Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway)

1. Introduction

The Fisheries Case is not primarily a story about Norwegian fishing enforcement or a bilateral quarrel over maps. It is a foundational decision on how international law constrains the legal construction of the coast—specifically, when a coastal State may replace the normal low-water mark baseline with straight baselines that enclose large maritime spaces as internal waters and, at the same time, generate the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured (ICJ, 1951). The judgment matters because it addresses a recurring structural risk in the law of the sea: unilateral coastal techniques can transform the legal status of waters and the distribution of jurisdiction unless disciplined by objective criteria and by rules on opposability, protest, and reliance.

The legal problem the Court confronted was framed with unusual clarity. Norway’s 1935 Decree drew straight lines connecting selected points along a highly indented, island-fringed coast (the skjaergaard), treating waters landward of those lines as internal waters and using the lines as the baseline for maritime claims north of a specified latitude (ICJ, 1951). The United Kingdom challenged both the method (straight baselines of that kind) and the concrete lines selected. The Court’s task was not to choose the “best” cartographic solution, but to decide whether Norway’s technique and its specific implementation were lawful under general international law at the time—and, crucially, whether that system was opposable to the United Kingdom given decades of practice and the pattern of diplomatic reaction (ICJ, 1951).

The decision’s continuing relevance within public international law is threefold.

First, it supplies the doctrinal bridge between geography and legal validity. Baselines are not mere technicalities; they determine the spatial reach of sovereignty (internal waters), territorial sovereignty subject to navigation rights (territorial sea), and—under later law—the starting line for zones of functional jurisdiction (exclusive economic zone and continental shelf measurement rules that often depend on baselines in practice) (UN, 1982). The Court in 1951 treats baseline drawing as a unilateral act that must remain within constraints imposed by international law, even while acknowledging that the coastal State is “best placed” to assess local conditions (ICJ, 1951). That combination—coastal discretion bounded by legal criteria—became the template later reflected in treaty codification, notably the 1958 Territorial Sea Convention and the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UN, 1958; UN, 1982).

Second, the judgment embeds an evidentiary and methodological logic that remains decisive in modern maritime disputes: the legality of a coastal technique is assessed through a structured inquiry into (i) objective geographic fit, (ii) the existence and content of any alleged customary rule, and (iii) the consequences of long practice coupled with the absence or weakness of protest. The Court rejected a rigid “ten-mile rule” as a binding general customary limitation on closing lines, reasoning that state practice and legal acceptance did not support the rule as universally obligatory (ICJ, 1951). That reasoning aligns with the contemporary method for identifying customary international law: a general practice accepted as law, assessed through evidence of both elements (ILC, 2018). The case, therefore, still functions as a practical demonstration of how a court tests custom-based claims in a field where technical assertions are often presented as legal necessities.

Third, it provides a durable vocabulary for distinguishing lawful from abusive baseline practices without reducing the inquiry to geometry alone. The Court articulated constraints that later appear, in refined form, in treaty law: the straight baseline system must not depart appreciably from the “general direction” of the coast; the sea areas enclosed must be sufficiently closely linked to the land domain; and, in choosing lines within the permissible range, account may be taken of regional economic interests clearly evidenced by long usage (ICJ, 1951). These ideas now sit within a more detailed legal architecture: UNCLOS regulates straight baselines, requires publicity through charts or lists of coordinates, and embeds baseline rules within a broader regime of navigation and coastal/flag-state relations (UN, 1982). UN practice-oriented guidance on baselines also emphasises the operational importance of clarity, publication, and legal discipline for baseline claims (UN DOALOS, 1989).

This article’s scope is deliberately doctrinal and practice-oriented. It does not treat the judgment as a museum piece, nor does it use the case as a generic starting point for a survey of maritime zones. Instead, it reconstructs the Court’s legality test and its evidentiary moves, then evaluates how later codification and subsequent jurisprudence channel the case’s core logic into today’s law of straight baselines. The analysis also addresses a practical question that professionals repeatedly face: when a baseline claim appears excessive, what are the legally relevant points of attack or defense—geographic criteria, treaty compliance (including publicity), customary law argumentation, or opposability through protest and acquiescence?

Methodologically, the article proceeds in three steps. It first isolates the judgment’s operative holdings and the implicit standard of review the Court applies to unilateral baseline-setting (ICJ, 1951). It then examines the extent to which those holdings were incorporated into treaty law and institutional practice, focusing on the 1958 Convention and UNCLOS, and the operationalization of baseline legality through publication and deposits (UN, 1958; UN, 1982; UN DOALOS, 1989). Finally, it situates the judgment within current doctrinal debates about identifying custom and assessing the legal effects of silence, protest, and reliance in maritime claims, using the ILC’s modern framework to sharpen (and, where necessary, discipline) arguments drawn from state practice (ILC, 2018).

The core claim advanced is narrow but consequential: the judgment is best understood as a decision about legal constraints on constructing the baseline, plus a decision about opposability grounded in long practice and the pattern of reaction. That dual structure—substantive legality criteria and procedural/evidentiary opposability—explains why the case continues to shape disputes over straight baselines long after codification. The result is not a license for coastal creativity, but a legally bounded technique whose validity depends on demonstrable geographic fit, credible legal justification, and the disciplined management of publicity and protest that turns unilateral acts into enforceable legal positions.

2. The Fisheries Case as a doctrine of baseline legality, not cartographic discretion

2.1 Delimitation is unilateral—but not discretionary

The case establishes a structural proposition that continues to govern the law of the sea: the act of drawing baselines is unilateral in form, yet its legal effects are conditioned by international law. Norway did not deny that it acted unilaterally when adopting the 1935 Decree. The United Kingdom, likewise, did not dispute that coastal States possess competence to determine the baselines from which their maritime zones are measured. The legal disagreement lay elsewhere. The central question was whether the validity of such unilateral delimitation depends exclusively on coastal discretion or whether it is subject to external legal constraints capable of being reviewed and enforced internationally.

The Court resolved this by decisively shifting the inquiry from coastal competence to international validity. It accepted that the coastal State is institutionally better placed to evaluate its own coastal geography and economic realities, yet it refused to treat that institutional advantage as a source of unfettered discretion. The judgment states, in explicit terms, that while the act of delimitation is unilateral, “the validity of the delimitation with regard to other States depends upon international law” (ICJ, 1951). This sentence is doctrinally decisive. It transforms baseline-setting from a technical or administrative exercise into a legal act whose opposability depends on conformity with objective legal standards.

This move has two important consequences. First, it rejects any conception of baselines as purely cartographic artefacts. Maps, charts, and technical lines are legally relevant only insofar as they comply with rules derived from customary international law. Second, it establishes that other States are not passive recipients of coastal delimitation choices. They are legal addressees with standing to contest baseline systems that exceed what international law permits. In other words, unilateral action does not equate to unilateral law-making.

The Fisheries Case, therefore, anticipates a pattern that later becomes explicit in treaty law. Under the 1958 Convention and, more clearly, under the 1982 Convention, coastal States retain the initiative to determine baselines, but that initiative operates within predefined constraints and procedural obligations, including publication and clarity requirements (UN, 1958; UN, 1982). The Court’s reasoning supplies the doctrinal foundation for this structure decades before codification: coastal discretion exists, but it is legally framed and externally reviewable.

Seen through this lens, the judgment is not permissive. It does not grant Norway freedom to draw lines because of geography alone. It recognises competence, then immediately subjects that competence to legality review. This distinction explains why the case has remained central to challenges against excessive or opportunistic baseline claims. The logic is not that each coast produces its own law, but that international law tolerates unilateral techniques only when they satisfy common standards that can be invoked by others.

2.2 The Court’s implicit standard of review

Although the Court did not articulate a formal “standard of review” in modern administrative or constitutional terms, the judgment reveals a structured and disciplined evaluative framework. Rather than deferring wholesale to Norway’s technical choices, the Court examined a limited set of legally relevant factors that together determine international validity.

The first factor is the coherence of the method with coastal geography. The Court did not assess each baseline segment in isolation or demand geometric precision. Instead, it asked whether the straight-line system, taken as a whole, reflected the general configuration of the Norwegian coast. This approach avoids reducing legality to cartography while preventing arbitrary enclosure of maritime spaces. Geography functions as a constraint, not as a justification in itself. The question is not how complex the coast is, but whether the method used corresponds to that complexity in a legally intelligible way (ICJ, 1951).

The second factor is the consistency and duration of state practice. The Court devoted careful attention to Norway’s long-standing use of similar techniques predating the 1935 Decree. Minor inconsistencies or local variations were not treated as fatal. What mattered was the existence of a stable, recognisable system applied over time. This reflects a pragmatic understanding of practice in maritime contexts, where absolute uniformity is unrealistic, yet systemic continuity can still be demonstrated.

The third factor concerns the presence or absence of protest. The Court did not assume that silence automatically equals consent. Instead, it examined whether States with an interest, particularly the United Kingdom, had knowledge of the Norwegian system and a realistic opportunity to react. The prolonged absence of formal protest, combined with operational awareness, weighed heavily in favour of opposability. Silence acquired legal significance because it occurred under conditions where objection would have been expected if the claim were regarded as unlawful (ICJ, 1951).

Closely related is the fourth factor: notoriety and reliance. The Norwegian system was not obscure or concealed. It was public, consistently applied, and relied upon by local communities and enforcement authorities. The Court treated this notoriety as legally relevant because it strengthened the inference that affected States had sufficient notice to assess and contest the claim. Reliance, in this context, does not function as an equitable shield; it operates as evidence that the baseline system had crystallised into a stable legal position capable of producing expectations.

These elements together form an implicit standard of review that is neither deferential nor intrusive. The Court did not substitute its own cartographic preferences for those of Norway, but it also did not abstain from legal evaluation. This balance gives rise to the recurring debate about “margin of appreciation” versus “objective constraints”. The judgment recognises that coastal States possess informational and practical advantages, yet it subjects their choices to constraints that are not negotiable: conformity with geographic reality, coherence over time, and responsiveness to international reaction.

The significance of this approach lies in its durability. Later law-of-the-sea jurisprudence often employs language of reasonableness, proportionality, or geographic relevance without explicitly citing the Fisheries Case. The underlying method, however, remains the same. Courts and tribunals assess unilateral coastal acts by testing them against objective criteria, examining practice and reaction, and determining whether the claim can be opposable to others. The Fisheries Case thus operates as an early template for legality review in a field where unilateral action is unavoidable but legal discipline is indispensable.

3. The rejection of “technical rules” and what replaces them

3.1 The ten-mile rule: why it fails as general custom (and why that matters now)

A central argumentative move by the United Kingdom in the Fisheries Case was the attempt to transform a technical practice into a rule of general international law. The UK contended that a maximum length of ten nautical miles for closing lines across bays or coastal indentations constituted a binding customary rule, and that Norway’s straight baselines violated that rule by exceeding it in multiple instances (ICJ, 1951). The Court’s response is one of the clearest early examples of a disciplined customary-law analysis in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice.

The Court did not deny the existence of a ten-mile practice. It is accepted that the ten-mile figure appeared in treaties, domestic legislation, and navigational guidance. The legal failure of the UK argument lay elsewhere. The Court held that the evidence did not demonstrate that States regarded the ten-mile limit as legally obligatory in all circumstances. State practice was uneven, exceptions were frequent, and—most importantly—States invoking or departing from the ten-mile figure did not consistently do so in the language of legal duty. The practice lacked the normative consolidation required for general custom (ICJ, 1951).

The judgment is methodologically significant because it separates frequency of use from legal status. The Court refused to equate technical convenience with legal necessity. A measurement may be widely employed without acquiring binding force, particularly in a field where coastal morphology varies widely and functional considerations often drive technical choices. The absence of uniformity in practice, combined with the absence of clear acceptance as law, was sufficient to defeat the claim that a rigid ten-mile rule constrained Norway’s baseline system.

This reasoning aligns closely with modern doctrine on the identification of customary international law. Contemporary formulations require both a sufficiently general and consistent practice and evidence that such practice is accepted as law (ILC, 2018). Had the UK been able to show not merely widespread reference to ten miles, but repeated assertions by States that international law required adherence to that limit even in atypical coastal conditions, the analysis might have differed. The record before the Court did not support that conclusion.

The implications of this reasoning extend well beyond the historical dispute. Baseline controversies today often rely on technical thresholds presented as settled law: maximum distances, angles, ratios, or enclosure limits. The Fisheries Case demonstrates that such thresholds cannot be elevated to customary status without rigorous evidence of both elements of custom. Divergent practice is not a minor defect; it is fatal when it reveals that States do not perceive themselves as legally bound. The case thus functions as a warning against mistaking operational convenience, cartographic habit, or even treaty-based rules limited to particular instruments for general customary law applicable erga omnes.

3.2 “Several lines can be envisaged”: legality where multiple configurations are plausible

Having rejected the idea of a single technical rule governing baseline construction, the Court turned to a more complex question: what follows when international law does not prescribe one exclusive method or configuration. The judgment recognises that, given the diversity of coastal geography, “several lines can be envisaged” as lawful baselines in a given area (ICJ, 1951). This acknowledgement is often misunderstood as a grant of unfettered discretion. In doctrinal terms, it is nothing of the sort.

The Court’s acceptance of multiple lawful configurations is conditional. It rests on the premise that baseline selection must remain anchored to local geographic conditions and practical realities. The absence of a single mandatory line does not mean that any line will do. It means that international law tolerates a range of solutions, each of which must independently satisfy the relevant legal constraints. Legality is assessed ex post through conformity with objective criteria, not ex ante through rigid technical prescriptions.

This approach responds to a genuine structural problem in the law of the sea. Coastlines differ radically in form. A rule that works for smooth, regular coasts may be unworkable for archipelagic fringes or deeply indented shorelines. The Court’s reasoning preserves flexibility while maintaining legal discipline. It allows States to choose among plausible options, yet subjects those choices to review for excess, distortion, or opportunism.

The risk inherent in this flexibility is obvious: baseline inflation. If several configurations are lawful, a coastal State may be tempted to select the one that maximises enclosed waters or strategic advantage. The Fisheries Case addresses this risk indirectly by tying permissible choice to demonstrable geographic correspondence, long usage, and international reaction. Later codification responds more directly. Article 7 of the 1982 Convention restricts the use of straight baselines to specific coastal conditions, prohibits appreciable departure from the general direction of the coast, and reinforces publicity obligations through charts and coordinates (UN, 1982). These provisions do not eliminate choice, but they narrow the range of acceptable options and facilitate external scrutiny.

The doctrinal balance struck by the Court remains influential. International law neither demands a single “correct” baseline nor tolerates baseline construction as a strategic exercise unconstrained by law. The acceptance that several lines may be envisaged is best understood as an acknowledgment of geographic diversity combined with a rejection of technical absolutism. What replaces rigid rules is not discretion alone, but a legal framework that evaluates chosen lines against shared standards capable of being invoked by other States.

4. The Case criteria: the three-part legality test (and its internal tensions)

4.1 “General direction of the coast” (constraint #1)

The first and most frequently cited constraint articulated in the Fisheries Case is that straight baselines must not depart appreciably from the general direction of the coast (ICJ, 1951). This requirement is often invoked rhetorically, yet its legal function is more precise than is commonly acknowledged. The Court did not require geometric fidelity to every coastal indentation or island contour. Nor did it accept that the presence of a complex coastline automatically legitimates any straight-line construction. Instead, it introduced a standard designed to be judicially manageable: the assessment of coastal orientation at a macro level.

The notion of “general direction” deliberately avoids segment-by-segment geometry. The Court was not interested in whether individual baseline segments ran parallel to local shoreline fragments. The inquiry focused on whether the baseline system, taken as a whole, respected the overall orientation and configuration of the coast. This approach allows adjudicators to evaluate legality without becoming cartographers. It also prevents coastal States from justifying extensive enclosure by pointing to isolated geographic irregularities disconnected from the dominant coastal pattern.

The manageability of this criterion lies in its scale. By shifting attention away from micro-coastal detail toward broader orientation, the Court created a test that can be applied across diverse coastal morphologies. The criterion operates as a brake on opportunistic line-drawing while recognising that irregular coasts cannot be governed by the same baseline logic as smooth, linear shores. It is precisely this balance that has allowed the concept to endure.

The durability of the phrase is evident in later codification. Both the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea reproduce the “general direction of the coast” requirement in their provisions on straight baselines (UN, 1958; UN, 1982). Codification, however, does not resolve the inherent indeterminacy of the concept. Treaties adopt the language but provide no metric, ratio, or technical formula for determining when a departure becomes “appreciable.” As a result, measurement contests persist. States disagree not on the relevance of the criterion, but on how it should be operationalised.

This indeterminacy is not a drafting failure. It reflects a conscious choice to preserve flexibility while maintaining a legal standard capable of scrutiny. The concept remains evaluative rather than mechanical. Its function is to structure legal argument, not to replace it with calculation. The Fisheries Case thus establishes “general direction” as a normative constraint whose content must be argued and justified, rather than mechanically demonstrated.

4.2 “Sufficiently closely linked to the land domain” (constraint #2)

The second constraint articulated by the Court addresses the legal status of waters enclosed by straight baselines. The Case holds that such waters must be sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to justify their treatment as internal waters (ICJ, 1951). This requirement is conceptually distinct from the “general direction” test. It does not concern the orientation of baselines, but the qualitative relationship between land and sea.

The Court developed this criterion by extending what might be called “bay logic” to an atypical coastal setting. Traditional bay doctrine links enclosure to geographic intimacy: the waters must penetrate deeply into the land and be framed by coastal formations in a way that supports their assimilation to the land territory. Norway’s coast did not fit the classic bay model. Instead, it presented a fragmented fringe of islands, rocks, and skerries forming a protective barrier along the mainland. The Court treated this configuration as functionally equivalent to a bay system, allowing waters behind the skjaergaard to be assimilated into internal waters because of their close physical and functional connection to land.

This reasoning is analytically demanding. The Court did not rely on visual enclosure alone. It examined the role of the island fringe in shielding the waters, the manner in which the sea areas functioned as an extension of land-based life and activity, and the coherence of the system as a whole. The result is a relational test: enclosure is lawful when the sea areas form part of the coastal domain rather than an extension of the open sea artificially captured by lines.

The significance of this criterion is confirmed by its reappearance in treaty law. Both the 1958 Convention and the 1982 Convention incorporate the idea that straight baselines may be used only where the sea areas enclosed are closely linked to the land (UN, 1958; UN, 1982). Codification thus affirms that enclosure is not justified by geometry alone. Legal assimilation of waters requires a demonstrable land–sea nexus.

At the same time, this criterion exposes internal tensions. The concept of “close linkage” resists precise definition. It depends on physical configuration, functional use, and coastal practice. This indeterminacy can be exploited. States may emphasise selective land features or historical usage to claim linkage where the spatial and functional connection to the land is thin. The Fisheries Case counters this risk by embedding the criterion within a broader legality framework, requiring consistency, notoriety, and international reaction before enclosed waters can be treated as internal.

4.3 Economic interests evidenced by long usage (the “extra-geographic” factor)

The third element of the Court’s legality framework introduces a factor that sits uneasily alongside the geographic constraints: regional economic interests evidenced by long usage. The Case explicitly recognises that such interests may be taken into account when assessing the lawfulness of straight baselines (ICJ, 1951). This acknowledgment has generated sustained doctrinal debate.

At first glance, the reference to economic interests appears to introduce a non-geographic consideration into what might otherwise seem a spatially grounded analysis. The Court, however, did not treat economic dependence as an independent licence to enclose maritime areas. The emphasis on long usage is critical. Economic interests mattered because they demonstrated the historical integration of the waters into the coastal domain. In that sense, economic activity functioned as evidence supporting the existence of a close land–sea relationship over time.

The doctrinal question is how this factor should be classified. One interpretation treats it as a direct legality criterion, alongside geography. Another treats it as an evidentiary proxy, corroborating claims that the waters are closely linked to land. A third reading views it as a quasi-equitable consideration, reflecting sensitivity to reliance and social reality rather than strict legal entitlement.

The structure of the judgment supports the second interpretation. Economic interests are not invoked in isolation. They appear in conjunction with geographic features, historical practice, and the absence of protest. The Court did not suggest that economic dependence could override geographic constraints. Instead, it used long-standing economic usage to reinforce the conclusion that the waters in question had long been treated, in practice, as part of the coastal domain.

This distinction matters because of the risk of misuse. If economic dependence were treated as an autonomous legality factor, it could become a pretext for excessive enclosure. Many maritime areas support economic activity; that fact alone cannot justify reclassification as internal waters. The Fisheries Case avoids this outcome by tying economic interests to duration, stability, and integration into a broader system of coastal practice.

Later codification is notably cautious on this point. Neither the 1958 Convention nor the 1982 Convention explicitly refers to economic interests as a standalone criterion for straight baselines. The absence is instructive. Treaty law preserves geographic and relational constraints while leaving economic considerations to operate indirectly, through concepts such as historic usage and reliance where relevant. The judgment thus stands as a reminder that economic reality can inform legal analysis, but only within a disciplined framework that prevents functional arguments from displacing legal limits.

Also Read

• Nagorno-Karabakh War: Rights and Settlement

• The Legality of Seizing Russian Central Bank Assets

• The Paris Agreement Explained

• Human Rights in Iran: Law Violations and Accountability

• The Barcelona Traction Case (Belgium v Spain)

5. Historic consolidation, notoriety, and acquiescence: opposability against the UK

5.1 The Court’s construction of “historic title” as a method-justifier

A recurrent misunderstanding of the case is that Norway prevailed by invoking a claim to historic internal waters. The Court’s reasoning is more restrained and more precise. As the judgment presents Norway’s position, history was not advanced to carve out an exceptional title derogating from general international law. Instead, it was relied upon to justify the application of general law—specifically, the permissibility of straight baselines—under conditions shaped by long-standing coastal usage (ICJ, 1951).

This distinction is central. The Court did not recognise a historic title in the classic sense: a claim that certain waters are internal by virtue of ancient and exclusive authority, irrespective of general rules. Rather, it accepted that historical practice could consolidate a method of applying general law, rendering that method opposable to other States. The legality of Norway’s baselines thus rested on conformity with general principles governing baselines, reinforced by historical consolidation, not on an autonomous historic exception.

Analytically, the case draws a line between two different uses of history. On one side lies a historic title to internal waters, which requires proof of exclusive authority, long duration, and acquiescence sufficient to displace the normal regime of the law of the sea. On the other hand lies the historic consolidation of a practice operating within general law, where history serves to stabilise interpretation and application rather than to create a special legal category. The Court clearly located Norway’s claim in the second category.

This move has lasting doctrinal importance. It prevents historic arguments from becoming a backdoor for exceptionalism. States may rely on history to demonstrate how general rules have been applied in a particular geographic context, but not to escape those rules altogether. The Fisheries Case thus preserves the universality of baseline law while recognising that its concrete application may be shaped by durable practice.

5.2 Consistency of Norwegian practice and handling alleged inconsistencies

The United Kingdom sought to undermine Norway’s reliance on long usage by highlighting inconsistencies in Norwegian practice prior to the 1935 Decree. Variations in enforcement, cartographic depiction, and administrative technique were presented as evidence that no coherent system existed. The Court rejected this argument, adopting a pragmatic and legally significant understanding of consistency (ICJ, 1951).

The judgment tolerates minor contradictions because it does not equate consistency with uniformity. What mattered was not the absence of deviation at the margins, but the persistence of a recognisable approach over time. The Court examined whether Norwegian authorities had, in substance, treated the waters landward of the relevant lines as internal and enforced fisheries regulation on that basis across decades. On that question, the evidence pointed to continuity rather than fragmentation.

This reasoning anticipates a key methodological point in customary international law: practice need not be perfectly uniform to be legally relevant. Especially where a single State’s practice is invoked to establish opposability rather than to generate general custom, the standard is functional coherence. The practice must be sufficiently stable and intelligible to put other States on notice of the legal position being asserted.

The Fisheries Case, therefore, clarifies what counts as “consistent enough” in a single-State setting. Minor administrative variations, technical adjustments, or localised anomalies do not negate continuity when the overarching legal claim remains the same. The Court’s approach avoids an unrealistic evidentiary burden that would make long-standing practices legally fragile due to inevitable imperfections in historical administration.

5.3 General toleration, UK abstention, and “notoriety”

The decisive element rendering Norway’s baseline system opposable to the United Kingdom was not geography alone, but the interaction between notoriety and reaction. The Court held that Norway’s system had been applied openly, over a long period, in circumstances where the United Kingdom had both knowledge of the practice and a clear interest in contesting it, yet failed to do so in a timely and consistent manner (ICJ, 1951).

The judgment is careful in its use of silence. It does not treat mere inaction as automatic acceptance. Instead, it identifies specific conditions under which silence acquires legal meaning. Knowledge is essential: the Norwegian system was public and operationally visible. Opportunity matters: the United Kingdom had repeated occasions to object, including through diplomatic channels. Stake is decisive: British fishing interests were directly affected, making passivity difficult to explain as indifference. Under these conditions, prolonged abstention could not be treated as neutral.

This reasoning refines the concept of acquiescence. Acquiescence is not the absence of protest in the abstract. It is the absence of protest where protest would reasonably be expected if the claim were regarded as unlawful. The Court’s analysis, therefore, avoids conflating acquiescence with inertia. It requires a contextual assessment of awareness, interest, and conduct.

The practical implications are immediate and enduring. Baseline disputes today are rarely decided by abstract legality alone. They turn on publicity, deposit of charts or coordinates, and the timeliness and clarity of protest. A State that fails to react to a well-publicised baseline system risks being confronted with arguments of opposability grounded in reliance and stability. The case shows that international law rewards vigilance and penalises strategic delay.

The judgment thus integrates substantive legality with procedural responsibility. Coastal States must articulate and publicise their baseline claims clearly. Other States must assess and respond to those claims without undue delay. Opposability emerges not from formal consent, but from the interaction of law, practice, and reaction over time.

6. Internal waters, “bays,” and the Indreleia

6.1 The UK’s attempt to carve “territorial straits” out of internal waters

A final line of argument advanced by the United Kingdom in the Fisheries Case sought to decouple baseline legality from the legal classification of the waters enclosed. Even if Norway’s straight baselines were accepted as lawful, the UK contended that certain waters lying landward of those lines—most notably the Indreleia—should nonetheless retain the status of territorial waters because they functioned as navigation routes used by foreign vessels (ICJ, 1951). The argument was conceptually ambitious: it attempted to introduce a functional override capable of reclassifying waters otherwise treated as internal.

The Indreleia is a sheltered navigation route running behind the skjaergaard, used historically for coastal traffic and, in more recent periods, for foreign navigation supported by artificial aids. The UK argued that this functional use aligned the Indreleia with straits used for international navigation and that such usage should prevent its assimilation into internal waters. The implication was that navigational function, rather than geographic enclosure and baseline legality, should determine the applicable legal regime.

The Court rejected this approach. Its reasoning proceeds from a clear hierarchy of legal classification. Once waters are validly enclosed by lawful baselines, they fall within the internal waters regime unless an established exception applies. The existence of navigation, even regular navigation by foreign vessels, does not by itself create a legal strait or preserve territorial-sea status. The Court emphasised that Indreleia’s navigational role depended significantly on artificial aids and local arrangements, and that its use did not transform its legal character (ICJ, 1951).

This rejection is doctrinally significant because it prevents functional reclassification from undermining baseline law. If navigational use alone could convert internal waters into territorial waters or straits, baseline legality would become contingent on fluctuating patterns of maritime traffic. The Court implicitly affirms that legal status flows from geographic enclosure under lawful baselines, not from the intensity or convenience of navigation.

The analytical core of the Court’s position is that “strait” status cannot be manufactured by function alone where geography and prior legal classification point in another direction. A strait, in legal terms, is not merely a route that vessels use. It is a geographic configuration connecting two areas of the sea, embedded within a legal regime that balances coastal sovereignty and navigational rights. In the Fisheries Case, the Indreleia did not meet that description. It was a route within waters already assimilated to the land domain by virtue of lawful baseline construction.

The later development of the law of the sea underscores the importance of this distinction. The 1982 Convention establishes a detailed regime for straits used for international navigation, attaching specific transit rights and obligations to qualifying geographic configurations (UN, 1982). That regime does not displace the foundational rule that internal waters remain internal unless explicitly subject to special regimes. Instead, it clarifies when and how strait status arises. The Fisheries Case can thus be seen as prefiguring this structure by refusing to allow functional arguments to erode the legal consequences of valid baseline delimitation.

The broader implication is that internal waters classification cannot be destabilised by post hoc functional claims. Navigation may inform legal analysis where the law explicitly makes it relevant, as in the straits regime under UNCLOS. Outside such contexts, geography, lawful enclosure, and legal classification prevail. The Court’s refusal to reclassify the Indreleia preserves the integrity of baseline law and prevents a slide toward case-by-case functionalism that would weaken legal certainty in coastal waters.

7. Codification after 1951

7.1 The 1958 Territorial Sea Convention: textual capture of the Fisheries criteria

The first stage of codification following the Fisheries Case occurred with the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. The Convention does not cite the judgment, yet its structure and language reveal a clear doctrinal lineage. Two core criteria articulated by the Court—respect for the general direction of the coast and the requirement that enclosed waters be closely linked to the land domain—are translated into treaty text governing the use of straight baselines (UN, 1958).

This translation is not mechanical. The Convention transforms judicial reasoning into prescriptive rules. By embedding the “general direction” requirement in a treaty provision, codification converts what had functioned as a judicially managed standard into a binding textual condition. The same is true of the “closely linked” requirement, which limits the assimilation of enclosed waters to internal waters by reference to their physical and functional relationship with land. What survives from the Fisheries Case is the core logic: straight baselines remain exceptional, justified by specific coastal configurations rather than convenience or strategy.

Codification also narrows discretion in ways the judgment did not need to articulate. The Convention introduces clearer limits on the use of low-tide elevations as basepoints and emphasises the need for baselines to be shown on officially recognised charts. These elements respond to a practical concern only implicit in the Fisheries Case: without publicity and technical discipline, even legally defensible baseline systems risk uncertainty and dispute. The treaty framework thus supplements the Court’s substantive criteria with procedural and technical safeguards designed to stabilise expectations.

At the same time, codification does not exhaust the judgment’s reasoning. The Convention does not reproduce the Court’s discussion of long usage, economic interests, or acquiescence. Those elements are not rejected; they are left to operate indirectly through general international law. The result is a partial capture. The Convention codifies the structural constraints on straight baselines while leaving the evidentiary and opposability logic of the case to continue functioning outside the treaty text.

7.2 UNCLOS Article 7 and deposit and publicity obligations

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea consolidates and refines the codification process. Article 7 sets out the contemporary legal framework for straight baselines, expressly limiting their use to coasts that are deeply indented and cut into or fringed with islands. It reproduces the requirements that baselines must not depart appreciably from the general direction of the coast and that the sea areas enclosed must be sufficiently closely linked to the land domain to be subject to the internal waters regime (UN, 1982).

What changes in this second stage of codification is not the substance of the constraints, but the infrastructure of legality surrounding them. UNCLOS integrates baseline rules into a comprehensive system that emphasises transparency, technical precision, and institutional record-keeping. Coastal States are required to give due publicity to straight baselines by means of charts or lists of geographical coordinates, and to deposit such information with the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN, 1982).

This procedural architecture reflects a lesson implicit in the Fisheries Case. Opposability depends not only on substantive legality, but on visibility and opportunity for reaction. Where baselines are public, clearly articulated, and deposited through recognised channels, other States can assess their conformity with international law and respond accordingly. Where they are obscure or inconsistently publicised, disputes over knowledge, reliance, and acquiescence become inevitable.

Guidance developed within the framework of the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea reinforces this point by treating deposit and publicity as integral to baseline legality rather than as administrative afterthoughts. Baseline claims that are not properly publicised may still exist as unilateral assertions, but their capacity to generate legal effects vis-à-vis other States is weakened. The infrastructure of deposit, charts, and coordinates thus operationalises the opposability logic first articulated by the Court in 1951.

What survives from the Fisheries Case in UNCLOS is therefore substantial. The core legality criteria remain intact, and the idea that straight baselines are permissible only within a constrained framework persists. What does not survive is any ambiguity about procedure. Codification transforms the Court’s reliance on notoriety and reaction into a formalised system of publicity and deposit. The evolution reflects continuity rather than rupture: judicial doctrine is preserved, disciplined, and embedded within a treaty-based legal order designed to manage baseline claims in a densely regulated maritime world.

8. Later jurisprudence

8.1 The Fisheries Case as a “baseline discipline” in modern law of the sea disputes

In contemporary law of the sea jurisprudence, the case is rarely applied as a fact-pattern precedent. Courts and tribunals do not ask whether a modern coastline resembles Norway’s skjaergaard. Instead, the judgment functions as a source of doctrinal vocabulary and methodological discipline for evaluating baseline claims that affect subsequent legal reasoning on maritime zones. Its influence is therefore indirect but persistent.

Later cases addressing maritime delimitation and coastal configuration repeatedly rely on ideas that originate in Fisheries, even when the judgment is not formally central to the reasoning. Concepts such as “general direction of the coast,” restraint in selecting basepoints, and suspicion toward artificial or opportunistic coastal constructions appear throughout the jurisprudence. These ideas surface when courts identify relevant coasts, assess the legitimacy of basepoints, or exclude distortive features from delimitation analysis. The underlying concern mirrors that of 1951: unilateral coastal techniques must not be allowed to reshape maritime entitlements in a manner disconnected from coastal reality.

The jurisprudential move is subtle. Rather than directly policing baselines, courts often control their effects. By limiting which coastal features may be treated as relevant, or by discounting exaggerated coastal configurations when constructing provisional equidistance lines, tribunals effectively neutralise baseline manipulation without formally invalidating baseline systems. This approach reflects an implicit continuity with Fisheries: international adjudication avoids micromanaging coastal administration, yet insists that geography, not legal artifice, anchors maritime entitlement.

As a result, Fisheries has evolved into a baseline discipline rather than a baseline manual. It supplies courts with a language for restraint. The judgment’s emphasis on coherence, moderation, and objective connection to the coast has become a set of background assumptions that shape how later tribunals approach coastal claims. The case is no longer about Norway’s lines; it is about limiting the legal consequences of aggressive baseline construction wherever it appears.

This evolution also explains why the judgment has not been overtaken by codification. Treaty rules govern when straight baselines may be drawn, but disputes often arise at the margins of those rules. Courts then turn to Fisheries not for technical answers, but for a framework that resists maximalist interpretations. The case thus survives as a jurisprudential stabiliser, ensuring that baseline techniques do not undermine the structural balance of the law of the sea.

8.2 Customary-law method and opposability after the ILC Conclusions

The modern framework articulated by the International Law Commission for identifying customary international law provides a useful lens through which to reassess what the Fisheries Case actually did. The judgment predates formal restatement, yet its method aligns closely with contemporary doctrine. It evaluates evidence of practice, examines the presence or absence of legal conviction, and places significant weight on reaction by other States. The result is a structured inquiry into both formation and opposability.

The Court did not treat Norway’s practice as generating general customary law. Instead, it treated that practice as consolidating a particular application of general law that became opposable to a specific State. This distinction is critical. Under the ILC framework, a single State’s conduct cannot create general custom, but it may acquire legal relevance through acquiescence or reliance where other States are affected and remain silent in circumstances that call for reaction (ILC, 2018). The case operates squarely within this logic.

The types of evidence the Court relied upon also correspond to contemporary categories. Official decrees, enforcement acts, navigational practice, and consistent administrative treatment functioned as evidence of practice. Diplomatic silence, knowledge of the practice, and the presence of concrete interests functioned as evidence relevant to legal acceptance and opposability. The judgment does not collapse these elements into a single inquiry. It treats them as interacting components of a legal assessment.

The most enduring doctrinal tension revealed by the case concerns acquiescence and persistent objection. The Court’s reasoning demonstrates that timing and clarity are decisive. A State that objects clearly and early preserves its legal position even if it remains a minority voice. A State that delays objection, despite knowledge and interest, risks being confronted with arguments of acceptance through conduct. The case illustrates this asymmetry starkly. The United Kingdom’s eventual objection could not undo decades of abstention in circumstances where objection would have been expected.

This insight remains central to contemporary maritime practice. Baseline disputes are rarely resolved by textual interpretation alone. They hinge on who protested, when, and how. Persistent objection must be articulated in a manner that is intelligible, timely, and legally framed. Vague dissatisfaction or episodic protest may be insufficient. Conversely, prolonged silence in the face of well-publicised claims carries legal consequences, even if no formal consent is ever expressed.

Reassessed through the ILC framework, the Fisheries Case appears methodologically disciplined rather than idiosyncratic. It applies an early version of what is now an orthodox approach to custom and opposability. Its continued relevance lies not in the specifics of Norwegian geography, but in its demonstration that unilateral maritime claims are judged through a combined lens of substance, practice, and reaction. Courts today continue to rely on that lens when containing the legal effects of baseline construction in an increasingly contested maritime environment.

9. Contemporary relevance

9.1 Contemporary disputes show why the Fisheries Case constraints matter

The legal relevance of the case is most visible today in disputes where straight baselines are drawn far from the coast and defended by reference to “local conditions.” These controversies are not marginal. They affect navigation rights, fisheries access, maritime boundary calculations, and the credibility of the law of the sea as a constraint on unilateral coastal expansion.

A recurring pattern can be identified. A coastal State invokes irregular shoreline features, offshore islands, or economic dependence to justify extensive straight baselines that enclose large maritime areas. The legal defence often mirrors the language of Fisheries: complex geography, historical usage, and practical necessity. The difficulty lies not in recognising that such factors may be relevant, but in determining when they cease to be constraints and become blanket justifications.

The Fisheries Case provides a structured way to test compliance that remains doctrinally robust. The first step is a coastal morphology threshold. Straight baselines are not a default option; they presuppose a coast that is deeply indented or fringed with islands forming a coherent coastal façade. Mere presence of offshore features is insufficient. The morphology must plausibly support assimilation of the enclosed waters to the land domain.

The second step concerns appreciable departure. Even where morphology permits straight baselines, the configuration chosen must respect the general direction of the coast. This requires an assessment at an appropriate scale. Lines that significantly reorient the coast’s overall axis, rather than smoothing its irregularities, fail this test. The inquiry is not technical perfection, but directional fidelity.

The third step examines linkage. Waters enclosed by straight baselines must remain sufficiently closely linked to the land. This requirement filters out configurations that use isolated features as anchors to project sovereignty over open sea spaces. Linkage is assessed through physical sheltering, functional integration, and coherence of the coastal system as a whole.

When “local conditions” are invoked without passing through these three stages, the argument collapses into discretion. The case does not support that outcome. It tolerates variation, not elasticity without limit. Contemporary disputes demonstrate that the judgment’s criteria remain essential tools for distinguishing lawful adaptation from baseline inflation.

9.2 Operational consequences: protest practice, “excessive claims” assessments, and institutional pathways

Beyond doctrine, the Fisheries Case has concrete operational consequences for how States manage and contest straight baseline claims today. The judgment teaches that legality is shaped as much by reaction as by initial assertion. Silence and delay are legally meaningful when claims are public and interests are affected.

One primary tool is diplomatic protest. Timely, clear, and legally framed objections preserve a State’s position. Protest need not be confrontational, but it must be intelligible as a legal objection. Episodic expressions of concern or technical queries do not perform the same function. The Fisheries Case shows that prolonged abstention, where knowledge and stake are established, risks later characterisation as acquiescence.

A second tool lies in publication and deposit challenges. Modern baseline legality is tied to publicity through charts and coordinates deposited with international institutions. Contesting the adequacy, clarity, or consistency of such a publication is not procedural formalism. It directly affects opposability by shaping knowledge and opportunity for response. Where publication is incomplete or ambiguous, the argument that silence amounts to acceptance weakens.

A third operational pathway involves systematic legal assessments of maritime claims. Several States and institutions now conduct structured reviews of baseline systems to identify excessive claims. These assessments do not adjudicate disputes, but they frame legal positions, inform navigation practice, and signal that certain claims are contested. This practice echoes the logic of Fisheries: notoriety invites reaction, and reaction preserves legal space.

The methodological link back to the judgment is straightforward. The Court did not penalise the United Kingdom for lacking formal consent; it focused on the absence of timely opposition under conditions of visibility and interest. Contemporary practice confirms the same lesson. Baseline disputes are not resolved by discovering hidden consent, but by evaluating conduct over time. Where a claim is visible and impactful, delay is not neutral.

In this sense, straight baselines remain a live compliance battlefield. The case continues to structure that battlefield by allocating responsibility on both sides. Coastal States must articulate and publicise their claims within legal constraints. Other States must assess and respond with discipline. International law does not freeze baselines, but it does demand engagement. Failure to engage carries consequences.

10. Conclusion:

The Fisheries Case occupies a distinctive position in the law of the sea because it does not endorse straight baselines as a matter of coastal convenience, nor does it reject them as inherently exceptional. Its enduring contribution lies in the conditions it attaches to their legality. The judgment legitimizes straight baselines only when they are anchored to coastal geography, when the waters enclosed are closely linked to the land domain, and when the resulting system is rendered opposable through internationally cognizable practice. What it withholds—deliberately—is any notion of cartographic freedom divorced from legal constraint.

On the substantive plane, the decision establishes that straight baselines are a constrained technique. Coastal morphology matters, but it does not operate as a blank cheque. The requirement that baselines respect the general direction of the coast limits the extent to which isolated features or local irregularities may be leveraged to reorient maritime claims. The requirement of close land–sea linkage prevents enclosure from drifting into appropriation of open sea spaces under the guise of coastal complexity. These criteria work together as a system. None is sufficient on its own, and none can be invoked selectively to justify maximalist outcomes. The Fisheries Case thus rejects technical absolutism and replaces it with a legality framework that tolerates variation while resisting distortion.

The judgment’s second legacy is evidentiary rather than spatial. Baseline legality is not determined solely by the geometry of lines or the wording of decrees. It is shaped by publicity, reaction, and the passage of time. The Court’s analysis shows that international law assigns legal meaning to prolonged abstention where claims are public, interests are affected, and objection would reasonably be expected. Silence under such conditions is not neutral. It contributes to opposability by stabilizing expectations and consolidating practice. This evidentiary logic remains decisive in contemporary disputes, where the formal availability of protest mechanisms and deposit procedures has only sharpened the consequences of delay or ambiguity.

The synthesis offered by the case is therefore dual. Substantively, it disciplines the spatial reach of coastal sovereignty by tying straight baselines to objective geographic and relational constraints. Procedurally, it allocates responsibility between claimant and respondent States by insisting on visibility, reaction, and legal clarity. Together, these elements explain why the case continues to matter after codification. Treaties have formalized the criteria, but they have not displaced the judgment’s core insight: legality emerges from the interaction of rules, practice, and response.

A final methodological note follows from this analysis. The doctrinal test distilled from the case can be applied to present baseline claims as a structured legality audit. The first step asks whether threshold conditions are met: does the coast exhibit the kind of morphology that permits straight baselines at all? The second step applies constraints: do the lines respect the general direction of the coast, and do the enclosed waters remain closely linked to the land domain? The third step examines opposability: have the baselines been clearly publicised, have affected States had knowledge and opportunity to react, and what legal significance attaches to protest or abstention over time.

Applied rigorously, this audit resists both extremes that continue to destabilize the law of the sea. It avoids treating straight baselines as an anachronistic exception frozen in 1951, while equally avoiding their transformation into a flexible instrument of maritime expansion. That balance, rather than any specific configuration of lines, is the lasting contribution of the Fisheries Case.

Reference

1. International Court of Justice (1951) [Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v Norway), Judgment of 18 December 1951], ICJ Reports 1951, pp. 116–191.

2. United Nations (1958) [Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone], adopted 29 April 1958, entered into force 10 September 1964.

3. United Nations (1982) [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea], adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994.

4. International Law Commission (2018) [Draft Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law, with Commentaries], UN Doc. A/73/10.

5. United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (1989) [The Law of the Sea: Baselines — An Examination of the Relevant Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea], United Nations, New York.

6. Churchill, R.R. and Lowe, A.V. (1999) The Law of the Sea, 3rd edn, Manchester University Press.

7. Evans, M.D. (ed.) (2014) International Law of the Sea, Oxford University Press.

8. Tanaka, Y. (2019) The International Law of the Sea, 3rd edn, Cambridge University Press.

9. O’Connell, D.P. (1982) The International Law of the Sea, Vol. I, Clarendon Press.

10. Shaw, M.N. (2021) International Law, 9th edn, Cambridge University Press.

11. McDougal, M.S. and Burke, W.T. (1958) ‘The Public Order of the Oceans’, Yale Law Journal, 67(4), pp. 473–525.

12. Reed, M.W. (2000) ‘Straight Baselines: A Question of Balance’, International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 15(1), pp. 43–61.

13. Symmons, C.R. (2006) ‘The Maritime Zones of Islands in International Law’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 55(2), pp. 309–337.

14. United Nations (various years) Law of the Sea Bulletin, United Nations, New York.