内容发布更新时间 : 2025/5/6 16:06:53星期一 下面是文章的全部内容请认真阅读。
关于第二个问题。1935年诏令所适用的划线方法是否符合国际法？
挪威认为，采用直线法划基线，已成了挪威传统的方法。这种方法是由挪威海岸的特殊地理情况造成的。这种作法已为一系列的实践形成为挪威的一种制度。六十多年来，这种制度从来没有受到其他国家反对。国际法院也认为，挪威政府从1812年的诏令以来，直到本争端发生以前，就不断地通过诏令、报告、外交照会等文件表明采用直线方法划基线。挪威的直线基线制度是从在本争端发生以前，就已经在长期的实践中确定下来了。各国政府对这种方法的容忍态度证明他们不认为那是违反国际法的行为。多少年来，连英国也没有提出异议。只有1933年7月27日的备忘录才受到英国正式反对。挪威的划线方法是根据其地理特点的需要决定的，它并没有为其他国家反对，应认为是没有违背国际法的。
关于第三个问题。挪威的国王诏令的划线方法是否正确适用？在辩论中，英国认为：挪威1935年国王诏令所划定的基线中的某些线段，例如斯维荷尔泰维特(Svaehol thavet)和洛伐维特(Lop-phavet)，没有完全沿着海岸的一般方向，因而是不符合上述标准的。法院研究了这两个线段之后，认为斯维荷尔泰维特实际上是一个带有海湾性质的盆地，不过分成两个大湾。洛伐维特在基线与陆地部分的稍许偏离，不能认为是偏离海岸的一般方向。斯维荷尔维特自17世纪以来就被挪威认为是它的内水，早已隶属于挪威的主权之下，至于洛伐维特，偏离是很轻微的，由沿岸国自己解决就行了。
4．判决。
根据上述分析，法院驳回了英国的要求，并于1951年12月28日作出判决： 判决以10：2票判定： “1935年7月12日挪威国王诏令划定渔区的方法没有违反国际法。” 以8:4票判定：“由倒王诏令采用直线方法划出的基线没有违反国际法。”
判决作出时，阿尔瓦勒斯、海克沃斯、舒模等三位法官发表了个别意见；麦克奈尔和里德两位法官发表了不同意见。 【评注】
基线是陆地和海洋的分界线，也是测算领海及其他海域的起点线。确定基线是海洋法中最重要的问题。但海洋法上还没有为各国统一适用的原则或规则。罗马时期最初采用高潮线，后来改用低潮线。低潮线现在已为各国所普遍接受了。1812年的《北海渔约》把低潮线称为“实际的标准”。在1930年的国际法编纂会议上，低潮线被称为“通常的基线”。1958年的《领海与毗连区公约》把低潮线称为“正常基线”，所谓正常，是因为在正常情况下，它与海岸完全平行。但在海岸不那么正常的时候，就是说，在海岸弯曲度很大和岛屿又多的情况下，沿岸国就采用别的基线，直线基线就是普遍适用的一种。 在本案中，英国认为挪威不应采用直线基线，不应以石垒的外缘作为基线，不应采用超过十海里长度的基线。这三个主张都给国际法院驳回了。直线基线最先是英国采用的。远在1604年，英国就用直线划出马恩岛和安格尔西岛之间的基线。后来许多国家都用直线划出湾口或河口的封闭线。到19世纪，大多数国家都采用直线基线了。
因此，挪威用直线划出其基线，那是无可非议的。至于挪威的基线应是连接其石垒最外缘的线还是其陆地的海岸线？
国际法院根据挪威沿岸的地貌特点，认定“石垒”是挪威陆地的一个构成部分，因而基线应是石垒的外界而不是陆地的海岸。这个判断是非常客观和公正的。所谓十海里的长度标准，在国际法上根本就没有这个规则，那只是英美北大西洋海岸渔业仲裁案裁决中提出的建设，运没有成为习惯法规则。
本案是有关领海基线制度的一个非常重要的案例。国际法院在判决中指出采用直线基线的三个基本观点：
(1)沿海国有权根据自己的地理特点选用划出领海基线的方法； (2)直线基线不应在任何明显的程度偏离海岸的一般方向； (3)基线向陆地一面的海域是沿岸国的内水。
这些观点是在总结海洋法历史发展的基础上提出来的，这些观点已为各国在实践中所接受，并已反映在《领海与毗连区公约》第4条和《联合国海洋法公约》第7条和第8条中。国际法院在本案的判决对现代海洋法的发展具有非常重要的意义。
The Decree provides that \of delimitation towards the high sea of the Norwegian fisheries zone as regards that part of Norway which is situated northward of 66? 28.8' North latitude .... shall run parallel with straight base-lines drawn between fixed points on the mainland, on islands or rocks, starting from the final point of the boundary line of the Realm in the easternmost part of the Varangerfjord and going as far as Trama in the County of Nordland\
The Conclusions of the United Kingdom are explicit on this point: the base-line must be low-water mark on permanently dry land which is a part of Norwegian territory, or the proper closing line of Norwegian internal waters.
低潮线原则The Court has no difficulty in finding that, for the purpose of
measuring the breadth of the territorial sea, it is the low-water mark as opposed to the high-water mark, or the mean between the two tides, which has generally been adopted in the practice of States. This criterion is the most favourable to the coastal State and clearly shows the character of territorial waters as appurtenant（附属物） to the land territory. The Court notes that the Parties agree as to this criterion, but that they differ as to its application.
In this case, the Parties being in agreement on the figure of 4 miles for the breadth of the territorial sea, the problem which arises is from what base-line this breadth is to be reckoned.
从哪里开始划挪威的低潮线The Court finds itself obliged to decide whether the relevant low-water mark is that of the mainland or of the \the mainland is bordered in its western sector by the \which constitutes a whole with the mainland, it is the outer line of the \which must be taken into account in delimiting the belt of Norwegian territorial waters. This solution is dictated by geographic realities.
英国对于十海里原则的主张\waters, on historic grounds, all fjords and sunds which fall within the conception of a bay as defined in international law (see No. (6) below), whether the proper closing line of the indentation is more or less than 10 sea miles long.\
对十海里原则的反驳In these circumstances the Court deems it necessary to point out that although the ten-mile rule has been adopted by certain States both in their national law and in their treaties and conventions, and although certain arbitral decisions have applied it as between these States, other States have adopted a different limit. Consequently, the ten-mile rule has not acquired the authority of a general rule of international law.
In the opinion of the United Kingdom Government, Norway is entitled, on historic grounds, to claim as internal waters all fjords and sunds which have the character of a bay. She is also entitled on historic grounds to claim as Norwegian territorial waters all the waters of the fjords and sunds which have the character of legal straits (Conclusions, point 9), and, either as internal or as territorial waters, the areas of water lying between the island fringe and the mainland.
By \waters\are usually meant waters which are treated as internal waters but which would not have that character were it not for the existence of
an historic title. The United Kingdom Government refers to the notion of historic titles both in respect of territorial waters and internal waters, considering such titles, in both cases, as derogations from general international law. In its opinion Norway can justify the claim that these waters are territorial or internal on the ground that she has exercised the necessary jurisdiction over them for a long period without opposition from other States, a kind of -possessio longi temporis, with the result that her jurisdiction over these waters must now be recognized although it constitutes a derogation from the rules in force. [p 131]
Norwegian sovereignty over these waters would constitute an exception, historic titles justifying situations which would otherwise be in conflict with international
直线画法、1935年诏令所适用的划线方法符合国际法Court will confine itself at this stage to noting that, in order to apply this principle, several States have deemed it necessary to follow the straight base-lines method and that they have not encountered objections of principle by other States. This has been done, not only in the case of well-defined bays, but also in cases of minor curvatures of the coast line where it was solely a question of giving a simpler form to the belt of territorial waters.
Even the United Kingdom did not contest it for many years: it was only in 1933 that the Uniteti Kingdom made a formal and definite protest.
对于英国认为只能用于海湾的反驳It has been contended, on behalf of the United Kingdom, that Norway may draw straight lines only across bays. The Court is unable to share this view. If the belt of territorial waters must follow the outer line of the \rgaard\must be admitted in certain cases, there is no valid reason to draw them only across bays, as in Eastern Finmark, and not also to draw them between islands, islets and rocks, across the sea areas separating them, even when such areas do not fall within the conception of a bay. It is sufficient that they should be situated between the island formations of the \inter fauces terrarum.
The United Kingdom Government has directed its criticism more particularly against two sectors, the delimitation of which they represented as extreme cases of deviation from the general direction of the coast: the sector of Sv?rholthavet (between base-points n and 12) and that of Lopphavet (between base-points 20 and 21). The Court will deal with the delimitation of these two sectors from this point of view.