Norway's Replies to Questions put by Vice-President Oda

KGL. NORSK GENERALKONSULAT
Berlin, 24 February 1993.

sir,

The Agents of Norway herewith present

their replies to the questions from Judge Oda.

These replies do not address the premisses which
precede the questions. The submission of these

replies should not be taken to express any
position with regard ta the scope of customary

international law in relation ta the provisons of

the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea of 10 December 1982.

I

In response to the first question, it
should be recalled that Norway established an

extended zone of coastal S~ate resource

jurisdiction, as was done by a number of States
from the mid 1970's, in conformity with

international law. In this respect, it was
immaterial whether a zone was described as an

"Exclusive Eca,nomic Zone" (the term employed in

Part V of the 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea), or by any other designation.

It is open to coastal States ta determine

Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina,

Registrar of the International Court of Justice,
The Peace Palace,

The Hague. 2

the extent of its extended zone of maritime
jurisdiction within the maximum of 200 nautical

miles from the baselines used for measuring the

territorial sea. It is likewise open to States
ta choose the terminology for designating its

zone of jurisdiction. The use of different

designations of zones may imply that the claims
ta jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction which is

actually te be exercised in the zone, may differ.

The position of Norway may be illustrated

by reference to the pertinent Norwegian
legislation: The Norwegian Act No. 91 of 17

December 1976 is entitled "Act relating ta the
Economie Zone of Norway 1• The Act was presented

te the Court as Annex 24 te the Norwegian

Counter-Memorial (Vol. II, at p. 101). The term
"economic zone" is used throughout the Act.

Section 2, second paragraph, of the Act
specifies that the establishment of the economic

zone shall net affect the contents of, or the
field of application of Norwegian continental

shelf legislation, or regulations issued pursuant

thereto. At present, the Governing Acts in
relation to the continental shelf are Act No. 12

of 21 June 1963 relating to exploration for and

exploitation of submarine natural resources
(Annex 22) and Act No. 11 of 22 March 1985

pertaining to petroleum activities (Annex 28).

Pursuant to the Act relating to ~he

Economie Zone of Norway, an economic zone was
established. That follows directly from the

provisions of Section 1, first paragraph, first 3
11
sentence, of the Act: An economic zone shall be
established in the seas adjacent ta the coast of

the Kingdom of Norway 1• The use of the
11 11
expression Kingdom of Norway means that all
parts of the Kingdom, including the island of Jan

M~yen, are comprised within the provision. The

second sentence of that paragraph states that the
King shall determine the date for the

establishment of the economic zone, and the
waters which it shall comprise .

. For the waters off the Norwegian mainland,
regulations for an economic zone were made by

Royal Decree of 17 December 1976 (Annex 25, Vol.

II, p. 105), regulations for a fisheries
protection zone around Svalbard were promulgated

by Royal Decree of 3 June 1977 (Annex 26, Vol.

II, p. 106), and a fisheries zone in the sea
areas round Jan Mayen was established by Royal

Decree No. 4 of 23 May 1980 (Annex 27, Vol. II,

p. 108). Each of these three instruments
contains a statement ta the effect that it is

made "pursuant to 11 the Act relating to the
Economie Zone.

The Act relating to the Economie Zone of
Norway provides for the same competence with

regard to the conservation and management of

living resources, regardless of the designation
of any particular zone, although the actual

irnplernentation of management measures and rules

for the conduct of fishing operations rnay vary.
Norway pursues the same policies of responsible

management for all areas under its jur~sdiction.

The King is at liberty at any time to

alter or arnend the designation of any zone of 4

jurisdiction, as well as the range of powers
exercisable in a given area.

Any reference on Norway's part in these
proceedings to an 11economic zone" or to a

"fishery zone" under Norwegian jurisdiction has
the meaning ascribed to that term in the relevant

Norwegian legislative instrument. References to

zones under the jurisdiction of other States
should be understood to relate to such zones as

established and implemented by each State. The

use of a terrn should not necessarily be taken as
intended ta contain a characterization of the

powers or jurisdictions claimed by the State in

question.

It may be noted that Denmark in the same
manner as Norway maintains in its legislation a

distinction between the continental shelf (see

Annexes 29 and 30 to the Norwegian Counter­
Memorial) and the "fishing territory" (Annex 31).

II

In reply to the second question, it should
first be noted that it is manifest that Jan Mayen

is nota 1rock 1, and that, therefore, it does not

fall under the exception in paragraph 3 of
Article 121 of the 1982 Convention. Conse­

quently, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 121 will
apply.

The Government of Norway has not
established any specific interpretation of

paragraph 3 of Article 121, but will determine 5

the situation of any given territorial entity in
relation to the provision as occasion arises.

Accept, Sir, the assurances of our highest
consideration.

1~~.
fhh~g Per Tresselt

Agents for the Government of Norway