COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES
(ROYAUME-UNI c. NORVÈGE)
ARRÊT DU 18DÉCEMBRE 1951
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
FISHERI-ES CASE
(UNITED KINGDOM v.NORWAY)
JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 18th1951
LEPDE LEYDES
SOCIÉTD'ÉDITIOSS A.W. SIJTHOFF'S
A.W.SIJTHOFF II PUBLISHIKCOMPANY Le présent arrêtdoit êtrecitécom:e suit
«Agaire des pêcheries,Arrét du
18décembr1951:C.1. JRecuei1951,p.116»
This Judgment shobecited as fol:ows
"Fisheries case, Jztdgment of18th,95I:
I.C.JRefior1951pi 116.''
NO de vent:
1 Sales nwnbe74 1 INTEIINATIONALCOURT OFJUSTICIC
YEAR 1951 1951
December 18tl
General Lis:
December 18th, 1951 No. 5
FISHERIES CASE
(UNITED KINGDOM v. NORWAY)
Validityin internationalaw of Royal hror70cgian Llccree 1935
delimitingNorwegian fisheries zone.-Fisheries zone; territorial sea.
- Special characteristics oNorzeiegian coa;t "skjczrgaard".-Base-
line for measuring breadth of territorial;slow-zuater mark.-Outer
coast line of "skjargaurd".- Igzternal 7aate;sterritoriawaters.-
Tracé parallble method; envelopes of arcs of circles methostraight
base-lines method.-Length of straight base-l;nIO-mile rule for Oa;s
historic waters.-Strai;sIndre1eia.-International interest in delimita-
lion of maritime areas.-Generalcriteria for such delintitu;general
direction of the coast; relationship between sea areas and land forma-
tions.-Norwegian system of delimitationregarded as udaptation of
general international 1aw.-Çonsistencin application of this system.-
Absence of opposition or veservations by foreign StatNotoriety.-
Conformity of base-lines adoptedby 1935 Ilecree with pvinciples of
international law applicable delimitation of the trrritorial sea.
JUDGMENT
Present : President BASDEVAN ;T Vice-President GUERREK ;O
Judges ALVAREZH , ACKWORTW H,INIARSKI Z,ORI~IC,
DE VISSCHER S,ir ArnoldMCNAIRK , LAESTAB DA, DAWI
PASHAR , EAD,HSUMO ; Registrar HAMBRO. In the Fisheries case,
Detween
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
represented by
Sir Eric Beckett, K.C.M.G., K.C., Legal Adviser to the Foreign
Office,
as Agent,
gssisted by :
The Right Honourable Sir Frank Soskice, K.C., M.P., Attorney-
General,
Professor C. H. M. Waldock, C.M.G., O.B.E., K.C., Chichele
Professor of Public International Law in the University of
Oxford,
Mr. R. O. Wilberforce, Member of the English Bar,
Mr. D. H. N. Johnson, Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign Office,
as Counsel,
and by :
Commander R. H. Kennedy, O.B.E., R.N. (retired), Hydro-
graphie Department, Admiralty,
Mr. W. H. Evans, Hydrographic Departmeiit, Admiralty,
M. Annaeus Schjadt, Jr., of the Norwegian Bar, Legal Adviser
to the British Embassy in Oslo,
Mr. W. N. Hanna, Military Branch, Admiralty,
Mr. A. S. Armstrong, Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agri-
culture and Fisheries,
as expert advisers ;
and
the Kingdom of Nonvay,
represented by :
M. Sven Arntzen, Advocate at the Supreme Court of Norway,
as Agent and Counsel,
M. Maurice Bourquin, Professor at the University of Geneva
and at the Graduate Institute of International Studies,
as Counsel,
5 JIJL)GMI<NT01;18 XII 51 (FISHERIES CASE) 118
and by :
M. Paal Berg, former I'rcsident of the Supreme Court of Norway,
M. C. J. Hnmbro, Prcsident of the Odelsting,
M. Frcde Castberg, Professor at the University of Oslo,
M. Lars J. Jorstacl, Minister Plenipotentiary,
Captain Chr. Meycr, of the Norwegian Royal Navy,
M. Guniiar Rollcfscn, Ilirector of the Rcscarch Bureaii of the
Norwcgian Ikpartment of Fisheries,
M. Kciclar Skau, Judgc of the Supreme Court of Norway,
M. E. A. Colban, Chicf of Jlivision in the Norwcgian Royal
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Captain W. Couchcron-Aamot, of the Norwegian Royal Navy,
M. Jcns Evcnsen, of the Bar of the Norwegian Courts of Appeal,
M. André Salon~on, D~ctor of Law,
as experts,
and by :
M. Sigurd Ekeland, Secretary to the Norwegian Royal Ministry
for Foreign Affairs,
as secretary,
composed as above,
deliaers the following Judgment:
On Scptcmber 28th, 1949, the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland filed in the
Registry an Application instituting proceedings before the Court
against the Kingdom of Norway, the subject of the proceedings
being the validity or otherwise, under international law, of the
lines of delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone laid down by
the Royal Decree of July xzth, 1935, as amended by a Decree
of December xoth, 1937, for that part of Norway which is situated
northward of 66"28.8' (or66"28'48") N. latitude. The Application
refers to the Declarations by which the United Kingdom and
Norway have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
in accordance with Article 36, paragraph2, of the Statute.
This Application asked the Court
in defining the base-lines,i reference to which the Norwegianpplied
Government is entitled to delimit a fisheries zone, extending to
6 seaward 4 sea miles from those lines and exclusively reserved
for its own nationals, and to definethe said base-lines in so far as
it appears necessary, in the light of the arguments of the Parties,
in order to avoid further legal differences between them;
(b)to award damages to the Government of the United Kingdom
in respect of al1 interferences by the Norwegian authorities with
British, fishing vesselsoutside the zone which, in accordance with
the C'ourt's decision under (a), the Norwegian Government is
entitled to reserve for its nationals."
Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute, the Applic-
ation was notified to the States entitled to appear before the
Court. It was also transmitted to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations.
The Pleadings were filed within the time-limits prescribed
by Order of November gth, 1949, and later extended by Orders
of March 29th and October 4th, 1950, and January ~oth, 1951.
By application of Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court,
they were communicated to the Governments of Belgium, Canada,
Cuba, Iceland, Sweden, the United States of America and Vene-
zuela, at their request and with the authorization of the Court.
On September 24th, 1951, the Court, by application of Article 44,
paragraph 3, of the Rules, at the instance of the Government
of Norway, and with the agreement of the United Kingdom
Government, authorized the Pleadings to be made accessible to
the public.
The case was ready for hearing on April 3oth, 1951, and the
opening of the oral proceedings was fixed for September zsth, 1951.
Public hearings were held on September 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th
and zgth, October rst, 5th, 6th, 8th, gth, roth, th, ~zth, 13th,
~gth, 17th, 18th, ~gth, zoth, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th and 29th.
In the course of the hearings, the Court heard Sir Eric Beckett,
Agent, Sir Frank Soskice, Mr. Wilberforce and Professor Waldock,
Counsel, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government ; and
M. Arntzen, Agent and Counsel, and Professor Bourquin, Counsel,
on behalf of the Government of Norway. In addition, technical
explanations were given on behalf of the United Kingdom
Government by Commander Kennedy.
At the end of his argument, the Agent of the United Kingdom
Government presented the following submissions :
"The United Kingdom submits that the Court should decide
against the United Kingdom should be drawn in accordance withas
the following principles: (1)That Nonvay is entitled to a belt of territorial waters of
fixed breadtli-the breadth cannot, as amaximum, exceed 4 sea
miles.
(2)That, in consequence, the outer limit of Nonvay's territorial
waters must never be more than 4 sea miles from some point on
the base-lin&
(3) That, subject to (4) (9) and (IO) below, the base-line must
be low-water mark on permanently dry land (which is part of
Norwegian territory) or the proper closing line (see (7) below)
of Norwegian internal waters.
(4) That, where there is a low-tide elevation situated within
4 sea miles of permanently dry land, or of the proper closing line
of Norwegian internal waters, the outer limit of territorial waters
may be q sea miles from the outer edge (at low tide) of this low-
tide elcvation. In no othet case may a low-tide elevation be taken
into account.
(5)That Nonvay is entitled to claim as Norwegian internal
waters, on historic grounds, al1 fjords and sunds which fa11within
the conception of a bay as defined in international law, whether
the proper entrance to the indentation is more or less than
IO sea miles wide.
(6)That the definition of a bay in international law is a well-
marked indentation, whosc penetration inland is in such proportion
to the width of its mouth as to constitute the indentation more
than a mere curvature of the coast.
(7)That, wherc an area of water is a bay, the principle which
determines where the closing line should be drawn, is that the
closing line should be drawn between the natural geographical
entrance points where the indentation ceases to have the con-
figuration of a bay.
(8) That a legal straitis any geographical strait which connects
two portions of the high seas.
(9) That Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian territorial
waters, on historic grounds, al1 the waters of the fjords and sunds
which have the character of a legal strait. Where the maritime
belts, drawn from each shore, overlap at each end of the strait,
the limit of territorial watersis formed by the outer rims of these
two maritime belts. Where, however, the maritime belts so drawn
do not overlap, the limit follows the outer rims of-each of these
two maritime belts, until they intersect with the straight line,
joining the natural entrance points of the strait, after which
intersection the limit follows that straight line.
(IO) That, in the case of the Vestfjord, the outer limit of Nor-
wegian territorial waters, at the south-westerly end of the fjord,
is the pecked green line shown on Charts Nos. 8 and g of Annex 35
of the Reply.
8 (II) That Norway, by reason of her historic title to fjords and
wnds, is entitled to clairn, either as territorial or as internal waters,
tiie areas of water lying between the island fringe and the mainland
,t Sorway. In order to determine what areas must be deemed to
lie between the islands and the mainland, and whether these areas
.ire territorial or internal waters, recourse must be had to Kos. (6)
and (8)above, being the definitions of a bay and of a legal strait.
(12) Ttiat Norway is not entitled, as against the United Kingdom,
to enforce any claim to waters not covered by the preceding pin-
ciples. As between Norway and the United Kingdom, waters off
rhe coast of Norway north of parallel 66" 28.8' N., wliich are not
Sorwegian by virtue of the above-mentioned principles, are high
%%S.
(13) That Korway is under an international obligation to pay
to the United Kingdom compensation in respect of al1 the arrests
since 16th September, 1948, of British fishing vessels in waters,
which are high seas by virtue of the application of the preceding
principles."
Later, the Agent of the United Kingdom Government presented
the following Conclusions, at the end of his oral reply :
"The United Kingdom submits that the Court should decide
that tlie maritime limits which Korway is entitled to enforce as
against the United Kingdom should be drawn in accordance with
the following principles :
(1) That Norway is entitled to a belt of territorial waters of
fixed breadth-the breadth cannot, as a maximum, exceed 4 sea
miles.
(2) That, in consequence, the outer limit of Norway's territorial
waters must never be more than 4 sea miles from some point on
the base-line.
(3) That, subject to Nos. (4), (9) and (IO) below, the base-line
must be 'low-water mark on permanently dry land (which is part
of Norwegian territory) or the proper closing line (see No. (7)
below) of Norwegian internal waters.
(4) That, where there is a low-tide elevation situated within
4 sea miles of permanently dry land, or of the proper closing line
of Norwegian internal waters, the outer limit of Norwegian terri-
torial waters may be 4 sea miles from the outer edgé(at low tide)
of this low-tide elevation. In no other case may a low-tide elevation
be taken into account.
(5) That Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian internal
waters, on historic grounds, al1 fjords and sunds which fall within
the conception of a bay as defined in international law (see No. (6)
below), whether the proper closing line of the indendation is more
or less than IO sea miles long.
9 (6) That the definition of a bay in international law is a well-
marked indentation, whose penetration inland is in such proportion
to the width of its mouth as to constitute the indentation more
than a mere curvature of the coast.
(7) That, where an area of water is a bay, thr principle \vliich
dctermines where the closing line should be drawn. is that thc
closing line should be drawn between the natural geographical
rntrance points where the indentation ceases to have the con-
figuration of a bay.
(8) That a legal strait is any geographical strait whicli connccts
two portions of the high seas.
(9) (a) Tliat Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian territorial
waters, on historic grounds, al1 the waters of the fjords and sunds
which have the character of legal straits.
at eacli end of the strait, the limit of territorial waters is formed
by the outer rims of these two maritime belts. Where, however,
tlie maritime belts so drawn do not overlap, the limit follows
the outer rims of each of these two maritime belts, until they
intersect with the straight line, joining the natural entrance points
of the strait, after which intersection the limit follows that straiglit
line.
(IO) That, in the case of the Vestfjord, the outer limit of Kor-
wegian territorial waters, at the south-westerly end of the fjord.
is the pecked green line shown on Charts Nos. 8 and g of Annes jj
of the Reply.
(II) That Norway, by reason of her historic title to fjords and
sunds (see Nos. (5)and (9) (a) above), is entitled to claim, eitlier
as internal or as territorial waters, the areas of water lying between
the island fringe andthe mainland of Norway. In order to determine
what areas must be deemed to lie between the island fringe and
the mainland, and whether these areas are internal or territorial
waters, the principles of Nos. (6), (7). (8)and (9) (h) must be
applied to indentations in the island fringe and to indentations
between the island fringe and the mainland-those areas which
lie in indentations having the character of bays, and within tlie
proper closing lines thereof, being deemed to be internalwaters ;
and those areas which lie in indentations having the character
of legal straits, and within the proper limits thereof, being deemed
to be territorial waters.
(12) That Norway is not entitled, asagainst the United King-
dom, to enforce any claims to waters not covered by the preceding
pnnciples. As between Norway and the United Kingdom, waters
off the coast of Norway north of parallel 66" 28.8' N., which are
not Norwegian by virtue of the above-mentioned principles, are
high seas. (13) That the Norwegian Royal Decree of 12th July, 1935, is
not enforceable against the United Kingdom to the extent that
it claims as Korwegian waters (internal or territorial waters) areas
of water not covered by Nos. (1)-(II).
(14) That Norway is under an international obligation to pay
to the United Kingdom compensation is respect of al1 the arrests
since 16th September, 1948, of British fishing vessels in waters
which are high seas by virtue of the application of the prcceding
principles.
Alternatively to Nos. (1) to (13) (if the Court should decide to
determine by its judgrnent the exact limits of the territorial waters
which Norway is entitled to enforce against the United Kingdom),
that Norway is not entitled as against the United Kingdom to
claim as Norwegian waters any areas of water off the Norwegian
coasts north of parallel 66" 28.8 N. which are outside the pecked
green line drawn on the charts which form Annex 35 of the Reply.
Alter~zativelyto Nos. (8) to (II) (if the Court shoiild hold that
the waters of the Indreleia are Norwegian internal waters), the
following are substituted for Nos. (8) to (II):
1. That, in the case of the Vestfjord, the outer limit of Norwegian
territorial waters at the south-westerly end of the fjord is a line
drawn 4 sea miles seawards of a line joining the Skomvær light-
house at Rost to Kalsholmen lighthouse in Tennholmerne until
the intersection of the former line with the arcs of circles in the
pecked green line shown on Charts 8 and g of Annex 35 of the
Reply.
II. That Norway, by reason of her historic title to fjords and
sunds, is entitled to claim as internal waters the areas of water
lying between the island fringe and the mainland of Norway. In
order to determine what ares must be deemed to lie between the
island fringe and the mainland, the principles of Nos. (6) and (7)
above must be applied to the indentations in the island fringe and
to the indentations between the island fringe and the mainland-
those areas which lie in indentations having the character of bays,
and within the proper closing lines thereof, being deemed to lie
between the island fringe and the mainland."
At the end of his argument, the Norwegian Agent presented,
on behalf of his government, the following submissions, which he
did not modify in his oral rejoinder :
"Having regard to the fact that the Norwegian Royal Decree
of July ~zth,1935 s not inconsistent with the rules of international
law binding upon Norway, and
having regard to the fact that Norway possesses, in ar,y event,
an historietitle to al1the waters included within the limits laid
down by that decree,
11 JUDCMENT OF 18 XII 51 (FISIIERIES c.4~~)
May it please the Court,
in one single judgment,
rejectingal1 submissions to the contrary,
toadjudge and declare that the delimitation of the fisherizone
fixed by the Norwegian Royal Decree of July ~zth, Ig3j, is not
contrary to international law."
The facts which led the United Kingdom to bring the case before
the Court are briefly as follows.
The historical facts laid before the Court establish that as the
result of complaints from the King of Denmark and of Xonvay,
at the beginning of the seventeenth century, British fishermen
refrained from fishing in Norwegian coastal waters for a long period,
from 1616-1618 until 1906.
In 1906 a few British fishing vessels appeared off the coasts of
Eastern Finnmark. From 1908 onwards they returneù in greater
numbers. These were trawlers equipped with improved and pouer-
ful gear. The local population became perturbed, and measures were
taken by the Norwegian Government with a vievi to sprcifying the
Iimits within which fishing was prohibited to foreigners.
The first incident occurred in 1911 when a British trawler was
seized and condemned for having violated these measures. Negotia-
tions ensued between the two Governments. These were interrupted
by the war in 1914. From 1922 onwards incidents recurred. Further
conversations were initiated in 1924. In 1932, British trawlers,
extending the range of their activities, appeared in the sectors off
the Norwegian coast west of the North Cape, and the number of
warnings and arrests increased. On July 27th, 1933, the United
Kingdom Government sent a memorandum to the Norwegian
Government complaining that in delimiting the territorial sea the
Nonvegian authorities had made use of unjustifiable base-lines. On
July ~zth, 1935, a Norwegian Royal Decree was enacted delimiting
the Norwegian fisheries zone north of 66" 28.8' North latitude.
The United Kingdom made urgent representations in Oslo in the
course of which the question of refemng the dispute to the Per-
manent Court of International Justice was raised. Pending the result
of the negotiations, the Norwegian Government made it known
that Norwegian fishery patrol vessels would deal leniently with
foreign vessels fishing a certain distance within the fishing limits.
In 1948, since no agreement had been reached, the Nonvegian
Government abandoned its lenient enforcement of the 1935 Decree ; incidents then became more and more freqent. A considerable
number of British trawlers were arrested and condemned. It was
then that the United Kingdom Government instituted the present
proceedings.
The Norwegian Royal Decree of July ~zth, 1935, concerning the
delimitation of the Nonvegian fisherieszone setsout in the preamble
the considerations on which its provisions are based. In this con-
nection it refers to "well-established national titles of right", "the
geographical conditions prevailing on the Norwegian coasts", "the
safeguard of the vital interests of the inhabitants of the northern-
most parts of the country" ; it further relies on the Royal Decrees
of February zznd, 1812, October 16th, 1869, January 5th, 1881,
and September gth, 1889.
The Decree provides that "lines of delimitation towards the high
sea of the Norwegian fisheries zone as regards that part of Nonvay
which is situated northward of 66" 28.8' North latitude ....shall
run parallel with straight base-lines drawn between fixed points on
the mainland, on islands or rocks, starting from the final point of
the boundary line of the Realm in the easternmost part of the
Varangerfjord and going as far as Træna in the County of Nord-
land". An appended schedule indicates the fixed points between
which the base-lines are drawn.
The subject of the dispute is clearly indicated under point 8 of
the Application instituting proceedings :"The subject of the dispute
is the validity or othenvise under international law of the lines of
delimitation of the Norwegian fisherieszone laid down by the Royal
Decree of 1935for that part of Nonvay which is situated northward
of 66" 28.8' North latitude." And further on : " ...the question at
issue between the two Governments is whether the lines prescribed
by the Royal Decree of 1935 as the base-lines for the delimitation
of the fisheries zone have or have not been drawn in accordance
with the applicable rules of international law".
Although the Decree of July ~zth, 1935, refers to the Norwegian
fisheries zone and does not specifically mention the temtonal sea,
there can be no doubt that the zone delimited by this Decree is
none other than the sea area which Norway considers to be her
temtorial sea. That is how the Parties argued the question and that
is the way in which they submitted it to the Court for decision.
The Submissions presented by the Agent of the Nonvegian
Govemment correspond to the subject of the dispute as indicated
in the Application.
The propositions fomulated by the Agent of the United Kingdom
Government at the end oi his first speech and revised by him at
the end of his oral reply under the heading of "Conclusions" are
more complex in character and must be dealt with in detail.
13 Points I and 2 of these "Conclusions" refer to the extent c!f
Xorway's territorial sea. This question is not the subject of thc
present dispute. In fact, the 4-mile limit claimed by rjonvay was
acknowledgcd by the United Kingdom in the course of the procecd-
11:gs.
l'oints 12 and 13 appear to 1)e real Submissions which accord
with the United Kingdom's conception of international law as set
out under points 3 to II. /
Points 3 to II appear to be a set of propositionswhich,in the form
of tlefinitions, principles or rules, purport to justify certain contcii-
tions and do not constitute a precise and direct statement of a claim.
The subjcct of the dispute being quite concrete, the Court cannot
entertain the suggestion made by the Agent of the United Kingdom
Government at the sitting ofOctober ~st,1951,that thecourt should
deliver a Judgment which for the moment woiild confine itself to
adjudicating on the definitions, principles or rules stated, a sugges-
tion which, moreover, was objected to by the Agent'of the Norwe-
gian Government at the sitting of October 5th, 1951. These are
elements which might furnish reasons in support of the Judgment,
but cannot constitute the decision. It further follows that even
understood in this way, these elements may be taken into account
only in so far as they would appear to be relevant for deciding the
sole question in dispute, namely, the validity or othenvise under
international law of the lines of delimitation laid down by the 1935
Decree.
Point 14, which seeks to secure a decision of principle concerning
Norway's obligation to pay to the United Kingdom compensation
in respect of al1 arrests since September 16th. 1948, of British
fishing vessels in waters found to be high seas, need not be
considered, since the Parties had agreed to leave this question to
subsequent settlement if it should arise.
The claim of the United Kingdom Government is founded on
what it regards as the general international law applicable to the
delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone.
The Norwegian Govemment does not deny that there exist rules
of international law to which this delimitation must conform. It
contends that the propositions formulated by the United Kingdom
Government in its "Conclusions" do not possess the character
attributed to them bythat Government. It further relies on its own
system of delimitation which it asserts to be in every respect in
conformity with the requirements of international law.
The Court wili examine in turn these vanous aspects of the
claim of the United Kingdom and of the defence of the Norwegian
Government. The coastal zone concerned in the dispute is of considerable
length. It lies north of latitude 66" 28.8' N., that is to say, north
of the Arctic Circle, and it includes the coast of the mainland of
Nonvay and al1 the islands, islets, rocks and reefs, known by the
name of the "skjærgaard" (literally, rock rampart), together with
al1Norwegian interna1 and tenitonal waters. The coast of the main-
land, which, without taking any account of fjords, bays and minor
indentations, is over 1,500kilometres in length, is of a very distinct-
ive configuration. Very broken along its whole length, it constantly
opens out into indentations often penetrating for great distances
inland :the Porsangerfjord, for instance, penetrates 75 sea miles
inland. To the west, the land configuration stretches out into the
sea: the large and small islands, mountainous in character, the
islets, rocks and reefs, some always above water, others emerging
only at low tide, are in truth but an extension of the Korwegian
mainland. The number of insular formations, large and small, which
make up the "skjærgaard", is estimated by the Norwegian Govem-
ment to be one hundred and twenty thousand. From the southem
extremity of the disputed area to the North Cape, the "skjcergaard"
lies along the whole of the coast of the mainland ;east of the North
Cape, the "skjærgaard" ends, but the coast line continues to be
broken by large and deeply indented fjords.
Within the "skjærgaard", almost every island has its large and its
small bays ; countless arms of the sea, straits, channels and mere
waterways serve as a means of communication for the local popula-
tion which inhabits the islands as it does the mainland. The coast
of the mainland does not constitute, as it does in practically ail
other countnes, a clear dividing line between land and sea. What
matters, what really constitutes the Norwegian coast line, is the
outer line of the "skjærgaard".
The whole of this region is mountainous. The North Cape, a
sheer rock little more than 300 metres high, can be seen from a
considerable distance ;there are other summits rising to over a
thousand metres, so that the Norwegian coast, mainland and
"skjærgaard", is visible from far off.
Along the coast are situated comparatively shallow banks, vent-
able under-water terraces which constitute fishing grounds where
fish are particularly abundant ;these grounds were known to Nor-
wegian fishermen and exploited by them from time immemorial.
Since these banks lay within the range of vision, the most desirable
fishing grounds were always located and identified by means of
the method of alignments ("meds"),at points where two lines drawn
between points selected on the coast or on islands intersected. JUUGMENT OF 18 XII 51 (FISHERIES CASE) 128
In these barren regions the inhabitants of the coastal zone derive
their livelihood essentially from fishing.
Such are the realities which must be borne in mind in appraising
the validity of the Cnited Kingdom contention that the limits of
the Norwegian fisheries zone laid down in the 1935 Decree are
contrary to international law.
The Parties being in agreement on the figure of 4 miles for the
breadth of the territorial sea, the problem which arises is from what
base-line this breadth is to be reckoned. The Conclusions of the
United Kingdom are explicit on this point :the base-line must be
low-water mark on permanently dry land which is a part of Norwe-
gian territory, or the proper closing line of Norwegian interna1
waters.
The Court has no difficulty in finding that, for the purpose of
measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, it is the low-water mark
as opposed to the high-water mark, or the mean between the twu
tidés, which has generally been adopted in the practice of States.
This criterion is the most favourable to the coastal Stateand clearly
shows the character of territorial waters as appurtenant to the
land territory. The Court notes that the Parties agree as to this
criterion, but that they differ as toits application.
The Parties also agree that in the case of a low-tide elevation
(drying rock) the outer edge at low water of this low-tide elevation
may be taken into account as a base-point for calculating the breadth
of the territorial sea. The Conclusions of the United Kingdom
Government add a condition which is not admitted by Norway,
namely, that, in orcler to be taken into account, a drying rock must
be situated within 4 miles of permanently dry land. However, the
Court does not consider it necessary to deal with this question,
inasmuch as Norway has succeeded in proving, after both Parties
had given their interpretation of the charts, that in fact none of
the drying rocks used by her as base points is more than 4 miles
from permanently dry land.
The Court finds itself obliged to decide whether the relevant low-
water mark is that of the mainland or of the "skjærgaard". Since
the mainland is bordered in its western sector by the "skjærgaard",
which constitutes a whole with the mainland, it is the outer line
of the "skjærgaard" which must be taken into account in delimiting
the belt of Norwegian territorial waters. This solution is dictated
by geographic realities.
Three methods have been contemplated to effect the application
of the low-water mark rule. The simplest would appear to be the
method of the tracéparallèle, which consists of drawing the outer
limit of the belt of territorial waters by following the coast in al1its
sinuosities. This method may be applied without difficulty to an
ordinary coast, which is not too broken. Where a coast is deeply
T6indented and cut into, as is that of Eastern Finnmark, or where it
is bordered by an archipelago such as the "skjærgaard" along
the western sector of the coast here in question, the base-line
becomes indcpendent of the low-water mark, and can only be
determined by means of a geometrical construction. In such cir-
cumstances the line of the ïow-water mark can no longer be put
forward as a rule requiring the coastline to be followed in al1 its
sinuosities. Nor can one characterize as exceptions to the rule the
very many derogations which would be necessitated by such a
rugged coast: the rule would disappear under the exceptions.
Such a coast, viewed as a whole, calls for the application of a different
method; that is, the method of base-lines which, within reasonable
limits, may depart from the ph sical line of the cbast.
It is truc that the experts O? the Second Sub-Cornmittee of the
Second Committee of the 1930 Conference for the codification of
international law formulated the low-water mark rule somewhat
strictly ("followingal1the sinuosities of the coast"). But they were
at the same time obliged to admit many exceptionsrelating to bays,
islands near the coast, groups of islands. In the present case this
~nethod of the tracéparallèle,which was invoked against Norway in
the Memorial, was abandoned in the written Reply, and later in the
oral argument of the Agent of the United Kingdom Government.
Consequently, it is no longer relevant to the case. "On the other
hand", it is said in the Reply, the courbetangente-or, in English,
'envelopes of arcs of circ1es'-method is the method which the
Cnitêd Kingdom considers to be the correct one"
The arcs of circles method, which is constantly used for deter-
mining the position of a point or object at sea, is a new technique
in so far as it is a method for delimiting the territorial sea. This
technique was proposed by the United States delegation at the 1930
Conference for the codification of international law. Its purpose is
to secure the application of the principle that the belt of territorial
watersmust follow the line of the coast. It is not obligatory by law,
as was admitted by Counsel for the United Kingdom Government
in his oral reply. In these circumstances, and althoughcertain of the
Conclusions of the United Kingdom are founded on the application
of the arcs of circles method, the Court considers that it need not
deal with these Conclusions in so far as they are based upon this
method.
The principle that the belt of territorial waters must foliow the
general direction of the coast makes it possible to fix certainiteria
valid for any delimitation of the territorial sea; these criteria wili
be elucidated later. The Court will confine itself at this stage to
noting that, in order to apply this principle, several States have
deemed it necessary to foliow the straight base-lines method and
that they have not encountered objections of principle by other
States. This method cz~nsistsof selecting appropriate pointson thelow-water mark and drawing straight lines between them. This has
been done, not only in the case of well-defined bays, but also in
cases of minor curvatures of the coast line where it was soltly a
(luestion of giving a simpler form to the belt of territorial waters.
It has been contended, on behalf of the United Kingdom, that
Norway may draw straight lines only across bays. The Court is
unable to share this view. If the belt of territorialwatersmust follow
the outer line ofthe "skjærgaard", and ifthe method ofstraight base-
lines must be admitted in certain cases, there is no valid reason to
draw them only across bays, as in Eastern Finnmark, and not also
to draw them between islands, islets and rocks, across the sea areas
scparating them, even when such areas do not fa11within the con-
ception of a bay. It is sufficient that they should be situated between
the island formations of the "skjærgaard", inter faucesterrarum.
The United Kingdom Government concedes that straight lines,
regardless of their length, may be used only subject to the conditions
set oui in point 5 of its Conclusions, as follows :
"Norway is entitled to claim as .Nonvegian intemal waters, on
historic grounds, al1fjords and sunds which fa11within the concep-
tion of a bay as defined in international law (see No. (6) below),
whether the proper closing line of the indentation is more or less
than IO sea miles long."
A preliminary remark must be made in respect of this point.
In the opinion of the United Kingdom Government, Norway is
entitled, on historic grounds, to claim as internal waters al1 fjords
and sunds which have the character of a bay. She is also entitled
on historic grounds to claim as Norwegian territorial waters al1the
waters of the fjords and sunds which have the character of legal
straits (Conclusions, point g), and, either as internal or as terri-
torial waters, the areas of water lying between the island fringe and
the mainland (point II and second alternative Conclusion II).
By "historic waters" are usually meant waters which are treated
as internal waters but which would not have that character were
it not for the existence of an historic title. The United Kingdom
Government refers to the notion of historic titles both in respect of
territorial waters and internal waters, considering such titles, in
both cases, as derogations froni general international law. In its
opinion Nonvay can justify the claim that these waters are tem-
torial or internal on the ground that she has exercised the necessary
jurisdiction over them for a long period without opposition from
other States, a kind of possessio longi temporis, with the result
that her jurisdiction over these waters must now be recognized
although it constitutes a derogation from the rules in force.Nonvegian sovereignty over these waters would constitute an
exception, histotic titles justifying situations which would other-
wise be in conflict with international law.
As has been said, the United Kingdom Government concedes
that Nonvay is entitled to claim as interna1 waters al1the waters
of fjords and sunds which faIl within the conception of a bay as
defined in international law whether the closing line of the inden-
tation is more or less than ten sea miles long. But the United
Kingdom Government concedes this only on the basis of historic
title; it must therefore be taken that that Govemment has not
abandoned its contention that the ten-mile rule is to be regarded
as a rule of international law.
In these circumstances the Court deems it necessary to point out
that although the ten-mile rule has been adopted by certain States
both in their national law and in their treaties and conventions,
and although certain arbitral decisions have applied it as between
these States, other States have adopted a different limit. Conse-
quently, the ten-mile rule has not acquired the authority of a
general rule of international law.
In any event the ten-mile ruie would appear to be inapplicable
as against Nonvay inasmuch as she has always opposed anyattempt
io apply it to the Nonvegian coast.
The Court now comes to the question of the length of the base-
lines drawn across the waters lying between the various formations
of the "skjærgaard". Basing itself on the analogy with the alleged
general rule of ten miles relating to bays, the United Kingdom
Government still maintains on this point that the length of straight
lines must not exceed ten miles.
In this connection, the practice of States does not justify the
formulation of any general rule of law. The attempts that have
been made to subject groups of islands or coastal archipelagoes to
conditions analogous to the limitations concerning bays (distance
between the islands not exceeding twice the breadth of the terri-
torial waters, or ten or twelve sea miles), have not got beyond the
stage of proposals.
Furthermore, apart from any question of limiting the lines to
ten miles, it may be that several lines can be envisaged. In such
cases the coastal State would seem to be in the best position to
appraise the local conditions dictating the selection.
Consequently, the Court is unable to share the view of the United
Kingdom Government, that "Nonvay, in the matter of base-lines,
now claims recognition of an exceptional system". As will be shown
later, al1that th: Court can see therein is the application of general
international law to a specific case. The Conclusionsof the United Kingdom, points 5 and g to II,
refer to waters situated between the base-lines and the Norwegian
these waters belong to Norway, but that they are divided intorounds
two categories : temtorial and internal waters, in accordance
with two critena which the Conclusions regard as well founded
in international law, the waters falling within the conception of
a bay being deemed to be internal waters, and those having the
character of legal straits being deemed to be temtoriai waters.
As has been conceded by the United Kingdom, the "skjær-
gaard" constitutes a whole with the Norwegian mainland ; the
waters between the base-lines of the belt of temtorial waters and
the mainland are internal waters. However, according to the
argument of the United Kingdom a portion of these waters con-
stitutes temtorial waters. These are inter alia the waters
followed by the navigational route known as the Indreleia. It is
contended that since these waters have this character, certain
consequencesarisewith regard to the determination ofthetemtoriai
waters at the end of this water-way considered as a maritime
strait.
The Court is bound to observe that the Indreleia is not a strait
at all, but rather a navigational route prepared as such by means
of artificial aids to navigation provided by Norway. In these
circumstances the Court is unable to accept the view that the
Indreleia, for the purposes of the present case,has a status different
from that of the other waters included in the "skjærgaard".
Thus the Court, confining itself for the moment to the Con-
clusions of the United Kingdom, finds that the Norwegian Govern-
ment in fixing the base-lines for the delimitation of the Norwegian
fisheries zone by the 1935Decree has not violated international
law.
It does not at a.Ufollow that, in the absence of rules having
the technically precise character alleged by the United Kingdom
Government, the ddimitation undertaken by the Norwegian
make it possible to judge as to its validity under international
law. The delimitation of çea areas has always an international
aspect ; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal
State as exprewd in its municipal law. Although it is true that
the act of delirnitation is necessariiy a unilateral act, because
only the coastai State is comptent to undertake it, the validity
of the delirnitation with regard to other States depends upon
international law. In this connection, certain basic considerations inherent in the
nature of the territorial sea, bring to light certain criteria which,
though not entirely precise, can provide courts with an adequate
basis for their decisions, which can be adapted to the diverse
facts in question.
Among these considerations, some reference must be made to
the close dependence of the territorial sea upon the land domain.
It is the land which confers upon the coastal State a right to the
waters off its coasts. It follows that while such a State must be
allowed the latitude necessary in order to be able to adapt its
delimitation to practical needs and local requirements, the drawing
of base-lines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the
general direction of the coast.
Another fundamental consideration, of particular importance
in this case, is the more or less close relationship existing between
certain sea areas and the land formations which divide or surround
them. The real question raised in the choice of base-lines is in
effect whether certain sea areas lying within these lines are
sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to
the regime of interna1 waters. This idea, which is at the basis
of the determination of the rules relating to bays, should be
liberally applied in the case of a coast, the geographical con-
figuration of which is as unusual as that of. Norway.
Finally, there is one consideration not to be overlooked, the
scope of which extends beyond purely geographical factors : that
of certain economic interests peculiar to a region, the reality and
importance of which are cleariy evidenced by a long usage.
Norway puts forward the 1935 Decree as the application of
a traditional system of delimitation, a system which she claims
to be in complete conformky with international law. The Kor-
wegian Government has referred in this connection to an historic
title, the meaning of which was made cleai by Counsel for Norway
at the sitting on October ~eth, 1951 : "The Norwegian Government
does not rely upon history to justify exceptional rights, to claim
areas of sea which the general law would deny ;it invokes history,
together with other factors, to justify the way in which it applies
the general law." This conception of an historic title is in con-
sonance with the Norwegian Government's understanding of the
general rules of international law. In its view, these rules of
international law take into account the diversity of facts and,
therefore, concede that the drawing of base-lines must be adapted
to the special conditions obtaining in different regions. In its
view, the system of delimitation applied in 1935, a system
characterized by the use of straight lines, does not therefore
infringe the general law ;it is an adaptation rendered necessary
by local conditions. The Court must ascertain precisely what this alleged system of
delimitation consists of, what is its effect in law as against the
United Kingdom, and whether it was applied by the 1935 Decree
in a manner which conformed to international law.
It is common ground between the Parties that on the question
of the existence of a Norwegian system, the Royal Decree of
February zznd, 1812, is of cardinal importance. This Decree is in
the following terms: "We wish to lay down as a rule that, in al1
cases when there is a question of determining the limit of Our
temtorial sovereignty at sea, that limit shall be reckoned at the
distance of one ordinary sea league from the island or islet farthest
from the mainland, not covered by the sea ; of which all proper
authorities shall be informed by rescnpt."
This text does not clearly indicate how the base-lines between
the islands or islets farthest from the mainland were to be drawn.
In particular, itdoes not Say in express terms that the lines must
take the form of straight lines drawn between these points. But it
may be noted that it was in this way that the 1812 Decree was
invariably construed in Norway in the course of the 19th and
20th centuries.
The Decree of October 16th, 1869, relating to the delimitation of
Sunnmore, and the Statement of Reasons for this Decree, are
particularly revealing as to the traditional Norwegian conception
and the Norwegian construction of the Decree of 1812. It was by
reference to the 1812 Decree, and specifically relying upon "the
conception" adopted by that Decree, that the Ministry of the
Interior justified the drawing of a straight line 26 miles in length
between the two outermost points of the "skjaergaard". The Decree
of September gth, 1889, relating to the delimitation of Romsdal
and Nordmore, applied the same method, drawing four straight
lines, respectively 14.7 miles, 7 miles, 23.6 miles and 11.6 miles in
length.
The 1812 Decree was similarly construed by the Territorial
Waters Boundary Commission (Report of February zgth, 1912,
pp. 48-49), as it was in the Memorandum of January 3rd, 1929,
sent by the Norwegian Government to the Secretary-General of
the League of Nations, in which it was said : "The direction laid
down by this Decree should be interpreted in the sense that the
starting-point for calculating the breadth of the territorial waters
should be a line drawn dong the 'skjargaard' between the furthest
rocks and, where there is no 'skjærgaard', between theextreme
points." The judgment delivered by the Norwegian Supreme Court
in r934, in the St. Just case, provided final authority for this
interpretation. This conception accords with the geographical
characteristics of the Norwegian coast and is not contrary to the
principles of international law. JUDGMENT OF 18 XII 51 (FISHERIES CASE) I3.5
It should, however, be pointed out that whereas the 1812 Decree
designated as base-points "the island or islet farthest from the
mainland not covered by the sea", Norwegian governmental
practice subsequently interpreted this provision as meaning that
the limit was to be reckoned from the outermost islands and islets
"not continuously covered by the sea".
The 1812 Decree, although quite general in its terms, had as
its immediate object the fixing of the limit applicable for the
purposes of maritime neutrality. However, as soon as the Norwegian
Government found itself irnpelled by circumstances to delimit its
fishenes zone, it regarded that Decree as laying down pnnciples
to be applied for purposes other than neutrality. The Statements
ofReasons ofOctober ~st,1869,December zoth, 1880,and May 24th,
1889, are conclusive on this point. They also show that the delimit-
ation effected in 1869 and in 1889 constituted a reasoned applica-
tion of a definite system applicable to the whole of the Norwegian
coast line, and was not merely legislation of local interest cded
for by =y special requirements. The following passage from the
Statement of Reasons of the 1869 Decree may in particuiar be
referred to:"My Ministry assumes that the general rule mentioned
above [namely, the four-mile rule], which isrecognized by inter-
national law for the determination of the extent of a country's
temtonal waters, must be applied here in such a way that the sea
area inside a line drawn parallel to a straight line between the
two outermost islands or rocks not covered by the sea, Svinoy to
the south and Storholmen to the north, and one geographical
league north-west of that straight line, should be considered
Norwegian maritime territory."
The 1869 Statement of Reasons brings out al1 the elements
which go to make up what the Norwegian Govemment descnbes
as its traditional system of delimitation : base-points provided by
the islands or islets farthest from the mainland, the use of straight
lines joining up these points, the lack of any maximum length for
such lines. The judgrnent of the Norwegian Supreme Court in the
St. Just case upheld this interpretation and added that the
1812 Decree had never been understood or applied "in such a way
as to make the boundary follow the sinuosities of the coast or to
cause its position to be determined by means of circles drawn round
the points of the Skjzrgaard or of the mainland furthest out to
sea-a method which it wouid be very difficult to adopt or to
enforce in practice, having regard to the special configuration
of this coast". Finaüy, it ,is established that, according to the
Norwegian system, the base-lines must follow the generai direction
of the coast, which is in conforrnity with international law.
Equaüy significant in this connection is the correspondence
which pasçed between Norway and France between 1869-1870.
On December 21st, 1869, only two months after the promulgation
23authonties and that it encountered no opposition on the part of
other States.
The United Kingdom Government has however sought to show
that the Norwegian Government has not consistently followed the
principles of delimitation which, it claims, form its system, and that
it has admitted by implication that some other method would De
necessary to comply witb international law. The documents 'io
which the Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom
principally referred at the hearing on October zoth, 1951, relate
to the period between 1906 and 1908, the period in which British
trawlers made their first appearance off the Norwegian coast, and
which, therefore, merits particular attention.
The United Kingdom Government pointed out that the law of
June 2nd, 1906, which prohibited fishing by foreigners, merely
forbade fishing in "Norwegian territorial waters", and it deduced
from the very general character of this reference that no definite
system existed. The Court is unable to accept this interpretation,
as the object of the law was to renew the prohibition against
fishing and not to undertake a precise delimitation of the terri-
torial sea.
The second document relied upon by the United Kingdom
Government is a letter dated March 24tl1, 1908, from the Minister
for Foreign Affairs to the Minister of National Defence. The United
Kingdom Government thought that this letter indicated an adher-
ence by Nonvay to the low-water mark rule contrary to the present
Nonvegian position. This interpretation cannot be accepted ; it
rests upon a confusion between the low-water mark rule as under-
stood by the United Kingdom, which requires that al1the sinuos-
ities of the coast line at low tide should be followed, and the general
practice of selecting the low-tide mark rather than that of the high
tide for measuring the extent of the territorial sea.
The third document referred to is a Note, dated November ~rth,
1908, from the Nonvegian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the French
Chargé d'Affairesat Christiania, in reply to a request for informa-
tion as to whether Norway had modified the limits of her territorial
waters. In it the Ministersaid: "Interpreting Norwegian regulations
in this matter, whilst at the same time conforming to the general
rule of the Law of Nations, this Ministry gave its opinion that the
distance from the coast should be measured from the low-water
mark and that every islet not continuously covered by the sea
should be reckoned as a starting-point." The United Kingdom
Government argued that by the refe-rence to "the general nile of
the Law of Nations", instead of to its own system of delimitation
entailing the use of çtraight lines, and, furthermore, by its state-
ment that "every islet not continuously covered by the sea should
be reckoned as a starting-point", the Nonvegian Government had
completely iieparted from what it to-day describes as its system. It must be remembered that the request for information to which
the Norwegian Government was replying related not to the use of
straight lines, but to the breadth of Nomegian territorial waters.
The point of the Nonvegian Government's reply was that there had
been no modification in the Nonvegian legislation. Moreover, it is
impossible to rely upon a few words taken from a single note to
draw the conclusion that the Norwegian Government had abandoned
a position which its earlier officia1documents had clearly indicated.
The Court considers that too much importance need not be
attached tothe few uncertainties or contradictions, real or apparent,
which the United Kingdom Government claims to have discovered
in Norwegian practice. They may be easily understood in the light
of the variety of the facts and conditions prevailing in the long
period which has elapsed since 1812, and are not such as to modify
the conclusions reached by the Court.
In the light of these considerations, and in the absence of con-
vincing evidence to the contrary, the Court is bound to hold that
the Norwegian authorities applied their system of delimitation con-
sistently and uninterruptedly from 1869 until the time when the
dispute arose.
From the standpoint of international law, it is now necessary to
consider whether the application of the Nonvegian system encoun-
tered any opposition from foreign States.
Norway has been in a position to argue without any contra.
diction that neither the promulgation of her delimitation Decrees
in 1869 and in 1889, nor their application, gave rise to any
opposition on the part of foreign States. Since, moreover, these
Decrees constitute, as has been shown above, the application of
a well-defined and uniform system, it is indeed this system itself
which would reap the benefit of general toleration, the basis of
an historical consolidation which would make it enforceable as
against au States.
The general toleration of foreign States with regard to the
Norwegian practice is an unchallenged fact. For a period of more
than sixty years the United Kingdom Government itself in no
way contested it. One cannot indeed consider as raising objections
the discussions to which the Lord Roberts incident gave rise in
1911, for the controversy which arose in this connection related
to two questions, that of the four-milelirnit, and that of Nonvegian
sovereignty over the Varangerfjord, both of which were uncon-
nected with the position of base-lines. It would appear that it
was only in its Memorandum of July 27th, 1933, that the United
Kingdom made a forma1 and definite protest on this point.
The United Kingdom Government has argued that the Nor-
wegian system of delimitation was not known to it and that the
26system therefore lacked the notoriety essential to provide the
basis of an histonc title enforceable against it. The Court is unable
to accept this view. As a coastal State on the North Sea, greatly
interested in the fisheries in this area, as a maritime Power
traditionally concerned with the law of the sea and concerned
particularly todefend the freedom of the seas, the United Kingdom
could not have been ignorant of the Decree of 1869 which had
at once provoked a request for explanations by the French Gov-
ernment. Nor, knowing of it, could it have been under any misappre-
hension as to the significance of its terms, which clearly described
it as constituting the application of a system. The same obser-
vation applies a fortiorito the Decree of 1889 relating to the
delimitation of Romsdal and Nordmore which must have appeared
to the United Kingdom as a reiterated manifestation of the
Norwegian practice.
NorwayJs attitude with regard to the North Sea Fisheries
(Police) Convention of 1882 is a further fact which must at once
have attracted the attention of Great Britain. There is scarcely
any fisheries convention of greater importance to the coastal
States of the North Sea or of greater interest to Great Britain.
Nonvay's refusal to adhere to this Convention clearly raised the
question of the delimitation of her maritime domain, especially
with regard to bays, the question of their delimitation by means
of straight lines of which Nonvay challenged the maximum length
adopted in the Convention. Having regard to the fact that a few
years before, the delimitation of Sunnmore by the 1869 Decree
had been presented as an application of the Norwegian system,
one cannot avoid the conclusion that, from that time on, al1 the
elements of the problem of Nonvegian coastal waters had been
clearly stated. The steps subsequently taken by Great Britain to
secure Norway's adherence to the Convention clearly show that
she was aware of and interested in the question.
The Court notes that in respect of a situation which could only
be strengthened with the passage of time, the United Kingdom
Government refrained from formulating reservations.
The notoriety of the facts, the general toleration of the inter-
national community, Great Britain's position in the North Sea, her
own interest in the question, and her prolonged abstention would
in any case warrant Nonvay's enforcement of her system against
the United Kingdom.
The Court is thus led to conclude that the rnethod of siraight
lines, established in the Nonvegian system, was imposed by the
peculiar geography of the Nonvegian coast ; that even before the
dispute arose, this method had been consolidated by a co~lstant and
sufficiently long practice, in the face of which the attitude of
governments bears witness to the fact that they did not consider
it to be contrary to internationai law. The question now arises whether the Decree of July ~zth, 1935,
which in its preamble is expressed to be an application of this
method, conforms to it in its drawing of the base-lines, or whether,
at certain points, it departs from this method tc~any considerable
extent.
The schedule appended to the Decree of July ~zth, 1935,indicates
the fixed points between which the straight base-lines are drawn.
The Court notes that these lines were the result of a careful study
initiated by the Norwegian authorities as far back as 1911. The
base-lines recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Storting for the delimitation of the fisheries zone and adopted and
made public for the first time by the Decree of July ~ath, 1935, are
the same as those which the so-called Territorial Waters Boundary
Commissions, successively appointed on June zgth, 1911, and July
~zth, 1912, had drawn in 1912 for Finnmark and in 1913 for
Nordland and Troms. The Court further notes that the 1911 and
1912 Commissions advocated these lines and in so doing constantly
referred, as the 1935 Decree itself did, to the traditional system
of delimitation adopted by earlier acts and more particularly by
the Decrees of 1812, 1869 and 1889.
In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the Court
cannot readily find that the lines adopted in these circumstances
by the 1935 Decree are not in accordance with the traditional
Norwegian system. However, a purely factual difference arose
between the Parties concerning the three following base-points :
No. 21 (VesterfaUet i Gaasan), No. 27 (Tokkebaaen) and No. 39
(Nordboen). This difference is now devoid of object. A telegram
dated October ~gth, 1951, from the Hydrographic Service of Norway
to the Agent of the Norwegian Government, which was commun-
icated to the Agent of the United Kingdom Government. has con-
firmed that these three points are rocks which are not continuously
submerged. Since this assertion has not been further disputed by
the United Kingdom Government, it may be considered that the
use ofthese rocks as base-points is in conformity with the traditional
Norwegian system.
Finally, it has been contended by the United Kingdom Govern-
ment that certain, at least, of the base-lines adopted by the Decree
are, irrespective of whether or not they conform to the Norwegian
system, contrary to the pnnciples stated above by the Court as
goveming any delimitation of the tenitonal sea. The Court wili
consider whether, from the point of view of these pnnciples, certain
of the base-lines which have been cnticized in some detail realiy
are without iustification.
The ~orwé~ian Government adrnits that the base-lines must be
drawn in such a way as to respect the general direction of the
28coast and that they must be drawn in a reasonable manner. The
United Kingdom Government contends that certain lines do not
follow the general direction of the coast, or do not follow it
sufficiently closely, or that they do not respect the natural con-
nection existing between certain sea areas and the land formations
separating or surrounding them. For these reasons, it is alleged
that the line drawn is contrary to the principles which govem the
delimitation of the maritime domain.
The Court observes that these complaints, which assumed a
very general scope in the written proceedings, have subsequently
been reduced.
The United Kingdom Government has directed its cnticism more
particularly against two sectors, the delimitation of which they
represented as extreme cases of deviation from the general direction
of the coast :the sector of Sværholthavet (between base-points II
and 12) and that of Lopphavet (between base-points 20 and
21). The Court will deal with the delimitation of these two sectors
from this point of view.
The base-line between points II and 12, which is 38.6 sea miles
in length, delimits the waters of the Sværholt lying between Cape
Nordkyn and the North Cape. The United Kingdom Government
denies that the basin so delimited has the character of a bay. Its
argument is founded on a geographical consideration. In its opinion,
the calculation of the basin's penetration inland must stop at the
tip of the Sværholt peninsula (Sværholtklubben). The penetration
inland thus obtained being only 11.5 sea miles, as against 38.6 miles
of breadth at the entrance, it is alleged that the basin in question
does not have the character of a bay. The Court is unable to share
this view. It considers that the basin in question must be con-
templated in the light of al1the geographical factors involved. The
fact that a peninsula juts out and forms two wide fjords, the Lakse-
fjord and the Porsangerfjord, cannot deprive the basin of the
character of a bay. It is the distances between the disputed base-
line and the most inland point of these fjords, 50 and 75 sea miles
respectively, which must be taken into account in appreciating
the proportion between the penetration inland and the width at
the mouth. The Court concludes that Sværholthavet has the
character of a bay.
The delimitation of the Lopphavet basin has also been cnticized
by the United Kingdom. As has been pointed out above, ils criti-
cism of the selection of base point No. 21 may be regarded as
abandoned. The Lopphavet basin constitutes an ill-defined geo-
graphic whole. It cannot be regarded as having the character of
a bay. It is made up of an extensive area of water dotted with
large islands which are separated by inlets that terminate in the
various fjords. The base-line has been challenged on the ground
that it does not respect the general direction of the coast. It should
be observed that, however justified the rule in question may be,
29it is devoid of any mathematical precision. In order properly to
apply the mie, regard must be had for the relation between the
deviation complained of and what, according to the terms of the
rule, must be regarded as the general direction of the coast. There-
fore, one cannot confine oneself to examining one sector of the
coast alone, except in a case of manifest abuse ; nor can one rely
on the impression that may be gathered from a large scale chart
of this sector alone. In the case in point, the divergence between
the base-line and the land formations is not such that it is a dis-
tortion of the general direction of the Norwegian coast.
Even if it were considered that in the sector under review the
deviation was too pronounced, it must be pointed out that the
Norwegian Government has relied upon an historic title clearly
referable to the waters of Lopphavet, namely, the exclusive
privilege to fish andhunt whales granted at the end of the 17th cen-
tury to Lt.-Commander Erich Lorch under a number of licences
which show, inter alia, that the water situated in the vicinity
of the sunken rock of Gjesbaaen or Gjesboene andthe fishinggrounds
pertaining thereto were regarded as falling exclusively within
Norwegian sovereignty. But it may be observed that the fishing
grounds here referred to are made up of two banks, one of which,
the Indre Gjesboene, is situated between the base-line and the
limit reserved for fishing, whereas the other, the Ytre Gjesboene.
is situated further to seaward and beyond the fishing limit laid
down in the 1935 Decree.
These ancient concessions tend to confirm the Norwegian Gov-
ernment's contention that the fishenes zone reserved before 1812
was in fact much more extensive than the one delimited in 1935.
It is suggested that it included al1 fishing banks from which land
was visible, the range of vision being, as is recognized by the
United Kingdom Government, the principle of delimitation in
force at that tirne. The Court considers that, althoügh it is not
always clear to what specific areas they apply, the historical data
produced in support of this contention by the Norwegian Govem-
ment lend some weight to the idea of the survival of traditional
rights reserved to the inhabitants of the Kingdom over fishing
grounds included in the 1935 delimitation, particularly in the case
of Lopphavet. Such rights, founded on the vital needs of the
population and attested by very ancient and peaceful usage, may
legitimately be taken into account in drawing a line which,
moreover, appears to the Court to have been kept within the
bounds of what is moderate and reasonable.
As to the Vestfjord, after the oral argument, its delimitation
no longer presents the importance it had in the early stages of the
proceedings. Since the Court has found that the waters of the
Indreleia are internal waters, the waters of the Vestfjord, as
indeed the waters of al1 other Norwegian fjords, can only be
regarded as internal waters. In these circumstances, what-ever difference may still exist between the views of the United
Kingdom Government and those of the Norwegian Government
on this point, is negligible. It is reduced to the question whether
the base-line should be drawn between points 45 and 46 as fixed
by the 1935 Decree, or whether the line should terminate at the
Kalsholmen lighthouse on Tenholmerne. The Court considers that
this question is purely local in character and of secondary import-
ance, and that its settlement should be left to the costalState.
For these reasons,
THE COURT,
rejecting alisubmissions to the contrary,
Finds
by ten votes to two,
that the method employed for the delimitation of the fisheries
zone by the Royal Norwegian Decree of July ~zth, 1935, is not
contrary to international law; and
by eight votes to four,
that the base-lines fixed by the said Decree in application of
this method are not contrary to international law.
Done in French and English, the French text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this eighteenth day of December,
one thousand nine hundred and fifty-one, in three copies, one of
which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others
transmitted to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Bntain and Northern Ireland and to the Government of the
Kingdom of Nonvay, respectively.
(Szgneù) BASDEVANT,
President.
(Sagned) E. HAMBRO,
Registrar. Judge HACKWORT dHclares that he concurs in the operative
part of the Judgment but desires to emphasize that he does so
for the reason that he considers that the Norwegian Govemment
has proved the existence of an historic title to the disputed areas
of water.
Judges ALVAREZ and Hsu Mo, availing themselves of the right
conferred on them by Article57 of the Statute, append to the
Judgment of the Court statements of their separate opinions.
Judges Sir Arnold MCNAIR and READ, availing themselves of
the right conferred on themy Article57 of the Statute, append
to the Judgment statements of their dissenting opinions.
(Initialled) J. B.
(Initialled) EH.
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES
(ROYAUME-UNI c. NORVÈGE)
ARRÊT DU 18DÉCEMBRE 1951
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
FISHERI-ES CASE
(UNITED KINGDOM v.NORWAY)
JUDGMENT OF DECEMBER 18th1951
LEPDE LEYDES
SOCIÉTD'ÉDITIOSS A.W. SIJTHOFF'S
A.W.SIJTHOFF II PUBLISHIKCOMPANY Le présent arrêtdoit êtrecitécom:e suit
«Agaire des pêcheries,Arrét du
18décembr1951:C.1. JRecuei1951,p.116»
This Judgment shobecited as fol:ows
"Fisheries case, Jztdgment of18th,95I:
I.C.JRefior1951pi 116.''
NO de vent:
1 Sales nwnbe74 1 COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES
Validité en droit internationadu décret royal norvégien dr 1935
portant délimitation de la zone de pêchenorvégiennZone de péchc;
mer territorial-. Caract2res particulierde la côte norvégienne;
1sjkargaard».- Ligne de base pour le calcul de I'étrndue de la mrr
trrritovia;elaisse de basse me-. Ligne côtière extérieure rskjar-
gaard II- Eaux intdrieures;eaux territoriales. ,l.iéthodedu tracé
parallèle;méthode de la courbe tangente; méthode des lignes droites
de base. - Longueur des lignes droites de base; r2gle des dix milles
pour les baies; eaux historiques- L)étroit; Indreleia.- Inte'rét
internationalde la délimitation des espaces maritimes.- Critéres
ginéraux de cette ddlimitati;ndirection gdnérale de la cbte; relation
des étendues de mer avec les formations terrestrSystème nomé#içn
tle délimitation conçu comme adaptation du droit international commun.
- Persistance dans l'applicatiode ce système. - Absence d'opposi-
tion ou de réservesdes États étrangersette application. Notoriété.
- Conformité des lignes de bage adoptées par le ddcret1935 aux
principes du droit international applicarn matic're de dr:limitation
de la mer territoriale.
Présents : M. BASDEVANT P,résident; M. GUERRERO ,ice-Prési-
dent; MM. ALVAREZ H,ACKWORT WHI,NIARSKZ I,ORI~IC,
DE VISSCHERS ,ir Arnold MCNAIR, M. KLAESTAD,
BADAWI FACHA, MM. READ, HSU MO, Juges:
M. HAMBRO G,re@er.
4 INTEIINATIONALCOURT OFJUSTICIC
YEAR 1951 1951
December 18tl
General Lis:
December 18th, 1951 No. 5
FISHERIES CASE
(UNITED KINGDOM v. NORWAY)
Validityin internationalaw of Royal hror70cgian Llccree 1935
delimitingNorwegian fisheries zone.-Fisheries zone; territorial sea.
- Special characteristics oNorzeiegian coa;t "skjczrgaard".-Base-
line for measuring breadth of territorial;slow-zuater mark.-Outer
coast line of "skjargaurd".- Igzternal 7aate;sterritoriawaters.-
Tracé parallble method; envelopes of arcs of circles methostraight
base-lines method.-Length of straight base-l;nIO-mile rule for Oa;s
historic waters.-Strai;sIndre1eia.-International interest in delimita-
lion of maritime areas.-Generalcriteria for such delintitu;general
direction of the coast; relationship between sea areas and land forma-
tions.-Norwegian system of delimitationregarded as udaptation of
general international 1aw.-Çonsistencin application of this system.-
Absence of opposition or veservations by foreign StatNotoriety.-
Conformity of base-lines adoptedby 1935 Ilecree with pvinciples of
international law applicable delimitation of the trrritorial sea.
JUDGMENT
Present : President BASDEVAN ;T Vice-President GUERREK ;O
Judges ALVAREZH , ACKWORTW H,INIARSKI Z,ORI~IC,
DE VISSCHER S,ir ArnoldMCNAIRK , LAESTAB DA, DAWI
PASHAR , EAD,HSUMO ; Registrar HAMBRO. II7 :\RH~T T>C.18 XII EjI (;\I;FAIREDES P~CCHERIES)
En I'affaire des pêcheries,
entre
le Kovaume-Lni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord,
représentépar
Sir Eric Beckett, K. C. M. G., K. C.. jurisconsulte du ministère
di:sAffaires étrangères,
comme agent,
assisté par
le très honorable sir Frank Soskicc, K. C., M. P., Attorney-
General,
II. C.H. 11. Waldock, C. M. G., O. B. E., K. C., professeur de
tlroit international public à 1'Universiti: d'Oxford (chaire
Chichele),
XI. R. O. \.Vilberforce, membre du barreau anglais,
hl. D. H. N. Jo'tinson, jurisconsulte adjoint du ministère des
Affaires étrangères,
comme conseils,
et par
le capitaine de frégate (en retraite) de la Marine royale, R. H.
Kennedy, O. B. E., du Service hydrographique de l'Amirauté,
M. W. H. Evans, du Service hydrographique de l'Amirauté,
M. Annaeus Çchjerdt, Jr., du barreau norvégien, conseiller juri-
dique de l'ambassade britannique à Oslo,
M. W. N. Hanna, de la section militaire de l'Amirauté,
M. A. S. A-mstrong, du ministère de l'Agriculture et des Pêche-
ries, sectioncles Pêcheries,
comme conseillers experts ;
le Royaume de Norvége,
représentépar
M. Sven Arntzen, avocat à la Cour suprêmede Norvège,
comme agent et avocat,
assisté par
M. Maurice Bourquin, professeur à l'université de Genève et à
l'Institut universitaire des Hautes Études internationales,
comme avocat, In the Fisheries case,
Detween
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
represented by
Sir Eric Beckett, K.C.M.G., K.C., Legal Adviser to the Foreign
Office,
as Agent,
gssisted by :
The Right Honourable Sir Frank Soskice, K.C., M.P., Attorney-
General,
Professor C. H. M. Waldock, C.M.G., O.B.E., K.C., Chichele
Professor of Public International Law in the University of
Oxford,
Mr. R. O. Wilberforce, Member of the English Bar,
Mr. D. H. N. Johnson, Assistant Legal Adviser, Foreign Office,
as Counsel,
and by :
Commander R. H. Kennedy, O.B.E., R.N. (retired), Hydro-
graphie Department, Admiralty,
Mr. W. H. Evans, Hydrographic Departmeiit, Admiralty,
M. Annaeus Schjadt, Jr., of the Norwegian Bar, Legal Adviser
to the British Embassy in Oslo,
Mr. W. N. Hanna, Military Branch, Admiralty,
Mr. A. S. Armstrong, Fisheries Department, Ministry of Agri-
culture and Fisheries,
as expert advisers ;
and
the Kingdom of Nonvay,
represented by :
M. Sven Arntzen, Advocate at the Supreme Court of Norway,
as Agent and Counsel,
M. Maurice Bourquin, Professor at the University of Geneva
and at the Graduate Institute of International Studies,
as Counsel,
5 et par
M. Paal Berg, ancien président de la Cour suprêmede Norvtgc,
M. C. J. Hambro, président de I'Odclsting,
M. Frcde Castberg, professeur à l'université d'Oslo,
M. Lars J.Jorstad, ministre plénipotentiaire,
le capitaine de vaisseau Chr. Meyer,e la Marine royale norvk-
gienne,
M. Gunnar Rollefsen, directeur de l'Institut de recherches du
Service des Pêchesde la Norvège,
M. Reidar Skau, juge à la Cour suprêmede Norvège,
M. E. A. Colban, chef de division au ministère royal des Affaires
étrangères de Norviigc,
le capitaine de vaisseau W. Coucheron-Aamot, de la Marine
royale norvégienne,
M. Jens Evensen, avocat près les Cours d'appel de Norvège,
M. André Salomon, docteur en droit,
comme experts,
et par
M. Sigurd Ekeland, secrétaire au ministiire royal cles Affaires
étrangèresde Norvège,
comme secrétaire,
ainsi composée,
rend l'arrêtsuivant :
Le 28 septembre 1949, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de
Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord a déposéau Greffe une
requête introduisant devant la Cour, contre le Royaume de Nor-
vège, une instance dont l'objet est la validité ou la non-validité,
en droit international, deslignes de délimitation de la zone de
pêche norvégiennepour la partie de la Norvège située au nord
de 66" 28,8' (ou 66" 28'48") de latitudeN., telles que ces lignes
sont fixéespar le décret royalnorvégiendu 12 juille1935 amendé
par le décret du IO décembre 1937. La requêtese réfèreaux
déclarations par lesquelles le Royaume-Uni et la Norvège ont
accepté la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour aux termes de
l'articl36, paragraphe 2, du Statut.
La requêteprie la Cour
«a) de dire quels sont les principes de droit international a
appliquer afin de définir les lide base par rapport auxquelles
le Gouvernement norvégien est fondé à délimiter unezone de
6 JIJL)GMI<NT01;18 XII 51 (FISHERIES CASE) 118
and by :
M. Paal Berg, former I'rcsident of the Supreme Court of Norway,
M. C. J. Hnmbro, Prcsident of the Odelsting,
M. Frcde Castberg, Professor at the University of Oslo,
M. Lars J. Jorstacl, Minister Plenipotentiary,
Captain Chr. Meycr, of the Norwegian Royal Navy,
M. Guniiar Rollcfscn, Ilirector of the Rcscarch Bureaii of the
Norwcgian Ikpartment of Fisheries,
M. Kciclar Skau, Judgc of the Supreme Court of Norway,
M. E. A. Colban, Chicf of Jlivision in the Norwcgian Royal
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Captain W. Couchcron-Aamot, of the Norwegian Royal Navy,
M. Jcns Evcnsen, of the Bar of the Norwegian Courts of Appeal,
M. André Salon~on, D~ctor of Law,
as experts,
and by :
M. Sigurd Ekeland, Secretary to the Norwegian Royal Ministry
for Foreign Affairs,
as secretary,
composed as above,
deliaers the following Judgment:
On Scptcmber 28th, 1949, the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland filed in the
Registry an Application instituting proceedings before the Court
against the Kingdom of Norway, the subject of the proceedings
being the validity or otherwise, under international law, of the
lines of delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone laid down by
the Royal Decree of July xzth, 1935, as amended by a Decree
of December xoth, 1937, for that part of Norway which is situated
northward of 66"28.8' (or66"28'48") N. latitude. The Application
refers to the Declarations by which the United Kingdom and
Norway have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
in accordance with Article 36, paragraph2, of the Statute.
This Application asked the Court
in defining the base-lines,i reference to which the Norwegianpplied
Government is entitled to delimit a fisheries zone, extending to
6 pêche,s'étendant vers la mer à une distance de 4 milles marins
de ces lignes et réservéeexclusivementà ses propres ressortissant;
de définirlesdites lignes de base dans la mesure où cela sera jugé
nécessaire,à la lumière des arguments exposéspar les Parties, et
ce afin d'éviterde nouveaux désaccordsjuridiques entre les deux
Etats ;
b) d'allouer au Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni des dommages
et intérêtspour toutes interventions dont les bateaux de pêche
britanniques auraient fait l'objet de la part des autorités norvé-
giennes, en dehors de la zone que, conformément à la décision
prise par la Cour selon le paragrapha) ci-dessus,le Gouvernement
norvégienest fondé à réserverà ses ressortissant))
Conformément à l'article,40, paragraphe 3, du Statut, la requête
a été comm~niquée aux Etats admis à ester en justice devant
la Cour. Elle a ététransmise également au Secrétaire généraldes
Nations Unies.
Les pièces de la procédure ont étédéposées dans les délais
prescrits par l'ordonnance du 9 novembre 1949, puis successive-
ment prorogés par les ordonnances du 29 mars 1950, du 4 octobre
1950 et du IO janvier 1951. Elles ont été communiquée^ aux
Gouvernements de la Belgique, du Canada, de Cuba, des Etats-
Vnis d'Amérique, de l'Islande, de la Suède et du Venezuela, par
application de l'article 44, paragraphe 2, du Règlement de la
Cour, à la demande de ces gouvernements et avec l'assentiment
de la Cour. D'autre part, le 24 septembre 1951, par application
du paragraphe 3 du même article, la Cour, sur l'initiative du
Gouvernement de la Norvège et avec l'assentiment du Gouver-
nement du Royaume-Uni, a autorisé que les pièces de la procédure
écrite soient rendues accessibles au public.
L'affaire s'est trouvée en état le 30 avril 1951, et l'ouverture
de la procédure orale a étéfixée au 25 septembre 1951. Des
audiences publiques ont ététenues les 25,26, 27,28 et 29 septembre,
les 5, 6, 8, 9, IO, II, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19,20, 24, 25, 26, 27
et 29 octobre. Au cours de ces audiences, ont été entendus en
leurs plaidoiries : pour le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, sir
Eric Beckett, agent, sir Frank Soskice, M. Wilberforce et le
professeur Waldock, conseils ; pour le Gouvernement de la Nor-
vège, M. Arntzen, agent et avocat, et le professeur Bourquin,
avocat. En outre, des explications techniques ont étédonnées au
nom du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni par le capitaine de
frégate Kennedy.
Les conclusions ci-après ont étéprésentbes en fin de plaidoirie
par l'agent du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni :
«Le Royaume-Uni conclut à ce que la Cour devrait décider
que les.limites maritimes que la Norvkge est en droit de rendre
effectivesà l'égard duRoyaume-Uni doivent êtretracéesconfor-
mément aux principes suivants : seaward 4 sea miles from those lines and exclusively reserved
for its own nationals, and to definethe said base-lines in so far as
it appears necessary, in the light of the arguments of the Parties,
in order to avoid further legal differences between them;
(b)to award damages to the Government of the United Kingdom
in respect of al1 interferences by the Norwegian authorities with
British, fishing vesselsoutside the zone which, in accordance with
the C'ourt's decision under (a), the Norwegian Government is
entitled to reserve for its nationals."
Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute, the Applic-
ation was notified to the States entitled to appear before the
Court. It was also transmitted to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations.
The Pleadings were filed within the time-limits prescribed
by Order of November gth, 1949, and later extended by Orders
of March 29th and October 4th, 1950, and January ~oth, 1951.
By application of Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court,
they were communicated to the Governments of Belgium, Canada,
Cuba, Iceland, Sweden, the United States of America and Vene-
zuela, at their request and with the authorization of the Court.
On September 24th, 1951, the Court, by application of Article 44,
paragraph 3, of the Rules, at the instance of the Government
of Norway, and with the agreement of the United Kingdom
Government, authorized the Pleadings to be made accessible to
the public.
The case was ready for hearing on April 3oth, 1951, and the
opening of the oral proceedings was fixed for September zsth, 1951.
Public hearings were held on September 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th
and zgth, October rst, 5th, 6th, 8th, gth, roth, th, ~zth, 13th,
~gth, 17th, 18th, ~gth, zoth, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th and 29th.
In the course of the hearings, the Court heard Sir Eric Beckett,
Agent, Sir Frank Soskice, Mr. Wilberforce and Professor Waldock,
Counsel, on behalf of the United Kingdom Government ; and
M. Arntzen, Agent and Counsel, and Professor Bourquin, Counsel,
on behalf of the Government of Norway. In addition, technical
explanations were given on behalf of the United Kingdom
Government by Commander Kennedy.
At the end of his argument, the Agent of the United Kingdom
Government presented the following submissions :
"The United Kingdom submits that the Court should decide
against the United Kingdom should be drawn in accordance withas
the following principles: 1) La Norvège a droit à une ceinture d'eaux territoriales d'unc
largeur déterminée, largeur qui ne saurait dépa~serquatre milles
marins au maximum.
2) En conséquence, la limite extérieure des eaux territoriales
de la Norvège ne doit jamais étre à plus dc quatre milles marins
d'un des points de la ligne de basc.
3) Sous réserve des points 4, 9 et IOsuivants, la ligne dc basc
doit suivre la laisse de basse mer d'une terre qui émerge en per-
manence (et fait partie du territoire norvtgien), ou la ligne de
fermeture régulière(voir point 7 ci-dessous) des eaux norvégiennes
intérieures.
4) Dans le cas (l'une 6lCvation de basse mcr situCe h moins de
quatre milles d'unc trrre émergeant en permanence, ou dc la ligne
de fermeture réguliéredes eaux intérieures norvbgiennes, la limite
extérieure des eaux territoriales peut êtresituée 3 quatre milles
marins 5 partir de la limite extérieure (à marCe basse) dc cette
élévation. En aucun autre cas, une élévationde base mer ne
peut entrer en compte.
5) La Norvègea le droit, pour des motifs histori(lues, de réclamer
comme eaux intérieu~csnorvégiennes tous les fjords et sunds qui
rentrent dans la notion de baie, telle qu'elle est définieen droit
international, que leur entrée régulièresoit de plus ou de moins
de dix milles marins de large.
6) La définitiond'une baie en droit international est une échan-
crure bien marquée, pénétrant-à l'intkrieur sur une longueur
suffisante par rapport à la largeur de son embouchure pour que
l'échancrure constitue plus qu'une simple courbe de !a côte.
7) Dans le cas d'un espace .-d'eau constituant une baie, le
principe qui détermine l'endroit où la ligne de fermeture doit
être tracée est que la ligne de fermeture doit êtretracée entre
les points naturels d'entrée géographiques, à l'endroit où l'échan-
crure cesse d'avoir la configuration d'une baie.
8) Un détroit au sens juridique est un détroit au sens geogra-
phique, réunissant deux étendues de la haute mer.
9) Pour des motifs historiques, la Norvège est en droit de reven-
diquer comme eaux territoriales norvégiennes toutes les eaux des
fjords et des sunds ayant le caractère d'undCtroit au sens juridique.
Là où les ceintures maritimes tracées de chaque rive se recouvrent
à chaque extrémitédu détroit, la limite des eaux territoriales est
formée par le bord extérieur de ces deux ceintures maritimes.
Toutefois, lorsque les deux ceintures maritimes ainsi tracées ne
se recouvrent pas, la limite suit le bord extérieur de chacune des
deux ceintures maritimes, jusqu'à leur intersection avec la ligne
droite rejoignant les points d'entrée naturels du détroit, aprèsquoi,
la limite suit cette ligne droite.
IO) Dans le cas du Vestfjord, la limite extérieure des eaux terri-
toriales norvégiennes, à l'entrée sud-ouest du fjord, est la ligne
pointillée verte portée aux cartes 8 et 9 de l'annexe 35 de la
réplique.
8 (1)That Nonvay is entitled to a belt of territorial waters of
fixed breadtli-the breadth cannot, as amaximum, exceed 4 sea
miles.
(2)That, in consequence, the outer limit of Nonvay's territorial
waters must never be more than 4 sea miles from some point on
the base-lin&
(3) That, subject to (4) (9) and (IO) below, the base-line must
be low-water mark on permanently dry land (which is part of
Norwegian territory) or the proper closing line (see (7) below)
of Norwegian internal waters.
(4) That, where there is a low-tide elevation situated within
4 sea miles of permanently dry land, or of the proper closing line
of Norwegian internal waters, the outer limit of territorial waters
may be q sea miles from the outer edge (at low tide) of this low-
tide elcvation. In no othet case may a low-tide elevation be taken
into account.
(5)That Nonvay is entitled to claim as Norwegian internal
waters, on historic grounds, al1 fjords and sunds which fa11within
the conception of a bay as defined in international law, whether
the proper entrance to the indentation is more or less than
IO sea miles wide.
(6)That the definition of a bay in international law is a well-
marked indentation, whosc penetration inland is in such proportion
to the width of its mouth as to constitute the indentation more
than a mere curvature of the coast.
(7)That, wherc an area of water is a bay, the principle which
determines where the closing line should be drawn, is that the
closing line should be drawn between the natural geographical
entrance points where the indentation ceases to have the con-
figuration of a bay.
(8) That a legal straitis any geographical strait which connects
two portions of the high seas.
(9) That Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian territorial
waters, on historic grounds, al1 the waters of the fjords and sunds
which have the character of a legal strait. Where the maritime
belts, drawn from each shore, overlap at each end of the strait,
the limit of territorial watersis formed by the outer rims of these
two maritime belts. Where, however, the maritime belts so drawn
do not overlap, the limit follows the outer rims of-each of these
two maritime belts, until they intersect with the straight line,
joining the natural entrance points of the strait, after which
intersection the limit follows that straight line.
(IO) That, in the case of the Vestfjord, the outer limit of Nor-
wegian territorial waters, at the south-westerly end of the fjord,
is the pecked green line shown on Charts Nos. 8 and g of Annex 35
of the Reply.
8 II) En raison de son titre historique aux fjords et aux sunds,
la Norvège a le droit de réclamer, soit comme eaux territoriales,
soit comme eaux intérieures, les espaces d'eau situés entre la
frange d'îles et le continent de Norvège. Pour déterminer lesespaces
qui doivent êtreconsidérés commesituésentre les îles et le conti-
nent, et si ces espaces sont des eaux territoriales ou des eaux
intérieures, on doit se référeraux points 6 et 8 précités,portant
définition d'une baie ou d'un détroit au sens juridique.
12) La Norvège n'est en droit de rendre effective à l'égarddu
Royaume-Uni aucune prétention à des eaux auxquelles ne s'appli-
quent pas les principes qui précèdent.Dans les rapports entre la
Norvègeet le Royaume-Uni, leseaux au large de la côte norvégienne
au nord du parallèle 66" 28,8' N. qui ne sont pas norvégiennes
en vertu des principes mentionnés ci-dessussont de la haute mer.
13) La Norvègeest tenue de l'obligation intemationale d'indem-
niser le Royaume-Uni pour tout arrêt de bateaux de pêchebritan-
niques, effectuéaprèsle 16septembre 1948, dans les eaux qui seront
reconnues comme faisant partie de la haute mer par l'application
des principes qui précèdent. »
Ultérieurement, à l'issue de la réplique orale, les conclusions
du Royaume-Uni ont étéénoncéescomme suit par l'agent :
(Le Royaume-Uni conclut à ce que la Cour devrait déciderque
leslimitesmaritimes que la Norvègeest en droit de rendre effectives
à l'égarddu Royaume-Uni doivent êtretrackes conformémentaux
principes suivants :
1) La Norvège a droit à une ceinture d'eaux territoriales d'une
largeur déterminée, largeur qui ne saurait dépasser quatre milles
marins au maximum.
2) En conséquence, la limite extérieure des eaux territoriales
de la Norvège ne doit jamais être à plus de quatre milles marins
d'un des points de la ligne de base.
3) Sous réserve des points 4, 9 et IO suivants, la ligne de base
doit suivre la laisse de basse mer d'une terre qui émerge en per-
manence. (et fait partie du territoire norvégien), ou la ligne de
fermeture régulière (voirpoint 7 ci-dessous)des eaux norvégiennes
intérieures.
4) Dans le cas d'une élévationde basse mer située à moins
de quatre milles d'une terre émergeant en permanence, ou de la
ligne de fermeture régulièredes eaux intérieures norvégiennes,la
limite extérieure des eaux territoriales norvégiennes peut être
située à quatre milles marins à partir de la limite extérieure (à
marée basse)de cette élévation.En aucun autre cas, une élévation
de basse mer ne peut entrer en compte.
5) La Norvègea le droit, pour des motifs historiques, de réclamer
comme eaux intérieures norvkgiennes tous les fjords et sunds qui
rentrent dans la notion de baie, telle qu'elle est définieen droit inter-
national (voir point 6 ci-dessous),que la ligne de fermeture régulière
de l'échancrure soit de plus ou de moins de dix milles marins. (II) That Norway, by reason of her historic title to fjords and
wnds, is entitled to clairn, either as territorial or as internal waters,
tiie areas of water lying between the island fringe and the mainland
,t Sorway. In order to determine what areas must be deemed to
lie between the islands and the mainland, and whether these areas
.ire territorial or internal waters, recourse must be had to Kos. (6)
and (8)above, being the definitions of a bay and of a legal strait.
(12) Ttiat Norway is not entitled, as against the United Kingdom,
to enforce any claim to waters not covered by the preceding pin-
ciples. As between Norway and the United Kingdom, waters off
rhe coast of Norway north of parallel 66" 28.8' N., wliich are not
Sorwegian by virtue of the above-mentioned principles, are high
%%S.
(13) That Korway is under an international obligation to pay
to the United Kingdom compensation in respect of al1 the arrests
since 16th September, 1948, of British fishing vessels in waters,
which are high seas by virtue of the application of the preceding
principles."
Later, the Agent of the United Kingdom Government presented
the following Conclusions, at the end of his oral reply :
"The United Kingdom submits that the Court should decide
that tlie maritime limits which Korway is entitled to enforce as
against the United Kingdom should be drawn in accordance with
the following principles :
(1) That Norway is entitled to a belt of territorial waters of
fixed breadth-the breadth cannot, as a maximum, exceed 4 sea
miles.
(2) That, in consequence, the outer limit of Norway's territorial
waters must never be more than 4 sea miles from some point on
the base-line.
(3) That, subject to Nos. (4), (9) and (IO) below, the base-line
must be 'low-water mark on permanently dry land (which is part
of Norwegian territory) or the proper closing line (see No. (7)
below) of Norwegian internal waters.
(4) That, where there is a low-tide elevation situated within
4 sea miles of permanently dry land, or of the proper closing line
of Norwegian internal waters, the outer limit of Norwegian terri-
torial waters may be 4 sea miles from the outer edgé(at low tide)
of this low-tide elevation. In no other case may a low-tide elevation
be taken into account.
(5) That Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian internal
waters, on historic grounds, al1 fjords and sunds which fall within
the conception of a bay as defined in international law (see No. (6)
below), whether the proper closing line of the indendation is more
or less than IO sea miles long.
9 6) La définition d'une baie en droit international est une
ecliancrure bien marquée, pénétrant à l'intérieur sur une longueur
suffisante par rapport a la largeur de son embouchure pour que
l'échancrure constitue plus qu'une simple courbe de la côte.
7) Dans le cas d'un espace d'eau constituant une baie, le prin-
cipe qui détermine l'endroit où la ligne de fermeture doit être
tracée est que la ligne de fermeture doit êtretracée entre les points
naturels d'entrée géographiques, à l'endroit où l'échancrure cesse
d'avoir la configuration d'une baie.
8) Un détroit au sens juridique est un détroit au sens géogra-
phique, réunissant deux étendues de la haute mer.
9 a) Pour des motifs historiques, la Norvège est en droit de
revendiquer comme eaux territoriales norvégiennes toutes les
eaux des fjords et des sunds ayant le caractère de détroits au sens
juridique.
h) Là où les ceintures maritimes tracées de chaque rive se recou-
vrent à chaque extrémité du détroit, la limite des eaux territoriales
est formée par le bord extérieur de ces deux ceintures maritimes.
'Toutefois, lorsque les deux ceintures maritimes ainsi tracées ne
se recouvrent pas, la limite suit le bord extérieur de chacune des
deux ceintures maritimes, jusqu'à leur intersection avec la ligne
droite rejoignant les points d'entrée naturels du détroit, après quoi,
la limite suit cette ligne droite.
IO) Dans le cas du Vestfjord, la limiteextérieure des eaux terri-
toriales norvégiennes, à l'entrée sud-ouest du fjord, est la ligne
pointillée verte portée aux cartes 8 et 9 de l'annexe 35 de la
réplique.
II) En raison de son titre historique aux fjords et aux sunds
(voir 5 et 9 a ci-dessus), la Norvège a le droit de réclamer, soit
comme eaux intérieures, soit comme eaux territoriales, les espaces
d'eau situés entre la frange des îles et le continent. Pour déter-
miner les espaces d'eau qui doivent êtreconsidérés commesitués
entre la frange des îles et le continent, et si ces espaces sont des
eaux intérieures ou des eaux territoriales, on doit appliquer les
principes posés aux points 6, 7, 8 et 9 b aux échancrures de la
frange des îles et aux échancrures situées entre la frange des îles
et le continent - les espaces d'eau situés dans les échancrures
ayant le caractère de baies, et à l'intérieur des lignes de fermeture
régulières de celles-ci, étant considéréscomme eaux intérieures ;
et les espaces d'eau situés dans les échancrures ayant le caractère
juridique de détroits, eà l'intérieur deslimites régulièresde ceux-ci,
étant considérés comme eaux territoriales.
12) La Norvège n'est en droit de rendre effective à l'égard
du Royaume-Uni aucune prétention à des eaux auxquelles ne
s'appliquent pas les principes qui précèdent. Dans les rapports
entre la Norvège et le Royaume-Uni, les eaux au large de la côte
norvégienne au nord du parallèle 66" 28,8' N. qui ne sont pas
norvégiennes en vertu des principes mentionnés ci-dessus sont
de la haute mer. (6) That the definition of a bay in international law is a well-
marked indentation, whose penetration inland is in such proportion
to the width of its mouth as to constitute the indentation more
than a mere curvature of the coast.
(7) That, where an area of water is a bay, thr principle \vliich
dctermines where the closing line should be drawn. is that thc
closing line should be drawn between the natural geographical
rntrance points where the indentation ceases to have the con-
figuration of a bay.
(8) That a legal strait is any geographical strait whicli connccts
two portions of the high seas.
(9) (a) Tliat Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian territorial
waters, on historic grounds, al1 the waters of the fjords and sunds
which have the character of legal straits.
at eacli end of the strait, the limit of territorial waters is formed
by the outer rims of these two maritime belts. Where, however,
tlie maritime belts so drawn do not overlap, the limit follows
the outer rims of each of these two maritime belts, until they
intersect with the straight line, joining the natural entrance points
of the strait, after which intersection the limit follows that straiglit
line.
(IO) That, in the case of the Vestfjord, the outer limit of Kor-
wegian territorial waters, at the south-westerly end of the fjord.
is the pecked green line shown on Charts Nos. 8 and g of Annes jj
of the Reply.
(II) That Norway, by reason of her historic title to fjords and
sunds (see Nos. (5)and (9) (a) above), is entitled to claim, eitlier
as internal or as territorial waters, the areas of water lying between
the island fringe andthe mainland of Norway. In order to determine
what areas must be deemed to lie between the island fringe and
the mainland, and whether these areas are internal or territorial
waters, the principles of Nos. (6), (7). (8)and (9) (h) must be
applied to indentations in the island fringe and to indentations
between the island fringe and the mainland-those areas which
lie in indentations having the character of bays, and within tlie
proper closing lines thereof, being deemed to be internalwaters ;
and those areas which lie in indentations having the character
of legal straits, and within the proper limits thereof, being deemed
to be territorial waters.
(12) That Norway is not entitled, asagainst the United King-
dom, to enforce any claims to waters not covered by the preceding
pnnciples. As between Norway and the United Kingdom, waters
off the coast of Norway north of parallel 66" 28.8' N., which are
not Norwegian by virtue of the above-mentioned principles, are
high seas. ARRÊT DU 18 XII 51 (IIFPIZIRE DES PÊCHERIES)
123
13) Le décret royal norvégien du 12 juillet1q3j ne peut faire
l'objet d'aucune mesure d'exécution à l'égard du Royaume-Uni,
dans la mesure où il revendique comme eaux norvégiennes (intt-
rieures ou territoriales) des espaces d'eau qui ne sont pas visés
aux points I à II.
14) La Norvège est tenue de l'obligation internationale d'indem-
niser le Royaume-Uni pour tout arrêt de bateaux de pêchebritan-
niques, effectué après le 16 septembre 1948, dans les eaux qui
seront reconnues comme faisant partie de la haute mer par l'appli-
cation des principes qui précèdent.
Sz~bsidiairementaux points I à 13 (si la Cour décidede statuer
sur les limites exactes des eaux territoriales que la Norvège peut
rendre effectives à l'égard du Royaume-Uni), la Norvège n'a
le droit de revendiquer à l'encontre du Royaume-Uni à titre d'eaux
norvégiennes aucun espace d'eaux au large des côtes norvég' lennes
au nord du parallèle 66"28.8N '.,situéau dela de la ligne pointillét
verte portée aux cartes qui forment l'annexe 35 de la réplique.
Subsidiairement aux points 8 à II (si la Cour décide que les
eaux de 1'Indreleia sont des eaux intérieures norvégiennes), les
points suivants sont substitués aux points 8 à II :
1. Dans le cas di1 Vestfjord, la limite extérieure des eaux terri-
toriales norvégiennesà l'extrémitésud-ouest du fjord est une ligne
tracée à quatre milles marins au large de la ligne joignant le phare
de Skomvær sur Rost au phare de Kalsholmen sur Tennholmerne,
jusqu'à l'intersection de la première ligne avec les arcs de cercle
sur la ligne pointillée verte portée aux cartes et gà l'annexe 35
de la réplique.
II.En raison de son titre historique aux fjords et sunds, la
Norvège a le droit de revendiquer comme eaux intérieures les
espaces d'eaux situés entre la frange des îles et le continent de la
Norvège. Pour déterminer les espaces d'eaux qui doivent être
considérés commesitués entre la frange des îles et le continent,
on doit appliquer les principes posés aux points 6 et 7 ci-dessus
aux échancrures de la frange des îles et aux échancrures entre la
frange des îles et le continen- les espaces d'eaux situés dans les
échancmres ayant le caractère de baies, et à l'intérieur des lignes
de fermeture régulièresde celles-ci, étant considérés commesitués
entre la frange des îles et le continent.n
Pour la Norvège, l'agent a présenté en fin de plaidoirie les
conclusions suivantes, sur lesquelles iln'est pas revenu à l'issue
de la duplique orale :
((Attendu que le décret royal norvégien du 12 juillet1935 ne
contrevient pas aux règles de droit international liant lNorvège,
et que la Norvège possèdeen tout cas des titres historiques sur
l'ensemble des eaux comprises dans les limites de ce décret, (13) That the Norwegian Royal Decree of 12th July, 1935, is
not enforceable against the United Kingdom to the extent that
it claims as Korwegian waters (internal or territorial waters) areas
of water not covered by Nos. (1)-(II).
(14) That Norway is under an international obligation to pay
to the United Kingdom compensation is respect of al1 the arrests
since 16th September, 1948, of British fishing vessels in waters
which are high seas by virtue of the application of the prcceding
principles.
Alternatively to Nos. (1) to (13) (if the Court should decide to
determine by its judgrnent the exact limits of the territorial waters
which Norway is entitled to enforce against the United Kingdom),
that Norway is not entitled as against the United Kingdom to
claim as Norwegian waters any areas of water off the Norwegian
coasts north of parallel 66" 28.8 N. which are outside the pecked
green line drawn on the charts which form Annex 35 of the Reply.
Alter~zativelyto Nos. (8) to (II) (if the Court shoiild hold that
the waters of the Indreleia are Norwegian internal waters), the
following are substituted for Nos. (8) to (II):
1. That, in the case of the Vestfjord, the outer limit of Norwegian
territorial waters at the south-westerly end of the fjord is a line
drawn 4 sea miles seawards of a line joining the Skomvær light-
house at Rost to Kalsholmen lighthouse in Tennholmerne until
the intersection of the former line with the arcs of circles in the
pecked green line shown on Charts 8 and g of Annex 35 of the
Reply.
II. That Norway, by reason of her historic title to fjords and
sunds, is entitled to claim as internal waters the areas of water
lying between the island fringe and the mainland of Norway. In
order to determine what ares must be deemed to lie between the
island fringe and the mainland, the principles of Nos. (6) and (7)
above must be applied to the indentations in the island fringe and
to the indentations between the island fringe and the mainland-
those areas which lie in indentations having the character of bays,
and within the proper closing lines thereof, being deemed to lie
between the island fringe and the mainland."
At the end of his argument, the Norwegian Agent presented,
on behalf of his government, the following submissions, which he
did not modify in his oral rejoinder :
"Having regard to the fact that the Norwegian Royal Decree
of July ~zth,1935 s not inconsistent with the rules of international
law binding upon Norway, and
having regard to the fact that Norway possesses, in ar,y event,
an historietitle to al1the waters included within the limits laid
down by that decree,
11 Plaiseà ln Cour,
statuant par un seul et mêmearrêt,
rejetant toutes conclusions contraires,
dire etjuger que la délimitation de la zone de pêchefixépar
ledécret royalnorvégien du 12 juille1935 n'est pas contraire au
droit internationa))
Les faits qui ont amené le Royaume-Uni à saisir la Cour sont
en bref les suivants.
Les données historiques exposées devant la Cour établissent
qu'à la suite de plaintes du roi de Danemark et de Norvège au
commencement du xvllrnesiècle, les pêcheursbritanniques se sont
abstenus, durant une longue période qui va de 1616-161 j8squ'à
1906, de pratiquer la pêchedans les eaux côtières norvégiennes.
En 1906, quelques bateaux de pêche britanniques firent leur
apparition au large du Finnmark oriental. Ils revinrent plus nom-
breux à partir de 1908. Il s'agissait de chalutiers dotés d'engins
perfectionnés et puissants. La population locale s'émut et des
mesures furent prises par le Gouvernement de la Norvège en vue de
prtciser les limites en deçà desquelles la pêcheétait interdite aux
étrangers.
Vn premier incident se produisit en 1911 quand un chalutier
britannique fut saisi et condamné pour avoir contrevenu à ces
inesures. Une négociation s'ensuivit entre les deux gouvernements.
Elle fut interrompue par la guerre de 1914 . partir de 1922, les
incidents reprirent.De nouvelles conversations furent entamées en
1924. En 1932, les chalutiers britanniques,étendant leur rayon
d'activité, firent leur apparitiosur les secteurs de la côte norvé-
gienne situéesà l'ouest du cap Nord, et le nombre des admonesta-
tions et saisies augmenta. Le 27 juille1933 ,e Gouvernement du
Royaume-Vni adressa un mémorandum au Gouvernement norvé-
gien où il alléguait que dans la délimitation de la mer territoriale
par les autoritks norvégiennes, il était fait état de lignes de base
injustifiables. Le2 juillet1935 intervint le décret royal norvégien
délimitant la zone de pêchenorvégienne au nord de 66"28,8 'e
latitude nord.
Le Royaume-Uni fit de pressantes démarches à Oslo au cours
desquelles il fut question de soumettre le différend la Cour per-
manente de Justice internationale. En attendant le résultat des
négociations, le Gouvernement norvégien fitsavoir que les garde-
pêchesnorvégiens traiteraient avec modkration les bateaux étran-
gers qui pêcheraientà une certaine distanceen deçà de la limite de
pêche.En 1948, aucune entente n'étant intervenue, le Gouverne-
ment norvégien cessa de tempérer l'application du décret de1935 ; JUDCMENT OF 18 XII 51 (FISIIERIES c.4~~)
May it please the Court,
in one single judgment,
rejectingal1 submissions to the contrary,
toadjudge and declare that the delimitation of the fisherizone
fixed by the Norwegian Royal Decree of July ~zth, Ig3j, is not
contrary to international law."
The facts which led the United Kingdom to bring the case before
the Court are briefly as follows.
The historical facts laid before the Court establish that as the
result of complaints from the King of Denmark and of Xonvay,
at the beginning of the seventeenth century, British fishermen
refrained from fishing in Norwegian coastal waters for a long period,
from 1616-1618 until 1906.
In 1906 a few British fishing vessels appeared off the coasts of
Eastern Finnmark. From 1908 onwards they returneù in greater
numbers. These were trawlers equipped with improved and pouer-
ful gear. The local population became perturbed, and measures were
taken by the Norwegian Government with a vievi to sprcifying the
Iimits within which fishing was prohibited to foreigners.
The first incident occurred in 1911 when a British trawler was
seized and condemned for having violated these measures. Negotia-
tions ensued between the two Governments. These were interrupted
by the war in 1914. From 1922 onwards incidents recurred. Further
conversations were initiated in 1924. In 1932, British trawlers,
extending the range of their activities, appeared in the sectors off
the Norwegian coast west of the North Cape, and the number of
warnings and arrests increased. On July 27th, 1933, the United
Kingdom Government sent a memorandum to the Norwegian
Government complaining that in delimiting the territorial sea the
Nonvegian authorities had made use of unjustifiable base-lines. On
July ~zth, 1935, a Norwegian Royal Decree was enacted delimiting
the Norwegian fisheries zone north of 66" 28.8' North latitude.
The United Kingdom made urgent representations in Oslo in the
course of which the question of refemng the dispute to the Per-
manent Court of International Justice was raised. Pending the result
of the negotiations, the Norwegian Government made it known
that Norwegian fishery patrol vessels would deal leniently with
foreign vessels fishing a certain distance within the fishing limits.
In 1948, since no agreement had been reached, the Nonvegian
Government abandoned its lenient enforcement of the 1935 Decree ; les incidents se multiplièrent alors. Un nombre important de chalu-
tiers britanniques furent saisis et condamnés. C'est alors que le
Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni introduisit la présente instance.
Le décret royal norvégien du 12 juillet 1935 relatif à la déli-
mitation de la zone de pêchenorvégienne énoncedans son préam-
bule les co~sidérations qui motivent ses dispositions. A cet égard,
il fait état de ((titres nationaux bien établis )),des (conditions
géographiques qui prédbminent sur les côtes norvégiennes », de la
protection ((des intérêts vitaux des habitants des régions situées
dans les parties les plus septentrionales du pays 1); il s'appuie, en
outre,sur les décretsroyaux du 22 février1812,du 16octobre 1869,
du 5 janvier 1881 et du 9 septembre 1889.
Le décret porte que ((les lignes de délimitation vers la haute
mer de la zone de pêchenorvégienne, pour la partie de la Norvège
qui est située au nord du 66" 28'8' de latitude nord ....suivront
parallèlement des lignes droites de base, tiréesentre des points fixes
situés sur la terre ferme, sur des îles ou des rochers, à partir du
dernier point de la ligne frontière du Royaume, dans la partie
située le plus à l'est du Varangerfjord et allant aussi loin que
Trci-na dans le comté de Nordland )).Un tableau joint en annexe
indique les points fixes entre lesquels sont tiréesles lignes de base.
L'objet du différend est clairement indiqué au point no 8 de la
requête introductive d'instance : (Le différendporte sur la validité
ou la non-validité, en droit international, des lignes de délimitation
de la zone de pêchenorvégienne qui sont fixéespar le décret royal
de 1935, pour la partie de la Norvège située au nord de 66" 28,8'
de latitude nord. ))Et plus loin : (....la question litigieuse entre
les deux gouvernements consiste à savoir si les lignes prescrites par
le décretroyal de 1935comme lignes de base, aux fins de la délimi-
tation de la zone de pêche,ont ou non ététracées conformément
aux règles applicables du droit international ».
Bien que le décret du 12 juillet 1935 se réfèreà la zone de pêche
norvégienne et ne parle pas nommément de la mer temtoriale,
il est hors de doute que la zone délimitéepar ce décret n'est autre
chose que l'étendue de mer que Ia Norvège considère comme sa
mer territoriale. C'est ainsi que les Parties ont discutC la question
et qu'elles en ont soumis la décision A la Cour.
Les conclusions présentéespar l'agent du Gouvernement norvé-
gien correspondent à l'objet du différendtel que l'indique la requête.
Les propositions formulées par l'agent du Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni au terme de son premier exposé et amendées par
lui à l'issue de sa réplique sousle titre de «conclusions»présentent
un caractère plus complexe qui appelle un examen détaillé. incidents then became more and more freqent. A considerable
number of British trawlers were arrested and condemned. It was
then that the United Kingdom Government instituted the present
proceedings.
The Norwegian Royal Decree of July ~zth, 1935, concerning the
delimitation of the Nonvegian fisherieszone setsout in the preamble
the considerations on which its provisions are based. In this con-
nection it refers to "well-established national titles of right", "the
geographical conditions prevailing on the Norwegian coasts", "the
safeguard of the vital interests of the inhabitants of the northern-
most parts of the country" ; it further relies on the Royal Decrees
of February zznd, 1812, October 16th, 1869, January 5th, 1881,
and September gth, 1889.
The Decree provides that "lines of delimitation towards the high
sea of the Norwegian fisheries zone as regards that part of Nonvay
which is situated northward of 66" 28.8' North latitude ....shall
run parallel with straight base-lines drawn between fixed points on
the mainland, on islands or rocks, starting from the final point of
the boundary line of the Realm in the easternmost part of the
Varangerfjord and going as far as Træna in the County of Nord-
land". An appended schedule indicates the fixed points between
which the base-lines are drawn.
The subject of the dispute is clearly indicated under point 8 of
the Application instituting proceedings :"The subject of the dispute
is the validity or othenvise under international law of the lines of
delimitation of the Norwegian fisherieszone laid down by the Royal
Decree of 1935for that part of Nonvay which is situated northward
of 66" 28.8' North latitude." And further on : " ...the question at
issue between the two Governments is whether the lines prescribed
by the Royal Decree of 1935 as the base-lines for the delimitation
of the fisheries zone have or have not been drawn in accordance
with the applicable rules of international law".
Although the Decree of July ~zth, 1935, refers to the Norwegian
fisheries zone and does not specifically mention the temtonal sea,
there can be no doubt that the zone delimited by this Decree is
none other than the sea area which Norway considers to be her
temtorial sea. That is how the Parties argued the question and that
is the way in which they submitted it to the Court for decision.
The Submissions presented by the Agent of the Nonvegian
Govemment correspond to the subject of the dispute as indicated
in the Application.
The propositions fomulated by the Agent of the United Kingdom
Government at the end oi his first speech and revised by him at
the end of his oral reply under the heading of "Conclusions" are
more complex in character and must be dealt with in detail.
13 Les points Iet 2 de ces (conclusions )concernent l'étenduede la
rner territoriale de la Norvège. Cette question'est pas l'objet du
présent litige. En fait, la largeur de quatre milles, revendiquée par
la Norvège, a étéen cours d'instance reconnue par le Royaume-Uni.
Les points 12 et 13 se présentent comme de vraies conclusions
selon la conception que le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni se
forme du droit international telle qu'il l'énonceaux points3 à II.
Les points 3àII se présentent comme un ensemble depropositions
qui, sous la forme de définitions,de principes ou de règles, tendent
justifier certaines prétentions et ne sont pas l'énoncépréciset direct
d'une demande. Le différend ayant un objet tout à fait concret,
la Cour ne saurait donner'suite à la suggestion qui luià été faite
par l'agent du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, à l'audience du
I" octobre 1951 ,e rendre un arrêt quise bornerait pour le moment
à statuer sur les définitions,principes ou règles énoncés, suggestion
qui a d'ailleurs été combattue par l'agent du Gouvernement
norvégien àl'audience du 5 octobre 1951 C.e sont là des éléments
qui, le cas échéant, pourraient fournir les motifs de l'arrêtet non
en constituer l'objet.Il en résulte, d'autre part, que mêmeainsi
compris, ces élémentsne doivent êtreretenus que dans la mesure
où ils paraîtraient déterminants pour décider la seule question en
litige, savoir la validité ou la non-validité en droit international
des lignes de délimitation fixéespar le décret de1935.
Le point 14,qui vise à obtenir une décisionde principe concer-
nant l'obligation de la Norvège d'indemniser le Royaume-Uni pour
tout arrêt de navires de pêchebritanniques effectuéaprèsle 16 sep-
tembre 1948 dans les eaux qui seront reconnues comme faisant
partie de la haute mer, n'a pas à êtreretenu, les Parties ayant
marqué leur accord pour renvoyer cette question à un règlement
ultérieur pour le cas où elle se poserait effectivement.
La demande du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni est fondéesur
ce qu'il considère comme étant le droit international général appli-
cable à la dblimitation de la zone de pêche norvégienne.
Le Gouvernement norvégien ne conteste pas qu'il existe des
règles de droit internationalauxquelles cette délimitation doit se
conformer. 11soutient que les propositions énoncéespar le Gouver-
nement du Royaume-Uni dans ses ((conclusions ))n'ont pas le
caractère que leur attribue ce gouvernement. Il se prévaut, d'autre
part, de son système propre de délimitation qu'il dit être en tout
conforme aux exigences du droit international.
La Cour examinera successivement ces divers aspects de la
demande du Royaume-Uni et de la défense du Gouvernement
norvégien. Points I and 2 of these "Conclusions" refer to the extent c!f
Xorway's territorial sea. This question is not the subject of thc
present dispute. In fact, the 4-mile limit claimed by rjonvay was
acknowledgcd by the United Kingdom in the course of the procecd-
11:gs.
l'oints 12 and 13 appear to 1)e real Submissions which accord
with the United Kingdom's conception of international law as set
out under points 3 to II. /
Points 3 to II appear to be a set of propositionswhich,in the form
of tlefinitions, principles or rules, purport to justify certain contcii-
tions and do not constitute a precise and direct statement of a claim.
The subjcct of the dispute being quite concrete, the Court cannot
entertain the suggestion made by the Agent of the United Kingdom
Government at the sitting ofOctober ~st,1951,that thecourt should
deliver a Judgment which for the moment woiild confine itself to
adjudicating on the definitions, principles or rules stated, a sugges-
tion which, moreover, was objected to by the Agent'of the Norwe-
gian Government at the sitting of October 5th, 1951. These are
elements which might furnish reasons in support of the Judgment,
but cannot constitute the decision. It further follows that even
understood in this way, these elements may be taken into account
only in so far as they would appear to be relevant for deciding the
sole question in dispute, namely, the validity or othenvise under
international law of the lines of delimitation laid down by the 1935
Decree.
Point 14, which seeks to secure a decision of principle concerning
Norway's obligation to pay to the United Kingdom compensation
in respect of al1 arrests since September 16th. 1948, of British
fishing vessels in waters found to be high seas, need not be
considered, since the Parties had agreed to leave this question to
subsequent settlement if it should arise.
The claim of the United Kingdom Government is founded on
what it regards as the general international law applicable to the
delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone.
The Norwegian Govemment does not deny that there exist rules
of international law to which this delimitation must conform. It
contends that the propositions formulated by the United Kingdom
Government in its "Conclusions" do not possess the character
attributed to them bythat Government. It further relies on its own
system of delimitation which it asserts to be in every respect in
conformity with the requirements of international law.
The Court wili examine in turn these vanous aspects of the
claim of the United Kingdom and of the defence of the Norwegian
Government. La zone côtiPre en litige a un développement considérable.
Situéeau nord de la latitude 66" 28,8' N., c'est-à-dire au nord du
cercle polaire, elle comprend la côte du continent norvégien,
l'ensemble des îles, ilots, rochers et récifs,connu sous le nom de
((skjærgaard )) (littéralement, rempart de rochers), ainsi que
l'ensemble des eaux norvégiennes intérieures ou territoriales. La
côte de la terre ferme, dont la longueur, sans compter les fjords,
les baies et les enfoncements mineurs, dépasse 1.500 kilomètres,
est d'une configuration trèscaractéristique. Profondément découpée
sur tout son parcours, elle ouvre à tout instant des échancrures qui
pénètrent dans les terres, sur une distance souvent très considé-
rable : le Porsangerfjord, par exemple, pénètre à l'intérieur du
continent sur une longueur de 75 milles marins. A l'ouest, le
relief de la terre se prolonge dans l'océan :les îles grandes et petites,
toujours montagneuses, les ilots, les rochers et les récifs, les uns
à découvert en permanence, les autres ne découvrant qu'à marée
basse, ne sont en réalitéque la continuation du continent norvégien.
Le nombre des formations insulaires, grandes et petites, pour
I'ensembledu ((skjærgaard », est évaluépar le Gouvernement norvé-
gien à cent vingt mille. Dans la région en litige, le ((skjærgaard ))
couvre la terre ferme depuis son extrémité sud et sur toute sa
longueur jusqu'au cap Nord ;à l'est du cap Nord, il n'y a plus de
((skjærgaard »,mais la côte y est toujours découpéeen fjords larges
et profonds.
A l'intérieur du ((skjærgaard », presque chaque île a ses baies,
grandes et petites ; d'innombrables bras de mer, détroits, passes
et simples fils d'eau servent de voies de communication à la popu-
lation locale, qui habite les îles comme la terre ferme. La côte de
cette terre ferme ne constitue pas, comme dans presque tous les
pays, une ligne de séparation nette de la terre et de la mer. Ce qui
importe, ce qui constitue réellement la côte norvégienne, c'est la
ligne extérieure du a skjærgaard n.
Toute cette régionest montagneuse. Le cap Nord, rocher abrupt,
qui dépasse à peine 300 mètres, est visible à une distance considé-
rable ; il y a des sommets qui s'élèvent à plus de mille mètres, ce
qui rend la côte norvégienne, terre ferme et nskjærgaard »,visible
de loin.
Le long de la côte se trouvent des fonds relativement élevés,
véritables terrasses sous-marines qui constituent des bancs de
pêche particulièrement riches en poissons, connus des pêcheurs
norvégiens et exploités par eux depuis des temps immémoriaux.
Comme ces bancs se trouvaient dans la limite du rayon visuel, de
tout temps aussi on employait pour y fixer et identifier les lieux
de pêche lesplus intéressants la méthode des alignements ((meds »),
points d'intersection de deux lignes fixees sur des points choisis
de la côte ou des îles.
15 The coastal zone concerned in the dispute is of considerable
length. It lies north of latitude 66" 28.8' N., that is to say, north
of the Arctic Circle, and it includes the coast of the mainland of
Nonvay and al1 the islands, islets, rocks and reefs, known by the
name of the "skjærgaard" (literally, rock rampart), together with
al1Norwegian interna1 and tenitonal waters. The coast of the main-
land, which, without taking any account of fjords, bays and minor
indentations, is over 1,500kilometres in length, is of a very distinct-
ive configuration. Very broken along its whole length, it constantly
opens out into indentations often penetrating for great distances
inland :the Porsangerfjord, for instance, penetrates 75 sea miles
inland. To the west, the land configuration stretches out into the
sea: the large and small islands, mountainous in character, the
islets, rocks and reefs, some always above water, others emerging
only at low tide, are in truth but an extension of the Korwegian
mainland. The number of insular formations, large and small, which
make up the "skjærgaard", is estimated by the Norwegian Govem-
ment to be one hundred and twenty thousand. From the southem
extremity of the disputed area to the North Cape, the "skjcergaard"
lies along the whole of the coast of the mainland ;east of the North
Cape, the "skjærgaard" ends, but the coast line continues to be
broken by large and deeply indented fjords.
Within the "skjærgaard", almost every island has its large and its
small bays ; countless arms of the sea, straits, channels and mere
waterways serve as a means of communication for the local popula-
tion which inhabits the islands as it does the mainland. The coast
of the mainland does not constitute, as it does in practically ail
other countnes, a clear dividing line between land and sea. What
matters, what really constitutes the Norwegian coast line, is the
outer line of the "skjærgaard".
The whole of this region is mountainous. The North Cape, a
sheer rock little more than 300 metres high, can be seen from a
considerable distance ;there are other summits rising to over a
thousand metres, so that the Norwegian coast, mainland and
"skjærgaard", is visible from far off.
Along the coast are situated comparatively shallow banks, vent-
able under-water terraces which constitute fishing grounds where
fish are particularly abundant ;these grounds were known to Nor-
wegian fishermen and exploited by them from time immemorial.
Since these banks lay within the range of vision, the most desirable
fishing grounds were always located and identified by means of
the method of alignments ("meds"),at points where two lines drawn
between points selected on the coast or on islands intersected. Dans ces régions arides, c'est dans la pêche que les habitants
de la zone côtière trouvent la base essentielle de leur subsistance.
Telles sont les réalitésdont il y a lieu de tenir compte pour
apprécier le bien-fondé de la thèse du Royaume-Uni selon laquelle
les limites de la zone de pêche norvégienneprescrites par le décret
de 193j sont contraires ail droit international.
Les Parties étant d'accord sur le chiffre de quatre milles pour la
largeur de la mer territoriale, le problème qui se pose est celui de
savoir à partir de quelle base cette largeur doit être comptée.
A cet égard, les conclusions du Royaume-Uni sont explicites :la
ligne de base doit suivre la laisse de basse mer d'une terre qui
émerge en permanence et fait partie du territoire norvégien, ou
la ligne de fermeture régulièredes eaux norvégiennes intérieures.
La Cour n'a pas de difficulté à reconnaître que, pour mesurer
la largeur de la mer territoriale, c'est la laisse de basse mer et non
celle de haute mer ou une moyenne entre ces *deux laisses qui a
étégénéralement adoptée par la pratique des Etats. Cecritère est
le plus favorable à l'État côtier et met en évidence le caractère des
eaux territoriales comme accessoire du territoire terrestre. La Cour
constate que les Parties admettent ce critère, mais sont en dés-
accord sur son application.
Les Parties sont également d'accord pour reconnaître qu'en cas
d'une élévationqui ne découvre qu'à marée basse (d'une sèche),
la limite extérieure à maréebasse decette élévationpeut êtreprise
en considération comme point de base pour le calcul de la largeur
de la mer territoriale. Les conclusions du Gouvernment du
Royaume-Uni ajoutent une condition qui n'est pas admise par la
Norvège, à savoir qu'une sèche, pour êtreprise ainsi en considéra-
tion; doit êtresituée à moins de quatre milles d'une terre émergeant
en permanence. La Cour ne croit pas devoir examiner cette question,
la Norvège ayant prouvé, à la suite d'un examen contradictoire des
cartes, qu'en fait, auciine sèche utilisée par elle comme point de
base n'est distante de plus de quatre milles d'une terrequi émerge
en permanence.
La Cour doit préciser si la laisse de basse mer à prendre en con-
sideration est celle de la terre ferme ou celle du askjærgaard ». La
côte étant, dans son secteur occidental, bordée par le (skjærgaard D,
qui constitue un tout avec la terre ferme, c'est la ligne extérieure
du (skjærgaard ))qui s'impose comme celie qui doit être prise en
considération pour la délimitation de la ceinture des eaux terri-
toriales norvégiennes. Les réalités géographiques dictent cette
solution.
Trois méthodes ont étéenvisagées pour assurer l'application de
la règle de la laisse de basse mer. La méthode du tracé parallèle,
qui parait la plus simple, consiste à tracer la limite extérieure de la
ceinture des eaux territoriales en suivant la côte dans tous ses
mouvements. Cette méthode peut &tre appliquée sans difficultés
à une côte simple, n'offrant pas trop d'accidents. Dans le cas d'une JUUGMENT OF 18 XII 51 (FISHERIES CASE) 128
In these barren regions the inhabitants of the coastal zone derive
their livelihood essentially from fishing.
Such are the realities which must be borne in mind in appraising
the validity of the Cnited Kingdom contention that the limits of
the Norwegian fisheries zone laid down in the 1935 Decree are
contrary to international law.
The Parties being in agreement on the figure of 4 miles for the
breadth of the territorial sea, the problem which arises is from what
base-line this breadth is to be reckoned. The Conclusions of the
United Kingdom are explicit on this point :the base-line must be
low-water mark on permanently dry land which is a part of Norwe-
gian territory, or the proper closing line of Norwegian interna1
waters.
The Court has no difficulty in finding that, for the purpose of
measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, it is the low-water mark
as opposed to the high-water mark, or the mean between the twu
tidés, which has generally been adopted in the practice of States.
This criterion is the most favourable to the coastal Stateand clearly
shows the character of territorial waters as appurtenant to the
land territory. The Court notes that the Parties agree as to this
criterion, but that they differ as toits application.
The Parties also agree that in the case of a low-tide elevation
(drying rock) the outer edge at low water of this low-tide elevation
may be taken into account as a base-point for calculating the breadth
of the territorial sea. The Conclusions of the United Kingdom
Government add a condition which is not admitted by Norway,
namely, that, in orcler to be taken into account, a drying rock must
be situated within 4 miles of permanently dry land. However, the
Court does not consider it necessary to deal with this question,
inasmuch as Norway has succeeded in proving, after both Parties
had given their interpretation of the charts, that in fact none of
the drying rocks used by her as base points is more than 4 miles
from permanently dry land.
The Court finds itself obliged to decide whether the relevant low-
water mark is that of the mainland or of the "skjærgaard". Since
the mainland is bordered in its western sector by the "skjærgaard",
which constitutes a whole with the mainland, it is the outer line
of the "skjærgaard" which must be taken into account in delimiting
the belt of Norwegian territorial waters. This solution is dictated
by geographic realities.
Three methods have been contemplated to effect the application
of the low-water mark rule. The simplest would appear to be the
method of the tracéparallèle, which consists of drawing the outer
limit of the belt of territorial waters by following the coast in al1its
sinuosities. This method may be applied without difficulty to an
ordinary coast, which is not too broken. Where a coast is deeply
T6côte profondément découpée d'intentations ou d'échancrures,
comme la côte du Finnmark oriental, ou bordéepar un archipel tel
que le (skjærgaard ))du secteur occidental de la côte dont il s'agit, la
ligne de base se détache de la laisse de basse mer et ne peut être
obtenue que par quelque construction géométrique. On ne peut
dèslors persister à présenter la ligne de la laisse de basse mer comme
une règle qui oblige à suivre la côte dans toutes ses inflexions. On
ne peut pas non plus présenter comme des exceptions à la règle
les si nombreuses dérogations qu'appelleraient les accidents d'une
côte aussi tourmentée :la règledisparaîtrait devant les exceptions.
C'est tout l'ensemble d'une telle côte qui appelle l'application
d'une méthode différente : celle de lignes de base se détachant
dans une mesure raisonnable de la ligne physique de la côte.
Il est vrai que les experts de la deuxième sous-commission de la
deuxième commission de la Conférencede 1930 pour la codification
du droit internationalont formuléla règlede la laisse de basse mer
d'une façon assez rigoureuse ((en suivant toutes les sinuosités de
la côte 1))Mais ils ont étéobligésd'admettre en mêmetemps de
mombreuses exceptions relatives aux baies, îles à proximité de
la côte, groupes d'îles. Dans la présente affaire, cette méthode
du tracé parallèle, opposée à la Norvège dans le mémoire, a été
abandonnée dans la répliqueécritepuis dansla plaidoirie de l'agent
du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni. Par conséquent, elle n'a plus
aucun intérêtpour la présente instance. «Au contraire », dit la -
réplique, « la méthode de la courbe tangente ou, en anglais,
envelopesof arcs of circles,est celle que le Royaume-Uni considère
comme correcte ».
La méthode des arcs de cercle, d'un usage constant pour fixer la
position d'un point ou d'un objet en mer, est un procédétechnique
nouveau en tant que méthode de délimitation de la mer territoriale.
Ce procédéa étéproposé par la délégation desEtats-Unis à la
Conférence de 1930 pour la codification du droit international.
Son but est d'assurer l'application du principe que la ceinture des
eaux territoriales doit suivre la ligne de la côte. Il n'a rien de
juridiquement obligatoire, ainsi que le conseil du Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni l'a reconnu dans sa réplique orale. Dans ces
conditions, et bien que certaines conclusions du Royaume-Uni se
fondent sur l'application de la méthode des arcs de cercle, la Cour
estime qu'il n'y a pas lieu de s'attacher à l'examen de ces conclu-
sions en tant que basées sur cette méthode.
Le principe selon lequel la ceinture des eaux territoriales doit
suivre la direction généralede la côte permet de fixer certains
critères valables pour toute délimitation de la mer territoriale et
qui seront dégagésplus loin. La Cour se borne ici à constater que,
pour appliquer ce pnncipe, plusieurs Etats ont jugé nécessaire de
suivre la méthode des lignes de base droites et qu'ils ne se sont pas
heurtés à des objections de pnncipe de la part des autres Etats.
Cette méthode consiste à choisir sur la ligne de la laisse de basseindented and cut into, as is that of Eastern Finnmark, or where it
is bordered by an archipelago such as the "skjærgaard" along
the western sector of the coast here in question, the base-line
becomes indcpendent of the low-water mark, and can only be
determined by means of a geometrical construction. In such cir-
cumstances the line of the ïow-water mark can no longer be put
forward as a rule requiring the coastline to be followed in al1 its
sinuosities. Nor can one characterize as exceptions to the rule the
very many derogations which would be necessitated by such a
rugged coast: the rule would disappear under the exceptions.
Such a coast, viewed as a whole, calls for the application of a different
method; that is, the method of base-lines which, within reasonable
limits, may depart from the ph sical line of the cbast.
It is truc that the experts O? the Second Sub-Cornmittee of the
Second Committee of the 1930 Conference for the codification of
international law formulated the low-water mark rule somewhat
strictly ("followingal1the sinuosities of the coast"). But they were
at the same time obliged to admit many exceptionsrelating to bays,
islands near the coast, groups of islands. In the present case this
~nethod of the tracéparallèle,which was invoked against Norway in
the Memorial, was abandoned in the written Reply, and later in the
oral argument of the Agent of the United Kingdom Government.
Consequently, it is no longer relevant to the case. "On the other
hand", it is said in the Reply, the courbetangente-or, in English,
'envelopes of arcs of circ1es'-method is the method which the
Cnitêd Kingdom considers to be the correct one"
The arcs of circles method, which is constantly used for deter-
mining the position of a point or object at sea, is a new technique
in so far as it is a method for delimiting the territorial sea. This
technique was proposed by the United States delegation at the 1930
Conference for the codification of international law. Its purpose is
to secure the application of the principle that the belt of territorial
watersmust follow the line of the coast. It is not obligatory by law,
as was admitted by Counsel for the United Kingdom Government
in his oral reply. In these circumstances, and althoughcertain of the
Conclusions of the United Kingdom are founded on the application
of the arcs of circles method, the Court considers that it need not
deal with these Conclusions in so far as they are based upon this
method.
The principle that the belt of territorial waters must foliow the
general direction of the coast makes it possible to fix certainiteria
valid for any delimitation of the territorial sea; these criteria wili
be elucidated later. The Court will confine itself at this stage to
noting that, in order to apply this principle, several States have
deemed it necessary to foliow the straight base-lines method and
that they have not encountered objections of principle by other
States. This method cz~nsistsof selecting appropriate pointson themer des points appropriés et à les réunir par des lignes droites.
Il en est ainsi, non seulement dans les cas de baies bien caractéri-
sées,mais aussi dans des cas de courbes mineures de la côte, où il
ne s'agit que de donner à la ceinture des eaux territoriales une
forme plus simple.
Il a étésoutenu, au nom du Royaume-Uni, que les lignes droites
ne peuvent êtretiréespar la Norvège qu'à travers les baies. La Cour
ne peut partager cette manière de voir. Si la ceinture des eaux
territoriales doit suivre la ligne extérieure du ((skjærgaard »,si la
méthode des lignes de base droites doit dans certains cas être
admise, il n'y a aucune raison valable de les tracer seulement à
travers les baies, comme au Finnmark oriental, et de ne pas les
tracer aussi entre les îles, îlots et rochers, à travers les espaces
d'eau qui les séparent, alors mêmeque ces espaces ne rentrent pas
dans la notion de baie. Il suffit qu'ils se trouvent compris entre les
formations insulaires du ((skjærgaard », inter fauces terrarum.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni admet l'usage de lignes
droites sans maximum de longueur dans les conditions énoncées
au point 5 de ses conclusions, ainsi conçu :
((La Norvègea le droit, pour des motifs histonques, de réclamer
comme eaux intérieuresnorvégiennestous les fjords et sunds qui
rentrent dans la notion de baie, telle qu'elle est définieen droit
international (voir point 6 ci-dessous),que la lignedefermeture régu-
lière del'échancruresoit de plus ou de moins de dix millesmarins. D
Ce point appelle une observation préliminaire.
Selon le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, la Norvège a le droit,
pour des motifs historiques, de réclamer comme ses eaux intérieures
tous les fjords et sunds qui ont le caractère de baies. Pour des
motifs historiques également, elle est en droit de revendiquer comme
ses eaux territoriales toutes les eaux des fjords et sunds ayant le
caractère de détroits au sens juridique .(conclusions, point g), et,
soit comme des eaux intérieures soit comme des eaux territoriales,
les espaces d'eau situés entre la frange des îles et le continent
(point II et deuxième conclusion subsidiaire II).
On désigne communément comme ((eaux histonques ))des eaux
que l'on traite comme des eaux intérieures, alors qu'en l'absence
d'un titre historique elles n'auraient pas ce caractère. Le Gouverne-
ment du Royaume-Uni :$ réfère à la notion des titres historiques
tant à l'égard des eaux territoriales que des eaux intérieures, les
envisageant, dans l'un et dans l'autre cas, comme des dérogations
au droit international commun. Selon ce gouvernement, la Norvège
peut justifier le caractère territorial ou intérieur de ces eaux par
l'exercice des compétences y relatives pendant une longue période
sans rencontrer d'opposition de la part des autres États, une sorte
de possessio longi temporis, avec ce résultat qu'aujourd'hui ces
compétences doivent êtrereconnues. bien que constituant autantlow-water mark and drawing straight lines between them. This has
been done, not only in the case of well-defined bays, but also in
cases of minor curvatures of the coast line where it was soltly a
(luestion of giving a simpler form to the belt of territorial waters.
It has been contended, on behalf of the United Kingdom, that
Norway may draw straight lines only across bays. The Court is
unable to share this view. If the belt of territorialwatersmust follow
the outer line ofthe "skjærgaard", and ifthe method ofstraight base-
lines must be admitted in certain cases, there is no valid reason to
draw them only across bays, as in Eastern Finnmark, and not also
to draw them between islands, islets and rocks, across the sea areas
scparating them, even when such areas do not fa11within the con-
ception of a bay. It is sufficient that they should be situated between
the island formations of the "skjærgaard", inter faucesterrarum.
The United Kingdom Government concedes that straight lines,
regardless of their length, may be used only subject to the conditions
set oui in point 5 of its Conclusions, as follows :
"Norway is entitled to claim as .Nonvegian intemal waters, on
historic grounds, al1fjords and sunds which fa11within the concep-
tion of a bay as defined in international law (see No. (6) below),
whether the proper closing line of the indentation is more or less
than IO sea miles long."
A preliminary remark must be made in respect of this point.
In the opinion of the United Kingdom Government, Norway is
entitled, on historic grounds, to claim as internal waters al1 fjords
and sunds which have the character of a bay. She is also entitled
on historic grounds to claim as Norwegian territorial waters al1the
waters of the fjords and sunds which have the character of legal
straits (Conclusions, point g), and, either as internal or as terri-
torial waters, the areas of water lying between the island fringe and
the mainland (point II and second alternative Conclusion II).
By "historic waters" are usually meant waters which are treated
as internal waters but which would not have that character were
it not for the existence of an historic title. The United Kingdom
Government refers to the notion of historic titles both in respect of
territorial waters and internal waters, considering such titles, in
both cases, as derogations froni general international law. In its
opinion Nonvay can justify the claim that these waters are tem-
torial or internal on the ground that she has exercised the necessary
jurisdiction over them for a long period without opposition from
other States, a kind of possessio longi temporis, with the result
that her jurisdiction over these waters must now be recognized
although it constitutes a derogation from the rules in force. de dérogations aux règles en vigueur. La souveraineté norvégienne
sur lesdites eaux constituerait une exception, les titres historiques
justifiant des situations qui à leur défaut seraient en désaccord
avec le droit international.
Ainsi qu'il a étédit, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni recon-
naît à la NorvPge le droit de revendiquer comme eaux iiitérieures
toutes les eaux des fjords et des sunds qui entrent dans la concep-
tion d'une baie telle que la définit le droit international, et cela,
que la ligne de fermeture de l'échancrure ait une longueur supé-
rieure ou inférieure à dix milles marins. Mais cette concession n'est
faite par le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni que sur la base de
titres historiques.Il faut dèslors admettre que ce gouvernement n'a
pas abandonné sa thèse selon laquelle la règle des dix milles doit
êtreconsidéréecomme règle de droit international.
Dans ces conditions, la Cour estime nécessaire d'observer que si
la riigle des dix milles a étéadoptée par certains États, aussi bien
dans leurs lois nationales quedans leurs traités et conventions, et si
quelques décisiorisarbitrales en ont fait application entre ces États,
d'autres États, en revanche, ont adopté une limite différente. En
conséquence, la règle des dix milles n'a pas acquis l'autorité d'une
règle généralede droit international.
De toute manière, la règle des dix milles apparaît comme inoppo-
sable à la Norvège, celle-ci s'étant toujours élevéecontre toute
tentative de l'appliquer à la côte norvégienne.
La Cour aborde maintenant le problème de la longueur des
lignes de base tirées à travers les eaux situées entre les diverses
formations du (skjærgaard n. Ici, le Gouvernement du Royaume-
Uni, s'appuyant sur l'analogie avec !a prétendue règle générale
des dix milles relative aux baies, soutient encore que la longlieur
des lignes droites ne peut excéder dix milles.
A cet égard, la pratique des Etats ne permet de formuler aucune
règle générale de droit. Les tentatives qui ont étéfaites pour
soumettre les groupes d'îles ou les archipels côtiers des conditions
analogues aux limitations concernant les baies (distance des îles
ne dépassant pas la double mesure des eaux territoriales ou dix ou
douze milles marins), ne sont pas sorties du stade des propositions.
D'autre part, et en dehors de toute question de limitation des
lignes à dix milles, il se peut que plusieurs tracés puissent se conce-
voir. En pareil cas, l'État côtier apparait comme le mieux placé
pour apprécier les conditions locales qui peuvent dicter le choix.
La Cour ne peut donc partager l'opinion du Gouvernement' du
Royaume-Uni d'après laquelle (la Norvège, en ce qui concerne
les lignes de base, demande aujourd'hui qu'on admette un régime
exceptionnel ».La Cour ne voit ici, ainsi qu'il sera démontréplus
loin, que l'application du droit international commun à un cas
particulier.Nonvegian sovereignty over these waters would constitute an
exception, histotic titles justifying situations which would other-
wise be in conflict with international law.
As has been said, the United Kingdom Government concedes
that Nonvay is entitled to claim as interna1 waters al1the waters
of fjords and sunds which faIl within the conception of a bay as
defined in international law whether the closing line of the inden-
tation is more or less than ten sea miles long. But the United
Kingdom Government concedes this only on the basis of historic
title; it must therefore be taken that that Govemment has not
abandoned its contention that the ten-mile rule is to be regarded
as a rule of international law.
In these circumstances the Court deems it necessary to point out
that although the ten-mile rule has been adopted by certain States
both in their national law and in their treaties and conventions,
and although certain arbitral decisions have applied it as between
these States, other States have adopted a different limit. Conse-
quently, the ten-mile rule has not acquired the authority of a
general rule of international law.
In any event the ten-mile ruie would appear to be inapplicable
as against Nonvay inasmuch as she has always opposed anyattempt
io apply it to the Nonvegian coast.
The Court now comes to the question of the length of the base-
lines drawn across the waters lying between the various formations
of the "skjærgaard". Basing itself on the analogy with the alleged
general rule of ten miles relating to bays, the United Kingdom
Government still maintains on this point that the length of straight
lines must not exceed ten miles.
In this connection, the practice of States does not justify the
formulation of any general rule of law. The attempts that have
been made to subject groups of islands or coastal archipelagoes to
conditions analogous to the limitations concerning bays (distance
between the islands not exceeding twice the breadth of the terri-
torial waters, or ten or twelve sea miles), have not got beyond the
stage of proposals.
Furthermore, apart from any question of limiting the lines to
ten miles, it may be that several lines can be envisaged. In such
cases the coastal State would seem to be in the best position to
appraise the local conditions dictating the selection.
Consequently, the Court is unable to share the view of the United
Kingdom Government, that "Nonvay, in the matter of base-lines,
now claims recognition of an exceptional system". As will be shown
later, al1that th: Court can see therein is the application of general
international law to a specific case. Les conclusions du Royaume-Uni, points 5, et g à II,visent
les eaux qui se trouvent entre les lignes de base et la terre ferme
de la Norvège. Elles demandent à la Cour de reconnaître que,
pour des raisons historiques, ces eaux appartiennent à la Norvège,
mais qu'elles se divisent en deux catégories, les eaux temtoriales
et les eaux intérieures, suivant deux critères que ces conclusions
considèrent comme fondés en droit international. Les eaux qui
rentrent dans la notion de baie devraient êtrereconnues comme
eaux intérieures ; celles qui ont le caractère de détroits au sens
juridique constitueraient des eaux territoriales.
Ainsi que l'a reconnu le Royaume-Uni, le ((skjærgaard ))consti-
tue un tout avec la terre ferme de la Norvège; les eaux situées
entre les lignes de base de la ceinture des eaux territoriales et la
terre ferme sont des eaux intérieures. Toutefois, selon la thèse
du Royaume-Uni, une partie de ces eaux constituerait des eaux
temtoriales. Ce sont entre autres celles que suit la route de navi-
gation désignée sousle nom dYIndreleia. De ce caractère résulte-
raient certaines conséquencessur la détermination des eaux terri-
toriales à l'issue de cette voie d'eau considérée commeun détroit
maritime.
La Cour doit constater que lJIndreleia n'est aucunement un
détroit, mais une voie de navigation aménagéegrâce aux travaux
techniques accomplis par la Norvège. Dans ces conditions, la Cour
ne saurait retenir l'idée selon laquelle1'Indreleia aurait, au point
de vue qui l'occupe dans la présente affaire, une condition diffé-
rente des autres eaux incluses dans le((skjærgaard r.
Ainsi la Cour, à s'en tenir pour le moment aux conclusions du
Royaume-Uni, constate que le Gouvernement norvégien, en fixant
les lignes de base pour la délimitation de la zone de pêche norvé-
gienne par le décret de 1935 n'a pas violéle droit international.
Il n'enrésulte aucunement qu'à défautde règlesoffrant lecaractère
de précision technique affirmépar le Gouvernement du Royaume-
Uni, la délimitation à laquelle a procédéle Gouvernement nor-
végien en 1935 ne soit pas soumise à certains principes qui per-
mettent d'enapprécierla validitéselon le droit r'nternational.La déli-
mitation des espaces maritimes a toujours un aspect international ;
elle ne saurait dépendrede la seule volonté de l'État riverain telle
qu'elle s'exprime dans son droit interne. S'ilest vrai que l'acte de
délimitation est nécessairement un acte unilatéral, parce que l'État
riverain a seul qualité pour procéder, en revanche la validité de
la délimitation à1'Cgarddes 2 tats tiers relèvedu droit international. The Conclusionsof the United Kingdom, points 5 and g to II,
refer to waters situated between the base-lines and the Norwegian
these waters belong to Norway, but that they are divided intorounds
two categories : temtorial and internal waters, in accordance
with two critena which the Conclusions regard as well founded
in international law, the waters falling within the conception of
a bay being deemed to be internal waters, and those having the
character of legal straits being deemed to be temtoriai waters.
As has been conceded by the United Kingdom, the "skjær-
gaard" constitutes a whole with the Norwegian mainland ; the
waters between the base-lines of the belt of temtorial waters and
the mainland are internal waters. However, according to the
argument of the United Kingdom a portion of these waters con-
stitutes temtorial waters. These are inter alia the waters
followed by the navigational route known as the Indreleia. It is
contended that since these waters have this character, certain
consequencesarisewith regard to the determination ofthetemtoriai
waters at the end of this water-way considered as a maritime
strait.
The Court is bound to observe that the Indreleia is not a strait
at all, but rather a navigational route prepared as such by means
of artificial aids to navigation provided by Norway. In these
circumstances the Court is unable to accept the view that the
Indreleia, for the purposes of the present case,has a status different
from that of the other waters included in the "skjærgaard".
Thus the Court, confining itself for the moment to the Con-
clusions of the United Kingdom, finds that the Norwegian Govern-
ment in fixing the base-lines for the delimitation of the Norwegian
fisheries zone by the 1935Decree has not violated international
law.
It does not at a.Ufollow that, in the absence of rules having
the technically precise character alleged by the United Kingdom
Government, the ddimitation undertaken by the Norwegian
make it possible to judge as to its validity under international
law. The delimitation of çea areas has always an international
aspect ; it cannot be dependent merely upon the will of the coastal
State as exprewd in its municipal law. Although it is true that
the act of delirnitation is necessariiy a unilateral act, because
only the coastai State is comptent to undertake it, the validity
of the delirnitation with regard to other States depends upon
international law. ARRÊI. DU 18 XII 51 (AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES)
133
A cet égard, certaines considérations fondamentales, liéesà la
nature de la mer temtoriale, conduisent à dégager quelquescritères
qui, à défaut de précision rigoureuse,fournissent au juge des bases
suffisantes de décision,adaptées a la diversitédes situationsdefait.
Parmi ces considérations, il faut signaler de façon générale
l'étroite dépendancede la mer territoriale à l'égard du domaine
terrestre. C'est la terre qui confère à l'État riverain un droit, sur
les eaux qui baignent ses côtes. Il en résulte que, tout en reconnais-
sant à cet État la latitude qui doit lui appartenir pour adapter
sa délimitation aux besoins pratiques et aux exigences locales, le
tracé des lignes de base ne peut s'écarter de façon appréciable de
la direction généralede la côte.
Une autre considération fondamentale, particulièrement impor-
tante en la présente affaire, est celle du rapport plus ou moins
intime qui existe entre certaines étendues de mer et les formations
terrestres qui les séparent ou qui les entourent. La vraie question
que pose le choix du tracédes lignes de base est, en effet, de savoir
si certaines étendues de mer situées en deçà de ces lignes sont
suffisamment liéesau domaine terrestre pour êtresoumises au régime
des eaux intérieures. Cette idée, qui est à la base de la détermina-
tion du régimedes baies, doit recevoir une large application le long
d'une côte dont la configuration géographique est aussi particu-
lièreque celle de la Norvège.
Il faut enfin faire place à une considérationdontla portéedépasse
les données purement géographiques : celle de certains intérêts
économiques propres à une région lorsque leur réalité et leur
importance se trouvent clairement attestées par un long usage.
La Norvège présente le décret de 1935 comme l'application d'un
système traditionnel de délimitation, système qu'elle dit être en
tout conforme au droit international. Le Gouvernement norvégien
a parléà ce propos d'un titre historique dont le sens a étéprécisé
par son conseil à l'audience du 12 octobre 1951: ((Le Gouver-
nement norvégien n'invoque pas l'histoire pour justifier des droits
exceptionnels, pour revendiquer des espaces maritimes que le droit
commun lui refuserait ;il invoque l'histoire, avec d'autres facteurs:
pour justifier la manière dont il applique le droit commun. » Cette
conception du titre historique correspond à la façon dont le Gouver-
nement norvégien comprend le droit international commun. Pour
lui, ce droit tient compte de la diversité des situations de fait, et,
en conséquence,admet que le tracédes lignes de base doit s'adapter
aux conditions particulières des différentesrégions.Le système de
délimitatior. appliqué en 1935, système caractérisépar l'emploi de
lignes droites, ne serait donc pas une dérogation au droit commun ;
il en constitueraiune adaptation imposéepar les conditions locales. In this connection, certain basic considerations inherent in the
nature of the territorial sea, bring to light certain criteria which,
though not entirely precise, can provide courts with an adequate
basis for their decisions, which can be adapted to the diverse
facts in question.
Among these considerations, some reference must be made to
the close dependence of the territorial sea upon the land domain.
It is the land which confers upon the coastal State a right to the
waters off its coasts. It follows that while such a State must be
allowed the latitude necessary in order to be able to adapt its
delimitation to practical needs and local requirements, the drawing
of base-lines must not depart to any appreciable extent from the
general direction of the coast.
Another fundamental consideration, of particular importance
in this case, is the more or less close relationship existing between
certain sea areas and the land formations which divide or surround
them. The real question raised in the choice of base-lines is in
effect whether certain sea areas lying within these lines are
sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to
the regime of interna1 waters. This idea, which is at the basis
of the determination of the rules relating to bays, should be
liberally applied in the case of a coast, the geographical con-
figuration of which is as unusual as that of. Norway.
Finally, there is one consideration not to be overlooked, the
scope of which extends beyond purely geographical factors : that
of certain economic interests peculiar to a region, the reality and
importance of which are cleariy evidenced by a long usage.
Norway puts forward the 1935 Decree as the application of
a traditional system of delimitation, a system which she claims
to be in complete conformky with international law. The Kor-
wegian Government has referred in this connection to an historic
title, the meaning of which was made cleai by Counsel for Norway
at the sitting on October ~eth, 1951 : "The Norwegian Government
does not rely upon history to justify exceptional rights, to claim
areas of sea which the general law would deny ;it invokes history,
together with other factors, to justify the way in which it applies
the general law." This conception of an historic title is in con-
sonance with the Norwegian Government's understanding of the
general rules of international law. In its view, these rules of
international law take into account the diversity of facts and,
therefore, concede that the drawing of base-lines must be adapted
to the special conditions obtaining in different regions. In its
view, the system of delimitation applied in 1935, a system
characterized by the use of straight lines, does not therefore
infringe the general law ;it is an adaptation rendered necessary
by local conditions. .~RRÊT DU 18 XII 51 (AFFAIRE DES P~CHEHIES)
'34
La Cour doit rechercher en quoi consiste exactement le système
de délimitation ainsi allégué, quelleest sa force dedroit au regard
du Royaume-Uni et s'il a étéappliqué par le décret de 1935 d'une
manière conforme au droit international.
Les deux Parties sont d'accord pour reconnaître que dans la
démonstration de l'existence d'un système norvégien ledécret royal
du 22 février 1812 tient une place capitale. Ce décret est ainsi
conçu : ccNous voulons faire établir comme règle dans tous les
cas où il est question de déterminer la limite de Notre souveraineté
territoriale en mer, que cette limite doit être comptée jusqu'à
la distance d'une lieue de mer ordinaire de l'île ou de l'îlot le plus
éloignéde la terre qui n'est pas recouvert par la mer ; de quoi
toutes les autorités compétentes devront êtreinstruites par voie
de rescrit.)I
Ce texte n'indique pas de façon précise comment les lignes de
base devaient êtretracéesentre les îles ou îlots les plus éloignésde
la terre. En particulier, il ne dit pas en termes exprès que le tracé
des lignes doit affecter la forme de droites tiréesentre ces points.
Mais on peut relever qu'au cours du xlxme et du xxme siècle, c'est
ainsi que le décret de 1812 a étéconstamment interprété en
Norvège.
Particulièrement significatifs de la conception traditionnelle nor-
végienneet de l'interprétation norvégiennedu décret de 1812 sont
le décretdu 16 octobre 1869 relatif à la délimitation du Sunnmore
et l'exposédes motifs de ce décret. C'est en se référantau décret
de 1812et en s'appuyant expressémentsur «la conception »adoptée
dans ce décretque le ministère del'Intérieur a justifiéle tracéd'une
ligne droite de 26 milles tirée entre les deux points extrêmesdu
((skjaergaard 1)Le décretdu 9 septembre 1889relatif à la délimita-
tion du Romsdal et du Nordmore a fait application de la même
méthode en traçant quatre lignes droites qui ont respectivement
14,7 milles, 7 milles, 23,6 milles etII,~ milles.
Le décretde 1812a étéinterprété dela mêmefaçon par la Com-
mission de la frontière des eaux temtoriales (Rapport du 29 février
1912,pp. 48-49), ainsi que dans le mémorandum du 3 janvier 1929
adressépar le Gouvernement norvégienau Secrétairegénéral dela
Sociétédes Nations où il est dit : «La directive donnée par ce
décret doit êtreinterprétéedans ce sens qu'une ligne tirée le long
du «skjærgaard I)entre les rochers les plus éloignéset, là où il
n'y a pas de « skjærgaard »,entre les points extrêmes, formele point
de départ pour calculer l'étendue deseaux territonales. »Un arrêt
rendu en 1934 par la Cour suprêmede Norvège en l'affaire du
St. Just a consacrécette interprétation. Cette conception correspond
aux caractères géographiques de la côte norvégienne et n'est pas
contraire aux principes du droit international. The Court must ascertain precisely what this alleged system of
delimitation consists of, what is its effect in law as against the
United Kingdom, and whether it was applied by the 1935 Decree
in a manner which conformed to international law.
It is common ground between the Parties that on the question
of the existence of a Norwegian system, the Royal Decree of
February zznd, 1812, is of cardinal importance. This Decree is in
the following terms: "We wish to lay down as a rule that, in al1
cases when there is a question of determining the limit of Our
temtorial sovereignty at sea, that limit shall be reckoned at the
distance of one ordinary sea league from the island or islet farthest
from the mainland, not covered by the sea ; of which all proper
authorities shall be informed by rescnpt."
This text does not clearly indicate how the base-lines between
the islands or islets farthest from the mainland were to be drawn.
In particular, itdoes not Say in express terms that the lines must
take the form of straight lines drawn between these points. But it
may be noted that it was in this way that the 1812 Decree was
invariably construed in Norway in the course of the 19th and
20th centuries.
The Decree of October 16th, 1869, relating to the delimitation of
Sunnmore, and the Statement of Reasons for this Decree, are
particularly revealing as to the traditional Norwegian conception
and the Norwegian construction of the Decree of 1812. It was by
reference to the 1812 Decree, and specifically relying upon "the
conception" adopted by that Decree, that the Ministry of the
Interior justified the drawing of a straight line 26 miles in length
between the two outermost points of the "skjaergaard". The Decree
of September gth, 1889, relating to the delimitation of Romsdal
and Nordmore, applied the same method, drawing four straight
lines, respectively 14.7 miles, 7 miles, 23.6 miles and 11.6 miles in
length.
The 1812 Decree was similarly construed by the Territorial
Waters Boundary Commission (Report of February zgth, 1912,
pp. 48-49), as it was in the Memorandum of January 3rd, 1929,
sent by the Norwegian Government to the Secretary-General of
the League of Nations, in which it was said : "The direction laid
down by this Decree should be interpreted in the sense that the
starting-point for calculating the breadth of the territorial waters
should be a line drawn dong the 'skjargaard' between the furthest
rocks and, where there is no 'skjærgaard', between theextreme
points." The judgment delivered by the Norwegian Supreme Court
in r934, in the St. Just case, provided final authority for this
interpretation. This conception accords with the geographical
characteristics of the Norwegian coast and is not contrary to the
principles of international law. Il y a toutefois lieu de relever que, tandis que le décret de 1812
désigne comme points de base ((l'île ou l'îlot le plus éloignéde la
terre qui n'estpas recouvert par la mer »,la pratique gouvernemen-
tale norvégienne a interprété par la suite cette prescription en ce
sens que la limite se compte à partir de l'île ou de l'îlot le plus
éloigné ((qui n'est pas constamment recouvert par la mer ».
Le décret de 1812, bien que formulé en termes tout à fait géné-
raux, avait eu pour objet immédiat la limite applicable à la neutra-
lité maritime. Cependant, dèsque le Gouvernement norvégien s'est
trouvé amené par les circonstances à devoir délimiter sa zone de
pêche,il a vu dans ce décret une disposition de caractère orga-
nique, applicable à d'autres fins que la neutralité. Les exposésdes
motifs du reroctobre 1869, du 20 décembre 1880, du 24 mai 1889
sont décisifs à cet égard. Ils démontrent également que les délimi-
tations effectuéesen 1869et en 1889 constituaient bien l'application
raisonnée d'un système défini, applicable à l'ensemble de la côte
norvégienne et non pas seulement des prescriptions d'intérêtlocal
dictéespar des nécessitésparticulières. On relève notamment dans
l'exposé desmotifs du décret de 1869 le passage suivant : (Mon
Ministère suppose que la règlegénérale mentionnéeplus haut [celle
des quatre milles] et reconnue par le droit international pour l'éten-
due des eaux territoriales d'un pays, doit être appliquée ici de
telle manière que l'étendue de mer située en deçà d'une ligne tirée
parallèlement àla ligne droite entre les deux îles ourochers extrêmes
non recouverts par la mer, Svinoy au sud et Storholmen au
nord, et à la distance d'une lieue géographique au nord-ouest de
cette ligne droite, doit êtreconsidérée commeterritoire maritime
norvégien. »
L'exposé des motifs de 1869 met en Œuvre tous les éléments
constitutifs de ce que le Gouvernement norvégien décrit comme
son système traditionnel de délimitation : les points de base
constitués par les îles ou îlots les plus éloignésde la terre, l'emploi
de lignes droites reliant ces points entre eux, l'absence de toute
préoccupation d'un maximum à ne pas dépasser pour la longueur
des lignes. L'arrêt rendu par la Cour suprême de Norvège en
l'affaire du St. Just a confirmé cette interprétation en ajoutant
que le décret de 1812 n'a jamais étécompris ni appliqué (de
manière que la limite suive les sinuosités de la côte, et qu'elle
soit déterminée à l'aide de cercles tracés autour des points du
Skjzrgaard ou de la terre ferme les plus avancés en mer -
solution qu'en raison de la configuration particulière de la côte
il ne serait guère possible d'adopter et de faire respecter en
pratique ». Enfin, il est établi que selon le système norvbgien,
les lignes de base doivent &tretracées suivant la direction générale
de la côte, ce qui est conforme au droit international.
Également significative à cet égard est la correspondance
échangée en 1869-1870 entre la Norvège et la France. Dès le
21 décembre 1869, soit deux mois après la promulgation du décret JUDGMENT OF 18 XII 51 (FISHERIES CASE) I3.5
It should, however, be pointed out that whereas the 1812 Decree
designated as base-points "the island or islet farthest from the
mainland not covered by the sea", Norwegian governmental
practice subsequently interpreted this provision as meaning that
the limit was to be reckoned from the outermost islands and islets
"not continuously covered by the sea".
The 1812 Decree, although quite general in its terms, had as
its immediate object the fixing of the limit applicable for the
purposes of maritime neutrality. However, as soon as the Norwegian
Government found itself irnpelled by circumstances to delimit its
fishenes zone, it regarded that Decree as laying down pnnciples
to be applied for purposes other than neutrality. The Statements
ofReasons ofOctober ~st,1869,December zoth, 1880,and May 24th,
1889, are conclusive on this point. They also show that the delimit-
ation effected in 1869 and in 1889 constituted a reasoned applica-
tion of a definite system applicable to the whole of the Norwegian
coast line, and was not merely legislation of local interest cded
for by =y special requirements. The following passage from the
Statement of Reasons of the 1869 Decree may in particuiar be
referred to:"My Ministry assumes that the general rule mentioned
above [namely, the four-mile rule], which isrecognized by inter-
national law for the determination of the extent of a country's
temtonal waters, must be applied here in such a way that the sea
area inside a line drawn parallel to a straight line between the
two outermost islands or rocks not covered by the sea, Svinoy to
the south and Storholmen to the north, and one geographical
league north-west of that straight line, should be considered
Norwegian maritime territory."
The 1869 Statement of Reasons brings out al1 the elements
which go to make up what the Norwegian Govemment descnbes
as its traditional system of delimitation : base-points provided by
the islands or islets farthest from the mainland, the use of straight
lines joining up these points, the lack of any maximum length for
such lines. The judgrnent of the Norwegian Supreme Court in the
St. Just case upheld this interpretation and added that the
1812 Decree had never been understood or applied "in such a way
as to make the boundary follow the sinuosities of the coast or to
cause its position to be determined by means of circles drawn round
the points of the Skjzrgaard or of the mainland furthest out to
sea-a method which it wouid be very difficult to adopt or to
enforce in practice, having regard to the special configuration
of this coast". Finaüy, it ,is established that, according to the
Norwegian system, the base-lines must follow the generai direction
of the coast, which is in conforrnity with international law.
Equaüy significant in this connection is the correspondence
which pasçed between Norway and France between 1869-1870.
On December 21st, 1869, only two months after the promulgation
23du 16 octobre relatif à la délimitation du Sunnmore, le Gouver-
nement français demandait au Gouvernement norvégien l'expli-
cation de cette mesure. Il le faisait en se plaçantu sur le terrain
des principes du droit international n. Par une deuxième note du
30 décembre de la mêmeannée, il faisait observer que la distance
entre les points de base était supérieure à dix milles marins et
que la ligne qui reliait ces points aurait dû êtreune ligne brisée
suivant les contours de la cdte. C'est en se plaçant sur ce même
terrain du droit international que, par une note du 8 février 1870,
le ministère des Affaires étrangères a fait la réponse suivante :
uPar la mêmenote du 30 décembre, vous avez bien voulu
appeler mon attention sur la fixation de la limite de pêchedans
l'archipel de Sunnmore arune ligne directe au lieu d'une ligne
brisée.Selon la maniere Bevoir de votre gouvernement, la distance
entre les îlots de Svinoy et de Storholmen étant supérieure à
dû êtreune ligne brisée, suivant les contours de la côte, dontait
elle se serait plus rapprochée quela limite actuelle. Malgrél'adop-
tion dans quelques traités de la distance tout à fait arbitraire
de dix milles marins, elle ne me parait pas avoir acquis la force
d'une loi internationale. Encore moins, elle me parait fondéedans
la nature mêmedes choses, telle baie, selon les diverses formations
de la cate et du fond, présentant souvent un tout autre caractère
qu'une autre de la mêmelargeur. Il me semble plutôt que ce sont
les circonstances locales et l'observation de ce qui est utile et
équitable qui devront déciderdans des cas spéciaux.La confor-
mation de nos cdtes ne ressemble en rien à celle des cates des
autres pays de l'Europe, et cette circonstance seule rend impossible
l'adoption d'une règleabsoIue et d'une application universelle en
cette matière.
ligne fixéepar l'ordonnance du 16octobre. Une ligne brisée,reliant
Svinoy à Stcrholmen, qui aurait strictement contourné la côte,
aurait présentéune limite si entortillée et si peu distincte qu'il
aurait étéimpossible de la surveille....
On ne saurait interpréter un tel langage que comme l'expression
réfléchied'une conceptionjuridique considéréepar le Gouvernement
norvégien comme compatible avec le droit international. Aussi
bien, le Gouvernement français n'a-t-il pas insisté. Par une note
en date du 27 juillet 1870, il déclarait que, tout en maintenant
sa position de principe, il acceptait d'envisager la délimitation
établie par le décret du 16 octobre 1869 comme reposant sur une
étude pratique de la configuration des côtes et des conditions des
populations ».
La Cour ayant ainsi établi l'existence et les élémentsconstitutifs
du système de délimitation norvégien constate d'autre part que
ce système a été appliqué par les autorités norvégiennes de façonpersistante et qu'il ne s'est pas heurté à l'opposition d'autres
Etats.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a cependant tentéde démon-
trer que le Gouvernement norvégienne se serait pas attachédefaçon
conséquente aux principes de délimitation qui formeraient son
système et qu'il aurait implicitement admisqu'une autre méthode
serait seule conforme au droit international. Les documents dont
l'agent du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a fait principalement
état, à l'audience du 20 octobre 1951 ,e rapportent àla périodede
1906-1908,périodeau cours de laquelle les chalutiers britanniques
ont fait leur première apparition le long des côtes norvégiennes et
qui, à ce titre, mérite plus particulièrement de retenir l'attention.
Le Gouverneme~t du Royaume-Uni observe que la loi du 2 juin
1906 portant interdiction aux étrangers de pêcherse borne à inter-
dire la pêche dans les (eaux territoriales norvégiennes », et il
conclut du caractère très généralde cette mention à l'absence
d'un système défini.La Cour ne peut accepter cette interprétation,
l'objet de la loi étant de renouveler l'interdiction de la pêcheet
non de procéder à une délimitation précisede la mer territoriale.
Le deuxième document invoqué par le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni est une lettre du 24 mars 1908 du ministre des
Affaires étrangèresau ministre de la Défensenationale. Le Gouver-
nement du Royaume-Uni a cru trouver danscette lettre une adhé-
sion de la Norvège à la règle de la laisse de basse mer en contra-
diction avec la thèse norvégienne actuelle. Cette interprétation ne
peut êtreadmise ; elle repose sur me confusion entre la règle de
la laisse de basse mer telle que la comprend le Royaume-Uni qui
obligerait à suivre toutes les sinuosités de la côte à marée basse,
et la pratique généralequi s'attache plutôt à la maréebasse qu'à
la maréehaute pour mesurer la mer territoriale.
Le troisième document cité est une note, en date du II novem-
bre 1908, du ministre des Affaires étrangèresde Norvègeau chargé
d'affaires de France à Christiania, en réponse à une demande
d'informatioh quant au point de savoir si la Norvège avait modifié
les limites de ses eau:: territoriales. Le ministre y disait : «En
interprétant les prescriptions norvégiennes dans cette matière et
étant, en mêmetemps, en conformité de la règlegénéraledu droit
des gens, ce ministère s'est exprimé dans ce sens que la distance
à partir de la côte doit êtrecomptée dela ligne de la basse marée,
et que chaque îlot qui n'est pas continuellement submergé par la
mer doit êtrecompris comme point de départ. » Le Gouvernement
du Royaume-Uni estime qu'en se référant à ((une règle générale
du droit des gens », au lieu de faire état de son système propre
de délimitation à l'aide de lignes droites, et, en outre, en disant
que (chaque îlot qui n'est pas continuellement submergé par la
mer dcit êtrecompris comme point de départ N,le Gouvernement
norvégien s'estcomplètement écartéde ce qu'il décrit aujourd'hui
comme son système.authonties and that it encountered no opposition on the part of
other States.
The United Kingdom Government has however sought to show
that the Norwegian Government has not consistently followed the
principles of delimitation which, it claims, form its system, and that
it has admitted by implication that some other method would De
necessary to comply witb international law. The documents 'io
which the Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom
principally referred at the hearing on October zoth, 1951, relate
to the period between 1906 and 1908, the period in which British
trawlers made their first appearance off the Norwegian coast, and
which, therefore, merits particular attention.
The United Kingdom Government pointed out that the law of
June 2nd, 1906, which prohibited fishing by foreigners, merely
forbade fishing in "Norwegian territorial waters", and it deduced
from the very general character of this reference that no definite
system existed. The Court is unable to accept this interpretation,
as the object of the law was to renew the prohibition against
fishing and not to undertake a precise delimitation of the terri-
torial sea.
The second document relied upon by the United Kingdom
Government is a letter dated March 24tl1, 1908, from the Minister
for Foreign Affairs to the Minister of National Defence. The United
Kingdom Government thought that this letter indicated an adher-
ence by Nonvay to the low-water mark rule contrary to the present
Nonvegian position. This interpretation cannot be accepted ; it
rests upon a confusion between the low-water mark rule as under-
stood by the United Kingdom, which requires that al1the sinuos-
ities of the coast line at low tide should be followed, and the general
practice of selecting the low-tide mark rather than that of the high
tide for measuring the extent of the territorial sea.
The third document referred to is a Note, dated November ~rth,
1908, from the Nonvegian Minister for Foreign Affairs to the French
Chargé d'Affairesat Christiania, in reply to a request for informa-
tion as to whether Norway had modified the limits of her territorial
waters. In it the Ministersaid: "Interpreting Norwegian regulations
in this matter, whilst at the same time conforming to the general
rule of the Law of Nations, this Ministry gave its opinion that the
distance from the coast should be measured from the low-water
mark and that every islet not continuously covered by the sea
should be reckoned as a starting-point." The United Kingdom
Government argued that by the refe-rence to "the general nile of
the Law of Nations", instead of to its own system of delimitation
entailing the use of çtraight lines, and, furthermore, by its state-
ment that "every islet not continuously covered by the sea should
be reckoned as a starting-point", the Nonvegian Government had
completely iieparted from what it to-day describes as its system.138 ARRÊT DU 18 XII 51 (AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES)
Il y a lieu d'observer que la demande d'information à laquelle
répondait le Gouvernement norvégien portait non pas sur l'emploi
des lignes droites mais sur la largeur des eaux territoriales norvé-
giennes. La portée de la réponse du Gouvernement norvégien
est qu'aucune modification n'était intervenue dans la législation
norvégienne. Au surplus, on ne saurait s'appuyer sur quelques
mots empruntés à une note isoléepour en conclure que le Gouver-
nement norvégien se serait départi d'une attitude que ses actes
officiels antérieurs avaient nettement fixée.
La Cour estime qu'il n'y a pas lieu d'attacher trop d'importance
aux quelques incertitudes ou contradictions, apparentes ou réelles,
que le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a cru pouvoir relever dans
la pratique norvégienne. Elles s'expliquent assez naturellement si
l'on prend en considération la diversité des faits et des situations
au cours de la longue période qui s'est écouléedepuis1812, et ne
sont pas de nature à modifier les conclusions auxquelles la Cour
est arrivée.
Sur la base de ces considérations, et en l'absence de preuve
contraire convaincante, laCour est fondée à dire que les autorités
norvégiennes ont appliqué leur système de délimitation d'une
façon suivie et constante depuis 1869 jusqu'à la naissance du
différend.
Du point de vue du droit international, il convient d'examiner
à présent si l'application du système norvégien ne s'estpas heurtée
à l'opposition d'États étrangers.
La Norvège a pu avancer, sans êtrecontredite, que la promul-
gation de ses décrets de délimitation en186 et en1889 ainsi que
leur applicationn'ont soulevé,de la part des l?tats étrangers, aucune
opposition. Comme, d'autre part, ces décrets sont, ainsi qu'il a été
démontréplus haut, l'application d'un système bien définiet unifié,
c'esten définitive ce système lui-mêmequi aurait bénéficié d'une
tolérance générale, fondementd'une consolidation historique qui
le rendrait opposable tous les États.
La tolérance générale desÉtats étrangers A l'égard de la pra-
tique norvégienne est un fait incontesté. Durant une période de
plus de soixante ans le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni lui-même
n'a élevéaucune contestation à ce sujet. On ne saurait, en effet,
considérer comme ayant ce caractère les discussions auxquelles a
donné lieu, en 1911, l'incident du Lord Roberts, la controverse
qui s'était élevéà ce propos ayant eu trait à deux questions: celle
de la limite des quatre milles et celle de la souveraineté de la Nor-
vège sur le Varangerfjord, questions étrangèresau tracé des lignes
de base. Ce n'est, semble-t-il, que dans son mémorandum du
27 juille1933que le Royaume-Uni a élevé une protestation formelle
et bien définieà ce sujet.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a fait valoir que le système
de délimitation norvégien ne lui était pas connu et qu'il manquait
26 It must be remembered that the request for information to which
the Norwegian Government was replying related not to the use of
straight lines, but to the breadth of Nomegian territorial waters.
The point of the Nonvegian Government's reply was that there had
been no modification in the Nonvegian legislation. Moreover, it is
impossible to rely upon a few words taken from a single note to
draw the conclusion that the Norwegian Government had abandoned
a position which its earlier officia1documents had clearly indicated.
The Court considers that too much importance need not be
attached tothe few uncertainties or contradictions, real or apparent,
which the United Kingdom Government claims to have discovered
in Norwegian practice. They may be easily understood in the light
of the variety of the facts and conditions prevailing in the long
period which has elapsed since 1812, and are not such as to modify
the conclusions reached by the Court.
In the light of these considerations, and in the absence of con-
vincing evidence to the contrary, the Court is bound to hold that
the Norwegian authorities applied their system of delimitation con-
sistently and uninterruptedly from 1869 until the time when the
dispute arose.
From the standpoint of international law, it is now necessary to
consider whether the application of the Nonvegian system encoun-
tered any opposition from foreign States.
Norway has been in a position to argue without any contra.
diction that neither the promulgation of her delimitation Decrees
in 1869 and in 1889, nor their application, gave rise to any
opposition on the part of foreign States. Since, moreover, these
Decrees constitute, as has been shown above, the application of
a well-defined and uniform system, it is indeed this system itself
which would reap the benefit of general toleration, the basis of
an historical consolidation which would make it enforceable as
against au States.
The general toleration of foreign States with regard to the
Norwegian practice is an unchallenged fact. For a period of more
than sixty years the United Kingdom Government itself in no
way contested it. One cannot indeed consider as raising objections
the discussions to which the Lord Roberts incident gave rise in
1911, for the controversy which arose in this connection related
to two questions, that of the four-milelirnit, and that of Nonvegian
sovereignty over the Varangerfjord, both of which were uncon-
nected with the position of base-lines. It would appear that it
was only in its Memorandum of July 27th, 1933, that the United
Kingdom made a forma1 and definite protest on this point.
The United Kingdom Government has argued that the Nor-
wegian system of delimitation was not known to it and that the
26139 ARRÊT DU 18 XII 51 (AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES)
ainsi de la notoriétérequise pour fonder un titre historique qui lui
soit opposable. La Cour ne saurait admettre cette manière de voir.
État riverain de la mer du Nord, hautement intéresséaux pêcheries
de ces régions, Puissance maritime traditionnellement attentive
au droit de la mer et particulièrement attachée à la dCfense de
la liberté des mers, le Royaume-Uni n'a puignorer le décretde 1869
qui avait aussitôt provoqué unedemande d'explications du Gouver-
nement français. Il n'a pu davantage, le connaissant, se méprendre
sur la portée de ses termes qui le décrivaient clairement comme
l'application d'un système. La mêmeobservation s'applique à plus
forte raison au décret de 1889 relatif à1a.délimitationdu Romsdal
et du Nordmore, qui devait lui apparaître comme une manifestation
réitéréede la pratique norvégienne.
L'attitude de la Norvège à l'égardde la Convention sur la police
de la pêchedans la mer du Nord, de 1882, constitue également un
fait qui a dû attirer aussitôt l'attention de la Grande-Bretagne. Il
n'est guèrede convention relative aux pêcheriesqui eût plus d'im-
portance pour tous les États riverains de la mer du Nord et qui
offrît pour la Grande-Bretagne plus d'intérê. e refus de la Norvège
d'y adhérer posait clairement la question de la délimitation de son
domaine maritime et, plus spécialement pour les baies, celle de la
délimitation par le moyen de lignes droites, au sujet de laquelle
la Norvègecontestait la limite maximumadoptée cianslaconvention.
Si l'on tient compte du fait que, quelques années auparavant, la
délimitation du Sunnmore par le décretde 1869 avait étéprésentée
comme une application du système norvégien,on ne peut se sous-
traire à la conclusion que, dès cette époque,tous les élémentsdu
problème des eaux côtières norvégiennes setrouvaient nettement
posés.Les démarches que la Grande-Bretagne a entreprises par la
suite pour obtenir l'adhésion de la Norvège à la convention sou-
lignent sa connaissance de la question et l'intérêtqu'elle y portait.
La Cour constate qu'à l'égard d'une situation qui ne pouvait
manquer de se fortifier d'année en année, le Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni s'est abstenu de formuler des réserves.
La notoriété desfaits, la tolérance générale dela communauté
internationale, la position de la Grande-Bretagne dans la mer
du Nord, son intérêtprclpre dans la question, son abstention
prolongée, permettraient en tout cas à la Norvège d'opposer son
svstème au Rovaume-Uni.
' La Cour est :insi amenée S conclure que la méthode des lignes
droites, consacrée par le système norvégien, a étéimposée par
la géographie particulière de la côte norvégienne; que, dès avant
la naissance du différend, cette méthode avait étéconsolidéepar
une pratique constante et suffisamment longue en face de laquelle
l'attitude des gouvernements atteste que ceux-ci ne l'ont pas
considéréecomme étant contraire au droit international.system therefore lacked the notoriety essential to provide the
basis of an histonc title enforceable against it. The Court is unable
to accept this view. As a coastal State on the North Sea, greatly
interested in the fisheries in this area, as a maritime Power
traditionally concerned with the law of the sea and concerned
particularly todefend the freedom of the seas, the United Kingdom
could not have been ignorant of the Decree of 1869 which had
at once provoked a request for explanations by the French Gov-
ernment. Nor, knowing of it, could it have been under any misappre-
hension as to the significance of its terms, which clearly described
it as constituting the application of a system. The same obser-
vation applies a fortiorito the Decree of 1889 relating to the
delimitation of Romsdal and Nordmore which must have appeared
to the United Kingdom as a reiterated manifestation of the
Norwegian practice.
NorwayJs attitude with regard to the North Sea Fisheries
(Police) Convention of 1882 is a further fact which must at once
have attracted the attention of Great Britain. There is scarcely
any fisheries convention of greater importance to the coastal
States of the North Sea or of greater interest to Great Britain.
Nonvay's refusal to adhere to this Convention clearly raised the
question of the delimitation of her maritime domain, especially
with regard to bays, the question of their delimitation by means
of straight lines of which Nonvay challenged the maximum length
adopted in the Convention. Having regard to the fact that a few
years before, the delimitation of Sunnmore by the 1869 Decree
had been presented as an application of the Norwegian system,
one cannot avoid the conclusion that, from that time on, al1 the
elements of the problem of Nonvegian coastal waters had been
clearly stated. The steps subsequently taken by Great Britain to
secure Norway's adherence to the Convention clearly show that
she was aware of and interested in the question.
The Court notes that in respect of a situation which could only
be strengthened with the passage of time, the United Kingdom
Government refrained from formulating reservations.
The notoriety of the facts, the general toleration of the inter-
national community, Great Britain's position in the North Sea, her
own interest in the question, and her prolonged abstention would
in any case warrant Nonvay's enforcement of her system against
the United Kingdom.
The Court is thus led to conclude that the rnethod of siraight
lines, established in the Nonvegian system, was imposed by the
peculiar geography of the Nonvegian coast ; that even before the
dispute arose, this method had been consolidated by a co~lstant and
sufficiently long practice, in the face of which the attitude of
governments bears witness to the fact that they did not consider
it to be contrary to internationai law. I4O .-\RRÊTDL 18 XII 51 (AFFAIRE DES P~CHERIES)
Il y a lieu d'examiner à présent si le décret du 12 juillet 1935,
qui se présente dans son préambule comme une application de cette
méthode, s'est conformé à celle-ci dans le tracé des lignes de base
ou si, en certains points, il s'en écarte de façon appréciable.
Le tableau joint en annexe au décret du 12 juillet 1935 indique
les points fixes entre lesquels sont tirées les lignes droites de base.
La Cour constate que ce tracé a étéle résultat d'une étude appro-
fondie de la part des autorités norvégiennes, étude qui fut com-
mencée dès 1911. Les lignes de base recommandées par la Commis-
sion des Affaires étrangères du Storting pour la délimitation de la
zone de pêche, lignes qui furent adoptées et rendues publiques pour
la première fois par le décret du 12 juillet 1935, sont les mêmes
que celles qu'avaient tracées, en 1912 pour le Finnmark, en 1913
pour le Nordland et le Troms, les Commissions dites de la frontière
des eaux territoriales successivement nommées le 29 juin 1911 et
le12 juillet 1912. La Cour constate, d'autre part, que les Com-
missions de 1911 et de 1912 ont préconisé ces lignes en seréférant
toujours, tout comme l'a fait le décret de 1935 lui-même, au
système de délimitation traditionnel consacrépar lesactesantérieurs
et plus particulikïement par les décrets de 1812,de 1869 et de 1889.
En 1absence d'indication contraire probante, la Cour ne saurait
facilement admettre que les lignes adoptées dans ces conditions par
le décret de 1935 ne soient pas conformes au système traditionnel
norvégien. Une contestation de pur fait s'est élevéecependant entre
Parties au sujet de trois points de base : no 21 (Vesterfallet i Gaa-
san), no27 (Tokkebaaen), et no 39 (Nordboen). Cette contestation
n'a plus d'objet. Un télégramme du 19 octobre 1951 du Service
hydrographique de Norvège à l'agent du Gouvernement norvégien
et communiqué à l'agent du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, a
confirmé que ces trois points sont des rochers non constamment
submergés. Cette affirmation n'ayant plus étécontestée par le Gou-
vernement du Royaume-Uni, il y a lieu de considérer que l'usage
qui a étéfait de ces rochers comme points de base est conforme au
système traditionnel norvégien.
Il a étéallégué enfinpar le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni que
certaines au moins des lignes de base adoptées par le décretseraient,
indépendamment de toute question de conformité au système norvé-
gien, contraires aux principes que la Cour a énoncésplus haut et
qui doivent présider à toute délimitation de la mer temtoriale. La
Cour examinera du point de vue de ces principes si certaines lignes
de base, qui ont fait l'objet de critiques suffisamment circonstan-
ciées,sont réellement sans justification.
Le Gouvernement norvégien reconnaît que les lignes de base
doivent êtretracées de façon à respecter la direction générale de The question now arises whether the Decree of July ~zth, 1935,
which in its preamble is expressed to be an application of this
method, conforms to it in its drawing of the base-lines, or whether,
at certain points, it departs from this method tc~any considerable
extent.
The schedule appended to the Decree of July ~zth, 1935,indicates
the fixed points between which the straight base-lines are drawn.
The Court notes that these lines were the result of a careful study
initiated by the Norwegian authorities as far back as 1911. The
base-lines recommended by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the
Storting for the delimitation of the fisheries zone and adopted and
made public for the first time by the Decree of July ~ath, 1935, are
the same as those which the so-called Territorial Waters Boundary
Commissions, successively appointed on June zgth, 1911, and July
~zth, 1912, had drawn in 1912 for Finnmark and in 1913 for
Nordland and Troms. The Court further notes that the 1911 and
1912 Commissions advocated these lines and in so doing constantly
referred, as the 1935 Decree itself did, to the traditional system
of delimitation adopted by earlier acts and more particularly by
the Decrees of 1812, 1869 and 1889.
In the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, the Court
cannot readily find that the lines adopted in these circumstances
by the 1935 Decree are not in accordance with the traditional
Norwegian system. However, a purely factual difference arose
between the Parties concerning the three following base-points :
No. 21 (VesterfaUet i Gaasan), No. 27 (Tokkebaaen) and No. 39
(Nordboen). This difference is now devoid of object. A telegram
dated October ~gth, 1951, from the Hydrographic Service of Norway
to the Agent of the Norwegian Government, which was commun-
icated to the Agent of the United Kingdom Government. has con-
firmed that these three points are rocks which are not continuously
submerged. Since this assertion has not been further disputed by
the United Kingdom Government, it may be considered that the
use ofthese rocks as base-points is in conformity with the traditional
Norwegian system.
Finally, it has been contended by the United Kingdom Govern-
ment that certain, at least, of the base-lines adopted by the Decree
are, irrespective of whether or not they conform to the Norwegian
system, contrary to the pnnciples stated above by the Court as
goveming any delimitation of the tenitonal sea. The Court wili
consider whether, from the point of view of these pnnciples, certain
of the base-lines which have been cnticized in some detail realiy
are without iustification.
The ~orwé~ian Government adrnits that the base-lines must be
drawn in such a way as to respect the general direction of the
28la côte et qu'elles doivent l'être defaçon raisonnable. Le Gouver-
nement du Royaume-Uni soutient que certaines lignes ne se con-
forment pas ou pas suffisamment à la direction générale de la côte
ou qu'elles ne respectent pas les rapports naturelsqui existent entre
certaines étendues de mer et les formations terrestres qui les sépa-
rent ou qui les entourent. Le tracé, dans ces conditions, serait
contraire aux principes qui gouvernent la délimitation du domaine
maritime.
La Cour constate que ces critiques qui, au cours de la procédure
écrite, revêtaient une portée très générale, ont été réduites par
la suite.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a porté plus particulière-
ment ses critiques sur deux secteurs en présentant leur délimitation
comme des cas extrêmes de déviation de la direction générale
de la côte: le secteur de Sværholthavet (entre les points de base II
et 12) et celui de Lopphavet (entre les points de base 2.0et 21).
La Cour examinera de ce point de vue la délimitation de ces
deux secteurs.
La ligne de base entre les points II et 12, qui a une longueur
de 38,6 milles marins, délimite les eaux du Sværholt situées entre
le cap Kordkyn et le cap Nord. Le Gouvernement du Royaume-
Cni conteste au bassin ainsi délimitéle caractère d'une baie. Sa
thèse est fondée sur une considération géographique. Selon lui,
le calcul de la profondeur du bassin doit s'arrêter à la pointe
de la presqu'île de Sværholt (Sværholtklubben). La profondeur
ainsi obtenue n'étant que de II,5 milles marins, contre 38,6 milles
de largeur à l'entrée, le bassin en question ne prézmterait pas
le caractère d'une baie. La Cour ne peut accepter cette manière
de voir. Elle estime que le bassin en question doit êtreenvisagé
dans sa réalité géographiquetotale. Le fait qu'une presqu'île s'y
avance pour former les deux larges fjords de Laksefjord et de
Porsangerfjord, ne saurait lui enlever le caractère d'une baie.
Les distances entre la ligne de base discutée et le fond de ces
fjords, distances qui sont respectivement de 50 et de 75 milles
marins, sont celles qui doivent servir pour apprécier le rapport
entre la largeur d'entrée et la profondeur de pénétration. La
Cour en conclut que le Sværholthavet a le caractère d'une baie.
La délimitation du bassin de Lopphavet a étéégalement critiquée
par le Royaume-Uni. Ainsi qu'il a été dit plus haut, on peut
considérer comme abandonnée celle de ces critiques qui concernait
le choix du point de base no 21.Le bassin de Lopphavet constitue
uri ensemble géographique mal défini. On ne saurait lui reconnaître
le caractère d'une baie. Il est constitué par une vaste étendue
d'eau parsemée de grandes îles, séparéesentre elles par des bras
de mer qui se terminent en divers fjords. Le reproche adressa à
la ligne de base est que cette ligne ne respecte pas la direction
générale dela côte. Il y a lieu d'observer que, si justifiée qu'ellecoast and that they must be drawn in a reasonable manner. The
United Kingdom Government contends that certain lines do not
follow the general direction of the coast, or do not follow it
sufficiently closely, or that they do not respect the natural con-
nection existing between certain sea areas and the land formations
separating or surrounding them. For these reasons, it is alleged
that the line drawn is contrary to the principles which govem the
delimitation of the maritime domain.
The Court observes that these complaints, which assumed a
very general scope in the written proceedings, have subsequently
been reduced.
The United Kingdom Government has directed its cnticism more
particularly against two sectors, the delimitation of which they
represented as extreme cases of deviation from the general direction
of the coast :the sector of Sværholthavet (between base-points II
and 12) and that of Lopphavet (between base-points 20 and
21). The Court will deal with the delimitation of these two sectors
from this point of view.
The base-line between points II and 12, which is 38.6 sea miles
in length, delimits the waters of the Sværholt lying between Cape
Nordkyn and the North Cape. The United Kingdom Government
denies that the basin so delimited has the character of a bay. Its
argument is founded on a geographical consideration. In its opinion,
the calculation of the basin's penetration inland must stop at the
tip of the Sværholt peninsula (Sværholtklubben). The penetration
inland thus obtained being only 11.5 sea miles, as against 38.6 miles
of breadth at the entrance, it is alleged that the basin in question
does not have the character of a bay. The Court is unable to share
this view. It considers that the basin in question must be con-
templated in the light of al1the geographical factors involved. The
fact that a peninsula juts out and forms two wide fjords, the Lakse-
fjord and the Porsangerfjord, cannot deprive the basin of the
character of a bay. It is the distances between the disputed base-
line and the most inland point of these fjords, 50 and 75 sea miles
respectively, which must be taken into account in appreciating
the proportion between the penetration inland and the width at
the mouth. The Court concludes that Sværholthavet has the
character of a bay.
The delimitation of the Lopphavet basin has also been cnticized
by the United Kingdom. As has been pointed out above, ils criti-
cism of the selection of base point No. 21 may be regarded as
abandoned. The Lopphavet basin constitutes an ill-defined geo-
graphic whole. It cannot be regarded as having the character of
a bay. It is made up of an extensive area of water dotted with
large islands which are separated by inlets that terminate in the
various fjords. The base-line has been challenged on the ground
that it does not respect the general direction of the coast. It should
be observed that, however justified the rule in question may be,
29soit, la règleen question est dépourvue de précisionmathématique.
Il faut, pour en faire une juste application,tenir comptdu rapport
entre la déviation critiquée et ce qui, selon les termes de la règle,
doit êtreenvisagé comme la direction générale de la côte. Réserve
faite d'un cas d'abus manifeste, on ne saurait dès lors se borner
à envisager un secteur isolément non plus que l'on ne peut s'en
remettre à l'impression que peut donner une carte à grande échelle
de ce seul secteur. Dans l'espèce, l'écart entre la ligne de base
et les formations terrestres n'est pas tel qu'il défigurela direction
généralede la côte norvégienne.
Quand bien même onestimerait que, dans le secteur considéré,
ily a déviation trop marquée, il faut relever que le Gouvernement
norvégien a fait valoir ici un titre historique et nettement localisé
sur les eaux du Lopphavet : c'est la concession, datant de la fin
du xvr~m.siècle, d'un privilège exclusif de pêcheet de chasse aux
cétacésaccordéau lieutenant de vaisseau Erich Lorch par diverses
licences qui démontrent, entre autres, que les eaux situées dans
les parages de la roche noyée de Gjesbaaen ou Gjesboene et les
lieux de pêchey attenants, étaient considérées commerelevant
exclusivement de la souveraineté norvégienne. Or, on constate que
les lieux de pêche ici viséssont constitués par deux bancs dont
l'un, Indre Gjesboene, est situé entre la ligne de base et la limite
de pêche réservéet,andis que l'autre, Ytre Gjesboene, est situé
plus loin en mer et au delà de la limite de pêcheétablie par le
décret de 1935.
Ces anciens titres de concession tendent à confirmer la thèse
avancée par le Gouvernement norvégien, que la zone de pêche
réservéeavant 1812 était en fait beaucoup plus étendue que celie
qui a étédélimitéeen 1935. Elle aurait embrassé tous les bancs
de pêche d'oùla terre était visible, le rayon visuel étant, comme le
reconnait le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, le principe de déli-
mitation en vigueur à cette époque.La Cour estime que les données
historiques fournies à l'appui de cette thèse par le Gouvernement
norvégien, bien qu'elles souffrent trop souvent d'un défaut de
localisation précise, donnent un certain poids à l'idéede la survi-
vance de droits traditionnels réservésaux habitants du Royaume
sur des lieux de pêchequi furent compris dans la délimitation de
1935, tout particulièrement en ce qui concerne le Lopphavet. De
tels droits, fondéssur les besoins vitaux de la population et attestés
par un usage fort ancien et paisible, peuvent êtrepris en légitime
considération, dans un tracé qui, par ailleurs, apparaît à la Cour
comme étant resté modéréet raisonnable.
Quant au Vestfjord, sa délimitation ne présente plus au terme
des débats oraux l'importance qu'elle pouvait offrir dans les
premières phases de la procédure. La Cour ayant reconnu aux eaux
de 1'Indreleia le caractère d'eaux intérieures, les eaux du Vest-
fjord ne peuvent, comme les eaux de tous les autres fjords norvé-
giens, êtreconsidéréesque comme des eaux intérieures. Dans ces
30it is devoid of any mathematical precision. In order properly to
apply the mie, regard must be had for the relation between the
deviation complained of and what, according to the terms of the
rule, must be regarded as the general direction of the coast. There-
fore, one cannot confine oneself to examining one sector of the
coast alone, except in a case of manifest abuse ; nor can one rely
on the impression that may be gathered from a large scale chart
of this sector alone. In the case in point, the divergence between
the base-line and the land formations is not such that it is a dis-
tortion of the general direction of the Norwegian coast.
Even if it were considered that in the sector under review the
deviation was too pronounced, it must be pointed out that the
Norwegian Government has relied upon an historic title clearly
referable to the waters of Lopphavet, namely, the exclusive
privilege to fish andhunt whales granted at the end of the 17th cen-
tury to Lt.-Commander Erich Lorch under a number of licences
which show, inter alia, that the water situated in the vicinity
of the sunken rock of Gjesbaaen or Gjesboene andthe fishinggrounds
pertaining thereto were regarded as falling exclusively within
Norwegian sovereignty. But it may be observed that the fishing
grounds here referred to are made up of two banks, one of which,
the Indre Gjesboene, is situated between the base-line and the
limit reserved for fishing, whereas the other, the Ytre Gjesboene.
is situated further to seaward and beyond the fishing limit laid
down in the 1935 Decree.
These ancient concessions tend to confirm the Norwegian Gov-
ernment's contention that the fishenes zone reserved before 1812
was in fact much more extensive than the one delimited in 1935.
It is suggested that it included al1 fishing banks from which land
was visible, the range of vision being, as is recognized by the
United Kingdom Government, the principle of delimitation in
force at that tirne. The Court considers that, althoügh it is not
always clear to what specific areas they apply, the historical data
produced in support of this contention by the Norwegian Govem-
ment lend some weight to the idea of the survival of traditional
rights reserved to the inhabitants of the Kingdom over fishing
grounds included in the 1935 delimitation, particularly in the case
of Lopphavet. Such rights, founded on the vital needs of the
population and attested by very ancient and peaceful usage, may
legitimately be taken into account in drawing a line which,
moreover, appears to the Court to have been kept within the
bounds of what is moderate and reasonable.
As to the Vestfjord, after the oral argument, its delimitation
no longer presents the importance it had in the early stages of the
proceedings. Since the Court has found that the waters of the
Indreleia are internal waters, the waters of the Vestfjord, as
indeed the waters of al1 other Norwegian fjords, can only be
regarded as internal waters. In these circumstances, what-conditions, la différence qui subsiste entre le point de vue du
Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni et celui du Gouvernement norvé-
gien est minime. Elle se réduit à savoir si la ligne de base doit
êtretracée entre les points 45 et 46 fixéspar le décret de 1935
ou si elle doit aboutir au phare de Kalsholmen sur Tenholmerne.
La Cour estime qu'il s'agit d'une question de caractère local et
d'importance secondaire dont le r6glement doit êtrelaisséà l'État
riverain.
Par ces motifs,
LA COUR,
rejetant toutes conclusions contraires,
Dit :
par dix voix contre deux,
que la méthode employée pour la dClimitation de la zone de
pêchepar le décret royal norvégien du 12 juillet 1935 n'estpas
contraire au droit international;
par huit voix contre quatre,
que les lignes de base fixéespar ledit décret en application de
cette méthode ne sont pas contraires au droit international.
Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au
Palais de la Paix, A La Haye, le dix-huit décembremil neuf cent
cinquante et un, en trois exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposé
aux archives de la Cour et dont les autres seront transmis respec-
tivement au Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne
et d'Irlande du Nord et au Gouvernementdu Royaume de Norvège.
Le Président,
(Signé!BASDEVANT.
Le Greffier,
(Sigtu) E. HAMBRO.ever difference may still exist between the views of the United
Kingdom Government and those of the Norwegian Government
on this point, is negligible. It is reduced to the question whether
the base-line should be drawn between points 45 and 46 as fixed
by the 1935 Decree, or whether the line should terminate at the
Kalsholmen lighthouse on Tenholmerne. The Court considers that
this question is purely local in character and of secondary import-
ance, and that its settlement should be left to the costalState.
For these reasons,
THE COURT,
rejecting alisubmissions to the contrary,
Finds
by ten votes to two,
that the method employed for the delimitation of the fisheries
zone by the Royal Norwegian Decree of July ~zth, 1935, is not
contrary to international law; and
by eight votes to four,
that the base-lines fixed by the said Decree in application of
this method are not contrary to international law.
Done in French and English, the French text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this eighteenth day of December,
one thousand nine hundred and fifty-one, in three copies, one of
which will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others
transmitted to the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Bntain and Northern Ireland and to the Government of the
Kingdom of Nonvay, respectively.
(Szgneù) BASDEVANT,
President.
(Sagned) E. HAMBRO,
Registrar. M. HACKWORT jge, déclare souscrire au dispositif de l'arrêt,
mais désire soulignerqu'il le fait pour le motif que leent
norvégien a, selon lui, prouvé l'existence d'un titre historique
sur les espaces d'eau litigieux.
MM. ALVAREe t Hsu Mo, juges, se prévalant du droit que leur
confère l'article 57 du Statut, joignent à l'arrêt les exposés de
leur opinion individuelle.
Sir Arnold MCNAIR etM. READ,juges, se prévalant du droit
que leur confère Sarticle 57 du Statut, joignent à l'arrêt les
exposés de leur opinion dissidente.
(Paraphé) J. B.
(Paraphé) E. H. Judge HACKWORT dHclares that he concurs in the operative
part of the Judgment but desires to emphasize that he does so
for the reason that he considers that the Norwegian Govemment
has proved the existence of an historic title to the disputed areas
of water.
Judges ALVAREZ and Hsu Mo, availing themselves of the right
conferred on them by Article57 of the Statute, append to the
Judgment of the Court statements of their separate opinions.
Judges Sir Arnold MCNAIR and READ, availing themselves of
the right conferred on themy Article57 of the Statute, append
to the Judgment statements of their dissenting opinions.
(Initialled) J. B.
(Initialled) EH.
(including the text of the declaration of judge Hackworth)
Judgment of 18 December 1951