scholarly journals Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries: Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone, in Light of the Gulf of Maine Case, Canada v. U.S.A. (1984)

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 363-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donat Pharand
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

The international law applicable to maritime boundary delimitation is very imprecise and, consequently, decisions of international tribunals are of the utmost importance. The recent decision of a Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Gulf of Maine Case, between Canada and the United States, makes a significant contribution to the development and clarification of the applicable law. The Chamber's judgment, which is considered as one rendered by the Court itself, clarifies the difference between principles and rules of international law, on the one hand, and equitable criteria and practical methods, on the other. Principles of law are limited to a few basic norms, such as the obligation to seek an agreement and, if one cannot be reached, to have recourse to third party procedure with a view to arriving at an equitable delimitation by taking all relevant circumstances into account. Equitable criteria, such as the geographical configuration of the area, and practical methods, such as that of equidistance, are numerous and vary with each concrete situation.

Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and awards of ad hoc arbitration tribunals carry special weight in international maritime boundary law. On its face, the international maritime boundary law codified in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea is indeterminate. For the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, the legal obligation of coastal states is to delimit the boundary “by agreement 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.” The article on the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the territorial sea is no more determinative despite the fact that it makes direct references to the equidistant line, special circumstances and historic title. In spite of this indeterminacy, if not because of it, coastal states have found that third-party dispute settlement procedures can effectively resolve maritime boundary delimitation disputes. As a consequence, there are more judgments and awards on maritime boundary disputes than on any other subject of international law, and this trend is continuing.

Equitable Solutions to the Maritime Boundary Dispute Between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine

1981 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 590-628 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sang-Myon Rhee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
United States Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Legal Position

The United States and Canada agreed, by the Boundary Settlement Treaty of March 29, 1979, to submit their decade-long dispute over the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area to a Chamber of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or to an ad hoc court of arbitration. The treaty, however, has not yet taken effect because the interrelated Fisheries Agreement, which was concluded on the same day and was to take effect simultaneously, was Unilaterally scrapped by the United States Government on March 6, 1981, on grounds of its allegedly unfair and inflexible provisions. On April 29, the United States Senate unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the Government's position to delink the two treaties and to settle the maritime boundary problem first by a third-party procedure. Whether or not a new fisheries agreement is concluded in the near future, it is expected that the maritime boundary dispute will ultimately be resolved by binding third-party settlement. The purpose of this article is to examine the legal position taken by each Government regarding the maritime boundary issues, and to suggest equitable principles that should govern their resolution.

Adjudication of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine

1980 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 292-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.M. McRae
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary

On March 29, 1979 Canada and the United States signed a treaty to submit their dispute over the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine to binding settlement. The event is worthy of note not only because it is the first occasion since the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, in 1910, that the two countries have submitted a dispute over their offshore jurisdiction to third party settlement but also because it constitutes the first reference by any state of a question to a chamber of the International Court of Justice. However, this reference to the Court is only conditional and the parties have provided for the possible removal of the case from the Court and for its submission to an ad hoc court of arbitration. Thus, as well as providing a further opportunity for an international tribunal to consider the law relating to the delimitation of maritime boundaries, the treaty raises some interesting questions about recourse to a chamber of the International Court of Justice.

BOOK REVIEWSBOOK REVIEWSVicuñaFrancisco OrregoProfUniversity of Chile081990372286290KwiatkowskaB., The 200 Mile Exclusive Economic Zone in the New Law of the Sea, M. Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht 1989, XXVIII + 397 pp. (Publications on Ocean Development 14), Dfl. 195/$ 105/£ 60.Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 19901990T.M.C. Asser PresspdfS0165070X00006628a.pdfdispartBook Reviews1.ExtavourW.C., The Exclusive Economic Zone, A Study of the Evolution and Progressive Development of the International Law of the Sea (1979).2.GundlingL., Die 200 Seemeilen – Wirtschaftszone, Entstehung eines neuen Regimes des Meeresvolkerrechts (1983).3.AttardD., The Exclusive Economic Zone in International Law (1987).4.VecchioA. Del, Zona Económica e stati constieri (1984).5.KwiatkowskaB., ‘The ICJ Doctrine of Equitable Principles Applicable to Maritime Boundary Delimitation and its Impact upon the International Law of the Sea’, in BloedA. and van DijkP., eds., Forty Years of the International Court of Justice: Jurisdiction, Equity and Equality(1988) pp. 119–158.6.VicuñaF. Orrego, ‘La Zone economique exclusive: regime et nature juridique dans le droit international

1990 ◽  
Vol 37 (02) ◽  
pp. 286
Author(s):  
Francisco Orrego Vicuña
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Exclusive Economic Zone ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Economic Zone ◽  
Droit International ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Some Perspectives on Adjudicating Before the World Court: The Gulf of Maine Case

1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 578-597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis R. Robinson ◽  
David A. Colson ◽  
Bruce C. Rashkow
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
East Coast ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Continental Shelves ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The World

On October 12, 1984, a five-member Chamber of the International Court of Justice rendered its decision in the maritime boundary dispute between the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area. The Chamber delimited the continental shelves and 200-nautical-mile fisheries zones by setting one line between the two countries off the East Coast of North America. The Chamber’s Judgment, which under Article 27 of the Statute of the Court is considered as if it were rendered by the full 15-member Court, is likely to attract considerable comment. We will resist the temptation to add our views to that substantive commentary, leaving analysis for the time being to others not so closely associated with the case.

Developments in Maritime Delimitation Law over the Last Decade: Emerging Principles in Modern Case Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 156-222
Author(s):  
YUNUS EMRE ACIKGONUL ◽  
EDWARD R. LUCAS
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Detailed Examination ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

AbstractThe delimitation of maritime boundaries is a complex and multifaceted process with legal and technical aspects. The process involves the determination of a maritime boundary in a situation where two or more states are confronted with overlapping titles. In the absence of any precise rules in treaty law and established customary rules based on state practice, it has been left to the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals to develop the applicable law of maritime boundary delimitation. This article provides a detailed examination of the complex and multifaceted processes involved in maritime delimitation law. In doing so, it highlights recent developments in the field, with an emphasis on the emerging principles of “non-cut-off” and “non-distortion.” The article also analyzes the crystalizing rules on delimitation beyond 200 nautical miles and questions the applicability of these rules to the ongoing maritime boundary dispute between Canada and the United States in the Beaufort Sea.

From Sea to Seabed: The Single Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Case

1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 961-991 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. H. Legault ◽  
Blair Hankey
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
The Body ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
The One ◽  
Judicial Determinations

Three decisions on maritime boundaries in a period of 9 months during 1984-1985 have doubled the body of case law on the delimitation of ocean space. The cases decided by international tribunals prior to 1984 applied only to the continental shelf. The waters overlying the shelf were either part of the high seas or, if subject to coastal state jurisdiction, were left undivided as between neighboring coastal states. However, two of the decisions rendered last year—the decision by a Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Gulf of Maine case and the one by an ad hoc arbitral tribunal in the Guinea/Guinea-Bissau case—constituted the first judicial determinations of boundaries that divide jurisdiction over both the continental shelf and the water column beyond the territorial sea. The decision by the International Court of Justice in the Libya/Malta Continental Shelf case represented the fourth in a line of cases delimiting the continental shelf alone.

Delimitation Issues

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris M. Carleton
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
International Law ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
State Practice ◽  
Final Agreement ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation ◽  
Practical Nature

In the previous chapters, we have dealt primarily with the situation where a State's continental shelf and any extension are adjacent to international waters. However, there are a number of cases where the continental shelf (or its extension) of one State abuts that of another State. This chapter examines that particular situation and considers its implications in delimitation issues. The UNCLOS articles 74 and 83 provide for the delimitation of the EEZ and continental shelf between opposite and adjacent States respectively. Article 83 states: . . . 1. The delimitation of the Continental Shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement 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. 2. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to the procedures provided for in Part XV. 3. Pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and co-operation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature and, during this transitional period, not to jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangements shall be without prejudice to the final delimitation. 4. Where there is an agreement in force between the States concerned, questions relating to the delimitation of the Continental Shelf shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. The wording of article 74 is identical in all respects, except for continental shelf, read exclusive economic zone. These articles provide that the coastal States concerned shall reach agreement on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable solution. The Convention provides no further substantive guidance concerning the delimitation of maritime boundaries beyond the territorial sea. Where neighboring coastal States are adjacent to each other or opposite within 400 M of each other, a potential maritime boundary overlap exists. There is considerable State practice and jurisprudence on the matter of maritime boundary delimitation within 200 M of a coastal State's territorial sea baseline.

The Gulf of Maine Case: The Nature of an Equitable Result

1985 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 539-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Schneider
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
The United States ◽  
Georges Bank ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Northern Edge ◽  
Conservation And Management

Pursuant to the recent four to one Judgment by a Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Canada and the United States are to share Georges Bank. Canada has jurisdiction over approximately one-sixth of the Bank, including the resource-rich “Northeast Peak” and most of the “Northern Edge,” and the United States the remaining area. Since Georges Bank is one of the world’s most productive fishing grounds, and this was consequently a case about fish more than a traditional continental shelf delimitation, the Judgment means that these North American neighbors may have to work out cooperative arrangements for the conservation and management of the shared living resources of Georges Bank. The question naturally arises as to how this outcome was reached, and why it purports to fulfill the fundamental norm of the law of delimitation of maritime boundaries—namely, to achieve an “equitable result.”

Implementing International Law - The Role of Domestic Courts: Some Reflections on the United States Experience

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Falk
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Legal Duty ◽  
States Experience

There are, of course, a variety of arenas available for the implementation and expansion of international law. The UN Decade on International Law provides a natural occasion for assessing their relative utility at this stage of international relations. Often the emphasis is placed on procedural steps that encourage states to use judicial arenas for third-party application of international law. In this regard great attention is given to the encouragement of steps towards the formal acceptance by governments of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and to the insertion in treaties of compromissory clauses and dispute settlement procedures that entail a legal duty to resolve conflict through the impartial application of international law, and the related obligation to respect the outcome of such an agreed process. For major disputes between states such an app roach to the application of international law remains highly desirable, and needs to be encouraged in every possible way. Extending the domain of compulsory jurisdiction to address both disputes of regionaland inter-regional scope also tends to extend the protection of international law to weaker and more vulnerable states, especially if a stronger tradition of compliance can be established.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document