## Facts

- The United Kingdom and the United States disputed the interpretation of Article I of the 1818 Anglo-American fisheries convention governing U.S. fishing and shore-use liberties along specified coasts of British North America.
- Article I granted U.S. inhabitants, “forever, in common” with British subjects, liberty to take fish in designated coastal waters and to dry and cure fish on “unsettled” shores, subject to loss of shore-use rights upon settlement absent local consent.
- As fishing methods and coastal settlement changed, British and colonial authorities imposed fisheries measures including seasonal closures, licensing, gear restrictions, Sunday fishing limits, and enforcement practices affecting access to inshore waters.
- A major recurring dispute concerned how to measure the territorial limit restricting U.S. fishing near shore, including whether to draw straight lines across bay mouths and how to treat large bays.
- The United States objected that certain measures impaired treaty liberties; the United Kingdom maintained it retained sovereignty and regulatory authority over its territorial waters and shores.
- The parties submitted seven interpretive questions to a tribunal constituted by special agreement; the tribunal issued an award on September 7, 1910, with a dissent on one question.

## Issues

1. Whether the treaty “liberty” to fish constituted an international servitude limiting British sovereignty or a treaty right exercised under British territorial jurisdiction.
2. Whether, and under what limits, the United Kingdom could regulate U.S. fishermen exercising treaty liberties (e.g., seasons, licensing, gear, local policing rules).
3. How the three-mile rule should be measured in relation to “bays, harbours and creeks,” including treatment of large bays and any “historic bay” exception.
4. Whether U.S. fishermen could enter and fish within bays and harbors on the treaty coasts, and what geographic limits applied.
5. Whether the treaty permitted ancillary commercial activities in British territory connected to the fishery, and how far such activities could extend.
6. How “unsettled” shores should be defined for drying and curing fish, and how settlement affected that shore-based liberty.
7. Whether war or later events terminated, suspended, or otherwise altered the continuing effect of the 1818 fishing liberties.

## Decision

- The tribunal held the treaty conferred treaty “liberties,” not an international servitude; British sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction remained intact.
- The tribunal held the United Kingdom could impose regulations on the exercise of the liberties if they were necessary or appropriate for conservation and order, applied in good faith, were reasonable, and did not discriminate against U.S. fishermen or effectively nullify the treaty liberty.
- For bays, the tribunal adopted a straight-line measurement approach for the three-mile limit drawn at the point where the waters cease to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay, while recognizing that certain waters could qualify as historic bays subject to full coastal-state control.
- The tribunal recognized U.S. fishing access within bays on the treaty coasts subject to the three-mile limitation and any historic-bay exception.
- The tribunal allowed only limited ancillary activities closely connected to fishing, rejecting any claim that the treaty authorized general commercial operations in British ports and territory.
- The tribunal held the drying and curing liberty applied only to “unsettled” locations and ceased upon settlement unless U.S. fishermen obtained consent from local inhabitants or owners.
- The tribunal treated the 1818 convention as continuing to govern the parties’ rights and obligations rather than as extinguished by war and later revived.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty-based fishing liberties granted to foreign nationals are exercised within the coastal state’s territorial jurisdiction unless the treaty clearly transfers sovereign control.
- A coastal state may regulate the exercise of treaty liberties in its territory when regulations are reasonable, non-discriminatory, conservation-justified, and do not unreasonably interfere with or render illusory the treaty right.
- The coastal-state duty to perform treaties in good faith coexists with, but does not eliminate, territorial sovereignty and associated regulatory authority.
- For purposes of coastal fishing limits in bays, measurement may be taken from a straight line across the bay at the point where it ceases to have bay characteristics, subject to a recognized historic-bay category.
- Shore-based ancillary privileges (drying and curing) tied to specified locations are contingent on factual conditions such as settlement and may terminate as settlement occurs absent local consent.
- Ancillary commercial conduct is permitted only to the extent it is necessary or customary to the fishing activity contemplated by the treaty, not as an independent right of trade.

## Conclusion

The tribunal reconciled U.S. treaty fishing liberties with British sovereignty by confirming the continued existence of the liberties while permitting conservation-based, reasonable, and non-discriminatory regulation, clarifying bay measurements (including historic bays), limiting ancillary commerce, and holding that shore-use rights for drying and curing ended as sites became settled without local consent.


North Atlantic Coast Fisheries (U.K. v. U.S.), 11 R.I.A.A. 167 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1910)