Public International Law- Case Study

1. ANGLO-
NORWEGIAN
FISHERIES CASE
P R E S E N T E D B Y - R A H U L Y A D A V
R O L L N O 1 4 0 6 3

2. INTRODUCTION
• United Kingdom v Norway, also known as the Fisheries Case was the
culmination of a dispute.
• Originating in 1933, over how large an area of water surrounding Norway was
Norwegian waters (that Norway thus had exclusive fishing rights to) and how
much was 'high seas' (that the UK could thus fish).

3. FACTS
• The Norwegian sea use their own way to exercise exclusive rights for fisheries
and make a baseline from the port and bays.
• UK said that this is not right and Norway does not follow the International Law
in drawing the base line.
• 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 constitute the case were submitted to the court and the
arguments presented by both countries.

4. CONTENTION OF BOTH COUNTRIES
• 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
– 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.
• 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.

5. JUDGMENT
• The judgment was rendered in favour of Norway on 18th Dec. 1951 by
10 to 2 votes.
• The court held that method employed in the delimit action of the
fisheries zone by Norway is not contrary to International Law.
• By 8 to 4 votes the court also held that the base line fixed by this
decree in application are not contrary to International Law .
• However there are some judges whose opinions are different-
– Judge Hackworth,
– Judge Alvarez,
– Judge Hsu Mo,
– Judge Read.

6. FORMATION OF CUSTOMARY LAW
• The court consistently referred to positive aspect that it is state practice
and there is lack of objection of other states on that practice.
• The court also said that 10 mile rule is adopted by several states and
also have treaties between states but other states have adopted
different limit.
• The 10 mile rule has not acquired by authority of the general rule of
International Law.
• There are some objection which is given by court:
– Initial Objection,
– Sustained Objection,
– No Objection.

7. CONCLUSION
• The court held that the facts that this consisted and sufficiently long
practice took place without any objection to the practice from other
states.
• This means that other states did not consider the Norwegian system to
be contrary to international law.
• Norway won the case by 10 to 2 votes and on general international law
by 8 to 4 votes.