Abstract:

The Anglo Norwegian fisheries case is one of the most cases of the last century. It was between Norway and United Kingdom. It was significant for its geographic and natural characteristics. It involved the incidents of fishing by British vessels in an area which was reserved by the norwegian government for its own nationals. So the United Kingdom filed a case in the international court ofjustice to fix this issue. In this assignment, we will look through the facts, issues,principles and judgement of this case. . I would like to thank my honorable faculty Barrister Arif Billah for his support during the project and also all my friends and classmates who helped me to complete this project on time.

Table of Contents:

TOPIC
1. Facts behind the case 2. Principles and issues 3. Arguments 4. Judgement 5. Research Findings 6. Conclusion 7. Reference

Page
03 05 08 08 10 11 12

Facts :

First of all, we will look at the facts of the anglo norwegian fisheries case. During 1911 British trawlers were seized and condemned for violating the rules of Norwegian government about the limits of fishing about prohibitation to foreigners. In 1935, a decree was formed establishing the lines of delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone During mid September 1949 the government of the United Kingdom filed a case in the international court of justice about an application for proceedings against Norway. The proceeding tried to measure if the delimitation lines established by the norwegian government as fisheries zone was valid or not under international law . The United Kingdom made urgent representations in Oslo in the subject to which the question of referring the dispute to the Permanent Court of International Justice was raised. The Norwegian Government decided that Norwegian fishery patrol vessels will act leniently with foreign vessels fishing maintaining a distance within the fishing limits until the jurisdiction is going on. In 1948, as the two parties could not come to an agreement , the Norwegian Government decided they will no longer behave leniently with foreign vessels . Then violation incidents occurred more often. Many British trawlers were arrested and condemned. Then that the United Kingdom Government filed a new case and started new proceedings. Then the United Kingdom Government states that Norway is entitled to claim as internal waters all the waters of fjords and sunds. According to the international law, they fall within the conception of bay where the closing line of the indentation is more or less than ten sea miles long. But the United Kingdom Government argued that it was only on the basis of historic statement. So it can be said that the United Kingdom Government has not still agreed that the ten-mile rule is to be regarded as a rule of international law. Norway, in the matter of base-lines, now calls for acceptance of an exceptional system. Here all that the Court can see there is the application of general international law to a specific case.After that, Besides asking any question of limiting the lines to ten miles, it can be stated that several lines can be treated as true. In such cases the coastal State would seem to be in the best possible authority to form the local conditions to control the selection process.
1. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (2012) Retrieved from http://www.lawteacher.net/tradinglaw/essays/the-anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case.php

Thus the Court, for the time, confines itself to the judgement after the hearing of the United Kingdom terms, finds that the Norwegian Government in fixing the base-lines for the delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone by the 1935 Decree has not violated international law. It does not at all follow that, in the absence of rules having the technically precise character alleged by the United Kingdom Government, the delimitation undertaken by the Norwegian Government in 1935 includes all the principles that are acclaimed by the international law. As the delimitation of sea areas is an important international aspect; it cannot only depend on only the decission of the coastal State according to the municipal law. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act as the power of decission lies on only the coastal State is competent to undertake it, the International law dictates the delimitation of law for the other states. As has been expressed by the United Kingdom, the 'skjaergaard' consists of a whole with the Norwegian mainland, the waters between the base-lines of the belt of territorial waters and the mainland are internal waters. Although, according to the argument of the United Kingdom a portion of these waters constitutes territorial waters. The waters followed by the navigational route known as the Indreleia. It is conceeded that as these waters is considered as interalia, certain consequences are attached with regard to the consequence of the territorial waters at the end of this water-way considered as a maritime strait. The Court came to find that the Indreleia is not a strait at all, but rather an artificial navigational route prepared in a specific way artificially provided by Norway. In these circumstances the Court is unable to agree with the argument that the Indreleia in respect of the present case, is quite related and of same status of the other waters included in the 'skjaergaard'.

01. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (n.d.) (http://www.jstor.org/discover/1

02. International law. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law

03.I Brownlie,

Principles of Public International Law (OUP 2008)

Principles and Issues:

There some specific issues and principles involved in this particular case. Some reference must be made to the close relation of the territorial sea upon the land domain. It is the land that passes upon the coastal State a right to the waters off its coasts. It follows that while such a State must be allowed the latitude necessary in order to be able to adapt its delimitation to practical needs and local requirements, the drawing of base-lines can not be drawn apart to any great extent from the general direction of the coast. There is another fundamental consideration, of particular importance in this case. There is a close relationship existing between certain sea areas and the existing lands formations dividing or surrounding them. Then the actual real question aroused in the decission of base-lines effectively to test the nature of certain sea areas lying within these lines are sufficinetly closely linked to the land domain. It is a matter of right of internal waters. This theory, which is related on the decission of the rules relating to bays, should be independently introduced in the case of a coast, the geographical consideration is not quite valid in the case of Norway. Besides this, there is another issue involved in this case. It is the the choice of extending above totally geographical determinants. There are certain economic interests unfamiliar to a region, the reality and importance of which are clearly noted by a long term usage. Norway's attitude with regard to the North Sea Fisheries (Police) Convention of 1882 is another issue which must at once have attracted the attention of Great Britain. There is scarcely any fisheries convention of greater importance to the coastal States of the North Sea or of greater interest to Great Britain. Norway refused to accept this convention on their own dicretion which raised the approval of the delimitation of its maritime domain. And then with regard to bays, the question of their delimitation by the presence of straight lines of which Norway challenged the maximum length established in the Convention. With regard to the issue that a few years before, the delimitation of Sunnmore by the 1869 Decree had been presented as an application of the Norwegian system. It cannot be averted that tthe conclusion that, duering that time, all the aspects of the problem of Norwegian coastal waters had been totaly explained. The steps adherently taken by Great Britain to secure Norway's adherence to the Convention clearly show that they were aware of the interests of the two parties.

01. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (n.d.) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/5 02. Nathan Feinberg, Unilateral Withdrawal From an International Organization, 39 Brit.

Y.B. Intl Law 189, 216 (1963)

The first principle put forward by the United Kingdom is that the base-line must be lowwater mark. This indeed is thecriterion specifically followed in the question of States. The parties agree as to this criterion, but they differ to its application. The geographic position identifies that, it certainly lead to the conclusion that the relevant line is not that of the mainland, but rather that of the "skjaergaard", It also marks to the rejection of the requirement that the base line should always follow low-water mark. Drawn between appropriate points on this low-water mark, departing from the physical coast line to a reasonable extent, the base-line can only be determined by means of a geometric construc:tion. Straightlines will be drawn across welldefined bays, minor curves of the coastline, and sea areas separating islands, islet sand reefs. It creates a simpler form to the belt of territorial waters. The drawing of such lines does not actually violate a r u l e . I t i s t h i s s p e c i f i c c o a s t , v i e w e d a s a w h o l e , that calls for the method of straight base-lines.There should be a maximum length for straight lines, as con-tended by the United Kingdom. There will be an exception in the case of the closing line of internal waters to which the United Kingdom concedes that Norway is historically entitled. Although certain States have adapted with the ten mile rule for the closing lines of bays, others have established a d i f f e r e n t l e n g t h . B u t frequently the ten-mile rule has not been regarded as a certain i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w . I t i s a l s o n o t r e g a r d e d i n r e s p e c t o f b a y s a n d t h e waters separating the islands of an archipelago. Besides,, the ten-mile rule is inapplicable as against Norway in as much as she has always opposed its application to the Norwegian coast.

The issues that constitute the case were submitted to the court and the arguments presented by both countries. The judgement on the basis of the claims of the court to announce the principles of international law applicable in defining the baselines by reference to which Norwegian government was capable of delimit a fisheries zone and make it exclusively reserved to its nationals. And also to define the said base lines in the light of the arguments of the parties in order to avoid further legal difference; and secondly to award damages to the government of the United Kingdom in respect of all interferences by the Norwegian authorities with British fishing vessels outside the fisheries zone, which in accordance with ICJ's decision, the Norwegian government may be entitled to reserve for its nationals.
FISHERIES CASE (n.d.) Retrieved from http://iilj.org/courses/documents/UnitedKingdomv.Norway_ICJ1951_.pdf

It is common agreeent between the Parties that on the question of the existence of a Norwegian system, the Royal Decree of February 22nd, 1812, is of massive importance. This Decree is in the following terms: 'We wish to lay down as a rule that, in all cases when there is a question of determining the limit of our territorial sovereignty at sea, that limit shall be reckoned at the distance of one ordinary sea league from the island or islet farthest from the mainland, not covered by the sea; of which all proper authorities shall be informed by rescript.' This text does not clearly indicate how the base-lines between the islands or islets farthest from the mainland were to be drawn. In particular, it does not say in express terms that the lines must take the form of straight lines drawn between these points. But it may be noted that it was in this way that the 1812 Decree was invariably construed in Norway in the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. The 1812 Decree was similarly constructed by the Territorial Waters Boundary Commission (Report of February 29th, 1912, pp. 48-49), as it was in the Memorandum of January 3rd, 1929,sent by the Norwegian Government to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, in which it was said: 'The direction laid down by this Decree should be interpreted in the sense that the starting-point for calculating the breadth of the territorial waters should be a line drawn along the 'skjaergaard' between the furthest rocks and, where there is no 'skjaergaard', between the extreme points.' The judgment delivered by the Norwegian Supreme Court in 1934, in the St. Just case, provided final authority for this interpretation. This conception accords with the geographical characteristics of the Norwegian coast and is not contrary to the principles of international law.

01anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (2012) Retrieved from http://www.lawteacher.net/tradinglaw/essays/the-anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case.php 03. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (n.d.) (http://www.jstor.org/discover/1

04. International law. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law

Arguments :
There are some specific arguments made by the two parties. The United Kingdom Argued;

nautical miles. It was known as the 10 Mile rule.

sufficiently , or they did not respect certain connection of sea and land separating them the British and lack the notoriety to provide the basis of historic title enforcement upon opposable to by the United Kingdom

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.

Judgement :
The case was filed to the International Court of Justice by the government of the United Kingdom. The government of United Kingdom wants the international court of justice to make judgement on the validity of the base lines under international law and receive compensation for damages caused by Norwegian authorities. It also included penalties for the seizes of British Fishing vessels. The judgement relied upon mainly international Law of the sea. It contained the ability of the state to modify its territorial waters and its control over it. Whether it can reserve exclusive rights for fishing for its nationals. In this case, rules that are examined on how long a baseline should be. Only a 10 mile long straight line is allowed and this has been the most eligible practice. But it is different in the case of Norway because of Norway's geographic position, islands and islets.

The international customary law has been a law of reference in the court arguments. Judge took reference from Canada to justify whether Customary international law can recognize the rule of measurement of the sea belts of territorial waters of coastal states. More so public international law has been relied upon in this case. It confines the respective relation between states; the United Kingdom and Norway.

The application referred to the declaration by which the united Kingdom and Norway had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with article 36 (2) of its statute. The parties involved in this case were Norway and the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 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 ICJ on this case and with no appeal. The Court stated that in respect of a situation that can be improved in the future, the United Kingdom Government restricted themselves from ordinating reserve areas. The judgement of the facts, the general justification of the other national states, Great Britain's position in the North Sea, their respective interest in the matter and may be long abstention would in any situation would clarify Norway's enforcement of her system against the United Kingdom. The Court made a conclusion that the method of straight lines, established in the Norwegian system, was established by the specific geographical aspects of the Norwegian coast. It was lot before the dispute arose, this procedure was reinforced by a constant and sufficiently long practice. Now in the present situation, the attitude of governments carries the fact that they did not consider it to be contrary to international law and no violation ofinternationallaw was made.

FISHERIES CASE (n.d.) Retrieved from http://iilj.org/courses/documents/UnitedKingdomv.Norway_ICJ1951_.pdf 01anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (2012) Retrieved from http://www.lawteacher.net/tradinglaw/essays/the-anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case.php 05. anglo-norwegian-fisheries-case (n.d.) (http://www.jstor.org/discover/1

Research Findings:

The parties involved in this Anglo Norwegian fisheries case were Norway and the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 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 ICJ on this case and with no appeal. The issues that contains the case were represented to the court and the arguments presented by both countries. The judgement on the basis of the claims of the court to announce the principles of international law applicable in defining the baselines by reference to which Norwegian government was capable of delimit a fisheries zone and make it exclusively reserved to its nationals. And also to define the said base lines in the light of the arguments of the parties in order to avoid further legal difference; and secondly to award damages to the government of the United Kingdom in respect of all interferences by the Norwegian authorities with British fishing vessels outside the fisheries zone, which in accordance with ICJ's decision, the Norwegian government may be entitled to reserve for its nationals So the Court, confining itself for the moment to the Conclusions of the United Kingdom, finds that the Norwegian Government in structuring the base-lines for the delimitation of the Norwegian fisheries zone by the 1935 Decree is totally legal with respect to international law. Although it does not follow that totally, in the absence of rules having the technically precise character alleged by the United Kingdom Government. The delimitation undertaken by the Norwegian Government in 1935 is not in course to specific principles which make it possible to judge the validity of the decree under international law. As the delimitation of sea areas has is an important international matter, the coastal State should not be allowed to take the decission of their own as expressed in its municipal law. Although it is true that the act of delimitation is necessarily a unilateral act because of the power given to the coastal State about competency to control it, the validity of the delimitation with regard to other States also depends upon international law.

Conclusion:
The Anglo Norwegian fisheries case was a significant one for that particular region of europe. It was important for the good relation among the country and also for its geographical aspect. The case is also used as a reference for many future cases of this type. From the judgement, it was justified that Norway was not violating international law by drawing the base line. The law also denoted the peculiar position of the norwegian coast as an important factor in this case. Overall, this case was lots of importance and can be treated as a guideline for many future cases consisting these particular issues.