The UK Government has hailed a ruling from the sandeel Arbitration Tribunal as a clear endorsement of its approach to marine conservation, despite a minor procedural rebuke relating to the closure of English waters to sandeel fishing.
The long-anticipated ruling, handed down this week, brings a degree of finality to the simmering post-Brexit dispute between London and Brussels over fishing rights in the North Sea.
At the heart of the matter were decisions taken in March 2024 by both the UK and Scottish Governments to close their respective North Sea waters to the industrial sandeel fishery. The move, grounded in ecological concerns, was designed to protect fragile seabird populations and the broader marine ecosystem. Environmental groups had long argued that sandeel stocks—a critical food source for puffins, kittiwakes, and other declining species—were being depleted by trawlers, many of them EU-flagged.
Predictably, Brussels was less than impressed. The European Commission launched formal dispute proceedings in April 2024, arguing that the closures amounted to an unjustified restriction on EU fishing rights, particularly during the sensitive post-Brexit adjustment period governed by the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). In October, the case was referred to an independent arbitration tribunal under the TCA’s dispute resolution mechanism.
Now, the tribunal’s final ruling has landed—and the verdict is broadly in the UK’s favour.
The report concludes that the UK successfully demonstrated that the closures of both English and Scottish waters were underpinned by the best available science and that due regard was given to the principle of non-discrimination. Moreover, the tribunal upheld the legality of the Scottish Government’s measures in full, citing sufficient attention to proportionality and fairness under the TCA.
However, the panel did identify a procedural lapse in the decision-making process relating to English waters. Specifically, it ruled that the UK had not adequately considered the principle of proportionality in relation to EU fishing rights during the adjustment period. This technical breach, while noteworthy, does not render the English closures unlawful, nor does it require an immediate reversal of the measures.
A government spokesperson welcomed the outcome, describing it as “a clear vindication of the UK’s right to manage its own waters in line with our environmental responsibilities.” The spokesperson added, “We welcome the clarity provided by this decision, and we will undertake a process in good faith to bring the UK into compliance on the specific issues raised by the Tribunal.”
Officials stressed that the government is under no legal obligation to reopen English waters to sandeel fishing while this compliance process is undertaken. Furthermore, they confirmed that the Scottish closures—arguably the more ecologically significant of the two—will remain fully in force.
“We remain committed to protecting our seabirds and the wider marine environment, in accordance with our commitments to the TCA and other international agreements,” the spokesperson said.
This outcome reflects a pragmatic and mature handling of post-Brexit friction. The government has rightly acknowledged the tribunal’s concerns without compromising its broader environmental objectives. Importantly, the UK retains sovereignty over its fisheries policy while demonstrating that it will engage constructively with international dispute mechanisms.
The ruling also offers a timely reminder that disputes of this kind—while politically charged—are an inevitable feature of any trade agreement. As the UK charts its independent course, it will continue to encounter legal challenges and competing claims from trading partners. What matters is how these are handled.
In this case, the UK has shown it can defend its interests robustly while respecting the rule of law and international obligations. The decision not to overreact to the procedural finding—nor to frame the tribunal’s decision as a defeat—should be welcomed as a sign of diplomatic maturity.
Ultimately, the bigger picture remains unchanged. The UK has asserted its right to protect the marine environment and vulnerable species, and it has done so in a way that, for the most part, has stood up to legal scrutiny. Brussels may have hoped for a more damning verdict, but what it has received is a carefully balanced ruling that favours environmental stewardship over industrial exploitation.
