Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:48:31.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nova Scotia-Newfoundland Dispute over Offshore Areas: The Delimitation Phase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Valerie Hughes
Valerie Hughes*
Affiliation:
Appellate Body Secretariat, World Trade Organization, Geneva
Get access

Summary

On March 26, 2002, an ad hoc arbitration tribunal determined the line of delimitation dividing the respective offshore areas of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the province of Nova Scotia. In making its decision, the tribunal, which was established by the federal minister of natural resources, applied the principles of international law governing maritime boundary delimitation and, pursuant to its terms of reference, treated the two provinces as if they were states subject to the same rights and obligations as the government of Canada. The tribunal had issued a Wrst decision in May 2001, ruling that the delimitation line had not already been established by agreement between the provinces, as Nova Scotia had contended. The tribunal’s decision on the boundary line is Wnal and binding on the two provinces. It awards to Newfoundland and Labrador the greater part of the offshore area that had been in dispute. The tribunal’s decision marked the end of the uncertainty created by the provincial disagreement and paved the way for the commencement of hydrocarbon exploration in the formerly disputed area.

Sommaire

Sommaire

Le 26 mars 2002, un tribunal d’arbitrage ad hoc a déterminé de la frontiére délimitant les zones extra-côtières respectives des provinces de Terre-Neuve et Labrador et de la Nouvelle Écosse. Dans sa décision, le tribunal, établi par le Ministre fédéral des ressources naturelles, s’est fondé sur les principes de droit international régissant la délimitation des frontières maritimes et, selon son mandat, a traité les deux provinces d’États sujets aux mêmes droits et obligations que le gouvernement du Canada. Le tribunal avait rendu une première décision en mai 2001, statuant qu’une frontière maritime n’avait pas encore été établie par l’accord des deux provinces, contraire aux prétentions de la Nouvelle Écosse. La décision du tribunal sur la frontière maritime est Wnale et obligatoire pour les deux provinces. La décision accorde à la province de Terre-Neuve et Labrador la plus grande partie de la zone extra-côtière contestée. La décision du tribunal met fin à l’incertitude engendrée par le différend entre les provinces et crée les conditions nécessaires pour l’amorce de l’exploration d’hydrocarbures dans la zone autrefois contestée.

Type
Notes and Comments / Notes et commentaires
Information
Canadian Yearbook of International Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international , Volume 40 , 2003 , pp. 373 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Council on International Law / Conseil Canadien de Droit International, representing the Board of Editors, Canadian Yearbook of International Law / Comité de Rédaction, Annuaire Canadien de Droit International 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This note is written in the writer’s personal capacity.

1 Memorandum of Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland on Offshore Petroleum Resource Management and Revenue Sharing, dated February il, 1985; Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord, dated August 26, 1986.

2 The province of Newfoundland and Labrador will, for the remainder of the comment, be referred to as the province of Newfoundland or as Newfoundland.

3 Arbitration between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia Concerning Portions of the Limits of Their Offshore Areas as Defined in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, Award of the Tribunal in the Second Phase, March 26, 2002 [hereinafter Award, Second Phase]. The award may be found at www.boundary-dispute.ca.

4 Arbitration between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia Concerning Portions of the Limits of Their Offshore Areas as Deined in the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, Award of the Tribunal in the First Phase, May 17, 2001 [hereinafter Award, First Phase]. The first phase of the arbitration and the tribunal2019;s first award are described in Valerie Hughes, "The Nova Scotia-Newfoundland Dispute over the Limits of Their Respective Offshore Areas" (2000) 38 Can. Y.B. Int2019;l L. 189. The award of the tribunal in the first phase may be found at <www.boundary-dispute.ca>.

5 Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, S.C. 1987, c. 3; Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation (Newfoundland) Act, S.N. 1986, c. 37; Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, S.C. 1987, c. 28; and Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation (Nova Scotia) Act, S.N.S., 1987, c. 3 [hereinafter Accord Acts].

6 Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, supra note 5 at s. 48; and Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, supra note 5 at s. 6.

7 Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, supra note 5 at s. 48; Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, supra note 5 at s. 6.

8 The Terms of Reference may be found in Appendix A of the Award, First Phase, supra note 4.

9 Justice La Forest served on the Supreme Court of Canada from 1985 to 1997.

10 Leonard Legault is a former legal adviser in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. He served as agent for Canada and counsel in maritime boundary disputes.

11 James Richard Crawford is Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge. He has appeared as counsel before the International Court of Justice.

12 Terms of Reference, supra note 8 at Article 3. 1.

13 Award, First Phase, supra note 4 at para. 3.30.

14 Ibid. at para. 3.30.

15 Ibid. at para. 3.30.

16 Ibid. at para. 7.1.

17 Terms of Reference, supra note 8 at Article 3.2 (ii).

18 Ibid. at Article 2.3.

19 As in the irst phase, Newfoundland appointed Donald McRae as agent for the arbitration. Nova Scotia appointed L. Yves Fortier as agent for the arbitration.

20 Terms of Reference, supra note 8 at Article 3. 1.

21 Award, First Phase, supra note 4 at para. 3.24.

22 Ibid. at paras. 3.25–3.29.

23 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 2.3.

24 Memorial of Newfoundland and Labrador at para. 72 [on file with the author] [hereinafter Newfoundland Memorial].

25 Ibid. at para. 72.

26 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, 499 U.N.T.S. 311, 1970 C.T.S. 4 (entered into force June 10, 1964; ratified by Canada on February 2, 1970).

27 Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 73.

28 Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States of America), [1984] I.C.J. Rep. 246 [hereinafter Gulf of Maine case].

29 Ibid., quoted in Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 79.

30 Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 82.

31 Ibid. at para. 83.

32 Memorial of Nova Scotia at Part III, para. 2 [on file with the author] [hereinafter Nova Scotia Memorial].

33 Ibid. at Part III, para. 6.

34 Ibid. at Part III, para. 12.

35 Ibid.

36 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, December 10, 1982, 450 U.N.T.S. 11 (entered into force November 16, 1994; Canada has not ratified the convention) [hereinafter LOSC].

37 Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part III, para. 19.

38 Ibid. at Part III, para. 6.

39 Ibid. at Part III, para. 7.

40 Ibid.

41 Counter-Memorial of Newfoundland and Labrador at para. 154 [on file with the author] [hereinafter Newfoundland Counter-Memorial].

42 Ibid. at para. 164.

43 Ibid. at para. 157.

44 Ibid. at para. 158.

45 Ibid. at para. 160.

46 Ibid. at para. 162.

47 Counter-Memorial of Nova Scotia at Part, II, para. 4 [on file with the author] [hereinafter Nova Scotia Counter-Memorial].

48 Ibid. at Part II, para. 34.

49 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 2.14.

50 Ibid. at para. 2.15.

51 Ibid. at para. 2.16.

52 Ibid. at para. 2.17.

53 Ibid. at para. 2.18.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 The outer edge of the continental margin is defined in the Oceans Act (S.C. 1996, c. 31), which prescribes the limits of Canadian jurisdiction using the terms found in Article 76 of the 1982 LOSC, supra note 36.

58 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 2.21.

59 Ibid. at para. 2.22.

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid. at 2.35.

62 Gulf of Maine case, supra note 28 at 299–300.

63 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 1.26.

64 Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 90.

65 Ibid. at para. 84.

66 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherlands), [1969] I.C.J. Rep. 3 [hereinafter North Sea Continental Shelfcases].

67 Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 89.

68 Ibid. at para. 90.

69 Ibid. at para. 95.

70 Ibid. at para. 90.

71 Ibid. at para. 105.

72 Ibid.

73 Ibid. at para. 108.

74 Case Concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Areas between Canada and France (1992), 31 I.L.M. 1145 [hereinafter Maritime Areas between Canada and France].

75 Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 112.

76 Ibid. at para. 117.

77 Ibid. at para. 122.

78 Ibid. at para. 126.

79 Ibid. at para. 128.

80 Ibid. at para. 131.

81 Ibid. at para. 137.

82 Ibid. at para. 138.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid. at para. 140.

86 Ibid. at para. 161.

87 Ibid. at para. 176.

88 Ibid. at para. 182.

89 Ibid. at para. 184.

90 Ibid. at para. 192.

91 Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 200.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid. at para. 201.

94 Ibid. at para. 206

95 Ibid. at para. 214.

96 Ibid. at para. 217.

97 Ibid. at para. 217.

98 Gulf of Maine case, supra note 28.

99 Newfoundland asserted that the coastal ratio was 2.42 to 1.00, so it shifted the bisector line towards Nova Scotia a distance of 34.6 nautical miles from the midpoint of the 166.3 nautical-mile line.

100 Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 229.

101 Ibid. at para. 238.

102 Ibid. at para. 242.

103 Ibid. at para. 240.

104 Ibid. at para. 172.

105 Ibid. at para. 252.

106 Ibid. at para. 255.

107 Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part III, para. 60.

108 Ibid.

109 Ibid. at Part III, para. 49.

110 Ibid.

111 Ibid.

112 Ibid. at Part IV, para. 6.

113 Ibid. at Part IV, para. 7.

114 Ibid. at Part IV, para. 6.

115 Ibid. at Part IV, para. 20.

116 Ibid. at Part IV, para. 24.

117 Ibid. at Part IV, para. 30.

118 Indeed, the tribunal said as much in its award in the first phase. See Award, First Phase, supra note 4 at para. 7.8.

119 Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part IV, para. 37.

120 Ibid. at Part IV, para. 98.

121 Nova Scotia referred to the Federal-Provincial Memorandum of Understanding in Respect of the Administration and Management of Mineral Resources Offshore of the Maritime Provinces (February 1, 1977), which was set up between Canada and Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick, and to the Canada-Nova Scotia Agreement on Offshore Oil and Gas Resources Management and Revenue Sharing (March 2, 1982). See Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part IV, para. 74.

122 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), [1982] I.C.J. Rep. 18 [hereinafter Tunisia v. Libya case].

123 Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part IV, para. 109.

124 Nova Scotia declared that by this argument it was not referring to questions of relative wealth between the parties or degree of dependence on the resources, acknowledging that such matters are irrelevant to maritime delimitation.

125 Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part IV, para. 123.

126 Ibid. at Part III, para. 55.

127 Ibid. at Part IV, para. 137.

128 Ibid. at Part V, para. 8.

129 Ibid. at Part V, para. 14.

130 Ibid. at Part V, para. 22.

131 Ibid.

132 These were mid-points between opposing coastal features. For a description of the 1964 agreement and the 1972 delineation, see Award, First Phase, supra note 4 at sections 4 and 5 as well as Hughes, supra note 4 at 195–97.

133 Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part V, para. 24.

134 Ibid. at Part V, para. 25.

135 Ibid. at Part V, para. 30.

136 Ibid. at Part V, para. 33.

137 Nova Scotia also argued that the appropriate technical method was a loxo-drome instead of a geodesic because the former would facilitate management of permit areas and would not require a precise end-point for the seaward extent of the line.

138 Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part V, para. 66.

139 Newfoundland Counter-Memorial, supra note 41 at para. 6.

140 Newfoundland Memorial, supra note 24 at para. 32.

141 Newfoundland Counter-Memorial, supra note 41 at para. 33.

142 Ibid. at para. 13.

143 Ibid. at para. 14.

144 Ibid. at para. 20.

145 Ibid. at para. 22.

146 Ibid. at para. 24.

147 Nova Scotia Counter-Memorial, supra note 47 at Part II, para. 13.

148 Nova Scotia Memorial, supra note 32 at Part V, para. 5.

149 Nova Scotia Counter-Memorial, supra note 47 at Part II, para. 13.

150 Ibid. at Part II, para. 139, quoting North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 66 at 50–51.

151 Nova Scotia Counter-Memorial, supra note 47 at Part V, para. 8.

152 Ibid. at Part II, para. 44.

153 Ibid. at Part II, para 110, quoting North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 66 at 53–54.

154 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 3.2.

155 Ibid. at para. 3.5.

156 Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Malta), [1985] I.C.J. Rep. 13 [hereinafter the Libya v. Malta case].

157 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 3.5.

158 Ibid. at para. 3.7.

159 Ibid. at para. 3.9.

160 Ibid.

161 Ibid. at para. 3.10.

162 Ibid.

163 Ibid.

164 Ibid.

165 Ibid.

166 This notice was provided in a letter dated October 6, 1972, from C.W. Doody, Minister of Mines, Agriculture and Resources for Newfoundland, to the Principal Secretary to the Premier of Nova Scotia. See Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 1.10.

167 Ibid. at para. 3.14.

168 Ibid. at para. 3.13.

169 Ibid. at para. 3.14.

170 GulfofMaine case, supra note 28 at 307–8.

171 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 3.14.

172 Ibid. at para. 3.15.

173 Ibid.

174 Ibid. at para. 3.17.

175 Ibid.

176 Ibid.

177 Ibid. at para. 3.16.

178 Ibid.

179 Ibid. at para. 3.18.

180 Ibid. at para. 3.21.

181 Ibid.

182 The tribunal referred to the Gulf of Maine case, supra note 28; the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 66; and the Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), [1993] I.C.J. Rep. 38 [hereinafter Jan Mayen case].

183 Gulf of Maine case, supra note 28 at 342.

184 North Sea Continental Shelf cases, supra note 66 at 53–54.

185 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 3.21.

186 Ibid. at para. 3.22.

187 Ibid.

188 Ibid. at para. 3.23.

189 Ibid. at para. 2.29.

190 See Ocean's Act, supra note 57.

191 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 2.30.

192 Ibid. at para. 6.4.

193 Ibid. at para. 4.20.

194 Ibid.

195 Ibid..

196 Ibid. at para. 4.22.

197 Jan Mayen case, supra note 182.

198 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 4.23.

199 This point is discussed further later in this comment.

200 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 4.24.

201 Ibid. at para. 4.28.

202 Ibid. at para. 4.30.

203 Ibid. at para. 4.31. The tribunal recalled that French conduct in accepting Eddy-stone Rock as a basepoint was treated as relevant in the Arbitration between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the French Republic on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf, Decisions of the Court of Arbitration, dated June 30, 1977 and March 14, 1978, London, H.M.S.O., Cmnd. 7438 [here-inafter Anglo-French Channel Islands case].

204 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 4.35.

205 Anglo-French Channel Islands case, supra note 203 at para. 4.35.

206 Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), [1994] I.C.J. Rep. 112 [hereinafter Qatar v. Bahrain case].

207 Quoted in Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 4.35.

208 Ibid. at para. 4.36. The tribunal described Sable Island as twenty-two nautical miles long and less than one nautical mile wide, with an area of thirty-three square kilometres. (Ibid. at para. 4.32.)

209 Ibid. at para. 5.2.

210 Ibid.

211 Ibid.

212 These points are depicted and their origins described in Award, First Phase, supra note 4, and are discussed in Hughes, supra note 4.

213 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 5.5.

214 Ibid.

215 Ibid. at para. 5.6

216 Ibid. at para. 5.7.

217 Ibid.

218 Ibid. at para. 5.6.

219 Ibid. at para. 5.9.

220 Anglo-French Channel Islands case, supra note 203.

221 Award, Second Phase, supra note 3 at para. 5.11.

222 Ibid. at para. 5. 12.

223 Ibid. at para. 5.13.

224 Ibid. at para. 5.14.

225 Ibid. at para. 5.15.

226 Ibid.

227 Ibid. at para. 5.16. The tribunal emphasized that its decision was binding only on the parties to the dispute and that it could not prejudice the rights of any other party that may be concerned. Thus, the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Québec are not affected by this boundary line in the Gulf.

228 Ibid. at para. 5.18.

229 Ibid.

230 Ibid. at para. 5.19.

231 News Release, “Government Reacts to Decision in Newfoundland and Labrador/ Nova Scotia Offshore Boundary Dispute,” April 2, 2002, accessible at <www.gov.nf.ca>.

232 Ibid.

233 News Release, “Nova Scotia Says Boundary Decision Paves Way for Oil and Gas Activity,” April 2, 2002, accessible at <www.gov.ns.ca>.

234 Ibid.