COUR INTERNATIONALDE JUSTICE
~@MOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES
(ROYAUME-UNI CNORVEGE)
VOLUlME
Revête- Exposé&dts
INTERNATIONALCOURTOF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORALARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS
FISHERIES CASE
(UNITEDKINGDOM W. NORWAY)Tons droits rbmés par h
Cour internatirnalde justice
AU rights reserved by the
InternationalCourtof Justice
Na de:vente t
Sdea nnmbcr COUR INTERNATIONADE JUSTICE
AFFAIRE DES PÊCHERIES
VOLUME 1 .
Requêt-.Exposé&&ta INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ,JUSTICE
--
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMEN'l'Ç
FISHERIES CASE
(UNITED KIN GDOM u.NORIVAY)
JUDGXENTOB TIEGEWER18t'Ig5I
VOLUME 1
Applîcaticm-Writteststements \
SECTION B. - E~POSÉS ÉCRITS
SECTION B.-WRITTEN STATEMENTS
1,-RIEMORIAL SUBMITTED 1317 THE GOVERNMENT OF !
THE UhTITF3nKINGDOM OF GREATBRITAILN AND
NOR'L'HERN IRELAND
PARS Yr.&ntentionsofMo ~ow~ikent ofthe UniW Kingdom rwrrding
thepri.....................tubeapplicdindefinihase-
lines. 55
PART fi+.-Listofannexes................. IO?
FART Ir-Auneries ................... =O3
PART 1
Introduction
r. This ilfernorial issubnlitteto the Çotirtin pursuance ofan
Ordermade hy the Acting Raident of theConrt dated 9th Novem-
ber, 1949 ollowing upon the Application dated 24th Septernber,
1949 ,ddresseclto the Kegistrar of theCourt by the Agent of thc
Goverriment cithe United ICingdom. In this applricatithe Court
is asked:
(a) to declare the principles of internationalaw ta bc applied
in defining bac-lines, bgmference to which the Nanvegwa
Government iscntitledtodelilnit the fisheries zone, "exteiid-
ing tosearvardfour sea milm from thosc lii-ieçadexdusively
rcserved for its or$nationalsu, and te define the said base-
lines inso far as it appmrs necessary, in the ligI1t of the
arguments of the parti&, in orderto avoid further iegal dif-
fereuces betaveen them ;
(b) to awarddamages to theGovernment of theUnited Kiugclon-2
in respect of al1 interferencehy the Nonvegian qthorities
116thBritishfistiinvessels outside the zone which, in accord-
ancexvith the Coui-t's decision under (a), the Nonvegian
Govemrnent isentitled tareserve forits naticinah. 2. With referme tù point (~s)in the prweding paragraph, the
Goverriment of the United Kingdom desire tomake the fdlswing
observations sn the siibjecof the foursea miles thereinmentianed.
The United Kingdom, whiïe not accepting asa generd proposition
that a Statecan have a bclt ofterritoriawaters wider thm 3 miles,
does nat, for wry excepticinal Rasons, put Norway'ç clah to a
breadth of 4 miles1 in issueinthese proceedings,.but invites the
Court to decide the caseanthe assurnption that the breadth of the
Nomegitm belt iç 4miles.The question at issue, therefore, is whether
as a matter of international law the beltofterritorialwaters must
be rneaszrredfrom base-hes, which in generaI fn11owthe =tuai
configuration of the coast of the mainland and of islands, as has
hitherto d~ays been hdd, or whether baselines rnay be taken for
the country as a ivholewhich çonsist of notional straight lines of
unlimited length, çonnecting extrme promontories situatedeither
on the mairiland or onadjacent islands or even on far-distantand
isdated rocks, thus enclosing large areas which woiild otherwise
beopen sea,
3. This Memorial is dividcdinto the parts.Part 1,Introduction,
contains an historicalamonnt of the background to the present
dispute, Part II presentsthe contentin ofstheGovernent of the
United Kingdom onpoint: (a) of paragmph r of this &Iemorial,and
the Texsons in snpport of mch contentions ;wivhilstart III dealç
with point (63 ofparagraph L of this Memorial, namely, the ari-ests
of Britishvessels whichhaveùccurred since 16th Septeniber, 1948,
the date upon wlzlchthe NorvvegiclnGovernment declared its inten-
tion to enforcefully the provisionsof the Nonvegian Royal Decree
of rzth July, ~935.
For the conireilience ofthe Court, and in order to ehsure uni-
fonnity of termiizelogy,a gIossary of technical terms iavolved in
the case hasken prepâred by the hydrographer of the Royal Navy,
and forms Annex r to this Memorial.
Annex z tothis Mernoriai contains a serie of&arts of the relq
vant portion of theceast of Norway. These çharts show, rnafkedby
a bhse line, the base-lineç prescnbedby- the Royal Deme of 1935
as slightly amended by the Decree of r937 The pecked blue line
isdrawa four milesto seawardfrorn and parûlielto these base-lines.
These charts alsoshow by a red Ilnethe base-lines d~aim~ by the
Nowegian experts at the OsIoConferenceof 1924 .See para. 14
below.) This is thereclline referretoin parapph 2 of theUnited
Kingdom Application. Tlle pecked red line is again &mm four
miles Éoçea~vard from the red line and paraJielto it.Chart:No. I
La-theScanèinavialeagn;theKmwegian word ia"mil" and nut"mil&"
as stateintheUnited Kingdom Application. Tdistancis4seamiles w one-
terms).tofa degreof latitu(vidb Ama r for the explanaü~n oftcchnid
' The textofthehTamegkinRoyal Decm of1935is annwed tothe United
1tingdamApplicatioof24thSeptember,1949. 3s an index chart from wvhich the relevant charts for a particular
area cm be ascertained. Charts Nos,z to g are medium scde chartç.
Chart No. z coverç thearea inwhich base-point No. Iof theRoyal
decree WU be found, and thk chart, together lvith the remaining
charts followÎng consecutively show base-points Nos. z .to 48 Iaid
dom in that clecree. The numbcring starts in.the north-east and
proceeds north and westwardç,The charts have ken prepared by
the HydrographieDepartment of the British AdmiraIty by over-
. printing on the standard Admiralty navigation çharts. These
standard British Admiralty navigation charts are themselves con-
structed on the basis of Nor~vegiand-iarts. At a lafer stage ofthe
case, the Governrnent of -the Unitd Kingdom wilt produce a aew
set ofcharts onwhich there willbe shown by green liiieçthe base-
lines and limits which, in the contention ofthe United Kingdom,
l Nanvay is entifled to use for the purpose of defining her fisl~ery
zone.
NZstoricd bmkgrozsd afitomd O/th first Woi#ZVar
4. The area çovered hy the Nonvegian Decm of r935 amd
hvolved in the present disputelies of@at section of theNorwegîan
toast .tvliichis situated northwwd of 66"28' 48" north latitude.
It is the habitatof chieffycod, haddock,cçialfish and red fish, and
the population 'intliis part ofthe Norwegian coast are engaged
IargeIy in fishing.However, until recent times thisarca was iiot
visite$ by foreignvessels tu any considerable degree, and the ques-
tion of itsimportance to foreign fishing did not ariseuntil several
years after thebeginning of this century, by which time the mdius
of operation of stean~trawlershad been greatly extended. This fact
is rveIl brought out by Captain Meyer inhiç work Th ExEenir of
Jtirisdicticiin CoctsEaWZ &ws (being a translation into English of
Storting Document No. 17/2 7),who mites (p. ~22) as followç :
"As 'rheNorth Sea becamé, cornparativelyspeaking,more and
more exhaixsted,thevesselswere compelled to go furthesafieldin
orderto maintain thesupply, Britishtrawlers hadin 169s pushed
asfar asIceland and sliortly aftenvardalsata the Faro&- Later
operations comnienced in the Bay of Biscay and dong the mriçts
of Spainmd Portr~gal,morepltrticularly aft1902 ;in thefol'low-
ing year, the industry travelled southwarclsalmg the caast of
Africa toAgadir and men to French !?;estAfrica.1.p19-95,Elagdish
trawl~s &cg&% $0 fGshin the watm alowg ~Y~IZGY TZorwql und
R~ssia."
To thisit &ay be added that the trawling began in the extreme
n&h-east inthe waters contiguons to the Rmsian frontierand only
rnoved rvestwardsgradually, It \vasnot, in fact,until shortitlybefure
the outbreak oftbc 19x4-19 w18r that Norway's claims over mari-
time waters came inta conAiçt with theinteneçtsofcountrieç, other
-
ForStorSingDocumentNo,17\27 separas,21-24, exclusive nght of fishing inihe Vesfljord,consecrateil by the usage
of centuries,had nût yel been the subject ofany legklative disposi-
tion. Both the Varangerfjord and the Vestfjord lie ivithin the area
co\ter& by the Decree of 1935, the subject of the dispute bcfore
l the Court-
6. The Royal Decrc~ of 1935, as statiteLn paragraph 3 of the
United Kingdom Application, ref~rs to a Royal Rescript of1812
of the King of Denmark-Nortvay, t~hich (as translated by the
Registsg of the Court) provides asfollotvs:
"It isDur wish tolay dom as arule that whcnevcr determining
linlitof our territofidsovereipty at sca, thissovereignty shali
be recognizeùas &Ytending forme wdi~ia~ nawticat~.'khmeasured
frorn the island or isfarthestfrom themainland and not covered
by *ay."
The Government of the United Kingdom d~es not deny that itwas
within the cornpetence of the Kingdom of Denrnark-Nonvay to
lay downii~the Rescnpt nf 1812 the points of lad teiritory from
lvhichthe "mil'hr Sçcandinaviain league therein speçified shouid be
calculated,nor, on the faceof it,doeç the rarript purport to do
more. TaPart II of this Mernorial, there willbe set fo~& the con-
tentions of'the United Ringdom \vit11regard tu the generaI prin-
ciples of international. larv goveming the marner in whch States
are entitledto fix the marginal belt (whether three or four miles -
wide) off their coaçi. Thc Gcivernrnent of the United Kingdom
maintaiils that these principlcsare binding on al1States, and that
only a title13y long usage, tvliich fiasbeen proved hy the State
asçeding it, can entitle Nortvay (o<my oth~r State) touse a syçtem
ofcalculating itç tdtorial waters which leads to Iarger encroach-
ments on the op~n sca than these genmal principles do^. The
Vnîted Kingdom wiilreserve for its Reply its ansruer toNorwegian
claims based on historica2grounds,w hether such historicd gram ds
are advanced to support methodg of dra~ving base-lines for temi-
torial waters or to support claims to fjords or bays as intemal
waters, though the United Kingdom recagnizes that Norrvay may
be entitledtu claiincertain fjords. Forthestlmasons it will not, at
this stage of the yleadings, discws furtller the Royal Rescript of
1512. If ~ISO reserves for its Reply nny further discussion of the
Decrees of 1869 and 1889 (sec:para. 5 above), which are also men-
tioned inthe Decree of 193j .he Decrees of 1869 and 1889relate
toparts of the coast ofNorway wbich are not involvecl in the case:
before the Court,Indeed, the partsof the MomegIan çoaçt crivered.
b57thc Decrees of 1869 and 1689 have never at any tirnebcen of
any great .interestto British fisherrnen.
7. .Afcw yeaa after rgo8, whm 'Britishsteam trawling di the,
Notrvegian çoast had develeped on a.considerable scale,an incident
'IEhrcfererlcPothe "Çcanehavianleague" (v%bAnnw J,
* Alr- Xarisetranslation wbe fouiid in Amcu g. 22 %%EMDTCIA OLïETHE UNITED RINGDOM (27 1 50)
occurred, whiçh for the firsttime produced an open controlvers~~
between Nmay and the United Kingdom unthe subject ofterrito-
rialwaters. On 11th March, 1911, a British steam tmwlet, the
Lwd Robêrts ,aç arrested by the Nonvegian authohties forfishing
inside theVarangerfjord, within a lineftom Kibergne~to Jakabsel-\~
(aline laid dom inthe Whaling Decree of 1896 mentioned inpara-
gsaph 5 abwe). Itmas allegedthat the vesçel T~S ~vithinthe broad
\ waters of the Varangerfjord,off the coarjtbetween Skalnes and
Langbunes, some distance insidea shight line between Kibergrres
and Jakobselu,with the neasest puint of land four and a half miles
away. Tlie conviction by the District Court \vas aphelù hy the
Court of Appeal on the footing that this was the position of the
vessel(though it bvouldappearthat theDistrict Courthad heldher .
to bein a ximewhat diff erent position) andthat Varangerf jrd was
Norwegian waters (i.e.ineffect that the fjord eonstituted '"nternal
waters"). Notice of appeal was lodged ~4th the Supreme Court of
N orway atChristiania, but, as diplornatic cortesponcleccwas still
continuhg betwem~the ttvoGovernments, the'apped \vas not pro-
ceeded with immediately. The rgr4 war th~n broke out and. tliis
appeal waç, in the year rgr6, ultimatdy withdrawn.
8. This incident served. toimpress upon both Governrnents the
necessityaf inveçtigatingthe subjeecotfNonvegian tertitanalwaters,
and, so far as the Government ofthe United ICingdom was con-
cemed, of reaçhing an understanding ~6th Nonvay in the matter.
g. shody afterthe arrest ofthe Lord l?'obcrlsa commission \vas
appointed bgNortvegian Royd Decreeof 29th June, I~II, consist-
ing of an ùficial of the Ministry of Foreign Affairsa naval laffica
and an inspecter of Fislieries. This Commission produceda report
datid 29thPebruary, 19x2 ,ntitled Rapport de IuCommissicm &
lafiwontièmdes EWX TwI~~o~~Q~ Pcar. 1 ofthis report was pub-
lisbed in Christiania in,rgrz by Grpindahi and Sn. P@ 11 was
confidential and remainç so to thisday. Part 1 of this repq is
valuable as a careful account ofNornregianZegisktian and practice
and contains a skilfirl preçentationof the Norwegian case for the
claims itwas then making, orwhich itwas thought il çoirld rn-dke.
Reference dl be made to itherea£ter, under the short title"Nor-
wegian Report ofrgrz", On zznd August, 1913~ a modus va'uendil
vas submitted by the Britisk Minister .at Christiania in which
This propoçedmodm wiv~ndpwidiry:thenmt intemakiami"PF&C tonfer-
=ce", rvouldhave reçerved certain wate(iparticulaVaranprfjord,within
Zhc lina Ribcrgnes-JlakobnndvVestfjolrfortheexclnsiveuseofNorwegran
ofprinciplcThe Xorwegian Govmment,ehowever,bcsides claiming toclose al1
Nonvegian fjordtoBrltiçh fishing vesiverunwilling tu madievenkmpo-
rarrly their dome~tir: legiasregardsthe4-milelimit, and the negotiations
broke down, The refisentoa " PeacÇonfcrence" itothe confwence ofthe
typeheld atthe,beginninofthe:çentury atThe Haguesuch as the 1899-1lgbb.
Conferences. amuncement by Ehe Nonvegian Governmeot abandonhg itç
daim to foui miles, "but that thé Nonvegian Government had
recognized the &fficulty of upholding this daim in practice and
had instructed tlieu naval officersin maintainkg the' neutrality
- ofNmmgian ternt~nal waters,to confine their efforts wiatkizlthe
three-mile limitaand nok tafireonbelligerentships operathg within
that litnit''.
Ir. Owmg to the +ditions whicb pxevruledimrnediately after
the first \VorlWar, frçhing wz not resumed on any considerable
scaleoffthe coastof Northem Nonvay iinti1Apd 1922. Its resump-
tionby British and Cerrnan trawlers canse dome excitement, and
men dl-feeling, arnongst the local population, ano,doubt partly
ciwing to the pressure of publicopinion, the Norwegian Govern-
ment felt obliged to take steps to enforce its latvs prohihiting
- foreign vasels frm fishing inNonvegian waters.Towardsthe end
of zgaz, a British tralvler, the Celeriwuwas amted and hed,
and severd sidar arrestsensued in the. folloti~hg year, Pndeecl,
asthe year 1923 wore on,amsts of British trawlerç began to
ocmr with incseaçing frequency (for example, the Qztercia, the
Iia~acck,etc.).These arrests led to diffmences betrveen the two
Governrnents because of the divergence of vimvs as to the bits
ofNonvegian waters. In the correspondence at the time, the diver-
gence -isreferredto priacipally asone betnreen a three-mile and
four-mile belt of territorialwaters, but it became increasirrgly
apparent that there wwe also differencesasto the waters in bays,
fjords or inlets hvhich cçruld beregarded as Nornregian interna1
waters. Thougli at that time noNorwegian claims hilar tothose
oow made inthe Decree of 1933 ernerged, the principal issue (apar,
from the question of three or four miles, and the question rvhich
fjords could be claimed as Monvegian interna1 waters on historic
. orprescriptive grounds) seemed to be ~vhether the ten-mile rule
shridd be appliedas a geoeralmb to determine whiçh inlets should
be regarded as interna1 watersor ~ix.milesasthe United Kingdom
then contended,
12. The situationwas made ailthe more corifusingbecanse the
otvnersand skippers of British vessels were ernbarraçsed,when
fishingoff the Nonvegian coaçt,by la& of information as to the
actual extent of territarior.interna9waters clairned bthe Nome-
@an Govemment. They did not know the method adoptd by Mor-
way in Pracingher waters, eçpeciallyin waters eastof North Cape.
No decreesor charts had ever been issuedbythe Narwegian Govqn-
ment in which itçclaimswereprecisely defined, and Iatereffortsto
obtain such chasEswere to prove unçuccessful. InJanuary 1924, '
there occursed anothe~ incident of a vesse1 bbeig arrested by theNorwegian anthoritiesbetwèen the three and the four-mile Iimit,
nameIy the Lord Kitcia~n.~.Other differences arase Uzconneçtion
with the arrests of vessels(such as the James Long), den the
vesse1wasjast ciutside the drising line (accordtügthe Nomegian
daim) of the fjord and, itivould have been in territorid waters,
if this lineenclosinginternd waters was accepted. But rnany of
the Nonvegian c1aims.t~ inletas national waterstvere disputeclby
the United lçingdorn, who attlikt tirne had nat finailyacceptecl
(as itdoes now) tlie ten-mile rulas a general rule for thedefinlng
of inletswhich may be claimed asnational maters.Thus, incomec-
tion rvith the arrestof the Kunwck (towhich refetence has been
made above), these were dkcuçsions on15th January, 1924 between
Mr. Lindley, British Minider, with both the Norwegian Foreign
Mkkter, Mr. Michelet, and theSecretaw-Gcnaal of the Ministry,
Mr. Esrnarch, and MF. Lindley reported :
"The difficdtiewlcch have arisen are due tthe frrçtthat this
limit imeasured from a linedrawn ktwmn any headlands which
are not more than ten milesapart,whereas His Majesty'sGqvern-
ment consider that headlands must be notmmore than sixmiles
apart ifa lineisto be drawn between thcm from which the limit .
is tobe measured. 1pointedthis out toMr. Esmarçh,who atonce
miles between headlands."an cfaimshad always been one of ten
The ~924-192 negofitstiom
13. In vkew ofthe uncertainty segarding the Norweglàn limits
of territorialwaters, andthe desirabihtyof avoidingthe recurrence
of incidents which could ùnly injure the relations between Nor-
way and the United Kingdom, the Govarnent of the latter, an
29th March, 1924 ,ddressecl anote tothe Noswegian 4hvemmen~
snggesting that the wholequestion of such limits should form the
subject ofdiscussion betweea experts nominated by both Govm-
rntnts.Tl* invitation was acleiici~vledgdy the Norwegian Govern-
ment on 15th Apzil, 1924 (Annex3). The Nowegian Gavernment,
after some delay (probably due to the absence ona scientificcruise
of Dr. Hjort, a fornier Director of Murwegian Fisheries, whrn it
nished tu employ asits chief expert), accepted the propusal fora
tonference and suggested the formation of srnaii expert British
and Nonvegian cornmittees to examine and discuss tlie proposais
made by the United ICJngclom. Mr. Lindley,seporting this sugges-
tion made tohim nsally on 18th SepEember.by Dr. Hjort, çtated :
"1 pointed out that thenvwere several qustions; apart frorn
the four-millimit, onwhich our tm Govemmeots did not seeeye
to eye.There was the definitiooftvhat constituted aisland,and
beetakensashthe baie focalcdatingdthe extent ofterritorialwaters
searvard af that Iine. ThNomqian Gavûuniweedcltas'mdthcasuch
a dinemightteIm milwlowg.Es hlajesty's Government rnaintained,26 MEMORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM /27 f 50)
onthe other hand, that it tould only be six miles1then inf~rmed
Dr, Hjort that I haclmade several attempts to obtain from the
Norwegian Çovernment-officidl orunofficialiy-a definite state-
ment of what they claimed as KoMregian territoriawaters. \?le
were aware, ofcourse, of the generalnature of theirdaims, but,
in order to avoid unpleasant incidents, itwas important for us
to how the exact linelaid down on a chart of QIC~ waters. As
Dr, Hjort waspmbably aware, theBritish autlroritiesha$, iarder
to show their fnendly dispositiohwards Norway, and in return
for the considerate behaviourshown in the pst by the Nowegian
authorities,advised British trawlerçnot to fish tvithin the Nor-
tvepaa fous-mile lirnit. This actioof the British authoritiesin
no way entaiIed any recognition of theNonvegian clahs, but it
had prevented mmy disputesduring the trading season. It would
be vergr advantagrnus if,inçtead of givingthis vague warning to
oux trawlers, the Britisl-t authorities tvere position to show
thm on a chart exactly whese the Norwegianline ran, and I had
never been able te understand the reludance of the Nowegimm
authoritiestocomrnunicate taus thisinformation. I askedDr. Hjort
whether I-recould ~htain for me this chart, or at any rate one
of the co& of Finmarken, lvhich seemed ta be the only parSof
Norwegim territorvisited by our trawlerr,Dr. Hjwt said thd
he entirelyaped with my viewç, and that 11ehad for fiitecyears
been pressing various Nonivegictn governrnents to rnake knawn
theexact extent of their claims to territoriwaters, He had not
çucwcded in11isobject,but tlie present ]?de Minister, who riras
dsci liis brothu-in-law, took a more sensiblview of the matter
than his predecessors, andhe wodd askhim at once whether the
chat 1 wished forcould not be communicated to this Legation,
on the understanding tknt sucli communication in no way preju-
diced theclaims afeitlrercountry.Dr. Hjort telephoned to me this
rnorning to say that the chart-of Finnrnarken,which is the anly
part of the coast of red interest toour trawlers, wodd be corn-
municated tothe Legation assoonas ithas been prepmed. 1 should
mention, infhis çonnection,tl~at,during the discussion regarding
the cornmunicationof this chart, Dr. Hjort said that hisGovern-
ment thought that, inteturnforit,we shouldundertake €0 observe
it duringthe progress of negotiatians, ~vithciut pwjudice to Our
daims. 1 replied that 1covld not recomrnend this çou~se to Hls
it if 1 did.Therpossession of the chartwasatrnmely aoquestioneof
convenience and couldnot be mmidered asconferring my advan-
tageonus, forwhich a concesion such aç he mentioned should be
made in rdurn. \Ve already knew generally the Nanvegian claims
and we diclnot açcept them ; the fact thatthe chart wodd show -
ina definiteand convenicnt fom the exact nature ofthese clairns
did not in any way alter the situation. The chartwould simply
be usefiiin enabling our tra~vIerto know preciselywhether they
were within thuse wate~ claimed by tlieNorwegianGovernment
as territorial. After arpingtlre pointfor some time,Dr. Hjort
saidthat he would recommmd that the ch& should be mmmuni-
cated touswithout conditions, aridthisrecommendation has been
accepted by hlrM. awinckel,as statedabove." MEMORTAL OF THE UNITED ICINGDOM (27 1 50)
On 19thSeptember, 2924, Mr. Rlowinckel wrote to Mi..L;indley:
I
"My dear Miriister,
To revert to ourconversation of the 0th- day. 1 would confirm
thereadiness oftlie Norwegian Govenunent to appoint a cornmittee
of two orthree pemns to drscws thequestion raised inyour note
of29th March with a correspnding British cornmittee.
Professor John Hjort has commirnicated to me the gist ofthe
conversation he had with yon on the 18th instant, and asaped
therein a chart .miUeventually be sent you ef East Finnmark
indicatingithelimifs of Norwegian territoriawaters according to
Norwegian views.
In transrnitfing thchart, itis assumtd flinitwiU in no mpect
pnijudice the point of view (JI eitheNonva or Great Britain
regarding theextent ofthe territorialwaters.h e soleaim 05 this
information is ta contribute towards preventing British trriivlers
from trespassingupon N~rwegian territoriawatcrs oiuingto their
ignorance of tlic limits and from being arrested by Norwegian
guardships.
Before replying oficially tu yournote of 29th Mar&, 1 sfiould
be glad to hem from you whether pur Govcmment is preparcd
to approach the matter on the lines indicated al-iotre.
I remrrin,ctc.
(Sigt~d)J. MO-CIEL."
Stlbscquently, the arrangements were made for the proposed
coderence. The British experts (Mr. H, G, Mauriceof the Pisheries
Department, Captain H.P. Donglas and Lt.-Commancler R. T, Gould
of the Admiralty) arrivecl in Oslo on 1st December, 1qz4, and
rernained nntil the ~zth. Dr. Kjort mas the chie€ expert on
the Norwegian side. In hnex 4 rvillbe fowd the report, dattted
30th Dectmber, 1924, of Mr. hlaurice and Captain Douglas, and
the recorrlç (Protocois) of thac discussions.
14. Specid interest attaches to the charts producd at these
meetings sshorviiidong the coast north af latitude€11' (i.e.includ-
ing dl the areasulject to the x935Detee which extends as far
sotithas latitude 66" 28' 48" north),
(1) The th=-mile tenZtnrid limit according to the British
thesis.
(2) The fom-mile territorial lirnit accordingto the same thesis.
(3) The Norwegian territorial Limits as defined by Nonvegian
Royal decrees where such are in force (see Protocol,
4th meeting) l.
lThe abava k wkit theProtocolssay,but itishnrdly accuratc. Lines were
drawn under (3) for the arcaliuttheriivercan1Royal decmm cm-ring th:
Varangerjord(atthennrtrtb-castend) thecxtreme soutii-%siElsewliere. the
Iinmwcxcdraivn unrl(3)inaccord,znwith wht ffie Norwegian experts consid-
cred the Nrirwqian dam.In the Frotocols they are descsibed as charts "prepared by the
British Cornittee", but the following hirther explmation is foünd
in paragaplis 5 and 6 af the report of Mr. Riaaice and Captain
Douglas, showingthat; of the three differentsets of lines onthese
charts, while Nos, (1) and (2) (three-mile and four-mile limits
according to the Britishthesis) were drawn by the British experts,
No. (31,shnwing Nonvegian vimvs, was the work of Nürwegian
experts. These para~phs read :
"5 Che fa&, knotvIedgeof whch was essmtia;lto an under-
standhg of the point of view ofthe Nowegians, was, inonr jndg-
ment, the rnethodaccording to which itms theirpractice todraw
the hits of the waters they clairnecias Nunvegian territorial
waters, On the one chart (pzrrtof the coast of East Finnmark)
which had ken furnished by the Nowegian Govmment, the lines
were drawn in a manner which indicated no settled principlc. It
was clear,forinstance,that the lines did not foNowthe sinuosities
ofthe coast,that neither ten-milenor six-mile bay lines llaben
consistently taken asbase-lines, nor had the mle enuxiated in
thereport of the Nonvegian Royal Carnmissioilof xgrz, açcording
tawhich baselines should be drawn 'tiet~veethe oritmoçt points
of the coast or adjacen itlands and rocks, notwitlistânding the
length ofsuch lines, bwn adopted. It may he rcrnarked. thatthe
strictapplication ofthc last-rnentionedrule to the west mast of
Ntrrwaywould lead toa manifest absurdity. #
4. Ourrequest forcharts ofthe ret ofthe c& a€ N~nvayand
adjacent waterscorrespondingly marked was receivd tvithevident
embarrassrnerit,and itbecarne apparent tliat the NorwegiairCorn-
mittee muld mot uiidertak~ to drarv the lines excepi at certain
points of thecsastwhere the limits had been dehed by the Nor-
wegîan OrCler n Canncil. Eventually, we suggested thatwe should
ourseives draw thelins for the restof thecûast atcording tosuch
principleças WC cotrIdevolve from the report of the Norwegian
Royal Commission on Tenitorial Waters of1912, and, rather than
accept thatçohition,the Nowegian Çokttee secured permiçsion,
from their Foreign Osce for Fishery hçpector Captain Iversen,
subsequently assisted by Commander Askim of the Norwegixn
Admirdty, to prepare charts to indicate the Nonvegian claiins,
with the proviso that the lines they drew ~vmenot to be regarded
as authoritative, The linessadrawnappearonthe charts a~ln-ecl
to this report,on which are indicated also the three-mile line,
drawn according to the British thesis, a four-mile fine,drawn
açcording to the same thesis, mutatis mektandis,and the hitç of
certain areas of concentrated seasonal fishing, witbin mhich, it haç
been suggested, that trawling rnight be prohibited by agreement
during specfied seasons"
The Iines drawn by Captain Iversen and Commander Askim, in
the condition3 described in paragraph 6 of the hlauTice/Douglas
~eport, together with the lina on the single chart of East Finnmark
drawn up in advance of the meetings hy the Norwegian Govern-
ment, show the Norrvegian claims. These lines wwe reprnduced as redfineson the "certifiecopiesof rdthe saidckarts,containing
the information trançferredto ,thtm inthe course of thediffemnt
meetings", which the British Adtnidty transmitted ta the Nor-
wegian Covernment in accordance with 'the Protocol of the
rrth meeting (para. 3). The redlinerepresented Nonvegian cbs
as fomdated in1924 by the Norwegian fishq and navd expert
with the pmviso thai "they were not tov he regacded as
authoritative".
.15 T,he lines these Narwegian experts drew, when joined up,
acquired specid significance in latey- when they came to be
known as the "rd fine" rvhichformecl the bas& firstof a tacit
msd~s m'ucnda(se eara. 26)and later ofthe modw vivedi in 1933
,(separa, 44 below). In this connection, a staternent.beaquoted
bj? M. Koht, then NorwegiariMiniste~ for Foreign Afla.irs, ia
, speech in the Storting on qth June, 1935. He çaid: 3
"Tt wodd not be rightto conceal the fact that the 'redlines'
have cailed fortprotests from the interested distrThey.were
drawnup (atthethe of thediscussionwhich took placeinOslo
in Îg24) in consquence of a Britishrequest,and constitute an
attcmpt st showing the principle onwhich base-lintshould ba
drawn according ta the Norwegian point of viem but withoiit in
binding the Nortvegian authoritias regards the final
LnyngwOathebase-lines."
There was ako indicated on the charts a three-mile limit drawn
accosdingto the British thesis, ana four-milelimitaccording to
the same thcsis, The former Iines, when joined up, fomed the
"green line" aaIsshown on the charts, whilst the latter1sshown
onsome, though not alfthe chartsasapecked rd Iine. The original
workingcharts onwhich the abme lines were dracvn arenolonger
availsble in the archivosthe Governrnent of the Un3ted Kingdom,
dthough it ip;possible they may still be inpossession of the Nonve-
gian Government, However this rnay be, on theîrreturnta London
the BBtjih delegationas promised (seeProtocolofthe 11thmeeting
in Annex 41, causal clean copies ofthe original working charts
to lx dmwn up with the luiesplottecupm them. One set ofthese
copies, çertified by Captain< Douglas, wu, in January 1925,
.trânsrni.teto the Norwegim Govement, whu açknowledged
theirreceipt withthanks, and raisednoquestion asta theu authen-
ticity, (See despatch of the British MinisatOsla, 28th January,
1925, filed inAnnev 5.) Another certifiedset was retainedin the
archives of the Foreign Officeand is now fded with Annex 5.
16. The experts attheOs10Conferencc in December, 1924 ,ere
appoint4 merely to explore the situation and report tu their
Governments. Their report suggsted the possibilityof an agree-
ment being reached on the basis of certain proposaiswhich the.
foxmulaled. hfr.Liudley, on 1st Apd, 1925, addresseila note to
the Norwegian Government , indlcating that these particularproposds were not approved by the Government of the United
Kingdom, but suggesting mother basis for an agreement, and
suggesting that the conversations be reçumed. This note and the
diplomatic conespondence which ensued between 15th April and
17th June, 1925 ,orms Annex 6 to this RlemrorialXt was wed
to hold further discussions in Undon. The Norwegian delegates .
(Dr. Hjort andCommodore Gade avithCommodoreAskim as expert
cartographa errivedthere inJuly, 1925 T.he chiefBritishrepresen-
tatives were qaia MI. Maurice and Captain Douglas, Pratocols of
the minutes a£the meetings held by them were ageecl upon and
signed and are comtauiedin Annex 7 liereto, As appears from the
diplomatic notes of 10th and ~7th June (Annex 6,items Nos. 5;and
6), theparticular subjects ofthe discussions inLondon \vert to be
the fjords andarrangernmts as regards frshing inthe area nortli
of latitude 6r",but the question ofbase-hes for drawing territ-
orial waters w~bs sai~ed at once by the Nomegian delegates {sec
Annexes IV and VI1 to the mhutes which are a1l contain4 in
Annex 7 to this Memotid).
17-The question of fjords and Yilets occupied much of the -
discussions. Some 32 fjords and inletswere discussed,which are
conveniently showrr.on silhouettes traced from Admiralty charts
and aumbered consecéitivelyfrom E-tV-SWl, These silliouettes.
appear at the back of Amex 7. There were r5 fjords or blets 14th
openine more than six miles wide (the rulethen being applied
by theUnited Kingdom) which the United Khgdom experts were
prepared tu recornmend should be accepted as Norwegian waters,
and thme werenine towhich the Norwegian delegates wcreprepared
to abandon thair daim *.As regcbrds the base-lines for the derimi-
tation of territorial waters, therninutes of the 6th meeting and
AnnexesIX and X of theseminutes are of particularinterest.The
principiesthen putfornard by the British expertsare in Annex X.
Aswill apyeaf hereafter, the United Kingdom now submits to the
Courtprincip1e.s difierentand in some reçptcts murefavourable ton
the littoralState ftom those set out in thisArrne,~X. This change
resultsfrom t'ndetailedinvestigation of the matter at the Hague
Cadification Conference,1930 ,nd the general acceptane ofcertain
principlesat tkat conference, The Nrir~egian views on these points
are indicated in the minutes of the 2nd meeting (para. 41, the
Ait 3fjordaresho~m onthe Admiialtpsilhrniekkandkhfiughthe highest
figureofthesis25,thcdifierence ismaup bytheuse oflette=aftcr numbom,
viz. rg,~g a, xg B, etç.Anilcx 7p.152)Diffant numbers hadbeenusedin
the OslConferencPmtdcols, buinthcLondonCoderencc thsi1houp;ttenumbers
are uçcd inthe minateSomc fjordmentioncdintheOslo ConfmenceProtocols
Conference only dewithfjardswhose opming wasovemilesandivhichXorwav
çlaimed onbisbric poueds.
* Thenames md nombers ofthese 1and g inlets sc%p@Aivyilbe found in
hnnex 7(pp. 15and r53)underthe headings "Afi(B)and(C)".5th meeting (last para.}, and Annex TX. The British opposition
to the dmwing of straight hes from headand to heaaand is
indicated in Annex VII. The minutes of the 6th meetin3 refer to
charts Clra~m with red and green lins, red lines according to
Nomegian vierm and green lines according to British views ;bnt
itisnot the 'redIjns on these chartsof the Londou meetings cvhich
are the relevantones for the purpose of the red-line~PZO~SuSiacmdi,
but the red hes ofthe Oslo charts referredto in paragrapli rs
above, Further, though Siese meetings indicakeci Nnnvegian
tendencies to make claims based onstraight lins drawn arbitrarily
£rom lieadland toheadland and toclaim tvaters insidthe outermast
Mnge olfskerriesasNortvegian waters simply because they were
inside,these tendencies did not at that tirne indicate suchwide
claims based on these groclndsas arenowfound in the r935 Decree.
Thuç itIs the case that, rvhereaç the Guvernment of the United
Kingdom modified its vims sa as to bhg them into accord wîth
those gcnezallyheld at theHague Codification Conference,Nonvay,
after that conference, began making wider clairns which departed
furtlzer from these viexvsof the Hague Conference than did her
claim prior to that conference.
18.At. the eighth and last meeting ofthe fg2ç Conferillice,the
dclegntes drew zip rvhatttheyconsidered to be "the only possible
basis ofagreement" under heads cvhichincluded a convention
dealing with the question of territarial waters,Zt \vas srxggested
that under thiç convention Nonvay should accept the principle
of the three-mile lirnit, adhed in Annex X, for her territorial
waters. In return, the United Kingdam would agree to accept as
territorial inlets (tl~at to Say as Norwegian national waters)
15 fjords and inlets whme mouth \vaswider than six milm, and
base-iînes wcre indicated for each of these fjordç. In respect of
fishing in the arcansrth of latitude 6r8, a convdtion wonld be
concludcd on the lines ofthe Anglb-Danish Convention of 1901
regulating fisheries in the waters smoui~ding Içelmd and the
Faroes, amplified as suggested inAnnex VI to the minutes, that
is tosay, Norivay wuld have exclusive fishing rights Znal1Norwe-
gian interna1 waters (Le.&mile bays, harbûurs, and other inlets
accepted a5 Nolwegian waters on special (historie, etc.) grounds)
and in tenitonal waters as defmed in the Territorial Waters
Convention,and also in any other bays or portions of bays which
oould be enclod by a ten-mile linel. Nonvay would also accede
te the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882, applyîng t~the
area south of latitude Gr0,
1811T.his pruposed basisof agreement was referredto the two
Govemments, as the experts had no authr3.y to do more, On
questionwhcfher the generro-milaPimitfor bayoperated'foranytliing ebe
cxcept (on coriucntional basls) for fisliing-. 32 MEMURIAL OF LEE UNITED KINGDOM (27 I 50)
19th August, 1925 ,he British experts infomed Dr, Hjort that
the Government ofthe United Kingdom waç prepared to conclude
conventions on the litles ptoposedat the London Conference, but
theForeign AffairsCornmittee of the Stortingrejectedthe proposais
(chiefly,it appeassbecause tl-ieinvolved the çumnder by Morway
ofits daim to a four-milelinrit),andonxrth Noverdber the Norwe-
man Prime 3llIiister informed the British Minister that he codd
not recommendthese points to theStorting and the negotiations
thuç proved abortive.
Qzcestionof theptabliataon of doçzlmmts of the Oslo Conf~refice
(3924) azd bndorz Con/crmee (1925)
19. It is mnvenlenl tu irtterrupt the stricUy chronological
accomt of thehistory of the dispute tu explain bI.i&y the
discussions between the two Çovernments with regard ta the
- publication of the recordsand other documentsproducd at these
two conferences or resdtilig directly fromthem,
On 18th August, 1925 ,lIr. Mauriceand Captain Douglas wrote
a joint lette tr Psofessm Hjort of the Norwegian delegation at
the London Conference, whicù reads asfoLlo.tvs:
"We havesubmitted to His Britarinic Majesty's Govemrnent
the sunïmasy of conclusionsadoptcd at the eighth meethg ofthe
Anglo-Norwegian Conference, and ~ve are authobed ta hfom
you and Rommandor Gade that Hiç I3ritannicMajesty will be
preparedto enter iritconventions with His Iilajestthe King of
FiWithyreferencetothe questionsaddressec ious by the hTomgan
delegationat our seventh meeting, weare authorizd to statethat,
shotild agreementbe reached on the points atissue between Bis .
Britannjc Majesty'çGovernmentand the WorwegianGavernment,
His Eritannic MajijestyGovernment wouid he prepased, jointly
with the Noswegian Government, ta çommunicatethe conventmns
when çonçluded to othergovernments interested, and to invite
theiraccessionthereto. HisBntannic Majesty'sGovernment would,
moreover, be prepared taagree tothe inclusion in theconve-néicins
of provisionsreservingçomplete libertto bothpartiesto denounce
the ~ements and to resume their existing clams rep-ding terri-
torialwaters and rights ofkhing, should the interested Powers
refuseto recognize Norwegim territorial daimsto thlsame extent
as His BritannicMajesty, or to accedeto theproposed convention
about bsheries.
The ternissetforfhin the clraftherewith representthe utmod
are preyars cdomakc.nswhich Hiç Britannic Majesty'sGovernrnent
Ris Maj esty'Gavernrnent trust fhatthe ~o&egian Governmmt
ivillgivinstructionstothe captainsof itfishmjr-proteion cruisers
to act in accordancewith the proposd FisherieConventionwithout
waitirlgfor its formal ratificatHis Britannic Majesty'sGovern-
ment wivillnjliia corresponding line ofconduct upon the master3 34 MEMORLALOF THE UNITED KINGDOM (27 L 50)
21. Inthe meantirne, a committee of the Stdng, working In
tw sections, had already hep ivork on a report. One section
devoted itselfte a thorough investigationof the xvholesubject of
territoriawaters, ancl to a lengthy expusition of theNomwgian
- case kom the hiçtoricaland iegal point of view, Anofher section
devoted itself chieffy to technicd questiconnècted with fisheries
and aZso to an account of the negotiations of 1924-19 2nd the
dmft agreements then proposed. These Storting reports were at
various timeç tmnsmiited to the Government of the United
.Kingdom for their information, and, if theyso desired, fortheir
comment. The fruit of the labours of the firssection of the com-
rnittee mentioncd above came ta be known as Stlirting doment.
No. 17\27 ,hilçt the work of the second sectioii irraentitled.
document No, 17 B,
22. On 26th Aupd, 1926, the Nonvegian Ninister inLondon
addsessed a note to the Se~etary of State referring tri AnnexX.
of the Minutes of the London negotiations (the definition of the-
principles used by the United Kingdom in d@ning territorial
waters which wil! be found in Annex 7 to tliis Mernorial). The
Norwgian )finister enquird whether "the British authorities
concerned raise anyobjection to private Norwegian parties being
made acqtrainted with the above-mentioned principles adopted .
by Great Britain forthe purpose of fixing thethree-mile limit".
In reply to this note, the Government of the United Kingdom
enquired, on 24thSeptembm, 1926,in a communicati~~iaddressed
to the Norwegian Minisier, avhetherin theevent of suçhpermission
. being givenby the Goverment of the United Kingdom, tlie Nûr-
wegian Government tvould furnish it tvitha definite statement.
of theprincipleswhich itapplied indrawiag the Iirnitof territorial
waters daim~d by the Nonuegian Gaverment, with "partictilar
=ference to the selecfion otlre base-lines frorn which that lirnit
is dra~t-nin the case of Ii~lets",Several months elapçed withaut.
any answer being vouchsafecEby the hTortvegianGcivernment to.
this enqtury, and after repeated reminders they were further
appsoàched in anote dated 28th March, 1927 ,nwhich they were
requested to beso good asto supply the Government of the United
Kingdom tvith copies of the cliartsissued toNorwegim fishery
protection vesseIson which (it\vasmpposed) the Nortvegian terri-
torlal limits would be dmwn. h ansrver rlrareceived to this
note on 19th july, stating that the Nor~vegianGovernment was
not r*na position to replyto the enquiries of the Governent of
the United Kingdom in the above rnatters,"since the question
of an exact markhg of the limit of Nonvegim territorial waters
isnorv being considered bya spcial committee, and itis not witil
a report hasbeen furnishedby the htter that the State authorities
will be ableto take up its Final attitude. thematter". This was
but another indication that N~may had at the time no settledpractice with regard tu the delimitation of Nmgian waters-
stilllessany legislaion fixingtheir limit s generally,
23-The subject ofpublication \vasnot again resurneduntil the
summer of 1927, when the Nonvegian Governmontdrew attention
to the Sturting reportsand statecl thatitdesirecltopublisli them.
As regards document No, 17/27 w,hich developed the Nonvegian
case regarding territorialwaters an l-iistorical aiid lepl grounds,
and was later translatedand pnhlished (see para, 24 beZo~Y),the
Governinent of the United Kingdom stated on 23rd July, rg27,
that it had no objection to its publication"on the understanding
that their.asçent isin no tvay tO be underçtood asendorçing the
various vietirexpresseclby Norwegian anthorities thereb". As
regards document No. 17 B, whiçh dealt with technical questions
regarcling fisheheçand also gave an acconno tf the rgzq-1925
negotiations, the Governrnent of the United KingSiorn,although
inrgzG (seepara. 20) it had beesi prepared to waive ifs original
objection to the publlcatioi~ othe draft agreements of 1925 ,out
ngain ohjected to their publication and could not therefore give
its unqualified assentto the publication of that document.
24. In the spring of 1928, M. Mo~vhckcl~etarned to Mce as
Prime Mirilster and jnfornled the British Minister at Oslo that
his Gavemment did not feelit possible,in view of the fact that
document No. 17/27 had alredp heen p~~blished,to refrainhorra
proceeding to publish document No. 17 R and askcd that the
Government of theUnited Kingdom shatlld reconsider its decision
asregards the latter. Asby this time tlie contents of this document
were known to the iivholof the Norwegian Stoding, the Govera-
ment of the United Kingdom did not seethat any purpose ~srould
be served bycontinuing to main tainitsobjection roitspnblication. -
Canseqnently, on 23rd May, ~928, the British hlinistcrinOslo
instructed to inform the Nonvegian Govcrnrnent that the
Governrnent of the United Kingdom agreed ta Phc publication of
the draft Convention relatingto TerritonalWaters and the Heads
of Agrcemcnt reldirig to Fisheries. Ris instructions continued
as follnws :
"Sou &ould add th~twMe His Kajaty'r;Govermerit in Great
BConvention andFisheries Agreement,it was distinctlunderstoods
originallthat riothirwa tabc publislieunlessa defini tgree-
ment was arrivcdat and that it is due solely to the strang desire
manifestcdinNonvay infavour of publication that His Majesty's
GovernmentEnÇmt Rritain [laveagreed to this.As it wilbe
necessary to lay tlte draft Convention and Heads of Agreement
before Parlimcrit,you shatladgivehim [the Secretaiy ofState
for Foreign Affairsnot lessthan a fortnight's notice of tdate
fixed by the NerwegianGovemrnent for publication. "
In the reçillt Storting documents Nos. 17/27 and 17 B were
made public. The former \vaslatertranslated into English by its 36 MEMOBUL OF THE UNITETj KINGDOM (27 Z 50)
anthor, Captaln Meyer, and published in1937 aiZeiden under
his name under the title Th& sxkni oj Jw~idiciio~ in Comtal
Wders. For its part the Govemment of the United Kingdom
published (witha shlrrtexplanatos rytement) a ComrnandPaper
(3121 in 1928mntaining the termsof the proposed draftTerritorial
Waters Convention and the Heads 01 Agreement. relating to
Fisherieç.(Anfiex 7 A.)
Ristory of the dispute betwam as end of the Loradon Co~i%fci/cnce
(19251 and th Hague Codificatim Cornference(199)
zg. No furtherattempts wert made to reach agreement with
Nomy over the limitsof the lattert'erritoriawaters tir1x933.
A new factorofimportance at this'timewasthe mork of the League
of Nations for the codification of international law, and the choice
of territorid waters2s one of the topicsts be dedt with. At its
first session inApril 1925, the Cornmittee of Experts for the
Progressive Codificationof InternationalLaw selected this tapic
as part of its work, and appointed a subcommittee to çtudy .it.
Faüowing its second session, itckculated to Governmeats on
30th January, 1926,a report by Dr.Schücking and alsoa qwestio*
naire on specific points inthe law of territorial watOnsreceipt
of the replietù thisquestiorcrtairat,hPreparatoq Cornmitteeof
the Codification Coderence submitted in February and May 1929
Baseseof Diçcussion whicli it haddrawn up.Itorecommended thatdr
the conferericembeheldinthe spring of1930 andthat theBases of
1930,sthe conference opened at The Rague. Itntç.wasr3hopcd byh,
the Government of the United Kingdom that a solu-bon ofits
dispute with Nomay worilcbe founclas aresultofthis conference.
' The work ofthis conferenceis dealt with in paragraphs 35-37below.
26,In themeantirne,~6th the exceptionof afewminor incidents,
the relations betweenBritish trawlers and the Nonvegian fishery
protection vasels becam more satisfactory. .This relatively satis-
façtory state of affairwas due tr,what mxy bc described for
convenience as "the tacit red linemodus ua'wevzd i"distinguish
it from a lafer more expliçit, but stdi informal, qd he modus
vive~tdadopted in 1933, whiçh will be refend to as "the 1933 -
~ed linemodm vimndi". ?'he tacikrd line modusvivendibegan in
1925 and operated fairly satisfactoriltill 1931;
27. PSthough there was never any written undtrstariding or
formalag~tement betweenthetwoGovermen~on~e subject, -
in fact asituationtmsreached in tvhichit was tacitly understood
that the lineto be observeclbythe British trawlerswas the line
which the Governmentof the United Ringdom, in itsapplication,
has descrihed as the "red line",that is to xay the rd lineson
the charts produced atthe Oslo Conferenceof1924 and referred -to inparagraph14above. (As stated inthat paragraph, .these lines
were drawn by Norwegian experts, and represented without any
official commitment their view of what waters Norway clairned.)
This situation came about (at ariyrate inpart) in conseqiience of
whaf the British trawling industry underçtriod- to be the policy
of the Gavernmexlt ofthe United Kingdom in the martes, namely,
that British trawlers waald not rmive the diplornaticsupport
ofthe Govmmeat of the United Kingdom as against the Nm-
wegian Govmnment to the extent of making protests to, ad
clairns agakt, that Govemment in respect of any interferences
which were inside the lirnitsclahed by the Noravegian experts
in 1924. Ilte +Britishtnwlers were in fact supplied, though the
Ministry of AgricuIture and Fisheries, with charts upon. which
the "red line" was marked. These charts, although occasionally
inaccurate because of mistakes in cüpyhg, nevertheless served
as sufficientguidance to British trawlers to avoid many armts.
It is not within the knowledge of the Government of the United
Kingdom wheetherany simiiar charts .iveTeissued to Normegian
fishery protection vessels,but those vessels must inevitably have
been avare of the approximate position of the "rd lin@", and
it isto be siapposedthat the absence ofmany arreçt dusring the
years in question was due, on the one hand, to the fact ofsuch
knowledge, and, on the otiier,tothe existence of British amge-
rnents with the tra~vleras +desçribed above, ln this çarnnection
iE may be pointed out that in the Bergms Tide~edc and the Aften
Pusden, both Nomegian nempapers, of 26th March, rgjo, itwas
stated that the officer commanding the Norwegian fishery pro-
tection cruiser,Captain'Gottwaldt, had said that foreign trawlers
had show thenrselveç more respeçtful ofterritorial waters during,
and Norwegian fisfiery protection veçseis was more cordial,vlersA
telegram from the British Legation at Oslo of 24th Novemkr,
1933, describesthe situation,as it had been vrrhiIthe "tacit red
Line liieodwuivmdi" was inforce, in the foiiowing words :
"Your telegram No,49 (of24th November. Nomegian treatmcnt
ofBritishtrawiersand visit MT, Aserson).
Tacit -angement isrnerely practice thatBritish frawlers do
ifthey arenotumalested outside those limitBothegsides observd
thiçin practice untsome 18 rnonths aga when Nomegians began
arresting or warning off tmwlereven outsidethese lirmitswhich
arethemselves verywide, and were not adrmtted byHis Majesty's
'Govemment in1925 negotiationsorshce."
28. Britishtrawlers were nat done in meeting with difficuities
offthe Nonvegian coast. Seved Gesman veççels were arrested in
thecourseof the yearçbetween 1926 and 3928,.,g.,the Dhtschtartd,
the EEsa'aRunkd, the Fritz BNSS~ T.hese German vesselç wereamsted forfisbing and custonis offences,Of these incidents, the
most importarit was that ofthe DmitsclzEaadw, hich was mested
in 1926 ior srnugglingby the Worwegianauthorîtieç off the island
of Hdten about 64" 12'N. and some 6omiles from the entrance
to Trondhjem Fjord 1.The absence of protests from the Gennan
Gavmnment in respect of arrest fsr smuggling is explained by
the fact that Gemiany was, with Nonvay, a party to the Hel-
singfors Anti-srnuggling Convention of 19th August, r 925,in
which it mas weed that no objection should be taken to arrests
for eustoms or fiscd protection gmunds mithin a rz-mile limit.
Thcrë is attached asAnnex 8 a section of the chart which was
befm-e the Norwegian Supreme bu* on which the places men-
tioned in the judgments are shown and the base and other lines
grit inisae marked. The Delatschdand was not charged with breach
of the fishery rcgulations but (a) the supercar\vas chargeclwith .
violating the Norwegian Customs Acts of 1845 and 1922 iarithin
the IO-mile limit for customs purposes Iaid dom by the Act of
1922, and fb) the supercargoand sevenmerribers of the crew were
chargedmith violating the Norwegian Act of 1924 relatingto
the importation of spirits, ~vhicwas only applicable tvithin the
four-mile bit. By a judgment ofthe local court the acmsed were
cenvicted. TheInternational Court is ncitcoricerned inthis case
with the question tvhether or not it islcgitirnatefor States to
exerclse, ia contigums zone outside territcirial waters, jurisdiction
over foreignvessels for the purpose of the protection of ils customs
and fiscalinterests,The Dertt~cItImdcase is, however, relevant
to the issues now befare the Court,because it raised the qvestion
of the base-line frorn tvhich eiththe Nonlregianterritorial mter
-mit of four mites or tlie No~wegian customs limit of ten rriiles
should be dralm, and because the two limits start from the same
base-line.In any case, the issue whicwas most seriouslycontested
by the accuçed and which occupies thegreaterpart offlic judgment
is the second charge, to which the four-miIe ,limits of tcnitorial
waters is applicable,
29, The decisionin the DtzctscWk~t iàspublishedin Retstiddc
for 1927. page 513, and an English translation of the relevant
portions of the judgment, prepared by Hoiesterettssadvokat
Nansen, the Nonvegim Counsel inthis case of the: Gouernrncnt
ofthe United Kingdom, foms Amex 9.The explanatory cornments
in square brackets are thcise ofMr. Nansén. The principai issue
inthe case \vasthe factthat theNorwegian prosecuting authotities
considered that the four- (and ten-) mile limit was to be drawn
paralle1to, and on the seaward çide of, a base-1he, beyand the
outer fringe of islands, ofwhich Haken was one ;mhereas the
captain of the vesse1had been navigating an.the assumption that
by keeping outside a radius of four (ten) miles distance from the
North altheare~dvemt?bythedecrecissued in1889theKing ofSnmeden-
oftheareaindispute.inglimiofRomsdalwunty (scepata5above)andSouthnearest land (Le,main land) hewouldbe lceeping within the la~v
The casewas taken to thehTomegian SupremeCourt, who decided,
on 30th June, 1927,by amajority of sixjudges to one, Ço quash
the conviction of the defendants su far as the charge under the
Spirits Act was concerned (i,e,where the four-mile llmit was
applicable), wMe maint aining the convic=tn of the supercmgo
under the Customs Act. As regards the cotzviction under the
Customs Act, it isnot necessary tosay more than that the ten-
mile limitwas not discussed in thjudgrnentof the SupiremeCourt,
as the Suprerne Court ,faund this unneccssary; sifzçit tookthe
view that mere preparations fol: smuggbg spiritsinto Norway
constituted anoffenceunder the CuçtomsAct. Eth only neccssary,
therefore,to consider the portfans of the jiudgmentç which deai
4th the charge under the Spirits Actof1924 ,nd itisonly these
portions ofthe judgmentç of the Supreme Court ivhich are repro-
duced inAnnex g inan English translation,
30. The principd judgment of the rnajriritpdelivered byJudge
Bonnevie, quotes, so far as itis nccessary, the judgment of the
Court belotv, and it wilt beseen thatthe Caurt below presumed
that the limitof Nonvegian tersitonal waters "must be dram
paralld wïth the chief direction the çoast outside the skerries".
The Court belorvthen went on to saytlzat, 'ivitcouldnot exactly
say where the border was tolx clrawninthe areawhere the alleged
offence occusled, "it isafeto saytha-tat any rate the basc-iine
cannot be drawrii closein than £rem Grundskjær(the extreme
rack in the Halten group toKya on Folla, sothat the territorial
borderand the customs d utybarder cmnot be closcrin than four
andten milesrespeictivelyoutside thislinAnd ittvasbecause the
lower Court found that the accused had beeT; format ofthetirne.
withrn ten miles of this line, and sevtimes withiiiiifomhs of
this line, anhvice evm inside the base-Sine,that it convicted fiem.
31. The SnpremeCourthad befoseiit a statementhy Norwegian
naval experts,togetherlrviihanopinionbyDr. R~stad, aneminent
Nonvegian jurls wt,o.rw later thçhiefNormegian representative
at the Hague Conferenceonterritorial waters aiid alsa the writer
of alegaltreatiseonthis subject.Dr. Rzstad's opinionmas quoted
inthe judgrnentof Judge Bonnevie (with whose judgment five
other rnernbers of the Court, Judges Anciessen, Broch, Bugge,
Soldan and Nygaard, concur~ird).As Judge Bonnevieadopted and
made bisown theargumentsof Dr, Rdad, iEmay be convenient
to indicate briefly whatDr. Rzstad said,
32.Dr. Ræstaddistinguisheddearly twodifferent kkings,namely :
(3) what areas Norway wu entitled under international law ta
appropriate as Nomegian waters, and (2) what areas in fact
Norwayhad appropriated as a matter of interna1 Norwean law..
Dr. Rzstad carefully avoids expressinany opinion on question(1,
bnt on question (2)he expressedthe opinion that there was no
evidence, or insufficienevidence,that Norway had appropriated4O MEMORIAL OF THE UNJTED KINGDOM (27 1 50)
the waters in question. Dr. R~stad, while saying these was no
doubt that the Scandinavian leagae (four sea miles) should be
applied, indicated that doubtarose when it had tobe decided from .
what base-line thiç league hato be drawm. The question tvhichamse
tvas whether it shodd be drawnfmm single içlands, iç1etor rocks
or,.as theDistrictCourthad done, $rom irnaginâry base-linesdmwn
between ttvo içlands, and how, in pettice, these base-lines
to be dra~m. He therefore points out that It IW important to
know if the old Rescript of1812, or any other supplernentary
commonIawrules prescsibethat territoriawaters are to be based
m such lineç.Hethen points out that neithertlie Rcscriptof 1812
nar any other cornmon lalv des statehow, inpractice, and between
which islands, isletor rocks, thebaselines are to be drawn, Then,
having indicated that the laws of sornc countfies other thanNor-
way state that tarritorial waters ato be reçkoned from the coast
andits bays, and it is then possibleto ascertain hom hiçtorical
evidence what is meant by a bay, he points'out that the &script
of 1812 does not çay ariythingofthiç kind, and that itwas very
unlikely, for historical reasunthat it was meant to be understood
h this way, asregardsbays, becausehe says " theoriginalstastiag
point in Norway, as inseveralother corntries, is that the extent of
the seaterritory corresponds with the rage of view, but this is
not the same as reckoning sea territory from an irnaginary line".
It was not reasonable to suppose that the Danish-Nortvegian
Gavemment, by îhis decree, wanted to extend itsprotection over
parts of the sea wliich could not be easily defined.He then refers
tothe old N~~egiaTk view that the skerries are amity, and that
the skerriesçhould provide the natuml startingpoint for thereckon-
ing of territorial waters, but(he says) itwas not permisçiblefor
acourt to çeIectany particirlalinedong part of the skenier as the
base-line unless support for thIs conclusion couldbe Iound eithes
inNprwegian legidation or on hfstorical façts, Therwaç no Nor-
tvegian legislation supporting suca viem, and support for it could
onlybe found, on the basisof hktorid fach, ifthe areain question
lay in a fjordor am of the sea which, through a long histarical
development, had received the characterof Nortvegian seaterritory,
but hesaid therewas noetedence ta this effecas regards the region
ofthe sea now in question. Even ifone assumed a ruIethat al1
partsof the seawhich could be called afjord orbay ivereincluded
inNarivegian waters, thcre sa1 ernained the queshon ~vliether
th3sarea mas in a fjord or a bay, and where the limitsof thefjord
orbay should be drawn,and the arm of the sea in question here
(Frohavet)lwould clearly have to be lirnitedby a Iine notfurther
out than betrveen the I'ldtengroiipand Hosen içland.
1This iNa.ILin thetable giinAnnex CD toAnnex V oftheMinut~ of thc
Wdon Canterene~rwS. ÇeeAnnex 7 tothi~ MernorItlappearfrom Anne-7
{p.1t)that ataIatstageofthe London ConferencetBritisexpertmrc pre-
pard taacceptFroliaveasa h'orwqian "liistobay"with a closing Iine from
Flessa toHalten. 33. Judge Bonnevie, wha quotes, and relies on,thisopinion of
Dr. hstad, stated that hhefound the question of the lirnitsof
Nomfegianterritmial waters in thiarea very doubtful.He consid-
ered it certain thatasregards special regions ofthseasuch as the
Vestfjard and the Varangerfjord, Nomav had rnaintained +rom
olden times tliat thesiords were ~orwe~tan h their entirety, and
that straight linmst be drawn hm the mouth of thefjords even
though this rneant indudingregionsmore than fourmiles fmm land
asNorwegian waters. But, he said, for tlie sertter part ofNorway's
extensive çoastit mas not proved thxt there existeclany further
rules,
9. Ttw411 thuç beseen that, in the month af June 1927 ,l1the
mernberç of the Norwegian Supreme Court except one held that
therervaç no evidence up to that time tliatNorway had appro-
priated and brought mder Norrvegilznsovereipty any waters which
could not he said to lie within a fjord, or within four miofsthe
mouth of the fjord,exçept intwo areas cvhichhad been the stibjeçt
of special legislatioareas covered hy the spkciaIDecrees of 1869
and 1899 off Sundmijre Romsdal respectively. In the absence of
such legislation,itwas not posc;iblto dedixce the appropriation
by Norcvay of areas of sea enclosed on the inside by hase-lines,
dmwn from point to point £rom the outtrmcistrocks or skerries,
orentmding four miles sealvard frorthe said base-fines, ThDecree
of,181~ \vas tonindefinite for anysuch conclusions to be drawn.
'A11this seems ta follbw irom the judpent of the Paonvegian
Suprerne Court. Jukc Berg, who waç in the minority, based his
view on _thereport ofrgxz of tbe Norwe@xn Commission, which
has been referredto in paragraph gabove, and on the hfomegian
Government's amers to the yuestionmire of the Leagua of
Nations' experh concerned with the prepamtions for the codifica-
tionof international law intliematter of territariai waters kvhich
he puotes (Annexg, p. r87).
The Hague Coda'ficatim Co~fermce (~930)
35. The Hague Codification Conferenceopened on 13th Mnrch,
1930, and finished on 12thApriI, 1930.Territarial waters was
one of the subjects rvith tvhich the conference\vas convoked to
deal, and it was allocated to the Second Cornmittee. As is w-ell
known, the Hague Conferencefailed inone ofitsprincipalabjects-
ofproducing a convention, to be signed..and ratified by the vast
rnajority ofStates in the world, laying dom7n~4th obligatory
force aîl the necessary des of international law with regard
to territorialwaters. It faiied Eo do so principdy because of
failure to agree on thbreadth of territorial waters. 'LVhilein tliis
respectit has been described by the erninent:French author of
Le droit inimEFS2"onaFlubla'de Ça Mer, Professor 6.Gidel, as qZ - MORTA A OL THE Uh'STED KIXGDOM (27 f50)
"a great defeatforthethre-miîe lidt"', it isimportant tùremern-
berthat even Gide1 go& on (a* page 180of the Recwil des Cours
cFeL'Académie da Droit ilzter.rza.til1934 ) )l. II) tsay :
"Pourle moment, on çe trouve conduit n'attribuer iila
fixationfaite par un $tat de seseaux territoriales au de&
de la limite de 3 milles universellement adoptée comme
minimum, qu'me valeur essentiellement rdative, Za fixation
par l"tat riverainde 1'Menduede sa mer territoriale ou de
ses zones spécialescbti&res a bien une yaleur absalue en
droit interneà l'bgard desnationaux de 1'Etat riverain. Elle
n'a de valeur internatianaleque par l'assentirnent individuel
de chaque État et pour cet fitatseulement."
36. The subject ofthe breadth of territorial waters,togethet
with the subject of the contiguous zone, was alloçatedto the
hst sub-committee of the Second Cornmittee of the Conference.
The Chairman of the firçt sub-cornmittee<vas M. Barbosa de
Maplhaes, A second sub-cornmittee waç pnsldd rivetby Vice-
Admira1 Surie. The Rapporteur io the Second Cornmittee,
M. Français, dso acted asRapportcu for the two subcommîttees
in order to ensure co-ordination,The seconclsub-cornmitta was
entrusted ~4th two prlricipd tasks,narnely, (a) a consideration
ofthe rights of Statesinside territoriawaters, both those of the
' riparia State and tlrose ofother States, and (b) the drarving up .
of the principles bwhich territaxial waters, whatever the breadt*,
should be db. This second task involved the. ascertainment
of principlcs dividing territorial waterson the one hancl from
interna1waters on the other hand- The second sub-cornmittee
achieved considerable miccess in itswork, On hoth the subjects
entmsted to it, thesiib-cornmittee producedreports, inthe fom
of more or les carefully dtafted rules, rvhich commanded, for
the greatpart, the assent of thewhole or a va& majority ofthe
delegations representa tdthe conference, and a large portion of
itçwork was approved lnthe fun comnittee and adopted in a
report. Nu~vthe greater part ofthe work of subcommittee No. z
isrightly treated by Gide1 and 0th writers as possessing the
highest degree of international authortty, as heing in fact the
most aathopitative pronounoements on these matters that exisk
Itiçthe second part of thesecond sub-cornmittee'swork(nmely,
that relatingta the manner in which tenitorid waters may be
delrrnitecl) whicis rnost relevant to the case notv before the
Court.
33- Itw3tlbe seen that.in Part II ofthis Mernorial,theGavern-
ment of the United Kingdom, in support of itscontentions with
regard to the principles of international law applicable, relies
(intatdia) on the work of this sub-cornmittee. The Governent
of the -UnitedKingdom has attnbuted so great an authority tofine on chart No. 325 of the 2924 seriesfled herewith as Amex 5.
The base-lhe used by the -Norwegian praçecuting authorities in
the Lo~d Wei~ casewas a line nearer to lanthan even the red Line
in thisarea, Haabrançlnessct was tliepoint adopted inthe red line.
The ~vestera end of the base-line (Kiubbespiret) is, howewt,
çEightlyfurther towards the fjord than Korsnesset (the sed lhe
base-point) 1.The placenames are not shoivn on the 1924 &arts,
but they are shoivnonchart No. z filein Anns z ofthîsMernorial,
from which it willbe seen that Haabrandnesset and Xlubbespiret
are landmarksat the mouth of Syltefjord. Thisvesse1 kvas in fact
more than four nautical mile from the nearest land, but if the
base-line in question was taken into accaunt then it wouid he
within the four-mile fimit.The British protest, whik stating that
the Goverment of the United Kingdom did not ~rccagnizeany
right ofatrest outçide the three-mile hit, was based on the fact
'tliat rio base-line haeves beeri laiidotvn intlie region of the
Syltefjord by Royal decreeor other order, and rcferred ta the
De.utsch2w~tj.udgment. The Nanvegian Government were asked
to state wliat tvas the precise base-lhe claimed by them in this
part of the Nonvegian coast, and under tvhatotdînancei the base-
Line tuaslaiddom. On 11thAugust, 1931 .he Norwegian Govern-
ment replied ta thiç note saying that Nanvegian territorial waters,
on the basisof prescriptiveright, extended to four nmtiçal miles.
As regards the base-lines from which the four-mile lirnit was to
be calculated, the Norwegian Government stated it \vas not in
a position tomake a statement on the subject because the whole
matter wa,s under examination by the Storting (see Annex IO).
{"'Theposition is that theStorting have not yet takenup a stand-
point tvith regard to final markings of these lines in ail deta&.")
In tlx year 1932, the two British trawless Dn+dab Wyke and
the Si. LVEQ~ wSere arreçtedfor fisbg offRrevikfjord and I<ongç-
fjord reçpectively. Horvever, the fines were accepte n these
cases and na legal proceedingsor protests ensued.
39, Later, in February 1933, the Loch Twrido~ and the CYSG
fEowr were also mested. The skippers of the Loch lorridofi and
the Crestflowm appealed to the Trondenes Countg Court from a
decisian of the Chief of Policeat Senja, imposuig fmesupon them
forfishing in Norwegian territorial watersThe Court found as a
fxt that both tralvlers nrerewithin the temitonal lirnitsfixed by
theNomegian. Admiralty, C.E. milesfrom the base-iine Toklieboen-
Torreskjzret (adry skerry)N.W,E. ofGlimmen (ncrrthofAndmes),
about 69" 30'N. latitude and 16~40' E. long. The position of the
Atthe LondonConferencthe lint recpmmendfbfthe$yltcfiordwaStorork-
adjmentltothepcmtSeabout-&mileWestafoHaabrandnesseand.further upthes
fjord. The LonclConferenckherefri-rcccnilnended forSyltefjord a base-
Iincre~khfurtheupthefjordktbothendtkan thered Zine. MEMORIAI, OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (27 1 50)
i 45
vessds \vas 3 =2 miles off this base-ke. This position is in the
approaches ta Andfjord. Tokkebaen is base-point 56 of the rd
line and 27of the bhe line.If chart No. 6 of the seriesMed in
Annex z is çolisulted,however, it will beseen that the hlue and
red lines diverge in this am, for thered line cnmes intvardstu
base-point No. 57, whilst theblue line continues straiglt on to
base-point No. 28 (58 of the red linel- In the resdt the vesse1
\vas arrested at a point which codd have been within the blue
line (ifit had at that tirne been promulgated) but waa infact
about 2 miles outside the rcd line (-tvhic\vas drawa on a 4-miTe
limit and was the only linepublidy kno~vnat ihat time asclaimed
by Nanvay) 1, It was argued for the defençe that the line in
qnestion :
(a)hàd not been fixed by Order in Corncil
(b) had not been recognized internationally
(c) had not ben notified to foreign countries
(dl \vasmore thatl ro miles inlength and not perrnissibk under
international law
(8) avas dmtm over rocks attifne3 waçhed,overbgthe sea.
40. The Çmrt held that there was no rule of internationallaiv
fhat a base-lineacross a fjord must not exçeed IO miles in length.
As to hing the line, nocompelen-t: Norwegïan anthority had laid
it clo~m.In view, horvever, of disngreerrimt between the various
countries as ttithe correct pinciples to be follotved on deking
territorial waters, andalso i~ vi8.w ofthg façt that th6 iVorwsgi~w
authorities had flo.notififthe Eimils,or the #mRcifi1eOB which s~ch
IimbisWH$ laiddom, the Court keld that the accused had made an
' ersor in good faith regarding the limits of Nor\vegian territarial
\vaters and acquitted them. In May 1933, the Loch 7'orridolt rvas
again arrested onthe same charge, at about the same place, and
the casewas brough tefolre the same Comt, but onthis otcasion
(30th May,1933)511e was fined.
43. Tn view of the factsthat the vcswl \vasamestcd odside the
red he, and that Norway had never officially prescribed the lines
h ais atea, the Governent of the United Ringdom represented
(seeAnnexes rr and 14, No. r, and para. 47 helow) that the fine
should be rernitteclbut for a long time the Norwegian Govern-
.ment resistedthis request, and only hdy acquiescedin Apsilzg35
I when- -san "act ofgrace"',it remittedthc he.
In fie~din Conference,Andfjorwas inlet No16 Amex 7, p.1431.
This is14.6milelong. Infactthebase-liagrecdaththeLadm,orConference %vas
(iinnex 7Minutes ofConferenceAnnex theline Maaneset-northernmost
pointof Aûdoy, a li~5.8milm long,The bluc base-lrunsfiorn Tokkcbom to
the Rock8north ol CilimerndistancofxB milesTokkebcen beinrnnch further
north-east than either hfaaor thenortherntipof Andoy (see çharhro.G
fil&inAnnex 2). 46 MEMORLAL OF THE YXITED KINGDOM (27I 50)
# p, Therevival ofincidentsofthe above çharacter was disturbing
ta theGevernment of the United Kingdom, A rnemorandurn was
leftwith the Norcvegian Prime Ministe'and Miniçterfor Foreign .
Affairs cm 27th JdIy, 1933, inwhich His Majesty's Gavernment
expressed its concernat the situation whick had ansen inconse-
quence of this înlcreasing interference tvith thBritishtraders.
In this memorandum (Annex XI), itwasstated that one of the
principalcauses of cornplaintwas that the Worwegianauthoritieç
not only claimed a foiir-milIimitfor territorial watersbut "al50
make use of ulijustlfiabbase-linesthus extendingtlieir territorial a.
waters even beyond the utnost limitsclaimed in1~4". In other
.mords,His Hajesty'sGovemment were concerned at the fact that
what had been understood ta bea tacit arrangement that the "red
line" shodd be obçerved was now fcillinthrough, and that it
appared to be the intention ofthe Nolrwegian Government to
clah even wider limitsfor thek territoriawaters than they had
claimed during the 1924-rgzgnegotiatiens. Indeed, the evidence
suggeststhat Nomay was already dairning the hlu13neinadvance
of its promulgation. Sir Charles Wingfi~ld had already been
instruçtedin the previous May ta express the Çoncern of the
Goverment of the United Kingdom in the matter ody to the
Nomgian Foreign Ministry.
43. From all these eventsB,is Majsty's Governrnentdrew the
inference that the No~vegian Government was einbarkingupon a
poliçy of making more exaggeratecl claims inregard tu territot;al
waters than those which it had naintained in previous years.
Tmvardsthe end of 1933, therefore, informal discussiobegan, the
objectof which was tormch a ~hodzczsiivmdiwith the Hortlregian
Government on thewhole matter.
Red Jtsmodus vivendi of 1933
M. FoiloWingthese discussions, Mr, Assemn, the Na~llregiam
Director ofFisheries,vkited London inNovernber 1933 and sauT
MT. Maurice,Fishenes Secretaryof the -iM_inisyf Agricultureand
FislieriesAs a result of their conversations,an agreement -was
xeached which was embodied indiplornatic fom ina note, dated
30thNovemkr, 3933, addressed by the 'Norweglan Miiiister in
London to Sir John Simon, then Secretary ofState.recapitulating
thatonzznd November a conferencehad been held atthe Minlstq
of Fisheriesand stathg that "Desiring toavoid any frictionrny
Governrnent have given instructions to the Norwegian patroi
vessels enforcig the necessiy of maintaining the prac ice which
foryears has been foElowedintliis matter. This sthas been taken -
pending the decisionofthe Stortingin regard toa Biliestabfishing
thebase-lineç oftheNowegian territorial waters." (SeeAmeu 12,)
This cotnmurilcation was interpreted by the Government of the
United Kingdom as meaning that the redline,tvhichformed the bais of the practice referredto by RI.Vogt, would In'futurebe
observd as the wod~s ve;Jc.Pd a'leastuntil the Storting had
enacted legislationestablishingthe Nomegian base-lines definitively.
The ~odus viaefidwhich had hithertobeen taut was now recorded
in an officianote, The Nortvqian Foreign hGnis-t.erD, r.Koht
(inthe samc speech in the ~tosing on 24th Junc, 1935, as that
from which a quofation has already been made in paragraph rj
above),used the followingwordsmith regard to ais matter : "Thc
cornmittee are fnrther aware that the base-lineswhich they se-
coniniend (i.ethosein the 193j Rewee) aresomewhat Io-rlgerthan
theso-caild 'md lines' indicated on some British charts.These
latterlineshave never been recognized by Norway and they
have na anthoritativk tifle except inasmuch as the Nortv~gian
Minister inLondon, in a noie of 30th November, 1933, prornised
that theNorwepan fisherg inspecti,onwssels would abide by these
lines-~vhich were howevernot dkectlgrrnentiomd in the note-
untilfurther notice," The Sturtirrgreportonthe rg35 Demee also
usessimilarlanguage with regard tothismodw vivcfidi,
45. Unhappily this wodus aiue~diddidnot in fact put anend to
incidentsin which Britishtrawlers were involve$. Indeed, irmne-
diately afterits conclusian,a case \vas reported, from which it
appearedthat one ofthe Norwegîanpatml vesseIs wüs still enforcing
territorialimitwiderthan those çanta-inedby the red11ne. heNor-
wegian Govemmwit explained the incidenton the ground that the
irishctioa @en s a aesdt of the 1933(explicit) redlirie mda
vivemiihad not reachedthe patrol vesselThisincident wàs holvever
of mhor importanc aesçompared with the caseof the Sf. ]t%s.f.
The St. J~st w& arrested and condernned by theDistrictCourt
of Vardo on 16th Novembes, 1933. The 1933(cxplicit) red line
modm vivendiwas conduded on 30th Novernber. The casewas
talrento the Court of Appeal and from the latterto the Supreme
Court, and these appealswere hcard after the conclusion of t'fie
mod~s viwndi, but no refeïence is made to itin the proceedhgs.
Th? Nonvegian repark of the judgment isto be found in the Rcts-
fidefi&for ~934,M. Nansen" translation ofth judgment îs given
in hnex 13 to this Mernorial,The arrest was made ontside the
SyltefjordinEast Finnmark and therefore in the region 1çovered
by the chart supplied by the Normegian Prime Minister 50 the
British Authoritieçbeforthe begirinitlofthe 1924 OsloCrinference
(secpara. 13 above). This chart contained the red line marked by
the Norwegian .authoxties showhg their clairns to teritorid
waters in that areaOn this chart(and on chxrtNo. 325 of the1924
seriesfiledwith Annex 5),the Syltefjordwas closed by ared line
I
1 lThis\vaili the smmgion md ofthe.me fjord asithecascofthe hvd
I
1 Wgdr(para35). 48 3TEMOIUAX. OF TRE UNITED KINGDOM (27 1 50)
drawn aaross twe headlands on the mainland (Herhakken l to
Korçnesset)O . nlyone (Hesbakken) ofthese headands wasactually
at the rnoilthofthe Syltefjord,and the resdt wa aline11 -4 miles
long and, on thi basis,Norwegian territorial waters extended four
miles seaward hm this line. (isof some interest also 2ionote that
the Sylteqoid was claimeciwith this redclo~inglineat the London.
Conference by the Norwegian delegates, and the Brjtish ddegates
were prepared to recommend this lineto their Governrnent ; see
Annex Ti A and B of the records ofthe London Coderence, in
hnex 7 to thk fifernosiai. The line ultimately recomnended in
the joint çonclusions of thedelegateswas slight1.yfurtker ap the
fjord than the red closingline(stefootnotetcipais.38 a buve).)
When the Si, J~st uras prosecute hor~cver, the Norwegan
prosecutor based hiscase on a different line25 miles long, dram
from Kaalnesset (on RAenoya) to Korsneçset, whichpassed about
qoa ya~ds outside Herbakken, This line is in fact identical ~4th
the blue he ofthe 1935Decree (seechart Na. 2 ofthe seriesfild
in Annex 2)and $vas notonly longer than thered baselme but also
quite different and muçh longer than the base-lincupon which the
Court gave its decisioninthe Lo~dWeir (para.381,The conviction,
pronouncedon the footing that tlieSE.]-Hs$had been within four
miles of thts longer line, \vas vphelhy the Court of Appeal, and
by a rnajorityoffive judges totwo in the Sriyreme Court, although
the St. Jast carriedto guide her operations,the chartshowing the
red line as drawn by khe Nomegian authorities in 1924a ,nd no
notificationof any change from tIis linehad been given at any
. time by tlieNonvegim Government, and the line on tvhicb the
conviction'was based had notbeen published,and the St. Jwt was
unaware of it.
Itwas on this gromd that Judgeç goye and Bonnevie @ho
disserrted inthe Suprerne Court) held that the conviction should
be quashed. It must lxheld, they said, that for British fisherrnen
at any rate Monvay must be regarded as cIaiming the line her
Government had communicated to the Gomment of the 'United
IGngdom for the information of Briti~li fishesmen,as the line I
cloçingthe Syltefjord from ivhlcthe fourmilesshould be measured.
The rnajority jildpent (Judges Klaestad, Christiansen,Lie,Borch
and Berg) was deliverd by Judge maestad. Et seems to depad
from the precedent set by the Suprenle Court in the Dez~~chband
case (para. 25 above) in holding that the Courtmust decide the
base-hnes ençlosing fjords ifthe Guvemment had not done ço by
decree and that the Courtrnust do so,even ifthe task was dacult,
by interpreting the fundamentaiRmcript of ~&rz,and applying it
to the area in question as best it can inthe Iight a£such other'
!
ETerlmkkmiçthename nfthe ~rhfileprbmontin this area, and Haabrarid- I
iç Elleeashtip ofHerbakkenTïiesame ,pointismeawhether the descrrption
isHerbakken or WaabrmdnesseF.+ evidence of Norwegian practice asit can fiad. Tke evidence an
which Judge Waestad reliedwas the seport of the Monvegian
Commission of 1912, the Nonvegian Government seplies to the
League of Nations (In connectioriwith the preparatory wurk for
the Codification Confcrenee)in 1927 and 1928, and the base-Iines
which had been draxvnin the Decrees of r8Gg and 1889 for the
regions of Sunhijre and Romçdalen. OR theçe grounds, Judge
Klaestad upheld the prosecution's base-lineivhich passed outside
one of the headlands of the Syltefjard.
46. Though in a note of 1st September, 1934, the Norwçrgim
Foreign Minister mged that the Ene onlvhich the conviction in the
St. JUS$ had ken based "'anlyinan insignifiant degree difiers
hm the fine on the chart of East Finnmark, which i had trans-
mitted to His Xritannic Majesty" Chargéd'Maires on 4th NOV~M-
ber,xgq", the Governrnent of the United Kingdom not unnatürally
.protestedstmngly against the canviction, basing its contention
that the conviction was unjust "tonthe same punds as those
adopted by the two rninorityjudges Inthe Suprerne Court.
47. The case ofSt. .Tust(cleçcribcdin para, 45 above) was not
fhe omly incidefit of the kind which occurred after the wlidus
-wiv~ndiof 1933~ though not all of the incidents râised any qucstion
of principle. Difficultits of this kirid urcdoubtedly arose chiefly
a~ving ta the delay on the part of the Storting in reaching any
decision onthe question of territorial waters, rvblst public opinion
in both countries became increasinglystrong onthe whole question.
A statement was issued tcithe press by the Worwegian Prime
Minister on 12th July, 1934)5ayhg that al1 the cornplaints ofthe
BritishGovemment regarding- the treatment of Britistrawlers by
the Norwegianauthorities w<re being cxrefully investigated.
in the firsl:of threilotesal dated 24th May; r934, the Guvern-
ment of the United Kingdom psopased to the Norwegian Govmn-
ment that the latte should remit fines Unposedon Britishtrawlers
by the Nonvegian authoritieç in respeco f fishirigcarriedon orlt-
side the rd line of 1924 , nd rnentirined thcmses of the Edgw
Walhc8 and the Loch Towidon (setpam, 39) asexamples of such
cases.In the secondnote of the same dateitalso drew the atteinhon
ûf theNonveglün Government toparticuiar casesof interferenceby
Norivegian Govmment vessels with Britishvessds, namely, the
3alilmsa7, the Bernard Sizm and the Orsino,in which, according
40 the information iri thepossession of the Government of the
United Ringdom, the vessels in question3vel-efishingoutside Nor-
wegian territorial wat-ersThe intetference arose out of alleged
fouling of the fishing lineof Nonvegian boa-ts by the nets of the
tsawler. Havirig regard to the recurrence of such incidents, the MEMORIAL OF THE ZJNLIXD KINGDOM (27 150)
sa
-G-overnment of the United Kjngdom proposed by the thirdnote
of the same date that same maçhinery çhoirld be devised,at least
forsettling daims by Norwegian in-shore fishe'rmen against British
trawlerçin respect of damage to fishing gear, and i\vasproposed
that a foxmalconvention be drawn upwith this end in view. By
a note of3lçt May the Norwegian Goverrimerit replied thatthey
cançidered that the, latte rroposal should stand over mtll the
Stortinghad came to a Gnd decision on the subject ofbase-lines
for Norwegianterritorial waters. Al1these fonotes arereproduced
in Annex 14. However, after further correspondence, the .two
Eovernments reached an agreement çigned on 5th November, 1934,
tvhich yrovidèd fora joint Anglo-Nonuegi aonard ofenquiry t~ -
investigattand setfledaimsby fishermen of the two countries,in.
respectof damage to their fishiigear uused by fishermen of the
other country. As regards .particulat incidents the Norwegian '
Government undertook to itlvestigate the cornpIaintmade.
48, Thewhde of these discussions, however, which dragged on
for several months, proved abortive except forthe Agreement of
1934 forsettlinclaims between fishemen ofBritishand d~onvegiaii
nationalityand evenhaliy the whole situationwas changed by the
promulgation, on12th Ju-, 1935 ,fthe Normegian Royal decree-
ddning, for fisherypurpoçeç,the territoriallirnitç othenorthern
coastsfrom the Finnish frontier to Trena. This decree foms the
subjed matter of the proceedings now before theCourt, institutcd
by the Goverment of the United Kingdom againçt the Nonvegian
Govemment.
49. Thetexi of the Decree of 12th July,1935 . hichis annexecl.
tathe applicationofthe United Kingdom instituting these proceed-
ings, was communicated by the Nonvegian Government to the
BritishMiniçterinOslo on 19th August, 1935, Ttwas iççued with
a repartof the Cornmittee oForeign mirs of the Storting andan.
explanatory statement issued Gythe Nonvegian Government. This.
reportand this'statement: arc attachedas Annex r5. The explan-
atorystatemeat saysthat the Nonvegian authorities "hwe made
use ofthtir sowreign rights on the sea off theshores inorder ton,
fix themaritime boundaries separately for variouspurposes". This.
passag follows a referenceto the Norwegian law af 30th Septem--
ber,1921, fixinga ten-mile limitfor eustoms purposer;.&4s stated
ahove, this lawof1921 raisesthe question ofa contiguavs zone for
customs protection autside territorial waters and thexistence ai
an kternatiorsahght to establissuch a contiguons zone isnot an
issueinthese proceeclings,On the other hand,as will bementioned
hereafter inRat II,the Unlted Kingdom maintainthat there is no
international right by which a State can clairnexclusive fishing
righis outside territorial waters.It dms nat seern, taklng the
explanatol statement and the report of the Storting axa whole,
thatNonvay Mtasintending te clah exclusive fishery rightautsideterritorial waters (i.e. waters undes Norwegkn sovereignty):Tha
passage is perhaps rathcr to be explainecl as an intention tckeep
the way open for aposible decisian bg Norway, in case ofa future
mar, to fix the waters -\vhich she rnight clairnas Norwegian for
neutrality purposes within narrower limits than those laid dolm
in this deçree (see in particuIarpan.19of the Stortingreport
The decree doeç not even lay down the outer limits forfishery
purposes, nor does itspecify the breadih of the belt formed by the
waters cantairred inany such limits. AUit attempts to do is toIay
down base-linesfrum which the limits areto he calculated. Owing,
Irowever, to the fact tllat thedeçfee refers initspr~mble to the
Royal Reçcript of ~8x2, itis clear that, tiy implication, the belt iç
fo be taken asfour miles inbreadth £rom the base-lineslaid down
by the decrce.
sa. When 'thedecree was examined in London it was found that
the base-lineslaiddorm by it were further outthan thee indicatgd
on the chart cornmunicated by the Norwegian Pzime Ministerin
November, rgq (sel para. 13 almve), which related only to a
section of thecoast offEast Finnmark ï%ey were also considerably
more extensive Ehan those delimited by the red iine for thecoasts
of Ncit-therNonvay as awhole atthe Oslo Conference (se para. 15
ahovcj. At a rough estimate, 1,200 square miles of fishingwere
reserved outside the red line(the non-binding bnt most authmita-
tive statement of Nomegian official vicm of her claims up to that
date).
gr.'Onzznd August, thc Nortregian Ministerfor Foreign Affairs,
Mr.ICoht, stated that the dccree brought the 1933 red line modus
vivencïzto ancnd but that thc possibilitofcontinuing that modtcs
vivmdi to givc the for discassion might be considered.
04 qth August, the British Minister at Oslo iiifomed the
Nonvegiatl Governrnerit that the Governrnenrt of the United
Kingdom could not recognize the four-mile limit, or an7 other
area or limit but the three-mile hit, for fideries, any more
than for territoriawaters,.ln addition, the ~Mhistermas Instructed
to express to the Norwegim Government the fullestreservAtions
wifh regardto the new base-lines. He alsostatd that tIieGovern- .
ment of the Unitecl Kingdm hobed that the new decree rvould
not he enforced against British fishemcn pendhg the discirssion
of proposab for a geneml setuement which they would shortly
siibrnit. Mr.Iiohtieplied that no orders forenforcement had yet
ken issued and care would be taken on the Non\-e@an side:ta
avoid Incidents.
In accordance with instructions from the Government of the
United Kingdom, Mr. Dormer, the British fifinisteat Oslo, had
--
ment aftlrUnitcdKingdolnforconverrieofrcference.iilsebtythe Govwn-5% MEXTORIAL OF TEE UNITED KINGDOM (27 1 50)
discussionswith the Nonvegian PrimeMiniçter en 25th September,
and Foreign Mhister on 1st October, 1935A .nnex 16 givesthese
instructions,Mr. Dormeris reportof the interview,and-the texts
of &de-rne'moiresexchanged. The two questions discussed were
(1) proposals for an agreement; (2)continuation O£ the modze.
wive~diwhile tlieproposals tvereunder discussion.Mr. Koht gave
na assuranc as to the continuance of the mdf4s uz'vmdi. On
16th Oçtober, Mr,KohE was infomed (asthe owners ofthe British
tra~vlers had beenUrfomed) that theGovernment ofthe United
Kingdom would regard the 11~)duvive~di as being stili in force,
and the responsibility for incidents resulting from interference
with British vessels outsidethe red line rvouldsest on Norlivagr.
52. On 7th October, Mr. Koht tald Mr. Domer that the Nor-
rrnegianGovemn~ent could not withdraw its decree but repeated
his assurance of 1st Uctober (videAnnex 16, item No. 2) that
the Nomegian authorities would act lenieatly. At the end of
Novernber, Mr, Koht informed the Rsitish Chargk d'Affaires that
the "provisionalamangement coirld nabe prolonged indefinitely".
In addition to discussionson an agreement for the settlement
of the disputethere were alsodiscussionsatthat time for reference
of the dispute toarbitration ortr, thePermanent Court of Xnter-
natitionaJustice. The Governmentof theUnited Kingdom expressed
preference for thePermanent Cowt of International Justice-
53.According to information ccrnveyedto the British Jlinister
in Oslo by his Gerrnan cokague in October 1935~ the German
Goverment also protesteclagainst thedecree, statingthat th~y
couId not reeognize the base-linestherein laid dom, and that
they considerd any line outside the three-mile limit, tvhethfor
territorial waters orfor frshery purposes, as being contrai ta
the law of nations.
In the meantirne, as already stated, British trawlers had been
inforrned that the Government of the United Kingdom regarded
the mdws vivendi of1933 as stlll beiin force, and the'Nomedan
autherities wesc notlfied of this by the Britislr Vice-Consulin
Northern Norway.
54, It akears that,at this tirne,the Britishauthmîties were
undet the impression that Sie Norwegian assurances regarding
"lenient" treatment (para.52)were to be ïnterpretedas rneaning
that,.In gmeral, and, as'against British trawlers, the Norwegian
authorities tvould confine thernselveç to enforcing the sed line.
A certain incident,however, tvhich accurred a few rnclnthslater
proved that this impression was incwrect. The British trawlers
Espimaex, Arkmght, and B?&~L? wIereinterfesed witb whilçt
fishingontside the red he. Whm MI-.Eden, thcn Secretarÿ of
Statefor Foreign Afairs,was qucstionedregarding tbeseincidents
in theHwse of Co&imons,he observed that, if the red linepTa3 O~P~ORIAf. OF THE UNZTED KINGDOM (27 i 50)
l 53
not adhered to, "ane~v Situation would ariçerendering it lrlifficult
to continue the negotiationsat prment in yrogress for a general
settlement of the whole controversy". TheNorwegian Got-ernment
thereuyon issueda cornmimicpé refen-ingto this statement and
çaid that it \vas their intention to warn trawlers ofthe decree
limit 1,u-:hat they wodd refrain from arreçtingthem if they
obeyed the warning. From this statement itbecame apparent
that, when the Notwe@an Goverment spoke of "lenient" treat-
ment, thev did not mean that British tra.tvlerswould ballomed
to fishrip-tothexed line, but that, if thwere discovcmd fishing
within the decree litnits{and presurnabl outside the red line,
although thiswas not explicitly stated), tlic Nonvegian authrities
would co&e themselves to marning them out of the area, and
woiild notproceed to arrest them unless the ming was dis-
regarded.
55. With somedifficulty,however, the Norweghn Government
rvereinrluced,at the end ofFebruary 1936, tu givea confidential
assurance that British trawlers woulclnot Be arrested outsidthe
red line vrrhilstnegotiationfor a permanent settlement wew in
progrm. These negotiations continued thoughout 1936, and, on
9th February, 1937, the Government of the United Kingdom
submitted a draft FisheryConvention to the Norwegian Govern-
ment. The convention was dram up in multilateralfom xi it
was hoped that, if agreement was reacl~ed, othes couritries,
particularlyFrance and Eermany, wouSd becorne signatories.On
munirated to the Government of the United Kingdom theent coted
.
of theiratm draftconvention, whichhad apparently been preprired
without parttcular reference to the British proposaOn.~1st July,
1937,an &R'dMrnairewas harided fo the Norwegian Goverriment
containing a nurnber of criticismof the Nonvegian drdt. It \vas
nat until 8th December, 1937~ Slat the Nonvegian Government
replied to these observation O n.that date, they iiforrned the
Governent of the UnitédKingdom that,althougli thé British
and Norwegian draft convent-ionstvere sufiaently similarte form
a basis for discussion, they preferred their awn ddt, because
it was marc çemprehensive, They added, in particular,that they
coirldnot accept a clausein the Rritish draft whiclr established
the red lime as the limit for trawling, butth&, neverthel~s, an
effortshould be made ta reconcile the.two existing dra£t con-
ventions. As a resultof notes exchanged in June and July 1938,
the two Govemmts agreed to allow the questionof aconvention
and itçprovisionç ta be discussed by experts itppointcd by the
two Governments. A Conference was hdd in Osloin Octoher 1938
inwhich agreement was reached upona draft convention based
on the earlier British and Norwegian &rafts. ln addition, iwa~
agreed-that, as a hrst dep, the draft convmt,ion shouid be sub-
mitted for theopinion of the fishininterestçof the trvoçountries. MlZTvIQRIAtOF TJ3E UNJTER mNÇnOM (27 1 501
54
Th6 convention was stiilthe subject of discussion between the
interests concernecland their respective Governments çvheRthe
second World 'IVar intervened.
56. For severd years during the war the question of thelimits
of Norwegian territorial waterremained in abeyançe, butin 1943
an International Fishery Conference tuasheld inLondon at which
a large number of countries mre represented. This conference
drew up ageneral fisheryconvention and a protacol,the provisions
of which conceming exclusive fishery limits were not acceptable
to Nosw&j? and certain ather countrieç.To overcorne theirdiffi-
cultiesa specimen bilateral agreement was drawn up which, if
signed, would have enabled the dissident ccruntries toxcept the
convention and protocol. This conv-entionand protocul wasnever
ratifiecand consequently the praposals fcU to the ground. From
then onwards, no succesçwas achïeved in reachinga. setthment
between the two Govmments. a
57, On 36th Sepiember, 1948 t was decided by the:Nonvegian
Government to enforce "fuIly" tfieRoyal Decree of 1935. The
Norwegim Government were informed that this action on their
part could not faii to affect seriouslythe relations between the .
, tws couniries, and tl~at theGovernment of the United Kingdom
were stiUprepared to try to reach an agreement srepding fishery '
lirnits. Alternatively tcasc couid,in the view nfthe Gouernmmt
of the United Ringdom, be brought befere the International
Court of Justice,preferably by agreement, although as both
countries were partiesto Article36 (z}of the Statute ofthe Court, .
eitber Gbvemment could ùring the case before the Court unira-
terdy. From this the onwards, the strictenforcement by the
Wonvegian Governanent of the 1935 Decsee produced a niimber '
of arrests of British vessels within the deme. line, but outside
the red line, and,in respect oallinterferenceswith British vesse4
-outside the limits which the Court holds that Norway is entitled
to reserve,the Government of the United Kingdom now daims
the awardof darnages. Further particulars of these asrest asn,
of the damages claimed by the Govemrnent of the United King-
hm, are contxined inPart III of this Memorid. .
58. During the winter of -1948-1949discussions were held in
London by reprewntatives of thetwo Gmniments with the object
of reaching a settlernentof the dispute.The representatives of the
two Governments succeedd in reachin agreement upon recom-
mendations to theirGovernmen ts,whichincluded afrshingconven-
tion providing foi new compromise lineas thelimitsof Norwegian
exclusive fishery rights. The Goverriment of the United Kingdom
accepted these reeommendations, but Sie Nomegian Govemment
found itçelf unableto do so, and so informed the Govemment:of
the United Kingdom in July ~949, 59. The Govertment ofthe United Kingdorn then reached the
conclusion-with tvhich i3s confidentthat both its oppanent the
Nonvegian Government andthe Court crrillagree-that during the
gast qua.rter of a ccn-hireverg effort whi~h hvo fiendly Powers
could make to settltlie dispute by negotiation had been exhausted.
In consequence, being devoted tothe rule of law ininternational
affairsand in confarmity with tlieprovision in the Charter that
normdly legal disputes should be decided by tl-lCourt, the
Government of the United Xingdom instituted these proceedings
t by application on24th September, 1949.
Contentions of the hvernment of the United Kingdorn regarding
the principlesofinternational lawto be applied
in definirigbase-lines
60, The dispute hetrveenthe Govemmentsof the Unhd King-
dom and Norwajr, as stated in paragraph 8 of the Application,
concerns the lines prescribedby the Royal Decree of 1935 as the
base-lines fothe delirnitatioof the Norwegian fisherieç zoneThe
Government of the United Kingdom, for the purpose ofthe ptesent
,aisputehas agreed that the fisherieszone shabe delinited onthe
assumption that it extends to sealvard four seamiles from such'
base-lines as,inthe opinion of the Court,the Norwegiari Govern-
ment is entiiled to laydown undm the applicalrilepsincipplesof
international law relatingto base-lines forterritoriawaters. On
the other hand, the Governent of the United ICingdorn, for the
maçons set out in -i-hefollowhg paragmphs, disputes that the
base-lines laid down by theRoyal liecree of1935 have been hm
in accordance mith the applicable phciples of international law,
6r. The Governrnent of the United Kingdom dvahces four
main contentionsinregard to thelegalitof the base-linecontained
in the Royal.Decree of1935 :
A.-International law does not give to each State the right
arbitrarilyto choose itsown base-Enes and a State, in
prescribing base-linefor any particulararea, can therefore
da so only within the limits imposeclby international llaw
(paras,62-67).
B.-The applicablerdes of international Iaw which restrict a
State'sdetermination of its base-lines are thosesetout in
paragraphs 68-122, below,
C+-The base-finesprescribed inthe Royd Decreeof 1935donot
' conformta the above-mentioned rules of internatiol aawl
and axe tbereforerllegal and Invalid unddergeneral inter-
_ national law (paras123-140). s6 MSMORIhL OF TZIE UNITED KINGDOM (27 I 50)
D.-If the Norwegian Eovernment asappestrs to be the casc,
seeks to justify the base-Ainesofthe Royal Decree of 1935,
on specialhistoricgrounds, the 'onus liesupori it tiothto-
prove in factmd ta estaMiskiin latvits exceptional daim
(paras. 141-qç). The atiswer of the United I<ingdom to.
this daim tvill thereforebe reserved for itsReply to the,
Counter-Mernorial.
The detailed arguments ofthe United TÇingdorn Governmnt in.
supportof each of these contentions die now be devèloped in-
turn.
A." State is not fhe to fixits own base-lines exeept within.
the limits impoçed by international law
62, The concept of the territarialsea, which iç miversauy-
recognized in international law, ithat of acontitiuous beltof sea,
of'even rPidth, attachedto thecoaçts ofa maritime State. No State:
can daim exclusive fishery rights outsideterritorialwaters. (See,.
i~za'ealia, Gidel,Le &o.oitinfemathwal Pablic de la M~eVo1, 1,
p. 459.N )arwayappears herself tosubscribe to thisconcept since
she daims a continuous belt of four sea miles, and since,in her-
reply tapoint r ofthe qaesfiÉomzaiwrhich was circulatedtù govem-a
ments beforethe Hague Conference on the Çodifiwtian of Interna-
tional Law held in 1930 (Bases ojDisc-~ssio~ ,eague of Nations,
Document 74-M.39.1gzg.T' p~.172) s~hesaid :
''Th eorw~gim Government agrm with the cornmitte's pm
. posalto take as a Ming point the principlethata State has.
sovereignty over ceriainZORBof seawashingitsmasis."
The traditional.concepof the territorisea found expression inthe-
report ofthesecond Corninitteeofthe Conference(PlewnvyMmfkgs,
Lewe of Nations Document C.35x.M.145.r Vg3p.,126)in the-
following two pmvkions of the rlraftcode attached te the report:
(a)Article1.-"Zae territoryof a State includes a beltof sea.
described inthis rqnventilasthe ta-ritorid sea."
(b) Pnrapaflhr of ihtrepwf ofthe Second$4- Cmmittee (ibid.,
p.131).-c'%bject to the$rovisionsrggarding baysandislanlks,
the breadth of the temitorid ssa ismeasured /rom the Lina-
oflow-waterma~kalon8$h3 .edi~aCQGES~.'"
The concepit stao tvdl recognized and too ~tll eçtablishedin law-
tomquire further citation ofauthorities.
The pint which it is heredeshed to emphasizeis thatthe terri-
'tarial sea, asit has ben admitkd into internationalI,aw,is an.
appendage to the geographicd coastline ofa State-It frlllowsthat
the base-linehom which a maritime belt extends is essentially the
lineonthe coast tvhichmarks the end ofthe land and the beginnitrg-
of the sea. A State, in determinhg the base-line for its maritime-
belt,is, thereforebound, in the ~LI-instance,to do $0byrderence
tcithe phyçical linofitscoast. fifk!OIZTtLOf.'HE YJNTTEISmGWM (27 f 50) 57
The fact that the broken character of acoast he may tend to
enclose areas osea within the land frontier ofState has ledto the
recognition ininternational law that, under certain defked condi-
tions,the base-lins may be amended so as to inchde those areas
ofsea within the national territory oftState concerned asintemal
waters. In that event, the base-line is cham-but only at the
places on the çeastwhere such conditions exisiçs-by geometrical
construction from the conhguration of the coast rather than by
absolute referace ta the pliysical line joking the lmd and the
sea. kofessor Gidel (Le Droit infcrnationaE;hublic de la Mer,
Vol. III,p. 517) wellexpresses thk geneçal principle:
"La ligne de dCpart de lamer territonalepeut correspondreà
de données physiquesImmCdkteç, ou résultemédiatement seub-
ment des &mats naturelspar l'intermédiaire d'unconstructim
géométrique."
63. Althoiigh international Jaw does not require the base-line
in al1circumstances to coincide with the line of division between
land and sea, thjsdoes not mean thatthe definition of itç base-line
isleft tothe arbihaq choice ofthe coastal State.On thr: contrasy,
the cases in which a departure from the nomial line of theçoast is
permitted are exceptions to the main rule, strictly lirnited by
internationallaw, ancl, when ailexception is alloçved, the base-line
may be dra~vnonly by geornctrical constrnction from the physiçal
facts which justify tht exception.
Diffaences thcw have been concerning the precise limits set by
the rules ofinternational lato depdures ofthe base-line fromthe
line ofthe coast. But there cm be no real doubt that the limits
within which such departures ~viUbe permitted are establiçhed by
international law.The preoccupations of juriçts withsuch matters
asthe tide level, bays, estuaries, Xands, rocketc., arethemselves
evidence thai base-lines are withiii the regdationof international
lacv.The draft conventions of such learned bodies as the lnstitute
of InternationalLaw (ParisConference, rSgq,r3 Amt~aiw, p. 328 ;
Stockholm Conference, ~928, Afi~ztaive, p. 7~5)~the herica
Institute (Rio Conference, r927, 23 A.J.I.L,, Special Supplernent,
p.3701 ,he InTmationaZ LawAsçoçiation (Report of ihe gqtli Con-
ference,1926,p. YOX) and the Barvxd Resmch (1929 2, A.J.I.L.,
Special Suppiement, p. 243) all assume that the question of the
base-line is governed by international law, and lay docvn sulesin.
regard to the tide level, baysetc- The same assurnptian is made
both inthc prepuatory work ofthe 1930 Conferencc held atThe
Hague (Bases ofDiscussim, pp. 35-64,and p. 393)and M the report
of the Second Sub-Cornmitteeon Territorial Waters (Plenary
M~cii~gs,p. r3r), tvhich also formulatecl certain draft rules in:
regard to base-limes.
64. The above evidence, inthe submission of the Govemenf
of the United Kingdom, establishes beyoridquestion that a Statk,58 MENORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (27 I 50)
in fixing its base-lin-,is limited,kst by geographical facts, and
secondlÿ by rules ofinternational. lawwhiçh determine the kgal
çonsequmcwof those facts,
Moreover, the Govemment of the United Ringdm çontmds
that the ona is upon a State,which fixesa base-line departingin
any particular place from its geographical coasts, to justify that
departure as one pémitted by international law. All the clraft
conventions mentioned in paragraph 63 above state the sule that
the maritime belt extends fr~m the low-water markan the coast
as the prirnaxy de. That thisis the primary rule is made partic-
ularly çlearin the formulation ofthe rules regardhg the base-line .
in thereport ofSub-CommitteeRTo.~ of theHagueConference of
1950 (PJewary Meelhgs, p.x~I). The purport t$this rule, thetext
of which i5given in pampaph 62 above, isthat, subject to the
rules regarding bays and ishnds, the base-Iine is the line of lmv-
=ter mark alrm llzeentira ~utzsItfoflowsthat any deparEureof
the hase-line from the line of lo~v-tvatemark on thrrcost has to
be specifically justifieas within one of the exceptions perrnitted
under the rules of international law regardhg bayç, islands,etc.
65. The above contentibn is reinforcd by Tthe cmsidemiion
that theprirnary rule of maritime la\visthat the seas are ftee,It
Zs not pmposed totake up the time of the Court by examiiiing here
the emergence Of the freedom of the seas as the basic principleof
maritime law (çte Gidel,op. cd.,Vol. 1,pp.143 etSV.).The atten-
tionof the Courtis, however, dsaxvn to the following observation
ofProfesçor Gidel made inc~nnectïon with the base-line for islands
{Gidel,O#. cd.,Vol. III, p. 674) :
"L'id& qui domine' ledroit de mer est l'idéede la libertéde
tion inutiAecettelibertédoit2treevitee."nmitime; toutereshic-
66. Ttfoilov7s that therc is a presumption of law that waters
ofthe sea are free,andthai any clairntçrsovereigntyover a &ven
areaof sea has to 'tijust~ed as an exceptionrecogniztd by ii-ites-
national law. One suçh recognize exception is the hdt of the
temtonal sea. International law, as said inparagraph Bz above,
als'orecopizes that areas of sa rnay in certain conditions- beso
far encloseilby lmd as to be part of the national territoryand
inland waters of the coastd State. Ea that event, the base-line
depats fron the lineofthe Caast, and is drawn acruss the scaward
entranc eftheinland waters, The base-Iineisthen bot11theoutward'
limit of inland waters and the starting point for delirniting the
territorialbelt to seaward. The presumption in favout- of the
freedom ofthe seas is thus of particrilaimportance in regard ko
the -rulesgoverning suçh amei~dments of the base-3ine. Any
departure ofthe base-linefrûm the coastinvolves an encroachrnent
of idad waters upon the sea, mhich constitutes an even more
setiouçderogatibn from the freedom ofthe seas tbm the extensiondepartfmrn theIlrieof rneanlow-water çpwig tides tvaçadded aç
a safeguard against abme.
69. The formala proposedby Sub-Cornmittee II,which accords
with international practice,has met wifh general acceptanc and,
is accepted by the Govemment of the United Kingdom. It Js,
bowever, again emphasized that the. rule has tlx read asa whole.
A Sate is not entitled ta maintain that the limits of its land
territory are to be .ascertaineby referenceto conditions at luw
water, ad, at the same time, ta rejecithe rde that the base-Iine
foPEoivsthe lmv-later mark alung the entire coast except where
a departue içspecificallç~nctiooed by internationallaiv.
Bay s
70, (b)A State Zs only rnii?led+rt !rom histwic wusage-trr
traceth basdifie awoss thewafm of i~denbation nt ihe nmvest
pobt tath czkuxce at which fhcmidlh does notexcseà ;romiles ad
then owly ijuw identaiion qgadiz'jirs hw as a bay-
The fact thatthe same considerations do not apply to encloscd
waters as to the open sea has always been recogtlized. The distinc-
tion is taken bYGrotius (De Jwe Bekli LIEPd.., Lih. II, Cap.111,
98) and by the classical writers othe eighteenth andnineteenth
centuries. The classicalwriters &d m t, liowever, contemplate
extensive appropriationof the sea under tliisprinçiple. Grotius,
for example, \vascareful toset li'its,though not clearly clefined
lirnits, to such appropriations :
"Ad hoc exemplum viddur et mare occupari potuisseal, eo,
quiterra asd latusukumque possideat, etiamsaut suprapotest
ut sinus. aut supretinfra utfretum, dummodo-no% fta magn~,Sil
pars mariszslmon mm fervimparntu portiocmum videri .pvsat."
Similady in the eighteentll century Vattel /Le Droit des Gens,
Liv, 1, Cba-. XXI 11, 5 29r) wrote :
"Tout ce que nom avons dit des partiesde lamer voisins de
&tes, sedit pasticuliEsemenet à plus fortraison desrades, des
baieset des détroits, comme plus capableencore dY2tmoccup&s,
desditroils de peud'étmd~e,ci!upayde cesgiandsaespaces de mrt
a~xgeselan donw quelq~efoaa's noms,tels quela baie d'r-Tudson,
ledktroit deMagellan, sur lesquell'empire ne sauraits'étendre,
et moins encore la propriét4,"
Mt emards, when the cannon-shot pfincipleplayed an impertant
part inthe developrnentof the concept ofthe territoridsea, itwas
natural that it should alsoi~ifluencethe theories ofsome writers
concerning the lrnits within which the appropriation of bays k
permissible.Thus writers such as Ortolan (Diplomatie de laMer,
Tome 1, p.1451 ,alvo (LR Droit ikfe~matio~tT,ome 1,Section367)
limiteclthe appropriation of bays to those tlie mouthç of nihich
could be controlledby cannon placed on eithershore.Writers suchas Wheaton, Elmettts ofI~t~~iona~ Liaw (8th ed.), 188, and
PhilIimore, Cmwt&&~lries (3rd ed.)B,ook 1, Chapter VIII, on the
dher hand, p~ferred sirnply the test ofthe ability tu exercise
physiml control ofthe bay. Moreover, the iricr~sing range ofcaa-
non during the nineteenth centiiry more and more divorced the
cannon-shot principle from the practiceof Stateciinregard to the
territorialsea, Consequently, so far as cancerns the opinion of
jurists, the positioat the end of the ninefeenth centul was that
there mç virtud unanimity that only bays of hited width can
be includeclin the territorof a Statebut thslt there waç no yrwise
rule determinimgthe maximuni widtb, which had heen unanimously
and definitivcly accepted,
71.The position was much thc same atthe end of the nineteenth
century in regardto the practice ofStates, except that,as dl be
seen, an important tendenq had showed itself tbwxcls thedefini-
tion ofthe maximum nldth of the bays which can legally be appxo-
priated by a State without relimce upon an hlçto~ic titie. The
extensive daims of some States tosovereignty over adjacent waters,
including the daims of England to the h'amatv Seas and of Den-
mark to Northern Waters, Iiad eitheç bem abandoned or fallerz
into desuetude during the eighteenth century.. Afterwards, in
addition to the territoriabdt, States asserted claims of a varying
nature tathe waters ofbaysor other in1et.s-The processaf defining'
tlielirniof legitimate daims in regardta bays may be said to have
lx,? in 1839 with the Anglo-French Fishery Convention, the
abject of which was tosettledifierences betirteen thtwo countries
concerning theirrespective rights to exclusive fisherieç, especiany
the French right to exclusive oystesfisheriesinthe Bay of Cancale
{Granville) (Hertslet, Treatiesand Conslvlontions,al.,V, p, 89).
Article IX ofthis treatghaving provideclfor an exclusiveright of
fishery for cach country within 3 milw off Iùw-\vater mark along
the ivhole extent ofitscoasts,continued as fciLiow:
"It isequallyagreed, that the distkce af 3milesked asthe
generallimitfor the exclusivenght af fidey upon the coastsof
the two couatrjes,shd, with respect to bays,the mouths of
whichdo not elrceedro milesinwidth,be rneasuredfroma straight
finedrawn from headland tohead1andmr'
This dause, it will be seen, onlj~ rresetvedbays, the entra~cs of
which betweentheir headlmds did zot exceed 10 miles. The same
clause \vasrepeated in n further fishery conve~xtionbetween the
ttw countries in1867~which, however, \vas notratifiedby France
on othm groundç. (Fultun,Sovért%g.po 1fth Sea,p. 6x9.)
72. In1853, in ihe case of the Washingtm (Hudson, Casa cm
I~tevwütionalLm, p. 445) Umpire Bates referred with approval
to -thelimitof 10 miles imppsed in,the Angle-French Convention: "This doctrineof headland snew, and has received a propr
2ndiAug~st,eri33g."tion ktwem France and Great Britain of
Aithaugb Umpire Bates was xarcely correct in saying that the
doctrine of headlmds \vas new in1853, his opinion thatitshauld
be Iimited by the no-mile ruIe suon won numerom adherents, In
x868 the North German Government agreed with Great Britain
that the ro-mile rule, ina form simiiarto that in the convention .
\vit11France, shonld apply in regard to the exdusive fiçherieroff
the north Grman coasts(British Board ofTrade Notices to Fisher-
men, Rg-tslet, Cm~tmcid Treaties,Vol. X-ZV ,p, 1055 and 1057).
ln 1882 the 10-mile rule receivedftrrtherextension in Articl2 O£
the North Sea Fkheries Convention whichadopted if in the follow-
ing alteredfo- :
hm"Açarstraight lindrawniacrossthehbay, inthehpartnearestthe
entrace, at the Tirst pointwhere the width does not exceed
IO i-niI@~.~*
This formula forbays was enclors~dby Belgiirm,Denmark and the
Netherlands in addition to Great Britain, France and Gemany.
Qnly Nomay andSweden decidecl not to subscribeto the conven-
tion ;a refusa1which isbelievedto be due to the adoption in the
converhan of a three-mile limitand not te the fact that it adopted
a ZO-mile rule for baysIt wdl be observed thatthe IO-nide rde as
clppIiedin the 1882 Convention, doeç not reserve only those bays
with entranceç ncit exceedingro miles but wsel-vesaL1bays within
a 10-mile line acroçç the bay.
73.hiIeanwhile, a Iring-standing dispute between Great Btltain
and the Gnited States conçerning the bays in which excIusive
fishaies wereresen~ed to Great Britain off theAtlantic coastsof
Çanacla and Newfoundland by the Convention od 18x8 I-iadagain
corne to a head in 1855, and the e;o-called Chamberlain-Bayard
Treaty was signcd in 1888 (B~itishadd Foveiga Staia Pafiers,
VOL79, p. 267).The convention, at the suggestion ofthe United
States, and, indeed, mith some xeluctance on the part of Great
Britain, provided tkat-apart £rom certain named bays-the -
~o-rnile rule intheform faund intheNorth Sea Conventionshould
be applied to bayson the North Atlmtic coasts of America. The -
convention prçived abortive,since the United States Senate failed
to ratify iE,and,mtil the imous Arbitratian of rgra mentioned
belo~v,the even namoiver rule ofa six-mile IimStwas applied as a
~odus pzUmdi(Fulton, op ,it.p. 6283.
74, In addition,the ro-milelirnit wasadopted in Fishery Con-
ventions between Spainand Portugal of 1885and 1893 (Britishma!
Foreig~a SiatePclpers, Vol. 73, p. 1182, and Vol. 85, p. po), a
fact ivhich is the more significant because thse two countries hirned territoriabelts.the double of which e&eds ro mSIes.
Again, the Anglo-Danish Fishery Convention of 1901 appfied the
xo-mile limit to the Faroes and to Tceland. Admif edlythe IO-de
limit was applied in nineteenth-watury State practice as a con-
ventional de, but the prînciple that, apart from histbric ,tifles,
clairns tobays inter fawcasbsrm rnust be séstricted had rcceived
ide recognition.Thus, in 1894 the Ir-istituteof International Lam
(Pais, 13 Anwairz, p. zp), altlloughithad difftrences ofopinion
as tothe limit being raor 12 miles, \vas agreedinadopting one or
other of these bits asthe grnerd rule forbays, Inthe msult, the
Institute,tvhiçh\vasthen advocating a 6-mileterritoria%a, voted
by a rnajonty in favour of a rz-mile Iimitfor bays. In 1895, horv-
ever, the Triternatioril aw Associationunanimously preferred the
ro-rriiIlirnitas having the sanction of practiçe. (Report of the
17th Conference, p.109.1
7s. Paralle1~viththe tendency during the nineteenth century to
narrowancl define the bays mhick n State inay ordinrtrily daimas
part of its inland watersit was recognized that a certain number
of wider bays, such as the Chesapeake Ray in the United States,
mcl the Bay of Conception in Nathundland, belonged to the
coastalStates concerned, by reason of their loi~gand continuous
assertionof çovereignty over the bays, This distinction hehveen
historieand ordinary bays was endors4 both by the lnstitute of
InternationalLnw inArticle 3 of its &af-t of1894 (r3Annzt~ire,
p.329) and by the International Law A~sociation inArticle 3 of
Its&aft of 1895 (Report. of 17th Conference, p. mg). Both these
learned bodies,in laying down respecti~rely a limit of 12 and 10
milesfor ordinary bayç, addedthe pruviso :
"Unless a continued usagc of long standing has sanctioned a
grder breadth."
. The recognition at the close othe nineteent centuy of a distinct
dam of "histol-ic"bays only serve ta emphasize that claimg to
ordinary bays were regarded as subject to the stf çt replationof
international Jaw&th respect tothek ~vidth,
The onus ofproof, inthe case of a clah to anhistoriebay, is on
the Stateclaiming jt,and, therefore, the Governinent of the United
Kingdom will déferto its Reply its comments on Norway's clairns
to fjordsandother inlets on historiegrounds.
76. In rglo occirrrcd the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbi-
tration htcvem Great Britain and the United States [hereafter
called "the 1910Arbitration").The Chamberlain-Bayard Treaty
not having corne into force, disputes continued between the two
countries conceming the proper interpretation of.the 1818Can-
vention, and especidly the clause which resmved "bays" for
British fisliermen. Brcadly speaking, ,Great Britain argued that
the ward "bays" was used intlze 18r8 Convention inits geogra- phical sense,and reserve for British fishermen à11ba-rn ~PZ,!LY
faucestsrrc~,The United States,on the other hand, argued that
"bays" must be interpreted to mean onIy bays wblch, under
international law, were \vithiri the territorhl waters of Great
Britain, and confendecl that thireserved only those bays whose
entranccrsdidnot e.u;ce.6 milesin tvidth. GreatRritaln,inreply,
çonlendd that there was nno rüieregarding the width of bays
in 1818 and, seconcllythat in 1910 there waç still nospecific
de of international law imposing a definite limiton the tvidth
of bays, the10-mile limitbekg saidto be canventional.
77. The tribunal,inifs award (Wïison,Hagz~ Arba'trdionCases,
p. 1821,rejected the United States'contention tliat the3-mile
limitmust alwaysbe appl.iecçtriçtly even~vithibays, and rehsed
toapply a six-mile lhitto bays. Ithdd (p.1563 that, asa matter
of constmction, the word "bays" inthe rSx8 Convention was
us&'in its geographical sense,and was intended to reserve al1
I~yç within a line dramm at the phce where thé body ofwater
ceased to have the configuration of a bay- The tribunal, by an
express application of the intertemporal Iaw, heJd itself unable
to interpietther81S Treaty in the light ofs%bsapsrafinternatioad
actç favohg a specificlirniof IOor 12 miles (p.rSz) A.lthough
the tribunal,forthisreaçon,felt itselunable to apply the IO-mile
linzlit recommended to the parties the adoption ofthe IO-mile
limit foral1bays other than those for tvhichspecirclimits \*te
fixedby the award. nloreoveu,both StatES subsequently =cep ted
this recmmenclatior~ (103Bmtislza~dI;oreig* StateFapers,p. 287).
Judgc Drago, in lis well-knçism dksanting judgrnent (p. 205)~'
xeferred. tothe ro-mile lirait as a principle suppotted"by the
acqujcscena cnd the practiceO£many nations". Noreover, despite
the British arguments against there being a syecific limitlaid
dom by international law, he heldthe 10-mile Ilmit:to be the
estabTished usage af Great Britain,
, 78. The British attitudein regard to the ro-milelimit, itmust
be admitted, showed some inconsistency during the first quxrter
of the presentcentiiryThe 10-mile limitivasapylied inthe several
fisheryconventions mentioaed above, but in 1907f ier theMoray
Firtli disputes,Lord Fitzmaurice, Under-Seçretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, çaid inthe Kouse of Lords that, apart from
speciaZconventions, asix-mile limii applieto bays (169 Htz~sürd,
column 989) I.n1908, however, he seeined to regard the question
of bays as unsettled (196 Hansard, colan 236). In the rgro
Arbitralion, British Counsel deniecl that there mas any seftl~d
rule, but Great Britain, despite the tribunal'saward givhg her
all "bay~" under tlier 8x8 Convm tions, accepted its recornrnend-
ation that the 10-mile limit should be applied toa11 bays not
qeçificaUy defind in the award: In 1923 ,n the çase of Tke Supplernent)M. oreover,tlie absenceofsuch action byother States
does not necessanl indicate that they didnoi regardthe rc-miie
limit for bays in this way. Again, al1 the draft conventions,
prcrduced by lemed societies ianticipation of the Codification
Conference of 1930, ent.isageda general de limiting the width
of ordinary bays and distinguishingthm from bays claimerl by
long uscage,Article7 of the drafE convention of the International
Law Association (Report of the 34th Conference, 1926, p. ror)
mt to the length of applying the territorial lirnit strictly in aU
ordinary bays. ArticIe6 of the draft convention of the Amencan
hstitute un the Rational Domain (Rio Conference, 1927, 23
A. J.I,L.,Special Supplement, p. 370) stated the rulefor bays in
a form similar tothat of the North Sea Fisheries Convention, but
leftbl~k the actul nurnber of miles to b~specifiedas the limit.
The xo-mile limitwas adùpted Fnal1 theother drafts, i.eArtide 4
of the draft of the League ofNations Cornmittee of Experts in
xgz6 (23 A,J.T.L.,Special Supplernent, p. 366), Article2 of the
draft ef the Japanesc International Law Association (1926 i,bid.,
p. ~$4, Article 3 ofthe draft of the Institute of InEernationaI
Latv (Stockholm Conference, qzS, Asrnwaire, p.7561,andArticle 5 .
of the Harvard Research draft (23 A.J,I.L., Specid Supplement,
pp. 243 and zGg).
81. The replies of governments to the qzrestimaairecirculated
before the Codiacation Coderence of 1930 showed considerable
divergmcies in regard .tothe limit forbays vwng fram double
the width of the territoridala to ro, 12 ot (Italy only)zo miles
or, inthe cases of Norway and Swedm, no mm~erical restriction
at all. (Basesof Discetssion,pp. 39-45.)The greatest measure of
support was, however, for the 10-mile limit, and it was adopted
In, Basis of Discussion No. 7,Discussion of bays in the main
Cornmittee on TerritoriaWaters centred von historic bays, and
the question of ordinary bays was examined in Sub-Cornmittee
No. JI. The only limit for bay*; seriously entertaineby the sub-
cornmittee was that of 30 miles, which was incorporatecl inthe
sub-cornittee's report as a draft ruIe in the foiiowing form
(PieptaryMcetifigs,p, 131) r
"Inthe citseofbays thecoastsof~vkichbelong to asiugleState,
the belt ofterritor watlrs shall'nemeiaçuredfrom a straight
line drawnacrossthe opening of the bayIf theofisnidofthe bay
ismye .iltro mites wzde,the Eimshalt bt dvawmal!Ihc wvyest-
Poini foIhcenimace tdwhickthe ope.izidaesmt exwed ro miks."
Sz. The report of Sub-Cornmittee No. II kas admittdly nat
dixusseci by the main tommittee on Territorial Waters. The
report, however, statesinan observation on the above dmft rule.
(z'bidthat : "Most delegations agreedta a width of 10 miles provided a
system were simultaneously adopted under which slightinden-
tation~voiilnot be treatcdasbayç."
It is evident £rom thisobservation that there was no 'disposition
atthe conference Eo enlarge the scope for claiming bays as Inland
waters beyoud the IO-mile rule.
It is alsota be remarked that the ~o-mile limitu7as i~ic~rporated
in the report of Sub-Committec No. XI n Baçis ofDiscussion No. 7,
and in the draft conventions of learned soçietles uithout express
reference to the lirnit fixcd for the territosea. Mr. J.B. Moore,
aftent-ards judge ofthe Fernanent Cout, in alettcz to Sir Thomas
Barday in1394(13 Annzcaire, p.146, note) explaineclthe ro-mile
sule for bajs as having heen arrived at hy taking the 3 miIcs of
territoria1 sea oneitherside nf the bay and adding to these 6 miles
a fsrrther 4 miles.He said:
"Trietransgressionofan encroachrnen t upon territoriawaters
by fiding veççelsisgenerallya grave offence,involvjngin many
instances the forfeiturof the offending vessel, anit js obvions
bat, thenatrower the space iivhich itispermlssibleto fisht11e
more likely the offencc isto be comrnltted. In order, therefore,
that fishing mctybe both practicsljîle asaieandnof çonstantly
attendeclivith the risk ofviolatinterritoria\vate~ç,ithas heen
thought expedient nnt to allowit where the extent offree waters
between thc 3-mile line drarvon each side.ofthe bay içlesstlian
4 miles. Thisjsthe reason oftheIO-mileLine."
83. This explanation of the ro-mile rde has often been quoted,
but it appears to be a rationalization of the rule rather than its
basic principle.The staternënt is,in fact,a repetitlon ofthc aqu-
ment used bv the United States In the Chamberlain-Bavard
Treaty negothions to induce Great Britain ta give up larger
daims ta bays in favour of the ~o-milerule of the 1887 North Sea
Convention (North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, Vol. 3,
p.948).At my rate, thrci-mile limitseems primarily to have &en
adopted by States toecho the words of Umyire Bates (see para. 72
above} in order that "aproper limit may be placed upon exclusive
daims to bays", This \vas certainly the case in the North Sea
Convention bf 1882.
84. Bhreover, bth SirThomas Barclay in 1894(13 An~wire,
p. 145) and in 1922 Sir Cecil I<urst, aftetwards President of the
Permanent Coirrt (British Yem Book O# 1tter~aticim.dLam, Vol. 3.
pp, p etseq.),regardeclthe ro-mile limitas associated with the
range of vision principle oearlier times.The Enghh cornmon law
recognized a mle whereby 'Yhat am or branch of the sea which
lies within the fawes fttrrwhere a man may reasonably discern
between shoreand shoreis, or at least may ber within fhe bocly of
a county" (Lord Hale, De Jawc Ma*, p. I,c. 4).Sir GeciiHmt
regarded the IO-mile .limit in English practice as the wosliing68 MEMOEUIU. OF THE UrJTrED KTWGDOBI (37 1 50)
equivalent inmoderntimes of the ald range of visionrde (op, cii.,
p. 54). Professor Gide1(op cit., VolIII, p.572) also refers tothe
connection of the rule with the visibil tisty:
gr'L'é1Pim viniilitkdoit recevoir dans toutcettematière iuie
importance de premier ordreetc'estAcetitreaussique lalongueur
de dix milles qui rkpondaux conditions normalesde lavisjbilite
sut les&tes de l'Europe acc'identale mérited'êtretenue comme
la distance-type."
85. Whntewr may be itstheoreticil hasisthe ro-milerulc has,
asstated, been formulated in conventions, and applied In State
practice as an unqndified limit of 10 miles for bays, and as an
escepfion tothe ordinary de of the territoridsea.It isaccord-
ingly snbmitted ihat tth reportofSub-Comrnittee Mo.II infsming
the so-mile de asa rule for bys independent of the lirnit of the
territorial sa,isin accordmith practice.
86, Be Gavmrnent of the United Kingdom, which, de lege
ferenda, wodd have p~eferred the even stricter rule of a 6-mile
bit, expmsed its readineçs in 1930 to accept tlieIO-milenile
formulated by Sub-Cornmittee No. II as being the principle which
bath cornrnasrds general support and has the sanction of interna-
tional pract ice, including the United Kingdom's aivn practice.
87-Thc only alternativelhit whichhasremiveci any memurable
supportis the 12-milelimit.Asalready%en (paras. 74and8oabove),
the Institute of International Law proposed a 12-mile lirnitin .
1894 ,ut abaricloned it in1928for the IO-de lirnit.R 12-mile
Iirnifwas supported inthe replies of tlireeStates(Latvia, FinLand
and Polamd)at the 1930Codification CaiiferenceTtims alsoadopted
by Bustamante (La Mer .lerrito~iaEpe,. 98inhis dr* code prepared
befare th^report of the Codification Conference of 1930favo-
the ~c~milelimit tvas availahle.IfcirecirreBustamarite recorded
his hesitati~n "betwcen the he of IO miles, becaiuseof thez.ttter-
national sanctioltdbaatitbas ,gaiwd, and the line af rz miles".
It is indeed the weakness of the argument for the rz-mile lhit
tliat it lacks the sanctionof internatioizal practice-a deficiency a
which cm scarcely be regarded as met by the recent unilaterd
proclamations ofYugosIavia and Saadi Asabia adopiing a 12-nile
limit for bays.
88. The 12-mile limithas a c;lgnIfrcanttnly as the largestlimit
that hw ever ben setiouslysuggested asthe general limit foba~,
This largez limit Yrias,bowever, hrought before the Codification
Co~iferenceof 1930and rejected infavaurof the IO-mile rulefound
in international practiceFnrther, asindicated in paragraphs 12
and 13 abovet,he Norwegian Government were in1924 contendhg
that the 1.0-mileruleforhays %vasone which seceived its support. MEiMORffït OF TlAE UNITED RIhrÇDOBf (27 ï 50) 69
De finitionof a bay fw th #ekr$osfiofaHLyifig theIO-mih mie
89. The dificulty of dehing curvatures of the coast which
guaiify as bays is weL1knom and, as already emphasized, was the
chief impediment to Sub-Cornmittee No. TIrecording a ha1 aadp
tion of the ~o-mile rimitin itsreport. Unles slight curvaturesare
excludeil, a State,by misuse of the ro-mile rule, coeld,nufify the
fmdamentai principltsthat the belt of territonasea extends hm
low-\vater mark dong the entire coast.The whole mhonale of the
special ruie for bays is that the penetrationof the waters hto the
land tends to enclose tl~ern, thus takingthem out of normal use
by interaational maritime traficand bing them within the intirnacg
and use of the çortstal StateAccorclingly,itis clear,on principle,
that a bay in international law is an il-ida~tation which makes an
appreciaMc pernetration into the land in proportion to the width
of its mouth.
go. The difficultyiç tofincla formula tn express thc proportion
between the width of the mouth and the penetration inland tvhich
isrequired by international law, The tribunal in the Igra Arbitra-
tion drew attention fo the dificulty without solving it (TViIwn,
Hagsced4rbii~dion Cases, p. 186) :
"The geographic characterof a fsay contains conditioh which
concern die interests the territorial sovereitea more intimate
and important extent than do those connected with the opentoast.
'llus conditions of national and territoriainkgrie, of deface,
ofcomnexccland of jndustry are stllvihily conccrned tviEt.the
control of the bayspenetnatinthe nationalcoastline. Thisinterest
vofthe bayea;but,easrno principleoofiinternational laiw.ecognizes
and specified dation between the concavity of the bay and the
rcquircrncnts-forcontrol by the territoriaçovereign, th& tri-
bunal, etc,"
The above passage from the: 1910Awasd, although it does not lay
down anjr specifictest, emphaçixes tlrat tkc chief dement in any
tesi of abay, isthe penekrationof the bay into theTineof the coast.
gr. It follows that the legal, like the gcographical, definition
ofa bay, k esscntiaUy a matter of the geopphical configurrttion
of the cmt ; this is the reason why the rneaning of "bq" iiiinter-
national law received cornpatativcly little attention %romj urists
before the Codification Gnnference, 1930 and wliy no State, except
Great ttritain, thoughE it necessq in itsreply to the qwestion-
naire to formulate a definitionof a bay. Lt isdso the reason tvhy
ai the conference the clonsiderable discussion of the definition of
a bay in Sub-Cornmittee No. II was devoted alrnost entirely to
geometsical formula formeasdng the physical proportions ofthe
bay . 92. Great Britsin, In its reply to the q~sstion~zail(Basa of
Da'sc~siam, p. 4x1 ,roposed the following dekition ofhays for
the purpose of the 10-de rule :
"A bay for this purposeis mething more ponounced than a
mere curvatuxtof the mat. There must be a distincand dl
deftned inlem,oderatein size and long in proporttanits width."
'Sub-Cornmittee No, II recopized that the crucialquestion isthe
proportion bebveen tdth ofentrace ancl penetration inland,bzrt
.conçideredthe British definitito lackprecision,British,German,
Unitecl States,.French md Latvian formula3 were exarninedfor
reducing the question of proportion to a geometriçd test,(Gidel,
.op.çib.Vol. III, pp. 584-592-1Another formiila liassince been
:suggeçtedbyDr. Miinch (fie TechnischmF~agdnd~sKüstenneears,
p. 97)O.ne objection toal! these formulz i~that they scarcely fulfl
.the filndamentd need that thetestshudd be one readily applicable
by mariners. The United Statesand Erei~chproposds wee, hotvever,
considered by Snb-Cornmittee No, 11to be xuffrcientlyimportant
.tobe incorporated in its reportasappendices (Ptemry Jleefiags,
p, 132).Of thesetwo proposais,it is thaO£ theUnited Statesxvhic'h
lias attmcted thegreater support (Gide], p$. cd,, Vol. IIp. 585 ;
Miinch, O#. cit.,Section zz, Part IV).
g3, SubCommittieeRo. ITdid not recordany opinioncorrcernhg
the pdrtjctllar formula proposd and resenred the possibihty of
considering other formula or modfiatiom of those propose$. On
the other hand, the sub-rommitttei did record the opposition of
.delegationto treating çlight cunraluresas ba.p in the folla~ing
sentence,which has already been quoted in paragraph 82 above:
"Nost delegationsweed to a width of ro miles, provldeda
tations ~raunot betreatedssbays." under which shght inden-
94. There can be no real doubt, itis contended,concerning the
general sense in which the wmd "bay" is ased in International
law. It denotes a well-rnarkedindentation whose penetration
.idand isin such proportion to the width of itsmouth as to con-
stitute theindentation more than a mere curvature of thé cm&.
The concept of a bay iswell-enough understood, and in most
casesit avilibeenough to say that a bay isa tvell-marked inden-
tation whzlse penetration inland isin reasonable proportion to
the width of itsmouth. In case of donbt concerning a somewhzt
slialiom?indentation on thecoad of Nonvay, the Governrnent of
the United Kingdom would "o content that the doubt should be
sesolved by applying the geometricaltest proposed by the United
States delegationaatthe CodificationConference of rggo [Plmary
M eeji~tgs,p. 132,Su%-Appendix A). Summca~y ofth swbmissions
of theGo~lem.mm t fth8 Uwif~tfKingdani i.pregard fo bays
95. The submissions of theGmernment of the-United Xingdorn
in regard ta tliebays rvtiich rnay be claimed as inland tvaters
are, accordingly, as follotv:
(a) Tlierehas evolved a clearmle of international law,evidènçed
by the opinions of jtiriststhe pmctice O£ States and the
proceedin ofsthe Codification Calzfe~ence1930, that the
width of such bays is to be stricdy limited except where
an historic htle can be made out,
(bj Tnere is almost univenal agreement that the maximum
limit for the width of snchbays isof the order of ro Or
12 miles.
(c} Offhese tmo distances,xomiles 1sthe one which has mceived +
wide recognition in international practice and which ws
favoured in the repart ofthe rgjo Conference, Indeed, the
report emphasized the preference of delegations for the
stricter Iimit by recording that they only acceptadro-mile -
lirnit s~lrje20a ~eskictivdcfi.izih:O# fltr~ord "'6ay".
(d) In these circurnstances the 10-mile limitas formulated in
the reportofSub-Cornmittee No. II iç the limit whichought
to be applied in the present case as the general rule of
international law governing bays.
(E) A bay for this purpose isany weU-mxrkedindentation of
the toast whme pesietration inland bears a reassnable
proportion to the width a£ its*mouth. (In case of dispute
the geometrical testproposed by the United States at the
1930 Conference rnight be applied.)
(f) The ogus of proof in the case of a clairn toa baywider
tl~anro mila, on historic grounds,is on the State making
it.(See para. 141 klow sZ seq.)
E&ct on th base-lincofislands. rocksiw bank; Qi~g O# Wlecoast
96, Write~ did not, untilcomparativdy recently, give detailed
consideration to the efiect of islands upon the base-line of the
territoriasea.It-ws assurned thae isolat& islands had their own
territoriawaters on the same principle as a continent and that
otherwiçe the effect of jslands waç covered by the law xelating
to bays andçtraits. Nurnerauswriters, c.g. Azmi (Dpoit rnari.8ims
de I'Europe,p. zjq), Ortolan (Difilomatiedeb MW. p. I$), Calvo
[Le Droit i.pti!mtatioml, Vol. 1, Section 3671, recognized that
islands may play a part in enclmiizg the mouth of a hay but,
where the idand ismerely placed of€the open coast,they assumed
that the Iaw refating to straits.applies.
6 97. These asumptims ofvwitew rerefuüy justified inprinciple
because, aspreviously stated, the whole rationale of keating bays
as inland waters iç that the configuration a£ the çoast under
certain conditions endoses areas of the seas to such an extent.
as to take thea out of normal use by international maritime
trafic.If the special conditions do not exist, thewaters remairi
part of the open seas ancl there is a right of innocent passage
for international maritime trafic, In other words, the essential.
distinction is whethethe. watersbetween anisland and amainland
constitute a channei. leading to inland srratersus whether they
constitute a channel connecihg two parts of the free sea, Tllis.
distinctionwas thus expressed by Calvo (op. cd., para, 368) :
"'On distinguedeux sortes de dttroit: ceux quiaboutissent à
des mers fermées ou enclav&es,c'est-adiredont la sou-r7erainet&
haignent lescbtecl; et ceuxqui serventde commumcationontentres
des mers libres#''
Ttis believed that, althaugh it isntceçsary to give some pater-
precision to the mles çonceming the &ect of lslands apon ter-.
+ ritonal waters, the leading witers on international law were-
entirelycorrect in treating the problern as basicaily a question
of bays and stsaits.
98. In addition, many of the classicalwriters rrferred wiih
apprbval to the decision in the BritisYnzeCourt of Lord Stowe4
inthe caseof 'The Amza (18j0,5 C, Rsbinçon, p. 3733, ~vherehe
heid the capture afa vesse1 within 3mires of certain permanently
visible mud islands at the mouth of the Nissisippi, but 5 miles
from 'the mainland, to have been made within the territorial.
\vaters oftheUnited States. J'rd Sto~veUconsideredit immaterid
that the islaads were "not of coasistency enough-to support the
purposes ofMe, uninhabite adnd resorted to .only forshooting'
and taking bi~ds'nests", since "the right of dominion does not
depend on the texture o$the soil".He laiddown that the islands.
were the naturd appendages of the çoast and-part of United
States territorysothat in considerhg the validity of,the capture,
the right of territorymust be reckoned from the ishds. Lord.
Stowell'sdecision was not concerneci withthe status of thewaters
lying between the islands and the maidand, but only with the
question tvhethm these oninhabited islands close to the coast
could be reckoiiedas territoryof the UnitedStates saas to possess.
territorial watersta he measured from them.
gg.Some of the fishery conventions mentioned above incon-
nection wifh bays aiso dealt with the question of "dependent
islands and banks". Thus Article z of the North Sea Fisheries.
Conventionof 1882 provided :
"The fishmen of each country shallenjoythe exclusive Aghk
offisherywithin thedistanceof 3 milefromlosv-watermark along the whule extentof the cd of thdr respectiveconntries, las
weIIus ofthedepmdent islaadand bawks."
Article z ofthe Anglo-Danish Convation ofIgor expanded ibis
formula to include specifrcally small rocks, using the phrase
"dependent islets, mcks and banks'" dthoilgh it did nothing to
darify the meaning of the word "dependent". These conventions,
again, were not concernecl~ith the stâtiis of the waters between
the islands, rockorbanks andthe mainland, They merely provided
for the rtghr of exclusive fLshery to attach to the waters off
dependent jslands, rocks ad banks up to the 3-mile lirnit,
Tao, The question of rocks and sandbanks tvas raised atthe
Conference of the Institute of International Law in 1894
(13 Ammttai~e, p. 293)) but \vas excluded from consideration
apparently becauseit was feared thnt to make allowance forrocks
and bankswould lead to undue extension of territorial waters.
The Rapporteur,Sir Thomas BarçIay, in a furthcr reportto the
Iiistituteinrgrz, ernphrisized the need for more study of the
question of isiçlanand banks; but:it was only in the yearsimme-
diately befare the Codification.Conferencc of 1930 that detailed
examination of this question was undertaken, In the cousse of
this fresh examination of the question af içlands a tendency
developed to distinguish betcveen indi~idual islands and groups
of islands.This distinction, in the opinion ofthe Goverment of
the Uiiited Kingdom, is unsound in principle,and tvithout any
hasis in law, but, in examinhg the rules concening islands, it
will be convenient first to crinsider incLividuislandç, and then
to examine the supposed difierencesinthe caseof groupsofislands.
1.~1:diuirEtands, rocks CFH~banks
101. Distànctz'onbetwee~islam& and othsr dewtiovts.-Art icle 5
of thedraft convention drawa up by RI. Schückdng, Rapporteur
of the Leaguc of Nations Cornmittee of Experts (Bases (ifDa's-
cassion,p. rg3), dealt with individud islands as fdlorlr:
rrIthe& are natural islands, not continuously subrnerged,
situated off a coast, the inner zone of the sea shdl be
measured hm these islam&, ~~ceptin the event of th&
being su fardistant from the mainlad that they would
n~t corne witi~inthe zone of the territorial sea isuch zone
werc measured from the mainlaad. In such case, the island
hall have a special territoriasea for itseif."
The effect of this articlwodd be to dotv the island (inclnding
anelevation of thesea hd covererl athigh tideonly) tobe taken
inlo account. indrawing the base-lineof the mainland, provided
- that the lsland lies within theterritoriabelt measured from the
mainland coast,On the other hand, if itlies dtogether outside 74 RTEMORLAL OF 'SNE UNITED KINGDOBf (27 1 50)
the primary territoriabelt of themainland, the artick would onIy
alIow itto have its own territorial waters. Tt is to bnotecithat
under this draft the foregoing rules would eqvdy apply ifthe
elevation of the seabed only shawed at Iow tide.
102. On the kthet haid, Artide 6of the draftofthe International
Law Association (Report: of the 34th Conference, 1926,p. ror),
Artide 7 af the drctftof the American Institute (Rio de Janeiro
Conference, 1927~ 23 A.J.I.L., Special Supplem~nt, p. 3721, and
Article4 of the draft of thInstitute ofInternational Law (Stock-
. holm Conference, 1928, Annztaz're,p. 757) provided sirnfly that
islands, whether within or outside territorial waterç, should have
theiro~m territorial waters. Inone of these draft wsas the worcl -
"island" defin4 soas to specify whether au içland ista be deter-
mined by seference to conditions at lom or high water.
103. The repliesof govcrnmentsto the pecestionrtair We rculated
before the Codification Conference o193s contained t~voopposing
conceptions. {Bases of Disct$ssiora,pp. 52-54. O)ne g~uup main-
tained that an elevation of the sea bed, to pualify as an island
entitledto itsown territor wiaters, must be pemarrexltly above
high-wattermark and capable ofaccupatiotl and use. The uther
grliup mintained that any elevatioii whichshow abùve \vater
at low tideisan "island'hand entitledto its own territorial waters.
Basis of DisafissionNo. 14 (ia'd.!p.54). ùy \Tay of compromise,
gave partid efiectto boSi conceptions inthe following draft rule:
"In order that anisland may have its4im temitoridwaters,it
isnecessary that it shonlbe permanent1 above the lwel of figh
tide."
"Inorder that an isfandIying tvitliithe terri-tonwaters of
annther island or ofthemainland may be taken into account in
detemiining the belt ofsuch territoriwaters, it iç mficienfor
the islandtobeabove wfer atTowtide."
The question ms dismssed at the rg3o Conference in Sub-
Cornittee No, II,which adopted the des of Basa'sNo. 14 in
its report, but gave thm greater preciçion inthe fouowing two
rules:
Base-lime
"Elevations ofthe seabed situated tvithin theterritoriasea,
thoiighonly aboveJwat erlow tide,aretaken into consideration
for the determinationofthe base-line of the territorialses."
ddEvery land hm ifsown ienitmialsea.An islandisan ara of
water mark,"nded by water, which is permanently above high- 3CEMC)RIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM (27 .I 50) 75
Sub-CornmitteeNo. 11, in an observation upon its formula for
%lands,stated expnesslythat an elevation ~vhichis only exposed
at lomrtide is not to be regarded as "island", andrnay only
be taken,into account 3 it rvas tvithinthe territorialbelt ofper-
rnanently dry Imcl.
104.ConsequenfL ymdcr the des drawnup by Sub-Cornmittee
No. II, onljr land permanently above \vater possesses territorid
\vatersin itsown right, andit possesws a belt of t~rritorial waters .
whether jtis within or outside the territorial beltof themaidand
or other island as the case rnaybe. A bankor rock exposed only
'atlaw tide (low-tideelevationj issignificaniIn regard to territorial
waters only if it lies within belt of territorialtlcameashred from
the Iow-water mark of land permanently exposed, and then its
sipificance Iiesin the fact that it istaken into consideration as
a piece of territory for the determination of the territorialsea l.
105. These .des, so fxr from being arbittaqr, am founded on
the practical consideration that claims tu territmial waters are
only admissible in respect of lmd yerrnamently visible to mariners.
Thc objection to measuring the territorial sea from elevktions that
are not permmently visible applies alsoto some extent in regard
tolaw-tide elevations lying within theterritorid sea of land rvhich
ispermn~ntly ~xposed. It was for th rexon that in1930 the
Goverment of the United Kingdom prefemed that otily land
permanently exposed sliauldbe taken into account .13u thepmtical.
objection is not so strong in the cm of loiv-tide etevationsclose
to permmcritly visible land because ofher land-marks will nor-
malEybe availabl~ to mariners enabling tliem to fix thcu position.
Sub-CornmitteeNo* II alsr, justifred the rule drawn up inregard
to low-tide elevations bj7 the analogy of th,e frshery conventims
tvhiçb.measure the zone of exclusive fisheries not only from the
low-bvates mark but also from "depenclent islands, racks and
banks".
106, The Governrnen-to : fthe United Ikgdorn, with some other
States, took the view in 1930 that for an elevaiion to rank as an.
fslmd auclhave its own territorial waters, it must bc capable of
occupation and use. Lhiç view, wtiich is strongly supported by
Professor Gidel (op. ci$- V,ol.III, p. 675)) was nut aclopted in
the report of Strb-Commit-tee No. XI. 'l'heGovernment of the
United Kingdom, however, understand the woxds in the mle
Tt inat necessi-hem to examine the quetiowhxtisthe statu6i waters
lying bctivax pcrmancntlyexposedislandorIow-tde elevation theonehancl
and the mainland utheotlreri.ewhether theswaterç areterritorwatersnr
strnitin thcventofetheir canriectb*otpartsofthe opwlsea, nnbeinguscdof
by iritamational nwig.ztFor.tlrc purposcof fishetieu there is na grmical
differenbetwem terr~toriwtem (rvliethur iiot forming part~stfaié)nd
inlarlwaters. contained in the report "an area of land, surrounded by water,
which ispennanently ahve high-tvatermark", to mean anelemtion
. exposing an appreciable surfaceof land above the seaso as to be
perrnanently visible in normal weather conditiom. This mould
accord with the principle upon which, as mentioned above, the
sub-cmmittee's mle \vas fousidecl.
107. mie Governent of'theUnited Kingdom dso empbaslzes
that a low-tide devation lyhg rvhdly sutside the territorialsea
as measirrd from the coasthe or the mainland (or of an islmd)
cannut be taken into acconnt at al1in detemining the base-line
,of the maisiland(or içland). Tt makes no difierence that tlie
# elevation,' whichliesbeyond the &stance of the territoridbel*
from the p;rimasy cùast line, is witlzin'twidth of the territorid
belt when measured from another such elcvrtticlnrvhicissittiated
withirithe prirnmy territorialsea md has therefore been taken
lntoaccount in extending the base-IineSuchprogressive extensions
of the hase-line are inadmissible forthe very reason that they
thust the outer rnargin of the territorid sea too far from the
permaently visible land-marks. That this interpretationof the '
rule laid dom by Sub-Cornmittee No. II is correct has b~en
expressly staled by Professor Gide1 (op. citay. 700 and p. 303,
note 1) and by Dr. R~stad (R.D.I.,La hdelle.(xg31), Val. 7,
p. 1279, both of whom were mmbers of the sub-cornmittee, and
by Munch (@. çit.,Section20, Part III). Inother mords, the rnle
forrnulated hy the sub-cornmittee means preciçely what it says
and no more, A low-tide elevation can orilybetaken kto acçow~t
ifit lies tvithin the width of the territoriases measured from
the açtual IOUT-rvatemrark of a mdand or island.
108. The above rulesdisthguishing betwecn idands and Zotv-
tide elevatbnç are cmsidered to be a reasonable compromise
between opposing vielvs and fo be founded on prtinent practical
considerations. Moreover,they are broadly in line with the prin-
ciplesof the North Sea and other khing conventions, They are
comrnonly regardedas an acceptable solution ofthe difference in
regard tothls branch ofcusioma~y law. Accordingly,It r'ssuhrnitted
that the rules endotsed in the subarnmittee of the Codification
Conference in 1g30 ought to guide the Court indetersniriingthe
status andefiectofparticular islands, rock anbanksin the present
Case.
19, Speclalconsiderationsapplyto the cawof islandsJying inor
offthe mouths of bay, An island may he eitheirin or the mouth
of a bay OT inletinsuch aposition that the çhannels forpractical
purposes give access only to inland \vaters.ln thiscase, the rule
for bays applies, and the idand may be zrsedas a base-point for
camying the base-he across thernauth of a bzy othenvise too
wide to quaiify at that point as a closedbay rxnder the IO-mile manner as onother parts of the coast,evenif the same State is
the costal Stateof both sl~ores.
When the ~vidthof the straitexceeds the breadthof the two
belts oftemtorial sea, the waters between those tlvo beltsform
part of thehigh sea. Iftlie result othisdelimitationis to Icave
an area ofhigh seanot exceeding two miles inbreadth surroundcd
by temtonal sea, thisareamay be assimilatedto territoriasea.'"
'I'hreport provided that the mle for bays should apply to straits 1
giving accessto inland waters, not in a separate article, but in the
follotvingobservation upan the rule for straits : I
as"apassageibetirteen t\vo parts of the hisea.Itdaeçwnot touche
tlie regulatioof straitswhicli giveaccessto inlan daters only-
As regardssuçhstrait te,des concerning bays, and whert;neçes-
sary IslandswiU continueto be applicable."
The sub-cornittee, ex ckbu~dantciauteia,also stated in itsobsent-
aticin that thewaters of s stiait connecting ttvo partsofthe open
seamay not be regarded asiwlandwaters.Insuch straitç, the waters
have the status of the temtorid sea,even although the shores of
the strait are nowhere tvider apart than ttvice the width of the
. territoriasea.A strait can only attract thestatuç of inland waters
when it givesacceçsto inIandwaters and is assimilated to a bay.
112. The submissionsof the Gotrernment ofthe United Kingdom
inregard to the effect ofislands, rocks and banks upon the base-
lines are, thmeforeas foiiows:
(1 1n Island, that is, an area of land surrouncled by wates,
which ispcrmanently above high-!vater mark, has its own
territoriasea and Itçown base-line.
(2) An ehevationofthe sea bed, only above water at iow tide,
whiçh issituated within the territorial belt of amainland (or
of a pesmanently dry iisand)counts as a piece of temlory
for the purpose ofthe delimitation of territorid waters. It is
suacient for the purpose of this rule that the elevation is
only pahially within the territorialbelt,inwhich case the
ivhole of theelevation issotaken into account.
(3) A low-tide elevation, stuated whsily outside the territorial
searneasuredfrom the lorv-watermark of a mainland (or of
anisland as the case rnay be), cannot be taken intn account
atal1indetemiking the base-line of the mainland (or island)
even if itshould lie within (in the present case} 4 miles of
another such elevation which is within the temtonal sea of
the mainland (oriçland).
(4) Ifa strait orsound between a mainland and an island (or a
letv-tide elevation inside the territoribeIt) or betwvcenttvo
, islands, connectç twe parts of the'open sea,fhe law of straits
aFp~iesand each piece of terriltory has its own territorial waters and itsown base-line.If, ho~~ever he straior somd
liesbetweenan island and the mainland and if it eomects one
part of the opeu sea, not with another part, but with idand
rvaters, the la~vfor bays apy>lies,nd the base-luiesmay be
joined a+the nearest placeto the çeaward entrance tvlierethe
intend does not exceed rû miles in wicltlLow-ticle eleva-
tions cannot, however, be uçed fur measuring a IO-mde
mtetval. In case of cloubt as to the status of a particular
chanriel, the testjs whether thc channel lvauld reasonabIy
be used for coastm~isenaviffafion by international mantirne
tr&c.
(5) If perxianently dry islands lie oc off theopeniag of a bay
(inçludiiig a çoundclassedas a bay undes (4))which iç more
than IO miles mide,they may be used like çtepping stones to
cary the Sase-line acrossthe opening if the intervaEs nowhere
exceedro miles. This is subject to the islandç'in fact closing
the bay by throwing çoastwise navigation oatside the islarid
or he of islands, andnot Ieaving a channe1inside theidands,
\Yhich woilld reasonably be used by int~matiund mmittime
trxh5c.In the latter evmt the rule asto straitsappEeç.
1x3. &mal international law,~Yhethercustomq or conva-
tional, bas not recognized any special prhciple, either giving a
penrllarshtus to the waters oan archipelago or inanyway ;exce$-
ing tliernfraa the ordinary rules governing isIands,bayandstsaits.
The classical writers,dthongh they recognized that idlandsin the
mouth of a bay may endose the bay under certain conditions
(para. 96 above), were silent -cveras ta the possibilitythat the
waters of an aschipelagomight ba subject to specialrules. Indeed,
it mas not until afterthe!1914-19 18 , when the codificationof
the law of thetenit oridwa was bekg disrrusecl tlithep:ossibilyt
of a specid rule for archipdagos was investigated.
113.The question of archiplagos \vas dealt with in Article j
efthe draft convention of the League of hTations Cornittee of
Experts (Bases of Ds'sc%dl;sip,,1931,Article 7 ofthe draft of the
Amerlcan Institute of International Law fa3 ,kJ,L.L., Special
Supplment, p. 370) and Article 5 of the draftofthe hstitute of
International Law (1928 A%na,aire, p. 736). Broadly speaking,
these daafts accepted the view that the klands of a group should
be treatd asa unit and that the territoriaseasl~auldbe measured
from the outermost islands of the group. The drafts of the Inter-
national Law Association (Reportof34th Conkence, 3926,p. IQI),
of the Japaneçe International Law Association (23 A.J.I.L.,Special
Sqplament, p. 376) and of the Harvard R~earch (a'bid.,.243)
did not, lzocvever,giveanyplace tothe concept of a legal Tegime
for arc hi pela go^.1 115. The viectts02govemmentçin theirreplies to the q$~stioiz-
naire [Bmes of Discmr;ion ,p. 50-51) were divided, wrne rejecting
thecoircept altogethet,otherç admitting itthough invariousformç,
The Preparatory Cornmittee frarned a special rule for gïuupç of
islands as &sis of Discisssim No, 13 (z'bid.p. gr)in the following
i form :
"Lnthe case-o agmvp ofislandswhich belong to a singleState
and, at the circumference of the grciitpâre not separated from
one anothw by more than twice the brezidth of territorial waters,
the loelof territoriwaters shall bc measuredfrom the oultermmt
islandsof the group. Waters included withixithe group sliall also
be territoriawaters.
The same rt~le shalapply as regards islandswhiçli lieat a
distance from the rnainlarinot greater thantwice the hreadth of
territorialwaters."
The ruIe In Basis Nb. 13 was fundarnentdy çlaser to the laiv
governing straits than to the 1ai.vgoucrning çlosed bays. For the
régime was to be that ofterritorial waterand the intervalsbetween
islandsonthe periyheryweri to be restricted to double the width
of the territorid sea.
1x6, mie Preparatory Cpmrnittee in an obçmatlon explainecl
the grounds of their recommenclation asfollows :
##To trmt a grorlpof isIands oan isbnd md themainland a~ a
single whole possessing its own befof territor wiatlrs~a..tsas
dam question.J5rhatis to Be the status of the waters separating
either the .ari3nlarad hm the &lands or the islandsfrom one
another 7Accordmg to one opinion, suchwaters are inland waters
and the ardinary belt of territoriwaters surroundsthe groirp at
its cirrrurnferenAnother opinion, which appextrs tobe that of
the majority ofgovernrnentç, considersal1the watersin question
to be territorial wateand to be subjectaccerdinglyto the n~lcs
governing territorial waters. Th. firstopinion is hased on the
interatsofthe costal State and the setond Is muTe favourable
to freedom of navigation. Infaçeof thesc divergencies of viean
attempt has been made todiscover a.possible basis of discussion
ahgroupouofislands which are sufficieritly ncar to one anotheat
the circumfcrenceof the group while g-ivingtthe waters included
Nithin thegroupthe chxacter of territorialwzters.'"
In other words, the Prcparatox Cyornmittee pùinted out that the
proposed introduction of a special rule for arçhipelagoçinvolves
animportant issue of the freedorn ofthe seaç.
117. The questibn of groups of Islands was discused at the
conferenceby Sub-Cornmlttee No.II, which wa3 unable toformuiate
a definitede owhg to differencesof opinionand to the technical
dficdties inheren t in the question. The sub-cornmittee did,
however, record in an observation incorporated in its report
(PlevcnyMetotifigsp ,.r33) that arnajority favou~ed the adoptionof a specialrégimefor archipelagas by çome application of the '
30-mile rule, The tex? of the observation îs as foIlows:
"With regard to a group of islmds (archipelago)and islandç
sof opinionthattadistancetofIanmilest(i.ea17etweenthem) should
be adopted as a bask for rnnasuringthe territoriasea autwxd
in the directian of tlihigh sea Qwing to the lack of technical
detaits, howeverthc idea of clraftandefinite text othcsubject
had to be abandoned, 'ne sub-cornmittec didnot express any
opinion with ~gmd tothe "'natureof the waters included within
the group."
Itmay be added that the propasal to apply the ~o-milerule by
anâlogy from the laiv ofbays IV= made de Zege fmenda by Japan.
and thatthe discussion was very indefinite and inconclusive_ Thus,'
Dr. Miinch Co$. çit.para. 243 says :"As in the case af bays and
straits they tsied to gras faras ro sea miles. The reports of the
Second SilbCommission onlg mentions this very briefly ; infact,
the conversations on this wachcd a rlmdL~cXb:caalsdofrfi@tultieof
wiem and of ex$~essa'o~."
1x8. The rnere definitionof wbat may constitute a poup of
istandsunder the proposed mle presents technical problems of
such great cmplexity as,in the views of the Governrnent ofille
United Ilingdom, to rrrnder the introduction of the new mIe
undesirable and, indeed, impmcticable. Professor Gidel; who isnot
in principIe avene to considering the introduction of a special
rule for groups of islands, acho~vledges the technica difficutties
(op. ci&,Vol. III,y. 707) :
"Tandis que lanotion gCographiqucd'archipel s'btablit d'une
fapn ass- aisGe par rapport aux espaces macitrimesau milieu
desqnels l'mchipcrsetrouve ou am-surfacesterrestreauvoisinage
çlesqu~lesil esttue,la notionjuridiqud'archi ps,lu:contraire,
d'wca ~ortstmclion~xt~hcment dificije dfimté'% raMe impossible
ence qui concerne ledroitpiiblic maritime."
The difficnlty ofdefinitionis further illustrated b,the extremely
cornplex, if irigenious, proposaisoDr, Münch (op,~ii.Section 24).
The United States geugcapher, S. IV. Boggs (24A.J.I.L., p. 546},
seeks to avciidthe problem of definition by ;dspecial rnle for the
elimination of srnal"'pockets" ofhigh sea.
rq. ILis aIso to be rernarked that the proposal to apply the
xo-mile wle to the intervals between islands'of anarchipelago by
analogy hm the law of bays is frlunded upona ialw analogy,
.excePtwhere the channeEs lead toclasedwaters. A channd between
&lands of an archipelago which çonnccts two areas of open sea
lacks one essentiaicondition upon whichthe principle of closed
bays is founded,namely, that the ~mtersbyreason of the geogsa-
phid configurationsare removed from normal use by international
maritime trafic.The importance attached to thiscondition is seenin the contrasting ruleçlaTddown in the reportforthe twotypes of
straits(seepara.xzx above) W.hereasthe teportapplies the~emile
rule, and the rtLgimeof idand waters, to strailteading to idand .
waters,it oppliesth double radius testand the regime of tsruita~a'ar
waters to other straits,thus safeguarding the right of innocent
passage for international maritime traffiin cases svherethe strait
cannects two parts of the highseas.The distin~ion drawn by the
report bctween çhanrrelç leading idand, and channcls connecting
the open sea,i~na iessimportant for the freedom ofnavigation in
the case of gou~s of islands thanin the case ofindividual islands
off a mainland. Tndecd, fiofessor Gidel (op .il., VolIII, p. 724,
wha de legefermi-Iafavours the application of a ro-mile rde to
arcl~ipelagos, insists that the\vaters should have the statds of
te~ra'torialat inland waters.
120.Thc creatim of a specialréme for achipelagas ths bath
presen t serions technical diffIculties and, if adopted, i~ould
wnstitute a derogation from the freerlornof the seas inthe areas
dected. The pwposal to aUotvsuc11 a special régimefor archi-
pelagos is, moreover, a propusal to formulate a new rde of
international lacv. Although the proposal received the support of
a majority of Sub-Cornmittee No.TI, no mle \vasfomulated, On
the ccinirary,the technical rliffrcultiesivere lunmlved, and the
major qiitstiun of principle, the status of the waters, wras left
vith ho svinan expression afopinion by the sub-cornmittee. 111
theçe tircumstances, itis submitted that the Courtis not entitled,
under Article 36 of itsStatute,to apply any special de for archi-
pelagos except tvit1.itagreement of boih Parties tothe case.The
Government of the United ICingdorn is unable to gve its sëlppurt
ta a rule whîch it regards as zinnecessary, since the question is
satisfactorilyiegnlated by the existhg nrlesof international la-rv,
and tvhic11militates against the freedom of thseas,for navigation
and fishirig. Thquestion kfore the Court is what limitations on
the right of fi~ishiNaway is justified mder intemational iaw in
requiring the United Kingdom and otber Statesto respect. Whik
the statu3 of the waters, territorior intemal, hxs no importance
as regards fishing, the application of a IO-milcinterval to groupsof
idands generalljon the fdse andou of bap would clearly have
a considerable effect.
The Governmcnt ofthe United Kingdom acçordingly 4aintains
that the eçtablished rulesrdating to the tidelcvel, bays, içlands
and straitsgovezn the deh-rnination of the base-line on a cozt
whwe there are groups of islands no les$than on a coastwhere
there are individual islands,This vietv ofthe existing law isaisr,
that of Profes~or Gidel (op. cd,,1701 III, p.7r?), vvho write :
iigtafackeldm dru& - L'ef.fortdoctrinimportant duDr Nliln~h
pemettr~ pent-cbc, sila question estreprise unjour oiil'autre
dans une conférenceinternationaled'ktablirdesréglesconvention- MEMORIAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOhf (27 1.50) 83
neltessur la questiondes archipels.Pow 1~mame.lt'etéfiikbseacs
de rigles s$écialaà c& iprd admises ibedroit iw%vlaational,
Id solztt2&bqztellet!çwvienl Bese tmiy mtcelle rémlb eatdroit
c;mmt~.ide lanaatzirda tamer i~w~orinie.''
rzr. The Govmment of the United ICiYigdorn n cnnséqnence,
submits that the nzles governing individual islands, set riut in
paragraph 112 above,apply equally to the islands of anarchipelago.
The multiplication of the islands increases the importance and
effect of the rulesbut that is all.
FinaJly, it isempkdsized that, even ifa special rule for archi-
pelagos, in the form contemylated at the 1930 Conference, had
been adopted, if stilimuld not have authorizgd Norway to extend,
as she has done, licr hase-Linesdong islandsand rock 15, 25 or
even 44 miles apart. The recordsof fhe conferemcp:rcmrideo warrmzt
mhaikzw for SWC~ IO~E bbse-li+t~saxddr~.JM~orwld raklerebaii-q tc3
bays, isluads, $traits,etc.Xndeed, the longes t possible base-fine
serioasly contem~lated ùy the confçrence-apart from inlets ta
~vhich a daim can be based on historic usage-was restricted
I to IO miles.
Sub.PPcZssio wfsfhe Grruarnmmt ef 171s United ICi~gdorpz regad
to ths$rimi$aZ rulw of infmt&'afial Im rbgd thedelit~giiafzm
of Iinse-lim1
a 122, Açcordingly, the fullsubmissionsof the kvernment of
the United Kingdom in regard to the applicable sules of inter-
national laiv mhich,apart from histaric usage, reguiate Nanvay's
~ determination ofher base-lines are as follciws:
(1)Snbject: to the niles governing bays, kh~dç, and other
elevations of the sea bed, the base-lirie is to be theline of
low-water mark dong the enfire coast. The Iine of low-
=ter mark is that indicated on hkrmegian official charts
0 unless It departs app,reciably from the line of mean low-
u.atet spring tides. {Paras, 68 to 6g sbove.)
(2)In the case of bays, the base-lineis to Ije a straight lime
dravm across the opening atthe nearest point to theentrance
,of whrch the wpening dmç not exceed IO miles in width.
A bay for thiç purpose k a well-mark4 indentation of tlie
coast whoSepenetratiaa inland bears a reasonable proportion
to the width of its mouth. ln case ofdoubt the gmrnetrical
formula pqosed bg the United States at the Hague
Cod&cation Conference of I 30, which is set out in Sub-
. AppendixA to the reportof i?b-Cornmittee No. II (Plenary
, tuteshavenot bensdiscussirthe aborexaminationoftlinilesfinternational
law whiçhrcgnlatethed~Eimitation ui bw-linThey will be dedt w~tonly
ifthey becoman issuinthepresmtcase*
i MEMoRlAL OF THE UNITED WNGDOM (27I 50)
84
Me&ifigs,p. 1-32 h,ould be uçed as an approximate test.
(Paras. 70 to 95 above.)
(33 Any Ncirwegïan&land, that Is,my ara of land surrounded
by a~raterand perrnanentlyabove Kgh-\vatesmark which is
a n'onvegian possession, has itsoivn territorialsea and its
own base-line except where the laiv of bays applies under
rule 7 below. (Paras. 96 to roo above.)
(4) Any devation of the sea bed, although ody above tvater
at low-tide, which is situated rvitkin the territoriasea of
the Nolwegian mainland, or of a Noweglan iSZmd, çounts
as a piece of territoryfor the pnrpwe of the delimitation
of tcmitorlaiwaters. It Is sufficient fothe purpose of this
rule thatthe eïevatlonis ody partially within the territorial
sea. (Paras. IOI tu ~rz.)
15 ) ny elevation whichis onlyabove watei atlaw tidesittiated
wholly outside a 4-mile zone measured from the low-water
markof theNonvegian mainland, or of a Nonvegian island
as the case may be, cmnot be takeninto account at dl
in delimiting theterritoriawaters of the rnarnlandorisland,
It malies no difference unçier this nilethxt the elevation
lies rvithin 4 mats of another elevation whiisitself situated
\vit& the +mile zone of the mainland or Gland.
(6)(a) If rr.strait or sound,us& by international navigation
and lpirigbetween the Nowegian mainland and aNonvegian
island (ora rock or hnk ~vithin4 miles ofland submerged
at high tidonly) or betiveenttvoNortvegianislands,conneçts
;hvo parts of the open sea, the la~v of çtraits appliesand
each piece of territory has its ot~n base-line.
(b3 If,however, the strait or sound is only uçed by inter-
nationai navigation for camrnunication with 4in1~d waters,
the la~vfor bays applies, and,tlms if thestraitlies betwëen
I7w ;bwdio?zsof #eunza~e.~efd~y Zatad,the hase-lines of the
tmo pieces ofterritory may be joined by draxving a line
across the operifngatthe neareçt point to the entrarice at
~vhich the opcning daes not exceed IO miles in width.
(7)If an island or islandç liein or off the opening of a bay
(includinga sciundclassrodas a bay under nile 6 (b)) which
is mort than IO miles wide, the base-line mây be dramn
acrosç the opening by wajr of the islandç provided thatthe
intisrvds non-here exceedzo miles in length.This is subject
to the islands in fact closing tliebay by thrriwing coad-
wise navigation outside the island or line of islands and
not lcaving a seaward channel Inside the idands which
wouldreasonably be used by international maritimetraffic.
In the latter evmt, the rule forçtraitsapplies, C.-Tnconsistency of the'lines prescribeby the Royal Decree of
xg35 with the gleneralrules of international law regarding
base-lines
123. As explainedin paragraph 3 of tbisMernorial, the charts
pmpared by the trydrogsapher of the Royal Navy, and attached
at Annex 2, show :
(a) By ablue lafithe base-linesinfact prescribedby the Royal
Decree of 1935 (as amended in 2937).
(b) By w red Zinc,the base-ibes of the1924 red linedelimited
by Norwegianexperts ai the 0517 Conference as their
appreciation of the extent of Norwegian claims to ter-
ritorial waters. fn addition, Aiin1;contains a des+-
tionof eaçhindividualbase-point onthe blue line adopted
inthe Decree of 1935 (asmendecl in 3937).
124. The blne lies on the chatts revealclearIythat the base-
Iines Of the Royal Desree of 1935 depart dtogether kom the
general prlnciples of international lagovernimg base-linesThe
Royal Decree in fact infringes these generalprinciples in the
, following ways :
(iThe base-linesdo not anywherc follow the line of thcoast
but are dram acrcissthe open sea fmm point to point
. selected arbitrarllby the Norwegian Government.
(iiJ The base-linewherea departme from the coastline wtïzild
be pemissible by reason of kn indentation qualifyingas a
bay, take no acconnt of the sule restricthg the dosure of
bays by a limit of ro miles. Examplesare Varangerfjord
(30nules),several fjordsbetween points 6 (Korsneset) and
xr (the onter point on Avloka at Nordkyn) and sevcral
fjardsbet~wen points zo (Darupskj gr) and 21 (Vcçterfallet)
and the Vestfjmd (40 miles). To some of these fjords,
Nomy may establish ac1aïr on historïcusage.The onus
of proof is on Norway and the Governent of the United
Kingdom will reserve its decision onthese fjormtil their
Regiy (see paras.61, 7j and 95 ab&, and 143 below).
. (iii) The base-lines, insomcasestvhere thsre is a bay, takeno
accouni even of the halasi& of the bay but pas ta
seaward of the cntrance in breach of the rule of the low-
tvater mark as well asof the de for bays. Examples are
the lines inbetween points5 (Kaalneset on Rewoy) and 6
(KorirsneseoffPersfjord and Sylteford 1,between points 7
(Molviksk-jaesand 8 (Kjolries) offBaasfjord and Kongç-
fjord, between points 8 (ICjolnes)and g (the skjzr with
the prçh east of the skjm on whicli Torrba beacon is
situated) OB Tanafjord and Koifjord and htween points11
Seepara.45abme (casofSt.Jwd).86 KTENOR~AL OF, THE UNITED KINGDOM (27 1 50)
(theouterpoint on Avloisa ai Nordkyn)and sz [Knivskjm-
odden) ~vhere Indeed a base-kineof 39 miles passesfar out
to seawads of several fjords, jlso dosing the strait of
Mageray Sound.
(ioB)ase-point No. zr of the Royaldecree,Vesterfall in Gasan
(70° 25'2" N,, 19'54' 9''E.) isan elevation of thesea bed
not qudifying as an island,whith iç situald not lesstlian
8 miles from any island, It cannot therefo~ be properly
used asa Uasc-pointfor rneasuring the territoriasea O£the
nearest island, let alone of the mpinland of Norway.
(vj The basolkeç t&e no account of the distinctionbetwwn
bayçarid straits and of the rule farbidding theenclosure
as inland waters of straitconnecting tu70partsof the open
the north-western approachoto hlageroyrSundh;abetweendthen
izorth-eastern endof Soroys.and the soutli-westernend of
Rolvsoy leading to Rolvsoy Sund ;Soray Sund ; Kmuy
Sund ; the enhance to Kvaenângenfjord and other coastal
channels used by international maritime Mc as shown
in Admiralty Romay PiZot,Park III, 1939.On page 25 of
that publicationit isstated: "The nurnber of steam vessek
running up and down the caast of Nor~vaythroughaut the
year is very considerable ; nearlyd these pass through
Indreleia", i.e, some ofthe çounds mentioned above form
part of Indreleia and others are approach channels to it,
(vi)The base-lines inmany instancesare drwn across intervals
of çea greatiy in excessof ro miles for which there isno
justificationwhatever in existing principles of general
international law, nor even indeed in the de for caastal
archipelagas adurnbrated at the Hape CodificationCon-
ference of 1930. Theçe instances are:
Points. I to 2. ......... 30
Points 5 to 6. , . , . . , - . . 25
Points 7 to 8. ..... 19
Paiats 8 to g. ....... 25
Points rr to rx. ...... 39
Points 12 to 13, . . . - - . , - m 19
Points 13 to z4. ........... 12.8
Points 18 to rg ....... 26.5
Points rg to zo ........... 19.6
Points 20 to 21. .......... 44
Points ZT to 22. .......... 18
Pohts 34 to 25, .......... 16-4
Points 25 to 26, , . . . . . . Tg-5
Points 26 to 27. .... 13
Points 27 to 28. .......... 18 MZ~ES
Points 30 to 3r ...... 16-5
Points 31 to 32 .... 16.5
Points 32 to 33. ........... 11.7
Points 34 to 35. .......... 23
Points 35 to 36. --...m.... 14.5
l?oints38 to 39, ..... 13.5
Points 39 t0 40. .......... 15.2
Poirits 40 f0 41 ........... 16-25
Points 45 ta 46. ........ 40
Pdts 46 tri47. .......... 14.8
xzg,The Niïorwgian coast in the areas coverecl by the Royat
Decree of 1935 is so hmdp indented and is,on its west coast,
so thickly studded uith isl&ds that departures of the base-lines
from the low-water mark of the mainland coast udl resdt, very
frequen'rjyand indeed usudy, from the application of the general
niles of international Iaw goveniing base-lines. This does not,
however, rnean that the particular ce-nhgurationof the Norwegian
coaçts renders the general des ofinternational law inapplicable
in determinhg their baselines. On the contrary, it ody serves
to incrwse the impbrtance andeffect of the special mles rqarding
bays, .Islands and straitsin their applimtion to the Norwegian
coasts.
126. The ideathat the configrzratioof the Nomeglm coast iiç
SQ coqltx as to defy the application of ord- rules receives
the support of the United States geographer S,W. Boggs in the
following passage inan articlein the Am~nenkm ]owmat O! Inier-
mtiaaal Lflw (Vol. 24, pp. 554-55j) :
what dehitioo may, he adoptd pforthe: term 'islandasapplyhg.f
to smallrocks, sho& md shifting bm, some of which are awash
only at low tide,and many, of whlch constitrrtc nothing butan
obstacletanavigation,a largeportion ofthe coastof 30rtvay wdt
present a nniqueprouem. hluch ofthe fjarded western cmst of
Norway isfringed with dmost çuuntless islanclsand rocks, md
it is exceedingly difficttoindiate exactlywhich ofthe meet
the requirements of my definition othe term 'island' for delimit-
aticin purposes and whichxoclrsdo not meet such requirements,
Thereforca navigator cuulclmotswinghisarc of 3 m. radius from
thepoint onthe chat indicatinghk positionand readily ascertain
whether ormot he was in territoriawaters or on the higlSM. To
the MortlzernSkjzrgaardwouldresult ineatserieof arcs orinusual
complexity. For that exceptionalcoast it would appear that the
. Nomegian systtm of indicating arbitrarily straigkt lines as the
boilndarybetwccn the territonalsea and the high seais aot only
lustified, but pxacticallyinewitaand,the furtherfactthat these
are rather çdmonly apcepted as'historicwaters'tendstoelimrIiate
7 88 B~MORIAL OF THE UNITED RINGDOM (27 1 50)
'A sast fmm theoperationof thesystempropasedin theAmerican
amendment fargeneral application."
The views of thisdistingnishedgeographer merit carefulconsider-
&ion but the opinions expressed .by him in the above passage,
in the submission of the Goverriment of the United, Kingdom,
81-12ut only unsound inthcmselves but areinconsistent with the
fundamen tal principles for the delimitation of base-lins which
lie advocatesearlier inthe same article.
127. Fist, the conimtion that the coastof Nomay is for legal
purposes unique cmnot be accepted. Not only are there com-
parablecoasts, clsewhme,for exampie, thewest coaçts of Scdland
and Ireland, but, in artyevmt, the difierences are differençes of
degree,not ofkind. The multiplication of bays and islands ml-
tiplies the exceptions from the nilof the low-water mark along
the entirecoast, but it doeç net alter the essential nature .of the
legal situationin regard to individual bays and islandç,
128. Secondiy, the staternentthat =me of the rocks off the
Nonvegim coast may be of 'doubtful status loses itç farce if the
rulesregarding islands and low-tide elevations recoezed by the
HagueConference of 1930 areconscientious~yapplied. It is essential
thatanavigator should be able to swinghis4-mile arc anddisregard
aU elevationswhich neither are t,hemselves visible islands nor are
in thevicinity of visible islanAs.MT. Boggs pertinently observed
earlier inhisarticle (p.543):
"Tf theterritmial scistobe delimitedin arnanner tooccasion:'
theleastpossibleinterfaencewith navigation, wiü benecessary
toassume the view-pointof one whois on thesea and who wishes.
tokn~vy whereterritoriawatersbegm."
coast,sotfar from renderingantheoappliktion ofothegeneral niles.
af internationd laiv inappropriateon the ceritrary demand the+
strict application.
129. Thirdiy, itis a complete mhconcepti& that the drawirig
of arbit~arystraightlines on a complu cost is a more practical
solutionthm the application of the general psiilcipleof inter-
national law-The practicaladhtages of arbitrary straight lines
are confrned to the draughtsman inhis city ofice who no doubt
findsthis rnethod easier work, and toStates which, JikeNorway,
mish tù increase the am of fheir inland waters which an onZy
be achieved at the expense of the cornmunity of States. But no+
systemof base-lines iso unpracticalfor the marfnerasthe drawing,
of long,arbitrary çtraight lines, whichleavehim over large areas
.with no landmark hum which to fix hisposition and on wEch
to swinghis arc. Itwaç this consideration,amongçt others, which,
in the generarule for baysfimited the permitteclength ofstraight linesdram acsass bays to 10 miles', Arbitragrbase-lines 15, zj
andeven 44 miles in length takc no accomt of "the view-point
of one who is on the sea and wishes to know where territorial
waters begin". In tbiscanneetion it isto be observed that the
base-lines ofthe 1935 Decrce are situated at many points .along
distance from any land at all.The follo~vingexamples may be
noted tvhere the aistance from a position on the base-Jine50 the
neascst land may Fe up to 114 miles betmeri points rr (Avloisa)
and rz (Rnivskjerodden), x5+ des belmeen points 20 (Da~up-
skj~r)and 21 (Vesterfdlet,79 miles betw-eenpoints 27(Tokkebwn)
and 28 (rocknorth-north-east of Glimmen), and 79miles hetween
points 3 (Utflesskjzr) and 35 (Kvma),
r30. It is furtherto be observed that the Nerwegiaa Govern-
ment inthe Royd Qecree of 193j has not limitedl its use of the
system of arbitrary straight lineto the rvestcomt of Finnmark
.,where cornplex archipelagnsare tobe found, but has applied it
equallyto East Finnmark wl~erethme arebays and afew individual
islands but no cornplex archipelagos.
The base-Iine describedhythe Royal Decree O£1935 may indeed
be said tofall into~YO distinct se~tjonseasi andwest of the most
mrtherly point, I2 atNord Kap. Of the rr hase-points on the east
coast,five arc.onthe mairilandandthe rmaining six areisIandsor
elevations\vithir4 miles from the mainland shore. Of the 36 base-
points on the west mat, none are on the mainland and many lie
sed miles from the mainland shore. Point rz itsdf is themast
norther~ytipofthelargeislandof1\1ageroy,whichiç.separated .
from the mainland by a stïait about thtee-quarters of a milewide, .
But, despite thegeographical differencesand despite the fact that
on the east coast the base-pointsare on or close tothe mainland
while on the west they are nat, theçysternofbase-lines-if system
itçan be cded-is eçsentially thesame on both coasts. Ineaçh
casethe most extreme landmark, mitinland or ishd {and point zz
canaof even be regarded as a landmark) istakenand the points
are joined togetherbystraightlines of whateverlength.
r3x, The result is th& even on the east toast the system of
straight lines isnoa system of claçingindivichd bays by drawi~g
lines fmm headland to hkadland, It is not the headinnd systemfor
bays as itwas undesstciodin the nineteenth century before itwas
mf down to the xo-milerule.The lines, onthe mtraay, mn from
extreme point to extreme point disregarding individual bays,
whether large orsmd,
Thus behveen 5 (Kaaheset) and 6 (Korçneset) the line
passesto çeawardof three separatefjords (Persfjord, Syltefjord and
MakurSandfjord), Iietweenpoints 7 (Molvikskjær)and 8 (Kjolnes)
two fjords (Baasfjordand Konpfjard), behveen points 8 (Iljolnes)
TtalsoexcIndesIow-ddeelevaticinsinmeastheIO-milelevation.and 9 (skj~erwith percheast ofthe skj2eronwhichis Tomba bacon)
two fjords (thelarg Teanafjard and Koifjord) andbetiveen points rr
(Avloisa) and 12 (Knîvskjarodden) six fjords, includingthe lwge
Lakse and Porsanger fjords and a furtheb ray made up of the
small fjords. Al1 these fjordsart rnarkeclon Nonvegi-ianmaps as
separate fjords and, apart fmm the thxe small fjords mentioned
above as Sormiriga singlebay, a31 were treated as separate bays
at the Oslo-London Conferences of xgz4-rgz5 l.
132. Zrshort, theçystem ofthe Royal Decree of1935 isa syçtern
of joining one extreme land-mark to another extreme land-mark
for whicli the isno authority tvhatcver under the geneal prin-
ciplesof international lali~governingbasa-hnes. The only ffinities
of this systern are with the British King" Chamber Çlairns of the
seventeenth centur ynmatters of izeutralifynot wifh anymle of
modern international law. The British claim to King's Chambers,
as SirMaurice Gwyer said atthe Hague CodiiticationConferenceof
1930 (PLtmafyMeetimgs, p.rrx), "was abandoned many centuks
age". Owing.to a dictum of SirJYiULam Robson, At torney-Generd.,
in the rgxo Arbitratrou (Procc~di~tgsof fke T~ibaleai,Vol. XI,
p.4164) some rnisconc~pt hasnhowever existed even amsng
modmn w-yritersbnut the status of the British claim to-day. It is
therefore desitablethat the Imth about this clah should be made
plain once and for ail. Sir VIJilliRobçortinrgzo said that tlic
British clah "still standsperfectly good" but, aswill be shown,
it isclear that he had in mind the cammon Iaw doctrine of bays
i&r fauus fewa (headland to headland), not the old metitrality
claim to chambers betmeen extreme landmarks.
133. h% misconceptionought any longer toexist in regar db the
daim to King's Chambers, as the daim has been authoritativdy
explained by Fuiton (Sovercignty of lhe Seu (rgr~), p. ~zz ;548).
The King's Chambers were procJa,imed in 1604 by James 1 as a
neutrahty mle forbidding captures of pnzes withn the chambers.
The cliambers Iverefmrned by straight lin& dralvnby experts from
Trinity House between one cxtreme land-mark and ai-iother round
the coast and noïnecessarily hetween the headlands of inditridual
bays. They rvere confined triEngland-as distinctfroin Great
Britain-and evenin England there isno evidence of the daim to
King's Chambers having ken enlarged into a general claim to-
inland or territoriawaters. It remained a neutralityrule and, even
as such, felZinto dequetude in the eighteenth and ninetenth
centuries,
.lIt'itnicthat ~&fj~rd.Makt~t-§andfjorï3nxsfjorand JCoifj~iddno+
liaveseparatnurnbess in tAdrnhltysilhouetteand are nmcntloncdin the
minutesofthe London Conferencc th~tbeydl appcar sepanteinthofinuteci
concerneciwith ijowithentrâmes and more tliafi 6 acrosçwhichMonvkyy
clam@ onliistorigrbundç, 134. IE is truc that the United States writer, Kent (Cornmen-
taries on Ia-temcationalL!aw, Vol. 1,pp, 29-30) i,nr 826, adwnb~aied
the possîbility of very large "chambers" for the Americancontinent
but liis suggestion vas not folIowedupby the United States Govern-
ment. It isalsotrue that ttvriterssuch as Whmto~ (I?zte~fiafi~aaLiiaw
(r836}, Section 179)cuid Phillirnore (Com.nzmtarRes stfion I~fev-
naiz'unalLaw (3rd edition), ~879, Vol. I., p. 285) mentioned the
British daim to King's Chambers without disapprovd but they
regard4 the daim as an exceptionaland historic title. In hct, as
alseaciy stated, the daim had been abmdoned and seems to have
been confusetd vith the cornmon law doctrine of jurisdiction over
bays ilah fa~ces tmrm. The importane of tIiIs doctrine was thnt
it marked the division betweetl jurisdictions of the courts of corn-
mon larvand of the court of the Aclmiral,the principleking that
the C O ~ O ~ law jrarisdiction extmded not only to harbciurs, estu-
aria ad havensbut aiso to baj~ and other am of the sea Z7zie7
faz{c~xtnre. The range of vision principle mentioned by Lord Hale
(see para. 84 above) set a fimit ta tBiç dmtnne, which now trans-
latcd into the xo-milc mie, applies inal1cases other than "historie
baydS.
133. During the nineteenc thntiiry tbere avaç some nncertainty
as tci H-teprecise limits of the doctrine of jurisdiction fuzws
tma. But it Js significant that, in the fint Bristol Channel case
(Reg, v. Cu~fiinghawz (18591, Bd's CrownCases, p. 721, the Court
directed al1its attention to the doctrine "i~~ter fames terraJ',aot
to the King's Chambers. If the claim to King's Chambers had still
stood "perfeckly goocl", there would have been no case ta argue in
Reg, v. C.ttwtz'wgkam 1.Simïlarly, in the famous case of the collision
of the German ship -Fvnficonir aReg, v. K~Jw.(1876) z,Ex. D. 631,
Inthiscase,the priaonerwere chargcd withassault onbmtd a foreign wssel
at anchorin+hheBristoCtiannel na pointwhere itirolnllcsam&% (widecnough
to eirablcman reasonablto me froni sliorcshore}. 'fhe foof theindictrnent
imi#nzal aoppowd tohrritonnlnwaters)Itwzhiheld tliat tl>cwaters of the Channel
.atth& point wcra lvithin the LmdofstheCannties ofSonierset and Glamorgan,
but theCourt said:"thewbole ofthe inlaiiseabetween tlie Ço~intiof 501ncrset
md Glarnorgariista bbconsider cdwithin Cl~eccaiinticirrhicitsseverapMts
ast:respect~velhoundcd". This phrasawas talrcnby sorne, inclnding the judge
intl1ePagmss casc (separa. 73abovc},to coveral[watersiiisida Iine betrïeen
Port Eynon Head and Rull Point (jus?ver20 mil=)&Th= vienr of C1t?t~#à~gjl1t1%'9
case \vasha~\+eve, cldbyturoof the thmc members ofthe LoiirofAppeal in th*
Pagemes cm to be wrodg.
a Thc facts here weasfollm :ICegmthe amusad,\vasthemder ofthe Germa .
ship F~ansonaawhich within2miles IromDaver Picrnegligendy raninto and saiik
the British steamer Suaihclyds. tfiereby kiljiaBritish subjecon board the
latter vessel. The circumstan11wliiShX >va$kiIIed am5uatedto mansla~~ght~
lbEnglish law,bnt thepint at içsncwm whether tliEnglish courtsh& jurisdic-
tionover criminal offences committin territorial waters,whethpr suchiiinS-
diction stnppcd atloiv-water mark, orat thc oulimitof ahay whiclhaci Mn
appropriated interndwaters.hTo doi~btwaurxisad tIiatbcpoint atwhiCh 'th@
ofleneelias~ommitW was iii teiriçorial rlotintemalwaters.The Court heIdno one raised the question whether the collision had occurrd inthe
Dwgeness-South Foreland "Chamber" of James 1, althongb, ifthe
daim had staod "perfectly gorid", ,e question would have been
extremely relevant. Nor is the case of Mrid.ta~sen v.Peb~s (1906)
(14 Sc, L.T. 227) in the Scottish Court of Justiciary any autliirirlty
for a modern British claim to .King's Chambers which indeed were
never applied to Scotland. The case concerined the application of a
British statute tu foreigrrfishing vesselsoutside the territorial limit
and tumd on a question ofthe constni&ion of the legislative pro-
visions applicable. On the vessels being convicted, the British
Gavernment rernitted the sentences, thereby indEmting that it did
not consider that the jurisdicction which the Court lzad exercised
under these domestic kgislative provisions was compatible with
international law. Finally, inthe second Brisfol Channel case [Tl~e
Fapmes [1927] P robate ~II), the argument: of the Attarney-
Generalandthe decision ofthe English Court of Appeal are urhoUy
inconsistent rvitlithe maintenance a£a modern claiiimtothe Chamber
of King James's neutralilty prodamation a.
136. Sir William Robson's dictum wàs made as ae interjection
during the argument of Senator Root inthe 1910 Arbitrafion and,
-iftaken literally,iswithorzt any fomdation whcitever, If, however,
he was referring to British daims to individual bays 2der fames
flerra-+md much of the arbitration ooncerned this very point-
the11 the dicturncorircl be justified since tlie defmiti~n of the law
governing daims in regard to individual bays was nol yet complete,
and the a~wd of the arbitrators as previauçiy explained (see
para. 77 above) did much to accelerate the acceptanceof the ro-mile
hit and to myçtallize the distincticm between ordinary bays and
"historie bays",
137. It is repeated that the British daim to Içing'sChambkrç
was never more than a n~utra1it.y rule and was abandoned long
ago. King James's praclamation cannst therefore provide any
tbat fierawasriocdminal jurisclictinnterri~rinwaters&kcvrnmon 1aw- (The
tegaleffcctof this decisio\Tasrc-ed by the TcrritoriaWakrs Juriçdictloti
Act, 1676underwhlch suchjurisdictinow existg.)
InW~iscaseMortensen,thecaptam of aNorwegia fishina vessebirtaUanish
sGbject,was prosecuted for trawiwithin Iimits ladownby SecLion G oftha
HerringFishq (Scatlantl) Act, rUnder thissection. trawlïng wprohibibd .
Ratkay MPoint i.c\~deenshirc.The aansed admittecthefactoftrnwlingnatthea
pointaLTegcclut:maintaincd ththe poiniuquestiariwas wtside the 3-niiIe limit.
The Scottish courts hethaCfliis wno dcfance astheActof Parlianitacl~ly
prohibitcdtrawlingat the pointin question, and tCourt must apply theAct
evcn ifitwa~ contrarto internationlaivTheParliamentofthcUnitecl King11oa
suhsequentlyaltered the lIsyprovidinUraivling in PmhibitAreasPrcve~ition
Act, rgcq) that iio prosecution wultake place fothe exc~cisof prohibitcd
fishing metiirids bey3 miles Erathecoast, buthe fifi scaughtcciul11otbt
landcd orsdd in thc United Kingdom.
5eepara.78 above. EIIZMORIAL .F THE LlWYXEDKINGDOM (27 f 50) 93
Jrindofjnst&cation for the land-markto land-mark system adopted
in theRoyal Decree of 1935.
It is also rcyeated that Norwag's land-marksjrstern of base-lines
isentirely different frorn,and much more arbitrarythan, lieadland
tci headland (;nt# fauces tarra) claimin regard te individual bays '
round the coast.The headlands of bays system, to quote Unpire
Bates again,eceived its proper limitin the ro-milerule but ta the
Nowtsgian syster there Ssaimost no limit.Appliedeither inNamy
or else\~rlzerethe land-marksystern may resul it the endosure as
inÉn?tdwaters of extravagant llyge areas of high sea.
138. Nurmay, d&g the HagueCodificatfon Conference bf ~930,
appas heself to have recogaized that the lmd-mark systcm of
base-lhes is both withorrt any warrant in the accepted princjples
ofgeneral internatibnal law governingbase-lines and involves the
rkk of arbitrafy encroachments on the high seas. For, jointly with
Stveden, shei proposecl that Bases of DiscussionNos. 6, 7 and 8
containhg the existing concepk ofinternational Zaw inregard to
baselines shoilld be efitirely swept away and replaced by the
fallowing rule :
l'Thebwadth oftemitoridwaters shalibemmsured fromsbight
lines draw along the caastftom one land-mark tc~another.Any
partof thcterritory may be useas a land-matk, including islands,
islets and rocksleft expoçedat the"ordinary lex~cof the lowest
tidesAs regardsbays and coastalarchipelaga in particulathese
ofintervals of sefrom the outward sidepof the archipelago.Each
Stateshallfix the said base-lines forcoast, Trnw not, hwmiier,
~nhe thse base-ililteslolzger Zstjushfisdby fhlYULE genercaUy
aclikdtedAher as b&mg aw iwikr?tadimsmage di*a.givm r~gioleor .
as +rinci+leco~semailedby the PrlrctiO/ th Stute co.ritcccad
corre$mding Iiofh ne& of thatStnte orth ,.irttm~dedp@adatiow
axd tothe$$&al crinfigw~aiiomihccouds or the beoftheseucove~d
by the coasinlzwal~n."
Plainly, the abjectofthe above proposd was tolegalizeby a wew
nde of genecd international law the baselines which Nomay
wished to draw,andIn 1935 did in fact draw,to enlarge her zones
ofexclusive fishery, On the other hand, the E& sentence of the
proposal equdly achowledges that baselines of iinlirnited length
wodd he quite out ofthe question even under a Iand-mark system
ofbase-lines.
x39. The r&trict ionon the land-marks çontained inthe Nonve-
gian-Srvedish proposal areentirelyillusory.Even the phrase "inter-
national usage in a &en regiun is quite indefinite", foit leaves
unsertledawhat shoiild constitute a"region" farthe purposeof the
restrictionIn any event, as ProfessorGide1 painted out (@. ci$.,
Vol.111 ,, 6401 the re~tricton$are stateclinthe alternative and
the second alternative "the practtce of theState concerned" isno Zimitation at dl. Professor Gidd iummed up the objections to
the proposal asfollows (ibid .)
appelésànl'appliqueun tettexteeneffesterait 11ég+tionde tout
Etat de droit,Car ilpose en principeque chaque Etat riverain
fixepourses &tes leslignes de base ainsi quveut,Sms cloul11
parait &dicterdes rtsitrictionsla libre apprkiation de l'Hat
riverain.
Tt is dcient to add 'that the proposal received no supprt at
the Hague Conference of 1930excepi that of Spab {Mitattesa#
the Sscod Gommdtee, p. x94,Amendment to Bases Nos. 3, 4, 6,
7 and 6).
140, T11e Government of the United Ringdom açmrhgly
submits that the base-lines of thRoyal Decree of 1935 are wholly
inconsistentwith the reçogaizr eulesof generd internationalIaw
governing baselines as they have ben clarbfieand defined in the
proceedings of the Hague CodificationConférence ofrgp. Eurtber,
it wiU be seen that, as compared even wlth the rcd line, the -
baselines of tlie1935 Decree enclose an.ara rvhich is iargeb ry
1,200 sqnare miles of tvater.
D.-The burdenlies npon Norway to establishany extlaordinq
prescriptive or historical trteethe base-lines of theRoyal
.Decree of 1935
r4r.The Govemmerit bf the UnitedKingdom thereforecontenas
that if-which isderiied-any justification exists inlawfor the
wholly exceptional base-linesof the Royal Decree of1935~ it
. only be found in some extraordinary, histonçal grriunoftitle. The
Govmrnent ofthe United Kingdom, atthe same tirne, notes illai
the Royal Decree of 1935 does,iiifact, purport to be basecl trn
"ancient weU-establishednational htles of righbd ta have been
drawn "in accordance tvith the Royal Rescriptof zznd Febmry,
x8rz ,nd theDecrees of ~6th October, 1869, 5th January, 1881,
and 9thSeptember, 1889" , oreover,the Norwegian Gaveniment,
in its rcply to the Lea_gue lo-Nations qu~do~~mairfi(B~SGS of
Dis~zcssa'oie.174) daimed that "from iim immeworiaJ, auwaters
on the Iandward side ofthe furthest rocks havibeen regardcd as
Nonvegian inland waters and the "skjzrgaard" itselfasa "coad"'
rqx.It içadmittec ihatin regardto bays anddets international
law recognjzes that daims can be establishedon histoic grounds,
but daes international law recognizethatciaims suçh asNonvay
is natv making to areas which arenot bays or inletor endos& by
land at al1 canbe estabhshed by usage ? Ifso,somcvery dehite
generally accepted usage rnustbe shorvn.The Governent of the
United Kingdom, as stated in paragraphs61, 75 and g~ above,maintaini that the burden licsupon Norway ta prbve ~Ifac tnd
establish in law iry such extraordinary titleto inland waters by
long.usageas she appears to claim, That the onusof proof lies upon
a Shte which claimç an exceptional title in conflict with the
applimble rules of gënerd.intemational law isreally a%If-evident
proposition. There is also ample evidençe that in the particuk
case of historidaims ti nland \vaters the onus does Lieupon the
claimant State. Thuç, in thecase of bays,thevariaus draft articles
of the Institute of International Law, the International Latv
Association and the Amencan Institute al treat daims by long
usage to bays wider than xo(or 12) miles as exceptions to he
speciailyestablisl~ed. Typid is the draft Article3of the Institute
o.fluitemational Law (Stockholm, 1928, Ammaire, p, 7561,where
the phrase is :
[[A mo<m qu'un usage internationaln'aitconsacré une largeur
plus gnnde,"
Simi[larLyi,nthe drae Article4 of the League of Nations Cornmittee
of Experts (23 A.J.I.L.,Special Supplement, p. 366) the phrase is:
"'Unlessa greater distanceha bm edablished by continuons
and immortal usage."
Firially Busis of Dkcztss-tonNo. 8 (Bases of Dist~ssiortp, . 45)
was guite exphcit. After referringto special claims by usage the
Basis =id, "the onus ofprtiving snch usage is upon the coastal
State". Although Basa's of Disc~ssto.tzNo. 8 underwent some
çriticism in the Second Cornmittee (Miwutes, pp. ro3-rrq), itwas
nllsseriously questioned that it is for the coastStateto establish
a special claim,
r43- Moreover, as bas been emphsized pret-budy (para, 65
above), the prima7 rule of maxitirne law iç that theçeas are£ree,
In consequence, a presumptiori of 1a-w &ses that my given area
of seawhich is mot within thïnlanclor territoriawaters of a State
under the gmeral sules of internationalJaw, farrnspart of the high
seas. A claim to encroach an the Iiigh seas at the expense of the
commmity of States, has thns inevitably ta be specially and
~veightilyproved, both in factand inlaw. Professor Gide1endorses
this principle strungly inthe following passage (O$. cit., Vol. III,
p. 632) :
"En ce qui concerne lefardmu de ia prmve, il phse surl'État
gui prétend attribueràdes espacermaritimes proche de ms &tes
le carac!èrequ'ils n'auraiepnts normalement, Ceaux intkneures.
C'est 1'Etat riverain quieledemandeur dans cettesortedeprods.
SE pretentions t~ndentA empiétemen turlahaute mer ;le principe
de la liberté de la haute mer,qui demeure la llaseesentielle de
tout le droitinternationapublicmarithe, ne permet pas defaire
k ehaute mer seradrkduitepar sL'attribution dcertaineseaux ens
propre CLIlEfatqui les rklamecomme telles."ga! MEMURIAL OF THE UNITED X7NGI30M (27 1 50)
The onus of justifying the exceptional.base-bes of the Royd
Decree of 1035 ,hichgreatly exceed thenormal baselines permitted
by the appiicablledes of International law, rsts, therefore, upn
iheNonvegim~vement.
a
144.Sinçe itis for Norway te provein fact and establish inlaw
any special historic claimthat she makeç,the Government afthe
United Kingdam is rrot calleon to deal with Nonvay's daim to
"historiewaters" by anticipation in this Memrial. Nor would it.
be appropriate ta do scuntd that claim bas ben fdy formulated,
dcfined and documentecl by the Nerwcgian Goverliment in the
present prowedings. Accmdingly, the Government ,of the United
Kingdm haç not, in thk Rlemorid, attemptcd ta examine the
possible basisof any supposed Nonvegian clah tohktoric waters.
It wili not comment here on the Decrees of1869, 1881and ~889.
If such a daim is put fsrward irÏthe Counter-MemoriaZ, it wifl
be examined in the United Kingdom's Reply.
145. At this stage, the Governrnent of the United Kingdom
contents itseli ivitmaking one :bservation inregard to daims to
historic waters. Inorder ta establishsuch a claim, itc~ot be
cmowgh for thehTomgian Government simphy to addirce evidence
of Namay's own constitutionalpraçtice.By a well-settlenile of
international law,a State caxlnot'crcrrsitsbreaches of applicable
zules of international law by merely invoking the provisions of
its own municipal law, biading dihough the latter may bein its
municipal courts. Before an international tribunal, and, inparti-
cular, before the hternationd Court of Justice, thmunicipal law
of a State is no bâr tp an international clah by another State.
Thus, in the case of the Free Zones of Uppcx Savoy (judpent
No, 461, the Permanent Court of International Justicesaid :
'"t iscertainthat Francecanriotrely onherlegklatiouiioWt
theSCOP aiher internationaobligations"(p167)~
And, with ~pecial refe~ençeta constitutional law, the Permanent
Court,in the case of the Treatment of Polish Nationals inDamig
(SeriesA/B 44) s"d :
"A SEate camot adduce asagainst anothes Stateits own con-
stitution witha view to evading obligations iambent upon it
under internationalaw or treatiin force" (p24).
Slmilarly,a Statecannot unilat~rdly by its awn1eg;SIatioincrease
iisomnrights anddimhish those of other States under international
law tvhether inregard to the high seas or in regard ta anyother
matter.
Under. the above principle,and under the aboue ad uthes
decisionsof the Permanent Court of Intemationai Justice, itis
thereforeinternational law andinternationalusage, not Nor~vegian
law and Norwegiail ugzge, by which any exceptional n'orwegian MEMOR1AL OF IXE UNITED RZNGDbX (37 f 50)
97
clairnto historiewaters win haveuitimatelyto be tested.~eci~i-
tion and acceptace by ofher States, or atleast long-c-continued
. successfulenforcermentagainstforeign Statemust be shown.
PART III
Arrests ofBritish vesselsçinm Septanber x948
146. Since 16thSeptember, 1948 , hcn the~orwkian Govern-
ment decidedto enforcestrictly the RoyalDecree of12tJdy, 1935,
the Norwegian Governent have cauçed tobe arrested the following
BBtish tra~vlerorships onthe ground that these shipwere fishing
rwithinNoswegianterritorial waterasdefinedby the 1935 Decree
Nane of these shipstvere, according to the information of the
Government of the United Kingdom, hhing withiri thered line:
~3rd November, 1948 . , ,, , C@s Argo9za.
5thjanuary, 1949 . . . .. Arctic Rc&figm.
5th January, 1949 . . . . . Kifigsfm Pwidot.
rfih Janaary, rg49. . . . . Lord Plendw.
19th Jmuary, 1949, . . . , Eqcerry.
5thMay,1949 . . . - - . Lord N~@eld,
7th November, 1949 . . : . WeEBsck.
15th November, 1949 , . . - Pu!,~s~Y.
7th December, 1949 . . . - N~li$,
9th December, 1949 . . . Ef~~ria.
Ca98 Avgma
~. 147. This ship wrrsarrestd 3+ miles N.E. of Slehes (in East
'Fimmark) on z3rd November, 1948, by the No~egi-ian gunboat
Kimg Hdo~ vII at a position, as cornputed by the gunboat,
71"7' ~7' '., zaQ23'E. This positiois onemile hside the Decree
rine(bettveen base-pointç8 and g ; the interval between these
pointsIs25 mil=) and$ mile inside the redIlfie. Accordito the
evidence of the skipper, however, hiship was frxhing toseawârd
ofa dan buoy placeclby the ship inposition71" 4' 45'N-, 28"36'
30" Eh,which was pmile outside the red lire,but admittedly
within the Decree lineThe ship ms brotight toTrcmsp and was
prosenited for illegal fishing beoe the Arhiderforeningen in
Tmrnso on 25th November, 1948.A cupy of the judgmmt of the
Court dated 27th November, 1948, isattached (Annex 181,From
this it appeats that the skipper was cenvicted and was frned
ro,ooohoner wlth the alternativeof 45 days'imprisonment, and
-
*411theposittoofti~cvcssels inqucstionefoundrrnchar&&.i.2and
3, fdcd in Annex z. Norwhichis kcquently nicnti1sadlargpcninsuk
sl~slonch& No.3.fhat, inaddition, he wascharged ~o,oookroner asthe value,tobe
confiscated,of his catchand gear, Re .\vaalso ordered to pay
50 kroner costs.The judpent was based exc~usivelyupon a
finding that fishinhad taken place inside thDecree line,
The Govemmmt ofthe United Kingdom on 10th January* 1949,
protestedagainst the mest of the Cape A~gonaand against the
judgmmt given against ber and reserved its full rights to claim
compensation, A copy of the protest'is attached (Annex191,
The skipperofthc Cape Argomar h,as appealcdagauistthe judg-
ment of27th November, 1948 toSie Supremc Court on thegrounds
of anincorrectapplication of the l.This shipwas detained from
~3.30 hcurs,~3rd November, 1948, to midnight, 25th November,
19484
Arcfi6 Iiumge~and Kiagsto~ Peridut:
148. These shipswere amestcd 5f miles N,E, of the entrancto
Kongsfjord (inEast Finnmark) on 5th January, 1949, by the
Nmegian pnboat Admes inpositions,agreed by thNonvegian.
authorities70' 49'JO" N.,2g0 45' 40" E., and 70" 499" N,,
2ga40' or'E., wspectively. These positions are within tDecsee
line (betiveen hase-points7 and 8 ; the interval between these
points is19 miles) but ontside the redhe.
Theseships n7eretaken bythe Nonvegim authorîties toTromsg.
and clalms were made against each,ofthem for15,ooo lcronet for
illegal fishing anxo,oookroner confiscation value fox catch and
gear. They tvere ultimately releaseon a guaranteb eeing lodged
for 50,000kroner.
The Govemment of the United Kingdom on roth Januav, 1949,
proteste$ against thearrest and detientionof these vesselsand
reservecl its fd rightodaim compensation, A copy of theprotest
2, attached (Annex 20).These ships tvere botfi detairied fram
02-ao hours, 5th Januq, 1949 a 19.00 houn, 6th January, 1949.
149. This ship was arsested 7 miles W. of Nordkyn (inEast
Finnmark in the geneml lomlity ofNorth Cape) on 17th January,
1949 ,y the Nowegian piboat Adem in a position, apd by
the Nonvegian authorities71" 8"Jo N., 27"r8*30"E. This psi-
ticm is withithe Decree fine (bettveebase-pointIr and rz ;the
interval between thesepoints igg miles) butatlest 3 mile out-
side the rd hne. The ship was taken toTrornsarand a clah
was made against it for rg,ooo kroner for iIlegafishingand
10,000 kroner confiscatiovalve for catch,gear aripart value of
the ship .he ship ~vaçultimateily releason a guarantee being
placed fw 25,000 kroncr.
The Governrnent of the United Kingdom on 25th Jmaary, 1949,
protesied againsthe amestand detention othiç vesseandreserved ~~nsomru. OF TITE UNITED KINGDOM (27 I50)
99
its full rightto daim compensation. A copy of the protest is
attxhed (Annex 21,item No, 1).This shipwas detained from 22.~0
haurs, ~7thJanuary ,1949 o 19.30 hours, 19thJanuary.
150. This ship was mested 6:: . iles N.W. af Nordkyn (inEast:
Finnmark) on 19th January, 1949, by the Nomqian corvette
S~0y ina positionagred with the Nornregian authorities71" IO'
30" N., 27uSI' E.This positionis within theDecree line (bettveen
- base-pointsIr and iz;the interval hetween these points39 miles)
but one mile and a half autsidethe red line. Inthe course06 the
arrat the follomingincident took place. The Nartvegian corvelde
Suraiyfirstsignalled to the trawletostop from a distance of one
hundmd yards n,ot by hailing by signal or byany internationally
recognized method, but merely by ttva blastsofitswhistle, A few
minutes Jater,dthaugh the Egw~~y tvasmt increaçing speed or
trying to escape,Sswy opened he with live traceslzellsfrom an
Oerlikon gun.The ship w+atsaken toTramsa aiid adaim W'XS made
against it for rg,ooo krener foriflegafiskingand rg,ooo kroner
confiscation value of fishing gmr*catch and part value of ship.
The ship ms ultirnately releaseon n guarantee being giveri
for 30,0001kroner.
The Governent ofthe United Kingdom on 25th January, ~$49,
protested apinst the arrest aiid dett-ention of thisvesse1and
r~sel-veditsfuU rights to daim compensation (Annex zr, itcrri
No, 3),md furtheron 3rd February, 1949;protested against the
action of the Norwegian corvette in Gng on the Eyuewy, A mpy
of this protestisfiled in Anriexzr, item No.z, This ship was
detained hm 11-zo hours, 19th January, rgqg, to 08.00 hours,
~1st~Jmuary, 1949.
151. This ship wx arrested 8% miles W, of Rrordkyn [inEast
Finnmark) on 4th May, 1949, by the Norwegiari corvetteSw~y in
a position agreed by the Norwegian authoritiesas 7P 8.7' N.,
27' 13' E. This position iscvithithe Decree line (between ha*
points IXand 12 ;the interval between these points 39miles) but
is one-tbird mile outsidthe red Lne. Itwas allegedby the Nor-
wegian authorities thatthisvessd liadbeen frshing priorto anest
within the sed line but tkis is denieclby His Majesty's Government.
Theamest was accarnpanied bycertain passiveobstructionon'the
part of the Lord Nafiaid sesulting in the placing ofa prizcrew
on board. This obstructici%vasl,iowcver,discontinued on instriiç-
tions fmm the British Fishery Protection Vessd H.M.S. Wma
which at the time kvas lyingat Kirkness .and iio further incident
took place.TOU Ml3lORIAL OF TEE UNITED KZNGPbM (27 150)
The Government of the United Khgdom on 19th May, 1949,
protestedagainstthe amst and detentionofthisvesçeland reserved
itç hilrightto daim curnpensation,andon 13th July,1949,replied
iurtherto the Notwegian Governmenî's assesticin, whlclz it made
in anote of 8th June,1949 ,hat thevesse1had been fishinwitliin
the red Iine. Copies of tliese commumcations ate contained in
Anna 22.
The ship was brought +OVardo and was pmsecuted for illegd
fishing, 15tDecember, 1949 .he skipper was convicted and wzs
find xo,ooo kronerfor illegal fishing and a furt~o,ooo kroner
confiscation valuof catchand gêarand soukrones for c6stsAg
appeal has ken lodged againçt this convictioto the Suprme
Court. This ship\vas detained fram 00.15hous, 5th May, 1949,
to 20.00bours, 5th May,r949.
152. This shipwas msted j milesN.N,W. ofTarhalsen Iight
(in Ives£Finnmark) on 7th Novernber, 1949 ,y the Norwegiaii
gunboat Noydkyfiin a position agreed btheNorwegian authorities
to be70656' 42'N., ~$12' 42" E,This position is withtheDecree
line (betweenbasthpoints 18and 19 ; theintervalbetween these
points is269 miles) butg mile outside the reline.The.ship was
taken to Hammerfest and was prosecutd foriUegal fishingon
6th December, 1949. The skipperwas convicted and was fmed
rg,ooo kroner for iIlegafishg and inaddition the owaers weré
charged 15,000kroner codçcation value ofcatch and gear.
This ship was detained from 21.45honrs, 7th November. igqg,
to19-o oom. 9th November, 1949.
An appeal to the Supreme Court has been lodged against .fie
conviction inthiscase.
r53,This shipwas arrested8f milesE. ofSletnes (iEast Finn-
mark)by the Nonvegian gïr.nbaatNordky~ on15th November, 1949,
in a position fixecby the Nawegian authoritieas 7P 4' 36" N.,
28'34' 13"E, This position Is within the Decree line (between
base-points8 and 9 ; the intervbetween these points i25 mil-)
but on the red lineThe ship was taken toHammerfest where the
skipper MQ.Shed 15,000 kroner for illegalfishing ahiçowners a
furtherrj,ùUQ kroner confiscatiovalue of catcand gear,
This ship wasdetahed from 23.14 hours,14th November, 1949,
to.o+po hours, r6th Novernbeir,949.
154.Thvisshipwas mested 7+miles N.lV. ofNorakyn (inEast
Finnmark) on7th December, rgqg, Ui a position agreed bythe ;MeMOWAL OF TRE UNITED KINGDOM (27 1 50) IOL
Norrvegian authofitieç71" g' 30°"N., 27"17'IZ" E. Thisposition
is withintheDecm linepehveen base-points Ir ad ra :the inter-
val between these poiritsis 39 miles) but r$ miles outside tr~d
hem The ship \vastaken to Hammerfest tvherc the skipper was
hed ~5~000kroner for illegal fishing and a furth15,000 hner
confiscat value of catch and gmr. An apped to the Supreme
Court hasbeen lodged against,thiconviction.The shipwas detained
from 09.25hours, 7th December, xgqg,ta 21*4j hours,8th Decem- '
ber, 1949.
155. This shipwas am&ed 6+ des R.W. of Nordkyn (in East
Finnmark) on 9th Deçernber, 199, in a positioncagreedby the
Norwegian authonties, 71"IO' 30" N., 27"23' E, This position is
rvlthin the Decree line (between base-points rr and rz ; see
para, 154) but I+miles outsidethe redline.The ship %vastakm to
Hammerfest where the skipperwas fined zo,oùokroner for illegal
fishingand a further zo,ooo kmner confiscation value of catch
and gear. An appeal to the Supreme Court lias ben lodged r
against thisconviction,This ship was dethcd from 22-30 heurs,
9th December, 1949, to 23-oe hours, 11thDecember, 1949.
156. In respect ofau the arrestrnentimed abve, and also in
respectof such other arrestassrnaybe made before the Judgment
ofthe InternationalCourt in th& case, of vessefishinoutside the
limitwhich the Court may hold to be justified according tinter-
national law, theUnited Kingdom Governmentclaims the fullest
compensation. Subh compensation extends not only to the fines
levied by the Nomegian Govemment courts and costsbut to ali
lossesincluding loss of fishing time mtrtined'bythe ships,their
ornes and skippers inrespect of theis arrest and detention in
Worwegianwaters and Nonvegian ports and their expenses in con-
nection with the prosecutionand mbsequent appeals.
Paxticularç of the sumçclaimed under these heads wiil be sab-
mitteil çubsequentlyby the Governent of the United Kingdom
at such time as the Court shdl indicaie to be appropriate.
(Sigfied)W. E. BECKE-r~,
Agent for the Govemment of
the United Kingdom,
27fh Jlariuaryrggo, . PART W
Listof annexes
Pages
Glcissarof memments. ........... rog
Charts sulsrriitke13y Governmen t of United Rifigdom
showing red and blue lines ........... 104
DipIomaticconespmdence leadingup to 1924negotiations. 104
Mausice-'DouglasReportand ProtocolsofOslo Conference, r;
1924 ................ 106 .
Despatch of 28th January, rgq3ha Oslo acknowlcdging,
onbehalf ofN~omegianGovernment, receiptof ch,utcopies
ofwhich axe filed Ixrewith {beina certifiesetaf charts
shawing the rcd Iine and transmitted Government of the
ary 1925).n.............nvegian Governent in Janu- 136
Diplornaticcorrespondencc,April-Jude1925 - , . -, 136
Protocolsof London Conference,rgzg ... 141 .
Cmd. 3121 01 rg23 . , . . , - - . . , , 162
Pliotostareprtiduc$ion 'ol sectofnchartuscd inDedsch-
la718case.'................. 162
9. Deahhland judgrnent with MT. Nansen" ccomments . , 162
, TQ. Diplornaticorsespondencc3n casesof Lwd Wezr and Howg . ryo
TI. Mebrandum of zflk July, rg33,.to NorwegianGovem-
ment ................ f7r
Nonvegiannote of30thNovember, r933,establjshingmodm
vivendi regardinmd The'. ..m........ =73
St, Jml jridgmerit *th fi, Nansen's comment ... r73
Diplornatic commyonderice,May ~934 ....... 181
Repart ofCornmitteeon Foxign AffairofStortirig (together
with explanatory statmart issued withRoyal Dêcree of
~zth JuIy, 19j) ..-............. ~$7
Dipimatic correspondence,September-maber 1935. .. 193
Base-points in blue fineof Norwegim Royd Decree of
fzth July, 1935 : m.........,... 199
Judgment of Trornw Couit dated 27th Navember, 1948 ,n
case ofCn$e Argoazn ........ 205
United Kingdom note of 10thJanu , ~gqg, protesting
against amt andjudgment in case o"L @Ye A~go~a , . . 2q
United Kingdom note of roth Januafy, rgq prulkting
againsiarreçt oArctic Rangerand Khgston l?!déndol. zro
United Kingdom note of 25th January, 1949,protesting
againstarrestof Lord PlersderandEqfierry... 2rr
Diplarnaticompondmçe mncemîng mst of LordNz6fidd 212 ANNEXES TO BRITISH ME310RINA (NO. 1)
PART Y
1 Annexes
GLOSSARY OF MEASUFEEMENTS
I~
'13e sea milels the Icngth ofone minute of arc memred dong the
meridian in the latitude of the place (osvessel) and vary both
with the latitudeand the dimensions ~dgrted for the circumferençe
of the exth, Llierrariatimdue tnthc shape ofthe ewth in one length
of ont:seamile between latitndcs 60"and 70"is amatter only of8 fect.
The selmile is fhegmwul ewit vfwzeasurcment assedby Britishseamen
and isIha mms~remetif moste~sitydakm /roma~y chcml.When references
are made to 3 or 4,or any utlier number of,miles as the breadth of
teThe len@ ofera seaemile inlatitude 60"iapproximatdy 2,030y -a8rds
and in latitude70" 2,033. yards.
A term whichin thepast has been oftenincorrectly usedandconfus4
with a s~ mile. It iin fact,arneasured distanceforca1culati1.gspeeds,
etc.,,and varies in differeni çountries. The Britishnautiçal mile is
6,080 feet (1,853- 1etres). A rough approximation of ten used for
thenauticalmile is2,000 yards.
Cable:
. One-tenth part ofa sea mile, Inpracfice itis also acceptedas 111o
of a nauticalmile. A mughapproximationis zoo yards.
StaMe orlad mile :
r,@o yards ; 5,280feet;1,609.3 rnetres,
Geogra#hicatmile :
This isno8 mcd forAdmiraltypurpases. This is usuaily regard&
as the lengtltofone minute of arc rneaçiirealmg the Equator.
Seu miik:
GeographicaZmile :
"Mil" (in'connectim ~4t hhe seabut nototherwise) :
GeograftskYni:
S~andinauian leagw :
Inthe iQT2"Rapport",whi~hisirFrencht,he ahoveWrns ai-btnsiateH by
the words "lieue" "Jieugéographique".
8 One-frfteenth ofa degree of latitude or four minutes of-latitudat
the Equator or 7,420metses (8,11y 4ards).
"Mi,!" (whcn used in corirlectionwithilahrnertsnrements )
IO,OOOmetres.
One minute (Le.1/60 ofa de~) oflatitude at thelatihde of the
distance to be rnmsured,
?Jota forase of Bri-lZsAdmiral& charts
latitude graduationson thehnsidesofthe chat are used.c(The top ande
bottom graduations arelangitucleunitsand do mt regresent anykind
of hear distance.)
(2) It iessential when measuringon a ch& that ththlatitudegra-
duations in-the bordersof the cliaxareused imthe samc latitadeasthe
distance tobe measured. Adrniralty chartsused in thiç casare on the
Mercator'sprojection. On this projectionthe scale of latitude and
distance increases withthe latitudeuntif at the ples it is inhite,
Hence it must be rernemhered that this projectiondoesnot show the
correct relation betweendistances measured in difftrent parts of the
chart unlessthey me in the same latitude : is,ttierefme, not postible:
ta take affdistancesfrorn the marginsat sandom.
(3) Itshotilci bnoted that the chartsin aset are notdrawri on the
ske naturd çcde as each othet; each varies with theIatitnde.This.
ineffect mmeantshat they should nut be joinedto make one composite
chart, nor should distances taken frarn one rneasurcdon another, .
CHARTS SUBMITED BY GOVERNmT OF UNITED
KINGDOMSHOWLNGRED AND BLUE LINES
No. r
Christiania29th March, ry+
hfonsieurle Ube,
I have the honour tu inform Your ExcdIency that His Majesty's
Governmenthave been consideringforsometime the confiictirigclaims ANNEXES TO 'BRITISHMEMOPIAL (NO, 3) IO.5
respectingthe proper extcnt ofterritoriawaters whkh exid at present
hctween that Governmentand the Royd Nortvegian Government.
2.In view of the understandirn eached betrveen Ris Majwky'ç
pondencet exchanged betweenvemthem iin the emly çummere oof last year,
it will praumably be neither possible nbr deshble indenitdy To
postpone the convening of an internationalconference ivithregard to
the whole question of territorial watersInany such confereiicethe:
views of theBritish and Norwegim Governmenh will,as regards Russia
in particular, beidentical inso far asboth Govmments combat the
Russian claim to a rz-mile Limit.Ilis,Majesty" Governrnent have, as
Your ExmlIency is probably amre, establislied amod*~ ~ivendi with
the SovietCove~mrnent whareby Briti sessels fishunmalested up to
theg-mile limit, but afinasetdement of thrçdifficziqu&ion is past-
pond for decision by the internationalconference,
3. It isunderstood tliatthe Norwegims, wlio have not establishes
such amd~s wivendi,areeven more interested in a satisfactoy sctfle-
mcnt of this question than His Majesty's Govemment. It has Phcre-
foreoccwed to Es Majesty's Government that, apart irom the advan-
.Sagewhich would necessarilyaccrue £rom an earlyçettlement of tlie
question at issue betbveenthe Nomeçian and British Goveniments,
itmouldbe desirablethat hth Governmentsshould, if possiblecorne
to an understanding in advance of the international conference, sn
as toerrsurethat their views andolijectssliallbc enMy identical.
4. 3Viththis objectinYiew Hiç Majesty'sGovcr:rnme pntpose that
a mutual understanding should be asrivd at on the bask bat the
Norwegan Government will not clah a \vider beltthan 3 mile fer
its territoriwatersand thatcertain largeit~lets,notablthe Vestfjord
event naattempt ~vouldhencefonvardbemade, forexample,may.to interfere
with hshing vessels.outsidea 3-milelimit, and fbreignvesselswould
not be aiiowedto fishwîthin the two fjordçmentioned.
5. The Nonvegian Governrnent me nodoi~bt aware tlmt HisMajesty's
Government have iovnd it necessaryto dose certain ma^ mund the
Smttish mat to trawters flying tBritishflag, His Majesty'sGovern-
ment trust that, in view ofthe very large concessionmade totheNor-
wegian Government by the suggestion containeclin paragraph4 above,
the Norwegian'Çovernrnent GU also be dling toenter into a special
agreement with Kis Majesty's Government subjecting tra~vlers flying
the Norwegiasrflag te the same restrictions inthe arm refcrred to as
those irnposedon British tmwlers.
6. Thavethe honour toadd that it not the intention ofI3s Maj.jesty's
Govmment to suggest any forma1 convention, but rather an informal
arrangement based onthe above propgçals, which Sam authorized to
discuss withYour Excellency, should the Nonvcgian Govemment be
inclincdto enter intosuçh a iscusçion.
1 avâiletc,
(S-igF'W d).0. LINDLEY.
l No. 2
NmE m0bf hhi.ATLCEiELBTTO ML, LIXi)LEY,DATED 15th &PR=, 1924
[Tramslatiow]
Monsieurle Ministre,
1 have the lroriourto acknowledgli the receipt of ymir note of
zgth lrrarch iast, rvhichyou propose,on belralofyour Gox7ernment,
that,pending the cmvening of aninternational conferencewith reerd
to the \vhole question of territorlai waters, negotiationshould be
entered into between the Norwegian and British Govanmerits with
a vicw ta arriving atan informal arrangementon the extent ofteni-
tonal tiyaterson the hasis that the Nomegiari Government shodd
confineitselto claimin a territorial limit onauticalmiles,aridthat
in retnrn certain larglords, çuchas the Vestf~ordand the Varanger-
fjord, areto berecogniiedaç Norwegian territorial waters.
At the same tiine the BI-itish Goveznrnent wishesta enterinto a '
similar agreement by which Norrvegian tratvlers would be subjected
to the same restrictionsincertain areas arotindthe Scattishcoaçtas
are naw imposedupon British trawIers, whicare forhiddea tofidz in
those arcas.
I have the honour to Ulformyou that the NorislegianEsvcrnment
have already taken steps to have the questioninvestigated, in view
of theproposal put fozwardby the British Government. I shall address
a furthercommunication ta ysu on the subjectassoon a the inves-
tigations havebeen çoncluded.
Annex 4
UURICE-DOUGLAS R,EI?ORT AND PROTOCOLS OF OSLO
CONFERENCE, 1924
Mr.a. G. MAORICE '&NDCAPTACN A.P.DOUGLAS
TO MT.AUSTEN CXAMBEWN
(Verycoddential)
Whitehall,30th December, 1924.
Sir,
We have the honour to submitthe foiiowing reportof ourconversa-
tions with the ~ommitte appointed by the Norwegia~ Government
to disçuss withusquestians arisingoui ofthe divergentviews ofGreat
Britain and Worwayon thcsubject of thelimit of territoriwaters in
the sea.
P. The courseand outcorneof ourdiscussionsis, we fhink,sufficlently
indicatedby the documents annexed to this report,namely :
{r) Minutes afmeetings of thecornmittees, withannexes. ANNEXES TO BRITïSR MEMORTAL (NO.4) lQ7
(2)Memorandm on "The principal facts concerriing Nom@&
territorialwaters" (adocument prepared by the Norwegian Com-
mittee), 5vhichis to be regarded as an annex to the minutes of
the first rn~eting.
(3)Charts of the coast of Horway, with indicationsreferred to in
paragraph 3 ofthe rksumé appearingin the minutesofthe twdfth
meeting.
We wish to directattention particulnrly to the preparedmcharts, to
tke résuméincludd in the minutes of the tweifth and last meeting of
thecornmiHees, to tl~eannex th the minutes cf the ninth meeting and
to paragraph 4 ofthe minutes of the tenth meeting.
3. Theçe prissagesin the documents hdicate the point tu which our
çonve~~atiansled us ; hut It5had.d be acldd that there'ex, further,
something in the nature of ail understanding that, ifczny agreement
were reached, it would include the adhaion ofNorrvay tu the Nndh
Sea Convention in the ares to which the convention applies,and the
application to the Stsherieoffthe coast ofXonvay, north of thxtarea,
by agreement [scil. hetween) (kat Britain and Norrriiy (rvith the
inclusion atonce or ssibsequentl~ of Germany) of 3gulationç analogous
to thoçe of the North Sea Convention.
4. Itwill be observecl that (r) ~vededined abçoluteIq o enter hto
my arguments of a Iegal character ; (2) we kave pressecifor and, to
the bestof our ability, elicited thfacts from which the tiecessitieof
the Norwegian fisheries muld be judged ; (3) we have entered into
no sort kif undertaking or understanding witliregard to any measures
propmed for the protection of the Norwegian hsheries, except tthat ive
would submit them to His Majesty's Government for consideration;
and (4)it haçthroughmt ken recognized that no statement oradmis-
sion or provisionri1acceptane of a hypothesis on eitl~ef sidcould be
taken ta commit eithcr G~ovetnment.
Witb reference to point (3)in this paragraph, rvewish taadd that
we taok it upon onrselves tu ruie out certainproposais as being such
that Great Rritain muld notpossibly ente~tain'tliem, but we di8 not
feel justifidin de&ing to submit any proposalunleso; we werc quite
satisfied tha4ifcould nat aFford a basisfor fudher negotiatiw.
Uvcwtaif~tyas tuthe ti*i&'o/th mtws chimd &Y iVm~ay GS IerritmiaF
5.One fact, knoxvledgeof which was essential to an nnderstanding
ofthe pointof vjew of the Norwegians,was, inou judgment,. themethcd ,
according ta which itwas thciryractim to draw the limitsof thewxters
they claimed as Norwegian territorialwaters. On the one chart (part
af the masf: ofEast Finnmark) wl-tichhad been furnished by the Nor-
wegian &nXmmIent, the lines weredrawn ins manna which indicated
no setdecl principle. Itwas clear, forinstance, that the lines didnot
follow the sinuositieofthe coast, that neitherro-mile nor 6-mile bay
lins had heen consistently takcn as base-lines, nor had the rule
enuncinted in the ~epork of the Xorwegian Eoyd Commission of xgrz,
acwrding to 'which base-lines shniildbc drawn between the outermost
points of the coastor adjacent islands and rocks, notrvithstanding the
length of such lines, ken adepted. It may be remarked that the strict
application of the last-mtntlnned iule to the \vat coast ofNorway
would lcad toa manifest absurdity. 6, Our request forcharts of the rest of the coast of Norway and
adjacenw taters cotresponhgly mmked was received with evident
embarrassment, and it became apparentthat the NorwegianCornmittee
could not undertake todrmv the lines exceptaf certai noints ofthe
coastwhere the Iimitshad ken defined byNonvegian Orders in Cound.
Hvenhally, we siiggestedthat we-shoul ourselves draw the hes for
the rest of the çoast: accordhg tosuch principlesaswe cauld cvolve
from the report of the Nom-egian Royal Commission on Territorial
Waters of 1912,and, rather than accep that solution,the hfomfegian
Cornmittee secured permission from th& Foreign Officefor Fishcry
Inspect'orCaptain 'Ivesensubsequently asdsted by Commander Askm,
af tlieNorweglan Adrninlty, to prepare cIlarts to indicatethe Nor-
~veglandaims, ivith the proviso that the hes they drew were not to
be regataed as authoritative.Tiitlines sodrawn appearon the chnrts
annexed in this report,on mhich are indiçated &CI the 3-mile line,
drawn according ta the British thesis, +mile Line, dram according
of concentrated seasonaltfishing,within which, ithmtsbemcersuggested,
tbat trawlingmight be prohibi ted 'byagreement duringspecified seasons.
7.Itis of interestto rernark that in the course of conversation,
during the voyage home, with the captainof the steamship Btetsheint
and a certainCommanderSmith of the Noruregian Navy, bath of whom
served inNmegian naval sliips during the warwelearned incidentally
that duririg thewar the4-mile limit which Norway sougbt to enforce
for neutrdlity purposes was ddratvnaccording to the same method as
is crnployed by Great Britain in drawing the 3-mile iine, It tvould
appear, therelore, that diffexerit methodsare cmployed by the Nor-
wegian Adtruralty and the Norwegian fishcry authorities. Thismay
in part accoiunt forthe fact that the R'ortvegianAdmiraIV rvnsnot
representerl on the Norwegiari Cornmittee.
6. Sincc itwas not possible iatelligentlytciconsiderthe questions
at issue in the absencofinionnation arhichwould enable us ta compare
the arms claimed by Narway as territorial with those admitted by
Great Eritain tobe krritofial and the chef fistung areas with bùth.
thc delay in the preparntioof clizrts dissipated our hopofçosrcluding
our conversations within a nreek, and, itmay be added here, t11at it
was orilyby rvorkhg at very high pressurethat we were able to brlng
them to an end atthe close of thsecond week.
g .In ordm properlyto appreciatethe ckcmstances af the Nonvegian
fishermen, by ivhich, naturdly,the attitude of Great Britainto the
questionsrrtissue wilbe inflilencedit inecessaq to take under review
the conditions of the fislieries both in perd and in detail. A meai
part of our tirne was, thtrefore, devotecto cross-examination of the
Norwegian Conmittee on matters of fact which we coud not axertain
Nithout theirassistance.We have in ou possession detailed notes of
the answersrvc received,but we du notthink itneceçsq for thepurpose
of Ehisreport todo more tlian presenta bnef review of themore salient
fack, relying, aswe thinkwe safely may, upon tlisubstantialaccuracy
ofxo.Norwaymatiçnagbarren rnountainws country with a total area of
xzo,ooosquare miles and a çoast line osome r,Sm milcs, ntitcounting AWNEXES Tû BRITISH MEMORIAL {NO. 4) ILI
tions of khing were presm%ed and enforced by Norway-in mat
instances extended beyond the limit of waters clairned by Norway as
wfthin her territorialjunsdiction.
17.Eb-en in tlie casof the Finnmarlrcoast,offwhlch British hwlm
6tsikn considerable numhers, noevidence of damage to gear orof daims
for compensation for damage tovgearwas produced. Nor did the commit-
tee seriouslyallep thatthere waç any fding ofi ofthecatch rvhichcuuld
be attributed to depletionof tliestockthroughtrawhg. It is true that
Dr. Rjoxt urged that the investigationsinwbich he ha$ playd apromi-
nent part tendcd to showthat thecod fisl~eat different times odifferent
partsof the coast bdonged to oneand the same stock,and argued, from
the analogy of certain conclusions oftiie Int~rnationd Cuuncil for the
Explnration of the Sea regnrdi hcgeffectof the operationsof traders
in the North Sea, that thW~ W~S occasion toapprehend suchdcplction ;
but an being reminded 'chat tIicconcIusions of the Jntematioiial
Gouncil seferreclto tlie.plair,a much less mobiie fish than the cad,
and of the great differmcc betwc-en the opm coast ofNonvay and the
comparative1y çon,hd and intensely exploited ,wea of theNorth Çea,
hedirlnot attempt seriovslytopreççthe point, Inthe end,theconmittee's
case \vasr~hçed practicdIy ta one ofseasonable apprehension cottpled
rviththe statement, oftea repeated, that becauseaf the operations of
trrtwlersthe fisherrnenrvereafraidto lay nightlin&, md couldonIy fish
by day, or,ifat night, thenclose to thc shore.
Suggddd limesof weetatast
18.It wjlt be seen from the minutes and annexes that thc lines of
agreement tentatively süggested are that, on the one hand, Norivay
should wcept the principleof the 3-mile lirnit of territorid waters and
Great Britain should recognize ail the Mmvegian fjords the andeçe~tain
atller enclostd inlets as patf of the territorial wateof Nonvay, and
shauld tntm into a convention or agreement with Noway wl~meby
(txr)cgulatims analogous ta those of theNorth Sea Convention.ivould
Le apylied to a11fishing opemtioris offthe coast of Norway north of
latitude 61~ no& ;
(6) incertain specifiedareas onthe west and north-west coastofNomy
outside territorialwaters, trawling umuid be prohibjted in certain
monthsoftheyear;and.
{c) trading would be pohibitd either dong thc whole coast of East
and \Vat Finnmark up to the ~oo-fathom line during tliemonths
of March to June inclusive,oralortgthe whole coast of East Finnmark,
up to a distance ofI mile beyond the 3-mile lineas defined by Great
Rntain, throughou t the ymr.
19, The areas within whichit is pmposed to prohibit trmvlingfor
certain months of theycdr (January tu -4priinclusive) on thewest and
norfi-west coast, arethase tirithiwhich there is the greatesconcentra-
tion of hshing operations mnneded with tlicmigrations of spawning
cod, Asatpresent informed, Ive aredlsposed to thinkthat weernent to
th= proposaiswould not involve any serious loss of fishitù British
trawlers.In a greatpart of:theaggregate areacamposed of these separate
areas we helieve tliatthe nature of the bottom içsuch that ~rawlingwcauldbe, forthe most part, impossible.The Nmegian Cornmi tteewere
emphatic upon this pojnt,but when we si~ggeste that, ifthat wre se,
protection by regulation was not nec~~aqj, they argued tliat itwas
desirable because it wouldreasnire their fishermen, tvho were nervous
.aboutthe possibleincursionoftra.wlerduring their period ofconcentrated
fishing, and also about the effectof pwsible future detrelopments of
trawbng.
FinnmrX: coad fish&s.
20.~hen we came ta the coaçt ofFinnmark wè réachthe centre af
axte conffiçtof interest~. Iis off thiscoastthat British trawlers are
most active. A considerable number of tlimn visit these watersevev
year tu fish, chiefforhaddock and plaic ev,ifcan even more consider- ,
able number, wliiçh proceed annudiy tafish off the Mumiansk coast,
regard the waters offFinnmark as a rofitable ara inwhlciion theway
home, to supplement thejr catches.1t the same time, Nonvay attaches
even more importance to herfisheriein the north thanshe does to those
rsfJIorc and Lofoten, because ofthe peculiar conditions cvhichgovern
the Eifeof the coastal popiilatian of Finnmark, Along the cnast of
Finnmark 86-5Pr cent of the total male poptrlation above the ap of
15 arc engaged in fisihmg,and this populationexistingon a bm roçky
soi1 i~icapableof cultivation,has absolutelg no meculs of subsistence
except the sea. We were led, rnoretiver,to understand that Norway
regards this population as something in the nature of an.outpost or
gamiçrin against lierriorth-eastem neighbours, fearing especialiy, it
wauld appew, atthc preaent moment, political invasion.
21.At the outset, the Norwcgian Cornmittee pressd strongly for
ûfothetcoasi ofrFinmark andup throughoue Ittetytear.This proposal we
todthedroo-fathomerline-tha tis,twragdistanceomnsiderably beyondng thc
territoriaIhït-during the fousmonths of the spring fishcry, anthey
intimated that theywould peed similarprotection, thoiighnot perhaps
an so extensive a %ale, in certainmonths of the autumn. Tfliilethis
proposal was under discussion, they suggested a m~difrcation ~f their
first dcrnand involving the prohibition of trawling up to the +mile
Limit almg the rvl-iolofthe caast of East Finnmark for the whole
of the year. We told thern that,whTe we regardcd the acceptanco ef
this suggestion asvery doabtful, tvewould be prepared tosubruitit for
consideratiorion the understanding that ifit were acceptd they would
be yrepared to waive al1mggestions ofprohibition of trawhng, at any
time, off the coast of West Finnmark, outside territoriawaters as
defineil hy Great Britaln,and that they wotnld be prepmed to accept
as the area of prohibition oftrawiing fer East Finnmark the waters
behveen the coacitand a lhe dra~vn iimile outside the 3-mile line,as
defined by Great Britain, fius gettingrid oftheir arbitrarylinewhich,
in mme parts, .extendecl much further out to sea, These conditions,
subject of course to the undersfmding as to the pro\.isianaItrndnon-
committ al çharacter ofal suggestions putfornard,they indicated their
readiness to accept.
Ave uegdafiolasagwiw fmreilàfljzcstifia?k
22.Ive hadhopedto discover pmsible linesof agreement, both hcre
and elsewhere, on thebasis of regulatiansgovernimg tlte movemerits of 1 ANNEXES TD BRITISK MERIORIAL (NO- 4) II3
verrels ushg diffmnt bds of gear in the presenc of one another,
vithout having recourSeta my such drastic method as the prohibition
of arry particular method of fishng. But the Norrvegiaii Cornmittee
insisted that nothing short ofthe prohibition of trawling would meet
theircase, because tbeirprimary object war;to protect the gearof their
fishennen, and trajvlers could not fishitmong their buùy~d lines and
nets without carrying them away, and could not xvoid tliiem atnight.
It isobvious that,in the area s fgreatconcentration onthe \mt coast,
trawiers could nol possiblywork without caiising great damage. A rule
prohibiting t~a\rliagat tirnes and in the places ofconcentration may,
fherefore, be regarded as a reasonable fortnof ~egulation.Tt mwt be
remernbered, ho wever, that the most important Finmark lisliesrtakes
plxce in the montl~sMar& ta June, and isat its heiglrin the lastthree
rnonths of this period. During these rnonths daylight is actudly or
racticdly continuous, sn that the= isno apparent reason why the
goats shmid not iie by their lincs. If they did so, frîwlcrwoiùd ùe
able tonvoid them, and, as isthm s not thesame conwnbation of fishing
as occurs on the west coast, tllc casernight be met by a les drastic
form of replation.During the hrlr rnonths the case isMermt, ifit is
redy impossible tolight thebuoys ;but on this subject wehave doubk,
23. In any case, the propoçed permanent prohibition of kawfing up
to the+mile line offtl-iecoasof East Finnmark, qdy with the ~egula-
bon.:prcipoqed for tliewest anrinorth-west coasts, will need ta be
ftirther examined in its-bearing on the operations of British trarvlers.
Tlicextra-territorialarcaoffthe Finnmark coast in whichit is suggested
that trawling sl~ouldbe permanently prohibitcd amounts in al1to little
more than rzo sqiia'rmiles; and, 35 WC havesaid, we are bposed to
think that the areas inwfiich itis propcisedthat a similar prohibition
should appiy seasonally are of little value to trawlers.P~a'ma facie,
tiensfgoverninggfishingoperationsiIuextra-temitoridhwaters off thccozt-
ofNordayas awhule and with the recognition of theterritoriacharxta
of the Norwegian fjords and analogous inlets,might he regarded as a
-ccjmparatiuelylight prise to pay for the adhesion of Norway to the
principle ofthe 3-mile limit, which isimportant to Great Britain from
&ber points of view tthanthat of freeiislling-
q. IIallthe çircumstanceç, and subjectto the considerationsrefmed
to in pmgapiis 26,27 and 31below, the possibilityofagreement hms,
sa iar as Cdcat Britainisconcemecl, vpon whethcr she could consent
to the prohibition of trawling throughout the year within tlic +mile
hlt off the coatof East Finnmark,or can find asatiçfactory altemative
to this proposal.Kt is only within this area that any senous confbct:
arises bctlvcen Britisli ba~vlersand the Norwcgim frçhermen, and we
think it isonly in xes~cctof th& proposal that serious oppasihon on
, ,the part of the Bfitis11fishiinciustrynced beanticipatcd. If, howeaer,
such an agreement as isproposeclis made with Norway, the British
fishingPndiistryis Likclytoargue-and with some justice-that Norway
geh evcrything while Great Britain gets ntithing. Altl~oughexclusion
from an area of approxirnately r2o sqnase miles may, at first sight,seem
. a small matter, the British fishing industryisnot.likelyso to reg~rd it,
considering the fact that itis part of the one atm (ofno great extent
asa whole) to which tliey attach importance in this nelghbou-rhciod.
and in wliich the incidents of recent years have ciccmed. ANNEXES TO BRITISH MEMORIAL (NO,4) II5
wouldbe limited to arres forthe purposcof immediate conduct to the
nearest British port. Inthesc circumstanccs, any povr7vof arrcst that
migh tbe so conferredwouldpmbably henugatwy.
31. We understand tbat Norway would mot be whoillycontcn wtith
a simple agreement\vit11 Great Bi-itain, but would wish to sccure the
concurrence init of Germany, andperhaps ofotlier Powe~. This svould,
framthe point of view oftheBritishfisheries, be advasltageous, inasmuch
as it1sundesirable that British trawlers should be excluded from fishi.ig
arcas to.which the trawlersof ùther nations have access.The question
arises,therefare, at whatstage the conciirrence of-other Powers shoiild
bc sought. There would be certain advantag~s in çonclutling oncefor
a11a convention wkich would incInde allprobableparties.On the othes
hand, we feI that tbere is noinconsiderable rislcthat the endeavour
to bhg other parties in beforean agreement with Nonvay hm been
defrnitelycancIuded may involve demands on the part of those parties
which would ernbmss Great Bntain md might lead to along pmtpone-
ment of any settlement. It wetrld,from this point ofview, be prefera-
able,onthe whole, to corneto an agreement with Norway alone and then
join hm ininviting other Powefç to kmme parties toit ex $os$facto;
Jlut itwdd be. most unfortunate if an agremcnt were made with
Noxway which excluded Eritish trawlers if, in the end, the trawlers
of othcr countrîeç were left ina position of superiar advantage. The
difficultmight perhaps be met by making anyzgreement with Nomy
contigent upunher seciirinthe subsequent concurrence in it Germarny,
if not oather P~owers.
Tite@ecb ofany sgreemepzofn Nomccy3 hhf~ricdççtnim
32. Whether, on further examination, the Norwegian Government-
wodd see its waytoanter intoany bargainis, ofcourse, open todoubt.
We are rather disposed to believe that, asa whole, Nomy meçtly
desiresa settïement,and isready, ornearl ready, foracceptance of the
3-mile principle. andeveriaswe havesais that it isprobable that she
might be ready to acceptsomething-les than what is above swgested
by way ofreturn.
33, On the other hand, thm are certainconsiderationsprtsmt to the
minds ofthe Norwegian Cornmittee, and,no doubt, of othersin Norway,
referredtapwticiilarlyinthe minutes ofthe tenth and eleventhmeetings,.
which may cause hcr to htsitatcto enter into any agreement. Of these,
we think that the most serious from the Nomegian point of vieivis
that referre tdin the conduding two parapaphs of the minutes of the
eleventh meeting, It waç inevitable. that this questioshould arise,
Wlien we ur'& askcdwhat would be thc effect oan agreement such as
was under discussion upon the relations ofhrorwaywith other Pçwers,
we replied that, in omview, the essentiabasis ofany agreement ~votilci
be the recognition by Norway of the principle of the 3-mile limit of
territorial waterasa rule ofgeneral applicationFrom this therenatur-
&Ely follow~d the question, what wodd be the position ofNor\v,ay in
respect of Iicrhistorical daim to thc+mile limjt in the event ofher
entering into an agreement with Great Hritain, ~vhichwas, at a llater
date, dençiu~ced hy cithcr party. or perhaps bya third parti-.To this
we repiied,in effect, tliat, while remgnizing the importancethe ques- tion, we thought that the necssity for ,discussinitdid dot mise untir
ourrespective Governments entered inta negotiationç for a fomd
agreement. Netterthdess, we leel that this question is likely to prove
one of the most serious obstacles toa settlement, We understand that
His 3Tajesty'sGovernment wish Norwap not mcmly to enter into a
agreement with them whereby the exclusive fiçliery jizrisdichon of
Nonvay is Ifmitd to the 3-mile linas between British and Norwegiasr
subjects, butto acceptmcl suppart, at any internatioiial conference on
territorialwaters that niay he convened, the prinçiple of the 3-mile
limitas a ruleof internationallaw. The mere signature of a convention
of the charactersuggested, especially iit were coupled\pith the adhe-
sion of Norway tg the North Sea Conventinn, miild, m our opinion,
weakenNorrvay'shistorieal claim, her support of the 3-mile principle
inan intesnationa! coderence would desboy it. It may bearguedagainst
- this that Great Britain, ataKy rate, has not rreoogriirler daim, but
Nowymere toçinduce her to abandonisit,impliesna cedain arecognitionof
the force, if not of the actualvdidity, of the historical argument to
tvhich Norway nttach~ so much impor2rancc .t woiild seem necessary,
therefore, either to persuade Nwway-who ispcrhaps half ready to be
persuaded- that the adoption of the 3-mile prinçiple is to her advantage,
apart fsomnny privilegesshe may acquire by convention for her fishcr-
men, or, bysome other means, to convince liertthat, inenteringjnto
sucli an agreementas jscontemphted, she will not be saçrificing an
enduhg inexchang for an ephanerd advantnge.
34.-(1) -As a resultof our discussionswe arenow for the kt tirne
infomed as to the method bywhichNorway is inthe habit of defining
herclaim toterriforlawaters. The method is ohviouslyhaphazard a,d
th~e 3s reason to thlnk that merent methods are employcd by the
fisheneç authorities and riaval authorities, the last named Ilaving during
the war defrned their +mile Iimit on thesame principles, gencrally
3-deinglimit. the mcthod observed by Great ;tritain in defining the
(2) The position ofthe fiçhingindustry inMorny and the conditions
s-peciaconsiderahonofshetheirinterestsand for protection, if and where
suçhprotechon is necessary.
(3) The rnethods of fishingemployedare genemlly adapted ts the
geographic aadl other conditions under which fishing iscarried on.
(4) The fshing un the west coast depends upon the amval of large
numbers of spawningcod, which occursin the firçtfour monthçof the
year. The frsh, and cmçequently the fishing, areclosely coricentrated
m fahly ivelldefmedareas,
(5) The fishingon the Finnmark caasttakes place inthemonth of
Marcla to june inclasive, It isdetermiriec ly the &val of shoalsof
spawning caplin, on which cod feed. The hshing appcim to be fairlg
venly distributeddong the toast.There is said to he aIso a seasonal
fishingofçome importance in the months of Septernber t5 Noveimbes,
the year. is continuaus, thoiigh Isç aintensive, fishing throughout ANNEXES TO BRITISH MEMDRIAL {-st04)
r17
(6)Noevidencc rn prodvced tousof ahai damage to thc Momegiaa
fisheries hy the operations oftrawlers,nor was it seriousljrçontended
that the availahlestock of fishhadbeen rednced as a sesult oftrawIing
operations, 'The demand for the maintenance of the +mile limit
appears to arise out of political andsentimental ratherthan practical
considerations. .
(7)WC are&posai to think that the regdations propwd for tbe
west ccoaswould not in themsdvcs involve any seriousloss to 33ritain
or to British trawlers.
(8)The point of acuk confliçtof interesb behkm Çmt ~ritia
and Nonvay is the coastof Finnmark. On-the pneIland, tliisIs thearea
to which British trawlersattach most Unportamce ; on theother, practiç-
ally the whole of the popuIaüon of the coast of Finnmark depnds.
absolutely for itslivdihmd on fishing, and Nnrway attaches very great
hportance to tllmaintenance of its coastalpopulation.
(9) We refused to consider a proposai to prnhibit lrawhg perma-
nentiy up to ç14-mile imït off the coast of Fjnnmask thnghout its
length.We submit with greathesitationan dternative proposal involving
a com~ponding prohibition off the whole ofthe maçt of EastFînnmark.
We aredisposed €0 think that it should be possible adequateto protect
the Finnmark fisbermen by lesç drastic regrilations.
-(IO)Al1 the proposedreplations bo'rhfor the west çoastad forthe
nwth coast must be çarefc~llsmtinized +th reference totheir bearing.
on the operations and interests ofBritish trawlers.
(TT)Tn our vicrw,any agreement irnpusingregulations for theprotec-
tion of tintfishing interestof the natianals of one party only te the
agreement hvolves the riskof crmting a precedentwkfchmay cause
senous embarrassrnent by stimulating ather countries tademand cor-
responding treatrnent, 1is,thesefore,essential thabefme entering intc,
any such agreement GreatBritain sho~ildbe absoluteIy satisfiedthatthe
specialcirciimstancesof the case aresuch that the agreement daes nat,
in fact, creata precedenw th,ich would holdgaod against herelsewhere.
(12)Asçurning that any agxeement with Norway results inthc recogni-
tian as territoriaidets of the Vestfjord and Varangerfjord, WC are of
opinion that the recognitioas mch of herlesser fjords and certain inIcts
enclosed by skerrieslcgica1lyfoltom, and have proceedcd on tkis
assumption in ont- discussionsand in the provisional rnarking oftcrri-
torial inlels on the charts. Tcase ofCfiristianiFjord is a speciaone,
which we think shouldbe dcterrnined by tlie Admiralty,
(13' Ifany agreement involving theregulatian of fisheriesis reached,
the arrangements for its enforcement rnustbe suclias ta secure that no
Britishvesse1 shdl bearrested and taken ta aNortegian port, and tried
Sefore a Norwegian court,
(14 ) tis desirablethat Gemany at least, andpossibly okherPo~slers,
shouldbecorne parties to my agreement regarding fisheries hetween ,
Great Brïtain and Norway. The question of the stage at wliichother
countries should beapproacl~cdwiil requirecarefc ulnsideration.
(15 ) orway is likelyto feel considerable hesltation about entakg
into any agreement on the hes suggested, awing to the fact that if she
once openly surrenders her ciaim to territorialjurisdictionup to the
+mile limit sheçan never againassertit with the same forceashithato,
(16) We submit:118 ANNEXXS TO BWrISH MEMOEUkL (NO, 4)
(a)That the discussions cornmenced at Christiania shodd, iinless
Nanvay desires tobreak .hem 08, be continued assaon asmay be,
preferably in London ;
(b) that before the dixiissions are renewed this report should be
submitted to the Departments concerneci, and partiçiilarrlyta
Ministryof A&cwlture and Fisheries (md the Admiralty ;
{c) that theMinistryofAgricuEtilr end Fisheriesshouldbe authorized
to discuss thc suggestedregulationjfthey thinkfitconfidwitially
with representativesof the trawlingindusby witlla view to tlie
closer examination of the effect which the regulations may be
expected to have on British fishing interestsand to the con-
sideration of practiml alternative rneasures,if ;nand
(dl that the most serious consideratioshontd be given tothe xkk to
the widespread trawling interests ofGreat Britain .involvedby
according specid privilegeçtg thenation& rifa single country,
unless the circumstances of that couiitry are sr,çpecialachar-
acter that .they can be çaid tohave noparallel elsewhere.
33. Ive cannot conclude ourreport without recordingour gratefd
apprqiation of the sympathy and help we have thronghout received
from Ris Majesty's Repreçentative inNorivay-the Hm. F. O. Lindley,
C.B., etc.We desire also to expressr>urappreciation of and thmks for
the services ofMr.E:M. B. Ingraw, FirstSetlretq ofthe Legxtio at
Christiania, who,by the cau-rkesyaf &!Ir.Lindley, was pemitted toaçt
aç secretar tyout cornmittee and carriedout theduties of that pst
with anindustry, good tempes and unfaiIingtactwhich we çannot toe-
higliypïaise.
\\lealso are deeplyindebted to Lieutenant-Cummandc Rr.T. Eould
for hisexcctlentwmk in the prqxatim of charts and for many other
services.
(Sig1ad) HENRY6.. MAURICE.
,, H. P, DOUGLA~.
PRQXQCQLS OF THE OSLO CONFZREKCE,
S924
Fbsi wetiptg h~ldon zttdDecmbcr, 1984, a# 5 $.m.i ,ntheSZwfing
. Pliesent:
6n the British sid;
- H. G. MAURICE,
Captaia W. P. DOUGLAS,
Lieut.-Cornmandcr A. 7'. GDULD,
E. M. 'B. INGRAM S,m&ry.
On the Namepn side :
Dr. Hjonr (Johan),
Dr. KLAESTA~ [Helge],
BV~ACHE FALNUM (Rapv) ),
IKY. ÇUITE-KIELL~VD, Sewdary. Dr. Wfon~ opened the proceegs by addressinga few words ofwel-
corne tethe British Cornmitteeon hehalf oftheNorwegian Government,
to which suitable replieswere made bv MT, liiaurice an behalf of the
Ministry of Agticulh~reand FisheriesaiR by Captain Doilglas on behalf
of the Adrnidty.
ï'liecornmitteestl~enment on tothe election oachairman, and on the
proposal of Mr. Maurice it \vasunanimousEydecidcd that Dr. Hjort
should presideat the meetings.
It was decidedthat noshorthand reportsshould be made and that the
two secretasieafter each meeting shouid prepare a protoço recerding
the subjeçts discusçed andany f~rmulreor poi~itof agreement arrived
at. It ws fiirther agreed tliatno information shld be given to the
press, except in the form ofa communiqué tobeagreed onbeforehssnd
by the cornmittees.
,4t Dr. Hjort's suggestionit was weed that Fiskerikonsulent Thor
Iversen, forrnerlycaptain othe ilfakaeSms, shouldbe adrnittedto the
meetings whcneverhis presencewas desiredby theNorivegitiCornmittee,
except ~vhenquestions of policy were underdiscussion.
sltirne-tableforfuture sessims was alsoagreed to.
Mr.Mauriceenquired whetherthe n'anuegianCarnmittcccould furnish
charts showing Norwegianclaims ta territoriawaters aloug the whole
Norwegan coa~t.It wac;. ed that DI. Hjost shotild consult with his
coJleagues before givhga7 efrniteanswer.
(Sigfied) RENRY GC ;.AURICE. (Sigmed J)HAN HJORT,
,, X. M. B. INGRAM / Chairman,
,, INGV- SMITR-KIIILL~ND j Semetaries,
Second weding Md oiz pd DwmBsr, 19-24,ut TIa.m, trrthe5t&iing
The same as atthe first meeting.
A memormdurn entitlcd. "Thtprincipal facts concesning Norweginn
territorialwaters" was circlilatedthe merribers of the commîtteesand
a lectureillustrating themain featum of the niemormdurn was cleliverd
hy tbe chaiman, This rnemorandurn içannexed to thepmtocol of this
meeting 1.
The minutes oft11ci4rs mteeting wem pasad and the comrnittew
:tdjourned till xam. on4th bDecember, in orderthat the RritislCom-
mittee mighthm anopportunity ofstudying thememorandum indetaii.
Christiania,3rd Dacmber, 1924.
TheGavcmmcnt OfttleUnitedICmgdompmsw onlyasmnllnumliriofcopies
ofthisdocument (prInteat Cliristiaina1924bv Pet RlallmgskeBogtrykkeri)
pressimetliat the N~rcrcGovemmentouwould lrrcprepartoiçtipplaenumher. The?
of copiefor the iithe0Court. 120 ANNEXES TO BRITISH PvlEMORIAL (NO. 4)
The same as befose.
The cornmitteesfirst passedthe Munutesof thesecond meeting.
At Dr. Hjort's suggestion the following resolutiowas adopteû:
by"what the cornitteesreportheirdmernbers might put fanvard or
agre to during the dismssions. Neither shaU these discussions,
nor even the fact that they take place ,rejudicein any respect
whatsoevcrthe present Nanvegian point of view asta the extent '
of the territoriwatersof Nonvay or with regard taother q~estions
in começtion ~ith ten-itorialityThis, of course, holds good as
regards the British point of view."
Dr. Hjwt: xefemd to the Nomegian mémorandum a€ 3rd December
and to the two docments, which had dready been sentto the Britisli
Cornmittee in London (Part TI of the report of the Cornmissiononthe
LEnits ofNorwegian Terriiorial Waters, rgrz, and Dr. Boye's paper
onthe samesubject ~eaclat Stockhol inSeptember 19241 a,d en uired
the viewsof theRritishCornmittee regardlng the Noiwegian çtanpoint
as setforth intliese documents.
Mr. Maurice, in reply, exprwed the gratitude of the British Com-
mitteefor the lucipresentation in these documentsof the fa& of the
Norwegian case, but pointed out that no charts showing the limits
claimed hyNonvay anal1parts oftheNorwegiancoast liad ben supplied.
He then i-equestledthat thelegalaspect of thecasemight be excludecl
from the cornmittees' discussions. in vieof thefact that the British
Mr. Mauricemade itedclear that tlie BritisCoinmittee and the British
: Government were quite farniliarvith the legal argumentsput fonvard
by the Nomeg-ian Cornmittee, andwere awaxe that criunter-arguments
crluld be advaneedtomeet tl-im, but heand his colleagueswere neither
qualiiîenor authhzed todo M. He did not,hoxvevtrrd, ispute the fact
that Nomay had over a long period claimed,and tathe beçt of her
abilitymaintained, a +mile territorial limit.
Çontinuing, 3fr. Maurice askedthat the BritisCmndttee shouldlie
allowcd to state theu point af view. On being invited to do so,
Mr. Maurice and Captain. Douglas made bnef statements,sumrnark
of which willbe found in the aniiexta the protocolof this meeting.
The twocornmittees, having thus explairiedtheir respectivepoints
of view,proçeededto a gcneral discussion othe question, As a result
of4hisdiscusçioa,itbecanleevident tliathe Britishpointof view could
be sunrmarlzed asfallows :
(1) GreatBritain çmld notaccept as abasis ofnegotiation arecogni-
tion of a general4-mile hit forNonvay.
{z) Great Britaîn couldnot accept asolutiminvolving the recagnitiou
of a ,+-mitmit orid limit forfisheridong thewhoIeNorwegian
ceast,and a 3-miie territorialimit for ali othpurposes.
(35 GreatBri ain couldna t acceptasolution involvmg theapplication
of the 3-mile terrîtorialimit for Norway, supplemented by a ANATEXES TO BRITISH NEhIORZAL (NO.4) 12 X
separate convention,wherebyexclusivefisfing rightswere reserved
to Nmway up to a iirnit o4 milesfrom the coast.
(4) Great Britainwonid have no objecti0~ in phciple to a solution
invofving the applicationof a 3-mile territorilimit forNomy,
suppleknted by a separate convention embodyng special fishing
regulatio applicable to Norway and Great Britain between
thatlimit and tiie +mile limit along thtvhole Norwcgian coast.
(5) Before Great Britain cuuld cnier intoam arrangement whereby
exclusive fiçhing rights outside the 3-mile lirnit, tvbich she
recagnizes, were reserve do Nomdy off my parts of the coast,
she wtiuldrequire to be satisfied tliat thefaçts ofthe situation
\verrso ex-mptionaltliat the arrangement could not be invoked
by other caiinfriesas a precedent applicableto them, The facts
to be exminecl could Yicludc historical and socialogical well
asgeographical and industrialconsiderations.
(Signedl E* M. B. INGWM
,, Incv. SMI~-I(IELLA~ [~ecretaries.
Ltistaüng the British Cmmittee's standpoint, Mr.Mauriceprapcised
that lieshould himself speak on the fishery,and tosome cxtent the
general maritime aspect ofthe matter, whhteCaptain Douglas -zvould
state the views of the British AdmiralS.
Mr. Maurice çtated ashis first pointthat ifthe greswt discussions
were tv bc frWtuf Iiwas necessary to exde facts,no* le@ thmries ;
the relevantfacts bWig those which affected thevitalnecessities ofthe
Nmegian and British fishemen respectively.HF ws dlslSlcIinedto
beEievethat the operationsof Britishtrawlers had, up to the present,
prejudiced theintcrestsofNonvcgian fishmen. If, as thememorandum
and Dr. Hjert's letter appeared nt certain points to suggeçt, it \vas
cmtended that trawling operatioh nsd, in fact, serieusly depleted the
stock offish,or thatthere\vas serious reason to believe that they tvould
do so, tlia\iras.a facaffecting the Enterestsnot onlofthe Norwegian
fishermen but alsoof the Britishfisherm~n whu irawlecloff thewast of
Norway. The most satisfactory way of dealingwith a,factof thiskind
wauldk, afterfullinvestigation, tamngc by convention formeasures
of protection whiçh shouId be binding, not mereiy upon Norway and
Great BrItain,but upon every 0th-countrywhosefishermen frequented,
orIitwouldkbeyimpossible forGreat Britainto enter iritan arrangernent
Involviog exceptional treatrnent for Nnnvegian fishermen, e~cept on
the basis of facts ofso exceptional a character that the mangement
couldnot be quotcdas aprecedent adverse to the\viderinterestswhich
Great .tritainsought to maintain, ONing to thewidespread operations
of British trawlers, it was inevitable thaGreat Britaîn should, frorn
time to time, find herselfinvolvecl in argument with other corntries
regarding rights of fishingoff the coasts of thme countries, At theoresent tirne, Grcat Brîtain hwd to meet a claim on the part of the
governnient at present in power in Russia to exclusiverights of fishimg
up tu a distance of 12 miles from the coaçt, and gmposals from the
Danish Gavernment fw the extension ofthe limitç of exclusive kheq
jtirisdictioround Icdand and the Fame Islands. Warway had important
interests to maintain in the Miirmansk area ; çhe was also interestecl
in the Xcelandicfisheries and, ifshewas not at themoment cancerned
with the fishing about the Fasoe Islands, itwas easilyconceivab tlet
she might be 50in the future. If GreatBritxin entered into anarrange-
ment with Nonvay in~~olving the recognition of Nortvay's exclusive
right of fishing outside the ordinary territorial limits acccptd by au
the principal maritim neations of fhc ~orld, with the one exception of
Nmnv, itwould be most dS~ctilt for Great Britain to msist daims
of ii.ihilarcliaracterfmm other couritries,including thost)uçtreferred
to ; and ifGreat Britain gave way as regards thme countries itwouId
be di%crilt for Norway not to accept the situation aq applicable to
Irerselfïhere was no distinction in prmciple bctrvcm the Noscvegian
claim to 4 miles ancithe Russian cl& to rz, or my other tlaim thcre
might be advanced in CXC~SS of the de ordinarily accepted. It wodd
siirdy be better thit two fishingnations liltGreat Britaii~and Nomay
sltould agsee to maintain the poliçy wllich in the long nin \va5 best
calculated ta promote the interests of bath ofthem.
Thc British Cornmittee believed that in pmsing for the gcricml
recognition of the 3-mile lirnitand in contesting every extension of
exclusivejurisdiction foranypurpose, they wete rvorl~ngfor theinterats
not merely of Gr&t Britain and the 13kitish I2mpirci but of Norway
aria otlrcr countries similnrlysitnated. That \vas the genesal d3fiNl
iiew, and the Fishenss Department, ~vhich \vas inhis charge,inconsider-
hg fishery questions, alwayç kept beforc it the principlc that the
maintenance of thc greatest possiblefreedom in the deep seaç \vasof
paramount importance. '
Captain Douglas then spoke fmm the British Admirulty and Imperid
point of view. At the outset he pointecl oi~t how Norway, dnring the
Great Wax, Ilad shotvn in wliich quarterher sympathies lay.
He rnintained tlmt Great Bitain's one aim was tu srnute the
freedomof the seas for al1seafurers. He sh~wedhow Great Britain, witli
ber dominions, and tlie greatmt maritime Powen had accepted tllc
principIe of the 3-mile limit, althoughGreat Britain, in cornmon witlî
Nonvay, had inthe past laid daims tofar pater jilrisdiction oellesca.
Be pinted out that the Admirdty wvereprimai-ily concerned with
the question of the limitof territorial watersas it affected ha-power,
and thatthis sideof the questioiiwas themost important of all, because
the safepixding of ai1maitirne interests, ;ofmy nation,must stand or -
fallon the cl~lestionwhether itcould or could not excrt adquate wa-
power intheir defcnce, or else obtainthe support of an ally ivho could.
He desired to ernphasizethc point that Great Britaixididnat wish for
the.3-mi llnit sothat she could encroaclion other countrieswaters-
thcrc was no suclrselfishmotive-it was an absolute essential of her
very existence.
He continued that tlieBritish Empire \vas world-wide, alclpmbably
ernbracd more pecdiarities of coast linc and configumtion, mare
diverse commercid iintcrests, and more varieties offisheneç than fhe
territarof any othe~ nation onthe face of tliglobe;attd yet it liaben faund possiblefor al1 the constitueritwuntries of thEmpire to amve
at a cornmon policy ~egardingterritorialwaters througliout the Empire.
He gave abriefoutlineof thispalicy anc lonciudedby pointlng out that
the foundation of Hiis cornmon p~licy of Great Britainher coloiiies and
the Dominions was the wish to secure the fullest possible measureof
çea-power 50asta ose jaseffectively aspossible both in their owndefence
and Jor the assistancermd protectionsf the smaller nations.
.- (SigisccH%NRY G, Mau nlc~. (Ssggatd )~HA~ MJORT-
l
-
Fcnrrlh medigtg hid ope5th Decedar, $9~4, al ro a..na.in thc StovEiug
Tne same as before,with the .dition of Fiskerikansulent
?'hor Iversen.
The minutes of the thirdmeeting were passed.Dr. Hjmt began Eiy
enquiringwhether he was rightin assnrning that the discussion of the
question xriliether GreaBritain wonld awept a solutioi~ in-t~olvinga
+-milelitnithad notv been carsiedas far as it profitably cottld for the
present. Thc British Cornmitte çanfimed thjs assurnption.Dr. Hjort
then proposedtliat the extent to which Norwqian fishing interests couid
be safeguardd on the bask of such arrangements as are indicated in
points 4 and 5 at fl~eend ofthe protocol of the third meeting shoulfi be
exarnined. Befo?eproceeding to do so, however, he statad tkdtaccotmding
whichmlgllt equallyeform thcsubjectofdiscussion.Pis alternatlivewhiche
might bc cansidered as based upon the desire of bothcornmittees to
arrive at a modus vivendi, \vastllat neithm Great Britain nor Worway
should abandon their prcsent contentions regarding thc lirnitofNome-
giân territoriawaters, bot that an mdeavour miglit be made to reach
an understanding, appliwblc to tliospads oifilecoastwhere there had
becn a conflictoffishing iiitesests, while reservthe questions ofprili-
ciple involved.
The BritislCornittee took note ofthis statement. Dr.H jortlveat on
tosay that,amgh theh'urwegian Comnlittee wtre ofopinion that çuch
a solution of the problem was poi;iible, thewere prepared for tlima-
rnent to continue th~ discussions on the bais a£ the two propositions
ahady ~eferrrdto, while reserving tbis tliird alternative forsubse-
quent consideration,
Dr. Hjort then proceeded ta explain the special pwdiarities af the
Norwegianfishillg mdustry off the coastof RGT~a , s affordinga typicai
. exampIe of the combination of special conditions which characterizcd
thfsinduse off thewestcoast in general, up to thLofoten Islands.
Afteran examination of the chartsconcerned and A discussionof the
detailsinvolved, it was agrecd that the meeting should be adjourned in
order that the British Cornmittee rnight prepare charts of thisarea,
dernonstrating : ANSEXES TO BRITISH MEMORTAL (NO,4)
1534
(1)The 3-rnileterritmkl lunit amrihg tù theBritishthesis.
(z The 4-mileterritoridlh-niaccording to the same thesis.
(31The Nawegian terrikorial limih as defined by Nonvegim Orders
inÇouncil where suchare in force.
(4)So far aspossible, withCaptain Iversen's help, the facasio the
nature and extent ofthe fishing operationat differenseamris of
the year.
The object ofthe BritishCornmittee inpre aring thesecharts was ia.
no wjseto bind theNonvegian Government, utg tofacilitatc the subse-
quent discussionofthe possibility of anymutualor international arran-
gements by the graphicd presentation ofdl the materialfacts and cir-
cmtances uivoived.
Aftera shortinterval the discnçsiof thesechartswas resumed in fie
aftemmn.
Christiania5th Dmmber, ~924.
T'ha same as at the fourth meeting.
The mirintesof the fonrthmeetmg werepassed.
" The examination of the charts of the Mare wast prepa~ed by the
'BritishCornmitteewas contuiued, with special reference to the pssi-
bilityof an eventual arrangement being reached eithet there or,by
andogy, dsewhere, wherehy trawlersrnight be excluded from speciai
areasoffthrs coastduringcertain months of fhe year. The same as isthe filthmeeting.
I
The minutes ofthe fiftmheetingwere~eadand passed.
The conimittees mntinued îm discussthe charts prepaed by the
BritishCornmittee.
ChristianiaAth December, rgz4.
Sme~th meeiirthdd o?z8th D~mnab~r, 1924,ut IIam., i-îtheStdi~g
1
ï'l~sme as ai the sixth meeting.
1-
llhmeinutesof the sixth meetitverrad and passed.
The charts of theNonvegian coastnorth ofMore, which hadbeen
prepami by the British Cornmittewith Captain Iversen's helwere
eAfterca shortintervain the afternoon the cornmittees resumedtheir
study of the same charts,
(Sip~d] HENRY G, MAURICE, (Sigaed)J~HAN HJORT,
Chairman.
Christiania,8th December. 1924.
I
I Eightkmeetinghdd m 9thDec~ber, rpzq, al10.30EZ.~.im the Stwtirt$
The same asat theseventh meeting, wit.thexcepticin.Mi- .aInum.
The minutesof the swenth meeting me passed.
The cornmittees proçeededwith the studyof the chah referred to
inthe protocols othe last twomeetings.
proposaisZorbe submitted by thetwo cornmitteefor theconsideration
of theirrespectivGovements, both cornmittees emphasizing the fact
thatit mut not be açsuriled ftiatwotlldrecomrnend totheir Govern-
ments any propos& wkch theyundertaok to submit to them. bEachch& was examined ht with a viav to theprovisionaldefinition
by the British Commif tee of Nowegiarr territorial waters, including
territorid inlets on thhasis of tire acceptanc eNorway of the 3-mile
Limitasdefrned by Great%tain ;and, secmdly, with a view to the
provisional delimitation of areao sf.the sea outside thelimit above
referred tu, tvithiwnhich during aped periods arrangements for the'
protection of the interest5ofNorwegian fishermsn miglit be applied
by agreement between Norway and Great Britain.
The last-named areas thus provisionally ~lctcd forcensideration as
pmtected fishingareas were marked on the charts in accordance wi~h
mggestions pilt forward by the Norwegian Cornmittee.
T'hesanie asat the seventh meeting.
The minutes of fhe eighth meeting were discusséd and reserved,
Both cornmitte censtinucd and completed the re-exauninationof the
~harts.of the Norwegian mast on the Iines described inthe protocolof .
the eighth meeting.
The detailsregardingthe provisional definitionsand delimitations
considerd in the course ofthe discussions at this and atthe eighth
meetirig ae ernbodied in the annex to this protocd.
Thé provisionaldef?nitionand delimitations considerein the cours~
of the discussions at the eighth md ninth meetings are tabulated as
under.
In column "A" is shotvn the provisional definitionby tlte British
Cornmitteeof thelimits of theNorwegian fjordsand other waters, the
recognition of whicli as territoriainlets the British Cornmittee was
psepared in the circumstances outlined in the protacol of the eighth
meeting to submit ior thcir Government's consideration.The lines
joining thc seriallynumbcrcd points K ..,,1, 2 ... -2, etc.,on the
differentchartsindicate the base-lines 3 miles fmm which the lirnit:
of Norwegian territorial waters wauId lx drawn, if the British thesis ANNEXES TO RRTTESA 32EMORIllL (WO, 4) 127
r adirig the 3-milelirnit of twritorial waters wre accepted hy Morway.
7 n column "B" is shown tlie provisional delimitation of the areas
within which duringagreedperiods the BritishCornmitteewere prepared, '
in the ch-cumstjnces outlined in the protacol oftheeiglith meeting and
unless othawise specified, to submit for their Government's consider-
ation that regubtions for the protection of the interests uf Norwegian
fishemen might be appliedhy agreement between the two conntnes,
if the British thesiç regarding the 3-mile bit of territorial waterswere
acceptcd by Nonvay.
ln a further discussion of the charts of the Finnmafk comt, an -
alternative proposal totllat recorde idthe following tables wassagge;ested
hy the Nonvegian Cornmittee for the consideration of tlie British
Cornmittee. This proposal, rvhichwa based upon the very peat import-
ance attaclled by the Worwegkan CornAttee to the fourth mile for the
protection of thecoastal fishermen of East Finarn3xk. was to the effect
that, if the British Comrnittee cmdd apee to sabmit for consideratiarr
regdations excluding British trawlerç hrowglioilt the whole year from
the coast of East Finnmark up to a linc drafvn r de outside the 3-miZe
territorial Simitas definedby Great Britain, the NortvegianCornmittee
wonld be prepared to withdmw tl~eir desiderata fas special regdations
over the rat of the caast of Finnmark and Troms6 down to the area
specifiedin the table for chart 321,
The area covexed in thc following tables içthat ofthewhole Norwegian
çoast from the Norwegian-Finn rs htier dom to latitude 61" N. :
Thc Norweginn Cornmittee prcsçcd for regula-
tthe ycnrafmiidenteringifafimeriebettvccn thct
GO~S~ and a Ilne drawnI miln outsidcthe3-mile
tcrrit~ial tirnits ,asdefincd bGreat Brihin,
and (2) excluding British trarvleiduring the
monthç of March. hpril,May and June from
We nrea bewcen the coastand thexorrfathom
line nçmarlred on thechart.
The British Corninittee ntais stage were
on1y preprireto siibmit fur th& Governrn~nf'ç
considerntian the pcissitiil_of mrcgulat.ions
exdiiding British trawlersduung themonthç
of n'I.uchApril,May andJnne Irom tlieaven
spccifrcd i(1) above.
7 -.. -.. 7 Tanafjord. For theEast:Finnmark atea. adefirtedin the
S . . ... 8 Koifjord. note atthe bottoinof wlumn "A", tliXorwc-
g ...... 3 Sandfjord. gian Conunitteeprcu5t.aforregubtions sirniIar
ia .,. ,.,to Ramiiyfjord, ta thme dcrnanded for tliearen cov~red tdy
rr ... . .rx Kakeilfjord. chart 325.
rz ... ...12 Çandfjord. The British Cornmittee reiterated th& stand-
13. .. ... 13 Oksefjord. chart325.epted by thm when considcring
14 .... ..14 KjCilltr$ord.rç., .... rj Kakscijord. Fw the We* Finnmark aresasdCiled inthe
r 6...... I6 Porsangerfjorü, note a* the bot-tamof mlum "A", ,e Nume-
17., .... 17 Kamoyfjord. gian Commîttee presçed for regulation esclud-
18. - .... rS Gldfjord, Ris- Ing British.tradersduringthe mcinths ofMarch,
fjord and V&t- April. May and Jnne frbm the wea between the
fjord. mast and the roo-fathom lincaç marktid onthe
cha*,
Note~Yhc administrative
boundary between East and West
Finnmark roughly follaws a Iine
drawn nbrthwards from Sver-
holtklubben.
rg ...... rg Kniirs Kjzervik. Thc Fmegian Cornmitteepsesse forreguta-
20.. .... zo Sandbukt. +ions rrrcli~dingBritish trmvlers dming the
21 ...... 21 Tnfjord. months ofMarch,April, May and Jane fromthe
22 ,. ._.. z2* Store Stappm to area beheen the çoast andthe 100-fathom line
Hjeimsay. as marked on thechart.
23 ...... zg* Hjelmsoy taIngay.
za ...... zq*Ingtiy taTmhalsen
, (onS~my).
2s ...... 25 Donnæsfjord.
.*Assuming thatthe waters thnç
enclosed are accepted a t~i-
torial inlet.
26 ...... 26 Blefj~td. Pur +&e asea on this chart coniingwiClun the
27 ...... 27 .Aafjorrl. baiindariesgfWest Finnmark àsdefined in the
28 ...... 28 Sandfjod. note at fae bottom of column "A", the Norwe-
zg ...... zg Wth-west point of gian Cornmittee preçsed forregnlatiuns exclud-
S0r0 yto Loppen*, hg British trawlers during theirionW ofMarch,
30 . ,.,. -30 Loppes ta ArnBy. April. May and,June frvm thearea betwcen th0
enclosing Kvzn- coast andtheroo-fathom Pine% markad on the
angenfjcird. 'chart.
3x,, ,,,,JI Arndy to Fu@&
kalven *. .
32 ...... 32 FuglokaZven to
Vando y, enclos-
ing Fnglofjord.
* Assuming khat t-hwentm thus
eaclmed are accepted as a terri-
torialinlet.
A7ole.-The adminidrative hund-
daq betwe~nWest Finnmark md,
Ttmso follows a Pinedralvn sea-
wards up the centrebf theKen-
angenfibrd. ANNEXES LO BRITISH XE~IORIAL (NO. 1) - 129
Chut gar
A
33 ...... 33 VandEiy Co Hvdo~7, Thç Nmegian Cadttee pressed forrégula-
enclwing Rasx- titibris loxcluding Brfiçixawlers during the
fjord. mathg of Jnnuary, February,March and &ri1
34 ...... 34 hr#rth-westpoint rtf from the ma pmvisionally defined as inshore
Evdoy to nniosth- ofrtlinejoiningthe foIlowfng positions :
w&t pointbfGrd- From a position:
Liiy*. 69"24+'N., 16' j'E.,tr> 35' K,,t6O34' E.,
35 ...... 35 Mefjord. to 69* 44' 17' 38$'E.. to 6~~ 544' F., 17-
36 , ..,.. 36 Ersfjord and StFnç- rrnE.. to70" 08' X., r&'20'3,
fjord.
.37...... 34 %rgsfjord.
.3S...... gS Andfjord.
*Assuming that the\~fa.Wthus
endoscd are açcepted as a terri-
torial inlet,
ThcNomegian Cornmittee pressn fd regtala-
tions (L IxcludFtig R~tisà bwlers durhg the
mon& d January, Februq, Mzch and April
from the xea on theVcsteraalsbank: provision-
aIly dcfined xi invhote of a lins ~orningthe.
folIowin positions:
From a posttion :
68'4.74 N'.,14~r8'E.. toEi&"5~'X.r3*551'E.,
tg6g0 rq' N., r9 og'E.. tt69"ogJ N.,15" 3dE.,
and (2)excluding Britishtrawlers 'duringthe
monthç of Jmm-, Fcbninry, 3Iarch anclAprd
from an arcawithh a radiusof IO miles frorrr
theSkomvær Ii~hihouse.
The British -~ornauttcemtwexe prcpasd fm
*'~ssumirigthatthe ers thus
enclosed areaccepted as a terri- subrnitforth ai^Govcrnment 'sconsideration the
torial inkt psibility of regulations excIuding British
7 The waters thas encIosed trawlersfrom the atca specificin(2) abovefor
(viz., the Vestfjord) being acwptedthe pcrid &&rd, but exprezed tbe opinion
risa territoriainIet. çhat replations for the rntinthsofhlarch and
April only would sufice.
The British Cornmittee min- The Norwegian Cornmittee med forregulrtr
Mned that the po~ket narth- Xibns exeluding British trawlers d&g the
eastof FPloholmcndid nOt admit mnntlis of Januaty, Fcbhay, Mach and April
of alteration for purpuses of 11)from the area enclosd within a radius of
ddning territorialwaters, buvt ~o mles from the southern-most tighthouse
stated tlrat fbr purposes cd a onTrma and (2from the areaeacEostdwithin a
fishery convention it codd be radius ofgmiles frm the Sklinnallghthouse.43 .... ,.43 XordEernc light- The h'cnwegianCornm# i ccprcsseclfor regula-
home to Elling- tions excluding Brit~sh wamlers during tlic.
raasa lighthotise, monthv ofJanuary. Eebruary, &Iarclrnrid Apil
enclosliig :FoiIs- (L) DIU tliearea anclosecl within a radius of
fjord. miles fr~m tlicN~rdoerrie lighthoiise and a
44 . ..- ..44 FIessa to I+alten, (2)betueen latitiide64- 15'N. and63"r/ N.*
. enclosing Frolin- from mi area 2 mlles otitside th3-mile lirni ts
vet *. dohnqi by Grcat Btitain.
45 ...-.. 45 Frijyfimd.
46, . ,... 46 RmsOyijord.
* Tt beirig nccepted that thc
waters crnclosed by the lin^ join-
ing thme ya~nts givc accessto the
fortiticport ofTrmdhj cm.
l'tr XatlvegianCornmittee preçse for rcguln-
tioiiscxclyding British trwl~is dmlng the
rrionths05 JanuaryF ,~bruary, March ami April-
from the Morc fiçhiug grounds uistde an aream
provi~ir>naLLydefinedas inslior~of a lin@ ]oh-.
ing the following positions:
63O 14'N., 7O19' F,.to 63' 12"R., fio3n' E.,
ta6=j0ojF W., Ga E.,to 62O554' 6' ?fiE.,.
tahzO 54g N.,6' 034'E., to 62"36' N..3"04' K...
t~62'185' K.,j" 04'E., to 62" If.,* 5s' E.,
The Worwcgian Cmnmittee pressc or regnia-
tiens excludîng British trawlm dnfiig the.
monthç of January, February, 3i'lardand hptiZ
from the Kalvhg Lirea,provisionally defincd.
a5 inshore of a linejoining the foll~wing posi-
tions:
61' sr$'K., 4" +3'En, ta 61"+5'W., q032' E.,
to61"42'W.. 4a 33+'E,
a
Nil. Nil.Terzbh ?la~ctLm gsld op2 rofh Ddcemlier,1924, a1 j pm., in the S1wlZng
The same as at the ninth meeting.
When askkd to ddefbethe views of the British Cornmittee asto the
-possibilitof Great Britain'sagreeing to the rderiticin hlNon~~ay of
.exdusive fishirirights in certain areas off the Nonvegian CO&,
Mr. Manricestated that, tlioughthe British ,Corninitteewould preferrrot
$0 discuss thequestion, they coda not entirelyrule itout of discussion.
He and his cdleagues had alwaysndmittcd tlreirpreferencc fora soiutioi~
in~olvlng seasonal rcgulatian. Ifhavever, Nomay prtssed losexclusive
~shing righta in any area,Mr. Riaurice reminded, the Nomfegian Com-
mittee that, asstated in the protocol othe tliird meeting, Great 13ritain
would hrst requireto be satisfiedal>solutelytliatthe factsand circum-
shtes in those areas urere so pecilliritl~at suchan agreement ccotlld
not hc in~roliedby other countriesasaprecedent forgeneral application;
a11dseccinclly,hexvarnedthem tliat they pressed this deinand itxvould
reduce proportionafely tlie likelihmd of Great Rritain's acquiescing in
Nomvayk rrequirementselsmhere alorig thtoast,
Dr. Njort revcrted ta the Rntish Committegs srtatemerit in the
protocol ofthe thirdmeeting th:tt Great Brikaiwouldhave no objection
inprinciple to asolutioninvolving the applicatiouof a 3-mile territorial h
lirn ior Nomy, s~~~~iernenteb dy a separde conventionembudying
special fishing regulations applicable to Nonmy and Great itrit&n
betwcen tliatlimit and the 4-nile bit along tlre whole Nonvegian
ccrastJle eiiquiredwhethcr, now that th facts regardin5 theNomegim
fishing industry dong thc wihale çoast had been reviewed in detail,
a ~tilutioion these iinestvould be possible. hfi. Mauncc sut4 that,
rvhilein principletherew~x no objectionto such asolutionbyconvention,
its possibility tvould dcpencl on the existence of conditions al1 dong
the coast whicliwould justifyit. Tlireview of the lacés above referred
tohad, however, dernonstrated tbat scrcha slrnilx~ of cynditions did
n& obtain dong tliewhde cmst, but tliat on1 in certajn areas did
the cirçumstmces warrant special regulations.
Dr. Rjort thcn referred to fhe third alternativeput fotward by thé
Nor\wgian Çmnmittee in the protocol ofthe fourth meeting,.vi~, that
neither Great Britain nor Norway sl-iould abandon their present çon-
tentions rqarding the lirniof Norwcgian territorial waters, but that
an endeavour rnight .be made ta mach an understanding applicable
to tliose parts oi theceast wherc there had bcen a codict of hshing
intemsts, while reservingthc questionof prlnçipleinvolred. Mr.Maurice,
oit helialfofthe British Cornmittee, mxle it clearfrom the outset tl-iat
they corild not pmsibl y accept sricha solution. He pointedout that the
sole purpose ofthe cornmittee" presence in Chrlstiai~i\-vath& evq
avende might be eicplored whereby the acceptance by Nonvay of thc
applicatiriti of the3-mile Emit for al1 purpoçes, as rfefinedby Great
Britain, migfitbe reconciledwith the protection of the interestsofNor-
wqian fishermen, mith whom and fortvhom Great BBtain entertained
the wnrmest sympathy arrd drniration- The prlnciple of tlie 3-mile
limit of territorial jurisdiction was vtoaGmat Sritain and no solution
woilld be possiblewhich was not based upon it. The BritishCornmittee
was, moreover, firmly contrincedthat tlifçprincipEe\vas the one wliid~amrdeù moçî closelywith the interests of Nomay as agreat:marithe
nation.
Dr. Kjort next enquired the finaattitudeof the BritishCornmittee to-
wardstheNorwegianCommit tet" seqriirementsinFinnmark. Mr.Maurice
stated in. reply tliat the British Cornmittee preferred the methd
of seasonal rqutation during the months oi specid fislihg concentrn-
tion (viz., inthecase of East Finnmark fmrû Mar& to Jurie inclusive,
as statedon the tableforcharts 325and 324,in theannex to thc pmtocoi
of the ninth meeting), Nevertheless,they w~dd not dismiss asimprac-
ticable the suggestionput fonard by the Xorwegian Cornmittee in the
fourth bragrzph of the annex to thesme ~rotoccil.
They were therefore prepared to submit for the considerationof the
British Government that anarrangement might be concludedbetrveen
GreatBritain and Nonvay whereby British trarviermight thtoughout
the whodeyear be excludedfrom an area along the whole coasf of East
Finnmark zmile outside the 3-miletefritorialfimitas deftnedby Great
beiprepa~ed.to snggestdthe conchsion ofa conventioneewbetweeri.Nonvay
and Great Britnin wherebyregdations similaztothose in forceunder the
North Sea Convention rnlght be applied tothe whole Norwegian coast
north of latit~id61'.
Dr, Hjart next enquiredwhether it was the viav ofthe British Çom-
mittee that, Ifan arrangement wererioncluded with Great Britaininvolv-
ing the acceptanb cyeNorwayfor al1purposesofthe 3-mile territorial
linlit3sdefineà by Great Britain,itwouId be to Great Britain'sinterest
thai asimilasarrangement should beacceptedby other nationsas regards
Nonvay. Mr. lifauricerephd thatitwouldobvioiisly be to Great Britain's
advantag ehat the same conditions shouldbe enforceclon the fisliermen
of ather nations as on British fishermen off the Norwegian coast,At
the'same time he temindedthe Nonvegian Committee that, ri zansent-
Uig to consider such arrangements for tlie bcnefit ofNorway, Great
Britüin incurred the risk that,wiless the existence of such absolutely
exceptional ciremstances as are indicated in point 5 of paragraph 4
of the protacalof the thirdmeetingcould be advanced in their support,
these arrangements miglit be cited .by otbm nations as a precedent for
dcrnandingsimLlar concessions regarding th& cciasts.
The Norwegian Committee asked whether an eventual agreement
with Great Britain wodd alter in an respect the relations betmen
Norway and otllercwuntriesas reg ad s tlie question of theextent of
Nonvegian territorial watcrs; in other words, wkcther it would lxin
conformity with the said agremmt that Nomay muid maintain ar
against other couutries the statas quaeKistingbefore the conclusion of
sucti an agreement, In~ply ta this question, the British Committee
stated tliat, in theopinion,the essaifiahsis ofthe presentdiscussions
wa~ themacceptab nyceNorway of tlle prlncipleof the 3-mile limitof
territ&aJ jnrisdictionasone ofgeneral applicatioh.
gemeiitsesbebveen Norway raiandwhGreat Britain onustheofrnattersunder.
discussionlwuld affecthe positioriofNunvayasregardsthe en fommen t:
of hercustoms laws outsidethe 3-milelimit oterritoriawaters asdebed
by Great Britain.The British Çonimittee sepliecthat.Iritlieir opinion,
tlie question was not relevant to the present dis~~iions, and that in
any caseit wasaquestion oflaw and nol offact. . Fhdy, dusion waç made to the problems connected &th .theenfor-
cernent of any regdations which might be ag~eed upon as applicable
in certain areasof thecoast of Norcvayoutside the 3-milelimzt citerri-
torialwaters asdehed by Great Britain, The Eritish Committeeregarded
these pmblms asmore suitable for discussionafteran agreement had
been reached asto the nature of the arrangements to bmade.
île same asat the tent hnèeting.
l
Theminirtes oi the elghth ad ninth meetingswere read and pwd,
aswas the annex tothe protoc01of the nintmeeting.
Dr. Hjort pceeded to express the gratitudeof theNorwegiatihm-
mittee for the courtesyof Captain Douglas and Lieutenant-Cornmander
Gould in qlaining the 13ritish methodsof definingtlie 3-mile lbitfor
temitonal waters, and in prqaring the varioils charts utilizd in the
course of the discussions.
, Dr. Hjort furtherrecordd thegratitude ofthe NorwegianCornmittee
forCaptain Douglas's kbidofferto fornard tothe NonvegiauiCommi ttee
certifiecopies ofaU the sairlchar&, contaking the information tram-
ferredto tlierinthe course ofthe different meetihgs.
, The N'onvegiancharts illllustc t~etimagt ofNamay sonth of 1ati-
tude 6r0iiortli up to the line from lindesnes Hanstholrn (viz. within
the limiti;embraced by the North Çea Convention) were examined. Ln
replyto a question put by the Nonvcgim Committee, Captain Douglas
whichdwasamore than ro miles acrosj. Asrrcgardsjthe Christiania 1;jord
and Itsapproaches, as shown on chart 3~7, the Norwegiiin Cornmittee
considered that the waters exhibited tlzereon shoald be rcscrved for
further consideration inany subsequent negotiatims between Norway
and Great Btitainon the subject of territorial waters.
Finaliy, the Narwegian Cornmittee drew attention to ththsituation
whkh rnight subsequentlyarariia the event ofa terminableconvention
being concluded between the two countriesinvolving the acceptance by
Nonvay of the 3-mile Limitfor territoriawaters as defined by Great
Rritain, togetherwith certain fishertegulatims. They emphasized the
anomalous positionofNorwaylnthe eventof sucha convêntimexpiring.
Mr. Mamice stated that the Brit!sh'Committeefdiy realized thedif-
ficulties inhereninsuch an eveiitudity, but was of opinbn that khcquestion could only be cùnsideredby the Gsvernments concerriedand
tmdd only ariseif and ivhen such a corivzntioncame to be drafted,
"Christiania, r~th December, rqz4.
The same as at the eIeventh meeting.
The minutesof the tenth and eleventmeetingswere readand paççed,
The followuigtext na çomrnuniqii&was nextdecided upùa for distri-
btttion tathepress :
"1. The British and Nt>rrvegianCornmittees, asçenrbld at
Christianiafrom 2nd-12th Decembcr to discuss the question of
territorial waters, with specid refcrcnta coastd fisherieand
hwling, have heldtwelve meetings.
2. It\aiasrmgnired from the outsetthat neithercornmitteehad
authorityto bind its Govanment, and tliatthe utmost tlieymuici
do was to submit for the consideration of their respecGovem-
as advanced on the onc sideandon the other forthe
seccnni tso*nPft~eoiponflstingviews'andinterests.
3. Ttwas equallydearly understood that neither countrhad,by
thefact of entering into these discussorby anything which was
saidduring tIlem,abmdoning i tspointof vim tegarclingthe limits
of territorial jr~risdictioiisea.he
4. Tlietwo cornmittees wilnow submit a reportto tliermpect-
reportinmquestionçaiifom the basisofhfurthmsnegotintians." the
The committees Gnaiiy agreed upoii the following rtsumi: of tlie
principaipoints cavesedby their discussion:
r.As a preliminary,the yossibifity of an agreement which left
iindisturbedtlie Nomegian point of view rcgarditn hg extent of
territorialwaterswas examined, but itbecame evidmt that there
was nopossibility ofan agrecmcnt uponthis basis.
2.The committees tlhenproceededto examine possiblelines ofan
agreement onthe basis oftheacçeptmcc by Norwayof the 3-dc
lirniof tenitoriawaters asddefineby GreatBritain, conpéedtvitli
thc recognitionby Great Britain of the Narwegian fjords and
certain other enclosecwaters aswithin the tenitpriajurisdiction
tection shouldbe affordedbytagreementbetwecn thchtwowcountries
tb Norwcgian fislringinterestwithregardespeciaIly tothliapera-
tionsof trawlers- ANNEXES TO BRITISH MEMORIAL @a, 4) =35
1
3. For Qis purpose,the committeesproceeded to adetailedexamina-
tionof the facts affecththe Nomegian fishmfes onal1 parts ofthe
coast of Norway, and of charts speciallypreparedtoindicate :
(a)The seaward Eimitofterritmial wateras defind byGreat Britain.
(b) The base-linesof fjordsand other enclosed watersprovisionally
accepted as within theterritarial jurisdiction ofNomay.
(c)Nonvegian tenitoialiirnitsas defined by Norwegian Ode= in
Coundl, wheresuchare inforce, and elsewhere asapproximateIy
defrned ontliebasiç of thoseorders.
Id) nie areasof theprincipal conceritra;tiooffisliingfocod.
171e results ofthese investigations areset out in detail ithe
aflntzxto the pmtocol of the ninth meeting, in connection with
, which paragraph4 of theprotacol of the tenth meeting should
be rad.
4- The question was next mised whethera modwv sieimdirnightnaf be
establishd, whereby, withaut prejudiceto the standpoint ofeither
country regarding the limit ofterritoriwaters, protection might,
by mutual agreement, be afforded toNorwegian fisheries on the
lines ab~ve suggested.Itbecarne apparent that there uras nopas-
sibility aagreement on tliibaas.
5. On the assumption that thrr only method by which thererirasany
possibilityof rcsachingan agreement tvasthat wtiined in para-
*ph 2 ahove, the committees took note of thefact that it rv~uld
be necessarytrconsider the eectrvhicha3iyagreement onthi bsasis
migbt be expctcd to have uponthe relationsofNorway with other
Powcrs ;but,tvhile fully recognizingthe importance ofthe point,
they agreed thatsuchquestions shouldbe deferred forconsideration
by the Go~~criimcntws hen the occasion asose.
6, The cornmittees accordinglyagreed tosubrnitthe prbtocolsoftheir
meetings to theirrespective Governments,with çpecial referme ta
the annex tothe protocol ofthe ninth meeting and paragaph 4
of the psotocslof the tenth meeting,as indicating the lines dong
which it was desirable that the possibility of an agreement should
be furtherexplorcd.
(Sig~dd) JOHAN HJORT,
- (Sigaed)~NRY G. ~~URTCE.
Sa R. P. DOUGLAS. Chairman.
(Sig&) HELGE KLAESTAD.
- ,, RAGNV W.ALNUM,
{Sig&) E. M. B. INGRAM ( ketaries.
,, INGV, SMITH-KIELLAND
~hrÿtionia, 12th ~ecunber, 1924.NQRWEG~N ACHNOWLEDGRllrNT OF CBARTS'SROWING
RED LlNE
Mr. LIWDLEYTQ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
Sir, Oslo, 28th January, 1925.
I have the.honous to statethat the seventeencharts enclosed inyovr
bespatçh of 15th instmt wereduiy forwarded to the Nonvegian Minister
for ForeignAfhirs fortransmission to the Nonvegian Territorial Wate~s
Cornmittee.
In acknowledging the same,the Non* Ministerfor'Foreip AHairç
states thatthechartshave beerihairdedto thecllaiman of theNomegian
Cornmittee, Dr. Hjork, who requests that his best thanks may be
conveyed ta CaptainDonglas for ha~ring tarriedout this trrsk.
I have, etc.
Nu~~.-'Shere iSMed as part of this mnex the cer6fred setof these
cliartsl whichws tetained at tlitirne inthe archives othe Foreign
Office(secpara.rS of the Mernerial).
Monsieur le Ministre, Oslo, 1st Apnl, rgz~.
1 have rehved instnictionsfrom His MAjestyisPrincipal Semek~y
of StateforForeign Affairsta inform yourExcellency that HHiBstîtannic
the report drawn*upn thy the expertsn at the recent Anglo-Nomegiantri
Conference regxrding tertitoriwaters,regretthat tlieyarenot prepared
to continue the discussion on thelined sescsibed in thatreport. Ris
Majesty'sGovernnient tvoiikdhawever, be glad to concludean agree-
merit ~viththe Norwcgian Government, whereby Nonvay woold accede
to the Barth%a Pisheris Conventirinof6th May, ~88~Y .anr Excellency
is no daubt aware that jrthat coiivention theprincipleof the 3-mile
'lirniticmhdied, and that,as regardsbays, this limit measured from
a straight linedrawri across the bay in qaestim at the point nmrest
theopening ofthe k~y whereits width dm not exceed IOmiles.
As regards\iratesnorth of latitudGI" ,rhichisthe northern limitof
the area coverd by the North Sea Convention, His Rritannic Mijesty's
Govcmment would be preparedto cmclude withthe-Norwegian Govern-
ment a specixl convention on the linesof the 1882 Convention, butarnpiilîed andmtrdifiedto mwt the special local conditionsobtainiog
in thnse regions. Wis Majesty'sGovernnent wudd aIsobe agreeable
to include in sucha convention a clause recugnizi tegV~tfjord and
the Varangerfjord as fishing areasexclusively reserved to Norwegkan
subjects, onthecondition that theaccessionof theGerman.Governmen t
could be obtained.
, f avail,etc.
(Signed) K O. LINDLE~
No. 2
MT. BlOIF'INCILE10 Ms. LTNULEY
[Translation]
Mr. Minister, Oslo, 15th AprJ, 1925.
1 have the honilur to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the
rst instant, in wl-iyou inforni methat the British Governmentregrets
to beunable to conthue negotiations regardinthe questionofterritorial
'watersonthe basisofthe reportof the British andNorwegianCornimittee,
-4t the same time you put fornard on behalf ofym- Government a
proposaithat Nanvay shouldadhere tothe North SeaFishery Convention
of 6th May, 1882, ad tllatçhe should,as regards the waters nortliof
latitude6x0, conclode witll Great Britain specialagreement founded
on the same principlesas tiiose inthe Conventionof 1882,but modtfied
andamplified inorder ta meet the partieularlocaneds of thoseregions,
Tn such anagreement the British Goverilment wouldbc willinto inclvde
a clause recognizingtheVestfjord and the '57arangcrFjoasfishing areas
extlusively reserved for Norwegian subjects, on condition tl-iat the
accession of theGermm Government covld be obtained.
The Norwegan Government-uyl~ichregrets the points of viewtaken
by the British Governmeiit regarding the December negotiations-hns
not yet liad an wortuniky of,consideringthc nerv proposal now put
fornard by the Bntish Government- fieforethistan be done 1 feel it
first. to bncccssarytcia& supplenientq information in explmation
of the following:
Lnyaur note ofthe 1stinstant you statethatthe 33ritishGovenl-
, ment would eventnally be ready to xcccignizethe Vestfjord and
Varangerfjord''a fishin areas ericlnsively reserved toNorwegian
subjects". Inthenote o7 29th Mmch, 1924 y,onstate"that.certain
, inlets, notably the Vestfjord and the Varangesfjord, çhould he
reçognizedas part ofNoway-". I should be grateful totiear fm
you what importance should be givm totlie diffcrcriceexpression
whicl~ie to I?efound inthe two notes.
In orderthat 1 may bc able todeal with the matter fi~rthe, shouIcl
lx glatitohearfrnmyou whm L cariexpecta wply regarding theabove-
ment ioned poînt.
1 have, .etc,
(Sàgned) $OH. LUI S .MO~I~NCKET,. No, 3
NonsieurIe Ministre, Oslo,30th .April,1925.
1 did natfailto referto my Govemrntnt Hou ExcelIency's nate of
~5thinstant,in xvhicli yoa enquias to the signifiçatitobe atttachd
to the fact that, inmy note of 29th March, 1924 , ddrwd to -ur
redecessar,1stateclthaincertain circumstmçes His Britannic Majesty's
government were prepared to 'krecrignizeas part of Norway certain
large idets, notably the Vestfjord and the Varangerfjord"whereas in
my note of thé1stinstant1stated thatMis Britannic Maje~ty'sGovern-
ment were ready, on certain conditions,torecognize tliesetwo fjords
"asfishg areas exçlusivelyreserved forNonvcsian subccts".
1 have notv receivedfrom His Majesty'sPrincipalSecretary ofState
forFureign Mais a telegraminstructingme toinforniYour Excdlency
that, provided an agreement is reachd with the Royal Nomepan
Governrnent onthe pretist linehid clownin my note ofthe rstinstant,
and on the understanding tliatby such an agreement, the Norrvegian
Government acceptthe 3-mile Iimit oNonÿegian territorial waters for
. al1 purposes, His Britanni3lfajef;tyGovernment \triIbe prepared to
support the clairnof theNorwegian Government to the Varangerfjord
and tlie Vestfjoas Norwegian nationalwaters atafuture international
conference. Asregards Gemany, it would be nnderstod that German
tsarvle wrsuld not receive mare fxvousable treatment Ln Nonvegian
waters thm British tratvlers.
I avail,etc,
No. 4
NDTE FROM TiHE NORITECIAN &nNISTF,R FOR FORI-TGN AFFW'RS TO
MI=LIWDLEY, ~2th MAY, 1925
[Trumlatim]
Monsieur le Ministre,
1havethehmmr to acImowledgethe receîptofyour noteof30th April,
rgzj ,n which you wcte good enough to toqm.int me witli furtlier
explanationç regarding aparticuf poant which 3 ventured to raise in
my note of r5tliApril,rgz5.
In this lattenote Tdirected ymr aWêntio no a discrepancy inthe
statemenf çof the BritishGoverment. concerning the Vcstfjard and
witb thatginyourd note of 29th March,A1924.of thisyerulas cornparcd
Ynow leam from your note of 30th April fhat yonrGavemment, in
conjsinctionwith ik readhess to reçognize the Vestfjord andVaranger-
fjordas fishingareasexclusively men-ed forNonvegan subjects,"will",
also incertain circurnstaric"be preparedta support the cIaimoi the
Norwegian G~ve~nt tothe Varangerfjordand VestfjordasNomegian
national water, at futureinternational conferences". While melcomhg this dedarationof the British Goveniment, 1cannot
refrain from drawina gttentiontothe factthat there is staldiscrepanky
between this promise and thestatemmt inthc note of 29th March,1924*
in which the British Government statedthat in certain circnmstances
itwaç prepared "rorecogPeizas fiad ofATomay ccrtai*large.b.n.l~,dably
the Vestfjordand Ike Vnvawgerf'ord".
The attitude of the Britishk ovemat tolvardsthe above fjords i~.
not dear from either of thenotes of 1stor 30th Apd, rgz5 inthat the
notes onlynrune speci$çally thVat fjordand Varangerfjord, and further-
more refer tothe provisions ofthe North Sea Convention of1562, in
which the 3-mile limit in regard to fjord{bays) "ismeaslrred £rom a
openingtofethe bay where ifs widthdoesunotiexceed ro miles". As fatas
the waters are coiicerned northof 61"latitude,whichis the hit of the
Nortli Sea Convention, the British Government declaresits readinessto
coilclude"a specialcon~enticinonthe Iines ofthe 18% Convention bnt
amplifieciand moditied tomeet tliespeciallocalconditions obtaining in
thase rcgions".
Beforc thc NorrvegianGovernent çan undertake a closer investiga-
tion of the proposais~vhicappear in thetwo notesof theBritishGoxern-
ment, it wiZlbe nscessarjto obtain itrrther ligon tlieBritish Govern-
ment's attitude, not only regarding the Varangerfjordand Vestfjord,
bnt alsoregarding tfzeothtr Norwegianfjords,
If would also ùeof intercst xeceive filrtlidetails regardhg thécon-
vention whiçh the BritishGovernment, iii itsnote of astApd, dechres
itseIf prepared eventuaiito condude with the Nomqian Governent
asregards waters nortl-iof 61" latitude, and of which it is said that it
[sic çanbe "amplified and modifiedtri meetthe specialIoml conditions
obtaining ia those regions",especiallyin regard to th& substance ancl
scope of these aqLifiçations and modifications whicl-are to meet the
local conditions,
In your note of 1stAptjl, 1925i,t istated that therecapition onthe
part of Great Rritaiu of the Vestfjord and Varmgerfjord "as frshng
mas" must bc conditionalwon the accession of theGermm Govern-
ment- And inyour note of 30th April,1925 , u Say that so far as Ger-
many isconcerned, it mu- be understood that Gemas fr;iwIersw~dd
not receive more favaurable treatment in "Nonvegian waters" than
British trdwlers.
Both thesenotes giveme the impression tiiatthe British Eovernment
is ofopinion that therewjlteventudly h a qnestiori of a regdation of
territorial waters intemational application.
This coincides with the opinion of the Horwegian Government that
any eventual agreement rega~dingthe question ofterritorial waters will
beconditional upnn the accessionnot only of Germany,but ofail the
countriesrvhichareconcernecl,either uponthe groundsof th& interest
Withorit suchoanointesnational replation mttagreement çuch asishcrelg. -
contemplated wiIl lack the general application which, from its very
naI avail,etc.ntiato it.
(Sipied] J. L.Mo~~Nc~L. ANNEXES TQ BRITISII KE3fORlrl~ (fi. 6)
No. 5
Oslo,10th Jme, rgq.
Monsieur leMinistre,
1have the hoiiaur ta statethat His Dritannic Majdajesiy'svernment
hate given mseful coizsideratioto Your Exçellency snote of rzt1.iMay
on the subjectof Norwegian Ixrritorial waterç,ad areprepared te niake
substanltialconcessionsinrega~d to the recognitionof Nomegian juris-
diction overthe fjords.
2.Asregards the proposed extension of the North SeaConvention to
thearea north oflatitude 61"His Majesty's Gavernmen thave reason to
believe that the arrangements tvhichthey havein view wil1 be satis-
factory to bot11parties.
3-By directiontlierefore. 'ES Britannic Majesty'sPrincipalSecre-
ta~yof Statefor Foreign Affairs, 1 amZo urge YourExmllency to scnd
Norweg$aailddegates over to London as ssoonaspossible for the pqosc
afcliscnssingin detail tl-iaquestionthese fjords anclthearrangements
to lx made no~tlt of latitud61",
1avaïl, etc.
(Sigreed)P, O. I,IN'L)T,EI~,
No. 6
35onsieurleMinistre,
5,Yithreferenctto your note of the 10th insta ntgardingtemitorid
waters, I have the honour to statathat Professor Dr. Johan Hjort and'
Commodore (Kornrnand~rjr)G. C.C. R. Gade, Chief of thc Adrnitalty
Staff, wilbenomiliated at thenext Cnuncil of Miniders as delegata of
the Nomegim Gowrnmen t ad ma have on Sahirday, the sath instant,
for London.
l'1iey will beaccornpanicdby Commander '(hlarinekaptein)Petter
Askim as expertcartographer, and by Iiipar Smith-Kielland, secretary
iirthe Minise forForeign Affaiss,as secretary,In addition, theCom-
mercial Counselloratthe NorwegianLegation in London, Mr. Çhristopher
FiirstSmith, rvilttssisthem,
I avaf1,etc. ANNEXES TO BRITISH MERIOR1.U .(l'Ta. 7) r4r
Annex 7
The firsmeeting mas held at the MinistryofAgricultureand Fisheries
on ~3rd Jnne, at Ir am. There urer:percsent:
0% the Noraegimt si& :
Professor Johan Hjort,
Xommandor Cade.
Mr. lngvald Smith-Kielland,
Kaptein Per Askirn,
0% the B~iii~k &de:
Mr. H. G. Maurice, C.B.,
Captain H. P. Douglas,C.M.G., R.N..
Mr. E. M. B. Ingram, O.B.E,,
Commander B. C. Watson, D.S.O., RN.,
lfi . . S. Riloss-Hlundell, .13.2%,
Mi, Maurice opned theproceedhgçcvitha few tvordsof rvelcome tù
the L\Jonve@an belegates, on whosebehaif Profasor Njort made a
suitablereply. 0i1the latter pmspad, itwas agreed that b. Maurice
shoulcpresideat themeetings of the conference.
Mr,MAURIC suggestcd that the best method of procdure would be
to discussfirst theNorwegian clairns regarding the fjords.
Profesor ,HJOR Toncumd on behdf of his colfeagnes,stating that
the Norwegïan Govemment, on receiptof &TT. Lindley's note of 10th
June, 192j (Annex 1)I,had decided that it would be advantagco uos
ascertain in detaii bothe concessionswkch Great Britain.rirapsrepari-d
to make inthis connection and the arrangements $%-hichmight bc made
for theextension of the North Sea Convention to the areasnorth of
latitude 61". 'IllNanvegian Governmcnt had consequentlv norninated
the prtiçent Norsitegidelegatian toproceed ta J-ondon witli thiq object
id view, and liad furnished them with instructions on the subject, a
'wpy of wliichwiltbe found InAnnex 11.
Captain DOUGLAS then read a statemenl (Annex-III) explainhg
the British attitudeto tthcNonvegiandaim that al1NorwayJss~called
fjords shonld be regardeclas corning within her territmial jirrisdiction,
and illusbat4 his statement by indicafing an the tracings fromadmir-
alty silhozites athe fjordsnrhiçh Great Britairisprepared trrecognize
asNonvegirui territorial waten (viz,Nos- Y, 2,4, j,6 [lvitha modified
line), xz {withamodifiedline), sg and 25)
3.r. tthose minutes (alsAnricx6,?Ta.5,tothisblc~rid).h&es mm-
kpd c~vithRman figuws rcfctoannexestrthesme inutesThosenurnbered with
Arahicfigurearcrefaeaces toannexetothis Mernorial.
fie names ofthe$1ords designahbytl~esennrnbersare:(1)Varangerfjord,
(2Syttefjord, (Tanafjord(5)LalcseFjord, (6) Pmngerfjor(rr)Rv~~~zz~gm-
fjord, (1Vcstfjord(25Oslofjrird. 'SheNORWGIAN DBLEG~ to~k note 6f tliissfalwnmt, and the
pmceedings were adjomed ta XI am, art24th $une to enable thm to
prepare a replyto CaptainDo~glas"sstatement.
. Secondmeatisg
The second meeting wu held at the Minise of AgncuEtureand
Fisherieson 24th J~une,at rr asm. There werepreçent thesame atsat
theîîrstmeeting.The minutes ofthe firsmeetingrvcre dulypassed.
' 2.The Norwegian delegatc3 praented the reply (Annes IV) which
they had prepared to the statement made by Captain Douglas at the
firstmeeting. The British delegatetoqk note ofthis reply and ageneral
discussion ensued regarding the two points iatlie second par-ph
of the Norwegian memorancliim,upon which the Nonvegian dclegates
based their attitude towards thewhole question.'illeBritish delegates
emphasized the two facts that the more watcr Nmvay claimed as
territorialthe greater wdd be her comitments and respnsibilities
in the event ofa mai=; whilefrom the puintof view of a belligerent the
lessertheextent ofterritoriawatm, thcgreater thefacirjtieforpursuing
enemy shipping.
3. AIJusion was madeby the Nomegian delegates to the fact that
othw countries did not acmptthe B~itish principlofthe 3-milelimit.
The Britishclelegatesmade it clearthat lvhateverother muntries rnight
asser tnd maintain in thisrespect, Great Britaindid notaccept tliek
contentions and not-ifid them of the fact whenever sucli pretensions
wcre made. Gre~t Britah contcsted any principlesother tlimthe 3-mile
principlewhen claimed asa right forpurposesof internationallaw, but
were yrepaed ta make exceptions by convention for special purposes
and if warranteciby specialcircumstances.T'heymade it clear rnoreover
that the cenfiptim of the Nomepan coastkvasnot pmuliar te;Noxin~ay
but was similar in many respectsto that of Chde and Fatagonia, while
the mkmces tothe Straits of Magellanoff'eredaparalletomany of theA
soundsand channek which gave access to severalNurwegïan fjords,
'The genent configuration ofthe coast 'of Notway did not, tlierefore,
in ifself offean exceptional circurnstançewarranting Gr& Bi-itain
in4.eZt becarneodear inrithe course of discnssian thatthe Nameghn
delegatesheld greatstore byretaining a"lead" behind the skerriesalong
the wholeNonvegim coast, throughrvhich Norwegian shipsand coastal
tmffic could pass without merging from Norwepan territorial waters.
Next tothe retention of thi"leacl'came tIie approaches toit£romthe
high seas,and in this connectioothey put forward the suggestion that
urithoutinfringulgthe p~inciplesuponwhich Great Britain drew hec
grnile limitforterritoriawaters, Mme formirEamight be evolvedwhich
would enable base-linesto be dnwn in certainspecifierare. from
island ta idand, where snchislands give accesstaterritorialinlek, The
British delegates agreed tcr considersuch a suggestion, fxovided the
Norwegian delegation could put fonvard in each individaal casesuffi-
ciently exceptional circumçtancesto support theirdaim.
The app-L-opriac tharts were theaexamiliedwith a vjew ta ascedain
the degree to whichthe British principleupon which the 3-de limitisdrawn wodd affectthe maintenance Invt&cbtyNorwzy ofsbme such
"lead", asiioutlinedabove,
Ille .third meeting a held at the Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries on24th June,at 3 ppm,There wre present the sameas at the
second meeting.
The exmination ofthe chartsmentionect atrtheefid of theminntes
of the 'lasmeeting was conbnued, fith parkies having arrived ata
nptilal understanding of kl~emain factor and principles underlying
tlleir respective standpointit was decided that two gub-cornmittees
shThed former,nrvhich-val toinclude Krimmmd6re. Gade and Kapteln
Askirnon the Norwegian side,and CaptainDouglas, Commander Watson
and Nr. Ingram on the British sidcwould go through th diarts of the
Nonvegian coast and endeavour ta rcduceta a minimum the points of
diffcrencebetween the divergent vicws.
, 'The lattersub-committee, wliicliwas to compriseProfessor Ejort
md M. Smith-Kielland on the Norwegian side, and Mr. Maurice and
Mr, l3land.l,onthe British side, muid ben to disctiss thdetaifs of
an eventiial arrangementregarchg the protectionof Norrregianfishing
interestson the supposihon that agreement is reached on the subject
of the fjords.
The foarth meeting heldat the MinistryofAgricultureand Fish-
aies on 26th June, at 4 p.m. There werepresenl the same as atthe
third meeting.Tlieminutesof thesecond and thirdmeetings were dnly
passd.
The Naval and Fishery Çub-Cornmittees presentcd threportsoftheir
sidestoiconsiderthesereports.Theoreports afthesetwo sub-cornmittees
are attachedas Annexes V and VI tothe minutesof thismeeting.
The fiRh meeting was held at the Ministryof AgricultureandFisIl--'
eries on 29th June at3.15 p.m. There were premt the çamcas at the
faurthmeeting, The minutes of the fourthmeeting were duXy passed.
Mr. MAURIC proceededtu read out a statefflmtprep+ed by the
Admiralty in rcply to the memorandurn siibmittedby the:Norwegian
deIegationwhich fams Annex IV to theminutes of thesecond meeting
of the conference.This staternentformsAnnex VI1 tothe minutes of
this meeting. r44 AWKEXES TO BRITISH hfEM0RWL (NO. 7)
The BWTISW DELECATION then notified the Norwegian delegation of
the restiltof the examination by Ris Majesty's Governmenf of the
arpents put forward I>y theNorwegian delegath in support oftheir
claims to the seventeen inlets rernaining to be ciiscussed-see ,hes
(D) to the second meeting of the Navat Sub-Cornmit A meex V to the
minutes of thefourtli meetiiig ofthe conference). The Britishdelegates
stated thatthey were prepzredto meet the Norwcgian claims regarding
the inlets numbered as foilows accordhg to the Admiralty silhoiiettes
in the above-rnentioned mnex : 3, 7, II,16, 38 -4, SI,24and 25'.The
reasons ineach individual case areset forthin Part I ofAnnex VlII to
the minutes of tllis meeting, They were, bowever, unable to meet the
Nomegizn views regarding the followinginlets, numberedin Annex (13)
as follows : 8ro, 13,18, 19 A, ig B,20, 22 A,and 24 A~. The reasons in
each individualcase areset forth iPart II of Annex VI11 to thcminutes
af this meeting.
The NORJTEGE ~ELEGATIOEI took note ofthese ~tatmenf S.
-
Hornrnandijr GADE raraisedthequestion of defining the rocksand
idands which couId be used açthe points ofdepbure from which terri-
torial limits coulbedrawn, In thisconnection theNonvegiandelegation
sirbmitted a mmorandum [Rnnex IX to the munites of this meeting}
seiding forththe definitions laid down by the Nonvegian Goverment
onthis subject and the hterpretation placed upon them.by aNortvegian
expert cornmittee on territoriawaters.
The sixth meeting \vasheld at tlie Minjshy of Agricultureancl Pish-
tries on30th June, at 3-30 p.m. There wew present tltesame as at the
fifth meeting- The minutesofthe Hth meeting wereduly pasçed,
The Norwegian dslegates,having considerd the statement by the
British Cornmittee (Annex VI11 to the mii~iitesof the fifth meeting)
on the claims advariced by the Narwegixn Naval Sub-Cammftteeie,
empfiasized thelr regretthat the British Cornmittee had nat çeeiitlieir
tvay taaccede ta theNorwegian claims in respect of the inlets numbered
ro and za on the Admiralty silhouettes, and bsiefly recapitulated the
arpmem ts iheady ut fonz~ardin szzpportof thelfdaims thereto.
Discussion was t1en opened on the British methods of drawiiig the
3-mile limit, with spechlreferenceto the rocks which might be usedas
points of ddepartur eor drawing the "envdop". The British deIegates
promised tu provide the Norwegian delegates with a statement to be
mneued to theprotocol defing thex methods. A feivlarge-xale charts
were exambed on which the Britishmethod was d~am ingreen ancl
the Nomgian rnethod in red.
(7) Storestapper-Hjeimsi(r~j r\rrrænmgerfjord, Andfjmci,(rS A)Elsneset-
Riistoy(2r)Fr~havct ,24)Langesnndfjmd.(25)Oslofjord.
a (8)Hjelmsby-Ingby,(IO)Solr~ysond,(13)Eugloyfjard(18) vesteranidjord,
(rgA)Trxrlf~brd(9 R)Steinan-HqbrakenSklinna, (noFollafjord(22A) Skudes-
nesfjord(24 A)Svenoes-Faerdw.
Y The N~rwegraametliodisbzed on theprincipldesfinedinAnnex IS tokhi:
minutes ofthe fifth meeting. 83WEXES TO BRITISH MEXORIAT, a. 7) 145
Ur, ETjortfinalfysuggesteclthat the Fishery Sub-Cornmittee shuuld
continue its labours by an examination of theAngle-Danish Convent ion
for Icelmd and the Faroe Islandsof zpr. It was agreed.that the object
.oftlii sxaminaticin should he to sift inthis convention the points of
substance and principlefrom tbose ,ofpurelg administrative maclcl.iinery,
tvith the objeçt of endeavouring to arrive at formul~ wl~ichcould be
mutuallj~ appliedas betwoen Great Britainand Nonvay.
coIhse and
The seventli meeting was held at the Ministry of A f?
Fisfierieson 3rd July, at II a.m, Th~e were prcsc tnt e same as at
,Douglas. The minutes of the sixthmeetingomweredu1ayepassecl. Ca.tain
:statementidefining the principleçernployed bygGreatd.tritainirwieter-
rminingthe 3-mile limitofterritorhl waters. This statement fcims Annex
S to tbc minutes of this meeting-
The British delegatim explained tIislthe phrase "capable of use"
in tlii~ staternmtmeant capable, tvithout artihcial addition, of being
used throughaut al1 sca50nç for some definitecommercial or defence
purpose.
The Nowegian delegation handed the British ddegation a question-
naire rcgardjng theinternationalaspect ofany formal agreements rvhich
- might he çoncladed betweeriGreat Bri.tain and Nomay t-egarding the
fisheiy and tci-ritnriaf waters questions discussedat this confcrençe.
This qt~estionnxire form hrinw XI to tl-iminutes of thisrnecting.
Dr- Vjort. explained that what Ireand his colleagucsapprehended
- \vas that tliefactof an agrcemeiit mith Great Hritain,evm ofa provi-
sional characier, by rvhichNotway wu committedto the priaripleof
tli3-mile liwt, might be canstrued by other I'owers asa departiireby
Nonvay fram the principles she mintains, with the result that çhe
woutd be embarrassecl in opposing a daim on the part of such Powets
to frwdom af accessup to the 3-inilelimiand withinthe fjords without
any compensatory advantage in the form of protection forhcr fishery
interests.
The British ctelegatesundcrtçiok to bririg tliiscruestionnaireand
Dr, Hjart's statement to the notice of the British Secretary of State
for Forejgn Affairs, andmade it dear that these qn~stion could only be
dmlt witli through the normaldipIomEltic çhannels.
The eighth meeting was.lreld at the Miitistry of AhgrimItunand
Fisheries on Gth July,at rr am. There mere prmnt the same:as atthe
sixth meeting. The minutes of the sevent11 meeting were duly passed.
The two delegationçhally agreed upon the follorvinrksurné of the
principal pahts criverd by their discussion: ANNEXES TO BRITISH MENORIAL (NO.7) 147
Kjelrns9y-Magcroy, from Sortvignaering to Gjaesvaernaering.
Amoy-Lappen, from Brynnilen to north point of Arn6y.
Rosthavet, fsom EIsneset to Rostiiy.
Langesundfjord, irom Straaholmen to Tveseten.
OsIofjord,from Faerder to Torbjornskjxr.
(B) That another conventjo11 should be concluded deding with the
question of frsheriesnorthof latitude 61N. on the lineç of the
Angle-DanIsh Conventionof 1gor ,mgulating fisherieautsidetemi-
torial waters in the ocean surrounding Iceland aiid the Faroeç,
as arnplihed and modihcd hy the resolutions of the Fishew
Sub-Cornmittee (seeAi~nexVI to the minutesoftlie fourtmeeting
of the coference).
(C) That Norwayshould accedeto the North Sea PisheriesConven-
tion of~862.
Itmas f~utheragrced that tlie eventuaform of the aboveconventions,
if accepted by the Governrnentçconcerned, could only 'bedetermined
by 'tiiernthrough the normal cliplomatic channels, The conclusions of.
the ~IVO delegations werc thereforeconfinedto the points ofsiibstance
:mdsubstance and qriestions ofprincipleinvolved.
Both çlelegations arc, however, agreed that theconcfusion of such
conventions would be greatly facilitated if satisfactoranswer to the
questionnaireontheit international aspect(seeAnnex VI to theminutes
of the seventh rnceting DEthe cotifercnçe) couid be furnished by the
B~itislt Government.
London,6 th July, 1925.
ANKEXES
TW MINUTES OF HEETSNGÇ OFTHE ANGLD-~~QRH'XGI LANNDON COKEENCE, lgZ5
lllonsieurle Rlinistrc,
I. 1 have the honour to statsthat Ris Britannic Rll'ajestysovern-
ment have given careiul considemticin to your Excellency's note of
12th Mayon thesubject ofNonvegian territoriawaters, and arepreparcd
to make substantial concessionsin regard to therecognition ofNonve-
ginn jurisdiction overthe fjords.
2. As regardstlie proposed esteilsioof the Nortli SeaConvention ta
the area north of latitude 6r0,His Majesty's Government haveseason
ta believe thatthe amngements whichthey have in view wilIbe satis-
Cactory ta both parties. 3- By direction, therefore,of Ris Britannic Majesty's Principal
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,Iam to urge yoiir ExceIlency to
send Norwegian delegates over to London as mon as possiblefor the
purpose of discussing in detait the question of thcse fjordsand tlie
arrangements to be made north oflatitude 61'.
T avail,etc,
(Signm'd');.O.LIKULEI'.
Anna II
(Striçtly conficlentid)
Instr~tclimsfor the dekgalesof the ATmplegia$ fovemaate.iaita.iwp&iatGrg
wilh Ehe British delegntesim Lomdo~ relative lothe te~r%'lorimlalers
The Nonvegiandelegatesare chargeclwith thetask ofendeavouring
fo obtain ase-xhniistivinformation as possibleregardingthemeri ts and
extent of the assurances given in the British Minister's note dated
rotli June,1925 ,iz. :
I.What arethe substantid concessions whichtlie British intend to
mnke in regard to the recognitionof Nonvegian jlirisdictioover
the fjords ?
2. HOW the arsangernents as regardsthe ytoposed extension of the,
NorthSea Convention tothe areasnorth of latitude6r"are intended
to bc eflectedsa that the same tvilt be satisfact oryNorway.
It shaUfurther be the duty of the Nonvegian delegates to endeavour
to asccrtin what basa-lines the British are iviliitoestablish in regard
to ripossible3-mile limit, also what procedureIs intendedto be adopted
forthe purpose of arrivingatanarrangement,internat ionaiiy recognizcd,
relativeto the territorial waters.
Tlre dclegates shoulcl make it clearto the Britishtlelegateçtliatthe
said enquines do not in anyrespect prejudice the view maintained by
Norwayinregard to her territorial waters.
It isa rnatter of coursthat the Government willriothe lmund bÿ the
negotiatianswhich are totake place.
If the question of Nomegian fjordscould be isolatedwe shoiild pro-
bably bc prepared to conccclenearly al1 Nonvay's daims in reti~rnfor
lier adhercnce tothe 3-mile limit, but zveliavetoçansider the effect on
the demands macle by other countries.
A large nurnber ofthe claims macle byNorway are to waters which.
$rima Jacéew, cshoulcl notregard as dosed waters atall, butas forniing
part of tliehigh seas. Recognition of them by us will lead to similar
demands by otlies countries, wIiiin some placesmay greatly restriçt
the operations ofour war vessels inwar time and seriorilsypreudicc thci
delence of the Empire and itscommunications. 'tVeconsider that foran inlettobe regarded as territorialishouldbe
to a very considerable degree enclosedby tllc mainland. Other factors,
pch asnationaldefence, maintenance ofneutrality, econornic,Iiistorical,
remoteness from general sen trafic, corneinto consideration, but they
are seconda to that of configuration.
lnview OP the peculiar ccharacteof the Norwegian coast,however,
we are prepared to conçede tliatit isnot reasonable to inçist that al1
inletsto bercgarded astemitorid must be enclosedbytlre mainland, but
we finclit impossibleto discovcr any principieon whYh waters that are
only enclosed by islands mith navigabIe channels between them can
be regarded as territorial. especially wliere these diannels are of
considesable width.
In somc cases the areaof rvatergainedbyNonvay (that is, outside
that coverridby the 3-mile Iirnitas dtawn by us),if thewhole of the
sa-called fjord isconcedcd, appears unimpartant, and it is scarcely
reasonable to expect thiscountry ta concede them and so give away an
important principle mliicli rnay lead to grcat difficultiewith other
countries.
Annex XV
Ilfemorad~wtby thteNomegkw deiegatioqi rn refijylyAmex 111 toifce
rni~~cteof ll~ firsnseeli~~g
J~ttvodctcliorn
Referringto thememomndiirnfromtheBritishdeleetion ofzgrd June,
we hg to submit for consideration tlie following rernarks:
Apart from fisherypoints of view to be discussed at alater occasion,
we conçider the followingprinciples decisivefor the Nonvegian stand-
point as rcgzzrdsthe extent of the territorial waters :
I.Beiiigerent countries in time of war should not be pcmitted to
make use of Nowegiaia fjords and waters between the islands
fosming thc belt o-zrtsidthe mainland, nor should their warships
he allowed to operate or take up positions inthese waters.
2.From tIiepoint01 view od navigation, the çommnnications by sea
dong the coast shouid be maintrrined during any war in tirhich
Nonvay is not a belligesent.
Theçe two pointsmay lx betteri~ndtrstood~by the followingexplana-
tion.
ItWU ertainly be admittedfrom al1sides thata acounty likeNorway ,
whose policy of war will have a defensive character or the object of
defendirigits neutrality, will desitokeep al1 warlilcoperations away
from these coastalareas.
1tisfuttlier evident thatlrenavigationalong the coastneeds alieutral
bet of suficierit extt and with limits ofa nature wliich can be deter-
rninedwitlioutgreat difficult.
The Bntidi nilesfordeten~iiriingtheterritorialimit wiii leato very
irregular linewlien appiied ta the petuliar conhgurrttionof the çoast
and the çomplicated formation ofislands, çkenies and rocksof€Norway.
Ihcsc are so irregular in redity that doubt tvill arisin many cases
whether the position of a shipis tvitliior outside the limit.We tviçh150 AXNEXES TU BRITISH MEMORLAL (NO.7)
to draw attentionto.the vitalimportance forNocway of being able to
maintain during a tirneofwar reliablecommunications along thecoast.
The existing system of communications (raiiways, roads, ctc.) onIy
pennits the importationof goodsto a very limitednurnkr of ports, and
great parts ofthe courtiry \rihardiy be able toexist if tlie distribution
of goods from these portsalong the coastshould be paralyzed,
The Namegran delegationunderstandsthe standpoint ofthe British
delegation
Rowever, we want to put fanvardasour opinion that, ~ÿifhoutpre-
judicing the Britishvietv as a universalprinciple,itmight be possible
in certain givencases tornodify t.
On the part of Norway, the basif sor such a modificationmight be
huilt onthe fact that thenation from olden hes has looked upon as
national waters the fjords,the bays and the inletç wliich have land on
both sideswhichis N orivegiantemtory and which beleng to the bet of
skerricsorgeographjcdy form part ofthc country.
The reaso.ior aneventual recognitionby Great Britain ofthesewaters
might be sought in the consideration that the said waters, unlike the
Channel and the Danish Belts, cannot be cliaracterizeas part of any
highways of thesea.
We want todraw attention to the fact thnt al1the compIexesofides,
rocks and sketsieswliich, in cennection with the mainland, form tliose
fjords and inlets claimed by Norway are directly, geographicaliyand
natudy combinedwith the mainland as awhole.
ln case the BritishdelegationappreciateandmakeaIlowance forthe
views pointed out in theintroduction, iseems to tlie Xonveginn delega-
tion that the discussianon fjordsmight be continvedwith advantage,
on the basis that tliBritish principleç,asfar as Norway isconcerned,
are madified inaccardancewith what migh t he exprcssed as our Dght
claims,andin such a way an eventualagreement wiUnot prejudicethe
position ofGreat Britain Eo~vardsother countries,and wilI not compro-
mise British interests. hVeventure to suggest that thclelegatesdiscuss
the codificationofaprinciple wh ichgives specialrulesfor :
'Countrieswhich are broken up in islandsconstituting a Iead,
folIowing the contour of the mainland ; such lead giving direct
communication through it bettvcenthe different partsofthécoun-
try, but not affordingthe only passage to otherseas, and therefore
not essentialforthe communications orsuppliesofotlrer countries"
If an agreement is reached on this principle, we would suggest itsa
application+to Norway.
This principleshouldnot conilkt with thegeneralmethodiorthe deter-
mination ofthe British temitonal waters asdefined by the delegates of
Great Britafn atthe meeting in Oslo inDeçember 1924,
June24,19 j2 ANNEXES TO BRITISH MEMOR'ML (NO. 7) 15 *
In accordancewith the decisiontaken atthe third meeting of the con-
ference,the Naval Sub-CornmitteeIield itsfihrsmeeting at the AdmIralty
on 25th June, at XT a.h.
It \vas established at the oufse-t:hat there wx a total ofthirty-one
so-called fjordsor inletsround the Norwegian coast,wliicli should forn
the subject of discussion. These fjords are tabulated in tlie Anriex (A)
to the minuter; of thismeeting.
The British delegates reaffimed their wiilingnessta accept the Nor-
wegian daims in respect of seven of the above, se Annex (B) tothe
minutes of tliis meeting. The Nomegbn deleptesr, however, advanced
subseqiiently a further daim regarding the lihits of,the OsIofjord.
The Norwegian ddegates exprcssed x sirniiar readiness to abandon
eight of their formerclxims, as setfarth in tliz protocol drawnnp at the
Osl~ Conference inDecemkr ry4, 5eeAnnex (C)to the minutes oftliis
meeting. One ofthese eight istheListerfjord, whicllwas not discussed at
OsIo.
Bef~fi procedng to rliscusindetail the renkining seventeen fjords l,
Komma~idor Gade explaîned that the protocoi drawn up at Oslo gave
expression in general tritlie Nrirwegianviews and senthenfs regardhg
Nonvay 's geagraphid nnity.
The Brilis11 delegates made it clm that inapplying the British
principlcs tuthese fjordsthey were nùt rejecthg the Nonwgian claim
to the interiorwaters of the fjords, butmerely insisting ona rnethod of
drawing the territorial illimits,whiin the peat majom oi cases only
involved the abandonment by Nonvay of a aali area of wxters at
the entrantes to these blets.
The delcgates nextproceeded tridiscus in detail and tabulate their
respective views regarding the above seventeen fjords,
I Annex (A)
TABJ.Eshowing the thirty-two so-cdted fjords or inlets,round the
Norwegian coast forming ttie subject of discussion
Nos. on
Nonvcgian Oslo Admirait-y MnEtiaa ofinlet orbase-liae
chart NO. Pr~twril hTo. sikliouettes
325 r-x II Varangdjord.
3-3 2 Syltefjord.
6-G 3 Kongsfj6rd.
324 7-7 4 Tanafjord.
15-15 5 Lakseford.
323 22-22B 7 Storestappen-fljehml)y.
23-25 8 Hjelmsoy-In@ y.
24-24 9 Tngoy-Tarhalsen,
322 29-29 fO Sara ysnncl .
30-30 tI Lnppen-Adp, encloshg the Mvænan-
genjord.
3T-31 iz Atnûy-Fuglbyblv.
32-32 '3 FuglGykalv-Vannby, enchjing the
Faglijyfj~td. .
Vie., sixtee~IMStherewpend qn~tim af theOdofjord.
11 x52 KNNEXES TO BRITISH MEMORIAL o. 7)
Nw, on
Normegian Oslo Admirdty Wnition of idet or hse-Iine
chart Po. Protml No. s~lhonettea
321 33-33 14 Vannb y-KvaM y.
34-34 , 1.5 Thlby-Grijttfiy,
37-57 (r~A) Bergsfjord.
35-38 16 Andfjord.
317 39-39 77 Gavifjod.
40-4" x8 Sarbrakskja-Kvalnmp enclosing the
Vesteraisfjord.
41-41 (I&A] BIsneset-Rostaÿ.
3x0 mentmned (rgA) Sor1101m-L~vuiliInelcrijinthc
Trznfj ard.
#. . (19e) ' Stioinan-Hogbrrlkm-Sklinna.
309 43-43 za fillafjord.
44-44 2r
) 2;;;.
4P456 t 22 RamaQyf jod.
306 Nat mentgond (22A) Uts~e-Kamoy-Nvidingshy, encIosing.
the Skiidtsnes?jtJrd.
a# 23 Liskrfj ûr.
505 ,. 24 Tvesten-Straatiotm~ten~erlclming the .
Langesundsfjotd.
317 II (24A) Svwoer-l2aerder.
I, 25 Faerdw-Torbjornskjær. enclosing the
Osloford.
hna p)
Jlie British delqat es are repared tb accqt theNorwegiandaims to
the following seven so-call3 jords and inlcts, the base-lines enclosing
thm bcing, with the exception of the Varangerfj rirdand the Oslafjord,
those marlted on the mapç prepared at Oslo in December 1924 as
representing theMarwegianclaims :
Numbcr acearding to Humber according ta STamc
Oslo Pmtocol Admiralty silhouettes
1-1 I Varangerijord.
3-3 2 Syltefjord.
7-7 4 Tanafjord.
36-16 6 Porsangerfjord.
42-42 9 Vestfjord.
Not nnmbercd 25 Oslofjord.
As regards the Varangerfjord,it was aped that at its enhnce the
seaward limit of the 3-milebelt of territorialwaters should be the line
fiom Kibergnes to Jakobsdv, except af each end of the line where it
approaches mithin 3 miles of the coat and where inconsequencethe
limits ofterritorial waters are detemined by reference to tliecoast.
As regards thir Oslofjord, while the British delegates were prepared
to concede tlie linas drawn inthe chartsprepared at Oslo, the Norwe-
@an delegates pressed for an aiteratiofi of it, which isdacribed in
Annex (D) fo the minutes of the second meeting ofthis sub-cmmittee.
Annex (t)
The Nonveghn delegates arc prepared ta abandon thW. daim to the
followhg so.called fjords andinletç, the base-lines ericlosing them being ANNEXES TO BRITISH MEMDRIAL ([email protected]) 153
those marked on the rniipsprepared at Osloin 13m-cernbe rrpq as mpres-
enting the Nonvegixrrdaims ;
The Naval Sub-Cornmitteeheld its second meeting at the Admiralty
on 25th June, at 3 p,m.
The discussion of the fjords mentianed in the last paiagrap ohf the
minateo sftl-ifirsmeeting was continued, and the results ivese tabulated
asshown in Arrnex fD) to thedntites ofthis meeting.
Annex (Dl
The folIowhg table analyzes the seventen fjordswhich remained to
be disisussed between the delegations as stated in the ha1 paragraph
of the minutes of the fint meeting of the Naval Snb-Cornmittee, and
specifiesthe exceptionalcircurnstances which the Nomgian delega tion
put ionvard in support of their claims; -
No. a& Ho. w-
cordingto cordiegto Name Statcmentof Norivegraclaims
Oslo Adrnlralty
Protoc01 silliouette
6-6 3 Kengsïjcrd The edçting systeiri Qcommu-
nicationand supplieç, -1ight-
hauses and beacons,and con-
sidcrationsnecessay for ~afc
navigation ahng the coast
cansc tltXorwegian cldegates
t.~ in5isupOn the Ime-line
drawiiintli eslo Protocal. .
The N~rwcgian ilelcgatdirl not
setvat store€rom thcnaval
point ofview by the base-line
oi the OsIo Pr&vcol, xhey
wero prepared ts codsider a
baslitte drawn hm Sort-
vlgnaerlngtoGjaesvaernaering.
The above femritkswme sub-
je¢t to my fisheryreqiiire-
menh whlch the çubcemmit-
tee was not carnpctentto
discuçs.
Recommunicationgaandn,suppliesl
made il:essentiafprthe Nur-
wegians torehin the hase-linc
of tliOslo Protoml, I
Na. ac- Wo. ac-
mtdjng ta cording to Nanie Stntchcnt of Nan~egian clairns
Oslo ,%dmiralty
Protocol sillioirette
Not 9 A ÇBdialm-Lovulid, dm- aie Yonvegian delegateç were
mcntiomd. clnsingthe '1'mwfjord nmious that ththebase-line fw
the limitç ofNorwcgian tcm-
tmial watm should be drawn
thrnagh the points mefitioned
on thegroitnd~ oi tht:general
principles aiready enuncistecl.
Not rgH $f~inm-H~gbr.zken- These trva ces afforded an
mentione J Sltliriua jllustratioo of thc principles,
the formulation of which tkey
bd ;rdvocatcd in tire same
snne'r, of drawirig base-Kncs
from $gland to island-
33-43 20 Eollaf ord 'The Nmvcgian del~gates desired
tcipress for the lines of
Oslo Protocol ln order thdt
their direct route of commu-
nication might reinainwilhin
Ronvcgian territorialwaters.
Ifthe British theçis\vasmam-
tnined, thc difficultimof na-
vigation -\~oiiIbe gmUy in-
creztçeii.
Thc 3ortvagian deleptes desrml
thc linc of the Oslo Frotocol
on thc grourids of thc genersl
princ~pIeç wliich weis enuii-
ciated in Anncs L%- ta tlia
rninutcsof Ciliesecimdmeeting
of the confcrcnce.
Knt zzA ~bké-~~nns~ 2%~ Nohvegi- dclegatcç U*WQ
me~itioned I-Ivirlingsby, enclosing anxious tkat this fjord should
thc Skiidcsncsfjord Fie inclirdcon the grounds of
tlie gencraI principlesalre~dy
cnirnciated, but agrced that
the territoridliniits as drawn
by Great D~itaiiiindid not
nliduly conAtct with tlreiirn-
tcmts,
Pet 24 T\~estm-Straaholm~ten, The Bonregian delegaies pressed
mantibned mclosing the Lange- for this bac-line in ordcr to
sundsfjoid protect the main route of
navigation tu aiid from the
Osfofjnrd.
Xot -4n Svcnocr-Facrdc? Thc N onvcgian de1ega.k prcççed
mezitionecl for this bise-line in mder to
protect tlicmiaiiltoiiteof na-
vigation to and frm tIic
osiofjord.
Noi: zg Faerder-Twbj firnskjar. The Moiwegihn delegatesexpiain-
mentioned enclasing the ed tlmt tliiline\vas laid clown
Osldj 0rr1 by Royal decree as the south-
ernuiost lirnrtof the clefences
ofO510 and the Oslafjord, and
for tliisreason psessed %r its
acccptanc aesthe base-linefor
Xonvegian tcrritorraivatcrçin
~iis a~m.~56 ANNEXES ru BRITISH EIEMORIAL M a 7 )
Meeting ofthe Sub-Comttiee fm Flsl~~ry Qvacstimts
Enaccordancewith the decision taken at the thid meeting of the
conference, the Fishery Sub-Conmittee held its firsmeeting at the
hIini3tryofAgricultureand Fisherïeson 25th June,at II a.m.
The question of safeguardingthe Norwegian fisheryinterests noth of
latitude61~ northwas consideredwifh a viem todecidingnpon theneces-
sary amplifications and modificationofthe existingIntc3rnational Fish-
ely Conventions, viz. tliatfor the North Çea of1882 and that made
between Great Britain and Denmark for Iwland and the ITaroeIslands
in xqox.
that ofsxgor, sabjecto specialprovisionbeingomade forg;neral ltnes of
(a) The exclusivefisherp iimitstobegranted to Nortvay.
(b) The mesures to be adopted for the protection of Nonregian
fisheryinterests outside the agreefisherylimits.
With regard to (a),itwas a.greedthat theexclusive fisl~erylimits of
Nonvay shouIdcomptise :
iJ Such watersas shallbe agreed to be Nmwegian territoriawaters.
ii) Suchothctrwatersas areincltidedinArticle2 ofthe Anglo-Danish
Cbnvcntion ;
and that for the purposesof Articlezrieither othe eixprssions '%lets, 3
rocksandbanks" coversany hlet, rock or bankwhich ispemanently
submergedor wliich is neitherexposed aor awash athigh water.
With a view to carryingout:this agreement thefdlowing articlewas
draftd in substitutionfor Articl2 ofthe Convention of 1901 :
Thesabjechof HisMajes theXingofNomayshdenjoy theexclu-
sive rightoffishery withinX e distanceof3 des from low-water mark
dong thewhole extentof the cwts ofNorway as wellasofthe dependent
islets.rockasnd banks,andwithin such watersas are specificalacknow- I
ledged by His Britannic Majesty's Govmment ta lx within the terri-
toriallimitsofNwtvay.
As regardsbays, the distance of 3 miles shdl be measured from n
straight line drawnacroçs the bayinthe pastn-st the entrance at
the first point where tlie wlddaes notexceed TO miles.
The present artide shalI not prcjudiccthe frecdom of navigation or
anchonng In territorial waters accordeto fishingboats provided they
canflsrm to Norwegianlaws and regulntions wliilt withîm territorial
waters.
The fullowiiiarticlwac ah drafted totake the glace ofArticle4 :
The geographicallirnits forthe application othe presentconvention
shallbe fixedas folluws:
I
On theseuth by a linealmg thepatalbl of 61"ofnorth latitudefrom
the coastofNamay taapoint w-vberteat paraIlel rneethe 2nd meridian
of tastlongitude.
On the ivcstby a line fmm the last-mentioncd point a1ongthe 2nd
meridian ofeast longitudetoa point wl.ierthatmeridian meets the 65th ANNEXES TO BRITISIT hfEMORfAL [NO, 7)
157
paralle1of nar& latitude,and ekiencetoa point where the 16th meridian
ofewt longitude meetç the~2nd pkrtrallof.north latitude,
On the north by a li~edrawn from the last-mentioned point dong the
72ndparaltel of fiorth latitudete a point where that paralie1 intersects
the meridian of 31" 50' east longitude.
On the east by a line drawn from the lad-mentioned point alozigthe
meridian of 31" 50'east longitude uatil it intersecthe lirnit the terri-
tafia1waters of Finland.
\Vitfregard ta (el,thefdowing articlewere drafted :
Im s~bsti$utiofor A'riictrj '
((I) Subject to paragraph{li) and Article ....boats arrivingon the
frshing grounds shdi not eithetplacetliemselves or shoot their nets or
other gear Lr such a way as to injure each other or tointerferewith
fishermen who have already cornmencecl their operations.
(ti) Fishermen operating in the vicinity of other fiçhemen shaU
canform to any local custams or arrangements which areobsercred in
the vicinity,so long as such customsand armgexnenis aareconsistent
wjth good seamanship in thecircnmstances,
Govmrnent Norhformed a€vany such customs +clis arrangementsestassare
referred to in the preceding paragrapli, and His Britannic Majesty's
Government 41 communiçate such information tathe Britishfishermen
coriccrned.
1s s~bsiitutionfor rg
fp) Tmwl Mermeri &di take al1necesary steps inorder tr, mid
doing injnry tothe nets orgear of net or long-line hshermen. They shaU
not corne rvithinI mile of any vesel engagea in fishingof thesekinds
o~ lying to nets orlong lines, andshaU nat enter witliin any ara wl~ich
has been nottifiedinaccordancewithparagraph (c).
(6) \mer!: damage is caused to nets orlong lines, the respousibility
shdl be on tlre trawIers unlesç they can prove that they were under
stress of ccompulsorycircurnstances or that they have complied with
tlie terms of this article, and that thelosses sudained did not resnlt
from thek fault.
(c) The Noruregian Government shdl hm time to time notify taWis
Rritannie Majesty's Governmentthe areas mithinwhich itismticipated
that concentrations of nets and Iirieswill takplace. Such notification
shallmach 13s BritannicMajesty'sGovernment in time toenable them
to infor;mfishermen of the axeas thereh contained, and Mis 13ritmic
Majeçty's Government mill cornmunicate the contents of eachsuch
notificationto fishemen forthwith.
{dl For the purposes of paragraph (c), a concentration &dl be
deemed to bea large nnmber ofvessels fishhg in close proximity toone
anather and al1 ernpIoyiiigthe sarnernethod ofnet fishingor linefiçhing.
It was alsoagreed that itshouldbe open to either party to suggest
modifications of detail or wwordi-n Kgi the remaining articlesof the
convention.
-
-.
{a), {b(c)and (dldf ththproposcd itho nmt paragraphin9ubstitutiofor
,Srticle rg. Admmralty memorandecmNo. 2
Whilst xveare prepxed tomake subhntial concessions as regards
Norwegiad daims toIjordsor inlets ivherever these waters cm any way
he regatded asenclùsed, we cannot qree to remgnize jurisdietion ovcr
waters that are reallyqtliteoutside such endosed inlets and can only
be regarded asencroachments on the high seas. hVe have gone a long
tvay 20meet the Norwegian pin tafview by açceptingthat svch encloscd
inletsmay incertain casesbe fomed by islandsormay have navigaliIe
straits(ingetlerd use for sea trafic)leading out ofthem, two £actors
which are generally regarded as$ri.prtaaciê evidence that the inlets
inquestion are nottemtorial.
We rnust, however, oppose clains tvhichare rnainlybatseconatheoiy
of generd encloshg lines (drawn fmm headland toheadland) round the
coast.This has no justificatioin international law, and the recogiiition
ofany such daims wauld lead toextrawdinary difficulties with other
countnes.
IVhilst.sympathizing with the Norwegian desire to keep their coxsta!
communications within territorial watersthough from thenaval point
of vi~ ttiere wouldappear to be noreal aclvantttge,nrcthink that the
ordinary 3-mile belt,togethes with such ~ecognitionofinlets aswe are
prepaseclto agreeto, ptovidesremanable .1;aciIifsr this,
Doubt a5 to whether a ship iswithin w outside the territoriaLimit
isinevitableinmany casesoffailcoasts,andit is iinpossibto auciidthis.
Where the coastline is imegular, we consider that imust be accepted
that the Ilmit ofterritarialwaters must constitute an irregular line.
Deep pockets willbe ahost entirdy avoidd by the sribstantial conces-
sions that we are prepared to make, but the resdts of the pecdiar
configurationof the Nonvcgian coast canot be entirely amided on any
r~ognized mockrn conception of territorial waters.
M7e must ernphasizethe substantialconcessions thatwe have dready
agreed to make, particularly inrespect of HieVestfjord, whme we arc
accepting a line considerably.fa~ther out tlim would ordin arily be
regarded as fie closinhie of the inlet.
St~imte~z tyiltBritish Co~mittee QM Ae daims csdva~tcdtrtyeNom~ia~t
hTmd SM& Commiitce, as set out Awaex (D) altlacl~Rtoth wï.p1ules
of the second meeting of the NavaE Sub-Ço~tPsitte@ set Annex V 10
thernz~ztdesothejatwthm&~g o/th teu~/erio.aaçs)
We pmpose to ded firstwith the casesin which we think that wecan
meet the iriewsof the Nanmgim Cornittee, usingthe silhouettecharts,
and referringto the waters discusscclby the nurnhrs employcdtheteon,
as setfort11inAnnerc ID) : ANNEXES TO BBITiSH MEMORTAL (NO. 7) "59
3. The idet is inswcant andweean agree tarecognition, although
there is some confict with the principwe uplrold.
7,Ive can agreeta recognition of this fjorwith the modified line
suggestedinAnnex (D), on tliground that thevarious cliannelsenclosd
within this line an beregardedas mere divisions of the generentrante
to thefjord.
II.This cm be agreed to,subject to fie drawing ofthe line from
'Brynnilento the northerirmost point Amoy. This line maybe regarded
as marking the entranceto awell-dcfinedand narrow fjord.
16. In thiswe WC have ben irnpresscd by the important naval
considerations aclvançcd,and in view of thcse considerationswe can
accept the Nonvegian line. viz.,from Maaneset to the northernmost
paint:of -bdoy.
18n. IVe can agree toNa.rS A,the recognitionof which appears ta
follow hm the recognitionof Vestfjord as definecby tlieNonvegian
line.
21. 'Ne agree-t-the recognition of Fmhavet forthesewns setout in
the Oslo PmtocoE, i.e. tltat ff gives açcew to the fartifredport af
Trondhjern.
24. Having regard to the great importance rvhiçhthe Norwegian
Cornmittee attacl~esto thk areaowing to its proximtiytoOslofjord, we
cm in tllicasc regardthe clusters ofÎsIandsas,ineffect, anextension.
of the coastenclosingthe fjord.
25, \?r,can accept the Norwegian Cornmittee's correctionof the Iine
clrawn at meeting at Oslo in Oeccmber 1924, \5?under&anù tiiatthe
revised linmarks the outer defcnceof theport.
Xnthe following casesivc arcunable to faiiiawith the views of the
Norwegian Cornmittee :
8. 'Sircan fÎndno:,ounds forregardhg thesewaters as a territorial
inlet,
ro, The sameobjectionapplies as in the caseofN'a. 8.The entrace
is wide, and there ina bay or fjord ilivolved- Breivikfjaisa 6-mile
bay,
r3. 1% can hd no gr~untlS of necwiity os principle rvhich i~lould
justifythe recognitioof tllis areaaaterritorial intet,
18.The same remarksapply RSte No. 13.
zg A and 19 R. We are unable to recognize these areas, ivhich are
neither fjords nobays.
go. The same remarks apply astuNos. 13 and 18.
22 A. ahc %?me remarks apply as to 19 A and rg B.
24~. The same remarks apply as to 19 A ad rg 13-
29thJune, 1925. r. In a letterfromthe NonvegÎan Ministry far Foreign Affairsto the
Norwegiim Ministriesof Defence and Justice, dated 24thMarck, 1908,
ilrefcrllowingdefinitionis giverifor purposes of fishingregulations:
"from the outerrnostçoast Tirlat low tide or frm the outemirnt
island Urrock which iç not pemanmtly srilmierged"..
2. By a Royd D~creb of 18th December, Igrz (see NrwskLovtilkegede
of 19x2,p.591) the followingdefinition igiven forpurposes af neutra-
lity:
"islaiids, rocksorskerrieçwhich arenot pemanen fly sabmerged" .
3. SubsequentIy the Nomegian Government setup a cornmittee to
report on the question of territmialwates. This conmittee defined .in
a report, whichha never been made public butwhich was completed iri
rgq* the abave ternisas follows:
"islands,skèrriesandrocks tvhich are dwvaysabove wates atordi-
nary low tide".
6 miex k, rnoreevcr, adeclaration Between Norway, D&nark and
Siveden çoncerni~igrdes of neutrality which was issuedon z~stDecem-
ber, rg~z (see Norsk Lrntidm.de of 1912, p. 5g6), and which wse out
of the Royal decree rnentionedin (2)above. ltnins asfal1ows :
"Id= Gouvernements de Norvège,de Danemarket de Suiide:
ayant, envue de fixerdes règlessimilairesde neutralitis'açcor-
dant avec les dispositions conveiitionnellesignbes A La Haye,
eiit~né des nkgoclations qui ontabouti à un accord surltoiisles
pointsde principe comme le prouvent les textes cl-joindesregles
adoptées&parement par les tsoigouvernements respectifs;
et appréciant à sajuste ~raleurl'importance qu'iIy aurait A ce
que Yaccord si heureur;ernene~stant suit maintena également b
Saavenir:
changementseoauxur&glesapprouv&e parouveluisans avoir ptkalable-
ment averti ledeux au* assez t6tpour permettre un échange de
\:uesdans la mati&re,
En foide quoi 1;s soussignés ,iiment autorisés B ceteffet par
leursgouvernements, ont sip6 fa présente cleelaratloet y ont
apposi.leurscachets.
Fait en troisexemplaires à Stockholm,le 11 dkernbre 1912." ANNEXE5 Tû BRITISR MEMORTAL [KIY.7) 16r
Annex X
Tlie 3-mile limit of territorialwaters ithe envelope of di &les,
3 nauticalmiles inradius, wlioçecentra are situated on the low-water
mark.The oast Iine from the low-watermarkof which thislimit si~ould
be rneasurecl isthat ofthe mainland.and aEsothat of al1islands.Tl-ie
word ,"içIand" comprises a11portions of territorycapable of use and
permanently above mater in normalcircums tances.
The lirnit ofterritorial waters in case ofbzys whosewidth at the
entrance daes net exceed 6 miles, i3miles to seauilrdof astraight line
drct~vnamoçs the entrance.
Territorial rîghts may inadditionbe admitted inrespectofa cestain
numberof Lager bays or inletsto be knownasterritorial'inlets, which
must be specificallyenunerated and geogsaphicalfydefined.
(N.B.-The word "envelope" is a mathematical term, and denotes a
curve fotming a commun tangent to anumber oofotlier curvesamnged
~ccirding to çame fixedprirzciple1x1the spechlcase ofthe 3-mile Iknit,
the envelope of the 3-mile circlesso long-as thc lm-water mark is a
smooth line, isa smoothed curve; if thelow-water mark isof indented
ckaracter, the envelope becornes a succession of short arcs kaving a
radius of 3miles.)
Qtestions addr~ssedby the N;o~negian ddegdlht fothe BdisA delegdiaa,
yd July, 1925, ~~gdrdiflIke i~timational asfi~f ofth^rtsgoiiatimts
r. Should fornialagreement concerning the q~estion of territorial
wxters be subject to the condition that an eventual agreement doesnot
enter into forceuntil the adherenceiof otherspecified Powershas ken
secured ?If so,what countries sliould bespecifi?d
z. Should ashilar condition be attached tria convention for fishery
purposes ?
3. Would Great Britain approach the specified oountriesto ohtaiii
thleiadlierence ineither or bothcases?
4. Would Great Btitain leave it to the Nonvegim Government ta
decide whether there shauld be an understandmgregarding fiskieries
during the time necessary for negotiations witl-i otPowerç ?
NorwayhojvouldcpermitnBritishtraders tonfish iiptothetlirnits proposed
under (2),and Great Britainwould \varB nritishfisl~ermennot to enter
th&e tvatei 7s
Admiriilty sflhoue2A-G
[,WO ï@!.prad~c~d.]162 ANNE~YES TO BRITISH MEMORTAL (HM. J A-9)
PROPOSAL5FOR AGREEMENTS
BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY'S mBRHbTEUT IN GREAT ~filT.4TA? THE
NORCYEEWi GUVl?RNMXXT
REGARDINGTERRITORIAL WATERS AND FISHERIES OFF
THE NORWBGIAN COAST l
PHOTOSTAT REPRODWCTTDN OF SECTTON OF CH4RT USED
IN "DEUTSCHLAND" CASE
Anncrxg
THE "DEUTSCHLAND" JWDGMENT
Relstidmde for 1927,age jrj
[Therewere inthis caseeight accused,the supermrgo onboard the
De~tsckiad, Webster.themaster oftirevesselGaetje,and six rnembers
of the crcw, Webstewas charged withinfrnngementofthe Acts concern-
Ing custams-duty dated 20th September, 1845, $ 133,and 4th Jdy,
1322,No. 5, $5I and 2, both repealed by thpresent Act dated 22nd
lune, 1928 ,nd the Act concerniliimportation of spirits, winetc,,
dated 1st August, 1924, No. 4,33 r,33 and 35, now repded by the
Act dated 5th January,1927T.he master was chargcd with infririgemei~t:
of $8I, 33,35 and 35in theAct of 1stAnest, ngz4, and the members
of the crew witli infringement $5r and 35 ofthe same Act.
Açwrding to 5r in thAct of 14thj uly,rgzz he custms-duty limit
is10nautiwl miles outside thextreme islands aaislets whlcare not
permanently run overhy thesea (are notperrnane~tlyunder ivatar).
ThisIo-mile borderisriodiscwçed inthe j~dgment a.5the Co& found
itunnecessary,themere preparation forsmugglingspiritsintomother
State's territoking held to be a criminaloffence. TIIlaw of xst
August,1924p,opularlycalled"the Spirits Act"basesits pend clausa,
however, onthe "usualterritorial borderand itwillbeseen tht itis
oniythe limitof 4 sesa ileswhich the Supreme Courthas discussed,
The part ofthe judgment ~vhich only deals withthe Act concerning
custams-du@, part A of thc charge, iviltllerefonot be translated.
Cmd.P3121..tg?S,puMished by EFis 3ktjdy'sStntiOdWy.Ofi~, London, ANNEXES TO BRITISB IME3fORIAL (XU. 9 163
Tn the folloivingtranslation referenc1sseveral tirna:made to'the
Royal Resçript of the King af Denmark-Norway of 1812r ,eferred ta
beloxvas a "decrec". StLictlyspeakimg,the resçriptitselfisdated aznd
Febmary, and the Mernorial,i'qresentirithepublication of it, appeared
on 25th Fehruasy, Tlie comment5 Inbrackets are nlr.Nansen's,)
Judge BONNEV IE[The order ofvoting isdecidd by lot. The judge
quotes from the judgmentof the DistrictCourt.]"The acciised(Webster}
has admitted, that BmiscJtiand laaded ca.59,aoo kilog. and95 cases of
spirits inDanzig. Re ha$ furthemore statecithat it\vas orig~nally the
theNorthn Sea,he decided tubgo to theNonvegianercaast betweeri Halten
and Kya in orderto dispose ofthe cargo outsidethe Norwegian barder,
the IO-mileborder, which he waç acquainted with, The accusedha
denielrithat he haspassedthe border mentioned, It iseçtablished,and
liasako been admitted by the accused, that the vesse1ernained between
Kya and Ralten during the period of 6tlt-17thMarchthis year [1926],
when she \vasseized and broughtto Trondhjem.
To decide whether, and iso to what extent, Norwegianlaw haç been
infringedduring DeulschlandS stay on thecoast,the Court finds ineces-
sq ta farm an opinion on haw the customs-duty border and the teni-
tonal border is to bbe&awn in this area. Stccrtiilgwith the Decree of
zznd February, 18~2, and the laterRoyd Decreesof 16th October, 1869,
concerning the sa-border outsideSundmore, andof 9th Septernb e88,,
cancerning the ses-bordeorutsideRomsdalen, and the twoRoy alDecrees
of5th Jaiuary, 1881 ,nd17th Decemk, 1596, concerningthe Varanger-
fjord, the Co& presumes that the bordermust be drawn parallewith
the chief direction ofthe.coaçtoutside the skerines. Withoiitit being
possible for theCourtto decide exactly wliere the bordeista biedra~vn
here [between Hya and Halten], the Court considen that it issafe to
say that here at ariyrate thebase-llnecannot be dnwn closer inthan
froiri. Utgcundskjer [the extrernrock inthe HaIten ghoup] toKya on
Folla.so t21atthe tenitoriaborder andthe custorns-dutyborder cmot
be closerin than 4 and zo milesmpective1y outside this line.
The Cotirt findsit My proved that between 6th-17th March the
Detttscfllandhas fomost of the time been inside the h'orwegianmtorns-
duty border, severxl thes lias been inside theNomegian territorial
border and has hvice even been inside the base-line,Tl-iaccused has
maintained thatit is enorigtokeep IO and 4 nautiçalmilessespectively
irom the extrernerocks.In thisconnection, the Court will observe that
even ifa,sthe accused maintains, tbc bordermust be Rraivnin circles
round tlie extreme rocks,the Demtschlandhaç passed the Nanvegian
custarns-duty border, asthe following points lieat a distance of less
than ro miles from the nearest rocks, whidl are not permanently run
over by the sea,Nos. 2,6, 7, IO,zo and 23 B. Foiut NO. 5 liesat a
distance of ro nautical miles fmm Vestbrekka (sec chart Na. 309 9.
According tothe ship'slog the vesse1has, however,not been Uiside the
+mile barder.
The accused has maintainecl that thesale of the spiritstook place
outsidethe IO-mileborder.The Cmrt finds it established, howevethat
Thechartgivingthesc pointireproduced iAnnex 8 [undcrseparatcover].=a !KHNEXES TO BRTTISN MEMOUKAT(-30. 9)
the salet~li place on15th J'Iarckand inside the 4-nifiebarder.baseci
on a linedram between Utgrundsskj~r-Kya.'"ere endsthe q-siotahon
from the j~idgment by the DistrictCourt.]
It wiil,inmy view, be necessafr oyrthe Supme Court to expressan
opinion on the DistrictCourt's construction inlaw segarding the exient
of the sea-territorinthe-districtin questian.1have fonnd the question,
where the borderof the sea-territoryinthisplace mut be yresumed to
go, extremely doubtfirl.Several statements by experts have bcen Iaid
befare the Suprane Court, including staternentsby Captain Meyer and
Captain Kïingenberg, together with an opinion by dy. jwis Arnold
Kastad dated 2nd Deceraiber,1926. Arnong prInted souTces especially
seferredto is thereport oftheSea-Berder Commissionof rg IIconsisting
of Mr. Wollebxk,CommanderDahi and M. Fleischer.T,Vehave also seen
a letter from the Foreign Department to the Secrctary-General of the
League of Nations'Expert Committe~ for the çontinued codificationof
viewrnonithe qveçtion of the extentaf2sea-territorintgeneral is stated.
Asrnmtioned inthejudgment a fthe,Distnct: Court, regulatiurisregard-
ing the extent ofthe sea-tenitoryare frrst found in the Mernorial of
25th February, 1812 , here it is stated thaon the zznd of that month
the Ring resolved : "Wewish toestablish thc mle that ina31instances,
tvhere there is a question of the determinati ofnthe border ai- out
territorial-supremacyin the SB, this içtobe çaIcnlated up to theusual
sea-mile7([4 seamiles] distancefrom the extremc island orislefrom the
shore, which is notrun over by the sea ',"
I seethat it iscIearthat the Norwegian public authoriti~ have cm-
stmed Iliis regdation asproviding a definition oftlielimits ofthe SM-
territory,wliichis indispntablNowegian, within which limits thexfore
ail pointsare Norwegian. It is at the same time quite certain that, as
regards certainspecialregions ofthe sea, for instance thVestfjord and
the Varangerfjord, the public authoritie have rnaintained fmm ddcn
times that these fjords are Nonveginn territory in their entirety, and
that the territorial border rnmbe dsawn in straight lineat the month
of the fjo~ds,rcgardlessof the fact thatgreat regionswhich lie outside
the +mile botder are thereby incldded in Norwegian territory. But for
the greater part of the counts's extensive cmst itis not proved that
the= exiçtsany further rules, Thecoastoutside Sundrnore and Rorns-
dalen iç an exception to this,videthe above-mentioned Royal Decrees
of 1869 and 1889.
1 thi& it relevanttoquote some ofthe sections intheabove-mentioned
opinion by Dr. Rastad :
"The Decreeof r8rî and, if =ch exist,'supplementarycommon law
rulesrnus te crinsfrueindependently ofthe importance one will attacli
to tlieAct of 1922, 31. Canversely, hotvever,it rnight besaid that the
Act of 1922, 5 r, should be coristzukd in theligliof the olderdes of
law. The dmree and, if snch exist, snpplementary cornnion 1a.wrules
must dso he constmed independently of the fact that under the inter-
national convention regardingthe controlof smuggling ofalcoholicgoods
dated 19th Aupst, 1925, Art. g,Nomay and some other States 'bind
! Thistriuisl&tiby-Afr. Nansemop be cornparcd with thaof the Rezistry:
ofthc Court (spara.6 ofthe MernoriaI). ANNEXES TO RRlTTSE MERïOBIPFZ, (~0. 9)
165
'thernselvesnat ta objet ifany of them enforce is laws on t-essels
-proved to be smuggling within a distance of rz nautical miles frbm the
ca<stor the extreme skerrieçline',
" ltmut ftirthemare be rnaintained that we are here concernd with
the construction as ta how customary niles are to be applied for the
purpase ofthe supplcmenting pendclams. Itisnot absolutelynecesary
to take ifor grantcd thak a cmtomq nile-speciaU one that in itseif
isvery sumrnary and ~vhichtherefore must to a specia>degree be s'fpp1e-
mented by mnstruction-shail be constmed inthe same way, when it
is to beapplied ititlie provinceof thelegislationof pend law aswhen it
is qplied inother relations,...
"According ta tliedecree therc is no doabt as to the normal extent
of the sea-territory measured from land to sea.It isageographica 1ile
or the quivalent of 7,420 metresi, Doubts cm, liowever, arise when
it isto be decided fromzvhat base the gecagraphicalmile is tube drawm.
And it is theanswcr to tliis question which .widetermine whethw the
District Court has been right in findingthe accuçed guilty of infringing
the legiçiation regarding spirits.".. "The question arises,however, if
in the present case one shaIl deterlninc the extent of the sea-territory
from the single isiands, isIets md rocks or-BS the Disttick Court has
;donc-irorn irnaginary base-lines drawn between twa islands, islets
or rocks and how in praçtice these-base lines areto be drawn. Itis he're
nccessarji tù make a distinction. It isone thing If,amording to inter-
national law,a Stak isentitledtadetermine [establishlthat for particular
or general purposes certain parts of the adjoining sea are under its
suprernacy.It 1s another thing if,according to international law or
according to its 'own lawç, a State cm look upon itslegislationin a
special relation asextendcd to the same parts of the adjuining sea when
ithas flot yedetermincd that its suprcmacy extends sa far. AState can
have aright trithouthavingmade use ofit.
'The present question isthereforc not answered by stating that the
Norwegian Statehas a right to dra~ the border of itssea-territory in
criminal cases one gcographical mile frorn imaginary base-line drawn
between twe of the extreme isands, islcts orocks It is important to
know if the Decree of r8n and, ifsuch exist, suppfernentary cornmon
law rules prescribed that the border of the sea-territoristobe based
on "Here ansesa dificulty rvhichiç serious,especiaUywhenthe decree
and, if çuch exist,supplementary cornmon Iarvdes are to be applied
in criminal cases,Neither the decree nor such cornon law des state
how in practice-between which islânds, islets orrocks-the base-lines
are to be drawn. Even if it is assumed that the existing rdea of law,
provided as ageneralrule, that the sea-tersitoryisto tz reckoned from
base-lines, it must there-forebe admittedthathey donot givemy positive
guidance as to how thc sea-territory iste be reçkoned in the special
in$tanm. Some foreignregulations stat: that the sea-territory irto be
reckoned from 'the çoast and its lmys' or sornething similax. Tt wili
tlien he passible to establish from historic-al evidence what ista be
undmtood by 'bayç' 01-the other expression which rnay have been
used. The decree does not contain anythiiig simiIar.Furtlicmortr, itis
l Ccnerally rkfmcd to (focunvcnic&e) In theRfcmarial&s a *'Scandinavian
lebgse".166 ,ANNEXES TO BR~TISE ME-IIO~AT, (NO.9)
very nnlikelyfor historical maçonsthat the decree was meant ta bc
understood in this iÿay.The originalstarting point in Norway as in
severalother countriesisthat the extentol the sea-territorcorsesponds
tci the range of viervbut thiç iç not thesame as reckoning tiiesea-
territofr ryrnanimaginary Ilne.Tlic decrw wacissued with the uestion
ofcapture especially in rnind. is not ason on ab tlewppose t ~at the
Damch-Namegian Government tvanted to extend its protection of
trading vessels to Uicludeparts of the sea, wliich couldnot easily be
defined.If aconstruction suc11as thatrnentioned isto te applied tothe
decme, it must be because aaother sulution wodd be unpractiçal, but
the practicaladvantag-the grcaterpublicswurity-fsU awa y, wiless
it an at the same time be çtated how the base-lines arc tobe draivn.
A iule inJRW, wkicb &tes that thesea-territoryistabc reckonedlrom
bace-lines,but nothmv the base-linesareto be dtatwl,can aisonot corne
into existence through cornmon hw, mmmnn law must concern itself
tvith sornething practicallstated.
"Undoubtedly the Norwegians have formany Yeats loûked npon the
skernes asa uniSr,'especiall~over questions offishing and on these
providenthe naturatstartirigpoint for threckaningofthe skscaterritory.
Inmy view, however, one cannot selectany particuiarlinealmg a pad
of the skeqies as a basis for definingthe seh;territo~ unless one can
find support in the positive regulations or unlesç in wnsidkring the
regio n question onecanjustiiy oneself onhistasical facts, i.e. cornmon
law. The necesriaryhistoricalfacts wiluçuallyapply only in connection
with an exclusive use, for instanw,for the purpose of fishing,of the
part of seain question :they do not usuaily appiy in casessuch as the
present one of criminal jutrsdiçtion,and they are certainlnot present
in this case.The two Royal Decrees of18th bctober, ~869, and 9th
September, 1839,do not dispmve the contention that in criminal
cases the sa-territory can only be reckaned irom base-linesdrmn
between two islands,isletsand rocks, wltm fis+cccid$rovisionlias b~m
iss.tcetdthiseflect[underlined by Mr.Narisen],the base-Iine whîch has
been drawn by the Royal Decree of 9th Scptemkr, 1889, runs ah any
rate inclneplace, if not in several places, inside rocks, arecdrylow
water.
"Having taken thisstandpoint it is not neccssairyforme to dacide
the questionurhetl~erthe Norlvegiaa authoritiescan pave the rightto]
determine; that the Noruregian sea-territory shd lx reckoned fsm a
base-line Utgmndsskjar-Kya. It isdeciçiveforme that sucha provision
has not been issued, and that it also cannot lx proved that such a
determination of the sea-tetritoryis based on hktorlcal facts bot11as
~egardsthe application and as regardsthe region inquestion."...,
"There are fjordsor arms of the sea on the Nomegian c&, wriich
through a long historicaldevdopment have received the character of
Nonvegiansea-tenitary, atany rate inçome or m0st applications,but
thersreisno evidence tothe efiectthat the region ofthe scain question
or part of it ha rwelved such a chamctcr. Even if one takes it
foxgranted that al1 parts of the sea which cm be çalledfjord or bay
are parts ofNonvegian sea-kritory-in other worclsthat such a rtrlein
lad l-iadbeen formed through cornrnon Jaw-still in tfis case,where
the 'm' 01 the border lzas not been more dearly decided ripon, one would stiil havetodefinethe w&ds lfjord"and %ay' inthe m ostfaveur-
able way forthe condemned, and limit'the fjord'and 'thebay' in the
question (Frohavet) wouIdthen çlearly haveTto be lirnited outwardbyn
a line not further out thanbetween the Halten gmnp and the Hosen
Island.
IThe foregoing does not mean that Noiwcgian public authorities
cmld not issueprovisfansan;to the cxtent ofthe sea-territ or cyuld
not by interaationd agreement estabhh minimumdaims, repsmting
an advance of the seil-tenitory fa outside thcise borders, which rnust
atpresent be dmwn under thepresent spatial jurisdictiof the penal
cdlzs.''[Here ends the qnvtationhm Dr. Rsstad'sopinion.!
1
As cnn be dcrivcd fm the above, itisDr, Rastad's opinionthat
the "baçc-Iine" dmwn by the District Court canot be maintahed in
connection with pend IegislationAfter considerabledoiibt1have in the
end accepted Or. ?&;;estadstandpoint.
Kya, decided upon by tlicDistrictCourt, 1agreeswithnDr.gRxstadkjthat
the DistrictCourt had bccn too boId, and that otherbasc-fineswhich
in practicc rvauIdreducethe Norwegian territoty,couldquite weZ1corne
irziderconsiderrition. nthis conneçtlon I expressno view on whether
theState authoritiesmay have the rightby Royal decreeto decidcupon
a line Utgrundssk jr-Kya-Nordoen (Ertenbraken (Freflesa)) or perhaps
direct Utgrundsçkjzr-Nardoen. StillIessdo 1 express a view on how
the question would have been solved, if thState authorities had made
such a decisionprier tothe action ofthe accused.1havenot saidposi-
tivelwhether some'partofthe region,whichbecomesNorwegian territory
according to the linc given by theDistrictCourt, cannot in realitybe
looked ullon as sUçh.In view ofthe evidence beforeme 1regard rnyself
as both entitld and bound to Icave uasolvcd the question, how the
territor iorder should be mrrectly drawn. In a criminal case such
,zsthis it wouIdnot bercasonable foxthe Court to corne to a positive
decision asto theexact extent ofthc'sea-temiit norregion wliere the
Norrvegîan State authorities thernselves havc omittcd exactointimate
their çlGm or their tviltvith regardte the extcntof the sea-t-territory.
Thc District Court bas also not exactly defined the bordor the base-
fine here, bnt only said that it is presumedthone is"onthe safeside"
by takingsuch aline fotgrante$. I am, however, of the opinion thont
fs not eevenentitIedtoestablishso much. I am, indeed, of the opinion,
that there are very good reasans fmch a lincand that there can even
be a question of one still further outhere,asi$ thecase regarding the
coast of Sundmtire and Romsdalen, the border of the sea-temitoryis to
bedecidedby a Royal decree. But forthe presen tnd according to the
material disclosedin thepresentcase,I am of the opinion thatonemust
limit oneselfto theview that the DistrictCourt has not been entitled,
when judging the conduçt of the accused, to buildupon a base-llne
Utpdsskj;er-Kya as thecorrectone. The rtsulthereof must be that
thejudgment given by theDistrict Court is amuiteclasthe description
ofDet.ttschland'position given by the Court only refess to the line
Utgntndsskjcfr-Kya,and cloesnot contain any finding that in accord-
DctitscAland has bencinsatplace which cknewith hIZ cerfainty 'besaid
tebe witllinMortvegian'territor.
12 17a ANNEXES TO BRITISR 3E%T\ITORTfi{NO.IO)
1 am ofthe opinion thatitrilouldbein accordanc eith oldNorwegim
constructionoflaw, that a basin likethis must be Iooked upon as part
.of the inner Nomegian seawater. According to Captain Meyer's state-
ment it lieas a whole inside thewater which serves thefseenavigation
offoreignersdong the Nûwegiari coast.Inelresyçircu~ce, however,
'Iam ofthe opinion that tlieDistrict Courthas been on the safe side,
whkn it has presumed that the base-fine for ourçea-territorycanbe
dtam between Utgrundsskjtrr and Kya.
DIPLCIMATIC CORRESPONDENCEIN CASES OF "LORD WELR"
AND "HOM%"
No. x
Oslo, 27th March, 1931.
Monsieur liMinistre d'gtat,
Y have the Isonour,mder instructions fmm Hiç Majesty's Principal
Secretary ofState forForeign Affairstridraw Pour Excellency'satten-
tion tothe casesof trvoBritisltrawlers,the Howeof Grimsby, and the
Lmd Wair of Hnll, whlcliiverearreste ùy tlieNorwegian authorities
in September 1st on charges ofhaving fished in Nomegian territorial
+waters. Inthe firstof thee casesa fine ofKt, 2,000 was imposed,as
it\vasheld that the Howe nrasfishing bet~veen3 and 4 nariticalmiles
from the shoreon the nlghtof 13th September, whiistin thecaseof the
Kr. r,ooo?Sromthe valne of,the çatchiandsadpayment af Kr.cLOOetoitheof
CustomsIVatch, on the grounclthat onthe night of rgt1-iSeptmher s11e
had fished at a spot3.6 ttauticalmileoutside the line Haabrandnpisset-
Klubbespiret, i.e. mare than 4 nauticalmaes fm the nearestland. '
z. AsYmr Exçellency isalready awm, His Majesty's Government
are unable torecognize any such right ofarreston thepart of aforeign
government outside the 3-mile limit ;and, in.the circurnstancesI am
instructed to protestagainst both of thcse arrests.
3. I am alsotopoint out, iconnection with theçae ofthe.Lord Weiv,
that,so iiaras His Majesw'sGovcmrnent are awarc, no base-iinehas
ever been laid dolm in theregionof the Syltefjord by Royal decree or
other order.Youwillremember the decision of the NonvegianSupreme
Court in the caseof the DsutschZmd in 1927i,n the coiirseof wh~chit
was stated that "itwodd not be iair if the eaurtof justice inapenal
case13re thepresent one should fom a positive decisioasto the exact
extent ofterritoria,watersforan area eoncerningrvliichthe Norwegian
State authoritiehave themselvesornittedto signify their clahos tlieir
rvd with regard tothe extent of territoriwatersJ".
4. In view of thisdecision 1am to anquixewliat is the pzcise base-
linaclairnedhy the Nomegian Goverment on this parta£ thecoaxt of
Nomay, md under what ordinance thisbase-line wcvaprescribed: and
inth&coniiection1 wauld venture to remind you thata shilar questionIVES addtessed to YourExcellency by Sir Francis Lindtey -inhisnote
of 28th Match, 1927,enquiring what tvere theprinciples upon which
the Norwegian Go7~ernment fixedthe lisnitoftheirnational orterrit~riaL
waters inthe case of inletsthe reply to which, dated 19th July, 1927,
stated that the NonrsegianGoverment werenot atthatrtiine in a position
to give the infamation desired,since tliequestion of anexact marking
of the hit of Norwegian territorial mtetswas being cotisideredhy a
special.cornmittee.
1 a-r~aietc, .
, . (Signed) CHARLE $INGFIELB.
No. z
, bfensieuc k MÎnistre, Oslo, 11th Aupçt, sgjr-
With ~eference to your note ta the forna Prime Minises, W. Mo-
winckel, of 27th Marc11 l&, and to Mr. Carnegie'sletter to mc of 13th
dho, regarding the amt of two British traders Hoee md Lord
Yeir, 1 have the honour ta convey the following information :
,45is known, Nomegim territorialwaters, in accordance with the
~escription of centuries, have a breadth of 4 nautical miles, As regards
the base-lines€rom whith the +mile lhit istobe calculated,the position
is that the Stortinghave not yet taken up a standpoint with regard to
the final rnarking of thse lines inal1 deta. It is assimied that this
id takeplace in the course of the comingsession of the Stclrtlng,and
as soonas suçh a decisionhas been made it wiIl be a plci~ure for me to
see that you receive alneçesay information inrhat respect.
1must ,netomit toadd fhat, inaccordance116th reportsreceived from
the campetent autharities, the position is that whatetter base-line, of
thosë that Nonvay can consider,may be taken a5 the one fmm whic1.1
temtorial waters are to be calculateclthe arresotf thetwo trawlers will
be found tuhave t,&m place within the +mile limit.
1 avail,etc.
(Fos the Minister for Foreign +4ffairs)
{Sig&) AUG. .SI ARCH.
His Majesty'sGovernment are vesy saiously perturbed over the
situationthat has ariseswith regard to the treatmmt ofBritishtrawlers
corning into the neighbourhood of the coast ofNomay, for the reports
reçeived from our fishermea give the impression thata definite campaign
Ministerttomakes very strongtoficidareprescnt;~tions nth& subjects;buts
he has obtained permissionto endeavous to arrive atsome informa1 settle-
ment fint.The trvo chicfcauses of cornplaintare : 'NDRWEGIANNOTE ETABLISWING "'MODUSVIVENDI"
TIEGARDING RED LINE
MP. VOGT TO SIR JOHN SIMON
London, 30th Navember. x933.
Sir,
On 22nd Novcmber lzt a conference was hdd at the Xnistry of
Fisheries in orderto disrn the fishingsituationoutside Norwegian
waters,
During this conferencethe Brïtkl?delegate made some romplaints
in regard to the seizure of Britis-t-rawlersof£the Norwegian cost,
stating thatthesitua-fioduring the1st eigliteemontais was diflerent
from what it used te be: duringprevionsyeass,
On this occasion Shave the honoul-,by ordes of my Government,
to inform you that tlie attitudeof the Norwegian GcJvmment in
regard ta the treatment of British kavvlerhad not ben subject to
any alteration during the last eighteenmonths, In order to ah
this and desiring toavoiciany frictionmy Government have @yen
instructions to theNorweaan control vesseIsenforcingthe necessity
of maintainhg the practicewhich for years has been followedin this
matter. Thisstep has been taken pendhg the decision ofthe Storting
inregar o a Bill establlshkthebase-linesof the Norwegian territorial
waters.
I have, etc.
(Sigmd) B.VOGT.
THE "ST. JUST" JUDGMITNT
R~tstidenàefor~434, pge 731:
[The Mster of SE.Jm2 ofRu11 was sentenced by kheDistrict Court
afVarda for infringement of the Act concerning foreigners fishiin
Norwe@ansea-territory dated md June, rgo6. No.3, Q§I and 4, and
thc Actconcerning trawl-fishing dated 22ndMay1925N,o. 3,1$a and 4.
The casewas thereafter brougbt before the Court ofApped ("Lag-
mannsretten"), the chaiman of which iscalled "Lapann", which
upheld the jndgment given by the DistricCourt, T11eSupreme Court,
with two dissentingvotes,came tu the same conclusionas the Court
of Appeal.]
Jridge KLAESTA :Tlieaccmed hm appealed against thejudgment
given by the Courtof Appeal on the following grounrls "1 look uponthe 'lapanri's' summing up regard'rng the border ofthe Nomgian
sa-territory as incorrect. Referring to the jndgment given by tlie
Suprme Court 30th fine, 1927,RelstiXmcle,page jrj [theDeutschland
case],I maintain that itis not the standpoint of Nonvegian Iaw, tl~at
the border of the ses-territoroff theNonvegian coast must be drarvn
4 naotical miles off landfrom base-lin& follewingthe main direction
of the coast. Inmy view, the Norwegian State may have a rÏgIzt to
,determine such a territorial barder asit consid~rs necessary, in this
case a territoridborder fram the base-line Kaalneson Rensya-Korsnes
{Makaur). The Norwegian Stata has, however, ady in a fem oth~r
instaricesi.enot in this one), madeuse of its righto establisfi certain
borders, going beyond the border mentioaed in the Mernoriai of
z~tli February, 18x2, viz.one [Forwegian) seamile from the extserne
island or isletwhich is not run over by the =a. J alsobase my vierrr
on the judgment given by the District Court of Trondenes 2nd hfarch,
~933,inthe criminal case a aiqstFrank Northon and Leonard Jolly.
There is absolutely no wi dence to show that inthis instance any
compeent authority has made any provision reprdirig t>emabove-
mentioned base-luie."
Ar:regards the "lagmann's" summing up, tlre eorrectne sfswhiclr
Es thus in dispute, the following lias been enterd in the minutes of
theCourt of Appeal :"At the requestof the counsel for the defe~~ce.*
the 'lagrnann' insnted a passage to the effect thatin sumrning up
he had stated diat asa general rde the border for Norwegian sea-
territorgoes4 nauticalmiles from land ,id ehe extreme rocks svhich
are dry at low waters. The border does not, however, foiiow ail the
cwes of the coat, but must be hm according to a base-lineivhich
inthis instance is presumed to be the line Kaalneset on Rekaya-
Korsnes (Makaur) since in the 'lagmann's' view the base-line must,
according to Noswegiasi law, be drawn to follow the rnai~z'direction
ofthe CO&."
In considering the construction of law expsased in this summing
up, I ivillmake the following observation : The Royal Decree of
~2nd February, 1812, which isreferredta inthe Memonal of the 25th
ofthe same month, does not contain any special provision asto 11ow
the sea-border shall be drawn indetail along the comt. The decree
statesin thismnnection tl-iat the border must be reckoned up to the
ilsual sea-mile [hTorwegian]distance from the extreme idand or islct
understoodanta mean tbatnothe sea-border musthibeprdraivnn4inauticaly
miles fromstraiglitlines betnreenthe iwiitrerneislands, islossrocks,
which are not regularlynin over by the ses- Itmn probably be said
that practicalrequirments have necessitated such a draivingup of
straightbaselines for the reckoningofthe sa-temitory. ln rtricase,
the above-mentianed provision hasnot been understood to mean, nor
lias ibeen so applid, that the borderfollotvs the çurvesof the coast
or isdrawn up hy the aid of circlesaroiindthe extreme points of the
çkerries or thern~itinland-aprocedure which, because of the toast's
specïal configuration, muiscarcely be çarried thouglz ormaintained '
in practice.
In thiscamection 1 referasan èxample to ths report &ven in1893
by the FinnmarkFiçlrery Commission of r8gr,tvhichstates on page 20
in çonnection with the above-mentioned Mwiorid of 1881 z:'Tor tlie fjords of Finnmark, the boder of the .ses-territorycan be drawn
pardel witl~ a straight line between both the exberne capes at the
mouth of the fjord; in thesame way one must be able to jump from
me island ta the other,"
Ln thesame way the Sea-Brider Commission cff Igrl states in its
report, Part 1, page tr : "Generally one will in special instancesbe
moçt certain that one is coming to a decision in accordance with old
Norwegian construction of law if one deansthe base-lineto go betwen
the most eztreme of the points, betnveen which the choice stands,
witllout my regard to the length of the ]me.'*The commission states
furtheron page 29 ; "11Then itts ascedained, which mcks dong the
toast must be looked uponas the'extreme" iitwillbemost inaccordance
with the tems ofthe Decree of 1812-which Iets the bardergo oueside
the extreme islandç and islets, and whicl-idoes not even mention the
coast fine ofthe mainland-tb look upm al1continuotls waters hnde
;is Norwegian and furthermore to rtckon the sea-territ otself-as
extending one [4 wa miles] mileoutsirleimagina~ystraight lines drawn
between the mcks. Ifthe provision gives any guidance atal1 itseems
especiallyta look uponthe islandra;d isletas s9 many points insuch
base-lines.This iç in contradicti tonthe idea that the border shouId
partly be drawn in cnrves outside the rocksor in half 'circlesround
thesewith a one geographical mile radiusor partly drawn in a whole
circle round the individual mck thns giving a sea-territoryin this
place ivhich is detached from the reçt of the territorgr.''
In a letterof 3rd Rlarch, 1927, from the Foreip Office to the
Sccretary-Genera of the League of Nations, it isfurthemore i?ife~
alia stated :"Regarding thedratving-up ~f the border it mustbe noted
that the for Nortvay to a specialdtgree characteristicsystem of fjords
and skerries, distiriguisheby the nurnerous fjords wliich evajm-here
cut deep into the cotintrp and by the numerous big and srnall Islands,
islets and rocks w,bich çtretçh.thenisehes in a bsoad continuous belt
so to speakdongthe rvIiole coast,lias led, a naturai and necesçary
consequence, to the fnctthat one in Nonvay ha5 not been able to let
the system offjords and çkerries, bat has drawne theeborder x geogra-
phicalmile from the extreme coast line at low water or from straight
lines between extreme islamds,islets or rocks, which are not pemanently
ruil over by the sea and outsidebays and fjords-xvhich fmm olden
tirne5 inthehistory of the country have heen looked upon and main-
tain4 to be s awhole hner Nonvcgian waters-from tlielin? between
the extreme land-mainland, isiand or idet-n hot 1-sides."
Regarding the Deccee of ~Srz the Korwegian Governmcnt stated
inter@lia in a memorandum of1428 to the Secretary-Generat of the
League of Nations r"In accordance with the traditionalconshction
of the constitutional status of the watm amund the skerties. the
general indication of tkisdecree must be understood in such a wa
tliatabel wliich combines the'e'ttremerocks dong the skerries, an$
when çuçh do not eist, the extrcmcpoints, forrns the starting point
for the reckoriingof the sea-territory..,Nortvay ha nnorule for the
maximum distance'between the starting poits forthe base-Ilriesfrom
which the sea-territory iç reckoned."
I , -4similarconstructi~n iç alsmaintainedin our constitutionalthmry .
i176 ANNEXES TU BRITISH MEMIILlAI; (NO.13)
In filyopinion. howéver,what is of the greatest and most decisive
importance in determinhg how the above-mentionedprovisionin the
Decree of ~8x2is ta be understood is that on several lateroccasions
there have been issued Royal decrecs.stating horv the base-line isto
be dra\vn for specialparts of the coast.These decreeç, which partly
coricernregions outsidethe skerriesand partly the water at .themoudi
of a fjord, must be Iooked. upon as authentic indications as to hoiv
the luIe is tobe understood and put inta practiceand are tlierefore
of great importance ininterpreting how the sule is to be a pliecl to
other parts of the coast. It is laid dom by the Roy21 8 ecrce of
16th October, 16691, that a straightline ck-awn ata distance ofone
(Noswegian)geographical mile frorn, and pamlrel bvith,a straigiiline
between Storhulmen and Svinoy, stralbe looked upon as the border
isreserved for the cunnty's otvncpopulation. This line i25.9enautical
miles from athecmainland nit11 several big islandssakttiteen,Byautthel
Royal Decsee of 9th September, 1889 T,straiglibase-lines were drawn
outside the comt of Komsdalen fmrn Stotholmen ovcr Çkraapen-
ou tside Har~y-Gravskjzr-ou tsideOna-ancl Kalven-the mos textreme
of the Orkriicks-to the most extreme of the Jevfe isletsoutside Grip.
The length ofthe base-lirle Storholmen-Skraapen is 14.7nautical miles,
of Skraapen-Gravskjzr 7 nauticsI miles, of Gravskjzr-Kalven 23.4
nautical miles and Kalven-the most exheme of the JevZe islcts-
~1.6 nautical miles, The lzt-mentioned 4 is1ets lie about 12, 108, 7
and rq. nauticalmiles respective frym the neareistmainland with
many losger and minor &lands, islets and roch between. This infor-
mation is derived from the above-mentione rdpart from the Sa-
Border Cnmmission of 1911 ,age 13, note x,and page 17, note r. Xt
wm finally decidedby the Demes of 5th January, 1881, and 17th
December, 2896, conceming the preservation ofwhale, that thepreser-
vation border in the Varangerfjord gaes parallet to a straight line
clra~m straight over the moutli(ofthe fjord)jrom Kibergnes toGrense-
Jakabxlv.
Iticonsidering the çumming up by the "lagmann'yn the light: ofthe
generaldes laiddown in theDeme of rSrz,and the way in whi& the
rulcshave been understood and put intopractice,itappears to me that
thc principalobservation of the '"agmann"regarding the çea-border is
correct.1;thusagree with him that, for the purposc iquestion, iiamely
fishing,.thsea-barder "as agcneral rulegoes 4 mutical miles frum land
v)ik the extremerock shiçlzare dry at lw ivater'",and that thc sea-
border does not follow dl the curves ofthe coast but rnirst"be bwn
according to abase-line". Inview of the differenstatments totvliichI
havc referred and cspeciallin vihv of thehase-lines,tvhich wereestab-
lished by theDecrees of 1869 and 16s I also consider that, under the
existing IZIit is correct to Idown t5t general ruletl-iathe base-line
"musi be drawn according to the main directionofthe caast", even if,
because of its vagueness, suçha rule inot of grcat usein givirig satis-
factory guidance inçonneçtion tvithconcrete detiçions.
Concerningthe special base-line, in favoof whiçh the 'kgmannu 'as
express4 himself,namely the line fromKanlncsset on Rein~y toKors
Çeeparas. 4-aEthe niernorial *th regard todccws ,17~ XNhTXES TO BRITISH ME%fORfAL IWO 13)
The Decreeof 1812 gives the rulesfor this, valid fothe wkulecoas-t:,
and even if the application ofthese nrlesin sominstancescangivc room
for gdoulitand difficultieboth because of the gencd and somewirat
incomplete contents of therulesand because of thespecial configuration
of the caast, thidoes of coursenot @ve the courts a tightto ignare the
question.
If thequestionof punishment depends ontvhere the border goes,the
border must k ascertained without arry regard as to the difficulties
which ;ircomected herewith and without any reg~rd as tathe opinion
one otherwise may have regarding thepossibleerror orgoad faith of the
accnsed, which isa question ofquite mothcr nature. In.this,as in al1
othcr instances, when itisa matter of applying ageneral suleof law on
a concrete question oflaw, thc courtsmust by constnictim decide hùtv
the general rule ista be understood and appIied, and, with regard to
the rde oflaw in question,the courts have at their disposaas aIready
mentianed a number of mems of înterpretation,some of which are
authentic. In this respect, however, the Nonvegian courtsdo not stand
ia any exceptional position. As farasI know, no State has as yet fixed
its çea-border in detafor dl stretchesofthe mast and foral1pqoses.
-Ais0other States have,spart from certain specialprovisions forsome
waters or for specidppnrposes ,ontented themselvcs with givingp;eaeral
and partly incomplete rules for the drawing up of the sea-border and
have in the last =sort lefitto the courts to ascertainin a-particular
instance of law where the border isto be drawa in that instance in
accordance tvith thesegcn>ral rules.
. It hasbcen contcncled hy the counse!for the defence,tliat the vieiv
In which L have concurred reprdïng the la&-rnentioned objection is
contrtlry tothe judgment given by the Supreme Court, R~d.~bkdmd fcr
ry?,page 593 [theDeeitsdmlandcase).It is certaintrue tliat the voting
in that casedoes not sem to make it quiteclearon what opinion oflaw
the majority has based its decision. Judge Andersen, wliose punds
agreedwithdaniopinionlaid befare the court : "in the absence of ciuthority
contained in a special provislm it cmot be establisl~ed, vnder the
existinp Nonvegian law forthe application ofthe penalcodes which the
charge relates to, that the base-line for thterritorialborder can be
drawn aa far out, andinSUC~ a way, a3 the District Court has dtrtwn it,
infounding itsjudgment on a base-line,Utgrundsçkjzr in the Halteri
group to Kya onFolla", The statment that thebase-line cannot "be
chwn so larout and in such away as the District Court ha5 draw k'',
goesto show that it is speçiaifactoconditions on thespot, which have
been decisiveforthe opinion ofthe majority.1 find under thesecircum-
stancesatanyrate that l carinotttakeit fogranted that thisjudgment
has establisheda resjtdicafa,whicli must be decisiveforthe question
of law in the prescnt case,
[judge Klaestad thereaftef corne o theconcIusian that the appeaI
mwst be disrnissed.]
Judge Boye : 1 agree in substance with Judge Naestad's general
cbmments on the extent of the sea-territoryaçcording to Narwegian
law. 1have, howerer, corneta a crinclusiondifferenfrom Judge Xlae-
stad'sbecause it isstatedIn the "lagmannk" mmhg up that inthe
preçent instance the bardermust be dram .aftera bax-Iine which is ANNEXES TO BRITISH ME3IORIAL (h'o. 13)
179
taken to be thc line Kaalnes on Renoya-Korsnes (Makaus), whilst
according to rn opinion the accused cannot besentenced unless hehas
fished inside fine which isdralvn 4 nauticalmi les outsidand paraIlcl
with a baçe-line between the utrnostcapes inthe mouth othe Syltefjord,
namely Harbakken and Korsnes.
-4smentioiied by Judge Klaeseçtat,hesea-borderiçreckoned qnautical
mi lesfrom straight base-lineswhicli are dtawn between the extreme
isIandç, jslets or rocks. WPieresucdo not esist, ivhich is thcase for
great partsof the coastof Finnmark, the base-lines are drawn bet~veen
the estreme pointson the mainlandovcs the mou th of fjordos indenta-
tions in thecoast. Our fjords have,notwithstanding tiieiwidth, ken
looked upon from ancient times as inner Nonvegian water, and the
sea-border outside these is drawn inthe ~vaymentioned in the report
from tlie Finnmark Fisliery Commissioi~ of 1891, quoted by Judge
Ellaesta: "for thcfjordsof Finnmarken the borderof the sea-territory
can be clra~m parallel witha straight linbetween bath of the extrernc
capes at the opening of the fjord". Opinions can, however, be divicled
over wliichcapes shallbe looked upon as extrcme. Asmentioncd in the
judgmen t givenby theCourtof Appeal, theprosecution had charged the
accused with fishing on Norwgian sea-territory outside Çyl tefjord. '
However, new evidencc hasbecn laid before the SupremeCourt regarding
the way in which the Nonvegian sea-borderin this part of the coast
must bedsawnso far asJ3ritistiTisherrnareçoncetned, and importance
must be attached tu this evidence indeciding tlie presencase.
The counscl for the delence h,asinformed tlieSupreme Court that
in 1924the British LegattoninOslo requested that theNonvegian vie117
af thelimit of the Nortvegiansea-territo irthtsyarea shouIdbe indi-
cated on a map of East Finnmark. This was so ttiatBritish trawlerç
vented £rom entering ite lthroughthignorariceanderconsequently bcing-
seized by Nonvegiai~protectio~i vesse!$Accurdinglythe Foreign Officc
iorivarded to thc British Charge d'Affairesa map ai East 3 -'nnmark
signedehywthe SecretarypforForeign Affairs,which hasNbeen.Ia, 1icflre
thc Supreme Court. This letterstates: "IIaccordance with your letter
of the 24th October thisyeas,d have tlie henourto enclose two copies
ofa map of East Finnmark, on which is delineated the borderof the
Norwegiansea-territorysuc31aç this must be clrawnaccordingto Nonve-
gianopinion.Thetransmissionofthis rnap doesnot in anyway prejudice
eitherNonvqJs or Great alitain's standpoint regarding thc extent of
the sea-territoryIt appears frcirnthimap, \i~liichhas beenlaid before
the Supreme Court, that the base-line hasnot been draïvn asstated in
the summing up by the "lagmann", but that the sea-borde outside
Syltefjord 11nsbeen dratv4 nautical milcs outsidea base-line bctivccn
Harhakken and Korsnes.
There is no suggestion that tlic above-mentieneciintimation te tlre
British Legation regarcting thesea-border on this part of the coast,
indicatesa final decisionregarçlingthe drawing-up of the border for
Nor\vegiansea-territory, but1 must presume as long as the borderin
this areahas not been accurately eçtablishedby the State authorities,
that the border-Iineindicatedan the above-rneiltionedmap is tlie one
which, accordhg to Norwegian opinion, islooked upon as applyirig,at
nny rate forthe time being. toforeign fishcrmen,and that, as long as 180 ANNEXES TO BRITISH hlEM032L4L (NO.13)
they keepoutsidethis border,they canreckononbeingonthesafeside.
Thc purpose in fonvardiiig this map was ofcourse to heIp to prevent
the invasion ofNonvegian territory by Britislitrawlersignorantof the
limits.
It rnakescertain atyelatively smaldifferencewhether the base-line
is dsawn between the estreme points of Syltefjorden, Harbakken and
Korsnes, asinthe mentioned map, or whetherit isdrawnfrom Kaalnes-
set on lien~y, asin the sumrning up ofthe "lagrnann". Tlie latterline
\vil!,as fasas 1 can see from tire rnap,go about 3m rnetreseutside
Harbakken. As faras 1 haveunderstood theredocs not exist anycustom-
arylaw or traditon in this district regarding the exact borders fthe
sea-territory. It is necessary forme to espressrnyseLfmore definitely
regarding tliedrawing-upof the base-line forthe sea-border o~tside
thispartofthe cciaçI.tis sufficientftheposition ~vhic1havereached,
that tlie hase-line meiltisiled in tlie surnrnof"1apannB%etivcen
ICaalnessetonRennya andICorsnes-ivhich ,accardingto the information
given by Judge Klaestad,is about 25 nautical miles long- is dsawn
somewhat furtlier out than the above-mentioned base-1Me b~tween
Harbakkenand Korsnes, which according to the map is about 11.4
nauticalmiies long.By the jurlgmentgiven by the Court 01Appeal it iç
decfdedthat tlie accused lias fished inside the sea-border reckoned
' accardingto the base-linementioned by the "lapann", but it isimpos-
siMe to know what the sesult of the jüdgement would have been if in
liisummingup the"lagmann" had accepted as the line outsideSylte-
Ijorden the one indicatecon the map, mhich the 1;oreign Department:
fonvarded tothe BritishLegation iii1924A.s I have already said1 am
ofthe opinion that decisive importancemustbe attached to the border-
lineon this map, and its accornpanying letter, which were not Iaid
before thc Court of Appeal.
1am accordingly of the opiniothat thejudgment given by the Court
of Appeal must hc annullecl.
Judge CHRISTIANS:E BNoth insubstance and conclusion Tagree witli
Judge Klaestad.
As regards thc letterrelerrecto by JvclgeBoye, that is the letter
fromthe Nonvegian ForeignDepartment to theBritisli Chargd'Affaires
dated 4th November,1929 ,itha map of the partof thcoastinquestion,
Iwill observethatthe [ettecan only be lookcdupon as anoffer of nego-
tiatlonwhich sofar as I can seehaç not been accepted. Therefore,in
my view, no importance can be attached to thisletter,m rnucli the
lessasit isexpresslystatecin the letter that it slnotlprejudiceany-
thing.
Judge LIE ;AS Judge Clisistiansen.
Judge BORCH :Likewiçe.
judge BONNEVI :I agee with Jndge Boye that the jirdgmentgiven
by thc Çourt of -4ppeal must bc annulled becauseofan crror inthe
summing up.
IVhen, inrelerringto the base-lineto wh'iclthereferçtheCourt as a
bais for itsdecision, the"lagmann" usesa vague expression as that
thebase-line"must bepresumed to bc'the linK~alnesçe t-Korsnesset'",
then by vistueofthisonecannot in my ~iew understand the "lagmann'"
ta havemeant to putthc Court at liberty regardingthis questioofthebase-line. .., 1tlrinkthat there isno doubtfrom the srimming LIthat.
tlte"lagrnann" hrts bound the Court to base its decisionon the border
of the sea-territorygoing according to the line statedby him, namely,
4 nautical miles ohtsirle the st1aigh.t line Kaalnesset-Korsnes, and
not elsewhere. 1 am,however, of the opinion that on thk point the
"lagmann" is inerror.Inrny view he ùugllt,tIiavemade no attempt to
determînc the border in tliis place, but should have Ieft the question
open confinèd himselfto statingas binding for the Conrt,Ehat they
wouIC1 be indisp~tablysafe onIy in laying dom the conditionthat the
nantical miIesdhme cthe line Rarbakkend -Korsi~esset, regardingewlijçli
representsJthceïnnemost~b[outemost ?] base-line which hae cmny opcorne
into mnsideration. I do not inded disagree with Jndge ICIaesestawdhen
he statestliat ic(mnot be said that the"lagmann", by hisdetermination
ofthe base-line Kaahesset-ICorsncs, has acted against the existing
rules of lalv inasmuch that,Iagree tliatsuch a base-luje, iithad been
estaMished by Royaldccree, ashaç ken doneby theDecrees of 1869and
rSSg for the coastouside Sunrtmoreand Romsdalcn, would have been
qujte in accordance with Nonvegian construction of law. As, liowever,
no such earlier decisionhas been made ty a Norwegian authoritjrfor
this pnrf:ofthe coast, 1am of the opinion that itis wrong to dowhat
the "lagmann" has clone,viz,,to establisjust this base-Iine,when there
also e'risother alternativesfor xvhichthere are just asgood or at any
rate very pod masvns. And I attach much importance to thefact,that
as far as 1 can sec, the cnly indication rvhich has previorisly-viz,,
before theprosecution inthis case-been givenby tI~eNorwegian author-
ities, as tn what should be the correct base-fine on this part of the
coast, is theletterof xgz4 [tathe British Chargéd'Affaires] towhich
Judge Boye has referred, which emphasize the Line Har'lsskken-Kors-
nesset asan indication ofthe Sorwegian view.
Judge BE~E Ehechairman ofthe Court] :I agreewith Judge Klaestad
and endorse JudgeChristianeii's statement regarding the letterwhich
wtzçfonvarded to the British Chare d'Affaires.
SIR Ç;.WINGFIELD TQ MT. MO\VI';VCKEL
Yaur ExceUency, Oslo, 24thMay, 1934.
1 have the honour,under instructions frtlrBis Majesty" Principal
Secret- of State for ForeignAffairs,t5 referto the proposa1 made at
ofeRiseMajesty's Government in NtheUnited Kingdomtweandreofthe Nrirwe-
gian Govtrnment, that the latter should remit fines imposedon Britrsh
trawlcrs by the Momegian autl~oritiein respect of fishing carricdon
autside theso-called "red line" of sgzg. tt has been the practice duringrecent years for British ttawlersEo
amid fishing withinthe limits claimedby Nonvay during the negotia-
tions in 1924-192 ;5nd the Nomgian Government ori theit part have
refsainedfrom interfering tvitthem solong as ttiéyremaineci outside
these limits.Tlie Nonvegian Governmmt have recently assured His
Majesty'sGovernmen ttat theirattitude inthis rmpect has unilergone
no alteration; His Rlajesty G overnment consequenüy feel justified in
urging them, in virtue of the abovcimentioned prt-iposaltoremit the
finesimposed onBritish trawlersin two casesin tvhichconvictionswere
obtained on chatgcs offishing outsidethe 1925 Iine.
These two cases are:
(1)Thzt of the Edgar Wall-, fined5,om kroner and r,qgo kroner,
with TOO krotlercosts,inail6,550 kroner,for an allegedsrfencein
the neigliboushood ofOrngang on6th June, 1932 '.
(2)That ofthe Loch Tmridow, fmed 5,000kronerw ,ith300kroner
costs, together with confiscritiooffishing gear to an estirnated
value of1,70 0amner,inal1 7,000.kroner,for analleged offencein
the vicinity of Senja on 6th April, rq33 '.
HisMajesty'sGovermmt i& me tomake it çleathat thayrequest
the remission of thefines imposedon these trawlers onthe gsound that,
notwithstanding the practice referred to above, they were convicted
O! fishingin waters byond thelimits claimed in x925,and ta add that
this request ismade &haut prejudicc to their contentionin the çase
of the Loch Torridan, that there was no sufficient jtistification for the
denial by the rompetent juclicialcornmittee of the rigto appealto the
Supreme Court on the question of law involved. 'The attitude of His
MajestyrsGovernmenton this questiowas set fortliinmy note ofzrst
October last, inwhich itwaç pointed out tliat such a judgment expsed
Britishtmwlers tothe camequemes ad hoc and uncertaindecisions on
the extentof Nonwgian territorial waters.
From Your Excellency's note of 18th December last itisunderstood
that the h'orwegian Govemrnent support the JucIicialCornmittee in
their refusaloappeal to the SupremeCourt inthiscase,on the ground
that the skipper of the Loch Torridon already kiiew from çtatements
intheearliertrial the extent of the Nonvegian clal+aterritorial waters
in the region inwhich he iws accused of fishing, and conldnot, tlicre-
forea,nd in fa& did nor, plead ignorance of them inthe present case.
His Rlajesty's Government are unable 50accept thiç argument as
justifyinthe decision otlieJudicial Cornmittee. Alt'houghit isndtted
that theskipperof the Loch Turridofihew the lirnits which the bocal
courtclaimed as Norwegian territorialwaters in the part of thecoast
concerned,and Infact during the courseof the second trialmairitained
tIiathe did not wittingt ransgress tllem, His Majesty'ç Govcrnment
are not amre that these lirnits haveverbeen officiallÿclaimed hy the
Norwegian Government, The decisionof the JudicialCornmittee In this
case suggeststl~ereforethatthe local conrtsin Norrvay have power to
declare asbeing within Norwegian jurisdictiowaters over .which the:
Tho Edgw WaUact ws inthe general neighbburhooaiIs'ordkynin East
FinAs state-abov@(para. gofthehIanoriaI), tshiprwç intheneighbourhood
ofhdfjorcl. Nonqgian Grivmment themselveshave nevcr definitely stated their
claims ;and such aprincipleclearlycanot be acceptedby His MajesSf's
Government. Where no officiadaims in Uiisrespect exist,itis clcar
acceptedrprinciples of internationalaw ;oanddit is equallyclear that
justicerequires that it shouBe possibletoapppcalto the highest com-
petent ttibunal onany matter Lnvolving the appIicationofinternational
Jaw. XZisRlajesty's Government must accordingly urge the Nomgian
Govemment to admit the rigIit of British suhjects to appeal to the
-Superne Comt h al1 caseswhich involve claims ta territoriawaters
not officialldefinedby the NorwegianGovernment.
The above view js natmlly put famard withoritprejudice to the
question ofIiow farEIl Msajesty's Governmentwauld he ableta accept
as valid any given lirnits, even officially claimed by theNanuegian
Govetnment. Nor do Hiç Majesty's Govcrnment intend to imply that
thej~vould necessarily be abletcracwpt ascorrect even the jugdment
ofth Supréme Court in regardto pointsof international la^.
. I avail, etc.
(Signedl CHARLE ~SVJNGFIELD.
l SIR C.WïNtI'lELD TO Mr. MOWMCXEL
Your Excellency,
I Oslo, 24th May, 19%.
Your Exmllency will remember thatin a note &te8 30th Nùvember,
rg33;the Nonvegian Miniçterin London \vasgood enough ta bbrm
His Majest 's Govemment that, inconfirmation afthe factthat there
had been 6 uI-ing tlprevious eightcen montlisna change in thattitudc
of the Nonvegi~n Governmmt torvards British tratvlers, anirorder to
avoid frictionthe Norwegian Governmcnt had hstructed their fishery
contrçilvesseItaconhue the practice o'yearspst pnding the decision
of the Stortinginregard ta the cxtentrifNçrrwegiznterritorial water;
and y011are alare that tl-ipractice ww founded ori an arrangement
comc to in 195, undes which a recline marked on certain çl~arts wato
be observed provisiondly as lndicatingthe limit outsidewhich British
trawlers could countanfreedorn from interference.
of1State for Foreign Afiairs to bringtoMYour Excellency's notice thc
follo~vincases inwhich British trawlers have been interfered with or
hampered intheiroperationsor subjectedto penaltieseven though they
Iiave scrupulonçly obçerved the Limits of territoria.~tatm desçribed
above :
(n) trawlerswere fishingoff the Tamafjord in fmeandmlcEeaoweafherh
welloutsideNerwegianterritorialwaters,Amntor-boat approactclied
the steam trawler Baltlzasmancla man on board the motor-boat
accused the trawler'sskipper of having toved dom hzs lines.
The skipperreplied tliat hhad seennosignof linesand was not
awareof having towed any dom. When theBltEikasaIirauledher184 ANNEXES TO BIZmriN MEMORTAL [NO. 143
gmr, abouthalf anhourlateroneof the manymotor-bats fishing
near, whetherthesame asbeforeor not the skipper doesnot know,,
carneclose and watched the process.A lmgth of line with Iioob.
\vasfonnd in the trawlanclwas cut dear, and themotor-boat wen t
away. But on Sunday, zznd Aprii, theXorwegiarigunboat Trek
visited the Baithasas and her.captain insistecl thatthe skipper
must pay 400 kroner for the damage ofthese lines, Jthougli lie-
protested that there were no marks ta show wllere these lines.
had been set. On phssing at Ronningçvaag the skipper had to-
tellhis agent to pay this compensation in order to prevent the-
detention of the trawler,
(b)On 22nd April,when several British trawlemwcrc fishingontside.
the Tanafjord andoutside the limits qreecl upon laçtNovember,.
a Norwegian pnboat cruised amongst them at ilight tvkthout
lights, çerioiisly hamperitheir fishingoperaticsns,and an officer.
from this vessel compulsorily visitedtwo of them, nameIy, the-
Balihasar, as describecl above, and the Bernard Shm. In the.
case of the latter tramder the officeappeais to have inspeçted.
hex without givingany reason for this action.
(c) At 4p.in,on 28th Apra thestem trawler Or~fioplxd her fish-
ing Buoy4+ milesio seaward of theNomegian base-lineoffBerle-.
vaag and proceeded toIish with id lier lights burning, keeping
always outside her buoy. A motor vessel flying the Nonvegan
naval flagapproached and pmceeded .toaccompany ailthe rnove--
rnents of the trawler; and, whtn the latter hailled her trawE,a.
the officer and onemancrcorningroniboard ber and, without even,,
speaking to the skipperwho was on hk bridge, statiariethem-
selves at the {orand aft "doors'brespectiveland examincd the-
gear as itcame anboard, The officersubsequmtly came on the.
bridge and explained that there had been a cornplaint of British
tmwlers fouling thelines of Nomegian frshing vessels. The skipper
denied having foded any fishg lines andasked whetlier there.
wx any cornplairri ato thestate ofhis gear.TCIthis the officer
repliedthat he had nocornplaint to make and that the buoy was.
outside the 4-miIc bit clairnecby Norway. The Ovshothen
resumed fishingoperations without fnrtherintesference.
Your Escellency is awxre ofthe strongfeelingcaused in the United.
Kingdomby these md other casesinwhich it is felt that British tnwlerç. 1
have met with treatment tvhicl~Isunjustified;and in regard tosuch
cases you wiildso have abserved reportsboth ofthe question askcldin
the Hause of Çammons on the l4th instant, and of Sir John Simon'z
reply.Far from diminishkig in numbm, casesof thearrest of,orintct-
ference with, British tsa~vlersseeto have been particularlynumerous.
authoritiesinnorthern Nonvay are evnot permitting tBritishtrawlers toa
carry on their vocatron undisturbed in waters outside the 1925 limit,
I have çonseqne ty receceivdnstrnçtions taprotest against thaction
of theNonvegian gunboat, as describeclahovein hterfering ivitliBritish
vesseIson the bigh seas,on the $round that suchaction iscontrary ta.
internationallawas well as an obvions breachoi the linderstanding of'
November last ;and also aglinstthe action of.the Norwegian police in.a weed scherrreonthese linwatas. eârlydate,~vhilstleavingfurfuture
consideratioii tquestionasto the dwirabilityoembodyiag the arrange-
ments in questionin a forma!conventiori,
I avail,eltc.
(Sign~d)CCmmç T~~TNGFIEL~.
No. 4
?In MIMISTER FOR FOREIGN AFF+4ll?ST0 SIR C.IVEhfGFïELD
[r~nlaslatio~]
Monsieurle Ministre, Osto,31~t May, 1934-
24thhinstant, colitainingproposalto tli&ectcethatoan endeavmr shall
be made to corne to an agreement bbetweenthe Nonvegian and the
Bnt ish Govmrnents regardirigtheestablishment ofa commission coii-
sistingof aBritish consulawepresentativand a personappointed by the
Norwegian Gotremment for tlie investigation daims by Nomegim
fiçhemen against British traders inrespect ofdamagedone ta fishiilg
gearoutside territoriawaters,
Intlik conneçtionI have to &hm pu that the Nomegian Govern-
ment considers the proposalput fonvard ofgrcat iaterestbut they are
of the opinion that thgiiestioshould standovcr andbe taken up even-
tually if negotiations should taplacewith the British Governmeiltin
continuation of thepreliminarynegotiationswliichwereheld inLondon
in November rg33 , hen the Storting has corne to a decisionon the
questionof the settlementof base-IincsfoNorwegian territorial wafers.
Ihave, etc.
(For tbe RTiriistfor Foreign ARauç)
(SZg?ted)Auç+ ESNARCH.
No. 5
{T~a~stdim]
Monsieur le Ministre, Oslo, 3rstMay, ~434,
Lnacknowledging the receiptofywr note of the24th instant,inwhich
you draw attention to various cases in which the Norwegian fishery
patrol is saito haveinspected Britislitraders whik fishinonthe high
seas, 1have the honour Itiafvrm you that 1 have requestedthe com-
petentMinistry to obçaiaexplmations from the &cers in commandof
the fshery protectionvels inquestionregarding the casecsomplained
of.As mon asthese explanations are forthcornhg 1shd1havethe honour
to revertto tlie matter,
At the çame time 1 desireto add fhat, çhodld it he,prove tat the
Norwegian frshery patrol has interferedanwmantably with British
trâwlers, the Nomgian Government iç fdIy prepared to make good
the wrong done:
of1925reI,dosnof.faitoedraw attentiontaethe fact-of ivhich,rnorcover, ANNEXES TO BRITISH iMEB1ORIAL. [NO. 15)
187
the British Governent is alsoweiï arvare-that the negotiationsof
1925 did not lead to ariyarrangement.
1 avaii, etc.
Anwex 15
REPORT OF comIarr.m z N FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF S-IORTING
[Trapsslalim]
r,After consultation with the Muiister for Forelgn Affaiss,the
cornmittee hereby beg Ieave to submit their report tu the laying
do~vn of base-linesonthat partofthe coast where, according to expe-
rience hitherto açquired, it ismat urgent to establish thenecéssary
protection against destructionby foreign tratvlers othe stock off~sh
at the bottom of the sea, i.e. ofthe çoast of Northern Norway.
z.It is on this part of ùur coast that all tlie seizuresof trawlers
have taken place during later years: it is inrespect of this part of
the coast that over and over again disputes have arisen with the
masters offoreign tra~vlersas towhere the Norwegian fisheries limit
goes ; and in particular the British Government have repeaiedly
requcsted that the exact bit of thirpart ofthe coast should be fixed
so that it might be c~municated to thetrarvler organizatrons,
3. The fact that it hastalreasudi a,long tirne tohave this question
settled inasatiçfactory way isdue tcspecialhistozicaiaiidgeographical
resons which are very much alive inthe minds of the people.
4- Since the immemorial the Northern Sea, frtim the soiitherrrr
boundaty of Halogaland, Iras heen cl~rned risa Nomegian sea, the
the neutrafitg limit, i.e. the Iimit tvjthin which the Kingnndertouk
to protect frxeign vesselswa~ fixed, dnring tlic great Europeanwars
IIIthe cighteenth centq, tçibe one German mile, equal to 4 nautiçal
miles l,it wasnot the intention, anditdid iiotfallowfrom the wording
of tlie ordinance, that it shouinany way resbict the exdusive fkhing
rights of the inhabitants. Iwas the Iiighsea 6sherits tvhich had made
it possible towttte on fie coast of Northern Norway ;witl~outtl~ese
fisheries tlie countwouIdneither have hcen inhabited nor cultivated.
So vld are these facts that men the ancient sagas mention rules and
segulatians as to the high sea fislieries-justas they mention rules
for the right of property on shore,
5. The only ioreigners who, nntil the invention of the trawl, in ri
modest measme fished off a part of the toast of Northern Norway-
with the King's permission-were the Russians, and they obtained
this privilegethrough treaties and had to pay dues for fisbingoutside
a lirnit oI Finnmark mile (6nniiticalmiles)from shore. Othet Powers
were hlly nware of this limit.
l A~kuallsca miles, '
6. The fxst time when a foreign (Fanch) fisIi ierise1showeditseIf
in Lofoten was in 1868 ;it was caused to stop fishinghy an inspection
vessel,and inthe exchange of notes rvhjch ensned fmm this incident
, Fra~ice recognizd the special geographiçal, liistorïcal andeçonomk
reasonswhich made it acondition oflife for the inhabitants of Northern
Nosivay to Iiavean eudusive fishingright witl-iinthe +-mile limit mhich
the Nonvegian Government claimecl '.
7, Orving ta'the development of tra'cvfisking,tlie Nonvegiarilong-
lineancl netfishing was threatened-in the sme way as, for instance,
?lie Scottidinshore fishing-and by x law of 1908 al1tsawl khing in
Nonvdgianterritorial watcrs was prohibited.
8. Tliespecinlsocialfoms ofthe fishingindustry dich have dedoped
inNorway, the CO-operationand the collectiveeconomic interestswhich
ina5pecia.Idegseehave givenOur fisfieriacharacter of economicdemo-
cracy on abroad baçis, couldnot beconsistent with stearn trawl fishing,
which necessarily wcrulcrequise always biggerships and more capital.
For the fisi~emen of Nortl-iernNonvay, who are the poorest' of tlre
Nonvegan pe~ple, fishing by çl~eap means isa aecessity, a fom of
fishing whkh givcs cvery mail the ftelîngof a free and independent
existenceand which gives evmyonehis chanceand thegreatest possible
latitude forpexsonaldaring and ableseamanship.
g. In the nothermost part of our country some go per cent. ofthe
peaplc me eçonomically dependent upon the fisheries. The industrial.
izingof the fishing and, asa consequence, itsmonopolizing by strong
capitalist societieswouldhea socialcatastrophe. Furthermore, trawling
in Nonvegian territorial waters ~vould mean tlie destruction of the
Iioîne fislieries.
10. At an ea1.g date the Norwegims were am of the factthaf the
useand the development oftrawling tvouldmetln the destruction of the
t stock fiçhanthe old fishinggroundsunleçs effective protectivmeasures
were intmationaiiy adoptcd. Not only cloes the tratvl kill thyaung
fishanddesboy al1 possibilitof arationalrenewal of thestock, bu tit
breaks up the bottom of the sea,cliangestlie naturc of thebanks and
destroys the spazrningplaces, and may thus esseiitidy alterthe mleç
for the migration a€the fish.As a consequerice of these circumstances,
the otd North Sea fkheries area thing of the pst. Tlie fislierioffthe
toastof Scotland areruined ; thet~arvlersgo farther and farther, and
whilst only hm@-five pars ago itwas still an exception tseea foreign ,
bundredsofof EnglisIrGermanand French trawlers,re aandosometimes also
of othernationaliticsespeciallyin the countiesof Troms andFimark.
Ir. They 65hon banks wliich lie outside,partly far outside, the
+mile belt, wkicli in the sixtiof last centurywas adopted as consti-
tatiag the limit in relation dsotofisheries;b-utnevertheless in waters
tationhbeenfrconsidered as being exclusively Norwegianery waters andi-
reçerved forthe inhabitants, whoare inseparably tied toand rvhoderive
theironSy livclîhoodfrom, the fiShingindestry offtliecowt.
12. The people of Northern Nonvay, thmefore, havenat felt in any
wrtv satisfiedrvith the 4-mile Frsherieszone, however the base-lines
as territorial watm.b@mm correcEO saykhatFranceamepted the Vwtfjcrrdmight lx hm. It is tme that this latterquestion is ofthe utmost
importance, andit isgrowing in magnitude everyyear.AS a conequence
.ofthe irnprovement of the trawtingand the developmelit:of the tonnage
.and theenginepowerof the trawlers, iisnm possible tutmwl intvaters
-where only a few years ago itwas considered impossible owing ta the
.depth and theconditions of the bottom of the sea, and the demands
for an effective inspectionare therefore alway~ grorvhg. Rut, at the
:same time, it isclearlyrecognized that the 4-mile Iirnitnbltedoeçnot
,inthe long mn secure -theexistence of the inhabitants.Nurnerouç and
.afarnmore excensive tprotection.Thus the committee,isthegStortingtandor
the Covcmment have received mast urgen dtemands fmm localauthos*
lticsand from mass meetings of fisfiermenta the effect that a IO-mije
fishenes zone be cstablislied, ar12-milelimit,as claimeclby Russia--os
evcn a40-mile belt,sothat the costal banks might he wholly protected.
And in times when tens ofthausmdç of fishermen cire without any
means of subsistence because it has ben ascerfained that the statk of
fish iscnatinually Wnishing, and intimes when the Storting is voting
millions ofkroner every year in aid.ofdestitute fisliermenin the most
exposed districts in order tukeep them from starving-in suchtimes
these demands cannot be disregardedby the responsible authorities.
but must he seriouslyexamined ; itiç aecesçary to discuss ways and
means of regulatingthe higli sea fishénés nsuch a manner as to smure
not only the livelihoodof the inhhitants, but &O to prstect thestock
offisliand thus avoia a breakdom of the tra~vlinindustry itself.
13, In order to show the feelingof the fisfiingpopulation on the
whole on thispoint, afew linesmay be quotedfram one af the numerous
letters receivedlsythe committee :
Kïhere are thousands of pmplc who are cunnected with the
fishing industry and who. çenfidirrgin tlie continuance of this
industry,have for generationshuilt thcir homes on the coast and
vev often, so to speak, on bare stones in rnountainous districts,
where there is no 0th- livelihood tlian fishrng.The Government
Iiavebelped building I-rarbourand have given lmns towards tlie
building of*fishing crdt, and alço of dweI1ing-houses. in places
tvhere ithas ben possible forthe fisherrnento cultivate a stretdi
ofsoi1sù as to keep a cow or bvo. AEl thishas heen done confiding
in the fishingas the principal means of subsistence.To-day great
masses of pouths stand ready to takeup the hard stn~ggle of their
fathers, and tliey liope that the sewillgive them enough to pay
off the debts on thek smallbut bcloved,homes.
1have often thought of this when sallingdong the outer side
ofSenja,and also when paçsingthe small islets and soundç outside
Trornso.
1 find that Englandought to show her goodwill and take up
negotiations with a view to securhg the conditions of life fothe
thousandsof famili~ tvho cannot otherwise make their livelihood
on the Img coast from Vester3len to the Pinnish border."
for the Explorationof tlieavÇeaa;andlatherethave also beendiscussions
betweenNorwegianand Britishdelegates. As link inthe wark fqr the
protection ofthe fishemen, and inorder to avoid frictiona Nonvegian- British agreement was concIuded in 1934 providing for thesettlment
of daim in respect ofdamages ta fistiinggear by itrawlers, whether
caused in territoriwaters or not.Bowever, it habeen ~ged, especially
by,England, that inorder to arrive atestabkhing international protect-
ive regulation iskisaecessary to'know exactly tvhereNonvay draws
the hit behveen national and international hsheries waters,
15. This cornmittee have. thorouglily discussed the question of
extending the width of the fisherieszone which lias beeri maintained
by Nomay since 1869 ,utthey l-iavecorneto the conclusion thatthey
cannot recommend aconsiderable extension ofthe fisherielimit outside
Nonvay by x unilaterd Norwegan proclamation, hode\vr justrùed
such measure would seem to be in view of thevital necessities of the
costs, too,oandùany arbitrary extension oiftheiexclusive zightsfofethe
coastd Sçtatemay crmte international friction,
16. The cmmittee, therefore, do not venture to recomrnend to the
Govemment,in spite of the moçt insistentdemands from the inhabitants a-
ofthe districtsconcemed, to proclairnertiih banks outside the +mile
.limit-especially Malangsgmnnen and Svendsgrunnen-s Norwegian
tmitory. They will confirie thernselves to recommending that the
question as to theappropriate meanç for the protectionof the fislieries
en these anclother baiiks be discumd with tlie interested Powers.
17. 'IVithafeeling ofresignation, due to thedevelapmerit which has
taken place inthe Inst seventy years and to the:fact that Norway has
nolonger ben able touphold tlieprivilegeson theseaswlilch correspond
to the old rightand the vital interesof the inliabitantsthecornmittee
confine themselves to recommending te the Govemment that a lhit
in respect offislieriebe fixedinconfomity with that preconized by
the Govermr of Finnmark in1908 arid Iiy thCommission or,Territmial
Waters of Igrx in their reportspeciffitingy 120yad lecree,in the same
way as in18% from tvhichpoints on thecoat the $-mile lirniiçto be
reckoned,
16.T.his fisheries lirnshaU 'oedraxm 4 miles outside, and pamllel
ta, straight linesdra~m between the following points :
. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .".
schedule annexed to the Royal Decreeof the 12th _rui1 y,35 1.J
zg. The.fact that the comitkee have used the tem fisherieslimit
isdue ta practicalrewns. One of the principalaimi of fixing the lirnit
is ta avoidfrictiu~~with foreigri trawlersTo thisend it wi1E sufice to
fm the limitinrelation tofisheries. The width 01tliecustoms boundary
of Norway isro miles. The ttvo.State she inhabitants of wliicli in
pticular go in for trawlhg, via, Great Britain and Germany, both
clam a 3-mile neutralitylimit. And tliey Iiave bath, especiallyGreat
Britain, intimated tliat fhey consider thistcïbe of vital interest. It
seems, therefore, that the simplest and most practical way of arriving
ata mdetsuivendi asregards the trawlingquestion çvodd be to consider
these two questions independently of one anotiier. The eaçiest form
foran understanding-esplici t orirnplict-as to the fisheriesqueçtion
bettveen Norway and the interested States 1sthat each State should
-
l Annexecl to the Applicationai theGwernrneritof thc Unitcd ICingclbnI-
Çee pp. PZ-.r5- ANNEXES TO BRITISH MEMONAL (x~.15) IV
reserve itsprincipal point of view as regards the neutrality Limit,so
tbat nothing in thatrespectshorald beforfeited and nathg pre judiced.
In this connection it is of some interest to quote the note from the ,
British Government to the Honvegian Government of the 28th Octaber,
rgz6, inwhich a 3-mileIjmitwas claimed in aprize courttase :
"At the same the Hi5 Majesty's Governmmt have no desire
that the rrightsexerciseby them in thc fourthmile durhg the wrtr
sl-ioulprejudice the Nonvegian Gavemment inthe effara which
the latter may çantemplate malring in the future to secure
recognitionof tleir daim, inconneciion with fishery rights, by
internaiionatagreement, and inthe eventof theprtzecoirrt holding
that the only limit xvhichNomay Is entitledto clahfm pusposes
çonnected with the rights of belligerency is the 3-rniIe limit,
Ris Majesty's Government are psepared toandert<&enot to quate
sach adecisionasînvalidating any Nonvegian clahs inconnection
with fiçheryrights."
zo. The committee ase awm that the base-lineswKch they draw
in cmiormity tvith former proposais da not on every poht cohcide
with the linesinaicated osithe diart of Eastern Finnrnarlc which, in
Noember 1924, at the request of the British Legation in Oslo, was
sent to theBritish Chargé d Affxitib~y theMinistq- for lioreign Aflairs.
But a sesemation u.asmade beforehmd to the efiEectthat suchachart,
ifhanded over, shonld not later onbe invokecasin any way prejudicing
the point of vimv oi eitheircountry,a reservation tvhichwas reiterated
when the chart was sent. The differerrce is insignifiasnregards the
sea space, but expcrienccI~asproved that the base-lines shodd be hed
as proposed in 1908 and xgrI. The cornmittee liave made the necessary
rectificationin conformity rviththe later cûrrected cliarts,
21.The committee are furthtrawae that the baselineswhich they
recomend an certain points are somewhat longer than the so-called
."red lines" indikted on some British chats. Tliese latterluies have
never ben recognized by Naslvay, and tbey have no tluthoritative
title exceptinasmuch as the Nomean &finisterin3,ondm, in a note
of the 30th Novernber, 1933, prmised that the Lc'owregiafishery
inspectioii vesseh \~m~idabide by tlesc lines-wllich, homvcr, ivere '
no2 directly mentianed in the note-wltil further notice: "This step
has been taken pending the decision of theStoiting inregard to a BiEl
establishg the base-lines of the Nonvegi-anterritoriwaters."
22. Ttis illis deciçionwhich the Stodngirnow btinginvited fotake.
And ittvadd sot lx right to conceal the fact fhat these'"'redlines"
have called farth protests from the interested districtsThey were
drawn ap (atthe the oftlie discussions which took place Ln Oslo in
at2showing theqprincipleonBwhich base-lines should be drawnaccordhgpt
to the Nonvegian point ofview, bnt without in an way biriding the
Nonvegian anthoritiesas regards the *na1 fixingoY the base-lines.
23.This clearly iesu1tIram thcexpficit understmdiiig on iyhichthe
discussions in ;r924-19 t23k place hm bofh sides, vh. :
"The ttpoGovemments represented are not in any way hund
by what the cornmittees or theirrnembers might put forward or
agree taduringthe discussion. Xeithcr shan these discussions, nor even the fact that they take place, in any respect whatsoever
, prejudicethe present N~rrvegianpoint of view as to theextent of
the territorial wateof Nonvay or with regard taother questions
in mmection with territoriality. This, ocourse, hotdsgood as
regards the British point ofview."
zq.Inconfomity herewithand with refmnce to the Government's
proposition, the cornittee invire the Stortingtû adopt the fnllowing
remlution :
"The Stortinggives its consentto the Govemment solicitinga
Raya1decreeestablisl~ingbase-linpoints for thfixingofthe hhery
Iimitof Nomy from Grense-Jacobselv as far aTrxna in conform-
itywith those indicatecin the pxsent report."
Exfilwmfory sldmimi iss~d mith the Royal Dtme of Jdy 12, 1935
[Tramlatim]
Thequestionof the Nomegian maritime boundaries has for a long
time been the objectofdiscussionbetween the authoritiesof the country,
A specialRoyal commission was appointed in LgrI tomake enquiries
as to the seabaundarîcs inFinnmark, in Igrz asregards the caunties
of Troms and Norclland, in 19x3 as regards Nord-Tründelag and Sclr-
Trondelag and partof More.A new cornmissiri\vasappointedin rgz6 to
submit proposaisas totlie mtltime hundaies of thewhole of Nonvay. -
Certainprinclplesas to how the sea houndaries should be. rmkoned
and drawn have been dntained unaltered by the Norwegian author-
itiesas farback as the seventeenth century, and more especidly çince
1745 it ha$ been ân acçeptcd rule that the Kingwas master of the sea
as far asr geographical mile from outlying banks and rocks along the
coast,This mIc was Iaiddown in amore precise fom by a Royal decree
of the zznd February 1812,by whichit WU resoived thatthe boundaries
of the Narwegian maritime belt shodd extend as faras 1 orhnary
gecigrapliicsl mile fi-omtontermost isleç or rockwhich are not sub-
merged by the sea.
But definit'lioandarylines havebcn laid dommoniy as regardsthe
sea off Sundrnhre, ba RoyaI decree of the 16tOctober, r86g ;outsjde
Rornsdailand Nordmore hy a Royal decreeof the 9thSeptember, 2689,
and forVafmgerfjordenby a Royal orclinamceofthe 5th Januq, 1881.
aselimits ofitheoNotwegian fisherieszone, and tliebioundaries ontside
Varangerfjrirden as lirniftor whaiing. Whenever a limit outside the
base-lineçwas mentinneclit was 6xed at I geographicalmile.
By a Ta~vofthe 30thSeptember, 1921, it\vasenaçted that the lirnitç
for tbe Norwegian custorns inspection should be ro nautical miles
reckonedfmm the ooutennostiçles and rocks.
Inview of al1these specid resolutions and regnlations, is vident
that the Nonvegian authmitieein fullconformity withinternatmnal
law-have made useof their sovweign rights on thesea off theshores
in orderto fk themaritime boundaries wparately for variouspnrposes. The question of the 1imits.of the Worwegianfislides zone becme
acute inthe heginning of the twentieth century, mhen British, German
and other vessels started fishing with ttawlsofftlieshores ofNsrthem
Nonvay. Bv a law of the 2nd lune, rgo6, fishing by foreigners waç
prohibited inNorwcgianterritorial waters, and bp alaw of the 13thMay,
1908a ,l1trawling was forhidden inthe same waters. But the enforcing
of these laws has met with many difficulties because the exact limits
ofthe Nomegian maritime belt were not Izid down, and may nego-
tiationsliave, in particdar, taken place with the British STovernme.rit.
On flic 17th June, 1935, the Cornmittee on Foreign A-ffairs~f the
Storting presenfed a report to the effeçt that the Governrnent should
take çteps ta fixby a Royal decreethe varionspoints of the baçe-lines
fromtvhichthe limits of the Norwegian fislieriezone shall bereckuned
as regards the Coast £romVarangerfjordcn to 'l'rxnain tliecounty of
Nordland. Thisreport was based onproposais submitted hythe Govern-
ment in 1931 ancl1934, and itwas after corisultatiorwith the Foreign
&finister non7inofficethat the report confineditselfto the sairlpart of
the coast and onIy dealt with the rlelirnination othe fisheries zone.
The committee thus did not touch upon the questionof the neutrality
limit in times ofwar ; itwas understood that in case of mar the King
would make çpecial regulationsas regards thislirnit.
In ifs report thecarnittee-also 2dte-rconsultation witli thForeign
Minister in office-had specified the points of the base-linetobe fixecl
by the Royal decree.
Tlle reportwas unanimowly adoptedby the Çtortingoiithe qtli Jnne,
sg351 and inthe same sittingtlîeForeign h!iinistcrannouncedthat the
Govemrnent acçepted it.
No. 1
SIR S, AOARE TO MT. 'DORMEX (OSLO)
Sir, I;bmi@ mce, xgthSeptember,rg35. '
With reference tcryour despatch Na, 361 of2nd September, Iamnow
in a positionto giveyou the considered vie= ofMis Rlajeçty'sGovern-
ment on the recent Norwegim decree ciefming fishery limits and the
policy tobc adapted with rcgard tait.
2. Ris Majesty's Governinent and the tra~vlingindvstry in this
country were very unfavourabIy nrrpriçed at themarner in which these
Narwegian daims were announced and at the exaggerated area ciaimed
by Norway, tvhich appears to be fzr in excess uf anything daimed
httherto and of rvhatmight impartially Lx comidered ta berasonable.
As you wiU seefrom the encloseclrecord lof adiscussion withthe British
fishing interests concerned,those interestsare, in fact,so incmsed atthe Nr>meR;a actiofitliatl~q reftise to csnsidër prapsaIç such as it
had been jntended to sisbmit to the Nornegian Ga~ernment for the
genesal teplation of fishing of3the Nonvegian coast, asstated in my
telepam No. zg of ~3rd August kt. It ispossible, however, that tlie
feeline of theBritish fishermenmay be moiiifiedafterfurther~efiection,
provided that, inthe meantirne, thty are not ina worse position for
conducting their fishing operations than they were before ; and if is
hcipeidthat, inthose cjrcumstances, they wouldbF prepared to dis&s
the details of proposals to be made .tothe NorwegianGovernment,
You will realizethat it tvoiiIdhalmost impossibleta work outproposab
in detail without the collaboratioof the trader interests.
3, J'ou should put the above considerationsto the HorivegianGorern-
ment and urge them as stronglyas possibletocontinue to refrain fmm
enfoicin tge new decree for-as longas passible,andcertainly for not
less than amonth froni wt October next. l'ou shouid, atthe same tirne,
enquire whether fiey ~vouldagree, inprinciple, to ccnsider proposals
on the hes rnentioned in my telegram -\'o15, which would incorporate
four main points :first,the settlement would take the forrnof a con-
vention on the linesof the North Sea FisheriesConvention and would
makeadcguate provision for the marking and liglitinof fisbing gear;
secondlv, lines wtluld be dra~vn dividing areas reserved totrawl ;irid
linefishemen rcspectively and not tofishermen ofdifferen t nationaliti;s
thirdly, theselineswouldencloseinsome cases bm ks many miles ontside
any possible territorialimit; and, fourthlg, in other places the lines
would trend torvardsthe coast, leaving kawhg areas relatively close
to it.
4. Inreinforcing yorisxep~esentationspu may, ifyou rliinkif advis-
ahle, tell theNorwegian Government that His Jhjesty's Grivement
are being strongly pressedby their fishing industry tonffordprotection
to British trawlersup to a 3-mile lhit and to take measures to prevent
or irnpeclethe irnpartci fis11into this countryfrom Norway, and that
they \vil1 finit vcry difficult to resithis pressure and to persevere
in tlieir proposalfor spermanent setuement whkh thty feel would be
to the ultirnate benefit of both muntries, unless the Nonvegian Gciverir-
ment show a reasonable frmc oI niinclhy continukg for the present
to respect the Yed line" understanding and by atcepting the principle
as ive11asnNomegian Ersi~ingiinterests.h would have regard to Rcitish
I am, etc.
(S~gpersdS)A~L HOARE.
No, z
1 Iiadan hour's conversation 1Yit.hMiaisterfor Foreign Affairst~day
and spokegeneralIyin the sense ofyour despatch No. 258 He defended
Narwegian Governmeritk xt~actinn defining the5 fishhg bits and
said he tvassurprised that we Ilad not expected it.Re spoke wlth
apparentsincerity but we did not pursue disçussiciii ontlzispoint because
' No. T R~QVC.Jtthas no inmediate interestRe said Nor~vegian Government wwld
gladly consider any proposais for a compmhensive settlement, but
orving to point four rnentioned- yùinr despatch he would have tù
wait and seeivhat was actually proposed. His attitude in thmatter
was not unsatisfact ondy, \vil1reportfurtl~erbydespatch.
As regardsquestion of postponïngenforcementof decree he said he
cmld again give assuraricethat authorities\~vouIdact Ienientlyad
that he expcted an equally conciliatory attituon ourpart. 1 pointed
out that nnIess this rneantthathey wodd permit tmWle~9 to continue
fishing tempo~arilyup to sec1lineassurance wauld beof no practical
help. He said that rvhatIwars askingrepresented na compromise, but
1 maintained that it &d because if red line agreement w~mto be
inrmediatelv,çanccned.we should be obligedto defend the right of
trawlerst& fishwp 20 t113-mile he, and ifNorwcgian patralvesseIs -
warned them, hwvever Ienientiy, ofthe hie laid down by the mdecree
provisionaleagreementalid1 workedd durkgowthetlast seaon,iand howe
sincerely desirous His Majesty's Gavernment were of arrivingat a
frienclly and mutuaIIy beneficisettIemmt. 1 said tliawe recognized
Norwegian Government 'sdificulties, but he rnusalsoreçogniz eurs
andnot make tliïngsmore difficult thathey already \[email protected] finally
statedthat,inMewof what I hadsaid, hewonlclconsnlt his Gvemrnen t
and give me an answer assaon as possible.
Conversation was entirelyfriendly and his Escellencyshoived con-
ciliatory dispasitio~i.He dining with me qiuetlyOn 3rd Octokr to
meet, as1 hope, Rlr.3laurice.
No, 3
Sir, Oslo, 2ndOctober, 1935.
h my telem No- Sz ofyestmday's date 111ad thehonour to reprrrt
my conversation with the Minister for Foreign Affaion thesubjcct of
the new ATonvegian decree respectinTishcrylimits, andIwilinow add
Mme furkherdetaîiç,
2. Aftes 1had spolren in thesenseof your despntçh No. 258 of19th
September, Mr. ICoht saidtliatlie wa susprised ;our being sarprised
at the manner in which Nonvay harl announced lier clairnsR.e said
that His Majesws Governrnmt had on rnorethan one occasion asked
ta be informed of the exact extent of the Nortvegim daim, and by
carefully avoidinan?mention of territorial liihhhad thùught that
we would notraise objectionsto Norway stating hercase,1 thought
his clefencsingülarly larnebut, as lie çantinued thatthis pointwas
now of no irnrndiatc interesItihoughlitbetter todefer arguinguntil
tvecme to the rluestiotvhichmost mattered.
3. As regards tlie praposasetfort1inpamgraph3 of pur despatclr,
1had, when 1 sam Mr. Nygaard~vold, puttliem doiw inwriting ina
rnernorandum, a EOPV of tvhicl1 enclose, hfr.Koht stated thatthe
Nonvegian Gawrnment tvould ghdly discusswith His MajesîyJs Gav-
ernment the question oftratvlingand line fisliing iwaters "outside Norwegian fishing territorgrbath aisregartradividing the banks anrl
marking bnoyç and adheriag to the North Sa Coi~vention. He said
the Nonvegian Governmmt imuld be @ad ta listento any pr~posals
corning EromtheBritish sidebut tliat hecauld not tiehinzselfadvance
to agreeto any particularprhciple untiI lieknw more asto what rvaç
proposed. At the end of our convemtim and justs 1 was leaving he
handed me the endosed aide-mitumire,\vhicli although it ws worded
in "landsmal", 1noticed conthd the same worrIs: "butsideNomveghn
fishing territory"1 said to him that I foresaw clifficulty over that
expression, as Etlooked as if tliNomedan Government wese only
- prepared tu ddiscussfishuigin waters ontsicle the decrce limits. Hh
Excellency replicdtliat Liehadwwded hisaide~'m&ra with great care.
Both sideçwould recognizesome Worwegian fishery territoryhowever
closeto the shore it niight liand the wo~b which he had used were
thereforcmerely intended to apply, to waters which lay outside that
iimit whaever it miglit bdra~vn..Heseemed tame not quiteto under-
stand what was meant byagreein "inpri~içiple", but from his general
attitude S felt satisfred that allintents and purposeslie would not
objeçt to the discussionbeing carried onon the basis seforthin yow
despatçh.
4. Our conversation then turned towhat was to happen inthe mean-
the. 1donot thinkthat 1 n& add towhat I zeported inmy telepm in
tlikrespect. We muçt have discussed the matter about continuhg thé
"red line"agreement forthebest partofhalf anhour. He wasconciliatory
thranghout,and 1think that he willdo what hecan tomeet your wishes.
t thought it advisable, onthe whole, tmention tlipressur which the
frshingindusSry inthe United Kingdom was bsinging en His Majesty's
Gor-ernment, but1 did mt,except by implication,alludetothepoçsibfity
of oursendirig~iia fishery protectiovesse1;and asregards the question
of preventingor impedingthe import oftsh intothe United Kingdom, I
put it thatthe fi~hingpeopleatour ports rnight easily make diRiculties
about handling fishfmrn Narway and that in theçede~nocratic dayç,and
them doe so.fiIrKohta didtnotseeiaaything Inthepnatureiofia threatin
wliat 1said,but 1think my wordshad an effect. He said that would
speak to the PrimeMinister,Mr. Nygaardsvold, at once, and leme have
a reply assoon as possible.
5. I am also hoping that during Mr. Maurice'svisitthis lireek fhere
wtll be agood opportunity for enlightening&Ir.Koht stitl Eitrthasto
the necessityfgr the Nonvegian Govemmetit to show areauinable Game
of mind.
1 have, etc.
(Sig?&) CECIL DORER,
Çopy of aide-mhoire le#tby His Majesty's M$)8i$terwdh Nome,cgiax
Pvime Mi~aist~o rn25th SqbCe~bcrq , 35
With a vim to reachinga settlewientofthe fisheries-questionofthe
Norwegjm eoast, Wls MajesQ's Gsvernment would be glad to leamwhethertheRoyal NonvegianGavernment wodd agree,in prineiple,tr,
consider proposaiswhich woirld inmrporate four main points r first, the-
settlement wotzldtake the fom of aconvention on the linesaftlie North
Sea Ii'ishenes Convention and wdd make adequate provision for the
marking md lighting of.fishiTigear; secondly,lines wou1d be dmwn
ditridingares reservedto traw Fandline frshemen respectively and net
to fisl~errnenof d~ffcrentnationalit;tlirdlg, theslineswould enclose,
in some cases, banks many miles outsideany possibleterritor lmdit;'
and, fourthly,in other places the lines would trend towardsthe çoast,
leaving trawling areasselativeiclose toit.
Enclosure z
Trmslntim of aide-mémoim hunded by th Nomwgiafi Mimister for
ForeignAgairs to His Maiesty's Minisieron 1st Octobe~1, 935
Tlie Norwegiarr Government ~sil gladly diskuss witb the BritiÇ1.i
Govemment questions regxding trawl fishing and linfishinginwaters
outside Nomegian Fishery temitory, bot11asregardsdividing up the fish-
ing banlcsand marking, etc.,in accordance with the pruvt~ions ofthe
North Sca Convention.
The fionvegiam Government w411 ghdly listen to alconsiderations
whch in the discussionsmay corne from the Eritish side, buitcannot in
advancebind itself toparticttlarhypothesesin respect of theagreement
which, itis hoped,can be reached.
Bo. 4
My telepam No, 52.
r,Owingta meetings which accupied mornirigand evening of5thOcto-
her and again yesterdaybetween Foreign AffairçCornittee andGovem-
ment when trawler questionaswtil asquestion befose Eeape ofNations
was discussed,itwxs:onIy to-day at1.30 that Ministerfor Foreign Affairs
wdd give me his answer.This was that Horwegian Government could
nat withdraw their decree, but that he \vas authorized to repeat his
assurancesthat their authoritiessvouldact leniently pendhg negotja-
tions of a comprehençiucsettlement,To thisI repliedthat,as l-iaheady
knecQ,His Majesty's Government were unable toaccept decree Iimits
andthat urilessassurancemeant, that trawlcrswodd not be arrestedup
to "red line",they would have tùEake their standon 3-mile line and, if
nmessary, giveprotection up to that lineHe said"but ifthey are not
msted ?" 'tawhich 1 replicd thatif they were aIlowed to 5sh up tr,
"red line" allwodd be weiî and I iniormed him af iiistructionsent to
vice-consul.Re did not demur. He then asked about our detaiied pro-
pomls fora settlernent. Wouldwe put thm fonvardas soon aspassible
ordid we intend towait and see ifanincident occurred? 1 said ifwemuld feel assuranc teat there would be no incident we should com-
municate them as soonas we çouldhave co-operationoftramler hterests.
He asked whetlierwe could not go &ead atonce without, of course,
committing aurselves,as agreat dealdepended onquestion whether Our
proposais muid be fouad acceptable. The rgzs proposals which Mr.
Milauricmentioned to him as being most practicable did not, he thodght,
cover al1hks and he thought and hoped it )vaOUTintentionta have a
comptehensive settlement.
2. I said1 would a'tonce ifom y au ofour can~~ersation.
3. Short of actuallywyingso,n'linistforForeign Affairscouldhardly
have impbeà more clearly that therwould be no serionsinterference
witk tsawlessup to "red line".
4. He asked about advisabilitof isslung some announcenientta the
press. asfishermen %verthound toprotest:when they saiv Our trawleis
insidedecree limiitçand aassurance thatwe were putting forward com-
prehmsji~epmposa~s~voulh dave acahing effect.1skid tria%ifanything
was publiçf~edit would havetomention that rnemwhile "wd Iùle" agree-
ment %vasbeing prolunged.He said tliat in thcaseitmuid bebetter
not to publishanything hm.
5. He haves forGeneva to-night.2II -
V I '
F . -
.-
A'.'
AmEXES TO BRïTTTIS3 M1EX4ORfAL (NO, 17)
WEST FINNMARK,
--,
Pr-
aO+-
O4-P
h W Na. of
brsse-po?tn
{
X rock awauh outsisidterritorw iafcxs,
about gj milesncrkh-eashvao rnorthem
point af island of Vanoy md 81 miles
ri3 miles not'dr-wcst of islmd of Fugloy. (About
8 rnlIes fromncareçtislet.)
A dfyiag rackabout33rniitç nort'h-westof
northa md of island of Kvdoy aad
within 2miles ofthe nearestislet othat
le miles point
23 OterFishbae [positiona5amendcdby A drying rock about q* inileswestward of
Deme of 10th Decernber, 1937) Grotoy and about II , iles northwardof
Iiitvocr au above-waterrmk
h drying rmk about z inileswestward of
Sor Ft~gloyand about 2miIe westward of
L. Rlkcskjzr asmdl abovc-watcr rock
A rock awash about 13 milesu.estwardof e
group ofrocks abovr:waternarnedAuvaer
39é maes ~vhicham about 83 miles north-we~tward
ofRvaIoy with isletand roclainbetwccn
A capeaC tho northerend afthc largisland
13 miles of Senja
A rock awak about 4 miles riorth-west of
bletol Ertnoy in entrante€0 Bergsfjarcl.
18 miles Nearest above-watm rack isTrollçkiaw
about 2g milessouth-castrmrd ofTO]&FJ
boen '?ANh'mS TOBRITISH MEMORIALo. 17) büsei-point
40 miles {acms A srnaiabove-watcr rockabout $ mil
entrane ta smth-westwardof theislct of Skommer,
Veski0r.d) thesouthernmostofthe Lofoten
46 Wmt point ofthewestern Brernhribn Tht*wcstem pointofan islo tnthc group
at BIykjen named Mykenofftheçoastonthe
14 *8 miles side aVcsffjord F X
The westernabove-watcrrolror srnaisIet.
47 West point of :western Froholm inthe Tmnm group
48 West çide ofBovarden . . . , , An i:;lctnearthe !mutEi-wesendof the w
Tr~nen gmup z
3
X
5M
r!
c
-
?z
V
7 - JJDGMaINT OF TROMS COURT IH CASE OF "CAPEARGONA"
iTrarsslatim]
(received frorn Year1~45,thez~thNovembercourtwasl1eldinthe
the British chambersinthe Arbeiderfarenimgen inTromsfl.
Embassy, Oslo)
Administritting
udge : Byfogd Kristian Faachald
Layjudge s Engineer ErIing Rotvold.
Harboumaster O. B. Narvik. Drawn hm the
maritime board and both previously swom in.
Recordhg cler kAsbjorg Pedersen.
Case No. 57b948 b~.
cha~gedwitl~ The Public Prosecution versus !YiViam WocidaU,
infrinpent ofLaw No, z of 17th March, 1939,
paragraph 12, ref.pasagraph I,and Law Mo. 3 of
2nd June, rgo6,paravaph 4,ref. paragraphr.
Present : The Pubiic I3rosecutor; Chief ofPoliceHans Clou-
man ;forthe Defence: the Barrister of thSuperior
CourtSig, Falck, privateIgengagedby the defendant.
With thedefendant appeared Commander Cumming,
For S.K.N. appeared Lieut.-Commander Ellefsen.
Followingaprevioas deliherationandcastingofvotesinclosedsessian
27th November, rgq8, theCourtpffised çuch
If The Chiefof Police in Trams@ ha 25th November, qq&, issuzd
forele& to the masterofthe British TrawleCa$e Argoxa-Nb, 143 H
B7iZIianaWoodallfor inhirigementof:
"1.Law No. z of17. March, rg39,pwagraph xz, refparagraph I,
for having fished wietratv1in Nonvegian territoriwaters.
'3. Law No, *?of 2nd June, rga6, paragmph 4,ref.parapaph T,
for, not being Nonvegiancitizen or inhabitant othe Reah, hawig
fishedinNorwegian territorialwaterref. CriminaCode, paragraph 63. .
'Thathe, not hing a Nonvegian citizeor subjecton23rd November,
1948,approxhately 1320 honrs,as rnastcr othe PratvleCa$e Argonn
B. 143ofHull, did fish with trawl in Nomegian territonawaters off
Slettneslighthouse inGamvik Connty distri."
The fine levid-ro,ooo kroner,or 45 daysJ imprisonment, and in
confa&ty with LawNo, 2 of17th March, xg39 ,atagraph 12,sectioa,
sub-section2, demanded confiscation ofvalue of catchand gear, the
amount xo,aookroner-was not accepted, wherefore the case \iras, -
25th Novem'ber, 1948p,assed by the Chiefof P~iiceto the courtwith '
request for convictioin conformity with Law of CriminalProcedure,
paragrapb ~77~ section 4.206 ANNEXES TO BRITISH BiEMORIAL [NO.18)
Both the Prosecutionand theDefence have requested the case tobe
maigned ùefore theTrornçb Town Court in conforrnity with theLaw
ofCriminal Procedure, partigraph 136, final section. '80th partha*
requested the case arraigned as soon as possible, and the defendant
ha waiaived notice in confomity with Law af Crfminal Procedure,
paragraph 252, section3. The defendant tvaspresent in court during
the trial and made his s~tment, 6 witness weee examined, charts
and wrîtten evidence were produced.
?ledefendant was born 8th August,r r3,British citizen, domicile:
Enderby Common, I3ulil,master of theb ritish trawlerC@e Argoma
ofHull,manid dependants : ivifend z cliilhen, nopmperty, incorne
in1947 : appmximately ;Ez,ooo.Claimsnoprevious charges or convic-
tions,
The prosecution has demmdd lthd eefendant convic td accordhg
to the "forclegg"and chargeciwith the coçts.The defendant dernanded
acquittai,ptincipallybccaus lieisof the opinion that the trawling took
place ouf ide Norwegian territorialwaters, and that he, in any case,
was not axvare ofany trepsirig: of the territoriaEimit.He further
atatesthat he ineithes conversantwiththelaws claimed inthe''forelegg"
nor the whereabouts ofthe territorialirnit line claimeù by Norway
for the criastfr0m Slettnes lightliouse and emhrds. He therdore
rnakessubsidiq clah of acquitta1 in çonformitjrwith Criminal Code,
paragraphs 42 and 57.
The Court announces :
From the Royal Resolution of 12th JuEy,1935, itwillappear that
the Nomegian 4-milelineLn theasea ofthe Finnmark coastm question
pes in a straight lineErom a point 4 nautical miles off point S, the
position of which is70° gr' a'' M.longitude,2g0 14'8" E. latitude, to
4 nautical ilmilesopoint g,tlieposition of whicis71" 6' N. longitude,
28" rz' 3" E. latitude.And from tlierein a strxight linta a point q
nanticalmiles offpointIO, the position of wllich71"6' r''hTlongitude
28')II.E. Iafitudp,. This IiçIioivnon a chart No, 324 laid hiore the
Court during the tria1 difiers £rom tImt shown on the corresponding
British chart which the defendant Iiad been giva by his zswners.The
lirieskaxvnontlie last-mcntioned cllad, andwhich is clahed ta he in
accordancexvith British Aclmiralty'çinterpretationof the Nor~regiarii.
.+-milelirnit Jine,separates oSIethes lighthouçefiom the 3onvegian.
line and goes considerably nearer te the coast. From the rnentioned
point off Slettnelghthouse the British Iinegoeçin a straight limto a,
point 4 nauticalmilesof£ OmgangIight rnakingit at thispointappron-
imately 2 nautical miles near thcoast.
Inside the area limifedby Nonve~an andthe Britishline is sitaated
an important Frsllingground.
The Court finds evidenceforthe fact, thatthe defendant befare the
tmwling on this coaststarted the night bdore ~3rdNovember, 1948,
according to the usual procedure,put out a dan-buny equipped with
light.TlietrawIerusd this huoy as astarting pointand the defendant
daims that he fishedfrom this buoy jn a nortwesterly diredion as
paralle1aspossibIe to tlie line claimed btlie British. Tfie dan-buoy
was not found afterthe trawlerwas stopped by the'Norwegknfishery
protection vesse1 Ksng Haakon VIX, but according to the evidence
ivIticha$ been shown as tù its position imust be considered proven AXNEXES TO BRITISH MENORIAL (30, 18)
208
exceptionof thefact that thedefendant pr~viauslhgsnot been punished.
The fact thatthe vessal, when Intercepted by the Norwegian fishery
protection vael, showed no çailing lightsis fauncunder the çirnim-
stancesto be of no importance- It isdea~ that tlietraivlerwas fully
illuminated by the wurking-lightson'deck.
The punisiment is fixed ta afine ta tlieTraury ofan arnount of
xo,oookruner in mnformity with the "forel~gg', Inthis arvard the
Lourtlias takw into consideration fhvery weightygenerd preventative
masures which are preçent incases oftlils kind. Tt is knawnthat traw-
lin has talrenplace inan ana richin fislr,whicthere isreason tofear
~v8 sufferconsiderableexploitationifstringat measnres arenot:.taka.
It içfnrthernoted that the defendant himself hagiven yearlyincome
at approximately gz,ootr-abou t 40,aoo kroner, ref. Criminal Code,
paravaph 27. In awardingthe fine, paragmph63 of the CriminalCode
is fiirthertaken into consideration.The aIternariveimpsisonrnent is
found to be suitably ked at45days inprison.
The proseciiticin'has dernandedconfiscation iconformit +th the
"forelegg",where,asfar as this point is concernisstated : n conform-
ity wit?t paragaph r2,section 2,sub-section2 in Law of 27th Mach,
1939, he is forced to submit to confiscationa£ catch and sas worth
~o,oo~ kroner-ten thousand kroner.
Tlie paragraph rz, section 2,çubsection e, quoted, states: "The
value of the catch may aIso be confiscated,but onlphm the guilty
party." Tl-rereisthuç a disconformity ktween the seference to the
statubry provision andthe daim assubsection z does not mention the
value of the gear. The wording of the daim is,howe~er, fomd to
be dlu~ved. It is further noted that Supperior Court in an ajuçlg-
ment of 24th Auguçt, 3934 /R.T, 1934 e, 727 flg.), ia correspond-
hg case concerning iliegal fishinhas dôuded that the value of tIie
catch,gear and e es selaybeçonfiscated from the guilty party, regard-
les sf whether the property belongsto somebody else or nof, and even
tlioughnopart ofthe value ofthe catch hae;enrichecthe gui19 party.
This decision referredtothe, atthat time valid Law ofrznd May, 1925,
concerning the prohibithg of fishingwith trawl, parqraph 4, but has
cootinned its impartanm as the mention4 paraFa h 4 has to a con-
siderabledegree thesame content as paragraph 12inf)aw of 17th March.
1939, Reference is also made to decision by Supcriar Court in R.T.
~934, S.731flg., and attentionis drawn to the fact that inboth these
decisionç itwas decided tliat the confiscatiof the value isïiotdeter-
rninedbythe orner ofthe property heing summoiied,
confiscated shouldtbehappoititedhtoCro,oooikroiiertashclaimed in the~
"forelegg".One isaware of thefactthat the valueof thegcar and catch
of the Ca$@ Argoaaby hr exceeds thisamount.
The defendant is found to be forcedta suSimit to pay costs of an
amount of50 kroner.
The deçision waç unanimaus.
r.William Woodall issentsnced for bfringement of LawNo. z of.
r?h Mamh, r939,paragrapli rz,reference~aragrapli I,and Law No, 3 ANNEXES TO BRITISH IMEIIORIAL (h'o.19) 209
of 2nd June, 1906, paragraph4,referencer, addition topmgraph 63
of theCriminal Law topay a finetothe Treasury ofIO,OW honer-ten
five)days' imprisonment. fineisnot paid,toa punishent of45 (forty-
2. In conformity with Law No, z of 17thJfarcI1,1938p,atagraph E,
William Woodall is sentenced to submit to contiscatiùof the valneof
catch and gear on board S/T Cape A7gma of Hull tothe amount of
xo,ooolrroner- ten th~usand kroner,
3. WilliamWooddl is seritencd topay cos& ofprocedure to Teasury
of fie amountof 50 kroner-fifty L~aner.
The sentenc weasread inopen court, The defendant wnç notptesent,
(Court ~urnd .)
[Signature.']
UNITED RINGDOM PROTES'SAGAINST ARR3ST
AND JUDGMENT IN CASE OF "CAPE ARGONA'"
YourExcellency, Oslo,10th January, 1949.
ï have the honout to Morm YnurExcellencythat my Government,
having mnsidered the judgment ofthe courtat Troms~r in thecase of
the Britishtrader Cu$e Argofia,haveinstructd me to pointouttu the
Nonvegian Goverment tl~atas isdear from the judgmeet. actionwas
takenagainst thisvesselon the sole grounthatshe was fishing in waters
purported to be reservd for theexclusive useofNon-vegian natationds
by thé Royal.Decree of 2935, and thxt,as the Nonve ian Gotrernment
are aware,tliey havenever recognized the legality fiatdecree,which
sought to extend Nonvegian juri~dictionover substantial aseawIiich
they regard asthe higb seasopen to fishingbyvesçels ofall nations.
Tliey accordingly feebund to protest againsthis unilateral enforce-
ment of Norwegian claims, aswell as againstthe illegai interceptiof
the Ca+ Argo+?,ain waters beyond the lhits within which, intheir
view, Norwegianjnrisdictioncanlegitimately be exerciseand het subse-
quent delention, and mustrcrservtheir full sighinregardto the Issues
raisedby this incident, indnding rightto claim financialcompensation
forEossessufferedbythe vessesamers.
2, His Majesty's Government cai~notxefrairifrom expresshg at the
same the theirsu rise and disappointment that Nonvegian authorities
should have seen 2t to takethis provocative actioata tzme w?rendis-
tussionsareacruallyinpmgress between them andthe Nowegiari.Govern-
ment for the purpose of an-ivingaan amicable çettlementof the whole disputeeither by directagreement or bbyits submistioa to the Xnter-
riationaCourt ofJustice 1.Tl-ieyhave made repeated appeals to the
Nomegian Governmen t tomaintain, un43 a1settlernentcanbe xeached,
the provisional arrangementinforce for thelastfifteen pars,tvhereby
tlie so-calle"recllirtc" hasbeen obsenred as the Ihit rzpto mhich
frshinGan take place in practicIiyUnited Kingdm vcssels,king con-
cernedto avoid incidentssuch thatnow inquestion, rvhichmust tend I
togive riseto rlnriecessaryfrictiand ~vkiçhthey had understod the
Nonvegian Governrnent tobe equaIlyanxious to avoid. Such incidents
can only make it more dificult toreach a finalsettlement; and they
would tiiwefore urge the Sonvegian Govemment once more to agsee,
withont p~ejudiceto the legal rightçby either yarty,to continue the
"redline" arrangemehts on a purelyprovisionalbasisuntil asettlement
has been achieverl,
1avail,etc.
{(Signe&L, COLLER.
UNITED KINGDOMPROTEST AGAmST AKREST OF "ARCTIÇ
RANGER"' AND "KINGSTON PERIDQT"
SIR L. GOLLTIIRTU MT. LANGE
Ym Excdency, Oslo,10th January,rgqg,
%have the honenr ta Inforni Your Excellency thatmy GovernmenG
have now learned that,since the arrest of the British trawlcr Caps
Argmm, against whidithey have instnicted me toprotest,asstated rny
note of to-day's date, two durtlier trawlersthe Rrclic Ranger and
Ki~tgstmtPeridof,have ken arrested Iar fishing ipositions given by
the Norwegian authoritiesas 70' 49'30' 'orth latitude, zgo45'40"est
Iongjtudc,and 70" 49"'' northlatitude,29'49'o" eastlongitude respect-
ively, while attempts werako made toarresttkreeothertratvlefrishing
beside them.
2. Thesepositions are inwaters wfid~ my Goiwnment considerto bc
outside Norwegianjurisdictio-riamdthey have cmsquently instructed
me ta lodge a formalprotestagainst the arrestofthe vesseisinquestion
and theirsubsequen dttention by the Nowcgian authoriti~, and to
add that they teservetheir fulrightsin thiscase,kcluding the rightto
daim financialcompensation for losses caused to the ownierç of the
trawlersas wellas the returnofthe monieswhich they liavcbeennbiiged.
to deposit pendhg legal proceedings,
I avail,etc.
(!%FA) LAW~NCE COLLIER '.
For the discussions,seep52ofthcilI~motial. ANNEXES LO BRITISR MEMORIAL (NO. 21)
UNITED KlNGDOM PROïEST AEAINST ARREST
OF "LORD PLF&'OER"AND "EQUERRY"
No. r
Your Excdlency, OsIo, 25thJariuary;rgqg.
PlTitrefermce Eo my noteofrot11 Jannary, 1 have the honoar tu
infarm y011that my Governmen thave now learned tlrat sincthearrest
of the British traders Cape Argonn, A~ciic Ru7~g.wand Ic'i.ptgstolt
P&dot, two firrtlitrawlerç,the Lord Plender and the Eqaerry, have
been mested forfishinginpositionsgivenby.the Nom-gian authorities
as7f 9'north latitude27'21' eastlongitude aiid 7xrotiiortli latitude,
27'2.Tlrese positions are inwaters whiclmy Gavernment considerto
be outçide Nonvegian misdiction; and they have consequen tly
instnictedme to lodge a omal prote~t against the arrestfthe vessels
inquestion and tl-ieirsnbsequent detention the Norwegianauthorities
and to açldthat they reserve tl~eirfull riintthiscase,including the
right to daim financial compensation for lossescatisedto the otvners
of thc trawlers as well asthe retm of the rnonies which tbey have
been abligeclto clepositpendirilepl prioccedings.
Iavail, etc.
(Sipesi!LAUKE-N CCDLLEB.
No. z
9fH L. COLLIER TO hQT.LANGE
British Ernbassy,Oslq,
Your Excellency, 3rdFebmary, xgg.
1 have the hononr+b iinforrn YourExcellency on instructionshum
my Government,that tllq desireto draw the urgent attention of the
Nmegian Gomment to thecircnrnstançeinwliichthe Britisli tmwler
Epewy was arrestedon 19th January last bythe Nnrwegianpnbuat
Sorfiyforfishlngina position 'Lietwecthe so-callecl"red-line" andthe
fishery limit claimed by the Nor\vegiaa Government.
\vas some hundredyards away from the gunboatwhen theislattewmedts,
her tostop,not by hailingor byanyformof sipal, bat merdy by ttva
blats of her rvhistle, anda fcw minutes rater, thougllske waç nbt
increasing speed or iany way atteinpting toescape, opened fire upon
hes with live tracehrri anOerlikongun, the sheljs,about a dozen in
numhr, pdssing across the deck hetureethe forewlialcback and the
bridge.My Gov-nmen t mwt proteststcongy xgaint thisprocediire,
repetitiorofvhich might well creatc sucli hostility among British
Sshemen as to jeoparcliztliesirccess oany permanent settlernent ofthe prmni disputeover fisherylirnits whiçhtlieg may ultimatelyrexh
with the Nonvegian Governmmt.
3.The subsequent proçeedings k thiscaseuwe also objectionable,
andmy Governmentreservc the right to challengthem when they have
exmined the evidençe.Mean-rvhile,howevet, they have instmctedme
to make tiiispsesentprotest againstthe action01the gunboat and to
hw attention tothe urgentrieetfor preventing any xepetition such
incidents.
I nvail, etc.
(Signed) ZA~NCE COLLIER,
No. I
SIR Z. COLLIER TO Ml?LAEGE
IrourExceilency, OsIo, rgtli May, 1949,
With referenceto mg note of 25th January Iaçt and to previous
corresponderice tegarding the wmt of British trawlers off thcoast
oi Norway 1 havethe hononr toinform Sour ExceUency that my Gùvem-
ment have naw learned of the anest of the trawlerLord NztgIeldon
4thMay ina pwition givenas 7x08' 7" north.27* xg'east,
2,This poution is in waters wlich my Government consider to be
outside NonvcgÏanjuridiction ;and they have consequmtly instructed
me to lodgea forma1protest against the arr&of the vesse1inqrzestion
and her subsequmt detention by the Norwegian mthonties, and ta
açldthzt ttheyseserv eheir full nghtinthis case,indudhg the right
todaim financialcotnpensatîonfor 1-s cailsed toher aimers as weli
asthe returnof the monies whiçh the ownerçhave been obliged to
deposit pending legalproceedings.
1 avail,etc.
(Signed) LAWREN CCE LZIER.
Mi. LANGE TO SIR L.COLLER
[T~amZaihn]
Your Exceiiency, Oslo, 8thJune, 194b.
In replyto YourExeellency'snote of 19th May,1949r. e&ding the
=est of the BritishtrawiierLord N&gidd,1 have the honrsur tomake
the follmvingcommunication :
Açcordihg to reports from the naval authasities,the trader was
Semy.edThe trawler thenthhadyits trawloutand waserysailing acourse1 ANNEXES TO BRITISH hTEMORIAL (NO. 22) 213
north-east hm the land outsvards tomdç the sr>-cailed"red line",
and continued on this coursefor a quarter of an bour afkr whicli it
hove to and hau2ed up its tra~vlingear.Ihe fishery protection vessel
gives the trawler'sposition at the time'when. it have to as 71~7 6''
north and qc 16' 5" east. This position ion the so-dled "red line"
and the katv1er had thereforebecn fishing insidethatfine,atany rate
fromthetime~vhenitwassightedi~ntilthetimewhenithoveto.
After having takan inits gear, thetiawlercontinued itsvoyageuni3
0057 Iiours when it was arreçted by the fishery protection vessel. The
trawler'sposition mas then ?IO 5'7" north.
Accept, etc.
(SZg?zed R)UARD hil.LANGE.
YourExmllency, Oslo, 13th July, 1949,
1 have the honour to inforniYonr Excellency thatmg Gevernment
have givm consideration ta Mr,Lange's note of8th June lastregarding
the amst oithe British bawler Lord AJzcficIand woulddraw attention
to the following ¢onsideration$,in view of which they are unable to
within tiie so-ol-cadred line".vesxl, when arrested, had ben fishing
2.The position othe tratvlerwhen shehove to an being hailed by
Ehe Nonvegian fishery protection vessel Sowy was, accordhg to the
S~rsiy'sown report,as give~iinyour note, 71'7' 6" nortland 27' r6'5'
east, whichlies, not anthe "red lhe", but one-third of a mile dutside
it. Her course, moteover, asgiven by the Sstsy, \vasnot riorth-east
frm the land outwardç towards the "red line", but roughly paralle1
ta it,sinceshe wa observed at 0030 on a murseof 45" wliich sheheld
until 0045, whilc the "red lii-re"intliis htalitruns 50°, fr~m 4'off
Kjelsnaerir togthn tangentid cvrve 4kff Nordkyn. Thus, allowing
her to have towed a maximum ofone mile intheçe fifteen minutes, she
was outside the"red 1Uiê"aT0030 ; and thereafter, untshe was boarded
anclthe boy dropped, ber coursewas jrjO,takinghm stiü furtheaway
tram it.
3. Ln these cjrçumstanceç my ~vment must maintain the view
of thecase expressedin my.note of 19th May last, fitit is onin whid
a British trawler bas been artestec.or fishing hetween the "red" and
the "decree" lines.
I avail,etc,
(S<g.isaLJAn~enrça COLLIER,
Memorial submitted by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland