DiGEST Fisheries

FISHERIES CASE
SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT: The court found that neither the method employed for the
delimitation by the Decree, nor the lines themselves fixed by the said decree, are contrary to
international law.
FACTS:
1. The coastal zone concerned in the dispute is of a distinctive configuration. Its length
exceeds 1,500 kilometers. Mountainous along its whole length, very broken by fjords and
bays, dotted with countless islands, islets, and reefs.
2. The coast does not constitute a clear dividing line between land and sea. The land
configuration stretches out into the sea and what really constitutes the Norwegian
coastline is the outer line of the land formations viewed as a whole.
3. Along the coastal zone are situated shallow banks which are very rich in fish. These have
been exploited from time immemorial by the inhabitants of the mainland and of the
islands: they derive their livelihood essentially from such fishing.
4. In past centuries British fisherman had made incursions in the waters near the Norwegian
coast. As a result of complaints from the King of Norway, they abstained from doing so
at the beginning of the 17th century and for 300 years.
5. In 1906 British vessels appeared again, they were equipped with more powerful gear. The
local population became perturbed, and measures were taken by Norway with a view to
specifying the limits within which fishing was prohibited to foreigners.
6. Since these incidents occurred, became more and more frequent, on July 12 th, 1935 the
Norwegian Government delimited the Norwegian fisheries zone by Decree.
7. Despite the negotiations and the enactment of a decree, the same still proved futile since
British trawlers were caught between 1948-1949.
8. It was then that the UK instituted proceedings before the court.
9. The UK contends that the lines have been drawn not in accordance with international
law.
10. Norway, whilst not denying that rules do exist, contends that those put fisrward by the
United Kingdom are not applicable; and it fdrer relies on its own system of delimitation
which it asserts 1:o be in every respect in conformity with international law.
ISSUE:
Whether the lines laid down by the 1935 Decree for the purpose of delimiting the Norwegian
fisheries zone have or have not been drawn in accordance with international law.
HELD:
No. The Court held that the neither the method employed for the delimitation by the Decree, nor
the lines themselves fixed by the said decree, are contrary to international law
RATIO:
The court held that the delimitation of sea areas has always an international aspect since it
interests States other than the coastal State as such, it cannot be dependent merely upon the will
of the coastal states. In this connection certain basic considerations inherent in the nature of the
territorial sea brings to light the following criteria, viz: since the territorial sea is closely
dependent upon the land domain, the baseline must not depart to any appreciable extent from the
general direction of the coast. Certain waters are particularly closely linked to the land
formations which divide or surround them; it may be necessary to have regard to certain
economic interests peculiar to a region when their reality and importance are clearly
evidenced by a long usage.
Norway puts forward the 1935 Decree as the application of a traditional system of
delimitation in accordance with international law. In its view, international law considers the
diversity of facts and concedes that the delimitation must be adapted to the special conditions
obtaining in different regions. The court held that the Norwegian Decree of 1812, as well as
several subsequent texts show that the method of straight lines, imposed by geography, has been
established in the Norwegian system and consolidated by a constant and sufficiently long
practice. The application of this system encountered no opposition from other States. Even the
United Kingdom did not contest it for many years, it was only in 1933 that the United Kingdom
made a formal and definite protest. And yet, traditionally concerned with maritime questions,
UK could not have been ignorant of the reiterated manifestations of Norwegian practice, which
was so well- known. The general toleration of the international community therefore shows that
the Norwegian system was not regarded as contrary to international law.
But, although the 1935 Decree did indeed conform to the method of international law
(one of the findings of the Court), the United Kingdom contends that the baselines do not respect
the general direction of the coast and have not been drawn in a reasonable manner. Having
examined the sectors thus criticized, the Judgment concludes that the lines drawn are justified. In
one case-that of Svaerholthavet - what is involved is indeed a basin having the character of a bay
although it is divided into two large fjords. In another case -that of Lopphavet - the divergence
between the base-line and the land formations is not such that it is a distortion of the general
direction of the Norwegian coast; furthermore, the Norwegian Government has relied of upon an
historic title clearly referable to the waters of Lop phavet: the exclusive privilege to fish arid hunt
whales F granted in the 17th century to a Norwegian subject, from which it follows that these
waters were regarded as falling not exclusively within Norwegiail sovereignty.

DiGEST Fisheries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DiGEST Fisheries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FISHERIES CASE

You might also like