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

Abstract

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.

Realism and Internationalism in the Gulf of Venezuela

“…FOR RESOLVING BILATERAL DISPUTES like that over the Gulf of Venezuela, a variety of methods and approaches have been charted in recent international legal and political science literature (Robinson, et al, 1985;Crabb, 1982;Morales Paul, 1984;Valencia-Villa, 1988;Garcia, 1987;Varas, 1983;Puig, 1983). From these studies, a number of common themes can be extracted and applied to the Gulf case.…”