This case analysis is written by Monika during her internship with Le Droit India.
Citation: [1951] ICJ 3
Court: International Court of Justice
Petitioner: United Kingdom
Respondent: Norway
Facts: Norway had claimed the waters as her own, and British fishing vessels had been fishing there. Every body of water within four nautical miles of Norway’s baseline was claimed. Britain concurred that this was a suitable measure. The low-watermark, or the shoreline at low tide, is typically used as the baseline. Geographically speaking, Norway was a little odd, with hundreds of rocky outcrops running up and down the coast. These outcrops resembled little islands, but they were actually connected to the mainland. These rocky outcrops were considered to be part of Norway’s mainland region for hundreds of years.
Therefore, from Norway’s perspective, the bass line was the outer line of these rocky outcrops rather than the beach’s low tide mark. It was normal for no British ship to enter within 10 miles of Norway’s coastline. For three centuries, Britain respected this. However, Norway captured a British passenger ship that had entered this line in 1911. When a second British fishing trawler crossed that border in 1948, the Norwegian government once more took control of the ship and detained all of its occupants. The United Kingdom then went to the ICJ.
Issues: The primary concern in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case was the UK and Norway’s competing claims to jurisdiction over North Sea fisheries. The United Kingdom asserted ancient fishing rights in the region that date back to the Middle Ages, whereas Norway asserted exclusive control over the fisheries zone outside its territorial sea.
In the fisheries case, the primary concerns were:
1. Is the 10-mile coastal line established by Norway in accordance with custom correct or incorrect?
2. Whether Norway should compensate the British citizens or if it is accountable for their arrests.
Rule of law: Several international legal precepts served as the foundation for the rule of law in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case.
1. The natural prolongation of the continental shelf principle, which gave coastal governments sovereignty over the resources on their continental shelves, served as the foundation for the case’s decision. Based on this basis, the Court determined that Norway had jurisdiction over the fisheries up to twelve nautical miles offshore from its territorial sea. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea now incorporates this idea, which has grown to be a pillar of contemporary maritime law.
2. The case reiterated how crucial it is to interpret historical rights in the context of current international law. Since the Middle Ages, the United Kingdom has maintained historical fishing rights in the region. The Court ruled, however, that these historical rights needed to be understood in the context of current international law and did not grant exclusive fishing rights in the contested area.
3. The law of the sea was significantly impacted by the Court’s ruling about the application of customary international law in this instance. It reaffirmed how crucial it is to understand customary law in the context of modern international law, which captures how customary international law is changing. This strategy has been used in later decisions, like the Nicaragua Case, which determined that state practice and opinio juris can alter customary international law.
The ideas of the natural extension of the continental shelf, the interpretation of historic rights in the context of modern international law, and the dynamic character of customary international law served as the foundation for the rule of law in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case.
ICJ Decision: The court determined that Norway had used the rocky outcrops as its baseline for centuries and those other nations, including Great Britain, had permitted them to do so. The court stated that historical data produced by the Norwegian government lends some weight to the idea of the survival of traditional rights over fishing grounds. Customary law is another way that international law can be developed, and it reflects the ways that nations dealt with one another before we had a more formal system of international law. These rights, which are based on the population’s basic needs and are supported by long-standing, peaceful usage, may rightfully be taken into consideration when drawing a line that the court deems to have been maintained within the parameters of what is reasonable and moderate. Therefore, Norway was permitted to determine its territorial waters from the edge of the rock outcrops in conformity with customary international law.
The court also took into account the 300-year history of customary law. In three centuries, the UK never protested against it. The court decided in favor of Norway after taking all of these factors into account.
Conclusion: An important point of reference in the field of international marine law is still the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case. It demonstrates how customary international law and the changing requirements of coastal states interact dynamically. The ICJ’s ruling clarified how straight baselines should be applied and reaffirmed the requirement that international law be flexible enough to accommodate various geographic and economic situations. Discussions on maritime jurisdiction and the fair use of marine resources are still influenced by this case.
