Landmark International Judgement: Norwegian Fisheries Case 1951
CASE: ANGLO- NORWEGIAN FISHERIES CASE 1951
(1951 I.C.J Reports 116)
This case was between the governments of Norway and UK wherein both the countries had been following Norway’s customary rule for about 300 years from 1618 to 1906. The customary rule was that No UK fisherman or agency or organization was allowed to enter the coast line of Norway which was set to be 10 mile from the coast of Norway. British had been following this rule since beginning, but the conflict started when in 1911 a British traveler ship entered the boundaries of Norway coast line for fishing. Norway government then seized the ship and arrested all the people. The similar incident happened in 1948 also, when another British fishing ship was seized by Norway’s government and all people were arrested and confirm the suitability of its Limitation Law.
After this UK government approached International Court of Justice and claimed for reduction or delimiting of the coast line boundary or territorial claim of Norway from 10 mile to 4 miles that is to the low water line ground level. They also asked for the compensation from the Norway Government for the seizure of the fishing ship.
The main question here was Whether the law adopted by Norway for delimitation which has been shown in the Government decree was against the International Law and whether the limit of this zone illegal or inconsistent? Also whether the parts or zone should be open to all countries?
However the ICJ did not admit the argument of Britain and said that both the states had been following this customary rule for a very long period of time and no objection was raised by British Government within all these years before and they accepted the rule and followed it too. The Britishers in beginning of 17th century also went for fishing in the zone when the complaint was made by Norway to Britain regarding it and since then there has been no interference from Britain to territorial jurisdiction of Norway. This shows implied consent towards the decree of Norway. So it will be very impartial and unjustified to ask the country to delimit it jurisdiction to 4 miles instead of 10 mile after 300 years of its rule over it. The judges by a majority of 10 against 2, said in their decision that the Decree of 1935 of Norway by which the limitations of the Fisheries Zones were made, had not contravened the International Law. The Fisheries zones were shown from 48 selected places of the land, Islands and sea-hills in the direct Base-line, hence the matter was decided in the favour of Norway.
Also Norway extended its fishing boundary to 10 miles because the initial miles are filled very lot of rocks, pebbles, and gravel which makes it totally inconvenient for fishermen of Norway to fish on the coast line, so they have to go ahead of it for fishing which is why extension of the this Base line to 10 miles seems justifiable. So the judgment was presented by ICJ in favour of Norway on Dec 18, 1951. The monopoly for fishing in definite territorial water is not illegal.
This case throws light on the right of prescription. It is explained in this case that a country cannot be deprived of its right of prescription after it is used for a long period of time continuously without any interruption.
By-
Vaishnawi Kharbanda
Student Reporter, INBA