- Reference Re the Seabed and Subsoil of the Continental Shelf Offshore Newfoundland (1984) 5 D.L.R. (4th) 384.
- Reference Re Mineral and Other Natural Resources of the Continental Shelf (1983) 145 D.L.R. (3d) 9.
- A.-G. N.S. v. A.-G. Can. [1951] S.C.R. 31.
- See e.g. A.-G. Ont. v. Scott [1956] S.C.R. 137.
- S.C. 1980-81-82-83. c. 81, as amended.
- R.S.C. 1970, c. 0–4, as amended.
- R.S. Nfld. 1970, c. 294. as amended.
- Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in The Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. United States) (1984) 23 Intil. Leg. Mat. 1179, Judgment, October 12, 1984. Judges Ago (Pres.) Mosler, Schwebel, Gros, Cohen (Judge Ad Hoc).
- Ibid, at para. 52–56, 76–77.
- Ibid, at para. 50–54
- The Northeast Channel is a trough or trench of geomorphological rather than geological character between Georges Bank and the Nova Scotia Coast. See Figure 1.
- Gulf of Maine Delimitation, at para. 169.
- U.K. and France, Delimitation of the Continental Shelf, Court of Arbitration Decision, June 30, 1977, 18 I.L.M. 397, particularly concerning the distinction between mere geomorphological features and distinct geological faults. See D. McRae, “Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between the United Kingdom and France: The Channel Arbitration” (1977), 15 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 173, 185–187.
- Gulf of Maine Delimitation, para. 107–109.
- Ibid. para. 176.
- Ibid. para. 177
- Ibid. para. 105–107.
- North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, [1969] I.C.J. Reports 1, 30–31, para. 42.
- Gulf of Maine Delimitation, para. 107.
- Ibid. para. 111.
- Ibid. para. 112.
- Ibid. para. 124–125.
- Ibid. para. 124.
- Ibid. para. 193.
- Ibid.
- Ibid, at para. 195–197.
- Ibid, at para. 197.
- D. McRae, “Canada and the Law of the Sea: Some Multilateral and Bilateral Issues” (1980), 3 Canadian Issues 161, 169.
- Gulf of Maine Delimitation, at p. 87.
- Settlement by agreement between states.
- Gulf of Maine Delimitation, para. 96.
- See further F.C. Ingriselli “International Dispute Resolution and the People's Republic of China” [1984] International Business Lawyer 376.
- Tang Changxu, “The Policy and Practice of China's Offshore Petroleum Exploitation in Co-operation with Foreign Enterprises” in International Bar Association, International Energy Law (1984), p. 784.
- Ibid, at pp. 784 and 785.
- Art. 1.
- Art. 2.
- (1979) 53 I.L.R. 494 and 495.
- See e.g. Aramco v. Saudi Arabia (1958) 27 I.L.R. 117; Sapphire Petroleum v. NIOC (1967) 35 I.L.R. 136; B P. v. Libya (1979) 53 I.L.R. 297; Texaco & Calasiaticv. Libya (1979) 53 I.L.R. 389; Liamco v. Libya (1981) 20 I.L.M. 1 Aminoil v. Kuwait (1982) 21 I.L.M. 976.
- See Tang Changxu, supra, note 2 at p. 789.
- See generally Gallins “Bilateral Investment Protection Treaties (1984) 2 J.E.R.L. 77–97.
- Ingriselli, supra, note 1 at p. 379.
- See e.g. Art. 3 of the Treaty with Roumania, Art. 4 of the Treaty with Finland, Art. 3 of the Treaty with F.R.G., Art. 3 of the Treaty with Italy.
- See e.g. Art. 4 of the Treaty with Roumania. Art. 4 of the Treaty with the F.R.G., Art. 4 of the Treaty with Italy.
- See e.g. Art. 6 of the Treaty with Finland.
- See e.g. Art. 7 of the Treaty with Finland.
- See e.g. Art. 8 of the Treaty with Finland.
- See Art. 15 of the Treaty with Roumania.
- Art. 11 of the Treaty with F.R.G. reads: “This agreement shall remain in force in the event of any dispute… without prejudice to the right to take temporary measures which are permissible on the basis of the general rules of international law…”
- And see the arbitrator, Professor Dupuy, in Texaco and Calasiatic v. Libya (1979) 53 I.L.R. 389, 483–495.
Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law
Volume 4, 1986 - Issue 1