Q-01 Summary of Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case

CASE NAME– Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case

PARTY-  United Kingdom v. Norway, ICJ

YEAR- 1951

PRINCIPAL–

Extension by coastal state of fisheries jurisdiction case, fishery zone, preferential rights and concurrent
rights of other stats and conservation measures.

FACT OF THE CASE–

Since 1911 British trawlers had been seized and condemned for violating measures taken by the Parties
in order to avoid further legal differences; and the Norwegian Government specifying the limits within
which fishing was prohibited to foreigners. In 1935, a Decree was adopted establishing the lines of
delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone.

On 28 September 1949, the Government of the United Kingdom filed with the Registry of the ICJ an
application instituting proceedings against Norway. The subject of the proceedings the Parties in order
to avoid further legal differences; and  was the validity, under international law, of the lines of
delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone as set forth in a Decree of 12 July 1935.

The application referred to the declarations by which the United Kingdom and Norway had accepted the
compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ in accordance with Article 36 (2) of its Statute.

ISSUE–

1. To declare the principles of international law applicable in defining the baselines by reference to
which the Norwegian Government was entitled to delimit a fisheries zone, extending seaward to
4 nautical miles from those lines and exclusively reserved for its own nationals; and to define
the said baselines in the light of the arguments of the Parties in order to avoid further legal
differences.

2. To award damages to the Government of the United Kingdom in respect of all the written reply
and later in the oral argument by the United Kingdom and, consequently, no interferences by
the Norwegian authorities with British fishing vessels outside the fisheries zone, which, in
accordance with the ICJ's decision, the Norwegian Government may be entitled to reserve for its
nationals.

DECESION–

The Fisheries Case was brought before the Court by the United Kingdom of Great; Britain and Northern
Ireland against Norway. By a Decree of July 12th. 1935, the Norwegian Government had, in the northern
part  of the country (north of the Arctic Circle) delimited the zone in which the fisheries were reserved
to its own nationals.
'Me United Kingdom asked the Court to state whether this delimitation was or was not contrary
to international law. In, its Judgment the Court found that neither the method employed for the
delimitation by the Decree, nor the lines themselves fixed by the said I)decree, are contrary
to international law; the first finding is adopted by ten votes to two, and the second by eight votes to
four. Three Judges-MM. Alvalez, Hackworth and Hsu Mo appended to the Judgment; 21 declaration or
an individual opinion stating the particular reasons for which they reached their conclusions; two
other Judges- Sir Arnold McNair and Mr. J.E. Read-appended to the Judgment statements Of their
dissenting Opinions.

REASONING–

It was agreed from the outset by both Parties and by the Court that Norway had the right to claim a 4-
mile belt of territorial sea, that the fjords and sunds along the coastline, which have the character of a
bay or of legal straits, should be considered Norwegian for historical reasons, and that the territorial sea
should be measured from the line of the low-water mark.

The Court found itself obliged to decide whether the relevant low-water mark was that of the mainland
or of the skjaergaard, and concluded that it was the outer line of the skjaergaard that must be taken into
account in delimiting the belt of Norwegian territorial waters.

The Court then considered the three methods that had been contemplated to effect the application of
the low-water mark. The Court rejected the method of the “tracé parallèle”, which" consists of drawing
the outer limit of the belt of territorial waters by following the coast in all its sinuosities", as unsuitable
for so rugged a coast. Furthermore, that method was abandoned in the written reply and later in the
oral argument by the United Kingdom and, consequently, no longer relevant to the case. The Court also
declined to apply the “courbe tangente” (the "arcs of circles" method) inasmuch as it was concededly
not obligatory by law. Thus, the instant case required the application of a third delimitation method
according to which the belt of the territorial waters must follow the general direction of the coast. Such
a method consisted of selecting appropriate points on the low-water mark and drawing straight lines
between them. The Court found that the method had already been applied by a number of States
without giving rise to any protests by other States.

However, the Court held that the delimitation of sea areas had always had an international aspect and
could not be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal State as expressed in its municipal law.
Although necessarily a unilateral act, the validity of delimitation of sea areas with regard to other States
depended upon international law. The Court considered that in drawing straight baselines, the coastal
State had to follow the general direction of the coast. Moreover, the relationship between certain sea
areas and the mainland as well as the economic interests in a certain region had to be considered.