Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway)
International Court of Justice
1951 I.C.J. 116 (Dec. 18)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Between 1616 and 1906, British fishermen refrained from fishing in Norwegian coastal waters. In 1906, British fishermen began fishing near the Norwegian coasts, and tensions between British fishermen and the Norwegian government (defendant) escalated after 1906. In 1911, Norway seized a British trawler for violating certain limits imposed by the government of Norway to limit foreign fishing in Norwegian coastal waters. In 1932, British trawlers began fishing off the Norwegian coast west of the North Cape. In 1933, the government of the United Kingdom (plaintiff) sent a memorandum to Norway complaining that the Norwegian government used unjustifiable baselines when setting the boundaries of Norway’s territorial sea in a process known as delimitation. In 1935, the Norwegian Royal Decree set the Norwegian fisheries zone north of a certain latitude. Between 1935 and 1948, there was no agreement between Norway and the United Kingdom on the boundaries of Norwegian coastal waters. However, in 1948, the government of Norway began to strictly enforce the limits set in the 1935 decree and arrested numerous British trawlers for violations of the 1935 decree. The government of the United Kingdom brought a case against the government of Norway in the International Court of Justice.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
