IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v19y1995i4p301-316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fisheries relations in the Gulf of Maine Implications of an arbitrated maritime boundary

Author

Listed:
  • Herbert, Glen J

Abstract

In 1984, the International Court of Justice drew, "in accordance with the principles and rules of international law", a single maritime boundary dividing the maritime jurisdictions of the US and Canada in the Gulf of Maine. The nature of third-party adjudication meant that the allocation of regional fish resources occurred solely through the geographic delimitation of a line. The lack of prior agreement on fisheries access and management greatly hindered the opportunity of obtaining a functional boundary in the context of international arbitration. As a result, US and Canadian administration of the boundary has been protectionist in nature, focussing on its function as divisive line. This has limited effective bilateral cooperation in the management and conservation of shared fish resources. The maintenance of incompatible fisheries management approaches on opposite sides of the boundary has contributed to overfishing and stock depletion in the region. In addition, the disruption of historical fishing patterns in the area has created a serious violation problem along the boundary. Since 1984, there have been numerous incidents of illegal fishing in Canadian waters by American scallop vessels. In response, Canadian fisheries management policy has focussed on the deterrence of US boundary violations through various means of surveillance, detection, and enforcement.

Suggested Citation

  • Herbert, Glen J, 1995. "Fisheries relations in the Gulf of Maine Implications of an arbitrated maritime boundary," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 301-316, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:19:y:1995:i:4:p:301-316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0308-597X(95)00021-W
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:19:y:1995:i:4:p:301-316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.