Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 45 views

    Case Concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada

    Uploaded by

    Ven Buenaobra
    This case concerns a maritime boundary dispute between Canada and France over territorial claims in the waters surrounding Saint Pierre and Miquelon islands. Both countries issued oil and gas exploration permits in the disputed area starting in the 1960s. In 1972, they agreed to delimit the boundary between the islands and Newfoundland, but further disputes arose as both extended their territorial claims. After negotiations broke down in the 1980s, the countries agreed to international arbitration. The court ruled that the adjacency of the islands to Newfoundland, as well as historical treaties, supported delimiting the boundary along an equidistant line and granting France a corridor south of the islands to access international waters. This resolved the long-running dispute over fishing and resource rights in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Case Concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada

    Uploaded by

    Ven Buenaobra
    45 views2 pages
    This case concerns a maritime boundary dispute between Canada and France over territorial claims in the waters surrounding Saint Pierre and Miquelon islands. Both countries issued oil and gas exploration permits in the disputed area starting in the 1960s. In 1972, they agreed to delimit the boundary between the islands and Newfoundland, but further disputes arose as both extended their territorial claims. After negotiations broke down in the 1980s, the countries agreed to international arbitration. The court ruled that the adjacency of the islands to Newfoundland, as well as historical treaties, supported delimiting the boundary along an equidistant line and granting France a corridor south of the islands to access international waters. This resolved the long-running dispute over fishing and resource rights in

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Case Concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case concerns a maritime boundary dispute between Canada and France over territorial claims in the waters surrounding Saint Pierre and Miquelon islands. Both countries issued oil and gas exploration permits in the disputed area starting in the 1960s. In 1972, they agreed to delimit the boundary between the islands and Newfoundland, but further disputes arose as both extended their territorial claims. After negotiations broke down in the 1980s, the countries agreed to international arbitration. The court ruled that the adjacency of the islands to Newfoundland, as well as historical treaties, supported delimiting the boundary along an equidistant line and granting France a corridor south of the islands to access international waters. This resolved the long-running dispute over fishing and resource rights in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    45 views2 pages

    Case Concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada

    Uploaded by

    Ven Buenaobra
    This case concerns a maritime boundary dispute between Canada and France over territorial claims in the waters surrounding Saint Pierre and Miquelon islands. Both countries issued oil and gas exploration permits in the disputed area starting in the 1960s. In 1972, they agreed to delimit the boundary between the islands and Newfoundland, but further disputes arose as both extended their territorial claims. After negotiations broke down in the 1980s, the countries agreed to international arbitration. The court ruled that the adjacency of the islands to Newfoundland, as well as historical treaties, supported delimiting the boundary along an equidistant line and granting France a corridor south of the islands to access international waters. This resolved the long-running dispute over fishing and resource rights in

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas between Canada & France, St.

    Pierre

    Facts: During the 1980s, a dispute developed between Canada and France over the
    precise definition of the maritime boundary between their respective territories in the
    region. This dispute was generated in part by overlapping claims to the sea bottom and
    the mineral resources, such as oil, thought to found on or under the sea-floor.
    Beginning in 1966, both countries began issuing permits to explore for oil and gas on
    and around the St. Pierre Bank. In 1967 France and Canada agreed to a moratorium on
    exploration until ownership of the resources was resolved, but continuing arguments
    were generated by Canadian and French efforts to claim ever-expanding exclusive
    fishing zones. Canada declared a 12 nautical mile (n mi) territorial limit late in 1970, and
    France followed suit in 1971.

    Saint Pierre & Miquelon are two French islands close to the Canadian coast. The trigger
    of this case is the issuing by the two parties of hydrocarbon exploration permits in the
    area, with both contending that the other did not have the right to do so. Its territorial
    maritime boundary with Canada was first delimited by virtue of a 1972 treaty signed by
    both Canada and France. Towards the 20th century, each country began to extend their
    claimed territorial limit, first to 12 nautical miles, then to 200 nautical miles; to the end
    that the parties’ claims began to overlap. Also, the maritime boundaries beyond the
    territorial sea – the extent of the EEZ (which is determinative of the Parties’ exclusive
    right to fish) – remained in dispute.

    Consequently, in 1972 an agreement was reached between the two countries to settle
    these claims and to restructure their treaty arrangements over fishing. The agreement
    not only defined the boundary between the French islands and the Newfoundland coast
    but also made a distinction between the access rights of the metropolitan French fishing
    fleet and those of the fishermen of St. Pierre and Miquelon. However, in 1977 Canada
    claimed a 200 n mi Exclusive Fishing Zone (EFZ), while France declared a 200 n mi
    Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the difference in the two being that the EEZ also
    encompassed the mineral resources issue. Although Canada's position was that St.
    Pierre and Miquelon should only be entitled to a 12 n mi offshore zone, the 1972
    agreement was automatically extended to cover French access to the much-expanded
    Canadian jurisdictional zone, subject to certain conditions, until a maritime boundary
    agreement could be reached.
    The principal overlap was in the area south of the French islands, extending to the St.
    Pierre Bank, rich in fish and with a potential as well for oil. Then, in the 1980s, the
    French catch began to increase despite Canadian efforts to assign smaller quotas to
    France in the face of dwindling stocks. After much friction and wrangling between the
    two countries, which included seizures of fishing vessels, recalled ambassadors, and
    violations of existing agreements, Canada and France reached agreement in 1988 to
    adjudicate the boundary. The quarter-century dispute was resolved in 1992 by an
    international court of arbitration. According to the board's decision, France received an
    economic zone within a 24-mile limit off St. Pierre and Miquelon, as well as a 10-.5 mile-
    wide corridor running south 200 miles towards international waters. The resulting
    economic zone, measuring only 3,607 square nautical miles, was much smaller than
    France had claimed, and providing accordingly access to much less fish. According to
    the arbitration decision, France would have to negotiate with Canada for access to fish
    outside its zone.
    These were years of severe crisis in the Newfoundland fisheries, caused by over-
    exploitation of fish stocks by both Canadian and foreign fishermen, and the arbitration
    decision precipitated a short period of considerable tension between fishermen from
    Canada and those of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In 1994, however, Canada and France
    reached a new agreement regulating the fisheries which has established a
    satisfactory modus vivendi.
    ISSUE: What method should be used in delimiting the boundaries that is in dispute
    between Canada and France regarding St.Pierre and Miquelon?
    RULING: According to the court, the question on which method of delimitation shall be
    applied is determined primarily by the geographical circumstances – but rules on
    international law as well as equitable principles must also be taken in consideration in
    order to add relevance and weight to the geographical circumstances. The Court, with
    this issue, found that it is the adjacency relationship which is to prevail based on two
    factors: the geographical feature of the
    coast in dispute and historical evidence. St. Pierre and Miquelon are laterally aligned
    with the south coast of Newfoundland (in favour of Canada). Also, historically, as proven
    by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, St. Pierre and Miquelon are described as adjacent
    islands of Newfoundland. France was awarded with a zone which is divided in two
    parts: the first sector has a boundary set by an equidistant line between the French and
    Canadian islands, then an additional 24 nautical mile drawn from the west of the
    islands. The second sector is a long north-south 188- nautical mile corridor south of the
    islands, which allows France to access its EEZ from international waters without
    passing through Canadian EEZ.

    You might also like