GULF OF MAINE CASE

Background and summary of the case

This case was a dispute between the United States and Canada concerning the maritime
boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area. The dispute concerning the location of the maritime
boundary between the two states emerged as a claim to extend maritime zones came to be
recognized in the law of the sea. In the 1960s, it became apparent that the two sides held
different views on the delimitation of the continental shelf.

In addition, the establishment of 200nm fisheries zones by the United States and Canada in 1977
resulted in an area of overlapping claims to the water column. The disputed area included
Georges Bank, an important fishing ground for both the United States and Canada. The parties
failed to reach an agreement despite extensive negotiations and eventually agreed to submit the
dispute to binding dispute settlement.

In 1981, the United States and Canada requested a chamber of the International Court of Justice,
to decide ‘the course of the single maritime boundary that divides the continental shelf and
fisheries zones of Canada and the United States in the Gulf of Maine area.’ The chamber
rendered its judgment on 1984, dividing the contested area between the parties. The delimited
maritime boundary cut across Georges Bank approximately a sixth to Canada and the rest to the
United States.

In the proceedings, the parties presented a variety of factors as relevant to the delimitation.
However, the chamber based its judgment on geographical considerations. The maritime
boundary was implemented shortly after the judgment. Further agreements on law enforcement
and cross boundary cooperation in the field of fisheries have concluded between the parties.

Summary of the Procedural steps

The parties first held negotiations concerning the continental shelf limits in 1970. In the
anticipation of the establishment of their fisheries zones, further negotiations were conducted in
1975 – 1976. In 1977, special negotiators were appointed to negotiate a comprehensive
agreement concerning;

a) Maritime boundaries delimitation

b) Complementary fisheries and hydrocarbon
c) Other related matters
As a result of the negotiations, the parties agreed on 2 sets of interlinked treaties in 1979. One
was the fisheries agreement which would establish a coordinated fisheries agreement and
allocation mechanism between the United Stets and Canada for fisheries on the Atlantic coast.
The other treaty provided the details on submitting the dispute to the maritime boundary to
binding dispute settlement.

However, the fisheries agreement was unfavorably received by the fishing industry in the United
States and could not obtain approval from the United States congress. The treaties were later
delinked and only the agreement to submit the dispute to a binding dispute settlement mechanism
was later ratified. The parties agreed to submit the dispute to a chamber of the International
Court of Justice rather than to the full court.

The explanation given by the then legal advisor of the state department is that the chamber
procedures had the advantage of utilizing the institutional significance and established facilities
of the ICJ while seeking convenience and innovation in presenting the case to a limited number
of specially qualified jurists. The parties requested specific judges to serve in the chamber and
the ICJ elected members of the chamber according to their request. However, some concerns
were raised about the influence of the parties on the composition of the chamber.

Position of the Parties

The line claimed by Canada was based on equidistance, which was adjusted to reduce the effect
of islands protruding features on the Massachusetts. The Canadian line ran across Georges Bank,
allocating more than a third of the bank of Canada.

The United States took the position that the boundary should be on the Northeast Channel which
separates Georges Bank from Browns Bank. This line had the effect of placing Georges Bank
entirely within United States jurisdiction. The United States in its memorial put forward a line
pushing the boundary further northeast to its advantage. This was the line perpendicular to the
general direction of the coast.

Parties claim

Canada’s claim:

 Adjacency and proximity as legal sources of the title of the coastal State to its maritime
zones.
 That applying the equidistance method would produce an equitable result based on the
general configuration of the coasts and the continuity of the continental shelf in the area.
 That the interests of coastal states in the fisheries resources constitute relevant
circumstances
  That the economic dependence associated with established fishing patterns must be given
special weight.
 That the conduct of the United States constituted acquiescence or created an estoppel in
favor of Canada.

United States’ claim:

That the line;

 Respects the geographical relationship between the coasts of the relevant maritime
areas, by avoiding encroachment on the seaward extension and giving effect to
proportionality between the lengths of the coast of the parties to delimited areas.
 Facilitates conservation and management of the marine living resources in the area by
recognizing the “natural boundary” for fish stocks
 Minimizes the potential for disputes
 Takes into account relevant circumstances in the area.

ISSUE
The central issue in the Gulf of Maine Delimitation Case was the determination of the maritime
boundary between Canada and the United States in the Gulf of Maine area. The dispute arose
from overlapping claims to the continental shelf and superjacent waters, which are valuable for
their fisheries resources and potential oil and gas reserves.
Both Canada and the United States had asserted claims based on their respective coastlines, but
these claims overlapped in a significant area. Canada argued for a boundary that would follow
the equidistant line between the two coasts, while the United States favored a boundary that
would take into account the geological features of the seabed and the established fishing patterns
in the area.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which was tasked with resolving the dispute, ultimately
adopted a nuanced approach that considered both the geographical configuration of the area and
the economic interests of the parties. The Court rejected the equidistant line method as overly
simplistic and instead relied on a combination of factors, including:
 The shape of the Gulf of Maine
 The presence of Georges Bank, a submarine plateau that extends into the disputed area
 The historical fishing practices of both countries
 The potential for future resource exploration
In its decision, the ICJ drew a boundary that divided the disputed area roughly in half, giving
each country a fair share of the resources while also respecting the geographical features of the
region. This approach was widely seen as a compromise that addressed the concerns of both
parties.

THE RULE

The rule in the Gulf of Maine Delimitation Case is a landmark decision by the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) that established a set of principles for delimiting maritime boundaries
between states. The case involved a dispute between Canada and the United States over the
boundary between their respective continental shelves and fisheries zones in the Gulf of Maine.
In its judgment, the ICJ held that the delimitation of a maritime boundary should be affected by
the application of equitable principles and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring an
equitable result. The Court identified a number of factors that are relevant to determining an
equitable boundary, including:
 The geographical configuration of the area
 The geological and geomorphological features of the area
 The economic and fishing interests of the parties
 The existence of established fishing patterns
 The extent to which the parties have already exercised jurisdiction in the area
The ICJ also rejected the use of equidistance as a method of delimiting maritime boundaries,
holding that it is a purely mathematical formula that does not take into account all of the relevant
factors.
The Gulf of Maine Delimitation Case has been widely cited as a precedent in subsequent
maritime boundary disputes. The principles established in the case have been applied by
international tribunals and courts around the world.
The key principles of the rule in the Gulf of Maine Delimitation Case:
 Equitable principles should be applied to the delimitation of maritime boundaries.
 No single method of delimitation is appropriate for all cases.
 The specific factors relevant to an equitable delimitation will vary from case to case.
 Equidistance is not a reliable method of delimitation.

The rule in the Gulf of Maine Delimitation Case has been praised for its clarity and its emphasis
on fairness and equity. It has been credited with helping to promote stability and predictability in
the resolution of maritime boundary disputes. The Gulf of Maine case presents an intriguing and
complex set of issues that have significant implications for maritime law.
APPLICATION

Firstly, the Gulf of Maine case showcases the importance of environmental regulations in
maritime law. The Gulf of Maine is a rich and diverse marine ecosystem, and the case has
highlighted the need for stringent environmental protection measures to safeguard its delicate
balance. The application of maritime law in this context involves ensuring compliance with
international conventions and agreements governing the preservation of marine biodiversity,
prevention of pollution, and sustainable management of marine resources. The case underscores
the role of maritime law in promoting the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources
and the protection of the marine environment. The Gulf of Maine case raises pertinent issues
related to fisheries management and the application of maritime law. Disputes over fishing
rights, allocation of quotas, and enforcement of regulations are central to the case. Maritime law
principles are essential in resolving conflicts over access to fishing grounds, implementation of
harvest limits, and the protection of fish stocks. The case demonstrates the significance of
maritime law in establishing cooperative fisheries management regimes, enhancing monitoring
and enforcement mechanisms, and addressing disputes arising from conflicting interests of
different stakeholders in the Gulf of Maine.

Moreover, the Gulf of Maine case sheds light on the application of maritime law in addressing
navigation rights and safety in shared waterways. With numerous fishing vessels, commercial
ships, and recreational boats navigating the Gulf of Maine, issues related to safe passage,
collision avoidance, and maritime boundaries come to the forefront. Maritime law plays a crucial
role in regulating navigation, delineating maritime boundaries, and establishing rules for the
prevention of collisions at sea. The case emphasizes the application of maritime law in ensuring
the safe and efficient use of the Gulf of Maine for maritime transport and navigation activities.
Furthermore, the Gulf of Maine case has implications for international agreements and
cooperation related to maritime law. The case involves overlapping maritime boundaries and
shared resources, necessitating cooperation and coordination among neighboring states and
countries. Maritime law governs the negotiation and implementation of bilateral and multilateral
agreements concerning the delimitation of maritime boundaries, joint management of shared
resources, and resolution of disputes between states. The case underscores the significance of
maritime law in facilitating diplomatic negotiations, promoting peaceful cooperation, and
resolving conflicts over the utilization of the Gulf of Maine's marine resources.

In conclusion, the Gulf of Maine case offers valuable insights into the application of maritime
law in addressing a wide array of complex issues. From environmental regulations and fisheries
management to navigation rights and international agreements, the case exemplifies the
multifaceted nature of maritime law and its relevance to the sustainable and peaceful utilization
of shared marine spaces. By examining the Gulf of Maine case, stakeholders and policymakers
can gain a deeper understanding of the practical applications of maritime law in addressing
contemporary challenges in ocean governance and resource management.