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.

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.

Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom and France: The Channel Arbitration

1978 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 173-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. McRae
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Body ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Important Addition

The decision of the ad hoc court of arbitration on the delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and France is undoubtedly the most important addition to the body of law relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf since the decision of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. The reasons for the decision will be of particular interest in Canada in view of unsettled boundaries with the United States on the east and west coasts and in the Beaufort Sea, and with France in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The arbitration was a consequence of the inability of France and the United Kingdom to settle by negotiation their continental shelf boundary westward of 30 degrees west of Greenwich to the outer limit of the shelf. The principal difficulties were the effect to be given to the Channel Islands and the method for delimiting the area of shelf lying beyond the land of either country out into the Atlantic, the area denoted by the tribunal as the “Atlantic region.”

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.

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.

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.

The Torres Strait Treaty: Ocean Boundary Delimitation by Agreement

1982 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Burmester
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Aegean Sea ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Problems ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Slow Progress ◽  
Economic Zones

The delimitation of maritime boundaries is one of the major areas of ocean law where disputes between countries occur with frequency and where the development of governing principles of law remains difficult. At the Law of the Sea Conference, delimitation of the continental shelf and economic zones between states with opposite or adjacent coasts was one of the last issues to be resolved. Major judicial and arbitral decisions, such as the North Sea Continental Shelf cases before the International Court of Justice and the Anglo-French Continental Shelf arbitration, have gone some way to developing a body of relevant law to assist states in the solution of their maritime boundary problems. These decisions have clarified some of the relevant factors that states should take into account, but major boundary problems remain. On the Aegean Sea, Greece and Turkey have still not reached any solution; relations between Canada and the United States have been severely strained by their slow progress on maritime boundary issues; Libya and Tunisia have referred their continental shelf dispute to the International Court of Justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document