Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Judgment of the Court of 18 December 1951

Communiqué No. 51/58
Unoff iciâl .

The follawing inf ormtion from the Regist ry of the Internat lonal
Court of Justice has been communicated to the Press:-

Taday,December 18th, 1951, the International Court of Justice
delivered its Judgent in the Fisheries Case brought before the Court
by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Narthern Ireland against
Norway .

By a Decree of July 12th,1935, the Norwegian Goverment had,
in the northern part of the country (north of the Arctic ~ircle)
del*itsd the zone in whieh the fisheries were reserved to its own
nationals . The United Kingdom asked the Court to stats whether this
delimitation was or waç not contrary to international law, In its
Judgment of to-dayf s date, the coufi findsthat neither the methcd
employed for the delimitation by the Decree, nor the lines themseives
fixed by the saidDecree, are contrarg to international law; the flrst
flnding is adopted by ten votes to two, and the second by eight votes to
four.

Three Judges - PIM. Alvarez, Hackwclrth and Hsu Mo - have appended

tp the Judgmcent a declaration or an individual opinion statingthe
particuhr reasons for which thzg reached their conclusions; two other
J'udjes - Sir Arnold ivlcNair and Elr. .E. Read - have appended to the
Judgrnent statements of their dissenting Opinions.

The situation which gave rise tO the dispute and the facts which
precededthe filing of the British Application, are recalled in the
Judgrrlent.

The coastal zone concerned in the dispute is of a distinctive

configuration. Its length as the crowflies exceeds 1,500 kilometres
Mounteinous dong its whole length, very broken by fjords and bays,
dotted with countless islands, islets and reefs (certain of which form
a continuous archipelago known as the skjaer~aard, "rock rampart "),
the çoast does not constitute, as it does in practically dl sther
countries in the world a. clear dividirig Ene between land and sea. The
land configuration stretches out hto the sea and what reallyconstitutes
the Norwegian coastline is the outer line of the land formations vWed as a
whole. Along the coastalzone are situated shallow banks which are
very rich in fish. These have been exploited fromtime inmernorial
by the inhabitants of the mainland and of the islands: they derivs their
livelihood essentiallyfrom such fishing .
1
In past centuries British fishermen had made incursions in the
waters near theNorwegian criast. As a result mf cornplaints from the
King of Norway, they abstained from doing so at the beginnulg of the
17th century and for 300 years. But in 1906 British vessels appeared
again. These were trawlers equipped with improved and powerfulgear.

The local population becme pertwbed, and rneasures were taken by
Nomiray with a view tu specifying the limits within which fishing was
prohibited to forei-ners. Incidents occurred, becme more and more
frequent, and on J 12th, 1935 the Norwegian Goverment delhited the
Norwegian f isheriesU"8.one bg Decree, Negotiations had been entered
into'by the two Govesnments; theg wre pursued after the Decree was
enacted, but without SUCC~SS. A considerable number of British

trawlers ...
.~ travrlers were arrested and condemed In 1948 and 1949. Itwas then that
the United Eifngdom Government iristituted proceedings before the Court'.

The Judgmezlt first specSifies the subject of the dispute. The
breadth of the belt of Norwegian territorial sea is not an issue: the
four-mile lhit clahcd by Narway has b~en acknowledged by the United
Kingdom. But the question is ~hetlies the lines laid dom by the 1935
Decrez for the pvrpose of cielimiting the Norwegian fisheri~s zone have
01-have not been drawn in accordancc with international law. (~hese
lines, called lbbase-linesli, are those £rom which the belt of thz

territorial sea iç reckoned). The United Khgdom denies that they have
been dram in accordancv wi.kh international law, and it relies on principles
which it regards as applicable to thu preçent case. Forits ipart,
Norway, whilst not leziying that rulas do exist, contends that those
put forward by the United lilngdom Er2 not applicable; and it further
relies on its mm sgstem of delimitation which it assertsto be in evsry .
ri~p ct in conformity withintern ianal Law. The Judpent first
examin% the applicability of the principles put forward by the United
Kingdom, tbm th^ Norwegizn system, and fulzlly the conformity of that
1
systm with int ernstional hw. \

The firstprinciple put forrvnrd by the United Kingdom is thct
the base-line must be low-water mark. This indeed is the criterion
generally arlopted in the prectica of 3tates. The parties agree as to
this criterion, but thry differ as to its application. The geographic
realitie s des cribed abcivii, whi ch ulevitably lead to the conclusion that

the relevant line is not tnat of the mainland, but ratl-ier that of the
"skjaergaardlj , also lead ta the re jection of the requirement that the
base-line should dwap follow l~w--~?later mark. Drawn between appropriate
points on this lorv.-yater mark, departhg from the physical
coastline to a reasonable cxtent, the base-line cm only be determuied
by means of a geometric construction. Straight lines iyill be drawn
across well-definsd bays, mindr curvatures of the coastline, and sea
areas separating ishnds, isletsandrecfs, thus givlng a simpler form to

the belt of terriboyid waters. The drawing of such limes does not
constitute an exception ta a rule: it is-this ruggod coast,.viBwed as a
whole that calls for the mthod of straight base-lines .

Must these be a maximum len~th for straight lines, as contended '
by the United Kingdom, elncept in th'e case of the closing'line of internai'
watersto which the United Kingdam concedes that Norway has a historic
title? Although certain States have adopted the ten-mile rule for the
consequently
closing lines of bays, others have adapted a different length:
the ten-mile rule has not acquired the authority of a general rule of
international law, neither in respect of bays nor the waters separating
the islands of an archipelago. Furthermore, the ten-mile de is
inapplicable as against Norway inasmuch as she has always opposedits
application t o the Narwegian coast .

l ., Shus the court, confining itself to the Conclusions of the United
Kjngdorn, finds that the 1935 delimitation daes not violateinternational

la1.r. But the dellrnitation of sea areas has always ën international
aspect since it interests I;tatzs othcr than the coa'stai State;
consequently, it cmnot be dependent merely upon the will of the latter.
In this eonnection certain basic considsrations inherent in the nature
of the territorial sea, bring to li&t the following criteria which cm
provide guidance to Courts; since the territorial sea is closely
dependent upon tbe land domain, the base-lins must not depart to any
appreciable extent frorn the general direction of the coast; certain

waters are particularly closely linked to the land fwmations

which ... which divide or surround them, (an idea which should be liberally applied
in the present case, in view of the configuration of the toast); itmay
be necessaqy to have regard to certain econornic interests peculiar ta

a region whentheir reality and importance are clearly evidenced by a
long usage.

Norway puts forward the 1935 Decree as the application of a
traditional system of delimitation in accordance with international lawg
In its view, international law takea into accot.int the diversity of facts
and concedes that the delimitation must be adapted to the special con-
ditions obtaining in drfferent regions. The Judgment notes that
a Norwegian Decreeof 1812, as well as a number of subsequent textg
(Decrees, Reports, diplomatic correspondence) show that the rnethod of

straightlines, imposed by gebgraphy, has been established in the Norwegian
systm and consolidated by a constant and sufficiently long practice.
The application of this system encountered no opposition from ather
States. Zven the United Kingdom did not contest it for manyyears:
it was only in 1933 that theUnitedKingdom made a f ormal and def init s
pratest . And yet, traditiorallp concerned with mari the questions,
it could nut have been ignorant of the reiterated manifestations of
,* -. Iiorwegian praciice, whicn was so well-knnwn , The general tolerat ion of
the' international c~mmunity therefore shoiowthat the Norw~gian system
O
was not regardedas contrary 50 international law.

But, although the 1935 Decree did indeed conform to this method
(one of the Bndings of the Court), the IJnited Kingdom contmds that
certain of tke base-line s-adopted by the Decree are wit hout justification
from the @nt of view of the criteria stated above: It is contended
that they do not respect the gener~ldirection of the coast and havs not
been drawn in a reasonable mmner.

Kaving examined the sectors thus criticised, th? Judment concludes
tht the lines dram are justified. In one case - that of Svaerholthavet-

what is involved is indeed a basb. having the characterof a bag although
it is divided into two luge fjrrds. In another case - that af
Lopphavet - the divergence between the base-line and the land formations
is not such that it is a distcrtion of the general direction of the
Norwegian coast; furthemore, the Norwugian Grverment has relied upon
an historic title clearly r~ferable to the waters of Lapphavet: the
exclusive privilege to fish and hunt whales granted in the 17th century
to a Norwegian subject, frcirn which it follcws that thsse waters Nere
! regarded as falling exclusively within Norwegian sovereignty, In a
the
-. third case - that of the Vestfjord - the differvnce is negligible:
settlement of such questions which are local in character and of
secondary importance, should be left to the coastal. State.

Fcr these rezsons, the Judgment concludes that the method ernployed
hy the Decree of 1935 is not contrary to international law; and that
the base-lines fixed by the D~cree are not contrary to international
law sither.

The Hague,Decernbsr l&h, 19%.