- 46 - 



that which fully adopts to the U.S. position would perpetuate 

 the current situation in which certain valuable fishery 

 stocks can be caught in both countries' fishery zones. 

 Thus, the absence of a fisheries agreement would leave 

 unresolved the problems noted above in connection with 

 Alternative 1 of how such transboundary resources are to 

 be shared and managed so as to preserve their long term 

 productivi ty. 



During the consultations leading to the signing of the 

 proposed agreements concerning Atlantic fisheries and the 

 maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine-Georges Bank area, the 

 special negotiators concluded that the only practical way to 

 resolve the divergent boundary claims of the two countries was 

 through submission of the issue to binding third party dispute 

 settlement. A basic position of Canada has been that it will 

 agree to binding adjudication of the maritime boundary only in 

 conjunction with the implementation of a resource agreement 

 that would survive the boundary determination. The United 

 States cannot unilaterally submit the issue to third party 

 settlement; Canadian agreement to accept such binding third 

 party delimitation is required. 



3 . Negotiate a Resource Agreement After Delimitation 

 of the Maritime Boundary 



This alternative proposes that no management regime be 

 constructed until the maritime boundary delimitation has been 

 completed. 



If the United States position were fully upheld in the 

 boundary adjudication, the U.S. would be under no obligation 



