ANGLO-NORWEGIAN

FISHERIES CASE
ICJ REP. 1951

This was a case between Norway

and united kingdom.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Going back to the year 1911, British trawlers

had been seized and condemned for violating

measures
taken
by
the
Norwegian
government specifying the limits within
which fishing was prohibited to foreigners. In
1935, a Royal Decree was adopted
establishing the lines of delimitation of the
Norwegian fisheries zone.

 In

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

implementation of the Royal

Norwegian Decree of the 1935 was met
with resistance from the United
Kingdom.
The decree covers the drawing of
straight lines, called baselines 4 miles
deep into the sea. This 4 miles area is
reserved
fishing
exclusive
for
Norwegian nationals.
Under article 36(2) both UK and Norway
were willing to accept the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice on this

 However, for it's part, 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 and 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.

 On

the

other
hand,
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.

 The

case was submitted to the

International Court of Justice (ICJ) by
the government of the United Kingdom.
The government of United Kingdom
wants the ICJ to declare the validity of
the base lines under international law
and receive compensation for damages
caused by Norwegian authorities as to
the seizures of British Fishing vessels.

 The

case was submitted to the

International Court of Justice by the
government of the United Kingdom.
The government of United Kingdom
wants the ICJ to declare the validity of
the base lines under international law
and
receive
compensation
for
damages
caused
by
Norwegian
authorities as to the seizures of British
Fishing vessels.

ISSUE:
Whether or not by reference to the

Principles
of
International
Law
Applicable in Defining Baselines, the
Norwegian Government was Entitled
to Delimit Fisheries Zone and
Exclusively Reserve it to its Nationals

HELD
The

judgment of the court first

examines the applicability of the
principles
put
forward
by
the
government of the UK, then the
Norwegian system, and finally the
conformity of that system with
international law.

 The first principle put forward by

the UK is that the baselines must

be low water mark, this indeed is
the criterion generally adopted by
most states and but differ as to its
application.
The court considered the methods
of drawing the lines but, the court
rejected the trace Parallele.

 TRACE

PARALLELE-consists of drawing
the outer limits of the belt following the
coast and all its sinuosity.

 The court also rejected the courbe tangent

(arcs of a circle) and it is not obligatory under

international law to use these methods of
drawing the lines.
The court also paid particular attention to the

geographical aspect of the case. The

geographical realities and historic control of
the Norwegian coast inevitably contributed to
the final decision by the ICJ.

 The coast of Norway is too indented

and is an exception under international

law from the 3 miles territorial waters
rule.
The fjords, Sunds along the coastline

which have the characteristic of a bay

or legal straits should be considered
Norwegian for historical reasons that
the territorial sea should be measured
from the line of low water mark.

 It was agreed by both parties and the

court that Norway had the right to

claim a 4 mile belt of territorial sea.
The court concluded that it was the
outer line of the Skaergaard that
must be taken into account in
admitting the belt of the Norwegian
territorial waters.

 The

law relied upon mainly

international Law of the sea;
how far a state can modify its
territorial waters and its control
over it, exclusively reserving
fishing for its nationals.

 In the following passage, the court

considered
that
expressed
state
dissent regarding a particular practice
was detrimental to the existence of an
alleged general rule.
It did not elaborate whether these
states adopted a contrary practice
because it was claiming an exception
to the rule (see the Nicaragua
jurisprudence) or because it believed
that the said rule did not possess the
character of customary law.

 The Court deems it necessary to

point out that although the ten-mile

rule has been adopted by certain
States both in their national law and
in their treaties and conventions,
and
although
certain
arbitral
decisions have applied it as
between these States, other States
have adopted a different limit.
Consequently, the ten-mile rule has
not acquired the authority of a
general rule of international law.

 In

this case, rules that are

practiced for instance how long
a baseline should be. Only a 10
mile long straight line is allowed
and this has been the practice
by most states however it is
different in the case of Norway
because
of
Norway's
geographic indentation, islands
and islets.

PERSISTENT OBJECTOR RULE

Moreover, the court in its judgment

held that even if a customary law rule

existed on the ten-mile rule, the tenmile rule would appear to be
inapplicable
as
against
Norway
inasmuch as she has always opposed
any attempt to apply it to the
Norwegian coast.

 In

this case, the court appears to

support the idea that an existing
customary law rule would not apply to a
state if it objected to any outside
attempts to apply the rule to itself, at
the initial stages and in a consistent
manner, and if other states did not
object to her resistance.
In this manner, the Anglo Norwegian
fisheries case joined the asylum case
(Peru vs Colombia) in articulating what
we now call the persistent objector rule.

INITIAL OBJECTION
In

the present case, the court

pointed out that the Norwegian
Minister of Foreign Affairs, in 1870,
stated that, in spite of the
adoption in some treaties of the
quite arbitrary distance of 10 sea
miles, this distance would not
appear to me to have acquired the
force of international law. Still less
would it appear to have any
foundation in reality

 The court held that Language of this kind

can only be construed as the considered

expression of a legal conception regarded
by the Norwegian Government as
compatible with international law.
The court held that Norway had refused

to accept the rule as regards to it by

1870.

 The international customary law has been

a law of reference in the court arguments.

Judge

Read from Canada asserts that

Customary international law does not
recognize the rule according to which belts
of territorial waters of coastal states is to
be measured.

More so public international law has been

relied upon in this case. It regulates

relation between states; the United
Kingdom and Norway

SUSTAINED OBJECTION
The court also went on to hold that Norway

followed the principles of delimitation that

it considers a part of its system in a
consistent and uninterrupted manner from
1869 until the time of the dispute.
In establishing consistent practice, the
court held that too much importance need
not be attached to the few uncertainties or
contradictions, real or apparent, which the
United Kingdom Government claims to
have discovered in Norwegian practice.

NO OBJECTION
After the court held that the 10-mile rule did

not form a part of the general law and, in any

event, could not bind Norway because of its
objections.
Let

us go to the issue on whether the

Norwegian system of delimitation, itself, was
contrary to international law. To do so, the
court referred to state practice once more.

 The general toleration of foreign States

with regard to the Norwegian practice is

an unchallenged fact. For a period of
more than sixty years the United
Kingdom Government itself in no way on
tested it.
The Court notes that in respect of a

situation
which
could
only
be
strengthened with the passage of time,
the
United
Kingdom
Government
refrained from formulating reservations.

CONTRARY PRACTICE
In this case, Norway adopted a contrary practice

a practice that was the subject of litigation.

However, interestingly, Norway was clear that it

was not claiming an exception to the rule (i.e.

that its practice was not contrary to international
law) but rather it claimed that its practice was in
conformity with international law.

 In its (Norways) view, these rules of

international law take into account the

diversity of facts and, therefore, concede
that the drawing of base-lines must be
adapted to the special conditions
obtaining in different regions.

In its view, the system of delimitation

applied in 1935, a system characterized
by the use of straight lines, does not
therefore infringe the general law; it is
an adaptation rendered necessary by
local conditions.

CONCLUSION
The court held that the fact that this

consistent
and
sufficiently
long
practice took place without any
objection to the practice from other
states (until the time of dispute)
indicated that states did not consider
the Norwegian system to be contrary
to international law.

 The

method of straight lines,

established
in
the
Norwegian
system, was imposed by the
peculiar
geography
of
the
Norwegian coast; that even before
the dispute arose, this method had
been consolidated by a consistent
and sufficiently long practice, in the
face of which the attitude of
governments bears witness to the
fact that they did not consider it to
be contrary to international law.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LAW
The court alluded to the relationship between

national and international law in delimitation of

maritime boundaries. In delimitation cases,
states must be allowed the latitude necessary
in order to be able to adapt its delimitation to
practical needs and local requirements
The court would also consider certain
economic interests peculiar to a region, the
reality and importance of which are clearly
evidenced by a long usage. However, while the
act of delimitation can be undertaken by the
State, its legal validity depends on international

 The delimitation of sea areas has

always an international aspect; it

cannot be dependent merely upon
the will of the coastal State as
expressed in its municipal law.
Although it is true that the act of

delimitation
is
necessarily
a
unilateral act, because only the
coastal State is competent to
undertake it, the validity of the
delimitation with regard to other

FORMATION OF CUSTOMARY LAW

The court consistently referred to

positive (1) state practice and (2)

lack of objections of other states on
that practice as a confirmation of
an existing rule of customary
international law.

MARITIME LAW

COASTLINE RULE
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

REFERENCES
lawteacher.net - Law Teacher ( The

Law Essay Professionals),

wordpress.com-

PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL
LAW
(An
introduction to Public International
Law for Students).