DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD McNAIK
In this case the Court has to decide whether certain arcas of
water off the coast of Norway are high seas or Norwegian waters,
either territorial or internal. If they are high seas, then foreign
fishermen are aiithorized to fish there. If theyare Norwegian waters,
then foreign fishermen have no right to fish there except with the
permission of Norway. 1 have every sympathy with the smaIl
inshore fisherman who feels that his livelihood is being threatcned
by more powerfully equipped competitors, especially when thosc
competitors are foreigners ;biit the issues raised in this case con-
Cern the line dividing Norwegian waters from the high seas, and
those are issues which can only be decided on a basis of law.
The preamblc and the executive parts of the Decree of 1935 are
ris'follows :
"On the basis of weU-establishednational titles of rig;t
by reason of the geographical conditions prevailing on the
Norwegiancoasts ;
in safeguard of the vital interests of the inhabitants of the
northernmost parts of the country;
and in accordance with the Royal Decreesof the zznd February,
1812, and 16th October, 1869, the 5th January, 1881, and the
9th September, 1889,
are hereby established lines of delimitation towards the high sea
of the Norwegian fisherieszone as regards that part of Norway
which is situated northward of66" 28.8' North latitude.
These lines of delimitation shall ru*parallel with straight base-
lines drawn hetween fixed points on the mainland, on islands or
rocks, starting from the final point of the boundary line of the
Kealm i~.the easternrnost part of Varangerfjorden andgoing as far
as Traenain the County of Nordland.
The fixed points between which the base-lines shdibe drawn are
indicated in detail in a schedule annexed to this Decree."
[Schedule]
Mr. Arntzen, the Norwegian Agent and Counsel, told the Court
(October 5th) that :
46159 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
"The Decree of 1935 is founded on the followingprinciples: the
Norwegiantemtorial zoneis four sea-milesin breadth. It ismeasured
from straight lines which conform to the general direction of the
coast and are drawn between the outermost islands, islets and reefs
in such a way as never to lose sight of the land."
Although the Decree of 1935 does not use the expression "terri-
torial sea" or "waters" or "zone", it cannot be denied that the
present dispute relates to the Norwegian territorial sea. The Judg-
ment of the Court is emphatic on this point. The same point emerges
clearly from the United Kingdom's Application instituting the pro-
ceedings and was insisted upon in the Norwegian written and oral
argument on numerous occasions. Thus, on October gth, the
Norwegian Counsel, Professor Bourquin, said :
" What is the subject of the dispute? It relates to the base-lines
-that is to say, to the lines from which the four miles of the Nor-
wegian territorial sea are to be reckon...."
And again, in his oral reply he said on October 25th :
"What [Norway] claims-apart from her historic title-is that
the limits imposed by international law with regard to tlie delimit-
ation of her maritime temtory have not been infringedby the 1935
Decree and that this Decree can therefore be set up as against the
United Kingdom without any necessity for any specialacquiescence
on the part of the United Kingdom."
One thing this dispute clearly is not. It is not a question of the
right of a maritime State to declare the existence of a contiguous
zone beyond its territorial waters, inwhich zone it proposes to take
measures for the conservation of stocks of fish. An illustration of
this is to be found in President Truman's "Proclamation with
respect to Coastal Fisheries in certain areas of the High Seas, dated
September 28th, 1945" (American Journal of Internatiomal Ldw,
Vol. 40, 1946,Official Documents, p. 46) ; it willsuffice to quote the
following statement :
"The character as high seas of the areas in which such conser-
vation zonesareestablishedand the right to their freeand unimpeded
navigation are in no way thus affected."
That is not this case, for here the question is whether certain
disputed areas of sea water are parts of the high seas or parts
of the territorial or intemal waters of the coastal State.
In the course of the proceedings in the case, the United Kingdom
has made certain admissions or concessions which can be summar-
ized as foliows :
(a) that for the purposes of this case Norway is entitled to a
four-mile limit ;
(b) that the waters of the fjords and sunds (including the
Varangerfjord and Vestfjord) which fa11within the conception of a
bay, are, subject to a minor point affecting the status of the
47100 I)lSSl<NTIKG OPINION 01; %II< ;\I<NOI.L31CN.4IH
Vestfjortl whicli .I do not propose to discuss, Norwegian intcriial
waters ; and
(c) that (as defined in the Coiiclusions of thc United Kingtlom)
the lying betwccn the island fringe and the mainland arc
Norwcgian waters, either territorial or internal.
The Parties are also in conflict upon anothcr minor point, nanicly,
the status of the waters in ccrtain portions of Indrelcia. about
which 1 do iiot propose to say anything.
1 shall ~iowsiiminarizc tlic rclcvant part of tlic law of territorial
waters as 1 undcrstand it :
(a) To every State whostxlaiid tcrritory is at any placc wnshcd
by the sca, international law attaches a corresponding portioii
of maritime territory consisting of what the law calls tcrritorial
waters (and in somccases national waters in addition). Intcrnatioiial
law does not Say to a State: "You arc entitled to claim territorial
waters ifyou want them." No maritime State can refuse them. Intcr-
national law imposes upon a maritimc State certain obligations aiid
confers 11ponit certain rights arising out of the sovereignty which
it exerciscs over its maritimc territory. The posscssion of this
tcrritory is not optional, not dependcnt upon the will of the State,
but compulsory.
(b) While the actual delimitation of thc frontiers of territorial
waters lies within the competence of cach State becausc cach
State knows its own coast best, yet the principles followed in carry--
ing out this delimitation are within the domain of law and not
within the discretion of each State. As the Supreme Court of the
United States said in 1946 in the United States v. State of Cali-
fornia, 332U.S. 19,35 :
"The threc-mile rule is but a recognition of thc neccssity tliata
governmcnt ncxt to the sea must he able to protect itsclf €romdan-
gcrs incident to its location. It must have powers of dominion and
rcplation in the interest of its rcveniies,its health, and the security
of its peoplc from wars waged on or too near its coasts. And in so
of value may be discoveredin the seas next toits shores and withinr
its protective belt, will most naturally be appropriated for its use.
But whatever any nation does in the open sea, which detracts from
its common usefulness to nations, or which another nation may
charge detracts from it, is a question for consideration among
nations as such, and not their separate govemmental units."
(Cited and re-affirmed in 1950 in UnitedStatesv. State of Texas,
339 U.S. 707, 718.) 161 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD hfCNAIR
(c) The method of delimiting territorial waters is an objective
one and, while the coastal State is free to make minor adjustments
in its maritime frontier when required in the interests of clarity
and its practical object, it is not authorized by the law to mani-
pulate its maritime frontier in order to give effect to its economic
and other social interests. There is an overwhelming consensus of
opinion amongst maritime States to the effect that the base-line
of territorial waters, whatevertheir extent may be, is a line which
follows the coast-line along low-water mark and not a series of
imaginary lines drawn by the coastal State for the purpose of giving
effect, even within reasonable limits, to its economic and other social
interests and to other subjective factors.
In 1894 Bonfils (Droit international public, $ 491) described
la mer juridictionnelle ou littorale, :s
"la bande de l'océanqui entoure et enceint les côtes du territoire
continental ou insulaire et sur laquelleEtat peut, du rivage que
baignent les eaux de cette mer, faire respecter sa puissance".
(d) The calculation of the extent of territorial waters from the
land is the normal and natural thing to do ;i'iscalculation from a
line drawn on the water is abnormal and requires justification,
for instance, by showing that the line drawn on the water is drawn
from the terminal line of interna1 waters in a closed bay or an
historic bay or a river mouth, which will be dealt with later. One
must not lose sight of the practical operation of the limit of terri-
torial,waters. It isrue that they exist for the benefit of the coastal
State and not for that of the foreign mariner approaching them.
Nevertheless, if he is to respect them, it is important that their
limit should be drawn in such a way that, once he knows how many
miles the coastal State claims, he should-whether he is a fisher-
man or the commander of a belligerent vesse1 in time of war-
be able to keep out of them by following ordinary maritime practice
in taking cross-bearings from points on the coast, whenever it is
visible, or in some other way. This practical aspect of the matter
is confirmed by the practice of Prize Courts in seeking to ascertain
whether a prize has been captured within neutral territorial waters
or on the high seas ; see, for instance, The Anne (1818) Prize
Cases in the United States Supreme Court, page 1012; The Heina
(1915)~Fauchille, Jurisprudence française en matière de prises, 1,
page 119; II, page 409, a Nonvegian ship captured by a French
cruiser in 1914 at a point four miles and five-sixths from an island
forming part of the Danish Antiiles ;and by decisions upon illegal
fishing within temtonal waters, e.g. Ship May v. Th King,
Canada Law Reports, Supreme Court, 1931, page 374, or upon
other illegal entry into temtorial waters, Th Shi+ "Queen City"
v. The King, ibzd., page387. 162 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
(e) Reference should also be made to the statement in the Report
on Territorial Waters approved by the League Codification Com-
mittee in 1927for transmission to governments for their comments,
particularly page 37 of League document C.I~~.M.~O.I~Z~.V.,
where, after refemng to what it calls the seaward limit of the
territorialsea, the Report continues :
"Mention should alsobe made of the line which limits the rights
ofdominion ofthe ripanan State onthe landward side.This question
ismuch simpler. The general practiceof the States, al1projects of
codification and the prevailing doctrinegree in considering that
this line should be low-watermark along the whole of thecoast."
(flIn 1928 and 1929 replies were sent by a number of govern-
ments to the questions put to them by the Committee of Five
which made the final preparations for the Hague Codification
Conference of 1930 (League of Nations, C.74.M.39.1gzg.V., pp. 35
et sqq.).
As 1 understand these replies-the language is not always
absolutely plain-seventeen govemments declared themselves in
favour of the view that the base-line of temtorial waters is a line
which follows the coast-line along low-water mark and against
the view that the base-line consists of a series of lines connecting
the outermost points of the mainland and islands. The following
Governments took the latter view : Nonvay, Sweden, Poland,
Soviet Russia and, probably, Latvia. (In this respect my analysis
corresponds closely to that of paragraph 298 of the Counter-
Memorial.)
It may be added that Poland had recovered sovereignty over
her maritime territory only eleven years before, after an interval
of more than a century, and that Latvia became a State only
in 1918.Al1the States parties to the North Sea Fishenes Convention
of 1882, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Bntain and
the Netherlands, as 1 understand their replies, accepted the de
of low-water mark following the iine of the coast ; so also did the
United States of America. Governments are not prone to under-
state their claims.
(g) It is aiso instructive to notice the Danish reply because
Denmark was, with Norway, the jbint âuthor of the Royal Decree
of 1812, on which the Norwegian Decree of 1935 purports to be
based, and Denmark told the League of Nations Committee that
the Decree of 1812 was stiü in force in Denmark. The Danish
reply states that :
"Paragra h 2 ofArticle3of the regdations introduced by Royal
Decree of fanuary ~gth, 1927, concerning the admission of war-
50 163 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
vessels belonging to foreign Powers to Danish ports and territorial
waters in time of peace, contains the following clause :
'Danish interna1 waters comprise, in addition to the ports,
cntrances of ports, roadsteads, bays and firths, the waters situated
between, and on the shoreward side of, islands, islets and reefs,
which are not permanently submerged.'
(Quotation from Decree of 1927 ends.)
"Along the coast the low-water mark is taken as a base in deter-
mining the breadth of the territorial waters. The distance between
the coast and the islands is not taken into account, so long as
it is less than double the width of the territorial zone."
(h) But although this rule of the limit following the coast line
along low-water mark applies both to straight coasts andto curved
and indented coasts, an exception exists in the case of those inden-
tations which possess such a configuration, both as to their depth
and as to the width between their headlands, as to constitute
landlocked waters, by whatever name they may be called. It is
usual and convenient to cal1them "bays", but what really matters
is not their label but their shape.
A recent recognition of the legal conception of bays is to be
found in the reply of the United States of America given in 1949
or 1950 to the International Law Commission, published by the
United Nations in Document A/CN.~/I~, page 104, of ~3rd March,
1950 :
"The United States has from the outset taken the position that
its territorial waters extend one marine league, or three geogra-
phical miles (nearly 34 English miles) from the shore, with the
exception of waters or bays that are so landlocked as to be unques-
tionably within the jurisdiction of the adjacent State."
(Then follow a large number of references illustrating this
statement.)
There are two kinds of bay in which the maritime belt is
measured from a closing line drawn across it between its headlands,
that is to Say, at the point where it ceases to have the configuration
of a bay. The first caregory consists of bays whose headlands are
so close that they can really be described as landiocked. According
to the strict letter and logic of the law, a closing line should connect
headlands whenever the distance between them is no more than
double the agreed or admitted width of temtorial waters, whatever
that may be in the particular case. In practice, a somewhat longer
distance between headlands has often been recognized as justifying
the closing of a bay. There are a number of treaties that have
adopted ten miles, in particular the Anglo-French Convention of
1839, and the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882, which was
signed and ratified by Gerniany, Belgium, Denmark, France,
Great Britain and the Netherlands. It cannot yet be said that a 1~4 DISSENTING OPIKION OF SIR ARNOLD SICNAIR
closing line of ten miles forms part of a rule of customary law,
though probably no reasonable objection could be taken to that
figure. At any rate Norway is not bound by such a rule. But the
fact that there is no agreement upon the figure does not mean
that no rule at al1 exists as to the closing line of curvatures pos-
sessing the character of a bay, and that a State can do what it
likes with its bays ; for the pnmary rule governing territorial
waters is that they form a belt or bande de mer following the line
of the coast throughout its extent, and if any State alleges that
this belt ought not to come inside a particular bay and follow its
configuration, then it is the duty of that State to show why that
bay forrns an exception to this general rule.
The other category of bay whose headlands may be joined for the
purpose of fencing off the waters on the landward side as interna1
waters is the historic bay, and to constitute an historic bay it
does not suffice merely to claim a bay as such, though such claims
are not uncommon. Evidence is required of a long and consistent
assertion of dominion over the bay and of the right to exclude
forcign vessels except on permission. The matter was considered
by the British Privy Council in the case of Conception Bay in
Newfoundland in Direct United States Cable Company v. Anglo-
American Telegraph Company (1877 ) Appeal Cases 394. The
evidence relied upon in that case as justifying the claim of an historic
bay is worth noting. There was a Convention of 1818 between the
United States of America and Great Britain which excluded Ameri-
can fishermen from Conception Bay, followed by a 8ritish Act of
Parliament of 1819, imposing penalties upon "any person" who
refused to depart from the bay when required by the British
Governor. The Privy Council said :
who"Iwere tparties to it, and consequently that, though a strongns
assertion of ownership on the part of Great Britain, acquiesced in
by so powerfula State as the United States, the Convention, though
weighty, is not decisive. But the Act already referred t...goes
further"..."No stronger assertion of exclusive dominion over these
bays couldwell beframed." [This Act] "is an unequivocal assertion
of the British legislature of exclusivedominion over this bay as part
of the British temtory. And as this assertion of dominion has not
'been questioned by any nation from 1819 down to 1872, when a
fresh Convention was made, this would be very strong in the tri-
bunal~ of any nation to show that this bay is by prescription part
of the exclusive temtory of Great Britai.." 165 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
Claims to fence off and appropriate areas of the high seas by
joining up headlandshave been made from time to time, but usually
in the case of particular pieces of water and not on the thorough-
going scale of the Decree of 1935. There is a considerable body of
legal authority condemning this practice. This theory-to the effect
that the coastal State is at liberty to draw a line connecting head-
lands on its coast and to claim the waters on the landward side of
that line as its own waters-has sometimes been referred to as the
"headland theory" or "la théorie" or "la doctrine des caps".
There are two decisions by an umpire called Bates in arbitrations
betivcen the United States of America and the United Kingdom
in 1853 or 1854 (Moore's international Arbitrations, Vol. 4, pp.
4342-5) :the IVashington,seized while fishing within a line connect-
ing the headlands of the Bay of Fundy, which is 65 to 75 miles wide
and 130 to 140 miles long and "has several bays on its coastç", and
the Argus, seized while fishing 28 miles from the nearest land and
within a line connecting two headlands on the north-east side of
the islanc! of Cape Breton; 1 do not know the distance between
them. In both cases, the seizures were condemned and compensation
was awarded to the owners of the vessels. In the Washington the
umpire said. .:
"It was urged on behalf of the British Government that by coasts,
l~ays,etc., is understood an imaginary line, drawn along the coast
from headland to headland, and that the jurisdiction of Her Majesty
extends three marine miles outside of this line ;thu$ closing al1the
bnys on the coast or shore, and that great body of water called the
Bay of Fundy against Americans and others, making the latter a
British bay. This doctrine of headlands is new, and has received a
proper lirnit in the Convention between France and Great Britain
of August 2nd, 1839,in which'it is agreed that the distance of three
miles fixed as the limit for the exclusive right of fishery upon the
coasts of the two countries shall, with respect to bays the mouths of
wliich do not exceed ten milesin width, be measured from a straight
line drawn from headland to headland'."
'Iiieri, in 1881, Mr. Evarts, American Secretary of State, sent a
despatch to the American representative in Spain which contained
the followingpassage (Moore's Digestof International Law, i, p. 719) :
"Whether the line nhich bounds seaward the three-mile zone
follows the indentations of the coast or extends from headland to
licadland is the question next to be discussed.
The headland theory, as it is called, has been uniformly rejected
bu OurGovemment, as will be seen from the opinions of the Secre-
taries above referred to. The foll~wingadditional authorities may
lx cited on this point:
In the opinion of the umpire of the London Commission of 18j3
:I think he refers to the U'ashington or the Argus], it was heldI66 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
that : It can not be asserted as a general rule, that nations have an
exclusive right of fishery over al1adjacent waters to a distance of
three marine miles beyond an imaginary line drawn from headland
to headland.'"
He concluded :
"We may therefore regard it as settled that, so far asconcems
the eastern coast of North Amenca, the position of this Depart-
ment has uniformly been that the sovereignty of the shore does not,
so far as territorial authority is concemed, extend beyond three
miles from low-water mark, and that the seaward boundary of this
zone of territorial waters followsthe coast of the mainland, extend-
belt. This necessanly excludes the position that the seaward boun-e
dary is to be drawn from headland to headland, and makes
it followclosely, at a distance of three miles, the boundary of the
shore of the continent or of adjacent islands belonging to the conti-
nental sovereign."
And "la théorie des caps" is condemned by Fauchille, Droit
international public, para.493(6) ,n the words: "Elle ne saurait
juridiquement prévaloir : elle est une atteinte manifeste à la liberté
des mers."
1 shall now examine the Decree of 1935 and direct attention
to the results produced by the "straight base-lines" which it lays
do.wn. It is difficult withouf the visual aid of large-scale charts
to convey a correct picture of the base-lines and the outer lines
of delimitation established by the Decree of1935 T.he area affected
begins at Træna on the north-west coast not far from the entrance
to Vestfjord and runs round North Cape down to the frontier with
Russia near Grense-Jacobselv, the total length of the outer line
being about 560 sea miles without counting fjords and other inden-
tations. There are 48 fixed points-often arbitrarilyselected-
between which the base-lines are drawn. Twelve of these base-points
are located on themainland or islands, 36 of them on rocks or reefs.
Some of the rocks are drying rocks and some permanently above
water. The length of the base-lines and the corresponding outer
lines varies greatly. At some places, where there are two or more
rocks at a turning point, the length of the base-lines may be only
a few cables. At other places the length is very great, for instance,
between 5 and 6 . . . . . 25 miles
7 8.... . 19 ,,
8,, g.... 25 ,,
II ,, 12 . . . . . 39 ,, DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
167
19 and 20 . . . . . 19.6 miles
20 ,, 21 . . . . 44 2,
21 ,, 22 . . . . . 18 ,,
1 have omitted the base-lines connecting base-points I and 2
and base-points 45 and 46, which are respectively 30 and 40 miles,
because they are the closing lines of Varangerfjord and Vestfjord,
and these fjords, like the others, have been conceded by the United
Kingdom to be Norwegian waters, subject to a minor controversy
as to the precise position of the closing line of the latter. 1 have
also omitted mention of al1base-lines less than 18 miles.
The base-line connecting base-points 20 and 21 (44 miles) rests
for a brief moment upon Vesterfall in Gasan (21),a drying rock eight
miles from the nearest island, and then continues, with an almost
imperceptible bend, in the same direction for a further 18 miles
to base-point 22, a drying rock ;thus between base-points 20 and
22 we get an almost completely straight line of 62 miles. Again,
the base-line which connects base-points 18 and 20, both above-
water rocks, runs absolutely straight for 46.1 miles.
In order to illustrate the distance between many parts on the
outer lines and the land, 1 shall take two sectors which 1 find
particularly difficult to reconcile with the ordinary conception of
the maritime belt-namely, that comprised by base-points II and
12 (39 miles apart), an area sometimes called Sværholthavet, and
that comprised by base-points 20 and 21 (44 miles apart), an area
sometimes called Lopphavet. In each case 1 propose to proceed
along the outer line and take, at intervals of 4 miles, measurements
in miles from the outer line to the nearest land on the mainland
or on an island :
Svarholthavet: Measurements to mainland or islands from the
outer line, at intervals of 4 miles proceeding from base-point II
to base-point 12 are as follows : 4 miles at base-point II, then
5Q,86, II, 13. 12 (or II from a lighthouse), II (or g from a
lighthouse), 8, 6, and nearly 5 ;
Lopphavet :Measurements to mainland or islands from the outer
line, at intervals of 4 miles proceeding from 20 to 21, are as follows :
4 miles at base-point 20, then 6, 83, 12, 16, 16, 18, 17, 144,
12i (or 8 from base-point 21, a drying rock), 12 (or 5 from base-
point 21).
Moreover, each of these two areas-Sværholthavet and Lopp-
havet-in no sense presents the configuration of a bay and com-
prises a large number of named and unnamed fjords and sunds
55168 DISSENTING OPIXION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
which have been admitted by the United Kingdom to be Norwegian
internal waters within their proper closing lines. In one part of
Lopphavet the outer line is distant more than 20 miles from the
closing line of a fjord. In the opinion of the Court (see p. 141)
Lopphavet "cannot ùe regarded as having the character of a bay" ;
and 1 may refer to an additional circumstance which militates
against the opinion that the *hole of this large areais Nonvegian
waters :that is, that according to the (BritishAdmiralty) Norway
Pilot, Part III, page 607, the approach to the port of Hammerfest
through Soroysundet, which runs out of Lopphavet towards Ham-
merfest, "is the shortest and, on the whole, the best entrance to
Hammerfest from westward, especially in bad weather" ; see The
Alleganean (Moore, International Arbitrations, iv, pp. 4332-4341,
"that it can not become the pathway from one nation to anothern-
as one of the conditions for holding Chesapeake Bay to be a
closed historic bay). Another questionable area is that comprised
by the lines connecting base-points 24 and 26, totalling 36 miles.
These three illustrations are among the extreme cases. A more
normal base-line is that which connects base-points 5 (a point on
the island of Reinoy) and 6 (Korsneset, a headiand on the main-
land) ; this base-line-25 miles in length-runs in front of Pers-
fjord, Syltefjord and Makkaufjord, al1of which have been admitted
by the United Kingdom to be Nonvegian internal waters, but the
line pays no attention to their closing lines ;at no place, however,
is the distance between the outer line and the land or closing line
of a fjord more than about six miles.
1 draw particular attention to the fact that many, if not most,
of the base-lines of the Decree of 1935fence off many areas of water
which contain fjords or bays, and pay little, if any, attention to
their closing lines;in the case of the Washington,referred to above,
the uinpire, in rejecting the claim to treat the Bay of Fundy as
a closed bay, twice drew attention to the fact that it comprised
other bays within itself :'lit has several bays on its coasts", and
again he refers to "the imaginary line ...thus closing al1the bays
on the shore".
The result of the lines drawn by the Decree is to produce a
collection of areas of water, of different shapes and sizes and dif-
ferent lengths and widths, which are far from forming a belt or
bande of territorial waters as commonly understood. 1 find it dif-
ficult to reconcile such a pattern of territorial waters with the
almost universal practice of defining territorial waters in terms of
miles-be they three or four or some other number. Why speak of
three miles or four miles if a State is at liberty to draw lines which
produce a maritime belt that is three or four miles wide at the
base-points and hardiy anywhere else ? Why speak of measunng
territorial waters from low-water mark when that occurs at 48
56 169 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
base-points and hardly anywhere else ? It is said that this pattern
is the inevitable consequence of the configuration of the Nonvegian
coast, but 1 shd show later that this is not so.
Norway has sought to justify the Decree of 1935 on a variety of
grounds, of which the principal are the following (A, B, C and D) :
(A) That a State has a right to delimit its territorial waters in
the manner required to protect its economic and other social inter-
ests. This is a novelty to me. It reveals one of the fundamentai
issues which divide the Parties, namely, the difference between the
subjective and the objective views of the delimitation of territorial
waters.
In my opinion the manipulation of the limits of territorial waters
for the purpose of protecting economic and other social interests
has no justification in law ; moreover, the approbation of such a
practice would have a dangerous tendency in that it would encourage
States to adopt a subjective appreciation of their rights instead of
conforming to a common international standard.
(B) That the pattern of territorial waters resulting from the
DeCree of 1935 is required by the exceptional character of the
Nonvegian coast.
Rluch has been said and written in presenting the Nonvegian
case for the delimitation made by the Decree of 1935 of the special
character of the Norwegian coast, the poverty and barrenness of
the land in northern Norway and the vital importance of fishing
tothe population, and so forth, and ofthe skerries and "skjærgaard" ,
urhich runs round the south, west and north coasts and ends at
North Cape.(Norwegian oral argument, 11th October). This plea
must be considered in some detail from the point of view both
of fact and of law. Norway has no monopoly of indentations or
even of skernes. A glance at an atlas will shew that, aithough
Sorway has a very long and heavily indented coast-line, there
are many countnes in the world possessing areas of heavily indented
coast-line. It is not necessary to go beyond the British Common-
wealth. The coast of Canada is heavily indented in aimost every
part. Nearly the whole of the west coast of Scotland and much
of the west coast of Northern Ireland is heavily indented and
bears much resemblance to the Nonvegian coast.
Skerry is a word of Norwegian origin which abounds in Scotland,
both as "skerry" and as "sgeir" (the Gaelic form). The New OxfordI70 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
Dictionary and any atlas of Scotland afford many illustrations.
From this dictionary 1 extract two quotations : Scoresby, Journal
of Whale Fishery (1823), page 373 : "The islands, or skemes,
which ....skirt the forbidding coast on the western side of the
Hebrides" ;W. McIlwraith, Guide to Wigtownshire (1875) (in the
south-west of Scotland), page 62 :"The rocks stretch seaward in
rugged ledges and skerries." The following passage occurs in the
Encyclopczdia Britannica (1947), Volume 20,sub-title "Scotland",
page 141 : "The Western Highland coast is intersected throughout
by long narrow sea-lochs or fiords. The mainland slopes steeply .
into the sea and is fronted by chains and groups of islands ...The
Scottish sea-lochs must be considered in connection with those
of western Ireland and Norway. The whole of this north-western
coast line of Europe bears witness to recent submergence."
As was demonstrated to the Court by means of charts, in response
to a suggestioncontained in paragraph 527 of the Counter-Memorial,
the north-west coast of Scotland is not only heavily indented but
it possesses, in addition, a modest "island fringe", the Outer
Hebndes, extending f~om the Butt of Lewis in a south-westerly
direction to Barra Head for a distance of nearly one hundred
miles, the southem tip being about thirty-five milesfrom the Skerry-
vore lighthouse. At present the British line of territorial waters
round this island fringe, inside and outside of it, follows the line
of the coast and the islands throughout without difficulty and
does not, except for the closing lines of lochs not exceeding ten
miles, involve straight base-lines joining the outermost points of
the islands. This is also true of the heavily indented and mountain-
ous mainland of the north-west coast of Scotland lying inside of
and opposite to the Outer Hebrides.
A further factor that must be borne in minci, in assessing the
relevance of the special character of the Norwegian coast, is that
not very much of that special character remains after the admiss-
ions (referred to above) made by the United Kingdom during the
course of the oral proceedings. The main peculiarity that remains
is the jagged outer edge of the island fringe or "skjærgaard". In
estimating the effect of the "skjærgaard" as a special factor, it must
also be remembered that, running north-west, it ends at North
Cape, which is near base-point 12.
Another special aspect of the Norwegian coast which has been
stressed in the Norwegian argument, and is mentioned in the
Judgment of the Court, is its mountainous character ;for instance,
Professor Bourquin said on October 5th :
"The shore involvedin the dispute is an abrupt coast towenng
high above the level.of the sea; that fact isof great importance
toOurcase. It is therefore a coast which can be seen from a long
mountainous coast, like this of Norway, verysoon. From this point
58 I7I DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
of view a coast like this of Norway cannot be compared witli a
flat coast such as that, for example, of the Netherlands."
The Norwegian argument also repeatedly insists that the base-
lines of the Decree of 1935 have been so drawn that the land is
visible from every point on the outer line. 1 am unable to see the
relevance of this point because 1 am aware of no principle or rule
of law which allows a wider belt of territorial waters to a country
possessing a mountainous coast, such as Norway, than it does to
one possessing a flat coast, such as the Netherlands.
In brief, for the following reasons, 1 am unable to reconcile
the Decree of 1935 with the conception of territorial waters as
recognized by international law-
(a) because the delimitation of territorial waters by the Decree
of 1935 is inspired, amongst other factors, by the policy of protect-
ing the economic and other social interests of the coastal State ;
(b) because, except at the precise 48 base-points, the limit of
four miles is measured not from land but from imaginary lines
drawn in the sea, which pay little, if any, attention to the closing
lines of lawfully enclosed indentations such as fjords, except
Varangerfjord and Vestfjord ;
(c) because the Decree of1935 ,o far from attempting to delimit
the belt or bande of maritime temtory attributed by international
law to every coastal State, comprises within its limits areas of
constantly varying distances from the outer line to the land and
bearing little resemblance to a belt obande ;
(d) because the Uecree of 1935 ignores the practical need
experienced from time to time of ascertaining, in the manner
customary amongst mariners, whether a foreign ship is or is not
within the limit of territorial waters.
(C) That the United Kingdom is precluded from objecting to
the Norwegian system embodied in the Decree of 1935 by previous
acquiescence in the system.
Supposing that so peculiar a system could, in any part of the
world and at any period of time, be recognized as a lawful system
of the delimitation of territorial waters, the question would anse
whether the United Kingdom had precluded herself from objecting
to it by acquiescing in it. An answer to that question involves
two questions :
When did the dispute anse ?
When, if at all, did the United Kingdom Govemment become
aware of this system, or when ought it to have become aware but 172 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
for its own neglect ; in English legal terminology, when did it
receive actual or constructive notice of the system?
When did the dispute anse? TRree dates require consider-
ation: 1906, 1908 and 1911. I do not think it greatly matters
whjch we take. As for 1906, Chapter IV of the Counter-Memorial
is entitled "History of the Dispute since 1906". The Storting Docu-
ment No. 1711927 (to be descnbed later) says (p. 122) that
"in 1905 English trawlers began to fish in the waters along
northern Norway and Russia", and the Counter-Memorial, para-
g~aph 91, states that "British trawlers made their first appearance
off thecoast of Eastern Finnmark towards 1906". Some apprehen-
sion occurred among the local population. A Law of June 2, 1906,
prohibiting foreigners from fishing in Norwegian temtorial waters,
was passed, and "since 1907, fishery protection vessels have been
stationed every year in the waters of Northern Norway" (ibidem,
paragraph 93).
As for 1908, Nonvegian Counsel told the Court (October 25) that
"as early as 1908 Norway organized its fishery patrol service on
the basis of the very lines which were subsequently fixed in the
1935 Decree". It is strange that these lines were not communicated
to the United Kingdom in 1908. According to Annex 56 of the
Counter-Memorial, a Report made by the General Chief of Staff of
the Nonvegian Navy,
"The instructions given to the naval fishery protection vessels
asearly as1906specifiedtwo forms of action to be taken in regard
to trawlers:warning and arrest.
The first warning,after the trawlers had begun to visit OurArctic
waters, was given in the summer of 1908 to the British trawler
Golden Sceptre."
As for 1911, on March 11th of that year, when the British trawler
Lord Roberts was arrested in Varangerfjord and the master was
fined for breach of theLaw of 2nd June, 1906,Notes were exchanged
between the British and Norwegian Govemments and the Nonveg-
ian Foreign Minister had an interview with SirEdward Grey, the
British Foreign Minister, in London. At that interview, the Norweg-
ian Minister, M. Irgens, "insisted on the desirability of England
not at that moment lodging a written protest" (ibidem,paragraph
98 a), but on the 11th July, 1911, the British Govemment sent a
protest to Norway (Counter-Mernorial, Annex 35,No. 1), in which
they maintained that they had "never recognized the Varanger and
the Vest fjords to be temtonal waters, nor have theyparticipated
in any international agreement for the purpose of confemng the
right of jurisdiction beyond the three-mile limit off any part'73 DISSESTIP\'G OPINION OF SIR AIiSOLD MCNAIR
of the Norwegian coasts". On October 13th, 1951, Mr. Arntzcn
said in the course of his oral argument :
"The Norwegian Government is liappy to sec the dispute which
has lasted so long submitted for the decision of the International
Court of Justice1think it may be relevant to recall that M.Irgens,
the Norwegian Foreign Minister, at the time of his discussions
[that is, in 191with Sir Edward Grey concerningthe Lord Roberts
incident in1911,was already spcaking of the possibility of arbitra-
tion as a solution to the dispute."
In later years many other trawiers were arrested, and the dispute
widened, but it was not until during the course of these proceedings
that the United Kingdom admitted that the waters of Varanger-
fjord urithin the line claimed by Norway were Norwegian waters.
Between the arrest of the Lord Roberts in 1911 and May 5th,
1949, sixty-three British and other fishing vessels were arrested for
fishing in alleged Norwegian waters, and many others were warned
(see Coiinter-Memorial, Annex 56).
1 must now examine the Decrees on which the Decree of
1935 purports to be based and some of which have been mentioned
as evidence that the United Kingdom had acquired or ought to
have acquired notice of the Norwegian system before the dispute
hegan.
(i) Tlte Royal Decree of February zznd, 1812. The Storting
Document No. 1711927tells us (pp. 506, 507) that after discussion
between the Admiralty and Foreign Office of the Kingdom of
Denmark-Norway, it was decided to request the King for a royal
resolution and the Chancellery defined the matter to be
"whether the temtorial sovereignty, or the point from which
the sovereign nght of protection is fixed, shall be measured from
the mainland or from the extremest skemes".
Thereupon the King of Denmark and of Norway made the
Decree, ofwhich a translation will be found on page 134 of the Judg-
ment of the Court. The Decree makes no mention of straight lines
between islands or islets, or of connecting headlands of the main-
land by any lines at all.
This is the first of the Decrees mentioned in the preamble as
the basis of the Decree of 1935, and it has been treated by the
Norwegian Agent and Counsel as the basis and the starting-point
of a series of Decrees made in the 19th century and of the Decree
6I of 19.35-a kirid of JIaglzu Carfa. Tht Judgme~it of the Court
attributes "carclinal im1)ortance" to it. It therefore deserves close
examination. For this purpose, 1 must refer again to Storting
Ilocurnent So. 17 'qrj, ~vhich is a Report made by one section
of the "Enlarged ( oninlittee on Foreign Affairs and Constitution
of the Xorwegian Storting" in April 1927, later translated into
English and then printed and published by Sijthoff in Leyden in
1937, under the title of The Extettt of Jurisdictio~z in CoastaL
R'aters, 1)~.Christophcr H. 1'.Meyer, Captain, Royal Norwegian
Navy.
On pages 492 ff., this document passes undcr review a large
number of 17th ancl 18th-century Decrees anci E'roclamations,
amongst othcrs that of June 9, 1691 (Annes 6, 1, to the Counter-
Memorial), and another of June 13, 1691 (Annex 6, II) uhich,
it uill be iioticcld, refcrs to the area between tht, Xaze in Norway
and the Jutland Reef. It then refers to the 1)ccree of 1812and
tells us that it \vas "not in reality intended to be more than a
regulation for the actual purpose : prize cases on the southern
coasts". Further, on page 507, we are told that the Royal Reso-
lution "was communicated ...to al1 the Governors in Denmark
and Noway whose jurisdictions border the sea, al1 the prize
courts in Denmark and Korway and the Royal Supreme Admiralty
Court". It was communicated "for information" with the additional
order : "yet nothing of this must be published in printing".
Page 507 contains the following footnote :
"( ) N.R.A. C'hanc.,drafts. As far as is known, the resolution
was printed for the first time in 1830 in Historisk underrctning
om landvaernet by J. Chr. Berg. Dr. Rzestad states that up to
that time it was little known and apparently no appeal was made
to it previously, either in Denmark or in Nonvay. '
Thcn follow several quotations from Dr. Ræstad's Kongens
iitromme, commenting on the, expression "in al1 cases", which
should be rroted because his interpretation of "in al1 cases" difiers
from that about to be quoted from this document, and because
Dr. Kzstad stated that, though the Decree of 1812 "was intended
for neutrality questions", "the one-league limit at that time was
thc actual limit-at any rate the actual minimum limit-also for
nthtlr purposes than for neutrality". We are then told (p. 509) that
"in tlie liglit of the most recent investigations it seems quite clear
that tlit tenn 'in al1 cases' only means 'in al1 prize cases'. The
Resolution of zrnd 1:ebruar , 1812, only completed the foregoing
neutrdity rescripts by decid;:ngthe question which war left open
in 1759 :whetlier the league should be measured from terlafirma
or from the appurtenant skemes, etc. The one-league limit of
1812 had, tiierefore,rio greater scope than the one-league limit
ti2I7.5 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
mentioned in the previous Royal Resolutions of the 18th century,
that is to Say,it applied only to neutrality questions, and waslaid
down only for the guidance of national authorities, not of foreign
Powers."
The relevance of these passages is that they shew :
(a) that the Decree of 1812 was little known for some 18years ;
(b) that it was intended for administrative purposes and not
for the guidance of foreign States ;
(c) that, in the opinion of some people, it only applied to
pnze cases and even then, according to this document, only
to prize cases on the southern coasts. On page 510 the Report
speaks of "the pnze case rule of zznd February, 1812".
Tt is clear that between 1869 and 1935 ''the prize case rule of
22nd February, 1812" was acquinng a wider connotation, as wve
shall now see.
Itdoes not matter whether the views expressed in the Storting
Document No. 171x927as to the meaning of the Royal Decree of
1812 are right or wrong. What is important from the point of view
of the alieged notonety of the Nonvegian system is that such views
asto the true import of the Decree of 1812 and its connection with
the Norwegian system could be held by responsible perçons in
Nonvay as late as the year 1927.
(ii) The Les Quatre Frères incident of 1868. This French fish-
ing boat was turned out of the Vestfjord by the Norwegian author-
ities. The French Government protested on the ground that the
Vestfjord was not part of Nonvegian territorial waters and "serves
as a passage for navigation towards the North". Correspondence
hetween the two Governments ensued, and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Nonvay and Sweden on November 7th' 1868, claimed
Vestfjord "as an interior sea", which appears to have closed the
incident.
(iii)A Royal Decreeof October16th, 1869 p,rovided
"That a straight line drawn at a distance of I geographical
league parallel to a straight line running from the islet of Stor-
holrnen to the island of Svinoy shall be consideredto be the limit
of the sea belt for the coast of the Bailiwickof Sunnmore, within
which the fishing shall be exclusivelyeserved to the inhabitants
of the country."
This, according to Professor Bourquin (October 6), was the first
application of the Decree of 1812 to fishing. The straight base-line
connecting the two islands above mentioned was 26 miles in length.
The Counter-Memorial contains in Annex 16 a Statement of
Reasons submitted by the Minister of the Interior to the Crown
ciated October ~st, 1869, about which a few very much compressed
63commcnts must be rnade. Firstly, it represcnts the cry of the small
man in the open boat against the big man in the decked boat. It
says that the area in question "has of recent years been invaded by
a growing number of dccked \.essels, both Suredish and Norwegian
cutters, from which fishing {vas practised with heavy lines", etc.
Apparently the Swedes began it in 1866and the Sortvegians followed
suit.Anothrr passage states that the local fishermen "bitterly com-
plained of the fact that intruders on the fishing grounds pre-
viously visited exclusivel~ by Norwegians were mainly foreigners-
Swedes". The fear was also expressed that fishing boats from other
countries, especially France, might soon appear on the fishing
banks. Accordingly, the llinister had been asked "to form an opin-
ion on the possibility of claiming them as Norwegian property".
(The reference to France was probably prornpted by the T7estfjord
incident of the previous year which would be fresh in the depart-
mental mind.)
The Statement of Keasons invokes the precedent of the Decree
of 1812. In addition, there is aletter of November rst, 1869 (Annex
No. 28 to the Counter-Memonal) from the Norwegian Minister of
the Interior to the Swedish Minister of Civil Affairs, informing
him of the Decree made on the 16th instant (? ultimo), and
it contains the passage : "it has been desired to bring this matter
to the notice of the Royal Ministry in order that the latter may
publish the information in those Swedish districts from which
the fishing fleets set out for the Norwegian coast". (There is no
evidence of any notification of the Decree to any other State.)The
penultimate sentence in this letter is as follows:
is reason to believe that the fishermen of many foreign countries
would visit them, with the result ofa diminution of the products
of the fishery for everybody."
The Decree was a public document. A large part of the Statement
of Reasons is quoted in the Norwegian Report of a Commission
on the Delimitation of Territorial Waters of 1912, but, so far as 1
am aware, the Statement of Reasons was not published at the time
of making the Decree.
The French Government-probably on the qui-vzve by reason
of the Vestfjord incident of the previous year-became aware
of the Decree of 1869 two months later and a diplomatic corre-
spondence between the two Governments ensued, in which the
French Government contended that "the limits for fishing between
[Svinoy and Storholmen]should have been a broken line following
the configuration of the coast which would have brought it nearer '77 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIH
that coast than the present limit". The last item in this corre-
spondence is a Note from the French Chargé d'Affairesat Stock-
holm to the Foreign Minister of Norway and Sweden, dated July 27,
1870, which referred to "the future consequences ...that might
follow from Ouradhesion to the principles laid down in the Decree",
and stated that "this danger ...could easily be avoided if it were
understood that the limit fixed by the Decree of October 16th
does not rest upon a principle of international law, but upon a
practical study of the configuration of the coasts and of the con-
ditions of the inhabitants", and offered to recognize the delimitation
de facto and to join in "a common survey of the coasts to be
entrusted to two competent naval officers". It would appear that
the French Government wished to protect itself against a de jure
recognition of principle. Meanwhile, on July 19, the Franco-
Prussian war had broken out, and there the matter has rested
ever since.
(iv) A Royal Decree of September gth, 1889, extended the lirnit
fixed by the Decree of 1869 northward.in front of the districts of
Romsdal and Nordmore by means of a series of four straight lines,
connecting islands, totailing about 57 miles, so that the two Decrees
of 1869 and 1889 established straight base-lines of a total length
of about 83 miles. The Decree of 1889 was also motivated by a
Statement of Reasons submitted by the Minister of the Interior
to the Crown, which was included in a publication called Departe-
ments-Tzdendeof March 9, 1890. This Statement of Reasons, which
also refers to the Decree of 1812, indicates the necessity of empower-
ing the Prefect responsible for Nordmore and Romsdal to make
regulations prohibiting fishing boats from lying atanchor at certain
points on the fishinggrounds during February and March. It makes
no reference to foreign vessels.
The question thus anses whether the two Decrees of 1869 and
1889, affecting a total length of maritime frontier of about 83 miles,
and connecting islands but not headlands of the mainland, ought
to have been regarded by foreign States when they became aware
of them, or ought but for default on their part to have become
aware, as notice that Norway had adopted a peculiar system of
delimiting her maritime temtory, which in course of time would
be described ashaving been from the outset of universal application
throughout the whole coast line amounting (without taking the
sinuosities of the fjords into account) to about 3,400 kilometres
(about I,830 sea-miles), or whether these Decrees could properly
be regarded as regulating a purely local, and primarily domestic,
situation. 1 do not see how these two Decrees can be said to have
notified to the United Kingdom the existence of a system of
straight base-lines applicable to the whole coast. In the course ofthe
oral argument, Counsel for the United Kingdom admitted that178 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
the United Kingdom acquiesced in the lines laid down by these
Decrees as lines applicable to the areas which they cover.
(v) A Decres of January 5th, 1881, prohibited whaling during
the first five months of each calendar year
"along the coasts of Finnmark, at a maximum distance of one
geographical leaguefrom the coast, calculating this distance from
the outermost island or islet, which not covered b the sea. As
regards the Varangerfjord, the limit out to sea Xfe prohibited
belt is a straight line;awn from Cape Kibergnes to the River
Grense-Jakobselv. It must thereby be understood, however,that
the killing orhunting of whalesring the above-mentionedperiod
will also be prohibited beyond that line at distances of less than
one geographical league fromthe coast near Kibergnes."
Thus, while expressly fixing a straight base-line across the mouth
of the Varangerfjord (which is no longer in dispute in this case),
the Decree makes no suggestion and gives no inàication that it
instituted a system of straight base-lines from the outermost points
on the mainland and islands and rocks at any other part "along
the coasts of Finnmark". 1 find it difficult to see how this Decree
can be said to have given notice of a Norwegian system of straight
base-lines from Træna in the west to the Russian frontier in the
east.
(vi).The 1881 Hague Conferenceregarding Fisheriesin theNorth
Sea resultingi/t the Conventionof 1882. The Judgment of the Court
refers to this incident and draws certain conclusions from it. This
Conference was summoned upon the initiative of Great Britain
with a view to the signature of a Convention as to policing the
fisheries in the NorthSea. The following States were represented:
Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Sweden,
Norway, the delegate of the last-named being M. E. Bretteville,
Naval Lieutenant and Chief Inspector of Herring Fishery. The
intention was that the Convention should operate on the high
seas and not in temtorial waters, and consequently it was necessary
to define the extent of the temtorial waters within the area affected.
The procès-verbaux of the meetings are to be found in a British
White Paper C. 3238, published in 1882.
The northern limit of the operation of the Convention was fixed
by Article 4 at the parallel of the 61st degree of latitude, which
is south of the area in dispute in this case.
At the second session of the Conference, the question of Tem-
tonal Waters was discussed, and the following statement appears
in the procès-verbaux :
66 "The Norwegian delegate, M. E. Brethille, could not accept the
proposal to fix territorial limits at 3 miles, particularly with respect
to bays. He was also of opinion that the international police ought
not to prejudice the rights which particular Powers might have
acquired, and that bays should continue to belong to the State
to which they at present belong."
Strictly speaking, there was no need for the Norwegian delegate
to refer to the Decree of 1869 because the Convention deals with
the area south of the parallel of the 6rst degree of latitude, but
if a system of straight base-lines had already been adopted by
Norway in 1881 as being of general application al1round the coast,
it is surprising that he made no reference to it at a Conference
at which al1 the States primarily interested in fishing in the North
Sea were represented, and as a result of which all, except Norway
and Sweden, accepted the provisions of Article II of the Con-
vention, of which the following is an extract :
"Article II
The fishermen of each country shall enjoy the exclusive right
of fishery within the distance 3miles from low-water mark along
the whole extent of the coasts of their respective countries, as well
as of the dependent islands and banks.
As regards bays, the distance of3.milesshall be measured from
a straight line drawn across the bay, in the part nearest the
entrance, at the first point where the width does not exceed
IO miles."
The Convention was eventually signed and ratified by al1 the
States represented except Norway and Sweden.
This incident, to which 1 attach particular importance, induces
me to put two questions :
(a) If a Norwegian system of delimiting territorial waters by
means of straight base-lines had been in existence since 1869 (only
12 years earlier), could the Norwegian delegate, the Chief Inspector
of Herring Fishery, have found a more suitable opportunity of
disclosing its existencehan a Conference of Governments interested
in fishing in the North Sea ? In fact, could he have failed to do so
if the system existed, for it would have afforded a conclusive reason
for inability to participate in the Convention of 1882 ?
(b) Could any of the Governments which ratified this Conven-
tion, knowing that Norway claimed four miles as the width of
temtorial waters and claimed her fjords as interna1 waters, be
affected by the abstention of Norway with notice of the existence
of a sj-c!clmwhich one day in the future would disclose long straight
67 180 DISSENTISG OPIXION OF SIR ARNOLD SIC‘I‘.~IR
base-lines drawn dong a stretch of coast line about 560 miles in
length (without counting fjords and other indentations), and which
1s applicable to the whole coast ?
Paragraph 96 of the Counter-Memorial, in discussing the events
of the year 1908, states that
"it may be asked why Norway did not from thebeginninguse force
on al1 her temtorial waters to apply the existing lawsrelating to
foreign fishermen" ..."In this respect it must beremembered that
Norway had but recently acquired a separate diplomatic service,
following the dissolution of the union with Sweden in 1905."
It is possible that this fact may explain the absence of any cate-
goncal assertion of the Xorwegian system of straight base-lines as
a system of universal application along the Norwegian coasts and
the notification of that system to foreign States. But even if this
is the explanation, it is difficult to see why it should constitute a
reason why foreign States should be affected by notice of this system
and precluded from protesting against it when it is enforced against
them.
In these circumstances, 1 do not consider that the United
Kingdom was aware, or ought but for default on her part to have
become aware, of the existence of a Norwegian system of long
straight base-lines connecting outermost points, before this dispute
began in 1906 or 1908 or 1911.
1 must refer very briefly to certain incidents occurring after
the dispute began, though they have no bearing on the question of
acquiescence. Some of them are dealt with in the Judgment of
the Court or in other Individual Opinions.
In 1911, the Norwegian Govemment appointed a "Commission
for the Limits of Temtorial Waters in Finnmark", which reported
on February zgth, 1912. A copy of Part 1,General, was translated
into French and sent "unofficialiy" to the United Kingdom
Govemment .
The following passage occurs on page 20 of this Part 1 :
"En générald ,ans lescas particuliers, on prendra le plus sûrement
une décision enconformité avec la vieille notion juridique nor-
végienne, si l'on considkre la ligne fondamentale comme étant
68 tiréeentre lespoints lesplusextrêmedont ilpourrait êtrequestion,
nonobstant la longueur de la ligne."
This is clearly the language of a l>roposal. The tenses of the
verbç should be noted.
On the same day, "the commis si or^prvscritcd Report So. 2
'Special and Confidential Part', containing proposals for tht:
definite fixing of base-lines around Finnmark" (Counter-Memorial,
paragraph 104). In 1913 a confidential Keport was made upon
the proposed base-lines on the coasts of the two other provinces
concerned, Nordland and Troms (ibidem, paragraph 105). It
appears (ibidem)that the base-points proposed in these confidential
Reports are those ultimately adopted by the Decree of 1935 ;
the confidential Reports were not disclosed until 1950 when they
appeared as Annexes 36 and 37 of the Counter-Memorial.
The Judgment of the Court refers to the Judgment of the
Supreme Court of Norway in the St. Just case in 1934, in M-hich
that British vessel was condemned for fishing in temtorial waters
under the Law of 1906. It is clearly a decision of high authority.
From 1934 onwards, it is conclusive in Norway as to the rneaning
of the Decree of 1812 and as to its effect, whether or not it has
been specificaily applied to portions of thecoast by later Decrees.
But this Court, while bound by the interpretation given in the
St. Jzrst decision of Norwegian interna! law, is in no way precluded
from examining the international implications of that law. It is
a weU-established rule that a State can never plead a provision
of, or lack of a provision in, its internal law or an act or omission
of its executive power as a defence to a charge that it has violated
international law. This was decided as long ago as in the Geneva
Arbitration of 1870-1871 on the subject of the Alabama Claims,
when the British Government pleaded that it had exercised ail
the powers possessed by it under its existing legislation for the
purpose of preventing the Alabama from leaving a British port
and cruising against Federal American shipping, an omission
which cost Great Britain a large sum of money.
The Si. Just decision is important in the sense that, after the
decision, the existence of a Norwegian system of straight base-
lines cannot be denied either within Norway or on the inter-
national plane. Only eight years earlier there had occurred the
Deutschland case (a case of an attempt by a German vessel to
sell contraband spirits) (Annex 9 to the Memorial and Annex 47
to the Counter-Memorial and Annex 31 to the Reply), in which
69182 DISSEISTIXG OPII~IO~ OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
thr Norwegian Supreme Court, b? d majority of 5 to I,quashed
a conviction by an inferior Court which had been upheld by the
Court of Appeal. In the Dezrtschlund case, which has now been
overruled by the St. Just, it was possible for so distinguished a
Norwegian jurist as the latz Dr. Rlestad (much quoted by both
Parties in this case) to say in the Opinion supplied by him at
the request of the Public Prosecutor that :
"The question arises, however, whether in the present case the
islets and isolated reefs, or-as the Court of First Instance has,
done-£rom imaginary base-lines drawn between two islands,
islets or reefs and, if necessary, how these base-lines are to bc
drawn. A distinction must be made here. On the one hand, the
problem arises whether according to international law a State is
entitled to declare that certain parts of the adjoining sea fa11
under its sovereignty in certain-or all-respects. On the other
hand, the question may anse whether a State under international
law, or by virtue of its own laws, is entitled to consider that its
national legislation in the détermined case extends to these sarne
parts of the adjoining sea when it has not yet been established
that its sovereignty extends that far. A State rnay have a certain
competence without having made use of it."
and later
"Neither the letters patent [that is: in effect, the Decree of 18121
nor, if they exist, the supplementary rules of customary law, pres-
cnbe how and between what islands, islets or rocks the base-lines
. should be drawn ...."
It does not greatly matter whether Dr. Ræstad's views are right.
or wrong. What is important, from the point of view of the noto-
riety of the Norwegian system of straight base-lines, is that, in
the year 1926,a lawyer of his standing and possessing his knowledge
of the law governing Norwegian territorial waters shodd envisage
the possible alternative methods of drawing base-lines, for the
Norwegian contention is that the United Kingdom must for a long
time past have been aware of the Norwegian system of straight
base-lines connecting the outermost points on mainland, islands
and rocks, and had acquiesced in it.
The following paçsage occurs in the Deutschland case in the
Judgment of Judge Bonnevie, who delivered the first judgment
as a member of the majority :
"It is ah a matter of common knowledge that the public autho-
as for example the Vestfjord and the Varangerfjord, as being Nonve-
gian temtorial waters in their entirety, and that the territorial
limitsshould be drawn on the bais of straight lines at the mouth of
the fjord(sic),regardless of the fact that very great areas outside
the four-mile limit are thus included in Norwegian territory. But,183 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
for the .greaterpart of the extensive coast of the country, no docu-
provisions, except for the coast off the county of More, for which
reference is madeto the two royal decreesof 1869and 1889referred
to above."
Between 1908 and the publication of the Decree of 1935, the
United Kingdom repeatedly asked the Norwegian Govemment to
supply them with information as to their fishery limits in northern
Norway ;see the Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Storting dated June 24th, 1935 (Memorial,Annex 15), which states
that "The British Govemment have repeatedly requested that
the exact limit of this part of the coast should be fixed so that
it might be communicated to the trawler organizations." The
Norwegian reply to these requests has been that the matter was
still under consideration by a Commission or in some other way,
e.g., in the letter of August th, 1931, from the Nomegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "the position is that the Stortinghave
not yet taken up a standpoint with regard to the final marking of
these lines in al1details".
The impression that 1 have formed is that what in the argument
of this case has been cailed "the Nonvegian system" was in gesta-
tion from 1911 onwards, that the St. Just decision of 1934 (over-
ruling the Deutschlanddecision) marks its first public enunciation
as a system applicable to the whole coast, and that the Decree
of 1935 is its first concrete application by the Government upon
a large scale.1 find it impossible to believe that it was in existence
as a system at the time of theDeutschlanddecision of 1926.
(D) Another ground upon which Nomegian counsel have sought
to justify the Decree of 1935 is that in any case the waters com-
prised within the outer lines fixed by that Decree lie weil within
the ancient fishing grounds of Norway to which she acquired a
histonc title a long time ago.
1 think it is true that waters which would otherwise have the
status of high seas can be acquired by a Stateby means of histonc
title, at any rate if contiguous to territorial or national waters ;
see Lord Stoweil in The Twee Gebroeders(I~oI), 3 Christopher
Robinson's Admiralty Report 336,339. But, as he said in that case :
"Strictly speaking, the nature of the claim brought forward on
a claim of private and exclusive property, on a subject where a is
711~4 DISSEKTING OPIXION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
general, or at least a commnnuse is to be presumed. It is a claim
which can onlv anse on portions of the sea, or on rivers flowing
non-shot, universal use is presumed..Portions of the sea are pres-
cribed fo....But the general presumptioncertainly bears strongly
against such exclusive rights, and the title is a matter to be
established, on the part ofhose claiming under it, in the same
manner as al1other legaldemandsare to be substantiated, by clear
and competent evidence."
Another rule of Iaw that appears to me to be relevant to the
question of historic titleis that some proof is usually required of
the exercise of State jurisdiction, and that the independent activity
of pnvate individuals is of little value unless it can be shown that
they have acted in pursuance of a licence or some other authority
received from their Governments or that in some other way their
Governments have asserted jurisdiction through them.
When the documents that have been submitted in this case in
support of historic title are examined, it appears to me that, with
one exception which 1shall mention, they are marked by a lack of
precision as to the waters which were the subject of fishing. We
get expressions such as "near Our fortress of Varshus", "off the
coasts of Finnmark", "the waters off the coast of this country",
"near the land", "fish quite close to the coast", "unlawful fishing
which they have been practising in certain localities", "the waters
of Finnmark", "fjords or their adjacent waters", "whaling in the
waters which wash the coast of Norway and its provinces, in partic-
ular Iceland and the Faroe Islands", etc., etc.
The exception is the case of the licences granted to Eric Lorch
in theseventeenth century (seeAnnex 101 to Norwegian Rejoinder).
In 1688 he received a licence to fish in, amongst other places, "the
waters ...of the sunken rock of Gjesbaen" ;in 1692 he received a
licence to hunt whales ; in 1698 he received another licecce to hunt
whales, which mentions, among other places, "the waters ...of the
sunken rock of Gjesbaen". The 1st two licences state that it is
forbidden to "al strangers and unlicensed persons to take whales
in or without the fjords or their adjacent waters, within ten leagues
from the land".
1 do not know precisely where the rockcalied Gjesbæn or Gjes-
bæne is situated, beyond the statement in paragraph 36 of the
Counter-Mernorial that it is "near the word Alangstaran", which is
marked on the Norwegian Chart 6 (Annex 75 to the Rejoinder) as
being outsidethe outer Norwegian line of the Decree of 1935. On
the same chart of the region known as Lopphavet there appear to be
two fishing-banks called "Ytre Gjesboene" and, south of it, "Indre
Gjesboene", the former being outside the outer line of the Decree
of 1935 and the latter between the outer line and the base-line of
that Decree. What the dimensions of the fishing-banks are is not
72185 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
clear. The length of the base-line (from point20 to 21)which runs
in front of Lopphavet is 44 miles, so that even if the licences formed
sufficient evidence to prove a historic title to a fishing-bank off
"the sunken rock of Gjesbaen", they could not affect so extensive
an area as Lopphavet. The three licences cover a period of ten
years and there is no evidence as to the duration of the fishery or
its subsequent history.
In these circumstances 1 consider that the delimitation of terri-
tonal waters made by the Norwegian Decree of 1935 is in conflict
with international law, and that its effect wiii be to injure the
principle of the freedom of the seas and to encourage further
encroachments upon the high seas by coastal States. 1 regret
therefore that 1 am unable to concur in the Judgment of the Court.
(Signed) ARNOLDD. MCNAIR.
DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD McNAIK
In this case the Court has to decide whether certain arcas of
water off the coast of Norway are high seas or Norwegian waters,
either territorial or internal. If they are high seas, then foreign
fishermen are aiithorized to fish there. If theyare Norwegian waters,
then foreign fishermen have no right to fish there except with the
permission of Norway. 1 have every sympathy with the smaIl
inshore fisherman who feels that his livelihood is being threatcned
by more powerfully equipped competitors, especially when thosc
competitors are foreigners ;biit the issues raised in this case con-
Cern the line dividing Norwegian waters from the high seas, and
those are issues which can only be decided on a basis of law.
The preamblc and the executive parts of the Decree of 1935 are
ris'follows :
"On the basis of weU-establishednational titles of rig;t
by reason of the geographical conditions prevailing on the
Norwegiancoasts ;
in safeguard of the vital interests of the inhabitants of the
northernmost parts of the country;
and in accordance with the Royal Decreesof the zznd February,
1812, and 16th October, 1869, the 5th January, 1881, and the
9th September, 1889,
are hereby established lines of delimitation towards the high sea
of the Norwegian fisherieszone as regards that part of Norway
which is situated northward of66" 28.8' North latitude.
These lines of delimitation shall ru*parallel with straight base-
lines drawn hetween fixed points on the mainland, on islands or
rocks, starting from the final point of the boundary line of the
Kealm i~.the easternrnost part of Varangerfjorden andgoing as far
as Traenain the County of Nordland.
The fixed points between which the base-lines shdibe drawn are
indicated in detail in a schedule annexed to this Decree."
[Schedule]
Mr. Arntzen, the Norwegian Agent and Counsel, told the Court
(October 5th) that :
46 OIIINION 1)ISSII)ENTE I>E SIK AKNOI-1)McNAIK
1)aris cette affaire, la Coiir est aplwli.e h clccitlcr si certaiiis
clsl);ic(d'eau, au large de la côte de NorvCgc, font partie de la
haiite mer ou des eaux norvfgieiines, soit territoriales, soit iiit6-
ricurcs. S'ils font partie de la haute mer, les pechcurs Ctrarigers
ont le droit d'y pratiquer la peche. Si cc sont des eaux norv6gicniics,
1t.sp'chcurs Ctrangcrs n'ont pas le droit d'y pêcher,sauf avec la
1)crmission de la Norvège. J'Cprouve, pour ma part, la plus graritlc
sympathie pour l'humble pêcheur de la côte qui sent ses moyciis
tl'cçistcncc menac6s par des concurrents plus puissamment Cqiiil)Cs,
et ~)articulièrement quand ces concurrents sont des ïtrangers.
Mais Ics problèmes sou1evi.s dans cette affaire se rapportent rila
ligne de démarcation entre les eaux norvégiennes et la haute
mer, ct ce sont là des questions qui ne sauraient être tranchces
qu'en droit.
Lc l)rCamI>uleet le texte du dbcret de 1935 sont rCtlib'res coirinit:
suit :
«Sur la base de titres nationaux bien établis ;
vu les conditions géographiques qui prédominentsur lcs côtcs
norvi.giennes;
afin de protegcr Ics intérêtsvitaux des habitants des rfgions
situfes dans les parties les plus septentrionales du pays ;
et 'conformémentaux décrets royaux du 22 février 1812, du
16octobrc 1869, du 5 janvier 1881et du 9 septembre 1889,
sont determinéesci-aprhs les lignes de dblimitation vers la Iiaiitc
mer (Icla zone de pêclienorvégienne, pour lapartie dc la NorvCgc
qui est située au nordde 66" 28,8d 'e latitude nord.
Ceslignesde délimitation suivrontparall&lementdes lignesdroites
de base, tiréesentre des points fixes situéssur la terre ferme, sur
des îlesou des rochers,à partir du dernier point de la ligne frontière
du lioyaume, dans la partie situéele plus à l'est du fjord de Va-
ranger et allant aussi loin que Trana dans le comte de Nordland.
Les points fixes entre lesquels seront tirées les lignes de ba5c
sont indiquésen détaildans un tableau joint en annexe au prEscnt
décret. n
[Tableau]
Le 5 octobre, M. Arntzen, agent et avocat du Gouvernement
norvégien, a dit :
46159 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
"The Decree of 1935 is founded on the followingprinciples: the
Norwegiantemtorial zoneis four sea-milesin breadth. It ismeasured
from straight lines which conform to the general direction of the
coast and are drawn between the outermost islands, islets and reefs
in such a way as never to lose sight of the land."
Although the Decree of 1935 does not use the expression "terri-
torial sea" or "waters" or "zone", it cannot be denied that the
present dispute relates to the Norwegian territorial sea. The Judg-
ment of the Court is emphatic on this point. The same point emerges
clearly from the United Kingdom's Application instituting the pro-
ceedings and was insisted upon in the Norwegian written and oral
argument on numerous occasions. Thus, on October gth, the
Norwegian Counsel, Professor Bourquin, said :
" What is the subject of the dispute? It relates to the base-lines
-that is to say, to the lines from which the four miles of the Nor-
wegian territorial sea are to be reckon...."
And again, in his oral reply he said on October 25th :
"What [Norway] claims-apart from her historic title-is that
the limits imposed by international law with regard to tlie delimit-
ation of her maritime temtory have not been infringedby the 1935
Decree and that this Decree can therefore be set up as against the
United Kingdom without any necessity for any specialacquiescence
on the part of the United Kingdom."
One thing this dispute clearly is not. It is not a question of the
right of a maritime State to declare the existence of a contiguous
zone beyond its territorial waters, inwhich zone it proposes to take
measures for the conservation of stocks of fish. An illustration of
this is to be found in President Truman's "Proclamation with
respect to Coastal Fisheries in certain areas of the High Seas, dated
September 28th, 1945" (American Journal of Internatiomal Ldw,
Vol. 40, 1946,Official Documents, p. 46) ; it willsuffice to quote the
following statement :
"The character as high seas of the areas in which such conser-
vation zonesareestablishedand the right to their freeand unimpeded
navigation are in no way thus affected."
That is not this case, for here the question is whether certain
disputed areas of sea water are parts of the high seas or parts
of the territorial or intemal waters of the coastal State.
In the course of the proceedings in the case, the United Kingdom
has made certain admissions or concessions which can be summar-
ized as foliows :
(a) that for the purposes of this case Norway is entitled to a
four-mile limit ;
(b) that the waters of the fjords and sunds (including the
Varangerfjord and Vestfjord) which fa11within the conception of a
bay, are, subject to a minor point affecting the status of the
47 OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR I59
(cLe décretde 1935se fonde sur les principes que voici : la zone
territoriale norvégiennea une largeur de 4 milles marins. Elle est
comptée à partir de lignes de base droites suivant la direction
généralede la côte et tiréesentre les îles, îlots et écueilsles plus
avancés, sans qu'on perdela terre de vue. »
Bien que le décret de 1935 ne se serve pas des expressions ((mer
territoriale »,(eaux ))ou (zone »,on ne saurait nier que le différend
actuel se rapporte à la mer territoriale norvégienne. L'arrêt de la
Cour insiste sur ce point, qui ressort clairement de la requête intro-
ductive d'instance du Royaume-Uni, et sur lequel l'argumentation
écriteet orale de la Norvège est revenue à plusieurs reprises. Ainsi,
le professeur Bourquin, avocat de la Norvège, a dit le 9 octobre :
« Sur quoi porte le différend ? Il porte sur les lignes de base,
c'est-à-dire sur les ligneà partir desquelles les 4 milles de la mer
territoriale norvégiennesont comptés. »
Dans sa duplique orale, il a dit également, le 25 octobre :
((Ce que [la Norvège]soutient - abstraction faite bien entendu
de sestitres historiques -, c'est queleslimites qui lui sont imposées
par le droit international concernant son territoire maritime n'ont
pas étéenfreintes par le décretde 1935,et que, par conséquent,ses
limites sont opposablesau Royaume-Uni, sansqu'un acquiescement
spécialde ce dernier soit aucunement nécessaire. »
En tout cas, il est clair que, dans le présent litige, il ne s'agit
pas du droit pour un État maritime de proclamer l'existence d'une
zone contiguë, au delà de ses eaux territoriales, dans laquelle il se
propose de prendre des mesures pour la protection des réserves
de poisson. On en trouve un exemple dans la ccproclamation
concernant les pêcheries côtières dans certaines zones de la haute
mer N,du président Truman, en date du 28 septembre 1945 (Ame-
rican Journal of International Law, volume 40, 1946, Documents
officiels, p. 46).l suffit d'en citer le passage suivant :
« Le caractère de régionsde haute mer des lieux dans lesquels
ces zones de conservation seront crééeset le droit de naviguer
librement et sansentravesdans cesrégions,ne sont en rien touchés. »
Tel n'est pas le cas qui nous occupe, car il s'agit ici de savoir si
certaines zones contestées de la mer font partie de la haute mer
ou des eaux territonales ou intérieures de l'État riverain.
Au cours de la procédure, le Royaume-Uni, à mon sens, a reconnu
certains faits et consenti certaines concessions, qu'on peut résumer
comme suit :
a) pour les besoins de la présente cause, la Norvège a le droit de
réclamer une limite de 4 milles ;
b) les eaux des fjords et sunds (y compris le Varangerfjord et le
Vestfjord) qui rentrent dans la notion de baies sont des eaux
intérieures norvégiennes, sous réserve d'une question de détail se
47100 I)lSSl<NTIKG OPINION 01; %II< ;\I<NOI.L31CN.4IH
Vestfjortl whicli .I do not propose to discuss, Norwegian intcriial
waters ; and
(c) that (as defined in the Coiiclusions of thc United Kingtlom)
the lying betwccn the island fringe and the mainland arc
Norwcgian waters, either territorial or internal.
The Parties are also in conflict upon anothcr minor point, nanicly,
the status of the waters in ccrtain portions of Indrelcia. about
which 1 do iiot propose to say anything.
1 shall ~iowsiiminarizc tlic rclcvant part of tlic law of territorial
waters as 1 undcrstand it :
(a) To every State whostxlaiid tcrritory is at any placc wnshcd
by the sca, international law attaches a corresponding portioii
of maritime territory consisting of what the law calls tcrritorial
waters (and in somccases national waters in addition). Intcrnatioiial
law does not Say to a State: "You arc entitled to claim territorial
waters ifyou want them." No maritime State can refuse them. Intcr-
national law imposes upon a maritimc State certain obligations aiid
confers 11ponit certain rights arising out of the sovereignty which
it exerciscs over its maritimc territory. The posscssion of this
tcrritory is not optional, not dependcnt upon the will of the State,
but compulsory.
(b) While the actual delimitation of thc frontiers of territorial
waters lies within the competence of cach State becausc cach
State knows its own coast best, yet the principles followed in carry--
ing out this delimitation are within the domain of law and not
within the discretion of each State. As the Supreme Court of the
United States said in 1946 in the United States v. State of Cali-
fornia, 332U.S. 19,35 :
"The threc-mile rule is but a recognition of thc neccssity tliata
governmcnt ncxt to the sea must he able to protect itsclf €romdan-
gcrs incident to its location. It must have powers of dominion and
rcplation in the interest of its rcveniies,its health, and the security
of its peoplc from wars waged on or too near its coasts. And in so
of value may be discoveredin the seas next toits shores and withinr
its protective belt, will most naturally be appropriated for its use.
But whatever any nation does in the open sea, which detracts from
its common usefulness to nations, or which another nation may
charge detracts from it, is a question for consideration among
nations as such, and not their separate govemmental units."
(Cited and re-affirmed in 1950 in UnitedStatesv. State of Texas,
339 U.S. 707, 718.) OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 160
rapportant au statut du Vestfjord que je n'ai pas l'intention de
discuter; et enfin:
c) (suivant la dbfinition qui en est donnée dans les conclusioris
du Koyaurne-Uni) les eaux à l'intérieur de la frange des îles et du
continent sont des eaux norvégiennes, territoriales ou intérieures.
Les Parties sont également diviséessur un autre point secondaire,
àsavoir le statut des eaux dans certaines partiesde llIndrelcia. Je
n'aipas l'intention d'en parler.
.Tcrnc proposc maintenant de r6stimcr les ri.glcs dc droit appli-
crtblcs aux caux territoriales, telles que je les compren:s
n) Le droit internationalreconnaît à chaque État dont le tcrri-
toirc est, en un point r~uclconque, baigné par la mer, une partie
corrcsl)ondante de territoire maritime, qui consiste en ce que le
droit appelle les eaux territoriales (et, en outre, dans certainss,
les caux nationales). Le droit international ne dit pas qu'un Etat
ait le d~oit de revendiquer des eaux territoriales s'il le désire.
Aucun Etat maritime ne peut refuser ces eaux. Le droit inter-
national impose à l'État maritime certaines obligations et lui
confère certains droits résultant de la souveraineté qu'il exerce
sur son territoire maritime. La possession de ce temtoire n'est
pas facultative et ne dépend pas de la volonté de l'État. Elle est
obligatoire.
b) Tandis que la délimitation effective des frontières des eaux
territoriales relève de la compétence de chaque État, parce que
celui-ci est mieux qualifié que quiconque pour connaître sa côte,
les principes appliqués pour effectuer cette délimitation sont
cependant régis par le droit, et ne sont pas laissésà la discrétion
de chaque État. Comme l'a déclaré en 1946 la Cour suprême dcs
États-unis dans l'affaireUnited States v. State of California, 332
U. S. 19, 35;
« La règle des trois milles n'est qu'une reconnaissance de la
nCcessitEdans laquelle se trouve le gouvernement d'un État situé
1)rèsde la mer de uvoir se protégercontre les dangers inherents
mentaire, dans l'intérêt dfisc, de la santépublique ainsi que de
la sCcuritéde la population contre les guerres qui seraient menées
sur ses côtes ou trop prèsde ceiles-ci.Dans la mesure où elie reven-
dique les droits qu'elle possède en vertu du droit internatianal,
la nation pourra très naturellement s'approprier pour son usage
propre tout ce qui- dans les mers baignant ses côtes eà l'inté-
rieur de sa ceinture de protection- lui paraîtra présenter une
valeur quelconque. Maistout ce qu'une nation entreprend en haute
ui aurait pour effet de diminuer l'utilitécommune de celle-ci
pour 7es nations - ou dont une autre nation ferait, de ce chef,
griefà la premiere - est une question que doivent examiner les
nations commetelles et non leurs entitésgouvernementales agissant
4S 161 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD hfCNAIR
(c) The method of delimiting territorial waters is an objective
one and, while the coastal State is free to make minor adjustments
in its maritime frontier when required in the interests of clarity
and its practical object, it is not authorized by the law to mani-
pulate its maritime frontier in order to give effect to its economic
and other social interests. There is an overwhelming consensus of
opinion amongst maritime States to the effect that the base-line
of territorial waters, whatevertheir extent may be, is a line which
follows the coast-line along low-water mark and not a series of
imaginary lines drawn by the coastal State for the purpose of giving
effect, even within reasonable limits, to its economic and other social
interests and to other subjective factors.
In 1894 Bonfils (Droit international public, $ 491) described
la mer juridictionnelle ou littorale, :s
"la bande de l'océanqui entoure et enceint les côtes du territoire
continental ou insulaire et sur laquelleEtat peut, du rivage que
baignent les eaux de cette mer, faire respecter sa puissance".
(d) The calculation of the extent of territorial waters from the
land is the normal and natural thing to do ;i'iscalculation from a
line drawn on the water is abnormal and requires justification,
for instance, by showing that the line drawn on the water is drawn
from the terminal line of interna1 waters in a closed bay or an
historic bay or a river mouth, which will be dealt with later. One
must not lose sight of the practical operation of the limit of terri-
torial,waters. It isrue that they exist for the benefit of the coastal
State and not for that of the foreign mariner approaching them.
Nevertheless, if he is to respect them, it is important that their
limit should be drawn in such a way that, once he knows how many
miles the coastal State claims, he should-whether he is a fisher-
man or the commander of a belligerent vesse1 in time of war-
be able to keep out of them by following ordinary maritime practice
in taking cross-bearings from points on the coast, whenever it is
visible, or in some other way. This practical aspect of the matter
is confirmed by the practice of Prize Courts in seeking to ascertain
whether a prize has been captured within neutral territorial waters
or on the high seas ; see, for instance, The Anne (1818) Prize
Cases in the United States Supreme Court, page 1012; The Heina
(1915)~Fauchille, Jurisprudence française en matière de prises, 1,
page 119; II, page 409, a Nonvegian ship captured by a French
cruiser in 1914 at a point four miles and five-sixths from an island
forming part of the Danish Antiiles ;and by decisions upon illegal
fishing within temtonal waters, e.g. Ship May v. Th King,
Canada Law Reports, Supreme Court, 1931, page 374, or upon
other illegal entry into temtorial waters, Th Shi+ "Queen City"
v. The King, ibzd., page387. OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 161
séparément ». (Citéet confirméen 1950, dans l'affaire United
States v. Stateof Texas, 339 U. S. 707, 718.)
c) La méthodepour délimiterleseaux territoriales est une méthode
objective, et si1'Etat côtier est libre de faire certains ajustements
secondaires Gesa frontière maritime, quand cela est nécessairepour
éclaircir la position et répondre à ses fonctions pratiques, le droit
ne lui permet pas de madifier sa frontière maritime de manière
à donner effet à ses intérêtséconomiques ousociaux. Les Etats mari-
times sont en très grande majorité d'accord Ourreconnaître que les
lignes de base des eaux territoriales, quelle que soit leur étendue,
doivent suivre la ligne de côte, le long de la laisse de basse mer, et
non pas une sériede lignes imaginaires, tracéespar 1'Etat côtier pour
satisfaire, mêmedans des limites raisonnables, à ses intérétsécono-
miques ou à d'autres facteurs subjectifs.
En 1894, Bonfils (Droit international public, 3 491) a dccrit
de la manière suivante la merjuridictionnelleoulittorale :
I(la bande de l'océanqui entoure et enceint les côtes du terri-
toire continental et insulaire et sur laquelle l'État peut, du rivage
que baignent les eaux de cette mer, faire respecter sa puissance
d) Le calcul de l'étendue des eaux territoriales depuis la terre
est la procédure normale et naturelle. Il est anormal de la mesurer
à partir d'une ligne tracée en mer, et cette manière de procéderdoit
êtrejustifiée,par exemple, en démontrant que la ligne tracéeen mer
part de la limite des eaux intérieures dans le cas d'une baie fermée,
d'une baie historique, ou de l'embouchure d'une rivière, question
que nous examinerons plus loin. On ne doit pas perdre de vue la
raison dJêtr.ede la délimitation des eaux territoriales. Il est vrai
qu'elles existent au bénéficede 1'Etat riverain, et non du navigateur
étranger qui s'en approche. Toutefois, si ce dernier doit la respecter,
il est important quecette limite soit tracéede telle sorte que, sachant
combien de miiles 1'Etat riverain réclame, le navigateur puisse se
maintenir à l'extérieur de la limite, qu'il s'agisse d'un pêcheur ou
du capitaine d'un navire belligérant en temps de guerre, en suivant
la pratique maritime ordinaire des relèvements se recoupant, pris
sur des points de la côte toutes les fois qu'elle est visible, ou par
quelque autre méthode. Cet aspect pratique de la question est con-
firmépar l'usage des cours des prises, qui s'efforcent de déterminer
si la prise a étéfaite en deçà d'eaux territorialesneutreou en haute
mer. Voir, par exemple, The Anne (1818), Prize Cases in the
UnitedStatesSupreme Court,page 1012 ;TheHeina(1g15),Fauchille,
Jurisprudencefrançaiseenmatiére des'prises,1,page 119; II, page409,
navire norvégiencapturé par un croiseur françaisen 1914 à un pint
situé à quatre milles et cinq sixièmes d'une île faisant partie des
Antilles danoises; et par des décisionssur la pêche illiciteàl'intérieur
des eaux temtoriales, par exemple, l'affaire Shi# May v. The King,
Canada Law Reports, Supreme Court, 1931 page 374, ou d'autres
décisions sur la violation des eaux temtoriales, telles que l'affaire
TheShiP ((Q.ueenCity )v. The King, ibid., page 387.
49 162 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
(e) Reference should also be made to the statement in the Report
on Territorial Waters approved by the League Codification Com-
mittee in 1927for transmission to governments for their comments,
particularly page 37 of League document C.I~~.M.~O.I~Z~.V.,
where, after refemng to what it calls the seaward limit of the
territorialsea, the Report continues :
"Mention should alsobe made of the line which limits the rights
ofdominion ofthe ripanan State onthe landward side.This question
ismuch simpler. The general practiceof the States, al1projects of
codification and the prevailing doctrinegree in considering that
this line should be low-watermark along the whole of thecoast."
(flIn 1928 and 1929 replies were sent by a number of govern-
ments to the questions put to them by the Committee of Five
which made the final preparations for the Hague Codification
Conference of 1930 (League of Nations, C.74.M.39.1gzg.V., pp. 35
et sqq.).
As 1 understand these replies-the language is not always
absolutely plain-seventeen govemments declared themselves in
favour of the view that the base-line of temtorial waters is a line
which follows the coast-line along low-water mark and against
the view that the base-line consists of a series of lines connecting
the outermost points of the mainland and islands. The following
Governments took the latter view : Nonvay, Sweden, Poland,
Soviet Russia and, probably, Latvia. (In this respect my analysis
corresponds closely to that of paragraph 298 of the Counter-
Memorial.)
It may be added that Poland had recovered sovereignty over
her maritime territory only eleven years before, after an interval
of more than a century, and that Latvia became a State only
in 1918.Al1the States parties to the North Sea Fishenes Convention
of 1882, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Bntain and
the Netherlands, as 1 understand their replies, accepted the de
of low-water mark following the iine of the coast ; so also did the
United States of America. Governments are not prone to under-
state their claims.
(g) It is aiso instructive to notice the Danish reply because
Denmark was, with Norway, the jbint âuthor of the Royal Decree
of 1812, on which the Norwegian Decree of 1935 purports to be
based, and Denmark told the League of Nations Committee that
the Decree of 1812 was stiü in force in Denmark. The Danish
reply states that :
"Paragra h 2 ofArticle3of the regdations introduced by Royal
Decree of fanuary ~gth, 1927, concerning the admission of war-
50 OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 162
e) Il faut également se référer à la déclaration figurant au rap-
port sur les eaux territorides approuvé par le Comité de codifica-
tion de la Société desNations en 1927, transmis aux gouvernements
pour commentaires, en particulier à la page 37 du document de
la Société desNations C.196.M.70.1927.V., où, après s'êtreréféré
à ce qu'on appelle la limite au large de la mer territoriale, le rapport
continue :
(On devrait encore parler de la ligne qui limite les droits de
la domination de l'État riverain envers le territoire ferme de 1'Etat.
Cette question est beaucoup plus simple, toute la pratique des
États, tous les projets de codification et la doctrine dominante
sont d'accord sur ce point qu'on doit partir de la laisse de basse
mer sur toute l'étenduedes côtes. »
1) En 1928 et 1929, plusieurs gouvernements ont répondu aux
questions qui leur avaient étéposéespar le Comité des Cinq chargé
desderniers préparatifs de la Conférencede codification de La Haye
de 1930 (Société desNations, C.74.M.39.1929.V., pp. 35 et ss.).
A mon sens - le texte n'est pas toujours absolument clair -,
dix-sept gouvernements se sont déclarés en faveur de l'opinion
que la ligne de base des eaux territoriales suit la ligne de côte le
long de la laisse de basse mer, et se sont déclarésopposés à l'opi-
nion que la ligne de base consiste en une série de lignes droites
reliant les points extrêmes du continent et des îles. Cette dernière
opinion a étéadoptée par les pays suivants :la Norvège, la Suède,
la Pologne, la Russie soviétique et, probablement, la Lettonie (sur
ce point mes recherches correspondent de très près aux conclusions
du paragraphe 298 du contre-mémoire).
On peut ajouter que la Pologne n'avait recouvré sa souveraineté
sur son territoire maritime que onze ans plus tôt, après un inter-
valle de plus d'un siècle, et que la Lettonie n'est devenue un État
indépendant qu'en 1918. D'après mon interprétation de leurs
réponses, tous les États parties à la Convention de 1882 sur les
pêcheriesde la mer du Nord :la Belgique, le Danemark, la France,
l'Allemagne, la Grande-Bretagne et les Pays-Bas, ont accepté la
règle de la laisse de basse mer le long de la côte. Les Etats-Unis
d'Amérique en ont fait de même.Les gouvernements ne sont pas
portés à minimiser leurs réclamations.
g) Il est intéressant également de noter la réponse danoise, parce
que le Danemark était, avec la Norvège, l'un des auteurs du décret
royal de 1812, sur quoi le décret norvégien de 1935 prétend se
fonder, et le Danemark a répondu au Comité de la Société des
Kations que le décret de 1812 était toujours en vigueur au Dane-
mark. Il déclare dans sa réponse :
(Dans le règlement établi par l'ordonnance royale du 19 jan-
vier 1927c ,oncernant l'admissionen temps de paix, dans les ports
50 163 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
vessels belonging to foreign Powers to Danish ports and territorial
waters in time of peace, contains the following clause :
'Danish interna1 waters comprise, in addition to the ports,
cntrances of ports, roadsteads, bays and firths, the waters situated
between, and on the shoreward side of, islands, islets and reefs,
which are not permanently submerged.'
(Quotation from Decree of 1927 ends.)
"Along the coast the low-water mark is taken as a base in deter-
mining the breadth of the territorial waters. The distance between
the coast and the islands is not taken into account, so long as
it is less than double the width of the territorial zone."
(h) But although this rule of the limit following the coast line
along low-water mark applies both to straight coasts andto curved
and indented coasts, an exception exists in the case of those inden-
tations which possess such a configuration, both as to their depth
and as to the width between their headlands, as to constitute
landlocked waters, by whatever name they may be called. It is
usual and convenient to cal1them "bays", but what really matters
is not their label but their shape.
A recent recognition of the legal conception of bays is to be
found in the reply of the United States of America given in 1949
or 1950 to the International Law Commission, published by the
United Nations in Document A/CN.~/I~, page 104, of ~3rd March,
1950 :
"The United States has from the outset taken the position that
its territorial waters extend one marine league, or three geogra-
phical miles (nearly 34 English miles) from the shore, with the
exception of waters or bays that are so landlocked as to be unques-
tionably within the jurisdiction of the adjacent State."
(Then follow a large number of references illustrating this
statement.)
There are two kinds of bay in which the maritime belt is
measured from a closing line drawn across it between its headlands,
that is to Say, at the point where it ceases to have the configuration
of a bay. The first caregory consists of bays whose headlands are
so close that they can really be described as landiocked. According
to the strict letter and logic of the law, a closing line should connect
headlands whenever the distance between them is no more than
double the agreed or admitted width of temtorial waters, whatever
that may be in the particular case. In practice, a somewhat longer
distance between headlands has often been recognized as justifying
the closing of a bay. There are a number of treaties that have
adopted ten miles, in particular the Anglo-French Convention of
1839, and the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882, which was
signed and ratified by Gerniany, Belgium, Denmark, France,
Great Britain and the Netherlands. It cannot yet be said that a OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 163
et les eaux territoriales du Danemark, de bâtiments de guerre
appartenant à des Puissances étrangères,est contenue, à l'articl3,
alinéa 2,la disposition suivante :
(Les eaux intérieures danoises comprennent, outre les ports,
entréesde ports, rades, baies et fjords, les eaux situéesentre et
en deçà des îles, îlots et récifsqui ne sont pas continuellement
submergés. ))
(Fin de la citation du décretde 1927.)
Le long de la côte, c'est la laisse de basse mer qui sert de ligne
de base pour calculer l'étenduedes eaux territoriales. La distance
entre la côte et les îlesn'est pas prise en considérationtant qu'elle
est inférieureBla double largeur de la zone territoriale. ))
h) Bien qu'elle s'applique aux côtes rectilignes comme aux côtes
sinueuses et indentées, la règle selon laquelle la limite suit la côte
le long de la laisse de basse mer souffre des exceptions quand il
s'agit d'indentationsqui, quelle que soit leur dénomination, ont une
configuration telle, du fait de leur profondeur et de la largeur entre
les promontoires, que leurs eaux sont enfermées dans les terres.
D'habitude, et par commodité, ces indentations sont dénommées
((baies ))mais leur nom n'importe pas tant que leur forme.
On trouvera une expression récente d'acceptation de la notion
juridique des baies dans la réponse donnée en 1949 ou 1950
par les États-unis d'Amérique à la Commission du droit inter-
national, et publiée par les Nations Unies au document AlCN.4119
du 23 mars 1950, page 104 :
«Dès l'origine, les États-Unis ont considéréque l'étendue de
leurs eaux territorialesest d'une lieue marine ou trois milles géogra-
phiques (présde 3,5 milles anglais) à partir de la côte, sauf dans le
cas des eaux ou des baies qui sont enfoncéesdans les terres de felle
façon qu'ellesrelèventincontestablement de la juridiction de 1'Etat
contigu. »
(Suivent de nombreuses citations à l'appui de cette déclaration.)
Il y a deux sortes de baies pour lesquelles la ceinture maritime
se mesure à partir d'une ligne de fermeture tracée d'un des caps à
l'autre, c'est-à-dire à l'endroit où une baie cesse d'avoir sa propre
configuration. La première catégorie est celle des baies dont les caps
d'entrée sont si rapprochés qu'on peut vraiment dire qu'elles sont
enfermées dans les terres. D'après la lettre du droit, et en bonne
logique, il devrait y avoir une ligne de fermeture entre les caps dès
que la distance qui sépare ceux-ci ne dépasse pas le double de la
largeur convenue ou acceptée pour les eaux territoriales, quelle que
soit cette largeur dans chaque casparticulier. Mais en pratique, on a
souvent admis qu'une distance un peu plus longue entre les caps
justifiait la fermeture d'une baie. Un certain nombre de traités ont
adopté dix milles, en particulier la Convention anglo-française de
1839 et la Convention de 1882 sur les pêcheriesde la mer du Nord,
signée et ratifiée par l'Allemagne, la Belgique, le Danemark, la
5' 1~4 DISSENTING OPIKION OF SIR ARNOLD SICNAIR
closing line of ten miles forms part of a rule of customary law,
though probably no reasonable objection could be taken to that
figure. At any rate Norway is not bound by such a rule. But the
fact that there is no agreement upon the figure does not mean
that no rule at al1 exists as to the closing line of curvatures pos-
sessing the character of a bay, and that a State can do what it
likes with its bays ; for the pnmary rule governing territorial
waters is that they form a belt or bande de mer following the line
of the coast throughout its extent, and if any State alleges that
this belt ought not to come inside a particular bay and follow its
configuration, then it is the duty of that State to show why that
bay forrns an exception to this general rule.
The other category of bay whose headlands may be joined for the
purpose of fencing off the waters on the landward side as interna1
waters is the historic bay, and to constitute an historic bay it
does not suffice merely to claim a bay as such, though such claims
are not uncommon. Evidence is required of a long and consistent
assertion of dominion over the bay and of the right to exclude
forcign vessels except on permission. The matter was considered
by the British Privy Council in the case of Conception Bay in
Newfoundland in Direct United States Cable Company v. Anglo-
American Telegraph Company (1877 ) Appeal Cases 394. The
evidence relied upon in that case as justifying the claim of an historic
bay is worth noting. There was a Convention of 1818 between the
United States of America and Great Britain which excluded Ameri-
can fishermen from Conception Bay, followed by a 8ritish Act of
Parliament of 1819, imposing penalties upon "any person" who
refused to depart from the bay when required by the British
Governor. The Privy Council said :
who"Iwere tparties to it, and consequently that, though a strongns
assertion of ownership on the part of Great Britain, acquiesced in
by so powerfula State as the United States, the Convention, though
weighty, is not decisive. But the Act already referred t...goes
further"..."No stronger assertion of exclusive dominion over these
bays couldwell beframed." [This Act] "is an unequivocal assertion
of the British legislature of exclusivedominion over this bay as part
of the British temtory. And as this assertion of dominion has not
'been questioned by any nation from 1819 down to 1872, when a
fresh Convention was made, this would be very strong in the tri-
bunal~ of any nation to show that this bay is by prescription part
of the exclusive temtory of Great Britai.." OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 1~4
France, la Grande-Bretagne et les Pays-Bas. On ne peut pas encore
dire qu'une ligne de fermeture de dix milles soit une riigle du droit
coutumier, encore que, probablement, ce chiffre ne puisse soule\~er
d'objection raisonnable. En tout cas, la Norvège n'est pas liéepar
une .telle règle. Mais l'absence d'accord sur le chiffre ne signifie pas
l'absence de règle quant à la ligne de fermeture de courbes ayant
le caractère d'une baie, ni qu'un État puisse agir à sa guise en ce
qui concerne ses baies : en effet, la ritgle fondamentale en matic're
d'eaux territoriales est qu'elles forment une ceinture ou bande de
mer qui suit la ligne de la côte sur toute sa longueur ;et si un État
prétend que cette bande ne devrait pas pénétrer à l'intérieur d'une
baie déterminéeet en suivre la configuration, il lui faut démontrer
pourquoi la baie fait exception à la règle générale.
L'autre catégorie de baies dont les caps peuvent êtrejoints pour
enfermer les eaux du côté de la terre comme eaux intérieures est
celie des baies historiques ; mais pour qu'une baie soit historique,
il ne suffit pas de prétendre qu'elle l'est, encore que pareille préten-
tion ne soit pas exceptionnelle. Il faut la preuve d'une affirmation
ancienne et continue de souveraineté sur la baie ainsi que le droit
d'en exclure les navires étrangers, sauf autorisation. Le conseil
privé britannique a examiné la question dans le cas de la baie de
Conception, à Terre-Seuve, dans l'affaire Direct United States Cable
Company c. Angle-American Telegvaph Company (1877) 2 Appeal
Cases 394. Les preuves retenues en cette affaire pour justifier la
revendication à une baie historique valent d'êtrenotées. Il existait
une convention de 1818 entre les États-unis d'Amérique et la
Grande-Bretagne interdisant la baie de Conception aux pêcheurs
américains, suivie d'un Acte du Parlement britannique de 1815,
imposant des pénalités à ((toute personne ))qui refuserait d'obéir
à un ordre du gouverneur britannique dequitter la baie. Le conseil
privé a dit :
n11 est vrai que la Convention ne crée d'obligation qu'aux
deux nations qui y figurent comme parties et, par conséquent,
que cette convention, bien qu'elle soit une affirmationénergique
de propriétépar la Grande-Bretagne, acceptéepar un Etat aussi
puissant que les États-unis, et bien qu'elle soit d'un grand poids,
n'est pas décisive.Mais l'Acte déjà.cité ...va plus loin ))...(On
ne saurait guère présenterde déclaration plus ferme de souve-
raineté exclusive sur ces baies.s [Cet Acte] ((est une affirmation
non équivoquepar le législateurbritannique de domaine exclusif
sur cette baie comme faisant partie du territoire britannique. Et
comme cette proclamation de souveraineté n'a étécontestée par
aucune nation de 1819 à 1872, date à laquelle une nouvelle con-
vention a Ctépassée, il y aurait là. un argument des plus forts
devant les tribunaux de n'importe quel pays pour établir que
cette baie est devenue, par prescription, partie intégrante du
territoire exclusif de la Grande-Bretagne ...» 165 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
Claims to fence off and appropriate areas of the high seas by
joining up headlandshave been made from time to time, but usually
in the case of particular pieces of water and not on the thorough-
going scale of the Decree of 1935. There is a considerable body of
legal authority condemning this practice. This theory-to the effect
that the coastal State is at liberty to draw a line connecting head-
lands on its coast and to claim the waters on the landward side of
that line as its own waters-has sometimes been referred to as the
"headland theory" or "la théorie" or "la doctrine des caps".
There are two decisions by an umpire called Bates in arbitrations
betivcen the United States of America and the United Kingdom
in 1853 or 1854 (Moore's international Arbitrations, Vol. 4, pp.
4342-5) :the IVashington,seized while fishing within a line connect-
ing the headlands of the Bay of Fundy, which is 65 to 75 miles wide
and 130 to 140 miles long and "has several bays on its coastç", and
the Argus, seized while fishing 28 miles from the nearest land and
within a line connecting two headlands on the north-east side of
the islanc! of Cape Breton; 1 do not know the distance between
them. In both cases, the seizures were condemned and compensation
was awarded to the owners of the vessels. In the Washington the
umpire said. .:
"It was urged on behalf of the British Government that by coasts,
l~ays,etc., is understood an imaginary line, drawn along the coast
from headland to headland, and that the jurisdiction of Her Majesty
extends three marine miles outside of this line ;thu$ closing al1the
bnys on the coast or shore, and that great body of water called the
Bay of Fundy against Americans and others, making the latter a
British bay. This doctrine of headlands is new, and has received a
proper lirnit in the Convention between France and Great Britain
of August 2nd, 1839,in which'it is agreed that the distance of three
miles fixed as the limit for the exclusive right of fishery upon the
coasts of the two countries shall, with respect to bays the mouths of
wliich do not exceed ten milesin width, be measured from a straight
line drawn from headland to headland'."
'Iiieri, in 1881, Mr. Evarts, American Secretary of State, sent a
despatch to the American representative in Spain which contained
the followingpassage (Moore's Digestof International Law, i, p. 719) :
"Whether the line nhich bounds seaward the three-mile zone
follows the indentations of the coast or extends from headland to
licadland is the question next to be discussed.
The headland theory, as it is called, has been uniformly rejected
bu OurGovemment, as will be seen from the opinions of the Secre-
taries above referred to. The foll~wingadditional authorities may
lx cited on this point:
In the opinion of the umpire of the London Commission of 18j3
:I think he refers to the U'ashington or the Argus], it was held OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 165
La prétention d'enfermer et de s'approprier des zones de haute
mer en réunissant les caps a étéémise de temps à autre, mais
généralement dans le cas d'espaces d'eau particuliers, et non pas
d'une façon générale, comme le fait le décret de 1935. Il existe
une abondance de sources juridiques condamnant cette pratique.
La théorie d'après laquelle l'État riverain a le droit de tracer
une ligne réunissant les caps sur sa côte et de revendiquer comme
ses eaux propres les eaux du côté de la terre par rapport à cette
ligne a parfois étéqualifiée de «théorie » ou « doctrine des caps 1).
Il existe deux décisions d'un arbitre nommé Bates dans des
arbitrages entre les États-unis d'Amérique et le Royaume-Uni
eh 1853 et 1854 (Moore, International Arbitrations, vol. 4,
pp. 4342-5) : le Washington, saisi alors qu'il pêchait en deçà
d'une ligne tirée entre les caps dJentrCe de la baie de Fundy,
qui mesure 65 à 75 milles de large, et 130 à 140 milies de long,
et présente « plusieurs baies sur ses côtes )),et l'Argus, saisi alors
qu'il pêchait à 28 milles de la terre la plus proche, et à l'intérieur
d'une ligne reliant deux caps sur le côté nord-est de l'île du cap
Breton ; j'ignore la distance qui les sépare. Dans les deux cas, les
saisies ont été annuléeset des dommages alloués aux propriétaires
des navires. Dans l'affaire du Washington, l'arbitre a dit :
((Le Gouvernement britannique fait soutenir que par côtes,
baies, etc., il faut entendre une ligne imaginaire tirée le long de
la côte de cap à cap et que la juridiction de Sa Majestés'étend
trois milles marins au delà de cette ligne, fermant ainsi,à l'égard
des Américainset autres, toutes les baies sur la côte ou le rivage
et cette grande masse d'eau qu'on appelle la baie de Fundy, dont
elle fait une baie anglaise. Cette doctrine des caps est nouvelle et
elle a reçu une juste limitation dans la Convention entre la France
et la Grande-Bretagnedu 2 août 1839d ,ans laquelle«il est convenu
(que la distance de 3 milles fixée commelimite généralepour le
«droit exclusif de pêchesur les côtes des deux contréesdoit, pour
«les baies dont l'ouverture n'excèdepas dix milles de large, être
((mesurée à partir d'une ligne droite tiréede cap à cap B.))
Puis, en 1881, M. Evarts, secrCtaire d'État américain, a envoyé
une dépeche au représentant des États-unis en Espagne, où l'on
trouve le passage suivant (Moore, Digest of international Law,
i, p. 719) :
aIl faut examiner ensuite la question de savoir si la ligne qui
marque vers le large la zone des trois milles suit les indentations
de la c6te ou s'étend de cap en cap.
La théorie connuesous le nom de théoriedes caps a étéunifor-
mément rejetée par notre gouvernement, comme on le verra par
les opinions des secrétaires mentionnés ci-dessus. On peut citer
sur ce point en outre les autorités suivantes :
........................
De l'avis de l'arbitre de la Commissionde Londres de 1853 /je
crois qu'il se réfèreau Washingtonou àl'Argus],il a Ctéjugéque :
53I66 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
that : It can not be asserted as a general rule, that nations have an
exclusive right of fishery over al1adjacent waters to a distance of
three marine miles beyond an imaginary line drawn from headland
to headland.'"
He concluded :
"We may therefore regard it as settled that, so far asconcems
the eastern coast of North Amenca, the position of this Depart-
ment has uniformly been that the sovereignty of the shore does not,
so far as territorial authority is concemed, extend beyond three
miles from low-water mark, and that the seaward boundary of this
zone of territorial waters followsthe coast of the mainland, extend-
belt. This necessanly excludes the position that the seaward boun-e
dary is to be drawn from headland to headland, and makes
it followclosely, at a distance of three miles, the boundary of the
shore of the continent or of adjacent islands belonging to the conti-
nental sovereign."
And "la théorie des caps" is condemned by Fauchille, Droit
international public, para.493(6) ,n the words: "Elle ne saurait
juridiquement prévaloir : elle est une atteinte manifeste à la liberté
des mers."
1 shall now examine the Decree of 1935 and direct attention
to the results produced by the "straight base-lines" which it lays
do.wn. It is difficult withouf the visual aid of large-scale charts
to convey a correct picture of the base-lines and the outer lines
of delimitation established by the Decree of1935 T.he area affected
begins at Træna on the north-west coast not far from the entrance
to Vestfjord and runs round North Cape down to the frontier with
Russia near Grense-Jacobselv, the total length of the outer line
being about 560 sea miles without counting fjords and other inden-
tations. There are 48 fixed points-often arbitrarilyselected-
between which the base-lines are drawn. Twelve of these base-points
are located on themainland or islands, 36 of them on rocks or reefs.
Some of the rocks are drying rocks and some permanently above
water. The length of the base-lines and the corresponding outer
lines varies greatly. At some places, where there are two or more
rocks at a turning point, the length of the base-lines may be only
a few cables. At other places the length is very great, for instance,
between 5 and 6 . . . . . 25 miles
7 8.... . 19 ,,
8,, g.... 25 ,,
II ,, 12 . . . . . 39 ,, OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 166
n on ne saurait affirmer, en regle générale, ue les nations ont un
((droit exclusifà la pêchesur toutes les eaux adjacentes, jusqu'à
.aune distance de trois millesmarins au delà d'uneligne imaginaire
« tracéede cap en cap s))
Et il conclut :
«C'est pourquoi nous pouvons considérercomme établi qu'en
ce qui est de la côte orientale de l'Amériquedu Nord, l'opinion
de ce départementa toujours étéque la souveraineté sur la côte
ne s'étendpas, en ce qui est de l'autorité territoriale,au delà de
trois millesà partir de la laisse de basse mer, et que la limite au
large de cette zone d'eaux territoriales suit la côte du continent,
s'étendant là où il y a des îles de manière à tracer une ceinture
analogue autour de ces îles. Cela exclut nécessairementla théorie
que la limite au large doit être tracée de capen cap, et lui fait
suivre de près, à une distance de trois milles, la ligne de la côte
du continent ou des îles adjacentes appartenant au souverain
continental.n
La théorie des caps est condamnée par Fauchille, Droit inter-
nationalpublic, par. 493 (6), en ces termes : « Elle ne saurait juri-
diquement prévaloir : elle est une atteinte manifeste à la liberté
des mers. ))
J'en arrive maintenant à l'examen du décretde 1935,en m'atta-
chant au résultat des «lignes de base rectilignes » qu'il a tracées.
Il est difficile, sans l'aide de cartàsgrande échelle,de donner une
image exacte des lignes de base et des limites extérieures fixées
par le décret de 1935. La région intéressée commenceà Træna,
sur la côte nord-ouest, nom loin de l'entrée du Vestfjord, passe
autour du cap Nord, et redescend jusqu'à la frontièreavec la Russie
près de Grense-Jacobselv. La longueur totale de la limite extérieure
est à environ 560 milles marins, sans compter les fjords et autres
indentations. Les lignes de base sont tracéesentre 48 points fixes,
souvent arbitrairement choisis. Douze de ces points de base sont
situés sur le continent ou les îles, et 36 sur des rochers ou récifs.
Certains rochers n'émergent qu'à marée basse, et certains sont
continuellement hors de l'eau. La lorigueur des lignes de base et des
lignes extérieures correspondantes varie considérablement. A cer-
tains endroits, où il existe deux ou plusieurs rochersà un tournant,
la longueur des lignes de base peut n'êtrequede quelquesencâblures.
Ailleurs, elle est considérable, par exemple,
entre 5 et 6 . . . . . 25 milles
7 » 8.. . . . 19 b)
8 » 9.. . . 25 ))
II n12.. . . .39 n
12 BIS.. . . .Ig n
18 ~19.. . . .26+ P DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
167
19 and 20 . . . . . 19.6 miles
20 ,, 21 . . . . 44 2,
21 ,, 22 . . . . . 18 ,,
1 have omitted the base-lines connecting base-points I and 2
and base-points 45 and 46, which are respectively 30 and 40 miles,
because they are the closing lines of Varangerfjord and Vestfjord,
and these fjords, like the others, have been conceded by the United
Kingdom to be Norwegian waters, subject to a minor controversy
as to the precise position of the closing line of the latter. 1 have
also omitted mention of al1base-lines less than 18 miles.
The base-line connecting base-points 20 and 21 (44 miles) rests
for a brief moment upon Vesterfall in Gasan (21),a drying rock eight
miles from the nearest island, and then continues, with an almost
imperceptible bend, in the same direction for a further 18 miles
to base-point 22, a drying rock ;thus between base-points 20 and
22 we get an almost completely straight line of 62 miles. Again,
the base-line which connects base-points 18 and 20, both above-
water rocks, runs absolutely straight for 46.1 miles.
In order to illustrate the distance between many parts on the
outer lines and the land, 1 shall take two sectors which 1 find
particularly difficult to reconcile with the ordinary conception of
the maritime belt-namely, that comprised by base-points II and
12 (39 miles apart), an area sometimes called Sværholthavet, and
that comprised by base-points 20 and 21 (44 miles apart), an area
sometimes called Lopphavet. In each case 1 propose to proceed
along the outer line and take, at intervals of 4 miles, measurements
in miles from the outer line to the nearest land on the mainland
or on an island :
Svarholthavet: Measurements to mainland or islands from the
outer line, at intervals of 4 miles proceeding from base-point II
to base-point 12 are as follows : 4 miles at base-point II, then
5Q,86, II, 13. 12 (or II from a lighthouse), II (or g from a
lighthouse), 8, 6, and nearly 5 ;
Lopphavet :Measurements to mainland or islands from the outer
line, at intervals of 4 miles proceeding from 20 to 21, are as follows :
4 miles at base-point 20, then 6, 83, 12, 16, 16, 18, 17, 144,
12i (or 8 from base-point 21, a drying rock), 12 (or 5 from base-
point 21).
Moreover, each of these two areas-Sværholthavet and Lopp-
havet-in no sense presents the configuration of a bay and com-
prises a large number of named and unnamed fjords and sunds
55 OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 167
19 et 20 . . . . . 19,6 milles
20 a 21 . . . . 44
21~22 ..... 18 n
25 )) 26 . . . . . 19 »
27 "8. . . . . 18 »
J'ai omis les lignes de base qui relient les points de base I et 2
et les points de base 45 et 46, qui mesurent respectivement 30 et 40
milies, parce que ce sont les lignes de fermeture du Varangerfjord
et du Vestfjord et que ces fjords, comme les autres,ont étéreconnus
par le Royaume-Uni comme étant des eaux norvégiennes, sous
réserve d'une controverse secondaire quant à la position exacte
de la fermeture de ce dernier. J'ai omis également de citer toutes
les lignes de base inférieures à 18 milles.
La ligne de base entre les points 20 et21 (4 milles) s'appuie un
instant sur Vesterfall sur Gasan (21),un rocher à sec à 8 milles de l'île
la plus proche, et continue à un angle presque imperceptible dans
la mêmedirection, sur une longueur supplémentaire de 18 milles
9, jusqu'au point de base 22, un rocher à sec. Ainsi, entre les
points de base 20 et 22, nous avons une ligne presque absolument
droite de 62 milles. De même,la ligne de base qui réunit les points
18 et 20, l'un et l'autre rochers émergeants, se prolonge en droite
ligne sur 46,1 milles.
Comme exemple de distance entre plusieurs points des lignes
extérieureset de la terre, je prendrai deux secteurs qui me paraissent
particulièrement difficiles à faire rentrer dans la conception ordi-
naire d'une ceinture maritime - à savoir, celui qui va du point
de base II au point de base 12 (distants de 39 milies), une région
parfois appelée Sværholthavet, et le secteur compris entre les
points de base 20 et21 (distants de 44 milles), région parfoisappelée
Lopphavet. Dans l'un et l'autre cas, je me propose de suivre la
ligne extérieure, et de mesurer, à des intervalles de 4 milles, la
distance entre la ligne extérieureet la terre la filus proche sur le
continentou sur une Zle:
Sverholthavet : Mesures de la distance entre la ligne extérieure et
le continent ou les îles, à des intervalles de 4 milles, en allant du
point de base II au point de base 12 : 4 milles au point de base II,
puis 53, 83, II, 13, 12 (ou II, depuis un phare), II (ou 9, depuis
un phare), 8, 6, et presque 5 ;
Lopphavet : Mesures de la distance entre la ligne extérieureet
le continent ou les îles, à des intervalles de 4 milles, en allant du
point de base 20 au point de base 21 : 4 milles au point de base 20,
puis 6, 84, 12, 16, 16, 18, 17, 144, 12) (OU 8, depuis le point
de base 21, rocher à sec), 12 (ou 5, depuis le point de base 21).
Au surplus, aucune de ces deux régions - le Sværholthavet et
le Lopphavet - ne présenteen aucune façon la configuration d'une
baie, et chacune comprend un grand nombre de fjords, nommésou168 DISSENTING OPIXION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
which have been admitted by the United Kingdom to be Norwegian
internal waters within their proper closing lines. In one part of
Lopphavet the outer line is distant more than 20 miles from the
closing line of a fjord. In the opinion of the Court (see p. 141)
Lopphavet "cannot ùe regarded as having the character of a bay" ;
and 1 may refer to an additional circumstance which militates
against the opinion that the *hole of this large areais Nonvegian
waters :that is, that according to the (BritishAdmiralty) Norway
Pilot, Part III, page 607, the approach to the port of Hammerfest
through Soroysundet, which runs out of Lopphavet towards Ham-
merfest, "is the shortest and, on the whole, the best entrance to
Hammerfest from westward, especially in bad weather" ; see The
Alleganean (Moore, International Arbitrations, iv, pp. 4332-4341,
"that it can not become the pathway from one nation to anothern-
as one of the conditions for holding Chesapeake Bay to be a
closed historic bay). Another questionable area is that comprised
by the lines connecting base-points 24 and 26, totalling 36 miles.
These three illustrations are among the extreme cases. A more
normal base-line is that which connects base-points 5 (a point on
the island of Reinoy) and 6 (Korsneset, a headiand on the main-
land) ; this base-line-25 miles in length-runs in front of Pers-
fjord, Syltefjord and Makkaufjord, al1of which have been admitted
by the United Kingdom to be Nonvegian internal waters, but the
line pays no attention to their closing lines ;at no place, however,
is the distance between the outer line and the land or closing line
of a fjord more than about six miles.
1 draw particular attention to the fact that many, if not most,
of the base-lines of the Decree of 1935fence off many areas of water
which contain fjords or bays, and pay little, if any, attention to
their closing lines;in the case of the Washington,referred to above,
the uinpire, in rejecting the claim to treat the Bay of Fundy as
a closed bay, twice drew attention to the fact that it comprised
other bays within itself :'lit has several bays on its coasts", and
again he refers to "the imaginary line ...thus closing al1the bays
on the shore".
The result of the lines drawn by the Decree is to produce a
collection of areas of water, of different shapes and sizes and dif-
ferent lengths and widths, which are far from forming a belt or
bande of territorial waters as commonly understood. 1 find it dif-
ficult to reconcile such a pattern of territorial waters with the
almost universal practice of defining territorial waters in terms of
miles-be they three or four or some other number. Why speak of
three miles or four miles if a State is at liberty to draw lines which
produce a maritime belt that is three or four miles wide at the
base-points and hardiy anywhere else ? Why speak of measunng
territorial waters from low-water mark when that occurs at 48
56 OPINION DISÇIDEXTE DE SIR ARXOLD MCNAIR 168
sans nom, et de sunds, auxquels le Royaume-Uni reconnaît le
caractère d'eaux intérieures norvégiennes, à partir de leur ligne de
fermeture régulière. A un endroit dans le Lopphavet la ligne exté-
rieure est distante de plus de 20 milles de la ligne de fermeture d'un
fjord. De l'avis de la Cour (voir p. 14 I),le Lopphavet ((ne peut
êtreconsidéré commeayant le caractère d'une baie 1;et je citerai la
circonstance additionnelle qui milite contre l'opinion que l'ensemble
de cette vaste région fait partie des eaux norvegiennes : à savoir
que, conformément au Xorway Pzlot (Amirauté britannique),
IIIme partie, page 607, l'accès au port de Hammerfest par le
Soroysundet, qui s'étend du Lopphavet vers Hammerfest, (est la
route la plus courte et, en général,lameilleure pour Hammerfest en
venant de l'ouest, en particulier par gros temps 11.Voir l'affaire de
The Alleganean (Moore, Internattonal Arbitrafznns, iv, pp. 4332-
4341, où, comme une des conditions pour conclure que la baie de
Chesapeake est une baie historique fermée, il est Cnoncé ((qu'elle ne
saurait devenir une route pour aller d'une nation à une autre N).Une
autre région contestable est celle qui est comprise entre les lignes
réunissant les points de base 24 et 26, mesurant au total 36 milles
de long.
Ces trois exemples sont parmi les cas extrêmes. Une ligne de
base plus normale est celle qui relie les points de base 5 (point sur
l'île deReinoy) et 6 (Korsneset, un cap sur le continent) ;cette ligne
de base - longue de 25 milles - va au large du Persfjord, du Sylte-
fjord et du Makkaufjord, auxquels le Royaume-Uni a reconnu le
caractère d'eaux intérieures norvégiennes, mais la ligne ne tient
pas compte des lignes de fermeture ;toutefois, en aucun point,
la distance entre la ligne extérieure et le continent, ou la ligne de
fermeture d'un fjord, ne dépasse 6 milles.
J'attire l'attention tout particulièrement sur le fait que plusieurs
des lignes de base du décret de 1935, sinon toutes, enferment des
espaces d'eau contenant des fjords ou des baics et tiennent fort
peu compte de leur ligne de fermeture. Dans l'affaire du LVaslzington
déjà citée,l'arbitre, en refusant de traiter la baie de Fundy comme
une baie fermée, a par deux fois attiré l'attention sur le fait qu'en
elle-même, elle comprend d'autres baies : (elle a plusieurs baies
sur ses côtes », et à nouveau il se réfère à aune ligne imaginaire ....
fermant ainsi toutes les baies sur la côte ».
Les lignes tracées par le décret ont pour effet de créer une série
d'espaces d'eau, de forme et d'étendue variées, de longueur et
de largeur diffCrentes, qui sont loin de former une ceinture ou
bande d'eaux territoriales au sens où on l'entend généralement.
Il m'est difficile de concilier un pareil tracé des eaux territoriales
avec la pratique presque universelle qui définitles eaux territoriales
en termes de milles - soit qu'il s'agisse de trois milles, de quatre
milles ou de tout autre chiffre. Pourquoi parler de trois ou de
quatre milles, si l'État peut tracer des lignes qui produisent une
ceinture maritime mesurant trois ou quatre milles de large au point
de base et pratiquement en nul autre point ? Pourquoi parler de
56 169 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
base-points and hardly anywhere else ? It is said that this pattern
is the inevitable consequence of the configuration of the Nonvegian
coast, but 1 shd show later that this is not so.
Norway has sought to justify the Decree of 1935 on a variety of
grounds, of which the principal are the following (A, B, C and D) :
(A) That a State has a right to delimit its territorial waters in
the manner required to protect its economic and other social inter-
ests. This is a novelty to me. It reveals one of the fundamentai
issues which divide the Parties, namely, the difference between the
subjective and the objective views of the delimitation of territorial
waters.
In my opinion the manipulation of the limits of territorial waters
for the purpose of protecting economic and other social interests
has no justification in law ; moreover, the approbation of such a
practice would have a dangerous tendency in that it would encourage
States to adopt a subjective appreciation of their rights instead of
conforming to a common international standard.
(B) That the pattern of territorial waters resulting from the
DeCree of 1935 is required by the exceptional character of the
Nonvegian coast.
Rluch has been said and written in presenting the Nonvegian
case for the delimitation made by the Decree of 1935 of the special
character of the Norwegian coast, the poverty and barrenness of
the land in northern Norway and the vital importance of fishing
tothe population, and so forth, and ofthe skerries and "skjærgaard" ,
urhich runs round the south, west and north coasts and ends at
North Cape.(Norwegian oral argument, 11th October). This plea
must be considered in some detail from the point of view both
of fact and of law. Norway has no monopoly of indentations or
even of skernes. A glance at an atlas will shew that, aithough
Sorway has a very long and heavily indented coast-line, there
are many countnes in the world possessing areas of heavily indented
coast-line. It is not necessary to go beyond the British Common-
wealth. The coast of Canada is heavily indented in aimost every
part. Nearly the whole of the west coast of Scotland and much
of the west coast of Northern Ireland is heavily indented and
bears much resemblance to the Nonvegian coast.
Skerry is a word of Norwegian origin which abounds in Scotland,
both as "skerry" and as "sgeir" (the Gaelic form). The New Oxford OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 169
mesurer les eaux territoriales depuis la laisse de basse mer, quand
il n'en est tenu compte que sur 48 point se base, et à peu près
nulle part ailleurs ? On prétend que ce tracé est la conséquence
inévitable de la configuration de la côte norvégienne, mais je
montrerai plus loin qu'il n'en est rien.
La Norvège s'est efforcéede justifier le décretde 1935 par divers
arguments, dont les principaux sont les suivants (A, B, C et D) :
A) Un État a le droit de délimiter ses eaux temtoriales suivant
les exigences de ses intérêtséconomiqueset sociaux. C'est là, pour
moi, une nouveauté. Elle révèlel'un des désaccordsfondamentaux
entre les Partiesà savoir la différenceentrela conception subjective
et la conception objective de la délimitation des eaux temtoriales.
A mon avis, la modification deslimites des eaux territoriales pour
protéger les intérêtséconomiqueset autres intérêtssociaux ne se
justifie pas en droit. Au surplus, sil'on approuvait une telle pratique,
il en résulterait une tendance dangereuse :les États seraient encou-
ragés à estimer leurs droits d'une manière subjective, plutôt que
de se conformer à une règle internationale commune.
B) Le tracé des eaux territoriales résultant du décret de 1935
est commandépar le caractère exceptionnel de la côte norvégienne.
On a dit et écrit beaucoup de choses, en présentant l'argumen-
tation norvégienne à l'appui de la délimitation par le décret de
1935, sur le caractère spécialde la côte norvégienne, la pauvreté
et l'ariditédes terres dans la Norvègeseptentrionale et l'importance
vitale de la pêchepour la population et ainsi de suite, sur les
écueilset sur le (skjærgaard D, qui longe la côte sud, ouest et
nord et s'arrêteau cap Nord (plaidoirienorvégienne du II octobre).
Examinons cet argument quelque peu en détail, tant au point de
vue des faits que du droit. La Norvège n'a pas le monopole des
côtes découpéesni mêmedes récifs.Il suffitd'un coup d'Œilsurl'atlas
pour montrer que, bien que la Norvège ait une côte très longue
et très découpée, ilexiste dans le monde de nombreux pays qui
ont, eux aussi, des longueurs de côtes fortement découpées.Sans
mêmealler au delà du Commonwealth britannique, la côte' du
Canada est fortement découpéesur toute sa longueur. Presque
toute la côte ouest de 1'Ecosseet une grande partie de la côte ouest
de l'Irlande du Nord sont fortement découpéeset ressemblent
considérablement à la côte norvégienne.
Le mot ccskerry » (écueil) est un mot d'origine norvégienne
fréquent en Écosse, à la fois sous la forme de « skeny 1et sous laI70 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
Dictionary and any atlas of Scotland afford many illustrations.
From this dictionary 1 extract two quotations : Scoresby, Journal
of Whale Fishery (1823), page 373 : "The islands, or skemes,
which ....skirt the forbidding coast on the western side of the
Hebrides" ;W. McIlwraith, Guide to Wigtownshire (1875) (in the
south-west of Scotland), page 62 :"The rocks stretch seaward in
rugged ledges and skerries." The following passage occurs in the
Encyclopczdia Britannica (1947), Volume 20,sub-title "Scotland",
page 141 : "The Western Highland coast is intersected throughout
by long narrow sea-lochs or fiords. The mainland slopes steeply .
into the sea and is fronted by chains and groups of islands ...The
Scottish sea-lochs must be considered in connection with those
of western Ireland and Norway. The whole of this north-western
coast line of Europe bears witness to recent submergence."
As was demonstrated to the Court by means of charts, in response
to a suggestioncontained in paragraph 527 of the Counter-Memorial,
the north-west coast of Scotland is not only heavily indented but
it possesses, in addition, a modest "island fringe", the Outer
Hebndes, extending f~om the Butt of Lewis in a south-westerly
direction to Barra Head for a distance of nearly one hundred
miles, the southem tip being about thirty-five milesfrom the Skerry-
vore lighthouse. At present the British line of territorial waters
round this island fringe, inside and outside of it, follows the line
of the coast and the islands throughout without difficulty and
does not, except for the closing lines of lochs not exceeding ten
miles, involve straight base-lines joining the outermost points of
the islands. This is also true of the heavily indented and mountain-
ous mainland of the north-west coast of Scotland lying inside of
and opposite to the Outer Hebrides.
A further factor that must be borne in minci, in assessing the
relevance of the special character of the Norwegian coast, is that
not very much of that special character remains after the admiss-
ions (referred to above) made by the United Kingdom during the
course of the oral proceedings. The main peculiarity that remains
is the jagged outer edge of the island fringe or "skjærgaard". In
estimating the effect of the "skjærgaard" as a special factor, it must
also be remembered that, running north-west, it ends at North
Cape, which is near base-point 12.
Another special aspect of the Norwegian coast which has been
stressed in the Norwegian argument, and is mentioned in the
Judgment of the Court, is its mountainous character ;for instance,
Professor Bourquin said on October 5th :
"The shore involvedin the dispute is an abrupt coast towenng
high above the level.of the sea; that fact isof great importance
toOurcase. It is therefore a coast which can be seen from a long
mountainous coast, like this of Norway, verysoon. From this point
58 OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR I7O
forme gaélique de ((sgeir ))On en trouve de nombreux exemples
dans le New Oxford Dictionary et n'importe quel atlas de I'Ecosse.
Du dictionnaire je tirerai deux citations : Scoresby, Journal of
Whale Fishery (1823),page 373 :((Lesîles et lesécueilsqui ...bordent
la côte inhospitalière à l'ouest des Hébrides ));W. McIlwraith,
Guide to Wigtownshire (1875) (au sud-ouest de l'Écosse), page 62 :
« Les rochers s'étendent vers la mer, en bancs et récifs acci-
dentés. 1)Le passage suivant figure dans 1'Encyclopédie britan-
nique (1~47)~ volume 20, sous-titre «Scotland », page 141 :((La côte
occidentale des Highlands est entrecoupée sur toute sa longueur
par des lochs et des fiords longs et étroits. Le continent s'incline
brusquement vers la mer et il est bordé de chapelets et de groupes
d'îles....Les lochs marins d'Écosse sont comparables à ceux de
l'Irlande occidentale et de la Norvège. Tout l'ensemble de cette côte
nord-ouest de l'Europe porte la marque d'un affaissement récent. ))
Ainsi que les cartes l'ont montré à la Cour, à la suite d'une
remarque faite au paragraphe 527 du contre-mémoire, la côte
nord-ouest de l'Écosse n'est pas seulement fortement découpée :
elle possède, en outre, une modeste « frange d'îles » : les Hébrides
occidentales, allant de la pointe de Lewis dans une direction sud-
ouest, jusqu'à la pointe de Barra, sur une distance de près de cent
milles, l'extrémité sudse trouvant à environ trente-cinq milles du
phare de Skerryvore. Actuellement, la ligne des eaux territoriales
britanniques autour de cette frange d'îles, en deçà et au delà, suit
sans difficultéla ligne de la côte et des îles et, sauf pour les lignes
de fermeture des lochs de moins de dix milles, ne comportepas de
lignes de base rectilignes entre les points extrêmes des îles. Il en
est de mêmedu continent, fortement découpéet montagneux, de
la côte nord-ouest de l'Ecosse, à l'intérieur et en face des Hébrides
occidentales.
Un autre facteur dont il faut se souvenir pour déterminer la
valeur du caractère particulier de la côte norvégienne est qu'il ne
reste plus grand'chose de ce caractère particulier après l'acquiescc-
ment (déjà mentionné) fait par le Royaume-Uni au cours de la
procédure orale. La seule particularité qui subsiste est le caractère
brisé du bord extérieur de la frange des îles ou ccskjærgaard 1).
Pour apprécier la valeur du « skjærgaard » comme facteur parti-
culier, il faut également se souvenir qu'au nord-ouest il s'arrête
au cap Nord, proche du point de base 12.
Un autre aspect particulier de la côte norvégienne sur lequel
l'argumentation norvégienne a insistéet que la Cour a mentionné
dans son arr&t est son caractère montagneux. Par exemple, le
professeur Bourquin a dit, le 5 octobre :
n La côte litigieuseest une c8te qui dominede tr&shaut le niveau
de la mer, et cela est fort important dans notre procès. Il ne faut
as oublier que nous sommes en présence d'une côte qui se voit de
Lin. Le marin qui vient de la mer apergoit rapidement une chte
qui est hCrissCede montagnes comme la côte norvégienne.De ce
58 I7I DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
of view a coast like this of Norway cannot be compared witli a
flat coast such as that, for example, of the Netherlands."
The Norwegian argument also repeatedly insists that the base-
lines of the Decree of 1935 have been so drawn that the land is
visible from every point on the outer line. 1 am unable to see the
relevance of this point because 1 am aware of no principle or rule
of law which allows a wider belt of territorial waters to a country
possessing a mountainous coast, such as Norway, than it does to
one possessing a flat coast, such as the Netherlands.
In brief, for the following reasons, 1 am unable to reconcile
the Decree of 1935 with the conception of territorial waters as
recognized by international law-
(a) because the delimitation of territorial waters by the Decree
of 1935 is inspired, amongst other factors, by the policy of protect-
ing the economic and other social interests of the coastal State ;
(b) because, except at the precise 48 base-points, the limit of
four miles is measured not from land but from imaginary lines
drawn in the sea, which pay little, if any, attention to the closing
lines of lawfully enclosed indentations such as fjords, except
Varangerfjord and Vestfjord ;
(c) because the Decree of1935 ,o far from attempting to delimit
the belt or bande of maritime temtory attributed by international
law to every coastal State, comprises within its limits areas of
constantly varying distances from the outer line to the land and
bearing little resemblance to a belt obande ;
(d) because the Uecree of 1935 ignores the practical need
experienced from time to time of ascertaining, in the manner
customary amongst mariners, whether a foreign ship is or is not
within the limit of territorial waters.
(C) That the United Kingdom is precluded from objecting to
the Norwegian system embodied in the Decree of 1935 by previous
acquiescence in the system.
Supposing that so peculiar a system could, in any part of the
world and at any period of time, be recognized as a lawful system
of the delimitation of territorial waters, the question would anse
whether the United Kingdom had precluded herself from objecting
to it by acquiescing in it. An answer to that question involves
two questions :
When did the dispute anse ?
When, if at all, did the United Kingdom Govemment become
aware of this system, or when ought it to have become aware but OPINIOS L)ISSIDESTE DE SIR ARYOLD MCNAIK I7I
point de vue, il n'y a pas de comparaisonpossible entre une côte
de ce genre et une côte plate, commel'est, par exemple, la côte des
Pays-Bas.)J
L'argumentation norvégienne insiste également à plusieurs
reprises sur le fait que les lignes de base du décret de5 ont été
tracées de manière à ce que la côte soit visible de tous les points
de la ligne extérieure. Je n'aperçois pas la valeur de cet argument,
car je n'ai pas connaissance d'un principe ou d'une règle de droit
permettant à un pays possédant, comme la Norvège, une côte
montagneuse, d'avoir une ceinture d'eaux territoriales plus large
que ne pourrait le faire un paysà côte plate, comme les Pays-Bas.
Pour me résumer, voici les raisons pour lesquelles je ne puis
concilier le décret de1935 et la conception des eaux territoriales
reconnue en droit international:
a) parce que la délimitation des eaux territoriales par le décret
de 1935 se fonde, entre autres facteurs, sur lolitique de protec-
tion des intérêtséconomiques et sociaux de 18 tat riverain;
b) parce que, sauf exactement aux 48 points de base, la limite
de quatre milles se mesure, non pas de la terre, mais de lignes ima-
ginaires, tracéesen mer, qui tiennent peu compte ou mêmequi ne
tiennent aucun compte des lignes de fermeture des indentations
légitimement enfermées, telles que les fjords, à l'exception du
Varangerfjord et du Vestfjord ;
c) parce que le décret de 1935, loin d'essayer de délimiter la
ceinture ou bande de territoire maritime attribuée par le droit
international à tout État riverain, enferme dans ses limites des
espaces dont la largeur, depuis la ligne extérieure jusqu'à la terre,
varie constamment et qui ressemblent fort peu à une ceinture ou
à une bande ;
d) parce que le décret de 1935 ignore la nécessitépratique de
constater,de temps à autre, selon la manière habituelle aux marins,
si un navire étranger se trouve ou non dans les limites des eaux
territoriales.
C) Que le Royaume-Uni ne saurait protester contre le système
norvégien du décretde 1935 du fait qu'il a antérieurement accepté
ce système.
A supposer qu'un système aussi singulier puisse, en un point
quelconque du globe et à un moment quelconque de l'histoire,
êtrereconnu comme système valable pour délimiter les eaux terri-
toriales, la question se pose de savoir si le Royaume-Uni est empêché
de s'y opposer du faif qu'il y a acquiescé.La réponseà cette ques-
tion en soulève deux autres :
A quelle date le différend est-il ?é
A quel moment le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a-t-il eu
connaissance de ce système, s'il en a eu connaissance, ou à quel 172 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
for its own neglect ; in English legal terminology, when did it
receive actual or constructive notice of the system?
When did the dispute anse? TRree dates require consider-
ation: 1906, 1908 and 1911. I do not think it greatly matters
whjch we take. As for 1906, Chapter IV of the Counter-Memorial
is entitled "History of the Dispute since 1906". The Storting Docu-
ment No. 1711927 (to be descnbed later) says (p. 122) that
"in 1905 English trawlers began to fish in the waters along
northern Norway and Russia", and the Counter-Memorial, para-
g~aph 91, states that "British trawlers made their first appearance
off thecoast of Eastern Finnmark towards 1906". Some apprehen-
sion occurred among the local population. A Law of June 2, 1906,
prohibiting foreigners from fishing in Norwegian temtorial waters,
was passed, and "since 1907, fishery protection vessels have been
stationed every year in the waters of Northern Norway" (ibidem,
paragraph 93).
As for 1908, Nonvegian Counsel told the Court (October 25) that
"as early as 1908 Norway organized its fishery patrol service on
the basis of the very lines which were subsequently fixed in the
1935 Decree". It is strange that these lines were not communicated
to the United Kingdom in 1908. According to Annex 56 of the
Counter-Memorial, a Report made by the General Chief of Staff of
the Nonvegian Navy,
"The instructions given to the naval fishery protection vessels
asearly as1906specifiedtwo forms of action to be taken in regard
to trawlers:warning and arrest.
The first warning,after the trawlers had begun to visit OurArctic
waters, was given in the summer of 1908 to the British trawler
Golden Sceptre."
As for 1911, on March 11th of that year, when the British trawler
Lord Roberts was arrested in Varangerfjord and the master was
fined for breach of theLaw of 2nd June, 1906,Notes were exchanged
between the British and Norwegian Govemments and the Nonveg-
ian Foreign Minister had an interview with SirEdward Grey, the
British Foreign Minister, in London. At that interview, the Norweg-
ian Minister, M. Irgens, "insisted on the desirability of England
not at that moment lodging a written protest" (ibidem,paragraph
98 a), but on the 11th July, 1911, the British Govemment sent a
protest to Norway (Counter-Mernorial, Annex 35,No. 1), in which
they maintained that they had "never recognized the Varanger and
the Vest fjords to be temtonal waters, nor have theyparticipated
in any international agreement for the purpose of confemng the
right of jurisdiction beyond the three-mile limit off any part OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 172
moment aurait-il dû en avoir connaissance, sauf négligencede sa
part ;en d'autres termes, d'après la terminologie juridique anglaise,
à quelle époquele Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a-t-il eu connais-
sance effective ou par interprétation de ce système ?
Quand le différend est-il né? Il faut examiner trois dates :
1906, 1908 et i911. Je ne crois pas qu'il importe beaucoup que nous
choisissions l'une ou l'autre. En ce qui est de 1906, le chapitre IV
du contre-mémoire s'intitule ((Historique du litige depuis 1906 )).
Le document du Storting, no 1711927 (que je décrirai plus loin),
déclare(p. 122) :((En 1905,les chalutiers britanniquesont commencé
à pratiquer la pêchedans les eaux le long de la côte septentrionale
de la Norvège et de la Russie D,et le contre-mémoire, au para-
graphe 91, déclare que (1c'est vers 1906 que les premiers chalu-
tiers britanniques firent leur apparition sur la côte du Finnmark
oriental ». La population locale s'est alarmée. Une loi a étépassée
le 2 juin 1906, interdisant la pêchedans les eaus territoriales
norvégiennes aux étrangers, et (depuis 1907, les garde-pêchesde
la Marine stationnent chaque année dans les €,aux de la Norvège
du Nord s (ibidem, paragraphe 93).
Pour 1908,l'avocat de la Norvègea déclaréàla Ccur (le 25 octobre)
que « La Norvège a organisé, dès 1908, sa police de la pêche ense
basant sur les lignes mêmesqui furent par la suite fixees par le
décretde 193j. » Il est étrange que ces lignes n'aient pas étécommu-
niquées au Royaume-Uni en 1908. D'après l'annexe 56 au contre-
mémoire (rapport présentépar 1'Ctat-major génCralde la Marine
norvégienne) :
11...les instructions donnéesen 1906aux garde-pêche de la Marine
prévoyaient deuxformes d'intervention à l'égarddes chalutiers :
l'avertissement et la capture.
A partir du jour où les chalutiers commencèrentde frkquenter
nos eaux arctiques, le premier avertissement fut adressé àun chalu-
tier britannique nommé GoldenSceptcr,l'été de 1908. u
En ce qui est de 1911, le II mars de cette année-là, quand le
chalutier britannique Lord Robertsa été arrêté dans leVaranger-
fjord et que le capitaine a étécondamné à l'amende pour violation
de la loi du 2juin 1906,les Gouvernements britannique et norvégien
ont échangédes notes et le ministre des Affaires étrangères de
Norvègea eu un entretien à Londres avec sirEdward Grey, ministre
des Affaires étrangères britannique. Au cours de cet entretien, le
ministre norvégien, M. Irgens, a « soutenu comme souhaitable que
l'Angleterre ne présentAtpas sur le moment de protestation écrite n
(ibidem,paragraphe 98 a) ; cependant, le II juillet 1911, le Gouver-
nement britannique a adresséune protestation à la Norvège (contre-
mémoire,annexe 35, no 1) dans laquelle il soutient qu'il n'a (jamais
admis que le Varangerfjord et le Vestfjord soient des eaux temto-
riales, ni était partie à aucun accord international conférant au'73 DISSESTIP\'G OPINION OF SIR AIiSOLD MCNAIR
of the Norwegian coasts". On October 13th, 1951, Mr. Arntzcn
said in the course of his oral argument :
"The Norwegian Government is liappy to sec the dispute which
has lasted so long submitted for the decision of the International
Court of Justice1think it may be relevant to recall that M.Irgens,
the Norwegian Foreign Minister, at the time of his discussions
[that is, in 191with Sir Edward Grey concerningthe Lord Roberts
incident in1911,was already spcaking of the possibility of arbitra-
tion as a solution to the dispute."
In later years many other trawiers were arrested, and the dispute
widened, but it was not until during the course of these proceedings
that the United Kingdom admitted that the waters of Varanger-
fjord urithin the line claimed by Norway were Norwegian waters.
Between the arrest of the Lord Roberts in 1911 and May 5th,
1949, sixty-three British and other fishing vessels were arrested for
fishing in alleged Norwegian waters, and many others were warned
(see Coiinter-Memorial, Annex 56).
1 must now examine the Decrees on which the Decree of
1935 purports to be based and some of which have been mentioned
as evidence that the United Kingdom had acquired or ought to
have acquired notice of the Norwegian system before the dispute
hegan.
(i) Tlte Royal Decree of February zznd, 1812. The Storting
Document No. 1711927tells us (pp. 506, 507) that after discussion
between the Admiralty and Foreign Office of the Kingdom of
Denmark-Norway, it was decided to request the King for a royal
resolution and the Chancellery defined the matter to be
"whether the temtorial sovereignty, or the point from which
the sovereign nght of protection is fixed, shall be measured from
the mainland or from the extremest skemes".
Thereupon the King of Denmark and of Norway made the
Decree, ofwhich a translation will be found on page 134 of the Judg-
ment of the Court. The Decree makes no mention of straight lines
between islands or islets, or of connecting headlands of the main-
land by any lines at all.
This is the first of the Decrees mentioned in the preamble as
the basis of the Decree of 1935, and it has been treated by the
Norwegian Agent and Counsel as the basis and the starting-point
of a series of Decrees made in the 19th century and of the Decree
6I OPINION DISSIDESTE DE SIR ARXOLD MCNAIR I73
Gouvernement norvégien le droit de souveraineté au delà dc
la limite des trois milles au large d'aucune portibn de la côte nor-
végienne D.Le 13 octobre 1951, M. Arntzen a dit, au cours de sa
plaidoirie:
«Le Gouvernement norvegien est bien aise de voir ce litige, qui
dure depuis si longtemps, soumis la décisionde la Cour. Je crois
pertinent de rappeler que.Irgens, ministre des Affairesétranghres
de Norvège,lors de son entretien avec sir Edward Grey [I~II]à
l'occasionde l'incident du Lord Roberen 1911, suggérale recours
àl'arbitrage commesolution du litig))
Plus tard, de nombreux autres chalutiers ont étésaisis et le
différends'est étendu, mais ce n'est qu'au cours des plaidoiries dans
la présente affaire que le Royaume-Uni a reconnu que les eaux du
Varangerfjord, en deçà de la ligne invoquéepar la Norvège, étaient
des eaux norvégiennes.
Entre la saisie du Lord Roberts, en 1911, et le 5 mai 1949,
soixante-trois bateaux de pêche britanniques et d'autres nationalités
ont étéarrêtéspourpêcherdans leseauxprétendument norvégiennes,
et beaucoup d'autres ont fait l'objet d'avertissements(voir contre-
mémoire, annexe 56).
Il me faut examiner maintenant les décrets sur lesquels celui
de 1935 prétend se fonder, et dont certains ont étécités comme
preuve que le Royaume-Uni avait acquis connaissance, ou aurait
dû avoir eu connaissance du système norvégien avant que le litige
n'ait commencé.
i) Le dkcret royal du 22 février1812. Le document du Storting,
no 1711927,nous dit (pp. 506, 507) qu'après une discussion entre
l'Amirauté et le ministère des Affaires étrangères du Royaume de
Danemark-Norvège, il fut décidéde demander au Roi de prendre
une résolution royale, et la Chancellerie a définila question comme
étant de savoir
csi la souverainetétemtonale, ou le point à partir duquelest
fixé le droit souverain de protection, doit êtremesuréedepuis le
continent ou depuis les récifs lesplus éloignés
Sur quoi le Roi de Danemark et de Norvègeprit le décret dont on
trouvera la traductionà la page 134 de l'arr&tde la Cour. Le décret
ne fait pas mention de lignes droites entre les îles et les îlots, ni
de relier les caps du continent par des lignes quelconques.
C'est là le premier des décrets cités dans le préambule comme
base du décret de 1935, et l'agent et l'avocat de la Norvège l'ont
traité comme la base et le point de départ il'une série de décrets
passés au XIX~~ siècleet du décret de 1935, une espèce de Magna
6I of 19.35-a kirid of JIaglzu Carfa. Tht Judgme~it of the Court
attributes "carclinal im1)ortance" to it. It therefore deserves close
examination. For this purpose, 1 must refer again to Storting
Ilocurnent So. 17 'qrj, ~vhich is a Report made by one section
of the "Enlarged ( oninlittee on Foreign Affairs and Constitution
of the Xorwegian Storting" in April 1927, later translated into
English and then printed and published by Sijthoff in Leyden in
1937, under the title of The Extettt of Jurisdictio~z in CoastaL
R'aters, 1)~.Christophcr H. 1'.Meyer, Captain, Royal Norwegian
Navy.
On pages 492 ff., this document passes undcr review a large
number of 17th ancl 18th-century Decrees anci E'roclamations,
amongst othcrs that of June 9, 1691 (Annes 6, 1, to the Counter-
Memorial), and another of June 13, 1691 (Annex 6, II) uhich,
it uill be iioticcld, refcrs to the area between tht, Xaze in Norway
and the Jutland Reef. It then refers to the 1)ccree of 1812and
tells us that it \vas "not in reality intended to be more than a
regulation for the actual purpose : prize cases on the southern
coasts". Further, on page 507, we are told that the Royal Reso-
lution "was communicated ...to al1 the Governors in Denmark
and Noway whose jurisdictions border the sea, al1 the prize
courts in Denmark and Korway and the Royal Supreme Admiralty
Court". It was communicated "for information" with the additional
order : "yet nothing of this must be published in printing".
Page 507 contains the following footnote :
"( ) N.R.A. C'hanc.,drafts. As far as is known, the resolution
was printed for the first time in 1830 in Historisk underrctning
om landvaernet by J. Chr. Berg. Dr. Rzestad states that up to
that time it was little known and apparently no appeal was made
to it previously, either in Denmark or in Nonvay. '
Thcn follow several quotations from Dr. Ræstad's Kongens
iitromme, commenting on the, expression "in al1 cases", which
should be rroted because his interpretation of "in al1 cases" difiers
from that about to be quoted from this document, and because
Dr. Kzstad stated that, though the Decree of 1812 "was intended
for neutrality questions", "the one-league limit at that time was
thc actual limit-at any rate the actual minimum limit-also for
nthtlr purposes than for neutrality". We are then told (p. 509) that
"in tlie liglit of the most recent investigations it seems quite clear
that tlit tenn 'in al1 cases' only means 'in al1 prize cases'. The
Resolution of zrnd 1:ebruar , 1812, only completed the foregoing
neutrdity rescripts by decid;:ngthe question which war left open
in 1759 :whetlier the league should be measured from terlafirma
or from the appurtenant skemes, etc. The one-league limit of
1812 had, tiierefore,rio greater scope than the one-league limit
ti2 OPISIOS DISSIDESTE DE SIR ARSOLD JICSAIK I7.l
Carta. L'arrêt de la Cour y attache iine (1importance capitale )IIl
mérite donc d'être cscmint de près. -4 cet effet, je me référeencore
au documtmt du Storting no 1711927, qui est un rapport d'une
section de la « Commission klaigit, des Affaires étrangtres et de la
Constitution di1 Storting de Sorvcgc IIcn avril 1927, traduit plus
tard en anglais et imprimé à I-c!.d(. (,ri1937 p;ir Sijtl~off, sous le
titre The Extent of Jz~risilictio~i iii C',.cisllzITaters. par C'hris-
topher B. V. lIej.c.r, C:aptaiii, 1Zoy;tl Sc,r\vc~ginrtSav!..
Aux pages 492 et ss., ct3 clociirneiit p:i-sc. eri revu(. Lin grand
nombre cles décrcstset proclainatiotis clii s\.II~~~et tlu X!.III~~<si.ècle,
entre autres celui (lu 9 juin 1691 (annexe 6, 1, au coiitrr.-tnhoire).
et un autre du 13 juin 1691 (anriexe 6, II) qiii. il falit lc remrircluer,
se réfère à la région entre le Saze en Xorvège et les récifs tlu Jut-
land. Il se réfèreensuite au décret de 18 12 et tious dit e clu'iln'avait
pas en réalité pour objet autre chose qu'une rC.glementation dans
un but déterminé :les affaires de pri'sessur les côtes sud ))On nous
dit plus loin, à la page 507, que la résolution royale ((fut communi-
quée ....à tous les gouverneurs au Danemark et en Sorvige doiit
la juridiction est bordée par la mer, à toutes les cours de prises au
Danemark et en Xorvège et à la Cour suprême de l'Amirauté
royale 1).Elle a étécommuniquée ccpour information )),avec I'ins-
truction supplémentaire : ((toutefois, rien de tout ceci ne doit
être publié par écrit n.
La page 507 contient la note suivante :
) N. R. A. Chanc., projets. Pour autant qu'on le sache,
la résolution a été imprimée pour la première fois en 1830 dans
le Historisk underrehtingom landvaernetpar J. Chr. Berg. Ræstad
déclareque jusque-là, elle était peu connue et qu'il semble qu'on
n'en ait pas fait état dans le passé, soit au Danemark, soit en
Norvhge. ))
Suivent plusieurs citations de Kongens Stromme, de Ræstad,
commentant l'expression ((danstous les cas n,qu'il faut noter parce
que son iiiterprétation de (dans tous les cas ))diffère de celle du
document que nous allons citer, et parce que Raestad d6clare que,
bien que le décret de 1812 I(ait eu pour objet des questions de
neutralité N, ccla limite d'une lieue était, à l'époque, la limite
effective - en tous les cas la limite effective minimum - également
à d'autres points de vue que la neutralité )).On nous dit ensuite
(P. 509) que :
IIà la lumière des recherches les plus récentes,il paraît clairement
établi que le terme Idans tous les cas 1)signifie simplement I(dans
toutes les affaires de prise )1La résolutiondu 22 février 1812 n'a
fait que compléterlesrescrits précitéssur la neutralité, en tranchant
la question laisséeouverte en 1759 de savoir si la lieue devait se
mesurer de la terre fermeou des écueilsattenants, etc. C'est pour-
quoi la limite d'une lieue de 1812 n'avait pas plus de portéeque
52I7.5 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
mentioned in the previous Royal Resolutions of the 18th century,
that is to Say,it applied only to neutrality questions, and waslaid
down only for the guidance of national authorities, not of foreign
Powers."
The relevance of these passages is that they shew :
(a) that the Decree of 1812 was little known for some 18years ;
(b) that it was intended for administrative purposes and not
for the guidance of foreign States ;
(c) that, in the opinion of some people, it only applied to
pnze cases and even then, according to this document, only
to prize cases on the southern coasts. On page 510 the Report
speaks of "the pnze case rule of zznd February, 1812".
Tt is clear that between 1869 and 1935 ''the prize case rule of
22nd February, 1812" was acquinng a wider connotation, as wve
shall now see.
Itdoes not matter whether the views expressed in the Storting
Document No. 171x927as to the meaning of the Royal Decree of
1812 are right or wrong. What is important from the point of view
of the alieged notonety of the Nonvegian system is that such views
asto the true import of the Decree of 1812 and its connection with
the Norwegian system could be held by responsible perçons in
Nonvay as late as the year 1927.
(ii) The Les Quatre Frères incident of 1868. This French fish-
ing boat was turned out of the Vestfjord by the Norwegian author-
ities. The French Government protested on the ground that the
Vestfjord was not part of Nonvegian territorial waters and "serves
as a passage for navigation towards the North". Correspondence
hetween the two Governments ensued, and the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Nonvay and Sweden on November 7th' 1868, claimed
Vestfjord "as an interior sea", which appears to have closed the
incident.
(iii)A Royal Decreeof October16th, 1869 p,rovided
"That a straight line drawn at a distance of I geographical
league parallel to a straight line running from the islet of Stor-
holrnen to the island of Svinoy shall be consideredto be the limit
of the sea belt for the coast of the Bailiwickof Sunnmore, within
which the fishing shall be exclusivelyeserved to the inhabitants
of the country."
This, according to Professor Bourquin (October 6), was the first
application of the Decree of 1812 to fishing. The straight base-line
connecting the two islands above mentioned was 26 miles in length.
The Counter-Memorial contains in Annex 16 a Statement of
Reasons submitted by the Minister of the Interior to the Crown
ciated October ~st, 1869, about which a few very much compressed
63 OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD YCNAIR I75
la limite d'une lieue mentionnéedans les résolutionsroy+es anté-
rieures duXVIII~~sikcle,c'est-à-dire qu'ellene s'appliquait qu'aux
questions de neutralité et qu'elle n'avait été étabque pour
guider les autorités nationaleset non les Puissances étrangères.
Ces passages sont pertinents en ce qu'ils démontrent :
a) que le décretde1812 a étépeu connu pendant quelque 18ans ;
h) qu'il était destiné à l'usage administratif et non à servir de
guide aux Puissances étrangères;
c) que, de l'avis de certains, il ne s'appliquait qu'aux affaires de
prises et mêmealors, d'après ce document, seulement aux
affaires de prises sur la côte méridionale. la page 510 le
rapport parle de« la règledu22 février1812sur lesprisen.
Il est clair que 1869 à 1935 la portée de«la règledu22 février
181z sur les prises » allait s'élargissant, ainsi que nous allons
le voir.
Peu importe que l'opinion expriméedans le document du Storting
no 171192 s7rla signification du décretd1812 soit ou non correcte.
Cequi importe au point de vue de la prétendue notoriétédu système
norvégien, c'est que cette opinion sur la véritable portée du décret
de 1812 et ses rapports avec le système norvégienait pu êtreparta-
géepar les milieux informésen Norvège jusqden 1927.
ii) L'incident des Quatre-Frères,en 1868. Les autorités norvé-
giennes avaient refoulé ce navire de pêchefrançais hors du Vest-
fjord. Le Gouvernement français a protesté, pour le motif que le
Vestfjord ne faisait pas partie des eaux territorianorvégiennes
et qu'il« sert de passageà la navigation vers le nordn.Dans la
correspondance qui suivit entre les deux gouvernements,le ministre
des Maires étrangères de Norvège et de Suède, le 7 novem-
bre 1868, revendique le Vestfjord«comme une mer intérieure )),ce
qui paraît avoir clos l'incident.
iii) Un décretroyal du 16 octobre1869 édicte:
«Qu'une ligne droite tiràela distance d'une lieuegéographique
et parallklementà une ligne droite joignant l'îlot de Storhoimen
à 1île de Svinoy soit considérécomme la limite de la zone de
mer au large du bailliage du Sunnmore où la pêchesera réservée
exclusivement àla population du pays».
C'est là, d'après le professeur Bourqui(6 octobre), la première
application du décret de 1812 à la pêche.La ligne droite de base
reliant les deux îles susmentionnées était longue de26 milles.
A l'annexe 16 du contre-mémoire figure l'exposé des motifs,
présentépar le ministre de l'Intérieur à la Couronne, en date du
ler octobre 1869, sur lequel je dois faire quelques commentaires
63commcnts must be rnade. Firstly, it represcnts the cry of the small
man in the open boat against the big man in the decked boat. It
says that the area in question "has of recent years been invaded by
a growing number of dccked \.essels, both Suredish and Norwegian
cutters, from which fishing {vas practised with heavy lines", etc.
Apparently the Swedes began it in 1866and the Sortvegians followed
suit.Anothrr passage states that the local fishermen "bitterly com-
plained of the fact that intruders on the fishing grounds pre-
viously visited exclusivel~ by Norwegians were mainly foreigners-
Swedes". The fear was also expressed that fishing boats from other
countries, especially France, might soon appear on the fishing
banks. Accordingly, the llinister had been asked "to form an opin-
ion on the possibility of claiming them as Norwegian property".
(The reference to France was probably prornpted by the T7estfjord
incident of the previous year which would be fresh in the depart-
mental mind.)
The Statement of Keasons invokes the precedent of the Decree
of 1812. In addition, there is aletter of November rst, 1869 (Annex
No. 28 to the Counter-Memonal) from the Norwegian Minister of
the Interior to the Swedish Minister of Civil Affairs, informing
him of the Decree made on the 16th instant (? ultimo), and
it contains the passage : "it has been desired to bring this matter
to the notice of the Royal Ministry in order that the latter may
publish the information in those Swedish districts from which
the fishing fleets set out for the Norwegian coast". (There is no
evidence of any notification of the Decree to any other State.)The
penultimate sentence in this letter is as follows:
is reason to believe that the fishermen of many foreign countries
would visit them, with the result ofa diminution of the products
of the fishery for everybody."
The Decree was a public document. A large part of the Statement
of Reasons is quoted in the Norwegian Report of a Commission
on the Delimitation of Territorial Waters of 1912, but, so far as 1
am aware, the Statement of Reasons was not published at the time
of making the Decree.
The French Government-probably on the qui-vzve by reason
of the Vestfjord incident of the previous year-became aware
of the Decree of 1869 two months later and a diplomatic corre-
spondence between the two Governments ensued, in which the
French Government contended that "the limits for fishing between
[Svinoy and Storholmen]should have been a broken line following
the configuration of the coast which would have brought it nearer OPISIOS DISS1L)ESTE DE SIR ARSOI.1) .\ICS.IIK 17~
triis condensés. Toiit d'abord, il représente la ]:rotestation du
petit pêcheur, dans iine petite embarcation, coiitre la grosse
entreprise, se serrant d'embarcations pontées. Il déclare que la
région dont il s'agit avait été envahie 11pendant les dernières
années par un nombre croissant de bAtimcnts pontés. de cotres
tant subdois que norvégiens, d'où l'on faisait la pêche avec de
grosses cordes ),etc. Il semble que les Suédois aient commencé
en 1866 et que les Norvégiens aient suivi le mouvement. Plus
loin, on nous dit que les pêcheurslocaux Ise plaignaient fortement
du fait que c'était en grande partie des étrangers - des Suédois -
qui s'étaient de cette manière introduits sur les lieux de pêche
fréquentés jusqu'alors exclusivement par des ressortissants nor-
végiens n. On exprimait également l'inquiétude de voir des embar-
cations de pêched'autres pays, et en particulier de la France, faire
bientôt leur apparition sur les bancs de pêche. En conséquence,
on avait demandé au ministre de (se faire une opinion sur la
possibilité de les revendiquer comme propriété norvégienne »
(l'allusionà la France était probablement dictée par l'incident
du Vestfjord, l'année précédente, qui devait être tout frais à la
mémoire du ministère).
L'exposé des motifs invoque le précédent du décret de 1812.
En outre, il existe une lettre du lernovembre 1869 (annexe no 28
au contre-mémoire) du ministre norvégien de l'Intérieur au ministre
suédois des Affaires civiles, lui faisant part du décret du6 courant
(dernier?), et qui contient le passage suivant : ccon a tenu à
porter ceci à la connaissance du ministère royal pour que celui-ci
veilleà ce qu'en soient informées les régionsde Suèded'où partent
les expéditions de pêche pour la côte norvégienne ».(Il n'existe
pas de preuve que le décret ait éténotifié à 'aucun autre pays.)
L'avant-dernière phrase de cette lettre est ainsi conçue :
«D'ailleurs, si la pêchesur ces lieux reste libre, tout portà
croire que les pêcheurs dplusieursnations Ctranghress'yrendront,
ce qui diminuera le produit de la pêchepour tous. »
Ce décret était un document public. Une grande partie de
l'exposé des motifs est citée dans le rapport norvégien à une
commission pour la délimitation des eaux territoriales en 1912,
mais je ne sache pas que l'exposé des motifs ait été publié à
l'époque où le decret a étépris.
Le Gouvernement français - probablement sur le qui-vive en
raison de l'incident du Vestfjord l'année préddente - a eu
connaissance du decret de 1869. deux mois plus tard. Il s'ensuivit
une correspondance diplomatique entre les deux gouvernements,
dans laquelle le Gouvernement français a soutenu que u la limite
de péche entre [Svinoy et Storholmen] aurait dû être une ligne
brisée suivant les contours de la côte dont elle se serait plus
64 '77 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIH
that coast than the present limit". The last item in this corre-
spondence is a Note from the French Chargé d'Affairesat Stock-
holm to the Foreign Minister of Norway and Sweden, dated July 27,
1870, which referred to "the future consequences ...that might
follow from Ouradhesion to the principles laid down in the Decree",
and stated that "this danger ...could easily be avoided if it were
understood that the limit fixed by the Decree of October 16th
does not rest upon a principle of international law, but upon a
practical study of the configuration of the coasts and of the con-
ditions of the inhabitants", and offered to recognize the delimitation
de facto and to join in "a common survey of the coasts to be
entrusted to two competent naval officers". It would appear that
the French Government wished to protect itself against a de jure
recognition of principle. Meanwhile, on July 19, the Franco-
Prussian war had broken out, and there the matter has rested
ever since.
(iv) A Royal Decree of September gth, 1889, extended the lirnit
fixed by the Decree of 1869 northward.in front of the districts of
Romsdal and Nordmore by means of a series of four straight lines,
connecting islands, totailing about 57 miles, so that the two Decrees
of 1869 and 1889 established straight base-lines of a total length
of about 83 miles. The Decree of 1889 was also motivated by a
Statement of Reasons submitted by the Minister of the Interior
to the Crown, which was included in a publication called Departe-
ments-Tzdendeof March 9, 1890. This Statement of Reasons, which
also refers to the Decree of 1812, indicates the necessity of empower-
ing the Prefect responsible for Nordmore and Romsdal to make
regulations prohibiting fishing boats from lying atanchor at certain
points on the fishinggrounds during February and March. It makes
no reference to foreign vessels.
The question thus anses whether the two Decrees of 1869 and
1889, affecting a total length of maritime frontier of about 83 miles,
and connecting islands but not headlands of the mainland, ought
to have been regarded by foreign States when they became aware
of them, or ought but for default on their part to have become
aware, as notice that Norway had adopted a peculiar system of
delimiting her maritime temtory, which in course of time would
be described ashaving been from the outset of universal application
throughout the whole coast line amounting (without taking the
sinuosities of the fjords into account) to about 3,400 kilometres
(about I,830 sea-miles), or whether these Decrees could properly
be regarded as regulating a purely local, and primarily domestic,
situation. 1 do not see how these two Decrees can be said to have
notified to the United Kingdom the existence of a system of
straight base-lines applicable to the whole coast. In the course ofthe
oral argument, Counsel for the United Kingdom admitted that OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCXAIR I77
rapprochée que la limite actuelle D. Le dernier élément de cette
correspondance est une note du chargé d'affaires de France à
Stockholm au ministre des Affaires étrangères de Suède et de
Norvège, datée du 27 juillet 1870, qui se réfèreaux I(conséquences
qui devraient résulter ....dans l'avenir de notre adhésion aux
principes posésdans cette ordonnance I:et déclare que Ice dan,aer
serait d'ailleùrs facilement écartés'il était entendu que la limite
fixée par l'ordonnance du 16 octobre repose non point sur un
principe de droit international, mais sur une étude pratique de
la configuration des côtes et des conditions des populaticns » et
offrait de reconnaître la délimitation de facto, et de participer
« à une exploration commune des côtes, confiée à deux officiers
de marine compétents IILe Gouvernement français paraît avoir
voulu se prémunir contre une reconnaissance de principe de jure.
Entre temps, la guerre franco-prussienne avait 6clafé le 19 juillet
et la question en est restée là depuis lors.
iv) Un décretroyal du 9 septembre 1889 a étendu la limite fixée
par le décret de 1869 vers le nord, en face des districts de Romsdal
et de Nordmore, au moyen d'une série de quatre lignes droites
reliant les îles, et mesurant au total environ 57 milles, en sorte
que les deux décrets de 1869 et de 1889 ont institué des lignes
droites de base d'une longueur totale d'environ 83 milles. Le décret
de 1889 était également fondé sur un exposé des motifs présenté
par le ministre de l'Intérieurà la Couronne et inclus dans une publi-
cation dénommée Departements-Tidende du 9 mars 1890. Cet exposé
des motifs, qui se réfèreégalement au décret de 1812, indique la
nécessitéde permettre aux préfets responsables du Nordmore et du
Romsdal de prendre des règlements interdisant aux navires de
pêchede rester à l'ancre sur certains points des lieux de pêcheen
février et en mars. Il ne fait aucune allusion aux navires étrangers.
La question se pose donc de savoir si les deux décrets de 1869
et de 1889, affectant une frontière maritime d'une longueur totale
d'environ 83 milles et reliant les fles, mais non les caps du continent,
auraient dû être considéréspar les États étrangers, quand ils en
ont eu connaissance, ou quand, sauf défaillance de leur part, ils
eussent dû en avoir eu connaissance, comme constituant notification
que la Norvège avait adopté un systèmeparticulier pour la délimi-
tation de son territoire maritime, système qui, avec le temps, vien-
drait à êtredéfini comme ayant été, dès l'origine, applicable uni-
versellement, tout le long de la côte (sanstenir compte des sinuosités
des fjords), sur environ 3.400 km. (environ 1.830 milles marins) de
long, ou si ces décrets pouvaient. légitimement être considérés
comme réglementantune situation purement locale etessentiellement
intérieure.. Je ne vois pas comment ces deux décrets peuvent être
considérés comme portant notification au Royaume-Uni de l'exis-
tence d'un système de lignes de base droites, applicable à toute178 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
the United Kingdom acquiesced in the lines laid down by these
Decrees as lines applicable to the areas which they cover.
(v) A Decres of January 5th, 1881, prohibited whaling during
the first five months of each calendar year
"along the coasts of Finnmark, at a maximum distance of one
geographical leaguefrom the coast, calculating this distance from
the outermost island or islet, which not covered b the sea. As
regards the Varangerfjord, the limit out to sea Xfe prohibited
belt is a straight line;awn from Cape Kibergnes to the River
Grense-Jakobselv. It must thereby be understood, however,that
the killing orhunting of whalesring the above-mentionedperiod
will also be prohibited beyond that line at distances of less than
one geographical league fromthe coast near Kibergnes."
Thus, while expressly fixing a straight base-line across the mouth
of the Varangerfjord (which is no longer in dispute in this case),
the Decree makes no suggestion and gives no inàication that it
instituted a system of straight base-lines from the outermost points
on the mainland and islands and rocks at any other part "along
the coasts of Finnmark". 1 find it difficult to see how this Decree
can be said to have given notice of a Norwegian system of straight
base-lines from Træna in the west to the Russian frontier in the
east.
(vi).The 1881 Hague Conferenceregarding Fisheriesin theNorth
Sea resultingi/t the Conventionof 1882. The Judgment of the Court
refers to this incident and draws certain conclusions from it. This
Conference was summoned upon the initiative of Great Britain
with a view to the signature of a Convention as to policing the
fisheries in the NorthSea. The following States were represented:
Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Sweden,
Norway, the delegate of the last-named being M. E. Bretteville,
Naval Lieutenant and Chief Inspector of Herring Fishery. The
intention was that the Convention should operate on the high
seas and not in temtorial waters, and consequently it was necessary
to define the extent of the temtorial waters within the area affected.
The procès-verbaux of the meetings are to be found in a British
White Paper C. 3238, published in 1882.
The northern limit of the operation of the Convention was fixed
by Article 4 at the parallel of the 61st degree of latitude, which
is south of the area in dispute in this case.
At the second session of the Conference, the question of Tem-
tonal Waters was discussed, and the following statement appears
in the procès-verbaux :
66 OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARXOLD YCNAIR 178
la côte. Au cours des plaidoiries, le conseil du Royaume-Uni a
reconnu que ce pays avait donné son acquiescement aux lignes
tracées par les décrets de 1869 et 1889 comme lignes applicables
aux régions qu'ilsconcernent.
v) Un décretdu 5 janvier 1881 interdit de chasser les cétacés
pendant les cinq premiers mois de chaque année
(sur la cbte du Finnmark, à la distance d'une lieuegéographique
au maximum du littoral, àcompter de l'îleou l'îlot le plus éloigné
qui n'est pas recouvertpar la mer. Pour le Varangerfjord, la limite
en merdela zoneinterdite est une lignedroitetiréedu capKibergnes
qu'il sera interdit de tuer ou de chasser les cétacéspendant la
périodeprécitée, également au deldàe cette ligne,des distances
du littoral prèsde Kibergnesinférieuresune lieuegéographique.n
Ainsi, tout en fixant expressément une ligne droite de base à
travers l'embouchure du Varangerfjord (lequel ne fait plus l'objet
d'un litige dans la présente espèce),le décret ne suggère ni n'in-
dique qu'on ait institué, en l'adoptant, un système de lignes droites
de base, tirées entre les points extrêmes du continent et sur les
îles et rochers, en aucune autre partie de la côte«sur la côte du
Finnmark n. Il me paraît difficile de concevoir comment on peut
alléguer que ce décret a annoncé le système norvégien de lignes
droites de base depuis Traena,à l'ouest, jusqu'à la frontière russe,
à l'est.
vi) La ConfLrencetenue à La Haye en 1881au sujet despêcheries
de la mer du Nord et qui a abouti à la Conventionde 1882. L'arrêt
de la Cour mentionne cet incident pour en tirer certaines conclu-
sions. Cette conférencefut convoquée sur l'initiative de la Grande-
Bretagne, en vue de faire signer une convention relativà la police
des pêcheriesde la mer du Nord. Les États suivants étaient repré-
sentés : l'Allemagne, la Belgique, le Danemark, la France, la
Grande-Bretagne, la Suède et la Norvège ;le délégué de ce dernier
pays était M. E. Bretteville, lieutenant dans la Marine royale et
inspecteur en chef des pêcheriesde hareng. L'intention était que
la convention s'appliquat A la haute mer et non aux eaux temto-
riales. Il était par conséquent nécessaire de définir l'étendue des
eaux territoriales dans la région que devait viser la convention.
On trouvera les procès-verbaux des rCunions dans un livre blanc
britannique C. 3238, publié en 1882.
La limite d'application de la convention au nord fut fixéepar
l'article4 au 61- paralltle,qui se trouve au sud de la région
contestée dans le présent litige.
Lors de la deuxième dance de la confbrence, on examina la
questionrelative aux eauxtemtoriales, ainsiqu'il ressort de l'extrait
suivant des procès-verbaux :
66 "The Norwegian delegate, M. E. Brethille, could not accept the
proposal to fix territorial limits at 3 miles, particularly with respect
to bays. He was also of opinion that the international police ought
not to prejudice the rights which particular Powers might have
acquired, and that bays should continue to belong to the State
to which they at present belong."
Strictly speaking, there was no need for the Norwegian delegate
to refer to the Decree of 1869 because the Convention deals with
the area south of the parallel of the 6rst degree of latitude, but
if a system of straight base-lines had already been adopted by
Norway in 1881 as being of general application al1round the coast,
it is surprising that he made no reference to it at a Conference
at which al1 the States primarily interested in fishing in the North
Sea were represented, and as a result of which all, except Norway
and Sweden, accepted the provisions of Article II of the Con-
vention, of which the following is an extract :
"Article II
The fishermen of each country shall enjoy the exclusive right
of fishery within the distance 3miles from low-water mark along
the whole extent of the coasts of their respective countries, as well
as of the dependent islands and banks.
As regards bays, the distance of3.milesshall be measured from
a straight line drawn across the bay, in the part nearest the
entrance, at the first point where the width does not exceed
IO miles."
The Convention was eventually signed and ratified by al1 the
States represented except Norway and Sweden.
This incident, to which 1 attach particular importance, induces
me to put two questions :
(a) If a Norwegian system of delimiting territorial waters by
means of straight base-lines had been in existence since 1869 (only
12 years earlier), could the Norwegian delegate, the Chief Inspector
of Herring Fishery, have found a more suitable opportunity of
disclosing its existencehan a Conference of Governments interested
in fishing in the North Sea ? In fact, could he have failed to do so
if the system existed, for it would have afforded a conclusive reason
for inability to participate in the Convention of 1882 ?
(b) Could any of the Governments which ratified this Conven-
tion, knowing that Norway claimed four miles as the width of
temtorial waters and claimed her fjords as interna1 waters, be
affected by the abstention of Norway with notice of the existence
of a sj-c!clmwhich one day in the future would disclose long straight
67 0PIh;IOS DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR I79
«Le délégué de ia Norvège,M. E. Brettevillene peut pas accepter
la fixation des limites temtorialesà 3 milles, surtout en ce qui
concerne les baies ; il est également d'avis que la police inter-
nationale' ne saurait porter atteinte aux droits que pourraient
avoir acquis certaines Puissances, et que les baies devront con-
tinuer d'appartenir à l'État auquel elles appartiennent actuelle-
ment. ))
A proprement parler, le dClCgu6norvégien n'eut pas besoin de
se référerau décret de 1869, parce que dans la convention on
s'occupe de la région située au sud du 61me parallèle, mais si le
système de lignes droites de base était, déjà en 1881, accepté
en Norvège comme d'application généraletout le long de la côte,
il est surprenant que le délégué norvégienn'en ait point fait
mention ,au cours d'une conférence à laquelle étaient représentés
tous les Etats principalement intéressés à la pêchedans la mer du
Nord, et à la suite de laquelle to~s ces Etats, sauf la Norvège et
la Suède, acceptèrent les dispositions de l'article II de la conven-
tion dont suit un extrait :
((Article II
Les pêcheursnationaux jouiront du droit exclusif de pêchedans
- le rayon de 3 milies,à partir de la laisse de basse mer, le long de
toute l'étendue des côtes de leurs pays respectifs, ainsi que des
îles et des bancs qui en dépendent.
Pour les baies, le rayon de 3 milles sera mesuré à partir d'une
Lignedroite, tirée en travers de la baie, dans la partie la plus rap-
prochéede l'entrée, au premier point où l'ouverture n1excCdera
pas IO milles.1)
La convention fut finalement signée et ratifiée par tous les
États représentés, à l'exception de la Norvège et de la Suède.
Cet incident, auquel j'attache une importance particulière,
m'amène à poser deux questions :
a) S'il avait existé dès 1869 (douze ans plus tôt seulement) un
système norvégien de délimitation des eaux territoriales au moyen
de lignes droites de base, le délégué norvégien, inspecteur en chef
des pêcheriesde hareng, aurait-il pu, pour en révélerl'existence,
trouver une occasion mieux appropriée qu'une conférence des
gouvernements intéressés à la pèche dans la mer du Nord ? En
réalité, aurait-il manqué de le faire si le système avait existé,
car c'eût étéen-effet un motif suffisant pour justifier l'impossibilitrL
d'être partie à la Convention de 1882 ?
b) L'un quelconque des gouvernements ïâtifiant la convention,
sachant que la Norvège réclamait quatre milles pour la largeur de
ses eaux territoriales et revendiquait ses fjoraç comme eaw int6-
rieures, peut-il recevoir notification, par le fait de l'abstention de
la Norvège, de l'existence d'un système destiné à révélerun jour
67 180 DISSENTISG OPIXION OF SIR ARNOLD SIC‘I‘.~IR
base-lines drawn dong a stretch of coast line about 560 miles in
length (without counting fjords and other indentations), and which
1s applicable to the whole coast ?
Paragraph 96 of the Counter-Memorial, in discussing the events
of the year 1908, states that
"it may be asked why Norway did not from thebeginninguse force
on al1 her temtorial waters to apply the existing lawsrelating to
foreign fishermen" ..."In this respect it must beremembered that
Norway had but recently acquired a separate diplomatic service,
following the dissolution of the union with Sweden in 1905."
It is possible that this fact may explain the absence of any cate-
goncal assertion of the Xorwegian system of straight base-lines as
a system of universal application along the Norwegian coasts and
the notification of that system to foreign States. But even if this
is the explanation, it is difficult to see why it should constitute a
reason why foreign States should be affected by notice of this system
and precluded from protesting against it when it is enforced against
them.
In these circumstances, 1 do not consider that the United
Kingdom was aware, or ought but for default on her part to have
become aware, of the existence of a Norwegian system of long
straight base-lines connecting outermost points, before this dispute
began in 1906 or 1908 or 1911.
1 must refer very briefly to certain incidents occurring after
the dispute began, though they have no bearing on the question of
acquiescence. Some of them are dealt with in the Judgment of
the Court or in other Individual Opinions.
In 1911, the Norwegian Govemment appointed a "Commission
for the Limits of Temtorial Waters in Finnmark", which reported
on February zgth, 1912. A copy of Part 1,General, was translated
into French and sent "unofficialiy" to the United Kingdom
Govemment .
The following passage occurs on page 20 of this Part 1 :
"En générald ,ans lescas particuliers, on prendra le plus sûrement
une décision enconformité avec la vieille notion juridique nor-
végienne, si l'on considkre la ligne fondamentale comme étant
68 OPISION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCN.4IR 180
de longues lignes droites de base tracées sur une longueur de côte
qui (sans compter les fjords et les autres échancrures) mesure
environ 560 milles de long, et s'appliquant 5 toute la côte ?
11est énonceau paragraphe 96 du contre-mémoire, à propos des
événementsde IQOS :
1On peut se demander pourquoi le Gouvernement norvégien
n'usa pas, dèsle début, de l'emploi de la force sur tout son terri-
toire maritime dans l'application des lois en vigueur à l'égard
des pêcheurs étrangers. » ....(A ce propos, il faut d'abord retenir
lefait que la Norvègevenait à peine, à la suite de la dissolution
de son union avec la Suède en 1905, d'êtredotée d'un service
diplomatique distinct. ))
Peut-être ce fait explique-t-il l'absence d'une affirmation catc-
gorique du système norvégien de lignes droites de base comme sys-
tème d'application unil-ersel le long des côtes de la Norvège et l'ab-
sence d'une notification aux Etats étrangers. Mais, mêmesi telle
est llexp!ication, il est difficile d'entrevoir en cela un motif polir
que les Etats étrangers soient soumis à l'effet d'une notification et
soient forclos 5 protester quand le système leur est appliqué.
Dans ces conditions, je ne considère pas que le Royaume-Uni ait
pu. ou ait dû,avant la naissance du différend en 1906, ou 1908, ou
1911, et sauf négligence de sa part, se rendre compte de l'existence
d'un système norvégien de longues lignes droites de hase reliant
des points extrêmes.
. Je dois mentionner brièvement certains incidents qui se sont pro-
\ duits après la naissance du différend, encore qu'ils n'affectent pas
la question de l'acquiescement. Certains d'entre eux sont examinés
dans l'arrêt dela Cour et dans d'autres opinions individuelles.
En 1911, le Gouvernement n0rvégien.a nommé une « commission
de la frontière des eaux temtoriales du Finnmark » qui a présenté
un rapport le 22 février1912. Une copie de la première partie (partie
générale)a ététraduite en français et envoyée à titre ((officieux1)
au Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.
Ala page 20 decette première partie, on trouve le passage suivant:
«En général,dans les cas particuliers, on prendra le plus sûre-
ment une décision enconformité avec la vieille notion juridique
norvégienne,si l'on considère la ligne fondamentale comme étant
68 tiréeentre lespoints lesplusextrêmedont ilpourrait êtrequestion,
nonobstant la longueur de la ligne."
This is clearly the language of a l>roposal. The tenses of the
verbç should be noted.
On the same day, "the commis si or^prvscritcd Report So. 2
'Special and Confidential Part', containing proposals for tht:
definite fixing of base-lines around Finnmark" (Counter-Memorial,
paragraph 104). In 1913 a confidential Keport was made upon
the proposed base-lines on the coasts of the two other provinces
concerned, Nordland and Troms (ibidem, paragraph 105). It
appears (ibidem)that the base-points proposed in these confidential
Reports are those ultimately adopted by the Decree of 1935 ;
the confidential Reports were not disclosed until 1950 when they
appeared as Annexes 36 and 37 of the Counter-Memorial.
The Judgment of the Court refers to the Judgment of the
Supreme Court of Norway in the St. Just case in 1934, in M-hich
that British vessel was condemned for fishing in temtorial waters
under the Law of 1906. It is clearly a decision of high authority.
From 1934 onwards, it is conclusive in Norway as to the rneaning
of the Decree of 1812 and as to its effect, whether or not it has
been specificaily applied to portions of thecoast by later Decrees.
But this Court, while bound by the interpretation given in the
St. Jzrst decision of Norwegian interna! law, is in no way precluded
from examining the international implications of that law. It is
a weU-established rule that a State can never plead a provision
of, or lack of a provision in, its internal law or an act or omission
of its executive power as a defence to a charge that it has violated
international law. This was decided as long ago as in the Geneva
Arbitration of 1870-1871 on the subject of the Alabama Claims,
when the British Government pleaded that it had exercised ail
the powers possessed by it under its existing legislation for the
purpose of preventing the Alabama from leaving a British port
and cruising against Federal American shipping, an omission
which cost Great Britain a large sum of money.
The Si. Just decision is important in the sense that, after the
decision, the existence of a Norwegian system of straight base-
lines cannot be denied either within Norway or on the inter-
national plane. Only eight years earlier there had occurred the
Deutschland case (a case of an attempt by a German vessel to
sell contraband spirits) (Annex 9 to the Memorial and Annex 47
to the Counter-Memorial and Annex 31 to the Reply), in which
69 tirée entre les points les plus extrêmesdont il pourrait être
question, nonobstant la longueur de la ligne.))
C'est là évidemment le langage dont on se sert pour faire une
proposition. On remarquera les temps des verbes.
Le mêmejour : «la commission déposa le rapport no 2 « partie
spéciale » (confidentiel) contenant des propositions pour le tracé
concret des lignes de base pour le Finnmark 1)(contre-mémoire,
paragraphe 104). Plus tard, en 1913, un rapport confidentiel a été
établi au sujet de lignes de base envisagées le long des côtes des
deux autres provinces intéressées, leNordland et Troms (ibidem,
paragraphe 105). Il semble (ibidem) que les points de base proposés
dans ces rapports confidentiels sont ceux qui ont étéadoptés fina-
lement par le décret de 1935 ;les rapports confidentiels n'ont pas
étépubliésavant 1950, lorsqu'ils ont étéprésentéscomme annexes
36 et 37 au contre-mémoire.
L'arrêtde la Cour mentionne l'arrêtrendu par la Cour suprême
de Norvège dans l'affaire du St. Just,en 1934, dans laquelle un
bateau de pêchebritannique fut condamné en application de la
loi de 1906 pour avoir pêchédans les eaux temtoriales. Il s'agit
évidemment d'une décisionde grande autorité. Depuis 1934, cette
décision fait jurisprudence en Norvège quant au sens du décret
de 1812 et à son effet, que ledit décret ait ou non étéappliqué
spécifiquement à des parties de la côte par des décrets ultérieurs.
Mais encore que notre Cour soit liéepar l'interprétation du droit
interne norvégien qui figure dans l'arrêt rendu en l'affaire du
St. JZLS~ rien ne l'empêche d'examiner les implications de ce
droit au point de vue international. C'est un principe bien établi
qu'un État ne peut jamais invoquer une disposition, ou l'absence
de dispositions, de son droit interne, ou un acte ou omission de
son pouvoir exécutif comme un moyen pour se défendre d'une
accusation d'avoir enfreint le droit international. Ceci a étédécidé
dès l'arbitrage de Genève (1870-1871) dans l'aflaire de 1'Alabama,
lorsque le Gouvernement britannique plaida qu'il avait exercé
tous les pouvoirs possédéspar lui en vertu de sa législationexistante,
pour empêcher l'Alabama de quitter un port britannique et de
tenir croisière pour attaquer les navires de la manne fédérale
américaine - omission qui coûta àla Grande-Bretagne une somme
considérable.
L'arrêtdu St. Just est important en ce sens qu'à partir de cet
arrêton ne peut nier, ni en Norvège, ni sur le plan international,
l'existence d'un système norvégien de lignes droites de base.
L'affaire du Dezctschlands'était produite seulement huit ans plus
tôt (il s'agissait de la tentative paun navire allemand de vendre
des alcools de contrebande) (annexe g du mémoire, annexe 47
du contre-mémoire et annexe 31 de la réplique). Dans cette affaire
69182 DISSEISTIXG OPII~IO~ OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
thr Norwegian Supreme Court, b? d majority of 5 to I,quashed
a conviction by an inferior Court which had been upheld by the
Court of Appeal. In the Dezrtschlund case, which has now been
overruled by the St. Just, it was possible for so distinguished a
Norwegian jurist as the latz Dr. Rlestad (much quoted by both
Parties in this case) to say in the Opinion supplied by him at
the request of the Public Prosecutor that :
"The question arises, however, whether in the present case the
islets and isolated reefs, or-as the Court of First Instance has,
done-£rom imaginary base-lines drawn between two islands,
islets or reefs and, if necessary, how these base-lines are to bc
drawn. A distinction must be made here. On the one hand, the
problem arises whether according to international law a State is
entitled to declare that certain parts of the adjoining sea fa11
under its sovereignty in certain-or all-respects. On the other
hand, the question may anse whether a State under international
law, or by virtue of its own laws, is entitled to consider that its
national legislation in the détermined case extends to these sarne
parts of the adjoining sea when it has not yet been established
that its sovereignty extends that far. A State rnay have a certain
competence without having made use of it."
and later
"Neither the letters patent [that is: in effect, the Decree of 18121
nor, if they exist, the supplementary rules of customary law, pres-
cnbe how and between what islands, islets or rocks the base-lines
. should be drawn ...."
It does not greatly matter whether Dr. Ræstad's views are right.
or wrong. What is important, from the point of view of the noto-
riety of the Norwegian system of straight base-lines, is that, in
the year 1926,a lawyer of his standing and possessing his knowledge
of the law governing Norwegian territorial waters shodd envisage
the possible alternative methods of drawing base-lines, for the
Norwegian contention is that the United Kingdom must for a long
time past have been aware of the Norwegian system of straight
base-lines connecting the outermost points on mainland, islands
and rocks, and had acquiesced in it.
The following paçsage occurs in the Deutschland case in the
Judgment of Judge Bonnevie, who delivered the first judgment
as a member of the majority :
"It is ah a matter of common knowledge that the public autho-
as for example the Vestfjord and the Varangerfjord, as being Nonve-
gian temtorial waters in their entirety, and that the territorial
limitsshould be drawn on the bais of straight lines at the mouth of
the fjord(sic),regardless of the fact that very great areas outside
the four-mile limit are thus included in Norwegian territory. But, OPINION DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARXOLD MCNAIR 182
la Cour suprême de Norvège, par une majorité de cinq contre un,
a casséune condamnation prononcée par une juridiction inférieure,
et maintenue en appel. Dans l'arrêt du Deutschland, qui a été
depuis annulé par l'arrêt du St. Just, un junste norvégien aussi
éminent que feu M. Ræstad (abondamment citépar les deux Parties
en la présente affaire) pouvait dire, dans l'avis qu'il a présente
sur la demande du ministère public, que :
«Mais la question se pose si, dans le cas prisent. l'on doit déter-
miner l'étendue du territoire maritime en partant d'îles, d'îlots
ou d'écueilsisolés, ou bien- comme l'a fait le tribunal de première
instance - en partant de lignes de base tracées virtuellement
ces lignesde base. Il est nécessaireici de faire un<,distinction. D:une
part le problème sepose si, d'après le droit international, un Etat
est en droit de déclarer certaines portions de la mer adjacente
comme relevant de sa souveraineté a certains - ou a tous les -
égards. D'autre part, on peut se demander si un État, d'après le
droit international et en vertu de ses propres lois, est fondé à
considérersa législationnationale dans une application déterminée
comme s'étendant àces mêmesportions de la mer adjacente, quand
il n'apas encore établi que sa souveraineté s'étend jusque la. Un
État peut posséderune certaine compétence sans s'en êtreservi. u
Et plus loin
n Ni la lettre patente de chancellerie, lesrèglessupplémentaires
possibles de droit coutumier ne prescrivent comment, entre quelles
îles, îlots ou rochers, les lignes de base doivent éventuellement être
tracees...u
Il n'importe guère que les conclusions de M. Ræstad soient
exactes ou erronées. Ce qui importe au point se vue de la notoriété
du système norvégien des lignes droites de base, c'est qu'en 1926,
un junste jouissant d'une réputation telle que la sienne, et d'une
connaissance aussi approfondie du droit qui régit les eaux temto-
riales norvégiennes, ait envisagé la possibilité de méthodes alterna-
tives pour tracer les lignes de base, car selon la thèse norvé~enne,
le Royaume-Uni doit depuis longtemps s'être rendu compte du
système norvégien des lignes droites de base reliant les points
extrêmes situés sur le continent, les îles et rochers, et avait donné
son consentement à ce système.
On trouve en l'affaire du Deutschlanrlle passage suivant dans le
jugement du juge Bonnevie, qui a formulé la première décision
comme membre de la majorité :
aIl est également de toute notMCté que lesautorités gouver-
nementales - pour certaines portions de mer comme, par exemple,
le Vestfjord et le Varangerfjord- revendiquent, depuis les temps
anciens, ces fjords dans leur totalité comme territoire norvégien,
la limite territoriale devant être tracéesur la base de lignes droites
à l'embouchure du fjord (sic)sans tenir compte du fait que, au delà
de la limite de 4 milles, de trèsvastes etendues seront ainsi englobées183 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
for the .greaterpart of the extensive coast of the country, no docu-
provisions, except for the coast off the county of More, for which
reference is madeto the two royal decreesof 1869and 1889referred
to above."
Between 1908 and the publication of the Decree of 1935, the
United Kingdom repeatedly asked the Norwegian Govemment to
supply them with information as to their fishery limits in northern
Norway ;see the Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Storting dated June 24th, 1935 (Memorial,Annex 15), which states
that "The British Govemment have repeatedly requested that
the exact limit of this part of the coast should be fixed so that
it might be communicated to the trawler organizations." The
Norwegian reply to these requests has been that the matter was
still under consideration by a Commission or in some other way,
e.g., in the letter of August th, 1931, from the Nomegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "the position is that the Stortinghave
not yet taken up a standpoint with regard to the final marking of
these lines in al1details".
The impression that 1 have formed is that what in the argument
of this case has been cailed "the Nonvegian system" was in gesta-
tion from 1911 onwards, that the St. Just decision of 1934 (over-
ruling the Deutschlanddecision) marks its first public enunciation
as a system applicable to the whole coast, and that the Decree
of 1935 is its first concrete application by the Government upon
a large scale.1 find it impossible to believe that it was in existence
as a system at the time of theDeutschlanddecision of 1926.
(D) Another ground upon which Nomegian counsel have sought
to justify the Decree of 1935 is that in any case the waters com-
prised within the outer lines fixed by that Decree lie weil within
the ancient fishing grounds of Norway to which she acquired a
histonc title a long time ago.
1 think it is true that waters which would otherwise have the
status of high seas can be acquired by a Stateby means of histonc
title, at any rate if contiguous to territorial or national waters ;
see Lord Stoweil in The Twee Gebroeders(I~oI), 3 Christopher
Robinson's Admiralty Report 336,339. But, as he said in that case :
"Strictly speaking, the nature of the claim brought forward on
a claim of private and exclusive property, on a subject where a is
71 OPISION DISSIDENTE DE SIR .-\HSOLD JICNAIR 183
dans le domaine norvégien.Mais, pour la majeure partie de l'im-
mense côte du pays, il n'a pas étédocumentéqu'il existe de dispo-
sitions plus précises, exceptionfaite de la côte au large du départe-
ment du More,pour laquelle renvoiest fait aux deuxdécretsroyaux
de 1869et 1889 précités .
Entre 1908 et la publication du décret de 1935, le Royaume-Uni
a continuellement demandé au Gouvernement norvégien de lui
fournir des informations quant aux limites de la pêche en Norvège
septentrionale ; voir le rapport du Comitédes Affaires étrangères
du Storting, en date du 24 juin 1935 (annexe 15 au mémoire),qui
déclare : (Le Gouvernement britannique, notamment, a maintes
et maintes fois demandé que soit fixéela limite exacte de cette
partie de la côte, afin qu'il puisse en avertir les organisations
de chalutage. 1)A ces demandes la Norvège a répondu soit que la
question était encore à l'examen d'une commission soit d'une autre
façon. Par exemple, dans une lettre du II août 1931, le ministère
norvégien des Affaires étrangères énonce que ((la situation est la
suivante :le Storting n'a pas encore arrêté son point de vue à l'égard
du tracédéfinitifde ces lignes dans tous leurs détails ».
De tout cela, j'ai reçu l'impression que ce qu'on a appelé dans
la discussion de cette affaire le (système norvégien ))était en gesta-
tion depuis 1911, que l'arrêt rendu dans l'affaire du St. Just en
1934 (annulant la décisiondu Deutschland)en constitue la première
énonciation publique en tant que système applicable à l'ensemble
de la côte, et que le décret de 1935 en est la première application
concrète faite par le gouvernement sur une grande échelle. Il m'est
impossible de croire que le système, comme tel, existait à l'époque
où a étérendue la décisiondu Deutschlanden 1926.
D) Le conseil de la Norvège a invoqué un autre motif pour tenter
de justifier le décretde 1935. Il a soutenu qu'en tout cas les eaux
comprises dans les limites extérieures fixéespar ce décretse trou-
vent bien en deçà des anciens bancs de pêchesur lesquels la Nor-
vège a depuis longtemps acquis un titre historique.
Il est vrai, selon moi, qu'un État peut acquérir par le titre
historique des eaux qui feraient normalement partie de la haute
mer, tout au moins si elles sont contiguës aux eaux territoriales
ou nationales ; voir lord Stoweii dans l'affaire du Twcc Geb~oede~s
(18011,3 Christopher Robinson Admirdty Reports 336, 339. Mais,
comme il l'a dit dans cette affaire :
nA proprement parler, la nature de la rédamation miseen avant
à cette occasion est contraire aux tendances généralesdu droit,
car il s'agit d'une revendicationde proprietéprivéeet exclusive1~4 DISSEKTING OPIXION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
general, or at least a commnnuse is to be presumed. It is a claim
which can onlv anse on portions of the sea, or on rivers flowing
non-shot, universal use is presumed..Portions of the sea are pres-
cribed fo....But the general presumptioncertainly bears strongly
against such exclusive rights, and the title is a matter to be
established, on the part ofhose claiming under it, in the same
manner as al1other legaldemandsare to be substantiated, by clear
and competent evidence."
Another rule of Iaw that appears to me to be relevant to the
question of historic titleis that some proof is usually required of
the exercise of State jurisdiction, and that the independent activity
of pnvate individuals is of little value unless it can be shown that
they have acted in pursuance of a licence or some other authority
received from their Governments or that in some other way their
Governments have asserted jurisdiction through them.
When the documents that have been submitted in this case in
support of historic title are examined, it appears to me that, with
one exception which 1shall mention, they are marked by a lack of
precision as to the waters which were the subject of fishing. We
get expressions such as "near Our fortress of Varshus", "off the
coasts of Finnmark", "the waters off the coast of this country",
"near the land", "fish quite close to the coast", "unlawful fishing
which they have been practising in certain localities", "the waters
of Finnmark", "fjords or their adjacent waters", "whaling in the
waters which wash the coast of Norway and its provinces, in partic-
ular Iceland and the Faroe Islands", etc., etc.
The exception is the case of the licences granted to Eric Lorch
in theseventeenth century (seeAnnex 101 to Norwegian Rejoinder).
In 1688 he received a licence to fish in, amongst other places, "the
waters ...of the sunken rock of Gjesbaen" ;in 1692 he received a
licence to hunt whales ; in 1698 he received another licecce to hunt
whales, which mentions, among other places, "the waters ...of the
sunken rock of Gjesbaen". The 1st two licences state that it is
forbidden to "al strangers and unlicensed persons to take whales
in or without the fjords or their adjacent waters, within ten leagues
from the land".
1 do not know precisely where the rockcalied Gjesbæn or Gjes-
bæne is situated, beyond the statement in paragraph 36 of the
Counter-Mernorial that it is "near the word Alangstaran", which is
marked on the Norwegian Chart 6 (Annex 75 to the Rejoinder) as
being outsidethe outer Norwegian line of the Decree of 1935. On
the same chart of the region known as Lopphavet there appear to be
two fishing-banks called "Ytre Gjesboene" and, south of it, "Indre
Gjesboene", the former being outside the outer line of the Decree
of 1935 and the latter between the outer line and the base-line of
that Decree. What the dimensions of the fishing-banks are is not
72 cri un domaine où se présumeun droit d'usage général,ou tout au
inoins commun. C'est une revendication qui ne peut s'élever que
s,ur des parties de la mer, ou de rivières coulant entre différents
Etats ....En mer, au delà de Ia portée de canon, on présumele
droit d'usagegénkra l..On peut acquérirpar prescription des parties
de la mcr.... Mais il est certain que la présomptiongénérale résiste
fortement à ces droits exclusifs, et ceux qui invoquent ce titre
doivent l'établir,de la mêmemanière que toutes les autres reven-
dications juridiques, par des preuves claires et efficaces. »
Une autre règle de droit me parait pertinente en ce qui concerne
la question du titre historique : à savoir qu'il faut généralement
une preuve quelconque de l'exercice, par l'État, de sa souveraineté ;
l'activité indépendante des personnes privées a peu de valeur, à
moins qu'on ne puisse démontrer qu'elles ont agi en vertu d'une
licence ou de quelque autre pouvoir consenti par leurgouvernement,
ou que celui-ci a, de quelque façon, affirmé sa souveraineté par
leur intermédiaire.
A examiner les documents qui ont étéversésau dossier à l'appui
du titre historique, il me parait qu'à l'exception d'un seul, que je
mentionnerai plus loin, ils se distinguent par un manque de pré-
cision quant aux eaux où était pratiquée la pêche. On y trouve des
expressions comme celles-ci : près denotre forteresse de Varshus s,
((au large des côtes du Finnmark )),(les eaux -aularge de la côte de
ce pays ), ((près de la terre D, ((pratique la pêchetrès près de la
côte », «la pêchedicite qu'ils ont pratiquée dans certaines loca-
lités »,((les eaux du Finnmark ))((les fjords ou les eaux adjacentes l),
((la chasse à la baleine dans les eauxqui baignent la côte de Norvège
et ses provinces, en particulier, l'Islande et les îles Faroe », etc.
Les licences accordées à Eric Lorch au XVII~~ siècle constituent
une exception (voir l'annexe IOI à la réplique norvégienne). En
1688, il.reçut l'autorisation de pêcher, entre autres, dans «les
eaux .... de la roche noyée de Gjesbaen )); en 1692, il reçut licence
de chasser la baleine ;en 1698, il reçut une autre licence pour chas-
ser la baleine qui mentionne, entre autres lieux, ((les eaux de la
roche noyée de Gjesbaen D. Les deux dernières autorisations décla-
rent qu'il est interdit (à tous les étrangers et à toutes personnes
non privilégiéesde chasser aucun cétacédans les fjords ou au delà
des fjords ou parages limitrophes à moins de dix lieues de la terre )).
Je ne sais pas exactement où se trouve le rocher dénommé
Gjesbæn ou Gjesbæne, sauf l'indication au paragraphe 36 du
contre-mémoire qu'il se trouve près du mot Alangstaran »,porté
sur la carte norvégienne no 6 (annexe 75 à la duplique) comme
étant en dehorsde la ligne narvégienne extérieure du décret de 1935.
Sur la même carte de la région dénomméeLopphavet, on voit
deux bancs de pêche dénommés ((Ytro Gjesboene » et, au sud,
((Indre Gjesboene )): le premier se trouve au delà de la limite
exterieure du décret de 1935 et le second ent~e la limite extérieure
et la ligne de base proclamée par ce décret. L'étenduede ces bancs
72185 DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR
clear. The length of the base-line (from point20 to 21)which runs
in front of Lopphavet is 44 miles, so that even if the licences formed
sufficient evidence to prove a historic title to a fishing-bank off
"the sunken rock of Gjesbaen", they could not affect so extensive
an area as Lopphavet. The three licences cover a period of ten
years and there is no evidence as to the duration of the fishery or
its subsequent history.
In these circumstances 1 consider that the delimitation of terri-
tonal waters made by the Norwegian Decree of 1935 is in conflict
with international law, and that its effect wiii be to injure the
principle of the freedom of the seas and to encourage further
encroachments upon the high seas by coastal States. 1 regret
therefore that 1 am unable to concur in the Judgment of the Court.
(Signed) ARNOLDD. MCNAIR. OPINIOS DISSIDENTE DE SIR ARNOLD MCNAIR 185
n'est pas clairement indiquée. La ligne de base (du point 20 à 21)
qui passe à l'entrée du Lopphavet a 44 milles de long, en sorte
que, mênicsi les licences suffisaient à prouver le titre historique
à un banc de pêcheau large «de la roche noyée de Gjesbaene )1,
eues ne sauraient affecter une étendue aussi vaste que le Lopphavet.
Les trois concessions portent sur une période de IO ans, et nous
n'avons pas de preuve quant à la durée de la pêcherie niquant
à son évolution riltérieure.
Dans ces conditions, j'estirne que la délimitation des eaux tem-
toriales faite par le décret norvégien de 1935 est en conflit avec
le droit international et qu'elle aura pour conséquence de porter
atteinte au principe de la liberté des mers et d'encourager les
États riverains à commettre de nouveaux empiétements sur la
haute mer. J'ai donc le regret de ne pouvoir me rallier à l'arrét
de la Cour.
(Signé) ARNOLD D. MCNAII~.
Dissenting Opinion of Sir Arnold McNair