Fisheries Case (UK vs.
Norway)
ICJ Reports 1951
Overview:
The Judgment delivered by the Court in this case ended a long controversy between the United
Kingdom and Norway which had aroused considerable interest in other maritime States. In 1935
Norway enacted a decree by which it reserved certain fishing grounds situated off its northern
coast for the exclusive use of its own fishermen. The question at issue was whether this decree,
which laid down a method for drawing the baselines from which the width of the Norwegian
territorial waters had to be calculated, was valid international law. This question was rendered
particularly delicate by the intricacies of the Norwegian coastal zone, with its many fjords, bays,
islands, islets and reefs. The United Kingdom contended, inter alia, that some of the baselines
fixed by the decree did not accord with the general direction of the coast and were not drawn in
a reasonable manner. In its Judgment of 18 December 1951, the Court found that, contrary to
the submissions of the United Kingdom, neither the method nor the actual baselines stipulated
by the 1935 Decree were contrary to international law.
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.
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.
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 decree 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.
https://www.studocu.com/my/document/universiti-malaya/public-international-law/uk-v-norway-
case-summary/2294858
