Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 420 views

    Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case

    Uploaded by

    Edwino Nudo Barbosa Jr.
    The UK filed a case against Norway in the ICJ in 1949, arguing that Norway's baselines used to delineate its territorial waters and fishing zones violated international law. Norway had been seizing British fishing vessels for decades for fishing in waters Norway claimed. The ICJ ruled in favor of Norway, finding that Norway's unique coastal geography of fjords and islands justified its baseline method. While baselines are normally measured from the low-water mark, the ICJ found Norway's use of straight lines across bays and 10nm limits from the outer skerries was valid given Norway's history and economy depended on control of these waters. The judgment supported Norway's sovereignty over its claimed fishing zones.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case

    Uploaded by

    Edwino Nudo Barbosa Jr.
    420 views2 pages
    The UK filed a case against Norway in the ICJ in 1949, arguing that Norway's baselines used to delineate its territorial waters and fishing zones violated international law. Norway had been seizing British fishing vessels for decades for fishing in waters Norway claimed. The ICJ ruled in favor of Norway, finding that Norway's unique coastal geography of fjords and islands justified its baseline method. While baselines are normally measured from the low-water mark, the ICJ found Norway's use of straight lines across bays and 10nm limits from the outer skerries was valid given Norway's history and economy depended on control of these waters. The judgment supported Norway's sovereignty over its claimed fishing zones.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The UK filed a case against Norway in the ICJ in 1949, arguing that Norway's baselines used to delineate its territorial waters and fishing zones violated international law. Norway had been seizing British fishing vessels for decades for fishing in waters Norway claimed. The ICJ ruled in favor of Norway, finding that Norway's unique coastal geography of fjords and islands justified its baseline method. While baselines are normally measured from the low-water mark, the ICJ found Norway's use of straight lines across bays and 10nm limits from the outer skerries was valid given Norway's history and economy depended on control of these waters. The judgment supported Norway's sovereignty over its claimed fishing zones.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    420 views2 pages

    Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case

    Uploaded by

    Edwino Nudo Barbosa Jr.
    The UK filed a case against Norway in the ICJ in 1949, arguing that Norway's baselines used to delineate its territorial waters and fishing zones violated international law. Norway had been seizing British fishing vessels for decades for fishing in waters Norway claimed. The ICJ ruled in favor of Norway, finding that Norway's unique coastal geography of fjords and islands justified its baseline method. While baselines are normally measured from the low-water mark, the ICJ found Norway's use of straight lines across bays and 10nm limits from the outer skerries was valid given Norway's history and economy depended on control of these waters. The judgment supported Norway's sovereignty over its claimed fishing zones.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ANGLO-NORWEGIAN FISHERIES CASE, UK V.

    NORWAY, ICJ 1951


    FACTS:

    On the 24th of September 1949, the governement of the United Kingdom filed a case against
    Norway in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). UK prays that the ICJ declare the international
    standards for the use of baselines under international law and that they be granted compensation for
    damages (mainly for confiscated trawlers over the decades).

    Since 1911, British trawlers have been seized and condemned for violating measures taken by
    Norway to control/limiting foreign fishing vessels. British trawlers used advance mechanisms to catch
    large number of fish and thus needed to fish in other areas in order to keep up with the demand, this led
    them to fish in Norway.

    UK Argues:
    ● Norway should only be allowed to draw straight lines across bays
    ● Length drawn from the formations of the Skaergaard fjords (intrusions of large rock formations
    *best comparison is coast for coastal nations / large islands for archipelagic nations) must NOT
    exceed 10 nautical miles.
    ● 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
    Norway Argues:
    ● The baselines are drawn in such a way that respects the general direction of the coast and it is
    drawn up in a reasonable manner.

    ISSUE:
    ● WON Norway must comply with international maritime laws and adjust its baseline
    measurements appropriately.
    HELD:

    For UK’s first argument the ICJ disagrees. Albeit it is normally adopted by most countries that
    the baseline starts on the low water mark (low tide). It is different to its application (Johnson 154). The
    court heavily reviewed the issue and deemed both recommended international methods (“Trace
    Parallele”/drawing outer limits of the belt following the coast & “Courbe tangente” / arcs of circles) but
    do not deem it necessary to impose this on Norway since they international methods of drawing lines
    are NOT obligatory. The geography and history of Norway also played part in the ICJ’s decision. 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. So it was agreed on the outset of 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.
    (Johnson 154- 158). “There is one consideration not to be overlooked, the scope of which extends
    beyond geographical factors. That of certain economic interests peculiar to a region, the reality and
    importance of which are clearly evidenced by a long usage” (Johnson 160)
    Judgement in favor of Norway 10-2 votes. 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.

    You might also like