Take a look at the Fisheries Case in this new Public International Law essay. A country’s territory is the foundation of its sovereignty and strength. The state has numerous resources that it may utilise to enhance its economic development, technological advancement, and commercial connections thanks to its territory, whether it be land, air, or water. The land, which represents such difficulties, is often a cause of inter-state conflict. Many treaties, conventions, and agreements have been signed between countries to set regulations for the administration of these lands. The 1982 Montego Bay Convention, for example, divides marine areas into various categories and establishes legal regimes for each. It clearly defines which areas are part of a state’s territory and which are not. The Chicago Convention of 1944 accomplishes the same thing, but for airspace, and creates a system of authorization for airspace crossing.
The dispute in the United Kingdom versus Norway Case of 1951, also known as the Fisheries Case, concerns a maritime area where fishing was a valuable resource. The goal was to determine how much of that maritime zone was Norwegian, where Norway would have exclusive fishing rights, and how much was considered high seas, where the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would have no such rights. The conflict goes back to the mid-1930s. Norway passed a decree in 1935 stating that some fishing zones or grounds off its northern coast were exclusively open to Norwegian fishermen. To challenge this order, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland claimed that the decree’s baselines were not established fairly and did not correspond to the general direction of the coast.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland filed a plea to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1949 about the Fisheries Case, requesting that it precisely establish the extent of Norwegian maritime territory in the issue region. The nation also requested monetary compensation, saying that its fishing boats were unable to continue their operations. Furthermore, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland claimed that Norway’s claims violated international law. The primary goal was to establish whether the Norwegian decree’s delimitation boundaries were legal under international law.
One of the problems was that Norway’s coastline zone is “confused.” It is indeed hilly, with fjords and bays punctuating the landscape and a plethora of islands, islets, and reefs to be found along the route. The shoreline, at the very least, does not serve as a distinct demarcation between land and water. The argument of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was split into four major arguments. The first argument was that to establish the baselines, Norway could and should only draw straight lines across bays. Then they went into further detail, claiming that some of the lines did not follow the overall direction of the coast or did not follow it properly, as well as failing to observe certain sea-to-land separation connections. For the third point, they showed that the British were unaware of the Norwegian method of baseline delimitation and that Norway did not offer historic title enforcement over any of the fjords. Finally, the fourth argument was more technical, stating that lines drawn on the Skaergaard fjord formations must not exceed 10 nautical miles in length.
Norway’s argument in the Fisheries Case was that they should draw lines following the coast’s natural orientation. Norway further stated that it was within its rights to claim fjords and sounds (big sea or ocean inlets) as well as territorial seas, citing its historic ownership of these areas, which the Court acknowledged.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided in the Fisheries Case on December 18, 1951, that Norway’s claims to the maritime zone were following international law governing the ownership of sea space. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified that the technique employed by Norway to delimit and execute the baselines was not in violation of international law by a vote of ten to two. This is a very significant issue that has several ramifications for other countries. According to a CIA report on the case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) indicated that each country has the right to define its territorial sea based on factors such as “geographical reality,” “historical precedence,” and “economic need” by agreeing with the Norwegian approach. As a result of this approach, more coastal countries will seek to expand their marine territorial zone. Other countries, such as Iceland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Denmark, and others, will be affected.
To prevent future disputes over the marine zone, particularly the fishing zone, rules have been established. As a result, an exclusive fishing zone has been established: it is a twelve-nautical-mile-long region off the coast where the state has the sole right to fish. Some states, on the other hand, sought to take advantage of their coastal location and claim a larger zone in which they would have the right to fish.
The goal was for states to have more control over marine companies outside of their borders. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea provided the legal foundation for the Exclusive Economic Zone at the time (EEZ). From the baseline out to 200 nautical miles from the shore, this zone exists. It’s a territory where the government has the exclusive authority to explore, develop, preserve, and manage biological natural resources. However, the exact delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a cause of disagreement between countries, such as between Norway and Russia, Italy and Slovenia, France and Canada, and Canada and the United States of America. Because the resources found in these regions are so valuable, it is critical for nations to have as many as possible.
The shortage of biological resources is only going to aggravate the issue of coastal state disputes. The Hague Court of Justice will likely witness an increase in the number of cases involving marine territorial zones and exclusive economic zones on its docket. This is the best that can be said about the Fisheries Case.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge