The ICJ, while ruling on applicable

principles and the rules of international

law, held that delimitation ought to be by
mutual agreement or other equivalent
solution which applies equitable criteria
and by the use of practical methods
capable of ensuring, with regard to the
geographic configuration of the area and
other relevant circumstances, an
equitable result. As to the actual
delimitation (Gulf of Maine), the ICJ
rejected the various lines proposed by
both Canada and the United States and
instead put forward its own independent
solution which excluded criteria which,
though equitable, were thought not
suitable. The chamber then applied
criteria derived from geometry and
geophysics with the stated aim of
achieving an equal division of areas of
overlap, moderated by corrections to
remove
unreasonable
effects
or

consequences.
In one segment, therefore, the court (1) divided
the areas of overlap equally by a line which was
a lateral assimilation of the coasts of the two
states. In the second segment, it (2) applied a
geometrical method, which resulted in a median
delimitation line and then corrected that line to
take account of the difference in length of the
two coastlines, a factor which it decided was
an important circumstance. In the third area,
which was open ocean, it (3) drew a line
perpendicular to the closing line of the Gulf.
After drawing the lines, the court declared its
final duty to be to verify that the result was
intrinsically equitable in all the circumstances of
the matter.
It thought that only necessary in relation to the
area traversing Georges Bank, which on
account of its fisheries and potential subsoil
resources was thought the "principal stake" in
the proceedings. In deciding that the earlier
delimitation was equitable in the circumstances,
the chamber ruled out the scale of activities
relating to fisheries and petroleum exploitation
as an equitable criterion in delimitation.

However, it accepted that a legitimate criterion

was to ensure that the overall result was not
radically inequitable if it resulted in disastrous
repercussions on the subsistence and economic
development of the population concerned.