The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway [1951] ICJ 3) is a seminal decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that delineated the parameters of maritime boundaries and established a framework for determining territorial waters. This case study critically examines the legal principles underpinning the ICJ's judgment, evaluates the arguments presented by both parties, and assesses the broader implications for international maritime law.

Introduction
The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case emerged from a prolonged dispute between the United Kingdom and Norway regarding the delimitation of territorial waters. Norway's 1935 Royal Decree, which established a system of straight baselines to delineate its territorial sea, was contested by the United Kingdom, arguing it infringed upon the freedoms of the high seas. This dispute raised pivotal questions about the legality of baseline systems and the extent of coastal state jurisdiction.

Background and Facts
Norway's assertion of sovereignty over extensive maritime zones originated in the early 20th century, culminating in the 1935 Royal Decree. The United Kingdom, a nation heavily reliant on fishing, particularly in the North Sea, challenged this decree, contending that Norway's method of drawing baselines was inconsistent with international law.

The crux of the dispute lay in the methodology employed by Norway to determine its baselines, which included drawing straight lines connecting outermost points of the mainland and archipelagic waters, thereby enclosing extensive maritime areas as internal waters. The United Kingdom argued that this approach deviated from the accepted norm of drawing baselines along the low-water mark of the coast.

Legal Issues
The central legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of international law concerning the delimitation of territorial waters. The ICJ had to consider whether Norway's method of straight baselines was permissible under international law, and if it was, whether the specific baselines established by Norway were justifiable.

Arguments of the Parties
United Kingdom's Position:
The United Kingdom contended that Norway's straight baseline system was arbitrary and inconsistent with customary international law. They argued that the traditional method of baselines, following the low-water mark, should apply. The UK maintained that the Norwegian approach unjustly restricted their fishing rights in areas traditionally regarded as high seas.

Norway's Position:
Norway defended its method, arguing that its unique geographical features necessitated the use of straight baselines. Norway claimed that its approach was consistent with historic fishing practices and necessary for effective resource management. They also contended that their method did not violate international law and should be recognized as a legitimate exercise of coastal state sovereignty.

Judgment
The ICJ ruled in favor of Norway, affirming the legality of the straight baseline method under certain conditions. The Court held that coastal states could employ straight baselines to account for specific geographical and economic considerations, provided these baselines did not depart from the general direction of the coast. The ICJ recognized Norway's historical title and usage of the waters in question, legitimizing its claims to extended territorial waters.

Analysis
The judgment in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case is a landmark in the development of international maritime law. The ICJ's decision underscored the flexibility inherent in the application of baseline rules, accommodating unique coastal configurations. By recognizing the legitimacy of straight baselines in specific circumstances, the Court set a precedent for future maritime delimitation disputes.

The ICJ's reasoning reflected a balanced approach, considering both the geographical peculiarities of the Norwegian coastline and the principle of equitable access to maritime resources. This case has since been instrumental in shaping the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), particularly in relation to the delimitation of territorial seas and exclusive economic zones.

Conclusion
The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case remains a pivotal reference point in the realm of international maritime law. It illustrates the dynamic interplay between customary international law and the evolving needs of coastal states. The ICJ's judgment provided clarity on the application of straight baselines and reinforced the notion that international law must be adaptable to diverse geographical and economic contexts. This case continues to inform contemporary debates on maritime jurisdiction and the equitable utilization of marine resources.

Reference:

• Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway) [1951] ICJ 3
• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982