Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Judgment of18December 1951
United Kingdomof Greats br;Britainand Northern Ireland Mr. J.E. Read-appended to the Judgmentstatementsranof
againstNorway. theirdissentingOpinions.
By a Decreeof July 12th. 1935,theNorwegianGovern-
ment had,in the northernprlnof the countly(northof the
ArcticCircle)delimitedtheuwe inwhichthefisherieswere
reservedtoitsownnationals.'meUnitedKingdomaskedthe
Court to statewhether thisdt:limitationwaslorwra notcon-
traryto internationallaw. In,its Judgment theCourtfound Thesituation whichgave riseto thedisputeandthe facts
that neitherthemethodemployedforthedelimitationbythe which ]precededthe filingof the British Applicationare
Decree,northelinesthemselvesfixedbythe saidI)ecreeare recalledintheJudgment.
contrary to internationallaw;the first finding is abypted The coastalzoneconcernedinthedisputeis of a distinc-
ten votestotwo,andthesecondbyeightvotestofour. tiveconfiguration.Its lengthasthecrowfliesexceeds 1,500
ThreeJudges-MM. Alvalez,Hackworth andHsuMo- kilometres. Mountainous alongits wholelength, verybro-
appendedto the Judgment ;2declarationor an individual kenby fjordsandbays, dottedwithcountlerisislands, islets
opinionstatingtheparticularreasonsforwhichtheyreached and reefs (certainof whichform a continuous archipelago
Continued on next pageknownastheskjaergaard, "rock rampart"),the coast does waters. The drawingof such lines doesnot constitute an
notconstitute,as it doesinpractically allh~erountriesin exceptiontoarule:itiisthisruggedcoast,viewedasa whole,
the world aclear dividingline betweenland and sea. The thatcallsforthemethodofstraightbase-lines.
landconfigurationstretchesoutintothe seaandwhat really Musttherebea maximumlengthforstraightlines,ascon-
constitutes theNorwegiancoastline is theouterline of the tendedbytheUnited Kingdom,exceptinthecaseoftheclos-
land formationsviewedas a whole. Alongthecoastal zone inglineofinternalwaterstowhichtheUnited Kingdomcon-
aresituatedshallow bankswhichareveryrich infish.These cedes that Norway has a historictitle? Althoughcertain
havebeenexploitedfrom timeimmemorialIbythe inhabit- Stateshave adoptedtheten-mileruleforthe closinglinesof
antsofthemainlandand oftheislands: theyderivetheir live- bays, others haveadopteda different length: consequently
lihoodessentiallyfromsuch fishing. theten-milerule hasnotacquiredthe authorityof a general
InpastcenturiesBritish fishermanhad made incursionisn ruleof internationallaw,neitherin respectof bays northe
the waters near theNorwegiancoast. As a resultof com- waters separatingthe islands of an archipelago. Further-
plaints from the Kinof Norway,they abstainedfromdoing more, the ten-milenile is inapplicable asagainst Norway
soatthebeginningofthe 17thcenturyandfor300years. But inasmuchas she has alwaysopposed its applicationto the
in 1906British vessels appeareadgain.These:weretrawlers Norwegiancoast.
equippedwithimprovedandpowerful gear.Thelacalpopu- Thus the Court,confining itselfto the Conclusionsof the
lationbecameperturbed, andmeasures were takenby Nor- UnitedKingdom,finds that the1935delimitationdoesnot
waywithaviewtospecifyingthelimitswithinwhichfishing violateinternationallaw. But the delimitationof sea areas
was prohibitedto foreigners.Incidents occ~~rredb,ecame has alwaysan interni~tionalspect since itinterestsStates
moreandmorefrequent,andon July 12th.1935theNorwe- otherthanthecoastalState;consequently,itcannob tedepen-
gianGovernmentdelimitedtheNorwegianfisherieszoneby dentmerely uponthewill ofthelatter.Inthisconnection cer-
Decree.Negotiationshad beenenteredinto bythetwo Gov- tainbasicconsiderationsinherentinthenatureoftheterrito-
ernments;they were pursuedafter the Decreewas enacted, rialseabringtolightthefollowingcriteriawhichcanprovide
but withoutsuccess.Aconsiderablenumber ofBritishtrawl- guidancetoCourts:sincethetemtorial seaiscloselydepen-
then thatthe United KingdomGovernmentinstituted pro- dentuponthe landdomain, the base-linemustnotdepart to
ceedingsbeforetheCourt. any appreciable extent from thegeneral directionof the
coast: certain watersare uarticularlvclosely linked to the
land formationswhich dhide or sirround-them (an idea
whichshouldbe libers~lyppliedin the presentcase,inview
oftheconfigurationof'thecoast);itmaybenecessarytohave
regardtocertaineconomicinterests peculiartoaregion when
theirrealityandimportanceare clearlyevidencedby a long
TheJudgmentfirstspecifiesthe subjeo ctfh~deispute.The usage.
the four-milelimit claimedby Norwayhas been acknow-sue: Norwayputsforwardthe 1935Decreeastheapplicationof
ledgedbytheUnited Kingdom. Butthequestionis whether atraditionalsystemofdelimitationinaccordancewithinter-
the lineslaid downby the 1935Decreefor thepurposeof nationallaw. In itsview, internationallawtakesintoaccount
delimiting theNorwegian fisherieszone have or have not thediversityoffactsandconcedesthatthedelimitationmust
been drawn inaccordancewith international law. (These be adaptedto the spe:cialconditions obtainingin different
lines, called"base-lines", arethosefromwhichthe beltof regions. The Judgment notesthat a Norwegian Decreeof
the temtorialseais reckoned).TheUnited Kingdomdenies 1812, as well as a numberof subsequent texts (Decrees,
thattheyhavebeen drawnin accordancewithinternational Reports, diplomaticcorrespondences )how that the method
law,anditrelieson principles whichitregardsasapplicable ofstraightlines,mposedbygeography,hasbeenestablished
tothe presentcase. Foritspart, Norway,whilstnotdenying intheNorwegiansystemandconsolidatedbyaconstantand
that rules do exist, contendsthat thoseputisrwardby the sufficiently longpractice. The applicationof this system
UnitedKingdomarenotapplicable;andit fdrer reliesonits encountered no opposition from other States. Eventhe
own systemof delimitation whichit asserts 1:obe in every UnitedKingdomdidnotcontestitformanyyears:itwasonly
respectin conformitywithinternationallaw.'fie Judgment in 1933thatthe UnitetiKingdom made aformaland definite
first examines the applicabilityof the principles put for- protest. And yet, concerned with maritime
wardby the United Kingdom, then the Norwegiansystem, questions, it couldnot havebeen ignorantof the reiterated
and finally the conformitof that systemwithinternational manifestationsof Norwegianpractice, whichwas so well-
law. known.The generalt~sleration of the internationalcommu-
Thefirst principle put forwarby theUnite.dKingdomis nity therefore showsthat the Norwegiansystem was not
thatthebase-line mustbelow-watermark.Thisindeedisthe regardedascontrarytointernationallaw.
criteriongenerallyadoptedinthepracticeofStates.Thepar- But, althoughthe 1!J35Decreedid indeed conformto this
ties agreeastothiscriterion,but theydifferasto itsapplica- method(oneof the findingsof the Court), theUnited King-
tion.Thegeographicrealitiesdescribedabovew , hich inevi- dom contendsthat certainof the base-lines adoptedby the
tably leadtotheconclusionthat threlevantlineisnotthatof Decree are withoutjustificationfromthepointof view ofthe
themainland,butratherthatofthe"skjaergaard", alsolead criteriastatedabove:i.tis contendedthattheydonotrespect
to the rejectionof therequirement thatthea:se-lineshould thegeneraldirectionofthecoastandhavenotbeendrawnin
alwaysfollow low-water mark. Drawn betweenappropriate areasonable manner.
pointson this low-water markd, epartingfronnthe physical Havingexaminedthesectorsthuscriticised,theJudgment
coastlineto a reasonableextent, thebase-linecan only be concludesthat thelinesdrawnarejustified.Inonecase-that
determinedby meansof a geometric construc:tion.Straight of Svaerholthavet-what isinvolvedisindeedabasinhaving
lineswill bedrawn acrosswell-definedbays, minorcurva- the characterof a bay although itis divided intotwo large
turesofthecoastline,andseaareasseparatingislands, islets fjords. Inanothercase-that ofLopphavet - thedivergence
andreefs,thus giving asimplerformtothe be!itofterritorial betweenthebase-lineandthe landformationsisnotsuchthatit is a distortion of the general direof the Norwegian thatof the Vestfjord-the differenceisnegligible:thesettle-
coast; furthermore, theNorwegian Government has relied ment of suchquestions,whichare localin characterand of
uponan historictitleclearly referableto the watersof Lop- secondaryimportance,shouldbe leftto thecoastalState.
phavet: the exclusive privilege to fish arid hunt whales Forthesereasons,theJudgmentconcludesthatthemethod
granted in the 17thcentury to a Norwegiansubject, from employedby the Decreeof 1935 isnot contraryto interna-
whichit followsthat these waterswereregardedas falling tionallaw;andthatthebase-linesfixedbytheDecreearenot
exclusivelywithinNorwegiailsovereignty.In athird case- contrarytointernationallaweither.
Summary of the Judgment of 18 December 1951