Abstract

:

The Anglo Norwegian fisheries case is one of the most cases of the last century. It was between Norway and United Kingdom. It was significant for its geographic and natural characteristics. It involved the incidents of fishing by British vessels in an area which was reserved by the norwegian government for its own nationals. So the United Kingdom filed a case in the international court ofjustice to fix this issue. In this assignment, we will look through the facts, issues,principles and judgement of this case. . I would like to thank my honorable faculty Barrister Arif Billah for his support during the project and also all my friends and classmates who helped me to complete this project on time.

Judgement 5.Table of Contents: TOPIC 1. Arguments 4. Facts behind the case 2. Reference Page 03 05 08 08 10 11 12 . Conclusion 7. Research Findings 6. Principles and issues 3.

During 1911 British trawlers were seized and condemned for violating the rules of Norwegian government about the limits of fishing about prohibitation to foreigners. Then the United Kingdom Government states that Norway is entitled to claim as internal waters all the waters of fjords and sunds. they fall within the conception of bay where the closing line of the indentation is more or less than ten sea miles long. a decree was formed establishing the lines of delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone During mid September 1949 the government of the United Kingdom filed a case in the international court of justice about an application for proceedings against Norway. The United Kingdom made urgent representations in Oslo in the subject to which the question of referring the dispute to the Permanent Court of International Justice was raised. in the matter of base-lines. Norway. Besides asking any question of limiting the lines to ten miles. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (2012) Retrieved from http://www. it can be stated that several lines can be treated as true.lawteacher. Many British trawlers were arrested and condemned. we will look at the facts of the anglo norwegian fisheries case. the Norwegian Government decided they will no longer behave leniently with foreign vessels . In 1935. The Norwegian Government decided that Norwegian fishery patrol vessels will act leniently with foreign vessels fishing maintaining a distance within the fishing limits until the jurisdiction is going on. But the United Kingdom Government argued that it was only on the basis of historic statement.Facts : First of all. The proceeding tried to measure if the delimitation lines established by the norwegian government as fisheries zone was valid or not under international law . In such cases the coastal State would seem to be in the best possible authority to form the local conditions to control the selection process.After that. Here all that the Court can see there is the application of general international law to a specific case.php . as the two parties could not come to an agreement . In 1948. So it can be said that the United Kingdom Government has not still agreed that the ten-mile rule is to be regarded as a rule of international law. According to the international law. 1. Then violation incidents occurred more often. now calls for acceptance of an exceptional system.net/tradinglaw/essays/the-anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case. Then that the United Kingdom Government filed a new case and started new proceedings.

anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (n. It is conceeded that as these waters is considered as interalia. it cannot only depend on only the decission of the coastal State according to the municipal law. Although. In these circumstances the Court is unable to agree with the argument that the Indreleia in respect of the present case. for the time. in the absence of rules having the technically precise character alleged by the United Kingdom Government.Thus the Court. the waters between the base-lines of the belt of territorial waters and the mainland are internal waters. 01. certain consequences are attached with regard to the consequence of the territorial waters at the end of this water-way considered as a maritime strait. Principles of Public International Law (OUP 2008) .d.edu/wex/international_law 03.jstor.org/discover/1 02.law. the delimitation undertaken by the Norwegian Government in 1935 includes all the principles that are acclaimed by the international law. The Court came to find that the Indreleia is not a strait at all. confines itself to the judgement after the hearing of the United Kingdom terms.I Brownlie. International law.cornell. the International law dictates the delimitation of law for the other states. the 'skjaergaard' consists of a whole with the Norwegian mainland. As the delimitation of sea areas is an important international aspect. It does not at all follow that. The waters followed by the navigational route known as the Indreleia. is quite related and of same status of the other waters included in the 'skjaergaard'. according to the argument of the United Kingdom a portion of these waters constitutes territorial waters. Retrieved from http://www. As has been expressed by the United Kingdom.) (http://www. but rather an artificial navigational route prepared in a specific way artificially provided by Norway. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act as the power of decission lies on only the coastal State is competent to undertake it. finds that the Norwegian Government in fixing the base-lines for the delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone by the 1935 Decree has not violated international law.

And then with regard to bays. 39 Brit. With regard to the issue that a few years before.d. 01. Some reference must be made to the close relation of the territorial sea upon the land domain. This theory. There is another fundamental consideration. which is related on the decission of the rules relating to bays. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (n.B. should be independently introduced in the case of a coast. Y. There are certain economic interests unfamiliar to a region.Principles and Issues: There some specific issues and principles involved in this particular case. the reality and importance of which are clearly noted by a long term usage. duering that time. the question of their delimitation by the presence of straight lines of which Norway challenged the maximum length established in the Convention. the geographical consideration is not quite valid in the case of Norway. It cannot be averted that tthe conclusion that. 216 (1963) . the delimitation of Sunnmore by the 1869 Decree had been presented as an application of the Norwegian system. Norway refused to accept this convention on their own dicretion which raised the approval of the delimitation of its maritime domain. Int’l Law 189.icj-cij. It follows that while such a State must be allowed the latitude necessary in order to be able to adapt its delimitation to practical needs and local requirements. It is the the choice of extending above totally geographical determinants. the drawing of base-lines can not be drawn apart to any great extent from the general direction of the coast. It is a matter of right of internal waters. It is the land that passes upon the coastal State a right to the waters off its coasts. The steps adherently taken by Great Britain to secure Norway's adherence to the Convention clearly show that they were aware of the interests of the two parties. there is another issue involved in this case. Unilateral Withdrawal From an International Organization. Norway's attitude with regard to the North Sea Fisheries (Police) Convention of 1882 is another issue which must at once have attracted the attention of Great Britain. Nathan Feinberg. There is scarcely any fisheries convention of greater importance to the coastal States of the North Sea or of greater interest to Great Britain. There is a close relationship existing between certain sea areas and the existing lands formations dividing or surrounding them.) http://www. Then the actual real question aroused in the decission of base-lines effectively to test the nature of certain sea areas lying within these lines are sufficinetly closely linked to the land domain. of particular importance in this case.org/docket/files/5 02. all the aspects of the problem of Norwegian coastal waters had been totaly explained. Besides this.

it certainly lead to the conclusion that the relevant line is not that of the mainland.The first principle put forward by the United Kingdom is that the base-line must be lowwater mark. but they differ to its application. the Norwegian government may be entitled to reserve for its nationals. The parties agree as to this criterion. It also marks to the rejection of the requirement that the base line should always follow low-water mark. Although certain States have adapted with the ten mile rule for the closing lines of bays. and sea areas separating islands. It creates a simpler form to the belt of territorial waters.There should be a maximum length for straight lines. The geographic position identifies that. B u t frequently the ten-mile rule has not been regarded as a certain i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w .. v i e w e d a s a w h o l e . but rather that of the "skjaergaard".pdf . that calls for the method of straight base-lines. Besides.) Retrieved from http://iilj. The judgement on the basis of the claims of the court to announce the principles of international law applicable in defining the baselines by reference to which Norwegian government was capable of delimit a fisheries zone and make it exclusively reserved to its nationals. FISHERIES CASE (n. minor curves of the coastline. the ten-mile rule is inapplicable as against Norway in as much as she has always opposed its application to the Norwegian coast. I t i s a l s o n o t r e g a r d e d i n r e s p e c t o f b a y s a n d t h e waters separating the islands of an archipelago.org/courses/documents/UnitedKingdomv. Straightlines will be drawn across welldefined bays. The issues that constitute the case were submitted to the court and the arguments presented by both countries. Drawn between appropriate points on this low-water mark.Norway_ICJ1951_. departing from the physical coast line to a reasonable extent. and secondly to award damages to the government of the United Kingdom in respect of all interferences by the Norwegian authorities with British fishing vessels outside the fisheries zone. And also to define the said “base lines” in the light of the arguments of the parties in order to avoid further legal difference. I t i s t h i s s p e c i f i c c o a s t . the base-line can only be determined by means of a geometric construc:tion.d. This indeed is thecriterion specifically followed in the question of States. The drawing of such lines does not actually violate a r u l e . which in accordance with ICJ's decision. There will be an exception in the case of the closing line of internal waters to which the United Kingdom concedes that Norway is historically entitled. islet sand reefs. others have established a d i f f e r e n t l e n g t h . as con-tended by the United Kingdom.

But it may be noted that it was in this way that the 1812 Decree was invariably construed in Norway in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries.) (http://www.org/discover/1 04.d.jstor. The 1812 Decree was similarly constructed by the Territorial Waters Boundary Commission (Report of February 29th.edu/wex/international_law . not covered by the sea. in all cases when there is a question of determining the limit of our territorial sovereignty at sea. that limit shall be reckoned at the distance of one ordinary sea league from the island or islet farthest from the mainland.' This text does not clearly indicate how the base-lines between the islands or islets farthest from the mainland were to be drawn.' The judgment delivered by the Norwegian Supreme Court in 1934. between the extreme points. International law.net/tradinglaw/essays/the-anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case.lawteacher. 01anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (2012) Retrieved from http://www. of which all proper authorities shall be informed by rescript. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (n. 48-49). pp.cornell. is of massive importance.law. 1929. in which it was said: 'The direction laid down by this Decree should be interpreted in the sense that the starting-point for calculating the breadth of the territorial waters should be a line drawn along the 'skjaergaard' between the furthest rocks and. 1912.php 03.It is common agreeent between the Parties that on the question of the existence of a Norwegian system. 1812. where there is no 'skjaergaard'. Just case. In particular. it does not say in express terms that the lines must take the form of straight lines drawn between these points. Retrieved from http://www. provided final authority for this interpretation. in the St. as it was in the Memorandum of January 3rd. This conception accords with the geographical characteristics of the Norwegian coast and is not contrary to the principles of international law.sent by the Norwegian Government to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. This Decree is in the following terms: 'We wish to lay down as a rule that. the Royal Decree of February 22nd.

Arguments : There are some specific arguments made by the two parties. Whether it can reserve exclusive rights for fishing for its nationals. The government of United Kingdom wants the international court of justice to make judgement on the validity of the base lines under international law and receive compensation for damages caused by Norwegian authorities. It also included penalties for the seizes of British Fishing vessels. It was known as the 10 Mile rule. In this case. The judgement relied upon mainly international Law of the sea. or they did not respect certain connection of sea and land separating them the British and lack the notoriety to provide the basis of historic title enforcement upon opposable to by the United Kingdom The Kingdom of Norway argued. nautical miles. The United Kingdom Argued. But it is different in the case of Norway because of Norway's geographic position.  That the base lines had to be drawn in such a way as to respect the general direction of the coast and in a reasonable manner. rules that are examined on how long a baseline should be. Judgement : The case was filed to the International Court of Justice by the government of the United Kingdom. sufficiently . . Only a 10 mile long straight line is allowed and this has been the most eligible practice. It contained the ability of the state to modify its territorial waters and its control over it. islands and islets.

The international customary law has been a law of reference in the court arguments. The Court stated that in respect of a situation that can be improved in the future. The parties involved in this case were Norway and the United Kingdom. This 4 miles area is reserved fishing exclusive for Norwegian nationals. of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.) Retrieved from http://iilj. the general justification of the other national states. the United Kingdom and Norway.Norway_ICJ1951_. It confines the respective relation between states. The application referred to the declaration by which the united Kingdom and Norway had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with article 36 (2) of its statute. It was lot before the dispute arose.net/tradinglaw/essays/the-anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case. the attitude of governments carries the fact that they did not consider it to be contrary to international law and no violation ofinternationallaw was made. this procedure was reinforced by a constant and sufficiently long practice. called “baselines” 4 miles deep into the sea.) (http://www.d. Now in the present situation. The Court made a conclusion that the method of straight lines. The decree covers the drawing of straight lines.d. the United Kingdom Government restricted themselves from ordinating reserve areas. their respective interest in the matter and may be long abstention would in any situation would clarify Norway's enforcement of her system against the United Kingdom. The judgement of the facts.org/discover/1 . Great Britain's position in the North Sea. established in the Norwegian system.lawteacher. was established by the specific geographical aspects of the Norwegian coast.org/courses/documents/UnitedKingdomv. Judge took reference from Canada to justify whether Customary international law can recognize the rule of measurement of the sea belts of territorial waters of coastal states.php 05. The implementation of the Royal Norwegian Decree of the 1935 was met with resistance from the United Kingdom. More so public international law has been relied upon in this case.pdf 01anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (2012) Retrieved from http://www.jstor. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (n. FISHERIES CASE (n. Under article 36(2) both UK and Norway were willing to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ on this case and with no appeal.

The issues that contains the case were represented to the court and the arguments presented by both countries. As the delimitation of sea areas has is an important international matter. The judgement on the basis of the claims of the court to announce the principles of international law applicable in defining the baselines by reference to which Norwegian government was capable of delimit a fisheries zone and make it exclusively reserved to its nationals. in the absence of rules having the technically precise character alleged by the United Kingdom Government. confining itself for the moment to the Conclusions of the United Kingdom. Although it does not follow that totally. The delimitation undertaken by the Norwegian Government in 1935 is not in course to specific principles which make it possible to judge the validity of the decree under international law. finds that the Norwegian Government in structuring the base-lines for the delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone by the 1935 Decree is totally legal with respect to international law. The implementation of the Royal Norwegian Decree of the 1935 was met with resistance from the United Kingdom. of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. the coastal State should not be allowed to take the decission of their own as expressed in its municipal law. The decree covers the drawing of straight lines. And also to define the said “base lines” in the light of the arguments of the parties in order to avoid further legal difference. and secondly to award damages to the government of the United Kingdom in respect of all interferences by the Norwegian authorities with British fishing vessels outside the fisheries zone. the Norwegian government may be entitled to reserve for its nationals So the Court.Research Findings: The parties involved in this Anglo Norwegian fisheries case were Norway and the United Kingdom. the validity of the delimitation with regard to other States also depends upon international law. called “baselines” 4 miles deep into the sea. which in accordance with ICJ's decision. . Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act because of the power given to the coastal State about competency to control it. Under article 36(2) both UK and Norway were willing to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ on this case and with no appeal. This 4 miles area is reserved fishing exclusive for Norwegian nationals.

The case is also used as a reference for many future cases of this type. . it was justified that Norway was not violating international law by drawing the base line. It was important for the good relation among the country and also for its geographical aspect. Overall. The law also denoted the peculiar position of the norwegian coast as an important factor in this case. From the judgement. this case was lots of importance and can be treated as a guideline for many future cases consisting these particular issues.Conclusion: The Anglo Norwegian fisheries case was a significant one for that particular region of europe.