The anglo-norwegian fisheries case

Since 1911 British trawlers had been seized and conde ned for !iolating eas"res ta#en b$ the %orwegian go!ern ent s&ecif$ing the li its within which fishing was &rohibited to foreigners' (n 19)*+ a decree was ado&ted establishing the lines of deli itation of the %orwegian fisheries zone' ,n -.th Se&te ber 19.9 the go!ern ent of the /nited 0ingdo filed the registr$ of the international co"rt of 1"stice an a&&lication instit"ting &roceedings against %orwa$' The s"b1ect of the &roceeding was the !alidit$+ "nder international law+ of the lines of deli itation of the %orwegian fisheries zone as set forth in a 2ecree of 1-th 3"l$ 19)*' The a&&lication referred to the declaration b$ which the "nited 0ingdo and %orwa$ had acce&ted the co &"lsor$ 1"risdiction of the (nternational 4o"rt of 3"stice in accordance with article )5 6-7 of its stat"te' The &arties in!ol!ed in this case were %orwa$ and the /nited 0ingdo + of 8reat Britain and %orthern (reland' The i &le entation of the 9o$al %orwegian 2ecree of the 19)* was et with resistance fro the /nited 0ingdo ' The decree co!ers the drawing of straight lines+ called :baselines; . iles dee& into the sea' This . iles area is reser!ed fishing e<cl"si!e for %orwegian nationals' /nder article )56-7 both /0 and %orwa$ were willing to acce&t the 1"risdiction of the (43 on this case and with no a&&eal' The iss"es that constit"te the case were s"b itted to the co"rt and the arg" ents &resented b$ both co"ntries' The iss"es clai s the co"rt to= declare the &rinci&les of international law a&&licable in defining the baselines b$ reference to which %orwegian go!ern ent was entitled to deli it a fisheries zone and e<cl"si!el$ reser!ed to its nationals> and to define the said :base lines; in the light of the arg" ents of the &arties in order to a!oid f"rther legal difference> and secondl$ to award da ages to the go!ern ent of the /nited 0ingdo in res&ect of all interferences b$ the %orwegian a"thorities with British fishing !essels o"tside the fisheries zone+ which in accordance with (43?s decision+ the %orwegian go!ern ent a$ be entitled to reser!e for its nationals' The /nited 0ingdo arg"ed that>

@ @

%orwa$ co"ld onl$ draw straight lines across ba$s The length of lines drawn on the for ations of the S#aergaard f1ord na"tical iles6 the 1A Bile r"le7 "st not e<ceed 1A

That certain lines did not follow the general direction of the coast or did not follow it s"fficientl$ + or the$ did not res&ect certain connection of sea and land se&arating the That the %orwegian s$ste of deli itation was "n#nown to the British and lac# the notoriet$ to &ro!ide the basis of historic title enforce ent "&on o&&osable to b$ the /nited 0ingdo

The 0ingdo
@

of %orwa$ arg"ed>

That the base lines had to be drawn in s"ch a wa$ as to res&ect the general direction of the coast and in a reasonable anner'

The case was s"b itted to the (nternational 4o"rt of 3"stice b$ the go!ern ent of the /nited 0ingdo ' The go!ern ent of /nited 0ingdo wants the (43 to declare the !alidit$ of the base lines "nder international law and recei!e co &ensation for da ages ca"sed b$ %orwegian a"thorities as to the seiz"res of British Cishing !essels' The 1"dg ent of the co"rt first e<a ines the a&&licabilit$ of the &rinci&les &"t forward b$ the go!ern ent of the /0+ then the %orwegian s$ste + and finall$ the confor it$ of that s$ste with international law' The first &rinci&le &"t forward b$ the /0 is that the baselines "st be low water ar#+ this indeed is the criterion generall$ ado&ted $ ost states and b"t differ as to its a&&lication' 63ohnson 1*.7' The co"rt considered the ethods of drawing the lines b"t+ the co"rt re1ected the :trace Darallele; which consists of drawing the o"ter li its of the belt following the coast and all its sin"osit$' The co"rt also re1ected the :co"rbe tangent; 6arcs of a circle7 and it is not obligator$ "nder international law to "se these ethods of drawing the lines' The co"rt also &aid &artic"lar attention to the geogra&hical as&ect of the case' The geogra&hical realities and historic control of the %orwegian coast ine!itabl$ contrib"ted to the final decision b$ the (43' The coast of %orwa$ is too indented and is an e<ce&tion "nder international law fro the ) iles territorial waters r"le' The f1ords+ S"nds along the coastline which ha!e the characteristic of a ba$ or legal straits sho"ld be considered %orwegian for historical reasons that the territorial sea sho"ld be eas"red fro the line of low water ar#' So it was agreed on the o"tset of both &arties and the co"rt that %orwa$ had the right to clai a . ile belt of territorial sea' The co"rt concl"ded that it was the o"ter line of the S#aergaard that "st be ta#en into acco"nt in ad itting the belt of the %orwegian territorial waters' 63ohnson 1*.- 1*E7' :There is one consideration not to be o!erloo#ed+ the sco&e of which e<tends be$ond geogra&hical factors' That of certain econo ic interests &ec"liar to a region+ the realit$ and i &ortance of which are clearl$ e!idenced b$ a long "sage; 63ohnson 15A7 The law relied "&on ainl$ international Faw of the sea> how far a state can odif$ its territorial waters and its control o!er it+ e<cl"si!el$ reser!ing fishing for its nationals' (n this case+ r"les that are &racticed for instance how long a baseline sho"ld be' ,nl$ a 1A ile long straight line is allowed and this has been the &ractice b$ ost states howe!er it is different in the case of %orwa$ beca"se of %orwa$?s geogra&hic indentation+ islands and islets' The international c"sto ar$ law has been a law of reference in the co"rt arg" ents' 3"dge 9ead fro 4anada asserts that 4"sto ar$ international law does not recognize the r"le according to which belts of territorial waters of coastal states is to be eas"red' Bore so &"blic international law has been relied "&on in this case' (t reg"lates relation between states> the /nited 0ingdo and %orwa$'

Bariti e Faw 4oastline 9"le

The 1"dg ent was rendered in fa!or of %orwa$ on the 1Eth 2ece ber 19*1' B$ 1A !otes to - the co"rt held that the ethod e &lo$ed in the deli itation of the fisheries zone b$ the 9o$al %orwegian decree of the 1-th 3"l$ 19)* is not contrar$ to international law' B$ E !otes to . !otes the co"rt also held that the base lines fi<ed b$ this decree in a&&lication are not contrar$ to international law' Gowe!er there are se&arate o&inions and dissenting o&inions fro the 1"dges in the co"rt' 3"dge Gac#worth declared that he conc"rred with the o&erati!e &art of the 1"dg ent beca"se he considered that the %orwegian go!ern ent had &ro!ed the e<istence of historic title of the dis&"ted areas of water' 3"dge Hl!arez fro law of the sea'
@ @

4hile relied on the e!ol!ing &rinci&les of the law of nations a&&licable to the odif$ the e<tent of the of their territorial sea a$ ob1ect to another state?s decision as to the e<tent of its

States ha!e the right to

Hn$ state directl$ concerned territorial sea

(nternational stat"s of ba$s and straits "st be deter ined b$ the coastal state directl$ concerned with d"e regard to the general interest and Gistoric rights and conce&t of &rescri&tion in international law'

3"dge Gs" Bo fro china o&inions di!erge fro the co"rt?s with regards to confor it$ with &rinci&les of international law to the straight lines drawn b$ the 2ecree of 19)*' Ge allowed &ossibilit$ in certain circ" stances+ for instance+ belt eas"red at low tide+ %orwa$?s geogra&hic and historic conditions' B"t drawing the straight lines as of the 19)* degree is a o!ing awa$ fro the &ractice of the general r"le' 63ohnson 1I17 The dissenting o&inions fro 1"dge Bc%air rested "&on few r"les of law of international waters' Tho"gh there are e<ce&tions+ in case of ba$s+ the nor al &roced"re to calc"late territorial waters in fro the land+ a line which follows the coastline' 3"dge Bc%air re1ected the arg" ent "&on which %orwa$ based its decree incl"ding=
@ @

Drotecting %orwa$?s econo ic and other social interests The /0 sho"ld not be &recl"ded fro ob1ecting the %orwegian s$ste 2ecree beca"se &re!io"s acJ"iescence in the s$ste and e bodied in the

Hn historic title allowing the state to acJ"ire waters that wo"ld otherwise ha!e the stat"s of dee& sea' 3"dge Bc%air concl"ded that the 19)* decree is not co &atible with international law'63ohnson1I)7

C"rther ore+ 3"dge 9ead fro 4anada was "nable to conc"r with &arts of the 1"dg ent' 9ead re1ected 1"stification b$ %orwa$ for enlarging her ariti e do ain and seizing and conde ning foreign shi&s 63ohnson 1I)7>
@

So!ereignt$ of the coastal state is not the basis for %orwa$ to clai straight base lines

ile belt fro

4"sto ar$ international law does not recognize the r"le according to which belts of territorial waters of coastal states is to be eas"red' %orwegian s$ste cannot be co &atible with international law'

9ead ore= The anglo-norwegian fisheries case K Faw Teacher htt&=LLwww'lawteacher'netLtrading-lawLessa$sLthe-anglo-norwegian-fisheriescase'&h&Qi<zz-2-H$fd$z Collow "s= Rlawteachernet on Twitter K FawTeacher%et on Caceboo#