';I"

Non-Corrige
.I

Unco rrected

,; C l/CR
'"

84/4

Cour internationale

.
..

de Justice

LA HAYE

International Court of Justice THE HAGUE

YEAR 1984

Case concerning the Delimitation of the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United

Public sitting of the held
..

Maritime Boundaryin the States of America) Chamber

on ~ednesday Judge

4 April 1984, at of the

3 p.m.

at the Peace Palace,

presiding

ARO, President

Chamber,

'.

VERBATIM RECORD

ANNEE

1984

Affaire de la Del1mitadon de la du golfe du Maine (Canada/Etats

Audience tenue le mercredi publiaue 1984, de la

frontiere maritime Unis d'Ameriaue) chambre au palais de la Paix,

4 avei1

a 15

heures,

sous la presidence de M. Ago, President de la chambre

COMPTE RENDU

65 -

~hen a protest

or rese~/a:ion

w~s c~lleci for, si~ce

the implications

or ~he pe~it

progr3~e

were obvious.

The issuing of permits directly

related to the exercise of legal ri;hts in respect or the mineral

resources of the continental shelf, and officials on both sides course

appreciated their legal implications for delimitation.

of conduct of policies on the part which of both Governments the existence involved

The

the implementation line.

assumed

of an equidistance divergent

The fact version nature

that each

side had a marginally

technical

of an equidistance of the divergence

line is all-important. indicates a substantial

The restricted concordance of view of areas

as to the nature of the Georges This States assured

and extent

of Canada's

legal rights

in respect

Bank. of view is evidenced 1969. by the terms of the United

concordance

aide-memoire the C<madian

of 5 November Govermnent Bank

This important document formally

to the "northern States ha.s

that, with regard shelf",

pO't'cionof the Georges

continental mineral

" the United or exploitation

refra.ined from authorizing

exploration

in the

a't'ea"

~C, Annexes. Vol. Ill, Ann. 13, p. 68).

So much for the facts relevant to the issues of acquiescence and

estoppel. It would doctrine,

1 now turn, Mr. President, to the legal principle of acquiescence.

be impertinent and I shall to offer coniine the Chamber a lengthy disquisition on the

myself

to a brief

statement

of the principle. knowledge, of the other

The essence

of the principle

is that one government's or assertion

actua.l or constructive,

of the conduct

of rights

party to a dispute, and the failure to protest in the face

or assertion of rights, involves a tacit acceptance

of that conduct,

of the legal position

represented...

'--

'...

66 -

represented

by

the other party's

conduct

or assertion are first, activity

of rights.

L
The which elements' of special in should importance thadI the conduct affectin~ le~al rights

is acquiesced

be a public

as becween the parties, and, secondly, that in

there result should be an absence knowledge, of protest

face of IthiS publi~ ~ttivity or reservation of rights. The of knowledge, There and keepin~ silent of a

of having

or the means

is a tacit transaction

acceptance and

of the legal position.

is Ino question

consequently

there is no question

of authority

on the

part of officials to bind

the State as in the context"of treaty-making.

The authorities on the subject of acquiescence dolnot contain any

reference to a condition that officials should have authority to bind

the acquiescent State.

Far from propounding such a principle, the law

treats governments as integral units for the purposes bf the law relating to acquiescence.
of government No curtains are drawn between different departments

or between are

senior

and junior

officials. for thel purposes to protest of the is

Governments

treated

as integral connection.

units

law of acquiescence

in another

The duty

created not only when actual knowledge is established rut also when knowledge may be inferred in situations in which reasonable opportunities

for knowing of the conduct of the other party existed.

In the Fisheries

case the Court stated that in the circumstances "the Ubited Kingdom
I

could

not have

been

ignorant

of the Decree

of ]869 which

had

at once

provoked

a request

for explanations

by the French

Governmen~'

.(I.C.J.

Reports 195], pp.

138-139).
that the United States possessed actual

It may be recalled

knOYledge of the Canadian permit programme in April ]j65' vherea, thi,

"'

programme..

'.