Page |1

ANGLO-NORWEGIAN FISHERIES CASE

Parties: Norway and the United Kingdom
Issues: Straight baselines; bays
Forum: International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Date of decision: judgment of 18 December 1951
INTRODUCTION:
United Kingdom v Norway, also known as the Fisheries Case was the culmination of a dispute.
Originating in 1933, over how large an area of water surrounding Norway was Norwegian waters
(that Norway thus had exclusive fishing rights to) and how much was 'high seas' (that the UK could
thus fish).

FACTS:
The Norwegian Sea use their own way to exercise exclusive rights for fisheries and make a
baseline from the port and bays.
UK said that this is not right and Norway does not follow the International Law in drawing the
base line.
Under article 36(2) both UK and Norway were willing to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ on
this case and with no appeal.
The issues that constitute the case were submitted to the court and the arguments presented by
both countries.

CONTENTION OF BOTH COUNTRIES

The United Kingdom argued that;
Norway could only draw straight lines across bays
The length of lines drawn on the formations of the Skaergaard fjord must not exceed 10 nautical
miles (the 10 Mile rule)
That certain lines did not follow the general direction of the coast or did not follow it sufficiently,
or they did not respect certain connection of sea and land separating them
That the Norwegian system of delimitation was unknown to the British and lack the notoriety to
provide the basis of historic title enforcement upon opposable to by the United Kingdom.
 Page |2

The Kingdom of Norway argued;

That the base lines had to be drawn in such a way as to respect the general direction of the
coast and in a reasonable manner.

LEGAL ISSUES:
On 24th September 1949 the government of the United Kingdom filed the registry of the
International Court of Justice an application instituting proceedings against Norway. The subject
of the proceeding was the validity, under international law, of the lines of delimitation of the
Norwegian fisheries zone as set forth in a Decree of 12th July 1935.

The application referred to the declaration by which UK and Norway had accepted the compulsory
Jurisdiction of the ICJ in accordance with Article 36 (2) of its statute.

Article 36(2)- The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize
as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting
the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:
a). The interpretation of a treaty;
b). any question of international law;
c). the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international
obligation;
d). the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

JUDGMENT:
The judgment was rendered in favor of Norway on 18th Dec. 1951 by 10 to 2 votes.
The court held that method employed in the delimit action of the fisheries zone by Norway is not
contrary to International Law.
By 8 to 4 votes the court also held that the base line fixed by this decree in application are not
contrary to International Law.
 Page |3

FORMATION OF CUSTOMARY LAW

The court consistently referred to positive aspect that it is state practice and there is lack of
objection of other states on that practice.

The court also said that 10 mile rule is adopted by several states and also have treaties between
states but other states have adopted different limit.

The 10 mile rule has not acquired by authority of the general rule of International Law.

There are some objection which is given by court:

Initial Objection,
Sustained Objection,
No Objection

EVALUATION OR CRITICISM OF JUDGMENT:

The judgment was rendered in favor of Norway on the 18th December 1951. By 10 votes to 2 the
court held that the method employed in the delimitation of the fisheries zone by the Royal
Norwegian decree of the 12th July 1935 is not contrary to international law. By 8 votes to 4 votes
the court also held that the base lines fixed by this decree in application are not contrary to
international law. However there are separate opinions and dissenting opinions from the judges in
the court. However there are some judges whose opinions are different-

Judge Hackworth declared that he concurred with the operative part of the judgment because he
considered that the Norwegian government had proved the existence of historic title of the disputed
areas of water.

Judge Alvarez from Chile relied on the evolving principles of the law of nations applicable to the
law of the sea.

States have the right to modify the extent of the of their territorial sea

Any state directly concerned may object to another state's decision as to the extent of its
territorial sea

International status of bays and straits must be determined by the coastal state directly
concerned with due regard to the general interest and

Historic rights and concept of prescription in international law.

 Page |4

Judge Hsu Mo from china opinions diverge from the court's with regards to conformity with
principles of international law to the straight lines drawn by the Decree of 1935. He allowed
possibility in certain circumstances, for instance, belt measured at low tide, Norway's geographic
and historic conditions. But drawing the straight lines as of the 1935 degree is a moving away from
the practice of the general rule. (Johnson 171)

The dissenting opinions from judge McNair rested upon few rules of law of international waters.
Though there are exceptions, in case of bays, the normal procedure to calculate territorial waters
in from the land, a line which follows the coastline. Judge McNair rejected the argument upon
which Norway based its decree including:

Protecting Norway's economic and other social interests

The UK should not be precluded from objecting the Norwegian system embodied in the
Decree because previous acquiescence in the system and

An historic title allowing the state to acquire waters that would otherwise have the status
of deep sea. Judge McNair concluded that the 1935 decree is not compatible with
international law.(Johnson173)

Furthermore, Judge Read from Canada was unable to concur with parts of the judgment. Read
rejected justification by Norway for enlarging her maritime domain and seizing and condemning
foreign ships (Johnson 173);

Sovereignty of the coastal state is not the basis for Norway to claim 4 mile belt from straight
base lines
Customary international law does not recognize the rule according to which belts of
territorial waters of coastal states is to be measured.
Norwegian system cannot be compatible with international law

CONCLUSION:
The court held that the facts that this consisted and sufficiently long practice took place without
any objection to the practice from other states.
This means that other states did not consider the Norwegian system to be contrary to international
law.
Norway won the case by 10 to 2 votes and on general international law by 8 to 4 votes.