Opinion ID: 367140
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of Canadian Approval.

Text: 42 Marriott contends that the IPSFC regulations are ineffective because they were approved only by the United States and not by Canada. The government responds that Canadian approval is unnecessary for regulations that apply only to United States convention waters. 43 The treaty is arguably ambiguous because it provides that, with exceptions not relevant here (a)ll regulations made by the Commission shall be subject to approval of the Governments. 8 U.S.T. at 1060. Again, however, we may look to the practice of the parties as an aid to construction of the treaty. Pigeon River Improvement Co. v. Charles W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. at 158, 54 S.Ct. 361. See also Day v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 528 F.2d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 1975). 44 Affidavits by a State Department official and by the chairman of the IPSFC state that the established practice has been for the Commission to promulgate separate regulations for fishing in United States and Canadian waters and then to request approval only by the government of the country to which they apply. 45 Neither the IPSFC nor the parties to the treaty have interpreted the convention to require approval of one country for regulations pertaining to fishing by the other. Lack of Canadian approval, therefore, does not make the regulations ineffective.