Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCEmG DELIMITATION OF THEMARITIME BOUNDARY
IN THE GULF OF MAINE AREA.
Judgmentof 12 October 1984
In itsjudgment, theChamberof the Courtconstitutedin and rulesofnmnational law applicablein the matteras
thecaseconcerningdelimitationofthemaritimeboundaryin betweentheParties,the following question:
the Gulfof MaineArea(Canada/UnitedStatesof America) Whatisthecourseofthe singlemaritimeboundarythat
decidedbyfourvotestoone: dividestheontin~entslhelfandfisherieszonesofCanada
"That the courseof the singlemaritimeboundarythat andthe UnitedSlatesof America froma pointin latitude
divides the continentalshelf and the exclusive fisheri44011' 12"N, longitude67"16'46"W to a point to be
zonesof Canadaand the UnitedStatesoifAmericain the determinedby the Chamberwithin an area boundedby
Areareferredtoin the SpecialAgreementconcludedby straightlinesconinectingthefollowingsetsof geographic
those twoStateson 29March 1979shall be definedby coordinates: latitude 40" N, longitude 67' W; latitude
geodetic lines connecting thepoints with the following40"N,longitude65"W,latitude42"N, longitude65"W?"
co-ordinates: (Forthe locationofthestarting-pointandterminal areaofthe
Lon'& North LongitudWcsr delimitation, seeMapNo..)
A. 44" 11' 12" 67" 16''46" The Chambernotesthat theSpecialAgreementimposes
B. 42" 53' 14" 67" 44" 35" nolimitationonitsrisdictionotherthanthat resulting from
C. 42" 31' 08" 67" 28" 05" thermsofthisquestion,andthattherightsofthirdStatesin
D. 40" 27' 05" 65" 41" 5Y." the marineand subimarineareas to which the case related
couldnot inanywaybe affectedbythedelimitation.It also
(Forthelocationofthesepoints seeMapNo,4.) notesthat, tcasehavingbeensibmitted byspecialagree-
ment, nopreliminary questnfjurisdictionarose.Theonly
initialproblemthatimighttheoreticallyarise iswhetherand
towhatextenttheCl~arnbes obligedtoadheretothe terms
oftheSpecialAgreementasregardsthestarting-pointof the
line to be drawn-called pointA-and the triangular area
Thevowswerecastasfollows: withinwhichthatlineistoterminate.Notingthereasonsfor
IN FAVOUR: PresidentAgo;JudgesMosler and Schwebel, Chamberseesa decisiveconsiderationfornot adoptingany
JudgeadhocCohen; other starting-pointerminal areain the factthat, under
AGAINST: JudgeOros. international law, niutual agreementbetween States con-
cerned isthepreferrprocedurfor establishingamaritime
delimitation;sinceCanadaandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica
hadI>ymutualagreementtakenasteptowardsthe solutiof
their disputewhich must not be disregarded,the Chamber
must,inperforming thtas conferreduponit, conformto
The Chamberwascomposedas follows:PresidentAgo, the termsbywhicherePartieshavedefinedit.
JudgesGros,Mosler,Schwebel,JudgeadhacCohen. The Chamber notesthat therere profounddiierences
betweenthecasebeforeitandotherdelimitationcases previ-
ously broughtbefore:the Courtin that the Chamberis
requested to draw the line of delimitationitself and not
merelyto undertaketas preliminaryto thedetehnation
of a line, and (b)the delimitationrequested doesnot relate
Judge Schwebel appendeda separateopi~~iand Judge exclusivelyto thecontinentalshelfbutto boththe shelfand
Grosadissentingopiniontothe Judgment. theexclusivefishing zone, thedelimitationtobe bya single
In these opinions the Judges concerned stated and boundary.Withregardto(b),the Chamberisoftheviewthat
explainedthe positions they adopted in regardto certainheriscertainlynoruleofinternationallaw,oranymaterial
pointsdealtwithintheJudgment. impossibilitoprevent it from determining hline.
* II. Thedelimitationarea
* * (paras28-59)
The Chamberfindsit indispensableto definewithgreater
I. TheSpecialAgreement and thehamber,'Jurisdiction precision the geographical area- "the Gulf of Maine
(paras. 1-27) area"-within whichthdelimitationhastobecarriedout.It
Afterrecapitulatingthe variousstagesin theproceedingsotes that theGulf of Maineproperlyso called is ad
and settingoutthe formalsubmissionof the Parties(Paras.ndentationintheeasterncoastofthe North-Americonti-
1-13), the Chambertakesnoteof the provisionsoftheSpe- nent, having roughly the shapeof an elongatedrectangle
cial Agreement which the case was bro~lghtbefore it.chusettsinthewestandNovaScotiaintheeast, whoselong
UnderArticlen, P~PP~ 1,ofthat SpecialAgreemnt, it landwardsideismade up by thecoastof Maine fromCape
was: Elizalxth to the terrninus of the international boundary
"requestedto decide, in accordancewith the principlesetween theUnited Statesand Canada, and whosefourth,Atlanticsidewouldbe an imaginaryline,belwee~Nl antucket is oneconstructedalmostentirelyfromthe nearest pointsof
and Cape Sable, agreed by.the Partiestobe the "closing the baselines fromwhichthe breadthoftheterritorisea is
line" oftheGulfofMaine. measured.Those points happen tobe exclusively islands,
rocksorlow-tideelevations,yet thebasepointsontheMas-
the opposite coastsof Massachusettsand Nova Scotia. It sachusettscoastwhichhadinitiallybeenchosenforthe 1976
points out that the referet: "long" and"shcbrt"sidesis line hiwe been shifted westwardso that the new line no
not tobeinterpretedasanes:pou.salftheideaofdistinguish- longertakesaccountof the protrusionormedby Cape Cod
ing "primary" and "seconldlary"coastalGronts.The latter andNimtucketIslandandisaccordinglydisplacedwest. The
distinctionis merelythe expressionof a humanvalue judg- lineproposedby the UnitedStatesis a perpendiculartthe
ment, whichis necessarilyriubjectiveand :mayvaryon the generaldirectionofthecoastfromthe starting-pointagreed
basisof the same facts, dependingon theends in view. It uponbytheParties,adjustedtoavoid thesplittingoffishing
pointsout, withreferenceto certainargumentsput forward banks.Itdiffersfrom the "Northeast Channelline" adopted
bytheParties,thatgeographuicaflactarethcr:sultofnatural in 1976which, accordintoitsauthors,had been based upon
phenomenaandcanonlybetaken asthey are. the"equidistance/specialcircumstances" ruleofArticle6of
Thedelimitation,thechamber observes,is notlimitedto the 1958GenevaConvention.The Chamber notes that the
the Gulf of Mainebut comprises,beyondthe Gulf closing twosuccessivelinesputforwardbyCanadawere bothdrawn
line, anothermaritimeexpanseincludingrthewholeof the prima~ilywith the continentalshelf in mind, whereas the
Georges Bank ,hemainfoc:usof thedispute.TheChamber UnitedStates lineswere both drawnupinitiallyonthebasis
rejects however the argunients of the Pinties tending to of different considerationsthoughboth treated the fishery
involvecoastsotherthanthosedirectlysurroundingtheGulf dgimc as essential.
soastoextendthedelimitallonareatoexpanseswhich have
infactnothingtodowithit. IV. Theapplicableprinciplesand rulesof intenrational
After notingthat it has up to this point baseditself on law
aspectsinherentinphysical geography,the Chanibergoeosn @ara~.79-112)
toconsiderthe geologicalandgeomorphologicalcharacteris-
ticsof thearea. Itnotes that the Paarein ageement that After observing that theterms "principles and rules"
geologicalfactorare notsiignificatndfindsthat,given the really convey oneand the sameidea, the Chamberstresses
unityanduniformityofthesea-bed,there arenogwmorpho- thata distinctionhas tobe madebetween suchprinciplesor
logicalreasonsfordistinguishingbetweentlnerespectivenat- rules and what, rather,re equitable criteriaor practical
uralprolongationsof theUaitedStatesandCanadiancoasts methodsforensuringthata particularsituationisdealtwith
in the continentalshelf of the delimitationa: even the in accordancewiththoseprinciplesandrules. Of its nature.
Northeast Channel, which is themost prominent feature, custoinaryinternationallaw can onlypmvide a few basic
doesnothavethecharacteristicsofarealtrc~ugdividingtwo legalprinciplesservingasguidelinesdcannotbeexpected
geomorphologicallydistinctunits. alsotospecifytheequitablecriteriabeapplied orthe prac-
Asregardsanothercomponentelementofthedelimitation truoefinternationaltreatylaw.amemayhowever notbe
area the "water column", the Chamber notes thatwhile
Canadaemphasizeditscharacterofoverallunity, theUnited Todetermine theprinciplesandrulesof internationallaw
States invoked the exister~ceofthree distinct ecological governing maritimedelimitation, the Chamber begins by
dgimes separatedbynatwinlboundaries themalstimportant examining theGenevaConvention of29 April 1958on the
of whichconsistedof the Northeast Channel;the Chamber, ContinentalShelf,whichhasbeenratifiedbyboththeParties
however,isnotconvincedofthepossibilityofdiscerning,in tothecase,whoboth alsorecognizethat itiinforcebetween
sofluctuatinganenvironmelnatsthewatersoftheocean,any them. In particularthe Chamber examinesArticle6, para-
naturalboundariescapable d servingasa 'basisfor carrying graphs 1and2, fromwhicha principleof'internationallaw
outadelimitationofthe kirdrequested. may t~deducedtothe effect.hatanydelimitationofaconti-
the viewsoftheotherStateorStatesconcernedisnotoppos-essof
III. Originsanddevelopmeno tf thedispbrte able 1:othose States. To this principlemay conceivablybe
(paras.60-78) addeda latent rule thatany agreement orother equivalent
solutionshouldinvolvethe applicationof equitablecriteria.
Beginningwitha refere~ncteo theIlkurnanProclamations TheChambergoesontoconsiderthebearing on the problem
of 1945, theChambersummarizes theorijginsanddevelop- of variousjudicialdecisionsandtocommentuponthework
mentof the dispute,whichfirstmaterializcxiln the 1960sin of tht:Third UnitedNations Conferenceon the Law ofthe
rationhadbegun oneitherside,moreparticularlyin certain Sea,inotingthatcertain provisionsconcerningthe continen-
locationson Georges Bmdk. In 19761977 ctsrtainevents tal shelfandtheexclusiveeconomiczonewere, intheCon-
occurredwhich addedtothe continentalshelfdimensionthat ventionof 1982,adopted withoutanyobjectionsandmaybe
of the watersandtheir1ivi:resources,fcr bothStatespro- regarded as consonantat presentwithgeneralinternational
ceededto institutean exclusive200-mile fisheryzone off law onthequestion.
their coastsandadoptedre:iplationsspecifbingthelimitsof
the zoneandcontinentalshc>ltfheyclaimedIn itsaccountof As regards the respective positisf the Ruties in the
the negotiationswhicheventuallyledtothereferenceof the lightofthose findings,the Chambernotes their agreemeas
dispute to the Court, thChambe rotes thatin 1976 the calling fora singlemaritimeboundarymbfbe determined inw
United States adopteda line limitingoth the continental acco~dance withthe applicablelaw,inconformitywith equi-
shelfandthe fishing zonesandthe adoptionbyCanadaof a tableprinciples,having regardto allrelevantcircumstances,
firstlinein 1976(MapNo. 2). in olderto achieveanequitableresult.However,thereis no
The Chambertakes note of the respectivedelimitation longtr agreementbetweenthe Ruties wheneachseparately
linesnow proposedby each Party(MapPJo.3). The Cana- seeks to ascertainwhetherinternationallawmightalsocon-
dianline,describedlikethatof 1976asanequidistanceline, tain othermandatoryrules in the samefidd. The Chamberrejectsthe Canadianargument from geographical adjacencythebasisofthatanalysis,theChamberconcludesth theFar-
whosecoastsislessdistantfrom thezonlestobe attributed betweenthem, carenotbound,undera ruleoftreaty laworations
than thoseoftheother Stateconcernewould beentitledto otherrule,toapplycertaincriterorcertainmethodsforthe
have the zones cognized as its own.'RE Chamberalso establishmenotfthesinglemaritime boundarya,ndthatthe
findsunacceptable the distinconadeb:ytheUnitedStates Chamberisnot seboundeither.
between"primary"and"secondary"coiutsandthe conse- Regardingpossiblecriteria,the Chamber doenotcon-
quent preferentialrelationshipsaid toxist between the sidert!!atitwouldbeusefultoundertakeamoreorlesscom-
"principal"coastsandthemaritimeandsubmarineareassit- plleteenumerationin the abstrcftthose thatmight betheo-
uatedfrontallybefore them. reticallyconceiva~blo,r an evaluationof theirgreateror
Inconcludingthis partofitsconsiderationst,he Chamber lesserdegreeofequity.Italsonotes,inregardtothepractical
sets out a moreprecise reformulatioof the fundamental m.ethodst,hatnonewouldintrinsicallybring greatrustice
normacknowledged bytheParties: or be of greater practicl sefulnethan others,andthat
"No maritime delimitationetweenStateswith oppo- theremustbe willingnestoadoptacombination ofdifferent
siteoradjacentcoastsmaybeeffected unilateralyyone methodswhenevercircumstancse osrequire.
effectedbymeansofanagreement,ifollc~winngegotiations VI. Thecriteria and methodsproposed bytheArties and
conductedingoodfaithandwiththegenuineintentionof thelinesesultingjiotheirapplicatitothedelimi-
achievingapositive result. Wherh,owever,such agree- tation
mentcannotbeachieved,delimitationi:houldbeeffected (pa. 164-189)
byrecourseto athird party possessiie necessary com-
petence. Oncethe disputehadtakenonitspresent dual dimension
"In either case, delimitation oe effectedby the (first thecontinentalshelfandsubsequently fisheries) both
applicationofequitablecriteandbytheuseofpractical claims,proposing the applicationf verydifferent criteria
methodscapableof ensuring,with regardto the geo- andthe useof veiy differentpractical methods. achhad
graphic configurationf the areaandotherrelevant cir- successivelyproposedtwodelimitationlines(Maps Nos.2
cumstances,anequitableresult."Par1 a.2) and 3).
TheUnitedStateshadfirstproposed, in1976,acriterion
V. ThtothedelimitationaandpracticarnIethod splicle determinativev.lvto thenatural,especially
(paras.113-163) logical, factorsof thearea. Its linecorrespondedapproxi-
matelyto the lineof the greatest depths,leaving German
lbrningtothe questionofthecriteriaandmethodswhich BanktoCanadaanldGeorgesBanktotheUnitedStates.The
arecapableofensuringanequitableresultandwhoseappli- Chamberconsidersthatthisline, inspiredas it wasbythe
cationisprescribedbythehve normt, heChamberisofthe objectiveofdistributifisheryresourcesin accordanwith
tionallaw butinpositiveinternationalla.,nd in thatcon- (fisheries)to be consideredas equitablein relationto the
nectionitexamines those provideorby tlhe1958Conven- overallproblem.Irk1982the UnitedStatesproposeda sec-
tiononthe Continentalhelf,inArticle6(medianlineinthe ondlinewiththegeneraldirectionofthe coastasitscentral
caseofoppositecoasts,lateralequidistancelnthecaseof idea,thecriterionappliedbeinthatofthefrontalprojection
adjacentcoasts).TheChamberpointsouthaatatreatobliga- of theprimarycoastalfront.Thisapplication resultein a
tionconcerningthedelimitatioofthecontinentalshelf can- perpendicularto the generaldirectionof the coastline,
notbeextendedsoastoapplytothe superjt~cenwtatersand, adjustedhowevetrotakeaccountofvariousrelevantcircum-
after rejectingthe Canadian argumenthat the combined stances,in paRicularsuchecologicalcircumstancesas the
equidistancelspecid-cri urlhuasbecamncarsleof existenceoffishingbanksT. heChamberconsidersit almost
generalinternationallaw,findsthat Article6, while inforboundaryitobedmwnshouldconcerntwocountrieswhosethe
Chamberanylegalobligationtoapplyitsprovisionstothee tenitqrieslie successively aloa moreor less rectilinear
presentdelimitation. coast, foracertaintiistanceatleast.Butitwouldbedifficult
me chambernext Nrnsto thequestion,,{heheranyobli- to imaginea case lessconduciveto the applicatiof that
gationofthat kind can haveresulted ftmeconductofthe methodthan the of Mainecase. The circumstances
mes andwhethertheconductof one ofthemmightnot wouldmoreoverentailsomanyadjustments thatthechm-
haveconstitutedanacquiescenceintheapplicationofaspe- terofthe method be distorted-
cificmethodorresultedina modusvivendi with regardtoa As for theCanadianproposals,the Chamberconsiders
linecorrespondingtosuch anapplication.Ckalingfirstwith together the twolinesproposedrespectively in 1976 and
a Canadian argument thatteconductof theUnitedStates 1977,asthey areessentialbasedonthesamecriterion,that
had evincedaformofconsenttothe applicationoftheequi- of the equal divisionof disputed areas-and thesame
distancemethod, especially in the Geor:Banksector,the method-equidistance. Canada describ thefirstlineas a
not warranted ithecircumstancesandthat the conducotf islinecorrectedonaccountofthespecialcircumstanceformedce
the Parties donot provetheexistenceof;mysuch modus bythe protrusioof;NantuckeItslandandthe CapeCodpen-
vivendi.Asfortheargumentof the UnitedStatesbased on insula,allegedtobe geographical anomalies that Canasa
Canada's failure treactto theIfumanRcclamation,that entitledtodiscount,sothatitsdelimitationlineisdis laced
amounted toclaiming that delimitatinustbe effectedin towardsthewest.TheChambernotes thatinthecase fore
accordancewith equitableprinciples;co~~sequently t,e itthe differenceinthe lengthsofthetwo States' coastlines
UnitedStatespositiononthat pointmerelyreferredbackto withinthedelimitatioareaisparticularlymarked and would
the"fundamentalnorm"acknowledged by tmthParties.On constituteavalidgroundformakingacorrection evenifthis
132factorin itselffurnishedwirher a criterionnoa methodof pendicularsto the two basic coastallines, namely theline
delimitation. Furthermore, the Canadian line appears to from CapeElizabethto the internationalboundaryterminus
neglectthedifference betwczentwosituationsclearly distin- andthe linerunning thencetoCapeSable.AtpointA, those
guishedby the 1958C~nv~entionn,amelythat of adjacent nvo perpendiculars forman acute angleof 278'. It is the
coastsandthatofoppositecoasts,andfailstotake accountof bisectorof thisanglewhichisprescribedforthe firstsectorof
thefactthattherelationshipd lateraladjacencyhtween, on thedelimitationline(MapNo.4).
theonehand, partofthecoastofNovaScotiaanditsprolon- In turningto the secondsegment,the Chamber proceeds
gationacross theopening ccfthe Bay of Fmdy and, on the bytwostages.First,itdecidesthemethodtobe employedin
otherhand, thecoastofMaine,givesway tcbarelationshipof view of the quasi-parallelismbetweenthe coasts of Nova
frontaloppositionbetweentheotherrelevantpartofthecoast Scotiaand Massachusetts.Asthese areoppositecoasts,the
of NovaScotia and theconstof Massachusetts, TheCana- applicationof a geometricalmethodcan only result in the
dian line fails to allow for thisnew relationship,which is drawingofamediandelimitationlineapproximatelyparallel
nevertheless themost characteristicfeatureof the objective to them.TheChamberfinds,however,that, whilea median
situationin the contextof which the delimitationis to be linewouldbe perfectlylegitimateiftheinternationalbound-
effected. ary endedin the very middleof the coast atthe backof the
Gulf. in the actual circumstanceswhereit is situatedthe
VII. Thecriteriaandmethods held by theChamberto be northeasterncomer of the rectanglewhich geometrically
applicable.Line,resultingfrom theirapplication represents the shapeof the Gulf the use of a median line
tothe&limitati,n wouldresultinan unreasonableeffect,in thatit wouldgive
(paras. 190-229) Canaclathesameoverallmaritime projection inthe delimita-
tion areaas if the entireeastern partof the coastof Maine
The Chamberconsiders that, havingregard to all those belongedtoCanadainsteadoftheUnitedStates.Thatbeing
considerations,itmust putfinwarditsown:solutionindepen- so, theChamber findsa secondstagenecessary,in whichit
dentlyoftheParties. Itmustexclude criteriiiwhich,however com:ts the medianline to take accountof the undeniably
equitabletheymayappearinthemselves,arenotsuited tothe importantcircumstanceof the differencein lengthbetween
delimitationof bothofthetwoobjectsinrespectofwhichthe the twoStates*coastlines abuttingon the delimitation area.
delimitationisrequested-the continentalshelfandthefish- As thetotallengthoftheUnitedStatescoastlineson the Gulf
ery zones. Inevitably,criteria will bepreferred which,by isapproximately 284nauticalmiles,andthatoftheCanadian
theirmoreneutralcharacter,arekst suitedforuse inamulti- coasts;(including partof the coastof the Bay of Fundy)is
purposedelimitation.The C:hamh, feelsboundto nun inthe approximately206nautical miles, theratioof the coastlines
presentcasetocriteriamon:especiallyderivedfiomgeogra- is 1.38to 1.However,afurthercorrectionisnecessitatedby
phy,anditisinevitablethatitsbasicchoiceshouldfavourthe the plesenceof Seal Islandoff NovaScotia.The Chamber
criterion wherebyone should aim at an cqual.divisionof considersthatit wouldbeexcessive toconsiderthecoastline
areas where the maritime]projectionsof the coasts of the of NovaScotia as displacedin a southwesterlydirectionby
Statesbetweenwhich delinlitationistobeeffectedconverge the entiredistancebetweenSeal Islandand that coast, and
and overlap. However, some correctionsmust be madeto thereforeconsidersitappropriateoattributehalfeffectothe
certain effectsof applyingthatcriteriontht ightbe unrea- island. Takingthat into account,the ratio to be appliedto
sonable,sothat theconcment useof auxiliary criteriamay determinethepositionofthe correctedmedianlineona line
appearindispensable.Asregardsthepracticalmethodstobe acrossthe Gulf between thepointswherethecoastsof Nova
usedfor givingeffectto th'ecriteriaindicated, theChamber ScotiaandMassachusettsare closest (i.e. a linefrothe tip
considersthat, like the criteria themselves, they must be of Cape Cod to Chebogue hint) becomes 1.32to 1. The
basicallyfoundedupongeography andbe ;asuitableforthe second segmentofthedelimitationwillthereforecorrespond
delimitationofthesea-bedmd subsoilastothatofthesuper- to tht: medianline as thuscorrected, from its intersection
jacent waters andtheir living resources.In the outcome, with the bisector drawn from pointA (first segment)to
therefore,onlygeometricalmethods willserve. thepoint whereit reaches the closing lineotheGulf(Map
king tothe concretechoiceofthemethodsitconsiders No. 4).
appropriatefor implementingthe equitable criteria it has Asforthethirdsegmentofthedelimitation,relating tothat
decidedtoapply,the Chambernotesthatthecoastalconfigu- partofthedelimitationarealying outsidetheGulfofMaine,
rationof the Gulfof Mainlr:excludesany possibilityof the thisportionofthe lineissituatedthroughoutitslengthinthe
boundary's being formedby a basicallyunidirectionalline, openocean.Itappearsobviousthatthemostappropriate geo-
giventhe changeof situationnotedin thegeographyof the metricalmethodforthissegmentisthe drawingofaperpen-
Gulf.Itisonlyin the north.casternsectoroftheGulfthat the diculartothe closing lineof the Gulf.One:advantageofthis
prevailingrelationshipofthecoastsoftheUnitedStatesand methodisto givethefinal segmentoftheline practicallythe
Canadaisoneoflateral adjncency.Inthesectorclosesttothe sameorientationasthatgivenbybothMes tothefinalpor-
closingline,it isoneofoppositeness.IntheChiunber'sview tionof the respective linestheyenvisaged.Asfor the exact
itisthereforeobviousthat,Ixtweenpoint A andthelinefrom point ontheclosinglinefromwhichtheperpendicularshould
NantuckettoCapeSable,i.e. withinthelimitsoftheGulfof be drawnseawards,it willcoincidewiththe intersectionof
Maineproper, thedelirnitrltionlinemustcomprisetwo seg- that linewiththe correctedmedianline. Startingfromthat
ments. point, the third segment crosses Georges Bank between
Inthecaseofthejrst seivmentt,heonec:loser;ttotheinter- points on the 100-fathom depthline withthe followingco-
national boundaryterminus, thereisnospecialcircumstance ordinates:
to militateagainstthedivisioninto,as far as possible, equal
partsof the overlappingareatedby the lateralsuperimposi-
tion ofthe maritimeprojedtionsof the two States*coasts.
Rejectingthe employmentof a lateral equidistance lineon
accountofthe disadvantagesit isfoundto entail,theCham- Theterminusofthisfinal segmentwillbesituatedwithinthe
berfollowsthemethodof drawing,frompoint A, two per- triangledefinedbythe SpecialAgreement andcoincidewiththe lastpoint it reaches within the oveifthe respec- LM'Nd conh LongituWest
tive200-mile zoneslaimedbythetwoSuites. A. 44"11' 12" 67" 16'46"
B. 42" 53' 14" 67" 44' 35"
VIII. Verijcationoftheequitable charactrftheresult D. 40"27' 05" 65" 41' 59"
(paras.230-241)
Havingdrawn the delimitatioinerequestedbythePar- IN FAVOUR: PresidentAgo;Judges MoslerandSchwebel,
ties, the final taskof theChdris toverifywhetherthe Judge adhocCohen;
resultobtainedcanbeconsidereasintrinsicallyequitanlieAGAINS TudgeGros."
thelightofallthe circumstances. WhileCverificationis (Fothelocationof thcoordinatesgivenaboveseeMap
notabsolutely necessayhere thefirsttwosegmentsofthe No.4.)
lineareconcerned, sincetChamber'sguidingparameters
wereprovidedby geography,the situationisdiierent as
regardsthe third segmen, hichistheoneofgreatestcon-
cernto the Partiesonaccountofthepresencein theareait
ceedingsonaccountofthepotentialresources ofitssubsoil
andtheeconomicimportanco efitsfisheries. SUMMAR OFOPINION APPENDED TOTHE
JUDGMEN OTTHE CHAMBER
thefishingcaniedonbytheUnitedStatesanditsnationalsn
ever since the country'sindependenceand even before, SeparateOpinionbyJudge Schwebel
activitieswhich theyare heldtohavebeenoninpursuing Judge Schwebelvoted for the Chamber'sJudgment
overthegreaterpartofthatperiod,andwhiwereaccompa- becauseheagreedwiththeessentialsofitsanalysisand rea-
nied by othermaritimeactivitiesncerningnavigational soningandfoundtheresultantlinofdelimitationtobe "not
assistance, rescue, research, defenetc. Canada laid inequitable".Inisview,theChamberwasrightto exclude
greateremphasisonthesocio-economicspects,concentrat- boththeclaimsofCanadaandoftheUnite Sdtates,notwitha
ingontherecent past,especiallythela15years,andpre- viewtowards "splitting the differeneetween them but
sentingasanequitableprinciple theidthaa singlmari- becausethoseclaimswereinsufficientlygroundedlnwand
timeboundaryshouldensurethme aintenancoftheexisting equityItwasright--contrarytotheUnitedStatesposition-
structuresof fishing which, accordingt, wereof vital todivideGeorgesBankbetweentheUnitedStatesandCan-
importancetothecoastalcommunitieofthearea. ada.However,JudgeSchwebelmaintained thatthe lineof
TheChamberexplains whyit cannotst~bscribeto these delimitatiodrawn bytheChamberwasopen tochallenge.
contentionsandfinds that itisclearlyoutofthe question Thelinewas correctlybased ondividingtheareasofover-
considertherespective scaleof activitiesin thedomainolappingUnitedStatesandCanadianjurisdiction equau,b-
be appliedin determining the delimitation W. hatthen accountoftherfactthathebulkoftheGulfofMaineisbor-ke
Chamberwouldregardas a legitimatescruplelies ratherinded bytemtoryofthe UnitedStates.InJudgeSchwebel's
concernlest,unexpectedlyt,heoved resultshouldappear view,the adjustment applieby the Chamberwasinade-
radicallyinequitableasentailingdisasu:sepercussion quate,becauseittreatedthe lengthsthecoastsoftheBay
the subsistenceandeconomic developmen otf the popula-ofFundyup tothelimitofCadi territorialwatersaspart
tions concerned.t considersthat tisno reasonto fear oftheGulfofMaine:I .nhisopinion,onlythatportionofthe
anysuchdangerinthe presentaseonaccountoftheCham- Bay ofFundy whichfaces theGulfof Maine should have
ber's choiceof delimitation lineor, moreespeciathe, beenincludedinthatcalculatiof proportionaliH.adthat
courseof itthii segment, and concludethattheoverall beendone,the delimitation linewouldhavebeenshifted
resultofthedelimitationis equitable.n,the longaadi- towsurisNovaScotiiaso as to accord the UnitStates a
tionoffriendlyandfhtful co-operationnnaritimmatters significantlylarger zone.evertheless,Judge Schwebel
ersthattheParties willbeable tosurmountanydifficultiethenChamberandhimto differing conclusionosn thiskey
andtaketherightstepstonsw thepositive developmeonft issuewereopen tomorethanoneinterpretation.
theiractivitintheimportant domainconcerned.
Dissenting OpinionyJudgeGros
couchedinthefollowingterms:mberrendelm the decision
JudgeGrospointsoutthatthecase-lawtookanewturning
whentheInternational ourtofJusticegaveitsJudgmenton
24 February 1982 imthe case concerningthContinental
ShM (IknisWLibyan Arab Jamahiriya).That Judgment
ventionon theContiinentalhelfas ithadbeenpreviously
interpretedbythe Court,inits69Judgmentonthe North
byfourvotestoone, Sea ContinentalShe&and by the Anglo-FrenchCourtof
Decides ArbitrationinitsDecisionof 1977.
That the courseof the singlemaritime boundarythat Thisnewturning, ~mnfirmebdytheChamber's Judgment,
dividesthecontinentslhelfandtheexclusive:fisherieszonamounte doexclusiverelianenth e ork oftheThirdCon-
of Canadaand theUnitedStatesof Americain the Area ferenceoftheUnitedNationsontheLaw oftheSea,but this
referretointheSpecialAgreemenctoncludedbythosetwo Conferenceproduceda\greement plus equiysitsprescrip
Stateson 29 March1979shallbe definedbygeodeticlines tionformaritimedeliimitationa,solutionwhichJudGros
connectingthe pointswith the following:co-ordinates: considersveryfeeble. IntheeyesofJudge Gior;mareover,a vagueconception tionsmadetothe wholeprocesstransformtheentireopera-
ofequitywhich&partsfrointhefirmlycontrolledequityof tion,ccordingtoJudgeGros,intoan exercisewhereinit
1969 and1977has alsorestrltedinadeparturefiomtheway wilhenceforthbeopentoeachjudgetodeeideathisdim-
mindthe waycourtsof equityemergedjujinErlgland.Thein tionwhatisequitable.
Chamber's reasoninglogicilllyimplies,ha:consi&rs,that Without goinsofaras to maintain thatlinedrawnby
the=isnolongeranylegalrulegoverningmaritimedelimita- theChamber is inequitab,udgeGrosaskswhethetithas
tion becausethe principlesiedon by tlhClhamber ,he reallybeendemonstratedtobemore equitabltehananyofthe
methodsemployedto putthemintopractice, nthecome- other linesconsided in thecourseof theproceedings. The mapincorporatnth eresenJtudgmwten onthbeasisofdocumensbminetothCourbtytheMes, andthesolepurposc
providevisuailllustofthiclevanteragmpofLvgment.UniteStatline-- - - - .- - - - - ---
Canadialin- .- .- .- ..-. - .- .- .- .-
Map No.2
Lid@offishermnesandcontinentaslheltclaimed
bythePartiea1,Marc119R
(separe68-70)UnitedStateline,, , , , ,,,,,
Cahsdianline, ., ., .- ., ., ., . , . ,..
(sepearas71.77-78)
Summary of the Judgment of 12 October 1984