## Facts

- Norway’s northern coastline is deeply indented, with fjords, bays, and an outer archipelago (*skjærgård*) of islands and reefs.
- Coastal fisheries on nearby shallow banks were historically central to local livelihoods and were used by local inhabitants over a long period.
- In the early 1900s, British trawlers reentered the area with improved gear; Norway responded with measures restricting foreign fishing near the coast, including seizures.
- On July 12, 1935, Norway adopted a decree using straight baseline segments connecting selected outer points along the coast and islands north of latitude 66° 28.8′ N.
- Norway measured a four-mile fisheries zone from these straight baselines and reserved it for Norwegian nationals.
- The United Kingdom protested that the baselines were drawn too far seaward, departed from the coast’s general direction, and unlawfully enclosed areas that should be high seas; it also invoked a “ten-mile rule” for closing bays.
- Norway maintained that its special coastal geography permitted straight baselines and that its long-standing, open practice—tolerated by other states—validated its system.
- Following increased enforcement against British trawlers in 1948–49, the United Kingdom brought the dispute to the International Court of Justice in 1949, seeking declarations of applicable law and damages.

## Issues

1. Whether international law permitted Norway to use straight baselines connecting outer coastal and island points rather than tracing the mainland low-water mark.
2. Whether Norway’s specific straight baselines departed impermissibly from the “general direction” of the coast or unlawfully enclosed waters that should remain part of the high seas.
3. Whether a customary international “ten-mile rule” limited bay-closing lines and bound Norway.
4. Whether Norway’s long, public practice and other states’ lack of timely, consistent protest supported the legality of the baseline system and the resulting fisheries zone.
5. Whether the United Kingdom was entitled to damages for interference with British vessels outside any lawfully delimited zone.

## Decision

- The ICJ rejected the United Kingdom’s claims and upheld Norway’s 1935 system.
- The Court held the straight-baseline method, as used for Norway’s northern coast, was not contrary to international law (10–2).
- The Court held the particular baselines established by Norway’s 1935 decree were not contrary to international law (8–4).
- Because Norway’s delimitation was lawful, the United Kingdom’s claim for damages failed.

## Legal Principles

- International law does not require territorial-sea or fisheries baselines to follow the mainland low-water mark in all circumstances; special geographic conditions can justify straight baselines.
- Straight baselines must not depart appreciably from the coast’s “general direction” and must maintain a reasonable link between the waters enclosed and the land domain.
- The existence of a treaty-based rule (including bay rules) does not, without sufficient general and accepted state practice, establish a binding rule of customary international law against a non-consenting state.
- A claimed “ten-mile rule” for bay-closing lines was not shown to be a universal customary rule binding Norway.
- Constant, sufficiently public coastal-state practice, combined with other states’ knowledge and lack of timely, consistent opposition, may support the legal validity of a coastal delimitation in customary international law.

## Conclusion

The ICJ upheld Norway’s straight-baseline system for its highly indented, island-fringed northern coast, found no universal customary ten-mile bay rule binding Norway, and treated Norway’s long, public practice and relative acquiescence as supporting the legality of the baselines and the resulting exclusive fisheries zone, defeating the United Kingdom’s damages claim.


Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Nor.), 1951 I.C.J. 116 (Dec. 18)