
aue nous a~~elonsoour des raisons de commoditéle ooint A - n'estautre aue le
Prcrnier pain1d'intérxciiondes deux lignesofliciellenkni publiéfsdes deuipx)s
à lad:itede laconclusion ducompromis. rési-3.dirc en 1'179Lepoint Aesidonc
un point 1uy2Cquit~hlc i la fois vlr lesEiati-Lnis ci v;ir leCandi; c'csi.si l'ose
dire, un p8int américainaussi bien qu'un point canadien.
A cette explication. sur laquelle lesdeux Parties convergent (1,mémoiredu
Canada, par. 3; 11,mémoiredes Etats-Unis, par. 4, note I ;V,répliquedes Etats-
Unis. Dar. 238).les Etats-Unis aioutent une orécision:le ooint A a été choisi de
manièieàne pas préjugerdu ditérend qui séparelesparti& en cequi concerne la
souverainetésur I'ilede Machias Seal et sur North Rock ([oc.cil.).
Voilà pour le point A.
Pour ce qui est du triangle, les explications donnéesdans les écrituresdes
Parties concordent sauf sur un point mineur.
Selon les Etats-Unis, la formule du triangle a été retenueafin d'évitertoute
prise de position sur la définitiondu rebord externe de la marge continentale ou
sur des questions relatives à la limite extérieurede la zone des 200 milles
(mémoiredes Etats-Unis, par. 4, note I ;répliquedes Etats-Unis, par. 241).
De notre côté nous avons ex~liaué (1. mémoiredu Canada. Dar. 12: .111.
contre-mémoiredu Canada, par: 2j et 6il) que le triangle a éié'construiide
manière à englober trois points: lesdeux points ou les lignesalors revendiquées
par les deux Parties coupaient les limites extérieures des zonesrespectives de
200 millesde chacune d'elles.et le p oint d'intersection de ces lienes: il enelobe
égalementles arcs de cercle entre céspoints. Les trois som&ets"du crian& ont
étédéfinisd'aprèsles degrés entiersde longitude et de latitude les plus proches
qui puissent former unefigure plane englobant précisémenc tes trois points.
Ainsi, commeilest facilede leconstater enjetant un coup d'oeilsur la carte, le
sommet nord du triaiigle a étédéfinide manièreà englober dans le triangle le
point d'intersection de la ligne américaine avecla limite extérieurede la zone
américaine des200 milles.Le sommet sud-ouest du triangle a étédéterminéde
manière à inclure le point d'intersection de la ligne canadienne avec la limite
extérieurecanadienne de la zone canadienne des 200 milles.Enfin, en plaçant le
côtésud du triangle sur le 40' parallèle, on incluait dans le triangle le point
d'intersection desdeux limites extérieuresdes 200 milles.
Les explications ainsi fournies des deux côtésde la barre sont complémen-
taires.
D'un côté.le trianele se orésentaitcomme un moven techniaue commode et
neutre prrmetiant d'ir>diqué ir la Cour la zoneOU do,; se ierminfr la lignequ'elle
est 3ppeIk à lixer. sans qur seiie inJication ne porte ~rC~udice3ux re\,endica-
tions~desParties telles se présentaient ahrs.
Mais il s'agissaiten mêmetemps de ne pas prendre position sur la question du
rebord externe de la marge continentale et sur cellede la limite extérieurede la
zone des 200 milles.Au moment où le compromis a éténégociél.a définition
iuridiaue de la maree continentale faisait l'obiet de discussions à la conférence
sur Icdro~ide 1.1mer. et les Etais-Unis ci lc Canada a\.aient <iici &rd des \ues
quelque peu Jii,ergenics. Les eiudes techniques sur la mxrgc conlinenlale dans
cette~régionn'avaient en outre pas encore étépousséessuffisamment loinpour
qu'il ait pu êtrepossible de demander à la Chambre de tracer la frontière
maritime jusqu'à sa limite extrêmevers le large. A quoi s'ajoute que le concept
d'une zone maritime polyvalentede 200 millesétaitencore à cette époque(nous
sommes dans les années1977. 1978.1979).I'obietde certaines réticenceset aue
ni les Etats-Unis ni lecanada ne ;.y étaientencore entièrement ralliés.A 'cet
égardégalementla formuledu triangle se présentaitcomme un mécanisme«non PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 161
préjudiciel» commode. Le second alinéa del'article III du compromis et la
rédaction ru dentede l'article VI1 vont exactement dansle mêmesens.
Unc Ir:gr;redi\crgenic ruh.iste cependsnt entrc les deux Partics rn cc qui
L.onccrnele irianglc. Les Etats-Unis soutiennent Jans13répliqueque: q~Thercis
no relationship betucen the inangle and the 2OU.nautiwl-mile limit88(Psr 2411
Cette acsertion. Monsieur le Presidcnt, p.irait erronée.étant donné que i'est
préciscmcntI'empl~iement des points d'intcrswtion de>limites extérieuresdes
zonesdes 200 milles entre elles et avec les lignes revendiquéesalors par chaque
Partie. ainsi aue I'emnlacement des arcs de cercle ioienant ces ~oints. oui a
déterminé- et qui seul explique - l'emplacement du triangle; sinon le triangle
n'aurait plus aucun sens.Entre letria.gle et la limite des200milles la relation est
indiscutable.
Tels étant les faitsil reste - et c'est le plus important -à en analyser les
implications sur le tracéde la frontière maritime unique.
2. Les implications du point A et du triangle
Les implications dupoint A
1.echoix coni.entionnel du pointA et sïsiiuation entraine deux constatations
- Jepne .icet ég~rdrespectueusemrntla <:hambrs de bien \ouloir \e reporter à la
@ figure 86 quilui a étéremise ce niatin.
D'abord. la situation du nointA: où est-il?Par raooortà auoi sesitue-t-il? II
est"\.ident quece point e,t Snrelation aveclesc5teadi ~ainr: am2ricain et de la
N~iui,elle-Ccosscçanadiennc II e$tc\ident que ce point estentiéremcntdetxche
de la frontière terrestre et du point terminal de la frontière terrestre situé dansle
fond de la baie de Passamaquoddy.
Ensuite, en amont du point A se trouvent deux segmentsde la frontière
maritime que vous voyez mieux, Monsieur le Président,sur la carte qui est en
votre oossession. l'un déià délintitéconventionnellement. l'autre à délimiter
ultérie;rement.& segmentdéjàdélimité,qui figure enrougesur cettecarte, a été
tracé manifestement en considération des càtes opposéesde configuration
complexe des deux pays dans celte région et sans aucune considération de la
frontière terrestre ou de la soi-disant direction génésud-ouestlnord-est chère
à nos adversaires. Le dernier troriçon de ce segmentdélimitées! orienténord-
est/sud-ouest entre les côtes opposéeset pratiquement paralleles du Maine
américainet de i'île canadiennedeGrand Manan - là encore. detoute évidence.
ransconsidérationdc la fri>ntikre terrestre situéeloin Iiau iond de IJ b~iede
l?assamaquudd).Quant au segmentqui restera à déliniitei I'a\enir (cequej'ai
ametc tout iiI'heure le hi3tusi entre le point termin.il13frontiére internati<i-
niie et Is point A, l'alignement mr'nde cesdeux points imposerd iiu: segment
dans I'a\enir - qucl que soit son tracépar ailleurt, lequrl dépendrdcn grande
p.irtie de13solution du prohlCme de sou\cr~inetésur Machias Seal et North
Rock - une direction nord-est/sud-ouesl. Cette direction est dictéekalement
par 13contigur~tion descotes opposéeset partii>ies desterritoirss am&hsÿinr et
canadiens pertinent\ 13 encore, Ginsconiidér3tion de la configurdtion càti2re
~UX abords de la irontiGre terrestre dans le fond de la haie de Passom~quoddy.
De là. Monsieur le Président.me semble-t-il. un double enseignemeni.
Premi~rement.le point terniinal de la frontiè'e terrestre n'a pis de pertinence
pour 13 délimitation entre le poinA et le triangle.
Ddns I'arhire di! Pl~rrc,oconlincnlul/ TunrsrrJam[rh~rijo aruhc I~hrrnrir,il
est \,rai, la Cour a portéattentiinla direction généralde la fruntiére terrestre
séprsnt Ici deux payset au point terminal decette froniiére. Mais clle neICd11162 GOLFE DU MAINE
qu'en raison de l'absence de toute délimitationconventionnelle des eaux terri-
toriales ou de tout autre espace maritime - faute de mieux, en quelque sorte
(C.I.J.Recueil 1982,p. 35, par. 21; p. 65, par. 82; p. 83, par. 116).Dans notre
affaire, au contraire, les Parties ont d'ores et déjàfixéd'un commun accord un
tronçon deleur frontière maritime, et il n'ya aucune raison, mais aucune raison,
pour tracer le tronçon en aval du point A, de revenir en quelque sorte en arrière
pour prendre appui sur la frontière terrestre,sautant ainsi àla fois par-dessus le
tronçon déjàdelimitéet le tronçon non encore délimité.
II n'estvas sans intérêatu surolus de ra..eler àce su,et .ue lesécrituresamé-
ricaincs ne distingucnr pas clairement cntrc <<landboundxy a el inrcrndtional
buundarvu (cepoint :idkjà216rclcvcjet qu'ellesparaiihcni employer indilïercm-
ment les deuxexpressions comme si elies étaient synonymes(«intemational
boundary*: 1,mémoire desEtats-Unis,par. 15,20,25,26,28,29,282,302,327 et
conclusions; IV,contre-mémoire,par. 31, 293, 294et conclusions; V, réplique,
par. 161et conclusions; «land boundary »: 1,mémoire desEtats-Unis, par. II et
284; IV, contre-mémoire,par. 7,30, 33,290,291,292, 295; V, réplique,par. 158,
160,288, 289).A vrai dire aucunedes illustrationscartographiques américaines
ne permet de distinguer clairement entre ces deux concepts - àmoins d'avoir de
bons. de trèsbons veux -alors nourtant aue la frontièredite internationale est
dija une fronti>rcmaritime ci que lespoints terminaux de la Crontiéreterrcsirc.
d'unc part. et du premier .egment de 13ïrontiCrc maritinie dite internaiion:ile.
d'autre part, sont situ& 5 plus de 20 milles marins l'un de l'autre.
~euxjèmement.de la succesionnord-estisud-ouest des reoèressienificatifsaui
app3raisseni sur cette ciirteon pcui r.iison~ablemcntin~;rc;~ue, dins 13lobci{ue
du .).teme mis en plaie par Icr Parties.13 froniiCremaritinicen aval du point A
doit se dir.ger.plus ou moins diins la mCmcdirection L3 g>o~raphicdicte çci
alignement Jr.inanicre impérati\,e.La ligner.anadienne rshpcctccet aligiiement.
Tel n'e\t pas lecdr de II ligneümcriiainc de 19U2,qui ionne :i\,eccet dlign~~mcni
voulu par lesParties un angle presque droit, sans qu'aucune configuration de la
côte ne vienne expliquer un changement aussi brutal.
La implicationsdu triangle
A l'autre extrémitéde la frontièrà tracer par la Chambre, le triangle se révèle
tout aussi riche d'implications, et c'est vers celles-cique je voudrais, si la
Chambre me le permet, me tourner maintenant.
Je ne m'arrêteraipas sur I'interêtdu triangle pour d'éventuels testsde
proportionnalité. Mon ami, le professeur Malintoppi traitera de ce point. Ce
sont deux autres aspects qui retiendront mon attention.
D'une oart. le fait déià sinnale aue le trianele a étéconçu de manière à
cngloher ics points où le; lign;. du canada et rirs~131,-~nis,tellet qu'ellesse
prCscnraicntau moment de Iï conclusion du compromis. coupent les Iiniitcs
extérieures des zonesdes 200 milles des deux Parties, ainsi que le point
d'intersection deslimites extérieuresde ces zones.
D'autre part, le fait, également signalé,que l'article VI1 du compromis
(1,p. 15)prévoit qu'àla suite de la décisionde la Chambre il pourra y avoir lieu
àune «extension de la frontière maritime vers le large» bien au-delà des limites
du triang"e.
La conjonction de ces deux aspects fait apparaître une constatation intéres-
sante. IIrésulte eneffetde la coniugaison de ces deux aspects que, si la Chambre
est trèscertainement libre, comme-lesdeux Parties en sont d'accord, de fixer le
point terminal de sa délimitation à n'importe quel point dans le triangle, y
compris à un point qui se situerait en deçà de la limite des 200 millesdes deux PLAII,OIRIE DE M. WEIL 163
Parties (mémoiredu Canada, par. 12; mémoiredes Etats-Unis, par. 4, note 1;
réplique,par. 242), le choix que fera la Chambre est loin d'ètre indifférente,t il
n'est pas vrai, contrairement àce que pensent nos adversaires,que «no point in
the triangle is more significantthan any other» (mémoire desEtats-Unis, par. 4,
note 1; cf. réplique,par. 242).
D'abord, en effet,ilestclair que plus le point terminal de la délimitationchoisi
par la Chambre à I'intérieurdu triangle se trouvera en deçà des limites des
200 milles de chacune des Parties, plus grand, plus long, sera le segment de
frontière qui resteraà délimiterentre les Parties et moins complètedonc sera la
solution judiciaire du différend.
Ensuite, le choix que la Chambre va faire du point terminal à l'intérieurdu
triangle aura, par la force des choses, inévitablement,une répercussiondirecte
sur le prolongement ultérieurde I;ifrontièreau-delà du triangle, en direction du
rebord externe de la marge continentale.
II est évidentqu'il estprématuréd'examiner dès à présent quelspourraient
être,a partir de chaque point terininal envisageable à l'intérieurdu triangle, le
tracé etla longueur du prolongernent possible au-delà du triangle. Ce sera la,
précisément, l'objedtes négociations prévuespar l'article VI1 du compromis.
Aussi le Canada ne saurait-il accepter que les Etats-Unis préfigurentd'ores et
déjà l'extensionde leur ligne au-delà du triangle, mêmeà titre de simple
illustration. Ni la petite flèchepar laquelle se termine la ligne américainesur les
sr 102 cartes américaines (mémoire desEtats-Unis, fig. 30; contre-mémoire,fig. 1, 14,
15, 16, 17et 18).ni leprolongement explicitement représensur la figure 34 du
$@ @ mémoire américainne sont acceptables (la Chambre trouvera cette flèchesur la
36 figure 87 et ce prolongement sur la figure 92 de la procédure orale): cette
O question, Monsieur le président,tout simplement, n'est pas aujourd'hui devant
la Chambre.
La seulechose que l'on puisse faire au stade actuel, c'estde se borner àrelever
aue. selon le choix fait nar la Chambre du ooint terminal de sa délimitationà
l'intérieurdu triangle, Îes prohlèines engendréspour la phase ultérieurede la
délimitationmaritime serontd'une plus ou moins grande ampleur. Comme nous
l'avons montré dans nos écritures (contre-mémoiredu Canada, oar. 24-25.
570-576),toute frontière qui ne se terminerait pas au point d'intersection des
limitesextérieuresdes 200 mille-en fait, toute ligne autre qu'une ligne d'équi-
distance strict- entrainerait la création d'une «zone grisen dans laquelle la
juridiction sur le plateau continental appartiendàal'un des Etats, tandis que
lajuridiction sur leseaux surjacentes ou bien n'appartiendrait à aucun des deux
Etats ou bien app~rtiendrait à l'autre Etat, ce qui créerait une superposition
verticale de droits génératricede difficultés.
Cette «zone gr~ ~ ~serait d'un~ ~ ~dued'autant nlus considérableaue leooint
terminal dc la lioniiere :i ir;ieer s'çloigncr~iidiijani3ge du point d'inicrsection
des limitesr.xl>ricurcsdes 200 niillcb.Lcscrtiquis que nous nous wmmcs pcrniis
d'ttdbli3 I'intcniion Jc la C'haiiibremonircni que si la-licne d'i.uuidisinnse
,tricte n'engcndre par détiniti<innième.ni~thcm~itiqu~mct1j'ose dire. .iucunr.
<.7dnr.griw.(s'es13 Figur8.3de II pr<ic&iurr.orale) ci sila Iignï çsn:idieiiiie,qui
n'est pas une ligne d'equidistance stricte, engendre une «zone grise» de faible
@ étendue(c'estla figure89de la prcicédureorale), les lignes américde 1976et
de 1982créentune «zonegrise» d'importanceconsidérable:la figure90 illustrela
«zone griseq»u'engendrerait la lignede 1976;la figure91 illustre celle qu'engen-
drerait la lienede 1982sion la oroloneeait dans la direction de la oeroendiculaire:
la figure 92: enfin, montre dans i'hypothèsedu prolongemênt,'jen'osedire
revendiqué, mais,mettons, indiquésur la figure34du contre-mémoire américain,
ceserait une superficiecomparable à cellede la Belgiquequi poserait problème.164 GOLFE DU MAINE
C'est nourauoi le Canada. désireuxa la foisde voi- réelerle différenddans sa
phare ~ciuelleiiussicompléicmentque lecompromis Icpermii cl de ne pas voir
i~r~uniuler Irs ditticiiltcs pour la phase ultcncure de la délimitationdu dernier
serment de la frontière maritime avec les Etats-Unis dans cette réeion, prie
respectueusement la Chambre: d'une part, de fixer le point terminal dé la
délimitationsur la limite extérieurede la zone desllesde I'unedes Parties:
d'autre part, d'éviterla créationd'une nzone grise» d'une ampleur excessive.
Voilà, Monsieur le Président, pour le caractère partiel de la délimitation
demandéea la Chambre, et pour l'intérêq tue présentent, pour cette délimita-
tion, le point A et ce qui est en amont et le triangle et ce qui est en aval.
Délaissantà présentl'avant et I'aprèsde la délimitation.c'est au second trait
distinctif de ceite dernière que je Compte m'attacher, à 'savoir que c'est une
frontière maritime unique que la Chambre est invitéeà tracer.
L'uudienceesr levéeà13h IO SEPTIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (6 IV 84, 10h)
Présents:[Voir audience du 2 IV 84.1
M. WEIL: Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges, j'ai examiné hierla
oremièredes trois caractéristiauesde la délimitation demandéeà la Chambre,
telleque ccllc-ciest dGtiniepar 1sccmipromls. IIs'agitd'unedélimitati<~p n~riielle
qui intr:rcr,e un ygment de I'cnsemblede Id froniiéremariiimc qui ,>parera un
iour Ics Etais-Unis ci le Can.iila dani la rcgion du golfe du Maine.
J'en arrive maintenant à la seconde caractéristique de la délimitation décou-
lant du compromis: le tracé à définirdoit êtrecelui d'une frontière maritime
unique.
B. Unefrontière maritimeunique
Qu'est-ceque lesParties ont entendu demander àla Chambre? Pourquoi ont-
elles recouru aux formules employéesdans le compromis?
Pour le comnrendre. il faut. ie crois. se référerà l'histoire du différend.
Comme les deux parties l'ont expliquédans leurs écritures(1, mémoiredu
Canada, par. 203 et suiv.; II, mémoire desEtats-Unis, par. 135 et suiv.), le
différendest passé par deux stadessuccessifs.Dans un premier temps -grosso
modo de 1969à 1976-1977les divergencesdes Parties portaient sur lesactivités
relatives à l'exploration età l'exploitation deshydrocarbures; il s'agissait, à ce
stade, d'un différendde plateau continental de type tout à fait classique. En
1976-1977 cedifférend orit des dimensions nouvelles avecla création Dar les
deux pays Je 7one3Je $chc de 200millesm3rins. ilest intércssiintdc noicr quc
c'criexactementpdrcc ménieicrnicdc<sdimen.ionnou\ellc 8)quelesmémoirssdcs
jeu^ P3rticsdr:cri\ïni le iournani nris par leJifTGrendr ce moment-là (mCmoirc
du Canada, par. 223; mémoiredés~Ïats-Unis, par. 149). La publication des
limites latéralesrex'endiquéespar les Etats-Unis au Federal Register du 4 no-
vembre 1976 (1, annexes au mémoire du Canada, livre II, annexe 30; II,
annexes au mémoiredes Etats-Unis, vol. IV, annexe 64)spécifiaitque ces limites
latérales étaientcellesà la fois de la zone de pêcheet du plateau continental des
Etats-Unis. Du côtécanadien, leschoses se sont déroulées unpeu différemment.
Le décretdu 1" janvier 1977 (annexes au mémoiredu Canada, livre II, an-
~ ~ ~2~ ~annexes au mémoire des Etats-Unis.vol. IV. annexe 63)ne définissait
leslimités latérales qu'il décrivait qu'en termes de zond es pèche;et c'est seule-
ment par un avis ioint au proiet de décretdu 15septembre 1978,c'est-à-direun
an et demi aorèsiannexecau-mémoire du Canada, livre II, annexe 41 ; annexes
au ménioircdei Eirii-Cni,, vol. I\'.xnnew 73).qu'ilscriiindiquéque cesmémes
Iimiiss latériilessont cgalemcnt rc\~cndiquL:cp iu le Canadd en tant que limites
de ses droits de plateau continental.
Au moment de la négociationdu compromis, c'estdonc un double différend
qui séparait les Parties: un différendportant sur la délimitation du plateau
continental et un différendportarit sur la délimitationdes zones de pêche.Et
c'est, par conséquent,de manière tout à fait exacte que dans le préambuledu
compromis les deux gouvernements constatèrent
cau'ils n'ont ou résoudreoar voie de négociation leurs différendsIce mot
a;pluriel] en matièrede dhimitation du gateau continental et des zonesde
pêchede l'un et l'autre pays dans la régiondu golfe du Mainen.166 WLFE DU MAINE
Au moment de soumettre leur diRérendàla Chambre, les Parties ont pris deux
décisionsd'une grande importance.
La premièreétait dedemander àla Chambre de tracer la mèmefrontiere pour
le plateau continent;il et pour les zones de pèche. Auraient-elles pu envisager
deux frontièresdifférentes, l'unepour le solet lesous-sol, l'autre pour la colonne
d'eau? Cela n'aurait peut-être pas étié mpossible - encore que, j'y reviendrai,
cela aurait étéà contre-courant de L'évolutiondu droit international et de la
nratiauedes Etats: eii tout ca~ ~ ~n'est.as cea.'e~l~ ~ ~t fait. En ~ ~ ~dant àla
Chanibrc une ïrontii~rcunique pour ces deux juridir.iioni maritimes Irs Parties
restaient iidClcsileurs rr.\,endir.ations.icller rlu'ellÎi Icsataieni puhliccs I'uneci
I'autre dans les conditions que j'ai rappeléesil y a quelques instants. Elles se
conformaient aussi, j'y reviendrai, aux donnéesles plus récentesdu droit de la
mer, attestées déjàpar une pratique assez importante.
Voilà, Monsieur le Président. iiour la première décision. qui trouve son
cxprcssion dans I'articlcII, paragrîphc 1.rl; compromis (1.p. 13. qui demande
àILChambre de dire <(quelcst leiracc JÎ la froniiérçmitritimc unique divisani le
plaicau coniineni;il ci leszones de pèchedu Canada ci des Et;iis-Unis» entre le
point A et le triangle.
Les deux gouvernements ne se sont toutefois pas arrètés la. Par le premier
paragraphe de l'article III ils ont décidéen outre qu'aucun des deux Etats ne
pourra, au-delà de la frontière ainsi élahlie - c'est-à-dire de la frontière com-
mune au nlateau continental et à la zone de oèche - «à a.e~au.~~in ~,~~-e soit.
revendiquer ou exercer de juridiction ou de droits sou\~cr;iinssur leseaux ou sur
Is fond marin ei Issi~us-solde 13 mersi 1.csens ci 13p<~rléd ce cctie diipobiiion
sont clairs. II ne s-.rit nas d'une clause Darlaauelle lei Parties se seraieni réservé
la facultc d'ctcndrc dani I'lii,enIJ I'runiiCreunique dc plateau coniincni~l ci dc
zones dc pèzhcà Je\ types de juridiciion nouveauh. mais bien d'unc cl~~usc psr
I3auellr elles ont immedi3irmcnt dccid; que Iüironticre trade mr I;iCh3mhrc
le plateau et les zones de pèche~'~~~li~ueraia tutomatiqknent à toute
forme de juridiction ou de droits souverains que le droit international pourrait
dans l'avenir reconnaitre au profit des Etats côtiers.
La frontièreque la Chambre est appelée àdéfinirmerite dès lorsle qualificalif
de frontière unique à un double niveau et à un double titre: d'abord, parce que
c'est une seule et mème frontièreque la Chambre est priéede tracer pour
délimiterleplateau continental et la zone de pèche;ensuite, parce que c'estcette
mème frontière qui séparera ipsojure, sans qu'aucune nouvelle décisiondes
Parties ne soit nécessaire, toute autre forme de juridiction ou de droits
souverains des Etats-Unis et du Canada sur les espaces maritimes dans cette
réeion.La nature de la frontièreaui va ètretracéenar la Chambre setrouve ainsi
"
dcicrmin&eii)njointcment par lei deux disposiiions conibinéezdu p~r~grüphe
premier de l'article II et du paragraphe premier de I'liriicleIII du compromis:
ces deux dispositions doivent èiÏe lues ensemble, car c'est ensemble qu'elles
définissent la mission de la Chambre.
En termes clairs, cela signifie que la frontière que la Chambre va tracer
divisera non seulement leszones de plateau continental et les zonesde péchedes
deux Etats. mais éral-ment le faisceau de droits et iuridictions aue le droit
intcrnsiional rÿmassc aujourd'hui sous leconcept dc zone économiqueexclusive
ci, plus géncralcmeniencorc. toutes nou\,elleijuridictions mantimcs que ledroit
international pourrait faire apparaître à chaque moment de son évolution.
Mais alors, pourquoi les Parties n'ont-elles pas appeléun chat un chat et une
zone économiqueexclusive une zone économiqueexclusive? Pourquoi ont-elles
eu recours à des périphrases d'apparence sibylline?
La réponse est simple.C'est qu'au moment de la négociationdu compromis, PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 167
commr j'ai dcji CU I'occiisionde le relever.le\ deux gouierncnicnrj n'atairnt pas
encore arretr: JCliniti\,ementleur ;.ttitudc \is..i.vls Je crttç innov3tion spcztacu-
laire du droit international qu'est la zone économique exclusive. Le concept
mêmede zone économiqueexclusive était d'ailleursencore en gestation à ce
moment-là, et l'on n'était pasparvenu au stade où l'on aurait pu dire, comme le
fera la Cour trois ans plus tard, que la zone économiqueexclusivefait partie du
droit international moderne (C.I.J. Recueil 1982. o. 74. Dar. 100). C'est en
considération de cette situahon essentiellement fluctuanie et évolutive du
moment, où les institutions n'avaient pas suffisamment mûri et où les gouverne-
ments ne s'étaient passuffisamment fixés,que les Parties ont adopté la formule
apparemment complexe qui figure dans le compromis.
Que telle soit bien l'explication de cette formule, deux autres dispositions du
compromis l'attestent et le confirment. Ce sont ces mêmesraisons, en effet, qui
exnliauent le trianele et le renvoi ànlus tard du oroloneement de la frontière.Ce
sont ces mêmesraisons encore qui expliquent la précautionprise par les Parties
au second paragra-he~de l'article III, d'après lequel:
~~Aucuncdispositioi~ du prkent cc)mpromisnc iiiodifie 13 positii>nde I'unc
ou l'autre Piirtic;iI'kc~rdde 1.1narLre iuridiquc oii de I'itendur \,erslelarge
du plateau continenial, de la juridiciion en matière de pêches,ou de la
juridiction ou des droits soiiverains à toute autre fin en vertu du droit
international. »
Une formule prudente et évolutive de ce genre se retrouve dans nombre
d'accords de délimitationconclus au cours de ces dernières annéespar les Etats-
Unis avec Cuba (V, annexes à la répliquedu Canada, livre 1 - ci-aprèsdésigné
comme «Annexesur la pratique desEtats» - accord 62),leVenezuela(accord 65),
le Mexique (accord 67). les iles Cook (accord 79), et la Nouvelle-Zélande
(accord 82). Dans un ordre d'idéevoisin, l'accord France/Brésil(accord 84) fixe
«la lignede délimitationmaritime, y compris celledu plateau continental »,entre
la France au large de la Guyane et le Brésil selon une ligned'azimuth dont
l'extrémité n'est pas fixée,parce que, au moment de la conclusion de l'accord, il
restait des incertitudes au suietde l'extensionde la maree continentaleau-delà de
200 millesmarins. Bienentendu la Chambre trouvera letexte de tous cesaccords
avec des illustrations dans l'annexe sur la pratique des Etats jointe à la réplique
du Canada.
Pour en rcicnir 3" cas pr-?îent.I'c\cnement 3 muniri. que la formule cvo~ulive
choi\ie par leî deux gou\crncment, n'avait riend'acadcmiqiie Entre led6piit des
nicnioirc\ et celui des contre-niém~irc.;le. Etats-Unis. la Chambre lcsait, on1en
effet oroclaméune zone économiciueexclusive(III. annexes au contre-mémoire
di] Can.idn. li,rc IV. annexe 1. I\'. aiinches au conirc-mCmoiredes Etats-Unis.
vol V,xnnehc 2h) Dans une noic du 2h avril 1963le Ciou~crncnientcanadien 3
exprimécertaines' réserves à I'egardde cette proclamation et des documents qui
s'y rapportent.
Quoi qu'il en soit de ce dernier problème,il est certain que la frontièreque la
Chambre est appeléeà tracer va s'appliquer à présentà la zone économique
exclusivedes Etats-Unis - de mênieou'elle s'ao..iau.rait àla zone économiaue
exclusive du Canada si celui-ci décidait d'en proclamer une à son tour. Le
Canada a d'ores et déjà,comme il l'a indique dans sesécritures,mis en place les
composantes les plusimportantes de cettezone: exploration et exploitation des
fonds marins~et~ ~ ~ ~~ ~o~s-sol. droits exclusifs de oêche.nrotection du milieu
marin (1,mem<>iredu Canada, p;ir 15. note 7. 111:conire-memoire, par. 464,
note IO):il peut i n'impurie quel iiionicnr mettre en place d'autrcs compoiiinte,
de la zone economique~exclu~veou bien la proclamer en tant que telle, comme168 WLFE DU MAINE
l'ont faitles Etats-Unis et près d'une centaine d'autres pays.Le Canada a pris
clairement position sur ce point dans ses pièces écrites (contre-mémoiredu
Canada, par. 7, 25, 464).
En bref, la frontière maritime unique que la Chambre est appeléeà tracer va
séparerdans l'immédiatles droits et juridictions des Etats-Unis tels qu'ils sont
définisdans la proclumation du président Reagan demars 1983et les droits et
juridictions du Canada tels qu'ils résultentdes diverses législationscanadiennes
applicables à la zone des 200 milles du Canada. Dans l'avenir elle pourra
s'appliquer à toute nouvelle juridiction et à tout nouveau droit que les Etats-
Unis ou le Canada entendraient exercer conformémentau droit int~r~ ~~~nal.
II ressort du compromis que les Parties n'ont pas envisagéla frontière unique
comme l'addition ou la résultantede frontièresspécifiqueset diverses, que I'on
aurait ensuite aiustéesafin d'obtenir une liene uniaue.%lles n'ont oas envisagé
que I'iinIracc $ucceSsivemcnlcl ,2p:irciiieni une ironiicrc de pl3te:~u~onlincni~l
en applic.iiion des rCglc, ré-ij,aiit IJ dClimit:iiiondu pl~icüu, une froiii12rcJe
pêches enapplication des rèelesrégissantla délimitation deszones de pèche.une
'frontièrepour la pollution, ;ne frontièrescientifique,que sais-jeencoie? et puis
que I'on recherche, dans un second temps, comment les lignes diverses ainsi
obtenues à partir des règlesde droit qui leur sont spécifiquemeiitapplicables
nourraient êtrefusionnées en une liene uniaue. Non. Monsieur le Président.ce
-
n'est pas cela que les Parties ont eu en vue, mais bien une opération globale et
unique consistant à déterminer,sij'ose dire,d'un seul coup le tracé de laligne
unique et polyvalente qui séparera la totalitédu faisceau de leurs droits et
juridictions maritimes. Le seul fait que les Parties ont adopté la formule
évolutiveque nous avons examinée le prouverait à lui seul: car sinon cela
signifierait qu'à chaque nouvelle adjonction de droits souverains ou de juridic-
tion toute I'ooérationde délimitationserait àrecommencer. C'estdonc bien une
opération synthétique, globale et unique. que les Parties ont eu en vue et à
laquelle ellesprient la chambre de procéderen application des principes et règles
de~droitqui régissentce genre de frontière.
Pour définirla mission dela Chambre, lesParties, nous le savons, ont employé
un certain vocable, le vocable ((frontièremaritime unique». Le terme constituait
à certains égards une nouveauté,mais le concept auquel il correspond était, si
i'ose dire. dans l'air deouis a.ela.es annees pu.sque.c'est dans le contexte de
~'acicp1311olrlC.c~iiteci ,pcci:icul:iire de I:I 7orir.~i~>nomiquce\cl~sii.c par le
ilroii inlerri~iional ciBuiuniierque c \]tue Iüfroniicrz m.iriiimc unique \iiuliic
113rIci Parucç SI ILI('hamhre \CUI bieii ,c reporicr :tu tiiblc3u uui iicurc cri iCic
de notre annexe sur la oratiaue des Etats. elle constatera aue'de oÏus en olus
souvent, au cours de cesdernières années,les Etats ne secontentent pas, comme
ils lefaisaient auparavant, de délimiterle plateau continental, mais que de plus
en dus souvent iis conviennent d'une frokière maritime couvrant olusieurs~ou
13 ioiiilitC. Je leurs juridiciions ni~riiiiiics JC me pcrniei; rcspe;tiicu,cnicni
d'aitircr l'i11tcni~oiic la Chanibrc iiile5:i:.wrJ~ coniliis p:irla Fr~ncca\cc I'ilc
\I.iuricc (üxorJ 731.IcHrCsili3ccorJ 841.S:iinic-Lucietaccord 651. le Vene/ucl:i
(accord 80 )t ~'~u'stralie(accord 87), &si que sur les accords &nclus par les
Etats-Unis avec le Mexique (accord 67). les iles Cook (accord 79), la Nouvelle-
Zélande (accord 82). Ces accords, qui portent délimitation d'une «frontière
maritime» (maririmi boundarvs jous des aoo..lations parfois diverses mais
rc~.ou\rûni une mhc ré;lliie.I'cmporieni en nomhrc, ilcpiiij quc4quc\ annecs.
jiirle3xcordc dc JClimit~iii>n[le pl.,iedu c~~niincni~p lroprement Jii I.'.ilf.iir~
dc Jan M~scn.iacc.rd 46) Jxni Iü~iicllc I'l,lanJc ci la Ntirvcec an1 J>cidt.
conformément aux recommandations d'une commission de conciliation, de
recourir à une frontière unique, présente égalemenu t n intérêàt cet égard.C'estdire que l'opinion émisepar nos amis américains dans leur mémoire selon
laquelle «State practice concerniiig single maritime houndaries seaward of the
territorial sea asyet issparse)) (mémoiredes Etats-Unis,par. 165)necorrespond
pas exactement à la réalité.A quoi s'ajoute que, inversement, la pratique des
Etats ne fournit - sauf erreur de ma part, ce qui est possible - qu'un seul et
unique exemple où des Etats aient établipositivement des frontières différentes
pour le fond de la mer et pour les péches. Cet exemple,c'est celui de l'accord
entre l'Australie et la Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée concernant le détroit de
Torres (accord 71); mais, comme l'a expliqué endétail l'un des négociateurs de
l'accord dans une longue étude publiée dans I'AmericanJournal en 1982, il
s'agissait dans ce cas de faire face à des problèmes tout à fait exceptionnels et
spécifiques(H. Bumester, «The TorresStraitTreaty », AJIL, vol. 76, 1982,p. 321
et suiv., et notamnient p. 333 et 340).
II n'est pas exagéré,on le constate pour terminer, de dire que la frontière
maritime unique voulue par les Rirties se situe dans le droit filde l'évolutiondu
droit international et de la pratique des Etats.
II me reste, pour achever l'examen des caractéristiques majeures de la
délimitation demandée à la Chambre, à me tourner vers la disposition du
compromis prescrivant que la délimitation soit effectuée«conformément aux
règles et principes du droit international applicables en la matière entre les
Parties» (1,p. 13,art. 1).C'est àl'analysede cette disposition, dont chaque mot
est lourd de sens, queje me propose de consacrer la troisièmeet dernièresection
de cette première partie.
C. Unedélimirationconforme«aux principesel règles
du droit internationalapplicablesen la marièreentre les Partiesu
Pour la commoditéde l'exposé, j'examineraiséparémentlestrois composantes
de la formule employéepar le compromis et que je me suis permis de rappeler.
Les trois paragraphes de cette section porteront donc successivement sur:
- la notion de délimitationfondt'esur le droit;
- les règlesde droit applicables «entre les Parties*;
- etenfinledroit régissantla «matière»,c'est-à-direladélimitationdela frontière
maritime unique dans la présente affaire.
1. Une délimitationfondéseur le droit
La dé~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ la Chambre es~ ~riéed'efectuer doit. tout d'abord. être
fondéesur les principes et règlesdu droit international; elle doit résulterde
l'application de principes et de règlesde caractère juridique.
Cette orescriotion comoorte deix volets.
1.cprrmier, siir lequel XI.Lcgaiilt. ügeni du Canada. s'es!c\pliquc, cst que 1:i
&liniit;ition rlcm~nrlie n'est p3i iine dilimii.iiion ,,.oi2yu# iV hotlurepo,ani sur
une soluiion ir~ns:ictionnclleuui c,inristerait i Aplrr[hi,ihngriv~ce Jc n'ïn dirai
pas davantage sur ce point.
Le second volet, sur lequel je souhaiterais m'aharder quelque instants, est
qu'il ne suffit pas que la délimitation soit équitablepour qu'il soit satisfait à
l'exigenceénoncéedans Iccompromis.
Nos adversaires affirment, réaffirmentet répètentdans leurs écrituresque:
«Any method or combination of method that produces an equitable result may
be appliedn (II, mémoire des Etats-Unis, par. 262; IV, annexes au contre-
mémoire, annexe10,par. 9; V, réplique,par. 91 et 258)'et ceci me paraît sujet à170 GOLFE DU MAINE
caution. Admettre que le choix de la méthodeest indifïérentau droit et n'est
commandé que par l'équitédu résultat, et par elle seule, équivaudrait, me
semble-t-il.à tomber dans cet «exercice d'un oouvoir discrétionnaire ou de
conciliatio"~, dans cearecours àlajustice distrih;tive» que la Cour a fermement
écartédans son arrêtde 1982(C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 60, par. 71). Ce serait, en
quelque sorte, la méthodede l'anon-méthode.
La thèse américaineque je viens de rappeler ressemble comme une sŒur à
cellequi avait étésoutenue par la Francedans l'affairedu plateau continental de
la Manche. Dans la régionatlantique. soutenait la France, le tribunal arbitral
était librede choisir toute méthode.ouelle au'elle soit. ou diverses méthodes.
assurant i son ans une délimiiaiioné~uiiable'(~enien 20cc,i'21s)r~uellé
fut la réponsedu trihun.il'! Elle fui ferme ei vanscqui\oque: le tribunal n'a pas.
r4.il ccrii dan, la sentence, «cÿrte hldnche [ci le moi iranc~is figure Cgalcment
ddns la ver>ion.inglaise dc I'iirrét]pour recourir3 n'importe quelle méthodeJc
son choix pour rilecrucr une dr:lirnitation equitïblc. (p.ir 245).
En énoncantque toute méthodeou combinaison de méthodeslanv method or
<.ot,ihi,iu~rO/~hicrh,,h, r\t applicable pourvu qu'elleconduise i'uii résuliai
cquitablr. nos ;id~cr\:~irï\conimctteni uneconfusion entre Icpouvuir d'un organe
iudiciairc ou arhiiral. ïppcléi siiectuer 13dilimiiïiion en cïs dc désaccorddei
parties, et le pouvoir des Parties elles-mêmed sans le cadre d'une négociation
.lrn'exnlioue.
..~ r-~-~~-~
IIest évidentque lorsque deux gouvernements effectuent une délimitationpar
voie conventionnelle ils peuvent choisir de se conformer àdes principes et règles
Jc drolt, cela ne lcur csi'é\idcmmcnipas inierdit Je n'cn vcui pour.preu\,e que
la rcfércncrau droit iniçrnational qui \e iroti\c d:in\ Ir pré.imhulrde certains
accords de délimitation signésau cours de ces dernières annéespar la France
..éoli.uedu Canada. «Annexesur la orati.ue d.s Etatsn. accords 76.78.80.85. . .
h7~. Mais ilspeubeni iout aurai hicn s'r:vaderdes consid6raiions juridiques pour
recourir i n'importe quelle mithode ou dumhinaison dc mcthodcr. Ils peuvent
mêmene recourir a aucune méthodedu tout et secontenter de tracer sur la carte
u~~ li-.e aui leur oaraît satisfaisante oour des raisons aui leur aooartiennent. Ce
n'est pas un hasa;d si tant d'&ordsde délimitation&dent le's'ilencesur la ou
les méthodesauxquelles il a étérecouru. La solution retenue a, par définition
même.semblééquitableàchacune des Parties. sinon elle n'v aurait pas souscrit.
Cc caractCre éq;iiahlc peut se Ionder sur mille ci une co~\idérilti~ns:gtugra-
phiqucs. cconomiqucs, militairr.s, quc sais-JCencore'? lin gou\crnrmcnt peut
accepter une délimitation défavorablesur une de ses côtes en contrepartie d'une
dtliiitxiion p1.1~iaviirüblc sur une autrc sOtc. II peut égalrmînt 3.cceptrr une
dcIirntistii>ndCFï\orahle en contrepartie d'wantages Ceonontiquesou politiques
dans des secteurs complètement différentsde ses relations avec l'autre gouverne-
ment. En un mot tout est ooss.ble à deux eouvernements dans le cadre d'un
accord dc diliniiiation -y compris de proccdcr iun <.p~rugejuste ciCquitahleo
ou a une rCp;irtitioit~~ de leurs espaces maritime..; les gouvsrnemcnts peuvrnt
recourir d n'impi~rtcquelle m2thodc ou cornhinaison de mcihodcs de leur choix;
ilspcuvcni contenir dc n'importe quellelignede leur choix, ;lueune regle de ju~
irixor.i ne i,tcni resircindrc lcur Iiberii contraciuçllc cn cctie maiiirc.
Tout autrc, ine scmhlc-i-il.esi la riiuation d'une juridiction i~ud'un tribunal
arbitral chargé d'appliquer le droit. Et c'est là que se situe la confusion de nos
adversaires. Loin de jouir de la liberté quasi absolue dont bénéficient les
gouvernements lorsqu'ils procèdentà une délimitationpar voie d'accord, lejuge
ou l'arbitre doit obligatoirement adopter des méthodes,et tracer une ligne, qui
ne secontentent pas deconstituerunesolutionéquitable mais qui soient en outre
enracinéesdans des considérationsjuridiques. PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 171
IIexiste.commeon l'adit. une «différenceénorme» «a worldofdiffer"rr..»-
entre une délimitation conventionnelleet une délimitation parvoiejudiciaire ou
arbitrale (C.I.J. Recueil1982, p. 117,par. 61).
C'est ainsi aue. dans les affaires du Plateau continentalde la merdu Nard. la
Coura fourni aux Parties, selonsapropre expression, «lesdirectionsnécessaires))
(directions)- et encore leur a-t-elle donné ces directions «sans prescrire les
méthodesàutiliser))(C.I.J.Recueil1969,p. 46,par. 84).En 1969,la Cour n'apas,
semble-t-il.entendu énoncer desreelesde droit a~olicabiesimnérativementdans
une délimitation judiciaire ou ariitrale. Et c'&t dans cet& perspective très
particulière de (<directions»,c'est-à-dire de conseils donnésà des Parties sans
«prescription», que la Cour a énoncéla phrase sur laquelle s'appuient nos
adversaires et selon laquelle le droit international ((autorise le recours à divers
principes ou méthodes, selonle cas, ainsi qu'à leurcombinaison, pourvu qu'on
aboutissepar application de principeséquitablesàun résultatraisonnablen (ibid.,
p. 49, par. 90). Ce dictumqui fournit le fondement juridique de la théorie de nos
adversaires ne concerne en rien, me semble-t-il, les règlesapplicables à une
délimitation judiciaireou arbitrale.
Si ces observations, au demeurant banales, sont exactes, l'exigence du
compromis selon laquelle la Chambre doit définirle tracé de la frontière
maritime unique entre le point A et le triangle conformément aux principes et
règlesdu droit international se révèlelourde de signification concrète. Elle
sienifieoue la délimitationdoit êtrefaite selon une méthode.ou une combinai-
son de mcihodcs. dont la,ustitisaiion ne sc lrouvc pas ieulsnicnt t7.poct dans Ic
caractr:reéquitable du résuliït 3uqucl clic sh<iuiit.miilscgalcmeni i,ru,zrzd~n.
des considérations iuridiaues de caractère obiectif. En d'autres termes. oour
obtenir le tracé concretde la délimitationenire le point A et le trianilé, les
Parties n'ont pas la libertéde demander à la Chambre d'employer n'importe
quelle méthode que le caractère équitabledu résultat viendrait justifier a
oosreriori.La méthode.ou la combinaison de méthodes.aonronriéeest celleaui
)ette un pont entre ies considérations juridiques reiat;';es 'à la juridictik
maritime considérée et la ligne équitable quidoit en êtrele résultat.
En d'autres termes. la méthode.ou la combinaison de méthodes.ao~ronr..e .
doit Etre à la fois cnrïcinécJans des coniid2rrtions juridique. et abu~iir i une
soluiion équit<ihle.Lei deux condiiions ,ont i~iutcs dcu\ nicessaircs, niai,
aucunc d'elle, n'filsufisanic. une mithodcdboutii~nt i une iolutiun éoui13ble
ne répondrait pas à l'exigencedu compromis si elle n'était pas enmime temps
ancréedans le droit; et une solution ancréedans le droit ne répondrait pas à
l'exigencedu compromis si ellen'aboutissait pasen mêmetemps à une solution
équitable. C'estceque la Cour a exprimédans un autre contexte en quelques
mots, plus précisque mes longiies explications: «II ne s'agit pas seulement
d'arriver à une solution équitable, maisd'arriver à une solution équitable qui
repose sur ledroit applicable)) (Compétence enmatièredepécheries,C.I.J.Recueil
1974. o. 33. var. 78).
IIeXistcci d6finit;i.eune sCquciicedirecte cnirc ledroit. la méthodcet le trac6
dc la ligne. La inéthodefait appel i dci lechniques non pii i n'importe quelle
te~~hnique.mais j des techniauci rcptisani sur Ii double condiiiun J'GIrr'
intégrcesdans le droit et d'aboitir à une solution équitable. La méthode,c'est-
à-dire la technique, est ainsi encadréeen amont par le droit, en aval par l'équité
du résultat. Les «principes et règlesdu droit international)) conformément
auxquels la délimitationdoit étreeffectuéeinspirentpar conséquentà la fois le
choix de la méthode etle caractèredu résultat: technique et équité sontsituées
l'une et l'autreà l'intérieurdu droit - ((withinthe rules».
Ceci me conduit, Monsieur le Président,à aborder le second aspect de mon172 GOLFE DU MAINE
dnlilysc.is;ivoirque les principes ct règlesdc droit applicables sont les principes
et rcgles de droit zpplic~hles *centreles Particst,.
2. LPs règlesde droirapplicublesrentre les Purries))
Quelles sont-elles? En dehors du compromis, autour duquel j'ai cm pouvoir
axer toute ma plaidoirie, il n'existequ'une seule règle decaractkrc coiiventionnel
qui soit applicable entre les Parties dans cette affaire: c'est l'article6 de la
convention de Genèvesur le plateau continental. Depuis la réplique desEtats-
Unis, les deux Parties se trouvent en concordance sur ce point. L'agent du
Canada a expriméles vues de son gouvernement à ce sujet.
A càté de ces principes et règles de droit de caractère conventionnel, il
convient de faire place égalementaux principes et règlesde droit coutumier
applicables en la matièreentre les Parties. Cette constatation prend d'autant plus
de relief dans notre affaire que, comme l'a énoncéle tribunal arbitral franco-
britannique, «les règlesdu droit coutumier sont pertinentes et en vérité essen-
tielles pour interpréter et compléterles dispositions de l'article 6» (par. 75).
Ces règlesde droit coutumier ne sont cependant pas immuables, et c'est à la
lumière du droit coutumier tel qu'il existe à un moment donné qu'il faut
comprendre et interpréter les concepts en cause. C'est cette approche évolutive
aue la Cour a adootée au suiet de la délimitationdu olateau continental et du
&le de la notion déprolong~ment naturel. Cette notion, a-1-elledéclaréau sujet
du plateau continental et du prolongement naturel, cette notion «est et de-
meure ... une notioii à cxamiier dans le contexte du droit coutumier et de la
pratique des Etatsn (C.I.J.Recueil1982, p. 46, par. 43). Mais cdictum a de toute
évidence une portée générale:tous les concepts pertinents en matière de
délimitation - tous, qu'il s'agissedu prolongement naturel, de la zone économi-
que exclusive,de la frontièremaritime unique, d'équidistance,d'équité - tous ces
concepts doivent être appréciée sn tenant compte de l'évolution du droit
coutumier.
Banalité.sans nul doute. et ie ne me serais vas vermis d'énoncer.une vérité
aussi2i1Jentc LIles Eiats-Lin~s~'a\31ent ad8pt~'danr la procL:dureécnteune
posiiion syst~mlitiquemeniminimis3nic - \,oirc n&g~trice- ;icet égard
Les deux premiers écrits américains (mémoireet contre-mémoire) nous
avaient déjà[tonnés.je dois l'avouer. par leur extrême discrétion à l'égarddes
évolutions majeures subiespar le droit de la mer. Pour prendre un exemple, les
zones de pêchen'étaient étudiée qsuedans la perspectivedu soi-disant «principe
de conseÏvationn et vas du tout-dans celledu dévelonoementdu conceot de
zone économiqueexciusive(mémoire desEtats-Unis, 183-197)auquei elles
ont de toute évidencecontribué. Pas un mot n'étaitdit des transConnations
subies var le olateau continental et de ses relations actuelles avec la zone
économiqueexclusive: à lire les écrits américainson aurait pu croire que la
théoriedu plateau continental n'a pas bougéd'un pouce depuis ses premiers
balbutiements et que le plateau continental est conçu aujourd'hui exactement de
la mêmefacon au'il v a olusieurs décennies.Les relations évidentesentre la
frontière maritime ~n~~ue'vouluepar les Parties et le concept de zone ècono-
mique exclusiveétaientpasséessous silence; et, chose surprenante entre toutes,
de ia procllim~tion d'une one économiqueexr.luhi\c par les Etais-Uni> cur-
mtmes entrr Ir dcp6t du ménioircet cclui du conire-mémo~rcIIn'et311question
que chns une dijcréicnoic. relcguçr au bds de la page 123Ju contre-mL:moirc. ~.i
c'est ti>UI
Mai, \,dici~JC J31isleur troisiemc&r.rit.leur r&plique.les Etati-Cnis ion1 plus
loin encore. L'C\ol~tion du plaicau coniincnial et sa relation avec la 7onc PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 173
économiqueexclusive en deçà de 200 milles marins des côtes sont carrément
niées(par. 94-99); pisque cela, leCanada setrouve cloueau banc d'infamiepour
avoir «assert[ed] mistakenly that ii"profound transformation of the concept of
continental shelf" has taken place ininternational law n(répliquedesEtats-Unis,
.. 60),
Dans la même fouléel,a réplique américaine rejette globalement em t assive-
ment toute idéeque le droit de la délimitationmaritime aurait pu subir quelque
évolutiondeoui; un auart de siècle.en raison notamment de l'émereence-du
concept nouveau de zone écononiiqueexclusive. Sur ce problème, comme sur
d'autres, rien, selon les Etats-Unis, n'a changé, et la troisième conférencseur le
droit de la mer - cela est écriten toutes lettres dans la répliqu- n'a pas apporté
le moindre élémentnouveau au droit de la délimitation: tant et si bien que la
délimitation de la zone économique exclusive est, selon les Etats-Unis, régie
aujourd'hui, en 1984, exactement par les mêmes règleq sue l'était hier, voire
avant-hier, la délimitationdu plateau continental (réplique,par. 10-11et 91).Là
encore, lorsque le Canada entend situer le droit de la délimitation régissanlta
présente affairedans le cadre des concepts actuels du droit de la mer, nos
adversaires ne trouvent vas de mots assez durs vour le condamner. N'est-ilvas
accusi d'appliquer .<an& I;IUoidclirnit3tion~~(ibid.,par. 10,741,dccherchc;.cd
iullrei3shioningoi'thr relei~ntjurispruJen;c~~ctde~~reivntethc~urisprudcnieon
the delirnit.itioiiof niaritirne hound>ries.t trhkp3r 76).de demander i IkCour
«to overturn established law» (ibiri.,p. 53),de suggéreràlachambre «to overrule
and abandon Lhatlaw» (ibid.,par. 78; cf. par. 7, 74, 80, 115)?
Ce n'estqu'à une seuleoccasion, àune seule,que nos adversaires consentent à
abandonner ce parti pris d'immobilisme juridiqueet qu'ilsprennent en considé-
ration l'évolutiondu droit international coutumier: c'est lorsqu'ils cherchentà
justifier le changement de leur revendication en 1982,le passage de la ligne de
1976 à cellede 1982.S'ilsont abandonné leur ligne de 1976,c'esten raison je
citela réplique américain-ede «theconsiderabledevelopment ofthe lawbetween
1976 and the filing of the Memorials in this casen (réplique desEtats-Unis,
par. 68; cf. par. 69).
De mime que le Canada s'estelevécontre le fait qu'en proclamant en mars
1983 une zone économiqueexclusive les Etats-Unis aient effectuéun tri entre
ceux des éléments dece régimejuridique qui leur convenaient et les autres, de
mèmele Canada doit s'élevercontre la tactique des Etats-Unis consistant à
s'appuyerfermementsur«theconsiderahle developmentofthe law»pourjustifier
leur propre position tout en déniantradicalement au Canada le droit de faire
étatde I'évolutionintervenue depuis le débutdes années soixante-dixdans le
droit de la mer. On ne saurait souffleren mêmetemvs le chaud et le froid.
Du contenu évolutif desrègles du droit coutumier et du développement
incontestable du droit international, lajurisprudence est àla foisun témoin et un
acteur, et c'est dans ses décisionsque nous trouverons le fil directeur pour la
solution de notre affaire. C'est elle. notamment. aui a.oris acte de ce aue
cert.iines .pas IOUI~F aiurémcni - des Ji.positions dc Izro~vention de 1982ont
acquis \>leur Je droit couiumirr et sont donc ~pplicdbles 5 la prkente :iR.iire.
Lii Cour a ainsi déclaréen 1982que 137one Cionornique c\clu\ive petit étre
considérccd'orcsetd;ji <<cornniciJisantpartiedudruit interns1ion:ilrn<)derne. -
<<orpilrr oj'»ioilern;tirrr,r<i~rotl*l,,(C.I.J. Rr,.ui.tl1982. p 74. par. 100).La
Cour 3 dcclarér'giilenicntqur la disvorition de l'article 76. qui reflète 13con-
ce~tion nouvelle du olateau-continenial et ses relations avec le concevt de zone
2conurniqucexcluri\e, C<ne doit p;ij Are perdue de \uen ~ucon/~olhe /~r~or~dz,
Quant i I'iirticle74 de 13 con\cntii>n Je 19x2.qui traite spccifiqucmrnl dc la
dclirnitation de13 70ne~con0miqii~erc~u~i\e. 13 question dr savoir i'ila du non174 GOLFE DU MAINE
acquis valeur de droit coutumier, ainsi que cellede ses rapports avec I'article83
relatif àla délimitationdu plateau continental, ne sont pas icid'un grand intérêt.
L'article 74-tout comme I'article83-se borne en effet,la Cour t'adit, à«aider
les Etats intéressés àparvenir à une solution équitable» (ibid.,p. 49, par. 50)et,
contrairement àceque fait I'article 6de la convention de 1958,il n'énonce pasla
moindre règle defond qui puisse étre appliquéeen cas de désaccord des Parties.
D'ailleurs, mémedans le contexte limitéd'une aide aux Etats intéressésdans
leurs négociations, la Cour a préciséque «toute indication d'un caractère
spécifique ..a disparun (ibid.). La nature juridique de I'article74et ses rapports
avec I'article83 ne me semble donc pas exiger de développementplus considé-
rable ici.
Après les règles conventionnelles et les règles coutumières, la pratique.
Comme je I'ai mentionné, la Cour cite la pratique des Etats à côtédu droit
coutumier oour définir le contexte dans leauel le déveloooement du droit
internatii)nÿl doit étreabord6 1.3Chambrç le kit, les ~tlits-unis et IcCsnads se
rèlcrenll'un et l'autre fréquemment iila pratique des Etats. comme le font tous
les Etats qui sont en litige sur Ics problèmes de délimitation maritime. Ils s'y
réfèrentd'autant olus auë cette oraGaue est riche déiàd'une centained'accords:
et c'estpour assisier la'chambr; que.le Canada a ciu bon de consacrer le livre 1
des annexes de sa répliqueà un répertoireaussi complet qu'il est possibledes
accords déià si~nés.
. -
Cette pratiquc fait-clle partie des rtgles et principes de droit applicables ii la
prksçnte afhire Cette pratiquc ne constitue é\idemrnentpas une source de droit
coutumier au sens préciset strict du terne, puisqu'il estclair, commej'ai déjàeu
l'occasion de le relever, que les gouvernements ont pu s'inspirer dans la
conclusion de leurs accords de délimitationde considérationsdiverses et que le
tracéauquel ils se sont arrêtés n'étaitpas forcément dictépar le sentiment d'une
obligation juridique. Les observations que la Cour a formuléesàce sujet en 1969
déjà(C.I.J. Recueil1969, p. 44-45, par. 76-78)demeurent entièrement d'actua-
lité:qu'il s'agissedes accords baséssur l'équidistanceou sur une variante de
I'équidistance,ou des accords écartant l'équidistanceau profit de quelque autre
méthode ou combinaison de méthodes. ce n'est iamais. mesemhle-t-il. d'une
pratique constitutive d'une coutume international; qu'il S'agit.Cela estd'autant
plus vrai que, comme la jurisprudence l'a maintes fois souligné,il n'existe pas
deux situations entièrement identiques et que, en cette maCière,comparaiion
n~ -t iamais raison.
C'est ti~un autre point dc kue. me semble-t-il. que la prïtique des Etais est
iuridiquement wrtinentc. Lesaccords de délimiiiiiionménies'ilssont fondés sur
des considérations de oure oooortunité. mème s'ils ne sont insoirésd'aucun
sentiment d'obligation juridiqLe. con,tituent neanmoins des indic& prccieux du
~ujeides methode, et des lignesque lesgouvernement2ont pu cdnsidérercomme
équitables. C'est dans cette perspective, limitée certe,. mais importante à
i'intérieurde ces limites.nue les arréts dela Cour et la sen~ ~c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ franco-
britannique se sont réféiés à la pratique dei~~tats. C'est dans cette mème
wnwctive, limitée certes,mais importante dans ces limites. que le Canada fait
&-de ce aue le ol.s er"nd nombre des accords de délimiiation - oas tous.
é\~idemment ont regarde comme cquitable une lignebasee sur l'équidistance uu
sur une vanante de cette dernière et de ce que presque aucun accord de
délimitation, mêmeportant sur le seul plateau continental, n'a retenu pour
frontièremaritime une déoression.un chenal. une fosseou un canvon. fussent-ils
méme infinimentplus importantique le modeTe chenal NO~~-ÉS~.
Voilà dans quelle mesure me semble-t-il la pratique présentede I'intéréd tans
le cadre des règleset principes de droit applicables dans notre affaire. Aorèsavoir examiné~ ~ ~nceot d'une délimitationconformémentau droit et
lessources du droit applicables,il me resteà appréhenderla substance des règles
de droit applicables «en la matière», c'est-à-dire régissantla délimitationde la
frontière maritime unique demandée à la chambre.
3. Lesrèglesde droitapplicables nen la matière))
Conimc l'crÿppzle I'agentdu Can,iJ;t, le, I'xriic, ront d'dccord >urI'c~istzncz
d'une ~~ncirme iondanienule >*gtiuvrrnant 13dcliniii:iiion de la ironiicre niari-
lime unique dans notre affaire. Elles se rencontrent égalementpour considérer
comme aoo..cable à cette délimitation la rèel-.éauidistance-circonstancessoé-
ciales énoncéepar l'article 6 pour la délimitationdu plateau continental.
En dépitde cette concordance de vues sur les principes, de graves divergences
séparentles Parties sur le contenu concret de cei derniers dans leur application
au cas d'espèce.Et pour peu que l'on descende de ces hauteurs, l'accord s'éva-
nouit rapidement.
A titre préliminaire,je voudrais rappeler que, si le droit applicable à la
délimitation de la frontière maritime unique vouluepar les Parties emprunte à
coup sir à l'analogie, en cesens qu'il s'inspiredes règlesqui ont été dégagées
pour la délimitationd'autres espaces maritimes - cela ne lui est évidemmentpas
interdit- ce droit doit néanmoins être appréhendé demanière globale et
synthétique à l'instar de la frontière maritime unique elle-mème. Nous ne
saurionsnous rallier à la tentative des Etats-Unis d'aborder notre affairecomme
une simple affaire de délimitatioiide plateau continental, légèrementmodifiée
Dar l'addition d'une affaire de délimitation de zones de oêcheou d'autres
juridictions (contre-mémoire desEtats-Unis, par. 122; réplique,par. 10). Une
tellevueest d'autant moinsjustifiable endroitque la frontièreunique est appelée
à séoarercertaines iuridictions qui ne se rattachent directement~ni au dateau
coniinental ni aux zbnes de il ya plus que cela dans la frontièremaritime
unique. Pour le Canada, contrairement aux Etats-Unis, il s'agitde fixerdans une
seule et mêmeopération la frontière unique et polyvalente appelée à séparerla
zone économiauedes Etats-Unis et ce aui en tient lieu du côté canadien.
Dans la te&inologie de l'article 6 dint le ministre de la justice et l'agent du
Canada ont montréqu'il est applicable à cette affaire on mettrait en Œuvrece
que la sentencearbitrale franco:britanniaue a ao..léla «rèeleunique combinant
2quidi.iancc-circo11 <~p>cinr\~,,(par. 6à1 I>m\ cetic optiqus, cornnic le
suggere ccliz mcmï $entsnce. oit pa>\zraitIr problenie sous la iormz .<Je la
question de savoir si certaines caractéristiques géographiquesont pour effet de
rendre injustifiéeou inéquitable une délimitation conforme au principe de
l'équidistance»(par. 240).
Dans la terminologie du droit coutumier, telle qu'évoquée égalemen ptar le
ministre de la iustice et I'aeent du Canada on constaterait qu'il ne suffit oas
qu'une mr'thodedonnec conduic i un rCsultaiéquiiahlepour ~u'ellepuiisz itrz
regardee par li mime coninic produis~nt une dcliiniiaiion ioniormc 3u droit CI
qu'il faut égalementque cette méthode soit enracinéedans une considération
iuridiaue de caractère obiectif. Cette considérationne saurait êtreautre aue le
iondckcni juridique du tire dcs P.iriie\ .Idaine dzr ?(IO mille>\ur laquelléelles
z\zrceront leurs fiii,ce:iur re\priiiis de juridictioni dr part cl d'autre de la
frontière,c'est-à-dire,commenous l'avons amplementmontrédans nos écritures
et comme M. Leeault l'a raooelé.le couole «côtes-distancea.
Si cette dernière analyse,abordéesous' l'angledudroit coutumier est exacte,
les principes et règlesde droit applicables en la matièreexigent que la méthode
de délimitationrépondeen mêmetemps à deux conditions:176 WLFE OU MAINE
- cette nieihodc iluit 2trc ancrie dans le fondement juriiliquc du titre de l'Fui
coticr i la /one économiquecxclusi\c.
- elle doit aboutir à un résültatéquitable
Ces deux conditions d'égaleimportance constituent les deux pôles autour
desquels doit s'élaborer ladélimitation si elle doit ètre conforme au droit
..
Laccoril de5 Partici \Ur I;I<.norme fondamcniÿlc~~montre qu'il n'cxistc pas
de divergence cnirc elles sur la 5cconJc condition I'cxigenccd'unc %olution
équitable: la-dcjsus. Liais-L'ni\ et Canüda n',>nipas la nioindre Ji\,crgcncc.
Mais il cn \,atout autrement de la prcmiCrccondition. i sïs~iirIc rütiachcm<ni
Je la mr:thodc 3u iondement juridique du iiirc i l'espace mïrilimc considGrc
Pour sontertcr la ncccssa~rccorrClationentre le i»ndemcnt iuridiquc du titrc i
I'esoacemaritime considéréet la méthodede délimitationiuridiauement aooro-
prik, les Ei3ts-Unis ont 6t;iblidcux ligne>ilc défense. quime semblent aussi Ira-
gilesl'uneque l'autre. Pour la déicnrceloign&, si J'JSC dire. ilscherchent d mini-
miser, comme nous l'avons déjàvu, la portéedel'évolution du droit de la mer
vers la zone économiaueexclusive.Parvenant toutefoisma~ ~ ~ ~~~~er l'éviden~~.ils
con\acrent leurs elforis lei plus reni3rqu1hlcsi I'crcctiund'unc lignede difenhc
rapprochéezonsi\iïnt i prkrcndrc que 13 question de I;idéliniitationde la zone
économiquen'a aucun lien avec cellédu titÏe sur cette zone (contre-mémoire des
Etats-Unis, par. 195, 199,205; réplique,par. 83, 89).
Les Etats-Unis cherchent ainsi à dresser un écran coupe-feu entre le déve-
loppement du droit de la mer et le droit régissant ladélimitationde la frontière
maritime unique dans notre affaire. Ils espèrentsans doute faire admettrepar la
Chambre que la délimitationde la frontière maritime unique dans notre affaire
doit s'effectuer à partir des principes et règlesqui régissaientdans le passé les
frontièresmaritimesspécifiqueset diverses.C'estcette opérationde prophylaxie,
sij'ose dire, qui viseà placer le droit de la délimitation applicable à I'abri de la
contamination des vents du large, qui conduit nos adversaires à la thèse,
surprenante de leur part, de I'immobilisme du droit de la délimitation, qu'ils
viennent si longuement d'exposer dans leur réplique(par. 10, 11 et 91). Nous
avons été heureux, à tout le moins, de constater qu'à deux reprises (par. 107et
111) la réplique américaineadmet le lien inhérententre le titre juridique et la
délimitation:«the coastline is the starting point for title 10,and delimitation of,
the exclusiveeconomic zone» (par. 11l), écrivent-ils,et àcela nous ne pouvons
évidemmentque souscrire.
IIserait en effetinconcevable que ledroit de la délimitationn'ait pas étaffecté
pïr les boulc\~er~cments de l'environnement juridique du droit de 13
riier. Coninleni peur-il Stre reitc 3 I'abride ics h~>ulc\erscnicnts'!Le droit d13
délimiiaiiun dii PIÛIWU continental s'cst s2pdrc:de celui de la mer icrritori~~lc
auauel il étaitétroitement liédans les oremiers travaux de la Commission du
droit international des dnnécscinquante II s'en est \;paré p;ircc que la b~sc
juridiq~e du titrc n'est pas13mZmedans les deux cï,.le droit de la dr:limitation
du olateau continental a lui-mème subi certains infléchissementsau fur et à
mes'urcque ICconccpi LIC prolongement naturci, qui c,in>iiiue le titrc juridiquc
au plïtcau coniincnul. a lui-m9mcévolué . l'instarde ccconccpt, Icdroit de Iki
dCliniit3iionJii plate,iu coniincniïl s'cst ditach2 pciiii petit de\ phcnonicnes
ph)siqucr auxquels IIcta~traitachi. i l'origine pour i'iippuycr i<)ujiiur,dïvan-
tage sur des critcrcs juridiquei (cf ('1 JRr<.ui,il1982.p. 45.46. pdr 41-33), Se
scr~ii-ilpas dcs lors contrairi toute logiquc quc seul le droit deIidélimiiïi~~~n
de la zone des 200 milles soit, comme le voudraient nos amis américains,sans
relation aucune avec le fondement du titre juridique à cette zone? PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 177
Oh! certes, je ne l'ignore pas, titre juridique et délimitationne sont pas des
concepts synonymes et identiques. La Cour I'arelevéà maintes reprises (C.I.J.
Recueil 1969, p. 22, par. 18 et 20; p. 32, par. 86; C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 47,
par. 44; p. 61, par. 73), et je dois dire que les Etats-Unis enfoncent des portes
ouvertes en s'attachant à démontrerque titre juridique et délimitationne sont
pas desconcepts identiques. Maisde là àaffirmerque lesdeuxconcepts évoluent
sur des orbites différentes,il y a un pas que rien n'autorisa franchir. Dès lors
que l'opérationde délimitation consiste,selon la définition quien a étédonnée
par la Cour elle-même,«à tracer une ligne de démarcation entre des zones
relevantdéiàdel'unou del'autredesEtats intéressés» (C.I.J. Recueil1969,p. 22.
par. 20). <ette op6ration ne rilurÿit s'eiieciucr en faisant abstraciion du'tiire
jundiquï de chacun des deus Etair inléresscisur l'espacemarilime i dclimiter.
Ce llen entre iondement du titre iuridique et droit de la délimitation aétc
établi avecclartépar la jurisprudence en-ce qui concerne la délimitationdu
plateau continental. Non pas certes. pour la zone économiqueexclusive,puisque
la jurispmdence n'a pas encore eu l'occasion jusqu'icide statuer sur cette
délimitation. C'est ainsi aue. dans son arrêtde 1969. la Cour a introduit le
concept de prolongement naturel dans ledroit Je IJdélimitationdu plateau tout
simplement ptrre que ce concepi 1\11eht appïru comme dominant le titre de
I'Etat sur le plateau continental. Et en 1982la Cour préciseraque:
«les principes et règlesdu droit international qui peuvent ètre appliqués
pour la délimitation deszones du plateau continental découlentnécessaire-
ment de la notion mêmede plateau continental, telle qu'elleest compriseen
droit international))(C.I.J.Recueil 1982,p. 43, par. 36).
Quant au tribunal arbitral franco-britannique, il a écartéla méthode de
délimitationde la régionatlantique préconisée par la France comme équitable,
pour la raison de droit que voici: «cette méthodene semble pas au iribunal
ètrecompatible avec le régimejuridique applicable au plateau continental...))
(par. 246).
II n'v a aucune raison. Monsieur le Président. oour aue ce lien entre la
délimitationet lefondementluridique du litre ne soitPïs reipeclélorsqu'ils'agit
de In lonç des 200 milles Comme pour le plateau a~ntinental. la délim~iation
doit êtregouvernée par des ((principes et règles de droit international qui
découlentnécessairementde la notion même*de cette zone. «telle au'elle est
comprise en droit internationala. Le fondement du titre de I'Etat à la'zone des
200 milles setrouve. aussi bienen ce qui concerne lesfonds marins que leseaux
suriacentes. dans le double oaramètre d'une certaine distance Dar raooort aux
c6ks C'es; Ii le point d'ah(;uti~seinentd'une é\ol-lion dont la'~ourÜ\,aii. par
une sorte de prémoniiion wrprenïnte. dunné par avance la justificïtion dès
1969, lorsqu'elle avait laisséentendre dans un passage remarquable que la
«corrélation directe entre la notion de oroximitévar raooort à la côte» et les
droits de I'Etatc6tier est plus forte dans'lecas d'unejurid'iLtionportant à la fois
sur les eaux et sur les fonds marins» - la Cour pensait à ce moment-là à la
mer territoriale, mais la remarque vaut pour la zone des 200milles -«que dans
le cas d'une juridiction portant seulement sur le lit de la meà l'exclusiondes
eaux surjacentes(C.I.J. Recueil 1969,p. 37, par. 59).Ce paragraphe 59de l'arrêt
de 1969 est tout à fait extraordinaire lu avec quelques annéesde recul. En
conséauence.la méthodeiuridiauement aooroo.. .oour délimiterla frontière
mantimc unique dans notre affaire doit nécessaircmeniétre enracinée&ins le
double paramèire cjies-distance - distance par rapport nun c0tes - qui sert de
fondement au titre luridique des deux Etnls. Eints-Un~set C~n~dï. i l'ensemble
des droits et juridictions in cause178 GOLFEDU MAINE
On constate ainsi, Monsieur le Président,que la ligne américaine,du fait
qu'elle repose sur desconsidérations de nature - oserais-je dire, de pseudo-
nature? - et de perpendicularité - pourrais-je dire, de pseudo-perpendicularité?
- à une direction unique et artificielle des côtes, est sans rapport avec les côtes
qui bordent le golfedu Maine et ne tient aucun comptedu concept de distance.
Le titre iuridiaue des deux Etats àla zone à délimiterest tout simulementévacué
par 13 thesede'nos3d\ers~ires. Etcette thèseignore :+udeiiirurani I'drticle6, que
IshEtais-lJnis ont pourtant eux-mcmrs pr<iilsmï dini leur repli-ue~omme <<the
controlling law» (par. 54).
On constate égalementque la ligne canadienne quant à elle repose sur un
processus de délimitation - ce mot de cprocess of delimitation» est employé des
dizaines de fois par la Cour (C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 22, par. 18 et 20; C.I.J.
Recueil1982, p. 47, par. 44; p. 77, par. 106;p. 78, par. 107)qui intègreen une
opérationglobale et unique la priseen considérationdu couple côtes-distance
d'un côté,l'exigence d'un résultat équitabld ee l'autre.
Que la méthodede l'équidistanceàlaquellea eu recours le Canada incorpore
à la fois le concept de côtes et celui de distance, les deux composantes du
fondement juridique du titre, est évident.Celui de côtes, parce que la nature
mêmede la méthode de l'équidistance la fait reposer sur la configuration
côtière. Comme la Cour l'a noté,il s'agit là d'une «méthode de délimitation
géométrique ...où la ligne de délimitationest directement fonction de points
sur les côtes en cause» (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 62, par. 76). Celui de distance
également.oarce aue cette méthodeconsiste. Dardéfinitionmême.àtracer une
..
lkne dont Ehiique'pointest .i égiilsdistance des points les plus proches sur les
lignes de hasr de la mer territoriale des deux p~)s et qu'elle traduit parfaite-
ment ce rapport entre les côtes et les espaces maritimes qui, seloila Cour
(C.I.J. Recueil1982, p. 45, par. 41, et p. 61, par. 73-74),constitue l'essencedu
principe de distance.
Le concept de distance apparait ainsi, si j'ose emprunter ce terme au
vocabulaire de la théoloeie.comme consubstantiel à la méthodede l'éauidis-
tancc Li>riqueIr.\e\pacrr maritinie.;iuiquel\ ~.hacunJes Etais povéde un titre
se cha\3ucheiit, conime c'cst le cas dans notre aIl;iire, 13iiiéthodede I'équidis-
tance wrmet àchacun d'eux d'exercer sesdroits souverains iusau'à une certaine
distance de ses côtes, dans toute la mesure et, je crois ceci est important,
jusqu'au pointoù cesdroits rencontrent lesdroits équivalentsetde mêmevaleur
de l'autre Etat. Du mêmecoup se trouve sauvegardé le principedu non-
emoiétementouisaue. sauf dansauelaues situation~oarticuIi&es aui aooellent
al&s une co;rectihn,' l'équidistancePermet de tenir'la frontière à' la &tance
maximum de chacun des Etats et d'éviter ainsitout effet d'amputation de leur
projection maritime.
Mais la ligne canadienne satisfait en mêmetemps à l'exigence de l'équité du
résultat. LeCanada ne demande à la Chambre de tracer la frontière maritime
unique selon la méthodede l'équidistancequ'après s'être assuréd eu caractère
éauitable de la solution et ceci erâce au test de la confrontation aux circons-
tances pertinentes de l'espèce, etaprès un ajustement destinéà remédieràl'effet
disproportionné de distorsion que crée,à son avis, la configuration particulière
ducap Cod et de Nantucket.
L'«obligation conventionnelle» énoncéeà l'article6 se trouve du mêmecoup
respectée.
En un mot, la ligneaméricainene satisfait pas aux ((principeset règlesde droit
applicables en la matièreentre les Parties)). La ligne canadienne y satisfait.
L'audience,suspendue à II h 20, est reprise à II h 43 PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 179
11.LES I.IONES EN PRÉSENCE
A. La ligne américaine
J'aborde à présent la secondepartie de mon exposé consacréeà l'examendes
lignes en présencepar rapport aux exigences du compromis que j'ai tenté de
dégagerdans la premièrepartie. Je commencerai par la ligne américaine.
A l'égardde la ligne américaine, laChambre se trouve devant une situation
surprenante.
Lorsque le compromis a étésignéet que l'affaire lui a été soumise,la
revendication américaine s'exprimaitdans la ligne officiellement publiéeau
Federal Register en 1976. Dans le mémoire une nouvelleligne est apparue
sans que la moindre explication ne fût donnéede ce changement de position,
et la ligne de 1976se trouva rejetéedans l'oubli exceplion faite d'une seule et
brèvemention au paragraphe 151du mémoire. Etvoici que la réplique améri-
caine réhabilite cette ligne,l'explique longuement eten vante lesmérites(par. 57-
69).
Cela dit, trois constatations s'iniposent.
La première estque lesdeux lignes ne sont que deux présentations différentes
d'une seule et mêmerevendication: la totalité du banc de Georges aux Etats-
Unis; là-dessus, tout a étédit.
La seconde est que, sous l'une comme sous l'autre des deux formes sous
lesquelles ellea été présentée, la revendication américaine évacuecomplètement
du débatl'obligation conventionnelle,découlantde l'article6 de la convention
de 1958,d'envisager, au moins à litre de premier pas, la méthodede l'équidis-
tance.
La troisièmeest que lesdeux lignescomportent un dénominateurcommun, en
ce sens qu'ellesse targuent l'une etl'autre de respecter la soi-disant ((frontière
naturelle» du chenal Nord-Est.
II a déjà étémontré quecette théorie est inexacte scientifiquement,et je n'y
reviendrai pas.
Ce que je voudrais souligner ici brièvement, c'est que cette théorie n'a pas
davantage de valeur sur le plan juridique, puisqu'elle ne trouve aucun appui
dans le fondement juridique du titre à la zone des 200 milles, c'est-à-dire dans
le couple côtes-distance. Ni la géologieni la topographie sous-marine, ni la
distinction des écosvstémesn .i. oliis eénéralement.aucun élémenttenant à une
séparaiion ph\siquc cnirc cspaccs m3riiimcs n'oni Ic moindrc rJpp011avec ccr
fondement du titre, pas plus qii'ils n'en ont avec le concept d'adjacencecni du
géographique,dénominateur commun de toutes lesjuridictions qui forment les
composantes de la zone polyvalente des 200 milles.
En outre, s'il est à la rigueur concevable d'identifier des configurations
physiques de caractère séparatifsur le sol et le sous-sol de la me- encore que,
mêmepour la délimitation du plateau continental, ni la jurisprudence ni la
pratique des Etats n'attachent aujourd'hui une importance décisive à de telles
configurations -, une telle entreprise serait tout simplement chimériques'agis-
sant de la colonne d'eau suriacente. Une mer sans relief. .ui offre un moyen de
communication sans entrave, ne comporte pas de frontière naturelle. Cette
«continuité»dela meraétésoulignéeparRivier,par Gidel,par Scelle,parcharles
De Visscher, par bien d'autres. Le concept de zone économiqueexclusive ne
repose pas sur un fait de nature; il est une institution juridique, fruit exclusifde
la volonté politique.
Les frontières terrestres ne sont elles-mêmesjamais imposéespar la nature.
Les frontières de plateau continental ne le sont plus guère,si tant est qu'elles 180 WLFT DU MAINE
l'ontjamais étéL. esfrontièresde zoneséconomiquesexclusives,quant àelles,ne
le sont en aucun cas pour la bonne raison qu'ellesne peuvent pas l'étre- et elles
ne peuvent 15ire ni din5 le, fdiis.parie quela meresLuneci coniinue, ni dans le
droit, parce que le fondemeni juridique du iiirc sur dc.telle<zonc3n'drien .i \oir
avec la nature.
En répétantjusqu'à l'obsession le thème de la «narural boundary~, nos
adversaires poursuivent une véritableaction psychologique: comment, disent-ils
en quelque sorte, la Chambre oserait-elle défaire ce que la nature a fait?
Comment pourraitclle négligercette véritable barrière naturelle,cette «buffer
zone» que la nature a érigéeentre deux mondes? Comment pourrait-elle ne pas
s'inclinerdevant le 'likrade la nature?
Les Etats-Unis conçoivent en fait la mission de la Chambre non pas comme
celled'un organejudiciaire chargé dedireledroit, maiscomme celled'un collège
scientifiquequi viendrait, à la manièred'un super-expert, dresser avec force de
vérité légalleconstat d'un break, d'unediscontinuité géologiqueg,éomorpholo-
eiaue et écoloeiaue.
-.
La réponsedu'canada tient en un mot: on peut dire du chenal Nord-Est ce
que le tribunal arbitral franco-britannique a dit d'une dépression situéec,omme
le chenal, sur un plateau continental caractérisépar sa continuité,à savoir que
son axe,
«se trouve là où ilest nar un simnleaccident de la naturela facrofnarurel.
.- 4
ci IIn'y3 en soi aucun motic pour que cei tiKeconstitue la limite(rlirrr tr
nu~nlrins~ rr,o<un ihy u hoitnduryulon~rhi urir shoizldbe rhehuwilaryl~
(par. 107).
Si cela étaitvrai pour une délimitationde plateau continental effectuéeil y a
sept ans, à combien plus forte raison cela doit-il l'êtreaujourd'hui pour une
délimitation de zones de 200 milles effectuéeaprès une évolutionjuridique
incontestable!
Ce trait commun de la frontière naturelle mis à nart. les deux lienes
américainesde 1976et de 1982sont revètuespar nos advérsairesd'un habiiage
juridique différent.
A en croire les Etats-Unis, la ligne de 1982 est conforme à la anorme
fondamentalen régissantla matière, maisvoici que dans la répliquela ligne de
1976est présentée elle aussi comme «firmly rooted in the lawn (par. 63). 11y a
décidémenb t eaucoup de lignesdans la maison du Droit telle que la conçoivent
les Etats-Unis. Nos adversaires déclarent d'ailleursavoir penséà deux autres
habillagesjuridiques encore de leur revendication: l'enclavede 12millesmarins
autour de la Nouvelle-Ecosse (réplique desEtats-Unis, par. 32, note 2; cf.
mémoire, par.302)et une ligned'équidistancedonnant demi-effetà la cQtesud-
ouest de la Nouvelle-Ecosse (réplique,par. 63, note 3). Et ceci sans parler de la
ligne de protection du homard mise en vigueur par eux entre 1974 et 1976
@ (mémoire,par. 145 et fig. 16). Le droit est décidémentbien flexiblepour nos
adversaires!
Mais voyons de plus prèsles deux variantes de la revendication au banc de
Georges que les Etats-Unis proposent aujourd'hui à la Chambre, la version de
1976et la version de 1982
1. La versionde 1976
La version de 1976 est restée pre.q.e inexpliquéeiusqu'au dépôt de la
réplique: ncn.à pari une discrète mentionau pa;ag;aphe- 15i du mémoiredans
lequelilétaitindiquéque ceiie ligne~~followed the Iineof deepest water ihruugh PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 181
the Northeast Channel»(par. 151).Cetteexplication nous laissaitcependantsur
notre faim, car elle ne valait que pour le dernier segmentde la ligne. Plus au
nord, la ligne, comme nous l'avons indiqué (contre-mémoire du Canada,
Dar. 618). iouait allèarementà saute-moutons oar-dessusseuils et orofondeurs.
'Un coup'dŒil sur la-bathymétriepermet de constater qu'elle n'avait rien à voir
avec une ligne des plus grandesprofondeurs.
La répliqueaméricainesemontre certes PIUS Drudente. Cette fois-cilest dit
que 13 ligni de 1976<<~rnt,rullyiolli,ucd the line tiiJcepcst water throiigh the
Guliof Main Bssinand the Sortliea\r Channel,. (par. 58).Elle n'en estp~spour
autant plus r'kactc. De toutcs nianieres. hlonbieur le Président,le pnncioc du
rholwe~ imaginé naguère pour les besoins de la navigation inLirieuré, est
étranger àla délimitation desespacesmaritimes et n'ajuridiquement rien à voir
avec la basedu titre sur la zone économiqueexclusive.
La réplique ajoute, ilest vrai, que: «This 1976 line was based upon the
eauidistance-soecial circumstances rule of Article 6 of the Continen~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
~bnventionn (par. 59). Cecoup de chapeauà l'article 6s'accompagnetoutefois
d'une précision surprenante: la méthode de l'équidistance entreles côtes est
écartéeaunom descirconstances spécialeseo tn y substitue le concept - qui n'a
rien à voir avec l'article 6 - d'une équidistance, qualifiée d'approximative
d'ailleurs, entre les isobathes de 200 mètres. La Chambre trouvera cette
justification rétrospectivede la ligne de 1976aux paragraphes 58 et 59 de la
rédiaue des Etats-Unis.
. .
La rcrsion primiti\e de Id rcicndication ~m>ricaine 2 la totalit~ du b~ncde
Georges n'a\,aii Jé~idérnenatucune~.redibilit>juridique. On peut supposer que
c'est Dour cette raison que les Etats-Unis ont recouru à~une ~Ïfsentation
juridique nouvelle au moment du dépôtde leur mémoire.Cette variante est-elle
plus solide que la précédente?Nous ne le pensons pas;et voici pourquoi.
2.Lo versionde 1982
Une remarque préliminaire d'abord au sujet de cette ligne perpendiculaire
auiourd'hui revendiquée.
Puelle corrélation'nécessaireexiste-t-il entre une ligne perpendiculaire et une
frontière naturelle? En vertu de quelle nécessitinhérenteune ligne perpendicu-
lairà la direction généraldela côte vermettrait-elle de respecterégalement ipso
facto les limites gé~morphologiqueset écologiques éictées la
nature? Et, à l'inverse, envertu dequelle nécessitinhérenteuneligne respectant
le prétendu dikrot de la nature serait-elle forcémentaussi uneligne perpendicu-
laireà la direction généralde la côte?On nous répondrasansdoute que, dansle
casde l'espèce,les deux exigencescoexistent heureusement.
Mais alors, qu'auraient fait nos amis américains slie hasard avait moins bien
fait leschoses, et s, u lieu decoïncider par le plus grand desbonheursavecleur
Drétenduefrontière naturelledu chenalNord-Est. leur oe. .iculaire avait eu la
mauvaise id&! de piirser 3 quelque distance J'clle ou niémede la couper Iran\-
versalernenten plein milieu" La Chambre n'ignore pas que tel a bien lailliétre
le caspuisque la version première de la perpendiculaireaméricaine passait trèsà
l'est du chenalet aue. mémeau orix de multioles aiustements.elle n'a réu~ ~~u'à
. >
elïieurcr le chenal sanstriiiment y pCnétreret muins ïndore i en suii,re l'axe
Celii dit, je mc propose de montrer qu'en optant pour une Iignc perpndicu-
laire de préférence2 une ligne d'iquidiitancc les Etats-Unis ont fait un mauvais
choix et qu'ils sesont places enmargc du droit. Rien d'éionnant alors i ceque
lesajusternentr apportes i cette ligne perpendiculaire de départdans la seconde
partie de l'opération ne parviennent pas à sauver uneligne viciéedès l'origine. 182 WLFE DU MAINE
La ligne perpendicirlairede départ
Dans sa nudité originelle, laligne de 1982 se présente sousla forme d'une
perpendiculaire àla direction généralede la côte au point terminal de la frontière
internationale. Je me réfèreàce sujet à la figure 93 de la procédure orale,qui
reproduit elle-mêmela figure 27 du mémoire américain.
A vrai dire, nos adversaires ne paraissent pas avoir une vue trèscohérentede
la méthodedont ils préconisent ainsi l'application.
Lonau'il a étéauestion dans le oasséd'une oer. .diculaire à la côte où à la
direction générale dela côte, cette perpendiculaire prenait naissance au point
terminal de la frontièreterrestre. Or, ici, c'est au point terminal de la frontière
internationale, c'est-à-dire à un point situé en mer,sur la frontière maritime
entre lesdeux pays, que la perpendiculaire vient s'ancrer, la légendemêmede la
carte le dit (mémoire des Etats-Unis, par. 302 et fig. 27). Elle cesse dès lors
d'avoir toute raison d'être.
Par ailleurs. la réoliaueaméricainese réfèredans un oassaee à l'idée- toute
. . .
diilérentc d'une perpendiculiiirequi srsituerait en prolongenieni de la s<gr.neral
direction ofthe land bounddr) oi,cr ilsIIO-kilumeierjegnieiito (pdr 94).Ccite
conception nouvellese trouve illustréesur la figure94de iaprocédureorale, elle-
181 meme empruntéeà la figure 6 de la répliquedes Etats-Unis.
O Mais pourquoi choisir les dernien 110 kilomètres - au demeurant très
zigzagants - plutôt que la célèbre et longueligne nord-sud, fixéeil y a deux
siècles.aui orécède?Et Dar auel hasard de la nature le orolonaement de ce
segnent'~i~;a~ani de IJ irontilrc terrestre ~orres~ondraii-ii mir.ic~leuscmcnti
ccttc perpendiculaire a la diresiion gcncrale dc la ciite que le droit niaritime
d'aujourd'hui imposerait, nous dit-on, comme frontière maritime?
Nos adversaires confondent lesméthodes diversesque lecomitéd'expertset la
Commission du droit international, puis la Cour, ont soigneusement distinguées
(Commissiondudroit international. Annuaire, 1953,vol. II, p. 79, et 1956,vol. II,
o. 272: C.I.J. Recueil1982. o. 84. par. 119).
' Le concepi mémequi bcri'dc point de départ 3 13délimitationproposéep3r
nos advcr~airesbaigne ainsi dans un ~hiurorcun,qui n'en f3ciliiepds Idcriiiquc
Mais revenon5.cn ë la méthodede la perpendiculairï. Cette méthode. disent
nos adversaires, a acquis depuis longtemps droit de citéen matière de délimita-
tion maritime, c'estune méthodedotéede tous lesatouts de la respectabilité - et
il n'y a donc aucune raison de ne pas l'appliquer ici.
Nous avonsmontrédans notre contre-mémoireaue lesréférenced su ~assésur
lesquellesnos adver%iiress'appuient pour Faircadmettre la Icgit~mité juridique
dc ccttc méthode>ont erronées,qu'il s'agisrc dc I'iifiire dei Grishuilur~rud . es
trav3ux de la Commissi<indu droit international, dc 1'arri.t7ùnivir L1hi.rou de
la oratiaue des Etats (var. 633-644). Les orécédentsde la mer du ~&d et du
goife de'~asco~ne, en<;eautres, ignorent cotalement cette méthode, quin'a pas
davantage étémentionnée dans aucun des projets s-cc~ssifs élaborésà la
troisième conférencesur le droit de la mer.
Nous avonsmontré éealementaue ceux aui ont oréconisécette méthodd eans
Icpas2 pour Id déliiniinion de lli'merterniorialr ialors seulecn cduse), loin dc
Idcon%idcrercumme appoqée 3 la méihodede I'cquidi,tance, ne l'ont en\,isagéc
aue oarce au'elle orésentait les mérites aue l'on reconnait auiourd'hul à
Iëqu;distan& (contte-mémoiredu Canada, par. 625-628).
Comme l'écrivait en 1934 le professeur Münch dans son ouvrage Die
rechnischen Fagen des Küstenmeers, dans un passage dont le modernisme,
cinquante ans après,étonne:
"Mittellinie im engeren Sinn bezieht sich auf Falle, in denen die PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 183
Nachbarn. .. sichgegenüberliegen. ..;die Senkrechteist die MitteIlinie bei
gerader Küste, da jeder Punkt der Senkrechten gliech weit von der Küste
jedes Nachbarn entfernt ist." (P. 156.)
Je traduis librement:
«La ligne médianeau sensstrict du mot serapporte àdessituations dans
lesauelles les Etats voisins se font face: .a oe..diculaire est la l-ene
mcdianc dans les casd'une côte rcctilignc. étantdonn2 que chaquepoint de
la .er.cndicul3ire seirou\e Iiégaledisiancc de la cSts ds chacun des Eiats
voisins.))
Gidel reprend celte explication presque mot pour mot et ajoute, toujours en
empruntant au professeur Münch:
«La solution de la perpendiculaire sur la côte n'est donc qu'une modalité
soécialereinSonderfaIl,avait dit Münchl de la lianemédianeentendue au
senslarge.» (P. 769.)
Ainsi, la méthodede la perpendiculaire a été conçue ea tppliquée commeune
variante de celle de la liene médiane.oarce au'elle oermettait d'obtenir entre
Etais limitrophes ceitc diisiun Cple q;c Idligiic méd,ancpcrniettait d'obtcnir
dans le c~sde cotcs opposées.Pcrpcndiculaire et ligne médiancn'ont pas été
envisagéescomme des méthodesde nature différente,moins encore comme des
méthod~s ~ntino~~aues.mais biencomme une seuleet même méthode.Gidel ne
rclé\c.t-il paslaMfaveurgénCralemcntrcncontrccenpratiqueetendoctrine par la
solution de la Iignc médianepcrpendiculairr d la direction générale dcla côte,,
in. 768)9ct iobserte aue *la soliition de la Iirnc médianeou oc. .diculairc a
;equ un certain noinbre d'appiiç~tions positivè.s>,(p. 759)?
La méthodedemeuraii touicfoir trop fruste pour atteindre I'objcctifpoursuivi
d'une division éealedes esoacesmaritimes loissue la côte n'était oassuffisam-
ment rectiligne < qu'il éiaiidonc dificile d'identjfrrune direction de 13
côte. La miseau point, gricc notammcnt aux travaux de Boggs,de la technique
scicntitiaue plus élaboréede la liane d'équidistance.allait permettre IJ subsii-
tution à'la méthode de la neroeidicula~re de celle de I'éauidistanceoour la
délimiiatiun de la iner territbri~lc. et c'est dans ietie perrp&~iivequc l~comilé
d'ehwrts consultépar la Commission du droit inlcrnational en 1953écarterala
per&ndiculaire entant que tellepour serallier à la technique dela ligne médiane
«tracéeselonleprincipe d'équidistance)).La Commissionet laconférencede 1958
lui emboîteront le pas; la troisième conférencesur le droit de la mer et la
convention de 1982feront de même.
On constate ainsi à auel ooint le mémoiredes Etats-Unis a tort de orésenter
les mithodes Je IJper~end'iculair ci de I'équidistancecomme drux &thodes
oppos2rs. dont I'unc. ccllc dc la perpendiculaire. n'aurait que de5a\Jntügcs cl
rautre. celle de I'équidisiancc,que des inconvinient~. La mcthodc de I'é<iuidis-
tance n'est oas aulie choseaueie déveloooement scientifiquementolus éiaboré
de ccllc de la pcrpcndicul~ire. Bien rni;ux, l'équidisuncc intcgk. d;ins sa
technique mi.me. la perpendiculaire: une Iignc d'equidirtance entre deux points
est. Dar Jiiinition,la ~cr~endicul:iirc bissectricede la drinte qui rclic cesdeux
0oin.t~:tant et si bien.au'bne l-ene d'éauidistancen'est en définitiverien d'autre
qu'une iurcession dc perpendiculaires.
I>anslecasd'une côte a peu présrectiligne, ou lorsqu'on esten présenccd'une
liene de fermeture rectiliene d'un eolfe. on oeut ~arkr oresaueindifféremment
d'une ligne pcrpendicul~re ou d';ne lignc'd'~quidistake. ?el est le cas. par
exemple, de la délimitaiion au large du Rio de la Plata, ou la lignc dcfinic par
l'accord comme une lignc d'équidistanceaurait tout au5si bien pu étrcdéfinie. 184 GOLFE DU MAINE
dans son premier segment, comme une perpendiculaire à la ligne de fermeture
imaginaire du Rio de la Plata («Annexe à la pratique des Etats», accord 39,
art. 70). Tel est le cas égalementde la délimitation Costa RicalPanama (ac-
cord 77), qui est définiedans l'accord par référence à l'équidistance mais qui
aurait aussi bienDU ètredéfiniecomme une ligne wmendiculaire à la direction
générale de lacôie, ainsi qu'il est remarquéàyusie tfire dans Lirnitsin the Sea
(no97, p. 4 et 5). Telest aussi le cas de l'accord Brésil/Uruguay(accord 39, qui
se définitpar référence à la perpendiculaire mais qui constitue en réalité une
délimitationpratiquement équidistante.
Ce que I'ondoit reprocher au recours àla méthodede la perpendiculaire dans
notre affaire, ce sont en définitivemoins les vicespropres de cette méthod- car
dans certains contextes elle peut se révéleappropriée - que son utilisation par
les Etats-Unis dans le cas d'esoèce.en dehors de toute référence au fondement
juridique du titre. I.;i répliqueanicricüine ers;iiecertes de renicdier iicird-
gilitéjuridique en se référ~nt la <<se~würedxtension of eo3stal ironts.irib.2~i
cette occasion en iondement iuridiuue du titrc twar 219: ci. war. 107).Mon ami
M. Legault a montré,et j'aurai l'occasiond'yrevenir un initant, lei erreurs de
cette conception. C'estla combinaison côtes-distance qui constitue-et constitue
seule- le fondement juridique du titre à la zone des 200 milles.
Or ilest aisé demontrer que la perpendiculaire américaine ignore entièrement
ce fondement.
En premier lieu, la ligne américainen'a qu'un rapport ténuavec la côte du
fond du golfe, et elle n'en a aucun avec lescôtes qui bordent le golfe à l'est età
~'~ ~-~.
Si le liende cette ligne avec la côte du fond du golfe n'estpas inexistant, il est
en tout cas d'une extrème minceur.Les Etats-Unis vrésententcertes leur ligne
comme construiteà partir de IJ direction gcnerüle des cGics Mais comment ne
- pas rester sceptique devant ces lignesde13figure27du miinoire des Etats-Cnis.
trop miraculeusement parallèlespour emporter la conviction?Comment accor-
der crédit à des lignes de références conçuesà l'échellemacrogéographique et
construites à partir de points situés engrande partie en dehors de la régiondu
golfe du Maine? N'oublions pas que mime la ligne la plus proche de la côte ne
touche celle-ciau'à de rares ooints et ne touche la soi-disant nnrimarv Coast»
amérirainr du Maine en Aucunpoint. En prcience de cnteç qui ch.ingent aussi
soutent Je directiiin, on serait trnt; de dire de Iddire~.tiongL:nCde la cnte ce
que nos amis de langue anglaisedisent de la beauté:elleest dans les yeuxde ceux
ani la contemolent. Asseoir une frontière maritimed'une telle imoortance oour
lesdeuh p3)s sur une appréciationausi subjectiveci ausri sujetir..cuntro\rricr
serait d'autant moins conforme au druit que cettc fragile dire~tion g2n2rdleJe
rcfcrenc: eomin~ndcrait une d~limitatiun s';tendant tr2r loin ver\ Iclarge. Or la
Cour l'a dit expressément:
«Une perpendiculaire devient généralementd'autant moins adaptée
comme ligne de délimitationqu'elle s'éloignedu littoral.» (C.I.J. Recueil
1982, p. 87-88,par. 125.)
Si lelien aveclescôtes de part et d'autre de la frontièredans le fond du golfe
est précaire,il devient tout simplement inexistant avec les autres côtes de la
réeion. Comme nous l'avons montré (contre-mémoiredu Canada. var. 612.
6%-632). lescontraintes inhérentes ;ilaligne iicdp constant qu'est13 perlx.ndi-
culdire intcrdiiila ligneamr'ricainc.p3r dérinitionmime. de rendre cumpte Je5
changements success~fsde direction des côtes de Dart et d'autre du rdfe. La
dualiÏédes secteursintérieur et extérieurdu golfeest méconnuepar ce& Iigneà
direction unique; la complexitédescôtes est effacéel;esanglessont gommés;les PLAII>OIRIE DE M. WEIL 185
concavités et convexités.les rentrants et les saillants de part et d'autre de la
perpendiculaire sont tr3itr'scomine s'ilsn'existaient pas Les Et3ts-~Jnisinsistent
sur la concïi,itr' iurmce par le g(~licdu Maine. Mais dans une concavitr:, nous
l'avons écrit, iln'y a précisémentpas une direction généralede la côte, à moins
bien sûr de nover &te concaviié dans une vision macroeéoera~h"..e: vue .
d'assez loin. toute hie. tout golfe. toute concavitélinissent p3r se ramrner ide\
Iignrsdroites. Par sa nature mhr, la ligneameriiainc rit incapahle Je retléterla
configuration côtière réelle.
Nos adversaires ont oublié visiblementce au'a déclaréle tribunal arbitral
franco-britannique: «la méthode de délimitaiion à adopter ...doit êtreen
rapport avec les côtes des Parties qui bordent effectivement ...cette région»
(na;. 248). A la lace de auoi c'est-sur une configu-ation côtière reconstituée
pour 1c.rheioin\ de la cauie, \Ur uiie \ériiüblegeographie-tiction. que la ligncdes
Et~ls.Unis repos 1:i géographir ajustée quisert de biise i la perpendiculaire
amcric~ined'origine lisselescotes du fond du golie et ignore lescotes qui se font
face du ~assach;setts et de la ~ouvelle- cos ccoe.ment au sumlusles Etats-
Unis peuvent-ilsprésenter commeayant un rapport quelconque aveclescotes de
la région une li.nequ., dans son état premier, coupe carrément la Nouvelle-
~cosie en passant derrière ses côtes?
Un simple coup d'Œilsur la carte permet de constater que la perpendiculaire
proposée comme point de départ de la frontière maritime unique serait
exactement la mêmesi la côte aniéricaine avecle Canada iusqu'à Long Island
était rectiligne,sIa côte du Massachusetts et du cap Cod,-au iieu de s'avancer
vers l'est, fuyait dans la direction généralede la côte, si la Nouvelle-Ecosse
disparaissait sous la mer, créant du mémecoup ces côtes rectilignes que nos
adversaires n'ont réussiqu'à imaginerdans leurs visions à l'échellecontinentale.
Peu de points de référencecôtiers, àcette ligne américaine, nous venonsde le
voir. Mais aucun lien du tout avec le concept de distance, cet autre point
d'ancraee de la délimitation dans le droit. Nul ne conteste au'nne frontière
maritime ne doit pas empieter iui le, espaces maritimes situés<<justede~ant 1.1
facade maritimc~>rlcI'autrc Etai lit voicique I'nnnouschante leslnu:inge~d'~ne
méthodologie qui fait passer la frontière retenue comme point de départ du
orocessus de délimitation derrièrela côte du territoire canadien: ce n'est plus
reulemcnt un esparc m3ritime qui se trouve ampute et qui dc\,ient \ictime d'un
cmpi~tçmrnt. c'ert le tcrntoirc tcricrtrc lui-mémc.Si un arbrerrluge a sei iruits.
la ligne perpendiculaire américaine est condamnée dece seul fait.
Les ajustements de la ligne perpendiculairdee départ
Voilà pour la ligne de départ. A cette ligne de départ dépourvuede tout lien
avec le fondement juridique côtesdistance, et qui au surplus ne part pas du
point A et n'aboutit pas dans le triangle, les Etats-Unis font subir, dans un
second temps, une séried'ajustements afin, disent-ils, de tenir compte des
circonstances pertinentes de la région.
Premier ajustement: la ligne perpendiculaire d'origine, c'est-à-direcelle tracée
à partir du point terminal de la frontière internationale, coupe la Nouvelle-
Ecosse; qu'à cela ne tienne, on va la modifier: <<Theline therefore mus1 be
adjusted to take account of Nova Scotian (mémoiredes Etats-Unis, par. 302),
autrement dit pour ne pas la couper.
En déplaçant le point de départ de la ligne jusqu'au point A, qualifié
curieusement de circonstance pertinente (ibid.),nos adversaires ajoutent que
cette «line extends into the triaLelen (ibid1.
Certes.encore que le v inton relCved'uneuph2misme. puisque la ligneellleure3
peine le tnmgle d'une discrete cdressc On se deniande au surplus. en \ertu de 186 WLFE DU MAINE
quelle corrélationlogique une ligneperpendiculaire à la direction générale dela
côte tracéeà oartir duoint A atteindrait nécessairement untrianele dont la
loeiaue- la chambre 1; sait - se situe ailleurs? N~--. ~~r.-~-.~~ ~~ ..~-.
juytikéque la ligne a été tracéeu point A au sommet du triangle d'abord, et
- qu'ensuite seulement onait cherchéà lui trouver une ex~lication? C'est ainsi en
@ &ut cas que la ligned'originede la figure27 subit son premier avatar et devient
celle de la figure 28 que la Chambre trouvera comme figure 95 de la procédure
O orale: la ligne a glisséjusqu'au point A.
Survient alors le secondaiustement: Douréviterque la liene ne couoe àtravers
deux bancs, on lui fait suivie l'isobath: des 50 br-i2ec'est la figure 29 du
-;;) mémoire américain,reproduite comme figure 96 de la procédure orale.
Puis, enfin, troisièmeajustement: cette ligne apparaissant à nos amis améri-
cains eux-mêmescommetrop «complexe et difficile»(mémoire des Etats-Unis,
@ par. 303), elle devient enfin la perpendiculaire dite ajustéede la figure 30 que
nous soumettons à la Chambre comme figure 97 de la procédureorale.
@ Ainsi, d'ajustement en ajustement, on aboutià une ligne qui n'a vraiment
plus rien de commun avec la ligne de départ. Les sciences de la nature
connaissaient la métamorphosedes insectes: le droit de la mer va-t-il connaitre
la métamorphose des frontières?Où est, je le demande, la parenté entrela ligne
@ @ d'origine de la figure 27 et la ligne d'arrivée dela figure 30? Ce n'est plus une
perpendiculaire du tout, mais une ligne zigzagante comportant de nombreux
segmentsqui, loin d'être perpendiculairesàla direction générale dela côte (telle
que la conçoivent les Etats-Unis), sont perpendiculaires àcette perpendiculaire,
autrement dit parallèl-sje dis bien parallè-eàcette direction généralde la
côte. Ligne «ajustée»? Certes. Ligne «perpendiculaire»? Sùrement p-set qui
ne respecte les impératifsdu compromis sur le point de départ et le triangle
d'arrivéequ'au orix de Durset sim~lesartifices.
Fn pnn;ipc, ~onsic;r le ~rrisidênt, a dkmonriraiiun p<iurrditr'arrcter Ii.
Dis lors qu'rlle repose sur une mL:thi)dolog. trdngcri toutc considéraiion
iuridiquc. la lignepropo.L:eIidrlei Etai\-Cni, serait Jnrcictcr rnènicsielle
~ouvait aooaraitre éauitabie.Mais elle ne l'est nas.
La ligie' américainerespecte-t-elle les façadéscôtières des Parties dans la
région, commes'en \,antent les Etats-Unis? Pas le moins du monde, on l'a vu.
~êmeau prix des ajustements successifs,les Etats-Unis n'ont quand mêmepas
réussà éloignerleurlignede plus de 25millesdu port de Yarmouth- alorsqu'à
ce mêmeendroit cette ligne se trouve à 180 milles marins environ de la côte
américainequi se trouve en face!Comment oublier la critique qui a étéfaite aux
lignes proposéesdans l'affairedu Plateau conrinenral(TunisielJamahiriya arabe
libyenne)par lesdeux gouvernements, critique qui se fondait sur le fait que l'une
se rapprochait exagérémendtu port tunisien de Sfaxet l'autre du port libyen de
Tripoli (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 122,par. 75)?
La ligne américainefacilite-t-elleau moins la conservation et la gestion des
ressources biologiques et marines de la région en assurant le «single-State
management)) de part et d'autre de la soi-disant frontière naturelle du chenal
Nord-Est? Cet élémentd'équitéest-il au moins présent? Je me demande
pourquoi nos amis américains ne vontpas jusqu'au bout de leur logique. Selon
leurs propres dires eii effet, quatre espècesde poissons se renconàcheval
sur le chenal Nord-Est (mémoiredes Etats-Unis, Dar. 317-318). Ces auatre
cspèccj. calmar;inageoire courte. niaqLereau, argentine ci gokrgr, m&itent
a~surimeni d'ciri tout Jamaisilou&'>3u pliurl pour npïirespcctcr lesnarural
boundories. Mais est-ce une raison suffisantepour les livrer à la surexploita-
tion? Est-ce une raison suffisantepour les priver des bienfaits du «single-State
management))? Pourquoi donc, au nom de la mêmelogique qui les conduit à PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 187
revendiauer la frontière du chenal, les Etats-Unis ne revendiquent-ils pas une
froniiéreau ras nitme Je lacüte Je la N,~u~eIle-Ec~~~ ! ./\\CI:;ne <.vsrii'rurJei
cegenre, I'omhrçlleproteciricc du asinglc.St:iie rn;inagemcnt,, s'etendrait lurque
sur ces quatre malheureuses espècesqui, autrement, paieraient leur indiscipline
écoloeiaued'un orix vraiment excessif!
C';t'à bien d'autres égards encore, nous I'avons montré, que la ligne
américaine estinéquitable et déraisonnable,mais je crois inutile d'y revenir à
mon tour.
Vo~là~~.o~ ~e~ ~le P~ési~ent.oour la liene américaine
..
Au Jr:hut de ILp Iro:édiire kriir. le.;kidir-llnis ont \i\ihlemcnt r2dlisi qdc leur
Iigncde 1976n'a\rit pas de pl~uiibilitéjuridique C'esi pourquoi, *an\ changer
leur rc\,cn<lic-iitiinr lefond, 11% l'unilait hinélicierd'uneespécede C;iccliiiing 1,
luridique - et c'est ainsi que nous a\unr et? mii en prkcnce de la \ersion 1962.
Verr 1.1tin de Ir pr~icedureCcrits. les L:tiiis-Cnisont \i\ihlemeni cumpris que
cette nouvelle versionn'offre pas,ellenon plus. de résistancejuridique sufisante,
et voilà qu'ils sortent à nouveau au grand jour la ligne de 1976.Malheureuse-
ment pour eux, le millésime82 n'est pas meilleur que le millésime 76,et le
millésime76 ne vaut pas plus que le millésime82. Abondance de biens ne nuit
pas, dit le proverbe. Mais il dit aussi qu'avec trois foisrien on ne fait pas grand-
chose. De deux lignes mauvaises on n'en faitpas une bonne.
Yen arrive à présent,Monsieur le Président,si vous le permettez, à la ligne
canadienne.
B. La ligne canadienne
Le Canada estime aue. dans le cas de I'esoèce.c'est uneliene d'eauidistance
LI duil Ser\Ir de poini de déparidu trïck de la irontiGremrritimç unique C'eitc
mt2thode.JiciCe au Jemzurdnt par I'.irliclc6. intcgrc. Je m3niCrepdrtiiiili2re-
ment heureuse, les deux composantes du titre juridique sur la zone polyvalente
que la frontière à tracer par la Chambre est appeléeà délimiter.
Mais le Canada ne s'entient prislà. La ligned'équidistancene peut prétendre
devenir le tracéde la frontière que si elle s'avèreéquitable; et c'est seulement
aprèsexamen et mise en balance des circonstances pertinentes qu'il a détermjné
le tracéqu'il considère conforme aux règlesde droit applicables en la matiere
entre les Parties.
Contre cette ligne canadienne les Etats-Unis ont déclenché un véritable tirde
harraee.
D'abord en travestissant la position canadienne, qu'ilsprésentent commeune
tentative de ressusciter la thèse danoise et néerlandaise d'une équidistance
juridiquement obligatoire et nécessairement équitable (contre-memoire des
Etats-Unis, par. 192,et réplique,par. 77et 81), ce que la thèsecanadienne n'est
de toute évidence pas.
Ensuite. en crovant nécessaire.oour convaincre la Chambre de I'inéauitede la
lignecdnadicnne, Je dep~rser la critique spccifiqiicde ccttc ligne pour >rlivrer 3
unc oflènsi\c de griinde cnicrgurc ciinire IJ méthodedc I'cquiJist:inec en ,ui,
pratiquant ainsi ce que nous, Franqdis, appelons souvent en anglais inexact de
I'«overkillineu .Oue dire. oar .cxemole. du reoroche fait à la méthode de
I'cquidist;tncc d'Eire pdriiculiCremçnt inéquii~blcddns Ici<IcliniiidiionJ'une
froniiércniiiritime unique parce qu'ellr ne tient pas con~pieder circi>nrianccs
autres que géographiques,tels labathymétrie, les autres~configurations topo-
graphiques, les caractéristiques du milieu marin ou les intérèts prédomi-
nants que I'un des Etats peut avoir dans la région(mémoire desEtats-Unis,
par. 276) - comme si la méthodede la perpendicularité tenaitcompte, elle, de188 WLE DU MAINE
circonstances autres .ue u u . .hiaues?Non contents de faire étatd'inéauités
possibles. les Etatj-L'nis en arnveni. par un glissement ,uhiil.i avancer Jrs
critiques qui condamneraient. siellesétaicntjustifiérh.I'cmploide Is miihodc de
l'éauidistancedans tous les cas. Du «parfois» ils glissent insensiblement au
,
Par sonexccs mcme.on lesaii. lacritique perd toute valeur g<Ccquicri s.~cessif
drvicni insienilinn2,disait deii T~llevrand. Equidinianceet inéquiitne sont pas
plus synonymes aue ne le sont éauidistanceetéauité.Le fait aue l'éauidistance
n'estpas tiujouri équitablene signifiepas qu'elléne l'estjamais. équidistance
n'est pas le contraire de l'équité.
Un bon exempledu caracièreexcessifde la position américaine estfourni par
la manière dont les écrits américainstraitent la oratiaue des Etats. A les en
croire, «most boundaries in forceare not equidist;nce lhes» (ceciest énoncé au
paragraphe 215du contre-mémoire américain). MaisM , onsieur le Président,un
simplecoup d'Œilsur lesaccords conclus montre aue dans un trèserand nombre
Je cas - ~c'~lusgrand nombre sans Jouie. mais Gu importent le;siatistiqucs -
Ics Etats con,idcreni que l'iquidistance Courni1les base, J'une dclimitation
équitable,mêmepour le plateau continental.
C'est à cette conclusion qu'aboutissent, entre bien d'autres, les auteurs de
l'atlas italien, Conforti et Francalanci (Atlas o/Seabed Boundaries,Milan, 1979,
p. XIII)et, plus récemment,M. Jagota dans son cours àl'Académie («Maritime
Boundaries~, Recueil des cours de l'Académidee droit inrernarionalde La Haye,
t. 171 (1981-II), p. 130-131).11n'est pas sans intérêtde noter que plusieurs
accords passéspar la France, pourtant peu suspecte de parti pris en faveur de
l'équidistance,comportent la disposition suivante dans leur préambule:«Consi-
dérantaue I'aoolicationde la méthode del'éauidistanceconstitue dans cecas un
niodeéquitahlcdedclimit~iion. ann anne lxpeatquuere, Ftais».acc~rJs 76,
i'étude de nombreuses délimitations équidistantes ainsi que le montre lae-niènic
classiaue étudeoarue àVAmerican~ournaiilv a auelaues annies (voir l'étudede
~eldkan et coison, <.TheMaritime ~oundaries'of tLe United ~iates)),contre-
mémoiredu Canada, livre V, annexe 109; mémoire desEtats-Unis, par. 269;
contre-mémoire,par. 221).
De toute manière, mêmd eans le cas de délimitationsqui ne retiennent pas en
définitiveune solution d'équidistance,c'est presque toujours- pour ne pas dire
toujours -l'équidistance qui a servi de point de départ à la négociation.Aux
témoignagesque nous avons déjàcitésdans nos écrits (répliquep ,ar. 325,note 8,
et par. 328). j'ajouterai ici simplement celui d'un géographedu département
d'Ela1 dont fait état Whiteman dans son Digest (Digest O/ Inlernarional Law,
vol. IV, p. 329). et qui utilise à ce propos le terme révélateurde «point of
departure ».
A encroire M. Jiménezde Aréchagalestribunaux ne procèdentpas autrement
(C.LJ. Recueil 1982, p. 105. par. 18); et, si la Cour a refusé d'examiner
l'équidistance«asafirst srep»dans I'aîlairedu Plareauconrinenral(TunisielJama-
hiriya arabe libyenne). c'estessentiellement,ellel'adit elle-mémeet, sije l'aibien
comprise, parce qu'elleestimait devoir atenir compte de [la] fermeposition des
Parties*- des deux Parties -en faveur d'une ligne non équidistante(ibid.,p. 79,
par. 110).
Sous le bénéficede ces observations préliminaires,je me propose d'examiner
de plus prèslescritiques avancéespar les Etats-Unis contre la lignecanadienne.
Après quoi, la défensede la ligne canadienne se dégagerad'elle-mêmee , t sa
justification, je me permets du moins de l'espérer,s'imposera comme une
évidence. PLAIDOIRIEDE M. WEIL 189
La ligne canadienne et son mode de construction sont illustrés surla figure98
de la procédure orale.
1. Les critiques américainec sontre.lu lignecanadienne
Dans le réquisitoire dressécontre la lignecanadienne, leschefs d'accusation se
croisent et s'entrecroisent.
Pour ienicr d'apporter quelque clarii: dans le J>hdt. Je Ics regrouper31autour
de trois thenies priii<ip~uxcspèrdiiine p.~str;ihir la pcns2eJe nus ad\ersïirei: le
ihcmc de la trahison de 1.1sunfirui~tion cbticrr..ccliiid13 méconnüissancede 1.1
frontière terrestre, celui de la concavitégénératrice d'empiétement.
Le thème de la trahison de la configurationc0fière
Premier thème récurrentdes écritsadverses: en tant que fondéesur I'éaui-
distance, est-il dit, la ligne canadienne ne reflètepas la configuration côtière.
L'accusation est plutôt inattendue dès lors que la Cour elle-mime a définila
ligned'équidistancecommeétant«directement fonction de points sur lescôtesen
ciuse» 2 qu'elle a préciséque cette méthode, «a l'avantage - peut-êtreaussi
l'inconvénient - de reproduire presque toutes les irrégularités descôtes prises
comme base» (C.I.J. Recueil1982,p. 88, par. 126).
A l'appui de leur position paradoxale, les Etats-Unis avancent, sije lesai bien
compris, trois arguments que je vais examiner tour à tour et dont certains ont
déjà été évoqué so,us d'autres angles, par M. Legault ou par M. Hankey.
En premier lieu, les Etats-Unis allèguent que I'équidistance est~inherently
inequitable in irregular geographical situations» (mémoire,par. 270; cf. contre-
mémoire,par. 224), critique de vaste envergure certes.
L'argument ne résistepas à l'examen: l'équidistanceest, tout au contraire, la
seulemétbodeaui. .mette. au moinscommeooint ded6art.comme «first steo)),
du proccssus dc dclimii~iion. ile tenir compte Je conligursiionr sbtir'res
hautement irrégulièrespuisque la réquencc des points de baselelongJcs ci>tcsen
présence assure le reflet përmaneit de ces dernières: chaque point de base
reorésenteen au.laue s.rte une certaine étendue de côte. iu,au'. mi-chemin du
point de biiscqui le précèdeci du point de b~sequi Icbuii.Cela rsi d'a~tsni plu,
\rd1 dan. le car prcient, ou l'on sz trou\e en présencede deux régions li
confieuraiion Jiff2renie Unc méthodeunidirectii~nnclle.irlle uur 1.1rierrizndicu-
laire,-ou une ligne fondée sur des séparations prétendumint naturelles, ne
présentepas cet avantage.
En second lieu, faut-il le rappeler une fois encore, nos adversaires utilisent
nour dénoncerla trahison de la confieuration côtière aui serait inhérenteà la
héthode de l'équidistancele graphiqueque M. laenickeavait montréà la Cour
en 1969 pour établir que le moindre saillant de la côte produit un effet de
déviation-qui s'accentueau fur et àmesure que la lignes'avancevers le large. En
prolongeant jusqu'à 200 milles marins de la côte la ligne que le graphique de
M. Jaenicke arrètait plus modestement à environ 50 milles des côtes, les Etats-
Unis cherchent apparemment à convaincre la Chambre que l'extension d'une
ligned'équidistancejusqu'à la limite extérieure des200 milles estnécessairement
inéquitable.
La réponse est simple.Comme l'ont montré l'agent et l'agent adjoint du
Canada. nous ne sommes vas du tout dans la situation décrite. Surle graphique
.. .
dllemand. un saillant iiiincur uniquc. situétout près dela froniicrc.i. sentir siin
elïet sur la totalitéde 1.1ligne, lui imprmani un effetdc déviaiioncrtiis\linie. Ici.
JU coniraire. Ir secment de 13 liene can3dienne %iiu> I'inièrieurdu golfe es1
commandé par uni succession dépoints de base - ce qu'atteste la succession190 GOLFE DU MAINE
mêmede ses g ointsd'infléchissement.Ouant au segmen- situéau-delà dela liene
de Ièrmetureimagintirc du golie -cclui qui inicresse le bdni de Cieorgei - ilcsi
sonimandépdr Io points de h~seopposis situes sur I'ilrhl, du c3ir~~~:in~dien.
et sur Icundl du c.~nCod du cRicaniéric~inCes deiii ootiiis. ie1.1a Ci2rdppel2,
sont situésàune ginde distance l'unen facede I'autre;et à une grande diit'ance
de l'origine de la ligne. Bref, Monsieur le Président, il n'y a pas ici d'effet
Jaenicke.
En troisième lieu,et surtout, les Etats-Unis reprochent à la ligne d'équidis-
tance de refléter seulement«a few selectedbase points on the Parties' toasts)) et,
pis encore, de reposer dans la seconde partie de son parcours - le segment exté-
rieur - sur «two isolated protruding points» (mémoire desEtats-Unis, par. 15,
268, 326,328, 329; contre-mémoire,par. 234; réplique,par. 9, 85, 185,250). Cet
argument revient plusieurs fois et est destiné à montrer que la ligne d'équidis-
tance canadienne ne refète pas la confiruration côtière.
Conirdircmcnt i se qu'dvinceni noi ;d\ers~ires. lespoints de basc ne sont pds
co choisi*^arhitraircmeni. ils s'imposcni aux cariogrdphei et iiI'~)rJinaieurdès
lors qu'ils sont considérés comme juridiquement pertinents.Le juriste peut se
demander si tel ilot ou rocher peut juridiquement servir de point de base; une
fois qu'il s'est prononcé, le cartographe ou l'ordinateur perd toute libertéà cet
égard.
Sans doute cette technique conduit-elle à ne pas attacher d'influence, pour le
tracéde la liene. à c~ ~~ins noints de la côte - grosso modo aux ooints en retrait -
- 7
qui sont en quelque sorte <<perdus 8,pour leshesuinsde ceiic opir;iiion. Pcut-Cire
cri-ce Ii ce que Ics Etats-Unis repr<ichcnia IJ mcihode d'cquidisian~e'!
Ces1 la un ir~iiuur la m2ihoJe de I'cuuidisi~ncenüri.ee av&c 13m2ihode Je,
en\eloppei des 3rcs de cercle miseau point pour iraver 13 limiic ericrieure de la
mer ierriioriale Cetie rniihodr qu'oni dc~.riieet illusirce graphiquemeni
Whittemore Boggs en 1930 (((Delimitation of the Territorial Seai. American
JournalofInternational Law. vol. 24. 1930.o..541et suiv.1.M. Münch /on. . cit. J
et üidcl en 1934 (Drorr hrrr~iuriimul ,B.lu »ier.1. 2.p 5~j-516)et dont le D;#~~.~'I
de Whiiem~n retrlicc I'hi~toriqucJCiaillC(vol IV, p 195et sui,.) - consiste. on
le sait. à définirla limite extérieure commela courbe taneente à tous les arcs de
crrclr d'un ra)on cg:il i I;largeur de la mer tcrniorialr, tr3cr:rde tous lespoints
de lacote Eldiil donné,cependant. que seulee51reicnue en dcfiniii,~ la iangntr
à tous les arcs de cercle ainsi obtenus (c'est-à-dire leurenveloppe extérieure),
les arcs de cercle qui se trouvent en deçà (c'est-à-dire à l'intérieurde cette
enveloppe) ne sont finalement pas déterminants, ni mime utiles, pour la
construction de la limite; ils sont en quelque sorte «perdus», comme le sont
également,du mêmecoup, les points côtiers à partir desquels ces arcs sont
tracés. D'où il résulte, comme l'ont noté Gidel (op. cil.,p. 510) et Boggs
(American Journal of International Law, vol. 45, 1951, p. 250), qu'un certain
nombre seulement de points dela côte ont une incidence sur la construction de la
limite extérieure.Ce sont ces ooints aui contrôleront seuls le tracé de laliene.
laqucllepourrit di! lorstiredéfinie avic Boggs(op.crr .p 546,hg. 1)comnie-uni
lignedont chaque puini est cxiiiirmeni i Iï distance cqu~,alant i la largeur Je Id
mer territoriale du noini lep.us .roche de la côte Grice .i ceiie miihodc. la pro-
jecilon manume Iondce sur ic principe que <.la[erre domine Id mers, s'e~ectuc,
on leconstaie. non p~spar une aiancée friintdlc Jans unc direction perpcndicu-
laire à la chte, mais de manière radiale, dans toutes les directions autour de
chacun des points de hase qui, grâce àla construction des arcs de cercle, servent
- ..~--~-~~~~~ ~~.----.
Imaginéepar des techniciens, la méthodedes enveloppes des arcs de cercle a
été proposée àla conférencede codification de 1930par la délégationdes Etats- Unis. En 1951, la Cour l'a décritedans l'affaire des Pêcheries, endéclarant
qu'«elle n'ariendejuridiquement obligatoiren (C.I.J. Recueil1951,p. 129).Dans
les annéescinquante le comité des experts et la Commission du droit interna-
tional en ont recommandél'emploi (Annuaire 1953, vol. II, p. 76; 1954, vol. 1,
o. 85-87: 1956.vol. II. o. 268). Elle a finiDardevenir la méthode iundiauement
obligatoire p&r ki fixation de lii~limiteéxtérieurede la mer teiritoriile avec
I'article6de la convention de 1958sur la mer territoriale et la zone continguë et
avec l'article 4 de la convention :surle droit de la mer de 1982.aui définissent
ceiie mcthgidc cuninie conduivünt à aune ligne dont chaque point est j.une
diitanceCg.ilc ila largeur de 14 mer terriiiindle du puini leplus proche Je IciIignc
de basen.
C'est cette méthode, Monsieurle Président,que les Etats-Unis et le Canada
ont appliquéel'unet l'autre pour les limitesextérieuresde leurs mersterritoriales
respectives(pour les Etats-Unis, voir Ci.Etzel Pearcy,«Measurement ofthe U.S.
Territorial Seaa, XI Bulletin, Department of State, No. 144, 29 juin 1959,
p. 963-964,reproduit par M. Whiteman dans son Digest, op.cil., p. 201;pour le
Canada, voir Loi sur la mer territoriale et leszones de pêchede 1964, art. 3,
mémoiredu Canada, livre II, annexe 17).
Concu. ~roro.~s de la limite extérieurede la mer territoriale. la méthodedes
arcs de cerclepeut trouver application chaque fois que la limiteextérieured'une
juridiction maritime se définit,comme c'est le cas pour la mer territoriale, par
une certaine distance Dar ramort aux côtes. Pour le plateau continental. cette
méthode n'était pas 'appli&ble aussi longtemps qie le critère en était la
profondeur ou I'exploitabilité. Elle estapplicable par contre pour fixerla limite
extérieuredes zones de pêcheet de la zone économique exclusive, puisque le
fondement iu,~iaued. titre àceszone~ ~ ~ la distance oarraooort a.. côtes - ce
qui. le le noie en pü\iani, cr2e uni:cert:iinc similitude cnirc ILinier terrii<irillsi
Iii70nr écononiiquecrclu\i\e cn cc qui concerne lcur Iimiic.C'esi eiïccti\emenr
ceiie mCihodcque les Etai$-Unir 21 IcClinad4 ont appliquic I'L~ ci I'auire pour
lixcr en 1'176le>Iimiiesexierieurcs de leurs 7one. de 200 milles(pour le\ Eiiis-
Uni,. i,oir. t'iiAr,r(<»rrcr,ol,i>,zutrdJl<in<rgrrnrn4li.l.1811.mimoire des Eiats.
Unis, vol. 1.annexe 8; Dour le Canada. voir la loi précitéea ,rt. 4).
La parentéd'inspiration entre Liméthodedes arcide cerclepourfixer la limite
extérieureet la méthodede l'équidistancepour fixer une délimitation sauteaux
yeux.
L'une et l'autre, d'abord, sont des méthodesscientifiquesqui ne prêtent pasà
contestation. Ce que Boggs disait de la première vaut tout aussi bien pour la
seconde: «There isone and only one such linewhichcan be drawn in front of any
Coast» (op. cit., p. 545). Son emploi, précisait l'éminentgéographe,est aussi
sim~leaue l'utilisation du oa~ier de tournesol uour déterminersi une solution
. . . .
esi ;icideou alcaline - as simple ;.ihc uneof Iiiniuspaper io dciermine u hether
3 soluiion I,ilc1~o1r iilk31,(Arn<~r,<v Joiirtrulo/l~irrr»«~ionul I.u~i\<il45. 1951.
p. 248).
Mais lesd~u~~~ ~ ~desoartaeent un autre trait encore. Exactement comme la
méthodedes enveloppes désarcsdi cercle, la méthodede l'équidistanceconduit
à donner effet à certains points seulement de la côte dans la construction de la
ligne, d'autres points étant au contraire sans influence sur cette construction.
Dans les deux cas, par conséquent, les rentrants de la côte, les concavités,
bénéficiend te la projection vers le large crééepar les saillants, les convexités.
II n'est pas sans intérêt à cet égardde noter qu'au fur et à mesure que la
méthodedesen~~loooes ..s arcs de cercleest ao.. .uéeàdesdistancesde la côte
plus grandes - 2OUmillespar exeniple.au lieudc 3,6ou 12millcs - lenombre de
points de baic qui contr0lent II Iigncdiminue. ci chaque point de base contrôlc 192 GOLFE DU MAINE
la ligne sur une longueur plus grande. Si la Chambre veut bien se référeà la
@ figure5 de notre mémoire et à la figure plus élaboréequi porte le numéro 99
de la orocédure orale. elle constatera aue les limites extérieuresdes zones des
200 milles des Etats-Unis ei du ~anadisoni coniiruitcs iouies deux ;i partir dc
quelques poinis seulement.IIï~ui croircqur Ic faii dewperdrr*ccriaipoinisde
la côte etde secontenter, pour construke la ligne, dZ quelques points de base
seulement n'est pas apparu aux Etats-Unis comme de nature à condamner
I'applicationàleur zone des 200milles de la méthodedesenveloppesdesarcsde
cerclequ'ils ont tant contribàéétabliretàlaquelle ils viennent ainsi deconférer
de nouvelles letlres de noblesse.
Pourquoi alors cesmêmescaractéristiques conduiraient-elles à condamner la
méthode de l'équidistance? Pourquoi le fait qu'une ligne d'équidistance se
trouve contrôlé dae^s certaines situations. sur ;noartie aporiciable de son
parcours par points de base sehement ;rait-il considérécomme
signifiant que cette ligne ne reflète pas la configuration côtière? Pourquoi cequi
estconsidérécomme normal et équitable- y compris par lesEtats-Unis - pour la
méthodedesenveloooesdesarcsde cerclesdeviendr~it~i~ ~ ~mal et inéouitable
lorjqu'il s'lgit de la niCihode de I'CquiJi~iaLaepraiique. pourt:tni. n'est pas
sure d'crcmplcs .icri Cgiird'! L'acci)ril cntre I',\rgentinc ci I'Uruguiiy. que ,'ai
dr')auiti. conduit a ïdire contriilcr la toialitr: de la lig200milles marini
au large par deu.: seiils poini,. ce~x qui marquent I'e\trCmitc de In ligne inla.
giniiirr irrmant le Riir Je la Pldia (~Anncxcsur la praiiqucdcs Ciaisr. accord 39).
De mi.me. d;ins la délimitation cntre la Norvcce et Ic Danemark (accord 14).
un lone seement dela liene (environ 90 millesmarins) est contrôlé var un ou
- -.
deux poinis ircs rapproches de la ligne de bdsc droite nor\,cgienne. Ilans13
délimitaiion cnrre I'lnde el Sri Lînka (accord 1pr>sde SUmille, marins de IL
liane sont contrôlés par un seul point de baseSUI la côte de Sri Lanka. et les
derniers58 milles màrins de la ligne dépendentd'un seul point sur la côte de Sri
Lanka et d'un seul point sur la côte de I'lnde. Cela ressort clairement des
indications fournies par le géographedu départementd'Etat dans le numéro 77
de la sérieLimirs inrheSea.
L'nîsus;itionamirieaine selon laquelle la ligne d'équidisiance canadienne
serait comme iouie ligne dYquidistance nkes,aircmcnt in2quiiablc parcequ'elle
ne refléterait vas la c;,nfieuration côtière du seul fait au'elle serait baséesur «a
few select baie points onthe Parties' Coast» et qu'elk reposerait sur quelques
wisolated protruding points», cette accusation ne résiste pasa l'examen.
Lhudience esrlevée<j12h 55 HUITIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (10 IV 84, 10 h)
Présents: [Voir audience du 2 IV 84.1
M. WEIL: Monsieur lePrésident.Messieurs lesiuees*.aorèsa.oir confrontéle
trac&de la lignepropùsic p;ir les Fi;its-Cnis nul cxigcnxr du compromis ci plus
p~riiculiCrenieniau* rkglcsde droits appliedhl~\ 3 1sJClimitaiiun Je I:iirunticre
maritime unique dansnotre affaire,j7avais entrepris lors de ma précédente
intervention l'examen de la ligne canadienne dans la même perspective.M'at-
tachant dans un premier temps aux critiques adresséespar nos adversaires à la
ligne canadienne, j'avais cru pouvoir regrouper ces critiques autour de trois
thèmes nrincioaux. J'ai tenté de faire iustice du oremier d'entre eux et ie me
propose ;ipr&scnt<i'.ibordcrlesdcu~aiiires a\snt de muntrcr dans une dppruche
plus posiii\e qiic la Iigncclinadiennc esi Cquiishlc et r;iisoiinahle.
Le thèmedela méconnaissan deela frontière terrestre
Aprèsle grief fait à la ligne canadienne de trahir la configuration côtière, un
second thèmerevient sans cesse sous la olume de nos amis américains: la liene -
c~n;idicnnc ne ticni p3i cùmpic clcI'cmplscsment dc 13 irontiire terre>tre.
L'argumcntatioii amCricainesur cc poini eii Jitlieilcnient ïomprchcniihle 1.3
lienecanadienne commence. comme il-sedoit. au ooint A. et elleest commandée.
c~mmeil ,c doit. par Icspoints dc base 3ppropriks SUI lesdeux :~ICS cl nun pds
piir le point tcrniiiidl de la IroniiCrc terrestre Pourquoi don: Ic serait-elle'!L:i
ligne américaine après tout, ne part pas non plus du point terminal de la
frontière terrestre. mais d'un noint maritime: le terminus de la frontière
inicrnatiunalc dan> son Ctat premier; Ic piilnt apr2s .iju\tcmcni\. Scr.ii1-cc
;ilors de nc pas respcctcr la direction des cent derniers kilomctrcs dc la frontiCre
terrestre elle-même qu'ie lst fait grief à la ligne canadienne, comme cela parait
êtrelecas dans la répliqueaméricsiine(V, par. 160-161)?Cela voudrait direalors
que les Etats-Unis n'attachent aucun poids ni au segmentde frontière maritime,
de direction toute différente, déjà délimité conventionnellemennt,i aux critiques
auxquelles se heurte le prolongement vers le large de la direction de la frontière
terrestre dans lescas où cettefrontière estelle-même irrégulièe rt coupe la côte à
angle aigu.
A y réfléchirde plus près, Ic thème de la méconnaissance par la ligne
canadienne de l'emplacementde la frontièreterrestre paraît servir de paravent à
une théorieplus vaste, et c'est celasans doute qui explique que nos adversaires,
qui connaissent autant que nous le sens précisdes termes qu'ilsemploient, aient
recouru à cette esoècede stratéeiedu brouillard.
1.e thkmc de I'cinplasemcnt dc Iï froniikrc terrestre c\i en ctict iisiocic ;i\ec
plu\icur. autre,. qui repoient sur des conrutaiion5 d'une C\idcntc han;ilitC Oui.
hien sir, qui le nicrÿii" la hùuvelle-Ecossc bit saillic au sud dc la irontiire
internationale. Oui, bien sûr, qui le contesterait? La ligne canadienne se
prolonge jusqu'au 40Vegré de latitude. Oui, bien sUr,qui le mettrait en doute?
Les Etats-Unis et le Canada sont des Etats adjacents de part et d'autre de la
frontière terrestre uui lesséoare.On a envie de dire: et alors? sa what?
De se q~ela N~~uv~IIe-Esus~ Seprojcttc au sad de 13 ironii<:re.ler Etair-Unis
tirent la <on>kqucnccque Id c6tc deIü Noui~clle.t.cos~cqui donnc sur legolfe du
Maine est «aherraiite» et «seconclairen et que sa projection maritime doit céder194 GOLFE DU MAINE
le pas àcellede la côte américainear>rincipale»(«vrimarv») . ..lui fait facede
l'autre côtédu golfe. L'argument esi inatiendu.'lirsque deux Etats cherchent
à délimiter leur frontière maritime, pourquoi, et au nom de quel principe
supérieur, déciderait-onde ne pas tenir compte de celles de leurs côtes qui se
trouvent au sud -ou au nord, ou à l'est,ou à l'ouest - du point terminal de leur
frontière terrestre?
Et quel mal y a-t-il àceque la frontièremaritimeproposéepar leCanada aille
jusqu'au 40' parallèle? L'argument se veut spectaculaire, et les Etats-Unis
espèrent sans doute montrer par là que la prétention du Canada est excessive,
déraisonnable. Mais l'argument ne résiste,là encore, pas à l'examen. N'est-ce
pas le compromis lui-même quiplace le côté suddu triangle à cette latitude?
Après tout la frontière maritime américano-mexicainedans le Pacifiaue se
p;ojette elle aussi nettement au sud de la frontière terrestre entre les ~tati-unis
et le Mexique («Annexe sur la pratique des Etatsn, accord 67).
Et que veut-on prouver en disant que les deux Etats sont adjacents de part et
d'autre de leur frontière? Veut-on prouver par là que pour cette raison leurs
côtes dans la région du golfe du Maine sont également dans un rapport
d'adjacence? C'est bien siir ce que I'on fait, mais on glisse ainsi du concept -
exact - de ((adjacent States» à celui - inexact - de ((adjacent coastsn. Mais
nos adversaires sont trop avertis pour avancer de tels arguments sans raisons
sérieuses.
Ces raisons se trouvent sans nul doute dans l'approche macrogéographique
qui, comme l'ont montré I'agent et l'agent adjoint, caractérise l'ensemble de
l'argumentation américaine.Je fais allusion, la Chambre l'aura compris, à la
thèse selon laquelle lesEtats-Unis et le Canada sont situésdans une relation
nord-sud. Alors que, juridiquement, seule compte la relation des côtes perti-
nentes vis-à-visde la régionàdélimiter,les Etats-Unis proposent, comme cela a
déjàétémontré, une conception macrogéographique, dans laquelle la relation
des Etats sesubstituerait àcelledescôtes,et la «broad relationship))-c'est-à-dire
la relation à l'échellecontinentale - à la relation dans le golfe du Maine.
En énonçant la proposition à la fois banale et approximative que le Canada
«est situéau nord des Etats-Unis», les Etats-Unis cherchent probablement à
accréditerl'idée qu'il existe une sorte de principe prééminent,en vertu duquel
aucun espace terrestre ou maritime au sud de la grande frontière continentale
est-ouest ne saurait relever du Canada.
C'est cette approche macrogéographique qui explique aussi que nos adver-
saires tirent argument du fait que le golfe du Maine et le banc de Georges sont
l'un et l'autre situésau sud de la frontièreterrestre comme si cette constatation
suffisait pour déterminerleur appartenance aux Etats-Unis ...
C'esi ieitc approche mîcr&éographique égalemeni qui eiplique que les
Etxis-Unis cherchent àeffacercetie Nou\,elle-Erosw qui i,icni si m;inifesiemeni
iriiubler l'harmonie préciablienord-sud. ou du moins à rÿvÿler sa cote donnant
sur le golfe au rang d'une côte caberranten et donc <secondaire» qui ne saurait
prétendreàune projection dans legolfe. Pour les Etats-Unis la Nouvelle-Ecosse
n'est là où elle est, c'est-à-dire au sud de la frontière des deux Etats, que par
l'effetd'une erreur de la nature, et ce que l'on demande à la Chambre ce n'est
rien de moins que de corriger cette erreur. Cela porte un nom, Monsieur le
Président,cela s'appelle ((refaire la géographiea.
Le rhèmede la concaviieginérarricedémpiéremen~
J'en viens à présentau troisièmethème majeur de l'acte d'accusation dressé
contre la ligne canadienne: celui de la concavité. PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 195
L'idéecentrale de la thèse américaineest que, du fait de la concavitéqui
caractérise lasituation géographiquedans la régiondu golfe du Maine, la ligne
d'équidistancedu Canada produit un effetd'empiétement etd'amputation et est,
par là même,fondamentalement inéquitable.
Cette thèsecomporte, me semble-t-il, trois aspects, qui ne sont pas nettement
différenciésdans les écritures américainesmais que ;'ai cru pouvoir distinguer
pour la clarté de l'exposé:
- primo: la ligne canadienne est inéquitable, arguënt les Etats-Unis. parce
qu'en présenced'une concavité la méthodede l'équidistanceproduit toujours
une solution inéquitable;
secundo: la ligne canadienne est inéquitable, soutiennent les Etats-Unis,
parce que son segment extérieur nereflètepas les côtes situéesà l'intérieurde la
c~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~
- tertio: la ligne canadienne est inéquitable, allèguentles Etats-Unis. parce
qu'elle attache le mêmepoids à toutes les côtes de la concavité alorspourtant
que certaines sont plus importantes que d'autres.
Prenons d'abor~ ~ ~ nremier volet de cette théoriede la concavité: dans une
configuration de concavité,nous dit-on, une ligne d'équidistance est parnature
même touiours inéquitable. Cette proposition parait tellement évidenteà nos
adversaires au'ils i;eent inutile de-la démontrer: «The distortion inherent in
rhc ;ipplicdti;n <i<tie eq~idisi3ricc nieihod io <onça\ilics ir \i,rll-eiiahlished~~
(II.mémoireJer Etÿi~-Cnis, par 328) Ainsi. icn croire les Etais-Unis. l'Liai
qui possèdeunecôte concave se trouve toujours et inévitablement défavorisé par
une ligne d'équidistance,laquelli:, au contraire, favorise toujours et inéritable-
ment 1'Etatqui possède une côte convexe. Tout ceci, bien entendu, en écho au
traitement de la côte concave de l'Allemagne fédérale dans lesaffairesdu Plateau
continentalde la nier duNord.
En y regardini d'un peu plu, pr&, on s'ÿpcrçoitaisémcnique souçcc~icforme
la théorie selonlaquelle~~conca\iiC= inCquiiénde la Iigncd'cquidistance repuse i
la fois sur une ambiguïtéet sur une erreur.
L'ambie-ïté saute aux veux: est-ce la concavité constituéepar le eolfe du
Maine dans son ensemble Quiest accuséed'êtrecréatriced'inéqÛitéo,u bien est-
ce la concavité dela seulecôte américaine?Le problèmen'est pas le mêmedans
iin cas et dans l'autre.
Dans certains passages de leurs écrits,c'est la côte de la Nouvelle-Angleterre
que les Etats-Unis paraissent mettre en avant pour arguer de I'inéquité dela
ligne d'équidistance. C'estcet aspect, en tout cas, qu'ils ont invoque dans leur
note du 2 décembre 1977(1. mémoiredu Canada. livre III. annexe 601.C'est
dans cetic pcrspcciivc égalemenique le mémoiredcs Fta15-Unis se réikreau
pawage hien connu dc I'arr6tde 1969relaiifd I'elleidescotes conca\ei. is1)ïns le
cas &ne côte c,)nc<ivçou renir;inic.. », écri\a11la Cour. «I~appIicatioi~de la
méthode de l'équidistancetend i infléchirles lignes dc dclimii~tiun vers 13
concavité.» (C.I.J.Rt.,.~,rl969, p 17,par 8; ri12dans le mémoiredes Etats.
Unis, par. 271.)
Si c'estcela la thèse des Etats-Unis, il est clair qu'elleest dépourvuede toute
justification.
D'abord, comme cela a déjà été montré,parce qu'aucune comparaison n'est
possible àcet égardentrela situation dans notre affaire et cellequi seprésentait
dans l'affairedu Plateaucontinentaldela merduNord. En 1969.la Cour étaiten
pr2sencedc trois Ftats, ci la cote dr I'Eiïi situé aumilieu(la RépubliqueiedL:ralc
d'Allemagne) a\,ait dans \on cniemhle une cunligur3tion concaw ci rc troui,aii
encadréepar les côtes convexesdes deux Etats voisins. La Cour a soulignéque 196 GOLFE DU MAINE
l'amputation de la projection maritime allemande n'«étaitpas attribuable àl'une
ou l'autredes lignes[entrel'Allemagneet leDanemark et entre l'Allemagne etles
Pays-Bas]priseisolément,maisàl'effetcombinédesdeux lignesprisesensemble))
(C.I.J. Recuei1969, p. 17,par. 7),et c'est cet«effetcombiné))(ibid.,par. 8)entre
«trois Etatsn (ihid., p. 50, par. 91) qui étaitgénérateur d'inéquiD.ans notre
affaire, au contraire, deux Etats seulement sont en présenceet, contrairement à
ce qui se passait dans l'affaire dela mer du Nord, la délimitationdébutedans le
fond de la concavité,ce qui évite I'effetd'empiétemenctondamnéen 1969.
Ensuite - et ceci est plus important encore - il ne faut quand mêmepas
@ oublier, ainsi qu'il ressortdu mémoire canadien(par. 339-340et fig. 32), que la
ligne canadienne n'est construite à partir d'aucun point pris sur la côte
continentale de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, mais à partir des rochers de Mont-
Désert et Matinicus situésà une vingtaine de milles marins de la côte
continentale; le premier point de base situésur la côte continentale américaine
est celuidu canal du cav Cod.
Je noie en pdssani que les rochcrr dc I<~ni-iX>criet hlaiinisuj uni ,cri# aui:
Etais-l:nis ru\-m;mc> JI.point, Je base pour leur mer icrritoridle cl leur zone de
100 milles I.oin de difavoriser les Ciais-Unis. 13Iienr c~nadiennr.J'r:uuidi,-
tance, construite àpartir des points de base dictéspiGa géographie,lesf&orise
au contraire en repoussant la frontière maritime vers I'estet en allouant aux
Etats-Unis la plus grande partie de l'espace maritime entre les côtes de la
Nouvelle-Angleterre et de la Nouvelle-Ecosse. Faire état,dans de telles condi-
tions, de l'inéquidue à la concavité dela côte américaine età la configuration
du golfe du Maine c'est commettre une erreur. De celaje ne veux pour preuve
que le fait suivant. au'a déiàsienalémon ami M. Leeault et nui setrouve ill~~~ré
@ s"r la figure II delà proc~dur~orale: de 1974à 198?,sous l'émpirede leur ligne
de protection du homard puis de leur ligne officiellede 1976, lesEtats-Unis ont
revendiqué eux-mêmes une ligne située-pllusà l'ouest que la ligne canadienne
d'équidistance,donc une ligne plus proche de la côte américaineque la ligne
canadienne - ce qui a produit le curieux effet,releàéjuste titre par le mémoire
américain, qu'au moment dela conclusion du compromis ilexistait une zone qui
n'était revendiquénei DarlesEtats-Unis ni nar le Canada (var. 151:cf. mémoire
du Canada, Gr. 3):~e reproche fait à' la ligne canàdienne d'amputer la
projection maritime des côtes américaineset d'empiéter sur cette~pr~jectionest
donc assez piquant.
Mais les Etats-Unis mettent également en cause,outre la courbure de leur
propre côte, la concavitédu golfe du Maine dans son ensemble. Ce n'est plus
l'idéeque l'équidistancedéfavorise obligatoirementI'Etat qui possèdeune côte
concavequi est mise enavant dans cette secondeversion.mais l'idéeau'une liene
d'équidisianceest nécessairement inéquitablelorsqu'il s'agit de délimiterdes
Etats de part et d'autre d'une concavitéprofonde, et séparéspar une frontière
situéedans le fond de cette concavité.
Monsieur le Président, pourquoi y aurait-il ainsi une espèce d'inéquité
inhérenteà une délimitation équidistantedans le cas d'un golfe ou d'une baie?
Si l'on se réfèreau contre-mémoire américain(IV, par. 294-299) et à ses
@@ figures 21 et 22 (reproduites comme figures 100et 101de la procédure orale),
figuresqui ont déjà été montréesàla Chambre, il sembleque la thèse américaine
soit la suivante. Dans uneconfiguration semi-circulairetellequecelledu golfedu
Maine, nous dit-on, une ligne d'équidistance est nécessairement inéquitable
parce que cette ligne conserve le mêmetracé dans la zone extérieure à la
concavité quelque soit le lieu où la frontièreinternationale aboutit à l'intérieur
de celle-ci.Plus précisément, expliquent nos amis américainsv,ers l'extérieurla
ligned'équidistance seratoujours une perpendiculaire à la lignede fermeture de la concavité partant du milieu de cette ligne, quel que soit par ailleurs
I'emnlacementde la frontière terrestre.
L'argument c~tasse7 Furprenant. Un coup J'tieil sur Ics figures ïméricaines
montrc qu'une ligned'équidistance partageraitdifféremmentl'intérieurdu golfe
selon l'emplacement de~la frontière ierkstre. et dans chaque cas de manière
proporiionnelle à la longueur des çàies. Qusni au segment criérieur. niis en
causc par nos ami am~ric~ins. ilest touti Cÿinormal qu'ilroi1contrOlépïr des
points de base situéssur lesailestérieuresdu golfe.Ce qui serait anormal, tout
au contraire, c'est que ce segment extérieursoit contràléjusqu'à son extrême
limite versle large par leseul point terminal de la frontière terrestre situéau fond
du golfe ou par des points situésde part et d'autre de cette frontière, mais
beaucoup plus éloignés de ce segment que les points situéssur les ailes côtières.
Ce qui serait inconcevable, c'est que le tronçon de la frontière maritime
intéressant le banc de Georges soit commandé par le point où la frontière
terrestre coupe la càte alors que ce point est situéàune grande distance du banc
et qu'il existedes côtes tant américainesque canadiennes situéesàune beaucoup
plus grande proximité.
On constate ainsi que la thèse de l'inéquitéinhérente de l'équidistance à
l'intérieur d'un golfe s'évanouit aussitôt qu'on l'approche de près (voir V,
@ répl/quedu Canada, fig. 31 C et D). Le précédent conventionneldu golfe de
@ Venise, que nous analysons dans notre réplique (V, par. 335 et fig. 30), en
constitue une preuve remarquable - parmi bien d'autres, tels lesaccords entre la
Finlande et I'Union soviétique (accord IO),entre le Danemark et la Norvège
(accord 14). entre la Suède et la Norvège(accord 19),entre la Finlande et la
Norvège (accord 36). entre la Turquie et I'Union soviétique (accord70).
Ce n'est en tout cas pas la méthode de la perpendiculaire qui pourrait se
rC\élerplus appropriie iïns Iccïs d'une profindé conw\,iié, puis&'unc ligne
pcrpcndiculairc nc rr.flcterait pas lcs càtes en perpciucl changcmcnt de dirrciiim
de la concavité mais seulementun<:hypothétiquedirection générale uniquede la
côte à i'endroit où la frontière terrestre atteint la concavite.
Voilà, Monsieur le Président, Messieursles juges, pour le premier volet du
thème américainde la concavité, à savoir que I'équidistanceserait toujours
inéquitabledans une configuration de concavité.
Le second volet du thèmede la concaviténarait êtrele suivant. Dans la nartie
extérieure- c'est-à-dire au-delàde la lignehipothétique Nantucket-cap dekable
- la ligne canadienne, disent nos amis américains,n'est plus contrMéepar les
côtes situéesau fond du -olfe. mais Dar des oints situésaux entréesde la
soncïviie formcc piir ce golfe (conire-mCmuircdes Fiats.Unis. par. 30)
L'ob~eciifiactiquc de cet argumeni sïute au )eux les Eiats-Unis ienieni de
faire admettreàlachambre que si la lignecanadienne veut êtreacceptéepar eux
à i'intérieurdu golf- ce quCn'a rien de surprenant puisque cette 1Lgneest plus
favorable aux Etats-Unis que les lignes qu'ils revendiquaient eux-mêmes jus-
qu'en 1982 - le segment extérieurde la ligne, celuiqui réglerale sort du banc de
Georges, doit au contraire êtrerejetéparce qu'il netient pas compte des côtes
américainesdu fond du golfe.
Quelle qu'en soit l'intention tactique. l'argument est. en tout étatde cause,
dépouvude tout fondement, et il en a déjàétéfait justice.
On ne voit aucune raison pour que dans le cas d'une concavitéprofonde - et
Dieu sait si les Etats-Unis insistent sur la profondeur de la concavitédu golfedu
Maine -les mêmespoints de base situes dans le fond de la concavitécontrôlent
la ligne d'un bout à l'autre, au lieu de céderla place à de nouveaux points de
contrôle au fur et à mesure de l'avancement de la ligne. La frontière doit, sur
chaque segment de son tracé. refléter lescôtes qui bordent effectivement la198 GOLFE DU MAINE
région encause. Dans l'affairedu plateau continental franco-britannique, faut-il
le rappeler encore une fois, le tribunal arbitral a rejetéavec fermetéla thèse
française qui tendait à faire gouverner la délimitationdans la régionatlantique
var la direction eénéraledes côtes dans la Manche: on ne voit nas. a dit le tribu-
nal, <<ionimentiii pourquoi les ciiies de la Manche devraieni . as.umer une
iniportaiicc dCii$i\e pour JCtsrniiner le traie Je Id dclimirati~>ndsns 1.1region
atl~niique~~ .Gla mCthoJedc JI:limii.iiiiin.iailopter pour I;irL:aion;iilantique doii
être en~rav..rt avec les côtes des Parties aui-bordent eflecïivement le D~ateau
contincnt~1dans seiie rcyion~~tscntencc. ~dr. 246-247). II rcra~iJonc inconce-
\:iblc q~cdes poiiits JIILCS dails lc fond du golfectinlrGlentle rçgmcni Je I:iligne
siiur:a I'cxtCricurdu goIl2Je prL:ference .Iilci cioint, ,~iur::.iiliisvrI:,. siir Ici:iilc,
côtières du ~assachÜsetts eïde la ~ouvelle- coss ~eu.iuraiènt dit nos amis
américains,je me permets de poser la question, si le Canada revendiquait une
ligne dominéed'un bout à l'autre par les mêmespoints au fond du golfe et
cardant donc àl'extérieurdu eolfe la mêmedirection ou'à l'intérieur? C'estalors
1 et alors seulement - queul'on se trouverait en présence de l'amputation
dénoncéepar M. Jaenicke, car alors ce seraient des configurations situéesà
l'origine de la ligne qui imprimeraient leur effetjusqu'à soi extrémitéloin au
large.
l'en arrive ainsi au troisième aspect du thème de la concavité, corollaire
d'ailleurs du précédent,à savoir l'allégationd'une hiérarchieentre les côtes qui
bordent la concavité. Dixfois, cent fois tout au long des écritures américaines
on nous répèteque les côtes qui bordent le golfe du Maine ne sont pas compa-
rables. Dans le golfe du Maine, expliquent les Etats-Unis dans leur mémoire
(var. 308-309).la côte américainedu fond du eolfe est conforme à la direction
~cnér;ile .iI'ichellei<intincni.ile i.indir qJe 1.1rTi>Je 1.1S<~u\ellc-Eii~s,e<:in.,-
Jicnne qui donne .ur le golfe ~~dc\i:itcifroni the hro~d geogr;iph~c.ilrel.ition-
,hip of the P~riir.,>t.la prcniicre forme Jcs lori un siiriiii.ir) io.istal frsnir. 13
seconde n'est au'un ~seiondarv coastal front». ~ansia rénlLaue.. .iustification
change quclq~e peu. ;'c\t au iiire de <C~e;iuard-i.iiingC,I.I\I:~front..qiic la ~6ic
amcricÿincdu fond du golfe setoit cle\ie aii r3rigde <<priiiury susi ei c'cri.iu
titre de«lateral Coastnot facincthe oven sea»au; lacôie canadiennedonnant sur
legolfe je \oit riivslccdu rang dc ~secondar) i(~asl ,(pdr I hX el 2521.QUOIqu'il
en soit dc scs nuances qui sr'pareni la rcpliq~cJu mcmoirc americain. pour le,
Etai\-l.'ni~IcsciiiciJ~ir~principaIei(~~prim:ir~ ~~)~ojs~dcnidcsdroits~rc~niine~its
(«varamount riehts)))(rkvliaue. var. 188)au';I'emoortentsur ceuxdéscôtes dites
&ondaires, tant et si bien que jorsque'la projeciion frontale des premièreset
celle des secondes produit un chevauchement, la projection frontale des côtes
orincivales doit nécessairementvrévaloirsur celledescôtes secondaires
~c.'ci>tesdu Maine ci du ~eu,'~ümpshire ont JCslors. jcloii les t.t.~ts-L'iiis.lc
~<pdrniouni right #,de se projeter sans cnird\c jusqu'à I'exirCmelimite Je la
luridistiun naiionslc de\ Ei<ti>-ilni,et Icici~icsJe lx Ui>u\cll:-Fcosic n'on! uu'i
S'effacerhumblement. l'exagère? Lisonsplutôt: «The Maine and New ~a&-
shire coasts ... are entitled to their extension seaward to the limits of coastal-
State jurisdiction ...» (IV, contre-mémoiredes Etats-Unis, par. 298). Dans la
répliqueaniéric~inco , n parle de <tadelimitati~inth.11rcsper.1,<heerten~i<~< n~fthc
United St;itcs coast31front al M:tine and Nea Hamp\hire ihr<iughihe Gulioi
Maine and se:iw.ird acrors Cieorges Bank and hcyiinJ.8 (\'. p.ir 12). ti enlin
«The scaward extension of the vrimarv coastal front of the United States
al<ingM.iine and Pieu. ~:impshir> wn&t hc cr~sed froni ihc nidp hy ;in)
allcged proxiniiry ofa recondir) co~st,~lfront ofC.1113daihat &les net idce
Georges Bank. u (Contre-mZmoirc des Etal\-l:ni\, pdr 300 J Telle est la logique, sij'ose dire. de la thèseaméricaine:toute frontièrequi ne
donnerait Dasaux Etats-Unis la totalitéde la.~r-iection de leur c~rimaw coastal
iront -csitc prqection passcr;iii clle.m?me wr lcpajdc la pi>riede lacoiedc Iü
Nouvelle-Esosw - csi par J2tiniiion nifmc une Iignc incquii;ible.
Depuis au~nd. Xlonsieur IcPrc.;idcni.ri en \eriL dc quoi. Yauraii-il d'iiij une
concavitéde<« bonnescôtesnet de<<mauvaisescôtes». descôtesaui resoectentune
dircclion gL'ncralemacrogcographiqur o des côicc ïhîrr~nics" Vnc nmcs-ïiiii.
cïi faite par dcliniiion mcmcd'unc scricJe chanpcnicnts Je direction. ;i lessute,
bordantie golfedu Maine suivaient toutes la mêmedirection, cene serait plus un
golfe!
Depuis quand, et en vertu de quel principe, la délimitation des espaces à
I'extérieurd'un golfe serait-elle nécessairement déterminée parles côtes situées
au fin fond du golfe, c'est-à-dire les plus éloignéest,andis que I'on priverait de
pertinence lescôtes lesplus proches? La terre domine la mer, certes. Mais cela ne
veut pas dire que le banc de Georges doive être dominé parla côte la plus
éloignéec,elledu Maine et du New Hampshire. Cela veut dire, àl'évidence,qu'il
doit être contrôlé par les côtes les plus proches, celles du Massachusetts
américain etcelles de la Nouvelle-Ecosse canadienne.
Depuis quand, et en vertu de quel principejuridique, la projection de la façade
côtière - ~coastal front extension» - dont les Etats-Unis déclarent qu'elle
constitue à la fois la base juridique du titre et «a fundamental principle of
delimitationn (replique, par. 107) - est-elle conçue par le droit international
comme une espècede plate-forme s'avançant perpendiculairement vers le large?
Singulièrethéorie, qui méconnaît, commeI'arappelé l'agentdu Canada,que les
côtes engendrent des espaces maritimes dans toutes les directions et que la
projection est radiale et non pas frontale! Singulièrethéorie,contredite par les
Etats-Unis eux-mêmeslorsqu'ils ont construit leur zone des 200 milles! Et si
mêmecette théorie pouvait se prévaloir d'un quelconque fondement juridique,
au nom de quel principe la projection perpendiculaire américaine serait-elle
autorisée à enjamber la protection perpendiculaire canadienne? Pourquoi la
projection americaine s'épanouirait-elle librementàtravers le golfe,sautant par-
dessus le bassin de Georges, plus profond et plus large pourtant que le chenal
Nord-Est, à travers le banc de Georges et au-delà, alors que la projection
canadienne devrait s'arrêter, elle,net à quelques encablures de la côte? Le
Canada ne conteste aucunement le droit à la projection vers le large - dans
toutes les directions des côtes américaines; ce qu'il conteste, c'est que ce droit
s'exercede manière illimitéeau méprisdu droit rigoureusement identique et de
mêmevaleur des côtes canadiennes.
Ces quelques mots suffiront, Monsieur le Président,sur ce problème que les
Parties ont longuement exposédans leurs écrituresrespectives (II, mémoire des
@ Etats-Unis, par. 307-309et fig3 .1; IV, contre-mémoire,par. 300-301et fig. 23;
V, réplique, par. 107 et 249; III, contre-mémoire du Canada, par. 151 et
564-568; V, réplique, par. 68-79) et sur lequel l'agent et l'agent adjoint du
Canada se sont déjà expliquéspliis en détail.
Ce que l'on reproche, en somme, àla lignecanadienne, c'estd'avoir accordéle
mêmepoids aux côtes du Canada qu'à celles des Etats-Unis, alors que, sur
l'échellequalitative des côtes imaginée par nos adversaires, ces dernières se
situent plus haut que les côtes canadiennes et auraient en conséquence dû
recevoirun traitement privilégié1..alignecanadienne est inéquitable auxyeux de
nos adversaires parce qu'elle traite de manière égale des côtesqui existenl
également, parce qu'elle refuse d'établir entre ces côtes une hiérarchie qui
permettrait de valoriser certaines côtes et d'ignorer certaines autres.
Bien sûr, si la Nouvelle-Ecosse n'existait pas, la frontière pourrait se situer 200 GOLFEDU MAINE
olus loin des côtes américaines. etla liene vroooséevar les Etats-Unis ne serait
@ alors pas déraisonnable,commk le montre ia figure $ de notre contre-mémoire,
que la Chambre trouvera comme figure 102 de la procédure orale. Mais la
Nouvelle-Ecosse existe, et on ne voit vas oourauoi~toute liene oui tiendrait
.. . . .
compte de cette cxisicnceserïiiII>>l<ic~oaccusced'?ire <iJéportcc*\ers I'iiucsi-
de <<,uinpout acrms and CUI of. ihecoastxl froni of the Uniied Statr.50(réplique
des Eiais-Unis. par. 161J.Tel est cein.nddniI'axiotnesur Icqucls'artic..lciouie la
thèseaméricaine: du seul fait de ion existence, la ~ouvdle- cos sonduit la
ligne d'équidistance,«to encroach upon the extension seaward of the primary
coastal front of the United States» (ibid., par. 173).
Si la Chambre reiette - comme le Canada esoèreau'elle le fera - la tentative
anir'ncaine de lui ;mPoser une géogr~phical;stkc 'à 13 piacc JC 12 situation
pcogrdphiquc rcclle. lesaccusations d'intquitc pro férie^i I'enconircde la I~gnc
canadienne s'effondreront comme un châieau de cartes.
Voili. Monsieur IcPr2sidcnt. Mcssic~rsles~ugcs.pour I'csseniielJe3critiques
amkriwines contre 13Iignr canadienne IIme rciie iprCicnt. pour achcw mon
cxposc. ;iaborder la Iignccan7dicnne Je rnaniércolus positiveet i niontrcr que
cette ligne est équitableet raisonnable. Je ne le Ceraiqu'au regard des seules
données géographiques,les autres aspects étanttraitéspar mes collègucs.
2. Lu ligne cnnndienne est équitable
Le contexte géographiquedans lequel la ligne canadienne s'inscrit se caracté-
rise par deux traits.
Lepremier est l'unitéphysique fondamentale de la régionàtravers laquelleva
courir la frontière maritime que la Chambre est appeléeà tracer. En ce qui
concerne plus particulièrement le sol et le sous-sol de la mer, les deux Parties
sont d'accord, la Chambre lesait, pour constater que le plateau continental de la
ré-ondu go"fedu Maine est essentiellementcontinu et homoeène. etce. ac~ ~ ~
qui s'csiexprimédcs ledehkt de la pro~.cdurcr'critc.a et: erprcsscment confirme
pdr les P,irtics dans leurs rtpliqucs rcspectivcs (Can3ds. par. 371; Fiais-Unis,
Dar 2131.
' Le second trait est que la configuration côtière permet de distingucr deux
«composantes» (ncomponenrs»)ou«secteurs» areas as^)(mémoireduCanada,
par. 328-329;contre-mémoire,par. 683-690;mémoiredes Etats-Unis, par. 25-29;
contre-mémoire,par. 16,note 4) séparéspar une ligne imaginaire qui joint I'île
de Nantucket au cap de Sable (répliquedu Canada, par. 108,116, 154; réplique
des Etats-Unis, par. II, note 1, par. 204). Sur ce point, les deux Parties
concordent à nouveau entièrement.
De cette double caractéristique,la ligne américaine, nousl'avons vu, ne tire
aucune conséquence,puisqu'elleprétendseconformer àune frontièresoi-disant
naturelle du chenal Nord-Est et qu'elle ne reflète en rien la dualité entre le
secteur intérieur etle secteur extérieur.II s'agit d'une ligne unidirectionnelle.
La lignecanadienne, tout au contraire, sans tenir compte d'aucune prétendue
rupture naturelle, repose, comme l'exige le droit applicable, sur le double
paramètre côtes et distance. Elle est construite à partir de points représentatifs
des côtes des deux Parties dans toute leur complexité,et elle reflètela différence
de la situation géographiquede part et d'autre de la ligne de fermeture imagi-
naire du golfe.
D'autre oart. comme nous l'avons montré.si l'on construit. conformémentà
ls suggestion iaiic par la Cour en 1969.Jcs lignesdc baie Jroites rcprhcntant les
faç~dcs mantimcs. on sonstatr quc la ligne canïdicnnc csi iris proche d'une
Iigncd'kquidisiancctracéea partir dc ccs lignesde hase droites (conirc-rncmuirc PLAIDOIRIE DE M. WEIL 201
@ du Canada, par. 692et fig. 50; figure 3de la procédureorale): c'estdire que, de
ce point de vue également,elle reflètela configuration généraledes côtes.
Un coup d'oeil sur la carte permet enfin de distinguer sur la ligne canadienne
deux segments correspondant aux deux secteurs de la région,le changement de
direction de la ligne traduisant fidèlementle changement dans la configuration
côtière.
Le rappel de ces indications trèsgénéralesne suffitcependant pas àépuiserla
question, et il convient d'y regarder de plus près. Pour ce faire, je me permets
d'inviter la Chambre à une brève promenade le long de la ligne canadienne,
comme si nous la parcourions en bateau en regardant défilerles rivages de part
et d'autre. La Chambre pourra ainsi vérifierque, jusque dans la moindre de ses
inflexions, cette ligne tient équitablement compte des côtes que nous verrons
apparaitre puis disparaître au cours de cette excursion.
L'embarquement se fera, bien sùr, au point A. Pendant la premièrepartie du
voyage, c'est-à-dire grosso modo jusqu'à ce que nous traversions la ligne
imaginaire de fermeture du golfe, nous naviguerons entre lescôtes opposéesdela
Nouvelle-Ecosse canadienne, du Maine, du New Hampshire et du Massachu-
setts américains.La lignequenoussuivrons est équidistante d'un certainnombre
de points situéssur chacune de cescôtes, et il est donc nécessairepour apprécier
l'équité deporter notre attention successivement sur les points de base qui ont
servi àla construction de la ligneet sur lespoints d'infléchissementde la lignequi
en sont le fruit.
Et d'abord, les points de base. L'équidistanceentre quoi et quoi, telle est la
question.
La Chambre trouvera dans notre mémoire les indications détaillées surla
@@ construction de notre ligne (mémoiredu Canada, par. 335-338et fig. 3et 32),et
je ne la lasseraipas par une répétitionde cesdonnées techniques.IIme suffirade
~ ~ ----~~rv~t~~~..
Premièrement. lespoints qui contrôlent la ligne sont d'autant plus représenta-
tifs des côtes qui bordent l'intérieurdu golfe de part el d'autre qu'ils n'ontpas
été définiasrhhrairement oar leCanada oour les besoins de la cause. Ce sontdes
points qui, pour la plupari, ont serviprébdemment au Canadaet aux Etats-Unis
pour l'établissement de leur mer territoriale ou de leur zone de 200 milles.
Deuxièmement. ie raowllerai que la succession des points de base aui
prennent le relais13;n de'l'autre au iur et àmesure que la ligne progresse verile
large prive de toute pertinence l'argument selon lequel une ligne d'équidistance
contrôlée par un point isoléproduirait une distorsion croissante au fur et à
mesure de l'avancéede la liene vers le larae.
Troisièmement,les pointsde base retenus sur la côte américainesont situés,je
l'ai déjà indiqué,au large de la côte continentale américaine et ils sont plus
éloignésde cettecôte que les points canadiens ne le sont de la côte continentale
canadienne. De cette manière:ieme nermets de le réciter. la courbure de la côte
américaine,loin dc constitucrin d&a\,aniage pour'lcs Etais-~nis. coniribuc à
.-/ accroiirc I'espacrmsniime que la lignecanadienne leur attribue La figurc 32de
notre mémoire estparlante à cet égard.
Ce résultat se confirme lorsaue. délaissan~ ~ ~ ooints de base. on norte son
iittcntiun sur la Iignccllc-mémeLe navigaicur qui suivrait rrite Iigncresterilit cn
permanence plus pres de laCUICsonrincntsle du Canada que de celle de5 tiais-
Ünis. ~ucun eRei de distorsion eénératriced'inéauité.ou d'emoiétement.ou
d'amputation, ne saurait donc ét; relevéau détrikenl'des ~1ats:~nis. Faut-il rappeler une fois de plus que de 1974 à 1982 les Etats-Unis ont eux-mêmes
revendiqué une ligne moins favorable pour eux que la ligne d'équidistance
revendiquéepar le Canada?
Le segment exlérieur
Mais continuons notre navigation le long de la ligne.
Nous voicidonc au point d'infléchissement49, situé aux confinsdu golfeet du
grand large. Nous nous trouvons encore inter fauces rerrarum, entre les côtes
opposées, et pratiquement parallèles, du Massachusetts et de la Nouvelle-
Ecosse. Bientôt ce ne sera plus le rocher Matinicus, situétrop loin au fond du
eolfe. oui va contrôler la liene: c'estun autre ooint aui va orendre le relais. situé
sur kacôtc du hldssdchusstts. Dans peu de tcnips d'dilleurs.nous allons qtiiiter le
golie pr<iprcmentdit, nous allonr franchir la Iignc1mayin;iireJc fcrmcturc du
golfe et nous trouver dans l'océan,au grand large. Celaapparaît clairement sur
@ la figure 103 de la procédure orale. Les côtes de la Nouvelle-Ecosse et du
Massachusetts vont petit à petit cesser d'êtredirectement à notre gauche et à
notre droite, et il faudra nous retourner pour voir cesailescôtièress'éloignerpeu
àpeu derrièrenous, l'uneàdroite, l'autre àgauche, au fur et à mesure que nous
avançons vers le large.
Sommes-nous en présenced'une situation de côtes qui se font face ou en
présenced'une situation de côtes adjacentes? Les ailes côtièresentre lesquelles
nous oassons d'abord. nour ensuite les laisser derrière nous. se font sans nul
douie'face I'unc 3 ~'~ui~cM. ais se fiint-cllcs hcc égalcnienipar rappori nous
qui nous cn duignonr! La Chlrmhrc connaii la position clrnadiennc i cc sdjét.
J'ajouicrai que la question nc mc p~rait pas pri.\entcr une importance JZiisii.c.
Comme le trihunal ïrbiirdl franco-britannique I'idit j.propos dc la région
atlîntique. ahcc laqucllc notre \ituation prcccnic certaines analogies, la classili-
cationjuridique précise- côtes qui se font faceou côtes adjacente- ne suffitpas
àelle seuleà réelerla auestion du caractèreéauitable ou inéauitahled'une liene
d'équidistance(par. 241). Une ligne d'équidistance n'est pas nécessairement
équitable enprésencede côtes qui se font face, pas plus qu'elle n'estnécessaire-
ment inéauitahle en orésencede côtes adiacentes.- ou dénend de ce aue le
tribunal arbitral a appelé la «situation géographique réellede la zone ..à
délimiter»et des «rap- -ts de fait des deux côtes avec cette zone particulière»
(sentence, par. 240).
La caractéristique principalede la situation géographique au-delàde la ligue
imaginaire de fermeture du golfe est, je I'aidéjàrelevé,que nous avançons vers
une région où les côtes pertinentes sont formées par les ailes côtières du
Massachusetts et de la Nouvelle-Ecosse: les points de base qui vont contrôler la
ligne seront donc, en principe, l'île Seal du côtécanadien, le cap Cod du côté
américain.Les points côtiers situésplus au nord, plus au fond du golfe, sont à
présenttrop loin derrièrenous pour exercer une influence.Comme il se doit, la
terre la plus proche domine la mer la plus proche. Les Etats-Unis se plaignent, je
I'aidéjàrelevé,que le segmentextérieurde la ligne canadienne soit contrôlé par
deux points seulement, et deux points en saillie «protruding points». C'est le
contraire qui serait surprenant, car c'est là très exactement ce qu'impose la
situation b u . .hiaue réelle.Les Etats-Unis ont eux-mêmesi.e leran..lle..tracé
la limite exténîurc de leur zone des 200 milles dans toute >;te région i partir
d'un seul point de hasccar la siiu~tion gcographiquc réellene leur pcrmctiïii p3s
de faire autrement.
Dans le secteur extérieur, c'est-à-dire grossomodo aprèsle point d'infléchisse-
ment 49 et en aval de la ligne imaginaire Nantucket-cap de Sable, la situation
géographique réelleimpose donc une ligne à cap constant contrôlée par des PLAIDOIRIEDE M. WEIL 203
points situés surles ailescôtières opposéesdu Massachusetts et de la Nouvelle-
Ecosse.
C'est au vu de ces donnéesque le Canada avait, dans un premier temps, en
1977,revendiqué une ligne contrôléedu côtécanadien par I'îleSeal et du côté
américainpar lecap Cod et par I'îlede Nantucket. Cette ligneest représentée,en
@ mêmetemps que la ligne canadienne actuelle, sur la figure 104de la procédure
orale.
Cette ligne, qui constituait par définitionla bissectriceperpendiculaire d'une
lignejoignant le cap Cod à I'ileSeal, étaitparticulièrement favorable pour les
Etats-Unis parce qu'elle étaitcontrôléedu côtéaméricainpar les points de la
côte américainese projetant le plus avant vers l'est. La ligne se trouvait ainsi
déportéeloin de la côte américaine et laissait aux Etats-Unis la plus grande
partie - et de loin- du banc de <ieorges.
Cette ligne présentait enoutre la particularité d'aboutir au point d'intersec-
tion des limites extérieures des200 milles des deux pays et d'éviter ainsitoute
«zone erise».
Les rnalyscs juridiques sontenLsr dxns la sentence arbitr~lc Crÿnîi>-hntïnni-
que de 1977ilnt ccpcnJant conduit leCanadÿ àrCcxdmincrsa position juridique
et à modifier sa revendication. La proiection vers l'est du promontoiie du cap
Cod, ajoutéeàla sailliemarquéedu'lit<oralaméricain au sud-estde Boston, luia
semblé constituerà l'égarddu Canada un élément d'inéquite et de distorsion
semblable àceluique le tribunal franco-britannique avait relevéàpropos de «la
nroiection des Sorlineues olus avant vers I'ouest..a<outéeà la oroiection de la
kasse terrestre de la Co;nouaille plus avant vers l'ouest qie Ïe Finistère»
(par. 244).C'est pourquoi le Canada a décidéde calculer la ligne d'équidistance
de~uis un poini de base situé à l'entréenord du canal du cap Cod. La
m;dificïtio~ dcs points dc basc rcienur pour la construction de 13ligneconstit~e
l'undei pri>r.odCrseconnus pour rcmcdicr liI'incquitkd'une ligned'cquidistlincç.
J'riouieriii quo ICAptnntr de basc du cdnal du ciip Cod et de I'ilcScal. situes
comme ils soit au tournant des façades côtières américaines et canadiennes
donnant sur l'intérieurdu golfe et des façades côtières américaines etcana-
diennes donnant sur l'Atlantique, constituent des emplacements hautement
représentatifs de laconfiguration côtièrede la région.
A la suite de cette modification la frontièrerevendiquée parle Canada, au lieu
de changer de direction immédiatement au sud de la ligne imaginaire de
fermeture Nantucket-cap de Sable, à 2 milles marins au sud du point d'inflé-
chissement 49. noursuit encore sa direction nord-estisud-ouest sur une distance
de 21,5 mille; marins au-delà du point d'infléchissement49 et ne prend une
nouvelledirection nord-ouest/sud-est qu'un peu plus loin, au point d'infléchisse-
ment 50. Ellesuit ensuite cette noiivelledirectionà cap presque constant .usq.'à
la limite des 200 milles, à travers le banc de ~eor~ei .
Nous avons donné, Monsieur le Président,dans nos écrituresles indications
chiffrées qui permettent à la Cour de vérifierque je cap Cod constitue
effectivementune «configuration géographiqueparticulieren (mémoire,par. 33;
contre-mémoire,par. 131et suiv.). Nous sommesen présenced'un promontoire
exceptionnellement long, qui rompt l'équilibre général des côtes e qtui est en
contraste complet tant avec la direction de la côte américaineà cet endroit
au'avec cellede la côte canadienne aui lui fait facede l'autre côté dugolfe.C'est
la une constatation difficilementconiestable, et l'onpeut s'étonner lesEtats-
Unis n'aient pas iugéutile de faire la moindre mention du cap Cod dans
I'énumérationdes i eëoeraphical irre-ularities inthe relevant area»(mémoiredes
Etats-Unis, par. 2862fi).'
Nous avonsmontréégalementque la prise en considérationdu cap Cod par la 204 GOLFEDU MAINE
première revendication canadienne engendrait une distorsion disproportionnée
par rapport à sa superficie puisqu'elle faisait perdre au Canada une superficie
maritime plus de huit fois supérieureà la superficiedu cap (contre-mémoiredu
@ Canada, par. 137; réplique,par. 138et fig. 9).
Cesont cesconsidérationsqui ont conduit leCanada à voir dans la projection
vers i'est du cap Cod et de I'ile de Nantucket ce que la sentence franco-
britannique a appelé un«élémentde délimitalionassa important pour justifier
une ligne de délimitationautre que la ligne médianestricte» (par. 244)-en un
mot. si I'on nréfère.une ((circonstance skialen au sens d~ l~~~ ~ ~-~ ~
A celanos adversaires rétorquent,on lesait, en brandissant la «protrusion» de
la Nouvelle-Ecosse.Comment, Monsieur le Président, peut-on raisonnablement
tenir pour une«particulariténon essentielle»,ou une«caractéristiquesp&ialeou
non habituelle» (C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 50, par. 91, et p. 54, par. 101), une
province dotéed'un statut politique propre au sein de I'Etat fédéral?Peut-on
raisonnablement assimileràun «légersaillantde lacôte* (ibid.,p. 36,par. 57)ouà
un «promontoire exceptionnellementlong» (sentencede 1977,par. 244) - bref à
une«circonstance spécialen - un territoire d'unetelleimportance (cf.répliquedu
@ Canada, fig. 3)? La question a déjà été posée ici.La comparaison que nos
adversaires tentent d'accréditerentre l'effetde saillie de la Nouvelle-Ecosse et
celuidu cap Cod est difficilementsoutenable, comme M. Hankey l'amontré.La
Nouvelle-Ecosse est, je me permets de le rappeler, trente-huit fois plus grande
que le cap Cod et les îles avoisinantes, et la superficie maritime qu'elle attire
au Canada n'est que de 0.8 fois sa superficieterrestre (cf. répliquedu Canada,
in par. 134-138et fig. 9).
O Ainsi corrigée afin deporter reméde auxeffetsdisproportionnés du promon-
toire exceptionnellement long du cap Cod, la ligne canadienne apparait bien
comme la résultante directede la confi-uration côtière.
Sur son segmentintérieur,ellesuit la direction nord-estlsud-ouest imposée par
la direction descôtes pertinentes du Maine et de la Nouvelle-Ecos-eauxquelles
elleest sensiblementparallèle-ainsi que par le segment de la frontièremaritime
déjà délimité conventionnellemenptar les Parties ilayplus d'un demi-siècle,en
amont du point A.
Sur son segment extérieur.la liane canadienne orend la direction nord-nord-
ouestlsud-es< ce qui correspond ils direction de'la côte du Massachusetts, du
côtéaméricain, etde la partie méridionalede la côte de la Nouvelle-Ecosse,du
côté canadien. Elle prend ainsi, sur son segment extérieur, une direction
~ercendiculaire à la lime de fermeture imaeinaire du nolfe.
. Sur I'un comme sur l'autre de ses segments, elle tr<iiteJe manicre égdleles
côtes deç Ftats-Unis et du Canada. conformémenta cr qu'imposeni leJro~tet la
raison.
Ni sur l'un ni sur l'autre de ses semnents on ne mut relever le moindre effet
d'empiétementou d'amputation rapport à la côte américaine. A aucun
endroit de son parcours, la ligne canadienne ne passe «juste devant» la côte
américaine.
Le seuldéfautque I'onpourrait releveràla charge de la lignecanadienne serait
de ne pas aboutir au point d'intersection des limites extérieures des200 milles
marins et de créerainsi une «zone grise*. Cette zone est cependant de faible
superficie,et ne saurait se comparer avecl'énorme«zone grise» engendréepar la
ligne américaine.
D'un bout à i'autre, la ligne canadienne respecte donc cette primauté de la
géographie côtièreque les Etats-Unis eux-mêmes présentenc tomme une don-
néefondamentale du droit contemporain de la mer (réplique desEtats-Unis,
par. 107). J'en amve ainsi à la conclusion de ce long exposé.
Des deux lignes qui s'affrontent devant la Chambre, quelle est celle qui est
conforme au droit oarce aue enracinéedans ledroit conventionnel aussi bienaue
dans le iondenieni juridiqu eu iiirc i la ,,,ne de, 200 millr'? Li-cc I;iliene
amr'ris~inc,(ondéesiir la pcrpcndiciilariic Ù une dircciiiin g>ncrdlch)pi)thctiquc
de3 cilie~ r I'h-hellc c,)ntincni3le. sur Id théorie de la ~roieciion (roniiile ,les
iundictions maritimes et sur la thèsedes frontières ma&imës dites naturelles?
Ou bieneii-cc la lignewnadiennc, qui rep<iscsur Idml.ihode de I'~quidist;incc
ci sur la concepiion d'une juridiction pol)\,iilenrr r'etendani. pour l'un coninic
nour I'ùutre des deux Eiais. iusuu'i une ccriaine Jisixncr. de leurs ciiics telles
qu'elles sont réellement? .. .
Des deux lignes qui s'affrontent devant la Chambre, quelle est cellequi subit
avec succèsletest des circonstances pertinentes, et plus particulièrementde celles
de caractère géographique? Est-ce la ligne américaine, qui ne reflète pas la
configuration changeante des cbtes de la région du golfe du Maine et qui
s'approche de si près des côtes canadiennes que son effet d'empiétement et
d'amputation saute aux yeux au premier coup d'Œilsur la carte? Ou bien est-ce
la ligne canadienne, qui suit pas à pas la configuration des deux côtes et qui se
tient suffisamment à distance (le chacune d'elles - y compris de la côte
américaine - pour évitertout effet d'empiétementou d'amputation.
C'est à ces questions, parmi d'autres, que la Chambre est appeléeà apporter
une réponse qui feradroit entre les Parties.
Le Canada attend cette réponse avec confiance.
L'audience,suspendueà II h II, est reprise à II h 26 I'LAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI
CONSEILDU GOUVERNEMEKTCANADIEN
M. MALINTOPPI: Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, c'estun
privilègeet un honneur que de participer à la premièreaffaire que deux grands
fois une procédure que les pères fondateurs de la plus haute juridictionmière
internationaleavaient concue nour élareirledomaine de la iusticeinternationale
en ouvrant à l'attention des Ètats un éGentailde procédur&caractérisées.
Monsieur le Président,il m'appartient de vous présenterles points de vue du
gouvernement qui m'a honoré parsa confiance en ce qui concerne ce que nous
avons aooelé. au sens laree. les critères oour I'anoréciation du caractère
équitablè'durésultatdemandé.Dans cette t'ache,je &ai assistépar M. Ross
Hornby, queje remerciede sa collaboration.
1. LE DROIT
Les Parties à l'affairedont la Chambre est actuellement saisie ont reconnu à
plusieurs reprisesquetoute délimitationd'espaces maritimesdoit êtreréalisée de
manièreà aboutir'à un résultat éauitable. es Parties sont éealement d'accord
pour atiribuer jI'equite.dan, cecontexte. le r6le typique dc I'cquirti/rlrsrni.
En d'autres termes. IcsPdrties ne demandent pli\ quc la Chambrc juge er urquo
erbono. mais que. suivant une.iuri.~rudencedésormaisbienétablie;elleapn..au.
lesprincipesei règlesde droit en fonction d'un résultat quidoit étreintrinsèque-
ment équitable.C'est donc au droit des délimitationsmaritimes lui-mêmede
mettre en garde contre toute tentation de sacrifier la justice de la solution
concrèteàla ri-ueur de I'ada-e dura/exsedlex. C'est finalementlecontenu de la
règlesbstraite elle.nièmequi exige que I'applicaiion concr>te iihouiiise i un
résultatéquitableet équilibréau poini de bue de l'ensembleder inicrfii en jeu.
C'est orecisemeni dans cet cso.ii a.e I'arrL.1rendu oar la Cour le 20 fcvncr
1969affi'rmeque:
«Un dernierélémenà t orendre enconsidérationest lera..ort raisonnable
apparaitre enire I'éteiiduedu pl;iicîu contiiienirl rele\anl des Eiats intérer-
direction eénéraleafin d'établirL'éauilibrnécessaireentre les Etats avant
desc6iesdroitesci lei Etais ayant desc6tes furtemeni conca\,esou con\ews
ou afinde ramener dcicôtes iresirrcgulièrei des proporiions plusei;dctei8,
(C.1.J.Rurueil1969, p. 52,pdr. 98.)
Cette affirmation. oui est la première contenant une référence a l'idéede
proporiionnalil~. exipe qiielquei c(,mmentaircs parce qu'elleconslituc l'origine
ct la basc du probléme.On rcmarquerî d'abord que le Iextc français ne se refire
qu'au «rapport raisonnable», sans utiliserlemot «proportionnalité». Ce dernier
f-.ure var contredans le texte anelais«a reasonablede~"eeof*.ro~.riionaIilv».
L'ohservdtionn'estpas sans imp~riance, pïrce qu'ellemonire i quel poini I'idce
ctaii floueisesdéhuts.La rcfcrencea I'idkede ~proportions* (au plunel) ligure
plutôt - et ce dans les deux langues - dans la partie finale du passage précité.
Mais à cet endroit l'accent est mis sur l'opportunitéde ramener des côtes très PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI 207
irrCguliircri Jer priiporiionr plu>ewcir., ioui ciimme la phrarc immCJi.iicment
iirccédenicin\ouuaii I'c\ircncc <l'établirI'éuuilibrcnéccsi;iirccnirc des Etais
ayant des côtes aux ~arac~risti~ues divergentes.
Ainsi donc, dèsledébut,l'idéede proportionnalité est liéeàcellede remédierà
un déséquilibretout autant qu'à celle d'éviter unedisproportion, plutôt que
d'assurer une orooortion. Ou'il s'agisse de la détermination des éléments à
prendre en conkd&ation oude la mzthode à employer, ce qui importe c'est de
s'assurer que la délimitation soit effectuéeselon des principes équitables etque,
par conséquent, le résultat ne soit jamais déraisonnable, excessif, anormal, en
trois mots: hors de proportion.
Lorsque le tribunal arbitral établientre le Royaume-Uni et la France statua à
son tour en 1977,iln'eut aucune difficultéàs'exprimer précisémend tans cesens:
«En bref,c'estla disproportion plut61qu'un principegénérad le proportionnalité
qui constitue le critère ou facteur pertinent.)) (Sentence, par. 101.)Ce qui est
important, c'est que pareille affirmationa été faiteen réponse à l'argument de
l'une des parties, selon laquelle la proportionnalité aurait étél'un des principes
applicables àla délimitationdu plateau continental. La nature de la proportion-
nalitédans le domaine qui nous occupe était de toute évidence encore trop
indéterminéepour justifier une telleargumentation. Le tribunal, quant a lui, prit
soin de ne jamais qualifier la proportionnalité de «principe». Tout comme
l'évaluation deseffetsde circonstances naturelles:
«I-~e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~~~ ~onceots sont inhérentsà la notion de délimitation
conforme à des principes équitables; de ce fait. ils constituent un des
élémentsoermettant d'établirsi c'est la méthode de l'équidistanceou une
autre méihodede délimitation quiest appropriée.» (par. 98.)
Et le tribunalarbitral d'aiouter aussitôt: (<Ilsne semblent euèreavoir lecaractère
autonome de principe, ou de rigles Je d&limii3iion .. O lhiil..
IIest evidcnt quc Innotion de propor1ionn;iliii rcicniie p.ir leiribun31arhiirill
consiiiur un Jivel<,iiiicmrni de la niiiiiin contenue dans lesdrrCtsde 13<:i>urJe
1969. Rien de~~~r~~~ormal. et ce oour deux raisons. D'abord. Darceaue l'idée
mirne de proporti~nnaliié~taii i~ouiellc I'ipoquc dans cc domaini - iln')
3\a11)usque-lj. de \Critables ConrlrdCllonS JU~I~I~UCS Sur cc point qu'cn droii
adniinisir.itiCci en droiDen31 (niais Ii d'un cnriicièrcDIUS~hiloso~hiqucp~rfois
que juridique). Par coniéqueni, il fallait en préciserje contenu étles contours
d'une manièreà la fois progressive et pragmatique. En deuxième lieu, il faut
également soulignerune différenceessentielleentre lesaiTairesde 1969et cellede
1977.Dans les oremières.la Cour n'avait àdétermineraue les rèele-et orincioes
puisque la délimitation elle-mêmedevaitêtreeffectuéepar les Parties par voie
d'accords ultérieurs. Dans l'affaire anglo-française, par contre, le tribunal
arbitral était appeléà tracer une limite maritime, ce qui mettait beaucoup plus
l'accentsur la proportionnalité en tant que moyen d'évaluation d'unrésultat.Le
tribunal est formel à cet égard:
«La proportionnalité doit donc étre utiliséecomme un critère ou un
facteur permettant d'établir si certaines situations géographiques produi-
sent dei délimitations éuuitiibleset non comme un orincioe généralqui
constituerait une source indépendantede droits sur des étenduesde plateau
continental. » (Sentence, par. 101.)
La scntcnce arbitrale dc 1977pcrmcr aini de dkgager Jeu\ aspcctr rsreniirlr
dc I'idccdc proportionnaliic, cn progrc,iant Jans 13 \,air.i>uvr.rtr.p:ir lchxrri.i\
de la Cour dc 1969 le orcniicr asocct. c'csi 13fonciion nceaii\c ici non ~;is
positive) de la proporti'onnalité. & qui explique pourquoi elle ne sauiait208 GOLFE DU MAINE
constituer un <<titre»au sens juridique de l'expression, c'est-à-dire,un titre
attributif d'un droit ou d'un pouvoir ou d'une facultéquelconques.Ledeuxième
aspect de la proportionnalite, c'est son caractère relaiif: la pÏoportionnalité a,
selon lesparticularités dechaque cas d'espèce,un rôle variable, cequi explique à
son tour pourquoi ce rôle a pu être considéré d,ns l'affairede 1977,comme plus
étenduque dans cellesde 1969.Ces deux développementset précisions tiréd ses
arrêtsde 1969par la sentencede 1977sont donc dela premièreimportance. Mais
c'est surtout au dernier arrêtde la Cour en la matière, celui de 1982, qu'il
appartient d'avoir précisé davantage l'idéequi nous occupe.
A regarder de prèsl'arrêtde 1982,la Cour est en réalitéparvenue à définir
d'une manière trèsexacte - ce qui est essentiel - le rôle et la nature de la
proportionnalité dans le cadre du processus de délimitation d'une frontière
maritime. II ne faut pas oublier, pour mieux saisirle sens de la portéede l'arrêt
de 1982, que les Parties, dans cette affaire, avaient demandé à la Cour non
seulement de se prononcer sur les principes et règles applicables à une
démarcationconsensuelle, mais aussid'indiquer - et ce «avec précision» - la
méthode((pratique))que lesParties devaient utiliserpour appliquer ces règleset
cesprincipes. Dans cesconditions, le rôlede la Cour, tout en ne consistant pas à
fixer le tracéd'une frontière,ne pouvait pas non plus être totalementassimiléà
celui qu'elleavaitjouéen 1969lorsqu'il ne s'agissaitque d'indiquer desrègleset
des principes. C'est pourquoi l'arrêt de1982nous permet de mieux dégagerles
traits saillants de la théorie dela proportionnalité. Ces traits saillants peuvent
êtrerésumés en six points.
En premier lieu, la Cour, en reprenant les termes mêmesdes arrêtsde 1969,
rappelle que la proportionnalité se traduit par un ((rapport raisonnables et
considère également«que ce rapport doit en effet êtrerespectéen vertu du
principe fondamental suivant lequel la délimitationentre lesEtats intéresséd soit
êtreéquitable»(C.I.J. Recueil 1982,p. 75, par. 103).Ce qui est raisonnable au
point de vue de la proportion est donc équitable. II s'ensuit aussi que,
inversement, cequi serait déraisonnableau point de vue de la proportion ne
saurait étre considérécomme équitable.
Le deuxiémtpoinr est, dans un certains sens, liéau premier. La Chambre
voudra bien constater l'intérêq tu'il présenteau point de vue de la présente
affaire. A l'occasion de l'arrêtde 1982. la Cour était en nrésence d'une
diisrgznse rl'opini<~ns iur Iüquesiion de uioir $1les fonds iiiiirin, sou,-,.icent,
aux eaux ierrit<irialcsct 3ux CAUX inl>rieurc~:ntreiiI oii rionen ligned~.cumpie
Jans Icrcdlculi dc la ~ro~oriionn~lit~A cet Crird 13Cour :Ir~ulienCIcrblc SI
circonstances et des ionditions de l'espèce,en excluant «qu'il euste une règle
générale de droit qui imposerait d'apprécierdans tous lescas la proportionalité
en appliquant l'uneou l'autre de cesdeux méthodes»(ibid.). Ainsi, la relativité
soulignéepar la sentence arbitrale de 1977est précisée davantage. Chaque fois
que les deux
«calculs aboutiraient à des résultats différents. cesont les circo~st~n~-s~ ~~ ~-..
priinentei propres -ila r>gionqui permettront Jr dire ,i. pour sr.prononL.cr
sur I'>q.~itcdu risult~i. ce \ont le, plus Zicnducsoit les plus rcstrcintcs Jzs
wrix'cs qui duiicni ?ire conipar>es,, (Cl J. Rrrr~t,r1l982. p. 7h. pdr 102)
Ce~endant - et c'est là le troisièmeooinr - cette référence aux circonstances
~ ~ ~
pertiaentes propres à la régionn3impiiquenullement l'absencede tout critère
pour déterminerquelles sont lescirconstances qui, dans un cas concret, doivent
êtremisesen cons~dération:~~uisau.ils'.eitde ~-o~orti..nalite.I'éauité imoose
.cul~mcniclcconiparcr ccqui est ~ompardhle., (,hicl.par. IOJI CCII~' répon~eest
simple. mm cn m?nie temps souple. Une lui, Je plu,. Icsouci c<id'?\iier iouie PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI 209
rigidité. Le texte français de l'arrêt«comparer ce qui est comparable» - a
probablement ici un sensun tout petit peu plus large que le texte anglais - «ro
comparelike wiih like». Mais le trait commun des deux textesest surtout à
rechercher dansleur but: indiquer la limite au-delà de laquelle la comparaison
ne serait plus raisonnable; au-del$ de laquelle le résultatde la délimitation ne
serait plus équitableparce qu'il n'est plus raisonnable.
Quant au quarrièmepoinr, ilest lui aussi lià la détermination des circons-
tances à retenir dans I'esoèce.En ce aui concerne la auestion de la orooortion-
naliir'. ledisporitiide I'arréide 1982reprend presquemoi par moi Ic\ lcrmesdes
arr2i.i Je 1969.;iI'e~ccption d'une onlission el d'une addition. I'omijsion est
celleds I'adjcciif ~~limitrophcs»qui qualitidii en 1969 lesEtati de Iï mèmcrtgion
dont on dcvait tenir conipie pour I'evdlu~tion deIJproportionnslité. L'addition
cçt cellede I'ïdjeciif ~~pcriineni~our qualifier la partie dIïc6ie du littoral de
chaque Eiai liprcndrc cn considérationpour lecalcul de la ~ro~ortionnïliié. Or.
àmon sens.oareille addition a oour butd'indiau. .aue danschaauedélimitation
ilpeut y avoir un «cadre deréférence)q )ui peut être essentieplour déterminerce
qui entre en ligne decompte aussi bien,en définitive, que pour définirlestermes
mêmes de la comparaison. C'estici qu'il faut notamment situer ceque lesParties
ont appelé dansla présenteprocédure les amodèles de proportionnalité» -
r(proportiona1ityinodels)).
Cinquièmepoint Icomplèteet résumelesautres. En calculant lerapport entre
la longueur respectivedescôtes pertinentes et des zones deplateau continental
de la Libye et de la Tunisie, la Cour a pris soin de préciserque «ce résultat,qui
tient compte de toutes les circonstances pertinentes,parait satisfaire au critère
de proportionnalité en tant qu'aspect de l'équité» (C.I.J.Recueil1982,p. 91,
par. 131).Cette formule me parait particulièrement heureuse,car elle incorpore
dans un tout le cadre de la proportionnalité et sa nature en tant que critère, ou
resr,selon le mot qui figure dansla version anglaisemaisqui estdésormaisentré
dans les autres idiomes. La o. .ortionnalité. ce n'est donc oas un orincine de
droit - commecertains auicurs et p~rfois mèmenoseoniraJicicurs l'ont cru - ni
unsméthodcdedélimitaiion. ni unecirconstanrr pertinente. ni -enfin et surtout
- le fondement d'un titriiuridiaue de Dar elle-&me. C'est un critère. un resr.
pourempécherquela «dispropo;tion» n'entraine lecaractère déraisonnabled'un
résultat auquelon doit aboutir par le biais de I'équitéinfra legem.
Cela dit,ilconvient d'ajouter quelquesconsidérationstrès sommairessur un
si.~ièmeuoini. On a vu que la pro~ortionnalité est l'un des asvectsde l'éauité
parce &'elle constitue éssenti&ment un test de I'équité. on doit ajouter
aussitôt que laproportionnalité n'est pasle seul test de I'équité,tout enétantde
loin leplus importaiit. Cette possibilitéa été évoquéen destermesconcretspar
le Gouvernement du Canada dans son contre-mémoire (oar. 719-7221et i'v , ,,
reviendrai à la fin de mon exposé.Ce qu'il faut souligner ici, c'est que l'idée
mêmedel'équité- qu'il s'agissede I'équitéinfra ou extra ou mémeconrra/mm
-est fonction d'un résultaiet que la proportion est donc l'un desmoyenspour
appréciersi un résultatestéquilibréou si, au contraire, ilestdéraisonnable.En
d'autres termes, nous ne croyons pas pouvoir souscrire à une conception
restrictive destestsde I'équité.Bien au contraire, et tout en admettant que dans
la délimitation des esoacesmaritimes la o. .ortionnalité ioue un rôle ~rimor-
dial. il Nui garder I'esprii ouLeri et envisagerIï possihiliiC. au lil desafdires qui
se succédcronidCsormais.que le, diiitrents aspectsde I'équitéPiissentxpparaiire
à leur tour des critères différents et complimentaires -pour l'évaluation des
résultats.
Le souci du Gouvernement du Canada dansceteffort de systématisation aété
de montrer comment et pourquoi nous avons apprécié l'Œuvrede la Cour,210 GOLFE OU MAINE
accomoaenéenar celle du tribunal arbitral anelo-francais. dans le déveloow-
ment pro~rcssi'fdccc que l'on pourrait appeler droit de la proportionnali~é'ct.
plus géneralenient.<lestests de I'cquité.Mon amhition étaitcelle d'aportcr ici
une ixtite pierrejI'edificede ceLaa,in Pruwrrs,. ccdroit inhcri dans ledomaine
des délimhations maritimes. Ici. on l'a vu. la orooortichnalité est une idée
relativement récente,parce que &suede lxexpans;on'dela juridiction des Etats
côtiers au-delà des limites traditionnelles de la mer territoriale. II ne faudrait
oourtant oas croire au'il s'aeit d'une innovation absolue dans le domaine du
hruii. La Parue advuse s'cstrmplo)ée i ce propos i rechercher des antécédents
dan\ dei délimitîtions fluvialesou Iacustrcs. Qu'il nous soit permis d'exprimer
lei di>utei les plus sirieu* sur I'exaciitude et I'uiilitéde ces réf?rcnces.Mais ce
serait abuser de la patience de la Chambre que de s'arrêter à une telle querelle,
parce que personne ne conteste que l'idéede base de la proportionnalité existe
depuis toujours dans le droit et chez lesjuristes. C'est une notion qui, on l'a vu,
ne manque certes pas de légitimitéen droit administratif, dans le droit de la
responsabilitéou en droit pénal.Le droit international la connaissait aussi, et il
suffitde songer à cet égardau traitement des minorités.C'est donc une idéede
base, celledont I'ondoit s'inspirerici pour l'appréciationdes divers aspects de la
présenteaffaire: c'est, en définitive.la recherche d'un équilibre,sans la rigidité
que pourraient lui conférer des calculs strictement mathématiques mais, au
contraire, avec la souplesse qui découledu caractère «raisonnable» de I'évalua-
tion. Au fond. Monsieur le Président.Messieurs les iue.s- on oourrait simnle-
ment rctcnir. sur Ic pl~n le plus gcncr~l, ce que Munie\quieu Jiwil ddns les
I.crrrt~spt2rsonz(px. 1021li propos du rapport entre lesfautesCI lespeine,: <<La
proportion . est comme l':me des Etats et I'harnionie des Emoirei. .,<:'?sibien
cet& harmonie que nous allons maintenant rechercher dans le golfe du Maine.
II. LA néüio~ A DÉLIMITERET LES ZONES QUI LA COMPOSENT
On a vu ainsi pourquoi tout calcul de proportionnalité, pour ne pas être
arbitraire, doit prendre en considération les circonstances et les conditions de
l'espèce.S'agissant de la délimitation d'une frontière maritime il s'ensuit qu'il
faut localiser un «cadre de référence)n)our individualiser une ou. lecas échéant.
plusieurs zoncs. d~ns lcsquellcs Ics circonrtanrcs et Irs conditions de\,icnnent
wriinentes a I'espéceci pourront ïinsi aioir une influence sur Irs calculs exigcs
par le test de la proportionnalité.
Les Parties auant à elles sont d'ailleurs d'accord sur la nécessitd'établir de
tels cadres de kférence. Là où, par contre, elles ne sont plus d'accord, c'est sur
leur définition concrète. Pareilledivergence ne doit cependant pas étonner. La
liene de démarcation maritime aui corresnond à la nrgtention exorbitante de la
partic ad\,erseest en effettellem~ntderaisonnable. q;e c'estseulementau prix de
l'invention de cadres de r2lcrcnce arbitraires\,airemêmetémcr~irei,que I'on
oourrait chercher à iustifier un tracéaussi déséquilibré du point de vue de la
proportionnalité. -
Le Gouvernement canadien, pour sa part, s'est efforcéde placer le problème
sur le terrain de la souplesse, comme l'exige l'idée mêmdee la proportionnalité.
C'est ainsi qu'il ad'abord adoptécomme point de départl'objet de la présente
affaire tel qu'il est déiar lecompromis lui-même,c'est-à-dire, la délimitation
de la frontièremaritime dans la régiondu golfe du Maine. On peut constater dès
l'abord, à ce propos, que les Parties semblent êtred'accord pour considérer
ladite régioncomme constituéepar deux parties. L'une est cellecernéepar les
côtes situéesà l'intérieurdu golfe lui-même.L'autre est celle qui s'ouvre à
l'extérieurdu golfe: elle est caractérisée latéralemenptar les côtes du littoral PLAIDOIRIEDE M. MALINTOPPI 211
atlantique qui s'étendentde manièreindéfiniede part et d'autre et qui débordent
par conséquentla «régiondu golfen proprement dite.
Or. si I'on orend comme ooint de déoart cette bioartition de la réeio- à
JI:rnarqucr. I'onpeut aiI:meni amnicncer pJr sedcrnandcr ,i lecritcre- ou rzrr
de la proportioniialiic ne cdc\raii pas lui auw Cireappliquéscp;irémeniddni
chacune deidites parties.
Bien entendu, il ne nous échappepas que c'est bien l'ensembledu trace de la
frontière quidoit aboutir à un résultat compatible avec ltestde la proportion-
nalité. Mais l'application du test se ferait au moyen de deux opérations
techniauement distinctes. Et il a assez de circonstances oarticulièresàchacune
des deux sous-régionsen question pour qu'ellespuissent jouer un rôle important
dans l'application du critèrede la proportionnalité.
Au cours de la procédureécrite;Ie~Gouvemement canadien a soulignéque
l'on peut appliquer sans difficultéau secteur intérieur - le golfe du Maine
proprement dit - un test de proportionnalité fondésur la mesure du rapport
entre la longueur des côtes et l'ampleur des espaces maritimes,et ce parce que le
-olfedu Maine est uneentitéclairement définie.enserréeDarlescôtes des Parties
et aux lirniir.>;ii,cmcni idcniifiahlc~ 11.ménioircdu Canada, pdr 37u) L.ts
Partic, ont par 3illeursreconnu quc legolfe peut :ire frrmc Ju c6i; de la nitr p:ir
une ligne iirce depuis le cap Jc Sahlcjiijqu'i I'ileJe Nantuckei. IIfournit doni
un cddrc - ou. si I'on prr:iérc.un ious-cadre J l'intérieurduquel peu\.eiit Ctre
deirrminI:c\ ohjcciiiementi 13foi>la Ii~ngueiirder côtes et l'&tenduede\ espaces
maritime,. IIn'estpoint hew~in;<c~:ttenn,d'éch313uderJ~~~~~~~~CI~S~~~COIIIC~~I-
ques et de les superposer à la géographie physique.Qui plus est, les-rapports
entre la longueur des côtes et l'espacemaritime à l'intérieurdu golfe du Maine
dissipent tout doutequant au caractèreproportionnéde la lignecanadienne, et à
la disproportion flagrante de la revendication des Etats-Unis. Les rapports
mathématiques auxquels je fais allusion sont ceux donnés pour le secteur
intérieur à la colonne I du tableau reproduit à la figure 106 de votre dossier
@ (figure 51 du contre-mémoiredu Canada).
A l'extérieurdu golfe du Maine lui-même, lasituation géographique est
sensiblement différente.Comme nous l'avons vu, la frontièredébouchesur une
vaste étendue maritime qui n'est plus encadrée par des terres. Les côtes des
Parties s'étendent à l'infini au nord-est et au sud-ouest, suivant le littoral
atlantique de l'Amérique du Nord. L'équilibre géographique des côtes est
évident. Et,pour autant que l'oncompare cequi est comparable, ilest tout aussi
évidentque les côtes des Parties qui bordent ce secteur sont à peu près de la
mêmelongueur.
II y a sans doute des analogie!; remarquables entre cette situation et celle
envisagéepar le tribunal arbitralanglo-français de 1977.Le tribunal arbitral a
alors indiqué que la régionatlantique se distinguait principalement par le fait
au'elle n'étaitoas encadrée maisiiu'elle s'étendaitau laree des côtes des deux
p3)s adans Ichcrpscei libres de l'\)<ZanAiliiniiqueo (sentence, par. 233) I,e
irihunala consiJcr2 lescllets pr<~p.>rti~nncsu disproporii<mnéiiies re\,eiidicn-
lions en foiicii,in de 1'r:uuilihrecénéralder ciitz, uui hordeni elfecii\emrni la
région.Nous estimonsêireen droit de nous demander ici pourquoi I'ondevrait
adopter une approche différente,alors mêmeque la situation concernant la
partie extérieurede la régiondu golfe du Maine est encore plus indéterminée.
C'est d'ailleurs nour cette raison. Monsieur le Président.Messieurs ld u ,ees.
que le Canada dans ses écritures s'est interrogé sur ie mérite réel d'une
évaluationde la proportionnalitédans lesecteurextérieurau moyen de «modèles
géométriques».Lorsqu'on est en présenced'une régionindéterminée,I'utilisa-
lion d'un modèle géométrique peuetffectivementdonner l'illusionde la précision212 GOLFE DU MAINE
mathématique. Mais il s'agitjustement d'une illusion. Le tribunal arbitral, qui
étaitappeléen 1977à se prononcer sur une situation si comparable à la nôtre,
n'a oas considéréqu'il étaitnécessairede recourir à un instrument pareil. II n'a
pas cherchéàenclore une régionque la nature elle-même a affranchie de limites
nrbriseq
r--Dans une telleoptique, bien entendu, on n'ajamais songéle moins du monde
à ôter au critèrede la ~ro~ortionnalitésa valeur en tant sue testde I'éauitéL . e
poini cs,sntiel c,i que I'cnjcniblcdc Iï 7uns extCricurccii dans se cas carastirisc
par un Cquilibrcinhercni et glùhal L'ÿpplicaiiondu criierc dc la propi)rtionna-
IitCdemeure indiipcnsïbli alin ds vir~i.crqu'il n'? ail pa, J'cl~nicnii g>i>gra-
ohiaues introduisant des distorsions. Mais une fois aue cette oossibiliiéaété
LxcLe, la proportion est in re ipsa à cause du caractèie «ouveA» de la zone.
Le Gouverriement des Etats-Unis, pour sa part, ne conteste pas en réalité
le caractère «ouvert » et par conséquent - et dans un certain sens - ((indéter-
miné))de la zone situéeà l'extérieurdu golfe. La Partie adverse semble plutôt
considérerqu'ilserait néanmoinspossibledecerner la zoneextérieureaussi dans
un cadre de référence établien utilisant des méthodes géométriques (IV, contre-
mémoiredes Etats-Unis. oar,.308-309).Nous avons vu. Monsieur le Président.
Messieurslesjuges, lesraisons de principe qui peuvent faire douter que, dans des
zonesouvertes et indéterminées telleqsue la partie situéeàl'extérieurdu golfe,le
critère dela o. .ortionnalité s'aoo.. .e de la mêmemanièreet dans lesmêmes
conditions quc d~ns unc 7onc au\si hisii déliniitcssi determinCeqiic 1.1partie
ini>ricuredu golfs proprcnicni dit \lai5 il ) 4lï unc r>icr\e technique inspircc
par la notion et paf l'essence mêmd ee la proportionnalitéen tant que critèredu
caractère éauitable des démarcations maritimes. En d'autres termes. si nos
honorables coniridictcur\ Jemeureni toujours de I'arihde >rmainisnir lid>lcsa
cc!ciprit de giurnéiricüriifi~~icllec.h hien. nous n'.ii,onspas13 muindrc dilficiilic
à montrer comment des cadres globaux de référence pourraient être construits
qui comprennent la partie intcric ~UISI hien q~ï 13zonc cxiérieuredu golfe. Si
wpcndani un tel priicL:Jin'sri pïs cn nicsurs Je donner Id moindrc saiialaciiiin
aux prétentionsde la Partie adverse, la responsabilité n'en revienc tertes pas au
Gouvernement du Canada.
Mais ai,ant d'abordcr cc5cadres ou modelss glohau~. un ceriain nonihrc dc
cimstaiaiions ci de coniiJCrations s'imposcnt la prcmiCrc consi;iiaiion cil
facileàfaire. Tout en admettant que nous sommesen réalité en présenc dee deux
zones dans la réeiondu eolfe du Maine (mémoire des Etats-Unis.oar. 25). le ..
Gou\crnrmeni dcs Etats-Unis s.ip~riaiismcni conscisnt ds Id faiblesse iiisur-
monrablc dc sa poqitiùn si I'apprcci~iionJu resrde IJ proporiionnaliie Je\.aii SC
faire sur la hase de deux zones séparéeset caractérisées-pardes particularités
d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
L'insistancede la Partie adverse sur la recherche d'un cadre global est donc
déiàun indice significatifdes difficultésd'aoplication du test de la orooortion-
ndité lorsaue les-orétentionsd'une Partie sont si exorbitantes.
C'rsi donc pou; sortir de cetir imp3sscque la Pïriic adverse suggèreun cddrc
glohal de rcfircncc qui comprend les dcu~ zonss de la rcgion. Ccpsndani, Ir.
procCJI:suivipdr ellepour consiruire un telsadrs n'csipas ,culcmcni ortiiicicl II
est aussi -et iurtoui - artificieuxvu qu'il ie traduii par unc \iriiablc giiiion Je
pnncipç. Nos honorable5 contradicieurs ont en rcdliikcisayCJe biiir desc3drcs
ou modèlesdc réfer:ncs en ïaisant pi\,oi sur la froniiérequ'ilj deniandeni i la
Chambre de leur adiuee* -ans se-soucier le moins du -monde des données
objcciivei dr la gkographic 1.3géométrie duni s'inspircnilescïdrcs de rGi2rensc
de IJ Partie ad\rr!e est donc une geomciric \uhjecii\e et. dèslors. arbitraire.
De toute évidence,on n'a pascompris de l'autrecôtéde la barre que la réserve canadienne quant au r6le effectifde la proportionnalité dans la partie extérieure
de la région maritime à délimiter invitait la Partie adverse à réfléchirsur
l'absence, dans l'ensemblede la région,d'un cadre naturel. II faut donc, si I'on
veut, en construire un ou, si I'on préfère, plusieurs. Maiscela toujours bien
entendu en partant des données objectives afin de ne pas tomber dans le
subjectivisme et dans l'arbitraire. En d'autres termes, il faut que tout cadre de
référenceait des bases et aue ces bases soient aussi obiectivesaue oossible oar
rapport à la configuration des lieux. Et puisqu'il s'agit de 'bidr un cadre
d'ensemble,ilfaut égalementque la configuration des lieuxfasse elleaussi l'objet
d'une aooréciation d'ensemble.
Cc,Jcrnier point nous ,ciiible .~\oir une importance wpit;ile dans kapr2scnte
alfaireCI nou, dllons le \air immedi~tcment. r\\;lnt de cc Paire,13 ('hlimbre me
permettra cependant de rappeler un passage essentiel de la sentence arbitrale
anglo-française de 1977,là où letribunal souligneque lecritèrede la proportion-
nalité sertaussi à éviterles effets disproportionnés de certains facteurs naturels
(par. 101).De toute évidence cela idoits'appliquer également à la réalisationd'un
cadre global de référenceM . ais revenons au passage de la sentence de 1977:
«Le facteur de proportionnalité peut se présenter sous la forme d'un
rapport entre l'étenduedu plateau continental et la longueur des côtes de
chaque Etat, comme ce fut lecas dans les affairesdu Plareau conrineniol de
la mer du Nord. Mais il peut égalements'agir - cela est pluscourant - d'un
facteur nermeitant d'établirsides caractéristiaueseéoeraohiaues ou confi-
. .
gur:itioiis pnrti2uli~r~sont un elTe1r~isonnahie ou déraisonnrhlr. c'quii~hls
ou inéquit~hlesur le tr..cc'd'iinc Iimilc &quiditante.>8(Par. 100 )
Sous sa deuxièmeforme, lecritèredc la proportionnalité nous donne ainsi des
élémentsdont I'onne saurait faire abstraction dans la construction de cadres de
référenceglobaux dans la présente affaire. C'estpourquoi la construction d'un
cadre global de référence exige beaucoup plus de prudence et de caution que
celles témoignéespar la Partie adverse au long de la procédure écrite.
III. LESCADRESDE RÉFÉRENCEDES ETATS-UNIS
J'en viens donc à examiner le!;cadres de référenceproposés par la Partie
adverse. Je devrais plutôt parler ici d'un cadre, au singulier, vu qu'en réalitéle
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis n'a utilisé,jusqu'à présent,qu'un seul modèlede
base, doubléil est vrai d'un certain nombre de variantes (dont l'une leur semble
olus imoortante aite les autres). oui témoienent deià des incertitudes dont la
positioi; de nii. l;(nnorÿblci co'nt~idictcurs>st .alTe;t&een se qui concerne le
problcme de la proportionn3lité (:el3 dit. r~ppclon. to~t de suite que le m<iJclr
Vb e.t celui dui :inmr.iiiIJti~urs31du mGmoiredes Etata.Unis et aue nous .ivun>
reoroduii sur'notre carte de base au. ..narait en ce moment dans la boîte à
im:igcs ii<ôtéde nioi II ligure Ggalementdani \,aire dossier au numerci 107.
c.idrc C. Ainsi que \.ou\ le \o).e7 I'cxagcr3tion de cc iniiJCleau dc'trimentdu
Canada cit telle qu'il débordeIs iiiarge ext>rieurcdc notre c3rte. .\lais jc L.rois
qu':ii.ecun tout petit etforr d'imsi!inatii)n on peut prolonger c:s deux Iigncset.
hors de la boite. Giahlir le point uu elles se rencontrent.
Monsieur le Prc'aident.le\ dcF~iitide cc iitodkle saurent aux yeux. Et cc. sur
auatre erands ooints: Prernièrernenr.la oosition des limites latéraleschoisies var
Ir\ Filits-Unisproduit un désequilihregeographiquc. B~~i~ir<:~fi~~ »3dinrre.ction
des lignesqui con,tituent ce, limitcs n'est pas étilhlieen ionctide sritcre, issus
Je la cc'ocraohicde 12 réeionnertinrnte. ?'rni.sr<'m,~m,~ le»ir.Etais-L'nis dii'or-
ment encore davantage la régionsoumise au iesi en lui attribuant une limite214 GOLFEDU MAINE
inappropriéedu cotédu large. Quatrièmement, les Etats-Unis excluent lescotes
et les eaux de la baie de Fundy sans la moindre justification.
Premièrement, donc, le modèle proposé par les Etats-Unis introduit un
déséquilibredans la géographie. Mais la première chose qui frappe, c'est
l'absence totale, complète,absolue de symétrie quil'entache et qui découledu
choix arbitraire des limites latérales. Lecadre de référence que nos honorables
contradicteurs souhaiteraient voir adonter ne s'étendvas au sud-ouest de I'ilede
Uaniucket. ce qui est la preu\c d'une Jiscrr:tiun Cionnanic mais qui jusciie
inimcdiatcmcnt une suspicion légitime.En re!anche. lorsqu'on passe de I'auire
c6iC.c'est Iü rdurmandi,~ uui I'em~ortesur la discrétion Lc cadre de rr:i?renw
proposé par Ta Partie advérses'éiendainsi au nord-est, même au-delàde la
régionqui d'aprèsnous est celledu golfe, pour dépasser Halifaxet pour aboutir
finalement à la hauteur de l'isthme de Chignectou tout au fond de la baie de
Fundy (mémoiredes Etats-Unis, p. 205, par. 317). Oui, la mème baie qu'ils
essaieront plus tard d'écarter. Ehoui. En effet, mêmele plus grand effort
d'imagination ne saurait ètre sans limites. Bienentendu, nous connaissons tous
la théorie desauatre chaneements de direction de la cote. aui est si chèreà la
Partie adverse ét qui se ir~zuit concretcmenl p3r l'<<annulaii6n,.de 13 Nouvelle.
Ecossccomme si ce1<<accidcnd i e Idnÿturen.de\,raii avoir le bon goUtdc ne pas
hirc ohsiarle i la urétcntion niarlma Je la Pdriie ;id\cr,e Mais en rc~lité.
Messieurs. l'observation la olus oertinente à faire n'est oas là. La Cour me
permettraici une trèscourte digressiond'ordre généraq luiLiselesbases lesplus
sensiblessur lesquellesla Partie adverse aimerait fonder toute sa demande.
Nous serions en effet tentésde poser à la Partie adverse une question fort
simple. LaCour sait bien comment la Partie adverse s'est efforcée de soutenir,
contre toute évidence, l'inexistence de liens pertinents entre la Nouvelle-Ecosse
(et mêmede cette partie de la Nouvelle-Ecosse qui est situéeau sud de
Lunenburg) et la régiondu golfedu Maine, qu'il s'agissede la partie interne ou
de la zone extérieure.
Et voici la question: Comment, dans ces conditions, peut-on prétendre
pousser les limitesdu cadre de référence trèsloin au nord-est, et méme an-delà
d'Halifax, sans avouer en mêmetemps qu'il existedes liensà la foissubstantiels
et directs entre la plus grande partie de la Nouvelle-Ecosseet la régiondu golfe
du Maine? De deux choses l'une.Ou bien I'onadmet ces liens substantiels et
directs, mais alors toute la toile de fond de l'argumentation des Etats-Unis
s'effondre et l'équilibre des intérêtesn jeu dans la zone du golfe penche
définitivementdu cotécanadien; ou bien I'onpersiste à nier l'évidencede ces
liens substantiels et directs, mais alors c'est le cadre de référencavancépar les
Etats-Unis aui ne tient olus debout.
Si le maique de symétriedu modèle suggérépar les Etats-Unis ne saurait
nullement étrejustifié,on peut néanmoinsessayer de l'expliquer. Evidemment,
cette exolicatio-nne sauraii orendre aooui sur lescaractéristiauesnaturelles aui
fournisient une base ob,ecti;,e pour eiiadrer le secteur. Les Eiats-unis ont ti;ut
simplement allirmévansauirr explication que I'ilede Nantucket el un point sur
la cStc situé j.14milles (V. réplique desEtats-Lnis. par. 270) i l'estJ'HaliF~x
constituent des limitesaoorooriées.Et ceooint à l'esta~alifax se trouverait sur
unc ligne pcrpendicul;ii;éà 'l'isthmede ~hi~ncciou (mémoiredes Eiats.Unis.
par 312)au fond de la baie de Fundy. Mais nous ignorons ioui des caraci&nsii-
uues s&-iales qui iuslilient I'uiilisaiii>nde ces noints narticuliers nour ciablir les
limites latérale;déla~zon~ ~ ~ ~se au test.
Une fois de plus, Monsieur le Président,Messieurs lesjuges, I'onest en droit
de se demander si l'artificedu modèle avancépar les Etats-Unis ne consiste pas,
tout simplement, dans la nécessitéd'adopter comme point de dépari la PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI 215
prétention maxima qu'ils ont avancée dèsle début de la phase judiciaire du
différendau. ooo..e les Parties. Avant décidéà l'avance aue le modèle devait
justifier unetellr prCieniion. ilfallaii é\idcmmcnialler aussi loin que nkcssairc
au long de ILcôte de 13 Nouvelle-Ecosse versle nord-esi pour que la frontière
demandéedevienne l'axepassant par le centre du cadre de référenceA . u lieude
olacer la frontière demandéedans un cadre oossédantau moins des ooints de
~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~
repire objxiifs. 13 Partie adverse vous a soumis un modèlcqui est 13 projeciion
géoniéiriqucariilicielled'une ligne dCji artificicuscpar elle-mime. Au poinl de
vuede l'application du criicredc proportionnalité.voili pourquoi le modcledes
Eiats-Unis se irad~ii donc par une pétitionde principe \,Criilihle
J'rn \,irns mainienant i ma dcuxienie criiique. En elret. scite mimc approche
cx~liquc une deuxiémclacune imriorixnie du modélcdes Etats-Unis. que 1.21
reievie il va auelaues instants. ~ebeux oarler de la direction emoruntéeoar-les
,..
Iignei qui ) boni uiiliséescomme limitesla1er31es.IIs'agiiJc pcrpcndiculaires i
ceque le<Etais.Unis assunicni itisla direciion gCniralr du Iiitoral ïtlaniiquc i
une cchcllc coniincnialc III.memoirr dcs Elai\-Uni\. txiir.3121.Et. comine on
pouvait s'y attendre. la'direction de ces perpendic;laires coïncide en tous
points avec celle de la ligne revendiquée par les Etats-Unis - je veux
évidemmentparler des portions non ajustéesde leur ligne perpendiculaire. La
mêmeconception de la macrogéographie etlesmêmesperceptions erronéesdes
faits sous-tendent à la fois la revendication des Etats-Unis et leur test. Mes
collègueset amis ont déjàdémontréque la description de la côte donnéedans
lesécrituresdes Etats-Unis n'est aucunement confirméepar la géographie.En
fait, aucun autre point litigieux sur le plan de la géographiene divise aussi
profondément les Parties.
L'application du modèlede proportionnalitéa pour effetde faire basculer les
limites latéralesbien nlus à l'estaue ne le iustifierait l- W .eraohiede la réuion
pertinente - et, partant, elle fausse le rapport entre les côtes et les espaces
maritimes au détrimentdu Canada. Lesdimensions mémesdu modèlemontrent
bien l'étenduede la distorsion. La limitelatéraledu côtécanadien estoortee àun
point siiuk i 419 millesmarins du poinl icrrcsirc des Eiais-Unis le pius proche
Par ailleurs.13 limitelatéraledu côtédes Etats-Unis s'éicndjusqu'i un poinl qui
n'estéloigné que de 295millesdu point terrestrecanadien le plus proche. Où est
I'éauilibre? Où est la svmétrie?Voilà Monsieur le Président. MessieurslesiueeAU.
des'questions de pure'réthorique.
Nous avons déjàvu que la position des limites latéralesdu modèle des Etats-
Unis n'a d'autre fondement que la revendication des Etats-Unis elle-méme.
Maintenant. Monsieur le Président.nous oouvons voir aue la direction au'em-
pruntent ce; limites latéralesest encachéepar le mêmedé'fautD . ans chaq;e cas,
les critères utilisés tiennent tout simplement pour acquise la validité des
prémisses.Je ne croispas devoir m'étendredavantage sur l'évidente«circularité»
de ce raisonnement.
Yen viens maintenant à mon troisièmepoint, à savoir que les Etats-Unis ont
déforméla zone soumise au critèrcen adoptant, dans leur modèle de base, une
limite vers le laree aui n'est oas aoorooriée. Je noterai en oassant aue cette
question n'a pas;raiment été'soul&ée Commepoint distinci dans l'affaire du
Plareauconrinenral(Tunisie/Jamahiriyaarabe libyenne). Une fois que la Cour
avait fixédes limites latéralesau moyen de méridienset de parallèlesiirésdepuis
Ras Tadjoura et Ras Kapoudia (C.I.J. Recueil1982, p. 91, par. 139),la limite
vers le large a étéautomatiquement déterminéepar l'intersection de ces deux
lignes à cause de l'angle d'opposition des côtes des deux Etats. II n'en est pas
ainsi dans la présente affaire.Et,comme les Etats-Unis I'ont soulignédans leur
réplique,quatreoptions différentesont jusqu'à maintenant été offertesà la Cour216 WLFE DU MAINT
àcette fin (par. 277.) La variété même doesptions disponibles ne peut que nous
amener à nous interroger sur la validitéde tout le processus.
Et il y a un point auquel j'accorderai une importance particulière. C'est
précisémentparce que les Parties ne pouvaient se mettre d'accord que le
compromis a prévule recours àun triangle. Le triangle étaitnécessaireparce que
lesParties ne pouvaient s'entendresur l'utilisationd'un critère spécifcomme
une courbe isobathe en tant que limite vers le large pour cette phase de la
délimitation.Elles ont donc adopté le triangle comme une sorte de définition
conventionnelle d'une région à l'extérieurde laquelle les revendications des
Parties dans ce secteur ne pourraient plus se chevaucher.
N'empêcheque ce triangle, ainsi qu'on le verra, présenteune importance
particulièrepour la solution du problèmequi nous occupe. Mais revenons aux
défauts intrinsèauesdu modèlesueeéréoar nos adversaires. Une foisde olus. la
limite eilièrieurede ce modèlefait ressortir dr hcon non équivoquele caractère
arbitraire de laconslructton d~ns son ensemble. Les Etats-Unis un1 fermc:Ir
secteur extérieurau moyen d'une ligne droite joignant les points d'intersection
des ligneslatéraleset lalimiteexterne des zonesde 200 millesmarins des Parties
(mémoiredes Etats-Unis, p. 192, par. 312). Cette distorsion a pour effet
d'englober dans la zone soumise au critèreune étendue de 14600millesmarins
carrés au-delàdes limites de 200 millesdes Parties- toute cette superficieétant
extérieureàla régionàdélimiteret par conséquentàla tâche qui est confiéeà la
Chambre.
Yen ai ainsi terminéavec les oremiers trois ooints aui me semblent devoir
sufirc pour rejcierIdconception mêmequi est à la hasedu modele introduii par
lc mémoire desEiais-Unis. en ce qui concerne nolammrnt ses limiteslaiCralescl
vers le large. J'ajouterai comme quatrième point que les Etats-Unis ont, à tort,
exclu les càtes et les eaux de la baie de Fundv. De l'avis du Canada. cette
exclusion n'est aucunement justifiéeni en droit, ni dans les faits.
Je m'excuseauprèsde la Chambre de devoir m'étendrequelque peu sur cette
question, mais la Partie adverse semble y attacher un teÏprix que je me vois
obligéde montrer à la Chambre pourquoi la position qu'on aadoptée sur ce
point de l'autre côté dela barre est dénuéede tout fondement.
Plutôt que de mesurer lescàtes en s'appuyant sur la géographie physique,les
Etats-Unis voudraient en etïet représentertoutes les côtes de la baie de Fundy
par une seule lignedroite tirée entravers de son entrée (contre-mémoire des
Etats-Unis, par. 307). Par conséquentla longueur naturelle des côtes de la baie
de Fundy se trouve réduitea la longueur de cette ligne artificielle.Bienentendu
les calculs de la orooortionnalité en résultanten sont inévitablementaffectés.
Une fois de plus,'ce4u'on demande à la Chambre c'est belet bien que le resrde
l'équité se fassseur la base de fictionset non pas en rapport avec la réalité des
lie& Ainsi, aprèsavoirvainementessayéde refaire la en éliminantla
Nouvelle-Ecosse entant que presqu'ile,la Partie adverse essaieicipar contre de
la rattacher à la càte du Nouveau-Brunswick comme si la baie de Fundy
n'existaitpas. Le but de l'opérationapparait au grand jour, si l'on considèreque
les côtes de la baie de Fundv sont environ de 250 milles marins de lone
lursqu'ellessont mesurècsselon le principe des facadesc6ticres reprcçeniant leur
direction géniralz.Or. 13 ligne de cliiture proposéepar les Etats-Cnis dépasse
i mine 50 mille>marins. Par conséuuent.l'utilisstion de cette Iirne réduitde
80 pour cent lescôtes de la baie de ~undy, les ramenant au cinqiième de leur
longueur réelle.
Je pense que la position des Etats-Unis soit indéfendablepour la simple et
bonne raison qu'elle fausse radicalement le géographie physique.La baie de
Fundy fait partie intégrante dela régionpertinente. Elle n'estni une caractéris- PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI 217
tique mineure ni une irrégularité de la côte.Au contraire, elleest forméepar des
facades côtières étendues et elle constitue Dar conséauent une conmosante
iGportante de la configuration générale.ce; faits à eux seuls e~i~ent'~ueles
côtes de la baie de Fundy ne soient pas écartéespour l'application du testde la
proportionnalité.
La position des Etats-Unis àcet égardest d'ailleurssurprenante, voire presque
inexplicable, si I'onconsidèrele traitement qu'ilsaccordent à la baie de Fundy à
toutes autres fins. Comme je viens de le dire, les Etats-Unis eux-mêmes
reconnaissent que cette baie fait partie de la régionpertinente. Ils affirmentdans
leur mémoireque la régiondu golfe est constituée d'unecomposante antérieure
et d'une composante extérieure,et que la baie de Fundy est I'unedes «caractéris-
tiques géographiques principales» de la composante intérieure (mémoire des
Etats-Unis, par. 25). Deuxièmement, la côte de la baie de Fundy, du côtédu
Nouveau-Brunswick, est la seulecôte canadienne àl'intérieurdu golfedu Maine
que les Etats-Unis utilisent pour établirla direction de leur lignedite qperpendi-
culaire ajustée» (ibid., par. 203 et par. 301). Troisièmement, les Etats-unis
tiennent le ((quadruple changement)) de direction de la côte canadienne, qui
commence àl'isthmede Chignectou au fond de la baie de Fundy, pour l'une des
caractéristiques géographiques (ibid.,par. 287)dont «les effetsproportionnésou
disproportionnés» doivent étreprisencompteen l'espèce. Enfin,etainsiqu'on l'a
déjà vu,fait révélateurentre tous, lesEtats-Unis se servent du fond de la baie de
Fundy pour marquer la limite orientale de leur modèlede proportionnalité.Oui,
Monsieur le Président,le modèle rnèmedont les côtes de la baie de Fundy sont
exclues.
Monsieur le Président,Messieurs lesjuges, je ne cherche pas à impressionner
la Chambre en faisant valoir lesaberrations de la thèsedes Etats-Unis. Ce aue ie
veux mettre en lumière.c'estaue les Etats-Unis ont reconnu~~ue la eéorrinhje
de I;irégiondu golfedu Mtiinene ,durait Cireévaluée eniiiisani lihstraciion de la
contigur3tion de la baie Je Fundy Et pourtant. la P~rtieadverse aimcriiit faire
oublier tout cela. lorsau'il s'aeit de Gendre le baie en considération oour la
coniiruciion du m,iJ>ie ci Pyr con;équeni pour I'appré:i3tion du iirÿ;t~:re
cquitablc Je I dr:limitïiion que la Cour eit nppcléeiiréaliser.La Partie adverse
voudraii ici.ausi froiderneni que po.sible, ïccrcdiier I'iJis que ILb Iïie de I:unds
doit entrer en ieu à toutes fini utiles. sauf une.
Sdns douie.~5lonsieur le Pr(.,idsnt, nous n'.%von,pas Iï moindre ditlicultr:ii
adnictire que Iccritere de la proporti<)nnnIiiLs:oit appliquéd'une rnaniércsouple
ït \an\ rigidiics noii ~ustifikcs.Mal\ d'ici iiadnietire que cette flexibilité dutr,rr
puisse pnr\enir ;i repousser hori du iable3u une b~iedont 1.0~~ a\ez connu et
appr6iiélcjcara:ieresçt I'nmpleurtout au long de la pre.ienteprocédure.d'ici hi
il y a un pas énorme à franchir et ce n'est certes pas sur la base de simples
affirmations olus ou moins catéeou . .s aue I'on oourrait v oa. .ir.
D'ailleurs.dins la paniï initialede mon exposk cclleconiacrce aux pnncipei
du droit en matiérïde priiponionn~lité-, j'a\nis iouli&nccerwines idks doni on
peut maintenant faire découlerdeux considérationsdune im~ortance caoitale.
La prcrniércest in rr rp\<rCn ri..de I'équitcdoit lui-m2me2tre appliqué d'une
manicre qui soit Cquitliblc. Les criicres adoptis Joi\ent ;Ire appliquésigÿlr-
mcni. Si une inepalite est introduite ddns Ic ItSrrïu dépar!. son ap~lii~iion en
devient inéauitable or.saue..ar définition.De toute gvidence. ie'ne veux vas
parler izi d'inégal~tércrultdni de la <iiuation géographiquerL:cllc.comme 1'3 dit
lnCour en 1969,(ccen'estpas 5 de tellesinégalitonnturclle~que I'cquit~pourrait
porter reniede.. iC.1.J. Rcruztl IYLY. r, 50. Dar.91). Je \.eux parler d'inCralitcs
crééesarbitrairement par un artifice'dépoÛrvudétout caractère de néLssité
inhérentecompte tenu des faits naturels de l'espèce.218 GOLFE DU MAINE
Une ligne artificiellequi réduitde 80 pour cent un long littoral situédans la
régionoertinente - et ce. mêmelorsqu'ilest mesuré selonleprincipe des façades
côyières - constitue précisément un artificede ce genre. Cet artifice détruit
entièrement ce que l'arrêt de1969dans les affaires de la mer du Nord appelle
«l'équilibre nécessaired))ans la comparaison descôtesdes Parties (C.I.J. Recueil
1969, p. 52, par. 98). De plus, et précisémentpour la mêmeraison, il est en
contradiction aveclesenseignementsde laCour, quia établi en1982que «l'équité
impose seulement de comparer ce qui est comparable)) dans le contexte de la
proportionnalité (C.I.J. Recueil 1982,p. 76, par. 104).
La seconde considération d'importance capitale est que le test doit être
appliquéd'une manière qui reflèteles éléments essentiels de la géographie.II
doit, si vous voulez bien me permettre l'expression,«réagir» à la configuration
effectivedes cdtes. C'est d'ailleurs pour cette raison que I'arrêt en l'affairedu
Ploreauconrinenral fTunisieIJamahirivaarabe libvenne Jconclut aue la «. .oor-
tionn31iii SC r.ippo;tci la iongucur de> cdtcs d;s tirs en c~uscci nun i dei
ligne, de hase(IroitcsiracccsIclong JI.ceschtri 0 irhrd.,.Cc piiss~gcde I'ÿrrétne
laisseaucun doute oossible sur I'aÜorochegénérale aui doit ~résideràla mesure
des côtes pour 13ap$cation du res; En unmot, il faut mesirer lescôtes réelles.
Tout le reste est sans intérêt.
Assurément.il est oossible de tracer des lignesdroites pour mesurer les côtes
rrlon leur dirc~tiongincralc Mair ici Iigncs;ni pour scuicfonction Tevïluer la
géographieen rcnxni compte de ses veriiiiblcsproportion\. La Iignzde sldiurc
desEtats-Unis ooursuit un obiectif et produit un résultat exactement inverse.
Elle ne peut mesurer la direction géneraledes côtes qu'elle représente parce
qu'elle se situe pratiquement à angle droit par rapport à ces côtes. Or, par
définition,une ligne qui s'écartesi radicalement de la configuration réelledes
côtes ne saurait apporter une mesure précisede leur étendue.
Le recours àdes lignesdroites pour mesurer la longueur des côtes est souvent
justifiépar la présenced'irrégularités mineures susceptiblesd'allonger artificielle-
ment le littoral. Mais la fermeture d'une baie ou d'un golfe d'une telle
importance, et à pareille échelle,produirait exactement le genre de distorsion
que la méthodeest censéeempêcher.Elle raccourcirait artificiellementle littoral
en faisant abstraction de façades côtièresimportantes situéesà l'intérieurde la
concavité. Elle réduirait à néant la raison d'être dela métbode et, par
conséquent, la validitédu rest lui-même.
Les Etats-Unis trahissent la véritable nature de leur approche lorsqu'ils
suggèrentdans leur répliqueque la baie de Fundy devrait êtretraitée comme
faisant partie du ((territoire terrestre du Canada* (par. 268). N'est-ce pas là
encore une fois tout simplement vouloir refaire la géographie?Cette suggestion
nous parait procéder del'idéeque la baie de Fundy pourrait êtreassimiléeau
territoire de I'Etat côtier comme s'il s'agissait d'une baie susceptible d'être
ferméeen raison de sescaractères géographiques. Mais cette position estde toute
évidence intenable lorsqu'on considèreles dimensions de cette étendued'eau.
Celles-ci sont de loin supérieures aux dimensions maximalesfixéesdans les
conventions de 1958 et de 1982 pour la fermeture des baies. Et, mêmedans
sa partie supérieure,la baie de Fundy ne se resserrejamais jusqu'à la limite de
24 millesacceptéepar le droit international.
En fait, dès 1853, un arbitrage entre la Grande-Bretagne, alors puissance
coloniale, et les Etats-Unis donnait une idéede l'étenduede la baie de Fundy. Je
veux parler de l'arbitrage de Washington (Moore, Inrernarional Arbirrarions,
vol. 4, p. 4342) sur la question de savoir si la baie de Fundy constituait une
«baie»au sensdu traitéde 1818sur lespècheriesdel'Atlantique Nord-Ouest. Et
l'arbitre a décrit la géographiede la régionen cestermes: PLAIDOIRIE DE M. MALINTOPPI 219
(%TheBa). 811Fundy iifront 65 io 75mile. u.ide2nd 13U IO 140niile5Iiing.
II ha\ sc\,criilhd!s on iis :oa\ts. Th~aihe uord hay. as applied IO ihisgrexi
b<~ilyufu,alcr. h~r ihe rame mc~iiiinpcisihal :ipplicd Io the RJVuf Hiscliy.
the Bay of Bengal, over which no nation can have the right to-assume the
sovereigntyl.» (P. 4344.)
«This great body of wa1er.n Celle grande étendued'eau. Eh oui, Monsieur le
Président, Messieurs les juges, il s'agit sans doute d'une zone d'eaux d'une
étendue imposante. Pour s'en faire une idée,il suffitde jeter un coup d'oeil aux
trois surimpressions qui accompagnent la carte de la baie de Fundy, dans la
boite àimages à côtéde moi. Ces images parlent de par elles-mêmesI.I suffitde
comparer la baie de Fundy d'un c6téavec la zone du détroit d'Ormuzou si vous
voulez avec le golfe de Finlande ou, pourquoi pas, avec presque toute la zone
envisagéepar I'arrètde la Cour dans l'affairedu Plateau conrinenrol(Tiinisiel
Jomahiriya arabe libyenne). Et c'est bien aux côtes d'une baie d'une telle
dimension que la Partie adverse lie voudrait reconnaître au'un seul cinauième
d'eilïi aux 'fini de I';ippliwii<~ndu iesi de 1.1propurth>nna~itr:. v0ii.i tine
ni~u\clleerpressioii. le cinquiCnied'cfil~,. On a jusqu'i mainiencint en rend^
parléJans lx iuri,~rudence intein~iion:ilc d'un denii-eiTci,d'un tierr J'cITci.
Non, ici on voudrait introduire une nouvelle notion: le cinquième d'effet: mais
l'étenduedescôtesde la baie de Fundy fait à elle seulejustice de la prétentiondes
Etats-Unis.
Monsieur le Président,Messieurs lesjuges, je ne reviendrai pas ici surd'autres
objections que les Etats-Unis soulèvent dans leur contre-mémoire(par. 307)àla
prise en compte de la baie de Fundy. Nous en avons déjà fait justice aux
paragraphes 668 à 671 de notre contre-mémoire(III) et aux paragraphes 358 à
364 de notre réplique(V). Nous y reviendrons si nécessairedans notre réplique
orale.
Mais je tiens à ajouter un point final sur cette question. Au cours de ces
discussions orales, l'agent du Canada a déjàfait observer (ci-dessus p. 49) que
les côtes de la baie de Fundy ne peuvent, de leur propre chef, donner naissance
qu'à une extension vers le large très limitée.Ces côtes sont géographiquement
désavantagées,et dans une grave mesure, du fait de leur concavité.Nous ne
demandons oas à la Chambre de remédieràcette inéauité.carcelle-cirésultede ~ ~ ~
Iiigéographieelle-m2mc Mais nous ne vo)on\ p~ pourquoi iliaudr~ii ;+jouteri
I'inCquiieen reiujani de tenir conipic dc cesc6le5pi~urI'apprcci:iiionde I'ei(ui1C
du résultatd'ensemble.
L'audienceest levée à 12h 55
'/Traduciionl «La baiedeFundvmesure de 65à75 millesdelameet de 130à 140 milles
de iong. Sescstes présententpl&ieurséchancruresA . ussile terne baie, lorsqu'ilest
appliqüc d site grÿndr iiendui d'eau.doit-ila\rilrIdrnr'rndicepilon que le nii golfr.
utilirpdur Ji:.>igncrrgiilicdrCiascogneciIr.pullcduLlcngdlc \urIr<~uel~s~cun~,naiion
n'r.3en drolide prétendre .i13 rri.tversinc,,c NEUVIÈME AUDIENCE PUBLIQUE (10 IV 84, 15h)
Présents: [Voir audience du 2 IV 84.1
51. IALINTOPPI hlonsieur le PrC\iJeni, Irlessicur~I~rju&i\vrai dire les
Et3is-Unis n'ont pd\ \u pr<iduirejusqii'i prcscnt un seul mod2leJe proportiun-
nalitc uui ouissc sertir de meiure r8isonn;lble. cuuilibrcc ci ubic<ii\.e aux
revendiiations que les deux Parties à la présente ont respectivement
avancées. Et mêmle a variante la plus récente n'estpas de nature àétayer d'une
manièrequelconque les prétentionsde la Partie adverse.
le me réfèreau modèleque I'on peut déduiredes figures 24 et 25 du contre-
@@ memoire ei des figures 2 et 3 de la répliquedes Etats-Unis. II apparait ausài
@@ mon côtédans la boite àimages et vous l'avezdans voire dossier à la figure 110,
cadre D. Les traits saillants de ce modèle serauuortent eux aussi à ceux du
modèlede base queje viensd'examiner. Et nos hokrahles contradicteurs ont dû
se rendre compte que ce modèlede base donnait, surtout vers le nord-est, une
impression trèsnette d'exagérationen ce qui concerne les portions de zones de
~ ~ ~ ~ ~icieusement attribuéesau Canada nour altérer I'éauilibredu test de la
pr<iportionii;ilitc. Ils se sont pdr ~.on\Cquïni d<Innpeine de soumettre ce
iiioJ2lc Je h.ire .i un: upr:ration habile de niaqiiill;igcciihéiique cilinde rcddire
cette im~ression dés;ist;eused'absence de svmétrieétde déiéauilibreau détri-
ment di Canada. Qu'est-ce qu'on a fait? ia Partie adverse a commencépar
tracer deux lignes de base droites le long des côtes qui appartiennent aux Etats-
Unis. Aprèstout, de tellesopérationsne coûtent en réalité pasun sou, vu que les
eaux cernées par les lignes de base droites tracées à l'intérieur du golfe
reviendraient en tout cas aux Etats-Unis. On les déduit par contre du cadre
global de la proportionnalité mais ce sont quand même des zonesd'eau qui
reviennent aux Etats-Unis. Cette oartie de I'ouérationesthétique termin-eelle
a ainsi éliminles ride- I'onest passéàl'autre extrémité, c'est-à-diàla limite
extérieuredu modèlevers la haute mer. Ici, la technique opératoirea étécellede
créer des courbes séduisantes en utilisant comme ligne terminale la ligne
1000 hrasses. Voilà I'ooération terminée. Maisla ruse est
bathvmétriaue des
claire, et comme, hélas, il arrive souvent dans des opérations de chirurgie
esthétique superficielles,le résultat finaln'est pas de natureer la moindre
satisfactionà celui qui aspiraiàrajeunir son image.
Trèvede métaphores.La variante du modèlede base ne saurait nullement être
prise en considération. Elle ne peut servir dans la présente affairepour deux
raisons essentiellesqui découlentde la volontémêmedes Parties telle qu'elleest
consacréeDar le conioromis. En nremier lieu. nous savons fort bien -et ie n'ai
pas nianquc dc le soi~ligneraupara\ant moi-niènie-que 1'utilis;iiiond'unc liene
hathynicirique pour 13dciermin~iion du point finaldc la fronlicrc m;iritime vers
la hiute me; a étéorise en consideration>ar les Parties. débattuelors des néro-
ciations. ci finalckeni rcjcikc Le mo~>l~~uiconstitue une urianic du mucÏèlr
dc haie Jcr Eiats-Unis n'esi donc qu'unc iintati\,e Je rGiniruduirc subrepiise-
ment par la fenêtreune technique que les Parties d'un commun accord avaient
c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a oorte. En deuxièmelieu.cette liene bathvmétriauedes 1000hrasses
se siide ioi;ilemcnt en amont Ju triangieI'ini~ricurduquelCIsclon. encore une
tiiis, Ics termes ménicsdu conipromi la iiche de13 Chambre doit necess~irc-
ment aboutir.
Voilà donc les deux raisons péremptoires qui empêchentde reconnaitre à cette variante du modèlede base une valeur quelconque dans l'effort auquel la
Partie adverse est contrainte de sc livrer.
IV. LES CADRES DE RÉFÉRENCECANADIENS
M~nsieur le Prçiident. hle\iicuiï leijuge5,si vou, nie le permcitsr.,e vuudrdi\
mainirnant demander .i IJ Ch:imbrc de se pencher sur les de~x modclcs Je
proportionnalité proposéspar le Canada dais son contre-mémoire.
LeGouvernement canadien, pour sa part, a essayéde placer leproblèmesur le
terrain de la prudence et de la souplesse, comme l'exige l'idée mêmd ee la
proportionnalité. C'est bien là la raison pour laquelle le contre-mémoire
canadien sueeéradeuxmodèlesde cadresde référence et non vas un seul(contre-
mémoiredu'Canada, p. 296-300, par. 711-718).Dans un certain sens, ilsPeuvent
êtreconsidéréscomme équivalents oualternatifs. Ils le sont certainement aux
veux du Gouvernement canadien. Sans doute oourrait-on avoir des oréférences.
Jdns la mesure ou I'on peut eïiinier que l'un des niodr'lesrCpond mieuh quc
I'xuire aux exigcncc, spCcifiqii~sc~r.ictC:~is;tntune dClimitati(in par la i,iiie
judiciaire. Mais nous avons surtout tenu à montrer à la Cour que la demande
Canadienne. tout autant oue la frontière viséenar elle. oeut 'êtrelareement
ju\iitiCc rappurt 2 l'Ln quelconque des diux c3dri.s Je rr:fr:reke qui
.'inspireni de crircres techniques différentsci qui. i Iidilfércnccde. mudcles des
t't~ts-Unis.sont recllement~nn..c;ihle d'une manicre écale auxdeux P~rtier En
icrnies concrets. ces deux mudcle\ unt Cieeun>iruit\ en umplo'ant re>pccii\c-
ment. 1)une Gicnduc1aii:ralcJe\ ;Jtc.: dei deux Eiciis:i I'exiér~eiid ru golie du
Maine proprement dit, de manière à comparer ce qui est comparable, et 2) le
trianele utiliséoar l'article II du çomnromis comme oint d'arrivéede la liene
que Cour eit appelée à tracer. ~iilà les deux mithodes adoptées. II s'agit
maintenant de les justifier et de dégager les conséquencesqui découlent de
chaque cadre. ~xaminons-les séoarément
t'n ce qui coricerne le premier mud>lc ou cdre de reiercnîc pr,~pod par le
<iouierncmcni undien. il e\t m:.intcnant r-produit ;ic6téde moi. L3 \ersion
qui est au numéroIII dans votre dossier personnel comprend aussi, en plus, les
chiffresrelatifs aux rapports côtes-mer dans ce modèle.La formule qui a présidé
à sa conception est très simple. Tout en faisant abstraction pour le moment du
triangle visépar le compromis, l'idéede base du triangle - c'est-à-dire le point
d'arrivée de la frontière aue I'on demande à la Cour de fixer - demeure
néanmoinsla même.En effet, la frontière à arrêter par la voie judiciaire à ce
stadeest limitée àla distance de 200millesmarins. Et, par conséquent,c'est bien
cette distance que I'on pourrait adopter pour déterminer lalimite extérieuredu
cadre de référence.D'ailleurs. même laPartie adverse ne sem~le~D~ ~v~i~ r~~ ~
diliieuliéspariieulicres ;icc sujet ip:iragr~phc 277 de sa rr'pliqucj. hten qu'une
telle limite soit loin d'>irect,rreeti~mentappliquCedans la formule éliiboreepdr
les Etats-Cnir niiur lei hc\iiin\ de leur rJUsCimémoiredes Etais-Unis. fia.341.
w Mais on peut certainement glisser sur ce point qui n'a véritablement pas
d'importance.
Ce qu'il faut plutôt souligner, et ce d'une façon très nette, c'est que
l'opposition entre les Parties est frappante lorsqu'il s'agit de déterminer les
limites latéralesdu cadre de référence.
Examinons d'abord le modèle canadien, que vous voyez ici. Vous avez en
réalitéicilemême modèle en deux versionscontenant. res~ectivement.letracéde
la frontière proposépar chacune des deux Parties. La 'conception du modèle
canadien est fort simple. II y a une ((régiondu golfe du Maine», dont la réalité
historique, économique et sociale a étéétablie par les collègues qui m'ont 222 GOLFE DU MAINE
précédé .ette régioncomprend, bien entendu, legolfeproprement dit. Mais elle
s'étend aussi, respectivement, au nord-est et au sud-ouest. D'une manière
approximative, mais néanmoins raisonnable, les limites latéralesde la région
peuvent êtresituées à Lunenberg, en Nouvelle-Ecosse, et à Newport, dans le
Rhode Island. L'adoption de pareilles limites latérales permet icru ocuii de
comoarer des élémentsassurément comoarables. Le cadre est bi~n~ ~ui~~,~é.~i~.~
cc\ limitcr laicralcs sont iracécssur la mrr en utilisI;projcction perpendiiu-
laire i la direciion p&ni.rdledcs cbtcs pertinentes. Conirairemlila méihodcde
nos amis américains, cette direction e-néralea étéétablie selon les données
g2ographiques Je la régionpcriincnie - c'est-i-dire Jans le cddrc dcs cbtcs qui
suni juridiqucmeni perlincnies.Je ren\,oiela Chambre J la descripiion techniqur
de ccitc méihods au par~graphe 713 du contre-mémoirecanadicn (Ill) ïïous
ai,ons. qunt i nous. touie confiance dans la v~lidiicde nos donnéesicchniquer
car aprésioui ilne i'agii par sculemcni que de donnée?.ci nous iàisons une
confiance totaleà la Chambre à cet égardaussi.
Quant à la Partie adverse. elle se méorenden orétendant. au oaraeraohe 282
de ia réplique desEtats.Unis (\').no& adresser un reproche h'~rire'~énér;il
quant iinoire manicre de concc\oir lesIimiirs Iati.rülesdu cadre de référenc. n
effet,ceoassagede la réoliauenousreoroched'emolover àcette findes méridiens
et des pirallèlës. On verra dans un insiant pourquhi pareil reproche n'affectepas
notre modèle basésur le triangle. Mais, en ce qui concerne le modèlebasésur la
régiondu golfe,lereproche est totalement à côtéde la question, vu que lemodèle
canadien ne fait ooint usaee ni de méridiensni de -oarallèles. lis'a-it ~ ~c~
prob3blement. i ;ci 2gard. ;un toui petit moment de iiitraciion Jcs auicurs de
la répliqucdes Etais-Cnis ...
Monsieur Ic Prcsi<lcni,hleisieurs les iurci. i'aitirc I'aiiention de la Chamhre
sur les rapports côtes-mer indiquésdansce modèleet que vous trouvez dans
@ votre dossier au numéro III (contre-mémoiredu Canada, fig. 51). Ces chiffres
démontrent, commeje I'aid'ailleurs souligné,que la lignecanadienneproduit un
résultat. .ooortionné dans la oartie intérieure - à vrai dire. la revendication
canadicnnc est mCmcfari modcstc dans cc secteur. .Maiscrs chillrei démonirent
aussi~UC Id lignecanadienne produtt égalemeniun résultaipr<iportionnédans la
partie cxt~ncurc. Ainsi que je I'aifait valoir t3uI'hcure.Icrcbtes qui bordcni
le secteure~térieurprésentent un équilibre ICIque n'importe quel modèle de
proporiionnalité. pourvu qu'il soit objectif ci appliqué de facon raisonnable,
démontrera le caractère proportionné du résultat produit par la ligne cana-
dienne. J'invite la Chambre à prendre connaissance des rapports numériques
indiquésà la colonne 2 du tableau. Et lorsqu'on combine les chiffres donnés
pour les deux secteurs, le résultat globa- portéà la colonne 3 - démontrelui
aussi le bien-fondéde la oosition canadienne.
Avec la permission di 13 Chambre. Monsieur Ic Pré\idcni, )e me propose
@ d'examinermainienani ledeuxièmemodélecanadicn qui se trouLe i la figurj?
du conirc-niénioirccdnadicn - qui eit éealcnientreoroduiie ici dans la hoitc li
imae-s et aui constitue le numéro i 12Qe votre dossier. Encore une fois. la
i,errion qui est cnirc \,os mains coniicni les chili'respcrtinents
Pourquoi :i.t-on siiggérédans Iccontre-mémoireciinadien d'utiliser leirianglc
décrii;1l'articleII di1comoromic oour hiiir un cadre de référencneour le ri7re
proprotionnalité? Lii réponse découle desconsidérations qu'on s'exposé loss
de l'examende lajurisprudence internationale. Le rble de la proportionnalité est
tout à fait particulier dans une délimitation par voie judiciaire - et, par
conséquent. contentieuse.Les choses en vont autrement dans I'hvoothèsed'une
délimiiationconsensuelle. LesParties demeurent toujours libres&déterminer le
tracéde la frontière de manière conforme à leur volontécommune. Cela peut PLAIDOIR.IEI>EM. MALINTOPPI 223
s'imaginer.N'emoêcheaue letriangle, en tant que disoosition « techniauen. n'est
pas ~~ulement~n-miroir.~uiréfléctÏiltes revendications des Parties teliesqùelles
s'étaientcristalliséeslors de la signature du compromis. Le triangle représente
une définitionconvenue de la zone maximale de chevauchement à l'extrémité de
la frontièrequi doit êtreétablieau cours de la présenteétapede la délimitation.
II y a plus. Le triangle est un point d'arrivée «nécessité», c'est-à-dien point
auquel la frontière doit nécessairement arriver. La Cour ne peut tracer la
frontière maritime au'en aboutissant à l'intérieurdu triangle. II est simolement
impenvablc qu'un clenisnt suri cs\entiel nc soit pas en nièineicmp, Ir.point de
repércexteneur Ic plus légitimepour la définiiiond'un cadre de réfcrcncede la
proiiortionnalite Le triinrle e\i ainsi l'undei élénienclésdc la orCrenieaiTaire
Plus orécisémentencore. A'aorèsle Gouvernement canadien ceite limite extré-
ricure du m<)dI:lcoin~.ide;i\ec I'h!.poiinu,r du triangle et ilcon\icni de rappeler
d set >gard que les irontiires dein~ndics re\pecti\r.mcnt pdr l'une et l'autre Jri
parties-termhent en effet immédisitementa;-delà de cette hypoténuse.
Les Etats-Unis critiquent également cemodèle parce qu'il fait appel à des
méridienset à des parallèles pour définirla zone soumise au testde la pro-
portionnalité (répliquedes Etats-Unis, par. 282). Et ils laissent entendre que,
si la Cour a utiliséune technique analogue dans l'affairedu Plateaucontinental
(Tunisielfamohiriyaarabe libyenne), c'est uniquement parce que les lignes en
question étaient«à peu prèsperpendiculaires)) à la direction généraledes côtes
oertinenteslibid.1.Mais en réalité.l'arrêtne fait oasétatd'un tel raisonnement.
Ri implicitementni explicitement: La Cour a Simplement dit que ces lignes
avaient l'avantage de la commoditécartographique et qu'ellesfournissaient une
base permettant de comparer ce qui est comparable (C.I.J.Recueil 1982,p. 91,
par. 130).Autrement dit, qu'elles apportaient un équilibrejusteet raisonnable.
Ce sont cesmêmesqualités quiseretrouvent àmon sensdans lemodèlecanadien
que je viens d'illustrer, et c'est ce mème espritqui a présidéà sa construction.
Les ohiections soulevées Dar les Etats-Unis à ce modèle canadien sont Dar
con,équcnt nial fondtss. IIsutlit d'ailleurs de lire la sriiiquc que les Etats-Unis
iont de ce mod;le dan, leur rkplisuc pour se rendre compte quc leur priricip71
reproche tient tout simolementi ce que ce modèleaboutit à un résultaiaui leur
e>idcfai~or3hlc.Ce ri;ltat aPpar3il'd:ins les rapports indiqu2s su tabliau qui
acsonipagne Ir rnodI:lcdani votre do.;sier. Ceux-ci confirment le résuli3tdont
i'aidela disiui(. dan%le contcxts du premirr moJ6le iiré.sntépar le Canada. Et
ils viennent confirmer la disproportion véritablementsaisissaRtequi entache la
revendication des Etats-Unis.
Mais il est désormaistemps de conclure sur la question des modèles.J'ai la
faiblessede croire au'il convient. àcestade de la orocédure. de mettrede c6téles
par<ilespour lairsc; parler Icsc3rt:s. Vous vase d;nc i côte de nioi lesquatre
de determiner un cadre sérieuxet \alahle de rkiérenïcpour les besoins duiIrr,cde
la . .oortionnalité dans la orésenteaffaire. Vous vobez notamment au niveau
supérieurles Jeux rnod>lesétablispar le Cdnada. A; niteau infkricur, figurent
p3r contre le modr;lcde base des Ci<its-Unisri ia vdrianic pnnctpiile. II s'3gii
maintenant de choisir, parmi eux, celuiqui apparaît, dans lescirconstances et les
conditions du cas d'espèce, comme le plus raisonnable ou plutôt, pour être
encore plus précis,comme le moins déraisonnable. Monsieur le Président,je n'ai
pas la moindre difficultéà admettre, quant à moi, que dans toute affaire
judiciaire les Parties, de parfaite bonne foi, essaient de tirer profit dans la façon
de présenter leurs arguments. En général, chacun chercheà les élaborer ou
cherche à faire leur présentation dans l'optique et dans le cadre - ce dernier
n'étant certes pasici hors de propos ..-qui s'adaptent le mieux aux besoins de224 WLFE DU MAINE
sa propre cause. II y a évidemmentdes limites, au-delà desquelles I'on tombe
dans l'arbitraire. Mais ici la question ne nous oblige pas d'aller, dans nos
appréciations,jusque-là.
En réalité,il sufit ici de faire une simple comparaison entre les diverses
méthodeset lesdifférentsrésultats.La Cour me permettra de raowler ~ourauoi
le Gouvernement canadien, en mèmetemps et avec les mèmes'èffets,'ateRu à
développer deux modèles alternatifs.Dans la conception du Gouvernement du
Canada, pareille méthodedevrait montrer que ce que I'on recherche c'est un
cadre iuridia.e o.ur une évaluationfondéesur l'éouité du résultat.et non nas
uneformulegcornéiriquepour despeiiiscalculs oudes<<nicc ealculïtions .PCequi
imporie li ce stade. c'estILrecherchede I'2quilihrrci du raisonnahle Mais c'ai
aussi -ci surtout - le reiei du dcscauilibre ci du dérïisonnable Voili I'obieclif
dont doit s'inspirer le choix d'un cidre de ri'fcrence.si la proportionnaliic est
censéepermettre d'cinluer le cïrdctere cquilable du résului d'une déliniitütion
maritime. Vous avez. Monsieur le président. Messieurs les iueesd .evant vous
quatre hypothèses de cadres de référence. es deux mod'elës canadiens me
semblent répondreàla conception et àla fonction queje viensd'indiquer. Peut-
on dire vraiment de mèmedes cadres si chers à nos honorables contradicteurs?
Voilà la question qui est devant la Chambre.
V. LES AUTRES TESTS DE L'ÉQUITÉ
J'en viensàla dernièrepartie de mon exposé,cellequi a trait à d'autres tests
possibles de l'équité du résultatd'une délimitation maritime.Sij'ai consacréla
plus grande partiede mon exposéàl'examendu critèrede la proportionnalitéen
tant que mesuredu caractère équitabledu résultatd'une démarcationmaritime,
c'est parce que la jurisprudence internationale jusqu'ici a mis un accent
particulier sur ce testde l'équité. Maio sn a vu égalementque tout le droit en la
matièreest en voied'application proeressiveau fur et àmesureaue desauestions
concre~esde delimitxii~n se pr~.;rnÏcnidrixni di..,luridicti~>nsi'nicrn<;iionalcs.
II,erîit par consequeni erronéquede qualifier la proporiionnaliiécomme le seul
rr.Trde I'équiic.C'esi d'ailleurs dans se sens que le <;ou\,ernement du Canada.
dans sesGrilures (voir en narticulier contre-m'émoire du Canada. Dar.719.722):
..
a cru opportun de poser la quesiion de sahoir si. J c6iéde la proportionn3litC.
d'autres critGresne pourraieni mirer en jeu dm> un idre clohal J'apprCciai. .
du caractère équitable d'une démarcationmaritime déterminée.
En posant pareille question, le Gouvernement du Canada a eu surtout à
l'esprit le rôle qu'il faut reeonnaitre, dans un tel exercice, à la conduite des
parties. Cette optique n'estpas seulementdue aux particularitésdu cas d'espèce,
où - et ainsi que mes distinguéscollègues I'ontdémontréau fil de leurs
plaidoiries - la conduite des Parties est amenéeà exercer un rôlebeaucoup plus
étenduque nos adversaires n'aimeraient l'admettre. II y a, au fond, une raison
juridique beaucoup plus générale sur laquelleje me permets d'attirer l'attention
d~ l~-Chambre~ ~
Nous swons tour que le principe de baie retenu p~r 1.1nuu\elle conteniion
sur Ii.droit Jc 13mer de 1982pour la délimiisii<~d ne\ c.naces m.iriiimc\ au-deli
de la mer territoriale est consiituéDarl'accordmutuel abo~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ à un r~ ~ ~ ~ ~
équitable. L'accent qui est mis sir le caractère consensuel de ladélimiiation
reflète d'ailleurs la pratique des Etats. Leur préférencepour ce rè~lement
consensuel est telle que, faute d'accord immédiit auant au-fond. les ~ïats ont
souventchoisila voiejudiciaire, mais seulement demander aujuge d'arrèter
les règleset principes applicables.
Dans de tels cas, il appartiendra aux parties de traduire par la suite ces règlesel principes par un accord mutuel et de délimiter ainsi matériellement leur
frontière maritime. Néanmoins,l'équitédu résultatdemeure ici encore l'un des
élémentsqui, selon la jurisprudence désormaistraditionnelle, seront parmi les
règleset principes indiqués par le juge aux parties et que les parties devronà
leur tour aooliauer dans la délimitation concrète.
IIen esi 'évihemmentde mêmelorsque les parties demandent au juge de
prockder directement à tracer la frontière ainsi qu'elles l'ont fait dans la présente
affaire. Ainsi. dans aucune de ces trois hvoothèses formellement diff&entes -
accord mutuel entrc lesparties. accord con;icutiia 13déterminlition desréglerel
principes par le juge. délimitaiion de la frontiere directement pdr la \,oie
judiciaire-, on n'échappeni à la condition fondamentale du caractèreintrinsè-
auement éauitabledu résultatfinal ni au rôle de la conduite des oarties.
11s'ensuit qu'rn l'étatactuel du droit desdélimitations maritimes il y a un lien
caractcriscet carai.tCristiqueentr13 condu~tcdei partie3 ei I'r:quitéd'un rcrt;iin
résultat. Qu'il s'aeisse de manifestations de vdonté ou di comoortements
concrets. lès Etai, nepeurent pasignorrr que pJr leur conduite ils chtrihuent i
r't~blir. dans le domaine de lrurc relations maritimes. desunités Jemesure-des
«paramètres», comme ledisait sijustement ily a quelquesjours monami érudit,
mv Iearnedfriend. le orofesseur Bowett - oour aonrécierce au'ils considèrent
'
comme raisAnnable.ipproprié. équitabledins ceiie'mati6re.
Peut-on parler. dans des circonstsnccs pareilles.de \critables présomptions,
ou. si I'on \eu[. de présomptionsdeJLcro. quant à l'équité d'unedélimitaiion
de frontiire qui suit cn princ~pe- ci je >t~ulipne.en principe - des lignes de
démarcationpour lesquellc~despréierencescommunessesont manifestcescntre
lesparties etlou qui ont it<I~,Iuir otiliséesoar lesEtati intcresscJe crois que
la auestion ihéonaue demeure. en tant aue telle. orobablement ouverte. a ais
unechose me parah certaine. Mêmesi l'on de ne pasparler ici dans la
présenteaffaire de présomptionsaux sensformels del'expression, iy a danstout
et chacun de cesélémentsoneaccumulation impressionnante d'ind-icesque I'on
ne saurait oublier. Ces éléments ne sont pas étrangers à une délimitation
maritime. Le lien esttrop évidentpour qu'on cherche àlenier enaffirmant. aussi
froidement que possible, que les relations maritimes entre deux Etats se
déroulent à l'intérieur de compartiments étanches.
Le problème ainsi posésur le plan théorique ne manque pas d'applications
concrètes dansla présenteaffaire. Ainsi, si l'on sesouvient notamment desdeux
idées-forcesde I'exooséde mon collèeueet ami M. Bowetl. I'on veut aisément v
trouver la confirmation Je mon raisonnement. En premier lieu. nous a\ons
I'ïccord de 1979,ur lesrcssourcerhalieutiques de 1.1ci>teest. un accord qui n'est
ianiaii arriié au \oie du Senxi de Washinaiun. mais qui li\,ait étérecommandé
par leprésidentCarter commeayant aboutià certainessolutions «ina wnywhich
is/air 10 boih Parries». En deuxième lieu, nous avons tout l'ensemble des
circonstancesrelatives à ladistribution despermis et desconcessionspétrolières
et gazièresqui non seulementrespcçtela ligne d'équidistancecomme séparation
desintérêtsnationaux, mais qui esten effet fondéesur l'idéed'une ligne médiane.
Ainsi donc, danschacun decesdeux cas,un jugement de valeur abel et bien été
porté par les Parties elles-mémes.Les solutions envisagéesetlou pratiquement
aooliauéesont été considérées raisonnables. aoorooriées,en un mot: éauitables.
.. . .. .
Ce sont bien cescirct,nstsncesque I'on ne saurait ignorer si la tàchc du juge est
aussi celle de s'asrurcr de la m3niére Id plus compléie ci satishisante que
I'annlicatioii do h:Jcs et or;nc~pesde droit about11iiun résultatc:quit3ble.
Mais plus important èncore que chaque différent critère d'appréciation
de l'équitéd'un même résultat,c'est surtout la convergence éventuelledes
différentes donnéesE . t c'est précisément danscette optique que d'après le226 GOLFEDU MAINE
Couvcrncment du Canada l'onpeut p3rler d'une plur<ilité de critércsde l'équité
diins I'aITiiircdladelimitation mantimî du golre du Maine
Monsieur le Président..Mcssicurslesjuges. si l'onconsidércIc rrsi de I'kquiiZ
d~ns In préscntcarrairccomme un cnscmhlcqui n'csi pasItrniié;tu seul criicrdc
13 pr0porti<inn<iIit6.tout se iieni Hien entendu. tout se tient xutùur de 13
demande du Governement canadien. Par contre, rien ne se tient plus si l'on se
place de l'autre c6iéde la barre. Le noyau de ma plaidoirie et de ma conclusion
est bien là: dans l'opposition entre la cohérence globale de la position
canadienne au point de vuede l'équité du résultatdemandé etlescontradictions
qui s'enchevétrentpar contre dans les méandres desarguments de nos adver-
saires et qui doivent conduire, j'en ai toute confiance, au rejet de leur demande. ARGUMENT OF MR. LEGAULT
AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. LEGAULT: Mr. President, distinguished Judges.
You have now heard Canada's case. It is, in the end, a simple one. Out of the
treaty law; out of the general principles common to the law of the continental
shelf and the law of the exclusive economic zone; out of the geographical and
non-geographical circumstances of the Gulf of Maine area; out of the history of
the dispute and the conduct of the Parties; out of the parity of interests of
Canada and the United States in relation to Georges Bank; out of al1of this,
there emerees a simnle. reasonable and time-honoured solution: the use of the
equiJlsi~n~~cn ~mcihod. no1 Jr 3 m:ilir.ri4'blind jurisiis ine\im:<hiliiyhiii in
complisnce uiih the ïunddmcnidl norm of mdriiinie del~mii~ooniipplicd in ihe
context of a single maritime boundary.
1said in my statement last week that the evolution of this dispute reflectsthe
evolution of the law of the sea. It began with the continental shelf and later
extended Io the water column as well, so that today it encompasses al1 the
resources of the 200-mile zone now recognized in international law. And the
concept of a single maritime boundary referred to in Article II of the Special
Agreement (1,p. 10)is itself the outcome of this evolution.
It is because of the concept of the singlemaritime houndary that this case will
break new eround in international law. It is here that the challenee reallv lies in
legal termsr And the challenge can be met, because the startingpoint :s clear,
and the path to an equitable result iswell marked with common denominators
orovided bv the law.and common indicators left bv the Parties themselves
The lawapplicabk to a single maritime houndaiy within the 200-mile limit
must take as its starting-point the principles that are common to the forms of
jurisdiction in issue. As we seeit there are two overriding general principles that
provide the legalfoundation for a singlemaritime boundary beyond the limitsof
the territorial sea: equity within the rules, and geographical adjacency measured
from the coast as the basis of coastal State title.
Equity within the rules is the fundamental nom originally fomulated by the
Court in the Norrh Sea Continenral Sheij'cases (I.C.J. Reporrs 1969,pp. 48-49,
para. 88) and codified in the delimitation articles of the 1982 Law of the Sea
Convention (Arts. 74 and 83) as the common basis for the delimitation of both
the continental shelf and the exclusiveeconomic zone.And, as the Anglo,Frpnch
award made clear, the idea of equity within the rules is the source and ohject of
the equidistance-special circumstances rule of Article 6 of the Continental Shelf
Convention (paras. 69 and 75). This idea accordingly provides the essential
bridge between the law of the continental shelf and the law of the exclusive
economic zone; hetween the conventional and the customary law of delimita-
tion; and between the old and the new law of the sea. And it imposes a double
condition that a legal delimitation must satisfy.Thus, the delimitation must be
hased uoon international law. which means that it mus1resoect whatever treatv
rulei Arcapplicdblc, and rcspcci a. ~sll the barir of iiilr and ihc leglilcorii01'
the lurirdirii,,n in quc>iion. And31 ihc s:imciinie ihc dçlim~tiitionmur1giic an
eau'itahleresult in ihe oarticular circumstances of the case.
'AS fomulated in thenew Convention on the Law of the Sea, the idea orequity
within the rules calls for an equitahle solution on the basis of international law.228 GULF OF MAINE
This referenceto international law impliesa second idea, which in turn indicates
the source from which more specificcriteria can be derived. This second idea lies
in the basis of coastal State title. More precisely, it lies in the concept of
geographical adjacency measured from the coast.
This concept of geographical adjacency measured from the coast is also
common to both the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone. It is
inherent in the equidistance-special circumstances rule of Article 6 of the
Continental ShelfConvention. And il has been eiven its most concrete mÿnifes-
talion in the "distance principle" as the sole basrsof title to the 200-milezone in
respect of the water column, and as an important element of the hasis of title to
the continental shelf.
This eeneral framework ~rovides imoortant euidelines for the determination
ul.3 ,inilr nilritinit houndir) Itts huiiiupon &c coinm\in clcrncntr inhcrtnt in
thc \;iriouc !orm. of ~iirisd.ctionihai inicrii~iionsl lau, nou dci<>rJs 10 co.isi;~l
Si:iicshs\onJ ihc tcrriiorial >Ca. Itincorrior~ierd iuhst,inii:~ls~>ntinuii\uiih th<
legal principles developed for the continental shelf as an independent régime.
For, as I have jus1 pointed out, il reflects the principles that underlie the
equidistance-special circumstances rule of Article 6. But at the same time, this
general framenork provides a setting within whichthe new developments in the
law of the sea can receive their full expression. It accommodates the expanded
legal content of the jurisdiction of the coastal State, which requires that a
broader range of relevant circumstances be taken in10 account in the final
balancine-uo Io achieve an eauitable result. And il allows for the reauired
emphasis on the distance priniiple as the hasis of title to a 200-mile zine of
jurisdiction. For it mus1not be forgotten that the title of the coastal State is no!
conferred but simply cunfirmedhithe process of delimitation.
The legalbasis for the detemination of a singlemaritime houndary rests upon
these twin pillars of equity within the rules and geographical adjacency
measured from the coast as the basis of coastal State title.
Againsl this background, Mr. President, 1 shall return very briefly to the
concrete elements of the Canadian case. The Chamher will recall that in my
statement las1 week 1 identified three elements in the form of three specific
principles that will produce an equitable result within the law in the factual
circumstances of this case. The first iswhat 1have called proximity in a general
sense - proximity not Io some isolated point but to extensive stretches of
ahutting coast, assessedand appreciated with due regard to the etTectof special,
incidental eeoeraohical features. This orinciole is erounded eauallv i. .he
equidistan&-s&cial circumstances rule oi~rtiile 6, anldin the distance principle
as the basis of coastal State title to a 200-milezone.
An equitahle result must he onethat takes account of the physical geography,
and it mus1also be consonant with the real interests at stake. The second soecific
principle of Canada's case, therefore, is that theboundary should allow forthe
maintenance of estahlished patterns of fishing that are of vital importance to
coastal communities within the relevant area. 11 calls, in sh&, for the
recognition of the estahlished interests of coastal communities in the marine
resources oit'their shores. As our pleadings have stressed, this factor is central
hoth Io the ohject and purpose of a 200-milezone, and to the particular factudl
circumstances of this case. And it is therefore entitled to a particular weight in
the final balancing-up.
Finally. the Canadian case is based on the principle that the single maritime
houndarv should resoect the indicia of what the Parties themselves have
cdn,idcreri cquit;ihlc:I;rcicaled hy ilicirccinduct As uc haie shuu,n. this aspect
oiour CJ~C exicnds icihiith thcconiincnul shclfand ihr firhcr) And itidkcr t\io ARGUMENT OF MR. LECAULT 229
forms. First. il is founded uoon acauiescence or estoooel as these conceots are
understood in general inter~ationaliaw, as a source of'vested rights withwhich
the singlemaritime boundary should be compatible. And secondly, the conduct
of the-parties provides objective and precise evidence of the nature of an
equitahle result within the context of the fundamental norm of maritime
delimitation.
The Canadian claim therefore takes into account and giveseffect to both the
physical geography and the other relevant circumstances of this case. What 1
would like to address in my concluding remarks, Mr. President, distinguished
ludges, is the interrelationship of these various categories of relevant circum-
stances.
We have pointed out that Canada's fisheryon eastern Georges Bank is based
in the coastal areas that are adjacent to this part of the sea, and is in fact an
expression and a practical consequence of the physical geography. Ils close
connection with geographical adjacency as a basis of title is therefore clear. And
the same holds true for the indicia of equity derived from the conduct of the
Parties. For example, the 1979Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources. Ils
provisions regardhg the joint management and sharing of the fishery resources
of Georges Bank reflectno1only Canada's traditional interest in these resources,
but also Canada's geographical situation and ils legal interests as a State with a
very substantial coastline adjacent to Georges Bank.
And so too with the continental shelf. For the acauiescence of the United
Sidies in C.in3da.s uic <iiihe qurdiit<inic rrierhoJ durhiclrhe 19hllrlook pl3ct
noi in 3 \i~cuum hui uiihin a dciinitc legal and ~cogr.iphicsl conicxt. And 11
reflcci\ not oiilv ihe idci tif Can;iila's orohiniii\. to ihs ;irc.isc<~nccrnid.bui xl\o
a recoenition that this oroximitv is ii relationto an extensive coastal area that
could iot possibly he disregardid or dismissed as a "special circumstance".
Everycategory of relevant circumstances on which werely, both physical and
human, thereroie reflects a single integrated pattern. ~ver~-oneof them reveals
the close association that links the maritime areas under Canadian claim to
Canada's coasts and Canada's territory. Every one of them confirms Canada's
legal interests as a coastal State in relation to these maritime areas. In other
words. everv one of them reflects the ooourtenmce of these areas to Canada.
E\ery une kihcm calls for ihc ure ~iih~'c~~idistancemeihcid.iiith ,lue regard
io ihc diriortinp crfectr of incidcnt.il \pssi:il fcaiurcr Onl) in ihir mdnnaiIl11
bc piiis~hlcfor the I'irtics io mcct hall-u.iy \iiihiiut "splitring the dilTcrcncc".
Mr Prc.iJeni, JistinguishtJ Judgc,. Icuncludc m! tindl st;itcnicni in ihc tir51
round riiihc C~annJi;inors1 plcnding, hy ionn~lly allirming C.inaill's Subniis-
sion ;isset oui in Cana&-'\ Memori.il. Counier-Menioriil and Rcpl!. I hope rie
have heen able to state our case clearly1 hope wehave made a contribution that
will assist the Chamher. 1 hope we have not forgotten that we are no1 only
well. 1 thank the Chamber on
servants of Canada, but servants of the law as
behalf of my Government and my delegation for the patient and attentive
hearine vou have eiven us. 1thank mv dislinguished friends and colleaeues from
the ~Gted States Tortheir attention Coo,anzonce again 1emphasize that 1look
forward to hearing their views on the matters we have raised.
The Chatnber roseal 3.58p.m TENTH PUBLIC SITTING (1I IV 84, 10a.m.)
Present: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
ARGUMENTOF MR. ROBINSON
AGENT FOR THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Mr. ROBINSON: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, may it please the
Chamher: it is a great honour and a personal privilege to appear before the
Chamher as the Agent of the United States of America in the case concerning
Delimitationofthe Maritime Boundarvin theGulf , o, Maine Area. This is one of
ihoic rars inunleni.:1h;iicoincs io ici :iitoriicyr ~nd for this ,rpp$irtunii!. I aish
\rith !uur pcrmissiori 10 crprc,s ni). gratitude 10lhosc iiho ar< rcsponsihlc ior
my presence here today.
Within the Executive Branch of the United States Government, the Depart-
ment of State has the responsibility of representing the United States hefore
international tribunals. As the Senior Attorney advising the Secretary of State,
and, through him, the President of the United Stateson matters of international
law, it has heen my good fortune to have been appointed hy the Secretary of
State as the Agent of the United States in this case. In the discharge of that
responsibility, it is a signal honour 10 have the opportunity to appear hefore
the Chamher in this case of the highest national importance to the United
States.
With your permission, Mr. President, the United States will now present an
introductory statement to its oral argument in this case.
The United States of America has long supported the rule of law in
international relations. It is a serious step for any nation to suhmit its sovereign
territorial rights to hinding decision hy third-party dispute resolution, and the
United States presence hefore this Chamher constitutes a significant act of faith
in the rule of law.
This case brings before the Chamher two very close neighbours, allies and
indeed friends. As such, it is appropriate that the United States salute those
distineuished counsel who are renr~sentine Cunada before the Chamher. As a
personal niditcr. I iriih io cxiend \pc:i:il grcciings io niy counicrplri. ihc
di*iinguishcdAgent ior C;inadd. His ExccllcncyAmha\i;idor Lconard Leg:iuli.
Lcgïl Adi'irer io ihc I>cp3rtment of Extcrnal All';iirs.and to thank hini Torthe
ipirit olco-opcr;ition ihat hxh ken so inrtrunicni;il in hringing hoih our grcat
counirie. kTore the Chamkr Alth<i~ghthe giilf bct\iccn our tao naiioni on
man) oTihc issuesin ihis ia\c isgrcat. and dihoueh ihc Unitcd Sidies uill Argue
its cause with conviction. the two Aeents are committed to maintainine Chat
spirit ofco-operation in the conduct of these oral proceedings.
The close relations that have developed between the United States and
Canada over many generations have not been without incident or, as the Agent
for Canada so eloquently put it, without ripples in the Stream. The warm
relations between the two countries have been troubled by a long history of
boundary and fishery disputes that extends hack to the establishment of the
United States of America as an indeoendent reouhlic. These disoutes often have
ken protrïctcd and difficult Io re\iili,c. The oppahing houndary rlaim\ in this
rase haic drousçd 2nd prcoccupied diploniais. legiilators. and other\ in boih ARGUMENTOF MR. ROBINSON 231
-
countries since-canada planted the seeds of the dispute through a series of
unilateral measures beginningin the mid-1960s.The United States believesthat
these Canadian measures weÏe contrarv not onlv to the soirit and letter of the
Truman Proclamaiion irsued almort 21;~earicar.lier.but ilso to the foundïtion
of our clow rcldtionship Thus. <inoccïsion. one or another of ihc npple, in ihe
stredm ha, ihre~tened IO bccome 3 Iistind cddy thïi could disiurh the werall
-
steadv course of our relations.
I~oriunüiel).the I:niied States 2nd Canada rllsohave .ilong hisior) of~eilling
their disputes pelirefull). through good laith negoiiations or ihird-part) diipuic
rcsciluiion. The CniicJ States and Cïnïdï lire moud thai ours remiiins ihe
loneest demilitarized houndarv in the ~ ~ ~~ ~~; two nations oreviouslv have
suhGitted disputes to~internaional adjudication, particularly those relaiing to
boundaries and fisheries.Thus, placina this maior case beforethe Chamber is in
keeping with a tradition to whkli bGh nations attach overriding importance.
We should note that this is the first lime that our two nations jointly have
submitted a dispute to this supreinejudicial authority.
In the United States, the intense concern with this case stems largely from
historical American links with Georges Bank. United States fishermen have
fished significantlyon Georges Bank sincethe 1820s.A nch folklore developed
surrounding the exploits and the daring of these brave New Englanders. For
almost a century and a half, it was, with fewisolated exceptions, United States
vessels alone that fished the waters over Georges Bank. During this period,
especially in NewEngland, the fisheries ofGeorges Bank were, to use a rather
soninion Amcrican iictaphor. coiisidered by mans citilens 10 be as 'Amcrican
as apple pie". In hriçi. (isorges H~nkhar heencloselyconnecicd uith the United
States li~ra long tirne A\ coulil h~.expccted. Canada's aspiration\ rcgarding the
northeast portion of Georges Bankprovoked a strong response,not onlyin New
England, but also in the corridors of Washington.
Canada asserts in this case that its modified equidistant boundary would
protect Canada's fisherieson Georges Bank without senous injury to the United
States. That is simplynot so. The United States has had an important fisheryon
the northeast portion of Georges Bank continually sincethe 1820sand it would
be a great blow to lose it, particularly since the United States no longer has
access to ils once traditional fisheries off the Canadian coasts of Labrador,
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The United States has since 1978adiusted to
the icrminïiion of its iishericbin ihose areas: houe\er, Georges Hünki;anothcr
matier cntirely Georgs Bdnk i>the lasi grCa1Amcrican fi\her) in the norihucst
Atlantic which Canada now proposes to annex on the primary basis of one
comnarativelv recent scallon fisherv.
TI;Cl'nite~ ~tntcsrecogn~lesthai an) bounrlar? that the Chlimhcr willdcliniit
in the G~lf of Maine arcï uill aaI\çrrcly 3Rècione group of fishermen or ihc
other. The Chanikr cannot ïvoid th.ii ciinseauence of it,Jecision. The United
States believes that a decision hased on la& can only reach one equitable
solution in the relevant circumstances of this case, and that solution is
confirmation of United States jurisdiction over al1of Georges Bank.
The United States seekshere a iust decision. We seeka iudement that. in the
uords oiArticle II ofthe Spr.213r 1igrecmeni (1.p. lu) heiu,ecnihe United Sidtes
and Canada. ir "in accordance with the principlesand rulesoiiniernational Iïu,
a~~iicahlein the niaiter as hetweenihc Pariie>".WCareconfidrnt thai a decision
in accordance with law inthis casewillre-enforcethe commitment of the United
States to the International Court of Justice. The United States further believes
that a decision in this case on the hasis of the rule of law will serve the broader
interests of the community of nations at large.232 GULF OF MAINE
Although under the Special Agreement the Chamber is only requested to
delimit the single maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, the United
States believes that tbis case has broader significance. This is the first case in
whicb Rule 26(2)of the Statute of the Court has beeninvoked for the formation
of a Chamber. This is also the first case to determine a single maritime
boundary, delimiting the continental shelf and the 200-nautical-mile fishing
zone. Under Article III of the Special Agreement, once this boundary is set,
neither Party shall "claim or exercise sovereign rights or jurisdiction for any
purpose over the waters or sea-bed and subsoil" on the other side of the
boundarv. Thus, the boundarv between the Parties as determined bv the
~hambc; wiIIdeliniii .il1\<i~erc;~nrightr and ,urisdiciion ihai .ire currenil! or
nid? in the (LIU~C hecnnie rec<)@ni7ed in intern~tion31 Ir\\,. .AccorJingl), and
contrary to Canada's assertions, there is more at stake in this case than simply
the resources of the northeast portion of Georges Bank.
As a result of these considerations, it goes without saying that the United
States and its people do not seek in this case any decision that amounts in
substance or perception to a compromise or ajudgment that splits the ditTerence.
The United States isIiere,before the Chamber, in the search forjustice and right.
The United States isconvinced that by every rule and principle rooted in the law
that is applicable to this case, it is entitled to the entirety of Georges Bank.
Moreover, the United States believesthat any other houndary willperpetuate a
major irritant in United States relations with Ourfriend, Canada, that can only
become more serious as time Dasses.
Overview
Mr. Presideiit, distinguished Judges, with that brief review of the broader
significance of thiscase as seen by the United States, we now shall turn, with
your permission, to a United States overview. Although the pleadings of the
Parties have been lengthy, the issues on which this case turns are, inOur view,
few and straightforward. We have heard nothing in the first round of the
Canadian oral presentation that would cause us to change Ourposition on this
point. With your permission, this introductory overview is divided into the
following four parts:
Firsr,a brief history of the dispute hetween the Parties, including a discussion of
the Special Agreement and several Canadian interpretations of that Agree-
ment thst the United States believesare misguided.
Second, two examples of why the United States regards some aspects of
Canada's case as being based on erroneous statements of fact.
Ttzird,a summary reviewof the reasons why the United States believesthat il is
entitled to Georges Bank in its entirety.
Fourrh,a generaldescription of the relevant geography in the Gulf of Maine area
and of the houndary proposed hy the United States in this case.
Before the Chamber is a package of fivecharts to which 1shall refer during
this introductory presentation, as well as a binder to hold the packages of
illustrations to wbich 1 and mv colleaaues shall he referrin~ i- this and
subsequcnt jr3iemenii For ed,e of rekrence. the Uniicd Siüics uill alro bc
prejeniing I;irge-irlilc\ersion, of th~.imïiIlu~tr;tiionsun the c31clio my r~ghi
Wiih )<>UD r erniisriirn,Mr PresiJcni. 1ih~llhe ariijted in ihi\endc.~vour h? iuo
of my colleagues, Messrs. Ray Meyer and Jonathan Olsson ARGUMENT OF MR. ROBINSON 233
1. HisTOnu OF THE DISPUTE EETWEEN THE PARTIES
Mr. President. distineuished Judees. the United States. with vour ,ermis.ion.
non turn, to s hricf Iiistor! of th- di~puie hciuccn the P:iriier
This hiitur!. .i\itrcl~teç IO ihc ci~niinent~lshelf. bcginl uiih the issuttncc<IV
the pr<>ilsni:iiionrcllting i<>ihc s~,iitincnt~l~helib) Prcs~iisnt'lrum~n in 19.15
With rr'g.irdto li$licr! righi,. the Jihp~te look sccd ahcn ('~n3dx tirsi kgan to
li,h ~ig~ilTi::intl!on Georges l3;inl.in abiiui IYbUThe fihher) Jiiiielisinn <II he
dispute hecame acute more recently with the extension by the two Parties, in
1977,of their respective exclusive fishing zones to 200 nautical miles.
Continental Sheif
The Truman Proclamation on the Continental Shelf is well known to the
Chamber. Of great significance to this case, the Truman Proclamation specifi-
cally provided as follows:
"ln cases where the contirlental shelf extends to the shores of another
Stitc. tir issh;ircd \ilth .in .idj:iccnt Statc, ihc hounik~r)\h~ll hedeicrtiiineil
h) the IJn!ird Statcr :inJ the Si~icconcr.rneJ in ~ccorJ;in~.cuiih rquit.ible
principlci " (II, United Siaici Slcmuritil. Ann. 3.1
The lnternational Court of Justice, in the North Sea Continental Shercases,
referred to the Truman Proclamation as having "a specialstatus" (I.C.J. Reports
1969,para. 47). The Court went on to Say:
"Previously, various theories as to the nature and extent of the rights
relative to or exercisable over the continental shelf had been advanced by
jurists, puhlicists and technicians. The Truman Proclamation, however,
soon came to be regarded as the starting point of the positive law on the
subject ..." (Para. 47.)
The lnternational Court of Justice also said that the
"two concepts, of delimitatii~nby mutual agreement and delimitation in
accordance with equitable principles, have underlain al1 the suhsequent
history of the subject" (para. 47).
Suhject to these provisions, the Truman Proclamation established for the United
States its exclusivejurisdiction and control over the natural resources of the
sea-bed a~ ~sub~ ~l of the ~ ~ont~nent~l shelf offthe coasts of the United States.
I he Ilnitcd Si.iic>ci>nsultedwitti iis ncighhour,. incliidingCan:iJ:i. hcfore the
Pri~cl~maiiuntias iii;iilepuhlii h! the Prcdent in 1945 1)uring ihesc cuiisuliü-
lions. ihc United Sidies s~ccitic:ill\ tr.insniiiicd 10 <'.in~d>throuch di~lomdtic
channels a draft of this' Proclamation, together with a draft prociamalion
dealing with fisheries (United St;ites Memorial, Ann. 3). Included with these
drafts were papers containing detailed explanations of the proposed United
States policies that were to be proclaimed by the highest executiveofficialof the
United States Govcrnment.
Neither Canada, nor any of the other governments consulted, ohjected lo the
proposed statements of policy, and on 28 September 1945, President Truman
issued the two proclamations. The United States thereafter formally transmitted
bath proclamations and an accornpanying press release IO Canada. The press
release generally described the United States continental shelf as an area of
750,000 square miles of "submerged land which is contiguous to the continent
and which is covered hy no more than 100fathoms (600 ft.) of water" (ibid., 234 GULF OF MAINE
Ann. 3). That 1945 description of the United States continental shelf plainly
included al1of Georges Bank.
As noted, the Truman Proclamation took the position that the boundanes of
the continental shelf with neighbouring States would he determined hy agree-
ment in accordance with equitable principles. Canada thus specifically was
placed on notice froin 1945forward that any unilateral steps by Canada within
the 100-fathom line off the coast of the United States would be unacceptable
a priori and ab initiain the absence of agreement with the United States.
For many years, the Truman Proclamation and its accompanying material
marked the only correspondence with Canada on this subject. Specifically,Our
research has revealed no pertinent communication on this subject between the
Parties in connection with the First or Second Law of the Sea Conferences. The
United States had ample reason to assume, therefore, that each of the Parties
was committed to the establishment of maritime boundaries by mutual agree-
ment.
Mr. President, there were at least three reasons why the United States saw no
need 10address anv continental shelf houndarv aue.ti.n in the Gulf of Maine
drrd hciore ~iinadi uiidçrtiiok itiunil;iierül mcasurc, hepinning iri146.1Fir.1.
tcchni>logic;iIds\clopment. u.crc rcquired hcli>reoil and ras e~ploririun and
erploii~tion coulJ bi-considr.rsd ie.i\ihlc for an olYshaircirca ~ch 3s tieorrcs
~ank. Second, in relative terms, the oil and gas resources ofthe continental shélf
off the New England coast were not thought by the United States to be as
promising as those of the Gulf of Mexico and the continental shelf off
California. Third, there was an ongoing legal debate in the United States
between several of the states and the federal Government concerning offshore
resource rights. This question was not resolved finally in the New England area
until 1975,when the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of
United Stares v. Maine, referred to at paragraph 94 of the United States
Mem~ri~l.~ ~
Sc>nethelcrs.h;id the I.'nilcJ Siaies. in ihc c~rl!.!c,irr follouing the Trum;in
Pr<~clani.ilionf.orinulaicd .I\pe:itic nego1i:itingpiiiiiion for ihc houndarv in ihc
Gulf of Mdinr.usa. il i, clc.ir~:~sbcll \ih.it ihc r~su~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~dic
been under the ternis and conditions of the Proclamationand the accompanying
public material. The 100-fathom contour definition of the continental shelf
meant that from 1945until the First United Nations Conference on the Law of
the Sea, which brought about general acceptance of a broader concept of the
continental shelf, Canada was plainly on notice that the then definition of the
continental shelf, at least as widely heralded hy the United States President,
would have confirmed United States jurisdiction over al1of Georges Bank. The
Northeast Channel and much of the Gulf of Maine Basin both reach depths of
more than 100fathoms and would therefore have fallen outside of the purview
of the Truman Proclamation.
@ In the United States Reply, at Figure 1, which appears as Figure I in the
package of maps before you, we showed charts that depicted the continental
shelf as it was defined from the issuance of the Truman Proclamation in 1945
until the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958.Here,
in the upper left-hand corner, is a simple hasemap of the Gulf of Maine and
adjacent area with the sea-bed at less than 100fathoms deep shown in blue, and
with the sea-bed al greater depth shown in white. If the 100-fathomdefinition of
the continental shelf wereapplied, al1the hlue area on the United States side of a
line between the international boundary terminus and the 100-fathom depth
contour would fall under United States national jurisdiction. This same
@ perspective is confirmed by the accompanying three charts on Figure I before ARGUMEXT OF MR. ROBINSON 235
you. At the upper nght is a depiction from the seminal work of the American
author, A. L. Shalowitz, entitled Shore and Sea Boundaries. The contours of
what was considered to be continental shelf are apparent. The continuity of
Georges Bank is immediatelyapparent. At the lowerleftisa chart fromthe 1952
hook by the Dutch author, M. W. Mouton, entitled The Continental Sheif At
the lime, this hook was considered a definitive work on the physical and legal
issuesrelating to the continental shelfand its depiction ofthe Gulf of Mainearea
also clearly shows an unmistakable interruption in the shelf al the Northeast
Channel.
Here, in the lower right corner. is a chart that appeared in both the United
States Memorial, as Figure 31, Annex 3,Volume 1,and the United States Reply,
183 as Figure 1. This chart was passed to Canada in 1948 through diplomatic
O channels(United States Counter-Memorial. Ann. 3.Seealso ibid.,para. 117).As
did profeisor Bowett, in his presentation on the legalrelevance ofihe conduct of
the Parties, 1would ask the Chaniber, in his words, "to mark the year - 1948"
(P. 14; supra).
The 1948 chart in the lower right corner of Figure 1 depicts proposed
statistical areas and suhareas for the International Convention for the North-
WestAtlantic Fishenes that was then under consideration. The Chamber will
note that one of the lines on the chart is dotted and is defined in the legend as
"limit of continental shelf(100-fathom contour)". Ifyou look at il carefully, that
contour clearly defines Georges Bank, the Scotian Shelf, the Gulf of Maine
Basin,and the Northeast Channel. We would ask the Chamber also to note that
the proposed subarea boundary for ICNAF passed between these continental
shelf areas, extending through the Gulf of Maine Basin and to the Atlantic
Ocean through the Northeast Channel. Thus, under each of these charts, one of
which was transmitted to the Canadian Government through diplomatic
channels in 1948~u~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~velo~ment of the ICNAF text. the 100-fathom
contour of the continental shelf would have placed al1of Georges Bank under
the iurisdiction of the United States in the absence of United Statesagreement to
thecontrary.
Canada was thus well on notice for an extended period that without the
agreement of ils friend and neighbour, Canada could not unilaterally vault the
Northeast Channel to claim portk~nsof Georges Bank, none of which is within
the 100-fathom depth contour contiguous to the coast of Canada, and al1of
which is within the 100-fathom depth contour contiguous to the coast of the
United States.
United States and Canadian Permit Programmes
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, with your permission, 1would like now
to turn attention to the develo~mentof the continental shelf vroaramme of the
United States in the Gulf of Maine area. It will be rememherëd that the United
States ratified the 1958Conventiorion the Continental Shelfin 1961and became
a party when the Convention entered in10force in 1964.At about that time, the
United States began to consider the development of oil and gas resources offits
east coast. In 1960,the United States Geological Survey began issuingoffshore
geophysical permits to qualified applicants under the United States Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953.These permits covered large areas of the
shelf. Surveys wereconducted in those areas of the shelf that the applicants
considered to he the most prospective for oil and gas. The geologicalsurveydoes
not dictate the location of these geophysicalexploration activities. Pursuant to
this programme, certain companies subsequently requested permits to cover al1236 GULF OF MAINE
~l'<icorp, H-nk. uhcrcas othcrr rcitristcd iheir iiperatiiin* to dnly :pdrt oi'ilic
Htnk In c.icli in*tdiiic. the gc.ilogic;iIuric) eriintcd ilic permit arca ihat ii..is
requested. Leasesthat wouldconfer a rieht t6 drill for oil ir pas were not issued
al thli iinlc heiddjc .iigrc:it ''<inCerln ihc I:nii:il S1:iteçrcg.irJinp the marine
cni.ironnicnt Ait! such dc\:lopmciii ai th:it iinir'u3s regardcd 3s prcm.iiurc.
As it happelis, Canada also instituted an oil and gas development programme
on the continental shelf in the 1960s.Canada issued nermits for snecifictracts on
the continental shelfwithin which the permittees weregranted exclusiverights to
conduct exploration and the option to convert such riahts into production
leases. Notablv, under the canadian svstem. the oil cornianies oav relativelv
nominal sums for the permits, and then must compensate ~'anadaih&ugh much
larger royalties if oil or gas suhsequently is discovered and produced under
exclusive production leases.
In this case. Canada makes much of havine issued nermit. that nurnort. .v
crc;iicil Ice~lIy:oénir.ihle pr.,priciar) ri~htsiihcrc~sthurc iiithc I:nitc~lSi:8tcr
ilid not To th~sdd!. hi>uci.cr.nonc di thc C.in.iduii permit, ls\ueJ litr noniindl
sums on Georges Bank has been converted to a lease and no drilling activities
have been conducted. The United States therefore respectfully suhmits that
Canada's argument is based on a distinction of form rather than substance.
In contrast to the United States handling of the Truman Proclamation,
Canada neither consulted with, nor gave any notice to, the United States with
regard Io actions under its permit programme. Rather, Canada now seeks to
build a case upon a routine exchange of correspondence between mid-level
bureaucrats concerned with oil and eas matters. and not with international
boundaries. This corresnondence was Gitiate~ ~ ~-~-, .~~.-inited -.atesfunctionarv.
no1hy Canada's, and kcurrcd afterCanada already had issued most, if not ail;
of the relevant permits. One cannot help but find such behaviour odd when the
friendlv relations of our two countries and their normal chanriels of communi-
ationr arc c~~ii~iilcrciCl ;indd:i'rsondu:t UI~ ci>ntplciclyoui si kr'cpingiiiih iir
artion, in othcr out,i~nding maritime ~iirirdiction~lirrues kttvecn ihc t\io
Governments, such as those pertaining to the breadth of the territorial sea, to
straight haselines, and Io fisheriesjurisdiction. Suchother issues werethe suhject
of high-ranking consultation, even al the level of the Presideiit and the Prime
Minister (V, United Siates Reply, Ann. 2,Vol. 1).
In spite of this long history, Canada now asserts in this case that it was not
until 1976that it hecame aware of United Statesintentions to claim jurisdiction
up to the Northeast Channel. This, Io use a popular Canadian term in these
proceedings, is "nonsense". Moreover, as early as 10 May 1968Canada was,
through diplomatic channels, provided specificnotice of the unacceptahility to
the United States of Canada's permit programme on Georges Bank. On
5 Noventber 1969, the United States formally protested the permits (United
States Memorial, Alin. 56).
Neeotiations between the Parties in 1970confirmed that the United States
thouglit thc h,~un&~ryshould criend through the horthc~si Ch~nncl What ih
p3rilcuIarl! st3riling about <'-inad.i',~ùnicniion in this reg.rrJ irih.ii C3n:ida
itrclf ncxcr in.ide k ii>rni:ilst.iiciticii1oi slaim until 1976uhcn it rct forili the
geographic co-ordinates of its original line.
The early efforts to resolve the dispute failed. As the years passed, the
continental shelf dimension became suhmerged in a much hroader dispute in
which the dominant element for both of the Parties became the fisheries
resources of the northeast portion of Georges Bank.
From the United States perspective, the story of the Canadian permit
programme, the work requirements for which were effectivelysuspended long ARGUMENT OF MR. ROBINSON 237
ago, was insignificant and certainly kas had little real meaning for the past
15 years. The whole affair would be no more than "much ado about nothing"
were it not for the severe implications of Canada's argument in light of the
Truman Proclamation and its "soecial status" in international law as soecificallv
recognized in 1969in the ~orth'~ea ConrinenralShelfcases (para. 4f).
Sufficeit to say that, since the 1960s.numerous diplomalic notes have been
passed between the Parties protesting one or another purported exercise of
continental shelf iurisdiction. Throueho-t it all. the United States has main-
t;iine,l 11spi>iiti<,n.a..c~pressedin the Trumtin I1r.rclam.iti<int.hdi the conttncn.
t:iIsliclf botind.ir) shi~ulJ hr. e.t.ihliihcd h! dgreenieni. a\ thr. need arusc. in
a~c<)rJanrc~sithe~iiitablcprin~iplcs Ihc IJnitcrl States licier sh:ingeil it,initial
position oi 1915 ihat JII ,il Georges Rank ira\ lih.unieJ tci3pperi;iin 10 the
L'iiitedSt:iics :ind thai an? cgintrar) uiiila~er;iliiic:isurL'iicre un3c;~pt.ihle to
the United States in the absence iofagreement.
Mr. President, distinguished Jiidges, there is a final point to be made that
bears on the story of the Canadian permit programme, Canada's claim of
acquiescence and estoppel, and the United States outer continental shelf
.roeramme. The United States is saddened that Canada would seek in the
proceeJings 10iurn United Si;ite*pi?liiicalre.traini. o\:r .ipcrio~loiman! !r.!rs
during u.hicha p<>litic~rIettlciiieni wlisjoughi. inio n<)wa (:an.idilin legnlcl.iini
oiliioiiicssencc .,ni1eitor>pel.Truih io tell. the United Stdtci ultim.ilrlv Jid nui
go so'far as to hold leasesales in the disputed portion of Georges ~ank because
the United States did not want to lessen the chances of reaching an agreement
with its close friend, ally, and neighbour, and surely not because the United
States, as a legal matter, accepted any purported Canadian claim.
200-Mile Fisheries Jurisdiclion
So far this introductorv statenient has focused uoon the continental shelf.
Thruuglioiit ihe peri.>d.h<>ucver.large-sale iishiti~opr.r:<ti,in i\.crr.conJ~cted
on Georges Hmk. C.inaJa rnicreu the GetorgcsB:inkti,hery at >igniliclinrle,els
onl, in thce;irlv IYbtJs'ThirdcountrichdiJ siiJIahoui the s.iniciinic 0ic.1dr.e.
in chosedays the fisheriesof Georges Bank were high seas resources open to ali
fishermen. Under the auspices of ICNAF, efforis were made tu coiiserve and to
manage the fisheriesstocks of Georges Bank and the Canadian grounds on the
Scotian Shelf and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. As lime passed, these
efforts became less and less successful.
A continental shelf dispute between friendly States is normally a manageable
issue because shelf exploration is of such recent origin. But fisheriesare another
matter. As of the mid-1970s. the dis~ute in the Gulf of Maine area included a
region developed and fishedsince thé1820salmost exclusively byUnited States
fishermen and only fished significantly by Canadian fishermen for less than 20
~ ~
years, and then basically fo;scallops.
When, in late 1975,the United States realired that ils longstanding efforts to
resist extension of coastal Statejurisdiction to 200nautical mileson a worldwide
basis, of whichCanada was a leading proponent, were 10fail, the United States
and Canada began a series of consultations and negotiations. At first? these
related solely to the continental shelf, but subsequently they dealt with the
anticipated issue of exclusive fisheriesjurisdiction as well. Although there were
manv meetines throuehout 1976. includine several a1 the Secretarial and
~inrsterial levil, little Gogress was made in Greeing on a maritime boundary in
the Gulf of Maine area.
During 1976,both nations announced their intention to establish 200-nauti-238 GULF OF MAINE
cal-milefishingzones. Bythe time they did so in 1977,it was recognized that this
step would add a compelling new dimension to the existing houndary dispute
between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area. The
statements by which the two countries first notified the public of the CO-ordinates
of their claimcd 200-nautical-mile fishingzones contained identical provisions
to the effect that the respective claimed lines of the Parties were intended
specificallyto be without prejudice no1only to any negotiationsbut also "to any
positions which may have heen or may be adopted respecting the limits of
maritime jurisdiction in such areas" (United States Memorial, Anns. 63and 64).
Once the precise CO-ordinatesof the two boundary claims became public, the
efforts of the United States and Canada focused upon interim fishery arrange-
ments to provide some time for further negotiations on the boundary. Before
1976ended. the Parties agreed to refrain from enforcing their respective law~
against each other's vesselsin the area between the two published positions.
In earlv 1977. the United States and Canada siened the 1977 lnterim
Keciproail I:irhcrie, Agresniciti. This ,hori-tcrm .igreenicni prosidcd ior ihc
iontinuation oicristing lishcriesat e\iiiing le!cls or1'th~~ca.itnd uc\t codsis oi
the Unitcd St3tc>anJ C~nada. hath ritthin and he\ond the bo~ndar\ rcrionr . - Il
was in efïect a status quo agreement.
After the extensions to 200-nautical-milejurisdiction, senior officialsin both
nations became convinced ofthe need to resolve al1the boundary and fishery
orohlems on both the east and Westcoasts of th~ ~ ~ ~~d ~ ~ ~ ~and Can~ ~ ~ ~ ~
'lhuj. fin 27July 1977.ihc Prcsideritoiihc Ilnitcd Stalc. and the Priinc S0nidr.r
ul Clin:ida appointcd spccial ne@<iti:iiorIioklc;iluith thcrc i\rue%.'1heir nllind~te
n35 10 rcnort 10 lhcir Go\crnmeni> b\ 15Ocioher 1977on the r>rin:i~lesuili
comprehekive settlement for the four maritime houndaries and rélatedresource
matters.
The Expanded Canadian Claim
The negotiations go1offto a good start. However, on 14October 1977,while
United States and Canadian officialswere holding talks in Ottawa, and only one
dav,he~ ~e~the reoorts were due~unde~ ~ ~ mandate. Canada informe.-the ~
United Sistcs that ;tintcndcJ IO e~p3nJ il\houndiir) claini in thc Gulioi \laine
arcli ha.icd upon C~nlida'rintcrpreiiiion of the ilicn rccent cimardoithe Couri
of ~rbitration in the ~nelo-~r~nch Arbitration.
'1hui. In ihe midst uCreniitii,e ncgoti;rtiun, th31 the I:niied St.iic, ihuuphi
wcrcdirecied ;IIrclirhing x piiliticdl rcsolution hetuecn rlosc Cricndsrather [han
at leading to a day in court hetween adversaries, Canada chose to widcn the
disoute rather than to narrow it,
On thlit occ;ision. Canada put ioruard a Jetailcd Icgil an<il\*iru.hich :asthe
Ilnitcd Staics i\riitcn pleiding, h;iic indicdicd (CniieJ Siaicr Kcply.par:i. 199).
uxs in msnv inhranxr contr;ir\, IO ~ositions which Clinadci D~C\,IOUS~\ hlid rakcn
or which canada now espoises 'in these proceedings. ~reviousii, they bad
expressed rigid viewsregarding equidistance and special circumstances. Canada
had gone so far as to say that the factors identified hy the Court in the North Seo
Continental Shelfcases as relevant circumstances were irrelevant to a delimita-
tion under Article 6 of the continental shelf convention. Under Canada's
previous viewof the law, there were no Article 6 "special circumstances" in the
Gulf of Maine area (ibid., Ann. 12,p. 2).
Notwithstanding that the Anglo-French Arbitration, in the viewof the United
States, had clarified the law in such a way as completely to do away with
Canada's theretofore considered legal views, Canada rebounded hy expanding ARGUMENT OF MR. ROBINSON 239
ils original claim on the theory that Cape Cod and Nantucket Island simply do
not exist. On such a basis, Canada asserted entitlement to an additional 2,900
square nautical miles of Georges Bank. The United States Government reacted
vigorouslv to the new Canadian claim. The United States made clear that it
c&ld noiagree that the decision in the Anglo-French Arbitration justified such
an expansion of Canada's position.
The 1979 tailed Agreemenr
After this unsettling event for the United States, the special negotiators
nonetheless pressed on. However, they did not succeed in developing a
comorehensive solut~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~,d of 1977. The 1977 lnterim Rccinrocal ~ ~ ~
~ishériesAgreement expired, but each Government refrained from enfOrcing
national laws anainst fishermen of the other while the neaotiations laboured on.
In Aoril 1978.ihe two Governments exchaneed Notes cinstitutine a orooosed
1978'interim;eciprocal fisheriesagreement (Ünited States ~emoril, Ani. 71).
and they b.gan .i~applv that agreement provisionally. However, the 1978
aereement never formail; entere<lÏinto force. Less than two months after the
exchange of Notes, the 'canadian Cuvçrnment decided Io cease provisional
application and to terminate al1IJnited States fishing off the coast of Canada.
This was not a small step. Canada thereby terminated some 200 years of
fishing by New Englanders off the coasts of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and
Labrador. Over this 200-year period, slowly but surely, Canada one way or
another had whittled away at the United States presence in the vast fisheriesoff
Canada's eastern coast. Finally, in 1978, itwas over. The United States and its
fishermenhad to adjust to the fact that they were left with only Georges Bank in
the northwest Atlantic and that even then and despite al1the history that had
gone before, Canada had seen fit Io claim the northeast portion of Georges
Bank. Some Americans could no1 be blamed for having wondered whether
Canada sought not only to have ils enormous cake but to eat ours as well.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, it is an understatement to say that the
expanded Canadian claim and the termination of reciprocal fishing, when
combined with the sae~~o. the Canadian oermit nroeramme. .oured the mood in
{arIuus (~u~TIcT$ 01 ihe United Srarc<i<>u:~id\rlic uiiguiiig iicguu.li~uris \t'hile
th<United Si.~tcsspe:i:il negoti;ii<erener@etic;ill)c~rricd the dissussioiis iorutird
uiih the riippori of the then Exc~uti\c Hranch ~iiihe Ilnitcd SiaicsCio\criinieni.
puliiic.~lbupport in the puhlicand in theC~ngress ebbcd au..]!. Sc\crthcle,~, the
iuri speci.il nep,ii.!iorS rc3che.l agrecmrni in March rii IV79on a p,ick;ige of
two treaties to recommend to their respective Governments.
One proposed treaty establislied a régime to govern east coast fishery
resources extending from Cape H;itteras to Newfoundland. Theother proposed
treaty suhmitted the maritime boundary dispute in the Gulf of Maine area to
binding adjudication. Thus, the one applied to the east coast while the other
~ ~ r r ~ ~~~~~ , ~~ ~ ~-~~~ai~e area.
Later in these proceedings the United States willdeal in some detail with the
failed 1979east coast fishenes agreement. That 1979proposal. likeal1neaotiated
agreements of this sort. involved factors that were auite unrelated to the legal
coniiderjti.>nr thdi \!IIIdetermine the riut:unic oi this :.i<e Ii1.:e\3cti) ior su-ch
rasons ihtii ioo much impiiri.incc c.Innot and niust no1 lx illlilch:~I111unrdlllicd
treaiies. To do oihcruisc aould h.irï d chillinc c1fh.t<inthe propress uf ieekinp,
amicahly to resolve future disputes through n&otiation. At ihi~-~oint,we need
only recall that the package of two treaties failed to obtain the necessary
approval of the United States Senate.240 GULF OF MAINE
In his opening statement, the distinguished Agent for Canada said "the
Parties hefore the Court today are the same Parties that concluded the 1979
aereement" (D. 55.suoral Mr. President. that is an incorrect statement that
fsls IO i3ke into 3cio;nt ~heLL.Iihxt ihc Uniicd St~tcsScnaic did no1iippro\.e
the 1979fishericsagrccm~.ni.Ai Clinadi isucll awarc. thc L'nitedStates adheres
to the principle of separation of powers. Under Oursystem of government, the
United States as an entitv is not a oartv to anv treatv subiect to ratification that
hxs ken ncpoiiated h) ihc Fxccuti\e Bransh until ihdt ireai) ha\ recei\ed thc
aJ\,icc and conscnt of the Cnitcd Si;itcsScnaie. Specilisally,Article 2.\eciio?.
of ihc Uniicd Siaies Consiiiutiun prin~der thlit the Presidcnt of ihc Uniicd
States "shall have the Power bv andwith the Advice and Consent of the Senate.
to rnakc Treaties, pro\,idcrl t\i<i-rhirJ\ of the Senators prcsent soncur"
AI is cu,tomar! undcr our fomi of gotcrnmcnt. the nepirixii<inol'rhe 1979
tijhcrics agrccnicnt \$asc~rriedout by the Exe;uti\c Rr-nch uithe Cnitcd Statci
Go\,ernmcni. Ittheii hecdme the Juiy of ihc F.xecutitc Brdnih tu go io the
Scn~tcand prescnt itj produci for the considrriition and approtxl ui the Senate
In common p~rlansr, the Executiw Hrdnch cndcli\oiirs IO scll the fruits oiiis
labour to the relevant Congressional committees and ultimately to the Senate
itself. Professor Bowett asked in his presentation in Canada's opening round:
"So what went wrong?'(p. 147, supra). The answer is that the proposed
agreement, in the view of the United States Senate, so missed the mark of
reflecting the rights of the United States under the new 200-nautical-mile
jurisdiction, that evenone of the nation's most renowned attorneys and eloquent
advocates, Special Negotiator Cutler, could not persuade the Senate that the
agreement was fair.
Within a few months after the proposed fisheries agreement was signed in
1979, it became apparent that the agreement would not be approved by the
Senate nor imolemented bv the House of Renresentatives. Oooosi~..n to the
1979fisherics agreement in the Congress uas strong. \ridcspre.id, and crossed
part) Iinri.Itwdsr.x:iccrblitcdb) the latc liiienib) Canada io exp~nJ 11,clïim
in the arca. In il, Keol\, the Cnitcd St.ites insludcd 3 number oi \iatcments
made by Senators showhg that they rejected the proposed fishenes agreement
negotiated hy the Executive Branch because it was fundamentally unfair to the
United States (paras. 35-36).
Thus. for examde, Senator Pell of Rhode Island. the now ranking minoritv
membrr oi thr.~cnaic torcign Kclaiiuns Commitice. 3 ucll-knmin suiporier
international Iawand Icgalin~iiiuiions.and dcspitc the Nst ihai hc islimemhcr
oiihe ridri) of the Adniinistraiion in ollice a1the lime, \aid oithc 1979tishcrics
"my own analysis had led me to conclude that the treaty in its present form
is inequitable and should no1be approved by the Senate" (United States
Reply, Ann. 10, p. 2, emphasis added).
Similarly, when the then Deputy-Secretary of State sought to defend the
fisheries agreement as necessary to prevent hann to "our vitally important
hilateral relationship" with Canada. Senator Javits of New York responded:
"We mus1not confuse the ideathat wehaveto ratifv a treatv which wemav
not considera fair treatyjus1hecauseweare fnends.~hecanadians wouldnit
do it, and they should not expect us to do it.(Ibid A n,. 10,p. 20.)
In oppurition to ihc proposcd aprccnicni, II wns pointeci out during Senate
considcratiun that ihc complic~icdioini fishericsmanagement .,\lem envi,ioned
was cumbersoine, if not unworkabie, and that the différentfishery management ARGUMENT OF MR. ROBINSON 241
objectives and policies of the United States and Canada were likely to lead to
numerous disputes under such a system, resulting in mismanagement of the
stocks. Most imvortantlv, it was emnhasized that the amount of Canadian
fishingpcrmiitr.d~n Geor'$esBdnkdnd'iiithe Gulloil~inc under ihe propnrcd
pcrmancni ;igrcenient rixs noi lustiiied b! pas10dn.idi;in ~.ii\ities rince Ilnitcd
States fishermen had dominated the fishery in those areas for over 150years.
The central nroblem with the 1979fishenesaereement was that. whilethe ioint
report of the iegotiators in 1977had called foran agreement with a termination
provision, the proposed text called for a permanent agreement. Since one
important rationale of the negotiations was to preserve thestatus quo while the
final boundary was settled by negotiation or otherwise, the addition of
permanence changed the whole political dynamic surrounding the proposed
agreement. The concessions to which United States fishermen had aereed earlv
inthe negotiations relating to catch allocations, particularly in regardto scallo~s
and to management, were based on the expectation that there would be a
temporary agreement and not the permanent one signed by the negotiators. In
addition. an imoortant incentive for the aereement to some United Sta~e~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~-
fishermen, access'to fisheries in Canadian waiers, disappeared as a result of the
unilateral termination of United States reciprocal fishing rights in the midst of
the negotiations. Political support for the agreement finailyiithered on the vine
with the addition of the provision that it was to las1forever regardless of where
the boundary ultimately would be drawn. MI. President, the United States
believesthat allowing a neighhour to keep his garden patch in your front yard
for a little time, whileyou and he both decide where the fenceshould be built, is
one thing, but to agree to it forever is quite another.
In brief, it was the Executive Branch of the United States Government that
negotiated the terms of the 1979fisheriesagreement with Canada, and not the
United States as a whole. That agreement did not represent the position of the
United States as an entity, but that of only one branch of the Government. This
proposed treaty was dead in the water hefore the United States Presidential
elections in 1980.One of the first sceosof the new United StatesAdministration
u3i 11srciommcnd:iii<>nthat the h;und.ir> dijpiite in the (iuli i)f M;iine iireù
shu~ld hc rc,i>l\e,l in 311 rerpccih hy nie.ins oi'[hi, adjudiçüti~n Cana&
aicepied ihst soluti,~nin Noi,cmbcr IYkl.Toda!. u,iih ihc Cnited Sinie\ Scntc
having given its advice and consent to the ratification by the President of the
boundary treaty hetween the United States and Canada, which submitted the
Special Agreement to the Court, the United States as a whole is indeed hefore
the Chamber and with one united voice is asking for ajudicial resolution of this
dispute in accordance with law.
In its opening oral presentations, Canada characterized this decision of the
United States not to proceed with the 1979fisheriesagreement as pure politics,
and a gamble by Ainerican fishernien. The United States does not accept that
characterization. To be sure, the United States has an important fishery on the
northeast portion of Georges Bank and that fishery isat risk in this proceedings.
However. the United States is here because of the couraeeof its conviction that
the Chamher will determine the rights of hoth Parties inder international law
and will rule accordingly, with the result that United States jurisdiction over al1
of Georges Bank will be confirmed
The Termsof the Special Agreement
With your permission, the United States now turns to the matter of the Special
Agreement pursuant 10 which the Parties notified the International Court of 242 GULF OF MAINE
Justice of their desire to seek a judicial delimitation of the single maritime
boundary in the Gulf of Maine area. As would be expected in a dispute of this
history and magnitude, the Parties carefully drafted the Special Agreement to be
as neutral as possible.Yet Canada has seenfitin theseproceedingsto seeksupport
for its boundary position in the very provisions of the Special Agreement.
Article II of the SpecialAgreement sets forth the geographic co-ordinales of a
starting-point for the boundary. The starting-point is shown on Figure 2 of the
18s United States oral presentation. This Figure appeared initially as Figure 4 of the
O United States Reply. Canada alleges in its Counter-Memonal (III) that in
choosing the starting-point, the Parties:
"have thus recognized that it is the opposite coasts of Maine and Grand
Manan Island and of Maine and Nova Scotia that should control the
course of the line ..." (para. 647).
Canada also asserts, at paragraph 88 in its Counter-Memorial, that the relation
hetween the starting-point and the internationalboundary terminus "reflects the
common viewof the Parties.. . that the boundary inside the Gulf of Maine itself
should run in a general southwesterly direction". These statements are incorrect.
As the Chamber is aware, the United States and Canada dispute sovereignty
over Machias Seal Island and North Rock. Therefore, the Parties chose as the
starting-point for the boundary the point seaward of Machias Seal Island and
North Rock at which their initial 1976 boundary claims first intersected. The
ouroose was not to brine the disoute over Machias Seal Island and North Rock
berArc ihe Chamkr. TL~ start~R~-~oiniccriainly due.; not suggest an) agrcc-
nient about ihc relaiionshi;, of thecossts. or aboui the directiun of the houndür)
that the Chamher is to delimit.
Mr. President, the United States may only surmise that had Canada's current
interpretation of the Special Agreement been pressed before the United States
Senate while it was considering ils advice and consent to the boundary
agreement that has brought this case hefore the Chamber, yet another proposed
t~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~he Parties would no1have received Sen~t~ anorova,.
~l;c ,rcond Canadian niisrîading of the Special Agrccrncnt rclatei to th<
inangle. Paragraph 23 of Canadÿ'3 Counier-Mernorial staics that ihc triangle
\r.:ijcon\iructed to include ihrcc ooints. thc iuo noin!, where the 1976C~nadian
and Cnited Siatec cl3ims inicrsGt the outer limiis of iheir claimcd 200-nauiicïl-
mileiones. and ihe point ;ilu,hir.hthe ouier Iimitsof thcsc 7ones interseci each
othcr CJnad;i implies 11 p3ragraph 24 of ilsCounier-\lemorial, and nou again
initsfirstround ofordl argument(pp. 162-163,.iirpro)thdl iheboundary proposcd
b) the Uniicd Stries is inconsisicnt uiih the Speci~lAgreement hcc~uscit doer
noi interreci ihc 200-nautical-mile Iimii of th: United State~tiiihin the irianglc.
Canada's areument directlv contradicts earlier Canadian statements (Cana-
dian \lcnioriai, para. l?). ~lnder the Spccial Agrcemeni. the Chamher md)
iermin~te the deliniitation ai an). point o11,ihoosing \i,iihin ihc triangle. Thul.
Article II of the Spr.ci11Agrccnicni aikr thri the Jelimitdtionbe draun betu.ecn
thc starting-point and "a point to bcdetcrmined hy the Chambcr uithin an area
bounded hy ,traight Iines". In its Mernorial(Ij,Canada itself statcd:
"The Court. ..may fixthe seaward terminal point. ..at any point in the
triangle... There is no other significancein the use of this device or in the
configuration of the triangle itself; it was chosen simply as a convenient,
neutral technique that accomplishes the task of indicating clearly where
the adjudicated boundary is to end." (Para. 12. See also United States
Memorial, para. 4, fn. 1.) ARGUMENT OF MR. ROBINSON 243
Under Canada's more recent intcroreiation of ihe Snecial Aereement. more
than halfof ihe arc;i uiihin the iriîngie uoulJ bcd~s~uaiified.bc~ausea line rhat
terminaicd in lhat 3rra wtiuld no! interscci the 200-nauiiç;il.niiIe arcoi either
Party.
This leads me, with your perniission. Io further consideration of Figure 2
@ before you. In its Counter-Memorial. Canada describesthe United Statesclaim
depicted thereon as "extravagant" (para. 22) and "simply a straight line from
ihe starting-point to the northeast corner of the triangle" (para. 44).
Mr. President, what Figure 2 before you shows is that, on the one hand. the
@ United States hasclaimed 5,954square kilometres lessthan would result from a
boundarv drawn from the startine-ooint to the corner of the trianele nearestto
~anada.~his area is in grey. All of'the area claimed by the unitedustates lies in
front of the United Statescoast. Although the United Statesadopte* the régime
of 200-nautical-mile resourcezones reluctantly, neverihcless,having done so, il
is n~w c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~claim thos~ ~ai~ ~ ~e areas that lie ~f~~~-s own coast. On the
other hand, asshown by the yellow area on the chart, Canada has now claimed
9,076square kilometres more than il would receivefrom a strainht line from the
siarting-point to the corner of the triangle nearest the ~nited-Stales noiwith-
standing the fact that the seaward area does no1 lie in front of the Canadian
@ co-st. The United Statesbelievestliat Figure 2of today's presentation is striking
evidcnce, not of American extravagance, but rather of the unreasonable and
inequitable nature of Canada's position in this case.
II.OTHERASPECTS OF CANADA'SUNREASONABC LEAIM
Mr. Prcsideni. diriinguichcd Judger. uith your permiision the United Statei
would Iike IOlake ;imoment to aildresr a rub~eciihai has iroublcd the IJniicJ
States throuahout theseproceedinps. Il apwars to us that Canada's pleadings
have been reilete u,ith siatementsof our~orted faci ihat are so exaeeeratedrn
their dcscripi;on asto h:c<>mplcicly k;cking in crcdihilii). The ~nite~'Siatcs h~\
hccnc;iudhi beiueen <inurge IO ciddressedchand eicr) one si heseJi\tiiriions.
and the rëalization that todo sowould mean thai Our written oleadinps and now
Our ordl prcscniaiion uould bcromr. no niore than a paichi\brk of iinuiix in
uhich the redl i$suc>in ihir niaiter u,ould hc los1 In order io gvr a ila\our ofthe
~rohlem ihat has uorried us sincc 27 Scotember 1982.the Cniied Siaies bricil\,
shall recall here but two instances of what we regard as a lareer oroblem. hé
first relates to the question of the history of thepred&ninaz interests in the
development and exploitation of the GeorgesBank Fisheries.The second relates
to the existence ofseparatestocks of fish and shellfish associatedwith Georges
Bank.
We would have added a third example relaling IO the nature of the United
Statespermit programme on the northeasi portion of Georges Bank, but 1have
already said more than enough on this subjeci in this introductory statement.
My able colleague, Mr. Rashkow, will. however, provide the Chamher with the
details of this maiter.
As to the first example, Canada at paragraph 190of its Memorial, suggested
that il ha~~startcd the scalloo fisherv on Georees Bank. However. unon review.
Canada'r own e\.idenceciinirmed ihai thc U~I~J Siatcr. ind nui canada. haj
c~tablishcd ihi, iisher). A RiilI,,rr,i of the Fiihcrics Rcscarch Board of Cün3da
oublished in 1964noted thai whenC:inaJian \,esselsber~n IO tish for sï~lloos on
Seorges hnk. ihey uerc entering an eiiahlished unlied Si.iics i~.aIIopli;hers.
Thai documeni. an olficial puhlic~tion of a C.inidi-n Cio\crnmcnt inctituiiun. 244 GULF OF MAINE
"The thnving UnitedStates offshore scallop fishe...began off Long
Island in the early 1920'sand spread to Georges Bank in the late 1920'sand
early 1930's."(N. Bourne, "Scallops and the Offshore Fishery of the
Maritimes", Fisheries Research Board of Canada, BulletinNo. 145, 1964,
p. 21, deposited in accordance with Art. 50 of the Rules of the Court.
Emphasis added.)
This was cited by Canada in its Memorial (para. 290, fn. 57) as a document.
Similarlv. Canada relied heavilv in connection with its historv of the scallov
fisheryonGeorges Bank upon what it called the "pioneer voyagen of theMar>
E. Kenney (Canadian Memorial, para. 190).The Canadian Bulletifrom which1
just quoted also refers to the voyage of this ship, as follows:
"ln the late 1930'sinterest was expressed in developing a Canadian
offshore fishery and necessary alterations in the fishery regulations were
proposed to permit this. However, with the advent of World War II,
interest was diverted."
The Canadian document went on:
"A greai deal ol ihe credii for rcvii,ing inicrcsi 3nd encourilging the
de\elopmeni of the Canadldn olfshorc sc;illop tishery mug<ito the lats
MI. T. R.Clouston. of GeneralSc3 Foods. H~Iifax.Ile kncu of the United
States Georges ~an'kfisheryand postulated that some of the Nova Scotian
banks had populations of scallopswhich might support a similar Canadian
fishery. In 1945 hecharted the M.VMary E. Kenney (under Captain John
Beck of Halifax) to explore for scallop beds on Nova Scotia banks,
particularly middle ground.
Captain Beckwas acquainted with offshorescalloping sincehe had sailed
on Georges Bank scallop boats out of the port of New Bedford, Massachu-
setts. In 1945 he look thMary E. Kenney to New Bedford and had her
rigged in the same manner as United States offshore scallopers. On his
return trip to Halifax, he fished 9 days on Georges Bank and with his crew
of 6 men landed 8.000Ih. of scallov meats in Halifax. This was thefirst
catch of scallops landed Canadaby anofshorescalloperandif camefrom
GeorgesBank." (N. Bourne, op. cil.p. 21, emphasis added.)
Thus, in Canada's own officialreports, cited by Canada in this case, the 1945
voyage of the Mary E. Kenney is proven not to have ken "pioneer" at all,
but rather a tentative first step into a fishery known hy Canada to have
ken developed by United States fishermen (see also United States Counter-
Memorial, Ann. 7, pp. 14-19).
In the second example, Canada, in an effort to tie Georges Bank fisheriesto
those of Canadian waters, showed in an annex to its Counter-Memorial an
illustration of what it called the "extensive migra...throughout the Gulf
of Maine area" by lobster (Anns., Vol. 1,Fig. 41).ThisFigure showed migration
@ routes radiating out from the area offPort Maitland, Nova Scotia, leaving the
impression that lobster commonly travel from Nova Scotian waters to Georges
Bank. In fact, the source of this illustration was a study involving the tagging
and release of 28,226 lohsters in the area off Port Maitland, over a period of
@ 35years (ibidAnns., Vol. 1,para. 131(B)and Fig. 41).(This study, "Movements
of tagged lobster released off Port Maitland, Nova Scotia, 1944-1980, by
A. Campbell, was also discussed in Ann. 21 of the United States Reply.)
According to the study, some 14,000 of the lobsters were recaptured. A
reading of the study discloses, however, that of these, 80.8 per cent were re-246 GULF OF MAINE
definition "exclusive". Of course, another name for the very same concept of
exclusivity is dominance or "monopoly". The United States recalls that it was
Canada, not the United States, that led the effort to extend exclusive coastal
State jurisdiction. It seems odd that Canada now chooses to cal1the United
States "mo~~oolistic" when the United Stat~ ~~eeks to assert ils riehts in zones.
the concept i&which Cÿndda uas in the forefront ofcre3ting. MI. Prc,idcnt.
the Uniicd Sidtcs respectfully rubmiis ih~t it ir no more "monop,ilistic" for the
IJniird States IO brine under I.'niicdStates ~.oniri>C l anadian fishineon Geurrei
Bank in what was ~ENAF's Suharea 5 than it was for Canada io terminate
United States fishing in what were ICNAF's Suhareas 3 and 4 following the
extension of Canada's fishinr iu".sdiction to 200 nautical miles.
St,ïirrd. undrr the terms of the Special Agrrrmcni. this case is io in\i)l\c an
dpplication ofthc principlcs and rules of intern;ition<ilIxir that are dppli~,ahle <i\
between the Parties in the dclimiiaii<inof ihis sinele maritime hound3rv. The
United States helievesthat such an aoolication canonlv confirm ~nited.~tates
jurisdiction over Georges Bank in iis'entirety. On théone hand, the United
States seeksan affirmation of existingand well-knownpnnciples of international
law as reaffirmed bv recent trends.-canada. on the other hand. is seekine to
rciurreci as a ne\# principle - the io-called ..distdnce principle" - the rejected
notion of proximiiy. whereby e~chState rcceises the 3re3 of the sedsli~sc~t itiits
coast evcn if such a reruli cuis otl'the co;istal priiieciion of a neiehhourinr: Sixte.
As a corollarv of this distance onnciole. contÏolGne eiTectwoula he eivei to the
cquidistansr kethod ,asinherc~rlyc<iiiii)ihlc,8.lr.pi;e the Court's cl& indication
in prior cases that in pdrticular inrtanccs. uhiih we hclie\c are ;ipplicahlc here.
the equidistance method does no1produce an equitahle solution. ln those cases,
another me~ ~ ~ ~ methods in whole or in Dar1 mav he used to oroduce
an equitahle soluiion. Canada also seeks to have the khamher~revit~iize the
discarded notion of equitahle apportionment of the maritime area in dispute
rather than to set forth a delimiiation in accordance with law
7hrd in oar opinion. the rclcv.intcircumstancer oi the geopraph) oTthe GulC
of Mainr xrcÿ dictate th31thc Cniied States should hai,ejurisdisti<in over al1of
Georecs Hmk. We hclieve thdt the geocrÿphy (if the rele%aniarc2 15the hinrle
most'important fact in this caser ~e especially note in this regard Che
configuration and length of the Parties' coasts in the area, the location of the
land houndary and the international houndary terminus, and the coastal
concavity that is the Gulf of Maine.
We note in this regard that the United States coastlines around the Gulf of
Maine are at least three limes longer than the Canadian coast facingthe Gulf. As
a result of the configuration of the coasts in the Gulf of Maine area, an
equidistance houndary crossing Georges Bank perpendicular to the closing line
across the Gulf at its midpoint would thus produce a delimitation grossly
disproportionate to the length of Canada's coast in the area.
It is important to remember that the name of the area that is hefore the
Chamher is no1the Gulf of Southwest Nova Scotia area nor the Gulf of Cape
Cod and Nantucket area, but the Gulf of Maine area. It is the United States
state of Maine after which the Gulf of Maine is named.
That is as it should he, for it is Maine that faces seaward into the Atlantic
Ocean, and no1the laterally facing coasts of southwest Nova Scotia or of Cape
Cod and Nantucket.
Fourrh, the next most important factual aspect of this case as far as the United
States isconcerned is the integnty, or unity, of the respectivefishinghanks in the
area and the existence of the separate fish stocks associated therewith. The
division of the stocks at the Northeast Channel has heen recognized for literally ARGUMENT OF MR. ROBINSON 247
decades, including hy Canada. It is only hecause Canada, for the purposes of
this case, has chosen to disavow ils long-espoused position regarding stock
division that the United States has heen ohliged to seek the assistance of an
expert. The United States will let our expert's credibilityspeak for itself, and we
encourage hoth the Chamher and Canada to examine him fully. The United
States concludes that the principle of resource conservation and management
and that of dispute minimization again require that the United States retain
iurisdiction over al1of Georees Bank.
' I.iJihticorge.; B~nk ha, hien :iir3dition~l ti\hing ground fur Neu Engl~nd
fishermen\incc ihc e~rl) 1820s.F81r ovcr a ccniury and J kali, rhc Uniicd Si;iics
and its nationals have develooed and remained active on Georres Bank. in al1
tishrrio. and in al. oiher pe;iincnt non-fishing acii\iiies ïs ucÏl By contrari.
CJnüdiün 3ciivilier hai,c hccn rcccnt 2nd Iimiicd primüril!IO a single liihcr-
scallop$. Thc Uniicd Siüter repcciiully subniits thai iniernaiionïl Iaw uould
not faiour the dislocation of what othehise would he an anoronriate houndarv
on ihc büsisoiCanada'> rcccni fislicryin one biock.chcn if.'&Cinada raiJ in i;,
tirsi round,iiuere. out i>f16 import~nt stocks iin Gcorgcs Hdnk "the Cicorgc5
Bank stock par excellence" (p. 145,supra).
The longstanding predominant interest of the United States in Georges Bank,
in our view, leadsIo United States entitlement to Georges Bank in its entirety.
The United States believesthat the conduct of the Parties isan important indicia
of the equity of a houndary linewliere,as in the TunisialLibyacase, hoth Parties
used the same linefor the same purpose. The only linesin the Gulf of Maine area
that have heen used hy hoth Parties for the same purposes, are those shown al
@@ Figures 8, 9,13, 14 and 15 of the United States Memorial. These lines run
through, or near to, the Northeasl Channel. Most particularly, the NACFl and
@@ ICNAF linesdividing Suharea 4 and Suharea 5, at the Northeast Channel, have
heen used in hilateral and multilateral fishery conservation and management
agreements. In their respective programmes the Parties have both respected this
identical NACFl and ICNAF line. The Parties, by their conduct, have thus
affirmatively given the Northeast Channel legal significance in their hilateral
relationship.
Sixrh. in our view. the Judmient of the Court in the Continental Shelf
(~unisihl~ib~an rab ~arnahir&a) case held that economic depeidence~and
relative wealth were extraneous to the delimitation of the continental shelf
between the two Parties to that case for reasons that we helieve are fullv
applicahlc io thc dclimiiiiiion of ihr single niaririme buundary in thir case ~hu;.
evcn wcrc C;inad~'s economic dcpcndcncc argumcntr ï~ciuall) correct. iihich
they certainly are not, they would not require a boundary other than the one
orooosed hv the United States.
S!ebe,!rh[hr Ilnitrd Siaics lrusis ihat the rci,icwof ihc hisior) of ihcdisp~ic in
ihis iniroduciory siaicmcnt alre~dv has madc clcar. ihai the pd\t conduci of the
Parties serves simolv to confirm the oast oredominant interest of the United
States in Georges Bank and its entitlement io al1of il in the future rather than to
provide Canada with any cognizahle rights or interests in Georges Bank.
IV. THEBOUNDARP YRO~SED BY THE UNIIEDSTATES
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, with your permission, the United States
now would liketo describe the boiindarv that it is orooosina in this case and to
exnlain the method used bv the ~nitedStates to ions&uctthat houndarv.
'Theproposed United &tes hoiindary is drawn perpendicular to the kneral
direction of the Coast, both al the international houndary terminus and in the 248 GULF OF MAINE
relevant area. The line obviously takes account of the Special Agreement
between the Parties. It also takes account of what the United States regards as
the relevant circumstances in this case, in particular the coastal configkation,
the location of the land boundary and the international boundary terminus, the
concavity that is the Gulf of Maine, the length of the respective coasts of the
Parties facine on the Gulf of Maine. and lastlv the inteeritv of the sevarate and
identifiablehii banks in the area'and the fish stock diviiions related thereto.
Unlike the equidistance method as applied by Canada, this construction of an
adiusted uerÜendicular does no1 use selected vrotrudinr coastal hase ~oints.
~:iihcr. ihc i~nite~Statcs llnciib.id upon a n;or: conipictc iicu oi the&ii<i.~l
gcogrilphy. hoih iviihin :ind hcyond the Guli'i~i'Miinc3nd the othcr signific~ni
circumstances in this case, al1of which, in our view,point to a line that respects
the division at the Northeast Channel.
Figurc 3 oi [hir prcicntation. which appearcJ ar Fiyurc 27 of the IJniicJ
@ States h1cmori:il.,h<,us ;Iiiiepcrpcndicular Io the gcneral direction of the coai
Jr:iun Cronithe inicrnïiion~l hciundar, terminu.; II i, ihc viiriiion uitlic Uniicd
States that the location of the land frontier and the international terminus are
central facts in this case. The United States recalls that the Court in the
TunisialLibya case afforded great weight to the location of the land boundary
(I.C.J. Reports 1982,para. 116).
The Parties agree Lhatthe general direction of the coast of North America, as
well as in the Gulf of Maine area, is from southwest to northeast. More
precisely, the United States calculates the general direction of the coast in the
Gulf of Maine area to he 54" and, as noted, finds this direction consistent with
that of the North Atlantic coast as a whole. Such was the only purpose of the
United States reference to so-called macrogeography, of which Canada makes
so much - that is to show the consistency of the approach of the United States
within the Gulf of Maine area with the hroader geography. A line perpendicular
to that general direction would follow an azimuth of 144".
We would ask that the Chamber note that the line depicted here would leave
to Canada al1the~ ~ ~~ ~award of the Atlantic-facine coast of Nova Scotia. It
would also leave to the United States al1the area in frgnt of its owncoast. Thus,
this line reflectsthe hroad equality of the Parties' coasts in the Gulf of Maine
area in relatioii to the ~tlantic 0cean. However. such a line would not Lakeinto
account the SpecialAgreement or the southwestcoast of Nova Scotia that faces
laterally onto the coastal concavity that is the Gulf of Maine.
Figure 4 of this presentation shows a line perpendicular to the general
direction of the coast drawn frorn the starting point set forth in the Special
11 Agreement hetween the Parties. This Figure first appeared as Figure 28 of the
O United States Memorial. This line gives to Canada al1the area seaward of its
Atlantic-facinr coast. and it eives the United States most but not al1of the area
in iront af ilsoiin ila an tic-?iicci.it Thi. Iinc. iherciore, uould üfford ihc
,ltl~niis-fasing co~its oi ihc Pariic<roughly conip:ir~hlc ireaiment. hlorco\.cr,
:ilihe ..irne t~mciiuoul,i lca\cI<Iihc ~~uthiicstcocii>iiNoi..i Scot1.13 h:ind oi
maritime jurisdiction not only in front of that coast within the Gulf of Maine,
but also exiending seaward into the Atlantic Ocean to the limit of coastal-State
juris,diction.
Thus, in this Figure the coastal front of Canada, at southwest Nova Scotia,
receives an area of maritime jurisdiction beyond the Gulf of Maine, notwith-
standing that only the United Statescoast at Maine and New Hampshire faces
upon the area seaward of the closing line of the Gulf of Maine.
However, the line in Figure 4 fails to reRectwhat the United States regards as
@ one of the most relevant circumstances in this the first case to delimit a single ARGUMENT OF MR. ROBINSON 249
maritime boundary. The line in Figure 4 would cross two important fishing
banks on the Scotian Shelf,this bank. known as the Browns Bank, and this bank
here, known as the German Bank, and thereby would fail to preserve their
integrity of part of aeparate and identifiable ecological unit. Were the line in
Figure 4 10be the boundary, the rich and discrete fishstocks of the Scotian Shelf
would be divided betweenthe United States and Canada. therebv com~licatine
ihc itiih or conwrvliiiun and managemeni. ~nd polcnli~ll) cxujing disp..tr> in
ihc iuturc heiaccri leu counirie, ihal u.int e\cr) rcds10reni~iinclu>ririend~.
neighbours, and allies.
Since this case involvesa singlemaritime boundary and requires the delimita-
tion of fisheriesjurisdiction as wellas jurisdiction over the continental shelf, the
United States believes that fishing banks, the distributional patterns of fish
stocks. and other features of thearine environment are relevant circumstances
th31must hc iahcn in10dxuunt iian eqiiii.ible sdluiion1.. Ihc ;ichie\cd. In ihc
opinion oiihc Iln~teJSidie\ and I uo~ld IikcIo \Lrci\ ihii point. \Zr I'rciideni
- these circumstances of the marine environment point to a boundary in exactly
the same area as that to which the geography points.
Figure 5 of this presentation, which is Figure 30 of the United States
@ Memorial, shows the line proposed by the United States in this case. The line is
based upon a perpendicular to the general direction of the coast, drawn from the
starting-point but adjusted Io avoid crossing German Bank and also Browns
Bank, and then proceeds seaward into the triangle. In this manner, these fishing
banks are left in their entirety to Canada. Importantly, under this boundary,
mosl of the commerciallv imoortant fisherv stocks of the Scotian Shelf would
not range into United '~taks fishery juhsdiction. Canada therefore could
conserveand manage the stockson the Scotian Shelfwithout the risk that fishing
by the United States would undermine its particular form of conser\.atioi
programme.
In addition, theadjustments in the line leavean even larger area of maritime
jurisdiction to the southwest coast of Nova Scotia, both laterally within the Gulf
of Maine and also seaward of the closing line. The United States line also
respects the integrity of Georges Bank. Georgeî Rank lies offthe coast of the
United States alone. and not off any coast of Canada.
V. ROADMAP AND CONCLUDINR GEMARKS
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, 1 now have come to the concluding
portion of this introductory statement. The United States isbefore the Chamber
today respectfully seeking a judicial solution 10 a problem that has proved
incapable of political settlement tlirough negotiations.
United States fisheries interests in the northwest Atlantic have been pushed
farther and farther back, first off the Grand Banks, then off the Scotian Shelf,
and now the issueis, willthe United States at least retain what is rightfully ours
under the law? Under the new régime,Canada was entitled Io push the United
States out of the Grand Banks and off the Scotian Shelf, if that was ils choice,
but the new régimedoes no1entitle Canada 10push heyond and to trespass ont0
areas that rightfully appertain to the United States. It is because that beliefis so
strongly held in the United States that we are before the Chamber today,
thankful that there is such a forum for a resolution of this dispute in accordance
with law.
It is the position ofthe United States that on everyrelevant basis, individually,
comparatively and cumulatively, the delimitation in this case must respect the
integrity of Georges Bank. The boundary traced by this Chamber will delimit250 GULF OF MAINE
no1only continenial rhelf and tishçryjurisdisiion in the Gulf of .MaineJreJ but
al1other iurisdictiun~under international Iaw for a11limes Some of thcse mdy
tread into the sensitive area of national securitv. Webelievethat the reasons for
contiming United Siaieseniiilcment io a11ol'~cor~es Bank arc greJier than the
sum of iheir p:iris. The United Siaies is cun\inced ihat the only truly equit;ible
solution in this case is one that does not split Georges Bank.
Mr. President, during the remaining sessionsof this, the opening round of the
United States oral argument, my distinguished colleagues will, with your
permission, discuss the issues in the following order. First, Mr. Stevenson, a
distinguished predecessor as the Legal Adviser to the Department of State, will
address the law that governs this case.
Next. Mr. Colson, the Deputy Agent of the United States in this case, will
address the geography of the Gulf of Maine area and the application of
delimitation methods within that area, followed by Mr. Feldman, who will
address the proportii,nality test. We shall then move to the pas1activities of the
Parties, with Mr. Lancaster addressing fishing activities and MI. Rashkow
addressinr! other activities as well as the failed 1979 fisheries aereement.
Ir. Rashkou ihcn uill reiieu CanÿJa's contentions regarding 3cquicsccnccand
c.toppcl. \Ir. Feldman then u,ill return to addrcss Canadx's suciu-cionomis
arguments Finally. Mr Harhkou, and \lr I.ancïsier u,ill address the marine
environment. with the aid of the exoert testimonv of Dr. Edwards. who. with
your permiss'ion,will be examined by Mr. ~ancaiter. In the session foll&ving,
Dr. Edwards will be nvailable, with your permission, forexaminalion by Canada
and bv the Chamber. Mr. Colson then will return to address the nrincinles of
resource conseri,ation and management as ihey relaie to this caw. Lastly.itwill
k m) prii,ilcge to rcturn to makc some hrief concluding remarkr.
hlr. Presidcnt and distinzuiihed Judger. il kas ken a unique htinour 10
appear before you this morning as the gent of the United ~tateiof ~merica in
this great and historic case.252 GULF OF MAINE
Ffth, equitable principles proposed by Canada;
Sixth, the identification of circumstances which are relevant and circumstances
which are not relevant;
Seventh, the balancing up of these relevant circumstances:
Eighth, the single maritime boundary and the applicable legal principles;
Ninth, and finally, methods of delimitation to produce an equitable solution.
Naturally, because of time limitations 1will not be able to deal with al1these
subjects today. It appears that 1shall be able to begin the discussion of the first
equitable principle identified by the United States, and have to leave the rest of
this presentation for tomorrow. But now let meturn first to the function of this
Chamber and the applicable law.
THEFuNCI~ON OF THE CHAMBE RND THE APPLICABLL EAW
The United States wishes to em~hasize. first of all. that the function of the
Chamber in this case is to delimit ihe single maritime boundary in accordance
with internatioiial law. It is not the function of the Chamber to apportion the
area througb an exercise of distributive justice. ~~
Under Article 38 of its Statute, the function of the International Court of
Justice is "to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are
submitted to it". The Parties in the Special Agreement suhmitting this dispute
have requested the Chamber. in Article II (1.o. 101.to determine the course of
the singiemaritime boundariin the ~ulf of Maine area "in accordance with the
principles and rules of international law applicable in the matter as between
them".
Both Parties recoenize that the fundamental rule of international law
applicable to this case is that the maritime boundary must be determined in
accordance with equitable principles, taking account of the relevant circum-
stances in the area,~to produce an equitahleiolution. There is no diiïerence on
this basic principle. The Parties also agree, at least both have stated that they
agree, that this rule does not entail an exercise in distributive justice. It is
common ground between Canada and the United States that the Chamber does
not have a mandate to enter a judgment ex aequoet bono. Both Parties also
recognize the distinction made in the 1969 and 1982Judgments of the Court
between an imperrnissibleapplication of equity "as a matter of abstract justice",
and the application of "a rule of law which itself requires the application of
equitable pnnciples" (North SeoContinentalSheK para. 85).
The Court held in 1969 that delimitation in an equitable manner is to be
distinguished from awarding a just and equitable share of a "previously
undelimited area" (ibid.oara. 181.The reasons stated there aoo.. w,th eaual
force Io thiscasc &si. théfunclion of this Chamber is not IOapportion an ireii
bu! io dclimii it: secondly. ihe theor) ofjust and equiiablc shürcs is "wholly at
vanance" u,ith the ISISof the Statc's title to the maritime areas in froni of ils
coasts - that is. the n~turiilextension of 11sland territory into and under the se3
(ihiil,p!rd. 19).The very nime point uai made h) thc Court of Arhitraiion in
1977in the Anglo-French Arhitraiion whcn itstaicd thai althouah the delimi.
tation in that case must be equitable. it could not have as its object "simply
the awarding of an equitable 'share' in the continental shelf to each Party"
(para. 78).
The United States submits that Canada, despite assertions to the contrary, is
asking this Chamber to disregard these principles and to divide the area between
the Parties in accordance with theory of just and equitable shares. Canada ARGUMENTOF MR. STEVENSON 253
presents this position in differentways, all, however, looking towards the same
result.
First, Canada explicitly requests the Chamher to divide Georges Bank and
maintains that it is entitled to an "equitable share" of the fishery resources of
that area. Thus, Canada states that "the application of equitable principles
demands that Georges Bank not he allotted in its entirety to one or the other of
the Parties" (1, Canadian Memonal, para. 319). According to Canada, the
equitable character of the Canadiün claimed line inthe outer area brings about
"a reasonable division ofthe adja<:entfishinggrounds and shelf betweenthe two
Parties" (ibid para. 379). Last week, at the opening session, on 2 April,
Attorney-General MacGuigan of Canada said that whether or not Georges
Bank is divided is "the benchmark, the crucial test of an equitable delimitation
in these proceedings" (p. 16,supro).
The logic of Canada's argument is that, because Canada has claimed part of
Georees Bank. it is entitled to a share of it. A claim. however. is no1 an
entiti~mcni The hounddry musi he Jetcrmined b" ihe üpplic:ition oi ihe
principlesanJ rule>oiinternxiionil Ihir.iind not siniplgb! di\iding ihc arc3 in
di,piiic
Sc~.ondl),ihe .ijsunipiioii ihai ihc rcsourçer uf<;eorgcs Bdnk muit hedi\,iJcd
ir ihc princip31 hniis ior <'an.idx'shxrp .iit.ick on tuii equitlihle principlcs
surreiicd by ihe IJnited Sraie.. Thex ririnciple~are ihlii ihc ni;iritiniebound:ir!
sh6Üldfacilitate conservation and manaee&ent of the resources of the area and
should minimize presentand future dispites between theParties. Canada in fact
admits that both are "valid objectivesand important rules of behaviour". But il
argues that aoolication of theseorinciolesto this boundarv is"almost perverse",
because thei;'aoolication here'would "rule out an eaiitable division of the
resources of 1he';elevantarea" (111,Canadian ~ounter:~emorial, para. 497).
Thirdly, there is yet another way in which Canada, without admitting its
obiective. seeks to have this chamber eneaee in an exercise in distribitive
justice. ~his is by asking the Chamber ;ive decisive weight to claimed
circumstances which would not be legally relevant even if true. In particular,
Canada urees the Chamber to eive smcial~weiehtto considerations of ouroorted
economic dependence, whichuthe 'court hcs excluded as irrelevant io the
delimitation of maritime boundaries.
Canada in fact acknowledgesthit "an equitable divisionisa divisionex aequo
erbonoifit is effectedwithout regard to the applicable law" (V, Canadian Reply,
para. 45). Yet if there is no legalhasis for the division ofthis area in accordance
with relative economic dependence as urged by Canada, Canada is in effect
seekingjust such a delimitation ex aequo et bono,a delimitation outside the law
(I.C.J. Reports 1969, para. 88).
Mr Preiidrnt. Jirtinguishrd Juugcr. Irt me noa iurn ii)ille Cundlimeni:ilrulc
ormaritime hiiunJ;iry delimiiatiuii.
'lhe I'artics .igrcc thai ihc fund.inicni31rulc oIiiuao~licable lu ihir c3se ir
that the singlemantime boundary shall be determinid in accordance witb
equitable principles, taking into account the relevant circumstances in the area,
to produce an equitable solution.
Canada includes in its statement of the rule the phrase "on the basis of the
applicable law". This does not represent any difference betweenthe Parties. The
United States also helievesthat the boundary must bedetermined on the hasis of
the applicable principles and rules of international law, including both the254 GULF OF MAINE
fundamental law of maritime boundary delimitation -which 1havejust setforth
-and also, where appropriate, other aeneral princivles of international law. such
.. .
as those relating to acquiescenceana estopbel and treaties.
This bnng> us 10 LIJiscussion of thc nature oicquiiablc principles.
The Cniicd Siatcs is of the \icw that ilis e\sçntial. in dpplying tntcrnaiional
Iau in this clisc, to cimsidcr the euuii3hlc ririncinlcs thai haie bccn found to bc
applicable in prior maritime boundary disputesas well as any other principles
that should he applicable in the case of a delimitation of a single maritime
boundary for both the water column and the sea-bed. Canada initially, in its
Memorial. included no identification of eauitable orincioles. but has included
what purport 10 be such principles in ils ~i;untcr-4lémor~l (Part III.Chap III)
and Rcply (p3ra. 43). The Unitcd States, for rcasons which Iwill clplain later.
doesno1sprw th31the "cquiiablc principles" Canada hliscilcd arc ihe rquiiablc
principlcr ~ppliçÿhlc in ihis case Bui in an! event, the Uniied Siatcs is mosi
plcascd thai Canada no longer iakes ihc po\iiion thai cquiiablc principles nwd
not be identified.
Canada Statesthat itis the United States position that equitahle principles
should be identified and applied without reference to the applicable law. The
Agent of Canada said at the opening session that the United States case is
"floating in a legal vacuum" (p. 23, supra).This is not the case. The United
Statesview is that relevantequitableprinciples are partof the applicable law and
must be applied within a legal framework.
Secondly, Canada asserts that equitable principles cannot be determined in
the ahstract, but only in the light of what will produce an equitable result. In
Canada's view, however, the United States regards theseprinciples as having a
universal a priori validity, independent of the relevant circums(ances and the
result to be achieved (Canadian Counter-Memorial, paras. 473-476,546). This
again is not the United Statesposition. All of the equitable principles referred to
in the United States pleadings are those the application of which, in the United
Statesviewand 1will go into this in much greater detail today and tomorrow -
will produce an equitable result in the relevant circumstances of this case.
Mr. President, 1 come now to one of the major areas of difierences between
Canada and the United States,namely, the applicable equitahle principles. I will
first discuss the United States principles and then Canada's. However, because
of lime limitations I shall probahly today only be able 10 deal with the first
principle identified by the United States.
Thefirsr UnitedStatesequitable principle isrharthe boundarymusrrespectthe
relarionshipberweenthe coasrsof the Partiesand the maririmeareasinfront of
rho~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~
l3ccauscof 11simportance. allou me IO rcprai thai pnnciple The boundary
mus1rcswci thc rclationship kiueen thc coa%tFof ihc Pariics and ihc maritime
areas in front of those coasts
The hasic ruppori for this principlc has bccn set furth by the United Siatcs in
11sMemorial (Il) (paras 239.246) The United Siater hasidcniificd assubsidiary
Jelimitation principlcs.dcrivcd from ihi, reneral rinncirile land ihcrcforc noi Sei
forth asindependent principles), the folliwing: non-encroachment, proportion-
ality and natural prolongation.
First, let me discuss the general principle itself. Canada does not assert that
the first United Statesequitable principle is unfounded in law - asit doesin the
case of the second and third United States equitahle principles (Canadian ARGUMENT OF MR. STEVENSON 255
Counter-Memonal. para. 474). In fact, while it does not include this principle
among the three Canadian equitable principles and disagrees with the United
States characterization and application of it, Canada does accept the basic
jurisprudential support for this principle, that is, the maxim first set forth hy the
Court in the Norrh Sen ContinentalShelfcases, that "the land dominates the
seau (Canadian Reply, para. 139).However, Canada inteprets this maxim in an
entirely different way than does the United States.
Canada, in effect, would give this maxim no independent status and asserts
that its real meaning is that the domination of the land is merely a function of
the fact that it is from the land that States extend political control, legal
jurisdiction, and economic activity to the seas off their coasts. In Canada's view
it does not express a natural or pliysical hierarchy betweenthe land and the sea
libid.. oara. 149).
In orhcr words. Ur. Prciidciit and diriinguirhçd Judgcs, Canada'i ver)
sophisticated u.2) ofarguing IS io suggesi rhïi what reall) iiimportïnt is no1the
phvsiiïl acorraphi: rclatiunihir, kiwccn thc coasir ïnd the maritime areas io bc
defimite&:w%aiis important t6 Canada is what the respective countries do on
those coasts.
Canada is here attempting to introduce a new concept, which Canada calls
hy various names: human geography, socio-economic geography, economic
geography, and political geography. Canada uses this concept in a number of
ways, which 1shall refer to throughout this statement.
The United States disagrees with Canada. It is the land itself, no1what States
do on the land. that is the so~r~e of maritime iurisdiction.
Thc Court ditennined. in 1969.ihat ils fuic;ion u~s to dclimit the m:intimr
areas whish alrcddy appcriained in principle ici thc Partie\ (1 CJ Rcporrr 1969,
oara. 18).A Suie's tiilc Io the maiitimc arïas in froni of 11scmst ir derilcd from
;ts so\c~eignty obcr the land. Ittùllows thai a dslimiration in accorddnce wiih
squitxhle pnnciplci ii une uhich ic consisicni with the gcogrïphic rclationship
hetuccn ihc coaiti of ihc Partici and ihc mariiinic arc3s 10 bc dclimitcd.
Thus. in the TunisiaILibvacase. the Court emohasized the orincinle that the
~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~
land dominates the sea:~he Court willnot refashTonnature. ~'landiocked State
does not attract maritime iurisdiction. A State with a shorter coastline facing a
oarticular maritime area dl attract a smaller area of maritime iurisdiction than
another Staic uith a longer comparablc coasilinc iacing ihc sxnic arca A so3st
will aiirari juri\diciion ovcr the sca.bed .in* the supcrjaccnt uatcrs in froni of
that coast. It willnot attract iurisdiction over a maritime area that does not liein
front of that coast.
Cînada's newciincepi in dcicrniining rhe rclationship of thc coïst IO rhc se;]-
this nuiion of su-called human gsography has no haiis what~oc\er in Iaa. The
200-nautical-mileerclurive cconumir 7onc. likea11orher maritime loncs, cxtcnds
from the land. from the coast~ L~nd territo~v i~ ~,i~ ~ ~ ~ maritime iurisdiction.
whether populated or unpopulated, whether its people are wealthior not, and
whether the inhabitants have or have not exploited the maritime resources off
their coast
Canada apparently recognizes the weakness of its argument hased on the
importance in a boundary delimitation of human geography. It suggests that
human geography should be considered in a manner consistent with physical
geography. It does so, in fact, hy asserting that economic geography, in this case,
merely "serves to confirm and reinforce the implications that may be drawn
independently from physical geography" (Canadian Reply, para. 142).In this
case, however, this Canadian argument rests on the equation of physical
geography with the equidistance method: this enables Canada to argue that its 256 GULF OF MAINE
economic dependence argument supports the application of the previously
rejected proximity pnnciple.
Finally, Canada suggests that human geography "assists in the interpreta-
lion" of physical geography because it shows "the close linkages that exist
between portionsof the adjacent coastsand the disputed area" (ibid.,para. 141).
Its thesis is that fishine natterns are determined bv e,--.,nhv and in
particular by proximity; t&réfore, fishing patterns in the Canadian argument
confirm geographicalfacts. But weal1know from practice that that simplyis not
an accuritepic?ure. Geography may influence fishingpatterns, but imprecisely,
and only to a modest entent. For example, for a time most of the harvest in the
Gulf of Maine area was taken by European and Soviet fleets that travelled
thousands of milesto the fishine erounds. Even now, most of Canada's Georees
Bank harvcsi i\ takcn b) \essck?roni the Luncnhurg-Ki\crport coniplcx, scnic
ISOnauiic~l milcsdihiilni. riiiher than irum Suvd Scdlian scdporis much closer
to the Bank. Economic circumstances, including in particular government
suhsidies and reeulations. are often much more imnortant than eeoeraohv in
detcrmining fishiig patterns. Ultimatcly. internaiional I;iu isihc iiiosi impuriyni
lacior. For cr;implc, ihc extensionùi cuisial Siaic jurisdiciion to 200 n3uiiial
milescreated a newrealitv: thus, distant-water fleetswithdrew, and coastal-State
fishing expanded to take.advantage of the new opportunities.
Fishing patterns simply are not useful in interpreting the coastal geography,
not merely because a numher of non-geographical factors detemine fishing
oatterns but also because fishi-. natterns are transitorv. Thi, , vears aeo. there
UJS no susi3ined Candian tiihery on Georges Bank. 200 )car. ago. thcrc u.as
no I.'niirJ Siatc, fishcr) to speiikof. But ihe ph?\ical gcugraphy has bccn iiis
now, and will so remain
C3niida xlso huiircs~esil5argunicnts thiir humnn gcograph) is hui a reflcci~on
ol'thc ph!rical gcogr;iphy b) asscriing thxi ihc Ciulii)i\l~incii,clfaihcouicr
arm bhould bcdomiiiatcd respccii\ely hy the su.iiij thxi immcdidielynhui them
- that is, according tocanada, by the most proximale coasts (p. 36,supra). In
thisanalysis of physical geography, of course, Canada ignores that the coasts of
Maine and New Hampshire also abut on Georges Bank. They would he cut off
from doing so only hy the Canadian equidistance line, and not hy physical
geography.
Thus, Canada, in effect, gives the maxim "the land dominates the sea" no
independent significance: in the Canadian view, it merely means that physical
.eo....hv. which for Canada means eauidistance. is confirmed hv human
gsugrdph) \\hich. for Canada, nieiinseconomic Jependcnce. The United St;itcs
submits rhai. raihcr ihan rcfidshioninp physical geogrdph) on ihc b~sir of
economic dependence, or what Canada cails human geography, it is far simpler,
far more reliahle and far more consistent with the law, to hase geographical
conclusions upon the actual physical geography.
NON-ENCROACHMENT
1turn now, Mr. President, to the first subsidiarydelimitation principle, that of
non-encroachnient. With respect to this subsidiary principle of non-encroach-
ment. the United States would liketo stress here the imnortanceof this eauitable
princ'iplein avoiding the cutting-off of a coastline from the maritime area in
front ofil. This cutting-off eflect is the basic reason why the Canadian proposed
line, which would cross so dramatically in front of the coastlines of Maine and
@ New Hampshire - as you can see on this chart, the Canadian line is the yellow
line- would be so grossly inequitable. It would cut off the coastlines of Maine ARGUMENTOF MR. STEVENSON 257
;ind kiu Hsmp>hireirom their co3rial pro,c<ti<iiis.Mr. Preside~ii.distiiigiiishcii
V Jiidges. )ou h:i%r .Iii,~iiiicch.irr in )our map p.iikqe. whiih \h<,ur \Cr).clcdrl)
thiscut-off effect
I ha\e alro rcquc,rcd il121ilie l)rig111C1anadi2n eq~~disl.rnwIine.uhich iIi)ci
no! disci>untCAF CC<I 2~d N:~nii~ckii.hi rhoiin uii the sariie in~p2nd I non
reoucst th:it rhis $,inlenicip.ad~ujle<>I>A\ IOihi>u the original <'an.idi.inIlne.hc
set'hefore the Chdrnher. ~hisadjusted map is not in yoür map package.
In our geographic prcsentation, Mr. Colson will provide further insight and
analysis of why, in a coastal concavity such as the Gulf of Maine. the
eauidistance method ~roduces a cut-off effect in violation of this subsidiary
principlc ~~in~in.cncru:icIiii,eniTni, CUI-offeiFsch i egin, clo\r1,)ihc c.i.irt. clerc
ti> ihi inicrn.~tiondIhound.~rytcriiiiiiuc. ~iidcontinues furrhcr oui.
Thc rcl.iii~,n>hip iiiihi, principli non-cnir~~.ishnisnt 10 the priniiple of
coastal State extension of geograp-hicnatural prolongation is fundamental to the
concept that a coastal State is entitled to the maritime area in front of its coast.
Thus, the Court, in the North Sea ContinenralShelf cases, stated that the
delimitation should
"leave as much as possible ti, each Party al1those parts of the continental
shelf that constitute a natural prolongation of its land territory into and
under the sea without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the
band territory of the other" (para. 101(C) (1)).
The Court explained that the equidistance method, the method employed in
computing the various Canadian lines, frequenily would violate the principle of
non-encroachment hecause the equidistance line would cut off a State from the
extension of its coastal front. WCcan clearly see that these lines cut off the
extension of the states of Maine and New Hampshire. In paragraph 44 of its
Judgment, the Court stated that:
"the use of this equidistance method would frequently cause areas which
a~ ~ ~ ~na~ural oroloneation or extension of the territorv of one State to be
:irtrihuiid to :ikihcr. uIir.iithe configur~iii>nof ihi Iariir'r 2.ra.i m.ii.c,rthe
equidiai.int Iinc,ivin,:out Iatcrally JCrOSj rhc fornier'sco:izial front. cutiing
it-off from areas sitüated directly hefore that front".
Both the Canadian lines do precisely that.
1 would like to make one observation here. Canada has asserted that the
United States has built much of its case upon a "single phrase" - the phrase "in
front of thecoast" (Canadian Reply, para. 71).This is no1accurate. The Court's
statement which 1havejust quoted is not an isolated passage or mere dictum. It
expresses the Court's fundamental conclusion: the equidistance method would
he inequitable because it would <:utoff the coast at the back of the concavity
which faces the open sea from the areas in front of it (I.C.J. Reports 1969,
para. 8).That is what the North .Yeu Continental Shelfcases were al1about. In
good part, that is what the Gulf of Maine case is about.
Canada seeks to reinterpret this principle of non-encroachment as first
d~~elooed in the iVorth Seu ContinentalShelf cases. This is understandahle.
perhais, hecause the equidistance line and ~aiada's modified equidistance line
both would violate the principle of non-encroachment on the coastal front
extension. However, canada's arguments are without merit.
Canada contends that the pririciple of non-encroachment must be reinter-
preted hecause the so-called "distance principle" - which Canada in fact uses
synonymously with the alleged arid rejected proximity principle - has replaced
natural prolongation as the hasis of title. lnstead of receiving as much of its258 GULF OF MAINE
coastal-front extension as possible, Canada believes that new developments in
the law require that a State should now "receive as much as possible of ils
200-mileentitlement without encroachment on the corresponding entitlement of
the other Party". Canada further believes that "the equidistance method most
precisely reiiects this requirement" (Canadian Reply, para. 66).
The Chamber rose ar 12.49p.m. ELEVENTH PUBLIC SITING (12 IV 84, 10am.)
Present: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
Mr. STEVENSON: MI. President, distinguished Judges, before resuming my
oral statement 1 would ask your indulgence to review briefly where we are.
Yesterdav 1 indicated that this statement would deal with nine eeneral leeal
issues.1baie completed my discussion of three of them, namely, the functioGf
the Chamber, the fundamental rule of maritime boundary delimitation, and the
nature of eouitable orinci~les
Whcn ue'ierminAcd )estcr&a) I had hegun our disiusrion <iiihr.applicdblc
cquiiablc principlcs irlrniiiied b) ihc Uniicd Siarrr. 1had complcieJ the general
Jiccuscion of the firri wch principlc. ihüi ir, the gcnerill principlc ihüi the
boiinrlar! müsi rcspcct the rclliiian.hip heiween the coaofsthe P~rtiesdnd ihe
m3ritimc arîüs in iront of theiii 1 31%0 meniioncd that ihere werz ihree
delimitation principles subsidia1.y to this general principle, namely, non-
encroachment. ..ooo.tionalitv aiid natural nroloneation. 1 had in fact beeun
rn) Ji~cussionof [lie subsidilir! principle of non-enîroüchment. cmphdsiring 11s
importance in aioidinp cutiing-otra co~sllineirom ihc manlime areciin front i)f
iti pointed out in particula< as shown on the map before this Chamber and
@ now in your binder as Figure 6A, both Canadian lines: ils original equidistance
line and its present li-ean equidistance line adjusted to give no effectto Cape
Cod or Nantucket. You can see here on this map the original Canadian
black-dashed line and the Dresent Canadian vellow line. It is obvious from the
map that both these canadian liriescross dramatically in front of the coast of
Maine, which lies in the general direction of the coast, and cut it off from its
coastal projection seaward.
At the adjournnient 1was speaking of Canada's attempt to reinterpret the
principle of non-encroachment as first developed in the North Sea Conlinental
Sheif cases. Canada in fact does so on a theory that the so-called distance
principleis now the hasis of coastal State title. 1 indicated that this distance
principle is fundamental to Canada's case, and that 1 would deal with it in
considerahly more detail later on. 1intend to do so during the discussion of the
equitable principles putforth hy Canada.
Let me now return to where we were vesterdav. when we adioumed. This
distance principle, as asserted by Canada, Lefersto ihe extension ofcoastal State
jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles from the coast, "in a radial projection of the
coast in everv direction in whichocean soace within the oresiribed distance is
lound" (III.d ana di cannier-hlcmorilii. paras.454. 555-557)
Hui non lh~t 200 naut~cülmiles ~JS been accepted as the sc~u~rd limil ni
certain maritime iurisdictions. hïi the holding in the Yorth C~~f~rin~~ ~ir.l1'
cases becomeirrdevant to the delimitation octhe singlemaritime boundary? 1sit
now necessary to break what Caiiada itself described in its Memorial as the
"contin~um of 1aw lh~t links the sheliand the uater column. the tradition~l
law of ihr ~e3~nd irjcunicrny~irür).dcveloprnent, and ihecc~nveniional2nd
cLstoniiiry Iaw of m3riiime delimitaiion"? (P3r3 285.)
It is no1 the United States view that this continuum should be broken. The
United States believesthat the Court in its 1969decision was concerned with the
equitable principle of non-encroachment on the coastal front extension. That260 GULF OF MAIKE
pnnciple applies equdll) to the delimitation of ihe continenial jhclf and to ihc
Jelimiiaiion oi the exclusive çcononiic 7onc
IriII,1969Judemeni. thr Court noted ihai the coasilincr of the Pdrlier wcre
comparable in lerÏgthand had been given broadly equal treatment by nature,
"exceot that the confieuration of one of the coastlines would, if the
equidistance method is ised, deny to oneof these Statestreatment equal or
comparable to that given the other two" (I.C.J. Reports 1969,para. 91).
Here was a situation of what the Court described as "equality ...within the. ..
plane" (I.C.J. Reports 1969,para. 91).You may recognize that phrase, hecause
Canada has adapted it for its own purpose. In the North Sea situation, the
equidistance method would have been inequitable hecause its cut-of effect
would have denied one of these comparable coasts comparable treatment. Il was
unacceptable to the Court that one State should enjoy considerably different
rights simply because one coast was convex and the other was concave, although
they were comparable in length and in their relation 10the shelf.
The logic of the Court's analysis is not confined to the continental shelf. The
Court wasconcerned about eeoeu - 7cal relationshios. about the relationshio of
the co~sis to ihe maritime arcas. anJ noi about ihe geology of ihc continenial
shelf. Thc diagrams :iipage 16of the Couri's Judgmeni illusrraied the cui-i)iT
elleci of the use of the equidisianse mcihod in ihe "gcogrdphical siiu~tions"
descrihed in p~ragraph 8 of the Judgmcnt. Thia in fasi u.3,a geogriphicdi
knalysir ol' ihr rclaiionship of co:i<i and sea. an 3nal)sis rihich uould xpply
~~
equally well to the delimitation of singlemaritime boundaries.
The extension of coastal-State jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles has of course
increased the imporuince of the principle of non-encroachment. To begin with,
the 200-naulical-mile limit requires that the boundary be extended a great
distance seaward.
As iheCourt r~ogiiiled in the Norih .%nuConrrnrnrolSl~e/J'casesi.he funher the
equidisiince Iinciseicndcd seaward. the largrr ihe iiredofsui-of. and ihc grcaier
ihr degrcc of ineq. . ..paras.8 and 89).The 200-nautsal-milc zone ha*incrcascd
the ooïential for cut-off invel another wav. Previouslv.in the caseof a continental
~heÎfdeliniitaiion as in ihckorth ka or ihe Rayof ~kca).. the coÿst ai the back<if
a conca\iiy u,ould have been CUI i>rb) the equidisiînce Iinefrom the suniinenial
shelf in front of il. In the case of a singlemaritime boundarv, however, the
equidiriance Iinewould CUI ihai coîst off ni)tonly (rom the conti~eniil ,hclf. bu1
irom the uxier column and ihc fishenr5 as well lithe cui.ofl was incquitablc in
ihc firrt in\tanc<iiuould bre\rn more inequiiahlein thc c;ineoia singlenidniinle
boundarv. The conswuences are ever so much ereate-.
Mr Prcsident. allou me nou IO restiie Canxda's argument II is this: ihe
principle of non-cncr<wchmeni on the coîstal fr<)ntcriension may haie hwn
rclevani IO the delimiiaiion of ihe coniinenial \hclf Now. houcier, thai oihsr
maritimejurisdictions have been extended to 200nautical milesand, in Canada's
view, distance from the coast is the basis of a coastal State's title, this pnnciple
of non-encroachment on the coastal front extension is no longer relevant. Now,
as a conseauence of the 200-nautical-mile zone. itis no loneer necessarv to
gi\,r compdrahlc ireaiment to compsrahle ioasis. Sow that more rights and
rewurces. and ofieniimcs more îrea, are ai riake. IIis no longer nccesrar? IO he
concerned about geographical equity. Now it bas become equitable to deny a
coast the areas in front of it. for continental shelf as well as for fisheries and
other purposes, simply because the coast lies at the back of a concavity.
These are the implications of Canada's argument that the distance principle
has rendered the principle of non-encroachment on the coastal front extension ARGUMENT OF MR. STEVENSON 26 1
irrelevant io the delimitation of the single maritime boundary. Such a result in
Our view is hoth illoeical and without sunnort in the develooment of the
200-nauiical-mile zoner~he principle of non-yncroachment on thécoastal front
extension applies to the delimitation of the continental shelfin the Gulf of Maine
area. The <me principle applies equally to the delimitation of the single
maritime ~o~ ~arv in that ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Canada has suggesteda reinterpretation of the principle of non-encroach-
ment, namely that the principle of non-encroachment should not cul oKa State
from the areasclose Io ils coasi (Canadian Counter-Memorial. naras. 481-483).
Here. Canada would emphasizeihc word "close". This implies Lat it would nit
violate the principle of non-encroachment to cut a State OITfrom the areas in
front of. but noi Ïhose closest to, its coast.
This is simply wrong. The principle of non-encroachment is not so restricted.
In the Norlh Sen.for example, the cul-oKoccurred at distancesfrom the coast
comparable to the distances involved in ihis case. This is discussedin greaier
deiail in the United Staies Reolv.,..(V). al. -.aeraoh 127.Nor would there heanv
logiciil rcîson in reitrici the non-encro~chmcnt principle Io inih<~rearra3. On
ihc conirary. wc arc dcîling with 200-n~uticril.niilc 7onr.\ înd \rith coniincniîl
shelvesthaiextend a ereat aistance seaward. Nations and the law of nations are
cuncerned uith the cul-on'of ihc ouicr. 3s uell ar thc inshorc. portions iiiihesc
runcs As noicd 3 inomcnt ;+go,ihi, (ut-olr rfici hcp!ns cln~ ii>the coasi. II
tends to hecome more exacefhated and inequitahle as a houndary swings out
laterallv across the coastal front and then is extended seaward.
The court articulated the principle of non-encroachment in order to address
the inequities of an equidistance liiie. In the North Sea,asin the Gulf of Maine,
the ea6distance method would violate the orinciole of non-encroachment hv
cuttin~oKihcco;i~t ai the back ol'theconcsi~;ty frum ihc 3rc3 in (roni ofii. :ind.
l'or lh31 rcason. u,duld producc ;in inequitahle rewlt.
With respect to the second suhsidiary principle, that of proportionality, the
United States view - and here, 1think, we agreewith Our Canadian friends - is
that orooortionalitv is not a method bv which ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~s to bedetermined in
the irst hance. ~ii~ nuhber of linesin a relevant areamay in fact meet the test
of proportionality. Rather. proporiionality is a test to determine the equity or
disproportion of-the result.-lt k to he afplied to a particular result otherwise
reached, in accordance with the approach followed by the Arbitral Tribunal in
the Anglo-French Arbitration (paras. 99-101) and the Court in the Tunisial
Libyo case(paras. 103and 131). However, this procedure is in no way meant to
take awav from the imoortance of nrooortionalitv in determinine the eauitable-
ncssof î'pariicular ho;ndar) Iine in iirm, oith; rclîtionship hAu,cen ihe arc4
IO bc delimiirJ .ind the relevani cu\i~. II ir in 13ct î iuiid~riterir:il reri ul' ihc
ca.i~iahlcncss<)l'xpiirticulîr solutiun. \Ir. Fzldmîit's suhicqucnt oral >iatcmcni
wjll examine the application of the proportionality test in the circumstances of
this case,but there is one additional point 1would like to emphasize here.
That is ihat proportionality has nothing whatsoever to do with economics. It
is strictly a geographic test with the objective of determining whether or not
there is a~ ~asona~le deeree of nro~ortionalitv hetween the leneths of the
relevant coastsand the m&itime aieas'to be limitid. It is an oh,ectivetest for the
equitahlenessof a proposed delimitation. Economic criteria on the other hand.
such as the Parties' economic dependence on the resources of the area, are
imprecise and not relevant.262 GULF OF MAINE
Canada's attempt to include an economic dimension in the proportionality
test is, in Ourview,cornpletelyflawed.Canada has attempted here once again 10
interject what it calls hurnan geography. This is part of Canada's larger goal of
avoiding the objective application of the proportionality principle to the actual
geography of this case. The Callaciesof the humai1 geography theory have
alreadv ken discussed. Ii should be noted here that ilwould be senseless10trv
to detirmine the relevant coasts on the basis of assertcd economic links. ~ishi$
patterns and other hurnan activities change, whereas the physical geography is
constant. Sinceoro~ortionalitv isa tesi of eeorrauh.cal relationships, it can only
be determined by physical ge&raphic crikria.
In a similar attempt to avoid the relevani geographical circurnstances of the
Gulf of Maine area, Canada implies in ils Counter-Mernorial (paras. 702-703)
that a ~ronortionate boundarv should divideeauitablv and eauallv the resources
. . . ,
of ihc :ire:,p:iriiiularly uhcre the resourccs in issue arï ~s\crted to bc of viial
importance IO Ihc cconomy of adjweni consial rc.gi.in\. This rcflcclj the irue
nature of C~nnda'sîasc CJnada is no1asking the Chaniber lu drlimit ihe are3
ihni alrcddy appcrialns IOone Pari) or ihc othcr Insicad. Canada isaskiiig for a
\haringoui of resourses F.\,cnhcre. 1mighi add. C,inada is inconsisicni. tor
Canada would hais ihc Chamber ignore ihe ahundant fishcryand h)drorarhon
resources of the Scotian Shelf andihare oui onlv the resoukes in front of the
Uni:cd Siaies coast. Foriunaiely. ihis Charnhcr necd 1101c~lcul<iicand cumpJre
fisher) or hy<lroc~rbon resources. Thc proportion~lit) prinsiplc is a tcst uf
physical geography. There is no basis whaisoever iiithe law to suggest that
proportionality requires a sharing-out of the resourccs.
Naruralprolongarion
The third subsidiary principle of the relationship between the coast and the
adjacent sea is that of natural prolongation. As discussed in ihe United States
pleadings the term "natural ~rolonaation" rnav refer 10two direrent doctrines.
On the one hand, there is naiural prolongatioiin the geological or geomorpho-
logical sense. This, in fact, was how the term was used by the Parties and the
Court in the TunisialLihya case.
There is no auestion that the Court in the TunisialLib,~~ case indicated that
naiural prolon~aiioii in ils geological and geomorpholu~ical srnw has a ver!
reduccd rolc in ihc ;ipplicaiion ol cquitablc principlei Io a bo~ndary dslimiia.
tion. The natural geological or geomorphological prolongation principle is in
fact controlline in maritime boundarv delimitations onlv in one. rather soecial.
circurnstance: Ïhat is, if there issuch amarked disruPtion in the continuitiof the
continental shelf as to constitute two separate natural prolongations, or two
separate shelves ina geological or geomorphological sense (I.C.J. Reports1982,
para. 66). This rather narrow application of the natural prolongation principle is
no1 before this Chamber, since both Parties agree thai the continental shelf in
the Gulf of Maine area is continuous and does no1 represent the separation of
this area into two natural prolongations or two shelves.
The term "natural prolongation", however, may also be used in a geo-
graphical sense. In this sense it refers to the extension of a State's coastal front
into the sea. This, in fact, is how it was used inthe North SenConrinenralShelf
cases loara. 96). In the North Sea there was a sinele. continuous continental
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
shelf. ?he CO& was not asked to consider geol&iial or geomorphological
variations in that shelf. Thus, the Court's repeated discussions of natural
prolongation can only be understood to be refernng to the geographical senseof
that term. ARGUMENT OF MU. STEVENSON 263
Naiural prolongaiion in the geographic sense,or coastal-front extension, is of
fundamental importance to the implementation of the maxim that the land
dominaies the sca. Thus, in the iVorrhSea Conrinenral Shelfcases, the Court
stated that the continental shelf doctrine requires application of the principle
"thai the land dominates the sea" and that "the land is the legal source of the
power which a State may exerciseover territorial extension to seaward" (I.C.J.
Reports 1969. para. 96).
Thus. it is a central ienet of the United States case that the boundary chosen
mus1respect the relationship beiween the coasts of the Parties and the maritime
areas in front of those coasts. The application of this pnnciple to this case
requires that the boundary giveeach Party as much as possibleof the geographic
naiural prolongation, or extension, ofils coastal front.
Mr. President and distinguished Judges, this concludes my discussion of the
firsi eauitable orinciole identified bv the United States.
resources of the irreo.
This is not a principle for application in every case. In many cases, the choice
of houndaries will not affect conservation and management. In the Gulf of
Maine area, howe\,er, the environmental conditions are such that a boundary
which resoects the inteeritv of the fishine hanks would facilitate conservation
and managemeni. It wGuli do so by ruining seaward through the Northeast
Channel separating important fishing hanks. On the other hand, a boundary
that crossed Georges Bank would impede conservation and management by
dividine imoortant fishine stocks.
The queition of law ihat is involved here is whether it is proper for this
Chamber to givcpreference to a boundary that facilitates resource conservation
and managemeni as opposed to a boundary that impedes conservation and
management. The United States believes that this is a proper concern. This is
partly a matter of common sensc: a boundary that works well should be
preferred to a houndary that does not work well. This is why the Court of
Arbitraiion in the Crishadarna case, reflecting the views of the Parties, altered
the course of the boundary to avoid crossing a fishing bank.
The United States Memorial discussed the development of the principle of
conservation in international law. The first articulation of the principle of
conscrvation as it applies to the continental shelf was the Truman Proclamation
of 1945. The Court itself has also underscored the need 10 conserve and to
manage continental shelf resources in the Norih Sea Conrinenral Shelfcases
(I.C.J. Reports 1969,para. 97). Firially,the three United Nations Law of the Sea
Conferences were very much concerned with conservation of fisheriesresources.
The provisions of the 1958FisheriesConvention and of the 1982Law of the Sea
Convention rcflect this concern. Mr. Colson will deal wiih the principle of
resource conservation in the l-eht of the facts of this case in considerablv more
deiail in a suhsequent oral statement.
Conservation is particularly important to the 200-nautical-mile fishery zone.
This fisherv zone develooed lareelv in resoonse to two facts: first. fisherv
technology.and harve~tin'~~a~adtiincreaséd to the point that man becam;
capable of destroying fisheryresources through overfishing.Second, the strategy
of seekingconservation through agreement proved unsuccessful.As a result, the
200-nautical-milefishervzone became necessarv in order to Dreventthe destruc-
tion of coastal fishery~resources. In fact, thé pr~~ressive'destruction of the
Georges Bank fisherystocks was a primary reason that the United States itself
declared a 200-nautical-mile fisherv~zone264 GULF OF MAINE
The ncu répinicplsccd moci of ihe ii,orld'rfishcryrzriiurïcs unJcr ihc control
of indi\,idudl co3siaI Statcr. In most insianccs. the )urisJiction oi edch coaital
Siaie e\icndcd ~utficicntlvseaward Io include the eniire rance of ihc indi\,iJuaI
stocks. In the case of anidromous and catadromous soeciesïhat raneed bevond
ihc i~>arIa1Siaie's 200-nauiical-mile zonc. the 198?Üniicd ~=tionsi.au oi the
Sed Con\cniiun alio rccoynizcd thai one Sliitc.raiher ih3n se\crdl should ha\,e
authority to manage thece resources. In general. it limited harvesting to the
coastal State'sexclusivecconomic zone. Article 66. moreover, provides that the
State of ongin shall manage anadromous stocks throughoui their range. Such
management is to be in CO-operationwith other States through whose waters
these fish mierate. In the case of catadromous snecir~-~~-,icle 67 orovides that
the coastal Gate, in who& Watersthey spend the greater part of ihe life cycle,
sball determine management mcasures. Such measurcs are to be adopted with
the agreement of othei States through whose waters they migrate. Thus, where
possible, international law solved the problems of conservation by seeking
single-State management.
In large part, the nature, the purpose, and the history of the 200-nautical-mile
zone is that international law soueht -o imnrnver~ - - ---- .ros.ects~ ~r successful
conservation and management by bringing fishery stocks under the control of
individual coaslal States. Il therefore is indeed relevant and equitable to take
these concerns into account, where possible, in the delimitation of maritime
houndaries~ ~~ ~ ~~.oas~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
Canada raises severdl objections. First, Canada argues that the law provides
that the oroblem of conservation of transboundary stocks should be dealt with
bv CO-overation between the States involvcd (canadian Counter-Memorial.
Gra. 502). However, the obligation to co-operite is not new in international
law. 1t was one of the most important elements in the 1958 Convention on
Fisheries. But des~ite the ohlica~-ion - the lreatv oblig-tion - to CO-ooerate.
Siaie. iound IIdiilicultIO agrcc on conscr\.aiii)n medsurcs. p~rticularl! on the
dllocaiion 01',carce rcsources ..\ccorJ~ngl). ihe Iaw har prcfcrrcd lu ,<~Ii.cthc
conservation problern by placing stocks under the management of a singleState,
where possible. Il has resorted 10 conservation by agreement only where
single-State management is no1 a realistic alternative.
Secondly, Canada also argues that the object of single-State management is
a mere consideration of administrative convenience. that il misconceives the
ob,cct 2nd purposs or ihc zones io hc dclimitcd. Houc\cr. as poinicd out c~rlier.
thr necd Io facilii;itc conscriaiion of Iiting resources oi the arca. by :t\\igninp
responsibility for the management of the stocks to a single State, served as
a primary basis for the extension of coastal State fishery jurisdiction to
200 nautical miles. The Convention adopted by the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea also rcRects this preference for single-State
management (II, United States Mernorial. para. 250). The Court of Arbitra-
lion's recognition in the Grisbadarita case that the boundary should be adjusted
to avoid crossing the edge of a fishing bank was to the same etïect. illustrating
the principle of placing stocks associated with a iïshing bank under the
iurisdiction of a sinele Siale rather than dividine these stocks between diiierent
-
oaiion>l Jurirdictiork (rh;<l.p. 3ra 180).
Fin3lly.Canada arguer thxi thcrc I< no similariiy hciuccn a truc coninlon Iikc
ihc hich ,c:i.;>ihich ir he)ond 311iiixiial Siaies' ~ur~sd~ci~o :nd u hcrc e\,ersonc
rnay &h, and an area dkided by a line betweeh two coastal States, eachwith
exclusiveauthority on ils side of the line (V, Canadian Reply, para. 52).
With al1due respect, Mr. President, this seems to the United States Io be a
distinclion without a difference. Whether the stocks are fished by the fishermen ARGUMENTOF MR. STEVENSON 265
of two States or many, the fishermenin a coastal State know that the fishthey do
not catch will not be conserved for theirlater use. but are likelvto be ca-.ht bv
foreign fishermen from the other State when the fish move across the boundary
with the other coastal State; likewise,they are likely tobe caught by fishermen
from a number of foreign States when they cross the high seas boundary.
Whether the stocks are fished bv the fishermen of two States or manv States.
conservation will require the States involved to reach agreement on thé
allocation of a scarce resource between their nationals. Allocation is a sensitive
oolitical and economic issue. Whether there are two States or manv. reachine
agreement on allocation is difficult, and sometimes impossible. . . -
Canada also argues that the principle that the boundary should facilitate
conservation and management is a pretext for monopoly (Counter-Memonal,
vara. 500)T .his resort to oeiorative labels does not advance Ourenouirv. On the
Onehand, each State dois have exclusivejurisdiction over the reiouices in its
zone, so that each Statedoes have a monopoly on the resources oflits Coast.But
this is merelv a result of the extension ofcoastal-State fisheries iurisdiction to
2UOn;iutiçal~milçs. Itis a rcsult to uhish Canada ha5 noi been héardio objcct.
On the othcr hand. the application of the principle ufconser\ation willnot lead
to a monopoly of the resources of the entire arez, because there will be fishery
resources on both sidesof whatever boundary the Chamber determines. Canada,
in particular, has enormous fishery resources on the Scotian Shelf and on the
banks to the north. 1would refer the Chamber, in this connection, to Annex 31
of the United States Re. .. which contains a fullerdiscussion of these alternative
tishcr) rcsourccs. In this respect. the application of the principle olconicrviition
and managcincni in thc Gulf ol'hliiinc arc3 produccs 4 rcsuli similx to that in
the Crisbudurnu case: that is, the boundary avoids crossing any particular fishing
bank but, at the same time, illeaves fishingbanks and fishery resources to each
Party. This is hardly monopoly.
Finally, Canada objects that the principle of conservation has no logical
connection with the "basis of title". Canada of course eauates the "basis of title"
with the dirtan~.cpnnciple and the cquidisiancc method This is an error thai I
uill deal with Iiitcr Howevcr. 11is correct io sa) ihat thcrc is nu connr'ction
ktueen the ~rinciolc th31the boiindar, should ~acilitatcconservation and ihc
eauidistance'method. Indeed. one of-the shortcomines of the eauidistance
nicthod is thdl11 1sconstructed only by rcfcrcncc 10 ihe prolecting po;nls on the
roasi Thcrciore. itdot\ not takc account of variations in thc manne cmiron.
ment. Thus, the equidistance method will not produce boundaries that facilitate
resource conservation and management except in circumstances, not present
here, where it does so by accident.
Icamenowro rherhirdequifubleprincipleidenfijedby rheUniredSrares- rhe
principlerhar rhedelimirarionshouldminimizetheporenfialfor dispuresberween
rhe Parries.
Mr. Colson will discuss, in a subsequent oral statement, why it is that a
boundary that does not divide the fishing banks and takes advantage of the
Northeast Channel would minimize the ootential for international disoutes.
wbereas, on the other hand, a boundary ac;oss Georges Bank would incre& thé
potential for disputes. There is here a question of law, which 1believe is easily
answered.
1s it lawful for this Chamber to prefer a boundary that minimizes interna-
tional disputes to a boundary that maximizes disputes? The United States
helievesthat it is lawful, and promotes an equitable solution, to provide a result
that avoids further disputes. The United States Memorial refers to the concern
for minimizing the potential for international disputes in the Grisbadurnu case266 GULF OF MAINE
and the Norrh Seo ConrinetiralSl~el/cases as well as in the international cases
delimiting land boundaries (paras. 255 and 256).
This is no! an equitable principle that is confined to maritime boundary
delimitation. Quite the contrary. It is fundamental 10 al1of international law.
Indeed, the basic purpose 01international law, as wellas the basic purpose of the
United Nationsand of the International Court of Justice, is to avoid, to resolve,
to minimize, disputes. It would he perverse, indeed, to ignore this aspect of the
case.
Thefourrh andfinal eyuirubleprincipleidenrifiedby rhe UniredSlares is ihur rhe
boundary must ruke occounr of ihe relevunrcircumsrancesin rhe area.
Canada, of course, cannot deny this principle since it is part of the basic
fundamental rule of maritime boundary delimitation set forth by the Court.
Moreover, Canada iiself has expressly endorsed this principle. Canada instead
attacks the fourth equitable principle identified hy the United States, by
contending that the United States has not put forth any legal criterion of
relevancv - that is. ;inv basis on which the relevance of various circumstances
ma" be determincd and balanced up (Canadian Counier-Memoriïl. par3 540).
C3n;idï. un ihc conirary. si3ics lh31 IIis rel!ing on circumsianccs raoied in the
obiwi and ihe purpose of thc zones io be dclimiicd (ihril..plira 549)
This isonce again a very sophisticated wayof canada akicking what isa very
fundamental concept: this Chamber not only has the right but also the
responsibility to determine what are the relevant circumstances in the area.
Moreover. the Chamher is noi as restricted as Canada would restrict it 10
wlectin$ only one i)pc of rcletiini circumsrances - ndmcly. lhose whish Can'ida
üsscrir :ire relaicd io ihc uhject of the lonc t<ihe ~ielinilicd.This Canadian
Dosition 1sçoniriiry tu ihc Court's \icu in the Tiini~l~L .rih..ucarc trhcrc ihc
court stated that:.
"lt isclear that what is reasonable and eauitable in anv ejven case must
depend on its particular circumstances. ~hérecan be no douht that il is
virtually impossible to achieve an equitable solution in any delimitation
without taking in10 account the particular relevant circumstances of the
area." (I.C.J. Reporrs 1982. para. 72.)
In the Norrh Seo Conriiienral Sheifcases, the Court was even more specific.
There it stated:
"In fact, there is no legal limit to the considerations which States may
take account of for the purpose of making sure that they apply equiiable
procedures, and more often than not it is the balancing-up of al1 such
considerations that will produce this result rather than reliance on one 10
the exclusion of al1 others. The problem of the relative weighi to be
accorded IO diiïerent considerations naturally varies with the circumstances
of the case." (I.C.J. Reporrs 1969, para. 93.)
The United States agrees that the relevant circumstances mus1 be related to
equitable principles. In fact, al1of the circumstances identified by the United
States as relevant circumstances in the area either relate to equitable principles
expressly set forth in the first three principles we have identified as applicable
here or they are circumstances which the United States helieves that the
Chamber may reasonably take into account in determining what are the
circumstances in this area that willlead to an equitable result- the United States
fourth equitable principle.
The United States agrees with Canada that circumstances relating to the
object and purpose of the 200-nautical-mile zone are among the circumstances ARGUMENT OF MR. STEVENSON 267
relevant to delimitation. We do not helieve that these are the exclusive relevant
circumstances. However, in the llnited States view, even with respect Io this
relevant circumstance. the orimarv o.iect.and ouro. . of the zone is conserva-
lion and managerlieni oiri>ourccr iliiUnited Siair.. scctiiidcquit:ihli principli
- iioi.;i,Panda h3s si~ggcitçd. 111~~a11~13cl~o ofi<~a~l.ilSliitc depcnclencctln
the resources of the zone (Canadian Reply, para. 86).
Certainly a major underlying piirpose of the zone was Io eatend coastal Stale
jurisdiction seaward to include most coastal stocks under single coastal State
management and thus to avoid the common pool problems which were
devastütine-world fisheriesand oarticularlv Georecs Bank. This ourDo.ei. made
eiin cli:irzr b! ihr ,pçcial trc,diniirii i\iliich I c;<rliir reierrcilti>J.iiciirdr.J
:in:idriim<>u>a.1;idronidu. anJ h.ghl) niigr;iiory .picica ~lidcr ihr. 1982C'.in-
vinilon titithe I2u i)iihi Si;, rin:iilt.inci~u,l\ uiih iIis;re;itioii oiihc excliisi\c
economic zone.
Of course, the zone does benefit coastal States, as a whole, as against
distant-water fishing States, but this is quite diiTerentindeed from benefiting
individual coastal States in accordance with thcir resoective economic necd.
This mistaken characterization of the purpose oE the zone represents yet
another instance in which Canada seeks to have the Chamber consider, as a
relevant circumstance, economic dependence, which the Court has expressly
found not to be relevant (I.C.J. Keporrs1982, para. 107).
As to the question of balancing up the relevant circumstances 1 willreturn to
that suhject at a later point in this paper.
Now that 1 have discussed the four equitable principles identified by the
United States. 1will discuss the three eauitahle orinci~lesorooosed bv Canada.
CanadaS fi& equitablepririciplr is thar the s.inglekariim; boundaryshould
leavetoeachParty thoseareasof theseathatoreclosesttoitsCoastp , rovided that
dueaccountis rakenof ihe distortinaeffecrsof incidentalmecial featuresnot in
keepingvviththegeneril configuratioi ifthetoastin thereievant;rra (Counter-
Memorial, para. 729).
This proposed equitable principle is merely a rephrasing - as the alleged
"distance orinciole" - of the eauidistance method and im~liesthat eauidistance.
by ensuring pronimity, produces equitable results.
Canada's argument is not neur. In the North Seo ContinentalSheif cases,
Denmark and the Netherlands also argued that the equidistance method was
inherently equitable. The Court, of course, rejected that argument. The Court's
observation, in its Judgment, is equally applicable to Canada's proposed
equitable principle:
"The pl<.*ihat . . tlic reiuli$ clin ncwr he incqiiii;ihli. hccdusc thr.
iquidirt;iri;c principlci\h) dctiniiidn an cquiiahlc priiicipleof dcliniitati<in.
in\<>l\cra nostulate th:ti clr.dr.\.hc-s the uhole uiic.tion .iliisiic" (I.('.J.
Reports1969, para. 24.)
The United States helieves that the equidistance method is not inherently
equitahle and that ils equitability varies with the circumstances of each
particular case.
In the view of the United States, the status in the law of the equidistance
method has already heen determined by the Court. 1willnot recount al1that the
Court has said on this subject - niuch of that has been set forth in our written
pleadings. But 1will note here, briefly, several of the Court's conclusions.268 GULF OF MAINE
In the North Sea ContinentalShelfcases, the Court noted that the equidistance
method can produce results that are "extraordinary, unnatural or unreason-
able" (oara. 24): that because~of~ ~~ "cut-off effect" the eauidistance method
may bë particuiarly~inequitablief the coasts are concave & convex, and that
the inequity of the eauidistance line in such a circumstance tends to hecome
magnified as the line is extended seaward (para. 8).
In the Tunisia/Libyucase, the Court recognized that the equidistance method
does not alwaysproduce equitable results. It stated that the equidistance method
"may be applied if it leads to an equitable solution: if not, other methods should
beemployed" (para. 109). The Court also concluded that equidistance is not
"either a mandatory legal principle, or a method having some privileged status
in relation to other methods" (para. 110).
The practice of States in maritime boundary delimitations confirms the
Court's conclusions. In a large numher of boundaries, States have avoided
altogether the use of the equidistance method, or have deviated, often quite
markedly, from the strict or simplifiedequidistant line. Moreover, State practice
in geographical situations analogous to the Gulf of Maine, namely, the North
Sea and Bay of Biscay, demonstrates further that the boundaries in those
situations must deviate significantly from the equidistance line in order to
achieve an equitable result.
Canada recognizes that it is asking the Chamher to overturn the estahlished
law. For example, in its Counter-Memorial, Canada admits that its argument
requires "a reconsideration of ... the essential rationale of the conclusions
reached hy the Court in the North Sea Continental Shelfcases" (para. 468).
Mr. President and distinguished Judges, what reason is there to helieve that
the estahlished law has heen reversed hy the introduction of the 200-nautical-
milezone? To uut the question another wav. what reason is there to believe that
cquidisiancc line houndürics th31wtre ine~uitahle a icw )car%aga. for example.
in the iidrrh Sed, in tlic English Channel in the \icinily of the Ch~nncl Ishnds.
or the Bay of Biscay, have now become equitable?
Canada's answer isthat the 200-nautical-milezone and the claimedemereence
of the distance principle as the primary habisof coastïl Stxte titlc "lcndj a neu.
wcight equidis1;inceas a method of dclimitati<in"(Canadian (.'ounier-.Mcnio-
nxl. var3 559)I.will cal1this Canad3'\ "distance" thcorv. Th~.r<;ire two narts
to il first, that the "distance of 200 miles from the coast is the sole ha& of
coastal State title to a 200-mile fishingzone or exclusiveeconomic zone" (ibid.,
para. 556).Second, that distance from the coast in the senseof "closer distance"
or "closer proximity", should therefore he controlling in determining the
boundary (ibid., para. 558).
Canada's distance principle is of great importance to this boundary delimita-
tion, hecause this theory is the very foundation of the greater part of Canada's
affirmativecase.Therefore, it isof great significancethat the "distance" theory is
hoth illogical and wholly unfounded in law.
Canada's distance principle is wrong as a matter of logic because it confuses
three quite separate concepts. These are the source ofjurisdiction, the outer limit
of jurisdiction, and the delimitation of disputed areas between neighbouring
States.
The source ofjurisdiction - the "basis of title", if youwill- issovereignty over
land territorv. As the Courtstatedin the North Sea Continental Shelfcases. "the
land i\ [lie lcgal sourceoi the pouer nhich a Statc nia). cxr.rsi,t i>vr.rterritor131
e.;ten5ioiij to ss3ward" (1 ('J. Report~ 1969. püril.96). Il 1..kc~usc iiiaritime
iurisdiction extends from the coast that the- relation of the coasts and the
maritime areas in front of those coasts isso important to boundary delimitation. ARGUMEWTOF MR. STEVEXSON 269
The definitions of both the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf
found in the 1982United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea recognize
this link of the maritime areas to the land from which they extend. Thus,
Article 55 defines the exclusiveeconomic zone as "an area beyond and adjacent
to the territorial sea". Accordinu.v there must bea territorial sea of the coastal
Stiiic adjii~.cn10 ils crclusi\c cconomis 7onc .Article 76,mureorcr. dctincs ihc
coniincntÿl shclf iis"the sc.1-bcdand subsoil of ihc submlrinc arc3 thxi c~icndi:
beyond ... [the territorial sea] throughout the natural prolongation of ils land
territory ...".
The distances these zones may extend beyond the territorial sea is not the
source ofjurisdiction or title,jus1as the three-mile or 12-miledistance is not the
source of a State's iurisdiction over.or title to. the territorial sea. These distances
are mcrsl? the sca\;iird IiniitIo which suchjurisdictionma" cxrcnd Canada crrj
by ipnorinc this distinction heiu,een the land as ihs source of rights and thc
200-;autical-mile distance as the seaward limit of those riehts
Morsovcr, svcn wcrc Canada corrcct ihat the disiancc phciplc had rsplaccd
cricn\ion oisoicrïigniy oi,sr the land icrriion as the bas), of tiilc. Canadï ïlso
in cffccl i, arzuinc lhal ihc lccal b~sisoi tiile Io a 7onï ct)ntrolr dclimiiatiiin.
Canada argues that in the NUrrtrSen Conrinenral Shel/cases, the Court em-
braced natural prolongation of the land as the essential basis of title, and that
it accordingly became "the key principle of continental shelf delimitation under
customarv law" (Canadian Reolv. ..ra..591.Accordine to Canada. when the
1982 1.3~ of thc Sc.!Coni,cntion rcpliiccdn'iiural prol,~ngliion uiih ihc distancc
principlc a\ thc legil hasis of title. indurn~ au Cnddlr argue, - ihs Ji\t.ncs
principle replaced natural prolongation as the basic principle of maritime
delimitation.
As set forth in ils Reply, the United States does not agree at al1 that the
distance principle has become the fundamental basis of title (paras. 77-99).
Moreover, it does not accept that there is no diiïerence between legal titleand
delimitation so that with the alleged movement to the distance principle in
determining legal title, equidistance becomes the basic delimitation principle.
Clearly, in the North Sen Conrinerira1Shelj cases, the Court distinguished
between the basis of title and delimitation, stating that "the appurtenance of a
given area ... in no way governs the precise deliniitation of ils boundaries"
(I.C.J. Reporrs 1969,para. 46). The Court in the TunisialLibya case agreed,
stating that in the Norrh Sen Coririnenral Shel/ cases the "Court ... clearly
distinguished between a principle which affords the justification for the appur-
tenance of an area to a Siate and a rule for deterrnining the extent and limits of
such area" (I.C.J. Reporrs 1982,para. 44). Moreover, the delimitation provi-
sions of the 1982Law of the Sea Convention itsclf are quite seoarate from the
provisions that use 200 nautical rniles to define the outer limit of coastal-State
iurisdiction. These delimitation provisions in no sense embrace any kind of
distance principle.
The Third Law of the Ses Conference agreed upon the 200-naurical-mile
seaward limit for several reasons. These included the desire to encompass the
entire range of coastal fishery stocks, and as a basis for,agreement upon a
resource zone in exchange for recognition of navigational rights and freedoms.
The negotiation of the rules of delimitation for the economic zone and
continental shelf u,ere quite separate and they lasted far longer. There was no
suggestion, at the Conference, that the acceptance of the 200-nautical-mile
seaward limit in any way whatsoever determined the rules of delimitation
between neighbouring States. In particular, there was no suggestion that the
200-mile limit implied the use of the equidistance method. Quite the contrary,270 GULF OF MAINE
the Conference rejected al1attempts to incorporate the equidistance method in
any way into the articles on delimitation.
Ultimately, the Law of the Sea Conference chose no1to make any changes in
the international law ofdelimitation. Both Article74,relating to the delimitation
of the economic zone, and Article 83, relating to the delimitation of the
continental shelf, provide that delimitations "shall be etïected on the basis of
international law. as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution".
Thus, Mr. President and distinguished ludges, the very same Conference that
negotiated the extension of coastal-State water column jurisdictioo seaward to
200nautical milesalso endorsed the existine international law ofde~i~~t~ ~ ~ ~It
alsb rejecteda preferential role for equidistance. It is preposterous to find in this
history the exactly opposite conclusion. The 200-nautical-mile seaward limit of
the exclusive economic zone clearly did not reverse the established law and
require the use of the equidistance method in ils delimitation.
To recapitulate: Canada urges this Chamher to overturn the established law
of delimitation and to transform the equidistance method, a method which is
sometimes useful and sometimes not, into an equitable principle applicable to
every boundary delimitation. However, Canada's argument depends entirely
upon a theory, the theory of the "distance" principle. This alleged principle is
wrong as a matter of logic and plainly contradicted by the law.
The Chamberadjournedfrom 11.20 a.m. to 11.43a.m.
MI. President, distinguished Judges, 1 had completed my discussion of
Canada's first eauitahle orinciole.
1 will now tuA to ~anada<secondequirableprinciple, thatis, thar the single
maritime boundaryshouldallow for the maintenanceof esrablishedpatternsof
fishinrthatareof vitalim~ortancetocoasta~cornmunitie wsithinthereievantarea.
' 1n;rder to inderstand this principle it should be read together with the
relevant circumstances identified in the conclusion to Canada's Reply, namely,
the assertions of:
"The strong Canadian presence in the fishery of Georges Bank and the
established and vitally important economic dependence of Canadian
coastal communities in the relevant area upon the fishery resources of the
Bank; and
The lack of any comparable dependence on the part of the United States
coastal communities." (Para. 375.)
Established patterns, as set forth in the Canadian principle apparently would
not refer solelvto the oresent fisherv. but would imol.c.nsideration of historic
fish6rirsin eitablishing ihe pattern,. Huu,c\cr. if thesc pattrrni ucrc intcrpretcd
10 rc'fersolely or princip3lly to the prcicnt lishcry. thc United Statc~uould no1
arrrr. Thc full historv ~f the Parties'cx~loit3iion tif the resourccs of the arza ii
rëlevant to their coiduct in the are;. Moreover, Canada has here again
committed ifs repeaied fault of associating the use of the mource, which is a
relevant circumstance, with coastal-State dependence on a resource, which is
not. Economic dependence is not a relevant circumstance, much less an
e~~.tahle orinciole.
Canada proposes thai esonomii dcpcndcncc shoulJ influcncc the boundar)
delimiiation. But Canada's argument entnili critical crrors of fnct. Theic crrurs
have been discussed in some detail in Annex 4 to the United States Counter-
Memorial (IV)and Annexes31and 32to the United States Reply. My colleague, ARGUMENT OF MR. STEVENSON 271
Mr. Feldman, will discuss Canada's economic dependence argument in more
detail, particularly as to the facts.
1shall now discuss what the United States believesto be a critical error oflaw.
Economic dependence is not relevant to boundary delimitation. The economic
dependence thesis is contradicted by the nature and development of the
200-nautical-mile resource zones.
1 would like to begin by discussing the history of the emergence of the
200-nautical-mile zones and the implication of this history for the economic
dependence argument.
Canada argues that the development of the 200-nautical-mile zones was
"based uoon a recoenition of the snecial deoendence of coastal States uoon the
resources'otï their Gasts" (canaditan ~e~l;, para. 86).It is from this iremise,
argues Canada, that the economic dependence of a State upon a fishery should
beeiven weieht in boundarv deliniitaiions. However. canada's conclusion does
noÏfollow fFomthe premi&. Certainly, coastal ~tat'essupported the extension
of their fishery jurisdiction inorder to claim for themselves more resources.
Certainly, some of these coastal States were especially dependent upon the
fisheries. However. the rule of law that emereed was not that each State was
eniiilcd io îwri jurirdiction asciirding i<iii;degrcc oi dcpendencc; ihe rulr.
insirad, was that cîch Siaic uas eniiilcd io îb.eri tirhcnei~unsdiriion uiihin 200
nautical miles over the area off ils coasts. The coastal Stite was entitled to the
newjurisdiction regardless of wheiher ilwas dependent upon the resources and,
indeed, even if it did not exploit the resources. Even now many coastal States
lack the capability to harvest the fishery resources off their coasts. Yet no one
would argue thÿt they are not entitled to the full extent of fisheryjurisdiction
conferred by the 200-nautical-mile zone.
The other aspect of the extended coastal State fisheryjurisdiction was that
foreign Reetslos1their right of accessto fisheriesthey had been exploiting. These
fleets lost their right of access whether or not they could prove economic
dependence. Here again, sovereignty over the coast was the basis for resource
jurisdiction, and economic dependence was irrelevant.
The extension of coastal-State jurisdiction was a revolution in the law of the
sea and a revolution in worldwide fishing patterns. Coastal State fleets gained
enormously at the expense of the distant-water fleets. In this process, many
States experienced a trade-otï. They los1 distant-water fisheries but gained
fisheriesoff their own coasts which others had been exploiting. France and the
United States fall in this category. For some States with large distant-water fleets
the results were far worse. For example, the Federal Republic of Germany,
Great Britain. and ltalv were al1forced to accent sham reductions in the sizeof
iheir flcetsand the nukbcr or job.. in their tish;ng ind&tries Spain. alnopreat
diriant-uaier iishing nation. cnergeiic~llysought îccess IO neu fishing grounds
and manaaed therebv to uostvone thedav of reckoninn. But todav even S~ainis
beginningto make large'red;ctions in its fleet. -
Some nations fared better than others. Canada, in particular, gained enor-
mous fishery resources, especially on its east coast. But, except for Georges
Bank, Canada had few fisheries off the coasts of other States. Canada has
maintained its Georees Bank fisherv until now bv virtue of its boundarv claim.
Thus, Canada has hanaged so fa; to enjoy thébenefits of creating ;ts own
2W-nautical-mile fisheryzone, without having to facethe consequencesof losing
access to fisheries off the coasts of other ~taies.
Let us examine further the concepts of "economic dependence" and "relative
economic wealth". Two years ago, in the TunLFialLibyacase, the Court
characterized Tunisia's arguments as follows:272 GULF OF MAINE
"Tunisia seenis to have invoked economic considerations in two ways:
firstly, by drawing attention to ils relative poverty vis-à-vis Libya in terms
of absence of natural rcsources ... compared with the relative abundance
of I.ib)a . .. ,~,>ndly. hv pointing oui thdt iishing rcsourccs rlrrived irom
itisldiineJ hibioric righls' dnd hi\tiiric u;iicrs' ;ircds mu4 nece\~.iril) bc
taken into account as supplementing ils national economy in eking out ils
survival as a country." (I.C.J. Reports 1982,para. 106.)
"The Court is, however, of the view that these economic considerations
cannot be taken into account ..." (Ibid., para. 107.)
Thus the Court deckared considerations of both economic dependence and
relative wealth to be legally inadmissible. Canada's argument that southwest
Nova Scotia is dependent upon the fishery resources of Georges Bank is the
same as Tunisia's argument that the fishervresources of the area were necessarv
to '.<kingoui itisur;ivlil". AnJ Csnad.i's :irgunir.iiithat \outhnesi F\a\d ~~oii.;
is relitivrly morc dcli:ndrnt thdn t.astcrn hl~ss:i~hu~ett,upon ticorgcs Bank i\
thc siinicdsTuni~id'~arcunient lhai Lihvr tvi, rel:iiii~cls\ic.ilihier. For the s:inic
reasons adduced by theCour1 in that caie, Canada's arguments mus1be rejected
in this case.
In explaining why it would not take account of economic dependence and
relative wealth, as urged by Tunisia, the Court stated that these:
"are virtually extraneous factors since they are variables which unpredict-
able national fortune or calamity ...might at any timecause to tilt the scale
one way or the other. A country might be poor today and become rich
tomorrow as a result of an event such as the discovery of a valuable
economic resource." (Para. 107.)
This reasoning applies with even greater force ta the present dispute. Canada
and the United States have large and complex economies. There are many
unpredictable factors that will affect their relative economic dependence upon
the fisheries of Georges Bank. One such factor is the substantial new hydro-
carbon resources that have been discovered off the Coast of Nova Scotia and
that will dramatically enrich the economy of that area. Another such factor is
eovernment intervention, whether in the form of subsidies or in the foml of
-
intestinent iiiccnti\cr An) c.~dminitiiin of the rcasons uliy one ;ira is inorc
Jcpcn<lcnt th:in the .~thcrupon ;Iparticulx indultr) u.ould Ie:iJ thi.. Chmhcr
into an examination of national economic policies, resource prospects and
global trends that are impossible ta understand and predict with any measure of
confidence.
The facts discussed bythe Parties in their pleadings are only a small part of the
overall economic piclure. Moreover, eventhese factsare coniplex and controver-
sial. Even taking into account the complexity of these facts, however, it is clear
that Canada's prediction that southwest Nova Scotia will suffer severe and
long-lasting, even permanent, economic damage if the United States prevails, is
grossly over-stated. Mr. Feldman's subsequent presentation will discuss the
analytic and statistical errors involved in Canada's assertions about the relative
economic dependence of the Parties.
MI. President, distinguished Judges, is there any basis for the proposition that
a nation with lessereconomic dependence should be disadvantaged in boundary
delimitations? The United States does not believethat a court should take into
account the future needs of the parties as a factor in the delimitation of maritime
boundaries. It believes that such a proposition would be inconsistent with the
principle that al1 sovereign States have equal rights and are entitled to equal ARGUMEPIT OF MR. STEVENSON 273
treatmen,.undcr international law. Every coastal Siate is entitled to jurisdiction
over the waters off its Coastwhatever the State's economic de~endenceon the
resources of those waters. Considerations of economic depindence are not
germane to the delimitation of maritime boundaries. Any eiïort to take them
into account inevitably would involve the Chamber in an exerciseof distributive
justice that is inconsistent with its judicial funciion.
In short. thedoctrine of economic dependenceis wrong in logic. wrong in law,
and, in addition, inimicable to the peaceful settlement of disputes.
C<i~i<id/rirhird and lasr euuitoble principle is rhar the sinde maririme boundarv
.slr<ru/lPJPC<.!hr>III~J<.~<)I 'o1ilhl;P<J~;I~.lht~nis<~l~II~I;~.o,~iiil<>r,yr~>roh;i,
88%re,eiili~l hi rli',ir ,r,,?,Li.r (Can:irlian Counicr-Mcmuri~l. pari. 7?Yi
N'iih rcapeci 18)ihis third cquit-thle principlc siaird h) C:in;idn. thc C'niied
States doesconsider the conduct of the parties to be a kelevant circumstance.
The :iciii,iiics of the Parties in ihc GulfofM;iine arc3 as set furih in ihc Unitcd
Staies plc~dings ;ireioniirlcrcd relcrant cunduci of the Partic,. Houci,cr. it is
ihc \leu ofthc Cniicd Siaie. ih:ii thccr>nduci ofihc P.iriicsis rir<iriirl) \icucd;is
a relevant circumstance to be taken into account and weiehed-under-the fourth
cquiiablc principle \ci forih b) ihc UniieJ Si~ics.
The United Staichal50 iigrccs ihiii ihe conJu~i of ihe Pariirs m;i" hc iiidici3 of
wh31 I~C P~rucsnould consider IO hc an euuiiablc rcsuli Houc\,cr. the Parties
disagreeas to the Parties' conduct in this cise. and its significance in indicating
what the Parties would consider 10 be an equitable boundary. The United States
Agent hasalready dcalt in part with this question. Subsequentoral presentations
will deal with the issuesof fact in more detail. However. thereis one circumstance
identified by Canada that I will discusshere because ii musi be excluded, in Our
opinion. as a rnatter of law. This concernsthe restraint exercisedby the United
Slates in issuing oil and gas leasesduring the pendencyof this dispute.
Il will be recalled that both Parties have authorized and conducted scismic
work in the disputed area, and that neither Party has drilled there. Canada's
leases do purport to authorize drilling, but Canada suspended the work
requirements and ni>drilling has iri fact beenconducted. The United States has
issued permits for seismic work, but kas deliberately refrained from issuing
leaseswhich would authorize drilling. The United States has done so iii the
disoutcd area. in order to facilitate the settlement of this disoute.
canada, on the other hand, has sought to cake advantaie of this restraint
exercisedby the United States. For example, in ils Counter-Memorial. Canada
States:
"From 1965 until the end of the decade the United States clearly
acquicsced in and recognized the exercise of Canadian jurisdiction with
respect to what is now the disputed portion of the Gulf of Maine area."
(Para. 380.)
Counsel for Canada have emphasized the same point in thesehearings. In this
way, Canada seeks to penalize the United States for acting with restraint.
Canada's argument, however, is contrary to the law and adverseto the peaceful
settlement of disputes. It is contrary to the spirit of Article 74 (3) of the 1982
Law of the Sea Convention which provides that provisional arrangements
pending the settlement of the boundary shall be without prejudice 10 the
delimitation. It is absolutelv critical that the Chamber confirm this rule of law.
Currcnily. ihcri :irc \e\eral.hundrcd iinrss<il\ed miiriiinic bounJarie\, including
ihrcc othcr* hct\i.cenihci: \cr) P.irtici. Man) of thesccould heconie ;içourcc of
conilici if thc Siaie<iniol\ed ucrc icihclic\c 1h.1ihcir exrcise of reiirüint could
prejudice their boundary positions in subsequent negotiations or adjudications.274 GULF OF MAINE
This, Mr. President, concludes my discussion of the Parties' views on the
applicable equitable principles.
THEIDENTIFICATI O NRELEVANC TIRCUMSTANCES
1 will now discuss the sixth part of this ~resentation of the legal issues
separilting ihc Pariics, namrly the idcntitiçaiiin <ifthe rclctani circu~stincçs.
The Partics agree thai in this delimitation, the Ch~mbcr musi tahe account of
ihc rclrvjnt cir:umsiancc\ in the are^ Furihermorr. the Parties agree that the
relevant circumstances must bebalanced uoto determine an eauitable solution.
However, the Parties do not agree on what circumstances are relevant or on
what weirht should be given to the various circumstances. On the one hand,
Canada Las attemoted. without statine so exoresslv. to reduce the weieht of the
aitu31 gcogrilphy bv cmphasizing so-Callcd:.humin geograph)" Canada also
h3~siicmpied, mas! rcccnlly in .Mr Forticr's st;itcmcni Iasi Wcdncstlay. t<i
e\cludc 3s irrclc\anr as a maitcr ollau aspccts of ihc marine cniironmcni ihai
~ ~~~elv suooort a houndarv res,ecti.e the Northeast Channel. Professor
HOW<< in i;b siatemcni 1x1 .I'hursday. ;oughl to cxcludc 3 Lariety of human
ilstiiiiies ihat tend to coniirm the prcdominant intrrcsi of ihc United States on
Cieorecs Bank On the oiher hand, Canada ha\ rtiurhi 10 incliide and icirive
great-weight to considerations of economic dependence already determined by
the Court to be irrelevant to houndary determinations (I.C.J. Reports 1982,
para. 107).
Accordinelv. in this nart of mv oresentation. the United States willdiscuss the
rclcvance OCcircuniit~nie~ relaiing. IO geography. the marine environment,
gcology, human activitics. the conduct of ihc P~rtics. and eronomic considcra-
tions I +hallrekr in ~articular iithe dilfcrcnccs bciuccn ihc Pdrtics as to thc
relevance of these circumstances.
GeographicalCircumstances
First let us consider geographic circumstances. The most important considera-
tions in this case are those relating to geography. The Court and arbitral
trihunals have consistently emphasized geographic factors, such as the general
configuration of the coasts of the Parties, the location of the terminus of the land
houndary, and the element of a reasonable degree of proportionality.
Both Parties acknowledge tbat geography is at least "a leading factor" (1,
Canadian Memonal, para. 303). Both quote the Court to the effect that the
maxim "the land dominates the seau requires that the delimitation "faithfully
reflectthe general configuration ofthe coast" (ibid pa.,a. 305).In the viewof the
United States, a boundary not drawn in accordance with the geographical
factors cannot produce an equitable result. And Canada agrees. Last week, the
Agent of Canada stated that:
"No one would contend that an interest in the fisherycan support a claim
that has no reasonahle hasis in coastal geography. Nor, for that matter,
could any orhvrnon-geographical factor serve as a suhstitute for a geo-
graphical basis of claim." (P. 46, supra.)
Geography is most important for several reasons:
First,the land is the source of al1coastal State rights to maritime jurisdiction,
including the continental shelf and the exclusive 200-nautical-milezone (I.C.J.
~e~ortsÏ969, para. 96) ARGUMENT OF MR. STEVENSON 275
Second, geography is relevant to the delimitation of both the water column
and the continental shelf.This is unlike some other circumstances that may only
pertain to one or the other. Thus, geography was relevant in both the
delimitation of the water column in Grisbadarna and of the continental shelf in
the TunisialLibya case.
Third.,-eoe-.ohv i, for ever. Some other circumstances. such ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~- man's
activities or economics, may change, but the geography will not change (at least
not within the time-span relevant to this case).
Canada has attempted to confuse physical geography with so-called "human
geography". This should be seen for what it isan attempt to escape the logical
consequences that follow from the physical geography. It is the actual configura-
tion of the coasts that courts have relied upon, and it is the actual configuration
of the coasts that must he considered here.
Canada has also attempted to confuse the issue by posing a false dichotomy
between the geography of the Gulf of Maine area and "macrogeography",
which Canada asserts to he irrelevant. This is a matter of scale. Certainly the
Court in the North Sea Conrinenral Shelfcases examined the totality of the
geography of the North Sea. It isalso worth noting that a number of States have
used continental geography to determine their boundaries. For example, the
maritime boundaries hetween Chile, Peru and Ecuador extend east-west,
perpendicular to the general north-south direction of the Westcoast of South
America. Even Canada has employed macrogeographical arguments in this case.
I would refer the Chamber to paragraph 19 and to Figure 7 of the Canadian
@ ~-.~~~.~~
In this case, Mr. President and distinguished Judges, it is not necessary to
choose hetween local and macrogeography. An examination of either the Gulf
of Maine, the Gulf of Maine area, or the east coast of North America confirms
that the general direction of the coast is southwest to northeast, and that the
land boundary terminus is located in the corner of a coastal concavity that is
the Gulf of Maine.
The United States has shown in its pleadings the factual relevance of the
location of the land boundary in the northern corner of the Gulf of Maine
concavitv. Perhaos because of its awareness that this location of the l~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
boundaj causesihe Canadian lines to swing out across and cut off the coastal
front of the state of Maine, Canada seeks to exclude this relevant circumstance
from consideration as a matter of law. Canada areues that the United States
offers no Iegd re.i,un uh) the ierminus uiihe land bound~r) should contrul the
cour,? of the maritime buundar) iiithe areas beyund 11%immcdiaie vicinit). in a
situation where other coastal areas are much closer to the maritime boundary as
it movesseaward (Canadian Renlv. oara. 148).Onceaeain. wehave a reiteration
by Canada of the'di\tance prikiblé and ~h~c~uidist~ncr.mcih<)d.
The losaiion i)ithc land boundary ir in fart quite relev3nt in Jeiermining the
CUI-ciisfki of the Canadian Iiiies.which run so far souih of thc Iaiiiudz ol the
land houndarv. Given the location of the land boundarv. the ma~ ~i~ ~ ~
, . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
boundaries proposed by Canada do not respect the first equitable principle
identified by the United States of iaking into account the relationshio hetween
the coasts of the Parties and the inarisme areas in front of these coasts and,
more particularly, the suhsidiary principle of non-encroachment on the coastal
projections from these coasts.
If Canada chooses to denrecate the cut-off effect of the Canadian lines as
"sartographic~i imprersionism". so be it. The incquiiablc chardcter oi such a
maritime boundary \hould bc fully apparent. howeser. to anjone luoking ai a ARGUMENT OF MR. STEVENSON 277
column is not, in fact. as unifom as Canada asserts. There can in factbe. as the
United States factual pleadings have shown, and the United States expert, Dr.
Robert Edwards, will demonstrate, separate régimes withinthe water column.
Fourth, Canada alleges that such a boundary would also have to take into
account the distance principle, as the legal basis of title(ibid.para. 82). The
United States agrees that the natural houndary would not coincide with an
equidistance boundary based on the distance principle. Indeed, this is one of the
deficienciesof the application in this case of the equidistance meihod. But the
United States would note that the natural boundary at the Northeast Channel,
in this case, would be respected by a boundary giving eiïect to the principle of
coastal-front projection.
Fifth, and last, the natural boundary would have to be consistent with an
equitableresult.Accordingto Canada, the natural boundary has beenadvanced by
the United Statesto produce a result as far removedfrom eauitv as wssihle (ibid..
para. 82) Hem.indkd, wecome IOa realque\tion: wheihertir nbt;ikundary ihat
respects the naiural boundary ai the Northeast Channel would produoe an
wuilable resuliin thiscaw. The United Statcs. for rcasoni set funh in its plwdiiigs.
which will be summarized and suoooned in a subseauent oral staiement bv
.Mr Colron. is oi ihe viewthat II((ould JO $0 It 1ssonsistcnt with ihe quitable
pnn~iples xi fonh. including those relating to managemeni and sonwrvation of
fishervresounxi, to the mininiiwtion oiihe rxitcntialfor iniernaiioniildisriuici.;ind
IO ih; wking in10ascouni of ihc other rek\,ünt circumsianses in the ka. hlosi
imponantl). the naiuril bounday in thissaw ci)incideiwiththe resuliindis~iedhy
the equitable pnnciples relatingo coastal geography.
The consideration of a natural boundarv has a solid foundation in iuris-
prudence. As the United States has demonstrated in ils written p~eadings,
adiudications involving delimitation of fishing nghts authorize, if not require,
consideration of natuÏal features in the mannéenvironment. The Court of
Arbitration took account of such features in the Grisbadarna case. The
boundary was drawn to pass through deep water between two important fishing
banks, thereby avoiding a division of authority on either bank. In the 1951
Fisheries case, Nonvay stressed the relationship of the coastal fisheries to the
numerous banks and ledges within the waters that Nonvay sought to include
within its straight baseline system. The existence of these banks and ledgeswas
one of the geographical realities of which the Court look note in affirming
Nonvay's exclusivejurisdiction over the sea area there in issue(Fisheries,I.C.J.
Reports 1951, p. 127). More recently. the parties to the Convention on the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources of 20 May 1980, used a
natural feature in the marine environment to delimit the area subiect to that
Convention: they used the Antarctic Convergence, which is an océanographie
boundary between Antarctic waters to the south and warmer sub-Antarctic
waters to the north, and which limitsthe range of many Antarctic manne species
(Art. II. The narties to this Convention are Areentina. Australia. Beleium.Chile.
France. th; ~erman ~emocratic Kepublic, the ~ediral Republic $~e&~n~,
Japan. Ncw Zealand. South Africa. the Union of Soviçi Socialist Republics. the
United Kingdom, the United Siatcs and the t'uropran Economic Community.
GeologicalCircumsrances
What about geological circumstances? In this respect, the United States fully
agrees with the Court's rejection iii thTunisialLibya case of the Tunisian and
Libyan arguments based upon geology, upon events occurring a million years
ago, that is upon "the processes and events which gave rise to features ... on278 GULF OF MAINE
and beneath the earth's surface" and upon the "analysis and classification of
minerais, rocks, and fossils" (I.C.J.Reports 1982,paras. 100-101).
We also agree with the Court's determination in that case that what isrelevant
in delimitations are "the physicalcircumstances as they are today .. the present
day sea-bed" (ibid p.,a. 61).
We accordingly invite the Chamber to consider, as a relevant circumstance in
this case, the Northeast Channel which divides important fishing banks of the
present day sea-bed.
Activities in the Are0
1 turn now to a consideration of activities in the area as a legally relevant
circumstance.
The United States and Canada disagree about the relevance, as a legal matter,
of many of their respective activilies inthe Gulf of Maine area. In the viewof the
United States, the activities of the Parties are relevant as evidence of the
predominant interest of the United States in the Georges Bank area. As noted in
the United States suhmission (United States Reply, p. 166,B (3)),those activities
include:
"The longer and larger extent of fishingby United States fishermen since
before the United States became an indevendent country:
The sole develonment. and. until receitlv. the almostexclusive domina-
tion of the ~eor&s ~ank fisheries hy ~niied States fishermen;and
The exercise by the United States and its nationals for more than 200
years of the respOnsibilityfor aids to navigation, search and rescue, defense,
scientific research, and fisheriesconservation and management."
That the boundary may take in10account the "predominant interest" inthe area
of one of the parties was expressly notcd by the Court of Arhitration in the
Anglo-French Arbitration case (para. 188).
Canada disputes the relevance ofsome of the particular activities discussedby
the United States and contends that the most weight should be accorded recent
fishing patterns. In this connection, Canada has advanced several legal theories
that deserve comment.
In its Reply, Canada argues that most of the activities invoked hy the United
States:
"took place for the most part at a lime when extended coastal Stale
jurisdiction was entirely uncontemplated, and the pnnciples of inter-
temporal law consequently rule out their consideration" (para. 98).
It must be noted, Mr. President, that this theory of intertemporal law if valid,
if applicable, would render irrelevant no1only many of the activities invoked by
the United States but also, until 1977,Canada's comparatively recent Georges
Bank fishery. For as Canada itself notes in its Counter-Memorial:
"The diverse activities of both Parties on Georges Bank, before the
advent of the continental shelf and fishingzone régimes ...,were activities
in commun with other nations and carried out as traditional freedoms of
the high seas." (Para. 602.)
However, Canada's theory of intertemporal law does not render irrelevant the
Parties' açtivities. because these activities were not introduced as evidence of
historic title or $or claims to jurisdiction. Quite to the contrary: the United
States introduced these activities solely to demonstrate its predominant interest
on Georges Bank. ARGUMENT OF MU. STEVENSON 279
Canada also argues in its Reply that many of the activities invoked by the
United States are irrelevant becaose they
"are eventodav unrelatcd to the subiect-matter of the zones to he delimited
and remain inihe category of high Seasfreedoms that may be exercised in
common with otber nations" (para. 98).
This argument iswrong hoth in fact and in law. In fact, the activitiesinvoked
by the United States relate either directly or indirectly to the suhiect-matter of
existi-g zones and maritime iurisdiction in the aiea. ~ishine and fisherv
conscr\iiticin dnJ manligcmeni act~~it~csrclalc Jirectl). The cicrci\uf rcsponsi-
bility ior liidicin.i\,if;iiion. scdrch and rcscLr and ~ricntificrcscarchin g~od
pari hxs hecnconducicd in $upp,iri $1I1 'iicd Siütcs iirhingand contincni.il shcli
:icti\iiics and relxtei inilireIOlwh.it C'anadsc~ll "the purpu,c, oi the zone"
ri,x maticr of I;i\iIIshoiild bc.rcc.illcrlihat ihcic and simil.ir ;istiviiics hlivr
heen considered in pas1cases to he relevant circumstances. These are noted in
paragraph 259 of the United States Memorial. Crisbadarna, for example,
considered activities involving not only the use of the resources but also the
exercise of responsihilities for measuring and charting the sea and the main-
tenance of aids to navieation bv the State 145th Whereas). The Court of
Arhiiraiion in ihc ~n~lo-i:rcnçh ~rhitr.iri~inpÿriicul.irl) noicd ihc rcl-\diicc oi
n.iiion.il dcfciicc aiid rrcurity inicrcüi.ci.idcncing a "prc.diimin.int inierc,t"
pi lh8) In ihat cmc, hoiic\er. ihcsc ionsiderati<in\ \vert diminibhcd b\ ihc
very particular character of the English Channel as a major route of intérna-
tional maritime navigation.
In light of the provision in the SpecialAgreement that this houndary willlimit
al1rights and jurisdictions now recognized and to he recognized in the future by
international law, it would be unwise to limit arhitrarily the interests and
activities that this Chamber may consider. The United States believes that
coastal State rights in the exclusiveeconomic zone do no1and should not extend
bevond the euidelines reflectedin the 1982Law of the Sea Convention. Given.
hkever, canada's past attitude towards expanding coastal Statejurisdiction, ii
is possible that the houndary to be established by the Chamher eventually could
afect rights and jurisdictions not now at issue.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, some of the activities here involved are
indeed relevant as indicia ofthe Parties' recognitionof the Northeast Channel as
an appropriate natural houndary between the United States and Canada in the
@-@ Gulf of Maine area. 1cal1your attention in this connection to Figures 14-18of
the United States Counter-Memorial. These are maps depicting divisions of
responsibility with respect to fishiiig and other relevant areas.
Canada also argues that only contemporary fishing patterns are relevant,
and that the history of the fisheryis irrelevant. Canada's reason for disregarding
160years of United States fishing on Georges Bank is that "the impact of the
single maritime houndary will be limited hy present and future generations
of fishermen ..." (Canadian Counter-Memonal. para. 596). Canada dismisses
the United States fisheries as "obsolete fisheries of early historical limes,
whose impermanence has been a known fact for generations" (Canadian Reply,
para. 100).
In a sense, al1 of man's activities are impermanent. Just as the fishing
techniques of 1820are ohsolete today, and New England's"Georges schooners"
of the las1century have cmmhled inIo dust, so too willtoday's fishing habits be
outdated and todav's vesselsbeconie obsolete. The imoermanence. in this sense.
of tishing .icti~itir<isone more rrüjon u,hvecogr;iphi!~l consirlrr<iiionsmuit bc
givcn more \ieighi. Houc\,cr. IIshould he addrd ihai. in anothcr scnsc. the ARGUMENT OF MR. STEVENSON 281
In addition to ascertaining the relevant circumstances, the Chamber. as set
forth in both the North Sea Continental Sltelf cases (I.C.J. Renorrs 1969.
piira.Y21dnd the 7ùtir.i;~I.;hw c.iw (1 C.J. ~<y~o'rt1\~X"'p~ra.72j'must asses<
the rcl:itiic wcighi oithcic cirrunisidnccs tind b~lanccihcm iip in order to reach
an equitable result.
In sodoine.u,he Chamber. in t.e U~ite-~States view.should eive moreuweieht u
to circumstances which relate to substantive articulated equitable principles,
such as the first three principles identitied by the United States, than to relevant
circumstances in the aiea which do not relate to a specificsubstantive equitable
principle. The reason for the greater weighing of circumstances relating to
articulated equitable principles is the importance of applying equitablc prin-
ciples in the light of the circumstances in achieving an equitable boundary
solution.
This has two aspects. First, it is highlydesirable to provide parties discharging
their legal obligations to negotiate agreements on maritime boundary disputes
with as soecificeuidance as oossible as to the leeal basis for a solution and thus
soniribuie IO ihc minimi~.ii;on <ilintîrnat~<ina~di,~uies Sccondly. the gre;ttcr
ucip-ing -f circumsiances relatiny to ;irticulatcd principles u,illgivc-pari~o IO a
dispute submitted to internatioial adiudication ereater assurance that the
dispute will be determined on the basisif equitableprinciples within the law.
In view, moreover, of the Chamber's responsibility to fix a single maritime
boundary, circumstances relevant to the functional eflectivenessof a boundary
relatine to both the water column and the sea-bed mav be eiven ereater weieht
than c~rcumstancesonly relating to one of them. ~e&raphical c'ircumstan~es,
particularly those relating to non-encroachment on coastal projections and
proportionality, as well a; the natural boundary, as a relevant circumstance in
this case, meet this requirement.
Finally, the Chamber would doubtless take into account the fact that similar
circumstances have been found relevant in other maritime delimitations, and
that a substantivearticulated equitable principle relating to the consideration of
these circumstances, as a means of achieving an equitable solution, may be
developing in the international jurisprudence.
Now comine to this case. it is the oosition of the United States that. in the
releiant cirrum\iïncc, of this cÿsc. the circun~stdnccsentitled IO ihe most ucighi
are gc<igraphic - speciticall~.ihis niedns the position of the land hnundar) and
the co~rtal ehtcnsion from the co;isi oi Maine southwcsi of the l~nd boundarv.
extendine -eaward to embrace al1 of Georees Bank. These eeoeraohical --.
circum\iance\ are rrlc\.ant IO the application of the first equitshle pnnciplc
idcniiiicd hy thc United Siaies of respcciing ihc relaiiunship bctucen the coaits
of the Parties and the maritime are3 in irtlnt oithejc coa>ts.includinr both the
water column and the nrcsent dav sea-bed of that area. ~oreoGer. these
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~,
geographic circumstances are strongly reinforced hy the marine environmental
circumstances - 1 refer, of course, particularly to the discrete environmental
régimesand important stocks of commercial fish separated by the natural
boundary between the fishing banks constituted by the Northeast Channel,
which is in turn, in addition to being a natural boundary, an important
geomorphological feature of the sea-bed. These environmental circumstances
are particularly relevant to the second and third equitable principles of
facilitating conservation and management of natural resources and minimizing
disputes.
What about the activities of the Parties? In the viewof the United States. the
activities and conduct of the Parties in the area are considered relevant
circumstances in this case under the fourth equitable principle identified by the282 GULF OF MAINE
United States. However, they are, in the viewof the United States, not entitled
to as much weight as the geographic and environmental circumstances.
The United States considers that the activities of the Parties and their
nationals in the area to be delimited, including the exploitation of the resources
of the area. are relevant to the delimitation of a sinele maritime houndarv if
thcse ;icii\,itiesare long-standing and arc domin3nt. Houeber. ihcse factors arc
signilicani unly tu ihc cxicni that ihcy poini tï houndiiry thlit is independently
consistent with the basic geographic relationship between the coasts of the
Parties and the maritime area to bedelimited. The hierarchv of noms isinherent
in ihe nliiure of the Icgîl inr:rcrts Ih'itare bcing deliniiied '~c~:ilinterr5ib in ihe
shclfiind superjaicnt usiers are barcd in the firsi insilinccon gcogr;iphic fdslors.
p~rticul.irls ihr e\iensiun ufso:i\t;il iiirirdiciion into and undcr the seli Whrn
ihc aciivities of the Parties in the area poini in the same direction as the
fundamental geographic circumstances, they makc cvcn more certain the
equiiableness of a iietermination based on the geographic factors. Where,
however, the activities of the Parties are balanced or poini in another direction,
they are entitled to little, if any, weight.
In this case, the United Statespredominant interest in a large number of both
resource and resource-related activities outweighs Canada's recent intercst in a
scallop fishery on Georges Bank. In addition, the conduci of the Parties, taken
as a whole. indicates that Canada's challenges to the United Siates predominant
interest in Georges Bank and the area south of the Northeast Channel have been
both relativelv recent and relativelv limited. Thus. in the United States view.the
actii ilies of the 1'~riiesin the arc2 Icnd :iddilional ueighi. but are not csrc.ntilil.
io an cquitablcdeliniilaiion uithin the Iiiumade un ihe b~sisofihe fundameniïl
geographic circumstances, reinforced hy the environmental circumstances.
Canada's assertion of considerations of economic dependence and geology as
relevant circumstances should be denied as a matter of law.
The Chamberroseor 12.58p.m. TWELFTH PUBLIC SITING (12 IV 84, 3 *.m.)
Presenr: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
Mr. STEVENSON: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, 1 had just com-
oleted. before adiournment. our discussion of the seventh eeneral -eeal issue. the
very important question of the balancing-up of relevant circumstances. 1 now
turn ta a consideration of an issue arising for the first lime in this case, namely,
the single maritime houndary
ByArticle II of the SpecialAgreement (1,p. IO) his Chamber is requested to
decide the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the continental
shelf and fishery zones of Canada and the United States from a fixed
starting-point on the United States side of the terminus of the international
boundarv in the Gulf of Maine. to a ooint within a snecifiedtrianeular-shaoed
area beyond the Gulf of Maine aiid néarthe cantinenial slope. ~he~arties have
agreed in Article III not to claim or exercise sovereign nghts or jurisdiction for
anv oumose over the waters or sea-bed and subssl on the other side of the
bkundary that the Chamber detemines. Also in Article 3 and in Article 7 the
Parties recognize, and have provided for, the potential necessity of a further
seaward extension of the boundarv that the Chamber establishes.
Thc Special Agiccmeni hciueen.ths Pdriics ob\,i;itcs ihc ihe<,rriical prohlem
of uhcthcr the houndariz. hci\veenthe snnicStÿtcs ma) hc Jirlerent kir diil'ercni
maritime zones and whether the applicable rules, though the same, may lead to
different lines when applied in different frameworks for different zones.
Moreover, in the view of the United States, the single maritime boundary
which the Chamber is requested ta determine specifically avoids a difficult
theoretical problem raised by the 1982Convention on the Law of the Sea. That
problem is whether the case of a conceivable incongruity between a continental
shelf boundary and an exclusiveeconomic zone boundary between two neigh-
bouring States must be avoided, either by attnbuting superior weight ta the
continental shelf boundary or to the exclusiveeconomic zone boundary.
In addition ta the equitable pnnciples of law previously identified and
discussed at some considerable length by the United States, there are two
transcending pnnciples which must he applied to the singlemaritime boundary.
The first is the basic orooosition that the delimitation must take account of the
uniqueness or indi\iJuality of cach sise, p;irticularly ihr c(i.1~13c1onfiguriliion
soncerned. sinccïII mliritimrjurisdisiion dcpcndr on ihe priqsclion out Io sïd of
ihat so3st. The oihcr is thai dclim,iation mcihods rnusi k \O ~rinlied
. . ihai
ci~asialirregulariiics .ire noi highlighrïd. in pariiRSlihc boundary criends a
grrai dibtüncr scau,ard. In implenicniing ihc.rcprinciple,. a rigorous appliçaiion
of the equidistance method in irregular situations must he avoided; in some
cases. different methods mav he reauired in different oarts of the bounda... as
the relationship between ne;ghbouhng coasts change;
Beyond these two transcending principles, the delimitation of the single
maritime boundary in this case demands that the equitable principles previouily
identified and discussed should be applied. Moreover, they should be applied
in such a way that together with an appropriate balancing of the relevant284 GULF OF MAINE
circumstances in the manner suggested in the immediately preceding part of this
statement - which 1completed just hefore our adjournment - the Chamber will
reach an equitahle result.
1 turn now 10 the final legal issue which 1 will address today, namely, the
question of methods of delimitation. The fundamental rule of maritime hound-
îr) deIiriiit.itiorirequircr ih'it th: boiindar) prodii~~ .in cquiiühlc \iilution .Ai
the Couri de:l:ired in the ~'~i~itrni~> S/il/' Trt,r,,,,(i1,thiu:troh Jtinzo/itr~i~
c~~e.".in\ nieihodorcomhination ofmcihi>drihai nroducc\anc~uitahlc\iiluii<~n
may he used" (I.C.J. Reports 1982, para. 111). .
This general discussion of methods is an appropriate place to consider the
application of Article 6 of the 1958Continental Shelf Convention.
Canada has expressed its concern regarding the alleged silence of the United
States on the status of the equidistance method under this Article. This concern
is not justified, in our view, in the light of the United States statement of its
position on Article 6 in hoth the Memorial (II) and Counter-Memorial (IV). In
any event, however, the United States extended treatment of this suhject in its
Reply (V) (paras. 115-120)should have dispelled this concern.
The United States there recognized the express applicahility of Article 6 to a
continental shelf determination hetween Parties to the Convention and as a
source oi lau tn dclimiiing J \ingIc miriiimr houndrr). II ha. al.<>empha.i,c.i
ihc L.\prc\i tinJing of ihc Couri of Arhitr~iiun in ihc hnglo-french Arhiiriiion
cdse ihîi ihe csiiibiried "eqdidisi;ince.,~cciai circiimsi3nr.c rulc of .Ariicle 6"
gives effectto the general norm of cust&maryinternational law that equitable
principles are to be controlling and that there is to he no presumption in favour
of the equidistance method (United States Reply, paras. 119-120).Thus, in the
Court of Arhitration's view, "The roleof the 'specialcircumstance'condition in
Article 6 is to ensure an equitable delimitation" (Anglo-French Arhitration,
para. 70). The United States has also expressly noted that the Court of
Arbitration held that the sole difierence between customary international law
and Article 6 is that, when Article 6 is applicable, equidistance "ultimately
possesses an ohligatory force which it does not have in the same measure under
the rules of customary law" (Anglo-French Arbitration, para. 70).
Mr. President, distinguished Judges,what is the teaching of the Anglo-French
Arhitration as applied to this case, and how does the United States view of
Article 6 differ from that of Canada as set forth in its pleadings and in its oral
statements last week?
In the first place, since this is not solely a continental shelf case, the United
States disagrees with Canada as to the application of Article 6 as a matter of
treaty obligation. Thus, the United States does not regard equidistance as
ultimately possessing that obligatory force of which the Anglo-French Tribunal
sooke. However. the United States does not attrihute anv imno,tanc. in this case
in ihdi ili1Tcrcnr.cuiih CanadJ. \ince. as hcrealicr ci iorih, and 2, haï hccn
repe~icd nimy iinics in Our ple~dingj. rhe Uniied Si;ite, is sirongl) oi ihe \ic.rr
ilidiihc Can3di:in cs.iiilisi:incr.Imesshould no1be u~ed.c\en ifArticle 6 uerc IO
~PP~Y.
Second, the United States agrees with the Anglo-French Tribunal that, in
considering the applicahility of the equidistance method to a particular case,
that method does not eniov anv oresumotion in its favour.
Third - and this is thémajor Point oi diiïerence with Canada - the United
States does not regard the equidistance method as required in this case under the ARGUMENT OF MR. STEVENSON 285
principlcr cxprcsscd in Ariiclc 6. as inierpreicd hy ihc Angli>-Frcnih Trihundl.
In al1of lis plcading,. ihc Uniicd Statc, hÿi gi5r.niull 3nJ cxicnsi\r. ci~nsidcr-
aiion ti)ihç euuidisisnce method II h3s urred the Chamkr noi to use this
method, because to do so would be contrary to the applicable equitable
principles in the light of the relevant circumstances, and would notproduce an
equitable solution. The equidistance method as applied by Canada in its two
lines clearly does not meet the standards for ils use set forth by the Court of
Arbitration. The Court stated that:
"Even under Article 6, it is the geographical and other circumstances of
any givencase which indicate and justify the use ofthe equidistance method
as the means of achieving an equitable solution rather than the inherent
quality of the method as a legal nom of delimitation." (Anglo-French
Arbitration, para. 70.)
This, in the United States view, iswhat Article 6 requires- the consideration of
the application of the equidistance method in the light of the applicable
principles and relevant circumstances. This, in Our view, is what the Court of
Arbitration meant bv savine there was a sinele combined rule eivine effect to
equitable principles. Accordingly. there is not a two-step procedure in which a
deiermination is first made as to whether or not there are "special circum-
stances" and if there are no special circumstances the equidistance method
applies. In the United States view, what Article 6 means is that the combined
"equidistance-special circumstance" rule requires consideration of the equi-
distance method and that the determination of whether or no1 there are any
"special circumstances" is just another way of expressing the conclusion as to
whether or not the equidistance method would produce an equitable result in
light of the applicable pnnciples and relevant circumstances. However, even if
this were not so, and the inapplicahility of the equidistance method depended
upon an express finding of "special circumstances", the essential geographic
circumstances in this case- most particularly the coastal configuration and the
location of the land boundary - would constitute such "special circumstances".
It isnot the United States position that Nova Scotia, as such, would constitute a
special circumstance, but that the coastal configuration of which its coasts fom
a part, would do so.
Fourth - and 1am listine our diiïerences with Canada with resoect 10Article 6
-the United Statesalso strongly disagrees with the position sta&d by the Agent
of Canada last week (p. 25, supra) that where the equidistance rule itself is
determined not to be applicable, a court must consider whether or no1 an
adjusted equidistance method willproduce an equitable result before turning to
other methods. Whether or not there is a legal obligation to consider the
equidistance method in this case - which the Chamber really does not have to
decide, since both Parties have considered this method and agree that the
Chamber mdyalso do so - there iscertainly no legal obligation for the Chamber
to consider an adjosted equidistaiice line before considering any other methods
once an equidistance line itself has been rejected. While the Chamber may
certainlyconsider an adjusted equidistance line, it has no legallypreferred status
among methods.
Now, MI. President and distinguished Judges, just a final word about
methods in eeneral. It is im~ortant to understand the hierarchv of solution and
method. ~n-equitable soluhon justifies the method used. ~utihe method does
not itself justify the result. Canada, in our view, has reversed this hierarchy in
two wavs,with respect 10its own case and with respect to the United States case.
~irst; Canada argues that ils result is equitable because the equidistance286 GULF OF MAINE
method inherentlv nroduces eauitable results. This areument anoeurs in manv..
foms and in ma4 ;>laces. Ilis ihe basis, for example. of the purported equitabi
principle that the boundary should leave to each Party the areas closest io iis
coast.~~swehave already siated, this involvesa postulate that begs the question
at issue. Moreover, the Court already has recognized that the equidistance
method often does not produce an equitable result.
In al1 the maritime boundarv cases. the Court and arbitral tribunals have
rccognizcd that ihc priinar) equiiies relxtc trithe gcugr,,phic relrti<inrhipirf the
partis\. Wiih respcci io the qucsiion ofwhcthcr or iiot the equidist;in~cmethiid
ii the hc3tmeüni ofelTcctinp, .idelimiiaiion th~tc<~rrr..pond\ lh31gcogr,i~h~c
relationshi~. the consisteni answer has been that the Court will-anolv'the .. ,
equidistanrc mcthod onl) uhen a dclimitaiirin ha~ed<inihc clo\cri piiinii ofthe
coais iiithe p;irticr ii conristent xith the gcnrr31rclationahip i>fthi>secoasir IO
the arca to hcdclimiied Thai mcihod willnot h:.iririlicJ uhen iheçonfiauraiion
of the coasts is such that the equidistance method'will give weight to particular
points that is disproportionate 10 the general relationship of the coasts.
Second, Canada suggests that the United States case is built upon the
proposition that the adjusied perpendicular line is inherently equitable. For
example, Canada has asserted in its Reply (V) that the Uniied States uses
"perpendicularity" not merelyas a method of delimitation, bu1also as a basis of
title (para. 68) and as a principle (para. 78). This is a mischaracterization of the
United States nosition. We do not contend that the oernendicular . .hod is ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~
inherently equiiable. Moreover, wedo not believethat any method, whether the
perpendicular method or the equidistance method, can be the basis of titleor an
equitable principle.
It is not necessary 10 prove that the perpendicular method works in every
situation. It is enough that the adjusted perpendicular method produces an
equitable solution in this case. It is the equitableness of the solution, which also
satisfies the applicable principles of law, that justifies the method proposed by
the United States.
Although the method of delimitation used in the United States proposal
nroduces an eauitahle solution. the United States recoenizes that there mav be
;noihsr meihod <irmcthod, ihai could also produce anèquitahle soluiion i$his
case The United States dot\ no! cx~ludcthdi ihe Ch.iniber niay be aitr3cIed ICI
another method or methods that produce a result saiisfying the equitable
nrincioles and relevant circumstances that in the United States are best ~ati~fi~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ihrough a lineperpendicular to the general direction of the Coast.To produce an
equitable solution in this case, however, any method or methods must avoid
cutting off the coastal projection of the coasi of Maine, must satisfy the test of
proportionality, and must respect the natural boundary between the fishing
banks at the Northeast Channel. It would thereby, Mr. President and distin-
guished Judges, confirm United States jurisdiction over al1of Georges Bank. ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. COLSON: Mr. President, distinguished Judges. May it please the
Chamher.
It is my high honour to appear before this Chamber to representmy country in
this Great Hall of Justice. This prïsentation willaddress the geographicalcircum-
~ ~ ~~sof~theGulf of Maine area and how thevaffectthe delimitationof the single -
mdniimc hounddr) in ihis c;i,c Ihc gogr~phic.il prcr:nidiion has thrcc p.iris
In Pari 1.the Ilnitcd Si3icc WIIIcxaniine ceri;iin gcographic<ilcircumsianies
that are central to the case.
Part 11willdeal with a particular characteristic of the strict application of the
equidistance method incoastal concavities - thecut-off effect.Part II begins with
a general geometrical analysis of the characteristics of the equidistant line in
coastal concavities such as the Gulf of Maine. Part II concludes with an aiialysis
of the cut-off effectthat would becaused by an equidistant line, or the modified
equidistant line proposed hy Canada in the Gulf of Maine area.
The United States helieves that the single most important fact in this case is
that the combination of the location of the land boundary, together with the
concavity that is the Gulf of Maine, causes the equidistant line to swing out
across the front of the United States Coast.cuttinr il.offfrom the maritime areas
in irunt oi IIand ihcrch) produzing s Jisproporiion~ic .inil incquii<ihlere.>uli.
Pari II1 irilldeizrihc ihc naturc oim cquiiablc suluiion in ihc gcogr3phicaI
circuniiianccs in thc Gulioi .Mainearc3 II b:piris uiih cibrief rei,icu.oi Siatc
oractice in similar eeograohic situations. It ends with an exolanation of how an
éiluiiablchoundsry niusi abdie oi ai.1ii1ihecui-<iifctkci, bj, chtcnding sc:iuarJ
u,iihin ihc c<inca\ity. rsihcr ihan .~tcnlly. so ihai cach IBart!'sc<~d,ireccite, an
cuuii:iblc ieauarrl cricn.ion. A houndar, ihni respects ihc Uorthcast Ch:inncl
aitains that result. whereas the houndaGes that canada has oro~osed. . .ch
split Georges ~ani, do not.
In this presentation we willexamine a number of charts, and 1willhe assisted
hy Dr. Robert Smith of the Officeof the Geographer ofthe Department of State,
and hy Lieutenant Neil Gitin, of the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the
United States Navy, who will manage the changing of the boards on the easel.
As you perhaps will note, tliere is a certain concordance between this
nresentation and that made las1week hv the Deoutv-Are..-of Canada. because
ihe geographical facts are there for al1io see.
Nonetheless, you willfind that there is an even greater degree of discordance
hetween our two oresentations. because the United States and Canada have
l'undamcni;illydilkreni u.;iysof cinalysingihc gcographical cquiiies in ihii s~sc
'Thispre,çniaiion 1sdesigncd IO 5hed sonic Iighi upon th<i\edilTcrcnccs;andio
demon\trdtr btiih ihc fundanienial Raus in Canada'\ !inal).is and ihe zurrcii-
ness and reasonableness of Our own
The United States shall hegin the discussion of the relevant geographical
circumstances with several comments about the definition of the relevant area. 288 GULF OF MAINE
A. TheDefinirionoflhe RelevanrArea
There is :IogicalSCqJCnCe ihat murt he oh\erverl uhcn rlctin~ngihe rclc.i,ani
Jrci Onç Jacs not Jctinc an arc2 aiid thcn hy tirtue of that definition. declarc
the kilurcs inhidethe arra io bc relctant and ihc fe~turcsouiside the üreabeo
irrelevant. Rather, one begins by dcfining the relevant coasts, and using these
coasts, in turn, to define the relevant area.
This, in fact, is the sequence desciibed in paragraphs 72 ta 75 of the Court's
Judgment in the TunisialLibyacase.
There, the Court stated:
"It isevident that the first and most essential ...is to determine with
greater precision what is the area in dispute hetween the Parties and what
isthe are&which is relevant to the delimitation." (I.C.J. Reports 1982,
para. 72.)
After noting that "the geographiccorrelation between coast and submerged
areas off the coast is the basis of the coastal State's legal title" (ibid., para. 73)
(ernphasis added), the Court stated:
"The coasfof each of the Parties, therefore, constitutes the starting line
from which one has to set out in order to ascertain how far the submarine
areas appertaining ta each of them extend in a seaward direction, as wellas
in relation to neighbouring StaLes..."(Ibid., para. 74.)
Thus it is the coast, not the area behind the coast, where one's analysis must
begin. With respect Io the area thar is relevant to the delimitation, the Court
stated in paragraph 74:
"The onlyareas whichcan be relevant for the determinationofthe claims
of Libya and Tunisia to the continental shelf in front of their respective
coasts are those which canbe considered as lying eirheroff the Tunisian or
offthe Lihyan coast. These areasform rogerherthe area which is relevant to
the decision of the dispute." (Ibid., para. 74.) (Emphasis added.)
In paragraph 75 of its Judgment, however, the Court limited this statement,
which, if taken literally, would mean that al1the Parties' coasts were relevant. It
adopted a subjective kt. The Court stated:
"II is clear from the map that there cames a point on the coast of each of
the two Parties beyond which the coast in question no longer has a
relationship with the coast of the other Party relevant for submarine
delimitation." (Ibid., para. 75.)
Let us examine a map.
It may be recalled that the United States and Canada both include in the
relevant area in this case the coast from Nantucket Island Io Lunenhurg,
just south of Halifax. Canada would add ta its definition of the relevant area
the coast from Nantucket, somewheresouthwest of here, to Rhode Island or the
Connecticut border or Long Island. The United States has suggested that the
relevant area should extend northeastward from Lunenburg to Cape Canso.
@ Figure 8of the Canadian Memorial, which was also produced as Figure 2 of the
United States Counter-Memorial, is now hefore you as Figure 7 of the United
States oral presentation. Canada titles this illustration in the table of figures in
its Memonal: "Coasts and Major Geographic Features of the Gulf of Maine
Area." This Figure covers al1the coastline and offshore area that either Party
considers relevant. The United States suggests that this may be taken as a ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 289
starting-point in the Chamber's consideration, which may require some slight
refinement.
The relevant area must be distinguished from the area in which the delimita-
tion takes dace. Both Parties recoenize this,because hoth the United States and
Canada include in their resoectiveQefinitionsof the relevant area coastlines and
marine areas that do no111;scaaard oiihc poinr dc,cribcd in Article II of the
Spccial grccnicnt (1.p. 10)beiurcn ihc Plirtici, froni uhich thc dc1imii;itiunir
io heein. Boih Partici alsu includcco~stlincs :andareas [kat do not IicIhndwxrd
of the trianele. also described in ArticleII. where the delimitation is to end
It isclearihat, under the terms iofthe Spicial Agreement, the delimitation isto
take place somewhere hetween the starting-ooint and the triangle - hoth within
and ieaward of the Gulf of Maine. -. -
The relevant .ira and ihz are:i in ulhichth? dclimiution takcs place musi also
hs diiinguishcd irum the îrcli in uhich ihe proporiionÿliiy te\t is tu hc applied
In thc Tu~~rsrL <~hi,i,c3se. the C'uuri ariolicd the orooortion;iIitv tcsi 10 ihe
smaller of the iuo ihÿt iiidcntificd:nui iliilso'stdicdai pÿrigrliph 104 <ii
il\ Judgment th:it "ihc only absolute rcquirement uf equity i\ thai on? should
compare like with like .. ."(I.C.J. ~e~orÏs1982,para. 104).The proportionality
test in the Gulf of Main~ ar~ ~ ~ ~ ~in the view of the United States. be
deicrmincd uith rcîcrcncc IO criieria deri\cd irom ihc theor!.and purpojc of ihc
-à) -iror>urtiunhliiyieii. and muii noi includc al1ihccoasts show here on Figure 7.
If iiis recoenized that the orooortionalitv test area must be determined-on its
uun terms.nd ihai \uch d~ier&iiation iLnot prcjudiccd hy the definiiion of ihc
relevÿni ared. or the more limiicd arrd in uhich ihc delimiiatiun ihkc. place.
then any debate concerning the relevant area, or the area in which the
delimitation takes place, becomes less important.
B. The RelevanrGeogrnphicalCircumstances
@ , Using this Figure fromthe Canadian Memonal, wewould likeIo comment on
six geoeraohical circumstances of oarticular importance to the issues dividine -
the ParTies.These are:
1. the large coastal concavity that is the Gulf of Maine;
2. the location of the land boundary and the international houndary terminus
between the Parties in the Gulf of Maine area;
3. the general direction of the Coast;
4. the relationship of the Parties' coasts to one another;
5. the comparability of the Parties' coasts in relation to one another and in
relation to the land houndary; and
6. the relationship of the Bayof Fundyto the relevant area, to the area in which
the delimitation takes place, and to the proportionality test area.
1. The large coasial concaviiyrhar is theGuifof Maine
Firsr, there is the Gulf of Maine itself.The United States has described this as
a large coastal concavity. Canada, too, has described the Gulf as a "concavity"
(III, Canadian Counter-Memonal, para. 120; V, Reply, paras. 107, 111, 116,
154, 158, 334, 340); and as a "major embayment" (Counter-Memorial, paras.
116, 126, 164).Furthermore, as the Agent and Deputy-Agent for Canada noted
a few days ago, there is no disagreement between the Parties that the seaward
limit of the Gulf of Maine may be descrihed by a hypothetical closing line from
Nantucket Island, Massachusetts, across to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia (p. 38;
p. 66, supra).290 GULF OF MAIPIE
The back of the Gulf of Maine i5formed hy the coast of the United States
state of Maine, after which the Gulfis named, and the coast of the United States
state of New Hampshire. This back is roughly parallel Io the closing line and is
about 200 nautical miles long. The sides of the Gulf, from Cape Ann to
Nantucket and from the international boundary terminus to Cape Sable, are
roughly perpendicular to the closing line, and each is about 100nautical miles
long. As the Agent for Canada noted, the coasts of Maine and Nova Scotia
"have a right-angled juxtaposition" (p. 49, supra).
We would add that so, too, does the United States coast at Maine and New
Hamoshire with the coast of Massachusetts. Thus. the Gulf of Maine closelv
reseibles a rectangle with a length that is twice its hidth. This agdin would nit
seem to he a contested point. The Deputy-Agent for Canada noted that "the
area of the concavit.,lvin- seaward of the Ba~of Fundv is twice as wide as it is
deep" (p. 66, supra), and he described the Gulf of Maine as having a
"reclangular general configuration", in the conclusion to his remarks (p. 86,
supra).
2. The location of rlie land houndaryand rhe inrernarionolboundaryrerminus
berweenthe Partit.sin theCuIfoJMaine area
Second, it is important to note that the land houndary meets the sea in the far
northem corner of the Gulf of Maine, in the far northern corner of this
rectangle. Both the land boundary and the international houndary terminus are
situated there. Canada's stated inahility 10understand Ourusage of these lems
is only designed to sow seeds of confusion. Where necessary, we have been
specific,but for the purpose of our general analysis, it matters not 10which of
these reference is made. They both mark the fact that al1of the coast of Maine
belongs to the United States.
The United States has emphasized the location of the land boundary
terminus. and the international boundarv terminus not. as Canada allepes.
kçauje the Iine or ringlr point is ciitica~.ïs Canada uould make the las1iuo
protruding points ai 'lantucket and Cape Sahlccritical. but beçause the location
of the land houndary and the resultirigterminus of the internatiùnal houndary in
the northern cornerof the Gulfof c aine means that the entire coast southwest
of this point is United States territory. As a result, at least three-fourths of the
coastline facing the coastal concavity that is the Gulf of Maine is part of the
United States.
In Ourview. ,~~~~-~ ~ ~~~~--~~.~~~~.nseauences for the boundarv delimita-
lion. It means that the entire Gulf of Maine and al1of Georges Bank liéinfront of
the United Statescoast, and. in the latter case, United Statescoast alone. Il means
that any proportionality test musc recognize that the ratio of United States-to-
Canadian coast facing the Gulf is 3 10 1. It also means, of course, that the land
houndary is not located near the middle of the coastline forming the concavity.
Sinceit is not, the eeorncirical efiect of the eauidistant lin: is that the line will
suing across the fronioithe longer csast. in thi; caie belonging in itscntirct) to
the I.'nirïJ States,IO the ~dirntxge ol'the State \sith the hiirter i~fthe coasts
forming the concavity - that is, Canada.
In this connection, wewould note one additional fact about the location of the
land houndary. Canada States: "The Gulf forms the axis of the dispute" (p. 58,
supra), and, on this hasis, Canada proceeds to arguethat "the coasts relevant to
the delimitation outside the Gulf mus1extend a con~parable distance on borh
sides of the entrance to the Gulf" (ibid.).Mr. President, distinguished Judges,
in the view of the United States, it is the land boundary, or the international ARGUMI~NT OF MR. COLSON 291
boundary terminus, if you wish, ihat marks the axis of the dispute, no1the Gulf
of Maine. If the liniits of the relevant area are to be established by coastal fronts
of com~arable distances on either side of the axis of the disuute, which is the
land b&ndary. then the relevant area that the United Stateshis described meets
ihat criterion perfectly.
3. Tlie ge~ier(rlilirecoforhe co<isr
Tliir<l, ihere is the maiter of the general direction of the coast in the Gulf of
Maine area.
Two facts are self-evident in this respect,and are recognized by both Parties.
First. there is a general southwest-to-northeast direction of the Parties' Atlantic
coasls. The Canadian Mernorial (1) refer repeatedly to the southwest-northeast
general direction of ihe coast. Figure 7 of Canada's Memorial illustrates the
@ directional trend identified by Canada. Canada's Counter-Memorial. at para-
graph 94 and at Figure 6. Statesthat this directional trend is ai an azimuth of
@ 67'. The United States.on the other hand, contends that the generaldirection is
more accurately describedas54".The reasansfor this are setforth in paragraphs
21 and 283 of the United Stateshlemorial (II).Thus. the Parties disagreeabout
the exact angleof ihat directional trend, but they agreeat it extendsgenerally
from southwest to northeast. The secondof thesefacts is that there is aconcavity
in this coast. the concavity of the Gulf of Maine.
In its Counter-Mernorial, Canada shifted its emphasis from the general
direciion of the coast to the soecific bendsin the coast that form the Gulf of
Mainc and ihcothcrcoÿsi3l îciturcs. Al lhc s3mï lime. Canada iniplieihïtil1.:
imporriblc IOspeakof hoih 3gcner;il dircciion ana L.iini.i\iiy eristing togeiher
in the Gulf of Maine area.
Canada stated: "There is no single generaldirection of the coast within the
relevani area" (Counter-Memorial, para. 96). It is particularly in this respect
that the United States must disagree with Canada. The United States believes
that it is useful and accurate io recognizethat there is both a eeneraldirection to
the coast, and a concavity in tCO&. In this casethe back $the concavity and
the closing line across its mouth both extend from southwest to northeast and
are essentially parallel, or correspond to. the general direction of the coast.
The general direction of the ci~astis reflecied in the closing line across the
mouth of the Gulf, which extends from southwest to northeast. It is reRectedin
ihe Atlantic-facing coast of Nova Scotia, which begins al Cape Sable and, as
Canada stated in paragraph 21 of ils Memonal: "extends in a northeasterly
direction along iheAtlantic shore of the Nova Scotia mainlan... following the
general directional trend of the North American coast."
The generaldirection is seenin the United Statescoast at the back of the Gulf
of Maine. which, according to paragraph 22 of the Canadian Meniorial,
"exiends southwesiward" from the internütional boundary terminus.
And the gcncral direction is seenalso in the United States coast southwestof
Cape Cod, which, according Io the same paragraph in Canada's Meniorial,
follows "The gcneral northeast to southwest orientation of the North American
coasiline".
In short, there is a generalsoutliwest-to-northeast direction of the coast in the
Gulf of Maine area, and the back and the closing line of the coastal concavity of
the Gulf of Maine itself are aligned parallel to this direction. This determination
@ of the generaldirection of the coast may bedepicted on Figure 7,demonstrating
thai this deiermination isquite independent of any macrogeographical considera-
tions. ARGUMI~NTOF MR. COLSON 293
the map, in which case,1suppose, the name of the Gulf of Maine would haveto
be changed.
Although the Parties' coasts are not comparable in relation to the Gulf of
Maine and Georges Bank, they are comparable, in general, in the relevant area.
'. If one begins at the international boundary terminus, there is on the United
States coast a long Atiantic-facing coastal front, approximately 200 nautical
miles in length, which forms the back of the Gulf of Maine, and a shorter,
approximately 100-nautical-mile-longcoast that faces laterally across the Gulf
of Maine, from Cape Ann to Nantucket Island. For convenience, the United
States has identified these as its primary and secondary coastal fronts.
On the Canadian side,there isalso a 100nautical milecoastal front that faces
laterally across the Gulf of Maine. This is the coastal front from the interna-
tional houndary terminus to Cape Sable. It is the other lateral side of the
rectangle that we spoke of earlier. Finally, there is the long Canadian coastal
front that faces onto the Atlantic Ocean from Cape Sable to Cape Canso. We
have called this coast Nova Scotia'sprimary coastal front. If we measure to the
end of the Nova Scotia peninsul;~at Cape Canso, this coastal front is about
200nautical mileslong, or about as long as the Maine-New Hampshirecoast at
the back of the Gulf of Maine.
Thus, from Nantucket to Cape Canso, each Party has an equal length of
Atlantic-facing coastal front and an equal length ofcoastal front facing laterally
onto the Gulf of Maine. An incidental point of interest is that the end points of
these relevant coasts, Nantucket and Cape Canso, each are about the same
distance from the international boundary terminus, or about 250 nautical miles,
when measured bv a straieht line. In short. the Parties' coasts on either side of
the international'h~unda;~ terminus are comparable, bath in relation to the
Atlantic Ocean and in length. As such, they meet Canada's test that the limitsof
the relevant area are to be marked by coastal fronts that extend comparable
distances on either side of the axis of the dispute.
The major diiierence between the coasts of the two Parties is that the
Atlantic-facing Nova Scotia coast lies outride the concavity of the Gulf of
Maine, whereas the coast of Maine and New Hampshire isinside, at the back of
the concavity.
6. The relationship of the Bay of Fundy to the relevant area, the area in which
the delimitotion takes place and theproportionaliryesr area
The sixth,and last, geographical feature ta which the United States would
invitethe Chamber's attention, is the Bayof Fundy. The Parties have previously
had a great deal ta Sayabout the Bay of Fundy: how large it is, and how long
are its coasts. These facts are not the issue (Canadian Counter-Memorial,
para. 129).The issueiswhether the Bayof Fundy, whichliesbehind the starting-
point specified in Article 11of the Special Agreement, deeplysnuggled into
Canadian land territory, promotes Canada's interest and entitlement to maritime
area in and heyond the Gulf of Maine.
The Parties agree that the Bay of Fundy is part of the relevant area. They also
agree that the Bayof Fundy isnot within the area in whichthe delimitation takes
place, since it is landward of the starting-point. The only question, therefore,
relates to whether the Bay of Fundy, and its coasts, should be included in the
proportionality test area.
MI. Feldman will discuss this issue in greater detail in the course of his
presentation on the proportionality test. As a preliminary matter, however, we
think that the answer ta this question initiallyliesin a basicand self-evidentrule 294 GULF OF MAINE
of law: a body of water cannot command more maritime jurisdiction than can
an identically situated body of land. This proposition may also be expressed in
another manner: Canada is entitled to no~ereaterarea ofmaritime iurisdiction
outside the Baythan that to which it wouldlbeentitled werethe Bayofund^ to
he Canadian land territory.
Canada long has maintained an inchoate claim that the Bav of Fundv
constitutes Canadian historic or interna1waters. Canada closed oti'the Bto
foreignfishermenin 1971,long hefore the 200-milezone was claimedby Canada,
using the novel technique in international practice of drawing "fishery closing
lines" across the Bav. while Canadian ministers. al the same .i~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~hat
this speciallurisdict;on u,as not inconsisicnt ui~h Canada's historic b3y cl3im.
Should theChambcr u~h furthcr information on this niaitcWC would refer)ou
to the article ai Annex6 to the Unitcd States Rc~lvand. to aecom~limcnt.a
'
classicarticle written by Canada's dislinguished'Agentin thifscase.
Therefore, if we treat the Bay of Fundy as a body of land, which is basically
how Canadian law treats the Bay of Fundy in ils domestic and international
~ractice.then we wilbe accordine it and treatine it at least as fav~,~~~lv as it
he~cn,es For iinalyiicîl purposes.wc have drawn'a Iineacross the rnouih ofthe
Ray and uscd ihis IinçIO reprcsent ihc Canadian coïstlinc. The cRcct of the
closinp Iinc is ihai. for purr>oscsof the delimitïtion. Canadian land i.rriiorv is
regardédas extending up <O and across the mouth of the Bay of Fundy.
The equity of using such a closing line is easily demonstrated. Before you is
@ Figure 9 of Our presentation made up of Figures 9A and 9B.
Figure 9Ashowsa hypothetical coastlinebelonging to two States,State A and
@ State B, with the land boundary in the middle of a coastline forming a coastal
concavity. In this instance, the equidistant line and the line perpendicular to the
general direction of the coast. as determined bv reference to the closine line
across the mouth of the concavity, are identical. This equidistant and per&ndi-
cular line is shown in red.
v3 Figure 9B shows the same coastline, with the land boundary still in the same
position as it is in Figure 9A, except that a largebay appears nbw in the coast of
@ State B. Permit me to pose a question: should tdelerioof that land territory
in State B cause the boundary to deviate in the direction of State A, to the
advantaae of State B? The answer, in Ourview. is no. In fact. if this Fieure is
examined closely, il wilbe seen lhat, if anything, the equidistant line'bends
sligbtlytowards State B- the State with the bay. In al1events, wecan state what
surely mus1be a fundamental proposition- theabsence of land territory cannot
entitle a Par10 more maritimearea beyond the closinglineat the mouth of the
bay than would the presenceof land territory.
The use of a straight line across the mouth of the Bay of Fundy to represent
Canada's coastal front in the Gulf of Maine is consistent also with the Court's
Judgment in the .VnrrhSec1 ConiinentulShçy cascs. In paragraph Y8 of thc
Court'\ Judgmeni, ihc Court stated ihat. inapplying the pruporiionaliiy test. thc
Parties ihould measiircthetoast\ accordinpIO thcir reneral dirwtion This was
necessarv in order "10 reduce verv irreeular coastlines to their truer nrooor-
lions". ~ere, the true measure of canada's coastal front facing the ~uif of
Maine is 100nautical miles long.
This coastal front cannot he enlarged by removing the land behind il. The
distinguished Agent for Canada conceded as much when he said:
"The concave configuration of the Bay of Fundy means that ils coasts
canno1,even under an application of equitable principles, be granted a
significant seaward extension of their own." (P. supra.) ARGUMENTOF MR. COLSON 295
In summary, the use ofa closingline across the mouth ofthe Bayof Fundy for
analytical purposes and, later for the proportionality test, has the elïect of
treating the Bay of Fundy as land. This may exaggerate the relationship of
Canada's land territory to the sea, but in no way does it understate that
relationship.
The Chamberadjournedfrom 16.10p.m. IO 16.30p.m
II.THECUT-OFFEFFECT
MI. President, distinguished Judges, we would now liketo turn to the second
part of Our presentation, to the discussion of a particular characteristic of the
application of the strict equidistance method in coastal concavit-enamely, the
cul-off effect.
Introduction
The United States written pleadings explain why the equidistant line often
would oroduce an ineauitahle result when the land boundarv meets the sea
insidea Ixrgecoad cimcliviiy.Iiihc land hiiundxry dors noi mrci the sa at the
niidpoini ofthe lengths of co~stdlfronts forniing the conca\it), thc gcometriciil
~.hilrilcicr~>ithe euu~Ji\trlnce methiid \uch ihat ihc Iinc uill hc inclineci
towards the longer Coastand away from the shorter coast. Thus, we say, as the
Court said in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, that the use of the
equidistance method in coastal ccincavities
"would frequently cause areas which are the natural prolongation or
extension of the territory of one Statetoe attributed to another, when the
configuration of the latter's coast makes the equidistance line swing out
laterally across the former's coastal front, cutting it off from areas situated
directly before that front" (I.C.JReports1969, para. 44).
This cut-off effect was the central issue in theNorth Sea ContinentalShelf
cases. As the United States noted in ils wntten pleadings, the coast of the
Federal Republic of Germany liesat the back of a large coastal concavity in the
North Sea, much as the coast of Maine and New Hampshire liesal the back of
the Gulfof Maine (IV, Counter-Memorial. paras. 376-387).The Court discussed
the nature of this cul-off effectin paragraphs 8and 44 of ils Judgment. Sketches
1and 11on page 16 of the Court's Judgment illustrate the cut-off effect in the
situationof a curved and of a three-sided concavity made up of sidesmeeting at
obtuse angles.
A. A geomerricalanalysisof the cur-o/f%fect
In order better to understand the cut-off effect and the factors that influence
ihc cxtcnt or the cui-iiKii iusef~l 1,)hegin uith a gcomctrical an;ilysis of the
crfectofcoasi~l conclii,itie\ upim ihc uinsiruction oicquiJi,t~nt Iines.WCwould
ask that the Chamber beai with us throuah a oreliminary discussion of
elementary geometry, after which we shall dGcuss ihe cul-off created by the
equidistant line in the Gulf of Maine area.
We have placed before you Figure 10of this presentation, which consists of
Fieures 10Aand 10B.This Fieure illustrates the effectof a rectaneular concavitv
@ suFhas the Gulf of Maine up:n the course of the equidistant line.'in Figure 10~,
the coasts of State A and State B comprise one continuous straight coast. The 296 GULF OF MAINE
&h red line isthe eauidistant line. In Fieure IOA.whether one draws an eauidistant
Iincor ;Iincpe;pendicul,ir io ihe &n:r,il dircziion oithc iii<ist.Ihc riithe
.amc F.xh Stztc's cvast recci\cs the cntire maritinie .ire3 in froil.reati~rrl
to the limits of coastal-State jurisdiction.
Figure IOBsets into this coast a rectangular concavit- one, like the Gulf of
@ Maine, half as deep as it is wide. For the Chamher's convenience, we have
labelled various points on the chart. We have used the same letters as those that
@ Canada used in Figure 34 of its Reply to designate corresponding points. Point
X represents the point where the land boundary between State A and State B
reaches the coast in a corner of the concavity. Point W represents the
corresponding corner at the other end of the long coast forming the hack of the
concavity, and point Y is in themiddle of the coast halfway hetween points X
and W. Points R and S represent the most protruding parts of the coasts of
States A and Bforming the concavity, or, to put it another way, the headlands of
the coastal concavitv. The red l~n~isthe eauidistant line. Point T is where. inthis
cxamplc. the equidi~tünt Iine turnç wauird, 31 the midp,iini<II' h)pirthciiçal
Iinî bccuecn pciinisRand S- thccl,?iing Iincxcro\>the m<~uth<iithcions.iiit!
Iiereihnoini X: herr.iini>inW: "oint Y iiin the ni~ddleofihe sudsi ai ihr h:irk
of the concavity; point R and'pint S are the two protruding points, or
headlands, of the concavit;the red line isthe equidistant line; andpoint T isthe
midpoint on a hypothetical closing line betweenpoint R and point S.
Quite clearly, the equidistant line is displaced to the disadvantage of State A.
It swings out laterally, far across the front of State A's coast, hefore it turns
@ seaward. The shaded area in this Figure is the area in front of the coast of
State A thatiscut offfrom the seaward extension of that coast by the equidistant
line. The cut-off hegins within the concavity, close to the coast, but the cut-
off is hroadest in the seaward area beyond the mouth of the concavity.
While the foregoing would seem to he self-evident, it is preciselythis analysis
that Canada refuses toaccept. In Canada's view,the cul-off does not begin close
to the coast, but only farther out, once the midpoint on the closing linehas heen
reached. Let us demonstrate this difference- one that is fundamental - by an
@ examination of Figure 34 of Canada's Reply, which we will put before you as
Figure II of our presentation.
Canada's analysis begins with the acceptance of a basic proposition. Canada
states, at paragraph 352 of its Reply: "In the case of a delimitation between a
long recessivecoast and a shorter convexcoast...an equidistant linewilltend to
swing in front of the recessivecoast." In support of this proposition, with which
@ the United States agrees,Canada points to Figure 34A.Next, Canada states, still
at paragraph 352of its Reply that "the cul-off inthe area immediately offcoasts
YX and XS is shared equally by the two coastal States, as the line progresses
seaward segment ZY of the longer coast continues to be cut off". Here is the
major fallacy in Canada's whole case.
Canada's figure indicates that the cut-off effect only begins at point-Tfar
seaward from either coast. The United States submits that this figure is in error
in this respect. As the Court indicated in paragraph 8 of its Judgment in the
North Sea Corrlinental Sheifcases, the cul-off effect hegins closeto the coast.
@ Figure IOBof today's presentation, which wejust examined a moment ago, is an
accurate depiction of the cut-off effect.
The cut-offof coast YX, this coast, by the equidistant line in the interior of the
concavity, denies that coast itsseaward extension heyond theconcavity. Itisasif
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ has h~ - - ~ ~--~~-o.nt T.
Of course, it is true that as the equidistant line progresses seaward, as shown
@ in Figure 34A of Canada's Reply, segment ZY of the longer coast continues to ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 297
ht cut off. But what of the extension of the coast hetween point X and point Y?
What did Canada sav at oaraeraoh 352 of ils Reolv? Canada said the area
iiiiriieJiatcl) olt i'~;ni% i;.bhlired equ311!~r.llthat ni;i!.bctrior
the square circaJclincd b) poini, X. Y,T ;ind \ihür of ihc ara sc~u;i01'
that square, the area sea-wardof a line between points T and S. Canada would
say that area does iiot appertain to coast YX because it iscloser to coast XS. But
that is no answer. The red area, which, as Canada recognizes,bas beeneut of hy
the equidistant line from the extension of coast ZY, isalso closer to coasr XS. If
coast ZY'sextension iscut off,which Canada admits,so, too, is the extension of
coast XY cul OR.
@ Canada's analysis continues with Figure 34B of its Reply. According to
Canada, coast RW eliminates the cut-of of coast WY, by turning the equi-
distant line at point T out to sea, away from the coast at the back of the
concavity (para. 353). Canada siates:
"The length of coast YX equals the length of coast XS, and the
equidistance line bisects the angle formed byse coasts. Any cut-of is
therefore shared equall.. .Figure 348 demonstrates that there is no
cut-ofof the United Statescoast that isnorequally shared by Cana.."
(Reply, para. 353, latter emphasis added).
The iicts pl.iinly cc~ntr~dictCindu's iisscrtion C<>.isirYX ancl XS <Ionot
sharr.cquillly :in) cut-<if. Onl) the arca iiithin the yuarc dctincd h) the poinis
S. X.S and T 15dii,idcd euusIl\ Ilou.cvr.r.the areü scauard of thir suudre. iliat
is; seaward of the closing'line from T SIis left entirely to coasi XS.'The
equidistant line complete-y100 per cent- cuts off coast YX from the area
seaward of the closing line.
Figure 12 of Our presentation is now before us to illustrate this point. It is
@ made up of Figures 12A and I2B, whose dimensions and labels are consistent
@@ with those in Figures IOand Il, which wehavejus1examined. Figure I2A adds
221 an outer limit roughly corresponding to the proportions of the 200-nautical-mile
O limit in the Gulf of Maine area as measured from point S as Canada does. It is
marked by an arc between point N and point M, which has ils centre at point S
and with a radius, SN or SM, that is the same length as WX, the coast at the
@ back of the concaiity. This Figure 12Aallows one 10quantify the inequality of
treatment given to these two coasts of comparable length, that is coast YX and
coast XS, by the equidistant line. This quantification accomplished by
comparing the area of the triangle marked number 1, together with the
combined area of the triangle marked 2, the triangle marked 3 and the segment
of the circle marked 4. To compiite the relative sires of these areas, we assume
that XS and XY are 100 units long. In that case, YT and TS will also be 100
units long. And the line SM and the line SN will be 200 units long. With that
information, one can comparethe relative effectof the equidistant lineon coasts
YX and XS.
The area of triangle I is determined by the familiar formula that the area of a
triangle mabe foiind hy multiplying one-halfof the base timesthe height. Thus,
the area of triangle I will be one-half of 100units, or 50,multiplied by 100.The
solution is5,000square units. In this geometricdiagram, this isthe amount of area
left to State A in front of cYXstby the equidistant line, 5,000square units.
Let us determine the nrea left to State B and coast XS. First, there is the
triangle marked 2. Thats a right triangle of the same dimensions as triangle 1,
so we know its area is also 5,000 square units.
The computation of the area of triangle 3 is a bit more complicated. It is a
right triangle, so wecan usethe same formula as in the area solution for triangles 298 GULFOF MAINE
1and 2 -one-half the hase times the height. We know that thehase- ST - is 100
units. We do not know the height, TM, but by using the Pythagorean theorem-
which 1am sure weal1remember - which says that, in a right triangle thesquare
of the hypotenuse isequal to the sum of the squares of the other sides.Using that
formula we can solve for the length of side TM and without reciting the
numbers, we find that line TM is equal to 173.2units. Using that value, we can
solve for the area of triangl3, and find that it is 8,660 square units.
The area marked 4 - the segment of the circle - is a bit more difficult to
compute.
However. sinceit isthe seement of a circle.~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~w that the area of
a circle is &und by multipl;ing the constant pi hy the radius squared, we can
compute area 4 if we know the angle theta, this angle between lineSM and SN.
we must solve, then, for theta.-since theta togëther with the corresponding
angle in the right triangle, which we cal1alpha in our diagram, is equal to90",
theta is equal to 90" minus alpha. We can solvz for alpha using basic
trigonometry. The cosine of alpha is equal to the adjacent side divided by the
hypotenuse which, using the units that wehave given in Ourpresentation, means
that we divide 100by 200and wedetermine that the cosine of the angle alpha is
0.5. Any trigonometry book shows us that the angle with a cosine of 0.5 is equal
to 60". Thus, alpha is equal to 60" and theta is equal to 30". With that
information we can solve for the area of the segment of the circle numbered 4.
As can be seen, it is 10,472 square units. Again, al1 the equations needed to
@ calculate this area are before you in Figure 12A.
Thus. the eauidistant line leaves to co~ ~ ~ ~~- S~ate B the sum of tn-
inglc ?. tri.in&lc3dnd the acgmcntof the circlc4or j.000 yuiirr unit5in arc'i 2,
R.660square unit. in arc;#3, 2nd 10.472qutirc uniis in :irca 4
A 10131d'24.132 jqii.irc units are Icft to coast XS. u,hcreli, coari i'X wdr leil
with only 5,000 square units. The United States iubmits that a delimitation
which has such a result is clearly inequitahle.
Wewouldlike to turn Io Figure 12Bto illustrate another characteristic of the
@ equidistant Iine in this geographic setting. The equidistant line, by definition, is
determined by proximity Io the closest points on th&coast. Article 12 of the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone Convention and Article 6 of the
Continental Shelf Convention use nearly identical words, that an equidistant
line is a line every point on which isequidistant from the nearest points on the
baselines from which thebreadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured.
@ In Figure 128, the location of the equidistant at point T and seaward is
determined in its entiretv bv the nearest ooint on the Iwo coasts. ooint R and
point S. the hc3dlnnds o?tLc coastal conCavit?.Ihc caasis insidc the cnncaiii)
harc no cKc:i \ihaiocver upon ihc cquiJi.tant Iincsciiwiirdoi the conc;i\tiy. II
1.:is II ihcy Jid no1crijt The) arc ii>m~lciclsirrclev.~nt.n<)niaticr uhcrc an)
land boundary on the coast &ht he loëated:
@ This fundamentally important fact is illustrated in Figure 12B. Whether the
land boundary meets the sea at point W. point Y, or point X, or anyother point
inside the concavity, the equidistant line will oroceed tooint T, which is the
midooint on the closine line acro-- the mo~th~ ~~t~ ~ ~ ~vitv. rom noint T.
the equidistant line proceeds seaward at an angle perpendicular to the closing
line. Although Canada has had little aood to sav about perwndicular lines in
this case, alÏequidistant lines that bezn withina coastal concavity and extend
seaward become at some point a line perpendicular to the closing line across the
mouth of the concavity at the midpoint of that closingline. Thus, seaward of the
@ conc?vity shown in Figure 12B, the location of the land houndary has no
heanng on the course of the equidistant line. ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 299
All coastal concavities have the same general effectupon the equidistant line,
and al1equidistant lines generally have the same properties within and seaward
of the coastal concavity. Wherever the land houndary meets the sea inside a
coastal concavity, the final turning point of the equidistant line is determined
entirely hy point R and point S. the projecting points on the coast of each State.
Regardless of where the land houndary is located within the concavity, the
equidistant line will entend Io that same turning point, and from there will
proceed seaward at an angle perpendicular to the closing line, which in these
illustrations is a line hetween R and S. The location of the final turning point
depends upon the geographic characteristics of the concavity, specificaily, the
relationship of the depth 10 the width of the concavily. For instance, in a
three-sidedconcavitv. where the coasts areat right angles to oneanother, if the
concavitv is relativelv deeo. the final turninë ooint will occur inside the
concavit;. If the conc;vity is relatively shallow, &/final turning point willoccur
on the closing line. If the sides of the concavity are of different length, the final
turnin-.oinimav occur within. or outside the conca,itv..deoen".niu~on which
isthe shoricr co:iii. In ztcr) case. hu\iever. the liiialturning1zaligned11h
uiih ihe midpoiiii of the rl<)%Iine of ihc soncï\iiy.
Permit us to demonstrate these characteristics through an examination of
@ Figure 13of our presentation. Figure 13 ismade up of four fig-A, B, C and
D. Each of these figures shows concavities of different depth-to-width propor-
tional dimensions. Before analysing each illustration, it should he noted that
label Tl and T2 aooears on each. TI is the ooint at which the eauidistant line
first changes dire&on after leaviiig the land'boundary, and T2 ;epresents the
final turning point of the equidistant line hefore it assumes its final seaward
direction.
The co~cavityin Figure 13Ais the onethat we have heen working with in the
@ previous illustrations. Eacheis one-half of the length of the back. As wehave
seen, the final turning point of an equidistant line in a concavity of these
dimensions occurs at the midpoint of the closing line across the mouth of the
concavity, labelled here as T2. It isalso lahelled TI, however, because this is the
first turning point of that equidistant line as well.
Figure 13Bdepicts a relatively shallow concavity. Each side is one-fourth the
@ length of the back. From the land houndary to the first turning point, TI, the
equidistant line bisectsthe angle formed hy the two coasts At Tl, which in this
situation is located on the closing line of the concavity, the equidistant line
begins curving seaward. The location of the final turning point, T2, again is
determined entirely hy its equal proximity to point R and 10 point S, the
headlands of the concavity. This is true for al1concavilies, whether shallow or
deep. In shallow concavitiesucli as this one, the final turning point occurs
seaward of the concavity because. until the line reaches T2, there is a point on
the longer coast, the coast of State A, that iscloser to the equidistant linethan is
the headland of State A, point R. Nevertheless, no matter where within this
concavity the land boundary may he located, the final turning point of the
eauidistant line.. as calculated from the coastline that defines the concavitv.
31ulii)l.\i\.IIIbe c\acil) in the .anle ,pot. Hsre. as in al1oiher cuastdl conc;i\iiic\,
ihc Iinïl iurning point ir aligncd uiih ihc midpoinl ofihc sloring linc llcre. alsi>.
the course of the eauidistant line seaward of the final turnine point is alwavs
perpendicular to théclosing line, even if it hegins at a point tiai is not on that
line.
Figure 13Cshows a deeper concavity, where, in this case, the sidesare as long
@ as the back. In this case, the two tiirning points, TI and T2, coincide al the same
point inside the concavity. Here, as in al1 other concavities, the final turning 300 GULF OF MAINE
point i,~ligned uith the midpoini of the ~loçingIine, nnJ the cquidisi~nt Iine
\c.iuard of the final iurning poirit cxirnd\ pcrpcndiculdr1,)the ~losingIine dl 11,
midnoint Thi, uill bc truc no mdiier uhcrc the ldnd huund.ir\ is locdied uiihin
the concavity.
Figure 13D illustrates the result of shortening one of the sides of the
@ concavity. In Figure 13D, the length of coast WR is one-half the length of the
lateral coast XS of State B. This. in effect. is what Canada accomolishes bv
, ~~~~~~,
disregarding CapeCod and Nantucket in its proposed modified equi&stant line
in this case. In this situation, bath the first and the final turning points of the
eauidistant lineoccur seaward of the concavitv. Here. as in the othe; concavities.
iLcfinal turning point. T2, i\üligncd with themidpo;nt of the clocing Iincücross
ihc mouth ol'ihe conravit). Also. as in the othcr concn\.itier, thc cquidistant Iinr
seaward of the final turning point extends perpendicular ta the closing line
across the mouth of the concavity at its midpoint. However, since the closing
line has been aligned to the left by the shortening of thelateral coast of State A,
the final segment of the equidistant line also angles ta the left. Thus. the
shortenine of the lateral coast of State A increases the cut-off effect to the
dira~\snG~e oi State 11. Hcre apin. thr I<>cÿtion of the land boiinJar! wiihin
thc concn\,ity ha5 no cfici upon ihc laaiion oiihe tinal iurning p-~nt or upon
the course of the equidistant line seaward of that point.
We shall now summarize what has been said about the hehaviour of
equidistant lines in situations where the land boundary meets the sea inside a
three-sided coastal concavity made up of coasts in a right-anglejuxtaposition. In
everv case. the seaward oortion of the eauidistant line will. a1 some noint. lie
pe6endic;lar Io the CIO& line of the Concavity at its midpoint. ~oreo"er,
neither the location of the land boundary within the concavity nor the coasts of
the concavity have any effect whatsoever upon the final course of the seaward
portion of the equidistant line. Wherever the cut-off effect is disproportionate,
the equidistant line is inequitable. A disproportionate cut-off violates the
equitable principle that the boundary should respect the relationship between
the coasts and the maritime areas in front of those coasts. In particular, a
disproportionate cut-off violates the suhsidiary principles of non-encroachment
and proportionality.
There is one, and only one, exception where the equidistant line does not
create a cut-off efect inside or seaward of~~ coastal conc~v~tv. As noted. the
rquidi~tancc methoJ pal\ liiile hccd tu the lorïtion of the ldnd boundiiq inde
ihc concavit). Howe\,cr, if the land boundary niccis the seli in the niiddle oiihc
coast formine the concavitv. no cut-off effectwill occur either inside or seaward
of the consa\-ity. Ifthc land houndar) i, not ai the midpoini of the cor>\ iorining.
the concavii), the cui-~ITuill occur, and th<,Iàrihcr ihc land houndary is irom
the midpoint of the coast forming the concavity, the greater the degree of that
cut-off.
For example, let us examine Figure 14 of Our presentation, which appeared
iso as Figure 10 in the United States Reply. Canada has cited the United States-
O Mexico maritime boundarv aeainst us the other dav as an examole of United
States use iiiihc ~~uidistake kthod uhich weJO &t den) But ;n the Gulfof
.Mcxic<ithe land boundary niccts the sr3 r<iiighlyin ihe miJJIc of the coastline
forming the concavity.
iao Figure 10Bshows an equitable boundary in the Gulf of Maine area, if most of
O tl;e state of Maine happened to &long ta Canada, rather than to the United
States, and the land boundary happened to reach the sea at about Penohscot
Bay rather than at the mouth of the St. Croix river in Passamaquoddy Bay.
The geographical principles we have seen may he expressed in different ways. ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 301
ln ihcn0rrliSeo f.-c,nr»i<,,,ro.lSh,s//caw, ihr Couri siaicd ihar ihr.cquirlirtlni
linc uould hc inequitable bcc~11denicd i<impdrahlcire3imcnt io comprahlr
coasts. 1quote from paragraph 91 of the Court's Judgment:
"But in the present case there are three States whose North Seacoastlines
are in fact comparable in length and which, therefore, have heen given
broadly equal treatment by nature except that the configuration of one of
the coastlines would, if the equidistance method is used, deny 10 one of
these States treatment equal or comparable to that given the other two.
Here indeed is a case where, in a theoretical situation of equality within the
same order, an inequity is created. What is unacceptable in this instance is
that a State should enjoy continental shelf rights considerably different
from those of ils neiehhours merelv hecause in the one case the coastline is
roughly convex in fgrm and in théother it is markedly concave, although
those coastlines are comparable in length." (I.C.J. Reports 1969.)
Let us demonstrate these points further with Figure 15,which is once again
@ made up of four Figures, A,6,C, and D. Figures 15A and 15C illustrate the
@ importance of the location of the land boundary in the case of a curved
225 concavity. In Figure 15A, the land houndary meets the sea in the middle of the
O concavity. Here again, the equidistant line coincides with the line perpendicular
Io the general direction of the coast, as determined by reference Io the closing
line across the mouth of the concavity, and leaves Io each State al1the area in
front of its coast. Herein, however, moving the land boundary away from
the middle of the coastline forming the concavity creates a cut-off effect'as in
@ Figure 15C.
Finally, one last point to illustrate the relationship between the location of the
land houndary and the cut-off effectcaused by the equidistant line is shown in
@ Figures 15Band l5D. In Figure 15B,the land territory has been removed. The
States are opposite. There is no land houndary. The equidistant line equitably
divides the area in the Channel between the Parties. Extending the equidistant
Iine seaward does not cause a cut-ofï, because there is no coast at the bÿck of
the Channel to be cut off. The cut-off is created if a coast is added to the back
of the concavity and the land boiindarymoved away from the middle of the
@ concavity, as shown in Figure 15D.
In a- W .ranhical situation such au Fieure 15D. the coasts of States A and B
ïrc comparïhlç. Eash Staic hdiiequal lrngth oicoasi hcing directly ,rï\i,3rd.
and cach hai an cqual lcngth oicoïst faciiig Iaterally across the conaviiy Thc
rule that cornparahle coasïs should receive comparable treatment requires that
each coast receives as much .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f ils seaward extension.
The deicci of thc cquidistance mcthod in this siiuaiiuniidoes not gii,c
comparable ireatnicnt io s<irnp~rablecoasts Alihough the cquidisiiini l~ne
lea8.e~to thc scauard.flicing cinri uiB311of the arra thdi liesin froii.of
ihat Iinc suings across the coast oisAtt~nd culs it off from this enurmous
arrd ihai liesin iront of il.Thecqi.idiiiani Iinr leaves311ihc iireaofcut-ollti) the
short. lateral coast of StakitRonl, does the cquidi,rant Iineensroach upon
State A. but it eives State B an olfshoie area that is disorooortionatelv laree in
rclliii10 ihe kngih of iCOLISIwhcrelis Siaie A rccci;cd~s~ro~o~i~>n~ie~~
sm;ill aret The inequity is parti~ularly sunwntrsied on CON oi StatcA
nearest the Iiind boundliry. uhich sullcrs tlie full mrüsure oithe sut-oKcrfect in
its seaward extension,ndthe lateral coast of State B, which receivesthe entire
benefit of the cut-off.
The inequity of the cul-off effect was the central issue in the North Seo
Continental Sheifcases. As the Court stated in paragraph 24, the equidistance 302 GULF OF MAINE
nicihoil "c:in iiiider ceriain <ircum,i.inces prod~ie rerulii th:ii dppcar on the
F.iceof theni 10 he rxtr:i,irdinary. unnïiural i)r unre:i~on;ihlc II Irhu.~~cullt)h~ri
1'ui.sltih iiiiih.rlirlir prusrrit pri>rïuilii~yi."Herr. I would interltcr, tht Court
added the words, remin~iscentif this case:
"The olea that. however this may be, the results can never be inesuitable,
hecius:'thc equid!rtdnce principlci~ hy dïriniii6)nan cquitxhlc principlc of
delirniidtic~n.inroltei a posiul~itc.thxi clciirly kgs ihc wholc question JI
ir\ue." (1.C.J R'.pr,rtv1969,p3r;i 24, eniph;isis adrlcd.)
The inequity of the cut-off effect - the "extraordinary, unnatural or un-
reasonable" result of the equidistance method - is also in our view the central
issue in this case.
B. Thecul-offeflect in the Culfof Moine aren
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, let us proceed from the geometrical
diagrams to the Gulf of Maine arca. The presentation first will describe the
cut-off effect that would exist if an equidistant line were used in the Gulf of
Maine area. Then it will deal with Canada's attempts Io deny or to justify the
cut-off effect.
This chart, Figure 16, quantifies the cxtent and the inequity of the cut-off
@ effectin the Gulf of Maine area. The Canadian coastal front is 100nautical miles
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
long The Lniied Siiier iii.i,tal iront 13 II>.>IUIJn.iutic;ilnitleslong The rrd Iinc
1s>n cquidistaiit Iine Thc ouicr Iimit ir?UV n~iiiiicillmilr.sfroiii Cape Sdhle.ind
this dashed line is a neroendicular to the eeneral direction of the coast a1 144".
The equidistant lihe bould leave to the United States approximately 3,900
square nautical miles in front of 1hi.cpart of the coast of the United States, the
coast of Maine. At the same tinie, the equidistant line would leave to the
southwest-facing coast of Nova Scotia an area of approximately 29,600 square
nautical miles. Canada's line, not shown here, would leavethe same 3,900square
nautical miles to this part of the United States coast and would leave about
32,500 square nautical miles to the southwest-facing coast of Canada.
In brief, this portion of the coast of the United States,after which the Gulf of
Maine is namçd, aimply because it lies al the back of the concavity and is the
closest part of the United States coast to the land boundary terminus, receives
only a small fraction of the maritime area in front of it. Although the two coasts
are equal in length, under Canada's proximity approach, the southwest-facing
coast, the Canadian coast, because il extends farther seaward, receives about
eight times as much maritime area, notwithstanding that, beyond the closing
line,it has no coast fronting on that area. This is the nature of the cut-offeffect
proposed by Canada. The United States suhmits that it is grossly inequitahle.
Canada's responses on the suhject of the cut-offeffect fall into two categories.
In the first catee-.v are the areuments that attemot to denv that the cul-off
cffccr cxiiis Thex drgument, do noi iuccccd bcçau.ic no :imouni ol'rhcioric.
houcier îIs\er or cloquent. can den! ihc Faci1h:iiihe equidist~nt Iincdoc~.wing
acro,~ th6iu:i>t <)iMilinc.ind thui ru15 itOITfrolii thc arc3 in iront oiil. In the
second category are the arguments that attempt to justify the cul-off inthis case.
As we shall see, these arguments are, in fact, different ways of restating the
proposition that the boundary should be determined by proximity to the
projecting coast. In other words, they merely restdte the equidistance method as
if it were a rationale, or a binding principle. Of course, this proposition already
has been rejected in the North Sea Continental Shelfcases. Proximity to the
projecting coasts does not justify the inequity of the cut-off effect. ARGUMENTOF MR. COLSON 303
Canada attempts, in three respects. to deny the faci of the cut-oiïin this case.
First, Canada asserts that therc is no cul-oiï caused hy the eiïect of the
southwest-facing coast of Nova Scotia on the equidistant line because the coast
of Massachusetts turns the line back towards Canada. Canada's assertion, which
@ is displayed in Figure 34 of Canada's Reply, which we examined earlier as
Figure II of Ourpresentation. is based upon the misconception that the cut-off
begins only at the midpoint of the closing line of the concavity.
ln the, Canadian oral presentation (Figs. 32-33; pp. 74-77, supra), Canada
@
raised this same argument by seekingto disguisethe basictruths reflectedon this
chart. of which the Court look account ai oaraeraoh 8 of ils Judement in the
@ NoyrhSea Continentil Shercases. Before you is~iiure 17of this presentation,
which shows how a small headland, which protrudes seaward fivenautical miles,
diverts the eauidistant line as il leaves the coast and continues seaward.
Canada'< pre\entation pl;iccd in ihe picture anoiher ,mÿll he~dland. Hut, in
doin2 so. al1Canada could show u~s u,hat mekneu hçfore - whiih isihai. in the
concd\,iiy ihat Canada rreatcd. the ino he~dl3ndswould r<)nirolthe cquidisiani
lineas a perpendicular to the closing lineacross the mouth of the concavity at ils
midpoint.
In this case, the area oful-oK is thc entire area between the equidistant line
and the perpendicular to the general direction of the coast at the international
houndarv ,e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~cul-off is in front of t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~aine. It is
true that the area of cut-off would be even larger were it not for Massachusetts,
includin-.Cape Cod and Nantucket. Nevertheless, the area of cul-or that does
exist is enormous and disorooortionate.
Canada's second attempt tb deny the existence of a cut-oiïbegins by dividing
the Gulf of Maine area into two sectors, the area inside and the area outside the
closing line of the concavity.
Canada asserts that the equidistant line equitably divides the area inside the
closing linebecause it leavesto the United States "a greater area within the Gulf
of Maine than is left to Canada" (Reply, para. 77, fn. omitted). In fact. any
reasonable linewill leave to the United States the greater part of the area within
the Gulf of Maine. Becauseof the location of the land boundary, United States
coastline comprises ai least three-fourths of the coastal front facing the Gulf of
Maine, and it, therefore, is only natural that the United States should receivea
large part of these waters.
Then, in a most remarkable argument, at paragraph 356of ils Reply, Canada
asserts: "If the Canadian line does not produce an inequitable cut-oiïeiïect of
the coast of Maine within the Gulf, it cannot suddenly produce such an eiïect
outside the Gulf."
The Deputy-Agent for Canada reiterated this argument on 3 April in these
proceedings. He said: "If there is nothing wrong with the Canadian line in this
inner area, there can hardly beanything wrong with its direction further out to
sea ..." (p. 52,supra).
This is entirely wrong. As Professor Weil reminded us the other day, "two
wrong lines cannot make a right" (p. 187,supra).
Here, 1would liketo interjeci a comment in regard to an argument made by
Professor Weil. He implied that the issue is the curvature of the United States
side of the Gulf, not the overall configuration of the concavity and the location
of the land boundary. He implied that Matinicus Rock and Mount Desert Rock,
oiï the coast of Maine, advantaged the United States. Of course, within the
concavity, there is some truth to this, because, for a distance, these basepoints
push hack the line as the southwest-facing coast of Nova Scotia pushes il
towards the United States. But, again, this is a minor point which disguisesthe 304 GULF OF MAINE
major point. Matinicus Rock and Mount Desert Rock have no impact on the
line al the closing line. In the end they fail in the effort to keep the equidistant
line from extending laterally. In the end the equidistant line answers its cal1to
reach the midooint of the closine line of the concavitv.
As the ge&netrical discussiln previously illustrated, in a concavity of
dimensions such as those found in the Gulfof Maine, the equidistant line within
the concavitv eives some effect to the coast at the back of the concavitv. but.
beyond the &;sing line, the equidistant line gives absolutely no effectCo thé
coasts within the concavity, and gives effectonly to the headlands at the mouth
of the concavity. Thus, it is no! surprising that the inequity caused by the
equidistant line involves the outer area to an even greater extent than it involves
the inner area, especially,once again, when the position of the land houndary is
taken into account.
@ Figure 16, which we examined a moment ago, showed that the part of the
United States coast at the back of the concavity, the 100-nautical-milecoastal
front of Maine adjacent to the land houndary, does receivesome portion of the
area that liesin front of it, within the Gulf. However, since the equidistant line
intersects the niidpoint of the closing lineacross the mouth of the concavity, and
proceeds seaward from there, il cuts off the coast of Maine from the area beyond
the closing line. The Canadian line is even more egregious than the strict
equidistant Iine. By disregarding Cape Cod and Nantucket, Canada causes the
lineIo swing farther across the coast of Maine and alters the course of the
seaward portion of the line farther to the southwest.
For thesc rcasons, the equidistant line, if it is used at al1 in geographic
configurations such as this, must, in our view, be usedonly in areas much closer
Io the shore. If the equidistant line isextended as far as the closing line,then the
outer portion of the houndary hegins at a point that already is far across the
coastal front of the United States.
A third argument with which Canada attempts to deny the cut-off effect is
based upon the assertion that Massachusetts and Nova Scotia are opposite
coasts in relation to each other, both at the closing line across the mouth of the
concavitv and in a so-calledzone ofonnositeness seaward of the closiue line. It is
then staied that median lines between'opposite States cannot be distorted and,
therefore, that the equidistant line in this case is not distorted or inequitable.
The question of o~. .iteness and adiacencv was discussed at leneth in the
i\,riiten plcÿdings. anII1snot ncLejsdr! IOreput 411that \vdscontaincd thcrc.
Tuo points sunicc I.irst. the rcs~lt oi a delimitati<rnmust hc cquitahlc. li ihc
é~uidirtantIinz 1,insquitahlc hccausr.il~.utioff the codsi oi the Cnitcd States
from the area in frontof it, then it is immaterial whether the relationship of the
coasts is characterized as opposite, adjacent, or mixed. Second, the argument
that Canada makes ignores the coast of Maine and New Hampshire and the
position of the land boundary. It may be that the relationship of the Nova Scotia
and Massachusetts coasts is such that, if these were the only coasts involved, a
median-line houndary would deserve further consideration. In the same way a
median-line houndary between Denmark and the Netherlands might have been
appropriate if the Federal Republic ofGermany did not exist. However, in both
the North Sea and the Gulf of Maine there is a coast at the back of the
concavity. The equidistant line is inequitable hecause it cuts off that coast. That
there is such a cut-offis true, no matter how one characterizes the relationship
between the lateral coasts of the concavity.
The United States rebutted Canada's contentions about a zone of opposite-
@ ness in Figure 9 of the United States Reply, shown here as Figure 18. In
response, in Canada's oral presentation, Canada can only say that we have ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 305
missedthe point and that the diagram there shown does not accurately represent
the proportions of the Gulf of Maine (p. 84, supro).We concede this latter
point. Our Figure does depict a concavity three times, rather than two times, as
wide as il is deep, and weapologize forany confusion that we may have created
on ihis point. Nonetheless, Ourpoint still stands. We invite you to examine this
@ Figure 9of the Reply at your leisure. By taking a ruler you may lengthen the
sides until the.nr.nortions are 1:2. and then vou mav connect the noints in the
so-c>llcJ~nc uli>pposiicncss wiih poini X ;it'~hch.i& of ihc sonc;i;iiy. Thcy211
will siill hc Ici5 ihlin 90" ihu\ mceting Cdnadd's 0u.n icsi of gcographi~.
adjliscncv
Paragraph 131of ihc Canadian Kcply reprçscnti a \'arialion of ihc opposiic
adjacent 3rgument. Canada slales ihat thc bd\cpoinis used IO consiruci il$Iinc
arc oppo>ite "IO P<IC /Ilher iih-2-rrtheurru ribc<l~l;niirril"(emphlisis addcd)
and, iherefore, that the equidistant line has not been distorted by ihe configura-
tion of the coast.
Here again, if the result ofthe equidistant line isinequitahle, it does not matter
whether the reiationshi~ of the hasenoints iso~nosite or adiacent or both. Much
mure importnni thsn ihe relntion;hip of ihc ba,cpoini.is iheir Iowiion. As
Clinrda kas dcnionsir~tcd. ihc bli,epoint, of the cquidistani line rnow Fdrihcr
anilFdrihcracros.;the iront of the UnitedStdtes coast. as far ai the southwc\icm-
most basepoint on the coast of Massachusetts on Nantucket Island. The last
basepoint for the equidistant lineon the United Statescoast is249nautical miles
southwest from the international houndary terminus measured in a straight line.
The last hasenoint on the Canadian coast is 92 nautical miles. measured in the
saiiic sa). i3 \traight Iinc\outhelist from the inicrnaiional boundary Ierminu,
As ;ircsult. ihccquidisi;ini linesuingsevcr I:arthsr3sross ihc froni of the Unitcd
States coast until it crosses the midpoint of the closing line forming the
concavity. It is this imperdtive to reach the midpoint, regardless of the location
of the headlands, that creates the cut-off effect within the concavity, which is
only compounded as the houndary extends seaward.
It cannot be denied that the equidistant line swingsacross the coast of Maine
and culs the coast off from the areas in front of it. Can this cut-off efect be
justified? The first of fivejustifications offered by Canada is that Nova Scotia is
more "proximate" than Maine to the area beyond the closing line.Thesummary
of principal conclusions in both Canada's Counter-Memorial and Reply in-
cludes the pnnciplc that "the single maritime boundary should leave to each
Party those areas of the sea that are closest to its coast", and includes as a
relevant circumstance "the closer proximity to Canada of the area under
Canadian claim" (Canadian Couriter-Memonal. para. 729; Canadian Reply,
para. 375).
Since the equidistant line is drawn on the basis of closer proximity, Canada's
argument that the line gives each Party the area closer to its coast merely
describes the equidistance method. It does nothing ta justify the result. This
pointdeserves Io beernphasized. Most ofcanada'scase has been huilt upon the
assumption that proximity is the test of fairness, or that proximity is inherently
equitable.
Canada's assumption is fundamentally wrong. As Mr. Stevenson has empha-
sized. the law does not require that maritime boundanes he delimited according
io closer proximity,or by useof the equidistance method, which is exacily the
same thing. Equidistance has produced an equitable solution in some cases, but
it is not hy definiiion equitable and it is not a test of equity. We know that
hecause the Court in the Norih Seo ConiinenrolShey cases told us that the
equidistancemethod can produce results which are "extnordinary, unnatural or ARCUMI~NTOF MR. COLSON 307
on the continental shelf of the Atlantic a~nroaches 10the Enelish Channel were
the coasts of Finistère and Ushant, and'those of~ornwall and the ~cilly lsles
(para. 248).The Court slated that the boundary delimitation musi relate to these
cbasts. TheCourt declined to delimit thehoundarv hv drawine a lineeauidistant
from the two lines reflecting the general directions of the c&sts of t6e Parties
within and along the sides of the English Channel.
There are analogies but there isalso a major diKerencehetwecn the geography
of the Gulf of Maine area and the geography of the Atlantic approaches in the
Anglo-French Arbitration. This diiïerence lies in the existence of the coast of
Maine and New Hampshire along the back oftheGulf of Maine concavity. That
coast faces and abuts the area seaward of the closing line. Figure 20 of Our
iw presentation, which was Figure 8 of the United States Reply, adds such a coast
O to the English Channel. Such a coast, if il did exist, would also abut the
continental shelf of the Atlantic approaches, and the method of delimitation
adopted by the Court of Arhitration. in the United States view, would havehad
to have taken it into account.
In short, Canada's contention that the boundary should reflect the "imme-
diatelv" abuttine coasts would reauire this Chamber 10 do what the Court of
~rhit;ation refused to do: to ignore the actual coasts that ahut upon the region.
Here again, Canada merely has restated the purported proximity principle, but
. . . .
has notjustified the cul-ofi eiïect.
Fourth, Canada has sought to use a semicircle test 10justify cutting off the
Maine-New Hampshire coast from the area in front of il. The test calls for a
semicircleto be drawn in the Gulf in such a way that the closing line ofthe Gulf
@ forms the diameter of the semicircle. This is illustrated in Figure 29 of the
Canadian Reply.
Canada asserts al paragraph 332 of ils Reply that the semicircletest indicates
whether the coasts of the concavity are related to the waters oursidethe closing
line. According to Canada, if the concavity meets the test, Canada implies that
the coast al the back should have no influenceon the delimitation seaward of the
concavity.
This premise is no1supportable. especially if we recall the semicircle test that
already exists in international law. A semicircleis used in Article 7 of the 1958
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone and in Article 10of
the 1982Convention on the Law of the Sea to determine whether a bay closing
line mav be used as the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measuréd.As the Chamber well understands, if the hay exceeds the areaof the
semicircle, the diameter of which is the closing line, and if other criteria are
satisfied. then the closinfcline mav be drawn. In that case. al1the waters inside
the~h~v then are considered~ ~ ~ ~ntern~~ waters. T~-s. the semicircle test i.~
international law concerns primarily the relationship of the coasts of the
concavitv to the waters inside the concavitv, as Canada suggests. However, and
this is the ooint that shows the fallacv fn Canada's arfiment. the lest also
recognizes ihat the coast inside the concavity has a connëction with thewaters
outside the concavity. In fact, the territorial sea extends seaward from the
closing line and it incliides areas that would not fall within the territorial sea
limit if measured only from the headlands of the bay.
Nevertheless, Canada asserts that, if the Gulf of Maine is as deep as the
semicircle,then "the back of the concavity willno: control the course of the line
in the outer area" (Canadian Reolv. vara. 333: emuhasis in orieinal). This is a
.. .
perfectly accurate description of the construction Ofan equidisïant line, but it
does not justify the result.
What, then, isCanada's justification for denying the back of the concavity any 308 GULF OF MAINE
eiïect on the houndary beyond the closing line? Canada's rationale appears in
paragraph 333 of ils Reply, which explains that "the failure of the back of the
concavity to control the line isjustified by its comparative remoieness from the
outer area" (einphasis added).
"Comparative remoteness" isthe same argument that has been repeated over
and over in a remarkahle number of ways. But comparative remoteness is just
another wav of savint that the boundarv should be drawn on the hasis of
proximity, which i$uz another way of sa;ing that the houndary should he the
equidistant line. Once again, this argument merely hegs the question. It does not
justify the cul-off effect:
The fifth suggestedjustification of the cut-oiïeiïect is that the equidistant line
houndary mus1 be equitable because it accurately reflects the physical and
political geography (Canadian Reply, para. 342). There are two aspects to this
argument. On the one hand. it is asserted that Canada's . .oosal is eauitahle
bccau>chldinc ünd Scu H.impshirc arc gii,cn "iull ciTcci"in con,irt.L.iing ihr.
line On the oiher h.ind. C:iniiJ~ :irguer thai the L'ti~tedSt3tr.sIiùr rei~shioncd
geography and "has ignored the presence of a major landmass by treating Nova
Scotia as if it did not exist"bid., para. 144).
Canada's argument confuses the equidistance method with geography. The
equidistant line does not necessarily take account of the actual configuration of
the coast, but only of certainlient points or convexities. In particular, wehave
seen that when the land boundary meets the sea inside and at the corner of a
large coastal concavity, the seaward segment of the equidistant line does not
reflect the existence of any coast, except the las1two protruding points on the
Parties' coasts.
Canada has illustrated for us the elïect of Nova Scotia, and of Cape Cod and
Nantucket, on the course of the equidistant line.low us to illustrate the elïect
of Maine and New Hamoshire on the course of an eauidistant line.
Figurc?I shous the C;I~oi\l8inc ;ira uiih Neii li3nipshire and ll~inc and
@
ihr.I.indïreü norih of iheni rr'nioved3nd sh3dc.di4,il'thcy had bccn remorcd
ironi ihc min. The IincI.ihclleil''noetTeciIine" ir iheeùi.idtsi.ini Iincthnt uould
exist in sucha situation. You may note that when ~Gne and New Hampshire
are removed, and replaced with ocean area, then the Gulf of Maine area
resembles much more closely the Atlantic approaches to the English Channel.
@ Figure 21 also shows the so-called "full elïect" equidistant line. As can be
seen, eventhis line giveslittle eiïect to Maine and New Hampshire. Although the
Maine-New Hampshire coastal front is 200 nautical miles long, twiceas long as
the southwest-facing Nova Scotia coastal front,and the land area of Maine and
New Hampshire is fairly large, more than 32,000 square nautical miles, the area
between the equidistant lines giving full effect and no eiïect to Maine and New
Hampshire is only about 5,500 square nautical miles.
Thus, it ismisleading to say that the equidistant line gives"full effect",or that
another line gives "iio effect". Those words descrihe the method, but not the
result. Since the boundary must produce an equitahle resuli, it is more useful to
examine the resultthan the method.
The United States does not ask the Chamber to ignore the existence of the
southwest-facing coast of Nova Scotia, but only to reject the equidistant line,
which largely ignores the existence ofMaine and New Hampshire. As the Court
explained in paragraph 91 of the Norih Sea Continental Shelfcases, this is nota
question of refashioning geography, but of abating thefectsof a special feature
-the concavity of the coast.
The boundary proposed by the United States does recognize the existence of
Nova Scotia, and, with the land boundary where it is, it gives Nova Scotia full ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 309
2nd cquiiahle rrc.itnicni. IJnJer ilte Ilnitcd St:iiei propo..il. iïgiia Sco1i.r\ioulJ
resciic the full extension of 11sAilantic-facing co;iit31iront from CcipcS.ibIO
<:dpeCdnso. ds ~icll8s rIrlrgein.iriiime arellti~liess31cIyInfront of the co~si
of Vainc 'l'hi<nirJn\ ih:itUina Scoii~u~>ulJrcceiic ireainient hetirr than thai
accordeil ihe contplir~hlc I:iiiieJ Sidici roïsi cri'hlaine and Scu H:imprhirr.
In short, to argue that an equidistant line is equitable because it gives full
eiiect, or that a boundary refashions geography unless it is a full eiiect
equidistant line, confuses method with result. It is merely another way of
restating the unfoiinded proposition that houndaries must he drawn on the hasis
of closest proximity.
This brings me to the end of the second part of our geography presentation.
We have seen that, when the land houndary meets the sea in the corner or on the
side of a laree coastal concavitv. awav from the mid~oint of the coast formina
the concavit;, it is the nature,tlie geometric nature; of the equidistant line to
swing inward and cut off the longer coast at the back of the concavity.
The Chamber rose a!6 p.m. THIRTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (13 IV 84, 10 am.)
Presenr:[SeeSittingof 2 IV 84.1
Mr. COLSON: Mr. President, distinguished.Judges. May it ~lease the
Chamher.
Yesterday, in the first part of the United States oral presentation on the
geography relating to this case, we discussed six specific geographical circum-
stances which we believeare relevant in this case. And in the second Dartof Our
oresentation we discussed the cut-off eiTect. We saw that when the land
boundary nieet, the sr3 in the corner or on the sideofï kirge re:tangular-shapcd
co~si.ilconciiiit)au.:iyfrom the midpoint of the co:ist formtng the concovit)11
is the nature, the geometric nature. of the eauidistant line to iwine inward and
cut off the longe;coast at the back of theconcavity. One mayUsaythat the
equidistant line encroaches upon the disadvantaged coast, or it cuts off that
coast from its natural prolongation, or denies it comparable treatment. But,
however the effectis described, the cut-offcaused by the equidistant line in this
case would be enormous.
III. THENATURE OF AN EQUITABLR EESULT
We would now liketo move on to the third part of our presentation which
examines the nature of an equitable result in the geographical circumstances of
the Gulf of Maine area.
There is a logical hierarchy of solution and method that governs the sequence
of this presentalion. The fundamental rule of houndary delimitation dictates
that the boundarv inust achieve an eauitable solution. But. althoueh the
equitable solution ;s mïndïtory. ihere is no niandatory method ofdelim;i~iion.
The Chamber may use<in)mcthod or combinalion of niethods that produccs an
equitable joluiion. In other u,ords. an equitable solution lusiilies whate\cr
method may be used to achieve that solution, but no method can everjustify an
inequitable solution. For this reason, it is logical to hegin by identifying the
nature of an equitable solution and then to consider what methods might
produce such a solution.
A. SrarePracrice
To assist usin identifying the nature ofan equitablesolution, webelievethat it
would be worthwhile briefly to consider the practice of States in similar
geographical circumstances. A mere numerical comparison of the number of
boundaries that do or do not use equidistant linesis too simplistican analysis to
assist the Chamber in determining the method to apply in this or any other case.
Notwithstanding Canada's other arguments, Canada apparently agrees with this
view, and concedes that the numerical lists that it has produced have little
usefulness, for it acknowledges at paragraph
338 of its Reply (V) that:
"Analogies with deliinitations in other coastal concavities are of no relevance
unless they display a similarity with the Gulf of Maine in terms of hoth political
and physical geography."
In the United States Counter-Memonal (IV), the Bay of Biscaydelimitaiion
between France and Spain, and the North Sea delimitation hetween the Federal ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 311
Republic of Germany and Denmark and that hetween the Federal Republic and
the Netherlands, were identified as taking place in geographical circumstances
similar to that of the Gulf of Maine ara (paras. 388 and 376, respectively).
Canada attempts to refute this view and asserts that the delimitation in the
Atlantic approaches to the English Channel between the United Kingdom and
France, the houndary between the coasts of ltaly and Yugoslavia, and the
boundaries hetween Sweden, Denmark and Norway in the Skagerrak, present
more comparable State practice analogies.
Let me turn first to the Iwo situations that the United States put forward in
Part III of ils Counter-Memorial - the North Sea. There are three essential
eeonra~hical and oolitical realities in the Gulf of Maine area: first. the Gulf of
~ayne>s a large c;astal concavity; second, the land boundary meets the sea far
from the geographical centre of the coastal fronts forming the concavity; and,
third, themaiitime boundary extends well seaward of theconcavity.
Before you is Figure 22 of our presentation, which first appeared as Figure 30
@ of the United States Counter-Memorial. The European coast facing the North
Sea, between the western coast of Denmark and the northern coast of the
Netherlands. the coast with which the Court hecame familiar in North Sen
C~i~iri~i~~.SI,,açci. h.i\ the>ethrrc ihar.i~icristics l'he3cIiirfe ~.oïitaI
r.<in~,a\ii)The intern3iionïl Ixnd bounJarir.3thcsca Fdrfroni ihe niidddi
the coastline formine the concavitv. And, finaliv, if one imaeines a hv~othetical
lineacross the moutri of the concGitv. it can he seen that the bounda&s cxtend
heyond the concavity. Here is the Chncavity in the coast, here are the land
boundaries, far removed from the middle of the coastline forming the concavity,
and you can see that the houndary would extend heyond a hypothetical
closi.e-li~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~he mouth of the concavitv.
At paragrapli340 <>l'theCanddian Kcpl), C:in~dachïllenges the ge<i@raphicirl
siiiiil.irity hetueen ihe Gu5131iieand ihc Korth Sm on tuil griiunJ\ First.
Canada states that the NorthSea is a two-sided concavitv. wherëas the Gulf of
Maine has more than two sides; and, second, Canada Siys that the political
geography of the North Seais diiierent, in that there three States are involved,
rather than the two in our case. Canada's distinctions are, of course. -orrect
but are they of any legal relevaiice in the matter of the equidistant line? We
helieve not. The equidistant line has the same inequitahle properties regardless
of whether the concavity is two-sided, three-sided or curved. The issue is not
whether two or three States are involved, but the location at which the land
houndary, or boundaries, meet the sea in relation to the midpoint of the coastal
fronts forming the concavity.
@ At Figure 31 of the Canadian Reply, now hefore you as Figure 23 of our
presentation, Canada tries to turri what it calls the "conjunction of physical and
political" geography in a coastal <:oncavityto its advantage, but failsto do so.At
@ Figure A, Canada presents a geometncal diagram, roughly showing equidistant
lines and roughly corresponding to the North Sea situation, which isshown in
@ Figu1e.B.
In Figure C, Canada shifts the land boundary to the corner of the geometrical
diagram, arguing that this creates an analogy to the Gulf of Maine area. But this
@ is not a fair cornpanson to the Gulf of Maine area. Canada's Figure C has
moved the land boiindary. True, the diagram shows that the land boundary isin
the corner of the concavity, as in the Gulfof Maine. But it mus1he recalled that
in the Gulf of Maine the corner of the concavity where the land boiindary
reaches the sea is about 100 nautical miles from the midpoint of the coastal
fronts fonning the concavity.
In situations where Statesare a coastal concavity, a critical consideration in312 GULF OF MAIKE
assessing the effectof the equidistant line is the location in that concavity of the
point where the land boundary meets the sea. As we have seen, if the land
boundary meets the sea near the midpoint of the coastal fronts forming the
concavity, an equidistant line is capable of producing an equitable result. But if
the land boundary meets the sea a significant distance from the midpoint. one
can expect that the equidistant line will no1 produce an equitable solution
because of the cut-off elïect.
In the North Seu CunfinenralShelfcases, the cut-olïeffect, imposed upon the
extension of the German coastal front into the sea by equidistant lines, still
would have occurred if only two States were involved, provided that the land
boundary hetween those States was in the same position il now occupies. The
same ahatement of this cut-off elïect that is reflected in the eventual Federal
Republic-Netherlands houndary, or Federal Republic-Denmark boundary,
would have been required to reduce the inequitable results effected hy the land
houndary meeting the sea on one of the sidesof this two-sided coastalconcavity,
far from the midpoint of the coastline forming the concavity. Thus, Canada's
criticisms of the analogy between the Gulfof Maine area and the North Sea are
not valid.
MI. President, distinguished Judges, the issue in evaluating the equidistance
method - for al1 coastal concavities, regardless of how many sides to that
concavity and how many States may share the coast - quite simply is this: where
does the land boundary meet the sea in relation to the midpoint of the coastal
fronts forming the concavity?
Let us consider for a moment the Bay of Biscaydelimitation between France
and Spain. Before you now is Figure 24 of our presentation, which appears as
Figure 41 of Volume 1of the Annexes 10Canada's Reply. Il depicts the agreed
boundary hetween France and Spain in the Bay of Biscay. This area, like the
Gulf of Maine area, and the North Sea, has the three basic characteristics
referred to previously. It is a large coastal concavity. The boundary does not
reach the sea in the centre of the coastline forming the concavity and the
boundary will eventually extend beyond the concavity to the outer limit of the
200-nautical-mile zone or the continental shelf. Here is the large coastal
concavity. Here iswhere the land boundary meets the sea, no1in the midpoint of
the concavity, and the boundary willeventually have to extend seaward beyond
a hypotbetical closing-line across the mouth of the concavity.
In the United States Counter-Memorial, these additional similarities between
the Bay of Biscay and the Gulf of Maine were mentioned. First, the land
boundarv in both cases reaches the sea. not in the m~ddle~ ~ ~ ~ the cnaîtlinc
forming the concavity, and not on the sides of the concavity, but in a corner of
the concavity. Second, the coastal concavity in hoth cases is rouehlv three-sided.
Third. one side of the concavitv belones 10one State alone. an-dthe other t~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
rides bçlong to another St~ie (unilcd St.ites Countcr-Mcm~irilil,para. 388).
The Ilnitcd Statei .il50noied se\erdl difircncs\ in ihc pe<igrl-ph)~. ,iithew tu.0
concavities. First, the proportions of the lengths of the respective coasts are
dilïerent. The seaward-facing French coast at the back of the concavity from
Pointe de la Negade to the land boundary is proportionately shorter than the
United Statescoasts of Maine and New Hampshire, at the hack of the Gulf of
Maine concavity. Similarly, the inward-facing sides of the Bay of Biscay are
proportionately longer than the corresponding sides in the Gulf of Maine. The
Spanish coast facing the Bay of Biscay, for instance, is longer than the
corresponding Canadian coast facing the Gulf of Maine. Also, it may be noted
that the French coast from Pointe de la Negade to Pointe de Raz is not at right
angles with the coast at the hack of the concavity. Because of that fact, the ARGU~~ENTOF MR. COLSON 313
Pointe de la Negade to Pointe de Raz coastline faces, to someextent, outward as
well as inward, into the concavity. Thus, the Bay of Biscay has an irregular
geometric shape as compared to the more regular classic rectangular shape of
the Gulf of Maine. As the United States Counter-Memorial also observed, the
Bay of Biscay contains no features of a significancecomparable to that of the
fishing banks and the Northeast Channel oresent in this case (nara. 3891.
11 iiihis laitcr point ih~i iiirrn.~.,inaj.i's prin~ip~lcr~i~cismul'the ilniied
Stïic.. prc.\cniaiiori in ihis rchpcci Cililhdil4ïtei lhiit the Cnited Siaies ft,>lcd
idcniify xnd di>cui\ the C~pc Hrcton Can)on - uhich is correct Ciinad3 ~ljo
charges ih;ii ihc United Stïtc.>discusiion iifihc Ray OCBisi:i) Ji\rcprds - and
hcrr wewould quotc irom partigrdph 345oiihc C:inïdi;in Reply "ihc fiiciih3t
IIus p r ihc ph~sis3l siruiiure of the sc3-hed ihït doniin~ied the
negolialions hetween France and Spain and provided the essential rationale for
the houndary". We would like to comment upon hoth of these contentions.
The Cape Breton Canyon is a pronounced and significant feature of the
sea-bed. It is labelled here on Figure 24, in this corner, by the land boundary
terminus. II is not so located as to have much of an efect upon the boundary
delimitation; and it is our undcrstanding that France did not press such a
position in the negotiations leading to this agreement. Thus, while admitting
that the Cape Breton Canyon is a larger geomorphological feature, in absolute
terms, than the Northeast Charinel, the United States stands by its earlier
judgment that this feature does not have a significance for purposes of
delimitation that is comparable tcithat of the Northeast Channel, which divides
the fishinc banks in the Gulf of Maine area.
The o& proof behind Canada's assertion that sea-hed features dominated
the negotiations between France and Spain is an article which the United States
~roduced in an aonendix to Annex IOof its Counter-Memorial. The article is bv ~,
i>rofessor~osi L;I; dc .Alcÿrrag.i,ïn aJ\,iscr io ihc Sp~niih hounclar) icam The
Unitcd Si;ite\ filid, hi$cxplanatii>nOCihc B.iy ui Biscii) houndar) inicrcsiing
rince. in his \ica. the boundsrv I' bjstcsll, sii~iJistani heiaccn dcnih iiiniouri
of equal depth - in this case the 4,500-meire depth contour. The ~nited States
interest in this concept of equidistance between depth contours is keen, because
it corresponds to the point that was made in the United States Reply (V) that an
eauidistant line between dominant bathvmetric contours in the Gulf of Maine
aria uhicli arc the IlJli-i~rhornor ?0"metre dcpih contour, ivould clos cl^^
dppro.\imatc ihc. 1976 Uniisd Sistes Ilne.cxtcnding thrmgh ihc dcep iiaicr ol'
ihe Gulf of M.iine Ba>inïnd thcn se~ward ihrough thc Nor~h~ï~tChïnncl WC
would h:iw 3 linc 1hc.nb~sicilllycquirliiïnt heiuccn the coniincnial \hclics dr
ihev stood bet\vc.en19452nd l')SR.whc.nthc gcncriildetiniii<)nof ihc coniincntal
sh:If ii35 ekpandcii io extend hc.\.ond the ?UU-meiredepth coniojr 1:urihcr-
more, il is our understanding thai during the course of Ïhe oral proceedings in
the Anglo-French Arbitration, France explained, and here we use Canada's
words, the "essential rationale" of the Bay of Biscay delimitation.
Canada's reliance on the article by Professor de Azcarraga ismisplaced. At no
place does the Professor state that the physical structure and sea-bed of the Bay
of Biscay either, once again to use Canada's words "dominated the negotia-
tions" or "provided the essential rationale for the boundary". The Professor
never uses these or similar terms to describe the negotiations, andthe record that
is available would seem to present quite a different picture and quite a diferent
methodology.
What conclusions may be drawn from the boundaries in the North Sea and
Bay of Biscay, where the geographical circumstances are similar to the Gulf of
Maine area? 314 GULF OF MAINE
Please permit us to demonstrate one conclusion hy reference to Figure 25 of
@ @ our presentation, which is a combination of Figures 31 and 36 of the United
States Counter-Mernorial.
In the cases both of the North Sea and of the Bay of Biscay, the use of an
equidistant line to delimit a part of the boundary was limited to a short portion
of the boundary, and that portion of the boundary was located close to the two
@ Coast? In the North Sea, as Figure 31 of our Counter-Memorial showed, the
equidistantIine extended only 15percent of the entire length of the German-
Danish houndary, and 22 per cent in the case of the German-Dutch boundary.
As may be seeii, these same percentages, if applied in the Gulf of Maine area,
would stop the equidistant line well within the coastal concavity near the
100-fathomdepth contour. In the Bay of Biscay,the equidistance segment of the
boundary extends 44 percent of the distance from the land boundary terminus
to the hypothetical closing line across the inouth of the Bay of Biscay. The
Vh analoeous ooint in the Gulf of Maine area is shown here on Fieure 36 of the
~nited %aies Counter-Memorial, on the "ght-hand side of this &ure 25. This
point is quite near to the point developed by the analogy to the North Sea
~ontinenral Shelfcases. Ourseoera~hers~ in fact. tellus thaithese ointsare
within iw~~i;iui~caliilesof idch uiiier -ihu,, cinelcjithdiSt.:ie ir~ciicc in
gcoprdphis~ll) ,imilir iiiu3tion\ ha5 rcrniinxtcd the iiiicquidistance LI.,//
!iirhin the cri:~st.il,oncdThi\ kcrps the c~uidiriani Iine irom swinginOL~
too far across the coastal Gont of theState atihe hack of the concavity bëfore
the boundary is turned seaward.
The second conclusion is that States have attached a special importance to
coastal proportionality in geographical circumstances similar to the Gulf of
Maine area. Ail three boundaries. in the Bav of Biscav and North Sea. delimit
~ ~ ~~~ +~ ~
the offshoreareas in close proPoriion to the of the lengths of coastal fronts
forminy the concavity. MI. Feldmao willexplore this point further with you in
thenexi United tat tepresentation.
Third, the three boundaries exemplify the principle that a houndary should
not cut off the seaward extension of the Parties' coastal fronts. In particular,
these situations illustrate the means hy which boundaries should reflect the
seaward extension of the coastal fronts within and seaward of the coastal
concavity. In each case, these boundaries limit the extension into the concavity
of the coastal front on thede of the concavity in order to avoid cutting of the
seaward extension of the longer coastal frontat the back of the concavitv.
The Cniied Siater hclievc<that ihoc principler deriicd irom St31ep~ct~~c
;isri,t u. in ideniifyin~an cqtiiidhlc s<>luiionin ihir i~se Wc ivtiti<ml)kc
make 3 brieicomiiiciit ühout the Sl31cprdciice cx.:niple ihat C'cinaJdhas r;ii,cJ.
The comment is only that Canada's examples bear no reasonable comparison to
the Gulf of Maine area.
Canada argues that the Gulf of Venice may be compared with the Gulf of
Maine area. Canada, however, does not provide the complete picture of the
delimitation hetween Italy and Yugoslavia, which is, however, discussed byan
examination of Canada's State practice annex. Before you is Figure 26 of our
@ presentation, which combines Figure 30of Canada's Reply -which is these two
figures- with Figure 17ofvolume I of the Annexes to its Reply. As youcan see,
ils Figure 308 of Canada's Reply does not depict most of the delimitation south
O fiom point X, the northernmost point of the continental shelf boundary,
between Italy and Yugoslavia, extending through the entire length of the
Adriatic Sea. Here is point X, the northernmost point of the houndary. This
chart basically shows that much of the Italian-Yugoslav continental shelf
houndary. Canada's assessment, lhen, neglects approximately the southern ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 315
80 per cent ol' the houndary. When the entire Adriatic Sea is viewed, the
geography of the boundary area is notahly different from that shown in Figure
@ 308 of Canada's Reply - in fact, it represents a case of two opposite coasts
facing each other.
Nonetheless, Canada argues, at paragraph 335 of its Reply, that, if the
reasoning of the United States were applied here, it would mean that the
northern coast of ltaly at the back of the Gulf of Venice should be given its
seaward extension presumably through the whole length of the Adriatic Sea
despite the opposing Italian and Yugoslav coasts that stretch for over 300
nautical miles. But this, of course: takes our viewpoint much too far. The
geographical situation throughoiit the Adriatic quite clearly is one of predomi-
nantly opposite coasts, and it is really absurd to suggest that the much shorter
coast at the back of the Gulf of Venice shoubeextended seaward throughout
the entire length of the Adriatic Sea. In this connection, you may wish to recall
@ Figure 13Cwhich weexamined yesterday. It showed that whenthe sidesbecome
longer than the back, the cut-off effectis not as great, and equidistance may be
appropriate in some circumstan<:es.The comparison that Canada makes con-
veniently uses the terms and the ideas the United States has advanced, but
applies them to an area that hears no geographical resemhlance to the Gulf of
Maine area.
Canada also finds a comparison in the geography of the Skagerrak. Once
again, it is difficult to understand how the long, opposing coasts of Denmark
and Norway that dominate the Skagerrak, and not the short portion of the
Swedishcoast that faces it, constitute a geographical analogy to our case.
We will not dwell upon Canada's geographical arguments concerning the
Anglo-French Arbitration. We believe those arguments were met fully in
the United States Reply at paragraphs 192 to 197. Accordingly, although the
Canadian State oractice oresentation aoolies Our terms and analvsis. thev are
;ipplieIO geogr<iphtL.ailreas that kir iiiilc rcscmblû10the ;tria bcfori the
Chambcr. WC :ire conlident oi ihc Chïnikr's goodjudgmcnt on this maticr.
In ihr. NvrfkSriiCo~irinr~~rSliilrl/cdses. the FcJr'r;il Kcpublis oiGerm3n)
placed beforethe Court nine exaniples of geographical situationsthat resembled
the geographical circumstances in that case, that is, situations in which an
equidistant line would produce an inequitahle result. Figure 27,now hefore you,
showseight of these situations: the north coast of Hispanola; the Arabian Sea;
the Bay of Bengal; the Ionian Sea; the Black Sea; the Gulf of Guinea; the
Caribhean Sea off the north coast of Venezuela; and the English Channel in the
vicinity of the Channel Islands. The ninth situation was, of course, the Gulf of
Maine area. In presenting these charts and examples the German Memorial
stated:
'The equidistance method, hy making the distance from the nearest
coastal points the absolute cntenon, necessanly attributes undue weight
to projecting parts of the coast, and so not infrequently leads to inequi-
table solutions." (I.C.J. Pleadings, Norfh Sen Continental Shelf, Vol. 1,
pp. 42-46.)
Each of theseillustrations shows the propensity of the equidistance method to
cut off the seaward extension of the coastal front of one or more of the States
concerned. As noted in the United States Memorial at paragraph 270, onlythree
of the 32 potential boundaries depicted by the Federal Republic on these nine
charts have been resolvedto date. With respect to these three, we note first, that
the western houndary between the Netherlands Antilles and Venezuela, which
was resolvedhy a negotiated settlement, is not an equidistant line.We refer you316 GULF OF MAINE
to Figure 22 of the United States Memorial for a depiction of that houndary.
Second, we know that the Court of Arbitration found that the equidistance
claim of the United Kingdom in the Channel Islands area, which was hasically
the lineshown bv the Federal Renuhlic inits oleadines. wasnot eauitahle in that
geographical sii;aiion. For the soluiion in thai carc i.c refcr you ;O Figure 23i>f
ihe Uniied Siales Memorial. Third. tif al1the 32 boundaner depicicd. ihc only
one that has been resolvedon the basis of eauidistance is that between ltalv and
Greece, shownon Figure27D.This was not;of course, thedelimitation prohlem
to which the Federal Republicof Germany was calling attention in ils chart of
the lonian Sea. A houndary based uoon equidistance aowars to be a perfectly
reasonable melhod to resolvine a boundarv between -the two comoarable.
opposite, and facing coasts of G;eece and ltaiy. The Greece-Alhania hÔundary;
which was the focus of this particular chart, is another matter entirely, and
remains unresolved.
Figure 28 of Our presentation, which was Figure 24 of the United States
Memonal, shows the chart of the Gulf of Maine area used in the German
Memonal as the ninth chart to illustrate the extent Io which the equidistance
method can produce an inequitable result. Besidesthe basic fact that this chart
appears in that case for this purpose, we would liketo point out several specific
aspects of this chart.
It is especially noteworthy that in none of the other areas did the German
Memorial illustrate the bathymetry of the boundary area. But, on the chart of
the Gulf of Maine area, the bathymetry was clearly depicted. Clearly shown,
although no1labelled, is Georges Bank, the Northeast Channel and the Scotian
Shelf,al1definedby what appears to be the 100-fathom-depthcontour. Also, we
find it interesting that in no other of the nine charts did the German Memonal
characterize with legnl terminology the geographical relationship of the coasts
concerned; but on this chart of the Gulf of Maine area, the Federal Republic
used the word "lateral" - connoting adjacency not oppositeness - to character-
ize the United States-Canada houndary relationship.
Finally, we find it interesting that the Federal Republic, in only Iwo of the
nine charts, illustrated other lines along with the equidistant lines. In one case,
that on the north Coastof Hispanola, shown as Figure 27A a moment ago, an
equidistant line developedwithout regard to islands wasshown, together with an
equidistant line giving effect Io islands. The other situation was the Gulf of
Maine area. wherewhat aonear..to be a oe~~ndic7lar to the eeneraludirection of - ~
thecoari cxtcnding [rom the internaiional boundary terniinus icrhi>wn.IIwould
sceniihat thic 153 line perpendicular IO the closing-lincfrom S;iniu~.kei i<iCape
Sable. The chari makes quitc clrïr th11ihe equidi5tani Iinein the re;iuard arca
deviatcs somc ??Okilomctrr~beiween ihe cquidistant Iineand thz Iineperpendi-
cular tilihz gcneral direction oithe eoast - ??U kilumeires. or 119nauiical miles
- an ob\ious ;isknoa.ledeenicni of the sirn~tic;inïeof hoih the loïdtion of ihç
-
land boundary and the &II-offeiiect.
In the North Seo ContinenrolShelfcases, the Court referred to these charts in
both paragraphs 24 and 59of its Judgment. The Court said, at paragraph 24,
that the equidistance method
"partly for reasons that are hesl appreciated by referenceto themany maps
and diaarams furnished hv both sides in the course of the wntten and oral
procced;ngr. ran undrr cert;iin cirïumiancrs produce rciulti ihal appear
on ihc faceof them Io bcexlrdrlrdinîry. unnaiurïl or unreasonïblc': (I.C.J.
Reporrs 1969,at para. 24).
At paragraph 59,the Court said: ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 317
"As was convincinglydemonstrated in the maps and diagrams furnished
by the Parties ... the distorting effects of lateral equidistance lines under
certain conditions of coastal confieuration are nevertheless comnarativelv
small within the limits of territorGl waters, but produce their maximum
effectin the localitieswhere tliemain continental shelfareas liefurtherout."
(I.C.J. Reporr.71969, a1para. 59.)
Without making too much of it, we would note only that, of the maps and
diagrams referred to, so far as weare aware, the only one ihat expressly refersto
lateral equidistance lines - as the Court did in paragraph 59 - and the only one
that actually shows the main continental shelf area lying farther out, to which
the Court also expressly referred, is the chart from the German pleadings
showing the Gulf of Maine area.
B. TheGulfof Maine Area
With that examination of State practice, let us descrihe the nature of an
equitable result in the Gulf of Maine area.
We will hegin by recalling the relevant coastal fronts in the Gulf of Maine
area. These are the coastal fronts from Nantucket Island to Cape Canso. Both
end points of the relevant coastal fronts are about the same straight linedistance
from the international houndary terminus, measured as straight lines along the
coast. The coastal fronts are also of approximately equal length. The Maine-
New Hampshire coastal front is about 200 nautical miles long. and the coast of
Nova Scotia from Cape Sable to Cape Canso is about 200 nautical miles long.
Both are hasically parallel to the general direction of the coast and face directly
on to the Atlantic Ocean. The souihwest coastal front of Canada facing the Gulf
of Maine is about 100 nautical miles long. The northeast coastal front of
Massachusetts is also about 100 iiautical miles lone. Both -f -h~s~ ~~~ lateral ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
coasts are perpendicular to the general direction of the coast, and hoth face each
other laterally across the Gulf of Maine.
In sum. the relevant coasts are com~arable in leneth and-comoarahle in their
rclatiim to the open \ta. '1hc) ha\e becn giicn iiimpar;ible treatmc,ni hy n:iture.
c~ccpt lh31. hecxu\c of ihc cons:,\,ity 01'the Gulf of Maine. ihc cquiJisi,~iise
nicihud w<iulJJcn) to th< United Si<iiehcoast iraimeni criuxlor conioar.iblc ici
that ~iventhe coasi of Canada. If the eauidistance method were to be used. the
-
Ilniied St:ites uoulJ reco\e conjider.ibl) Icssofihorr. are-inierel! hcwu.i. more
of ils clidslline 115,uiihin the coa~idlconc<ii,it)than dues thai o1'Cdnad;i
Ar the Couri itaied in par.ieriph 91 of the .3'or1/r.Lu Conr!nt,»ri~ Slhrlt :iscs.
"Here indeed is a case wherc in a theoretical situation of equality wiihin thé
same order, an inequity iscreated". The Court also said, in the same paragraph,
that achieving equity in such a situation is not a question of refashioning
.eoaraohv but of, "ahatine the effectsof an incidenralsoeciafleoture from which
an unlustitiahle diçfcrcncr oi irrainicnt could result" il.('J Rcpi.rr.>1969 at
para. 91. cniphiisls addcd).
Hou should ihe eli'c~isof the ci)ncd$ii, uoon an ruuidistani Iinc hz <ih~ted?
An eauidistant line creates ineauitv because it swinésfar across the coast of
aine before eventually turning séawardat the mi&oint of the closing line,
thereby ignoring the location of the land boundary. Therefore, one characteristic
of an equitahle boundary is that it will turn seaward sooner, hefore swinging so
far across the front of the coast of the United ~tate~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~ - se~~~tha~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
boundaries in the North Sea and the Bay of Biscay have this characteristic. The
(;;) point is illustrated geometrically in Figure 29 of this presentation, made up of
- two Figures, 29A and 29B 318 GULF OF MAINE
@ Figure 29A illustrates the nature of an equitable solution in the situation of
the rectangular concavity with which we have been working. The red line is the
equidistant line which, in our view,encroaches in a disproportionate way upon
the coast at the back of the concavity. The black line illustrates our view of the
nature of an equitable solution. It turns seaward before it swings out too far
across the coast at the back of the concavity.
In some respects, the concavity may be compared to an island of one
State located offshore the coast of another State. This is the situation shown in
232 Figure 29B. In such a case, the island, because it is located farther offshore,
O ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~uidistant line to swine out across the front of the mainland coast.
WC\h<>uldsire$>that the rile of th;. irl.in1%FarIç\s iinport.tnt ihaniirIocriiion
rclÿti\c to the nciyhbouring Sidie. Ilcre, toi>.ihc cnir~ili:linient cin hc2hatc.dby
turnine the boundarv seaward before it swingsout so far to the side, while at the
amc t;nie gi\ ing the irland Stiitc an exir.n\ol'itsseii\ixrd-i;ici~035131 front
iiito the ,>PensesIliihii\il).rlrh SiriIr.re:ei\es m.hi oi ihc..ire., sc:iuar,l l'rom
ils coast.
@ Figure 29A illustrates the general nature of an equitable solution in the
geographical circumstances of this case. An equitable boundary should divide
the closest inshore area, perhaps generally bydividing the angle between the Iwo
coastal fronts with reference to the proportions of their lengths, and then would
turn seaward perpendicular to the general direction of the coast. In this manner,
the lateral coastal front of State B receives a uniform belt of maritime
jurisdiction that extends to the limit of coastal State jurisdiction seaward into the
ocean. Such a boundary accomplishes the following:
It resoects the eeneral location of the land boundarv
It respects the klationship between the coasts of theparties and the maritime
areas in front of those coasts, because each State receives most of the area
seaward of its own coast.
For the sanie reason. it satisfies the orincinle of natural oroloneation in ils
geographical sense. ~ha'tis, the principlêthat kach State shoild rece'iveas much
as possible of the natural prolongation or extension of its coastal front into the
sea.
It abates the cut-off effect and thereby minimizes encroachment.
The boundary gives comparable treatment to the comparable coasts. The
primary coastal front of State B receives al1 the area in front of it. The
comparable primary coastal front of State A receivesa large portion, although
not all, of the area in front of il. Thus, the coast of State A receives less
favourahle but generally comparable treatment.
The lateral coastal front of State B receives a band of maritime iurisdiction
extending seaward,as wellas an area directly inils front. Thus, it recëives a large
area both within and seaward of the Gulf, although this area also liesin front of
the coast of StateA
The oortion of the coast of State A nearest the international boundarv
terminus ;~lsorccriics a hdnd of miiriiime ~urisdictioncrtcndinp rcannrd. This
@ bdnd is the shüdcd Jrrs.sho\in here oii Figure 29A. Thi~ii the portioii of the
r.<iastth31 woulil have 5ull'crr.dthe full CUI-'lfecl ciiuscd hs the equidijt.int
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A boundary of this nature achieves a reasonable degree of proportionality
between the lengths of the coasts and the maritime areas appertaining Io each
coast.
This is the nature of an equitableresult in the geographical circumstances of
the Gulf of Maine area. It is based upon the same equitable principles that the ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 319
Court applied in the Nr~rrhSea ContinentalShelfcases. In both cases, the cut-oii
effect must be abated in order to avoid encroachment. to reach a reasonable
degrze oi proporiiondlii) 3nJ ii)g1t.ccompar;iblc ireainieni tiicomp~riihlc
1<13\liIn boih CJSC, [hi>reqiiires thai ihc hi>undar>be iurncJ ciusrd quickly.
rather than swinging across the coast at the back of the concavity.
In analysing the geographical relationships in this case, the United States has
used the terms "primary coast" and "secondary coast". Canada has sought to
characterize these terms as signifying concepts of our invention. Canada,
however, fails to distinguish between the terms, which may be new, and the
concepts, which are not.
The United Statesdid evolve the ternis to distinguish ktween seaward-facing
coasts and lateral coasts in a concavitv. But the conceot of such distinctivecoasts
isdrüisn direiily ironi ih.Lirrh St>u~'r.»r»i~~,rrol.~lr,~~c.Tchc c.in:cpr\ impl)
thsi the sc:iu;trd-hcing co.i,t. ihc priiiirr) e11. cniiiled io rccci\'ijmush A
possible of ihr arcs in froni oi11.Convcricly. the shoricr. Ilicr~l soasi. ihsi15.
what we have called the secondarv coast. cannot receive an area of maritime
jurisdiction that extends far across the face of the primary coast kcause that
would create an inequitable cut-oîïeffect. The maritimearea a~oertaining to the
secondarvcoast must extend seaward rather than laterallv. hé boundaÏv mus1
thruri rca\isrJ rathcr than laicrlll) This mcdns thai the bu~ndary cannoi hc
dcliniiicrlsimply ,ln the h;i.is ciiproxiniily io Ihc pr<>jcrparis oirhc co:isi In
order to achieve an equitable solution, the boundary must ieave to the primary
coast areas in front of it that are closer to the secondary coast.
Canada claims that the notion of primary and secondary coasts isinconsistent
with what it terms "the principle of equality within the same order". Canada
discusses its view of this principle in paragraphs 577 and 578 of its Counter-
Memorial (III). We would ask that the Chamber study those paragraphs
carefully because, in our view, C:anada egregiously misinterprets the Court's
1969ludgment.
Canada begins with a correct statement of the law, but subsequently fails to
apply the law. In paragraph 577 Canada States:
"Even in the case of the continental shelf,as the Court pointed out in the
North Sea Continental Shelj'cases, where States 'have been given broadly
equal treatment by nature', it is unacceptable that their continental shelf
rights should be considerably different: for then, 'in a theoretical situation
of equality within the same order, an inequity is created'. Much of the law
of delimitation can be traced to this idea." (Counter-Memorial. para. 577.)
This much of Canada's analysis iscorrect. Indeed, the only authorityCanada
has cited, and the source of the phrase "equality within the rame order" is
paragraph 91 of the North Sea Ci~ntinentalShelj'cases. The United States has
quoted that same paragraph several times, and we discussed it a few minutes
ago, because it illuniinates the nature of an equitable solution. In paragraph 91,
the Court wrestled with the concept of "equity". It concluded that the
equidistant line would be inequitolilebecause, in a situation of "equality within
the same order", the equidistant line would deny comparable treatment to
comparable coasts merely because one coast is concave and the other is convex.
This explains why an equidistant line would be inequitable, not only in the
North Sea but also in theGulfof Maine area and in similar situations where the
land boundary meets the sea inside a coastal concavity.
Canada has borrowed from this paragraph the phrase "equality within the
same order", and has turned it on ils head. In Canada's argument "equality
within the same order" means that the boundary must be equidistant from the 320 GULF OF MAINE
United States coast and Nova Scotia's lateral or secondary coast. But equi-
distance is not the same as "equality". And equidistance does not guarantee
"equal treatment". Quite to the contrary, as the Court itself explained,
equidistance often causes unequal treatment and inequity. In order to avoid
inequity, the lateral coast cannot receive the benefit of a full-eKectequidistant
line. In short, the principle of equality within the same order, as used by the
Court, requires in this case that the equidistant line and Canada's proposed line
be reiected.
~hada has intrnùuced in tir case anoihrr concept. ihat of ..radilil projec-
tion>". The conccpi of radial projeciions means. in Canada's view. that cwry
Statc iscntiiledti,thc arc2 uiihin 200nauiical milesof itscoasi. in a11directions
The United States iigrees that each State is entitled to a zone of maritime
jurisdiction comprising al1the area within 200 nautical miles of ils coast, but
only where there are no neighbouring States. When their maritime jurisdictions
overlap, one or both of the neighbouring States must receive less than al1the
area within 200nautical milesof its coast. This is the very reason there is a need
for maritime boundary delimitations.
Canada also States,however, at paragraph 151of its Counter-Memorial. that
the concept of radial projections means that "[Nlo one direction is legally more
significant than any other" (Counter-Memorial, para. 151). According 10
Canada, this means that "the extension of a maritime zone outward from the
coast is rodiol rather than perpendicular" (ibid., emphasis in original) and that
concepts such as "seaward extension", "coastal front", and "primary and
secondary coasts" have no force. Here, as elsewhere, Canada has confused the
determination of the outer limits of the 200-nautical-mile zone with the
delimitation of boundaries between neighbouring States and has confused
200 nautical miles as the seaward limits of that zone measured from the coast,
with the notion of equal distance from neighbouring coasts.
If no direction is legallymore significant than another, then there would beno
principles of delimitation, and delimitations would become arbitrary and
@ subjective. Fof example, Figure 15 of Canada's Counter-Memorial illustrates
radial extensions" of the United States and Canadian coasts, but arbitrarily
limits those projections along the line of Canada's proposed boundary. In a
sense, Canada does give preference to one direction over another: Canada
prefers a boundary that extends laterdlly a long way across the coastal front of
the United States before it extends seaward, rather than a boundary that extends
seaward shortly after it leaves the area close to the coast.
The United States believes that there is a preferred direction. Where two
States share a coast that runs in a general direction, such as does the coast of
Canada and the coast of the United States along the east coast of North
America, the law prefers a boundary that extends outward from the coast,
perpendicular to ils general direction, rather than across the coast. That is the
meanine of Fieure 31 of Our Memorial. which we will show here as Fieure 30.
~ven-the eGidistance method recognizes impliciily this preference-for the
perpendicular direction: as explained earlicr in my presentation, al1equidistant
lines that begin in a coastal concavity ultimately become perpendicular to the
c~~ ~ne line of that concavitv. In situations such as the Gulfof Maine. the North
Sea, the Bay of Biscay, ihere the land boundary meets the sea at a point that
is far from the midpoint of the coastline forming the concavity, the boundary
also must extend out from the coast, that i~,~er~endicular to the general
d~ ~ ~ ~ ~of the co;ist. rather than across the coast. The onlv auestion. Mr.
President, and di~tin~uishedJudges, is where does that perpendicular begin?
The United States has proposed a method of delimitation that is consistent ARGUMENT Of MR. COLSON 321
with the general nature of an equitable solution. The line proposed by the
United States achieves the following result:
Firsr,Canada's primary coastal front from Cape Sable10CapeCanso receives
its full seaward extension.
Second, Canada's secondary coastal front from the land boundary to Cape
Sable receivesa large area of maritime jurisdiction lying in front of the coast of
Maine, in this area where the coastal fronts overlap.
Third,south of Cape Sable, in the vicinityof Browns Bank, much of the area is
left to Canada. This may be justified on the grounds of resource conservation
and management and dispute minimiration, but also on the groonds of
geography. At Cape Sable. the Canadian coast must transfonn itself from a
primary coast that looks to the open sea to a lateral coast that looks across the
concavity of the Gulf of Maine. In that transformation, the aspirations of the
coastal front of Canada must be reduced. The point al Cape Sable certainly
cannot he entitled to a seaward extension that is comparable to that of the 100
nautical miles of Canadian lateral coast within the Gulf of Maine. If Canada
wishes to fiIlin some of this area south of Cape Sable with some blue colour, it
may do so - but that single poirit isentitled, in our view, to much less coastal
front extension tlian the whole lateral coast may generate. Canada's coastal
front extension south of Cape Sable could be represented by either a straight or
curved line from iigiven point on the seaward-facing side of the box within the
Gulf of Maine to the comparable point on the perpendicular to the general
direction of thecoast from the international boundary terminus. If the extension
of the 100-nautical-mile coast is represented hy no more than the area in the
square box within the Gulfof Maine, surely the single point at Cape Sable can
claim even less hevond the Gulf. If the area within the box must be divided
equally, as ~anadasu~~ests, so tao must such a limited area outside the square
be divided proportionately between the Parties, which the United States line
more than accomplishes.
Fourrh. the cut-off effect isahated hv the United States lines. and the United
States receives a fair portion of the maritime area in front of the coast.
Fifrh,the comparable coasts, from Nantucket to the international boundary
terminus and from the internaticInal boundary terminus to Cape Canso, receiie
comparable treatment. Each receives an area of maritime jurisdiction closely
proportionate to the length of the coast.
The Chamberadjourne<f/rom 11.12a.m. IO 11.37o.m
Mr. President, distinguished Judges. May it please the Chamber. The
oeroendicular method in the abstract is neither inherentlv eauitabl.~nor~
;nequitable. Whether the methodproduces an equitable result depends upon the
particular geographical circumstances, upon the location of the point from
which the perpendicular is drawn. and upon how the perpendicular line is
adjusted. Nevertheless, there aregeneral attributes to the perpendicular method
that render it a useful tool in situations such as the Gulf of Maine.
Firsr,the perpendicular niethod takes account of the general direction of the
coast and leaves to each coast the areas in front of it. The equidistance method,
by contrast, often ignores the general direction of the coast and causes the
houndary to swing across the coast of one of the Parties.
Second, sincethe perpendicular is a lineofconstant bearing, it is not distorted
by incidental features such as coastal concavities or convexities. For this reason,
it often is uscful to delimit areas farther offshore. An equidistant line, by322 GULF OF MAINE
cijntrast, often kcomes increasingly distorted and inequiiahle as ii is extended
seaward. The Federal Republic of Germany staied thi, to the Court in the A'orrh
Seo Conr,n<,nralShclfcases. At pare 63 of Volume II of thc nleadinps. counsel
for the Federal ~epublic of Gekany stated:
"1 feelthat the facade aonroach that 1have iust oronosed has sianificance
in aticmpting io draw ~ines'ofdemarration foi va: areas of the sed becau.e
itavoids derii,ing [rom the consial configura1ii)nsuch an upri<iripredonii-
nance of one coastal State over the adjacent coastal State as is inherent in
the equidistance method.
Therefore, 1respectfullysubmit that wehave inthe façademethod a theory
which becomes more useful in the particular circumstances of greater
distance from the shore. In contras1to the equidistance method whose value,
givenan irregular coastline, may decline withthe distance, the façade theory
provides us with a method which can equitably apportion far-ranging
offshore areas." (I.C.J. Pleadings.Norrh Sea Conrinenrol ShelJ)
Third, the perpendicular method is usefulbecause the line may be adjusted as
necessary to take account of relevant circumstances to achieve an equitable
solution. The linemay be angled a degree or two, as was done in the Grisbadarna
case, or ilmay incorporate step-like adjustments, as the United States has
proposed, in order to take into account the integrity of the fishing banks. In a
delightfully poetic phrase, Canada has called the United States proposal a lineof
"wandenng perpendiculars" (Canadian Counter-Memorial, para. 654). Cer-
tainly the United States has adjusted the perpendicular. There is nothing
ineauitable or otherwise susDectin makine -uch adiustments. On the contrarv. it
is neierqar)IO adjdl1 the perpendicular or an) other lineas much a<necesur) to
takc aciouni of the rele!ant circumstances and to achieve an cquitable solution.
The oeruendicular inethod mav also be used bv itself or in combination of
other methods. For example, in ihe ~unisial~ib~adelimitation, the perpendicu-
lar line delimits the area inshore, and another, but dilierent, line of constant
bearing delimits the area farther seaward. Conversely, in the Bay of Biscay, the
equidistant line is used for theinshore area, but the boundary extends seaward
to the mouth of the concavity along a line of constant bearing, taking into
account the configuration of the coast and the location of the land boundary.
In the Gulf of Maine area, an equitable solution could beachieved, in Our
view, by using the perpendicular method in combination wiih other meihods.
Canada correctly points out that the perpendicular cannot be used in the
innermost area of the Gulf of Maine landward of the starting point (Counter-
Memorial. oara. 647) U.ltimatelv. some other method will be used to delimit th~
boundary krom the' inirrnaiio~al hound& tcrminus io the siar~ing.~oint
~pccifiedin the Special Agreement for thisdclimitniion once the dispute ovcr
.MachiasSeal Island and North Ruck is resolved. The ner~.nd.cular method 1s.
however. cntircl) npprupriate ri)dcliniii thc are2 senward of the siarting-point
Thus. the compleic houndar? e\,enruaIl) mdyconihine tivu or mort method\. as
do many other boundaries around the world.
Canada repeatedly asserts that the United States is claiming a right to the
entire area in front of ils coast. In this way, Canada mischaracterizes both the
method and the lineproposed by the United States. For example, the Canadian
Reply at paragraph 69 accuses the United States of adopting a theory of
"unlimited oemendicularitv". Canada's Reolv areues that the United States
seeks an "inlihited seaward extension" oiiis coast (para. 77), and that the
United States excludes the possibility of overlapping projections in front of the
primary coast (para. 69) ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 323
The United States has not and does not seekal1the area in front of ils coast.
On the contrary, the United States Iine leaves IO Canada's southwest coasral
front a generous band of maritime jurisdiction extending seaward. This encom-
passeslarge areasin front of the United Statescoast, both within and seawardof
the coastal concat2ity, including both Browns Bank and German Bank.
The fundamental difierence between the eauidistant line and an eauitable
solution in this case is the location of the point a[ which the boundary turns
seaward. Canada's arguments assume that the United States line extends
seaward from the international boundarv terminus. Such a linewould denv any
ofishore area to the southwest canadian coastal front and according& the
United States has never proposed such a line. At the other extreme, the
Canadian line, which swings even further across the United States coast than
doesthe equidistant line, would be grossly inequitable for al1the reasonsthat we
have discussed.
The United States hasproposed an intermediate solution. The United States
adjustedperpendicular line extends seawardfrom the starting-point. In this way,
it both abates the cut-off efiect caused bv the eauidistant line and leaves the
lateral Cïnddian soïst a hand of jurirdir.iion e~tendin~seauard The Iine h3s
ken furiher adjusted in Canad;i's faiour Io preseric the iniegrii? of the luo
fi,hinr bank on ihe Si<itian Shclf Brouns Hank and German Biink
SU& a solution will avoid cutting off, in a disproportionate wdy, the coastal
projection of the United States coasts at Maine and New Hampshire across
Georges Bank, thereby respecting the Northeast Channel as the boundary
naturallv sevaratine. the fishine. banks and their associated fish stocks. The
United tat tklsercs thït this;s ïn equitahle solution.
Just last Tuesd;iy. Prolèssor M1r.illook us Tora rail dong the Canïdian Iinc
ihrourh the Gulfùf Maine and. 2s hc raid. IO tlic open sca \Viih a11resvect. no
sailorkould seek IOreach the ooen seafrom the startine-ooint alone thécourse
thït Professor Weil h3s charted: A prudent r3ilor would Iclive the coasts of the
Gulf behind asquickly iiposjiblc He aùuld try to s~ilthe shortcst straight Iine
out of the Gulï. or he woul<llook for a dccn channel. He a,ould not sail .in ertrd
distance to themidpoint of the Gulf ifhe'did not have Io. He certainly would
avoid the dangerous banks in the area if he could. A prudent sailor, Mr.
President, distingiiished Judges,would sail the course of the United States line.
He would sail straight for the mouth of the Gulf. He would tack - or change
direction - to avoid the banks. And as he reached the deeper water of the
Northeast Channel he would take il, finding there a favourdble passageto the
open sea. ARGUMENT OF MR. FELDMAN
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr. FELDMAN: Mr. Presidcnt, dislinguished Judges. Iam deeply honoured
to have the privilege to appear hefore the Chamber today and to join with Our
friends from Canadxi in the resoliition of this dispute in accordance with
international law. WCare divided on the issuesthat the Chamher musi decide
today, but we are united in Our devotion to the legal process and in our
commitmcnt to close relations bctween our countries.
I would also like tu take this opportunity to recognize Mr. Ray Meyer and
Dr. Jon Olssonof the State Departmsnt, who will be assistingmewith the charts
later in my presentation.
Last week you heard the Canadian view of the geography of the Gulf of
Maine area. Now you have heard the United States view of that geography.
Both Parties aeree that the most~i~ ~~~~.t consideration in this matter is the
relationship beïween the coasts of the Parties and the maritime areas before
those coasts. Both accept the maxim that the land dominates thc sea.However,
quite understandablv. cach Partv a,gue..that the maritime boundarv orooo..d .
1;) ii hc,i cipressesilid!rcldiionship
Ilou thcn 1sihc Chainbcr iu d~e\i the iiicrii ofiliore c<inflicting cla~m\~Hou
15the Chamhcr tu Jeiermine wheihcr ihe C.inadi~n Iine ur the Liiited Sidie Iirie
best represents a delimitation in accordance with equitable principles. The
United States suhmits that the most reliahle test is the proportionality test,
which was formulated hy the International Court of Justice in ils historic
Judgment in the Norrh Seu Con~inenlulSheifcases. In thai Judgment the Court
laid down the fundamental rule that delimitation is to tx eiïected in accordance
with equitahle principles taking account of al1the relevant circumstances.At the
sametime. the Court indicated in its Disposirij(para. 101(D) (3)) that oneof the
critical factors to beconsideredin any delimitation, in accordancewith equitahle
principles. is:
"the element of o reasonahle degreeof proportionality, which a delimita-
lion, in accordancewith equitahle principles, ought to hring about hetween
the exteni of the continental shelf areas appertaining to the coastal State
and the length of ils coast measured in the genera. dir.ction of the coast-
line ...".
Since the decision in the Nor111Seu Conlinenru1Slieifcases this legal test of
equity has been applied in the Tunisiu/Libyu case and in the Anglo-French
Arbitration. The element of proportionality was also a major factor in the
settlement negotiated by the Federal Repuhlic of Germany. Denmark and the
Netherlands. in the delimitation of their continental shelf boundaries in the
North Sea,after the Court's decision, and in the agreementmadehy Franceand
Spain for the delimitation of their continental shelf houndary in the Bay of
Biscay.
Mr. President,distinguished Judges,there havebeensomedisagreementsas IO
whether the element of proportionality should be applied as a principle of
delimitation or onlv as a test of whether a boundarv line determined bv some
other mrthod ir cq;itahlc Iloiieier. there is gcncr~l~iigrecmcntIn the j~.ri,~rii-
dcnic <if inïrilimc boundary Jclimitation ihai a propuscd boundar) ii no1 in ARGUMENT OF MR. FELDMAN 325
accordance with eauitahle ~rincinles and does not produce an eauitahle
solution. iithat hi>undaryproduce; a result th~t ir disproportionlitc in ;elsiion
tu the coasts of the Parties As Proiessor Malintoppi raid "whatii unrca\onahlc
in tcms of proportionality caniior heconsidcred cquitahle" (p.20s. supro).
THEPROPORTIONALT ITEST
The United States res~ectfullvreauests that the Chamber a~., . .uortional-
ity in this case. as a tesi of th<ho;ndaryline proposed hy Canlidx and of the
boundary Iincprijposcd by the Cnited States. to dcterminc which Iincproduccs 3
disproportionatc result and which produces a result that15a fair rcfln.tion of the
coasts~to the area in front of thoie coasts. The United States further requests
that theChamber apply the same test toany line it may consider as the maritime
boundary between the Parties in the Gulf of Maine area.
In this presentation, the United States proposes to reviewthe positions of the
Parties concemine the nrooortionalitv test and to consider how that test can be
applied fairly in ihe ci;c&stances otthis CL; ~.oth~arties have discussed the
issue of proportionality in somedetail in their pleadings, and the Chamber has
also heard -a verv thouehtful oresentafion on thismuhiect from Professor
Malintoppi Il.ip&ars that the'tuo Pdrtic\ have ditlereni conceptions of the
relevdnce of the proportionalit) test to the delimit~tion of a single maritime
boundary, and they certainly have different viewsas to the relevance of certain
coastlines, particularly as regards the Canadian coasts which face each other
across the long, narrow Bay of Fundy.
Canada raises so many doubts about the application of the proportionality
test in this case. narticularlv as reeards the area seaward of the Gulf of Maine.
that ilhas beco&e obvious~snada is fullyawarr that the proportionality test is
a scrious problem for itsclaim. The United Statei shares that perception. WCarc
convinced that an eauidistant line. or anv other boundary that would divide
Georges Bank, cannht pass the proportiokality test for the simple reason that
any boundary that does not respect the coastal fronts of the Parties in the Gulf
of Maine area will produce a significantly disproportionate result. You can sec
the disproportionate effect of the Canadian line in the Gulf of Maine area on
Figure 25 of the United States Counter-Memorial. which is Figure 32 of your
map book. This is the Canadian line. The disproportionate effect of an
@ equidistant linecan be seen at Figure 35of the United States Memorial, where a
larger areais used for the test, or in Annex 99 to the Memorial, where a smaller
area is used.
The United States respectfully submits, Mr. President, that any boundary
crossing Georges Bank mus1produce a disproportionate result because of one
very special circumstance in the geography of the Gulf of Maine area. That
circumstance is the indisputahle fact that the international houndary between
the United States and Canada teminates in the corner of a concavity in the
coast, far from the midpoint of the coastline forming that concavity. As a result
of that fact, more than three-fourths of the coastline of the Gulf of Maine is
United States territory. The geographic balance in this case is hetween the coast
of Maine facing the Atlantic Ocean along the hack of the concavity, and the
coast of Nova Scotia facingthe Atlantic Ocean outside the concavity.Within the
Gulf. the United States and theCanadian coasts stand in a ratio of at leas3: 1.
The United States has approximately 200nautical milesof coast facingacross
the Gulf of Maine and towards the onen sea.
There isno cornparahle Canadian chast faring both the Ciulfof Maine *nd the
open sea The Canadian coa\t that facc5the Atldntic liesnorthea~tof Cap Sable326 GULF OF MAINE
and attracts a huge area of maritime jurisdiction seaward of that coast. Yet, as
Mr. Colson has shown. an cauidistant linereaches to the midpoint of the closing
Iineacrors the mouih of thci~~nc~vity,and extends seauard irom iherc ij3 line
perpcndicular tiithe closing Iinc.An cquidiri.ini linc would. ihereforc. diiide ihc
arc3 sea\isrd of the Ciuliuf \laine equally bctuccn the tuo Partics, cuitinp of
the coast of Maine from anv extension in10 the sea. The Canadian claim-line
would give Canada cven mire than the strict equidistant line.
Thus, MI. Presidcnt, it is no wonder that Canada attempts to raise doubts
whether the proportionality test can be applied to the delimitations of the critical
arca seaward of the Gulf of Maine where Georees Bank islocated. In the viewof
the United States, there is no way a boundary'across Georges Bank could pass
any properly constructed proportionality test. Canada attempts 10 overcome
this problem by adding the Canadian coasts on the Bay of Fundy to the
calculation. In our view, that is a fallacious argument, and underscores the
weakness of the entire Canadian position in this case.
In a few minutes, the United States will demonstrate what it believes is a
orooer anolication of the nrooortionalitv test to the claims of the Parties. First.
;t ;<i) bébscful 16,considir the \pcciiic ob)esiions ihai Canada h3s n13de 10 ihc
applicüiion oi'thc proporiionalii) test in ihis ciie, and to deal uith theidedi ihat
anada has put fo&ard for the construction of a proportionality test that it
hopes would serve its intcrests in this proceeding.
Canada acknowledges the role of proportionality in its Memonal (1)"as a test
of the equity of a maritime houndary" (para. 367), but it resists the application
of that test in this case. Thus. Canada areues in its Counter-Memorial nI) that
the role of proportionality i~''clearly le; fundamental" in relation to à Single
maritime boundary whcre, in Canada's view, "title is based on a specified
distance fromthe coast,and not upon the extension seaward of the land territory
of the coastal State" (para. 488).Moreover, Canada attempts to argue that the
test cannot be applied to Georges Bank, which is the area at the centre of the
dispute between the Parties, because, Canada asserts, it is difficult to define
the coasts and areas relevant to the proportionality test in the area seaward of
the Gulf of Maine (ibid., paras. 489-490,and fn. 16).Canada also asserts in its
Memonal that a purported overall balance of the relevant Canadian and United
States coasts rules out, a priori, any element of disproportion in the Canadian
claim (\r~~-~~-74),~
In the same spirit, Canada argues in its pleadings that, if the proportionality
tcst is to be used in this case. its application should be modified to take account
of Canada's socio-economic arguments (Memorial, para. 369). and that the
delimitation should be proportionate only in a general sense that transcends
geography (Countcr-Memorial, para. 487). Canada boldly suggests that the
relevant coasts should be determined by their economic dependence on the
resources of the area (Memonal, para. 373). Finally, Canada takes the position
that if the normal technique is used, the Court should make its calculations on
the basis of an equal length of coastline for each Party (ibid.).
This is a remarkable concoction of areuments. The onlv unifvine theme is
Canada'> resisrsnce Io thc proportionalit; tcst as ithas b&n ap~liciin al1the
contineni~l shclf case, and in the delimiiations made h) a~re~.ent in the North
Sea and in the Bay of Biscay.
The United States differs with Canada on every point except the last. We
believe the proportionality test can be applied fairly, on the basis of equal
lengths of coasts, if the proper coastal fronts are used for that purpose. The
United States will rcturn to this point. First, however, we would like to address
bnefly the Canadian points with which we disagree. ARGUMENTOF MR. FELDMAN 327
The United States believesthat the orooortionalitv test is iustas aoolicable to
the dclimitation of a single mariiimcbo;ndary 3s iiis io the delim;kiiun of
continenial shclf houndary Thrrc is no douhi, as Mr. Stevenson hls dcmon-
iiratcd. that oro~oriion~lit, is linksd io the ~nnciolc thai the land dominates
ihc sea. io thr concepi ofc&.sial fronis. and, parii~u13rlyIOthe Jiriortions ihai
result from ihe use ol'thc equidistnncc meihod in iiiuarions in\,ol\,inpc0ncat.e
and convex coasts. These concerns are referred to in paragraph 98 of the
Judgment of the Court in the Norrh Sea ConrinenralSheycases.
Canada concedes that the fundamental rule as stated in the Judgment of
the Court in the Tunisia/Libj~acase, and the pnnciple that the land dominates
the sea hoth apply to the delimitation of 200-nautical-mile zones, because the
exclusive jurisdiction of coastal States is based on the relationship of the
maritime space 10 the adjacent Coast (Memonal, paras. 277, 287). For that
same reason, the United States believesthat the element of a reasonable degree
of proportionality between the length of the Parties' coasts and the areas
attributed to those coasts remains a vital test of the fairness of any proposed
boundary line.
The essential point. in the view of the United States. is the Court's
reaffirmation in parairaph 103 of the 1982 Judgment, that the element of
proportionality as fonnulated in the North Sea ConiinenralShelfcases "is indeed
resuired by the fundamental orinciple of ensunna an eauitable delimitation
beiween théStates concerned".'The United States uiderstaids this statement as
indicating that the proportionality factor is related 10 the extension in geo-
graphic terms of the coasts of the Parties. It takes account of the principle that
an equitabledelimitationmust correspond to the basic relationship of the coasts
of the Parties to the area to be delimited.
Canada has conceded in these oral proceedings that the geograpbic rela-
tionship between the coasts of the Parties and the areas to be delimited is the
most important consideration in the delimitation of a single maritime boun-
dary, in accordance with equitable principles under international law (p. 227,
supra).
The main difierence between the Parties on this issue is Canada's reliance on
what it calls the distance principle.The implication of Canada's Counter-Memo-
rial is that the 1982United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea repealed
the proportionality test by making proximity the basis of title to the exclusive
economic zone and eauidistance the method for delimitation of maritime
boundaries between neighbouring States.
The United States does not agree that title to the 200-nautical-mile zone is
based on distance, but even ifit were, proportionality would remain a valid test
of the fairness of any proposed boundary in the particular geographic circum-
stances of that case. To suggest, as Canada sometimes seems to do, that the
equidistance method should be applied, even ifit produces a delimitation that is
erosslv disorooortionate to the leneih of the relevant coasts. is an attemot to
iuborhinak tke result to the metiod. That is precisely the opposite O? the
fundamental rule of delimitation. The method mus1bejustified by the equity of
the result under law.
Moreover. if an eauidistant line is not subiect to the element of a reasonable
dcgrcc of proporii~n~1ity.the ionscqucnL.e in to climinxte a11con>idcration of
sprciîl gcog~~phicitlcircumsiances. The distansr principlc u,ould bccome ahso-
lule As Mr Stevenson has shuwn. thai ~oorw~ch cunirilr\ 10 Ariiclc 6 of ihe
1958Convention and to al1the jurispruiênce on the delim-itationof maritime
boundaries.
Canada's suggestionsfor modification of the proportionality test are no more328 GULF OF MAINE
satisf,in.. The notion that the relevant coasts are to be defined bv reference to
cconornic depcndcnce i\ io rcfashiun ndlurc in the mosi e\trcmr. en%. That
3pproach uould divorce boundar) del~mitationfr<~m geograph) and jubsiitute 2
pruce\i of d~sirihuiiic iusiisc h~scdon ihs Couri's aopreLiaiiiin of the rçlaii\c
needs of the Parties ai a eiv-n moment in ~i~e. M;.-~resident. distineuished
Judgeï, proporiionalii) is 4 icsi of gcogr.iphir ju\iicc Il rncasures thc rclation-
;hip of ihe cr>aui of the Pnrtics io the maritime îras in iront of those coiiitj
Proportionality cannot measure that relationship if the coasts are refashioned in
the light of economic considerations.
The United States has noted, of course, that Professor Malintoppi did not
repeat Canada's objections to the proportionality test hased on the distance
principle and he touched very lightly on socio-economicgeography. Indeed, the
Professor told us that proportionality "joue un ràle primordial" (p. 209, supra).
Perhaps Canada has thought better of these points, and now agrees that the
proportionality test should apply in the same way to delimitation of a single
maritime boundary as it does to the delimitation of the continental shelf. That
would he an iinportant step forward.
Unfortunately, Canada's resistance to the application of the proportionality
test in this case continues to emerge in a new form. Canada now tells the
Chamber that the proportionality test must be applied with flexihility,and that
proportionality isnot the sole test of equity. Furthermore, Professor Malintoppi
does reiterate Canada's argument that even ifthe proportionality test is applied
within the Gulf of Maine itself,the test cannot he applied to the area seaward of
the Gulf because, Canada says, there is no single, self-evident set ofparameters
for defining the area that should he used for the proportionality calculation
(Canadian Counter-Memorial. oaras. .89-~ ~ 0nd~f~ ~16). This suee-.tion is
;isii~nishingbiiice ii is prccisel) ihai 3rea the noriheasi poriiori of Georges
Hank - ihdi ir the prin13ry~ihjcctof thi.;dirpuic C1nad.i'~irdnip.ircni ohjecii\;
i\ io resirici ihc.~ro.>ortionalii~icsi in order Io dvoid iiiï..lic~tion tu the Tacts
of this case.
Aspointed out in paragraph 263 of the United States Reply (V), there are few
situations where the coasts and areas relevant to application of the proportion-
alitv test can he determined oreciselvwithout disaereement. There was no such
ccri3int). in ihc Tunrriu l.!hi'oc3se,'hut ihc ~our;hliii no diniculr) in making
rcas<inablc:hoiccr. r\r ihc Court .tliicd in paragraph IU3ol'ihe Judgnicni:
"In a case such as the present one in which the two calculations would
produce different results, it is the relevant circumstances of the area which
will afford the basis for determinine whether it is the comnarison between
the more restricted, or between the more extensiveareas th& willdetermine
whether the result is equitahle." (I.C.J. Reports 1982,para. 103.)
Further, the Court recognized that it had a duty to make the calculations
necessary to apply the proportionality test, hecause it said this element is
"required hy the fundamental principle of ensuring an equitable delimita-
tion ...". The United States isconfident that the Chamber willhave no dificulty
in discharging that duty in this case.
THERELEVAN CTOASTS AND AREAS
Respectfullyassuming, then, that the Chamber will construct a proportional-
itv test. what coasts and areas should ~ ~ ~ ~uded? The United States and
canada are agreed that the coastsof both ~artieswjthin the ~ulf of Maine are
relevant as well as the area of the Gulf itself. The Parties also agree that some ARGUMENT OF MR. FELDMAN 329
part of the Canadian coast facing the Atlantic Ocean and the area ofi that coast
can be included in the calculation of proportionality.
@@ The test proposed hy the United States in Figures 24 and 25 of its
Counter-Memorial is shown in Figures 31 and 32 of this presentation. While
Canada has reservations about .. .vi-e the test Io the area seaward of the Gulf.
II kas proposed Iwo models in iis Counicr..Vemorial for delining the relevant
îoast, and areas whichincludeGeorges Hank One of thcsemodels. ai Figure 51
@ of C3nadli.sCounicr.M~mortal. 1sshoun hcre. as Figure 33ofihis prescniaiion.
In this Figure. arcs of 200nautical milesare drawn f6m the resoectivecoastlines
as the seiuard Iim!t iithe area to be used for ihc proporii~naliiy iesi The
Figure3lso ha$straight Iinesto detint the coa<t,ilusesCanada's \trsii>nof
a oerncndicular io the ecneral direction of ihe coasi in ihe Gulfof Maine are3 to
frimé the lateral limitof the area to he used in this test.
As the United States sees this prohlem, Mr. President, the Chamber is in a
position to construct a proportionality test which incorporates substantial
elementswhich have been usedhy both Parties. Although the United States has
suggestedother seaward limits, it is prepared to work with the seaward limits of
the 200-nautical-mile zones.The United States also usesparallel linesperpendi-
cular to the general direction of the coast in the Gulf of Maine area for the
lateral limits of the test area, but it disagrees with Canada as to the proper
@ bearing of those lines.The United States believesFigure 51is slanted unreason-
ably towards the United States.
Thus, there are three issuesas to which the Parties are sharply divided: first is
the Lxaring of the perpendicular lines defining the lateral limits of the area;
second is the treatment of the Bay of Fundy; and third is the particular coasts
and areas to Lxincluded.
The first issue. whileimportant, is not too difficult, in Our view.The United
States computes the general direction of the coast to be approximately 54".
Thus, the perpendiculars to that general direction extend seaward at 144".As
MI. Colson has pointed out, Canada computes the general direction of the coast
between Nantucket and Cape Sable as ranging between 63" and 65". Lines
perpendicular 10that direction would hear at approximately 154'.A difierence
of 10"projected 200 nautical milesfrom the coast results ina change in the test
area of approximately 3,491 square nautical miles - that is 11,974 square
kilometres- that would fall to one Party or the other depending on which of
these Iwo perpendiculars is selected.
We have shown, in paragraph 283 of Our Memorial (II) and in paragraphs
20-22of Our Counter-Memorial (IV), why the United States believes54"is the
proper general direction of the coast. But we have also indicated some flexihility
on this point. We respectfully suggest that, in formulating the Chamber's
approach on this particular issue, you could use the perpendicular to the
azimuth of the closing line across the mouth of the Gulf of Maine from
Nantucket to Cape Sable, as shown on Figure 51of the Canadian Counter-Me-
morial - Figure33 of your book. The closing line runs at an azimuth of about
@ 56.7'. Thus, the perpendicular lines would extend seaward ai 146.7".
The second issue, the Bay of Fundy, is more basic. The map on the easel is
shown as Figure 33A of your book. For the reasons stated in paragraphs 265-
269of OurReply. the United States believesthat the coasts of the Bay of Fundy
must be excluded frorn any properly constructed proportionality test. These
coasts have no relevance Io this delimitation. Canada suggests in its pleadings
that the United States has constructed a orooortionalitv test to fit its claim.
whereas canada only seeks the objective tiuth: The uniGd States is confident;
however, that the Chamber will appreciate that the reverse is true. In this330 GULF OF MAINE
instance, a glance at the map is sufficientto recognize that the inclusion of the
coastsof the Bayof Fundy would completelydistort any reasonable proportion-
ality test.
The Canadian coasts on the Bay of Fundy face each other across a long,
narrow body of water which runs from the side of the Gulf of Maine deep into
Canadian territory. Those coasts do not face any United States coast. In fact,
they lie to landward of the starting-point for the boundary delimitation.
In the TunisiaILibvacase. the Court soecificallvn,.nted out in Dar. -.oh 85
of the Judgmeni ihat 11may noi he p<ihsihle IO iake aII the codiis of a P~rtyintii
xcount in the dcliniitation If the extension of the const of one Part) c:innoi
u\erl.~p ihr extension of the coasi of the other Paris. rhc Court said ir"1sIO be
excludédfrom further consideration". The Court &nt on to Say:
"It isclear from the map that there comes a point on the coast ofeach of
the two Parties heyond which the coast in question no longer has a
relationship with the coast of the other Party relevant for submarine
delimitation. The sea-bed areas off the coast beyond that point cannot
therefore constitute an area of overlap of the extensions of the territories of
the two Parties. and are therefore not relevant to the delimitation." (I.C.J.
Reports 1982,pp. 61-62, para. 756.)
The United States believesthat the Bay of Fundy presents a perfect case to
prove the wisdom of the Court's analysis. The Bay extends approximately 105
nautical miles - 194kilometres - deep into the interior of Canada, a distance
almost three times the distance across the mouth of the Bay where it joins the
Gulf of Maine. The Canadian coasts al1 round the Bay of Fundy measure
approximately 200nautical miles,which is over six times the distance across the
niouth of the Bay, and more than three times the length of the only Canadian
coast that fronts on the Gulf of Maine. Excluding the coasts around the Bay of
Fundy, the ratio between the United Statesand Canadian coasts facing the Gulf
of Maine is at least 3:1. But if the coasts of the Bay of Fundy are included, the
ratio drops as low as almost 1:1.
This distortion is compounded by the fact that the area of the waters of the
Bayof Fundy isquite smallin relation to the length of ils coasts. Adding the Bay
of Fundy increasesthe area appertaining to Canada hy only 7percent compared
with an increase of over 100 per cent in the length of the Canadian coasts.
Addine Canadian coastline without also addine com~arable water area associ-
atcd wuyth thÿt codji. me:in\ ihat an) wier ariis 3it;ibuted IO the ~.o:istof thc
Bayof 1-'undyuill cornefrornarra a~~~>ciaie\v diththe United Starescoast Thus,
includinr the coasts of the BA, of tund! uould dision ihr pro. .iionalii! tesi
unfairly;n Canada's favour. .
It was precisely to avoid such a distortion that the Court, when il first
formulated the proportionality test in the North Sea Continental Sheycases,
prescrihed that the coastlines of the Parties should be measured according to
their general direction. This is Io be done, in the words of the Court
"in order to estahlish the necessary balance hetweenStates with straight
and those with markedly concave or convex coasts, or to reduce very
irregular coastlines to their tmer proportion" (I.C.J. Reports 1969,p. 53,
para. 98).
And the Court specifically called attention to the possihility of accomplishing
this result by "drau,ing a straight baseline betweenthe extreme points at either
end of the coast concerned ...".The United States believesthat the law on this
issue is clear. We respectfully submit that, "in accordance with the law ARGUMENTOF MR. FELDMAN 331
applicable on this inatter as hetween the Parties", the Cbamber should draw
such a line across the mouth of the Bay of Fundy for the purposes of any
proportionality test.
The equities of this issueare equally clear. The coastsof the Bay of Fundy lie
behind and parallel to the Coastof Nova Scotia facing the Atlantic Ocean. As
pointed out in paragraph 269of the United States Reply, to count these interior
coasts would in effectallow Canada to count the same coastal front three limes
for ,uro.ses of or. .rtionalitv. Professor Malintoooi savs the United States
uould falsif) nrrure hy exclud;n&the inicrior coïstf 'ofthéBay of Fund). WC
heliei,eitisC,inada ihai uould hkif\. naiurc hy. in efict. mo\ing ihsw coasi to
the Gulf of Maine.
Mr. Colson has already explained the United States viewthat a body of water
cannot be entitled to more area than if it were land. That condition is
represented in this case by the length of the closing line across the mouth of the
Bay of Fundy, and not hy the sides of the Bay. In the final analysis, we agree
with Ambassador Legault's conclusion:
"The concave configuratiori of the Bay of Fundy means that ils coasts
cannot, even under an application of equitable principles, be granted a
significant seaward extension of their own." (P. 49, supra.)
Thus, in the view of the United States, inclusion of the Bay of Fundy in the
. .oortionalitv test would be u~~easona~ ~ ~~d ineauitable. Furthermore.
Cïnada ad\ancer no argiinicnt that could support the inclu\ion oithcse iiia\t\
as a maiicr of Iau The onl) posii.vc drgument put iiiwrrd hy Can~Jr i rhat
the Ba\ of Fund! is Dariof the (iiill'oi Maine itself. Iiihat ucre truc. iiivoiild
not make any dkrênce. The waters and sea-bed of the Bay of und ^re not
being delimited in this proceeding. Moreover, as we have noted, the Interna-
tional Hydrographic Organization considers that the Bay of Fundy is a distinct
body of water and not part of the Gulf of Maine in geographic lems (United
States Counter-Memonal, Annex II, Vol. V).
Canada also makes a negative argument to the effectthat the United States is
inconsistent in ils treatment of the Bav of Fundv. because the United States
Memonal includei the Rayof Fundy aspart ofihc;clc\~nt arca. lloac\cr. ihere
ir no principle of IIU, or cquit) \$hich requirss thai the dred ured ii)r the
~ro~ortionalitv test must be the entire area which mav be relevant for
iun;idcraiion of the rclc\,ant circumsiiinccs in the sue.
Figure 34of )our niap book is 3 mïp ofTuniria dnd Lihy~.rhouing the srea
the Court used for the proportionlility test in that case.
As Mr. Colson noted. in oaraeraoh 74 of the Judment in the TunisiaILibva
case. the Court desïrihcd rhearc~.~~elcvaniro ihc de!ision oiihe dispute" .tithe
areas in front of ihe cmsis of one Pari) ur the uiher The Cuurt ihen ueni on tir
dcscrihc 3 sm3ller 3rca \$hich iicalled "the are2 in dis~uic", uhcrc ihc co~rtal
projections of the two Parties overlap. Only that smaller area was used for the
proportionality test. The United States believes that in this case, the Bay of
Fundy is part of the area relevant to the decision, but il is no1part of the area in
which the delimitation takes olace. The coasts on the Bav of Fundv do no1
oicrlap 3n) Uniied SI~ICS CU&I
In the Tu>iu>< Lihi.~ça,e. Tuni\ir <)ught to e\rludc irom the proportionalitv
iecinn arra uhich ua. Jirecily in iri~ntof the only ;od%tlincon !rhich 11bascd lis
claim. In this case, Canada seeks todo the reverse - to include coastlines which
have no bearing on ils claim. The Bay of Fundy coasts faceeach other. They do
not face the area where the delimitation takes place. In the former case, the
Court was satisfied that a fair cornparison of like with like would inclnde al1the ARGUMENTOF MR. FELDMAK 333
lenpths of coastline of each Party for a~~licationof the ~ro~ortionalitv test. The
nitc c dtates can ;~cceptthis ÿppr<iach.'solong as the ~hïhbcr uscs ihc coastal
i'r,~nl,orlgtmting ai ihc intcrnïiioni boundnry tcrminus Thc United Swtïs
rciers to Figure 34 of Mr tl;inkcs', prcscntîtion on 3 April That Figure
compares the lreatment received by~oca Scotia's coastal front on the Guif of
Maine with an equal length of the adjacent coast of the United States. This
approach has certain advantages. It focuses on the areas directly in dispute, as
the Court did in the Tuni,sia/Libvacase, and it avoids the issues between the
Parties as to theextent of the other Atlantic coasts that should he included.
In this connection, I would like to refer once again to a chart Mr. Colson
@ showed earlier in his presentation, which is before you as Figure 36 of this
presentation. As you seeon Figure 36, the two coasts have an equal length of
100 nautical miles and are defined in the following manner: the United States
coast from the international boundary terminus to the Penobscot Bay area, and
the Canadian coast from the international boundary terminus to Cape Sable.
Within the 100 nautical mile square box in the Gulf of Maine shown on this
chart, the equidistant line leaves approximately 54 per cent of the area to
Canada. In the whole area out to 200 nautical miles from the Canadian coast,
the equidistant line leavesalmost 90 per cent of the area to Canada. The ratio
between Canada and the United States is 7.6:1. That means that the coast of
Nova Scotia on the Gulf of Maine attracts almost eight times the area that is
attributed to the Maine coast of equal length. In Professor Malintoppi's words,
that result is "out of proportion".
For the Chamber's information_if this test isapplied to the United States line,
assuming that the United States line is extended along the course of its last
southeasterlv segment to the limit of the United States 200-nautical-mile zone.
the .iresriu;ld bc di\,ided hctuccn the IJnited Si.iter and C~nada in a r;itio oi
I b.1.Th#\ rc,uli isti\,e or six ~imcsmore cq~itablc thlin the result produccd hy
the Canïdiïn lin?. Thc fîirncss oithis United States Iiiiccdn hc a~~rccintcd if
the Chamber considers the fact that the Canadian coast facing ike Atlantic
Ocean attracts the entire area seaward of ils coast. The United States coast
facing the Atlantic Ocean will lose part of the area seaward of its extension. but
it should attract as much of that îrea as oossible.
Canada littempti to escapc thc impliiati<insof the proportionality test ior this
bound:iry dclimit;itiun h) ïrguing th11thc proportionality tcst should bc used in
this case only to measurethe extent of the area attracted to a particular fcature,
such as the Nova Scotia peninsula. SinceNova Scotia is a large feature. Canada
reasons that Nova Scotia defines the coastal configuration and cannot, by
definition, be a special circumstance with distorting eflccts. Canada purports to
find support for a restricted application of the proportionality test in the
Anelo-French Arbitr~~~~~~-~~
!;the United States view, this argument confuses the issue. In the first place,
the United States has never asserted that Nova Scotia itself is an incidental
feature tobe discounted in this delimitation. To the contrarv. the United States
brlievcs thst New Scotia's mas5 is fully reflectcd in ils ling coastline <inthe
Atlantic Ocexn fronl Capr Sablc to Cape Clinso. Thai coast altracts a hupc drea
of maritime iurisdiction~whichCanada consistentlv ienores in this case.~s we
said earlier, in the llnited States bicw. the swiaici;cumstance in this casei\
the particular configuration oithtoast in the Gulf of 1;iinc lirea that placesthc
trrminur of the international boundary in the corncr oin deen conca\ity in thc
coast Farfrom the inidpoint of the coast forming that conca;ity.
Mr. President, it seemsodd that Canada accusesthe United States of slighting
Nova Scotia when Canada would virtually eliminale the State of Maine from 334 GULF OF MAINE
this delimitation. After all, Maine is substantially larger than Nova Scotia, but
~ ~ ~-~~~ ~~ line leaves the Maine coast no extension into the sea. In fact.
Canada's position ismore amhitious. Canada maintains that the coast of Maine
should receive no extension into the ocean, whereas the coastal wing of Nova
Scotia should receive a double portion, one in front of that coast, the other in
front of the coast of Maine.
In any event, there is nothing in the decision in the Anglo-French Arhitration
that suggests that the proportionality test cannot he applied to determine
wh~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~tv distorts a oarticular houndarv line so as to oroduce a
disproportionate diimitation. TO the contrary, thédecision of th&Court of
Arhitration specificallystates in paragraph 100that "parriculor conf,?urarionsof
the coasr or r$divir/uaÏgeographicalfeaf;res may, under certain circumstances,
distort the course of the boundary and thus affect the attribution of continental
shelf to each State, which would otherwise be indicated hy the general
configuration of their coasts" (emphasis added).
Before leaving this chart, we should say a word about Professor Malintoppi's
discussion of the triangle as used in Figure 52 of Canada's Counter-Memorial.
Canada tells the Court that the Parties agreed on the triangle to mark the
seaward extent of the delimitation the Chamher is to make in this proceeding.
The United States agrees with that statement, although we do not agree with
Canada's assertion that the hypotenuse of the triangle represents that limit. We
do not understand that argument. The parties agreed on three points, not just
two. .~~.~,~~Ca~ada has stated in oara.ranh..2.f ils Memorial: "The Court in
11sJiscrciiu~inici)fi\ th.-seduard icrtiiin;ilpoini ifthe singlem.iriilnic houndar!
ai an\ point in ihc irixngle detined in Article II i)i'ihr.Spcsixl Agrcemcni."
.As'rorC~ndd3.s Figure 52 11~eIfi,hr I:nitcd Siaici con.idrr, ihc I~ncsthai
Canddd uscs id coniirst ihc irianglc Io ihr.c<~~sio sr ihc P;iriieiti)he ~rhiirdr)
xnd unrcason~blc l'hoie Ilne>.in 0i.r iica. <:\ercly dirturi ihc proporiiondlity
model in favour of Canada.
Beforeconcludine this oresentation. .Mr. President. ,the United States believes
it might 'ce helpfuÏto théChamber to descrihe in some detail the way other
States have used proportionality in the houndary delimitations in the North Sea
and the Bay of Bisc;iy.
For your reference, we have placed before you Figure 30 from the United
@
States Counter-Memonal which is Figure 37 of this presentation. It shows the
agreed boundaries and the equidistant lines in the North Sea. These are the
boundaries, these are the equidistant lines. Following the North Sea Confinenta1
Sheifcases, Denmark, the Federal Repuhlic of Germany and the Netherlands
entered into negotiations to detemine their respectivecontinental shelf hounda-
ries on the basis of the Court's Judgment. The United States is not privy to the
details of the negotiations leading to the agreements. But one thing is evident
froman analysis of the final boundaries: the continental shelfareas attrihuted to
the Federal Repuhlic of Germany, 10Denmark and to the Netherlands by those
agreements hetter reflect the coastline ratios than would the equidistant lines.
The coastal front ratios presented hy Germany and recognized hy the Court
were approximately 6 for Germany, 9 for Denmark, and 9 for the Netherlands.
The equidistant lines proposed by Denmark and the Netherlands would have
left continental shelf areas to each State in a different ratio, a ratio of 6 for
Germany, 12.42for Denmark, and 14.44for the Netherlands (Germany: 7,425
sq. nautical miles or 25,468 sq. km.; Denmark: 15,365 sq. nautical miles or
52.701 sa. km.: Netherlands: 17.868 sa. nautical miles or 61.287 sa. km.).
Cléarly,chat wis a disproportionate resit.
The final houndary between Gemany and Denmark increased the continental ARGUMliNT OF MR. FELDMAN 335
shelf area of the Federal Republic of Germany by 1,653square nautical miles,
that is 5,671square kilometres, compared to a delimitation based on equidistant
lines.
The final German boundary with the Netherlands increased the continental
shelf area of the Fedcral Republic of Germany by 1,516square nautical miles,
5.200sauare kilometres. comnared Io a delimitation based on eauidistant lines.
~hus, the final boiindaries risulted in a total gain for the ~ede;al Republic of
Germany of over 3,100square nautical miles, or over 10.800square kilonietres.
The houndaries that were negotiated following the case ihus resulted in
continental shelf areas being left to the three States in the following ratio:
Germany 6; Denmark 7.72; the Netherlands 9.26(Germany: 10,594sq. nautical
milesor 36,337sq. km.; Denmark: 13,712sq. nautical milesor 47,032sq. km.;
the Netherlands: 16,352sq. nautical miles or 56,087sq. km.). While that ratio
does not exactly match the ratio of coastal fronts. which was 6:9:9. it comes
reasonably close.
Let us also consider the result of the Bay of Biscaydelimitation. Annex 10Io
the United States Counter-Memorial oîlers a detailed explanation of the
proportionality calculalions whicWC understand were an important ingredient
@ in the negotiations leading to this agreement. Before you is Figure I frorn Our
Annex 10. which is Firure 38 of this oresenvation.
As iicn<ited in th;ii r\nnc\, a Iine(rom point X on ihe s~nipliliedco-<ilinc US
Sp~intu poini R oii ihr equidisi;~nthounddr) Iincto Poinic dc la Ncgade on ihc
French codst r.ncl<>\c;sin ;irca ol'.irinro\imiitcl\ 9.657suuarc nauiiral niiles.Thr
equidistant boundary, based on ;qua1 lengthi of coait allocates 5,303 square
nautical milesof thisarea to Spain and 4,354square nautical milesof thisarea to
France. Thus, il appears that the Parties were prcpared to accept a significant
departure from strict proportionality in the area closer to the international
houndary terminus where the distortion is less.
The boundary betweenpoint R and point T wasnot based on theequidistance
method and il closely reflects the ratio of the relevant coastlines. This las1
segment of the houndary was based on the relative length of the simplified
coastlines between point X and Cabo Ortegal on the Spanish side and between
Pointe de la Negade and Pointe du Raz on the French side. The simplified
Spanish coastline is 138.3 nautical miles (256.1 km.). The simplified French
coastline is 213.2 nautical miles (394.8km.). The ratio of these lcngths is 1:1.54.
Point T divides the hypothetical closing line across the mouth of the Bay
of Biscay between Cabo Ortegal and Pointe du Raz in almost precisely the
same ratio. Point T is 114.9nautical miles (212.8km.) from Cabo Ortegal, and
173.6nautical miles (321.5km.) from Pointe du Raz. This is a ratio of 1:1.51.
The location of point Ton the closinglineis also such that thehoundary from
point R to point T dividesthe area seaward of a linefrom Pointe de la Negade to
point R to point X, out to the closing line, in approximately the same
proportion. The line allocates 13,561square nautical milesto Spain and 22,109
square nautical miles to France. That is, Spain received 46,514 square kilo-
metres, whereas 75,834 square kilornetres wereattributed to France. This is a
ratio of 1: 1.63.Thus, while the houndary inshore allocated Spain more than it
would have received under a strict proportionality analysis, the boundary as a
wholeensured a distribution of arcas proportionate to the length of the Parties'
coasts. Moreover, the boundary met the closing lineal a point that is strictly
proportional in relation to the length of the coastal fronts of the Parties in the
outer sector.
Finally, Mr. President, 1need only remind the Chamber of the proportionality
test utilized by the Court in paragraphs 130 and 131 of ils Judgment in the336 GULF OF MAINE
TunisialLibya case. There the Court was satisfiedthat its line, which resulted in
an area ratio of 40:60, met the test in a situation where the simplifiedcoastline
ratio was 34:66 and the actual coastline ratio was 31:69. In considering this
analysis, the simplified coastline is taken to he more significant, hecause it
reduces the coasts to their truer proportions, which, of course, wasthe criterion
specifiedhy the Court in 1969.
We would like to make one point about these ratios in connection with a
discussion contained in footnote 66at page 162ofCanada's Reply (V). Canada
there construes its own test to meet what it calls the "parameters" accepted by
the Court. Canada's test, of course, only cornes close to meeting those
parameters hecause Canada includes the coastlines on the Bay of Fundy in its
calculations. Bevondthat, however.it must he pointed out that the test area was
rrlati\ely smÿllin the7GniçioLlhi.~ case aho;t 17.lJUlsJquare nautis3l niiles. In
oiirçüc. 16use the number xi Canada's footnote 66. the test arc3 iscon.ridrrahly
Iarpcr -66.0005quare ndutical miles.The degrccof dispruportion in a srndlliirca
wiKhe far lesssienificant than the same deerÏeeof disnionortion in a lareer area.
An analogy can be made to the fact that the distortion in'anequidistantEne that
iscaused by an irregularity in the coast may betolerahle in the smaller area close
to the shore, but intolerable in a larger area where the houndary is extended a
long distance from the shore. Thus, in the United States view, a smaller
percentage of disproportion should be tolerated where the delimitation involves
a large area, as in this case.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, 1want to thank you for the patience with
whichyou have listenedto thispresentation. Some of it has been technical.That
is the nature of the matenal. But the United States is more interested infairness
than in technicalities.
Cinad3 contcnds ih.ii the cquity of this delimitation should bc judgrd by the
diiiiion <~iCir<~rgektank.'TheUnited St3tes re~pectiullysubmits that the trst of
[hi, deliniitati<~nshuuld hethe sanic test the ('ouri has alwasi ussd to test the
fairness of a manlime houndary line. That is, the propo&onality test. An
equitahle solulion under law is one that gives each coast the entitlement it
deserves by virtue of its relationship to the area to he delimited. A result that is
out of proportion to the relevant coasts of the Parties is neither equitahle nor
consistent with law.
The Chamberroseaf 12.57p.m FOURTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (16 IV 84, 10am.)
Presenr: [SeeSitting of 2 IV 84.1
ARGUMENT OF MR. LANCASTER
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
MI. LANCASTER: MI. President, distinguished Judges. This morning 1have
the privilege of discussing the topic of fishing activities.
1will he assisted by Attorney-Adviser, Ray A. Meyer, and Special-Adviser,
Dr. Jonathan T. Olsson. 1 would like also to express my appreciation to Lt.
Bnan P. Flanaran, United StatesCoast Guard, for his verv valuable assistance.
This prescnt;ition will include hoih thc lcg31and the ~aciualdrpecis of thosc
fishing activiiics oi ihc Cniicd Si.iies and Canüdd on George5 Rank which are
rclcv;ini io ihir delimiiaiion. The hasis facti rceiirdinr the Pariics' rcspecii\e
records of fishing activitieson Georges Bank are,;n major part, uncontr~verted.
This presentation will, therefore, deal with those issues regarding fishing
activities which reniain outstanding between the Parties.
It will show that the United States has dominated the Georges Bank fishery
from the period when it was the sole country exploiting the Bank to date. It will
show that the United States developed every singlecontemporary fisheryon the
Bank, including the scallop fishery. It will show that al the present the United
States predominates in the fishery of the disputed area of Georges Bank.
The presentation will he divided into four parts.
Part 1 will address the legal relevance of the fishing activity hy the United
States and Canada in the context of the Chamber's consideration of al1
circumstances relevant to the delimitation. This part of the discussion will
demonstrate that, as a matter of law, the record of fishing activities must be
viewed in ils entirety with no period excluded.
Part II will discuss how Canada has attempted to confuse the historical
record, in order to diminish the significanceof the United States' lengthy history
of fishing activity on Georges Bank and particularly the historical and current
United States fishery on the northeast portion of the Bank.
Part III will suggest a methodology that this Chamber might employ in its
consideration of the respective records of the fishing activitiesof the Parties and
the weight that each record should be accorded as a circumstance relevant Io the
-e. ...-..-...
Pari IV. ihs lin;ilpari. willdrmi,nsirüic rhat. uhen ihr methodology discuisrd
in Pari III isapplicd io ihc haric uncontro\,erted evidcncc of fishingarii\iiics b)
ihc Pariici on Gcorges Bmk. A dijiinst prcponderancc inFa\our of ihc llnirrd
States will be shown.
MI. President, 1will now discuss each of these parts in greater detail.
The first part, Part 1,willshow that the entire record of fishing activity by the
United States and Canada is a relevant circumstance to this delimitation.
At the outset, 1must recall to your minds the words spoken on 2and 3April-
only a few days ago - by the distinguished Agent of Canada, MI. Legault. He
said, in this regard, that he would "address only the United States argumentthat
established patterns of fishingare Iïgally irrelevant despite their being at the very338 GULF OF MAINE
heart of the dispute" (p. 24, supra). And again he said that "for the United
States, fishingactivitiescan only be relevant ifthey are purely historical" (p. 45,
supra). That, simplystated, is no1now - and never has ken - the position of the
United States.And you willsearch in vain for a statement in the pleadingsof the
United States that saysthat. To the contrary, the United States specifically listed
the Canadian Georzes Bank fishervas one of the activities of the Parties which
~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~u
the Chamber should consider in ucighing up relevant circumstanccs (Il, United
States Mernorial. para. 298. (IV. Countcr-Memurial. paras. 58and 320-325; 1'.
Reply, para. 231): 11is with regret that we correct the record in this respect,
Mr. President.
Regret because we mus1 note that this is not the only instance in which
Canada has beendriven to excess.We are grateful to Professor Weilfor recalling
for us Talleyrand's memorable phrase: "Ce qui est excessifdevient insignifiant"
(p. 188, supra), and with apologies to Professor Weil for my New England
pronunciation. These excesses will cause more than one digression. Let me
apologize now for al1of them. As for this one, it isenough to say that we simply
point out the inaccuracy and Say,again, it has never heen the position of the
United States that "established patterns of fishingactivityare legallyirrelevant".
In the view of the United States, the Chamber should consider the entire
record of the fishing activities of hoth Parties on Georges Bank and give no
exclusivesignificanceto one selected portion or another.
Canada's viewon this matter is to the contrary.Canada asks this Chamber 10
relegate the long and unbroken record of United States fishing activity on
Georges Bank. dating from the early 19thcentury, to some minor ancillary role:
a mirror, if you will, in which historical activities, likesome pale reflection of
current conditions, may be given only secondary status.
Canada asks that you arbitrarily focus your attention on a relatively recent
period of short duration which Canada believes favourable to it - the period
1969-1978.Canada has named this period the "contemporary" fishery.That is,
of course, a misnomer.
It impliesthat the period Canada bas selected isthe most recent period in the
history of the fishery,and this obviously is not the case.To be truly "contempo-
rarv". the oeriod would at least have to include the vears throunh 1981.
Wh31théCanadian "contemporary" fishery relrll~amounts 1; is an attempt
10dibert attcniion awÿy from the more ihan a ccniury-long penod during u,hich
the United Stuics de\elowd al1oi the fishcnes of Georges Bank while Canada
had little or no interest in those fisheries. The haÏd factual evidence is
uncontroverted. Only since the 1950s has Canada fished on Georges Bank.
Despite this, Canada has urged you to ignore the entire pre-1950 period. The
artificial legaldistinction which Canada employs - and asks you Io employ - in
comparing the record of fishing activities of the Parties on Georges Bank is
ill-founded. Reference 10other maritime boundary delimitations demonstrates
that. as a matter of law, such a distinction would be inappropriate in this
proceeding.
For example, in the Grisbadarnn case, the Arbitral Tribunal was asked 10
delimit certain marine areas adjacent 10the coasts of Swedenand Norway. In
determinine the final boundarv. the Tribunal relied on the fishina activities of
the ~ariies~ltmodilied ihr bo&dar)-linc in T~\ourof Su.çdenbec~useSueden',
fishermenhad fishcdthe areJ "a much longer time. to a much larger exteni and
hva much larrer number offishermcn" than had the Norwcgiani (Grirhodarna.
p: 130). - .
In Grisbadarna, il was the great preponderance ofthe fisheryfacts in Sweden's
favour, drawn from the records of total fish activity, which prompted the ARGUMENT OF MR. LANCASTER 339
Tribunal to adjust the perpendicular linein favour of Sweden.The United States
respectfully suggests that here, similarly, it is the great preponderance of the
fishery facts which should prompt the Chamber to draw the line in its favour.
Again, in the Fisheries case, the International Courtof Justice considered total
fishing activities as a relevant circumstance in a case involving maritime
jurisdiction. Nonvay's use of straight baselines caused fishing banks that had
fonnerly heen considered high seas to be included in Nonvay's territorial sea.
Nonvegian fishennen had fished those banks for centuries, By contrast,
fishermen from the United Kingdom had re-established a fishery on those
grounds only a short 40 years prior to the delimitation (I.C.J. Reports1951,
p. 124).
The Court relied in part upon a comparison of the Parties' fishing activities.
The Court noted the long duratioii of the Norwegian fisheriesandthe short-term
nature ofthe Englishfisheries (ibi'lp. 124).The records wereconsidered in their
entirety and when they were compared, the long historical usage by Norwegian
fishermen orevailed over the short-tem Enelish fisherv. The Uni~ed ~ ~ -~~ ~~-
respectfully suggests that the sarne result shoid follow iere.
In addition to ils attempt to cut oti the United States record of fishineactivitv.
Canada also seeks to convince vou that its so-called contemoora~v fisheiv
proside> a more ;icciirdiedepicti<>nof cit;iblished pditcrn. <>fuseC';in.,d:,:irgue,
thar ihc houndx! IineJctermincil b!. the Ch2mhi.r uill aticct only prrreiit .ind
future generations of fishermen.
As we shall shortly see, the true contemporary fishery on Georges Bank is
ditierent from the Canadian contemporary fishery. Today, New England
fishermen, including fishermen from my home state of Maine, fish Georges
Bank. They follow the same stocks, on the same Georges Bank fishinggrounds,
that their predecessors fished mïny generations ago, and the United States
predominates in the current Georges Bank fishery. Even so, it would be as
incorrect for the United States to suggest to you that you should use the most
recent figuresto the exclusion of al1others as it is for Canada to make a similar
plea for the use of ils contemporiiry fishery.
Fishing activities are but one of a number of relevant circumstances which
mus1be balanced in the application of equitahle principles. But, from their sole
oersoective. to what do vou look to accomnlish that task? In the Un~ ~ ~States
;ie<, the fair answer is simple Y.ou look at'all the evidence of fishingactivity by
both Parties, and consider it along with al1other relevant circumstances.
In fact, each of the Parties has, (ber time,engaged in somefishingactivitieson
Georges Bank. Unlike Canada, the United States is not afraid to have this
Chamber look at al1the fishing acrivitiesof both Parties. If you are to be guided
hy the fundamental rule. vou must consider each Party's record of fishine
a;tii~i) in ils entiret)tiideierniinc prùpcrly the extent oiiash Party', cqu~t!.. 17
an!.. in ihcdisputrd .ire2 Onl) b) thir meihod !bil)ou bc.ihle Pdirl!ioçoriip.irc
the fishing iniercsis of the L'nitc~lSi.iics and CanxJd xnJ to ;ic:ord c.ich iir
proper weight in this delimitation.
Since this summary analysis seems so obviously correct, one well might ask
why Canada suggests othenvise. The answer is equally obvious. From 1969
through 1978Canada caught more fish on Georges Bank than in any compar-
able earlier period. In addition, during this penod, United States catches were
relatively low, because of the depredations of the foreign fleets and heavy
regulations on the United States catch imposed hy ICNAF to protect the fish.
That ten-year fishery is not representative of the present fishing activities of
the Parties under their respective 200-nautical-mile régimes,and it bears no
similarity whatsoever to the traditional fishing activity of the Parties.340 GULF OF MAINE
When olaced in the oersnective of the lone historv of United States fishin~
acti~it). Gcorgcs i+ïik, ihc c~nadian fish;) itsell'kconics, to u\c ~anïd3.i
phrase. a dist\irtion rcsulting frum shtirt-rerm Ructuati<ini(Cïnadian Memon~l.
para. 122). It does not reiommend that you exclude this ten-year period. It
suggests only that you consider it in perspective.
By the same token, it would be wrong Io exclude the fisheries of the last five
years, as Canada suggests, because the fishing in those years is the only fishing
that reflects conditions under the new réeimeof 200-nautical-mile zones. The
pcrioil aiter 1 March 1977is a iar bcttcr rndiciition ol'thingsIO corne thdn ilte
period heiorc that d.ite, hc;au.e the extension i)fc~1a>t31Statc jurisdiîtion hns
*rious iniplicïrions for the structure of the Iishing industry in hoth couniri<\.
Amcriçan ti\hernicn cïn no longer pursue the hi,turic tishcrics on Hri~unsB3nk
and the Scotian Sheliand the C~nadian scallop ho3tsc3n no longer comc doun
10the waters off Cane Cod and htloti. as thcv did in the IJICIYbU,and 1970%.
But what has canada done with this truly Eontemporary fishery - the fishing
activities of the Parties from 1979 to date? A discussion of that fishery is
conspicuous by its absence in Canada's Pleadings and Canada's oral presenta-
lions. Whv? Not because. as Canada sueeests. it is driven bv unreeulated
overfishin~,but hecause it'is very damaginiuto canada's case si& it SLO WS
suhstantial current United States fishery on Georges Bank and in the disputed
area. In its oral ~resentation. ~anada~sugsestedthat recent increased Ünited
Sidiesfishineon ticorEci Hankoccurrcd beF:;use ivas Jnregulïtcd (p. 36. wpril).
That iisimply not the cïrc. Kathcr. the Incrcaic has occurrcd first kcaure sinic
1977 Unitnl Siatcs iunsdiction ha\ ken extcnded Io 200 nauticdl niilcs and.
second. because ~niied States fishineefforts wereconsolidated on Georees Bank
whcn L'nitcd Siaie. ii\hernien ucr~c~~llcd froni fishing waters ort txnadian
,hures. includin~Kova Scotrï. on I Junc 1978 Unitcd Siatci r~wentcatch lcvclson
Georges Bank have grown significantlypreciselyfor these two reasons.
Nevertheless. Canada carves out its ten-vear soanand christens it "contemno-
rïry". Canadï i5not sntisficd.hourvcr. u,ithils crc3tion out oi'wholccloth of an
unreprescntati\e "contemporïr)" fishcryand a tot.11disrcgard oi historic31Tïct.
Canada also nsks !OU l'oa linc which u,ould givcit niorc than ils own 50-callcd
"contcmporary" fishen. More than that line would entitlr ilIo ucrc 11soun
"contemporïr)" fisher).the sole criteriun.
Todav hoth Cnitid St~tchand Cnnadian scnlloii and rro~ndfish tirhcrmen
fishthe disputed area and, as willbe shown later in ihis preientation, the United
States takes the overwhelming share. Thus, Canada's claim would neatly exclude
United States fishermen from their contemporary fisheries, giving Canada a
much larger Canadian fishery right than exists today. Should you adopt the
Canadian line, Canada would suddenly be the beneficiary of an area whicb
would encompass both the "contemporary" scallop fishery of the United States
and Canada on the northeast portion of the Bank and a large groundfish fishery
on the famous Winter Fishing Grounds of Georges Bank which it has never
hefore had exclusivelyin its control.
Canada has. of course, not mentioned this. Nor has it mentioned the fact that
the Canadian linewould giveCanada a monopoly on a portion of Georges Bank
where many of the major groundfish species go to spawn. Canada simply says
"The fish will he caught, or not, irrespective of what Party gets this or that area
of Georges Bank" (p. 90, supra). This ignores the hiological realities. The
Canadian line would cas1a long shadow over the cod, haddock and yellowtail
flounder fisheriesof the entire Bank. The United States fisherrnen would be cut
off hy the Canadian line. They would have Io stand hy and watch while the
Canadian fishermen reaped the rich harvest from the stocks on the northeast ARGUMENTOF MR. LANCASTER 341
portion of the Bank, cut off for al1time from the fisheries their predecessors
estahlished and developed. Does Canada really helieve that this result would
reduce the potential for disputes?
Canada has framed its plea in tems of United States monopolization,
claiming that any line other than the one it suggests would totally destroy an
estahlished Canadian fishery and not al al1affect the United States fishery. Of
course the line that the Chamher draws willaffectthe existing Canadian fishery.
The United States has never suggested othenvise. But what of the existing
United States fishery on the substantial part of Georges Bank which Canada
seeks to claim totally for itself, which Canada, in fact, seeks 10 monopolize?
What of that very substantial United States fishery which includes:
First, the groundfish fishery which was created and developed solely hy the
United States from the early 19th century to date on the northeast portion of
Georges Bank.
Second ,he scallop fisherycreated in the 1930son Georges Bank solelyhy the
United States and carried out consistentlv since then. includina a United States
scallop fishery on the northeast portion &hich toda; is as str& as ever.
Third, the offshore lobster fisherycreated and developed hy the United States
on the eastern portion of Georges Bank.
What will happen to that United States fisheryif Canada has its way? It will
be gone for ever. 1 quote our worthy adversary. MI. Binnie, quoting from
Grisbadarna:
"lt isequally wellestablished that a houndary delimitation should refrain
as far as possible from modifying a state of things (such as an offshore
fishery) 'whichactually exists and has existed for a long time'; particularly
where extensive private interests are in question." (P. 88, supra.)
What MI. Binnie neglected to Sayis that one or the other of the Parties will he
permanently harred from fishing on the northeast portion of Georges Bank
wherever this Chamher draws the line. The party remaining will have a
monopoly in that area. The Canadian monopoly will, according to the Special
Agreement, extend north and easi of the line and the United States monopoly
south and West.
But let us not for a moment, Mr. President, distinguished Judges, forget that
there is another side to the delimitation coin. On the one side the United States
fishery, on the otherside the Canadian fishery. The differenceis that the United
States side is backed by suhstantial historical reserves. The Canadian side has,
usina Professor Bowett's felicitous ~hrase. onlv an historical reserve of "more
than20 years'duration" (p. 139,supro). canada's coin isnot counterfeit but it is
suhstantially undervalued.
Thus it is that weseequite clearlywhy Canada is so desperately insistent upon
its "contemooram" fishem to the total exclusion of both the historical and th~ ~ ~ ~ ~
current ~nced ~iates fishery. Now hoth Parties agree that fishing activities on
Georges Bank are legally relevant circumstances. The dispute centres on which
fisheries.The United States suggeststhat al1fishing activityshould be considered
with al1other relevantcircumstances, with the Chamher ultimately to decidewhat
weight each should be given. Canada insists on tunnel vision and without that
myopic Canadian focus, the equitiespreponderate in favour of the United States.
Mr. President, 1corne now to Part 11where 1willdiscuss the facts of the total
fishery on Georges Bank, historical and current, including the fishery on the
northeast portion and why Canada's contentions are unsupported.
The fishing activities on Georges Bank may he likened to a moving picture 342 GULF OF MAINE
which bcgins \rith ihc first Amcri~.anhoat <lnGcorgcs H~nkin thc 19thc:niur)
and which still. c\cnti)this date. is pl3)ing on ihc icrccn of thc Gulioi Maine
area. Canada suggests that you turn off the projector, and focus on a single
frame - 1969to 1978 - and ignore the rest of the film both past and present.
Good common sensetells ushow flawed isthe Canadian approach and how fair
is the United States suggestion that you viewthe film from star1to the present.
We need onlv look. ever so brieflv. at both the historical and the com~lete
conicmporÿr) cvidciicc 10 rcali~cthe grelitinjusticeth31would bcdonc wcrc).ou
10 follou CanaJa's lcad and con\idcr \thlit is but on< hrici momcni in li\,li\t
stretch of fishem historv.
Clnada h~, kit dis&tcd thai Kew England fishcrmcn. including fishcrmcn
from Maine.disco\,crcdand then dc~cloped ;iloCihcmajor coninicrïilil iisheries
on <;corgo Bdril, Tli~sinsludcs ihc de!clurimcnt of the aruunJfich rishcrics
during t& mid-19th century and, more recendy, the scallop and offshorelobster
fisheries. Canada has also no1 taken issue with the size of the United States
Georges Bank fisheryduring the 19thand early 20thcenturies. Even then, New
Eneland fishine vesselsnumbered in the hundreds and conducted a vear round
fisLry for CO; and haddock exclusively on Georges Bank. In addition, the
location of activities of the New England-Georges Bank fleet was in large part
- ~
on the northeast portion of the Bank.
While Canada does not dispute the United States historical fisheriesfacts, a
briefrehearsalofthose factsisnecessarytoputthecurrent United Statesfisberyin
focus.
United States fishermen exploited the fresh halibut fisheryon Georges Bank
between 1828and 1848and this fisherysupplied nearly al1the halibut landed by
New England vesselsduring this period and was conducted in the deeper water
on the northeast portion of the Bank. Most of the fishingvesselsengaged inthis
fishine activitv came from Gloucester. Massachusetts. and Maine. althoueh
somecame fpom as far south as ~ek London, onn nec t (~cnittd ~taks
Reply, Ann. 28, para. 5).
In 1849and 1850,the majority of those fishingon the Bank began to fish for
cod to supply the expanding fresh fish market and shortly thereafter the United
States fishermenexpanded the fisheryto include fresh haddock whichconsumers
preferred over cod (ibid.,Ann. 28,para. 7).Duriua the winter and the sprina, the
iresh groundfish fisherywas conducted on the winter fishingground, locatëd ou
the northeastern part of Georges Bank (United States Counter-Memorial,
paras. 77-81).The groundfish fishery on the northeastern portion of the Bank
has heen the mainstay of the New England fishing industry for over 150years.
Figure 39 is a reproduction of Figure 11 from the United States Counter-
@ Memorial. II is a map from George Brown Goode's The Fisheries andFishing
Industriesof the UnitedStates published in 1887.Please noticethe location ofthe
Winter CodGround, which Goode described as the "favorite fishingground" of
New England fishermen - the Winter Cod Ground. 1shall return to this topic
shortly.
During other parts of the year the groundfish fishery was more dispersed,
covering al1of Georges Bank. Many United States vesselsfished on the eastem
portion of Georges Bank during the summer as well as the winter. Goode, for
example, notes that many vessels fished in midsummer in 25 to 40 fathoms
east of the main Georges shoal, which is shown on the map at this location,
MI. President. They fished east of the main Georges shoal (Goode, G. B., The
Fisheries andFishingIndustriesof the UnitedStates, Vol. 1,pp. 2,37, 38and 234,
deposited by the United States in accordance with Art. 50 (2) of the Rules of
Court), and that pattern remains today. ARGUMENTOF MR. LANCASTER 343
Together with the expansion of the fresh groundfish fishery beginning in the
1850s.a separate United States fishingfleeton Georges Bank evolved. By 1879,
the United States fishing fleetwas called the Georges Bank fishing Reet.It was
based primarily in Gloucester, Massachusetts; it was distinct with respect to ils
activity and size from the United States fleet that fished the more northerly
banks (United States Reply, Ann. 28, para. 8). The Georges Fleet, as it was
called, restricted ils activities to Georges Bank and the vicinity,and over the lasi
half of the 19thcentury and the eiirly 20th century this United States "Georges
Fleet" grew to form the foundation for the present United StatesGeorges Bank
groundfish fleet.
The consolidation of United States fishine effort on Georees Ba-k continued
okcr ihc firrt feu iles~dcsni ihe ?Ilth ccntury The ricam-p,?ucrcd trau.lcr and
United Statc'simpruicmïnts in proccriing and oterland transporiation brought
aboui a major increa,e in the Gcorpcs Hank c~tih by Unlied Siatcs fishrrmen
durine the earlv 20th centurv. ~lthiueh haddock was most soueht durine this
ptrioi. oihcr speçicslound on Ge<irge;Bank includingcod. hak; maekcre?and
pollock. coniinucd to bc ofsommcrci;tl importanie. As the Canadian histurian
Ruth Grant wrote in 1934:
"Georges Bank was the niost important [United States] fishing area,
furnishing 42 percent of the lish landed by vesselsover fivetons." (United
States Reply, Ann. 28, para. 10.)
Now perhaps because these factsare beyond disputeand perhaps becausethey
so clearly and conclusively cstablish a longstanding traditional United States
fishery on Georges Bank, Canada kas chosen 10 respond by suggesting that
history is of virtually no significance and that you must use only carefully
selected events from a more recent period.
That sort ofapproach, totally ignoring the substantial fishinghistory of one of
the Parties, would do more than siinplyskew the result in this one case. It would
destroy the equitable base upon which courts have relied for fair resolution of
boundary disputes since tirne immemorial. There is neither precedent nor
justification in a delimitation case for arbitrarily discarding an established,
historical, traditional fishery.
@ Mr. President, Figure 40 (a reproduction of Fig. 8 of the United States
Counter-Memonal) depicts catch levelsof the United States and Canada on the
fishing grounds off the east Coast of North America from 1893 to 1950. The
United States catch isshown in blue,Canada isgreen.Thesecatch levelsare based
solelyupon information supplied by the Parties to ICNAF. They are segregated
into ICNAF's dilferent reporting arcas. Subarea 3, off Newfoundland, almost
exclusively Canadian; Subarea 4, off Nova Scotia, predominantly Canadian;
Subarea 5, off NewEngland (and including Georges Bank) al1United States.
There can be no question of the accuracy of these figures since they were
CO-operativelyfurnished 10an international organization for purposes dissoci-
ated from this case. Canada now suggests, however, that those statistics are
inaccurate because ils statistics on catches in Subarea 5 were incomplete.
Mr. President, there is a substantial negative inferenceto he drawn from the
fact that Canada had good statistics for Subarea 3 and Subarea 4 but none for
Subarea 5. The inference: Canadian activities o~ ~~orees Bauk we~ ~of su-h~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Iitilc .;ignifiç~nceihai ihcir i~tihc ucni unrecurded. This poini could bc rnadc
in mu~.hgrsatcr dci;~il Itis iinnecessary. The Lcuc ii the i<italfishery. the toial
fish:icti\ii)' of eÿch P:my un CicorgesBsnk. 'Ihc u.rittsn non-rccord oiCan;idî's
fishcr) spr.tks ior iijelf The Unitc<lSiaici IScontcnt tu 13).11,record bcfore the
Ch;iinbcr and compare II uith uhstcier rciord C'Jndds ran drcdg~. up 344 GULF OF MAINE
Figure 40 clearly demonstrates the extensive and substantial United States
@ fisheryand that substantial fishingactivity by Canada on Georges Bank did not
exist before the 1960s.
In 1941Edward A. Ackerman of Harvard University wrote a comprehensive
texi on the New England fisheries. And that tcxt contained maps showing the
location of catches by United States fishermen of the important commercial
@ species.Two of Mr. Ackerman's maps are reproduced as Figure 41 (Fig. 12of
the United States Counter-Memorial). These maps show generally the scope of
United States groundfishing activity. They also show clearly the concentration
of United States fishing activity for the two principal commercial stocks, cod
and haddock, on the northeastern portion of Georges Bank in 1936. 1
respectfully suggest that any objective observer, reviewing thisequally objective
history data, would he compelledto one conclusion: as of 1936,the dateof those
maps, the United States had a vcry substantial groundfish fishery on northeast
Georges Bank. We will come to the current United States fishery on the
northeast portion of Georges Bank shortly.
We first see a recorded appearance of Canadian fishery on Georges Bank in
@ the 1950s. This is Figure 42 (reproduced from Fig. 9 of the United States
Counter-Memorial). This Figure shows the United States and Canadian land-
ings (other than scallops) from Georges Bank from 1904to 1981.Again, this is
developed from ICNAF data supplied by the Parties. Now whatever else
Canada may say about its poor record-keeping in early years, Canada surely
cannot complain about the quality of its own statistics for the period il which
has chosen to rely. Here, the statistics are shown graphically for a much larger
period, but including the ten years Canada singles out. This Figure leaves little
to the imagination. It shows overwhelmingly the preponderance of the fishing
cvidence in favour of the United States in the groundfish fishery. It is, of course,
subject to the criticism, which1shall anticipate, that it displays the comparative
catch fromal1of Georges Bank. We shall come, shortly, as 1promised, to the
current catch of the disputed area. Let me, however, before weleavethis Figure,
simply note that it also includes rather rcmarkablc differences for the most
rcccnt period.
In fairness, Mr. President, the Chamber should include in itsconsideration the
development of the Canadian groundfish fishery on Georges Bank in the 1960s
and the 1970s. But the Chamber should also note that Canada has never
seriously challenged the dominance of the United States in the Georges Bank
groundfish fishery in that period or any other.
Let us now turn to the scallop fishery.
You now have before you Figure 43(reproduced from Fig. 10of the United
@ States Counter-Memorial). again developed from ICNAF data. As the Chamber
can seefrom this Figure, again, Canada's scallop fishingon Georges Bank did no1
begin until the early 1950s.That fishing gradually expanded to a point in the
mid-1960swhen,after the United States scallopers moved their operations south
to the mid-Atlantic scallop beds, Canada was able to surpass the United States in
landings of this high value resourcefor : short period between 1966and 1979.
And this, of course, iswhy Canada see10 persuade you to rely solelyupon the
1969-1978period. What Canada has ignored, however, is that since 1978United
States scalloo fishine on Georees Bank has increaxd. We will look at current
-
\callop Iandiiigsi3monicnt For ihc prebcni.itiisullicieni to nutc ihat in the
1930sthe Georgcs Ikink icdllop fishuas crcxicd hy United States li,hcrmcli
2nd that Cancidadid nui hcrin ilssciillo~fishcr, on Gcoreci Hankuntil the 1950s
Mr. President, dislinguished ~ud~es,'now1cius look at the current fishery on
Georges Bank. ARGUMENT OF MR. LANCASTER 345
The United States invites the Chamber's attention to Figure 44 which has
been comoiled (rom data suoolied bv the United States Coast Guard.
This bar graph depicts thé;elativé numbers of United States and Canadian
fishing vesselssighted by the United States Coast Guard on the eastern part of
Georges Bank during 1981.
As the United States noted in ils Memonal, among the many maritime
support activities conducted by the United States on Georges Bank is a fisheries
enforcement programme by the United States Coast Guard which employs hoth
surface vessel patrols and aircraft surveillance flights (paras. 104-132). The
Coast Guard also maintains a very active vesselsighting programme.
As the Coast Guard cutters, and aircraft, patrol active fishing areas of
Georges Bank, they record and tabulate the name, nationality, position, and
activitv of al1fishine vessels th~t ~ ~,~-~~~
~h&om~aridn in Figure 44 isthe percentage of individual United States and
Canadian fishing vesselssighted durina each month of 1981.Now some vessels
may have been iighted seviral limes eich month. They have been counted only
once (United States Coast Guard Sighting Data, deposited by the United States
in accordance with Art. 56 of the Rules of Court).
The illustration does no1 purport to account for every United States and
Canadian vessel that may have \,isited the Bank during each month. It does
provide, however, easily compreliensible evidence of the current presence of
United States fishing vesselsin the area claimed by Canada.
As you can seefrom the illustration, a higher percentage of individual United
States vessels (the United States vessels are shown in the red colour, the
Canadian vesselsin the blue) were sighted fishing in the disputed area in every
month but one - Novemher. We respectfully suggest that this confirms
conclusions that are drawn from other evi~en~ ~suhmitted hv the United States.
ilint Ilnitcd Siaies ves>clshiillfrcqucnt ihc areï under Jispuic
The iIlustr:iii<mu hich )ou ha\c 1u.tsccn u;is takcn iriim iicomputzr priniout
Iiincludes XIIUniicd Staici :ind C.in3Jian i.cricls si-hied on thc e-isicrnodrt oi
Georges Bank during 1981.
Figure UA, Mr. President, which for your purposes also has a small
reproduction of Figure 44 in the lower right-hand corner, shows the limits of the
geographic area from which the data shown on Figure 44 were ohtained. The
area is bounded by 67" 45'W, 65"40'W, 42" 20'N, which, incidentally, follows
the ICNAF line through the Northeast Channel in part, and 40"N. As you can
see. it eenerallv aonroximates the area claimed hs Canada.
lncidcntally:e\in tho~gh ihc r:suli is iiot >houn on thcse chart,. ihc sighting
record sunfirms thïi Mains \c.scl5 hsh in the Ji\puied arc3 hlany ofihc vcsscls
on the Iisi in Aiincr 25 io the [:nitcd Siaizs Counicr.Mcmurial appcar . . in the
Figures which have been suhmitted to support this Memorial.
Canada may suggest that our Coast guard summary is too narrow. too
restrictive - too something. Let us look at other data.
@ Figure 45 depicts the areas on Georges Bank where United States fishermen
currently harvest their catches of haddock, cod and yellowtailflounder. It shows
the United States catches for 1981.This is the Georges Bank area. The darker
the red, the higher the percentage of the catch. As you willobserve, while United
States fishermen currentlv catch eroundfish throuzhout Georzes Bank. thes . .
continue to concentrate their actiGties on the northiast portion'of the Bank as
did their predecessors for 150 years before them. Thus northeast Georges Bank
continues to be among the most important current United States fishing areas
despite the fact that since the early 1970sthe most important cod and haddock
grounds have been closedto fishingduring the months of March, April and May 346 GULF OF MAINE
of each year, when those stocks aggregate to spawn on the northeastern part of
Georges Bank.
Today, the winter groundfish fishery on the northeastern portion of Georges
Bank remains one of the mainstays of the New England fishing industry. It is
still well marked on the charts, including the United States chart upon which
this Chamher will draw the boundary pursuant to Article II of the Special
Agreement (1, p. 10). It is this winter ground that would be one of Canada's
windfalls should Canada's line prevail.
Canada has not denied that its auite recentlv established fisherv on the
northeast portion of Georges Bank h& heen largeG limited Io scallops:and that
Canadian fishermen never challenged the overwhelming dominance of United
States groundfishermen. In fact, Canada referred to icallops as the "major
Canadian crop" (p. 97, supra).It is more: it is the single reason why Canada
went to the northeast portion of Georges Bank. In the short run, a single
high-value stock such as scallops can substantially distort fishery statistics,
however it is measiired. Such single species dependence, however, is subject
to massive sudden dislocation, due to forces of nature, changing markets, com-
petition, etc., and such a change is now in process on northeast Georges .
Bank.
With the extension of United States junsdiction Io 200 miles and the
accompanying general revitalization of the United States fishing industry,
United States scallop fishermen once again are regaining their traditional
dominance of this fishery.
Depicted on Figure 46are United States scallop landings on Georges Bank for
@ the year 1981and the yearly average for the years 1957-1962.Again, the darker
the area. the ereater the share of the harvest for the area. It is clear from these
illustrations that the northeast portion of Georges Bank was, prior to the arriva1
of the Canadian fleet, and continues to be now, the mainstay of the United
States scallop fishing fleet.
United States scallop catches on Georges Bank for 1981surpassed Canadian
catches.
Nor do the current fishing activities of Canadian scallop fishermen serve to
demonstrate the enduring character of the Canadian fishery. Nol only have
current Canadian catches for Georges Bank fallengenerallybut their declinehas
been paralleled by an increase in the catch of the United States scallop
fishermen.Canadian scallop fishermen have begun to take a large share of their
catch from other scallop grounds, located in Canadian waters offNova Scotia or
Newfoundland. Indeed, both the Canadian offshore scallop fishing industry
and, more generally, the Canadian offshore fishing industry, unlike their
American counterDarts. have undereone a decline rather than an ex~ansion.
$inccthe c\tcn\i<in'<if~nited ~tiitcs~risrliction in 19As in the pait.~uch of
the L'nitcd Sutcs s:<illopcatch on Gci)r@csBank is nou consentr.ited in the
northeastern part of the~Bank.
How then, MI. President, can the distinguished representative of Canada,
MI. Binnie, say, as he did on 4 Apnl, that "The United States line isdesigned to
destroy the established fishing activities of one of the Parties", while "The
Canadian line permits the continuation with a minimum of disruption" -with a
"minimum" of disruption - "of the established fishingactivities of the Parties"
(p. 90,supra).1suggestthat Ouresteemed friends tell the fishermen from Maine
and al1the New England area that the proposed Canadian destruction of their
fisheryon the northeast portion of Georges Bank isa "minimum of disruption",
and see what is their response.
Let us now compare the total catch and the scallopcatch on Georges Bank by ARGUMENT OF MR. LANCASTER 347
reference to tables I and 2 of Appendix E to Annex 4 of the United States
Counter-Memorial, which are shown in Figure 47.
Tahle 1 shows a comparison of the total reported Georges Bank catch hy
weight from 1940to 1981.
Canada's share of the total Georges Bank catch hy weight since the early
1960shas fluctuated hetween IOand 34 per cent, with the average heing in the
low 20s.
Tahle 2 shows that the scallop fisheryfollows a quite different pattern. 1cal1
your attention to the Canadian percentage of the Georges Bank scallop catch
during the years 1969-1978.It is clear from these statistics that although the
United States dominated the other fisheries of the Bank during the period
Canada has lahelled "contemporary", Canada surpassed the United States in
the scallop fishery.
The equation becomes somewhat confused when the landings hy weight are
translated to landings by value. Scallops are, of course, a relatively high value
species. In fact, for the years upon which Canada relies, scallops (meat only)
were worth somewhere in the range of 10times the value of cod and haddock,
the primary United States catches (1, Canadian Memonal, Anns., Vol. IV,
pp. 75-86).
It is therefore extremelv difficultto comoare the statistics for~f~ ~ ~hcatches
wiih siiiistiii for scallripcrtihr.i for the pu;pose <iianily~is If valueis ured. the
scallop iisher). ;ilihough srnall in iotiil six, h3s a grelii deiilofinfluenw in turül
com~anson. When weisht is used. however. theeconomic sienificance of the
scallbp fisheryis undersiated.
The weight of the catch does, however, provide a better indication of
the amount of food protein that is harvested inthe fishery. This, infact, is why
the United States considers meat weight to be an indicative measurement of the
scallop fishery.The United States isnot, however,alone in its useof meat weight
as a measure.
This requires, Mr. President, one more regrettable but necessary digression.
After criticizing the United States for using the catch for al1of Suharea 5 in
ils statistics, Canada look the United States to task for using meat weight
@ for scallops, particularly in Figure 1of Annex 4 to the United States Counter-
Memorial. 1 quote now from the record of the Canadian oral presentation
of 3 April:
"The Canadian chart consistently uses 'round weight' for al1 species,
hecause that is the fom in which the catch is taken from the sea. The
United States has adopted ari inconsistent approach using 'round weight'
for al1 species except scallops, whichis the major Canadian crop. The
United States includesscallops ina semi-processedfonn calledmeat weight.
In mv suhmission. mixins non-orocessed weiehts and semi-orocessed
ucighis in ihi. u,n; is misïe.lding kçause. as thc Chamhcr u;ll readil)
3ppreciaie. the processingi)pcratiiin not onl) suhtriiir u,eighibutslio iiddc
value. and \lilue is not retlr~ied anvwhere in the United Stiites Drerenta-
tion." (P. 97supro.)
This is indeed a senous charge, but a fragile construct. It is worse, it is, in
words which my Maine fishermen friends would understand and use. a red
herring.
In its Memorial, Canada said:
"[wlhen scallops are measured in tenns of meat weight without their shells
(as they are in the statistical system currently in use), Canada took over
one-third hy weight of the average coastal State harvest ofal1speciesfrom 348 GULF OF MAIKE
Gcorgcs Bank during the 196Y.lY78period Ii'.on ihc oiher hand. scallops
arc nicaçurcd likeal1oihcr specicsof fishin iermj of 'round weighi-ie . in
the form in which they are iaken from the sea - the Canadian share of the
coastal State fisheryon the Bank during this period amounts io over 60 per
cent of the total by weight" (para. 133).
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ -~da soeakine. Mr. President. We should also note that in Vol-
ume IV of the ~nnexes to t& Canadian Memonal, Canada presented catch data
for itself and the United States for Canada's "contemporary" fishery period.
and - yes - reported the scallop catches in meat weight.
Soit was Canada which recognizedthat meat weight is the proper measure in
@ !he current statisiical system, but which switchedto round weight in Figure 25of
its Replybecause it made the Canadian catch figureslook better. And it was also
Canada which used figuresfor the entire Bank, not jus1the disputed area, while
criticizing the United States for using figures from an area larger than the
in disputed area. Wesubmit that the chart originally prepared as Figure I in Annex
O ;of the United Siaies Counter-Memorial is correct. It is Figure 25 to the
@ Canadian Reply which requires correction. There is an ohviously good reason
for the statistical use of meat weight. If the shell weight of the scallops were
considered, it would attribute significanceto the nearly Y0per cent of the scallop
~ ~ ~~-~ ~~~ ~ overhoard at sea and which isof no economic or orotein value:
and it isparticularly striking ihat Canada has to rely on such a disiortion even in
the vew ~enod it urges ihis Chamber to use as a sole yardstick.
All if ihese charts; diagrams and figures unequivocally demonstrate that the
United States fishermen have compiled a long and distinguished record of
fishingactivity on Georges Bank - including the northeast portion of the Bank.
They further demonstrate that Canada's fishery isof comparatively receni origin
and that the years of the Canadian "contemporary" fishery, upon which Canada
relies so heavily, are but a short aberration in the long history of the Georges
Bank fishery. And, once again, Mr. President, let me cal1your attention 10 the
fact that in 1981the United States scallop catch exceeded that of Canada.
Let me conclude this part of the presentation, Mr. President. hy simple
summary. Canada does not disagree with the extent or dominance of ihe United
States historical fishery on Georges Bank.
It has. however. asked vou io ienore it and to concentrate instead on ils own
deviscd "conicmpurary" fishery II hds suggcsicd ih;ii any line hui ils own uill
dcsiroy thai .'contcmporary" fishcry but somchi~r not afleci ihc sub5iantial
Unitcd Staics fisheryin ihc dispuied irea or. ni uorsi. di.;rIIminimally Hui
whai Canada has ncglccied IOmeniion. and what ue ha\c tricd io makeilear. is
thai ihc Cniied Siiiics hlstoric fisherycontinuIO the prehent on the nurihciisi
portion of Georges Bank.
Today's current fishery is but tomorrow's historical fishery and al1 fishing
activity on Georges Bank deserves your thoughtful consideration.
Let us now turn to Part III and a suggested frame of reference in which the
Chamber mav consider the Canadian and United States records of fishing
3illVll)
\'ou nou h;i\c before )ou iuo séparatere~ordi of lishing 3cti\ity. onc (rom
ihc Cniied Staies. oiic from Cdnadx. Both P~rticsagrec that somc or al1of ihese
fishi-e;iciii,itieï are a rclc\,ani circumsiiince Io ihis delimitaiion. Your task. uc
suggest, is, first, to assess the pertinent facts of each Party's record. and, second,
to compare those records to determine how much weight should be accorded to
each in your final balancing of al1the relevant circumstances.
In the viewof the United States, this task need not he difficult.If the Chamber ARGUMENT OF MR. LANCASTER 349
selects an appropriate frame of reference, within which to consider the Parties'
fishing activities. theesults should follow almost as a matter of course.
Neither the United Statesnor Canada isclaiminga prescriptive histonc title to
the Georees Bank in this area. If thev were. the mere nresenceof fishermenfrom
eiish ta; mighi weighheavily in ihéChamber's asse;rment of that record. This
is not ihc cÿse. houei.er, and ihe Chamber musi luok beyond mere prc.ence to
disiinruish and weiah rcspecti\,e rcii>rdr ui iishinp,activii). The Chiimbcr musi
look ieyond simpl<catch statistics in ils cornParrson of Cherecords.
In point of fact, the Chamber mus1 search for a method of assessing the
records which will allow it to take account of the entirety of each record in its
finaldetermination of a houndam "in accordance with eauitable orincioles" that
take into account "al1 relevant circumstances".
Now, a simple method to do this is simply to step back from the myriad facts
that each Party has suhmitted, and to look moreat recurring themes in each
Party's record of activity. Viewing the record in this manner will cause the
similarities in the records to begin to disappear and the distinctiveness of each
record to become more evident.
The first such theme that might he considered is the discovery and the initial
development of each of the major commercial fisheries on Georges Bank. By
attention to this material, the Chamber gains insight into subsequent develop-
ments in the Georges Bank fishery as a whole, and the factors that led to the
vanous chanees in that fisherv in the las1 150vears.
~&nd, the Chamber &hi consider the continuity and duration of patterns
of use hy each Party - the permanence of the fishery, if you will - for this will
give betier understanding oi the present realities of ihe fishery. It is essential in
making this analysis to broaden the view beyond what Canada has suggested,
for if consideration is limited to the 1969-1978penod, there will be no true
understanding or application of the entire Georges Bank fishery.
To determine the patterns of use, consideration should be given not only 10
the duration of each Party's fishing activity on Georges Bank but also to the
level of participation in the fishery, the stocks sought by the fishermen and the
location of the fishine activities. It is the continuitv of these asoects over time
thai willvielddn understanding of ihe rclaiion\hip 81 the preseni'io ihr pa\i ~nd
the pas1io the present. and thuscnable ihc Chdmber to g1.r~dppropnaie ueight
to the fishing activities of each Party.
A third theme to look for in the consideration of the Parties' fishine activities
ir thc cxrent io uhich eiich Pdrt" has recogni~ed 11sinterest in the ;sheric> of
Georges Bank. and has undertaken re,ponsihilii) for dcvcloping and suppnrting
those inierests. This mav include con\ideraiion of a wide banets oiaciions. such
as technological de~el~~mentsin fishing \,essels and proccss/ng methods. the
pro\,ision of maniime serviccs for fishermen such as search and rescue facili-
ties, and the research for and publication of nautical charts and, of course,
eovernmental involvement in fisheriesconservation and manaeement.
- Consideraiion of ihese t)pcs of acti\iiies willaid the chambey in appreciaiing
the imporiance esch Party atiashed io iis fishing interest by expanrling ils
resources to develop, preserve and protect that interest.
Pr~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ett has sueeested that these activities are irrelevant. hecause
ihey are noi Siaie conduct ;n\olving a claim of sovereign nghts or junsdiciion
(pp 138, 139-140, supra). With respect. wc suggesi ihat Our lcarned friend h3s
misundersiood the DUrDOSfC or which ihis eridence isoiiered. His maiur remise
seems to be that siice ihis is a jurisdictional dispute, only conduct wiiichasserts
or recognizes jurisdiction is relevant. Since this is a maritime delimitation
proceeding, and since Professor Bowett cited no authority for applying his352 GULF OF MAINE
Canada. in its oral presentaiion. has repcaied ilsconientions and suggesied ihat
the United States has abandoned any rel~anccon thcse activities (p. 18: p. 141.
supra).
The United States continues to maintain that it is onlv natural for a coastal
Staie. as ildetincs and develops its lishery and other inlerests in the adjacent
maritime arear. to support those interests. and that 11sacti\ities in this regard
ma) be relevant to the delimitation of a ,in&lemaritime boundary. To be sure.
by pro~idingevidencc IO the Chamkr regÿrding thex and other acii\ities, the
Uniied States is no1claiming historic righis bîsed upon ihosc activities or. as
Professur Boweits~)sa "mare nostrum" (P. 139.uPruJ. Raiher. as mvcollcaeuc.
Mr. Stevenson, hasdemonstrated, theseactivitiesare relevant cvidenceocthe
reality and the extent of the interests of the Parties in the area in which the
delimitation is to take place. Indeed, as Mr. Stevenson noted, the Arbitral
Tribunal in the Anelo-French Arhitration stxcificallv concluded that the
acti\ilics of governme&tsin support gcnerallyoftheir maritime interests may be
reletant io show a predominani intcresl of one of the States in the ared 10 be
dclimitcd (Anrlo-French Arbitraiion. vara. 188).
As a reviei of these eovernment ictivities demonstrates. beeinni.~-in the - ~ ~ ~
early 19thcentury, the ~r;ited States recognired theexteni and importance of ils
fishingand othcr interests in the Gulf of Maine area. particularly Georges Bank
and shce that lime has methodically supported development of those interests.
Thus, the acti\.ities that Canada has undertaken in support generally of its
maritime interests in the Gulf of Maine area have, until recently, been directed
almost entirely at the Scotian Shelf. In fact, the extension by Canada of
these services to Georees Bank eenerallv coincides with the comnarativelv
recent development of Fhe~anadi'an scaliop fishery (United States Memuriai,
paras. 119and 120).
Surveyingand charting of the sea providesa strikingexample of the manner in
which the activities of the Parties in support generally of their fishermen, and
others, reRectthe predominant interest of the United States in the Gulf of Maine
area. Indeed, Canada, while on the one hand denying the relevance of such
activities. on the other acknowledges their relevance. Thus. in speaking of the
relevance of the conduct of the Parties to maritime delimitations, Canada,
during its oral presentation, commented favourahly on the relevanceof naviga-
tional aids to the maritime boundary delimitation in the Crisbadarna case,
refernng specificallyto what Canada called "the lighting of the Banks" (p. 137,
supra).
Canada ohjects that no pattern may be drawn from the charting and
surveying activitiesof the Parties in the Gulf of Maine area. Mr. President, the
United States mus1 sharply disagree with this conclusion. At least heginning
from the latter half of the 19th century, if no1 before, and continuing to the
present, the United States has conducted extensive hydrographic research and
produced numerous nautical charts of varying scales depicting Georges Bank
and the entire Gulf of Maine area. The extent of such activiti~s~is ~e~ ~-ted i~ ~
part by the nanies of the many featurcs on the Bank. such as canyons, that refer
10the United States ocîanographic \,esselsthai conducied those suri,eys(United
Siatcs Memonal. o.70. fn. 2).Annex 28 io the Unitcd States Memonal contains
three charts that depi& thLmany survey lines run in the area by the United
States between 1842and 1975 (Vol. II).
Displayed to my right is an enlargement of one of those charts. It depicts the
surveys that were conducted in the Gulf of Maine area during the 1930sand
illustrates the extensive surveying activities of the United States on Georges
Bank. You will find a copy of this chart as Figure 48 in your book of maps. ARGUMENT OF MR. RASHKOW 353
The nautical charts that the United States has produced on the hasis of these
extensive surveys,and others, have been used widely by both United States and
Canadian fishermcn as well as by other mariners navigating these areas. As
Annex 29 10the United States Memorial shows, in the early part of this century,
the United States hegan publishing special charts of Georges Bank specifically
for the fishing industry (Vol. II).
Canada did not assume responsibiliiy for hydrographic research from the
British Admiralty until 1904.Annex 30to the United States Memorial indicates
that between that time, 1904,and at least 1980,Canada has not conducted any
hydrographic research across the Northeast Channel (Vol. Il). Thus, Annex 30
contains a chart included in the Canadian Hydrographic Service 1980Activities
Report.
That chart indicates the areas in which Canada has conducted hydrographic
surveys. The chart indicates four calegories of Canadian activitiesdistinguished
lin ilic ih3ri b) dirkrent i)pes o~coloiirin~ .ind sh.iJing. One ~;iic&or!.'i.'no1
iur\e)ed io mudcrn s1:indirJs". Canlid;i ures Ihts~.:iiegury.\!,hichreiers eniirel)
iu CanaJian ~ciivii~es;ilone. 10der~rihe iliai port of GCI)~CCB Cank clrliniedb)
both the United States and Canada. As that Samechart confirms. Canada has
confined ils activities to the area of ils traditional interest, Io the ~cotian Shelf
across the Northeast Channel.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, as the United Stateshas demonstrated in
its Memorial. each of the eovernmental activities that the United States has
discussed in iis written pliadjngs, like the fishing activitiesthey support, reflect
the traditionally predominant interest of the United States throughout Georges
Bank and that of Canada throuehout the Scotian Shelf.
The United States willnow tu; to the activities ofthe Parties in relation, first,
to ICNAF and. then, 10 the failed 1979 fisheriesagreement.
II. ICNAF INTROD~CTION
ICNAF is important because it has been the principal institution for
conserving and managing the fisheries of the Gulf of Maine area since 1950,
throughout the enormous expansion of fishing by third States in the Gulf of
Maine area, until both Parties extended their exclusive fisheryjurisdiction to 200
nautical miles. The United States maintains that the activities of the Parties
under ICNAF mirrur the historically predominant interest of the United States
in the fisheriesof Georges Bank - the United States assuming the leadership role
on matters relating to Subarea 5, including Georges Bank, and Canada
assuming the leadership role on matters pertaining to Subareas 2, 3 and 4
coverine the entire Scotian Shelf.
~ispiayed to my right is a chart depicting the suhareas, divisions and
subdivisions of ICNAF. You will find a copy of. .is chart as Figure .9 iiiyour
book of maps.
In its pleadings, Canada has attempted to characterize the relationship of the
Parties under ICNAF, with regard to Subarea 5, as a "partnership" (United
States Memorial, para. 425). Canada bases this characterization principally
upon its charter membership in Panel 5, and itsstatus as a coastal State in regard
to Subarea 5 for the purpose of occasional national catch allocations. It is
evident that Canada seeksto use the term "partnership" to definea relationship
that would le-.llv entitle Canada to a share of the fisheriesof Georges Bank or.
in ihc icrnis oi thii adjudicariun. IO a portion ol'<irorgzs ILink
I'he IJniicJ Si.iies ha< replicd io mosi sf C'anaJa's arguments in iiiuriiten
plcadings. p.iriicul.irly in Annex 3 t<iitr Counier-Mcmorirl (IV. Unlied Siaic\354 GULF OF MAlNE
Counter-Memorial. paras. 91-96 and Ann. 3, Vol. II). As was demonstrated
there, nothing in Canada's pleadings establishes a "partnership" between the
Parties in ICNAF in regard 10 the fisheries of Georges Bank. Quite to the
contras.. Canada and the United States did work together in a common effort to
protect their respective interests in the Gulf of Maine area, and throughout the
Northwest Atlantic region, sgainst the intrusion of distant-water fishing Reets.
However, their activities throughout the entire 27-year history of ICNAF
reflecta distinct geographical division of interests, with Canada focusing on the
areas off its coasts. in Subareas 2, 3 and 4, and the United States focusing on
Subarea 5, offitscoast. Canada's activitiesin regard to Subarea 5were basically
those of a distant-w~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~oarable to the activitiesof the United States in
regard to Subarea 4 off ~an'ada. '
Neither Canada's charter membership on Panel 5 nor Canada's status as a
coastal State for catch allocations in reeard to Subarea 5 are evidence of a
pdrtncrship bctuccn the United Statca and Canada in regard to thç fiahcricsof
Gcorgcs Bank Nor wcrc thcse mattcrs vieued ,uch by théUniied Siatcs or
Canada at the time they were determined.
Canada> Charrer Membershipon Panel 5 Is nor Evidenceof a Signijcanr
Canadianlnreresrin the Fisheriesof GeorgesBank
Canada maintains that ils Charter membership on Panel 5, reflected ils
substantial fishingactivities on Georges Bank, as well as its status as a coastal
State in regard to that area(V, Canadian Reply, para. 254). Canada bases this
assertion. almost entirelv. on a brief exchanee between the Canadian and the
I.'nitcd~;aics rcprcrenta;i;cs to the sonfcrcn~ c<intcncdby the Cniird Staics in
1949 IO cstablirh ICKAt' At one point during ihai confcrcnçc. ihc Can3dixn
representative, Mr. Bates,stated that Canada wasfishing intensively inproposed
Subareas 3, 4 and 5 (pp. 140and 141, supra).
Canada contends that a passingcomment by the United States representative.
Dr. Chapman, at the conclusion of Mr. Bates' remarks, establishes not only
Canada's status as a coastal State for purposes of occasional national catch
allocations, but also that its membership on Panel 5 was based on extensive
Canadian fishing on Georges Bank (Canadian Reply, para. 254). Canada is
wrong on both counts.
In the first instance, the notion of a "coastal State", as used in ICNAF, arose
only in 1969and 1970when the Convention was amended in order to provide
authority to allocate catch quotas among member States (United States Counter-
Memorial, Ann. 3, Vol. II, paras. 57-63, Consequently, Canada's charter
membership in Panel 5 could not conceivablyhave been based on ils status as a
coastal State in any legalsense,howeverCanada might now interpret that notion.
Nor is it likely that Mr. Bates'comments were based on his understanding
that Canadians fishedextensivelyon Georges Bank. WhileMr. Batesstated that
Canada fished intensivelyin Subarea 5, it is more likely tha: he was referring to
the traditional Canadian fisheriesfor inshore stocks that ranged along the Bay
of Fundy and the Maine coast than that he wasreferring to Georges Bank. This
understanding of Mr. Bates' remarks is consistent with Canada's first reported
catches in Subarea 5 under ICNAF, in 1953.At that time, Canada reported
catches in Subarea 5 only in Division 5Y, inside the Gulf of Maine, not on
Georees Bank. which islocated in Division5Ze.Moreover. as Mr. Lancaster has
demoktrated,' canadian fishermen didnceven begin a sustained fishery on
Georges Bank until the 1950sand did not begin to report significant catches
until Theearly 1960s ARGUMENT OF MR. RASHKOW 355
Nor did Dr. Chapman's passing comment during the conference recognizethe
existence of any extensive Canadian fishing in Subarea 5.
In the first insiaiice, a close reading of the exchange hetween Mr. Bates and
Dr. Chauman reveals that Dr. Cha~man's uassinr remarks. so carefullv and
crnphd~i&lly \udtcd h) Canada. uerc sinipl) xL.ini>ule~~in~3n inter\'cnin<
siatçmcnt by Mr. Hatci rcprding the stütuç of hcwioundland on panel
rncmhr.r.hii, under IC'IAt In ilii.rr.8.ird. the Uniicd Si.itc, \i,ould rzicr ihc
Chamber <O the minutes of the relevant sessionof the conference (1, Canadian
Mernorial, Anns., Vol. II, p. 101).
In any event, itis clear from other remarks hy Dr.Chapman al the Conference
that he did not believe that there was any significant Canadian fishery in Sub-
area 5.
'1hu,. in cxpl~iniiigthe redson5 ior conicninp the conicrcncc. Dr. Ch:ipman
niade thc ia>llowingsidienient in rsgird io Suharca 5
"The fishery in this area isalrnost entirely a United States fishery al the
present tirne. To the best of iny knowledge, Canadian vessels have seldom
fished in the area in recent years, and the vessels of other nations have
seldom if ever, worked in the area." (United States Counter-Memorial.
Ann. 3, Vol. II, paras. 10and II.)
Canada'sSrarusasa CoasralSlarefi~r Purposeof OccasionalAllocalionunder
ICNAF 1sno1Evidenceof a SignificanrCanadianInierestin rheFisheriesof
GeorgesBank
The United States now turns to Canada's contentions that ils coastal-State
status for occasional Subarea 5 catch allocations is evidence of Canada's legal
right to a portion of Georges Bank.
In ICNAF, the United States and Canada were sometimes designated as
coastal States for purposes of catch allocations, thereby entitling them to a
preference to be determined by the panel. Canada received preferences in
Subarea 5and the United States receivedsome preferences in Subarea 4.Canada
suggests that the allocations to Canada as a coastal State in regard to Subarea 5
are proof of a partnership between the two countries in regard to the fisheries of
Georges Bank. To the contrary, those allocations, like the other actions of the
Parties in ICNAF, demonstrate the predominant interest of the United States in
al1of the fisheries of Georges Ba~ ~ . ~ ~ ~n Reolv. ..r.. 254).
~ational~quotas were ins%tutedin ICNAF for the first tirne in'l972. Both the
scope and the sizeof the national ;allocationsconfirm that the United Stateshad
the-predorninant interest in Subai-ea5.
Thus, while the United States received an allocation in Subarea 5 for every
stock of fish subject toquota regulations, Canada receivedallocations for only a
few of those stocks. For example, the United States received an allocation in
1974for each of 12stocks subject to quotas, while Canada received alloc~tions
for only three of these stocks.
For 1975,the United States, on the one hand, received allocations for 18of
the 19Suharea 5 stocks subject to quotas. The 19th stock, the haddock fishery,
was closed for the season. Canada, on the other hand, received allocations for
only two, that is, two of the 19stocks that were subject to allocations. In 1976,
Canada received allocations for cinlythree of nine categories subject to quota
reeulation. while the United States received auota allocations in al1the other
caïegories'(~nited States Counter-Mernorial. ~nn. 3, Vol. II, para. 61).
Coastal-State preferences overall amounted to only a small percentage of the356 GULF OF MAINE
catch. usuallv around 10ver cent. to be divided hetween the desienated coastal
~iair.;. l.hesé.illuc.iiiuns krr. (>lienuniniporisnl huih io the ~.'n;r.dSiaic, :~nd
IO C3nad~. hccaust rhr.ilucki alloc~tcduerc no1ii,h:il in coninicrcial qu;intitie-
on Georges Bank by their fishermen.
The allocations of the Georges Bank herring and mackerel stocks, relied upon
by Canada as recognition of its coastal-State status in Subarea 5 (Canadian
Memorial, para. 199; Counter-Memorial, para. 425), illustrate well this point.
~or~ex--nle r~-. .. 1973 Canada harvested onlv 53 metric tons of ils
?2,5UU rnctric-ion illi~cationof niackcrcl iiSuh:irci 5(IChAt, Sr<irBr<//.1973.
D 461.Bs contr.i\t. ilic Sovici Union 2nd P<~l~nirlc~viicdalloc~iions <ilI48.000
ketric tons and 130,000metric tons, respectively, for the same species.
It is also interesting to note that the coastal-State preferences whichCanada
receivedin Subarea 5 were not considered very important to Canada in relation
to its fisheries in other subareas. For example, at a special meeting in October
1973,ICNAF proposed to allocate Io Canada 8,000 metric tons of the Georges
Bank stock of herring.
Four months later, at a January 1974 special meeting of ICNAF, Canada
traded 5,000 metfic tons of that 8,000-metric-ton proposed allocation to the
Soviet Union in return for the support of the Soviet Union for a higher
allocation for Canada in Subdivision 4XWb on the Atlantic Coast of Nova
Scotia (ICNAF Proceedings, 1973-1974,p. 51, No. 14; p. 52, No. 19; p. 74,
No. 25).
The United States will make one final comment on Canada's arguments
regarding the relevance ofils coastal-State slatus in Suharea 5. Professor Bowett
noted that Canada never contested the United States legitimate interest in
Subarea 4, where the United States was an original panel member and a coastal
State for purposes of some allocations. And Professor Bowett asks how the
United States can contest Canada's legitimate interest in Subarea 5 (p. 141,
su.ral.
hlr PrtsiJcni. ihc Ilnitcd Suici subniiis lhc anwer iiqii~tcsinipls. The
Uniicd States :igrcer wiih Canada th~i Canada's intr.rt.*iin Siih.irea 5ir \irnilar
1,)the Uniie<lStates intcrcsi inSuharr.;~4 Ihis is\ih) the Ilniteil Si3tci proposes
Io ircai Canadî. in rcg.ird Io Siib;irca 5. inihc %.imernanncr ihdr CJnJdJ irï~ieil
the L'niiril Stxtc.: In reg.ird tu Suhsrc~ 4 As ihis C'h2riihcrmiII rec~ll.Cancik~.
un ihc hdsi of11520U-ri11IecxcIu~i\clishcr) 7onc. ierrnin.ited 200!r.lr, ni'Uniicd
Siaie. tijhinr? in Suh;irea 4. The Uniicil Siatcs dsk\ <inlvth11 thii Chamber
confirm the nght of the United ~tites to bring ~&dia;fishing in~ubarea 5
under United States control.
The Hisfory of fhe Acriviriesof the Parries under ICNAF Demonsirates the
Predominanr Inferest of rhe UniredSrafes in the Fisheries of Georges Bank
In theend, the significanceof Canada's membership on Panel 5, and its status
as a coastal State for purposes of occasional catch allocations, can only be
appreciated in the context of the activities of the Parties in ICNAF over its
27-year history. That history confirms two important points (United States
Counter-Mernorial. Ann. 3, Vol. II, Tables BI-625).
First, it confirms the predominant interest of the United States throughout
Subarea 5, and particularly throughout Georges Bank. During its 27 years
in ICNAF, the United States was responsible for almost every major initia-
tive taken by that body in regard to Georges Bank (ibid., Ann. 3, Vol. II,
paras. 23-56).
Moreover, that history shows that the true focus of Canada's interests ARGUMENT OF MR. RASHKOW 357
throughout those years was on the extensive fishing grounds stretching to the
north and east of Georges Bank, encompassing the rich fishingbanks along the
Scotian Shelf and the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. These fishing grounds
were included within ICNAF Subareas 2, 3 and 4. Jus1 as the United States
assumed a leadership role in ICNAF with regard to Subarea 5, Canada assumed
a similar leadership role in regard to Subareas 2, 3 and 4. The vast majority of
the major management proposais and scientific research and enforcement
activities of Canada wereconcerned with those Subareas, and not with Georges
Bank (ibid., Ann. 3, Vol. II, paras. 50, 53, 54, 66, 67, 77 and Tables BI-B25).
The United States will not burden the Chamber with a reviewof the activities
of the Parties under ICNAF during ils 27-year history. The United States has set
out a summary of those activities in Tables 81-825 of Annex 3 to the United
States Counter-Mçmorial and the United States would refer the Chamber to
tha~ ~u~ma~ ~ ~
One rxlimplc uill <utliceio illuciraie ihc rcl.itiic inieresis oTihc Psrticr in the
GUI(iiI \l.iine .ireciundcr ICSAF the enforccnicni ïiiiviii:~of ihc 1'3riies
Thc Uniied Si.iichand C'.inadauerc ihc oiil! menibers ,IIlCN,\F thxi hecrme
sxit>u.lj in\ol\cd in ihc eniorcrincni O( rcgul:itions
The enf,~ricinerii ücii\iiirr ,ifthe linilcd Si:ires and Cdn.id:i in ICNAF
demonstrate Iwo points. First, an enforcement scheme was implemented, the
actual operations carried out by the enforcement agencies of the United States
and Canada, and these activities generally reflected the traditional predomi-
nance of the Parties within the diiTerent subareas. The vast majority of the
United States enforcement activities ranged from the Northeast Channel south
and Westto the mid-Atlantic region, whereas those ofCanada ranged from the
Northeast Channel, north and east along the Scotian Shelf, and off Newfound-
land (United States Counter-Meinorial, Ann. 3, Vol. 11,para. 77).
Displayed Io my right is an enlargement of Figure 5 to Annex 3 of Volume 11
@ of the United States Counter-Mernorial. You will find a copy of this chart as
Figure 50 in your book of maps.
That figure depicts the enforcement activities of the Parties during 1976,the
las1 full year of United States and Canadian participation in the ICNAF
enforcement programme. In thal year, each State conducted in excess of 500
boardings; each oneof those boardings isrepresented on the chart bya coloured
dot, red dots for the United States enforcement actions, green dots for the
Canadian enforcement actions. As you will observe, the Northeast Channel
provided a clear dividing line for the primary concentration of each State's
enforcement activities.
This de facrodivision of eiiforcement activities by the United States and
Canada is easily understandahle. During the crisis in the northwest Atlantic
fisheriesthroughout most of the 1970s.each State naturally sought to direct its
resources towards protecting those fisheriesthat wereof the greatest importance
to it. For the United States, this meant enforcing regulations concerning the cod
and haddock stocks on Georges Bank. For Canada, this meant enforcing similar
regulations concerning the stocks along the Scotian Shelf and off Newfound-
land.
~r. Prcsidcni. disiingiii~heJ Judgcs. the llniicd Si.iics <uhmii\ ihxi. uhcn
\iciicJ as ;iu.holc. the t1i:inïgrmeni propoiïlr. the scieniitic rerc,lirch,and ihc
ent'orscn>eniact~\itics of ihc L.'nirsdSiaich :ind Can.id;i undrr ICNAF demon-
strate the traditional nredomi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~f the United States throuehout al1of
Georges Bank, and Canada3$preiiominantinterest in thefisheries ofihe ~cotian
Shelf in Subareas 2, 3 and 4. Neither Canada's charter membership in Panel 5
nor the occasional catch allocation to Canada, as a coastal State in regard to358 GULF OF MAINE
Subarea 5, are evidence of any partnership between the United States and
Canada in regard ta thc fisheriesof Georges Bank, or were viewedas such by the
Parties at the time those particular matters were detennined.
1979 East Coast Fisheries Agreement
This bnngs us to Canada's contentions regarding the 1979 East Coast
Fishenes Agreement.
With the advent of 200-nautical-mile exclusive fishing zones in 1977, the
United States and Canada sought 10create a new institution to conserve and
manage the fisheriesof the northwest Atlantic area, including the Gulf of Maine
area. This effort culminated in the East Coast Fishenes Agreement of 1979,
which, as this Chamher is well aware, the United States did not ratify.
Throughout these proceedings, Canada has made repeated reference to the
failed 1979 agreement. Canada contends that the 1979 agreement provides
objective evidence of what the Parties themselves considered an equitable
solution in the fishçries dimension of this delimitation (Canadian Reply,
para. 391). Canada, in ils oral presentations, reiterates ils contentions in this
regard (p. 143,supra).
The United States has shown that the 1979agreement was not ratified by the
United States;that it. therefore, does not create legal obligations or nghts; and
that it cannot he invoked ta the prejudice of the United States in this
delimitation (Counter-Memorial. paras. 330-339).The United States has also
shown that the failed agreement is irrelevant ta this delimitation because it did
not purport to delimii the area or ta he a basis for any delimitation of the area
(ibid., para. 331). Indeed, as the United States has already noted, the failed
agreement addressed the fishing relations of the Parties within an area that
extended far beyond any of the area claimed in this litigation. These positions
remain the positions of the United States.
This morning, there are one or two points about this 1979 agreement that
Canada has omitted and that the United States would like to bring ta your
attention.
The proposed agreement was essentially a bilateral follow-on ta ICNAF. It
was an effort by the United States and Canada to avoid, or put off, the
implications of the 200-nautical-milezone. Its theory, in other words, was that
third States would be subject to the new régime,but that a different legal
structure would be created to permit the fishermen of the United States and
Canada to go about their business as usual. Pendine a determination of the
boundary. Ais wîs ihe arrangemeni ihai ihe ~.lriiç>~hiidhopcd to ncgi>tiatc
Thur. ihc agrecmcnt rcflc:ted a policy dccisiont<artcmpi IOresulvcihc rcsourcs
question hefore the aucstion of iurisdictionuas icitlcd. In the rnJ. ihai dccisi<in
~roved to he the wrone decision. As a result. the Parties are now before vou so
ihst you can determin; the qucstion oijurisdiciion inaccordancc with I;W
Cdnüdahas focuscdthe Chambcr's aiteniion on the cniiilcmenis thai Canad~
would have received for Georges Bank stocks in the aereement. Canada has
failed, however, ta accuratelf describe for the chaiber the management
authority for the Georges Bank fisheries. Under the agreement, the fishenes of
Georges Bank, in almost every instance, would have been managed hy the
United States as a sinele stock throuehout their ranee. Thus. the orowsed
agreement assumed thereality of the sticks andthe divysionb&een the itocks
in the Gulf of Maine area at the Northeast Channel, in direct contradiction to
the positions that Canada has taken in these proceedings.
The agreement specificallyreferred to 16individual speciesand many different ARGUMENT OF MR. RASHKOW 359
stocks of most of those species. The entire management structure of the
agreement is based upon the need for single-State management of each stock,
wherever possible, and, except in cases of transboundary stocks, the agreement
provided for such management (Agreement between the Government of Canada
and the Government of the United States of America on East Coast Fishery
Resources, reproduced in Canadian Memorial, Anns., Vol. 1, p. 252). (Here-
inafter cited as 1979agreement.)
Allocation of management responsibility and catch was addressed in the four
annexes to the failed agreement. The first three annexes contained lists of fish
stocks. Under each stockthere was normally set out the percentage of that stock
that could be caught by the United States fishermenand by Canadian fishermen,
as well as the area in which the fishing could take place for that stock by the
fishermen of either side. Other lems or conditions were also set out.
The fourth annex, Annex D, described in geographical terms the Subareas,
Divisions, and Subdivisions referred to in the agreement. In al1respects these
areas corresponded to the comparable areas under ICNAF (1979 agreement,
Ann. D).
Thus, the 1979agreement used the ICNAF line, whichdivided Subarea 4 and
Subarea 5 by a line through the Northeast Channel.
The stocks listed in the first three annexes were known by the letter of the
annex in which they were listed.
Annex A stocks were those tliat were generally regarded as transboundary
resources, no matter where the maritime boundary might be located. These
transboundary stocks were to lx jointly managed. Annex A identified four
transboundary stocks - mackerel, pollock, cusk, and lobster. Lobster, however,
was to remain in the annex onlv tintil the boundarv was de~~~~~~.al which time it
was to be transferred to ~nne;~, which provided'for the exclusivemanagement
of one or the other of the States (1979agreement, Ann. A (4) and Ann. C (14)).
Annex B stocks were those in which fiwas recoenized that one Partv or the
oihcr clzarly had .iprimliry intcr:si Annex BspcciÏiciillyiiddrcsjed I? siosks oi
specics of c<immcrsiaI iinportdnic in ihc Guli of hlliine rreJ thebz itgi~ks
included ihrcc \iock, of herrinc a C~n3diün in-shors stock. 2 Ilnitcd Silites
in-shore stock, and of course the Georges Bank stock. The other nine stocks
were: the Georges Bank scallop stock; the Georges Bank cod stock;the Georges
Bank haddock stock; the Georges Bank silverhake stock; the Georges Bank red
hake stock; the stock of argentine that ranges between New York and
Newfoundland; and the Scotian Shelf stock of white hake; it also provided for
the stock of white hake that lives on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine
basin, as wellas theillex squid stock whichin truth isa transboundary stock that
ranges along the Coast of most of North Amenca.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Party of primary interest was
responsible for implementing the management plans for the stocks identified in
Annex B. While Canada calls the Annex Bmanaeement svstem "sualified ioint
ni.inagemeiii" (C'snadianCoiintcr-Sl<morial, 387.and p 1h. .srpruj:thi~
characterilaiion is flatly iontr:idictedb) thc icrms dl' the ;igrïemcni. The
m3n;igcment prù\isions i.1Anna B ,iuiks diflcred drun-iiis;illb,rrum ihosc for
~nnei A. which orovided for true ioint manaeeme-t
Undcr Anne\ Hpr~i~edurcs.tlic Ihrt) of primliry inicrest ua, io prop~se thc
manligement nie:i%ure\ior such siocks \iithin thc Commission. The Cuiiiiiiission
ur, then Io consider thsi .ro~.\liI l-~dinsa 1151oi nriiis~~lc511forth in ArUcIe
X of the aereement.
These pGnciples provided, among other things, that management measures
should be designed to achieve optimum yield from each stock, to prevent 360 GULF OF MAINE
overfishing, to allow the rehuilding of depleted stocks, and to avoid irreversihle
or long-term adverse effects on the fishery resources and the environment. The
agreement provided that a proposal of the Party of primary interest could only
be challenged ifit were "clearly inconsistent" with the principles laid down in
Article X (1979agreement, Art. V (2) and Art. VI (4)).
Annex C identified stocks that the coastal State would manage without
restraint upon its prerogatives, but for which the Commission was to function as
a forum for consultation. Annex C contains a number of the traditionally
important cod stocks: cod in Divisions4Vsand 4W; cod in 4X; cod in the Gulf
of Maine in5Y; haddock in 4W and 4V; haddock in 4X; redfish in 4V, 4W and
4X; redfish in 4R, S aiid T; redfish in 3-0; redfish in 3P; redfish in 5; and the
so-called "Other Groundfish" category in Subareas 3 and 4. This "Other
Groundfish" category included species which werenot specificallyidentified in
the annex (1979 agreement, Ann. C).
Under Annex C. al1of those stocks were to be manaeed on a sinele stock hasis
and hasically without reference to the management coicerns of th;: other Party.
At thesame time, each of the Parties would haveallowed the other to catch the
percentageentitlement of that stock provided for in the agreement.
@ Mr. President, hefore you is a chart which corresponds to Figure 7 of the
United StatesMemorial. A copy of this chart is found at Figure 51 inyour book
of maps. Figure 51 is identical in al1respects to Figure 7 of the United States
Memorial except for the addition of the boxes on the right-hand side of the
chart. Figure 7 illustrates the ranges of stocks of 16 commercially important
species in a zone extending from Block Island, Rhode Island, across Georges
Bank and across the Northeast Channel, thence across Browns Bank al1the way
to LaHave Bank, located Caroff the Coastof Nova Scotia on the Scotian Shelf.
A glance at this chart reveals that 12 species are divided into stocks at the
Northeast Channel, while four are transboundary- those four being mackerel,
pollock, illex squid and argentine.
A comparison of the information displayed in this Figure 7 from Our
@) Memorial with the ternis of the 1979 agreement shows that in regard to the
existence of stocks and the division among those stocks in the Gulf of Maine
area, thefailed 1979agreement was almost entirely consistent with the United
States Figure 7 in its Memonal.
The Chamber roseat 12.21p.m. FlFiEENTH PUBLIC SlTïlNG (16 IV 843p.m.)
Present: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
Mr. RASHKOW: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, at the conclusion of
this morning'ssession 1was about to demonstrate, through a companson of the
tenns of the failed 1979fishenes aereement with the information contained in
@ Figure 7otheUnited States ~em&ial, lhat in regard tothe existenceof stocks
and the division among those stocks in the Gulf of Maine area. that the failed
1979agreement is almost entirely consistent with the positions of the United
those very same issues.d in direct contradiction 10 the positions of Canada on
If you will bear with me,the United States will use these hlocks, on the nght
O side of Figure 7 from the United States Memorial. to demonstrate this point. 1
will check the boxes where the failed agreement is consistent with the informa-
tion contained in Figure 7.
Under the 1979agreement, the United States would have managed thesilver
hake stock on Georges Bank, under Annex B. while Canada would have
managed the silver hake stock on the Scotian Shelf, under Annex C, as an
"Other Groundfish" stock (1979 agreement, Ann. B (10) and Ann. C (12)).
Figure 7 shows silver hake as heing divided at the Northeast Channel.
O Consequently, the 1979agreement is consistent with Figure 7.
Under the 1979agreement, the United States would have managed the herring
stock on Georges Bank and Canada would have managed the herring stock on
the Scotian Shelf il979 agreement, Ann. B (1-6)).
O F.gur7,.h'ch shows herring divided at the Northeast Channel is, therefore,
consistent with the management of the herring stocks under the 1979agreement.
Figure 7 shows mackerel as a transboundary stock. Under the failed agree-
@ Annex A. The agreement is therefore consistent with Figure 7 (1979 agree-r
ment. Ann. A II)).
Figure 7 shou\rtocks of haddock and cod dwided at the Northe~st Channel.
@ Ilnder the 1979agreement the United Staies would have manapd the çod and
haddock stocks on Gcorces Rank Dursuant to Annex B. while Canada would
have managed those stocks on ihe Scotian Shelf under Annex C (1979
agreement, Ann. B (8 and 9), and Ann. C (12)).Thus, with respect both to cod
and haddock, the 1979agreement is consistent with Figure 7.
Figure 7 shows pollock as a transboundry resource. Pollock wouldhave been
O managed as such a transboundary resource under Annex A (1979 agreement,
A (2)). The 1979 agreement is. therefore, consistent with the information
displayed in Fi7uin the United States Memonal.
Figure 7 shows that longfin, or loligo, squid is limited hy the Northeast
@ Channel. The 1979 agreement recognized that fact. placing that stock under
Annex C, under United States management (1979 agreement, Ann. C (15)).
Thus, the agreement is once again consistent with the information displayed in
Figure 7 of the United States Memorial.
O the failed 1979agreement, the United States would have managed the Georges
Bank red hake stock under Annex B, while Canada would have managed the
Scotian Shelf stock as "Other Groundfish" under Annex C (1979 agreement, 362 GULF OF MAINE
Ann. B (II) and Ann. C (12)). Therefore, the 1979 agreement is once again
consistent with Figure 7.
@ In Figure 7, yellowtailflounder is shown divided into stocks at the Northeast
Channel. Yellowtail was lumoed toeether in the "Other Gr~u~dfi~h~cat~ ~ -~~.~
under Annex C of the agreement ihich includes a numher of stocks. These
"Other Groundfish" were divided at the Northeast Channel, with Canada
obtaining authority over the stocks in Subareas3 and 4 and the United States
obtaining management authority over the stocks in Subarea 5 (1979agreement,
Ann. C (12 and 13)). Thus, with respect to yellowtail flounder, the 1979
agreement is once again consistent with the information displayed inFigure 7of
the United States Memonal.
Figure 7 shows shortfin or illex squid and argentine hoth crossing the
@ Northeast Channel. The 1979agreement recognized thisfact, dealing with illex
squid in Suhareas 3, 4, 5, and 6 as one stock (1979agreement, Ann. B (12 and
16)).The Parties agreed that, in light of the lack of knowledge about the stock
and the limited fishing effort on it, the management of this stock could be
divided and that each could manaee on its own side of the eventual boundarv
under Annex B procedures. As forargentine, sincethe largest part of this stoci
is found on the Scotian Shelf and since the United States interest in it was not
strong at the time of the negotiations, the agreement gave Canada primary
authority over that stock throughout its range (1979agreement, B (12)).Thus,
the agreement in regard to hoth argentine and illexsquid is also consistent with
the information displayed in Figure 7 of the United States Memonal.
Figure 7 shows redfishdivided at the Northeast Channel. Under Annex C of
@
the 1979agreement, Canada would havemanaged the redfishin Subareas 3and
4, and the United States would have managed the redfish in Subarea 5.Thus, in
regard to redfish, the 1979 agreement is consistent once again with the
information displayed in Figure 7 of the United States Memorial (1979
agreement, Ann. C (6-11)).
@ Scallops are shown in Figure 7 divided by the Northeast Channel. Under the
1979agreement, the scallop stock on Georges Bank would have been managed
as a single unit under a combination of Annexes A and B management
procedures (1979 agreement, Ann. B (7)).
Thus, scallop, under the 1979agreement, is also consistent with the informa-
tion displayed in Figure 7 of the United States Memorial.
Figure 7showswhite hake dividedat the Northeast Channel. Under Annex B,
@ Canada would have managed the white hake on the Scotian Shelf and the
United States would have manaeed the white hake in Subarea 5 11979
agreement, Ann. B (13 and 15)). Therefore, the white hake, under the'1979
agreement, isconsistent with the information displayed in Figure 7of the United
~ ~
States Memorial.
@ Figure 7 shows lobster divided at the Northeast Channel. This division has
beenestablished in Annex 21to the Reply ofthe United States, which responded
to Canada's contentions regarding this issue. However, because the division
between the stocks of lobster on Georees Bank and Browns Bank was
coniruveri~l during rhc ncgoiiations. the cnited Siaiei u13\prcparcd tosgrw
thai mandgrmcnr of lohiicr u.ould bc dctemined hy the houndar), sincc the
I:nitcd S1a:r.i u'ai confident of ils boundar, ~iosiiion.Conrcaucnil~. pendinr
determination of the houndarv. the treatmeit of lobster under ihe aéreément
inconsistent with the information disr~~~,--~ ~-~e-. . . . . ..- .. - -S.-...
Memorial, and 1will not check thaf~box.
v Finally, Figure 7showscusk dividedbv the Northeast Channel. Under Annex
C of the 1979 agreement, the cusk in Subarea 4 would have been under ARGUMENT OF MR. RASHKOW 363
Canadian exclusivemanagement authority as part of the "Other Groundfish"
category (1979 agreement, Ann. C (12)). The cusk stock on Georges Bank,
however, wasto bejointly measiired under Annex A (1979agreement, Ann. A
(3)). This distinction under the failed 1979 agreement in the management
régimes is,therefore, consistent with the treatment of cusk in Figure 7 of the
U-ite~.States ~e~-~ ~~~~..
Mr. President, :ISchi*rciicu dcnionjtr:itc,. the Ijilcd 19793grcemrnt dlrkrr
[rom Fiaure 7 oi the Cnired Staic, Mernorial with reipect Io iii~ckdi!ijionsin
V reeard onlv one of t~ ~~ ~~eciesthat Fieure 7 describes
- ~~~2 ~r
In ihe i,icu ~I'tlieUnited Siaie,, th15comp~rison 1ssiriking prooi not i~nl)oi
the position, iakcn hy ihe United Sixtes in this sase rcgcirdingthe e.tistence of
stock3in the Gulfof hlainr arca .ind iheir di\ isionai the Northeasi Chcinnelhut
also as to the utility of single-Skitemanagement.
As my colleague, Mt. Colson, will explain later, these stock divisions are
critical to the conservation and management of Georges Bank and are an
important circumstance to be considered in delimitingthis boundary.
Canada, however, ignores these aspects of the 1979agreement, relying upon
the monetary value of its past I:indings, primarily of one stock from Georges
Bank, scallops. Canada suggests, on that hasis, that the agreement provides
evidenceof what the Parties themselves consideredan equitable solution in the
fisheries dimension of this delimitation (III, Canadian Counter-Memorial,
para. 391).
The 1979agreement, however, did no1only address the Gulf of Maine area,
but the entire east Coast of the United States. Canada would dismiss this
distinction arguing that the agreement applied to areas outside of Georges Bank
only in a marginal way, that the interests outside Georges Bank were, in the
words of the oral presentation, "trivial" (p. 143,supra).
In fact, some of the strongest support for and the harshest criticism of the
1979 agreement related to such "trivial" matters. For example, some of the
strongest support for the agreement came from those New England fishermen
who wished to fish in Canadian waters in the Gulf of Maine area (Hearings
before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 96th Cong.,
2nd Sess., on Ex. U.: Maritime Boundary Settlement Treaty with Canada,
and Ex. V.: Agreement on East Coast Fishery Resources with Canada, 15and
17 April 1980, pp. 78-79. Previously deposited by the United States in
accordance with Art. 50 (2) of the Rules of Court). (Hereinafter cited as 1979
Agreement Hearings.) On the other hand, eventhe smallallocation to Canada of
loligo squid, which wds to be hawested throughout the area, provoked strong
opposition of other fishermen (1979 Agreement Hearings, pp. 119and 153).
In the end. the failed aereemçnt cannot he viewed as evidence of what the
Parties considered an equ'itable solution. The agreement was fundamentally
unfair to the United States.
As the Agent for the United States stated in his opening remarks, the central
oroblem with the 1979 ae~eem~~t~-~s that. while at the outset it had been
negotiated as a teinporary agreement, the proposed tex1called for a permanent
agreement.
Thus, generous concessions that had been agreed upon early in the negotia-
lions as temporary concessions became,under the 1979agreement, permanent.
In addition, an important incentive for that agreement, access to Canadian
waters, largely disappeared as a result of a unilateral Canadian termination of
United States fishine in 1978in the midst of the neeotiations.
At the outset of the negotiations in 1977,the ~niÏed States and its fishermen
wereprepared to accept an arrangement that, for a limited period, allocaied fish364 GULF OF MAINE
to Canada on a gcncrous basis rr.flccicd in the lailcd 3grecmcnt. on the
as\umprir>nthai 3 favuurahlc bound~r! \rould uliimaicly bc ncgoii~tsd.
'Thus.throuehout the ncaotiations. the United Sidie, orcrsed ior a iemnorlirv
agrccmcnt The position oiihc Cniicd States in [hi>regard wiisrcflcctcdin ihr
15Ocrokr 1977Juint Siaicmcnt of Yriiiciplss,rihich masncgoti~tcdb) the tu.<]
States as the framework for the 1979agreement (II, United States Memorial,
r ~ ~ ~ - ~ ,Canadian Memorial. na.=~~251: an, o. 2. S,D^^,.This is the Cutler-
Cadieux report to which Professor Bowett made reference in his presentation.
Article XII1 of the Joint Statement specifically called for a provision in the
nro~r~~~~agreement for withdrawal from the aereement unon notice (Canadian
Memorial, Ann. 36, p. 262).
In other words, as originally contemplated, the United States and ils
firhermen viewed the proposed fisheries agreement as a bridge to exclusive
jurisdiction at some lime followingthe determination of a favourable boundary.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, it is apparent that, in this context, the
United States decision to reject the 1979agreement was no1the volte-fucethat
Canada charges (p. 148,supra). Whilethe United Statesmay have beenprepared
to accept for a term of years the allocation of fishand the complex management
provisions agreed upon hy the special negotiators as originally contemplated, it
was not prepared to accept such an allocation in perpetuity, as was finally
negotiated.
As Congressman Studds, of Massachusetts, testified in the Senate:
"The quc\iion Cacingthe Uniird Silitesnegotiating icsm . .ma<, pcnding
ihr resoluiion of the internation:il hound;iry dispute. u.hat kinda of intcrim
arrangements can be made until such lime as by international arbitration
the dispute can be resolved." (1979 Agreement Hearings, p. 120.)
Congressman Studds expressedthe frustration of his NewEngland constituents,
a frustration shared by him and other congressmen and senators, when he
added, somewhat sarcastically:
"Well, Io and behold, the Senate has been presented with a treaty that
does no1 seek interim arrangements, but seeks to impose a permanent
solution in a number of respects, regardless of the outcome of the
arbitration."
Congressman Studds went on to vigorously object to ratification of the failed
aereement as unfair to the fishermenof New England and to the interests of the
Ünited States (1979 Aereement Hearings. o. 12ï.
In regard to'the alloiation of fish stock; 'on~kor~es Bank, while the harshest
criticism wasdirected at the scallop provisions, there was a consensus that the
allocations nenerallv were unfair. Those allocations were based. in laree oart.
upon the average a&al catches of the Parties over the 10to 13year pe<odthat
preceded the negotiations in 1977. As my colleague, Mr. Lancaster, has
demonstrated, that period ignores the long history of almost exclusive fishingon
Georges Bank hy United States fishermen and the resurgence of United States
fishingsincethe extension ofthe 200-nautical-mile exclusive fishingjurisdiction.
As Congressman Studds said at the hearings "There is no way on earth they
[referring to the negotiators] could bave picked 12years more favorable to the
Canadian fishery" (1979 Agreement Hearings, p. 14).
The permanent agreement also proposed, as it were, to "set in stone" a
complex management system for the entire East Coast fisheries.Canada, in ils
presentation las1week, made much of the provisions in the failed agreement
relating to management. Canada asked why, in view of those provisions, does ARGUMENTOF MR. RASHKOW 365
the United States now argue that CO-operationin management is impractical, or
inefficient.and is likelvto lead to disoutes? (P. 14..su~ra,)The short answer is
that the kanagement'provisions in the agreement were, in fact, widely recog-
nized to he impractical and inefficient.While the United States fishermen and
others were prepared to accept such complex procedures for a short period, as
part of a temporary agreement, they were no1 prepared to accept them on a
permanent basis. Once again, as Congressman Studds said:
"Let me finally say, 1do believe that it is the permanence of the treaty
that is most offensive. It is a very complex agreement, the two treaties.
There are al1 kinds of fine points and complexities." (1979 Agreement
Heanngs, p. 14.)
Reflecting the views of the Senate and almost the entire fishing industry of
New England, Senator Chafee of Rhode Island declared, "The management
procedures, as was touched [upon] by Senator Cohen [who is from Maine],
appear to me to be very cumbersome and hureaucratic". He went on to assert
that the ideal way to proceed in regard to these prohlems is to define the
houndary first (1979 Agreement Aearings, p. 8).
The unilateral temination by Canada of United States fishing in Canadian
waters in the Gulf of Maine area in 1978also contrihuted to the rejection of the
agreement. Canada finds the suggestion that such Canadian action could erode
support for the agreement "extraordinary" (p. 147,supra). The United States
suhmits it is auite understandable from the viewooint of the United States.The
I:nitcd ~iatei'had for decadesexploitcd ihe \ilie;j \iithin ihe Gulfof Maine and
on ihe Ssoiian Sheli. The whole purposc (ilihc negoliaiion>hsginning in IYlY.
from the viewnoint of the United ~iates. was to protect those fishermen. Once
those fisheries were teminated, United States 'fishermen began to undergo
economic adjustments. Once those adjustments began, interest in shifting hack
to the more traditional patterns of fishing declined.
As a practical matter, the fishermen who previously fished for groundfish in
Canadian waters in the Gulf of Maine area either went out of business entirely
or switched to other fisheries.A good numher switchedto groundfish or scallops
on Georges Bank. These fishermeii,who previously supported an agreement, no
longer did so. Indeed, many now actively opposed the agreement.
The temination of United States fishing in Canadian waters prirnarily
atTectedfishermen from Maine, but the impacts of that action went beyond
Maine. There was a wide perception based upon newspaper reports from Nova
Scotia that one of the reasons Canada terminated reciprocal fishingrights was a
negotiating ploy to force a qub:k approval of the fishery agreement (1979
Aereement Hearines. D.3).
ihus. acanadis; 1i;hcri:s officidluas quoicd ai ihe timc ofihr icmiinaiion oi
the fisheriesas s;i!.ingthai the ieniiinaiioiiIlniied States tishing in Canadidn
u,liicrr, plus in:re;ised Ctntdian lishing in ihc Gsorges Htnk .irea. rhould
"hasten -a move by the United ~tate; to finalize a-long-term agreement"
(Fleming, M., "All-out Fishing Expected", Halifax Chronical Herald, 3 June
1978, p. 1. Reproduced at IV, United States Counter-Memorial, Ann. 40,
Vol. V).
This perceived strong-arm tactic was itself suiïicient to erode support for an
agreement in the region.
In the end, the 1979fisheriesagreement was rejected precisely hecauseit was
viewedas allocatine to Canada fisheriesto which the United States was entitled
as a legal right uider the recently implemented 200-nautical-mile exclusive
fishingzone. The United States aiid its fishemen believedit was fundamentally366 GULF OF MAINE
unfair to sacrificethose rights for the sake of good relations with our neighbour
to the north.
As the Agent of the United States noted in his opening statement, Senator
Javits of New York put it more succinctly. When the then Deputy Secretary
of State sought to defend the fisheries agreement as necessary to prevent
harm "to Ourvitally important hilateral relationship", Senator Javits replied as
follows:
"We must not confusethe idea that we have to ratify a treaty which we
may not consider a fair treaty just because we are friends. The Canadians
would not do it, and they should not expect us to do it." (V, United States
Reply, para. 36.)
The 1979agreement did riot equitably reflect the rights of the United States
under the new 200-mile jurisdiction. Mr. President, distinguished Judges, 1
suhmit there could he no better basis for rejecting that agreement.
III. CONTINENTA SHLELF ACTIVITIES
MI. President, at this time, the United States with your permission will now
discuss continental shelf activities of the United States and Canada in the Gulf
of Maine area. The Parties agree that these activities are relevant circumstances
to be taken into account in the delimitation of the single maritime houndary.
Thev disagree sharolv both as to the nature and scoue c?those activities andas
to their leeal imnli&tions in this delimitation.
As to the nat&e and scope of those activities, the United States maintains that
the facts establish the following fivepoints.
First, the United States, in the Truman Proclamation of 1945, publicly
asserted exclusivejurisdiction and control over the natural resources of the sea-
hed generally out to the 100-fathom-depth contour which, as it happened,
encompassed Georges Bank.
Second, for approximately the next 20 years, neither the United States nor
Canada took any specificaction in regard to the exploration or exploitation of
the mineral resources of the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area.
Tkird, beginning the mid-1960s, both Parties began to issue permits that
authorized geophysical exploration activities on the northeast portion of
Georges Bank.
Fourth,since the 1960s,both Parties have conducted geophysical exploration
on the northeast portion of Georges Bank.
Fifrh, and finally: neither Party has authorized drilling on the northeast.
portion of Georges Bank during the pendency of this dispute.
Ilis princip.illy in regard io the detail.; of the third 2nd fourih puintr ihai the
Parties disagrce. Conccrning thorc points. hou,eicr, ihe) disagrec harpl)
The position of the United States is that ils continental shell ïcti\iiies .ire
consistent with the sinele maritime boundarv that it now nroooses and
inconsirtent u,ithan) suggertion thai ihe United St;iiesacquiewed iaC4nadi.m
claini to the northeastern portion of Cieorger Hank in the 1960s.
Theçc Unlied State~îctiv111esarc al30 inconsistent u.ith ;in\ so-c<illerl»~udris
vivendior defacto maritime line and do not constitute indicCathat the Parties
considered an equidistant houndary equitahle.
At paragraphs 265-285 of its Counter-Memonal. the United States demon-
strated that it is no1barred from challenging Canada's equidistant or modified
equidistant lineson seven separate and distinct grounds. In paragraph 209 of its ARGUMENTOF MR. RASHKOW 367
Reply (V), Canada rejects what it characterizes as the following five main
arguments of the United States.
Firsr,Canada's issuance of oiïshore permits lacked "notoriety" and consti-
tuted unilateral acts that cannot suonort claims of acauiescence and estoooel.
St,<<.ntl.ihcre \$as no clciir c(;iduci hy thc ~niied Siaies Io cstiblish
acccpiance of C~n;ida'%exercise of juriidiction <inthe basis of an cquidi,imce
line
Thrrd. the olfio~l upon u,hown,nrluct ihc claims or;irqiiic~iincc and estoppl
arc foundcd did no1 hii\e thc ciuihorit) Io bind the Siaic
t'oidrrh.thc acQuie\cenceof ihc Cniicd Siaies u.as noi of sufticicni duraiioii
Fijih, Canada'did no1 rely to its detriment upon the acquiescence of the
United States.
Wiih one imporiant cx:cpiion, ihc IJniied Stiitesdocz n<itiihjeci io C'iiriadii's
rcformulaii<inof the UniicJ Siaici positions. Thiii cx;cpiion 15 (:mada's ç;isu~l
dirmissiilofihc Cniicd Siares position ihai Cdnadd'salleptioni oiacquiesscnce
~nd esioppcl ignore the 1i.heriesand oihcr dimen\ions <ifihis case Indccd, the
coniincntal shcliasii\iiics of the Partie, ignore whai Canada as,rris is the mosi
importani ~FPWI oi th13dclimitüiion, hileii\hinr acii\iiics oi the Pdrties.
ln this prisentation, the United States will demonstrate, in turn, that each
Canadian response to the five main arguments of the United States has
misconstrued the facts and misapplied the law. We shall then hriefly address
Canada's seoarate but related areuments that the continental shelf activities of
the Parties &so estahlish a modus-vivendior defacto maritime limit or are indicia
that the Parties themselves consider an equidistant line to be an equitable
boundary in this case.
We shall turn first to Canada's resoonse to the showincihv the United States
lhdt Ihc issucinîc01('anada's pcrniiis'liickednoiorici) iin~c~nsiiiuied ~nil.iicrdl
acis ihat cannot support an). clüiin or iicquicsccnîe and esioppcl in thi.;cax.
A. Canada'sIssuanceof Ofshore Permits Lucked Nororiery andConstituled
UniiateralActs that CannotSupport Claimsof Acquiescenceand Estoppel
There annears to be no disaereement between the Parties concernin~ the
general lei& principle that, in &der to establish acquiescence, the condÜct of
both States must be clear and unambiguous. A claim must be made in such a
manner, and under such circumstances,as to place the other State unequivocally
on notice of~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In ils Kcply, Cdn~da iiiscris thsi. heginning in 1965,ihr Uniicd Siiitcs had
boih aciudl and cdnsirusiiie noticc of Ciinada'i pcrniiis and of Canada's use of
theruuirlisianccmcthod iwaras.212.213, In ,aci.ihc Cniicd Swtcsdid no1have
eithe;actual or construc&e notice of Canada's iurported claim until August of
1966.
The UnitedStates did no: receiveactualnotice of Canada'spurported claim
With respect to actual notice, Canada asserts that its purported claim was
communicated initially in the form of a letter of a Mr. Hunt, in Canada, in
response to an inquiry from a Mr. Hoffman, in the United States. Both MI.
Hunt and MI. Hoffman were mid-level government officiais, neither of whom
was vested in any manner with the responsihility for determining international
boundaries, or for receivingclaimsrelating to such boundaries on behalf of their
Governments. Moreover, based upon the long-established practices of the two368 GULF OF MAINE
Parties, there was no reason to conclude that this communication was intended
to or, in fact, would out the United States on notice of any claim byCanaua to
the continental shelf.in the area of Georees Bank
As ihc Unitcd States dcmonstraied inns Counier-Memorial. the csiahli\hed
praçticr masthrn. and rcmainï toda)., to communicatc mcssügcbof a diplomatic
ih<iracter to the United Statcs 1)ewürtmcntof Stiitc and the Canadian Dcwart-
ment of External Afiirs.
Indeed, as the United States noted in ils opening slatement, this was the
practice in regard IO other matters involving the cldims of the Parties to
maritime jurisdiction, both during, and prior to, and suhsequent to the relevant
period. For example, Canada followed this practice in regard to its claims to a
12-nautical-mileexclusivefishingzone in 1964(Joint Communiqué ofPresident
Kennedy and Prime Minister Pearson 27 May 1963, Slare DeparrmenrBullerin,
Vol. XLVIII, No. 1248,Canadian Reply, Ann. 2). It followed the established
practice with regard to itsadoptionof its straight baselines in 1967(Note verbale
from Department of External Atfairs to the Embassy of the United States, dated
II October 1967, Canadian Counter-Memonal. Ann. 34). It followed this
practice in its claim to special "fisheries closing lines" in 1969 (see House of
Commons of Canada, Debate on the Arctic Waters Pollution Bill,16Apnl 1970.
pp. 5952-5953).as wellas its claim both to a 12-nautical-mileterritorial sea and
to specialjurisdiction over Arctic waters in 1970.
Canada's argument that this letter from Mr. Hunt was sufficientto notify the
United States of a claim to thousands of square miles of continental shelf, in
etfect, would have this Chamber ignore the estahlished practice of diplomatic
communication on sensitiveand important matters.
The UnitedStaresdid norreceiveconsrrucrive noriceof anypurporredCanadian
claim
The United States did not receive constructive notice of any purported
Canadian claim either. Canada argues ihai, apart from the purportcd communi-
cation of ils claim to Mr. Hofiman, the United States received constmctive
notice of that claim through Canada's so-called "manifest public activity" of
issuing permits (Canadian Reply, para. 213). Canada, however, issued no
proclamation or other public notice, such as a Truman Proclamation of 1945,
that might have informed the United States of Canada's position with regard to
the northeastern portion of Georges Bank. Canada did not even publish notice
of itspermits in itsofficiGazette, as wasthestandard practice concerningother
actions regarding its maritime jurisdiction in this area (see, e.g., Canadian
Mernorial, Anns.. Vol. II, Anns. 20 and 21).
Indeed, Canada,at paragraph 213 ofits Reply, makes the extraordinary claim
that the "alleged requirement of 'notoriety' adds nothing to the normal legal
requirement of 'public activity"'. Notoriety, perhaps. may add nothing to the
legalrequirements relating to actual notice. As the decision in thTunisiaILibya
case demonstrates, however, notoriety is essential to estahlish constructive
notice of a claim that is purported to have been made through public activity.
The International Court of Justice in the TunisiafLibya case concluded that
unilateral acts far more bublicized than the actions uoon which Canada relies
wrre no1sutficicni IO evidencc an unambiguous claim to a boundary posiiion
The Court round ihai a puhli5hed 1.ibyan Iau and rcgulation. including
<necificüllya mao th:ii dcoicted the Iimitsof the so-callcdoil de\eloprnent ionrï
ciairned by ~ibya. were'purely interna1 legislative acts, intended to identify
domestic zones for petroleum exploration and exploitation and could no1 be370 GULF OF MAINE
issuing permits did 1101,and cannot be held 10, provide notice to the United
States of any claim by Canada sufficient to require a protest by the United
States.
As was explained in the United States Reply and by the United States Agent
in his opening statement, it is difficultto imagine that, given the circumstances,
Canada could have contemplated a claim to any part of Georges Bank. From
1945until the mid-1960s,Canada evinced no protest to the publicly announced
assertion of exclusive iurisdiction and control bv the United States in the
Truman ~roclamation'to an area of sea-bed that would necessarily have
encompassed Georges Bank (United States Memorial, Ann. 3).
B. There Wasno Clear Conducrby rhe UnitedSiares Io Esiablish
Acquiescencebi Canada'sExerciseoffurisdiciion on ihe Basis of an
quid dis ranLcne
This brings me to ihe sccond of what Canada has idcniified as ihe five main
arguments of ihe United States. ihat there was no clear conduct by the Uniicd
Suies leading IO acquiescenccin Canlrd3.sexerciscof iurisdictionon ihe basisof
an eauidistaice liné.In this reeard. Canada maintahs that the United States
acqu~esccd inCanada's claim.-boih explicitly, through Mr Hofm~n'~ corrc-
spondence with his Canadian counlerparts, and id~iilythrough the conduci of
the United States in administering its-own permit programmi.
In international law it is accepted that the conduct alleged to constitute
acquiescence in a ckiim, like the conduct alleged10 constitute the claim itself,
mus1 be definitive, consistent and unequivocal. The satisfaction of this dual
requirement is no1 to be inferred lightly (United States Counter-Memonal.
para. 238).
The United States shall deal first with the issue of express consent. The
HoKman corresoondence. which has been discussed in each of the Parties'
written pleadin&, is the foundation of Canada's arguments. Canada's reliance
on such correspondence, which even contains a disclaimer of authority to
determine boundarics, underlies,in Ourview,the weaknessof Canada's position
(United States Memorial. Ann. 531.The United States intends to sav nothine
more herc th311th31the Uniicd ~iaits did not acquiescein canada; phils ora
purported Canadian houndary daim by Mr. Holiman in either of his lctten.
Sccond. ihe United Slaies did riot. in the conduci of ils cr~loration Dro.
gramme on Georges Bank, tacitly conient to any purported canadian claim to
the northeastern portion of Georges Bank.
As the record in this case demonstrates, the United States benan to issue
permits authorizing geophysical exploration on the northeast-portion of
Georges Bank in 1965and since then has conducted approximately 20,000line
miles of such exploration.
In ils Reolv. Canada has asserted that. with one oossibleexceotion. eeonbvsi-
cal \urvcys'w~creneiiher authonzed nor conduried'on ihc nori1;eastern portion
of Georges Bank under ihc United Staies permit^issucd pnor IO1972 Canada
rcpcaied these assertions dunng 11,oral oreseniaiion lasi week (DD 150-156.
supra). -.
A detailed review of the information relating to those permits comirms that
the United States did in fact issue permits authorizing exploration on the
northeastern portion of Georges Bank asearly as 1965and that exploration was,
in fact, conducted there pursuant to such permits.
The first permit authorizing exploration was issued to Shell Oil Company in
1965(EI-65,enclosure 46 10 letter from Davis Robinson, Agent of the United ARGUMBNTOF MR. RASHKOW 371
States of America to ihe Registrar dated 9 Apnl 1984)(hereinafter Letter of
9 April 1984).Shell'srequest for a permit specifiedan area of operation that
extended well kyond any median line across Georges Bank. That request was
approved on 31 March 1965.
During the period hetween 19b5and 1972,a total of 14permits were issued
authorizing geophysical exploration on the northeastern portion of Georges
Bank. Under eight of those permits, exploration was, in fact, conducted in the
area (Attachment 1 to the letter from Davis Robinson, Agent of the United
States of America, 10the Registrnr dated 27 February 1984)(hereinafter Letter
of 27 February 1984).One of those permits was issuedin 1967(E3-67).three in
1968(El-68A, E2-68,E3-68B),one in 1969(E4-69),one in 1970(El-70) and two
in 1971 (El-71 and E2-71). Close Io 4,000 line-miles of exploration were
conducted under those eight permits.
The other sixpermits authorized exploration in the area pnor to 1972,but did
no1result in exploration king conducted for a variety of reasons unrelated to
any purported Canadian claim to the area. One of these permits was issued in
1965(El-65), Iwo in 1966(El-66 and ES-66),one in 1967(El-67). and two in
1969 (E2-69and E3-69)(Attachment 2 10Letter of 27 Febniary 1984).
Copies of the documentation that constitute each of these 14 permits have
been provided Io the Court and to the Agent for Canada (Enclosures 5-12and
46-51 of Letter of 9 Avril 1984).
The United Siaies s;bmits [h;i ihç ibsuïnce of ihesr 14perniiis. cven ihough
no exploration u.a>conducicd under sir oi ihçm. Jemonstraies rhat ihe UniiçJ
States did not acquiesce in any purported Canadian claim 10the northeastern
portion of Georges Bank during the period selected byCanada, that is, between
1965and 1972.
Canada claims that United States oil companies and the United States
Department of the lnterior assumed that an equidistant or median-line bound-
ary was appropriate for Georges Bank and acted upon that assumption. In this
regard Canada refers Io a number of permits issued between 1969and 1975to
support ils claim that al1permits weresought and approved with referenceeither
to a socalled "BLM line" orto a so-called "company median line".
The 14permits that the United States issued between 1965and 1972 clearly
indicate that neither the United States oil companies nor the Department of the
lnterior accepted or assumed any equidistant boundary line on Georges Bank
dunng that period.
Nonetheless, in order to clarifyand correct the record of these matters hefore
the Chamher, the United States has reviewed the documentation relating to
United States permits (Enclosure I to Letter of 27 February 1984).That review
revealed only that the companies requesting permits either considered the
northeastern portion of Georges Bank to be subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States or, at most, to be in dispute between the United States and
Canada. In each instance, the United States geological survey approved the
issuance of a permit covering the northeastern portion of Georges Bank
notwithstandinp anv Canadian claim to that area. Moreover. with resoect to
those permits tbat éxtendedto that area, but under which nooperatioAs were
conducted, the reasons proKered for cancellation of operations related to
weather conditions or environmental concerns and not to any concern for any
~umorted Canadian claim (Enclosures 46-52 10Letter of 9 Anril 1984). .
' ~urin~ ilsoriil prr.seniaii~n(pp. 152-154.supra),Cînadî suggesrçdihît there
was some signiticance IO the facr thar some UTihe crploraiion conducted on the
northeastern portion of Georges Bank was conducted pursuant to authority
requested by the oil companies as extensions to earlier requests. Initially, the ARGUMENTOF MR. RASHKOW 373
Mr. Dupont recalls that these three isolated referencesto a "BLM line" were
nothing more than his oersonal ahbreviated descriotion of the limits of the
perniii~i.>ucd b! Canadi un CicorgcsBdnk.as descr;hcd IO\Ir.Duponi hy ihc
Hurcliuof LanJ hiandgcmCnt. Hc \talcs Ihdl lhese rcI:rcn~.csJid no1conni>rc
that, in any respect, he accepted a median line as an appropriate houndary. As 1
have already noted, the seismic surveylineshe specificallyapproved in regard to
permit E2-69 covered al1 the areas requested and extended well beyond any
median line (Attachment 4 to Letter of 27 February 1984).
Mr. Dupont confirms that the reason for his three references, or notations,
was simply his noting the limit of Canadian permits on Georges Bank and his
awareness that he was issuing United States permits for an area covered hy
Canada's permits (Attachment 4 to Letter of 27 Fehruary 1984).According to
Mr. Duoont. a median line was never an influence in hiseranti-e~~f ~ ~.its for
e\plor:iiion of .in). poitGcorgss hnk. or ihe GiiIf oT~,iine h.i\in
Candda. no1surpri>ingly.h;issoiighi tu Ji>iredii hlr. Dupdni'hlirci>untof thc
hiwrs .ilid me,inin>!of ihc so-s3llsd "BLM line" WCshdll hricflv rcsoond 1,)
Canada's objections. S.
Initially, we wish to note that we have been unahle to discover ans map
actually depicting the so-called "BLM line" in the original records of the
@ Department of the Interior. Indeed, as the caption to Figure 21 of Canada's
Reply makes clear, the so-called "BLM line" appearing on a numher of
Canadian graphies apparently is derived from a number of unspecified docu-
@ ments. Neilher Figure 21nor the Figures used hyCanada in ils oral presentation
make clear, however, that the line shown was not a line appearing in any
document of the Department of the lnterior but was constructed hy Canada
solely for the purposes of this adjudication.
In the end, hoth the so-called BLM line,to the extent that il existed, and the
Companymedian lines,were merelylines used to identifythe area of the Canada
permits on Georges Bank, not the acceptance of any purported claim by either
the Department of the Interior or United States oil companies.
Now the United States will turn brieflyto Canada's criticism of MI. Dupont.
Canada appears to he amazed at the presumption of Mr. Dupont that any
maritime boundary "would have taken advantage of the Northeast Channel
beyond Georges Bank", because Mr. Dupont's presumption purportedly pre-
dated what Canada characterizes as the "Northeast Channel tactic" of the State
Department
In the first place, the correspondence upon which Canada has focused
occurred within the first six months of 1969. If the Chamh~r~will r~ ~ ~. on
10Ma) lYh8.the L'niiedSt3rr.i.in a iliplom~iiccgimmuniïaiion to Canlid~.put
C,inxJa un notice 6)I'thciihj~viioi10ils psrmii arii\itics on Gcorgc5 Rank
Sccundlv. .Mr I>u~oni'snrerumnlion iinoi ai al1rrmxrkliblc As thedi1and
gas superGisor for ihe eaitern region of the Conservation Division of the
Geological Survey, Mr. Dupont was familiar with the sea-bed in the Gulf of
Maine area, including the Northeast Channel, not as a "tactician" but as a
working geological technician.
To Mr. Dupont, Georges Bank:was defined, as Canada itself has acknow-
ledged, by the Northeast Channel. Moreover, Mr. Dupont granted a number of
permits for geophysical operations throughout Georges Bank. We might recall
in this regard the Truman Proclamation and the long-standing description of the
continental shelf of the United States extending to the 100-fathom-depth
contour.
Canada has also attacked Mr. Dupont's memory, in particular his statement
that he neverconsidered any median line hetweenthe United States and Canada374 GULF OF MAINE
to he a boundary. Canada hasesits criticismof Mr. Dupont upon a letter written
by him in 1974responding to an inquiry from the United States Department of
State regarding United States permit activity on Georges Bank.
In that letter, Mr. Dupont asserted that Digicon had permission to run a
survey line in 1974 under permit EI-74, which was descnhed "10 he in the
Georges Bank area and to the east (on the Canadian side) of the median line
between the United States and Canada" (Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II,
p. 620). Canada contends that the statement hy Mr. Dupont is evidence that
Mr. Dunont considered this median line to he a boundarv.
anad da hoirever. ncglccistu(>iniporiüni conciderations First, the siaiement
iixlfrcflccts noihinp more thn Mr. Duponi's auarcners ofihc I~ctihai Cünada
had issued oermits-alone the medianline between the two States. and that
Digicon hai proposcd 1: conduct opcrations heyiind ihat linc. Sçsrind, Mr.
Dupont appruved El-74 and Digison's rcqucsicd extension undcr thüt permit
beyond any median line. Indeed, the proposed survey line across the northeast
nonion of Georees Bank. as wellas several others. subseauentlv were run under
ihat permit beyond an) median Iinc (Enclo>ure 70 io l.citer of YApril 1984)
II isclear thüt ncithcr ihr Unitcd Siairs <Iompiinics in applying ïor pcrniit,,
nor the Department of the Interior, in granting them, assumed an equidistant
boundary on Georges Bank.
C. The Osfcial uponWhoseConducithe Claimsof Acquiescence andEstoppel
Are FoundedDid not Have theAuthority to Bindthe State
This hnngs us to Canada's response to what it identifies as the third main
argument of the United States - that the officialupon whose conduct the claim
of acauiescence and eston~el is founded mus1 have the authoritv to bind the
State '~ündda argues thai ihc rcquirement of such auihurity is an inveniion of
the Iüw of acquicscensc and a mis-statcmcni in the Iaw ofc~tuppel (Canadian
Reo.v,.v.ra. 221)
Even more eitraordinary is the assenion raised in Professor Brownlie's
presentation to the eiïect that the authonty of the officialwhose conduct is said
to have bound the State is immaterial in that the law treats governments as
integral units, with "no curtains ... drawn between diiïerent departments of
government or hetween senior and junior officiais"(p. 132,supra). The United
States would only ask does he, in fact, seriously contend that a relatively minor
United States officialcan bind the entire United States Government?
Under inicrnlitional law, the official uhose conduct i$in question must hiivc
cithcr crpresr or iniplicd auihority IO hind hir Staie (Uniicd States Countcr-
Mcmoiial. nara 243). l'hus. Canüda's assertion thïi.'Illn ihc conicxt of utticial
corresnon&nce. the oresu&ntion is that each officiil has the anoronriate
r-~~~ ~
authohty and sbeaks forthe ~overnment concerned ..." (Canadian ~ernorial,
para. 418) is without support. As the United States has demonstrated in its
Counter-~emorial. intemational law recognizes no such presumption.
In this regard, Canada's reliance upon the RussianIndemnity(Hague CI. Rep.
(Scott), 1916, p. 297)and YukonLumber(R. 101'1A . rb. Awards (United Nations
Series), Vol. VI, p. 17)cases is misplaced. The decisions in those cases confirm
the requirement to estahlish the authority of an officialto hind his government
(United States Counter-Memonal. paras. 244-247).
As the decisions in the cases of theLegal Statusof EasternGreenland(1933,
P.C.I.J., SeriesAIB, No. 53, p. 22) and theArbitral Award Made by theKing O/
Spainon23 December1906(I.C.J. Reports1960, p. 192)illustrate, in determin-
ing whether an officialhas authority to bind his State - authority which is the ARGUMENT OF MR. RASHKOW 375
sine quo non of acquiescence - the official's level and area of substantive
resoonsibilitv are also im~ortant considerations.
kanada's position in th/,:case kars no resemhlancc whatsocvcr to ihose cases
Thcre i.; iibsoluicly no hsis. in the circumrt:inees of this case. for Canada's
claimed inference of Mr. HoITnian'sauihoritv Io bind ihe Uniied Siaics in a
boundary matter.
ln this regard, Canada has cited a recent notice published by the United States
Department of the Interior regarding the recovery of mineral resources on the
sea-bed off the Pacific Coast as evidence of the nurnorted authoritv of the
Department of the lnterior to determine the limits lfI;risdiction grthe United ~
States (Canadian Reply, paras. 226-228). As Canada well knows, and as has
ken demonstrated recentiy in regard to those very events, the Department of
the lnterior has no authority to determine the limitsof United States jurisdiction
internationally.
Canada did, indeed, protest that notice - not to the Department of the
lnterior,but to the Department of State. Even before that protcst, however, the
Department of State had already initiated action to cause the Department of
the lnterior to rescind the objectionable aspects of the notice.
These events thus confirm that the Department of State - not the Department
of the Interior - is responsible for the foreign relations of the United States,
including matters pertaining to ils maritime houndaries.
Quite apart from the lack of authority of the Department of the lnterior in
matters relating to territorial or iurisdictional claims. it was unreasonable for
Canada to expeit that a person in~r. Hoiïman's position could bind the United
States in such a sensitive and important matter as the delimitation of the
continental shelf. As we have previously demonstrated, other matters of this
nature were discussed at the very highest level of diplomacy (see, e.g., United
States Reply, Ann. 2).
With respect Io the matter before us, however, Mr. Hoiïman worked for one
division,the Bureau of Land Management, within the Depanment of the Interior.
Evenwithin that division, he occupieda position that wassixadministrative levels
belowthe levelof authority that the Coun in other cases hasfound sufficientto be
binding upon the State involved (United States Counter-Memorial, paras.
277-278).Moreover. as we oreviouslv noted. Mr. Hoiïman exnlained in hisletter
of 14 1965,in expressiems. that his Éureau had no autjiority to undertake
the negotiation of a houndary position for the United States.
D. TheAcquiescence of the UnitedSrutesWasNor of SuftfcientDurrition
The United States will now turn to Canada's response to the fourth of what
Canada has characterized as the fivemain arguments of the United States, that
the purported acquiescence ofthe United States during the mid-1960swas not of
a sufficient duration to establish acquiescence. As the United States demon-
strated in its Counter-Memorial, acquiescenceand estoppel can applyonly after
the passage of a substantial period of time. Canada argues that the requirement
of a passage of a substantial period of lime is another invention of the United
States and that a failure 10 protest "even in the short run" may be sufficient
(Canadian Memorial, para. 414; Reply, para. 229).
The length of lime necessaryfor acquiescenceto take eiTect,the commentators
generally agree, varies with the facts of a given case (United States Counter-
Memorial, paras. 252-253). As the United States demonstrated in its Coiinter-
Memorial, there is substantial agreement, however, that acquiescence based
upon tacit acceptance requires the passage of a substantial period of time.376 GULF OF MAINE
Those cases suggest that silenceor lack of protest for a comparatively short
limeis simplynot sufficientto establish acquiescencein casesinvolvingclaimsof
sovereignty overterritory or of jurisdiction for maritime purposes.
Thus, in the Fisheries case the period was 60 years. In the Templeof Preah
Vihearcase it was more than 50 years. Inthe Island o/Palmas case il was over
200 years, and in the Alaskan Boundary Disputecase il was over 60 years.
Nor is this surprising. There may he many reasons for a hrief period of silence
other than acauiescence in a ouroorted claim. such as an act of oolitical
not he wellserved if everyinstance of temporary silence were susceptibleto the
drastic consequences of acquiescence.
Only 14months passed from Mr. Hoiïiman'sinitial expressionof concern - in
1965 - until the matter entered diplomaticchannels in August of 1966.It was al
that lime that the United States enquired of Canada concerning Canada's
offshore oil and ... oroeramme (United States Memorial. Ann. 54. Vol. IV).
The Canadi;in reïponrc oi 30August 1966was the lirsi Cÿnadidn iorrespon-
dcnîc in\.<ilsingthe Gulf oi Maine to bc ir;inmiiicJ throug~ ap.~opr~ate and
normal diplornitic channels (ibid.).
Only 21 months passed between the lime the matter entered diplomatic
channels, in August of 1966,and this formal United States response of 1968.
Thus, in an aide-mémoiredated 10May 1968,the United States called for a
moratorium on al1United States and Canadian oil and gas activitieson Georges
Bank until the boundary in that area could he settled(United States Memorial,
Ann. 55, Vol. IV).
This aide-mémoire was aformal written communication to Canada, trans-
mitted through appropriate diplomatic channels. It expressly requested consul-
tation with Canada in order to "delineate the boundary between the United
States and Canada on the continental shelf in the Gulf of Maine area ...".
The periods in question, anywhere from 14months to three years, are to be
compared to the 60 yearsthat passed inthe Fisheriescase, so heavilyrelied upon
by Canada, and to similar, or even longer penods found in other cases cited in
the Canadian Memorial and in the United States Counter-Memonal. Such a
compariwn demonstr;itcï thai an) allepaiion thai the United Stüicb >ilence
constiiuted acquierccnce 1.mi~uidcd and premaiure.
The Chtzmberadjournedfrom 16.12p.m. 10 16.38p.m
Just hefore the break, the United States had demonstrated that the length of
time of any purported acquiescence isan important if no1 cntical element in
relation to claims to sovereign territory or maritime jurisdiction.
Professor Sperduti has clearly stated the considerations underlying the
requirement for passage of time in these kinds of cases:
"[A] situation arising from the de/acro exerciseof a right which is by its
very nature of long duration, like the right of territonal sovereignty, will
normallv,reau.re a much longer".eriod for consolidation than that which
mighl be iiecessür) Io Içgitimirc a situdtion arising froni [a] i)nr-lime
\iolation oia ruhjecli~~reight as, fiir instance, the [unlauful] sxpropri:itiun
or the nroocrts oi ioreien subiect~." IUnited Staic\ Counirr-Men~ori;il.
Ann. 3j, p: 17,.of translation.-
With respect to this passage of time, just to conclude Our argument on this
point, we would note that only 14months passed from Mr. Hoffman's initial ARGUMliNT OF MR. RASHKOW 377
expression of concern - in 1965 - until the matter entered diplomatic channels in
August of 1966. Only 21 montlis passed between that time and the time in
August of 1968when the matter entered into formal diplomatic consultations
regarding the delimitation of the boundary.
The neriods in auestion - anvwhere from 14months to three vears - as 1have
indiuied bciorc. .ire IO be cornparrd ti,the periods iil'j0. hU.or c,sn 200 ).c:ir,
fiiunil in the c.ires ihai are discurrrd in rcglird 10 ihir piiiniin the plr.ading. of
both Parties
E. CanadoDid Not Rely to Its Detriment Uponthe Acquiescence
of the UnitedStatesor Inaction
The United States willnow tutti to Canada's response to what il characterizes
as the fifth main argument of the United States: that Canada did not rely upon
the purported acquiescence of the United States.
The Templeof Preah Viheor,Mrrits, Judgment case (I.C.J. Reports1961) and
the North Sea ContinenralShe(f,Judgment case (I.C.J. Reports1969) illustrate
that a change in the relative position of the States involved must be shown in
support of a claim to estoppel.
Canada first argues that it acted to create legal relationships in reliance upon
the purported acquiescence of the United States. Many, if not mort, of the
Canadian oil and gas permits on Georges Bank, however, were issued before
Mr. Hoffman initiated his correspondence. Canada hegan to issue the permits
for the northeastern portion of Georges Bank up to an equidistant line on
20 May 1964, a year before Mr. Hoffman even wrote to Mr. Hunt enquiring
about Canadian activities (Canadian Mernorial, para. 204). Indeed, Canada
asserts that it had already issued the permits that straddled this equidistant line
by the heginning of 1965, monihs before Mr. Hoffman wrote his letter to
Canada enquiring about Canadian activities (ibid., para. 205). Accordingly,
there is no hasis for Canada's assertion that:
"The Canadian Government for a substantial veriod was ~laced in the
position of assuming a rightful power to create'legal relatknships with
Canadian and foreign persons and corporations by the grant of permits."
(Ibid., para. 424.)
Canada proceeds to argue that it sutTereddetriment in that it was placed in
a position of "disarmament" as a result of the alleged acceptance of the
equidistant or median line by the United States. Canada contends that, to
protect its legal position, it took only those positive and public steps that were
appropriate in the absence of any protest by the United States to its purported
claim. This ignores Canada's failure to take the oositive and oublic sten that
\iould h~vc ;;oided entircl) ihc niisundersi.indi& in ihis cnse' ~i>lloirin~ihe
standard practicc, Fanad3 ln 1364and 1965could ha\,eand rhould habt noiiiied
the I:niicd Siatcs, ihrough diplornatic channcls. <iiil\cI:iirn.or ai Ira>t ni)iiîied
u, if iii proposed aiii\,ities. tailinp ih3i. C~nad3 could have and shiiuld hnte
rrspunded io ihe ini~~rmationihai hlr. Holrm.in g;i\e IO hlr. Hunt conccrning
~osçibleexpl<irationDCmlliSthai the Uniicd Siaies hdd issued ai thai Ilmc ior
ihe northeast~r~ ~ ~iion of Georges Bank.
~ ~ . > ~ ~ -
Thus, the very'corre~~ondence upon which Canada relies to show that the
United States was aware of Canadian permits demonstratesthat Canada was, or
should h.iw hçen. auare ui Uniied ~hicç e~pluraiion acri\iiies In response IO
\Ir Ilmi'\ cnquiry rcgarding Inring oITihecas1cas1 of the Cnitcd Sraies. Slr
Ilolhnn. in his lcitcr of 14May 1365.informcd Mr. Huni ihat no federal lca\ec378 GULF OF MAINE
had heen issued on the outer continental shelf off the east coast of the United
States. However, Mr. Hoffman added that "certain seismic permits had been
issued" (United States Memorial, Ann. 53). In contras1 to Mr. Hoffman's
request for additional information regarding Canadian permits, neither Mr.
Hunt nor any other Canadian official requested further information from the
United States Government after MI. Hoffman had informed those Canadian
officialsabout possible United States activities.
Had Canada followedthrough on the information provided by MI. Hoffman,
as MI. Hoffman had followedthrough on the information provided hy Canada,
Canada would have identified United States permits, like permit El-65, that
authorized exploration on the northeastern portion of Georges Bank, and could
have lodged at that time a protest. Canada did not take this action. Canada,
instead, took no exception to the permits that the United States issued between
1965and 1970.
Whatever the detriment or benefitallege- that is whatever the change in the
relative position of the two Stat-sestoppel must rest upon the principle of
.ood faith.
Vicucd inlight of the circumstanses ihat I haie jusi dcscribed. Canada's slaim
,lands in clsar conira$,cntion of ihc rcqulrcment that estoppcl uliimaicly he
based on good faith
THECONTINENTS AHLELF AC~lvlnEs OF THE UNITED STATEP SROVID NEOINDICIA
THAT AN EQUIDISTAN BTOUNDAR N THE GULF OF MAINEAREA ISEQUITABLE
The United States willnow turn Io Canada's argument that the conduct of the
United States oil companies and the Department of the Interior concerning
exploration permits fumishes indicia thaï the United States viewed an equL
distance boundary in the area as equitable under the criteria identified in the
TunisialLibyacase. As a comparison of the two casesdemonstrates, the conduct
that the Court found to he indicia of the line or lines the Parties viewed as
equitable in that case isnot comparable to theconduct of the Parties in this case.
The conduct that the Court relied upon in the TunisialLibyacase consisted in
the first instance of a line developed hy ltaly to regulate sponge fishing in the
area seaward of Lihya'sland boundary. Italy proposed a line drawn perpendicu-
lar to what was considered to be the direction of the coastline at the land
houndary hetween the two countries (I.C.J. Reports 1982,para. 93). The Court
noted during oral proceedings that hoth Parties recognized that a de facto
compromise or provisional solution had heen achievedby means of the line that
the Court had found had "operated for a long time without incidentand without
protest from any side" (ibid., para. 94). The Court described this de facto
compromise as "tacit modus vivendr"(ibid., para. 95).
The other conduct the Court found to he evidenceof indicia of the viewof the
Parties was the tacit respect the Parties afforded, for a numher of years, to a line
drawn generallyperpendicular to the coast from the land houndary, 26" line,
in granting petroleum concessions in the area in dispute (ibid., paras. 96, 117).
The cntical fact in the TunisialLibyacase was that hoth Parties had used the
26" line as the limit of oil and gas concessions. Moreover, Tunisia was the first
to do so. Becauseof this circumstance, which is totally absent from the Gulf of
Maine case,the Court in the TunisialLibyacasewas ableIo describe that 26"line
as a defacto maritime limit that constituted a circumstance of great relevance
for the delimitation iibid., uaras. 96. 118).
The Court also noied thât the defacto oilconcessionlinewas neither arhitrary
nor without precedent, referring not only to the earlier modus vivendifishery ARGUMENT OF MR. RASHKOW 379
delimitation between the Parties, but also to the recognition that the Committee
of Experts for the International Law Commission in 1953gave to the continua-
tion of the land frontier and to the perpendicular to the Coast as methods to
delimit the boundary (ibid., para. 119).
The Court, however, rejected two other lines proposed by the Parties: a
fishery boundary unilaterally advanced by Tunisia and a line unilaterally
asserted by Libya as the limits of ils petroleum zones (ibid., para. 117). The
Court held that the fishery lineupon which Tunisia relied, the ZV45"line, was a
purely internal legislativemeasure which was never the subject of agreement by
I.ihva~
Similarly the Court concluded that the Libyan petroleum development line
was also a purely internal legislative measure and could not be considered even
as a unilateral claim for maritime lateral boundaries with Tunisia.
As the United States demonstrated earlier, the conduct of the United States
oil companies, in applying for exploration permits, and that of the Department
of the Interior, in issuing those permits, contradicts any notion that the United
States viewed the equidistance line as equitable or acted upon such a view. This
conduct demonstrates that in the Gulf of Maine area there is no single line
relatine to eeoohvsical exoloration comoarable to either the de facro comnro-
mise o;proiis&nal solution used by ltaiy to govern sponge fishi& or to the de
facto line, the 26" line, that both Libya and Tunisia tacitly respected in granting
oil and gas concessions over a number of vears
~xth;. the equiJist;ince Iine ihai ~xnxii:i uscd in graniing iirpermii, in the
19hh more closcl! rcsernhlïr the Z\'JS-Iincpropossd hy Tuni\i;i 2nd the "du:
norih linc" Iisscrteu hs Lih,~. buih oîwhi.-h the <:<iuriin the T~<nr.srL arh]i,sass
refused to take into aicouni. Indeed. as oreviouslv noted. the canadian line. like
the I.ihyan '.duc norih Iinç" \id> ~irorniilpicd b) purel!. iniern;il aJminisirdii\c
ïcis. inicndcd onl) i<>idsniii) donicsiii uncr iiir pcirolciini chploraiion
~ii\ iiics Ai the (:,,urt in7Li,>ia I.ih,<riùund \iiih rerxnl IO ih:it Libv~iiIinc.
so too, the Canadian permits in thk case do not constitute a claih at thé
international level.
The conduct of the United States in issuing permits refutes rather than
confirmsthe existence of a modus vivendior de facto maritime limit resnected bv
boih P~riics. Wherear Cniicd Si.iics cornpinie. :inil ihc Vep~rimeni <iithe
Inicriur ma? orîasion:ill) h:iic askn<>rilcdgedihai C.in3da purporicrl i<i.i.rcr;i
slaim i<iihc norihciiricrn porti<inoi Gcurac, Hank. ilicv in ïaci ignorcd ihai
claim. Thus. the United ~iates cc,moaniesYeouestedauthorizationto conduct
c.xploraii~inon the nurihe,tstcrn poriiùn oi<ieurges Hank .ind ihc Departmeni
olihe Inicrior graiiicd thai auihorii). irrc,pc~ti\e ofaiiy <'ansdilin clciini
1he Unitcd Siaiei hxsshiiwn th31lis contincnial ~hell'<ieiii~iti;ei~reconsistent
with the single maritime boundary it has proposed. In this respect the United
States has shown that the facts and the relevant law clearly establish that the
United States did not acquiesce in Canada's alleged sovereign rights in Georges
Bank and that the United States is no1now estopped from contesting Canada's
equidistant boundary.
The United States has further shown that the same facts refute the existence of
a modus vivendior de facro maritime limit and that the conduct of the United
Siaics sonirlidicis the tiew ih~i the CniieJ Si;iicj rcgarded <.'an~dx',allcged
xs.criion of righis IO thc nririhcasi portion oi Gçurgc. Bank 3.;cquitablr. ARGUMENT OF MR. FELDMAN
COUKSEL FOR THE COVERKMEKT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Mr. FELDMAN: Mr. President. distineuished Judees. 1 am honoured to
hdi,cihc opporiunit) IO comc before you a Gcond tinic.and I uould Iikc IOtakc
th~sopporiunit) Io th~nk Mr R;iyA Meyer and Dr Jdn~than T Olsson for ihe
contributions they have made tothis presentation.
Mv resoonsibilitv todav isto oresent the views ofthe United Statesconcernine
the arguient made by Canada that certain communities of southwest NOV;
Scotia are in a condition of "special" economic dependence upon the fisheries of
Georees Bank. Canada areues that this condition-iustifiesa maritime boundarv
wh~chuill tcrminaic ihc ifiiiriiint fishcryihai ihrilniicd Siaies has maintiiined
on ihc nurtheast portion of Gcorgcs Bank Ior the bcttcr pari oi tuo ccnturics.
Contrary 10what Canada implies, there is no way the Chamber can preserve
the fisheries of both Parties by dividing Georges Bank. The inescapable fact is
that the fishermen of both countries are fishingin the same space and frequently
for the same stocks of fish.
In this presentation, the United States will address the socio-economic
arguments put forward by Canada. We willdemonstrate that Canada's theories
are both inconsistent with international law and unsupported by the facts. The
truth is, MI. President, that the picture Canada has painted of the economic
structure of Nova Scotia bears little resemblance to the actual state of things in
that province.
Amhassador Legault explained to the Chamber last week that Canada's
socio-economicargument has three distinct dimensions:first,Canada's presence
on Georges Bank; second, Canada's claim that southwest Nova Scotia is in a
condition of "special" economic dependence on the fisheries of Georges Bank;
and third, the comparison Canada asks the Chamber to make between "the
relative deeree of imoact that the boundaw could have on the economic life of
party'. ~anada'often confuses these tiree concepts in its pleadings, and the
each
United States believes it is crucial that the distinctions amona them be fully
understood if the Chamber is to appreciate the implications if the argument
Canada is making in this case.
By fishing presence, the United States understands the activity of nationals
of both Parties engaged in the harvesting of fish in the disputed area of
Georges Bank. Economic dependence, as the United States understands the
phrase. is a very difïerent concept. Economic dependence involves two
elements: first, the iinportance of the activity as measured by employment or
income or both. and. second. the extent to which economic alternatives are
a\vilablc ai the prescnt iinic and in the futurc The second clcnicnt is essential
bccause prcseiii dependence is rrduced io thc extent thcrc arc rcdsonablc
alternatives today, and future dependence is reduced, or eliminated, to the
extent the economy is able to absorb the loss of the activity in the future.
Further, it is important to note that Canada asserts a "special economic
dependence" (p. 91, supro),which implies an acute reliance on the disputed
fishery for economic development. Canada does so hecause that was the
situation of Iceland that the Court concluded was relevant in the particular
circumstances of the FisheriesJurisdicrioncase.
Finally, the third concept, "the relative degree of impact" on the Parties ARGUMENT OF MR. FELDMAN 381
implies a comparison of economic opportunities in the territories of the two
Parties that we regard as indistineuishable from the argument of relative wealth
that Canada den& making in th;s case. -
Contrary to what Canada soinetimes tells the Chamher, the United States
does not maintain that al1 ecanomic considerations are irrelevant to the
delimitation of a single maritime boundary. However, we make a sharp
distinction between fishingactivities on the one hand and economic dependence
and relative economic impact on the other hand. We know that Canada
conducts a fishery on the Georgcs Bank and we have never said that fishery is
irrelevant. As Mr. Lancaster emohasized in his nresentation. the United States
position is that al1the fishingactivilies of hoth P'artiesin the area hoth past and
present are relevaritcircumstances that should he halanced up by the Chamber.
Mr. Lancaster has oresented the statistics on the Amërican fisheries on
Georges Bank and the;e is no need for me to repeat that material today.
1willnow turn to Canada's claim of specialeconomic dependence. In the final
part of this presentation we will comment on Canada's argument of relative
economic im~acts.
Mr. ~resident, the main thrust of Canada's socio-economic argument is the
assertion that a number of small towns in fivecounties of southwest Nova Scotia
are in a condition ofUsoecial" economic deoendence on the fisheriesof Georges
Bank. The United tat téwilldemonstrate that this contention is hoth irrelevint
as a matter of law and unsupported by the facts. First, we will discuss the law.
Canada invokes the Crisbadarna case (Hague Cf. Rep. (Scott), 1916,p. 121),
the Fisheries case(I.C.J. Reports 1951,p. 116)and the FisheriesJurisdiction cases
(I.C.J. Reports 1974) in support of its position that economic dependence is
legallyrelevant to the boundary delimitation. 1willdiscusseach of these cases in
turn. ~
The United States agrees that the Crisbadarna decision is an important
precedent. It is the only case involving lateral boundary delimitation where
fisheries interests were at the heart of the dispute. As the United States has
pointed out in its pleadings, thiscase stands for the followingthree propositions:
(1) maritime territory is an essential appurtenance of the land territory;
(2) this relationship is best expressed, not by an equidistant line, but by a line
perpendicular to the general direction of the coasts of the two countries in
the vicinity of the land frontier; and
(3) fishing banks exploited hy two States should not be divided, but should be
attrihuted to that State whose fishermenhave fishedthe area "a much longer
time, to a much larger extent, and hy a much larger numher" (II, United
States Memorial, paras. 179-180).
Contrary to Canada's assertion, the Tribunal did not examine the economic
deoendence of the two countries on the fishervat issue. There was no discussion
in the judgmcni of the cconomic inipict of the loss of ihï tishcr) ii,ciihcr parts.
The IJnited Siair., :ilu~%grec\thlit ihï FipniJ,cr.ï hdsximc rïlevrncr icihi.
disiiuie While ihlit cïsï did noi iii\ol\r. ihr.delimiiliiion ui'm~riiimeiuri.;~licriiin
heiween adjacent or opposite States, it did involve the delimitation of coastal
State jurisdiction with consequences for the estahlished fisheriesof other States.
In that case the International C:ourt of Justice concluded that Norway was
justified indefining its territorial sea by reference to straight baselines and in
excluding British fishermenfrom that area even though they had fishedthere for
more than 40 years.
There were two principal grounds forthe decision. First, the Court concluded
that straight haselines werejustifiedhy the geographic circumstances of the case,382 GULF OF MAINE
and the Court's statement of the controlling geographic criteria were later
ado~ted inthe Treaties on the Lawof the Sea. Second, the Court concluded that
the 'UnitedKincdom was esto~~edfrom orotesting.the use of straieht baselines.
because it had acquiesced in thé~onve~kn strai&t baseline system for at least
60 years (Fisheries.I.<..J. Reporls1951p. 138).The Court did make a reference
to 'econ6mic interests pecufiar to a region, the reality and importance of which
are clearly evidenced by a long usage" (ibid.p. 133).This was not a necessary
ground for the decision. In view of the importance the Court attached to the
geography of the coast and to estoppel, this case cannotbe said to supporl the
legal relevance of economic dependence in the very diiïerent context of lateral
maritime boundary delimitation.
Moreover, the Court recognized that Nonvay had fished these waters [rom
time immsmorial and it gave weight to traditional "rights founded on the vital
needs of the population and atiested by very ancient and peaceful usage" (ibid.,
p. 142).Canada has no such "vital need" or "ancient usage".
In fact, in our view, Canada's position is more akin to that of the United
Kingdom than to Nonvay in the Fisheriescase. The Court favoured the long-
term interests of Norway over the 40-year fisheryof the Uniied Kingdom in that
case.
The FisheriesJurisdicrion case is another matter entirely. In that case, the
Court held that lceland could not oppose its extended fishery jurisdiction as
against the United Kingdom or the Federal Republic of Germany but the
Court recognized the extraordinary dependence of lceland on the high seas
fisheriesnear ils coast and concluded that the Parties had a duty to negoliate an
equitable apportionment of the fishery resources, taking account of Iceland's
prefereniial rights. As pointed out in the United StatesCounter-Memorial (IV)
(paras. 174-175),the concepi of prcfcrential rights has been overtaken by the
recognition of 200-nautical-mile exclusivefishery zones.
The FisheriesJurisdicrion case was the Court's response to the need, in the
absence of coastal State jurisdiction. for conservation of high seas resources
important to several nations. Those fisheries were common resources, and the
Court concluded that if limitations were necessary to protect the stocks, the
catch should be apportioned by the Parties. In this case, the Chamber is not
addressing resources of the high seas available to all. The resources here fall
under the exclusive jurisdiction of ihe Coastal State. The issue here is not
apportionment of resources: it is the delimitation of jurisdiction.
The United States respectfully submits that there is no legal auihority that
would support a delimitation of exclusive fisheries zones hased on economic
deoendence. In delimitation cases. such as theCrisbadarna and the Fisheriesthe
our r is\.ccdvo~redthc Party hi\inR the prcdumin~niuw of ihc rcsourcei uier
;Ilong penud. IIIthis13w. Canxda's rccent2nd Iim~tcdfishineon Georges Rank is
cumriletelvuuiu.ciehcd bv the hisiuric Amcrican tisheri ihrouehuui ihc Hank.
~.r. stévensonhas al& pointed out that the court-in the ?unisia/~ih)'acase
excluded both econoniic dependence and relativewealth asfactorsexiraneous to
delimitation. In that case, Tunisia made both arguments. First, it urged the
Courtto take accouni of the fact that it needed the hydrocarhon resources of the
area more than ils oil-rich neighhour. Second, it argued that the fisheries
resources, which it had exploited from time immemorial, were a necessary
supplement to its "economy in eking oui ils survival as a country" (I.C.J.
Reporis1982, para. 106).The Court rejecled both contentions. It stated:
"that these economic considerations cannot be taken into account for the
delimitation ... They are virtually extraneous factors since they are ARGUMENTOF MR. FELDMAN 383
variables which unpredictable national fortune or calamity .. .migbt at any
time cause to tilt the scale one way or another. A country might be poor
today and become rich tornorrow as a result of an event such as the
discovery of a valuable economic resource." (Ibid., para. 107.)
Canada attempts to escape the force of the Court's holding in the
TunisialLibya case in two ways. Canada argues first that a new law of
delimitation, founded upon the basis of title to 200-nautical-mile zones, has
superseded the traditional law of delimitation. Second, Canada seems to think
that because it makes its argument based on regional dependence, instead of on
national dependence, the holding of the Court in TunisialLibya does not apply.
The first argument leads Canada to conclude that
"The economic dependence of a coastal State upon an area of the sea
adjacent to its coast should be given a particular weight ... The economic
interests and dependence of the present and future population arecentral to
the entire legal issue ..." (III, Counter-Memorial, para. 580).
The logic of this position, Mr. President, is that a coastline such as the long
coast of Maine could be deprived of a 200-nautical-mile zone, if it is not
dependent on the resources of that zone. Canada asserts that this logic is
consistent with the basis of coastal State title to the exclusiveeconomic zoneand
with the Durnose of the zone. Nothine could be further from the truth. The
existencesf the coast, regardless of ecOnomicexploitation by any State, is the
sole basis for recognition of exclusivejurisdictional rights in the 200-nautical-
mile zone.
The second argument Canada inakes in its attemptto avoid application of the
Court's ruling in the TunisialLibj,acase is an argument of scale. Canada argues
in effect that because it is focusing on a small subregion of Canada, southwest
Nova Scotia, instead of the entire nation, the Court's reasoning does no1apply.
But how can this be so?The Court said in the TunisialLibyacase that economic
dependence was not to be taken in10 account in the delimitation because "a
country might be poor today and become rich tomorrow as a result of an event
such as the discovery of a valuable resource" (I.C.J. Reports 1982,para. 107).It
said that "unpredictable national fortune or calamity might at any lime cause to
tilt the scale one way or another" (ibid.).
Does this reasoning lose any of its force or cogency if the words "region" or
"r~~c~n~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ words "countrv" or "national"? Of course
noi. In hct, ,Ircgionil ecunumy 1ssubjeci Io cvcngredter si\ings (roni povcrt) IO
wralih Thr dicc<ivzryul'naiural gas off Sable Isl~nd, No\a Scoiia, fur cx~mplc.
though an event of minor importance to the Canadian economy as a whole, ii of
major importance to Nova Scotia.
Canada argues that the subregional level is the proper level for analysis
becausethat iswherethe supposed impacts willbeconcentrated (p. 100,supra).In
the submission of the United States. the relevant economv for the measure of
~~
dcpendensc is the ccononiy thai uill rcspond to ihc impliii Thc ec<inomyihit
will rcspond to ihc inipactr in this case is noi >ouihuc\t Kovli Scoiii. Ii i\ ihc
whole province, and ail of Canada.
The national Govemment of Canada isdeeply involved inthe Atlantic fishing
industry, including the fishing industry of southwest Nova Scotia. Hundreds of
millions of dollars have been directed to strengthen and to shape that industry.
Canada also cites the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case for the point that
regional economic dependence is legally significant (V, Reply, para. 300). The
United States has just reviewed the controlling circumstances present in the384 GULF OF MAINE
Fisheriescase that are absent here, and we explained why that case does not
support Canada's argument as a matter of law. Moreover, the facts of the two
cases are entirely different.
Indeed, if we examine the coasts of Nonvay involved in the Fisheriescase,
shown in Figure 52 of your map book, we can see that the straight baselines
protested by the United Kingdom extended across about one-half of Nonvay's
coast. These are the baselines north of the Arctic Circle shown as the upper
portion of this chart submitted by Nonvay as part of its pleadings. In contrast,
Canada invokes the ülleged dependence of a small portion of the coast of one
province, a tiny fraction of the coastline of Canada. Further, at the time of the
Fisheriescase, 70to 80percent of the adult male population in the affectedarea
of Norway was employed in fishing(United States Counter-Mernorial, Ann. 4,
para. 17, fn. 6). In the case of Nova Scotia, 0.4 per cent of the workforce is
directly employed by the Georges Bank fishery(ibid., Ann. 4, Fig. 8).
Canada also invokes~t~ ~Fisheries Jurisdicrion case as ~~ ~o~ ~ ~,or the leeal-
relevance of the econornic dependence "of whole communities" (p. 100,supra).
We have explained why the United States believesthat case has no relevance to
the delimitation of maritime boundaries between neighbouring States.
The United States further submits that the FisheriesJurisdicrioncase cannot
be invoked to support the legal relevance of economic dependence at the
regional level.Onceagain, the facts in thiscasedo not begin to resemblethe facts
in the FisheriesJuri~d~cri~n~ase~ ~
In the t(xhcrizcJun~di~~tro cnse it \ras agrced b) ihc Partici that Icclhnd uïs
in an "excsptional" siiuation ofdependence un the high seüsfisheriesdl issucin
thai c~se In Tact.the Court took iudicial notice cii lhe "exsentional deoendcnce
of the lcelandic nation upon coastal fisheries" for its fivelihood'and for
economic development (para. 44). Further, it was noted that Iceland's situation
was "unique in the world" in terms of the "absolute dependence of a State on
fisheries" (I.C.J. Reports 1973, diss. op., Gros, para. 31).
In these circumstances, it would be surprising if Canada could equate its
sitution witb that of Iceland, and the facts, MI. President, do not contain any
such surprise. As one can seein Figure 53of your book, which is beforeyou, in
1973 Iceland was dependent on the fisheries for 12.5 percent of its national
employment. The corresponding figure for Canada's dependence on fisheriesis
miniscule. In 1978 Canadian employment directly related to fisbing and fish
processing was four-tenths of 1percent - 31times smaller. This figure includes
al1Canadian fishingand processing on both coasts. Theemployment generated
by Canada's Georges Bank fishery in 1980 amounted to about one one-
hundredth of I per cent of total Canadian employment in that year if the
estimates calciilated by the United States are used, that is one one-hundredth
of 1 per cent. And to about double that if Canada's estimates are used.
Similarly, as shown in Figure 54 of your book, which will shortly be on the
easel before you, lceland was dependent on fisheries for 73.7 per cent of its
export trade in 1973.Export of fish and fish products represented only 1.4per
cent of al1Canadian exports in 1978.Thus, the FisheriesJurisdictioncase does
not support Canada's argument. The United States believes it proves that
Canada is not in a condition of special economic dependenceupon the fisheries
of Georges Bank.
MI. President, there isanotherimportant issueof scaleinvolved inthe Court's
holding in the TunisialLibyacase. That is the issue of temporal scale.The Court
uses the terms "at any lime", "today" and "tomorrow" in its holding. Clearly,
the Court was cognizant of the fact that the economic fortunes of nations and
regions change unpredictahly over time. The Court was clearly looking at the ARGUMENT OF MR. F'ELDMAN 385
broad sweeo of tiine whichis aoorooriate in the context of boundarv delimita-
lion, since boundaries are long:&rmfeatures of the political landscape.
Canada, however, restncts the temporal scalein which the Chamher would he
called upon to assess economic impacts. Canada has continually equated the
current level of dependence with the impact that will occur should the United
States prevail. In fact, the impact would equal the current level of activity only
for a moment in time. Thereafter, the impact will begin to decline,just as it did
as the United States fishermendisplaced from the Scotian Shelf in 1978adjusted
to the changed circumstances.Canada would exclude the adjustment process
from consideration. Only by doing this can it argue, as MI. Binnie did, that
coastal communities in southwesi Nova Scotia would he "irreparably damaged"
(p. 90,supra).
THEFACTS DO NOT SUPPORT CANADA'C SLAIMOF ECONOMID CEPENDENC UPON
THE GEORGEB SANKFISHERY
So far, Mr. President, we have discussed the reasons why the claim of special
economic dependence put forward hy Canada is not legally relevant to this
delimitation. Now we propose to demonstrate that the facts do not support
Canada's claim of economic dependence upon the Georges Bank fishery.
Canada's argument is intended to appeal to the emotions, and it is based on a
considerable exaeeeration of the economic conseauences of a .ud-ent that
confirms United xïates jurisdiction over Georges Bank.
Both Canada and the United States are highly developed countries. Both are
fortunate to have an abundanceofnatural resources, a well-educated~o~ulation
and a skillcd uorklorcc Hi,th ci>untricienjoy a high silindlird <iili\-ing.
turihcm<irc. hoth iountriej ha\e long couilines on thse^rich rcriiurics or
the coniincnral \hcli'xnd dhundiint tisheries. Biithsouniries hd\,ebenciiicd irom
the extension of exclusive fisheriesjurisdiction to 200 nautical miles from the
Coast. In these circumstances, it is out of place for either country to plead
poverty and desperate need for the resources that are at issue in this proceeding.
Reading the Canadian pleadings and listening to the arguments in this
Courtroom,one could form the impression that Nova Scotia isa picturesque but
poor region which consists of nothing but small fishing villagesand farms witb
limited economic opportunities. The statistical evidence, and the Canadian
documents in the record of this case. reveal a verv different oithe ~icture
of a modern civilization with excellent scho~ls and universities, a skilled
workforce and a diversified economy with considerable emphasis on sophisti-
cated financial servicesand high technology research and development.
Canada seeks to obscure the economic and social realitv of Nova Scotia bv
conbiani rclèrcnce, io iigrxuliurc, mining and iishing. irhich hai,r.rehii\ely lcsr
importiince for the w<)nom). dnd by C~ilingio mention the services secior.
includina b~nkinc. irdnbriiiri.itiuiiand eo\,crumhirh accounted in IYXUfor
72.1 of a11empioyment and 77.3 percent of provincial gross domestic
product. The distribution of income in Nova Scotia by sector and suhsector is
shown at Figure 55of your book which is now hefore you. This figure first
6h aooeared as Fieure 9 in the Socio-Economic Annex to the United States
ciunter-~emozal. This is the services sector with public administration
accounting for 15per cent, finance, insurance and real es13tpercent, trade
13per ceni, tran~~ortation, comniunication and other public utilIpercent.
This is the primary sector. Fish and processing based on northeast Georges
Bank is this tiny little sector here of blue and yellow.
For the same reason- to obscure the realiti-sCanada focuses on the small386 GULF OF MAINE
communities along the south shore of Nova Scotia and rarely mentions
metropolitan Halifax, which is a major urban centre and the locus of al1
economic activity in the eniire Atlantic region of Canada.
Mr. President, Halifax is only about 60 miles from Lunenburg, the centre of
Canada's Georges Bank fishery. Thiriy-five per cent of al1the people of Nova
Scotia Iivein Halihx county, yet Canada has virtually eliminated Halifax from
ihe Nova Scotia scene in presenting its case to the Chamber.
As was noted e3rlier, Canada's claim of special economic dependence must
rest on IWO basic assertions. The first assertiois that ihe Georges Bank fishery
is of major economic importance. The second asseriion is that those affecied
could not adjust 10 the loss of that fishery because there are no reasonable
economic alternatives, now or in the future. Both assertions are essential 10
Canada's argumerit, and neither can be sustained. We will firsl consider the
economic importance of the Georges Bank fisheries IO Canada.
Econon~icinlporra~ice
Before addressing Canada's s~ecific assertions. the United States would
r~~.ectf~ll, .o~---out that if thé Chamber wished to consider a theorv of ,
economic Jcpeiidcncc. ilwould be neccssün Ioexaminc 2nd Io rcrolic a numher
of diiliculi queriions >fihcory. Jefinition and rncasurenicni Cii>nomicanal)sis
always depends ori a choice of assumptions and of methods. The ~ham-ber
would have to determine which data are relevant and which assumpiions are
appropriate. No doubt the Chamber would have to resolve disputed issues of
faci and of expert opinion as well.
As a startine noini. let us examine the economic data oresented bv Canada
2nd ihc iJ~iiej<i;lcs. Thc Pariiei arc generallyÿgrccd ihai ihc bcsi méarurzsof
the ci<inornicsignific;inceof Ihc Gcorges Hank Fisher?are ihe empl<i)nieniand
incomc eencrdied b) lhal fisherv.The Uiiitcd Sl~tcrfirsi estimaicd ihc cmo.o\.
mrnt an2 valucadjid producedby the Parties' lirherier on ihc northe~ii pari of
Georges Hankin its Counier-hleniorial (Ann. 4.App. H,Iniro.. T.iblc<I and 21.
lt did sonot because it believedeconomicdependenceisrelevant in this case,but
in order to rebut the Canadian assertions made in Canada's Memorial (1)about
the relianceof the Parties on these fisheries(paras. 152,177).Canada responded
with its own estimates in its Reply(paras. 295,299). The United States useddata
From 1980because that is the latest year for which data are available. Canada
also used 1980data in ils computations. However, the Parlies used different
assumptions and procedures for computing ihat employment and income. As a
result, the figures dilier considerably.
The United Statesestimated the total number of Canadian jobs attributable to
the Georges Bank fishery, directly or indirectly, to be around 1.700full-time
positions in 1980. H'e also computed the Canadian income (gross domestic
product) attributable to the Georges Bank fishery to be of the order of
100 million Canadian dollars.
Canada estimated that 3.600 Canadian jobs were generated by the Georges
Bank fishery,directly or iudirectly, in 1980.11attributed income of 146million
Canadian dollars to that fisheryin that year. The United States believesihat the
Canadian figuresare inflated substantially.
One of the major sources of the disagreement between the Parties as to
employment levels and income is Canada's assumption that al1 77 licensed
offshore scallop vesselsin southwest Nova Scotia fishedexclusivelyon Georges
Bank in 1980(Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II, Part 1.Table 8, fn. 2). Canada
has produced no evidenceto support thal assumption. In Tact,the evidence isto ARGUMENT OF MR. FELDMAN 387
the contrary. In 1980,only 67 percent of southwest Nova Scotia'sscallop catch
came from Georges Bank, not 100 per cent, as would have been the case if
Canada's assumption were correct. Since 33 per cent of the scallops landed in
southwest Nova Scotia came from other areas under undisputed Canadian
jurisdiction, al1 the figures presented by Canada for employment and income
attributable to Georges Bank in 1980 have to be reduced significantly. For
example, if the United States is correct, 729jobs willhave to be subtracted from
the Canadian total of 3,600 to account for this one discrepancy.
It should be noted that the figuresfor 1980are not a fluke.The proportion of
southwest Nova Scotia's scallop landingstaken from Georges Bank increased
somewhat in 1981. But in 1982il fell 1062 ver cent. In 1983.it fell further. to
59 per ceni Thew itatisiics ïre rakcn Jirr~ily froni oficiïl Cïnïdian ~ourcer
(doc 124dcposiicd bv ihc liniied States. 28 June 1983.;ind doc 116dcpositcJ
h\ ihe United Sidlcs on YAoril 19841and reoort, irrucd hv ihr North Atlantic
gsheries Organization.
Canada refuses to acknowledge these facts because they undermine ils
argument that the southwest Nova Scotian fishing industry is almost entirely
dependent upon Georges Bank for scallops.
Perhaps this explains why Canada maintains in its Reply that 97 per cent
of total Canadian scallop landings in 1981came from Georges Bank (Anns.,
Vol. II, p. 21, fn. 38), althougb this assertion is demonstrably incorrect. The
United States invites the Chamber to examine the evidence that Canada has
presented to support this number. Figure 56 of your book is Table 13 of
Volume II of the Annex to Canada's Reply. whichcan be found at page 43 of
that volume. Table 13 displays Nova Scotia's scallop landingsIrom Georges
Bank, Browns Bank and Germiin Bank, and a column described as "total
landings". The problem, however,isthat that finalcolumnonly sums the catches
in Ihe three other columns. It is not. in fact. eaual to total scalloo landings in
either Canada or Nova Scotia becauSeit dois &t include landing; from aii the
other scallop grounds in additioii to Georges, Browns and German. Without
that data, the iable is incomplete and misleading.
The graph in Figure 57 of your map book shows the difference between the
scallop catches describedin Table 13of the Canadian Annex and the fullligures
which the United States has derived from ICNAF and NAFO sources for the
years 1964-1981.The pink represents thediflerencebetweenthe catches reported
by Canada in Table 13and the fiillcatch according to the ICNAF and NAFO
statistics. The Canadian table fails to include on the average 21 per cent of
Canada's yearly scallop landings for the period shown.
The next chart in your map book, Figure 58, is a bar graph that shows the
amount of scallops that has been landed in Canada from Georges Bank, which
is shown in grey. and from other scallop beds shown in red for the years
1977-1983.The ereen line in each bar indicates the level of southwest Nova
Scotia landings. ind WC assume thai al1the Georges Rank calch *.a<Iïnded in
souihucsi Soi,;i Scotia. As you clinsec.iclillop beds in C~nadian uïters north
of Georges Bank are becoming more and more important for Canada as a
whole and for southwest Nova Scotia as well. In 1981.the vear Canada claims
that only 3percent of itsscallops camefrom areas other than Georges Bank, it
turns out that 26 percent actually came from other areas. In 1983,to choose
the latest examole: 52Dercent of al1scalloos landed in Canada. and 41 ver ceni
of those landeh in sobthwest Nova Scoti.a, came from undisputed canadian
waters.
Mr. President, the United States wonders, and the Chamber is entitled to
wonder, how Canada can square this evidence withits argument that southwest388 GULF OF MAINE
Nova Scotia currently relies almost exclusivelyon Georges Bank for scallops
(Canadian Reply, Anns., Vol. II, Part 1,para. 38).
The scallop table is jus1 one example of the liberties Canada takes with the
data in this case. In the larger picture, however, the United States helievesthat
these details are only of secondary importance. Even if we accepted al1 of
Canada's figures they would not support Canada's claim of special economic
dependence on the fisheriesof Georges Bank.
The 3,600jobs claimed byCanada would represent lessthan four-hundredths
of 1percent of the Canadian workforce and only 1.3percent of employment in
the province of Nova Scotia. Seventeen hundred jobs, the United States
estimate, would represent less than two-hundredths of I per cent employment
for Canada and six-tenths of I percent forNova Scotia. The income ratios are
also very small. One hundred and forty-six million Canadian dollars would
represent only five-hundredths of I per cent of Canadidn GDP in 1980and
about 2.3 per cent of GDP for Nova Scotia. The United States estimate of
Canadian income attributable to Georees Bank is about two-thirds of the
Cdnîdian figure. and the perccntagcs uiuld k reduced proportic>nateIy
Thu\, eten if Canad~ wçrccorrert that nonc of this emplnyment and insumç
could bc repl3ced - and ihe United Stîtes doeq no1~ccept th.11contention fi~r
one minute& the losseswould be small in hoth absolute'and relative terms
In recent years, al1industrial countries have had to cope with fluctuations in
employment and income on a much larger scale. In my prepared statement 1
have a number of examples. Just to cite a fewexamples, according to statistics
recently published hy the OECD, the Federal Republic of Germany lost over a
millionjobs in the manufacturing sector during the fiveyears from 1973-1978.
The United Kingdom and Switzerland each lost 200,000manufacturing jobs in
the same period. Indeed, a good many communities in many countries have had
10cope with sudden plant closingswhicb have caused much larger impacts than
Canada projects in this case. In 1979 British Leyland cut ils workforce by
25.000. In 1980. Fia1 cul its workforce bv 10.000. In 1979 US Steel closed
operations involving 13,000jobs (Job ~osiesin Major Indusrries, deposited as
doc. 114by the Uniied States on 9 April 1984).
Furthermore, Mr. President, the United States pleadings havepointed out a
number of devicesCanada has used to create the impression that the Georges
Bank fishery is ofgreater economic importance that it really is. For instance,
Canada frequently refers to "the fishery" without specifyingwhich fisheryit is
talking about. Often Canada is not referring 10the Georges Bank fisherybut to
al1the fisheriesof Nova Scotia, which are much larger. Byconfusing the small
fishery withthe larger, Canada gives an exaggerated impression of the import-
ance of the Georges Bank fishery.
This technique crops up again in Mr. Binnie's statement where Canada
estimates "that about 15per cent of the labour force in southwest Nova Scotia
work in fishharvesting and fish processing" (p. 99, supro). No mention is made
of Georges Bank because most of the employment cited has nothing to do with
Georges Bank.
Similarly,Canada usually compares employment and income in fish harvest-
ing with the primary sector only - that is the raw material sector - and it
compares fish e roc es s iith themanufaclurine sector alone. No ~o~ ~r,~~n~ ~
madéto the N'o\a~coiii<economy as a whole ihirh. as u.e have seen. iniludcs
an cnormous servicesscctor. Thur. the Canadian Memorial Statesthat "fishine"
represents 36 percent of employment in the primary sector in Nova Scotia, bÜt
this figure is meaningless.The relevant fact is that fishing on Georges Bank
represented onlytwo-tenths of I percentof employment in Nova Scotia in 1980. ARGUMENT OF MR. FELDMAN 389
Canada takes the technique of inappropriate comparison a step further in
@ Figure 27 of ils Reply (Fig. 59 of your map book) which purports to make
comparisons with the wine industry in France and the steel industry in the
@ Federal Republic of Germany. Figure 27 is designed to imply that the Georges
Bank fishery is more important than, for example, the wine industry is to
France. However, this figure is seriously misleading in three different ways.
First, the cross-hatched area of the bar representing the Nova Scotia economy
does not represent the Georges Bank fishery. The portion indicated for fish
harvesting and processing includes al1 of Nova Scotia's fishenes of which
Georges Bank is only a fraction.
Second, the fishingindustry is compared with the economy of one province-
Nova Scotia - while the French wine industrv. which is shown as this barelv
visiblecross-hatchedarea, iscompared to the whole French economy. ~imilarly,
the German iron and steel industry is compared with the national economy of
the Federal Rcpublic of Germany.
A true comparison of the importance of the Georges Bank fisheryto Canada
with the importance of the wine industry to France or the steel industry
@ to Germany produces a very diiïerent bar graph. That is shown as Figure 60
of vour man book. and that is the fieure before vou. Anvone can see that
canada's dépendence on the George; Bank fishéry is much smaller than
fi Canada's Figure 27implies.A more realisticcomparison would he the closingof
- one textile &II.
All of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rt~ons are small. however. bv comnanson with Canada's
efiort10confine the analysis Io fivesklectedco"nGes in iouthwest Nova Scotia.
This narrow focus has no hasis in legal principle or in economic reality.
Southwest Nova Scotia, and espëciaily the Lunenburg-Riverport area, is
closely lied to the regional economic centre of Halifax. As you can see on
Figure 61. which is now before you. Lunenburg is about one hour's drive away
[rom Halifax on a modern expressway. In North America that is commuting
distance.Interestirigly, Canada has chosen to leave Halifax out of the analysis,
but it has not failed to include Boston in its definition of eastern Massachusetts,
the area Canada compares to southwest Nova Scotia. even though New
Bedford, the United States port most comparable 10Lunenburg, is farther from
Boston than Lunenburg is from Halifax.
Now, Mr. President, 1willaddress Canada's second assertion: that southwest
Nova Scotia could not adjust to the loss of that fishery of the Georges Bank
fisherybecause. according to Canada, it has no economic alternatives now or in
the future.
This assertion is a major premise of Canada's argument and Canada cannot
expect either the United States or the Chamher to accept it without proof. In lieu
of oroof. Canada oiïers a thesis hased on the discredited theorv of environmen-
131rlcicrminism <:.inad;u.;ini, ihc Ch~mhcr lu belieic thdi ihcNo*:! .%<>il3
fisheric\ on Cic<)rgc\Bank Are ihc produci 01'zn\iroiinient;il condiiioii\, and
that Ihcçecondiii<mruould led\c So\:\;iSciiiia no .ilicrn.itiics iodd,. or in ihc
future.
If Nova Scotia really were locked into an economy based only on resource
exploitation, ils labour force would be employed principally in the primary
sector- that is in the oroduction of raw material- and the orooortion of the
labour force in that seetor would remain relatively constant. ~hât, however, is
not the case. In1891,54 per cent of Nova Scotia's labour was in the primary390 GULF OF MAINE
sector. Bycontrast, in 1981,only 7percent of ils labour force wasin the primary
sector (doc. 117.denosited bv the United States. 9 Anril 19841.Todav. almost
~~~
three-fourths of'th&ova ~cotia labour force is'fouid in the service<;ector.
On 4 April 1984,hlr. Binnie told the Chamber:
"Owing in part to ils proximity as well as to the lack of alternative
employment opportunities ... southwest Nova Scotia has traditionally
enjoyed advantages over eastern Massachusetts in harvesting the fishing
grounds on the eastern half of Georges Bank ... The economic advantages
of proximity, whatever they may be, will continue for so long as Georges
Bank and Nova Scotia remain where theyare ..." (P. 89.)
MI. President. the IJnited States would understand this arrument better if
Csnacli;infishermen had fished the Gcorges Rank throughuut ihe 19thçcntury
and iCCanadian iibhennenwrrc the fishermsnuho dcvcloped the scallop fishery
on the northrïst Dari<iiGcorges Bank in the 1920%I.f the Nova Sçotia fisheries
on Georges ~ank werethe in&itable result ofenvironmental conditions, why is
it they never existed until a few years ago? If proximity gives Nova Scotia
fishermen a decisive eùge, where were they during the first 150 years of the
fishery, and why are the American vessels fishing the northeastern part of
Georges Bank today in greater numbers than vesselsfrom Nova Scotia?
The fact is, Mr. President, that Canadian fisherieson the Atlantic Coast are
controlled more by Ottawa than they are by nature. At this very moment, the
Canadian Government is implementing major changes in the structure of the
Atlantic fishingindustry and over 100million dollars bas been appropriated for
that purpose just this year.
Canada bas many other fisheriesthat could be made available to Nova Scotia
fishermen. The waters surrounding Nova Scotia in NAFO area 4 are teeming
with fish.
Between 1975and 1980 Canada's Atlantic catch increased from 789,000
metric tons, including the Georges Bank catch, to over I million metric tons
excluding the fish taken on Georges Bank (United States Counter-Memorial,
para. 347, fn. 6), and prospects for the future are even better. Canada's task
force on Atlantic fisheries eslimates in the Kirby Report that the groundfish
harvest that rose to 779,000metric tons by 1981willincreaseto 1,100,000metric
tons by 1987(V, United States Reply, Ann. 31, para. 41). As pointed out in
Annex 31 10 the United States Reply, these increases Far exceed Canada's
Georges Bank catch in both volume and value (Ann. 31, pp. 2-3).
To the extent the growth in Canada's Atlantic fishenesis unahle toabsorb the
fishing efforl redirected from Georges Bank, newjobs generated by the rapidly
expanding economy of Nova Scotia should fiIlthe gap. Employment in Nova
Scotia increased by 100,000jobs between 1961 and 1981. If il continues to
increase al the same rate, it will generate 70,000 new jobs between 1981 and
1991.The ability of Nova Scotia's workforceto adapt itself to the requirements
of thefuture is questioned hy no oneexceptthe Canadian Government, and then
onlv in the context of this case.
, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A, u.chave pointcd out in Ourpleadings, Mr. President. significantdiscoveriss
of nat~ral ras have reçently bccn made near Sable Island u,hichis loîated on the
Scotian ~hélf.The reporf prepared for the government of Nova Scotia has
estimated that the development of these resources willgenerate upto 6,000jobs
in the development phase and up to 1,100permanent jobs. Nova Scotians are
expected to fiIl40 per cent of the former and 90 per cent of the latter (United
States Counter-Memorial, Ann. 4, para. 62).
The premier of Nova Scotia said in a speech this January that ARGUMENTOF MR. FELDMAN 391
"[qhe most recent estimates of the geological survey of Canada show
a 50 per cent probability the gas reserves off Nova Scotia are at least
13trillion feet" (doc. 105,deposited by the United States, 9 April 1984).
Canada cannot pretend that the development of offshore hydrocarhons will
fail to have benefils for southwest Nova Scotia's economy. Development of
these resources willprovide employment throughout Nova Scotia, both directly
and through the oper~tion of the multiplier eîTect.
In the final analysis, it is highly probable that most Canadian workers who
could be affected by the confirmation of United States jurisdiction over Georges
Bank will find other employment in a reasonable lime.
Finally, Mr. President, we would like to turn Our attention 10 the third
Canadian argument, to whai Mr. Binnie describes as "the comparaiive impact
of the boundary delimitation on eastern Massachusetts and southwest Nova
Scotia" (p. 102,supra).
Canada recognizes that the Court in the TunisialLihya case firmly excluded
cornoarisons of relative wealth and oovertv from consideration in the delimita-
tionhf maritime houndaries. ~herefOre,canada is quick to assure the Chamher
that it does not rely on considerations of relative national wealth. The Canadian
Memorial is. however, inconsistent on this ooint
In naraeranh 318 Canada makes the 'stronr assertion that "The rreat
dependenc~oisouihuesi Nova Scoiia on th31fisheryfor ils well.beinggiie[q the
arc3 a 9peci31economic signilicdnceio Canada th31iseniirely withou~psrallel in
the ~niied Staies". The argument is stated in ils most extreme and unsupport-
able fonn in paragraphs 301 and 303 of the Canadian Counter-Memorial:
"The inconie IOS2Indjuh, climinaied in souihucst Nota Scotiaco~ld ndi
h. replaccd ... The Cdnlidi<inIinc.uould impose no re31hardship un the
Uniied Staies. uhile the United States claim wuuld h3i.e 3 dc\asiliiing
impact on the~ova Scotia fishery."
Apparently Canada hopes once again Io avoid the ruling in the TunisialLibyo
case hy shifting the focus from the national to the regional level. Thus,
Mr. Binnie argues that southwest Nova Scotia is "certainly more dependent
than is New England generally, and eastern Massachusetts in particular, on the
area in dispute" (p. 101,supra).
The fact of the matter is that New Eneland has verv nearlv the same number
of job, 21stakc in the norihedst Iiurtion;i~eurges &nk dcdoes Noka Scotia.
Under Uniied Si.iici assumptiuni the numhcrs are 1,700for Cannd~ and 1.100
for New England.
The only difference,then, as Mr. Binnie told the Chamher, is the relative size
of the economies in the two areas cornpared by Canada. In Mr. Binnie'swords:
"Because of the major difference in the size of the two economies, the relarive
contribution which Georee- Bank makes to each of the two regions is more
significant." (P. 101.)
There can be no doubt that Canada is arguing relative need. Relative needis
the other side of the coin of relative wealth, and the Court has dismissed that
factor as a consideration in boundarv delimitation. As we have shown in our
discussion of economic dependence. kanadi cannoi escape the holding of the
Couri by focusing upon ihs need, of a few communiiies.
There are iuo compelling reli\<)nrwhy ihis ir si).First, in juridical ierms. the392 GULF OF MAINE
delimitation is not between competing communities in Iwo countries. The
delimitation marks theinternational boundary between two sovereign States. As
Canada points out in paragraph 76 of ils Reply "There is no hasis in
international law for attributi-. ~articular entitlements to the ~oliticalsuhdivi-
sions OC a saercign Stltc". SCLLI~Ji.n ect>ncimiiicrni, ihc interestcd loc~litics
do riut chisi in irul.iiion. '1hc) are pari of IhrgercLononiii enl~i~csIl'esonumic
hiljusiment, are requircd. the Cr~inc\<orkit~riilution includes ihr. rcsourics of
the country as a whole, both i riva tand oublic. Inanv event. Mr. President. the
rcrp~~iiiihilityiur the ned; OCihe ~iii7eni of iXo\;x S~otia Iics uiih the
(i<~vcrnmcniiiiCdn~dx. no1uiih the Cn~tedStatcs aiid riut uith the Chhmher.
The onli cliii! of tlic Ch~mhcris todclimit the maritime hound.ir\. in ihc GiiIf
of Maine area in accordance with law.
The Chamberrose rit17.57p.m. SIXTEENTH PUBL.IC SITTING (18 IV 84, 10am.)
Presenl: [Seesitting of 2 IV 84.1
ARGUMENTOF MR.LANCASTER
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THEUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MI. LANCASTER: MI. President, suhject to your control, it will be my
pnvilege today to introduce and question Dr. Robert L. Edwards as an expert
on the manne environment. includine the oceanoaraohvand ecoloavofthe Gulf
of hlainc iireiiiind. pariiculdrly. ihcdi\.lsion of spccies2nd stock; in ihc are4
In ordcr appl! ihcequirxhlcprinciplesih;iiarc iipplicahle IO ihisdclirnii~ii<in
proceeding,it isnecessaryto understand the nature of the marine environment of
theGulf of Mainearea. Thus. the oceanoeraohv and ecoloev ofthe Gulf of Maine
area, particularly the entent to which ihe fishery reso;;ces are divided into
separate stocks, are relevant to the application of the pnnciples that delimitation
should facilitate conservation and manageme-t of resources and minimize the
p<iieniwlfor disputes. Bcc;iu\eol'iis unlqucncsï. the marine cn\in>nment of ihc
GUIFof hlaine arcn is al50 penincni IO ihc xpplicaiion of the pnnciplc thïi an
equitahle delimitation take account of al1relevant circumstances.
Both the concent of a "stock" and the identification of seoarate stocks in the
CiiIf of Mains aria ha\c heen csiiiblishcd kir decddcs. C'anidian scicniisti have
long recogni~edihe cristcncc of sspiiriiic riodki of commcrciallg important tish
and of natural barriers that discourage their passage from one location to
another in the Gulf of Maine ar~ ~~W~th each successiveoleadine. however.
canada has hacked further away from the recognition 2 these-facts. ~nd
therefore the United States has Iiad to develop the record evidence concerning
subjects that should have heen beyond dispute - the stock divisions and thé
natural harriers in the Gulf of Mainearea are the two principal subjects of which
1speak, and it is this need which has led the United States to produce expert
testimony in this proceeding.
Accordingly, Mr. President, with your permission, the United States proposes
to ask Dr. Edwards a series of questions about the marine environment of the
Gulf of Maine area. The puruose of these questions is to provide the facts
relatine to the marine enviÏonment. oarticula;lv with reeardio the subiect of
stock d;\i,ions ,ind ihr rmsons for ihke di\isi&s in ihc Culf oi Mdine are1 It
uill bc ners\sar> IO dciiluith iairl) clcrncnidlscience,in order 10 shou ihe bii\ic
underpinnings of what should be the undisputed scientificconclusions.
The examination will he as follows: first, we will discuss the physical
charactenstics of the manne environment.
Next, the questions will concern the way in which natural divisions in the
ocean affect the distribution of marine organisms.
We willthen turn to the Gulf of Maine area specifically,and we willdeal with
the topography of the sea-hed, the pattern in whichthe water circulates through
thearea and the temperature and composition of thewaterindiferent partsof the
area.
Lastly, my questions willturn to the eiïect of the physical oceanography of the
area on ils ecology, notably on Ihe development of separate stocks of fish and
shellfish.394 GULF OF MAINE
Dr. Edwards will refer in some of his answers to the illustrations which were
distributed to you thisorning, and large versions of those illustrations will be
placed on the easel beside Dr. Edwards. He will be assisted in this process by
Lieutenant Neil Gitin and by Dr. Jonathan Olsson.
Mr. President, I would like al this point Io express my appreciation to
attorney adviser Mary Wild Ennis, who has been of great assistance in the
preparation of this presentation.
1 hope to conclude my examination of Dr. Edwards before the end of this
morning's session and then, with your permission, 1 propose to tender
Dr. Edwards for cross-examination by Mr. Fortier, able counsel for Canada.
The Parties have aereed that there will be no redirecl examination. As we
proceed, the ~nited'~tates encourages the Chamber to itself ask questions of
Dr. Edwards if at any lime a response is unclear or incomplete or prompts a
further question in the minds of any memher of the Chamher EVIDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS
WITNESS AND EXPERT CALLED BY THE GOVERNMEKT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA
The PRESIDENT: The Agent of the United States kas already notified
his intention to cal1Dr. Robert Edwards as an expert within the meaning of
Article 63 of the Rules of Court and has supplied the information required in
Article 57of those Rules. Dr. Edwards willfirst make, at the speaker's desk, the
declaration which Article 64 of the Rules requires every expert to make before
heing questioned. After that, h4r. Lancaster may put his questions. Suhse-
quently, in accordance with Article 65 of the Rules, I shall give an opportunity
for the cross-examination of Dr. Edwards Io counsel for Canada. It is also
possible, need 1 add, and as you said, MI. Lancaster, that members of the
Chamber may wish to avail theniselves of their rights to examine Dr. Edwards
under the same Article 65.
Dr. EDWARDS: 1solemnly declare upon my honour and conscience that 1
will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that my
statement will be in accordance with my sincere belief.
The PRESIDENT: 1 take riote that Dr. Edwards has duly made the
declaration.
Mr. LANCASTER: 1willfirst ask Dr. Edwards a few preliminary questions
regarding his education and experience and 1 will then move to a series of
questions that willlicit answers in the substantive areas on which he has been
called to testify.
Dr. Edwards, would you please describe for the Chamher your education and
your teaching experience since you completed your secondary education.
Dr. EDWARDS: 1entered collegein 1939.My education was interrupted by
the war. In 19451resumed my studies. I received myBachelor of ScienceDegree
in biology from Colgate University in 1947. 1received my Masters Degree in
biology from Harvard University in 1949,and my Doctorate in biology in 1951,
also from Harvard University.
1 was an instructor on the staff of Colgate University during my las1two years
as an undergraduate and 1 taught biology at Tufts College in Medford,
Massachusetts, from 1949 to 1'250and at Brandeis University in Waltham,
Massachusetts, from 1950to 1953.
In addition to this teaching experience, from 1979to 19801was a lecturer at
Yale University in New Haven. l:onnecticul, in the subject-matter of conserva-
tion and management of natural and marine resources. 1 remain an adjunct
professor at the University of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island, in the
Department of Oceanography.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, would you please descrihe your post-
schooling employment.
Dr. EDWARDS: 1 joined the United States Fisheries Service in 1955.
In 1970the Fisheries Servicewas incorporated into the then newly established
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, better known as NOAA.
1 have heen with NOAA and its predecessor institution since 1955,a total of
29 years.396 GULF OF MAINE
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, would you please tell us the positions
which you have held while you were employed by NOAA and ils predecessor
institutions.
Dr. EDWARDS: In 1955when 1joined the Fisheries Service, 1joined as a
Programme Chief at the Woods Hole Laboratory, in Woods Hole. Massachu-
setts.1was put in charge ofa researchprogramme studying the ecology of fishes
of southern New England. In 19601becamethe Assistant Laboratory Dircctor
at the Woods Hole Laboratory. My responsibilitiesincluded scientific leadership
and technical co-ordination of research programmes in the northwest Atlantic
including the Gulf of Maine area. Early in 19701became the Acting Associate
~ ~e...r for Resource Res~ ~ ~f~r the United States in the headauarters of the
Hurcÿu oi Ci)mmerciaI Fishcries in ~ashin~ion. U.C. In lG72. :tiicr ihe
form3iion <iiNOAA. Ircturnerl ttN'ooJs Ilolc. io he ihc I>ircctor oithe ncul!
esiahli5hr.J NorihcJsi 1-isherici Ccnier As the Direcior of ih~i insiiiuiion. I rias
responsible for supervisingthe work of a group of laboratories that formed the
Center.
1remained Director of the Northeast Fisheries Center for over ten years, from
1972 to 1982. In 1982 1 was appoinied to my current position as Technical
Assistant to the Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, inNOAA.
Mr. LANCASTER: During most ofyour 29years wiih NOAA you have been
associated with the Northeast FisheriesCenter. Would you tell the Chamber.
please,what the Northwesi Fisheries Cenicr is.
Ilr EDW.ARIlS. The Nor1hc:i~i Fiihrrics Cenier is mirle ~p oi marinr
li,hcrir'r bi<ilogirÿl I~ibor~iorici Ikic.11cdin Woods tlcilc. C;li>ucester(13s~;iihu-
scii;). Nlrragaiiseii(Rhode Iiland~. hlilfurd (C<)nnecticui). Sand) Hook (Scri
Jcrscy). Oxiord (Sl;ir)l;inJ). and ihe K.iiionsl S!siemaiiss I.;iborntory in the
Smlihaoni~n Inci~iiiiion in Waihingion. DC. :ISuell .is ihc Ail.intiEniiron.
mental Group in Narragansett.
The Woods Hole laboratory is the oldest fisheries hydrographic research
laboratory in the world. It wasestablished in 1871to study the biology of fishes
and other marine resourcesof the northwesi Atlantic Ocean and the insiitution
has beenstudying the area, including the Gulf of Maine area, since that lime.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, how many people are involved in ihese
activities?
Dr. EDWARDS: Approximately 400 people are employed in the various
laboratories coinbined. The Woods Hole laboratory itselfemploys an averageof
over 100people. The Woods Hole laboratory also operates for the benefit of the
Center two large researchvessels(the Albarross IVand the Delaiisare 10. Eachof
thesevesselsis al seaapproximately 200to 250days of the year, including 30 ta
40 people on board, collecting extensive data, including data on temperature.
salinity, phytoplankton, zooplankton. eggs and larvae of fish, benihic orga-
nisms, and fish themselvesfrom the southern end of the Scotian Shelf to south of
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
Many members of the Center are on the staffs of the University of Rhode
Island and the University of Massachusells. The members of the staff of the
Northeast Fisheries Center write extensively on the physical oceanographyand
ecology of the Gulf of Maine area. Over the years, asexperts, ils staff has taken
part in similar studies al1over the world.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards. during your years al NOAA did you have
an" snccial resvonsibilities with regard to international scientific co-operation?
. . -
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, from 1966until 1982when 1look my current position EVIDENCEOF DR. EDWARDS 397
(and this is except for the period when 1 was in Washington, D.C.), 1 was
responsible for the planning and co-ordination of the joint scientificworks with
the Center of foreign research vessels including those from the Soviet Union,
Poland, East and West Germany, French and Japanese vessels, working with
our own vesselseatherine data on fishervstocks and other relevant tonics in the
Gulf of Maine Gea. " ~ ~ ~ ~
Since 19741have heen the United States Government Co-ordinator for joint
US-USSR studies of the hiologic;ilproductivity and hiochemistry of the world's
occÿns. Since 1975,1have been the United States delegate to the International
Council for the Exploration of thc Seas(ICES). From the early 1960suntil 1977,
1was scientificad\,iser in ICNAF. ICNAF as 1am sure you know was involved
in managing thc fisheryresources ofthe northwest Atlantic including the Gulfof
Maine area.
MI. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, finally, would you state for the record
please the professional associations to which you belong.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, there are many such including the American Fisheries
Society, the American Society of Parasitologists, the American Socicty of
Mammalogists, the Wilson Oriiithological Society, the Scientific Advisory
Board of the Sea Education Association, the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, and 1am presently Chairman
of the Marine Fisheries Committce of the Manne Technical Society.
Mr. LANCASTER: MI. President, that concludes the series of questions
relating to Dr. Edwards' qualifications. 1 would now proceed to a series of
questions relating to the substantive areas of his testimony.
Dr. Edwards, Canada has stated: "Unlike the land, the sea is not marked
by geographically fixed discontinuities or boundaries." (V, Canadian Reply,
para. 179.)Do you agree with that statement?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, 1do not. There are geographically fixeddiscontinuities
or boundaries in the sea, jus1 as there are on the land. In fact. in somc cases,
discontinuities or boundaries in the sea may be even more fixed than those on
land.
Boundaries and/or discontinuities are formed where two dissimilar areas
meet. Dissimilar areas. and houndaries between them. exist in the sea as wellas
on rhc IsnJ. Such bounddrics anil arrd, cxisi in the tiipt)graphy. uhich cdn31'0
bc refcrrcd toar gc<iniorpholog).in ihc clim~ic.and in the hioid I~urth~~riiiorc.
areas and boundaries hased onfactors such as these frequently coincidc.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, in what way are rhe land and the sea
marked by "geographically fixed" geomorphological areas and boundaries?
Dr. EDWARDS: To the extent that the phrase "geographically fixed
discontinuities or boundaries" means geomorphological features such as moun-
tains, valleys and shorelines, that separate or bisect plains and plateaux, then
obviously comparable boundaries exist in the sea. The sea surface is seemingly
Rat and uniform compared with the land surface, although a fisherman at sea in
a storm might think differently. Beneath the surface, the sea is much like the
land. It is only necessary to glance at a standard nautical chart to see that there
are counterparts to mountains, canyons, plateaux and plains.
Mr. LANCASTER: How does climate affect or create dissimilar areas and
boundaries between them and how does this affect the biota?
Dr. EDWARDS: On land, climatic zones and boundaries between them, to
a large extent, are the corisequences of differences in air temperature. Air398 GULF OF MAINE
temperature varies in response to air currents, air masses and altitude and, of
course, the position of the Sun. Climatic zones and houndaries are in turn
mirrored in the zonation of the earth's Rora and fauna.
Air masses move across land and play a role in the creation of climatic, Roral,
and faunal zones and the boundaries hetween them.
A practical application of man's recognitionof the biological significance of
climatic zoneson land isfound in seedand olant cataloeues in the fom of charts
indicating "hardiness" zones. Such charts guide the gaydener in the selection of
plants that are suitahle for specific regions. If a gardener disregards such
information he risks selectin. .lants that cannot -row, orat least flower, in his
garden.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, why does temperature Varyfrom latitude
to latitude?
Dr. EDWARDS: Because of the change in the position of the sun, air
temperature generally increases as one moves from the poles towards the
equator. Consequently, in the northern hemisphere, as one moves from north to
south on the land, one encounters a senes of zones, beginning at the far north
with ice and snow, then tundra, followed hy spruce forests and tiagas, broad-
leaved deciduous forests or temperate plains and, ultimately of course, tropical
forests and mangroves.
Mr. LANCASTER: How does altitude affect temoerature?
Dr. EDWARDS: Air temperature decreases with altitude, which in turn
results in a senes of life zones. Everyone is aware of the progressive changes in
plant and aninial coinmunities as one climhs mountains.
Mr. LANCASTER: Would you please give us an example of such zonal
changes.
Dr. EDWARDS: Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa is a classic example. It is
almost 6,000 metres high. Between its base and top is an array of zones that
resemhle those that you might encounter on a trip from the tropics to
Antarctica. On the rainy side of the mountain, such a journey would begin on
the plains in atropic;~lscrub and, as the altitude increased, would change first to
a tropical rain forest with bamhoo groves, then a temperate forest, followed hy
ever smaller trees and shruhs and other plants more adapted to a colder climate;
and then, finally, a tundra-like zone - in aspect similar to that seen in the
northern hemisphere but with very different species of plants and animals. Of
course, al the top ice and snow and even some small glaciers; and 1 think, as
everyone realizes, this mountain is almost on the equator.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, we have been talking about the land. Are
there similar zones and houndaries in the ocean?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, there are. They are also marked hychanges in Roraand
fauna. There are cold arctic areas and~warm trooical areas. des& su. .rtinr!
litils Iifeand ctinirïiiing regions ~ith high Ie\hilhiologic~lproduciivii). i\.i
said. on land. air teniperaturc. latiiudc. aliiiudc, air currents and xir mases are
instrumental in the creation of climatic zones and the houndanes between them.
Similarly, in the ocean, the temperature and salinity of the water, its latitude,
depth, water currents and water masses, al1play a critical role in the creation of
natural zones and boundaries.
MI. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, how precisely fixed and geographically
fixed are the geomorphological fixtures and climatic boundaries or barriers,
whether on land or in the ocean? EVIDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 399
Dr. EDWARDS: Geomorphological features in the ocean are as "fixed" as
are thoseo~ ~~ ~. The term "eeoeraohicallv fixed. whether on land or in the
sea, of course, isonethat should be used on& looseli. Everyone isaware that al1
these features or boundaries. eveii in terms of lime periods as short as a man's
lifetime, are no1 rigidly fixed. Rivers do change their courses, volcanos erupt,
mountains are slowly eroded and the shape of continents is constanlly being
modified. Geomorphological features in the ocean have a comparable fixity.
Climatic boundaries Varyin their precision and in their geographic breadth. but
they are at least as precise and "geographically fixed" in the sea as they are on
land. Natural boundaries indicaie the general limits of identifiable zones.
Absolutely precise floral and faunal boundaries on land and in the ocean exist
only as lines on a map. Some natural boundaries are narrow and even
observable wiih ihe naked eye and fundamentally consistent in their geographic
position. Others are marked but move seasonally while others are broader and
less clearly defined seasonally or geographically.
Mr. LANCASTER: Are land boundaries more clearly defined than ocean
boundaries?
Dr. EDWARDS: Conditions in the occan are such that its natural bouiidaries
can be more sharply defined and directly observable by eye or wilh instruments
than those on land. For example, some boundaries between water masses are
manifested at the surface of the water bv changes in wave form or in the colour
of the water. This can happen at the edge ofthé continental shelf or a1the edge
of a warm core ring. A "warm core ring" is, incidentally, a round pocket of
water that breaks away from the Gulf Stream.
Mr. LANCASTER: Do the houndaries that you describe mark absolute
divisions between communities?
Dr. EDWARDS: No. of course not. Boundaries are no1im~enetrabie walls.
In the ocean, as on theland, geomorphological as well as climatic boundaries
may discouragc passage, but they are not absolute obstacles to the passage of
organisms.
Mr. LANCASTER: How are climatic boundanes in the sea distinguished
from those on land?
Dr. EDWARDS: The mosi obvious distinction between land and sea
boundaries stems from the diferences in the properties of air and water. Water
masses are commonly defined by their temperature and salinity. Air masses are
commonly defined by their temperature and air pressure. Air is less dense than
water and its movement more highly variable. As a result, the boundaries that
delimit air mass regions over continents Varymuch more widelyin location than
the boundaries tkit delimit water masses in the ocean. Lines on a map that
purport to show air mass boundaries represent, by necessity,long-term averages
of highly variable boundaries. Lines on a map that purport to show water mass
boundaries are much more likely to correspond Io the shorter term or seasonal
reality. Some water mass boundaries are visible to the naked eye. This is not
usually true of air mass boundaries.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, Canada has said that "nature ... is by
nature unfidy" (III, Counter-Memorial. para. 209)and irnpliedthat there,arcno
environmental patterns in the Gulf of Maine area. Do you agree with the
characterization of the marine environment of the Gulf of Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, 1 do not. In the first place, these are non-scientific
comments. They imply that nature is haphazard and this is far from king the400 GULF OF MAINE
case. Environmental conditions are no1simply random. There are, for example,
major oceanographic subdivisions or régimesin the Gulf of Maine area.
Mr. LANCASTER: How many major oceanographic régimesand ecological
régimes existin the Ciulfof Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: Three. They are associated with Georges Bank, the Gulf of
Maine Basin and the adjacent Nova Scotian Shelf.
Mr. LANCASTER: And what creates these régimes,Dr. Edwards?
Dr. EDWARDS: Environmental factors.
Mr. LANCASTER: And, specifically, what are the environmental factors
that create these rkgirnes?
Dr. EDWARDS: The environment is the result of a number of interacting
factors. Ge~mor~hology and climate, including water currents, temperature,
salinity and densiiy, are instrumental in the creation of the separate oceano-
graphic régimesassociated respectively with Georges Bank, the Gulf of Maine
Basin and the adjacent Scotian Shelf Where these zones, or régimes,meet
boundaries are created.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, what are the feaiures of the geomorpho-
logy of the Gulf of Maine area that are instrumental in the creation of these
three regimes?
Dr. EDWARDS: In this Figure (United States oral presentation Fig. 62,
Counter-Memorial. Ann. I, Fig. 3)wedisplay an illustration of the geomorpho-
logy of the Gulf of Maine area. It was produced on a computer.The green area
represents the land siirface, and the hlue areas that part of the geomorphology
which is beneath the sea surface. This is the Nova Scotian peninsula and here is
Cape Cod. There are three general geomorphological régimesto note in this
image.
First of all, Georges Bank - a relatively Rat, sandy, plateau or cuesta, as the
geologists say - connected to the continental shelf going to southern New
England and heyond.
Second, the Gulf ol'Maine Basinin here whichisa large, relativelydeep bowl-
shaped area.
Third, the Scotian Shelf.The Scotian Shelf isdiferent from the southern New
England Shelf in that it is relatively deep near the inshore area and somewhat
shallower offshorewhere it is margined hy a seriesof relativelysmall banks. The
critical feature, of course it is interesting and important so far as this case is
concemed, in the Northeast Channel which divides Georges Bank, on the West,
from Browns Bank inthe southwestern part of the Nova Scotian Shelfon the east.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, 1 take it that that computer-generated
figureshows the area as if the water had been drained ont of it. 1sthat correct'?
Dr. EDWARDS: That is correct, Sir.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, Canada described this figure as "the most
striking use of exaggeration in the United States Counter-Memorial" (Reply,
para. 189).Canada went on to say:
"rrhcn ihr.sc.illoor rclirlii rraggcrÿtcd ti\c tinics. th: Norihcdsi Channcl ii
bnrcly prrccpiihlc. Wiihout :in) \crti:.il sxüggcrarion uhxtc\cr, ihc Lonii-
nenial shclC and indccd ihc cniire cuntinent~l m:ircin - uuuld bc sccn as
pratically featureless." -
Dr. Edwards, in these passages Canada implies that there is something EVIDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 401
misleadingabout the kind of exaggeration used in this figure. Do you agreewith
that characterization by Canada?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, Sir, I do not. Exaggeration, or scaling, is a standard
1001of scientists and other professionals seeking to convey information in an
illustration. It isoften necessary tor:xpanda scalein order to conveyvisuallythe
significanceof relevant factors. Many charts, graphs and other illustrations are
exaggerated in this sense. After 1first read the passage you quoted 1made it a
point to check the illustrations in a number of scientificpapers portraying data
from the Gulf of Maine area. In p;irticular, 1considered the papers of several
Canadian physical oceanographers. In order to portray, what theyconsidered to
he, relevant information, the verticalexaggeration they used varied from 600 to
1to 1,2Wto I. 1might add that Canada has usedverticalexaggeration in its own
fieures.
Mr LANCASTER. Dr. Edwird. ugiuld )OL rire us an cx3mplcof the ushy
C',in;id~of \,ïrrical eugger~itioiisoun ligurïs in th)sa\cl
~-
@ Dr. EDWARDS: One example of this is found in Figure 19 of Canada's
Counter-Memonal. It shows cross.sections of the Gulf of Maine Basin and
Georges Bank with a vertical exaggeration which is in the order of 1,000to I.
MI. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, now hy useof the figurethat hasjus1 been
placed on the easel will you please give us an example that will illustrate the
importance of the use of verticalexaggeration?
@ Dr. EDWARDS: This is Figure 63. It is derived from a standard chart of
North America. There are four profiles displayed here. In this first profile we
have illustrated the region from the Westcoast of British Columbia to Nova
Scotia- a distance of approximately 3,100 miles. In the first line there is no
vertical exaggeration and for al1praclical purposes one might assume that you
can drive from one end of the country without ever encountenng a bridge or a
tunnel or anything of the sort. The second linecontains the same information,
except now the vertical scalehas been exaggerated five times.This, incidentally,
@ is the same scale used byCanada in Figure 17of its Counter-Memonal in which
1might point out the Northeast Channel was perceptible. Bythe same token the
Rocky Mountains are perceptible in this particular line.
The third lineshowsthe vertical scaleexaggerated75timesand now thingsare
really becoming quite clear, particularly if you are interested in companng the
elevations of different parts of Canada.
The fourth line kas the vertical scaleexaggerated 300times. If one isinterested
in the coast range and the Rocky Mountains, the plateau plain region of Alberta
and Saskatchewan and so forth and so on, a great deal of information is
contained here. I question whether or not this particular degree of vertical
exaggeration, or even this one, is a more honest expression of the reality of the
factors that we are talking about than is this.
Mr. LANCASTER: And when yoii said "this" Dr. Edwards you referred to
the last line of that figure. What, again, is the scale that is used in that line?
Dr. EDWARDS: That is 300 to 1.
MI. LANCASTER: And what was the scalethat was usedon the figurewhich
Canada criticized?
Dr. EDWARDS: 300 to 1,Sir.
Mr. LANCASTER: So it was the same scale.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir. 402 GULF OF MAINE
Mr. LANCASTER: Had you finished your answer, Dr. Edwards?
Dr. EDWARDS: Well, 1 should add that depth is a particularly important
factor from the standpoint of the oceanographer and the marine hiologist and
that it is standard practice to use vertical exaggeration in illustrations that do
intend to show this factor in depth with reference to other relevant features
accurately to the mind's eye. It is simply necessaryto use exaggeration to show
what is relevant and to make reasonable comparisons.
MI. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, why is depth so important to the oceano-
grapher and the marine hiologist?
Dr. EDWARDS: lncrements of depth in the ocean have a more significant
effecton the climateand hiology than equal incrementsof depth or height on dry
land. This is simply because air is so much less dense than water. Air at the
surface of the earth is about 1,000times lessdense than sea water. Air pressure
only decreases at a rate ofabout IOper cent starting at sea levelfor each 1,000
metres of increase ii altitude. Bycontrast, for only II metres increase indepth,
water pressure doubles. From the viewpoint of some of the organisms living in
the ocean each increment of depth is far more significant than an equal
increment in altitude is to an organism that lives on dry land.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards. vou have iust indicated that variations in
geomorphology xtlc~.tdcpth. Arc ihc;; any othc; re3wns uhy b.sornorph<ilogyis
important id oceaniiyr;iphcrs and marine biologictsl
Dr. EDWARDS:-~he geomorphology of the sea-hed is also important
because its undulations affectthe natterns in whichwater flowsthroush an area.
As Candd3 pointcd out in 11,~ouitcr-~cmorial ..the direction uf ih;mr.dn floiv
i\ ncdrly pir:illrl to ihe hottom contours through<iuim~chof ihc Gulf OCSl.iins
area" ara .9. Ann. 1)
b'urthcrmore, gtomorpholog) - and rcmcmber, dcpth ii .i funciion of
gr'omorphology - aikïi, thc entent io whtçhthe wtitcriolumn isheaied. ~~iolcd.
and \crtiedII) mircd. The \rater ovçr much oi'Gcorgcr Ddnk ij\hiill<iwand,3- a
consequence-oftidal action, wellmixed from top tobottom. This means that the
temperature and salinity will he more uniform there throughout the water
column. By contrast, the water in the deeper Gulf of Maine Basin is more
stratified so that the top and the hottom layers have diflerenttemperatures and
diflerent salinity characteristics. The Scotian Shelf is stratified also to varying
degrees - the water over the deeper parts being more stratified than the water
over the hanks. Differences in vertical mixingand stratification are important
because they affectthe ecology of the area.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, you've spoken of the geomorphology.
What features of the water circulation pattern contribute to the creation of the
régimesand houndaries between them in the Gulf of Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: Water circulates through the area following a serpentine
path that divides the area into three major régimes.This circulation pattern in
the Gulf of Maine area has heen descrihed, bath by the United States and
Canada.
This is Figure 64 (United States Memorial, Fig. 5; IV, Counter-Mernorial,
@ Ann. 1,paras. 11-17).It is, of course, a simplifiedillustration orthe circulation
patterns in the area. In this particular graphic we have illustrated the surface
current - the direction and flow, more or less of the surfacecurrent - with the
hlue arrows. and the flow at deeoer lavers. usine red arrows.
Within the region there are two sepaiale kinds-ofgeneral water-flowpatterns.
On the Scotian Shelf and fromNantucket Shoals further to the south in general EVIDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 403
we have a pass-through system, or system through which the water moves
without too much diversion. As water moves along the Coastof Nova Scotia it
turns to the north, up through the Bayof Fundy, and then proceeds around the
Gulf of Maine, around the periphery, then Io the east, along the northern edge
of Georges Bank, around the norihern edge, and then on to the south. Within
the Gulf of Maine Basina large, rather slowlymoving gyre is set up. It movesin
a counterclockwise direction. On Georges Bank another relatively clearly
defined gyre occurs, moving in a clockwisedirection.
An important issue here, of course, is the significance of the Northeast
Channel. The water from the slope moves in10 the Northeast Channel year
round and fillsthe bottom of the Basin, gradually mixing up through the water
to the top, mixing withthe surface waters from the ScotianShelf,and changing
the character of what follows from that point on.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, what can you tell usabout the character-
isticsof water rctention in this area, followingthe discussion that you ha\,ejust
given us about water currents?
Dr. EDWARDS: Oceanographers tend Io speak of this in terms of half-life;
the half-life of the water here is usually expressed as king about one year, and
within the g..e on Georges Bank. from two to three months.
Mr. LANCASTER: Does Canada disagree with this description of the
pattern in which water circulates through the Gulf of Maine area that you have
jus1 told us about?
Dr. EDWARDS: Canada and the United States essentially agree on the
circulation pattern that 1 have jus1 descrikd (Canadian Counter-Memorial,
(o) Fig. 20).
However, in a niimber of instances, Canada drops al1mention of the critical
detour the water takes from the Scotian Shelf as it moves around the Gulf of
Maine Basin before reaching Georges Bank. Canada repeatedly refers to water
passing from the Scotian Shelfto Georges Bank. If the reader is not careful, this
can leavea falseimpression of direct passage from theScotian Shelf to Georges
Bank.
Mr. LANCASTER: In vour earlier answervou told usabout the sourceof the
uïler flowanginlo the Gulf of Maine arca. nou uould you lcll u\ pled~chow
mush of Ihdt uater ongindies froin ihc Scolian Shclf dnd how much ongindlcs
through the Northeast Channel?
Dr. EDWARDS: Considerably morewaterenters the Basinvia the Northeast
Channel than enters from any other source. The surface water from the Scotian
Shelf accounts for 30 1040 per cent of the water which enters into the Gulf of
Maine Basin annuallv. Incidentallv. the surface flow from the Sco~ia~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
virtually ceasesduringthe warmer konths. The hulk of the water, however,that
is to Say,60 to 70 percent, that circulates in the Gulf of Maine Basinand over
Georges Bank, enlers this area through the Northeast Channel.
Canada agreesthat slopewater enters through the Northeast Channel and fills
the bottom of the Gulf of Maine Basin.Although the United States and Canada
may disagreeon the magnitude and rate of that influx,they both agree that it is
substantial (Canadian Counter-Memonal, Ann. 1.para. 50).
Mr. LANCASTER: To what extent is there a relationship between the water
circulation pattern you have jus1 described and the three régimesof the Gulf of
Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: Even a cursory examination of this water circulation 404 GULF OF MAINE
pattern shows that the three régimesdescribed earlier are distinguished from
each other by the water circulation pattern. The water above the Scotian Shelf
Rows over the Shelf from the northeast to the southwest. Although there are
minor eddies and gyres over the banks and basins of the Scotian Shelf, they are
not of the magnitude of the gyres that distinguish the other two régimes.This
Row-through pattern differentiates the onanography of the Scotian Shelf from
that of the Gulf of Maine Basin and Georges Bank. The latter two are each
characterized hy a major gyre - one counterclockwise, the other clockwise.
Furthermore. the water enterine the Basin from the continental slone throueh
- -
the Northeast Channel srts up an additional. and ecologically \,ery signilicdnt.
contrnst between the Scotixn Shelf and the other two rcgimes.In short. thcre are
three distinct comoonents to the oattern in which water circulates throueh the
Gulf of Maine are; and these thr& components play a role in the creation-of the
three distinct oceanographic régimesin the area.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, does the extent 10which the water in each
régime comes from either the Scotian Shelf or from the continental slope
through the Northeast Channel aiïect the climate in each of the oceanographic
régimesthat you have described?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, the waters in each régime differ from one another in
terms of their temperature and salinity characteristics, and these dilïerences
stem, in large measure, from differences betweenthe sources. The water from the
Scotian Shelf derives principally from the Labrador current and the Gulfof St.
Lawrence. Fresh water from the St. Lawrence River also feeds into the Scotian
Shelf régime.A limited amount of slope water enters that régimewhere the
topography permits. These northern origins and the northern latitude, coupled
with the relative absence of higher salinity water influx,cause the water over the
Scotian Shelfto becolder and lesssaline than the waters in the other two régimes
of the area.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, why is this so?
Dr.EDWARDS:The reason that these other two régimesare more saline and
have different temperature characteristics is largely because of the wdter that
enters the Gulf of Maine Basin through the Northeast Channel. This Row has
R been nointed out hefore. It is reoresented hv the red arrows (Fie. 64.) Because
this rr'aterconics from theconti~ental slopc..it ismore saline than-~hci,atçr over
thc Scotian Shelf that entcrs the Gulf of hlxinc Arta and its tempçraturc does no1
Varyas much with the seasons. This very different water is constantly injected
intothe deoths of the Gu-~~~f~ ~ ~ ~ ~sin. where it mixes with the surface wdter
thal has o;iginated from the Scotian Shelf. As a consequence, the water in the
Gulf of Maine Basin is of a hi-her salinity and a diiïerent temperdture than the
water over the Scotian Shelf.
Mr. LANCASTER: What about the water over Georges Bank?
Dr. EDWARDS: Becausethe water over Georges Bank comes from the Gulf
of Maine Basin. it also ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ewater and Scotian Shelf water. and is
thus different i'ntemperature and salinrty from the Scotian Shelf watir. The
degree to which the Gulf of Maine Basin and Georges Bank régimesare more
saine than the Scotian Shelf régime isa testimony ti the propor?ionately larger
volume of higher salinity water that Rowsinto the area through the Northeast
Channel.
In theGulfof Maine Basin, the water isdeeper and stratified. with the fresher,
less saline water on top, the denser, highly saline water on the bottom, and an
intermediate layer, which isa mixture of the other Iwo, in the middle. It isa sort EVIDENCEOF DR. EDWARDS 405
of three-layered cake. The water over Georges Bank is, however, different from
the water in the Gulf of Maine Basin. It is a mixture of the intermediate and
surface waters of the Gulf of Maine Basin and of course il is shallow and well
mixed from top to botlom.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, would you please use the next Figure
which has been put on the easel to show us an illustration of the temperature
differences among the three régimes.
Dr. EDWARDS: To my right is a reproduction of a satellite image that
illustrates some of the temperature differencesat the immediate surface that we
@ have been discussing. This is Figure 65 (Fig. IIC from the United States
Counter-Memorial. Ann. 1).This image was derived from data received by the
NOAA 5 satellite on 14 June 1979. This satellite has a censor that receives
temperature data which are then transmitted back to earth and reassembled to
vrovide a eraohic illustration of the surfaceveratures of the ocean. In ihis
image, thecobler colours indicate colder temperatures and the warmer colours
warmer temperatures. We are moving somewhere in the range between 3 to 24
degrees centigrade in this image.
You can see here Georges Bank as a relativelycool fish-shaped object sitting
in the lowerleft-hand part of the picture. The Scotian Shelf régimeshows that
the water is more or less contiguous with the slope water- in Tact,is gently
movine-off in that direction in this area of warmer temverature; relativelv cold
icmpcraturcs near shore up into tlUii)ùi Fundy and thcn on inti) the Ciulioi
M;iine H;ijin The GulfoCIa~ne Iiasin iiicli~it the rurfarc is more or lesr ctcnly
temperatured and relatively warm.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, how are the temperature gradients that
show a rapid change in temperature shown on that chart?
Dr. EDWARDS: In this graphic, areas where the temperature change isfairly
raoid in terms of movement horizontallv. thes- eradients are shown in black.
Yeu can see ihc Gcorgcs Bank rcgime ir marked h) gr~dicnir. The wdicr that
exists on theconiincnt~l .shclfissep~ratcd rrom the rlopc uater as irell by rnther
clearly marked gradients, and in addition one can secgradients here that margin
the Scotian Shelf waier from the Gulf of Maine Basin water. These are clear al1
the way down, incliidinga gradient both on the eastern tip of Georges Bank and
one on the western side of Browiis Bank. These two gradients, of course. are
horderin- the Northeast Channel.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, you have talked about surface temper-
atures. Whai about bottom temperatures? You may also in this instance again
refer io the Figure which is being placed on the easel.
Dr. EDWARDS: We havejus1looked at the immediate surface temperatures,
and now we are going to look at bottom temperatures of course.
The bottom temperatures also ieveal the differencesbetween regions. In this
@ case, this is Figure 66 (Fig. 10of the United States Counter-Mernorial. Ann. 1).
itshows average bottom temperatures. These are 40-year average values. This
Figure shows the average boitom temperature for the area, hoth for the coldest
and the warniest sezisonsof the year, as wcllas the differencesin average bottom
iemperature between these two periods.
In the first graphic on the lefi, we have the cold season OCthe year, in the
middle the warm season, and on the right the difference between the cold and
warm seasons. Once again, the scale moves from warm colours to cool colours
indicating warmer temperatures and colder ternperatures, and in this instance
the rangeis between 20and 2degrçescentigrade. For this particular graphic, the406 GULF OF MAINE
scale represents the diferences in temperaiure. As one moves into the cooler
colours, the differencesare on the negative side, to the warmer colours, on the
positive side.
There are iust a fewthines to notice here. Durinr the cold season it is worth
noting that ihe botiom pr&y much everywhere iscool, cold even, the Gulf of
Maine Basin is somewhat warmer, the Scotian Shelf is a bit more cul up in the
distribution oftemDerature than the other areas. During the warm season
-~~~~~~. ouite clearlv: from the eastern tio of Georees Bank.on down south. the
botiom temperatures are comparativel~ warm. ~ie Gulf of Maine Basin once
arain is cool and not very different from the iemperature that it was al during
The dikrcncc chart IScquall) intcrcrting. and pliriicul3rly bccIIshows a
rpine ril'sold bbatcrrunning al1ihc way froin the cdsicrn i~pof Georges Bank
down acriiss thc souihcrn Scu England Shcllio Capc Haiicrlis. This pariirular
feaiure plays;i very significant rae in the responses of fishes as the seasons
change.
Mr. LANCASTER: Canada, as you know, dismisses the relevance of
temperature and salinity diflerences. those ihat you have in part just described,
with the following statement referring to United Staies figures displaying those
temperature and salinity data:
"Yet ihese fieures hardlv can be said to demonstrate the existence of
"
'separate and identifiable ecological régimes'.Rather, they show that the
oceanogra~hic régimeon Georges Bank is part and parcel of a northeast to
southw~st~continÜum.Thev sü~~ort the Canadian view that there is a
progrcssi\.c modificaiion ol'ihe 'u',aicrsof the Gulf ol'Y;iinc arc3 in ihcir
souihucsiulird course along ihe Scoiian Shclf IO Georger Bank and
kyond. and ih:it the sieniticani diflcrrntiaiion is bciuccn shclf uwer and
wirmer slope water furïher offshore." (Canadian Reply, para. 188.)
Do you agree with ihese remarks by Canada,and if not, why not, Dr. Edwards?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, 1 do not. II is an oversimplification to describe the
oceanography of iheGulf of Maine area as a "continuum". That givesthe false
impression of a steady and gradua1 increase in temperature and salinity as one
moves from Cape Canso to Cape Hatteras. The temperaiure and salinity
differences berween the waters of rhe Scotian Shelf and those of the Gulf of
Maine Basin and Georges Bank cannoi be explained away by references Io a
"continuum". II is the year-round injection of slope water- water of a very
different character- in10 the Gulf of Maine Basin, through the Northeast
Channel, that fundamentally alters the character of the waters in the Basin and
over Georges Bank and differentiates them from the waters over the Scotian
Shclf.
Thcrc isa second poini in ihe Clinadlan pJsragç yirujus1quotcd Io mc ih15
irouhling. In thc Iast senicncc. they ïiscrtcd ihai the "iignilicant difercntia-
tion", in icrm, of icmpcr~turc and ralinii). among the uatcr mas\ci of ihc Gulf
of Maine area is round between the waters of thecontinental shelf and those of
the contincnial slope furihcr oiTrhorc.This 1sa recurring ihcmc in the Canadian
plr~dings. bu1Cinada docs no1lndislite in whai uay ihcir JiiTcrcnccjarc .'the
significant" ones.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, are these diferences "significant"?
Dr. EDWARDS: In my opinion, the significanceto the oceanography of the
Gulf of Maine area, of the higher salinity and moreonsistently temperatured
slope water. is that it is injected in10 the Gulf of Maine Basin through the408 GULF OF MAINE
and Distribution in the Southern New England Area", reprinted from
ICNAF SpecialPublicationNo. 6, 1965,p. A-1.)
The principal problem faced by marine biologists has no1 been that of
determining whether or no1there is regularity or predictability in what fish and
other marine organisms do from season to season and place to place but rather
to understand more exactlywhat generates these repetitive patterns of behaviour
and distribution, and of course, to specify the degree to which they are
consistent. All this has been and still is being studied, of course, to predict more
effectivelychanges in fish population size and structure.
Mr. LANCASTER: What kinds of environmental clues affect marine orga-
nisms?
Dr. EDWARDS: Marine organisms, like organisms on land, generally
respond to or are guided initially by the most reliable, in other words,
predictable and consistent, cluesprovided by the environment. The most reliable
provider of clues is understandahly the sun. The length of day can determine
whether or not a particular plant species will bloom and the sun angle or its
relative position in the sky is believed by many to be a guide for migrating
organisms, and so it goes.
Directly related to the sun and ils position relative to any point on earth is the
amount of heat received from il. The sun heats the ocean in much the same
manner that it heats the earth. Thus the upper layers of the water column
increase or decrease in temperature seasonally, in a predictable and understand-
able manner.
MI. LANCASTER: Would you please explain how this affects fish?
Dr. EDWAKDS: Fish, like most marine organisms, are cold-blooded. Their
f~~ctional rates. as for examole rates of erowth or the duration of time ment in
the cgi siïgc.drç Jirtcil) rclited 10 icmieraiurc. Man! cJsCiof rcacti<in'hyfi\h
itchanges in tcmpcrdiurc and to ieinperiiture ~rïdirnis ha\e bscit documcntcd
in ihr siicntifi.- liter~turc Onc oi ihçse mners. thcii oi Rrandi xnd Wadlc,.
discussed the responses of fishto a front in'thé~reat Lakes, to an eddy systemin
the Tasman Sea, and to the Gulf Stream front off Cape Hatteras (United States
Reply, Ann. 25, fn. 1). As a general rule of thumb, the functional rates of
oreanisms such as hatchin~ times and erowth increase two or three times for
cï:h 10-chdngc in isniper;iÏurc An cxample of ihis ispro\,idcd h) iiiiud) oiihe
tenipcr;iture etTccison grosth and )olk utiliraiion of ysllouta11floundcr. The
<iverallçfficicni~of \oIk urili~aiiiinprior io haichinc Iiriemperaiurcs of 12.. IV',
8" and 4" centiiradé was respectively 86 per cent, 77 per cent, 74 per cent and
46percent. In other words, the yolk isused more slowly - lessefficienfly- as the
temperature of the water decreases (W. H. Howell, 1980, Fishery Bulletin 78(31,
pp. 731-7391,
The responses of fish and shellfish to temperatures and temperature change
depend very much on the adaptations of each particular species to the
environment. Some species move very little, provided that temperatures and
other conditions necessarv for continued existence stav within certain bounds.
Oihrrs migritc se;ic<!nlillyio six) wiihin cert3in ihermal limiir.
In iummar). Iikc fishcrnicn. marine organisms depcnd upon the prcdiridhlc.
reDcarina. clcmcnic cii ihç entironmeni to euidc ihcm ihrourhout ihcir liw.
~he~pr&eed to feeding-grounds, aggregatë for spawning, o; carry out other
activities by responding to the appropriate environmental clues. These clues are
critical. Populations of any speciessimply will not survive if, for example, they
spawn at random. Thus it is that organisms are ohserved to aggregate al EVIDENCEOF DR. EDWARDS 409
particular limes in particular places to spawn, a fact appreciated and taken
advantage of by every competent fisherman.
A vervsianificant conseauence of environmental differenceswitbin the manne
environment isthat they encourage the development of population subdivisions.
Fishery biologists refer to such population subsets as stocks.
The Chamber adjourned /rom 11.15am. ta 11.35 o.m.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards. when we recessed vou had ken tellina us
about the predictability of marineorganisms and, specifically, fish in their
responses to repetitive environmental elements; and you had just noted the
consequence of environmental differences in encouraging the development of
population subdivisions; and, in fact, had jus1 mentioned the word "stocks".
Would you please define the term "stock".
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir. A "stock" is a subpopulation of fish or shellfish
that, under normal circumstances, is capable of maintaining itself without
immigration from other subpopulations of the same species. Stocks are both
bioloeical realities and a fundamental tool in fisbenesconservation and manaae-
ment: The "stock" concept has ken recognized for decades, including %y
Canada. Annex 20 to the United States Reply provides numerous examples of
Canadian reliance on the concept of stocks.
Mr. LANCASTER: And how, Dr. Edwards, are stocks distinguished from
one another?
-r~ --WARDS: There are ~ ~ ~ ~r of different indicators one can examine
to determine whether or not there are separate stocks of a given species.These
indicatorsinclude menstics - that means such as the number of vertebrae or fin
ravs -. mornhometncs - these are measurements. results of taae-- -studies.
parasite infestatiuns. grouth raies. pesk spauning iimes. cggand larval disiribu-
lions, nge ai maiurii). rccruiimeni. biochemisir). disiributional paiierns and
abundance trends. On a ~ractical plane, both the fishermenand evenfishdealers
for that matter. can oftin distineuish haddock taken from Georges Bank from
ihose idken (rom Browns ~ank:)ust by looking ai [hem Evcnis far bsck as
1899the market somciimes püid differeni pnces for sud or haddock. depending
upon whether tbey were caught on Browns Bank or Georges Bank,
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, how does the manne environment affect
the development of separate stocks?
Dr. EDWARDS: The degree to which separate subpopulations, races,
subspecies or stocks, ultimately even species, develop depends in part on the
adaptive strategy of each species10the manne environment and the separateness
of environmentallv suitable breedine-areas.
Iisho~ld hr rmphnsizcd ihai ihe term "srparaicncss" means more thnn jus1a
maiter of diitnncc. It can be termed aî cculogisnl sepilrilteness in the case of
those soecies that are adanted Io verv s~eciiïc and different environniental
conditions. Such species t&d 10 deveiop'separate stocks more readily, even
within a relatively small area. Tliis is particularly the case with anadromous
specieslike the salmon and alewivesthat return to specificspawninggrounds in
oarticular river svstems. and those manne snecies closelv associated with
éstuaries,sucb as ihe blackback flounder. The séahernng inihe Gulf of Maine
area may also be included in this general class. In many instances such species
will fix iheir eggs to the bottom to prevent them from dnfting away.
Many of the commercially important manne species, however, are more410 GULF OF MAINE
hraiadlyadaptcd thxi this. Thcsc ,pecic, tendid \uhJividc <inihc hlsis of large.
zn\ir<inmentallyiuhercni rcgimcsasiuciatcd niih ;criain i)pei ofwiicr currcni
patterns such as gyres. Such systems keep eggs and larvae within a certain
distance of their prinie habitat, or at a minimum help them to remain in touch
with it through environmental clues that can he sensed and successfully
responded to.
MI. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, does Canada recognize the relationship
between environmental factors and the development of separate stocks?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes il does. An example of Canada's recognition of this
relationshio isfound in a oaoer whichCanada suhmitted to the Third Law ofthe
Sea~onfeience (United &aies Counter-Memorial,Ann. 91, pp. 172and 173).In
that paper Canada stated that individual fish
"tend to be grouped into separate populations or stocks, often associated
with particular oceanographic features, such as current systems or distinct
shelf areas, with little interchange between the separate groups ... The
areas inhahited hy such stocks will vary in size, but for coastal speciesare
usually well-defined."
MI. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, have environmental factorscontributed to
the development of separate suhpopulations of stocks in the Gulf of Maine
area?
Dr. EDWARDS: The factors that 1 have mentioned as encouraging the
development of separate stocks have resulted, inthe Gulf of Maine area, in the
development of numerous separate stocks of fish. In particular, a separate fish
stock is more likely to develop in areas where eggsand larvae are retained by
water currents in an area suitable for their survival. A prime example of this
phenomenon is provided by the gyre over Georges Bank.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, in an earlier answer to one of my questions
vou descrihed for the Court the location and the confi~urationof that ~articular
Lyre.Now, using the illustration that has jus1 been pÜton the easel, would you
please explain how this gyre encourages the development of separate stocks.
Dr. EDWARDS: This gyre helps to retain the eggsand larvae of speciessuch
as haddock and cod: over Georges Bank. If it were not for the gyre, these eggs
and larvae would be swept southwestward along the New England shelf, in10
waters eventually that weretoo warm or otherwise unsuitahle for their survival.
The role of the Georges Bank gyre can be seen in the larval distributional
charts contained in Annex 1of the United StatesCounter-Memorial.This figure
is Figure 67 (Fig. 36 of the Annex). This figure summarizes the results of
research vesse1cruisesmade in May and June of 1981.In this instance the vessels
were using gear called Plankton gear. This is a fine mesh net. The dashed hlack
line indicated here is the limit of the cruise to the northeast. The cruise stopped
once the shelfslope head was reached. What one seeshere is the aggregation of
eggsand larvae on Georges Bank. The sccle, incidentally: yellowmeans 1to 10
of these organisms for each Plankton net haul; orange - II to 100;and pink -
101to 1,000.These haddock were spawned in March in this general area here
and suhsequently had moved down into this region. By this time they were
almost old enough now Io control their own destiny.
MI. LANCASTER: And what does that illustration and particularly the
location of the larvae show, relative to Georges Bank?
Dr. EDWARDS: This of course is the 100-metreline around Georges Bank. EVIDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 411
The gyre systemis in this region, and were these larvae to continue to he carried
by the gyre, incidentally, they would tendso Io move up ta the north and then
ultimately hack east along the m~rthernedge of Georges Bank.
Mr. LANCASTER: You have told us and used that illustration to show
haddock larvae. Would you please now use the figure that isheing put up Io
show us the same information relative to cod larvae? Relative, that is, to its
location and the development of separate stocks.
Dr. EDWARDS: This is Figure 68 (United States Counter-Memorial.
@ Ann. 1, Fig. 31)and it showsthe distributionofcod larvae in April and May of
three diîTerentyears. Again, the ni~rthernlimit of the cruisetracks isindicated by
a dashed black line.In this caseweare looking at April and May 1974,April and
May 1977,April and May 1980. ?'Orepeat the scaleagain the lightest yellow 1ta
10,orange II to 100,pink 100to 1,000,red 1,000to 10,000,and this very dark
colour, hlack almost, 10,000to 100,000.
Once aeain. we see orettv much what we saw in the haddock firures. Cod
spawn ouïhere, the lar;ae téndta he entrained along the southern margin of the
gyre carried around Georges Bank. April and May 1977was ohviously a good
spawning year. Again, notice that while the cruisedid no1go very farup on the
Scotian Shelf, it also picked up the aggregations of cod eggs and lawae that
resulted from spawning on Browns Bank inthe nearby region.
MI. LANCASTER: 1sthe Georges Bank gyrethe only example in the Gulfof
Maine area of a region in which the development of separate fish stocks is
encouraged by the water circulation pattern?
Dr. EDWARDS: Although the Georges Bank gyre is a notable example of
such a reeion it is not the sole one. As Canada itself noted (Counter-Memonal.
Ann. 1.para 391 rcgarding ihc wiitcrcirculaiion pdiiern of ihc arca. 'ih3rc is
iendcncy for uiitcr to rc-c~rculatearound the hlinki and hï"Therc arc 3lso
oihcr rcalons in ihc Gulioi Maine art% in ahich ihc dc\clo~nlcni oi'separdir
stocks isencouraged.
These were identified in Figur28of Annex I of the United States Counter-
@ Memorial, which is our Figure 69.
Mr. LANCASTER: Would yr>uplease explain to the Chamher what that
Figure shows.
Dr. EDWARDS: This ~articular Firure is a svnthesis of the availahle data
w
and shows the mïj~irareïi and subïreis in which the dcielopment i)lssparaiç
-io~.kIScncour~gcdb) cn\ironmcntnl facrurs.The hasicsiru~.turcof this Figiirc
was developed a~verylong time aga, in fact decades ago. Over 50 years ago
people realized that the Laurentian Channel and the Northeast Channel were
harriers worth noting in so far as the movement of groundfish species was
concerned. This chart does not deal with the areas where the high seas pelagics
spawn, nor does it deal with anadromous species.It deals simply withgroundfish
and other important commercial species that are more or less resident in the
area. The green area is the Scotian Shelf area, black the Gulf of Maine area, and
red the Georges Bank régime.
lndicated here (dotted areas) are areas within the larger areas (striped areas)
where there is a possibility that stocks may develop. Each of these areas has
some oceanographic phenomenori associated with it which tends ta retain the
larvae for a sufficientperiod of time. So on the Scotian Shelfarea weare looking
at a hierarchy. One species may fonn a stock which simplyoccupies this region,
or a separate stock that occupies this region. Under other circumstances, a
particular species may haveIwo or three stocks within a region of this sort.412 GULF OF MAINE
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards. at the he~innin~of this auestion 1asked
yuu tiideniif) uiher gyres or sirnilar u,atcr m<kîmï't u.hi~hkould encourage
that dcvelopment. and you have in gcncral donc that. Could !ou hc a Iitilcniore
specific by pointing out the areas in which these gyres or slow-moving areas
occur.
Dr EI)WAHIIS Ycs. Fir,i oiïll. of course. there 3re the gyrî inihr Guli of
Matne Basin and the ore rccime on Georges Bank. Shclf slow frontal ~-ion(
also orovide a mode retention which sime fish take advantaee of. on; can
refer'to certain other phenomena such as the eddy currents heKind islands or
around headlands as having a retention function, and you can often see this
when you look at the distribution of stocks of certain kinds of soecies. The
simpléfactisthat even a great deal of mixing hy the tide taking place ;ver a large
enough area can of itself create a sort of retention area.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards. what are some of the maior commercial
species that have separate stocks associated with one or the otBer of the three
major oceanographic régimesin the Gulf of Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: Most of the maior commercial soecies have seoarate stocks
associated with one or another of ihe three régime;,including haddock, cod,
herrin-, ~ellowtail flounder, sea scallops and lohsters.
Mr. LANCASTER. Lçi's iske ihosc one by one. In the caheof haddock. for
cramplc. hou. ucll rra.<igni~edis the cxtsrcncc or haddock sepïrstc siocks'!
Dr. EDWARDS: It has been recognized literally for decades that there are
separate haddock stocks associated respectively with the Scotian Shelf and
Georges Bank. The conservation and management of the separate haddock
stocks of the Gulf of Maine area was one of the primary reasons for the creation
of ICNAF.
A classic paper on the topic of haddock stock structure was written by the
disiinguished Canadian scientist and statesman, Dr. W. E. Needler in 1930.He
ooints out in this article that the future su~olvof resources from the sea waseven
ihen becoming a matter of serious conce&,.and that:
"In any attempt to predict the continuance of the supply or to introduce
sane measures for conservation it is important to know the migrations of
the haddock, and the degree of distinctness of the stocks in the various
localities."
He also States:
"The haddock's range in North American waters is divided hy the
Fundian and Laurentian Channels [the 'Fundian' Channel is the Northeast
Channel] (hoth over 185 metres deep) into the 'New England', 'Nova
Scotian' and 'Newfoundland' regions. Marking experiments and compari-
sons of the age composition of stocks and of the growth rates showrhar
rliereis pracricallyno inrerchangeberweenrhefirsf rwo. To the haddock,
which are bottom-loving fish and never ahundant below 185 metres (100
fathoms), the channels are harriers producing three divisions of the
population corresponding to the divisions of theshallow water area." (The
Migrarionsof Haddock andtheInrerrelationships of HaddockPopularionsin
Norrh AmericanWaters, pp. 243 fi .mphasis added.)
Mr. LANCASTER: May 1 interrupt you for a minute, Dr. Edwards. Did
1 correctly understand that the author of that paper was a distinguished
Canadian? EVIDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 413
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes.
Mr. LANCASTER: And did 1also correctly understand the quotation which
you have just read to us to Say that in the New England and Nova Scotian
régimes,as he has identified them, those stocks of haddock have prdctically no
interchange?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. LANCASTER: And what he descrihed is in part at least hecause the
channels are barriers producing divisions?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes.
Mr. LANCASTER: Thank you. 1am sorry for the interruption.
Dr. EDWARDS: Similarly,the Canadian researcher W. R. Martin, in a paper
previously deposited with the Chamber, noted: "[hladdock are more restncted
to bottom than cod and for this reason Subarea 4 haddock are even more
sharply separated from those in Suhareas 3 and 5 than noted ahove for cod". Of
the Browns Bank haddock stocks, he noted: "[tlhis population difiers sharply
from that of Georges Bank to the West"("Identification of Major Groundfish
Stocks in Subarea 4 of the Northwest Atlantic Convention Area", in lCNAF
Annual Proceedings, Vol. 3,Part 4, 1953,p. 59).
Annex 1 of the United Sldtes Counter-Memorial discussed the evidence
supportingthe identification of theseseparate stocks(paras. 84and 85). Further,
Tahle B of that Annex indicated the areas of research which led to this
identification (Ann. 1p. 97). The information on haddock contained in this
~articular table was based on some 19different research papers, many of them
bv Canadians
Mr. LANCASTER: That discussion concerned haddock. Now, how well
recoenized is the existenceof separate stocks ofcod in the Gulf of Maine area?
-
Dr. EDWARDS: As with haddock, it has been recognizedagain for decades
that there are one or more separate cod stocks associated respectivelywith the
Scotian Shelf, the Gulf of Maine Basin and Georges Bank. One of the papers
that recognizesthe separation of cod stocks at the nonheast channel is the 1953
paper that 1just mentioned and quoted by the Canadian hiologist, W. R.
Martin. In that paper he notes:
"The deep-water Fundian Channel hetween Georges and Browns Bank
and the still deeper Laurentian Channel hetween St. Pierre Bank and
Banquereau are harriers to the movement of cod." (Op. cil.p. 57.)
Recent Canadian studies make the point that cod have fairly restricted home
ranges and that only a fewindividual cod, if any, wander, for example, from the
Bay of Fundy region and adjacent areas to the Scotian Shelf and from the
Scotian Shelf to Georges Bank.
Other examples of works that recognize the separateness of the cod stocks
in the Gulf of Maine area are provided in Annex 21 of the United States
Reply (paras. 2-6) and in Annex 1 to the United States Counter-Memonal
(paras. 76-78).Table B (p. 97) of that Counter-Memonal Annex indicated the
areas of research that led to the recognition ofthe separateness of these stocks.
The information on cod stocks contained in that table was hased on some
33 diKerent research. .wrs, many of them hy Canadians.
Mr. LANCASTER: You have discussed the development of separate had-
dock and cod stocks. 1sthe stock structure of the hernng similar to those of
haddock and cod?414 GULF OF MAINE
Dr. EDWAKI>S The setaherring. more than haddock or cod. is a soîstal
Species.at Irast in the Gulf of Maine nrca Thcre are scparatc stocks associaicd
uith ihe inshore area of the Scotian Shelf. the rrrtohers of the Gulf of Maine
Hîsin and Georges Bank These stocks are. IO ;ornée.~t;nt. furiher subdividcd.
In lems of ils stock structure. the hcrring's rcsponrç tu the cnvironmcni in the
dc\clopmrnt of populdtion subdii,isions is in the middle pround beiwecn the
resoonse of tvoical eroundfish soeciesand that of anadromous soecies
~uch defikitive work on se; herring of the area has been carried out by
Canadian colleaguesof mine who have noted the responsivenessof the speciesto
unique and smaller scale environmental ohenomena as. for examole. ihe well-
inixid u,dtersabuve Grorges Rank and th; front dong lis n~rthçrn'ed~c.3s acll
as the well-mixedarea on the souihwcsicrn cnd of thc Scotun Shelfand the front
that ii formcd whcrc the Scotian Shelf régimeand ihc Gulf of Mains Bîsin
réeimemeet. The often-noted further subdivision of herrine stocks is. in oart.
reïated to the iacthdl herring aitach ihcir cas to the bottik of thc sea-&d'and
re~tnet their spauning lu very pîrticular bottom t)..s
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, has the stock structure and spawning
behaviour of the herring been the subject of much research?
Dr. EDWARDS: Very definitely. The herring is of particular interest to
marine biologists because of the geographical discretenessof its spawning areas.
In particular, scientists in Canada and the United States have paid a lot of
attention to herring. A recent paper by the Canadian biologists. Drs. Iles and
Sinclair, is worth noting in this regard. In a 1982 article in Science entitled
"Atlantic Herring: Stock Discreteness and Abundance", these authors noted:
"The number of genetically distinct herring stocks is delermined by the
number of distinct. eeo~raohicallv stable larval retention areas. Soawnine
sites in these areas may-&'highl~localized or dispersed. ~bsolute'~o~ul~
tion size niostly depends on the retention area available to the density-
dependent larval-post larval stage." (P. 627.)
Parentheticallv. il should be noted that these authors identifv some of the
same envirunm~ntal fratures that the Unitcd States ha5 identified as significant
in promoting the dcvclopment and maintcnîncc of separate stocks Further. llcs
and Sinclair statc. "The assosiated bioloeicsl conccot is that the Idistinci) acne
mol is made uo of al1those soawnine crouns whsse larval-nost larval ;&es
Eometo share the same area ofdistrib;con." (Ibid., p. 269.) in other wordcif
herring spawn in separate locations but at the same time of the year and in an
area thathas a singlehydrographic retention feature or mechanism, likethe gyre
on Georges Bank, they form only one stock. The authors also noted "the
suggestion that the hydrographic features of an area that result in retention act
as a focusing device for the homing instinct of herring" (ibid.).
Annex 1 to the United States Counter-Memonal discussed some of the
evidence supporting the identification of separate herring stocks (paras. 79-83).
Table B of that annex indicated the areas of research which lead to this
identification (ibid.,Ann. 1,p. 97).The information on herring contained in that
table was hased on some 80 diiïerent research papers, many of them by
Canadians. This subject was further discussed in Annex 21 to the United States
Reply (paras. 7-15).
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, let me just ask you to focus again on one
portion of that answer if 1 may. Did 1correctly understand you to say that this
article by the Canadian authors indicated that if hernng spawn in separate
locations, but at the same time of the year and in an area that has a single, EVIDENCEOF DR. EDWARDS 415
hydrographic retention mechanism, such as the Georges Bank gyre, they will
form one stock?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir, that is correct.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, would you now please tell us about the
stock structure of the yellowtail flounder in the Gulf of Maine area.
Dr. EDWARDS: There are also separate stocks of yellowtail flounder on
Georges Bank and on the Scotian Shelf. This flounder is a comparatively
sedentary species. Within the (2ulf of Maine area il undergoes small-scale
seasonal movements and aggregates in relatively shallow water for spawning as,
for example, on the outer portions of the shoals on Georges Bank and on the
hanks of the Scotian Shelf. Yelli~wtailflounder have been studied for years by
bath American and Canadian scientists. The stock geography is clear cul
because of the relatively sedentary nature of the fish and has not, to my
knowledge, ever heen the suhject of significant scientific debate. The various
stocks have heen identified by rnost of the traditional techniques, including
parasite studies, distributional data, tagging studies, growth studies, niorpho-
metrics and so on. The information contained in Table B (p. 97) in Annex 1to
the United Sutes Counier-lrlcmi>rwlrcprding )clloiit;iil \i:;ihared upon sonie
II ditlueni rcse4r:h p.ipcrï In gcncrdl. for cv~mplt. the ycllou,tailstock>on the
Szoi;;in Sheligrou ai 3 icrs Jiikrcnt rdte from 1hu.e <inGeorges H-nk in the
area to the soÜth and west..
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, would you now please tell us about the
structure of the sea scallops in the Gulf of Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: Separate sea scallop stocks exist on the Scotian Shelf,
including on Browns Bank and C;erman Bank, on Georges Bank and elsewhere,
as f~ ~ ~~m~le in the ~ ~ ~-~~~St.~Law~ence. around Prince Edward Island.~ ~
Detailed scientific studies of the sea scallop are not as voluminous as are those
for fish, in good part simply because seascallops do not migrate. They can move
about. flittine likeineot butterflies over the hottom. Smallerones aremore aot to
move'than Ïarger ines. Once they achieve a rnoderate size, around' ten
centimetres, they actively create srnall crater-like depressions in the bottom,
which, as the scallops grow, also increase in size. An area occupied hy a large
number of lareer sea scalloos looks verv much like a moonscane. Other
-
creatures, asfor example lobsiers and red hake, often join the scallop jn its hole.
The maior offshore scallop heds tend to he isolated geographically, but sea
scallo. &e--and larvae are olanktonic and are transoorted. Ïike the eees and --
Inr\;ie oCnïh. h!. ihr.uater çurrciiis Juritig iheir pligic ph~seç I.iir\,:ic>p:iuned
un tieor~cï Hnnk tsnd to br rct.iincJ,>\Cr the Hnnk h) th<:Ge\irgc!eH \ nk gyrs
For the most part. studies of the sea scallop have i'ocusedon growth studies, the
distributional oatterns of the sea scallo~. abundance trends and recruitment.
The informatik contained in Table B (p.'97) in Annex I to the United States
Counter-Memorial regardi.g sea scallops, was based upon some nine different
research papers.
MI. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, finally, in this series of questions would
you describe for us the stock structure of the lobster in the Gulf of Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: There are four principal lobster stock areas in the Gulf of
Maine region. Starting at the soiithern end of the area, there is a southern New
England stock. a Georges Bank stock, a northern Gulfof Maine Basin stock and
another stock complex in the southeastern part of the Nova Scotia Shelf.
Becausethey are so valuahle they have been intensivelystudied and rnanypapers
written about thern. Tagging studies by United States scientists and Canadian416 GULF OF MAINE
scientists have been particularly useful in clarifying the stock structure of the
lohster. The lobster stock identifications in Table B of the United States
Counter-Memorial. Annex 1(o. 971.were based on 24 research Daoers.
Out of al1of these studies emerges a picture of an animal that is markedly
territorial, retreats to deeper water as it gets larger and can, and does, migrate
annually from deeper areas, including the continental slope, to shallower areas,
for the purpose of spawning. For example, lobsters in the Georges Bank stock
retreat to the Georges Bank slope and canyons during the winter and then return
to the shallower spawning areas on Georges Bank in the spring and summer.
MI. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, Canada criticizes (Canadian Reply,
para. 183) the United States use of illustrations (United States Counter-
Memorial, Annexes) of larval distribution to support the argument that stocks
are divided by the Northeast Channel throughout the year, or through their life
cycle. As a basis for this cnticism, Canada states: "spawning location has no
necessary bearing on the distributional range or migratory habits of the stock
throughout the rest of the year or during the life cycle as a whole."
DOvou aeree with Canada's conclusion?
I>r kI>WAKI>S Uo, 1cerl.iinl!. do iioi The Uniicd Sldler did niil pre,cni
rhat inforni~i~unfor the purpose of suggcsting ihxt IIhad relciance uilh rc\pcci
io ihe disirihuiiundl ranre Cirmisr.itor\ hxhii\ of the 5iock throu~hoiii ihe resi
of the year or during theÏife cyclëas a &hole.As 1already mentiorÏed, spawning
location is only one, alheit a very important one, of the factors that are
considered in identifying a stock. As 1 also indicated, the separate stocks of
commercially important spccies that have beeo identified as being associated
with Georges Bank have, in each case, been identified on the basis of many
factors, not just on the basis of spawning grounds and larval distributions. The
fact that a stock forins a particulnrly dense aggregation during the spawning
season, does not mean that it leaves Georges Bank during the rest of the year.
MI. LANCASTER: What does it mean to say that there are separate stocks
associated with Georges Bank?
Dr. EDWARDS: To Say that there are separate stocks associated with
Georges Bank does not mean that every individual member of that stock
remains on Georges Bank throughout its life history, from the egg stage on
through adulthood. The three régimes of the Gulf of Maine area are not
surrounded by walls. Nevertheless, these stocks spawn on Georges Bank, their
eggsand larvae tend to he retained on Georges Bank, and if an individual fish of
that species, for example haddock, is caught on Georges Bank, there is only a
verv small chance that that haddock is from s Scotian Shelf haddock stock.
1nd;iiduxl fi,h do uander .iux) from the biilk of the stock of which the) are a
mrmher. but thcrcarç thecxception r~thcr than the r~le Georges nank hxddock
and ci>d\iocki tend iu 5t.i).u,iihin the confines of Georrcs Bank during thr )car.
The Georges Bank cod aegreeate to soawn on the northeast oeak in-~ehruarv
and ~3rCh. and <ie~rge~&i;k haddoik :tggreg.ilethcrc irai \I.irch 10 ~~rii
Thcsc rtockr spread dut o\çr the Bank :is :iuholc during the reçt oi the )e:ir.
favouring difeient parts of the Bank depending upon the season.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, would you giveus an example of what you
have just heen talking about, please?
Dr. EDWARDS: One of the most dramatic examples of the separateness of
the Georges Bank stock from those of neighbouring régimes,is that of the
Georges Bank stock of sea herring. Herring on Georges Bank used to be very
plentiful. Their seasonal movements were extensively studied by the Soviet EVIDENCE OF DR.EDWARDS 417
scientist, Zenkeviçh. He showed that herring on Georges Bank begin aggregat-
ing to spawn, particularly along the northern edge, in the summer, becoming
very strongly aggregated in October. After spawning, they break up again into
smaller schools, move along the southern Bank of Georges Bank, down the edge
of the southern New England shelf, and then return home to Georges Bank by
early summer. The Georges Bank herring stock was severely overexploited
during the 1970swith the consequencethat the population was quickly reduced
below what most biologists considered Io be the minimum size necessary to
maintain the stock. Herring, for al1 practical purposes, have disappeared
from Georges Bank since that time (United States Counter-Memorial, Ann. 1,
@ para. 82 and Fig. 33). Several years ago 1 sent a researchvesse1out deliberately
to attemot to catch herrine on Georees Bank iust nrior Io the time of soawnine.
, .
Ar :iny ti<hcrmdn knous. uhcn herring gathcr Io spdun thc) arc ras? Io calch
and in fdir niinihcr. This ,essel. :!lier sei:ral \reeks ~~l'ellort.cdme home h~\ing
caught ml) three hcrring. The hcrring h3i.e nui )et rec~)\cred IOd point u hcrc 11
\rould hc icasihlr tu sugpc,t a coinmerci,il ti,hcr) ior herring on the Bdnk There
.ire .;<>miiidic.ition~ thrt the recoiery is hcginning ;ithc prcwnt tinic. hut e\sn
under the best of circumstances we cannot expect to Ge the Georges Bank
herrin" stock re~ ~ ~~in the near future. Bv contrast. the Sco~~~n Shelf stock are
tl<)urishing This is r sonipelling illurtrdlion of the \cparatencsi ni Ihc Cic,irgcs
H~nk \iuck (rom those <iiihe Sc,~ti.in Shcli IFthc Gcorcrs Bank and Scutian
Shelf herrine stocks intermineled indiscriminatelv. th& would have heen
dcpleted ;ilthc \ame tiiii;i*the hrrring on Gci,rfes Bank. Similarly, if herrinp.
frtim the Scoiian Shcli rouiincl) migrdicd to Gciirgcr B3tih. the C;ci>rge, BdnL
herring population would have been well on the road to recovery by now.
Mr. LANCASTER: The stocks that you have heen discussing as king
ass~~~ated with ~ ~~ ~ ~"~n~ have been onmarilv , -~oundfish and shellfish.
Nu# Crinada .i>jcricd (Ci1iin1i.r-hlcmori31. Ann. 1. J 121) thdi ,even
"miyr;itory" apcciesnccded 10 he inns~dercd along uiih the spccieathc United
St3tesconsiilcrcd 3sconimcrcirlllv important.Arc thcre Georges Bank \t<~cksof
. . -
these "migratory" species?
Dr. EDWARDS: No. The mieratorv s. .iesthat Canada said wereimoortant
ucre blucfin tunr. .4il.iiiris raliii.in. ruordnch. \pin) Jugtish. ïlcwifc. .\mr.risan
shad 2nd saur).. There 3rc nu Cie,irges Bank \ii~ck- <>fthesespcsie. mir sipdrdtc
stocks oftheie snciics assoct;it.-iluith 3nv offshore p<)rticinof the Guli<ii Sldine
area. The anadr&nous species,sliad, alewifeand samon, of course, spaurnin or
near fresh water. The saury is a slope water species,frequently found along the
outer margin of the continental shelf and only erratically near shore. Individual
fish of these soeciesare sornetinies caught on Georees Bank. but they do not
form seprrdte ;tecks thcre. hlost oithc~~ qxcies arc LiEhly migrditir) anclrange
over great dirt3nces Thcx lish ~.niinot be m.in.igcd on the hatis oi ille GiiIf i)i
Maine area as a whole.
These "migratory" species were discussed more fully in Annex 22 to the
United States Reply. With the exception of one or two species of high seas
pelagics, the principal species <if commercial interest for which fisheries are
feasibleon Georges Bank include haddock, cod, yellowtail flounder, silver hake,
sea scallops, and a few others of lesser importance. No one has yet suggested
that salmon, alewives, shad, even mackerel for that matter, and other similar
speciesthat migrate through the Gulf of Maine area should, or even perhaps
could. be the obiect of a serious commercial fisherv on Georees Bank. Each of
the spcciesthat ir signitiçant ul~jectofcommercial interest on Cirorgcs Rank ii
represented h) r scpariitc Cicorpcs hnk btock.418 GULF OF MAINE
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, Canada asserts (Reply, paras. 193-195)
that almost anv r.eio- or area could be chosen for treatment as, in Canada's
words, an "ecological régime"or an "ecosystem", and Canada argues that the
choice for identifying such régimesis left entirely to the discretion of the
examiner. Do you agiee with those Canadian assertions?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, Sir, 1do not. Although, theoretically, one could argue
that ecology should be discussed individual organism hy individual organism,
from the point of viewof fisheryhiology, not to mention fisherymanagement, it
is not necessarily helpful or reasonable to deal with the biology of the Gulf OC
Maine area at or even near this level.
Fisheries management is difficult enough as it is. It is clearly impractical to
manage fisheries at the level of individual fish. It would be ideal if one could
identify large areas within which each speciesis represented hy only one separate
stock. At the latitude of the Gulf of Maine region, with ils attendant ecological
complexity, thisisnot possible. Butone can get verycloseto this ideal,ifone deals
with this region at the levelof the three ecologicalrégimesthat 1have discussed.
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, could one further subdivide this area?
Dr. EDWARDS: Cerla~nlv. An ecoloeist wiihont concern for fisheries
managenierit. and dcpinding upon \ihrthcr hc i, proiic to suhJi\idc or io group.
could rubùi\idc the Gulf ui Maine areï into icieral. c\cn ni:iny. idçniiliahlc
ccolorii~l uni[,. Hui iisiould no1hc \cnriblc iromeither a hioloeic3l or ti.hcrici
- -
management point of view.
The three separate oceanographic and ecological régimesthat 1 have already
descrihed are discernible in almost any body of data bearing on the region.
Certainly the distribution of fish eggs and larvae reveals the role played by the
current pattern of each régime.The geomorphological data, temperature and
salinity data, and the stock data, al1of these and much more besides, make it
clear that there are the three basic discernible ohvsical oceanoera~hic rérimes
uiihin ihc rcgion ihat inliucncc and sh3pt the c;olopy of the region. Ihe nexi -
Iowcr Icvclois)nthc.i\ uould rcsuli in ~h~iui ï dozen unitr requiring J irr~iiicd
rrrici oicriicri.1 liir idcniifiialion ihai tiould niii apply slmilsrl) 10 XII
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. EJiv~rdj. Can~dx (Rcplg. p.ira 193)ha5 awcrie,l -
and I apologile i~irihc Icngih of thii quoiaiion
"Statistical units 5Zeh and 5Zen in subdivision 5Ze of the Northeast
Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) could just as legitimately or
illegitimately be described as 'ecological régimes'as the three 'régimes'
proposed by the United States. Similarly, the line that divides statistical
units 5Zeh and 5Zen from statistical units 5Zej and 5Zem could just as
legitimately or illegitimately he present as a 'natural boundary' as the line
that separates ... Subarea 5 from Subarea 4."
Do you agree with the assertions that Canada has made?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, 1 do not agree with those assertions. As I have
indicated, the three oceanographic and ecological régimes previously identified
represent from the biological and management perspective the smallest practical
breakdown of the Gulf of Maine area. Georges Bank is a single integrated
~~~loeical en~.t,. ~~ ~ ~its to which Canada refers. 5Zehand 5Zen are statistical
\uhdi\isions 01'Cirorgc, Hdnk uhish J,) noi corrcspoiid icicci)logical or
cn\ironmcntal cniiiics The, uerc criahlished for stntisiiwl purposcs so ihat a. a
fleet moved round ~eor~es Bank during the year, statistics would be reported
from diiïerent areas of the Bank. EVIDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 419
Mr. LANCASTER~ ~~-~Edwards. in a sense ~~ 1am e- -e 10 ask vou now to
retrace <onicground th~i ee hjrc pr:i.i,>url) \v.ilLednier. 1uuuld Iike!ou no<\.
IOt.ihr.the cn\ir<riiniental fr.aturcl whiih Siedi\,..,rzd bclur-.gconii>rplii>li?@).
water circulation patterns and so forth - and show how these subunits, that were
mentioned in Canada's quotatioii and which you havejus1described, and which
were clearly established for purely statistical purposes, relate 10 each of these
environmental features. Would ?ou please start first with geomorphology? Do
the statistical units identified by Canada correspond to the geomorphological
features of the Gulf of Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: This is chart No. 70. The chart indicates the slope of the
@
hottom. It is another way to express geomorphological features. The flattest
areas -those with minimal slopes - are indicated in white. The areas with slopes
over 1 per ceiit are indicated in the dark red colour. The division between
Subarea 5 and Subarea 4 is. of course. this heavv black line. Statistical
subdivision 52eh is this area hire, and 52e; is this aria here. The dividing line
between Subarea 5 and Subarea 4 goes up through the Northeast Channel,
through the deep Georges Basin - this down Io depths of approximately
400 metres - and then goes through the Gulf of Maine Basin on up to the
international terminus.
Thisparticular subunit cuts across the steeply sloped -in oceanographic terms
- edee of Georees Bank. as does as well the eastern marrin of 5Zen. In essence.
@ Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, hefore weleave Figure 70,would youpoint
out again to the Chamber the three separate oceanographic régimesthat wehave
been talking about on that Figure.
Dr. EDWARDS: First of all. this is the Gulf of Maine Basin which can be
IikciiedIO .Jeep. roundcd hniil; the Sroiidn Sheli. dccpcr inrhurc 3s indic;itcd
h) ihc ilopc, to the hottuni. bise;ted ;ilonit,uutcr niargin h!.:i.cric, olsniallr'r
hdnk,. dnd thcn (;c.,rpc. Bank ~nd the ;oniinent:il rlielf Io ihc a.ei and routh
\Ir. LAhCASTI:K hou. hgin. h.ivingdi~cu~~eJgc<~murpliolog!.m3y Ia,k
)ou plr;i>e.do the NAtO auhuniti ihat C.inxillimaJc rcicrr'nceIo corrï~p<inJtu
the p.iticrn> in uhich u.itcr circiilate, throu-h ihc Guli Sldiiie dre:io
Dr. EDWARDS: No, they do not.
@ This is Figure 71; again, the boundary between Subarea 5 and Subarea 4,
Georges Bank. here: statistical subdivision 5Zeh. here: and 5Zen beneath it. If
)oii 6ru.on ihc,r'a,iern nicirgin~iiihesctiio ii.iii\iical suhJii.irions. thc! \iinply
cul dcro,, ihc currcni rçginie5.('uiting acrojs the currr'nt regimc. oi cours:. is
nt>[al1ih;ii iiiin,,ri;int. hut uhat th<) d~ In iaJO 1) CUIxcrnsiciihcreni rcg.nics
hounded hv these current natterns..
Th: Suhare.ir~ 5.4 boiind:iry Iiiicgocs up through ihc Viirihcasi Ch.innel inio
(;i~orgcsl3a~in on rhr cdslcrn iidc .inclihcn iin iiIO ihc inirrnaiion21 tr'rniiniis
Mr. LANCASTER: Dr. Edwards, in earlier testimony you made reference to
gyres in the Gulf of Maine Basin and on Georges Bank. Would you show us,
please, what etïect those subunit lines have with respect to those Iwo gyres.
. .
Dr EDWAKI>S In ihci~rc.~~lihcGulfoCS1dineBasind)re, ihcJii,iJingIine
hetucen Suhate4 5and Suhdrea 4 cuis iicro,, the rxstern nidrgin In the ;ire ui
ihc CieorxcsB:ink rvrc. ihc ~i.itiitiwl subdi\isioni. oiiourrc. biscct il.HcyonJ
that theri is little ëfect.
Mr. LANCASTER: You have now discussed hoth geomorphology and water 420 GULF OF MAINE
circulation patterns in regard to those subunits. Do the NAFO subunits
identified by Canada correspond to the patterns in which water circulates
through the Gulf of Maine area? You have jus1 told us about that; the next
question is: dothose units correspond to water temperatures in the Gulf of
Maine area?
Dr. EDWARDS: No. If we look at the surface temperature and gradient
@ Figure that 1showed earlier, overlaid with Canada's NAFO lines (Fig. 72), we
see the same story. Again, the division between Subarea 4 and Subar-ait is
difficult to see the statistical subdivisions in t-5Zeh is here and 5Zen
here. The statistical subdivisions in this instance take arbitrary chunks out of
this Georees Bank-Nantucket shoals -éeime whichwe refero as the "fis- as
you can Ge if looks like a fish.
This line- the Subarea CSuharea 5 line -courses up through the Northeast
Channel, along the eastern margin of the Gulf of Maine Basin, and then on to
the international terminus, and reasonablylsegregates out the three régimes.
Mr. LANCASTER: You have now touched upon geomorphology, water
patterns and water temperatures. Do the NAFO subunits which Canada
listed correspond to the distribution of manne organisms in the Gulf of Maine
area?
Dr. EDWARDS: No. Let me give you just one example. Figure73 is an
illustration showing the distribution of hottom-dwelling hermit crahs, overlaid
with the NAFO lines and units suggested by Canada. In this case, the graphic
was taken directly from a professional paper by Williams and Wigley and they
illustrated their distributional patterns with charts that do not have north
exactly at the top. To makel correct, we would have to move it, like this. (This
ioa Figure, without the overlays, appeared as Figure 4 in Annex 24 to the United
O States Reply.)
This is Georges Bank: again, the dividing line between Subarea 4 and Sub-
area 5, the two statistical units here. You will notice that the statistical unit
mare-ns cul across obvious distributional oatterns of -his oreanism. -nd 1mirht
add that while it is a hennit crab il does, in fact, very nicelymirror some of the
features weexamined earlier geomorphological, climatic and so fo-tand ils
distributional pattern is not unlike that of some fish.
Mr. LANCASTER: Now that you have mentioned that, 1was struck, as 1
looked al this illustration, by the fact that this is of the hermit crah and we have
been discussing fish. Why did you happen to select the hennit crab for this
particular illustration?
Dr. EDWARDS: ln this instance, of course, these distributions - the
distribution of the hermit crab and other invertebrate s-ewere included in
@ the United States Reply. There were eight such, and they appear in Annex 24.
They were in response to thear graphs presented by Canada in the Canadian
@@ Counter-Memorial, Annex, Volume 1,Figures 25-30. We provided them simply
to make a verydifferent point. If one were to Say,does this hermit crab occur on
Browns Bank, on Georges Bank and on the Nantucket shoals, onemus1answer
yes.The bar graph in a sense simply drew a line through the area implying that
this animal, for example, was sort of randomly and generally distributed. It was
prepared for that purpose.
Mr. LANCASTER: In fact, are they also bottom dwelling, Dr. Edwards?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes they are.
Mr. LANCASTER: Geomorphology, water patterns, water temperature, EVlDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 421
marine orgdni\m3: Dr. Edwürds. do ihe NAFO suhuniii idrniified by Cdnïda
corrrspond to thc Iiiri,aldisiributions in ihc Gulf of hliiinc arci'?
Dr. EDWARI>S: No. they do noi. Th15is Figure 74. ihc one ihxi )oii s:iu
@ edrlier. showtng the distribution ,ofhaddock ldr!ile i\!a) and Junc oi 1981,but
<incearain ~vcrlïid i\.ith the NAFO uniis and the Iines mcntioned h\ Canada
Once aiain. ,he~ ~viding line between Subarea 4 and Subarea 5 - théstatistical
subdivisions 5Zeh, here, and 52en, down here - simpl~~~plicates a pattern
which shows that these statistical units, if treated as ecolorical unare,sim.l~
arhitrary chunks taken out of a clear, coherent general picture.
Mr. LANCASTER: Finally, in this series of questions, do the NAFO
subunits which have been identified by Canada correspond to the stock
development areas which you mentioned earlier and described for us?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, they do not. This is Figure 75 which you also saw
earlier as an illustration of the stock develonment areas. with Canada's
w suggested NAFO "nits and lines superimposed. ~ere again, &th the exception
of the line between Subareas 4 and 5, the NAFO units and lines put forward by
Canada cut across the stock develo~ment areas on Georees ~ank. Once aeain.
ihis is ihc di\,ding llnc bct\rcen ~ibdrea 4 and ~uhdrça-5. sint~si~c~< lli\Y~ia>n
57ch i*iht, hlosk hcrc. 5/cn 1,ihis hlock hcrc Iii\lairi) obtiou, ihdt in this
case one simply cuts across coherent régimes, whereasthe 4-5 line makes very
good sense with respect to the general structure of the environment and the
ecology of the region.
Mr. LANCASTER: That completes that senes of questions. 1would ask you
now a question in another area. Canada asserts that the United States bas not
cited any scientificwork on the Gulf of Maine area that describes three separate
and identifiable régimesin the Gulf of Maine area or that descrihes the
Northeast Channel as a "natural boundary". 1sCanada correct in this regard?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1think it iscorrect to say that no scientificwork on the Gulf
of Maine area ex~licitlvlabels the three areas we have discussed as "rérimes".
However, scientisis who deal with the area as a matter of course recogiize the
Scotian Shelf,Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine as distinct areas for a variety
of scientific and management purposes. It is also not correct to suggest that
people have not recognized the Northeast Channel as a natural boundary or
harrier. For example, remember our previous references to papers by the
Canadian scientists Needler and Martin, where they explicitly used the word
"barner". However, should anyone care to peruse the literature, it is clear that
people have recognized these régimesand the boundaries between theni many
times over.
This literature includes the work by Garfield et al.,cited in the Canadian
Counter-Memorial (see United States Reply, Ann. 25, paras. 3-8). This work
discusses the water of the Gulf of Maine Basin and distinguishes it from the
separate water masses of Georges Bank and the Scotian Shelf. In their paper,
the authors describe the oceanographic consequences of the combination of the
Scotian Shelf -~~~~c~ ~ater and the warmer. more saline.~~~e~e~~.ater which
enters the Gulf of Maine Basin through théNortheast Channel. The authors
also mention the fact that the water in the Georges Bank régimeis very difierent
from the other two water masses for a numbér of reasois. Similarly, if one
examines papers such as that of Mernll et al., concerning the distribution of
starfish in the Gulf of Maine area, one finds that he recognizes the Northeast
Channel in his Figures showing the compression of isotherms around Georges
Bank - including, of course, the Northeast Channel (see United States Counter-422 GULF OF MAINE
Memorial, Ann. 1,para. 110).The Canadian oceanographer Lauzier, ina study
of bottom currents in the Gulf of Maine area, clearly identifiedthe Northeast
Channel in a figurein which hedrew a heavy black linedown the middle of the
Channel, with arrows going outward from the line inopposite directions, either
to Browns Bankor to Georges Bank, to show that the hottom currents diverge
along the length of the Channel (L. M. Lauzier, BorromResidualDr$ on ihe
ConrinenralSheljAreo of rheCanadianAilantic Coast, p. 1856).We should note
that the Scolian Shelf was carefully defined and descnbed geomorphologically
and oceanographically by several well-known Canadian oceanographers in
many papers beginning in the 1930s.Their description of it could as wellbe that
of the United States. They did not feel the necessity Io include the Basin,
Georges Bank, or the Northeast Channel in their treatment of the Scotian Shelf.
Recently, the Canadian geologists Kingand McLean, descrihingthe "geology
of the Scotian Shelf", separately described Georges Basin and the Northeast
Channel, Georges Bank and the Scotian Shelf.It should be noted that their topic
- that is, geolog- required a further subdivision that they entitled the Bay of
Fundy and the Eastern Gulf of Maine (L. H. King and B. MacLean, Geology
of the Scotian Shelj, deposited with the United States Counter-Memorial).
Notably missing from their description was any discussion of the Great South
Channel. Notably reniarked upon was the Northeast Channel.
Finally, if a general fact is well known and accepted, individuals do not feel
the need to state it in writing, although acceptance of that fact, and what it
implies, may underlie other work that they do.
The existence ofseparate stocks in one or more of these three régimeshas been
recognized for decades by both Canada and the United States, and has been a
cornerstone of al1attempts to conserve and manage the manne resources ofthe
area. This recognition was reRected in the major subdivisions of the area
established hy NACFl in 1931,confirmed by ICNAF in 1950,and still used by
NAFO.
Mr. LANCASTER: Have you ken present in the courtroom during the
presentation of the relevant portions of the Canadian case?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. LANCASTER: Has anything which you haveheard in any way changed
your opinion that the Northeast Channel does fom a natural boundary or
bamer, and that there are separate stocks on Georges Bank?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, Sir.
Mr. LANCASTER: Mr. President, this concludes the direct examination of
Dr. Edwards. He is now available for questioning either hy the Chamber or, of
course, hy Mr. Fortier on behalf of Canada.
The Chamberrosea! 12.43 p.m. SEVENTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (18 IV 84, 3 p.m.)
Presenf: [SeeSittingof 2 IV 84.1
The PRESIDENT: Mr. Fortif:r would you come to the rostrum and proceed
with the cross-examination of Mr. Edwards?
M. FORTIER: Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les juges, c'est un grand
honneur de me lever à nouveau dans cette noble enceinte pour vous adresser la
parole. C'est aussi un grand honneur pour moi d'ètre autorisé à interroger
l'éminent scientifiqueaméricaiii membre de la délégationdes Etats-Unis
M. Robert Edwards. Tout comme mon confrère et ami M. Ralph Lancaster je
chercherai cet après-midi,enprofane que je suis,àcomprendre certains faits etje
le souhaite ainsi à faciliter le travail de la Chambre dans le domaine fort
complexe du milieu marin dans la régiondu golfe du Maine. IIest bien entendu,
Monsieur le Président, que le contre-interrogatoire auquel je me livrerai est
sans préjudiceà la position juridique du Canada en ce qui concerne la thèse
américainede la frontière naturelle et des trois régimes écologiquesdistincts,
séparéset identifiables dans la rigion.
Maintenant pour ne pas retarder indùment le travail de la Chambre et pour
m'assurer d'une bonne compréhension par M. Edwards de mes questions, je
m'adresserai à lui dans la langue de Shakespeare plutôt que dans la langue de
Molière, ma languematernelle.
Dr. Edwards, allow me first IO congratulate you on a masterful pedagogic
presentation this morning. 1was very impressed, as were al1of my colleagues on
the Canadian side of the room. I notice, as a matter of fact, from your very
impressive currriculum vitae that you have heen teaching for close to35 years,
have you not?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, Sir, 1think my teaching experience as listed there was
considerahly less than that. Much of my time has been spent either in doing
research or in directing a research programme.
Mr. FORTIER: You started teaching in 1946 at Colgate and 1 understand
that you are still teaching at the University of Rhode Island today. 1s that
correct?
Now, since 1955, Dr. Edwards, you have been an employee of the United
States Government.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
MI. FORTIER: You haveheenemployed hyone of the two Parties in thiscase.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
MI. FORTIER: When did you start hecoming involved inthe drafting of the
written pleadings in this matter, Dr. Edwards?
Dr.EDWARDS: To the extent that 1was involved inthat process, Sir,about
18 months ago.
Mr. FORTIER: About 18 months ago? When would that he? Can you be
more precise? Was this at the Memonal stage, the Counter-Memorial stage
or. ..?
Dr. EDWARDS: Pretty much following the Memonal stage, Sir, hiil 1did
help somewhat in the Memorial stage.424 GULFOF MAINE
Mr. FORTIER: 1presume in matters pertaining to the oKshoreenvironment.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: So before the United States Memorial wds filed with the
<:ouri in Scptemhcr of 19x2you wcrc. io use your uords. consulied wiih rcspcct
io thosc pds,sgcç ha\ingIO do wiih the oRshore environmcni?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: And you approved of them?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: Without any reservation?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: And 1 presume the same holds truc for the Counter-
Memorial also?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: Aiid, ofcourse, the Annexes to the Counter-Memorial some
of which indeed kar your name as king one of the contributors.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: And, finally,you approved of those chapters in the Counter-
Memonal and those Annexes to the Counter-Memonal having to do with the
offshore environment. did you not, Sir?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: And, finally, with respect to the United States Reply, here
again 1presume for good reason that the distinguished counsel for the United
States consulted with you with respect to the offshore environment.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: And al1of those chapters which we find in the Reply having
to do with the ofishore environment bear your stamp of approval?
Dr. EDWARDS: To the extent of the factual material in there, certainly, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: And the same holds true again for the Annexes 10the Reply?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: 1do not believethat 1would beexaggerating, 1do no1want
to abuse of your modesty, but 1 do not think 1 would be exaggerating,
Dr. Edwards, if 1 stated that in the area of the offshore environment in the
United States case relaiing thereto, yours was the major intellectual contribu-
tion.
Dr. EDWARDS: 1do no1 think that would be fair 10al1of the people who
assisted in this, Sir. My role was one of co-ordination, oversight and so forth,
but to Sayit was largely mine. 1think, would he unfair.
Mr. FORTIER: The team which you directed made a major contribution, a
major intellectual contribution to the theory of the three ecological régimesand
the natural boundary in the Gulf of Maine area.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir, they did.
Mr. FORTIER: Now, 1would like 10 turn, if 1may, to an area which you
touched on this morning in the field of biogeography. You talked about land
boundaries being afïected by climatic conditions and you also talked about
boundanes in the water also being aKected by vanous factors such as temper- EVIDENCEOF DR. EDWARDS 425
ature and salinit) and so on. Would you please turn to Annex 1, Volume 1,
Chapter 2, Section 2, page 154,paragraph 107.1am referring, MI. President, at
this point to Annex 1, Volume1,to the United States Counter-Memorial (IV),
which 1asked the Registrar to piil before you and your colleagues. And 1would
like to turn to page 154.You do have the volume with you Dr. Edwards?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
MI. FORTIER: O.K. 1 draw your attention to paragraph 107 on this page
which 1would like to read into the record:
"lt is well recognized that there is a major faunal boundary that runs at
about 42 degrees North Latitude from Cape Cod. northeastward along the
northern edge of Georges Bank, and through the Northeast Channel. This
faunal boundary has heen recognized, e.g., in studies of the distribution of
fish, starfish, and molluscs. In his Narural Cornmuniries ,ice recog-
nized the division that exteiids from Cape Cod along the northern edge of
Georges Bank through the Northeast Channel."
You will note, of course, that there is a footnote after the words "Northeast
Channel", which gives us the reference to Dice. For the convenience of the
Chamber, the op. ciris found at page 75 of this same volume, footnote 3.
Page 75 is the other referen<:eto this volume by Dice entitled Narural
Communiries. 1refer to page 75 of the same volume, at the bottom of the page,
"L. R. Dice,Nafural Cornmunilies,1952".
You are familiar with that book, Dr. Edwards. As a matter offact, 1have read
with much interest many of your distinguished wntings, and 1 have found
extensive references to "Dice" in them. You are familiar with Dice?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: And a piece which reads as follows:
"Although he was concerned principally with terrestnal environments,
Dice recognized two provinces in the area: the first north and east of
Georges Bank, and the second to the south."
1 have gone to the 1952 voliime of Dice. 1 have gone to page 444, 1 have
22s looked at Figure 5- 1have it before me at the moment -and 1would like to
O hand it to you and to your distinguished counsel three copies of a little
compendium which we have prepared, and which includes various documents
which 1shall be referrine to in the course of mv examination this afternoon.
Mr. Prcsidcnr. disiin$;i\hed .luJgcs. thiicmsI iiihr. ihinner of th101-
unies uhich uerc hindcd to soiduring ihr noon reccrr. and uhich ofcour\c I
have now handed to my confrères on ihe other side.
Please turn to item 1, Dr. Edwards. You see the reproduction there of
@ page 114 Fi4ure 50. Would you please explain in which way Mr. Dice - this
illustnous autho- on this Figure 50,
"recognized the division that extends from Cape Cod along the northern
edee of Georees Bank throurh the Northeast Channel. Althourh he was
concerned pr~ncipallywith tërrestrial environments, Dice recognized two
provinces in the area: the first north and east of Georges Bank, and the
second to the South."
The PRESIDENT: Would you kindly indicate the page in the volume?
Mr. FORTIER: 1am sorry, MI. President. It is the volume entitleSelecred
Marerial,the thiiiner of the books. 426 GULF OF MAINE
The PRESIDENT: On which page?
Mr. FORTIER: Tab No. 1.We have reproduced the cover page of the book
239 Nurural Cornmuniries ,nd then we have reproduced page 444, Figure 50.
O Dr. Edwards, myquestion is, in which way does this Figure 50,at page 444 or
Dice's book, recognize a division that extends from Cape Cod along the
northern edge of Georges Bank through the Northeasi Channel?
Dr. EDWARDS: As 1see il, Sir, he has drawn a line separating two of his
bioiic provinces, that exits from Cape Cod to the east, along the northern edge
out to the Northeast Channel.
MI. FORTIER: So your answer isthat this line, whichexiends seaward south
of the Caoe Cod-Nantucket area in the Gulf of Maine area. is the basis or vour
affirmation in oarasraoh 107thai althoueh Dicewas concerned orincioallvwith
. u , - . .
ierreirial cni,iri,nnicnir he rccogni,rd iuo pruvinL.csin ihe rlred. thc lirsl norlh
and c~si ul'C;corgcs Bank and the wzond iu the rouih'! 1.;ihai currcci7
Dr. EDWARDS: One small correciion Sir, 1believe you said ihat the line
exited south of Cape Cod -
Mr. FORTIER: 1meant north.
Dr. EDWARDS: Thank you.
Mr. FORTIER: 1 will be making many of those mistakes: 1 apologize in
advance. 1am in your area, not in mine.
As you correctly point out, il is nor11is the extension of ihis line between
the two provinces that is the justification for your statement in paragraph 107
that 1have just read.
Dr. EDWARDS: It is the justification for the statement that was made.
Mr. FORTIER: You will notice. of course. that Fieure 50. which is before
w you, contains the mention in brackétsunderneath the Eguri a'fter"Dice, 1943,
by permission of the University of Michigan Press". What does that mean for
you?
Dr. EDWARDS: That this plate that Dice reproduced was based on a plate
that he had used earlier, in 1943.
MI. FORTIER: And you are familiar with Dice's earlier book, published in
1943?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1have read il: at the moment 1do no1recall il, but 1am sure
1have seen it at some point.
Mr. FORTIER: 1have a copy of the book here, which has already heen
handed to the Members of the Chamher. 1am now handing you two copies. one
foryovrself and one for MI. Lancaster. It is a reproduction, Mr. President, of a
hook: Lee R. Dice, TireBioricProvincesof Norrh Americn.
1 now ask you, Sir. 10 turn to the tex1 on page 4 of lhis hook, the pen-
ultimale paragraph. 1would like to read into the record the paragraph which
starts:
"Each biotic province comprises both the climax communities and al1the
successional stages within ils geographic area, and it thus includes the fresh-
water communities. It does not, however, include the marine communities
that may lie adjacent to ils shores. These communiiies are assumed to
belong to manne biotic provinces, not descnbed here."
Did you hear my reading of this paragraph? EVIDENCE OFDR. EDWARDS 427
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir, 1did.
Mr. FORTIER: And you have thus noted that Dice, in developing this
@ Figu~ 50,which is reproduced in the little hooklet, made it veryclear that the
provinces did not include the manne communities that may lie adjacent to ils
shores. 1thus ask you the question: on what basis,Dr. Edwards, did the United
States of America Sayin paragraph 107at page 154of ils Annex that Dice had
recognized the division that extends from Cape Cod along the northern edge of
Georges Bank, through the Northeast Channel; and although he was concerned
principally with terrestrial environments, Dice recognized Iwo provinces in the
area, the first north and east of Georges Bank, and the second to the south. On
what basis now do you so allege?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1 think the point was that il was felt that this line really
reflects what most individuals feel is the appropnate zoogeographic line.
MI. FORTIER :1sthat what Dice says in the 1943book, a passage of which1
read to you?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, il is not.
MI. FORTIER: In fact. he savsauite emphatically that: "It does not include
ihc rnirinc cornmunitic5 ihai in;! lie ad1011s>hore.Thesr.c,iniiiiunitics
arc ;is*umc10 hclcinIOmdrinc bioiii proiinccs no! d<%cribcdhcre."
Dr. EDWARDS: That is correct, Sir.
MI. FORTIER: Would you agreewith me,Dr. Edwards, that this assertion in
paragraph 107,which we have referred to, may be scientificallyincorrect?
Dr. EDWARDS: The assertion is certainly not scientifically incorrect. It
certainly does not reflect Dice as he himselfstates the case.
Mr. FORTIER: Thank you. You were here, Dr. Edwards, as you answered
Mr. Lancaster this morning, whenCanada presented its caseduring the first two
weeks,and 1am not incorrect in statingthat you werealso here whenthe United
States presented its case.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir. 1have missed very few sessions.
Mr. FORTTER: You have been very assiduous. 1commend you. In parti-
cular, you heard one of the distinguished counsel for the United States,
@ MI. Rashkow, refer extensivelyon Monday to Figure 7 of the United States
Memonal. Do you remember tliis exercise,Sir?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir, 1do.
Mr. FORTIER: 1 ask the President of the Chamber and the distinguished
Judges to refer to the United States Memorial at page 37.There is, ofcourse, the
21 reproduction of this Figure 7 about whichmuch was made on Monday. You are
O very familiar with Figure 7, of course, Dr. Edwards?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1am familiar with il.
MI. FORTIER: In paragrapli 57on page 36, immediately opposite Figure 7,
there is a sentence which 1woiild like to read to you, towards the end of the
paragraph. It is the third sentence from the bottom:
"ln all, the chart [that is, Figure 71shows sharp stock divisions al the
@ Northeast Channel in 12of the 16 species. Regardless ofthe season, most
speciesare not found in fishablequantities in the Northeast Channel, thus
the Northeast Channel is a natural houndary between fishingactivities, as
well as a natural division between the stocks of Georges Bank and the
stocks of the Scotian Shelf." 428 GULF OF MAINE
Now, this morning, answering questions put to you by my learned friend,
@ Mr. Lancaster, you referred to sixof the specieswhichwefind on Figure 7.They
are haddock, cod, herring, yellowtail flounder, sea scallops and lobster. You did
not refer specificallyto any other species included in the 12for which the chart
shows sharp stock divisions at the Northeast Channel. But what 1would like to
do with you in the next little while is try and ascertain why no reference was
made this morning to some of the other species in respect of which the United
States in ifs Memorial says that Figure 7 shows sharp stock divisions.
Let us start, if l may. with the longfin squid. The longfin squid, Mr. President,
2s distinguished ludges, is the seventh speciesfrom the top of Figure 7. We seethat
O the bar pertaining to the longfinsquid does not reach the Northeast Channeland
in factyou make the point in footnote 1,on page 36,that a stock of longfinsquid
is found in the Georees Bank réeimebut not in the Scotian Shelf reeime.
Dr. trluardç. my qucrtian to )uu. Sir. i uhethcrii i~~'isniilicaexici for the
IJnitcd St3te1tg\lalc.il)IIdoe~in p~rÿgrnph 57. th;it the ch~rt .*hous"sh~rp
siocl, diiirioi;ithe Northea\i Channrl iiir lon-fin squid".
Dr. EDWARDS: The longfin squid for al1 practical purposes does not go
across the Northeast Channel. Other than that, Sir, 1am not quite sure what
point you wish to make.
Mr. FORTIER: If it is not clear 1apologize. 1willtry again. In paragraph 57,
Dr. Edwards, in referring to the chart, Figure 7, you say "the chart shows sharp
@ stock divisions at the Northeast Channel" in 12of the 16speciesdepicted. One
of these 12 is the longfin squid. And the last sentence is to the etïect that the
Northeast Channel is a natural boundary between the stocks of Georges Bank
and the stocks of the Scotian Shelf. Is that correct in so Far,Sir, as longfin squid
is concerned?
Dr. EDWARDS: Your point being, Sir, that the bar does not extend to the
Channel?
MI. FORTIER: Are there stocks of longfin squid on the Scotian Shelf, Sir?
Dr. EDWARDS: To my knowledge, no Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: So how could there be a division between stocks of longfin
squid in the Northeast Channel, between Georges Bank and the Scotian Shelf?
Dr. EDWAHI)S. Thc litle of ihis is "raiigc. of stock\" andilrefcrs io a /,>ne
lllock I,land. arrnc5 G~.urgWanl;.ihc Norihca*i Channel xnd t)r<>unsRdnk IO
1:ill;iieIt1, ixlkine nhoui ihew siocks in termi olfish3hle iiuantiii50.1am
not sure exactly whzh point it is you wished me to respond io.
Mr. FORTIER: 1was trying to obtain from you that you accept to refer to
the sentences in paragraph 57 which 1 have read to you, which state that the
chart (Fig. 7)shows sharp stock divisionsat the Northeast Channel in respect of,
@ amongst others, longfin squid, and that the Northeast Channel is a natural
division between the stocks of Georges Bank and the stocks of the Scotian Shelf
for longfin squid. And now, Sir, if there are no stocks of longfin squid on the
Scotian Shelf, how could there be a division between the stocks?
Dr. EDWARDS: You are quite right, Sir. If you wish me to say that there is
no stock on the other side of the Northeast Channel, we are in complete
agreement. 1 am sorry if this was misconstrued to lead you to that particular
interpretation.
MI. FORTIER: As a matter of fact, Sir, 1 wonder if you could refer to
page 87 of the Annex to which we referred earlier (p. 87 of the United States
Technical Annex). 1just came across a sentence which 1found rather intriguing, EVIDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 429
in the course of this discussion which we are having. 1 want to ask you a
question. Do you have it, Sir, on page 87? You see paragraph 60 - you can
satisfy yourself that paragraph 60 on page 87of the Annex refersamongst other
species,to longfin squid. 1invite you 10read the preceding paragraph, Sir, if you
wish: and il sa,s "These soecies have not develooed seoarate stocks within the
Giorgcs I3.inkreglmc" Ilou do !.ou reconcilcth:ii u,ith the 3srerti<1nin li~oinotï
I oi'pdg: 36oithc Unitcd Si.~tcshlciiiori.il (II) th."A rioc). ofI.>ngtinsqtiid1.;
found in .. .Georges Bank"?
Dr. EDWARDS: Well,a stock of longfin squid is certainly found on Georges
Bank. 1 am not sure that there is an. imd.cation here that this is isolated to or
confined on Georges Bank.
Mr. FORTIER: 1sthere no1a contradiction,Sir? Again, 1come to this lineof
questioning verymuch as a layrnünand 1am looking for guidancefrom you, but
to rcad in one written pleading that there is a stock of longfin squid in the
Georges Bank régimeand then ti~read in a subsequent written pleading that the
longfin squid have not developed separate stocks within the Georges Bank
régime, seemsto me to be a contradiction.
Dr. EDWARDS: 1think 1do understand the generalpoint that you are trying
to make, Sir. I am just trying to read through this and make sure that what you
are implying is, in fact, what was intended.
Mr. FORTIER: Please take al1the lime you require, Sir.
Dr. EDWARDS: As little as possible, Sir.
1 think about al1 1 can do. Sir. is to reoeat that. from our exoerience. the
longfin sqi~id\i,hich..is f;~;i\ws .ire conccrneJ. rcprc,int x qtock. ii iound on
Geor-e* H~nh.irlil e~tind> to the Korihe~si C'hdnncl Thi, reiereii:~ id !iiur
cdrlicr c,>mment.ibout ivhy tlic bar end, short of the Sorthc:i\t Channel - U, I
recall this chart was constructed in terms of fishable quantities, and that may be
the reason. Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: We will move to another species, having dealt with longfin
squid. But before 1do, 1would liketo hand to you a couple of papers which have
already been filed with the Chamber in this case, and copies were handed to
members of the Chamber during the noon recess. 1now have copies for you as
well as for my learned friends.
One, Sir, is the paper by Messrs. M. D. Grosslein and S. H. Clark, entitled
"Distribution of Selected Fish Species and Status of Major Fisheries in the
Northwest Atlantic". You are fiimiliar with that document?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1think so, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: You remember that this was prepared by these two scientists
who work under you a1Wood Hole?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr.FORTIER: As we see on the title pageitwas prepared to assis1with the
Bilateral Negotiations going on at that time between the United States and
Canada with respect to the famous, or infamous, fisheriesagreement. Right?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, that is the document by
M. D. Grosslein and S. H. Clark, and it is for your convenience that we have
made copies because it has already been filed, and the other one is the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Agreement between the United 430 GULF OF MAINE
States and Canada on East Coast Fishery Resources. Are you also familiar,
Dr. Edwards, with this document?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1have read il. It would be unfair to Saythat 1was familiar
with it.
Mr. FORTIER: What 1should have asked is: you know in what context il
was prepared?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1think so, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: AI1right. Would you please hand a copy to my distinguished
witness and his counsel.
Just so 1 understand: the Grosslein and Clark paper was prepared in the
course of the negotiations between the United States and Canada? 1s that
correct. Sir?
I>r EDWAKI>S Thc prcpiration oi this di>~'unienihappcncd to :oinciJi.
uith ihesc negoliaiion;.di,no1thinl. il uxiprepJrcd c~plicitl\ ior thai. c\ccpt
in so far as the larger document they preparèd was extracted for this purpose.
Mr. FORTIER: 1am sorry for interrupting. Have you finished your answer?
If you lookat the second page you willseeTechnical Reference Document for
Bilateral Negotiations hetween USA and Canada, July 1976.You see?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
MI. FORTIER: Fine. After the fisheries agreement was agreed to by the
negotiators in 1979 there was then a Draft Environmental Impact Statement
which was prepared by the United States Department of State and it is the
March 1980document of which you have a copy here. Right, Sir?
Now, having identified these two documents, let us move to another species
which is represented on Figure 7, as being one for which there are sharp stock
@ divisions at the Northeast Channel and for which the Northeast Channel is a
natural division between the stocks of Georges Bank and the stocks of the
Scotian Shelf. You will have noticed that 1have read again those words found
in paragraph 57, and 1 am referring to cusks, which is, Mr. President and
distinguished Judges, the last species on Figure at the bottom of the page -
cusks.
Could you please refer to the United States Technical Annex al page 138,
paragraph 98, which refers to "cusks". 1will read this first sentence, 1am sure
you will wishto read al1that is to he found under the heading of "Cusks":
"The spawning and distributional evidence strongly suggests that sep-
arate stocks of cusk exist in the western part of the Gulf of Maine Basin and
on the Scotian Shelf, including Browns Bank and Gennan Bank."
Where is the reference, Dr. Edwards, to separate stocks of cusk existing on
Georges Bank?
Dr. EDWARDS: You mean a specificpublished reference, Sir?
Mr. FORTIER: We can break down your answer as you wish. This is in the
chapter to be found in the technical annex where the details are provided for
each of the various specieswhich are found on Figure 7. Figure -1don't want
@ to belabour the point - but Figure 7 says that the chart shows sharp stock
divisions al the Northeast Channel in 12of the 16species,including cusk: and 1
suggest to you- very delicately and very respectful-that there has never been
identified, by scientists, stocks of cusk on Georges Bank, Sir.
Dr. EDWARDS: In tems of the published record, Sir, 1believeyou are nght. 1:VIDENCEOF DR. EDWARDS 431
This statement says the spawning and distributional evidence strongly suggests
that separate stocks of cusk e.xist.
Mr. FORTIER: So it is - and I'mgoing to be careful with my use of words -
it is inexact; 1don't want to make it into a major case, but itis inexact thus to
say, as we read in paragraph 57 of the United States Mernorial, lhat the
Northeast Channel is a natural division between the stocks of Georges Bank
cusk and the stocks of the Scotian Shelf.
Dr. EDWARDS: It sounds to me. Sir, as though you and 1can have some
arguments about this.
Mr. FORTIER: What would be the nature of the argument, Dr. Edwards?
Dr. EDWARDS: Well, it might be worthwhile, although 1doubt it, Sir, ifwe
reviewthe distributional evidence, which 1suppose we could gel Ourhands on if
we want 10.
Mr. FORTIER: Well. why don't we do that. 1have handed you a copy of
Grosslein and Clark. Would you plcase turn - il'sa Grosslein and Clark paper,
Mr. President - to page 46. lCyou look at page 46, these distinguished scientists,
who work under you al Woods Hole, in 1976asserted - under the heading of
"cusk": "We do no1have sufficient knowledge to delineate separate slocks for
this species in the northeast Atlantic."
Has the state of the art developed since 1976to the point where Dr. Edwards
can now affinn that the Northeast Channel is a natural division hetween stocks
of cusk on Georges Bank and stocks of cusk on the Scotian Shelf?
Mr. LANCASTER: I think Dr. Edwards would care to go back to the
original data and assure himselfof this. Sir, but as you Say,it is preciselyas they
stated in this volume as of thal date.
Mr. FORTIER: Let usturn, Sir - having dealt with cusk -let us turn to yet
another species. 1will not spend a considerable amount of time on this figure,
but 1jus1 thought it would be useful to set the record straight since you dealt
with six species this morning - so we'veseen what we have seen about longfin
squid - we'veseenwhat we have seenabout cusk - let us turn to white hake now.
@ You seethat white hake is another species, which is represented on Figure 7 - it
1sthe third species from the bottom - it is represented as being a species for
which there is a natural division between its stocks on Georges Bank and ils
stocks on the Scotian Shelf. Do you maintain in the light of the scientific
evidence, Dr. Edwards, that this is a valid statement?
Dr. EDWARDS: May 1turn 10 the text, Sir? 1sthat page 125,Sir?
Mr. FORTIER: The referen~ ~ ~ the white hake is indeed al oaee 125in the
Annex. That is correct, page 125at paragraph 88. We read, tow'ardsthe end of
the ~aragraph, "il is reasonable to assume that white hake has a similar stock
structureto~red hake". Are we 10 understand. Sir. that it is on the basis of an
assumption that you have made a scientific findi& that stocks of white hake
were to be found on Georges Bank and stocks of white hake were also to be
found on the Scotian Shelf?
Dr.EDWARDS: It isreasonable to assume, Sir, that 1was so informed by the
assessment gr~up ~nd 1saw no reason to disbelieve it.
Mr. FORTIER: Let us turn please, in respect of white hake. to the 1976
Grosslein and Clark paper. You see, Sir, the last paragraph at page 45 of the
Grosslein and Clark paper. il is stated: "At present we do not have sufficient
information to delineate stocks in this area." 432 GULF OF MAINE
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir, 1see that.
Mr. FORTiER: And does this lead you to make the sdme scientific
conclusion as that which is found in paragraph 57 of the United States
Memonal, that there is a natural division between the stocks of white hake on
Georges Bank and the stocks of white hake on the Scotian Shell; Sir?
Dr. EDWARDS: This document, Sir, was prepared in 1976and 1think the
statement in here -that it is reasonable to assume that the white hake is similar
in stock structure to red hake - is reasonable,
Mr. FORTIER: You mean to say, and 1am pleased to hear you so state,that
since 1976the state of science in respect of whitehake has progressed, and you
can now affirm that there are separate stocks - is that correct?
Dr. EDWARDS: Right at the moment, Sir, 1am trying to remember where 1
have seen a Canadian publication, so separating the white hake. 1am sorry to
say at the moment 1 don't recall where it was - but there has been further
evidence in 1976.The best I can do at the moment is to suggest - and 1 am
certainly not sure- that 1may have seen such a figure in Hare.
Mr. FORTIER: Well, let meassist you, Sir. Let us move from 1976to 1980.
Let us turn to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement - and 1invite you 10
turn to page 102 - this is four years later.
You will note, Sir, that under the heading, "Management", il is stated in this
official United States document "White hake have been included as 'other
finfish' in Suharea 5 and Statistical Area 6 under ICNAF" - and then, the
important sentence, at page 102, Mr. President: "On the basis of al1 the
information currently available, including United States and Canadian survey
results, it appears that white hake in the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank area
should he considered as a single stock."
1sthat the state of the scientific evidencepertaining to white hake today?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1should point out to you that there seems to be something
missing here, Sir. 1 thought we were talking about the Scotian Shelf. If this
means the Scotian Shelf as well, this certainly is a fairly late reference. But 1
think in this graph, which is dealing with Georges Bank and Browns Bank, we
had better he certain that that in fact means Browns Bank as well.
MI. FORTIER: To assist the Chamber, would you give us a reference to
scientificwork urhichmakes il possible for the United States to assert that there
are ditïerent stocks of white hake on Georges Bank and on the Scotian Shelf?
Dr. EDWARDS: 1certainly cannot at this moment, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: Thank you.
Let us turn to yet another species, which is represented on Figure 7 of the
@ United States Metnorial as being one in respect of which there are sharp stock
divisions at the Northeast Channel, and for which the Northeast Channel is a
natural division hetween the stocks of Georges Bank and the stocks of the
Scotian Shelf. 1am referring to redfish.
Dr. Edwards, would you please tell us which is the scientific evidenceon the
basis of which the United States assert, as they do . ..
Dr. EDWARDS: Specificpaper, Sir?
Mr. FORTIER: Yes.
Dr. EDWARDS: 1am afraid 1cannot dredge them offthe top of iny head at
the moment: a great deal has been written about redfish, as 1an1sure you are
aware ... EVlDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 433
MI. FORTIER: Don't be so sure!
Dr. EDWARDS: ... and the Gulf of Maine. The redfish iswellknown for its
tendency to fom separate suhpopulations, and much has been written about
this. But of the top of my head, 1cannot give you a specificuseful reference at
this moment.
MI. FORTIER: We are aided by your very elaborate and detailed technical
annex, which givesextensive referencesto major scientificworks, on the basis of
23 wh~chthis representation on chart No. 7in the United States Mernonal ismade.
O 1rifer the President of the Chamber and the distinguished Judges to page 126of
your technical annex, Dr. Edwards;under the heading "Redfish", paragraph 90,
we read:
"Redfish in the Gulf of Maineasinand on the Scotian Shelfconsistently
h;i\e hecn treatcd ;i\\cpdrdtc st~?cksThis specics exhibit, Iittlc, if an;.
migrdtory heh3vioiir '1hr.e\ idence of parasite studies ind~thliGulf of
\Iiiinc Basin rcdlish are diriinci irom ihow ol'the Scoiian Shelf."
1see no reference here, Dr. Edwards, to separate stocks of redfish on Georges
Bank. 1may have missed il ...
Dr.EDWARDS: That is your point, Sir. This chart, 1believe,refers to a large
area, relatively speaking, from Block Island to Browns Bank, and its dealing
with the fishenes that are associated with these areas. 1 do not think this is
necessarily as explicit in tems of the question you just raised concerning
Georges Bank fer se and redfish stocks. No one alleges that there is a stock of
redfish on Georges Bank per se.
Mr. FORTIER: Thank you for that answer. So in so far as redfish are
concerned, the United States is not allegingor postulating that there are separate
stocks on Georges Bank ...
Dr. EDWARDS: ... Of redfish? That is correct, Sir. There are few redfishon
Georges Bank.
MI. FORTIER: They are really deep-water fish, are they not?
Dr. EDWARDS: Yes, Sir.
Mr. FORTIER: 1 think 1 uill stop here, as Car as this litany of species
@ represented on Figure 7 of the United States Memorial is being divided at the
natural boundary of the Northeast Channel, and turn to another area.
1was very interested this morning, Dr. Edwards, to hear your most eloquent
and very convincing explanations about herring in the Gulf of Maine area. You
made much ref~ ~ ~e to the fact that soawninz of herring in the so-called
ecological régimes inso far as herrings were con&rned was ;major factor that
should be taken into consideration in identifying the separate stocks.
Dr. EDWARDS: 1think 1understand you - yes, Sir.
MI. FORTIER: 1am having a little trouble - 1am sorry.
1return to the United States Memorial, and 1am referring again to page 36.
There is the assertion, on page 36, in paragraph 56, that of the 16 so-called
"commercially iniportant specias" in the Gulf of Maine area, there are four
which may migrate from one ecological régimeto another: the mackerel, the
pollock, the shortfin squid and the argentine may migrate from one ecological
régimeto another.
1came across a finding in the Environmental Impact Statement, of which you
have a copy, which 1 would like you to comment on, Dr. Edwards. It is at EVtDENCE OF DR. EDWARDS 435
In the oce;in, boundaries and distribution of ecosystems change con-
stantly."
Was this what Dr. Edwards believed in 1978?
Dr. EDWARDS: We have a famous saying, Sir. At this point in time, given
what we are dealing with, 1c~iuldbite my longue. 1 would have to read this
carefully to try and recreate the ambiance in which that was wntten. May I find
it and read it?
Mr. FORTIER: Please. It is page 4 or 5, MI. President. My question is a very
simple one, whcther in 1978 you believed that in the ocean boundaries and
distribution ofecosystems changed constantly?
Dr. EDWARDS: No, sir, 1do not. That is why 1am trying to read it and
understand exactly what it was 1intended to Say.
Mr. FORTIER: 1 have no further questions, Mr. President, distinguished
Judges.
TheCliamberrose ai 16.15p.m. EIGHTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (19 IV 84, 10a.m.)
Presenr: [See Sittingof 2 84.1
Le PRÉSIDENT DE LA CHAMBRE: Avant de donner la parole à
M. Colson, je voudrais indiquer que certaines juges et moi-mêmevoudrions
poser des questions aux Parties. Ces questions, s'ily a le temps, seront lues a la
fin de la séancede ce matin.
1will repeat this in English.SomeJudges desire to put some questions Io the
Parties. Those qiiestions will be addressed to the Parties al the end of this
morning's hearingif there is time, otherwise theywill he delivered to the Parties
in writing.
It is quite clear that ihe Parties are not requested 10reply today. The same
applies to some questions that some Judges would like to put to the expert,
Dr. Edwards, so they will also be delivered Io the expert for further reply.
ARGUMENTOF MR. COLSON
DEPUTY-AGE NOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Mr. COLSON: Mr. President, distinguished Judges, may it please the
Chamber.
THECONSERVATI OONTHE RESOURCE OFSGEORGEB SANK
The United States turns today to a discussion of theity of Georges Bank
and the critical need to conserve its resources. Our purpose will be to examine
the principles of resource conservation and management and dispute minimiza-
tion as they relate to the Iàcts of this caseand with respectto the boundaries that
the Parties have proposed. In accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of Court,
we will not restate arguments previously made, but instead will seek to
illuminate the issues remaining hetween the Parties on this suhject.
1willbeassisted today by Mr. Richard Davis of the National Ocean Sur\,eyof
the Department of Commerce and Lt. Neil Gitin of the Judge Advocate
General's Corpsof the United States Navy who willCO-ordinalethe movement
of the charts. 1would also like to express my appreciation to Lt.-Commander
Peter Ward Comfort of the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the United
States Navy and Ms. Mary Wild Ennis of the Legal Adviser's Office of the
Department of State, who have assisted me in the preparation of this presenta-
tion.
Mr. Stevensonhas set forth the reasons that the United States believesthat, as
a matter of law, the principles of the facilitation of resource conservation and
management and the minimization of international disputes are applicable here.
Dr. Edwards has demonstrated persuasively that there are three separate and
identifiable ecoloeical rérimes existine in the Gulf of Maine area. There is a
logical relationshk betwëen the law and the factsin this case. In Our view, this
relationship dictates that, to the extent possible, a boundary should not divide
the ecological régimesassociated with fishing banks.
The Canadian Reply (V)responds to the position of the United States in a
chapter entitled "The myth of the natural boundary" (paras. 162-200).In that ARGUhlENT OF MR. COLSON 437
chapter, Canada relies upon rhetoric rather than substantive analysis. If the
rhetoric is set aside, one is left with four major areas of difference between the
Parties.
We will organize this presentation around these four differences, which are
stillwith us followingCanada's oral presentation. First, Canada purports not to
acknowledge that stocks of commercially important species of fishand shellfish
are divided at the Northeast Channel (see, e.g., Canadian Reply, para. 183).
Second, Canada asserts that fish stocks on Georges Bank do not have the
characteristics of a common-pool resource (ibid.,para. 199). Third, Canada
portrays the principle of resource conservation and management as one of
unilateralism, monopoly, administrative convenience, and isolation and, having
so marked it with pejorative teims, finds it inapplicable to this delimitation
(Ibid.,para. 196).And, fourth, Canada argues that prospective oil development
on the northeast portion of Georges Bank would threaten the Canadian Coast
alone - in other words, that the United States has nothing to fear from the
prospect that Canada's line would leave it to Canada to make oil development
decisions for the northeast portion of Georges Bank (ibid., paras. 178, 200).
After some introductory remarks, we propose to address, and to refute, these
four Canadian contentions.
Conservation of resources is not merelv a technical or abstract scientific
concept. Although science is clearly involGed,conservation of resources is a
political, economic and, ultimately, a legal matter that contemplates the
selection of various alternatives for the use of a resource. The essence of
conservation is restraint - and this restraint is imposed through political,
economic and legal choices. This is especially the case for fisheries and for
hydrocarbon resources.
It is the function of management to vrevent over-ex~loitation resultins in the
waste or destruction of res6urcen. ~xbloitation of a'resource by with
dilïerent social and economic objectives, and legal régimes,has proved in the
past to cause special problems leading to over-exploitation. Consequently, in the
viewof the United States. the delimitation of a sinele maritime boundarv should
;<\oiJ. uhcneter possible. di\ icling ihc rerpon,ihilii> for ansCr\ ing xnd
mantiging ;ircviiirie bcitieen IWO g<>vrrnmcnis.In oihcr words. singlesigickr <ii
fishor single~oolsof oil should not be subiected to ioint manasem-nt whenever
it is reasonable not to do so.
The principle of conservation, as it applies to the continental shelf, was first
articulated in the Truman Proclamation on the continental shelf.The Proclama-
tion identified the need for the conservation and prudent use of the deposits of
oil and gas as one reason for extending coastal-State jurisdiction over the natural
resources of the continental shelf.Subsequently, in citing the unity of deposits as
a factor for delimiting the continental shelt the Court in the North Seo
Conrinental Sheif cases underscored the need to conserve and to manage
continental shelf resources for their efficien- efficientis the word the Court uses
at paragraph 97use. Neither Party here argues that there is a singleoil or gas
vool in the Gulf of Maine area that should be taken into account in this
delimitation. Too little is known of the possible hydrocarbon resources of the
disputed area for them to he a factor in this case.
The principle of conservation is particularly important in protecting the
renewable living resources of the sea. Only through proper conservation and
management can the living resources of the sea be preserved and best used for
the benefit of the coastal State and the international community alike, for now
and for the future. Unlike the case of speculative assessments of oil and gas
deposits, the fisheriesresources of theGulf of Maine area are abundant and well438 GULF OF MAINE
known. The United States helievesthat the law requires that the facilitalion of
the conservation and management of these fishery resources be considered as a
principle in establishing an equitahle houndary. It is particularly important 10
do so in a case, such as this, where the integrity of a fishing bank, and ils
associated stocks, are at stake.
The establishment in international law of 200-nautical-mile fishingzones was
largely a reaction to the failure to protect the world's fisheryresources by
international agreement. The history of fisheries management demonstrates
that. whcnever more than one Siaie fishes the same stock. conflicts over the
disinbuiion of iishing righrs. 2s well lis scicniificand iechnical issues. manage-
ment objecii\es and iechniqucs, and cnrorcemeni ciiorts will prevcnt or inhihit
agreement of those States with regard to implementing and enforcing conserva-
tion measures.
Mr. Stc\ensiin rçci>untedhow the e~tension of iodstal-Statc lishing jurisdic-
tion to 200 nauiirdl milcs sourht IO delil with ihis iniernatiunal conscr\ation
prohlem hy lodging in the coasil States management auihority over most stocks
of fish. Similarly, the United States believes that the delimitaiion of the
boundanes between neighbouring States should facilitate conservation, where
practical, by not dividing unit stocks of fish between twojurisdictions. In other
words. the delimitation.~~here oractical. should leave seoarate stocks entirelv
withinthe management;urisdic~ion of one Stale or anothér, rather than within
multiple iunsdictions. in order to minimize the need 10 rely upon int. .ational
agreements for fisheries conservation.
Having said this, let the United States beclear on two aspects of its position.
First, the United States does not maintain that this principle necessarilycan be
applied in al1 situations. As an equitable principle, there is flexibility in its
ao.,ication. In this cas~~~~,w~v~r. oart .f one of the world's riches~ ~inl~rnall.
cohercni. and scli-cuntained fishing banks. lifishing bmk whosc chliracicristirs
and ti+hcricsare wçllknown to tishcrmcn and \cieniists. is indlsputc Heclusc of
the known inteeritv of Georees Bank and ils resources. the facithat Dartof the
Bank isin disp;temeans that the resources of the entire Bank are at'issue. For
such reasons, the United States helieves that this principle has particular
importance in this case.
Second. ao~lication of the orinciole of resource conservation and manaee-
ment in a hoindar). dclimiiaii;n dois not disregïrd intcrnaiiunal CO-opcraiiin
ans more than did inveiting 200-nautical-niilcjurisdiciion in codstal States Thc
cxicnhion uilcral fishcriesiurisdiction ici 200 nauiical niilescstahlished the leral
framework fo; CO-onerat~r~~~et~ ~ ~ ~~stal States and other States. For
instance, third-party fishingcontinues in the undisputed 200-~~auiical-mile ones
of the United States and Canada today with the coastal State and the third-party
fishing States CO-operatingto their mutual advantage pursuant to well-defined
jurisdictional rules.
Whatever the houndary that this Chamher may decide, Canada and the
United States will seek to CO-operatein the conservation and management of
transhoundarv stocks. However. as we know from the theorv and exnerience.
there is no assurance that the efiorts at CO-operationwill proGesucces;ful. It is
far safer not to make these important fisherystocks dependent upon successful,
annual neeotiations. There is-nothine in the law of delimitation that reauires
thdt al1ihéresources of Gcorpcs ~ank be shared.On ihe contrar). ihç pri~ciplc
of resource conservation and management points conclusivcly IO a houndary in
this case that does not split Georges Bank.
Canada, nonetheless, finds the United States espousal of the principle of
resource conservation and management as a boundary principle applicable in ARGUMENTOf MR. COLSON 439
this case, in the words of ils Counter-Memorial (III) "almost perverse"
(para. 497). It furthercasts this principleas "monopolistic" (ibid.)and reflecting
mere "administrative convenience" (ibid.) and "a novel kind of national iso-
lationism" (ibid.,para. 538). Minister MacCuigan called il "a new form of
isolationism. and no form of law" (o. 18. suera).
These wokds and phrases are cafhulatédîo ihply that our point of view is
trivial and self-serving. But the difficulties inherent in reaching agreement on
conservation and management measures was acentralreason whv the world has
turned to 200-nauiiral.hile fishcrieslurisdiciion. 1t is not a [rifle. Canada. at
paragraph 497 of ils Counter-Memorial, achnowledges that the proper ionser-
vation and management of resources of the sea is a valid obJective and an
important rule of behaviour. But Canada refuses to acknowledge that the
Chamber should take it in10account here.
Canada's reasoning is straightforward but incorrect. Canada claims that the
law does not nrovide for. nor encouraee. sinele-State stock manaeernent.
Rather, canada claims that internationaï l'awprovides a different means of
achieving resource conservation - namely, international co-operation. Indeed,
Canada-areues that "contemoi>rarv iniernational law sirnolv assumes the
existence oïtransboundary naiural iesources and prescribes international co-
operation in their management" (Canadian Counter-Mernorial, para. 502).
Canada's arguments, as they so often do, beg the very question at issue here.
In fact, the United States does no1 disagree with the Canadian statement just
quoted.
It is quite clear that States are required by international law to seek 10co-
operate in the conservation and management of transboundary resources. lt is
also auite clear. however. that international law orescribes the exclusive
jurisdiction of States over resources residing solely wiihin national boundaries.
The flaw in Canada's reasoning is its assumption that al1 resources are
transboundarv and therefore mus1be shared. Whether. in fact. the resources of
Georges ~ank are 10 be treated as irnnsboundary is for the Chamber to decide
Through its simple assertion of a claim. Canada cnnnot rçnder ihesc resources
transboundary when an equitable boundarv would. in the view of the United
States, confi& that these iesources are under the jurisdiction of a single State
alone.
The Chamber mus1choose between the perspectives ofthe United States and
Canada. Anv division of Georees B-nk would render virtuallv al1the commer-
siîlly important fishenes of the Hank transboundary. necessitating numeroui
and cornplex bilaisral management programmes. )eu after yenr. for eier and
ever. An, boundary that does not divide the Hank will reduce ihc number of
transboundarv resources to the absolute min~mum~ The United States wil~ ~e~ ~
given the sols responsibility for the conservation of the resident stocks on
Georges Bank. Co-operation between the fisheries programmes of the United
States and Canada then could be based uDona cleat iunsdictional understand-
~ - ~
Canada believes that the application of the conservation and management
principle in this case is both inequitable and unworkable. But taking account of
Ïesou~ceconservation resnects ilie inteeritv of the Bank and. in-the circum-
stances of this case, is coincident with a'boundary based upon other equitable
principles, particularly the equitable principle that the land dominates the sea.
Canada's daim that a~~lication of the orinciole of resource conservation and
management is inequiia'bleis nothing more th'ana complaint that the applica-
tion of thisprinciple would subject Canada's fisheryon Georges Bankto United
States jurisdiction 440 GULF OF MAINE
Actually, Canada's strong words against the application of this principle isan
acknowledgment that, if respect for resource conservation and management is a
legallycognizable principle, United States jurisdiction over Georges Bank must
he confirmed.
Such a result is not inequitable. Canada apparently saw no inequity in its
expulsion from the grounds off Canada of fishermen from many States,
including the United States, who long had fished those grounds prior to
Canada's extension of 200-mile fisheries jurisdiction. These fishermen were
immediately subject to Canadian jurisdiction. Suhsequently, United States
fishermen were expelled from the Canadian zone with only a few days' notice.
They have already had to adjust to the realities of the 200-nautical-mile
jurisdiction, and yet Canada would have them make another adjustment - to
below the ~~uidi~.~~~ line on Ge~~--- Rank.
In seeking to discredit the United States position on conservalion of resources
and dispute minimization, Canada olaces itself in the awkward stance of
disregarding its avowed position on Stock management. Stock management is
central to Canada's domestic management programme. It is also at the heart of
its international position, advanced at the Third Law of the Sea Conference, in
ICNAF, and in the present multilateral fisheriesorganization, NAFO.
Canada's normal devotion to stock management is deep seated, for it is
Canada's principal means of arguing for its right to protect coastal-State stocks
that range seaward of the 200-nautical-mile limit on the Grand Banks of
Newfoundland. Mr. President. distine~~n~~d~Judees. Canada's attack on the
integrity of Georges Bank stocks and the principl& of stock management is, at
least to the United States, oneF the most startling aspects of Canada's case.
Tbus it is that we come to the first Canadian contention we wish to discuss
today. Canada is wrong..Commercially important fisheries stocks are resident
on Georges Bank and are divided hy the Northeast Channel from other stocks of
the same species
I. CommerciallyImportantFisheriesStocksAre ResidentonGeorges Bank and
Are Dividedby the NortheastChannelfrom OtherStocks of the SameSpecies
In its Reolv. and in its oral oieadines. Canada insists that fish stocks in the
Gulf of hlainé'areaare not divi'dedby Ïh'eNortheast Channel (para. 183).That,
of course, would mean that there are no resident stocks of fishon Georges Bank.
Yet, we know that is not the case. In few parts of the world are ihe stock
structures of the fisheries as thoroughly understood as they are in the Gulf of
Maine area. These fisheries have been studied since the 19th century. Since the
1930%the stock division at the Northeast Channel has been used by fisheries
scientistsand managers in promoting the conservation and management of these
resources. Long hefore that time, Georges Bank and Browns Bank were
regarded as dilïerent fishing grounds hy fishermen and early statisticians.
NACFI, ICNAF. and NAFO al1 have used the line throueh the Northeast
Channel for purposes of fisheries management, a fact thatCannot easily be
dismissed in considering a delimitation in accordance with equitable principles
in this case.
Yesterday, paragraph 57 and Figure 7 of the United States Memorial (II)
@ became the subject of part of Mr. Fortier's cross-examination of Dr. Edwards.
Wewould note that had Canada read paragraph 55 together with paragraph 57,
its questions on at least one of the stocks or species, longfin squid, would have
been answered. In Figure 7 the United States illustrated that the Northeast
Channel divides - and here 1will use the word, or limit- separate stocksof 12 ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 44 1
and 16commercially important speciesin the Gulf of Maine area. You may cal1
this a natural boundary if you wish, or you may simply refer to it as a stock
division. Whatever it is called, the Northeast Channel limits the range of stocks
of these 12 species. The 12 species so divided, or limited, are: cod, haddock,
yellowtail Rounder, longfin squid, herring, scallops, red hake, white hake, silver
hake, redfish, lobster and cusk. The remaining four stocks shown at Figure 7 of
the United States Memorial, m>ickerel,pollock, argentine and shortfin squid,
range throughout the Gulf of Maine area and beyond.
Mr. Fortier sought to discredit Figure 7 by reference to four of those stocks.
@
He called Dr. Edwards' attention to longfin squid, cusk, white hake and redfish.
Perhaps, on the basis of that limited inquiry then, we can assume that Canada
does not seriously dispute the other information shown on Figure 7 of the
United States Memorial.
The United States would bring to the attention of the Chamber that the
Canadian Memorial, and technical papers upon which it relies, discuss and
identify a division at the Northeast Channel for II of the 12 affected stocks
referred to by the United States, including three of the four that were discussed
yesterday. At paragraph 100 of its Memorial (1).Canada recognizes that the
Northeast Channel is the northern limit of the range of longfin squid:
"There are only two major species for which the northern limit of
distribution in the Gulf of Maine area appears to be the Northeast
Channel: loligo (long-finned) squid and sea robin."
At paragraph 103,Canada notes the "discrete"- that isthe word that Canada
uses - stocks of haddock, cod, yellowtail flounder, and Atlantic herring found
on Georges Bank. At paragraph 106,Canada refers to the "resident" stock of
@ scallops on Georges Bank. Thus, 6of the 12stocks thatare shown in Figure 7 of
the United States Memorial are referred to expressly byCanada in its Memorial.
With respect to fiveof the six remaining stocks, the Atlas ofrhe Major Arlanric
Coarr Fish and Invertebrate Resources Adjacenr IO the Canada-United Srares
BoundarvAreas. a technical reoort bv G. M. Hare -oublished bv,the~-~nadian
~cp.irimcni of the C.n\ironii;ent. t;ishcrici and ~Arine Scr\icc. sitcd in the
Canxdim Meniorial 31 parigraph Iilh. noie 27. and dcposiied uith the Kegisiry
- bciides dealinr: wiih citherii\hcricç. iiaies cle~rl\ thai ihere\ti,~.iiiisionr
.ilihe ~ortheasiîhanncl for silverhakctp. 3).anh rcdii\h (p ?).With rc\peci io
rcdtish. uhich a,.is:ispc<ic\<iiinicrcst ).esterda). the Ilarc rrport \i:iteiFor
mdn8pemrni purpi>\er.rcdfishon the Scotian Sheliire x\iesçcd .is 3n inJividu31
stockas are ihoie in Subarea 5." The Northeast Channel. of course. divides
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ,
Subarea 4 from Subarea 5.
The report's discussionof red hake isconclusive as toits stock division at the
Northeast Channel (00. 3-4). The reoort's discussion of white hake libid.1 is
rniircicniati!,c, bu! ii;ndisaii.r ihril<i;c relaiii>nihipbetue:n r:d hakcand ii,hitc
hakc and ihus assumer si<içk division^ ai the iiorihe3si Chdnncl ab ucll
Alihough ihc Il3rr. report discur,ci lohsicr In icrnis oi "conccntraiion" rathcr
than stocks, it identifiesthe Northeast Channel as a division betweenthe lobster
"concentration" on Browns Bank and that on Georges Bank. Thus the
Canadian Memorial itself acknowledges the basic information contained in
@ Figure 7 of the United States Memonal. The only stock Canada does not deal
with is cusk. Here we will only note that, as Mr. Rashkow demonstrated a few
days ago, the 1979 agreement assumed the integrity of a stock of cusk on
Georges Bank: that is - and here 1 would like to clear up some possible
confusion - the 1979 agreement dealt with cusk in ICNAF division 5Ze. The
Parties throughout this case have been referring to Georges Bank and ICNAF444 GULF OF MAINE
These closed-area regulations to protect the spawning groundfish stocks have
become an integral part of fisheries management in the Gulf of Maine area.
Although minor refinementshave beenmade sincetheir implementation in 1969,
the basic concept and areas delimited have not heen changed. For example, the
closure period in Suharea 5 was extended, beginning with the 1973 fishing
season, through May. The United States also proposed, and ICNAF adopted,
minor modifications to the shape of the closedarea adjacent to Cape Cod, as did
Canada with respect to the closed area in Subarea 4 (ICNAF, Proceedings
1974-1975,Annual Meeting, June 1975.No. 10,App. IV; No. 11,App. IV).
Since ils withdrawal from ICNAF and the extension of its fisheriesjurisdic-
tion to 200nautical milesin 1977,the United States has retained the closed-area
regulations in its domestic fisheries law, although the closed area adjacent to
Cape Cod again has changed in shape 10a minor degree. Wewould note that the
closed area that covers most of the northeastern portion of Georges Bank
remains the same as when first established by ICNAF in 1969.
In summarv. there clearlv is a stock division at the Northeast Channel. one
ihat is rellwtédin the Iinr dividing SubJress 4 and 5.uscd by the international
institutionsthdthï\c pldyed ï role in theconwr\aiion and management of these
stocks over many ye&. Canada's denial of this Tact,to us, rings hollow
II. The Fish Srocks of Georges Bank Are a ClassicExample
oja Common-PoolResource
We now turn to the second Canadian assertion we wish to take up. At
paragraph 199of ils Reply, Canada states that the Georges Bank stocks do no1
have the characteristics of a common-pool resource. Let me quote from that
paraaraph. lest there be anv mistake: "While Georees Bank is an area of
~onç;nt;ated biologiral ~h~Rdancc.thc fish thxi .ire CherL d.o not repreient a
'commonpool'ï\ allrged hy the Cnited States " Itshould he notcd thxt Cxnxdd
makes this statement without any evidence in its support.
In fact, there is a relationship between stocks and fisheriesconservation, and
this is especially the case in the Gulf of Maine area and particularly Georges
Bank.
Any boundary crossing Georges Bank, including the Canadian line, would
relegate al1the resident stocks of Georges Bank 10the status of common-pool
fisheryresources.
Fishing on a stock in part of its range will negate conservation measures
imposed on fishing on the stock in the other part of ils range. Historically,
fisherrnen have taken as much of a common-pool resource as practicable
because they believe that if they do not, fishermen from another State will
nonetheless do so. That competilive attitude, if not regulated, leads to the
depletion and reduced productivity of stocks. Transboundary stocks can be
conserved only if the Parties fishing those stocks are able to agree on
conservation measures. The Canadian line, by ensuring Canada access to
Georges Bank stocks'creates such a compttition between the United States and
Canada.
This common-pool problem, which impedes resource conservation, is com-
pounded in the case of Georges Bank because the stocksare highlyconcentrated
in diferent areas of the Bank at certain limes of the vear. and hecause of the
various seasonal movements of different importani stocks. Before you is
Figure 79 of Ourpresentation, which appeared as Table C of the United States
Counter-Memorial found at page 219.~
This table shows the percentages of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder ARGUMENTOF MR. COLSON 445
stocks taken on the northeastern portion of Georges Bank, and on the
remainder of the Bank, during the bottom trawl surveycruisesconducted by the
United States National Marine Fisheries Service inthe spring, summer, and
autumn of 1980.We note that Canada has not contested the accuracy of this
information.
Let me explain the table. Here. for cod, you will see the per cent of the cod
stock on Georges Bank that during the spring is found on the northeastern
portion of the Bank. So in the spring, 47.8 percent of the stock is found on the
northeastern portion of the Bank. Thus, 52.2percent of the stock is found on
the remaining portion of the Bank.
As you willnote, at certain seasonsof the year, fishermenon the northeastern
portion of Georges Bank haveaccessto a high percentage of important Georges
Bank stocks. Thus, if the Canadian line had been a boundary in force between
the Parties in 1980, United States fishermen would not have had access to an
area in whichtwo-thirds ofthe haddock stock wereto be found, regardlessofthe
season. This stands in direct contradiction of Canada's argument that there is a
resource base on the remainder of the Bank sufficientfor the United States to
maintain its traditional catch levels.
It also should he noted that over 60 ver cent of the Georees Bank yellowtail
flounder stock uould hake been subjeci io intensibe Candian tirhint?ctiorii
during the spnng. whereas 99 per ceni of thdi sti)ckuould have ken ai,ailable to
United States fishermen dunng the summer.
The chart does not show. however. that most of the United States catch of
yellout~il floundcr istüken on the northeasiern portion ul' the Wankin ihe
winier. srhen the stocks are sonccntrated thrre. Thai faci is contirmed by the
\tatisiic> in Annex 3oi Volume IV of the Ciinadian Memorial. Similsr riaitems
are shown in the cod fishery.
This table is the essence of the common pool. Were the Canadian line to
prevail in this case and Canadian fishermen to catch al1 of which they were
caoable. thev would reduce ereatlv the fishavailahle to United States fishermen.
~ikilarl'~,héavyUnited stares fisilingcould reduce the stocks and pre-empt the
Canadian fishery on Georges Bank.
Althoueh-thevercentaees"varv from vear to vear. the vatterns shown here are
quite si,mmiin. and, moreo!er. apply Io other stocks as ~ell Large percentage,
of the same stocks arc as'ailsblein difirent parts of Cieixges Bank. Jepending
uvon the season. Annex 38 of the United Siaies Counier.Mcmorial tre;its this
matter in some detail
In order for United States fishermen to maintain their traditional catches of
these stocks, they musi have access10them throughout their range, particularly
in locales where~thestocks congregate seasonalli such as on the northeastern
portion of Georges Bank.
Thus, Canada's statement in paragraph 118 of its Memorial, that Georges
Bank groundfish stocks "range over large areas of the Bank and become
availahle for caoture in the undisvuted waters of the United States zone" is an
erroneoui and kislcading viewof the Georges Bank ccological rcgime and the
fishericsitsupports.Canada simply ismiiiaken uhen itsiaies. ai paragraph 140
of iis Memonal. ihat "The undirputed pari of Georges Bank eis,esthe United
States an ample resource base to sustain healthy fishëry and aliow potential for
future growth." Mr. President, distinguished Judges, if that were true, United
States fishermen would no1 have been going to the northeastern portion of
Georees Bank. vear after vear. for a centurv and a half.
~oQemonstrite that canada, outside thécontext of this case, also accepts
that it is the nature of fishing stocks to have the characteristics of a common- ARGUMENTOF MR. COLSON 447
and difficult to reconcile. One State, for example, may prefer to accept large
reductions in current catches in the hope of ensuring larger future harvests. The
other may not he willingto accept the short-term dislocation inherent in such an
approach. One State, as a matter of nutritional or employment policy, may
prefer Io harvest the maximum sustainahle yield of a given stock; the other may
prefer Io maximize profit hy catchiog fewer fish, but a greater catch per unit of
effort. One State mav wish to maximize the vield of a sinele valuable s~eciesin a
mi~cd-ipccic\ ri\hcr), u hcrcas ihc othcr Sixic may prcfer io nscepi louer yicldi
olihai S~CCICS in urdcr t<>maximile ihc )icld of ihe cniirc tirhcr). or oiaiioihcr
species.There may also be disagreements over management techniques, such as
basic choices between eear tvo... settine the seasons for fishine.-the imoosition
olquoias. and the Jccisiim hctu.:en Iimitcdcnir) or IT:ccompeiiii<in:3s iicll 3s
di\putcs uier ihc intcrprctation iii.cicniilic d.ita conternine .uch maticri as ihc
staius of the stock. the amount of allowahle catch. and the effect of nron.sed.
ni:in.igcmcnt meuurcs. Thcsc dis.igrecmcn1~rrilect iiiorc ihan mcrc ic<hnicÿl
differcnccs: the! :i1iccthori much is c:iiight. i\.h:n. wherc and h) uhoni.
'TheIlnitcd Siaics and C.in:id.i diricr \harplv in thclr b.i>icp,>licics<iilirhcrics
manaeement. addine sienificantlv to the komolicated task of reaching and
m3iniaining ügrccm.-nton the conservaiion :<ndm.in:igement uitin) ir,in\houn-
Jar? stocks. Thcic pulicic, Iargtly i,)llo\icd ihc cxicnlion oi'niiion~l fishcrics
iuri>diction ici200n4uticiil niilc,. 2nd uere ncccssit3icd h, the nccd 1,)c%iahlish
ioals and prioriiies once ihc Ilnitcd St;iics tind Canada had rcsponiibilii) iiir
man.iginy the rcjourtei u.ithin iticir rcspe:ii\c 200-n.~uiical-mileLunes In sonic
measure, it was the clash of these policiesthat made it impossible for the United
States Io ratifv the failed 1979East Coast Fisheries Aereement. The Canadian
line would bring the national fisherypoliciesand practiies of the two States into
direct conflict with respect to the resources of Georges Bank.
The Canadian ~e~lydismisses these dilïerences. In respoose, we would like
once again to read from the document which Canada distributed al the FA0
Conference in Rome last fall. It indicates that Canada believesthese differences
are real. Of course, the document presents a Canadian viewpoint and, in Our
view. unfairlv characterizes some United States manaeemen" obiectives. None-
thelcrr. ue propo,e to read io ?ou ;ipdrt of ii hciausc II rciities the C~nadian
arpunicnt thai iherc i. no Jitlicult) in rcconciling lliiited Siaics 2nd C.inxJixn
management approaches. It is a iong quote, but we helieve you will find it
interesting.
"In the case of Canadian and Amencan shared stocks on the Atlantic
Coast.marked differencesin manaeement nhilosonhv are aooarent. In order
no1th deny fishingopportunities, CheUniied ~ta&shas pe&tted unlimited
fishing effort on scallops, suhject only Io a recently imposed meat count
limit, and has recently rernovëd catch restrictions on the main groundfish
soecies. suhiect Io minimuni oermitted fish sizes. The Canadian aonroa..
h3s bccn IO rc\irict ïniry Io ihc variour ti\heries in an aiicnipiIO niaintain
\iablc cntcrpriscs on .Isu.iaincd htisis.Thcbcrïdicall) diriersnt approachcs
~roduic guiie diffcrcnt etl'ecison ihc fishcries l.nJer the USA .ipr>rrmch.
fishing préssurewill tend to he irregular, with more and more effoit being
exerted on stocks thatare producingeconomically attractivecatch rates, up
to the point that the population is depressed and the fishery ceases to he
economicallv viable. Given other conservation measures. such as minimum
iishSLICS.th; stocks are unlikcly. houc\cr. io he depres,sd IO the point thai
iheir reproductive potcniial is threalcncd. Cnder the Canadian :ippr(vÿch.
the tcndenc) for ncu effort i<ihe atiracied 10the healthy .tecks is rcsistcd,448 GULF OF MAINE
so that pulses of strong recruitment ta the fisheriesare allowed to remain in
the population for a longer period and catch rates will fall less during
periods of poor recruitment." (Pp. 8-9.)
The divereent manaeement oolicies of the United States and Canada are
rooted deepïy in theirdiffereit historical experiences, cultures and political
structures. Both States are committed to the conservation of fisheriesresources.
Nevertheless. to the extent that these different svstems are reauired to he
accommod~icd in ihc managcmcni of iranshùundar) stocks. 'iherc is 3n
increasing pruhnbiliiy oidispuics. Poor cunsen.ation oi ihc rcsourccs, and ihc
re,uliani lors in benelits fur the uwrh ulihe resi)urcci. JI? the Iikely rculis.
For examde. the Canadian svstem of licensin~ v~s-elson~ ~fo~,skcific~c~eas
and specici a. a meanr oi managing 11, li\hcriei 3nd fishermen is an aiiempi io
rcîoncile iishing prciiure with Cdnada'i si>cialand cron<imicohiecri\c. For
instance. the svstem is used to orotect the interests of inshore fisherÏnenof Nova
Scotia and N~U Brunsbiick. hi dcn)ing Iargcr oltshorc Candian icsscls acccss
io the in\hore li\hcry. Iiis alsii used io prc\.cni Nwa Sioiia vesselsirom ri$hing
uaicrr off NcwioundlanJ Thur, dcspiie the rcrniiciim Cdnadd h~s crprcs\rd
here about stocks (o. 116. suera). thecanadian liknsi~e~svstem in fact reauires
annual predicii<,niof .rtosk we. lishing ciliiri, c~tch. and an 3nnu31~llocaiion
among differrni i)pel oi fishermen. Once in place, it ir noi a rlcnihlc soiem.
es selare often ~Ïevented from switchine to oiher fisheries.althoueh -heie mav
be an unexpected ahundance in those fisrieries.
Following the extension of fisheriesjurisdiction to 200nautical miles in 1977,
the United States began ta manage the New England fishenes with a system of
individual species yields or allowahle catch quotas and individual vessel-trip
quotas similar to the Canadian system, which largely was inherited from
ICNAF. Within Iwo or three years, however, it hecame apparent that this
reeulatorv,ao..oach was unworkahle in the New Eneland fishenes. It reauired
annual prcdictii>nsand rapid and acsurdtc xssessment of the eficis ~icurrent
ii,hing upon sic,iks. as ucll as allus3iions among ihc variuus iishcrmcn. a11ol
ihis ofien le ad in ^o unintendcd rcrulir. Bczinninr in 1978. ihr I:niicd States
beean Io turn toan alternative form of maLaeinethe New Eneland fisheries -
O& more closcly aituncd to ihc n~tur~ldijrriëu~on and ai,ail;bilit) of stocks.
This iyiiem reliesupon the naiural iendcncy oiliihemen 10 ad~pi icich~nger in
the relative ahundance of the various s~ecieswithin the svstem:It reeulatës bv
restricting the age and size of the fish that may be harvesied and theareas and
the times of that harvest.
The United States approach to the conservation and management of the
fishenes of Georees Bank thus isoredicated uoon the fact that the Georees Bank
stock>tend to hi variahle and u~prediciahl~.whercai th< iiiial hioml;\.: of ihc
Georges R~nkecologicdl régimeii relïiivcl~ jiahle.
Thus, Uniicd Siaics fishcrmcn are allowcd. 3nd eben encour~eed. IO riritch
from stock to stock, depending upon their relative abundance. ~Ihis'methodof
fishing tends to reduce fishing pressure on stocks of low abundance when
reproductive potential isjeopardized hy fishing.The United States approach de-
emohasizes the intractable oroblem of oredictine vearlv vanabilitv of individual
stGk yirlds and of allucaiing among fiihermen ihe bssis of such predistians.
Conservariun is aihie\,cd by consirainine rishine on immature tish ihruugh
regulation of mesh sizes and other fishing gear,-minimum fish sizes, and by
establishing closed areas during the spawning season.
In brief, the United States and Canada both have developed reasonable but
different approaches ta the management of East Coast fisheries. Nevertheless, ARGUMENTOF MR. COLSON 449
the two systems cannot he used simultaneously for the management of Georges
Bank stocks. To the extent that the United States and Canada are forced to
accommodate each other's practices, disputes, delays, and impaired conserva-
tion can be expected.
For example, let me recall an example from our Counter-Memorial. It is
doubtful, in light of the experience from the early 1960sto the present, that the
abundance of the scallop stock on Georges Bank can sustain high levelsif it is
suhjected to simultaneous fishinl:by a Canadian fleetthat, by virtue ofcanadian
Government regulations, has no otber choice but to fish for scallops on offshore
hanks, and by a United States fleet that may fish either the scallop or other
fisheries, depending upon their relative abundance.
If the Georges Bank scallop stock had to be managed jointly, Canada
undouhtedly woiild seek to have the New England Reet limited in a manner
similar to that of Canada, especially whenthe availahility of scallops is high. It
can be predicted that a United States governmental effort to estahlish a
permanent United States offshi,re scallop Reet of limited numhers would be
strongly resisted in New Englaiid, particularly at times of scallop abundance.
The United States. in al1likelihood. in turn would orefer that Canada allow the
<:an.idi.inrcallop \essels thc ire:d,>mIOIc:i\c th<Cicorg:, Rank jcallup lishcn
for the inshore proiind..>ilthe Uoiii ko1i.i .~3st. thcotï~hiire gr<iundfi*heryun
the Scoiian Sheli or on ihe (iraiid H.inki <)i Ucwfoundland, or clsi'\rhcrc.
partiçiil:~rl!1ihr.nthe a\ailahil~i! oisidllops isIbi!..This Iikcl! uould he resirted,
houever, b! C'.in;idx.hecause iiii,ould uprr.1the halanie oirocial :ind e<on<imii
uhlr.iiiier roiight ihe h;iliinccih) Can~diaii tishericr m3napcrs
~he matter-becomes more comnlicated when al1 the eroind-ish and other
,tockj xi' si>nsidercd.Bcc:iu~eof ihcir jc;i,~n;il rnwcnicnt. groundtiih ma) hc
suhjc<ted tu hc.1,) ii>hingprcssiire ,in eithcr ridc of aiiy Can:idian linc \plitiing
C;r.i>rxrs;ink TIicarc3 and iiiioi.i ~pprwich oiC,in;ictx. uhich I;>cusciupon the
manaieuent of sinele-.necie;. and ihe flexible annroach of the ~nited-States.
which focuses upon the management of stocks within the total ecosystem, are
fundamentally incompatible ways to manage the fisheries of Georges Bank
The divergent management systems of tic Parties have evolved?~ the point
where straightforward solutions to joint-management problems are not fore-
seeable. This prohlem exists independent of the willof the Parties. It is intrinsic
to the situation. The Canadian line or other linescrossing Georges Bank would
hrine our two different svstems into direct conflict. hecauseuch linesmaximize
the Lumber of stocks re{uiring joint management.'By contrast, the potential for
disputes and the risk to conservation are minimized hy a line that respects the
Northeast Channel.
In this connection, we uould like to point out, once again, that, regardless of
where the boundary isdrawn, there needsto he some co-operative effort between
the United States and Canada on East Coast fishery-management issues. If,
however, the Chamher decides that the law requires that the boundary should
run through the Northeast Channel, bilateral co-operation will need only 10
address the conservation and management issues associated with four major
commercial species. On the other hand, if the Chamber decides that the
boundary should cross the Bank, bilateral co-operation mus1 address the
conservation and management of al1 16commercially important species.
It might be argued that. sincs the Parties must co-operate in any event, the
Chamher need not he conccrned with minimizing the extent of such co-
operation. Such an argument ignores the differences in the degree of co-
operation needed, depending upon the location of the boundary. The difficulties
in managing 16 stocks jointly are not simply four times as great as those450 GULF OF MAINE
associated with the management of four stocks. Although even that increase
itself would create major prohlems, the increased dificullies, in fact, would be
multiplied several-fold.
To take a simple example, assume that the management of one stock requires
that four decisions be made - who fishes.where do thev fish. when do thev fish.
how much do they fish - who, where, when,and how huch. If we were Coadd
but one additional stock, these four decisionsmust he made for each stock- and
thus, a total of eight decisions now must be made. If, however, we assume that
there is the usual relationshio between the two stocks in the same area. that
Jecision-niaking pruccs\ i.;iiriher compounded almojt exponentially.
Joini manapcmeni trcomcs an incicajingly coniplic<itedta\k with ihc inclu-
sion of each éxtra soecies 10 be manaeëd: ~hicis because each soecies is
rslated IO eter) othc; species. and esch-oi the inierrelationshipi nech\ io be
tsken assount of as the rcsponsible nations ir) to come tu agreement Species
interrelationships occur in a variety of ways: ecologically, particularly in lems
of ~redator-orev relationshios: in fishine oractices. which create imoortant
insihental h):ca;ch problcms';and econ&<ally. thr&ueh relative prices.'Railo.
na1managcmcnt rcquires Jecijiuns iimccrning cach or these rclationships be-
tween everv soecies beinr manared. That is whv ioint manarement of al1 the
comnicrciai~~'important Ï7sherie;of Cisurgrs BinL u,ould bc-immrnsel) more
dificult than joint nianagement of the iuur specicj that the United States agrws
will be transboundary in ail events
IV. Oil and Cas and Fish
The fourth matter we would like10take up to conclude today's conservation
and dispute minimization discussion is the relationship between oil and gas
development on Georges Bank and ils fisheries. The United States maintains
that any boundary that would permit Canada to undertake the development of
any potential oil and gas resources beneath Georges Bank would increase the
likelihood of significant disputes between the United States and Canada. In-
deed, we will go further: should there he such a boundary and should such
development take place, a serious problem in the hilateral relations of the two
countrie~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~-e.
Hydrocarbon development on Georges Bank poses a risk to the fishery
resources found in the waters throughout the Bank. Because of the character-
istics of the manne environment ofCieorees Bank. activities undertaken even
onl) <in a sm;illportion of the Bank, wou~dex~osethr rcsuurccs throughoiii the
Bank to the nsk 01'marine polluiion. Lines thai di\,idc the Bank would mcan
thai the United Siaies would be exrioced io the risk and cunsomitani costs of
marine pollution, without retaining any control over the oil and gas develop-
ment that generates siich nsks, and without enjoying any of the benefits from
that development. Such a result inevitably would beproductive of disputes.
In ore~anne its Memonal. the United States considered makine a detailed
prcseniaiion on this subjcci. bui electrd not iu do so bfcsuseituuuid have becn
based upon prcdictions of the results of oil spills, which inrviiahly mus1rest on
speculative assessments. The fact is that there is no certain knowledee with
résoect to the effects of a soill on the northeast nortion of Cieorees Bank.
inasmuch as there has heen no drilling there and thus no resulting ~ollution:
Assessments of what would happen in the event of a spill on the northeast
oortion of the Bank, therefore, mus1he hased uoon estimates of water currents
and wind directions rather than on pas1 experi&ce with oil spills in the area.
Notwithstanding these uncertainlies, Canada opened the door to this subject ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 451
in ils Memorial at paragraph 175.On the basis of a scientificmodel prepared in
the United States, which focused upon a potential suface oil slick, Canada
unequivocally asserted that it would bear the brunt of any pollution that might
occur from hydrocarbon development on the northeastern portion of the Bank,
because only Canada's coastline would be reached by that oil slick. Canada
stated:
"Unless the hydrocarbon resources are developed by Canada, the
fishermenof southwest Nova Scotia would find themselvesexposed to a risk
for which no commensurate benefits would accrue to Canada."
That model indicated only that, after 60days, a surface oil slick, in onen
of the year, the spring, given the constancy of prevailing wind and current
163 conditions.mighr reach the Canadian coast. Canada, in its Reply at Figure 16,
O ut forward another surface oil slick model which showed basicallv the same
ihing. The prevailing winds during the spring months would blow the slick
northwards. Perhaps between 40 and 60days would pass before that slickmight
reach the coast.
Three asoects of Canada's argument bear some consideration. First. Canada
fails to disLlosethat theLejs onlia low probability that oil on the surface would
come ashore, and the fact that if the oil did reach the coast after so long a time,
the effect would be insignificant.
Before you is Figure 80 of our presentation, depicting the 20-day surface
163 trajectories taken from Figure 16of Canada's Reply. These red lines are taken
O fra tie Canadian Figure and show where the oil slick would go in the first 20
davs followingthe oil soill.As can be seen. nearlv al1the oil on the surface would
remAino\cr Gc,~rgciBank duriiig ihc iirsi 20dilvs folloi\.inga spill. 13).the iimc
?O da)\ haie cl.~p,cd.ilic \urCaceslick mdy hcpn io dispcrsc hC)onJ ihr.g)01'
ihc Ilank.H\ ihdi tiriic ihc ioiicii, oithc oil ha Jcirwrcd rre:iily
Thus, even if Canada's modelsare correct, and surface SI might reach the
coast in one season, after 40 or 60 days, the damage that could result would be
relatively insignificant.
Two other aspects of Canada's argument warrant further consideration. In
assessing the eiïects of oil pollution, one must distinguish between a surface oil
slick and oil that is carried in the water column. One also must distinguish
between the eiïect of pollution upon a coastline and its effect upon the marine
environment before the pollution reaches the coast.
In the viewof the United States, al1marine pollution is a serious matter, and
we are confident that Canada shares this view. Nonetheless, the reliance upon a
surface oil slick alone and the focus upon the possible pollution of the coastline
from activities on Georges Bink are serious deficiencies in the Canadian
assessment of this issue.This is because, in the viewof the United States, there is
only a slight possibility that oil from a blowout on the northeastern portion of
the Bank would reacheither the United States or Canadian coast. Such an event
would beregrettable -but the effectscould be overcome. What is far more likely
-and with effectspotentially far more devastating- is that such pollution would
damage the Bank itself - that i!;,the living resources of the Bank.
In Annex 2 of the United States Counter-Memorial. we soueht to address the
deficiencies in the Canadian presentation. To our knowledge, although the
experts had acknowledged the potential effects on the water column of an oil-
wcll blowout on Georxes ~anklnone had developed a model to assess the ~ath
that ~ ~ ~o~ld follow within the water column itself. To resoond 10-the
shortcomings in the canadian Memorial, weinitiated studies of th&question by
the same experts who constructed the surface model to which Canada refers in 452 GULF OF MAINE
its Memorial. The results of that work are found in Annex 2 tothe United States
Counter-Memonal - with the modelling techniques descnbed in Appendix C
thereof.
In its Reply, although Canada refers cryptically to the so-called "scientific
deficiencies" in this model, Canada does not dispute or even address the
evidence su..oriine the environmental-risk analvsis contained in Annex2 to the
UnitcJ Staiei C'o~nter.~lr.n~~iril or dors Ciriadü dispute ihc ci)nclurions lh~i
the liniied St;itcs has drüun froni thxi e\idcncc. Rather. 11,Rcpl!. <:an~.ili
.~h\erisih.ii the '.farxl ~clcntilicdefeci" in tlie Uniisd Si:iics ;inal,siIIis ihai
takes account of only oil within the water column and ignores oil on the surface
of the water (para. 178).That, exactly, is what we intended to do. Thus, in fact,
Canada simply ignores this work.
Canada retreats to its surface model, which, at most, shows that, in the spring,
if the winds arerighi, some oil might reach the coast of either Canada or the
United States after a long period of time.
There are a numher of reasons why focusing upon surface pollution, rather
than that of the water column, presents a significantlyincomplete picture of the
possible costs of development of oil and gas on Georges Bank, and of who will
bear the burden of such costs. Oil that Roats at the surface of the sea is
"weathered" with the oassaee of time. It isdnven hv a combination of wind and
U'JiCrsurreni IIISnlnre e~p<~seiillnd thereiorc more ;illCiieJ h! the uinds ih:in
8soil,n the i<litc,rc~oluiiin.Ex~.c-;tici, m<inth\<iicü~ltye.ir,<IIIflii.iiiny\in
the surface over Georges Bank would he driven out to sea by prevailing winds.
Even if we acceot for the sake of areument the examnles of oil discharees to
@ ;.hich Canada reier. in iir tîriipl&dingj. including ligure IYuiiih ~o;nier-
llemoriill and Figure 16oiiis Repl). ihcrc is lessihsn a IUper ccni chance thai
@. iiifrom such .dihi~nceuould re~chrhe shorer <iiSixa Ssotia. and ei,cn tlicn
only after several months of weathenng and only if the discharge occurred
during the spring months. Canada never acknowledges that, in one of its
examples, Figure 19 of its Counter-Memonal, the United States coast hears
..@ ereater risk than those of Canada. and that the coast of Maine would also be hit
@ cy an oil slick if Figure 16of canada's Reply is correct.
Let usconsider the oilwithin the water column. Someoil in the water, whether
on the surface or in the water column, willevaporate; somewillbe dissolvedinto
the water column; and somewill be suhject to microhial degradation and photo-
oxidation. The most acutely toxic fractions of the oil, that is, the parts that kill
eggs and larvae of manne fish and shellfish, are those that dissolve and
evaoorate.
Mr. Prc>idcni.distinguiihcd Ji~dger Counscl for Conlrld siiicd, on 4 April
bcfore thi..Chtimbcr. rliai ''1ihink 1u,ould hc riiiisîying ili;ii ncithcr oiihe
Parties is ~articularlv interested in micro-ornan~sms"
The ~&ed ~tatetis interested in micro-Gganisms, particularly phytoplank-
ton and the somewhat larger eggs and larvae of the manne fish and shellfishof
Georges Bank.
The study summarized in Annex 2 and its appendices shows that the threat of
serious manne pollution of Georges Bank stems from the risk posed Io the
micro-organisms that Canada claims no interest in - to the eggs and larvae of
Georges Bank fish stocks caused by those volatile toxic fractions of oil. The
serious harm that could hefall the eees and larvae would occur for most stocks
during the first five to ten days follr%ing the discharge of the oil.
The study in Annex 2 of OurCounter-Memorial shows, however, that adult
scallops and lohster would be exposed to senous nsks over a longer period of
time, since the degradation penod for oil in the sea-floor sediments, where ARGUMENT OF MU. COLSON 453
scallops and lobster are round, is slower than that for oil remaining in the water
column.
Thus, Chapter II of Annex 2 to the United StatesCounter-Memorial recounts
with some snecificitv what in al1 lik~ ~~ood would occur t~ ~ ~v of~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
commercially important specieson Georges Bank werean oil wellto "hlow out"
or oiherwise discharge oil, on the Bank. We will not recount that information
once again, but wouid ask the Chamber to recall that the pattern in which the
water circulates in the Georges Bank ecological régime,the Georges Bank gyre.
the reality of which evenCanada acknowledges (Canadian Memorial, para. 93
@ and,Figure 20), and the productivity of the régimearising in part froni the
vcrtical mixing of the water, makes Georges Bank particularly susceptible to
damage from hydrocarbon discharge, especially during the spawning season.
Annex 2 of the United States Counter-Memorial contains a series of
illustrations of the distribution of fish larvae on which are suoerimnosed oil-s~ill
IniJc~I~riCSThoic iIlustrdtion>\h<>uthe riiin the ii,aicr criluilincutiing acroçs
concentrations of Iar\ac of niajor commercial stock^ Heiorc you is Figure al of
Our presentation, which superimposes the 20-day surface oil-spill tFajectones
from Figure 16in Canada's Reply on a haddock-larval distribution chart from
Annex 1 of the United States Counter-Memorial. Once again, the oil and the
larvae are sbown Io coincide. One can imagine the dcvastation Io the haddock
larvae that would occur were an oil soi11on the northcrn Dortion of Georges "
R:ink Io happcn during. or shortly after. ihc haddock spauning jcaioii
From the ouisri. ihc devclopmeni of the potential hydrocarh<inrcsource 01'
Georges Bank has heen a hiahl\~contrriverjial and litigious maiier in the United
tat teTshe first diolomatic~ommunication from théunited States to Canada
concerning this dispute, dated 10May 1968, which requcsted a moratorium on
oil and gas exploration, focused in large measure upon this environmental
concern. ln that aide-mémoire. theUnitedStates stressed the need for orotection
of "the Ii\ing rcsuurces of the sa :ig;iin?t ihe polluiion and dirturb~ncc uhiih
mighi rcjult frotn mincral erploraiion 3nd expl~~itation" The aide-niinioire
referred s~ccilially io ihc need to prcircii ihc fishcryrcrtiurccs oiG-or,!~,, Bdnk
(United States Mëmorial, Ann. 55).
United States law has developed elaborate and protracted procedures to
ensure the prior assessment, as well as the public disclosure and debate, of the
environmental effects of drilling on the continental shelf. Pursuant Io these
procedures. proposals by the United States Federal Government to authorize
such development often have been opposed by the fishing and other private
interests, by environmental organizations, as well as by state and local govern-
ments. What has ken sufiicient protection for other parts of the continental
shelf, has never been sufficientprotection for Georges Bank.
The history of the United States continental shelf programme on Georges
Bank has ken fraught with litigation and other disputes stemming from
environmental concerns. Federal programmes for nominating and assessing
areas of potential hydrocarbon resources have ken suspended on a number of
occasions as a result of litigation instituted by slaie and local governments and
other interests. This has been the case ~articularlv in the New Eneland States
wherc thc possibility <ifdrilling on Ge<i&esRdnk hxs aruused oppo;itiun of the
fisheries ;ind rccrcaiiondl inierc\ts in ihe ;irea.
The firrt .ale uf oil and gar Is~se, on Grorges Ddnk. I.casc Sale 42. initialls
proposed for August 1976;was postponed on a number of occasions and foi
a period of over tbree years as a result of challenges by state and local
governments, fishermen, public interest groups, and others concerned for the
safety of the marine environmeiit.454 GULF Of MAINE
As is required for al1offshore lease sales, before the decision Io go fonvard
with the first Georges Bank lease salecould be made, a draft,and subsequently a
final, environmental imoact statement were oreoared bv the Federal Govern-
ment. All interested participated in t6e ireParation of these statements
through the submission of comments and attendance at public hearings.
Procedures were adopted Io Facilitate the enchange of pertinent information
among the Department of the Interior, fishermen, conservation groups, state
and local governments, and other interested agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment.
In resoonse to the findinas of the various technical studies conducted or
commiss~onedby the ~e~arlment of the Interior, and the comments received
during the environmental review process for Georges Bank, safeguards were
added in lease sti~ulations and through the implementation of regulations
For examole. the leases that the ~Sted ~tatei sold on the undiguted oart of
ihe Hink incluJcJ iiipula1ii)ns requiring ihe idrntili2~iioii oi hiologis:illy-
iniporiant 3rc3, prmr 10 th? pl;iicmçni of an) ,tructurcs iind ihc iiscuf ihc hcsi
;ind YJ~CII lcch~iol~~-.sii.~ilrihlç.The le~sssJI<(> included ririijijioiis ii)riroteci
fisliermcn. such .irihc rcqulrcrnzni ih.ii uli'~h<ircsiruciilrer \hnuld noi intcrFerc
\rith comniercial rishing, ;ts \tell ;ir ihc prwiiion inanrlat~ngtliai undcr\r~icr
pipelines be shrouded and that offshore equipment be marked permanently so
ihii ihc Iishle p:irty ~i>ulJhc idcniiiic,l <hoi.lh ihc cq,lipincnt iiul Fishing gr.:tr
Thc~ spesi:ili.intlitiotir I;>rGcorgcr Rink ;ire iuund in the iindl ni~iiceiur 0uir.r
Coniineiii~l Shclf Sîlc 42, ai hiinch J?of ihr.I.'niicdSiaieh M~mori.il.
Notwithstanding these and many other safeguards provided in the leases by
the Department of the Interior, Lease Sale 42 was delayed by the challenge of
state and local governments and environmental groups for over Iwo years. By
the time the sale was finally held, a total of 35 tracts had been deleted, in
resnonse to concerns raised bv environmental and fisheriesgrouos -. orotect .he
:oral. lobsisr 2nd oihcr iish p(,pulstii>n,. J\ uell as io rcdu:c ihc p,fihibiliiy oi
;onilici br.ia,cen ihc fishing 2nd Ii)Jrg~carbonc~imniuni1ir.swiihin ihe IJniic,l
Si:iics. hloreoi,cr, tlie .air. prsc:i.dcic>nl, :ilter ihc I>ciiartmcni of the Inicrior
took numerous additional steps to prevent risks to themarine environment of
the area.
The public concern in the United States over the fact that the fisheryresources
throuehout the Bank could be damaeed as the result of hvdrocarbon develoo-
ment anywhere on the Bank continies to reverberate th~oughout the highist
echelons of the United States Government. Just last fall, the Congress, by law,
imposcd a one-year moratorium upon any expenditure of funds for planning for
future oil and gas leasing for much of Georges Bank. We have deposited the
pertinent Statute under Article 56 of the Rules of Court.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges, let me end this discussion of resource
conservation and management and dispute minimization with one final com-
ment.
The Ilnitcd Si.iiïr harieii ulthe sinckr on ihc northc:i,i p~rt~inof<;corger
Hank ir irnpori,ini, but the stock\ ihcnisel\ir ionlribuir. murh niiirc 10 the tot:il
United States harvest on Georres Bank, because these same stocks are the ones
that are~ha~ ~sted Farther south. Thus~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~he stocks on the northeast
poriion ,>fthe B.ink rciiecis .Ircrious dcslinc in the stock, ihro~ghoui ihe Ihnk
On ihc other hand, hcciuse thçse ,io:ks do n.ii <rosi ihc Norihca\i Chanilel.
their decline or disa~o..rance would no1affect Canada's or Nova Scotia's fish
h.iricsi sigiiilic~nily.Thui. mcikingihc Cie<irpcjBank >tecks iranshi>und;try.ai
Canada's Iinc docj. putr the Cniicd S13lc~ JI ri& nithout puiilng CdnxJa JI
much risk. Canada can engage in aggressive fishingbehaviour and have little Io ARGUMENT OF MR. COLSON 455
lose. Canada can engagein aggressivebargaining behaviour, sincethe Canadian
line gives Canada a negotiating leverage far out of proportion to the area it
would have jurisdiction over. Given the unrestrained common-pool fishing
situation, Canada is in a position to overfish stocks of much greater importance
to us than we might be able to do to them. Add to this the fact that Canada
would bein a position to develop oil on Georges Bank, having virtually no effect
upon the Canadiiin Coastor the Canadian stocks on the Scotian Shelf, but on the
stocks of importance to the United States, makes us gravely concerned; that is
why we here suggest that the principles of resourceconservation and manage-
ment and dispute minimization are of special importance in the establishment of
an equitable delimitation. We believe that Georges Bank is an entity, a legal,
governmental, geomorphological and biological entity. Within the United
States, the fishing communities, the oil and pas industry, the state and local
governments, and the environmental groups, have recognized this integrity in
seekine both to orotect and to accommodate their interests in Georees Bank.
~ithin the ~niied States there are legal and governmental mechkisms for
addressingthesedisparateinterestsand for making choicesbetweenthem. These
mechanismsdo not exist acrossinternational borders. In the future, there must
be a vehicle for variable communities of interest t~ ~e~oncile their ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ -
interests effectively. This can only bedone pursuant to a boundary that respects
the ecological inlegrity of Georges Bank. Ils fisheries need to be husbanded by
one oartv; and tho;. anv develoiment of oil and eason the Bank must beeuided
by that SameParty. That. in o;r view, is what rnternational law requirz; it is
where common senseleads, and that is what, in Our view, an equitable houndary
muri do
Ur. President. distinguished JuJgcs. ihis concluJes our prc,eni3tioii on the
con\crvotion of the rcsourccsoICicorgrs B~nk Ii hasken my high honoiir unce
again to appear before you and to expressto you the position of my country. STATEMENT OF MR. ROBINSON
AGENT !:OR THE GOmRNMEN OTF THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA
Mr. ROBINSON: Mr. President, distinguished Judges. May it please the
Chamher.
This first round of the United States oral argument is now coming to a close.
It is my privilege to addressthe Chamher once again to offer some ahhreviated
concluding remarks. The United States will not repeat the many points that
counsôl have made. The United States wishes instead to use this opportunity to
synthesize the elements of an equitahle solution that we helieve have clearly
emerged from the United States oral presentations. As expressed in my
openiirg statement. the United States reiterates its view that when al1is said
and done, the issues in this case are straightforward and the law and evidence
overwhelmine.
The ~niiei Siaics cunlirmr ihc fundlinientdl rulc in ihc Jcliiiii1;~iiunof a
iinglc rnarliini: huundar? Equii;ihlc principlcj :ind sn cqiiii;iblc\olut~onjrc ihc
niasicr. 'lhc ~;irii:ulsr mcihod ur mctho~l\JI rachinr xn cquiiahlc \oluiion in
accordance with those principles are but the servanc 11isclear that Canada
disagrees with this analysis. Herein lieswhat is perhaps the greatest conceptual
diiierence hetween the Parties in this case.
The distinauished Ag-nt for Canada has cited the eauidistance method as
inhcrciiilycquitdhlc. ('3nddl,CL'Slhc cquidisidn~.cnicih.~1,the prsfcrrcrl ndrni
of iicliiiiii:iin ihcii)nir.xt oi:i singlemaritinle b,>und~r) C'.i,i:trguc, 1h.11
the estahlished principles roverning delimitation must now he redefined because
of a ouroorted "ew distanCeorinciole. In this r-ear.~~Canada esoouses a conceot
of geo&aphical adjaccncy 'that for canada means the sam'e as proximiiy.
Canada regards the consistent application of equidistance as the essence of an
equitable solution, except, of course, that in thii case, equidistance is to ignore
completely Nantucket and Cape Cod. The United States finds nothing, old or
new, to support this Canadian thesis.
Let me summarize what, in the United States view, are the elements of an
equitahle solution for a single maritime houndary as specified in the Special
Agreement (1)hetween the Parties. In this connection, the United States refersto
the conclusions that MI. Stevenson expressed regarding the law applicable to a
singlemaritime boundary and to the balancing-up of the relevant circumstances
in this case.
The United States believes that under the applicable law, the relevant
circumstances entitled to the most weight in this caseare the geographic realities
of the Gulf of Maine area. The principal of these circumstances are the
following:
First t,e coastal configuration of the Gulf of Maine area, including the
coastal concavity that is the Gulf of Maine.
Second, the location of the land boundary and the international houndary
terminus hetween the United States and Canada in the ~ ~ ~ern cor~e~ of that
coastal concavity.
Third,the general direction of the coast in the Gulf of Maine area and the fact
that the coasts of Maine and New Hampshire follow that eeneral direction.
Fourth,the extension seaward of the cOastsof Maine and-~ew Hampshire so
as to emhrace al1of Georges Bank. STATBMENTOF MR. ROBINSON 457
And,fifih, the ratio of threc-to-one in the relative lengths of the respective
United States and Canadian coastal fronts that face upon the Gulf of Maine.
These relevant geographic circumstances bring into focus the first equitable
principle identified by the Unitcd States. As the Chamber will recall, this
principle requires respect for the relationship between the coasts of the Parties
and the maritime area in front of those coasls. This principle is particularly
relevant in the delimitation of a single maritime boundary since it relates witb
equal force to bath the continental shelfand the superjacent water column.
The eauitable solution called for bv these relevant eeoeraohic circumsiances is
confirmid independently by the marine environmenïinïhe'~u1f of Maine arca.
As highlighted by the testimony of Dr. Edwards and in this morning's
presentation by iny colleague and Depuiy-Agent, MT. Colson, the relevant
circumstances of this marine en\,ironment include the separate fishing banks of
Georges Bank and the Scotian Shelf that are divided at the Northeast Channel
and the important stocks of commercial fish that are associated with thesr
respective fishingbanks.
These environmental circumstances are particularly relevant to the second
and third equitable principlcs identified by the United States. These are the
principle of facilitating the conservation and management of natural resources
in the area and that of minimizing disputes between the Parties.
Next. theactivilies of the Parties and their nationals in the Gulfof Maine area
are relevant circumstances in this case. These activities provide further support
for the confirn~ationof United States jurisdiction over al1of Georges Bank. In
the United States view, however, thcse activities are no1 entitled to as much
weight as the geographic and environmental circumstances of this case.
Messrs. Lancaster and Rashkow have demonstrated the predominant and
long-standing interest of the United States in Georges Bank. They have done so
by noting the large number of resource and resource-related activities of the
United States and its nationals on Georges Bank. In Our view. these activities
clearly outweigh Canada's coniparatively recent interest in a single scallop
fisheryon one portion ofGeorges Bank. Thus, Canada's limited challenge to the
predominant intercst of the United States on Georges Bank fallsfar short under
the applicable law. WCbelieve that the activities of the United States and its
na:ionals ]endadditional weight 10.but do no1control. an equitable delimitation
based upon the fundamental aiid even unique geographic and environmental
circumstances of this case.
In applying thcse principlcs and relevant circumstances. Mr. Stevenson has
uraed the Chamber no1 to enease in an exercise of distributive iustice, The
Uaited Stdtcs Tin(lrno bds~.:fo;p<,ing etTeci IOihe concept of relaiive econuniic
rlepndcncr. ah ;i rclevsni circum%t;ince(or. ils C3n;iJa has prciposcd. ils
cquitahlc ririnciiilcl r Fcldmiln h:is shou,ri ihat therc is no iurisiirudcnii~tl
support f8r thé relevance of economic dependence in the delim'itation of
maritime boundaries between neighbouring States. Mr. Feldman also has
demonstrated that, even were this consideration legally relevant, Canada has
failedas a factual matter to establish itsassertion that it isin a oosition ~.snecial
cconomic dcpendcnce ivith rcgard 10 ihc rishcricsof Gcorgr., Bank
The Unitcd S1;itcshils ajkcd the Chamkr Io disrcg;ird Can~dd'saticmpt IO
introduce into the delimiiation of the singlemaritime boundary the newconcept
of human eeoeraohv. It ison thisunfounded basis that Canada seeks t~ ~e~lace~r~~ ,
or at leas; tgin'~;ence, the physical geography to which the jurisprudence
historically has granted such critical importance in maritime delimitation.
In summary. fiis the United States position that an equitablesolution in this 458 GULF OF MAINE
singlemaritime boundary delimitation must give effectto the coastal projection
of the States of Maine and New Hampshire so as to embrace al1of Georges
Bank. Such a solution respects the natural houndary separating Georges Bank
from the fishinghanks of the Scotian Shelf at the Northeast Channel. Moreover,
in meeting these requirements, such a boundary recognizes the predominant
interest of the United States in Georges Bank. The equitableness of such a
solution is confirmed when tested by the principle of proportionality.
The United States line retlects that three-fourths of the coastal fronts of the
Parties facing on the Gulf of Maine are United States coasts. And last, but not
least, such a solution bears witness that the true geographic axis of this case is
the location of the land houndary and the international boundary terminus in
the northern cornet of the coastal concavity that is the Gulf of Maine.
MI. President, distinguished Judges, the issue then becomes what method or
methods will produce an equitable solution in the delimitation of a single
maritime boundary in this case.
In its opening statement, the United States described the construction of the
United States line. My colleague, and able Deputy-Agent, Mr. Colson, has
explained why such a line leads to an equitable solution that applies the
equitable principles discussed by Mr. Stevenson and takes into account the
221 relevant circumstances outlined hy other United Statescounsel. Figure 82before
O the Chamher shows this orooosed United States line in red. MI. Colson's
treatment of the geographic ccircumstancespointed out that the United States
line achieves, among others, theollowing results:
First,the United States line gives effectto the general delimitation principle of
respect for the relationship between the coasts of the Parties and the maritime
areas in front of those coasts. The United States line assures that each Partv
receives most of the area seaward of itsast.
Second,the United States line satisfiesthe subsidiary delimitation principle of
natural prolongation in its geographic sense, therehy also assuring that each
State willreceiveas much as possibleof the extension of its coastal frontintothe
sea.
Third, the United States line gives eiïect to another subsidiary delimi-
tation principle- that of non-encroachment - hy abating the unreasonahle,
unnatural, and extraordinary cut-off effect caused by both the original
Canadian equidistant line and the modified Canadian line that totally disre-
gards Cape Cod and Nantucket. These Canadian lines also are shown on
ia Figure 82 hefore the Chamber.
O 'Fourrh, the United States line satisfies the third subsidiary delimitation
principle requiring a reasonahle degreeof proportionality between the lengths of
the coasts of the Parties and the marine areas lying in front of such coasts.
The United States respectfully submits that neither of the Canadian lines
would le~ ~to a solution in the circumstances of this case that would accord
@ wiih the applicabl~equiiablc principlcAs sh,iu.n in Figure 82, both C~n'idian
line$ uould cui OITihc staie of M3ine ïrom ils çoasial projeciion. wiihin and
seanard of thc Gulf ui Vainc çonca\iiv. Io (ieor~cs Bank and bcvond. Hoih
Canadian lineswould run to the midpoiiiof the hypothetical closing-line across
the mouth of the concavity before extending farther seaward and crossing
Georges Bank, despite the fact that three-fourths of the coastline forming the
concavitv belon-~ to the United States. Furthermore. neithe~~Canadian line
would meet the proportio&lity test.
Both Canadian lines would disregard the natural boundary at the Northeast
Channel that divides Georges Bank and the Scotian Shelf and the important STATEMEN OTFMR. ROBINSON 459
commercial fishing stocks thai arc associatedwith the respectiveseparatefishing
banks.
Hoth Cdnadian lincs would in dditiun o\crlouk the prcdominant intcrcst of
the United Siatcs and ils nationals in Cirorgcs Hank.
The Uniicd Siaies uould add ihai each oiihcsc Can3dian Iincs uould ignore
important affirm;itive conduct of the Parties. With respecl to the contiiental
shelf, the Truman Proclamation and ils accompanying terms remained unchal-
lenged by Canada for 20 years. With respect to fisheries, the line dividing
Subareas 4 and 5 of ICNAF has been usedby the Parties, with but minor
modifications,since 1931. This division, as the Chamber will recall and
@ as is shown on Figure 83, runs through the Northeast Channel. Intercstingly,
the line cquidistant between the 100-fathom contour of the continental shelf
cited in connection with the Truman Proclamation and the line reoresentine
ihescICSAF subarca dii,irions ;ire basically une and rheiamc s;s~ror~&
H~nk and ihr Northeast Channel arc c<iniçrncd Throughout 11shi\tory,
ICNAF uicd ihir linc 2s ;in intceral nari of 11smanaremcnt of the srwaratc firh
stocks of Georges Bank and those Qf the ScotiansK~I A~. Mr. coison stated
earlier thisrning, even today. the North Atlantic Fishenes Organization, the
successorto ICNAF, continues 10 use this same line for purposes of fisheries
management.
This pattern ofconduct, by which the Parties gavelegal significance in fheir
relations to the integrity of Georges Bank and to the natural division al the
Northeast Channel, is inconsistent with a Canadian claim to any part of Georges
Bank.
In this sense,the ICNAF linedividing Subareas4 and 5 is comparable to the
26" line that the Court found in TunisiaiLibya cascto be "a circumstance of
great relevance for the delimitation(I.C.J. Reports 1982, para.96).To the
extent that any line - 1repeat, any line - in the Gulf of Maine area has been used
notoriously by both Partiesand hy affirmative written agreement, for the same
purpose and for a long lime, that line is the ICNAF line and the ICNAF line
alone.
Mr. President, distinguished Judges. The United States ends as il began. In
applying equitable principles in the light of the relevant circumstances. the
Chamber has the rieht. indeed the resoonsibilitv. of considerinr. which method
alone ur uhich siim%,narion of nicihods utll pkrluce thc mo~i~~qu,iliblc,inglc
mariiirnc hounddry in ihiq cdsc l'hç Chamhcr15n<itconfincd. in aihir\,ing an
equiiablc \oluiiunto I\ina in ihc procru\ieÿn bcd or the single mcthiid ol
eiuidistance - a..lied b,-canada "ot merelv as a method bit rather as a
principle - thai is. what Canadn scesas the new "distance principle" of giving
controlling eiïect to proximity, which now is describcd by Canada as identical
withadia&ncv.
The i~nitci~inicshs suggcstcdthc cquiiahlç prinaplcs io bc applicd uithin
ihc Iaw. rhc Uniicd States hassugpcsicd the rclci,ani cirsumsiancci io he taken
into account. And the Uniicd SIXICI ha) su.e~c$icJihc clemcnts ofa methud or
methods to ei\,e ciïect to these orincioles aid circumstances
WC klievc thai ihc~c principlcs. ciriumrt;incand çlcmcnls. indiiidually.
and comparativcly. and cumul<iiivcl~, can onl" scrIO conlirm Liniicd States
jurisdiction over al1of Georges Bank.
The United Stateswishesto take this opportunity to thank the Chamber and,
indeed, Ourdistinguished Canadian friends and colleagues,for your patienceand
your attention. It hasken an honour and a great privilege io haveappearedhere
before you, and on behalf of the entire United Statesdelegation we would like to
thank you for this first, openine round of the United Statesoral argument.460 GULF OF MAINE
The PRESIDENT: Considenne the hour at which we have arrived. 1 think
th31the que,tions thai wnic Judgcs and rnyjrll ir,oulJ IiIO ddJres\ ro buth
Parties, or io onc of il~ern.ciinhcrcdd In the linle that ne siill hWCe will
give them, in wnting, to the Parties for reply at their early convenience'.
This now concludes the first round of the oral hearings in the case concerning
the Gulf of Maine. These hearings are now adjourned, and the date for the
opening of the second round will be communicated as soon as possible to the
Agents of both Parties.
The Chamberroseai 12.55p.m
'The terts the questionare annexedto this record. QUESTIONS POSÉES PAR LE PRÉSIDENT DE LA CHAMBRE
ET PAR MM. GROS, MOSLER, SCHWEBEL, JUGES, ET M. COHEN,
JUGE AD HOC
Au cas où une méthode déterminéeou une combinaison de méthodes
paraitrait appropriée pour la délimitationdu plateau continental et une autre
pour celle des zones exclusivesde pêche,quels sont selon les Parties les motifs
juridiques que I'on pourrait invoquer en faveur de rune plutOt que de l'autre
pour la détermination d'uneligne unique? (VII, p. 139et 186.)
Premièrequesiion.pos6eaux deirsParries:
Le point A et le triangle sont-ils des éléments agrééds finitivementpar les
Parties dans le compromis, l'un comme point dc départ, I'autre comme zone
d'arrivéede la ligne de délimitationentre les zones maritimes relevant de leur
juridiction dans la zone du golfe du Maine qu'il est demandéà la Chambre de
fixer? (VII, p. 35 et 180.)
1.En cequi concerne lepoint A lesParties reconnaissent-ellesque tout accord
éventuelentre ellessur la limite de leurs eaux territoriales à partir de l'actuelle
limite maritime internationale ne oourrait modifier le ooint de déoartde -a liene
de déljmitationunique demand&à la Chambre? (vI~, p. 36 et i80.)
2. La mèmequestion se pose àpropos de la réservefaiteen casd'arbitrage sur
la souverainetéde I'ileMachias Sealet du North Rock (c.. .our lesEtats-Unis.
V, réplique,par. 238 et la note 4). (VII, p. 36 et 181.)
Deuxièmequesrion,poséeaux d'ux Parries:
En ccqui conccrne le 1ri;ingle.quelleeIhposiliilnjuridique des Parliesquani
a I'eiTeidc leur choix de ce proccdc dan, le conipromis .ur la conipr:tencr12c
Chambre qui doit juger selon les règleset les principes de droit applicables à
I'aiî'aire?(VII. p. 38 et 181.)
Troisièmequestion,poséeaur Elors-Unis:
1.Lestextesadoptés parla troisième conférence desNations Unies sur ledroit
de la mer, pour le plateau continental et la zone économiqueexclusive,ont-ils
des effetsjuridiques sur la convention de 1958sur le plateau continental et sur
l'étatactuel du droit coutumier? (VIJ, p. 189.)
2. Selon le Gouvernement des Etats-Unis, quelle interprétationconvient-il de
donner par rapport à la présenteaffaire:
a) à la déclarationdu président desEtats-Unis d'Amériquedu 9juillet 1982:
«Ayant achevé l'examen des dispositions de cette convention, nous
reconnaissons qu'ellecontient un grand nombre d'éléments positife st très
importants. Les longs passages ayant trait à la navigation et au survol des464 GOLFE DU MAINE
Sije ne metrompe, le bassin du golfedu Maine n'a pasjouéun très grandrôle
dans lesplaidoiries. En examinant la carte, j'ai l'impressionque cette zone n'est
pas une entitéaussi homogèneque les deux autres paraissent l'être. LeE s tats-
Unis auraient-ils l'obligeancede nous indiquer quelles sont les caractéristiques
du bassin du golfe du Maine qui le distinguent des deux autres régimesou
systèmes?(VII, p. 250.)
1. Questionfor rhe United States:
Would the United States please set out the legal basis for the Northeast
Channel line which it maintained (until the filine of ils Memorial in this case)
was the line al which a mar~time'boundar~ shguld be drawn in the Gulf of
Maine? (VII, p. 270.)
2. QuestionJor Canada:
With respect 10 whether a bay closing line in the Bay of Fundy should be
regarded as part of Canadian coastal frontage on the Gulf of Maine, as argued
by the United States, would Canada please comment on the significance,if any,
of the facts (if indeed they be facts) that suhstantial areas of the Bay of Fundy
haveeither bcen incorporated into Canadian interna1waters by drawing straight
baselines,or engulfed by the expansion of the territorial sea of Canada from 3to
12miles; and that Canada has exercised exclusivefishingjurisdiction since 1970
in the Bay of Fundy by drawing closing lines in the mouth of the Bay? With
further regard to the Bay of Fundy, why does Canada maintain that the Bay of
Fundy is Dart of the Gulf of Maine to be encomoassed in anv calculation of
proportionality or disproportionality, while it do& no1 so indude Chignecto
Bay and the Minas Basin? (VII, p. 133.)
(If the United States wishes to comment, it is equally welcome to do so.)
QUESTIONS BY JuDGECOHEN
Tlrefour questions are addrrssed ro bath Parries
I 1, ihcrcti uniC\in%d. oniinani. Ic$,~lprin~iplctha1% io pr,i\,iJ: ihc haris for
thc locdii<~niif;singleni.ir1timchoiinrldry Ihat unile, ihc o1J i'ontincnt~l Shcli
I>oitrinr.:ind ihc <>IC.~n,lilt'~sh~rir.I\>oclrinIO ihc ne- ?OU-inilcne" (\'Il.
pp. 39 and 185.)
2. 1sthe criticism ofthe equidistant method sufficientif it rests on the cut-off
of the adjacent neighbour's coastal share sinceeveryequidistant line, if it is not
exactly in the centre of the concavity, is bound to swing somewhat over to the
other side?"Perpendicular" and "equidistant" are very unlikely to be the same
or nearly the same in real situations. What degree of cul-off isacceptable? (VI],
pp. 74 and 233.) QUESTIONS DE LA CHAMBRE 465
3. What role in fact and in law does the southem coast of Nova Scotia and the
oppositc northern coast of Massachusetts play. either with respectto the Gulfor
seaward? (VII, pp. 75 and 237.)
4. Why have both Parties underplayed the role of joint management for al1
mobile transhoundary fisheries? In view of the long record of co-operative
"management" and common fact-finding in the carrying out of both Parties'
obligations under the Boundary Waters Trealy of 1959and by the International
Joint Commission, would there no1have beena credible opportunity to examine
joint management of offshore migratory fishericsand related hiological/environ-
mental matters in the Gulf of Mainearea -and conversely, whymust it therefore
be assumed that such co-operative or joint management of biological resources
would create more opportunities for disputes rather than avoid them, given the
record of both countries on similar matters under the International Joint
Commission, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, etc.? (VII,pp. 123 and
258.) The publications olthe INTERNATIONAL COURTOF JUSTICE mavbeordered
irim an! h~wk,cllr.r i'ur iniurmaliun rcpdrding ihc sa01 the Couri's publlc~iioni
plcase uritc 1s ihcDii~rtburioti,,,id SuIr, Se<.iion.0jfii.e ofrhc Un!redNorionr. 1211
(;ror!i,III Snilir~rlundor the &Ir,< Sc,ri<,n.Unil~d Nario,!c.Nun York.Ni 10017
USA
Thcpuhlic~iion~olthc PLKMANLhlCOUKTOFINTERNATIONI\I. JUSTICE
(lY?O-1946) .ire obidinable irom Kraur Reprtni Ci>..Krsur-Thom\<in 0rgînir.ition
Limitcd. Rouir IOU.\IilluouJ. SYIUS4h (USA!. lu whizh AI rrquol, ,hould he
addressed
On peutacquérir lespublicationsde la COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
auprès des librairies spécialiséesdu monde entier. Pour tous renseignements,prière
de s'adresserà la Secrionde Iodisrribulionel des ventes,Ofice des Nations Unies.
1211GenèveIO(Suisse) ou à laSeniondesvenies.NarionsUnies.New York.NïlOOl7
(Elors-Unis).
On peut acquérir lespublications de la COUR PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONALE (1920-1946) auprès de Kraus Reprint Co., Kraus-Thomson
Organiration Limited, Route 100, Millwood, NY 10546 (Etats-Unis). Pour tous
renseignements,prière de s'adressercettesociété.
PRlNTED IN GREAT BRlTAlN
Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 29 January 1982 and from 2 to 19 April 1984, President of the Chamber, Judge Ago, presiding