MÉMOIRES, PLAZDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES
VOLUME- II
ExposL&rits(kuiti)
INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORALARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS
FISHERIES CASE B a
VOLUME-II .Tous droits résenrkspala
CourinternationadeJustice
AU rightsreswved by The
International Coof Judçe
Nu de vente:
Salesnumbe~ 85AFFAIRE DES SECHERES
(ROYAUME-UNI cNURVEGE)
FISHERES CASE
(TINITERINGOObIv.NORWAY) COUR INTEFCNATIONALEJUSTICE
AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES
VOlLUME II
Exposéédts(suite) INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
PLEADIhTGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
FISHERIES CASE
(UNITED KINGDOM v,NORTiETAY)
JUDGMENTOF DEGEMBE18th1951 PREMIÈREPARTIE (slsii~)
PIÈCES DE LA PROCÉDURE ÉCRITE
(suite)
PARTI (CO&,)
DOCUMENTS OF THE WRITTEN
PROCEEDINGS (cont.)3.-REPLY SUBM~IITTEB DY THE WVERNMENT OF TI%
UNITED KINGDOMOF GREAT IBRLTATN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND
Pages
3m
3w
PART t-GENERAL AND HISTORICAL CONSmEaATlONS
Prcliminary . . . , . . , . . . . . . . .
Gaieml conimenk an khe fisheriesofftlicrlcirthimcwasts
of h'mway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .
RBorivgian regulntionsrelatingta coastal hshinga. . . ..
ProhiEiitiori of whale fiçhing off Nonvegian emstf; . . .
Limits forpilrposes of ncutraliky . . . . . . . . .
Thepcrid hm the Rescript of rgrz ta rgùd . . . . .
Ru~imexrmrtieipation in dshing. OR Finnmark . .. . . .
Exchmgc of nutcs -ruttFrance on the suhjec1: of the
Vestfjtmi , , a ............
The Dtscrees oi~6thbctober, as@, anci gth Scptcmbcr,
1889. . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . .
NonvegiiiillcgislatiitonncerninhDghale fiskng a.d. 1. .
The Worth Sea Fishirig Convention of rS81 . . . . .
Baçc-points for thedelunttation of the territoriasm .
I*'orwegian kliitilcgislation . . . . . . . , . .
warwcginn ul~tn~nsIegislatig~i . . . . . . . . .
Britishnotes ofe1906andeil1908concerning kberies ' , .,
Discussions atthc Institote of I-ntmational LAW . . .
The sltuation in 1306 . . . . . . , , . . , ,
The peribd irom rgti6-rgr8 . . . . . . . . . .
ThcntLoudhRobevls (rgfr)06 . .. . . . .. , .. . .. .
The Territorial Waters Commission (r~x) and the Rap
port. rg12. . n . . , a , . . . . . . . .
From rgr3 urtil the ciidof the rsrq~rg1S IilTar. . .
The pentodfrorn rgr8-tg35 . . . . . . . . . , .
l'he situation aftsrr thrgrq-rg:18 \Var . . . . . .
The con%-ersationr oftw4-z5 a . . - . . . . . .
Ihm 1925 to the Hague Confwmcc, 1930 . . . , .
The Dezauthlanrl, Loch T#wido?i and St. Jzsst . . . .
Hi~t~iy of the dispute tram 1930-tg33 . . . , . .
bpplicati~fi nfthe Rnyal Uecree of 1935 . . . . . kagrapfis Pages
'Theperiod afier 1935 . . . . . . - - . . . - . 96-roa 385
Evpnts w'bseqiient trrthe Royal Decree of 1835 , . . gd-ror 385
AYT~~J and wamings. . . . . . , . . . , . . 102 388
Conclnsion ofPart L . . . . . . . . . . . . - . 103-rog 38 8
PART IL-THE APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONALI=AW
RE-EXAMINE0 IN TKE: LIGm OF TRE NORWEGIAX GO-S
COWENTIONS IN THE COUNTER-MEMORTAL
CHNATIONAL T.-MARITWIC~ LAWEVO:UTION OP INTER- Paragraphs &gcs
'.
Intraductory . . .', . . , - . .. . . . .
Wistoricai review aiinternational maritime law . .
Thtwentieth-centuryd t.c . .-m. . li.i-. . . ..the ea,1.
Norwcgian axgumenb . . . . . . . . . , + .
Rescarches ofRteshd . - . . . . . .. . . .
Rcsearches of hstad confirmed by thase of Walker .
Obsolescence of the cannon-$hot rde . . - . . .
Wide acceptnnc of the 3-mile Limit , , . . .
The results ofthe rg30 Coderence . . . . , . . , 1x7-12% 398
Gidel-poviewwthat tthey3-milehmle representsmithe lowest 1x7 39s .
cmmw measnre of ~greement . . . . . . . . Ir8 399
Claims in excess of he miles reqiiireassent of a th es
st;ites . . . . . . . . . . * . * . * . - =19 400
Vtews of Swdisb and Daniah Gw~mmenb in regard ta
claims in excess ofestablishd limits inthe Baltic . IZQ 400 .
Norway's dsinterprctation ofthe signrficancofthefailure
helevancergoithequestions of. seden- hsheries . ah «ie 121 4or
cmtinenteit shclf . . . . - , . , . . . . . . r2ra 401 .
' Gençral femarka on State practice sirice1930 , . . .
The ~00-miIe sscurity mne bf the Amexican r-epublim
(X~JQ) . . . .. . - . . . . . . . . . .
Ciairns tehting tû the conkinentalçhelf .., , , * .
Clairns by certain Latin-Amsrican Stats . . '. . . .
- The failureof thehe1930 Conference fhasenQtsaffcctd the
validity of the haditional system, , . - , . . .
'Nowregian argumentthat moderntechnique ha considerably
danged thenature ofthe problem , , , . . , . .
Norwegian argument , . '. . . . . . . . . . . ,
lncrease in the range of guns . . . . - . . . .
The development of trawling . . . . . . . . . .
High seas fisherieare a common heehge . . . . .
Innatilthe~uililateraextension ofierritorial waters. is the
realsol~ftbn . . . . . . . . . . . . . aNorppegianargumwit, etc.[cantinuql} :
Pa.ragrrrphçPages
Freedom nf navigation on the hi& seas arid of aght
througli the free aispatc above those seasare basic
principleç af international laThe undne extension of
territoridwaters by States aecessarily invulvcs the
limitationofbooth these freedomç . . , . , . . 137 4r2
Sedrmhr y fisherieas an exceptiontbfie fnxdam ofhigh
seasfishaies ............... 138 4r3
~arw&'s &mudation ofthe prhdple detcrmîrhg tbe extent
of aState's coastal watersand the reasons why thiçfor-
miilationisdefectlve ............. 139-147 4x4
The Horwegian fornula of "legiwate intmests'" ... x3~-144 4x4
The Territorial Waws Jurisdiction L\d,1878 .... '45 417
The Unitcd Kingdom lis consistentlp proteskd sgainst
extensions of territoriawaters keyond the 3-mile limit 146 4x9
Rasons qhy thc Norwegian Govermat's forrnubtian is
defective ................ 147 ' 4"
CHAPTETI 11.-WEWS OF TETEUNITED KINGDOM
GOVERNMJTh'T CONCERNIEG THE PRINCIPAL
LEEAL ISSUES IF! THIS CASE :
Attitude of thc Uniid Kidgdom Govonirnent wlthregard
to thc h'mwegian clam to a 4-milclimit ..... r@-xp 42x
United ICingdom view a5 to thproperlimit ofNorwegiaa
territoria1watm .............. 153 4'3
UnikdKingdomv~ewthatthelegalvalidi~of&ebaçe-Ji ,n-
ofthe Royal Decree of 1g331sthe saleissueh Uie prescnl
casc ........... ...... r54-~5 424
The functibnof theCourtindaidhg Nmal;'s baçt5lhes r57-159 425
_Ilrticle38(13{b] Ofthe Stahte of the Çmrt: and "inter-
natienal mwrn a3 svidence~ ofcnpm.1practiteaccepted
as lad' ................. I60 426
Çeneraliiy of the gractice acceptecas law . . , . , 161 42?
The right ofa Stateto ilissent from a tustomarrirleinot
absolu* ;mnnt muçt be taken of .the rights o#ie
internationdcomrnunity. .......... 6-64 423
Diiration and tontintuty of the intt?ttiatiwacustom . 165 429 -
Mode ofestablishlng a rde of cusfomasy law ..... rm-r67 43r
The vie% ofLord Almtme . . , , a , . , , r66 43=
United Kingdom view *katparkiculartreatiesare cvidence .
of çustomary law ............. 167 432
Dtpretratim by Nùrway of the work of the 1930 Con-
fercnce ...........:..... 168 43%
Waç condisicatiofofinternationaliaw'th tmk ofthe rg3o
Conference ? ............... I@-173 433
ResuItç rrfthe r930 Conference ......... ~73-174 435
. Valueof the tvork ofthe rg30Conference as evidence of
existing law ............... 175-179 436The fundamentai nile offha tide markand itsegceptions .
Effcct of thc findamental nile .........
The Nmegian argument that neitlrerthe methadof the
"tracé p~rall&lc" nm "the envelqpe af the arcs ofa
circle" methwà are applicable to an hdcntcd coast .
The characteris~cç of the "Nonvegian method" ...
The "headland themy" and international 1aw ....
Condusions on basc-lincs ...........
The relation between the fundamcntal rule of, thotide
mark aria its exceptions ...........
Prellrninz~q rem=& ............. 210-214
The prcgumption againirt mcti-ans on thc sovacignty
ofastate. ............... 215-2174
A pfçsumptioa id favour tif thefredam tif the seas . zr8-222
The problem of definition ............
The width ofbays ..............
Non~cgian egrirnetxtdt&at na nilcof intwrutivrrd law
haa been eçtablishecl, eitherbeiore or after 1910,
governing the width of bayç ........
-3inetmiith-çent fi~hing cosventionsand neg~tiatiuns
Treaty practiceiçmare eliabIe eviùen&than unilateral
acts uf policl;..............
United Kingdom interprehtjon of Er-ty pmctice suy
pbrted by the work of Icarned socieiesand of R;t?stad
Inconsiskency ofBritish practicc in theninetccnt ck -
tuv 15 not dsnied , but therc is nothing surprising
about ths inconsistacy, nor is itof any assistaTice
to hfonvay in the present case ........
The 10-milerulç inthe pcriod up toad incIuding the rgro
Arbitratibn ...............
The case of the Iÿasniqton (~853-1854) ....
Mclc by ProfeWr Basdevanton Eht 1910Arbitiati~n
The United Kingdom does fiosay that iithe ninçtccrith
centiv thçrc was arulc limltirigthe widtli of bays,
birtthat during tliat tirnmch a rulewas'rlevdopiag
The iirst Bristol Channelcase; Regina v. Ctmraingham
(r85g) ................
The Atmkain Raimdary mse (rgog) .......
Çtaternent by Lord Fitzmaurice (1971 ......
Canelusions to be dratun from the rgro Arliihfion . ,
Norwegian cornplaintthat ifithe Mernorial the United
Kingdom Govament paid insufiçien attentioa to
the sgro -4rbitration ...........
Esçentialfeature~ of tthergro Arbitrath ...
The Er~tisli argument in the rgro kbitratinn ....
The 1910Award ...... ........
The ro-mile ruleforbays afk the lgxb Arbitratfon .
\Vide aectiptance ofthe xo-mile ruJe . , - - . .
The bkkek .............
La ChCie, ...... ........
Thc Heiwich A%agtdsta:rs.........
The! second Bris.toi Cliarincase; Tlic Pagcrum (rg27)
The casa cited byNorway are consistentwith the10-miIo The practtce n£States ............
Opinions of nriters ............
Remlna+ion of the cvidence cstablishing tlio final &mer-
gonce ofa TUteofcustoniarq- law restricting the wi<lthof
territorial baystn ru miles rn wdiriary cases , - .
1s the ro-milc rule tlepcndsnt on the 3-~ailc rule ? . .
?Ti@"rçasonable discemmcnt theor." .......
Thcra-mile rule as a rulc of customary law , , . .
Stirnmaryof internatidna1 laiu reiatitig tbays ...
Mands. rocks and banks .....p....-.
Preliminaqr obs~rr.;ttions. ......-..m.
Norwegim tnpme~it tikt the United ICingcltlnrnn the
Jlemorial paid innufiicienattention ttnearly author-
itics regardin the efieci:of~~iand ws kiiebelinc
of the tcrritrrriel ...........
Azuni .............m..-
Ortolaii ................-
Calvo .................
Tard Çto~&l's judgmcnt inthe tase ohthe -*ma (180s)
The sessionofthc Institnte 01International Law in 1894
Arguments of the 'United Riiigdnrn Gat-erninent in the
hfcrnorial reaffirned ...........
A.-Tn&aiuidaak isbarsd~s m,ks and Iiavaks .......
Nom-egian criticism .of Unikrl Kiagcion~ definihan of an
islarid ...........-- ..
Tlie problem of Iaiir-tide elevatioris.. , ....
'ale United Kingdom repeatç its vic~vthat tlieproblem
has oiily attiacted attention ivifhin çotnparatlvely
.remnt tirne ..............
Law ciff~ctm'opitiiw cancerning Grext ttmier Reef
(7875) .... , . , . - ...
Xortveglnn legal opinion in the nineteerith ccntury .
The Hapc Conference (1930) . ......
Di&iricti~~ hct-wmn crvastalad OC- gro~ps ....
,Vms international law ,recogni anc mcqtionai rL3irn~
for coasta1 groups of islands? .........
Rcmarks as ttoordcr of katment ........
The evidetrce QIState practiticequeskion of thc oriter
~iimnçland ....... : .......
Cook IsIands . , .m..........
TlieGovernm~ntç of ush ha liaand New Zealand crinciir
in the kext of paragraphs 3'3-3" abave ....
The Fijifs1mds. ..............
I British Honduras .............
Nonvcgba misufiderstanding of the argument of Cbm-
miysioner Upham in thecase of theWaskiT1oh (13 j3-
~854) .... ............
The North Sea ~isherie Conuefition (x8&) . , . . ~PLY OF THE UNITED RINGDOM (28 XI 50)
296
Fishaies Agreement betwwn Great Ritain and Ger-
4my (r874) . . . . . . . . . . . a , .
Thc North r'kthnücFisneries Arbitration (zgro) . .
Snmmaty uftheseivemprecedwtsand ,ni.ed. .t.te. .r87,) .
The Fnban Cays . . . . . . , . . . . . .
-!CheBmudas . . . . . . . . . , . . . .
, Thesahama Banks , . . . . . . . . . . .
Jarn~ica . . .. . . , . , . . . . . , .
The United Stata and the Çuban, Cays . . . . .
'Sne Florida Keys . . . . . , . . . . . . .
hlevance oftliese precedenk ta the main issue of thls
case, which isthc long hqc-lines bwn bp theX$35
Decreealong ihc wter etlgcof the: fringe. , , ..
Modern preeedmts cwicenied with cbastal acbipdagciç
The Alaknn Boandary hrbitra~aa ((rgu3). . . .
Frmch Decm f~r Xew Caledonin (E~LI} . -. . .
Danish, hforwegian, Swedish and Finnish decrees ,
Treaty of Dorpat (1920) . . . . . . . . . .
Ndsingfors Liqnor Convention (1925) . . . . .
Iranian Law of 193% ? . . . . . . . . .
The Ecuadw 'Decrcc af rgjB . . . . . . . .
Ile Saudi-Arabian Decree of ~gqg . . . . . .
Summary of prcceümts invokeci by Nmttiy . . .
Writers md thleHague CodificationCanferen~ . .
Writers . . , . . . . , . , . . . . . . .
nie Hague Codification Conference (1930) . . . ,
surnmary ofUnited Ki~iingdom vicws on thelaw mting
b a~chipelngos . . . . . . . . . . . . .
htrductory . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .
UmCed Kingdom vie- concdng Strait scriticism of '
thesn views hy Noxway and the Uuited Kingdom's
answer '. . . . . . . . . . - . . , , .
Rel>vaters o.sh*h . .n . .e d;f.rm. .tio, .f . . . .ial
The qi~estionwhrthef a chmael is a lepl &rait is
dctermined by ge~phical tests exclusiwly :am-
nomic consideratmnss u,h as thc amount ofuser by
shipping, are only relev.mk in conneçJiozi iviththe
question ~hether a legrtlstraitisais0 an international
hr,,egian, argument. that there is no generalmle. gov-
erning ~Waits . , ,. . . . . . . . . , , .
Territorial watm in dts-Tho Hagitc Codification
Conference (rg~a) . . . . . , . . . . . ,
TmYitorial waters in strait_eThe Y~~TVSof Gido , .
Straits-Views of United Kingdom Govemment . .
Straits-Thee HarvardbihResearch hfk, (rgzg). .. . ..
Straits-The Pr4& of the Institute of International
Law (r894) . . . . . , . . . , , .<.
Strats-Skiternent by kretary WMrton (r&r} . . me ruies of inkmational law with rewd *tothe delimi- .
tation of territorialwatets in sinits . . . . . .
Straits-Remarks w to order of treatrncn t* . . .
Grotitrç,Vaikel, Hall, Kent, Phiiîimore and Hershey .
CaIw . . . . . . . . . , . + . , , . ,
ThecnSbaitxBrofiKaimardura. . C.ok. . . . . .slands. .
The Baltic . . . . . . . . . . . , , - .
The Straits ofMagellan . . . . . . . . , . .
The Sbit of Tsougar . . . . . , . . . . . .
The SheLikofStrait. Long TsImd Soand and khe Skait
of Juan de Fuca . . . . . . . . . . .
.Shaib-Rre Hague Codifiation Conference (1930) .
Zhe Indrelcia Route . . , . . . . . . . . . .
Summary and mndusians of Chapter II . . . . - . . 394
C~WTER III.-NORWAU'S KT'I'EMpTEDJUSTIFI-
CATION OF HER ALLEGED SYSTEM OF BASE-
LINES :
The diwmltp of situations andthe iï&biKty ofthe lefl pnn-
cipIes to be appliedto thtm . . . . . . . . . . 395-404
N'wtooarigid.m.nt. . c.at,t.e ,ni. . Ki. .am.ys. . . i. 395-3gG
-h'ariveg.iaarpimen+ç sgainçt uniformity bmd on the
Hague Codification Conference, rp3o . , . . . . . 397-402
General h'orwegian argument thxt uniforrnityin inter-
iintional law is not feasiblo. . . . . . . . . . 402-4a4
Exceptional charactar ofthe case of Notway . . , . . 405-4 1
Views of Gidel . . , . . . . . . . .'. . . . 465-407
Views of Boggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
PrcUdc definition of ofcaastisanly nessary when. the
dellmitatiun ofcoastalwaters departsfmm the gencdly
accepted rules , . , , , , , , , , . . . . 4W
Views of Jeçsup . . . . - . . . a . . . 4x0
Summary of the vicrwi of th- d&rs . . . . . . 411
Inconsisten nietheNmwegianattitude . . . . . 412-4x .A
Essential characteristics of the"Horwegiansystem" . . 420-421
Even if there is a "h'orwegian system," the 1935 Decree
doesnot conform to it . . . . . . , . . . , 422-425
Horway's rdnctance to mdrb knoivn her "system'? , 436
Nomegian argument that other States lrnew of and
acquieçced in.the "'h~ozwegian system" . . . , , 427-42'1
Bwhshermenrgu,en.s - -ad . . -n the. a... . . . .gian .
The effectroffrawbg and thesi~ificance of the Conver- 430
sations of ~324-25 . . . . -. . , . . . , . . 431 Pages
Namay's claim td an historie tiit......... 000
th6
The true fartifinofthcrulmof cuçtiOtmry law c6nceming
the Bimits omaritime krritciryand tiie theoryui historlc
waterç is tm expres the jgeateçt coinmon nieasnrcof
,agreement am origstState, ..........
~hs principal function ofChe th~ry of hiçtoricwatm is
tasupply the want of expres- evidcnçe of the acquit%-
ccncc of other SL'ctes ...........
Narwcgian argument ihat national usage, withont the
acquie~ccnce of other States, issuficicnt to coriferan
histbfictitle ..............
. Shto ~rrnctica ....-..........
lklaivare Ray ..........'....
The fint Bristol Wiannel casc: Regigrav. Giin~iti~liarn
(1859) ...............
'nie Cortception Bay c~ (1877) ........
Tliecapture af The -4Ek:axowm inChesapeake Bay (~885)
'ïhe.4laskakaa Roundary Arbitraiion (rgoj) ....
The North Athnüc BisheriesAsbitratLon (~qro). ..
The Gulf ot Fonsea case (1917) ... ; ....
Conclusio aske drnwn fram these pecedents . .
Opinions of jurists ..............
-cYorrvegi.argument that: the theory ofllistoncwatm
Iras iiever been applicdim,isolat iutn ody inton- .
junctiomuFith 0th- considcrations ......
Work of the In~titute of TntcnatttianaI&au1 in r8g4
and 1928 ...............
l170xk of the Yntmational Law Association in rgz6 .
The Harvard Xesearch Draft (19291 .......
. R*st?ad. ................
Faachillc ................
Gicle1 .......'.... ,.....
The ivork of the Hague Codification Canfemice [rgso) .
-Rble and scope of the theo. ofhisbric watcrs ...
Norwegian argument.th~t the theory ofhistaric waters
isa supplenienhtry ratherthan an independefit theory
Naîwegian qirnmt thntthe theory of historiewaters
isnot limitedtabqs, with which CheUnitcd Kingdom
ames ................
Proof ofan hiçtorictitie ...........
Thc btrrden of pmof is on NQTW~~ ........
The quetien whethcr assertionofauthmit y byone Shte
issiificientto cstablish an historidaim or wlietlier
proof ofacquiescrinceby uther States 1salsorequired
An histnric htletn an nm of senisacquhed byprescrip-
tion, notby occupation ..........
Extcnt to ~~liich acguicscenc meust be geieral; efiect
ofmere proteski .............
Pwther comidcratimis dative to .the acquisitian ofa
htle to anas of çea by prescriptioii......
-4ck of private individaals-are nntsufiçicnt ta give a
titlebp occupation to the Statewhose nationais they
are .................Norway's daim to an histotie title (oontinncd): Paragraphs
Tue exfent ofNorwa!rJc:hlstoric titIe ....... 488-510
Gmgaphical, econoniic and scçuritr; ~wsidcratiorls , 48s-qS9
?Xe Royal Decree051935 isnot ailahml conçequcncc of
the gccgraplhp of Norway ......... 49-4~2
Economic conuiderations do notjustify theextension of
the maritime temtmy of Norivay kprind the normal.
limits of.hisbric waters .......... 493
S~cnrity considef-dtions daRot justify thcextension of
tlieinmîtirnc temitor? of Nortvay beymd htr 4-milc
liinît and her fjords and Sarids .......
Geographical, wotionüc and secunty consideratons may 484
influence other States in deciding to acqnicvce in
exetpional clairn,:but itk thc ricqureçccnccnfother
States. rnthcr than the gaographical, economic and
recurityconsiderations thcrnselves,that is dgnificant
from the point ofvieivof giving vdiditp toanhistmic
claiin ......- .......... 495-496
Cribcal analpis of Honwy's Iiistoriclaimx .... 497-5x0
Summary and canelusians af ChapterIII. ...... Sr€
Articleby Professor Bingham ......... 512
Recognition byUnitcd Kingdomof Nottlray'shistfiririglit
to a 4-mile maritime klt and t.ofie waters:withn lrer
fjmcls and sunds ............. 513
Apast from tho m@zod mcptioiis offjords and sunds,
theprirnwy rnle of the de mark should apply . . jr4
Cliartsnt hnm 35 ............ 515
A.-TIehil dcwriptioliof the pcrekerlgrccnlinshoirn on
the chartsin Anriex 35whiclr, acwrding to theconten-
tions of thc Guverriinerit of tlie Unrtcd IGngdorn,
farm the wutsr limit ofNotiiregianterriturial, waters.
(This liiie sho~rlnot be conftiswi withthridifferenL
green lfneshown on the Norwegim charEsin Annex z
ofthc Counter-*icmnrial) .......... -
B.-The peclced bluc line (ha fisking tiniiclairned bq-
Nomay), as coinparcd witli the pccked geeii lin*
shm on the charts in Aancx 35 ......
PART ZII.-CMIMS FOR DAMAGES
Claim by Narivay foramaga suffkd by =fusal of the
United Kingdom ta recognizc the va1idiZyof the 1935
Decree ................. 5'6 722
Clainiby Unitcd ICingdominrapn-t 01the asrcs tf the
Teuuana' .................. 5x7 72'
PART IV,-LTST OF ANNEXES ....... - 724
PART V-ANNEXES . . . . . . . a . . , - 726 z.' TheNonvegfanGovernent inits Coiruter-Memprialhas sub-
rnitted tothe Court a lengthy statement of factsbearing upon the
present dispute and ofthe applicableinternational law. Inaddition
to submitting to the Court certain additiond data, largely of an
hiçtoricalnature, which are peculiarly within its knowledge, the
N,owegian Governmetlthaç put fomd objecüons and criticisms
. of the principlesoflaw setout intheMernorialof the United King-
dom and has advanced certain principlesofitsown. The present
Reply wilïnot attempt to examine in detailaU ofthe statementsof
. factanttdommtssubmittedbytheN~rwegianGovernment,rnany
- of wlzich,though providing a usefuI and sametimes a necessary
background,are not disectly relevant tothe legalissueswith which
the Court is concerned. In Part 1 it will deal with the general
luçtorical antecedentsof the preseh tase,replying tothe conten-
tions,so far as bea-ringupon the case, contained in Part 1 of the
Coiinter-Memurial.In Part IIthe Goverment ofthe U~rnitcKding-
dom will.replyto the Noswegian arguments on the lawboth inSV
Tarasthese criticize thposition t;lkeby the United Kingdom and
as thq setoutto establish positive contentioinfavour ofNorway. a
In Parr IIIit will rely briefly tthe pagraph on damages in
:. theCountw-Memorial(pm.577).
2. It may be convenient to summarize at the beginning of this
Reply what appear to the Governrnent ofthe United Kingdom to
be the principalissues inthecase.The Nonvegian Government con-
tends thaiunder international law Nomay is entitledtosovereignty
over al1the seawhich is delimited under the Royal Decsee of 1935
and thai in particularshe is erititled to reseidlfiçhing Enthose
waters ta Ncinvegian nation& and to exclude therefrom fishemen I
of Britishand otherforeignnationality. The questionis whetherthe
Goverment aithe United Kingdom is obliged to accept this Nor-
. wegim clah with Itsconsequent exclusionof British fishermen
from the area. The question theseforeiswhether, under the rules
of internationalilawthe United I<lngdm and otfieforeip Powers
must recognizethese rmte~sas Norcvegian waters.
(a) The firstprincipalissue in the case may therefore be de-
scribed asthe "questionof the burden of proof". The Norwegian
Counter-Memarial , greatpart of whichis devoted tsan attempt
to prove that there is iittle nointernational laiv regarding the
limitsofterritoriaand internalwaters, putsforwardra$her unmd
contentions with regard to the burdenof proof. Xt contendç that NorwayEs entitIedtodalm sovereignty overany areasof seaexcept
in so faras the United Kingdom establishes thatkhere aremiesof
custornary law binding rirNiomag limiting this ~ightThe Couriter-
Mernorial argues that itiçnot the case that the Governent of the
United Ringdom 3s orilobliged to recognize md accept Norwegian
daims to sovereignty over the çea to the extent that Nonvay can
show positively that mstornary andother des ofinternational law
binding on the United Kingdom entitle Normayto sovereigntyover
those waters. Inbrief, Nonvay contends that the burdenof proof of
general rules of internationallaw is on the United Kingdom.
Nonvay pufç fom-ard her argument with regard to the hnrden of
proof on two grounds, of whch the firstisthat the Decree of 1935
isan actof wvereignty andthe presurnptionis alwaysin favour of
the validityof an act of sovereignty.Tliereply of the Governent
of the United Kingdom te this grorindis that anypresumptionin
favour of the validikyof an act ofsovereignty oniy applies to acts
which are taken withia a sphere which is inclisputably withnthe
sovereignty of the State taking them, for instance,wjthin its own
undisput ed natiorial'territury, awhere in consequence the issueis
whether thai SState'sfreedom of action (ordomestic jmisdiction)
within that sphere haçbeen limitcd bysonte treaty provision,or by
some exceptiand.rule of international. laiv, hitingits freedom of
action within a spherc which in principleis within Itsjurisdictiun,
Therefo~, the presurnption haç no application to the ptesentcase
when the whole issue before the Çourt is whether the waters to
which the Decree of 1935applies are or are not underNonvegian
sovereignty. Nortvay's second ground for her contention is that,
when an issue arisesas to wk&her an area ofwaters isterritorial
.watersor high seas, the presumptiori.isaltvaysin faveur ofState
sovereignty or, in ather words, in favorxr of territoriawaters as
against the common rights of the community of nations over the
high seas, Tr, thiçthe United Klngdom replies that, in the
place, itisquestianable whether there can be sâidtolx my burden
of proof at al1asregards the demonstration of the general des of
international law, tvhich are matters within the judiciaf. cogaizance
of the Court, and, in thesecond place,to the extent that ifcan be
said that there,iany burden ofproof, the presumytion israther in
favms ofhigh seai and the rights of the ciornmiinityof nations
ratherthan Infavour of territoriawatersand individualState soves-
eignty, The question ofburden of proof içdiscussed exclusivklyin
Part II ofthiçReply, principallyin paragraphç.ZIO-222.This que%
tion of the burden of proof is one of the threenain issues before
the Court.
{b) Thesecondmain &sue beforethe Court iswhatarethe general
. nxles of internationallaw with regard tu the lirnits afterritorial
vaters. hTortvay formulates her contention very sirnply in para-
graph 242 ofthe Conter-Mernorial, and it may be paraphraçed as
foUm : A State'smarithe territory iç r~strictedtadjacen taters,
namely to those waters which may be çonsidered as accessory
to the land. Waters açcessary ta the land are those waters
wlzichthe costal State has power to appropriate or ocçupy
artciinregad towhich itlegitimate interests justjfy its appro-
priation. +
This datement sums up Nonvay's view of al1 the prtivisians of
idternationallaw with regard totenritoriawaters. According Eo the
view of theGovemment of the Gnited ICingdom,the des ofinter-
national 1aw with regard to the limits of territorial mn.aters,~vhich
are set outmore hlly in paragraphs 61-122 of theMernorial,may
be very briclflysummarized asfollo\vs:
(i ) State isentitledta a,bdt ofterritorialwaters of a certain
breadth-the generally arceptcd limit isthee mires-but
h'onvay has an kistoric orprescript t,leto a beltof four
miles.
(ii} The belofterritorialwaters must be measured from a hase-
line which, subject to certain exceptions, mnst follrimthe
IOIY-W~~~ X ark onthe land,
(iiiWhere there are bays or similu indentations of the CO&
(whatcver name. these iridentation~ have) which are of a 1
certaiii Çharacter.ani1w-herethe are islandsoff thecoaçt,
, there arerulesof general international law whichpermît the
base-line of territorial waterto cese iofollow low-rvater
mark an the land and to enclose as national waters certain
areas ofsea,
(iv)-4State can only estabkh a titletoareas of sea luhich do
not corne witl~iinthese general rules ofternational1am? on
the basls of anI~iistoroxp~scriptive title,
I
Thc United Kingdom contends that thedaims made in the Decree
of 1935 do not corne wl.thin the geneml rules of international law.
All the United Kingdom arguments with regard to this second main
question before the Courtare f~und in Part f1 ofthk Repl y and in
particularin parapphs 180-20 b9elci~v.
(c)The third principal question befare the Court is as 'tothe
extent to whichNonvay bas an historic or prescfiptive ttolclah
as hforwegian waters areaç of sea which are not covered by the
gened rules ofinternational law, and which zre encloseclhy the
1935Decree. The United Kingdom adrnits tliat Nonuay hm a
prescrptive titleto a four-mile bdt, and to a number of fjordsor
sunds whichshe could not daim by the general mles ofinternationaZ
law. Further, the United Kingdom admits that Nom~ay May have
a p~wcriptive tifle toare% of sea measufed from certain base-lines
established by the Nnrivegian Decrees o1869 and 1889. These areas
of çeaare situated off portions of the Norwegian coast whicli lie
between Bergen and Trondheim, ~vell south ofthe area whiçh içthesubject ofthe caseat presmt befofe the Court,which begins roughly
with the Vestfjordand continues northandeast as faras the frontier
of the U.S.S.R. The United Kingdom maintains that Norway can-
not justify the mas claimedby the 1935 Decree on the bas& of my
prescriptive title and disputes that Norway has acquired a pre-
scriptive tifle90 daim territorial waters alongthe whole of the
Norwegiancoast rneisured from base-linesdra'u~non thesame pin-
ciplesas the Dwrees of 1869 and x889, and maintains further that
the Decrëe a£ 1935 does notfoPtowthe sme prinçiple asthe Decrees
ofr869and 1889 . or~mjfcentends that she has apracriptive kitle
-toallthewaters covered by the 1935Decree.The principal relevance
tothe issues before theCoud of Part 1 of this Reply, Part 1 of the
United ICingdarnMernorial and Part 1 of the Nom~egianCornter-
nleaorinl isto the cpestlon af the facts nccessary fotheestablish-
ment of anhistoric or prescriptive title, But this question is also
dealtwithin regard to the law applicablemore hriefly again in
paragraphs 571-57 o3 Part II ofthe Nonvegian Gounter-Mernorial
and Iri paragraphs488-509 of Part II of this Reply.
The chief differecebehveert theParties asregards the legalprin-
-ciplesapplicable tothe acquisition of an historictitle isthat the
UnitedKingdomcontends the= aze CNOessential elernentç,namelyr
(i)Actual exerçise ofautborityby the claimant State;
(ii) Acquiescenceby other States ;
whereas Noway argues that the second elment is not essentid.
The chicf di£fe~ençktween the Partiesas to theinference to be
dram from the facts is that1vhera.s Norway maintains tliat the
Royal Decree of 1935 is arnere application of prinçiples tvbhave
always been part af Nonvegian law andpsactiçe, the United King-
clam denies this and contends tliat Norcvay had not hefore 1912
developed any &finite theoty with regard to the merisurement of
Norwegian territorial watersand tht between xg~2 and 1935 $hg
had, and acteclon, rlifferent theories.
z A. The actual area of sea in dispirtein thiscase is thatlying
betiveen the pecked blue lines and the peçked green lines on the
chartsfiledas Annex 35 to thiçReply, AIthoughthe argumentsof
the Particsrange over almost every aspect ofthe law regarding the
liruitofterritonai andinterna1 waters tvhich a Statc May claim in
thesea adjacen tt itscoasts,iniaçt the issueIs Nonvay's daim to
nreasureher territorial waters fromlong straight base-lines clra~m
hetween,the most advanced headlands or islets or semi-submerged
rocks in a manner for whiçh the nearest precedent is the ancient
'and long-abandoned cIciimof England's Stnart Kings to the "King's
Chambers". 'RBPLY OF THE UNITED EINGDOM (28 XI 50)
304
PART1
General and histofiml considerations
3. The main objective of Part 1 ofthe Counter-Mernorial is to
demonstrate that the Norweggianlegislatiun withregard tofiçhing
limits has foiio'c~rt,roughout a long and 'continuousperiod of
years, a progressivedevelapmexlt, based oncertain dehite prln-
cipleç of an l-iistonature,which principles are saito have been
successivelyworked out h the variousdecrees from 1812 to 1935
inclusive. Thess prhciples,itisdegcd (paras. SI-SZ,57. 63 and
80-goof the Nmvegian Counter-Mernorial),aç WU!asthe legîslative
enactrnents inwhich they have been expressed, have throughout
been bmught tu the noticeof and have in factbeen well known
to interested foreigxPsbvers, including thUnited.Kingdom, and
have mot bem disputeù uritithey were cded in questionby the
United Kingdom in differences leadingup to the present case.
nie purpose of thisdemonstration may be said tobe, in general
terms, to establish the historicnature of N~rwegian claims to
exclusive fiçhing rights ithe waters mncerned in thiscase, thus
providing the iacts necessary ta establisha contention (which is
pursued inChapter III (Elof Part II of the Norwegiari Cuunter-
Memonal) that inIawan histaric titof this character hasbeen
acquiLcd. Zn partiçulslrthe endea~our is made (set païticularly
paras. gr, 174, 177-18f ofthe Norwegian Counter-Mernorial) to
justify the Roy& Decree of 12th July,x935, the subjeqtmatter of
these proceedinp, un the grounds that itrneselycarri= out these
weU-established and recognized principlesand that the Nonvegian
Govemment, in enactingthe decree,was not dep&ing in any way
from a.corne of legiçlative action which she'bad evidentlybeen
hlIawing for over a century.
4. The Government of the United Kiiigdorn wiU seek on the
contrary to show that, with the exceptionof the daim that the
breadth of territorial wattis4 miles,which the United Klngdom
considers asestablished, ithe case ofNonvny, on histaricgrautids,
and with the further exception of certain fjords and srinds, an
historic title towhich, within due limitsjthe United kgdom
is prepared to çoncede, tlienecessaryingredients to estabIish an
hiçtoric titto areas encIosedby the 1935 Decree arenot prwent,
or at lut haveno1 been proved by the Gounter-Mernorial.Further,
before 1935, Norway had rieither explicitly nor hy implicatioi
laid down any principlefor the fixingof fishery Iimits (territorial
nratess)which waç applicable tothe ana in question in the case.
Such legislation asshe had paçsed in 1869 and 1889 related tci
different portions of,the coast and was of a strictlypracticalline. These (which wiiibe smarized in the nextfollowing para-
graph) are of importance frorn tu70points of vieiv.
The firstis that these differences demonstrate the impossibility
of applying to the Nçinvegian coast as a whole any special nite
(differing from the rulesgene~dly applicable mder international
law) aIIeged tobe justified by any specialor "legitimate" require-
ment of Noway to protect her fishing industry. Thipoint is well
illustrateiby Gide1in a passage in which he compares the advan-
tages of cmtml by international agreement witk the arpents
advmced bythose who, likeNormay,seek todeal with the problem
by an extension of territoriawaters. Dealing with the latter argu-
ments he says (op ~it.Vol. III, pp.302-303) :
. u Cessolutions ne sauraient 8trretenues non seulement pme
qu'elles portergent atteinte A des situalions sCcdaintéressant'
de nombreux Etats, mais parce qu'euesne peuvent être qu'arhi-
trairesIl esten effet impossible de prendrd'une façon générale
laJimitedn plateau continentacommelimitede lamer territoriale,
continental s'&end jusqu'aux fondsedeazoo mètres,elaeIimitede
zoo mhtresn'ayant kt6adoptkcqueparce qu'ellecorrespond environ
SIzoobrasses et esthabitudltrnent marquéesur les cartes marines.
Assez rapprochéesde certainescdtes,leslimitesdu plateac onti-
nental s'enéloignentdeplus de deuxcents kilomètresdans d'autres
régionsd'Europe. Lesdonnéesphysiquesdatives Ila configuration
des fonds ne sauraientdonc fonrnir par elles-memeslasolution à
la question desavoirjusqu'à quelledistance iconvientderéserver
la peche.aux nationaux.n
The seconùis that thetoastoffMarewhichforas the areacovered
by theNonregian Decrees of 16thOctober, 186.9,and 9th Sep-
terriber, 1889,Mers markedly fIom the rest of the coast and
padicularly §mmthe coasi of Finnmark.Whatever p~ciples may
thesefore have been applied in the enactrnent of those decrees (a
matter whrch wiIlbe examine$ in detail late~IIfhis Reply), these
are not suitablefor applicationto the rest of the Norrvegiancoast,
nos can the Decree of 1935 pmperly be justifiedas the.Counter-
Memorialattempts.toju~tifyit~asaIùgicdapplicationof those ,
principles.
6. The signifiant featuresofthe Nnnuegia6coast which illustrate
the argument put fornard in. the preceding paragraph are as
iollows : a
(a) Mile it is true that the grmter part of theNonvegîan coad
present tse features described in paragraph 13 of the
Counter-Mernorial, that isto Say, of rocky peaks ernerging
fsom the surface oftlie~eaandthus forminga '"kj~rgaard",
this içnat tsue ofa subçtantial portion of thecmst of Finn-
mark. Eastward of North Caple (lat. 71" 08' N.), there is
no "skjargaard" lying of£the coast, and the coast beyond308 REPLV OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XT 90)
of Gounter-Mernorial), but it'idsear that locai fishermenwere pre-
pared to goasfar as40 milesfromthe toast toçeek suitablegmunds
(para. 20 ofCounier-Mernoriai). Fhallythere are cestain important .
fishifiggroundç heqaented by foreign trarvlersto which zeference
is made in the Çounter-Mernorial (para. 22),namely, those on the
Svençgrannen (lai. 35' N.) and Mdangspunnen Qat. 70"N.)
which are a considerable distance from shore {see PknçifialFwcis,
figure6, p.16).It is significatotnote that these particular grciunds
are nottvithinthe area covered by the Royal Decret;of 1935 though
that dec~eein many places does indude areasmany milm €rom shore.
S. The folIowing further observations may be made oncertain
matters refemed tointhis part of the Counter-Mernorial :
(a)The suggestion seem to'be made in paragraph x4 O£ the
Counter-Mernoria lhat there is a particular vanety of cod
found andfished off the Norwegian coast-presumably as the
basiç for an argument that specid protection is required for
this breed. In fact there is littlfoundatlon for any such
. suggestion. Making experimcnts carricd out by thlefisheties
authorities of theUnited Kingdom ancl other couritries have
shown that cod fram al1the main regiom migrate from one
rcgion to anlofher,hex 24 of thisReply çontains a chart, .
based oninformation derived from Ui~ited Statcs,Canadian,
Ne\vfoundlmd, Danisli, Norwegian, German and United
Kingdom sources, which shows the resnlts of the experiments
condncted and the wide area ofmigration. I
(y Paragaph 17 of the Normegim Counter-Mernorid contains
the statement that English fishermen were obliged todirect
their activitiesto the more distant fishing ban& (i.e. thme
lying off the Norwegian coast) by reason of the decline of
pmductivity of the Nortb Sea banks. This staternent is only
partialiy tme *md may be rnisleading. In the frsst place,
Engliçh fishermen have sincc arly times (seeparas. LI and
14 of this Reply) frequented northern waters not on account
of ariy exhaustion of the North Çea banks, but in order to
obtain certain varieties offish, partiçularly cod, which are
not obiabable inthe North Sea,Secondky,although it istme
that there has been a clecline'intheNorth Sea resources,t-liis
isnot-as mrtybe implied Isythe statement above referredto
and also Iriy a sentence in paragaph 534 of the Co~inter-
filernorial-due exdusively or even rnainly to the activities
of English fishemen. From theearliest tirnes iishinin the
North Sea, and indeed off Ehccoasts of England itself,has
been freelyopea tu fishermen of al1nationsand itsresourçes
have been explniteclby Diitch, Fench, Dariish, German and
other vcsselç to an extent as least as pst as by English
ships. Comspondingly it is not only English vessels which
have resorted to the nasthem waters offthe coasts of Norway REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDON (28 XI 50) 3O9
and beyond :these waierç-as is recognizedby paragraph 23
(a) of tlreCounter-Mmorial-have from early tirnesbeeii .
freqi~entedby Russian, German, Dutch, Icelandic and other
vessels.
(c) In paragraphs 22-23 of the Counter-Mernorialreference is
made to the ewnomic importance of the hhing industry in
the lifeof the inliabitanis othe Norwegian coasts and par-
ticularlyof Finnmark. 'SheGovernment ofthe United King-
dom atonce admit-,as it has alwxysbeen readyto recagnize-
the essential dependence of the inhabitants ofFinnmark on
fiçhing, At thesame tirneit feek justifidinpointing to the
vcry substantial place which fishing-andpartidarly fishing
in the n~rthern watersoffNonvegian coaçts-oocupieç in the
economy of Englisk ports. At tlie three principalfisports
of Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood, the estimated popdation
whoUy engagedin the fishing industryis 88,ooout ofatotal
population of 415,ooopersons. h 1949,560 trips wre made
by Britishvesselsto waters lybgoffNonuegian çoastsrvhich,
on a basis of anaverage creivof 21 and anaverage voyage
of 24 days, represenisan expenditure of 283,000 men days,
There isno dciubtthat any substantid reductiwnin the facil-
ities fofisliinin theseareas would result iserious unem-
ploymivntand hardship among the populationconcerned.
(d) The Govemment of the United Kingdom does not acçept the
correçtness of the statistics containecl in parag23h(a) of
the Çounter-Mernorial whiçfi purport to show firçt that, in
1937 ,ritish trawlers made2,000 trips tNorwegianwaters
offFinnmark andsecondlpthat the lnndingsof6sh byforeign
vesçd:lfa exceeded those made by Worway. The records
maintained by the Fisheries'Departmentin London slio\vthat
in 1937 Bdish traders ma& ody 296trips inthe waters in
question-as against the figurofahout 2,ooo allegedNore-
over, the cornparison of the total catch fishby British or
Germasi trawlers in1937 with therNonvegi condlandlngs is
rnisleading, From the table ahttached(Annex 251,which is
abtxined from the Balletin statàstiqzte,it appears that in the
years 1935, 1937andrg38 Noruq lmded more cod than ail '
the other nalionswhose catches were recorded, andthe same
was true ofthe total catchof demersd fish (i.e. fish rvhich
live atthe bottom of them).
g. Itmay be convenient,inthisportion oftheReply, ta dealyvith
an argument ivhich is impliciir certain portions oftheGounter-
Mernorial and isby implication invoked inthe recitalsof the1935
Decree itçelf, thaErawling assuch represents aserious menaceto
the productivityoffrshin the waters lyingofthe cciastof Nosway
and that there'is animminent danger that thex resourcesmay be
depleted (see, for example, paras. 75 and 536 of the Countex-
Mernorial),thus :(a) Amex 26 of this Reply reprodnces a chàrt, prepased by a
group of fishingbiologistsof latent marine fishery resources
showhg the major stocks believed to he underfished in ~949.
This chart was prdiiced at theU.N,E.S.C.O. Conferenceon
Conservation and Ecoaomic Utilization of Resomces held at
Lake Success from 17th August-6th September, 1949- On this
chart the Arctic-Norwegianstock ofçod is shoivn as under-
fished.
(b) One of the moçt eminent Nçinvegian fisheryshentids, Gumar
Rollefsen,in adocument piibIished ithe Rapportand Procb
Verbaux of .EheInternational Council for the Explorationof
the Se&(Vol, CXXII) dealing with the productivity of Arctic-
Nonvegian cad, said:
"We cannot demonstrateanveffect on the stock from in-
creased fishingbefore the war ; also It cannot h deman-
stratedthatthersrlrrced fishingduhgthemarhad any effect'",
and he shuwed that the productivity of this type of cod
depended tlpon fertilityfactors related to partiçdar age
goups of fish sather than upon any hcrease or decrease in
fishing intensity. This document isreproduced at Annex 27.
(6) Comparing the fishing methods of Britisli (ando-kherforeign)
tm~vlers and those of Norwegian fishermen, it is relevantto
note that, wheteas British fiçhermen divide their effort
hetween the waters offthe criatsof Norwayand more diçtant
arcas (e.gthe Barents Seaj, the whole of the Nonvqian
effort isdeployed against the cod of the Nonvegian Coast,
mainly against the spawning stock. If the Norwe@an author-
ities considered that therewas anyreaI threat to the pro-
diictivity ofcod inthese &as, it would be open tothem to
directthat airincreaçedprop~rtion ofthe catch of Norwegian
fishing vesselshoulilbe taken from the çompamtively more
distant waters.This is infact what Isdnne by English fisher-
men in relation to the cospawn,ing grouads offthe Yorkshire
coasts of Englancl.
Further, the method offishing practisedby British trawlcrs
is considerablymore restricted thm that comrnody used by
Norwegian fishermen. British tratvlerçmake use of a tra~il
hvhichmorksonthe bcsttomof the sea; tbs can ~nly be used
in certain suitablc.areasand alço anly takes fishfmm the
bottom. Nrinvegiah fishermen on the 0th hand usea method
of fishing byhe~ which caritakc MI at any depth and over
types of bottom rrotsuitable for tracvlerCod, in particuIar,
are not always found atthe bsttom :inthe Lofoten area they
areho~m taseektvaterof a suitable temperaturewhich may
often bcfound -rd1 above the bottom- ,
(cl) The question how fat trawling isdeleterious to the fis'hiag
grounds has been under:examination recently inNorway,the Nonvegian GOY ernment having in 1947 set up a cornmittee to
. enquireintothematter.Thereport ofthiscommitteelfmds
that,there isno sufficientproof from the records of antecedent
periods that trawling damages the fisheries-the poorpenod
having been from rgoo-1925 beforeforeign trawhng became
of major importance and a rich period from 1930 onwards
whcn trawlirrg was fully develripedin Nonvegian waters. It
propci~esthat Norwegian legislation regarding trawling be
amendecl in arder to permit an increase in this rnethnd of
fishing. Whereas, under the present law, concessians have
onty been pted to eleven Nonvegian trawlers, it is now
proppsedthat tha Goverment should have power to License
anunlirnited number. Thus, though for yeaxs there has ben
a prevalent md tenaciously held view of Norwegian fishing
interexts that trawling injured the fishing stocks and this
opinion was probably the principalcause of the 1935 Decree,
now-after the enactment of the decree reserving largefishing
areas for Norvregian fishingveçselsit appears that expert
opinion in Not~ay has, asa result of further study, xeacheci
the conclusion that thiçview \vasmmg, A translation of the
most relevant portions of the report of this cornmittee wiU
- 'befoundinA3lnexz8ofthisReply.
10. Another, though different, argument against trawlers is the
referencemade by Norway in paraamph 23 (a) of the Counter-
Mernorial to the damage allegedto be dane £0 thegeas of Nonvegian
fishermen by foreigntrarvlets. Such statements must, inthe opinion
of the Govemment: ofthe United Kingdom, be accepted witk con-
sidesable reserve.The areas in which there might be concentrations
'of cornpeting type of gclaris exceedingly smdl and great care Is(in
thch own interest) exercised ?>y trawler skippen to ensure that su&
damage is avoided. It will be appreciated that the period of the
greatest concentration in Norweginn.northern waters iç from Aprif
-Jurieya pesiod wl-ienthereis light fur 24 hou-rs and consequently
but little risk of"accidents, M.oreoverthe nature of the mcthods
ernployed rendes it unlikely that oppodunity forcollision mil1arise.
See the observations of the Nonvegian Ministry of Foreign Affale
quated in paragraph 431 below.TQdeai with such cases of damage
asmay arise,an agreement was conclnded between the twe corntries
in 1934 which provided for the establishment of boards in the two
cauntries to deal with clairns made by fisliermen of one countr~r
KoinitPcn.til nhdningav çp~rsm?il:m rasjonnlisering fiskcog fiskebf-
virkingenInnstilliornmdring avlovar-17mars 1939 on1fiskemebunnslcpenot
ItrM),ogonRedegj~rclscrm den mt~kefiskefihtkhllifogfremhdige utvilcling.
(The coniinittcc appointvdreportupon thequestional therationniimtioof
thefishiiiand fisli-proçec;sing indi:a report mncerriing the nmendment
of thAct of17th Mmh, 1934,mgasJingtiawling ana stateinenconcerninthe
situation of thNor~vcgian hshing Reet and hhre developmerit.) The corn-
mittce'rcport \vas datcd in RCI-gcnon ~8th Januaryjth FcEirii~~y,1949. RE~Y OF THE UNITET? KINGDOM (28 XI 50) 313
particu1.arlyfBritish,khemen toaccept such atternpts to exclude
them frornthemost distant waters isasconspicnous a feature, from
the sixteenth centq ontvards, of the development offisl-iiinthe
North Sea and adjacent areasasare the effortsof ripariaStates-
in particularDenrnark/Nonvay-to excludethem under the vmish-
ing rkgimeof mre clausuw. Itwould probably be correctta say
that in relation tothe coclstof Norway the movement tciwards
assertion of the doctrine of mue liher~m çprcad from Çouth to
North and, indeed,the northern regionsof Nomay, owing to theit
great distance £rom other countries, excepRusçia, were not gener-
ally acces5ible to fishermen £rom ather lands until the advent of
stem navigation, and did not represent any sericius ecoriomic
interest until the advenofsteam trading in the trmntiethçentury.
The arrival, offthe c& of Finnmark in the years immediately
preceduigthe firsWorld War, ofthe first steam trawlers,ç.reated,
for thefissttirne, in relation to this area,aproblem on the plane,of
internatiorzal law thelegaisolution forwhich camot be found in ,
historical anteceden of a time when this problem di$ not exist.
'Chisis sipificamtly shom by the order ofcvents leading to the
present litigation. I1906-19 r8whg began offthe est coast of
pimark (i.eeut of North Cape)and in IgIr the firsinc~dent-
that ofthe Lord Rober~s-occurrod. In ~g~z the Norwegian Gavern-
ment established the Commission on Territorid Waters. In 1922,
aftes the first Wodd War, trading was resumed and th% was
l folluwed by tlre Oslo and Landon Conversations of 1924-192 In .
1933 tra~vlingbegan offthe coast ofFimimark w&t of North Cape,
In 1935 theRoyal decree, adopting the fishg Airnitswhich had
beenrecommended by the Commission O£ 1912,was pased. In 1949
the present proceedings (aftersome negatiations and the interven-
tion of the second World War) were starirted,Plainly thdispute
involved isn5t me representing the cuhination of along historic
process but one arising out of a situationsewly cornelnto king
in 1906-190 Znvolving a confilctof intereçttvhich did not pre-
viously exis.
XZ,The Goverment of the United Kingdom wuld equdy not
dispute the general statements of façtcrihtained in pasagraph 28
of the Counter-Mernorial that fishhgwaç not, evenin early times,
cotlfinedtothe areas immediately adjacent tothe caasts.Na doubt
h'orivegim kherrnen, like tkosc of Scotland andits outlying islands,
engaged in fishhg at considerable depths for codand for otherfish
to the greatestextent mmpatible tviththejr availahle technicd
resources, The condusian docç not, however, necessarilg follow,
iior isitestablished, a stited at the end of paragraph 28 of the
Conter-Mernorial, that the area within which historicand pre-
histone fnshingwascarried mi coincided eten appraximatelp with
the arca.ofwater supe~imposedon any continental shdf.The most
that cm be establislieisa negative conclusion,nmely, that fis11-ing inthesetimes wuld sot be proiitablyconductedbeymd certain
defmite depihs.IIIfa& thereis nothing'wl~ichprevents alinefisher-
man frm fiskinginzny.depth of waterup to500 fathms (adepth
at which fine fishinghas actilally been carried on in Greenland),
13. Paragraphs 3~34 ofthe kunter-Mernorial setout the daims
which were made by th^ Xingsof Norwayin early times to exercise
stivereiptyover extensiveareasof sea and themeasures which were
taktn to exclude foreigners €romaccessto thoseseas. Th Govern-
ment of the Uiiite?. Khgclom does not dispute that these daims
were made- claims of the sme knd were,as the Counter-Mernorial
itselfpointsout,made by other couniries'A graphic luustration of
the extent of British claimdurhg the seventeenth century is pro-
vided by theFrantispiece to Fulton, The Smereignly of the Sen, ..
which shows the "British Seas" according taSelden as extending
up to fieCoast of N~onvayto a substantialdegretofncirth latitude.
(See dso Fulton, The Sow~eignty of th$Seu, pp, oz-1o4~ for the
claims made by Dee (1577 w)hich extended tothe midway line
between British and foreignierritorq.) Fulton (339) describes the
Scandinavian claim as "not ofgreat practical importance",
The period up to the sixteenth century was,as ha3 already been
stated, the characteristic perioof mare cbuas?tm before thisq7as
supersedecl,as In the course O£the seventeen thntury it was
supersedeci,by the rkgimeof mare Eibm~m.As Rb. ICoht, the Nor-
mcgian Minister of Foreign M'airs, put it inhis speech to the
çtorting of24th June, 1935 {Annex 52 of Counter-Nernorjal: -
"11 fut un temps oh iilroisde Norvége se consid&iaienseuls
maîtresde lamer septentrionalet pouvaient. interdame aaticms
hangkres d'y expCdierleiirs vaisseaux. Le dkvdopment des
&changesinternationaux,au poinde vue jkidique comme aupoint .
de vue économigue, a mis finA de teiiesprétentionset iln'y a
personne dais cepays 5 vouloirfermer lame.rseptentrionaiaux
marins et p8chems etrangers."
The restrictionsand prohibitions iinposedby various Stafes were,
moreover, not directly, sdely or even principdy against fiçhing,
but against tradingorcommercialintercouse ofmy kind including
the purchase orselling of fish. This appedearly from the Treaty
of 1465 (cited in para.32 of tlie Nanveglan Catrnter-Memmia'l)
betweeii King Christianof Denmark/Norzvav and King Edmard IV
of England rvl~ichprohibited "navigation in the directionof Ice-
land'" "landing and penetration in Iceland",and trading on the
coasts of Haalogaland andFinnmxk as rveU as from the ather
documents them referred to.If reference is made to these early
treaties, iis aswel to recallthat inaddition ta the Treaéies of
1432 and 1465 cited in the Counter-Mernosial in pangraph 32.
~vhichare assertedto hAvc put an end to English commerce in tlie
vicinityof Northm Nnnvay, there was also atreaty of 1490 con-
cluded bétween King John TI of Denrnark/Nonvayand the Engliçh King Henry VI1 by wkkh English subjects were granted libertyto
sail freely toIceland fortrading md for fishina,which treaty was
renewed in 1523. These doments arc, hotveverof nosignihcançe
atthe present tirne. It itme that Norcvay asserts thather present
clairns representa substantial reduction on her ancient daims (sec
forexample para. 44 of the Counter-Mernurial): but the same is
tme of the claimç of dl ot1ic;rnations, WhatIçrelevant and neces-
sary iç t4 ascerta atn\vliatpoint to-day the dividing lineisto be .
dmwn between the çIaims ofthe coastal'state and the daims of
otliersThis must be donenot by refcrence toancient legislation
mlating to a totdiy different rkgime but on the basis of the rules
ofmodem.international law.
rq. Asregards fisliinoffor near thecoastsof Finnmark, reference
is made in the Rapport 1912 (p. 134)to the "invasion" byforeip
fishermen (çpecificallyBtitis1and Dutch) of the waters ofFinn-
mark inthe sixteentli century forpurposes bath of fiçhing and of
commerce, As the report of the Prefect there cit~d shows, this
'Yinvasi~n"was of greatben& ta the local inhabitants,'te dont
semblent témoignerla population nombreuse existmt encetemps
etl'aisance généraledes habi,tmts, dont on trouve encoxe ici des
vestiges".
ltwaç, however, çonsidcred damaging to the Royal revenues and
the Kings accordlngly çougkt to prevent it. But the Goverment
ofthe United Kingdom does not regardit asby any means estab-
lished that the Norwegian Rings of the sixteenthçentury in fxt
succeeded in excluding English fishcmen from this area.No dûubt
forcible action was, from tirneto the, taken with a view to pre-
venting English fishingveçsels from either proceeding towards tlie
Arctic Sea,or trading in fisor fishingoffthese toasts.But English
fishermen persisted inappearing off theçe cozts inspite of eppoçi-
, tion- 'l'heagement of zznd Jttne, 1583 (cjted inpara. 33 of the
Counter-Memriride )ffcn, appears torepresent avictory for the
English point of viewsince permission WEE obtair-ied fopassage by
the Arctic Sea to Russian trading areas, unaccornpied by anv
agreement on the El~glish sidetc,refrainfmm fishing off the ~in6-
mark çoasts. And,aithough QueenElizabeth tvasprepared, in 1585
toenjoin her siabjects resortintoIceland and to Varda to conduct
thernselves ~veil,slatethe same time resisteda Danish/Nortvegian
daim that she should prevent them from fishingnear those placm
witl-rouspecial permission andindeed assertedthat they had the
rightto do saunder intematianal law (Rapport 1912,pp. 135-136.
See also Fulton,,p. rro). A11 these events took place in the last
phasesof the rhgrne of mare clmesrtm.The English maintained their
fishing expeditions (as isshow by the repeated efforts of Khgs
Frederick XI and Christian IV to stop them-see para. 34 of the
Chunter-Mernorial) and it \vil1be seenthatwhen, in 1602, negotia-
fions were opened between the two countries, the English repre-316 REPLY OF TRE UNITED KLIUGDOM (28 XI 50}
seatatîves put forwad and maintairied the coiitmtion that the
seas werc free Thesentgotiatkc man hardly be interpreted asan
abandonment of English çlaims to fishin thisarea and, in fact, the
Govemment ofthe Unitad Kingdom has noreason t.4believe that,
apart from whde fishing which was discontinued for a time undet-
anagreement made by King James 1, therewas any cesser of fish-
ing by English vesselçin the areas of the Pinnmark coast,At any
rate it isclear thatthe Danish Kin@ mere unable, in spite ofcon-
siderable effortsto exclude Dutch fisliermen from their waters. As
Fulton dates, 'Yhe effortsof Denmark to preserve a monopcrly of
fishing md trading in the Arctic Sea wereintermittent and inef-
fectud" (op, cit,,p.p8).
xj. The Goverurnent of the United Kingdom notésthe develop- .
ment of the Nonvegian tules as to ne~trality~as set 011tIn para-
gmphs 37-38 of the Co-unter-Mernorial, Xt is correctly stated in
these paragraphç that the edy sules relating to the limits cif
maritime territory, contained in the Rescriipt of 18th June, 1745
(the firstappearance of the Scandinavia lague of 4 mges), and
Lnsubsequent eighteenth-centiiry rescripts,wererde9 of neutrality,
but at a later date they became applicable for the delimiLationof
territorial waters generally. The Nonvegian Government does not
(in theund erstaridingof the United Kingdom Gavernmen t) dispute
the fact that exclusive fishing rights cannot be chimed antside
the Limlt of territorial waters. The Government of the United
Kingdom will refer later in this RcpIy to the Kescript of 1812
which, as admitted in prtragtaph38 of the Corinter-Manorial, was
not passed with an ,obje@ of defining fishing limits and was not
even published until r83o. (See paras. 22-24 below.}
1
Nomegiam regdiafions rekihg to cortstd JisJai~g(paras. 39-44 of
Coiinter-Mernorial)
I 6. The Counter-Mernorial in paragraphs39-44 setsout arrumber
of fxts and documents designed to illustratWorwegian customary
law, for the purpose of showing that areas or parcels of sea were
appropriated at variousbes for the exclusiveuse of cammunities
or individual fishemien. Whatever else can be said of the effect l
of thse régimes, itis ntitcorn& (as thefirsfsentenceof para. 29
of the Counter-Mernoria slays)ht a pBvate right of wwnerçhip
over portions of thesea was created similar to that existing over
cultivated lad. (See R~stad: Kongens Strom-wze,pp. 365-3661,)
Tliese paragraphscontain material bearing on two quite distinct
points*
For anextensivsum&ary of the instructiogivcn+tothe Eaglicih reprc-
seritativsee Fulton,Th Swweipty of IhtSeo,pp.rra-rxz(Aanex 3o othi~
l7eply)Fultofi descrithisas "anadmirableeqiositioofthe freedonbf the
seës".These rirthe negotiations referreintparagraph34 of theCciuntér-
Mernorial(Vol1, at the fmtofp.240). REPLY* OF T~~ UNITED K~C~OM (28 XT 50) 317
The Krst paht 1 isthat the local auth~tities, in various areas,
macted regulations of a police character designed to ensure the
orderly deveropmentand exploitati oofthe fishing gronnds. The
only relevance of this material to the present dispute would be
te show that the Norwegian authorities had from remote times
exerrrised "dominion'! or "nationd authority" or "jurisiliction'"
or "wntr07" or had "affimed sovereignty" over the areas now
indispute and so to provide evidence of their historic dahs to
such areas (secparas. 5431 545,546, 549, 560, 564 of the Counter-
Memasid), Under thisheading corne the vario~rs prohi bitions
(cited in paras. 41-42 of the Counter-Mernorial) against long-line
fiçhing on Sunday, fishinain certain SeasBons ,he laying of nets
andsirniIar mattcrs. With regard to these, t-cvobservations may
be made,
First, these regdations (which tvere oftcn macted at the request
of the local population or even by the local population itself)
have no hearing upon the question, what areas of sea were con-
sidered = appprop~iatedfor exclusive use by Nonvegfan suhjects.
It isçomrnon forlegislation O£ a replatary charader to be applied
to al1fishing operations whethcr or not these areconductad within
the areas reserved for Iüçd nuse.These replations areenforced
at least agakst nationals O£the country concerned bath within
and outside tlie hits of territorial water2. They afford no guide
as to thearea over which sovereignfy extends.
Secondly, there isno spccifikindication given in any case as
to the precise areas ta whicli tlieregulations in question were
applied. The only gesgi-aphicd expressions which are used are
general expressions such as"les lieux de pkhe leur appartenant"
(Vol.1, C.-hlemorial, p246, lineCI) "es eaux attenant a leurs pro-
priétesyrivhs" (ib.i lin.! },"lesLieux de pêche wmrnuns" (ibid.,
line g, line3r and line40) or, when specific pIaws are referred
to, a mere mention of the plam concernecl withont indication of
the distance to sea te whicli the legiçlation extends-thuç "dans
lajuridiction de Vkan" (ibid., rine~q), "la face atlmtique de
l'île deSenjn" (ibid lne 17). "le Nordland entier" (ébd,, ]me 22).
Szzchlegislationappars to have been of a lod charader applicable
more in thc County of Nordland than in Finnmark. Indcecl, .çvitti
regard to Finnmarlc it appearsthat there was no general legislation
applicable to fishing ofithe mas& of that province earlier than
~630 (see Rapport rgrz, p. 137, note 11 ,hce the exercise of
Isovereignty" or '"jurisdictian" or"authority" over an area is
1 As e.i;mplea af legisl~tircferencmay1ba madetatheLaw of1stJul y.
1967~rcgardin~orGsliinrith County ofRmsdal, ArticEr ofwhichexpressIy
atah that thlaw applies mlicttiw orfishuig tskcs glace wiwhloutsicle
Xomegiari +errttorwatet5;and tothc Lari- of zrst July,rgir, regarding the
nscofexplm$i~-esa.g@mt fish, -44ofcwhicli contains a similar proSeeiofl,
alsagaragraplt ofthe Couiitcr-&lIern~rial. 31~ REnY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 -XI 50)
one of the two necessary ingredients in the establishment of an
historie title(seepara. 476 below), the Norwegian- Government
has not in khisportion of the Gounter-Mernorial succeeded in
shawing that the:areamer ~vhicl~suçh exe~cisetùok place in these
early ymrs inçluded or coincided Mth the area mvered by the
Royal Decree of 1935 nor indeed that it extendcdto any particalar
areaat all,
The iveakriessof the hforwegian argument onmthls pointis well
illustrated by the staternent contained in paragraph 44 of the
Counter-Mernorial, Itis thereçaid that a nurnber of f&hg areas
which "from very amierit tirnes have indisputably formed part
of Nonvegian coastal fshei-jeand havc beewsubjed to Nor~~gim
ju~i~dicizon"are outside the fishing limits hxed by the Decreeç
of 1869, 1889 and 1935 . aking as an example the areas Xnvolved .
in the Decree of 1869, ifit were the fact that these svere areas
wkch had indisputa.bly ken subject to Norwcgian j~lrisdiction
from aricient tirnethis would, according to tlie Nomegian con-
tentions of law, have conferrcd upon Norway an historic titleto
these waters and wciiild have justified her exclusive clair tn
fishedes therein undm international law, Yet,as the Exposédes
Motifs ofthe rS6g Decree itse1.fmaks plain (se para. 34 below},
Nom-ay did not aE the time the decree was passed çonsider thaf
shewas justified under international Eawin clairning theseareas.
The inference-carianly be dra~a either that Nomay did not at
the time consider that she had 'exercisedjurisdictionover the
areas concerned, orthat she did not regard suchjurisdidion as
justifying a claim to anhjstoriç titleThe same observation may
be made with refermce to the Deçrec of1935, ~hich equally does
not include certaîn important gromds, fur example the Svens-
grunnen and Malangsgsumen (see para. 7 above) to which the
statekent in paragraph44 of the Counter-Mernoriaelquallyapplies.
17. The second point to which the material 'inparagraphs 41
and 42 ofthe Counter-Mehorial isdirected, is that certain areas
ofthe sea were by tustom or by positive enactment dotted for
the exclusive use of certain cornmunities or individuals. This
mouid, it issuppcised,be selied uponas evidence of "'occupation"
or of 'fexclusiveusageor of "monopcsly by Nonvegian fishemen",
~YhlcharE tjtated by the Counter-Mernorial to be other possible
' ingredients inthe establishment of an historie titi(seeCoiinter-
Memod, pws. 543 and 573). The Counter-Mernorial, however,
first makes nodistinctionbetween inàividualack of appropriation
by fisherrnen or by parishes for theiown benefit and acts of the
Nnwegian State açserting a clah to these are% asNomgian
national waters. Mere actions by individuals,unaccornpaniecl by
any Act of the State, codcl not of course confer upon Norway
any rights under internationallaw. Further the Gounter-Mernarial
contains little definite infornatias ta any precise areas whichwere involved or as tothe extent ofsuch areas, and certainly doeç
not eçtablishthat al1 oreven any substantialpartofthe areas of
sea clairned bythe Royal Decreeof 1935 were so allottedoccupied
or appropriatecl, The domment contalned in Annex 7 of the
Counter-hlemoriaI,. ipnrticular,which appas to referto an area
withia the Vestfjtird, makes no specificmention ofany limit to
sealriardto which the aliotted "parcels ofseaJ' were to extend-
onthe contrary, itmerely establishes certain seguhtions "as fat
inthe sea asthé continuous linesare moored'kithout indicating
liow far that may be. The document contained' Ainna 8 of the
Coufiter-Mernorial appears tobe directed asmuch against trading
in fishascrgainstactual fishing, but evenin connection with fishin',
it does no more than refer generalto "Nonvegian fishing grounds"
without speçifgingwhat these may be. Again the Royal Decree
of 10th December, 1698 i(,4nnex9No, r, ofthe Colinter-Mernorial),
sefers ingeneral termsto "parcelç ofsea dotted tothe continuoiis
lines ofthelocal Lnhabitants"or to 'thefishing grciands to theast
of Vardo". withelit specifying hoiv far these may extend. The
Ordirianceof 20th August, 1778 {Annex g, No. 3,of the Couriter-
Mernorial), prohibits the inhabitan ts of Nordland ham fiçhing
in "interior fjords"and "where the localinhabitants have pIaced
their Iines", This rnereestablishesthepriority of the lacal inhabi,-
ants in centainunspecired areasând is no evidenceof any excIusive
use, as against foreigners, ofany pmticular arex, The document
set out in Annex ro of the Cornter-Mernorial refers onlyta an
area same distance (ne=the modern Vndsol)inside the mouth of
the Varangerfjord, and appears to mention only two verv smafl sea
parcels on either side of the island of Vadsüy whoiich is oniy
5m metres from the coast,
No doubt in certain cases, mhere th eishing population was
nurnerous, fishermen from particularlocalities tmded b y custom
grounds, normdiy those neasest theirtuarespectivethabitations.-Ang
example ofthis isgiven in ThePrincifid Fact.?,page25, figure10,
in the Sunmore area. But even user of this kind by individaals
carinot in any event mount to occupation by Norway under
international law and rnoreover, exçeptperhaps for an areclinside
the Vestfjord (see P~ificipalFaets, p. 41, figureI?), where the
Norwegiari tifle is not disputecl, there is no evideofeany com-
parable situztion in the area çovered by the 1935 Decree. On the
coritrary,so far as the coasts of Finnmark were concernecl (as
appears to have been stated by a Govemmeat report of 1785)~
the localinhabitants of the Finnmark coastç couldntit aEtliitime,
for the mast part, reacli the fish off theicoasts since they were
concentrated too farfrom the shore, sa that these wcre collected
by khermen from Nordland andRussia. (Rapport rgrp, p. 123.)
The Nordand fishermensecminfact to have played a predominant
part in the fishing in Finnmark and the prosperity of that area seerns to have depmded Iargely upon their advities. (Rapport
1912 ,, 126.1
18. A point ofgreat sipificake which does emerge £rom eady
fishingcustoms isthe importance n~hich was invariabtyattached
by fishemen tu the obtainiag of "fixes"("med") on fixed points
on shore to determine the position of their fishing punds, Xtiç
obvious that in an age before navigational instruments were
generaily available-and indeed the same would be h-ue to-day
for the smaIIer individual fishemcn mhn could not afford to buy
them-the rnethod of taking an alinernenton shore woiiid be the
onIy practicable means of deciding tvhere any Individual boat
might legitimately fish. This is brought out in paragraph 39 of
the Counter-Mernorial which uses the words :
"La cornaissancedes bons alignements este ~ k tr&sprdcieuse
par le p6cheur norvégienet illa gardejalousement." I
And the same paint is referred to (a) in the seprt hted
9th November, 1791 [Amex xo of Cornter-Mernorial), which
defines theparce1of seato be ailotted to thePrefect by reference
to certain alinements there mentioned, (b) in the extract. from
the registerofcharges dated z3rd March, 2635(Amex 7of Cciunter-
Memorkd), which records a division according to dinements by
of the Geodesic Instituteiof7thMay, 1889, on anCwhich theeDecreet
of 9th Septernber,'1889, was bmed (Rapport 12,page 281, whïch
refersto certain fixes whiçh corilclbe ased for defining thelimit
proposed by the Commune of Bod.
adopted in Nonvay forly thetiden,tification and definitionfishing
$raunds but thatiE isa principlefar more dearly eshblished ancl
far more fundamental tllan any of the other altegedp~clples
upori.which later Norwegian legislation isnow said to be based. \
As has been pointed out inthe Mernorial (para,rzg) ,he Royat
Decfie of1935 has mdically departecl from this principle. In the
5rst place, the baselines adopted by decree are inmmy cases
a considerable distance fromthenearest land (forexample, bettveen
points 20-21, 27-28, 34-35 there ara points distant respectivzly,
16%8 ~and 73 miles from land) ; the outerlimiofterritorialwaters,
being fourmilesfuther to seantard,tvodd ofcourse be even firrther
from anyland. Secondly, the Norwegian Governrnent ifselprofessa
uo basethe 1935 Decreeupon quite different pri~~cipl(secpara. 62
of the Counter-Mernorial), one of which is that tlrere is no lirnit
tu the- length of the base-hes-which involves that the base-
lines may, ivhenever desired, be drawn out ofsight of land. This
fa&, of itself and apad from al1utlier considerationscompletely
undermines the present Norwegian arsument that the 1935 Iliwree
is in conformit y \vih phciples traditiondiy and historicaly
'accepteclin Norway. 19. The conclusion to be drawn hm this ption of the Countes-
MernoRa1 is therefare, in the çubmission of the Governrnent of
the United Kingdom, that no evidence has been EurnTshedby the
Nonwparr Guvemment that Norway has frorn ancient times
continuously exercised sovereignty or juridiction or ailthority
over the area .mvered by the Royal Decree af1935, and that with
insignificant exceptions {i.the srnail areas insidthe Veskfjord,
neas Vardo ancl 'Yisiclethe Varangerfjjord, refetredto in para-
graph 17 above, al1 of whicb are within the green line accepted
by the United ICingdom) ,odefiniteportionsofthis aseawe shown
to have been occiipied or exc2nsively seserved for purposes of
fisl-iinfor the local inhabitants by my intemal arrangements.
This conclusion, as will be later demonstrated inthis Reply, is
not in any way invalidateil by the succeeding postions of the
Cornter-Mernorial or by the Nonvegian legislation and other
material there referredta.
pyohihition of whah fislhg off Rfomegim coavts(paras. 35-36 of
Ilounter-Mernorial)
zo. With regard to mhale hhing,it is aconsequence of the nature
of t'niindustry and ofthe high profits tobe derived from it that
States shouid claim, asthey frequcntly havc claimcd hl the course
of history,to control it over very extensive areas. This explains
thelarge area of prohibition whidz was involved in the concession
granted toEric Lorch desmihed in paragaph 36 of the Caunter-
Mernorial, namely, from anarea up to Qo sea miles frornthe coast.
The fact&at the King of DenmarkjNonvay assurnecthe right to
gïant concessions for thisindustry over rn area of this extent-
in1688before the rkgime of marecla7~swrh nd been abandonen-
is not a reliable indication of the limits clairascestablisIlcd y
him inrespect of fisheriein general-
Li~its fo7@r+oses ofmid~!rula'ly(para37 of Counter-%Tcrnorial)
21, The Goverriment of the United Kingdom does not consider
it necessary to examine in detail the early Nonvegiam leglslation
regardhg neutraîity which is summarized inparagraph 37 and
Annex 6 of the Counter-Mernorial.This legislation was enacted
during the maya claztmmperiod in atime of considerable belligerent
activity (as shotvnby the words inthe letter of 9th june, 1691-
hnex 6,No. I,of Cornier-Memonal-"ves=ls of war andpriva-
.teersofFrench, Spmish, English and Dutch nxtionality")-
The Decree of 9th June, 1691-Annex 6, Na, r, of.Counter-
Mernoriai-\Yhlch dekecl tht neutrality line afiom Cape Lindemes
ta Jutland, must be read together ivith the Royal Decree of 13th
Tune,1691-Annex 6, No. 2-which fixed the range of vision '
àt 4-j leagues. Thesc wereextensive daims made duringthe helght
ofthe maritime wars 0.5the time and the distance narned in the
second of these decrees was aftenvards reduced, in 1740, when
21
b the doctrine 02mwe Zibemtm ws beginning ta prevailto the more
rasonable limit of one league, which was thereaftermaintained.
The line clrazvrfrrirn Cape Lindesnes to Jutland rnust be regasded
ashaving been drawn under the same conditions and on the same
tempomry basis.
The p~iocEJ Y ~ the Rescri$ttif 1812 EdzgOd- Cdauflte II 6f jf
Counier-Mmorid
The Resmifitof ~812 (paras, 45-49 and 56 of Countm-Mernorial) 1
22, The Reswipt of ~8x2,translations af ~vhich are provided
in pahgraph 6 of the Mernorialandin Annex g of the Mernorial l,
isfundamental, in many respects, tçithe Norwegian case, since
it is uponthis rescrlptand upon the principles alleged to have
been established by it that the subsequcnt Nomvegian decrees,
including the Royal Decree of 1935, are profeçsedlybased. A just
appreçiation ofits antecedents and cifits intended legaleffect3.re,
therefme, essentialprelirninaries taan understanding ofthe issues
involved in t.hislitigationThe ht pointwhich, in the çubmission
of the Gcivernrnent of the United Kingdom, is of cardinal.
importance, is that the rescript, asiçmade perfectly clear In para-
graphs 45-46 of the Counter-Mernorial, looks bacbard and not,
forward : it is the finastage in a seriesof Iegislativeenactnieixts,.
the necessity for which was provided by the nava1 wars ofthe
seventeenth-eighte centthies, commencing from the Royal
. decrees of 1691, and çontinuing through the sescripts of 1745-
1779 , he objects ofthese decrees and rescripts-in so far asthey
were conccrned with neutrality-\vas first to define Nonvegian
temtory and then tu Iay down a minimum. distance from that
territory within whîch. belligerent activities rvere not to be
permitted. . .
23. The Rescript of ~8th June, 1745 (Amex 6, No. 4, of the
Counter-Mernorial), made the- purposes quite clear (seeparas. 37
and 45-49 of the Counter-Mernorial) . After reciting ihat foreign
ship and corsairsby continuous tackingamong tlie mcks and under
the coast were watching for ships ofenemy cuuntries, ~vhichha$
been adrnitt~d to Norwegian. ports, and wereattackingandcaptur-'
ing these ships immediatel y after kaving port, the rescript stated
that ships might not becapfwed within one league /rom the Nor-
iwegia~ çoastsnsdthebw&s and rmks shatcd 04 thesecomts zeihich
aye cowsid~~eads f~rmixg parttb.mf. This rvasplainly anattempted
--finition oNorwegian land territoryandmerely ptohibited capture
l ThetmmZs,tioinparagraph fiofthe Mcmoriia the trnnslaof theCo&.
Thisusestiie exprwsion "ncoveredbysoa".Tbc translation inhneg ofthea
MemmaI is hy&Fr.Nansen.Thisusesthe cxprcssi:siofrunover hythe sen".
The Iatter trmliztiisthoughttobe mmewhat clo~crto thcoriginaand will'
hc:adnptedIIthis Rcply. atthe distance of one league from anyone portion ofNarwegian
tesritory as sdefined.Itisperhaps a permissiblesupposition that
the purpriseofthis=script was tosupplement the earlier Rescript
of10th Qctober, 1740w,hich had dcdared that the territorof the
State extendcd one sea mile £rom the coast, witlioutreferringto
islandsor rocksA,tanyrateno question 02drawing or clefinimy
continuous limit rtrosThere follorvethe Resolutions of 7th~a$,
r756,and 20thApril, 1759, whiçh dehed aleagne asequal to one-
fifteenth oa dqree and aiso interrnsrneasured this distance from
O the çoast. the^ ffollo.rsdRoyd letteof 27thJdy, 1759 w,hich
stated that the line wtobe dra~m one league '"fromthemainlmd'"
-thus usingan eïipreççionevenmûre definite tha"€rom the cnast*'
-and, as explaincd by R&ad (Kongms Str0rnm, pp. 332-3333,
makingit clear thatthe linewas netta be drawn from the skerries.
The term ~f the Kesolutionof 1759 werembstantially mpeatecl in
a furtherresolution ofrot11Novernber, 1-779.These were follmed
by two replationslaid down in tlie Napdeonic Wars (14t heptem-
ber,1307 ,nd 28th M.arçh,1810 ,espectively)wbichagain referted
'to thc territoryas extending one bague "frorn the toast"..On
18th August, 18x0 he ChanceiIery jssiieda çirculaIcttersfating
that the Department had been asked "if the riglitofneutralitv
stretched outside thcoast orthe shalZows".Thc answer given !vas
that the Resolutions of 20th April,1759 ,nd O£10th November,
~779,ancl the Regubtion of 28th Btarch, 18~0, decided thatthis
distanceshodd be one league "/rom thecomt".
Inthese circumstances theincident tookplace which gave riseto
the Rescriptaf r8rz,namely, the capture by the French primteer
Pourvoyew of the German pnze fi~adMargclwths within one league
hm a rock ciutsicleGroshavanear Grimstad, upon 'which instruc-
tions%vert sought by the regionalPrefect of Cknstiansand (ibid.,
y.3421,The solution provided by theIXTZ Rescript was tu declare,
ineffectthat Norwegian territory extended toaii rocks "which are
not rua mer hy tlie sea'lthus extending the definition tvhich had
ben applied since1759 and xeplacing the expression uscd in the
Rescript of1745 by one tvhick*vascertainly more definite, but not,
as dl be show, by any means free -from ambiguify. Although,
suppose that onenofethe difficuliies in fsamhthis newmdefinition
was wllether uninhabited islands fmmed part of Norwegian terri-
tory;Two Swedish la\% of 8th July,1788, and 30th April, 1808,
did in factmeasum the hlt of territoriawater from the nearest
inhabitedcoast orjsland, anda siinilar tendencmag have existed
in Norway, It anl ble seenin pampaph 289 below that the same
difficdtypresented itselfto brd Stowell in d&ding the case of
the Anna (1805 atjust about the sameth. The resçrïpt certainiy
succeeded,by ernploying theexpression "which ase not m over
by the sea'",in diçposing ofthisambiguity, although,as \vil1be
shown, itthereby created a fresh one in that it did nmake dearwhat was the position of rocks xvhiehare not continasottsLyrun over
by the *a-a problem on which opinionrernained divided mtil
,r~yo8.1A.t any rate, tl~athe &script of 1812 was not regarded as.a
fundamental piece of legislation layingdoum any principleis shawn
nat only by the circumstances in which it !vas enacted-as set out
ahove-but by the fact, as stated in paragaph 38 ofthe Cciuntes-
Mernorial, that it \vas n0t published afthe the of its enachent or
even khereafter and was only brought to public notice though the
medium ofanhistorical mork on national defence (not, lxit noted, .
onfisheries)publi~hedin 1830 a. The Law of 13th September, ~830,
cancerningfisheries in Finnmark, in fxt, made no reference to it.
The çubsequent history ofthe next 120 ycars \vas to show that this
rescriytwould be used as the basis forextensive Nonvegian daims,
but the United I<ingùumfeek justifieclin asserting, on the basis of
itsantecedents, that the rescript had at the time of itç promulgation
no çuch purpose,that itstated no principle, oEdornew, but was
merely directed to reçolvhg a particuiar unccrtaint y or mbiguit y
segarding the exterit of Nonvegian territorp. Tt iscertainly in the
submission of the United Kingdom anoverstatemint, or aileast '
carriesa mleading implication, to say,as is allegedin paragràph 48
of theCounter-R$ernorial, that this rescript "isin hmany wdth the I
traditional Nonvegian legal conception that the line of the skjzr-
g-aard is considcrcd as following the line of the coast and that the
waters betrtireenthe islands and the rocks,iiiside these land forna-
ticins, are considered as Nomegiari". Whether there is any such
"traditional lepl conception" is precisely what bas to be preved in
this case and iswhat tlieGovernment of the United Kingdom does
not admit. And, moreover, evenif the meaning of the rescript was
that al1waters inside the islands md th~ rockswmc to be considered
-asNomegi;ui waters, this would not entitle Norctray to disregard
the rulesaf international law as to the manner in which the.extent
of those waters was to be ascertainecl, In fact, the rescript contri-
buted nothing to the law ofterritorial waters except a clarification
on the one point mlating to what islmds and isleb were incladeri in
Nonvegian territory.
24, 'IVith regard Eo the interpretation of the rescript, it is the
fact, *asaç been stated above, that it was not, at the the, enacted
xvith a viem to defining fiçhery limits,nor was itintended te lay
dotvn any rule regarding the marner, inwhich territorial waters
should be delimited, The object ofit \vas to redrrn forneutrality
1The pxablem ~t~amt an actwl one sin=,infie ,uea whme Grimstad{wlie
+lishipivasseieec1ssituateci, tlisprncticallnotirletiie rlntsprilig tide
bmng inIact nogreatcrthm ) f~.(23cm,) .t nlay slslx nated tht aslareas
JSSgNmegian aiithotitieweredoubtfiil .whetiiscouidDe mode ofuninliabited
tcrrltor[SecAuncx 17 ofCountcsïllcmtinnl. 64.1
1779,tvasnnt publisliedthetime.States iverrrdoubtlrd~ichnt in these tiincs
t~declarc thcir attituan cantentiqus Iegissues. purposes the Iimit of one league andto makeclear PhatN~orwegian
tetritoryincludeclroçk+\vhether inhabited or halntable or not,
not run over by the sea. Tlia sescript in the fist place rnakes no
rcferenceta the'coao stthe mainland at all ,nd accordingly dees
not providc any guidance as to the manner inwhïch indentations
ofthe cozt are ta be treated,or as to pointsat which linesmay be
draivn acroçs bays. Secondly, as lias bcen indicated, the rescript
doesnot rnake-çlear whetl~er "rocks not wn over bjrtlieseau means
"rocks not çontinuously ruri over by the sea", and it isa fact that
the word "continuously" was first uscd in the interpretation ofthe
rexript in theletter of24th March, 1908 (Annex 23:of the Çounter-
Mernorial);,from thr;Ministcr of Foreign ,Waixç ta the Minister of
National 1Defence (seepara.62below). Thirclly, although, the xescript
isconcerned with islands and outlying rocks,it rnake~,na attempt
to provide rtsolution for the problem which must asise mhen it
becornes necessary ta draw the line rnarking the outermost limit
of territorial waters, namcly, between what points that line, ar
some other line on tvhich it ibasai, is to be drawn. On the con-
trary, itleaves this question eiltirely open. It rnay be that the
rescriptdoes not in term forbid the taking as base-points, bctween
which lines couldbe drawn, any pair or greater nurnberof soclcsnot
.. contEnuously run over by .the =a,however distant these rocks are
from each tither andfrornthe çoast of the mainland, It ishowever,
a much more natural interpretat oifitçJext to apply a system
unçler tvhicthe limitofterritorial waters mut bedrawn byref erence
to the çoastTineand under irhich arock cannot be used asA base-
point for exfending territorid waters unltçs itis~~ithia 4 miles of
the coast and is itself permanently dry. At the highest it can only
be argued by Nonvay that the rscrip-t leüves these questions open.
At any rate, as will later be explained,itimç only at amuch later
date that Nomy saught tcihterpret it as justifying ü syçtern of
the End mentioned above in thisparagraphe
It isprobable, in fact,that ifthe question ofdrawhg lines to
show the limits ofteniterial waters had ken psesetltto the mind
of those wlm were responsible for these early decress, thcy woulcl
have dehdedthat such limitç mnst be drawn hm high-water mark
and vsitbout taking accsunt of roclts sornetimw submergecl.
Whether Norwegian rule wserein origiii baseduponcannon range .
or,sts\vas suggested by Dr. K~stad inhis Opinion Inthe case of
the De~tscJzland(whicfiis attacheclas Annex 31 of thisReply) ',by
referenceto tlie range ofvision, theycodd clearly only bemeasured
in themanner stated above. In pointof fad it rnay be regardcd as
qiute certainthat no one at that date had in mind the possibility
A mvised and enlargbdtranslatiof th&opinion,in=orpomti% somc of
khc amendnient~madebyRfr.ArntzeninAII~C47, NOT,of #lCounter-%rlemorial,
fiaba prçpard by R'h. Nzrisand ifticd as Annex ta ühiRepll--4phot&
statcopyof Dr, btad*s Opidon intlic original Wrinvegia~aIçobwn filed
withthc Coürtby theGovernmeat oftheUnited TCingdorn.of territorial waterbeing memured in any other way than directly
from a piece ofsolid tersitoryAnd, ESthe Norwegian Government
agreei (pasa. 56 of the Gounter-Mernorial),the original lunits of
territririal waters for fishefv purposes cannot exceed the limitas
they were defined for p~r&xeç of neutsality.
23. In Annex 13 ofthe Counter-Mea mial the Noxwegian Goveni-
ment has fled docm~nts relating tothe atternpted regdation by
Denmark/Norway in the eighteenth century of Russian fisking
activities offthe coasi of Finnmark- IVhile those documents un-
doubtedly show that a çonfllct a£interest arose attliistirne, and
that by agreement bef tveen the two couniries certai11regulatj ons
were made b y.the DanishlNomegian auîhorities outçide the area
ofthe Varangerfjord,the use made ofthem by the Çounter-MernoLial'
to show thal: theRussian Government at tliis time recognized Nor-
xvegian sovereignty or that Norwaj? tvas exercising sovereignty
beyond the lirnited extent of territoriawaters is hardiy justified,
From Amex 13, No. I,which içaletter irom the Prefect af Finn-
mark tothe King, dated 28th Octobe-r,1746, it appears tlmt certain
Russian Sish~rmen,.jn 1743, had constnicted or rented huts on the
islaridof Vardo; and werti.siking fish there for exportto Russia.
1-hey had, in addition, been extracting the Esh from waters close
to the shore, dmcribed(para. 3)as ''leeaux xoydes norvégiennes".
The Prefectwaç conçerned to establish that the Russiam had no
absolute nght toprxtlçe these activjties and he reported that an
agreement, whichwasof an amicable charactes, was reached under
nrhiclz-
(a) the &sians agreed to -hgnot doser than one league tothe
shore-that isto say, to the actuai CO& line;
(6 lieyagreed tocornport thernselvcs in amariner whichwould
not hurt the local inhabitants ;
(c}they agreed to paya tax,for the cirrrentyear. The tax'ix
describecl in the translatedversion of Amex 13, Np. T, as
payable "pour lap&che" but no doubt was rather in respect
of the entire activityof exporting the hsh, including the
saltingwhich twk place inNorwegianland temitciry,than in'
respect of the right to fish'outside tleague. Indeed, it wiil
be =en that thereafter there jslittlereference and little
importance attached to the actual fiçhlng outsidethis limit
and that the attention of the anthorities was codned to
activities within the limit ofnature cdculated to pmjudice
theiahabitants.
The Prèiect condudes hy ssserting thathehas obtained ar~ogni-
fion ofthe absolutzmdurni~izt~z ofthe King over the "seaoff these
coasts" and that he has protected the inhabitats against any"interferencewith theirmeas of self-support". Two points emerge
from this xtatement. FiTst the rcference to absolut~un. omifii~m
clearlyrepresents asurvival of the seventeeth-cent uy conception
of mare dazsmm ofthe nnlimited daims of Nonvegiara(andother)
sovereip over the open sea.TEis is recagriized by the Rapport
1912 which, déaIing with tlie Rescript o10th February, ~747 (see
para. 26 below), inreply to the Prefect'sletter(Annex 13,hro .,
of Counter~Memorial) states (p18): '"Sebasant çw le principd'un
territoirmaritimeplus large, le rescrit est ccirrfoauedroit anté-
rieurement en vigueur pourla provincc de Finnmarken ;vair les
deux dispositionrelativesà la chasseàla baleine,de 1692 et 1698.
11fut bdîctkA une&poque oùles Norvégiens desrégionsméridional= .
ne se rendaient pas 5 Vard8 pour y faire la p&cheet où la popula-
tion propre de l'endroit ne pechait probablement pas loin de la
terre.'The Rapportcontinues bypointhg out that whatever *vas
the object of the rescripta legal pnctice developedbji which the
payrnent ws trefed as made on accomt of the'righto sojozwwoa
bnd-%ee yaragraph 29 below. lt willbe noted-that the Yrefect's
letterIs dated 28th October, 1746,that is, on137shortly afterthe
:Rescriptof18th June, 1745 ,vhichducecl the area of claim tu one
leape and which had possibly ~0.tyet comc €0 the notice of the
Prefect. In any cm, thiç statement in the Prefect's letterepfe-
setltsno satisfactory authorityfor the propositioiithat Rusia
recogniz Neonvegian sovereignty ovet a wlder ma than tliatof
territorial watm to the extent of one league from the shore.
, Secondly, the teferencetointerferme with the means of support
of the inhabitants,coupled.wi ttehagreement not to fish within
one hgue from the coast,shows clearly that thevital interestof
the inhabitants iaithis district were at this ticonsidered to be
codined to an ares-le= than one league hm the coast aod di$
not ex-tend further out ta sea.
26, Tbe Rescript of 10th Febmary, 1747 (Annex 13, No. z, of
Counter-R€emoriaE),canfirrnedthat the concern of the lokd author-
itieswaç to prevent the Russians seizing"the fishnear to land'"
(line6) and that ihe tax was $mposedin consideration of allowring
them "to carry away dl their fish" (liIO), The latte part of the
rescripternphaçizcs again that .tvhat was cibjecteto mas fishing
"ne= the coastta theprejudiceof the inhabifantsJ'"crtrryhg away
fiçh €rom the beçtfrshing grounds of theinhabitantsu and seizing
~vood. The continued pap~nt of thc tax is refered to and it is
stated as due "for the fisliin(la peche)çaded on in Nonvegian
waters" : atthe same time at the end ofthe ~escriptthe payrnent
isreferredtorn one"which theRnssians have been persuadedvo1ni-i-
tarily Topay (de leurbon gré)",rvhich coniirrnsthat this wis an ex grnlkz pajment made by micable arrangement for no very
dcfined purpos l,
27. The order of theEmpress Elizabeth of pste Mach41 rth April
1747 (cbntained irAi.nex 13, No. 3, ofthe Cormter-Mernoriaiin the
£mm of a transl3;tion fron~ a Germaa version of the original),is
fuEEvconsistent with the above view of the mat ter.Et makes plain
thai what was giviog rise to cornplnint was fishing ''toutprès de
la c6te et sw les meilleurslieux de peche", seizing rvood,arbitmry
and despotic behaviour, and thm refers to the fact that the Dadh
aathorities hadpnted the Russians the right each year "de pêcher
sur 'tecotes de l'Be de Vardo", andthat in ordes to obtain this
privilege tl-iehad agrced to fish one league from the shore. Tt is
plain that the privilege tl~erereferred to isthe privilege to da on
the içland of Vardo what the Pmfect had fomd them doing in
1743 (Amex 13,No. 1,of the:Counter~Memerial), that Is, cariying
on the business of fishermm, salting, etc. ;and that it was in
exchange for this privilegei.e,to go on tothe island ad perforni
certain operations there, that they agrced to fish one Ieague from
the shore. The odtr docs hot in fact -upport the Noriyegian con:
tention that the Russians regarded the right to fish more than one
league frorn the coast as itself a privilcge. That this is soisçon-
firmed by the expression Inter inthe order "pratiquant la pEche
sans permission dans ics eaux danoises" which clearly refcrs-tu
Danish waters within the limit of one leagw-since fistiing outsid.
tllat limif was anthorized.
28. Again, in the Russian note of May 1761 (Annex 13, No. 5,
of the Ceunter-Mernorial), what is prohibited is"se rendre sur le
territoire danois ou dans les lieux en dependant"-refemhg, no
doubt, to the coast of Danish (Norwegiarr) terriory and adjacent
territorial waters : andin the following paragraph the expression
"pratiquer la pkhe dans les eaux aor dgiennes7 ' evidentIy refers
again to the cçirnprehensive aperations carricd on atthe "island of
Vardo", rcferred to in Annex 13, No. r, of the Counter-Memorid.
29- TZieseeigh eenth-centnry documents,Ui~refore,in the sub-
mission ofthe Governent of theUnited Kingdom, show nothing
more thrtn that the DanishjNorwegiari authoïities at the time were
having difficdtiein keepingRussian activitieon and offthecoasts
within due Iimits (itshould be noted that the Russian authorities
were having similar dificdties witlz regard fO DanishlNorwegiaa
subjects-see Annex 13, No. 3, ofthe Countm-Memarial] :andthat
these difficulties werddt mith by practical artrangemenitsirivolv; '
ing, on the Russian side, keeping outsidc a one-league limit and
1 It is intwing tonotethat Fulton (p,Cindcaling wftataximposed b!;
the English KinHichard XJan forcigncççelstrrtethat th*'musthavebeen
done ivitthcirmnscnt"md uvesthlsas a11argumentoshow thatt.hKin& of
Enghd had fiot prûvstmereiqntovcr thesea. making a srnall papent, and an the Danish/ntonvegian side,
permitting the Russians to continue their activitieçatVardo-
arrangements which were infact by no means always obsclved by
the Russians. To draw the conclusion that the Russian Govern-
ment at thistime recognized anyares of sea beymd the lirnit one
league as Norwegian territorv involves in the submission of the
Government ofthe United Kingdam a strained and distorted inter-
pretation of the documents. On the other hand, Itis quite ckar
i from the much later document of ~3rd Apd, 1885, is.iued by the
Norwegian Mioister of the Interior (Annexr;3#No. 6,of the Counter-
Mernorial)that the Nortrregim Governent then recognizedas tetri- .
tonal waters ofRussia ang area doser to the shorethm "'une lieue
de mer dztEiiioraI",which corri=spondsexactly to the conceptions of
I the United Kingdom in this case.
30.The above Wew of the matter is wholiy conhmed by the
Rapport 1912p ,age 18, in a passage cited in paragaph 54 of the
Counter-hlémorial.Tbat document statesquite explicitly that the
pyment was made for the ~ightto sojaurfionland and that the
fishing which waç carried out ata distance of one league was con-
sidesed as fishing in the open sea ("mer libre"),Although the
Counter-Mernorial in pamgraph 54 calls this statement IIinaccu-
rate",it only in fact criticizit upon the point thàt the Xescrïpt
of 1812 iSshown to be conçerned with neutrality. There caribe no
doabt in fact that the extract corectlstatesthe positionprevailing
inthe eighteenth century,
31. The additional documents cited by the Counter-Mernorial
(Annex 13,Nos. 7to 13) do nof in my way affect the conciusionr;
above siatcciThe letterof 23rdNovernber, r767 (Annex 13, No. 71,
admittedly pmceeds on the basis that th~ Russianshad been for-
hiddcn telfish in Nonvegian tewitcruiwat~s, i.c. withione league
frorn the sherc: this can be the only meaning of the expression
"les eaux du Finnmark". Equdly it .t:clear fmrn the Letters
Patent of xs-tJhne, r77r (Annex13, No. 81,that it had hy this
time been fortiidden to the Russiaïstcland on thecoast ad make
use of hut.5. But it is çomervhat rnisleading to,Say, as daes tlie
Co~inttr-Mernorialin piragraph 52, that the Trcaty of Connierce
of8-19th October, x782 (Annex 13,No. g), does not contain any
disposition. authorizing the Russias to engage in fishing. The
additional dechration to the treaty infact plainly contemplatc~
that tErc Russians may be fishirzgoffthe Finnmark coasts and
forced to take refuge there inbad weatkrer <mcE does ilot refcrto
this asbeing either illegalor by concession.
The.ssarneparkgraph of the Counter-Mernorial refersto a propoed
ofMr. H, H, Grnerus toexclude the Rtlssianl£rom6shingevcn
outside the one-league lidt. It iç tlot suggested,however, that
this proposal was acteciupon and it may be classifietogetlier
with other suggestionsof the same khd (asfor exmpk that made I
REPLY OF TILE UNITED KIMGDOM (28 XK 50)
33O
by the Commune of Bod in1889-see para.38 of thisReply)that
Nonvegiarr daims çhouid be extendcd beyorrd fhe limits applicable
under international law. Thefact that such daims were made-
and not given effect telends na support to the Norwegil~ancase.
The Law of13th Septernber, 1830(Aanex 13,No, 10, of the
Coiinter-Mernorial),which is said to have replaced the Rescript
of roth February, 1747, commences by referring to "lapeche '
qu'ils fis Russes] pratiquent au delà de la distance d'u~e lieue du
rivage"-againwithout anysuggestion that thisfisliingisother- .
wise than by right 1.The 1st of the law deafs %+$ththe conditions
under which they may be permittecl to performcertainvoperations
within the lirnîtThe iaw agaia refus to the paymentc: or duties
in force, making it once more plain that these are inrespect of
. rightsexercisedsitki~ the liniit,These ri@-ts are agkin referred .
toavithout comment inthe extracts from the Tseaty of Commerce
of 8th May-26th April, 1838 (Annex 13,No. Ir, of the Çounter-
Mernorial). And, further,the Law of 3rd August, 1897 (Annex 13,
No. 12,of the Comter=Mernorial), after eqressly statingin Artide I
that the right to fishwiijaifiNonvegian territorial waterson the
cciastof Finnmark is reserved for Nonvegian subjects refers in
Article 48 to fweign Ashermen"qui font lapeche au delà de la
limite tcrritoride", and to the Law of 13th Septernber, 1830,
clexrly contmsting the two cases, fishl-ng ithe one case king
ferbidden to foreigners and i4 the otlier king pcrmittcd. The
same expression isused inthe Law of17th March, rglr (Annex 13,
No, 13, of Counter-Mernorial), rvhich repeald Article 40 of the
Law of 13th Septembm, 1830. It is abundantly clearfram di t-hese
. enactmentsthatÈtwasntv~c~n~ideredb~~theNor~vegianIcgis-
lative OT administrative authorities that fishing ontside the iirnit 1
ofone league from the coast ofFinnmarklit is repeated that we
are nothhere concmned with the Varangerfjord)-whjch, if the
priûciple followed by the Nonvegian Government itself in the
noticeof ~3rd April, 1855(brinex 13, No. 6,of Courder-Mernorial),
is acepted, means one league frorn +he coast line-was othervsise
than by right and that the Morwegian authorities never made any
attempt to contrcl any activities other than such as might be
carried on within the limit of one league.
Exchange of notesm'ih F~awc~ ofithesubjectoJtheVestfjO~d (para.57
of the Countes-Mernorial)
32, The Goverurnent ofthe United ICingdom agees with the
Çounter-Rlemorial inconsiderhg this exchange of notes as of some
lnterdst for thepurpose of these proceedings. The conclusions to
Vf may be notedthak in thrRapport r9r2,p.4, foo.tnuthis passage is
tranrslated: "SI'occaslrde la+the a laquellihpezcvoits"a&alllusqn'k
ladistanced'unelieue doscotes,...",suggestinevenmore plainlthat the
fishloutsirlthelimitwa9entirellegitimate, REPLY OF THE UNITED KXNG~SOM (28 XI 503
33I
bedrawiifromitarenot,Iioti~ever,;n th~opinionoftheGovern- .
ment of the United Kingdom, those drawn hy thc?Worwegian
Govemment. The Qmtre-Fd~es having been amsted in ~868,
tlie French ~MinisteraStockholm delivered the notdated 6th June,
1868 {Annex 15, No. r, of Counter-Mernorial), This note states
the Frmch position in two paragraphs
"Les usagei nternationaux ont admis g&n&alement desIfmit-
aux mets territorial; dans ces limitessont restreints ldroits
exclusifsdes riverains,
La Norvege n'ajamais manifeste quu"y eût pour eile unbesoin
assignent les usages internataux." la.kation ordinairqueleur
ancl confinuesby affirmingthe attachnient of France to the thsee-
mile limit. lttlien emphasizes the importance of the caçe in view
of the large number of fjords, bays, etc.,on the coast of Norway
and the danger that this caçe rnight becorne a prccedent.
The Nomegian note in reply dated 7th November, 1868 (Annex
15, No. z, of Counter-Nemurial), fircistates that the action of
Nonvay isjus~ed by traditional law,by the geagraphical situation
of Nurway and by the duty of the Govetnment ta psotect the
intlererjtof a poor and industrious population. Xt then pmceecls
to state tha.the Vat fjordisan interna1sea and must be çonçidered
as part of R'ortay's maritime ten-itory.
The French Gvernment did not pursue the matter but the
reasans wlly it did not do ça are made plain in itç notes of
PTS~ December, r86g, and 27th July, 1870(Amex ~8, Nos, r and
5, of Counter-Mernorial). In the first notethe,French Minister at
Stockhalm rcfers to "les motifs spéciauxqui l'ont déterminé,de
m&me que d'autres gouvernements, à ne pas insister pour que le
Vestfjord en tant que conçidérk CbEme une mer intérieure, fÙt
ouvert aux bateaux de @the étrangers".
In the seconcl notethe French Chargk d'Affaires at Stockholm
writcs :
"En nous reportant discussionsqui se sontprécédemment
&evé~~ entrelesdeux Gouvernements reIativement $.l'exerc duce
droit de @the dans le Vestfjordil nous serapermis de rappeler
que si, dms I1e$pntde conciliation qui nousa tonjours mimés '
vis-&-vides ltoyaumes-Unis,nous atms consentialorsaabaridoriner
des prltentions que nous jugions légitimes,nousétionsfondes A
penser qn'il ne s'agissait d'une exception ce qne nousconsidé-
' rions comme les vraiprincipessiirla matiére,etqu'aucnnediffi-
culté analoguent se renouvellerait sur unau& pointdes c6tesde
la Norv5ge."
These notes make itplain that the French Government in
deciding riotto contest furtlm the Noswegian action taken wlth
regard to the Q.uak~-Frè~e wsas not & aay waynabandoni ong
waiviig anv ofitsçlaims as ta themles of international lawapplic-
able to fislkryrightç offthe coastç of Norway nor waç it in anyway canceding any gmwal Nom~egiasi daims but was prepared
to treat the Vestfjord assa spcial casc witheut prejudiceto its
grnerd position, As tvilbe çho?vnbelow, the French Govemmefit
took up the same attitude'inrdation to the Decrcoesof 1869 and
1859.
The Darces of16th OctoGw, 1869 and 9th .Sept&e~~brw89 (paras.$8-
62 of the Çounter-Mernorial)
33. As has bçen pointed out ab&e (paras. zz-z3) and as the
Couriter-Mernorial admits, the Rescript of 1812 was not directed
to the questionof fishingdimits. The fmt application of the rescrjpt
to tks matter isstated (para. 56 of theCounter-Mernorial) t~ have
been in 186~. Ttis interesthg to note that the letter ref~rr~d to
of 3astJannarj?, 1862 (Annex 14 of theCounter-Mernorial),merely
states that "Selon me thèse qui ....est comrnunkmerit: admise
eri droit internationalet, en ce qui concerne ta Worvkge, a &.te
adoptke par décret royal du 22 (lettre patente de chancellerie en .
date du z5 fkvrier rS~z), leseaux territorialessont prksrimkes
s'&tendrejusqu'à une clieetde wcer1de la c6te."It'isevîdent that
at this tiinc the 1812Rescript was regarded< asdealing only with
thc mattet of distance, The.as estabIishing the distance as one
league instead of th~ce miles-and not as laying down any rufes
or principies as to the rnannes'ir!~vhiçb the fishing limit.os the .
hase-litles aretcibe drawn. In fact it is only incomparativively
necent times, when Norway was seeking historical justifia tion
for her daims to extensive areas ofthe Iiigh seaç, that theargu-
ment was put fonvard tbat certaip nrii~ciplcs wcre established
in 1812 in regard tohoththese matters,ivhich wert?merely EoLiowed
hj7 the laterdecrees and particularly by the ~écree of 193j. Zt
ischar that the Rescript o1872 itself containcd, an\vasintended
to establhh, na principle and indeect clnot deal with thernetl~od
of delimiting fisliery liniits XII.
54. The Decree of 14th October, 1869, was, as the 'Exposé des
Motifs (Annex 16of the Cotmter-Mernorial) shows, enactedto meet I
.thesituation created by the appearanc of certain Srvedishfishing
vesselsand of fishermen from other parts of Nomay off thecoaçt
of Sundmore. The application of the decreewas confinecfto a srnall
area-the line of demarcation being anly t~wnty-six miles long-
which, until the. appearance of tSwedes, had nm7esbeen ofinterest
to foreign fishermen. The Primips~Fucts (p.40) makes itclear,that
the fislzinin thisarea had for long been exploited exclusivelyby
the local it~habitants, these being ~~~~~~~Puymerom t c?camy oiit
"a thorough utilizationof thefishingmeas". This isçontrasted ~4th
the coast of Finnmark, where it issaid (&id.,p. 44) a number of
craft from southern distric ctrne to fish, and in which also an
increasing interest is shown by foreign frçhermen. Moreover, the
area in questionliesofla numbes of inhabited islandsof-çomesize REPLY OF THE ITWITED IiINGDOM (28 XI 51)) 333
,which, as the diagram at page 25ofthe Prz'.~nca' fadls shows, had
comprehensively parçtlled out the fishing gxoundslying opposite to
eachisland. Theindividual character of this part of the Nonvcgian
coaçt was brought out by Dr. Johan Hjort, a former director of
Nomegian fisheries, in the couise ofthe Oslo conlrersation~ of1924.
According to the protom1 of the fourth meeting, Dr, Hjort "pro-
ceeded to explain the special peculiarities ofthe Nonvegian fishing
iadustry off the coast of Mme, as affording a iypicd example of
the combination of specid conditions which icharacterized this
industry offthe ~veFl toast in genemi at# tothm e ofotenIshds".
(Annex4 of Rlemoriai,Vol. '1 ,t p. 123,)
In these circumtances the Norwegianriuthorltieç, as theresult of '
pressure hm th& own fishinginterests, fclt obligeto make sume
regdation concernhg this district, and in this connection it is
interesting Eonote what \vasthe principleonwhich they proceeded.
The Exposé desMotifscontains the followirigpassage :
lFL'ttendUede hautemer pour laquelleun Btatpeut exiger que Ie E
monopole de Ià piclle sait exclusi~rernentr:&servA SB sujets
coïncide, lorsqudcstraites n'edkidciitpas autrement, avecIeterri-
toire maritimesus lequel ila,suivantle droitinternationalle droit
d'exercer çasouverainet&L, es limitede ce territeire on&ttfixk
en partied'aprèslepouvoir de dominer, dc lterre l,étenduede mer
adjacente,end'autrestemm d'après Irplus Iongueportée decanon,
ce c1ui:essansdoute Iahase de clt3temiinationqui concordle mieux
I avec la maturedelaquestion ; et en partie à la distance d'ulieue ,
g6ograpliiquc du territoirterrestre.(Annex 16 aiCornter-hfemo-
, rialist middle of p. 60.)
1 The Nonvegian authorities were thus cleasly ,of opînion that
definite limrts wem setby international law to the which could
be clairnedas exclusivcIy reservecl-forNonvegian subjects.
The Expuse then eontiriueç to juçtify the actual line adopted7
narnely from Svin~ to Storhalrnen. Keference isfirçtmade to the
Rescript of 1812, in justificatiofor applying the distance of one
league, ina passage tvhcre the follorvingmrds are used :
"Cette derelèremcsure doit prebablement pouvoir&bc mpIoyte,
sans hP~itation,pourla délinlitation dta frontihe - comme cela
x aussieu lieu antérieurement pciurnotrpays(voirla lettre patente
du z j IEvsierr8rzj -, d'rtutanplus qu'elle ne correspondmeme
pas complètement h la distance k laqudle lepmgrks de lascience
de l'astilleriqui, engénkrd et aqec raison, est censée devoir
,désmaintenantnerdeetirer auxpiécesde lax&te.'"t(Xbid.)ermettent
CXeariy the Rescript of 1812 was not at this the considerd ta
have authotitatively disposed even of t-hisquestion ofdistance-the
wordsused "doit probablement pouvoir être ernployke" ffollowedby
a reference by way of example to the rescript are of the most .
tentative charâcter. "lmhere follorvs a reference fo the "point de
depart du calçuYbnd here again languageis usd which implies firstthat the phciple ofrising outlying rocks not m over by the
sea 5 a possible principlefor which some precedent (net of acon2
clusive character) existin ütieRescript of18x2 butwhich requires
to,be justifid, and çecondiy that the use of rockssubmesged at-
hjgh tide mas not legitimate, The words used are :
"Gommepoint de départ du calcrilce n'est paslaterre ferme
seule qui doitpouvoir êtreutilisée, mis sr~ssi les $lesrochers
siizckau lmge ds.!a&te,$DUWW q~'i2x saitr$as recoecve~@Y la
mer; cette conception a d'adeursdéjàétéadoptée dans lalettre
patente mentionnée ci-dessus" (vi. the Rescript ofr812).
' The Exposé .ontinue';by refedng to ''flotsou rochersqui SOXFE~
toq-ows visiblesnu-dessusde lu mer''(ibid pp,60, 61).
35.The Exyod then proceeds kosupply the necessary justifi-
cation for the Iintvhichit was proposed should be adopted and it
wïlibeseenfrom a çarefulpenisal ofit[Annex 16, p. 61 ofCounter-
Mernorial) thatthisisderived fmm hydrographiçal and gmpphicd
data pecdix to thisregion. Firçt; it is pointeout that the deep
water of the B~dçunddypet regresents continuations of the open-
ing of the Bredslmd and of the Siorfjord.Then it is shown that the
line which isdrawn coincides mith the deep water mhch pmvides a
natural boundary belmeen the inshore banks and tlie outer btuiks
(SC. of Medbotten), and so cm esçily be identified by fishermen,
Finally, and this, it submitted, is where the principalinterest
of tk legishtioa fiesfor the purpoçe of these proceedings, the
Exposé.praceeds to deal with thc claims which hag been made tri
Teserve for exclusive Nomegian use the fishg grounds in the
Medbtten zone,on the onter side of the natural he adopted by
the decree. These cEaims were (Annex x6 of Counter-Mernorial, at
p, 62,he 18) based upon the fact that these bmks, too, had bem
"ri5senrhsde temps imrn6rnoriaI aux habitants du pays sans parti-
cipation d'étrangersaucune", and ought tobe resented forthe loml
inhabitaais "m&me là oh de s%kekid un peu au delà de la limite
que la r&Ie principaledu droit international ecette matière trace i
comme dhlimitation ordinaire de la mer territoriale". Theattitude
of the Ministerin face ofthis claimwasto reject itAs theExposé
continues, "mon ministère n'ose pas la considérer comme assez
jmtifiee par des principesInçont~stb de droit iatmational qu'on
puisseconseilIerd14difiersur cetts eeulebase un principe clcdroit
tendant à interdire,purement et simplement, aux étrangersle droit
.de pEçhersur une yartre demer ains ié'limitée "zbid In e 33) md
pmceeds to state that any such proposed extension, would be a.
matter to be dealt withby "reprbsentations amicales"(a'bzd.l,ine43).
The Govemrnent of the United Kingdom has already remarked
npon the interest of this passage(para,16 above). It sholvs quite
clearlythat the fact(ifitwas a fact)that thebanks inquestion had
frorntirne irnrnemohal beea fishedexclcrsivdyhy thelocal innhabi-tants was no* in x8@ regarded asjustifyingadepadme bom tvhat
was recognized tcrbe the general rule of interhational Zaw.
36.With regard tothe iineitselfIt isimportant, inconsidering
the extent to which this decseernay be said to have es.tab2içhed
principlesapplicable to other are as of theNomregian coast,to
notice tht the two rocks between which the line isdrawn are
permanentIy exposed, Itis evident,therefore,that thedecree does
not in any way establish a mle as to the manner in which rocks
not permanentlyexposed rnaybe made use of-on the contrary it
evidently procecds upon the hasis that theymay not be used.
36 A. ThisDecree-of1869 ms,in the submi~çionof the Guvern-
ment of the United Kingdom, of arexceptional character, a point
which iswelI brought out by the disthguished Stwehsh iawyer,
M, Kleen, representing the Swedish-Norwcgian views at the Insti-
tute of InternationalLaw in1892. In a rnernorandurn pmsented ta
the Institute,after discirssingthe orlginsofthe 4-de rule, and
expressing the opinion that even tbiwiderlimit diclnot correspond
to modern requirementç, he citesthe Decree of1869a ,pplicableto
the Sundmore area,
He stat- tht buoys "de date hm&rnoriale, subsistant depuis
des siècles",mark the serrward lirnits of the fishing barl: that
this nartural lhit, markedby buoys 'saridionnéesparl'usucapion",
extends nearly 3 mileskyond the outermost rocks. "Ces marques
de mer traditionnellesontde tout temps été rmpctées par YEU-
ropc." He tlien pointsto the impossibility of dividinthisnatuira1
nnity, and to thefact that it Iinthe interest ofal1to recognize it
and respectitasaf inestimable value for the whole ofEurope. He
concludes by descrîbingthis exampIe as "leplus frappant qrie nous
connaissons" [sic](AnnuiaireXII,,pp. 142-1443,
1t is evidentfrom thiç that the bmks ofSimdmiSre possesschar-
acteristics which are practicaiiy unique. Certainly theisnothhg
to suggest that anything similar existin the portion of thecclaçt
covered by .theDecree of 1935. 3T is alw sip%çant to note the
emphasis laid by M. KIeen on the gmeral interest of European
nations : evidently he considers th& to Le a factor of no smaU
importance in relatiorl tthe validityof the decree.
37- The position %vast,herefore, in ~869, that the Nonvegian
authoBties were fully recognizinthe limitationsllnposed on their
po~versbyinternational law ;they didnot crinsidethat imrnemoriaî
user by ifselconfemed any chi& to exclusiverightç;they did not
regard the 1812 Rescript aslaying down any incontestable auto-
matic pririciple: on thecontrary téey açted upon the assumption
that thelisnitmust be drawn with carefulregard tohydïographical
and othes circumstances particdar to the area. The contrast with
the attitrrdeadopted by them in relationto the Decree of 1935 is
striking.Instead ofreprding the clahs of the local populationbased on aLleged user and oneconomic nwessity as a matter for
"rqrksentatlonç amicales''they now treat these as of themçelves
affordinga justificationin law for extensive claims (see para. 181
(3) of Counter-Btemorlal) ; instead of treating thc 1812Rescript as
affording a possible starting point in.the delimitatiion of the limits,
thiry now rely upon itas providing an automatic rde historically
sandioned. The.G~vernment ofthe United Kingdom-k if ho se view
onthe validity of the 1869Bcree millbe stateci bclow (para- 43)-
submits in any event that the approackto the pmblem which was
made in 1869 isnot, asis now represented, the same as that made
in1935 ,ut was basically different andaffards no justificationfor
the latterl.
38. The TSecrceof 9th September, ~889,\vas enacted not, as zms
that of 1869, to restrain'the incursion of fisherman hm absoad,
but in order to define the area wlthin which the Prefect could
mact domestic regulations conttolling Horwegian fishing for cod
h spring (Annex 17of CounterzRlemorial, para. 4). Tliere isno
cvidence or suggestion that foreign fishamen have eves been
interested ia any way in the area to which this decree applies, It
will be seen from the Exposk des Mctifs (Annex 17of Counter-
Mernorial)that the Commune of Bod had fonvarded a reqr~est
for a line to be &am directly from Storhdmen [whert; the 1869
line had teminated) to a point "aularge de Bratvaer". This
line ivould have ben 67 sea miles in length (Rapportrgn, p. 28,
footnotej. The attitude of the Mhkter in face of thisrequest is
intereçtirig.Re did mot (asmigh t have bem expected, if,as the
Norwegian Governent nuw contends, the principles on svhich
fisl~ingIirnitç should be drawn had ken, çIeirly and tmeqirivocdly
esfablisl~cdby the Keçctipt of 18rz and the Decree of r8@) deaI
with thc matter himseif on the basis of these enactrnents, but
instead hc referred the matter tri the Gesdesic Imtitute, a pmely
technical body, which furnished arepart whiçh appears at page 28
of the 'Rapport 1912. This report first pulaCsout that tlze linc
prapoçed by the Commune of Bod would have the advantage of
mning straight for a considerable distance but that, 011the other
himd, it would pass a considerable distance (inone case 3 leagues)
outside the ciutermost islands or rwkç (which rocks were in fact
nsed asthe base-points 11ythe decree when it rvas enacted), and
Ttmny headdd thatIT~CFIin 1878the qumtio~2% miscd wlieier Uie limit
colilbe clralvnfurthont toseathxn itwas drnivin 156g,the Pl'linisiy of the
Intkor cxpressed thopinionthxt acrtcnsion beyonthe 18% 11ne"trouverait
nizing that sucyositivaustificttfiontindcr intmnalaris -nmtwarforsiichg-
an exten&on,(See lirtppofi, 1p.227,)
The versionofthe Exposc desMotifsin theRapport rg~z(p, zS)refcrs ko
tone league froni Stemslicstwhcrcthe 1869 line taninateTheGoveraiiicnt I
ofthe unitcd Iiingdorn catinot identifp Sterandassumes that tlstartirig
point rcferrtoisStorholmen.338 RE PL^ OF THE UNITED ~LNGDOM (28XI 50)
uses langu-e very iimilar to that adopted in that of the 1869
Decree.
"Cette distance devait Gtrs calcuIke non seulement En
partant de points fixes situéssur Ia terre ferme, mais aussi
surles ileset sur lesrochers qui nesont pas recouverts par
lamer" (Annex 17of Counter-hlernorial at p. 64).
The Geodesic Institute used sirnilar 1angua.g~ (Rapport xg~z,
n. 281.
hé recommendations of the Inskitute oirereaccepted without
comment hy the Minister and emhodied inthe decree. In the
subrnission of the Government ofthe United I<ingdorn no rule
or coiiclusionof principlecan be deduced from this decree at dl,.
in any case net asregards the mannes in which hase-lines should
be draiva between outlying rocks or across the mouth of bavs.
The deçree was of purely domestic interestand the lines w&e
drawn on technicai considerations. The question whether these
Iinescm be said to have teceived anfrlrind of International recog-
nition will he exarnined below (paras. 40-4~)~
39. Two other incidents at this time may Fiereferred to as
showing with partiçulàr clarity that no definite psimiples with
regard to the delimitation of Norcvegian territorialwaters were
considerd to Iiave beeq estahlished.
The firstwas the consultation by the Ministqrof the Intwior .
of the Facdty of Law in1898 which is briefly refenedto inthe
Rapport [email protected]). The consultation was prompteci, it appearç,
by certain questions which had ben put to the Department by
the Geçidesiç Xnstituteregasdidg the drawitlg of ter~itorialimits,
lvhich the Department was unable to answer. Fram the report in
NOPSR R.&slide~dc,~898,page 705"Et appea-rsthat the Departmen t
a'fifdiareferred tothe de stated onpage 92 inProfessorAsche-
hmg's w-ark Norg~s nwv~rend~ SifQkfoujatnOng(and cdition),tha t
it is not nccessasy where fjords cut into the tand. to folloav the
coast closdy, but that the buadàry for tlie sea-territorcm be
drawn parallei to a straight line betwen bath the outermost
points of the openùig of the fjord,at any rate when there anly is
a question ofsrndtllebays or wh~rethe fjord cutsfar intothe land
and that one also inthe same way cm jump from the one island
to the other.
The Deparfrnentgocs on tcistatethat thisnewmle in particvlar
instances causes considerable doubt and obscuriy, for iqstance
asto what cranbe the maximum distance froisi the land ofislands,
islets and rocks witho~it the latter falIing outside the territorial
limit of the mainland; what distance thme can be between the
islands,when a paraiiclline fothe territorial bordecm be drazvn
from one island to another Uzsteadof Ietting the line accordingto
the headlands lying inside or between the islam&, etc-4sexamples,the Department points ta the area outside the Kvenangenfjord.
whem it is Cloubtful if the territorial border can be drawnparallei.
to astraightI.inebetween the outmwt points of EuglisandLoppen,
or if it mustbe drawn from hg1.1oto the outermost point of Arno,
hm there to thé cape lying on the other side of the fjord and
fmm there to Loppen 1. Likewise the stretchoutside Laksefjord
and Porsaqqmfjo cmd lx inentioned ~vhere it seems do-tfd
ifthe line can be &awn from Nordkyn to Nordkapor the line
must be ~urved inwards towards Sverd holtklubben.
The Deparkment goes on fo statethat it is ncitaware whether
existing intenational tlw gives mare detailed rules thas. those
cited above.
The Department en'closed with itsletter maps received from the .
Geodesic Institute on which the territorial lirnwas markcd riot
according to straightIinesbetween the dtifferer-toutermost islands
and rocks but bv curved lines foiIowingthe'shuosltiesof the toast:
As to this, tlie Department remsrked that this of course was noi
according ta the rde stated by Professor Aschehoug.
The Legd Faculty in its opinion stated that a~ far as it \vas
amre there did not exist any geaerally accepted internatiùnal
de governing the point in question, ie. to wliat extent theterri-
torial limit slzodd follow the sinuositiesand the indentations of
the çoast.
The Faculty tbereafter refersta.the rules recommendedbjrthe
meeting in 1894 ofthe "Institut dedroit intmational" in Article3.
Accordhg to the Faculty's opinion due consideration must,
however, be given ta the irreplarity of the Norwegian tout.
After having disciaçsedthis question in detail the Facdty sums
up as foUows: "A protest in thismatter is least likdyto be anti-
cipatedif,infixing the territorial limicare were taken tu avoib
atany rate emept in rare exceptional cases-exmeding the kirnits
establishedby the Inçtitute of International Law, viz., 6 miles
from the shore, aiid calculatedaEthe opening of fjorciç and between
islands androcks frorn astrjght base-he drawn between points,
lying at a distanceof not more thari xz sa miles from each other."
According tcithe opinion of the Faculty, the letter from the
Department dated 28th October, 1868c ,oncerning the fishirig in
the Vestfjord, the various decrees coticerning tl~c Varangerfjard
and the necrees of16th October, 1869, and9th Sepiember, 1889,
must be pwsumed to be based on the abuve indicated fundamental
des, '"dt', continues the Faculty, "as these provisions have -
not been met by any protestupheldby the foreignState in question,
the legd situation established tliereby mustsurely be looked upon
as internationally acknowledgéd.'"
cveninside the19-edIinc,~ib10 linc!wellinside the ~935 ;ithe inriis REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDO'll4(28 XI 50) 34x
line folIowingthe contours of the cciastThe: object of thesecond
note (Annex 18, No. 2,ofthe Corinter-Mernorial)\vasas içco~~ectly
pointed out by the Rapport rgxz (p.~oo,note r), toobtain the
confimation of the Nonvegian Governrnertt that fishing on tkie
outer bankç of Sundmore-i.,e. those outid6 tlie proposed line-
was open to forcigners of al1 nations and not ody to those of.
Swedish nationdity-an interpretation inthe latter sense being
possiblefrom the terms ofthc '"xpos6 desMotifs", The Nomlegjan
Gavernment, firstin a note of 3rd January, 1870 (Annex 18,
No. 3, of the Counter-RTernùsial),gave an assurancetlmt fishlng
onthe outer bds was open to'all nationand then, an 8th Febxu-
ary, 1870, deIivered a lcngthy reply settingout the reasùnç tvhy
the linehad been dmn asit had (Annex 18,No. 4, of the Counter-
Mernorial]. Thiç note,nfter refersingto the historic charaçterof
cod fishing irthese parts, proceecls ta justificatioof the four-
mile limit,ashased on the range of modem guns and on estahlished
and long-dated Norwegim legislation,
The note then deds with the question ~vhether the lineitself'
should be a broken line or a straight line, andafter statingthat
there is no established rule kingthe maximum distancebettvecn
t\vopoints as 10 miles, contends thatin fact a brskm liliein thiç
ara, would be botk Impraciicable and incapable of enforcernent
and would ciztin two the moçt important fishing hank. The note
concludes by saying that the historic facts and the cornpeTTing
natural ând local circumstancesseem "presque pouvoir invoquer
le droit des gensA leur appui", but that the Norcvegian Govern-
ment has neverthebsç not desired to derogate "aux rCgles appli-
quhs par lui dcpuiçlongtemps".
qz. In it~note in ançwer dated27th July, 1870 (Anne>; 18,
No. 5, ofthe Counter-lgemorial), theFrench Govertirnent stateç
that a reply would havebeen sent bdore "si la discussionelitpu
étre renfermée dans une simple question de droit'" and (in the
second paragrapk) statesin express terms tbat the French Govem-
ment cannot accept the argurnentaticin on which the Norwegia
Govemment claims to base its conclusionç, It then proceed tsat
'h ddehorsdu dm*$ 2=RternationaEt" he French Government is
pspared to attribute a certainefiectto practicd considerations
and continues (Alinex r8, Ne. 5, at thetop of page72) :
'"'estdans cet ordred?dkes, éf~a~~g aat&oit de gefis,que s'est
placéle Gouvernement de l'Empereur pour l"6tiadede laquestion
des pécheries" and suggests a cornon approach on a practid
basis to the problern under considention.
The note makes dear that it is not so mixch concerned tvith
the,immediate issue of the ratrlçtiuns impased in a prticular
area aswith the futureconsequencesof acçeptance of the principles
raised by the decree.342 REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
"Il &taità craindre,erieffet.que lareconnaissance,en tmt que
fir&ci$c, des limites de péche fixées par la décision royale ne
constituAt un pprkcéden ...."(Annex 18,Na. 5, p. 72),and then
rnakes the suggestions that "toute question de principe serait
écart&"to enabie a bilateralmangernent to bt made on the
spot.
43- There cm be no doubt as to the conclusions ta be drawn
from this domment. If the Nonvegim note of 8th Pehruary, ~870
(Amex 18, No. 4, of the Counter-Mernorial), stated, for thefirst
the, certain principbs allegedts underlie the fixingofthe Lits
by the 1869 Decree, the.French' Goverriment-which, it should
be remernbered, had ikeady made its attitude plain ithe Anglo-
French Convention of 1839 and in the further abortive Anglo-
French Convention of 1867-did not fail to make it abundantiy
plain thatit in noway ac~pted~these principles, othe Nowegian
argument whïch purported to jvstify tliem, and that, on the
contrary, itentectainedthe pvest apprehensionslest, asa matter
of Law,a precedent should be created liythem. As itis stated in
the Rapport 1912 (p. rog), "ilsemblerait donc: que chacun deç
deux pays, la Norvkge et la France, eût consed sa mani+= de
voir''.
Theattitude ofthe Government of theUnited Kingdom towards
the Deçree of 1869 isprecisely sirnilar, Even admitting that the
United Kingdom is-in the, absenceofanv positive evidence of
daim to exclusive fishing rights within the limits laid down by
prescriptive, title to those particulas rlghtin that araa and ity,
may have been implicit in the decree.rJustsasthe French Govern-
ment expressly made clear that it did not accept the system, but
mas not preparedto contest the particdar limits inquestion, so
the Grivernment of the United Kingdom, by its condnct, is at the
most comrnitted ta recognize the limits. The Norwegian argument
the United Kingdom-thecquinghteitoeapplyathensamerrd~s whereverçt
'bernaintained,s dong ber coast is consequ,entlyone that cannot
43A.. It may be also corivenient te dealinthis portion of the
Reply withthe later communications with theFrench Government
which are refend ta in paragraphs 83 and 89 of the Counter-
Mernorial. These carry the matter nohrther and in fact showthat
the French Government inno way'abandoned the principles it
asserted in 1870. It will similar3y13sappropriateto referto the
communications with the Rmsian Government referred to inpara-
graph 88of the Counter-Mernorial. 44. ID 1893 the FrenchCmsul atChristianiaaçkedforparticulars
of Nonvegian kgislation concemimg fkhingMts (Arinex30,Na, x,
ofCeunter-Mernorial). The question was particdasly directed to
the distanceof the lirnifrom law tzde.The reply (Annex 30,No. 2,
of Counter-Mernorial)statesthis distance asone geographic league.
It then states that allfjords and bays are considered as forming
part of Noxwegian maritime territory and that for certain pxactical
reasonsit isnot possibleto followall the irregularities oftcoast.
Copies of theDemees of r869 and 1889 arereferredto and cnclosed
in this connection.
The French Govemrnmt thusreceived an anslverto its question
together ~4th cedain additionai information. No daubt itdid mot
think fit to enter into correspondenonthat additional idwmatian
for the mason that itsattitudehad been fully çtatedin the note of
27th July, 1870(Annex 18,No, 5, of Comtes-Mernorial).
In 1908, the French Chargé d'Maires at Christiania made a
further enquiry (Annex 34, No. 1,referred to in parapph 89 of
the Connier-Mernorial). Thisenquiry selat-edagain to the distance .
af the hmit and asked if it should be drawn "enligne. droite du
dernier cap la mer". The seply (Annex 34, No, 2)stated that
the limit of4 miles was çtilin forceandthat the distance must
be reckoned frtlm low tide taking eacisland not continuallysnb-
rnerged as a.stutirig-point.No .answer 1q7agiven to the question
xvhetherlines could be drawri from extrerne headlancls and no
reference was made in thisnotc to the Decrees of 2869 and 1889-
45. The Russiam enqniry made in1869 (Amex 33, .fi .,referred
to in pamgrapb 88 ofthe Counter-Rlemorial) W~S concerned only
with the exact meaniremefit ofthe Nomregian "mil" (i.e, the Scan-
dinavian league). 3t appears fromthe note that:Russia was at this
time çontemplatbg the issue of legislntion exclading foreign vessels
from certainaseas of the WhiteSea and elsewhere.
The Nwtvegian reply(Arznex 33, No. z, of Cornter-Mernorial) did
nothing more thm statethe precise mesurerrient of the mil.
With regard to the informal rtquest for documents said to have
been made by the Russian Legation in ~gw (para, 88 of Coutrier-
Mernorial), no record appears to exist of the pnrpose for which
these were required, nor from the note made by Dr. Scheel (Amex
3jI No. 3, ofCounter-Mernorial) does it:clea~ly appear whatdocu-
ments were infact transmitted.,
No conclusions cm, it imrbmitted, be dsawn from these enquiries
andtheirresults. '
-NoYw~~"~ ReHisEat.tm.nzcer.ni*gzeikwfishifig(paras64-66 of Nor-
wegianCounter-Mernorial)
46. Paragraphs64-66 of theCouter-Mernorial der to and quote
vasjnus Norwegian laws and pmclamations regarding whde fishing
off the çoast af Finnmark. niese enxctments according to tlze 344 REPLY O?? THE UHI'SED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
Comtér-Biemarid appear tu have been pmpted not by anv
adions of foreigs fiçhknnen, but by the demands of the fishini
population aloiigthe coastwha feared that the declirie in tnum-
ber of whales \vas havhg an effecton the supply of other fish'
(Vol.1,Cm-Rtemoria l,ara.64,p, 266, çub-para.3).The Governrnent
of the United Kingdom does not consider itnecessary to cornelit
indetailupon thls legiçlation sinceit donotiay do'zvnanyprinciple
regarding the rnannerin whichfishg limits, or theextent ofterri-
torial tvatcrs, should be fixe; itproceeds simpIy upon the basiç
that the field of application of the various eriactmist"territorial
waters'\and in referringtoterritorid waters merely mtntions the-
distmce of ageographicleape from the extreme island arislet not
nin over bg the sa. The purpose rithe Norwegian Gûvernmentin
referringto thislegislatioin factappears ttohave been to establish
that, açregards the Varangerfjord, the linefrom Cape Kiber-es .
to the river Grense-Jakobselv waç during this period regarcledas
the appropriate bbaseine. In view of tliefact (see CI~apter Ir of
- Part II of this Reply) that thGovemment ofthe United Kingdom
does not propose tocontestthe right of theNomregian.Govemment
to drawtlie fishing Iimit xvheifha done soaçcross theVaranger-
fjord,no purposewould be served by pnrsuing this point. It is how-,
ever interestingtonote th& whewas, inthe firstinstance, the Nor-
wegian Govemmentconsidereclthat the line limiting the-entrance
to tlie Varangerfjord should be dra~vn from Varda fo the river
Grense-JacobseIv (seeV01,1,p.267 ofthe C.-Rlemoriai,asidAnnexrg ,
No. z),later, ontherlecornmcndation of the Prefectof Finnmark, it
decided "pour évitertout heurtP3to dmw the lint from Cape
Kibetgnes (Le. further inside the fjord) ratfier than from Vard6
(seeVol. 1,p.267 of C.-Mernorialnadfinem),thns showing that the
Nonvegian Goverment realized that there were lirnitçtothe extent
ofwwatew r hichit could daim to proted 'and that the wider daim
wbutd bring ithto conflict withRussia,
.47. For the rame reasons the Governrnerrt of Sie United King-
domdoes not consider itnecessary tojoin issuewith the Norwegian
arguments coritained in paragrapli 66 of the Coanter-Mernorial
based upon the proceedings of the Behdng Sea Arbitratioa and of
the North Atlantic Fislieries case of1910. At the same tirne the
Governmentof the United Kingdom wishes to make it dear that it
cannot accept the interpretation placed by the Counter-Mernorial
. (Vol.1, 566,p. 271)upon the citation by the Govemrnent of the
Gnited Kingdam in the 1910 asbitration of thestatement made by
M.Gram in 1893 .. Gram, as a referenci.to his statement wilJ.
make plain,was merely saging that som ofthese fjords have a
considerable development butye thave been from the immemorial
considered as innerwaters. Vlrhllenot disputing thiç, the Gevern-
ment of the United Kingdom not çornrnitting itseto a state-
ment that aiENorwegian fjords or bays have the same characterand still Xesto any extravagan notion ofwhat rnay prowrly be
regarded as a fjord,
The North $ea Fishhg Co?zvmtim of 182 (paras.67-68ofCountcr-
Mernorial)
48. The Governent ofthe United Kingciamhasno'commentstu
makeonparagraphs 67-66 ofthe Counter-Mernorialand acceptsthe
explanation of theNorwegian attitnde therein contained.
Icase-jboinsm thedilimitataiofthe#ewerritoiela(Counter-Mernoriai,
para. Bg)
48A. Tt has ahady been pointed outinparagraph 24 above that
the Rescriptof 18x2did not attempt to dealwith the question of
base-linesnor with the case of rocks scimetimes submerged, and
that neîther the Decree of 1869 (paras. 33and 36 of the aply)
nor the 'Decree of1889(para. 38 abeve) made use ofany rocks
otlier tkan mcks perrnanently exposed. It waç in fact in 1902
(narnelyby the letterof 24th llarch-Annex 21 of the Counter-
Mernorial)that forthe firçt the the word "continuouslg"'mas med.
in connwtion with the words "run over by the sea". This was a nav
dqarture and \vasmade use ofin practice forthefmt time by the
CommiSsion of 1912.
49. Paragraphs 70-7 contalu anaccowt oflegislafion passeby
the Norwegian Government with the abject of reservinthe right
to fish in Nomegian wat ersto Norwegian subjectf;.The Govem-
ment of thc United Kingdom does not propose to examine this
legislation inany detail sincethe area ta which it is appliedin
eaëh case, isstatedto be '"Norwegian ferritorial waters" or "Nor-
wegiarrmaritime territory" \vithout any definitioofthe extent of
those waters or that territory (the subject of tpresen troceud-
ings).This legislatiois or this reasonno evidence of theexercise
of Norway 'ssovereipty orauthority over any particular gmgraph-
ical area. md in partidar over the area clalmed asterritorial
-rvateFby the Royal Decree of 1935. The fouowing observations
rnay howeverhbc madeon thes paragaphs ofthe Counter-Mernorial:.
(a) Paragraph 70 contains twe skitements, each of tbem mis
leading, The first isthat hm time irnmenlorid the locd
inhabitants have harl the exclusive rlghtof fishing off the
Nmvegan coast without any limitation of distance, The
Counter-Mernorial horvever (as LSdemonstratecl above in
paras, 13-19 hadnot succeeded inproving this or irelating
the actions oflocalinhabitants toany actof the Nonvegia
State or in sho~vingmore than that d&g a certainperiod
(rnainly in thefifteenth and sixteent11centuries duringthe
régime of mare clawmm) the Khgs of Nonva? asserted extensive and. undefined claims to large areas of the seaç
whick tvere during that period reçistedand which were later
abandoned.
Secondly it istatd as a fact thatfrorn the midclle of the
eigliteenth centmy the Russians obtained the right, on
payment, tofish beyond the distance of6 çeamiles from the
coast.This matter has been examined in detail iparagraphs
25-3~ ahove, and it Irasbeen shown that the Russian pay-
ment was, asstated in the Rapport 1912, page 18, made not
for the right to fish outilde the fit but forthe privilege of
exercising certain rights within the lirnit.
(b) Tlie Lawsof 2ndJnne, 1906 1 (Annex 22 of Csunter-Merno-
rial),and 13th May, 1908 (hnex 24 of Çounter-Mernorial),
refer ody in geneml terms to "les eaux territorialesnorvé-
giennes". The Royal Decree of zznd December, 7904,
containing instructions .for the cornmanclers of inspection
vesçels(Annex23 ofCounter-hlemorial)sefersalso in general
termç to "les eaux territoriales nosv4giennesHbut a& a
definition follorving the termsof the Rescript of 1812.
(c) ItIs riotappreciatcd£orwhat pqose the Counter-3lemu~d
refers(pafa.74) to theBoard ofTraclenotices issiredinrg&,
1912 and 1916. The oniy purpose of such reference. would
appear tcibe to show that in the 1908 ditioo theBoard of
Trade referred to territorialwaters of Nonvay as beiag
4 Engfish miïes-obviously here stathg the Norwegian
claim, Since there isno issue in the presentcasewhether tlie
erctent of Nortvegian territorial waters for fishing purposes
is 4 miles or 3 miles, there seems to be little objectinErling
these docilrnents,
50. The Governent of the United Kingdom offers no comment
onthose portions of the Çountes-Memorid (paras.75-79)which deal
with the matter of customs legislation. Ttshodd be pointed out
hawever that Article 19 of the Convention of 19thAugtzst, 1925,
between Gemany, Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, Litvia, Norway,
Polmd, Danzig, Sweden ad the U.S.S.R. (Amex 27, No. z, of ,
Counter-hlernorial) refers not, as stated in italicsat th^ end of
paragraph 79 of the Counter-Mernorial, to the "skjaergaxrd" but to
"les archipels".In other words there is nof, as paragraph79 seems
ta suggest, spzcid treatment for Norway in respect of the '"çlrjsr-
gaard", but egual andreciproçall treatment for customs purposes
conv~ntiendly weed between the signatory States in respect:of
archipelagoes generally.
rggo. Thisdo= not,however,&ecththe,s\rguzrm ehit,isconcerndnwith thel
applicatiooftheLaw 6f rgo6atthc krnswhen itwm passcd. 348 RFELY OF Tb UNITED TUKGDOM (28 XI 50)
Convention, 1882,andthe second in 1908 asking for Information
' aboiit Noxwegian fishery legislation. The Government of the
United Kingdom certainly did not interrdto say'that the first
approach was motivated by a desire to protect British trawling
ulterestç inFinnmark or indeed hy anything other than a desireto
secure Nonvay's adhtrerice tothe North Sea Fisher& Convention,
1882O ,n the other Iiandit wciscorrecto saythat the xequestmade
In xgoS \vas prompted by the desire tah~ow whethcr the existing
Norwegian decrees on fiçhing limitsmrt; likely to interfere witli
the nascent trawling activities off Finnmark,and itwas prehelr:
because if was seen that this legislation hadmoapplicationto thè
coast of Finnmark, but only reIated to areas in which ‘British
fishemen had never had my interest, that the cnquiry\vas not
foUo-iyedby any more positive action.
Djsctissioasailhs .-?+zstitefIt~fe~mi'onliLm (para. qo of Nor-
çvegian Countcr-Mernorial)
53. Paragrapli gooftlie Counter-Meniorial referçtù ttvosessions
of the Institrrte ofInternational Lainwhich tliematter oftenito-
rial waters was discussed.The account ofthese sessions givenis,
hautever, inimportant respects, incomplete and rnisleading.
At the firstsessionthat hcld in HamburgIn r891, the Institute
was at the stage ofexarnining the different systemç adopted by
States for thepurpose af clefiningterritoriawaters : the putpose
of the sessiowas in fact piirelyinformatory.M. Aubert presented,
apparentlu to the Assernbly, a report, whiçh is included in the
minutes, of Nmmegianpractice :mi toes not appear to have been
folloived by any discussion, but the decision%vas taken hy the
Asçembryto pubiish the reportinthe minutes (Annuaire XI, p.147) :
this decisionim-piïesneither assent nor dissent frany statementc
made thérein. The main thesisfor which.M. Aubert was arguing
at th& meeting was for "un droit exclusià lapkhe dans une zone
de plus enplus diendue" (Fbiid.,p.135) .ollowing thiç the gseater
part of the report dealswith the questiorl of the fonr-mile limit,
and with fjords and bays, .but jt is intereçting to note that
M.Aubert refers to the fact that frsh@ygNorwegim Lnhabitants)
takes place on barnksso far from the shore that the blierrnkn
cannot take advantage of the privilegedsituation of nationats in.
the territoriaçea even ifthe latterbe defined in the widest sense,
thus illustratinthat Norway cannot and did not daim any privi-
legedposition for herfishermen outside territorial waters even on
the gronnd of usage (Annuaire XI, p. 138). On tlie question of
baselines, M. Aubert expressed himself as follow ;s
"Une question peut4treplus importante encorpourlaNorvège
estceUede savoir Apartide queuebase doit êtrrnesur&cl'&tendue
de la mer territoriaLes rochers dela ferreferme se continuent
sous lamer, pour en kmergersouvent à une tr4s grande distance,
par exemple dans Lofoten, sous laforme dYleç ou dVots. Nous wons regardécomme tout naturel que,I'%.n';tanpas sitm'efihs
gs'd kxu anciens ~pkildnacsrins{&an:quinzièniede degré) de Ta
terre ferme,E'éteriduede la mer territoriale doive etrcomptke
jusqu'd un mille au del&dc l'He, et airisi de suite d'île en ile,"
(Annuaire XI, p. 139.1
M. Aubert is thus arguing fay a ruleby which islands canonly
beinçed as base-poînts if they are less than miles from theshore
or from airotherisland, and, as14 be shortly shetvn,th& was not
the only occasinri.on which he expresseçl himself in this mamer,
nor wa.she alone intaking a restrictive view of the nghtto make
use of idands and rock. It is,inthe submiçsion of the Gpvernmcnt
of theUnited Kingdom, highl signifiant that sogrnt anauthorj'ty
as M, Aube.,. attending the meeting of the Institute speclcaliy
for the purposeof explainhg the Nomegian point of vlem (he was
speakingin his otvn name and in that of M-Aschehoug, md itis
b-npossiblcta believe thüthe wu so doing ~itlioart th full knbw-
ledg6 and approval of I~isGovemment) should have mprekd
himçelf in thiçmanner (whid~ is cvhollyinconsistentiyith the pm-
sent Norwegian attitude) repding the interpsetation tobe placed '
vpon the Rescript of 1812. That he should have done sodemon-
strates haw little consistent Norivegian doctrine, in this inaiter
has beeri and completely falsifieç the Norwegian clah to a çon-
tinuity of theory forover a ccntury.
The fact, moreover, that RI.Aubert Should havé been invoked in
paragmph go of the Counter-Mernorial as expomding "the Not-
wegian legal ruies", implying thatthese were the rulesrelied upon
in this case,indieatm the need [which is illuçtratedagain by the
matters referredto i1.paragraph 55 of this Rcply)forsome caution
in relying upon Norwegian references ta Ïegal authorities.
1
54. It is interesting to note that, an the subject of bays,
RI.Aubertsaid (ibid p. ,qo)",Jusqu'i quellelargeurcetteouverture
peutek aller sans cesser dc formerla base d'une mer territoriale
s'étendant au ilchors 7 CJ& w.ipoi~ tMTJkpd nom n'uaeioaaswcw.me
règle fixe",and proceeh by referring to hTorrvay'sinabdity to
accede to the North 5eaConvention of 1882 becaux the maximum ,
of IO miles %vaston narrolv and because Norway possesses a very
large number of fjords of this category. In other tvords h'onvay,
wkile nbt able te accept the mile rnle as applicable genmlly,
had not at this time promirlgated any rule of her alm.
54 a. At the meeting of the Inskituteheld tlie fillowingyearin
Geneva, MaAubert,afta point~g out with regard to Norway that
rfLs grandes êcheriess'yfont en grande eridehm de la
mer territorfe norv4gàenne"(AnnuaireXII, y. 147)'
points to the diffimltyof extending fishing,regdations sciaç to
apply to forelgners outside territorial wmater. he semedy lrvhich
he saggestedon this occasion was not to extend the territorialtirnit, butto permit the coastd StaEe to extend the application
of itsfishery lawç outade the territoriasea,i,e,he was argning
for a contiguous zone for frshety purposes {abid.p.149)-
55. At the meeting in Paris in1894, RI.Aubert refend to cer-
tain maps; but it is inaccuratto say-as appears inparagrapb go
of the Counter-Rlemorial-that M. Aubert "a démontre, par la
présentationde cartes, l'absurditk qn'ylaurait Avouloir seservir
pour une &te teUe que celle. de la NorvGge, d'unelimite terri-
torialesuivant strictement les contoursdu rivage'!. This was not
the purpose w effect ofM. Aubert's demonstration at al1 nor did
M. Aubert descrihe anything as an "absurdit&" .. Aubert, in
fact,was referring tomaps inccinnectioi~with a proposed article
whrch, &ter laying down a grneml rulc forthe limit ,oterritariai
waters as six miles, contained a paragsaphas follovÿs:
"Articlez (2)Dans Ie cas oh un Etat voudraitsoumettre Iti
fiche 3. des règlements quelconques jusqu" une distance pins
grande quc sixmilles dla côteil faudrait l'assentimdcs fitats
interéssés"(Annuaire XIII, p.287.)
The Rapporteurexplained thzt -this draft articlehad ken
inserted at the requesa£M. Auliert,and M. Aubert then proc~deci
to use his mapç to show that there mre reasons militating in
favous of the grêatest possible extensionof territorialwaters in
rnatters regarding fisliing. The limihe said,should be extended
to include fish nurseries, and even with a xo-rniielimit there would
be left nurnerous banks which conld be profitably exptoitedby
f~reigners.M. Aubert is not repurted (pp.287-288) as teferring in
anyway to .the''c~ntoursdu rivage". On the question of hays,
it isinteresüng to note that, when a vote ivastaken, M, Aubert
voteciin favour of a limit of 12 miles for theclosing ljne (FRid.,
P. 29"h
The decisiontàken on the draft Article z(2)cvas, aftera short
discussion,toreiject it {ihjd.291) if my positive conclusioncm
be drawnfrom tl~eçeproçeediiigs, it is tliat the Institute did not
regard witli sPpathy claims by States, for special reasons, to
extend their territorial rvaterçbeyond the limits generaiirecog-
nixd by internationallawW
56. The meeting of the lnstitute oInternational Law at Ham-
burg in 1891 (para. 53 above) was not the only occasion in which
M. Aubertis on record astaking a restrictive vjervofthe right
to make use of islands and rocks for tpurpose of definingternia-
rialwaters.In his articlon theNowegian territariasea,pubIished
inthe Rem génhale de Droit t~i~~tatiz;owal ol, 11894 yp. 42~
44r), M. Aubert, after sayhg That itwas not clear whether sub-
nie~ging rocksmight be used as base-points and that in face such
rocks never had been used in Noruregianpraçtice, said, in relation
to the questioil of distan:"On a doncici compté,comme base de
la mer territoriale, lignequi court entre ces flots ou rochersù assistance inthe-taskof asccrtaining whwe the bit oftemitfirial
waters shoiild be drawu under modern international law. It is in
- the second place not proved and is not the case that.by 1906 lie
Namegian principleç uponwhich Nonvegian t erriorid waters are
to be defmed were firmiy established.Of theçe alleged prinçiples
(seeVol. 1,para. 91of Connter-Mernorial, p. 285) :
(a) The Government of the United Kingdom is prepared to
admit that one-fifieenth ofa degree, i.e, 4 miles, had bgrthis
time been established, on histuricgromds, as the hreadth
of the maritime bdt to which kronvay was cntitledl.
(b] The Government of the United Kingdom is prepared 'to
admit that Nomay was entitled to claim ceriain fjordS as
interna1waters onthe baçisof hfonvay'shistoriedaims which
are dealt w-ith in paragraphs 432-51 5f this Reply, The
Government of the United IGngdom does not admit that
Nonvay has the ngbt to clah asinterna1 waters,the waters
of alIfjords regasdless of sules of internationlaw asto the
points at wrhfchthe limiting linfsta be dra~m. As hm ben
shown (para. 54 above) Norwsty had not at this timt: for-
mulated any definiteriik on this peint,
(c) No clcm rule had been establishedin Norway as to the '
mamer inivhichthe base-hcs for the defiaition of territorial
waters should be draivn between islands or rocks lying off.
the shore,
-
58 A, The Rescript of ~8x2 left this question(c) undeterminecl
and no definite nrle had emerged from the subsequent Norwegian
demees:including the Decrees of 1869 and1889. It isclear, on the
coiltrary, from the opinion of the Legal Faculty in1898 (para,39
above) and€romthe statehents made by N. Aubert at the lnstitu te
of International Law and by 11. Olscn about the same tirne,that
no settled practiceortheory had been developed up till the end
of the nineteenth ceatury, though it %vas certainly thought that
base-lines should not be longer than 8 miles. If there was any
fundamenL~l princlpleas to tliernanner inwhich base-lines should
lx drawn,it was that thcy must be byreference to fixes ordine-
rnentçof points on land.As a restaternentand confirmation of the
view just expressed, -the Government of the United Kingdom
cannot da bettes than citea passage frorn the officixreport of the
Norwe~an Ministry of Foreign Affairs which ufas issuecl in1926
inconnection with the 192+-I~j conversations in Oslo and Lon-
don. This document, which was rrotto hand atthe time.of the
prepnation of the Mernorial, isentitled '5t. med. nr, 8 (1926)
l It ibintermtingtinote thatas lateas rSRo, c&atnIi'orwcgian dcputies
protstwhich miqhtberaiseci by foreign Po(Rhppoo1912.p. 9note).ceofOm 'forhanager med Storbritannia vcdrwrende sj~tterritonet" l.
The translations used inthe Reyly are unofîïcial. In the section
of thisreport in which .tlieMinistry of Foreign Affaüs sums up the
position from the legal point of view, after stating that in its
opinion if has a strong case in law for the lirnitof four miles, ftje
Ministy proceedç to deal with the question of basclines as follows:
"On theother hand, with regard to the question-of thc base-
' linesfor calcnlatlng territoriawaters, the cak ismore douhtfnl.
No dcfined principleis fomulated in intesnational law regarding
thiç .calcuIation. Tn somecases the question has been solveclin
treaties between foreignStates. In uthers its application has been
dwiçidedby the national legidation ofthe countries concerned and
Iiyarbitral jucignients,These various solutions, however, are to
some exterit conflieting,anclproviclc no adequatc doundation for
the acceptmce ofany definitc lx-inciplIn sornecases a line double
the tvidthof territorial waters has been takeas a Gasis r this must
necess~lgr resultin varioiiçsoltitioisincethe &en tof territoriai
m~~tersindiffextnt countries is variable. In othm cases arbitsary
base-lin& liave been used. ln a number of treaties the base-Iine
of 10riauticalmiles lias been adopted,especiallyas far,a soncerns
the fidiery question, In certai nountries base-linesof 12 to 20
riautical miles have beenadopted for certai purpuse?. Base-lin=
of 12 nautical iniles were &o proposed by l'Institut de Droit
interi~ationain rS94andthéInternational LawAçsociatian in rg24.
'IVithregard toNorrvegian territoriawaters no generd regdation
regarding the calculation of fie base-linehas been içmed. There
cixists no ruleas to the lcngth to be given to the badines for
our territorid waters''(p. z5).
And then, aftef referring fo the IXesçriptof 1812, th&Decrees.of
1869 and 1889 andthe legislation affecting the Varangerfjord, the
r~port continues :
"The earEerTerritorial 'Ilraters Commission ofrgrr , hich vas
to çtear up this side ofthe rnatter, proposedbase-mes for the
Counties of Finnmark, Trums,Nordands, North and South Trm-
del% and certain parts of Mme County. 7-JECb SEse-liraeswlaicliin
some cnses arevtwyIon: were drawramme v~itkn oéer o local~.wiaresbs
flza?07s the bnsisof mnygmwd Princi$te.At the same time the
çommission aiso prepa~erltables of other base-liir for the said
çtretches ofcoast, undcr the assumption that no base-line should
be more than xo or 12 mutical miles respectivelyJ"p. zj).
The Court will not overl-lookthe fart that the baselines here
referred to are the very lines which are in,question in this case-
Their charach and origiiz could hardy be more strikingly dernon-
straled. The'passage quated shoulcl,moreover, be compared with
an earlier passage (quoteclin full in para, 75 (ci belocv),Inwliich
--
1This dqcnnientan wigind cqlryofwhich has becn merlby the Gavementa€
theUnited Kingdom with theCourt,wilin futurebciefmed to açSt.med. nr.8
(Wf3.the Ministry of Foreign Aifait-sstateç thatfka red Zincsof 1924-
1925 (i-e.N~T the blue lines) w~s drawn mcording t~the+rimcz@ks
Laid down iIheDecreesoj1869 and 1889. This not ody destroys
the Nûrwegian contention, which is nne of the main pillars ofthe
argummt contained jn Part I of the Caunter-Mernorial, that the
blue lines were dralvnaccording tothe principleçlaid down in the-
Decrees of ~8% and 1889 ,ut dso illustrateonce again the point
that Ike blztefineswererzofd7ammcordimg 50amy gewerai!u%fic$les.
With regard tointernational knowledge andacceptanc even if
Norway's claim toa 4-de limit and Norway's clah toher fjords.
had by ehis the achieved the character ofdsihistorie claimat any
rate there is no justificationfor the contention that Nonvay's.
further daims e'rijoyedany rrieaçureof rccognitïon.In the fi&
place they Ssadnever been clearlystated; theDecrees of1869and.
1889 sqatednosystem, and in ço far as they were presented as-
based upon a çystem, tIiis was expiicitîyrejected by the only
country (France) which had occasion to consider it. Againstother
countries, irlcludingtlze United Kirigdom,Nomay could gain nob
more than a possible presçriptive right tothe particula~ waters.
endciseclby those particular dtcrees.As regards statements at
internationalçonierencm, these were consistent aeither with the:
present Norwegian case nor6th each other and inanyevent.
seceived na measure of endorsement.
59. With regârd speci5caiIytofisbenes ofi thearea iavolved in
the present dispute,the position atthis time may be summarized
as follows :
(63 It Iiasnot been establishedby the Conter-Mcmorixl that
any particulat fishing bank-s,with the exception possibly
of some bmks situated inside the Varangerfjord or the
Vestfjord ar inthe immediate vicini tyVardo, au of whick
areivithin the green line recognizbythe United Kingdom.
had fmm time imrnemorial or for any pesiod been appso-
priated foruseror occupied by the lacal inhabitantçOn the
contrary, fishamen from other parts of Norway and foreign
countneç had for many centuries asserted an interest ia
them and particularly iiz the Finnmark hheries and had
not becn sffectively xcluded.
(6) It has not ken establiçhed by the Colunter-Mmorial that
Norwegian sovereignty or legislative or adtniiristrative-
autharitp had 'been exercised over anp defined area of'
coastd waters alid inparticvtlar ovethe area comprised in
the Royal .Dem of 1935 A-part rom thIe frshing (legisla-
tiun as to which was, outside the ~aran~erfjoid, expresscd
to apply to "Norwegian territorial waters" 'vithout further:
definition), and leaving out of account the agreement by
Russim ihhermen not ta fish within one league from the
coast,there was no gcneral legislationsegading fishingofL the caast af Fieamark before the Latv of 13th Septemhr,
1830, and the subsequent kgislation again referred in
geneml terms to Normegim territoriawaters.
(c) The legislatioapplicable iri1go6 consisied ofthe Law of
3rd August, r897 (Annex 13,No. 12, of Cornter-Mernorial),
and of the Law of 2ndJune, -rgo6 IL4nnei22 of Cornter-
Mernoriai),both of whiçh forbade fishing by foreigness within
a bel? described in generaltems a "Nonvegian territorial
waters"without more speciiidefinition.
(d) No çpecjfic definition of "territowaters" inany part of
the areacompriçd in3935 hadbeen made exçept Inrelation-
to oneheadand (viz, thwest terminalpoint) of the Vest-
fjord (note of 7th November, 1868, Annex 15, ~ù', z, of
Counier-Mernorial) and the Varangerfjord (Law of 5th Janu-
=y, 1881,and Eq~sé des Motifs of 20th Decernber,
1880-Rapport 1912,p. 29).As regards other fjords in Finn-
ma&, no spedic leplation exkted ; they were not men-
tioned il? the Law of 188x Or the Expd des Motifsof
20th Bcember, 1880,and the qnestion what should be
considered the outermat points between mhich linesrnight
be drawnhad been left undefined (seeRapport 1912 p,. 33).
(e} With regcsd to the "skjzrgaard'hartdothcr portions of the
coâst where rocks and islands might have to be used in the
dispositionüthertthan the Rescript ofh22ndFebruary,isr8rz,e
and the manner in which this rescriptwaç ta be interpreted
in relation to this matter\vas farfrom clmr (paras.24and
$SA above).
Finaliy, Nonvay haself, as the Exposé des hfstifs of thDecree
of r869 makes clear,recognized that there were limitingmles of
international lawapplicable tothe matters dealt ~6th by Norrve-
gian fishery legislatioItistrne that she was of opinion that her
legislationwas not in conflict with thoscml&, whether cormctty
or not is noa matter fbat arises directinthe pre-eseptnoceedings.
But In anyevent stich domestic legîslationasthe Dectee of3869-
conld atthe most have the effect of canfeiring npon Norway a
prescriptivvetitle topartiçdar xea.
Eue* stthseqacmitu rgu6 (paras. 92-96 bf Norwegian Gounter-
Mernorial)
60. It was, asstated in paragrap gz of the counier-l~ernorial,
about 15306 ihat the firsBritishand othw foreigntrawlers begm
to appmr off the çoast ofFinnmark, their operations at this time
beingconfined tothe eaçtesn portion, The reactiens othe inhabi-
tantç of thcse regions are describirlhe sarne paragaph and a~e.of some sipificance, It \%ible1recatlected that athisthe fishirtg
of any kind within Nonvegian territorialraters by foreignerswas
entirely fcirbiddcn[Law of 3rd August, 1897, Annex 13,No. 12,
of Counter-Mernorial,and Law of 2nd Jme, 1906 bid.,Amex 22).
graph otathe bunker-Mernorial sho~vs,for the limits of territorial -
waters to be extended, one of the proposals being toextend them
to adistance of gor rodes, thus rccalling thsuggestionmade by
M. Aubert at the Institute of InternationalIAIV in 1894, It is
clear,therefore,at this time ththe opinionofthe lord inhabitants
was that the khing grounds for tvtiich they desiredprotection were
outside territorial wateras then defined.
61. It ma? be conveni~ntto refer at th3 point tothe dwnment -
publishedin Igaj under the description Number 17 E {rgz7f,whiçli
iscontained in Anntx 4 of the Counter-RLernorid, This rcpresents
the work of the "prnctical"section of theCommissian ofForeign
Affairs and Conshtutional Questions. In the portion ofits report
which &gins at page 134 of hmex 44 of the Counier-Mernorial,
the commissicin refers at some length and insame detail to the
attitude of the fishing population. The commission eliçited t~o
main points : firstas wodd be eyiecéed, that the fishing popula-
tion was stmngly opposed to thenarrowing of the limltof akltis;ve
fishery; secondly, that with almest equal unmimit y It considered
that hshing by foreigners outside the territorial lirnit ought to be
restricted.The following quotations, which represerit replies made
ta the cornmissibn% senquiries,wiIl illustrate how great was the
pressurebrought tobear on the Nomepan Government :
(a) "Le chatutage pratiquépar les étrangers, aw ddd mme etz
deçd de Ztzlimite-territoriuk,est mal vu de tous ceux qui
pécher-rtau Finnmark. J'ai l'impression que la popuIatio11
autochton et lm pficheurrsvenant d'autrefs isovinces nor-
vkgiemes 5 lafois, considèrent comme tris nécessaire de
faire respecter, pour les pecheurs nomkgiens, le monopole
de la mer territorin aoreégienne.'" (Capitaine de frc- a
gatev. Krogh, le 18 novembre 1925. (Lot, cd.,p. 137.) .
(b) "Ceux qui sont personnellement engages dans la pêche
envisagent nature~lement avec grande antipathie lcha2u;t-age
pratiqué par les étrangers ea depicomme a?.*eJddelulimite
t~rritorialcet jugent nécessaire qu'on fasse r~pccter le
monopole des pEcheurs norvégiens en territoire notuégien_"
(.a-itaine de cornetteWigerç, le 12 novembre ~925,( )Loc.'
cd., p.138.)
(c) "La population conçidsre le chdutage comme une pêche
abusive, quiva épuiserIes bancs enun temps hhs court. Non
seulement le chalut s'emmre dupoison, mais aussi, del'a&
des pêcheurs, il détruit'la végéiationdu fond, et diminue
d'autant la faune sous-marine pour un temps assez çonsidé- REPLY OP THE UNITED KiNGDO-iI (28 XI 50)
357
rable, ckrle fretin devient de moindre qualité...Ils préconir
sent la cessatiode totitchdntage surlesfonds cl u innmark,
azadetdcomme tm de~d dela limita territoridb.n'' (Capitaine
decorvette O, Bloin, ler7 novembre 1925. (LOG Fit.p. 138,)
(dl "Iiy a une Iiostilitéon pourrait mêmedire une indignation
gbn&r&, 5 i'égarddu chalutage au deid çmme ende@ de
InEimit~."(Capitüioe de corvette Dissen, le 17 novembre
1925.()Eoc.cit.,p. 138.)
(e) "La commission a reçn égalemei~t une déclaration siirces
questions dela part de I'enseignede vkseau Kulimarin, qui
indique notamment que la population envisage le chalutage
en génhd, deidcomwe m de@ dela limite, avecinquiétude,
et qu'elle estime nécessaise de füirerespecter le monopole
des pkheurs norv6;iens. en mer territoriale norvégienne."
(Loc.cat.,p.-139.)
It Zsevident from th-% cxprcssioas of opinion,as welI asfromthose
referred to in paragraph Go, Zhat the NorçvegianGovernn~entwas,
ftom 1906 ontvard,faced tvith demands which were not-as Nor-
vny in effect now contends-that protection should be given in
rcçyect of historically estahlished limits, Sut that the recognized
lirnits shoimIdbe çubstantidjr cutended. It \vas preciseIy this
extension ~vhicliwzs given by the 1935 Decree 1.
62, Returning to the situationin1908 he Administration sought
the advice of the Prefect (para: 93 of the Coiinter-Mernorial),
~vhosuggmted mat lines should be &aim hetwem the extreme
headlarlds of certainfjords,mentioning certain points which wre,
,ingene.ra1,lateaccepteclaspoints by the r935 Decree. In thiscase,
however, the rildministration diclnot, as ithad donein 1869and '
1589,proceed to determine the hase-points after a consideration
of the Prefect's propasds, nor did itprornulgatc any replation
on the suhjat-no doubt because itentertained the pvest doubk
whet her tlieproposais were inaccord \vith international law and
tvould not lead to protestsfrm Che Ijnited Ilmgdom. NI that cvas
done ~ÿ-ato incorporate thegeneral sense of thePrefect's proposa15
-i.e,, that lines shouId be drawn from extreme headlands-in a
departmeatal communication clated 24th March, r908, from the
Minister for Foreign Affairs to the hlinister of National Defence
(Anneir 34 A of Couriter-ilfernorial). It wbe seen that even this
document states the extrerne headland principle as an i~lttvp~e-
tatiux-in facta new interpsetatiçin-of the Resçript. of18x2 . his "
communication \vasnot included in thedoçumtnts fonvarded tothe
1 T.tnavalso bnotics(~cosub-pz=.(c,i dsavc-ithercarc0th~~rcfmcnces
to tlrsama effcctthntt11copinio\vasvoiçedattliitimc that traivlsign
i&slf destriictimethod of lishiandth15no doibt made somimpression on
thcNorwegim Gavernmcnt. Tt hasken pointedoutabove (çcpara.9 of this
Rcply)that later cxpcrichmeshorvntkiisnotokc il~cascandhas evencon-
vinced the Nonvegian Govcrnnrcnt d thc fact.British lkliriisatrChristiania on 6th August,1908 (çeehex 32,
No. z, of Counter-Mem~rial). Morecsvm,when in the course of
the London converçations of 1gz5 the Norwegian Delegates sub-
mitted a memomdum sliotvingthe points of departure frornwhich
Norwegian territorialwaters are reckoned.byNorwegian Royai
decrees, etc..the ody reférençe macle tothe letta of 24th March,
2908, was the follorving(which \vas made wjth reference te a dis-
cussion on fjords) :"from the outermost cmt. line at loivtide or
from the outermost island or rock rvhich is not perrnanently sub-
merged l",no rekrence being made to theuse ofkxtrerne headlands
{seeAnnex IX to minutes-Vol. 1, Mernorial, hex 7,p. 160).
The cancltision can, therefore, be drawn, in the subniissiun of
the Government ofthe United Kingdom, that neither.in1908 when
It was issued, ?or in rgas, \vas the Jette of 24th Marck, 5908,
regarded as an authoritative definition of Nor~wgianterritorial
waters in so far as it stated an cxtreme headland principle. In
any evcnt, the fact that, no dvubt deliberately, the Norwegian
Gomment did not on two occasions, when it rnigh.thave been
appropriate to da so, think fittocornunIcate the çtaternent of
such a principle,çontained in the letter,to the Government of
the United Kingdom, shows that the Norwegian Gavernsnent
appreçiated that the Government of the United Kingdom w-ould
not accept tbe principle, ain fact thelatter hasnever done.
ig3 T.he following stepç taken by the Norwegian Government-
are obscure,but confirm the impressionthat the Nonvegian Govern-
ment realized that it n7as on dangrnom ground, Parapph 95 of
the Çounter-Mernorial appearç tu suggmt that in rgo8 instructions
were issued to agply thc "new 'niles"tvith moderation, tfioughno
document or other eYjdcnce içproduced to establish that this was
the case. It appears that the cornmanders of bshery inspection
vesseIs were, incaçesof ships found fishing tvithina limit defured
by reference to aten-mile hase-line across afjord, stricttuedorce
that legislatian. Outside that areathey were, it seem, to give
waming and take the names of ships. Infact, only one British
ship was warned during the peRod preceding the fir~tIVarid War
(Cawhnk un 10th March, 1913) and that \vas within what was
afterwardsknotvn asthe redline,
It isof importance to note that these Nm~vegiân instructions
refemd to a ten-milelineinthe caseof fjords and bays, the position
being that vessels found fishing within a lirnit drawnby reference
to such a linewere to be strictly deAt with, and that outside it
"lenierit enforcement" was to take place. The reference to such
a line at thk tirne ishardly consistent with the contention sub-
Ithas alrendb-i poir~barit (par14abave)that i\vasin thi~l&rthat
the wmd "continiiousI{vasLISColhcialIk fhefirstiiniricorinectiwith
theexpressio"mn overby tlism". In1925 tlic e~pression "permanen-rxra3 ,
used. 360 REFLY OF THE UNITED KLNGDOII. (38 XI 50)
the attitude of the Govcrnment of the 'pi'niteEhgdom towasds
.these questions was snch tkat Nonvay cbuld riot declare the -
principles in whicli she believed. In support of this allegaiion
reference is made io a declarationof the British Minister at Oslo '
I in 1906, that opinion in favou~of the three-mile rule waç almost
unanimouç, This declarrition wa cedaidy made ;yet Norway had
for a long pria$ not shrunk frcirnaçsesting a four-mile limit and
indeed inrelation to this very area, as she Ererselfstates, was
preparing tù enforce stridEy existinghTonvegian legislatioln cvhich
incorporated a four-mile bit. It ~vouldnot appear, therefare, that
the British Minister's declaration could have had a rnarkedly
deterren t effec.
The fact that the Faroe Islands and Tceland ha$-some s'even
years earlier-agreed to a 3-mile hit wodd again only he a
derninatjng consideratioriif Norwav was inthe situation of beizlg
obliged to promnlgate a four-mile Grnit for.the firstthe in1908.
- But, in fact, she had done so long ago. Admittedly the United
Kingdom wüs anxious to setniseas much acceptanc asepossible
for the three-mile rule-although it is somewhxt of an exaggeration
to speak of "unremitting propaganda" : but hTorwayhad corn-
rnitted herseiflong aga to a differentprinctple ad had succeeded
in resistingdi efforts to liiringhover.IVhy tlien shoidd she shnnk
from strzting what-on the ùaçis ofthis same four-mile limit-she
considered to be the pmper fishery limits in Eastern Finnmark 7
The rw3.reason for Nonvay'ç hesitation was of course that she
appreciated that the 1imits which she \vas beginning to enforce,
particularly in so faras they exceededlirnits dram by reference
to a ro-mile line across bayç, ccluld ibetjustified in international
Iaw and wodd no-t be acc~pted by other nations. Pwiragraph gS
of tlre Countes-Mernorial makes a'point of the fact (to which
reference is made on otl~er occasions by the hrotrvegiam Govm-
ment) that other nations have not publishridcharts or lines definhg
the lirnitof their territorid waters as Nonvay bas. Therc is of
course a good reason for this inaçmzich asother nations define
thse Iimits genesaliy by refemncc to ,th& coastç, The publication
ofchxts or lines tlierefore assumes far Iessimportance for such
countsies.than it does for Nonvay, which defines its Iimits by
refercnce tu base-lins which have Little or no relation tû the
coniigurationof the coast lke.
The Lord Roberts (rpxx) (paras.97-10 o2fthe Counter-Mernorial) .
66, With regard to thc Lord Robwts incident (xvhicIi,it be
rernembered, took place weli inçidc the Varangerfjord), it is no
doubt the fact that SirEdrvard Grey,the British ForeignSecretary,
expresçed &self strongly an the subject aXthe four-rnilehit ; '
the çiontempomeous note made ofthe coizversation with RI.Irgens
isincluded in Annex 33 of this Reply, This tva, however, nothing
new and it içagain dBcult ta appreciate why Nonvay sliould bythese marks have been induced toexercise what she thought her
rights with mderation. In 1908 she had akeady deç2ded upon a
policy of"lenient enforcement" and, so far as the Varangerfjord
\vasconcerned, sheT-iadalready cçiveredthisby legislation.Nothhg
that wassaid by Sir Ed~imd Grey, or otherwisi: on b~haif of the
United Kingdoin in anywy affectcd Norcvay's conduct inth
respect. She continuecito enforce her daim to the Varangerfjord
and her clah to a +mile Iimit and, so faras the particul arcase
ofthe Lord Robwds waç concemed, she sho~vd no signsof giving
way and did not do so.
The Goverment of the United Kingdom does not propose ta
cornent futher on tlie Lord Robe-ïtcasein view of its consentto
treat the Varangerfjord within Nonvegian ter.itorial watersfoi:
fisherypurposes on the basis of historic title.
The Ter~ito~ialWcdkrs Commisszcl utgrr) ad ZhsKLG$+O 1~12
(paras. ~03-106 of Countes-Mernorial)
67. As stated inparagraph 103 of th& Counter-Mernorial,this
'commission was set up 111rgn to ~tudy the question of the Nor-
wegian territorialwaters in Finnmark, In view of the fact that
passages from the Rappart of 19x2 halle been relicon in support
ofthe Nomegian casein these proceedings, itisof importance to
appreciate the general bsiç ou which the comlnission proceeded
and the nature of the approach w11ichit made Xo the question.
This approach was, in fact, and aswonid be expxted from tlie
composition of the commission, a pdrely Norwcgian approach, and
not in any tvay an impartial approach aimed at halancing fhe
clairns and interests of Norway with those of other countries
according turdes ofinternational laif?,Themethocladopted by the
comrnjssion in the firstsection of the published portion of the
Rapport, whlch Iswhere the principlesandrules applicable to the
dcawing of the limit are examincd and the conçlu~ians'of the
cornmlssioilstated,ista set out the antecedent Nohveglan legisla-
tion in relatiotzithe area inquestioiitu assume (asitwm bound
to,assume) that such legidation was legally valid, and then to
consider what furt-her rneasures mightbe takm consistently 1'11th
thatiegislation. The Rapport contains in zddrtion asection(pp. 55
etsq.)dealing with the international law on the subject hoth
generdly and ktrelation to existing Norwegianlegisslatiobut this
section, appeanng as Ttdoes after the Çommission Iiad stated its
main conclusions, is adrnittedly sclective and is essentially of a
justificatory charaçtcbeiog deçigned to show that thereis nothing
in Norrvegianlegklation co~itraryto the principlesof international
law. The arguments used are broadly those put fonvard in the
Counte~~Memorial.
68, The .Coun-ter-Mernoriaiin paranaph 103 citestwo passages -
frorn theRapport tosupportits case, the Tirsdealing with fjords and the second with outlying rocks. It isinteresthg to examine
thesequotatjms in their contextand, ifthis isdone, it tvlbe seen
that the support the y infact give to the Nanvegian argument is
inconsiderabk.
The firstquotation àppcarsin a passage beginrtingon page 18, in
- which the commission setsout to examine the rde estabJished by
the Rescript of 1832 partihilarly in relation to fjords. It points
out that the rescript LLdf makes no mention of fjords but was
. designcd to dioalwith the case of the "skjsrgaard", though of
course it alsaleft open the possibility ointerpetaiion Ui relation
to fjords. The Rapport then affirrns the cornplete absence of any
doubt on tlze subject of the sovereignty over fjords, and states
(p,zo) that a fjordneednot be boundcd on each side by bcvrafima
bn-t may be bounded on one side hy klands and then continues :
"Cependant, il peut surgirdes doiltes quarit à I'mdroit oh il
convient de dire qulesdifférentsfjordcommencent ou,en d'antres
termes- lorçqu'iest question de llimitedes eau temitariales -,
quant A l'endroit QUil faut,A l'embouchure des fjords, tirela
ligneà partir de laquelle on doit compter Ia marge ordinaire des
eaux terÈito&les, à moins qu'il n'existedans la directionde la
mer, un groupement continu d'!lots, de sorteqrieks eaux terri-
toLes doutesnquitsurgiront à cetaégarddevrontciare résoluspa.~
les£a.itgdograyhiques, historiqueset autrespour diaque endroit
en particulierL'opinion qui s'estfonde au cours du temps chez
leshabitantsdel'endroit serviraici d'indication."
This passage isfon~wed by that quoted bythe Counter-Mernorial,
the wl~oleof which pat-agraphhowever should be read :
"En génCrrildm5 les casparticuliers, on prendra lplus si3re-
ment une décision en conformite avec la vieiie notion juridique
norvigienne,sil'an considère laligne fondmentde comme étant:
titéeentre les poinlesplusextrèm~sdont ilpourrait thequestion,
nonobstant la longueur de )a hgne. {Ceci nkmptche pas, bien
entendu, qu'au murs d'une poursuite judiciaire qui pourrait etre
eiltamke par exemple contre un étrangerdu chef de pkhe illdgale
A I'embrruchrire d'ufjord, le faiqu'iln'apas étédonn&de pres-
criptionexpresse relative à laligne de fronti6re dansZa région,
etque la position de la froqtierene peut pas êtrecomid4rcomme
6tant manifeste pons d'autres raisons, peut avoir une influence
décisivesur lerésulta de la cause.)"
It wiil be çeentherefore that the commission considered, in xg~z
(being on this paint in agreement rvithM. Aubert-see para. 54
abov~) that the question between what points the base-he should
be drawn acrosç the moutlz ofa fjord aç doubtful and asnot regti-
latcd in any definitemânner by the Rescnpt of,1812 .he com-
mission statesitsown recomendation asto the ruleto be adopted,
whch is that quoted by the Counter-Mernorial,but adds the signi-
ficant qualification that this rule wouldnotbe binding on fareigners REFLY OF THE UN~~ED ~WGDOM (28 XI 50) 363
in priai proceedingsinthc absence of anexpms enactment apply-
ing it (as,for example, posibly existcd in the rase of the Varanger-
fjord), CIearIy therefore the commiçsion iç only considering the
ruIe in relation ta Norwegian domestic legislation, and çaying
that, iinIesçthere isa definite .Nonve@an latv appropriating waters
which are ntit On the face of them part of Norwe@an territorial
waters, the Nonvegian Court ~villnot conviçt. The Goverment of
the United ICingdornwouTdadd to this that even the existence of
an express Norwegian enactment appLyîng this wle wciald not of
itseL£make a particdar base=Jiie valid under international law, .
69, The second quotation contained in parag-aph 103of the
Counter-Mernorial is part of a passage comrnencing on page 39
of the Rapport~Iiich deals with the interpretation to bc?placed on
the Rescsipt of 1812 in relation to ontlying rocks, The commission
starts (p. 40) by pointing out that the expression "qui ne sont
pas recouverts par la mer" isambiguous, It then examines various
examplesof Norwegian legislation and state( sp.41) (as already
beezishawn in paragmphs 36 and 38 of this Replyj that the Decrees
of 1869and 1889did not supply any answer to the question. The
base-points of tlie Luled srawn in 1869 and 1889 are permanently
exposed ;as regards the Decree of 1389 ,Ethought'hier~ were certain
rocks mhich arc periodically exposecl ozdsids the lhc rvhich was
dra~vn ", these rocks were ~iotmade use of.
The commission then refers @. 45) to certain treatjes and cites
Professor Aschehoug, Mr. Arctander and Professor Morgenstierne,
dl of whom-at dates between 1891 and rgog-had expreçsed the
opinion that only rocks exposed at high tide coiild be ascd, and also
M.Aubert (ibad.),tvho stated in rSgg that in practice no rock had
ever becnuçed which IV~Snot perrnanently mposed %, Othersuthors
holding the oppoçite view are cited on'page 46, arnongst them
31,Kleen, whose viewç were evidently influeoced by the fom of
Swedish legisiation in which the ward"continuellement" ucmed,
5e-eRapport rgr?, 'p42, note r.
inhkOnNorge5tSfnfs[m/afvi~~piiblishecl in rgqG,ruritcs (S4,tThecSe&sTerrr-
t0-r; 1."Thc Bxtcntofthr:Sea Territorg.:"The letterpatent of~$12 cstahlish
In reality onthe ptinciple itçfortlicalculatioof the scaterritorThe appli-
cation ofthis princil;>lcwhcn dctcrminwliere theemct twrltoridhoundan 1s
ta go haç in many respectcausecdoulit. The firquestioniçwhethtx tlie outer-
rnost islatidb or islets arctciIonil the startirtg point for the calrniiston
be çucli as consta~tIlc ah\*:tvafcr,orwhether corisderation cahc givcn to
i~lanr orisletwliich aTconlvisiblc a10wtirle. B~çi~ditothe ~ording ['u.hichb
are ncrt ruavcT by thpea'itisifai~ythingtotwpresumed that anislanoranisld
to Ise able tafomthestarting poinforthecalculation rntialirays la1xir.cthe
level af thsea.Thls ishowe~rcr,notinaccordance withthe genenl international
hreti~t d c~lculatio Tn. rule hthe Lcttma Patçnt of1812 1stl~etefaapplied
in aIthappears tiiât thc first publiSwedibli cnacttllecontainilig thw~rd
was a Iaw of 5tli Rl€871c,onccrningfishing onthivest coasof Sweden.Tthnd,
howevcr. been previously uscd in unpiiblishedeightçenkh-ceilhrvncutrality
IegislatLon. The commission proceeds to express its own opiriionon page 46
as follcrws:
"Diapr&s 'l'opinionde la présente commis~ion, la façon même
dont est conque la lettre-patentone donne qu'une seule solution
certaine,et c'estque les rochersqui sonttoujours recouvertspar
la mer ne doivent pas en tout cas ètre cornpt4s.Mais les mots
peuvent rl'ailleuren eux-mêmes signifier:r qui ne sontjamais
. recouvertsii,,qui oràinalrement ne sont pas recouverts n,n qui
ne sont pas recouverts en ggnéral n, qui ne sont pas continuelIe-
ment recoat7ert3, nqui ne sont pas recorrverts en tout temps ir,
et,suivant l'une oul'atitrde CS tournnres et de plusieursautres
peut-être,ils peuvent 6trecmployés dans le scns de m&e haute
oumaréeb .asse, entemps orclinaireou en temps de grande marée,
ou dans le sensde niveau d'eau moym, dc telle sorte qu'an corn-
penne ou exduc des rochersd'une nature toute diffhnte, depuis
ceus qui sont swuverts par lahaute mer dans les grandesmarées
jusclu'àceux qui, cesépoques,asskhenf: A mer basse."
It rremains then, statesthe Rapport (p, 471,for the commission to
fonn itç own conclusions and it first relies on the Rescript of
18th June, 1745 ,hichrefers So "hauts-fonds" (çhailawsoundings)
and "rochers" icishow that rocks not continuously covered rnay
be used, and proceeds :
'5 l'ontrouve trop faiblela base de cette conciusion,on peut
faire valoirun autre argument : A savoir que la lettre-patcnte
laisseirrésoluela question relativeau point de depart précis et
qu'elleskentientseulement Ala pratiqueintemationalc, telie qu'elle
pouvait existerà cetteépoque(s'iletiexistait une),ou telle qu'eue
devait Etreen tout temps, On arriveraà un résultatsemblable si
O rend surtout égard a laconception suivant etomme, dcpuis
que a hsposition a kt& priscilne s'estfom6 aucun usage certain,
lesrègles g&n&aleç de droit internatioiial (s'il en t<steJ ou b
pratique intcrnationde doivent entout cas- qirelque soit leselis
primitifde la disposition - sentid 'inclication."
J
On Ehishasis the Rapport (p. 481,çvithoutquqting any autbority
forits conclusians, rec~mmends that rocks not contifiuovsly run
civerby the sea, induding those ady exposed at spring tides, rnay
be made use of-rather on the bâsis de:Eegejermda, than de bgr
lcztal.
On the further question whether any rocks, however far hm the
land, rnay be used, it ispointecl crutthat the Rescrlptof 18x2 con-
tains no ruling: the commission's vie~~ as to what is equitable is -
that rocks rvhich are less than fwo leagrresauray (i,e,8 miles or
dotrble the distance applicable to the measurement to territorial
watcrs) may be used (cornpare in fhis conneetion what was stated
by M, Aubert at the Inçtitute of InternationaI Law-para. 53
The actital recommendatioftkecommissionon thismattcrappcârsinfact
tahave heenthat me WTLbCmadc OF "islands, ~kcrandrocks ~i;hichuruaEwrays
abovewateualorrbivtnlowtidc"(Sm Annex IX nfminutes ofLonrlorConference
of 1325 Vol. 1, para3,31emmial. p. rGo.}ai~ovc),but if a rock is fou~id more than twu leagues away its
importance must be judged aaovding fuihect'rmt~startms.
There then follaivs the passage cited in parasaph ro3 of the
Counter-Mernorial, which is cleary the interpretation given by
the commission "on principle" to the riiords, inthe ResMipt of
1812, "les plus éloignks,the rescrlptitself offering no clear inclica-
tian of what 1ç intended. This içPollor~reby the question what iç
the mahum distance that two rocks "les plus éloignEs" rnay
be the onefrom the other in order thata straightlinemay be draxvn
between thern, and theausiver is given that this maybe done tvhen
thc rocks are not more than tavo lmgues npart,otherwise regard
matsttiehad GO the drczk~slmnces.
The commission then statesthe circt~mstances to whieh regard
may be had in the follomrinwo-s which :iresignifiant (cip.49) :
"Les différentescirconstanceanriquellesil convient dprendre
égarclpour çItaque endroit cn particulier peuvent &tre d'ordre
historique, éconorniqucou géograpliique, par exempl; une vieille
conccptioriconcernant- la froti&re UnPr possession non troublée
$es pkckcrieç, cxrcke par la population chti~rre de temps immé-
morial et nécessair?Lson existence;les avantages ratiquesd'une
ligne facilà constatersur place; lahite natureSe des bancs de
pèche."
In fact,sofar asany explanationshave ben given ofthe recommen-
dations of the commission, no attempt appcars to have been made
to justifgrthem on any other his than these alleged spccial cir-
cumstances.
70- Tt has been neccssasy to refestu the Rapport at Mme length
to show-as the Governmentof the United ICingdomnaw submits- *
(a) that the approach of the comnlission to these questions is
purely the apgroach of a Norwegian legisla tosadrninis-
trator considering what legislation may be passed ivhich
iç consistent with previous iegislation andtvith his vienr of
hforlwgian requirernenks, The "circumstarrcesJ' of which
açcount isto 'betakenare essentially of this characier-no
açcount is taken of the impact of foreign hterests, or of
international acceptance qr recognition-and, although
certain of these 'kircwmstanc~s"rnayno doubt be elernmts
to be considere-d in decihg whcther any hternationally
effective law or cusfom has betrnforrned, thcy ~vouldnot
be considered UIthe fomi in which fhey are.here expresscd ;
(b) that previou Nsamegian legislaiion, .tvhether Kesçript of
1812 or suhseqricnt enactments including the Decrees of
1869 or1889 ays dom noclear rules either asto the manner
in ~lfhichbase-linesare tobe drawn acrtiss bays or asto the
mannw in which rocks may be usecl-what rocks ({Yhether
s~ttbrnergingrocks ornot} may be made use of, what is-the
maximum distançe theçe may be onefrom the other and from the land-aU these are unsettled questions as to which not
even lexned opinion ismaaimous ;
(cl the commission made certain recommendations as to the
des to be appliedivhich wercineffect fmally adopted intbe
1935 Royal Becree, although ,in the interval Noxwegian
oficial opinion hacl ben in favou ofthe more moderate
red lines. The comnÈission, moreover, expressed itself in the
report ina thoroughly tentative manniFr, and, it will be
remernbered, as was shown by the report of the Minister of
Foreign Affaiss to the Storting in 1927, had so little confi-
dence inits views as to the permisrible length of base-lins
that it, apparently, made alternative recornmendatians
based on lines of a maximum of x2 and of xo miles. (See
para. 58.-4 above.)
7r. -The Guvemment of the United Kingdom notes that the
'Goi~ernment ofNorcvay has not published the second portion of
the commission's report. It notes that the base-points aftcrwards
adopted in the 1935 Royal Decréewere in façt listed in hnnex I
to this report (see Annexes 36 and 37 ofCounter-Mernorial).The
latter base-points corrtspond exacfly auiththose later adopted with
a very few minor exceptions, of whichthe most important isthat
Noç.7 and 8(rgrz) arecombiried in No. 7 (1935 1)The Government
ofthe United Kingdom had ofcourse noknowledge whatever of these
base-poin ts until 193j and their existence %va sot referred to by the
Norwegian Govemhent atany tirne in the course of the nnrnerous
discussions andnegotj al-ions ~~llichtoulrplace inthe period between
1912 and 1935, or at the Hague codification Conference of1930.
Moreover, &ter these base-points had been mcommendcd in 1912,
it was23 years befose Nonvay took legislaiive action with regard
--
1 Itis diffittnlwmpam ~~&tl~ the positions giventhe Decree of1335with
thhoscinAmeses 36 and 37 :
(0) bccausothe Infitudes inflatkr arcbnsed onold Kmegian cliark dating
froinappraximately1845 ;
(b) becausethelfingitndes in the latter arereckoned from Chri'lhe lntet
detcrmin;itmn ofthe latterisroo 43'4375East of Gmenwich. Making the
ncarestpmsible approxiinatiotnhme Is-with a fcw spccific exceptions-no
grcatcd riscreprtncyiiatitnde id~0.2 rniIeThe maximuni difimnccs in
longitiidarenear Vardo wherethey amotintto0.5 and 0-6 minutes,othcr-
wlse thare1s a generaldisctepancy ofabouto.~-o--it-iiniites. I
The wly differmces inpositlon*f: thchc-points ivhichcan be saidto bo
fioticeabIe a:e
(a) Foirit:No21 of the x935linex itifferenin positionofabont 3 caMeç,
(b) Poirit 30-2~)of the 1035 linc ("the norhernSirebae") is described ia
Annex 37. No. g,as "thc rnoçt wrtetlofthe Rarene".The posrtïons are,
hawever, atmost 2 cableapt and thewi1rk.me probably the=me.
(ç)\Vit11reg~rdto I>oifEo 28 oftfit~935liac (Chnimen), tliweappearto bo
two roclcln tlie viciniIt.iç p~~ible that the 1933 Dccree aAnnex 37
(No.8)rafer70dLfFerenEnesoi tllee.
(d) Thc ~$35Dccire (Nos. 17and 18)refm strparate tltivodry skjæfs~vbich
arc refcmd totogetha in Anaes 36 {No.16). REPLY OF THE UNITED KIKGDOM (28 XI 5~) 3%
to them. In the interval,as wiU be shown, Norway entertained
different ideas to themanner inwhiçh the necesçary linesdefining
territoriawaters shodd bc drawn, those ideastaking shape during
part of the pesiod as the red lines; the latter were, adrnittedly,
not autharitative orbal, The history of thoseyears dernonsttates
in faettherivhciiugettld andfluctuating chsacter of the Nonve-
gim attitude in this matter whichlasted until rg33 or thercabouts
whin Nonvay, having .apparently decided toadopt the blue lines,
proccecledtu depart from the " tacit modwsaive7tdiJi"h.isiiiew of
the Norwegian attitude issupported by paragraph 106 ofthe Coun-
ter-Blemorial, ivhich reveals that a furtlier commissiocomposed
of thesame rnemberç asthe commissiontvhich dealtwith the area
'that isthe suhject of this litigation, prepare1920 a confidential
reportcovering the area between the soirthernend of the blue lines
and that covererl by the Decree of 1889. The quation may be
asked why, if the"Nomgian system" isso certain and so histori-
cdy establisbed as Norway norv claims, this report has not been
published and itsxecbmrnendations have not ken put into eEfect.
'
72 A, The Govmment of the United Kingdom has no obser-
vations ta make on paragraphs zo7-r12 of the Coutiter-Memarial
and c~~rrris the understmding of the NarwegianGovernment
expressed attheendd paragmph 110 of the Comtes-Mernorial.
The fie~iodhom 1918-1g3~
The si&atto@ aftmthe7914-19 W18~Y[paras,xx3-1x5 oftheCountier-
Mé rnorial)
72. The ~overnment of the United Kingdom need nat comment
at any Zength ririthe Nonvegian observations on this part of the
case because tbere Is no substantiadifferenceof vimv between the
two countries, Bothagree that alre~tsfrcimtirnefO timefOO~ place
which were the subjects of protests by the Government of the
U-nitedKingdom and that it\vas evident khatfhere\vas aciifference
ofopinion as to the manner inwhicb thefishing limitsshouEdbe
defmed, The Nonvegian Govemment, in parxgraph 114 of the
Connter->'I:ernorhm,akes certainobservations withregard to apas-
sage quotecl from paragraph xzof the Mernorial, 1t doenatdispute
fhe fact that no decrees or charts dcfming the limits had been corn-
rnnnicated, but.saysthat the Govemment ci fhe United ICingdam
had been made aware of theprinciples appliedby Norway, It bas
already been Shown in eariier portions of the Reply that the sù-
ded "princlples" pre.ç~iouçlyapplied by Non~ay, if any such
princiles existeciat dl,were of far tm'uncertain a character to
provide any sure basis for khe dravvingof any limits: the 1912
Commission initç Rapport madethisabundant15 clear(seeparas.68and 69of ththe cply).Rioreover,since iis the fact that the Norcve-
gian administration, which had in its possessiothe detailed report
No, 2 of the commission,te which were anmerrd ~ecific prcrposals
for base-points (now diçclosed 'for the firstthe in Annexes 36
and 37 of the Couriter-hlernori,l\vasyet stilat tliis stage nncer-
tain as to the exactlintsto be adopted, how cauld it be mpected
that the Goverriment of the United IGngdom or British fishirig
vrnsels,w+,ich were aot in possessionof this information, shou~d
knowwhere they stood ?
. \Vithregard to theçaaversation betwéen Mr. Lindey (ashe then
%vas)and hl. Esmarch in 1924 on the subject of the Kaseztck,the
Go\-emment af the United Kingdom entertainsno doilbt asto the
good faithof M. Esmarch in relation tohis statement cmtained in
Anriex 41,No. I,of the Çounter-Mernorial. At the ';&me time the
~Govcrnment of the United Kingdom hw hhad long experience
of the accnracy in reporting of Sir Francis Lindley-who is
unfortunately no longes living-and must attach some importance
tohis coritempomneoilsçtatement, as compeed '1+ht thepresent-
day niemory ofM. Esmasch, as to events which happened 26 years
ago, It aould seem certain, with due respect ro hl. Esmarch,
that the Norzftegian Govemment attached mort geneml impor-
tanceto the hit of IO milesthan he nmv recalls since, asappeatç
from the hfomegian Government's own stat-ment (para. 95 of
Counter-&Ternorial),the ID-mile rule had pIayed some part-and
an important part-in their policy witb regard to fishenes since
Noruwgian G~~~rnmeIl'tconsidered it safeowto enforce by reference
tnoi evenmatethisetimed{in 1924)enprepared toeaassert opdyay that
çhewas entitled to draw lines,betweenexireme headlands howevcr
far apatt these might be, although, if her right to do so was so
cleartyin accordance with hes histciricaland traditional position
as çhe now represents, it might have been expected that slie
should do ço,
73. The Norm~e,@an Governmenf has devoted no less than
tcventy pxrygsaphs of its Counter-hfemoriaiin an attempt to
establish trvn propositions, namely:
(a) that the red linesare not binding upon Nmvay ;
(b) that the red liries did not represent Nomegian viervs in
1924 and that ~ar~tkgiarrpolicy with regard tu enforcement
in the years Lgzg-Xg31 waç based çoiely an the "lenient
enforcement" policyadopted in rgo3 and hâd no reference,
to the red line.
The firstproposition is not, and never.has beeu, disputed bythe
Governent of the United Kingdom which in its Mernorialhas37Q =PLY OF TKE WNTED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
andNwrtvay's vicm ivererepresented by the red lines dra~vnonthe
charts.
75, The evidence that the red hes represent Nedrwegian
officiai opinionat the time iç as follo~v:
.a- SQ far as the coast ofEast Flnomarkis concemed. the r~d
line was shown on the chart which was sent o~cially by the
Norwegian Foreign Ministclir tothe British Chargéd'Ai3 aires
at Oslo on 4th November, 1924 (Annex 43 of Counter-
Memorial), Inagreeing to forward this chart M. Moivinckel
described itas "indicating the limitof Norivepan territorial
waters according to Nonvegi an views" CMeMoriaI, para. 13).
The line draçvnon thischart is the same.= that dmwn in
the Principwl ficts,figwe 13,page 45-the document which
was handed out by Dr. Ejort at the opening of the Oslo
Conference. The importance of thiç lineisthat itwas repro-
duced aswhat was afterwards known as the rd Iine in this
area, there being no differcnçe between the two if the
assumpti on (which theCounter-Mernorial in paravaph 1x7,
Vol. 1,p.304, statestobe a pemissible one) is macle thatthe
Zine,if continued, would reach the rack of Omgangsbaaen,
l~thlcis a point on the rd line. This portion of the red line,
therefore,is directly establishedas representing Norwegian
views,
(b) The report of the Foreign AffairCornmittee of theStarting
in canr-iecfionwith thc 1935 Decree (Annex 25, No. I, of
Mernorial) contains these words with reference to the recl
lines: .
"They weredrawnup (atthe time oftheOslodiscussions.which
taakplace in 1924)inconsequence of aBritishrcquest, and consii-
twted an attempt üt showing the principles on which bm-lines
should be dray accordiflg tthe Nùrwegian point ofview, but
without inany way hindiilg theNorwegian authorities aregard_%
the final king ofthe base-lines" (Vol. 1, Memoriap. m gr),
(cl The report of the Minidry of Foreign Affairs Eothe Stortlng
-r1ponthe conversations in London and Oslo contains the
following passagel on page 5 :
"Before itvas possFhIeirom the Nonvegim sideta estimate the
extent of the Bor\ilegianintereçtsinvolved on such a bwis of
negotiation,it +vasclearly of thegreatest importance first and
foremost tohave Cirawn on charts of the wholecoast themanner
in which theterritoriawaters wllich coulcïthnsbe sec~gnizedby
the B~itrshGoverliment wtiuld appear indetail and in cornparison
with tlie territorial \vhitherto daimed by the Norwegian side.
IYiththis object andin order to illustratthequestion, the said
limfts fer fjords and the 3-mile belt tvdraw~ialong,the ~vl~ole;
SecpxragraphgS Aabtivc regardithis document. REPLY OF TKG UNITED KINGDOM (28 xr 50) 371
- hforwegian mast in arnanner avmd by the Britis1ielegatesta
be acceptab tleGreatRritain. On the same chartsFishery Adviw
Iversen and Captain Askim, afterthespecid consent ofthe Miriistry
of Foreign Affairs had been ohtained for the purpose, pIotted the
asnpossible these mre based nprin the. principlesandindicationsr
advançed inthe Royal Resolution regxding territorial twtersoff
the coastof Nnrr of 16th October,1869, and 9th September, r68g"
(St.med. nr.8 (rgzh),p. 3).
76. In the face of this evidenee the Government of the United
Kingclom pub the foliotving questions to the Nowegian Govem-
ment :
(a) Does the Norwegian Goverriment.denÿ that the account
given of the mamier ï~ inhich the red limesiveredsatvn in the
Ilaurice-Douglas report of the Oslo convcrsatioris is cor-
rcct ? For convenience the relevant paragrrtph6 is regnoted
in full.
6. "Our rcqucst for chartsof the rest of thecoast of Norway
ancl adjacent waters correspondingly marked ms ~ceived lvi tli
evident embmassment ,and itbecarncapparent that theNonvegian
Committee coiild nct undel-take todraw tl~clines excepat certain
points ofthe caastwhere the hmits liad been defincdbyNowegan
Orders in Coundl. Eventndly, WC suggested that we shodd om-
selves &aw the lines forthe rest ofthe coast according to such
principlesas we could evolve from thereport of the Nonvegian
Royal Commissionon TerritorialWaters of 1912 ,nd,rather than
accept that solutionthe Nomegian Committee secaredpermission
fron theirForeign Officefor Fis hery InspectasCaptain lvesen [sic],
subsequently asststcd l~y Commander Askim, oE the Norwcgian
AdmiraIty, to prcpase chartstu indicate tNorlvegian claims,rvth
the proviso that the linesthey drew were not to be regarded as
thiç report,,onLtvhieh are indicatedalso the 3-mile line, drawn
according to theBrihh thesis,a4-mileline, +awn accordhg tothe
same thesiç,~tzttatimutandis, and the limits of certainareasof
concentrated seisontifishing, within which, it has beensuggested,
that trawling might be prohibitedby agmeilientçiurin ~pgecified
seasens." (Annex 4 of Memorkal, Vol. 3, p.108.)
(b) Dos the Nomegian Government denythat the redLlines
were clrawn (together tvithgreen lines) oncharts during the
course ofthe Oslo conversations 7It clearlyappearsthat they
\vert drnwn from the résumécontaincd in the minutes of the
12th meeting, paraaraph 3 (c) (Vol.1,Memotid, p. 1351, $ 6
ai the Maurice-Douglas report (above), the despatch of
Mr.Lindley dated28th January, 1925 (Annex 5 of Mernorial
couyled tvith the note which proves that these charts in
fact contained the red line), the reportof theStorting Corn-
mittee in 1935and the report of the RlinixtryofForeign -
-4ffalrç (above).372 BE:PLY O?? THE UMITEII RINGDOM (28 XI 50)
(cf Does the Nonucgîan Government deny that the red tineç
tveresa dsawn on fie maps by Captain Iversen and Com-
mander Askim ~li.henthe Rfinistryof Foreign Afiairssays
that they
"plotted the lines&fining the ternitoridwaters claimed by
N6r$vay '?
(a Dom theNorwegian Government d~ny that CaptainIversen
and Commander Askim plotteci the lines with the approval
ofthe Nomegian Go\-emment nhen the Ministry of Foreign
Mairs saysthat they dlcisa
"after the special consent of the Minidry ofForeign Mirs
had been obtalned for thepurpose"?
(8) Does the Norrwg?anGovernrnent deny that Captain Iversen
and CommanderAskim were fdly qudifiedto drawthe lines
accordhg toNomegian vietvs and that they rvereacquainted
with the proposaismade inthe Rapport 1912, ot dos the
Norwegian Goverment stilldesireto make the objection
that Commander Mim was not a rnembes ofthedelegation ?
Does it deny the followirig facts rcgarding these office?s
Captain Ivers~n: hdd the position of adviser to th6 Nor-
wegian C~mmittes (see Primcifial Facts, on thpageoppite
the table of contents)Re prepared thevery detaïied ckarts
reproduced in the Pri+zciPalFads showing the fishing
grounds at diffment portions of the Nonvegiancoast(pp. 14,
20, 21, 25,31, 38,41). He was tlie autliorof a publication
eraütlcd Norsk Hmfiske.
Commander Askim :furnished "teclinicd assistance with
regard ta charts and hydrograplij7" tothe cornmittee {St.
med. m. 5 (1926 1, 3).
If D)oes the Norwegian Goverm~nt deny that the report:of
the Stotting Cornmittee presented in connection with the
Decree of 1935 referredto the '"rd lincs"?
77. The Guvernment of the Unitecl Kingdom does not dsh to
occupy theattention of theCourt:further on a matter which isso
çlearbeyoncldispute. 1t rvouIaddody the o3lowingO hscrvations:
(a) The Gavemment of the United Kingdom mas, it appears,
in emr in ascribing to M. Koht in his speech made on
24thJurie, 1935, the words quoted in pmgraph rg of the
Mernorial and which itbelievedwere containedin the speech.
This docç not howevcr mail the Normegian Government in
view of the passage quoted above (para.75 (b)), fromthe
report of the Storting Cornmittee,rvhich is prcciseltothe -
same effect. (6) The Governent of the Unïied Kingdom does not under-
stand the Norwegian objections to the nse by the United
Kingdom of the Maurice-Douglas report or ofanyother
evidence bearing on this point. Tlie Gavernment of the
United Kingdom isnst here concemecl toshow thatNcirway
was in the course of the 1924 conversations prepxed, as a
matter ofnegotiation, to m&e certain cunceçsions and to
usethat against her-which wouId be contrar to the spintof
the discussions and the understandingsexpressed when they
began. The Goverment of the United Kingdom is here
concerneclto show that in1924 Norway put forward date-
ments of what hm views th~n iwre as to the territorid
waters which she clarimed,Admittedly thesestatments were
not anthoritative aod the Governrnent of the United King-
dom does not seek to Say that Nonvay thereby bound
he~selfnet to'put forward other and possibIy wider daims
at a later date, Al1 that the Governrnent of the United
1i.ingCloseeks tûshow is thatthe bestNo~.egian opinion in
1924 consideredthat ber clajmscould be defined by reference
to the red lines and that thesr: liaes did not correspond
eithettvitb the lineçlater ernboled in tlte 1935 Decree or.
with the lines which had, as it new àppearç, been recom-
rnended by the Commission of 1912.It will be notethat the
Nnrwegian Govemment itselmakes use of the green lineç
drawn on the charts by the British regresentativesas an
arpmenf against the United Kingdm thesis in the case
(para,TZ jof Count er-Merno~id}.
/c) It is pemiissibletareferto evidence of a reliablecharader
as ta what tmk place during the 1924 converxakions, The
confidential repwt dated 30th December, 3924 (Annex 4
of the Nemohal}, &awn ap by the British members of the
committee jointlyis a conternpolrcneous rcmrdand accord-
ingly isreceiva'oleasevidence, The protocols of tmeetings
wem draivn up for the purpose of "kecorclingthe subjects
discussed and any formulze ar points of agement arrived
at" (Pmtocol, 1st meeting:Vol. 1,Mcmorial, p. 119) and for
these purpow constitute nodoubt the officialrecord. %heGov-
emment of tlie United Ringdom Is not here concernedwith
anvthing ivhiçh may or may not have bem decided al:the
conference, but only with infornation furnished by certain
Norwegian experts,
It isnot in any way contmy .tiunderstandings giverztoaake
use ofthisevidence.The undwstandings were (para,xz~ ofCaunter-
Mernorial)that nothing should prejudiceinmy respect xvhatsoever
th ibpreseirowegia* pointofvim asto the extent ofthe territorid
waters of Norway. The anly purpose of this evidence is tu ascertrtiexactly what
"the present Ncirwegianpoint of vi~w" tm.
Again, inthe cohirmmiqué tr,the press(ibid. it, asintended
to make plain fhat neither country hy anything it said or did
"'abandonecl its point ofvietv.regarding the limits of territorial
jurisdiction inthc sea".
The Goverment of the United Kingdom rnerely seelrs to show
what the point of view ofhTonvay in1924 mas.
78.In theiiglit of the evidence cited above it isriotwiihout
interestto cornpar. the staternents~f the respective views of the
United ICingdem aiid of Nowtiy stated inparagraph 134 of the
Ceunter-Mernorial, The passage qnoted £rom paragraph 17 ofthe
Mernorialis now shown tohave been fullyjustified.T1924 Nomy
was putting forhvard, asher cIaims irrespectof territorialwaters,
the red lines. These represented-as a gIamce at the charts wiil
show-considerab1 y leçs extençive daims than these she afer-
wasds embodied in the 1935Decree. On the other hand to
as the h'onvegian Governmeat does, in this paragraph (and the
same argument is rcpeated in paragraph 140 of the Gounter-
Mernorial) that the principles orvhich the 1935Decree mrasbased
'were fixeù before British trawlersappeareoffthe mnst of Norway
and were esentially thosc propciseclby the Commission of rgrz
shows a determinatibn in the face ofoverwheiming evicience to
- ignore what took placein 1924I f thisIsso,why wz no Iegisiation
enacting these lines pasçed for 23 years? Why, when occasion
arose for Norway to defioe-herclaims, vas theanswer given that
these nere represented by the(non-akthoritative} red line?These
questions admit of only one wiswer. The true explanatian is-as
should atthis point have bmn amply demonstrated-that No27;vay's
claims are not based on any justifiablconsistent or historieal
printiple arid that throughout the period lrvhielapsedfrorn 1912
to 1933 ~he\vasconsidering huw iarshe could safelgo inadvanhg
clairnswhich she feared were inexcessof what ~vouldbe permitted
b y iternational la~v,
One.final point ofsome importance emcrges from the %sage
qnoted above (para, 75(c)) from the repart of the Ministry for
Foreign Affairsto the Storting.Ttisthere statedthat the red iims
were drawn as far aspossible upon the psinciplescontainedin the
Demees of rS@ and 1889, Yet it iç now clairned by Norway that
the blue Ihes are hased npan preciseiy the same principles, The
conclusion must, however, be that the blue lines are not based
upon tliese principles,as the Nomegian Governrnent has beeii
at such pains to contend, but rather represent a considerable
extension of thm. From rgz~ to theHagw Coxfe~encc, 1930 (paras.136-14 ofCoun tes-
Memorial)
79. With regard to the propoçed publication of certain ofthe
resdts of theconversations which to~k phce in London inJune-
July 1925 (referredto inpanigraph136 of theCounter-MemorialS,
it should be understaod that what was pruposed by the Nonvegian
Government in the firçtplacewas that there should be pwblished
the princiyles stated 'Dythe Unitcd Kingdom representativeçalid
set out in Amex X of the minutes of the conference (Memorial,
which, apart1hm certainç largebaystandnin1etswhichsivo-tllhave tos
clracvn,The Government of the United Kingdom inte basethenface of
this request asked for reciprocity of treatment, namely, that
Nonvay shoutd, for her part, publisha definite statement of the
principles she çonsidered applicable forthe drawing ofbase -1'nes.
The mernorandun which Numay Iiad submitted to the London
Conference (Annex IX, Vol. 1, Mernorial, p. x6o) containcd no
statement of principleat dl;it rnerelyquated three clefmitions
and an extract from a dedaration between NonwayJSweden and
Denmark. Morcover, the Government of the United Kingdom
açked spec5callv for a statement regxding the "selection of the
base-lineç f~om which the Ihlt is drawn In relationto inlets"
jllnriex45, No. 3, of Counter-Mernorial}. It dl be remernbered
t'katthe Norwegian definitions in h~ex IX (szt#ra) containecl
noreference to this point(seepara. 62 above).
The Gounter-Mernorial [para.136) seeks to use this requestto
pmve thcltthe United Kingdom could not have received any
information as to theNorwegian point of view in thecourse ofthe
conversations of 1924-192 5ut this do- not foIlow and is not
the case,The information given inTg24 was in the nature of linm
dfam on a map, ~vhich were hown ta be not authontative, The
possession ofthis information clidnot rnakit any the Iess desirable
to have anauthoritative stalemcnk aftlieprinciples on which the
linesshould be drawn.
The. Counter-Mernosid, inthe sanie paragraph, seeks tù draw
the fiirtherconclusion that the United Kingdom was rcluctan-t:
ta acqiraint Normregian organizations and indi~fichals with the
yrinciplesclaimed by her inthe courseof theLondon conversations.
This again içnot justifie: the Unitecl figdorn was anxious-
as it sernainedcontinirouslup to I935-to ascertain the Norrvegian
systern and as a Zsargaining point itvithhtld itsown system, It
was not ci4llinto publish its orvnprinciplesunless the Norwegians
did the same.
Moreovm, the hcf: that Nonlray consistently refusecl ta agree
to a publication of both systems serms abmdamtly to justify the
opinion (cmtested in paragraph 136 of the Counier-Mernoriai)that Nonvay had at thk time no settled opinion with regard
to the delimitation of Norwegian.maters.
AlternativeTy, if shehad any suchopinion, her reluctance to
publish itshows that she appreciatedfull well thatit wodd i~ot
be internationally accepted,
&o. The Gounter-Rleaorial inparapph 1x7 deniesthe enstence
of any "tacit modus nivend.c"~between1925-193 b3sed on the red
lhes and says that, with regard to enforcement in these yem,
the Nanvegim Governrnent kvas rnere-elyfollowing the policy
adopted in 1908 T.he Grivemerit ofthe United Kingdom attaches
no importance tothe temirrology which may be used to describe
the factualsituationwhich existed inthose years, butthe Storting
report refrred to above demonsttat es the Norwegian contention
to be incorrect.It is,in fact, clear andcannot Se contesteclby
the Norwegian Gavement
(a) That during these years charts beming the red 3nes wére
iwed to British trawlers;
(6) That British skippers tvere wwned that they worjld not
receive diplornatic supportif thefishedinsidethe rd line ;
(c) That the number of arrests inthese ycars up to 1933, wben
this "md~s uiumde'" kgan to break dom, notfcriably
diminished ;
(d) When, inNovember 1933~ an express modtts 2r8'wd.kWPS
arranged, the Nonvegian note agreeing to it (Anna 12 of
Mernorial)-merely referred "to the practice which foyears
bas heen followed in this matter". Unleçs it was the case
that thete had been a well-understood prakticein these
years, the Nomegian note would certainly have specified
in detail what the new mangement was. In fact,this note
rnakes it clear that the "tacit: modasa.ieimdiwas on the
same terms as the "express wodus vivendi". The latter
was beyond ,doubt referable to the red lines,as pmed by
the reporf: of the Storting Cornmittee in connectiori with
the 1935Decree, pamgraph zr of which iç quoted in full
in parztgraphgrbelow.
80 A. However, arrests &d take place and it must accordingly
have becorneapparent tothe Norwegian anthorities hm reports
of the officerswho boarded the Britishships concemed, thatthse
ships were operating on charts cçintainingthered line. Moreovw,
it isadmitted by the Norwegian Goverment that during this
penod the Nonvegian authorities wese acting 1~4th moderation
in intederingcvithshipping beyond the limits of the existing legis-
lation (para.137of Counter-Mernorial), althorigh the Nonvegian
Goverurnent asserts that its policy of "moderation"' was based
on the orders issuedin 1908 and not on the red lines. Iis clear,
Imwever,fmm an examination of areasof seain whichthilispolicy RZ35PL.OF TRE UNITED WWGWM (28XI 50) 377
of "'muderation" waç appliedthat it was based on the red 3hes.
A referenceto the list (Aiinex 32) of shipswhich 'were arrc~ted
daring the pAod wkch elapsed beheen 1g2~ and the period at
the beginning of1933,whcn the "tacitrnudwsaazie+tdiJJeganto
break dawn, shotvs that of the eighteen ships concerned (those
numbered 20-37 on the iistal1 were arrested inside the redline,
wkle of the tbxee ships that tverecvarned two were warned for
fishing açtuallyon the red linektters (c)and(dl). This may be
contrasted with the two cases of warnings before1924(lette= (a)
and ($11 ,oth of tvhichtmk place hdds the red la'we.After1924,
hoivever,ailshîpç found &sideth red line (with the single exception
of the AZmfoss (letter le)) uTerearrested, This evidence strongiy
supports the contention ofthe hvernrnent of the United Içirigdom :
that the ~odzasvz'wrzdiin theseyears was related to thered hes,
and, as will beshown hdow, this argument iç even more strongly
confirrned bytvhat ttookplaceafter1933.
Pt seems, therefore,to be not without jusmca* that the
British Legation,in1933, described thisituationas amomting to
a "tac* arrangernentjJ 1.MVemlonal,p.37) based-as itcertaidy
was onthe British side'..- the red lines draivon the Osloch&s,
:It may be added, inreply to the third sub-paragraph of para-
graph 137 of the Gounter-Mernorial, that the red linesdram an
the Lozldon chatts in 1925were onlp dmwn to Illustrate thc pnn-
ciplesSet out inAnnex IX to the minutes. These charts were not
sent tothe two Governnients aftes the cririferencand sowere not
comparable ln authority to those useclat the Oslo Conference.
The fact that different lines wee drawn for apwticular puvose
in no way invalidated the lines drawnat Oslo.
8r. 'IVithregard topragraph 140 of the Counter-NIwnorid, the
United Khgdorra was merely concerned topoint out,h paragraph 37
of iitMernorial, that the daims made by Nonvay in 1935 were
considerahly more extensive than those sliotvnby the red lines.
This cannot be contestecl and,ashas been previonsly pointed out,
Itis particularlg significant thwme twelve years after the com-
mission Iiad decided in 1912 to recornmend the adoption of the
bEuelines, Nonvay was putting fonvard the less extensive red
linesas repraenting her clah.
The Deutschland, Loch Torriden und St. Just @aras. 141-rqg of
the Counter-Mernorial)
82. The Counter-Mernoriai devotes paragraphs ~p-145 to sri
attempt to negative the conclusions drawn by the Mernorial
(paras. 28-34 )rom the judgrnent of the SuprerneCourt in the
De~~scftlaad case. The Government of the United Xingdom,
however, invites attention to what was said concerning thiscase
in the 1S-maria2 and submits that the conclusions there set out
are perfectly comcct, tiritregard fitstto thetranslation ofthe juclgments,it was not
clairned in the filernoriai that the whole of the judpmts were
included in Amex g: itisnot belicved,hohvever, that anyrelevant
passage was omitted. The Governent of the United Kingdom
notes the alternative tmnslatian offered by the Counter-Mernorial
and, fhough in some casespreferring itsown translation, is quite
prepared to accept ths as an adequate wsrking translation for
the purposesof the case.None of the sugg-ted amendment(; affect
in anjr way the argument developed in the Memorial. Sinçe the
preparatirin of the Mernorial the Goverment of the United King-
dom has obtained a translation ofthe Opinion of Dr. R~stad and a
copy of th translation (omitting one irselevantpassage),made by
Rlr.Nansen, isattachecl--4nnex 31.
83. In view ofthe full examination of the judgments gÎven in
the Memorial, the Govcmnient of the United Kingdom can restate
itsargument, in relatioto the Norwegian ohjections, quitebnefly :
(a) The Court, following the opinion of Dr. Rastad, with onIy
one dissentient, heTd that therewas no evidence, in 1927,
thaf Norivay had approgriated any waters which did mot
lie withina fjofd or within 4 miles from the mouth of afjord,
or from land, ~xcept inthe two areas covcred by the Decrees
of 1869 and 1889 ; that the Rescript ai 1812 furnished no
clear guidance, and that no historic tithad been shown,
(b) Dr. Rzstad, in his opinion, made it clear that hewas net
considering what areas Nomy could legitirnately clah
uader international law but only to what areas Nonvegian
title had in fact been eçtablished by IegisIation or historie
usage. The conclusions which tlre United Kingdom drarvs
£rom the opinion and the judgments similatly do not relate
(directly) to tvhat Nonvay coulcl legitimately cclaim, but'
oidy to'whatshe had infa& effectivelyclairned in1927,
(c) Dr. R~stnd'ls examination of the Rescript of1812 and ofthe'
Decrees of 1869 and 1889 ka& to conclusionstvhich are
entirely in accordance ~vitb the arguments previously put
farward in this Reply. Re explains that the Rescsipt of
3812, as yeuld be expected from the circumstanceç in which
itwas issued, givcs no clear guidance as £0 €he mariner in
tv'hichbase-linesare tohe drawn, and he treats the Decrees
of 1869 and 1889 asparticuiarlegislationapplicabletolimited
areas. Re contrasts the Rcscript of r8r2 with some foreign
regulations, w'tiichstate ththe seaterritoryisto be reckon-
d fmm "the coastand its bays"when itispossibletoestab-
liçh from hjsioricd evidence what isto be considered-by
"'bayç" or ~vhatever other expression has been uçed. The
sescript, hestates, contains nothing sirnilar. The indefinite
charader of the Reçcript of 1812has, l~e çays, not been
mpplemen ted by usage. "A de in latvwl-ticstatesthat theseaterritoryisto bereckoned
hem base-lins, Ibutnot lioisfthebase-limesare to bedrawn, can
dso notcorne into existence thmugh usage :cudom must relate to
s~metliingfixcd bj practice."
(d} Dr, Ratad treats it as an openquestion ~vhether-on the
assumption that the territoriallimitç arto be dratvnoutside
the "skj~rgaard" I-the mthod to be adopted is that ofan
envelope of circEesvrflta radius of fourmiles, the centres of
whch are siinated on the 1ow~Tvatcrline, inclucling islets
and rocks,orwhether a sy~tem ofparaIlel linemay be used.
This is quite ccintrary tothe present Nonveglan contention
that asystern ofthelatter çharacter lias becorne historicdly
established,
(6) VJith regard to fjords,Dr. bstacl statesquite clearly that,
even admitting that Xortvay iseutitled on principletodaim
fjords as national tenitory, the question stiU anseshom a
fjordis to be defined and what li.mits caribe taken.
(f) The WonvegianCouder-Mernoriail lays considerable ermphrtsis
on the fact that the case was a criminal proceebing and
üttempts to dismiss the opinion ofDr. Rxstad and the judg-
ments of the Court as irrelevant, cm this groui~d, to the
preseut case.But thjs isa distortion of the facts.The fact
Chat the case \vas a Mrnlnal proceeding kvas,of course, a
relevant factorinthe decision, but it only became relevant
aftcr the itndysis had been made:of the nature of Norwegian
lalv 011 territorial tvafers. BothDr, Ræstad's opinion ancl
the judgrnents of the Court,proceedd on the baçis that, the
law (derived from the Rescript of 1822, from hlstoric usage,
etc.) Seing, as in their viervit was,uncertain, tlie açcuçed
must In a criminal proceeding Be given the henefit of the
doubt. Dr. Rmtacl, moreover, deasly explairred that the
relevant question in deciding tvhethier the xccused had
committed anoffence was whether the lirnits ofsseaterritory
andd itevaspreciselybecause nosuch legislation or çusturnary, '
law could be found, which clearly applied to the area In
question, -that he considered that the accused ought to be
acquittcd. The fact that the proceedings mre criminal
therefore in no way invalidated the analysis which \vasmade
by the Court and by Dr- Rzestad of Nonvegian legislation
(includingthrR;escripE of ~SIZ) and of Nonvegian custcimary
larv.The emphatic statement in pamgraph 144 of the Counter-
Mernorial isaccordinglyinaccura n et'tvrespects ;hst, in
1 Ttmay lwnoted that in paragraphoftht: onntcr-armoriathe Nmvegian
Gavcmnicnt bas .wmwhat miçmtctprctcda passage froin DiResbd's hook
etbwmeqcontre la mesituGau dci&."ThcactnaFtext howct.cr,contanorefer-
encç ta thworclbounclary{tior#eJ, stating that Dr. Rzstad considered it necesçcuy that the
lirnit shauld be estabfished insachs mnaamrtaeste be charly
wndwstmd by theraccatst;danclsecondly, in suggesting that
Dr. Rnçtad thought that theaccused could only lieconvicted
on a provision of wriEte~ Law.In fact,Dr, Rcestad did not
mention the necessity of making the law understood by the
accused md his opinion proceeded tkroughout on the basis
that custornary law,If ,ut on1y if, clearestablishd, would
be a wfficientbasisfor conviction.
84, With regard tothe case ofthe Loch Tmridm, whichis dealt
with in paragraphs r46-148 of theCornter-Mernorial, thk tvaç,as
k pMnted out inparagsaph 93 ofthis Reply, a caseofanarrest in
the arcabetweenthe red and blue lines;itms made in 1g33 when
the "tacit *1920dwvivexdi" \vas breaking down, and rvhen, as is
nowkno~vn, the Nonwgian Lvernment had decided to claim the
blue line, Iwas for this reason, no cloubt, tbthe Corirt,on cvi-
dence prewnted by the authorities, foundthat thehase-lineshould
.be rlrawn £rom Tokke'boen to Ghmen.
The Courtalsofound, asIsstated inparagraph 39 ofthe Mernorial,
that theretvas no nile that a base-line could not be more than
IO miles in lengthand it was because of its decisioon this point
and rvith regard t4 th^:particular base-line that the Governrnent
of theUnited Kingdom pmtested against the condemnation of the
ship after its seconarrestand asked forthe fineto be remitted-
which the Nosurregian Gu~:emment ultimately agreed ta do.
85. On the caseoftheS.!Jwt, ivhichisrnentioned inparagraph 149
oE the Cùunter-Memurid, the observation os the Goirernment
of the United Icingdom have already been fully presented in
ya-ragraphs 45-46 ofthe Mernoriaï. \Trith regard to therespective
kansiations the Government of the thiited ICingdom repats nhat
is said aboveon the caseof theD.mtsclzEmd,
This case,like the Loch Taryidon, =me in rg33 when tbe "tacit
mod~s viveadi"was breaking down, and when, as iç now knott-n,
Norway had decided to extend hcr clah ta the blue linesIt was
nIsoan arrmt inthe areahtween the redand the blue lines.It%vas
no doubt for thisreason (asinthe case of theLoch To~~~~'d that
the rnajorityof the Conrt,in spiteof the factthat the Nornegian
Govmment had in 1924 oficiallystated the red lineto represent
itçdaim, found in favour ofa limit rvhichcoinçidedwith the bIue
line, and accordingly adapted a dtfferent appraach fromthat taken
Rn the DmhckEad,
The Gaverment ofthe United Kingdomhas alrendycomrnented
(para.75, footnote, above) onthe opinion expresscd by one of the
judges that the redline officidy sentinrgzq was merely an "offer
of negotiation". Itwas on the contrary a statement of the Nor- ,
wegian Govetnment "sposibon. Risfoyy Jflzedispld.erom 1930-193 (aras- r50-15 3f theCounter-
Mernosial)
I
86. The Governmerit ofthe United Ringdoni notes with some
surprise the iristrucfions issned on gznd February, 1933, to the
Commander of the F~idtjof Nansen (Annex qg of Çounter-Memo-
rial)and thoseisçuedon 12th Aprd,r934, tu the Naval Commander
in Chief (Annex 50 of Counter-Mernorial), the natureof rvhichwas
eirtirely unknown tu the Government ofthe United Kingdam un-Lil
tbeir disclosureiiithe Gounter-Mernorial.
It appearç from the fxst of tliese nota (Annex 49 of Counter-
Memoria~) that the Norwegan Gavmm~nt in February 1933
issued instructionsto itç officerto enforce,dong aportiun O£ the
Nonvegian coast,limlts cvhiçhcorresponded with those afterwards
embodied In the Decree of 1g35. l%e base-points rnentioned inthe
- instruction in fact are identical (except for a smaU discrepüncy
between Ytre Fislceb~n and point No. 23 onthe "blueline which
was mended by the Royal Decree of 10th Decembe~,1937) with
points 21-28 of the blue line 1.The issue ofthis instmction no
doub t explains the sudden and unexpected change ~vhich Ivaçnùted
hy the Government of the United Kingdom at the beginning of
1933whenBritish ship s ega~ to be arrested ontçide the red line
(seeparas. 41-4 3f Mernorial).It issmewhat rernarkablethat in
the note of the Nonvegiatl Ministerin London of 30th Navernber,
1933-by which the "express mudw vivendi1' {vas established
(Annex 12 of Mernorial)-M. Vogt should have stated that "the
attitude of the Norwegian Ciovernmcnt in regard tu the treatment
of British traxv1ershad ~iotbeen subject to any alteration during
the last 18 months".
There stems to have beea some confusion in Norwegian official
cireles at fiis tirne sintie-as appearç from the despatçh of
SirP. Wingfield ofzrst Dmember, 7933, anextract from which is
coritained in Annex 34, No. 4, of this Reply-the F~idtjof Nawsea
did in fact cang chxrtson which were marked lines corrwponding
to the bluc lineç.Possibly the explanlition was that reported to
have been given by M- fifowinckelto SirP. IVingfielS,namely that
the Commission of 1912 macle twtr alternative recornmendations,
one fors linemon widely dra'cvnthan the otlier, the more extensive
line which tvas rtccimiiiendedby the mhto~ity king the 1935line.
However, the Nonvegian Govcmment did-as the riote skdted
and as was conhmed by the report of the Siorting Cornmittee
(seeparagraph gr below)-xsui-e the Gowmment of the United
Kingdom that instructionshad been given to revert to a poltcy
of enforcement hased on the red llnes.
1As regardsthbase-painOD he bluIhc.gren indnncx 17 ofthçRTcmorial,
the distancc bchee$oints r3 and xq shmld 1248miles andnat1.8mil& as 382 - REFLY OF THE UX1TED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
87. The sccond instruction dated rzth April,1934, laid dom
for the coast of the County of Nardland that the limits proposed
by the 1912 Commission should bc applied. This instruction was.
cxpressed to be confidenfial, which is not srrrprising, sinit WQS
directy ç~ntrary tu the assurance which the Norlvegian Govern-
ment had givenin iisnote of 30th November, x933.
88, The Government of th^ Uiiited Kingdorn iç not here con-
cerned with the motive which may have insprtedthe Nonvegim
Gov~rmsnt to issue such irtstrnctions ta iofficersbut it appcars,
somewhat remarkable to claim, as does paragraph 151 of the
Couriter-Mernorial, that these Instructions bear n.itness to the
''çontinuity of Norrvegianjurisprudence". The Norrvegian Govern-
ment had prbr to this date neither made knotvn the recommen-
dations in detail of tlz1912 Commission nori tsIntention ro act
upon them, had repeatedly given the ans;iverto United Kingdom
enquiries thatthe matter waç stU mder consideration, and, when
pressed to declare its attitude, had donso on the basis of the red.
Lines,The Govment of tlie United Kingdom annot, therdore.
understand how it can be saicithat jurisprudenceis established
.or cçintinuedby the issue of confidcntiat ocdertuhich tvere qiiite
inconsistent with the attitude the Nenvqiarr Government had
taken in public priorta that date.
89. The Norwegian Governnent cornplainsin p,xmgraph r32 af
the Connter-Mernorial that, by referring inthe Mernorancizrrnof
27th July, 1933(Annex rr of the Mernorial), ta "extendhg terri-
torial waters even beyond the utrnost limits clairned ,in 1924",
the Governmen t fthe United Kingdam isseeking to bind the
Nornregian Governrnent hy referRng tu the Oslo conversations
çontmry te the rfiservations made atthe tirne, As has beenshown
above (para. 77)#the Government of the United Kingdorn is not
seeking to do this, but rnerely to shoiv that Norrvegian opinion
at a certain date tvas infavour oflins drawn as the redlines on
the rgzg charts. Tn spitc ofthe fonnal chazacter of the Memo-
randum of 27thJuly, rg33,no reply vas sent by the Norrvegian
Government nor was any clenial made of the statement expressly
refexringto "the limitscIaimed in 1924" which is quoted in para-
graph 152 ofthe Gounter-Mernorial.
It isevident that the Norrwgian Govemrnent at the the was
not prcpared to challenge the statement that certain particrular
lirnits hd been clajrned during theOsloconversations.
-go, Para,graph 153of the Conter-Mernorial, refhg bu para-
grapb 42 of the nlemorial; chargethe Mernorialwith deçtroyingthc
alfegationalready made that a taçit $nodm uivmdi onthe basis of.
the sed 'linehad bem made in 1923. In fact paragraph 42 of the
Mernorial does nothing of the khidIt rnerely referç tthe façtthat
ia rg33 the red line (taclt~odusviwlzdi was apparentiy brcakingdown on account of Norwegian persistence inthai year inwesting
ships outside the red line and hazards the opinion that iIJaimm
becaascNorway was already claiming the blue linc. Not only are
these contentions fdy consistent with the eAstence of atatitmdats
ziivenda',ut theyate now shown to have been completely acçurate
since the ordets now seento have been issued by the Nonvegian
Government (Annexes 49 alid 50 of the Counter-Mernorial) prove
tlrat in fact Nomay had determined to enforce the rgrz Report in
1933. Such Inconsistency as thme mas liesin the condnct of the
Ncirwegian Eot.emrncn.t, tvhich in Hovember 1933led the Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom to suppose that she would not take
action beyond the red Iine(Anna 32 of Mernorial)anidat the same
tiine içsued o&rs to its Officerto enforce the lirnit upto the
blue line.
gr. Paragraphs 154-15 of5 the Corinter-Mernorial conskt sub-
stantlallyof attempts by theNonvegian Government to er:ade the.
conclusion, tbatagreement wasleached in1933 on an express modus
viveedi On the basisof the red linc.Itis h-stsaid that the United
IGngdorn Mernorial gives the impression that RIi1. sserson, the
head of the Nonvegian FisheriesDepartment, Eame to London to
dkcuss the question of the limit of tdtorialwaters. Tt isdificult
to we howthisimpressioncan have been given since paragaph 43
of the BT~morialclearly states that the abject of the informal dis-
cussions was to reach a wodws vivendi. The M~emorialcertainly
intends to suggest nothing else. \\%en N. Assesson mived, the
questionof a?nodm vivesdiwas imrnediately raised;the Nor~wgian
Government alleges in paragraph r55 of theCounter-Mmorial tliat
M.Asserç-so nvasnot preyared to diçcussit,but, l~o~veverthat may
be, the conversations ultimafeiy resulteinthe note of30th Novem-
ber, rg33 (Annex 12 of Mernorial}.This note, after denying that
Norway hadchangea hm attitude ithe pst 13rnonths, continued :
"In order taaffirm this and desiring avoid auy friction, ay
Govenirnent have given instructions to the Norwegian control
vesselsenforcingthe ~tcessiiof maidarinimgihltafi~acticewhi~h,for
ymrs hm hem foflo~eaix thiswiaii~,''
The Nonvegian Eovernment, relying on the fact that the note
does notrefcr csxpresslyto the relines,now seeks tomaintain that
the note did nothing more than to rearm the Norwegian deged
psactice ofacting witl~rnoderation
Thcre is fortunately noneed for alengtby ngument on this point
sirice the matter iput hymd doubt by the reportol the Foreign
Affairs Cornmittee to the Storting which wa5 made inconnwtion
tvith the 1935 Decree, ta which refesence has already ben made.
The relevant passage in the~repwt (para. 21)isset out in ful:
"The cornmittee are I~rther awarethat the base-lines which they
recemmend on certai points .ares~mehat longer thai-i the sa-
called 'red lines' indicated on some British chartThcx latter 384 REPLY OF THE UXITED ICING~OA~ (28 XI 50)
Xneshavenever been tecagfiizedby Nottvay, and Ureyhave no
authorîtativtitIe escept inasmuchas the hrorwegkanMinisterin
. London. in a note of 30th.Bovemhr, 1933, promiseLitliatthe
Norwegim Ei~hesyinspection vesselswould abide by these lines-
wl~ich,however, were not directly mcntioned inthe note-until
furthenotice:'Thisstep lias beetakenpcnding the deçisiooftlie
Storting in regard aaBilléstalslishingthbase-lines of thNor-
wegjan territoriawaters."' (VOL T, Memo~al, p. rgr,)
92.The Govemment ofthe Unitcd Kingdom did nothing more
in itsMemonal than to statetheposition asit is estaldishein this
report and does nût casily understancl~vky the Nonvegian Govern-
ment should have thought it apprapzlate ttodcvote several pages
ofe-r-asiveargument in anattempt toobscure it. Inthe face of the
report it isimpossible for theNonvegim Governent succeçsfully
todeny that thenote of35th November, 1933 ,eferredto thc red
lines (witheut narning them) and not to some ather practice of
Nonvay for~vhichthere is no sat.isfactory evidence.
93. The documents accordingly show beyond doubt thaï,
although Nomay fmrn r933 onwards decided to enforceher daims
up tothe blue lines, she had not diisclosedthis intention bIlad-
fiom November 1933-agreed to a ritodwsviuefidi under which.
British ships-rvouldnot bearrested provided that theykept outside
the rd lines. Hcr actionsin this peaod completely confirrn this .
condusion. Reference to the tables atAnnex32 shows t-hat, of the
'eighteen ships warned afterthe corning into efiectof the express
mod.us vivemdi (lettered 11-y),aiexdepi tzeimem in areas betmtxn
the ved a.ndhlw Iifies, the remaining two bekng, ZmZ~rding to the
Niirwegian data, elther on the sed line or only jmside it (Nos. k
and x). The practice is shownespecially clearintwo areas situated
htween the twa lines: fiwt the area off Berlevaag (Annex 2,
chart No. 5, of Counter-Mernorial) in \&ch no ferverthan eight
ship were warned [tww before and six after the express modus
vivendi) and secondly the area ofLofi$ehmet {Annex 2,chart:No. 8,
of Counter-Mernorial) where four sh$s weretvcirned,
As a contrast tothis, as caiibe seen by referringto the list of
arrests,flotom si%gIeshi# was csrreskdajferthe LX~RÇS MOCFWÇ
vivendi hecame eoectiveearly i~1934 my arm betueelather~d
am? lilw linm.The only ships at any tirnearrestedin such an wea
\vertso arrested'inone of t~voperiods,The fi& of such periods
was izi1933(Loch Towidon, Cr~sfflame~,Loch 'donidon again and
Emma Richardson) when, as has been stated, the "tacitmodms
véve~di' w'as obviously breaking dom : it was in fact the arreçts
of these shps in thestareas tvliich caused theC;overnmentof the
United Kingdom to take the initiativewhidi.led to the '"express
m~des vivendi". The second of ~1-e pmiods .c17an 1949 when
Nonvagr had announmd ü policy of full enforcement of tl1eblw
lines cmmeming urith the ICilP.gsfPevadot(No. 583 and canti-nuing rvitli the,Arctic Rafip, Lord PGdw, Egzeerryand Lord
.Nze@dd, arrestswhich led to thinstitutionofthepresent litigation.
A more complete proof ofthe existence of the nzodws ua'vmdi
based on the red lines couM scatcelybe demanded,
94. The Government of the United Kingdom feelsjustined in
submitting accordingly that itsaccoiuit of the situation relating
to the red lines and the successive madws va'uerticcord entirely
with the facts.
A$$Zicatim ofth Royel Deme of1935 (para.15y of the Couilter-
Mernorial)
95. The Government of the United Ringdom agrees with what
issaid in paragraph 150 af the Counter-Mernarial relatingto the
sphere of applicationof the 1935 Decrec.
Eve~tsswlisepé& tothe RoynEDeciee of ig35(paras. ISg-rTz ofthe
Cosrnfer-Mernorial)
.
96. The Goverriment of the United Kingdom haa no observations
to make on the discussions rvhich imrnediately followed the 7935
Decree. With regard to the meeting between theBritish Minister
and M. Koht an 16th October, 1935, referred toinparagraph163
of the Gounter-Mernorial, the actual te& of the mesçage which
Mk.Domer lvasinçtmcted tacornmimicate isincluded as hnex 34,
No. I,of this Reply.In Annex 34, No.z, içcontained Mr.Donner's
report of the meeting. Thebackground to this meçsagc ispmvided .
by a minute ofthe conversation tvhich Sir L.Collier (then head of-
the Northern Department oftheForeign OFfice)had withthe Norw-e-
gian Knister in London on 28th Sepiember, 1935and ro which
some reference is made inparagraph 163 ofthe Counter-Maorial.
(Thisminute is Annex 34, Na, 3, of this Reply,)It is seen from
tliis that the British declaration that a fiçherprotection vesse1
might have t~ be sentwas made necessar by the fact thattrawlers
were about to leave for the fisliigrounds and no adequrtte assu-
rance had ben made by the Nomegian Government regarding the
maintenance of the '"rd line" arrangements,
97. This British dedaration is characterhed by the c~untcr- .
MemoriaI as "a thrextJ'.It is,hoivever, appropriateto point out
that: -
(a) in spite ofthe fact fhat Norway has, in the faceofrgpeated
British protests, forcibly arr~stedlarge nu~nberofBritish
ships during the years siace rgj and in spite of the strong
feelings suchactionhaâ glven rîsetoin British fishincitcles,
the:United IGngdom has never resorted toforce throughout
the course of this dispute but haç always endearroured to settleitby peaceful means. The Govemment of the United
Kingdom was in fact at tkis time suggestingthat the differ-
encebetween the two countries should besettled by arbitra-
tian (seepara,gz of the Mernorial).
(b) Even if the Govemrnent of the United Kingdomhad deüded
to send a fiçliery protection vesse1 to safeguard British
interestsin disputed waters, itwould have been doing no
mare than the Nonvegias Governent actually did by
sending armed veçsels to those çame wkters to safeguard.
Norrvegiam intere';ts.
(c) Had the United Kingdom not been hndamentaiiy averse
from the use of force on any pretext, the United Khgdom
would not have been placed in the situation in which it
no~vIsdurhg the proceedings of thicase,~vhichha5 resultecl
in British fishermen being excIudedhorn the right ta fish
in waterswhich they daim are open to them, while Nomay,
whiçh has been prepared to use force, tranqdiy enjoys the
benefitofexclusive rights ithse same waters.
98. 155thregard to paràgraphs 165-16 ofthe Counter-Mernorial,
the Govenlrnent of the United Kingdom bas no knowlcdge of the
achvities of German fishing boats during the German occupation
of Notway, The Gevcrnment of the United, Kingdom wouId be
mprised if German fishing off the Norwegian çciasts assumed
any noticeable proportions during a period of intense srrbmarine
and air action. As am indication ofthe German attitude during
normal peacetime conditions, the Government ofthe United King-
dom prefers to referta the officiaprotest made on 23rd Ocfober,
-5935 . he Freric5circular lettreferredtoin pasagraph 166 appears
to I-iavbeen sentout by the CentralComnittee of French Shipow-
ners witha view to ascertainingthe vie\*of Freinchshipping inter-
estson the practical advisabiiityof pmtesting against the 1935
llecree, From its ternis if does nstem asifthe te~rnsmd effeçt
ofthe decree were clearly appreciated.The letterat any rate fails
to perceive the distinction behveen mmsures ~f conservation os
poZiceoutside territoridwaters (which is what the Decree-Law of
1662 %vas concerned wifh) and measures of extension of territorial
waters.It wouldcertainlybe incorrect tasaythat France considwed
,herself justifieinextending her territmial waters-he~ signature
of theConventionsof1839 and of 1867 (unramed) and her adoption
of the North Sea Convention of 1882show the çontrary. TIie
cirnilar at the mosshows that French shipowners didnot consider
that the demee affeçted their inte~stto any substalitialex-tent,
So faras thelegaipositioniscüncerned thereisnoreason tosuppose
that the French Govwnment has depa~ted in any way from the
attitude30 clearlydefinedby iiti1868 and 1870.
99. With regard to pampaph 168 of the Cciunter-Mernoriaitis
important for the sake of clxrity apprecia haet Eheretlrerefour
separateperiods, of"Iement errforcement", i~mely : (a) Under the instmctions issuedby the Governent 'of Norway
in 1908(para. 95 of the Counier-Mernorial,and para, 63 of
thelieply).
(6)Under the rd line "tacitmodzlsuivdadi"from xgz5un tithe
arrangement began tobreak down in thebeginning of 1933.
(c) Under the red line"expresnt~dzkuiue~di"which, $y amange-
ments made inNovembm 1933 (Annex rz of Mernorial),
became effectiveithe beginningof rg34.
(dl Under the Royal Decree of 1935 w,hich laçted from thepro-
mulgation of that decree untNonivayannounced apolicy of
strict enforcement i1948-
The Grnerament of the United Kingdom was of corne fuIly
aware that the"express modus uit~mdi"of1933 I-iabeen brought to
an end by the rgjr,Decr-if had been so infomed by RI. Koht
on ~2nd Augirst, 1935 (para,j7 of hlemsrial andpara. rgg of the
Gounter-Mernorial).Neverthelessit was just%ed In suppoçing and
did suppose that the assurance givenby M. Roht on 7thOctober,
1935 (MemoriaT,para. p), that the decree would, provisionallbe
leniently enforced, meantthat, althongh thdecree was inno may
suspended, action against Bdtish hr.wlers was not to be taken
beyond the red he, Itwas for thisreason thatBritish shipawners
were informed that the Goverurnent the United Kingdom regardcd
the xedline asstileffective(para.53 of the Mernoriai)M. Xoht's
Ras statement reported inparagraph 168 of the Counter-Mernorial
is quite consistent with thHe, said that there"exists"no agree-
ment regarding the red lines-~vhich tvasliterally correct,çince the
"'expressristaduiumzdi'"(whichwas such an agreement)had Ixpsed
-and that Norivay had never bomd herself to açmpt the redlines
as "lignes de dimarcation vkitablles en mer" whiçh the United
Kingdom had never asserted they rvereHe agreed that thme was
a policyofleaient enforcement,without stating upto what limits :
the Governmant of tlie United Ringdom naturaliysupposed these
limitsto be thered lines.
zoo. The Govmnment ofthe United Kingdom hns noobservation
to make on paagraphç 169-17 1fthe Gounter-Mernorial,exwpt to
say that the conversations which took place in ~948-194 w9ere
embaked upon as the reçultofNorwegian initiative.%le Govern- l
ment of the United Kingdom, being firn-iof opinion that the blue
lineswere contrary talaw, was desimus ai thisthe of proceeding
afith~ut:delatobrlng thequestionof their legality befthe Court-
ror. With regardta paragraph 172of the Counter-Mernorial,it
asimportant to makr;clem that thent were four setof linesdram
on the cha* of the Nonvegian coast at various times. From the
pointof viewof theirsigaificmce, the relevant distinctiwhether
thcy were dra7& hefase 1935~ when Notway had not yet decided
her policy,or afte1g3~ when she had done so. IIe latter grouoflines (thosedraxm in 1938 and 194g) havhg been drawn as com-
promises in the course of negotiations which proved abortive, are
of course ofnb interesfor thepurposes of the presenicase.Biit the
arlier group ji.e. thme dmwn during the Oslo anclLondon con-
versa tionsare of considerable significance sincethey-iparticul ar
those drawn in 1924-provide directevidcnce of, the maximum
extent of Norr~egianclaitriat thetirne, and show that these daims
did not coincide with the recornmendations of the Commision of
1912 whichwere afterwards embodied inthe 1935 Decree. The lines
drawn in 1924 rwre noipwposed ascompromises,
AwesZs a~d weiarutif((para.173 of the Counter-Memonal)
zoz. The Government of the United Kingdom hasalready @aras.
80and 93of this Reply) dram attention tothe extent tourhich the
places of anest and of wxnkgs from 1914 omvards confifm the
argument submitted by the United Kingdom regarding the red
lines,Ithas nofurther observation to offeronparagraph 173 ofthe
Counter-Mernoria lr anAnnex 56.Since the delivery of the Memo-
rialone furthe arest has takenplace, ofwliich details acontained
in paragraph 517 O£ Part III afthis Reply,
Conclusionof Part Z (parab 174-18 of theCounter-Mernoriat)
103.The casewhich is soughtto beestablished bythe Non-vegian
Governent in the first parof its Counter-Memurialis that there
were deveioped in the course of the nineteenth cemturycertain
fundamentalrules for thedelimitaiion ofterritorial. waters for fish-
ing puvoses, which sules were clear and definite. werrepeatedly
stated by Norway, and which arc Ejimply carried into effeet, in
relationto theportion ofNomegixn coastwhich lies nodh of Iati-
tude 66"28' 48" N.) by the Royal Deçree of 1935,
In reply to thisthe Governmer~t of the United Kingdom has
sought to show, in this Reply, tliat apart fram the limitof four
miles (oneleague) and apart alsofmm certain rights over fjordsand
su& which may admittew have been acquiredon historie grounds,
there rve~ 110such clear and definite principlesaswould of them-
selvesjustifythe Royal Decree of1935 .he Reçctiptof s-tnd Febm-
my, 1812 w,hich tiraoriginallyissued forpurpases comected wiih
ncutdty, camé, itistrile,to be interpreted and applied for the
drawing of fisherlimits,but itsdf stated noruleas tathe rnmner
inwhich basc-lines shouldbe drahvn,nor did itofferany solutionto
the problms tuhich anse uthen base-linesareto be drawn acrossthe
mouth of bays, betwem islands or partiàlly submerged rocks and
points onland orother islandsor rock or inconnection ~5th coastal
archipelagos.The Decrees of 16th October, 1869,and the 9th Sep-
tember, 1889, dqalt only ivithsrnall sediuns of the coast and
established no principleapplicable to other sections. Theyreçog-
nized the necessity forconfïnïligthe daims of the masial State, even in relation to fishinbankç as to which a case of immemarial
user coiild be estabTished, withïn Limiauthorisedby rdes ofinter-
national law ithey admitted the necessity of justifyingand, incteed,
attempted to justify,certain apparent departures from these"rules
by specialgëographieal and hydrographicalconsiderations ofa kind
that would mcet the legitimate rcquirernents not only-of the local
inhabitants but offoreign fishermen. Tlley atablished no des aç
ta rockspartially subrnergcdor asto entlyirig rocks heycindafour-
mile limit or astothe drawingof Ihes across themouth of bays. If
there were any principles inherent in these 1aws which applied
particularly o h'onvegian tesriorialwaters, such principleshad not
been accepted orrecognized internationdly :France, tvIiile not dis
puting the partiçular bits defined, had explicitty rehsed ta
recognize any systern onwhich thcy werebased, and any implied
acquiescence by otl~erStates could not do more tham conferstitIe
to the partiçularamas claimed.
In relatiato the xea ofthis prescnt dispute,Nomy had, before
the kst World War, claimed exclusive fishing~5ghtsin "Norwegian
territorialtvaters'" buthadnot specifiedher claims in any detail.
The Norwegian Government ha not, by the evidence procluced,
establiçhed eitherthat local fzshermen exercised anexclusive rigl-it
of fishing over the ares covered by the Royd Decree of rg35, or
that Norwegian legislative or administrativeauthority was exer-
cised over thisarea.
In 1908 Nonvay had@wen some indication that she regard& a
ten-mile rule forbays as enjoyin sgme status in internationallaw.
In 1912shc had received the report of the Commission on Terri-
torialWaters which had,.in a document ~vhich was not published,
recommended substantially the limits ciftertvardsernbodied in the
1935 Decree, but she hesitêted for 23 years before npplying these
secommendations. After the fi&tVorld \Var, although pr~ssed on
mmy occasions todo so, Norway l~adstin üut-for whatever reason
. -officially declared thenatnre ofher clah but had, in 1924 =, the
report of thc StortingCornmittee and the report ofthe Ministry of
redelines-suchslines not being authoritative-andthad in the f0110-w-
ing pears up tzi1935, except for a short priod in1933, acted and
aiiowed British vessels toact as if these lines represented thbest
information available a*the tirne,Even these lines wereat the tirne
regarded hythe United Kingdom asexceeding what was pemitted
byintemationallaw. '
The Govtrrnment ofthe United Hingdom does not disputethat
Nonvay had fdZy reserved ber rightio clairn otherlimitsand does '
not assert that Nonvay isprecluded, or bound, by Yirtueof the
red lines, fromputthg forwasd wider clabm.Dut the Govérnrnent
of the United Ringdom iseatitled topoint to the red Iinesfer the
purpose of sliowing :390 REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 ?KI 50)
(CZ)That Nortvaydid riotpxiorto 1935 statehherclaimsas fifidy
shown m the blue liresbut only stated daims as show on
the red lines(the latteberingadmittedly not authoritative).
(B) That the blw lines do not represmt automatic and self-
evident applications of any pre-existinprinciples there may
have been ;if they had done so,they wdd have beeir]pro-
mulgated earlier, and, would certainly have been given,
inçtead of the iedlines,asNorwafs views in 1924i n fact
both the r~d hes and the blue lines(and possibly other lines
which,could be &am) canbe said to be partially consistent
avithpnnciples previously applied byNorway inviervof the
vague characier of these principies: the blue line represents
the most extensive daim yet put fomrd and it iç forthe
Court to judge whethec, mefi assuming that there rvere
certainprinciples which, for traditionaand bistoric reaçons,
it was entitled to apply, this particular application mas
justifiable.
It issigdlcant to observe that the bluEnes have professedly Fieen
drawx with the object ofpreservingfor thecoastal inhabitants the
fiçhing areasof which they aresaid to havebeen inenjoyment-
andin particular th6shiriggmunds offRerlevaag and Loppehavet
thuç departing ina vitalrespectfrom the principlefolloavedby ,the
Decree of 1869 which, asthe Exposédes Motifs(Annex 16 of &un-
ter-Mernorial) shows,explicitlyrecognized that, even inrespect of
fishingareas ~vherea claim ofthis naturecould be sustaked, there
\vas no justificatiofor extending Norwegian territorialwaters
beyond the limits recognizd as proper by international law.
Moreover, i? is clearfrom the attitudeof the lad population in
1908 that itdidnot itself consider that protectcouIdbe obtained
for these gromds \vithout an exteasion of what was proyerly
Norwegiantesritorialwaters.
roq. The facts stated in the predng paragraph have aIrcadp
pmvided the answexto the argument set out.in paragraph 176of
the Cmnter-Memorial that Norway should not be prejudiced by
anyconcession made by her, ona basis ofamicable understanding
in applying her own legislalion.TheGovanment of tlze United
Kingdom dom not seek teprejudiceher inthis way.The Norrvegian
G>vernmentreferstoapassage~omtheBritishCounte~-Caseàn '
the North AtEran.liGoa dPishwies A~bit~alriol in wbich, after
statingthat
sioiia declasationof her fUUc1ainYJly coupled with these conces-
itproceed eodcontend thatGreat Britainshouldnotbe prejudiced
by such concessions having been made. .
The Government of the UnitedKingdam funy accepts the prin-
aple there stated, but itdoes not apply to Norway"sposition in .Elicase.As above çtated in pmgraph 99,there werefour separate
periodsin which "leniencfks appiied by Nortvay. The pnnciple
dws not appLyto any ofthe firsthree periodç, since Norway had
never before 1935stated theftiUextent of her daims, except in so
far asshe had assented to the non-autboritative expression of thern
in the red lines.
As tothe fourthperiod, theGuvernment ofthe United Kingdom,
of course,seeks to make no use tothe prejudiceof Norway of any
-
che,eIn the enforcement of thatline.cethe pirblicatiçlnofthe blue
105. For thereasunsaboveçtated theGovemrrient of theUnited .
Kingdom, cvhile admitting that Norcvay haç an historictitle ta
territorid beltafa xvidtk of,four miles and alsothat she hm an
historictitleto certain fjords and sunds, subrnits thatthlebase-
linesasregards the coast genemlly (~vhereNorcvay has no historie
title) fato be determined hy the Court in conformity with tlie
nilesof intemational law. In regard to fjords where Nonvay has
an historiefitleshe has no rightko waters which arenoE within
linesdrawn between what may xeasonably be conadered to be
the natutal geographical entrançe-points of the indentation in
question. In thecase of the Varangerfjord the Norwegian cIosing
3ineis admittecl.
The conceptions of the Cfovernrnent of the United Kingdom
concerning the delimitation ofNurway's maritime territory are
shownin thecharts containedin Anriex35of this RepIyand fuxther .
exp'lhed inChapter V of Part Tl,
PART II:
The applicable principles ofinternationai law re-examined in the
Eght ofthe No~wegian Government's contentions in the
Gounter-Memonal
CHAPTE R,-~ISTURICAL EVOLUTKOhT OF XNTERNATIONAL
MARITIME LAW
106, TheNomegian Government, inPart 11 of the Cornter-
Mernorial,criticizes tcontentions ofthe UnitedKingdom Govem- -
ment in itsMemozid conceming the pinciples of btemationd law
applicablein the psexntcase.ThiScriticism isshapednn the follom-
. ing broad plan, Firçt,there isa prelirninaryargument, based on
an historfcalaccount of the iaw of coastal waters, the general
objectof whiçh istopersuade the Court thaton the failure of the
1930Conference Ehere ceased to be any system of hed limitsfor determining the extent of a Çtate'scoastal waters. Thissome-
what anarchical argument is followed by astaternent ofthe Nome-
gian concept of territoridwaters which, thinly disguisedseems to
amount to athetirythat every State may fix itsown coastalwaters
according to its own idea of tvhat are its legitimatclaims. Next
cornes an exposition ofthe characteristics said fbe required in a
rule of custornaryinternational Iaw and of the methads avdable
to paovea ciistomary rule,the generd object of which isto show
the impossibilityof estahlishg any customary rule applicable
to the presentcase. The ngiimen t continnes by contestingthat the
rde that the ticle-markalong the coast is the base-lime frorn
whicb territorial waters are meastsurecils the primanrletu which
alI 0th rules sanctioriing a different base-line are exceptions,
The Norwegian Government concludes thex gmeral arguments
concerning the applicablesuleçoflaw by contending that theburden
of proof rests onthe United Kingdom in the present casein regard
nat only to the fads but also to,the law. 'fieremainder ofthe
Counter-Mernorialexaminesthe contentions crftheTjnited IGngdam
inregard to the exceptionalrules for bays, islands,etc. Itdeais
frnally 1~1tNomay's daim te an ,hktorictitlesvhich.bas,hmever,
also been dealtith inFart 1 ofthe Counter-Mmorialand has been
mnvered to thai: extcnin Paft I ofthis Reply. ~he United King-
dom Goverlzment inthis Reply %il anmvcr the criticisrns of its
own arguments md deal with the ncw contentions of the Norwe-
gim Government inthe same germa1 order as is adopted in the
Coiinter-MernorialIt will, however,depart from that order where
ifmay seem desirable to do sofor the proper presentation ofits
own argument.
J~i~tofic~~l7euimofi~tcr&Elal marifimelm .
(Paras.rSz-186 ef the Counier-Mernorial)
ro7. Tlze Go17emmtrntofthe United Kingdom naturaUy agrees.
with the Nowegian Goverment tbat the modern history of the
law of the seatook shape at the 'end of &e contravexsy betweeri
mare chzcsmn and wa7e Iibmcwt andthat, when this controversy
firstarme, several States claimed vqing foms of maritime
jurisdiction over large expansesofthe oceans and seas.It is al50
cornmon graundthat when the controvmy ended with the friumph
ofthe principleofthe freedom of these~s, theseextravaga cltirns
to maritime dominion were abandoned and that to-day the laçv
nf coastalwaters zepresents a camprùrnise bettveen the cIaims of
coastd States and the prhciple ofthe freedom of theseas,
108. Norway, holvever, disagrecs tviththe contention inpara- -
graphs 65 and66 of theUnited Kingdom" srnorial. that the com-
promisebeEween the individual daims of coastal States and the
rights of the Internationalcomrnunity in the oceans and seas iç to be worked out on the basis of a presumpeion in'favous of the
freedom of the seas. The United IGngdorn's cantmtion is said to
be disproved by the hstorical developrnent of the law of the %a
since "it Lsnot the savereipty of the State tvhich bas encroached
onthe bigh sea but the freesea which haç pushed baçk the sover-
eignty of the Çtate". Even Ifthis estirnateof fhe historical develilop-
ment of maritime law contained the whde truth, it would scarcely
be sufficient to demonstrate the error of the United Kingdom's.
contention. The faet that the maritime territory of coastal States
has been cornpelled to retreat before the freedom of theseas wodd
seem to indicatea presumption in,favour of the latter priricipleand
at any rate ao presumption in favour of the former l.
rog.But the observation that it is tfree seâs which have pushed
back the çovekignty of the coastal State ison157 a ha truth. The
triumph of the principle d the freedom of the seasdestroyed the
whole basis of the old claims to a tvide dominion over the seas. *
Sovereigrity over coast~tlwaters under the modern lam is far fmm
being a simple abridgment of ea~lier,and mare extensive daims.
1-t.s clmr,and içROW generaily recogrrized,that the modern law of
coastnl waters has not a single historical originbut has been woven
fram several àifferent tl-ireads. TheNorwegian jwist Raestad, for
example, surnmed ug the develqpment of the territorial seaçin the
followin~ terms :
"Mais lamer n'estp nn accessoirenkessaire dela terr en ce
sens que tont&at maritime doit necasairement avoir un territoire
maritime. L'histoi nous apprend que c'estpar une évolution
lente et tardive que les gtats ont affirmelenrs droits sur mer,
Et t'estparune consolidation des droits ainaqcpis,consolidation
qui est vide d'un sikcle seulement, que lesEtats ont abouti A
cettesouveraineté maritime dont ilsse targuent aujourd'hu A u.
point de vue historique, lamer tterritorialn'estpas sortie d'une
occupation delamer, mais clesocçupatians successives dccertains
droitssur mer, rkunis plus tard en un faisceau qu'onestconvenu
d'appeler souveraineté."(La A%r tw~iloriale, p.162.)
The United Ringdom wiii revertto the question 'of thepresump-
tionin favour ofthe freedom of the seas vrrhrereplying fothe obser-
vations in the Counter-Mernorialconceming the burden of proof
in the present case (setpms. 218-222 below). It only dmws atten-
tîon here to the fact that tlie historical rnovement from mare
clazcwm to ma7e Eàber~m confims rather thaa disproves the primacy
of the principle of the freedomofthe seas.
An analogousdeveloprnemntaybe pc~ceivd inthesyhere uf municipd h.
. At one tirne large numbof popkwcre slavea~~many inorwere livinunder
rigarouconditionof setviThcrc mas thenaconibctbetweennghtsof property
inslavesr serfandtheftccd~m oftheIndividual, which ended hi thc Mumpli of
the freadomofth0 individnaIt does not:folbkhat,becausethc"freedornof
theinrlividnal" has puçhbaçk th"i-;ghaiproperty insIavw"thattherek a
yrmmption agdhst freedom aninfavourofrights opropcrty-av edrividuals.394 REPLY OP THE UNITED KINGDOnI (28 XI 50)
The cawmoa sht and th 3-m& tirniw# 40 th cmly bentietk wrttacq~
(Paras, 187-19 o7f the Gounter-31emorial)
no. .Contiming itshistorical argument,the Nomegian Govern-
ment next maintains that
(a) tion3ofiIthe camot-shotande conby the Italian~etwn aGaliani
(paras.188-189 ;)
(bj it was introdnced into internationalpracticethroug hnglo-
American practiçe (para. 189) ;
(c) until about 1860 thestatic condition ofballisticspreserved
the plausibility çitheidentification of th3-mile limit with
the cannot-shot rule (para190) ;but that
(d) with the progressof artillery,the 3-mile Ilimit lo'contact
with the principle on which it was founded (para. 192);
Ce) a choice between the rapidly diverging rulm thm becme
necessary (paras.xgr-193) ;
(j) the carnon-shot rule was stU sometimes invoked and tbat
evenGreat Britain was hesitant about findy adopting the
3-mile lirrr(para,195) ;
(g) propos& for extending the IImit were made at the turn of
tile centuryi ,nparticulaï- by the Netkrlands (para 197 ;)
(72)although the 3-milelimit had the support:of "arespectable
number of States, including most of the Great Powers",
"numemus States" remaineci refractory abolit maintaining
wide~daim (para. 198) ;
(.i) in consequerice,tlre3-miIbit at the dawn ofthe twentieth
centvry rested on anarrow and fragile basis (para198) ;
(jJbetween 1900 and 1930Great Britain embarked on a dido-
matic offensiveforthe establishment of the 3-milelimiwhich
erided in failu~aE the 1930 Conference (paras.rg8~oo).
Irr. The United Kingdom Government in these proceedings
before the Court has açcepte Ndorway'sclaim to a4-mile maritime
'belt and inparag-raphs 148-r~z below It glves thereasons for its
recognitioiiof the Nonvcgian daim, Thewidth of the beltof terri-
tonal sea which Norway is entitleclto daim isncittherefnrein con-
troversy between the Parties. Nomy howiever has contendecl in
her Counter-Mernorial that neither the 3-mile nor any otlier fixed
lmiit isof any legal'rdevance indetermuaingthe tata1extent of a
State'ç coastalwaters.It isnot therefore possibltopass over rvith-
out comment the inaccurate aaccount ofthe history and stahis of
the3-mile limit which is given in theCouter-Mernorial. 112. hong the important scient-ificstudiq ofthe history of
tmritorial waters and, in particular,of the cannon-shat sde are
those of theMonvegianjurîst,Rzstad, tvho rcpsesentedhforway at
the 1930 CodificationÇonfcrence. These studies ofRaestad seem to
have been more profound on thk point than those of previous
writers,who seem tohave studied the matter saperficially. was
an the basisof these supeficialstudies that fhe statements in the
British Parliament and elsewhere had ken made, xvhich the
Caunter-Mernorial.cites in support of $Orne of the contentions
enumerated in paragraphrro above. The histuricalresearch ofs
Ratad led him to express very differerit opinions cùnceriiithe
dsvdoprnent and startus ofthe 3-mile lirnit from those fomd in the
Coder-Mernorial, His ccrnc.lusionsareta be found inan article
ptiblishedin th^ Rm~.tegd'fii~adeBrod ifii~~m~tio~al~bLic(ISIS),
pages 598-623, and in his book La Martewdoriak, pages 103-185,
pub1ished the followingyear.
Rzstad, inthe. course of hi$ hiçtoristudies,demonstrated that
(i) the cannon-shot rule?vasin noway founded on ccinsideta-
tions either of occupation of thsea or defence of the land
but weiaco~ce~ned wiih the;brotectio#f.~tezttcommsrce Zn
time of weia.(Revzbt généralede droit li~ts~w$ional$ubJi!iic
P912), PP.6f gaz01;
(ii)çoashl fisherieinthe eighteenth century were with afew
,exceptions (these clxceptionshcluded Norway) free to al1
while smuggling was dealt with by a quite independent
exerciseof jurisdictio(iIrida,.6x0) :
(iiiatFirst some Statesapplied the range O£vision asthe limit
within which belligel-eniçmust respect neutrd commerce
off thcirtoasts,but under prcssure £rom beliigererentthis
limitwas delibemtely reduced to thesmaller limit:ofcannon
range (ibid m. ,600, 61xand 620) ;
(iv) cannon range was chmen not on any theory of effective
exercise of potveby the coastalState but simply asawcli-
hown nautid rneasure-it being a standard rneasure of
distance usedin sailing rnanuals(ibi ,p, 601) ;
(v) the rule,tvhichatfirst wlatedonly tafortifiedplaces where
actual cannon dted, was extended during the eighteenth
centurv notiondy to the whole toast (ibid., p620) ;
(vi) the scknce of ballistics havùig longbestationary,cannon
range was adopted with theintention of fixiqg fi~zdeand
woder~temeclsure ofdzs-ikmcor the purposeofthe neutrality
rule (ibid p,,0x3;
(vii}when the Itdian miter, Gs;liani, prop~cd that cannon
range should Ire taken to be 3 miles, he rnx çinly giving
precision tothisfinitelimit (when he suggcsted the possi-3g6 EEfLT OP THX UNITED KINGDOM (28XI 50)
bilityof a widm limit of zleagues he was snggesting an
alternative and diffgirent methcici of fixing the distance)
(ibi d.613) ;
-(viiiclter the acceptancofGaliani'sproposaliAnglri-Amencan
practicethe ?mile limit,thor~ghdeveloped from thc can-
not-shotrule,became auindependent rnle accepted by the
majority ofStatesCiGad.p,p.617-6rg):
(ix)eighteenth-cent staesrnen had not contemplated an
extension af the neutraiity belt with an increase ithe
mnge of guns and that the 3-mile limit was inte.ded to
supersedethe cannon-shot mle {ibid p. ,21);
(x) where cannonrange isaftemards foundin diplornaticdocu-
ments,it isusedasthe equivalentof 3miles rather ththat
the measure of7 mile isusedasthe eauiva1en.t: fcannon
'range (ilrid.,6zr) :
(xi) inany event cannon range had never been used ininter-
nationalpraciice with regard to fïsheries ancthe 3-mile
limit\vas applicd to fisheries in the nineteentcentury
independently of the cannon-shot rule of the previous
century (i&W pZ.618) .n short,RaestadconcIndesthat the
genedy adopted rule of international law in the nuie-
teentb centuy concerning the extent ofterritorid\vaters
was the 3-mile lirnif, not cannon ran(Ibidp..619).
113. Rzstad's conclusions arein genwal coiifirrnedin a more
recent study of the cannon-s'hotrule by W. L. Walker (British
Yeav Book O/IrttarfiationalLam(~945 V)ol.22,pp. 210-5231),hiçh
is basedon the miter" sesearchie nto eighteenth-çenr tcords
in thearchives ofthe French Admiraiiy,IVaIkerpoints out that in
eighteenth-cen prudiye thecannon-shot rde was stilI essentially
a rule-mainly foundinMediterranean practice-forbidding capture
of prizes \&thin the ranoftheactual cannon of individual fortified
places; md that the concept ofadefinite hlt dong the wholecoaçt
was a featwe ofthe practiceofnorthern Euope, particularlyofthe
Scandinavian conntries. He concludes that the trucorigin ofthe
modem concept of territorial waters is to be found in northern
Europe rather thau in the Mediterranean cannon-shot rde- Re
ernphasizeçthat cannon range in Galiani'day was much less than
3 miles,sothat identification of the 3-milebiwith cawon range
does n~t carqrconviction.He mentions that, when Gaiianiin 1782
propcised thfixingof cannon range at3miles,he had beenengaged
to writea book in defenceof the armed neutrality othe northern
Powers who had alreadp adoptedas their neutra5t:limit a Scmdi-
navian marine league. 7Wker appearsinclined tothe viewthatthe
Batrister-at-laweditcofthe AEMqlitiofPitt-Cabbett, Cl%rInbm-
mti0M Law (g37). Vol. If.398 REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
fheNetherlands proposed the cding ritaconferencefer the adoption
of a 6-miIr.fit is also no ,evidence of the fradity of the g-mile
limjt.On the contrary, itshows that no such extension was con-
sidered possible except by agreement,
116. The true position at the beginning of the present centusy
was that the _?-milelimit \vasnot naruowly but broadly based
in international practice,king actd on by the great majority
of States in everyday pzactice. On the other hand, it was not a
universal sule. Noway and Sweden in partiçular malntained th&
daims to a league of 4 miles. \mat Nonvay callsGreat 13ritainbç
subsequen-é offensive. for the establishment of the 3-mile limit
rneant no more than that shc had resolved her doubts in favaur
of the maintenance of the limitalxeady generally acçepted ininter-
national practice and wiçhed to see it accepte d s of miversal
application. The effortsofGreat Britain andothm States to secure
the recognitionof the 3-mile limitasarule of universal application
in a general convention admittedIy falled atthe 1930 Codification
Conference.
The results o# the 1930 Confere%ce
(Paras, 201-zo6 of the Counfer-Mernorial)
Basicpositzonofthe 3-m2G s& Ieft~nadtered
~17. The failnre of the efforto make the 3-milelimit a univmsd
m'le did not, and could not, dtér the basic position of the 3-mile
iirnit in international ppracticeasiexiçted bcfore the conference.
Tlie failureof the conference demoriçtrated that the 3-mile limit
imç not accepted by some States as arule ofiiniversal.applcation,
But, equaliy, the conkence demonstrated tht the only cornmon
masure of agreementarnong States was that everyState recognieed
the rightof nothersto assert their savereignty within a 3-mile bit.
The conference certainly did not mate a new nile of intematidna2
la-rvperrnitting aState to assertits sovereignty ovm a maritime
helt wider thnn 3 miles regardlcss of whether other States do or
do not acquiesce in itsclaim. Customary lacv being founded on the
assent of States, the basic rde of territoriawaters remains the
universal rtrcognîtioof the right ofevery State toa 3-mile Iimit.
Any \vider clah must be made good eitheras an hiiistorititle.
univerçallyvalid or asa iitle acqniesced.inby the paticular State
izgabst which it is invoked. That exacfly was the position taken
by the United States Secretary Seward with greatforce andpreci-
sion in ~864 ina communication tothe Spanish Ambassador çon-
cerning Spain" daim to a &mile maritime belt off.Cuba (Rloore,
,DigestVOL 1.p. 7ro).The passage reads :
'"Neverthelas itcannot be admitfed, nor incleejsMr, Tassam
nnderstood to clairn, that the mere assertion of sovereign, by
an actoflegislatmui,howeversolemn,cm havethe effectoestablish and fix itexternalmaritime jurisdiçtionHisright toajurisdiction
ofJ "les is derivednot from his am decree but from the law of
nations,and existç even tliotrghe may never I-iavepmclahed or
aerted it by any dectee or dedaration whatsoever. He cnmnuljb,y
a mere 'càecreextend thelimit und fix itai 6 miIt:s, b~cawseifha
car&, ke coula im .thesawr:manqaer, imd zqm mutives of interest,
ambita'or,Teum @on capra't~,ixit~tIO, or20, 0350 miles,without
iheCOPZS~~ OY ~GQM'ESM~~C~ ofothlevPomm which he a cmmola
righfdh himdf 'hthe.freedonaofaElth oceaws.such a pretension
could never be successfull~rorightfüllymaintained."
That dso was thc view of Raostad11 x3913 expresscdinhis book
La Msr terri&~'als,wbereinone passage hesaid @. 167) :
II
Le plus important, cen'est pas,du restc, man avis,de savoir
quand ct comment aeu lieu l'occupationou lhusorpatiûnde tel su
teldroit surla.mer catiére. L'lm#orfi~nt,c'estddesavoirqt~-a+a lt
cowment a eu lieu IEconsefitmefitesprè~ DZCtaciiedesnafions wi
dnalae2 Pocsa$tatiamOU tbd'a~swr$a$io~apa1itd d'tfititradedroit."
Speaking offishery limifs in another passage, he çaid @p. 180-
181) :
"Lorsque la pêchcebtihrca kt6réservée e,nEurope, aux habitants ,
despays respectilslesgrancIesPuissancesmaritimes se sont =ré-
tbes A lalimitc de trois milles.Elles sont épIement obligées pe
reconnaîtreaux autrespays Ie droit de s'crpproprillaFche côtiére
jusqu'iîladite chtariceMais, So~sqat'il'agzld'%?lin~zovution,slles
ne ont #as, 8*on mis, obligé~sde ~esfiecium .zone filusL~ge qHa
callede troismilla. JAScirconstarices parficuliérespeuvent étre
d"une telle naturqu'ilserait considérécomme un ache peu amical
de s,'opposeà l'établissemend'une zone élargie;mais d'obligation,
il n'yen a pas.Par contre, lorsgu'unezone de peche rkervée plus
étendue que detrois millesa exisf4et xet4 reconnue avant l'adop-
tion, par les.Puissances, la limite de troimilles,alorsellessont
bien ohligéesde lareçpecte~: un régimeoriginairement légal ne
devientpas ilMgaldu fait queIcpluralitédes Puissances en adoptcnt
iln autre."
Thus he \vas basing the vxlidity af Norway's titles to a 4-mile
bclt upon the assertion of the claim before the 3-mile bit amse
and the acquiescence of other States itl'the clajm, inother rvords,
apon itscharacter aç an historictitle,and, as will besecn hereaf ter,
the Unitecl Kingdom's attitude to the Norwegian daim to 4 miles
is iaffuerzcedbypreMsely these historieconsideratians.
xr8. That the effed of the failure of the 1930Conference is to
Imve international law only with a lowest cornmon rneasurc of
agreement: concernirig the width of the maritime beIt-in the 3-mile
Eimitis alsù the opinion of Gidel, The relevant passage has already
been set out inparagraph 35 of the United Kingdom9s Mernorial,4'30 &LY OF THE UNITED KIECDUM (28 XI 50)
but ia important enough,to be repeated here (seeRecueil des CO&
de J'Acaddmie de Droit indevrtationa(~934 V,ol. 11,p. 150):
"Pour lemoment on SEtrouve conduit kn'attribuerà lafixation
faite paruriEtat de seseaux territoridesau delà de.Ia limite de
3 milles riqiverseiiement adoptkcomme minimum, qu'une valeur ,
essentiellement relatiLa. fixatiopar 1'Etatriverainde l'étendue
dcsa mer territorialou deses zones spécialesçfitièrasbien une
valeur absolueen droit interne àlf4ggrdclesnationaux de L'Etat
riverain. Elle n'ade deur i.rzternatzolzpe par i'assentimmt
ilidividtde chaque Etai eb$ouv cet&.fatse~lm~lz.!,"
1x9, The view tbat daims tr, a territorial sea in excas of the
3-mile lirnit can only abtainlead force through the aissent ofother
States, efther express os implied from an historic usage, does not
deyend on the validity of the United Kingdom's thesis thaC there
3s a preswnption in favour of the Ireedom of the seaç, Even if,
as Mornay contends, the freedom of the seas and the rights of a
State in ca&stai-waters are fundamental prinkipleçof eqiial value,
the prhciples governing the formation of custornay law, whiçh
areinwikcd by Nonvay in paragraphs 256-260 of the Counter-
Mernorial, lead lugicallyand inevitably to the ride statedbg Gidel,
and indeed by Rzstad.
Yiews of Smédish and Drsnish Gove~fim.nlsiiz ~egurd to cLims itz
txcws of establisl~liwits ix the Ba&
XZO. The prinçlple formulateil by Gide1 appears infact to btie
precisely the standpoint of the Swedkh and Danish Govermilents
intheir recent notes to the Soviet Government concerning fishedes
In the E~ltic. The content of thest notes ">var;described inaPress
release issucd in Stmkhalm hy the SwedEshForeign 3Enistry on
25th JuIv, Xg50, c?sfoEIolrtç:
"In the riotes iIs stressedthat the twe countries have nevw
recugnized the right of any littoral Staatan the Baltic Sea to
establisb a 12-milesaneIt is fu~therrecalled inthe notathatthe
ljmitsof the territorial waters ofEuropemStates have been estab-
lishedforcenturies, andas far asthe Baltic Stzttesare ccincerned
have beenfisedat 3 or4 miles. Thus, lcgalodes has beencreated
accordingte which the sea outsidesuch territoriawaters must be
regarclecl as opsea, i.eunder the law .ofnationsnolt subject to
occupation. Any edmsion of lerritmhaIwaters 3~nw amants to a$z
encronchmizlOB ihkmf~dom O/ tksq4ae se&, whfe ca'ti~eoimy
sbtthmé th eerignJfishzngand ofmvigate'on,ofhm Sfateslaavirno
mghi.to txts~ferethwewitl~.Ths two Gwemmnk therefowe/zjEly
remruftheir$ositiantaa Stati~xlendimg zls terriiarwafeystieyod
#hshtils Izistoriccdysab!ish~d,"
Safa kq the~ov~mrncnt oftheUnited ICingdowisalîarethesnotes liavc
not bcenpublhhed. REPLY OF THE UNITED KLYGIIOM (28 XI 50) 401
It isthe clear implicatioof these notesthat, in themew of the two
Govtrnmonts, any daim to a particular width of territorial sea
deptnds for its validity upon ik acseptançr by ather States.A
3-rnilc limit isconcededby al1 States.The historiapplication of a
4-mile lunit byçome States in the Baltic a1soestablishesthis limit,
in the eyes of Sw~denand Denmark, as an accepte dsage, Bat
nathing moremay be daimed except with the assent of otheStates.
2Vomay's misinter@re2atiou of the signifimw ofihe failwre ofjh
rpp Cmfe~~nce
xzr. No-y, on the other hand, appears in the Counter-
Mernorial to maintain that the fadure of the 1930 Conference
deprived aU.existing numencal Iimiis accepte8 iil thepractice of
States of any legal signihcmce, That wonld indeed be a starthg
result of an abortive conference.The failure ofthe 3-mile bit in
aga to gain adoption as a general convmtimal mle may have
stripped it of its pretensions to be alreadya universai ruie deter-
mining ~veryrvhere the width of the territoriasea,But the dailuw
O£ the conference didnot, and couldnot, xvipeaway aUthe ~xktîng
recognition of numerical limitsin international practice. Norway
referçtothe avergencies of view at the1930 Conferencecanceming
the tvidfli ofthe territorial seaand to the discussion of the con-
tigu~~~ zone- concept as evidezlceof €he absence ofany agreement .
on this qttestion But neither thevoting atthe thirteenth,session
af the Second Cornmittee (Minzctes, pp. 123"t sq.)n or the debates
and still less the repliesof governments (Bases oJ Discz~ssiow,
pp. 23-24) provide any warrant for saying that iiiternationd law
remgnks a-right in an individual State unilaterally to assign
arbitrarilychosen hits to itsterritoriasea,which wilPbe bilding
on other States regardles of whcther or not they acquiesce in the
particdâr claim. Nor do theysuggest that States,although they
disagreed concermng the adoption ofamaximum limit, were inany
way prepared taabandon thesystem ofçome prescsibed numencal
limits in favotir of çome inde.terminate formula, O-athe contrary,
therecords uf the conference and thestrong effort made to secusea
compromise throug he, adoption of the 3-mile limit with the .
addition of acuntiguous zone provide dear confirmation of the fact
that the large majority oStates clidnotcmtemplate for a moment
giving up tlie e~sting system ofa nurneriçally rnwurecl maritime
belt.Indeed, Gide1 was of the opinion thata rnajority oftlie con-
ference would have voted for the 3-mile Iimit plus a contiguous
zone.(Rcmeil desCozt~. seI'dcadkmidde Droit ifiteunationall(1934)~
11,p. ~92~)
'Thecontigaauszoneraisass.ntirçly differmtquesginceitmlattorïghhk
posscssdby the LittoralStovera zonofmhich iipîothesovereigThe qucs-
fiaof thpicontignozoneisnotin issuin thptaentcase.Itraises questions of
jurisdiction, ofex~lusivrights.
26 T21 A. With regard to the quatation from Professor Borchard in
paragraph 202 of the Gounter-Mernorial it may be pointed out that
questionsof sedentary fisherieç andcontinentalshelf are krelevant
çince they both relate to thesurface of the bed of thesea and its .
subsoil (toland no t water)and do not involve any daim to the sea
or to fishing inthe sea.
(Paras.207-226 ofthe'Gounter-Mernorial)
r22. htorway goes on tosuggest thatin ,nyeverit a new terrdency ,
to daim enlargecllimits of ccoastalwaters has shownitself in State
practice since the1930 Conference. It isnot denied that certain
Statesbave issued decreessince:1930 purportkg ta assume juris-
di~~onoverlargercoastalbdtsthanthey fomerlyclairned,Itis, .
however, equdy bue that other States have expresdy declined to
recognize theçe claims.But these clairns do not, andcannot, alter
the fundamental ~irinciplesof internationalawby whichthe vaiidity
ofundateral declarations oftitleto parts of the high seas istkbe
tested.These unilateral claimscan only derive internationallegai
force tsthe extent that they meet with the acquiescence of other
States. Such claimç do not always attract the nohce of govern-
rnents and, as a de, it is only when a diplornatic incidentoçcurç
that protests rt-ceivepublicity. Mevertheless, the reactions of some
Statesto a number of the claims recited in paragraphs 208-225
show çlearly that States closely affetted by such claims have
declincd to regard them aseffectivein internationallaw. Thus the
United States prot~ted against the MexiçanDecree of 1935 extend-
hg territorialwaters from 3 to g rizilesand reservedal1its rights.
(Para,208 ofthe Counter-Mernorial ; SA. Riesenfeld, Prohdio~z of
- Coastal Fishcries under Internalio~uL Law,. p. 237.T )he United
Kingdom made a similas protest.Indeed, ~tcamot be dtnied-
'least ofailby the Nonvegian Government, which,in paragraphs.
199-20 0f the Cornter-Mernorial, accused the United Kingdom
Governrneat of being in .the van of"Yoffensivede 3 milles"-that
the United Kingdom has consktentiy made hown its vim tht. it
cannst as a nile recagnize claims to beLtsof territorial waters of
pater rvidtlthan the generallyaccepte lmit of3 miles.A recent
expression ofthis unwavering attitude of the United Kingdom
Govemment is tobe found inparagsaph 2 of the Mernonial,where
it is stated"the United Kingdom, wlaiEe rtotacce$#im gs a geral:
$~.a$osiiiontht a Siaiecas hue 4beltO# feslritorialmalereiideth* REPLY OF THE UNETED HIUGDOM (28 XI 50) 403
3 miZes,does not, for verpexce$timai reasofisput Nonvay's claim
to abreadth of 4 miles inissue inthese praceeding-s".
Another example of the consistent attitude ofthe United King-
dom Governrnent istu be foud in the protest made to Honduras
regarding the Hondnras Canstitutian of 1936 {seepara. zùg of the
Gunter-Memorlal and Annex 36of this Reply).
The Nowvegîan Govcrnment dies heavily on the famous pro-
clamations by President Truman on 28th September, 1945 ,orsup-
pting its contention that these and uther d~crees "attest new '
tendencies in international maritime lad"' That these tendencies,
however, do not extend asfar asthe Norwegian Government's own
claims ls provedby the United States protestsagainst Mexico (sec
above) and against Savdi Arabia (seepara. 123bejow),
-
X23. Again,when the ym-mile s~curitysone was declaredunder
- thes~essof~8arl1ytheAmc~canrepirbli~sat-Pmamainrg39,the
three nami belligerents concemecl, Germany, France and the
United Kingdom, each toak up the position that, whatever the
practiçalmerits or cithemise of the declatration, it had nbasisin
international Iahand could ody becorne binding on the belligerents
through their àcqriiescence,For the relevant extractsof the notes
see Hackworth, Digest n# Infmatio?zlrl Lnw, Volume VII, pages
704-708(Annex 37).In an article entitled "DefinitioofTerritorial
Waters and the so-callcd Epi-continental,Shdf ", publiçhed in
Armada l,the officialjournal of the Colombian Navy (No, z of
May-June 1950 ,tpp, 24-26) D,r.Yepes, the distinguished Colom-
bian juristand member of the International Law Commissicin, said
of this declaratioof-Panama that "ifthe European protest did not
. have greates consequences at the tirne, iwas due to the stateof
mr whiçh then existecl in the zvorld,awar inwhich the American
nations andthe democratic Evrapean Powers ha$cornmon interesh.
The factis, nevertlielesthat ifthisunilateral declaration had been
made in time of full peace itwoUld have given riseto intense
Chmcery debates among the nations ofEurope."
This clnirn to a securityzone is,of course, in any case, quite
differenin principlefrom the daims taterritorial watersAs to the
later proposal of the Neutrality Cornmittee to extend territonal
waters to12 mil&, itisenough to sayUiat itIV%.not put into'effect
and that me ofthe Ervemembers, the United States rep~esentative,
Dr, Fenwick, strongly dissented fsom the proposal on the gtound,
~HEL!atiu,that the Americari States tvere incompetent to change
the la~of the sea by theirowe action done (seeAmrican Juur~zal
ofJ~termzta'ml Law (19421 Vol.36, Silpplement, p. tg)-As ta the
3 When a trm.l&& cqy ofthis&kle was Arstobhimd itwas belicved that:
ihad ken wriHenby Dr. Teps.ItW naw knownthat the article, whose Spmh
wasinfact unsigneTheamotteiregrettc.y de1llamada 26Epi-continenL~l", Texas Law of1941 purporting to extend Texan territorialtvatersto
a distance of z7 miles from shore, it isenciugh tû ssy that it is of
no significancein international relationand is in flatcontradiction
with the international practiçe of the United States Guvernment
which continues to protestagainst extensions byother States beyand
'the3-mite limit.Thus,the United States Goverment, inaddition
"E theUnited Kingdom Gowmment, recently protested againçt the
Sxudi-Arabian Decreeof 1949set out inAnna 63 of the Counter-
Mernorial which purported to extend Saadi-Arabian territorpal
waters to adistance of 6miiesfroxn shore. The.SwediçHand Danish
protestsmade oaly a £ew weeks ago in regard tothe lhits of terri-
torial waters inthe Baltic are final and cogent proof that States
decIineto admit that the coastai wderç of a State can be errtended
into areasof the highseas without tlieacquiescence of other States,
(The gistof these protests has been given in paragraphrzo above.)
Claims rddig~gto the co~afineninlhelj
124, Undoubtedly, the various claims to the resonrces ofthe
contine altshelf, ~vhichare ,mentioned in paragrapbs 216-225 of
;the Counter-Memurial, represent an irnportant new ddeelopmen t.
Theçe claims are clearly ona diffcrent basisfrom claims to the sea,
they relate to the sea bed and subsod only-to land not \vater.
If is impossible tu draw from these clairnsthe conclusion that
international law n01v permits a State to enlarg is coastal waters
n6thout. regard to the attitude of other States. Tlie Anglo-Vene-
zueEan Treaty ofrgp, despite fl~enarrow enclwed nature of the
-Gulf ,of Paria, strictlyconfinecl the clai- of two contracting
States to the bed ancl subsoil of the sea and repudiated expsesslp
anp 3ntention ofassurnisg soverejgntyover the superjacent waters.
Article 6 of the treaty re'ds (see Annex 39 of thiçReply for the
full textof the treaty):
''Notkingin this treatyshali bc lielto affectinany way the
statusofthe waters af the Gulf ofParia orany rights of passage
or navigatio~ionthe surfaceoftheseas outsidethe territoriwaters
of the kutractitig Paties."
'Shdar1y, th&final sentence of Prsident .Tmmanas proclamation
in 1945 c~nceming the sesources of the continental shelf reads
(Awericalz Jwrfid O! IntematiomPzaLl aru(rg46), Vol. 40,Supple-
ment, p, 45)
"Thecharacteras liigh seasofthe waters above the continental
- shelf and the ~ight totheü freeand nnimpcded navigationare in
no Ivay thus affected."
'So,toi, the UnitedKingdom's Orders-inCouncil fort6e Continental
Shelf of the Bahamas and Jarnaica (sec hmx 62 of ;theGounter-
Mernorial) and the several praclamati~ns issued by couniries ofthe
Middle East concerning the resomces of the çea bed md subsoil ar@ aSiexpress'lyconfinccl intheir operation to the sea bedand
snbsoil of the Persian Gulf. (For the Saudi-Arabim. demee sce
Annex 63 of the Cornter-Mernorial ;for the Bahrain decree, which
istypicd of the pmclamatians of the Eritiçh-protected $tata of
the Persian Gulf, see Anacrican Jo~~fial of Intematiund Law
(1949 1701.43~Supplement, p. 183.)
125. 'lt isS onthe other hand, true that çome Latin-American
States,apparently miqintespreting the true efect of the proclama-
tionsof theUnited Stateç, have advanced clairnsto the superjacent
waters as well as to the sea bed-for example, Chile, Pcru and
Costa Rica (for the Chilean proclamation see Amex hr of the
Conntet-Mernorial)1. But, frorn what has been said in pmgraphs
122-123 above concerning the attitude of Stafesin regard to ment
attempts to extend territonalwaters, if ievident that otherStates .
donot consider themselves bound by such unilateral clairns without
theiracquiescenw. The United Statesand United Kingdom Çovern-
mmts have infact lodged ptotests against these purported appro-
priations of thewaters of the high seas.Parapphs 5to 7 of the
United Kingdom's note to the Chilean Government (a copy of
which is attached asAnnex go tothis Reply) set out concisely the
United Kingdom" sttitnde inregard ta any such claim. In brief, .
fhe United Kingdom contested the extension of Chile's territorial
jurisdiction beyond the 3-mile limit and, whfle recognizing Chile's
interestin the protection of bheries and conservafion of resoures,
dedined to acçept as hinding on United Içingdam nationals ariy
measures of control promulgatcd without discussion and agreement
with the United Kingdom Govemment.
The questionoj .thçonserziatiomoJfislamiix
126, Narway alço refm (para. 2x7) tu the United Statesprocta-
matioii concerning conservation offisheries which tvas issaed on
the sarne date as tlie proclamation dealing with the continental
shelf.(Se Annex 58 of the Counter-Mernorial.) But the important
feature of thiçproclamation isthat the United StatesGovernment,
despite pressure f,ron fiçhery intemtson the 13acificoast,dwljned
to advancc daims tç, larger coastalwaters and approached the
prnblem of conservation of resouxes through regulatory rneasures
in whiclzinterestedStates woulclco-operate. The baçi'; of thepro-
clamation isthe announcement ofanintention to establish -national
and international control ofoff-shorefisheriesnot to assumeexclu-
sive sovereipty over the high seas.Inpursuance ofthis intention
the United Statesin rgqgconvened an international conferenceat
1The United Kingdm hasprohsted vgainsnlEthese clha. As examples,
copies otheprotests mdta Peruand Chilare sout respectively inAnn3%es
and 40ofth Reply.406 . REPLY OF UNEED KINGDOIT (28 XI 50)
%Vashington for theregulation of the fisheriesin the North-West
Atlantic.The conference,wliich w~tsattended byno less thaneleves
interested States, including the United Kingdom and Nomay,
rmulted in the signing of m international convention for the
establishment ofa permanent fisheriescommiççionand the regula-
tion of specified conservation zones of fisherieoff the coastçof
the North-East Arnerican continent. (hnnex 41of tlGs Reply,)
The convention crcat~s conservation areas by agrmmnt betw~a
th conZra~ti.ap~gdies. It contemplates the supervision of tliese
areas by panels çomposed of the States \rith cwrent fishlng
interestsinthe particularare&? but provides for the annual review
of the compositian of tZiepanels to allatvfor chrurging interests.
The commission, on thebasis ofrecommendations from the panels,
is to formulate proposah for the control ofthe particnlar panel-
areas which are tobecorne bindhg onIyon theiruna.nimousaccept-
ance by the States represented on the panel concemed, Under
Article XI1 action tc,give effectto the proposds is left to each
contractirigState, Itis uaneçessary todwellfurtlier on the detailed
rnachinery of this convention the text of whiçli is attached as
Annex qr tothi s eply. The devant fact1sthat this multilateral
convention for theregïhtioa of the off-shore fisheries of the North-
West Atlantic takes as its legalfomdation the conserit of each
contracting State to the establishment of special conservation
zones in areas ofthe hi& seas.This fact is,if anything,underlin4
by the provision in ArticleXIn, which reads:
"The contrtractinGavemments agrea to invite theattention of
any govmrnent not a party to thisconvention to my matter
reiating to the fishingactivides in the convention area of the
nationals or -sels of that government which appar ta &ect
aclverselythe operations of the commission or the carryingout
of thecibjectiwsof tlrcenvention."
In short, the conventim to whichNomay isa par& çhcirvsun--
takabl hat States have ~iot changed their vietvs as to thelqal
r@ime of off-shore fisheries wtçide territorialwaters, altikottgh *
recognizirlg theneed for incrmsed international co-operationin the
regulation ofhigh seasErsherieçand for the reawnable safeguarding
of existingfisliing interests.
1z7 T.t iç further to be abçerved that the above-mniiined
convention, whilst not denyhg the right of nationais of aby State
to fishinwaters offthe coasrof the North-Eaçt American continent,
rxognizw the iriterest~f no les5 than eleven States situated on
both siclesofthe Atlantic and, inthe case of Italy,even witl-iinthe
Mediterranean. Norwa y herçelf clah, and legitirnatelydaims, an
interest inthe Greenland area.Wrirwegianfishermen arealsoknom
to visit the high seafisheries off IceIand, while hcr whaIe catchers
are famous iii the -4atarctic. Indeed, it\vasa year or two bdoreI
REPLY 01; THE tlNlTED 1CLNGDOM (128XI 50) 407
British trawlersbegm to visit,thfisheriesoffNorway that Nome-
gian tvhaiers, having temporarily exhausted the whale resources
of the Arctic, turned their attentionto the other extrernity of the
~vorld.The ensningthreat to the whahng reçourçe osthe Antarctic
ha been and is beingmet, not bythe'recognitian ofnational monop-
olieç, but by the progressiveinternational regdation of whaling.
At any rateit isçlear thatfishingininternational waters offforeign
toasts isnot anathema teal1Wonvagicmfislrermen.
.Thefailum oJthe 1930 C~wfmtmcbACIS mt afiscfedthevwla'diiof the
Cgdih'o~gasdphm
x28. The Goverriment of the Uni,tedKingdom, forall the fore-
going reasoms, submits that the tradftionalsysta, irnderwhich
the lirnits of State's coastdwaters are-re@ed asdeterminable
by fixed niles oflaw andas dependent upon their recognition in
internationa1 pràctice, has by no means passed atvay ~4th Sie
failure othe x930 Conference.Nonvay herselfin the present dispute
profeses that the 1935 Decrc~ adheres to a specific deteminable
Norwegian system dating from the eighteenth çentury and her
daim to a 4-milebelt of territoriwaters, as t11cUnited Kingdom
dws not disput:, has been consistemtlv advanced £rom the
l eighteenth cmtury iintii to-day.
No~eeieghm wrgwwaex th& m krn techniqzth'mmnsidwdly chaaged
ihe.aatu~eoftheeobbm
(paras.227-234 of the Couter-Mernorial)
129. Nonvay ,in para~apfis 227 to 234oftlie Comtes-Mernorial,
says that tveryone is nowagreed abont the rightofinnocent passage
through territorial waters andthat the factors upomhich attention
is now centreci are clefencof the ccast arid exploitatiorof the
*sources of thesea.She then maintains that new trends areshowhg
in theiaw of territonal waters for thc reason that modern technical
developmerrts in methods ofwarfare (ballisticsand in methods of
fiçhing.have profoundlyaflectedthese two basic factors inthe prob-
lem of territarird tlwaters.The hmited nature of the ntrends and
the very hmited recognition gien tothem ininternationa'l practice
haç been explained in the previous section.It is,however, worth
examining whether the basic factors ofthe prablem of terAtofid
waters have really changd so as nomto justify dernmds forwider
buts in the interests of (a]defenceand (b) fishq consemtlon.
I~creasci*Ihe YUKL~Fof:uns
xjo. On the kt aspect, defence ofthe coast, Nonvay makes use
again of the opinion expressed by four out of the fivemembers of1 REPLY OF THE UNITED RINGDOM (28XI 50) 4O9
zone. Ithas no bearing on the question beforethe Coufi, and !vas
derived from a concept of nentrality which belongs tçia past era.
The enornous increasein the range of modern artdlery has,as
Gide1said (para,x14 above),completely destroyed any relationthat
cannon range may have had to the fixüngof territoriawatms. Pt is,
invoked only by thase lvhu for reusms qztite 0th~ thn, dt?fencc
adwcate an eutension of territorial sovereignty ovêrthe higsea.
133. On 'thesecond aspect,the consemation of the mources of
the sa, Nonvay invokes (Conter-Mernomid, para. 229) the Lhanged
situation broughtalsoutby the Sevelopmmt of modern tachniques,
particularlytrawling,She recitesopinions expressed by individuah
and by international gatheringsto the effect thatfishery sesources
arethreatened with seriousdepletion by reason of the new methods,
and that the 3-mile Iirnit is inadequate for fishery purpuses. Tlie
effects otrtwIing on fishing-grounds were misuilderstood inmany
quarters, particularly in Nosway (seepara. g rd) above), andits
effmts on stocksoffkh ha?: been exaggeratedbythose representing
ïntwests adverse to thetrawlers.It Is,Iiowever, conccde hat the
inttoduction of new fishingtechniques meated in some areas an
international pmblem of conservation of reseurces and brough t
about the regdation of the conduciof fishingby such arrangements
as the North Sea Convention, 1882, and the North-West Atlantic
Conventioxl of 1949 t is also agseed that therc isnow increased
knoivledge ofoceanographyand its effectonfishlife, But neithes of
these twonew factsrequireus to concludethat the only orthe nght
solutionof the.fishewieproblernisanextension of territoriaivaters
or my other form of exclusive national.fisheries inthe highseas,
I ~igk sas fisherieare cccmmo.pt .m.tag8
r34, The lnstitnte of International Law at the Lausanne Con-
ference of 1927 declared thatthe priticiple ofT1.ifreedcirnof the
seas comprises-fourthing~, the firttvo of tvhich were expressecas
fallovr(1927 ,nnuaire III, p. 339):
"1) Libestédenavigation en hautemer, sous.lcontrirle exclusif,
saufconventioncontraire, de l'stat dont le navire porLe
pavillon:
2) Liberth de pi5chen haute mer,sous lesmemes condltiuns,"
Thesecond'partof tbi resolution rnerelygave expressionto a long-
dabliçhed de of cuçtomary law under which high seas fisheries
are a çomrnon heritage of States. The international character of
high seasfisheries has mkniî1ust;ratioin well-known intemational
- conventions and in the day-to-day operations offisbermen inmany
areasof the tvorld.Thw, Xcelandsaid atthe 1930 Conference that
naless than ten otlierStates cvereinterested in the Icelarid area
(.Mi.rtz&sp, 142) . he extension of national lis- monopolies 41° REPLY OF THE WmD RINGDOM (28 XI 503
beyond the existinglimitsofterritorialwaters therefore ne6~ssmlIy
derogates from the cornmon heritage of States ad taises inany
particular fishingarea serious questionsof international policy and
of the interes ofsStat.tesother thanthe çoastal State.
Idernafbnal co-@watiasz ZN tb m&w of CO~S~YDU~~O~ m~, tthe
unilateraicxtmsiufzof twn'toriaiwaters,is$he rd soEuiim
135~ Nlormver, suchanextension is not the only possible,nor
indced anacceptable solutionof the prç>blemof consemat ion..Gide1,
In a wcrrk written when ali the opinions cited inthe parapphs of
the Countm-Mernorial here heing arnstvere d erebefore him (with
the exception ofLmnard's mrk), referred to thenew factors which
are hvoked in the Norwegian Counter-Memarial ,nd expressed the
iollowing views (op,cit.Vol III, p. 901;-30:2 )
urgente queéla fausseté dugcaractQe in&puisableede lamernt s'est
trouvk dkmontrke. Mais cette réglementation n'est,nle sait, en
vertu du principe de laEibertk de, la hautmer (voirtame 1 du
p~ésentouvrage), applicable par I'Etat riveraindel; de lalimite
de sazone de swveralneté ou (mes territorialequ'A 1'ég-at.de
sesnationaux. te ttsituationjuridiçliconfrontéeavec lanécessité
que lar4glementations'étendit à tousles pêchenrssans distinction
de nationdité, pouvait conduiràdeux conclusionsbien differentw:
- l'unec'est qu'y aurait lieu deprocéder21'~tablisscmentd'accorde;
internationaux rendant obligatoire la régIementatioa pour les
nationaux de fous les hts contractants; lkatre c'est qu'iy
auraitLieude procéder$ l'extensioda limitesde la mer territoride
afin d'assurerde piano dans l'étendue de celle£i l'application
- intkgraltlede la r6glementatioactée par l'État riverain.Cette
se~onde solutim ne. prkente qu"en apparencel'avantage de sim-
plicitdontelle voudrait sepr6valoir.La possibilitéjurihquepoux
territoriale de réservarecettepêcheCls.eslsetilsnationauxaurait
la plupart du temps comme c;ons&quençe effectivecetteexclusion
des pêcheur strangerset leurévictiondc lieux de pêcheofi ils ont
aççoutnme de pratiquer leur indnçtrieIl rksulterait ainsi, d'une
maniére Apeu prkscertaine,de cetteextensionde la mer territoriale
pour y assurer une rkglementation ghérale de la péçhe,des diffr -
cuttk internationalesgraves qui feraientrapporter les mesures
prisesen adrnet.tantmerne qu'elles aient pu'passag+rement être
. mises en application.''
Then, having remarked that the hhery experts of corntrieswith
a relative11narrow continental shelf tend to advcicate e,utensicins
O£ territorial ivaters, Gide1 repudiates such a sdution (ibid.,
pp. 302-304 !)
"Ces solutions ne sauraiaitebe retenues non senIenimt parce'
qu'elles porter5ient atteinttdes situationssécnlairesintéressant,
de nombreux htats, mais parcequ'clles ne peuvent êtrequ'arbi-
traires. II est effet impossible de prendred'une façon gbnbrale la limite du platcacontinentacorne limite delamer territoriale
meme si l'on acceptela notion, asse z rbitrai qu e,leplateau .
continental s'étend jusqu'aux£onds de zoo mètres, lalimite de
200 mètres n'apnt Et6 adoptée ue parce qu'elle correspond
environ A 100brasses et eshabituelement marquée sur les cartes
marines. Assez rapprochéesde certainecota,leslimitesduplateau
, continentals'en éloignent deplas de deux cents kilcimktredans
d'autres régionsd'Europe. Les dnm&es physiques relatives 5 la.
configuration des fonds nsrturaient donc fournparelles-rn6rnes
la solutioa laquestion desavoir jusqu'quelledistance convient
de réserverlaptche aux nationaux.
Nous répttons icce quenous avons dità proposde ladétermina-
tion dela largeurdelamer territoria:Isfixation decette largeur
procède d'une manifeçtationde volontéde l'Etatriverai; mais il
volontés des autresÉtatsintéressés."ccordformel ou tacite des
136. The alternative and &ceptable solution isprogressive
int ernaitionalco-operatilitconservationand protection of fisheries
and this 1sthe çolution which isgradudy being mrked out in
State pmctice as conventions like thatof r949 for fie Norîh-West
Atlantic nea testify, The relationshiphetwem Norway and the
United Kingdom in the las tkree decades clearly shows the latter's
desire to reach agreement on fishery regdation md conservation
measUres,
At the close ofthe IOZ~-I~ZL; discussion~the United Kingdom
informed Norway that lt was prepared to canclude a convention
dealhg with temitortal watersand another on the linesofthe Anglo-
Danish Convention ofIgorregulati ngheries ciutçfd~territonal
waters north of latitude 61" norih. Nori~av was also invited to
accede to the North Sea Fisheries~onvmtbn~ but in the event
no agreement waç reached. After the promulgation of the 1935
Decree the United Kingdom Gavmmest again appraaçhed the
Norwegian Goverment with suggestions for the regdation of
fishing off the Norrvegian coast. A draft fishery convention on
the lines ofexising mgulatoryconventions was forrnulated during
discussiom heId hetween expsrts ofthe two countries in1938 and
was, by agreement, submitted for the information of the respective
f~shing interestci. The wcnrintermed beforc any agreement was
reached, but during the International Fishery Conference of j943
and subsequently, furtherefforts weremade by the United Kingdom
to formulate another .draft coqvention, but rvithout success.No
deubt, consmation and prritectioamesures must take account .
of açtud fishinginterests, but consen-atiorand fiçhingmonopolies
are two whdy different cibjectlv~s. The problemsof terriO-id
waters and ofconservatian of the Tesources ofthe high seashave
nonecessaryconnection although theyare often confused (Leonara,
Xderaa tioml Regulation of Fishries (I944, published by Carnegje
Endoment for InternationalPeace, pp. 5-6).When every effort
isbehg made toincreaçe internatina1co-operation inthe economic field,it would be a retrograde step ta extend national monopolies
in the sphereof fisheties.Suchexternions requirethe concumnce
of othtr States and international praçtice@vesno indication that
States ingenetal are lilling togive thatcontumace, The United
Kingdam Govemment has frequently dispIayed its readiriesstO
participate ininternational rneasures of cgnçervationand strungly
kaintains that it is dong fie path of international CO-operatiori,
not unilaterai encroaçhmentç, that the solutionof new problems iç
to be faund.
F~eedom ofsuaigation 0% thehigh seas and of Fig32 h~ough thsfree
S$~L abme those sms me basic p.a'~&@csof i~termtiomd Law,
7'Ize~ndm edmséon of ie~ritoril&lwaterBy Statessecassarz'ly
inurilaeihe iimatabim ofàoththesefreedo~ws
137- The Nanvegian contention that the whole nature of the
~~oblern of territorid waters haçbeen changed by new develop-
ments inballishcs ad in fisfring techniqueis therefore very far
frorn being bue. In any event, the argument that the third, and
most vifal,basicfactor,freedom of internat iond riavigationne&
nolonger be regarded, because eveqwne is agreed abont the right
ofinnocen passage, isaltogether iiiadmissible.
The right of innocent passage is certainly an estabfishedrule of
- international law,but for foreigrtmerchantshipping thereis a vast
differencebetmen a rkgime of highseas and a rhgime of territorid
waters. On fhe lcgh seasa shipis st~bject onlyto the jurisdiction
ofits ocvn flag State-apad from the question of a contiguous
zone in cuçtoms and çimilar matters. Withiri territorialwaters,
howcver, a ship is in addition absolutely subjcct:to the laws md
adminiçtration of the coastal State with dl the liabilitto inter-
ference which that position enta&, Unhappily, the attitude of
States towards foreign merchant shipping is not alrvrtyssuch that
exterisions oState sovereiptg mer the high seas canbe çonsidered
as nnattmded with prejudicr:to the freedorn of international
navigation. It would therefore 'bea grave mistake in appmaching
tlic problem oftmitori,zIwaters to-dat yoexclüde £rom the calcula-.
hon. the ïmpnr.tancuof sechring tliemaximum freeclom of inter-
riationalnavigation.
The tnith içthat modem technicd progres has greatly incrsased,
not diminished,the importance of the principle of the freedom of
the seasin its aspectofhdom of navigation.The volurne ofmorld
shipging inthe haIf-centurv between x886 and1936 trebled insix,
risingfrom just over 21 maon tons to65 million tons,and isnow
in the region of 80 million tons..Moreovte he,modern tendencg
has ben for more ând more individuai Stateçto establishtheir own
ocean-going mercantile marines so that an increasing numberof
States is vitally rrr'terestin the maintenance of the boundaries
of the high seas as the free waterways of international maritime
tr~c. REPLY 01; TKE UNITED HINGDObI (28 XI 50) 413
Anohhm considetatien is the clevelopment of international air
.traficsince the bomdaries of the high seas areequally the bonnd-
ariçisof4the international air space. Every encroachrnent of State
sovereignty on the high seasiçthus equally an encroachrnent on thci.
he airspace.
Sede~tary fislamaeas un exce#tipn to thfvcetEwmof higk seasfiheries
(Faras.235-23 7f the Counter-Mernonal)
138- Nonvay, inparagraph 235 ofthe dounter-~emorial, dm
.attention to the well-laorun claims of certain States to difiemnt
forms ofsedentaf riberiessuch as pearl, opter and spongefisheries.
In this connection it iimportant toobserve
(a) that daims of tliis kind 1.el~ttothings which are attached
to the seabcd, (Gide1 lathe quotation cited iaparagraph 235
of the Counter-Mernorial mentions two meanings to "seden-
tary fiçhenes", but in fact it ithe firstrneaning mentioned
by him \hich isthe correct one) ;
(b) such daims go with claims ta the bed of the sea itslf and
are in fact clnims to land which may ,previoiiçly have heen
res nldlius but\vasin factcapable of occupation ;
fi) snch claimsare aiialogous ta and indeed perhaps the fere-
runner ofclaims ta the contine~itaishelf;
(a) the daims do not affect in,any way the waters above the
sea bed orthe fiçherieInthese waters.
Ttis not, howrevm,clear frwrtthe Cornter-Mernorial what is the
particular conclusion that Nortvayasks the Courtto draw from the
existence of such sedentary fisherics because Norrvay has not in
ais case clairned that she pnssesses exdusive fisheriesoiitsidethe
coastal waters oves which, in her view, she is entitled to assert
fil11sovereignty under the vleç of international law. Certainly,the
existence of these exceptional claims to fisheries on the sea bed
is no indication that international la~vmcognizes any right in a
State to appropriate exclusive fisheriesin the £ree waters ofthe
Iiighseas without the assent of utherStates.The States whichmake
the daims disclah any intentioll of appropriating fisheries other
than the sedentar fisheris onthe sea bed. Thus a Foreign Office
staternent in theHome of Commom on 30th May, 1923, explaining
tlieUnited Kingdom Government \ attitudein regard to fie Ceylon
par1 fishcries said {Haward, Vol. 164, colms 1261-1262) : -
"Some of these [pearl]baniisare more tlian 3miles from the
sliorebut'where theyare situated nnderthe highseas,the daim to
sovereigntyand contsoi iIEmitedinextent tathe area ofthe banks,
and does not affectthe rightsofnavigation or oi ordinaryfishing
inthe wafcrs above tfie hariks." REPLY OF THE UNITED RINGDOM (28 XI $0) 4s
Statesto deni thedaim of the coastalStateto any territorial waters
atall. '
Norway doesnot, ashas bem stated, go as iaras khi$.She agrets
-as she isbound to do if she is ta retain any area of exclusive
rights in coastal watcrs-that the exercise of sovmeignt y ooer the
sea is çonfined vvithm certain limits and that,in fixing the extent
of itsmaritime territory, a State must conforni to a principleof
custamary law,
140. Thc applicable ptincipleofcrrstomary law içsaid byNorway
to be that-a State's maritime tenitory is restricfedto adjacent
waters, narnely, to those waterswhicli may be comidered asacces-
sory tci the land. Waters accessory to tlie landare then furthet
defined asthose waters whichEh coasiulSdaZehm the ~oww ti~@$YU-
+riate oroccufy land irrr.gard to cvhich its legitimate intexests=
justify itpretensions,The points containcd in Nompay's definition
of'the true principleareno doubt considerations wliich have played
somepart in the devdopment of the doctrine of territoriawaters.
But they are quite inailequate toexpress the madern principles of
customary Eawreplathg the limits of a State's maritime terri-
tory3, Morway he~elf maintains that the modern law is a com-
promise between the freedom of the hi& çeasand a coastaI State's
right tomaritime territory. There isIittJetrace of thicompromise
inNorway's formula,which éreatsthe law ofterntonal waterssolely
fmm the point of view of the ccoastdState and takesno account of
the intere oftilie community of Statesin the freedomof the seas.'
141. The Nonvegian formula of "legitilnate intereçts" appwently
means that the interests of themasta4 State are trrbe adjudgecl
legitimate orillegitimate simply hyreference to the supposecl needs
of the coastal Stateas detemined by the State itselfIn thxt event
the formula is nothing but a puliteway of sxying that the Mg of
its territorial wateriç atthe discretion-and at the arbitrary dis-
cretion-of the coastal State '.lndeed, ifthis is what the formula
means, itha$ almostles Iegalcontent than the. Nonvegian-Swedish
formula for base-lines proposed at the 1930 Conference, to which
.reference was made in paragraph 138 ofthe United Kingdam's
Mernorial. Giddk comment on the latter formula applies tviththe
same force ta the so-çalied principle of customary law for coastd
waters now advanced by Nonvay, namely :
'îhksecon&ment inthe paposition appearto Isbased on qnotakifrmn
Fsançoisand Westijke.
Nor did VerdrasF~an~ois,orWrstlakcpnttheséconsiderationsionvard as
such.
Thisisvirtualtyeqnivalto wyingthatthm içnolaw cmthe subject ai1
and that internztiolaw on this point simallows everÇtatetcdaim what
andnotmaffirmeclby any auth6rity theUnitcdKingdomhasibeeIi abto-trace. 144. Westiake's treatrnent of the law of territorialwaters (see
para. 242 of Counter-Memoial) admittedy explains the philos+
phical basisof the cwstal State's rights by referençe to itç ability
to appropriate the waters and its legitimate interest in doinso. ft
is unnecessary to consider whether occupxtion is the hasis of the
doctrine of territoriawaters ;Rsestaclstrongly denied this. Inany
case FVestlake,insucceeding pamgraphs,.indicates clearlvthat other
States have a Say inang atternpt bg a coastnl State to extend its
territorial watersbejrondits existiag Iimts.
The Tewitmiczl Wdtlg~.~ Jum'sdicti~wAct, 1878
I
145, Inparapph 242 of theConntex=Memorial cc-rtaiobserva-
tions aremade with regard to theBritish TerritorialWatersJuris-
diction Act. It is hst of al1 dcsirableto recdl the circumstaaces
\hich caused the passing of this Act. In a tzrell-knowncase (R. v,
Keyn; 1876, L-R. Exchequer Div. 63 ; ciftenrefemed to as the case
of the Fra~coniaj, a majoritÿ ofthe Engliçh Court ofCrown Cases
Reservtd held that EngIish municipal law had nat conferred onthe
Courts in the United Kingdom jurisdiction to deal with criminal
offencescornmitteclin territorial waters, Ehoughthe Courtindiçated
that by international law itmight be pex~nissiblefor the Crown to
exercise siich jurisdicti1. On the other hancl, therewaç nu doubt
that the English Courts underthe exiçting law had jurisdiction over
dl criminal offences committed in bays or other national waters.
The purpose, therefore,of the Act was todeal with jurisdiction in
the belt of territorial waters runniroutsidethe coast lineand out-
side the lirnits of internal waters. Inother words, the expression
"territorialwaters" used int.heAct isusedin ast-sictlycorrect and
technical sense and not as a general expressioncavering bays
as weli.
The fdowing arethe provisiunsof the Territorial Waters Juris-
diction Act tvhichmay be said to be relevant :
Pre@mBEe
"15rhereasthe rightfuljurisdicfionof Het Majesty,herheirsand
succssors, extends and bas always extended #ver the open seas
adjamnt ta the coats of the United Kingdom and of aii 0th-
parts ofHer Majesty's dominions tosuchadistance as isnecessary
for the defence andsecunty of suc11dominions :
opend seaewithin a certainndistanceof theecoastsmof the Unitede
Hrngdom and of dl other parts of Mer-Majesty's dominions, by
whomsuever committed, should te dealt with according to law:"
"2. An offencecommitted by a person, whether he isor is noa
subjtct of Her Majesty, on the open sea withln the territorld
1Thm i~ acertahciidaritybetwem tMs caseand ttidecisionofthe Nom
giaaSupremeCourt iUiecaseof tlDMS JEa%d,whichi~discussedinparas.82-83
above. watersof Ber Majest y'sdominions,is an offencewithin the juriçdic-
tion ofthe Admiral, dthough it may have been committed on.
board or by means of a foreignship,an8 the person who c~mrnitted.
such offence may be arre-sted, tried, and pwished accordingly."
''5. Nothhg inthis Act conwned shd be construed ta lx in
derogation ofan7 rightful jnrisdictirin oHer Majeçty,her heirs or-
çaccessors, underthe law of nations, or todect or prejudice any
jurisdictiocanfened by Act of Par.rliamenor now bylaw existing
in relationtofocireigships or inrelation to persons on board such.
ships."
"7. 'The territorialwaters of Her Majesty's dominions', in.
reference tothe %a, means such part of the sea adjacent to the
coast of the United Kingdom, or the coast of some other part of
Her Majesty'F.dominions, as isdeemed by internationalLaw trbe
tvithin the tmitoriai sovereignty ~f Her blajesty ;and for the
purpose of any offence declared byth%- Act to be ivitliinthe jaris-
dictionofthe Admiral, any part of the open sea witkin one marine-
league of theçoast measurd fm low-watermarkshall be decmed.
tobe open senwithin thl: territoriawaters of Her Majesty's domi-
nions."
As is natural,the Nomegian Government bases most of itscomment:
upon the frrst recital inthe prearnble mhkh states"the jurisdiction
of IXerMajtacsty, her heirs and saccessurs, extends and has dways.
extended over fhe open seasadjacent to the coasts of the United
Kingdom and of a11other parts of Zler hlajesty's dominions tu such
a distance as is neçessary for the defence andsecurity of such.
dminions". No doubt, this reçital inthe preamble was iduenced.
by the incorrect view of the canon-range principle which mas to.
be found very much in tlie books ofthe time but which, as stated.
in paragraphs 112-113 above, the researçhes of Rzstad md Wdker.
have shown to be totally incorrect. Speeches made in Parliament
during the passhg of the Act Indlcate ihat thistrtas W. While this.
recital in the preamble is evidence of vje~vsentertained by sornev
people inthe United ICingdomat that tirne, the preamble ha$no
operative force and the Crownhaç not exwcised jurisdiction outside.
the 3-rnileLimit,in the nineteenc thntury or lates,except t1m.tthere-
had been earlier in the mineteenth century a wntigiious zone juris-
diction execcisd der what are often referred to asthe Hovering-
Acts but ~vhichhad dready been repealedin 1876 1.Tndeed, the.
1 The prmcipal Hovermg Ach were asf01hw-s*
(i)An Act off 736 (9&a.II,ç.35)This fixea ~rnilcdistancfrom thccriask
forthe enfritcement of custuandexcise la!+%.
(5)Aa,Acf:of1764 (4Eeo. III ,.75).This.ptovid tedt,if a shiwab fmnd
hoveringmthin 2Ieagues a£thc shore,the rwseland gmds wex liablc-
ho bçforfeited.
[Ci) Arhck of tSzg (Gm. IV,c. 75)This fixe2 leagueç from theshorasthe.
distance for quarantircgnlatinns.
(iv]An act of rS53(16 and17TTict.c. 107). This providcdtheforfeiture of-
hdf theppesons on board siibjccts of Her Majesty, founa with prohibitebUnited States rnernber af the League of Nations Cornmittee of
Expcrts said ofthe preamble in 1926 (A. J.I.L., Vol. 20, Speçial
Çupplernent, p. 136))ITkis broad declarationis, ';ofar asthe undes-
signed has been ableto discover, suppmted by ne modern authorlty
and is no longer maintahed biythe Governnierit of Great Britain."
Thefirst paragaph of Section 5 is merely designed to preserve
any rights of juridiction vcsted inthe Crow under intemational
latv by treaty or otherwise. [Section 6 qxcially saves jurisdiction
over piracy.)
The 0th- provision which cds fo~ comment isthe definition of
territorialwaters (Section T),and it lnll beseen that it faliintotwr,
parts. First, the definitionsays thai territoriawaters means such
part af the sea adjacen o the caast as is derneciby international
law to he wit-hinthe territorial sovereignty of Her BIajest y ,e
second p& of the definition &es 3 miles for the purpose of the
crhinal jurisdiction conferred onthe Courtsby the Act in question,
It is the lad part of the dekition which, together with Section 2,
is seally the one gentive provison of the Act, and the question
may be asked why thisoperative part was so carefdly limited tû
one partiçular lom of jurisdiction. The cxpImation lies in the fact
that it[vas uncertain at that tirne tvhether or not 3 miles w-ould
remain the fimit under international law, and, indeed, whether the
policy of Her Majesty's C~vernment would he to advocate the
retention of a 3-mileIimit orto urge awider hit. Sothe l~islature
carefdty Iirnited the Act to the pretise purpose for which it was
enacted. If, by convention or otherwise, international law were
dta the Act to develop in the directipn of allowing a&der Ilmit,
it would not have been necessary to amend the Act of 2878unles,
of.courste h, United Kingdom desired to make use of the new
possibility o extend its criminaljrrrisdiction to a wider limit.
The UmitedKigtgdom km corzsi$kagy $vofeskd ugaixst extmslimts of
&wi!o&i waters 6eywzd th ps-ije Limit
146. The idea that: under international law tenitorhl waters
mlght Be extended up to the bit of cannon range hascompletely
rtisappued, whïie the praçtice ofthe United Ringdom from 184r,
nrticion boardwÏ+hin distancoefhrn 4 8 leagiiesthecoast(amd- .
ingtothe difientrqions çpecifiinthe Act).Tb Act., it is tndted,
dlstjriguished betwBritishand fmeign vessclsimpming more scvere
xegulationQU theformer. -
An this Iegisiatwasr~pealeüby fiaCnstornsConsalidatiAct,r876 (39and
40 Vict., c. 3(Seesection288of theAct and ScheduleA.) Sectio179of the
new Act continned toimpose penaltOnsBritish oria,rgBritishvesselnp ta
3 leagues from.Uie sho;ebut all custommd revenue regulationç outsthe
3-mil~limiturersemovod sof~r asforci,vessls wereconcerned.Therefom,in
Unitcd Emghm Gmernment correctIp decribsdthia Act atheAct "by which
Btitish municipaIegislaeion wmade to conform uithinternationalaw" (see
Jessup,The Law iofTerriloriWafe~s,p.m). -420 RE- OF TEE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XZ 50)
when disputes arme with Spain concmning Spain's clahm to a
6-milelimit'of territori~v-vaterçmith, Great Britaia asd theLM~J
ofNatio~~,Vol. II, p.r80),up tothe present day, shows that she
has conçistentlyprotested against extensions of territorid waters
beyond what sheconceivedto be the legd limit of3miles established
by the consent of nations.
147. The United Kingdom accordingly submib that theNorwe-
gianGoverzlmen t'formdation of an alleged basic lxincipgovern-
ingthe determination ofa State's coastalwaters is vitalldefdctive
because (G) itornitsto allowany weight t~ the interest of othcr
.
Statesin the s,elernent of thefmntiers between the high seas and
exclusive nationalwaters (paras. 139-142 above) ;(b) the formula
disregardsthe element of the cament of otherStates,and k thus in
codict with tlie most fundamental nom of custornary law which
Norway herselfinvokes in paragaph5 256-260 of the Couter-
Mernorial(pards. 117-11 above) ; (c)itis in fact conhdicted By
the whle long history of the law ofterritoriawaters and of inter-
national disputes regarding the limitofmaritime territory Iparas.
110-116 above) ;(dlitis contradicted by theworkofthe 1930 COR-
ference, the great abject of tvhiwas ts achievc a precise fixation
of the lirnitçothe territorial watersofevery State aslimits uni- i
vmaiiy accepted by al1 States and thus put an end to disputes
. between individual States (paras.117-121 above) ;(e) itiscontra-
,dicteciby modern practiceand most recently of alby the Datush
and Swedish notes çoncerning territorial waters itheBaltic (para.
xzo above).
To put the matfer more simply,the aUegeddoctrine of maritirne
territoryadvanced by Nomay is nok, and never has becn, a rule
.ofaw.
The United TcingdornGoverment, in the Tight of the above
observations,dms nat tbk it necessary tocite further authmity
for the proposition that the eçtablishedconceptofmaritime territory
in international law isof a zone of territarial seaof aneven and
, determinate width appended to the territory (including its inland
waters) ofa State.Shat thm is no lackofhhighauthurity may be
. judg~l frm the fdowing language used by Professor.(now Judge)
Basdevant in anarticle cited mare than once by Norway (Rev~e
gddrale de Droit [email protected] (19~2) V~ol.XIX, at p. 566),
where he mites of :
"la conception classiquede la mer territoriale qui eniellune
bandede mer d'une étendueddtemrinés eurlaquellel'ktaRverain
exerce la souverainetoudes droits dewuverainet6"-CHAPTE I.-VIEWS OF THE UN~D KINGDOM GOVE~ENT
FONCERNING THE PRZNQlvAL ZEGAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE
(Para. 243 ofthe Counter-Mernorial)
148, The Nomegian Gavement, in pavaph 243 of the
Gounter-Mernorial, asksfora cldcation conçerningthe acceptame
of the Norwegian clah toa 4-mile bheries zone by the United
Kingdom Governrnent in the present proceehgs, Infact,two que5
tions arise :11 why the United Kingdom now adopts a different
attitude frorn that ivhichit previously ado~ted : (2)what is the
exact effectof the admissions contained in paragraph 2 of the
Mernorial 7 It rnay be converiientto anster the second question
first. The UnitedKingdom Goverment is not ashg the Court to
give.a judgrnent dependent foritseffecton ahypothcsis which Ehe ,
Unitecl Kingdom Goverment: couLd aftenvards repudiate by its
unilateralact. Such a coursewould be unacceptable to theCourt.
Rtorenver, it would be inconsistent with the United, Kingdom
Government's own purpose in having recouIsc to the Court-
namely, a final settlement of the dispute. The admissionnow made
'knnot be withdrawn after the judgment ;the judgment dven on
the basis of the admission will be bindinon 130thParties.
The anstver to the iirst questionis given in the imrnediateky
folluwingparagraphç, but imay be remarked hem that the change
in the attitude of thUnited Kingdom was not sa abrupt asmigl~t
appear. In the first plsethe red line, abouwhich sornuchissaid
in Part 1of the Mernoriai,Gounter-Rlemoriaand Replply$,asbased
on four miles, and had Nonvay chosen to maintain the red line
modusvivendi, it is likely tl.iat it would have remained indefinitely
'ilforce. Secondly, the Un-itedlCingdorn after z93a,in hi-refforts to
settlc the dispute hy agreement (viz. the tdks in Oslin 1938 and
in London in xg48-rg4g),did not insist on any psopasls under
which Nonvay wodd accept the 3-mile limit asa general prinçiple.
Theproposais then producedwmc for lins on the chart pitt forward
merely as ad hoc compromises and not a$ following any defined
principles of deLimitation. There is no doubt, I~owever,that these
lineswereeasierro reconcile witha4-milethan with a 3-railiirnit.
~ 149.The expZanation ofthe United Ringdom Government's
attitude inregardto thé Norwegian 4-mile liinit to bc found in
its conclusionscancerningthe implicationsznd nesuItsof the failme
of the 1930 Conferenes, which are setout in paras.117-121 above.
The failureof thatConference, ashas thme beenpointed out,did
not, anclcorild nat, sweèpaway the existing practiçand stilless
could italterthe consensual basis of custornary EaIn consequence
evcry Statc içentitledto a 3-mile zone of tenituriaseaas against every 0the-rState because ailaccept at Imst that Iimit. But aclab
to a zone in excessof 3miles is validagainstmother State ody if
itcm affrmatively be show11either to have been açquiesced in by
the State concerned or to have becorne anestabiished part of the
intenationai order by long usageso as to raisea presilniption of
açquiescence. In other words, a daim in exceçs of3 miIes, if it is
to he legally enforceable, must beshown inone way or the other to
be an ~tablisbd right withrespect to theState againstn~hicllit is
açserted.
Ijo.The Norwegiandaim to a4-mile beit,a.bsas been show11 by
Ratad and other witers, can be hacd back to dates in the
eighteenth century (the Rescript of 13th Juae, 1745 q~uoted in
Annex 6, No. 4, of theCoiinter-Mernorial) before the adoption of
the 3-de limit ininternational practice andindeedbefûre Gdiani's
proposa1tha'c3 miles shoulcl be mbstituted for the rough measme
ofcannon range. During most of the nineteenth century the dif-
ference between the Smndinaviatl bit as being a4-de leagne and
ttle generallapplied limit of amarine league of 3 miles made littie
impact onthe consçiousness of non-Swndinzvian States. Towards
the end of Jlie century, when the question of extending the 3-mile
limit was- agitated both behveen States and arnong jwkts, the
distinct Scandinavian practice becamemore svidelymaîized.But by
then the pulicyof the United ICingdornand certain ather States was
king orientedtowards uaivemalizing what many had assumed \vas
an accepted limit inthe practice of States. The Unitcd Kingdom
. dechnecf to reçognize the largeN romegian limit. The misuse of
.neutrd territorial waters and, inparticulaofNorwegian watersby
German U-hoats in the 1914-19x 8 ar did nothing to make the
United Wdom change Bermind anclduringthe Anglo-Norwegian
negotiationçof rgzq-1925 the United Kingdom attemptd toinduce
Nomy to accept 3 miles. At thc 1930 Conference, the United
Kingdom maintaineci her resistance to the recognition ofNorway's
+mile lirnitas an exceptional historicclah hoping for a general
decisioxi Infavour of 3 des. But the conference failed ta reach
sach a decisiou arid as a result the United Kingdom has had to
consideswhether the Norwegian clah to 4 miles is establishedon
historic gronnds. So far as concern fishenes tha 4-mile ht has
been operated in practice for a niunberof yearsvnder the red ïine
mod~suiuendi,
151. The United Kingdam Government therefore decided In
thex proceedings to recognizeNonvay'sright to a 4-mile maritime
ibeltandin doMgso it thus açyuiescesinNornay's exceptional daim
to a zoneof territorialseaextending uver a Scandinavian Teague of
- seamiles l.The reasons whfchhad finallyJedthe United Kingdam
lIntemationallaw dm not admit, exqt by conventioor prescription,
exclusivfisahgrigiiouhide terrikartacrsand Numy"ç historie tiisnat
M, 4-1niIe lifor fisbibut t4 milelimitfotcmitorial watcrs gcny,with
p~~~ibleexcepti(apoint nobiissurnthiscased nentrality timcof\var. KEPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50) 4z3
Government inthe particular case ofXonvay to acquiesce inthis
exception to the3-mile Iirniare :
(a) the cuitiquity ofthe Nnirwegiandaim reaching back to a
period befare the formulation of the 3-rniIe hmit tvhich
Uldeed may have drawn ittinspiration in the mind of Galiani
from the eighteenth-cen Scanryinavian practice:
(b) the persistent advancement of her Iarger clah by 'Morny
throughout the periodof the exiçtençc of the 3-mile limit and
its unbroken assertion against otherStates exccpt in regard
to neutrality duringthe two World Wars ;and
(c) the increasing disposition to-day to acquiescein Nonvay's
titIe to a+mile zone of territoriasea on the two grounds
stated in(a) and (b).
I 52.TheUnited Kingdom Govemment at the sametinieseafirrns
that inits view the onIy Iirnit for thwidth of the maritime belt
which has the generalagreement of Statesin international practice
is the 3-mile limit. The United Kingdom Governrnent declines to
regard asbinding on itself or its nationalsany daim to a belt in
excesç of3 miles which ithas not accepted vis-Ù-vithe particular
State assertingthe claim. The Norwegian daim rvbich it has new
~ecogmized extends lo4 seamilesa.ndno mmc and, in the silbmission
of the United Kingdam Government, Nonvay isonly ehtitled to
assertagainst the United Kingdom in these or any other proceed-
ings afixed zoneof precisely seamiles.
UfiitedKingHo% view as tothfi$rop~rli~r%Zft Nomeiegiante~~"b~torz'al
watm
(Para. 244 of the Counter-Mernorial)
153. With reference to paragaph 244 of thc Gounter-Mernorial,
thcUnited Kingdom Govemment isnow filingthe charts (Annex 35)
showing wlierc, in its submissfon, and in açcotdance with the
principles of iriternational law applicable in the matter, including
Nonvay's claims on historicgrounds, the outer limit and the base-
points should bedrawn for thezone offthe Nosrvegian coastswhich
is now in dispute. A fuIlexplmation of these çhasts is given in
Chapter V ofPart IT of thisReply. Briefly,the pecked green line
.onthese chartsrepsesent the outside lirnit of Nonvegiatenitonal
waters. A fim green Iine represents the hase-lke wl-iereit departs
from the coast because of bays or fjords which are interndwaters.
In addition the base-pointson the mainlandislands or rocks which
are signdïcant fordelirniting the outer line are shoasgreen dots.
It was necessary forthe Government of the United Kingdom to
- knaw, before definitelyfilinthesecharts, what case on prescriptive
ot historic grounds (the onus is indisputably on Norivay here)
the Nonregian Govemment ivould make-particularly to fjotdç
or otherenclosed waters.424 EPLY OF THE UNlTED KINGDOM (28 ..Y50)
U~ited Kingdom niew eiht th 1eggavalz'diiof the basclines of the
Royal Dwee oj 1935 is the sole i$ss~iz fhe j3u8senlcase
(para .45 of the Counter-Mernorial)
154. The exclusive fisheriesto which a State is entitled under
international law-apart from seden tary fisheries-are restricted
to itçnational waters togethe writh the belt of its territoriasea
tvhich in Nunvay'çcase is 4 sea miles ~Gde. 'fieUnited Kingdom
admits the Nowegian daim to a belt of 4 miles but ernphatically
denies that Nonvay can clairnmote. IIt iscornmon ground that for
fishery purposes the distinction between national and territorial
waters is ïmmaterial in the sensc that foreign fishermen may be
excludecifrom either form ofcoastal waters. But the total area of
a State's exclusive fisheriesunder the settlcd practice of States is
obtained by delimiting its maritime belts dong the whole length
of its national territory includingits natioad waters. The sa-called
base-lines of the territorialsea arc nothing biit the limits of the
coastal State's land territory and internal waters and, assuçh,
are a cardinal factor in deterrnining thtotal extent of its exclnsive
fisbenes.
r55. Nomay, an the assumption that there are no des of Inter-
national latv deterrnining the width of the maritime belt, argues
that it içnonsensicai to attacli any importance to base-lines. If a
Statc can fix its own bread tof territoriawaters, international law,
so Noruraycantends, is only conçerned with the totalarea ofçoastal
waters IIthas akeady been shown that the açsurnption on tvhich
this argument is based is rvithout any foundation in international
Iaw because Narway is entitled to a zoneof territorial sea 4 sea
miles;in extent andnemore. Consequentlythis argument also is
without an'yfoundation.
ItIsindeed difficiitlo behevc that Norway's argument coricern-
ing tlie irrelevance ofbaselines is scriously intended,For no prin-
ciple is better, or more çleariy, established than that a State's
coastal waters consist of national waters plus a bdt of territorial
sea extendingalong tlie boundariesofits land territory and internal
waters. It is unnecessary to cite aiithority for a principle which
has manifesteclitselfin the unbroken practice of Statesfor at lest
150 years and tu tvhichthe NorwegianRoyal decreeundw litrgation
in the p~esent case itself Bears lvitness3.The anly exceptions tu
this psactice are a few recent daims to ares of sea superjacent
to the continental shelf whichare noveIand çontesled (seepara. 125
above).
1 Whereverthe eapreçsions "national" or"internwatem arc usedin this
Rcply,itrckrstowatcn otherthm territorwaters andthe higseas.
1.eterritorwaaters plintemal waters.
Sincctlir! dmreo purportsixobased on thcRoyaI Rescripof rStzand
thc latter hascd ona lirnit nf four miles, 156. It isalso diffrculto understand how Norway" argument
that base-linesare ofno rehce infixing the limit oçf coastal
waters cas bereconciled with her own formulation ofthe true norm
of a Statens maritime tenitory. [Counter-Mernorial,para. 24,) If
maritime tersitory conçistoftth evattersproperlvaccessory to the
coast of a State,it ispresurnably nkces~ary to how what in Taw
constitates the cost of a particular State.
The J~m$im of the Courti*deciding I\romay'sbase-12~es
'
(Para. 246 of the Cornter-Mernorial)
r57. Norlrvay,in paragraph 246 nf t'fieCounter-Memorid, corn-
plains that the Unitéd Icingdom Gavernrnent inits application to
the Court bas to some extent invoked the junsdiction of the Court
ex W~MO ethonounder Article38 (2)ofthe Statutewifhout the ape-
ment of Norway, She contends thatif the Courtlays dom precise
rules forfixing the baselines, these wiUtrace thernçelves on the
mapautamatiçally, On the other hand, ithe Courtonly Iays doma
general prinçiplewhich leave theNonvegianGoverment ameaslire
of choicein the lines mhichit may prescrihe for safeguarding Nos-
way's legrtirnate interests. then there isno occaciionfor the Court
to be asked taexercisea jurisdictionwhich belongs ta Norway.
x58. TheUnited Kingdom Gvernment, in invithg the Court to
delimit the base-lines, which arethe suhject-matter othe dispute,
had 20 intention of hvokrng anddoes not invoke ,4rtide 38 (2)
of the Statute.Xthad in rnindthe possf'brlitthat,if the Court lays
dom pnclse sules for the delimitation of the base-lines fhnre may
shll be minor difçerencesas tothe geapphical fücts towhich the
rules apply. Tt alsahad inrnind the possibfity that the p~ecise
detemination of the extent ofany historic ivaterstowhich Nonvay
may bc fciundto be entitled,may depend on evidence as ml1 as
rdes of law. "fie United Kingdom Govemtnerrt is accordingly .
of the opinion that itis legallgprope rnder Article 38 (1)of the
Statute of the Court, .andthat it rnay be practicdly convenknt
for the Court, in certaincircumstances, actually to delimit the
Norwegian bm-lines. Xt is, however, contenirat bhstage toreserve
jtsrigl-littotake up the matter agah lates in the light ofal1the '
evidence adduced hy Norway or, at the end of the case,in the liglit
of the Court's decision,
159. On the uthcrhand, it recognizesthat ifthe Ca~irt'decision
should leave Norway with a mesure of discretion inthe choice
of itsbase-lines, then thanly right possessed by theUnitd King-
dom will be tochallenge th exercise oNanvay 'schojçeif it ~hould
have ben exercisedinconsistently with the rules laid down by
the Cou*, Atzich 38 (1) (b) ofthe Std~te of &e Coud ad *ri~tt~~m~ti~~al
czutom as cuidanc~ofa generalfiractke ac~pted:as lam"
(Pams. 247-25 2f the Counter-Mernorial)
r6a. The United Ringdom Gvernment agees with the state-
ment in paragaph 250 of the Countm-Memarial thatthe law appli-
cable,infdw presen taseis essentiallcustomary internatitionai law
wkch means that,under Article 38 (1) ofits Statute,the Court
isto applp "internationalcustom, asevidence of a generalpractice
accepted aslaw ".The United Kingdom Government also secognizm
that, for a ciistomto be applicable asIaw, it nznst invnlve tlie ele-
ment of apinio in thelimited sense thatitmust be:distinguish-
able from ausage of rnereconvenienceor comity. The United King-
dom Government doeç nut, however, nnderstand the Pemment
Court of Internationd Juçtice to have decided in the "Lotzcs"
casa (SeriesA,No. ro)that whenever apsactice içinvaked as having
the chamcter oflaw, specik prmf must be given of the suhjectiv~
intentions of States in regard to'the pmctice, The Court, dealing
with an argument that tlie absençe of the exercise of criminal
jutidictlon bg States againstpcrsons on foreignmerchant vasels
in rega~dt O occurrenceson the high seasindicatd a ruleofcustorn-
ary law that no such jwisdiction existed, said (in a passage the
last three liaesonly of rvhich arequotcd in paragraph 25r 05 the
Cornter-Mernorial) :
"Even if therarit yftire judicial decisito be found among
the reported casesmre suffitientto prove in point of facethe
cirçumstances xlleged by thAgmt of tlie French Government, it
tvould merelyshow that Statesliadoftcn, inprdctice, abstained
frorninstitutkg criininproceedings,and notthat they recognized
themxlves as being obligedtodo so;for ody ifsuch abstention
were based on theu being conscious ofhaving a duty to abstain
would itbe possibleto speak ofai international custarn'". 28).
It içto be observed that the @-art waç hwe: rnetely declining to
deduce a mle of customry law negatively from the absence of
actionby States on the ground that inthe particularcircmtances
itwas impossible to infer that the inactionresüîted from a con-
.viction ofIegaEobligation rather thanfromanexerciçeofdisuetion,
Indeed, the majority of theCourt had reached the conclusion that
such evidence of praçtice as there \vas pointed to the oppsite
inference.Further~nore,as Ssrensa (also quotedin paragraph qr
of the Counter-Mernorial). ha$ said (Les Soet~ces6% Droit imtGr-
.~za#iomapJ~ mg), fhe above is tlie onZy tiinewhen the Court has
referred in itsjudgmentto thesubjective elcment incustonlary law.
In ailthe other casesin which the Court has concerne$ itself with
customaryrules it has made no mention of ththsubjective elemeiit;
Ttdid not do so for instance inthrr "Wimbledon" mse, an example
mentioncd by Çgrensen. There the Court deduced a customary rtrlethat it inot inconsistent with neuttality for a belligerent warship
to pass througli aninternational canal from the practice in regard
to the Suez and Panamri Canals (Series A, No. I, p. 25). Another
example not cited by Sprensen isthc Court's decision in the Easfern
Greenla~d case that the act of a Minister for Foreign Afiairs falling
within his provincc is bindlng upon his State (Series A/H, No. 53,
,p.71). It 3sunnecessary to riiultiply authorities because the Inter-
national Court itself in deciding threc separate and important
points ' ofcustornary laxvin the CorfzsChamcl case did not concern
itsclf with the specifiç proof of opinio jzbrisin the individiialcases
ofobservance of a customary pnctica (I.C. J. RePorts 1949, pp. 18,
22 and 28).
The United Kingdom Governrnent accordingly subrni ts that. the
phrase inArticle 38 (1) (b) of the Statutc means no more than that
theCourt muçt be satisfied that a customary practice, which is
invoked bcfore the Court as law, isone from which it is proper in
al1the circurnstances to infer that Stales lzomgeaerally accefltifas
bindi~g in law. The Court indetermining whether this inference
ought to be dram has heid itselffree tomake a broad appreciation
of dl the relevant facts and circumstances of the internat ional
ptactice invoked inthe particularcase.
Gsnwality of Ihe firacticeaccepteasdlaw
(Para. 253 of the Counter-Mernoriai)
161. It iscommon grozrndthat, asArticle38 (1) (b)prescribes, a
customary pïactice invoked aslaw must be gencral hut that the
generality is relative and does not connote univcrçality. It is also
çommon gound that, when a gencral practice is establlshed as
customaty Iaw, it iç binding ona State without proof of the assent
of the particular State against which it is asserted-Norway resesv-
ing, howcver, the question of the position of a State thatpersistently
rejects the rule. The United Kingdom, in addition, need only draw
attention to the fact tliat theCourt's freedorn to appreciate ail the
circurnstancesalleged to establish a customary tule also exte~idsto
appreciating the relative signifiçance of thc quant ity of the usage
and the quarrtityof its acceptançe as law by other States. Thils
Sorenscn rightly says (op .it., p93) :
The tbrcc points amcrc:
(1)"that a Statcan ivhosc tcrritory, or whosn ~7atm-s. anact mntrary
tointernatio lawlliaoccurrcdmay ficallcdupon togive an explanation'"
Ip."81;
(2) "everyStatc'obligationot toallow knowiügiy itterritoto beusedfor
ack contrarto the rights other States" (22);
(3) 'lisia tliopinion otheCourtgenemllyrecognizedand iaaccordancewith
intcnatianaciistorn thStates itimt ofpcacc havea righta sendtheir
warships througstraituseclfor international iiavigation tw~wpararts
of the 1iigliseaswithout tlie prcvious authorizationStarc"c(p28). "Ce n'estpas une considérationquantitativequi estdécisive,
car la coutume constatée dans I'afiadiurIViwzbledonrelativeau
passage pas les canauxinternationauxne s'appuyaitque surdeux
ca!L@'
Positiofiof a State pmsistelztly declinilogaccepta cl~sto~ry rde
(Paras. 256-26 of theCounter-Mernorial)
TIic rigIO/n Sjnta todiss~ztJrm a wtomary r~leis notlabsalwle
account wmf be laken ofthe ~igktsoftheinternational cammwnil.y
162. Nonval;,however, çontends that, although acustomaryrule
is binding on any particular State without prao£ of itsindividual
assent to the rule, thecase isquite diffetent where the State hns
from the first declinedto recopize the rule. The dissentingState,
so Norway çlaims, is theri not bouncl. She cites distinguished
authority in supportofher contention pointingoutthat this opinion
iç expresçednot only by extreme positivists but bywriters of dif-
ferent scheols. ne reservation of the United States Governrnent
concerningthe statements of lmv theanlar d fthePermanent
Court:of Arbitrationinthe caseof the Nonvegian shipownerskclairns
referzed to inparagraph 259 ofthe Counies-Mernorial canharcily,
hrawever,be regarded as authonty for the contention. The reser-
vation was directednot to exceptingthe United States frornobr;ew,
ance of rules accepted by other States but te questioning the
tribunal'sunderstandingof the rulesthat were accepted by States
(Recfced desSedences nrbitrutrileVol. 1, 1948,pp. 344-346).Simi-
larlgProfessor Basdevant's cclrnrncntupon the reservationrelated
to the effcctofthe reservationon the vaIue of the award as a pre-
cedent izotto the principIe now contended for àlyNonvay. Indeed,
the views expteçsed by Ai.Basdevant inthe lectures, iiivhich the
dictum eited inthe Connter-Mernoriao lccurred,are far fromreflect-
ing a strictpositivist approach to the problem of customary law.
The lveight of the authorilty çupporting the principle contmded
for by Nanvay meritç respect and the vicws as to the nature of
international law expressedby the Court inthe "Lotus" cas* may
also be invoked in its support, although theextreme positivisrn of
theçe views has been criticizedIt ishowevert ,obe ohserved that
in the years \vhich havepmed since 1927 ,en the 'Xotws" case
waç clecided,the.trend in international relationliasbeen to~vards
an incseaseclregard for rnajority opinion. Precisey how far this
trend has affected or may affect the formation of custornary law it
is unneçessaryhere toconsider, Xtiç enough to say that the right
of a State to dissentfrom a customary rulecannot be regarded as
absolute. There is universalagreement that a new State haç no
option but to adhere to generdly accepted customary law. III
lPublishchy thenegiskyofthe Court. REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDORT (28 XI 50) 429
addition, where a fundamental principk is concerned, the inter-
national comrnunity cloes not recagnize theright of any State to
isolat iself from the impact of the principlOn the other hand, a
State rnay acquire an exceptional positioti with regard to some
general rule of cuçtomary law by some process which is analogous
fothat of acquiring an historic title.
163. Even if the freedom of the seas and the right to coastal
waters areregarded as pkiçiples ofequd weight, there isaninevit-
able, constantand universalimpact of each principleupon theother
inwhich the rights of the whole comrnunity of States inthe high
seasare at stake.The delimitation of territoriwaters, in short, is
not a spherein which it is possiblto isolate the Jegal attitucof
one Statein regardta custumarylarvfrom the attitude of the whole
comrnunity of States. If the individualState maintains one point
,of vieivandthe international çornrnunity anothes, there is neces-
sarv and çontinuous unresolved conflictas toterritorial boundaries,
hé dissent of the individualState cannot: diminish the tights of
the international cornrnuitityThis confliccan only be resolved by
giving effectto onepoint of vicw or the ather and, itisçuhmitted,
the view reptesenting apractice generally accepteçby othct States
and prese~ng the interests ofthe international cornmt~nity as a
wholc must prevail over theview ofan individual Stateunless the
lattercarishow acquiescence initç exceptional claim. In other wiroirds
the individual Statehas to sbotvexpressacquiescence or an histaric
title.
164- The United ICingdornGovernment does not ,unt hisground,
contend that Norway cannot be entitled inany circumstances to
any caastal waters in excess of those dowed by the çustomary
des of international law.On the contrary, the United Kingdom
admits on historiçgroundsthe Nonvegian daim to four miles and
to the waters of fjordsand other enclosed waters. TEonlycontends
that Norway is not entitled lrgo beyond what is permittecl by
customaryIaw unless shecm .showthe acquiescence of otherStates
either by particdar agreement or by establishing an historictitle.
The whole concept of historic waters assumes, and has as its
foundation, the üniversality ofthe rules for the delirnitation of
coastat waters. The persistent holding out of one State for larger
vcoastailimits is thus, in the submissionof tlie United Kingdom
Government; onZy relevant te the extent that it is an dernentin
establishing the acquiescence of othes States.Indeed, the central
core of thepresent case is consideredto be the question over what
presse areas Narway can show the establishment of a special
title bylong usage.
Dttratim and cognli~tiiof Ike itzdernalio~zlfist5m
165. Norway, in paragraph 261 of the Counier-Mernorial,
çontends that a custom, tohave force as law, must show acertainduration in the practice making up the custom, dthough she
concedes that the antiquity of a custom is a relative matter
varying with the circumstances and character of the case. She
.fers to thxee phrases, uçed incases before the Permanent Court
of International Justice in three separate cainswhich the French
word 'koonstantelYisnsed to expreçs the element of the duration
of the practiceIn noneofthese cases,hciwever,was anything said l
to suggest that tlremore orless londuration ofa çuçtom is essentid
to itsqualificationsaç a binding custorn, The adjective appcars to
have been used descriptively and by way of empliasis without the
'speçialmeaning attributed toit in the Counter-Mernorial. Moreover,
the Permanent Court has even more oftcn referred tointernational
custorn without any refermace to its duration. Indced, in the
Eastern Gre~ielan.dase,from whichthe Counter-Mernorial cites the
dissenting opinion ofJudge Amilotti (p. 91) concerning a State's
responsibiliityfor thactsof its Foreign Minister,the judpent of
the Courtsaid sirnplythat this pointwas beyond dispute (p. 71).
The International Cautt itself, in the Covju Chartnelcase, alço
refersecto international custorn an thee occasions \vithout any
refcrenceto its duration. (Seefootnote to para. x60 above.)
Article38 (1)(6) of the Statute ofthe Courtcontains nothing to
make the long duration ofa custom essential td its legal force.
What the Statute requires isthat the çustorn shouldbe evidence of
ageneral practice accepted aslaw. To what extsn the duration of
apractice WU be important iri establishing its acceptance States
as Iaw neçeçsatilydepends on the circumstances of eachcustom
invoked before the Court and the practice of theCourt shows that
inthis point also it exercisesa rvidefrcedom in appreciating the
statusofa particular custornM. Basdevant summed up the position
tlius(Recaeildes Coztrsx946,Vol. IV, pp. 512-513 :1
"C'es àtcepointde'vuequ'apparait l'importancede la répétition
des prtctdents;aussi lcjuge international nemanque pas, lecas
dant, lalongue duréen'est pa.untlkmentnindispensal~lcarCcequi
estessegzti,'esd'awiuw à $rozcvequetelle t'è'streconltzcecomme
Jaz'sa~droit."
T'lieabove observations apply equally to the element of con-
tinuity which indeed the phrase "pratique constanteJ' expresses
satherthart the element oflong duration. Uniformity inthe abserv-
ance of a custom is, naturally, importantas tending to put the
legd characterof the custern beyond dispute. ConverAg, lack
of unifomity, no doubt, tends to put Indispute the recognition of
the custorn as law. But, ultimately, the criticai question must
always be whether, at the timc when a custorn falls te be appte-
ciated in litigation before aninternational tribunal,it lias corne
to be accepted as law and that is a questionwhiçh the Court is
entitledto decideon a broad review of dl the circumstancesof the REPLY OF THE UKITED KIKGDOM (28XI 50) 43I
relevant State practice. This is indicatedby the verytermi of
Article 38(1)(b) of theStatute which doeç notrequke thecustom
to be evidence ofa universal but of a genernlpmctice acceptcd
as law.
In any case,it isevident that lack of ts7ti/ormityintkeewlier
stagesof FM developm~t of acuslomai~yjvacliceBsmuchless nraterial
tkan midence of Ihegene~.aE.recognitioO/ithe#ractice aslaw zzrthe
fieriodiritwtedial'elybeforeEhein$sr.lzatitribimzl isccalled@on
lo a$preciale Its stalasslam. For the rest the Government of the
United Kingdom contests theNorwegian arguments inparagraph 260
of the Carrnter-Mernorial that Nonvay has followild a long-
eçtablished cuçtom in her1935 Decree and that she has anhistoric
titletaa specialmethud of draivin~base-lines.forterritorialwaters
(seepara. ;03of Part Iof thisl3eplyand seefurther paras.412-431
of Part II).
(Coiinter-Mernorial,paras.262-266)
J'btevims of Lord Alverstoae
166.Nonvay, in paragraphs 264 and 265, dram attention tothe
need for caution inseeking to deduce customary Iaw either from
particula reaties orfrom the opinionsof jurists.She refers espe-
ciallyto the viewsexprcssedby Lord Nverstone inthe well-luiown
case ofWsst Rand Centra2 Gold Mina'fig Coufzfiaxyv. Th King
(Scott,Cases on Jniermtio~d Law, p. 7). Thc points made by
Lord Alverstone are not without some substance, but he gtves a
somewhat unreal picture ofthe utilityboth of particular treaties
and of theopinions of writersasevidence of customary law. His
words have to beread in the liglit the fact thaE he was a judge
applying internationalJaivin a municipal court andadviçedly took
as his starhg point a constitutionai principle that hhewas not
entitied to apply any nde of international law without dear
evidence of the assent of Gmat Britairi to the rulc. In fact the
language of Lord Alverstririeemphasizing the dangers of using
thcse sources as evidence of custornary law for this reason under-
estimates the due of these sourcesin the practice of international
tribunalç. Furthes,a somewhat rliffercnt view ofthese sources is
expressed by the Judicid Cornmittee of the Pnvy Courtcili . nthe
case of Im Re Pkcy JWIG Gewtiz~rn[rg34] AC 586 at page 588,
where the following passage occurs :
"The sources from which internationalIaw isderived include -
tteaties betweevarious States,State papers,municipal Acts of
l'arljament and thdecisionof municipal courtand last, butnot
leastopinionsof jurisconsultortext-book writers." REPLT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28XI 50)
432
167. It would be presumptuous to dmd onthme matters whicli
form an essentiai part of the normal judicial functions of the
International Court.The United Kingdom Govemment feels bound,
however, to emphaçize hat it entirely rejeçts Morway's estimate
of the due of particulartreatiesasevidence of custornarylaw, in
urhi~h she appearsvirtually to ask that they should be excluded
from the Court'sconsideration asaninadmissihie form of evidence.
Most State actsinthe international sphere concern the handling
ofparticdar situations, and bilateral tretlties ody one form of
such State acts.Like any other State acts,bilateral treatiemay
either ded with particular situations purelyad hoc and remain
quite unrelated to otherStateacts or they may formone ofseveral
similarState actsindicating the developrnentofa practice ofsome
sort, A practice iç none the less a practice because it rnaiiifests
itselfinthe handlirig of particular situations. Whether thtreaty
practice indicates a sense ofconfom~ingto a legal de isa.matter
to be decided afterappreciating dI the circurnstanç Tehe.e does
not appear to have been any intention in the Permanent Court of
Tnternational Justice, in the passage from the"Lotas" case cited
in paragraph 264ofthe Counter-hlemarid, to exclude the niseof
particular conventions as evidenc~ of customary Iaw. The Court
was there directingitattention psimarilyto thequestion whether
inthe particdar instznce the conventions hadany rcievance to the
point king argued in the.case.
The propr use of legalmatenal is such an integr aart ofthe
judicialfunctionthat thc citation of authorityscarcel cded for.
By way ofçontmst, however, tO thevie\* of Lord Alverstonie t,
may'iie not unfitting to refer to tendorsement by Judge Drago
in the Nwth Atlantic Fishmies Arbitralion (Wilson, Hague
Arbitrniio~Cases, p-198) of the follorvingpassage from Bynkers-
hoek ;
"The cornmon law of nations can onlbe learnfrom reaso~iand
custom. 1 do not deny thatautharity may add weiglittoreason,
butI prefer to seek iin a constancustom of concluding treaties
in one sense oranothearndin examplesthat have occurred in one
country or another."
(Counter-Mernorial,paras.267-282)
Dc$reciatio;bny Nomay of thewwk ofIhe193 CmJerence (Counter-
Mernorial,paras.267-282)
x68, Tfie Nonvegian Govemment in paragraphs ZQ to 282
ofthe Çounter-Mernorial impeaches ontwo main groundsthe valueof the ~vorkof the rg30Codification Conference asevidence of the
rules of customary Ia\vwhicli are invoked in the United Kingdom's
Mernurial. Firçt,it issaid that the task of the conferencc was not
to declarc the existing law butto draw up a cont7ention legislating
for thefuture. Secondly, it is saidtliat the actualtvofkthe Second
Cornmittee and of its sub-cornmitteeskvasnot of suficientintrinsic
value to warrant deductiorisbeing made from them of the existing
rules ofçustomary law in regard to thematters now heing litigated
beforc the Court. (This second contention is dealt with in para-
graphç 175-17 ofthis Reply.)
Was codificaiiorO/i.ptfcrmiionaÈuw fhalaskof Ike19-30 Confmence ?
(Counter-Mernorial,paras. 267-269)
169. The United Kingdom Govcrnrnent does not in the least
dispute that the task entrusted tothe conference wa codification
not iiithe sense of a mere registration of existing mlesbut inthe
xnse of a formulation of agreed rules for the future involving,
where necesrary, modifications of esistirilaw. Nor does it dispute
that-the conference, when it met, envisaged itstask as the ncgotia-
tion ofan agreed setof rulesforthefuture withùutformalIr deçiding
in each case wliat was the existing rule of international law. Nor
does itdisputethat, asa result, some of thework ofthe conference
contains elements of compromise. '13eseare the very reasoils which
render the Norwegianargument that the faiIurc of the conference
swept away the existing system of principles for delirnitingterri-
torial waters and apparently even the existing practice of States
a completely iintenahte argument.
1tis, however,a compIe tedistortionofthe tme positiontosuggeçt
that thetask and rivorkofthe conference were more concerned wvith
the bx fereizdatlran the bx Inta.The subject of tq-ritorialwaters
$vas chosen for codification because it was çensideredto be "ripe"
for codification. This phme did not, of course, denote that the
pmctice ofStatesin regardto tenitorial watersshowed nodisagrce-
ment$, for then the sulijectwodd nat have been wvorthçodifying.
But it did denote that £hem existed a substantial body of State
practice shotving a.sufïtcient measure of general agrtement to give
hopes of the condusioii ofa general convention. That these hopes
were falsifiedprimarily by a vote taken conceming the recognition
of the 3-mile lirnitasa universal maximum for tlie tvidth of the
maritime limit ia rnattet of history. Thidoes not, holvever, mean
that the normal basis of the tvork ofthe Second CommifAee on
territorial waters was political negotiation of new law. On the
contrary, the starting point of al1the work of the conference waç
the existing practice States and, forthe mostpart, the commit tee
and its sub-cornmittees were engaged, with due regard ta diver-
gcnciesof view, in fomulating what seemed to them the acceptable
rules indicatcd by international practict;. sea ofsorne prescribed even width.. No State,nul men Norway,
then questioned this assnmption as ta the existing law, though
Norway appears to do so now. Attention will be drawn to other
inferences from the recordsof the conferencein deding wrth Nor-
way's detaiied criticisrns of the principIesinvokeby the United
Kingdom in itsMernorial.
172. The United Kingdom Gavement has hot, md does not,
&tend that any particular text in the recordsof the conference
createsnecv legai obligations for Norway , It contends that the
records of the conference provide pointed evidence of principles,
derivedhm pnctiçe, which were generally accepted by States as
Iaw,and that by thesc principles Nonvay isbound. Moteover, it
cmphasizes that the recordsof the conference do not stand alone
asevidence ofthe principleson'tvbichit relieThe United Kingdom
Government relieson therecords of the conference not 6y tliern-
selvesbut inconjunction 14th the practice ofStates andth opinions
expressed by jurists.
. 1~3. The Nomegian Goriement emphaçizes that (1)the thirteen
draft,articlepmduced by Sub-Cornmittee No, 1 ?vereody approved
bythe Second Cornmittee povisionally ;(2)the sulesfocthe delimit-
ation of the territorial sa proposed by Sub-Committee No, II
were not even discussed by the Second Cornmittee and were aot
therefore adapted even provisionally; and .(g)the examination
of the question 01the width of the territorialsea in the Second
hrni&e failed topraduce any conclusion. It also states-and
théstaternent içacçepted-tbat paragraph 34 of the Mernorial
gives aTvrongimpressionin appearing to attribute the workon the
ckrafttbirteen articlesto Sub-Cornmitte No. II in addition to
its workon the delimitationof the territoriasea, This means, as
wrasinfact aclmowledgecl in'another paragraph of the Mernorial
(para,821t,h+ the workof Sub-CornmitteeNo, II was not endorçed
by the Second Cammrttee-the main cornmittee ofthe conference .
dealing tvith territorial waterIt does not, however, vitiate the
observation inparagrxph 36 of the Mernoriai that fie work of
Sub-Cornmittee No. II is treated by Gide1 and utlier writers as
posçessing the bighest degxeeof international authmity. In Vol-
xrmeIII ofGidd's classic work on thelaw of the sca, the çhapters
which deal with the delimitation of the territorisea attach the
greatest weightto the workof Sub-Cornmittee Na.II,
The ernphasis piaced by the Nonvegian Government onthe la&
offormal agreement at the xgo Conference does nloentirelyaccord
with Itsrtrgmcnt, advancecl equdy ernphatically, that thwork
of theconference was de legeftmnllarather than de 2~geIdu. Ifthe
workof the conference was reallyal1 delegc fwmdçl, what does it
nowmatter ln a case cancerned with the existing law tvhetherthenetirproposais had greateror lem measure of JQYV.~K~agreemm t In
fact, Nonvay's argumentdep~eciating the value ofthe work of the
crinference misses the whole pint of the use of the records of the
conferencein the Merno~ial. The United Kingdomdoes noi seek to
hold Nomay boanù by any text proposed atthe conference in
airtw ofiisJomral ~do$ta'o~ .ndeed, it does not essentidly rely on
any textsby themtlves but onthewhde records of the conference
for the evidence contained inthern of "hat were then xegarded as
generally accepted principles oflaw.
174. But the account given inparagrapli 273 ofthe Couriter-
Memiorid dealing with the workof the Second Cornittee asalmost
camplete disagreement arnong the States at the coriference on
riearhy aii points ia tratfestyof the truth. The ''SIITVC of Inter-
nati&lal Law", prepareclby the Sccreta3.y-Gencralof the United i
Nations in relation to the codification work of the 1.nternationd
Law Commission, found it possible, when dealing luith therégime
of territoriawaters. to describe the work of the.Second Cornmittee I
in the foLlowingsomewhat differeretlt tems (AlCN.4lrjRev. I of
10th February, 1949p ,. 43) :
"In thisbranch ofinternationaliaivthe task of codificatiwili
prcibablyproceed on the hasisof the achievernentsof the Hape
Cadiftcation Conferencof1930 and of the prgaratory work which
preccded it. No expression of opinion is ded forherc on the
question whether the reçult-sof tliat confermayelegitimately bc
apadedi~istrumenfsin the foof Articleonnthe Legal Statusofmthe
'ïenitoriaSca-a dctalled and vil uabk <~QCU~~ZIL--UN 0% the
- Law-&te, bolth gendvnl amdzeiilregard 20 the$a~ficübarcasa of
bays,islandspoztpsofislands a*dstraitThere isgeneralagreemtnt
thatthe Rases of Dix-ïission, the documentation on which thèywere
based and the discussioiisin the relevant cornmittees provide
matenal of the uhost usefulness."
(The words initalicsirtthe above quotatinn relate to the work
of Sub-Cornmittee No. TI,)
Inpmgraph 873 of theCounter-Memorid Norway goesnaar to
saylng that almost the onIy tangible point. of agreement was the
recognition by the Second Cornmitteeof a State'ssovoreigntyover
its territorisea,and it'isworth exa rWnirngthis point for amoment.
Certain-, itwas uçeful ta have the principle of sovereigntycIearly
stated and removed from doctrinal controversy in whichsomestdl
talked of jurisdictionrathcr thân of sovereipty. But most people
regad the formulation of Zhis prjnciple in Articler of tht draft
provisio:onas essentirzfly statemen tof existing law.
r75. The Nonvegim Government, in'pamgrapb 275-282 ofthe
Caunter-Mernorial, addressesitself particularly o the. vdue oftlie438 REPLT OF THE UNITED KIXGDOM (2s XI 50)
ddimitation of the b'kc-lines were refemd ta itwit hout previous
discussion precisely because it\vasassumed that there was geiieral
agreement on the main principles and that political negotiation of
important points was not neçessary. How could that assurnption
have been made if ithad not been thought to be juçtified by the
state of the existing lat? The workofSub-Commit teeNo. II was
intended tobeprimarily that of giving precision to accepted pria-
ciple some technical problemsproved les tractable thanhad been
hopedand some difiesencesasto principlewere manifestcd in regard
to archipelagos.The suli-commit tee'sreport scnipulousiy notes the
points of controversy and the generai balance of opinion, dthough
the vietvs ofparticulardelegations are net recorded.The idca, which
iç suggested in the Counter-Rlernoriai, that there was no general
agreement about the main principles for draiving base-lines, is
certainlynot tvarranted bythe work of Sub-Cornmittee No. II. The
area of aerence lay rnainly in the problernof giving prccisionto
the basic rules-Somc of these ptoblems of detd are important but
the façt that they exist doesnot mean that there arc noprinciples.
178. As to the recarnrnendation sor fiirtherstudy and for the
provision of information by individual Statesai to their oivn base-
lines, noone disputes that the work ofSub-Cornmittee No, 11was
unfinished and that some ptoblems were unçolved. Similarly, the
work of Sub-Cornmittee No. II showed that the solution of some
technical problems suchas the definition of bays might be assisted
by more information as to the actual base-lines ctaimedby States,
of which information, as Norwaymare Ehan once emphasizes, very ,
Iittfe hasbeen published. The fact thatfurtherçtudy and further
information was thought to be required is no warrant for sayuig
that there was no rneasure of generd agreeinent in1930 concerning
the main principleofbase-lines.Thereport ofSub-Co~nmitteeNo.II
isplaiiltestimony tothe contrary.
"9. The particular criticism in paragraph 282 ofthe Çaunter-
Mernorial that the United Kingdem in its pleading juxtaposes
Article r of Sub-Committee No. 1's draft provisionswith para-
graphr ofthe report of Sub-Cornmittee No. TTs again misconceives
the use made by the United Kingdom of the records of the con-
ference asevidence of exising law and not astexts formallybinding
on Norrvay. The two texts in fact espress conceptsso weIl estab-
lishedthat authority fortliem is çcarcelrequired at allThe Merno-
rial mereIycites the texts as showing what the two separate sub-
colnrnittees said, withorit apparent objection hcim any of their
rnembers aboutthe beltof territoriasea and the base-Line,respeçt-
Which reacls: "The terrofx Statc includabclt osendcsçribcinthis
convention as the territçea."
? IVhich rcad:"Subject to thprovisions repardibays and islandsthe
entirecoast."erritorseaiJrncasurcfrornhelinealleu*-ivaniarkalong tlie ively. Itis alsoto be presurnedthat the two sub-cornmitteesknew
ofeach other's existence,
IIIconclusion, the United Kingdam repeatç that it lieswiththe
Court to appreciate the value ofevidence adduced toeçtablish the
existence of a rule of çustomary laut. It submitçthat, in tl~ecase
.ofthe law of territorial waters, threcordsof the 1930Codification
Conference inevitably con tain 1aIuahle indications of the existing
ciistornarjrlaw.
The fundamental rule of the tide mark and its exceptions
(Colinter-Mernorial, paras.283-3273
E8ect of the f~ndanamtal %le
(Counter-Mernori al,paras. 283-288)
180. In paragraphs283-28t9 he Çounter-Mernorial begins the
argument developed inlater paragraphscontinuhg toparagraph 316
that there is no fundamental rule (subject to limited and
confined exceptions) requiring States to lake the comt as their
base-line for meamring territorial water-the rule producing the
restdt that (save where theexceptions apply) the -baie-lin(&f the
o~dtside12p7mitsf territorial walcrs) follows the sinuositieof the
coast, Tliere are two questions here ; (a) rnuçt the base-linein
general foliow the sinuosities of the coaçt? (the major queçtioioa);
and (b) assumingthat the base-Iine does follow the coast, does the '
base-line follow low-water mark or high-water mark ? (the miner
,question). The minor question raises athird (ancstilmorerestrict-
ed) point, namely (supposingIt is low-water mark), is the correct
low-water mark that of spring tides, neap tides or medium tides ?
Nanvay is argning against the major proposition (.e.that the base-
line in general folIo~vsthecoast) : shedoes not dispute the minor
proposition (low tide).But she quotes in ~iaragraph 286statements
'by the authors-Ûppenheim, Cavaglieri and Baldoni-to theeffect
that there is no agreement on the .i~zilqztestion (low tide or high
tide) to prove thai: there iç no agreement on the major peslio.it,
In fact rtom of the authors quoted inthis paragraph express any
,doubt on the wjor question ai all(Le.tliat in pnnciple the çoast
is the base-line), though two ofthem dso indicate that there ino
agreement on the breadth of territorial waters. In fact no State
to-day-not even Nonvay herself-disputes that al~yrneasurement
from the coast is from low-water mark. As Rastad haç said (Sa
, Mer territoriale,para. s40)t,he low-watermark, mhich is entireIy
inconsistent lyitti the cannon-shot concept of territorial waters,
came in throngh fisheries treaties and thendiçpIaced the high-
water mark in State practicefor al1puïposes. The ~Vo~wegiizm ngumclatth& mqtJaerthemathod ofthe *'tracgarut
Idle"rptor'"theenwEo$e of arcs of circles" msthod a'srz+ptiçabLeto
a- i~adertlecons€
(Paras. 259-295 ofthe Counter-Mernorial)
1.
1-63 This argument from paragraphs 289 to 295isfounded on
wht çan only be a cornpletemisconception of staternents by Gide1
and by Boggs, theGeographerof the United States State Depart-
ment, wliidz were made in a quite diflerent connedion. Cornpiete
confusion isvltroduced into the whole matter because the Nor-
wegian Governent launches its aitack on the gerierdlyaccepted
rule that the base-lineisinprinciple the tide mark along the coast
by criticiziiig the "trac4paral&lejTand "courbc tangente" (arcs
ofarcles) methads of delimiting the extehm limit ofthe territorial
sea,The questions how you fix the b-line and how, having
%xedthe base-line,you delimit the maritime belt from the base-
lineare entirelydifferent,In ccinsquence, the whole of this arp-
ment from paragraphsz8g to 295 isrnkcciriceived and,as will be
sho~vn,the wsrk of Gidel and Buggç, when correctly interprctecl,
entircly supports the United I<ingclom's theçisthat in principle
the base-lineis the tidamark along the coat.
783 A. Before examking the work of Gidel and Baggs, itmay
be usefd to give a bricf qlanation of the "tracéparallkle" and
"'courbehngente" rnetkods of dehiting the maritime be1t from
thegiven [email protected] objectof bath methods isto arrive at the
aiderline of territoriwaters and both assume tbat the base-Iine
isthe coast.The so-cal7ed ''trac4parallèle"rnethod would merely
make the outer linc of territorial waters reproduce faithfully, af
exactly 3 (orin Norwav's case 4)miles' distance, everyshuosity,
'thatis evwy twist and im, ofthe base-line.The "tracé parallFle"
il; not practicabecatise under tbis method it is not possible ta
.ascertain wheéher a given position is rvithin territoriawaters
simply by tdxing a 3-or 4-m& arc from the position to the
nearestland. It içnecessary first to caq out the difficult takof
trackg a faithful replicaofthebase-lineat 3 (or43 miles'distance.
Triconsequence, it içnot a method which-so far asthe United
Kingdom Government isaware-is rwommendcd by any e~pert or
adopted by any country. On the othcr hand, the "courbetangente"
-or, in English, "envelope of arcs of circleç"-method is the
method wkich the United Kingdom considers ta be the correct
arieand the one recommended by the experts, includingGide1and
Boggs. This method consists essentidly of taking arcs of3 (or 4)
miles'mdius from evcry pemissible base-point and treating the
outer envdape of al1 the resulting mrves as the outer line of
territoriawaters. 'ltadvantage isthat the status of any position
in the seacan be ascertained by sirnplytahg an.arc of 3 (or 4)
miles'radius frum thc position asid obsefwig ~hetfier it passes442 REPLY OF THE UNilZD RINGDOM (28 XI 50)
through any base-point. The method is dcrscribd more fully in
Annex 42, rvhere itis alm illustrated by diagrarns. Tisçufficient
to say Iiere tlrait prevents the mirior sinuositiein the base-line
.from being rcproduce id the outer line because every position
on the outer Line must he 3 (or 4) milesfrom thenearest point on
tbe base-lineand ut lerits(or4) milesamy from mwy point on the
base-line. Where, as hequently happens inthe case of minor
sinuosities, tharcstjkeri£romthe more prominent pointsiutesect,
they rendw irrelevant the arcs takenfrom the less prominent
htervening points on the base-line. The reason isthxt the arcs
taken from the intervening points faIlinsidethe intersectirtg arcs
hm the more prominent points. (SeeAnnex 42, Figure 2.)The
resdt istliatminor wncavities in the base-line are not reflected
in the outer limit ofterritmial waters.
184. The Nonvegian argument, has ben said, iç entirelyoff,
fie point because it criticizethe "tracé pardlhle" and "courbe
tangente" (ara of ckcles) niethocl$as ifthey concerned the tide
mark almg the cozt mEe.In fact, thesrnethods only came under
consideration aftp the baseJine lBd Sen' fixed. The Nolwegian
Government's criticism of the " tracéparall&le"inparagnphs zgo
and zgz is hased on citations hm Gidel, al1 ofwhich are taken
from hschapter on the dmwing O£the extariorlimit ofthe territoriaI
sa anddo not touch thequestion of the base-line. Gidel crïticizes-
and theUnited Kingdom Governmcnt iç with him inthis criticisln
-theunscientificassumptionbysomepeoplethattheruleo fthe
tide mark alongthe coast means tliat the exteriar line territorial
waters reproduws faithfdy every sinuosity of the coastline. In
other words,he %vasrejectingthe idea ofthe "tracé paraUèïeVB. ut
to say. asthe Norwegian Govemment says in p-aph egr, khat
Gidel jn these passages vas condernning the principle of the tide
mark along the coaçt asinadmissible, is the oppusite othe truth.
Gidel, thrciughout his cliaptewas assw~a'w hevalidity ofth fide-
*tarizprim2ple and was only cancerned te examine the different
methads of ddimiting the maritime belt from the tide mask.
185. The use (inpara,290, third sub-paragraph)of me passage
hm Gidel (pp.504-505) deaihg with the objectionsta the "tracé
paralièle"rnethod asif these objectionsrelateditothe fundamental
rulc of the hdemark is particn1arl-astontshing,The full text of the
passage (ofwhich a few phrases only are quoted in the Counter-
Mernorial)mns :
"La m'bilzùddu +ardEe'Iismeverse dhaieurs dans I'ubitraire:
Il estfacIIede ledhoritrer, Supposons que la cBteprésente une
séried'indentations de faiblelarge~r, Le parall6lisrnee.xigunit
kacé en derifsk scie dela limii~cx£irieur~de Ea territoriale.
Cc trac4devrait detoute évidence êtrerectifXI.leserasans tenir
compte duptus on moins de profondeur desdiversesindentaiions.
On aur& finalement un tracé fait d'une rnaniLrassezarbitraire REPLY OP TKE UNITED KlNGl30Af (28 XI 50)
443
suivant la direction gédraléde la rate.(ge.izwdtre~ddes auteurs
anglo-saxons]."
R careful reading of tik passage in its confext shows that Gidel
was objectingto an exttwior linestrictlparallel with the base-lirie
on the $round that itsabsurd results would compel rectifications
which might leadto somcwhat 'arbitraryZinesfoIlotving the generd
direction of the coast zmkad of theactmZ Cz~eof f?lecaast,This is
made even plainer1>ythe footnote onpage 505 in which he adds
that "the general direction of the coast" idea mas; nevertheI~s be
useful inspecial casesand reftzrtobis chufiteron bays.
x86,The views ofGidel onthe base-Lneare ~OE however, ody
a mattcr of implication becanse he opens his nmt çhapter, tvhich
does deal with the tracing of the baspline, with the follo~vingpas-
sage (op.cd., p. 5r7):
"La ligne A partirde laquellese mesure dans 1s direction de la
haute mer la largeud re la mer territorialeestdésigneep. les
expressionsligne debase, ou ligne de départde lamer territoriale.
La Iigne dt difiarde la ww7 territoria9et.dco~es+o~ui!v eides
dofinies$hysiquesimm'diales, mi:ri~zcit~~di4~t?mmi se&nmb des
klkrnem .l~lurdspar L'intemédiaired'mw constvmctio ~aodriqw, '.
11n'y n pas de rlivergcnces fondmentalesparmi la pratique ni
pnni lcsauteursconcernant lesdonnéesphysiquesquidéterminent
' imrnédiatemcnt laligne cle base de lamer territoriale. Il existe
ausçiun accord de principesurlescas où l'on admetqu'iln'esptlus
possible de partir immidiatement des Jonnks ph+ques et qu'il
faut une conshction géomgtriquepour déterminer laligne debase.
Le rapport de laSus-Ccimmissirin no II mentionne troiscas de ce
gme: I"cas des baies ;2" cas des îlesà proximité de la cbte;
3O casdes groupes d'îlesCes cas sscrngourle moment rhservés.
On ne considèreicique le principegknéral concernmt le trac4de
la Lignede brtx de la merterritorid5lhide de rlonnées physiques
immédiates.
Les donnires physiques immcdiaks permettan te d&t:tennherla
13a~~emer."part deTamer territoriale sont en principe la laisde
The views ~xpressed by Gidd concerning thn base-line are almost
indistinguishahle £rom thase advanced in the United Kingdom's
Mernorialandrefute absolutely the implications sought to be draivn
in the Counter-Mernorial from his chapter on the exterior Iineof the
.territorisea,
xS7. Thesarne critickm applies, mzdatis mzlb~dis, to the treat-
ment inparagrapli292 of passages from an article by Boggs. Th&
article takesasitsstartingpoint the United States doctrine that the
territorial sea extends to3 miles measnred from low-water mark
along the coast. (Awtera'camJourfial of IdsrmtiomtlE Lm (1930)~
Vol. 24, p,542. )he whole article isdevoted to the delimitation of
1 Thewards initalicç qitoteinpara 234oftheComte-Mertiorial. ,444 REFLY OF TEE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 30)
the exteriorlimeof the territoriasea bg the arcsof circlesmethod
("courbe tangente"), Under the "arcs ofcircles"method the arcs
me taken from a base-line fixed in acwrdance with the generaily
accepted rulm ;that is,ltarcs arctaken from the tide mark subject
to the exceptions dlowed in the caseof ibays,islands, rocks,etc,
Thus, under this method the problern ofthe indented coast ismet,
fjrst,by the fact that the method in any case smoothes out the
exterior limit tvhere tfiereare dnor indentations (para- r83 A:
above) and, secondly, by the fact that the straightening of the
base-line across bays under the IO-mile ruledso smoothes out the
exterior limit in the case of larger indentations. Boggs elatively
stq?@ris the vim nJ ihlaETftdedIii?zgCEow-~vhich Is the ortbodox
Yiew-thri the base-lineis iide T~GE~ YR~.bjeo DH exceptiatz in
the caseO#the~omile de for tiayThe novelty of hiç proposaislies
in (1)a formula for deterrnining what indentations qiialifas bays
for the purpose of the IO-milerde and (2) a clairn that th"arcs of
circles" method of delirniitifsom the tide mark would solve di
thetechnical prohlems created by bap, islands, etc.,ifcombined
mith a principle for the dimination of any small pockets of high
sea I~ftafter employing the "arcs of circlems"etliad.
Cidel's criticisni of Boggniasnot directecat the"arcs of ccircles"
method, which he himself advocaieç.It was dirtctedat the clah
that Boggs'method would get ridof al1Çlifficultieç nfidavarecti-
ficationsO! iltbase-&m. He pointed out, with justice, that Boggs
accepted and acted on the TO-milemle for bays whch \vas itself a
major rectificationof the base-line fmm the tide mark. In other
~vords,wMe appsovingthe arcsof circles astht method for dclimit-
ing the maritime belt from the base-line, Gidet disputcdthe ciah
of Roggs' syistemta bea more simple method of solving every prob-
lem tltan the traditional system. He considercd Boggshystem to
involve asmuch"correction" and "elhination" inthe case of bays,
islm&+ etc., asthe t~aditionalsystem which dmls with these ques-
tions asexceptions to the tide-mark rule.
But, thai part of Boggç' propmalç wKch riove1and was
advanced de IE~ Emenda rdafed to the deiimitation ofthe satcrio.~
3ine. Ithad nothing to do, as Norway argues, wjth the tide-mark
line.Boggs t17aon cornmon ground with Gidel in assurning that
CI t}e fundamental rulefor detemining the base-line isthe tide
mark along the çoast; and (2) the ID-dé mle applieçfor bays.
"Thiis,these two authorscited by No'ostvayirectly support the two
principalcontentions of the United Kingdam inregard to the IXV
applicable tObase-lines.
Thech~mlerisfics oftka "Xwwegiaxmelh,od"
(Paras.296-303 of the Counter-Mernorial)
188. The third argument, advanced in paragraphs 296 to 306 of
the Couriter-Memonal to challenge the fundammtal character of the rule of the law+-watle r a~k asnounts ta the contention that,
even if that rule is generdly applied by States, international law
does not forbid the adoption of the d8erenT hedand principte,at
any mte inth¢ Norwegian versiunof this principle l,The Norwegiam
Governmnt, in this instance, do- not disdain-to se& for what
help it can get in the r~ords ofthe 1930 Conference representing
that the conference left ftntirely open the manner in mhich base-
lines could Tiedraivn. Its method of using tbese record sven if
uncanvincing, isinstructive asto the impli~ations of the exkting
law-implications much more speciilcrtivethan any dra~vnby the
United Kingdom-rsrhich Nririany thinks may properly be ÇIrawn
from the work of the conference insupport of a Norwegian con-
tention.
189, It is tnged ii pra~qmph 297 of the Çounter-Mernorial that
thePreparatitory Cornmittee's quesfio$tfiaa'eo governments men-
tioned expressly the tracing of hase-Pines between the extrerne
points of the coasts, islands, islets or roclzas one of the possible
formiilas for determithg the base-line of the territorml sea and
that Ihcrefore the conmittee çannat have coliside~d this method
to be forbidden by interriatianal Iaw. This conc-lusion is entirely
unwamanted.The corlifimtim projects of the Leaguc of hiations
wodd have died even before they were born if the Preparatory
.Cornmitteehad taken upan itself expressly to condemn as illegal
the daims of indivridualgovernmerits bdore üie çonveriirtgof a
codikition conference. The intention of the Prepamtory Çommitt ee
\vas simplv to frarne its question in a form wide enough to cover
atZ types of formula. This intention is pedectly plain if
qnestion 4 içread aça whcile. It ruasas follows IL.of N.Doc. C.74.
M.39.1gzg.V., p. 35) :
"AC-Detesmination of the base-line for ~alcdatior~ of the
breadth of territorial waters.
(a) dong the coasts.1s the lincthat of low tide f~llomiiigthe
sinuosities of thcoast ;or a line&dm bctween the outer-
most points oftlie cmt, islailds, isletor rocks; or some
beltakeni3ntoaccount inncthisconncction 7ds and thecoast to
/b) In front af baysBrtadth of thc bay to betaken into account.
EIistoricbays. Bap wl~ose cûast';belong to two or more
States.
(cl In front of ports."
--
1 The Unitcd mgdoin Gpvernment (;ritiçithe allegeWarrvcgian'*c;ygtern'"
inpans. I23-140aitheMernorialand cqlaind the vuy Iimitedmsc in wliicit
is baseanthe "'headlandkheriryIn hct. the"system" isthe same noiaS the
"headliuràtheq'' biitas thatofthe "King'sChambts" whicri liasbeen long
alsediscuss ththernydithe "outemastGlinc"@aras.3rr-334 belair.) iafactl
themain issuc iihi3casebcrcinat the"ustercomtJia'2swy'' but hothebase-
lines maybedrarvralongthcmtside ofwhat Nom~~ycalledlier"'mitecaastline"
(i.e. fie lb~e-iincswhiüh departfrornthe sinuositofthehd). REFLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (SB XI 50) 447
bayç, not a~bibady selected extreme points. Thus M. Lofgren,
writing in 1925~ said(&id., p.417) :
"In gened, the ùatisrlirnof theterritoriawaters miJbn$ava@d
. m'th theCDBS$'Smai* oulLi.iso that-\vitIrthe reservationsrvhich
will be ~ven bebw-bays and gulfs which are included in the
land territory belonginto oneand the wme Statewill beregardd
as thisState'stvnter twritory."
Re th~n went on to make it plain tha!, even in regard to bays,
Swcden =lied primariIy on "çentury-old custom" whcre the bau
exceeded certain unspeufied dimensions,
rg3. Foland, no doubt owhg tober brief existenceas a separate
State, hadnot promulgated any decrees concerningher territorid
waters before 1926. The Polish reply to the pesfim~ire (Bases
of Discms.ioa, p. 182) rnentioned extmme points on the ordinary
coasts but it alsotreated bays as a specid case andonly contem-
plated the enclosureofbays asnational tenitory "Shoald the shores
of a bay opening ont into tliesea be se ctose& mch otlze~tkat th8
Aay Ps obe.imsLywder Zha sov~eigiratof themastu1State." Clearly
the Poïish reply did not have in rnind anything likc Noniav's
cxtrernepoint notional çoastline. In any caseFoland did promd-
gate a decree afiw t3t1930 Cofif~mzce. The base-lines hvhichshe
then prescribed in her law-of1932 were :
A~ttcEer. "La limite deseaux territori dell"tat est fornée
par la lignparallèle% lac8t-eetla frontie~edceaux intérieureà
unc distance de traismillesmarins jusquJau point situ...."
A~ticle2."Le golfe de Puck, fend par:b Ept relianti,ecap
deHel au capde Redlowo,fai partiedeseaux intérieuresdel'Etat."
We can only spedrite whether the Poljsh reply befnrr:theconfer-
ence failcd togive clear expressi~n to Pùland's vielys mncerning
theexisting làw or whether this young State formed the view at
the 1930Conference thatinternational law fsrbids the joining of
extreme points except in the case of particularbays.
194. Nor daes the Soviet Union's reply suggesta generraladher-
ençe to theextrernepoint line, The passage reads (Bases of Disc~is-
sz'm Sqbplemcat C.74jb). M.39 (b).r92g.V:)
'Tes lignesrnentionn&esdans la législatiou dans lestraitésdé
l'Union sont cdcnlées,soità partir de lalaisclebassemer, saitA,
partir des frontihreçdeseaux int&ieureu,soit.enfin5 partirdes
points lesplus &laigrrédes rochers émesgeants."
1.tisto be renzembered that itwas against the applicationof this
Russian practice in northern waters Nomay herself protest&
in 1923.
195. Next, theNorwegian Government relies on the.phraseology
of-the ob~er~ati~ns ofthe Preparatory Cornittee explairzing its 196.The Mom-egian Governmnt lastlyurges in paragraph 300
fbat thefact that the low-water mark de wasadopted in the
report of Sub-Cornmittee No, II is no evidenoe that itis a general
rule binding on all Statesor that international larv condem the
headland method favauredby Morny, t largelyrepeats itsasgu-
rnents concerning the value or bck ofvalue of Sub-Cornmittee
No- II'sreport:It cornplainsthat the report was not dixussed in
the Second Cornmittee, \vasnot adopted even on aprovisional basiç
andonly çonstituted a study to bring about a future general con-
vention. These arpents misconceive the relevance of the records
of the xg~o Conference whidi provide evidence not oofa new nile
binding on Norway, but of the gened acceptano cfthe low-water
mark ruleas an cxisting rule af international law. They have
ah~ady heen ansrveredat length inparagraplzs 175-17 above.
The Norwegian Government cornplains in particular that the
joint Nmmegian-Slvedish amendment proposing tlie headland
method was sent toSub-Committee Na. II forstudy, but was never
disçussed in a plenary session of the Second Cornmittee owinp; to
the abrtrpt termination of the conference. IIIconsequerice,claims
the Nowegian Govemment, it is impossiblets interpret the work
oi the 1930Conference as havingconderrinecltlie headland principle.
Another view of the outcorne is that the termination of the work
of the conferencesaved the headland mefhod hm heing expsessly
. and formally condemned. Some so-cded prjnciples arc,homrever ,o
itladrnis simbleern internationallant asto çondemn themselves,
and one of thex is the headland theory III the extravagantfom in
which jtisinvoked by Nonvay. Some of the considerationswhich
led Snb-Cornmittee No. II torejectthe Nomegian-Swedish proposal
are forcefdly explained hy Gidd (O$.ci$.V,ol, III,pp. 507-508) :
"Les dQl6gué dseces&tats an t fait valorr.puappuyer ce sys-
tème la consid&rationqu'iétaisrixcptibIe de s'appliquertoutes
lescanfigurations dccUteset à tous lescas particulierstels que
littor çetrséde baies ou panernk d'flots,alorç que leçystbrne
traditionneldoit trouverdes regles partictili+res polir chacun de
ces cas.En admettant quc cesoit vraicette simplicith apparente
besointde r4l;les gkné~aleslorsque cliacun assume dese'fixerSus
lui-meme cellequ'il entend suit~e.
C'est me. premiere etgrave critique contrele systdme,Mais le
rnkitc quel'on veiït.fa ircesystéme derrépond retousles cas
nkt aucunement fond4; -contrairementil ce qu'affirment ses
partisans, le trac4polygonan'esptz?susceptibled'me a plication
g6nérale,II nepeut etre pratiquque silachte presenteles conca-
vit& ;partout oiielest convexe21fauty renoncerCmme l'observe
Boggs, la méthode cle constructionpolygonaleest rendue dhue
applicationpratique difficipar le fait qu'ilaydes convexitéset
des concavitésdes crûtede toutes sorteentrt 1esquelIle passage
se faitpar des dkgradationriinsensibles,
E& - et c'estlàune dernièrecritique -,pratiqument cette
méthode dn tracé polygonal ou headland theory augmente d'une
29* 450 REPLIr OF THE UNITED KINGDUM (28 XI 50) '
manihre inclueleeauxintdrieurescequi a pur mnskquenceh' ale
une extensiocrirr&lativde la mer territoriale eréductiondes
espaces de haute mer.'" -,
The Norwegiari~overnment, ;YchIallenging the fundamental
chamcterof the tide-mak rule, challenges rrh whicliw& adopted
asa matter ofcourse by the Iwtitute ofInternationalLaw and the
InternationalLaw Assoçi3;tionin 1894-189 a5d 'again by both
bodies in 1926-192 b8. the Amerlcan Institute in1927, by tbè
Japanew Institut-ein1926,by the Harvard Research Cornmittee in .
1929 ,y the Preparatory Cornmittee of the League of Nations in
1926and by Sub-Cornmittee No. II in rgp. This isa formidably ,
consistentbody of doctrine covqiag a period of over So pars.
Nas\va_vseeks to geridof itbyçaying that the opinionofjuristsis
only admissible tothe extmt that Itreflects existing law ?andby
allegiiig'tt heasuggestion atthe 1930Confetynceof theneed for
furtheroficial information inregard to base-lines shows al1 the
practice ofStatesIn regardto base-hes to be purely conjectural.
The idea thatmost of the tvorkojunsts is nothing but an invention
of their own genius-an idea which recureheivhere in the Counter-
Memarid-is quitc fancifiil. wbeapplied to the best twenrieth-
century writersÇertainly nb one can accuseGide1ofmere specula-.
tion tvhosewhole work is basedon astudy ofpractice. Gidelwhose
authority is ii~vokedin aid of the Nonvegian contention by the
simple expedimt ofmisrepnesenting his viervsmys in the passage
reproduçed i11paragraph. 186 above with ,absolute hmneçs and
tvithoutargument tbat tlrere are no fundamental diflerençes'of
firacticas tothe base-linebcingthe low-cvater mark os asto the .
caseswhen geornetrical constructîpn isto be used iristead ofthe '
low-water fine.And yet throughouthisthe volumes Gidelis alwayi
at pains toexamine conflrcting practice wkm aNy cmtflicsxists.
198. There is,ofcourse, abundant evidence of thegerieraladop-
tion of the Iotv-watermark inpractice qiiite ouiside the replies of
gvernrments to the Prepatory Cornmittee'spz~estZonnui~in,the
shape of pubikhed neutrality and fisherieç legidatiori and con-
stitutional laws declaririg territorial Itnwould waste the time '
of the Court to retailall the cvidence additionalto that in the
recordsofthe 1930 Conference,'buatttention may perhqs bc drawn
to mateal in the HarvardResecwch Ilrafti am mica Jo^zsmaLof
1.nterwatiomzLm (1930) Vol. 23, pp. 254-2571 .he decrces of
Chile(1857 A)gentine (1871 an)d Ecuador (1889) (cited on p,257)
areof particuhrinterestasshoming the Iength oftime d-g which
the rulehas been adopted inthe practice of some Latin-American
Stateswhich did not replytothe Pre-t~ry Comîttm's qwst~:o?t-
mai~e.
xgg. The Norwegian Govmrnent concludesits argument con-
ceming the tide-mark rule by Cimwingattention .(i nara. 303)to the distinctiobetvrreen€he.physi analpoliticdcoast lie mpha-
sized in Norfh Atlaiitic Fisheries-&bitration of rgm and. the
Alaska Boundary Arbitration in 1903 T.his, distinctiodoes not,
howet-a-, carry the matterany fi-rrtheThe United Kingdom does
notcontendrthat the physiçd line ofthe coast-legaliy fixed atlow-
wvaterrnark-constitutes the base-line almg tvery part of every
mast. It agreeç that the base-lineJIcertaiii circurnstancideparts
from the physicaI shore line (e.g.amss bays). But it insiststhat
these departures aremad~by geometrical construction from the tn~c
physicalcoast under des laiddor-vnby internationaliaw. Thetjhole
controx7ersyinthe presentcase is whether the '"dilitiçacoast" of
Nongay is to be fked at her own choiçe or by the rd= of inter-
national iaiv. Ititobe observed that the passage from the United
States A~gumentin the Maska case (cited inpara. 303 of the
Courrter-hTunona1) speaks of the politicd coaçt line being sufier-
iqùsed - an the actual coastline by o$eratio.lîf it1te~fiientiItw.
(Paras.304-306 of the ~ounter-~~rnoria~)
ZOO. Nortvay çohtenrls that modern internatioIn awldoes not
forbid the superimposition on ,the geogmphicail coast line of'a
rrouicalcoast line having no contact with the actud cumt except
àtextreme points selected by the coastai State.As this contention
is lrseconcilablewith modern practice and-with the whole bas& on
which the 1930 Conference wçrrked, Nonvay invokes a ghost from
thensixtee cettury-, James 1'sKing's Chambers, which indeed is
the nearest-perhaps the onIy-"precedent" for the prcsent Nor-
wegiau claim. The clankingaf the chains of thisghast from the #
days of MYE da~szmm may have been heard for a moment when'
Sir Willixm Robson spoke in rgro bat, as is exptained in para-
.byathen been long ,and trdyMerndead., King Ja~nes's daim had
..
201. Fiuchille (hdé d~ DY&€ht,mtrtio~al, Book 1,' ut 11,
p.q8), ds paragraph 306 of tlie Co~tntcrr-Mernorialtates, refers .o
the fiifiet&nth-cnt '"hhealand of bays" theory as a forin,of
"'King'sChamber" daim. (The headlançl theory of'the nhetemth
çentury inredity \vas asdifferent principle confinetoindentations
and not contemplating the sim yle joining of selectecl extreme
points.)However the King's Chamber claiq (and' with it any
headland theoq not cenhed to reasoaable bays .of reasonable
width) was utterly çondemiied by E'auchiile :
'21Ie'ne'saurait juridiqnement pré~alhi:elleest un-.atteinte
manifeste à la Iibert4des mers."
"En dBpit despromnntoireç qu'une'&te présente, c'estdo& le
- longde son rivage meme, Ala laisse dhaute ou de bassemer, que
doitetre mmptee la distanceda lamer territoriaIe..: ..lt is true that Fauchille then,adrnits exceptions to flietide-mark
nile inthe case of "petites anfracturrsith"when he allotvs that a
line may be drawn between the points of the indentation. It iç
aisa truethat he cites the Norweg-îm coastas anexample, mentior&-
ing, inàeed, the 1869 DtecreB eu.t in his next paragsaph (p. 199)
he shows clearly that he Istaking the arthodax view fllat baj- of
srna11extent constihte amexception to the tide-mark nile :
"Mais ilse peut qne, tout en nhyyant pas en largew I'étmdue
d'un littoralsép& par ,deiirpromontoires,ces écharicrureset ces
fjords aient une dimensionqui m fasse de véritablesbaieset de
leurtorivertureqn'onadevracmesurer ladistance de Iamerlçbtiére?
La condition des hies et des golfestsoumise &des rbglesparticu-
lières,etcelles-cferontl'ol~jde développements spéciaux(Renvoi,
V. nm 516 et S.).Cc sont dememe des principes particuliers, dont
il seraaussi ultkrîeurement'parle, qui régissenles anfraçtnosit4s
constituant des embouçhurw de fleuves (Rewuof." -
And Chen he =fersthe reader to his section on bays where hc
exami~~e she evidencefor the ro-milerde and the daims to historic
bays of larger dimensions. Fauchille'ç authoriv canhardly be
invokcd in support of the legaiity in modern international lam of a
general headland priaciple such asthat which Xùrtvay now puts
fonvard when lie speaks (p. 380) of the ~o-milede for bays as
"le principe qui paraît tnjozirù'huidominant dans lascience ktIc
droit conventionnel". Fauckille inhct condenzm any sudi headlruid
principle as.çontray to the principle of the fre~dom of the seas
and takes the orfhodoxview of allolNingzo-mile bays plus certain
historicclaims.
(Com tcr-Mernorial, para, 307)
202. The United Kingdom Gove-cnmerit accordingly çubrni ts
that :
(a) There does exist agenerd rule of internaiionalIaw requiring
a State in principleto delimit itsmaritime belt by reftrence
to the tidemark on its physicalcoast and that any depar-
t~ms from tbis base-line have to be justifiedasfdhg under
one of thespecificdly-recognizedexceptions.
(b) htonvay is bound by this general nile excepi to the extent
that she can biing herself withln the permitted exceptions
or cariestablish an historic rightentitling11erto exceptirna1 a
" maritime tersitory.
{G) htetriationd law does specifically condcrnn the rnetlioda£
constituting an imaginary cmt lineby the joinhg of lines
between extreme points seleçted arbitrady dong the crrast, mPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50) 453
Nmay hetçelf maintains that the true principle of maritime
territory is thata State isentitIed to sachadjacent waters ascari
be considerd xcessory to the iewa fima. Wlrat becomes of the
tewo firnzaand what meanhg has he~ rinciple ithe tewa fîma
consists of nothing but widely separatef *-points af land joinrd
together byinvisible notional]Utes?As the tidc-mark rule, howevcr,
jsrnesely the actnal ferfi~m dehed Lnterms ofIatvit is no wonder
that ininternational practice this is the fundamental rule fdeter-
mining the base-line of territoriawaters,The exceptions to the
rde are caseswhere the configuration of the: shorso far encloses
areas of thcsea.as ta place theareas in factand in law within the
coast line of the State. The UnitedKingdom Governrnent snbmits
that inmodem international. pmctiçe departmes of the plitical
coat linefrom the lineof the acttial fewafirma, frequent thaugh
they may bein heavily indented coasts, are a matter not of choice
but of Iaw. Suchdepai-trurefromthe tidernak lineareinadrnissiblle
unless just&abIe asan exception recognized by intemational Iaw.
The rdnta'onbetwst* the fwwdamemtd rwk of the$ide mark awdz&
exc@tions
(Paras.308-316af the Counter-Mernorial)
203. TheNamegtianGovenment, inpn-rxgraph s08to 316ofthe
Counter- contends tliat, men if the rulof the lon~-.tvater
mark dong the coast isan establiçhedrule of customary law, still -
its relation to therulefor bays, islands,etc., inot that of aprîn-
cipl rule to its exceptions.In substance, thetide-mark rule and
the other des are represented to be simplyseparate rules cleaiing
with diffmnt types of physi~d ccidgmtions.
-Inparagraph rr the Nonvegian Govemment concedes that the
various drrlftcodes of Iearned societies appear to state the tide-
mark rde as the general de whichis to recelve thewidest applica-
tion.It suggestç,howevcr,that thisphenornenon is easily expIained
by the Eacts that these soçietieswere 3e5s cçoncemed tn state the
existing Iaw thm to guide itsevolutian, md that after x926 they
had in their mina'seyo illesemi-legiçlativetaskofthe 1930 Confer-
ence .ereagain is the naïve pictute of thjuristof allthe learned
çocietiesproposing the same principalrule wl~icl~is said by Nonvay
to have no foiindation in pmctice, without. giving. the çIightest
hint that thtrc was anything navel in their propasal. As to the
drafts of leamed çocictieçbetrveen rg26-1g3o beiiig particularly .
affected by thelegklative task ofthe 1930 Conference, itiçenongli
to say that no une could imagirieduring those years that the 1930
Conference was to Iiave a ca~tebkaackto write a new law of terri-
torialwaters. Onthe contrary, everyonesipposed that the confef-
ence munld wo~kon the basis of the existing laivIt iscunous that
Norwayfinas iturineceçsary to explain why all the drafts should
formuIate the çame rnle ~Yitho~tcontuoverçy or why the n,ile proposed in 1894-rS shodd br! the sme asin 1gz6-1g2g. Nor
does she explttinwhy individual writers noted for theirattention
to State practice, siichas Fauchiiie (para. zo~ above) and Gide1
Cpa~a,186 above), should eqirally intheir books adopt the rules
endorsecl by the leamed societies,But the contention that lcamed
societies adopted the Ioiv-watermark kIe as the principal ruledg
legs fev~zdn:is, ocourse,entirely unfomded, ashas alreridy been
sliownin paragraphç xg7 and rg8 above.
204. An argument of a somewhit ddiflerent kind is advanceciin
paagmph 3rz of the' Courtter-Mernorial.Xt is ,fintmid ttobe a
'cafdinai point inthe system contalned in the United Kingdom's
a .Mernorial that the excêptiuns tp the lo~v-wakr mark should be
limited in rinrnber and definite, Itistheri cIaimed that in several
. of the drafts adopted by leamed socielicsthe exceptions are not
listed exhaustively and thatit isdificiilto sep in thesedrafjs.an
-intentionto state the sole,exceptionsto the rde. Tlie wumptions
on whicli tliis arpmnt is baseda3.equite rrntvamasited. 7.ethesis .
ofthe United Kingdom Govemrnent.is simpIyt11attlie low-water '
, mark dong the cbastis the principal rule ivhichhastg be applied
' - urilessa departme from the gIiysicalcoast line by reaçon of its
' geograpl~icalcanfipration is jusaed by an internationalcustom
*
generally accepted as law. The fact that the exceptions may not
al1be haUy kt cd orfultydefined cmot demgate rom the primacy
of the principalrule. The mosttJ~atitcan do isto render the mtab-
' lishentofadubiciuso~ill4efindexceptionmoredifficuI 't.forthe
taie cded upon tojustify a particzzldeparture fmin the physical
coastline. Siinilarly, thfactthat learned societtesin thcir drafts
may 'not have findg listed orfuily defined the exceptions cannot
possbly derogate from the primacy of the rule formuTated bv
them as the principal rule.The rnosf that itcould do -cvouldbe
cause doubt in regard to an' ornittecl or iD-defined exception. In
short,this argument for impeaching the primacy of the low-water
mark ruIe isaltogether exkaorhary.
.zQ~.The Nomegian Governtnefl, hoxvever,bas inay cvent to
concede that the report ofSuh-Committee' II at the 1930 Can-
ferenc does set outboth the principalruleof the tidemark and its
exceptions with some measure bf preciçion: Thisawkward fact it
seeks ta get rid ofin fhe first instancby its usualdepreciatioriof
the value of the rcport as evidenbe ofexisting 'lawwhich has been
refuted in paragraphs r6g-r7o and 197-xg8above. It then argueç
that ta ded~e the primacy of the low-water mark rule hm the
verbalform ~f.~-hreport (or from the form of-thedraftsofleameci -
çocietics)rvouldbe dangerousonthe gound that tlie endorsement
of adraft by collectivevote is not alwaysthe result of a'ctos aed
pcnt'trating study. And, cihg an ,observation of the United States
delegate, made tvith reference to. the workof a dïfferent sub-
corilmitteenamel.~? o,Sub-Committeè N4. 1,,-th&the texts ofthe' REPLYOFTAEUNI~DRI N2G8xD150 ) , 455
.-
artideshadnot been examined indetail, it asset-tsthat this observa-
tion applies with even greate force to the work of Sub-Corrimittee
N0,.11"
This argui-nent,vimed simpXyas a technicalcriticisrnof the farm
of the tkuts of Sub-Cornmittee No. 11and of the leamed societies,
is not very ccinvinclrrg.Whatevervalidity the critiçism rnay have in
regard to the ivork of some kjnds of cornmittee, it applies least ko
the work of a coommitte~of j-rnistwho rnay be eqected to pay
some attention $0 the fora of their pMes and the structure of
th& drdts. The learned soqietiesnaturally ,contained a gdaxy of
emuient juriçts. Çub-Cornmittee No. 11, as already explalned, was a
technical cornmittee and in fact itwas a mixed cornmittee ofjurists
and hydrographem. So far as concerristhe langsage of the report of
Sub-Cornmittee No. II, the formulation of the low-water mark de
and its exceptions bears eve* trace of deliberate legal drafting.
206. %ut the Norw-egian Eovernment, inpasagrapii 3~4 of the
Conter-Mernorial, attücks the actual fextof the report on the
gmund that the rnlc is 5tated.t-o be subject tu trrm exceptions-
bays and islands-lvhereas the report itself shcrivsthathe rde doeç
not appIy ta ports, roadsteads, estuarieç or ice-bound cotzsts.Even
ifthis criticism of the drafting were fair, itwonid not su&e to
*- undemine the position of the low-water mark rule in the report as
the principalrule,But isthe critiçiçm entirdv fair ?The point dcdt
yith in the ridefor ports waç how farartdisal 6arbour works rnay
propmlycount aspart of the actual ceast line, Treated in thisway,
, the ruie for ports did not require afmrtlicr qudrfication of the m1e
of the low-wa'cervrnârk,Aga~n, as the apyended "Observation"
p$ts out,the rule forroadsteads was n& concerned mith the base-
. Iine at ailbut with a special extension ofthe territond çea l.If
tiiereforrequired no qualificationof the base-line'rulé.No mle was
fosmulated for estuariesdearIy for the reason that for legaipurposes
estuariesareregarded as a form of bay both in international practice
and by writers. No furfier qualification of the base-line rule was
1The textof theObservationrdc: asfoII~ws:
"Tthad been propuse&that rwdshads tshicsmve forthe loadingancl
nnlonding afvc$sd$%houid btaâ9imilatctu porh, These soadstadz: wbdd
then have beenregardecl iulmd waters andthe terrrtoriseawouId have
bocn rncasurcd from theoiitm limitslt wasthought, horircver, irnpsçihle.
to adopt this proposalAlthwigh itwas rccognizetthatthe coastitState -A
ninstbe permittedtuexeruse.çpecial rigof control anclpoliceover khe
inlandivhterçsince ithatcaseinercllant vessels ~vouldhavenoanghtaof
iiinacent pa55ag'rough tlicinTo mcct thescobjectiqns iwa~ s~iggested
tht1the righof passage in such waters ahobedexpressly recognized. the:
. practical resul? beit1iaaie onlvuifference between su'inlandwaters'
and'the territonal swoiddI~aveteeiiltepossessZiyrhtroc&Jeadsofn $cl!
of berr2fovim of IJzeima. ,45hnwever, su~h a hdt was notconsidercd
necessary, i\vasagreed finthewatersofthe rodstead should beinclnded
in.the territoriserof theS'rate=*en if theyextcndhcyond thc gcneral
limit of th: territorial (Minutesofthe SecarrdConmittee, p, zr9.J 456 RTZPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28XI 50)
therefore ctinsiderednecessary than was a2ready covmed by the
exception for "bays", As to ice-hound coasts, it isa somewhat
pedantic cniticisrthat thecornmitteewhich, initçreport,indicated
that it had excluded the special questionof ice-bound coasts from
itsdraft; should not have also covered thepoint in it~formulafor
the base-line.Uattilthe rule for iwbound caasts was decided, its
daim to be anexception was equally undecided. Was the drafting
ofthe committee-simply as drafting-so verydefectivc ?Actually ,
the points on which the drafting is criticked în the Gounter-
Memoriaf, tvhen closdy exarnined, anly serve to show that Sub-
Cornmittee No. II-in mhateVer way its ciraftingmight be improvecl
-wwe perfectly awase of theimplltatfons of theirtexts.
207.Fihally ,in para-phs 315and 316 ofthe Cornter-Mmorial,
two dicta by distinpished men we firedas Parthian shots at the
phacy 04the Iower-water mark de and both slzots go very wide
of the target.Firçt,Mr, IVLillert,he United States delegak, describ-
ing the work of the coriferençe.in the bfiefestand most general
tems and having referred to -the attempt to define "bays" as
"rather notable", said" wemust sti Uecognize that tlierearinden-
tations ofthe coast which may perhapsrequire specialtreatrnent:
dthough they are not to be called ina technical sensebltys". At
best, this statement only means fiattliere rnay be indentations
which escape the defmition of a bay and yet require: special t~eat-
ment andogons ta that given to bays, Ifanything, the statement
testifies directly ta the primacy of the tide-mark mle, since
Mr. Millerwas afraid that, unlesstheseindentations were specialty
covered inthe convention, noamendment of the base-linewould be
dlowed in theircase. Infact, there tanbe no doubt that he was
rnerely echoiiig thanxiety of theUnited States delegationthat the
exception of "hktoric barn" shouid not be ~bsolutely iimited to
"bays" in the gmgraph~cal sense bût slmuld include liistoric
"sounEïs".This anxiety again is çlear iestirnonyto theprimacy of
the Iow-water markrule, A departure £rom the physicalhe tifthe
coat must b~brorllght itlatJzfour çorneysof cawc&dm?,'taxcefithn.
208, Secondly, a dictum of Lord Salisbury is~mnched out of itç
çontextin a House of Lords dehate fifty-fim yens ago and he is
represcnted as holding the Wew that there is no general principle
applying dl dong. thecoaçt. Al1he saidwas that cliffert principles
' applyin determining the exdmd ofterritoridzprate~s herethere are
indentations than rvhere thecoastis open. His remark las made as
an inteaeçtionin debate becausehe suspected-urijust Lya?;it turned
out-one of hi5 fellowPeers of thinking that British legiçlation
could be made to apply to foseign frsherrneup to 18 milesoff open
coastsinScotland, ITehad not iamind the base-linc questiouatdl
nor inded the distinction beheen inland md territoriamraters.
Even so there ms nothing in l-isery general e~pressions which
\vasinconsistent 'with the 3-mile limirom shore being the riormal burden'o proof rets on that party. Limitations on-sover-
eignty are not tobe presumed ipasa. 3x8).
Çz) The nature of the rdes ofinternational.lawrelating to State
sovereign ovyr the sea confirms the conclusion that the
burden of proofrestsonthe United Kingdom (pas, 320-3261,
becauseIegaLly and historica1,lltbese sulesappear, so it is
said,as restrictionon Stâte sovereignty over the SM and not
as the foundation of such çovereignty. t
Before dealirlgwith these qurnents inturn, the Glavkmment of the
United ICingdomwill make some general observations on the ques-
1- tion of burden ofpmnf in this.case, .
I
- zrr. TheUnitedKingdomGoveniment,açthepiiriycomplaining
ofsom~thing Norway is doing, the enforcement of this decraghst
,13ritisTfishermen (Nonvay isnot cornplainhg of action taken by
the United Kingdom), naturally has the general burden of proof.
x But this ody meus thai the U,pit~d Kingdom, Governent Is
calied upbn to establish a 91i~za /mie case apinst the legality of
the base-lins of the 1935 hcree such as to kntitle the Court to
hold them iiivalid in theabsencof asatisfactory answerhy Nomay.
IP isa trit~ observation that the "burden of proof" infie sense of
the riskof losingthecase if'nothingfurther is said to the Courmày
pass bacltwards and forwards $rom oneside to the other with the
progress ofae case,The questionof burden of proof arisesstrictly
onlv on the prooo fffacts.orof specialekceptionalrightsand not in 4
,connection with the demonstration of the general rules of inter-
. national laçv of which the Court hm ex o&io judicial knowhdge.
In connection with the demonstration of the applicable generril
. . rules of in+ernationallatv,it isperhaps more correct to speak of
making a prima jacie case rathm than of discharging bnrden of
pmof ; and the obligatton to,Cliçcha tregeburden.of pronf of the -
- facts and the necessity ofmaking aprima facie caseonthe law are
not bnrdens of quite the same character, though Nomvay does not .
distinguish between them.
2x2. The. basic kcts of the preçent case &e Jargely facts of
geapphy and the tem ahd effect of thDecree of1935 whiçh are
naE swceptible ofdispute. The contention of the United Ringdom
Governrnent is that, on those facts which are undisputd, th^
"burd~nof proof" necessarily passes to Norway, because the United
Kingdom has invoked as the main rule ofinte-cnationd19 govern-
ing the delimitation of base-lines, a rule which, in the submission
of theUnited Kingdom,iswell settled. This rule wbich.theW,nited
Kingdom maintains is weUsettled is that the base-line formed by
the tidemsk.alung the coast;divergingfrom this actua1,caastjine
only under the exceptions, md witI~m the fimlîx, established by
'international Iaw. No denionçtration is neededthat thébase-linesof -
the~g~~DecTeedoncitinanypartfollotvthetidemarkalrii-ig~e .
I caast,for thatisdemonstrated onthe ~harts~subrn to tteCdo.ur€
by the Nonvegian Govanment, (Annex 2 ofthe Counter-hlemorid.)
. .In addition,the United Kingdain has set out in Paré II of itç
' Mernorialwhat it conceivesto be the aceeptd rules ofinternational
law tvhich govern .theexceptions#permittingdepartures af'thebase-
line hom. the tide mark along the coast. The fact that the alrnost
-coniifiums depa~tures of the base-hes of the 1935 Decree hm the
tidemark dong the coast do not fdlwithin asiyofthese recognkzed.
exceptions is demonstrated inparagmphs 123to 140 of the Merno-
rial.Indeed, such dernonstration is scarcely needed lecaus again
the fact appears from an examination of the chartssubmitted by'
theNonvegian tiovcmment, Thus the United Xingdom has pmved
the facts on which it relieand made a firimaftlcicase in Iaw. ,
- Itfollonisth&, if the viewsofthe United Kingdom Governrnent
conceming the applicable rules of Iawwe firima facie corne&-and
they are strnngly s~tpportedby the recordsof the 1930 Conference,
by the opinions of writerç and by international practice-the tegal
burden in thiscaseliesnpon Nonvay to justify on preçcriptivand
historic grtiund.base-heç which, on the face of them, bear no
relation to the bse-lines' permittedby international 3aw. It is, of
course, open to Nonvay to show, if shcari,that theniles~f çusto.
ary law justifying exceptio& to thegéneml primary rule thatthe
base-li nethe tide mark are &viderthan they, are stateto be in
the Mcmorial, or indeed, to disprove, if shccm, that this ,içthe
.prirnary rule. Othtnyiseitis open taher to discharge the burden of
justifying hec very exceptional base-,lineby provixig an historic
titleto the waters that sl~echi,ms.
213. h thisconnectionitmay be wellto reçd thrt noparty is
under a burdm ofproving propositions of law by evidence inthe
same way ashe must ps-ovea.relevant fact. The Norwegiau Gavern-
mcnt insome parts ofthe Coiinter-Memorial' aleoestto repre-
. sent that it is tncumbe~ïtupunthe Unitet1 Kingdom to prove by
evidence, in thesame lvay asa fact, everle@ proposition an~yhrch
it .relieBut hcre mother. rule cornes into play, i'~Pad ciwfa.As
was said'by the. Permanent Court of International Justicein the
Braziaian Loaiis case (Series AISIp. 1z4):
'i his capacityisideemeditselftoknow whatatthisIntis,etc."ich,
1 Also,in thecae relati~zdoth6temm$ariu &bxrjsdid,ioof the Ifitw-
nationalCommissim c f Riuw Oder (Series ,4Jz3,atpp, r8-rg),
svhenthe "Six Governments" (theUnitedKingdom, Çzecl~oslovakia,
Demark, Fsance;&rmany and Sweden) cornplained that Poland
did not raisethe point tkat Potand had'not-rati tfieBdarceluna
Conwntiori uritithe oral prioceedings, the Permmeili .ConrE .
Intern'atioual Justice, diçrnissthisobjection, sai; "The factthat
Poland has not ritifid the Barcelona Convention i~otbbeingcon-
tested, itis evident that.ilzm~i/laisPurely one 4 Zm such.ats he. Coatd skodd examine exofficio.., The Court wi31,thedore, pass
uponthis point and wii io ço at the outset.,,:Sn short, theCmrt 1
has both the authority and the duty to cleclarethe applicablerules
of international law. The duty to declare the applicable rules of
internationalLaw arises tvhen,arid just ùecauçe,the parties areat
issueas towhqt these rules m. It LSceftainly no partof the proce-
dure ofan international court (or indeed it isIhought ofaay court)
tliat judgwent Is entered for the defendant party if the plairitiff
paxty fails to demonstrate beyotld al1possible doubt that itsview
of the law iright. Ithat were so and therewas i~nydoubt asko the
law,the jutlgmetltof the Court, in a matter where its view of tlie L
la\v isa precedent of i.vorId-widimportance, would dqend an the
accident whether, for instancethe United Kingdom was cornplxh-
ing ofNomegian interference with British fisherrnenorthe Nor-
wegian Govemment \vas complainingbecausa the United 'Krngdom
protected British fishermen frcim Nonuegian atternptç to enforce
againstthem a dectee whi& in the opinion of the United Kingdom
was unjiistfied.
,'l'hcUnited Kingdom Governrnent,in making these observations,
does not seek in any way to rninimize itsocvn hk in bringing for-
ward satkfactory authatity for the propositions of Iaw iYhich it
advances,It does so ta make clcar ik dissent Esomthe idea that in
theInternational Court the establtsliment ofinternational la~viç a
matter of evidentiary proof by the indrvidud party relying on the
law and the Court's ciehsionon the law depends an the accident
which party happenç to be the aggrieved pnrty. In the "Lotws"
case (SeriesA11o)the Court went out ofits zvayta sa7 at the end
of its jndgment :
"The Cour+ ...observesthat.in thefulfrlmentofits taslcoitself
ascertaining what the internationlawis, it has noconfined itçelf
to aconsideration of the argumentsput forward,but ha hcludcd
in itresearches al1preçedents, tc~achiand facts to which ihad
accessand which might possibly have revealed the existence ofone
ofthe principl eof international law çvnternplated inthe special.
ag-reement'". 31).
214, The United ICingdom Goveniment th recopizes that, as
claimant, it has a general 'ourdenof proofas .tothe facts m-hichit
deges, It ah récognizeç that it has an obligation to assist the.
Court sa fm as itcan in the ascert~nrnent of the law-and tosupport
its propçisitionsof law with any necesay aiithofity, Itrejeds,
however, the idea that ithas any generalburden af proof in regard
tù the applicablelaw .Surnethhg in the natureof a burdert of proof
inregard to the lawmay indeed arise from thestatus of a particdar
sule of ïamin reIation to othe-r.rules. tVhen thede tvhich iscon-
tended foris in opposition ,Oa primay de, as,for example, the
alleged rkgirnefor archipelago$is in oppositionto the primary rnle
of the low-water mark, then tlze pmctice of the Court suggestsSi~tthe -prima+ rule holds goad unless the existence ofthe exception
Iias been çatisfactoe rsthylihed.
The prmnm+tion agcahsi r8si~ictions on thessoveueigniyoj czStaie
(Counter-nlernorial, gara318- 39)
215. Xti5 now convenimt to ccmsider the h-st ofthe twclNor-
wegianarguments summarizedin paragraph zro above and inpara-
grâph 327 of the Counter-Illemurial and developed in paragraphs
318-319 ofthe Counier-Mernorial. Nonvay hases ths argument an
the grinciple thatrestrictionon the independence ofStates arenot
to he presumed, citing the "Lotus1' cusaasauthority for the ph-
ciple,and says thatthisprincipleapplieswhen act ofsavertrigny
is in question,i,e, the 1935 Decsee. This means, as explainecl in
pmgraph 313above, that, undm this argument, if thereis any
doubt as to the la~v,the decision of theCourt will ttaron what iç '
alrnost an indevant çonsidcrat-ion.1s the United Kingdom the
aggrleved party or isNorway the aeeved partgr ?In fact,it is
Nomtay who has issusd her decr~eand enfosced jt(without justifi-
cation in the Unr'tedKingdom's vietr.) against Britislt fishermerr,
Therefor~, nnp dairbtas tcthe law ~v~uld-on Norway's hypothesis
-operate inher faveur, Bat suppmhg the United Khkdom had bÿ
an act ofsovereignty on its part(an act of sovereipty inclucles,
Norway sayç, aJaw, decree, jirdgment,or administrative measure)
direçted British fisherprotectionvessels toprorect British fishing
vessels in the disputed area(aperfectlylegirtimataction if thma
in question is highseas)and Nonvay hadhad recouse tcithe Court
because shecorn-plainedof Zhc British action-then any doubt as
to the Zawwould have operated in favour ofthe United Kingdom.
Therefore, because theUnited Kingdom has prefersedto corneItself
firstte the Court imtead of forcing Nùrrvay toda sebecause in
fact the United Kingdm has acted in tbe most friendly and least
provocafive way triwardsNmway-she is placed, ifthere is any
doubt astothe law, in a disadvantageous position. Such a con-
dusion seem obvieusly wrong. Yet it isinevitable ifthe present
Nonvegian contention isright. In fact this contention is, is sub-
mitted, entirely mistaken iilatv,
The statement by the rnajority of the Court in the"L;ot?ds"casfi
that "restrictions upon the independence of a Stxte cannot be
presumed" ffolIowed its decIczratiothat "the des of larvbhding
bpon Statesemanate from their own free willasexpreçsed in cm-
ventions or by usages generally accepteilas expreçsingprinciples
of law", Whatever criticisms may be made of the ierms of this
famous declantion, itisclear that, asal1rulesof international law
impose more or lessrestrictionson the independence ofindividual
Statesin the interats ofeachother te presumption againstrestric-
tions on independenet; can only operate mitbraaill ep.eusof Stat~
~~te'uitye#i7.@rificiileby inte~.mxlzo~tmï toth discretion of the
Shte. Thus f State A has takenaction mitliin thesphere of itsdomestic jurisdiction under general inkermtiknal Iaw either by
means of restrictiag theactivities oforeipers in its tdte or by
means of a:judgment delivered by its courtsin proceedings brought
against a p&y (or a ship) which isprserit in itstcsritory, and
State B çr>mplairir;.ththe action violates a treaty or some excep-
tiona1 de of international law regaraing the exercise of judiciai
jurisdiction,no doubt tlie maxim that restsictions on sovereigi~t~
are net presumed 1s applicable.-Ratthe present case rdates to Nor-
wegian action in relationto anarea of sea and thew3zobq ewstion ail
isswe iswhether tlmffireaisz~ndw Nowegim j~.~i$dZ*ciiiondiEThat
the presulmptionin favmr of açts of sovereignty and against restric-
tions on a State'sindependence ~uinot apply to tIkis case isçlear,
.f~ornthe imrnediately following passage of'the Court'sjudgment in
the " Lot~s" mse itself.
The Court, ivhich $vasdeding wit h the Jegalityof the exerciseof
criminal jurisdictian by T~irkey oii Turkisi tenitory against a
French national inregard tcia collision belx-ireeFrench vessel hnd
a Turkish vessel on the high seas,said :'
"Nowthefirst andforemostratriition imposedby international
la~vupoa a Stateis that-fuiliq the tix&&zceof apemis~a4Ee raclto
the cowirwry-ltmay n8t exercise iCspoiver in any for& in the
territoryof anafher $tate. In this sense jmb?.di~tianis cerhidy .
territoria;itcanot be exerciçedby a Shte outside itsterritory
except by virtue of a p~rmisçive nile denved from international
çusfom or from a convention." (A/~o,'pp. 18-~g.)
The Court tvent on tohold that thcm \vas nosuch genmd restrictiari
in regd 20 the exercîse of jurisdiction by a State wraiithxts nwlz
Em$ory but anly tlielimiied restrictions oq3eciiicprohibitive des
and theriaddeci :
"In tl~eçecircumsbces,'.all that:tan be required of a'State h
. that it should not overstep.the ftswhichinternaticmal law places
upon itsjurisdictio; &th;* filesZfmibs is titidoexsrcisequr~sdit-
Y~S~Sia ifssciver~ig~fy.''(Alrp. rg.]
Itwas on this baSisthat the Court hdd that, to invalidate thé
ekenise of jurisdiction by Turkey , specific prohibitivenile must
be estabLishedexcluding a State's nexerçiseof criminal jurisdiction
against a foreigliq in regard to incidents on the high çeas. The
corcectness of Ïts ultirnatdeciJicm that France Ilad failed taestah-
lish such a spec3c prohibitive de has been much debated. .But
whether the decision was right grwrong, it iscleathat, if therehad
been a relevantnile of international law impesing agened restric~
tion air.a State" discretion to exercise jurisdiction'fn regard to
çolIi~ionson the high seas,it wogldhave lainwith Turkey to justify
her actmder a Specificpermissive rde of internationallaw. :;
. 216. It ia alsot6 be observed that Turkey's act of sovekeignty;
the exercise of jurisdictianovera vessel lying alongside in aTurkishpreçurnption in connecfion with the estabIishment of the law,
thme certaidy seems to be evwy reason for thepresumption lying
in favour of freedorn of the seasand ofthe rights of the cornmuity
of States. The Nomgiati Eovernment, however, in paragraphs
3~~324 ofthe Counter-hlemorial, disputes ais contention primarily
by the argument that to raisea presumption in favow of tlie free-
dom of the seasasagahst the sovereignty of the costal Strtte ito
disregard the histmical evolution of the 1awof the sea.It is said
that Çtate claims to maritime territory ante-date the doctrine of
the freedom of the seas and that the territorial sea belonging to
States tu-day represents what has sunived from rnuch larger
claims. This historicai ,arpent haç aIready been examined in
paragraphs ro7-116 above, where it!vas point& out thitt the fact
that a State'sclaims to maritime tenitorh ave enmmously con-
tracted in the past zjo yeam inface of the doctrine ofthe freedom
of the seas is scarceIy a convincing reason for supposing that the
freedom of the waç and State rightsto coastatwaters are nom of
qua1 strength, Mloreover,it is hhisoricallyrrdubious proposition
that the modem territorial sea ïs propezly ta be regarded as a
mere swvival of gseater clairns. Some of tlie principal motsof the
modern concept, for example, the cannon-shot rule and the 3-mile.
Ihit, have no contact with 'the ancient daims. It seems rather
that the gmwth of maritime commerce ;Lndnaval power induced
an entirely Werent attitude on the part of States in regard to
maritime territory during the eighteenth century. The clnimsexist-
hg to-day appei to be the consesuenco ef a wrnpletely new
orientationin the attitudeof Statestowards rights in adjacent seas,
under the influence of thesefacts and of the appeal of the doctrine
of the frwdom of the seas.This seems to have lmri the case even
*th tlie Scandinavian States which feli able to maintain a daim
to the distance of the rang-eof vision only for a very brief period
before settling upoii the rniich smaller limit of bne league.
2x9. The devant point now, however, is not what may be the
tzïth concesning the st-jlsomewhat obscure Iistory of territorial
waters but whether to-day the dominating principle in maritime
3aw isthe fretdam ofthe seas. The upsurge of this principle in the.
eighteenth andninkeenth centuries until it became the predomi-
nant principle of the1aw of the sea was due precisely to the strong
reaction of States, as international commerce developcd, against
clainlsto the exclusive use of areas of sea. The principle of the
freedm afthe sms was the fondation of the atvardin the Behing
Sea Arbif~atiun and iksascendancy inthe latter part of the nine-
teenth century is streçsed for example by Cdvo. Having dealt
witl-iterritorial waters, baystraits,etc., he adds (Le Droit inter-
îskatiortVol, 1, Section 384) :
' n6usufavons discutéeseplus Inutnnsetrattachentldirectement ou.466 REPLY OF TRE UNITED KINGDOM (28XI ,513)
'aboutissentforcémentA un seul et mhe principefondamental,
celui de lalibertédes mers."
220. To-dayit is recagrilzed thatlrefsedom of the seas carries
certain dangers owhg to technicd progess and that international
CO-operationinthe regdation of the seasis necessary to overcome
these dangers, But the pruiciple of the pr~dominance of the rights
of the ccimmunity af States ovesexclusive daims bysingle States.
has never ken relaxed and remains the fundamental principle.
In this connectirin the United Kingdom Government cited in its.
Memonal the folloiving sentence ftom Gidel tu support its conten-
tion thatthere isa presumptiuain favbar ofthe freedom of the
seas :
"L'idée qui domine Ie droit de rnw est l'id& de 1aIIbertéde-
l.'u£ihsatilicite enormale des espaces maritimes ; tonte restric-
tion lnutilecettelibertédoit êtreévitée."(@cd.,Vol.III, p.674.)
It iisaidinparagraph 285 of the Counter-Memonal that, bygivlng
the abovesentence witéoot the rest ofits tontext, the United King-
dom Goverment has misrepresented Gidd's maning. It iSasserted
that Gidd was only emphasizing the need to avoid uselesç reçtric-
tionson the freedom of the seas andwas not hyng down apresump-
tion in favmr ofthe latter principle.Whatthen was the cantext 7
Gidel, itIstrue,ms arguing fora dEfferentrde conceming lslands
from that accepted by Sub-Cornmittee No. II. He was arwg
for the stricter Hile tliat an idand sliouid not casry territorial
waters, ifnot capable of occupation and. use.He was asguing that
even a permanently dry rûck possessed by a State shouid not,.
in those circumstances, entitleitto territoridwaters in respect of
the rock, And why did he advoca-tethis strictrule against the -
çoastai State ?He advocated it for no other reason than thst he
considereci the dominating principle tobe the freedom of the use
of the seas,
221, But this was by nomeans the adg octasion anwhich Gidel
in his book objected to methods of çlelimiting caastal waters on
the ground thât tliey hvolved enaaachments on the bigh seas.
Ancithet-exampleis ta Iseound inlriscriticis(cited pampaph 196
above) ofthe Norwegian-Swedishproposaifor an extrerne points
base-he where he endeclwith the words :
"Enfin - etc'estlà une derni& critique- pratiquement cette
méthodedu trac& plyganai en Pçeadlmdthaw augmente d'une
mmiére indue les eaux intkrieures,çaquirz$oar colaséquencfinal^
ana exienskon corp.dali7ie de mm fewita~iale& la riduciiofdes
ar#ace:edehaute mer."
A Md exampleis tu befaund inapassagedealingwith asuggestion
for the extensionof the base-line off ice-bunncoasts ([email protected]., Vol.
III, p, 530where hesaid ;"A quoi onpeut objecter que touteexten-
sion du territoirede l'fitavient réduired'autant la mer Libre....'" q68 RE'BLY OF THX UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50}
çuch proportion to the width of its mouth as toco~sti-tutethc
indentationmore than a mereçurvature ~f the cwt."
The chiefground ofthi sritickm kt that,by isolathg the element
of proportion between penetratian into the land and width of
mouth and by making it the decisive test,the United Kingdom
Gcivernrnent gives to the dehition a restrictive meaning which
internatiaml practice aad decisions of international tribwals
aresaid not to justifgr.
224. Paragmph 332of the &unter-~Temorid citesextracts fmm
a passage in the award of f.1~ tribunal inthe Nwlh rltlantic
Fish~ies Avbi&dion to support theabove criticisrn. Thetribunal
there said (ISiilson, Rt~gweArbitrafion Cases, p.186) :
"The Tribunal isunable ta under5tând the terni'bays' In the
renimciatory dause inother thanits geographicdsense,by wliich a
hay iç to be considerd as an indentation of thecoast, bearing a
configurationof a particular chamcter easy to determine specifi-
callÿ, butcMf~c:uLtotdescribegenerally."
The next sentence, whlch is not included inthe Coun~er-Mernar-
id, goeç on :
"The negoGatorsof the Trcat yf 18x8did probably not trouble
thanselves tvitlsubtle thcorics concerning the notion of 'bays',
they most frobably thought t bat everybody would know what
\vas a bay.
So far, therefo-re,the tribunal seems rather to have shaed the
view of the United Kingdom Guvernment expresscd in theMemot-
ialthat there isnot mnch douht about the general rneaning of the
rvord "bay"'.
225. Tt isalsa to bc observcd Shatin the fmer of these tw~
sentences,whlch the Coun ter-Ailemo-rialspeaks ofas the tribmal's
only definitionof a bay, the criticd words are ''anindentation of
the coast, beartng a. cawfigz~~ntimobfa ;fiwtic~lwrcharactar",dc.
. It istme that, as the Counter-Mernorial points out, the tribunal
said in the sentences whickrfollowed :
"In this populaisensetlie tem mast lxir erpretcd inthetreaty,
The interpretation must take lnto account al1the individnal cir-
cumstances which forany one of thtdif=£erenbtaysarcto beappte-
çiated, the relationof widrh tothe lengthof penetrationidand,
,the possibilityandthenecescjityofitsbeing defended by the State
ui whoçe territoryitis indenied; the special valt~whicli ithas
forthe indristry of the inhabitantsitshores; the distança whicli
itisseduded from the bighways of nations on the open sea and
other circumsbnceç mt: possibleto enurnerate in gmeraL,J'
But men here the firçt consideration stated is the element of
proportion. Whether the other considerations mmtioned really
have much to do tvith the concept of a bay itis permissible to REFI OF THE UNITED RINGDOM (28 XI 50) 469
doubt, andthme is nothing to suggest that in their award the
'tribunaltaok as theirtest any element other khan configuration,
The otlier considerations mentioned by the tribund areundoubt-
edly some of the reasonq why bays' (ie.ariy bay) iander certain
conditiorrs iireadmitted by international law to be ntithin the
national territoo rfya State. The base-line for te~ritorial waters
rmning acrosçthe mouth of the bczyis anexception tethe general
nile that it follows the cbast. This may weU have been what Rias
ptirnardy in the mind of the tribunal, for in an earlierpassage it -
had said, in rejechng the contention 01tlre United States that the
-3-mile limit shoilld bestrict2y and systematicdy applicd in bays
(meaning that the hase-line shoulrl in 'bays follow the ordinary
rulq [j:bidd,p.182) :
"&t the Tibuiid isunableto agree with thiscontention
{a) Becanse sdmittedlg the geogrqhicd character of a bay
contains conditions which concern the interestsof the territorial
sovtrcign to amore intimate and important extant than do those
çonnected with the open coast. Thus conditions of national and
territoriaintegrity, of defence, ocommerce and of inclustryare
all vitally çoncemed witlithe contra1of thebays pcnetrating the
national coast lin@. This interest varies, speaking generallyin
proportion tothe penetratio~inland ofthebay ;'butasno principle
of internationallnw rccopnes any spec&ed dation behveei~ the:
concavity of the bay and the requirements for control by the
territorial sovereigmty,.thTribunal is unable to pn~lify by the
application of rtnnew principIeitsinterpretatiunof theTreaty of
1818 as excluding bays in general ilromthe strictand systematic
applicationof the3-mile rule.'"
Here, again, there is a strong suggestion that the criticalfactoris .
the proportionatci penetmtlon inte the land. The tribunal, itmay
suspected, experienc~dthe same difficultv asthe rggoConference
ingiving geornetsical precision to the concept of a bay whlle
recognizing that the clue ta the definition Iay in the elernent of
proportion.
226, The Gounter-Mernorialinpnrapph 334 &O citesa passage
from the Çalfor~ia;rz Case OceartImi?wïlra"esY,wc.Y. Gwen et aL
(Hudson, Cases cznd Otl~t~Mizte~ialSon Tder.~%ntaQ.iLtalw, p, 4473,
clahing that the passage shows the Supreme Cod of California
to have rdied ona lexicographer's definition\vithout regard to the
elernent of ~roportion, The clah is decidedly unconvincing since,
as the cited passage shows, the Court sb~ied thefi~ofiortinnof th&
bay m-th som~ exachgstisas éts&y rehlsbnofw sayzxg Zhm fh buy
satz'sfkdthe definitioxof a bay l,
Sa far, the~~forc, the tribunals,whosedicta are çited tosupport
Norway's crîticisrn of thfornula çuggestcrdin the Memonal dso
seem rather to &are the VniTed Kingdom's viev that the key to
fInkt thedepthof thebaywas abouthalf the\vid.tthc upenipg.47O REPLY OF TRE UNITED mEDbM (28 XI 30) I
the definitionof a bay liesinthe proportion between depth of
perretration andwidth atthe mazath.
227. The Nçirwegian Government haç, however, another objec-
tionto the suggested fornula. The formula issaid to be altogether
too vague a definitioni£ bayçare tu F>econsidered an "exception"
in the juridical sense, In thxt case, so the Couilter-Mernorial
confends, it wodd be necessary io find a geonletrical formula
expressing preciselythe required proportion bekwn tEiedepth of
penetrabinnand width at the mouth,Tke United Kingdom Govan-
ment Is indeed said to have adrnittetll the need forgiving such
precision to the formula,but this is eatirely untrue in the sense
which the Norwegian Governrnent is ryiag tb extract from the
language used in the Mernorial. The Norwegim Govenimmt ,is
nour seeking to maintain that withorita gmmetrical formula to
define with absolute precisianthe exception "barn", there tan bc
no restrictive nile ofinternational lam limiting claims to bays.
The United Kingdom Güvemmentl dissents absolutely hm this
propoçi$ion. 13e uwrd bay has long bem used in international
practice and has frequently been interpreted by judicid Cribunds
with a ~ufficientunderstanding of itsgeneral 2nd le@ meaning.
It isalso çonstantiyreferredtoby jurkts in itsparticdar aspectas
an exception to the rule othe low-water mark\vithout any doubt
aç tothe general scopeof the exception. The need forsome further '
precision,which is recoplzed by the United Kingdom and which
MW, recognized by Sub-Cornmittee No. II,daes not concem the
general nature oi ihe "kenception'hnorthe generaI scope of its
application. It mIy concerns the need to mark out the boundary
feiIcesofthe exception more ~xactZy soas fo exdztd~th +ossihza'ty
of ençroackmts 0% the high seas througk anscr@ulows use of tlas
excepi'ior.t w-asonly from this point of view that the question
of ageometrical formula was discussed in r93o by Sub-Cornmittee
No. II, asitsreport indiçates in the sentence :Wost delegations
agreed to awidthof ro miles,fiovided ssysiem wme simzdianeousJy
ado$t~d under wkichslight iade~tations wot~nof6e treatcdt~sbays,"
lt Isalso from tlikpoint of view that Gide1examines the psoblem
of defming a bay. (Op.d., Vol.111,pp. 583-593.)
228, The United Kingdom Goverment does not daim that its
modest fornula represents the last ward that m lxsaid on the
definition oa bay orthat itgivesabsoluteprecision to the nleaning
of a bay. It merely suggeststhat its formula contains the essence
of what in Zarvismeant by a bay.Nor does the United Kingdom
Gavernm~nt contentd hat ifs formula has the speci6c statvsof a
riile of internatLana1 IaThe rule accepted by juristsand estab-
lisbedin international practice istEitays coriçtitütwi exception
tu the rulethat the base-line followthe low-water mark aü alring ,
the coast.The formulasuggested bythe United Kingdom isrnerely a famula to assistthe application in practiceof thk well-estab-
Eshed rule of intematicmal law.
zzg, The United Kingdom Governrnent, however, strongly
resists, for the reasonalready given, the id= propwnded intho
Coun ter-Memorial that without a geornehid fornulla the excep-
tion for bays istoo vclgrze tconstitufe a mle ofinternational la~v
at all. Gide1and Boggs, whose langnage is citedin.parapph 33r
ofthe Couriter-Mernorialasevidence of thedficuity of di5tinguish-
ing Imys from other indentations,both start fmm the assumption
that there içan established ruleof international law governing
bays. Gidel, indeed, not only regards bays as an exceptiantothe
Jow-water markrule, but considers that a rufe of internationalaw,
~estricting thewidth of bays norrnally to be admitted witliin thï~,
exception, is "peremptorily proved'"by the very existenceof the
' categoryofhist~riçba~~tsxcceptionstothenosmdrule,(O~.cii.,
Vol. III,pp. 536-537.)Tlieriile ointernatio a wlhas not adopted
any partïcular formula, verbal or geometrîcal,
zja. The Narwegiai Governent in paragraph 335 of the
Çounter-MemoBal erztirely pmerts the meaning of the lassentence
of paragraph 94ofthe Mernorial.TheUnited Kiagdom Govmnment
madeno kind of suggestionthat Norway is botrnd in these proceed-
ingr:by the geometrical formula proposed in 1930 bythe United
States delegation. TheUnited IGngdorn Government merely offered
itseIftoaccept the applicationof ltheformula should any particular
indentation pmve to be a bord.er-licase.But the United Kingdom
Government does strenuouslycontend that Narwq is bound by the
generally-accepted rule of customary law whictitreats bajs as an
exception to the low-water mark ruleand prescribes the conditions
under which bays may beincludedxvithm a State'snational waters.
It ispermissihie a@n to enquire what has becorne of the Nor-
.WC@ an Governrnent 'sconcept of law, and especidy international
3aw, as something which "s'abstient souvent de concrétiser les
notions nomatives dont il se sert" (para. 240 of the Counter-
Mernorial). The sulrpleness coriçide~d cornrnendable by the Nor-
wegian Goverriment in theextremely vague phrase "waters acces-
sory to tewa Jirwu'"isapparently tobe fatal tothe validity ofthe
-compamtively-much inore preciserule for bays. The United
Kingdom Governrnent holds a very differentview. Precision isin
the nature of things desitablein the mles governing the extentof
coastd waters for the avoidance ofdisputes. But, tasay that Iack
of&sdute precision in the application of a rule means 40 rule of
internafional law at ait, is to întrciduce anarchy ato go against
the systernof intemationd law &-sitis ound ininternational prac4
tice, Where governments in fheir practice, municipal tribun& in
theirdecisionsandthe Permanent Court of Arbitrafi onthe 1910
&bitration have not shrimk from deciding what is rneant byabay,
-the United Kingdom Governrnent submits tha.t theInternationalCourt of Justiceneed show noless readinessto appreciate thegeo-
graphicd facts and decide what isinlaw a Norwegian bay,
The width ofbays
(Paras.336-342 ofthe Counter-Memacial)
231.The Norwegian Government, in piraeaphs 336 to 394 of
the Cornter-Mmorjal, contests thethesisof the United Kingdom
Government that international law psescribea 10-mile limias:the
rule for determinhg the territorialityand thereforethe base-line
of bays spart hm historieusageI.ndeied igoesmuch furtherand
deaiesthat there isany gmeral nile of customay law govening
the width ofbays whlçhmay beclaimed as territoriaThe Nerwegian
argumentis divided intotwo histmical periods,setkingto show (11
that internatio lnarlecogniz nodgeneral rule Eimitingthwidth
ofterritoriai bays~p to 1910.when the North Atlaaiic Fiskcsies
ArbitrataanTribunal gave its amrd (paras. 343-353)and 123that
no such gara1 nile hasdeveloped since1910 (paras.354-392 T3he
United Kingdom Governent contends that thisargument both
gives an inconect appreçiation ofthe avaiia'o2eevidence and fails
ts take safficienaccount of thegradud procesçof evolutian whicli
notinfrquently acccirnpaniesthe establishmentofx ruIeof custom-
=y Iaw,
232. Tt iscomm ground that there mas rrotany grnerairule
.estabEshed incustomary law layuig dom a specific lidtfor the
territoridityof bays, with thereult .ai: any bay whose opcning
was atany =te more than double the width of territorial waters
was open to challenge, astheUnited StatesGcivernment endew-
.oureclto do in the Norila Ailantic FisJz~~isase.The dzerence is
.thatthe United Kingdom Gsvernrneat inasts that the evidence of
practicéshowsclear traces othe evolutionofa ggenerarlule deiïning
the zvidthof territoriabays and a distinct tendency torvardsthe
recognitionofromiles as +thproperbit, apartfrom histoficbays,
whêreas theNoswegian Govemment declinesto seeany sign of the
growth of a nileof customary Zaw.
First, thNorwegianGovemment denies(paras. 339-34t1hpt the
-vasiousfishery conventions (ofI-831 g8169,1882 hdoopting a ro-
milelimit for bays, whïchare citedin pqraphs 7r to 74 of the
Mernorial#may legitimatel-be used as evidenceof the pwth of a
custornary rule. stressesthat theconventions only settled matters
1 Ta Sç listmay now ba added anothcanvmtion notcited itheUnited
KingdomMmorid. aamely, that ttetDenmarkand CTemanybf1880(Rertslet.
CommwciaF Tr.miàcVol. XV,p. 2073. betwm partidar States inrelation trparticular wasts andthat
the parties didnot regard themselves as complying 'cvitha rule of-
international law when adopting the 10-mile limit. The United
Kingdom Government doesnot'dispute that these conventions dealt
w~thparticular matters or that at their respective dates thewre
not regardec isgivingeffecttoan alrmdy existing de of customary
law, Certainl,Great Britain herçelfdusingthe Chamberlain-Bayard
negotiations of 1886-1888and again in argument in the 1910 Arùi-
tmtion emphasized that the conventions wem particular and did
not expressa rde ofgeneraIinternational law.But,theUnited King-
dom Govemment does not rely onthe conventions as &dence of a
ruleof international law at~eadyexistingwhen they were signed. It
relies on them as evidence of a go.cving convictionarnong States
that kt face ofthe principle of thefreedom of the seas extensive
claims ta appropriate the waters ofbays,wer untenable. What is
material about the Anglo-French Convention of 1839 is that Great
Britain (whoseinterestitwas toinvokemuch larger daims-perhaps
even the ghostly Xing7s Çhamher.ç-against the operat ions of
Frencb fishermen) accepted the IO-miIelimit proposed by France.
What ismaterial about the 1852 North Sea Fisheries Conve.ntion is,
that Great Britain and five 0th- States,when it had been decided
to inserta limit inthe convention, fmed almost automatically on
the ro-mile limit again proposed by France- In this instance also
the restsictiouponthe territoridifyof ba-ywas agaiM theinterest
'ofGreat Britain, lY11atis material about the Chamberlain-Bayard
negotiations of 1186-188 isthat Great Britain, despite theview
that she took of the inteqxetation of the Anglo-Unit4 States
T~aty of 1818 ,elt constrained toaccep-a:ra-mile limit whih tvas
against herotyn fisheria interestThis convention a2so wouId have
becornelaw if the United States Congresshad net thought even the
IO-milelirnit too large-Itis the same with the other conventions
. referred to in the United Ringclom's Mernorial a~d also with the
Germm-Danish Convention of 1880, conduded before the North
Sea Convention andtherefore independeatly of my initiativinthe
matter $rom Great Britain and France. Whenever States had t~
address themselves to the question of fixing, a Iimito bays in a
convention, thebit decided upon was ro miles. And Great Britain,
even when she had won a verdict tn rgro onthe interpretation of
the 18x8 Treaty, accept~d instead the application of the IO-mile
bit as a generalde.
'
23 3.It is granted that theuse of particulartreatiesas evidence
of ciistomry laiv requires circumspection. But, when a pattern of
conduct begins to appas among dïfferent Statesand indiffesent
parts of the.world, k itany longer enough ta tdk of partidar
parties and particdat toasts? Moreoves, in a matter of this kind
involving essentially the reçanciliatioof the interestç ofStatesin kheir di£€erent capacitiesas claimants of coastal waters and as
users of the Wh seas,treaty practice is intrinsically more rdiable
evidence than unilateral acts of policy. For in unilateral acts a
State loaks chidv at one aspect of its rights,whiieina treaiy the
reconeiliation ofth ewci oppositeinterests içat work.
United Kirtgdom i.~ltv#retatiioof tre&y #r&cticesw$#or&d by th
work of Ea~fiedsoc3idiesnnd of R~sfad
234, That Iearnedopinion ha5interpreted the evidenc of treaty
p~açticein the same way as the United Kingdom Goverment is
clear from the attitude oflearned mcieties as shown inthe draft
conventions: cited inparagraph Se of the Memoriall, The Nonvegim
Governent elsewhere in theCounter-Mernorial professes to bdieve
th& the drafts of these Iearned societim were dictated purely by
considerations de Iegeferenda. It is, ho~vever,certain that on khis
point thelr drafts were a reflection of existing practice. The flim-
siness of the Nonvegian argument un this head can be judged frorn
the very differcnt appreciatian of the evidence by the Ncinvegiari.
jurist R~stad in the folloïving passage mittea in rgrg (La Mer
tevïitoriaEep,146) :
"Quant hl'étenduedes baiesterritorialeslapratique,telle qu'eue
estafirrnh dans les conventions de pkhe, a degagé une tendance
marquée vers la [imitationdes prtstentionsqnelquefois exageréesà
L'empire des baies. Mais la limitation arbitraire introduitepar
lesdites conventions- la ligne de diu milles- n'apas réussia
anéantisla territorialitdes baiesappelkeshistoriques."
Thus R~stad regarded the treaty practice adopting the IO-de
3idt ashaving introduced a severe limit on daims to territorial
bays, saving only histaric claims. Rzstad, whoçe native country's
crwn claims might I-iaveincline$ him to deny that the treaty practice
conçtituted a change in customary Law, recognized the change, '
It may be added that, like the United Kingdom Govcrnmmt, he
regarded the validity of Nostvaymç specialclaims as fding to be
considexed under the çategory of bfstoric bays hy way of exception
to the ordinary rule limihg the width of territorial bays.
1 Narndy :
(i) Artic7eof thedraftconventiun ofthe IfitematiomlLaw Association
(Reportof the 34thConfetence1926,p.TOI).
(iiArticle 6 ofthdra;Etconvcnl5ofthe Americanfw~ute orl theHational
Domain [Rio Conferenec, rg27zj A.J.I.L., Special Supplemmp.370).
{iü)Article4 ofthe draftoftbo ZRagneof NafionsCornmitteeof E~pwts jn
1926(23 A.J.I.L.. Çpe¢ial Supplemp,366).
{iv) Articl2of thedraftofthcJapanese InternationalLaAssociation(1g26,
(v)Article 3 othe.drafkof theInstitntcofInternatio Lnal(StockhoZm
Conference,1928Annuaire,p. 7561,
(vi)~lrticle 5 tb Hamaxi Research draft(23A.J.I.L., cipecid Supplemeot,
pp.243 and 265).Iwonsistmcy of Bfitish $raçtice2%tks niwtedh wntwq is mt
dmied ;bai?ihew isnotki~gsurfirishg abod t& ixc~wsistewcy~ r
is itofatzy assistancteNomay ifithepese7Etcase
235. Nonvay,however. lays specialstresbn theresistanlattitude
of Great Britaintowards thelimitationofterritoriabays asevidence
ofthe absence of rimy rule limiting the width of territorial bays,
The inconsistency in Great Britain's practice, Ui adopting thezo-
mile lim i in European conve~~tions,while rnaii~taining la~gcr
daims againçtthe United States,is not denied. At the same tirne,
it is properto remIl that the British bayson the coastsof North
Arnerica Ilad had a veqr special diplornatic history and fkd th
qzttstimmasdomimtdd By Ianguuge ofthe Treaty of1818. Itmay
also be saidthat some inconsistency onthe part ofa State during
the process of reducing its tenitorid clairn isscarcely a matter
for surpriseIn my event, theNorwegian Government's representa-
tion of Great Britain's practice is altogether too seleçtive and
sup&cial even in regardto the longdisputeover the North Atlantic
Coast fisheries.
The-rs-m& mle i+zthe@rior2 up .bamdiwci~dlimg
the79x0 Arbllration
(Paras.343-353 of the Cornter-Mmorial)
The c-seof theh17ashington(r853-r854)
236. IReferenceismadein the CaunterMemorizll (paras.343-341)
to Great Britain's reliancan the lreacllantheory in the earlier
stages of the dispute with theUnited States,and in particular to
opinions of the Laav Oficers of Nova Çcotia and Great Britain in
1341 justifying that interpretationof the 1818 Treaty (paras.
344-345). The Counter-Mernorial emphasizes that the headland
theory inthese opinions was notlimited to the headlands ofbays.
It isunnecessary io clwelupon aposition tbat was soon abandoncd
by Great Britain. It shodd, howmr, be stated .that the United
States regarded this daim as preposteraus and poiritedout that
the opinion ofthe BritishLaw Officerswas fowided on a misunder-
standing as to the language of the Treaty of 1818. (See Moore,
Digest, Vol, 1, p. 785.)Theheadland theory appears t~ have bee4
advanced by the British Commiçsioner before the Arbitratian
Tribunal in 1854 injustification the actionof the Colonial autlmr-
fies in seizing the vessel, the Washifigtm (refe'errto in the
Counter-Mernorid, para.347), but was rejected by Umpire Bates,
andthereafter the headland thmry was limited entireIytoheadlands
of bays. Sofarasconcerm the ~groAïbitration, it was said explicitiy
that (Pri.iz$eArgzlmmt, p. 107):
"Great Britainclaims tadtaw the jinefrom which the treaty
bits are tobe measured horn the headlands of al1thme tractof 476 mPLY OF THE .UNITED KINGDOM (28 Xi 50)
water whlch were knownasbays, harbours ar creek stthe date
5wo+aidsa*of Britishierriim".aim fodraw the Line6efwm m~ry
237. The Nomegiân. Governent contends (para. 348) that the
award of Umpire Rates inthe case of the J~Vashz~@m i, which lie
rejecte the headland thmry and apprùved tlieromde limit of
the Anglo-French Fishery Convention of 1839, was of no legal
significanceIt repeatsthe Britisargument inthe ~9x0 Arbitration
that Umpite Bates \vasa banker, not a Sawyer.But Umpire %tes
hxd the confidence ofboth Gsvémmentçin 1854 and not only has
his award stood as an acceptable precdent in very many text-
books and case-books oninternational law, but the 10-de Ihit
has been extended in Siate practiceThe Norwegian Governent
then shys that in any event the real ground of the award in the
WashZfigt~ wras thatboEhheadands in the Bay of Fundy did not
belong to GreatBritah, andit citesthe article bProfessorBasdc- .
vmt in 1912 discusi;in' the Nom Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration
(hue gkaéralde Droit imlatamatio.ialkblV,ol.XIX, pp.42 1-5825,
Asthe form of this citatiomay give the imprmion-qnite rvrongly
-that thistlrrthe view of the anthorofthat article, isnecessary
to explairithe rnavttera little further. The passagecited inthe
Countcr-Memarial was not anobsewation of ProfeçsarBasdevant,
- but waç part of his stmmary of theBritish argument in the 1910
Arbitration,Infact, the British argument was not original, but
' quotcd a dictum of Dana tvhen arguing before the Halifax Commis-
sionin 1871 and Dana's statement isrlot convincing as the follow-
ing analysisofthe case shows :
The United States,by the 18x8 Treaty, renomcd the right tç,
&II with 3 miles of the toasts,bays, crecks or hasbaurs ofHis
Britannic BIajesty'çDominions inAmerica. The British Commis-
sioner in the WtzsAimgtmput 3Uscase on trvodifferëat grounds (a)
the word coastsmemt a linc joining heaaands, and (b) Fundy
was a British bay vvithin the renunciatary clause. Umpire Bates
disdowed the "coasts" argument in {a) by rejectingthe headland
doctrine, Hethen disallowed theargument in (b)thatFundy wasa
British bxy fr tnro reasons; he considered Funcly, Iike the Bay
of Bisay or Bengala tobe too big to besusceptible o£sovedgnty,
and pointcd out that one of thel-readlands\vasjust in theUnited
States, (SeeMoore, Ififfip.nationAlrbitmtims, Vol. IV, p. 4344.)
The suggestion, thmefore,that hisawardis not adistinct precedent
, both for therejection othe headland doctrine and forthelimitation
ofthe width of territorialbays icompletely ontenable.
238, To remcrve any ,fdse impression that may have been
created by the ~~Cintm-Mernua inregard to the opinion of
Professor Basdevant, the attention of the Court is jnvjted topage 565 of the above-menfioned article. Having in the previovs
twa pages criticizedthemajorjorltyaward in the 19x0 ,%rhitration
for failiiig to discuss case of the Washi~gdanand having pointed
out that the Igro award utas governecl by the interpretatiori of the
language of the18x8 Treaty P,ofessor Basdevant continues (Revue
gknkraEd eeDFQ~interml~'omd pzdblicVol. XIX, atp. 565) :
"'Ainslie tribuna(derg-ro)maintient son poinde we que,pour
le litigpendant, le caractèr trritoriades baiescrstsans impor-
tance : il dquellesbaies sont viséesdanla clausede renonciation
et non quelles baies sont .territoriaSa sentence, parsuit- et
cdte remarque est capitale-, n'aaucune importance quant 5 la
question de l'&tenduede lamer territoriareelleesttout à fait
efrang+reA k doctrinedes caps5,Iaqnestion deshaiesd nedimi~lzkr!
a~czlnemcnt I1a&orifd.i.tprkckdmifcn~rmi$w Efisentsrzdmz3 d&
cmbre 1854 (af~biydd~ rrWashington9): elle est une dhcision
d'espéce,statuant en faitnon un précedentde jurisprudence;au
nul.'"de \rue dela formation coutumière du &oit son interet est
The U~itd Ki~gdm doésnui. say Shadin th& niflekmtlz cmhry
the78 WQS e wle Iirnifi~g éhazeiidtofbays, 6t4Zthat d~ring $kat
tirneswch a raclw~s deuclrofiing
239. The Norwegian Government aext (para.349) refms to the
case of Regina v, Cunningham in 1859 cuncerning the Bristol
Charnel, an opinion of the Law Officersin1864 concerning Jamaica
(para. 3501,the judpent of the Privy Council in1877 (para, 351) -
concerning Conception Bay and the British argument before the
AIuskaa Bouxdary Tribual in1903(para.352) as svidence of the
United Kingdom" persistent denial of any de limiting the width
of territorial bays, As the United Kingdom Governrnent does not
contend that in the ni ne te en^century there existed a rnle of
customary Iaw prescribing a specifilimit for.temitoriaE bays, iis
unnecessary to discuss these pieces of evidence at length, The
United IGngdom's contention is that duringthis cenhry there ivas .
developing, underthe influence of the doctrine of the freedorn of
the seas,the con.crictionthat the limit witb which territorial
clairnste bays aust he accept e dhodd'b defirred. Even these
pieces of cvidence cited bg tlie Norwegiarz Govemment contain
indications of lirnitto tenitorid daims te bays.
240. The caseof Regi~ v. Cmni~~gkam, deçided in 1859 ,as
dealt with inpmgraph 135 of the Memrial (see especlaIly foot-
note, Vol. Tlpn g~-},where it was pointed out that the English
ÇaurE, so farfiom paying =y attenti onthe hacllandline ofthe
Old King" Chamber, directecl itsattention entirelytothe cornmon
law rde clairning bajs i&er /aîcc~terra.This doctrine. as expoun-
ded by Lord Hale and Lord Coke, lirnitedthe daim tojurishctioninbays by the test of rangeaf vision.The sentence from the Law
Oficers'opinion concerning Jamaica in 1864 relatingtobals shows
a vev different outIook from the Law Oficers' opinion of 1841
concernirrg the North-Amencan fisherieswhich is cited in pan-
graph 345 of the ~ounter-~emofial. The daim in 1864is Iirnited
tornariiimecreeks,Mets and river ntouths within their headlands,
aithougl~ the xvidth between the headlmds may lx more than
6 miles. Again,the passagefrornLord Blackburn's judpent In the
CunçefifiunBay case (given in18773, rvhiçh is set out in para-
pph 3.1 of the Caunter-Mernorial,containspaabIe evirlence of
the Court'srecognition that the dimensionsof a hay are in generd
material to its territoriality. In the actucm, theCourt found it
unneçessary to decide -rvhaiwas the rule of internation1 a8w con-
cenzlng the &mensionsof aterritorialbay because itwas decided
on historicgrounds. But it plainZy contemplated the existenceof
sow rule ofinternational law limiting thewidth of territerid bays,
The Alaskagt Bourtdwy case (~903)
241. Similarly, fie passage from the British argument in the
Alaskafi Boztnhry case (deJivered in 1go3), which is set out in
paragraph 352 of the Counter-Manorial, dthough it denies the
existence of a tprecisrde, shows unmistakahly a conviction that
there issome limit tothe territorialitof bav and that exceptional,
cirmstanceç arenecessary to justifya larger claim. This becornes
evcn dearer ifthe thirdparagaph of the conclusionsin the British
Counter-Caseisadded :
"Ifthe six^ad cwaJig~~utioonf an o$e~i~gz'ssuchIhnt tk &sa
wtayrightlytwdram !rom heudian lihnadland,the beltofterritorial
water isto bc meaçared frcirthe'line oat~vards."
Great Britain's reco@tiorr in 1903(the AEaskm Botidavy case)
that international law kpsed some lirnit on the territorialitof
Iiays imade evendearastili ifapassage is read from the argument
on which the conc~miens cited by the Norwegian Govermen t were
basal. This passage (Counte~-Casa of GY& Bmtnirt, p.24) rendsr
"In thefirstplaceTtis undonbted law, which ifismnecessary
to suppo~tby detailed argument,thata.Çtatehaç territorialsovcr-
eignty overa beEtofsea,nsuallytaken as3 des inwidth, adjûining
its toasts,The waters of such belt are, however, subjecto the.
right of innocentpassage by commercial vessels ofother nations.
Thereisfmrthcr a consensus of opinion among writers on inter-
national law that ewry State has territorial sovereignty over
certain arms of thesea included within its territoryheadlands
or promontorieS,But there inot a univemal agreement as to the
asmterritoriawaters. Ittis generally considered thatthe crucial
measurement is the width at tlieentrance of the inle; but the
depth inland içnot unimportant, becaus eclairn thatthe waters
of an inlet of some size are territorial is more reaadrnitted if thelength of its shoreliconsiderabIeinproportiontothebreadth
ofththopening ;&a. faucestm~.
The season rvhy,inspite oftligenera doctrineofmr& Iitip~wn,
@lis and bays up tua certain size are treatc-dasterritorial waters,
is, ofcourse,becansethe State whicliowns bath hhedlaridsisin
fact able ta çmtrolthe entrmce."
242, Then, beforededie with the rg~o Arbitratiori itself, the
Nom-egian Governmentmentions a statement made in the Home
of Lords in 1907 hy Lord Fitmaurice*as Under-Secretary for
Foreign Mairs rejecting Sie headlands of bays doctrine and
pronouncing infamur nof: of B ~o-rde but a 6-mile tirni3t says
with truth that this statement, which îçsiiedfrom thc Foreign
Office,was throm over bbySir R&:bertFinlay argzfendoin the I~IO
Arbitraiion, This vacillationinGreat RritainJs statementç is no
douht evidenco ef inconsiçtency butit alsocontains proof of the
effectof the impact on British official thought ofthe belfefthat
territoriahays arp lhited as totl~eirwidth.It may be added that
the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, in1go8 had alsa referred
to thequalificationofthe ?-mile rulein thecase of bal aslimitécl
to bays "ro miles wide" and again to bays "with a very narrow
entraice"'. Hansard, 4th Series,Vol.191, col.1771) Judge Drago,
it appears,waç Iessirnpressd by Sir Robert Finlay's disclaimer
in CoUTtthan by Lord Fitzmaurice'spasliamentary stafement, for
he referred to thlatte ar a "most public, s01emnand unequivocal
expressim" of policy and dlsregarded the disclaimer altogether
(Wilson, gape Arbii~aficrfCases,p. 203}.
1 (Paras.354-363 ofthe Counter-lfernmial])
243. The Norwegian Governrnent cornplains that the North
Atlantic Fislxe~iesArbit~alion of ~grO deserves more attention
than is given toii in theUnited Kingdam's Mernorial, That may
be so,even ifboth ProfessorBasdevant (op,cit.pp,555and 563)
. . and M. J- Lentes (Revue dg DYO~ ittSemtionuZ 'etde Légis2aiion
cow@arke (rgrr), Vol.13, p. 156) crihcixed the reasoning of the ,
award with some severityand considered the award, orvingfo it
being based on the speciaI language of the [Treaty of] 1818, to
have no value as a generai precedent inregard to territoridbays.
At my rate,the Nonvegian Got-ernment relieson the decision of
the tribuna1and on passages fmm theBritish arpent as evidence
of theabsence in rgro ofany generalnile ofcustomary Iawrestrict-
ing daim to territoriabays. lt mdl be mors logical and give n 480 REPLY QF THE UNITED IUNGDOM (28 XI 50)
more correct perspectiveif the Britishargument is'consideredfirs,
and then the tribunal's award. -
244. . nappreciating the arguments in the case,the ~Ulingsof the
majorjtg of the tribunaland the dissenting opinion ofJudge Drago
an thequestion ofterritorial bays, it iimportant t~ reineniha two
things, First, the ~vhcilcase turned on the meaning of the ward
."'hay" ina particular treaty concluded nearly a centuny before.
Smondly, Coixnçel for the United States, presumably owing to the
attitude of Cmgress, when it refused to ratify- the Chamberlain-
Bayard Treaty of 1888, maintained the thesis that. apaart£rom
historie bays, the 3-mile li~& applies in bays, In other words the
United States asked the tribunal exclusivdy to apply a 6-mileJirnit
ta territoriabays and deçlined to admit the possibility ofany larger
liniit. Çonsequently, thc question of the IO-milelimit being the
,actual or appfoximate lirnit in ordinary cases for territoriabays
ander customary law ras neverargueclbefore tlie tribunal, aithougli
the British argument indicated that the ro-mile lirnit was t~ be
regarded as a gurely conventiand rule, le.
The British arg~w~f thergro ArbitriaCion
I
245. The Norwegian Govemment in paragaph 362 of thCouriter-
Mernorial potes extractç Erom the British argument in ~gxo and
, sets out the argument infull at Annex 44. Certaidy, the British
.arprnent denies the existencein rgIa ofa general nileof customary
law prescribing a specifi~lirnit for tenitorid bays. But, as.the
passages extracted înparagraph 362 thernselves Show, thtqument
isdirected escfentiallyat denying the existence of a Grnile limitin
rgxoa.nd< especiallyin 1.815 The clsement contains manÿ indica-
tions that Great Britain recognized a limit tu be placed by inter-
national law on territorial bays, while denying that there vas a
general nile frxlnga precisehit. Thns, the underl ined wordsin the
very firstparagraph of the extract indicateç the existence of a
xestriction :
"His Majesty's~vernrnent sizbmitsthat there is no principl. r
practice of the law of nations under ~vhiçhthe right afStateta
exercise territor iavereignty ovet bays, creek5, or harbwç on
itsçoast is limited tthose bodies ofwatm only which are con-
whene.theTreatyQJar8r8dwnstderad hie,6thedominion'of Statesoeim
.wr.s~d mabarsmas claimed,ancddmittgd, ioa +?tuchgmats~artmi!
fha~ isthe caseaittha$r6seladay, but His Majesty's Government
beIievesthatin no singIeinstance, eitherbeforor since tlitime,
has any such limitatiori benwcepted."
Therc iç a sirnilx indication inthe folloaing further passage from
tlie extract; Gays.Having regard to fie flim of the issue inthecase md to the
prevIous history of the dispute Great Britain codd smdy be
expected in its argument to ~~olunteeritsrecognition of the IO-mile
limitas a general rule of international law,
Thesamattitudeisrevealedin~esummq~ofaverybriei ..
retiew of the opinionsof Prriters(ibid p,.,78) :
"Tt Iççubmittd, therefore, th& theopinionsof jnrkts establish
that there imotuny defilzifsJimiwhether 6 milesor more, beyond
which ençlosedwaters such ashays may not beclaimed asterritorial
- waters by the State within whose shores tl~ey aTe enclose;and
that a foritori thewas no suchIimit in1818 .t follows that the
word jbay' asused inthe treatywas ased initsordinary senseand
includedailthose tractsofwater known atthe time asbays."
247. The attitude of Great Britain in its argument mot, it is
submitted, be regardecias Inconsistent with a position in which(a)
castomary internationallarv alzeady secognized a general prinçipie
. that clairritaterritorialbays are to be restrictedunless supported
by historiç usap and (b) a rde of customary international law
definingthe restrictionsas alimitation to IO-milebays was nearing
the finalstagesof its fornation. Inany event, the Bntish argument
inthis sommvhat special case has dso tobe read In the lighlof Sir
Edward Grey's statements in Parliament in 1905 tliat ille qualifica-
tionof the 3-mile limit in thcase of bays is conhecl to .bays "\vit11
a very narrow entsance" and tobays "IO miles wide". It ha$ also
to be rad in the lighit of the fact that whenevcrGreat Britai~ihas
beermded upon to dehe a general limit for tmritorialbays, çhe
has agreed to a zwrnile limit.
Th rrgrci Awwd
(Paras. 354-377, Counter-Memonal)
248, The Norwegian Government, in paragraph 356 of the
Çounter-Mernorial, tvhile conceding that sornt;ofthe reasoriing in
the awal-d.hm norelevance in the present case as rclating only to'
the 1818 Treaty, daims that other parts of the remoning apyly to
itwiih fullforce. It reliesespecidy on a passage in tlie awasd in
tvhichthe tribunal gave its reasons for rejecting the United States
contention that the 3-mile limit shouldbe "strictlyand systernatic-
ally appiiedto bays'" The bearing of thispassageon the definition
of a bay has aheady been examined in paragraph zag to which the;
Court isrespectfuliy askedta refer again inthe present connection.
Rahg mentioned the grounds of national interest which cause a
Shte ta be concemed to control bays penetrating its coast,the
tribunalsaid :
"This interest vasies,speaking genemlly, in proportion to the
perietration in1and.othe bay; but asnoprinciple of international.
law secogniaes anys#scifiedrelationbetween ille caaçavityof the REPLY OF THE WMI~ ICINEDOM (SB XI 50) 483
'
bay and the requirernents ofcantrol by the territorial soveteigrr,
principlejtsintmpretatim ofatheTreatyhofa18rScasexcluding bays
in general from the striand systernaticapplication-ofthe3-mile .
de." "
It:is important,ui appreciating the meaning of the above passage,
to recall that the tribunal had begun by holding that the word
"bays", hhaving been used in thetseaty without qualification, must
be interpreted to inchde cPverybay which might reasonably have
bmn considered a bay by the negotiatciss in1818 .t thereby put
the burden ,on the United Statesto establish that any qualification
of the popular meariingofbay either\vasin thernînds of the framers
ofthe treaty or onght to have ben intheir min& in 1818 T.hns the
passage simply meant that in the absence of any pnecisetechnical
definition ofa bay, the$+a faci8meaning of the word "bays!' as
~sed in itsgeramtd@;bf~lw setse inthetrea.tymmt prevail.
249, The same consideration appIiec;in interpreting the next
passage relied onby the Norwegian Gmernment :
"Nor mn thistribunalt&e cognizanceinthis cenhwtionof othet
ro-mile or rz-mile limits ofexclusion basedoati.pi.tematimzsch
sutiseqamtdothe Treatyef 1818 and~ela.tinto çoastsof adifferent
corifigurativand conditionsrifa differcncharacter."
Here the tnbnrial ilvah substance saying that the intention ofthe
negotiators of 1818 could not be qualifiai by new principles of
internationalpractice derivedfrom a development of State practice
sabsequent to1818 ;in other wo~ds they relied on the intedemporal
law. It mighthave adrledthat neither party to the disputehad asked
the Court to relate the 10-mile lirnït de back* ta the date of the
1818 Convention, xvhiçh \vas21 years before any State bad thought
of itThe tribunaldid also, it is true, addtbatthese "international
acts" adopting the ro-mile Iirnit relatedto different casts. I3ûw
little .importancethe tribunal attachedtothis point may be judged
from the fact that, in its recommenda.ions to the parties com-
pltmentary to the award itproposed the adoption of the IO-mile
lirnit, subject to the -exceptions prcviousiy agreed in the Chamber-
lain-Bayard negotiations. In the rdt the tribunai concludedthat
the word "bays" in the 1818 ,Treaty rnust 11er:garded as having
been used in its purely geographical sensso lhat the United States
had renounced itsright of fkhcryin al1the British bayscovered by
the treaty irrespscti~eofmketharth hys wme or wem flotiniaw
E~ifisdat~~iioriabqs ,
.zgo. The Nowegian Government further relies (para.360) on
dicta in the dissenting opinion of Judge Drago, rvho declined to
treat theword '"ays" ashaving been used in the 1818 Treaty in a
puirelygeogmphical sense,The Count er-Mernorial recalitha?Judge484 REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDON (28 XI 50)
Drap endorsedin emphatic tenns tPieexception în favuur of the
fesritoridity ofhistorie bays, ~vhichin his opinion
"fo'~ma classdistind~nd a$& and undciubtedly hlong to the
littoracountry, whatever be th& depth of penetration and the
widthoftheir mouths, whensuch countryhas asserttditssvereignty
over thm, and particuIar circumstances ,ach as ggegrapliical
confrguratianimmern~rialusage and, above aIZ,the rcqvirernenaf
sef-defence, justifsuc11a pretmsion".
Tt then &am attention to what he said inregard Co ordinary
bayç :
"Inwbat refeïsto theotherban a might 'betemed the cornmon,
ordinary bays,indenfiilg thcoasts,over whiclinospecialdaim or
assertion oçovereigntyhas been made, thercdoes not seem to be
any other generd p~inciple tobe appliedthan the one resulting
from theçristom and usage of eachindividualnation as shawn by
their treatieand theirgeneral and time-Iionortred practice."
Jtrdge Drago,acting on the aboveviews,found as a fact that Great
Britain was by Ber practice comnritted totliexo-mile limit tosuch
,m extent that the 1818 Treaty ought tù beinterpret bedrcference
to rhi~practice.Somethingmight be said about thismethod of inter-
preting a treatylJbut at any rate two things are quite clear. First,
Judge Drago attached considerable importance to the conclusion of
particular treaties as evidence of ciistamary law, for he warmly
endorsed the ~70rdsof Byrrkmhoek, ci-kedin pmpph 167 above,
in which he expressed a preference for seeking a cornman law of
nations "in a constant custom of cmcluding treatieç in one sense
osanotlherJ'S.econdly, Jiidge Dmgo sawnothing inherently inappro-
priate in applying to other ceaçtsthe 10-de limit for bays, which
hal been formed as a generalprinciple applicableto çoasts specified
inparticulartreaties, Indeed, he said exyresly: '"bat a bay in
Europe should be considered as different from a bay in America
and suhject tootlier principles ointemationat law cannot be admit-
ted on the face ofIt."
251. mat is more dificult tu see isthe ktacl ofnational usage
which Judge Drqo regarded as applicable to "ordinasy" bays, EIe
made a very shq distinction,ashas been said, between "historie"
and "'ordinary"bays, but th distinction cornpletdy àpsappearçIf
the tesritorialityo"ordinary'" bays is to btidetemined by reference
to national usage,meaning actsof intemal law apptopriaiing bays.
On the other hand, éismeaning becemes intelligible if what he Ilad
in rnind, asisshowri to be the case by his actual cvords-wm i~tm-
nationnl usageqJ individaal Siateslikethd 01theStgtes adopbing
JO-mileIimif fa? mdimy bckys.Judge Dragu did not,it Istrue,tliink
that there wasyet a nile laringdown a specific limit which could
with by Judge Huberin the IrlaofPalfiasmso.(ilJ.I. L., 19pp,367-gr2.), REPLP OF TRE: UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50) 4%
be generally applied. But hisdissenthg opinion is very far fmm
being inconsistent with the position thatgeneral de ofcustomary
law adopting the 10-mile lirniwas in ihe bal stqes ofits dev~lop-
ment. Zndeed, he cancluded hisaccount ofBritish usage Viriththe
following significanpassage (tVibon, op. cd.p. 205):
'"Anditisfor thatreason thata usage $0firdy and forsolorig
a time establisheought, imy opinion,tobe appliedtothemnstruc-
tion ofthetreatyunder consideration, rnucnase sa, when custam,
one of the recognixe sdurces of law, internationalas weU as
municipal,issa*@orfec fpthiseaseby Peasota1d by th6acq~ztzsscmce
ad the firadie of~any zatior~s."
The Çuunler-Mernorialforbars to mention that Judge Drap
castigated asentirely lrnpmcticablethe provision in the tribunal's
award which saidthat the base-line should Be"astraight line dram
across the body ofwater at the place wbere it ceases to have the
configuration cha~acteristicofa bay". (Ibid,, p,zog.)He gavethe;
impoçsibility of applying this provision trrifhoua further treaty
between theparties asone QIthe reasons forhis dissent.Eut, asthe
Counter-Mernorian lotices, the tribunal itsewu very conscions of
the practical defects of its awarcl. Exceedimgthe $o#ers ccoxferred
W~ON iti~ theCov)zp~omis the tribunal made arecommendatition to
the two States that theyshouid agreeto apply the arvardin accord-
ance with deMed psoposals drawn up by the tribunal. The tiibund
in effect recommendeclthat dttailcd,9recisemies shcrdd be appIied
in substiiutim~for thegeneral, vague formula of itsaward. Several
bays were dealt ~6th particularly,but the tribunal ildvocated as
the gened wle that the 10-mile lirnitçhould lx adopted.a tse
gmral de ford other bays.,4nd theserecommendations, înclud-
ingthe ~o-milesute, wereput into effectby agreement bettiieenthe
trvsStates in the Treaty of Washingtonof 1912.(It was,however,
dmided to be unnecessaq to give my consideration for the tirne
being to the delimitationof the Newfoundlaild bays.)
252. The Nmegian Govmnment underlines the fact that the
Treaty ofWashington of xgrz which foUowed the awd and gave
effectto fis recommmdations cauld not dter the nature of the
tribunal's judiçialaward nor create obligations for Great Britain
zris-d-vStates other than the United States.That is perfectly true
but not very relevant to the argument advancd by the United
ICingdom inits MernorialThe United Kingdom reliesonthe Treaty
of Washingtonof 1912 simpl y asone of themany piecesof evidence
shatving the existence of general conviction that theproper limit
to put upon territoriaclairns to ordinarybays under modern inter-
national law isthe 10-mile rule.
253. TheNnnvegiaa Govemment dm underlinesthe dktinction
between the character ofthe award asa judicialprecedent and the
re~onrmendations ofthe tribunal asrner eoIicypropos&-propo- sais"dictée par des consid&akims d'opportunité" touse Professor
Basdevant'sphrase (09.cd.,p. 559).That again is perfectlytrue,
-but:the United Kingdom Government does not mly'on the secom-
menda tims as ajudicialprecedent, Ikrelies on the rccommendatir3.n
for a generd iirnit ofro milessimply as anofher of the pieces of
evideoce indicating the growing acceptance ofthe IO-milelimit as
the appropriate .generalnile for bays. On the other Iiand, it is
scarcely tohe disptited that, whereas nearly everyonhas accepted
the tribunal's recornmendations as a sensible and proper settle-
mcnt of along-standhg controveny, hdly anpne has ever shm
enthusiasm for the tribunal's award as a legal precedent. Most
writersare contentto pointout that theawardis not apreced.intof
generalvalue,beingconcerned with theinterpretation oa particu1a.r
treaty.(See paras.rzo-~zr above.)
254. The Counter-Memodal, hewever, cites a dictum by A. H.
Charteris in1912 to the effectthat the award's ruling inregard
to hays rnust be accepted as a thoroughl çynsidered. opinion.
(Fam .63 ofthe Counter-Memorid-) Chart eris'sdictum isexpressed
more as an assumption than a convictionafter detailed analyçis
of the case,and others took a very diffemt view at that date.
Loutecin kiiarticle in thREVUE de Dmidinkrnational etdeiLégisLa-
tio.com$a~de (fzgr~,Vol, UI, 131,at pp. 153-15 7x)press ehe
greatest reserve about the tribunal'sopinion concerningterritorial
bays. Ris'vietvwas that the xo-milelimitevm at that datewas an
established rule ofinternational law, and he does not stem to.
have been in the least shaken in that opinion by the pmceedings
ofthe rgro Arbitration. In an earlier pmsage, apage 149,be had
said:
"DansI'étatactuel du droitdegens, toutelebaies dontl'eritrk
a une largeurqui neSwtpassepas Ie millemarins sont donc com-
prises dans lamer territoriale, tandis qua les bdont l'entrée.
estpluslargfeontpartie dc.13haute mer qui n'soumise9 aucune
souverainetébien entendu sous rCservede l'existencede lnmer
littoralle longdes &tes de la baie,La largeur de lhtntséest
ordinairment mesuréepar ma ligne droite tracte entravers d'une
cdteà l'autrefaoù lescotes serapproche ntur lapemiére fois
jusqu" une distance dIO millesmarins auplus."
2.55.Professor Basdevant also criticiledthe reasonin ogthe
award in apassage from his article, which has already heeguoted
(para. 238 above).But, in view of the use made in the Couriter-
fifernoriof his expression "dictke par des considérations droppor-
tunit&"ttodepreciate the significnnceof the recommmdations in '
cornparison rvith theawarcl, it isnecesças o referto another
passage frem his articl iedimting a very diffe~e~t evaluationof
the tribunal's recomrnendationsin favow of a IO-mile lhit from
that now made hythe Nonvegian Gçivernment. Having given his
reasonç in the body ofthe article fothinking that the award wasof noimpurEanceat al n regardto the extent of territorialwaters,
he added the following comment by way of amplification ri£his
views :
"Cette dbcisim, bien que riepronmçant pas en considkation da
caractereterritoriades baies, est, cependanintéressante Bunpoint
de vue général, si l'ocliercheà déterminerledroit applicable aux
baiesd'aprésla mhthmlecomparative mise en Œuvre parM.Drqu
dans les motifs de son dissentiment. M. Drdgo, je le rappelle,
dégage des traitb ct dcla pratique la conception positive anglaise
rl'aprb laquelle neseraient territoriales (en deliodesbaieshisto-
riques)que les baies de 6 ou ro miles d'ouverture.Lasentence de
qxa, gui statue sans tenir compte de ces limita et exdut les
Américaiiiisde toutes les baies géographiques, ne dktruit-ellepas
cetteconsbnction ? Jc ne ie pensepas .slu "parcqu'elledéclare ne
pas prendre en considératiorile caractèr territorialdes baics ;
2" parce qu'elle n'est que déclarative du droit ktabli cn 1818 ;
rendue enxgro cilen'exprime cependant que1% conception juridique
de 1818 et n'affectepas celle qui a pus'btabliraprès cette date;
3' parce gwe dams lssrecowcma.~zdation saz$l#padie rnodtmc dri
L'a~vreth iribztml, cdui-ci ddM~e 8% général au système des
TG lpfziZIc''evw.egé.nércc deDrrd i~tmnational @blic, Vol. XIX,
p. 565, note 2.)
The United Kingdom Goverment, in the light of ali the above
comiderations, çubmits that the psocwdhgs of the IgIa ,Arbitra-
tion clo not support the Nonvegian G~vernment's contention that
there was at thatdde no'general rule ofinternational 1aw restricting
daims to territorial bays. There are the clearest indicationtbat the
-ttrrdisputhg States and themembers of the tribunal dl reeognized
that some fimit is imposed by modern international law on the
width of bays which may be claimed as territarial-apast from
&istotic bays. The difference was as to whether international law
had yet forrnulated a general rule fixing a pmcise limit for terri-
torial bays.If the tribunal did not feel sufEciently satisfied of the
existence of a precisede to contemplate applying it In the inter-
pretation of a gz-par-old treafy, each one of the arbitrators
lshowed his ummistakable predilection for the IO-miIe lhit as the
general mle in modern practrce. It is truc that some of the bays
were treated a$ exceptions to the ro-mile rule, but this is explained
%y the fact that these bays penetrated more deeply into the Coast
1 B IV L4fiaft-Zime Pemiratiw
Chalcu~ Bay. ...... 16miles ......... So+zniles
.Mixamicld Bily .... rq*miles .......'. 18miles
Epont Bay. ...... 17miles ......... 8$ miles
St, Annk Bay ...... 83 miles ......... 153 miles
Forhine Bay. ...... ir+and roQmiIes ...... 40 des
Basdino Pmetvalim
Xarriio@oriBay. ..... 65and y&milcs (CapeSabIeIslancl
in tliemiddlc} ...... to%mil&-
Chedabucto an4St.PetersBays 99 and 88 rnilcs.... dogng theGut
ofCansn.
Mira Bay ........ 7+mi& .......... 10miles
Ylacentiakay ...... 8h 6 and4dies ...... jtmiles REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
4fJ8
,The ho disputhg States in argument- concernecl themselves
priraarilywith the interpmtation of the ancierittreaty. So far as
contestationwas joined as tothe limit irnposedby themodem law
on territorialbays, the ~vholeissue bettveen the two States W~S
rvhetherornot that limit took the strictestpossibleform of double
the 3-mile maritime belt. Both States in the outcorne. accepled the
IO-mile limit.asthe general rule for the ordinary bays in dispute-
(Paras. 364-377 af theCounter-Mernorial)
Wjde acceptame O/ the IO-miIe mb
256, Tt foiiowsfrom what bas just ben said about the 19x0
Arbitration that the Nanvegian Governent places the develop-
mat of cusiornary international ia~v in regard to.bays out of
perspective when itseeks in paragraph 364of the Cornter-Merno-
rialto isolate thepioof of the existence of the xo-mile nileto the
pehod after ~9x0.The development of the IO-mile limit has a
long history in which the rgIo Arbitration was ody one incident*
The aibitration, taken asa whole, testfifresto the growinstrength
of the IO-milehnit and to the fact that very little more was
~quired €0 convert into general law a custom which, inJudge
Drago's phrase, was "supported by the acyuiescence and practicé
of many nations". The cortectness of this interpretation of the
èvidence isvery stmngly endorsed in the critiçismsof the arbitra-
tion by Louter and Professor Basdevant to whicjz sefaence ha';
been made. It isfurther çonfirrned by the attitude taken up by
Retad in his book La Mer xerritoridc.The relevant passage,urhich
ha5 already ben quoted (parcl.234 above) 1, shows that Rastad
in 1913 regarded the ru-mile de as hahg only stopped short at
ddng away with the histone bays,
257- The fact isthat &er igro Norway and Sweden havebeen
alrnost alone in declinhg to recognize the existenceof any generaf
rute defining those bays tvhich can be clairned as territorialbays
apart frclrthose which can be claimed on the: basis of historiç
usage, Even Swedish ufficial utterance as,lFvjbe showa, reveal
a canseioumessofa limit to the widtla of ordiniy territorial bays
not much in excess of ro miles.What was ieft toBe settled after
1910 was notthe existence of a general rule lidting the width of
territorid hayç but whether the de sh~uld be the 1ogi;lical-a~
some thought-lhit of double the maritime belt or the IO-mile
"Quant5 l'étendudesbaies territoriIapr,tique.télIequ'eile &k ahee
dans leccwven~ms de p&he,a dhgagéiiztendancewquk vm lelimitations
, arbitrairintroduite par lesconvmtions-mplalignc de dix mil-esn'apason
rc'iràsankntirIatcrrihariaidesbaiesappeléehistoriques(p146).lhit adopted as the reasonableand pmper limit in international
ptactice.The final anergence of the IO-de limit as the basic
general de of customary law isbelieved by the United Kingdom
Goverment to be dernonstrated by the evidence submitted in
paragsaphs 78-88of its Mernorial, towkicb thCourt isrespectfully
referred.
The Nomgian Goveniment in paragraphs 36j to 392 seeks to
refute the thesis ththe ruleofciistomary internationallawimpcis-.*
ing a striclimitationon territoriabays jnardinary casescrystal-A
Iizizbet~veen 1910and 1930 into the ro-mile rulIt both seeksto
depreciate thevaine of the evidence adducedby the Unifed King-.
dom and aliegestheexistence of contrar ydications after rgm.
Tt\di be convenient first tuexaminethe alleged contrary indica-
tions and then to re-examine thevalue a£ the evidencepreviously
adduced inthe hlernoriaL
The "Lokkm"
258. The English case of the Lakkeltis invokein paragmph 373,
of tlie Counter-Memerial as evidence that in 1917 Sir SamueL
Evans In the PrizeCourt accepte d simpleheadland to headlanrf
line asfixing the base-he of a Norwegian bay between the Naze
and the Listexlighi (which inpoint of factgave a base-fine of'
13 miles). Bnt the veryexiguous çummary of his judgment inVer-
zyl's book Le Droit desPrisw de IdGGrztndeGzsews,pp. 1325-1326,
which isçited in the Conter-Mernorialgives anentircly rnis1eading
account of liis ruling thecase.The case turned essentially othe
question rvhethesthe Court acçepted the evidence of the British
naval veççel or ofthe Norwegianmerchant vesse1 asgiving a more
accurate fix of the point of capture. SirSamuel Evans, having
andilyzedthe evidcncc, concluded that, even ifany waters inthe
area concerneclcould be saidto be encloscd in a bay and if the.
base-line \vas assumed to lx the maximum possible lime.acmss
the headiands of the deged bay), still the capture had takplace
ouhide territorial waters. This ismade clcaby the fulltrançcript
of his jridgment inthe records of the High Court of Justice and
especidly by his personaiexplanation ofthe meaning ofhis words
which isreported ina letter o31st Jtrly,~grS,frorn an official in
the Law Courts Branch of theTreasury Solicitor'Department toan
officiain thePrim Branch. Thc Admiralty had asked for this
explanation incasethe instructions to naval foroEsthe Nonivegan
coast shodd require amendment inthe light ofthe vie held by
the President of the Prize Court. (Copiesof thetmscript and of
the letter are attached aAnnex 49of this Reply.) As will bseen
fmm the letterSir SamuelEvaris ernphaticdly deniedtht he had
acceptedthe l~eacllandprinciple a.casewhme the headlands mere
13miles aprt. "La CMY~~"
259. TheNorwegian Govemment next refers inparagraph 374
ofthe Counter-hfernarial to the case of La Chérie.This French
vasei, hound from Halifax to Nassau, was arreçted in 1925 'tvl~en
off the coast of Maine. The position of the arrest, as detennined
by the District Court of the Snuthern District of Maine E(xgn6)
mgFed. (2nd) 6401 and confrLmed by the CircuitCourt ofAppeals of '
the Fist Circuit.C(1926 1)3 Fed, (2nd) 9921was "~even or eiglit
niil- southwesterlv of Swan's Island"; Thus the vessel. ivhen
arrcsted,was well within the 4-leagueçontiguous zone establikhed
by Scction 586of the Tariff Act1922,
1t is tme that Masterson (JwisdicCEan im Margi~ak Seas, at
p. 323) says thatthe French Ambassador, beingunder the impres-
sion that the seizure'had takenplace some rg orzo miles from the
shore,asked for the release ofthe vesse1 if that were the case.
But whenhe wtas informed of thehe positionofthe veçsel, which,
as statedabovc, was "7 or 3miles southweçterly of Swan's Island"
and, tl~ereforeweU with fhe contiguous zone jurisdiction estab-
lished by Section 586 of the Tariff Act, 1922 1,the matter was
dropped.
In the Gew ofthe United Kirigdom Governent this caw is
therefore rclemt only to the question of contiguons zones, and
tliat ne doubt is why Gide1 refers to itin his chaptee on that' .
subject (Vol, III, p. 42I, note 2) xathetr han in his cfiapter on
hays. This view iscanfirmed by the fact that neither in thDistrict
Court nor in the CircuitCourt ofAppds \vas it regcardeas invoIv-
ing any question of international law. The American Jokrma2o -f
Jmt&aatioaal Liaw dms not include it arnongst its digest of judical
decisions involving questionsofintexnationallaw for 1~26 .urther-
more, thecase\vas not cited by the United States ~overnment in
its repljrto thgatcstionmirepreparatury tathe Hague Conference,
and the attitude of that Government bofh bcfore and at th 1930
Conference içentlrdy incon~i~tent:with its recognizing a general
hit for baysin e'ucessof IO miles.
260.The Nonvegian Government t.hirdly xeferstrithe dl-
knom case of the Heiwick-Aacg~sth, decided by the Swedish
Supreme Court in 1927 ,nd sàyç that even the minent Schücking
coidd not persuadethe Swedish Court to aclopt tlie IO-milede for
Laholm Bay. This bay, which isvery siightlymore than 72 miles
1Nor illdthisectionitsepurpot:to calagethejurisdiction th&Vnitcd
.Statesin anivay.Itcorrespondwith only aliamendment, ta Sectio73 M
the Actof rpo,Sectini27of tl-Actof-17g g d LjeçtL2587of the Revised
Statutes (1878) Ltrelafacttothe long-establislied ~czonejurisdiction
Actç,repealed i1876.Statesofivhicthe Britisli equivalenthc Hovering intvidth, had bmn the subject of a treaty with Denmark in1899,
in which Delvnark conceded the whole liay to be an exclusive
Swedish fisliery, and had been dealt ,with by Swedish legislation
since that date. Certain-, the arguments presented to the Swedisli .
Conrts on behaif of the Swedish Government dis uted the applic-
abilityofthe ro-mile limit as auniversal rule,altRough the Court
itseldecided thecase on thehistmic grounds. On the ofhe~hand,
the Swedish Goveinment's arguments put some weigbt on the fact
that, apylying Judge Moore's explanation of the 10-mile limit as
boing twice the 3-mile belt plus 4 miles.the basiclirnitforSwedish
bays would be 12 miles. This point was again taken in Sweden's
reply to the q~estiowaairebefore the 1930Conference,which also
indicstes that Sweden regards a lhit of about 12 miles as the
acceptable generd limit with exceptions only for certain bays,
Having çtated that Sweden's method \vas to'draw the base-he
aerossthe opening ofbûys, the reply emphaçizedthat this method
was only tabe appliadup tocertain limits. Tl~crelevant paragraph
reads as fol'lows(Bases D# Discmsiun, p. 43) :
"'lt doenot,however, followthat theSwedish Gove~nment holds
that the rnethodofcalnilationwhich we are here providing sl~ould
apply to al1bayç, whatever their widthmay be. ID its nepty of
Cornmitteebfor the Codification oInternationaLaw (=ferencetitos
which has already been made), thc SweriishGovernment expressed
itseito thc effecthat a basic Iinof ro miles in thecaseof bays
wrruldnot be suficient sofar asÇweclen was concernd, and that
tliereasonslvbich hadled to thc adoption ofa lineni that lengtl~
incertain fisherconventions would,in the case çii Sweden, involve
theadoption ofa line oatleast12 miles. Incertaincases,I-io~v-ever,
eveii that line would havtobe some~vhat extendcd.Thus the Bay
ofLaholm, which w& dealt mithby a decisionoftheSupreme Court
on 14th November, 1927,towhich referenceIla slrreaclybeenmade,
Esslightly wider tha12 nadcal miles. Furthemore, similar areas
betwmn the idandr; of an arcl~ipelago shonld be trested in ~e
same rnanner as bays,"
The secorsd BiistoE Chufinid case; fhe "figemes" tri271
1
261. The fourth ancl .lmt judicial precdent invoked in the
Comter-R'lemorial iç mother English case, the Fagernes, con-
cemed with the Bristol Cliannel, which was mentioned in para-
graph 78 of the Memarial. The Norwegian Eovernment claims that
- this 1927decisiondid not-on th plane ofiw%~n~ttiona ka-upset
the precedent of Regina v. C~~~ni~gkam nor that of the sgro
Arbitration. Emgh has sllready hem said about the 1910 Arbitra-
fionto show that its valueas a preccdent in interriahonallaw on
the subject of bays has always been very slight. As to Regina v.
Czllza2.rzghadzecidedin 1859, it isuecmsaryto point out that the
incidentiiithatyeart~okplaceatapinttvheretheB~stoEClimne1
is only 10 mileswidemhereasat the point of the 199 incident the4gz REPLY OP THE WPTTEDKINGDOM, (28 XI 50)
BristolChannel is 20 miles \vide.But theNorwegiariGmmrnent
dots not explain why a decision reached by a muniepal court in
the light ofinformation suppZiedby the British Goverment on
a quesbon where the rule of international law \vas the subject of
divergent views, is ofno ~ignificanceas a precedent on the inter-
national plane. The Eovernment is ina better position fhm the
Conrt to declare theState's attitude in regard to rnattedecting
its relations with otheStates which was the mairi reason why the
Gnrt of Appeal bvited the Goverment icintemene in the case.
The Attorney-General was perfectIy frank about the unsettled
state ofcustornay law. He admitted that he codd not gofruther
than taçay fhat, at any rate where the width is over 19 miles,
there must b~ evidetzçe of the establishment of dominion by
effectivemerci= ofsovereignty.He meant, ofcourse, that rz des
wu the largest lirtlit clalrnedby anyoneas the gentrai rule for
hays. It was coiiiinon ground that there nras no evidence of
appropriation of the area In question by long usage and the
Governmen-td :isclaimed jurisdictiriover that part of the Bristol
Channel,
262. The Counter-Mernorial.citesin partlcuiar a dîctum of Rfr.
Justice Hillte the effect thathme was no mort agreement amoxig
international lawyersin192 J than in2877(the year of the Co%-
ception Bay case) in regard tthe width of territorial bagsAs this
observation followed an extrernelyeconomical examination by the
ju.dgeof the opinions ofmodern witers and appears to have ben
simply based on the differencebetween the 12-rnilobit pmposed
by the linstitutinr894 and the IO-mile lirnifound in the fishery
convmtÎons, it does not carry the matter very far. Nearer Sothe
mark was fi- Justiceml's recognition that therewas "a tendency
in reçent years ta regardromiles as the rn~~imum width" adding,
hmever, that there was no authority for fixing that maximum
except the conventiom. Mr. Justice Riil,asa judge in a municipal
court,looked for directauthorityto appIyafixedlimit and,spcaking
before the later draft conventions of lêamedsocieties on thepre-
paratory work andrecords of the 1930 Conference \me available,
he did not find the precise authority which he sanght.
263, The three judgcs in the Carut of Appeal also sufferedfmm
the same feeling odisalbilitas Rlr.Justice Hillin approaching a
questionof cuçtomary law with a contsoversial history, Inevitably
the position of a municipal coud Iri these circurnstances isvery
different hm that of the International Court of Justice.The '
disabilityofa municipal court to pronounceupon a general rule of
customary law which has bem the subject of divergent opinions
was freelyadmitted by the Privy Council in the eaiier case of
ASfovmy-&ncral. Jor British CoE~mbitt v. Attorney-Gened for
Caradda (191 4 .G.153) In thiscase the JudicialCornmittee ofthe
Privy Gouncil was asked, Zwtm dia,whether it ~raç cumpetent forthe legislatnre of British Columbia to autherim the Government of
that province to gant by may of lease, licenceor othwwise the
exclusive nght, or any right, to fish below low-water mark inor
in any orwhat part orparts of the open sea withïn I marine league
of the çoast of the province, lt\AQ.arped tbat the province had a.
"'proprietary title" in the shore around it~ coast up to r marine
leape. The Court then referrhg te the "masine leape" or 3-mile
lirnit held thatthere was no such titlefor the reason expresscd as
f011ows ;
"Th meaning is stiIincvntraversyI,Thequestionsraisedtliereby
affecmt only +theEmpire generallybut also the rlghtsofforeign
nations as againstthe Crown, and of the subjectçofthe Cxown as
against other nationinfore@ territorialwaters. Until the Powers
have adequatcly ciiscuçsedandagreed en the meaning of the doc-
trineata conference, it is not desirable any mnnicipal tribunal
shouId pronounce on it."
Cansequently,it is scarcely surprishg that the English jndges in the
Fagmas case should have laid stress on the unsettled nature
ofthe general de of intematiortal3aw.
264% TheCounter-Mernoria hen recaiisthat Lord Justice Bad-es
said that, o19ing to the dedaration of the Attorney-Gend dis-
çlairning jurisdiction,the çae hefore the Court of Appeal inTas
rnaterially altered. I&O recallstliat LordJustice Aitkinsaidthat,
apart from the Attorney-Gened'ç dedaration, I.rw as inclined to
share the view of Mr, Justice Bill that under the decision inRegina
v. CwmZ~gkttrn British jiirisdictioalso existeclat the point tvhme
the Fagems incident took place. The Çounter-Memorial does not,
however, notice the façt(although it was pointed out in the Merno-
rial,paragraph 78) that bot11Lord Justice, Bankes and the third
judge, Lard Justice Lawrence, indiçateçl their disagreement with
the view that a decision in r859 pverning the Channel where if: .
vrias10 miles miclealso govemed the Channel in 1927 at a point
~vfiereit\vas 20 miles wide, The opinion ofLord Justice Bankes is
part icularly significant sincmlike his colleagueç,he did notregard
himself as bound *tdaccept the Crown'sdisclaimer of jurisdiction.
He gave as one of hiç reasons for in fact accepting the Crown's
declaration inthe case "the general trend ofthe mare recentopinion
on the question of limikïng the 'Mridtof the /&%ces tarra to which
the rde of territorial jurisdictionshonld apply " (19~7 Pro bate
Division; ai p.323). Even Lord Justice Atkin only referred to the
10-de de as"not y& accepted"and subjectto "admitted Excep-
'tîons",
1 The questiowaç whatwns the nahic ofthe,StaWs righwithin the mzhe
league.Therc is nodoubt to-day onthis point nodisagreementbetmn the
UnitedKingdom andNorway. Lhï wai certairily ofihepoints on tvhievq-
sibjectta tliç dto allm the nght ofinnocent passage.nplete sovereignty494 EEPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
365. The United Kingdom GovernrnenC açcorIingly subrnitsthat
the fourcases Gitedinthe c~dnte~-iiifem~ridare consident with the
gradua1 emergence of anile of cuçtornary law restsicting the terri-
tollality of bays in ordinq casesby aro-mile limitaTt also empha-
sizm that it is inappropriatete expect to findin the decision ofa
municipal tribunal the crystdizatron of a rule of customary law
with a history likethat ofthe ~o-mile limit,
266. The Norwegian Governrnetit, however, also invokes thc fact
that a number of claims are made by costal States to bays in +
excessof IO miileand without apparent regard ta any mathematical
formula.Thus, paragraplis 379 to388 ofthe Counter-Mernoriallist
spcial claims to particularùays by Canada, Australia, the United
States, Frmw, the Soviet Union, Sweden, El Salvador, Honduras
and Argentina. The suggestion made by the Notwegian Gor~ern-
ment isthat theseclaims aresanumerous asto exclude the existence
of agcnerd rule applying a ro-mile or similalirnitBut this iaot
the caseat dl,
In the first placeno one-certairdy not the United Kingdom
Government-maintains that the generd role of the 10-mile iimit
daes not have exceptions. As was said in pararaph 75 of the
Mernorial, the tendency during the nineteenth century to restsict
territoriaclaims to bays as age"neraml lewaç accom~anied by the
developmeat ofthe concept of historic bays as exceptions tn the
general rule. The resulting position isprecisely the sanie as the
position inregard to themaritime belt describedin paragraphs 117-
rzr above. Under the influence of the dactrine othefreedom of the
was territorial claimsto bays became subjeçt to a restriçted rule
representing the grtatest cornmonmeasureofagreement as to tlie
generally acceptable limai of such claims, This rule, the United
Kingdom Goverment contends, has crystal.llir.edin the 10-mile rulc
ço that thete is now a psesumption of universal acquiescence in
chimç to territorial bays rnade inconformity with thisnile. Ifa
Jarger clairnis made, the preçumption of univerd acquiescesice
doeç not hold good and the validîtyof theclaim, in accordancewith
one of tlie moçt fundamental noms of internatioln awl, depends
on the acquiescence of the State agahst which it iinvoked. Such
acquiescencecan be established eithes byparticular evidence oftlie
actual assent of theState concernedor by the general implication
from historic usage.In slrort, there is no inherentincoasistency
between the adoption ofthe 10-mile lhit as a general rule andthe.
admission of certain clirntso larger territoriabays. On the o-ii;r:
hand, the recognition ofmthe now-established dmç of historicbays .TCISPLYOF THE UTXXTER KINGDOM (a Xf 50) 495
categoricallyimp3iesthe existence of a general ruIe irnposing a
pariicdar limit upm daims to ordiriary bayç.
267. In the second place, the nrirnber ofthe bays Iïsted in the
Counter-Mernoria lssubject tcrexceptional daims is by rio means
large in cornparison with the very extensive coast lines'possessed
by the States mentioned as making the claims. Thevery fact that
specific claims are made toa mere handful of particdm bays con-
fims the existence of a general limiting rulto which these claimç
arerecognized tobe exceptions, Itis ,or example,no accident thai
the specid çlairps toZargerbays xvhichthe Worwegim Goverment
hns extracted from Gidel, Le DYO~imternlationap lztbiic dEu Mer,
Volume III, pages 653-663, are thereexamined by the author in
his chapter "Les eaux historiquesi*.Inthese circumstances, it isas
unnecessary as it would be invidioiis for the United Kingdom
Government here ta examine the vdidity of the varirius speçid
ciaims te territorial bays cinbjrone1. In sorne cases, the daims
have long received general recognitionas historic titles inather
cases,the generai arinçtividnd acquiesce~iceof Statesin theexcep
tional claimsmaystiil be amatter ofproof. For the presentpurpose,
itisenoughfhat the daims are exception4an&codm the exlst~nce
of ageneral Zimitirnposedby customary law onterritorial claims to
hys.
(Paras.339-39 o2fthe Corinter-MemoriaI)
1.68 .astly,the Nonvegian ovem mi sneks to findindications
cantrary to the thesis, that tliere is a general nile limitkg terri-
torial ç/aims to bays, in the opinions of writers. Neglacting the
writers +ho, like Gidd, dsaw a clear distinctiobetween ordinary
and exceptional bays, the Counter-Memarial present csosen pas-
sages from three writers.me firçtfrom Jessup, Law ofTer~SoréaX.
Waters and ~iAa.ritimeJwasdictiaa (K927) s altogcther too care-
fully chosen. Itb lrue that onpage 355 Jessup said :
"Unhie temitorlawatei-ç'lngeneral, itis ri6t believed to be
possibleto lay dom a general rule by whick one may determine
ilcailtaseswhether a particular gulf hg or otherbody of wxter
which forrnsan indentationof thcoast is tbe cansidered in wliole
or in parta portion of the territof.theState."
But it isperfrfectlyclear from what he added later that he was
referrhg to a rule weihic. odd cme~ al2 hays-ovdina~y w exha-
o.rdinnryOn page 358 he saidthat there cm he no daubt about the
soundness of the tavice-3-millimit asa minimum and thm goes on
lJt is eqrdl~~niiecess$o exarainherethecarrecbessofthe very spcciaL
argnment misedby Mr.13Gushua onthestatu3ofthe Ved@undlandbaysunder
citecin paragraph 3oftliÇmntcr->kmVcirial. nreatyai tg12inan &cl&496 REPLY OF THE UN~TED KINGDOM (28 XI 50) ,
fo notice that the IO-mile limit had ieceived considérable support.
Next, havhg explairiedthe Merence between the headland to bead-
land almg the caasttheory and the more limite$ headland of bays
theory, he cites on page362the formula proposed by the Cornmittee
iof Experts intheir unreviscd report O£ 1926 .his formulain ~ub-
stance gave a 12-mile lirnit wiUr exceptions for historic usage.
Jessup's cornmeritwas (p.362) :
"This heaûland thmry inits restrictedform hzs much to cum-
mend it, but obviously its nnljmiteapplication weuld lx a mere
reverçiortoancient thes when, for example,Gr& Britain çFaimed
jurisdiçtion over the 'King'sChambers',which were fomed by
squaringoffthe British Ides.Such asolution.~vouldbeentirelyout
. of accord with modern tendencies and cannot be said to have
achieved any very general supporf." j
269, In üther words,Jessup çùndemned the version of the head-
land theory subsequently adopted in theNçlwegian Decree of ~935.
But he approved the propasal for arestricted xz-milesuleand, after
he had mitien, this proposal was revised by the cornmittee which
substituted a rs-mile limit inorder to accord with international
gractice, He continuedon the same page :
"Turningtci thesecond poinf raisedabave-namely , presçritive
rights-one isforcd te tlieratlier unsatisfactory concIrtsthat
forlargebays each caseshould be.determined anitsam merits and
that thestatus ofanp particular bay morethan 6 mileswiderests
iipoii thesuccessrvith which the littoralStatehns succwded in
pressing itç daims to entire jurisdiction othat body of water."
Next, Jessnp embarked on a &cussion of the qro Arbitration
and, taking a more favourable view than some writers of its impor-
tance in connectioa wifh the law of bay~, gave as one of hisreasans
for attributing value to it the fact that the fribund ztmn.i.ppsousky
recagrtizeda tendcncy bowmdsth adoption of ihexwmile rub, Jessup
suggested an the same page tl~atowing to the uncertainty of the
Jaw, the best thing to do was to examiné ewh individual case ofa
bay which had giwn risa to controversy. But, before he enba1kp.d
on thisexamination, he gave his own çoriclusions~from astudy of
these cases(p. 382) :
"lt is believedthat i-wiil appearfrom a study af th. matmial
- that no establishedrule of international law exists asto bays
except to the effect thatbaysnot more than 6 miles wide are
deemed territorial watersas weLi asthose to whlch a nation has
establisheda preçcriptive claim%Such a preçcriptivedaim mFy
be established over bays ogreat extent ;the legality othe dalm
içto be measured, not bg the sizeof the area affected, but bthe
definiteness and duration of the assertion and the acqniescenof
foreign Pawers. 'l'he evidencof international psactice andusage
does notindicatethat aclairnto alarge bayis ilegal."
Thusaothing could be more misleading as tuJessupk viewç than
the si~~gle citationin the,Cùnntcr-Memur Jisslp's views mercfuily consistent with the position stated inparagraph 265above;
for he recognked s Zimitgenerally applicable t o bay swith larger
clairns admissible on the basis of express or imylied acquiescence.
The difference is that the greatest common ineasure ofpresumed
acguiescence which Jessrip, tvriting three ye-, before the 1930
Conference,felt able to endorse \vas twicc the 3-mile limit.
270, The second citationisof a passage from Oppenhcirnin which
thc Ireatment of the subjeçt of bays is somewhat brief and fiag-
mentary. So far as any clear opinion içexpressecl,it isthat &mile
bays are definitely territorial and that the maximum conceivable
u4dth depends on potential control by shore l~atterïes,It is then
said to he controversial ruliat isthe position oa bay with a width
betmwn the minimum distance of6miles and the maxiHiam distance
of controlby coastal batteries.Whatev~ value may be thought to
attach in 1950 to a passage stilI based cin the obsolete idca ofthe '
mnnon-shot, it is very evidentthat Oppenheim dicl not contemplate
the admissihility of the arbitmry headmd to Ireadlmd method
adopted in the 1935 Decree.
271, The third citation is ofa passage from a brief descriptive
lecture onhays aithe Hague Acadernydeliveredthree years before
the 1930 Conference, Professor TYiIsonsaid that from the beginrihg
of ~e nineteenth cei-itury the tendency hs becs to irnpoe jellimit
on the rviclthof territorial bays andtl-ia4-mile hays are agreed to
be susceptible ofjurisdiction.Rc?then reviexvedthe practice, giving
instances of the acoption of the ro-mile lirnit but al50 referring to
the recognition af larger histotic bays anto the diiiîculty of dehi-
tion. Then he summed up as in the passagecited in psragraph 392
of the Cmnter-Mernorial and: it isevident that, like Jessup, he
merely meant that there was no uniform sule for allbays.
272. The United Kingdom Gcivemrnent thus submitç that none
of the aUeged "çontrary inldications after rg~o" redy Eouch the
centralpoints of the arguments advançed in the Mernorial ttoestab-
lish the existence, oa nxle of nistomary law limiting the tvidth of
territorial,bayta zo mites,The central points of tkisargirme~t are:
(1) that under the influence of the principle of the freeclom of the
seas thme developed frorn the beginning of the nineteenth cenhiry
a clear principle of customary law requinng territorial clahs to
bayç to be restricted inordinary casesto eiiçlosedbaysof modemte
widtk ; (2)that State practice tended more and more to fix upon a
ro-mile lunit as the re-easciaabend appropriatewidth inordinary .
cases ;(3)that there dsa existed however a current of thought that
the logical width is twice the maritime belt giuing a width of
6 miles ;(4)the same currtrntrstliought, in thernindsof thoçe cvho
propsed de legefer~nda tù increasetliemaritime beltto 6 miles, led
toone or two siiggestionsfor a 12-mileruleforbayç; (5)the terri-
toriality of bays came to be generally recognizecl-and no anè
32 REPLI' OF TRE UNïTEn KINGDOM (28 XI:50)
49$
hsists onEhip soint more than Nonvay-to aprincipledistinct
from the maritime belt ;(6) inconsequence,after sume ventdation
ofthe different vietvs,the opinion harcleneat the 1930 Conference
that the acceptable forni ofthe existing raclerestricting claims to
'ordinary bays is the ro-mile ruleof5tate pracfice. The "contrq
indicationsafte ~sgro" invoked byNonvay only serve totes'sifto
the general accurrçy ofthe United Kingdom's qnrnmts on these
severalpoints.
Rmal~ution of the midmcc establiski~g.tJtfcgtaemmgemx of a rztle
qj cmtorna~yGaw ~resh'clinthe widthof territorial bado
ro miles in ordh.aryuses
273. The Nmegian Goverriment, inparapphs 367 to 372 ofthe
Counter-Rfernorial,çeekçto irapeachthe evidence mlicd upon inthe
United Kingdom's Memonal as eçtablishing the crystallization of
the ro-mile limit. The Counter-filernorçays that the United King-
dom's evidence insuppof~ ofits thesis is rduçed to the draft çon-
ventions of certain learned societies plus the mrk othe 1930 Con-
ference.But, when it isa question of thefirialresolvingof dctobts
upon a point ofc~stomary lm, what better evidence can there be
than the concentrated opinion of many jurists and the concenttated
opinion of many States ?The United Kingdom Governmcnt empha-
' sizes that the existence of som rde ocustomary law restricting the
territorialitof bays is establi$hed by the overwhdming evidence
of State practice and doctrine, including the alleged "contrary
indicâtions" invoked by Nomray. Ilndeed,Gidel,aç liaspreviously
been rnentioned, derlasesthat the mererecognitionof the category
of historicbays peremptorily praves'th eeistence of a restrictive
rule of customary law applicabletoother bays. Here, iis aquestion
simply of ascertaining the crjrstallization thegenerai opinion as
Zothe pmi$e content of the restrictive de, and the best possible
evidence of that is undoubtedly- the evidence onrvhichtheUnited
Kingdom relies l.
274, The h'orwegian Goverrrment again launches its by POW~
familiar attackorithe valueof the workof thelearned societiesand'
of the 1936 Conference as evidence of existing law, çomplaining
paiticdarly that the work is a mixture of bx Idaand $ex fdrmda.
This arguGent ha already ben deaIt with atlengtlzin paragraphs
r73 to 179 abave, towhich the Court is respectfdly açkedto xefer.
The objection that the adoption of the IO-mile mIe by learned
societies and by Çnb-Cornmittee No. 311 results frm a mixing of
texfmmda ~4th 2exlata is singularly unconvincjng whethe express-
d season for accepting the ~c-mile Iimitms that this is theIimit
which haç the support of internationalpmtice. In pxrticularthe
Cornmittee of Experts deliberately revised its dsdt .hasis of'
1If thm is nonJc all bayçopen tochallen;if thcriçamlc iis cither a
IO-mile niora rnle ofdouble the widttemtoriawaters,discussion by substituting IO des for 12 miles on the ground I
that the former had the supporkof State practice.
275. The couder-~ernohal {para. 368) points out that one
Iearned socicty, the Amcrian Institute, lefthe actual figure in its
rule as a blanlr, and that another, the International Law Associa-
tion, seems ta havecontemplatecl tiladi bayswonld be subjectto
the primary mle that the base-line of territorial waters follows the
toast. Since the usual figure given by the leqed societies is
xa mdes, and sincethework of the 1930Conference also adopted
this figure, the point isimmatrial. These little discrepancies are
fully consistent tvith the position ththeTQ-milerule was inpro-
cess of crystallkation.
The Counter-Mernorial alsù observesthat Sub-Cornmiktee No. iI
was not entîrely unanimous,and that its adoption ofthe ~~mil~
limit vas expressed ccinditisnally.Nomay was, no doubt, a dis-
sentlent, but rnust deleg~tia occepted a 10-mde lirnisubjectto
a condition tvhiçh ~vould mard aglinst the abuse of the rule in
supportof cIaims to maters not really bays.
276. Noway cornplains that the United Kingdom's Memoslal. Aid
not notice the divergentview .of Portugal atthe 1930 Conference,
who proposecl a de which would have given a 36-mile limit. If
ever thercwas aproposal made de legeferemdaand without hop of
redization itkvasthat proposal of Portugal. TheComtes-Mernorial
inany case averlooks Sie fact that in her practice Pwugal had
endorsed th6 ro-mile limit and that-mat strikirigly-ina'fisheries
treaty, notwith one oftliesignatories of ths NortSea Convention,
bnt withSpain l.
The attachent of the above-mmtioned condiition tathsir
approval of the ro-mile limitcm scsrmlj~be said to indicakethe
disagreement ofthe rnajority miththe Ehesisnotvmairitained kfore
the Court by the United Kingdom. The majarity endorsed the
ro-mile limitas being the limit fouriin Statepractice, butdidso
ody on condition that so iaqea tiwitkvas netmade the vehide of
improper encroachrnents on areas ofhigh seas whicé do sok renlly
con~~rz secclo~cdalws.
1s $hg~0-mike mk d~peadefida*athez-mde rwk ?
(Counter-Mernorial,para,393)
277. One lastaspersion is cast upon the rQrniIe rde para-
graph 393 ofthe Counter-Mernorial. It issdd to be linked to the
régime of the 3-mile limit andtohave lus* ifsfriundation 1~6tthe
defeat ofthe3-mile limitatthe 1930 Conference. The Fustcomment
to be made upon this argument is that the 3-mile limias i'heody
Çec a conventiobetweenSpain anPOrhigal in tû8(Brihsla and'Fwqy
SfafeI'qberVol. 77p. 1182).500 Ri7PI.YOF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
limiR cmyi~g a $rmm$iim of~f.?ziverslquiascence i~ilaeciaim,
sufferedno defeat ataliip 1930 T.he de of the3-mile hit, as:bas
been said inparagraphs 117to 321 abave, retaineditsfundamenta1
importance after 1930açthe limit beyond which the validity of the
daim depends on pmof of express or implied acquiescence. It is,
themfore, ide to taJi<aifthe 3-mile Lirnlhad vanishe fdom inter-
national practiceand to mgue onthat basis that thero-mile limit
lost its mism d't?t~in1930,
276. In any event, the United Kingdom Government maintains
ifs vietv thathe ro-mile Iimit must be regarded as ancssentialiy
independentrulefotba~.Adrnittedly,the~~-milelimite qualIy
with the 3-de Ilmithas resuited from the impact of the doctrine
of the freedorn ofthe seaçon rights to maritime territciry. Jlt may
aisobe wnceded that most States, Ihoztghiaoiailwhich have spe-
cifrcalladapteci the ro-milelimit for baysintreatiesor proclamx-
tions, arc adhesents ta the 3-mile hmit for territorid waters. Bnt
the xo-mile limitçeerns to have cstablishcd itselin international .
practiçe empiricaliyas the ~easorlableand"practica.Jirnit fobays
rathtr than hy any proces of deductim from the ;-mile lirnit,
Judge Moore'srationalization ofthe xo-mile Tlimitcaught theatten-
tion of Judge Drap and of sotriother juristsbut thèriiisnotrace
of hisreasoning inthe neptiations for the Angb-French ïreat yf ,
1839 ,he Anglo-GclrmmAgreement of 1867 or the North Sea Con-
vention of 1882, Indeed, most of those wlio bave.worked fronlthe
basiç ofthe 3-milélirnittoa peral rule forbays have bwn advo-
catcs of the twice-3-mile limit. Certainly 1930 the, ~o-milelirnit
tvaç adoptcd simpIy as the reasonable andpracticaI iirnit for terri-
torial daims to bays ahady adopted by many States.
The "reus~nabE eiscerwnée7zhe0ry4'
(Courter-Mernorial, para. 394)
279. Inthese circumstanc~s, it isreR11y a somewhat academic
quedion whethes and to what extent the mge of vi~iotlha5 been
an element:in the choiceof the limit. Nobody to-day suggeststhat
the true tuleis the extreme range of vision, Otherivise, ndoubt,
Iveshuuld hear someone arguing thai the limitmust lie increased
with the ra2ge of tcleçcoprs just as it \v& once argued that the
incrcasedrange of artîllery increased the Iimfixedby referace to
the cannon-shotmle. Sir CecilHu& and Gide1go no further tkm
to approve the ro-mile Iimitas a good workhg rulc meeting the
mgc of vision test.The hct that greaterr anges of vision are
possibleis beside the poifitThe truc position of îhe IO-mile1imi.t
triday isthat il ha developed us tixrndependent de, fixing the
or di na Iirnitof a +mitarial clah to a Exay~Yitkin which the
acquicsmnce ofother States isconc2usiveXypresumed by inter-
nationallaw. - The ro-mile mie as n mlc of czcstomwy law
- 250, It remaifis fa consider the Norwegiaii Gavernment's con-.
tention that thepmcticeinfavour of theIO-milelimit does net show
sufficient cantinuity to qvalify as a rule of kustomary law. The
inconsistency of the United Kingdom's om practice is, indeed,
invoked in the Cornter-Mernorial asevidence ofthe la& of con-
tinuity. There are,however, at least two ms\vers tcthis arpent.
First, thereisample continuity in the practice showingthe existence
of a m2e of customary law restricting the widtIl ofterritorialbayç.
The inconiistency has been rnanifested only in fixing the precise
limit mhichwoald begenéraliyacceptable to Statesas not involving
too large a derogatian from the freedom of the seas.The United
Kingdom Govcmment submitç that some iriconsistencies ordif-
ferencesin past practiceconcerned merely wlth giving yrmision tu
a recognized ruLeof customary law camot be a bar ta tlie gencral
validity of the customary rule and that it is a legitimateexercisc
of the juclicial fundion to dedart the precise version of the mle
generally accepted in international practice.In this cbnnection, it
may be appmite to mcd the frequently cited observation of Judge
Altamira iu the "Lotus" case {SeriesAlro, py. 106-107 :)
"But even ifthe question %vue raisd ofthe nmessity for a
definitelyspecif~ccustom and ofthe stage of developmentreachecl
fry the custom wl-iichmight beconsidercd necessary ithe present
conliectian, 1 ~vauldpoinont thatthe conditions p:istici~torthe
general proçess ofthe develbprnent of a custo.om;i_yle muçt be
borne inrnind, Often in th% process there are moments in time
in ivhich therule, implicitly discernjble,iiotasyet taken $hape
in the eyes of the wonld,&E isso forcibbyswggeste dy @ecede*tfs
that it rvouldtxrendering good serviceto the causcofjusticeand
law to asnst itsappearanceina form inwhich it w2I have al1 the -
fcategory.'y belongingto rules ofpositive law appertairito tliat
281. Secondly, ashas been said in paragraphs 157to x66 above,
there isnaihing inArticle 38 (x) (h) of the Statute .ofthe Courttu
niake either die durationor the continuity of a customessential to
itç lepl force. A31that tliStatute requireç iç that at the tirvhen
a custom is involred as law, it should constitute "evidence of a.
general practiçe aceeptea dslauT".The tme relevance of the con-
tinuity ofa custom Isitslogcal valueas proofof the gencral accept-
ance of tht custm as laiv.But, in the submission of tlie United
KhgdornGovenunat, the Court under its Statute isentit'ledand
bound in'eacb case tûdecidethe status ofa custom invoked as law
ona broad reviexvof al1the cvidence. And no evidence can be so
persuasive andcondusive as evidence of the general recognition of
the practice as hw in the period just bbeforethe time when the
Court is caiied upon to take its decision. The Uuited ICingdom
Govtrnment in the presen tase rcaffirms its contention that the \
evldence contaiaed in the work of learnedsocieties immediately
beforergy md inthe work of the rg3o Conferenceestablishes that
the ruleof customary latv sestricting the width of tterritoriat bays,
which had been shaiped and formulated in a.çentury of State yrac-
tice, haçcrystallizedas the rule of the 10-mile limit for ordinary
bays,
282. The UniteidKingdom Government,inany event, cloes nat
admit that the alleged inconsistencieand divergencies in the prac-
tice of States invvked inthe Ccirtnter-lfernoriby Norwajr are
such as to constituta bar to the recognitionofthe pmctice as 1x1~.
Here the rule of Imv, which k invoked,,concems the conflichg
interestsof States asclaimants of coastal waters and users of the
high seas.It isnot surprisingthat the fina sllutibnwaç arnved at .
tvith hesitatioand diffaences of detail, butthebasic rrile restrict-
ing temitord daims to ordinary bays has grown steaay and -
inevitably to fhe fmd solution otheIO-milelimit. A ruleofcustom-
ary Zaw may be- fomed more or leçs quicklyand -zuiihmore or leçs
difficultyaccmding to the nature of its subject-matter,Here the
ruleIlas grom slowly ovw the period of a centurg Biitultimately
the moment cornes, asit has in the case of the ~a-mile hit fer
bays, when the true de showsdeâr asan acceptable andgenedly
.accepteclmle of international law.
282 A, h any case Norway certainly carinof establish thatthe
United Kingdom isabliged-except in individualcases where an
historictitle iproved-to recognize açnational waters bays ~vhose
openiiigiç widerthan iromiles. ,
a53. Accordingly the TJnited Kingdom Government, for aU the
above reasons and for the reasons statedin paragrahs 70 to gçof
its Mernorial, submits that
(1 1he modem rules of intemntianal kw goveming the terri-
toriality of bays inthe case of ordinary bays is theIO-de
rule as itwas fomulated bp Sub-Cornmittee No..Il at the
rgp Confaence (secpara.81 of the Mernorial).
(2)Undermodern international law thevalidity of adaim hed
onthe exercise of jurisdictiom, tabay asterritorial, beyfiad
the ro-mile lirnit alloweby thegeneral rule, has to be tested
bg referenceto the acquiescence ofthe State against which it
iç invoked. In the absence ofexpress acquiescence hy that
State, the daim can onlybemade good by proof of an historic
usage from which the acquiesmiice of other States isto be
irnplied.
(33Modern iaternational law categorically forbidsthe assertion
of a base-line formed by the joining ofheadlands almg the coaste:xceptin the caseof bays and~vithin thefimitsallowed
under niles (1 1nd (21,
Islands,rocks and banks
(Cauntm-MernoriAl, paras. 395- 5O)
P~ela'$fii~a~bserri~liofis
(Paras. 395-403of theCounter-Memorial)
Nomeiêgim a~gzlmmt thst theU~ited Kinghm in tb Mt?mos.z'#al id
imuflca'mf atteatèw te eadaufiho~iti~segtx~dinlx e8ectofislnds
ow the bnse-lifieoftlterfitoriasea
284. The United KingdomGovernment, in paragrapb g6 to roo
of itshlemorial, indicated very bneffy itreaçons forthinking that
until compasativdy rtscentIy detailed consideration 11adnot been
@ven tothe effect of islands upon the base-lof thetemitmial sea.
The Norwegian Goverment, inparagraphs 395 ta 403 of the
Cournier-MernoriaI ,riticizestkls wiand claimsthat more att~ntion
wasforrnerly given to the problem ofislandsin wnnection wlth the
base-linebath by writers ad by Sfxtes in their psacticekhan is
suggestd by the United Kingdom Goverment. The pleading in
these paragraphs sornewhat rnisrepresents the meaning of the
authorities citeby taking passages outof their ppropecontext. It
is tIieref~rnecessary to take up the attention ofthe Court in
restoring-thesepaçsages totlieir propercontext.
Amfli
283. The United Kingdom Government rderred to passages in
Ami, Ortolan and Calvo, rnerely asthree typical tlnineteenth-
have some effect in closing bays, they otlicr~+ise regarded themto
sirnplyaç having their owvnterritoriaJwatersor asraisingthe prob-
lem of straitsThe Couriter-Mernorial(para, 3g8), kowever, insists
that the followii~gpasmge citedin the Mernorial (para. 96)and
tvrittenby Rztrni in1805 shows a recognition of the principle of
the "outer coast line"round islarrid:s
"17. Tl estdkjà repu parmi les nationspolicées,que dans les
Iiew; oùla terrcense courbmt, forme une;baie ouun golfe, ondoit
supposeruneligne tirkd'une pointecilhutre decette terrferme,
ou des$etiles fieqwise pr0*0l~gerazemwtdelcd~s $~omontoii-~~.de
celiehaie.,.(et qu'on ~egard eegolfeou cette baieçme mer
territoriale, qiimd memelemilieuserait dansquelquesendroits à
dauZ'Euyo$e,p.i254.3de dista~rçedechaquerive(Le kit maridime
By rirnittinthe bracketed wosds and by prinüng initdics the
yrevious ~vords the Launter-Mernorial seeksto give the impression
that Azui kvas advancing a prïnciplemuch larger than that ofthe closureof a'Fay by jslands,w*hich\vas the interpretati~il given by
the United Ringdom. The latter htmpretation isthcught to be
much more reaçonable and fair than the stmined "outcr-çoast-
Iine" interpretation othe Counter-Mernorial. Ttis, homver, sorne-
what prcifitleto speculafe asto the pmcise meaning ofthese words
written rqj years ap when it isrealizedthat this single reference
waç absolute liythat Azuni had to say about isIadç in the whole
of bisbook.About rocks and banks submerged at hjgh tide he said-
nothhg at d.
286. The passage from Ortolan (Difilo~a.iûe da la MW (1864)~
p. 145)mentioned inthe Mernorial (para. 96) was :
"On doitranger surlamhe ligneque les radesetles portsles
goifeset les baicsetfous les enfoncements cornus sous d'autres
[email protected],lorsqaecesenfoncements formkspar lesterresd'un
ou lorsqueI'entrbpeutnen êtregouvernde parl'artillerie,qu'elle
- cstdéfendue naturellement par desîles,par dcsbancs ou pardes
rochers."
The Norwegian Governmenf first comments (para,399) upon thls
passage that, contrary to the United Kingdom Govesnrnent'scon-
tention, Ortolan didnot confine hisuleto-"baies smsa slrido",but
extended it tu al1 indentations "connus çaus d'autres denomina-,
.tiens".Why this iscontrary ta the contention of the United ICing-
dom Government inthe Mernorial is not made clear.In fact the
United Kingdom Government concedes that straits leaclingto
- inland waters are to beireat~d as.analogous ta bays and rnerely
said that writers like Ortolan assumed the effect of islands on terri-
torial waters tbt:covered by the laivrelatingto baw and straits.
Inany event, the natuml meaning ofOrtolan's mor& is that 'Yous
lesenfoncements connus SOUS d'autres dhminalions'hre t~ be
read ejusdewtgeneris wIth "les rades etles ports, les golfeset les
baies",Indeecl, the word "'dhmnination su ggeststhat al1 that
Ortolan had inmind was such inlets as "estuarieç", "creeks",
"fjords'!etc.,which international law andoubtedIy places inpre-
ciçely the çarnecategor as bays.
287. The Nonvegian Govcrnment, homver, rnâkesthe further
comment thal in Pliepassage set out above Ortolan takes zi~çouslt
of the positionof islands,banks or rocks in relatioto bays, not by
reference to whether thcy form chan-iielZeadingto the open seaor
to inland waters but by refereme to whether ihey contribute to
the defence ofthe bay, Ortolan isthus saidnot to lookat the matter
from the point-of view of the navigator but of the interests, parti-
cularly the clefence jnteresh, of the coastal State, It Is prftctly
true thai Ortolan piaced a goud deal of emphasis ondefence as the
philosophical justificatioof a State's rightto maritime territory ,But esseniialiy histatement ofthe lepi e&nt ofthat right is the
Bynkershoek doctrine of domination fmm shore by cannon-shot,
Thus in the ahove passage Ortolan limits the width of bays in
ordinary cas= by referenceto double cannon-shot .rlnotherpassage,
however, a1Lttieeariieron,does show that he ernphaticdly did take
into account the inter&s O£intemational navigation. In thiç earlier
paççageOrtolan givcs the reasons juséiiyinga Statek right of pcisseç-
sion overports and roadsteads. In the passage quoted £rom page 145
he assimilates gulfs, bagis and similar indentations to ports. The
earIier passage reads :
peutEpaçcedu-e'qu'ilneesoietit pas susceptibles cV6h-eposseidLa.
nation mdtresse des côtes gai lesforment lesa incontestablement
en sonpouvoir ; il luestpos~r'bledeprendre des mesurcs pour en
écarter toute action htranger;eiieest?tmeme d'y exerccr de fait,
et d'unernaniércprrn~nente, cettepuissancephysicluequiconsti-
tuela possession. Rien dms la nature des,clio sees'yoppose.
L'obstacle materieau droit de propriéth n'existe doncpas.
L'obstacle mord n'existepas rionplus,ER efleb,$ropriétédtm
p~q3le m7 LES$OY$S brades de sm tePm'toiran'em$êchfiaslesa~kes
ndiom d~dgwr librement eds comrnufiiqztmdufiellesLe pe~ple
qui ZEXGTU~dr cedroide fi+o$rGfkméms fiour i~itcrdt'abordde ses
~~G?ESet de Sm forts,se mefiraif ~erson~x~di~mefetnd~hor se ces
comm~ticatims, mis ilne detruiruii pas cetle&s autres-il n'y
la de féscrveitfair$, sotfi ru$part,.cpe pourçmhitfies ~écessités
i1ptpe'ri.r:dela mviglatimcgkaérabe"(E.c.p. 140)~
The Norwqian Goverriment in paragraph 399 of the Çocrnter-
Mernorial cites yct another passage from Ortolan (p. 158) which iç
said toshow (r)that Ortolam did nritendorsethe low-tide mark but
the line of navigable water and {z)that the lirnits othe territorial
sea are determineil not only by the possibilitia but dso by the
needs of defence.As tothe first pointit ito Leobserved that inan
eariier page (p.153) Ortolan says that thetdge of thesea ahmg the
cnast isthe riatumllirniof aState'sterritoryandthat the imaginary
fine of the artifiçial fronties af State may be traced at a given
distance hm the coast folhwiq iis cofltozcrThe concept of the
line ofnavigabl weaters the limit.ofthe coast never, of course,
received recognition inintcrnatiolial praç-fice. As to the second
point, Ortolan, as has been sxitid,emplmsiies the need of defezlce
bat a#fiJi~sthe $~inci$e ofIlorninionf~omsh.we.Little seerns te be
gained by further discussion of the vie~vs of Ortolan 'since the
United Kingdom Govemmentfails to seethat Nonvay has revded
any detaikd consideration by this author of the problems -id hy
islandsin fegard to the base-line.
288. The passage fmm Calvo (Vol.1, Section 367)mentioned in
the Mernosial(para, 96) reaclsas frillows: "Lesgolfes et leibaies defendus soit nahrellement par desîles,
des bancs de sableou des roches, soit par le feu croide canons
placésà leurs deuxouvertures, se rattachent i la souverainetc '
territorialcontiguë..."
The Nurwe@anGovernment, however,. in paragraph 400 of the
Couriter-Mernorial ireferto apassageira in earlier section (para342)
where CaIvo is saidto have been expoundiig the effect of an island
on the tracing of the basdine. This suggestion iSextraordinary.
Sechon 342~curç in a long chapter not dealingwith maritime but
land territory and at the end of it al1 Calvo inserts Section 342
entitled "Limites.du territoii vehich proceeds as follows:
'"haque l?tat a le droitde souveraket0 jusqii'àsa frontiereet
1edqoir deriepas empikter surleterritoire voisiTl importe donc
séparent, limitrophesde déterminer clairementles limites qui les
On distingueleslimitesinternationales ofrontihred'un territoire
m d'un Ctat en limites p~~dturdestenlimite srlifica'dles.
Cw dernières consistent, en génBal, dans des lignespuremnt
conventionaelles,qu'on indique par des signes extérieurs placCsA
certaines distances, et qsont ordinairement sur terredesbornes,
des poteaux, des barriéres,es fossés,des monceaux de terre, des
murs, des édifices,desroutes,des arbresou des rochers marques ;
szsmer, da $hlar&sdes bo.lakflofhntesnvv2tèepar da mtçr&.e stc.
Ces fmntikres reposent, tsntbt sur une possession non contestée
depuis longtemps, bntbt surdes &air& formels.
Les limitesnaturellessont, surlames, les lacs, les fleuves ou le5
rivière ls, montagnes, les terrainsincultes ou inocmpks."
TIren aftec discussingthe dlvidhg line between limi&o$he S&lw in .
the case of river, lalre anmountain kaundaries, he concludes .:
"Nous avons déj& trait4 la question des frontiéresmaritimes.
c'est-à-di de ela mer formant la limite d'un Etat. Nous nous
bornerons icià dire, en I.ésum6,quc siirmcr on peut tracerdes
frmiihes imaginaires d'@rés IES degrésds lmgitde cf de I&.tuda,
ciw~surer Icsdzsla~ces,soit$m drslkakss rnnréf.ime;,;bartd'um
certaznettp;DMd'um cwtai+t,chte, soda$av des$wt.4es de caftorn,
La délimitation.des frontiQes des Etats repose sur leç rn&mes
baseset sutlesrncmes titres que laproprietdu territoirenational;
souvent aussielleestdktpmninee par des traitéspeciaux, an~quels
sont généralement annexéesdes cartes géographique srontikres."
If the niords inît&cs (i.e.those qnoted inthe Countes-MemoriaI)
,areread in th& context, 3twillbe seen that they bave nothing to
do mith the present case and da not support the argument in the
Couriter-Memorid.
Emd Stmdl's judpmt i.thé!case oftheAnrra(1805)
289. Mext,in pragraph 401 of the Gountek-Memmial,the Nor-
wegian Government criticizes the brie£account given in the Merno-
rial (para.98) of Lord Stawed's wd-hown judgnient in the ARH~1j ChristopherRobinson, r8o5, p, 373).It maintains that thisgreit
judge did not merdy hold that the srnall mud elevations atthe
mouth of the Mississippi wcre cntitled to territorial -waters as
isolated mits of territory. He iç said to have laid dm that the
.laneofUnited Siadas tmrifory mus* be traced tobegin from these
islands, thus treating the intérvening sea as inland waters, mat-
ever interpretat othens may dt~rwards have put onhiç language,
it iç pedectly dear frorn a reading of the whole case,instead of the
single passage çited in the Conter-Mernorial, that Lord Stovrrell
directedhis attention exclusively atthe question whether these mud
.elcvations could properlÿ be aegarded ;isterritory of the United
States,
Gounsel for the capturing privateer ha$ sought to support the
capture by arguing (1) thatthe mudelevajionswerenot ofsufficient
,consistency to be considered territory atali and (2) evenif they
were tenitary, they rvere uninhabited and not temitory of the
United States. Lord Stotvell 'treatedtheçe elevations (which were
permanently above water) as islands and rqlied to the second
argument in the following famous pac;sage(p. 385 {b)) :
"The captare was made, itseems, at the mouth of the River
MTssissippi ,nd,as it iscantended in the daim, within the bound-
aries of the United St;tEes7VeaU how that the rule of latv on
this subject is 'f~v~ dmkius~ fisit~~,p~bifi~ifur armmm Ws',
been recognized toobe about thrceemiles frornthetshore,aBut itsoly
happens in this case, thnt a question anses as tn what is io bbr.
deemed the shore, since thecc are ,anumher oflittle mudislands
composed of earth anctrws driftcd down by the river,which fom
a kiridof portico to thmain land.Tt iscontmded thatthss are not
ta he considerd as any part of the tm~dory of Amwica,that they
a sort01"nomds land',nota# consist~ncyemowgk tosm+$iwt t?ze
pwfios~s of Li/e,~t~in,hcaliia,nd resorted to, onIy, forshooting
and taking birds' nests. I5s argued thst the line of territory is ta
be taken anIy from the Balise, which isa fort rabd on madc land
by the former Spanisk possesssors. I an1 of a differeriopinion;
l thinlt that the psutection nf territistobe reckoned £rom these
içlands: and that they are thénatural appendages of the caast on
wfiich they border, and irom whîch indeed they are forrned. Their
elements arederived immediatcly from tlie territory, and on thc
principle ofalluviurn and increment, on iirhichso much is to be
foilnd in the booksoflaw, Quo$ va'fizr~i*eisetaoprcediudatrax#rit,
et vicino$r&dzo uttubif,$wlum dzcwnremalzedl,even if it had been
çarrieo dver to an adjoiiiing territory.Considet what the conse-
quence would be iflads ofthis description were not consideredas
appendant to the mairi Lad anclas comprised within the bounds
of territoryIf tlmy do notbelong to the United Statcs ofAmerica,
.any otber Powermight occ~ipythem ; tliey might be embanked
and fortified, Whata thorii wouldthis be inthe side of herica t
It isphi-sim,lUypossibleat Leasthat they might be so occilpiedby Etrropcsnnations,'andthen the command of the rivervould beno
longer in Amwiça, but in sdch settlementsThe possibiiityofsudz
a consequericeismough toexpose.thefallacy ofamy arpents fhar
axe addressed to show lhal dheseislasadsare.~wtobe coasid~r~das
+art oftheIsïra'toofAmerica.IVhetherthey are composed of eartli
dominion does notdepend upone theltextureofithemil.the right of
1am ofopinion that the righofterritoryisto berockoncd frnm
thosei~lal~d."
The issue discussedinthe above passage waç simply whether,
despite the lack of anp evidence inthe case asto the existence of
United States ~vereignty over the mud elevaiions, they muçt In
their piirticular circurnstances be presumed to be ~nited States
tcrritory. The phrases "kind of portico to the mainland" and
"natumlappmdagm of the coast svhichthey border" as weUas the
arguments about alluvium and possible ocmpatioxi by a foreign
Pohverare al1addressed exclasi~&~~ tu thisIssue.
Ttseems that some ofthe rnkconception in the Counter-I\Cemia1
as to the rneaning'of Lord Stowell's langnage ariscs from a mis-
understanding of his words "protection of territory" wl~ïchin a
later paragraph of the Norwegian pleading (pm. 4233are treated
as referring to the protection xfforded by the mud islandsto the -
mainland of the United States. This is ncit the case at dl. Lord
Stowell employed the words "protection of territorgras a term of .
art in prizeIaw tu denote the protection from capture enjoyed by
arnerchmt ship in neutrd waters. Inshort he refen-eclo the protec-
tion aven by the neutral shore to the merchant ship and not to
protection of the shore by the islands. A sirnijause of the ~vrird
"protection" isttobe fûund in the axgiimentsof counsel irithe case.
Thus couiisel for the capor,> dding with the argument that the
captuse had taken place inneutrai maters, said (p. 375):
'"This argument pruceeds on a supposition that the tirne of
captureis tobe dated from the the of pursuit, and tliat the immu-
nity of territory is not viola;tedby tcaptureof a vesselwhich
has bm çhased intoterritory,in thcsame manner as wben the
vessel iswowed!y lyiag iw astah ~t $rvkctEORi?~thefirstz'nstmce,
and does not rnerelffytoitas a placeof refuge, fmm the operations
of the encmy." ,
It ithmefore clear that, asstatedin the Memors, Lord StoweII
was dcaling simply with the question whether the islands belong-ed
tothe United States so as to conçtitzite a base-point fw quzc&nl
Protectionofmerchant $hi#sia the ~rdjoimif3mik bdt.
The SESSWM uj#h~IwsCibteof XYLtermtiona im i~18%
zga. In parapph 403 the Counter-Blernorial deals with the dis-
cussion of'rocks and sandbanks at the r894 sessionof the hstitute
of hternatioiiai Law (13A~~uai~e,p. 293) .he United Kingdom
Government said in paragraph roa ofthe RIemoriai thatthe Cnstitute qtie~tlon ofIagoone snclosed by caral &lands and bah andbe
deals &th tllernas entirey exceptional and as a form af salt-water
lake (para. 346below).Thc United Kingdom Governent therefore
re-&rms thai the conditions under tvhich,and the lirnits witlzin
which,. areas of seamay be converted into iniand waters thrmgh
the groupirigand positioning ofislands only attractegdneral attcm-
tidn onthe eve ofthe 1930 Conference.
(ComteriMernorial, paras, 404-@1)
Nwzeiegiun mii'c%sm of U~ihd Kifigdom defiail&%of afi ishnd
292. The Nonvegian ~ovkrnent, in paragraphç qoq to 419 of
the Couritet-Mernosid,criiiclzesthe Yaews expresseclin paragraphs
roi to 108 bf the Mernorial as to tlieextent to \vhch individual
içlandç,rocksand ban kslying offa coast may betaken intoaccount
in derimithg the territoriawaters appertaining to that eaast. It is
, tommon ground that anelevatïan of the sea bed offthe Nonvegian
coast, tvhichbelcingto Normay and rises perrnanentlyabove \vater,
ranks as a Nonvegim islaad possessing territorial trraters inits otvn
- right.It isalçocornmon gronnd that aildevation ofthe seabed not
permanently above tvafer, cvhichis situated within 4 miles of the
lotv-vatermark ofpemanently dry Nonvegiarr tesritory,isentitled
to be talcen into account as a base-point for the delimitation of
Nonvegian territorial waters.The chicfpoint ofdifereace is as to
the status.of anelevation not permanently above water (afow-tide
elwation) DI of which lies more than 4 miles frornthe neasest
permanently dry territory.
The United Ki~gdm re;tiedsits view bhut tha $r~bl@Whusonly
attractedattentim &hi% corn$ami?iv elrecmt times
293. The United Kingdom ~overnment, relging prima* on
Basis of Discussion No,14 and on the niles adopted in 1930 by
Sub-CornmitteeNo. II, asserts +bai a letv-tide devationmay ody
be taken kto account if it lies within tmaritime belt ofperrnan-
. ently &y tersitory rneaswecl from the latter's low-water mark, If
an elevation lvhich Iscovered at high tideliesat agreater distances
from any dry land, it neitherpks a5 an island nur can influence
the delimitation ofthe maritime belt ofany pemanently dry te&-
tory. The Nomregian Government criticizes theUnited Ringdom
.forinwking no other authority insupport of its propositions hm
tlic Mernoria1than the work of the 1930Conference-apart from a
reference to the North Sea Flsheries Convention of rSSz. But the
precise effectof islands, roch and bankson the delimitation of
. .territorial wateras has hem explained, isa matter which has only
recently attr-ractgeneial attention and dndy in corneciion with
the 1930 Conference. Itis,t-herefore, scncely surprising thtfiere
is a paucity ofmatcrial inthe wrks of jurists befnre-1930. Even
so,aswill appear below, therjsriotincunsidemble evidencesupport- - .
irrgthe principlkadopted by Sub-Cornittee No. 11.
294. In fact the United Kingderri did adduce in paaagraph roo
of the hlern~rid evidence of the disinchnation ofthe Lnstitutéof
International Law in1894 to aliow rocks and banks, tvhether ldry
onty at low tide orpermanenti y dry, to be taken into account at
all in the delimitaticinof territorial ~vaters. Athe Nomregian
Gwernment questioned the meaning put in theMernorial upon the
proeeeàings of theInstitutein1894, the United Kingdom Govwn-
ment has further examined tho~e-~rawedin~s in paragraph 290 of
this Reply and has shown beyond any doubt the geueraiopposition
of mernhers ofthe SnstituteEothe extension of t.erritorwrters by
mems al rocks ruidb;.i_tzoff thecoast. The Inditute's cautious
approach in1894 to the questionof extending territoridrd ers by
the use ofof-shorerocks and banks isin Jine&th with the views of
the BritishLaw Officersin.1875 and with Nonvegîan le@ opinion
in the nineteen tentury.
Law 0gice;sJopinion con~eming GreatBarrier XE@! (~875)
295. The Law Ofticers ofGreat Britain, mhen asked in 1875 to
givethek vicw concmning the jurisdiction of tCourts of Queens-
Reef, gave an opinion, thfulltext ofwhich is printedateAnnexm44. . '
They laid down foiipropositions which are extremely clos~ta the
principles endorsedby Sub-CornmitteeNo. 1':1
(1) Queensland has no legislath authority over the seasbeyond
the distance of3 marine miles fmm low-watm mark on the
maidand and islmds respeçtively.
(4) Land not subrnerged at ordinar hi@ tideshowver srnall in
extent i$an island.
(5) Reeis anachcd tuanisland and dry at low kater arc part of
the dancl,
(6) Reefs defachedfrowzany idand ~nd d~y ntdom-wdermark oltiy
aremi isllaads,
This opinion Is the more significant in that ifwas given. aftw
considering the Law Ofiîcers'opinion conceming the Bermuda
~eeis (cited in para467 of the Counter-Mernorial) which seems to
have adopted a slightlv more liberalattitudetoiyards the appro-
priation of reefsexposecl onPyat Iorv tide. The phrase "reefs
attached" tçsan içlandisakin tothe phrase "dependent islands and
bads" in the1832Convention and clearly limzt tse use of lnw-
tide elevationsfor extendingthe territoriasea to those which are
properly "adj~cts" or "appendagm" of the dry land. 296. Norwegjanlep1 opinion inthe nineteenth centur dym shows
doubtsaabut tl-ipropriety ofugng Iow-tideelevations in ddimitirig
. thetmritorirrlsea.IthasbecnyùirrtedoutinPartLofthisReply
that neither the1869 Decree for Sandmfire nor the 1889 Decree for
Romsihi and Nordmme took account of rocks submerged at high
tide in delimiting the base-linfor those arcas. Thc language used
inthe "'Exposé des Motifs" ofthe Minister of the Interior when
proposififthese decrees strongly suggests that theMinlster did not
consida theuse of submerging rocks for base-points ~zslegitimate.
Thuçin the Exposkdes Motifsfor the 1869Decree (Aririexestu the
CD-Mernorial,Vol. II,pp. 60-61)the Tvfiiiisteraidthat the wne of
exclusive fishedes coincides with the zone of the territorial sa,
which in tum is dete&ned partly bycannon range md partly by
the distance of one geographicalleague and then continiied :
"Comme point de dkpart du çalcut,ce n'estpas la terreferme
seulequi doit pouvoir 6ttc atiliçécmais aussi les îleet rochers
situesau large de lacâte, pourvu qu'ils ne soient pasrecouverts
par lamer ; cettcconception a d'ailleurdéjà étéadoptée dans la
lettre patcnte mentionnéeci-dessus(Le. ~812 Rescript),
On verrapar la carte ci-jointedresséepar le servichydrogra-
phique, que 1'8tendnede mer dont ilestici questionrcc0u.r~edeux
déclivitéspartant de la cote,ou deux bancs continus situés de
chaque chte dela dépressionduRredsunddypet qui, avec lapartie
de mer s'étendant des deux chth, forme le commencement du
e plfe ou fjord s'enfonptltdans Ia terre dans la direction de l'est
soOutrenun certxin nombre de hauts-fondstetrochessous-marines,
cesdeux dbclivitéowbarns çom$tevt$lacsicwr;lotsou rochers,qui
sonttowj#tr$visibleat4-dess.deLa wzer;la plm grande ligneConti-
nue forméepar ces rochers estcelle qui portele nom de FtiIclgaren,
surle bancnord, dans le voisinagedu phare d'Ernka ;les autres
rochers situb le plus au large (Svinoy, Taklehoene, Hestboene,
Langslcjriet, Skibbyggereet Starhotmen) sont indiqués en rouge
sur lamte."
hé itaIicieedphrasesin'theabove passageindiwte tliat theMinister
considered himself only entitledto make use of per~tmnentlyvisibde
islets-androcks.l%e Miaister,inhis ExposériesNotifs forthe 1889
Decree did not fmd it'neccssa tryrepeat this lanpage, bat he
equallydiçregarcledsubmerging rocks. The Geodesic Institute, to
wllich the Minister referred foradvice. ado~ted the same attitude
and used similar language. (Se I?appo* 1~;2,p. 28.) Iiis also not
vith ho signifiranccthat inthe course ofthe clismsioris concerning
thisdecree the Prefect of Romsdal expressed tlie vicwthat it was
only posçible ta tctke into account the outermost inhabifd or
inhzbàtabZe.erritoryand n~t merc rocks and islcts situatedin the
openseas. Although this view was-noa tccepte by tlie Godesic
Xnstitute, it shows how far Norwegian oficial opinion was at thispenod from considering the useof low-tiderocks tobe legîtimate in
delimiting the base-he,
297. The abovejnte~pretationofNorwegim practicc in the filne-
teenth centvry is stronglyconfirrnedby the four Narwegian jurists,
Aschehoug, Arctander, Aubert andMorgenstierne, ivhose opinions
are cited on page 45 of the rgrz Rapport, Aubert, for cxample,
said in the Revw géné~al d~e Droit inkmatimal $aablMof 1894
(P .34) :
"Maisnoslois n'ont pasdécidh s'ifailaitenir campte aussi des
rochers qui nese trouventCrdécouvert qu'à mark bassel; leurs
. tees A cetégard sont équivoques. En pratique on n'a, queje
sache, jamais cornpque lesrochers quisont toujours au-dessde
Iamer ; les îlots et rochers,fcmrne points de départdans les
rkglements mentionnésci-dessous, appwiiem~ent.du moins tous
cette catégorie."
And Murgenstiernc,in his book, Manml di&Droit consfidutiomm1
noruégkws ,aid as lateas rgogtbt under the terms of the 18x2
Rescript it is notpoçsiblc to take into account mcks only visible
at Zow tidc. Despit~the previou practice and legalopinion, the
cornmittee which drew up the 1912 Rapport decided by reaçoning
the weakness of which is acknowledged in the Rapport, to recorn-
mend that subrnerging rocks should be taken into account.
298. The phrase "which are not continuously ruil over by the
sea" was fmt substitnted inNorrv~gian legislatiofor the phrase
"which are not nrn over by the seaJ'in a lettera£ 1908.from the
Kinistry of Foreign Affairstothe Ministry ofNational Defence (see
*hnex 34 A of the Counier-Mernorial).Inspite ofthe fact that the
phrase '"contiriuovsly nm dver" occurs in an unpublished Çmedjsh
decree of1779, the effectivstarting point ofthis phrase,which \vas
also intmduced intOthe neiitrality dedaration of thScandinaviam
States in 1938, tlie Aaland Islands Convention of ~gzo and the
Swedish-Finnish Liquor Convention of 1933 as ncited in para-
graph 409of thc Counter-Mernorial, \vas airnot certainly aSwedish
fisheriesdeam of 1871. It smms raasonable to suppose that ththe
adoption of ihis phrase claiming to take into atxount rocks not
continuously submerged waç a rmlt of the ernergence of the ruIe
of the loxv-watermark in thenirieteenth ccntruryBut the low-water
mark rule was fomulated to deftne the seaward limit of perma-
néntly dry tma fima. It is ODC thing to take into acconnt lotv-tide
mcks and banks as adjuncts of the low-\vater coast line ofperma-
nently dry territriryIt isquite a ilifferenthing, when they lieby
themseivesinthe opefisea,to mat them as islandspossessing their
om territoriawaters. Althozrgh the above-mentioned conventions
1 Ace% @tu& &tajout&efn~tc:~euhmedt k tiaitavk~ICh%xiquede i83h
cmpte exprss6mentdela bassemw&.and decrees do not glveexpression to thisdistinction, threlevant
clauses were essentidly dirededto off-shore islands androcks.
The Hagw~Co'pzfet~c (rg30)
zgg. Similarly, a nurnber ofthe repliesto -the $ztestio7%nairc
applied the loi&water mark testto içlands without making the
distinction between territory properlytbe regarded as part ofthe
main coast and territory standing apart oniown- But tlirnornent
that the distinctionwas brought to t11eattention of States atthe
1930 Conference, its relevancewas endorsed and Sub-Cornmittee
No. II record&, without qualification, iapproval of thelow-wntw
mark dc$tfor elevations rmking as adjuncts ofa main coastbut of
the high-matermu~k tesfor elevationsstanding aparéon their own
in the open sa, The actual terms in svhich they expressedthe
distinction tvibe found inpampaph 103of the United Kingdam's
Mernorial.
Sub-Çcimmittm Na, II,as stzdteIn paragrttph105 of the Rlemci-
sial, expsessIrefemd to tlie analogy of the'NolZh Se*?F . lsheries
Convention of 1882 which used the phrase 'The lem-watm mark
along the wholeextent of the coasts of their respective counfries as
well asof thedefitmderaislandsand banks". Sub-Cornmittee No. 11
plaidy considered thatitsformula. which only all~wslow-tide rocks
and banks lying within the width of the temitorid seato be takm
into accom t,was amore precise rcndcringofthe concept 02"depend-
ency" in the 1882 Lqnvention, The same phrase "dependent"'-in
the French text "qui en dépendent "-appears inthe French Neu-
tmlity Decree of ~912 with reference to banks lrncovering atlow
tide. (Sm para, 409 (a) of the Counter-Mernorial.) Were, it mTas
clearlyintcnded tu expressthe idea of banks which are adjuncts of
the main coast. Admittedly, the decree also appeass to make a
daim in respect of submerged shuds rvhich arebuoyed. The United
States Fcderal Courts have, however, denieci the validity of silcli a
clairn.Inone casethey have decidedthat asubmerged shoal camot
be considered an island of the United States (Sowltv. L'Africaine
(1804 zz Fderal Casa, Circuit and DistrictCotrrts,~789-1880,
Case No. 13179 :pee 204]} and inanother casethat a submerged
reefoffthe çoastofFlorida 011tvhicha beacon had been constmcted
could net be considered territory ofthe United States (U~ited
Statesv. R~miwg(1925 )Fed. (2nd) 488),
300. The other branchof Sub-Commit teeNo. II' ule for ishnds,
rocks and banks, nmtly, that an devation caronly have territorial
waters of its own if it is pennanently above \vater, was entirely in
line ~vlththe views expressed by Farzchille, onof Iew jurkts.to
give detailed considcmtioitsthe problem .ofislandsMa kingspecific
reference ta the Norwegian daim, he said (Book 1, Part II(xqz~),
p, 202): HEPLY OF.THE UNITED KlNGDOM (28 XI 50) 515
"Maisdoit-on compter seulernezit partirdes "iZequi restentA
sec A mark haute ou partir de cellesqui ne cl&.cauwentqu'k
marée basse ? La questionn'ajamais reçu en Norv6ge une solution
cedaine : ledécret du 22 f4vrier 18rz y a étéhterprkté comme
devant s'entendretantat de la maree basse(v.lettr es rninisté~
des Affaires étxang&redses24 mars et 26 mai rgcib),tantfide la
marée haute (v. dkclaratiodu minisGre de 1'Xat&rieuen 1894).
Ii!aoHs fiwra%i!psiolacsawad t~aitecowma ~rnuhzltablconçinerat
devant UV& ~He mm ttmifmide tp'zcn~iEepi fl'e,jamaisrecoakvcria
$ar LES E~MX.- Mais, 3propos des Be, une mtrc qirestionse-pose
encore, Que fxut-ientendreexactement par des aîlen? De simples
rochers,des récifs, desbancs dsabledoivent-ilsleurêtreassimilés
pour lecalcul de la merter'ritorialLes textesnorvégiensparlent
tout AIa foisdesrochers, des écuciet des îlaL'Institntde Droit
internationala expressément écart6les bancs de sable. Il nous
scrnble qu'il faut tenicompte seulement des rochers, écueilet
bancs de sable, habités ou non, où l'Etat peud'une manierp.fixe
établirdes ouvrages."
It will thnç be seen that Fanchine would bave preferred an even
stricterrule:thanthat adopted by Suh-Cornmittee No. 11. Likc
Gidel, hewould not even allow wery elevation peimancntly above
water to count asanistand but onlysuch as are capable of continu-
ing use.
301, The Nonvegian Goverument, in paragaph 4x1; of the
' Coun tm-Mernorial, contends that the rules for islands, rocks and
banks çontained in Sub-Cornmittee No. II's report have nojusidical
value inthe preçent case an the p'ound that they were adopted as a
compromise. Xn this conneciion it refersto the Ui~itedKingdom's
own statenent in paragmph 108 of the Mernoriil th& the rules in
the report areareasonable cornprodse between tlre oppaing vicws,
The argument, in effect, is that the ruleç,beiagcompromise, must
have been formulatecl dekegefermh and are ofnn vdue asevidence
of theexistinglaw. Such an <argumentmight have çome fme if this
was apoint on which therewere clcarer indications of what precisely
was the nileofinternational law before 1930T .he ciistbmary l&\vof
maritime territcity,as Norivayinsists, is essentidy a compromise
between the right of alStates to the frce use of the sas and the
right of individual caastal States to certain maritime territoqf. The
fact thatthe rulm adopted by Sub-Committee No. 'Ilwere a cnm-
promise does not theref oreinitseifprejudice their c1arobe applied
in the present case,The question of islands, rocksand banks was
for the first time considered in detail rinumber nf States aft:he
1930 Conference. The des thea adopted by Sub-Cornmittee No, 11
may have been acompromise but they are far morc inlinc with the
views of the 'Institute I1894 and ofthefew jurists, like Fauchillc
and Gidel,who have studied the questionin detail, han isthe ciah
of the NoswegianGovernment.The law of maritime territory Esnot
sImply s matter of daim by an individtid Sçtte.but requires theacquiescenceof other States.On a point tvhere practice islimited
and lacks pr~cision what better etGdence is th~rc ofthe applicable
3aw than a compromise adopted in an import,mt cornmittee of a
codificationconference and aftenvards xvdcomed asa çençiblerecori-
ciliaiion of thedivergences?
302- Iriparagraphqr~ oftheCouriter-Mernoria leUnited Klïlg-
dom Government is chided for thinking only of mariners and not of
the coastal "Stata when it jushfied the rules formuIated by Sub-
Cornmittee No. II as meeting the xequkernent that base-points
shauldbe permanently visible to mariners.The cornplaint made by
the United ICingdom Government is that the NorwegianGovern-
ment dedittesto recognize at .aithat others may have rights inthe
was off the Nonvegian masti, The element of compromise ùi the
law of the seais not tobe allowed to affect Norway. It is, hotvever,
perfectly reasonable for foreign miners 'coexpect pemanen t y
visible land marks to be the main basis for the delimitation of.
territorial waters. Asubmerging rockis not, of course,.more visible
itselfwhea closeto land than when out tosea. But the fact that it
lies closef.a pemancntly viçible land-mark removestheobjection
which esistç from the marinets' point ofview to accerding terri-
torial watersto asrtbmerging rock far out to sea,As has been men-
tioned in paragrxph r8 above, Norwegian fisticmen have alwavs
attached great importance to permanent "fixes" from laiid in
identiiying thei~ fishing grourtds ; and did not the Ministerb of
Interior in 1869 emphasize that he tvas only taking into acmunt
'les ilotsourochers, qui sont ilo~~ioevisibbes"?The significmce of
the elemeut of visibiljty for mariners is emphaçizedby the fact that
tliecharts normally used by shps st sea show permanently visible
eievations, but o~ving tothe frequent ahence of detailed informa-
tion often $0 nat specify whether or nirt reefs show atlorv tide.
303- The objection to ailowing territorid waters to a rock far
from shore whi,chsubmerges athigh ticle does not arise onlyfnom
the point of view of visibility. Gidel, in apassage which has prc-
viowdy been cited,'ha said (op.cil.V,oI III,p- 674):
- "L'idéequi domine le droit de lamer estL'id&de la libert4 EEe
tion inutileh cettelibertédoit Gtreévitéei.ie territoire maritime
est sans daute une dhpendance nhcessalre du territoireterrestre;
mais il faut quece territoire terrestre sout effectivementutilisk
ou susceptiblede l'être."
This observation uas made with seference to elevations of thesea
bed ~vhich are permanently above rvater. Howmuch more does it
apply to elevations disappearing afevery riseof thebde ? N~rway's
concept of maritime territory is saito be of waters accessor tythe
coast ofa State the extent of which is determiued by its legitimate
interests. The application of tliiconcept to a minute rock sub-
mergedathigh tide and lying several miles from any perrnanentlj? dry land is submitteciby the United Kingdom Governrnent to bc
altogether too artificiaand excessively restrictive of the freedom
ofthe seas.
- 304. The Norwegian Government also criticizesin paicigraphs
4r7 to qra O$ the Couhter-31emoria1,the çtatement of the United
Kingdom inparagraph 106 of the Memorid that thewords definii
an islandin Sub-Cornmittee No. II%report are to be understood to
denote an devat ion exping anapp~eciahle surface of land -above
theçea soasto be permanently visible innormal weather conùitions.'
The Nonvegian Govemment maintains thnt Sr-ib-Commit teeNo. PI
intendedany elevatioil, however small, -to countas an island.It is
unnecessary to pursue the point,as theUmted ICingdom acce-ptsas
falling ivithin the rulelclown.by the sub-cornmittee any elevation
whiclican be shown really to emergepermarrently above liightvxter.
It.rnerdy considers that an elevation cannot be sho~vn to emerge
pmanently without exposing some appreciable surfaceabovethe
sea.
(Counter--fi4emoriapl,aras.422-470)
Distimtio~ be&een coas$a&and occan [email protected]
{Coun ter-nlemorial, paras.422-4251 ,
305. The Nonvqian Govemment, in paragraphs 422 to 425 of
. the Counter-l!temorial, distfnguishei betwcen groups of. idan& '
lying off amainland coast and grmps lying inmid-wertn. It alço
distinguishesbetween the different types of coastal groups, some'
shaped like a chaplet, others circular or polygonal in form. It
- contends that no single formula çan cover al1these different types
asid ponrjridiculeon the United Ringdom for applying the same
juridical régime toan ocean group Iikethe Fiji Islandsas to the
Norwegian "skj&r~=;~a~d T"h.e United Kingdom is saidto talre no
account of the gecrgraphicaldifferences which are so varied as to
make it particularlyneçessary to be-rvaroefitbstract fcirmulz. Thîç
Iine ofargument is, of course,mereIy an application to the case of
archipelagosofthe Imiliar ~orwigian doctrinethat the geographical
factsci£the world are so hopelessly cornplex thaitit is yuite irnpos-
sible fothelaiv to formulate an$ generalrestrictionon the acquisi-
tion of maritime territory by cmstaI States. According to this
pessimisticdoctrine the coastal Statemust be left te encroachas it
likes on thehigh seaç.
306. The Nonvegian criticisrn ofthe United ~in~dorn's thesis
contained in paragraphs 113 to 121 of its Mernorialismych less
thm fair.Broadly' speaking, the United Kingdom maintainç that
islandsingeneralhave their omnterritorial waters andthat channels
hettvwn tlvo islands or between an island and the mainland are REPLY OF THE UWTTED KINGDOM. (28 XI 50) 519
as much nmaftm of compromisebetween the interestç ofthe coastal
State in adjacent waters and theinterests oother Statesin the high
seas rtst is in othercasesofmaritime territory. The boundaries are
thus necessaridy deterinineil not bythe chroiceof thccoa.stalState
but by principles of international law. The appIicablcprhciples
of internatiom1 law, in the submission of the United Kingdom
Governrnent, are those setout in paragrntph ~22 of the Memonal.
Does int~aatiovml Ilzw ~ecopize aa excefitional~igimefor coastai!
pups of islaw.Pds
(Connter-Milemorid,paras. 426-441)
Qecesfioof the buden af $roof (Count~r-Mernorial,paras. 424 and
426-429)
308. The Norwegian Government, in paragrapl~ 424 of the
Çuunter-Mernorial, formulatesthe issuebefore the Court in regard
to coastal groups ofislands as fdlorvs:
"Ils'agide savoir quelleslimitIs droitinternationaimpose au
domaine maritime de I'Etat, Iorsqu~setrouve devant fescBtes de
ce dernier un complexe d'îis, d'îlotet de rochers présentantles
caractèresdu askjxrgaard rnorv6gen."
Xt then proce& inparagraphs 426-429 to argue that the burdenis
on the United Kingdom to establis1that custornary tntermtional
law forbids a State to treat itsçoastalarchipelago asa unity and
as a prolongation ofits continentaltenitory.
The United 1-ngdom Govemment cannot agree ~4th the Norwe-
gian Government's formulation of the issue in regard to coastal
groupsof islands. Under international larv the maritime tenitory
of a Statç is detemined fundaaentally by reference to the tide
mark onits individual pieces of territoryand, where areas of seas
are clahed by reason ofparticuhr configurations to be endosed
waters, itisfor the claimant State to estahLish ap~rmissive rde of
international laiv authorkzing the enclosure of the mraters. The
United Kingdom Goverurnent does not, as is wrongly asserted in
paragraph 428 of the Gounter-Mernorial, contend that there is a
principal rule for single islmclto which any rule for archpelagos -
wuuld have to be establishe4 asan exception. The principal nileis
the much more fnndamental one that the maritime territory of a
Çtate isto he measured from the tide markalmg the shores of each
piece of its territorj-. Then, wheaegiven area of seaiç çlaimed ta
be enclosed titithithe nationil territoryof a State, a permissive
rulehas tobe shoivnwarranting the enclosureof the waters and the
departute of the base-finefromthe tidelhe, The force of the prin-
cipalrule isgreater rather thanles when the mclasixre ofthe waters
is saidtehe clueto the configurationnot ofa solid,continuousband
of mainland temitory but of disimlted pieces of isImd territory, 520 REPLY OF THE UNITED mfÇDOM (28xl 50)
separatecl by considerable intervals of sea. The general qriesüons of
the primacy of the tide-mark de and of the burden of proof in
regard trrits exceptiorishave already been kussed andthe Court
is invitedin the present connection tu sefer topasagraphs I-Bo-zz~
above.
309. The Gvernment ofthe United Ihgrlom does not wlsh to
place undue emphasis on the question ofburden of proof in the
. mattcrofdemonstrationof rulesofinternationallawaçopposedto
the question of btirden of proof on matters of fact sran questions
of a prescriptive os histone titleor of my alleged mle Iimited in
applicationtoaparticularcoast. Inthematterof tliedemonstration .
of the rulesof international Iaw, it isas explained above in para-
graphç 211-214,jndeed doubtful whetherthere is a burden of proof
in the strictsense, So far,howeves,as it is propertospeak ofthe
burden ofproolf ying onme sideor the otheras regardtshe demon-
stsatiori of the existence in internationallaw of any specid rules '
about archipelag~s or pups of içlands,the burden would rest on .
' Norway because these speclal rules mould be exceptjons fram a
\vidergenerd rnle that the base-line foiio~vthe tide mark, On the
assumption that special mles exist concesning terntonal waters
around archiyelagos and groupsof islands, the question remains to
what cases do these rules apply and what the effect Qfthe rules is.
Nomay 'scontentions based on State p~actice.and the writerswith
segard to the existence ofsuch. rules are diççussd in paragraphç
3r0-364 bdow. When, huwever, al1 this has hem aamined, it wiLl
be seenthat there içcertainly nogeaeral rule regarding archipelagos
or groups of islands under whlch tlie baselines of the Norwegian
Decree of 1935 can be justified.Ta justifythis it hasto be shown '
that me rule authori7~s a littoral SStte to draw of1her coasts
base-lines between islands and rocks ofextravagant lengbh and ta
daim as national waters al1waters inside the base induùing waters
lying between the island fringe and the mainland whatever the
interval betweenthe two.Tlieburden of proof iscertainlg onhforway
to show some mIc of international lalv justitying what ATorway has
done inher Decree of rg35 because lier justikation, if=y, wi11be
found on the Iast andysis to bc thxt tlie Norwegian coast is s~i
generis and therefore a parfidar rule applieç to it becamerit is -
snch an umsual coast. IVhether Norway puts this on the bais of
prescription (historie title) or whethershc puts it asa particular
de applying to mliat she daims to be a vezy special coastliae,
the burden ofproof is certainlyonher to p~ovethe existence of this
titleor rule, There is, of course,in addition first Nortvay's\rider
contention that the preçurrtptiuaisagainst restrictiomupoa individ-
ual State sovereignty and therefore the rightsof the coaçtd State
are dways to take precedenceover the general rights ofthe later-
national cornmuiiity over the open sea, and,semnùly,Nonvay's
other generai co~~teritionthat there is virtually no bindurg inter-
national law onthe matter at allThese wide contentions have beert REPLY OF TEE ,UNITED KiRGDORl (28 XI 50) VI
dedt with âkeady in paragraphs IT~-147 and zro-zza above B.efme
proceeding,howerrer, tu the exanii-nationofN~onvay'sarguments
based on State practice md the views ofw-nters tvith regard to
archipelaps and groupsof islands, the Governent of the United
ICirigdomtvishestomake the general comment that Nomay's tvhole
examination of thispractice proceedsun the wrmg basis. Nonvay
examines Ehispractice andthe opinions of \miters on the footing .
that it necessary toseeifinternationallarexplicitlyforbi clsirns
such asthose Nonvay makes in lier Demee of 1935 vhereas inthe
submission of the. United Kingdom the realenquiry iswhether,
under international lawthe Unit& Riqdom is ubligcdtorecogniaç*
the claimç trrhicNonuay has made ii her decree base$ on the
existenceofthe chain ofishnds and islets ofthe Norwegian coast, ,
or,in other words, whether international l$emits alittoraState
to encloswaters bydrarving base-linesmch as Wonvayhas bm.
The decision in the Lotzcase (SeriesA, No. ro) seems tosha\v (as
has been expla3ned in paragraphs 215-216 above) that ,ivherea
State invbkesa rulepermitting ittodo sornething whiçh in general
.is not perrnissible-the burden isonthat State toprove the per-
missiverute.
C~aStcd~YQM?$ of &.!a%&
(Counter-Mernoriap l,aras430 to470)
3x0. Inthe Norrvegian Counter-Memonalthe opinions of writers
and the work ofthe 1930Conference are examinecl first ipara-
graphs 430 to 444and again 454-455and then the evidenceregard-
ing State practicein pparapphs 44s to 453 and 456 to 470. It is.
I~owever,thought tobe more logicaltadeal with Statepractice &t
.and toconsider the opinions ojuristsand the work of the GWca-
tion Conference afterwards. In thisReply, therefore, the material
wjllbe taken in this order andthe observationsofthe United King-
dom on what is said in paragraphs 430 to +p+ of the Çounter-
Mernorial mithregard to the wriersand the Co&fica.iionConference
wiilbe found below inparrigraphs346-364-
The cvidenceofSt& pr&tice: grtestiooitheosYv coast 1k.e
(Cwnter-Mernorial, paras,445-4701
3sx. The evidertceof Statepractice invuked by Nonvay is con-
tained,in parapplis 445 to 470and is said to shm that internatio-
d lawdoes not forbida Staie toassertan 'kxterior coastiine" of
the kind now asserted by the NorrvegianGovemment in the 1935
Deuee. Onefeature of this exteriorcoastlitle daim ithatal1waters ,between the islands whiclfom the éxtenor çoastline andthe main-
land are claimed as national waters, irrespective of the distance
tvhich liehetween the idands md the mainland.
312. The rnisapprehensionof the Nam-egian Government 'con-
ce&g fie decisiclnof Lord Stowell in the Anna,a-case referredta
again inparagraph 445 ofthe Counter-Mernorial, has alreadybeen
explained (para. 289 above). He described the mud klands of the
Mississippias "a kind of portico tothe mainland and as "naturd
appendagcs of the caast" solely with rcfercnce to the question
whether, althoughthete was noevidence ofacts af sovercipty .by
the United States,the islandsought to be treated-asUnited States'
temitory. He was not concerned with thc status of the intervenhg
waters, In examining the evidence ofState praçtice adduced by
Nomay in suppod ofher outer coastlbe theoay, it is importantto
bear in mind this distinction ktween cl.aims to fhe idands them-
selves and daims to the intervening watcrs becairse a number of
the dlegkd precedents for ontercoast lines In facdeal with nothing
but daims to islmds as land territory.
313. Thus, thc British legislaiioninregard to the Queensland
Baker Reef cited in paragraph464, in regard to the Cook Içlmds
eited in paravaph 465 and in regard ta the Fiji Islands cited in
paragaph 466 simply asstrtc;daims tridl the içlarids and islets
inhabiteci ancluninhabited of ill-dcfincd groups scattereover wide
areas. The clefrntiion of theextent of BBriiïshdaims to Ulc land
territory of sachscatter Iedcificisland formationsby daiming al1
islarndswithin given latitudes and longitudes isperfectly natural
and intelligible in view of the dificdty of othenvise describinand
denominating each poup with sufficientprecisiontu avoid the risk
ofsubsequentdisputes. The form ofthese territorial definitions has
led some tvsiterfo misunclerstand th positionconçcrning thc waters
falling trrithinthe lines of definitasnthe citations withrefcrence
to the Queensland Barrier Reef sliotv. But the opinion sometimes
cxpressedthat the effectof the British legislaiion to appropriate
the intervening sea bctwecn the mainland and the reefas inland
waters isincorrect.Thc daim in eâch of the three cases isto the
&lands lying withia tliTines ofdefinitiontogefier with such tersi-
torial waters asthlry attractby the application of the 3-milc limit
under the nornlal rulesof international latvset out in théUnited
ICingdom'sMernorial. (In the case of the BarrierReef, there is dço
a daim tocertain sedentary fisheries whichmay have contributed
tothe misconcepiion ofthe British daim in 1923 by United States
consular ufficialsiLondon-) More detailed comment on the Norwe-
gian contention in regard to these threeprecedents is @veninthe
three foIIowing pamgraphs.
314. Q~eensEad.-The articl by Cumbme-S tetlpat conceming
the QueenslandBMer Reef deals with the gradud extension ofBritish sovereignty mer the distant a'slmds of the Reef and sayç
not one word about a daim to the irltervening waters. Shat the
object of the British legislation'in the nineteanth century
sirnply the appropriation of islands and rocks Iyirig beyond the
maritime belt of the mainland of QueensIanclis clear from the
follo~vingextract of m opinion ofthe Law Officerson the territory
of Queendand dated 26th May,1863 ;
"ltis hardly aecessarto add that although the definition the
çcilony under the Letfers Patent (of 8tSeptember, 1855) extends
eastwards t-o the 154th meridian of eastlongtude, it would be
byany other country gtoea11yislandwithin3thoscalimits, lying more
than 3miles frorn any territory in thactualoccupation of Great
Britain (and not incliidedwithin my bays or indentations of tl-ie
Britishcoasts),thatsuch idand shoilldbe actually takenpossession
of,or in some manner oceupied by this country."
Inother words, the Law Offiers in 1863 recognlzed that islands
which lie outside boh the inland and territorial waters ofa main-
land are not in la~v "itç naturai appdages" ;tndrequlre spëcific
appropriation. That the British legislation war; not regarded as
creating aay titleto the intenvening waters-spart hm nomal
territorial water~as made equally clear in the later opinion of
the Law OfTicersin1875 concwnixigthe jurisdiction of the Queens-
land coirrts which has already been citcd inpatagraph 295 above
(seealso ,Annex44 ofthis Reply), The first proposition othe Law
mcers, itwill be recalléd,was :
"Queensïanfi has no legislativ.authoritymer the seas beyond
tlidistance of3 rnaGnz:miles hum lotv-\vater mark çnthe ntairr-
Ja~d a.d islands~es#ectiwL y"
315. TheCook Is2ads.-The prodamatlm ofBritish sovereignty
over the Cook IsIandç in ~goxis unequivocally a claim simplg tu t11e
tepritorieslying within the lines of definition, and the Nomegian
miçapprehension as to the meaning of the praclxmatian was
correcteciin 1925by the British Charge d'Maires ai Osla. 'fie
letter from the New Zedxrid GovernmentSenior Trade Cominis-
siotterin Austdia of 24th June, 1949. and the note of the High
Cornmissioner for'New.Zealand ia Austrdia of3rd January, 1950 l,
both addrcssed to the Ncinvegian Minkter at Canberra do not
depart from this position at all.The Jetter refers to mgdations
afftxting fishingfrom bases in the islandswhich the coastd
State is fuUy entitled tu cantrol s itkg, The note explicitly
Zimits the legklationto territorial waters, (Forthetext offhe letter
and the note, see Annex 73 of the Counter-Mernorial,Nos. x md 2.)
1 The dateofthinoteIstwunglygivenaspf h January1950,inpamppIl $65'
of the Counter-lmonat. 315 A. The Goveniments of Australia and New Zealand have .
beerrinfoimed of the texts of parapphs 313-315 abav~ and have
autharized the Government of the United Kingdom to statethat
they çoncur irthese paragraphs so faras tesritories mder their
respectivejurisdictiom are concmed.
316. TheFiji Is2aaeds.-The prodamat ion of Sri tish srivereignty
oves the Fiji Islands in 1874isin its tems unequivocally limited
trithe is'landsplusrthe \vaters appurtenant ta them under inter-
national law, Thisisperfectiy clear from the trvo passages mder-
lin& in paragraph466of the Counter-Mernorial. The first passage
reads "aad of ad overüII $ovls,harboatrs,umfis, roadsfeads;&vers,
esfwar2esam! O~JW Paters, and:.dl uq1d forahmes wit7~in. or .
adjacentth~eù". The phrase "citherwaten", must be read ejzksdan
gmmis with ports, harbours, etc.,and covers for example bays
and territorialwaters. The word widltincannot mean within the
lines of definiti; itis vsed tvithreferenceto the. ports, harbourç,
havas, roadsteads and other waters m11icharenecessaaly describecl
asrvithin, or adjacento, the islars&.Slius the clauseplainly Ihitç
the daim to the waters which are appizrtenant to the indivih~zk
zsta~dsand sucb isthe scope of the British daim. The second
underlineù passagein effect repeats the definition in theprevious
passage,The objeçt ofthe Royal Charter of the followingjrear,alst,
referredtciinpxtr;lgrapl466 ofthe Corder-IIemorial, was sirtlply
to meate a Crown Cobny and a Colonial Govertirnent for the '
tesritories previously brought within British sovereignty by the
prodamation. The refermce to the territorial buundaries is in rnrich
more general ferms than in the proclamation and has to beread
inthe light ofthe precise definition inthe instrument hy which
sovercignty ha$recently been assurned. The phrase "and waters'"
thUs covers the watess appurtenant to the sevërd islands and no
more.
Bra'tishHo~dwas'
3r7. In paragraph 463 of the Couter-Memurid the Nomegian
Govemrnent mfers to a letterdeged to have been written in 1936
by the Wnder-Secretary of State for the Colonies.Actuallv, this
letter was written in 1836, not 1936 ; and its nlmiber.was 391,
not 39, as stated inthe Çounter-Mernorial. Fiirther,.thisletter\vas
merely written to a Mr. S. Coxe in repIy toan enquiry made on
behalf othe Eastern Coast of Cen-trralAmerica Company. (A copy
of this letterinf31 iç given in Annex 45.) Numerous islets, man y
unnamed, lie off the coast of British -Hondurasand it wodd be
. -impracticablefodehetheextenEofIStitishterrit~~aldaimstotliese
islets except%y reference in a generd line mithin whiclAil1islets Britain was entitledto waters within-a ontcr coast line.He was
contending for the oppusite of what isssrggestd in the Counter-
Mernorial. H8 was imistiag ihizisiads carry tizeir tewitohal
beltoj3 m+ilesin theiaca;bacityas sepa~atcfiiecasof le~dtory, and
~zvthi.nmore.
Th North Sea FZsh&s Cowentiort (1882)
319. Anotherprecedent Invaked on asomewl~atsîmilar misinter-
pretation to provide support for the "outer coast Iirie" theory in
Articlez cilthe North Sea FisheriesConvention whïch is invokd-
in pnragraph4jr of the Counter-Memarial. The full text of this
articlercads :
"Les pêcheur nationau;; jouirol~tdu droexciuside p2cliedans
lerayon de 3 milles$ partirde la laissde basse mer, lelong de
toute l'&tendudes côtesde lems pays respectifs,aimiquades iles
et des bancs qui endtipmdent."
ïhe NcirwegianGovemment inskts that thisisan example of m'
"outer coastline'Ytheoq7 despite the fact fhat the usofthe words
"airisique des" clearly shmm that the article treathe islmds ancl
banks as units ofterritoryseparate £rom t.e mainland coasts and
wilh cowsisof fheb mn. Mrliatever be the true meanhg of the
phrase "qui en dkpandent", Article z of the North Sea Fisheries
Convention cmnet be accepted as Iending support to the present
Noswegian theory of an outer island coast he. enclosing idand
watws.
320. The next aUeged pwcedent for an "outer coastline*'cited
in)aragraph 452 of theCorinter-Mernorial dso rcstson a cornpletc
misconstrnctiûn ofthe meaning of words. Inpursuance of a fish-
erks agreement with the Gerrnan. Empire the B6tidi Bo,ud of
- Trade issued the foIlo\;vingnotice :
"1..nie exclusive fislierlLnits of the German J?Apirr are
designatcdby the Imperia1 Governmen t, asfolloivs: Thattract
of the seamhich extends to a distanceof 3 sea miles from the
estr~mest limit which the ebb leaws d of the German North
Seacoast of the Ciermanislands orflatyyi~g bsjoréif,astvellas
those baysand incurvations ofthe coast\vithicare 10sea miles
orles inbreadtli,reçkoned from the extremestpinb of thc land
and the Rats,must be considered as under thc territorissorer-
eipty of thc Germa11 Empire."
The Norwcgiam Government insists thzt the above i~oticerecognizes
the outer Coast !intheor- mrhcreas in fact it treats the isIands and
flatsas heing units oftenitory clîçtinctfrom the mainland coast.
71henotic2 quit2 clearlycontemplates a 3-mile klt from the tide
mark ofthe mainland coast and, secondiy, of theislanclsIfrinoff
the coast and then, thlrrIlyoff the rnouth of IO-mile bays. 'The RSSPLY OF THE UNITET3 KINGDOM (28 XI 50) 527
misapprehension kd the Gounter-&fmorial as to the rneaning of
the notice mav perl~apsbe due ta a tciaeconomical use ofpunclua-
tion in 1874.\llThenthe notice wm miqed in 1880the matter wx
made even dearer bv the kddition of a comma bettt-een the words
"Worth Seacoast" and the wrirds"of the Geman islands"and the
phrase was then made tt,read :
"~'f~icextendsto a distanceof 3 sm miles from tiie extremest
lirnit wliicthe ebbleaves dryof the Geman North Sea coast,of
tlie Germa1 islancls or flats before it, asivcll as....".
Thesenotices arepedectly normal illustrations of the application of
the tide-mark rule but have nothing in commnn mritlthe modern
Nom9egianconception of an .uter CO& Ene.
Th' North Atlantic FisheriesA rbitvatior(19x0)
l
321. In paragraph 447 ofthe Camter-Mernosid, the recornmm-
dàticm of Eli1910 Arbibtion Tribunal for the tracingofthe lirnits
ofpar.tidar bays are invoked as evidence of theapplication of the
oxrtecoast lineSheorv. The point made by the NorwegianGovern-
ment is that islands-off $]lepromontories of the mainland were
allowcd by thetribunal to count as the headlauds of the bayscon-
. cerned, It is perfectly true that in çamcases base-lines are taken
from an island ofapromontory,It ishowever alsotrue that inother
cases islands wliich lie acmss the opening ofthe bay are used as
base-points. Tndeed, thX ssthe case with the fourislands whichlie
offthe stiirthern shore of thBay of Chaleurs, the example particu-
larlv çtressedby the Nonvegiaa Govement, The tmth is that a11
the varions ishds rnentioned inthe recommetiilations wereaUowed
to count as;base-points in the tribunal's recomendations on1.y
because that they weyc fiosght tofw~ pariO#thetmitorid colafigzk-
ratz'owsemlwilzg Zhewu&s O/ the parGic?dEa8ays. Jt Isa complete
misappreherision to infer that the tribunalin itsrecommendations
mas either conscioudy or unconsciousiy giviw effect fO anythirlg
Likethe Nonvegian Gevernmerit's concept of an "outes coast Ilne".
If the recommendations are looked at as awhule with a cliart of aU
the kreaty coasts,it wiIl beseen that they leave an even.larger
number of coastal islands isolatedfrom the m&lanEl coast and
e~ititleonly toth& own 3-mile limit. This is becailse,apart from
the bays spec?aUy listed,the larv-latetmark rtile dong the caast
plus the 10-milerule forbays was to determine thearea of exclusive
Britishfisheries. There was not the sllghtest suggestion in the
tribunal'saward nor in the recarnrncndatioriçthat watersinside a
fringe of lsIandfellunder ariy specialrule.The very fact that in
thecase of St.Mary's Bay it wctsthought necessary to specîfy that
Long Tsland and Bryer Island should be taken tciconstitutethe
coastof the bay (i.e: the closing Iine ofthhay) shows that the
hibuna1 entertaincd nogened theory of anoiiter coast line. coasts of Florida, Cuba, the Bermudas,the Bahama5and Jamaica
(paras. 46~-4-62and 467-46 9f.the Counter-Mernorial). Dispirtes
conceming the Cuban cays arosebetween Great Britain and Spain
asearIv as y839 owing to Spain's obj jcctionto the pzacticr of the
inhabiiants of neighbouring British poçses~ions resorting to the
uninhabited cays and conducting fishingriperationfrom them. The
British Govemment took the opinion of its Latv Officersand a
desu3tort.ydiplornaticorresponclencewith Spain ensued, inwhich
Great Britain contestedSpain's titltoethe uninhabited cayç and
to any territoriaseain connection with them. Subsequently, Great
Britain'sneutrdity in the Arnerican Civil ?Varledto an examina-
tion ofGreat Eritah's otvn titleto the uninhabited cayç offthe
Bermudas, the Bahamas and Jamaica for the purpose of deter-
minhg the extent of her neutrahty jurisdictionThe Law Oficers
tlien, in1862,1863 and 2864, zemnsidered tlie positionin regard
ta tjt!to uninhabited off-shore islands andpointed out thatLod
Sto~veil'sdecisionin the Amna had been overlooked ingrevious
opinions onthisquestion. The trpshowwa çhat Great Britaindecided
to daim the sovereigr,ty of uninhabitedcays inthe vicinity ofthe
Britishposs~ssions and that hcr objection to the Spanish title to
the Cuban cap was allowed to drop. (The relevant documents are
set out in Smith, Great B~it~i.yaad thc Law oof1Vr&tims,Vol,II,
pp. zzr-241.)
325. The diplornaticcorrespondmce betweea Great BsitaIriiand
Spain concerntne;the Cuban cays dealt with two main questions :
' (1)the Spanishdaim te a&mile maritime bdt which Great Britain
persistently opposed,and (2) the Spanish titleto the unfnhabited
Cuban cays. It istrue that momentarily Great Eritah showed a
çiispositiotodoubt whether any uninhabited islands even iownd
by Spain, couldpossess amaritime belt, OthermGse,apart from the
6-mile limit,the main question under consideration befween the
two Gowrnments urassimply that oofthe titletethe uninhabitited
islandstvhich,if edablished, would carry a beIt of territoriasea
without furtherconsequcnce. Inde& Spain doeis not appear to have
claimed a special sstatiis for theintervening waters sincein the
diplornatic carrespoed~nce with the United States at the same
period Spain sought to justify her need for a 6-mlIe belt from the
maidand by ireferenceto thepresence of islets:sa rocks off the
th^nQueen's Advocate (Sir John Harding) took the thvimvitinh1859c
that islands recognizeto be Spanish possessionswere ewtitiedto a
3-milebdt (Smith, O$-cdllp+ 231):
"Gaierallyand in conclusim 1cm ody say(a) that thej-hile
limitshould bemaintained and(b) thatthe permarilzntlnhabited
cays and islands must bconsiderd asSpanish territory, and the
mEe appliedt;otliem."
I ! The Bw#mdns
326. In1862the first othe British daims came der the con-
'siderationof theLaw OfTicerswhen the loca1authorities askedfor a.
ruling concerning the territorial watefiof the Bermudas (referred
to inpara. 467 of the Gounter-Mernoriai),The Bermudas, as cm heu
seen from tlie chart at Annex 48, are the highest part of a coral
formation which çonsîsts of a broad ad-shaped rcef conipletely-
encIosing çome deeper lapon^ and entered by a single navigable-
channel not a quarter of a de wide, The islairidlieat the south-
easterncuve ofthe oval and to-day the ody other part ofthe reef
which risespermanently clear of the water is the North Rock which
liesat the opposite, ncirtherçmve, and on which there Bs a light--
house. The rernainder of the xeef eithm just breaks the surface of
thesea or stands at varyingdepths not far bdow the surface.These.
physical fcatiresare dearly etzough seen ori.tl~e194G chart sub-
mitted to the Court. The old chart used by the Law Officers in.
1562, hawever, shrr~vedthe reefs much more Izeavily mxked and,
much more prominent and it isclear from their language in the
I passages given below that thuy believed the nwmal condition of
most of thecoral lledgto be ahuve water. The rnaximnm difference-
between 10. and high tirSeat spring tide in Ehiç area îs in fact
I 4.2 feet. Itisnecessary tuhave these facts in mind inappreciating
the opinions,
327- The Law Ofiçers, hefore they kad been reiferfid to the
correspondence, relating to Cuba, took the following view (Smith,
op CZ~-p. 232) :
'"We wcre ofopinion tiiathe antliorft(the dmi~iu'untemiinms)
of Rcr MaJeçtyduesextend to fhree marinemilesfrm fhe riorthern
reefs. We thiaktl~atthese reefs mustbe considered asbelonging
tathe territorialjutisdictiw incidtotthepossessionofBermuda,
sa farat laastas that, between,She amndthe islmd, Her Rfajesty
has a rightto prevent the exerciseof hosti!itieand tliat iwe:
areright inconsideringthem xs part of Bermuda, itwonld follow
thatHer Majesty's jurisdiction must exten.totfiree marine miles.
from that point,"
Afterbehg reiwred to the Clubah correspondencethey elaboratcd,
their opinion as folËows(ibid p.,233) :
"That we arc still of opinionthattheterritoriajmisdictionof'
Bennuda mnst be estimated at the distanceof a marine league
from the North Rock or .thozcildge ofihs co~lreef,ornialbsvmfs
f~omIlzr:rockoiatd~oat~rdg8 of bkb @ut ofthecm& re~,+,hickis-
not coveïedb?,th SM al low wairu.
1t appears thatthe islandsof Bermada consist of acollection
or puy oi about 365ledges of coral formation,emerging above "
the water. Tlie whole group lieupon a coral bank, of which the
ledge Aats are a continuation. The North Rock, which is14 feet abovc water, foms part of
these Rats,and liesatthe mmth ofwhat is marked onthe orhance
map as the Wcstern Channel-tbongh, onlyon one occasion,as
we are infurmed by Gpt. Barrett (wha has been ernpIoyeù by
the Govanment twsurvey the islandswxç it ever passed through
bymen ofrvar,
itTrnight be necessaryiinaf fatme warg ttoplaceonethere for thed
protection of the island.
The 'ledgerflats'generdly, though sometirnes mvered at hi&
water, are,infact, aslt were, a naturd ledgeor girdie ofdefento
the Bermudas, of which tliey are, or have been, a continuation,
Great bitain appea~salways to havea ttachedgeat importance
to the maintenance of a mmpIete lurisdictioaver the whole reef,
asweii asthat part ofit,designatecl athe Bermudas.
Surveys ofthe whole group wcrc made in 1793-1797.
The originaliskept atthe AdmiraItv, and one capy was sent-to
Bermucla : both have beeiia1ways këpt secret,and no copies of
them allowed to bemade.
l7ies Bemnda reefs beara closeanalogy, not onlyto the Baha-
mas, but (sofaras the applicationofthe law affects them}to the
Tloridareeis, and to the uninhabited island, distan5 or 6 miles
from the month of the Mississippi.
The former, the Arnerjcans Iravcwe believe, dways clamied as
a continuationof the mainland. Asto thelatterwe havethe advan-
tage ofan expmss çlecisionofLord Çtowdl, the principle and even
the language of tllich appear very applicable to thecase of the
North Rock and 'Icdget Rats' of Bermuda,"
Then, having cited the relevant passage from Lord Stowell's judg-
ment, the Law Officershrned their attention to the Cuban corne-
pondence and concluded (ihid., p236) :
"Xt appears clear,homver, that the report of the late Qneen's
Advocate, Sir John Harding (11th November, z&jg), does not
sanction the pminciplethat thecay, if Spanish&d not carry with
them the usual territorial jnrisdicfion over adjacenwtaters: he
rather returnsto theoriginalopinion of SiJohn Dodscm, as tothe
uncertainty of theSpanish titletothe caysthemselves. 'lndeed, he
expressly says, 'If the Spanish titile sliould be dearly establishd
in one ormore partiçulacases,thm 1 considerfhadthe 3-mile limit
a$$lieslo suchcases,jwi asit wmld to Sh toastof CU~C~'.''
328. It is clear that inthe above passages the chef point in the
minds of the Law Oficers was again the question whether the
scivereigntyposseçscdby 3Iis Majesty over the hhabited tersitory
could properly be said to extend to minhabited rocks and reefs.
Whether fighfly os wrongly from the point of view of the then
existing law, the Law Officers, believingthat the coral ledges were
nomally above water, gave it as theiropinion that the reefs wese
British possessions carsying their owri 3-mile maritime bdt. In
addition, they ccinsiderethat Great Britain had theright toprevent
the exerciseof hostilities insidthermfs. Oncethe main conclusionwas reached that the continuous band of cod reefs were British
temito~y, theassertion ofjurisdiction withinthem was scarcey sur-
prising since the interiolagoons were then wholly enciosed except
for one very nmom channel deepenough forsea-going vessels and
bvo orthree very shallow channels leading into the lagcions and
nsable oniy 13yvery srnail craf.
328 A. Having regard to theactual condition of the Bermuda
reefs asitislrnown twday, the opinion of the Law Officers In 1862 -
eoncerning the territoriawaters of Bermuda goes beyond the prin-
ciplesconcerning thedelimitation of territoriawaters inreqxct of
rocks and recfçwhich wee generdy acmpted atthe 1930Cndifica-
tîon Conference-.However, hoth from the exlier days of the colony
and after 13h, the colonialauthorities inBermuda, bylegislation
and l~yadministrative exerciseof jurisdiction, have continuously
and publicly rissert4 their authorityboth over the encloseciwaters
within the rcefs and to a distance of three miles from the outer
ledges.This legislatioandexerciseof jurisdictionhava been applied .
internationau y in fisheries, navigation, ~vrecksand relatemat ters
andhas met with no objection onthe part ofany State. Therefore,
the titEeofthe Bermuda Government tosovweignty overthe above-
wentioned waters in the view-ofthe United KingdomGovernment
finds itsjustificationin an historic usage which l-ias receivethç
assent of other States.
329. The opinion ofthe Law Oficers inthe verynext year (1863)
concerning British jurisdictionoverthe Bahana bank, referred ta
in paragraph468 of the Counter-Rlemorial, showsplainl tymt they
,&dnot cntertain the ideathat cvery reef expose8 at Iciwtide is
-opento appropriationand capable of possessing territorial waters.
Having protestcd thateven with the aid ofthe charts suppiied to
them, they bad not suffitien'"practical lczlorvlcdgeof the locality",
fhey expressedthernsdves as followç(ibid p.237) :
"Inanswering these questions, moreover, we assume ~st,that
theGreat Banks, seferrecto,have not been heretoforeclairnedor
in any senseoccupied as British temitory;zndly, that (if iany
part ç~pable of behg accupied and inhabited, wbich we do not
suppose tobe the cae) they are uninhahitedin fa&.
Upola th esassampfionswe areofopinion that,asa gemral de,!
Brz'kskjwrisdic wtioldnotsxid hyod thedistamceojthca miies
frm an ifilzabitedislaor çay.This generalproposition,however,.
must be subjected to exceptions.For instance, any part of the
Great Banks which may be clos~d&thin inhhfed c~ys, Ihongh
byod the djsilanof threemitesf~.m euch cay,mighi Iiconsidercrl'
withifi British jzmisdicAiny~part ofthe Great Banks capableof
sustainingafort, wliich, if buiwouldcotnmand themtrance, or
fo Iie.witl~inBritishjuridiction.eInafact,having regarditaidthed pecuiiar formation and ositim of thex cays, we inclineto adopt
- the expressionsof Sirl4rederick Rogers in hisletterto Mr, Ham-
consideredseparately ineachofcaseorigraupofndcas&."dencmust be
In this opinion the Zaw Officersdid not, therefore, consider it
possible to daim anuninhabited part of the Great Banks E being
wih British jurisdiction urlless was either endmed byinhabited
cays or was solid enough tcisustain afort whichmight cornmandthe
entrance to orthreaten an inhabîted cay.
3zg A. To-day the delimitation of'territonalwaters inxmpectof
the Rahania brtnks isgoverneci by the principlesof international .
law conçerningislands ,rock and mefs which weregenesaiiy açcep ted
as la~vatthe 1930 CodrfrcationConfer~nce.In addition, the Bahamas
y t horities daim exclusive jurisdiction over certain sedentary
fisherîeson the sea bed in the waters off the Bahamasisiandsand
.banks.
330. Thefollowingyear [t864),Spain beingengagedin suppressing
a revo1- ttSan Domingo; the Spanish Consul asked the Governor of
Jamaica for information cnncernii~gthe territorial \vaters of that
island (para. 469 ofthe Counter-Mernorial). As the pile limithad
beea a mdter of contsoversy with Spah for some years past, it
was not unnaturd tliat the opinion of theLaw OEcers shodd be
largely devoted ta ernphasizing the British point of view on that
issue. Having saidthat the 3-mile limit was "areceived usage and
understandingof al1the Posvers of Eurqpe ad Ammica", the Law
Officersdid, horvever, add (ibid.,p. 239) :
"'l'babesidcs thisgenera1 iït Hm Majesty's Gaverirment dso
daim, as part of Her Dominion, thc whole waters of maritime
creeks, inlets, a-nd the mouths of tivincludeclbet~wn licadlands
' part ofHerTerritory, although such heacllarico,rsome parts of the
coas-tsinducled within thcm may be more thnn sie miles apartfrom
each other. That inplaces whcre the possessionof particular rocks,
reefs or banks, mhsratty cmweckd wi1k CJ3s mi.izlad of any $art
O/ Hêr n/rniestyFsterrit, is~ntccssaufci~thesa#e occu$ufion ad
defe.nceofsuch ~uiduwd, Her Mniesfy's Govsmmanze nlso daim the
rfiatcsnclosedbcfwem .themaiszda9da& Ehoserocks,vmfs,or b~miZs ;
whaivtw ~~znybe the disZan# betw~enthemad Ihensaresdkeadlard,"
The Nonvegian Governent rqresents that the Law Ofiçers char-
acterized the above "claimsJ' as being in amorclance with the
received usage and understanding of aUthe Powersof Europe and
Arnerica,As a rnere matter of languagc this is the reverseofthe
tmth, 'fie Law Officers'lmguage distinguishes betwveen the 3-mile
limit as a receivecl usage and the rernaiiider asBritish "claims".
NevertheEess, the Nonvegiari Governrnent is stfl entitledto takefhe principles of international Jaw which were accepted as law ai
the 1930 CodificationConference,
The UwifedSfafs and the Caban cays
332, Ta1862 the United States had also becorne engaged in a
-disputewith Spain concerning the latter" daim to a 6-mitemasi-
-tirnehlt round the &land of Cuba (&O referfidto inpara, 461 of
the Cciuntar-Mernoria l}pain,as previously mentioned, argiied that
the presence of isletsand rocksoff the rnainla~d justified hpreteni-
sion to a 6-mile belt off the mainland. To thisargument Sec~etary
Steward replied (Moore, Bigesi'Vol- 1,p, 711) :
"Theundersigned ha exarnined&bt aresupposed toIieaccurate
chtts oftlietoast of Cuba,andifheis notmis led by some exrorof
the çhartor ofthe processof examination, he 11sasce.rtwnedthat
nearly half ofthe coastof Cubaispracfrally fret£mm reefs, rocks,
includcs thegeatt harboursdof Cabanoç, Havana, tRlatanza, andi
Santiago arevery cleep, whileinfact the greatest dcpth of the
passage between Cuba and Flanda is founclwithin 5miles of the
coast ofCuba ,ffthe.harhur of Mavana-
The undersigned has further acertained,ashe thinks, that the
ke of keys which confront other portions of the Cubai1 toast
res~mble,indimensions, ccinstition and vicinity tothemainland,
the keys wliichlie off the southern Floridacoastofthe United
States.The undersigneclassumes that tliis line keys is properly
to beiregardedastlieexteriortoastline,and that the idand juris-
dictionceasesthere, whiIethemaritime jurisdiction of Spainbegins
fsom the exteriorsea frontof those keysys,"
The principalpoint conçeded by Secretary Steward was that the
uninhabited cays comt.itutt.edSpmish tenitor yo as to carry a
maritime beIt of their own, He &O seemç to have conceded that
tlie\vaterencloseclwjthin a fine ofcays might he treated as inland
waters though hc did mot gisinto details asta the ca3~ which he
had ifmind inthis connection. No dodbt, the particiilartendency
of the confipations of the Cuban cays toenclose the waters of tht
Jagorsdswithin the reefs influcnced him in'expresing this view.The
laquage iisedby Secretary Flsh in 1869, seven years later,was,
howevtr, a little different (ibid,, p. :~3)
"The maritime jurisdictioa of Spain may be acknowledgd +O
extendnot only to a marineZeape beyond the coastof Cuba itsetf
butalso icthe çame distancefrom the coast linof theseveraisbts
orkeys ~5th wlzich Cubaitself isurrounded. Any ack of Spanish
autlioritwithin thatlinecannet be called into question, provjded
theg sball.nobe at variance with law or treatia."
Ccrtainly,the abovepassags concerning the Cuban cays indicate
that the United Statets hen recognized, as the United lcingdom
Govemment in its Mernorialrecognizes,the possihilityof islands by
tiheir particular configuration actuaUy encloshg areas ofsea. But REPLY OF THE UNITED XTNGDOM (28 Xi 50) 537
citizen andresident of Horida. As he was rrot a national of any
foreign State,"noquestion ofintematLonal law, or of theextent of
the authority of the United States inits international relations"
was involved (atp. 72).And at page 73the Court said :
' "The argument bsed on the limitsofthe territorw iaaers, as
theseare dexribed by this Court in Cumavd Sframshi+ [email protected]
v.Meilale(262 U.S. zoo, 122)-i.e,the 3mile lirnit-and in diplo-
matic conespondenceand statementsof the PoliticalDepartmen t
ofour Government, is thus beside Zh@ifil."
On the other hand, in Middletuw v. Unit& Statw Cr92 932 Fed.
(2nd)239) itwas held by the CircuitConrt of Appertls,Fifth Circuit,
that, since thecase concerneclthe bringing of uliew into the United
States in violationof a fedmat statute, the 3-mile rulerather than
the 9-milenxle of the Florlda Constitution niustbe appIied.
The factsofthis case were that Middletsn had ananged to take
certain aliens by rnrita~boat from'Cuba anclto ld thern çecretJy
in the United States The boat grounded within haIf a mile of the
FPorEda keys, then piroceeded through.the qorth-west channel close
to Key 117esEpassed by the bell-buoy which is within 3 miles of an
minliabitecl island andfindiy caughlt firewhen 5 milesfuxther to
the north-eut withiir FloridaBay. Middleton appeded from a con-
MctionofhrtvlnglandeclaI.iens inthe United States and in diçrniçsing
his apped, theCircuit Coiirt of Appmls, Fifth Circuit, said :
"XtisbeyonCldisputethat he broughtthealiensinto the terrîtorkl
waters ofthe United States when he came withinhalf amile ofthe
keys, md alsotvhen lie passedby the beU-bnoy of tlie north-weçt
channel within3 milesof anisland. It does not make anydifferente
that these islmds iveuninhabit eit is sdfficithat they were
islands of the United States."
AU the points' through whkh the motor-boat passed were within
the boundaries of the Florida Constitution, but the Federal Court
regarcledthe limitçof United States jwisdictionas dependeno tnan
application of the3-mile Iimit frtim the individual is1mdç.
It is clear, therefore,fia%ththeConsütution of Florida is of no
assistance ta the Nonvegian Government in çonnection with the
present case.
IrreImanceof Z?iesp.ac$de~dsfo th ma& issue of th& case,mhich k
Zhe long basa-lhes sdrawrtEiythe 1935 Decree along the o&er edgs
O# thet~i~gg
334. Inlerestingalthaugh aUthese historicalpreeedeintsare, the
United. Kingdom Govemment doubts if they arc relevant to the
issue beforethe Court,\++hichiswhether the base-lines d1a.xwiy the
NorwegianRoyal Decsee of 1935 on the outer edge of the fringe
are validaccordi ngthe internationallaw in force to-day,On the
actnal facts ofthe Nomegian ças2,the United Ringdom does not
dispute that the waters betwmn the fringe and the mainland areenclosed and areNom~gian waters. Thert may or may not he
differenceçinsome casesas to whcther certai areasare os are nat
endad. The United KingdomGovermen tnaturally opposes any
supposed doctrineunder whicfi al1waters on the maidand ade of
an isI,anfr,i~geare iinder the sovereignty of the coastal State
irrespectiveofthe extent cithe interval andof the extent tcwhich
infact these waters are in fact enclwed. The main issue is the
character of Norway's claims on the oadsida of thefringe and 04
tkis issueit doenot appearthat these precedents affmdm ysupport
,v-atever to Narwaj~'~case.
Themore modern clairns reIledupon by the Nonvegian Govern-
ment to establish iLscontentiom as to base-lkes round coastal
archipelagos will be dealt with in the immediately ensuhg para-
graphs of this Reply.
335. The modem precedents wiih çoastal archipdagos rvhich are
cited in the Counter-Mernorial are the fdkowing I namely (u) the
Alashm Boandq Arbitrdivn of 1903 (para. 4461, (bJ a New
Caledonia FisheriesDecree ofrgn (para. 449)(c) Ilmish, Nome-
gian, Swe$islz md Finnish Deçrees of Igrz and 1938 (para. 450)'
(d) the Zfeaty of Dovat of rgzo (para. 457), (e) the Helsingfors
Liquor Convention of 1923 (para. 458),(f)an TranianLaw of 1934
(para, 458 A), (g)an Egiiados decree of1938 (para,459) and (h)
a Saudi-Arabian decree of 1949 (para.qGo),
The dhskm Battdury Arbdrafion (i'go3)
336, The question of anoukr coastline was not in issue inthe
Alaska* Bo~miury Rrtriiation (Counter-Mernorial, para. 446)
because it was accepted by bath partiesthat the word "coast" in
the Anglo-Russian Trea3 of 1825 rcferred tçithe maidand coast.
Neverthcless the argument of the United Statesin developing a
proposition onthe mmning ofthe treaty, Eouchedupon the question
of an outer coast line where thecoast.is fringed by the Alexander
Archipelago.Having cited a passage from Hall's Iafeatiml Law
onthe Cuban Archipelrigode losCanarios (seepara .46 below] and
Lord Stowell'sjudgrnent in the Ama, the argument pzùceeded
wjth the following two sentence wshich are given in the Couriter-
Mernorial(para. 446) :
"1-tlins appemsthat hom tltmfm consri~cof amaritime StGe,
as defined in phyçical geogsaphy,is invariably measured under*
internationalaw, the limit ofthat zoneof territwater generally
exteriorboundqarifrom which the marinelewe Alismeasured-ms the
along the outer eclgeof the Alaskan or Alemider Arcl-iipelago,
embracing x group ccrmpolçeclflimd~eds of islandr;."
The citation inthe Cornter-Mernorial ,however, stops too mon, for
the mrnainder of the paragraphreads : "When 'meamredin astraight linfram hcadland to headland'at
their entrance, ÇhatIzam Skait, Cross Sound, Sumner Strait and
less than tenmiles. Tliat factaccordingto theeauthoritiesquotede
in the I3ritisCounter-Case, pages 24-28, places thcm within the
category of territorial waters. All ofthinteriorwaters tou~hing
upon the &i&re,stlch asBeha Canal, 'l'ahXnlet nnd LynnCanal
are,in the languageof HaII,'lahar cndosed&Ih2'wthe tcrm'iory',and
assuc11are terr~torirwaters, regardle ss thrsir width attheir
entrances tvhen aeasumd from headland ta lieadlanrl."
The additionai sentences make it plain that the United States.did
not conlemplate the possihility of an un~estriçted outer coast hne
wherever archipelagos occurbut limited the outer çoastline concept
to cases where the interior waters are genuinely enclosed by the
configurations ofthe island goups. They also appearonly. to have
daimed a line passing along the shores of eaçh individual outer
island and acmss the prrirnonto15~s of the actual inlets into the
interior waters-a very different method of delimitationfram that
adapted by Norwûy in the 1935 Dccrce. Admittedly, the United
States argument maintained thai, the interiorwaters being mere
lakes, the width ofthe inlets was iramaterial.But it emphasized
that the inlets in fact coiiformed to the IO-mile lirnitand in the
rgxo kbitration the United States took up a radicdly ddifferent
positioninregard to the vridth of entrmcesto tnclosed waters, then
urging a &mile limit. At the 1930 Conference tlie United States
favoured the IO-milelirnit bath frirbays and for straits leading to
interior sva'cers.
337. Article z ofthe Frmch Decree for New Caledonia (Corinter-
Mernorial, para, 449) reads :
''L lmite deseatw territoria isesix& parune ligne imaginaire
coiirant 9troimillesmarins au largedes gr&-ndrsécifsextérieuret,
Ih oices r6cifmanquent, trois milles marinau la~e de lalaise
de basse mer."
The impurt of this decree iseç~entially that FranceÇlairns the
great outer reefsas French territerg with the consequace that
they are to he taken into account in the delimitation ofterritorial
waters. It nppears that the hase-line foIlows faithfully the Zine
of the rocks.There is nosuggestion of base-lines drawnfrom one
extrernc point on the line of rocksto another extreme point (which
1s what Nomy does in the lioyal Decree of 1935)~
Ddnish, Nowegian, Swedisk and Finnish darces
338, The relevant formula of the Dar:ish, Norwegian,Swedish
and Finnish decrees, which are cited in pam, 450 of the Counter-
Mernorial, is-wit h unessentid variations in the later deçrees-the
foIIowing (see Annexes 6567 of the Counter-PiItemmiai) :maidand should be treatedas bays in regard to which itswmed
to think that tlie normal limit wouldbe about 12 miles. (Bases
of Discassion, p.190 ; forthe Stvedish view concerning bays see
para. 260 above.)
Pinland, in hm reply to the qwdionamire, endorsed the concept
of aspcid r6gime for aschipelaps in the fcirrnadoptein,4rticl5
of the Instituteof I~,'~ternationLaw's draft in 1927, that is,
where the distance bctween islands on the çircumference does
not exceed twice the widtli of theterritoriasea.She strpported
Sweden's attitude,hawever, in regard to coastat archipdagos,
The United Kingdom Gav~erit isnot to be understood as
subscribing to the viein expresseci by these three Statein1930
concerning ewastal islands, and indeed their vietirsshaw scime
divergenc Ttrnerely emyhasizes that thepmctiçe of fies Setates
does nat supportthe theory of theNosrvegian Government mder
which notional base-finesare jolned bebveen extrcrne points on
the outer islands regardlesof whether the configurations enclose
the sea and regdrdle osthe width lofthe intervds belmeen the
umts ofterritory taken as base-points and regardess of the inter-
vals betweea the island fringcl and the mainland.
30- Article3of the Treatÿ ofDorpat xgzo between the U.S.S.R.
aad Fhland, which iscited as a precedent inparagraph 457 of
the Counter-Memurial, does no*.carry the Norrvegian argument
any farther or even so far asthe decreesof Denmark, Finland
and Sweden disçussed, inparagraph56 above. The articlereads :
"hç mm territorialdes Puissances contractantes, dans la
golfede Finlande, auronla largeurdquatremillesmarins Apartir
de lacste,etdans i'cwchi7de$artir raunier Votor&rochmclépns-
sanf lemiv~aade En mer,"
Tkis &ide merely prescribesthat where there isan archipelago
the +mile lhit is to be meamzred not from the maidand but
fmm the outermost inlet asrock above water, nere is noreference
to the sea rireas between the ïsbandsor ta the circumstances in
which an island may be said to belong taan archipelago. hast
of al1isthere any indication that notional hes of tvhatever length
may be drawnbetweenext~me rocks at widely separted iirtervals.
34x. Article g of the EIelsingforsLiquor Convention of 1925
{para. 458 of theCount er-Mernoid) be tweenGermany,Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Litl~uania, Nortvay, Poland, Danzig,
Sweden and the U.S.S.R. is even less helpfulto the Nonvegian
argument. The parties agreed to aspecid customs zone of xzmiles
extendhg from the coast or theouter lhit of archipelagos. Thme
was no indicationFE,to what was meant by an archipelaga osas542 REPLY OF THE UNITED mm~~r (28XI 50)
to how the exteriorlimit \vas to be detmined. Moreover, the
States concerned expressly resewed their attitudeinregard tu
the delimitation ofterritoriawaters under geaeral internat iod
law. The attitudes of some of the contrading States conçerning
coastal islands has already been mentioned. It may be added
that ofü-teother States at the rqjo Coderence Ge~any objected
altogetherto the intvodtdctiof a specinrlle for the archipelagos,
while Latvia thought that thcunity of idands cmld only be
recognized subjectto thelimit of twicthe width of the territorial
sea. (Bases of UZsc?~ssioa, pp.rrr and x7x.)
342. SirnPlarlyArticle3 of the Iranian Law of 1934 ,hich is
cited inparagraph 458 A of theCounter-Mernorial, merely daims
the right totreat the islands oan archipclaga as a unjtwithout
specifying what constituteanarchipelagoor inwhat circumstances,
if atdl, notional lines may be drawn betrveen theouter idands
of a group. We how, howcver, frorn Article2 of the same law
'chat,where areasof seaare claimed by Iran to be mclosed within
the salid çontinuuus amis of a hay, she restricts her claims by
applying the xa-mile limit (hex 68 of the Cornter-Mernorial),
343. The Ecuador Deçreeof ~938,whichis titedin paragmph 459
of the Counter-Rlemorial,leaves extrernely vague precisdy how
the tenitcirial sea of the rnid-ocean archipelago of Calis con-
sideredto be delimiteilh any event, the UnitedKingdomGovem-
ment declinesto ~ccept as a pertinent precedent adecree which
in itsdaim to territorid waters so greatly exceedç the hits of
what the large majbrity of States regardeias acceptable at the
1930 Conference and of what in factthey accept intheir practice,
344. The last precedênt,invoked in parqraph '460 of the
Counter-Mernosial,is Artide 4 of the Saudi-Arabja D ecree of
1949. Clauses (f) and (g) of the article dealinwith the groups
of islands seem to have been inspirecby areading of the disçus-
$ions at the 19-30 Conference and b174 determination to daim
the largcst areaof territorial waterw&ch could çonceivably Be
attrlbuted toprbciples vedated inthose discussionç.The decree
has attracted the protest of the United States Government as
well as oftheUniteciKingdom (seeparagraph 123 above). It may,
howcver, be observed that evm in this decr~e the joiniof base-
lines between points moE than rz miles âpad was expressly
excltided. I~deed, rzm&s is in fact doablethewlridthof thebelt
of territorial waterwhich Saudi Anbia daims. 345. Thleprecedentsinvoked in theNorwegian&unter-Mernorid
are therefore considered to be inadquate to establish a specîal
régimefor coastaI archipelagos undercustomary law, The majorïty
of the precedents relate eitheto the enclosureof bays by islandç
or to the enclosureof waterç b y island and rock formations in
a mmer analogous tu the enclosure of bays. The principle of
these cl&s is the enclosme of the waters by the prticular
geographical canfigurationswhet her of the mairiland shorecoats
or of the off-shore islands, Further, even if-which the Umted
mngdom Govenrnent denies-these prccedents did çonçtitute
a special rbgimefor coasistaarchjpelau goser international law,
thcy ivould stilnot provide authority for the drawing of excep-
tiondy long bkw-lines dong the ontside of the fringe, such as
those drawn by Norway inthe Royal Decree of 1935, As to thls,
the United Kingdom repeats what it has dready said in para-
graphs 52 and 56 above. It is the question of vcry long base-
lines which goes to the root ofthls litigatian.
(Cornter-Mernorial,paras, 430-444 and 454-4551
346. .The NorwegiarzGovcmment, hotvever, hvokes (paras. +p-
qgq and 454-455 of the Counter-Memurial) als~ the opinions
expressed in fivetextbooks, 1'Wo ofttiesebook, those by Gidel
and by Higginsand Golombos (pasas, 454 and 455) wre published
after the 1930Conference and it wiU be convenientto defer con-
sideratiori othem untiI afterthe Nonvegian Govement's corn-
ments on the xvmk of the conferencehave been examined. The
other thee books cited in the Connter-Mernorial (paras.442-444)
are those of the distinguished nineteenth-c ueny mit ers,Hall,
Wheaton and Hdeck.
The only one ofthcse writers mho even touches theqirestion
of coastal archipelagos is Hall, who says (Inter~ationd Lam
(8th ed.) ,.r49):
"Apart fIom questionscorinectedtvitb the extenof territorial
waters,whichwillbs~Zealt ithlatercertainphysicd peculimitiof
toastsin. variouparts of the worfd, where land impingeon the
sea in anunusual manner, require to be noticcd asaffeciringthe
territorial bodary.Offthe coastofFlorida, arnongtheBahamas,
alongthe shoresof Cuba,and inthe Pacific, ato be fotlngroups
, ofiitimerous islands and isIrisingout ofvat banks,wlzichare
covered withvery shoal water,and either fom a line more oSess
parallewith land or cornposesystems af theiown, in bath cases
shualandgsometimesbrelativeldeep. Theentranceetothese interior hys or Zagoonsmay be wide inbreadth ef surfacwater, bmt it is
narrow in navigable water.To take a specificase,an the!south
coastofCuba the Archipela geolosCanarios stretcheRom 60 to
80milesfrom the mainiand toLa Isla dePLnos,its length frothe
Jardines Bdnk ta Cape Franccs isover zoo miles, It is encloçed
partly by some islandmh1y by banks, ivhichasealways awash,
but iiponwhich,as the tides are very srigthe depth of water is
atno the suficient topermit of navigation. Spaces alcng these
banks,many miIes in lengthare unùroken by a single hlet;the
{vater ianinterrupted,but access to the interiogulf or sea is
impossibleAt the western end thereis astrait,zo des or so in
widtlibutnat more than 6 miles of chmnelintervcnebctween two
banks,which rise tmithin 7or 8 feet from thsurface,andwhich
do not consequently admit of the passage osca-goirigvessds.In
cases ofthis sort th2'uestionwhether the interiowatcrs are,m
upon the depth upon the banlrs,andrthe -cYidtofthc entrances,
Each must bejudged upon itsom rneritsBut inthe instance cited,
therean be litde doubtthatthe whok Archipelago de los Canarios
is a mem salt-wattter lakand that theboundary of the land of
Cuba runs along theceenor edge of the banks."
The above passage occurs mt in the sectionsdealhg with maritime
terrifory but in Section 38 conceming Jand frantiers and it is
plain that what HalT had in mind was ccintinuouçcoral hamiers
cudosing Iagoons, Re tseats these cases as exceptional and
ernphasîzs the continuity of the shallow. reefs,the enclosureof
the waters by the reefs and the narrowness of 'theinletsinto the
interior.SOfar was Hall from thinking of any general nile for
.archipdagos that he insistd on each individual case being udged
upon its own rnerits,Moreover,in hi5 opinion, the question whether
the interior waters are to be considered ençlosed lakes "must
aiwayç depend upon the d@th %port the banks the m'dIit of
Me c.retra.~zctd',
The view of Hall, writingin1880, that reefsoonlyjust below
the Eeml of the seamay count asterritq, isscârcely reccrncilable
wj th modem principles concernlng the delirni tation of territorial
waters. But hs ernphaçis on tlie enclosure ofthe waters andthé
narmwmss of the inlets is entirelyinaccord wjth modem ideas.
It may be added that in the partiedar case to which he refers,
the Archipelago de los Canarius, the maximum width ofaay of
the intervals between the above-watw islcrnds awd cnys on the
enclosing coml bank is about 104 miles.
347. The passages frora 'IVheatonandHaIZeck. cited in para-
graphs 443 and 444 of the Counter-Mern~rial, are identical in
substanc+if the second h& of the sentenc ienIVlieaton isadded.
It mill therefore suffice to recd the mords med by Weatos
(E2ewents ofI~t'evfiatiofii;m, 1936 ed., p, 215) :
"Theterm 'coaçtsindudesthenatd appendagesof theterritory
which riseoutofthe water, although theseislanarencitosufficient firmnessto be inhablted or fortifid; but it dom not properly
, compxehend all the shoawhich form sunken continuations ofthe
land perpetually coverd with water,"
These avirrds are, of course,an eçho of the judpent of Lord ,
Stowell inthe Anm, whe merely laid dom that the uni. hablted
Islands at the mouth of the Mississippi,formed from the mud
brought dowii by the river, were neverthdessistands ofthe United
States, possessingterritorid waters. Lord StoweU"s judgtnent, as
has been explainecl(pam, 289 above), related essentially to the
question ofa coastd State's titkto islands cançtituting a "natnral
appenilagep'to the çoast. The seinainder of the paragrapl~s in
both T,V11eaton and Halleclr, w'here the above paççage occurs,
shows clearly that both these miters were cmectly hterpreting
Lord Stù~vell'sjlidgmentas direçted to the question ofthe United
Stattes sovereignty ovethe mud islands. Indeed bot11tl-ieswriters
seemed to regard' Lord Stswell's referenceto the islands liaving
been fomed by alluvium as a material elernentin bis decision
1 to treat them as '"naturd appendages" of the mainland coasi:
I and theref0rc.i be1ongintathe coastal State.
348. It iç thus impossible to accept thc contention in para-
graph 443 of the Caunter-Mer that the above-cited passage,
found in Wheaton and Hdleck, exactly expresses the idea behind
the hTomegian practice of treating the outer islands, WLetsand
rocksof the "Skj~rgaard" asforming part of the coast. At mosi
the passage may Be saiclto lend snpport to what aappears te be
the tn~e priricipleof tlie Mrwegian Rexript of18x2, namely,
fliatthe idamds and rocks off the Nonvegian coast, although
uninhabitecl, aretribe treated as Norrvegianterritory possessing
territoriawaters. La fact, it is doubtfui how far Wheatou and
Hdmk would have xegarded ail the isIands androcksoffNorway
as"naturaI appendages" of the mainland, but the point is imma-
terid asthe United Kingdom Govemment does not contest Nor-
~vay'ssoveeigrit y overany uninhabit ed island ar soclr susceptible
inlaw of king claimeCias territory. What is material for the
presmt purpose isthat the passage found inWheaton and Hdeck
çontains no indication at dl of a rjght to treatas the "'coast" of
a State nofional lines dram at wiîl bctween tvidely separated
roclrs norof any special rule applying to groupç ofislmdç.
~g. The Government ofthe United Kingdom thereforesubmits
that neither the prccedentç of $tate practice ngr the opinions of
writexswhichare cited in the Cornier-Mernorialestablish theexist-
ence in international law hefore 1930of a rule giving a special
rhgime to thewaters suwounding theislands of an archipela Tghe.
evidence ofÇtate practicecertainlypoint sothe genmal acceptance
ofa mie under which unid~abited-and evenunhhabitable-islands
and rocks off thecoast may be treated as territory pussesçingterri-
torial waters. The evidence also points to a generai recognition of
35 REPW OF THE UNPTED KZNGDOhL (28 Xi 30)
~4~
the fact that coastal is'tands, artidarly islands atthe mouth of
an indentation, may, by tbeirparticwlar positionand configwrations-
in relation to the coasi, açtuaI1y enclose areasof sea within the
froritierof the coastalState. In thelattercase theenclosed waters.
are regarded asin effecta bay,the ms of tvhichinsttad ofbeinga
solid lineof Iand are a bnkcn line of islandç. But the principleof'
the precedents-a logicai, fundamental principle-is the actud..
enclosure of the waters by the physical configurations of the various.
pieces of territory. That isa very different principle from the
recognition ofsovereignty over a11the sea lying betmeen islands of
an archipela segoardiessof ivhether the seacan poperly be said.
to be encfosedby the configurations of the içlandStill kss is there
any precedent for drawinghg base-linesalmg the o~iside ofthe:
island fiinge.
350.In corisequence,the United Kingdom Government waffirmç.
itr view, statecl inparagraph 113 of the Mernorial, that generaI.
international Law has not recognized any special principle which
èither givesn peculiar status to the inter5 of an archipela orin
any way exccpts tliem fsum the ordinary rules governing islands,
bays and straits. Thatat any rate was the position before the 1930
Conference. The Nrirwegiârt Gavernment, howevet, in paagraph
430 of the Counter-Mmorial, maintains thatinternational pactice-
had long recognizeda special rkgirne iarchipelagas and that the:
faiZure of jurists to notice tks practice is ta be explained by the,
fact thatthey neglected tl~ispointasthev neglected other points in
maritime law. This isa boldcontention & view of the many distin-.
guished jiirists who stuait.id maritimIRW hefore the prepaatory
work of the Codification Conferencebegan in1926. The question of'
allowing a special5&gime forarchiplagos is not a trivial point of'
detail but a,fundamental qu~tion of much intrinsic interest and.
Importance. Are we really to believe that, for exampb, the jurists.
arid States,wlio directed so much attention tu the rCgime of the
Dardanelles, simply did not concern themwlves with the rkgime of'
the chameh between the Bgean archipelagos ? If they did not
çoncern themselveç with these outer çhannels tothe Black Sea, jt,
%va& simply because it never occurred to thtm that the waters of
the archipelagos could be governecf by any other régimethan the
régirnefor straits.
351. The truthis that, when M. Alt-arezand Sir Thomas Barclay
in thcir reportsEo the International Law Associati~n and to the.
htitute of lntmatiwial Law in 1927 {Counter-Mernorial, para,
43x1vmtilated the question of allegalrkgime for archipelagos, they-
wereIargeIy pioneers ina netvfield. The Nomegian Governrnen-t:in
pamgraph 430 uf the Counter-Memonal seeks Toexplah away the
fact,tbattlie Resolutions of Ihe Institute in x894,nnlike itç Kesolu-
tions in1928 , eresilent upon the questioof archipclagosbj7saying.
tliat themere equaIlysilent uponthe question ofIslands and indeed of alLelevatiodsof the seabed. This argument, howeiver,loses aU
Xtsforcewherr itis recalled thatthefirst clraft of the Resolutiori in
18% did çontain an article deaiing rvitrock and sandbanks, but
that'thisarticle wasdeletedhecausèmmbers of the Inçtitute were
uneasy as tO the riskof indefiniteextension of territorid waters
which might beinvolveclin rillowingrocks and sandbanks focûunt
asbase-points. CIearly,the ïnstltutein1894 çontemplated stil! less
that ~vholepoups of widely separated islmds might be used as
base-pointsfrirthe indefiniteextension of territorid waters.
352" The Norwegian Government observe in paragraph 431 of
thc Çounter-Mernorial that iiis astnking fad that, as soon as the
attenf iori£juriste;in thvariousIearned societies washwn to the
problem ofarchîpelagos, Eheytendcd to resolveit in favow of the
unity ofa poup of Sslands. The United IGngdorn Govemcnt, ie
.Iîs Mernorial, acknowledged that the resolutiom, of the lemed
srniefieslikethe work of the rggo Conference, showed a tendency
ro adopt de kge ferendu the principle of the unity of groups of
islmds. However, they provide nothirig whatever to support (a);
the drawing oflong base-lines on the outer side of the fringe of
islmds or fb)cIairnsto al1waters hetween the fringe andthe main-
land as interna1 waters irrespective of the wldth of the interval.
There is moreover srn extraordiriarykconsistency between the
Nonvegian Government'ç mtirnates of the value of the work of
leamed societiesas evidcnce nf an existingcustomary law when it
îsdiscussing archipelagos in paragraphs431 and 436 and whm it is
discussing the de of the lew-watei mark in paragrapb 311. It
reallycrtlmot be supposecithat in the years 1926-192 the learned
societieswhen they f-ed a reçalutioninfamihar terrns aboutthe
well-known,gmerally acwpted doctrine ofthe low-water mark with
itsexceptions, were merely specirlatingde legef~endtz but that,
when they framed a. novej, resolution about a matter entirely
neglected by jurists, thewere rnerelyrdating arrtle ofthe lex lata,
The tenclency in 1:helearned societieand at the 1930Conference
fo support the intraduction of a special rulefor arclripelagowas
accompanied, as ispointed out inparagraphs 115 to 121 of the
United Kingdom's Mernorial, by aninsisterice.on restricthg the
appbcation of the speciaI rulto cases where the intervalsbetween
the islandsare of moderate aize. Thus Basis of Discussion No. 13
imposed a limit of twice the ~Yidthof territorial waters both in
regard toocean and çoastaalrchiplagos,
353. Tuining to theHagueCodificationConftrencethe Nurwgim
Government in paragaph 438 of the Counter-Mernosiai seek ta
escape from any Iimitof the width of the interval between the
islanclsby charaderizingEasisof Discussion No. 13as a compromise
towin over the Stateswhiclr,Kke Great BritainwerewhoUy opposed548 REPliYOP THE UNITED KIFiGDOEf(28 Kr 50)
to the intmductian of a newrnTefor archipelagos. NO tloubt,Basis
ofDiscussion No. 13 $vas a compromise in the sense of being the
rniddle litre arnong codictingviews. But the ~bservations of the
Preparatory Cornmittee on Basis of Discussion No. 13 (para.437
of the Counter-Mernorial) make it absolutely çlear that the limit
of distancems introduced into the cornmittee'stext not tu catch
the vote of G~eatBritainbut asa neceçsq &ment inthc proposed
nile H.aving referredto the vicwof sbme Stateç that iislmds shoidd
dways have t-heirom territorial tvaters, cornmittee said (Bases
of Discassion,p. 51):
"'Accordhg To othergavernments, wherever twa or more jslands
are sufficientiy nearone anothes orto the mainland, theisiands
ar the islandç and the mainland foma unitandterritorialwaters
must be determineclby referencto theunit and natsepa~atelyfor
eaçh island;there \dl thus be a singlebeltof territoriwaters.
This conception claimsto be hased on geographicalfactsUn the
ather l-iand, it mises more..çcimplicaquestions thanthe ather
vierv.Inthe fi-rplace, it makes it ?zecestordetemine how ;iaocm
theislads m14stBPIo mnothe~OTfoa2'mcaidand,"
354. Thegenesis ofBuis ofDiscussion No. 13 isnet-ver y 35cult
todixm. The Cornmittee of Experts' originalarticleon islandsin
their dtaft convention circulatectù goaermmts in 1926 aiiowed
coastal islandsto affcct thebase-lineof the mainland only if not
hrfher distant früm the mairiland than the singlebreadth of the
territoriasea but provided no criterionfor deteminhg the width
of the permissible intervals in archipelagos.In 1927, under the
guidance of M. Alvarez and Sir Thomas Barclay, the Inskitu-tof
International LAWundertûok a more detailedstudy.of the queskion
of archipelagos. M. Schiicking, Rapporteur of the Cbmrnittee of
Experts and the author both oftheis dmft convention in1926 and
'ofBasiç of Discnssion No. rj in 1928, was also a member of the
Fifth Cornmittee of the Inshtiite and took part in their dixussion
of archipelagos inrgzy. The discussion in the Efkh Cornmittee is
reporteclin the1927 A.~ln?daz"Vrolume 1,pp. 78-81 wherc, after
MM. de Lapràdelle and d: Boeck had argued for limiting tl-ie
intet-valsbetween Man& of an archipelago by referencto tliesingle
width oftlie territorid sa, it is record& that (p. 80:
"Tous les membres sontd'accordpouradmettre qu'en tous cas,
nne distance entrelesîlesapérietue5 celldu doublede l'étendue
de lamer territorialemp8che l'applicatiode lar&gIeAklaborer
en faveur des archipels."
The upshot was that the Fifth Cornmittee in r927 proposed an
article on archipelagaswhich would apply the Emit of twice the
widtliofthe territorialsea for archipehgosThe hit forthe temto-
rialsea propused in a4 earlier articlof thecornmittee's draftwas
6 miles, givïng a 12-mile lirnit foarchiplagos. KEPLT OF THE U3rTî%D KINGDOM (28 XT 50) 349
355. M. SAÜcking wax not preçent at the plenas. meeting at
~iockholm in1928 .hen i+adopted the disfance of twice the widtli
ofthe territoriasea asthe test for appl_vingtheproposed new rde
for arçhipelagos, but he riodoubt followed its proceedings with
interest in his çapacitas aLeague ofNations expert on the subjeçt
under discussion. The Institutesubstituted 3miles for the 6 des
previously proped for the -rvidth O£ the territorial*a, thus
sedubg the Intervals in ih rulefor arcliipdagos frIZ to6 miles.
The Institute made one further change in its proposed article for
swchipelagos by psovidînge~pressly forathe case of costal archi-
pelagos, The amendanent was proposed by the SwedishjzrristM. de
Reizterskjtildwhcise int~rvcntion in the discussion is recorded as
foliows (1928 Rnn~ai~e, pp, 644-647) :
"M, de 12eutemkj6ldproposeun amendement hllarticlequim'~st
a~lrechoscquela fo~mfildz6C;o2~ermmil stcddoi:
wDans lecas OUun archipel,st situle kng d'me cBtel'&tendue
deseaux territorialsera comptée A partir da flotset récifsIes
pluséIoignésde la cbte,Potmu que ladisfuncedes idesd $lotles
fidm $rochde lacdtc92dEpassepas kdoublede la mertet&oriaJe1
L'ari~cie ~staQ Eicablnm seulmentd I'archi$ddeIn NmvÈge,
mais aussi Acelu8c lasuede. LE Gouvcrnement subdois a faitdes
observations scrnblxbles lors de l'eriqu6te laCrimission cle
. Codificatiode la Sociéthdes Nations. Lc Gonvernemcntsi~kdois
a eu enwe decompter l'dtcndue da eaux territoriales à pardes
llesles pluskloignéesde Tacote.Si lesrapporteur psnsent que la
règle propos& par M, de Reuterskjdd est comprisedans Eetex-te
, de l'article quontsform1.11c,elui-estprEtAretirer son amende-
..ment ;au cas contraireillemaintiendra.
M. +ilvarexaccepte 'amendementde Mm .e Reuterskj6kd,sauf
. rédaction.
M, Dit~1.adew~ajadR M. deRcwienkjdd s'il fa& caq!wem?~ePUY
.' I"ex$ressionrIndoldble mfiac~e& lliMET t~vrit~lriesir mlla
- r>leat.ins.
M. de I?euf~sl?j5LddS~lav~WG c'esdjz~ssimer&?tce sms qu'il
faut rromfire~cle'~x+ressiosuswio~?id~. il"
M. de Reuterskjold therefore in rgz8 shared the view expressed
by 31.Aubcrt in r8g5 that the intervals between klands and the
mainiand nttst not'exceed the &stance of twice the width of
territorialwaters, The Instittzte adopted the additionai clme
proposed for coastal a-chipelagos and then its $raft articlewas
in substance precisly the same as thetextadopted by M. Schücking
in the fcillawingvear for Hnsis ofBfswsion No. ~3,
. 356,The Couriter-Menorial, in pmgraph 435, draws attention
to an intervention by M. IVollebaek, in the siune discussion of
archipelaa gtohe hstitiite's meeting in 1gz8. M. Wollebaek was
then the hTomegian Minister in Stockholm, and in 1912 had been
. chaiman of the co'mrnittee tvhicb drew up the Igra Repart.
He askedfor the insertion ofan amendment çafeguardingrights in archipelagos to temitoriaiwaters acquired by intmationaï usage,
but withClsew hisproposal m being informd by the Chairmasthat
hiç point was already covered byArticle 2 of the Znstitute'sdraft.
As Article 2 merely pmvided that a belt ofterritorial sea larger
than 3 miles rnight,be justided by an international usage, the
Chaiman mst have understood M. Wollebaek as claiming for
Norway a righitto $-mileintervals inarchipelagos instead of to
the 6-mile intervals dowed by the hçtitute'ç draft. It may be
addedthat both M. Wollebaek and Article 2 cf th^ draft contem-
plated an exception ody for cases of intermutionzdsage ,ot simply
for national pretensioris.
-
357. The suggestionin pragraph 438 of the Coanter-Mernorial
that tlieixitrodiictioof a distanceJimit into &sis No, 13 was
simply a vote-catching expdient isthus enti~l y contrary to the .
farts, At the 1930 Codificatmn Conference tlie rnajority of Sub-
Cornmittee No. II showed adisposition to adopi, instead of iwiçe .
the width of the territorialsca, the IO-mile rimit proposed by
Japan by andogy front the law of bays. The analog$, as waç
poiritedout in pamgraph x~g of the Mernoriai, 3saot a tsue one
except where the chanael betiveen the islanb of the archipelago
leads towardsinland waters and is tllerefore really the entrance
of a bay. Where the charnel connects two parts of the open sea,
the ccinsiderations justifying the cnclasure of bays within idand
waters do not apply. The Nonvegian Gowmment contenrk in
pmgmph 440of the Counter-Mernorialthat the distinction between
treating the waters of anarchipelago asinlmd waters or territorial
.waters is of naimportance whatever ia the preseit case.But the
drawing of badines depends upon ascertainhg the Emit of inland
waters. Aqoreover,in 1930 the atternpt to forrndatc a speçial mlc
for nrchipelagosbroke dotvn onthis very point. It broke doua,
because Sub-Cornmittee No. II declinedto treat as inland waters
charnels bemen islands which connect two areas of open sea.
Tlieconference therefore leftthewaters of archipelaes tobe dealt
withmder the existiogIatvof aIO-mile rule for bays and ofordinary
territorial watersin strtraitç.
358. The Norwegian Govrirnment, haxvever,in pwngraph 454
., special rule for archipelagosthe staterncntofHiggins and Colornbos
(Intmatiml Law ofthe Su (1943)~ p. 76) that "the generally
rwegnised rule appears to be tlzata group of islands foming
part ofan archipelqo çhouldbe coasideredas auait". Thisopinion
is tentatàvelyexpressedand issupported mly by a iofootnottvhich
says "this is thesolutionfaniwredby the ddt convention of the
Experts' Commit te submitted to the Hague Conference ef 1930"
and referstaArticle 5 oftheprojecf 01t-heInstitute of International
Law in1928. The passage in tbis text-book cmot thereforebe iegarded asaffording praaf of an cxisti~g spe~ial rule for
archipelagos.
354. The United Kingdom Govemrnent, in paragraph ~zo of the
'Mernorial,çited a passagc from Gide1expressing anopinion opposite
tothat ul Mjgginsand Colombes's book. The passage reads :
''Éfafacfwl dtvdmid- L'effordoctrinaliimpotant du Dy Alanch
permettra peut-être,si la question est reprise un jour ou
conventionnellessurla questiondes arcliipels. Polemmetd èdgle.i.t
I'clbsev~e r2g.k~sféL11fis cc! aallmisi$P~Pte droit inkv-
$gaiiosz,asot~~tiofiIqueiI~ilco~ziienfdc se teestwlle qui~dsuEte
dw droit cowmzrmde la matidra de la mw te~rahriale." (09. cit.,
Vd. 111, p,7~7,)
"ne Ncrmregian Governmznt, in paragaph 455 of th^ Corrnter;
Mernosal, seeks to get rid of this ernbarrassing passage bysayhg
that it relates only to a suggestion made by 13r.Miinch on khe
special suhject of eliminating sones of high sca within a ponp of
islamdi;,But the most cursory exambation of pages 703to 718 of
*Gide17sthird volume sharvs that there is no substa~ce in thiq
contention. Gidel, when .considering groups of islanrEsin isolation
and withoul regard to their nearness to a coast, divides hisCLiscus-
sjon icto sixparts each mith its own title. Thefkst two parta sra
introductory ; the third. and fourfh deal d~h the work of the
1930 Conference.The fifth part deals with the status ofthe waters
-between the islands, saying thaf:the question was nnotsettled at
the 1930 Corference and commenting upon Dr. Alunch's st~ggmtjon.
The laqt part e~titled État actuel dw &mit unmistalcably deals
generdly with the txiiting law of archipelagos, declaring that,
in the absence of special mles accepte bdy intemational law, the
-mstomary la-sv of territorial waters applieç.
360. The Nonvegian Governrnent also observets hat the abave-
mentioned passage appeark atthe end of the skction inwhichGidd
views arcl-i2pelagos"ind&pendarnrnent dsleurs relations juridiques
avec me cbte proche" and maintains that hisreal vielysaresevealed
more clearly in the next section d~ding with xchipeiagos "dans
ses relationsjuridiqueç avec une cote proche'" But the fuIl title
of khe firstsectiorl1ç"Le groupe d'îles (areliipel) envisagtn 22t.i-
d~~ta (indépendamment de SES relations juridiques avec im côte
proche)'."Jn ofher words, Gidel fiist considers the problem of
archipelag iosisoIation.He faveurs the introduction of a speial
nile,examinesthe evidencc;and finds thatthere isnot yet a special
nile for archipelagos inthe existing custornary law. Inthe second
section Iie considers archipelagos in their relationto a maidand
~oast. Raving dready found that there is no unitary régimefor
.archipelagosin theexisting iatv,his cliscussiulfcoastal archipela-
go$ isnecessarily speculative and de Zege/ferenduas the Namegian
Government its& concecles. Why Gidel's views concerning theexisting Jaw shodd mare cIearly emerge hm these speçnlations
de Eege{mmclta than from Eiisaccount of "I'étatactuel du droitTaiis
a mystery,
Siammary of ri'pdideingdon- wieweoiwtheIGW relatilztom hipel~os
361. The United Kingdom Çovernment a~cordlngly maïntains,
first, that neitheSbte practicerior the opinionç of writersaor the
workofthe 1930 Conference provide evidence ofa generallyncceptcd
cnstarnary rde Aating to the delimitation ofthe territoriawaters
of coastal archipelagos which was aheady inexistence before the
1930Conferince. Seccindly, intmaintains that State practiçe, the
opiniono f ivriters and the records of the 1930 Conference do not
establish the introductionor crystailization oany such custornary
rule after 1925in connwtian ,with the wrsrk of the Codification
Coderence. Thirdly, itmaintains that if, contrary to itç belid,a
specîal customa~y rule for archipelagomust be held to have çrystal-
lizedin the work of the conference, the ruleissubjecétoanabsulute-
limit ofIO miles on the length of the base-lines thamy be drawn
between unib of the archipelago, and a simifar lirnit asregards tlze
distance between the island fringe and the mainland.
' 362. In general, the United IGngdom Goverment reafisrns its,
vicw that under the existing customary law the channels between
the islandsof an archipelago fa1under the régimeof straits or bays
amorcling as they connect tme parts of the open sea or lead to
inland waters, In the casa of a chapnel connccting two parts of
the oycnsea, there dues not: seem .tbe any good season why the
rights of tltoastal Stite shouid bemore favowably regardeCt ivhen
the two shores of thechanne1 are islands orislets of an arçhipdago
than when they aretwo individual pieces of territory. Indeed, when
the shores are two individuaipieces of territoryofthe same Skite,
the totalexteritof thecoast line whicll borders the strarnay often,
be larger than wheLi the channel liesbetween srnaEl islands of an,
archipelago.An example istheNorthumberland Strait lpg beiween
Prince Edward Island and the coastsof Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick in Canada. Bquaily, inthe case of a charnel leatlingto
inland waters, there does notssem to be any good season why the
rights of thccaastd State shouldbe more favousabr egaided when
tlzetwo shores arethe discontinuous islands ofan archipelago than
tvhen they arc the continuons arimsof a bay. On the contmry, the
perfeçt, unbroken arms of a mainland shore necessarily tend ta a
more compteteenclosureof thewaters than do theirnperfect,broken
arms of aline ofisIands. Consequently, whereareasofsea arecIairned
to be enclosed by the configurationof the shoresof islandsthere is
certainly na less reason for applying the ~o-mile de than where
the enclosure is clairneto bc duc tothe configuration of a single,
solid shore, 363.In conçlixdingits observatiop on the principlesapplicable
.tagroups of islands thUnited Ringdom Csvernment again empha-
sires its,&sent frm the proposition m paragraph 4zg of tbe
Counter-Mernorialthat the question for .the Court is xvhethethere
iç arule ofinternational law specificdly farbicldiagStatc toEreat
the islandsof an archipelagoas a unity.The establishment of mari-
time territoryininternationalIav isnot sirnplya rnatter of national
claim. 1.T4ka muer bodh ofwatimal claim and oj the acquiesçmceof
~fhe7States inthatciaim.
364. Itis necessary akoto bearinmind that authis examination
of State practicewith regard .tocoastal archipelagos &riseiecause
Norway isseeking to justify (a)the baselines she has drn~m in
the 1935Decree, and (6)het daim to treat asNowgian intmd
waters the sealying betrvcen these baselines md the coastof the
Nonvegian mainland. Under this daim in theht pbce bas4lines
are dra1b-nalang what Ncrrrsradyescribesas the "outercoaçt lhe" ;
that isto Say,alon$ the outward edgeof fhe fringe ofislmds,isleb
and rockstvliich form the Nanvegiaiz "skj~rgaard"and these base-
lines aredrawn on the principIe of taking the roçor islet furthest
out to seaand connecting it with mother roçk or islet isome cases
as mnch as 40 miles, rg4 miies and 18 miles away. Thus, even on
trh outer side of thiouter coast line, enormous areasof water are
encllrsed which have in no sense the configuration ofa bay.In
addition,alltE~ewatesshemeenthe"skj(e treouterringe) "
and the müinland arealso çIaimed the Ncirwegim intcrnal. waters
without regard
(a) tothe distancebetween the fringemd them~l~d,
(b) to the question whethér the shape O£ the island fringe in
. .relationtothe mainland issuchas tornake the waters between
the fringeandthe mainland have the configuration of abzy,
;O and to the question whether these watersl~avc the charader
ofstraits,
Zn dlthe evidence ofState practice which Norway has prodnced,
there is nothing which supportstheway inwhich Norway hm drawn
her base-lines aiong the outer fringe (the most important issue from
a pmctical point af view in this case), Nor isthcrc anythhg to
Sqport an indiscriminate daim to treatas interna1waters al1water
bctween a fringeof islands and the mainland. If there are speclal
ruleç ofinternationallatvwlth regard to coastalarchipetagos,there
isabsolutely nothing 'inthem whicb inany way supports what
Norway has donc in the rnatterof thebac-fines ofthe 1935 Decree,
and that is no doubt why Norivay isat such pains toendeavour ta
dis~nte the vdidity of what isindisputably the prirnaryrule with
rclgardto territorial watersmrnely, that the base-line rfhe tide
mark on the land. c*-Straits
(Paras. 471-5ro ofthe Couilter-Mernorial) .
I~&odu~t.wy
365. The principai contention ofthe Noweglan Governent in
regard to area of çea (1)lykg between islands androcks off the
Norrvegian coast(Le. between islands and rocks formirigpart of the
outer coat lhe) and (2)betmeen the island ffnge and the çoast,is
set out in earlier sectionsttheCounter-Mernorial. It is thaNorway
is entitld under international .law to enclose ailthûse amas as
inland rvatersby dclimiting lengthy nolianat base-lines of her own
choice. This contention is based on a supposed "outer eùas.tline"
doctrine, or altmatively, on a çupposed doctrine of the mity of
aschipelagos..In fact, neither of thesdoctrines, ta the extent that
they can bc said ta exist,in any way justify tthe base-linewhich
Norway ksasrlrawnonthe outer coast line, nor the inclusionof aU
the waters htween the outercoast line andthe mainland asinhal
waters, eveii if theçe waters arc wder Norwegim sovereignty. The
United IGngdom Government, inthe preceding sections of this
Reply, has given its reasons for thinking that the principal Norwe-
gian contention iswitliout any Pegalfoundatipn. It has dso, both in
previous sectionsofthis Reply and Inits Nemarial,endeavoured tci
show that the extent of Nonrrzy'smaritime territeiy, in connection .
with içlands and rocks offha coast,is dependent essm tiallyon the
law governing the Zimiiçof territorial waterswhere there are bays
and straib,
366. Inanswcr to the arguments put favard In the United Hing-
dom Rlèmorial referringtothe lawgovernhg tektonal watemwhere
fhere are straifs, theNonvegian Govcrnm~int norv devetops, in the
section of its Corinter-Memarial rhting to straits,an ar&memit
which contests the existence of any rule of internationiaw goveril-
ing straits whichcouid affect the delimitation of Nomay's madtime
temtov in thc channels betweeil the islands and rocks off the
Nonuegiaa coastor between them md the maidand.
367. In the section of tlliReply reIating to straits,ithas ri&
ben founcl wnveziient to follow the arder of the material adopted
inthe Counter-Mernorial or toadopt allthe sub-headingswhich the
Çounter-hlemarial adopts. Consequently, intais portion of the
Reply, mb-hestdings are adopted which are different frorn those of
the Cornter-Mernorial and an endeavour iç made toindiçate under
eaçh sub-heading those paragraphs ûf theGounter-filernorial whiçh
are l~einganswered under that sub-headinp in order to assiin:read-
ing the Reply and tlie Counter-Mernorial togetlier.
For convenience, in thissection of the Reply, the four follewing
terrnsavillbe used with the follotving meanings, namdy : REPLY OF TEE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XZ 50)
555
(a) Geopaphicd strnii-any sea-water channel which connects
ttvo larger portions ofsea wates.
(b) Lepal strait-any geographical strait which corinects 4x0
portions of the high seas.
(c)I?tterméio~'ost~fiitany legd strait to ~rliica special dgime
as regards navigation appliesmder intemational lawbecause
the strait is suhstantiallused by shipping prvceeding fram
one part of the Iiighseas toanoiher.
[dl Inlandst-~uit-ageographical strai t whichis notalegal strai.
Inother words an inland st~aitis a sea-water çhannel which
leads esserrtidIyto intemal waters.
In connectioii with the delimitation of territorid waters,itis only
thesecond clastssof strait, nmety, the legal strajt wshiçh have to
be taken hto considerationas stnnitsinternational straits (the third
class b)eing ody a sub-division of lepl straiits. Inland straifd1
under the rules reïating to bays in so far as the delimitation of
territorial waters and nationalwaters iç concerned.
(Cornter-Mernorial, paras. 471-48 j 9
368. The N or~vegian Government emphasizw @aras. 475-476
of the Couriter-Mernorial) that international law concerns itself
with the rkgimeof straits from tmroaspects (a) theùuse by fcsreign
shipping and (6) the status of their waters. It maintains that of
fhese trvoaspects tlie nse of straitsby foreign shipping is the
one which has primady engaged the attention ofinternational
IaxvI.t also maintains that tlze use ofstraits by foreign shipping
is of na interest to the Court in the present case, as the Court
has only todecide whe therthe NonvegictnGovernrnent has infringed
the mles of internakional law intracing base-lines foritç Meries
2me. It recallsthat the distinction betweên inlaad and territorial
waters is of no importance to fisheries. Up to this point there
is no ned seriously to dispute the contentions of the Nowegian
Governmmt summarized in this paragraph, However, the Counter-
Mernoriai proceeds to develop anuther =goment, namely, that,
on the suppasition (a supposition '~vhich,of course, is dispnted
hy the United Kingdom) that a State is entitled t~ assume
stivemignty over au the waters lying between a mainland and
the exterior limit of a ceastal clrchipdagol, the only relevance
1 Thereicertninly nogentrdruofinternationfiltathicflect. The question
depends âderaiia upon thcdi$tanCbetweenthe consta1archipclapand the.
mainlaad,In Norwap'casc (as tchar& in Anwx 35sliowthe United Kingdom
docs i~otcantest Nonwgiaaovmeigntyovertliewatcis. 556 REPLY OF TRE UNITED WXGDOM (28 XI 50)
of "the régjme of $traits''in the present case is whetharinter-
national law requirescertain parts of the waters within theexterior
hit of the archipelago to be withdmwn from the coastd State
sovereignty and t~eated aspart of the high sexi in vishie of the
régimeof skaits. Apart from the fact that itis baçed on a sup-.
position which is not true as a matter of generd intern~ti~nd
law, though by reason of the patimlar facts it may be l~asgely
trucas regmds the particnlzx case of Norway, the argument
appears to misconceive the ctistomary rules ofinternational law
concehg territclrial waters in straits.Starting from a false
h-ypthesis, it poses an iridppropriatequestion, and this may in
part account for the singular confusion wkh the section of .the.
Norwegian CSunter-Mernorial dealing with straits (paras. 471-310)~
makes of the principl oesinternational Iahselating tu tiiern.
369. The.Covernmen ot the United Kingdom agrees that the
question whether a @ven area of sea isterritorialor iniand waters.
does nod affect the right of exclusive 5sheries infhat nrea But
itby no means foîiows that the question whettier or not a given
area of sea is inland watcrs is irrelevant to the Setermination
of the extent ofa State's exclusive fishing tights. The Lirnit of
theexdusive fisheries zonecoincides withthe limit ofthe territorid:
sea and the definibon of theboudaries of inlandwaters is essential
O to the determination of the limit of the territoridsa- If a given
area of sea rnay be treated asendosed (inhd) waters, the limit
of the tenitcirial =a and of the fisheries enne is rneanired frorn
the liile of enclosure. The importance of the rules regarding the
delimitation of territorial. waterinconriection ryitli legal strts.
js that, in some cases and to ssme extent (thaugh nut to the
extent Norway claims}, a legal çtrait has the effect aijnçreasing
the ares over which the coasta'l State'ssoverejlgnty extends as.
compared with what tbc position would be if the chnnel \vw
nelther a legd straitnor çoirld be treated as a bay (Le. inland
strait). On the other hand, in some cases it reduces the area over
~Yhich the State. can clairn soveneignty as compamd with what
the position tvould be if thelegal strait çould betreated as a bay,
The peculiaritp, however, of the mles rcspecting territorialwaters
iii strait is that they rnay affect, and irideed in some cases
increase, the area whiçh can be dairned as teuvitovkb whers,
tvhereas bays create iwtemd wafers, with territorial waters outside
them. Since bays aresiibjsct to one setof rules and stsaitsmother,.
it is necessary to see what waters can be claimed undex both
headings in order to ascertain the touty of waters tvhich are
subject to the coaçtal State's sovereignty and therefore within.
fisherylirnits,Straitsmay be wtde or nam. They may be narrow
at the enhances and wide in the middle or narrowin the midde
and wicleatthe enhances. But it is onlywhen the sepnate pieccs
of territory on both sides of the strait are su dose as to causetheir maritime belts to ovedap or towch at some plaçc dong the
strait that straitsbecorne relcvant for the purpose of the deli-
mitation ofterritorial waters-spart f~om cases where States çan
daim sovereignty over \vider sirait osn the basls ofhistoric or
prescriptive title.
Th qguestiolrhhthe~ a clramd is a legal$haetisddernhad &y
geogra+hieul ksb ~xclusively:econom~,' co~mtderatioms s,acchas
the urnmnt of zmr by slzifi;bing,are on& rebvan,in con~ecfion
zudh thepestio~ zeikthru iegd $&ailis ais0an i~ber~atiomI strait
770. The United Kingdom Governrnent agrm with the Nor-
w&an Government that international law concernç itselfwith
straits from thepoint of view of their use (i.~the question of the
Tight of innocent passage) and from the point of view of the
statu of their waters (Le.tvhethen they are hi@ seas,territorial
waters or intaal waters).But it can~lot agree tvith the apparent
zssiimption of the Norwegian Gover~iment that it is onfy in con-
nection with international traits that international 3awha special
rules affecingthe delimitacion of tcrrito~lwaters. The Nonvegian
assumption inverts the true principles ofthe law of $traits.The
extent of territorialwaters in straits and the 'right of navigation
for international maritime traffic, though rdatd, are distinct
questions. Tt is only after theextent ta wliicli the waters.inthe
strait are territorial hasbeen determined that the question has
to béconsidered whether the strait is to he subjected to the6
special Agime for international straits. If the delimitatioleaves
a free and adequate navigable channe1 forinternstional maritime
traffic thrüugh the centreof the whole of the strait, the occasion
for a.special régime of navigation does not exist, If, bowevec,
the strait nawws so as to bring at any point its whde width
within the territarialsea,theu the need for a special régirnernay
ririseTt is tme that in any case foreigm shipping is entitled in
virtue ofthe genenl rightofinnocent passagtehrough theterritcirial
waters cverywhere to navkte whether within or outside a strait.
But except ininternational straits, this righissubjcct to certain
yowers of control. and e+n of ssupension by the coasfal State
in defence ofits own security. This power to conkol, and in the
last =sort to suspend, international navigation in its territorial
waters generaUy w,hich acostal State ha$ under cmtamary law,
is the occasion for subjectin intemartionai straits (i.e. straits
which provide a usefut route for international maritime tMc)
to a specialrégirneT.he totalsuspension ofinternationalnavigation
through such straits is unacceptable and in cerrsequence customary
law attaches to them the special régimeof an internationalskaï!
in which the power of control is limited and the suspension of
a11navigation is forbidden. The position isthe same yhether
the shores of the straitare inthe hands of one or of two or more
States. The Court, in tireCorja C.Jr-ufinccase, has so recently 558 REPLY OÈ THE UXic'lTEDKINGDOM (28 XI 50)
endorseclthe existence incustamary law of such a higherright
of international navigationin straits fnlling into the category of
international highways throtrgh whicpassage cannot be prohibited
. that it is neccssary tosay more on the subjed.
J~T. The United Tijngdom Government füliy recognizeç -that
inthe CO~~ ZJLanneEcase the Court dedt onZywith thrr question
ofthe highes right of navigation throughthet- erritoriawaters of
a.particular cIass of strait andwas not calledupon ta consider
the question ofthe exteritofterritorial waters in straits. In its
brief referenceto the casein paragraph xro of the Mernorialthe
United Kingdom Govemment rnerely alluded to theCorfu Channel
as a channel lying between a coastal island and the mainland
and canilecting trvo parts of the high sea rvhich naturally ftll
ro be consideredmdw the head of straits, Ttregardedthe decislon
in the Corf~,Cb~nd case as relatingsolelyto the specid régime
ofinternational navigation through territorial watersin aparticular
cat-egoryof straits adid hottherefore seek todraw any particular
conclusion from the decision of th8 Court inthat case-For the
reasons given in the precedingparagaph ofthis Reply the precise
definitionof a strait tvhich, likc thebrfu Channel, xttrxts a
highcr sight of innocent passage than ordharily existsthrough
territorial waters, not a relevant factor in deIirniting the extent
of the tesritarialsea in any given strait. Consideration of the
-exten tf the waters ofthe strait which are includedthe territorial
sea attaching to the cuasts of the strait necasarily precedes
consideration of whether, owingto the overlapping ofthe separate
maritime belts,the straitby zeason of its çpecial importance
. to internationalnavigation requires to he subjccted to a special
and higher right of innocent passage. The extent of the territorial
seain a legal strait dm n0.C in my way depend on whether or
not it isan international strait and therefore whether or not it
is a higbway for international navigation. In cmseqnence, no
usefui purpose would he served in replying to the observations
of the hTonvegianGovernent on the cor fa^Citcsmxi case in
paragraphs 479-480of the Counter-Mernorial,since these obser-
vations are directed to the definitionof a strai tvhicliattracts
aspecial&@me ofnavigation andnot tothe extent ofthe territorial
ka ina channe1 com~cting two parts ofThe open Spa-
372. For the same reaan, nousefulpurpose waul8 be served in
examinfng indetail the statements of writers Tvhicham citd in
paragrxph477of the Corn ter-Mernorial as evidence ofthe diversly
6fstraitsand of theabsence of a general mle covering a11straitç.
These staternents primariIy relate tthe absence of a perd nile
determining the régime of navigation for al1 straits. Dr. C. C.
Hyde, in the dictirm quotcd in.paragraph 477 of the Cçiunter- Mernoria1 1sceferring tothe fact &aE some legalstrai tre subject
to the specid mies for innocent passage thrcrughinternational
straît (sf which again a few are subject to special régimesof th&
own in regard to passage, transitdues, etc.)whïlst other straltsare
idand straits,The extent of the territoriasea isa differentquestion
and itdoeç not ataUfobw, a5 the Nartvcgian Govemm~nt suggests
in ykagraph 478 of the Çounter-Mernofial, that inregard to the
exterit ofterritorialwaters, it is cinly possible for principlesof
customary law to govern a Limitedclass of straits. The principlesof
customary law for the delimitation of territorial waters off the
coastçof individual territories apply -teachshoreof every suait.
The only disputable point of mstomary law is whether, tsrhenthe
territoriaseas everlap at mare thav one point, pockets of high sea.
~vhollyençlosed within two overlapping areas of territorialsea
may be assimilated to territorial waters. ~ub-cornkitteeNo. II rvas
prepared to allow the elirnination omrch pockets, if not more than
z miles in width;
373. That the extent of territorial watersin a'strait (Comtes-
Mernorial,para, 491) is independent ofthe special rbgime of naviga-
hon and isdeteminecl by delimiting separatel- the territorialsea
of each shore(subject t'othe possible eliminatiûn of small pockets)
vas açsumed automatiçally in the Basesof Discussion and inSub-
Committee No. II's ïcp~rt, The mIeç laid down inthe Bases of
I>iscussioa and in the report have been set out in paragraphs
TIo-rII of the Mernorial. Bases of Discussion Nos, 15 t~ 17 dealt
tvith the delimitation of territoriawaters in straits without any
referencewhatever ttû a specialregime of navigation, dïstinguishing
only between straïtcs onnecting two parts of the open sea from
straits leadingto inland waters. Bas& of Discussion No. 15 allowed
that aU the waters of a stsa. may be considered territorial, only
when the entrantes do nut exceed tdce the widtk of the territonal
sea, (2%~Basis In that event cantemplatcd the diminatien of any
pockets of high sea lying betmen the tw-o entraces and camed
by the receding ofthe shores inside the stwits.) Moreover the
"observations" m Basis No. xg shotvliow confident was the assnrnp-
tian that çustomary law requires territorial waters in a strait to
be delimited separatel? for each shore (Bmes of Da'scassio% ,.59) :
"There are &rai&andshaitç.Waterareas sogmaily described becz~usefiey
ccinaecIiigseasorparkgthtrmfgreatlydiffa botrntheigeqpphical relation-
.shrto the laad whi~h thhseparate, and tlieieconomtc imporhnce tûthe
intesnatio~ial society. Scthatareunobservant ofm iinresponçive such
cons ide ration^,~ S t~ ta& ç~gnizancof what haveproved to bejeciçive
factorisnthe prkctiof natîons(hikrnabionuLam,Vol.1,para.150.) "Wlzm tha coastsof astraitBdoq fo asimghSiah ad th siraiis
not m'de7 ihasnizeizihebreadtli.of tevriiorial rt~ukvs,agrmmnlis
leasireachedfor theoim I7mEnllth4watus afthe$$mit arctvriton'al
waters ofthecolrsluSlatc.It ireasonable toadapt the same solution
when the enhances of the strait are not \ridertlian ttticethe
breadth of territoriawaters, even though some pts of the stirait,
mxy be btoader. There xvouldbe no adviintage in athbuting the
chmcter of high seato areas ofsea situated within the strait.
It is evident, and it is unnecesçary to state? that, ifidands
belonging ta the coastalState lieattlic crntrance ofa çtrait,the
distance oftlvjce thebreadth of territoriawaters applies to the
jnidividiialstraits whiçh lbeWm each island and the coast of
another island.If iseq~uilywnnewssairy tcstak th&,i/ tAsmtra~t~
$0the sirnit is mider irkafifwice breadth ojterrito~tutmabe~s,the
limitof fha territoriwatersis lo iidrarei*iqal?zesa4ns manytevas
aEong atty0th ctiast."
Similarly, the report a£ 'Sub-CammitteeNo, II dedt +th the
question of tecntorial tvateq instraits entirely independently from
the question af a special r&gimeof international navigation in
particular straits.It also stated that "in straits mhich forrn a
passage between ttvoparts of the high sea, the lirnits of thterrito-
rial sea shali beascertained irtthe same mamer as on other part.q
,ofthe coast, even if the same State isthe coastd State of both
shores", witImut any indication of disapement ar any sign of
doubt that this was the existing custoinary latu. (Çee Illinutes of
the Second Cornmittee, p. 220.)
374. TIiere is no better evidence of the aisting principla of
cwtomnry law g~verning the delimitation ofterritorial waters in
*&raits than the confident, unequivocal statements of Sub-Commit-
tee No. II.Attention may, however, be drawn tu tlie cqudly clear
statements of Gidel in Chapter VEI ofVolume III of his book,
Le Droit idcmatiowaE9ztblicde 6a Mm. Gidel.tb ejees the view
,{p. 7.0) that, whereas geographicdy every maritime charinel
between two pieces of tenitor s a strait,the legd notion of a
stmit is limited to
"tout passagenaturel entm deux cdtes,n'excédan tas ww cdains
laugmret faisant cammuniquer entre elles deupartiesdes apms
maritimes".
A few'pages later(p. 735) he deals with me case ofa gmgraphical
strait rvhosewidth exceedç twice the rneasureof the territorial sw
as follows :
"Supposond s'abord qu'il s'agissd'un passage maritime dont
les entréeset l'écartement en tons lespoints sontsupérieurs A la
double largeud re la mer terri.t:orideCettevoiesera gé~pph$que-
mzt .ua&trDii;a% de dztdroitailnBsera pas un udéirmt3:
,etcQd, wE mfiace wurifime ne cowtpmka pas dla$plGcathnde règles #ufticaEadrepowr la tr~c6dIr mz.'t~!witoria&.du importepe lm
rives de ce &'dro ia'mi fildcke.sm.rme sede aga.soss+lusi~rs
sozsuerna'ne~Un.efois les zonedemer territorialtrades cconfor-
rnhent au droit commun dela rnatiP:ril resterentreelIesd'un
bout 5 l'autrdu passage dont is'agitune zone de merlibre,"
Then he rejeçts as unacceptable a Romanian proposal in 1930 that
where both shores balong to one State thewaters of astrait should
dl beunderits jurisdiction, evenif the width exceeds twice the
measure of the territorial sea. He only aUrows the possibility of
ssvereignty over such a largerstrait asan historti ifle (p.736) :
"C'estscdernent pr application de la thMe des r~awx hi~tci-
tiquea que l8tat qni seraitriverah uniquc d'un pertuis laren
tous endroitsde plusdu doubledela distance dela mer territoriale,
pawrait prétendre exercer sa souverainethau delà de sa zone
normale de mer temitoside felong dechaque rive.Sidon ceppertuis
n'est pas juridi uement an détroitCe sont deux côtecdevant
chacune desque9es la mer territoriale se tracodarm6ment au
droit commun.
11n'ya juridiquement détroique silalargeur des entréestombe
au-desso d'sne certain distance.Si cette distance se trouve
constamment dkpassée,ily adétroitau sensgéographique du mot ;
iln'ya pas détroit au sens juridique."
men he tums to thecase wlierethe width of the straïtis narrow
and both shoresarc in the lands of one State, he expressesaprefer-
ence for the ro-mile limitds lege ferenda but endoms twice the
rneasure of the territoriçeaas the existingcustornasylaw @. 737):
'"Examinomd'abord les cas OU il nkxistequ'un.seul riverain,
TIne peut &trequestionde régime juridiqueparticuliequ'à eir
du morncnt oules ives du pertuis sont dails certainrapproche-
ment :pourlesrans ce rapprochemen ett donn$nous l'avonsvu,
par ladoubledistance dc lamer territoria(8tnou croyo.pzs fel.
clsEcdroitcmmm @sitifacd~elEem~t.)pour les aubes par me
distancede dix milles(lar6glenous paraîtraiheureuse titre de
7exjerda), Supposons la condition remplie:juricliquementnous
avons un wdétroit3."
Findy, inthe Ia>tsection ofhis qrisition of the territoria. aters
instraits(p, 762),Gide1 approves the distinction bet~wen straits
connecting two parts of the open sea and straits leadhg only to
inland tvakersttorvhich attention has heen drawn by the United
Kingdom in paragsaphs rro-III of tlie Mernorial.He agrees that
straitleadisg only ta inland waters areassimilated to bays :
"Siledétroitwnstituc Ilwxiq~UOMd'accishunemes uintk~ieurii,
siles deux rivesd~détroitettouteslesrivesdelamer aintkrieur3
sont soumise à la m6mesouveraineté." (09, cit.Vol.ILI p.@z-) 375. Acmrdingly, there is nüthing novel or un~rthodox in the
United Kingdom's thesis that, where a çhmnel links two parts of
the open sea, it is Iegalstrait and (subjectto the question of the
elimination ofpocketç and possible casesof prescriptiverightsoves
straits of greater widfi than the gene-raialruledow) territorial
waters are tobe delimitedin thenormal way almg each shore, Nor
is there anything navel or unerthodox in its thesis that, wl~erea
charinel Eeadsto inland waters, it isto be treafed as a bay, The:
Ncinvegian Goverriment, however, complairrsin paragrap @h r of
the Ç0~nte~-B11em0riatlhat the United Kingdom's defmition ofa
legd strait asa channe1conuiecting twç,parts of the open sea is
pureEy geographical and does not take accountof ecoaomic ~edities.
It is indeed purely geographical, but thZs criticism neglects the!
economic differencewhich çpring from the geographicd distinction.
The potential tconoaic use of a legal strait isdfier~nt from the
potential economicuse of an inland strait. Iistme that theques-
tion sometimes mises ivhether achannel carireasonab1y be said to,
connect two parts of the open sea and therefore there 1s a doubt
whether it should be classif isecil'egalstraitWIzerethis dciubt
arises inapplying apurely geographiral test,it'I~Ssuggested inthe
United Kingdom Mernorialthat itshodd be consideredwhether the
channel wo~ildreasonably be used for coashvise navigation byinter-
national maritime traffic. The Norwegian Government, however,
cornplains that thitest doesnot have regard to the quantitative or
qualitative Importance ofthe açtual internationause cf thechmzrel,
But the açtual volume af the international use of a channel at a
particdar momcnt inhistory, relevant though imy be in consider-
ing whether a straitis an internationd straitiisirrelevant tothe
qiiestion of the extentof territoxiwaters,
376. The Norwegian Governent continues in paragraph 483 of
the Counter-Mernoriailts attack upori the United Kingdom'sexpo-
sition of the law of straits in the Memonal by çlaiming that the
suggested testof prltential usefor coastwisenavigation by inter-
national traffiis inconsistent rvith whatGreat Britain marntained
in regard to bays in the 1910 Arbitration. A passage iscited fram
the case ofGmat Britain in rgro explainhg why different consider-
aiions apply to the caseof eficlosewaters from those which affect
the.open sea. Great Britain is saiintl-iipassage to have declared
the hvo primaryjustificationsof the rhgimeof enclosedwaters tobe
the g-reatercontrot of the coastal State and the g-reaterneed for
insuring itsm security. Only tliirdiwaç referencemade by Great
Britain to the fact that, commonly bays Pieoff the .''oceahigh-ways" l.This isperfectlytme butit ivery unreasonable to interpret
Great Britain's reference in1910 to bays Iyhg offthe ocean hi&-
ways as evidcnce ofthe inmnsistency of Great Britain's viervmi
this pointat that date with theview expressedby the United King-
dom to-day, Zn rgro Great Britain was not dled uponto define
the considerations justifying the régime of inclcisedtvaters51 any
ather than aqrrite getreralway and in any case the arbitrationwas
concerned wlth bays, not straits. But her ge~cmi approach tathe
principleof enckuscdwaters \vasessentidly the same as it ito-day.
The fact that Great Britain in 1910pointed out the selevance of
bays lying mide from the highways of internahona1 navigation is
evidence of theconrjistmcy, noi theincomistency,ofher views. The
whole Nmkgian contention fairnded uponthis passageis ekrtsemely
forced. It is cxtraodinary that, tvithaU the attention @en inthe
Coiinter-Memafial tothis extract irom the British&se in1910 , o
sipificaace is attached by the hromqjan Government to the fact
that the phrase "enclmed waters'>$ twiçt defined ZE theextractand
does nofinclwdesiratfs.
377. TheNorwegian Govenrment pursues its argument abont the
justification of the rhgim~of endosed waters evenfwther byciring
In paragraphs484and 485 of the Criunter-Mernosial two passages
from the tribunal'saward, (Thesepassages have alse been exaniined
previously in connection with the definitioi obays ;see parapraphs
224-225 ahove.) The gist of the Norwegim contention is that iri
these two passages the tribunal, when listing the elernents ivhich
make up respectively the geographical and the territorial çharacter
of baiys,emphasized psimarily the sccurity and economic intenesis
ofthe coastal State. The Counter-Mernorial points out that inzinly
one of the passages was mention made of the pasition of bayx in
relation to "the highways of nations on theopen seas , (This phrase
istranslated in the Catrnter-Mernorial "les grcades voie inter-
nationdes en Ita& men". A more accurat rendering woiild hc
"le soies internationaIes ema- ouverte".) The genera1proposition
isthat the 1910 Trïbu~lalwodd not have regarded the useof waters
for international coastal navigation as sufficient to exclude the
régime of "enclosed wa ter's".
378, The 1910 Tribunal, however, was directing its remarks mly
to the case ofbays where the penetration of the seainto the land
arnd its temination in a cul-de-sacnecessa,riIy exciude the use of
the waters for international navigation between the two externai
States except wherethe shores of the bay do not al1belong to one
1This phrase "oceanriighway" istram1ated" the Counter-hlernariss
"flmkfemtcs oc6aniques"wlierein the CotlabCka~casethe Registrofthe
CoiiltcorrcctIy translateci "internhighviky" sirnpas"voiesmaritimes
in~ernaticmales{I.C.J. Hceorts rogp28.)The word "highway" inEnglish
mc;tnsnamore than apubhc 2s&sStid~fïornaprivate way;~t incladevena
prhlicfootpath otindle-pxth.State.The problm in the caseof abay, the shoms of \*hich belong
to me State,isprirnarilyatwhat pointthe morrtli'becornisolarge
in proportion to the penehtion idand that the waters rnust be
held to form part of theopen sm rather than enclosedwaters. The
legitimateinte~estsof internationalmaritime trafficin the naviga-
tion and use of the waters of a bay are determineci essenifally by
the configurations and propartians of Che shores of the bay and
these elemcnts were fully ernphasized by the tribunal inboth the
passages cited in the Counter-Memarial. That the tribunal spoke
rather more of thc interests ofthe coaskl State than of thase of
international navigation iç very eaçily explained, The tribunal
automaticdi y adopt edthe standpoint tkat internaéionaluse of the
sea requiresno explanatiori,but that anassertion s'vofreigntyby
a State beyond thebit of themaritime belt meas~ed from luw-
tvafermark atany point onits coasthas Eobe afi~mtiueEyjusti@d.
In ither words, itassumeid th& the hurden ofproof is ona caastal
State claiming to appropriate areas ofsea. The tribunal, as haS
been said, wrtsdirecting its rremarksonly to the sase of '"ays".
But if,asNonvay suggests, straitsmere thsught to be an the same
footing as bays,it iça little surprisinthat the possibility othe
Northumberland $trait behg a Canadian bay neves even entered
into anyone'smind in the whole course ofthe case.
379 The Norweglan Gavernment in paragraph 487 of the
Counier-Mernorialinvokesin supportof' the sam eargument the fact
that in their commentary uponArticle 5 of the Harvard Rcsearclt
Draft, whichdeah withbays, the authon reproduce thepassage from
the Çase ofGreatEntain in ~gxo wnçeming the justrficatioof the
régime of enclosed waters.How little this passage reallÿ helps the
Ncrrcvegianargument has alrezidybeen shown. Cnany case,it is
somewhat astonishing that the N orwegian Goverment shodd
think itusefa1tcidraw the attentionof theCmrt to theindusion of
this passage in the Harvard Research Draft aspart of the com-
rnentary on Article 5 dealing with bags. Far more selevant are,
Articles8, g and ro, dealingmith stmits,Where the shores of a
strait are in the same hands, Article 8 (dea3ing generally with
straita s)aws the tvaterç to beterritarial onif they donot exceed
twiçcthe wi&h of thetmiEorilaEsea.Articlero, whiçh provides fera
specialbigher rightofinnocent:passagein samc straits,definesthese
straits subject to a special régime of passage sirnply as straits
"connecting high seas".
380.In fie same pamgraph, tbe Counter-Mernorizil refersto
Clause 2 of ArticlIO of the projet of the lnstitate of International
Lw in 1894 (13Amnzkaire,pp. 330-331 w)~i~h, bowever, cannot
be propcrly understoocl without the introductory clause at the.566 REPLY OP THE UNITED RINGDO (28 xr 50)
straits areinternational straits,and indeed, the judgment of the
Court in the Covf~ Chamel case showsthat this is not so l.It isto
be nated, howevet, that the description of the $traits referred to
in paragraph 3 of the Tnstitute'sarticleis expresseclin the same
terms as the test put fornard here by 1% Majesty's Goverment
as being the test of a legal strai..*-
Straits.-S.hfmenf Sac~e& fy Wharton (1-8gr)
381. In pqph 488 a statement by .kretary Wharton con-
cerning the division of the Straits of Juancle Fuca is cited :
"The Straits ofJuande Fuca are nota greatnatnral tharougldare
or channe1of navigation inan internatiosn ense-"
'Fne Norwegian Gov&ment by picking out the one phrase
"great aatural tlioroughfare" and negleçting the othr phrase "or
channe1 of navigation inan international sense" somewhat misre-
presents Secretary Wharton's meaning. Moreover, it does not add
that his statemerit continues by cornparkg the case of those straits
to ~elaware Bay which is to-day universally regarded asanhistoric
bay. Indeed, in paragraph 541 ;f the Cornter-Mernorial the Nor-
wegian Goverment itself invokes Delaware Bay as a classic
example of historic waters and gives extracts £romthe opinion
of Attorney-CeneR malndolph in 1793 in which he ahed the
twritoriality of Delaware Bay. Lt iJmotwithout signi-ficancein the _
presmt come~tion that in those extracts the Attorney-General
twice ernphasiised that "the Delaware doeç not lead from the sea
to the dominions of sny foreign natÎonJ', In the other leahg
United States precedent on historicwaters, the Allegrnean, which
,&innecl the territorid character of ChesapeakeBay in1885 and
wliich iscited inparavaph 54 ofthe Counter-Mernorial,the Court
nsed the followingsignificant wmclscorzcerning this bay :"Xt cannot
become aniaternational commercial highway ;it isnot and ctrnmt
bg mudca rotzdwayJromme mt?,"ontoalaotlzs. Finally, theseis the -
fact that h 1930 the United States endorsen thedistinction bet'cveen
$traitsleading to inland waters and straits comectiag ;two parts of
the open sea.It dso endorsecl for thPattm classof straits thede
under which the tenitosjal sea isdeIhlted fsomeach shore separa-
tely whether the shores helong to one or more States.
lt
Itmay be nskeidwhethethete-eis'toe foundinthevolumeaftraficpassing
thraugh thtitrait oitsgteateorlessmimportance fointernational navigatrou,
Dadtin tliÿ o+oftheCouvlthede&sieitmiterionisraikgeografilailatz~~zw
*aoigiataon.No$anif LdtcisiuthaiChisfruiisnofnbrtecessaroufsb~twe#tub
$art$ ofihaWh seas,bwtmdy am albmiiw Passage bslmem -aga& and the
Ad~âdic Ssas. ?flias ssuwthelBecw a ussful mulfor .iWmdiwad madime
tvafl~.0,C . Re-pwtsLwJw Chmwet cas6(Mcrits).28.)The mies of imtemabtoaallm aith rqad ta the deiiwitdhn of
be~p.a%ormin&tersi.rszaits
(Criunter-Mernorial,paras.490-508) .
382. The Norwegian Govemment next proceeds to attack the
de of Wice the width of the territariaseaas the normal meaçure
fer the delimitationofterritorial waters ia strait whoseshoresare
in the han& of one State. Itdoesso fïrsby criticinng the "projets"
of learaed societiesand the work of the Codification Conference
between 1926-193 a0d, secondiy, by citing opinionandpreced~nts
-ofexlier date. ItwiLi be more 10gicalto deal with these citations
in thereverse order.
383. Inparagraphs495 to498of the Counter-Mernosiar lefermce
,ismade to passages inGrotit~s(para, 4951,Vattel (para, 4961,Calvo
(pasa.4971 ,dL, Kent, PhiHimore, and Hershey (para. 498). It is
true that Grotius and Vattel deal mith straits and bays on the
same footing,but it isalsotrue that they deai wïth them onmuch
the same footing as the territoridsa, Vattel,for example, having
endorsedv the cannon-shot for the tenitorialsea,merely says that
the considerations whiçh justify the appropriationof the territorial
sea on the open coast apply with even greate frrce off thecoasts
ofGaysandstsaits, Thenineteenth-ce n iuer,Kent, Phillimore
and Hershey, sirnply kpply tu strait the cannon-shot rule from
,eachshore,whichis mereiy a nineteenth-ce ntruonyof twice the
.tetritariasea, The passage cited from Hall1 is admittedly more
favourable to the NOrwegian thesis,but the wbole accouritof bays
and straits in Hall is çpeculative, and he lxgins the clisciissionwith
the sentence : "It seem te be gene~allythought that $traits are
subj ectto tlie same rule as the open sea : scthat when they are
more than6 miles wide thespace in the centre which liesoutside
the limit nf a marine league isfree, and that when they areles
than 6miles mide they are wholly pithin the territory of the State
or States to whlcll their shores belong," 'mat wras genedy
thought in 1880 was also what waç generdy tliought in 1930.
* Thisstates"In principit in difftosep-te gulfs and straits from ana
anathe-...The poivcr oexercising conbol isnot less whenwakr agiven
breadtiskrninated atbothends by water khan wheitmerely runs inthe
land.md khesafety of Statemay bemoredeeply involveinthemaintenance
ofproperty andofconsequcnt jurisdictimthecaseof straithan inthat of
gulfs.(A Treariwon I~hm'iond Law,para.41,)Calvo
384. Inparagraph 497 of flie Counter-Mernorial the fiio\Torivegian
Qvernment refers to the extract from the otlier nineteenth-
century wrïter,Calvo, quated in paragraph 97 of the Mernorial,
This passage (tvhich cornes hm parapaph 3f33of Ls Droit Znier-
~atiand, Vol, l), states :
"On distinguedeux sort= de dktroits : ceux qaboutissentàde
mers fermées ou enclaveesc'est-à-d doirtlasouveraineté absolne
peut Etrerevendiquée exclnsivment par l'Etatdont elles baipent
les cBtes;et ceux qui servent de communicakion eritredes mers
librer".
ThusCalvo içmaking a sharpdistinction between straits leading
to closed waters and straitslinkingt~vo portions of the high seas.
But in his DZciiofimi~e de Droit istmatiofial (Vol. 1, p.243)
Cdvo made it plain that he dld not regad straits comecting
'IWO portions of the high seas as subject to sovereignt eyçept
within cannon range of each shore. He said ofthese straistbat they
"...ne +EU'U& jamais devmi~ la #r@&bEé smmaim d'w s$d
etddvmf rester absolmest librespoutouteslasrnu~imss,wme Les
YS aaxq~el8esilsaondaismf-
Cettelibertéd'accè etde transitadmet toutefoislereçtriciions.
. inhérentesaudroit deconsetvatian desgtats sur lescôtesdesquels
sont situ& les détroits; et lorsque lu~~lmf~purutwmdes de'truits
obligksrrzwiresqztilestraermsmicipmsw sozab jeu de$fo~t;btacés
ssrI'm ow I'aukc bord, lsoaverainqui estmatire de la c6tea'le
droLt incontestabled'en surveillelanavigation et de prendre,
soindeusae&et4mpspeuventrrendre nécessaires",la prudencc et le
In short, Calvo aIlowed that fhe ooastai State in such a straik
may exercise jurisdiction within the territorial s(cannon range)
along eachshore, but that isall. '
Qw~slafid, Bdkh Hmdwrws, Cook aad Faii XsEands
385. The first ofthe predentç fsom State practice whkh are
hvoked in paragrriph 5iir of the Counter~Mernorial (as being
inconsistent wiEh the rules setforth by the United Kingdom '
CTovernmentfor the delimitation of the territorialsea in straits)
is the supposed British claim tosovereignty over the channels
offQueensland and British Hoiadms and over the watersbetween
the isIandsof the Cookand Fiji groups.Theseclaimshave aeady
been shom, in dealing with archipelagos, to be nowexistent
(paras.313-317 above).
Tb StraiItof Kalwr ,
385 A. The next precedent (para- 502) is a cIaUn to the Straits
of Kalmar vcricedby Sweden in itsreply to the q~edionnairc (seeBases aJ Disczassimzp, 190).Sweden maintained inits reply that
a.distinction should be made between straik between -open seas
ad ofher straits, but, somewhat illogicdly, proposed that alZ
straitsbetween islands near a coast and the mainland or between
islandç ofa gmup should be treàtd as inland waters, The Straits
of Kalmar were mentioned as an example of a strait between a
m;unlwd and an off-shore island.This proposal waç made deileg~
jeenda and was rejected inSub-Cornmittee Nu. II.
The Baltic . -
386. Inparagnph 503 of the Çoariter-Mernorialreference imade
to the Eelts and the Sounds wkich form the entrantes into the
Baltic. 11 is surprising that the Norwegian Governent should
think Tt more appropriate )tcit~passages relating to the abolition
of the Sounddues in the middle ofthe nineteenth cenhiry than the
views of the Iimish Gsvemment in 1930 as to the existmg custom-
ary law. The Danish replyto the pcstioalznai~(Boses of Da'sc'~k~Sjosa,
.
p. rq) clearly referto the existing Iaw and quite explicitly makeç
tliesame distimtion kt'ween straits leadhg 'to inland waters and
straits connecting opn seas as ismade by the United Kingdom
Goverment :
"Speakinggenerdy, the rules for determinhg and calculating
the extent of territorial waters in straare the same asin other
parts of tlicoast.If bothcousisbelolzgfa thsame Slai?.am6 if fhc
- straiicohneclsdwo ope?$ seaç,th abovc-wmtimed vdes co~cdmilzg
bays wmdd flobea+pIicabie,0.Itz otttarhnd, ifth stmd bdr into
&la inkamisea,all Ehecoastsof wleichbeEongtoZlbcsameStufe, rules
sinaitartolhosecmcemzz.izgbrayscawd $~bperLy ticzfiplid.
Ifthe coasts belong totwo os more States, and tlieidistance
apart is les thandouble the brmrlth of the territoriabelt,the
waters must be divided by a median Ime-in ather words, a lhe
dram throughout at an ecpl distance from both coasts.Several
treatiesconcluded by Denmark contain a provision of thiskhd,
Inthis casalso,the distancwodd be measureddrom the low-water
mark, orit may befrom the islaridsrocks and mefs sitiiatd&dg
Izglithouses,etc.(cf.para.dVI)."ver,betaken ofartifickiçlmriç,
387. Paragaph 504 of le Gounter-Mernorial cites the daim of
Chiletu theStraitsof Magellan, The preciseattitude of otlreStates
to Chile's daim to jurisdictionover all the waters of the straitis
not clear,nor isIt clcar that Chile claims the Straitsof Magellan
as i~te~nGr t2ther than te~riloriai!waters.But, iil theIight nf the
sules goveming straits which aregenedy acmpted byStates, this
daim mizst be regded asexceptional and itsvaIicljtydependent
onhistoricalconsideratians.57O REPLY bF THE tTNIT17lf) XINGDOM (28XI 50)
358. Famgsaph $05 of the Counter-Mernorial mentionsa Japn-
ese chh to the %ait of Tsougar which is16 kilometres wide.
This is adrnitterlly alittle widthan twicethe 3-mile limit whieh
is rewgnized by Japan as the measure of the territoriasea.But .
this isnot to say that: Japan conside rsçoastalState entitled to
claim straitsas territoriaregadless of their width .t the 1930
Conferencesheproposec lhe application oftliLsrnile mle o straits
no doubt with the idea of lcgalizingher clato theTsougar Strait.
But her proposalwas regarded as gohg beyorid the existi~hw and
was not accepted evende k~gt ferenda.
The ShEiku/ St~uif, Laag Island SOM ad the St~a2 ut Juan de
Fw a
389. $aragraphs 506-50 8f the Cornter-%Iemoria refert'othree
straltswashingthe shores of United Statesiesritory'me ht case,
the Shelikof 5ha.i-t situated between Alaska and the Xslands of
Kadiak and Afganiak,is mentianed ina footnate by Hyde in the
vaguesi terms and apparently by my of ill~~tration. He cites no
authority for the mferenceand there isno traceofanyexceptional
United States clâirnto this strait ithe digestsofMowe OrHack-
svorthorin the reply othe United States totheqscestiowzairsbefoïe
the 1930 Conference.In the other twocases,Long IsIand Sound and
the Straitof Juan de Fuca, the chmnel lea& ~ssentidljf to inland
waters. Long Island Sound does not properly serve coastainaviga-
tion exmt such navigation as içhound forthe ports of New York,
Brooklyn and Jersey City. It Is therefore ncialepl strait but.an
inland straitThe United Stateshas anhistriric title to the who1e
xoiind which iç\viderthan ro milesat its northem end. ïnfact the
case of Mahler v, NwzeiickandNm York Transfio&tzo7.t Coqbany
{Scott'sCasa onInfmational hw, p. zrg)provides ample evidmce
ai an hlstoric appropriation of LongIsland Sound, which is really.
an inland straitand therefoseta be classifieaç abay.
Juan de Fuca Straitis daimed jojntly by Canada ad theUnited
States and to that extent navigation iaeuitabiy has some inter-
national chasa.cter.Juan de Fuca Strait is probaban inland strait,
but perhaps a casecm bc made for saying that itisa legai strait.
Whichevet it is, Canada.and the Wnitèd States have a prescriptive
iitleforclatmiq aninle of thisexceptionalbreadth. It also seerns
that the anxiety of thUnitcd Statesddtgation at the 1930Confer-
ence to haveit recordedthat the principleofhiçtoriç waters applies
to shaits was prirnarilydirected tothe case of the Juan de Fuca
Strait. The United Statesin1930fully endorsecl the rneasure of
double territoriasea forosdinary straits, ~PLY OF THE: UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50) 571 .
Siraitsa- The Hape Codifiatiu.raColafereme (rp~o)
390.Accordingly,the United Kingdom subrnitsthat the opinions
ofwriters andthe preceden otsState practicewhich XE!cited in
the Counter-Mernorialdo nothhg to affectthe vdidity of the
cmtomary des concerning straits which were fomdated inRases
of Discussion Nos. 15 and 17 and endorsed by Sub-Cornmittee
. No. II in its report. The Norwegian thesis that thereis no rule
establishinga Jimitofwidth for territorial wateinstraitsand that
a1 straits between territory of the samStatemay be subjected to
its sovereigntyiçinconfikt with thegreat body oflmed opinion,
of State p~acticeand the ~wrk ofthe 1930 Conference. Indeed, the
citations in paragraph 5oo of the Counter-lqemorid, which are
collected asevidence of the application of the pririciplehistoric
waters to stiaitas weU as to bays, are irnpesative-proof ofthe
gmerd conviction thai territorialdaimsnri.straitsare subjectEo a
definite limit under the'rules of cuçtcilaw,y
391. The existingcustomarylaw determhing- the limit of temi-
t-ori-ialclaiin çtraits apast from historiusage is tvithout doubt
that they are inprinciplemstricted tothe temitfiriasea attaching
to each shore separately.The suggestion inparagraph 491 of the
Gounter-Mernoria hat em in 1930 therewas a*rious discordance
betwcen the formulation of themle inBasis of Discussion No. 15
and inSüb-Cornmitt eo. 11'sreport is entirelyspecious. Sub-
Cornmittee No, 11 rnerely defmed more accuratel wyhat is tobe
understood by "entrance'Yor the purpose oftl~eruleParagraph $92
of the Csunter-Mernoriaiconcedes that the rule of twice .the
Iirnit of the territorsea adopted ïiiSub-Cornmittee No. II has
the mpport of some femed sociétiesbut sajrsthat in1928, ocving
to adoubt expressecionthepointby amember, the htitute resemed
the ivholiiquestion of strnits. It is;hottheefact that the project
subrnitted to the meeting of the Institritgave expression to the
nile oftrvicthe radiusof theterritoriaseaand that the resemtion
was of the zvlzaque*inn of straits.
392. Ttissaid inparagraph 492 ofthe Gounter-Mernorial that the
draft convention circulatedto States by Schückingin the name of
the Conmittee of Experts proyosed the xomile fule. Thaf itrtle.
But the preparatory tmrk of the1930Conference in realitptestifies
to t.he geml-al acceptanceof the rul~ ofdouble the radius of the
territoriasea.Schiickingin hiçoriginalreparthad proposed 6 maes
for the territorisea and 12 milesfor strait(Ammica% Jourml of
Izternatio~d Lam, Vol. 20, Spwial Supplement (1926) p,.Yr7).On
reducing the width -ofthe territonasea to 3miles taconfofrn with
the practiceofthe majority, Schüchg, wiSiout explmation, dtered
I~isrule for straits to tromile limit. Bakt~fterreceivi~gthe~om-
mmts of StatesdheCornmitherestwed th dwbk-vadiw rük for slrm:ts
in Bais ofDiscussion No. 15, Swb~Committee No. II not ody 572 REPLY OF TBE UNITED ~NGDOM: (28 XI 50)
endorsed the double-radius de for straits but,inthe event of
p~ckets ofhi& sea beingenclosed ina sbit betweea ttvo Separate
overlapping zonesof territoriawatersbelonging to the same State,
decbecl.to allow these pockds to be treated as territorial udesç
thay do not exceed z des in width,The sub-conmittee considered
and rejected the pmposal to adoptdeIegefeve~dcarrwmile limit fur
straitç and thus showedunmkt akablyits preferenceforthe existing
ruleof the width of the territorial. sea deach coast,.
' The United IÇingdom Governrnent, accordingly, adheres to its
. view £bat the generdy accepted des ofcustomary law for the
deLimitabon of territoridwaters in stsaits arethose contaIned in
the report of Sub-Cornmittee No. II which am set out in para-
graphs IIO and III ofthe Mernorial,
(Paras.59251~ a£ the Coder-Mernorial)
393. The NorvrregiaaGoverment, inpmgraphs $9-5x0 of the
$unter-ATernorial, emphasizes the Jand-locked character of the
çhnels farming the Indreleia route ~4th particulareferences to
the :ritishAdminlty's publicationNomay PiEd.The chmnelç of
thisroute lead Xo idand Nmwegim parts but they dso form a
coatinuous passage to the ArcticSeafroa the North Sea whlch jx
uçed by intematienal maritime trafic T.us these channek do
connect two parts of the open seasand are le@ straits, i.c. terri-
tari4 waters,motintemal waters.The factthat in1939 the Norwe-
gianGovenment permitted the German prize, the Cityof Niai, to
proceed through the whole length of the Indreteia routesuggests
that it then recognized the route to bea soute over avhichsome
international right of passageedts (see the officiaNorwegia
statement printed intheUnited States War ColIege'sIntwnationaJ
Law Sit~aiium xg39 pp. 26-27], It would have been wroag of
Norwy to permit passage of the Céfy of F1imt thugh interna1
waters.Muchofthis route however is inany event within Norwegias
" territoriawaters and, on historie grounds, the United Gngdom
Gevernment iç nat dispcsedto coitest Nomay's right to keat al1
these chmels as territoriawaters lsubject£0 Noruregian,sover-
eignty,Ttis therefore ulzriecessatcexamine in detail theobserva-
tionsof the Norwegim Governrnent inparagraphs 509-51 0f the
chmels.r-Theiaimplications of the United Kingdom'srecognitioneof
Nonvegi-iansovereignty over these channeIsasterritorial watersin
regard to thedehitation ofthe baseJines of Norway'sterritorial
waters willbeexamined at aZaie rointin thisReply after consider-
ing the law relating tq hstoric waters (ste paras. 507-508 and
Chapter Y klow). The United Kingdom Govern ment considers hc
Indreleia route as alepl straito endinthe north ata place eat-lier
than that shomin chart No. 4ofAnsex 2 of the Cofmnter=Memorial, wiih the practice ofthe Court.The Court exercises a wide hdom
both in appreciating the evidence of wstom and in determiairtg
whether a custom conçtitutes a general practiçe accepted as law
(paras.160-16 and 163-167).
4,Contrary to the Norwegim con eqt ion (Couater~Memorial,
paras. 267-2823, the work of the:Hape Codification Conference of
Tg30 contains most vduatileevidence of the rdes of customary law
governing the delimitation of maritime territory. The conference
took as itsstartkg point the existingpractice, and the report of
Sab-Cornmittee No, 11 showed a wide measure of agreement
~ccincerninthe main rules for ddimiting maritime tesritory (paras.
168-1793.
5 =(a) Contrary tothe Norwegian contention(Connter-Mernorial.
paras. 283-3061,there does exist ageneral rule of international law
rcqttirhg aState in principIeto delimit its maritime belt byreference
to the tide markonits actual coastsand requiring any departures of
the baseLine from the tide mark to be justifi~d under one of the
specificàllyrecognizkd exceptions tothe rule. The tide-mark ruIe is
accepted in international practice andinthe opinionsof tvriterand
a was automaticalty adopted as the existinglaw at the 1930Codifica-
tion Conference (paras. 180-199).
(b) The principalNorwegian argument (Counter~Mern~rid ,aras.
289-295 i)opposition to the tidemark de isfomded upon a corn-
plete and patent mkmpresentation of the vims of Gide1and Boggs,
both of whom entirely support the tide-mark ruleasthe fundamental
rule (paras. 283-18a8bove).
(c)Contrary to the Norcvegiancontention (Çoirnter-Memarid,
paras. 296-p6), the tidemark rule is agened rule of international
law binding upon Nonvay except: tothe extent that she cart either
bring tierselwithinagenemilyrecnpized exception or can establish
a special historie title (par188-ZOT above),
id) Çontray to the Norweghn contention (Count er-Mernorial,
paras. 296-306)~ international law talclay specifimlly fforhidsthe
rnethod of constituting a wholly irnaginaqp coast lineby joiiiing
linesbetween extrerne points arbitrarifyselect4 along the coast.
"King's Chambers" arc inadmissible and the "headland theory " is
admitted onlyin cannection with the ~wmile rule for bays andwith
"historic bal" (paras,188-zo~ above).
6. Contrary to the Mrwegian contention (Counter-Memarial,
paras.308-316 h; tide-markrule isthe fundamental de determ-
ining the base-line for delimiting the maritime belt to which
a tlie rules concerning bays, islands, etc.'are exceptioas. It is sù
xeopixed in internatirna2 practice, the writings of individual
juristç, the mrk of learned çocicrtiesandthe work of the Codifi-
cation Conference (paras, 203-zog above).The bwde~ of #vovf
7.-(a$ The Norwcgian contentioris (Cornter-Mernorial, paras.
3r7-318)that the respectivepositions of the parties in regardto
the burden of proof are determined by the intriasicnature of
the dispute and thatthe general burden ofpraoflies on the United.
Kingdorn ascornplainant inthe case,are concurred in (paras.210-
2x1.above).
(b) Rswmfer, the basic fach on nrhich the United Hingdom
reliesin the present case, namely, the bits pescrjbed by the
Royd Decree of 1935 and the geography of Norway, are not
susceptible ofdispute.'Tneseirndisputed facts show that thlimits
of Norway's maritime tem'coy prornulgated in the 1935 Decree
are in complete conflict with the generaliy recopized des of
International law concerning the dehitabon ofmaritime territory.
In short, the United Kingdom &veniment, on the undisputecl
facts, made a ma facie case againsi the legdity of the
1935 Decree (para, 212 above).
(cl Accmdiiigly, desç the çtaternentsof the United Kingdom
Goverment in regard to the applicable rdes of law,,wl~ichare
çupported by the practice ofStates, the opinions of wrïtersand
the ivoz'of the rg3oCadific.on Conferencea , reeentireincorrect,
the burden now lies upon Nomay to demonstrate onwhat grouncls
ber exceptional mari tirne lirnits are to be justif(ibid.).
8, TheNorwegim contention (Cornter-Mernorial,paras.318-3527)
that a burden rests upon the .United Kingdom to prove not
only the facts but also the applicable des of customary law,is
inadmissible for the following Rasons :
(a) There is,in generd, no .burden of proof in regard ta the
law : iwa aiovitcztm'.t isonZywhen the rule which is reliedupon
operates as an exception to a prirnary mle that it has ta be
satiçfactorily establishdhefore the primary rde wiZ1 be beld to
have been displaced (paras,213-zrq above),
(b) The prirnaryrule on ~vhichNorway relies, uameIythe de
fhat restrictionson the sot-ereignty of a 5tate are not to be
presumed, has na applicationin the presentcase,theçircumstances
of which aie entirely difierent from those of the "LolatsJJmse,
In the 'ILotzcs"cas the exercise of Ttirkish jurisdictionwas
indisputab'ly within Turkish territory.HEW, as mkok pestion Zs
whefb the arga bowklz th^r935 Decree afi$lis Zswitkin Nor-
wegl'a* sov#ez@ty at alEor tvhether it isnot rather subject to
the sovmeign rightsof each arideveq State(paras.3215-2 1b7ove).
(cl In the present cm, which conceras the delimitation of
maritime territory, thprimary rde of international law-a weii-
settledrule-is that the maritime belt is in principiemeaswcd
from the tide mark dong the CO&. This mfe imposes a general
restriction rrpnStates in delimiting heirmaritime terr tiry and, under the seasonlng ofthe "Lot~zas "ase,theburderiisuponNormay
ta show that her wholesale infringements ofthis general ruleare
justifiable by refer~nce to =me permissive des speclfically
authùrizing these infringements (para.217 A above).
I)A furfZOrdtoes the burden lie upon hfonvay to dernonstrate
.onwhat goilnds the 1935 Dtcree is to be just8ed if, as the United
Kingdom Government submits, the predombnt principle of
international maxitirne law isthe freedom of theseas. (Paras.218
219 above.) The Norwegim contention (Counter-Mernorial,para.
285) that Gide1 dicl not endorse the freedom of the seas aç the
preduminant principle in his book Le Droit iater~iaiiontdfiublic .
de ErMa eris refuted by numemus passages inthe book {paras, 220-
. 221 abnve).
- Bays
10.- (a) 1ZieNonegian contention (Countcr-Mernorial,paras.33 1-'
335) that, in the absence of a geornetriçal formula glving
precise definitionto the concept oi a bay, there can be na ruIe
ofinternational law governing bays, Isinadmissible. It is in çonflict
with the attitude ofgovemments iainternational practice and of
international and municipal trihunds intheir decisions (paras.223-
230 abwe),
(b)Con trary to the Nonvegian cùnt ention (Cornier-Mernorial,
paras, 332-3343 the award of the tribunal in the Nwth ALJamiic .
FislaeriesA~bi&a-liort,1910, and other pecedents, support t.he
view of the United Kingdom Government that the critical factor
inthe definition of a bay is *e proportion htwecn the width
of the muth. and the penetratim into the land (paras. 224-228
above).
TI.-(a) Contsaq to the Norwegian contention. (Cornter-
Mernorial, paras. 336-3~3)~ Sfate practîce and judicial decisions
inthe nineteenth century and up te rgro provide clear evirlenw
oftlze evolution of a general de defining the width of territorial
bays and of a distinct tendency to accept ro miles as the pxoper
lirnit ,of width exceptin the case of historiçbays {paras. 231-242 -
above).
{B) Contrary to the Norivegim contention (Counter-Mernorial,
;para. 3621%'the attitude of Great Britain inthe ATwtla Atiariztic
Pislaacrie.Arhitratio*, rgro, was fully consistent with a position
.in which:
(il çnstumary international law recugnized a geneml principle
that daims to territorial bays are subject to a limit .of .
width and,
[ii)a rule definhg &e limit as xo miles was in the final stages
of itsformation (paras. 245-247 above).
- (c) Contmri to the Norwegian coizten ion (Couder-nlernorialI
paras, 354-377), the award and tlie recommendations of thetribunal inthe 1910 Arbitration and the dissenting opinion of
Judge &aga lead strong support to the view that customary
Iaxv already recognize ddaims to territoriabays to be subject
to a limit of width and that the IO-mile limitwas emcrging as
the actual lhit prescribed by cusiçimary 1aw (paras. 248-255
'above).
(clContrary to the Nonvegïan contention (Counter-XMemorial,
para, ,364-3921,the juclicialprecedents, the pmctice of Stategl
the opinions of writers and the work of the 1g3o Codification
Conferencecofim the general recognitionafter 1910ofa custom-
ary rule limiting daims to territmial bays and the cmergcnce
of the xo-mile limit as the actual lirnit prescribeby customary
law exçept inthe case of histmic bays (paras. 256-279ahove).
(e)Such inconsistendes and divergencies as may be found in
.
State practice cencerningterritorial bays relate, tothe existence
of a generàl rdc litnithg the width of temtorial bays, but mther
to the precise definitioof the rule. They are a riaturalfeature
of the graduaiprcrmssof formulating and crystalIizina customary
rule inover a century of State practice anddo not militate against
the recognition of the ro-mile limitas a nrleof customary law
under Artide 38 (1) (b) ofthe Statut? of the Court. The work
of the learned societies befor930 and the work of theCodification
Çoriference in that pear provide cogent evidence of the final .
definition ofa rrule ~vhictihad gradually taken shape in State
praçticeand in the wntings of jnrists (paras.280-282 above}.
rz.-(a} Contrary to the Nomrqian contention (Courttes-
Mernorial, pasas. 395-403 t)e~work of the jurists quoted by the
United 1-ngdom Government inthe Mernorial confirms its state-
ment that the question hocv far mas of sea may be converted
Ynto inland waters hy tlie grouping and positioning of islands
ody seceived general attention on theevc of the 1930Conference
(paras.284-29r above).
(b) The Norwegian contention [Gounter-Mernorial, para. 401)
th+t Lord Stoweil inhis judgment in the Anna apptied the "outer
coast Line"fl~eory to a coastd amhipelago entirelg misconceives
his reasoning in thcase and attributs an entireIywrongmeaning
to his wwds "protection of territorf'(para, 289 above).
rj. Contrary o the Norwegian contention (Couriter-Mernoriai,
paras. 404-4201, the nile adopted in ,193b 0y Sub-Cornmittee
No. II, whereby a rack which is not permanently visible may
not lx taken into account if it Iies outside the mari-Eimebelt of
permanently dry land rneasured frorn the latter's tide mark, has
support in State practict and in the opinionofimportant writers.
indeed, it is supported by Nomegian practice and opinion in the
nineteenth century (paras. 292-30a 4bcive).
37 14,The Norwegian contmtion (Cornter-Mernoriai, paras. 424-
429) that the burden lieson the United Kingdam Co establish
that international law fotbidsStates to treatcoastal archipelagos-
as nits or as mere extensions of the mainland, is an incorrect
formulation of the issue in regard to coastxEgmups of islands.
The principalrule forthe ,delimitation of territorial waters is the
tide-mark rdc and, under the decision in the "Lota" case ,t
is for Norway to demonstrate that a permissive de of inter-
nalional 1aw existsauthorizing a departitre from the tîde mark
in the case of coastd archipelagos.ne examination of State
practice and of the opinions of jurists inthe Counter-Mernorial
is inconsequence made upon an entirely wmng basis [paras. 308-
go9 above),
rS.-(#) The precdents invokedby the NortmgianGovernment
(Counter-Rlemorialp, as. 445-470)do not establish that customary
law recogmiz aesspecid rkgirne for coastall archipelagos, The
majority selate simply to the appropriationof. unoccupied islets
and rocks as part ofthe State's territory or elsto the enclosure
ofbays by islands or ttothe enclosure of waters by islands and .
rocks inamanner analogoris to the endosure of bays,The principle
of the claims in these preçedents isthe enclme of the waters
' by the garticular geographical configuration of the mainlârid.
caastsand of the coasts cifthe off-shore islands Ipms. 311-345,
above).
(b).Th epinionsof tvritersand the wmkof the Itarnedçocietles
and of the 1930Codification Confe~nce which are also invoked
bythe Nonvegian hvemment (Coder-Mernorial, paras,430-444
and para. 454-4yj),equally do not provide evi-dence of anexisting
rule of mstornary law recopizing a special régime for coastal
archipelagos (paras,346-36a 0bove).
(clAlthough a tendency developed in the leamed mcieties
imrnediately before the 1930Codification Conference and in the
discussionsat the conference itçelto introduce a speciaI de for
coastal archipelagos debget8rt?~du,nosuchrule, in faccrys tllized
in1930. Moreover, the tvork of the rgjo Conference shows that a
specid ruZefor çoastal archipelagoswas ~nZy contemplated at al1
onthe basis that there would be an absolute hmiE of IO miles on
the width ofthe intervals between units d the archipelaga or
between such units and the mainland (paras. 353-360 above).
(d) Even if-whlch the United Kingdom Governrnent denies-
theredoes already exista mle of çiustomarylaw mating aspeçiaE
régime for waters within a costal archipelago,this de would
no t provide any authority for the exceptionauy Ion g base-lines
aloq tJzlsutside of Norrvay'sislandfringeçwhich resuit from the
Royd Decree of 1935 (paras. 362-364 above). CHAPTEI RTL
~orwa~'s attempted justificatioof her allegedsystem
ofbase-lines
(Counter-Memoial, paras. 511-576)
Thc da'versitjfsit~lufio~la& Wa jlexibl2ifof thakgd Prirnca'PZes
to.bt a#$Eied to the#.
(Counter-Mernorial ,aras, 511-524)
395, The Nonvegian Governent in paragraph 5x.1 of the
Counier-Mernorialrecalls iiçprevious contentions that the burden
lies on the United Kingdom to establish the illegdity of the
provisions of the 1935 Decree and that th^United Kingdom hns
failedto discharge this burden. Ithen statesthat it is not satisfied
with such a negativ~ defen- of the 7935 Decree and seeks in
'succeeding paragraphs to show that the demee is justifiable on
general prhciples-gaite apart from the qnestion of an histone
title. The United Kingdom GDvernment has already dealt with
the contentions of the Nos\vegian Gsvemrnerit that tlie butden
of provhg the illeplity of the 1935 Decree lies upon the United
Kingdom (paras. 210-222 above).It \vil1now examine the argument
'advsuicedin the Countw-Mernorialby way of genetaljustification
of the decrce.
396 The argument begins in pafagraphs SIj-Sr5 by criticking
the systern of legddruleset eutin the United Kingdom's MemoriaI
for itsrigidityand itstendency towards uniformity. The system
of niles which the United Kingdom is asking the Cmrt to apply
in the present case does not itifact result inlimits for the Nor-
wegian territorialsea, which can either he said to be rigid or ta
sacrificeNomay's legitimate interests.Thismill be apparent from
the marner in whick the United Kingdom system isworked out
on the charts in Annex 35,The Norwegim Gaverment, however,
attackç the syçtem advocated by the United Kingdom an the
allegcd grounds Ehatit is animatedhy the wîsh to restrica State's
maritime tenitory as much as possible, that itlacks flexibility
and that it is unreal. In this çonnectian the Courriter-Mernorial
cites passagesfrom tlre lectures qBI-ierly and Schindler thegist
ofwhich is that, ming tu the nature of States, uniformity is at
onci- more clX1cri2and les$ desirable toachieve in the rules of
- international Zaw than inthe rules of municipal law, .
The generai argument that irniformity in the rules of inter-
. national law is undesirable has most manifest dangers because it
strikes ~t the whole basisof international law andorder. If every REPLY OF TPHE I~NITED RIKGDOM (28 xr 50) 581'
Stateis to be allowed.to invake iEso\m individualnature, ne&
md aspirations in justificatioof its daims, conflictsofinterest
willbe mulfiplied and there will be no criterion fosaIving them.
ItIsofthe mence oflaw that there should bea.very large measure
of unifordty in theformulationof its rules,No doubt it is true
that the clifferircharacter of thc "'subjects"ofinternationaiJaw
may rquire a somewhat less strictmifomity in scime parts of
international law. But to condemn unifomlty in a systern of
prinüples of international law asif itwere a positive trice-which
is what Norway appears to d-is totallyinadmiçsible. Brierly,
it may benoted, iÇ concerned, in the passages çited in the Counter-
Mernorial, to warn against the danger of s-trivin&ter wbsdate
uniformity irrrfoming internationallacv.Sirnilarly,M. ,4lva~ez,
in a passage cited inparagraph 515 said only 'Y ne faut pas
ktablir des principes &op absoius ni trop rigides".
Nomegkw arp6rnenL-j tagai~st a~ziformdiybascd m the Uagwe
CodificationCmfermce, 1930
397. The Nurwegian Gavement, homever, seekç in para-
graphs516-52 o1fthe Counter-Mernorialto find further çuppmt for
its argnment in the work of the1930 Conference, Firstas sooften
in the Counter-Rlemmial, it Zaoks for aid tothe observations of
M. deMagalhses, the Portuguese delegate,andcitestwo passagcs £rem
his comrnentçupon the first draftsubmifted by Schücking to the
Cornmittee ofExperts. The first passage is aquotation froma speech
by the Portuguese Admira1d'Eça in rgzr at a fisheries congres,
After refesringto the importance of the continental shelto marine
biology, the Admiral staked a clairn foPortugal to have the whole
area of her continental shef as territorial waters, othe grriand
that it was sanarrow that she must possess al1the supejacent
waters,Hc dso intimated that Nonvay'sposition is shilar in this
respect. It dom not seem tcs have occurred to the Admird orta
M. de Magalhaa that Canada might with equal forcesay that she
isa verylarge country with agrowing population and must therefore
have exçlusi~refisheries up to the limit of Canada's continental
shelf. Such an interest would be just as"legitrmate" under the
Nonlregian doctrine asany interestof Portugal in her om çoastal
waters. J'et noState attaches moreimportance roîtç fishjng rights
off Canada than does Portugal. The second comment of M. de
Magalhaesrelated to bays and it need only be said that the tradl-
tianai ~ystfirnadeqaately coversthe question of bays through the
zo-mile n~lesupplemented by the theory ofhistone waters. So far
as hTortvay is ctincerned, her fjcitdsare commrinly ~egarded as
historie waters and the United Kingdom Goverment fdy recog-
nizes that Non~ay possesses sovereipt y overher fjordsin nomern
Nonvay invirhre-dere a particular fjordismore than Ie miles ,
in width at tlie entrancpf an histûric tifle. 398. The Counter-Mernorial next draws attention to the fwt
that Dr. Schücking, in the light ofM. de Maplhales's comments,
'added the following chuse tohis Article2 conemhg the extent
of territorial waters :
"exclusiverightsta fiArnies cmtkue to be pvemed by exidBrtg
-$Y& altdconv~~zrtfiatR"&ca~ Jo~mai ofIdmnalimal h .
(rg26V )ol.zo, Special Çupplement,p.141.)
Ilthen setsout in fnll Dr.Schucking's note explaining the addi-
tiofiaclause.It is perfectlytnre that inthis note Dr. Schücking
referred iyith apparent approval to M. de Mapihaes's remarks
- ' abont the relation betmeen geographic conlditions and the exten-
sionoffiçheries,But it equally clear from thtext ofthe additional
clame and the explariatory note tlhatDr. Schucking's primary
intentionwas to reserve exishg hghts under cirstomary praçtice
and treaties, He was secondly conccmed not to interfere with
rneasures taErenby States for the policing and conservation of
hh~ries even outside territorialirnitsIn other words, he thought
that the fomirlationof a unifom rule wouldhave ta take accorint
ofestablish~dPight Os.that basis the additionadause was plainly
needed, particularly as the only reference to historic waters in
Dr. ScliüclUng'sdraft wasan exception to the ruEefor bays. It
is thus misleadingto say,asthe Norwegian Government does,that
Dr. Schücking decîded "le mie= &ait de résemer purement et
simplement la.question". He reçemd exàsliagP~uracticnd treaties.
In any event, the Numegian GovernmentJs use of thiçevidence
içswewhat too selechive.M. de MagaliSes, having developed his
argument about Portugal's fishery needs,prapased a 12-mile limit
for territorial waters instead of the 6-mile li,min the odginal
draft.The United States mariber of the c~mniittee,~Mr. Wickers- '
ham, objectcd andproposefi a 3-mileLimit.What did Dr.Schücking
do ?Was he so far persuaded by 11.de Magalhaes'sargrimats as
to increase thelimitto rz mil= ? On the contrary, he reduced it
fmm 6 to 3 mils.
399. In paragraph 518 of the Counter-Mernoria llreNorwegiari.
Governrnent recalls that the Preparatory Cornmittee of the Con-
fmnce in Bas~s ofDisc~ssion Nos, 3, 4 and j proposed to solve
thequestion of territoriwaters by presciibinp;a3-mile fimit,with
alistofspcific States entitledto a larger limiand with ageneral
right for ali Statesto customs and sanitay jurisdiction up ta
rz miles from shore. No doubt, these proposah indicate the corn-
mittee's laçkof corifidence.in the projeco f secisringunanimity
at theconference for making the 3-mïie limit a universal rule, Bnt
that is ail. Xtis, indeed, worth recdling that the obsmvation
attached to$mis No. 5, which would have dlowedspecialjurisdic-
tion in castoms md sanitarymattes up to rz miles, saidof fiçh-
eries:"On the othcr lliand, the government-repliesdo,not make it
possibletuexpect that agreementcould be secvred for anextension1 REPLY OF THE WNlTED =KGDOM (28 XI 50)
beyond the limits +ofterritorial waters of exdusive rights of the
;coastal State irregard to fisheries."(Bases of Di$wssio~, p.34.3
400. The Nomegian Governent next invokes,in paragraph Srg
lothe Counter-Mernorial,the stâtements of çeven deiegateçin the
Second Cornmittee of the 1930 Codification Confer~ncc as giving
support to itthesistlmt ufliformity in therulesconcedg territo-
rial watersisundesirable. These statements certahiy drawattention
to the diuersity of the practirial situationsto Iîe regulat ed
international law ,md the dificulty of "impming a sdracltidmtz'cal
international r&gime npon allcountries without. exception", tu
borsow the expression of the Swedish delegate. That is,however,
a mry difmfmt thhg from denying the existence and eveu desir-
ability of any general rules of international law regulating the
delimitation of maritime territory.The statements have, of:course,
to be readintheir mntext, namely, the discusslonat thefourteenth
meeting which followed the meeting at which the proposalto make
the 3-milelimituniversal11ad bcen defeâted. The proposal cconcern-
kg the 3-miielimit would have admitted of no exceptions what-
ever and it was the impossibility of reaçhing agreement upon an
abmlutely uniforni rule for thewidth of the maritime belt thal
was in the min& of the delegates. Substantial portions of the
observations of delegates cited in the Lounter-Mernorial were
directedeçsmtiaily tothe diffrculproblem of the width of the belt.
The adoption O£the 3-mile lirnias the sole limit-fothe maritime
bdt in'the futwe was itzdeed reprded by some delegations as
involving a sacrificeor abandonment of exiçting rights by their
countries, There was na question on the other liand of the con-
fefence denging the validity of the existhg practice and law. It
was the difficulty of reducing the practice and law to absolute
uniformitywlrichimpressed the delegatesatthe fourteenthmeeting.
401. The Norweglan Govemrnent, in paravaph 520 of the
Çounter-Rfemorial,rnakes a point of the fact that delegates were
inclined to refe~to Norway rrsan iltuçtrati~n of a country not
easily fitted intan absolutely unifom system. In this connection
the datement of Sir Maurice Gwyer ai the deventh meetmg
(Mhutes, p. rra)is cited : "it must be recognized bdl of us here
that the coast of Norway and Çweden presents very special pro-
blems ofits otm, problemswhlcltmust receive, 1 think, the sympa-. .
theticattention of a.Utheir neighbaurs". TheNorwegian 'Govern-
ment then adds that it isnot asking for "good neighbour" canas-
sions but that its vitalinterests should'not be sacrificed on.the
altar of legal iluriiformity.The Nonvegian Govmnment does not
. mention 'tbat Sir Maurice Gwyet's observation was made at a
differentsessioni.e. towarrds the endof the dismsçion on "histmic
waters" or that hiç immecliatejly follaving ~vorclswere (ibid.):
"The Swedishdelegate, towardsthe end of his speech,said that,
in bisview, everyÇtate must have a Light toclaim what itsowntakesufficimit accwnt of the geùgraphid and ecmomic realities.
The thougl~t, obvions âlthough it is,does not appear ta have
occurred to the NorrvegianGovernrnentthat the traditional systern
of general des plus "safety valves" may be the proper way-and
perliaps theonly way withaut international Iegislation-ta açhieve
an acceptable compromisebetw~enthe general interest of the inter-
national commnnity inthe freedm of the seas anci-the specid
interestsof some States due to their speçial geographical circum-
stances. Nor does it attempt to explain why in 1930, when an
attempt was made to codif y the law starhg from the basisof the
existing practice, the proposais automaticdy took the form of
gen~raldes with exceptions, The reason, of course, \vasthat such
iirsthe generally recognizedsystem.
Inpoint of fact, theattack launchd by the Nonvegia Govern-
ment onthe 'tigidit" ofthe haditional system of deIirniting mari-
time territory isgreatly overdone. The prirnay rule that the bdt
of territoriasea isto be measured from the tide mark along the
tvhole çoasthas severalexceptions, the precise objectof which isto
take xcount of specid facts. Thns, the primary rde doesnd apply
in the case of bays where the ro-mile rule cornes into play,.Qtber
exceptionsrare the niles for islandsand rocks, &raits md histclric
waters, The Nomegian Governrnent ridicules this systern asIf it
were merely amdey ofdifferent expedients framed tosatisfy fresh
pretensions ofçoastal State s .is representation of the historical
evolution of the system, which is,after all, the tradition.system,
is a travesty ofthe tme position, The various daims to .maritime
territory which are aclrnittedunderthis system naturally develaped
inthe pradice of Statesernpirica11yasnew requirements arose, but
theseclai= achieved the sfatil~ofdes of international lalvbecause
fhey cvwe consistent cvith thc interestof $he communityof States
andtherefare received general acceptance. They do nat represent a
collectionof unilateral expedients, but rathahamo~eneous system
resulting from the experience of internationalMe.
The traditional system, with ifs safetyvatves, has, infa&, sudfi-
cient fiexibilityto ensure a rcamnable compromise between the
legitimate interests of thcoastal State and the legitirnate interest
of the community of States. What the Norwegiam Government
aclvocatesisa system that would enable a coastd State to detemine
the extent of itsOW~ rights without taking any accuunt of the
legltimate wncern of other States in théextent of those rigfitsThe
traditionalçystern,through its safetvvalve ofhistoric waters(i.eof
allowing exceptional daims in which others acquiesce), permits
relaxations from the general~ules,butaithe same tirnt insures that
bath the coastd SStates and fbe community of States shall be
concenied inthe eçtahliçhment of the exception. If the traditional
systern containselementç of restriction, wewed fromthe position of
the coastalnState,thcseareessential if the fundamental doctrine of
the freedom of the seas isto retain any legal content,Viewedfmmthe position of thecomrnunity ofStates the generalsules of inter-.
national law governing the delimitation of maritime territoryare
the nemssav parantees ofthefreedomofthe seasagainsi unilaterd
pretensionstO maritime dominion.
403. One of the more extraordinary parts of the Nosweigian
argument is its,attempt in pzragraph 522 ofthe Counter-S\IIernorial
to deride the United Kingdom's praçtice of seelringto settle any
diftïciiltiùy agreement with other interestedStates.The United
Kingdom Goverment does not shrink from atlmitting that it
attaches the higheçt importance to the settlement of bt~rnational
differences by agreement, The Nonvegian Goverfiment, on the
ather l~and,cornplains thata Stateseeking toescape the application
of a generdy recognized rule of international Iaw by means of a
treaty wodd have to secure the consent ofmot berState, What is
tçibecorne of international law and particdarly the -international
law of the seaif, as Narway seems tamaintain, everything jsto be
lefttu the unilateraidetermination of each and every State?
404. The "system" of ddimitkg maritime t&t.osy, whrçh 7the
Norwegian Govemment in ,paragraphç 523-524 of the Gounter-
Mernorial offersin place ofthe traditiunalsystem of general rnies,
is the doctrine of "legitirnate interest wh"ich hasalready been
shown to be withaut anylegal content (paras. 14w14 above), The
Norwegian Governm~nt clairns thatits principleissimpler thm the
traditional systern.Cerkainly the so-cded principle has the sim-.
pficityof nakd self-interest.Tke Norwegian Govmmenf seeks tu
veil thefaçtfhat its principlisnothing but çeH-inter byesalocving
that a coastal State's power ofunilaterally definimg its maritime
-territoryislimited by itslegitimate interest$But the veil isvery
thin. The coastal State, according to fhe NünuegianGovernmnt,
need not justifythe exerciseofitssovereignty in dedaring the Zimits
ofits maritime territory.It isfor the Çtate which challenges the
exercise of sovereignty ta pmve that the cûadd Statehas exceeded
its "legitimate interests", And what is to be the rneaçure ofthe
"1ep;itirnatt:interestof the coastalState? Legitimate interestsare
apparently those tlvhichare "en harmonieavecles conceptionsdont
s'inspirel'organisad teilansocietéinternationale etdes rappods
r6ciproqntç des États". Itis impassible to regard this jumble of
vague phraçes as having ariy value wliatever as legai miteria for
determining intemational hghts. A State challenging the decree of
a coastalState nrould have no means of knowingin~vhat legalterms
to frarne itschallenge, And, tomake the çoastd State's position
absdutely secure the Norwegian Gcivemmmt ernphasizps that the
"interests" ofthc coastal Statehave to ba nnderstood in the widest
sense.
As was pointed out inparagraphs140~14z above, thex iisnotthe
slightest trace inthe Nonvegian thesis ofthe ç~rmise between
the freedomofthe seasandthe intemsts of the coastaiState ~vhich REPLT OF THE: UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50) s87
Nomy h&ts isthe bask ofthe modern hw of toastalwaters. Nw
is there the slightetrace ofthe "equality" of the principleç of the
fxeedom ofihewas and ofsovereipty over co&al waters for which
Moscvay contends in paragraph 320 of .theComter=MernoriaZ.'l'he
argpmerit now, in effect, is that absoluprjorityis tu.be aven to
the caastai State.It has &a been pointcd out .in paragraph147
above that the Norwegian thesis isinclear contradictw iinthe
whole longhistory of thelaw of.territoriamterç, with tlie whole
approach to the delimitation of maritime territoryat the 1930
Conference -and with thr;recent attitadeof Denmark and Stvcden
in regard to territorial waterInthe BaItic.The Norwegianthesis
has -infact no bais In laand has been constsucted inthe Counter-
Mernoria1 Rom a single referaceto "legitimate interests"in the
report of the SecondCammittee atthe ~930 Conference,Ashas bem
explained inparagraph 143 above, this passagewas not dimcted tan
the question of the extent of coastal waters whde the wholework
of the conferenceinregard to thedelimitation ofcoastal waters is
entirely iconsistenttviththe Norivegian thesis.
Exc@Ond cJmructwof thecase!O]Nwwuy
(Cr3mter-Mkmorja1,paras. 525-528)
405. The Norwegian Govenirnent, in paragraph 525 oi the
Çnunter-Mernorial, asseds that allspecialistand juristswho have
stuclied the problm of territoriawaters recowe the case of
Norway to be so exceptionalas tojustifyau exception being mw€e
from the normalrul~ for delimiting territorid waters,The Nonve-
gim Government doesnot expressly sagrsobut it impliestha? the
characterof the Norlvegtm cm is such asto justifyNanvay noi
rnerel iyclaiming some exceptional maritime temitory butin claim-
irigtobe released fromailthe knowa rules concerningthe delimita-
tion of maritime Eerrito~y.In support of its assertions icitesin
succeedin g paragraphspassages from Gidel, Boggs and Jcssup ,
406. In paragraph $26 of the ~ouiiter~Memoriaithe Nonuegian
Goverrunentfirst cites the text of the joint Norcvegian-S~vedish
amendment to Basesof Dzscussa'aaNos. 6,7 and 8,which, ineficçt,
proposed that eaçh Çtat'should be dlowed tofixitsowri base-hnes
by joinirigimaginay lines between,any landmarks including Zslai~ds
and rmfç. The only ~psh'*cfio n~S to be tht the lines must not
be longer khanis "justfiedby the des generallyadmitted eithw as
heing an international usage in a given region or as principles
çonsecrated by the practice,of the State concemedand correspond-
ing to theneedsof thqtStateor the ieterestedpopulationand to the
special configuration othe coastsor thebed of the çeacovered by
the coastal waters", This proposal ms only a more complicated versionofNorway's 'legithate intereçts" doctrineand,as explained
in paragraph139of the Memûnal, It mas condemned by Girlelas
reafly beïng,un a dose analysis,a negation of any laiv çoncerning
the delimitationof territorialwaters. The Nanvegian Governinent
inSie Courlter~Memoria concedes that the joint amendment did
not find favour with Gidel butsays that hi$objection to itwaa Siat
it was too flexibleto be a gevierde. The Monvegia Govenmemt
insisis-alid thiç is no,of course,disputed by the United Kingdom
Goyemment-that Gide1 admitted the Norwegia c0as.tto be
exceptiond mrl to requin exceptional treatment. The Norwegian
Government supports Its contentionby settiiig out varioupassages
frcm Gide1 emphasizing the exceptional characterof Nùrway 's
coastal waters.
It isht to h observe hat Gide1 examined the Nomegian
*daims under the héadhg of historicwaters. Secandly, it isto be
observeclthat Ire strongly objectecl to thesuppsed priaciple on
which these daims appeared to him to be based if put fonvard as
of generd application.He said (op c.d.,Vol. III, p.651) that this
psinciple, as expressed in the joint amendment, "doit tt~esaas
h6sittatiae coclnsidékomme~uisible pour Ledivet@$aned d~ droZ8
infernafimcd mwitime'" Thirclly, hewas ernphatic instatingthat an
exceptionaidaim such as thatof Nonvay depends onthe acquies-
cence of otber States.Havirigconceded that the variaus e2ernen-k~
mentionecl in the Nomegïan-Swdish amendment may properly be
faken into consideration, he went on (ibid pp,640-64r ; )
"mais ilsne wuraient l'êtreni h titre exclusif ni sous lasimple
appréciationde l'etatriverah, comme le tcirteprkcitle suppose,
pasvatitre derkgktg&n&rale.Conhnthso$savcc ledésirlégitime des
autresEtats de ne pas voir restreindrau delà d'unemesure k
détemiizerleur droitd'utilisatides espacesmaritimes, ilappor-
tent, lorsqudes conditionsparticuliéres, géograpl-ilq,émogra- .
phiques,ou liyclrographiquesse trouvent réalisées,un correctif
d'&quit&aujeu stricd'une riègl*te en we cledonnkesphysiques
autres,mais il faut que,si lesEtats intéressés netombent pas
d'accord pour déféreercas àune autoritejuridictionnelle autre,
I'app'réciatineces élémentssoitsoumise h l'influencemodératrice
del'usageinternational:parluisedigageraune rémltantequi fera
sapart lkitime à chacune des forces eprésence."
Then, having examuied ~onvegiaa practice as described in the
Rapport of 1912, he said that the theory of histone ~vaterçis a
necessasy sdety dve whiçh should not be canhed tu kys. But,
he added (Fbid p.,,51) :
"Mais silathgoriedeseaux hktoriqu& estune théone nkcessaire,
c'est unfiborieexceptionnelle;sonapplicationestrigonreusernent
li&à desc~nditions physiques données ;il nesuffit pas que l'fit&
riverainCmettt: laprétention de considérertelles ou telles eaux
comme lui &tarit(cpropre~ipour que les autres ctats aient le devoirde dlndher devant cetteprétention;lacons4crationde ces
prhtentions nepeut dériver- enl'al~sericed'organes ayantrew
fom$lemerit qualitéà ceteffetetinvestis expressémenparchacun
des Efats intiressés d'un pouvoir de d6ci-ioque de l'açguiesce-
ment international."
In other words, Gideldid notregardthe m*eptionalfactofi afkcting
Nosrvay's coastd watersas fre8ng Norway fromtaking any account
oi lepl principlein,fixing her maritime tcl-ritory, basprovidîng
a baçisforNmay putting fonvxrd a clah toexceptionai maritime
territory der thetheory O/kkforiçwute~s.
407. Zt istme that Gidd appeaB to have considered that the
principles whichNorway now cïairns to fom a. traditional. Norwe-
gian systernhave remived general recognition from other States.
But itis also trne that the evidence on which Gide1 fomed thiç
opinion was shply the statements of the Nonvegian Cornmissian
on Territorid Watem inthe Rapport af rgrz, Thus, a large part of
Gidel's examination of Nonvegiasi pmctice in pages 643-649 of the
thud volme of his book çonsists simply of extracts from the
Rapport, as, indecd, San be seen from the passages cited In para-
gra.ph 526of the Counter-Mernorial.The United Kingdom Gûvern-
ment has shom in Part 1 of t11isReplthat the evidence'discussed
inthe Rapportis susceptible ofavery differcnt interpretatisn £rom
that given tu it bvthe Nomgian Camrnission. The United King-
dom Govemment haç also shownin Part i of this Reply that the
allegedNorwegiam systernhad not received ageneral recognitionou I
the part of otherStates by 1906,which isthe mitical date in the i
present dispute. Moreover,Gidel, when he wrote about Norwegian i
practice, did not have beforehim theadditionalevidence whichhas I
been preçentedto the Court by the United Kingdom Govmment in
the present case,Nor, quitenatumllg, did he attempt to examine
the accuracy of Nonvcgian assertrionsas to what was traditional
Norwegian practice. He accepted the assertions attheir facevalue.
The United Kingdom Eovernmmt, however, has estal-ilished4n
Part 1 of thk Reply, and particularlyirom Nmwegian documents
not available to Gidd, that Norwegian practice before 1935 was
much less certain and much more LImited in =ope than it mas
understood to be by Gidel on a reading 8f the Rapport of 19x2.
Itisalsoto beborne in mind that the actual base-linesrecommended
bytlie 1912 Commission were not puàlished with tlie Rapport and
that no one knew mbl 1935-Gidel's book had already been pub-
liçhed-what veryextravagan bas-lines Nwway hacl in fact
-decideiltodaim off her northem coasts.
408, In paragaph 527of the Cornter-Memorid, the Notwegian
Governent cites the t.iewof Boggs,the Geographer of ltheiState
Department, that straighbw-lines are both ji~tifiable and almost 5g0 Fü?PLY OF TRE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
inevitable ontheN-owegian coast byreason ofthe fringesofislctnds
and rocks B.oggs,ofcourse, mute as 2 geographer,not asdaIaiy~ler,
and lie referma to the Norweglan coast-as he hirnself said-
$armthta'caZlyd, ealingwifh the whole matter very briefly. The
object ofhis articlin the Amwica~~Jouv.~aa ofT~terlzntionaLm
.(Vol24,1930 )as to explain the American proposaisat the 1930
Conferencefor applyingthe "arcs ofçircles" methocl of delimita-tion
with eliminationof mail pockets of high seas.He referred to the
NorwegIan coastas one difficultocover by his method ofddimi- .
.ation and soughtto "diminate thiscoastfrom flicoperationof the
system proposcd in the Arnericanamendmmt for gencralapplica-
tion". Inpoint of fact, acloptisg;the,usro-milemIe for bays and . '
arcsd circles method of clelimitatirin, it is fat frorn impossible from
.atechnicalpointof view to apply the gencrddes of international
iaw rcgarding maritime temitory tothe Nomegim coast. This can '
be sho~vninthe lines representinthe Britishproposais Which are
shown on the Srartsused in the 1924Oslonegotiations. Boggsdoes
not atkmpt to exmirle the le@ aspects of the Norwegian system
of "arbitrary straightlines"and salisfiehis conscience on that
head by a bare statement that Norwegian waters are "commonly .
,accepteil.ahistorie". Thehfarwegian Goverrimen thowever, seizes
on these brief wordtoargue thatheregarded the Norrvegiansysiem
asZegatLjuslified without refercnto anhistorictitl tethe waters
concerne$. As already stated,he simply did nd examine the law.
Nor did he examine the evidence bycvhiçhthe ço-calledNorsvegian
system was to be taken as having been astablished.There is no
indication thathe knew anything of the contento f the Rapport
and still lesthat he knew anythïng of the additicinaI eviclenc'
adducedby the United Kingclom Government. He mrasnb doubt,
familiarwith the brief representation of the Nomegian thesis at
the 1930 Conference but that was d. Writing in~930~he cmld
not be awme, any more than the United Kingdom was aware in
1938, ofthe very extravagant forni whichthe so-caued Norwegian
system was to iake inthe Royd Decrëe of rg35 ,t is one of the
stnking thingsabout the. dleged application of the so-caUedtmdi-
tionaI systerinnthe 1335 Decree that not a z17orwas allo~vedto
leak outat the rggo Conferencethat these were infact Horway's
claims on hernosthen çoasts.
Precisedefiwitio~ofcocasissody wcessary wheathe deiitt~itatizfi
coastalwatarsdepads /rom thesenevctllacc~fiterulm
409. The Norwegiàn Goverriment, inthe same plagaph, asks
hriwemctly the toast içdefiad onthe wat ofScothd and Ireland.
The definition of thecoasts isnot.calledforin thesepmceedingç.
Indeed, precisa definitiiç,gmerally speakulg, necessaryin prac-
tic@only when the delimitation ofcoastd waterç departssadically
from theaccepted rules for the tide marand for bays and klands
as isthe casemith the 1935 Decree. The citatim of the cases of. Floricls,B*sb Hondurasand Queensland inthe Counter-Memorial
asif çlximswere madeoffthese coasts ofthe same generd character
of Nonvay'sclain in r935 istoc erroneaiito requirecomment (see
paras. 314,3x7 and 333 above),
410, The Norwegian 'Government, in paragraph 528 of the
Counter-Mernorial,citesa passage from Jessup by =y of a finai
authorityin support of itspretensions.The aufhority of Jessup
isconsiderable,and he çertainly saithat thecoaçfs ofthe Sadi-
navian corntries present uniqufeaturesBut, unfortunateIy forthe
Norwegian .Goverment, he only regardecl these specialfeatures,
togsthewifh Nmwcay's apparedly long and ~kxwa~ri~ginsistmce
o.titsduit, as a reason forrecopizing Norway's +mile Iimit. In
other worcls,he conçidered the exceptional features relied on by
Nonvay to raiseonly a questionofan kistoritiit~q~i7i~g~-ecogmi-
tim and the only historictitle he had in mind was Nomay's
clair o a +mile limit.
TI, Nothing ernerge msoreclearly from the witings ofGidel,
Boggs andJessup cited inthe Counter-Mernorial than that they
considered the exceptional characier oNorway's coast lineto be
material esçentiallin connectionwith herclslimtù historie waters.
None of these writers undertocik a critical examination of the
midence on tvhîchNorway founds her historic ciairorconsidered
its practicapplication ta the area now underdispute.The precise
nature and extent of Norway's historic rights is oneof the chief
issues inthe present case and,in the submiçsion of the United
ECingdomGoverment, it can ody be decidecl in thelight of al1
the evidence submitted to the Court. The question of Nomegian
historic rights is examined at leninpasagraphs432 etsq. below.
The "1Vomegid:ns ystem"
(Paras. 5295-36 ofthe Count er-Mernonial)
qrz. This section of the Counter-Mernorial consists in a large
measure of a xepetition of the argumentsalready put fornard in
Part 1of the Cornter-RTernonid,They havadready been ariswered
fn fullin Part 1 of this lieply. The Governrnent of the United
Klngdom wihltherefore cantent itself inthisplace with a brief
restaternentof the contentions there put forward which, in its
submission,effectively demonstrate that thwtas nothing "histan-
. . cd''or, until the Decreof 1935~even certain aboutthe Nonvegian
system, apastfmm Nomay's cldm onhistonç grotrnds to a4-mile
belt of territor waatrs and to het fjordsand siinds.5gZ REPLk' OP THE UNITED KZNGDOM (28 XI 50)
413. Before repryingto the Norwegian arguments in detail, the
Governent of the United Kingdam considers that iZ may be
useful tor~dl certain well-idormed andauthoritative Ncinvegim
statemerits onthe subject of Nmay's historic position'l~ichwere
made before the exigencies of the present litigation,
ProfessorEIjort,a former director of Fishiines. who tvasthc.head
ofthe Norwegian deleption tothe Oslo and London conversations
of xgzq-1g25 and an acknùivledged authority onal1matter5 affect-
ing Nomegian fisheries, stated his opinioas follows (thequotation
is from the reportof the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to the Siorting,
3926) :
'"'The above report has been mbmitted to ProfessorHjort \ho
ina Ietter dated zznd May,rgz5,states,intealiu, "n severrof the
documents transmitted to me, e.g. a report.fram theMinistry of
Justicedated zgrd Marçh, 1925 ,t iaffirmecthat the legal position , -
ofNorway in the territorial waters question is regardasshong,
and, asis known, this kas fora largeriumberof years been main-
tained bymany authorities with ageat knowledge of international
law.Asis known, ths legd view is basedupon the factthat during .
the last 150 yeass Norway has consistently claimed territorial
waters ofI geùgmphical mile or about:4miles inbreadth. IVithout
desiringinang way tominimizethe recognitiondue tothe admirable
jusidical-hlstorical work which in the dne couroftime has bcen
çarriedout by such men as the late ProfessorAubert, the Sea
Boundary Cornmittee of 19x1 and in particular its Chairman,
Minister tvollebaek,Dr, Rzstad and AssessorBoye, yet, as faras
1am concerned, iIrasformnnyyearsIswn a facofgreate practical
and.actud importance in deciding thiç casethat Denmark, wkich
decisiom inthis caseweremade,thas in the coursofithe laçgenera-I
tionin fact decided thatit\vas necessary to abandon the point of
view which Uenmwk-Nonvay had atthat the held. Both in the
North Ses on the sketch of watersoffthe west mat of Jutiandas
fara?3ianstliolmm and in thewaters round the Fames and Icdand,
Denrnark lias abandoned the +mile belt and adopted the 3-mile
'bellike the other North Seacçiuntries. Ftrthermorethe Dai~ish
Goverment as regards thesame waters has elinquished the clause
rcgarrlinthe drawing of tlie base-line bays andijords, whidi in
any case lias existcd fromamient timesin the rnindsof thepeople
inNorrvxyand Denrnark, It is important for our understanding 02
the casethat the activities oforeip Mermen brought ahut an
alterationinthe attitude tom& territori lmlits,inçpite ofthe
fact that the sarIegal arguments forthe ancienthistorical Danish
territorialwaters coulbeput forward asfor the Nor\vcgianterritol
rial waters. Thifact has already for a number of years a-ppeared
tome as decidd pioof that the Nonvegian maintenance ofterrito-
ria1waters must inany case be eqected to meet witligreat opposi-
tion and Littlesupport in the internationalmiiieac where these
questionsare decided.'"'(St.md. nr. 8 (I~zO p.,rz1.)
1 See obervatiriin pragraph 58 abbveregardinthisdocument. 414. The Nom-egian BllnistryofForeign Affajrs,at the same the
(1g26) a,ter expressing the opinion that Norway had a strong
çase for claimirig the +mile belt, expressed the folÉo-cvinvie\% :
"Un the otherhand, rvith regzrto the quation of the baselines
for cddating teilitorial waters, thçase is mm doubtful. No
hesedfor cdculathg territorwliiaters. Tnsome cscsgathenquestion
has been solved in treaties betweeil foreigStates, In athersits
application has been decided by the national legjdationof the
cauntrieç ccincerned and by arbitral judgments. These varioils
,solutions. howeverare tomme extent conflicting,and provide no
adéquate foundation for the açceptanccof any clefmiteprin~iple.
In sornecases a lindouble the width of territorial watehas been
taken as a basis: thismust nms=riiy rerultin varians. solutions
since the extent of territorial waterin different cauntries ia
vasiabIe factoIn other casesarhitrary hase-linehave been used.
Ina number of treatia the base-liiieo10 nautical mileshaçBen
adopted especially concemingfishery cpestions. Insome courttries
base-lines of12 and zo miles have been estabJished for certain
pupses, Base-lincs of12 aautical miles were also proposed by
l'InstitcleDroit intcmationalid 1894 ad the lnternationaLaw
Association in 1924..
Wtfh regardto Nmegicsn territort-idwatnasg.meralregalalion
rgardi$?gth mcalctklfimofth bm~-li.rzeshm bbemismed. Tlaere
existsno mie asfo fiele*hgto bs &en ibths base-linm for o~r terri-
lmialmolers,"(Lhatl-,.25.)
And then ,fter rderring to the Resmipt of 1822, the Decrees of
1869and 1889and Norwegian legisliition conceming the Varanger-
fjord, the Ministry continued :
"The eulier Territ~riWaters brnmîssion of rgrxwbich wasto
clea up thisside ofthe matter propsed base-lines fothe Cotinties
of Finnmark, Troms, NarcllancIs,Northand South Tr~ndelag and
catin parts of MarreCounty. T~B baxe-iinm, which iiasme cases
are vcsyjo?$g, dra.rcmore seiila aiswitll@cd %?tkredsfhanan
th hasis ofa%y general rinci$Es.Atthe sam time, the cornmission
alço prepared tables aPother base-lines for the said strctchcs of
mat, undes the assumption that no hase-Iine stiould be more thaa
10 or 12 nauticalmilns respectively.(Ibid.p. 25.)
In the face of these sfatements can Nonuay s$iU maintain that the
Jimits of based üpon the recommendatlons of the Commission
of rq~r-rgrz, are drawn according to any principle, historical2y
sanctiond ; or fhat there existecliit1935 ~r existsnow, any den
principle inNorwegian theory or practice asto tbe manner in
which base-lines should be dracvn in respect ofthe coasltline in
gend ;or even that as regards bays any clear principlpexists in
Nawagian theory andpractice as to the points atwhich the linex
can be drawn 7Is àt not clear,an the ccintrary,as the description
of the Norwegian system given in the Cou~xter-Mernoriaiitself
rnakes plain, that these lines are bwn with a view only to tl-ie' 594 =Y OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (23 XI 50)
protection ofNorway's own interests and wÏthout regard to the
interestsof o.thersor to rules of Iternational law T . .
415, Passing now to the more detailed contentions restated by
Nonvay, itis kst said inparagraph 529 of theCounter-Mernarial
that hm time immemor;a.l the fjords and the host of islands,
islets, rocks anseefs which protect her coash and determine the
'structurof the fjords,have fomed part of hernational territory.
This staiernmt isan amalgam of iindisputed statemcnts and of
tendent ious daims tvhich requires careful analysiç,
Fi~sira,sregardsfjords :the Govemrnmt of the UnitedKingdom
isprepared and has for many years been prepared toconcede that
many, ifnot moçt, ofthe Nonaegian fiords are Norwegiannatirnial
waters. The dispute centres on the question hotv a fjord is to he
defined and lirniteIt has alreadyben shomm thatevenNartvegian
opinion had'nofixedviews onthis point jseepara. 68 ahve), that
in 1903 the Nonvegian Government felt tbat a IO-milc ruk had
some status in international law (para. 63 above) and tlmt the
Commissionaf 1911-rgrz feltsufficientlyuncertainas éo h'onvay's
positionin this matter to draw alternative linesbawd on
(a) no limit of length :
(b) a limit of 12 miles ;
(c) a Itmit of .iomiles
(seeparas, 70 and 4x4 above).
Secaled,as se&.& idands, islefç=&ks and reefs, ithaç bmn.
showri [para.23 above) that the clairntot~at these asNorwegian
li.raterritorywas asserted inthe Resmipt of 1745,abandrined ln
bhe pcriod between 1759 and 1810, and se-established in the
Rescript of 1812(possihly passed to make it cfear that even unin-
habited islands and rocks belohged to Nonivay) andA fiMy by
interpretation stated in rgo8t,o cover islandç"mt continuously
run ovef' (see para. 48 A above) but that at no time did arly
Norwegian rescript or decree attempt to segulate tlie marner in
which base-lins were to be draw bettveen islands or rocks. The
manner in which thiswas to be done was regarded as uncettain
. by the 19x2Commission (Rapport,pp, 45-49}and by the Wnistry
of -Foreign Affairin rgz6 (para, 414 above).
Third,the wards"whichprote& the coast" are us4 no doubt
su as to benefit from the decision of Lord Stowell in the Amin.
It has already &en explaincd above (para. 289) that a proper
interpretation of Lord Stowell's judgment and inparticular of bis
words "protectionof territory" lend no support to a theory of
the "outcrcoasl liner'asputfosward by Nonvay. ne words refer
"e wcrd "fjwd", althouprimaiil is4 todmotc an indwta5crn that ii
@~pphicallva bajr,2ppem sûrnatitube u$edtudenote areovater hctivccn
'islauds and themainlor betweegroupsofislands.to the protection whicb a neutral vesse1enjoys whm sailing close
to the cuast: of a neutral Forver,
Fmrth, thetvords "and determilie the structure of the fjo~ih"
are apparentlyuse'cl forth purpose af asscrting an historie title
to all waters endoseid by lines drawn from islands which extend
the boundasies of afjord. The Govermnt ofthe United Kingdom
does not açcept thiç positionbut con~iclerçthat islands may only
be made use of in mnnection with baselines tobe dmwn acmss
hays subject to the ro-mile rule (we para. rq of the Mernorial).
4x6. Paragaph 529of the Count~r-Mernorial continues by re-
stating Norway's daim to an outer coast limedrawn outside the
"skja3rgaard"-~1slngagain the words "naihisd appendage", ivhich
are intended tc attract thesupport of Lord Stowell's judgrnent in
the Anne. It ha drmdy been explained (paras. 334-364 above}
th& even glanting Nor\vayJsright, in general, Tdraw her limit of
territorial waters outside the"skjzxgaaxd" ,this does not confer
'upo ner any right touse the syçtem çhe haç adopted inthe 1935
Decree, namely, of basc-linesof indefinite Iength drawnat discre-
tion, Thegeneraltheory of an"outer coastline",haç beencxiticized
in paras. 311-33 3bove.
417, The paragraph continues with a referenccti the Rescripts
of 1745ad 1812-~vhiçh have been çuficiently examined-and
then repeats that Nosway's 4-mile daim represents a reduction on
her previous daims. The irreletmncy of this reduction for the
purposes of these proceedingshas been demonstrated onmore than
one occasion (seepara, 58 above). Tl-heparagraph concludes by
çtating that the lines drabvnare straight lines beiween the outer-
most islands and islets : tl~is is certaithe basis on which the
lines are drawn inthe1935 Decreeand it is thto.which theGovern-
ment of thle United Kingdom takes exception. Ile Govmment
of the United Kingdom snbmits, in fact, that such a rnethwdof
drawing base-lines çould onIy be justilcled by a theory which
permits the coastal State to drawthe base-lines as it wishes and
as it conside-fsconducive to its OWQ interest-which js precisdy
the kheory which Norway weks to establish beforé the Court.
418. P~zragraph 530 ofthe Gounter-Mernorial draws a contrast
between the 'alleged stabili'ty of tNowegian system 'and the
lnconsistencies of British praçtice. It iscertainIy nst claithat
the latterhas b~n frce frominconsistency over the centuries.Thc
United Kingdom lias endeavoured to adjust her theory md prac-
tice, not onlyrto the needs overy different territories apopula-
tions (and this entirelyrefutesthe chuge which Norway makes
clsewhere of undue and unredistic rigidity in the United Kingdom
conceptions),but to the movements in:lego aiinion acmrding to
the changes of the timt, 5g6 REPI1 OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 30)
Nonvzy has, it can readily be conceded, shonh a substantial
degrce of pertinacity inrnaintaininhesoivnviewç, but her record,
since the tirne when a serious cordict of interest arosovet the
.extent of her tersiturw iaaers, can hardly bemclaimed asone of
entire çonçistency.In ~$94. her most aritl~uritative spokesman
(M. Aubert) said that islandscnuld nqt be açed as base-points if
they were more than 8 miles from shore, andthat it\vas an open
qneition how the lines amss abay should be drawri.(Se paras. 53-
34 above.) In 1898 the Department of the Interior consulted the
Faculty ofLaw onthe matter of drawing theterritoriallimit and
both the questions and the rqly dcmonstrated the fundamental
uncertainty of Nonvayk position (para.39 above). In rgo3 the
Nonvegian Government 'aasedits practicein part,on the existence
ofa ro-mile nile for bays(seepara. 63 above).The rgla Comrnis-
sim discarcledthe &mile limit and, with hsitation, the ~e-mile
limit fobayç, but apparently drecvalternative lines baçed onhoth
ro-mile and rz-mile bits (se para.424 above), The report of the
commision was not published or acted iipon.In rgzq the Nor-
wegian Government gave as ïtsofficial opinion (withoüt prejudice
Eosubsequmt revision) tliat the red lines represented the limits of
its territoriwaters (seepara. 75 above)-stating thattlieselines
had been &am according tothe principles of the Decr~es of 1869.
and 1089 (çeepara. 78 abom). In 1933 it decided toextend these
to the blue lines and issued instructions accotdi22gbut later in
thé same year issued instructions related again to the rcd lines
(seepara. gr ahove) T.ri1934 the Nûnvegim Government secretly
issued instructionspin to enfocce the blue Iin~s (seepara, 87
abbve) and findy promulgated the Mue lines iri 1935, assertirig
that the% Lines,too, were drawn accordingto the principlesoftlie
33ecrees of1869 md 1889. Ln the course of these proceelfings
Nonvay haç repudiateclthe red linesaltliough theiexistenceand
the use made of them \vas oficially retognized by the Foreign
Aedirs Cornmittee of theStorfing and by tlze MPniçtry of Foreign
Affairs,Does thisrepresen an attitudeof consistence which corn-
pares sofüvciurably lvith the attitude of the United ICingdom ?'
419. Pamgraph sgr of tth'Cciunter-ntcmoiid repeats the Nor-
weginn daim th& the 1935 Decree merely appliesto one partofthe
Coastpinciples appliedelsetvhereby the Becres of 1869 and ~889,
l'h e overment of the:United Kingdom has çhown in paragraphs
33-38 above that the Decrees of 1869 and 1889 reflect no clear
psincipleasto themethod of drawing base-linewhlch isapplicable
eisewhere,bat inso fasas they refiectany psinçiples tliese are
(i)that a State is not, merely hy 14rtue of the fact that itç
coast.apopulation may have enjoyed the use of certain
waters, ientitled ta clah the exclusive use of sirch waters
ngainst othm nations, an$ MPLY OF THE UNITED KTNGDOM (28 XI 50) 597
(iithat base-lineçshould be drawnby reference to "fixes"on
land :and that the Tinesdeteminecl by the 1935 Decree are
not inang event drawn.according to fhe alleged principles
ar any principle.
4rg A. The sme paragraph refers dao te the proclamations of
1881 and 1896 affectlng the Varangerfjord: this wa1 however,
specid legislation affectitig one individuai fjord and laid down no
gened principle. On the other hand, the fact that inthe drawing
of this line, the lirnit was çomewhat reduced in order to avoid
conflicts(para, 46 above) shows clearly t1za-. onvay recognized
that evenin the draxving of lines across thc mouthof fjords, some
rule ofinternational Iaw must be observeil.
'420. Paragraph 531 of the Counter-Mernorial continues by
assesting that the decree which is the subject of tliis litisnotcin
a~bitrarilyciraxvnbut b~l upon this system-the system king
that- described in paragraph 62 of the Counter-iilemorial, The
Governmmt ofthe United Ilingdorn wili riowprmeed toexamine
thiç claim,
The essential characteristicsofthe system applied are asserted
to he!
(1 1 . maximum length forbase-lines, tlilength depending on
the tonfiguration of the coast and the lines foLlowingthe
general direction of the coasi.
(s) Choice of base~linesscas to forrn anglesas closeas possible
to 180~.
-She first comment to he made on this system is its extrerne
imprecision. TvVhat is meant by "the genetal direction of the
coast" ? Clearly thiçexpression muçt depend for its mmning
upon the Iength ofthe individual stripsof coast undw conçider-
ation: what then Isthc rule which lndicates what this length
rnaybe 7Thus,if verylong çtripsof coastare chosen, h ispossible
greatly to restricthe numher of base-lines :in fact t is possible,
using a smalliscalc&art, snçh aç that ccintained in Annex z,
No. a, of the Counter~Mcrnorial,ta draw as few as thirteen base-
lines from Utslra-{south of Bergen)tathe N0rt.h Cape, al2of tthem
departing to a smaU extent only from the angle of 180°, Such
lims are no doubt very long, but according to the Norwegian
syst~m there is nolimit on thelength which may be zlsed. What
thm w~nld prevent, acmrding to the Narwegian system, thc use
ofthese lines even longer and mclo~ing more waters than the
"blue lines" ? If the Nonvegian contentions are valid, the 1935
Iinescannot briit&en as the ha1 ljmitof Nomcgian cbims :at
any time, ifa different viem of her '"egiiimate interests" were
taken, these wotrldbe capable ofa forrnidalsle degree nf extension. 421. The above argument, itmay be said,do& not takeproper
accout of the configuration of the coast and it is necessaq to
look a+the toast more closely on Iargerscale maps. The Govesn-
ment of the United Kingdom agrees and will nuw proceed ,to
examine h01vfar, on arealisticapproachtçithe coast,and therefsre
uhng charts of a scalesuitable for use by fisherrnm and other
persans likelyto navigate in costal waters,it istrue in any xnse
to Say thri te 1935 Jinesfollowthe @nerd direction of thecoast.
In the view of the Gevernrncnt of the United Kingdom they do
not do so as the following examples show. (References ttabase-
points are, except ivhere ofierwise mentioned, refermees ta the
1935 base~poi~ts as sshownon the chartsin Aiinexr of the Counter-
Memorial):
(a) Between points ar and 12, a distance of 39 miles across
Svzrholthavet, the blue line does not follow the general
direction of the coast.
(b) Between points 18 and 19 the red he is anearer approxima-
tion to. but even this departs substantially from the
mneral direction of the eoast.
(cJ ktween points 19an à20 the red lineisanearer approxima-
tion to the general direction ofthe coast.
(d) Betlveenpoints 20 and 22 the blue ke follows aeither the
general direction of tlicoast mr the so'called "ouer càast
line'" Point 21 i3 a rock awash about 8 miles from the
nearest idet a~idço shodd nrit be considered as part of .
even the '"outer coast line". The red Eine behveen these
points forrns a nearer approach to but is diII a substantid
departitre from the general direction of the coast.
(e) Between points 25 and 26 the biue line follsws neither the
gened direction of tl~ecoast rior the "outer coast lirz".
(f) Between points 30 and 31the bltrrlinedoes not follm the
line of the mainland nor the "outer coast line" of rocks
and isletsThe line shodd Eollowthe coat ofAnddy and
then takea natural closing line across Gavlfjord
(g) Bettveen points.3~ and 33 the red line (chart No.-? of .
Anaex 2of the Memûrial) is a neawr approximation to the
general hction ofthe coast.
(h) Bctween points 34 and gg (a distance of25 miles) the blue
line neither fohws the geneil direction of the mçt nor
thc "outer coast line" but crossesthe entrance to the bight
in ~vhichare Eidsfjard, Hadselfjord, Grimsoyçtraumen, etc.
The red line (chartNo. 7 of Annex z ofthe Memorial). is
, anearer approximation,to but stillambstantial depsrture
from the geuerd direction of the Coast.
(il Betwcen points 38 and 39 the blue linefollows the gecral
direction of the coast but issome r+ miles distant fmm
it for some rz miles, ~PLP OF TIE UNITEL) ~CDOM (28 XI 50) 599
(j)Betn~ecnpoints 39 and 41 the Ad he (chart No. R of
hnex z of the Rfemorial) is a nearer appr~xmiation to
the gemsaI direction of the coast,
(k) atweeii points46 and the hlneIinefollowsthe direction
of the "outer coastline".
la addition,as isshom in detail in the amaEysisof theblue line
inChaptmV below,the blueline consistentlfailstotake account
of the natuml liinits of fjords and sundç-
422. The aboveandysis shows, inthe mbmission ofthe Eovern-
ment of the United Kingdom, that, even =unjing a Nonvegian
system, based upnnthe Decrees of 1869 and 1889,to heestabfished,
ofthe character set ont inparagraph & of the Caunter-Mernorial,
the lines drawn by the 'TortveGanGovmment do not eonform
tciitIt is thmefore inexac[O claim, aisasserted in paragraph531
bf the Çounter-Memûnd, that the decree in qttestion ithiçcase
follùws from the previous decrees. On the caritq, the lines
drarm by itare to a great extent arbitiary linesnrhich do nat
ccinfom to aay nilt-this point will be further ill'ustratatedin
Chapter V bcIow by rcftrences ta the Iines drawn açross the
mouth of fjords. The Governent of the Unit~d ICingdom has
already rernarked (para, 61 above) on the pressure which was
being brought izpon the Norwegia Govemrnent fsom 1906
onwards to expand its territorial tmterin order to exclude the
aptratiom of foreign hshermên, and (paras.8 r and 86-93 abovc)
upon the steady extension of the Nanvegian claimç,It maintaks
its contention that the 1935 Decree represents a determination
ofthe lirni otterritoriawaters,not based upen any legal principle,
but on a plicy of expansion inthe exclusive inkeresofthe çoastal
State.
423. It isclaimed (para. 5gr. ufithe ~orrnter;Memorialzl)Ethe
"unity of the Nonvegiansystern" has been underlined indecisions
of the Monvegian courts.The Governent of the United Kingdom
ha$ aiready sefersed (paas. 28-34 of the Mernorial anclpara. 82
of this Reply) ta the case of 'the De&cJdand, de&ded Iri1927,
which shows that theSupreme Court, basing its~lf onfheopinion
of Dr. Rzstad, at that time cohsidered it farfrom certain ho:
baselines ought ta be drawn in respect ofan ma of the coast:
nd covered bg theDecrees of 1869 and 1889 In the Loch Torrido~
case (para. 39 ofthe Mernorial and para. 84.of this Reply), the
Court, apad from finding in favaur of a particular line,which
was the line contendecl for by the Nonvegian authorities, did
nothi~lg more thm express the opinion that thme was no rule
of international law thaa basellhe across a fjord must nûexceed ,600 REPLI* OF THE UNITED EIWG~M (28 XI 50)
. zo miles infen& ;it didnat refer to, orapprovc,anyNorwegian
"system". In the St, JusZ case (paras. 45-46 of the Mernorial,
para. 85 of this Replvj, the majoritof the Coizrt fovndin favour
of the prosecution'sfbe, basing itself uponthereport of the 19r2
Commission ivhichat tkis time (1934 the hTomegian Government
had dwided 20 accept, and it isnot disputed that the rnajorjty
opinion foUo~vsa line of reasoning which anticipates, in mmly
respects, thearguments put fo~wardin thiscase.lt willbe appre-
ciated, hotvever,that the decisiün was given only short1ybéfore
the promulgation of the 1935 Decree, when Nonvegran informed
opinion was aZready preparedto acceyt the lines laiddom thereby,
that the Court had before it the Rapport of 1912 (including,it
appears,'the commission's recommendatioris regardhg baserlines),
and that even so tmo judges dissented from tlie majority'sview.
The Govemment of the United Ringdam, as ha$ already been
stated, protesteclstrongly agairist this decision,
The Govemrnent of the United Ringdom is not mare of any
other cases(ather than perhapsthe case of the Lord Robertsrvhich
mTas anly concerned with the Varangerfjord) vhich are claimeci
by the Norwegian Government as '"inderlining the unity of the
Norwegian system" and submits that the decisians referred to,
as a whole, Iend no positive supportto the Nor~vegiancontention.
424. The Norwegian Governent further relieon cornmunica-
tiam tu foreign govementç and on tlie Rapport of 1912. The
Government of 'theUnitedKingdomhasfully examined the former
in paragraphs 40~45 of this Keply and does not propose to repeat
the arguments there put fortvard.The Rapport ofrgrzhas also
been discusçedat length in paragraphs 67-70 of this Reply, and
it has been shown that the Rapport itself drew atterztian to the
many uncedainties outstanding in the Nonvegian system of
delimiting territorialwaters, The Government of the United
Kingdom has previriuçlycornmented onthe conspicuous rduct ance
of thePJOIUI~&~ Governent to piablism irnplement ihe recom-
meiidations -ofthe cumrnissi~n.
+425. The preamblc tù the Decree of 1935 isnext cited as sup-
prirting the Nanvegian claim. The prearnble no doubt contains
insummxry fom a staternent uf the Nonvegian case insupport
of the decree which Isrlevd.opeat length intheGounter-Mernorial,
It would be remarkablc if the vdidity of a demee couLi be sup-
port& by the mere i$sc dixit containd in the decree jtselfIt
. Is on the contrar incumbent on the Nomegian Government to
show-as it attemph to show by the Counter;Rlemofial-that
these daims so stated can be sirpported in factand inlaw,
The Governrnent of the United Kingdom haç, in façt,Aready
refuted both the claim that the1935Decreeis in confornitg with
the Decrees of 1869 and1889 (see paras. 33-38 and 78above) andthat the rgj5 Iiecree2ç justified by the needto psot~ct the vital
interests of the Norrvegian population {seeparas.g and soabove).
The Governmerrt of the United Kingdom, of course, entimly
-rejectthe in frorm argument which follows-to the effectthat an
attack on the 1935 Decree involvesthetvl~oleh'onvegian "system"
and a11 the legal and administrative measures based upon it.fie
attack on the decrteonly invalvesthe waters between the pecked
b1ue lines and the yecked green lines on the chartxin Anne>3 :5 of.
this Reply, The Norwegian arg~irnentassumes the çorrectness of
precise laythypothesis whiçh isdenied by the United Kingdom,
namely, that thereexistsa complete Norwegian system from which
ail mesures, including theDecree of1935 ,re derived. The Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom completely denies th~existtnce of any
such unified systcm ; its argument Ui Part: I of thisReply \vas
directeiltu show that thc various Nowegian legislatiue andadmin-
istrativemeastireshm 1745 to 1908 n~ither are wholly consistent
nor provide any niles (except the ru2eu ttoa +mile lirniton which
the Decree of 1435 tanhe said to have been based. The Demees of
1869and 1889, which the Norwegian Governent cornplairis have
been-"'left inthe shade", have been fully examined in this Keply.
The Government of fht United Kingdom has not been concerned
directlyto attack +hem,becaust eheir vdidity is notan issuein the
preçent case ;but it hopes that it has made clear that it does not
accep-t:and never hx accepted theçe demeesas doing more tEan
p~escribe partimilar limitsin an individual area (to wbich lirnits
admittealy Nerway rnay have by now estabLished a pmscriptive
right) and inparticular not aslttyingdown any syster norapplica-
tion e1serne.e,
Any finding by the Court that the lines laid down in1935 exceed
rwhatispermitted by law can coi~sequerttlynot affect Norway's
rights established undm the Bcrees of 1869 and 1889; cerhiiily
cannot affecNorway's ehts declased over the Varangerfjordsince
these are admitted, or ?ter rights overthe Ves-jord within appro-
.priate.Zirnisincethese also areadmitted ;and finally wouId ltave
al1 the Nowegian legislation (tvhich caiistitutes the majority of
Norwegian enxctrnents) çvhich define Norwegian poLicy "'mithin
territorial waters" intactand fully applicable wifhin the area of
"territorialwaters" defined by the Court.
Nomay's dwta~ltce to make Rnmn he~ "system"
4.26. Paragraph 532of the Counter-Mernorial seeksta show tht
the Norwegian system has been known fox a,long period. This
statement was evidently recognized togo too far since the second
sentence dates that no dûuI3tthe precise limitain the areacovened
by the rgyj Decree were ûnly defrriitively laid domby that decrm.
Not onEg is that the case,but it will be remernberedthat over a
long period of years the Governmmt of tbe United IGngdorrihas
been u~uccessfully pressing the Norwegian Government tcimake REPL\' OF THE UNT~D KINGDOM (28 XI 50) 605
the Law of 13th Septernber,r83o (-4nnex13, No. ro,of the Counter-
Mernacial)), merely referredto"Norwegian temîtorid waters" ~vith-
out çpwifying their mtent. The only mceptions ta thls mTerethe
Decree of 1869, which defined territorid waters for Ssndmare and
which, itskiouldbt noted, ornitted from this definition cerbmli.3,
admittedly exploited from ancient fimes by Nonvcgian fishermen,
on the grounds that an extension so far of territorial cvaterscould
not be justifred;the Demee of1889 applyirigto Rornsdal ;and the
proclamations of 5th Jrtnuq, 1881, and 17th Yece~nber, 2896,
relating to the Varangerfjord.Tt Is quite inaccurate to Say that
Nonvegian legislatim assureclta Nonwegianfisliemen a monopoIy
a£ fishing inthe waters declared to be territorial waters hy the
Decree of 1935.
Secondly, astu custom :it bs already beenpohted out(para. r7
above) that a practice clevelopedhy individuais to fishin ceriairi
areasof sea cannot of ltself confeupon the Nowegian State any
rights under internahona1 law against otherStates.And moreover
thereisno evidence of any customunder which the disputedaras
-of sea tvithin the area covered,by the 1935 Decr& wrerereserved
for exdusive use by any particulas communities of Nonvegiail
fisbermen.
ThirdIy, there is no justificatiofor asserthg thaf the United
Kingdom has irnplicly admittcd "theinternational validity ofthis
state of affaisç".Apnt from the disputeswhich mse during the
eign of Queen Elizabeth (sixteenth century) ,rvhen British fisher-
men, supportecl by the Queen, repudiated Ncinvegian claims to a -
moriapolyin Norwegian maters,thé international'validity of Norwe-
gian clairns inthe tvatm with which ths case is conçerned never
came in question unii1906 and thereafter theUnited Kingdom Iras
continuously wfiaçed to reçognize Norwegiam daims to appropriate
any greatc erxtent ofsea than is properly comprised within terri-
torialwaters.
The Norwegian argiiment under thishead would, infact, only be
valid ifitledto a daim on the part of Nomy that ailthe waters
conçerried x7ere"historiewaters"'.The mere fact of userof cestain
waters (even amrning this isproved) withaut my evidence of exclu- '
sion of other States, -or any evidence of the acquiesçeno cerither
States in such exclusio cm,not establishsuch aclah and, as wilI
be sholvn in thenext sectionofthis Reply, Norway does notbring
fonvmd the neçeççary elernents for an establishment ofa clh of
this kind.
The Government qfthe United Kingdom has already suffiçiently
cornmented on pa~a~dph 535 of the Counter-Mernorial in para-
gnph q8 abve. 606 REEZV OF THE U~'D KINGDOM (28 XT 50)
43" Paragaph 536of the Couifter-Memorial openswith the
position, the truth ofwhich is assumed withaut proof, that the
operations of the British traders were disastrousfor the caastal
inhabitants.Tt has ahady been shown in.parapph 9 abox-ethat
thisiç not the case and that the Nonvegian Govemmerxt, in the
reportofits own cornmittee setup in 1947 (extractsfrom thereport,
dated rwg, are given in Annex 28 of this RepZy),haç reeognized
thisfact ;aisothat Nmvay's own trawling activities may properly
be extended.
The Conter-Mernorial pmceeds to refer again to the conversa-
tions of1924-1g2~ and to clatm that it hasrecaed ermrs ofkt
and of lnterpretationTnthe DIemorial. ïZie Government of the
United Kingdom is content to&et ivithuut further cornent to
paragraphs 73-80 ofthis Reply and to leave it to tCourt to decide
wherc these errorslieIt rrepeatthat itdoes not seek and never has
sought to make use of these conversations or of the information
provideciinthe courseofthm asevidence of abindirig agreement
on the part of Narway as to the fixingof territorial hmitsIt bas.
anly ken co~icernedto point to the progressi chratter of the
. NonvegiancIaimsandtheinconsistencyandhesitamcyonthepart
of the Norwegim Gvenzmcnt in advancing them.
Itconhs once more thatit hasno desireto use agailid Norway
any concessionor Ieaiency whtch Nornray may have shown in apply-
ing the Decree of r955 &ter it pramulpted-that is to say
after Norway hadclearly defined her clalms. The same principle,
however, does not apply to the anterior period-from 1goRrg3 j-
whiIe Nonwy's attitude tvasundetermhed,
Norway'schim to anhistmic titk
(Paras.537 to 575 ofthe Coui~ter-hfemorial)
PvebiiaZntz~çmsideratimc (Cornter-Mernorial,paras. 537-540)
432. The Norweghn' Goverriment, In paragfaph 537 of the-
Counter-Mernorial, contends that in any event Narway's clxàm tzi
the waters encloxd within the base-linesof the 1935 Decree is
justifiable underthe theory of historic waters ancl in succceding
paragraphs e~amine.sthe elernenfsof this theory. It begiaa in para-
graph 533 hy arguing that the concept ofhistoric waters islinked
ta what Norway cds the rigidsystern ofinternational ruleirnpos-
ing strict and mechanical limits onthe maritime Territory a State.
It quotesa dictum of Gidel ttthe effect that thc theory ofhistoriç
waters acts as a kind of sadety-valve to the general ruleç for the
delimitation ofterritorial watm. Tt declares that if, llke Norway, thc delimitation of maritime territory. The reason is that hr;
regards the ruks for the delimitation of a State's coastal waters
as essentiallya compromise between the iiitemts ofthe caaçtal
State in acljacent waters and th.ase of the cornrntrnityof States
inthe high seas and astherefore involving the elment ofexpress
or tacifacquiewnce ofother States in the daims of individual
States. l'he Nonvegian Government, in pqraph 185 of the
Counter-Mernorial, pays lip-service to th? doctrine that the
- cuçtomary la~v of maritime tetritory isa compromise betrveen
the freedem of the seas and the interests of coastal States.But a
verv large partofits xrgnmerit inthe Counter-Memorfal is devoted
to denving the' existence ofany criterion for the legitirnacy of
claims of a coastd State save the interests of the coastal State
as conceived by its ojai government at t~y giveri moment, The
Nn'orvvegi-i&a3ve~nment in itç argument persisteiitly refusesto
regard. the interests ofother $tates in the baundaries of the high
seas as of any relevance in determining thc limits of a coastal
State's maritime territory.
The @aefatftdion ofbh wks ofCUS$Q~~?~ law coa~mi~g tke h%ik.q
of madzwe tc~.$fory md the tkemy oJ hi~aorzcwatersis tuexpress
Jg greatesj comwon wedszfire00a1grem~mt R*MOPL~S~ taCes.
434. The Norwegian Goveniment, as will Isesliown,pursues its
atternpt ta emptythe customarylaw reIating homaritime territory
of al1 itsrestrictivecontent even inits exposition of the theory
of historiç waters by disputhg the relevançe of the acquiescence
of iither Shteç in an historicclaim. It is therefore necessary
hriefly to recd the true functionç respectively of the general.
zules of customary hw deterrniningthe limits of marithe: territory
and of the theory of historic waters.
The limits of maritime tersitol-under the riil& of customarj~
Jaw, as Norway acknoiyvledges,zepreçent essentiailythe .Iine of
compromise between the freedom of the seas and the interests
of coastal States. The function ofthe custornq rdes ir therefore
to express the greatest comrnon measurc of agreement among
States fiorrithe double poi~t of vietv of theiinterests ascoastal
States and of their interestsasuses of the high seas. Thi. point
isemphasized by Gide1 in discuçsïng the width ofthe territosid
sea (op.cd.,Vol. III, p.rp) :
de l'fitariveraisurnseseauxeadjacentes, nesatrraiprocéderques +
d'une fixation anpirique :la distance susceptible de rkaliserl'accord
ncpeut &treque cellequi assurer un ajustementsatisfaisant entre
IcsintErEtde chaqueEtat considérétour àtour comme riverainet
comme utilisantlm espaces maritimes autws que ceux situ65 dans
le voisiriagimmédiat de ses cûtes.11 serait vain de prétendre
rechcrclier par le raisonnement qtielpeut etre cette distance."That such is the function of the cristornaryniles 'followsauto-
maticallg from the mosl fwdameatal norm of international law
under rvhich its rules resull irom the consent of States, Thus,
the generd rules of customary law governing thé delimitation of
maritime territory express the greatest common measvre of
agreement as to the houndaries atike of the high seas aed of
coastaX.territary. The existenceof these pneral ruleç servesitself
as co~iclusiveyroof of the acquiescence of au States in clairnsta
coastal territory which do not excecd the limits prescribed in
the rules.
43 j.The rjnited Kingdom Govefnment in pamgraph rze of its
Mernorial has set out what it conceives to be the generaI rules
of crzstomary larvfor the clelimitation maritime territory,which
are applicable Inth^ present case, Customsry law, the Codification
Conferencc havingfalled, doesnot go so farasto forbidthe assertion
ofa clah which exceeds the limits prescribed under its generd
rules, But such a clairn is prima fncie clah to appropriate an
area ofseawhich ath~r States consider to be Iiigh seas.Such a
clailn isprima .fa& encroachment on the: rîghts of other States
individmlly to lrse and enjoy the 'waters appropriated md to
exercise an exclusive sovereipky over tlihr own shipping \vitlin
those waters. Tlie açquiescence of other States insuch a claim
is therefarenecessaq and cannot be takenfor grmted. Conse-
quently,,when t.he clainis invoked against another State, the
acquiescence of that State in th: da I-iastu be particdarly
and &rmatively proved,
ZLhe $ra'aciflaafictionO! keov of hislo~ic waiersa'€O-sze$fify
the mani ofcx~~as evidenceoj the acqukscs?tceof oilteStates
436. The thtory of historic waters relatessirnpy to the proof
uf the accluiesccnce of other States in a claim excetiding the
generally recognized Iimitç and ils finizcifafitszctimisio saqh$Zy
Ihs wani of ex$ress evdeazce ofthe aq~ciescenct?of the fiauticutar
Stafe against witicthe daim àsinvoked. Of course, this Statemay
have bomd itxlf expressIy to mognize the excessi~recfaimeltber
by treaty or bgr art unilateraloct recogsiizingthe clah, and a
clah to an area of sea resting on successive treaties witseveral
States is no cloubtail historieclah ; but there would have been
no aeed fora fheory of historicwaters if only waters covered by
express acquiescence were to be included. Frequent y,however,
evidtnce of express acqui~scence hy the particularState is lacking
and then the claimai State isentitled, if it can,to raise an
inference'of the general aquiescence of other States, by proving
the hisioric charader of its daim by long usage, The histcirjc
element is tlius relevant pr~isely inregard to the acquiescençe
of other States in am appropriation of maritime territary ~FZlich,
39 apart from the acquiesceme implied from long usage, they would
be entitled to ségard as an invasion of thcir rights.
437. The Nomegian Govemment inparagraphs539 and 540 of
the Cornter-Mernorialrnakes two points concerning the theory
- of histwic waters : , .
(a) thxt the theory inot confmed to historic bayç butFxtends
to ail other~mterç capable ofking indtided ~vithinthe
maritime territory of a State; and
(b) that the rSle played by iisage in the theary of historic
waters isnot clear.
, The firstpoint isdeveloped inlater paragraphç of the Counter-
Mernorial and itisto-(b), the impo~tance of "usage", that the
Nomegdan Governinent first addresscs'its argument.In effect,by
an examination ofStatél practice, doctrine and the work ofthe
1930 Conference, it seeks to show that the element of "usage"
in the thcory of historic waters is not international usage but
the national mage ofthe dairnant State and that theacqniescence
of other States in the national usage is nul:necessary, nie Nor-
wegian Gsvernment, in paragaph 540' before proceedhg to this
examinatim, takes as the text for its exposition of this thesis
the remarks of the United States delepte althe eleventh meeting
of the Plenary Cornmittee in1930 on territorial waters' andthe
tems ofthe nile for historic watersproposed by the United States
delegation.Tt ma, lionleverbe morelogical tu examirIethe attitude
adopted by the United States delegation lp rg30 towards the
probtern of hiiistoriwatersinconnelrtion with the work of the
Codification Conference (para. 463 betow) and to consider the
instances of State practice before considering the Codification
Conference, It will thenhe çeeq that the work of the Cad&cation
Conference, taken as a whole, providen sa wanant forthe thesis
of the Norwegiail Govemrnerrt conmrning the rMe played by
purely national usage inthe theary ofhistoric araraters,
(Paras. 5'4t1o 547 02 the Counter-Mernorial)
438, The first precedentcitedin paragraph 54r ofthe Cornfer-
Mernorial,is the United States daimto Delaware Bay, wbich was
recowed in 1793bjr Great Britain and France as aresult ofthe
capture of the Erlglishtres5e1,The G~afige,ùy a French tvnrship
inside the bay. Extrach from the well-known opinion of Attomey-
Gened Randolph are given in the Counter-Mernorial fmm ivhich
the Norn~egian Govemment dram the foliowing conclusions: (u) Thé Attorney-G~nerd dW not comicler the P&+otialitp of
Delaware Eay to reszilt ody from usagebut frorna combina-
tion of Çircurnstances inregard tolvhich ilsageprovided an
impmtmt confismalionof other c~midërafiom, geohPInic;ll,
economic and political.
fbJ He consiçlered fie usage to be established by reference
sirnplyto the attitude of thelocalSovereign, that is of ifthe
United States and, before the United States came h,to
being, of Great Britain:
{c) He made no seferenceto the attitude of foreipgovcnimennts
and the acquiescence ofFrance in the United States daim
was in fact oniy given aftenvnds when she rcleased the
English vessel.
In ~793 themodern rulesfor the delimitatioofmarithime territory
tvereintheir infancymd the dehi tion ofthe phciples detcnnining
the territoriality of bahad scarcely begun. XEwas not, 'tlierefore,
trsbe cxpected that Attorney-Generd Randolplz woiikd give full
expression tttht subscqu~ntlydeveloped modem theuryof hlçtoric
waters as anexception tcithe general nilesfor the ddimita tior- of
maritime territory.If, asisstatcd in the Couter-Mernoriai. Dela-
ware Bay isnow to be regarded as one ofthe çlassic examples of
historicwaters, its canoni7tjonas a classicalprecedent dates from
a much latcr period than thaf of Attomey-General Randolph's
opinion, Consequently, it Is really somewhat striking thacontrary
to whatis said in paraexph 541 ofthe Counter4vIemoxial, Attorney-
. General Randolph in his opinion gave so much attention to the
.. attitudeof other States .tothe United States claitn.Thusarnong
the "essential facts" listed inthe firsextmcts ci& by the Nor-
~vegi~rGnovernrnent he emphasized :
'
"That tl-ieDelaware domaob ieudfvom th seu$0 the dominionof
1k9tjoreip fiatiori,;
That, fram theestablishment of the Britishprovinces on the
bah ofthe Delarvart:tothe American Revolution,itwas deemed
the peculianavigation oithe British Empire;
1783,HlsbBsitaanic Majestyrelinquished,wdhthefiri*SeO/F~uncc,
the severcigntyof thosepovinces...."
And, again, inthe second extractcited by the Nomegian Govern-
ment, he said:
"These rernarksmay be enforced by asking, What wationcan bp:
injwed iniCr siglab,y thDelaware bc2ngwfi@@ria-teddotheUnitcd
States And trwhat degrec may not the United States be injuted,
on thecontrary grriun? Iictro~mu.nicatwsith nojoveig~tdommio;
no fersigmation hs, evm befo~~E,XUC~ aPIJmw~niiy of rigtWlrit,
as if wcre amuin sea;:underthe formerand presentGovernments,
the axet~sivjurisdictiohas ken asserted ...." The italiciz~d tordsin the abv& extracts frorn hisopinion 'show
that the Unitcd States Attorney~Gcneral evm at that date did
not by my means neglwt the attitude of other State owards the
United tat tesaim oc disregard.the international aspects of thc
usage in regard .EQDelaware Bay. However, the short anscveris
that itis not Attorney-General Randolph's opinion ivhich makes
DelawareBay an historibay but thefact that theUnited Kingdom
O andFranceatonceacqniescedinthedaimandotherStatesthere-
&ter.
439. Tn paragaph 542 of the Criunter-Rfemorial the English
case of Regim v. Czta~ni~~gham(18jg) concerning the Bristol
Channel, which the Norwegian Government cited in connectioil
with bays, is again invoked '.The Norwegian Governmest empha-
sizes that in relevant passage of his judgment ChitiefJustice
Coçkburn does not concern .hirnself 1~4ththe attitude of other
States. That i5 true. But it is perf&ly understandable that in
Regina-v. Cti+t~ir,ghnmthe Court çhwld ilot in its judgménthave
directed its attention to international consideratiom. The crimes
had heu committed an a foreign rnerchar~tshipwhichrvaslying in
the roadstead of a British port weilwitizi.ptmiles frrm tlzeskwe.
The statiiçof this part of the Bristol Channel cameiriissuebecause
.the triaisivcre htld before the Courts of Cpmrnon Law whiçh,
beforethe p~"lgof the TerritorialWaters Jusisdiction Act, 1878,
11ad jurisdiction only if the waters co.imed for?ned+ad O# the
adj&-nt Cozmty of Glamorgan, If the area Jvas not within tlic
body of a county (if inother wcirdsthe waters cverenot a bay, i,e,
internai waters-but xwre territorial waters), then,although the
Cmum had jtrrisdiction so far as international law\vas concemed,
.the Crarvn had not conferred such jurisdiclion on the Engiislï
Cornmon LawCoitrts. (Seeparas. 145-"46 above, on the siibjectof
the Territorial Waters JurisdictionAct, 1878. M)oreover,the Bristd
Channel at the paint wliem the crimeswere commit ted is nomore
than romileswide and the general mle of internatiand,ia~v gotrcrn-
ing thc iemitaiality of bays had not yet been dcfined in ~859.
It is.not therefore surpriskg that the Cuirrt shodd have directd
its attention to the jurisprudence of the cornmbn latv to Lord
Hale's test ofthe range of vision,
Th ComceptimB t ay case (1877)
440-'I'henext precedent, cited in paragraph 543af the Çounter-
Mernorial, is apassage from the weU-hown judpeat of the Rivy
&uncil concerning Conception Bay in Di~eci Unit.& StatesCable
Ca, v. A~tglo-~4~~~c&tT lelegraflh Co. (1877 Law Reports z,
i The substancofthis cais explaidein para135Ofthe Umtd XCingda's
MernoLialeç~ciallm~ EodnritNo, rrp.gr, VoI. 1. Appeal Cases 394). The Privy Council in thiscase baxd the British
title to,Conception Bay in Nedoundand expessly on historic
grounds and theNom~gian Government concedes that the theoy
of historic waters appears more trisiblin thiç precedmt than zn
those dealt \vithin the prevloüsparagraphs of the Comtcr~hlerno-
d. The Norrvegian Government, however, makes a somervhat
equivocall comment on the Ianguage of the judgmest when it
says : "'On constatera que la Colu ne soutient aucunement que le
titre historiquesoitle seul qu'on puisse invoquer pur justifiela
territorialité delabaie de Conception. Eile admet que la territa-
rialitd de^baies dbpend de divers facteurs, parmi Ieçquds leurs
dimensions et leur configuration jouent un sole important." If this
comment is intended to convey that the Court regarded the territu-
. riditg of Conception Bay, a bay ovcr 20 miles in width at the
mouth, to be justifiablitprt: from a4 historietitle, it pes beyond
the langtzage of the judgment . Moreover, the comment obscures
the clear acceptance by the Court of an histonc titleas a disSi?$d
and exce$tioaadçwomd ofjwtiz'fihtion.The preceding paragraph of
the judpent, whicli is essentid to the understanding of the
passage given in the Cozuiter-Rlern~iriareaclç(&id., p. 419) :
"Zt sems generalIy agreed that where the configurationand
dimeilsionsof the bayaresuch as to shew tliathe nation occupying
the adjoiningcoastsalso accupiesthe bayit is parof the territo;y
anclwith this iclmost of thewriters on thc subjecrefeto defensi-
bility irom the shore aç the testof occupation; some suggesting
thereforea widtli of onecamion-shofromshore toshore, o3 miles ;
somc açmon-slmt from each shore,or6 miles ;some anarbitras.
distanceof 10 miles,Al1of theseae des which, Ifadopted, tvould
excltrdeConception Bay from tlie territory oNewfoundland, but
part of thehaBristolGhannel which tinReg.ry~v. C~la~ingknn \mas
decided to bein the Couiityof Glamorgan. Onthe other hand, the
dipIomatists of the United States in 1793çlüimed a territorial
jurisdiction over muchmore extensivebays, and Chancellor Kent,
inhis C.ornmentaries,though by no meus giving theweight ofhis
authiririto this claim, giveme rwns fornot cornidering il:
altogether unrcawnable."
The addition of thisparagrap mhakesit clear that thPriv y Council
rec~gnized (a3 thattlie gerieral rule deteminingfhc territorialitof
bays concerned th two dm~ats of config%raiio;uwd diwnsion ;
(6) tllat thdimensional test ofa bayaccepter1 as territorial under
the generalruEe rvaçin 1677 not yetfinally settled but that the tests
suggested' mbost ~vriters wevld exclude Conception Bay ; and
(c)that itwas unneceçsary for the Court to3aydown agencral test
Ixcause Conception Bay £el1tinder the difkrcnt and exceptional
principleof historicwaters. The Court did not refer to Grsat Bnt-
ah's historic title asrntrely an additional clemerrt confuming a
- title valion other gaunds. On the çontrarjr, iregarded the hidoric titleasa distinct grauriil for justifyGreat J3ritai dnimswhetkev
or nolifwas validwdiv the gmlal Faw.
The idorcvegiarzGovwnrnent makes a furthercomment iipon the
langirag~of the judgment: of the Privy Council :
"Les juges constatent que le Gouvernemmt britannique a
kxerc6 son autorité surla baie de Conception rfora long pend i,
et que cette attitudarequ l'assentime detautren sationscletcUe
sortc que la baie a&téexclusiwrnent occupée par lui.Lc point de
vue des gtats étrangers entrecette fois enconsidkration,mals on
le ciécluitplut6de lem abstention que d'un acquiescementformel
et spécialaux prétentionsde la Grande-Bretagne sur Ea baie liti-
gieuse. Les élhents de preuve positifs surlesquels la dkcisioa
s'appuiesont fournis par lapratique de ta Grande-Bretagne, par
les maures d'ordre internequ'ellea prisèest notamment par les
actes du Parlement." ,
The comment is correct thatthe Court adduced no fwmal or ipecial
acquiescence on the part of utber States.If these 'Radbeen famai
acquiweace, there would Iiave been no ne4 to infer acquiescence
from coriduct, But it is to be oherved that the Court did in fact
make mention of the Treaty Of 1818 witlithe United Stata and
that in a later passage it ernphasized that the British legislarlion
asserthg juasdiction over the bay in pursuance of the treaty kvas
expresslyfrarned ta appIynot merely to United Staies nation& but
to ail foreigncrs (ibidp,,421) 1
"It enacts .notmerely that subjeds of the United States sI-iall
observethe rmtrictions agreed on bg the convention,bnt tliat aii
persans, mot being naturai-born subjects of the King of Great
Britain, shdi observe them mder penalties." .
Again, the fact that the Court cieducedthe acquieçcenceof other
States in GreatBrjtain's clatm primarily £rom tkeir inaction inface
of the British assartionof dominion does not mean tl~atthe Court
attached Little weight to the acquiescence of0th~ Statts. Onthe
cùntrary, it revestedtothe question of acquiesmnce In two separate
passages ofits judgment, 'rhuç i,the extract given inthe Counter-
Mernorial, the Court said (ibd.,p. +a) :
"Itxm to them [the udges ofthe Court]that, inpin t ofht,
the British Gomment aas for a long periadexerciwd dominion
over this bzy,and that itfneFclah has hem a.cpi$smd ifiby oiher
. natiosrss,oas io shaatltnt?zebayhas becn fora la~g Eiwe occqhied
exsi~tsivdyCiyGsal Brifaiit,ttcàkcumstance which.1% UZEï%ibwrzals
of axy cozan.ttt~ouh ?e w#yimparta~at."
?ben, having evplainedthat the British ledslation appiied tu ail
' foreigne~i;and imposed penalties on them ifthey disobeyed the
restriçtioriç, the Court concluded(ibid.,p.421) :
"No stranger asxrtlon of exclusive dominion over these ba'ys
could wll be framd. As hss been dready observed, Conception
Bay isin every seiiseof the words a bay within Newfoundlantl, REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
6x5
though of considerabIa width ;and asthere is notliinto justify
constrtictiaof the actlimiti tgto bays not exceeding any parti-
cularwidth, this iasunequivacal assertian of the British legslake
of exclusive dominionover thisbay aspart ofthe British territory.
Aad US thisassediafiof dominiu.faasmt hem pestion~ti riaRy
nalioa 78x9 don* to 1872, wlxn e hesh ço~vewiionwm mde,
tkk bay isbabyw$resm;$tim $arttofbtJteexclusiweterritoof Greatlt
Britain. As alreadcibserved,ina British tribunal it is decisive."
It is,as has been explainedin parqraph 436 above, the primary
furrctionof thethesry of anhistosictitleto raisehorn long usage an
inference of the positive acquiescenceby otheStat& whcn eviclence
of express acquiescence ("acquiescement formel" in Norway's
wmds) isabsent.
Caj5i~trrreThe Allepne& iliChcsaflcakeBay (1885)
441, T~Elasi precedent fromthe j urispnidence ofnational tribn-
n& is5iétsm v, UrnitedStdes (~885 Scott, Cases mt fntermtwnal
lhw, p. 232)çited in paragraph 544of the Cornter-Mernorial. This
case, tvhch was decided hy the United States Court ofCommis-
sioners ofAlabama daims, mnccrned the capture of the vesse!Th .
AElcga~ean inChesapeake Bxy during the herican Civil War. The
Court dismksed the daim onthe ground that the capturc had taken
place noton the high seas'butwithin thc inland waters ofthe United
States.Afterciting selected passages from thejudgment, the Nnnve-
@am Goverment comments that the decision was far from being
basecl only on the United Kingdom theory of historic waters Cie.
on the acquiescence by 0th States in the exercise of the juris
diction).Usage is saidto be irivokedside by side with otlierargu-
ments such asthe importance of Chesapeake Bay to the security of
the United States,ih configuration and geographical features, the
factthat itiç n~t a pathw-ay Iinking foreignnations, itsstatus in
cornparison with other bays. This itrue if it be addcdthatanother
argumentparticularlyrnentioned is the ahsericeof any objection by
other States. But how should a court do otherwise especidy in
1885when the general des of international 1a.w goverhg the
breadth ofthe opening of an ordinary(not historic) bay were not
yet cl-rly defmed. Chesapealte Bay has atl thecliaracteristicof a
Fay ina marked fom, It isa long narrow inlet going up 170miles
into the landand les than 12 mitesat the mouth. But for the que5- -
tion ofthe hreadth ofthe opening, itwas obviously quaIifiedto'be
considered as abay. The Court was çcincemedto point this out, but
since the bay had anopening only rz rniies cvidatthe mouthand
it waç not stttled in 188j what the breadth of the opening for
ordinary bays was, the Court invoked the exercise of jurisdiction
over the bay -bythe United States and the apparentacguiescence in
siichjurisdiction byother States.In otherwords,the position ofthe
Court as that them weregroimds for holding ChesapeakeBay to beiniernal waters of the ~nited States on the basis of the general
niles of internationalhm, but ifthis was doubtful then itcould be
so clairne$on.histoticgrounds. The criteriawhiçh the ConrE adapted
for Hie kistcrriccharactcr of the bay are exact@ those from wkzch,
according to the United rCingdom contention, anhisto~iç titïe can
bepresumed.
The Nonvagian Government fnrther cornmats on the judgment
that the traditional mage on tvhich the Court reliecwas essentiahly
the attitude of the United States, particularly the legislation af
Congress, and that the Court only notecl the absence of reaciions
from other Poxvers. But national usage is,of course, a sineqzsa1.t~
of an exceptional dim to national sovereipty over a bay, for
otherwise there is no $round everi for making pretensions to the
bay, If tiiertareno reactions from other States over a long perind,
that is sornethng frorn whiçh acquiescence can he inferred.Inany
case the United States Court being bound to decide in accordance
with Acts of Cmgress codd scarcely be expected fo do more than
draw attention to the absence of international reactioii ta the
national daim. If Acts of Çongress violate international law, that
is a matter with nhich the United States Gor:ernment has to deal
on the dipiornatic plane and not amatter rvhichany United States
court can put right.(Surely the position ofany Nonvegian Court in
regardtothe 1935Decree is the same.) Itis notthe decision of the
United States Courtwhich is the b~is of the United States clah
but the Statutes of Congressand the exercise of acts of jurisdiction
by the eaecutive just as it is the attitude of other States towards
the daim before and after 1885 (and not the decision cifthe United
- StatesCourt) which is the basis ofthe historictitie. Inany event.
the passages frorn the judgment which ue giwen inthe Couriter-
Mernorial doIess than justice to the reasciningof the Courtconcern-
hg the acquiescence of other States-inthe United Statesclaim. The
Court (ibid.,p. 235) referredto Direct fJn.itedStatesCable CD. v.
A~gja-Awzericafi Tek.eg~a;bCla. (loncqtion Bay case) as "perhaps
the most tlioroughly considerd and impartan t ,case'*,nd cited the
pa.sçage set out in pxagraph 543 of the Counter-Mernorial \rrhich
emphz5zed the acquiescence of othtr $Stateinthe British.claim to
Conception Bay, The Court having seferred also to Attorney-
' General Randolph's opinion çoncerning Delaware Bay *adde$
(ibz'd.,p.237);
"If itbc said that the mere claims of a nation to juridiction
over adjacent watersareto be acceptedwith some depe of hesita-
tion, tlien the actiinreferenceto the Grange(the slip cnncerned
Inthe DelawareBayincident) is ofmuch weight,for ihere theclaim B
made by the United S)>tesmas promptly acquiesced in by two
great foreignPowe ru....
In other rvctrdç,the Court infered from the acqniescence nf Great
Britain and France in ,the daim to Delatvare Bay the probalde acquiescence la£other States in what the Court considmedtu be
the comparable claim to Chesapeake Bay.
The Alakala Bousdmy A rbitration(rgo3,l
I
442. In paragraph 54j of the Cornter-Mernoria1 the Nomegian
Government gives an extract from the ÇountEr-Case of Great
Britainin the Almkan Bouladq Arh-tist~ntion x9o3 [Procsedi~t,~,
Vol, IV, p.30 of the BritishCounter~Casej.It points out that ln
this extract the theory of histaric waters only finds expression
in the phrase "the actual mercise ofnational authoritjr ovtr
the waters claimd". The passage extracted wasihowever directed
to the general question of ordinary bays xathkr than to the par-
ticular problem of histone waters. On the previous page, the
, British Coiinter-Case had refcrredto the Conception Bay case as
"the only reported Enghsh case in which the headlands question
iz ifs àafernadiml aspeci was really discussed, And, then, irnme-
diately before tlie passage which is extsstcted in the Cornter-
Mernorial, the Counter-Case said of the Privy Cuuncil" decision :
Lord Blaclrburnheld that the territoriality oftConceptionBaause
waç mrablished by yrescriptiçin and acqiiiescmçHence, it istY1
tIiecasetkat the question: 'What are the rulesas to clirnensioxis
and configurationwhicli,apa1.tfrm otherconsiderations,would
leadto the conclusionthat abny isox isnota part ofthe territory
ofthe State possessingthe adjoiningcoasts'has never been made
the gound ofan y judicial determination,""
Coriçequmtly,there is notriing in the British Counter-Case inthat
arbitration to den): the relevana of the acquiescence of other
States in appreciating the validity of an Iriritoriclaim.
.Government revertsh onceofagainrntorthe Arorlh Allantic Fkdze~ies
Arbit~ation of 1910. It poirLts out that the majority judgrnent
merely noticcd tlie existenceof the theory of hstoric bays tvithout
findiiig iEnecessary to examine it,The reason, of course, was that
the rnajority regardecl the tvard "bay" in the '1.81 T8reaty as
ha~ling been used in a purely geographical sense, Judge Draga,
however, dealt with the theory of historic nraters at some length
and the Caunter-Mernorial setsout an extractfrom his dissenting
opinion. The commeuts ofthe Fomregian- Governent upon this
extract are that, accorrling ta Judge Ilsago, (a) "immemorial
usage" is only one. of the elements to be taken into account ;
(b) assertion of sovereignty by the coastal State is not:by itçclf
sufficimi but it is the indispensablprimordial ba~isofthe:historie
titlc;(C) theother elements in anhiçtoric titlaremerely parlicralar
circurnstances xvhichsupport and justify the pretensions of the
coastal State. Itisfurther said thai, inillnstrating whathe n~eant by particdu circumtances j ustïfyingthe daim, Judge Dragonot
ody placed "immemsrial usage" dongside geographical con-
siderations and the needs of defence but also stressed that the
needs of defence are more important than usage. The generrtL
implication of the Nomeglan Gov~rnrnent's' argument is that
Judge Drago mmt be interpreted as not having considered the
acquiescence of other States to Ssea fundamental &ment inan
historic tide.
Judge Ih-ago,inthe exrtracfrom his opinioncited inthe Çounter-
Mernoriairdid not in terms refer to the acquiescenceof 0th~~
States. But, <athe Norwegian Governent concedes J,dgc;Drago
indicated that the assertion ofsovereipty over a 1iay isnot by
itself enough and requires justification,In international inw, a
system of law which has its origin inthe consent of States,what
othcr "justificationJ' can therebbeof such claim to sovereignty
if itis not tlieacceptame of the clah by otlierStates ?Judge
Drqo in the irnmediatelp precedïng parapph of hi';opinion had
in fact mentioned with approd the langnageof the Privy Council
In the Concefiiio~ Bay cm8 where, it d be recalied, the Court
underlined the acquiescerice of other States inthe Bribsh claim.
If,however, Judge Drago did not refer expresslyir!kis dissenting
opinion to the acquiescence of other States inan historic claia,
lx Ieft no doubt about- the importance of such acquiescence when
comrnenting on the Tg10 Arbitration In an article published in
the Rmue gé~aé~a de Droii ifitevmatimal +atbi;icorgxz (Vol.19,
p.5). Speaking of the head'land theory, he .tlierssaid (at p. 37):
"Lesfitats-Unissemblent avoirabdonné cettethhie exagMe ;
règlestricte des six n~illesd'entrbe pour la ghésalitCdes hies.
MAS ils mirent à part, commeilétaitnécessairequ'ils fissent,
avec un grand luxe d'autoritéetd'arguments, leurs baiesvitales.
Cm baies exceptiannelles apparaissent dans plusieurs traet&,
la dachinc les reconnaît expreçsbment.
L'usage ca~itinu,les nécessitdela défensel,a volontéd'appro-
prierexpressément manifest& doivent, ence casplusqu'enaucun
autre, gardertout lempoids.Us doment tout son effet àiaprescrip-
tion. acquisitive consid6rcomme source dgniiere du droit, et
font desbaieshistoriquesunecatégoriespécialeetdistinctedont la
o~itfirocéddd.E'afirmcationeqleur sowte~ainetten acqciérent'las
fiassessioek lesr'ncorpos.end lew domaine, dt{ consentizlemles
afilrefiah'olzs."'
' HG then iliuçtratecl Iiisstatement conçerning historic bays by
mentioning the Rio de la Plata as an emrnp'le together ~4th
Conception, Plaisance, Delaware and ChesapeakeBays. As his
previous reference to the Rio de laPlata i4 kis disçentingopinion
had been criticfxedin anEnglislnewspaper he added thefoiIowing
argument with the object of justifying I~isinclusion of the Rio
dc la Plata among the historic bays (ibid pp,.37-38): ".,,.'estuairdu Ria dsla Plata a laconfigurationd'une baie,et
nous devons lemnsicI4reret le dCfendre comme tel, attendu qu'il
constitue de cepoint de \rue,d par dkfinition, tabaie histasiqire
par excellenceetune baie historique de toute anciennepr,sentant
un caract&re trh net et ucceféecomme klla#tw f5 ccim~s.entemdai
touts les ~zaEiogaespacideI."figuesan~~kes".
"...non seulement nous, ma% notre prédécesseur, la Couronne
d8Espqne, avonsfait des déclarations non équivoques de souve-
rainefk ence qni concernecetestliaire, detes imm'mora'tzeltde
plus que ces affrrrnaticinsontobdew d'asse~lime~t$aB.Jiqacemett.i
ex$rim" de fmies les g~axde~PU~SSC~~ yCCOST@YT,SJZ'vgleterre".
Tt is theref~re irnpùçsibleto understand Judge hgo as having
held the view that the acquiescence of other States is not a
-fundamerital dement in an Iiist~ric claim.
444. The 1as.tprecedent from intemational. jurisprudence,yhiiiçh
* cifed inparagraph547of the Cornter-Mernorial, is the judgment
.ofthe CentralAmerican Caiirt of Justice inr9r7 relating to the
.Gulfof Fonseca (Arnrr;rm Jowmal of Iniernaiionak Lw, VOL XI
(~917)~674, at pp. 700 elsqJ. The Nomegian Government declares
mthat in determining the status of its waters the Court relied
pirnarily on the vital charxcter of the interests IinJceclto the
possession of the guli. The Court is said to have made a point
of public works in the bay, of econamic and financial conditions
.and the stm-ategi mportance of the gulf and the islands,al1 of
which "make it absoitritelyindispensable for the coastd States to,
possess the gdf as completely as isrepuired by these primordial
interesh andthe needs of theirnational defeiîct".The implication
-ofthe Norwegian argument again appears to be that the Central
American Court did not regard the acquiescence of other States
.asa fundamental consideration in an histuric titlc,but looked
,onlpto the vital interertsof the coastal State.
The method of handling tllisprecedent inthe Confer-Mernorial
is trmy mnarkabïe. Tt is perfect~y true that the Court mentioned
the vitd interestsof the coastal States as une reason for holding
the gulfto LieterritorialBut it alm mmtionecl other thinp which
'the Norwegian G~vernrnentf 'orbears to mention, The Coud opened
its discussion of thc lcgal statns ofthe gulf with the proposition
(pi 700) :
"Inorder to fix the international Eegastatu3 of the GuLfof
Fonseca it isnecessaryto specifythe chatactesistics propthereto
from the threefold pohk of vitw of history, geography and the
vital interests the sumunding States."
The Court next referred to an assertion of sovereignty over the
gulf by the coastalsovereign orsovereigm during the the penods
of its politid history frorn 1522 oriwards and then said
CPP 7- ~011 "During these tirné priods of the politicai l~istory ofCentral
America the representative authorities have natoriously afnrmed
thair peacefnl o~vnershiparipossession in the gulf thatis,mithl
protesor cofi&adictim y nngr nation whtstsoeverad for Eh#olificaE
orgamzation and for police purposes, have prformed acts and
enacted laws having to do with the national security, theobserv-
etnce ofheaith and with fiscal regulatïons. A secélkn~$uss~sseon
ssaclas thutof th.gdf ,co~Id mEy hmc h~enmaintnimn! hy th~acqui-
escewccoftha fçamilyofiiaatiomsand in the caselzerealis.w itis3108
thar i%econsensus gentiurn isd8daced fiom a rn~cly $~SS~UP~kltZ$adt:
on the$GTY!of th<îZaliom,because the diplornatic history ocertain
Poiirerç sliowç that iamore: than 11alla century they have been
seekilito establish rightç of lheiown in the pli for purposesof
commercialpolicy, but always on the bais of respect for the owner-
shipand possession which the States have maintained by virtue of
theit sovercignauthority."
Later iu its judgment, after listing the "vital interes&" of the
costal States, the Coud added (p. 705) :
"It is cleasldeducible hm the facts setforth inthe precding
paragrxplistliat thGulf of T;(insecbelones to the specialcategor~r
of !aistoricbays anis theexclusive property of Hl Sdvador, Hon-
duras ancl Nicaragua; fltis, onth8 Ckeorty ritid cmlii;iles aliJthr
clzardd~ris/icor eafditions $ha$the texf wik7s on intmationab
lm, thei7aie~ircdionkrriinstittftand lh fir~ccdmishav~ $~cscribd
ascsselititoimdoriait ~saterslom't,scntlsrnrimmtmorial-finssession
a~ompanied byanirno dnmini bath~eucfirland cmdinuous n~d hyncqz4i-
eswncc onth&pu~t afothw nations,the specialgeographicalconfigura-
tion tl~at safeparcTs somany i~iterestof vit21 importance to tlie
ecrinomic, commercial, apiculturaland industrial Lifofthe riparian
Stntesand the absulute, indispensan bwlessity tliatthose States
should posçess the gdf as fuUy as required Ly thme primordial
interests md the interest of national defençe."
Thus the brief and highiy selectiveaccount given in paragraph547
of the Countet-Mernorial seriotidy misrepresetn liesjurisprudence
of this precedent. The Court: certainly attached great importance
to the vital interesta of the costal States as a gromd for 0th
States recognizing their pretensions- But it equally attachecl great
importance to that recognition having, in fact. been given by
other States.
445. 'Fhe thesis which undetlies the comments ofthe Momegiam
Govemment uponthe above pr~edents dealtwithin paragraphs 541
to 547 of the Counter-Rlemorialis that the cïecisions of tribu-
nal~, particulnly int~rnational EribunaZs, do not trertt historic
usage as a distinct,independent grouna of title to sovereignty but
merely as one arnong several different mgroundf sor justifying a
çoastai State's pretensions tonsovereignty. This view of hist oric
waters is nmicssary to theanarchical Nonvegian doctrine ofmaritime territory tvhiçh tvauld permit a Shte to fut its o~vnextmt of
maritime territory acconkg to its own vi~w of its legitirnate
interésts and rvithout regard to the hterests of otherStates. The
Nor~vcgianGovernmmt istherefore constrained to deny tliat the
prccedents, particularly the p~cedents of international tribmalç,
treat the acquiescençe of ather States as a wecessaryelement inan
historic daim to a larges extent of maritime teeritory than is
generally admit-ted by othcr States. Finding that the precedents in
fact givean important placeto the acquiescenceof other States in
an historic claim-cither by express mention or by irnpIication in
the phrase "immemorial usageJithe hemvegian Govern ment is
further çonstrained to argue that the theory ofhistçlric waters is
not appliedin these prccedents as an independe nround of title
, but rnerdy as one arnangseverai merhods of justifving tlieclaim.
Hence cornes the constant harpirigon the fact th& referaces éo
historicusage iii the precedentsare found only inconjuncticlra116th
other "justifications" such as geographical configuration and
defenre interests.
446. The United Kingdom Govemment, mnch mrlier in this
Reply, l~asgivenits reasons forrepudiating the Norwegiandoctrine
of undateta1 determination of maritime territory by the cciastal
State (for the United Kingdom's critickm of the Norwegiandoc-
trine,se paras, 139-14 7bove). It haç nowshocvnthat the prete-
dents, aspeciallythe international prxedents, relatingto hjstoric
waters which are reliedon hy the NotrvegiamGavemmeri-t: in fact
indicate that the aquimcence, express or implicd, of other States
is an esstntid part of the theory of histçiric waters.It lias also
pin ted out that, asit~ternatisnal law derives iauthority from the
consent of States,the '~vholenotion ofthe "justXcatian" ofdaims
ts maritime territory canonll relate to securing the acquiescence
of other States,The facf that references to açquiescence by othei-
States or to immemorial usage are commody found in mnjunction
with rekrences to geographical configuration ,andta defence nwds
hasa very simpleexphnation, An exceptional appropriation of the
seas ismat-r~garded ag capable of beuig even put fortvardiinless it
isthe resuIt of the special confrguratiofithe coast ofthe claimami
Stattteand of the latter's special neeIn.other words,geogmphical
configuration andreson abIe need are basic factorswi thout k~~11ich
Ehere is nQ prospéct whatever of the cxceptional clairrn eceiving
the assent of other Çtates. Çonsequentiy, evenwhen an historic
title is invoked, stress is inevitably placupon these factors,But,
where the claim gves beyond what isacceptecl under' general
cirstomary international law,it is theacquiescence of other States,
express or implied from long usage, that sets the seal of legal
validity upon the exceptional claim. That this is the case foiJours
ïnevitably from thc fact that the consent of States is the funda-
mental basis of fhe international legd order,The Sedudion vhich 622 XEPLY QE TITE UNITED XXKOOM (28 XI 50)
the Nomegian Goverment wishes to dra~vfrom the juxtaposition
of "irnmenmrial usage" or "acquiescence"with geographicai and
ùtherconsideratioas insome ofthe precedents is, thereforenti,xdy
untvarrmted.
, Opinions of i~,kts
(Para. 548 of the Counter-1lernoria.l)
7VumcgIcd u~gekwentthut the Lheorof kistwic watershas VEV~ bec-~i*
applied ifisolatiub~t &y inconj~ncfion witk ath~ cmsidercrtions
447. The Nomegim Govement, in pampaph Sqs of the
Counter-Mernoria lssertsthat in international jurisprudence the
theorv of hiçtoricwaters has never been applied in isolation but
has idy been applied in conjunction wiith-ather considerations
when the territorialityof particdar bays has ken recognized.
Xtalso assertsthatit is primarily in the opinionofjuriçtsthat the
theory has been conceivgd of as an independent, self-sacient
theory. The United ICingdom Govemment, for the reasons given
in the irnrnlediatelypreceding parwaplis of thls Repljr, submits
that these assertions misconceive the function. of the historic
element in the establishment of a title to historic waters,'This
function iJto sa& an inference of the acquiescenceofother States
in the exceptional clah, when express evidence is lacking, If a
territoriaclah to a bay does not exceed what isdmitted by
generaiiyrecognized sulesof custlirnary lacv, theris noneed to
establishthe acquiescenceofotlier States because thisis conclusivdy
presumed from the general rule.The test ofthe application of the
theory of historic waters is thus simply cvhether rtsort ismade to
the historidement because itisnot considered, or itiçuncertain,
that thc particular claïm inissue was covered by the gcnerally
xeccgnized rulsç.The theary of historie waters was undoubtedly
clppfiedfor example, in the CaficeptiwaBay and Gzdf of Fouiseçw
cases-lt may be added that Conception Bay was late excIudcd
from the consideration of the triburial of the rgro Arbi-tration
baazcsethe U&ed States ktzd acquie~c iedthedeasion of the P~vy
' CouncZE( .Awand of the Tribunal, Wilson's Nape A Ybitdio.la
cases,p..188.3
The precedents invoked hy h'orwayare thernselves suffich t to
show that the theory of historic waters ha5 been applied in intm-
nationalpractice and the statement in the Counter-Mernorial that
the theory neverhas been applied 'Yinisolation'seemsto hemiscon-
ceived, The theoryof historicwaters cannot be isolatecl either frclrn
the general rulesof international law conceniing the delimitation
of maritime tenitory or £rom the general circumstmces, partic~i-
1x1~7the geographical facts, surrounding the part icular waters
daimed on hstoric grounds. The United Kingdom Governent
can, howevcr, agree with the Norwegian Goverriment t hat juristshavestrongly endorçed the theory ofhistoric waters. Jtrristhave
encltirçeditas an exception to the generaldes fos the delirnita-
tion of maritime territory and inthat sensehaverecog&ed it as
an independent sule,
448- The Namegim -Goverament ackriowledgeçthe support to
the theory ofhistwic waters asan independent rule givenbyjurists
tkrough the resolutionsofZearned societies,but çeeks to whittle
down the effect of thesresolutions by examinirig the language of
Tome of th9 te&. It fimt examinesthe work of the Lilstîtute of
International Law pointing outthat in1894 the Institutementioned
the themy of historiçwaters asan exception cmiy to the general
rule forbays and in the folloavlform :
(1
h moins qukn usage CO~~M etsic~dairen'aicongacriune largeur
plus grande (article 3)".
Tt then tnrnstu the tesolutiomof 1928 pointhg out that the tams
In which th^theory ofhlstoricwaters was expresseclinthat resolu-
tion were differentand that the scope of the theorwas not onthat
occasio confinecto bays. As tothe latterpoint,the Institute again
aIEowed,in rlrtidc 3 of its draftan historic claim asan exception
to the gcnerai rulefor bays but it alsorecogmzed, in Article2 of
its draft, thepossibility ojustifyinga cEaimto a larger maritime
belt (e.gNonvagr's daim to 4 miles)by reference tohistoric usage.
The Norwegian Governrnmt here repeats itç contention that the
minutes of tth discussion show that Article 2 was understaoci to
dow historic claimstoarchipelagos as ~vcllThe United Kiagdom
hm previously psinted ciutthat thiscontention goesbeyortd what
was saidin the disciisSions ,and that theInstitate seems to have
understood ody that anhlstoricchim to anenlarged maritime heIt -
would he eclilallyvalid forthe marithe belt of uchipelagos (see
para. 3j6 above). The United Kingdom does not, however, press
this interpretation sincit holds theview that inaccordana with
fundamental principles ofhternalional latvanexceptibnal daim fo
territorial waterin archipela igoslidifit has received the assent
of other States either expresslyor by implication frcirnhistoric
usage (seepara. 471 below).
The phse Lnwhich the theory ofhistoricwaters waç expressed
in both articles ofthe 19'textwas sirnply"aninternational usage",
The Normegian Governent statesthat a proposai nfBaron Rdin-
Jaequemyns touse the plirase"usage incontesté""as rejected with
the rmdt that the word "inconteT;té"w'as ornitted. Thisstatement
is not quitecorrectbecausethe word "incontesté" k ttobe found In
the originaltext proposed by M. Alvarez and SirThomas BarcIlay
(Aqmztaa'r1e928,p. 6371I,t istrue that theword "incontesté" was
dropperl,but the word "B~zte~n~tatio.wlas"retainedto express the principle that a aaild~a3. ~atZowl pteasion is mt s'~rt@ci&-The t
national tisagemust have received i.r-att?ynatio~ea-lgnifidn.
Work ofthe T~térfidio~crLlaw associa th? ^n1926
+ 448 A. The Nofivegiim Govemment, dso in paragaph 548 oithe
Cornter-Maorial, examines the text of Article z of a msolution
of the International Latv Assonation in 1926. This leasneclsocietg
had in fact includedthe theory of hi~turicwaters inits earlie draft
'ofrSg5 inprecisely the same items as the Institute the year l~efor~
and with referencconly tobays, In1926, as the NorsvegianGovern-
ment points out, itapplied the theos- generdly to therultesfor the
delimitation ofmaritime tenitory in the follorvingformula :
":.each maritime $tate Slid mercise territoriajurisdiction at
sea within the lirnits hereinâfprovided and not further,Save to
the estent that juridictionis conferredby thisarid atherinter-
nationai conventionsor treatieor by ailoccupation orestabhhed
usage generallyrecognized by natioiis".
The Norwegian Goverment appearrs ttasizggest that this clause
admittecl the extension of rnaritime territory hy simple "occup
tion". But this cannotbe the case ;the tvo& "generally recognized
by nations" apply no less to "occupation" thm to "estahlished
usage". Not only is this thenatural rncaning of the words but, if
this is not their memina, it was wbcillyfutile to formulate the carc-
fdly dra~vn general niles for the maritime belt, bapislands,straits,
etc.,which are found in the, societykclraft ('AmericczwJou~n,al of
Int~n&io~za2Law(~gzg),Vol.~3,Special.Supplement, .pp.~7~-37~),
Itmay be added that Article 13 ofthe sme draft declares:
"Na Sfuteor~YOU# of Sbtm my dai~ d?y rightofsou.cmig,nptty,
$rivJegeor prerogalivQUM awy $orLion 03th Ingh seasor place any
obstacle to thfree and full uscof thesea3,"
It Isquite dcar that the International Law Association did ad
contemplate the appropriation ofthe seaswithout the express or
implied assent ofother Stata.
Nmt, in the same pwagraph isqnoted the phraseuserlinArticle 6,
dealing with bays, of thcl Amerim Institute's draft of 1927 :
"unlesç apater ividth shallhavebeen sanctioned bycontin~cedand
ner~U~astablis~used e",The rinly comment tIiat necd be made upon
thisphrase is that when international jnnsfs speak of well-estab-
lishecusage, they necessarily mean a usage wellestablished arnong
States, or, inother words, a ~vell-edablishedi.ittes*mfz'onusage.
Tlte Harvard Researcfidm# t (1929)
449- Lastly, pamgraph 548 of the Coiinter-Mernorial gives the
textof Article12 of theIiarvarclResearch draft (Amerimn Jorr~vzaE
ofInrte*matio?laLl aw ((xgzg,)Vol. 23, Speçial Supplement, April
1929 ,.288) : "Tbe provisions of this convention relating to the extmt of
territoriawaters do not prcclude the delimitation of territorial
waters in particiilat. areas in accordanwith esidlished usage.'*
The Nomegian Govcrnment obswves of this texttbat the reserva-
tion of histaric waters >vaste be of generai application. That is
quite tme. But even moreinteresthg is the comment ofthe authors
of the Reseasch draft which folloivedhmediately upon their formu-
lation of the article :
"The articlseems necesshry became of hjçtoric claimsmade by
certainStates altd UC~~~&SEP ~*by otfteStaks with reference to
certain bodiesor with reference to particularareas of water. The
simplestcase is that of an hiçtorbay %ch as Chesapeake Bay or
Conception Bay. It seemç desuable that the convention should not
interferewith fiisto~ictttirnO/ thiski?sdbased upon usagc which
ttasbsen esfablishebefore thisconvention cornes into force.Svch
SirniIslyit seemsdesirable thatitshouldbetrccognizedothatuçages*
with respect tootlier areasmay bccome established in the future
and that wdellon~~ded chims may be based iiponçuch established
usage.'
This comment abundantl$ confirrns t&t inthe work ofIcarned
societies,asin theprecedentsof Statc practice, the tlieorofhistoric
waters is regarded as selating ta internafimai usage ad la the
acpttzéscenc e/otherr tal~si.an exce$ti~ulaclaim.
450. The views ofindividual juristsare flotcited in the Counter-
Mernorial.As,however, individual juristsare able to expressthcrn-
selves more explicitlyand more precisely in their books than can
learned societiés in their brieftextç, it is worth seeing what four
juri.sl.sofkg11 reptitation in tlre present cmtury have to =y in
regard to hjstclric waters.The Arst writer isWestlak~ (rgro), who
tookthe view that generd recognition of territorial bays is limited
to bays with entrances nat exceerlingtwiccstke width oithe mari-
time bdt. He then cr)ntlnued(2nd edition, p.191) :
"But although $bis is thegeneral rule,itoften mcets with an
ex&phon inthe caseuf bays which penetrate deep uitothe land .
and are caIIed gulfsMmy of thcseare recegnized by immemarial
usageas territoriasea of tlie States into which they penetrate,
notwithstanding tbat theilmtrance ia wider than the general mle
for bays woiildgivc as a lirnitosuchappropriation."
After mentiming as examples of these laver claims to '"fis''
by irnmemorial usage Conception, Chesapeake D,elaware and
Cancale Bays, he referred alço to the ''King's ChambersY\s
shaIlow baysformwly claimed and sumrned up asfollows (i&d.,
p. 192) : "Butit is oniyin the caseof a true pl£ that tliepossibility of
occupation can bc so real as tofurnish a valid ground for the
assumption of savereignty, airdsvewin that casethe gco$papRicni
featureswhich may wrzrrtzqelth asswrrt.ptiare fou inca$labieof
exactdsfi~ita'oboallozeO/Ll~tdaim beaitgbrmght to any ofhertest
thm thata/ accqbttdusage."
Rai;tud
qjr. hi second writei rsthe Norwegian jurîçt ~sstid (rgrr);
towhose views conceming the operation of the consent of States
in the establishment of daims to maritime territory attention
has already been drawn in deding mith the ehcent of the maritime
belt (see para. 117 above). In a passage there quoted he said with
general reference to appropriation of the sea (La MM krritariale.
, p-167) :
"XR plus important,ce n'estpas; da reste, à men avis,de savoir
qumd et comment a eu lieu 'Locçilpationu l'usurpation de tel ou
teldroit Sur la mer côtière.L'im;bos.tam t'estde savoi~quand el
mmmenl a ew lieuIe cofismime~ ex$~ks ou tacdad~s ~~aliu?si
domte iiI'oscupafion'oCIE.B~wr$aEio LtgaaFidéd'am tilvde dmil."
Coiild any mords be more explicit? In a laterpassage,'addressing
himself to the .pa;rtiçular point long usage, he said (abid.p. 174) :
"La piescriptiontelle qu'ella&té iatroduitedans lesI<gislations
nationales n'existant pas, exception laite descas prévu';par les
traitEs, danslc&oit international,zc~itadechses qwiexiste LZE+&
longtem#s m'estsanctiolafpar te dr&t des pris qHe sa t'existmci
p~oboagdd eeceiétatde chose3flrmv~leconse~tkme.ntncd'des wtiwzs;
icile consentement des nations les plus int&res&es,en raison du
voisinage au autrement, obligégalemen tes nationsrnoiiiintéres-
setsou dont les intkêts ont surgj à une époqnepostérieure A la
sanction définitivedecet 6tat de choses. Aut~ement, nn ktat de
clioseç, eût-il duQcpufs le commmcement du monde, ne scrait
jamaisinviolab aue,16triment:anifeste destntér&tsde torxtcs les
nations.''
452- The third writer is Fanchille (1925) ~vho exmineil the
theory ofhistoric waters more £ulEy than any 0th- writer except
Gidel. HàYing referred to the IO-mile lidt as apparentlr;the
dominant principle for bays to-day and havhg mentione4 that
many wittrs and some States recognizcd the existence of an
exception to this principle in "les haies historiques ou ~itdes",
be said (Traite de 13voit i~tey.~tatimat#xblic, Book 1, Part II,
p. 380) :
"Quelleest exactement la définitioqu'ilconvieni de donner des'
baies hiçtoriquesou vitales7Ce sont les grandsgolfeet lesgrandes
baies dont le.caractèrde territorialita&té reco+zn tar rtn usage
longwrncd accefitéet une couturne non contraversée.'He tlien described Judge Drago's mit wion as being stightiy
broader, slot apprentIy being aware of Judge I3rago's further
explanations of historicwaters in the article cited in paragaph 443
above. As to judicial precedents Fxuchilb said (&id.:)
"C'est également E'acpsiescmzmi &!s États qui, d'aprgs des
décisionsjudiciairesaxfilipe: iecarrfv~de tewiioriailiièdebaie.$
. historiques."
And, irisupport of this statement, he sited the Conception 33~7,
Delamr~ Bay and ChesapeakeBay precedents together with the
Anglo-French Treaty of 1839by tvhch Great Bntain rccognized
France's title to the Bay of Cancale. Fanchille fmally summecl
up the results of his analysris(ibid ,y. 381-3821:
"C'est l'acquiescement de certainsgtats la réclamation de
souvcrainet& dlev6esurms baies par la nationriveraineet l'ahence
de protestationdes antres Etats contre cette~éclamntion qui en
ont faides baies l-iistoriqetsleur ontdonnéle caractèr terito-
nai. - Cette th+rie des baieshistoriquesrepose-t-elsur une base
léptime ?Tout Etat ayant le droit de renoncerA un riraiqui lui
appartient, nous semble queles E tats piontex@esshelziiconsmti
tira.çcepla fmziloriatitd'une baiequi par sa largenr constituait
une mer iibreetohils avaient parconséquentle droit denaviguer
Librement ne sauraien s'opposer à l'exercice de1s souveraineté
exclusivede l'ktat riveraisur ces baies, Maisla territarialité de
cellrci doit-dlc Stre consid&réeaussi comme obligatoire vh-à-vis
des Etats qui se sont simplement abstenus cle r8cIama ? Lw
absielttiow.$eut-eZk Lq~iml&r du?z tovxs~+~binsnt?Cela-est $las
dozdlei~, tde fait, bien des jurisconsrrlteconteste l'exactitude
de la dortrine des haies historicluesC'estainsi .que Perels fait
okerver que ul'exerciceunilatéral de prlétendusdroits, mhe
quand ilne souiéve pas 1- réclamations d'autresÉtats,,soitpar
coimivcnce,.soit par impriissance derésisterne fie& ?(mais itre
@poséd ccux qui $t'on$as acq~iesc.cx$p.esséifimtu +ar desactes
dmt I'iytte-nheslévidmlic1)Baty etRiver cconsid&~enqtue, malgr6
l'opinion deAnglais etdes Américaizisl,es baies deConcq-1.ion.de
Delaware et de Chesapeakedont l'cntrée a rmpectivement 15, 18,
32 milles, sontA l'exceptionde 1sronc territoriale, des partdes
lamer libre."
Fauc-hiliethus seerns even tu have regarded the imp1iatioa of the
rtcguiescence of other States hm their inaction alone to be a
doubtful doctrine.
433. The fourth and last writer iis Gide1 (19341,tvhose vietvs
are stated in a passage to which the attention of the Comt has
been &awn at the beginning of the present discussion of the
Nomegian contentions in regard to historic waters (para. 433
above). Inthat passage he laid phcdar stress onthe acquiescence
of otha States as the touchstone of t& legal validity of an
exceptiond clah (O$. kt,, vol. III,p. 6511.: .. . "II wcsufitpas qw l'&ai riverain&die $a prktPhtiodsim+tStdkre~
tqOès026telles emx ctwwme Iwidani K@YO$Y$$a #Q?W que ks auire
Etntsaienfle devode s'incli~admarztcetle$rÉhwtim; lacansdmfio.lt
de CS firdtentio~ne fimi dé~vtir- en l'absence d'orgmes ayant
reçu formellementqualité A cet &et etinvestis expressément par
chacun des ktats interessks d'unpouvoir de décision- que de
Ziacpiescem.ranterrtatiol,:c'esE'usage$rdci~zgqui,gÇnkmIement,
contient lmotauIiistoriquewAl'aideduquel 1athCorieestdésiptse."
The United XGngdom Governent submits that the above
words of Gidei, with which it is in entire agreement, are fully
borne orrthy the precedents and by tlreopinionsofjuristç whicb
it has exarnined in the immediately preceding paxagraphs of this
Reply.Tlie element which is essentid to the validity ofexceptional
appropriation of the sea is the acquiesceficeOfothet States.This
may be express tirÎtllray be hplied from an intemationai usage
of long standing and in the latter casethe clah is commonly
clescribed as being validateclunder the theory of Estoric waterç.
It is in the light ofthis concept of historie waters, supported as
it isby a forrnidab1: weight of anthoritÿ, that the work of the
1930Conference has to be appreciated.
454. The Nomgian Government, in paragràph 549 of the
Caunter-Mernorial, declares that the preparatow royrk of the 1930
Conference atid the discussions at th conference thrnw lighf: on
the theory of historic wate~s. They, are said tu 11avc established
thxt the theury is of general application and is not cconfinedto
bays. Asneither the Plenq Çornrnittçe nnr Sub-Cornmittee No. II
formulateciany twt concemirmghistoric waters, itis prhaps
_ prrnissible io wonder what has here becorne of the deep-seated
distnr oftthe wotkof the 1930 Conference asevidence of customary
law which Nonvay displays earlier Inthe Counter-Mernorial in
regard to matters on which teds were fornulatecl. NeverthëIesc,
on mare generd grounds ~vhich will be explained Iater (paras.471-
472 beloiv), the United Ringdom Governmenthis not disposed ta
contcst that the theory of hiçtoric watersis tigenerd application,
Jt will be convenient to examine firstthe light thrown by the
records of the conference on the actual elements cornposing the
theory Iri regardto ~vhich it is saidin the Colinter-Mernorial that
opinion at the conference ivas more divided.
455. Inconsidering the tvorkof the 1930 CodificationConference
relatingto historicwaters it has tabe remembered that one of the
chiefabjects of the conference was to crystalhze riotminimumbut
maximu~n. des for the delimitaiion of maritime territory. If this REFLY OF THE UXTmD KINCDOlCI (28 Xf 50) 629
abjecthadbsen achicved, the resnlt wouldhave bmn, in the absence
of asaving clause, toindidate ai onceby the ternisofthe conven-
tion aIZclaims in excess of the agreed maximum rules awluding
claims IhaShad ukeudy gaised i~mriatio~a2~ecognilion.The insertion
of a clausein the convention iyXUch -rvouldreserve "histodc" rights
had therefore a particular significance atthe=1930Conference. Su
long as the general rides ofinternational la~vremairieclcustornary
and expressed rnerely the agreement of States as to the ordiaary
limits of maritime temitory, the vdidity ofa larger daim \vould
besimpIy a matter of proving the acqaiescence of other States
either by express evidence or by implication from a usage long
appIi&i intemati-lonallyIf, however, the general mles became
conventional andexpressedthe agreedmaximum lirnits ofmaritime
territory, then, in the absence of express evidence of açquiesckce,
the convention itselfwouldprovide very strang,perhaps cencluçive,
evidence that States riinot accept the largesdaim as 1egalIyvalid.
It is essentiato have this consideration in mind inreviewing the
wosk of the1930 Conference.
456. Thns, the clabserelaiing to historlc waters inthe original
Schücking rnemorandum was plainly regardeclsimply asa avhg of
wisting historie rights fromdestruction by the general des of the
convention. Schücking proposed to deal mith aaUspecàalrights by a
systernof ~gistration in an Internatronal Waters Register andafier
stating hisgeneral 1x1s for bays inArtide 4 he added (Americm
JouriznkofInZernationd Lm (q26), Vol. zo, Special Supplernent,
p. 85):
"As regards the recognition orights whicli arin contradiction
with the tenor of'the generairules,the provisions of Article3
concerning presentation md registra-hon in the International
Waters Registershall apply.Tt$liullwt bepos&le to ~cg8ai~uch .
s.ig&sin the ~ufuve."
Both the other rnembers of the Committce ofExperts Fornmented
on this text. The Porhpeçe expert, M. deMagaihaes, arguecl in
fmur ofcovering casesin which
"em inthe ahsence of eontinuousand imttmorinl usage,mcog~i-
tianmîgh tbe givento theabsolutenccessity fothe Stateçrincerned
andmaritimetspolice services(ibid.p.y~32).o malntain navigation
AEterinvaking in support of his argument the thmry of Judge
Drago in the Igro Arbitrath and the rernarksof CaptainStorni
which are set out in paragraph 550 of the Counter-Mernorial,he
suggested an addition to Artide 4 in order to give effect to his
proposal. The United States expert, Mr.Wickenhiun, commer.tcd
on the suggestion ofM. de Magalhges asfollows (ibid.,p.141) :
"In my opinion, the clame whidi M. de MagalhZes suggests,
;tdded to the firstparapph ~f M. Scllïickingk Adicic 4, would REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
630
make general a rulewliich fin&supports only inçpcciatcasesand
wiozcldmeeaith grewa@p~.~itiofi.''
SchScking, having ageed with kis colleaguesto omit the proprisal
for anInternational Waters Office,amendedhis ciausc relating to
historic baysto read sirnplyzs follows(ibid,,p.142) :
"udess rigreaterdistance has been eshblished by continuousand
Lmrnemorial usage".
In explaining thechange in his text Schücking snid (ihi pd,146) :
"1 shoutd have no objection ifthe Int~.rnation;Waters Office
werc to lx creafed but without mch an 0%~ ti%rightasked JOY
by M. de Mag~lht(eswodd be,tusom6exteirtdangevom."
457-Tefi ofthe replies ofgovesnments rdating ta bays referreid
dareçtlyto Iiistoric bayoftvhichseven used phrasesrelating tathe P
recagnitlan af historic bayç by other States (Rases ofDiscwssion,
pp. 39-45).Thus, Gemang (ibid., p. 39) thought that the coastai
State must prove itsdaim "tlirouglilong usage geaerally recognixed
by 0t3EeSiates"; Australia (ibid.,p. 39)and Great Britain (ibid.,
p. 41)took asthe test "general acquiescenize".; Japasik tes(Itbid.,
p.42) was "tirbe-honoured and geniaeualycce$&d usage'" Polmd's
test(ibid., p. 43)was "established usage" describeclas involving
the exercise ofsovereipty ancl the fact that "noobjectim hm been
rais& by otlzeSt&s1" ;Estania {ibid.p. 40)thought'it: ms "jensible
to recugnixehistonc bays"; finaUy, the Nefherlands (ibz'd.,p. 43)
sam no obj~ctioiitù "the recognitionof historicrights in respect of
certainbays" but said that suchrights would Iiave to be '"precisely
defined inthe conva~tion". Of the other three States,the United
States (;&idp,40) as throughout theirxeply,merely cited precedents
which in this jnçtance were Delaware Bay and Chesapeake Ray.
Portugal's reply (ibidp..43) was a littlequivocal on the question
of international recognition: "This exception is faunded on the
domestic legislafioof the variousStates, their higher intereçtsand 1
neceçsiticsand long-~stablishezfisa,aasmi citstms, Mareover, the
special position of th&ebays has been recogvtizedhothin!j%adggnmets
qJfheÇewts ad i.pc'cd:erirmtiw." Norwayk srcplyalone agpeâred
to coritemplate the estabhhrnent of historicclaims by national
usage unaccompanied by international recognition (abid.,p.42),In
addition to the seven States mentioned As referring to tlre inter-
nationalrecognition of historic bays,Belgium, inthe part ofher
replydeaiingwiththe extent of the maitirne belt, said(ibid.p.zg) :
"Any daim by a State tzia b-readth of territoridil-atesgreater
than that agreed upon in aninternational convention costldonlv be
accepkd .ijuslifiedbg,a* ~niEicfi&clifilewtalioncfisagebased owca
s#ecid gwpafilicui configawatim . These replies of governmen ts,
therefore,read as a '~vholedo mthing tcidiminish the importance
attached both in the precedents andin the opinions of jusiststo,
- înterna;tionalrecognitionofh~o~cclaim, 458, Following upnn the replies of gowrnments, Basis of Discus-
sion No. 8 was formulated asfollows (ibfd.,p. 45 ;the French text
ofthe Bas& is given in paragraph 540 ofthe Counter-Memonal) :
"The belt of territorialwaters shdi be rneasured frorstraight
lin@drawn across tlie eutranceofa bay, whatever itsbreadthmay
be, ij by.ifip.the bay is subject to the exclusive auth~riof the
costal State :the onuç of proving such usageai npon the coastal
State."
The Nomegian Government, in par~graph540 of the Counter-
Memonal,draws paficiilar attmtïon to anamendment proposed by
the United States delegatian toBasis No. 8, and in paragraphi
54~~-55 2ites passages fmm the debate on hisfcric waters at the
eleventh meeting of the Second Cornmittee in support ofits conten-
tions conçenùng the delin7ltation of maritime territmy, Itis, there-
fore, necessary.to examine insoma detailthe prwceedings of the
confaence itself in regard to Püstork waters, dthoug- nothng in
the way of a textresulted from them.
Discussionof%sis No. 8 WBS opend by the 3apanee;e ddegate,
Viscount Riushakoji, who cxpiained an amendment that he had
nlready circulated (Mtg~.~tc oJth Second Cnmv~i~eep ,. 103) :
"ln ouropinion,amçre clairnonthe put ofthe State concerned-
which seerns to be thesole condition accordinto the preçent text,
tajudge from the words"by us.6.e'-is not enongl~.For that reasua,
the J'apanescdelegabon proposes that the words 'longesiabLisked
. and .tlaiv~~sulErecognized',should be inserted before the word
'usage ...
In brief, the Japanese delegation canot agree tbat the sole
condition sharildbe theproof furnisliwby the coastalState."
Then followed the intervention of the British ÇIeIepte, Sir Maurice
Grvyer, the import of whose words is misrepresented in para-
graph 549 of the Counter-3femoriaI. The British drlcgate, after
agreehg with the Japanese delqate that the wording of Basis Fo.8
was not precise enotigh,çalledattention tu an amenclment pmposed
by the British delegation, the Frenchtext uf which is given in the
Counter-$Ternorial l.According to the British proposa Bl,sisNo. 8
~vouldmad (iliid., 1).188):
"'1. The belt of territorial waters shall brneasured frm a
straight line drawn acmss the entrance of a bay, whateves its
breadth may be, if,subjec ttthe provisions of this article, the
coasral State is able tossirablisczclmira zasagc,~escïiptém ar
otJiemse, thatthe waters of thbay are part ofits nationalwaterç.
9- For the purpwe ofdetemining whether the waters af any
partiçularbay are or are not pxt of the national waters of the
coastd State,reprd slia1alwayshe had to the ccmfigmation of the
bay,that is tu saythe shape and degreeof enclosareof the ana of
--
The correcpageappeasstobsp.188.. rg6 ofth~mord of Uieplèriarymeetim. water th~rriinwith special referace to the extcint towhich it
pelletratestonthe land.' "
.
Sir Maurice G~vyer Trst explained the second paragrapli, which
said in &ect that even an historic bay must really be a "bay"'.
He cornrncnted .@id., p. 104) ;
"To defiriea bay mbre exactly would be mtrernely difficult,
becausp ieces ofwater wliichare commonly known asbayç -y
inhitely. A bay may be a very srnaIendosirreof water or it may
run to an ericlosureofhundreds01 square miles. The view of the
BriElsItdelegatipn ithatthesempsE be some kindof configuration
invalvlag aninlet intathe land,an indentationinto the landa,nd
a definiteenhance into th& piece of water."
The Nomegian Goverment observes ChatSir Maurice Gwyer's
comment supports its own contentions in parngraphs 331-335 of
- the Counler-Mernorial in regard to the rkgirileof bays. It daes
nothing of the kind. Imat it really shows is the cansistency af
the British view that the essence of the definitionof a bay isto
be found in the relation between the width of tbe mouth and
the penehation inland.
More relevant to the preseni ssue are the first paragaph of l
the amendment and Sir Maurice Gtvyer'scomment uponTt. The
Norwegian Government maintains that according to the British
text "prescription" iç not the only grouiid on which a costal 1
state can justifya cwrn to abay of grtater tvihtthan is generall~
recognizcdta be territerial, TheUnited IGngdom certainly holds
that an k~ceptirmal titleto maritime territoryrqay be established
without proof of Img internahoiial usage where proof can be
brought of the exfiras acquiescence of States either in a treaty
or in unil&telal acts of recognition. Thnt may have beca in the
mind ofSir:Mamice Gwyer when heused the words "or otherwise"
' (&id., p.18Gsee quokationearliw inthis paragraph). The United
Kingdom does not agee that theBritish delegation intended, by
the wordingof its text,toconvey that mere acts ofState authonty
by thernselves sunice tb constitute a gcmd international tide to
an exceptional atea of maritime territory,Sir Maurice Gwyeras
ccimrnentson the first paragraph of the amendment show that
the Brihsh ddegattion did not sa intend. Re said ai one .point
(ibid,,P. 104) :
I "Mydelqation agrca wifhfie Ja#anesedebegationthatsometliing
more than rnere usage is rcqtiired-thaswe defiwiteacts,ifyou
Kks, ofdomiwion exercisedover thispiece of waterare necessary."
And, laterin the same speech,he amplified thiç datement :
I
"Theclairnhas tolx provedbyusage,prescfiption m othehvise :
~iofioveraUiis pieceofrvater-"that it has exercisGXC~CS~Wdomi-Thne points require to be noticed in these exphnations of the
British text. First, thé phrase '3ominion" and evenmore the
phrase "exclusive dominion", used wifb refezerice tacts effective
in international law do not refer simply to "actes ,d'autoritkH as
they are translated by the Norwegian Gnv~niment. The exercise
of exclusive dominion refers to acts of State authority effective
in BnfernatiawalreErzitio.ts.condly, theword "usage" $vas intended
to mean more than mere national usage ; itrneant an exercise
of exclusive dominion, and was, in other mords, to be an hkr-
national usage. Thirdly, Sir MauriceGwyer expressed nodissent
whateves hm the Japanese proposition that it is inaclmissible
that the sole condition should be the proof fnmïsheù by the
coastat State.
459 rle Normesian Govemrnent nevertheless insiststhntneither
the British amendment nor the oral explariations of Sir Maurice
Gwyer mention thc recogniti ofnthirusage by other States as
a necessary condition to the estabIislirnent of an histuriç titIe.
The wrirdingofthe British textmight certainly havc been impmved,
but what meaning canthe estublishmmi of a daim inter~ationetly
by usage have exccpt securing the acquiescençe of other States
thmug11international mage ? Rowever, Sir Maurice Gwyer inhis
oral explanations said a good deal more which is not nstlced in
the Counter-Mernorial to sliow that he çonsidered the establish-
ment of an historic title to be a matter of agreement, Thuç, he
concluded the speech which is cited inthe Comtes-hlemorial as
foUciws (ibid.,pp. 104-105 :)
"MayI addone other thtng? Itis quite cl= that neithei this
conference nor any committee nor sub-cornmittee of it codd
possibly undertaketodraw up x Estof historibays. YetZhe matter
is on0 ofgu~atiwiflwiame,and som muchiwe~yought do bedevisadby
which ih8VUY~OK~'~lalioosth wodd canexcha?9g eiewsonthis #oint,
&th the objectdIFmcsteCyofobtainz'na lis offhzstori~buysagreed
Z3ztemizalioyi.
A.ta later.stage, T shaU propose that the conference shuuld
suggest,before its workis çornpletedthe settingup of some srnaIl
body whidi might examine the clairns of thevarions nationsto
histo~icbays with a view te making a report and pwsibly recom-
mendations on the snbject at alster date,toGeneva or clsewhere.
The subject is one which lias caused mnch fiiction and much
dispute inthe pst and thiçsems to he agblden opportunity first
of al1to settle tliprinciplcson which the ciasificatiois to be
based, and then, having settled thprinciples,taap-ree:pon some
listwhich wsll be binding forthe friture."
And in a second speech in the sme dehate he said (ibid,,p. III):
"If once it is acmptedasiinternationd lawthat therreia belt of
oiitside that bbEstpart of the higsem.Sthwe,itis eleaihattevery
State which daim juridiction overan historicBay, an historic634 REPW OF TRE UNITED HTNGDOnf (28 XI 30)
stmit, an histaric estuary oran hi$toric fjord-or whatever you
like tocal1 it-is cIaimingjurisdictionover apart of the highseas,
and that, imy ~iew,is aclnimruhichmwsf mcessarily be~egtttutetiy
some recopized vdes of internationalluze~.thmise, wg reZwrn fo
th oldsirotof aaairi~z@hich evevySlatecillzimeth^~igh tttznnkxW.
@ri oj 2.tawrttewitoryssm $pavtojfJtehiglseas. My own country
did soin centuri east whcn it daimed that what Jwre hown as
the Ring's Chambers were past of the interiotvatersof the United
Kingdom. That claim tvasabandon. many centuries ago.Thcre
areoththerations tepresented here today whose ancestors equally
long ago made evcri vider daims ove^the liigh ses, arid those
daims have disdppeatcd too.'"
460. Truth to tell, the text of the British amendment \vas
inadeqiiate to give expression to the views voiced by Sir Maurice
Gwyer in the oral discussion and it is rjght to recall that the
text \vas circulatecl witb the çaveat (ihid., p.187) :
"These amenrtments me submitted in respons eo the deGre
eupressed by the Bureau that delegations should formulate:their
viem as early aspossible.They should not betaken as representirig
an attempt to submit a text inthe form nf final rlraft,and the
delegatirin wishetorescrve thelibertyof amendkg or \vithdrawing
any of the amendments proposed ddng the courseof the discus-
sion."
461. In fact, as the Norw-egian Government weIl knoms, the
British delegatiari at the r930 Conference llvas very far from
agreejng that a unilateral assertion of authority unsupported by
some proof ofinternational recognition would constitute a gmd
historic title A.t the conclusion cf the discussion in the Plenyr
Cornmittee the question of historic waters \vas refcned tû Snb-
Cornmittee No. 1and in.that siib-tommittee the Britisli delegation
drafted thee sepamte texts for discussion in ail of which the
acquiescence of other States was qlicitly mentioned as anelement
in the establishment of an historic title. These texts are mt
incliadcd in the records of the prciceedings.Two, however, are set
out in full by Gide1 in his book l (op c.i$,Vol..III,p. 635,note 1).
The relevant paragraph of the hçt text seads :
"The~vhole aresof -ter substantiaily enclosecibyland.orlands
foming part of the temitory of a State over tvhichtlie coastal
Çtatc,or the Stak of u*l~icif is aSUC;C~SS~Texercisesor hasexei-
cised exclusivauthority in virtueof longusage and mith thpgmwd
acqfiiesçelace oafh~rStaks, shall he deemed to be inlad waters
of theState,"
The second tcxt reads :
"Where a coastd SStte Eiasbyusqe, prescription oratherwise,
rxercised axcln~ve authority over an area oi water su&ntially
i id e-7 a French dddegatatthe c.oderericelhe ha5 cleat.usechis awn
cantemporary noteas niithoriforthisskitement. enclmd by land orhixdsformii~gpart of the territoraf the $tate,
fhat area shallif the j~wisdictionof i/behte fms aeew gegzerally
. acq~tàacedZnt. 9thov SZatss,e condusive1 dcernzd to b~part of
the nationalwaters of that $tate.
In my other case,it iincumbent upon the Shte to provethat
the clairn to treat suanarea aspart of.the national waterof the
Stateisjustifiedbylongusageandsp~ialgeo hicaPconiigwa.-
tion, regarbeing ako had to tlzeeconomic nee s ofthe ppdation
or tlre reqnircmcntof nationaldefence,"
The third text', cvhichis not citedby Gidel, was prepuecl foraf a
later meetiug of the dzafting cornmittee aad was presumably
frarnerlin the iiglzof Ellediscussions thathad already taken place.
lt readç :
"If,in+tue of onuiterruptedusage,a coastalÇtatehas exercised
exclusive autliority over an area of zvater, surmunddto a very
large extent by land or lands belonging tothe territory of that
Shte, the ara irquestion shall, if tazkthdty of$haStateha ken
geszaralrccopiiat-d ad admiitadbyoihr Sfntes,be rleemed toform
part ofthe inland waters of the State.
Ifa taca'or axfiwscogesmt,Ihw~h aqv genm~.aE ,.ofu~aaimow, -
the7i:h-ofthe mon-consentilcS~BIE Sonfi~zatoBe reserv~d."
The conference thcn bro'hruep and no fmulcl was produced by the
sub-cornmittee. But the abortive texts givea above make it per-
fectly plain that the British delegation tmk the srthodox view
that in the international legaEsystern the validitof ariexcepticifid,
hiçtoric titie depmds esentially onrecognition by ather States.
The Norvvegian Govcrnment iilthc same pr_r.agmp hpara,559)
also mentions the intemention inthe debate of Sir Ewart Greaves,
the delegate for India. It cites hîs statements that "we da not
wnt tùii wide a.definition but we ivant it reasonably wide to
enable. certain cl* to be put forward. Iventure to fkink that it
rnay beneçessay to take the questionaf configliratien intoaccourtt
and whether a daira on historic grounds can be basedon thenecessi-
ties Of defence." The delepte for Tndia then indicated that he
Iiad inmind a possibledaim to the waters Iying between India and
Ccylon. It rnay, howcver, bc observecitl~at Sir Ewart Greaves was
only askingthat the definition should not be so fsamerlas to shu't
out any co~sideratiomof such a chim. He visualizedaii claims being
subrnitted for consideraiion by an international cornmittee and
appears ta bave assrmed that no clairn would be_valid u'r.less
faUing within a category recognized by the conference and snb-
sequently endorsed by the cornmittee. Here, again, there is no
question of a unilateral daim beingvdid apart from ît recognition
by other States.
-462. In paragaph 550 of the Counter-Mernorial the Norwegian
Govemment drarvs partic* attention to the attitude of the
. .
Thistextha^ beenfound in m ctintempmzry repart~-1UniW Kingcldm
ddcg~tion to the Adrniwlty. 636 REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28XI 50)
Pmtuguese deleetion at the r93o Confmenc~. It kst citesextracts
fmm thePofiuguese eply ta t t~qaestionutair&he equivocalnature
of ~vhich, in're4artu the question ofrecognition by otherStates,
haçahady been rernarked (para.437 above), Certainly, the Portu-
guese repIy emphasizes security and economicconsiderations as
growids for justifyinga claim, but there is a differencebetween
considerationsjustifyin~a State in putting fortvarda claim from
thepoint of view of ilt; own imterestsand the recognition ofthat
claim inthe Iight also ofthe inte~estsof utber States. The Nor-
wegian Government f.uxSrerrelies on the terms of a Portuguese
amenclment tu Basis of DiscussionNo. 8and on the language used
by M. de Magalhaes speaking in the debate as the ,Partuguese
delegate.The amendment would haveadded toBasis No. 'Sprecidÿ
the same clauseasthat whiçh M. de Magalhâeshad proposcd in the,
Cornmittee of Experts. O£ this proposalit vill be recdled that
Mr.'lVickershcunt, e UnitedStatesexpert, said"itwould meet tritli
gnat opposition" and that 'Scliuckingsaid "it wnuld Iie, to some
extent, dangereus". (Seepara, 456above.) The langriageused by
M, de MagaihZes in debate (Mi~utes of th Secoxd Ca~nmiHee,
pp. ro6-107) was also anampltficatlon of the Ianguage wl~ichha3
been usecl by him insnpprt of his proposa1 in the Cornmitteeof
Experts Gd whichhad entirely failedto perçuack hiç colleagues I
that his proposa1was acceptable. % faras le@ authosity was con-
cerned, M. deMagalhses relied alrnost entirelon the view expres- I
sed by Judge Drago in the rgrriArbitratiorl and on observations
of Captain Storni at the International Law Association in ~922
which are set out in.the Counter-Mernorial {para. 550). ~a~taih
Storni had &O drawn Ekisinspiratiorfiom Judge Drago and fiis
remarks and those of RI.de Magall-izes,so far as thcy conctrn the
legalbasisof historic waters, arvitiatsdby the fact that neither
of the speakers appears tohave been aware of the emphasis placed
by Judge Draga oilthe acquiescence ofStates as acondition of the
estabIishrnentof an historititle whm explaininghis point of view
ina subsequcnt article inthe Rmw gém'rale de Drtlii id~nza~umfiG.
(Se, para. 443 above.) If Portugal really thoughtthat aunilateral
daim is enough jt iscurious that the Irulguage of thePortuguese
amendnient was in fact expressed in terms of the recognition of
claims by other States (ibad., p,rgz) :
"or ifiti~ fçagfiixeas bbeingabsaluteiy necessarfor the State
in questionto guarmtee itsdefence,etc.",
and that M, deMagdlh%es $vas strongly infavour ofthe establish-
rnent'of an international cornmittee to consider eachclaim.
463. If hasilready been mentioned that the Nortvegian C-overn-
ment at thebeginhingof itsaccountof historiwaters(para. sqri
ofthe Gunter-MemoriaI) invaked the terms of a United States
amendment and the vim expressed bythe United States dclept~, KEFW OF THE U'NITED KINGIlOhf (28 XI 50)
63?
fi. Miller,in support of ifs cont9tion that the acquiescence of
other States isnot neçessary tothe establishment of an hiçtoric
title. These observations tveremade immediatdy after the speech
of R'i,de Magalhzs and inexplmation of the fornidilproposed bv
. the United States for historic waters,the French text of which k
given in paragraph 540of the Gounter-Mernorial. In understanding
the United States formula ît isimportant Co apprwiclte that it was
not intended to provide a general mle of international law in
regard to histmic waters but sirnplyto sam the sfatfdquo existing
atthe date of the confercnce. It was ciïculating on 25th Rilarch as
one of five such saving clauses (ibid.,p. 197) and its lanpge
clearlyindicateç its purpuse :
"'(c)Mrakersl whefl~ercallecibays, sounds, sfnits or by some
other name, which have been uncler the juridiction ofthe coastal
Stritea(;partof its interiowaters, aredeerned to continucn part
thereof.
Char- indic~.tlligtlie l&am in suclicasesshaltbe cornmuni-
mted to the other parties hereto,"
The United $tates meadment thusdid trotconternyl&te the mea-
tion of any further historic tities after the conclusion ofthe con-
vention. Mr. Miiierfirst crfticized the word "bays". in the phrase
"histonic bays" as being too narr07vand then said- of the word
"histaric" (ibid-, p.107) :
"Fwtk~more, dlzeword 'hidoric2s afliazaccwde word, bccawe ib
ju~isdiciiofojth.c coastaShte.,iThat, 1 suhrnit,isothe qzlestion
involved in regard tathese waters, and the continua1use filthe
expression 'historic bays', ivimention ofone or two bays here
and tliereh differmt partsciithe world, has ledto a greatdealof
confusion ofttioughtas to the principlts which zrinvolvd."
IlIr,RfilIer'sobjectito the worclhiirstorlwas 6e~-founded enongh,
If a littje pedantic. For, where these is other evidence of acqui-
escerice, a titto exceptional maritime territory is good without
reference to long usage, What precisely he meant by "a question
of national jurisdiction" he never explained. The Noxiregian
Governrnent contends that the Americm amendment wodd have
absoIved a coastd Çtate£rom afirrnatively proving a "usage"
secogai~ing fts exclusive authority over the waters in question.
But Mr. Miller does nbt seem to have contemplated a general
validation of unilateral daims..He objected to the proposa for a
speeialcornmittee with power to ùecide the admissibility ofdaims
on the groundthat discussions and disputes concerning daims .rvere
rnattersfox governments (ibitl., p. 107) :
"Any questionin xegasdto these mattes k, inrny opinion, a
question which could vnly arise bebveen governments and could
only bediscussed by them. Nothing can bedoneuntil that discus-
sion has talieplace.The point canmt be settled in this convention. \Te have agreed that all tJiese rneticulousquestions of detail,
cannot besettled by this cariventionorby any cornmittee of this
conference. So jar, therefwt,ns thp~ may bea difler~rncof view
Zietwm thegoue~mmemt h,y mus$sxchamgs o#imio~tson fhesubiscl,
TIie point crtnnot be settleby any tribunal tobe setup by thc
convention we are to preparehere.
proposaliprovideshthatcokliirtsindicatingthefline dramtedintsuc11 '
casesshall be communicated to the other parties heretoP_''
464. The Greek detegaie,tbe juristSpicopoulos,drongly objected
to the Fortuguese proposa1 and, in general, dëfended the Basis of
Discussion md the proposa1for an internafional ofice (abid p.108).
The Swedish delegate disputed the existence of a general mle for
bays and therefore the need for any rule for historic waters. He
incidentally stated-quite untruly-that tlie tribunal in the rgra
Arbitration hadrefused toadmit the principle ofhistoricbays (t'bid.,
p. 109) .he tribunal in fact admitted the existence of daims by
histo~içusage but, o~ving to ih decision that the \vmd "hay" in the
18r8 Treatjr,had been used in itç purely gcographicd sense, found
- it unnecessary to exasnine the p~inciple. The S~redish delegazion
then advocated the joint Nomegian-Swadish propasal concerning
bays hvhichEidel condemns as being th^ negation -ofail larv. This
p~oposal has dready been criticized by the United Kingdom in yara-
graphs 138-13 9fits Mernorial ancl in pragraphs 13g-14. of this
Reply.
465. The Nortvegian jurist, htad, as delegaie for Norway,
naturally supparted the Norcvegian-Swedish proposal concerning
bays. He alsa, honrever,had something to say ahut historie bajs .
(ibàd p.?1x0):
"It has ben ssjd that there arehistoricbays. Let .uçtake the
starting-pointI wiU not %y of the Britishcontention,bacaase ilz's
lavsry cornmon ofle,b#t theço~tt!ni%o#ouZ 2?2th books. Lei!rrs
. admit lhai tthsreism.tifitemdional usage ns r~ga~ds hays. IVhzt
grjnciple ofelcistinginternational law istl-~eretodetemine that
this zntematimal uçag~,worthy as itis of being recognked, may
be Iimitecto bxys ?"
Ee proceeded to argue that the prïnciple of hist~rk ciaimti mi&
caver lntervals betmen archipelagos and even principles ofdratving
.base-lineç. Nat he rcferred to the United States attitude (ibid i)
"If I understaud the arguments ùfour United States çolleagrie
arîght,he deniesthat 'bays' can behistoric, but hedso \vislies to
getrid altogetherof theconception of an'histoiic'claimHe abidcs
h! Ihastatus quo, artd ther1 agrm mith hi*. 1 do lzatthk tl-iat
tbe codificationof international law should have the effcctof
upsetti~igthestatusqw, but Iwill say that al1the gound wc cm
wish to cover in the provisions we draw up isçantained in the
Swediçh-Nor~vegirr nmendmen t." Then, he cla&d that the Nonuegiai-Smdish proposai was more
moderate than that of the United States.The gistof the Norwegian-
S~vedlshproposal. it may be remembered, was that thecoastalState
should be ftee tfïxits own base-finessubject tocertain restrictions
which, orexamination, p~oved tobe illusorgr.One othese pretended
restrictionswaç the "practice of the State conwrned" mithout
regard toacquiescence of other States, Indctermining wlie'therthe
Noriwegizin-Swedislproposal at the r930Conference was an expres-
sion of exishg principlesor was something entirely novel, it is
rrsefuto recd ~vhatRzstad said in1913 when he spoke riot aça
. delegatc, butas anindependent jurist (Ln Mer tew%boriakp , .167 ;
seepara. abave) :
Il
$arlendroifdesgmsoçqw qsi11e3Gisbeenceo.itgéed&tshiidde chosesd
+rm* leCOASC'P~~E~~imite dm natiogas".
We m;iy therefore leave mide the Norwegian-Sweash proposai,
~vkiiciefersed te base-lines generallyancl did not reaUy contcm-
plate my law for maritime territoryat all- Itis,however, worth
observing that Rzstad, in the debates, took theJine that what the
conferknccrwas concerneciwith was simply yreservingthe statztquo
and that '"sage" must r~lzte to in.imtaiionalusage.
466, One or two ddcgateç, having reiterated their pointuf vièw-
and SchÎicking having said, onbehalf of Gerrnanjr,that he agreed
with the opinion as expressed hy Japan, the United Kingdom and
Greete, thepreceding debate was reviewed with açomewhat casistic
humour bythe ItaLiandeleCate, Giannini,He indicated, withjustice,
that the whole debate hacl been vtry conftzsedand he cornplaineil
with everimore justice that the rncethg had not keptin mind the
existing international law ivhich tliey ltne(JMi'p~~tofsthe Second
Cornmiltee,p, IIZ):
'We have studiedmaiiualsof internationaJaw, but wc seem
to have forgotten some of our kirowledge when we entered this
conference,1% 1hepuesantcm@, tkdtofaery hidonc bays,wé had i#
-tu7vym."legaiseme ofEh mord, goodor bd, ndofileby int~mtioltuil
He then referred to the British, United States and. ~ok~irn-
Swedish proposais,Fieingparticulizllysevere on the United States
proposal,whzch, Le said,wauld not only disposeof histone bays bat
of the whole convention, since the terrns of the proposa1 were so
widely framed as.to settlemthing, After suggesting that theCom-
munications and Transit Cornmitteeofthe LeagueofNations-should
bcasked to-studythe pmblem, he continued (ibid p.,113): - "As the British delegate said the othcr me rnust cornedm
tocarth a little. 'Arewprepared to considerthe prùblcm ofthe
histot.àchyywh2cJtWP al~e~dyRmow; tlzatistasay, Lhse to*hich
i?ibmxala'oniastomapfilz'es?Iso,then,as the ItaIian Govemment
statrrinits teplywe cm face the problem,provided westart from
a fundamental principle,namely, lhatdkt n~mbev O# historic bays
mwst notbs incweascd."
467. The outcorne of thisconfused discussion ~yasthat thewhole
matter ufassimply referred to Sub-Cornmittee No. I withpower to
conkult the teclinical experts in Çub-Cornmittee Na. II. No text
a rcsulted, but the form taken by une of the lasttexts prepared for
discussion iaSub-Cornmittee No. 1 (tlia texis give~ in para. 461
abovej by no means sul=gests,that the genesal opinion at thconfer-
ence \vasinfavour of allowülg exceptional claims to maritime terri-
toryto be established'regardess of therecognitionbpother States.
On the contrary, general opinion in the sub-cornmittee as in'the
repliesofgovernments seems to have güne hithe oppositedirection,
for a new clause apfieared inthe lasttext :
"Ifaia~itorexpressconse~z ,~kgh ei~rgertsral,ad .ir#anémuw,,
#terightsofihe ~o?t-con~m?.PSEttngCOW~ZW 1~bg res~u~d."
Some may think, with M, Giannini, that the whole discussion of
histone waters in the Plmae Cornmittee was far fmm ximiific.
matever viewis fakenofthe quality of the discussion,it>vaswith-
out any tmgible rcsdt and did not alter the 'thtory of historic
waters as itliad ken. previously applied ininternational.practice
and interpreted in the tvritingof the leadkg jurists, Inpoint of
fact, general. apiriianat the 1930 Conference, as has been seen,
confirmed thetraditional concept of historic cvatepEven the Nor-
wegian Government con ce de^,in paragraph 552 ofthe Counter-
Memarial, that an historic title has no meaning withoat some
historic eletnerit.
468. The paragraph inthefina rlpu* of fie Cornmittee onTerri-
toriaI Waters in 1930) whïch isset out in paragaph 551 of the
Gounter-Mernorial, rnerely referred tu the existence of historic
watersas one pmblem te be solved inconnection with the establish-
ment of g~nerd rules, emph~sizingthat riocancrete resultscould be
nbtainecl-without cletemining and defining historic rights. The
Norw~gian Governent comrnents on this paragaph :"La confé-
rence adoncéted'accordpour seconrialitrqueles sitztaiio~saqatises
devaient étrerespect&es," This is not, ocourse,quite the case.The
conference did not make itsm-eservationin favour of"les sifwztions
acqt*ise.t",ut in favourof"droitsque des Ctats pourfaim t posséder
sur cestainesportions de la mer adjacente", It was exkthg inter-
.nadiofid i!igMs-rights aheady r7aïid internationdy through the
acquiescerice of Stat-that the conference agreed must continue
to be remgnized- Rd& and sc@c of thethmry ofhistmic watm
(Paras. 553-560of the Coilnter-Memorial)
469. The Nonivegiaa Goveriment, inparagraphs 553 md 554
of the Counter-Mernorial, oufiines its orm idea of the rt3k played
by the thcoy of historie waters in the lam of maritime territoty.
Time is saidto act as a consolidating forcein law, but to do so
in dïfferent ways, Xt rnay eiithersperate by itselfin isolation,
transforming a situation of fact inta situation ùf law, or it may
operate together with other factors,In thelattercase the "historic
titie"is onty one of the titles invoked ; if istlien merely a sup-
plementaw pourid confirming conciusions already reached on
other grorinds. The Norwegian Government iiiustrata this thesis
by saying that,when the territorial character ofa given maritime
area st-ems as if it ought to be admitted on various grounds such
as geopphicd configuration, the security of the coastd State
or the economic nneeds of its people, the tlrat thewastal
State has for a long time effectivdyacted as a sovmeign Ln regard
to that area serves as a practiçal demonstratïan of the validity
ofits pretençions ts the area. The long and peaceable exmcise
of exclusive autliority is said then to operate as proof of the
State'srights, raising a presurnptionthat this exercise of autharity
correspnnds to a real need and is not an abuse. ne Norivegian
Gvernment: further declairesthat, although theoretically the
passage of time may operate either in imIation orinconjunction
Ath other factors,in practicethe latter is much the more common
and in regard ta maritime territory is probably the unly forrn
of historie title that1s.worth retaining.Thus, according tçi the
Nonvegian Government,the theory of historic watersin practice
appears more oeen as a supplementary than as an independent
theory,
The United Kingdom Goverment finds nothingin paragraph 553
of the Connter~Memorialwith which it is infundamentaldiçagree-
ment, although it might express itself slightly differ~tly. No
doubt whem a cl& is supported by cogent factors-in addifion
to the fac.t fliat: jurisdictisndaimd and exercised-it ismore
WEely tore~ive acqui~scence and the historic iitle wibe acquired
ina shorter tirne.I-lowever,the Non-vegianthesis concerning the.
rSle of the historic eiernentin titleto maritime territory, as set
out inparapph 533 of theCounter-Mernorial, is hardlyconsistent
with itsgeneral theort yh& every State may fix the extent of
itsown maritime terrtory accordhg toits own view ofitsle@ imate
preterisionsand witl~outregard to the interestsof .the c~mrnunity
of SEatcs. Ifa State Isto be the arhiter of the legitimacy of its
41..om maritimedaims, there 4s indeed no legd rôlefor the passage
of time to play at all ithis sphere,What can itmatter whether
a daim is new or old if there isn~ cxt~mul test by whichit haç
to bejudged ? Ttis, therefore,somewhat strangethat both States
andj~nsts shdd devote so much attention to the thesry of
historicwaters asa ha& grouxa!of titleTf, however, the extent
of a State's maritime tenitor ysregarded as a matter of Uztar-
national concem and dependent on recognition either in general
niles or by particdar consent by reason, of the sigbts of each
Sfate în thehigh seas, theathe passage of the has a perfectiy
intelligible Mleto play in the legitiniation of claimsand the
attention given by Statesand writms to the subject requiresno
explmation. The -mre existence in international law of historic
titles tu waters is really inconsistewith Norway'ç main theory
of the law relaiitinto sovereignty over the littoral sea, and that
iç why Norway, in the paragraphs of the Cornter-Mernorial
preceding paragraph 553, isenfosced to endeavour to exclude
from histoxoictitlethe Vitai dernent of acquiescence.
470. The United Kingdom in this RepIyhas hady &en its.
rcasons forbeIievirzfirs,that N orway 'gcneral th.earyofmaritime
territory is without any hsis in Iav and that under the most
fundamental nom of internationallaw the rules geveming the
extent of maritime territory aregrounded in the consent of States
(paras. 117-120 above) ; secundiy, that the r61e.of thetheory of
historic lyvaters,according both to tprecedena nsd the opinions
of leadiriijurists,is to supply evideriee of the implied consent
of States where ewidenceofexpress formal consent is lacking
(paras. 432-436 above) ; and, thirdly, tthatNonvay's distinction
between the application lothe theory of histmic waters inisolation
and in conjiinctiontvithotlie~iactorsiswithout any d meaning
(para. 469 above). Tlie United Kingdom hvesnrnent, for all the
reasons which it has pmviously given, submits that thetheory
of historic waters playç a distinct and particdar rGEein the
establishment of maritime territosy. Çedainly, the rdle played
by the historic factorin the law of maritime temitmg is to set
tl~ seal of legality upon exceptional claims.But Ets r6Ee iç to
legitimate not daims which uitrinsically are already valid in law
but claims tvhich othemise are intrinsically invalid aexçeeding
the generdl yecognized limits of maritime territory.
In consequence the United Kingdom Gaverment eannot see
any sipifiance in the fact that, as mentioncd in paragraph 5jq
of the Counter-Mernorial,the Nonvegian Decree of 1935 purports
to be based on geographical considerations and on the alieged
"vital interestsJ' of h'omay asweIl as on what are said tcibe:
"welliestabLished national titles"The United Kuigdom Govern-
whethet the lirnits ofNorwaykonsintemale waters presmibedcainthe REPLY OF TRE UNITED EIWGDOM (28 XI 50) 643
1935 Deesee exceed thé gmerdiy recognized limits of intemal
waters and, ifso, whether Norway has aninternational titleta
such exceptional internai waters.The recitals ofthe 1935 Decree
thrownolight onthe question ~vhether Nonvay's titre to exceptionai
base-lines is wcll eslablishtin ixtemfâmal $ructiceamd mder
iwfemfimcal law by the express:ortaçitco~seat of Siraks.
Nom~ge'afi argummt th& th theoryof kistciwkwdms k W limikd
dobays, with which the UwiZec lingdom agrces
47x. In paragraphs 555 to 560 of the Counter-Mernorial the
Nanvegian Government contends that the theory ofKstcaricwaters
isnot limited in its scopeto histonc bays but applies generdy
to al1forms of maritime terrjtory. It invokes in support of its
contention, first, tfact thatan historic title is antexceptional
, fmmidithe work of the learned societieand of,thec1930yConference
and ofGidel and Hyde. The Hague CodificationConferencehaving
failedto produce specialcrinventional provisionsby tvhichhistoric
daims to areas ofçea are to he-determined, the United Kingdom
Goverment agrees with the Norlvegian Govemment that such
historie daims conthe .to be governed by the general rules of
internationallaw in which prescription iadmitted as a prhciple .
of general application, Zt isin accordmce with this view that
the United Kingdom has recognized Norway's 'daim to a +mile
belt ofterritorial waterasan exception tothe genedly recognised
rule of a 3lmile beltThe United Kiagdom Government therefore
admits that Iiistoric titles to maritimtesritoryare not confined
to historie bay but extend to my waters in regard to which
proof can be adduced of m historictitk.
Nevertheless,in the view of theUnited Kingdoni Governmnt,
geogmphical considerations are far from being irrelevant in .the
establishment of a titletohistoric wates. The lqal foundzitian
of any titleto maritime thtory in exceçsof the generdly recog--
nized Limits is,inits -bie~ tv, consent of States,which may be
proved, where thep. isno formai express assent, byinference from
the circnmstances of the case md particularly from the exercise
of jurisdiction applied internafionally for a long period. The
geographical circumst mces, as has previously been indicated .
@ara. 446 above),may bave an important bearing in secufing
acquiesçerlçeand onthe reasonablene ofsnferringinthe pa-çticular
case that other States have acquiesced In the exceptional claim.
Maritime Statesattacb the highestimportance to their individuai
righfs in the, highçeas tswhichare expreçsed in the principle of
the &dom offie seasand particularlyto theirrights onavigation
and fishery, Lt is not, thwefore, norrnally to be expected tàat
States wiU even contemplate the possibilityof a derogation, frorn.
their rightsby an extensioriaf themaritime teÿ-ritary ofanother
S tate,except where the geographicd configuration of the latter's. 644 REPW OP mm W ~ D KTNGDOM (25 XE501
land tenitory tends sixbstdiaily to enclosethe waters. Tt is no
accident that the classicaI precedents concerned bays or thatthe
traditional doctrinewas denominated "'histciric brays".It was not
until shortlybefore Zhe Codification Conferencc that suggestions
were made for widening the forinulationof the traditional doctriae
and evea then the Preparatcrry Cornmittee in its report, iri its
qeeestion.~zaaredin the text of its Basis for Discussion, onZy
concerned itsci-4th historic bays.
The Unitcd IGngdom Govament, as has been sdd, does not
dispute that the theary of an histarictitleta maritime tenitory
kas a \viderscope than historic claims to bays. It doeshowever,
cantend that the consent of States to ailexceptiona1 clah may
more readilybe inferred from purely circumstantid evidençe in
the case of theenclosed waters of a bay than in other cases,This
conterition isconfirmed by the emphasiç placed on the encloscd
nature of the waters in the precedents relating to Delaware,
. Chesapeak and Conception Bays, and to the Gulf of Fonseca,
- (See paras. 438 and 440-44x above,) It was this consideration
which the United Kitlgdom Government had inmind when in
paragraph 142 ofits Mernorialit raiseddoubts as te international
law recognizing tmhepossibility of establishinga title by usage
to treat as interna1waters suthopen waters as are claimed by
the Norwegian Govemment in the 1935 Decree. In this'Reply
the United Ki~dlim Governmnt agreesthat the theorÿ ofKstoric
waters isin principlea theoryof g-enerd applicatioii but it adhtres
to its opinion that an liistoric cla,im topen waters has to bc
regarded sornewhatdifierently in point of praof hm an historic
daim to an encloseCl bay. In thelatter case the existence and
extent of the daim, when made, isreadiiy appreciated by other
States which, ifthey do not object over a prolonged period, may
reasonably be understood to have givtn their assentto the daim.
But, in the case of open waters the existenceand nature of the
hlaim will not readiiyocçur te othm States sothat in fkfs case
it is essentialin the view of the United Kingdom, to estal3lish
80thfhntthe ex~stelacof the claiwhtas Iong&'PZ ~zotorio~altd that
ibsextent hm beew zme~a~ivocaJmiyade kmom to othw Stales.
472, Suicethe United Kingdom Goverment an gmera2 grounds
agrees thatthe theory ofhistoric watersisnot corfinedin itsscope
to historic bays,there is no 'nwd for it to discussthe extracts
$rom the workof the learned societieor the 1930Conferencewhich
are cited in the Couriter-Mernorialto establish tllisproposition.
Itis,however,neçesary ta say abricf word concerning theextracts
hm Gide1and Hyde in paragraphs 5jg and 560 of the Counter-
Nemorial rcspectively because ofthe misleading natu~e of the
aamrncntsmade upon these extracts by the Nonvegian Government.
The Nonrregiaa Government recalls that Gidd, when speakingof
coastalarchipelagos, said that thetheoryof historicwaters sl~oddhave a wide applicationand drew attention to the wide diversity
of situaiions incoastalsrchipelagos. Itmight perhapshaveexphin-
ed that the diwrsity ernphasized by Gidel was between archipelagos
where the waters serve "lagrande navigation interaationale'band
those '"dot les pertuis constituent de véritablesinfiltrations vers
l'intérieurdu pays riverai nt'" as with reference to fhidifference
hetween channels Ieading to inland waters and çhannels serving
international navigation that Gidd ased the following tvordsrvhch
the Normgian citesinparagraph 559:
"Vouloir donner par un texteg6néd unique lasolution dep-
blèmesdont les conditionssont si différentec'estpoursuivre une
tâche irréalisab;il appartientkl'usage iternational deprocurer,
sur labase de la thborie deseaux histotiques,1a concilirtticles
différentintrlirêsnprésence" (op-cd.,Vol.III, p.270).
T11eNomegian Gûvernment claims th2 in this passage Gidel
attributes to usage preciselythe sme r6le Ehat attribnted toit
inthe Nom-egian Governrnent's thesis in paragraph 553 of the
Conter-Mernorial. It implies that Gidel considered long usage
merely to aperate as a confirmation of a state of thing already
legdly valid.This complete misrepresentationsof Gide12 viats is
achieved only by paping no attention tu whût he said when he was
dealing specififically\vit11histurwaters. Gidel's views concetning
historicwaters have been explained earljer (paras. 432-433 above)
and here itIs enough to recalla briefextract from hischapter on
liistoric waters (op. ci$V,ol.III, p, 651):
lLa cons6cratioridecespr4tentions nepeutdkriver-en l'absence
d'organe ayant reçu formellement qualité à cet effetet investis
expressement par chacun des Etats int6reçsés d'un pouvoir de
décision- que66 li*~cqwiesmme n?ttimaatz'mac'estTusage$mlmgk
qtei,gk*térdcmswten fowmi~a la mn.Pta#eslittion;el pstlu parid~
vévittqua contienle mud rhistoriq~en....
The passage from Hyde which is setout in paragraph 560 of the
GountCT-Mernoriaimerely emp hasizes, as the report of the Corn-
mittee onTerritorial Waters in r930mphasized, that the existence
of larger historic clximiç one of the major difficultiein codifying
the generd ruilesof internationallaw concerniug maritime terri tory
in ctconvention. It may, however, be observed that Hyde in the
passage cited ml y regarded larger clairns which have prewiamiy
met with no o$position asconstituting an ob*acle ta codification.
Pmq/ of dn historiet2"tlt
(Paraszs561-57 0f the Çounter-Mernorial)
The h~dm of $ruoJis 0% No~mtry
473. The Norwegian Gowxnment, in p~ragraph 561 of the
Counter-Mernorial, while' disputing the contentions of the United Kingdom Govcrnmentin regard tothe conditions and nature of the
proof of an historic tifleagrees that the burdea of proof liesupon
the State which invokes the lristuric titlThis admission that the
burden ofprooflies upon the claimaet State was only to beexpected
in view of the abundant authurity to that effect. The r6le of the
historic element being to validate what isan exception to generd
rules and therefore intrinsically invalid,isnatural that the burden
of proof should so emphatically be placed upon the coastal State,
Just asthe very existence of the theory of historic miers impera-
tively demonstrates the existence of general iimitsupon maritime
tenitory, so also it demonstrates that ,the r6le af the historic
elment is to validatea daim that otherwise wouldbe invalid.
47'4.Inparagaph 542 of the Çounter-Mernorial the Nomegiart
Government refers to the fact that the United Kingdom in para-.
graph 143 of tlie Mernorial contended that the principle of the
freedom of the seas places a strict burdenof proof on the coastal
S tateto establish an historiç titto exceptional maritime territory
and cited a pmage hm Gidel in support:of its contention. The
NorwegianGovernmentclaimçthat it haç demonstrated the erras
of tkis contention and that the passage fmm Gidel concerning the
dominance of the freedom ofthe seas dos not beâr the meaning
attributed to Gidel's words. The United Kingdom Government,
inparagraphs 220-zz~ ofthis Reply, has refuted thisdaim and has
shown that the rneaning of the passage in Gidel is precisely khat
which is attributed to it inthe Mernorial. But in my case the
passage isom Gidel,,the meaning of which the Norwegian Govem-
ment had previously sought in paragraph 285 of the Counter-
Mernorial to say had ben misrepresented by the United Kinghm
Gomment, did not concern kistoric waters butwas the following
statement made with referace to denying territorial waters to
perma~rently dry rocks that are incapable ofuse :
"L'idée qui domine 1e droitde mer est l'idéede laliberté de
I'utilisationliet normaledesespaxes maritimes ; toutrestriction
inutilà cettelibertedoit êtrekvitée,"(Op. cit., VolIII, p674.)
The passagecited inparagraphr43 of tlie Mernorialày the United
.I<ingdom was a different passage, taken from Gidel's chapter
dealing specificdly rvith historiwaters (op cd.,Vol. III, p.632} :
"En ce qui concerne le fardeaude la preuve, d #se sw l'gtat
qui prCtend attribuera &s espaces maritimes poches deces cbtes
le çarlére, qu'ilsn'auraie pas normalement, d'eauxintkrieures,
C'es1'Etat riverain questledemandeur dans cettesorte de prods.'
Ses $rétaniioits tendd& em~ilern~nfs~r Lahautemer; 18$&.reci#e
d~ la liberkéde lahmtd w, qat;demeure Labase esserttibdc iwt
le droit a'.nfmatioml qzlmariiime, nepermet pas de faire peser
le fardeau de la preuve surles Etats au détriment desquels la
haute mer serarbduiteparlkattributiodecertaines eaux en propre
A lrEtat qui les rklarne cmme teIIes." REPLI7OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 128XI 50) 647
This passageisguite explicit tïothas to the burden of proof lying
an the toastalÇtate and asto the freedom of the seas being the
essential hasis ofaU the public interuzdional iaw ofthesea. It is,
therefore, açtonishing hai the. Norwegian Gove-ment inpara-
graph 562 ofits Countw-Mernorial should say aot one wmd about
this passage whiçh is addressed to the matter irnmcdiately under
consideration but should seek to dispose of the support given by
Gide1 to the United Kingdom's cont~ntions by an oblique reference
to quite aaother g.dssage addnessed tu a different subject-matter.
In fact,as mady said,even this other passage fullysupports the
United Kingdom's contention inregard to the dominance of the
principle of the heedon of the seas,
475. The Nomegian Government, while agreeing in parapph
563 offie Comter-A%emoriatlhat aState cmot excuseitsbreaches
of applicable rdcs of international law Iiy merely invoking the
provisions of its ownmunicipal law, contends that this well-known
rule is wi2ïlouany relevancein the present case.Itinsists that the
casebefore the Court does not conrem the mecution of Norway's
international obligations but their existencThis contention over-
simplifies the issue beforethe Court. Certaidp, if the Nonvegian
Governmmit isentitled,asit maintains, tcr h the boundatles of
the high seas opposite the coasts of Nonvay by its own sole,
unilateral decision, thenile invoked by the United Kingdom in
paragsap~ h45ofthe Memonal has na relevance inthe presentcase.
If, however, the determination of the boundaries ofthe high seas
isa matter controlled by internationalaw, as theUnited Kingdom
-Governrnent Uisiststhat it must be, then the executiun of Norway's
oblighons under internationallaw isthe question raiçed by the
pleadhgs in this case. When Nonvay asrest sforeign trader
ou tside the generally recugnizelhits of maritime territory and,
therefoze, appa~ently on the high seas,she cannut properly say
that no question is saisedof the performance of Norway's inter-
national obligations.She is mlled upon, ifshe can, to show that
she has a particular title ta exercise jurisdictiin the area ia.
question. Otherwise, the freedom of theseas isan empty psincipTe
devoid of oflegcontent.
The'submissien of the United Engdom Government is that, in
jrxstifying sucan arrest and in establishg a tifleto exccptiond
maritime territory, Norway is not permittecl simply to pIead the
provisions ofher own municipal laws but mwt adduce evidence of
acts efech'w ia i&~mathn& law to givt;her a title to exceptional
maritime territoryMurlicipaI decrees and other acts ofmunicipal
authority have no higher çignificance inaninternational tribunal
than as relevantfactswhicli show an exercise of State autlionty
6~ktwhitk may tw my raoibe xzcficietoted~bEisdaan i~ter.izatimZ
righrftriexercisethe State authority.,VVhether or not niunicipal
decrees and other acts ofState authmity in factprovide evidence of a title valid in international latv necessdy depends hot only
upn the nature .of the municipal acts bzt@on the mies of intu-
~iomaE 2aw.In aninternational tribunal the question in each case
must altvaysbe :What interpnetatiun is placed upoithe municipal
actç by internationallaw ?
Th ~WS~~OIZwhetlzerassertinO! udhority by one Stak & s~&imf to
establislan hisfu&ç clEn'mor whdl~e~pouf of aqwiesctmceby uihm
States alsorcpired
476. The difference ofviewbetwem the UniteclKingdom Gwern-
ment andthe NonvegianGovemmmt cancerningthe application to
this caseof the maxim that provisions of municipal law are not a
suficient excuse forbreaches of international obligations is mesely
'one aspect nfthe fundamental differencebetween them concemitig
the whale nature of the restrictions irnposed by h'ternational law
on daims to maritime territory. The NorruegianGovernment, in
effect, maintainsthat the assertion of Statc authoity in regard to
a gîven area ofsea is both esseiltial and suscient to establish a title
to maritime territory,The United Kingdom Governent in effect
maintains that the asertioriof State authority,though essentialto
the eçtabiisliment ofa daim tomaritime territory, is laot sufficient
and that, the ngkts of ather States king affected, theiracquies-
cence is required. The remarks of:the Nomegian Government in
paragraph 564 of the Counter-Mernorialconmrning the rBleplayed
hy actsunder municipal law in the formation of an historic title
and itsremarks insubsequent paragraphs concérning the acquies-
cence ofother States inan historic daim areredy addressecl simply
to this fundamerital divergence of view between the Iwo Govern-
rnents,
Rn hisbwk tii ka an a~eaof sea isacpwired by pesmytim, not hy
occzkfiation I
476 A. In paragaph 564 ofthe Counîer-Mernorial the Nartvegian
Governent says that the exercise of authority bya coastal State
under municipal laxvoccupies an essentialplace in the theory of
historic waters.Tt&O says thaf thepeaçefd and contieuous exer-
cise ofauthority by a coastd State thmugh acts under intemal law
in the acquires international validity, beçoming partof the inter-
national juridicaorder. These statements, inthe view ofthe United
Kingdom Government, contain only hd£ the truth.
Where the cl& of titleisto land which is arm nnllius and in
which, therefore, other States poses3 no legal interest,the mere
peacefulexerciseof Stateauthority inregard tothe land sufficesto
establish the occupation,The res fi~lli~is in lacvsusceptible of
occupation by thefirstcornerand the exercise ofState authority in
regard to the land willbean exercise ofexclusiveState authority
creating an appropriation binding on other ~tates-~~nthese cases,
-thesole question is whetherthe clairnant Staican establish,to use clestand pointed out that thetribunals concerned did not specifyto
what extent the doctrine of prescription was applicable in these
cases, However, he. shessed that the essentialdifference bettveerr
occupation and prescription isthat the fmm concerns territory
. which isyesmllizcs, butf helatte corncerns temitory which is alteady
under the sovereignty ofamther State 1,
As ha: been explaixed, where the territorialclah is to the sea
and is in opposition to existing rights of the community of States
and, therefore,not legal inits origin, thecase isone of'pr'escription'
and xzotof occupation. The well-hem passage from Judge Huber's
award inthe IsictndO)'Phas cmt, whichis cited in paragraph 564
of the Counter-Mernorial,was clirected to territorialclaims to I0.d
and lays down na more than that the peaçefui display of State
activityis essenbal both to the establisriment andmaintenance of a
territorial titlnie NonvegianGovement, by omi ttiagsignifrcant
passagesand inverking thc order of some of the sentences, gives a
somewhat misleadhg impressionof what Judge Hubersaid, This .
disfinguished judge, in emphasizing that çontinuity in the exkrcise .
. ofState activity i~reqziisite for thmcbin$emnce ofa titleevenafter
ithaç once been established, uxd the foIlowing ianguage (Am~e'cra~e
JOUYN~ of I~t~rnafio~ai Law, Vol. XdXII(1928 ).~876) ;
"It seems, therefu~e,naturd that an element which is essential
for the constitution of sovereignty should not be lacking in ils
recognizes-Waugh trunder differentIegaifomulae and +ths docertain
di&rences as ta the :onditions required-that the continuous ana
peacefu display of' territorisuvereignty (pemeJzct im reEutim to '
othpsSEdes)is as good asa title.Thc gtowin~ insistencewith which
intemationa.1law, ever shce the middle of Cheeighteen#h centurg,
has demanded that the occupation shallùe' effective would be -
inconceivable, ifeffetiveness were required ody for the act of
acqussitionand not equaUy for themaintenance a£the ng'kt.Ifthe
effeçtivenesha, above ail, beeainsisted onin regardtooccupation,
fhis is because the question rareIyaises in connection withtcrri-
toriesin which thm is already anestablished orclerofthingsJas*
as before the riseof Urternaticinalaw, boundaLies of lands were
necessariipdetemined by the fact that the power of a State was
exercised within them,so, too,underthe ceign of international law,
the fact ofpeaceful and continuous displayis &il1me af the most
importantconsiderations inestablishingboimndariebebeen States."
CertaMy, Judge Hubeirsaid display of Çtate authonty isone-of the
most important considerations In estab'liçhingthe Isoundaries of
'
'"Ln uprescriptixnressemble%I'uoccupatioL!en cequ'elleestune maae
d1acqti&r un titreoriginaire k lasouverainet4 territ(pa oppwikion anx
*es dérivtsetanssience qu'ellcornportleçdeuxéldmentsdel'onam~s (intm-
difièdesl'occupation cequ'ellestunmoyenoed'acqukrir an territoirn'wti
'pasYGSfz~llitmais quiat place souslapleinesouverai& d'un autreStates, but he did not say that it was the D'PG EonIsideration.
Mcireover, he spoke- ody of a displayof sovescignty peacefd in
reiaiim toathq Sitates.But it isunneceçsary to expatiatrran the
vie-rvçof Judge Huber becauçeonthe previous page of his award
(09. cd.,p, 875) lieindicated clearly that Erehad ncrt got maritime
territory in mind :
"Sovereigntyin therelationbetween Statessignifiesindependence,
Independence in regard ta a portion af the globe is thc rightto
exercise thereinto the exchsion of an other State, the functionr
of a State,'llie development ofthe na?ionalorganizaticinof States
duringtlielastfew centuriesand,as a corollarythe development of
international law, have eçtablishecthis principleof the exclusive
cwipetcnce of the State in regard to its own territory insuçh a
way as to make it the pointof departtire in slettmost queçfîons
positeoState, ofcollectivesovereignty,etc., dodotsfaLototbe con-
siderd here and do not,forthat matter,throw any doubt upon the
principlewhich has jnstbeenenunciated. Under thisreservdtion it
may be statedthat territoriasovereignty belongs always ta one,
or in exceptionalcircumstanca, toseveral'States,to the excluJion
of al1otherns.Thefact that thefunirtilofa Çtate can be erformed
by any State witliina given'zan i, on the othcr hana Precisciy
theçhar~cteri~c fcatwe oj ths le@ sitrcatimfi~~tiazai*ghose j5ap.l~
ofilzglobewhich,like th Iaighsensor lands withausimastcr, ca.nlad
or do nùtyet Jarnttb t~rztoryofa.Statp."
Tndeed, he seem, inthe lastsentenc eohavethmght that attempts
to appropriate areas ofthe high seas areillegaiawdreiholyififluiid,
for he said that they çanaortfosm the territoryof a State.
478, The Norwegian Governrnent, in paragraphs565-568 of the
Counter-Mernoriai, repeats in surnmarizedfnrm itsamount of the
precede~ts of State practice, the work of the leamed societies and
the wo~kofthe Codification Conference relating tohistoric waters
and again daims that this evidençe does not indicate that the
acquiesmnc~ of other ~tattteisa necessary condition of thevalidity
of an historic titkto maritime tcrritory,The Nmtgiaa argumerits
on this matter have dready been examined atIerigth in paragraphs
438-468 above, to which the attention of the Court is invited here
in mnnection with the Nmwcgian thesis that State activity is
alone essential to an historic title.It was there shown that, on
the contrq, the precedent ts, opinions of juriçts and the ~wrk
of the Codification Conference strongly confirrn that the relevance
of an historie titleiç to raise an inference of the acquiescelice of
States in a clairnwhichis exceptional and which, apart from such
acquiescence, would 'be illegal andinvalid, At the çame tirne,the
United Kingdom Govemment emphasizesthat i,tdms notnly only
on thl strldenceto establish ifscontentions, but maintains that its
contentioas followinevitably from the most fundamental principles
of international Iaw, under nllilch the international legal order is
essentially derived from the consent ofStates. 479. The N'o~nregi~m Govanment, in pasagsaph 56g of the
Cornter-Mernoriai, citesa passage from Gidelbscchapteron histone
waters,in which he sajfsthat ifisparticuIarlydificultto lay dom
by any generd formula the conditions whch a usage must satisfy
Lnorder for itto qudify as an established usage.Tlzat isperfectly
' true for the verréason that anhistoric claîmdepends onthe proof
ofho essentiaelemnts of which oneisthe acquiesceizce of States
In thedaim-the other, ofcourse,is the mercise by the claimant
State ofÇEatc;aulthorityover the ana_ Bekg a matter of evidence
each case trgeIy depends 04 ih oxyn facts but, as.Gide1 hirnself
insisted, the ultlmate criterion afrrdid titliisits acceptanc hey
otherStates. That this is hiview appearç dearly in the two points.
to wliicb he draws particular attention, namely, wrhether the
recopiihonofthe usage need be absolutely universaiandwhether it
need bt3express. These two points.wil1now be exarnined.
Gide1 says that iis impossible torequire that recognition of the.
usage shouId h al~solutely miversal and that a single protest
manating from a single State wilJnot invalidate the usage. The
United Kingdom Govemment does net ir imeral dissent from
this propositionsolong as it is kept in mind that it relates strictly
to the acquisition of title nûS bymere usage but by pr~scriptivc
usage.1i-totherwords, Gidd's propositionrelatesto the:validation
. in the internatiorirtl lepordcr of a usage ivhichis inbinçicdly-
invalidbythe continuance of the usage over a longperiod of tirne.
Gidel'sstandpint in regard ts the effet of thepassage nf time is
perfectly clear ashas been explalned above (paras, 432-4343. HP
regaschthelong continuance of the usage as relevant toprove the
acquiesmce ofStates and tbereby the establishment ofthe usage
aspart of the internationalIegd order. The season is that what is '
involved inthe prescriptive establishment of an otherwise invalid
usage isessei~tidy theabandonment by other States o.tlien'ghts.
This abandonment mziyeither be proved byexpress assent or may
bc inferred from long inaction, ït is inthe Tight of these basic-
corlçiderations that the cectof protests by individual Stateshas
tu be estimated.
Thuç, in tliview of the United Kingdom Goventment, it 5,onEy
true to say that the protest ofa single Statc ivill'mot,preverran
exceptionalmage from becorning la\dui by prescriptioIlzdefilnatdy.
States are entitled -upto a point ta place their r~lianceonthe
genercirules of intesnatirnial latv by which the usage is irnlawful
and are not bound dways to registcrtheir irrirnediaobjection ton
unlawful actsof State authority when these cidonot directlytouch
theis own intereists'l'hey are editledup to a poiritteput their
trust intheir nght toinvoke the gerieraldes of internatioZ nal
when the occasionanses. Nar çan States be called uponto maintain
- avigilant watch on the statute books of0th States to detect atmce umrpations of thelr own rights under geneml intemational
law. This point was strorzgly emphhaçixed in r863 by Secretary
Seward In the same note to the Spanish Ministes eoncerning the
territorial watcrs of Cuba, fram which passages have previously
been citedin othar connections (paras. 117 and jzr above), Speak-
ing of the Spanish claim to a.6-mile maritime belt, he said (Rlocrre,
Digest, Vol. 1, p, 710) :
"The statutestvhichMr.Tassaraha reciteare thereforeregarded
.assllowing what certain ilyynomeans unimportant, that Spain
atanearly day asserted,asidhas on aifferentoccasions since that
time reassertecl,iher domesticlegislationaclah toaitexceptional
jurisdictioof 3 miles in addition to the 3 miles of jurisdiction
conceded by the law of nations.
A daim thus asserfedand urgid mustneçessarilybenocv re~ected
andçonceded by the United Statcs,if Btcould beshowwthal m its
btigzgbrmght totheir noticlhy had acquiescedinif,or lhaton ils
b&g brwght taIhpliolic4 oti%&Yozwersithad beex so ccm-
cehd hy them as toim$ly a gez~ralrecogniikn ojabby the mnritimd
Pomevs ofthe wovld.It isjusiSaereh,awlmer,ht Eh claim ofS@ak
sepms to me& mfi$ort, Naiims cloleetqcalty stdy mch athr's
slat~itcbook,& areltot chargeablehm'laoticofndionaG prsk~sions . ,
resti~gwpon fereign t~gislation."
Tn short, it is ody when an exceptional usage has acquird a
certaininternational charader though longcontinuance that other
States cvilIbe presumedto have knowIedge of the usage and to have
ahandone dh& right to objd to its continuance. And it is only
thcn when, the usage has not merely continued a long tirne, but
has also been qressly or by inference acquiesced in by most
States, ihat a State, which has indeed objected but bas confrned
jts objection to a mere protest, may be held piecluded from con-
tinu@ to abject:to tvhat has becorne part of the estaMished inter-
national order.
480. Gidel alsoexpressed the opinion that dE protestsshouid not
be treated as being on the same plane but thit tthey should be
distinguished according to thcir nature and to the geographicd
situation of the protesting State in relationto the waters claimed.
This proposition has equaIly to be =ad in the light of the con-
ditions under which a prescnptive usage may be established, The
\vords uçed by Gide1 are '!geographical situatiori" but equslly
legitimate maritime interestç ofaprwtesti~ Çtate rvonIdbe materid
in assessingthe weight to be attached to the protest,Moreuver,al1
States are affect~d by the establishment of a.preçedent contra~y
to th^ generally recognizedniles ofinternational lm-. Consqeatly,
although the geographlcal propinquityof a protestingState tothe
area affected by the: usage may have a certain significaoce and its
maritime interests a stjll greater signihance, neither these factors
an be.reprded asbeing decisiveof the weightto be attached lothe
protest. Far more important js the sature of the protest and the action taken by theprotesting State to safeguard the rightswhick
it conceivesto have heen infringed. The essence of the prescriptiye
effectofthe passag of time isto showthat Statesby theh inaction
aver along pend have acquiesced inaninfringementof theirrights
wheh 'they were mtitled to resist. The protest of a single State,
in the vieur of the United Kingdom Govexnmeni, is effectiveto
prevent the establishment of a prescriptir~etitle precîsely tothe
extent that the State ta@. al1rreccsçaryand reasonablc steps to
prosecute the availablemeans nfredressing the infringement ofits
rights.
481. There iç al1 the difference in this crinneciriobetween a
mere paper protest by a State througi the diplornatic charnel
and the active prosecution of its objection through diplomatic
negotiatioas, the arrangement of a modm aimdi and ultirnately
the bringing of the matter-r the ivillingnessto bring it-tu
confestation before aninternational tribunal. A diplomatie protest
is by itself effectiveto manifest the obje-on ofthe proiesting
SEate and fora certain period reserveits rights,But, if the usage
.which k protested against is repeated and is acquiesced in by
other States, then the question may ultimately be asked why the
protmting State, if itattaches importânce to its rights, hasriot
taken further steps tobhg the matter to contestation and settle-
ment. In other words, a State çvhich contents itself with paper
protests and doeS noE use the available means of pressing its
objections may aftera certain lapse of time be debarred from
further qrzesti~niiigwhat has become part of the establishedlcgd
order. The principle by which fhe pxotesting State'srightsbecorne
barrticl by lapeoftimc mav be said to rest either ona presumption
that by its continued inahion it has in fact acquiesçed in the
changed situationor, more simply, on the maxirn pieta fion mizovme
as appearsto be the:opinion expressed by ProfessorH. Lauterpacht
in the passage çited inpasapph 570 of the Counter-Mernorial,
482. The United Kingdom Covernment submits that it 4s in
the above smse that the protest of a single State is ineffective
to keey dive itçrlghhtto object ta the assertion of anthority by
another State over areas of çea which under the general niles of
international law form part of the high seas, Having sepd to
Gidd's view that the theory of historic waters is fouaded upon
the acquiescence of other States,It is in that çense that he &O
. rnwf be understood as disallowing the protest of a single State
Erom conçtituting an indefinite bar to the establishment of an
hktoric titIe, Indeed, juas prescriptionitself iageneral principle
of law faund in most rnunicipaisystemç of law, so t4o it is a
. general prin~iple in these systems that prescription does mi
operate against a clainiant who ist'aking active stepsto enforce
his rightç.The reason is the obvious one that, while a claimant thatwea, strongly suggests that they nnderçtand the exceptiorial
claim tsbe limited to the defined area, and that their acquiescence
in the exceptionalcldm isalso çoIrmited.IVhen aState specifimlly
defines its daim in particiilar areaas did Norway in the 1869
and x8Sg Demes, the most that cm be Lnferredfrom the sub-
sequent inaction of oCher States is that th~y acquiesce in the
daims Po thriseparticular areas.Consequently tl~eonus is upon
Bonvay when it seeks to interpret the acquiescence of other
States in its cfaims of 1869 and 1889 w being an acquiscence
in certain prinçiples which Norway wa~ then frte to extend to
other areas-In pamgraphs 33-39 above the United Kingdom ha$
given reasons for holding that such an intefpretation of these
decrees is preçluded. However, Norway does appear to argue fm
this interpretat aindnthat isno douht why, in the preçent case,
the Norcvegian Governmcnt haç sought to establish a Norwegian
system of drawing base-lines in accordanc weith fie 1869 and
1889 Decrees. It ha$ alreadybeen de~uonstratedin Part 1 ofthis
Reply (paras. 33-39),thritthe deged establishment of a Nor-
wegian syst~m ofdrawing base-lines by the1869 and 1889 Decreeç
is In fact a m@k, But the United Kingdom Gavemment also
subdts that, as a matter of Iaw, itis impossible fox:Noway to
establisha prescriptive titlto such an.alieged sptem uriless she
cm show not only that the 1869 and 1889 Decrees mere in fact
the application to the coasts off S~ndmoxe and Romdd of an
exceptional syçtern which, ia fact,was ripplied everywl~ere on
the Nenvegiari coast,hut th& other States ought also to be helcl
as to have sa wlderstcod the decrees and to have acquiesced in
them on that basis. Stata cannot be said tohm acquiesced in
daims of whose existence they could not reasunably be expected
to have any understanding.
- Acls o/$rivate i~dividmzLMe aot st@cie~lf. gie~a tjtkby oçcwa-
dûwtto theShte mhbse nationalsthq ave
486. The United Kingdom Gcivernment, in Part 1of this Reply
(para.17)h,as already dram attentiontothe factthat the activities
ofyrivateindividualsar~~~ois~1ffiCienttogiveatifleby.occupation
to the Strite whose natiomls they areLn tlw Islandof PaUmas case
(Arneuicm yJot~rma uj I.lzt~~fial'iLlaw {198) , ol.22,p. 867)
Tudga Hiiber inone passage spokeof the principle tha"continuaus
ànd peaceful dàsfilaof tlie jundioaofStat~within a given region"
ha constituent eleinenin territorisovereignty (p.876).In anot her
passage he spoke of the NethcrlanGlsdaim to sovereigaty asbeing
founded "esscn.tiallon,the titlof peacefùland continurjusdisplay
of Stak antha~iiyoverthe islrtnd"(pp.907-908).The latter passage
was mentiorled with approvd by the Permanen-t;Court of Inter-
national Justice in the Easter~ Greenland:case (A[B 53) and the
Court, in a passage refend to in parapaph 564 of the Counter-
Mernorial, rv~nton tusap :
42 "itmay be well tnstate thata claimte sovereignty basenot npon
some particul-act or titlsuch as a treatyofcession but rnerely
upon continned diçplagof authority, Lnvolvetsn elernents each
of whiclimust be çhown to exiçt: theintentionand \dl ta act as
smPPetgttadr~dsowte aci.ua~xcrcist or display oswh authoïity'"
IPP 4.-46]
TEis husclear that if iacts ofState sovereigaty, notactsofprivate
Individuals. which may provide the foundation.fcis a title to terri-
torialsovereignty. If thisistme of the acquiçition of sovereignty
over lad which, as YU tzg~lliuisopen tooccupation by any State,
a fortim isiithue of the acquisition of sovereigntyl~yprescription
over the sea whose waters are not susceptible of simpleoccupation
becausethey are not TESn~lliztsbut areçubject to rightsexercisalsle
by each and every State. Internationallaw cmot permit the acts
of privateinilividuds to createa titleto sovereignty inderogation
ofthe existing rightsofStates.In other tvords,fishinby Norwegh
fishermen in waters outside thegeneraflyrecognized lirnitof mari-
time terrltory, even if proved korn prehistoric times,nosevidence
of,or basis for, Nom~egiansovereignty over the waters çoncerncd.
As was pointed out in Part I @ara. 35$#the Nonuegian RTmider of
the Intesior,in his Exposédw Motifsfor the r869 and 1889Decrees,
frilly recognised that iznmernciriai useoffishîng graunds did not
permit the exkensirsaofmâritûne territory beyond the limits allowed~
by internation lwl. 1
487. The distinctionbetweerilana which is vcix~jilius,and the
sea, which is subject to the rights oother States,affectsclaims to
sowreignty in motlier way. Acts of State authority manifestecl in
regard 'toamarea of land willalxvap be held to consfituteanasser-
tion of exc:Glets:tete a~thority over the land because in the case
of lad itis of the essence of sovereigntlratit should beexclusive
of the sovereignty of otheStates (apt framspecial casessach as a
condominium), The position is,.however, quite'merent in the case
of açtsof Stateauthority manifested in regard toareas of sea.Each
State under international law haç a coinpetence to regdate the
conduct ofits nationals onthe seas whether wwithinits om watcrs
on uponthe hîgh seas.Accordingly, the mere fact that aState exer-
clsesauthority over isam nationals beyonilthe generauyaccepted
Iimitç ofmaritime territorydoes not indicatethat it clairesclusive
sovereignty as against other States.It is.to be presurned that a
State intends to act withlnthe firnitsof itrecognizc edrnpetence
rather than outside them. Consequently, the exerciseof aut hoRty
by a State over its own nation& beyond the generally accepted
limits of maritime +@nitory does.not by jtself form the basifor an
historie, preçcriptive cl&. It iscammon for States to regulate
national. fishcriesbeyorid the limits of their maritime tenitory rvith-
eut any encroachment upon the rights of other States. Legislatiun
~gulatmg methods of fisbirig in a givea xea thus does not provide.evidence of anhistoric title unlesitindicates anexercise ofgenerd
sovereignty in the ara to the exçIusion of fhe authority of other
States. Consequently, Nnmegim hhery regulatioris, iftheg are to
constitute evidence of an historic titre,must bc çhown to be an
exercise of a generd and exclusive soveceign tver the areas
çon~rized.
(Tasas.571-57 o5the Couriter-Mernorial)
488. The NorwegianGovemrnent, in paragraphs 571-57 o3f the
Csunter:Memorialil outlines the reasons why, according to its vieiu,
the theory of historicwaters applis tb the waters delirnited As
Nomegirtn maritime ferri.toin the Royal Decree of1935R .efemng
to tbe material contained inPart I ofthe Counter;Memorial md in,
Annex 3 (Tlzs Princi$al Facts),the Nor~vegiariGovemment argues
that (1)gmgraphica.1, (2) econornic,and (3) sec~iritconsiderations
justify the deged RTorn7egiansyçtem of maritime territoryand that
in additionhiston~ctconsiderat ionslcndevery support trfie system.
The United Kingdom Govcirnment, inthe first place, maintains
that the presentafioriin Part 1 of the Conter-MernoLial of the
refevai~t geographical and econrirnicfact s, upon whiç h Non-
espeidy relicstu justifyher exceptional claim, sequires to be
correçted in important pzrticulars as has been shown in para-
graphs5:zo of Part 1ofthis Reply, Inthe secondplace, itmabtainç
that the geographical, econrimic andsecurityconsiderationsinvoked
by Norway do not inany case lead to the conclusion that d the
maritime territory dclimited by the Royal Decree of 1935 shoulrl
naturdy be regardecl as Norrvegian waters and it denies that
othcr $tates are alId vpon to acquiesce inthe whole ofNonvay 's
exceptional claim.
The United Klngdcim Government- cannot accept the contention
in yaragrapli 571of the Couter-fifernorial that the inbicate con&
gurations ofthe Norwegian coast with its frhging islds, &eh and
reefs gives to al!the waters delimiteclby the 1935 Decree "une
unitéqu'anne pourraitjuridiquement briser qu'enfermant les yeux
à la rhlitë',Nor does itaccept the skitement in the same paragmph
tha.t geography makes al1these waters anaccessary of the land and
subjects them aZttothe soverei@tp of Nonvay. Geographicd facts
are, of course, relevanin determining what cvea of maritime terri-
tory is, in lawaccessosy to the land. TheyarE the facts upon which.
the geaeral rdes af international law governing the delimitation of
territorial waters operate. But the legal relevanceof geograpkd
facts isnd estahlished merely by using a pictureçquephrase suchas
"le dessin tourmenté de la bordure continentaleJ''onby referring to
the "skj~rgaard" as"la multitude des Iles, desîlots, derbcifçqiu 660 ~PJ,Y OF TAE UNITEP R~GDOM (SBXI 50)
parsèmentla mer adjacente". It is not thesimple existence of
ctirvaturesin a coast or ~f islarlds ofa coast that influences the
delimitation ofits maritime territoy. It isthe configuration of the
land, wlrether a continuous lirie of Jmd or consisting of broken
Sand fringes, that rnay bring areas of seawithin the territoryof a
State, In law it is tltendency of the land or landsto enclosethe
sea that $ivesreIevance to the gcographical facts.
489. TheUnitedKingdom Goverment does not disputethat the
partidar configurations of the Noruyegian coast entitle Nomay
even under the general rulesofinternationallawto treat substantial
arcas ofsea asinterna1waters. Nor doesit dispute thai these partic-
uEas çonfrpratirsns are relevant in determinin wghefher or not a
Womegian titletoareasbeyond the limits allowedunder the genemi
ruleshas been establisl~eas an exceptionaïhistoric title. Forsuch
an exceptirna1 title çan only be founded on the açquiescenm of
other States and it is wherethe configurationof the land tends ta
enclose areasaf seathat the acquieççence of orithStates in a larger
clairnmay morereadity he iriferrcd.frorn the absencofany reaction
to the claim. What the United Kingdom Guvernment isdisputing
in the'presentcase is theattempt of the Norwegian Government in
the Royal Decreeof 1935 t. delimit Norxtegianmaritime territory
without any regard tothe configuration of N'cinvay% land territory
and without anyregard to the çloçedor opencharaçter of the waters
concerned.
490. The United Kingdom Governrneizt does nat contest thai.
Norway js entjtleçin deterrnising the configurationof the Noxwe-
gian coast totake into account not only the 1md of the main caast
but the içlands, isletsand reefs 1 offthe main coast, Such is its
understanding ufthe daim made in thc r8rz Resmipt arid it aceept'.
the faç'that the Islands, isleand reefsl arepart of Norilvay,What
the United Kingdom Government does contest is that, when the
totality of Norwayk land territory has thus been determined, the
N~m~;idn Govcrnment shonld attempt ta delimit Norwegian mari- .
time territory without anp regard to the multing configurations.
The Norcvegian Governent inparagraphs 442to453 ofthc Couriter-
lllemonal argued atlength in favour ofan "outercoas line" theory
and in pangraphs 454 Eo 470 infavour of a theary ofdie unit37of
archipelagos, The Uiüted Ringdom Governent in paragraphs
305-364of ttlis R~plyha. given its reasonsfor rejectingtliesearp- .
ments, But tlie importance of these arguments is not inany case
very great for the purpose of t.he present case, since, cnm ij thae
. d~gmenk were acw$ted,the hfonr~egianGovernment woddstill have
Be& which slibmergent high tmay wly Ise.takintc=count ifthy lie
within 4 rnilcdry land. (Sparasrox-108ofthe Memarial.)
1no tikle todisregard attogetherthe configuration of itsterritory;
and that isexactly what the Royal Decree,of 193 does. There ino
ohvious Teason~vhythe configuration uf a-mainland shore shoiibe
of greatinrportaace indeterminingfhe extent ofmaritime temitory
attaching tu it under internatioln aw, but the configiiration of an
"outer ctiast line" be ono importance atall. In fact, ascm be
seen from the charts, the base-linesof the Royal Deçree of 1935
take no accuunt ofthe configurationofNarway's "outer coasthep'.
$91. The essencri.othe United Kingdom Govemment's cornplaint
against the base-lines dra~nin,the 1935 Decree için fact that the
NonuegianGovernment has used the pliysiçal peculiarities of the
Nomegian toast as a mere pretent for attempting to appropriate
tliemaximm possibIearea ofmatitime tesritoryand has pid no
attention to theconfiguration ofthe land, not even to that ofthe
"skjsrgaad" or to the enclasurof thewaters by the landwhether
m ainIand orislmds, Tl~us,even if it be granteasthe United King-
dom Govmment does grant, tht Norway has an historie htle to
fjords,the ~orrve'~im Goverriment has not dmm tl~ebase-lineof
the-1935 Decree acrossthe açtual headands ofthe-fjords.In many
'casesithasdrawn the enclosinglinesta çeawardof the geographical
enhances to the fiords.Examples of thitreatment offjords errst-
vimd of North Cape am giv~iiriparamph 124 (iii) of the lkmorial,
but it is eqally true~vestward of North Cape,where the indanta-
tions resdt frorh island fringesThe 1935 Decree dom not draw
@e base-lines acrùss the naturams of illeindentationsformed by
the islands. A conspicuous examplc isbetween points 20 and 2x of
the blue linewhich are shownin chart j ofAmex 2 to the United
Kirigdom'sMernorial, where the 'uase~lini44 miles long and passes
larto çeaward of nurnerousindentations. The matter is th~remade
\Iforsby the fact thatpoint 21 isa rock which submerges at lhigh
tidc, ismash at i07~$ideand stands not less than8 milesfrom any
pemanentiy dry island.States arefarniliartviththe notion of an
histolic bay where the waters are claîmed ta be enclosed by the
headiands, They are not farndiar witllandcamot be presumed tu
2cquiesce in,claims, suchas those advarrçedinr935 b y the Nome-
@an Government, whichpurportto endose areasof seabyirnaginrtry
lines natdram by reftrenceto theençlosing am ofmy land, even
frjnges of Islands, but by arbitraselectionofmtreme points.
492. The United Kingdom Govmment therefareiregectsthe
assertionof the Norwegim Gotmnmenl inparagraph 571of the
Counter;Memorid that the alleged *'Nomegim traditional systern"
of drawhg base-lines is anaturd consequence of the geography of
Norway.The system,which is not traditionai hutfirst fouexpi-es-
sionin the1935 Deme, is farfmmbeing anaturd consequence ofthe
geogmphical facts.It may well be a natucal consequace of the
hzavy indentationof Ncinvay's Imd territorythat the base-lineof
her maritime'tcrritosy frequentlydeparts from the tide mark and becornes-a straightk~ closhg eachparticular inderitatrionBut it
is byno means a mtural comequcncc of the geography of Nonvay's
land territorythat the base-line of her maritime territory should
cease to have anyreai relation to hes land territory. The United
KingdomGovemment does not cornplainof the adoption of straight
base-finesas an arbitrary invention by Norway, because this is an
eshblished systernin the case ofiridentat iom qualylng asbays. 1t
.cornplao ifnhe stnight base-lines of th1935 Decree because they
are an arbitrary andtotally unrvamnted dt?pa~ttbr ram the estab-
lishcd systcm undei tvhich çtraight bmalines may ody be draivn
under certain conditions,
The United Kingdom Government equally and for the same
reasons rejectsthe assertionin the samc paragraph that geography
makes all thewaters covered by the 1935 Decree an accmsoryof the
1and and logicdy subjects tiierto Notwegian sovereignty. It also
rejects theidca that these watefi m aU comprehended together in
some form ofspcial unity.The Nonwgim Governent 'sdisregard
of the configu-ratiouof theland indelimiting the base~linesof the
1935 Decrcerlecesszsri1d.estroysany semblance ofunity betiveen
the I,md'and the maritime territory claimed by the Norwegian
Govirmment-
Eco?towiccow&de~ailio.ld asNO! jt~sfib#?tee~miom oi thema~itirptt:
territoryofNo~vainb y~yd the'~10~wt imitS ofhistoriçwaters
493. IIIparagr@-572 of theCounter:Memarial flàe Norwegim
Gorremmenternphasizesthe eçonomic interest ofthe çoastal popula-
tion ofaorthern Norwayin the maintenance of the coastal fisheries,
The importance of thisecnncimicinterestis not disputd but Itdwç
not at difoliowthat the Nemgian Guvernrnent ison that ~ccount
entitled.to extuid tlie maritime territory of Nonvay beyond the
normalkirnitsmm O/ hisEorcwadms. As h asfreqnen tlyben. pointed
out, the Norwegia~ikfinister forthe Interior in1869 ad 1889 did
not regard the fishingintersts of the coastal populationas a justi-
ficationfor extending Ncirw;ry'smarithrs territory even beyonclthe
normal limits alloived by general international law.(See para. goz
hlûw-+ven where the Millister \vent bcyond hternati~nal law, he
did not excuse bis action on this ground.) The area of exclusive
fisherywhich is resen*ed to hTorweganfishermenunder anhistorie
titleto a4-milemaritime belt and to al1the waters of thefjords,is
vq extensive for the very season that the territory isso heavily
indented. Row largethis area icaribe seenhy looking atthe pecked
greeh lines on the chartin Annex 35of thiçRepZy. No evidence has.
in fact hem adduced that these large and valuableareas are inade-
quate to meet Norwa.y% legitimate demands for exclusive fishery.
Nonvegian fishermen are in addition fiillyentitldto engage in the
' high scas frsheries offthcoastIn coinmon with cithetfishermen and
in factdo so.The preservation of stocks,offishisamatter of reguia-
tion,,netofmonopoly, and, as has ken previor~slyernphasi~xd (seeparas. 135-13a bove), the UnitedKingdom Governrnent hasalways
ben ready ad anxious to joinuith N oru7ayin effective mgnlatjon
of high seas fisherieInpoint of fact there is na evidence that the
stocks of fi& in the waters ofthe coastsof Finnmark were in the
lewt affeded by foreip fishing duringthe p~riodbetwecn 1906 and
1935.Accordingly,the United Kingdom Govmment does not admit
that the hhery interests ofthe costal population provides any
ji-istification fur the pretmsiom of the Norwegian Goverment to
limits of maritime territory enlxrged beyond even tIregenedy
recognized limitsof historiwaters,
Secura'tyconsiderai!ionsdoflojmtify the exfernionof th wtiara'bim
krriCoryof N ornay beyondBH q-mzklimd md Jaerfjwds and
494- The Nonvegian Goverment does not, inparagmphs 571
or 572 ofthe Counter-Mernorial,make any pa-rticttlpoint of lits
secuntg interest but merely mentions it in paragsaph 573 as one
of tliree justifications of iis pretensiom.Its secinrityinterests
certainc mynot be said to justifmy largetrerritorialLimitsthan
it already obtajns by the recognitioofanliistoric title to a +mile
maritime belt and to a11the waters of the fjordsandçunds.Refer-
ace tothe pecked green lineson the chartsin Annex 35 may agaia
be made inthis cowection
Eaepaphical, 8cmomic und smu~a'ty ~consâderatiommay infhknce
dhe~ Sfaftsindcciding foacqzziesceincxct+tional cJuim;6ztiiis
thaacqwiescenc efotkm Sfutesmlker tkawthegaogmfiltiziç,cmrn,ic
ad secwity cwsidsrationsihewselses,thraas sigfiificixnt/rom fl~2ce
flot~fofview ejgivingaalidityto:owIti.siorchi%
495. TheUnited KjngdomGoverment, in anyevent, rejectsthe
çontcntim that thegeographical, economic and secmity considma-
fions advanccd by Nomay inPart IQ£ the Caunterlh4emorial are,
or an be suficient by fhernseli vnelaw foestablish an hiiistoric
title to exceptionaI maritime tersitoy. Such cotlsiCLeratiensno
doubt, may influence other Statesin deciding whether,or ho~vfar,
to acquiesce iran exceptional claim.But itiçthe acquiescence of
0th States,not the crinsiderations inducing tlie acquiescence, ihat
give the seal of legal validity to the daim, And the interest of each
State inthe freedom of the open seas iç ako a consideration to
whkh it is entitlto give thegreatestwight indeuding upon its
attitude inthefaceofpretensionsto maritimeterritorygoingbeysnd
mhat is alloivedundw the general rules of international law. A
Joutz'oire the consideratioriadvanceb dy Norway in justification
ofher coaten tions insuficient estab1ishwi thout theacquiescence -
of otherStates,the validityofpretensions which extend beyotid any
acceptecl3imits evenof historic watersas theseare recognized in
State practicein the twentiefh century. 496- The Nonvegian Govemment, however, contends in pm-
graph 573 of the Counter-Mernorial that histq lends its support
to geogmphy, national secusity and economic interest as jwtifi-
cations of N~orway'spretensions in the Royal Decree of 193 j.
As ha been explsned in paragraphs 432-436 of this Içieply,thils
rndhod of stating the Nomegian clainito historic waters mis-
conceives the whole nature ofan historiçtitlto masithe territory,
which rests on the express orimplied açquiescence of other States.
The relevance of the hisioric eïement is notas Norway contmds,
to confim the actdty ofthe geographjcai, economic or security
considemtims on which itis sought to justify the exceptional
claim. The relevmce of the historiç assertion of State authority
In regard to the area indispute isto prove the acquiesceamof
ritherStates eithm,directly or by impfication from theis wndutt.
It is, onthe other hand, true that, whileputtirigfornard itscase
this hsufficienttbasis,tthe Nomegian Govcrnment dues in Decrehctn
discusç the attitude ofother States towxds itsexceptional daim
in paragraph 574 and 'h Part I af the Couriter-Mernorial.JE will,
the~efore,be necessraryto reverl:o thisquestion again latex.
Crz'ticalnalysis ofNowajt% historieclais
497. The NorwegianGovernmen t inparagraph 573 ofthe Counterl
Mernorial refersto its exposition of the histwical evidence in Part 1 I
of the Count~c-Mernarial(paras. 29-91 a)d claims that the evidence
shol~s the disputedwaters to have been uniiitempteûly snbject ta
the exclusive sovereignty of Norway. Itsays that the fishing badrs
inthe disputed waters have mintenuptsdly beea seserved to the
coastai population eithe~ in the fom ofprivateor communal prop- -
erty or elsc 13yreason ofthe prohibition of d9hùig by foreigners
under legislative decreesissuedy thecompeient Norrvegian author-
ities. It reprmrits that the maritime territory clelimitedby the
1935 Bcree, so far from being an extension of its former sights,
only covers a portion of its former dominions. 1.tthen contends
that the 19-3 D5ectee does not constitute an encroachrnent on the
high seas but a release of maritime territorin faveur of the high
seaç and that, thereforeit iimpossibleta show that Nonvay would
at any tirnhaveagreed torenotince agreaterextent of herterritory.
The United Kingdom Government recogniaes that, in addition
to her 4-mile maritime belt, Mornay posseçsesan histmic title to
her fjords and sunds, the implications of which willbe exarnined
below in paragraphs 507-jbg. Inal ùtherrespects the UniteclIiing-
- dom Government mtirely rejects the above contentions of the
Norwegian Govemrnent by which it seeks anhïstorical grounds Eo
Justifyits daim to -maritime territam extending far beyund what
Norway already obtains by approp~iating the (vatersof fjords and
sounds and hy establishînga 4-mile limit of territorial waters, The
historical arguments advanced by the Nom~ginmGovernrnent in anattmpt tojustify the extreme base-lines prescrhcl in the 1935
.Decree havebeen examined atlength in Part 1 of this Rtply and
it is ody necessary here to recail bridy the main ol~jections to
thefie arguments.
Fiid, the Norweglan Gavesrnent relieson the activiti efs
Noswegim fishe~mcn in the areas concernecl which is said ta go
back toprehistoric times.But the activity of individual fishermen,
as was explainecl in pamgmph 486 above, has no significance in
international law. Coastal fishmen may fish anywhere whether
withia thcir bwn Çtatq'sterritorial waters orontside themupon the
high seas andto-day Nomgian fishemen not ody fishon the high
seas offNonvegian coasts but offthe caasts of othecountries.Fisli-
ing by Nonvegrans back to prehistoriç times prova nothing exccpt
the existenceof human beings and offisbinNonvay- Every country
whose national5 engagein frtshingcanprove as much withont being
entitledta daim monopolies beyond the le@ lhits ofits maritime
ttsrritory. Pishing by Nonvegians iç not in itsel any evidence of
State activity and is noproof of Nonvegim sovereignty.
S#co7sllIy,he Norivegian Goverrinient relieson the allegedreser-
vat ion offisbg areasto fivate individualç os to certain localities
under Nonuegian custsmary law md on the enactment of regula-
tions for the controof coastalfishing.But, ashas been pointed out
in Part T of tliis Reply,this evidence contains Littleinformation
canceniing ~ither tlie preciareas allottedor contrdled by these
loçaIlam or the extent of tharcasto seaward. Itdaesnot establish
that a11or anypart ofthe disputed waters werealbtted or controlled
by thesselaws,In any evcnt the Iawsappear to havebeen altogether
of a localcharacter and ta have been direetcd cinlyto preventing
disputes mong the inhabitants.They do not provide any evidence
of an assertion ofNorwegian jurisdic$ioa against foreigners. More-
over, sa far asconcerns the part ofNorway çovered by the 1935
Decree; the eighteenth-century documents and the Law of 1830
relatingto Russian fisheries off Finnmark 2nd the subseyuent legis-
tation of r897 and rgrr dealing generally rvith foreign fishing off
Finnrnarlc show conclusively3hat the:prohibition offoreign fishing
of3Finnmark was ccrn-tineto a distance of 011eleagne from the
shore itsdf (Part 1, para?25-3x of this Reply),
Thirdly, the Nonvegian Governent relieson the factthat, rince
upon x time, in the long pastdays ofthe mye cJa.iasuwN,srway,
orrather Denmak/Nomay, maintahed pretensions to much hger
maritime dombions. This argument is advanced inthe vagilest
possibleway and largely ignores the drastic reductioof Nomy's
maritime terfitory inthe eighteenth centuF under the impact of
the freedom ofthe seas and in cornmon with the reduction of the
maritime claims of other Statesduring the sameperiod.It has been
pointed eut in Part 1 of this Reply (paras 13-14 that even'Den-
markfNortvay's earller pretenqionsdid n~t pass mchallenged orpro\* effectiveto exdude fnreigners.~ut'in any event, as has been
indicated in paragraphs 107-11a 3bove, fie change from the philo-
sophy of mare duusztrnto that of murs Zibwemcornpleteiy alter4
Norways position, Her pretensions to maritime territory .r~ere
reduced to the limits which fomd expression in the Resçripts of
1745 and 1812 , amely, to a distance ofone Scandinavian league
frorn shore,.measured from the outermost island or idet not run
over by the sea.Her preteasions were so reduced ncit by any act
of'Pace onber part but under the compulsion of events which Jeft
a profouridmark on the whde of maritime Iaw. Norway's preten-
sions became totally inconsistentwith international latv and were
abahdoncd fgr that reason. The +mile lirnit was not in seality a
SUM~ O£ Nonvay's larger ppretensions to maritime territory.It
was a declaration ofNorwegian practice inregard to maritime terri-
tory under the intetnational law of the mare Jibemm period and
bears no relation to the old pretensionk. Na other confirmation is
needed of the complete separation of Nonvegian practice in the
nineteenth century concerning t2ie extent of Norrvay's maritime
teMtory from its fumes preteasions than the language of the Nor-
wegian Miriiçtesfor the Interior ihis Expose des Motifssubmitting
to the Khg the 1869 Decree dwling tttiththe Smdmfire fisherieç.
Havhg recited the various considerations which had led to the
deçree being proposed, he said (Annexes ttthe Counter-Mernorial,
No. rfi,Vol.II, p. 60):
'Tm raison des circonstances,man ministere a pensédevoir se
munir dc In gracieusedécisionde Votre Majestédans la question
qu'il fauttrancher en premier lieu:la détermiriationde la limite
ende@ de laquelle il doit êinterditaux ressortissa desautres
pays de p-ratiqueb pêche surle secteurde cBteen ctmse.
LYtedue ds hcracmer lagudlcmi $tut $mt extg~ que Ie
nao~eopo dl~ tupêchesm-texcl~~i~em~r é~seueé sesswjetscaZwid~, "
Iwsÿzicd~simitésn'en dkcirleqias ~~~YRWZE.I,&ec llterriiozmari-
time STW Lequeila,s~~iaiuantdroit IfitmnafiofEEadmib d'exdrcesa
souv~rniw~4. LéslitniGede cefev~itoiont ét&fcxdeen pa~tasFa$ris
le $ouvoiy de dwz.iner,ds Lu tcrm,I'étfiwlrde mw adjamire, en
dh?$kesternes d'@rés la $lus longfieperiéfde canwt, ce pi mb
safisdo& la base de d.dtermindionqui concorde temimx mec la
matwe deEcawstiom; ct:C$a;~i-~dadf:sia~zce'etvlime géogïaphaqace
dm territo lireesl~eCette dernière mesure doit probablement
pouvoir etreemployée, sans hkitation, pour la dblimitatiode la
frontihse- comme cela a uss siu licuantkrieurement pour notre
,qu'elIe ne correspondmêmepasclu25 complètement à dladistancesLL
laqueiie lesprogresde Ia sciericde YartiIleriequi, en géncralet
avec raison,est cens& devoir exercer son influence sur l'étendue
des eau territorialespermettent clCs maintenant de tirer aux
pièces de laç6te.'"international law and o£ the interpretation ofthe 1-812Reçcript.
.Inhisexposition of the legal considerations thisenotthe slightest
trace of any sumival of Norway's ancient pre-kensisrisThe United
Kingdom accordingly submits khat to-day tl~eçe pretensions do
not, and coulrl not in any circumstmces, give any vestige of
support to the Norwegian clairns which are made in the Royal
Decree of r 35, What bas lor~gbeen abandoned as contrary to
internaticlm? la~vhas long had no le@ value whatever. In con-
sequence, the oft-repeated expression In the Counter-hfemorial
that Norcvay in the 1935 Decree didnot extend but cut down her
maritime territory is both hist~kally andiegally iiahc.
498. It followsthat any historica. title pûssessed by Nonvay,
which may enable her tojmtify her claim to the,maritime teritory
.delirned undef the I935Demee, muçt beestablished exclusvely by
evidence ofNonvay's assertionsofmaritime jurisdictiointhe period
aftérthe abandanment ofthe ancient pretenslons ofDenmarklNsr-
way. The Nonvegian Goverriment itself doeç not striouslycorntend
inPart 1 of the Gounter-Mernorial that its clSm ts invoke the
theary of historic waters rests kyun any other basithan Nomy's
legislation and State activity in the ninetcenth and twentieth
centuries. No doubt, the eighteenth-centirry rescripts form part
,of the roùts of Norwa~7'shistanc title, but the effective starting
point of the NorcvegIanGovernment's attempt to justify the1935
Decrree is the Rescript of 1812.This dccree is dcscribed in para-
graph 45of the Çounter-MernoLial as "la stipulation fondamentale
concernant la mer territori dalsele droit norvkgieien vigueur".
499. The United Kingdom Government does not contest that
the 181s Rescript carne tobe regarded s the fundamental declwa-
tion of tbeextent of Nonvay's maritime tenitory. Thc Exposé des
Motifs of the Minister of the Interiorin recommendhg the 1869
,anil1839Decreeç tothe King for delirnithg Narweginn territorial
waters of Srnidmore, IRomsdal and Nordmerre contaii~s decu
evideiice ibat this isthe case.The finitcd Kingdom Governrnent,
however, has sho~m in Fart 1 ofthis Rcply (paras.22-23) that the
1312 Rescript, when it was introduccd, was not mgxded as a
fundamental piece of legislation laying dawn complete principles
for delimitingNorway's maritime teterritorIts çonnection isrvith
the ~&ous: eighteenth-century neutrality decrees which hd
alseady provided tl-iat the lirniwaç te be one 1eape but had
adopted varying policies onthe questionwhether rockswere to be
consideredas part of theNor~wgian coast. (Seeparas. 22-24 above.)
Its objecttvas simply to reaErrn the r-leagueiimit and Eo explain
that itwas islands andisletsnofFun mw by tdteseawhicb were to be
considered as part of the coast. In conseqrrence, the prinriples
declared in the 1812 Rescript are far frum ~ufficientoprovide an
iiistoricd justification for the principlifprinciples theycan be
called, whkh are ,tobe foundin the 1935 Decree.In fact the1812 Rescript isincomplete precisely with regard to every point on ,
' which the Decree isopen tochallenge and ischdenged by the
United Ifingdom Goverrument. The 18s 2Rescript saysnot s word
about.fjords andsunk, is silent abouSoinhg lines betlveeextreme
points or between island and island and is ai leastambiguous
concwning the statusof rocks which aresnbrnetgd at high tide,
~oo. The Norwegian Goverment. seekç to fil1 the obvious
deficiencies in th1812 Rescript bp the unconvincine;rnethcid oa
dogrnaticassertion without any suyporting eviderice. Itsirnply
statesinparagraph 48 of tirCeouter-Mernorial that the ruleof the
r81z Rescript, whereby the outemost isIands and islets notme
aver by thesea aretù serve asbase-points,accords rvith the trdi-
tionallegal concept inNnrway that the line of the cwstal archipe
Iagois conçidered as the toast Line and that the waters between
and inside the islancls and rocks arconsider o dbe Norwegian.
hToevidencc isadduced by this alleged tradition and wifhout such
evidence the statementcamot be accepted. But, ifsmg suck
kadition CO& beqtdlisked, 45woeajdstz'have tewesoïved$?ZEPoiats
wh2aaahrei+zdisfifii~the 9~esenEcase,For, even if the islandç and
TOC~S he regarded asyark ofthe coast line of Nomy itself, the
question stillremains wliere and how it islegitlmate ta drav the
closinline of Norway'sinland waters,Nor does the alleged tradition
touch the question of joining by long, straight base-lineextreme
points of-thefringe(which is, ocourse te nzak issue iths case)
or even clarify thestatus of racks subrnergingathigh tide. Tliese
are.the vcry questionsin dispute inthis caseand it is certain that
the lapage of the 18rz Rescript provides no support whateves
for the contention of the Nowegiaa Govesnment that there isan I
historic Nonvegian tradition whiçh justifies these questions being
resolved inthe manner found in the 1935 Decree.
gox. The Nor~vegianGovernment, for this very reason,isdTivcn
in paragaplis 177-18 ofthe Counter-AZemorialto try and establish
a traditional Nonvegian system of interprefing the langud'gofthe
ISIS Rescriptin a sense which rnightprovide aprecedent for the
rg35 Decree, It seel= in this way to represent thaî the Resçript
of 1812, and the Decrees of18691 ,889 and 1935 form asingle and
consistent lineof prc'cedentsapplying a clearNorwegian practice
in regard to thedelimitation of Norway's maritime tesritoryThe
Nmegian argument necessarily hinges uprin two separate points.
The hTonvegian Govemmei-it has tu stablish, fsrst, that the 1869
and 1889Decreesshow adefinite çystem of interpretingand apply-
ing the 1312 Rescript and, seco.i$diyt,hat thisupposed çyritem is
In fact the çame asthat which is saidto have been apphd in the
1935Decree. Neither of thse pointsare made good in the Counter-
Mernorial. The firsoftheçe points isconsidereciinyaragraphs 502
and 503 below and the second inparagraph ,404belsw, 502. The United Kingdom Goverment has dernomtrated in
paragraph3 s3-39 ofthis RqIy that the hforwegial case on these
points does not square with the fads at allThe r869 and r889
Demees dicl not, accordingto theIfinister of the Interior's Expose
des Motifs,purport to apply to any Nomegian systern of drawing
base-lines but tapp1y modern rules ofinternational law.Moreover,
the llinis t ereno sign atdl that he regarded the 18rzRescript
as l~avingformuiated anpprinciplesfor drabvingbase-linel;between
idands. He regarded it as lraving laid do'1a.4-mile lirniatd as
havhg provided for the inclusionof isEandçand rocksas Name-
gim temitory. Nor, in drawing up the base-linesofthe 1869 and
1889 Decrees,didthe Ministerproceed upon any sgstern af delimit-
ing strciight base-Linesby referencto defmit erinciplesOn the *
hocwith reference
crintrary, thbase-Lbe ineach casewas drawn
to the particular facts and subjecto what were conceived ta he
the rules of internatloilalaw. The Minister reçapized that the
praposed base-lines deparid to some cxtent from the limits '
allowd by international Lawandsought lo justifythme departmes
not by reference tc anyNortvegim tradition or liistordaims but
byreference tothe individual geographical features ofthe particular
sections ofthe coast. Indeed, he declined ta entertain the idea
that immemorialuser of the bkmg grounds c~uld provide a justi-
ication fordeparting from the limits alloxvbydinternational law.
In any cvent,ths dfiwistcr del-iberatelyabstaiqzediaeach def-~ovt
~rsingrocks'sabase-eintls whkh werc not $erwc&ns&ypiisible.No?
isfl~e~eu mord in$1~ExposB des Moti#s tos~ggcs tkal,ail wate~s,
Izowwerextensive, lyivsg irnsideiimsd~aw;iebef..re,nkewtwmosi
iskmtds, rocksand reefs-belo~bg Nwway, which ZS th @ci ofJhe
1935 Demec.
503. The United Kingdom Gavernment has further shown
(pan, 39 ahove) fsom, thecorrespondencc between theMinistry of
Interior andthe Facul'cofLaw and fromthat betweenthe Ministry
of Commerceand the Geodesic Institute in 1903-rgoj that officia1
Nonvegian opinion did not atthat date regard the 1-86 and 1889
Decrees asdoing anythniig except:provide anad hocsolutionof the
base-linefort~vopadicdilarsectionsof theçoast.4t has alsodrawn
attention (paras.53-56) to the fast 'thatimportant jurists, like
Bf,Aubert and AT-Kleen, and the fisheryexpert,M. Hroar Otseri,
by no means regarclecl tlre1869 Decrees as having established a
çpecid Nonvegixn interpretati oonthe 1812 Re~cnpt which
entitled Norway to drawbase-lines between any selectedpoints at
whatcver distanceapart. On thecontrar ty,se authoritieregard-
ecl the choice of base-points as a matter strictly regulated bv
intanational law,whicli had also beenthe vicw of the Minister6f
the Interiorin1869 and 1889. In addition, the United Kirigdom
Government has proved £rom omcial Norwegkrrdocuments, which
were isçuedin connectionwith the 1924-192 c5n~rersationsin Oslo REPLY OF TEE UNITED XINGDOM (28XI,~O~ 671
506. Thus, the evidt-nce for any 'titleto historie waters that
Nonvay may possess nortliof latitude 66"28.8 north must, in the
view of the United Kingdom Governrnent, be 10oked forelsewhere
than inthe 1869 and r8Eg Decrees, whichfix thelirnitsof Morwegian
maritime territoryin iiifferent aread on pdcuiar growids. The
Norrvegian Government, in paragraphs 70-77 of the Cornter-
Mernorial, haç cited certain Nonvegian Zegislationdeakg &ectIy
with fishing by foreignvessds but, as pointecl outinpaqiraph 49
of.this Replv, ths legislation providesno evidence of the exercise
of ~orwe~iin sovereignty in any particular areaor within any
exceptional limits, The legîslation k expreçsedto apply simply to
Norwegian "territorial waters" orNcrwegian '"maritime tetritory",
without any attempt toclefiizthe extent of Nonvegian waters. Tt
dws not, therefore, afford any bais foran historictitl te waters
tvithinthe exceptiond limits daimed Uithe 1-93 D5ecr~e.
50.7.The Norwegian Eovemment, in the Cornter-Rfemorial, ha5
not focused its argument upon the evidence uthich kvascited inthe
1912 Rapport {e.g,on p.19) in support ofNor!ttayJdsaim to sover-
eignty ovcr hm fjords andsunds. Nevertheless,the United Kingdom
Govemment, inthc light:of al1the available evidenisncrtdisposed
to contest the clatm that Norway possesses çover~ignty over the
fjords and sundç in the areaeovered bv the 1935Decree. St secog-
nfzesfhat,in thecxw ofsunds, which are straitconnecting Bvo part?
of the open sea, Nonivayhas a vaiid titleto the wates as historic
tem'to~iaGwaters and thzt, in the caseboth of fjords and ofsunds
which are inlandstraits,she ha5 asralidtitIe to the wateashistorie
anternalwaters. Horway,of course,possesses a riglit of exclusive
fishery in aiithe waters which she isentitled to treatas historic
waters. Rii*,the question whethm a partictilar indentation has the
character of an bistoric strait or an hktaric. baymav affect the
preciselirnits oNor~veginn waters at the entr<mce fo tliindenta-
tion.This point \vil1be revert-todin swnming up the United King-
dom Government's contentions in regard 20 the actual limits of
Nom7ayYs mriritime territoryto-day (para.5x4below) .
Doubtleis, the reason why the Norwe@m Govemment refmined
from focusing itsargument upon the question of itstitleto fjords
and sunds \vasbecause it apprcçiated that the establishment ufan
historic tit'to the waters of the fjords and sunds wouId not be
sufficientto validate the claimsadvancedby Nonvay in the rgj5
Deçr~e. tlihere anhistorietitIis rrtabljshedto the waters of a bay
orstrait the tvidth of~vhoseiitrancesexceeds the generally recog-
nized limits(IOmiles inthe case of a bay, twice the radiusof terri-
torialwaters in thecase ofa seair),the linzitofthe liistoric waters
are unive~qally understood to be determined by reference fa the
points on exh shore which mark the actual entrancçrsofthe partic-
iilx bay or shait.The geat nbjectiovl whi& the United Kingdom
Governrnent makes to thetems of the rgyj Decree is,-riotthat in 672 REPLY OF THE WMITEX) KINGDOM (28 XI 501
this decree the Nortvegian Goirement hm appropriatecl d the
waters of the fjordsand sunds as Norwegian, but tl~atitha$ fixed
the limitsof its maritime territorywithout referencetothephysical
limits of theactuai fjards md sunds, The limits prescrihed in the
1935 Decm not only extend fa beyond tvhat are the narmallg
undsrstood limits of territoriawaters baci:ptdZy beyond airzLi??ait.~
$hd canbeiiwadmstood iobecovtued bythe evadrerle/No~way's /zisto?-i~
asswtàon of jzsvisdz'ctiw-thifitf~fiordsand sands. Thereforc, the
United Kingdom Govemment, while plachg on record itsrecogni-
tion ofNonvq's titk ttotreat the fjords ansunds as historiwaters,
strenuously denies that the waters,which accrue to Nomy under
thiçtitle,extend to the limitsclaimed in the3935Decree. Etmain-
tains that the extent of Norway's historic title in the fjordsiuid
sundsis neceçsclnlyCO-extensive wîth the actualwaters of the fjords
and sunds, mcl tbat the lirnitsof thehistoric waters offjasckand
sunds areneccsçarilj~determined bj7the physicallirnitsofthe shores
of the fjords and sunds. Such isthe nahural interpretation of the
evidencn ofNorwayJsexercise of Stateautlioriy over the waters of
the.fjords andsunds and, ifthe Norwegiam Government contends
that the evidence oughf to bé interpreted insme different sense,
then iti~fortheNorweglan Gqernment to make gond thal conten-
tion.
508. T'lieUnited Kingdom Goverriment accordingly maintains
that none ofthe evidence presented in the Counter-Mernoria prq-
vides anybaçis for an historicrightto delimit Norway S maritime
qtcrritory by refmence to base~lines drawn outside the physical
limits ofthe indentations inthe Norwegian coast. Indeed, the case
pscsented to the Court in the Counter-Mernorialfor the purpose of
establiçhingan historictiflto the maritime territoryclaiméd under
the'r9D 3e5cree,isnot redy based atallon evidence af the exercise
ofauthority inthe disputed area. The principal case developed by
the Nnrwegian Government in support of itsclah to an historic
title is the argument thaNorway has an historic system of dratving
base-iines. Thisargument depends upon anincorrect representation
both of the scope of the1869 and 1889 Decrees andoftheir relation
to the 1935Dcmee and has been demçinstrated fram officid h'ortve-
gim documents to be totdly unfounded. The United Kingdom
Goverment, therefore,submits that, quite apmt from the question
of the acq~licsccnceof ather States in tliee,utremedaim made in
the rg35 43ecree .he Xortvegian Government ha not establishedin
the Caunter-RfernoriaIany basis for an hlstorictitleto the it-aters
now in dispute betmen the tm-CGJovernmezlts.
jog. Itis,therefortscarcclynecessary te examinethe arguments
of the Norniegian Govcrnrnentin regard tu the question of açquies-
cencewhich are contained in paragraph574of theCour,ter~Mernorid.
The Norwegian Goveznment there refersteitç previouçcontentions
in paragraphs 533~53o 5f ille Counter-hlernorial concerning thea~tudeofotherStatestowardsNorwsty'sclaims,whicïicontenticins .
werethernselves based onan expositionof theallegedfactsin Part 1
ofthe Çounter-Mernorial(paras,5&63amd80-89).It then advances
two main propositions coriceming the acqniescence of States in
Norway" sclaims:
The first propositionithat theNorwegiautsystem, as establislied
by a long tradition, already possessinternational validitin1906
before British traderappewed offFinnmark invjrtue ofthe acqui-
eçcenceofthe intérnatianaicommunity in the -stem. This proposi-
tion isfounded upon the contentions that before that time the
Unitd 1Çingdom had not lodged any protestor resemation against
the Nor~vepansystern and that oEher States hacl either made no
objectiono;rhad given,thejr acquiescenceafterdiçcussion, The pro-
positionand the centedtions on whichiEisfoiindedhave km dealc
with in detailand the Nrirwegian Government's exposition and
Interprétationof thefacts inPart I ofthe Çountet-Mernorial have
been shotvn in Part 1 of this Reply to be incorrectin important
particulars(seeparas. 40-45above).The sliort mswer to the Nome-
gian Gavernment's Fustproposition is that the evidwce proves
conclusivelythat no such systcm açisfound inthe 1935 Decree had
been establkhed at dleven in Norwegianinternai lak before 1935.
Consequentiy, itisimpossible to deduce the açpuiescence ofStates
insuch a svstem whethcrfrom their action ortheiinaction,Another
answer iswthaF trance objected to the ~869 Decree as bting in
conflict ~vith international law and expcssly decliz~déogive he~
acgzkiescsnwtowla&$~ fhfiovifrh decreemég& bebascd even
though she did not maintain her objectionto the particuls ma
then claimed. Athrd ansver isthat, therc heirrno definedsystern
indicating a wholesale claim to exceptional basellines, it is impoç-
sihIetodeduce from the absenceofany protest bythe United King-
dom against the claimsmade iiirespect of thearea covered by the
1869 and 18%Decrees that sheacquiesced inmuçh Zargerclaims in
quite differenareas. Afourth answer isthat the dlegcd Nonvegian
system, being a quite exceptional clairn, it was essential ththe
daim çharld have been formdated with precisionand it isimpos-
sible to inkr the acquiescence ofStates ina clalrn t,e extent of
wkich they did riotand codd not Bnow.
510, The Nonvegi-anGov.~rnrnent's secoridproposition in para-
graph 574 of the Counter~Memorial istkt the daim ofthe Nome-
gian syster tnbe valid byreason of theacquiescencegiven to itby
the international commünity k notzffeckd by the oppositionof the
United Kingdom in the coume of the presen dtispute,Itcontends
that, in considerhg whether a usage muetswith oppasition, regard
mwt necessatilybe had to the situation existinbefarethe dispute
arusc which is the subjectof the litigation. Otherwise, a tribunal
çould never hald valid a usage that is contested in a case being
litigatedùeforeit.On this baçis, thNortvegianGovemment argues
43 that British putesis concerning the Wts if Nomeglan maritime
terrftorysince tlie presentcontrpversy began have to be left out rif
account togetherwith the Geman pratest against the 1935 Decree.
TheNorwegianGovernment inits secondpropositionappears in
effectto be awing tbat in this case the "critical date" forproving
the existence of an historic htle-to the watersindispute içon the
eve of thearrrivalofBritish trawlers in thewaters concerned.The
United Kingdom Goverment apes that thi$ isthe critical date
for the establishment of Nonvay'shistoric title bernuse,suice this
date, the United Kingdom hks persistently opposed any attempt by
Nonvay toexcludeBritish vesselç kom the disputed areas.UIlTorwt~y
did moi$h~ze alreudyposssss a.Ihhtmmc titk s,zecanmt hms acqwired
owe a/tmards. It isimpossible, as has been point4 out in para-
graphs473-476above, for an invalid claim to bc converted bg the
passageof time into an historic title inthfaceof the opposition of
another State which energeticay purmes itsobjections to the title
agd brings the matter to contestation and setflernentwith al1
reawaable expedition, The question whetherGermany did or did
not pressitsùhjections tothe 1935 Decree is; therëfore, irnmatenal
in the. presentcase.The United Ihgdom Government, hûbvever,
hasthe greate setservesconcerningthe assertiuns of theNonvegian
Government inregard to Grermanjt's attitude toivards the 1935
Dem.
It followçthat British protests durjngthe preçenc tentun con-
cerning the attempts of the Morwegian Govenunent to exdude
Britishfishingvcssels from the mutcd areas would lx ofnoaçcount
. only ifthe Norwfgian Governrnent had succeedeciinproving the
existence of an historictitlebeforethese protests tveremade. But
the Norweg-ian Goverurnent lias mtirely failed in the Cornter-
Mernorialto provethe existence ofmy traditional Norwegian systern
which could provide a hasis fur an historic title tr, the disputed
waters. As the Noruregian Guvernment has, therefore, fail~d ta
estahlish that Norway posseçsed an historietitle fo the disputed
'w~+ers atthe date when British trawlersbegan tu fish in them, the
subçequent British protests, diplornatic action and resart t.athe
Court arë extremely relevant preclucling my question of an
. histaric titIe kcorningvestedinNorway duringthe present century.
(Corinter-Mernorialp,ara,576)
jIr. The Nmegian Government, in paragraph 576 of the
-Coder-Mernorial, has summarrized the points ~vhichit daims -to
have established in Chapter III of the Counter-Mernorial in its
attempt to justify the so~called Norwegian systern of ddirniting
maritime twritory, of iir7l.theh1935 Decree isallcged to an .
ap~licatir>n.tmay thereforrbe nsefultosunimarixeI-ierctheconten -
tionsofthe United bgdorn in ~ply to the h'orweaan argrrrneiit:
I REPLY OP TIEITUNITED KZNGDQM (28 XI 50) 675
(I)îhc Nowegian thesis (paras. 511-525 of the ~ount;?r-
Memondl that, otvingto the diversity othc facttral situationthe
le@ priri~iP1esdeterminkg the extent ofa State'smaritime terri-
tory must be expresseclinvery broad terms, namely, in the Nome-
gim -formula of 'legitimateintereçts",k inadmissible. Fbt, the
evidence adduced insupportof thethesisrelatesonlv la theimps-
cljbjlityofaçkieving absohte uniformity in the application of the
detailed rulesof international law conceming the delimifatim of
marituile territory. Sccondlythe thesisis incompIetc conflict ~5th
the tsaditiunaJsysternmd with existingState practice, Thirdy,the
Namegian cnticisrnof the traditional system on the score ofits
rigidityis unfaunded. The traditional syçtemha9 been wmkd out
in State yractice over a long pend and represents a comprorniçc
between the interests ofindividual States and those of the cam-
munitg of States, and has suficient Aexibilityto take accuuni of
legitimateinterests. ThMorwegian forrriuh, onthe ather hand, ha5
no legal contenandamounts tosubstitutingundateral pretensions
for the agreement of States as the basis of the law of the sea
(parm. 395'405above).
(2) The Nonvegian thesis (paras. 525-538 of the Cotinter-
Memurial) that Norwag's case isso excgtional as to relieveher
€rom obwrving aq geneml nile$ 01intematioaal law h delimitiDg
her mantirne territoryisinadmissible, The exceptional featnreçof
Nonvay's coast lineare t~ be regasded as material eçscntiaUv in '
connecsion with lier clah to historic waters. The extent of"fis
claim4s prireciseyhat is in issue in the pmsecase (paras.405-411
ahove).
(3) The Norwegian thesis (paras. j29.53 1of the Couter-
Mernorial)that Nor~vay'salleged spstm of delimiting bermafit.ime
territory has shvm a complete consistency thsoughout histarv and
issimply appliedby the 1935Devee to aparticul& area isin;dniis-
sible,1t.hdisproved by the evidencc ofNorrvegian official opinion
.
diçted innthe report tothe Stortingntconcerningthe Oslo-Londona-
ent tvith the alleged principtofthe Nonvegian xsystern asthev are
describecin pampaph 62 of the Countor:Mernorial@aras ,~2-435
abrive).
(4) The Narwegian thesis@ara. 532 of the Cnunfer-Memurial)
that Nonvay's alkged *stem ofdelimiting her maritime territory
$vas widely knovrrnis inadmisi bleso far as concerns-the matters
rvhichrireindispute inthe present case.It idisproved by th corn-
plete uacertaintv of the Nmwegian Gaverament itself until 1935
hth as to the principlesdetermini thg1Lmits of Norway's mari-
' time territoryin the area irnder dispute anas to the actu'alinaits,
Tt isdisprot-rdby the fartthclt, despitconstant requests hom the
United Kingdom, the Narwegian Government was quite nnahle to supply the rieçessarinformation concerningthc LirnitsoNormgian
waters inthe area under dispute(paras. 426-428 above),
(5) The Nortvegianthesis (pm. 533-53 ofthe Couter-Merno-
rial), that h'onvay's aUeged systerncan clajm wide internatioual
recognitionisinadmisçible.First, iisnot supported by the hstorical
' evidene, whichhas been examined in P& 1 of thisReply (paras,40-
45). Thisevidence shows that France objected ta the priricipfes
putforwardby Nomayin supportofthe 1869 Decrte and that uther
'5trsts hadno causeto be awarethat any principlesof;thekiad now
çontended for by Norrmy were involveci in the 1869 and -1889
becrees. Secondly, the alleged '@incîpleslkhich arein dispute in
tlie presencase did rrot any existmce before the criticdate,
ryci6,and wcre not in fact adopted and made public until 1935
(Part 1of thisRepZy, paras. 58-59).
(6) The Norwegian thesis (para. 536of the ~ounterL~emoria1)
that Norway did not bind herseIf by ,uiy undertaking prejudiçial
to her clah during the preliminkes to the presen case is
contesteclby the United Kingdom Govemment .
(7) The Norwegiaa thesis (pans, 537-539 of the C0unt.e~-Merno-
rial) that Norwaj~'sdleged system is justifiablonits o\vn merits
and does nvt regüi~ethe support of the theory of histone waters is
inadmisdde, The system istota3ly in codict with the generdy
accepted ruies ofinternational larvad, therefom, depends for jts
validityon the acquiescence of other States. Sn the absence of
- express acWsccnce it isody by prmf of an historie tttlethat
Nomay cm justiiy 'Eierxceptional clairn (paras. 432-438-above).
(8) The Norwegian thesis (para. 540 ofthe Gaunter-Mernorial)
fiat the scope of the theory of liiçtoric watersis still somewhat
undefin4 with regard to the si@cmce ofusage is inadmissible.
Inaccordancewith the fundarnent d prhciples of internationalIaw,
the relevanceof usage in the <theory historicwaters isto establish
the acquiescençe of otheStates inthe chim (paras. 432-437 ahvel.
(9) Contrary to the opinion expressed la the Conter-Mernorial
(paras.543-552)) theevidence of State practice, ofthe opinions of
~vriter asd of the work of the 1930 Codification Conference,
qonhs the conclusion,dmvn from fundamental pririciples,that
therelevance of usagein the theory ofl~istoriwaters isto establish
the acquiescenceof otlrerStates (paras. 438-468above).
(ro) The Nonvegian thesis (pasas. 553-554 of the Counter-
Mernorial)that inthe theory of historicwaters the passage of trme
.mure usudy opmtes in conjunctîon with ûther factors (e.g,
geographical, economic or defence considerations) isnot disputed .
However, the fber Nomegian thesis(para. 553 of the Counter-
Mernorial) that the passage of time isonly an additional, not a
siecessasryd,ement in an historic tiileis inadmissible. Udess the
express âcquiesmnce of he State againsi mliich thetitle is invokd
ean be shown, the passage of time-that is, the long duration of
the usage-is a vital eiernent in tlie titas supplying evidence of REPLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (z8 XI 50) 677
the imptied acquiescenceof other States in the claion (paras,469-
476 above).
[TI)The Nomegian thesis (puas. 555-560 of the Counter-
Mernorial)that the theory of historiwaters is not limited tobays
but is of general applicatiois'notcontested. TheUnited ICingdorn
Govenintint, however, conteslrls that the extent to whtch the
waters are enckised by land ha an important bearing on the
question of inferring the acquiescence of otherStates inan excep-
tional claim. 'i'hetraditional doctrine concerns "bays" and the
consent of States may mare readily be infd in the case of the
endosecl waters of a lsay than in other ca%s (para 471 above).'
(12)-(a) The hTonv~giaT ttesis (paras. 561-570 ofthe Counter-
Mernorial)that ~oma~'is not called upnn in theseproceedings to
prove by evidcnce that she has an histotic ütletothe areasin dis-
pute iç inadmissible. This thesis dependuponNorwayk sfounded
contention that the promulgation of the limits of its maritime
territoryby a coastal %te, being an exercise of mvmigrity, must
be prescrmed valid mera whewii goes beyond the gmsrdly acce#fed
mles of i~ilatemtaonaLlaw. The Norwegian thesis codd only be
tenable, if there were no general rules of international law con-
cerning the delimitation of maritime tmitory, ifeach State was
mtifled EoLu jtsmaritime Etnita sccordhg fo itsown conception
of its legitimateintemsts, and if dl other States were obliged to
accept limitsso fixed..The United hgdom Government, however, .
has shown that (i)the detirniation ofmaritime terrtoy is governed
hy generd. rdes of international law which' the Royal Decree of
1935 violates; (ii) tlie burdeofproof,thmefore, lies upon Nomy
to establishthe acquiescence of the United Kingdom inlier excep-
tional daim eitbèr by express evidence or by proof of Instoric
usage retati~gto the dispzatedrerat~s;(iiithe dominant principle
of international maritime law is the freedom of the seas and,
therefore,lafwlio& is the burden on Norway to dernonstrate the
validity of her pretensionsto areastvhich, under the general rules
of international law, arc part of the high seas. (Paras. 473-474
above.
(b) The Norwegian th~is (para. 563 ofthe Caunter-Memarial)
that national mage ày itselis enough to jnstify Norwafs clah is
thus equally inaclmissible.Norway cannot plead her own municipal
decrees to justify the violation of generailg accepted rdes of
i~Lm&'onal law.She is called uponto provean internationalusage
as providing evidenceofthe acquiescence of0th~ States.(Para. 475
above.)
(cl The United Kingdom Govemrnenthm furtl~er shown that,
asthe seais natres 4~'~t2tbut is subjectto the rights ofthe com-
mtuiity of States,it isnot susceptible of simple "occupation" by
tlic excïcisof$taie authority.It is by the pficiple of prescription,
not of occupation; that clab to exceptional metirne territory
have io be justIfid. Accordingly, by this seasoning also, itis not 678 REPLY OF TEE UNITED IELl'XGDOfil28 XZ 50)
enough for Nmvay to plead her ovn actsalone. The acqniescence
of other States inNonvay's daims has tu be establislied and the
burden is uponNor~vayto establ.lsh that acquiescençe either by
express evidence or by histosic usage relating to the disputed
waters. (Paras. 476-478 abave.) -
(d) In regard to.the conditions underwhich the opposition of an
objecting State may prevent the establishment of a prescriptfve
title; the United Kingdam Govemment has dernonstrated thai:
such ~ppositionis efiectiveto Safeguard its rights, pro$-ided-i;hatit
uses a31avdable means to put a11 end to t.he infringement of ,
itsrigl~ts,firstbnegstiation and ultimately by bringi-ithe matter
to contestation. In the presentcase,the United Kingdom Govern-
ment has bg ail available means prosecuted its objectlon~ to the
Nonvegian daims mer since the critical date in 1906 hvhen the
dispute firstarase, 1\Tom*ays accordlngly obliged toestablish.that
her hiçtorictitle to the \vaters noin issue waç dready perfect as
agaînst the United Kingdom. before that date: [Paras. 479-484
above,)
(e} -fie United Kingdom isovemment denies ihat the acquies-
cence of otherStates in aNoriwgian title to the waters çovered by
the 1935Decree ought to be inferrd from their inaction in face of
the 1869 and xS8g Demees which dealt on particular grounds with .
two quite diffeent areas. The United Kingdom Govemheat
contends that the natural inference is the othm rvay,namely .that
the assertion of particular daims to pxrticular areas excludes a
general daim to al1arhs. It furthermaintains that tbe inferenceof
acquiescence muld only be properly drawn ifNorway were able
to prove both that a general systm appLicableto the whole Nor-
wegiarz caast was applied inpromulgating the 1869 and 1889
.Decrees and also that other States so understood the decrees.
(Para. 485 above.)
(f) Inrewd to the Norwegian activity ~vhiçhmay be adduced
'as evidence of a prescriptive title,the United Kingdom Govem-
ment has shom that the private aactivity of Norwegian frshermen
isofno sigriificamcand that only acts ,ofexclusiv8State authority
by hrorway ¢anprovide the basis of& titleaçquiredby ifitcmatia~al
usage. (Pm. 487 above.)
(13) The Norwegian thesis (paras. 571-575 of the &unter-
Mernorial) fhat Norway'scase contains every etementreqaired for
the application of the theory of historic waters isinadmissible so
far asconcernsthe aras cvhicliare in dispute in the present case,
that is,the areas lyhg between the pecked blue mcl the pecked
green lineson the chartsat Annex 35 of tiiiReply. The Normegian
thesisisinadrnissibIe for the foEEowinrgeasonsI
(a.)The United Kingdom Government concedes that h'orway
posseses anhistoric title to lier fjords and sundinaddition to her
historie title ta maritime belt 4 miles inwidth, Ber historic titlc
to fjords andsunds iç, however, confined to the actual watcrs ofthese indentations and does not extend to thebaselines of the
Royal Decree of1935 which in many casesextend far outside the
entrançes of the fjords and sunds. (Paras, 507-508above,)
(bj The geogaphical circumstances of the Nowegian coast
provide no warrant for sayingthat theopen weia$ersi~gtmtside the
e~tancw of .thefjmds a~d s~xds,which are formed by the confi-
gurations of the mainland with its idand fringm, are a natural
part of Norway's inland waters. Nomay has advanced no good
reason why, indelimiting het maritime tmitory, she alune. dl
States should he permitted to disregard the configurations of her
land territory.(Paras. 488-492above.)
{G) The ec~nomic md seçurity interests oNoway dso protrlde
no ww~ant for her pretensionto daim asinland waters the open
waters Iying outside .berfjordand wnds. The area ofsea reserved
to Noma.y under an Zriçtorititlto a 4-mile maritime belt and
to dl the waters of fjords and sunds is very extensive and no
evidence has ken adduced thaf it is inadequate for Nonvay's
legitimate intereçts(Paras. 493-494 above,)
Id)Gmgraphical, cconomic and security tonçiderations are in
any event not suffîcienin law to establish a title texceptional
maritime territory. Narway, to establisha tifle tthe waters now
indispute, has to show,firstthe exercrseofexduive State author-
ity in regard to those waters, and secondly, the acquiescen ce
otlierStates in the mercise ofsuch authority. (Para.495 above.)
(e)The historic evidence adduced by Norway concerning fishing
by Nonvegims and the local regdation of fishingdoes not show
.the exercise of exclusiveState authority by Nomay over the
disputeci waters. Nor are Nom-ay'ancieut pretensionç ithe mare .
clanszcmperiod to extensive mx'itime territory ofany rdevance
to-day. (Paras, 496-498above.)
(JI Nonvay's historie title depwds esswtidly onhet showhg
that the x8xz Rescript, which defined her maritime daims inthe
modern mare EPbe~~r~nriod, constituted ariassmption of sotfer-
eignty ovcr. the disputed waters. Nomy has, ho\vever,adduccd
no midence tu show that the 1812Rescript asserrteNomegian
sovereigntvover waters within and, between.islan adnd rocks.
Nor has 5he adduced any cvidence to show that, if tht3,7in fact
the casc,the 1812 Rescript justifies thextreme closing lines of '
Norwegim .islmd waters~vhich are prescribed in the1935 Decree-
(Paras.499-50 bove.)
(gjNonvay is, thereforp,ùfiveito try to justify the base 1'S
ofthe 1935 Decree by proving that a aystem ofinterpretjng the
1812 Rescript was establisbedin the 1869 and 1889 Recrees and
that this systembassimpIyapplied inthe1935 Decree.The evidence
does not,hoivever,establish eithethatthe 1869 and 1889Demees
reprewnted a defrnite systerof interpretingthe 1812 Rescript or
that the 1935Decree uTasformulateclon the sarneprinciplesas the
1869 and 1889 Decreeç. (Paras,502-505 above.) (A) The Norwegianofficid documentsimed in cconnectionwith
the 1924.19 25nversationsshowthat, ifanv lineisto be regaded
as anapplication ofwhat Nomgians consid& to he "the principleç
and indications of tlie1869 and 1889Decrees", iiis the red lim
of1924 .netthebtw kirceof 1935. (Para. 504 above.)
(e;iAs Nomny has not shown any exercise of exçlnsive State
authoritv inregasd tothe dispvted areas lyingbetween the pecked
hlue and the pecked green liiies (se Annex 35 of this Reply)
before the critical date,1906 she ha$ nat estabhçhed the first
of thetmo elemen ts essential tan hktwiç title, (Paras. 506-508
,
ab(jl Norway has necessarilyfa&d also to establish the secmd
essential elernent, namely, the acquiescencof other Statesinthe
assumption of Nonvegian sovereignty aver the disputed areas
&fore xg&. [Para. jog above.)
(k) Since rgofithe United Kingdom Govenirnent has actively
maintaineilits objectionto the assumptionof RTortvegiaaanthority
over the disputed areas and has with due pxompbeçs bmught
the dispute before fhe InternationCùnrt ofJustice. Consequeritly,
asNorway djd not passes anl-ilstorietitle to thewaters hefcire
the criticadate in1906,she cannot have acquiredone afterwards.
(Para. gro above.)
512. The Norm~egianGovei-riment concludes Park II of the
Coupter-Mernoria bly citing athe end ofparagraph 574 a passage .
frùm an &ide by Professor Bingham of the Evetsity of Cali-
fornia,in which he represents Enghnd as having forced won.
oppressed small Statesa poicy lnspired by the Grimsby trawling
interests and designed to permit tliem to undertake aggrcssive
invasions of the eoastal frsherie9 of other countsies. Professor
Bingharn has never dis&sed the fact:that his wholt; appsoaçh
to fhe law of thesm has.been colomd by his desiretourge upon
kis own Govermeril: a particularfiolicyir~regard.t-the fisheries
,on Sie Pacifie Coast 0% the United States. Professor Bingham's
viem are in factvery far from being objective!Dr, Jessup, a no
less cmhtrnt authority on çoastal waters, having listened to a
paper read by Professor Bingham to the Amencm Society of
1nte.rmhona.l Law in 1940, in which almost identical rernarks
weremade about EngIand's fisheries policy, cornmented (Pmcced-
aragsof34th Alzauat MeeEi~g,1940, p. 64) : 1
"In som a'mtartt1sbkirtZhnt726mnjuses the grnevainteresaf
theinterrwtimwlcommatZ1y wJk th piartimlaiflbresfofpa~ticutar
districtia ik United States1 disagree with him on his basic
conclusionsegarding the3-mde lirnito which he;tns\vm that 1
am doctrinah and that he iscorrect. I cannot quite accethnt
characterition..,"iriaccuracies.The existingr.rulesof interriationdilawfagoverning
Thelimifs of exclusive coastaI fisheries were developed in the
nineteenth century on the initiative not primarily of the United
Kingdom, but of Emnce, Gcrmany, Denmark, and other States
(see para. 237 of this Reply). The United Ringdom, so far from
favanring in her fisheries policy 'VdestmctiveinvasionsJ' coastal
fisheries,has been most prominent in sceking a greater measure
of international CO-operati innthe replation and conservation
of fislieries. The true policy othe Uniced Kingdom Government
is expresseclin the preamble of the InternationalConventionfor
the North-West Atlmtic Fishexies which >vasconcluded ins949
(Arinex 4z of this Reply) and to which Nortvay, Portugal and
other Stattsswtareparties. 'i'hatpçillcy"the investigation, protec-
tion and conservation" of fisheries "in order ta make possible
the maintenance of a maximum sustained catch" and the means
for making the policy effective an intematinna1 agreements wd
international CO-operation Jusfice forsrnali Stateq-Norway and
Portugal are the States men tioned h y Professor,Ringham-d oes
not demand that they shciuld both be Treeto fish off thecoasts
of ritherStates and fr~eurrilaterallyf4 extend tlieir own fishing
monopoJies,The United Kingdam Govmnmefit,like the Danish
and Srvedish Governmer,ts in their secen tdiplome tic notes con-
cerning fisheries ir, the Rdtic (para. 120 above); is opposed to
unilateml extensions of fishir,g monopolies,On the 0th- hmd,
it favous the solutionof fisl~erproblems by international agree-
ment andhas alrt-aysken ready and anxious to discuss fishesy
regdation and conservation measures with the NoriregianGovern-
merit (pasa.136 ahove).
The United Ringdom GovemenYs submissions in regard to the
actud bits of Norwafs maritimeterritory in the area covered by
the 1935 Decrec
Recag.nitionhy Uaded Kinghm of Ilfomay'shislor ~iightua q-sniZ~
rnarz'fivZtdt am!te the watersmifbzirttvfjûudsmd sulads
513, TheUnited Kingdom G-overnmontInthis Reply 11asrecog-
nized that the Nonvegim Eovemmmt has establi~hed an histone
titletua maritime bélt4 seades in extent.lt has alsorecognized
that the Ncirwegim Governent has zçtablisùed m. historiç title
to the waters of the fjords and sunds xs hiçtoricbays or historic
straitç accordin(;Cthe nature of each individuamlet. On the other
band, itdenies thatthe NorivegianGoverment hasestablished any
histûric right to delimitifsmaritime territory under a supposed speciaiMorwegian çyçtem of draiving biseIlliesivlthoutany refer-
ence to the physical c~nfigurat ifohe. tewa fima of Narway,
Consequently,in the view ofthe United Tiingdom Governent ,the
base-linesfrom which Noway's +mile zone ofterritorial seextends
have tube defirnited in accordance with the general princibleç of
international law (see para, 122 of the Mernorial) subject only to
Nerrvay'shistoric right to the waters within her fjords and sunds.
In 13thertvords, the primary test tifthe badine, from which
Norway's zone of territoriasea isto be delirnited, ithetide mark '
on Nonvay's land territoty,xvkiether mainland, islands or rocks.
Imagiilary straight linesdrawa bet~veentwo points of Nomegian
territory areonlg permissibleas base~linmivhenthey'repreçent the
natwai Ene maskingthe entrarice to an indentation which is Morwe-
gian interna1 raters.It istrve that the very heavy indentation of
'the Norwegian cùst causes the hasellineto departfreqiiently from
tlie tide markand then tr,take the form ofail imaginary he at the
entrante of a bay, But this isno justification for the Notrvegian
Govcmment drawing a whally artificial and irnaghary base-Iine
dfo~eith~r&si& the mtts~a2lzmits botdof its &ad and ses ter~it~ry.
TheNorwegianGovernerit inthe Cornier-Mernorial (paras. 550-
551) represents that its syçtem, of straight baselines is naturd
and logicd, But, as'hasbeen pointecl out in paragraph 129 of the
Mernorial, wliatever æstheticmerit straight base-linesmay possess
tvhetiseen on achart, theis practicalrneritsam not supesiorta lines
hwn in ';rccordmce with the gmeral rules ofinternational law.
hlloseover,strai gbaselines are no2 pemisible in genmal inter-
national Iaw escept in the casc of bays 'whose entrances are of
moderate width (10 miles is thegeneraily accepted width) a~d of
historicbays. The ivhole coccept of a polygonal coast li~-eformed
by a suies of long straight lines, suc11as are found in the 1935
Decree, is both unreai and in conflict with existing international
4asv,'tvlrichfixes the politiccoast king primanly by wference to
the tide mark. International law doesnat expect or warrant that a
"prrliticacoast" should be composeclentirely ofpolygonal 1U-izand
Nomziy has failed toestablishany historic tiltwhich might justiy
a.IvhoUyexceptional methocl such as iufoiiowed in the 1935 Decree.
-4fiarhum .$hrecognized exce$tionsOJ/jords and szsnd~,[email protected]
rtcleofthetide ma~Kshozild
514. ItfoUowsthat, inthe si~brnission of the United Kingdom
Fovernment , the base-lineof the hromegÎan coastja,sof any çrther
cbasi, consists ipart of theactual shore lineof thiSgn-itoryat Low
tide (induding devations ef the sea bad enthleci to takeninto
account asterritory see paragraph rzz (4)and (5)of the Mernorial)
and in part ofstraightlines closingindentations. Where tbeindenta-
tion consists of a bay or ofan idand strait(which Fnlawis on the
same fociting asa bay ; see para.367 above and para. 1x1 of the
hfemorial},the clrislngliaeis çirnplya straightlimedra~ai.between aredram'from e.verypoint,'rna tnyllfall insidthe outemiost
lirnit andit isonly the arcswhich affcct the line af the exterior
limitthat are~ignjficmt. Similarly,it is onlythe Base-points,from
which thexegtiverning arcs me drawn, that are 4gnifican-tas base-
points for delirniting the territorsea.In principIe,the tidernark
constitutes acoatinuous base-lîne on my given piece of coast, but
wha-mer there are any concavities or there areislands or rocks
close off the coast, th+mile arcs wïll overlap and it is then the
materid base-point s,ra.terthan the continuous base~liaeivhichin
practiçe determine the exterior limit ofmaritime territory.The
same can beseen if the matter isviewed fsorn'theposition ofthe
mariner at sea, The relevant point for themder, having plotted
his position onhis chart, is whetherif he swings a 4-mile are with
his compasses çentred on thisposition, the arc touches land any-.
where around him or the Iimitof intemal waters. If itdoes, heis
within territoridwaters, and it isinelevant that in another dire-
tion lie is morthm 4milesfrom 'shore.
The base~line, beinshply the tide mark ofal1relevant parts of
themainland,klandandrockswhichcountasNarwegianter~tory, -
there is no objectin showing on the charts at Amex 35the base-
lines from which the-outer lirnit ofthe territoriasea has been
delimited, except where these eonsist ofimginary Linesàcro~ the r
entrancvs tointerna1 waters. Itisthe outer limit of the territorid
sea which is the actual limiofNarwav" exclusive fisherles and the
- base-ltneisrelevant in.the preçent %ilte only tothe extent that
it afftxts thdeterminatiou O£ that limit.Conçequently, apat hom
the he of the outer bit of the territoriasea,only the base~lines.
acms bays are marked, since these are invisible and reqaire tobe
depicteclsufar asisnemssary to indicatc the principls upon which
the outerlimit ofthe territ orisea has been arrived at.In order ta
assistthe Coirrt to compare the metliod by waiich the limits of
Norwegian maritime territory have been drawn on the charts
accordirrgta the British pointofvieiv with the method of the 1935
Decree, the base-lines and the outer Pimit ofthe territorial sea
resulting from that decree have also ben placed upon the &arts.
Ln addition, in urder ta ssist the Court to study in detail the
diffe~nces between the Ncrrwegimand British viervsof the Iimits
af Nomay's laritirne te&tory on the various sectionsof theeçoast
now indispute, a commentarjrhasbeen preparec lomparing the line
delîmitedunderthe1935 Decrecswith the line delimited according '
tothe Britishpoinf:ofview. This commentaryfollows inChapter V
below, Itwillbe seen from this commentary, and from the charts
atAnnex 35, what isthe essential differencbe-hveenthe Norwegim
and British points of vierv,The United Kingdom Govesnment has
drawn the Iimitsof Norway's maritime territory by reference tothe
actual territory possesscby Wonvay, The Nonvegian Governinent,
on the other hand, ha 4rawn those litnits byreferrrncto a wholly
imagimiaryconception of Nowegian terriory.The United Kingdom Govmment, takingall possible account oNoruray" hhistosrights
in her fjords ansunds, has drawn the limitsofNorway's maritime
taritory byreference to ber actualcmds andto the actud bits
of her fj,ordsaad sunds. The Nonvegi;in Goverment, onthe other
hand, Ilas tlrawthose limitswithout rcference to Norway'sactual -
çoasts and without reference to the açtual limits of her historic
waters in her fjordsand sunds. In the submission of the United
Kingdom Gov~rnment, nomrfficientevidenc~has been adduced and
no suffirientargmen t has Feen advancedin the Counter-Memûriai
to justifythe Norive@- Eovemment being absolved atonce from
' ohserving ciitlierules of irzternatiorid land Sie limitationsof
her own phpical geography. The UnitedmKingdom Goverment
acknotvlzdges thaf the Norwegian Govment has an histüric tifJe
tcia 4-mile maritime beft and tothe waters ~vithinNorrmy's fjords
and suncls; but it asks the Court inthe present prokedings to
declare that inxll other respects the Norwegian Government iç
boilnd to observe bot11thmleç of international law and the limita-
tionsof Nomag 'sphysicalgeography.
. Detaireddescription of the char& inAnnex 35 of this Reply
Sedion A below contains a detai1ed descriptionof the pecked
greenlineçhorvn on the chartsin Annex 35 ofthis Reyly. This is
the line mhich foms the auter 1Xmitof Norwegian territoriawaters
according to the content ionsofthe United Ihgdom Governrnent ,
It is essentianot to confuse this peçked green Iine with the firm
greenline showrion theNorwegiancharts inMnex 2ofthe Coenter-
Mmmial, which represents a 3-mile limitaccording tù the views
of the Bsitish representati ivnr924.
Sectifi B below contains a detailed clescripti~ ofthe p~cked
blue line shm on the chartsinAnncx35 of this Reply. This is the
hne which foms th& outer lirnitof Norwegian territoriawaters
claimed by Norway in the Royal Decree of 12th july, ~935,as
amended by the Rayai Demec;of xoth Becember, 1~37.
Fm convenience,detailed descriptionsof the linsan the ches,
nurnbered z to g and çovering in sequence the whole area mder
dispute, siarthg with the Varangédjord and fihishing at 'rmnen,
are set out below on opposite pages. Section A (~iating .ta the
pecked greenline)appearç on the left-liand page,and Section B
{relatingko thepeckedblue lhe) on the right-hand page. 686 REPT~Y OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
Gelrsral ex#lanata'o%O{ the systeni follcwedin dvawiq tlcabecked
gramlim m the ciha& in Amex 35
The belt of Norwegkn Grritmiril.waters is4 miles wido and the
outer limit of thisbelt is sho~vnon the charts in hex 35 by a
pccked green line.
Wliere the bm4lIie is land, it is,takm asthe low-water mark on
the land, Where, on the other hand, the base-line mm across
intemal waters, it is formed by straight Iines betwem the
na-turalfeatures by whjch such watersmay br. conndered tu be
enclosecl,4.e.betvrreeheadands, islancls ar rocks.
Where the base-lineis land, it inot markeclon the charts by
;iny culoured Iine, dthuugh -çignificant base-pointsare indicated
by green dots (see below). Where, huwever, the base-Jine runç
açross infernal watersit is shom un the charts by a firgmreen hem
Certain internalwaters are show on the charts "hatched" In
green, but not aii Nonvegim internat waters are so "batched".
Nowegian intemai waters are "hatched" iir iaElcaswhere these
- waters have haselines run- across them from ~vhich the helt
of territorialwaters.is delimited, but they are also "hatched" in
same ases wherethis is not sobut where it was thought that this
"Eiatching"would-be helpful as a visual means of illustrating the
system.
Elevations of the sea bed, which dry atIOW water and çvhichlie
within 4rnilesof thelciw-watermarkofthemaidandor of oother .
land permaneatly above high wafer, extend the belt of territorial
waters to a distance of 4 miles fram the seawmd edges of siich -
elevatians.
Except in certain instances rvhere historic clairns have ken
conceded, stmits xvhith are not inland straits follow the normal
rule by wkich territorialwaters am delimited from the Iow-watcr
mark, are nat enclosed by straight base-lines and arc not interna1
waters. Inland straits are asshilated to bays and, like bayç, are
intemal >vates 1.
The onterlirnitofNortvegian territoriawaters consists,therefore,
of theenvelopesof a seriesof intersecting arcof circles with radii
of4 miles. These arcs are centred on the baxiline, vvhic~~'co~sists
of the 'lolv-rvatermark.of the mainland or of islandsthe seaward
edges of certain low4ide elevatisns(see above) or of straight hes
enclosing interna1waters. (For a description of the arcs ofcircIés
rnethod see Amex 42 of thisReply.)
1
1For a classificaofskaitsseapara.367abwe. REPLY OF THE UNITED T-CLNGDOM (28 XI 50) a7
'Inpractice, in delineating the onter fimit of temitorla1 waters,
itIs unnecessasy to draw arcsof cades centred on aUparts of the
low-tilater line on land,as it will be found éhat arcs centres on
pohts withln smdi indentations of the cozt he fdi inside the
lirn ittliose centred on the more salieripoints of the coast Ziile.
The cextet~esfthose a~cs whith ageciitheowt& I'LmP t#ife~rita~ial.
waters aqtdwhick afe,.tk~ef6ve#si,dntficanler5 showpzon Ihe charts
a'nA nvtex 3j by peen dots,
hrcs hkreinafter ,rcferrcd to arearcs of circlesof 4 miles rarlii REPLY OF TFIE UNITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
SECTIONA
The peckd green line
CHART NO. s
The outer Tirnit of territorwaters is dmwn ata distanceof
4 milesandparallei to the base-Iine joining Jakobselu (tfrontie~
betweea hTonvayand the Tj.S.S.R.3to Kibergsneset, which isthe
naturd northem entrartce point to Varangerfjord, This inlet is
conçede as hzstoricbetweenthesepoints.(See alsoMemonal, Vol. 1,
P-.F~wn1 KibergsmesettoBlodshytoddm the outerbit of territorial
waters is forrned by the arcs centred on Ebergsnewt and the
point 2 miles northsvardon the mainland, on the sdient points of
the lslandsof Vardidy,Hqn@y, Reinny ad Rcin~lyskjsr, thence on
salient points onthe mainland coast south-eastward of Blodsky-
todden. ,
P~rsfjmd.-The outer limitofterritoriawaters isdrawn 4 mîies
seaward of abase-line joiningBloclskytcdden toSegeludden,which
are the natud entrmce points of the fjord and were shournassuch
on the rgzq Oslo charts.
Befieieeracgeloddenand the n&h-western point ej Haalirandn~sel
the outerlimit of territonawaters iigovemed by arcsdrarvn from
Spiren, anqutlying rock and the sdient points of Haabrandneset.
.SyLefjord,-The limit of territririwaters is drawn 4 miles
searard of andparallelto a base-linejoining the north-tvpoint of
Haabrmdneset and Klubbespiret. These points tvould seem'to be
the natural entrace points of the fjord, and appar tohave ken
agreed in rgzs (Mernorial, Vol.1,p. 146) .tp~kjzr, one ofthe
points rnentioned, cannat be idenrifieil with ccrtainty now,
B~twmrs Kh bbes@irdand Storsieinlaesetthe lisniof texriorial.
waters is fomed by the arc çentredon the point close ncrrthward
. of Klubbespiret.
~Waht~Sandfjo~d~~Tl~elimit ofterritonal waters is drawn4 miles
sealvard of and paraIlelto the baselineoining Stursteinneçet and
Korsneset, tlie natural entrance pointof the fjord,
-Betmee~ Kormset and the eastern natural entrance point of
Brasfjord, situated about 3.mile east of Rosmolen, territorial
waters arelirnited byarcscentred on thesalient points othecoast
and on Molvrkskjar, an outlying rock.
Barnfiord.-Outside this fjordthe limit of territorial waters is
drawn 4 miles çeawârdof anclpardel tua base-line joining the
eastere nntrance point (see above) and Seibeneset, the rvesiern
naturd entrance point; this Iiinwas drawn on thex924 Oslo
charts,
Befwee~Se'bmsel ad Veshmstd, the naturateastern enbance
point of Kongsfjord, the outer limiof territorial waters isformed1 The pecked blue line
(The f~hing bit c2m'md by ~Vwway), as c0~~9firedm'ih thegreen
Eiwsshwfi on th cha~t.w Amex 35
CHART No.z
The peckeil'blue lineor fishing limit claibyNomay isdmwn
' 4 miles seaward ofand parauel to the bascilinjaining Point1, the
Nmiegianfrontier atJakuhçelv, to Point 2, a héadand foming
the e~sterdouter point of Kibergnes, This hine a30 ?~ihs hg ami
agrees &th $1~ historie tmitorid Liw~iof Vmæqerfjord whichis
çaweded by tiiGauer~mmiof th? United Xifigdclm.
Thencc the lirnitcontinnes along a line 4 miles sealvard omd
pmallel to a hase~iinjoining Point zta Point 3,the oriterpint on
the emt sideof Hornply, a distanceO/6 r/$miles. This limztpasses
semmd ofthe @çked grem Jine aila.~raaximaidi$atzw of3/4mije.
Scaward of Points;3, 4 and 5.ai1heaç1lmds on ishnd~, the lirnit
follows the arcswith 4 miles radii cenbed onthese points and the
tangents joining adjacent asa. Due tù the near proximitp of thse
points the limit is a close ~#$roxiwdim tothe $ecked grew Zi.ize
wlaichi.sffumtedbyi$tfrrsectifarcsçerntre0% thesepoints.
The hnit continua as a çtraight Iine4 miles seaward of and
pardIe1 to a bse-lhe joinhg Point 5 ta Point 6, aheadland anthe
maidand named ICorsneç,TlGs bas.dim Zs 25 iniles longand the
limiipassas aia maximumdistame of2 114 màks seawuvd .a=&apecked
gr~m ii?eand tkew i$a +mkf 00it.6 6tIesfiam thenearestland. No
accoaat istakm oftheraafi~rnIilmi$O)adher Persfjurd,orSylfefjord,
or M&w-Suxdfjord.
From the arc with4 miles radiuscentred onPoint 6 thelimit runs
padel tu and 4 miles seaward of a base-line joining this p0into
Point 7MoIvikskjaer,an above-water rockabout I xi2cables offshore.
This linei~3 milesImg am?.fAedimitiscloseto the$ecked greenZi~e
l whichaSformed Iiyintevsecti~garcs hasd oothe Coast.
The limit confinuesasan arc of4 milesmtrs cmtsed on Point 7,
thence as a line 4 miles seaward of and pardlel to a.base-Jine
rg *&!es Eosgjoining this pointto Point 8,a capeon .he mainland ,
namedKjdlnes. The dimitpasses aia rnaximwz distm~ ofz 114mdes
1seaw~rd ofthe fieckedgreen lise ~tadtlzeris a position0% itoerer
6 mi;ks frm the fmrest land. No wccount zttaken ofthe mt~,ral
Iimits of R~~afjmd OY ICo~gsfjord (itlchdi~g Stra~msfjmd a~d
Risfjovd).
The liin'itthen foUowsaline 4 miles seawardof and paralle1to a
base-line25 miles itx length joining Poin8 to Point g, the skjar
44 The' peck'edgreen line (ccint.)
by the arcs centred on ihe former point and on an oufiying rock
close eastward of the latter point.
Ko7egsjjmd consists of Çtraumsfjord and Risfj o., "Thenatural
mtrance points to the inkt are Vesterncsetand Naalriesct and the
limitof territorial wateriçdrabvn qmiles seaward of the basvline
joining thwe points. The: Igaq Oslo charts show the base-line
Vesterneset toNdneset.
B~t~um -Naaheset and ~amko~i, the natural ~011th-eastern
mtrançe point toTanafjord, the outer limit of territorial waters is
formed by the arcscentreclon the salient points of thecoastand
on ToS1efsrtesskj~r,on Rurrdskjzr,and an.@. Skarvenes, three off--
1yhg dry& rocks.
Tnmxjjerd.-T hheit of territorial waters isdratvn 4 miles
sealvard of and paralle1to the bae-line joining-Tmahorn tcrthe
north-eastern point of Orngangs Klubben, the natural entrance
.points ofthe fjord,',Thibase-linc is thrtt shotvon the r924 Oslo
chFmts athe nortki-eastpoint~of OrngangsKlubben tlic territorial
*raterlimitwestward isformed by zrc?dmwn frem Omgangs Boen,
rock, and from salientpointsonothe çaast.Lille Omgmg, a similar REPLU OF TIIEUNITED mXGDOM (28 XI$31 %Z
SECTION B {cwt.)
The pecked blve Iine (cont.)
CH~T No. z (cowt.)
with aperch eastofthe skjm on which Tdrrbabeacclnis situated
(chart No. 3) The Iimil passes afa maxim.~wz dist~nce of3 n8iEes
semard t#Ikt flcckfgrem lzrzeartdÉrlaaisa #osifiolaonzt7 mdcs
seaward of fheI~B joina'mthe ~~TGYa .~ttrm~$oi~aisof Tmxtafjord
as meEbas ofth çoasi, 692 ~PLY OF THE; UNITED KINGDOM ((28xz 50)
SECTION A (cd-)
The pecked green llne (cont.)
Tamafiord.-(See fm chart No. 2.)
Belwee~zfhz1izori4h-mst ofOmgartgsXl~bbe~ md Bis$ez the
outerlimitof territoriawaters isformed hyintersecting alçscentred
on OrngmgsBoen, Lille Orngang, two off-lying mcks, the autlying
drying rocks off'Gamvikand Korsmerlcet and the outer drying
rocks a£ Tmbaerne.
Ramayfjwd.-The onter ljmit af territorial mteirs is drawn
q miles seaward of and paraElelto a base-line olningBispen to the
outer point ofStore Kamay which form the natuml cntrance points
of thisfjord The base-Iine jaining theçe points was shown on the
xg24 Oslo charts.
Mnkeitfjo~d.-Store Kamsy and Magtop arethe xratud entmce
points to thisfjorcland the base~linejoining them was show on
the 1924 Oslo charts. Theouter Iimit of territorial waters is drawn
4 mges seawaxd of and parauel to this base-line,
Beiween Magtop and irhsnwtk-easter~ entrame ficii~of Oksefjord
the ortfeslirnit oteritorid waters is governed by arcs centred on
the salieripuints of the:coast,for a.veryshort distanceoff Sand-
'fjordby aline 4miles çeaward of and paralle1to a bae-line joiaing
the natmal entrmce points of that fjord, and onan arc centred on
anoff-1ying rocksouthwrao rfÇandf jord.
dkstfjo~d.-Off this fjord the outer territorial liraitisdrawn
4 miles seaward ofand padlel to a base-Iine joining the headland
about pmile northivard ofNyhamn to Kjelen which are the natural
entrace points of the fjord. This base-line was sho~m on the1924
Oslo charts,
BetzeieeKjdelt ad a% of-iyiag itboue~raterock closeno~hwwd
of .th~orihrn mtraace $oint of fj0LZt$jordthe outer limit of terri-
toiialwaters is formed byarcs centred on the salient pointsofthe
ccias,
Lwksefjo~d.-Theouter territosid water Mit coiitinuesby pass-
ing 4 miles seaward of and parallelta a base-line joiningStore
Finnkjerka, the easfern naturd entrame point ofthe fjord, and
the north-eastem point of Çvaesholt Klubben, the western entrace
.point;tlis base-line\vasshowa on the 1924OsIo cliaI-tand \vas
agreed iciinrgzs (Xemorial,Vol. 1, p. 7463,
Porsangerflord and the easZer~enDance to 1Magemy Send.-These
waters are conceded as historic intemal waters.The orrter Zimitof
territoriawaters is drawn 4 mdes sea~vard of and paraIlcl toa
.base-finjojningthe north-western point of Svaerholt Xlubben. the
natural kastem errtrance pointof thiç inlet, r-Ielnii.he natural , SECTION 13 fcoiat.)
Thepecked blue line(cont.)
. çmwr No, 3
For the peckd blue Zincor fishlrtlimit claimedby Ner'cvay tu
sealvard ofPoint 8,Kjwlnes (chartNo. z)and Point g. the skjçlar
ntith theperçh eastof the skjzeronwhichTdrrba beacorl issituated,
we for chart NO, 2.
Frm the arcwith 4 miles radius cenfred on Pciit g the limit
runs dong a irne 4 miles seaward of and pardel to a base-lhe,
4 cableslong, between Point g and Point xo, the çkjkr atrtsidethe
skjer on ~il'hichTomba bcacon is sitrrated. Thetirnitisa raiclse
a+#rom'matior u th $e&d greenZi~awhich is Jor-medByin&rsecti~g
nrcs ceriltrin PWfits g and m.
From the arc with 4 miles radius cedred on Point ro the Iirnit
continues along a line4mites seaward of and parallelto a base-Iirie
x0.2 des Ioxgjoining Point IQto Point II,the outer point Avlaysa
at Nordkyn. The!?:mi tmsesat a naaxe'mwm dO~fo,nçof dm@~d xyT/Z
wiks seawmd of ikepckd green difieand fkera isa #os.étioon Zt
aboui 5 ri4 wihs seawwd of thebusf nt Siore Kawy, the nearat
tnnd. LIUaccount is faiZeof thefld~ralIimitsof Sadfjmd, Kçtm0v-
fjwd or Makce'lfjo.Pd.
Erom an arcwifh 4 miles radius ceatred on Point rx the onter
limit runs 4 miles seaward of and pasalle1 to a basczlz'ne9 nziJcs
Io.ptjoiningPoint Ir to Pakt 12, thelieadland ofKnivçkjzroctcIe.
Tht! Eimif kwe fiases ri@ ~L~UJJ SvaerAoltiznvdat a mAmaprt
disia~ceof TIr/q milesfromthepet kedgreen lirtartthm as aposition
o.ndr4 nagesfrom hic .~tea~es imd a;md thedosimgline, çoncedd hy
the Govmm~.az of the Umited Khgdtim, ofPor~a~zgerf~ord N.a
caccbantistcxkexofthe aat?d~aLimifso#Sandfjmd, Oksefjo~d,Kjdle~
- fjwd, La Rsemd, Pmsaagm/jord afidMagevaymnd, Xamoyf jmd, ghe
ilale7hcl~da'nKoCdj ford,Risfjordand Vesijjord orKmivskjmb~gtn.
The limitthen continues as an arcof 4 miles'radius centredon
Point Ir.694 REPLY 03;THE UNITED ICIMGDOM (28 XT 50)
SECTION A (ml.)
The pecked green line (cont.)
CIIART No. 3 (CO&.)
tvesern entrance point.This base-Eneappruiruna etsto tbat shown
on the ~924OsIocharts. In rgz5 lt was agreed that the easiern
limit of the inlet shouibe the north point ùf Svaerholt Klubben
(Mernorial,Vol. 1,p. r46) ; the4-mile arc from tkispoint doesnot
in factextend the llimitof territoriwaters.
Kamoy~jo~tZ.-Theanter limit of territorial water3irs4 miles
seaward of and parauel tothe b-line joining 'thenatui-entrancc-
points of thc fjord~vhich are Hclnes on the south-eastand Fugle-
naeringen about # mile northward ofthe village of Opnan, This
base-linemas sl~ow~ ~rithe 1924 Oslochads,
Between Fstg2enrawing~$ and SKi'~~n.stakk.~t the"nyaturyltgen,
eastern entramce point afhe inlet comprising Koldfjord, Risfjord,
and Vestfjord, thc outer lirnit of territorial waters iç delixleated by
the interçecting arcs fromthse poirits.
XoLdfjord, Risfjormd Vesirfjord.-The outer iimit of territorial
waterspassmseahvarc ifthisinlet pardel toand 4 milesseaward of
a base-line joiningSkinnstakknaerin tgeth. northern point of
Store Stilikaanislet,thence alorlg anarc centredon thispoint and
then 4 miles seaxvardand pardel to the hm-line joining Store
Stikka io the north-eastern entremity of Nordkapp. These base-
lincs were those shown on the 1924 Oslo charfs.
Nmdica$$.-Tl~e outerterritorialwater limit isfomed by the
intersectingarcs ITO~ the exhemes ofthis peninsnia.
K.Pzivskjzo7liu.gi?a,-euter territoriatvater limit lies4 miles
seatvardof abase-line joiniug the north~ruesternex.trciy ofNord-
kapp toKnivskjaerodden,the natural entrance pin ts tothis inlet.
This hase-lincwits thatçhown enthe xgzq OsIo chmts.
Kfii~siiceroddea.-The territ orittl wat~r limit follom the arc
mntred on this point.'1
cgG REPLY OF THE UNITED ICTINGDOM (28 XI50)
SECTION A {mi.)
The pecked green Eine(cont.)
CEL~R TO, 4 -
-
Knivskje~bwktn .-(See far chart Na. 3.)
theKarc çentred on thispointuntil it cuttherarcçenfr~d eon Lang-w;
skj~r in the exstem apprciach toTufjord.
Szefjbrd.-The miter limitof territoriawaters crosse tse north-
an approach toTufjard, 4 miles seaward of and parallelto abase-
linejoining Lanpkjar md an above:rvaterrock cl~çe mestwarrd of
Stnr~ Stappen. Langskj~r is an above-wateterrock about 3 mile
izorth-westwad of the point forming the natural eastem enkmce
point ofthe fjord situatedclosenorthward of the village oTanoes.
The wcstem appraach to thisfjord isconsidered dosecl by Zslands
and above-water rocks, that nresttvard of Store Stappen isthe
mod nort h-westerly.
Thence the outer limit of territorial waters foiiowsthe arccentred
on the above-water rock \v& of Store Stappen unkil it crossethe
approach to liaa~yfjord. ('II bIa&c~iine joining LangskJzrto the
rock m~st~vard ofStore Stappn was showson the rgz4Osio chats.)
M~cksayfjofd n~d the western apfwoach i!ojWagewy Swnd.-These
watm are conceded as historie inisrwulwaters. The 'outer limjt .
of territoriawaters passes4 miles seaward of andparailelto abase-
line joining Gjesvaernaehgen the natural easte~n entrance point
of the idet (and the south-western entraIlcepoint of Tufjord) to
Neringskjzret, an above-water rock, 3 cableç offthenùrth-eastern
point of Iijelmsay, the western naturd entrmce point ofthe inlet.
In rg2j a.base-line j,aining Gjesvcrernaeringen to Sortvigilaeriiig,
the nortl~zeastern pbi~t of Hjehs~y, wasagreed (RlernorialV, ol.1,
p. 147). This latte lne docs nat di&+ substantidy hom that nom
propos& which is slightly more favou~able ta Narway.
' R&em Nmimgskja.rel ~d Geitingewthe outer territorial limit is
fomedbytl~ear~sfromNcrinpkj~~et, thcnorthern point of the
isletwest ofTarevikbukta,the northern pointof Hjelmsery,Stawen,
a salientpoint on thenorth-western çoast of:Hjelrns~y, and Geitin-
gen, a drying rack offthe western point of thatisland.
Wàtm beil-ficefi jelmisy and the maidcsnd on bdzeas! rnd I~zgc~y
and Rolvsql rn ihe west.-These form a strait and are part of
IndreIeia and assnch 'arenot intemal waters. The outer bits of
, temitorial waters are therefore dsawri from opposite çides of the
strait accordingto the general rulm for the tide mark.
The outer Timit on the eaçt side has been des&bed above, the
arc £rom Geitingen inters~ctsthearc fromMefjordskj~r, an outlying
drying rock within 4 miles of the mst toast of Ing@>* The onter REPLY 017THE UNITED KXNGUOM (28XI 30)
SECTION B (G&)
Tht pecked blue line (coni,)
CHART Na. 4
From the arc with 4 miles radius çeatred onPoirit12, the head-
land Knivskjzradde, the pecked blue line orfishing Iimitclaimed
byNorway contilitie4miles seaward of and krallel to a base-line
19 mitesin Eemgtkjoimirigthispoint to Point r3, Avlcysingaai the
north-riresf point of the island narned Hjelrns~y. The limit crosses
the a$@owich to Mlam~yJjord dt ctmaxim.im distanceoJmmly 2 riz
mibs th 9eckedgwen lima and tha~eisa.@osdIioo%nit6rk miles
#YOW fhenwrest In~d and thecloskg /&e, conrcfidby th Govermmnt
of f?iU~titcdKi~gdowt,for Maassyfjord. No accoz~fzistnkelaofJhe
natwmIIiwzits ofTuJ~oIE wE Maaswyf?ord lalz-kîage~.gysund(western
ctp$roach .
The outer bit thence confinuesdong a he paralle1 toand
4 'nilesseaward of a baseline r2.8wzi.Le szg joinjng Point r3 to
Point rq, Stabben, an above-water rockabout 8 cables nort-thward
of the island namcd Ingwy ,b &mit +assa iw a stmight &i%amoss
th cntraece lo[hgshit betweemHjelmwy and I'qny at a maximum
distuww of4 3/4milesfro~ thepeck;idpcm~li~ze,andfhe~eiça $asdioa
on if6 314tniles/romth nea~~s aad. No accozsfis8ta;k~nJIheIi~nits
ofifJ~setroz,G&em Hjelwwy th mlrinlund on the ensi;and
Inguy u9tdRoJvsayonthe west.
The.miter limif then continues aan arc of4 miles raditicerlt~ed
on Point 14,then as aline 4 milesseaward ofand paraIlel toabase-
li~e1.7miles longjoining thipoint toPoint rg,the nordlem above-
waterrock about x cableoffJ?ruhohen. Th 27iwitheivaflproxiwuat~s
bo the+m&d green'Ii~ewd~ic;clfomd by iwie~sectifigarcs ce.rlts.ed
on Prikts 14 a& 15.The octer limitseaward of Points 15 to 18
which are al1 above-wateir rocks separated by short distanceand
lyhg offFmholmen ciose& a$#w0.2:i~.1~tiethe#md~d gyeenEiae
zerlridisformec!)y intersectiarc.mzdrcd oïsthesejti~P'*t~.
Fmm the arc centred on Point 18, the lirnit continues aaline
q miIes seaward ofand prallel to abase-lin26 112mhs loq j oining
Point. rSand Point 19, Runclskjær ,a above-water rockabout xx/z
miles çouth-~vet,of Bondq. The Zi5~22WE +assesas d simight Sine
&crossth8ufiproach$0$h,si~adbetweenlagay and SWQY nta+t*axiwt~m
distanceof naa~ly8 miEes seawayd of p~cked grsen Iiaand llzere
a.9n fiwitim o;ritro ,114wiles fiom the?zcaresId&. NO accountis
taken of tltc limilothestmit Betwem Ing&y andXokusw 0%the east
snd SHYHJ on themestor ofGmvjkfjard.
The JirniEthen continuesas aIine 4 de$ seaward of and parauel
ta a base-linerg.6 miks iomg joining Point ~g to Point zo (chart
No. 5). Danipskjzr, an above-water rock about 24 cablesoff the SErnIOirfA (colsi.)
The peckedgreen Iine (cont.)
iiiitthen follows arcs centred on the easterri point of Store
GaasaiyiLilleGaasay, and Langskjar.
&-orthcm$ [email protected] out.er lirnit of territorial wateris
#formeclby the intersecting arcs centmd an Langskjzer, Stabben,
andthe ùuter rocksO££ Fruhohen.
Wnters betwmt Irtg&yaizdRolvsq on Me eu& and Sm@y on Me
wesE.-These form a $trait leanlingto Indreleia and ço are naf
interna1 uraters but territond.
The outer limit af temitorial-wateis farmedbv the arccentred
on thesoiit11-westeimck off hholrnm, thencé4 miles seamrd
ofand parallel to a base-liae joininthirock ta Vesterskjz, the
naturalsouthern enbance point of Nafjord and si,tuated closoff
the western pointof Ingay, thence the arc centred on this rock,
and an arccenecd on the north-west pointof Rolvspip, thencea
straigt line 4milessea~vardof and pardel toa basdine joining
the north-rvesternpoint ofRolvwy te an wnnamed point about
1% miles south-south'tvestwar4 hoth of wliich form the natural
e~trancepoints of the inlet comprising Trollfjord and TufjoThe
outer territorial water lirnit then fouows arcs centredon fhis
soufhernpoint,on a rock close off the northern point Skipsholm
on tlie south-western point .of that islland and on Tarhdsethe
nmthern point of Sgrgy.
Eefeieex TarFzalsmdnd the uk.nnamd+&nt ebmt 2 2.Jm$iks west
O!S1~.'~1d~y#jord.-Teuter territoria%vaterliraifoUows the arcs
centredon Tarhalséa, on tmo salient pointsonthe north coaçtof
Lille ICarndy,on a dryirig rock clme northward of Bondgy, on
Ririndskjxr,on salientpoints on the nort.11-wescoast of S~rgy
situated aboutone and z+ miles west of Sandayfjord.
GaEtef?ord.-The outer limit of territorialwaters theace con-
tinues4 des seaward of aud pad1el to a linejsining the nafural
entrame points ofthe fjord,a unnamed pointabout 3mile north
of Psestenand Skarvnaeringen.
This1% the base-linshow on the rgq Oslo charts,
B~!cfjord,-The outa !imit ofterritoriawaters is dram 4 mires
seawardof and pardel to a bassline joining Skartnaeririgento
Steinsnaeringenthe naturd entrante points of the fjorthisbsse-
line was shown on the 1924 Oslo chads. Thencfithe outer limit of
territorialwaters contimxesasthearc centmd on Stein~naerin~en. REPLY 'OFTHE UPJITkiDKINGDOM (28XI 50)
The pecked blue line (cont.).
northern pointof the westerncxtremity of Sgmy. Thelikf Passes
ra(zmarxi~tm distlr.of ovu 4 mibeseaward ofthePeckedgrcm lima
l~nd there iss posifionun it71/2 glzilefvom theacmest lad. No
accoum?2s kken ofthe natptl'dli~wofsGal#e#jo'~d,leJjwd, Ofj'tird
or Stlndf3o~d. 700 azfPLy OF THE UNITED K~NGDOM (28XI 50)
The pecked peen line (cont.)
Bilefi'o~.d.-(Sefdr ch& No. 4.)
Theme iltouter limit of territoriawaters continues aç the arc
centred onSkinsnaeringen.
O Qfjord.-=- onTteelimitof territoriawaters içdrawn padeI to
and 4 des çeamardof the base-line joining Steinsnaeringtn to -
Ofjordnaerin ,tgenaturd entsance points of thk fjord ; thiwas
the base-linealsodram on the 1924 Oslocharts,
Sandfjo~d.--The outer lhi t of esritorialwaters continut-salong
aline paraIldto and 4 miles seawardof the base-linejoiningOfjord-
rzae~ngentoDarupskj~r,thenatudentmncepointsufthc~ord.
Darupskjaesis anabove-water rock situated close northward of the
northcrn end of the promontory at the western extremity of Sprgy.
This base-lincwas showfi onthe rgzq Oslo charts.
Befwee.rDt a~qbskjm aad Hmnebben.--Fm the arc centred on ,
Darupçkjrerthe outer fimit of territorial watersfcillomsthe arcs
çentredon the point west of Fuglen, 04 isfet';androcks lying close
offshore inthe approach to Sprvaer, and on Skjaaholm. Thence it
follows a line pardel to asid 4 miles seaward of a base-he joining
the heaamd eastof Skjaüholmto Hamebben, the naturai entrançe
points of Brevikfjord.
Sarq Szt4.-It iç coficeded that Norway has an histùricclah
to S~rw Sund as territoriawaters, but aot as intemal waters. It
is astrait formuig part of Indreleiaandfkieouta &mit of territorial
waters thereforeconformç to the rulesgoverning the limits off the
coast hes frorn both sides l.Tt is conceded howevm that dl the
waters inside the line joining Hamebben at the south-western
errtrernity of S171rand Syldmyling -en, the riorthernpoirztof the
island of Silden, are territorïai.
The limit foUowsthe arc centred on Haanebben nntil its inter-,
section with the territorial limof Sm@y Sund whch it foliows. On
a line pardel to and 4 mites sealvard of the bas-liae between
Lcfrsnesand Syldmylingen tlie limit of territoriatvatersproceeds
from its intersection~viththe tmit of'the sunduntil.its jwiction
with the arc çentred on Sylàrnylingen.
Betww~ Sy2dnzyti~age R& Brpy1àIm.-The outer limitof terri-
torialwaters continues as the arcs centred on Syldmylingen until
its Intersection withthat kom Wkjeberget, the northern point of
the island op Loppen, whicli it 'follo~Thence the Limitis forrned
by arcs frem the salient points on.thewest coasts of Lopperr and
"mer@ theexpressioismade thatthe Tiroftterritorwatersin#traitis
gnverpcdby the coastsitis th"tidpmark" ruletu ii-hich'referenmade. REPLT OF TEE UNI'CED ~NGDQM (28xr 50)
SECTION I3(durit.)
The pecksd blueIine (cont,)
For the description of the pecked blue line or the fishing limit
clairned by Nonuay between Points xg and zo seethat for chart
No. 4.
From seaward of Pubt 20,the oufer limitconhum as a line
4 miles seaward ofand pdel to abase-line# fizileImg jaining
Point 20 to Point 21, Vesterfallin Gaasan, a rock atsdçh abowt
8 nadesfrom theN~DYBS~abov&waie.~rockor islei, and dout Sij-miles
narth-west of Fuglgy md so outsideter~iliwi~tailzfi.1fie ma-
cep-ta'of .thGeoziermzefa# the Uded Xz~dm. This limifpasses
seawmd oJthe ap$roacbs tdthx foiiomimgSt~uCi:sSrnayu&, the
watm Betmee~Lo$$c~ a~d Am0y, a~d I;ugI0ys~=d, and fakm ute
accoufifof the atmrab Eimita#B~mikjjord, The maximz~mdisfu~~nce
BtrtweefiJBZsi~tialad thepeckedgreen Iifiiszvvlz milesamd t3ze~e.
isa positiunON itowr 19 males f~om thenemat lmd.
The lamitthen continues asahe 4miles seaward of andpadd
l to a base-line18 rniteslong joiningPoint zr: ta Point 22 (chart
No. 61, Saifai, a drying rock about 34 miles north-wst of the
nosthern end of the island of Kval~y and within z miles of the
nearest içlet off that point. The lima hwe passa as a straight
&te, semard of fdzemi~uwes to the struits Fivglq .Sveei anthe
waters bejwem Vanazerand Kwat'q. Ji$asses ata maximzkm rljstmce
of griz miEs$seawlc~dofihe #ecked greenIke and ike isa?osdion
ofi.ii11 milesjrom thenemesi Land. The pecked green Iirre(cent.}
Loppekdven, and by arcsfromrocks lyhg abottt r+ miles offthe
coast andnorthward of Brynnilen.
Waiers beiasm Bvymilen, ad A m0y. -These waters fom astrait
leadingto,and infactformpart of,IndreIeiamdassuch'xe nob '
intemal. nie oater Pimit of territoriwaters is thmefore go~resned .
by the coastson each side. This limit is formecl by f.arc from
Brynnilm on the east mcl on the west from the salient pointnear
Shta and on Arnmyboan, a drying rock abut z miles off Atm~g.
The limit thcn continues dong the arc centsed on ArnGyboan,
Fq$gby~~nd.-This is a strait leading to Inddeia andits waters
are therefms fiutinternai but territoria; the territoridlimif: is
governed by the coasts mi eachside.On theeast,the limitfibm the
western side ofthe arc cenhed on ArnoybaanfoIlowç arcs from the
sdient points on the nom coast ofArn~y, On the west, it is con-
bolled by arcs fmm Haakjerriagneet and salient points on the
north-east coastof Fugl~iy.
ATortheardoj FN~IB he oui.erierrit oriava telimiiisformed by
the arc centred onFughaykdven, anis1e.t.
F~~l0ySv~t is astrait betmeen Fuglpry andVann~y, lcading to
lndreyeia and assuch is mt infernalwaters. It ishted by an a+c
from Fuglrrrykalvenon the eastand onthe west by arcs from the
salient points oStore Çrimsholrn, anisletlying inthe strait ahut 3
22 milesoffVAnnary, and by an arc from the north point of Vannpry.
Nmirhwa~d of Valanaythe otitcr territor wiater lirnit is formed
by arcs from the northern point of Varinfiyand fmm the poir;t
about a mile westward.
The:watt~s BelmemVanwy and Kvataplforrna sbdt leading to
Indreieia md as such are ml interrial, the outer rimofterritorial
waters is governed by the coast and certain outlying rocks from
both sides.On the east the outer limit territoriawaters is ararc
centred onthe ~vestpoint at the north end ofVamfly. Thence it
follo~s ara centreclon bvo rocks sihiated 23 and 23miles off the
nortli-easiem end of Kvai~y. (Seechart No. 6.)
1 I
704 REPIX OP THE UNITED KINGDOM ((~XI 50) .
The pecked 'gteenline (cont.)
Wcictersast 03Kvahy .-(se for cliastNo. 5,)
No~dkwqd of K~nh y+% outer terriiotonalwater Iimlt follo~vs
the arc centred an the drying rock close eastward of Sollbaren
alidabout z& miles northward of Rvalw, and on thatcentred .
on Samifallet, a drying rock about 33 miles north-wed of the
ncirtherrend ofKval~y,
Waters befwem ITvwlq~ and Grsita2.-These waters faim a strait
leading to Indreleia and arc th~r~f~re mt internal waters ;the
territoriawater limitiisgovcrned by the ca3t;tson both sidcs.
On the east,the outer territorial water fimit follows thearcs
centred on Samifdet and on a d+ng rock about ri miles west
of the north-west point:of ICvdery.
On the west, the onter limîtfollows arcs centred on a drying
rock about I+ mils nriorthof Grat~y and on Bekkaren, anabove-
water rock nearly 3 miieç north-west of theislmd.
O$ ihewesttoast of Gratay,the oufer limit of territorial waters
follows the arcscentrd on Bekkaren, Ytre Fiskeboen, a drying
rock about43 miles weçt of Gratgy and about r mile from Kvit-
voer,andonKvitvoer, an above-tvaterrock about 44miles nosth-
west .ofGr~tay.
Getq Sd,-This is a strait teadingto Indrefeia and so L
nuilinternal waters, the outer limit follows arcs frmn tlrcoasts
and ouflying rocks onboth itçsides. It isforrneon the northern
side by the arcs fmm Kvitvoer and cinabov+water rock about
1% miles southmrd, and on its southen side by an arc fr~m
Kolbein, a rock about .r+ milesnoirth of Sm Fugl~~y,
08 thewest&oust ofRi6benesq. the atlter territoriwater bit 1
follaws the arcscentrd on Kolbein, Jnboan, a drying'rock about
. z miles west of Çgr Fugl~y, and a drying rock close west of
Biamkj~r, an above-water islet.
Kwlsu~d.-This isa straitleading to IndreIeiaand istherefore
flointernal waters. The territorial water limifs argoverned bv
the coastsof each side and the outlying drying rocks. The out&
territorial water limit is formeil by the arcs froSkogsfallan,a
drying rock r+ miles north-u~st of Treingan, and from the three.
above-water rocks about a mile north of Store Runda.
. 09 the west ~0~15ot Kvahy.-The outer Limit of territmial
waters is formed by arcs centred on the three above-water rocks
nqth of Store Rnnda, thence on an arc centred on a drying REPLY OF THE UNITED nNGD6M (28XI $0)
SECTION A {wmt.)
The p&ed green line[cont.)
rockl (Havboen,on Nonvegim chart 86) about z miles weçk-
south-t~estwrd of Store Runda, thence on an arc cmtred on a
drying rmk 1 (Eistebotaaga,on Norwcgixn chart 86) about 3g miles
muth-west ofStore Runda, thence on an arc centred on Dmgm,
an abcive-water rock situated about 42 miles çouth-suuth-west
of Store Runda,
From the arc centred an Dragan, the onter limit of tefritonal
waters follows 4 miles seaward of and lpaxallelto the base-line
joiaing an above-water rock about x# miles west-no&-west of
the northern part of Bjornq tû Skulbaren, an above-water rock.
(ThisIYie ispart af the base-lines clasing thefjords on the west
sideof ICvdny.)
Malange#.-This is a strait leadingto Tndreleia and itswaters
are %ofinternai. The outer limit of tehtonal waters is governed
by the outlylng rocks northward and southward of its enhance.
The outer territorial %vateslimit following the arc centred on
Skulbaren continues as a line paralle1to and 4 miles seaw~d
ofthe base-line joiuingSkwlbarenta Hundungan, an above-water
rock which forms part of,the base-lines clasing the fjordsin the
rvestcoas-t of Kvalty. The Limit then continues along the arc
centred on an above-water rock about J$' miles north-west of
Hekkingen,
Baltestadfjordand Bifiord.-The outer territorid water limit
north-westwazro tf these fjords continue6 from the arc centred
on the above-*ter rock 39 miles north-west of I-Xekkingendong
a line 4 mile ssawarrl ofand paralle1 to the base-line joining
this rockto Kjeila, the naturd western entrance point of0ifjord.
The outer kirni*of territorial waters thencontinues along the arc'
centred on Kjalva, a cape.
Mefjord.-The -riaturdentrance points of this fjord are Kjglva
and the point 5 miles soutli-rvestwardand were shown as çuch
on the 1924 Oslo'charts, The outer territorial\vaterliTnit follows
- the arc centred on Kjolva, thence dong a line 4 miles sealvard
of and parauel ta tlie base-line joining the entrancp eints of
the fjord.
Betwem M~fjnl and Maanesd, thewestern extreme of Senja.--
The outer territorw iaaer limit continues along the arc centred
on Alela, an above-water rock 29 miles off shore, thence dong
a Ihe pasalle1tciand 4 des seaward of a base-fine juinhg an
1Thcw marnesdo not appear onthecharts containeci in An35 andthe
referencfotheNorwegian charts isgiven c~nveniencc. ItEPLP OF THE UNITED TUKGDOM (28 50) 7O7
The pecked Hue Iine (cont.)
CH~T No. 6 (çoat.)
The outer lirnit thefoLIatvaline4 milesseaward ofand pafdel
to a base-he 13 milesEmg joining Point27 ta Point 28, thedry
skjzr north-north-eastofGlirnmen. Th Iima'; crcrassetsheouter
a$proach $0 Andfjord wJzichfo~msa sirait, Inzaximztm distam~
jrom the peckedgrem li~e zeihicIzcr~Jormstt~closifig laconceded
hy the Gaverwn& offh Uded Kiagdowz as fo~mifigthe terriimiat .
timZ.of historiwafem ig8 miles, T~HEis a Positia~on the Zimd
wheye 'Phdictame tathe mu~asiltlndis10 ~21es. ,
The outer limitthen continuesas a Ihe 4 milesseaward of and
parallelt'oa base-line3r/# milastongjuiininPoint 28 toPoint 29,
the n~rthernSvebae, a drying reef abour2 milescd hore. TheIimit
hcveh'esabout114mile outsidthefieckedgreer&irimhich is/for+~edy
the i~f~rs~clzgicscent~sdon Glimmen and on hini 29.
The limit continues as thearc with +mile maius centred on
Point 29,thence as aline 4 miles~nwardof and paralle?toa base-
line71/4rniles dong.joining thatpoint to Point 30,the western
Skreingan, an above-water rock. The mter limitis af the %wt
r/z mila seaward ofthe, peckedpetm Iine whikVtisfmtd by arcs
cemtredun of-lym TgUCKS. SECTION -4 (M.)
.The pecked green line (cont.) ,
above-waterrock abont 24 des south-westwardof thenorthern
aatural entrarice pointofBergsfjord to Tmllskjzer, anoth above-
water rwk. Thence the outer lirnit fùilows the arccentred on
Trollskjær and continues dong a line pataUei t~ and 4 miles
seaward of a base-lime joining that rock to Tgstneset. Thence
the outerlimit followsllrarcs centred onTeistneset and Maaneset,
two headlands.
Northwn a*- ioAdfio~ord.-Ttzis iç a strait Zeadingta
IridrelciaIt isconceded that Norway has a daim to thesewaters
as hiçtoricterritoriawaters but wotas intemd waters, the lirnit
being a linejoinîng Mameset to the northern point of And~iy.
(This limit war; agreed tu in 1925(Mezn., Vol. 1, p, 146.) The
outer limit of the eastern side foltolthe arccentred on Maaneset
and from a drying roclr abotrt a mile north-west of Holrnenvaer
light. Thence the outer Limit of territorialwaters follaws the
historic lirnit its intersectionwith the arc centred on Gliwwen,
the outemost abuve-water or drying rock about 22 miles nùrth-
north-enst of Andfly, The outer Pimit then follaws this arc.
The west coastof A&y.-The outer limit of territorial waters
foklowsithe arc centred on Glimrnen, thence the arcs centred on
Svebaan, a drying rock about 15 miles off shore, and on two
ofseveral above-mxter rocks aboutenI$tmiles off shore and 8 miles
south-tvestxvasd of Andenes, and thence along the arc centsed
on Skscingan. SECTION A (et&.)
Thepeckedgreen iine(cunt,)
The west CD& o! Aladv.-The outer lirnitciterritorial waters
between Andenes and Skreinganhas heen descnbed forchart No. 6.
The outer lirnicontinues almg the arc centredon Skreingan,
thence along the arcscentred on two drying rocks,18 and 2% miles
affshore bet.rveen Skreingarr and Skarvekhkken-
Enl~ance to Gavl/jord.-Gavlfjord isa strait and its waters are
therefore notinternat
The outer limit of territoriwaters, fdowing the general rules
for the tide mark oneach side of the fjord, continues along tarc
hcentred on a drying rock dose to Skarveklakken, thence on t~vo
racks situated4 miIqand $ mile off the westcoastofAnday on the
eastand or1Che wmt 'centre8on Rrakan, a~abov-e-water rockabout
2 des eaçtrnadof mesan, and On E'lesana smdl above-waterrock
about 2miles north of Anda.
Nmthwes$ sd~ of Lafigay.-The outer tmit orial water 3irnit
continuesalong the arc centreon Elesan, thencealong arcscentrkd
on an above-water rock about g"de south-wst of the islandof
,4nda and on Aamrnundskjzr, an islet. Thence on âtcs ceritredon
fwo isletç soiith-westward of Aammundskjar and on Fleskan, +
another Islet.
From the arc centred on Fleskan, the outer limitfollows aline
4miles seawardof and paralle1toa base-linejoininganabove-%ter
rock close north-westward of Nykmnd light to an islet about
12 miles west ofVottestad, thence along an uc cenhed on thjs
islet and paralle1 to and deç seawarclof the base-line jeining
this rock to the wuthernmost above-water ruck of the group
named Oddskjzr situated inthe western'mtrancei ofPrestfjord.
Thericethe outer territorial waterlimit folloivsthe arccentond
Rova,anabove-water rock aearly +mile north ofthe northerrcoast . .
ofSkogstiy.From thisarctheliinitcontinuesdong aline parael to
and 4 mites sealvarof a bbase-fijoiningtheheadland ivhich foms
the northern natural entrace point of Bflrgyfjordabout 4 de
northrvardof Vaajevika toanabove-water rock abont mile north
of Zmgskjaer.Thence the limit continues dong the arcçentredon
thisrock and then along theline4 milesxamd of and paralle1 to
the base-line joining throckto Flesa.The outer limit then conti- I
nues alongthe arcscentsed onFlésa, on Skarvbaren, theoutermost
islet north-tvestwardoFrugga, and on a dryhg rock (Plyte on
Nowegian chart 78) about.$mile south-westwardof Skarvbawln. I
Bdwem Mati~$fjurd ad Eidesjjrrvd,-The outer territorial ltmi
continues dong the arc centred on Plyten, thence dong an arc
referentomtheNorwegiachart igivenforconvemence.IAmex 35 and the REPLY OF THE UXITED KINGDOM (28 XI 50)
SECTIQN 33((cd.)
The pecked Mue Luie(cont.)
CRAR To. 7
'Thepeckedblue luie orfishinlimit ckimed'by Nomay seaward
of Points 28 to30 (thedry skja3rnorth-mrth-east of GIimcn to
Skrehgan) has been describeclfor chartNo. 6.
The outer Iimit from sealvardof Point 30 followsa line 4 miles
seaward of and pardlel to a base-line 16 112 miles longjouiirig
Point 30tu Point 31,thenorthcrn above~water rockof FF1eç3 ;iorth
of Langenes. Thfi lhnit Acrewossm at II.ncufeangjath ca.p#roacn
Gavlljovd,mhkh isa.rfaci astraitThe maxim'um,déstam~ fhatthe
Limitfiasssseaward ofthe@cked grem is4 314mihs and thersia
fiositioon it8 miles fvm t31.newed. nbove-mgterfealu~e.
Thc limit thenconthires dong thearcwitb 4miles radius centred
an Point 31 and then 4miles seaward of and parailelto the base-
line 16 ~/2 miles Longjoining this point to Point JZ,the north
point ~f Flesa inFloholm out sideSkogsar yFlesa ia above-water
rock .he Limiihm prissesebwi r x/z miles u~dsiitSa@cKedgreen
lime ~nd thtm is afiointon 't3f 1mila theltearesabotx-'lefater
rock, No aiçcoulais $kae~of themt~rd li~nitsof ail.Frrestjjmd or
Borqf jo~d.
"I'hhit then continuesasa line 4 milesmwardof and paralle1
to the base-line11.7 mZEesbng joining Point 32 to Point 33, the
'north point of the northern Floholm cnrtside Aasanfjord. This
. Floholm Xsan above-tvater rock in a mail group Iying about 22
miles off the toast, Th 1idt fiassesab a rnclxiwm~ distance O/
mady a miieseawu7co Zfth pecked grtxnrlkc wdzichisfwmed ?mg
by infmseding avcscant~ed on .rockslyhgofl theGO&. Thcrtru&
fmsiiions OH the NorzeiegiafiEimitover43/4 mdes f~om themuresi
above-wlcb fcr~tw~.No accmrtztis IAew of the ndfk~alIZmit~ of
3o.royJioror McrilmsJjo~d.
The limitthencontinues asthe arc with 4 miles radiucentredon
Point 33. brn this arc thlirnit mns asa line4 milessealvard of
and parallel to the base4ine 5314 miles to.lzjoining Point 33to
Point 34, Utfleskjzr,a srnall above-waterrock about 4 miles off
the southern end ofLmgoy. Thedinv't +mscs uia.r~axim.~cdistance
of amile jromthmpeeckeclgreeniina~d laear&5 ma'Ie/rom theaeeu~est
abotiewafwrock.
Thence the lrmit isnformedby a he ,# mils seaward of nnd
pardel to a base-line23 miles Eongjoining Point 3 to Point 35,
Kverna, a maIl pck probably above water on which is abeacon
tuwer neariy a mile off the nosth-western pointof Vest Vaagw.
Th8 limd kere passes ia aishaight Iine clcrosthe afipro~cheslio
Vesteraafjord, HadselfjordGimsqsk~mwa aad thewatevs betw~e~ 712 m.~ OFTI& UNITED KINGDOM (28XI 50)
SECTrON A (ctint.)
The pecked green lhe' (cent.)
centred an an islet situaied abuut ij mile off shore and about
rg miles south-wcst of Frugga (seeabove), almg an arc centred on
Fughykoen, anislet close ofishore. From thisarc theoutw limlt
fallows thearc centred on Floholman, the western ofa gmup of
above-tvater rocks about2+miles offshare. Thence theortterlimit
continues &longhe arcs centredorSkaréoh, anabove-water rock,
on Utflessk~r,a small above-waterrocko,n Krasen and Sydbrak-
skjj;edl above-wates rocks, .
- Afi$rauch to Vesteradsjod ad Hedselfjord.-Tkese waters
form the entmce toa strait(HadsclfjordSodandsund and Gavl- .
fjord)and to Gimaystrflmmen and Sundk'takskmrnen; they are
thereforemotintemal, the outer limit ofterritorial watersis govemed
furmed byasthenarcscentreclon Sydbrakskjar and nontthe south-is
western above-water rockof IClarvningérno,nthe easternside by
, the arccentredon Havboen, a drying sock situcrted abouI$ miles
from the islet of Store Ulvohalm an4f miles of€shore. The auter
territorial svater lirnit onthe south-easteisformed by anarc
çentred onanahove-mater rock situaicd close off shore anabolit
+ milenorthward of Laukvikon the nMh-western coastof0stvaagp.
The lirmt continueson the southem çidealong arcscentred on a -
drying rock situated about2;)miles north of the north wast of
Girnsay,on a drying rock close northward of Rovsflesa and about
$ mileenorth ofVeçt Vaaggy.nThenceatheouter Tirnifollowsa linêt
paralleto and 4 milesseawardofa base-line joinithe dryingrock
' closenorthvard ofthe northcrn point of the islandof'Sandp to
Hodskjzr, an above-water sock lying in the bight~westwardof
Sanaa.The lirnit continueas anarc ceritreon this rock andthen
pardel to and 4 miles~award of a hase-lkejoining Honskjaerto
Kverna, a slnall rock probably &bavewater,
West cotzstofVmt Vaagv.-The outerterritariawater lirncon-
tinues along the arc çentredon ICvwna and thence dong the arc
centred ona dryhg rockabout i$mile offshoreand $ mile westof .
Egpm. Thence it continues along the arcs centred the coastat
Kleivhe iihthouse and the headlandabout+ mile souh-westward.
Na#str~mman isa strâifeading tathe hiçtoric t~rritorwaters
of Vestfjord anso to Indreleiand isther~forrtatinternawaters.
The outer territori{vate Jmit is governecby the coastson each .
sideand by autlying rocksinthe approach. SECTION S (eonl.]
The pecked blue line (cent.)
Ginwsand Vesd Vairagsy.hese are sh.ails. Thelimit+asses12 I/P .
mites seaward of the pecked Iiw a& thms 'GSa @sitiow 0% PEt
ror/z miles from thenear~çtabove-wat~ fedur8. No accozantistakew
of thenat~ral tirnitofdheinld eastofEggzcw,
. The limit thence continues as a bine 4dos seawtud of and
paralle1to a basvlhe 1-rJz 13tzllolzgjoiningPoLn,3t5to Point36
(çhartNo.81,the northeni dry skj~r atSkarvholm,whichisamall
abovewater rock on a bank about 39 miles west of Flakstad@.
This limitcïossésthe~#firoackfoNupsh~irnwmz ~ sfmit leadiq lo
VestfjrirdtamiInd~eIka, it passesr 3J4miles semird ofthe @chd
gree.lli~ead thmeisa @siti07a on$8over,5xl2miks /rom td~ltcarest
land a7 abov~wai~ fedztre. SECTION A (cadi.)
The pecked green line (cont.)
From the arc cmtsed on thc beadiand about 4 mile south-west-
ward of K.ieivheia Jighthouse the outer territorialwater limit
mntinuesaIongthe arccentredon adwingrockabout $ mitenorth-
~vxd of the lighthouçe an ~acsholm~rne, a group of kletsin the
approach to the strait,thence on the arcs centred on fwo above-
tvaterrocks named MyAandsfleserieabout r+ miles northward of
the northern point of li'lakstadg.
The outer 1imitthence continues w&ward. The pecked green Iine (cont.)
Ros~ysk~t~wten between Flakstadg and Moska~s@y,is a strait
leading to the historiçterritorial waters of VesEfjorcland to Indre-
leia, its waters are therefos%& interna],the outerlirnitof territo-
rial waters is governedhy arcs from outlS;ingrocksIn itsapproacl~.
The outer territorialrvater Iimit follows the arcs centre04 the
two above-waier rocks nameà Mytlandsflesene about I+ miles
northward of the n~rthcrn point of Flakstada, thence along the .
arcs centred on -the northernmost srnall above-water rock of
Skarvholm and on.the ~vestemmustof these rocks. thence afong
the arc centred on Strandflesa, an above- vate e rsck or islet.
West coast ofMoskenm0y,-The outer territ orid hmit continues
hg the arc centred on Strandflesathence along an arc çentred 04
KvalWkboerne, a drying rock about $ mile offshore, thencealmg
an arc cintred an the tvestern extrernity ofHorseidmulen, the
promontory west of Hurseid.The auter limit then continues along
the arcs centred on the isId at Skjelvsteirien,an the headlaz-id
abbut zQ milessowthwardof this &let,on Remarisdalflwa, an isleit
close off shore,on the outcrrnosk drying rock ofStokvckflesa, and
on Stmpen, an içlet aboutr 4 milesoff shore and about z8 miles
north-west of Lofottodden.
Wders bstwee~Lotolodden ad T/ac~~y.- Tkse waters fom a
strait leadingto the historicterritorial waters oVestfjord ad so
to Indreleia ;tbey are therefore mt internaiwa'cersand the outer
limits oftedonal waters are governec iy arcs from the Coastand
outlying rocks on both sides.
The outer territorial water limit follotvsthe arcs centred m
Sbmpen (seeabove), on Nordholm andon Smholm, an idet close
south~vasds.
The limit thencontinues ori arcs centmi onthe western Skiten-
skarvholmene l (Nomegian chart 71) )n abovezwater rock about
a mile northzwést ofMosken, on the westernSkarvhaEmene about
2 miles south-west of Maskeq, and on Flesa, an above-water sock
nearly 2 miles north-west of "iraeray.
Rmthauet, the waters behveen Vaerray and Rad, forms a straita
leading to the hlstoric terrîtoridwaters of Vestfjord and so ta
IndreIeia,they are thereforesot intenialand the territosidfimitis
governed by the toast and outlying rocksonhuth siclcç. This strait
iç more than 8 miles wide and the Govemuren.t of the United
Ringdom concedes tirecloçing line for the limit of ,the historie
Thcse names do noappcarou the cli-acmitaiileIn hnex jjand We
+derencctothe Norwegan chart igivenfor~finveniciice. SECTION B (canf.)
The pechd bltte line (cont,)
CHAR To. 8
'he pecked blue line or frshinglirnçlaimed by Norçvay seaward
of Point35 (chartNo. 7)and Point 36has been deshibed above for
chart No. 7.
Seaward of Point.36the onter litsiit f~llowsthe arc with 4 des
=dius centred on that point and then 4 des seaward of and
paralid to a basdine 3 cableslo~gjoining tllat point to Poin37,
the rvest:point of the western Skarvholm, an above-waler rack
situated abut 4 mileswtst of the northern end ofFlakstada, The
limd here doseiy a$#raximates ta the $ccked green linc which is
formed by arcsof4 milpsrada'iced~edon Points 36 n~d37.
From the arc centredon Point 37 the limlt continue^as a Iin e
miles seaward ofand paraile1 taa base-line2314maies longjoining
Point 37 to Point 38,the ivestpointof Strandflesa,anabove-water
isletor rock about 2miles off the no&-western point of Moske-
Yiesq. The bimd hem Ipascs Less tkn 112 mideseama~d oJ theflecked
gwen Jhe &hidi. formedbyarcs vj 4 n~iEesradiicentredon those
poids, bztfcvosse ~FZa sfmighilise lhea#$ronch toXosqtstmumen,
the straz'ihetwtienFiahiad0a.ttMoske~tes~~y.
Seaward ofPoint 38 the lirnit is the arc omilesradiuscentred
ontliai point, the limitbence mns 4 milesseawatd of and parailel
to the base-linergx/z miLesIoagjoiningPoint 38 tuPoint 39,Nord-
boe, a mck ~zw4shnearly 28 milesofi the western coast ofMoske-
new y. J'k Iimif#asses gt n m~ximum distmce of2 r/g milesfrom
the @ckedgree nim and atdistuatcevaryi?tig~iwem 5md 5 r/2wilts
IYOW 47ayka&.
Thc limittkn. continues dongthe arcof 4 miles radiuscentred
on Point 39,then as a line4 mdes seaward of and paralle]to the
base-line15.2 miles Jongjainingthis point to Point 40, Flesa, an
above-water rack izearlyz des north-rvestof Vaerq, Th.is Iimit
wussts as R skraighrjil~Cheafi@acdz to MosRmsbraum,ertt,he simit
bdwem Lofatodde~~ and Vuw~ly.It fiasseab a maxi~~wmdisturace O/
ovm 2x12 wdcs from the@chd yeea Iigaand there.iafiointosiit
6 112milesfram jhe9zearai laadavabme-wuter fedwe.
Thence the limicontinues asaline 4 milesseaward ofandparal-
le1to abase-lhe r6rJ4 miles Zmgjoiningpoint 40to Point41,Hom-
buen, a drying rock about 3 cablcs north of Skasvholm at Rgçt.
The limit herc crossein a straight line the approach to Kvsthavet,
a strait,Ifs muximwmdistrccrcé from th $ecked greem Zincwkich
hm closesfhe h#sforicikw-iioral aferxofVestjjord Bsr/4milesand
thereisa +oilfon $hgozcliEiwa'i44 milesj7m the.~~~GIYlad, SECTION k (mi.)
Thepeckeed green Iiae (cont.)
CT~AR NTo, 8 (canb,)
territorid watersofVestfjord as a line joining ElsneçetL (Nor-
wegian chart 7r),the western extremity of Vaeroy, to Storefesa=
(Norwegian chart 703, an above-tvaterrock about a mile iiodh-
east ofthe easéern extreme of Roçt~y.
The outer ferritoridwater limft foll~ws th arcs cmtred on
Flesa north-west of Vaex~y, on Elsneset, the western point of
Vaeray, on Kopskj a~r1 (Norwegian chart 7x), an above-\vater
rock situated about + mile 5011thof Elsneset, and on ICalkn, an
above-water rockabout 14 milessouth ofVaer~y, tothe Intersection
of the last arcwiththe closinlinemenlioned above of the bistoric
waters of Vesffjord.
The limit continus dong this liaetoits intersectionryiththe
arc cenhed an StoreffesaofîRost, thrace dong this arc,
OutsidsRsst, theterritorimater bit conti~iuesas aschcentred
on Store Flesa,on LilleFlesa, an above-waterrockclose westwxd,
an Cheouter above-water rock of Natvikskjgm (Nwrwegian
chart 70} nearly + mile north of R@st@yo , n Hornbeen, a drying
rock about a mile north-west of Rgstay and about .3 cablesfrom
the nearestislet of Skarvholman. Thence theouter limit continues
as arcscentred onTarbaen, asmd drying rock about z$miles ufest
of Rostray and about + mile from Svarv~y, an islet, on Nordre
Skjortbaken, a srnaldrying rock-about 2 mileswest-nortli-westof
the islandnamed Storfje1,on Havhwn, asmall d~yingrock about
1% milesnorthlwest of Skornvaer, on Veçtskjerholm,an islet $ mile
west of Skornvner,and on Flesjan, an abovewater rock 2 mile
south-ivest of Skornvaer.
Vest#jord.-The ,matersof Veçtfjord are concxdedby theGovern-
ment of the .United Kingdom as historic territortvate~sbut iwvt
as intemal, the outer territonal water iimit being a linjoining
Skomvaer lighthousetu KaIslzolmen lighthousc at Temholmesne
(chart 9).This limitwas agrced to inr925(Manorial,Vol.1,p. 146.)
The outer lirnion the tvesternside foltowthe ascs centred on
EJesjan, on BdIen, an above-water rock about -2mile south-
eastward of, Skornvaer, 04 Kolb2inSkj~r, an above-water rock
about I$miles east-south-e& of Skomvaer, and on Oddskj~r,an
above-water rock about r; miles east of Skornvaer.
The outer Lunit then follows ththeIine mentioned aboveacross
the enfrance to the fjurd.
For a description o-thesouth-eastern end of fhisluil antd its
continuation southward seefor chart-No. 9.
1 These names da noappew on the chmicontainad in Ann35 and the
rcferenmtothcN~rwcgian char& is gifor convcnience. The pecked blue line (co'tlt.]
From the arc of 4 miles radins cmtred on Point gr the Iimit
continues dong a lhc 4 miles seaward ofand @railel tothe base-
,Liner 114 miles longjoining this point to Poin42,a small drghg
rock about z$ rnilcs mmt of Rgstay and about4mile from Svarvgy,
the nearesf: islet. The limit hform a closea$$roxiwation tothe
ptxkedgreen I%newhick isforwtedby4-miLearcs cewtr~dm .Pointdx
md 42.
The Limit therice continueas the arc of 4 miles,radiu csntrcd
onPoht 42 md then as a line 4miles seaward of and pardel to
a baseline JI/Z miks Jungjoining thispoint to Point 43, North
Skjortbakeri,a smdi above-\vater or drying rock about 2 miles
tvest-north-westward of the islancl of Storfjell, The Eiistut a
maxim6m disfafice,oIJZ mile#rom thepeckedg~em lizp:and abod
4 r/g%alesf~am dftenear~d above-wakrJed~re.
The limitis then fomed by the arcof 4 m&s radius centred on
Point 43,thenceas a line4 milesseaward of and paralle1 toa barn-
line3r/4 milesbrtg joining Point 4to Point44, Havben, asmall
drying rockabout I$miles west of Hemyken, an isletabout 3 mile
north of Skornvaer. The Eimit +assesaf ckntaxim~m dasfaaceof
r/z mile /rma fb pecbd gree8,lhe ad tkem is a$oi.~eOH itab&
4 112wtites#romfhefiewesf aboue-wah~jeaturc.
The limit thencecontinues as anarc with 4 miles radius çentred
on Point 44 and theri asa line 4 miles seamrd of and pardel to
the base-linr 3Jqmihs longjohing this point tPoint 45,F1csjan,
a srnaIlabove-watcr rock about mile south-west of the isIet of
Skomvaer. Th Lemith~re a$firoximtes te th Pe~kedFeen Ezae
whi~h isJomedby wcs cevi~edom Poznts+q and 45.
l'he limit thence: continues across the watm forming the
approach tçi Vestfjord ahng aPine 4 miles seawasd of ad paral-
le1to a base-line 40 milelong joining Point4j to Poht 46 (chart
XO, g), thewest pointof thewestern BremhoIm atMyken.
;Poi~46t7:scofisidewdtobe 200fur soakt10 form the nat~tzgal -
g~aphicd sotdihm entvance O#the-Grestfjor.he Government
of the United figdom concedesthat thehistoricterritoriawaters
of this fjord are enclosed by a line jobhg Skomvaer lighthvnson
the north teKalsholmen lighthouseat Tennl-iolmerne(chart No, g)
on the south.
The pecked Bl'wlim fiassesuta maximmm disstarnoe13 314mies
seaward qi the:peckedgrem Zi~e and th8p.isa fiointm ifabolit;
zo miLes frumih.eaearesfla~d w above-wafw Jmfzfre. REPLY OPTHE UNlTED KTNGDOM (28XI 50)
720
SECTION A (&mat.)
'The pecked green line(cent.)
The outer limit territoriawaters followsthe line joining Skom-
vaer lighthouse (chart No, 8) to Kaisholrnen lighthouse inTenn- '
hoherne, which is the limit conceded on historic punds by the
Governrnent lothe United Kingdom as the territariawater limit
of Vestfjord.
Frorn the intersection ofWs lke with the arc çentred on an.
isletabont a mile north-west ofKalsholrnen lighthouse the bit
follows thisarc, thence along the nzc centred on an islet about
+ mile west ofthe lighthause.
TemnhJmfjo~d and Vdvaerfjo~d, - île entrante ta these fjords
-lies between Tennholmerne and Valvaer, two groups ofislandsand
.rocks,and forrnsastrait leading to Indrdeia. Thwatersare there-
fore motinterna1 andthe territoriawater limit isgovcrnedby the
caasts and oiitiying rocks from eachside,The linutfollotving the
arccentred onthe islet about $milewestof Ralçhohea lighthouse
continues almg the arc centred an - above-water rock dose
northtvard ofMohalm, thence dong the arcscentred onthenorthen
above-water rock of Langbraken and on Orsbraktn, an islet.
Narfh-weslwnsidg ofV~cEvae and ..Wyken. From the arc ccntrd
on Orsbraken the tirnit follows arcs centred on the islet about
!, mile north-eaçtward a£ Flesa,on Flesa, on anabove-water rock
dose north-westivard of Kn~kjen, on Skjervobrierne,adrying rmk
about ymile westward of the islet namedKnakjen,and on an islet
+ mile north,ofMvall-iolm-
Lyngvuer and ZTmfjard.-llïe entrance to these fjords lies
between Mykenand Trznen, two groups of islets androcks, and
fcirmsa strait leading to Indrdeia, The waters are thtrefore flot
intemal and thc territorial water limiisgoverned by the coasts
and outlying rocks 'from both sids of the cntrance, The limit
fmm the arc cmtred onthe isEet $mile riortlO£Kvaiholm continues
as arcs centred on the western Bremholm, an islet, on an above-
water rock nearly amile soutbward of Brernholm and on the north-
western islet oIndmyken, Thence the limifollowsthe arc centred
on Store Hongskjar, an isletat the northernend of Trmen.
Wesi sidsoj Trm9t.-From the arc centredon Store Hongskjm
the limit continu- as arcs centrecan Lille Havsula, an islet, on
thenorthern, mi the ~vestcm and on the southm islets of the
Frfiholmt~nc grot~~ in Trænen. Thme the limit foIlows the arcs
centred on the norfh-western islet of the Sannavxr poup, on a
drying rock close south-westward of that isEet, thence dong the
arc centrd on an above-\vater rock about ;1,mile north-easf of
Bavarden and on Bavarden, an islet near the south-western end
of T~rIen,
B~rvardenisattheendoftheareadalhitedbythe~g~~Decree. . SECTIOhr B (COHZ,)
The ptsckedMue fine (çont.)
CHART No. g
I
The peckd ble fineor fiskinglimit-claimed by'hïurway&osses
the waters foming the approacli th Vcstfjord dong a Zine4 miles
seaward of and paraiiel to the hase~linejoiningPoints 45 azid.46
as described for chart No. 5.
From seaward of Point46, the limit continues asa line4 miles
sealvard of and par,dielfa the base-line24.8 wiksbng jeining
that point to Point 47] the w& point of the western FrahoIm,
a srnall isIet the hnen group, This llimimassa the a##roac?z
to ih simit fomfii~gthe extraficeof Lynguaer/?ord uad Trwnjjard
asa shaight li.neifs mraxiip*l~dhcta+tcfrvm the $ecked $rem Ziw
as mer 3 miles awd khereis a.pointen it5 $4.milesfrom'thenanresir
cboue-mair fsatwe.
Seaivard of Point 47 the outer lirnitcontinues as an arc of
4 miles radiuscentredlon that point and thence a a fine 4 miles
seaward of and paralle1 to the base-line 7 miLeslong joining
Point 47 tciPoint 48, the West side of Bervarden, an isletnear
the south-western end ofthe Trznen pup. This point Is the
lastof thosc of the 1935 Decree. The Zimd pass~x ut a ~nwxirnu~
dMtag%c e f 314miie f~um the peced greeRJim and -Ilmeisa point
ornCi!q33/4?niLefrom thenemcst abvue-wuter fefeatuw. Claimsfor damages
(Counter-Memonal, para, 5777)
5x6. At the very end ofparagraph 577 ofthe Couter-Rlemorial,
Nonvay seserves the right to presento the Court ai theappropriate
time a daim for damages for theinjury which Norwayhas suffered
by reeen ofthe refusa1 of the United Kingclom to recognke l-ier
sovereignty over the waters ~ndosed by the 1935 Decree, Namay
reserve shesight toput:fornard this claim for damages no doubt
only inthe event d the Court.holding that Norway ha3 sovereignty
over the ma enclosed by the 1935Decree. This hypotheticd
Norwegian claimimrxst be based on the contentions :
(fi)that the United Kingdam committed some international
delinquency in nul at once recognizing a Norweaan daim
tciareas over the sea which has been fonnd by the Court
to be legitimate;
(b)that this refusacauseddamage to Normaybecause,if the
United Kingdom had al once recagnlzed the Norwegian
claim, British fishing vessels would not have gone into
waters covered bythe decree in order to fish ther; whereas
la fâct they have gone into those waters in the casesmen-
tioned in Part III ofthe United Tlingdom Mernosid because
the United Kingdom did not recogniz tee validity of the
1935 Decree.
The hyputhetiwl clairn is an extremely ilove1 one, but ittvodd
he for the Nomegian Govtirnmelit to support it on the basis of
aufhority artd principle, andfor the United ICringdarnto answer
if Nonuay succeeded in making a firima Jaciecase. A further
question would aise, nameIy, ivhtther itcadd be established
that the damage hTomay alleges~esuited fmm the r&sd of the
United Kingdom Goverment to reçogaize the decree, It is,
however, for Noway to make a fuie case as regardsthe
law andtodischarge the bixrden of proof resfingon he~ asregards
the facts (includiagthe damagewhichshe aiiegesshe has mffered)
and for the United Kingdom to answer when this has been done.
5x7. The foliotvingarmst ofa British vesse1mus+ nu~vbe added
to the Iist already giveinpmgraphs 146 to 155 ofthe Mernorial : Ttmrasi.-This ship was mesCd 7 des to the westwwd of
Nordkyn (in East Finnmark) on 4th Februq, rgçb, by the
Norwegian gunboat Adew in a position agreed by the Nor-
wegian aiuthoritiesas 71' IO'48" N., 27" 20' E. This positioniç
r' miles within the decreeIlne(between base-points XI and 12 ;
the interval betwem these points is 39 miles), but isz miles
outsidethe red line.
The ship was taken to Ramnierfest and a daim was made and
upheld against her skipper for Ig,noo kroner for illegaifishing
.and zo,oao huner for part confiscafioof value of catch gear
and vessel.
Cmts ta the value of 200 krones werc also awarded against
hlm.Al1 thesesumshave been paid,but ariappeal tathe Suprerne
Court haç been lodged againstthis conviction.
The United Kingdom Government daims the ful!eçt cornperi-
sationinrespectof this Vessas,perparagaph 156 ofthe Mernorial.
Agent for the Government of
the United Kingdom.
28th November,1950, PART IV
List ofamexes
X
Glossary of name of fisb,
Ch& illuskathg migrations of wd.
Table shrwvinglandings ofmd, 1935-rg38.
Chart showing frshstoch unddshed in1949.
Article on"The Arcto-NowegianStock of CO# by M. Gunnar
Rollefxn,
Extrach.fmm the reportof,the h'orwegian FisheryCornmittee
setup in 1947.
Agreement betweetnhe Govesnrnent ofthe United Kingdom and
theNorwegian Governiment regardhg dauns inrespcctofdamage
tofishing gear (19343.
Extract from Fuiton, "The Sovercignty of theÇea".
M. Nansen's translationof Dr. Mtad's opinion in the ,
DewtschJad me.
Table shoivingareasof arres tsd warnings of British vmels.
Note made of convemtions between Sir Edward Grey and
M. Irgms.
No. 1.-Telegram from Foreign Officeta Mr. Donner,
Ko. 2.-Report by Mr.Damer,
Na. 3.-MT. Collier'sminate xecording ththeconversations of
28th Çeptember,1935 .
No. 4,-Extract from despatclofSirG, tViag5eld oz1s.Decem-
ber, 1933.
~hartssnbmitted by G-avernment of 'Unitcd Kingdom ~hshowing
blne and green,lines.
Protest by United Kingdom Government against Honduras
Constitutioof 1936.
Notes ofBritish, Frenchand Germari Govemments,concemQ
the300-milesrnuri@ zone ofthe American republlcs,1939.
Protestby United ICingdom Govemment against Dedaration by
the Presidentof Pem'of 1stAugust, rg47,
Angla-VenenrelanTreaty of 1942.
Pthe SresidenofeChile,of ~3rdJune, 1947.t Dedaration by
InternationalNorth-Uest Atlanlic FisheriesCoavention, rgqg.
&scription of the ms ofcircleme#& ofdelimithg territorial
waters.
Opinion of 31,L~fgrenon the statas ofLaholm Bay (193).
Opinionof Law Officers(1875 )oncerning Great Bmier Red.
Letter from the:Under-Secretai'pof State for theColonies tn
S. Co'ceEsq,, ~836. ,LIST OF?AmXTiS y25
I
, AWMX
• 46. Correspondence between the Goveraorof British Honduras and
'the Secretqry of State for the Colonies, 1932-T933.
47. BritishHonduras, Alteration of Boundaries Oder inCouncil,
r950.
48. Chart of Bermuda Islands,
49. No. 1.-Letter explainingthe judwent of SirSamuel Evans in
the Eokkm case.
No. 2.- Judpen t of Sir Samuel Evans In the LoIGket tase. PART V
Annexes
GLOSSARY OF NAhI_ES;OFFTSHESAND MARINEANIMALS
MENTIQNEDIN THE NORTWGIANCOWNTER-MXMORIAL
F~rnh. Ldim
Gadidés Gadidar
Cabillaud Gadus callaias Cod
Aievin Codling
Colin ar linoir Gadùs ;Gens Saithe orcoakh
ggl-refin Gadus ~glef~nus Haddock
Sébasteaom&gii Sebastes marinils Nonvay haddock
FlCtan Hippglossus vdgaris Haiibut
Pliefranche Pleuronectespltesca Plaice
Hareng Clnpealiarenps Rersing
Maqrreredu Scomber smmbrus Mackerel
Phoque Seal
Baleine Baleenwhale
Cachait Sprm whale
Amex 24
CHART ILLUÇTRATJNG MIGRATIONS OF COD
[Nd r@radW '
COMPAHTSOM OF THE QUANTiTIES IN METRICTONS
(000's0MIT"JXD)OF
(a)ARCTIC COD AND
(b)TOTAL DEMESAL FZSHArea 1 = Barents md Murman coast.
Area II A = Nonvegim coast.
Area II a = Eear Island and Spitzbergen,
Asma: 27
THE ARCTO-NORWEGIANSTOCK OF COD
Experienceofthe effectsof two periodsof reducedkhkg iathe North
Sea ni&es it ofinteresttoinvestigate wl~etbersimiJar effecapply to
stocks of fisin other segions,
Duwig the first World War the toUtaken ofcod inthe notthern and
kchc waters was not reduced sornuch asduring tlie recenmar. During
the inter-warperioda number of nationshad clevelopedfairlylargefleets
oftrawlm which fishedinthese remofe watess,ltwas espcially during
the ten yearsimmertiatelypriortu the late war that large-scaletrading
was carriedout in addition tothefishingwith othw par. Ail 6çhing in
thc Barents Sea ceaseclon the outbreakof war. A period ofprotection
bega.
Exwriençe has shown that the catchcurve of theN~rwe~ian Lofoten
fiske rnyy serveas aguide to theevaluation ofthe ~u&u%ions ofthe
Arcto-Norwegianstock of cod, A glance at the course of this curve1
would appeat to show trace sf the effects of pmtectlon.
During the war yean there is faIlin thc curve whichmight be taken
as the after-&ects ofan ewlier severetaxation ofthe yomger hh.On
the nther hand we hd in 1946194 a7rise\&ch might be taken as tbe
effects of protectiduring the prmding yca15, A closei analysis, how-
evlt iç well luimm that the Nomegîan md fisheryhas always displayed
very strong ftiictuations, and the invwigatianof recent yearsuggest
that at least thredifferentcausesof these Auduations may be distin-
gi~ished.FVefind that annual fluctnations may be rekatedto metereo-
logicaland hydrographiçalconditions during the actuai fishingseasop,
and flnctuations o3-5 yedrs' durationcm be traced bxk to thesizeof
definite year-classewhile fluctuations ofaboutza years'duration are
yrobably ciue to the fact that the stock shrinks or expands over an
extended period.
Before atternptingto asseçsany eflect of the redticed.fishiin the
war years itis necessa toypoint out that the Arcto-Norwegian stock
d cod Ilasbeen pming througli a very ricl-period during the past72s ANNEXES TO BRITISH REPLY (wo,27)
25 years, and &at the stock.as a rvkiole,despitan hmea~ed fishe~,
semecita be on the Lncreasebefore the war.For, sirnultaneouslywith
the inçreasing fishuig intensity andbicreasingcatch,the frsh showed,
on tliewliole,anincreased individualsize.
FVerniistalso tealize, however, ththe stock in former perîodwith
a much smaller fishinintensityrepeatedlyseemsto have declinedheavily
in the courseof a few years, and remain smdi fora prolonged pend,
anly to rise again suddenlyIt is obviousthnt itiç no easy taskunder
such conditions to demonstrate the connection tietween the intensity
ofthe fisllerand thesize ofthe stock ,s has ben donein the case of
the Nortli Sea stocks of fish.
The Arcto-Norwegianstock of cod in some respects, however.repre-
setitsan ideal field for investigatioasthe long spawnirigmigratrm,
tvtiicseparatesthe sexuaiiymature stock wcb year fromthe immature,
rnakes possible thestudy of the mature md immature components in
a pure state.Tius has facilitated thunderstanding of many problem
which rvould ailiemise Jiaveproved difficdt.
It appearç that while immature the Arcto-Norvvegias ntock of cod
doeç not extend beyond the Barents Sea region. The most important
fishing in our tirne inthese waterby traivlers.Practicallyaoccurrhg
age-groups,thmefore, arenow subjecfedto increasedfising,in ço~tsast
to former times wben the fishinwas byhook or line only.
We rnust assume, hawevet, that the tmlesç in theis own interest,
principally work the olderage-pups of IV and upwards,
The sexually mature stock, wliich mixes with theimmature during
the feedingseason isçlea~lyalsosubjected tofishg in theBarents Sea
fsam May +oQctobes. However, the main fishinof the mature stock
takes place dnringitsspawnhg migration to the Norwegian coastfrom
Novmber to April.
Wlim war broke m'c the two good yw-classes of n ag and 1930)
were the chief components of thespawning shodç l,an2 rhey setth&
mark 04 theLofoten fishingofrg3g and1940 and considerablyincseaed
the catch. It must be takca into considerationthat these two classes,
both as immature cod "lodde torsk"in the Barents Sta,and assexually
mature cod, "sktei", onthe Norwegian coast, had borne the brunt of ,
the intensifiedfishininthe years 19j t0 1940 . evertheles,ihey ivere
able,despite the heavicr taxationto form a marked peak in the catch
curve of theLofoten fishery.TIUS,too, snggeststllat the costock had
considerable powers ofresistancedusing these years.
When the tmroclassesehhd ont, the Lofoten catch curve dmppd
correspondingly, remaining throughotzt the war years at an average
level.From 1946 onw~rt-dç ,otvever,there was a sharp incrwc, with
a record catch in 1947; thisinuease wx due to n &gk, very strong
year-class,thatof 1937 .tis out of thequestion that this class which
is severaltimes larger tlian the daçses from tadjacent pas, should
alone havebenefitedfrom the protection itheBarents Sea,Itsexistence,
and with it theinçreasein the Lofoten fishery, must have othercauses
than a rednced fishinintensity.
Inmy vierv, fromthis materid we cannot demonstrate any effect
anthe stock [rom incrcased fishinbefottehe ivx; al& it cannot be
Laformatioabout the agedistributiofthe st~nally mature stock in the
pwm and\varycars ii@vanin AnfialeibidogiglreVok, 1anclII. ANNEXES TO BRITZSB REPLI* (PO, 28)
729
derhohstratedthat the rebtncefiçhing duringthe \varhad afly &tl.
But this is not, in rny opinion, any means acornforthg statmerit.
It ismy view that the pralifiperiodwbich the Arcto-Nomegian stock
of cod has enjoyed cluingttiepast 25 years mn be succeeded atany
the by a less prolifperiod, perhaps ofthe same duration. We know
that inthe imrnediatepre-waryearç about 800,oootons ofthiscod was
f~hed. 'Vcrenow that requirementswillgreatly increasein the course
of a few years, perhapto ~,zoo,oootons, perhaps more. It is aopen
questionhow a redticestock rvillbehavein the facesuchrequirements.
EXTMCTS PROM TE REPORT OP THE NORWEGIAN
FISKERY COMMITTEE SET UP IN .x947
Titleofcomm'tlce
The cornm ttee appointedto reportupon the qestiqn of rationaliza-
tionof the fishinand fish-prwessingindustries,
ARqolitconcerningan ameqdrnentaf the Act of~7th'March ,939,
regarding trawling and a SMen~elet concerningthe sitnakion of
the Nonvegian fishtng fleand itsfuturecfcvelopment.
bri Ceornmittee'sreport was dated Bergen, 18th Janu;try-5th
Fe ruary,1949.)
"The chiefreason for thecorrumitteebeinga p&nted was that the
question of trawling becme urgent and topim Paitesthe war. There
the f0regrowdlinapubliç discussion aftfhehmir as thettawling qries-
tion and thecemittee has, aftm further negotiations,agreed that .
the question of amending the law concerningtrawlingasoonas possible
ought to be put beforc tlStotting.The committr~cdl, thereforegive
a specid rgort iaieral7;aconcerning this question, "
"'IV.-The hfl~ence ofbaz~i1imgon ihestockq!Jish
"lil'henth0question of trawlinwascliçcusse deiorethe \varoneof
the argpments .against it whichwas moçt intheforegound {vasthe
contentionthat trawling destroyed the stockoffi~h."
........................
iLatcrinvestigatioindicataslighdecrease inthe~nortalikyrate diiring thc
waf years, 1Whenthe questionof tmw1ing was discmsed inthe rqgo", Nonvegian
de*-SEL sesearc hontende hat it could not be prived 8at human
activity np to therihad had any influence on the grmt changes in the
, amount of the stock of fisand Norwegian deep-searesearch also to-day
contends tht it cannot be provedthat trawling up to now has Eiadangr
influence mrth mentiming inthis respect,
"When we remember tliat onlg after 1930 was foreigntrading ofany
major importance in the areafor the Nonvegiau Arctic cod-stock, itis
obvious that trawling cannot he an instrumental reasof nor the poor
pend whc11 we had inthe yean 1900-rgzg,hnd wl-lenwe know that
after Igz5, and especidy from 1930 oi~wads, there took plact an
enornons expsion of foreign tmwling on the Norwegian Arctic cod-
stock at the same time as tveourseIveswith our iishmg+znrhad a very
rich period so far as the sesult othe fisliingisconcemecl from 1925 ta
1947 the actualffactsew togive the best faundation fortheacceptance
of thestatement ofthe dccp-sea research that trawling up tilI nowh
had no influenceworth rnentioning on the cd-stoçk."
"Therehas nsver been any apprehentionas tothe North Sea hing
fished out."
m.. . . . " . i I . . i " i . I m .. .. I
"VI1 7S~mlnary of Chaflm 1-YI
"It canna! be proved that trawlirigup tilInww has had any influence
on thepeat chariga in the quarikityot'hecod-stock.lirenlust, howevk
.tdce into acconnt the fact thaian extendcd internationaltrawl-fishing,
in aperiod when the stock offishfor naturd reasunsis srnd, çan have
influence on the Nonvegïan coast-fisheries.Thisiçone of the i-eaçons
why it isnecessary to some extent to remange the Narwegian fisheries
so that we will he lessdependent on the coast-Meries.
"Seen In relation to the very large trawl-fk11ery on the Nonvegian
Arctic cod-stock, it mat be presumed that an extended Norwegiarl
tra.wI-fishey illnot make rnuclidifferenceconcming the totalinfluence
of trading on the stock of fish and the Nomegim coast-fisherjes.
"In a period when the stock of fish jsmali, trading can, even if the
renewd of the stock of fis11inot indanger, necessitate,in theIllteests
both of batvlingand the criast-fishedes,afurthcrregulation,in addition
tothe skes of mesh which have pbeenestablished by intemational agree-
ment. The question ofsuch a regulation must, however,.be sol~ed
through international negotiatiozï", .
Page 27 P "VI II.-P~o;hosrrlfw the amednesfit O/ilrd Eutco?ecerninCgPawlifig
"The cdttee has unmirnously corne to the conclusion that the
present Iatv concming tra~vling must be amvncled with a view to
providingmorefacilities for trarvling the highçeasthan tbereare now.
The cornmittee further unanimouçly agrees that facilitiesfor carrying
on trawh~g mus* stiliIr eubjcçt tolicence."
(COM-t fiMT. X~&sen ontheabove#m$osaL,-"As totI& pmpsal,
the committec isclividedinta rnajortyand a minority, butthediffercnm
1s of no importance for the case in issue. &th the rnajority and the
minoiity propose that a licerrçecould nndecertainconditions be@ven
tovessels up to 300 gr- registered tons."').
REGARDINÇ CLAIMS TN RESPECT OF DAMAGE TO
FISHING GEAR
EXTKACTFROMJ?UL.TON, "THE SOVEF!EIG~TY OFTHE SEA",
PAGES no-ITZ
"Afterclriirningthat theSreatiesof 1490 and 1523a had &:en hierty
of fishingtothe figlish, the ambassadors were tadeclare that the Iaw
of nations dlowed fishing ithesea everywhere, as well astherrsuofthe
]mds and coasts ofprincesinmity for trafic anthe avoidingof dangers
from tempests ;sothat 11tlie Englishwere debarredfrom the enjayment
of those commm rights, it çoutd ynbe in virtueof anagreement. But
there was no such contract or agreement, On the contrary, by dcnying
English çubjectsthe sightoffrshinginthe seaand despiling them for 50
dokg, the Kingof Denmark had injured thern againsthc law ofnations
1 Printedand publishedby Ais Majesw's Stationq Officx, London,
Cmd- 4729, 1934.
frdyhetohclandtfor frshingotrading, (See para.of3the Counter-Mernorial.) and the terms ofthe treaty ~oreoies, with respect tothe licmces the
Queen declaredthat ifher predecesso~ had 'yielded' to take thern,'it
was more than by the law of nation?was due' ;they miglithave yielded .
for çome specialconsideration;and inany case it could nobe co1~1uded
that the right offishing,"due by the law of nations', failed because
Iiccncer;wcre omitted.As to the claim to tbe sea betweenIceland and
Nonvay on the pund tliatthe KingofDenmarkpossessedboth coasts-
the argument usedby Dee and Plowderifor thedomination of the Englkh
Cmwn in the Channel-Elizabeth w;isernph~tic. Ifjt.was snpposed
thereby 'that fm-the property ofa whole sea itissufficiento have the
$ailkçon both sides,asinrivers', fie ambassadorswere to deciare 'that
thongh praperty of sea,insome srnd distance from the caast,may yield
scsrne~versightasidjuri~dictionyet usenot princes to farhid passage or '
fiçhing,as is wellseen inOur seas of England and Lreland, and intlie
Adriatic Sea ofthe Veneths, where we inours and they intl~eirs,have
property of carnmand: and yet neitherwe in ours northey intheirs,
offer toforbid fishllimuch less passageto ships of merchandise ;the
which by law of nationscannat be forbidde orrh~ariiy; neitherisittom
be allowedthat prop~rfy of saa in whatsoever distanceisconsequentto.
the banksa ,s it happelietinsmall riversFor then, by Eljkeeason, the
half ofevwy smshould beappropriatec a the nestbank, asit happeneth
insmanrivers, where the bmks are proper to divers men : wherebyit
would fallotvviat no sea were comman, the banks on evmy side being
in the property oone or other:wherefore the=reemineth no çolour tlnt
Denmark may clairn any ppsoperty in thosesws, to forbiclpassage or
fishingthercin.'
"The ambassadors were to declarethat theQueencovldnot agreetht
her subjects shouldlx abçolutely forbiddentheseas, ports or coastsin '-
question for the usea£fishing,'negotiatio',and safety;çhe had never
ieldedany such right to Spain airdPortugd for tlre hdian seas and
lavens. Nevedheless, i£theKing of Denmark forepeciaJreasond sesired
that sli&odd 'yielbtosome renewing of licence', othat 'wme special
place upon same specialornasion' shodd be reserved£orhi3 own use,
they were in theirdiscretionmd for the sake ofami* to agree;but the
manner ofobtaining the licence\vasto be definedin sucha way that iit
~vould mot be prejudiciaî toher subjects, nor 'tothe effect of some
sufficient fishing', and the licences weto be issued in the sabject's,
name rather.than in hers or theKing's*"
Amex 3f
TRANSLATION BY MR NANSEN OF DR. WESTAD'S OPINION
THE 'TDEtJTSCEILAND Cb' SE,DATED 2nd DECEMBER, 1926
[lVo$~.-Pma$ra$hs ofibis of~ilrrml~achhava dmndy barn i~ncl~deiin
- MF, Na~asctt't~msttalionofthe Deutschland judgmmt (SM M~nmriali,
Vol. 1,$. 164) are Zndzcabedbybacke1s-lfd~:ttendatloitbehg a% soma
casessligktlynmeded.]
Mr, P- A. Eolrn, the PublicProsm tor in tliecriminaicasebefm the
Supreme Court against Paul Weber and others, has,inanendonement dm4 16th Novernber. r926, on aletteo rfthe 14th ofthe same month
fmm the Çounçel for the Defendant, Mr.J. M. Lund, asked me to givet
an expertopinion on the rules rega&rig the determination ofthe ter&
torial bordewith special seferento theconmete questions atisue. The
Public Proseçntorhas at the came time sentme a brief coatainingthe
opinionof CaptainChristian Meyer to theChiefof Policein Kristimsund
regardingthe maritime border onthe stretch HalteritoVikten, dated
Oslo, 26thMay, 1926,and the mapslaid before the Court,
The mnvicted versons have a pml$d onthe grounds iffaulty applica-
tion of the larv. Theaunsel 1efore thc DistricÇourt bas, in aletter
dated 31st July,1926,to the JudicialCornmittee, in subçtançe main-
tained that thes,~Dm.tsçbala~zwdas seizeoutside theterritoialborder
sinceatthe time of seizme the vesselwas 44 nautical miles from the
nearest rock Lnthe sea (Frohavett)ancl ndnoin the opening of a fjord
where the bordes is&awn "from one outermost point to another" and
thatthe s.s, IJetdschla~dason no oeher occasionduring the period in
question within the territorborder,
,4ccordingtothe grounds of thjud ment,the naminatedexpertshave
manirnously "establisl~ethe plac ef amst aslying ....t a distanceof
5nailtical rnïiesfroSvarten,the most north-eastcrlyislet the Halten
gwoup afidlyingin a uorth-easterly directifrom it", Accordingto the
positionmfiichthe expertshave dxed accordingto theS.S.De~tschlaszd's
uwn log-book,the vesse1\vasin the periodfrom6th to 17thMarch, 1926,
sixtimes \rithin a distance oro nautiçal milesimm the nearest rock,
which is not çonçtantImn over by the sea.According tathe positions
givm itithe log-book,hoivever,thevesse1wasat ne time withina distance
,of 4 nantical mile[romsuch arock.
The District Court liaspresumecl "'thatthe'border must bc!dia.wn
parall weith the generaldirectionof the coast, outsidethe çkerries".
Witïaut it bex'possible fothe krt todede aractly where theborda
is tobe drawrion the stretch in question, isto be presumedthat one
ison the safc sidinasswing thatthe base-linein thearea iil queshon
canot inmy case be drawn closer inthan £rom Utgmndsskjm (the
outermost rock inthe Halten pup) toKyn.onFalla, so that the terri-
torial borderand the customs borderextend atleast 4and JO nautiçal
miles respcctiuely from thiçline.It is on this basis thatthe District
Court hasfoundtkat the convidecl personç"have beeri on severama-
withinwtheibaw-line".egian territorial border aon two occasionseven
The Act cçonceming the importation and .sale of spiritsetc,, dated
1st Aupt, 1924, paragraph 35, has nothing specid to say aboutthe
territorywithin which its provisionapply.Ln so faraç theseaterritov
is mnçerned, it must,therefore,apply mthin the borderswhich tan be
deduced from theletttrspatent of25th February, 1812, together with
relevantsupplementaryrulesofcustomary law, ifany.Theletterç patent
state that the '"eaward bordes"of territorial sovereigntv shall be
calculat "eup to the customarydistance.of1 Scandinavian league [rom
the outemost island or islet from thshore.wl~ichisnot run overbythe ANXEXES Tb BRITISH REFLIT (NO, 3~)
734
sea" l.Paragiaph 36 ofthe above-mentioiied'~tt hposcs penaltieswhen
the vesse1 in question "is or has been inside the ordinary territarial
butder".
Paragmph 2 of the supplementary and amendhg Act to theCustom
Act of 14th July, 1922, and parapaph r33 of the CustornsAct, are
applicablewithin the border speuatly referred to in pasagrrtphIof the
first-mentioned Act, i.e"witkin a border ofzo nauticnl miles seawards
from the outemcist islands or islets tvhicare not constantly run over
by thesa",
The fi& and most essential questionat issue1s how the territorial
borderis to be dmwn in accordancewith fheletterspatent of rSrz ancl
su plmenkary des of customauy IAW ,fany.
yrhe Decree of 1612 andsupplomentary rulesofcustomary law. iany,
mst beconstrued independently of the importance one willattaçhtii
the Act 01 1922, 5I. Conversely, however, it mightibesaid thaf tlie Act
of 1922, I,shouldbe conshuwi in thelightof tliolder niles olaw.The
. decree and supplementary tules ofcustomay law, ifany, must alçu be
constmd independently ofthe factthat undet the international Conven-
tion regardmg tliecuntroI of smuggiing of dcol~olic goods dated
19th August, 1925 ,rticleg,Worway and sorneother States "bind them-
tolbessmuggling within andistanceof 12fnantical milesfromthelscoaçt or
the extrene skerriesUrie".
Tt must furthemore beremembered that tveare hem concerneclwith
.thequestion asto how girnerd.rulesareto be interpretedfortlie purpose
of supplementing provisions of criminal larv.Itisnof absolutely ritces-
sary tn assume that a geneml tnle-especiaily one thatin itself very
summary and which, therefnre, must to aspecialdepe besupplementccl
by constmçti~n-shall be constru indthe sarneway, when it isto lx
applied in the fielofpenal law as when it isayplied inùther relations.)
,. Our Constitntiun decEaresthat no-one shall be çonvicted except bv
~rirtueofthe Tatvand the Courts demand that the regnlations of csimind
lawshall clearly indicatthc conditionsrvhenan action becornescriminal,
so that if there k anydoubt, the accud shall be acquifted,
[Accordmg to the deçree tl~ereisno d~ubtas to thenormal extent of
the sea-territarymessured from land tosea. Ii isageopphicd mile or
the equivalent of7,420 metreç, Doubts can, however, arise when it is
to be decided £rom lvhat base thegeogmphical ilmileiiobe dmivn.And
itis thewswer to thisquestion whch will determine whetlier thDistrict
Court has ben xightinfindingthe accusedpilt y of infringinthe Jegisla-
tion regarding spirits,)
It must be deemed estabEslied that the words "not runaver" itithe
letfers pnteut,md alsa when itisa question ofapplyingpmallegislation,
ucrsyncznymous with 'hot continuously run over", sotlrat tlie extent
of the sea-territorin et8ery cas&iscalçulatad1rm the low-\vaterline
or,tobe more precise,from the outemost part of the mainland, islands,
islets or rocksnrliicllabovewater at nohd lotvtide (selettersfrom
the Mjnistry hr IGreign Affairs of 24th March and 26th May, xgo8).
The decision does not appear, in the m5c inquestiori, to depend on.
whether the ça1culationis£rom the lincofhigh va teor of lot*-\vateor
11nwthe low-water line is idetaii detemined. {The question arises. hoxvcve-iifnthe presenf caseone should deter-
mine the extent of the sca-tenitoryfrom singleislands, idetçor ro&
or-as the DistrictCourt hâ~ done-from irnaginq base-lines dra~vn
be-n ho islands, isleor rocks,and how iripracticethese base-hes
am ta be dmm.
Itis hcre necessary to nake a distinction, One prablerniswhéther,
accordhg to internatioln awl,a Çtate isentitledto detemine that for
,particularor general purposes certain parts of the acljoiningsea are
under its supremacy*Another problern is whether, accordhg to inter-
national faw ormorùing to its awn laws, a State ean regard its legisla-
tim Ura padidar case ascxtended to thesame parts of the adjoining
'sen when it has not yet detemzinedthat its siiprcmacy extends XI far.A
State çan have a right without having madeuse of it.
The present question is,therefore, notanswemd hy stafing that the
Xonvegian State ha a rightto draw the border of its sea-territoryin
criminal cases r Scandinavian league fknm imaginary base-1i11esdrawn
between two of the ouimost islandsislets or rocks. Itisnecessasy to
know if the Decree of 1812 andsupplementay mles of cizstomsry law,
if any, prcsctibethat the bordw of the sea-territory ito be based on
such lines.
Here ariwsadiffrcuity whichis serious,especiallywhm the decreeand
nipplementay rriles of cusitomarylaw, ifany, aretabe appliedin Miminal
cases. Neither the dccreenor such niles ofcustomary law state hm in
practice-bettveen which islands, islcts or rocks-the bac-tines are to
b drawn, Evenif it is-assurnecl thatthe existing rulesof1awprovide,
as ageneralruic,thai the sea-territ iosoybe reckoned fromhase-lins,
it must be admitted that they do not giveanypositive guidanc esto
hm the sea-territory is to be reclroneçlincuiyprticular instmce. Same
foreignregulatio snstethat the wa-territory içto lx reckoned from
"the coast and itsbays" or ftom sirnilx gecigrapliicalconfigurations,
It would then possible to establishfrom histarical evidencewhat is
to he understood by "bnys'ha the other expression used. The çlecre'ee
does not confain anything ~imilar. Furthemore, itisnot very likely
way.iTheoriginal startingpointeinNorway,rnasnin several other cauntrîes,
was that the extent of the sta-telaitory corresponds to the range of
view,but this is notmnsistcnt with reckoning the sea-tenito Srmy an
imaglnary line. The deçree was rsstied~4th the qu~tion of capture
specially in mind, It is not reasonabk to suppose that the Danishi
Nor~vegian Govemment wanted to extend its protection of tradingves-
sels ta include undehed parts ofthe sea. Ifa construction such as that
+ ' mentioncd is to be applieclta the dccree, it mçt be because anather
solution~vouldbe unpractical, but the practical advnntage+that is ta
say,greater certairityinthe ia~v-disappcar, unless it an at the same
time be statcdhotvthe baselines arc tobe drawn, A rule in law, which
Statesthat the sea-territ iortybe reckoned from base-lines,but iiot
how tIle base-lines are tk drawn, can also not:came into existence
through usage ;custom must relate tosomething fixed by practice,
Undoubteâly the Nùzwegians havc Ior many years looked npon the
skcrriesas a.unity, especially over questions of fisliingand on theSe
questions inparticulai-, accordmg to their conceptions, the skerries
are considered taprovide the naturd starting point for the calculatian fomed through customary law-still h thiscase, tvhere the "'rai~'~f
theborder lias not becnmore clearly decided upon,onehvould stillhave
to defrnethe ivords "fjord" and "bay" inthe most favourahle way for
che condemned, and limit "the fjord'' and "'thbay" in the way most
favonrabla for the condemaed. "Tlie fjara"' or "the bay" in question
(Ftohavet) rvouldthcn clearlyhave to be limited outwads by a Iine nat
furtf~crout tlian between the Halten group and the Hosen Tslxnd.
TIleforegohg dues not rnean that Norwegian'public authorities~6th
hil lemn çould not issueprovisions, and,whm the extent of the sca-
territory is to be detmined (unilater axltension consequently
excluded), çould not by internationalagreement put fonvarcl minimum
daims, rcprcsenting an adtrmce afthe sea-territory fa^outçide those
borders, whichmtist under the preçmt Lcgalconditions be drawn for
the spatialjurîsdiction of the penalcodes.)
FVhenthe Hitra District Court proceeded onthe assumption that
the sea-tenitory in the present case,where tkere is no claim to îitle
basedoaspecialpsovisiuns(i.e. ti'baseclonasupposed rule ofcustornary
law),cranbe alcdated from base-lines clrawnbetween rocks atid onthe
iurther assumption "that the basc-line in the area in question can in
any casenot be &am further intlran rom Utpndsskjzr (theoutermost
rockin the Raltengroup) to Ky aanFolla", the Court has,in my opinion,
departed fram thestandpoint whicha court:ofjustice must takeup when
applying pcnaf clauses, and has taken a standpoint xvl~ich,if thecase
arises,the national authoritiecan adoptwhen they wish to eseablish
the extent ofthe sea-territory Iy sspecid decree or by international
agreement 1,
I presnme that the opinion now *atd k valid for the applications
ofbot11 4 35 ,nd 3 36 of the "SpiritsAct". Wien the latterprovision
makes liabillty topunishanent conditionalon ~vliether thevesse1was
"within the ordinary territorialborder", the intentiondùubtless was
only tu ernphasizetl~at the territorial border accorclingto§ I of the
Customç Act dneç not apply inthis case.
The qu&ion of ctllculating the sea-tcrritory is ofLittiimportance
where itisclearthai theactçcomplaibinedofcannot be punished acmrding
, kothe Spirits Act, but,if tcase;irises,came undertlliçahove-rnentioned
- CU-oms regdahoas. They mnst then, acco~dingto 5 x Of the Act ri£
14th Jury, ~qzz,haveber-rciornmitted "within a border10 natiticamiles
sea~vardsfrOmtheautemoçtisl~ndsandislets~vhicharenotc -onst~mtly
run overby the sen". The S.S.Us?atchla&, asappears ftom the grounds
of the ~udgm~nt, \va, accordhg ta the eviclencc01 the ship's log-book,
severd times les f.lm~ro nautical miles fromtli~neawst rocks. Itis
then ofminos importance whether the çalculatioiof the sea-tenitory
iii accordance withk11eLaw ofrgz2 fs based on indivictrrd islandislets
or rocks, or on base-liriesdrawn helween tsvo of tliese.It sliould,
however, be nofed that there isnothhg in the preliminaries fa theAct
of 1922 whicl~ suggcst~ tht, by using asomew11atdifkrent expression
tl-ixn in the letferpatent, the intention mas to .eçtablista different
starthg point.In pa~trticdarthere is notliïtosllo~vthatthere was any
"e rgott, dated 20thMay, rgn3,of th Commissionan SEABordersofrgrr
bccn puMished.saisforbase-linei~t#abin,forthis axabut thisreportha not intention of changing the substance by nsing -the plural "islandor
islets"U1Stmd of 'lislandidet" inthe letterpatent. Similar provisions
in othercountrieçalsoaltematively useplural and singular withoutthis
making any differencein substance. The above-mentioned provisions
of the Smuggling Convention of rqz; can clearlyofcourse not be used
as a means ofinterpreting the provisioninthe Nonvegian Acts of z921
and 192, unlesçin the xnse thatthe useof new expressions ("from the
c& or outcrmost liac of skerries")in thconventiona -proof tliat
the old expressionsdonot cover the same rneaning.
As faras 1 am canwiccd, 1am, however,of the opinion that thesea-
territory,inthe absence of specid provisions,alsainaccordancewith
1 5 r of the Act of 14tJuly,1922,when applying the provisionconcern-
ing cnstoms, must be cailculatcdfrom ttic individualoutermost points
of the mainland, islanclçancisletsetc.,anclnot from base-llnes &am
betwem two such points.
TABLE SHOlVlNG OF Al?KESTSAND
WARIVINGS OF BRITISH VESSELS
PART S
(fioie,-'fhennmbers of ships correspond with the numbess in Azl~e*;56, Mo. r,
of the Conriter-Mernorial.)
Izz Insicle 0 = Outside
No. Dale A7um of ship , Red lins %hie livze' Rmwh~
r. rrg.rgrr Lord Roberts I ' 1 InVarangwfjofd.
2. xo.r~.~gr Cete~mu I T . -Mm insidegreenIine
3. 4.1~19~3 I I On green line
4. 8.1.1g23 ord Zisb - 1 1 Xlsoinside greenlineX
5. S.1.rg23 Smpdm 1 1 B. ,, IV Ij
6. 7.2.1923 Qzt~cia I I t1 IJ a+ II
7. ~r.xo,rgz=~Our ALf 1 ' 1 II PI ?Y Fa
8. r8.ro.~y23 Ku~zdck 1 1
g. 6.11.192 dand I 1
ro. g.rr.rqzj EarZ ICiichai~r I 1
II, x.xa.rgz3 Cafstaiz 1. ' 1
12, l.IZ.I923 Vd~zks 1 1
13, r,r.rgzq EV Kimg I I
rq. 8.r;xgzq nmes Lmg I T '
rg, 9-1~192 Saimonby 1' 1
16. 31.1.1924 Ni?a.us 1 1
17. 18.3.192 Lwd Ha~mood O 1
18,;ro.xx.r gz.esde*s 'I 1
19. g.rz.xgz L4,Rudenaakfir P 1
20. 13.1.1p 5tadey Weyma~ I T
SI. 14~1.1925 Srrrfiedm T I
-
Le.the green line showthenNerwegÎan cllain Anna 2of tl-liaCounter-Metnorial. AXNEXES TO EIUTISE REPLY (Nbh 32)
739.
Dai8 Mtkme of$hl$ Rd kilae BlqceJinc RemnJcs
27.1.1923Sh%dm 1 1
16.3.1925Wedesprengq 1' 1
7.12.1925FTSL+ TiCctcy I 1
17.12.1925Seriema I 1
23.12.1g23MOY~UZ~ 1 1
29.12.3Cj2Elsekwtktd 11 1 ,I
22.2.1q28FriliBwsa Z T;
rz,g.1930How~eic 1 1
15.9.193L0ord Weir 1 1
14.3.193 [email protected] mrk~ 1. 1
22.9.1931Dai~ycoatcs - I 1
4.~932 Edgar Wallactz 1 :[
24.9.1932 hdfi 1 1
28.10.1932N. Bemam 1 1
5.1r.rg3zSf.Aras 1 I
30.rz.1gy Abanes I 1
2.2 933 Ham?nod I I
24.2.1933Ldi. 28YrnYmd0?& 0 1
24.2.1933Cr~sbfiTo~CY 0 1
22.3.1933Lapfidand I 1
13.4.19333o. F.ScbdtT O1 1
3-11-193 Si.JUS^ 1 1
r.xz.rg33Ewn~ Richmdson O I
18.1.2;9 3fndora I Ji.
28.1.1934Prmssm 1 .I
17.4'195 B4each,flower 1 1
23.rr.rg3 O6Sa 1 1
23.z.rgy Jûrdilae 1 1
A.6.rg37 eladora 1 1
?r.z.rg38S'isaflm , 1- 1
53. 6,1~-1~~7SfdLi3&d# 1 1
54. 26.4.1948Pothmhy I I
55. 26.4~g4S Lacmtmiu I I
56. z6.4.rg4 3quewy 1 I
57- 23.11.1948Cape Argam 1 1
38. s'r,I%(-ICziizgsaeridot 0- I
59- 5.1-1949Arclic Ru~tger 0 X
Go, 17.r.rg4gLord Phzder O 1
62. 19-1-19 49aarry O 1
264.1949 Bar~lf 1 J
63- 29.4.rg4 H9or1i?zd O 1
64. 5.5.15i4ÿord Nw#icId O 1
PART S1,-POÇIIIONSOF SHII'S tVknPi~~
(Nok.-Letters correspondwiththe letters giinAnnex 56, No.2,oftbe
Counter-M.emoria1')
L&m Dafe Na~e ofship Red lime B1w Iane Rmarhs
a, ro.3.1913 Ca&~iu 1' 1
b. 2.1.1923ATiglaHawk 1 I 740 ANNEXES TQ awr~sa ~PLY 33)
Letder .D&, AFrtmsof slzil,Red la'wizBbe lhe Remarks
'c. 38.2.1927Q~ercia - 1 Shown on the Nor-
wegian chartaseit11er
I on or barely inside
the rd Iine
dl. 23.10.193 LordMounlbatirenn the line 1
a. z1.xz.xg3 AEafoss 1 1
f. 13.rz.19V 33esis O I
-g. 1g.x z933 V~~esis O 1
.h, r ,xr,x935 Sywari O On the he
,?..z ,xx,xrj35 iMoraoiia O I
1. 1.5.1936 Uu.lesm O 1 Latitude slioulbe
fr' ro'N.
k. 4.2.r936 Bzcfiseaz 1 1 13arely insicle red line
1. 22.2.1936 Mdmta O
m. r1.4.rg36 Edwdan O I
m. 16.5.193 6acmzsew O 1
o. 29.5.193 6n#eiW~bvZh O 1
. 2g.j.193 Gn.fid O I
qY. 25-6-1936 LordStowehaueqa O 1
S. 28.10.1936Scarron O 1
t. 1.2.1937 Gregory 0 r
M. 14.9.1937 Rfdfladshwe O On the line
Y. r8.ro.rq37 Alsey O I
w 22.2.1938Vise7ada O d 1
x. 3.6.193 5anzbvidgesh.ire I 1 Barcly uisidcrd line
y. x0.12.1938Wu!$& On the line 3:
NOTE MADE OF CONVERSATIONSBEmYEEN SIR EDlxiARD
GREY AND Mr.IRGENS
ForeignQffice,26th June,xgxr.
sir,
M. Irgeencame tosee me to-day, and e'i-plathe h'orwegianvimv
.afthe LorRobds cze. He contended that Norway had alwayshad a
+mile limit,and that this anlier special positasregards certain
3jords waulbe recogriizedby arar'bitratitribunal.
I said that, indefaula specialagreement,wehad never admittecl
the rightof any countrytninterfere wita British shipbeyoncithe
3-mrle limit. Tltvathe standpointwcwere takingup mith regar a
.Russiaat the presenttime,and we conld not conterid for less with
Yorway. Ttwas aprhciple on whicWC might be prepred to goto war
witii the strongest Powethe iirorld.litapossible that odispute a
with Russia w~1ldresult ian international conference aiso, theontcorne miglit besomeagreern tfnr the future.Butevensoltveshould
havc tcdaim compensation for action outside the 3-mile limit taken
befare the agreement.
M. Trgens saithat, ifa satisfactory agreemei\vas corneto for the
foture at an international conferencethe mere amount of compensa- -
tionin thecase of the LordRoberiswould irot beavery serious matter ;
but for himto gve way now onthe question ofprinci le would make it
impossiblefor him to retain oficHe açkedwhetlier ge casewouid not
corne tvithin the smpe of our Arbitration Treaty with Nomay, and
whether we muld press ourdaim pending the apped, wliich Rees~ected
~vould be decided inabout Febmary next.
1 said that, of coursifhe put ionvard n requestfor arbitration, we
would considerit onitsmeiits;and 1:promisad tolet himknow'~vl'iether
~vewonld defer my daim until alter theappeal had been hearci-
J am, etc.
(Si~12~d)E. GREY.
No. 1
l*ET,'EGRAF MROM FOREIGN OFFICE TO ah. DORIMER.
8th Octaber, 1935.
(No. zr]
telcgram No. 55 [of 7th Octaber:Nonuegian fisherie.)
1am disussing with thc Wnistry of Agriçuttureand Fisheriespossi-
hiLi9 of drrtftidgpreliminary praposals as suggcstcd hy Norwegian
Minider for Foreign Affzirs.
Meanwliile you should make it dear, yon have netaheady duneso,
that iftheseisany interference aal1with traders outside"IE~ line",
wiiether "~erious" or iiot from Norwegiax poofview (seeparagraph 3
oi your telegram), pi-otwtion will be affoddeduto 3-mileJjmit.
Na. z
REPORT BY Bk. LiORMER
MO, 17th O~hbf!~, 1933.
My telegram No. 56 (of10th.October).
1 infomed Minister for Foreign Affaiyesterdayof contentsof your
telegram No. zr. He made rio commmt, but he infumed me that
Nonuegian LegationinLondon had sent him a cuttinfrair{hethought)
a Liverpool newspaper inwhjch it >vasstatcd3s ifon the authonty ai
Mr. M~urice that the Eorwegian Goverment woirld nbse~ve the red
lineuntil the end ofthe presenfrshing season, idJnnc rg36. He said
that iltuncluaetterrtion should bbe paid tontwspaper reports, but, 742 ANYEXJ3S TO BRITISH XEPLY (NO,34)
nevertheiess,if anything was LilceIto provoke an incident it$vas a
ublished statmcnt of that nature. I said that I was sure that
P%. Maurice kaCl not made the statement,
T realize thaitwilrbe dificuttif evenpossible,toprevent publicity
on r~urstionsin theRouse of Commons, butthefxct is that ifstate-
rnentsare made in England which implg that the NorwegiariCovesn-
ment regards the rcçllinc as stilin forceand those datements are
reproducedin the pre3s here, the riskof an incidenwEllbe increaçed.
No. 3
ME. COLLFER'SMINUTE RECOKDING CONVERSATIONS
OF 28thSEPTEnmER, 1935
1 acmrdingfjrasked theNorwegianMinister tacal1on 28th September
and put the positionbefosehim as above, adding (aftercwnsnltation
witl-i thMinistry ofAgriculture andFisheries)that,as the kst batth
of trawlers\vasabout to leaveand weuld, inany case,insison fishing
up to the3-milebit ifthey thonglitthe decrewa5 naw tubeenforced,
itqtasprobabtethat tveshouId have to send a patrolwith fhem, idwe
were not in a position, by 30tSeptember, to tell them thatthe "red
"line" arrangement wadd continue in prac2ice.
No. 4
EXTRACT FROMDESPATCH OF SIR C,%VINGPIELD OF
21~f DECEmER, 1933
SZYC, WiqfiEd $0 Sir John Simoa, Oslo, 21si Daembs~, 1933
Sir,
Inçompliancewiththe kstructioas containedin yourdespatchNo. 39x
of the 15th instant,Ito-day calIed on the NorwegianPrime Minister,
whom I had been mabie tosee before, and, after reminding him of
MT. Fdlerton-Carn+e's visi tn 29th November, Aed what waç the
explanation of the report whichad norvreached His Majesty'sGo.ern-
ment that the captain of the Norwegiarr fishery protection cruiser
EEridtjofN~arnmhad mmarked base-lines on the chnrt ofthe British
trawler St.B~eZade wbjch were ontside the "red line"of1925 and, in
one case,showed Norwegian territorial waters asextenericlgsmuch
as 13 milesbeyond this line.
2. Herr Nowinckel at once rrplied that, bwing to some misunda-
standing, the captain of the Frid£joJi'amsehad indeed marked these
lines, but th$ifuatitibadiïow ben explahed ta liim. Hi4 Excdency
went an toaplain that he thought we were mistaken in thinking tllat
any change in Nonvqiail procedure with regardto territorial waters
had developd durîng the lasteighteen months. A çommittee sitting in
1926 had laid down two lines An inner oneadsromted by the rnajority,
and an outer onerecommended by therninority.TheseLiriesere rnarkd ANNEXES TO BRITISH REPLY (?Tm.35-36]
743
on the chart of the F~idfrjoNansen, and lier orders rvethat arrests
should on1 takeplace wlien atrader liadfished withiiinthinnerline,
but that 7 a tsawlerwere found fishiriginsidthe outerlinesl~ewas .to
be warned off.1pointeclout that thiswas presumably wbat the c~ptain
of the Frz'dtjoATanse~had been daing, for whichpurpose he obviously
had tospecifywhere thelimits Inquestion were;and that,iiour trawlers"
tvcreto be wamed by an am& cruiser that they shonld not fish in
thisouter belt, in whiclwe held thatthey were cntitled tofish and to
which Nonvay berselfhaclput fonvard no officiclairn,we had cause to
pint oizt that thwas a change framthe siratusquo1 hoped, thcrefore,
that the"gentlemen'sagreement", recently conclnded byHem Asseson,
~vonldhenceforwrirrl yroteow trawlersfrombeing wanled offmything
outside the haer linmen tiond, towhich Herr MotvhckeIassen ted.
[Note.-The cemairider oftlik despatd~, so £ar rS relevânl,deais wi&
matters which the Nunvegian Gnvemment zsked should be regarded as
wnfidential. It is therefornat induded here,.A capy of thecomplete
despatcli11asLeentransmitted icthe Norwegian Govemment.]
CHARTSSUBMl'l'TED 13Y GOVEIWMEWT OF UNITED KINGDOM
SHOWING ELVE AND GREENLINES
PROT17ST BY UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNJMENTAGAINST
HONDURAS CORSTLTUTIONOF 1936
British Lega+iûa,
Tegucigd pa, I
29th jiily, 1936.
Yom Excellency,
1have thehonour torefertothe new~ondurkean Constitution ,nder
Articlery~of which jwisdictiorloverterritoriawaters to a distanceof
rzkilometres from the lowesttide mark is claimed bythe Goverriment
of Honduras,
2.Inthis connection, 3.have the hon6irf, oninshctiorls fmm His
Majesty'sPrincipal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, tainfom
Yom Exçellency that HisMajesty'sGoverment in theUnited Kingdom
' ca~not recognize any generadr@t on th part ofa foreignState to
exercisejnrisdictionon the high seas outsicle thelimitof 3 nautical
miles from thIhe ofmean low water. 744 ANNEXES TO BRITISH mPLY (ND. 37)
3. 1avafimyseü of this opportunity to reneivo YoutExceliency tlic
assurance of my highmtconsideration,
(Sigfierl1).G. RYDINGÇ,
His Excellmcy ,
Sefiorcloctodm Antonio 13emrSi.de z.,
Minister for:ForeignAffairs, Tegrtcigalpa.
NOTES OF 13WSISt3,FRENCH AWU GERMAW GOVEIINn'iENTS
CONCERNINGTETE300-MILE SECURXTY %ONE OF
THE AMERiCAN RZPUBLICS, 1939
E xiracffrom Hackworth, Digesi ofI.pttmatiami Eaw,VOL VIT,
$9. 704-708
The replim hy the belligerengovmnments jndicated thek respective -
generalattitudestoward the Dedaration ofPanama and the"securitp
zoneJ'provided for by it. ThBritishGovemrnent stated :
"...The acceptmce by His Majesty'sGovernent ofthe suges
tion thrrtthe belligerentsshould forego their rightsin the zone
- must cle,xly be dependent upontheir being assnredthat the adop-
tion of the zone proposa1 wauld not provide Geman warçhips
and silpply sbips with a vkt sanctuary from wliichthey çonld
ernergsto atittadAiiied and neutral shippingto wiuch they mnld
setuxn to avoid behg brought to action,and in whiçh some
examplerdbystheinse of wirelescommunications. ltan~vouldaîsober
necessay to ensure that han warships and supply shil~s~vould
not be enabled to pas rvith impunity from one cicean toanothcr
tlrongh the zone, orGeman me^-chm hips to t&e part ininter-
Ameriçm trade and earn foreignexchange, ilhichrnight bemedin
attempts to promatesubversion and sabotageabrond and to .procure
supplies for the prolongaiion of the ivar, lhus deptivthe Allies
of thefruit of their superiorityatsea, Moreev~, t11eacceptance
of the zone pmpoçals woi~ldhave ta be on the basisthat itshodd
not constitute a precedent for a far-reacliinalteratio in the
e existinglaws ofmarithe neiitraljty,-
Unlessthese pointsare adequatery safeguarded, the zoproposals
might only leadtothe accumulation of belligerenshipsinthe zone.
Tliisinturrmiight wellbnng the ~iskof marnarm tothe kmerican
States and lead to friction between on the one lmd tlieAllies,
pursuhg tlleir lcgitimatbeliigerent. actisrities, ad the other
the Amerimn repiiblics, endeavouring to make thh new poliçy
prevail.
The riskof such frictionwhieh His RifajestyGovernment \voiiId
be the fist to deplore,would be increased by the application of
sanctions.Es Majesty's Government must emphatical1y repudiate
any sugg~tion that 13s Majesty's shipshave acted, or woulclaçt,
inany way that tvouldjustlfy theadoption "oy neutralçofpunitive rneasureswhich do not springProm the accepteclcanons of neutral
rights andobligations.If,iherefore. the Arnericm States were to
adopt asdieme ofsanctionsfor the enforcement of the zoneproposal,
they rvould,in effectbe offesiiia sanchizry to &man ivarships,
witlin which His Majesty 'ç ship would be confronted witli the
hvidious choice of having either to refrain fromengaging their
enmy orlaying thmselves open tn penaltiesin American ports
and wzters.
I'itfi regardto thespedc incidents ofwhich mention is made
' in the cwirnmunication under reply, HirsMajesty's Government
must observe Eltathe lqitimate activit ofesis Majesty's ships
can inno way impril, but must rather contribute to the security
of the American continent, theprotection of which \vas theobject
ofthe framers of the Declaration of Pmama. His Majesty'sGovern-
ment cannot admit tht thei-eisany fouridation for a daim that
such activit iavç in any way exposed them tojustifiabIreproach,
seing that the zone proposal has not been niade eflectiveand
belligerent assent lias nget been givcn to its opcratlon,
in vierv of the difficultiedescrihed ahove, it appears to His
Majesty'sGovernelit that the only effectivmethod af açhieving
the American object of prev.enting beIIiqereacts within the zone
wonId be, firstly,to ensare that the Gem Government would
sendno morewarships into itSecondiy,there areobvious dficulties
inapplyirigthe zone proposalaE thisstageof the wartrvhença rnudi
Grman shipping lias already taken refuge in SLmericc wmaters.
Ifthe Allie.;aretohe asked to losegothe opportunity of cxpturilig
be~laid up under.Pan-Americancontrol.nfortlie duration othe \var.l
In the viem of His Blajcsty'sGo~~wnrnenitt would only lx by
means such as those indimted that the tvifishof the American
Govemmeritsto keep war a~ay irom thcircoclstscould be redized
in a trulyeffective and quitable inanner. Wntil His 3kjesty's
Government are able to feelzssured that the ççhzme wiIl operate
satiçfacto tiiyIy,ust, an~iowç as they are for the fulfilment
of Ameriçan hopes, ~ieceççarilreçerve their full ùdligerenk riglits
inorder to.fi@ the menace presented by Germa actionand policgr
and to defend tkat conception of 1aw wd that tvay.of lifew hich
they lidieve to be as denr ta the poples alidGovernrnentsof
Americs as they are totliepeoylesand Governrnents of the British
Commonwealth ofNations. "
as the British Governrnent, rsaying that it appreciated'the desireiof
thc dtnerica~ republics to lcccp the%var away from the coasts of the
Americancontinent and that it had examinedin a most sympathetic
spiritthe proposal aiming atthe estabhshrnent of a mne of inaritime
,security,The French Government said that .-
"...,It interpets thcsteps ti~keçin the name of thc American
Governrnents, both cm ~3rd Ikcembet and also by the preceding
clornrnunication oftlie Declaration of Fanama;isimplymg that in
the minds of those Governrnents the mnstitutioiï ofsuc11 a zone,746 ANNEXES Tb BRi'îISH REPLY (NO, 37)
involving a reiiwciation by the behge~ent.States ofthe exercise,
over wide areas, ofrights tvell establishby internationalcustom
couldresdt only from anagreement amang al1theStatesinterested."
The French Govemment also stated tbat the fa& relating tu the .
Guf Spte caseillustratedvery plain- the situation which the Arneri-
Gemans Lnrnetlricasecouldtnot, inthe opinionoftheaFrench Governmei~t,e
have any effect on the outcome of tliervar;but that if such actswere
cornmittecior attempted it \vasthe right of Frarice andGreat Britain
to oppose them by acounter-attack and, tlierefore, thifthe maritime
secunt yzone mas tabe effectiveitwasnecessaryfor theAmericanGovem-
ments ta fumish the Freiich Govmrnent witli a satisfactoryasunrice
tbat the Getman Govetnment would no longer send warshipsor sdpply
shps into the sscurity zone, The French Governmeiit considered that
the securityzon~had the effectof offerkg nzone of protectmn toGeman
vesselsand of thus depriving the Ailies ofadvantages which arme out
of theirnaval superiorit overGermany. ItaskedEhat effective measures
be taken to hoid in the ports of the American coilntrie~ the Geman
ships which hacl taken refuge them znd continued :
"5. The -4merican Governments do not appear to contempiate
assurningthe reçponsibilityof insuring mithinthe wide areas tvhich
aidltothe ene'my(un-neutrd service).onTheepossibiIity ofsuchtacts
issapaf thanks in particularta radio cornmnnicati~ns,tliat naval
forces çouldnot be deprived of the rightof preventing them and
xepressingtliernto the full extent permitted byinternational law."
The German 6overnment said:
'"(2) The Ceman Governrnentbelievesitself to bein agreement
with fie American Governments that the replations contained
in the Declaration of Panama wdd mean a d~ange in eskting
international Iawand infers fmm the telegram of4th October of
last year thatifisdesired to settIethis question inharmony with
the belligerentç. TheGerrnan Governrncnt does not taF= tee stand
that the hithxta recognized rules ofii~ternationallaw were boutid
to be regardeel as arigid andforever butable order.It israiller
O£the opinion that thesenilesarecapable 01and require adaptation
to pro-ive deuelopment and newly arising conditions. ln tkis
spiritit isalso ready to take up the consideration ofthe proposal
ofthe neutrd Arnericm Governments. However, it must point ont
tliat for th&man naval vesselçwhich have been inille proposecl
security zone so far, onlythe rules of lav now ineffect could, of
course, be effective.The Gemm naval vessels have held most
strictlytothese rutm of law during their operations. Therefme,in
so faras the protes ntibmitted by the Americam Governments is
dfrected against the action of German wmhips, it cmot be
recognized by the &man Goverment asweUgrannded ..Besides,
the Gennan Govmnmeat mnnot recognize the rightof the Govern-
ments ofthe Amcrican republics ta decidennilateraIuponnzeasures
in a mariner dcviating from the des hitherto in dect ....
....there arisesfmt of al1 one &partant point which causes the
situationof Germany and the othet belligerent Powers to appear ANNEXES TO BRl.ZTISRRE'PT,Y (NO. 38) 747
disparateeth respectto this :fhdt is,while Gemany has never
pursued territoriaaims on the American continent, Great Britain
and France have, fiowever, durinthe corne of the lasl few mn-
turies,establisheimp~rkant possessionsand bases on tliis continent
and the &lands off shore, the practicaimportance of wliichaIso
with re~ipecttcitliec~uestionsirnder considerahon 1lei.edoes not
1-equireany furtherexplanation.By these exceptionto the Monroe
Doctrine iI iavorirof GreatBritain and Frnce the effectof the
security zone desired by the noutrd Americm Gavetnrnents is
fundamentally aiiddecisivdy impaired tostax~ t6th.The inequality
in the situationof Gerrnanyanclher adversaries Zhat jspmdnced
hereby might perhaps be elhinatecl to a certain,exteritif Great
Britain and France wodd pledge tbemselves, under the guamntee
of the Americm States, not tomalcethe possessionsand ishds
mentimed the starting points orbasesfor military operation;even
if that s1)ouldcorne about, tbe factwould still remain that one
belligerentStats,Canada, mot only directly adjoins thzone men-
rionecl inthe West and the Ead, but that portions of Canadian
territoryarc actuaiiy surrorrndeby the zone.
(4)Despitethe circurnstruiceset forthaboveth'e~ermanGovem-
ment, r)n ~tçside, would be entirdy ready to mter intoa further
exchange ofideas wviththe Go\rernrnentsof the American mpciblics
regarding the putting inta effectof the Declaration of Panama.
Hawever, the Gemian G~L-ernrnen mtust assume frornthe replyof 4
the British and French Governments, ~ecently piiblishedby press
and radio, that thosho Govemments arc not willingro take np
seriouslythe ideaof the security zone,"
PROTEST BY UNITED KTNGDQM GOITRNAIENT AGAINSL
DECLARATION BY THE PRESLDBM'r OF PERU
ON 1st AUGUST,r947
Briiisi~Ewbassy,
Lima,
6th Febiuary, I@.
Yow Excellcncy,
Under instructionsEmmHis Btitannic iîlajesty'PrincipalSecretary
of otateforFo=ign Affairs Zhave the honoiirto informYvur Exceilency
that the d~larati~n rnadeon 1st August, 1947b ,y Hi$Excelleficy the
Presidentof the Peruvian Republic-~egardingPeruvian sovereigntyover
certainterritoryand waters adjacent to thePeruvian coastshas cme
tu the atteiitioof His Majesty's Gaverment in the United ICingdom,
&ference was made in tliat dechration to earlierprodamationsbythe
Goverments of the United States and Rfexico~egasding their sover-
eignty over thecontinental shelvesacljatento tbeircoasts,and tathose
of the ArgentinearidChilean Xepublics regarding theirsovereignty over
the cmtinental shelfand the waters above it. . ANmS TO BRITISH REPLI' 1x0.38) ' 749
l While rempizing thwefore fl~atthe protecti mdn coatrçiof fideries
and conservation of the naturd resnurces in thesms are the leqtimate
.conCernof my country within those matcrs ovcr :rvlrhchits territorial
jurisdiction extencis, His Witjesty'sGovernment are obltged to place
firmiy on rccord witlithe Penivim Governmei~t that they clo llot
recognize territoriajurisdictionover waters outside the limt of3 miles
from the waçt ; nor w~llthey regard British riessels engaged in their
.lawful pursuiton the higliseas aslxirig subject, wlthuut thconsent of
Ris Majesty's Covernlnent, tu any measrires which the Pewviari
7Government may see fittopron~ulgate in pursuance of the clecla~ation.
Ris Majesty's Govemment alsarecopize thatthe protection of fistreries
and theconservation of natural resourceçin the liighseas outsidetemi-
torialwaters are a propr object of agreement, bctxvccn those States
whose nationals bave joined in developing'and maintainhg the Ftsllcries
and other activitieby which those Tesourcesale put to use. T1icyare
therefnre prepared toenter inta neggtotLztioisith thePenrvian Govern-
ment, and with any other gove~nrnent whiçh rnay Iiavt an established
intcrest iri tfic waters concemed,in order to agree on suçh pmtectioir
and conservation ri!the resoui-cesiu the ses as cm be proved to he
necmsarvin the cornmontinterest,Tlieynote, I-rowever,with regret tthat
the decl;*rat~.daims to estabiish protectiaii and ccinservatiociverthe
high seasivithout Iiaving obtained any such apcment, and tvithout
piaviding any safeguards with respect te fhe established interestsof
atlier Statessuch LS were mentioned in the declaration made bg the
Prcsident of the United States seferred to abovc. PIrey ftre therefore
obligcd to have placed firmly oirrecord witli thePemvian Governmmit
that,vntii mcll an agreement lias been mçhecl, lhey de mt recognize,
and wiI1not consider tlieinationals 3sking sirbject to,any mcasutes
of restrictioor cantmL mer tliehigh seasouL9ideterrîtorid waterswhiçh
the Peruviam Government rnayseefit to pornuigate in pursuce of the
declaration.
In this connectîon it shouid be notd with particutar referenceto
whaIing that progrcssha'i been made in tlie conservation of whaling
stocks by the Intemational Agreement forthe RemlatXon of W-haling A
signeclinWaslîingtori on 2nd December, 1946b ,y flie representatives of
thc Pcmvian Govemment, of Kiç RIajjesty'Go-cyernment and of Xwclve
other governmentç, Xtis tl~eiiitention of this wenient to safeguardby
international action the legitimate interestsof al1 those States whicli
am parties toit,as wellas the cornmon interestOF al1in the consert:ation
of wMes at A productive Itrvel,asid Hi5Majeçtyk Governent would
rtccosdinglybe glacl to consider, in consultatirin tvitl~otliergovern-
ments which are or may becsmeparties tothe weernent, an yadditional
masuTe$ which the Peruviaa Government may consider it desirabIeto
adoyt for the consei-tratiof wlialcsin thewatcrs adjacent to tliePcm-
vian coasts.They are unable, meanwhile, to reçognixe as applicableto
British whaling vesselsany unilateml restrictionson whaling which the .
Feruvi~n Goveme~it rnay scefitto impose,inpursuance of thcdeclara-
tian referredtoabovc, onPeruvian iressels.
I avail myself of this upporhinitp to renew to Your Excellericj~the
wumuce of mg higl~est considcration.
(Siped) JOHN C. DOKNXL~,~
. HisExce1leric-y
Sehor Doctor Don Erinque Garcia SayBn,
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lima- TKEATY
BETt9rEBN HIS hZAJES'YIN RES~%CT OP THX UNITED KINGDOM AND THE
'PRESIDENTOF THE UNITED STATES OF VENEZUELA
RELATIflG '1-T0HE SUBMATÇINEAREAS OF THE
GULF 037PARIA
CARACAS, FERRITARY' 26, 1942
Alz~i9340
PROTEST BY UNITED KINGDOMGOVERNMENT AGAINST
DECLAFtATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF CHILE
OF x3rd JWE, 1g47
In a !etterof ~3th Augwtr 1947,the Chargéd'AffairesinLondon of
of Ris nlajesty G'svernment ancopyuofia declaration dated23rdJune,n
rg47,byHis E~celiencythe President ofthe chilean Republicregarding
ChiIeancoasts,Reference was madeteinthat declarat-ion to earlierprocla-
mations by the Governments of theUnited StatesofAmericaand Mexico
. regarding tlzeir sovereiptyover the conthen ta1 shelves adjacentto
their coz15ts.and to that hy the Argentine Republic regarding its
sovereignty over the continental shelf and the waterahve it.
. 2.In his declaration,the President of Chile
(r)proclaimed on behalf of the Goaernment of Chile national
sovereigntyover the continental &elfadjacen totthecontinenta1
and isrnricoasts ofits nationalterritory~vhatev~rmight be its
depth belriw Shesea and claliried in eonsequence a11the natural
riches existinon the said shelfor under it ;
(2)proclaimed national sor:ereignty over theseas adjacent tciits
coast, mhatever their depths, within those limitsnecessary in
order ta preçervê.and exploit the naturd Tesourceswithin said
seas and placd .within thecontrol of tlGorremrnent al1fishing
and whaling acti~tition fhem ;
(3) dedared protection and contra1hmediately over an thc seas
coatained witliinthe peheter fonned between the coast and
the mathematical parûllelprojectie nto the=a at a distance of
zoo nauticalmiles from the coaçtofChilean temitos.
7.Mis Majesty's Governm&t in the United Ringdom are gravely
huictcd by the implicationsoftliabovedaims which go farbcyond ANNEXES TO BRITISR REPLY (NO. 40)
73
those put farwxd inthe earlier declarations referred to abbveof thc
United States of Amcricaand Mexico, Io partitukir, it would appear
fmm the third item quoted in the precedingparagraph, .that it is the
intention of the Chilean proclamationto defirithe continentalshdf as
extending to thc nnprcccdented distance ofzoo nantical mileshm the
Chilem coastwithaut regard tothe dcpthof the sea,wheseas the United
States Government's announcement, made at the th of the issue of
their declaratio and the Mexican declaration define the continental
shelfas that part ofthe çéa bed contiguoiiçto the continent lvhich is
covesed by not more than IW fathoms in the caseof the United States
of America and not mure than 200 rnetre o r 109fatlioms inthe =e
of Mexico.No precise definitioofthe continental sheIf apgearta have
ben givcn in tlieproclamation or decrciof the Argentine Govemment
on this subject.
4. Ln the light of thforeping considerationsHis Majesty'sGvern-
ment inthe United Kingdom, while not opposed inprînciple to clahs
to the exercke ofsoverelpty over the seabed contiguous to the Chilean
mast, are unable to accept the claims set forthin 'the dechration of
~3rd Jme, 1947.
j. 'l'heChilem Government's action on the ott~echand In daiming
saveceignty overthe large areas ofthe high seas abovc the continental
shelf appears to be quite irreccincilable with anampted principleof
illternationaiaw go~erning the extent of territoiai waters hitherto
recognimd by the Chilean Govemment or the great mmajorityof othes
maritime States,In this connection it is permissiblto point out that
President Truman's Proclamationof September 1945 wide asserting
certain clah tothe control and conservation of fisherieç adjacen o
the United Statescoast, made nodaim to territoriasovereignty over
thase waters.
6. While recogninng therefore that the protection ind ccontrolof
hherieç and the consenation if the natwal resourcesin the seas are
the legitimate concerrrof any country ntithinthese watts ovtt which
its temitarial jurisdictextends, HisMajesty's Govemrnent areobliged
ta placefmnly on recod with the Chilean Government that they do not
recognize territorialjuridictioover waters outside the limit of 3 miles
frorn the coast ;nor wili tliey regard British veseh angaged in khkieir
lawful pursuits onthe high seasas Mg subject, without the consent
of His Malesty's Govemmt, to any measmes which the Chilean
Government may seefit to promdgate inpursuance of the declnration.
His Bfajestv'sGavernment also recognize that the protection of
&&ries and ihëcanservation of natinal reçanrces ithe high seas out-
side territorial waterare a pzoper object ofagreement.bet weeiz those
States whose nationals have joined in developing and maintaiiiing the
fisherlesand other actïvities hywhich thme resources are put to use.
Tbey are,therefore,prcpared to enter into negotiatitisitl~thcChilean
Government, and with any other govwnment wliich msy have an
cstablished iriterat in the waters concernedin order ta agree on such
protection and conservation of the resourcesintheseaas cm beproved
to be necessary in the cwnmoninterest. T11eynote, however, with
regret that the declaration claims to establishprotection and conser-
vation over the hi hseas withoat having obtained any such agreement,
and without providing any safeguxds wifh-respect tathe cstablished interestsofotlier States,.suchas were mentioned in the drclaratim
made by the President of the United States referredto above. Thep
. are, thereforobligedto placefinnEy onrecorcl\vit1the Chilcm Govem-
ment that, nntil wch an agreement. has been reacl~ed,they do nat
recognixe,and wiil not considm their nationalas beingsubject to,any
measuresof restriction or conhl orterthe high seasoutside territorial
' waters ~rvhichthe Chilean Government my sec fit to promnlpte in
pursuance OZ the dedaration,
8.In thls connectionitslrouldbe noted inparticular that,asregards
whding, both the United Kingdom and Chde me parties to the Inter-
national Agreemmt for the RepIation of Whaling, signed in London
on8th June,1937a ,ndto theProtoc01of 24thJune, 1936 ;and signatories
of the Protocosigned atWashhgton onznd December, ~gqh, amending
thatagreementby which the mntracting parties mutiiallimposed upon
thcmselves cestain oestncticns directedtowards the conservation of
wliales.His Majest 's Government Iiave bcen scrupulous in fdfdling
theirobligationunc efhis agreement and wouldbe grepared triconsider,
inconsultation with the ûther governments. which areor may becorne
partiesto the agreement, aiiy additional rntasurw which the Chilem
Gavement may consider it desirabltoadopt for the consenation of
w11desin the watersadjacent to the Chilean coasts.They are nnable, '
meanlvhib, to recognize asapplicable to Eritish ~vhaljngveswls any
unilateraï restrictionon whaling which the CliiIe~nGovemment may
seefit to impose, in pnrsuance of the declasation referredto above,
on Chilean vessels,
(The above prbiitéswtas deliverd on 6th Februa~y, 1948.)
INTERNATIONAL NQRTII-W'EST ATLANTIC FISFIERIE$
CONFERENCE
FINAL ACT AN73 CONVENTION,
DESCRIPTION OFTHE ARCS OF CIRCLES AETHOD01.'
DHLIRfKING TERRITORIAL WATERS
mie French erpreksion for this metliod is 'la courbe tangente'))
The exteriorliraiof territoriwaters consists of thenvelop~ of the
arcs ofdl circlesof{inthecase of Nomay) 4milesradins,mhose centres
l Yrinteand piiblishbyHis Majesty's StationeOfim,London,Cmd. 3458.
1949.M. f,iifgren,ForThipermissionthe miter expressesbis gcatefulapprecia-
tion, Additiona~apinionsin thcsame caseby M. Unden, former Minister
for ForeignAffairs, anbyDr. Gihlare alsoofgreat importancebut were
not receivedin the toIseincotporah tee. The opinion of R'Ltifg-ren
~O~~OEV:S
"To His Excellencythe Min*er for fioreigrAffairs.
"In comection tvith the captue on ~gthJanuasy, 1925 ,f a Gemm
ship report& to have been founa trawhg at the place.of captme,
1.4distrmce minutes outsideofthe linebetwee n aUand'sVade6 light-
honse md Tyl5 Eghthouse, at the mouth of Lahoha Bay, Your Excel-
lency hasreqtiested me ta makca atatment concerningthe extension of
Swedish territorialwatcrs in this distric; and in JulfillmentçiIthis
request 1have the honour to make the followjngstatement.
"In orderto conh the vict~ 1 holdregardi heg territoritvatcr:rs
aound Laholm Ray, It is necessary to ttouch irpon the question of
Sw"Itsistwdriknom that there existenenolnnifo~rninternationdrules as
regards the extent of the wat~ iimits within which a country hnlds
sovereignty and jurisdiçtien for the protectfof its pditical andeco-
nornic interests. Judging from various themieofinternationallaw doc-
trineswhich have been submitted (secbelow),each countryhas recog-
nized different rdein legislation andpracticfora territorial lirof3,
4 OC 6 nautical miles or,in çme cases,evcn more, accordi~ig to its
particdm intel-ests(forexamplefishingj, wit,which thecorntry daims
jurfsdictionAnd insofar as such clairnshax~eIladsunicient weigl~tand
reaçonabIe Iimit-itmay be noted that different limitmay be claimed
for different ptisposes-thehave ben respected by internationallaw.
Tradition bv mems of çeiitury-long practice, dilring rvhaccertain
national limitbas LSjbeceaimed as fxras possible, has ocourse been
regarded asan importantground furits recognition eveininternational
law .
"AsregardsStveden, allmitha$ longbmn cUed forterritorial waters
of Igeogaphlc mile,consiçtingof1/15degreeor4nautical mil= calculated
.from theline oflow water. For aeutrality purposes this Jimhas been
supportedin severcddecrees ever sincethe latter haIof rpo, and thc
same bais h-iaskcn uscd formgulations concerning police andcnçtoms
umdç and for fishing, whichhas been rmcrvd for Swedish citizens
7Royal Decree 1871 cancerning fishingoff the ~vesttoasof Sweden and
later decreeii).
"Instatements made toioreign Powts, the SwedishGm7ermeut ha3
repeatediy rderred to tradition anddccrcresirparwhich are based the
claims ofataritarial water limit o4 nautical miles£rom theco;rstThis
was done in1874f, or example,inconnectionwith the circular note othe
tlicnBritish Ministerfor Foreip Mairs of28th Septernber ofthe same
year ;and again when dedaring its neulraIitytotlie fore& Potvers in
question at thebeginnhig oftlie IVorldVFrar.t istme that the warring
nations didnot always respect this claim durinthe World tira^.But in
the exceptions when action was taken in conflictvith the Swedish
attitude, the Swedish Government prot~tcd against the Ia~vleçmessof
such hostile action. Neitherwas tlSwedislxpriidcge abanduned by the
isçumce of two dermes by theSwedish Ç~vernment on 29th November,
191. 5n,d19th Jnly, 1916 , herebyit declareditselcontent to supportpassS\iledishterritorial waterOnn theacohtrary,thegfom~ulatiitinfthese
decrees ('inStvedishterritoriawaters within 3nautical minutes" )raves
that, intlieopinion ofthe Srvedish*Government ,the limlt fotmi torid
waters extancledbeyond3 miles.
"A decm issued on rqth July, 19x6, prohibiting air trafic ovw
Swedishterritory, masso put into effectthat Swdish \vaterlimitswere
regarded as extendi~g~4 nauticalmiles from the toast.
"As to the i~fmnairzonatrt.cc)g~rir£tthe above-mentioned de, it is
worthy of note that the prominent interi~atioaal la\.expert, Professor
Franz V.Liszt,in a mernorandrrm pseparedby him, iltthe request ofthe
Swedish Govemrncnt ,inconnection with the capture of the Elida dnring
the 1;lrorldWar by Grman marine forces at adistance of behveen 3 and
4 miilutes frm the S~wdishcoast, declafed that $w8&'s claim tva
4-mdc Iimitfor ifsfmit~rial waierAss wonilaterfilcata'aclhawtedpent
and thatfhis timif waxnlsaAntdi?~gforthe Germa%Gwcrnment.
"The rule having a daim to generalrecognition, which has ben cited
as opposed to the Snredisl~andNomegiari 4-mde claim, is the 3-rn*
limit acceted by Hngland, among others. This de, hasve.verwas ncit
fixed untS thefirstpart of1800i ,norder to establis11a fim basifor the
çalculation ofterritorial waterinplace ofthe principlecited by Grotius
that the territorial waters ofa country should extend as fa.ras tliey
could be enfiladeclwith artillery fromthcoaçt.Three milestvasprobably
at tliatthe the range-limit ofpns, but the principle upon which the
rule wasb~sed should later haverequired an~~tensio 01itlie territorid
watcr hi ts,correspnding -rtiih the technicd aeveloprnent of the limit
of the mge 01 gms.
ah1he longerdistance ofSwedish and Wom~gigiant erritorid'watershave
presumably rernained as the reduced results of anefforto daim a stin
more exteided lirnit, calculatcaccordingto a rneasureconipeting rnth
the 'rangeof ps', viz, the ço-caIled'çighorrange of vision ruIe' : they
tned to cl& for Çwedisli (and for Norwegiari) territorid waters the
distance from which the rigging of alarge sliipcodd firsbe seen fm
land. The extensive investigationsmade in conncction with the Nonve-
gian reguhtions conçeming territoriwaters, are of thegreateç itterest.
About the middlc of 1700 a decisionwas made çoncerning the Norwe8ian
territorial watcrs, hotas regards protection ofneutrality aridfishrng,
ivhich proclaimed as Noswegian taritorid waters one (014 Nonvegian
mile whicli isequd to -ggeogrnphicmile or4 minutes. (See Dr. Boye's
7~erri~oriuFdVutersAt tlie conferencaS Stockholm in 1924of theInter-
national JAIV Association-) InSweden a Royal communicrition of 1738
was stdl hased upon the range of vision de, which made territorial
waters 3 geopphic miles {equsrl to 12nautid miles).But ii-ithe King's
instructionstu thei~sly'scornanders of 28th May, 1773,it was declarecl
that, 'for thepresent','StvedishDominions should extend one nautical
or se-callec"German" mile (rgeographic mile)beyond the shoresof the
ishds, smdl islandsandsidges farthest from the mainland'-that is to
Say, the Gavernment did not cancel itsdaim rnanifcstedat an earlier
date for a more wtended territor limatl(3 gengraphic mil=), but
remained content to decreaseitforthe the being in tliis marnerHow-
mer, the timitfrxedin tlieinstruction of1779 becme effective for the
future. "Both for Sweden and Norway the limitafr gmppkîc de (4 --
~tes)mnstituted the frnaipoint inthe.development of the law and waç
fixedat the same the asother couiltriefixed the 3-minnte&ance as
the. liniit of tterritoy.
'"Vitliouta generaL international agrment, the clah for generd
recogniti ofnthe latter rucannot 'apassed furth~r than tliaiitmay
be-deemed in forc f and açIoiigasan individual countrydots not make
a well-foundedclaim for anoü~er Iirnit fàtsterritoriawaters, Inprac-
tice, internationlaw has gonenofurther than to regardthe 3-mile limit
as thc usualam; on the contrary,ithas taken it for gsanted that even
ketween corntries recognizingthe3-milerule, specirulesforrecognition
'oa marc!extended lirnit may be hxed.(Comparethe arbitraiion i1893
betweerrEngland and Arnerica conmrning scalhunting in the Behring
St"1 have medtioned abave that eiten whcre the 3-mile litnit isthe
recognlzed one wlth specialreference to neatrality protection, special
rulesmay be inforceinother respect assforinstance,forfishing,tustoms
çontrol and controlover liquor trafic, etAs to fishlng,Great Britain,
the United StatesFmw, Germany, Relgiwn anclthe Netherlands have
supparted the3-mile ruleboth ii-the NorthSea Convention of 6th May,
1882,and in certainuther agreements, Denmark l-ias&a adhered ta the
convention inregard toftshinginthe North Sa, but,on tlie other hand,
thesame country supports the+mile rie inthe Çenven tion of-th Jdy,
1899,conceming fi~liininthe waters behwn Denmark and Sweden, to
which fact1 \vilrefeslater,
"In suggestinga generaI international agreementinthe premises, the
proposalhas beenbased upon the suggestion that the linrit should &ih~
be generally extendeclto 6minutes (nantical miles) or that the 3-mile
'limit, abehg tliemat i~sual,should be adopted, butwith the kerva-
tion of the right maintain the greatzr lirniwhich had formerly been
inforcein certainplace andlor in specialcasesaccording toeçtabljshed
custorn.
"lnquating the Fiçhmy Dem of5th hfay, 1.8~1t,e flshingwaters,
as regards fishery, teservecl for S~vedçitizen: 'Theterritoriawaters
areregardedasextendhg r gmgrapliicmile from lar~dor frtithe shores
of the islmds, smdl lslands and ridgeç fa~.theftm tfsSw~dish coast,
wftichare 7zocmtstandyslsbmevged.'Islandsand ridges sjtu~ted near the
mosttlimitdoftwhich,ratlow water, the geographi~ mile (the4 nauticd-
miles)shordd be'wlculated.
"Ln general, the outer limit of the territorwaters WU be pardel
with thecoast'smain outline,so that-with the reservationswhich dl
lx giv- below-bays and gdfs, whichareUlcludedin the landtenitory
hlonpng tsone and the same State, wdl be regardecl as thisStatz's
water territoryTnthe latter case,therefore, the limiofthe territorial
waters in theopen c;eawillextend fousnauticalmiles, patdel rvithaline
drasvirstraightacrossthe waters of thegulf orbay frwn l~nd to land or
ifrom islands orrrdgescloseto iand on both sidesofit,Naturd forma-
ïtions andnecessas. pract ieal considerationmust, of course, ififluence
+thehes of demarcation in eaçhspecialcase.
"However, tthc mie describeclable, according ta internationalaw,
'indudes bays and gulfs of certain dimensions (widtatmouth) on1 on
mnditian that more tl-ian a-mntury-old custcim canbe referred to insnppoxtof its clairnttbecoasiderecî asbelanfijngtotheterritory of the
country, If it is not possiblto refm to such traditian, free water for
foreigners insuch largegulfs and bays shaU be between the territorial
waters which aremeawred from shore toshore dong the gulf.
"IVhat wirlth.may such a gulf have m'tfamt supportof ceritury-dà
tradition.in orderto be calculatedas State tenitorid waters ?
"~~in;ons differinthis respec both in themy and inpractice,and
precedents, mi~ventions and authbritative statments give no definite
lines for any replyaueptable i#gtmrd. On the other hsnd, they give
rather reliableaid when, Piavingas abasisthe above-mentioned regula-
tio~s forthe hits oi Swediskiterritoriawaters, the forming of a well-
founded opinion astcilrow a Swedash-internationa plointof law should
be decided upon.
"'Thestrictcsvicw taken,from atemitonal point of view, Isthat no
@If or bay may bcregardedas a State'sterrtonal waterswhich mesures
more than h nauticalmiles at itsmontli, or, where the ~vidth at the
mouth is hroader than the interiar of the baythe \vater limitmay be
regarded as hternal territoridwatetsonlyfrom the pointsclosestta the
mouth wherethe width is 6nauticd miles atthe most. Tl& attitude has
been proclaimed by the BritishGovernment upon different occasions,
and also by the Gmm Government towmds Sweden in regard ta
breacl-ieçof neutrality during the liliorld SVThe same opinion was
supported by the United States of herica in a ciinffict withGreat
ini19x0,dconcerning fishiiroffthe North Atlanticncoast.But the Court
rdjectedtheattitude supporteclby Amena.
"This attitude,iiiihicisa schematic application of the 3-mile nile .
caldatecl fronl botRshoresof a bay ogulf,Ilasben almost unanirnously
rejected asunreasonable by the dockines of internationallaw. O+$ea-
heim, who mnst be regaded as one ofthe most prominent international
law expertsof our the, sayç 'that nooriter ofatithority cabe referred
ta as supporting thisview',and he prova that Great Eritajn'hawlf in
several mes lias rejected itHOW the case referred toby the Swedish
Government upon a previouo ccasion, the so-call eing's cham bers,
rnay lx regaded ,needsnot be touçhed upon.Ttisprobable that England's
daims in the prerniws have ken given trpby now. But Qppenheim
declares that Great BritainstiUregardsthe Bay of Conception in New-
founrllad as belanging to its territory, altliough this bay extmds
40 "les innards, and ismore thaii zo miles in width litits mouth.
Oppenheimstates that this isalsa the practice in several other countries,
ailringtci their olitical and geographical cmditions-especiaily as:
rcgardr:thk largeRomgian fjords. of which more below.
"ln façt not onlya Grnile limitbut a IO-milelimit hasbeen practised
iu thisregard, evea by England and Germany md other çc~untnes,
which in general daim the 3-d~ Kmit fur territorialwaters. On
2nd Aiigmt, 1839,a fisheriesagreement rrasmade between France and
Great Britain by which ewh camtry reserved foritscitizens sole fish-
ing sigltswith the 3-mile limiofi thecoastç of=ch country. Andas
regards ùays, .themouths of which were not broaderthan IO nauticd
miles, the decisio!vasmade that the 3-mile limit out to thsea shauld
be rneasured fsom astraightline dnwn fmm shore toshore.In theabove-
mention4 convention çoncerning North Sea fishing of 6th May, r882,
the fishingrightsof the citizens of the respective countwere rmrved withinabit of3 miles.As tobayst ,he 3-de tirniwaç tobe dculaterl
from a straight line drawnright aoosç the hy from thepoints lvhere
the opcning Frrstha a.width ofID miles.
"The Institute of Internationah~v (Xnstitude Droit inteinational,
linnuaire1894-~Syj),whichprepmd a plail inrSg4for the extension of
the territor ra~t.tcto6 nautlcal miles, proposedsin~ultaneously that
the greatest width pmiçsible interritorrdl baysbe 12 nautical miles
(plainlyaccordhg tothe same formula utfiichin the caseof the double
3-mile limit ibays. wa expi-eswd in the theoryfor a 6-milelatitude).
"The theoretical premise inproposhg a ro-mil- a 12-mile-limit
has principjlly ben 'the visioi~-sange rule', whihas againasserted
itselfandwhiclr may as .rveLle talieasacriterion fora 12-mile-yes,
and even for a I& ta a&rnil&it, asit cm be taken as a reasonfor
. the deckion of rrimutical miles asthe shortest di3tance atwhich itEs
possibleto see fmrn shoreto shore. Oppenlieim and ofbers support the
theory of 'the gun ange" calcculatedfor artîllerupon either or botla
sidesof the bay' ;nd, in factin our tirnethismakes atlest the amc
distanceas when based uponsight t,mgc.('hterfiationd Law, atreatise',
hy L. Oppenheim, Professor at CambridgeUniversity, Vol. x, Peace,
second editiori,p162,para. 191.)
'X Aarmore mIiablebasisfor jud gthe consquences ofthe gmeraliy
acceptsd international principks or our rights inthis connection, is
obtaincd Isyayiplyingthe mguflrmtalzon concerr-ing our prevalent ri&t
ia connectiùn with tlie fishrries conventions aï 1893.
New York, J, Moore,now rnernber of the netv PermanenthenCourt aEThen
Hague, rnakesa dedarationin connedion with the negotïationsin 1894
in the prernises for the motives upon whicthero-mile hit inthe said
connections is based. [Here follows the statenent of Judge Moore's
views whicli have already ben quotd fzillyearlier in this chapter.]
"If thiarpmei~tation is good, the consequances as regaràç Stvedish
temitoriat watersingulfs ,md bays areas follows:the maximum line of
6 miles, supprted upan the 3-mile limit, when Imed upon tlie Swedish
+mile limit wouid plauil myean a territorial water Ilne 8f nauticd
des. As mentioned above,this ptinciple is practically mmLmously
rejected b~ internationallatv dockiiies,and was alsorejectcd by the
Court at 'he Hagm in tlrabovc-mcnfioned law case in1910. this was
a case where, uwing to the territmial rlileç of both parties,premisc
was the 3-rrllIcLimitEut, with the argumentation upon ~vhich the
ro-mile lidt was baed, according tu Mr. Moore, foreign 5sl.ti11gin
Swdish bays shodd not he allowed other than whenfmcwater ismare
extensive than territorial waterifit is calculated hm theshore, or in
imy crisnot lcs tliaii th4 miles which were taken into çonsideration
evm when based upon tlie 3-milelimit.Bays and gulfsof a width of at
leastxz nauticalmiles should, xcordirito thispri-incipl,e regarded as
Çweilcn's territorialwateras ~egards fishingIn a practitalmanner for
andogoris application,we arriveatthe same result ,athatdesignated by
the Instit-ute of InternationLaw.
"Swedcn, as tvd asNamay, has not only~11vi~yoppascd the recogni-
tion oi a base-linin the premises ofat most 6 nautical mda, but the
Swedish-Nomreig anGotfernment officiallydeclued, during the negotia- 760 A~~x~~ TO BRITISQ REPLY (~0. 431
-hm there 4mas out tosea from abase-llineat the motlth of tliha .
As previoitsly rneritionéd,the limit whwe fishing is ressxved for tKe
citizensofeach country ivasdecided at one geographic mile from the
l coast 'or fwomthe outemost isles or rockswhicliare not pemaiientlp
sabmerged'.Rowever, there is oneexceptionto tkis generairde, namel,
that Swedish fichemen are al.ia~.eto Fishofithe Island ofAnholt as
closeas$ gmgrapkic mile from the coastsof this idand, andthatDailish "
fishmen, at rishiiar distance,'are aliowed to fish outside of the
base-linc drawu fmm Halland's Viided lighthouses to the Tylii lighf-
l-iouse'On the basisof this convention a decree as above was issued
on z$l-October, rgo7, paragraph 7 of which contained a çorresponding
mgulation. Lt is tobe obscrved that the regulation in question was tu
give Danish Prshcmenprivileges in return foprivilegesgiven to Swedsh
fishermen, and that the lmis of such a privilege accorded Denmark is
that Sivcdishterritorial waters extend 4-miles outside of the rnouth
of Laholm Bay. Should thismangement nçithave been made, Danisli
fiçhemm woirld have ben Lna les privilegsrlsituatioto thatof other
foreign frshermenwho had m~zeeaQ to referto in suppod of their rigllt.
"Tt isworthy of note, fiually, thatthe Decree of 20th December,
1912 ,oncerning action forthe protection ofSweden'sneutrdiv in time
of wax, inchdes al1 bays on the S-wedishçoast EE,'hkrlzai territorial
wattrs:
"In th^abrive argumentation the quetiori ha.n?ot been raisedELÇto
i~herher Laholm Bay shodd be regarded asSwedish territorial waters
owing to century-old cnstom. 1 canmt produce any rnemormdum of
an investigation, but asfar asI have ben ableto obtain information;
it wonlé seem that old custurncan be referredto,acçording to which
the districtin question andthe waters at a certaindistance outside of
it have been regarded and tseated as Swedish zvaters,In order ta ciom
rny opinion Ihave regarded the argumentation givenahoveas sufficient.
"Another quation is between what points the base-linisto ibedrawii,
frm which the territoriawaters out to sea should be calculated-
whctl~er this shodd be from mainland to mainland upon.both sidesof
the moutl-r ofthe hay w fwm islands md Ijdg~s outsicle oit.
'Ttmay be of importapce ta knotvwhether HaIIand'sVaderb can bc '
regarded as a part of the configuration which frirms the month of the
bay.According to Nowegiao practic eh,ichis more eestablishedthan
ours, suchiçlarids,dets and ridg~ m fom a fjord together rviththe-
m~tinland, are includedin Nowegian territorid waters.The opinion of
the Nomagian SeaBoundary Commission, bd upon extensive studies,
has beenexpresxd in such amariner that hiternational lawaUowseach
State ta regulate the detailsofthe boumdariesinquestion, although
fuUconsideration must he taken in thisconneçtion,to historicand other
circumstances. It is pointed out, finaUy,that the arhitration in the
conflictin1910 coi~cerningtliefisherjwoffNewfoundand is bas& upon
the standpint thnt the base-lineferthe mlcolahon of the caastrvater
outside ofbaysshoiild be a stmight En!: drawn across thewater 'attlie
place rvhere thisceasesto have the shcture characteristic of bay'.
"Lahotm Bay foms a seapif ~vhichcanbe quite naturallymarlted
OB by a he Tylti lighthaus(or perhaps Tjuvhalsuddm)-HOghalIsudde,
by which tlie rnouth ia littlover re,but much namiver than rzmiles.
But, as regards this bay,a specid base-line seems to be tmditioiial,
namdy. the one hetween Tylb lighthouse and Halland's Vadero light- ANNEXE$ TO BRïTISR REPLY {YO. 44) 7'51
house. And with referencetothe longer base-hc, tvhich isnbtainad in
thk manner, no obstacles would seem to be met in ttakingthe httor
line astlre beginninof the outer territorial wateDuring theriegotia-
tiods IJefore the Conventi~ofr899 \vit7Denmark> there daesnet seem
to have been mention macleof rrnyotlletbase-llnefram tvhiçh territorial
hundaries outside of I~lioh Bay sho~1lcb 2ecalculated thau the line
Tylo1 light housHaIland's Vade6 liglithouse, ;uid no objection what-
soever was made by the Danes qWnst thisline A,similarbase-lineas
the bais for bouudasies hasbeen succesfuliy suppflcd by Siveden in
bordertreaties~vithNorway, namely, the Sweclislipa~tofthe line Great
Drmrnen-Nejekubb. (Compare with the RoyalDecree ofqth July,qro,
rnentioned inGovernor Hammarskjold 'smemormduni.)
''With reference to the above1 believe tliath SwedishGovernrnent
isfully mtitledto daim that tlie entiLaholm Bay and wate~ out to
sea be regardedas territoriawaters withü~whlch Ming is reservedfor
Stvedish subjects.
(Signet?.ELTEL LOFGRE N.
~toc&olin, rrth Iiebruary,Iwj.
OPINION OF LAW OFFICERS (1875 C)ONCERNXNG GREAT
BARRIER REEF
TKE LAW OFEICERS OP TAE CROWP: TO COLONIAL OFFICE
My Lord, O
\Ve an! honoured uith your Lordsliip's çommdç, signiEd in
Ms. Rfdccih's letter of th10th instant,stathg that hewaç directed by
$our~ordshipto transmittous a mpy of adespatch frtimthe Governor of
Queenslandt respeçtingdonbts which have rirlsen in that coloinregard
Io the jurisaictionnf the locd pvernment under Letters Patent of
30th May,1872, and Proclamation by the Governor of the colony, dated
zznd 'August, r872 (copies of whichwre mnexed), ~vlrerebyislands
within 60 miles ofthe coastof the coLonyarebrought within the juris-
diction oftlie localgovemment.
Inregard to the question whetliethe milesreferfedto inthe'ieinstru-
ments are statuteor geographiçal miles, hfr.Malcolm vas desire? to
incloseALcopyaf a letterfrom the Board of Admirdty =,showing the
theirLorclshipçJdirection an certain chasts designéoishow the islands
cornpriseclrvithin the 60 miles' limit.
Asbearingupon other points raised inthe presentpapers,Mr.Mdcoh
was chrected by yourLordship ta transmit tous the indosed copy of
an o inion giverr by the Law Officersof the Crown npon a question
whicf arme in Bermuda in the year r862,as to the point an tlie coral
reefs fsam wl~ich thc territorial jurisdictiof that mlony seawards
hvenior ofQueensland(h'o.63),Sth Tol~rnber.~8~4.
8mLiLwOfficursl opin3rd,Decernbcr,tm?.should bedlmated, and Mr. Malcolm was desiredto requestthat ~ve
wouId talzethesepapcrs into ourconsideration, andfawouryour Lord-
sl* with Dur opinion upon each of the points rai& in the recent
despatçh (and hclosum) from theGovemor of Queensland.
h oùedieaceto y0111Lordship's comrnands ~ve have takenthese
papers inta consideration, and havthe Jionaurtoreport:
x, That Queendarid has no legislatiauthority ovm the sms beyond
the distanceof3 marine miles fromlow-watermarkan the main-
1and and islands respectively.
2. That the miles referredtoin the rodamation arc marinemiles.
3. ï31atthe wliole of ari islmd whci!lies pnrtlwithin and pariiy
witlioutthe 60 deskit belongs $0 the colony.
4. Land not submerged ntordinary highItidehowetrnrmalI inextent,
îsan islmd.
5. Reefs attachedto an ishnd and &y at ioxvwater are partof the
islan.
6. Reefs defached from =y islamds and dry at low rv:tteqnly are
not klands.
(Siped) RTCHAW BAGGBJ,LAY.
(SQned) JOHN KOLI~R,
Ame~ 45
LETTER FliOM Tm UNDER-SECETARP OF STATE FOR THE
COLONIES Di NOVEMBER 1536 TU S. COXE, ESQ., DEFININE
TEE 330UEsTDARIE OSF THE BRITISH SETTmMENT OF BELIZE
Downing Street,
Sir,
1 am directedby the Secretary ofStatc toacknowlcdge the receipt
ofyour letteraf'the 17tinstantinquiring onJxhM oftb E-tem Coast
of Central AmericaCompany,"what arethe hundaries claimed by His
Majcsty's Government for British Honduras or Belize",and 1 m to
acquabt you,inanswcr,that the territory claimed l~ytBritishCrown,
as belonging to thBritish setaementsin the Bay ofHonduras, extmds
framtlie River Hondo on the North ttothe River Sarstooiithe South,
and as farWest as Garbutt'sFalls onthe RiverBelizeand ahe parallel
to strhe on the River Hondo on the North, md the River Sarstoon
on the South. The British Cmvn daims ah0 the waters,islands and
Gays lyingbetwcen theçoast defineand the mesidianof the msternmost
point of LightbouseReef.
1am, at the sanie tirnto warnyouthat the pater part oftheterri-
tory inquestion has never been thesubject ofactualçuwey, and that
parties~vho should assume the topograph oyfthe remoter tracts, and.
especidy the courseofthe river,, upn the authsrity of maps, would
in alIprobabilitbe led into error.
I have, etc.
çsegma GjEO~GE GREY* No. 1
U?,Tl'ER FROM THE GOVERNOR OF BRITISH WQXDURAS TO
TE COLONIAL OFFICE.
Governmed t House,
Belize, 20thDerember, rggz,
Sir,
,confidentiddespatch ofi11th Octoberirlastoiiethecsubject,Bder nka,
of the territorialwaters of British R~ndnm, 1 have the lmnour to
addres you regarding tlie mail stretch of higseas which is show^ by
the Admiralty chart mclosed in your confirlentialdeçpatch of
agrd July to liehetween the Islandof Turneffe anclthe test of thcol-
ony. 1 enclosea tracingof the portion'ofthe chartsefcmd to '.
2,The area betweeilthe points A and B and Ç and D, i.e.between
lines drarvn £rom Wmge Ca e to the south end of Chapd Caye and
Caye Bakel hgh-hthnuseand &ory Caye mpeciively, has always heen
regarded açterritoriamdtms. It has becn representcd ta me that the
existence nf a çtretchof "higliseas",in the middileof the colony asit
were, tvdi embarrass the customs in dealhg with vessels suspected
cayesaorlof other breachesofothe GustomsoOrdinance inngthisarma,since
it willbe diffimilt to establasvessel'positionwitlisufficiebraçcuracy
to oMain a conviction.
3-If it ispassibleto talrc any action to have the ama in question
declared to bi:lvithinthe limitsof theterritorid waters .;the çolciny,
1 shaIlbe gladifit may be done.
Ihave, etc.
I
REP1,Y OF THE COLONIAL OFFICE TO THE GOmRXOfi OP
BRITISH HONDU.RAS
Downing Street,
3rd June, 1933-
Sir,
I have the honom to açknoivledgc the receipt of your confidential
despatch of 20thDecernk, 1932,concerningtlrc possibilitof deçlarhg
asmztllsketch oftiighscas Eyingbetween theIshnd of Tiirneffeand the
estof the colnny to be ivithin thelimits ofthe territonal waters of
British Honduras, and to inform you thaf this proposal has ken fuI1y
consideredin cmsultation with theDepartments concerned.
-
Yot reprdircod. 2. It isnot clearonwhat groundsthe two areas in qt~estionhave in
the past been regarded as territoriawaters of the colilony.Whik the
difficultiesofthexistenceof astretchof hgh seasofthisilaiusearefully
appreciated, it isclear thatthem is na basis in international latv for
claiming thex areas asterrit~rrd watersand that in facttodo so muid
be contrary to the aççepted pollc of Nis Majcsty's Government as
explained inrny çorhdentialdespatci;of23rd July,5932. 'Ithese cii-cum-
stances 1feelsure that you willappreciate that inamatter of this kind
localintwests must give way to the laqer interests involved.
1 have, etc.
(Sig9Eed)C~rnm-L~m,
Whereaç i t idesirable toextendthe boundaries ofthecolony of13ritish
Honduras 90 asto include thecontinental shelf contignouçtothe coasts
of the wlony :
Now, therefore, ms Majesty, in purnianceof the pmvers codersed
uponHim by the ColonialBonndaries Act, 1895 and ofallother powers
enabliizgHim inthat behaIf, ispleased,by and with the advice ofHis
Prhy Council, to order,andit ishereby ordereü, asffollows:
x. niis order may be citedas the British Honduras (Alterationof
Boundaries) Orclerin Council,x95o.
2. The hundaries of the colony af BritishHonduras are hereby
exfended tainclude the areaof the continental shelwhichlies bene+ .
the seacontigaous to thecoasts of British Honduras.
3. Nothing inthis ordei shd be ELeerned to affect thecharacte as
high seasof my waters above the continental shelfand outside the limits ,
of territorial waters.
;4mnex &
CHART OF BERMUDA ISLANDS
[In sffiavaicow]
[ 58 and 59Tlct.c.34. ANNEXES TO BRITISH KEPLY (~e, 4.9)
Amex 49
No,r
[il'hilettewm f~m a~ o@iakimthe Lm C~édl~ d'taçlaoftltTreasacry
SoLicitw'Dcpdment toünoficid ifthePrix Brmch]
TFeasurySolicitor'sDepartmen t,
Law CourtsBranch,
I spokete the Presidmfth&morningabout theparagaph in his judg-
ment In thiscasewhich yon willfind at pagej of thetranscripwhiçh 1
retum.
Dr. Fearce Higginsthought it memt that th Preaidenthad assmied
to a Proposd that the proper way ofmeastiring the hit of territorial
watersin a bay,the headland oswhich were 33 milesnpart , astotake
a Iine htxveen the twa hcadlands and to mesure fmm that,but the
Presidmitsayshelaid downnothintg ofthe sortthatiioonehadcontended
that thiwas the correcwap tomeasuresucharvide bztybut he asswned
the claimants' contention(kurLng of coursethe question of rneasuring
frornthe two rocks)and that evea on that assumption the Lskke~ was
outside the 3-milc limit, He did not feel incltcmalce hisjudgment
on thispoint any clearerbut itrnightbe better expressed. . <
No, 2
JUDGNENT 0'1 ;IR SAMUEL EVANS IN THE CASE OF TRE
"LQIKXEN"
Tlie PRESWEN !This Norwegim vesse1was çaptured by R.KS.
C&Ui@eoff thatpart of the coastof Xorway whichLiesbtlveen The -
Naze and theTsIaridofRaiina. She was ccarryina fui1~,2rgoosulphur
pyrites forLübeck. SIE had been cnpged for months in this trxffic to
framkthelformer Danishwownersnfor thiverynpurpose.TheCrown claimt
Itnisnot in dispute &bateiftheccapture took ph^ outçide territorial
waters,the ship and cargome subjecttocondernnatian. 766 ANNEXES TO BRITISH REPLY (s, 49)
Thc Nonvcgian Governent however have asked for aniilrrestigatiorr
in thisCowt of tlrc allegatioof the owners of the ship andcargothat
tlie capturetook place within the territoriwaters ofthat kingdom. The
owners themlves could no*, according to Prize law, clah relief or
exemption on this grouxld(see the Bamp 2 'Crehern PL, 206).But if
the Norlvegian Governmcat put fortvard thecase onIwhalf of sirbjectcof
Narway, and established that at the material the'; the captureclor
capturing ship was withui the territoriawaters ofthe Statc, the ship
anclcargowould be released.
The Court is flocalled upon ta decidein diis case whetherthe limit
of territorialivâtersis 3 marin+ miles, or sme @&&ter distmce, from
the coast.This has ken rendered unnecessary by reason of xn arrange-
ment betwwn the Nomegian and British Governments, xvhi~h iç sum-
marized aç iollows ina letterof the 22nù Nùvember, rgr6, written on
behalf of the Gavernrnentof Norway to the British Foreign Secretary :
'"ihe Nonvegian Governrnent maintain a more extensive line 3s
ta the limitof their territorial waters;but, without abandonhg
their principal pointofview, they deem that they in thisçasc ought
tbeenrseizedwithinsatdiistancr fromqthetNorwegianeimaste of3 miles
oroutside the 3-mile limit,as they are ajvare of the fact that in
questions concerning neutrcility, thelrave nnt hifherto succeeded
in obtaiuitithc secognition of the GeUigerentPowers to the furtl-ier
extensionof Norwegian territoriawaters,"
Tt must be talcen that it wasintended that the distancc rnentiuned was
,3 riauticalmiies.
'J'hishowever sMl leave for determinationby the Court the difficalt
question of ivhat ought to lx regarded as "the Nonvegian coast" from
tvhich the distance isto be measured- It \vas contended that the glace
where tlieship was taptured was ncar a bay of encloçed waters,and that
the lirniwa to be taken from tlie line marking tlseaiiwd edge ofthe '
bay, This part of the cwdst,likemost of the coastof Narway, is full of
inden tationç, small islunds, juttirocks and shoals.
14%at isa bay, and wliat are i£s exact bmndmies or delimitations,
has never hem decided asamatter oflaw. The subjcctha been discussed
'invarions cases ,ome relatingtobellierent rightsand othm torights of
fishing,or otiier proprietaty or jurisdictfonrights.Itisindeed in cath
case a question offact. Lord Blackburnsaid in'delivering the judgmeat
of the JudicialCornmitteeof thePrivy Gouncil in the "Conception Bay1
case : "It does not appcartotheir Lorclshfpsthatjuriçtsand tex-t-wsiters
are agreed as to dimensions and configurations which, &partfmm other
consideratioris,would lead to the conclusion î%at a bay is or isrrota
part of the territoryof the Statc possessing the adjohing cbasts ;ad
it has never, that they can finclken made the pund of ;inyjudicial
determination." (The Direct United States Cable v.Anglo-Arnerican
TelegraphCo., z App. Cases 394 atp. &O),
In a recentcase also inthe Privy Çouncil (Th e ttorney-General for
British Columbia v. Attorney-Gmeral for Canada, rgr4 A.G.153) there
is trbe fond this passage in the udgment(artp.174) ;"Their hrdships
desire topoint out that the 3-miie limit is something very diffe~ent from
the namw-seas lirriit discussed bythe olderauthorities, such asSelden
and Hale, a principlewhich may be said t~be now obso1et.cT.he doctrine ANXEXES TO. BRITISH REPLY (~n. 49) 767
of the zonecornprised inthe former limito~va its origito cmparatively
modern authorities on public international Iaw. Its meaning isstiU in
çoi~trovefsy. Tlrequestions raised thereby affect notonly the Empire
generally but ~1s~the rjglitoi ioreip nafions asagains tte Cro~n, and
of the subjects of the Crown usagninst rither nations in f0reig-nkerri-
tonal waters. Un tilthePO WZB have adecluately discmwd and agreed on
the meanhg of the doctririat a confercilce,itis not desirable thaaliy
~nuniçipal tribunashoilld pronouncc onit ."
If it were necessarin thc pr'rlimcase Eolay dam a lule, iwntildbe
my duty to mdertake the task notwithstadin~: itsdifficulty,because I
have tn admtnister internadonal law. But 1 do not think the riecmsity
ariws, 1am prepmd to assume for the purposes of thiscase, that the
waters wmewherebctweenthe Naze and Raurin Islandor the main land
offwhidi itfiesiç a'bay", althoziglif Ilasno nme and has nevu 11ad
one,so fm i-1know.But it remains tu fixupon the lirrwhiçli marks
its seawardIlmit, and from whicli the marineleague which cletmines
the territorial rwtwsisto bc measiil-ed.
Ithm bee~isuggested that the line sliould be dmm betweei~ "13ispen"
and "Ystesteinen'-a distanceofabout 4+rniies,whirliçouldnotpossiblv
be a correct or evenconvcnient cordïgurat~onofthe "bay". "~is~en'";
marely a tiiiy isalated piecofrock, on which it has l-ieenfound useful
toplace a small obelisk asa daymark, "'Ystesteinen"is "another Iittle
roçky fsland-a tiiiy little onc".see no good raon for taking theçe
small rocks asdefining the ,mat lhe E nomore reason than for taking
the larger islandsof lkla, nlZarko,AIlero, orS~uth Katland, Sir Erie
Ricliards, who preseiited thcase furtlre Norwegian Gc-rrcrnment,men-
tianed the.two rocks above nxmed as passible extrtrniticsofthe line,
but iiis main argument wasthat the bay ~honldbe rnarkcclfrom head-
land to lieadlandoa eitherside of it. Ininy view it would be a iitis-
dscription to cal1these rocks l~eadlarids,and an error to liold tlid
tl-iemarked the endosed waters or bay,
Assumii~g as1have donefor the purpos of th& case,that these waters
form a hy, I think the headland otightta be taken to be theNaze light
onthe East, and on the bVesfthe head O€the maidand offwliiclt Rauna
Island lieat adistance of lesstlian amilo.I take the Iine bettvecnthese
t~vopointsasrnarltingthe bay. ThisLineisreaiiyrhesameas that betweeii
the Nazeand Rama lights. Tliat is the most prac.ticalandsensihie one
to adopt ;and itisnot unfair to thecase prcscnted agdjnst: the Crorvn.
1may add tliatthe thvoheadlmds rneiitioned are about r3rniIcscliskmt
.from estchother. The line beingthus fixcclthe questions of factrcmain
tobe investigated and determinecl whetlzer a-the material times either
the capturing or captured vesse1 was tvitl-iinor ciutside the nautical
milesof it.Tlzesedeperid upoirthe properresult of the tcstimoiiy of the
rvtnesses on either side. The evidence must be tatecl by thme main
considerations. Wliat seof witnesseswere kt qualified tofix distances
and positions? Who had the best means nf doing that ? Who, infact,
made the ùest ùbservatians, or formedthe most accurate estimates ;mcl '
what ~ltneçsek were the most ttastworthy and relirtbl7 The materiai
times alreadyseferrd to are thosewhen the captni-itigvesse1firsstcvtecl
theopration ofclosingonthe Lokkea and ordered herto stop ;and wlieii
the Lahksn stoppsd lier engines in obedience to that orcier.'f^herwas
nosubstantial contxoversyinargument at tthBar asto thesc being the
matcrial thcs, The nuthorities, which ii-does not ssem necessary toquote, sufficientlyestablisthat. Sme mittcism was made as to tlie
psitian oi theCw EEiupinreferenceto temitorid watersbeforrany artion
lilataken. I do not accept i;andtherefore 1 do not propos? to discuss
it here. Inconi~cctionwith tbat topic I will merely cite the following
passage£rom the Commentaries of Mr.Chmcelior Kent (rzth d., p.1x9,
Vol. 1).
"Ifa belligerentowncrifioffmsively passes over a portion of water
lying w-ithinneutrd jurisdiction,that fact isnot usually considered
such a violation 01the temitory as toaffect and invalidate anultwior
capture made beyond it, Tliepassage of ships overterritorial portions
of the sea,is a thingless griardedtlianthe passage ofmies on Iand
because lessinconvmimt, and permission to pass over them is ~ot
usually required or asked.To vitiatea subsequent capture, the passage
must at least have beerrexpressly retlised, ar thpermission to pass
obtained under falsepretences.That passage is takenfrom the jndpent
in the Twtx Gebroeders(3, Rob : 336) ; but the leamed jurist adopt~d
it as hisown view ; and itappesrs,if 1may express my own v-iew,to
be qnite sound. '
Upon the questionof fact, I:propose to examine firstin order the
testimoriy of theLokfte~'swlt.nesses.That was the earliest @va h
cornparing theevidence as tothe thes, it haç tobe borne in mlnd that
the time bgged and spolcento by the Nonvegians %as mid-European
time ; and that by the naval officasGreenwiclimean tirne. The mid-
Europem the isone hottr inadvance of Greenwich mean time, sothat,
if the shifssçloclrsothernise synchmnised, 4 o'clock on theL0hkm
would be 3 o'dcckon the Cczllio#e.
3.8 am.e(G.M,T,)e;whenthe ovilerotostopgwasegivenb3-10am,ta(G.M.T.) ;
cuid when the urder\vasobeyed hy stappingthe LoKKm's engins absut
3-11 or 3.12 am, (G.M.T.).The story of the L~Kkem 'may be takento
be& at 2.35 am, (iM.E.'r.)according to hm ship's the.
Berthelsen, the secand afiçer,was fhen on watch; He said he took
afour-point bearing ofLister Iightabeam, bearing N.E. by E. 4 E, and
z$ miles off, the atent log sh~tvrng80.5,Thc vesse1 was going at full
speed, making g L~otç. He could not staie his course when the four-
point bearing \va3 takencither than by saying: "It must have been
South something-$,S.E. + E." He added that he was steering Zhen
accordkg to the karings on the shore, but he W;LS"fairlysure ofhis
four-point haring'" The weather was overcast and hazy. %rom Lister,
the course set%vas S.E.3 E. Whether that waS kept or not isanother
matter. According to thestatement madebefore th€Consulhereinafter
rnentioned,itwas not. The nextbearing he spok¢ ofwas at 3-10(M.E.T.)
when Rama liglit was abeam bearing N.E. 3 N. and two milcsaway,
The log showed 86. This kvas also obtaind by a four-point bearing.
Shortly aftervvards hesaid he obtained a cross-bearingof Listerand.
Lama lights. At the endofhiswatch, at 4 c'clock,the patent logwas
read at 93. At 4 o'clockhe was relievedby Olssen,the chie£offîcerOn
the change of \vatch the second officer said he regortedtothe chief
officerthat he had passed Rauna and gave him the distance of ttlie
light, and thesteering course (Qu~stio?azqg-151). It isimportant ta
note thatOlssensaid tht distancewas s+ miles( Q~stiwazr7)-Qlssen's
phrase was tlie "distancfrom the shore", buthe must have meant off
Rauna, asthe37were taWg aboutit, and no other distance hadben ANNEXES TO BRïTTSH REPLY (NO.49)
769
taken, nor wre they as ne= to my other part ofthe shore. This of
cour^ -\voulput the LsRTtfinanother halfmile furthw ont from the
bay dong the whole Eineof her slleged course.
Positions takenby four-pointbearings are not satisfactory, of course,
unlessal1the'factorssuch as the courses,tidesmd speeds, areatcusate.
Aç to the courses,Bertfielsewho waç onwatch during theimportant
tirnes, statd on oath, in the declaration made behrc the Consul at
Newcastle inMay 39~6 hat t)~ccoune was "varying S,E, + 17.a"nd
ngain,"aucoursesand soundingswere varying". Whether by sowidings
he rneant bcaringsoz soundings for depths does 11otseem clear.
. As to speeds,lw frequentlyvary ; and itisto be observed that the
Zelzken'slog nugktmed a speed of nine and three-ser7ent.h~kno-tsan
hour betweeri 2-33 and 3.10, and eight and twefrfths knots an hour
bettveen 3-10and 4 oklock.
About five minutes after 4the chiefaffi~er~sightedthe Britishmar-
ships.At thistirnethe Lokhea wciuldbe 3 of amile furtherto the S.E.
thm the position rnarkedIsy the officersof the Lwlthenat4 o'çlock, if
the spe~d was g kncits, and 'over hvo-thirds afmile if 84 hta This
wodd -againplace the bizhe.irfurtherout irom the fnnd thm alleged
by her master. When the warshjpçwere sightedthe ckef oficer put
tltc helm a-starboardor hard a-starboard,andmade torvards theshore.
3tis amatteroffair observation,and tobe ptoperly, but not of course
too heavily,wcighed, that if thship was well within tmit~nal waters
thisaction was not necessary,and was more consistentwîth her being
outside them. Some time afterwardç, estimatecl by the LoKKcn's
ivitnesse;tro minutes-a timcwhich 1thk iscansiderably exaggwsted
-iZ was said the order tstop was given,The resulof tht. evidencan$
ol the statements made inthe afaresaid declaratiiostl~at~thcLnkkew's
engitieswme stoppeilat once on receiptof the firstsignal, andaftw
'the signal threatening lirtl~eywcre put EnIl speed astern,
The interval between sightuig and these two çignds, acçording to
the log ofthe Callaope,waç about 4 minutes, and this ismore iikelyto
Getrue.Accordirigto theevidenc of hermaster the Lokhex hnd travened
twa des und une cable £rom hm 4 o'clockpositionbefwe she reached
the placetvhere she was boarded.
Taking her position at45,a? g Irnotsspeedwhcn shewas said toIiaue
sighted the British cruisers andtohave starboarded, sliewodd have
~eachedthe same place at a distane ofx mile .fcables fsom where çhe
lefther course, and~vuuld have sfarboarded nearly 6 points. Compdre
tvith thk the evidenceof Berthelsen,who was said tahave taken the
distances;he marked the chai showhg that before the signal to stop
4.j okclockpqsitian, mrl hadalreadyturned aboute8.1points onthemstar-
hard helm before theorder tustop was given,,I nisevidence ho,w~ver,
he said tlie ship Jn~t altermore than 4%ponts, i-e. from S.E_ + E.
tn E. bÿ-N. Bertlielsenalso said in hk evidenm that theysteered for
the shore because they wished a cross-beariiito make sure that they
were'inside the 3-mile lirniIt does not appear that any such cross-
bearing was taken.
Olssen in evidenceçaidthat whenhc sarvthe ht signalIioisted,the
Lnkken was "2+ to 23 miles from the shore-24 at the mat". h his
declaration before thConsul he had saidwhen lrer engineswere stoppcd
inobedience to the Cdiiqûe's signalorder,she was about half a mile fsom the shore.And the man at the hem, Hanen, deda~ed that the
L@k/~-mwas ordered to stop, and did stop ; and that "the steamer was
so near knd" that thcy were "afraid of ruming against the coast".
The master ofthe Lakhmwaç aroused from his bunk after thwarships
tvesesiglitecRis evidence was not lielpful. Hçonfuserta message sent
frornthe Calliopeto the officcon the Lahken after she was buarded:
ItIsclearthat the message ws to glve the position-not althe Lulrkm,
but oi the Calliqe, beforethe prize crew starteclwith tlie capturdshp
forKirkwall,T11r maçter said the positionLirasintendeà to be th&* of
the Ldi'the~But it isto be noted tliatit \vas a position r mile and
3 cablesS. by E.of ththLiehad marked as thatof his ship when boarded.
Itwriçsaid thatthe mas'terprotestedthat hc )vaswithinthe tcsritorial
waters aftcr the ship was bo:~r.rdeT.tisnotewortl-ty thaevmy time he
relerrcdto this hesplre in theprcscnt tcnse :"'We are within the 3-mile
Jimit.'":I'liat a~iyrate indicatedJiiviervof lzerposition &tershe had
travdecl, wit1-a q-knot specd, ancl a heavy cargo, tillshe came to a
stnndstill, annot whwi sl-icmceivcdandobeyed the signal tstop. Ancl
it is signifiçathat lie took nosteps to asccrta ind establislr hposi-
tion by cross-bearirinosr o'rherwise,Imay be that thLahRmts fificers
had a general desire takeep their vesse1 witliln the territorial waters,
but itmay also tvell be that they took no effectivestepç ta do this,
particularly in the very early rnorning with the overcast and hazy
coiiditionofthe weather tkat prevailed, whicllmade the close skirting
of thecoast in that region risky and erilous.
1 ilow proceed.to examine the evi Beiicegiven by the British naval
office~s.
On duty offthe Nonvegian coast, the 'Cnltiope-the cornmridore"s
ship-ws accompaied by the Constla~tce ud the Camdts.
They xt fisst steérned in line ahead and açtern. At 3 o'clock am.
(G.RI.T.) the commodore, Captaln Le Mesurier, RX,, ûrder~d the
Coîtstaacead file Comasto spread abam to part iar Imk-out duty.
'iî~e Cdl1iq.p~rcmain~lctlhshoretvard diili,
Lieutenant Uoyd wason duty as the navigating officer.At 3o'diçk
(G.M.T.) he fixedI-iispositioby the rarrge-finder,and noted the Naze
ligl~tbearii~N. 25' E,, 8,000yards away. Tlie Calliopewas hauled in a
littleou nN. 15'W. course for a minute orso, and tvasthen put on a
N. 52" IV.conrse. The Ldilte~twas sighted sIiottlaftenuards-broad, .
i,e.3 tci4 points, on the port bow, and about s miles away. The coni-
of tliisanclimmediately went out onthe lower bridge. Using 1iZsglassest
he saw the hkkm and estimated her ta be I* to 2 miles offand 2 ta
3 p0i1ts on the po1-khniv.He observed heralter liecoiarse towards the
land across the C~11iape'bsom. She was then "dl clear of the three-
mile limit". Re wen tte tlie npperbridgrxnd got lier haring anc?name,
alid hoistecs signalfor herto stop, atthe same tirnealtering Jiis coume
to cuthcr off; md as hc dicliiot thinshetvasobeying, lleaftera minu te
nrso, hoisted anothersignal:"Heave to, or1 will firEL*you." The psi-
tions were not fixed b the commodore persondly, but by his navigating
. oficermdraage-finrer.Y utthecommocloresaidthat~itharang~-
huder the exact distancean be frxedwithahost certainty, aco:ne would
expect on a British cruiser;andhe said he mas xbwlutely satisfid that
the LB~~E Ja~soubide the three-mile limit. After the Lakkm stopped
in the water, a baarding puty .ruasent on board, and about 3.47, the d the ~allio$eaccordin2 to tlie notethnt had bem sentto Lieutenant
.' Milne byLieu tenant Royd. Lieutenant Milnealsostated that on the rvay
to Kirkwall, the master ofthe LokKen said that itlwas ratliedifficultto
navigatenear the coast iii the liazy'wmtherthat prevailed, ancl thaat
the time 01 capture he ws furthcrout thân usual,
This was not put to the master for the reasons that were explaineci.
But I see na rmson to doubt tlie word ofLieutenaut Milne that this .
statement mas made, and it fits in with the factsas inrny Yiew tliay
existed.
On the tvhoIe of the case 1 ncçept the evidehceof the experiiced
officm of the cnrisersasmore tmstworthy and re1iable.fb.ntliat afthe
witness eosthe LclRke+t.
1have setout the circurnstmces i4surh detail,nat bemuse Ientertain
anydoubt asto the rightconclusion, butoutof dcference to thefriendy
neutral State of h'orway,whose Government hx inits sovereignrights
int~meried ta askfor an impartial investigationaf the facts oiibeball o,
a Norwegian ship, dtliongh she ims admittedly engageclon tliis voyage,
as on al1 eslier ones, in cqing contrabarid gmdç to the Grman
Government to be used for the direct purpoçeof wax.
besitatien,thai: tlie evidenee hconvinceclmeisthat the capture,and al1
the operations wkich immediateiy led toit, did not take place inthe
territorial waterof Nonvay, but outside the limits osuch waters. The
capture \vas tlierefcinot irregular.The resdt is that1 ~condmnthe
ship and cargo as good and lawful p~ize.
Reply submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland