Correspondance

CORRESPONDENCE

(UNITEDKINGDOM V.JCELAND;

FEDERAL REPUBLICOF GERMANY V. ICELAND) CORRESPONDENCE 371

1, THE CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES OF THE BRITISH EMBASSY IN THE NETHERLANDS

TO THE REGISTRAR
14 April 1972.

I am directed by Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs to notify you, in accordance with Article 35 (2)of the
Court's Rules, of the appointment of Mr. Henry Steel, OBE, one of the Legal
.Counsellors in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as Agent for the pur­

pose of the proceedings which are now being instituted before the Court by
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland against the Government of Ice\and by means of a written Applica­
tion 1under Article 40 (1) of the Statute and Article 32 (2) of the Rules of
Court 2in respect of a dispute that has arisen concerning the proposed exten­
sion by the Government of lceland of its fisheries jurisdiction around Iceland.
I certify that the signature on the application is the signature of Mr. Steel.

In accordance with Article 35 (S) of the Rules of Court, 1have the honour to
state that the address for service of the Agent of Her Majesty's Government is
this Embassy.

(Signed) R. S. FABER.

2. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

(telegram)
14 April 1972.

Have honour inform you that on 14 April Application was filed in Registry
of· Court on behalf of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
lreland instituting proceedings against lceland concerning dispute relating to
legatity of decision said to be announced by Government of Iceland unilat­
erally to extend exclusive fisheriesjurisdictionof lceland. Application requests
Court to declare:

[See I, p. 10]

Have honour to draw your attention to Article 35, paragraph 3, of Rules
of Court whicl}-provides that party against whom application is made and to
whom itis notified shall, when acknowledgiog receipt of notification, or as
soon as possible, inform Court of name of its agent. Paragraph 5 of same
Article provides that appointment of agent must be accompanied by statement

of address for service at seat of Court. Copies of Application alrmailed today.

(Signed) A QUARONE.

1 1,pp. 1.10.
:2Ru1es of Court adopted on 6 May 1946, l.C.J. Acts and Documellts, No. 1, 2nd
edîtion, pp.54·83.372 FISHERJES JURISDICTION

3.THE REGISTRAR TO THE MJNISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

14 April 1972.

I have the honour to enclose herewith a confirrnatory copy of a cable which

I have today addressed to Your Excellency, together with two copies, of which
one is a certified true copy, of the Application, fi\ed today in the Registry of
the Court, by which the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Brîtain and Northern Ireland institutes proceedings against lceland.

I also enclose herewith a copy of a letter of today's date from the Chargé
d'Affaires at The Hague of the United Kingdom, which accompanied the
filing of the Application.
I shall in due course transmit to Your Excellency printed copies of the
Application in the English and French edition which will be prepared by the

Registry.
The question of the fixing of time-limits for the filing of pleadings in the
case will form the subject of a later communication. In this connection I
would venture to draw Your Exce\lency's attention to Article 37, paragraph 1,

of the Rules of Court.

4, THE REGISTRAR TO THE CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES OF THE

BRITISH EMBASSY IN THE NETHERLANDS

14 April 1972.

·1have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the letter of 14 April 1972
whereby you transmitted to the lnternational Court of Justice an Application
on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern lreland instituting proceedings against the Government of lceland
and informed me of the appoint ment of Mr. Henry Steel, OBE as the Agent
for the Government of the United Kingdom for the purpose of these proceed­
ings. lt has been duly noted that the address for service of Mr. Steel is the
British Embassy in The Hague.

5. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Of THE UNITED KINGDOM

14 April 1972.

I have the honour to refer to the letter of 14 April 1972 by which Her

Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in The Hague informed me of your
appointment as Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern lreland in proceedings instituted before the Interna­
tional. Court of Justice against the Government of lceland by means of a

written Application under Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Staiute of the
Court, and to inform you that an Application in these proceedings was filed
in the Registry today, 14 April 1972.
I have the furtherhonour to inform you that a certified copy of the Applica­

tion has been transmitted to the Respondent.
The question of the fixing of time-limits for the filing of the pleadings in this
case will form the subject of a later communication. In this connection I
venture to draw your attention to Article 37, paragraph 1, of the rules of

Court. CORRESPONDENCE
373

6. TI-IE REG!STRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

5 May 1972.

I have the honour to refer to my cab le of 14 April 1972, a copy of which is
enclosed herewith, and to inform you that I am forwarding to you under
separate cover (by airmailed parce! post, marked "Attention, Director,
General Legal Division") 150 copies of the Application filed on 14 April 1972
on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Norlhern rreland instituting proceedings against the Government of Iceland
in a dispute relating to the fisheries jurisdiction of lceland.
I should be grateful if, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the
Stalute of the Court, you would be good enough to inform the Members of

the United Nations of the filing of this Application.

7, LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN!

5 mai 1972.

Le 14 avril 1972 a étédéposée au Greffe de la Cour internationale de
Justice, au nom du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne el d'Irlande du Nord,
une requête par laquelle le Gouvernement britannique introduit contre

l'Islande une instance en l'affaire intituléeCompétenceen matière de pêcheries.
J'ai l'honneur, à toutes fins utiles, de transmettre ci-joint à Votre Excellence
un exemplaire de cette requête.

8. LE GREFFIER AU CHEF DU GOUVERNMENT DU LIECHTENSTEIN 2
5 mai 1972.

Le 14 avril 1972 a étédéposée au Greffe de la Cour internationale de
Justice, au nom du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord,

une requête par laquelle le Gouvernement britannique introduit contre
l'Islande une instance en l'affaire intituléeCompétenceen matière de pêcheries.
Me référant à l'article 40, paragraphe 5, du Statut, j'ai l'honneur, à toutes
fins utiles, de transmettre ci-joint à Votre Excellence un exemplaire de cette

requête.

9,THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 3

9 May 1972.

I have the honour to transmit herewith for your information three copies
of the bilingual edition, printed by the Registry, of the Application of the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the case relating
to the fisheriesjurisdiction oflceland.

1 La mêmecommunication a étéadresséeaux autres Etats Membres des Nations
Unies.
2 La mêmecommunication a étéadresséeaux autres Etats non membres des Nations
Unies admis à ester devant la Cour.
3 A communication in the same terms was sent to the Minister for J:oreign Affairs of
Iceland.374 FISHER!ES JURJSDICTION

With reference to the last paragraph of my letter of 14 April 1972, 1 have
the further honour to inform you that the President will shortly wish to
indicate the date of the meeting for which, in accordance with Article 37,

paragraph l, of the Rules of Court, he will summon the Agents to The Hague
in order to ascêrtain the views of the Parties with regard to questions of
procedure.

)0,THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AfFAlRS OF ICELAND TO THE REGISTRAR

(telegram)

15 May 1972.

Your letter dated 14 April is still under consideration by the Government of
lceland and negotiations with the United Kingdom are in progress but my

letter to you will be despatched as soon as P?ssible.

(Signed) Einar AGUSTSSON.

] l.THE STATE SECRET ARY OF THE FOREIGN OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

26 May 1972.

I have the honour to transmit to you, for communication to the President
and the Judges of the International Court of Justice, the Application I insti­
tuting proceedings on behalf of the Federal Republic of Gcrmany against the
Republic of lceland relating to the extension of fisheries jurisdiction by the

Republic of lceland.
I have thefurther honour to inform you that Professor Dr. Günther Jaenicke
has been appointed Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany for the
purposes of these proceedings, and to certify that the signature under the

Application referred to above is the signature of Professor Dr. Günther
Jaenicke, Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Embassy of the
Federal Republic of Germany at The Hague, Nieuwe Park Laan 17, has been
selected as the address for serviceat the seat of the Court to which ail commu­

nications relating to the proceedings should be sent.

For the Federal Minister for Foreign A!Tairs,
(Signed) FRANK,

]2. THE MIN!STER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE REGISTRAR

29 May 1972.

I have the honour to refer to your letter of 14 April 1972, informing me of
an "Application filed today in the Registry of the Court, by which the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland

institutes proceedings against lceland".
The United Kingdom Government relies "on the jurisdictionvested in the

1 See pp. 1-11, supra. CORRESPONDENCE 375

Court by Article 36 (1) of the Statute of the Court and by an Exchange of
Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government
of lceland dated Il March !961". .
ln that connection l have the honour to request you to bring to the atten­
tion of the Court the contents of the Icelandic Government's aides-mémoire
of 31 August 1971 and 24 February 1972, as we\l as the Law concerning the
Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fisheries of 5 April 1948 and
the Resolutions adopted unanimously by the Althing, the Parliament of
lceland, on 5 May 1959 and 15 February 1972 (annexes l, Il, lll, IV and V).
Those documents deal with the background and termination of the agreement
recorded in the Exchange of Notes of 11 March 1961, and with the changed
circumstances resulting from the ever-increasing exploitation of the fishery

resources in the seas surrounding lceland. The danger which this entails for
the lcelandic people necessitates further contrai by the Government of
Iceland, the only coastal State concerned.
The 1961 Exchange of Notes took place under extremely difficult circum­
stances, when the British Royal Navy had been using force to oppose the
12-mile fishery timit established by the Icelandic Government in 1958. It
constituted the settlement of that dispute, but the agreement it recorded was
not of a permanent nature. The United Kingdom Government acknowledged
the exceptional dependence of the Tcelandic people upon coastal fisheries for
their livelihood and economic development and recognized the 12-mile
fishery zone, subject toan adjustment period of three years. (lncidenta1ly, the
United Kingdom Government has since adopted a 12-mile fishery zone in
British waters.) The lcelandic Government for its part stated that it would

continue to work for the implementation of the Althing Resolution of 5 May
1959 regarding the extension of fisheries jurisdiction around lceland, but
would give to the United Kingdom Governrnent six months' notice of such
extension, with a possibility of recourse to the International Court of Justice
in the eventof a dispute in relation to such extension. Thus the United King­
dom Government was given opportunity of recourse to the Court, should the
lcelandic Government without warning further extend the limits immediately
or in the near future.
The agreement by which that dispute was settled, and consequently the
possibility of such recourse to the Court (to which the Government of lceland
was consistently opposed as far as concerns disputes over the extent of its
exclusive fisheries jurisdiction, as indeed theUnited Kingdom recogoizes),
was not of a permanent nature. ln particular, an undertaking for judicial

seulement cannot be considered to be of a permanent nature. There is nothing
in that situation, or in any general rule of contemporary international law, to
justify any other view.
ln the aide-mémoire of 31 August 1971 the Government of lceland inter a/ia
gave to the United Kingdom Government twelve months' notice of its inten­
tion to extend the zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction around its coasts to
include the areas of sea covering the continental shelf, the precise boundaries
of which would be furnished later. It also expressed its willingness to explore
possibilities for finding a practical solution to the problems with which
the British trawler industry found itself facedand such discussions are still in
progress between representatives of the two Governments in view of .the fact
that the extension has not yet coi:ne into effect: It was specifically stated that
the new limits would enter into force not later than J September 1972. At the
same time it was intimated that the abject and purpose of the 1961 agreement
had been fully achieved. The position of the lcelandic Government was376 FISHERIES JURtSDICTION

reiterated in the aide-mémoire of 24 February 1972, which again indicated
that the 1961 Exchange of Notes was no longer applicable and was terminated.
Copies of that aide-mémoire were transmitted to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations and the Registrar of the International Court of Justice.

After the termination of the agreement recorded in the Exchangc of Notes
of 1961, there was on 14 April 1972 no basis under the Statute for the Court
to exercise jurisdictionin the case to which the United Kingdom refers.
The Government of lceland, considering that the vital interests of the
people of lceland are involved, respectful\y informs the Court that it is not

willing to confer jurisdictionon the Court in any case involving the cxtent of
the fishery limits of Jceland, and specifical!y the casesought to be instituted
by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northcrn
lreland on 14 April 1972.

Having regard to the foregoing, an Agent will not be appointcd to repre­
sent the Government of lceland.

Annex I

GOVERNMENT OF ICELAND'S AIDE-MÉMOIRE
OF 31 AUGUST 1971

[See Annex C to the United Kingdom Application, 1, p. 14]

Annex II

GOVERNMENT OF ICELAND'S AIDE-MÉMOIRE
OF 24 FEBRUARY 1972

(including Memorandum entitled Fisheries Jurisdiction in lceland)

[See Annex H to the United Kingdom Application, I,pp. 26-66]

Annex III

LAW CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATION
OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF FISHERIES,

DATED 5 APRIL 1948

[See Annex H to the United Kingdom APplication, l, pp. 45-47}

Annex IV

RESOLUTION OF THE ALTHING, 5 MAY 1959

The Althing resolves to protest emphatically against the violations of
Icelandic fisheries jurisdictioninstigated by British authoritieswith constant
acts of violence of British naval vessels inside the lcelandic fishery limits,
recently even withîn the 4 mile fishery limits of 1952. Since such activities are

evidently aimed at forcing the lcelandic people to retreat the Althing declares CORRESPONDENCE 377

that it considers that lceland has an indisputable right to fishery limits of 12
miles, that recognition should be obtained of lceland's right to the entire
continental shelf area in conformity with the policy adopted by the Law of

1948, concerni ng the Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fisheries
and that fishery limits of less than 12miles from base-Iines around the country
are out of the question.

Annex V

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ALTH\NG
ON 15 FEBRUARY 1972

(See A1111ex G to the United Kingdom Application, I, p. 25}

13. THE REG!STRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOYERNMENT

OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
31 May 1972.

I have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a letter received in the
Registry today from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of lceland, referring to

the Application filed by the United Kingdom Government on 14 April 1972.
Enclosed with that letter were five Annexes, copies of which I am also
sending herewith, and a copy of the Memorandum entitled Fisheries Jurisdic­
tion in lcefand issued by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of lceland in

February 1972; I am not sending you a further copy of this Memorandum,
since it was reproduced in extenso as Enclosure 2 to Annex H to the United
Kingdom Application.

14. THE REGTSTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(telegram)

5 June 1972.

Have honour inform you that on 5 June Application was filed in Registry
Court on behalf of Federa\ Republic of Germany instituting proceedings
against kcland conceming dispute as to compatibility or otherwise with
international law of unilateral extension of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction of

lceland said to have been decided by Government of lceland. Application
requests Court to declare: '

(See p. 11, supra]

Have honour to draw your attention to Article 35, paragraph 3, of Rules
of Court 1 which provides that party against whom Application is made and
to whom it is notified shall, when acknowledging receipt of notification, or as
soon as possible, inform Court of name of its agent. Paragraph 5 of same

Article provides that appointment of agent must be accompanied by statement
of address for service at seat of Court. Copy of Application airmailed today.

1 Rules of Court adopted on 6 May 1946, J.C.J. Acts and Documents, No. 1, 2nd
edition, pp. 54-83.378 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

15, THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

5 June 1972.
I have the honour to enclose a confirmatory copy of a telegram which I

have today addressed to Your Excellency, together with a signed copy, cer­
tified as a true copy, of the Application filed today in the Registry of the
Court, by which the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
institutes proceedings against lceland.
I also enclose a copy of a letter dated 26 May 1972 from the State Secretary
of the Foreign Office of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany, which accom­
panied the filing of the Application.
I shall in due course transmit to Your Excellency prînted copies of the

Application in the English and French edition which will be prepared by the
Registry.
The question of the fixing of time-limits for the filing of pleadings in the
case will form the subjectof a later communication. ln this connection I would
venture to draw Your Excellency's attention to Article 37, paragraph 1, of
the Ruies of Court.

16, THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
5 June 1972.

I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's letter

of 26 May 1972, handed to me today by the Ambassador of the Federal
Republic of Germany in the Netherlands, whereby you transmitted to the
International Court of Justice an Application on behalf of the Ferlerai
Republic of Germany against the Republic of lceland, and informed me of
the appointment of Professer Dr. Günther Jaenicke as Agent of the Federal
Republic for the purposes of these proceedings. It has been duly noted that
the address for service of Professor Jaenicke is the Embassy of the Ferlerai
Republic of Germany at The Hague.

17, THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

5 June 1972.

I have the honour to refer to a letter of 26 May 1972 by which the Federal
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany informed
me of your appointment as Agent of the Federal Republic in proceedings
instituted before the InternationalCourt of Justice against the Government of
lceland by means of a written Application under Article 40, paragraph l, of
the Statute of the Court, and to inform you that these proceedings were filed
in the Registry today, 5 June 1972.
I have the further honour to inform you that a certified copy of the Applica­

tion has been transmitted to the Respondent.
The question of the fixing of time-limits for the filing of the pleadings in this
case will form the subject of a later communication. In this connéction, I
venture to draw your attention to Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Rules of
Court. ' CORRESPONDENCE 379

18.THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITE[;> KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

7 June 1972.

I. I have the honour to acknowledge receipt ofyour letter of 31 May 1972
which enclosed a copy of a letter, dated 29 May 1972, from the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of lceland referring to the Application filed by the Govern­
ment of the United Kingdom in the above case.
2. The Government of the United Kingdom have taken note of what is
said in the letter from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland. They are

unable to accept the validity of the arguments contained in that letter relating
to the Exchange of Notes of 1961 and to the legal effect of the various Aides­
Memoire and other documents cited by the Government of Iceland.
3. The Government of the United Kingdom regret that the Government of
Iceland have not so far felt able to support any objections that they might
have to the Court's jurisdiction by addressing full argument to the Court in
the manner prescribed by Rule 62 of the Rules, thereafter accepting the

Court's decision on this question of law as is provided for by Article 36 (6)
of the Statu te, and that they have indicated their intention of not appointing
an Agent to represent them in this case. The Government of the United
Kingdom remain hopeful that the Government of Iceland may now or at a
later stage reconsider that decision and agree to take the necessary steps to
give effect to their obligations as a Party to the Statute. ln the meantime, the
Government of the United Kingdom for their part maintain their rights under

the Statute and, in accordance with Article 53 of the Statute, request the
Court to continue with the consideration of this case and in due course to
decide in favour of their daim therein.

(Signed) H. STEEL.

19, THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS ÔF ICELAND
9 June 1972.

I have the honour to refer to Your Exce!lency's letter of 29 May relating to
the Application filed by the United Kingdom on 14 April, instituting pro­
ceedings against Iceland, and to send you herewith a copy of a letter dated

7 June from the Agent of the United Kingdom, received in the Registry today.

20. THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRET ARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
22 June 1972.

I have the honour to refer to my cable of 5 June 1972, a copy of which is
enclosed herewith, and to inform you that I am forwarding to you under
separate cover (by airmail parce! post, marked "Attention, Director, General

Legal Divison") 150 copies of the Application füed on 5 June 1972 on behalf
of the Government of the Federa\ Republic of Germany instituting proceed­
ings against Iceland in a dispute relating to the fisheries jurisdiction of lceland.
I should be grateful if, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the
.Statute of the Court, you would be good enough to inform the Members of
the United Nations of the filing of this Application.380 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

21. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES o'AFGHANISTAN l

22 juin 1972.

Le 5juin 1972 a été déposéeau Greffe de la Cour internationale de Justice,
au nom de la République fédéraled'Allemagne, une requêteintroduisant une
instance contre l'Islande.
J'ai l'honneur, à toutes fins utiles, .de.transmettre ci-joint à Votre Excellence

un exemplaire de cette requête.

22. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES o'AFGHANISTAN 1

. 22 juin 1972.

Le 5juin 1972 a étédéposéeau Greffe de la Cour internationale de Justice,
au nom de la République fédéraled'Allemagne, une requêteintroduisant une
instance contre l'Islande.

Me référant à l'article 40, paragraphe 3, du Statut de Ja Cour, j'ai l'honneur
de transmettre ci-joint à Votre Excellence un exemplaire de cette requête.

23. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO
(telegram) 26 June 1972.

On instructions of President of Court have honour inform Your Excellency

that in case concerning Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v. /ce/and) he will hold
meeting at Peace Palace Hague on Thursday 29 June at 14.30 hrs to ascertain
views of Parties with regard to questions of procedure in accordance with
Article 37 of Ru les of Court. Agent for UK will attend. Whilst noting that an

agent will not be appoînted to represent Government of Iceland in the case
am instructed inform you that should Your Excellency's Government wish to
be represented at the foregoing meeting person designated would be welcome
to attend 2.

24, THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFA!RS OF JCELAND TO THE REGISTRAR

27 June 1972.

I have the honour to refer to your letter of 5June 1972, informing me of an
"Application filed today in the Registry of the Court, by which the Govern­
ment of the Federal Republic of Germany institutes proceedings against
Iceland".

The Government of the Federal Republic relies "on the jurisdiction vested
in the Court by Article 36 (1) of the Statu te, by an Exchange of Notes between
the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of
Ice]and dated 19 July 1961 (which provides for reference to the Court of any
dispute in relation to the extension of fisheries jurisdiction round lce]and)

and by the dec]aration made by the Federal Republic of Gerrnany in connec­
tion with the Exchange of Notes mentioned above on 29 October 1971, and

1 La mêmecommunication a étéadressée aux autres Etats Membres des Nations
Unies.
2 On 29 June 1972 the President met the Agent of the Government of the United
Kingdom. CORRESPONDENCE 381

transmitted to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice on 22 No­
vember 1971".
In that connection I have the honoor to request you to bring to the attention

of the Court the contents of the Icelandic Government's aides-mémoire of..
31 August 1971 and 24 February 1972, as weH as the Law concerning the
Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fisheries of 5 April 1948 and
the Resolutions adopted unanimously by the Althing, the Parliament of
lceland, on 5 May 1959 and 15 Fcbruary 1972 (Annexes I, 11,Ill, IV and V),

Those documents deal with the background and termination of the agree­
ment recorded in the Exchange of Notes of 19 July 1961, and with the
changed circumstances resulting from the ever-increasing exploitation of the
fishery resources in the seas surrounding lceland. The danger which this
entails for the lcelandic people necessitates further control by the Government

of Iceland, the only coastal State concerned.
The 1961 Exchange of Notes took place under extremely difficult circum­
stances. It constituted the settlement of that dispute, but the agreement it
recorded was not of a permanent nature. The Government of the Federal
Republic acknowledged the exceptional dependence of the lcelandic people
upon coastal fisheries for their livelihood and economic development and

recognized the 12-mile fishery zone, subject to an adjustment period of three
years. The Icelandic Government for its part stated that it would continue to
work for the implcmcntation of the Althing Resolution of 5 May 1959
regarding the extension of fisheries jurisdiction around lceland, but would

give to the Governmcnt of the Federal Republic six months' notice of such
extension, with a possibi1ity of recourse to the International Court of Justice
in the event of a dispute in relation to such extension. Thus the Government
of the Federal Republic was given opportunity of recourse to the Court,
should the lcelandîc Government wîthout warning further extend the limits
imrnediately or in the near future.

The agreement by which that dispute was settled, and consequently the
possibility of such recourse to the Court (to which the Governrnent of Iceland
was consistently opposed as far as conccrns disputes over the extent of its
exclusive fishcriesjurisdiction)was not of a permanent nature. In particular,
an undertaking for judicial settlernent cannot be considered to be of a

permanent nature. There is nothing in that situation, or in any general rule of
contemporary international law, to justify any other view.
ln the aide-mémoire of 31 August 1971 the Government of.lceland inter
a/ia gave to the Government of the Federal Republic twelve months' notice
of its intention to extend the zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction around its

coasts to include the areas of sea covering the continental she"If,the precise
boundaries of which would be furnished later. It also expressed its wi!Jingness
to explore possibilities for finding a practical solution to the problen1s with
which the German trawler industry found itselffaced and such discussions are
still in progress between representatîves of the two Governments in view of

the fact that the extension has not yet corne into effect. Itwas specifically
stated that the new Jimits would enter into force not tater than l September
1972. At the same time it was intimated that the object and purpose of the
1961 agreement had been fully achieved. The position of the Icelandic
Government was reiterated in the aide-mémoire of 24 February 1972, which
again indicated that the 1961 Exchange of Notes was no longer applicable

and was terminated. Copies of that aide-mémoire were transrnitted to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Registrar of the Interna­
tional Court of Justice.382 FISHERIES JURISD[CTION

After the termination of the agreement recorded in the Exchange of Notes
of 1961, there was on 5 June 1972 no basis under the Statute of the Court to
exercise jurisdiction in the case to which the Government of the Federal

Republic refers.
The Government of Ice!and, considering that the vital interests of the
people of Iceland are involved, respectfully informs the Court thafitis not
willing to confer jurisdiction on theurt in any case invotving the extent of
the fishery limits of Iceland, and specifically in the case sought to be instituted

by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on 5June 1972.
Having regard to the foregoing, an Agent will not be appointed to repre­
sent the Government of Iceland.
(Signed) Einar ÂGÜSTSSON.

Annex I

GOYERNMENT OF ICELANo's AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 31 AUGUST 1971

[See Annex D to the Application, p. 15, supra}

Annex II

GOYERNMENT OF ICELAND'S AIDE-MÉMOIRE OF 24 FEBRUARY J972

(including Memorandum entitled Fisheries Jurisdiction in /ce/and)

{See Annex H to the Application, pp. 17-18, supra, and
Annex H to the United Kingdom Application, 1,pp. 27-66]

Annex III

LAW CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATION OF THE
CONTINENTAL SHELF F[SHERlES, DATED 5 APRIL 1948

[See Annex H to the United Kingdom Application, 1,pp. 45-4J

Annex IV

RESOLUTION OF THE ALTHING, 5 MAY 1959

[See Annex IV to the letter of the Foreign Minister of /ce/ato the Registrar
dated 29 May 1972, pp. 376-377, supra}

Annex V

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ALTHING ON 15 FEBRUARY 1972

[See Annex G to the United Kingdom Application, 1, p. 25} CORRESPONDENCE 383

25.THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(te(egram)
30 June J972.

On instructions of President of Court have honour inform Your Excellency
that in case concerning Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v. /ce/and) he will
hold meeting at Peace Palace, Hague, on Tuesday 4 July 14.30 hr'sto ascertain
views of Parties with regard to questions of procedure in accordance with
Article37 of Rules of Court. Agent for Germany will attend. Whilst noting
that an agent has not yet been appointed to represent Government of keland
in the case am instructed inform you that should Your Excellency's Govern­

ment wish to be represented at the foregoing meeting persan designated would
be welcome to attend 1.

26, THE REGJSTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

4 July 1972.
I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of a letter which I have

today received from the Minister for Foreign Atfairs of lceland with reference
to the Application filed on 5 June 1972 on behalf of the Federal Republic of
Germany.
There were attached to the Minister's letter the following documents:
Annex J-Government of Iceland's Aide Mémoire of 31 August 1971; Annex
II-Government of lceland's Aide Mémoire of 24 February 1972; Annex
Ill-Law Concerning the Scientific Conservation of the Continental She\f
Fisheries dated April 5, 1948; Annex IV-Resolution of the Althing, May 5,
1959; Annex V-Resolution adopted by the Althing on 15 February, 1972

and acopy of a Memorandum entitled Fisheries Jurisdiction in /ce/and issued
by the Ministry for Foreign Alfairs of lceland in February 1972.
The documents listed above as Annexes J, Il and V and the Memorandum
referred to above correspond to documents attached to the Application of the
Federal Republic of Germany as Annex D, Annex H, Annex G and Enclo­
sure 2 to Annex H respectively.
I am enclosing herewith copies of Annexes III and IV.

27. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR
14 July 1972.

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 4 July 1972 by
which you were good enough to transmit a copy of a letter, dated 27 June
1972, from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of lceland referring to the
Application filed by the Governmenl of the Federal Republic of Germany on
5 June 1972 in the Fisheries case between the Federal Republic of Germany

and the Republic of lceland.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has taken note of

I On 4 July 1972 thePresidentmet the Agent for theGovernment of the Federal
Republic of Germany. 384 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

the contents of this letter from the Foreign Minister of Iceland, and in
particular of the unwillingness of the Government of lceland to recognize

thejurisdiction of the InternationalCourt of Justice in this case.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is unable to accept
the validity of the arguments advanced by the Government of Iceland in
support of its contention that the agreement bctween the Governments of the
Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of lceland contained in the

Exchange of Notes of 19 July 196l by which bath Governrnents accepted the
jurisdiction of the International Court with respect to any dispute relatîng to
an extension by lceland of its fisheries jurisdiction, should be considered as
being "no longer applicable" and ''terminatect··.
The arguments contained in the letter of 27 June 1972 from the Minister

for Foreign Affairs of Iceland are the samc as had been put forward in the
aide-mémoires of the Governrnent of Iceland of 31 August 1971 and 24
February 1972 which had already been rejected by the Governrnent of the
Federal Republic of Germany. According to Article 36, paragraph (6), of the
Statu te of the Court, it is for the Court to decide on its jurisdictionand the

Government of the Federal Republic of Germany will submit further argu­
ments in its pleadings in support of its contention that the validity of the
agreement contained in the Exchange of Notes of 19 July 1961, has remained
unafTected and that, consequently, the Court has jurisdiction in this case. At
this stage of the proceedings it may suffice to point to. the fact that the

agreement contained in the Exchange of Notes of 19 July 1961 by which the
Governments of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany and of the Republic of
Iceland accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, was specifically designed to
provide for the judicial settlement of any dispute which might arise between

them in case the Republic of Jceland would, as already envisaged in the
agreement, extend its fisheries jurisdiction beyond the 12 miles limit. The
prcsent dispute is precisely of such a nature as the parties had envisaged in
paragraph 5 of that agreement.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany regrets that the

Government of Iccland has so far not felt able to follow the procedure
prescribed by Article 62 of the Rules of the Court for raising any objections
it rnight have to the jurisdictionof the Court, and has indicated its intention
of not appointing an agent to represent the Republic of Iceland before the
Court. The Governrnent of the Federal Republic of Germany remains hopeful

that the Government of lceland will reconsider that decision at a later stage of
the proceedings.
ln the mcantime, the Government of the Fcderal Republic of Germany for
its part avails itself of the right under Article 53 of the Statute of the Court to
request the Court to continue with the consideration of this case and in due

course to decide in favour of its claim.
(Signed) Günther JAENICKE.

28. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

19 July 1972.

I have the honour to refer to Your Excellency's letter of 27 June 1972
relating to the Application filed by the Government of the Federal Republic
of Gcrmany on 5 June 1972, înstituting proceedings against lceland, and to

send you herewith a copy of a lettcr dated 14 July 1972 from the Agent of the
Federal Republic of Germany, received in the Registry today. · CORRESPONDENCE
385

29. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(telegram)
t9July 1972.

Reference Fisher/es Jurisdiction case brought by United Kingdom have
honour inform you United Kingdom filed this day request for indication
interim measures of protection in accordance with Articles 41, Statute, and
61, Rules. Measures requested read as follows:

[See 1,pp. 77-78]

Copy request airmailed to you today express. In accordance with Rules
Article 61, paragraph 8, Court ready to receive observations of Iceland on
the request in writing and will hold hearings opening on IAugust at lO a.m. 1
in Peace Palace The Hague to give Parties opportunity of presenting their
observations on the request. Would appreciate being informed soonest
whether your Government intends avai\ itself provisions Article 31, paragraph
2, of Statute of Court.

30. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

19 July 1972.

Express Airmail
I refer to the proceedings instituted by the United Kingdom of Great

Britain and Northern Ireland against lceland on 14 April last (Fisheries
Jurisdiction case), and to my cable of today's date, of which a confirmatory
copy is enclosed, and have the honour to transmit to Your Excellem:y here­
with a certifiedtrue copy of a request by the United Kingdom for the indica­
tion of interim measures of protection in that case, which was filed in the
Registry today.
Article 61, paragraph 8, of the Rules of Court, provides that

"The Court sha\l only indicate interim measures of protection after
giving the parties an opportunity of presenting their observations on the
subject. .. "

I confirm that, as stated in my cable, the Court is ready to receivc the
written observations of the Government of keland on the subject, and will
hold public hearings at the Peace Palace, The Hague, opening on Tuesday,
rAugust 1972 at 10 a.m., to give both Parties the opportunity of prcsenting
their observations ora\ly.
I venture to draw Your Excellency·s attention to Article 31, paragraph 2,
of the Statu te of the Court, the first sentence of which reads as follows:

"If the Court includes upon the Bench ajudge of the nationality of one
of the parties, any other party may choose a person to actas judge."

Should the Government of Ice\and consider chat it possesses, and intcnd
to exercise, the right to choose a judge under this Article, Your Excellency
will appreciate that it should so notify the Court in accordance with Article 3

t I,pp. 91-118,386 FISHERIES JURISDICT!ON

of the Rules of Court, in sufficient time for the person chosen to be able to
take his place on the bench for the consideration of the United Kingdom's
request.

31. THE REG!STRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF HIE UNITED KINGDOM

19 July !972.

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of a request by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern freland for the indication of interim
measures of protection in the Fisheries J11risdiction case, filed in the Registry
today. The Government of lceland is being informed by telegram of the filing

of this request, and a certified true copy thereof is being despatched to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of lceland by express air mail.
I have further to inform you that the Court will hold public hearings at the
Peace Palace, The Hague, opening on Tuesday 1 August 1972, al 10 a.m.,
to give both Parties the opportunity of presenting their observations on the

subject.
Copies of the te[egram and letter I have today despatched to the Foreign
Minister of keland are enclosed.

32. THE REG!STRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

(telegram)

21 Ju!y 1972.

Reference Fisheries J11risdictio11 case brought by FederaJ ,Republic of
Germany have honour inform you Federal Republic filed this day request for
indication interim measures of protection in accordance with Articles 41,

Statute, and 61, Ru les. Measures requested read as follows:

[See pp. JO.JI, supra]

Copy request airmailed to you today express. In accordance with Rules
Article 61, paragraph 8, Court ready to receive observations of Iceland on the
request in writing and wil! hold hearings opening on 2 August 10 a.m.I in
Peace Palace The Hague to give Parties opportunity of presenting their obser­
vations on the request.

33, THE REG!STRAR Tû THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFA!RS OF !CELANO

21 July 1972.

Express Airmail

1 refer to the procecdings instituted by the Federal Republic of Germany
against keland on 5 June last (Fisheries Jurisdiction case), and to my cable of
today's date, of which a confirmatory copy is enclosed, and have the honour
to transmit to Your Exce!lency herewith a certified true copy of a request by

1 See pp. 41·60, supra. CORRESPOND ENCE 387

the Federal Republic of Germany for the indication of interim measures of
protection in that case, which was filed in the Registry today.
Article 61, paragraph 8, of the Rules of Court provides that

"The Court shall only indicate interim measures of protection after
giving the parties an opportunity of presenting their observations on the
subject ... "
I confirm that, as stated in my cable, the Court is ready to receive the
written observations of the Government of lceland on the subject, and will

hold public hearings at the Peace Pa\ace, The Hague, opening on Wednesday
2 August 1972 at 10 a.m., to give both parties the opportunity of presenting
their observations orally.

34. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FEOERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

21 July 1972.
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of a request by the Federal

Republic of Germany for the indication of interim measures of protection in
the Fisheries Jurisdictioncase, filed in the Registry today. The Government of
lceland is being informed by telegram of the filing of this request, and a
certified true copy thereof is being despatched to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of lceland by express air mail.
I have further to inform you that the Court will hold public hearings at the
Peace Palace, The Hague, opening on Wednesday 2 August .at 10 a.m., to
give both Parties the Opportunity of presenting their observations on the
subject. '

Copies of the telegram and letter I have today despatcherl to the Foreign
Minister of lceland are enclosed.

35. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

21 July 1972.
I have the honour to inform you that the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany having no Judge of the nationality of the Ferlerai

Republic of Germany on the Bench would like to avait itself of the right under
Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court to choose a person to sit
as Judge in the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic ofGermany v. lceland)
case. However, in view of the urgency of the decision of the Court on the
request for interim measures of protection, the Government of the Ferlerai
Republic of Germany will, at this stage of the proceedings, not yet nominate a
person of its choice, thereby reserving its right under Artic\e 3l to a later stage
of the proceedings,

36. THE REGISTRAR TO 1'1-1EMINISTER FOR FORE!G N AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

24 July 1972.

I have the honour to transmit to Your Excellency hercwith a copy of a
letterdated 21 July, received in the Registry today, from the Agent of the
Federal Republic of Germany in the Fisheries J11risdictiocase. FISHERIES JURJSDICTION
388

37. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE REGISTRAR

(te/egram)

28 July 1972.
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your telegram concerning the

United Kingdom's request filed 19 July 1972. ln my letter of 29 May 1972 I
stated that "after the termination of the Agreement recorded in the Exchange
of Notes of 1961, there was on 14 April 1972 no basis under the Statute for the
Court to exercise jurisdiction in the case to which the United Kingdom I'efers"

and that "an agent will not be appointed to represent the Government of
Iceland".
Jt follows that there is no basis for the request to which your telegram refers.
In any event the Application of 14 April 1972 refers to the legal position of the
two States and not to the econornic position of certain private enterprises or

other interests in one of those States.
Without prejudice to any of its previous arguments the Government of
lceland objects specifically to the indication by the Court of provisional
measures under Article 41 of the Statute and Article 61 of the Ru]es of the

Court in the case to which the United Kingdom refers, where no basis for
jurisdiction is established.
For the information of the Court the Government of lceland also wishes in
this connection to refer to its arguments for the extension of the fisheries
jurisdiction which were embodied in its letter to the Court dated 29 May and

the documents attached thereto.

38. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO TO THE REGISTRAR

(te/egram)
28 July 1972.

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your telegram concerning the
Federal Republic of Germany's request filed 21 July 1972. In my letter of
27 June 1972 1stated that "after the termination of the Agreement recorded in

the Exchange of Notes of 1961 there was on 5 June 1972 no basis under the
Statute for the Court to exercise jurisdiction in the case to which the Govern­
ment of the Federal Republic refers" and that "an agent will not be appointed
to represent the Government of lceland".
Itfollows that there is no basis for the request to which your telegram

refers. In any event the Application of 5 June 1972 refers to the legal position
of the two States and not to the economic position of certain priva te enter­
prises or other interests in one of those States. It is also recalled that the
Federal Republic of German y only accepted the jurisdiction of the Court by
itsdeclaration of 29 October 1971, transmitted to the Registrar on 22 Novem­

ber 1971, after it had been notified by the Government of lceland, in its
aide-mémoire of 31 August 1971, that the object and purpose of the provision
for recourse to judicial settlement of certain matters had been fully achieved.
Without prejudice to any of i'ts previous arguments the Government of

lceland abjects specifically to the indication by the Court of provisional
measures under Article 41 of the Statute and Article 61 of the Rules of the
Court in the case to which the Government of the Federal Republic refers
where no basis for jurisdiction is established. COR RESPONDENCE 389

For the information of the Court the Government of Iceland also wishes in

this connection to refer to its arguments for the extension of the fisheries
jurisdiction which were embodied in its letter to the Court dated 27 June and
the documents attached thereto.

39. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED KING DOM 1

31 July 1972.

I have the honour to transmit herewith a certified copy of the telegram
dated 28 July 1972 and received on 29 July from the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Iceland, the contents of which I cornmunicated to you by telephone
as soon as it was received.

40. THE REG!STRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED KING DOM 2

31 July 1972.
Article 60, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court provides, with reference to

speeches and statements made du ring the oral proceedings, that:

"A transcript of speeches or declarations made by agents, counsel or
advocates shall be made available to them for correction or revision,
under the supervision of the Court."

The transcript of the oral proceedings held to hear the observations of the
parties on the United Kingdom's request for the indication of interirn mea­
sures of protection will be made available on the sarnc day.
ln order to facilitate any supervision which the Court rnay feel it proper to

exercise, and in order not to delay the Court's consideration of the reqi.iest for
the indication of interim measures of protection, any correction or revision
which Agents, counsel or advocates rnay wish to make to the transcript
shou Id be handed to the Registrar's secretary as early as possible on the day
following the sitting, and in any event not later than .6 p.rn. on that day.

41. THE MJNISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO TO THE REG!STRAR

(telegram)
31 July 1972.

For the information of the Court l am transmitting below the text of my Note

of today to the Embassy of the United Kingdom:
"The Ministry for Foreign Affairs presents its compliments to the
British Embassy and has the honour to acknowledge receipt of the

Embassy's Note No. 40 dated 28 July 1972 confirming a communication

1 A communication in the same ternis was sent to the Agent for the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany.

2 A Communication in the same terms was sent to the Agent for the Government of
the Federal Republic of Ge1many and similar communications wcre sent to the Agents
before the opening of the oral proceedings on the jurisdiction of the Court and on the
merits of the dispute in both cases. 390 FISHERIES JURJSDICTION

which the British Ambassador made to the Icelandic Minister for Foreign
Affairs on that date. ln this communication it is stated among other
things that:

. 'the British Government have been and remain prepared to meet the
Icelandic authorities at short notice and at whatever lcvel is appropriate
if such proposais are forthcoming, but in their absence there is no basis
for further discussions, and the British Government have no alternative

but to proceed with their Application to the International Court'.
With respect to this the Ministry wishes to draw attention to the fact
that the Govcrnment of lceland has both before and after the issuance of

the Regulations concerning the fishery limits off keland, on 14 July
1972, made known its willingness to continue discussions with the
United Kingdom with a view to finding a solution to the fisheries
dispute on an interim basis. That position of willingness on the Icelandic
side is still unchanged. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs avails itself of

this opportunity to renew to the British Embassy the assurances of its
highest consideration."

42, THE REGISTRAR TO THE M1N1STER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO 1
2 August 1972.

I have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith three copies of the
provisional verbatim record of the public hearing of today's date, relatîng to

the request by the Ferlerai Republic of Germany for the indication of interim
measures of protection in the Fislreries Jurisdiction case, together with a copy
of a map deposited and referred to in the course of that hearing.

43. HIE REGISTRAR TO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO 2
3 August 1972.

refer to my letter of yesterday enclosîng three copies of the provisional
verbatim record of the hearing of 2 August, and now have the honour to send

Your Exccllency hcrewitli a further copy of the verbatim record, incorpor­
. ating the corrections made by the Agent of the Federal Republic of Ger­
many.

44. THE MINISTRY Of FOREIGN AFFATRS OF !CELANO TO THE REGISTRAR

{telegram)

3 August 1972.

Receipt is acknowlcdged with thanks of yoÙr letter dated I August with
enclosed 3 excmplars of verbatim record of I August 1972. Would much
appreciate if possible receiving 25 exemplars of future verbatim records in
Fisheries J11risdictio11cases.

l Similar communka1ions were sent to the Minister for Foreign Alfairs of lceland
afler each public sitting held in both cases.
2Similar communications were sent to the Minister for Foreign Alfairs of keland
concerning each public si1ting held in both cases. CORRESPONDENCE 391

45. THE COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM TO THE REGISTRAR
3 August 1972.

On 2 August you were good enough to hand me the text of 2 questions
which the Court wished to address to the Agent for the Government of the
United Kingdom.

The first question reads as follows:
"ln the course of counsel's argument on 1August, reference was made
to various negotiations for a provisional agreement (see verbatim

record, 1, pp. 96-97). Can lhe Court be given further details of any
proposais made by Iceland in the course of those negotiations?"
The following are the further details requested by the Court.

The first specific lce\andic proposai made in the course of negotiations was
that only vessels of less tha160 feet in length which had fi.shed off Iceland in
the past two years would be allowed to continue to fish. Freezers would be
excluded. The area within 25 miles from baselines would be reserved to
Icelandic vessels. Outside this limit there would be two areas closed on con­
servation grounds to al\ trawling whether by Icelandic or foreign vessels. The
rest of the area between a 25-mile limit and a 50-rnilelimit would be divided
into six sectors of which two at a time would be open in rotation to British
vesse\s for three or four months of lhe year. The lcelandic authorities would
be responsible for enforcement including the right to arrest and punish

vessels for any infringement of the arrangements. The agreement would run
until 1 January 1974.
Subsequently these proposais were modified to the extcnt that the area
permanently closed to British vessels would be bounded by a line whose
distance from the baselines would vary between 14 and 27 miles but which
would have substantially the samc restrictive effcct as a line at a uniform
distance of 25 miles from the baseline. The sectors outside this line which
would be open in rotation two at a time for four months were specified. On
this basis Her Majesty's Government calculatcd that the areas in question
during the respective periods in which they would be open currcntly produced
only 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom catch. The Icelandic delegation

indicated that the details of the arrangement were negotiable and were
prepared to discuss modifications in the original proposais regarding restric­
tions on the size of vessels and the duration of the agreement. At the con­
clusion of the talks the Ice\andic delegation asserted that the total Jffect on
British fishing of the restrictions ke\and required need not be greater than a
reduction of 25 percent. below the 1971 catch Jevel but the lcelandic author­
ities have not put forward any further specific proposais or withdrawn any of
the restrictive elements in their previous proposais.
The second question reads as folJows:

"The Court has taken note of the proposai by the United Kingdom
that as part of the intcrim measures, the United Kingdom would be
prepared to limit the annual catch of fishing vessels registered in the
United Kingdom to a certain definite tonnage.
If possible would the Agent of the United Kingdom kind\y assist the
Court by indicating one or more methods or institutional devices which
might be feasibly dcsigned to furnish both Parties the assurance that
such limits would not be exceeded? F!SHERIES JURISDICTION
392

In particular does the Agent have in mind in the interests of protecting
the respective rights of both the United Kingdom and Iceland, that the
assurance noted in paragraph 19 of its Request cou Id be implemented by
somc appropriatc method of supervision or accounting, and if so can he

throw some light on such a method."
In reply to the above questions I am authorized to submit the following

statements.
1. Her Majesty's Government have no doubt that should 'the Court
indicate as part of the interim measures the limitation on the catch of United

Kingdom fishing vessels which they have suggested, this limitation could be
enforced by Her Majesty's Government without difficu!ty and to the satisfac­
tion of the kelandic Government.
2. Catch limitation schemes for conservation purposes are at the present
time occupying the attention of Her Majesty's Government and other

nations in particular in connexion with the schemes for the North-West
Atlantic referred ta by Her Majesty's Attorney-General in his speech on
1 August.
3. In general the implementation of such schemes, once they are agreed,
does not appear ta give rise to any great difficu\ty because of the existence of

long-establishcd systems of collecting statisticsof fish catches and the
existence of statutory powers of control. There is a long-standing system in
the United Kingdom as in other countries for a collection of statistics of
fishing catches by reference to the area from which the fish are taken. This
system forms the basis of United Kingdom statistics for the International

Council for the Exploration of the Sea (which has published fishing statistks
since 1909).
4. The lcelandic area is separated from other distant water fishing grounds
by wide stretches of sea which contain no trawling grounds, and catches
from the kelandic area are readily distinguishable by inspection from catches

taken in other areas, e.g., off the Norwegian coast or the Faroes. Inspection
of the logs, which ail ships are legally required to complete, and the daily
position reports which distant-water vessels are required to make for safety
purposes, would show whether any particular vessel purporting ta have
fished elsewhere had in fact been fishing in the Iceland area, thereby making
further examination of catches necessary. Jn this way the United Kingdom

authorities would be able ta ascertain whcn any catch limitation had been
reached and an order would then be made under the Sea Fish (Conservation)
Act 1967 closing the area to further fishing by British vessels for the remainder
of the year. In practice Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to agree
arrangements with the United Kingdom fishing industry under which fishing

would be spread over the whole year without excecding the prescribed limit.
5. While no doubt has been cast in the past on the validity of United
Kingdom fishing statistics by Iceland or by ri.ny other party, Hcr Majesty's
Governmcnt are perfectly willing, should lceland so wish, or the Court think
it desirable, to give to the lcelandic Government or to any other agency

indicated by the Court access to any relevant records or other relevant
documents they may wish to see.
(Signed) J. L. SIMPSON. CORRESPONDENCE 393

46,THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

3 August 1972.

f have the honour to transmit to Your Excellency herewith a cop/ of the
text of a written request for further information which. on the instructions
of the Court, l handed ta a represcntative of the United Kingdom yesterday
evening. 1 also enclose a copy of the information filed in the Registry today

by the United Kingdom in response ta that request.

47, THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
TO JHE REGISTRAR

(te/egram)
4 August 1972.

I have the honour to refer to the questions of the Court which you kindly

have transmitted tome after the oral proceedings on 2 August 1972 and which
read as follows:

"(l) ln the course of counsel's argument on 2 August, reference was
made to various negotiations for a provisional agreement (see verbatim
record, pp. 45-46, supra). Can the Court be given further details of
any proposais made by lceland in the course of these negotiations?
(2) The Court has taken note of the proposai by the Federal Republic

of Germany that as part of the interim measures, the Federal Republic
would be prepared to limit the an nuai catch of fishing vessels registered
inthe Federal Republic to a certain definite tonnage.
If possible would the Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany
kindly assist the Court by indicating one or more methods or institutional

devices which might be feasibly designed to furnish bath parties the
assurance that such limits would not be exceeded?
In particular, does the Agent have in mind in the interests of protecting
the respective rights of bath the Federal Republic of Germany and the
Republic of Iceland, that the assurance noted. in paragraph 17 of its

request could be implemented by some appropriate method of super­
vision or accounting, and if so can he throw some light on such a
method."

In answering the first of the two questions, I refer to a series of talks which
were held betwecn the Federal Republic of Germany and Iceland on 15 May,
2 June and 7 July 1972. ln the meeting of 15 May, the representative of the
Federal Government explained the concept of the Federal Government of an

interim arrangement on the basis of limiting the annual catches of fishing
vessels frorn the Federal Republic of Germany to the average of the years
1960 ta 1969. The Foreign Minister of Iceland at that time informed the
delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany that Icelandic proposais were
being prepared, but had still to be agreed upon by the Icelandic Cabinet. He

promised to forward these concrete proposais in the near future to the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
At the meeting of 2 June 1972, the Icelandic Foreign Minister presented
proposais for an agreement between the Federal Republic of Germany and
lceland which he handed to the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of

Germany in writing. These proposais, consisting of seven points, read as
follows:394 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

"'l.We propose that the arrangement. should stipulate the number of
German vessels which are authorized to fish within the 50-mile limits. The

authorization should only cover vessels .of a limited size which have been
fishing off Iceland during the last two years. We consider it natural that
fishing vessels, which have not fi.shed off lceland, should be excluded. We also
want to exclude freezer trawlers, factory' vessels and other large fishing vessels
from fishing within the 50-rnile limits.

2. We propose that the fishing areas, where German trawlers wollld (ish,
should be outside 25 miles from the baselines and thus Jce\anders would
benefit from having the exclusive right to fish on additional grounds outside
the present 12-mile fishing limits. This proposai is similar to the one agreed
upon in 1961 when German vessels were authorized to fish on certain grounds

within the outer 6-miles area. The period during which fishing would be
allowed in each fi.shing area should be specially agreed upon.
3. We have proposed tentatively which fishing zones could be considered.
The main point is that the ~shing grounds around Jceland should be divided
into 6 areas with the idea that normally 2 areas will be open at the same time,

for instance 3-4 months annually. In that way it wi!l,be possible for German
vessels to fish al\ year round in some of these fishing areas.
4. We propose that the arrangement should apply until the end of 1973.
5. We wish that at least two fishing areas will be completely closed off for a
short time each year, 1-2 months, for trawling by lcelandic as well as foreign

vessels.
·These areas will be selected with the view of preventing harmful catching
of young fish in April and May off-the north-east coast and to protect the
important spawning grounds at Selvogsbank. However, most of that fishing
ground is already within the present fishing limits.
6. We consider it necessary irrespectiVe of the possible arrangement, that

the Jcelandic Government can continue to reserve certain grounds for Iine
and net fishing exdusively to the Icelandic motor vessel fleet. In such cases
trawling by Jcelandic as well as foreign trawlers would be prohibited.
7. We wish to emphasize that the Icelandic Government will have the
right to enforce the rules and regulations concerning the fishing grounds."

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany carefully examined
the effects which.these lcelandic proposais would have. The limitation of types
and sizes of vessels, the exclusion of freezer trawlers, the total 'exclusion of
vessels from the Ferlerai Republic of Germany from the 25-mile zone, and the

discriminatory closing of areas outside this 25-mile lirnit would in their
combination result in a drastic reduction of the amount of annual catches of
fishing vessels of the Federal Republic of Germany to approximately-only
20 percent. of the actual annual catches. The assumption of the right to
enforce the rules and regulations by the lcelandic Government would amount
in effect, to an acceptance by the Government of the Federal Republic of

Germany of Jcelandic jurisdiction over fishing vessels from the Ferlerai
Republic of Germany on the high seas.
Jt follows from these proposals that the intention of the Jcelandic Govern~
ment was not to agree on an interim arrangement preserving the rights of the
Parties during the proceedings before the Court, but rather a phasing-out

system of our rights in the waters concerned, limited to the end of 1973. It is
significant for the lcelandic attitude that the Icelandic Foreign Minister
introduced these proposais with the following words to the Foreign Minister
of the Federal Republic of Gerrnany: CORRESPONDENCE 395

..The British and German proposals for catch limitation and the

closure of certain areas for al\ trawling (lcelandic and foreign) althÛugh
they are helpful as far as they go, do not take the basic principle of
preferential treatment sufficiently into account because if you continue
to fish up to the 12-mile limit more or less as you have done our prefer­
ential position is not recognizcd.lt would rather mean the freczing of the
status quo ... What wc are rcally talking about is the reduction of your
fishing in Icelandic waters in a tangible, visible manner."

In the meeting of 7 July 1972, the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany set out the reasons why the proposais of the Government of lceland
were not appropriate as a basis for an interim arrangement. No other
proposais were made at this mçeting by the lcelandic Delegate.
After the talks of 7 July 1972, the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany through diplomatie channels expressed its readiness to continue
negotiations for an interim arrangement taking duc account of the interests

of both sides either on the basis of a catch limitation schemc as proposcd by
the Federal Republic of Gerrnany or on the basis of any new proposais from
the Icelan~ic side. No furthcr proposais however, wcre made by the lcelandic
Government.
An answer to the second question asked by the Court will be transmitted
to you as soon as possible.

48. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

4 August 1972.

I have the honour to transmit ta Your Excellency herewith a copy of the
text of a written request for further information which, on the instructions of
the Court, I handed to the Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany on the
evening of 2 August. l also .enclose a copy of the information filed in the
Registry today, by the Federal Republic in response to that request.

49. THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
TO THE REGISTJlAR

(relegram)

5 August 1972.
I have the honour to refer to my telegram of 4 August 1972 and to answer

the second question of the Court as follows:
1. The observance of catch limitations could be effectively secured by

currently recording the landîpgs of the trawlers of the Ferlerai Republic of
Germany from the "lceland Area" (statistical area Va of the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)) by the existing statutory
reporting scheme of the Federal Republic of Germany for the collection of
data relating to catches of the distant water fishing fleet. This scheme has
proved to be reliable. Once the maximum quantity having been reached, any
further fishing in the lceland area will then be prohibited. 396 FISHERIES JURISD1CTION

2, Legislation as basis for such regulation does already exist in the Ferlerai
Republic of Germany: (a) according to the "Gesetz über Eine Fischerei­
statistik" (Act on Fishcries Statistics) of 21 July 1960 (BGBI. I, p. 589), ail

Jandings by fishing vessels whether in the Ferlerai Republic of Germany or in
other countries have to be reported currently to the competent Ferlerai
authorities and spccified,inter alia,as ta the amount of catch of the different
species and as to the statistical areas where such catches have been taken.
Omission or neglect to comp!y with the reporting requirements, and the

subrnission of incorrect or incomplete data are punishable. (b) Controls of
the data reported are carried out when the catches are landed, sorted out and
weighed for the market. The correctness of the reports as to the geographical
origin of the catches is norrnally checked by external characteristics of the
fish. Moreover, the legally prescribed daily entries of the vessels' position and

course in the log-books give evidence on the areas in which the vessel operated
during its trip. Furtherrnore, the three fishery assistance vessels of the Federal
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry which are permanently assisting
the deep-sea fishing fleet at sea and also controlling the observance of national
and international fishery regulations, rnay be instructed to check on the spot

the correctness of entries in the log-books.
( c) The fixing of a maximum quantity for fishing vessels of the Federal
Republic of Gerrnany in the Iceland area and the prohibition of further
fishing after the allowed quantity has been reached cou Id, if an Order of the
Court should so require, be prescribèd by regulations issued by the Federal
Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forestry under Article 3 in connection

with Article 2, paragraph 2, N. 4 of the "Seefischereivertragsgesetz 1971" of
25 August 1971 (BGBI. II, p. 1057).
3. In the interest of mutual confidence between the Parties, the Federal
Government would be willing to inform the Governrnent of lceland, the
Secretariat of the Court or another agency to be designated by the Court of

the catches in the lceland area either at regular intervals or when a certain
amount will have been reached or at any time if so requested.
4. The Ferlerai Governrnent would also be willing to give a representative
of the Government of Iceland, of the Court or of an agency to be designated
by the Court an opportunity to inspect, if they so want, the relevant statistical

documents and to inform themselves of the collection, evaluation and contrai
of data.
5. The Federal Government would also be prepared to enter into an
agreement with the lcelandic Government which allows the lcelandic
authorities to stop and board vessels fishing in the lceland area in order to

satisfy themselves of the correct keeping of log-books and catch recordings.
The procedure for such contrais could be modelled after the "joint enforce­
ment scheme" for the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission which has
been accepted for contrais relating to the observance of regulatory measures
of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission by the Federal Republic of

Germany as well as by lceland.
6. A similar method of curren.t contrai of catches as suggested in paragraph
1 of this telegram is already applied by the International Commission for the
North-West Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) for the presently applied general
limitation of haddock catches in sub-areas 4 and 5. Member States record the
haddock Jandings by their fleet from these areas and report them by 700-tons

increments to the Secretariat of the Commission by telex. Shortly before the
overall catch limit is reached, the Secretariat informs member States that
fishing activities have to be stopped within a certain lime Iimit. CORRESPONDENCE 397

50.THE REGISTRAR TO THE M!NISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
5 August 1972.

l have the honour to refer to the letter of 4 August 1972 with which l

transmittcd a copy of the text of a written request for further information
handed to the Agent of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany on 2 August,
together with a copy of a telegram in responsc thereto.
The final paragraph of the telcgram received on 4 August referred to an
answer to the second question which would be transmitted as soon as

possible.
I now have the honour to enclose herewith a copy of a telegrarn which l
have today received from the Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany.

51. THE REGISTRAR TO THE M!NISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFA!RS OF !CELANO l

(telegram)

11 August 1972.

Have honour inform you Court will hold public sitting on Thursday
17 August at 10 a.m. at which decisions on requcsts of United Kingdom and

Federal Republic of Germany for indication of interîm measures of protection
will beannounced. President proposes convene Agents of Parties to Fisheries
Jurisdiction cases for meeting immediately following sitting to ascertain
views with regard to questions of procedure pursuant Rules Article 37.
Without prejudice to provisions of Statute and R ules regarding appoint ment

of an Agent, am instructed to inform you that should Your Excellency's
Government wish to be otherwise represented at meeting referred to persan
designated will be welcome to attend 2.

52. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFA!RS OF lCELAND TO THE REG!STRAR

(telegram)

11 August 1972.

I have today delivered to the British Arnbassador a note verbale of the
following content:

[See Annex JO to the United Kingdom Memoria/ on the Merits of the
Dispute, I, p. 387J

The Government of lceland avails itse\f of this opportunityto reiterate its
view that there is no basis for the International Court of Justice to exercise

jurisdiction in the cases filed against Iceland by thenited Kingdom Govern­
ment and the Governrnent of the Federal Republic of Germany.

1 Similar communications were sent to the Agents for the Governments of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 On 17August 1972, the President met successively the Agents for the Governments
of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Gerrnany. 398 FISHERIES JURISDICTJON

53. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF lCELAND TO THE REGJSTRAR

11 August 1972.

I have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of the note delivered today
to the United Kingdom Ambassador referred to in my cable to the Inter­
national Court of Justice as well as a copy of the said telegram.
As stated in the telegram the Government of lceland wishes to emphasize

that in its view there is no basis for the International Court of Justice to
exercisejurisdiction in the cases filed against Iceland by the Government of the
United Kingdom and the Government of the Federa] Republic of Germany.

54.THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(telegram)
17 August 1972.

Have honour inform Your Excellency Court today delivered Ortler on
United Kingdom request for indication provisional measures in Fisheries
Jurisdiction case. Following is operative clause of Ortler.

[See I.C.J. Reports 1972, pp. 17-18]

Official copy Ortler and 25 other copies airmailed to you today.

55. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

(telegram)
17 August 1972.

Have honour inform Your Excellency Court today delivered Ortler on
request of Federal Republic of Germany for indication provisional measures

in Fisheries Jurisdictioncase. Following is operative clause of Ortler.

[See I.C.J. Reports 1972, pp. 35-36.J

Official copy Ortler and 25 other copies airmailed to you today.

56. THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE

UNITED NATIONS 1
17 August 1972.

I have the honour, in accordance with Article 41, paragraph 2, of the
Statu te of the Court, to send you herewith an official copy for transmission to
the Security Council of an Ortler of today's date by which the Court, following

the request dated 19 July 1972 of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern lreland, indicated interim measures of protection in the Fisheries
Jurisdiction case.

1 A communication in the same terms was sent to the Secretary-General of the

United Nations regarding the Federal Republof German v. fce/and case. CORRESPONDENCE 399

57. THE PRIME MINISTER OF ICELANO TO THE REGISTRAR

(telegram)
18 August 1972.

The Government of lceland strongly protests against the Order delivered
by the International Court of Justice on the cases filed against lceland by the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Government
expresses its astonishment at the fact that the Court considers itself to be in a
position to deliver such an order while it has not ruled on its jurisdiction in

the sald cases. The Government of lceland, considering that the Exchange of
Notes of 1961 upon which the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of
Germany base their institution of proceedings is no longer in force, has from
the beginning and repeatedly objected emphatically to the Court's right of
jurisdiction. Further, the Government of lceland is surprised that the Court
considers itself competent to indicate some kind of a quota system in the
fisheries around lceland.

The Government of Iceland which-as was known to the Court-bas
always expressed its willingness to solve this dispute by interim arrangement,
considers that this interference in a dispute still at the stage of negotiations is
highly unfortunate and likely to hamper the negotiations.
As hithcrto the Government of Iceland protests against the Court's right
of jurisdiction in the said cases and it will not consider this Order by the

Court binding in any way. .
The Government will firmly carry out its decision to extend the fisheries
jurisdiction to 50 nautical miles as of September 1st 1972 in conformity with
the resolution adopted unanimously by the Parliament of lceland.
( Sig11ed)Olafur JOHANNESSON,

58. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO 1

18 August 1972.

I have the honour to refer to my two cables of today (confirmatory copies
of which are enclosed) and to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of each
of the two Orders 2of today's date, by wt-.ichthe Court decided that the first
pleadings in the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases should be addressed to the
question of the jurisdiction of the Court, and fixed 13 October 1972,as the
time-limit for the Memorials of the United KirÏgdom and the Federal

Republic of Germany, and 8 December 1972 for the Counter-Memoria\s of
lceland.

59. LE GREFFIER EN EXERCICE AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES
D'AFGHANISTAN 3

28 aoOt 1972.
Le Greffier en exercice de \a Cour internationale de Justice a \'honneur de

transmettre, sous ce pli, un exemplaire de l'ordonnance rendue par la Cour Je

t Similar communications were sent to the Agents for the Govemments of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 J.C.J.Reports /972, pp. 181and 188.
3 Cette communication a étéadressée, pour chacune des deux affaires, aux Etats
Membres des Nations Unies et aux Etats non membres des Nations Unies admis à ester
devant la Cour. FISHERIES JURISDICTION
400

17 août 1972 sur la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires présen­
tée par le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande

du Nord en l'affaire relative à la Compétence en matière de pêcheries.
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.

60. THE AGENT FOR THE GOYERNMENT OF nrn FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

6 October' 1972.

Ihave the honour to refer to my letter of 21 July 1972 by which I informed
you that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to
avait itself of the right under Article 31, paragraph (3), of the Statute of ~he

Court to choose a person to sit as Judge ad hoc in the Fisheries J11risdie1io11
case (Fcdernl Republic of Germany v. lceland), but that, in view of the urgcncy
of the proceedings on the Request by the Federal Republic of Germany for
interim measures of protection, the Government of the Federal Republic

would not yet nominale a person of its choice at that stage of the pro­
ceedings.
In view of the time-limit prescribed in Article 3 of the Rules of Court J
would like to state that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

still intends to excrcise the right under Article 31, paragraph (3), of the
Statute of the Court.

61. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GER/IMNY

12 October 1972.

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your lcttcr of 6 October 1972,
stating that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany intends to
exercise the right under Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute to choose a
judge to sit in the Fisheries J11risdictio11( Federaf Republic of Germany v.

Jcelaffd) case. Pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Ru!cs of Court, the
President of the Court has fixed 6 Novembcr 1972 as the time-li mit within
which the name of the pcrson chosen to sit as judgc is to be statcd.

62. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES RELATIONS EXTÉRIEURES DE L'ÉQUATEUR 1

J2 octobre J972.

Me référant à votre lettre du 1 crjuin 1972 et à la réponse du Greffier en
date du 26 juin, j'ai l'honneur de vous faire savoir que les Parties à l'affaire
concernant la Compétence en matière de pêcheries ( Roya11me-U11ic. Islande)

ont indiqué ne voir aucune objection à ce que le Gouvernement équatorien
reçoive les pièces de procédure et que le Président de la Cour a décidéen

1Une communication analogue a étéadresséepour raffairc Royaume-Uni c.Isla11de
au gouvernement de la République fédéraled'Allemagne (10 octobre 1972), pour
l'affairRépubliquefédéraled'Allemagne c. Islandeau Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni
(2 novembre 1972) et pour les deux affaires aux Gouvernements du Sénéga(l8 janvier

1973),de l'Australie (6 févri1973), de la Nouvelle-Zélande(8 et 20 févrie1973),de
l'Inde{13 mars et9 avril1973)et de l'Argentine(8et 21juin1973). CORRESPONDENCE 401

conséquence, en application de l'article 44, paragraphe l, du Règlement, de
tenir lesdites pièces à votre disposition.
Dans ces conditions, je vous adresse deux exemplaires de la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires présentée par le Royaume-Uni le

19 juillet 1972et vous enverrai les pièces de procédure suivantes au fur et à
mesure de leur dépôt. Je me permets d'appeler votre attention sur le caractère
confidentiel des pièces de procédure tant que les affaires sont sub judice.

63, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT Of THE UNITED KINGDOM

TO THE REGISTRAR
13 October J972.

I have the honour to refer to the Ortler 'made by the Court on 18 August

1972 and to transmit herewith one signed copy and 29 unsigned copies of the
Memorial 1of the United Kingdom (together with the Annexes thereto) on
the question of the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the Application by the
United Kingdom on the merits of the dispute. A further 95 unsigned copies

will be sent to you as soon as possible.

64. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT Of THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

13 October 1972.

1have the honour to refer to my letter to you of today's date transmitting
to you, in accordance with the Order made by the Court on 18 August 1972,
copies of the Memorial of the United Kingdom on Jurisdiction (together
with the Annexes thereto). In compliance with Article 43 (1) of the Rules of

Court, I now transmit to you, for the use of the Court and of the Government
of Iceland, one copy of each of certain documents referred to in that Memorial
which, in accordance with the said Article 43 (1), are not annexed toit.
These documents are as follows:

(a) the Memorandum 2 entitled The Problem of the Fisheries Around

lceland which was submitted to the General Assembly ·ofthe United
Nations by the Govermnent of the United Kingdom in November
1958 (see paragraph 20 of the Memorial and Annex B thereto);
(b) the contemporary records of the Anglo-kelandic Discussions 3
which took place between 1 October 1960 and 4 December 1960

(inclusive) (see paragraph 21 of the Memorial);
(c) the contemporary records of the Anglo-Jcelandic Discussions which
took place between 17 December 1960 and 20 December 1960 4
(inclusive) (see paragraph 38 of the Memorial);

(d) the full text of the speech 2 to the Althing made by the Prime
Minister of lceland on 9 November 1971, as set out in Background
Information No. 4. Jcelandic Fisheries Jurisdiction, published by the

I (,pp. 123-152.
2 Not reproduced.
3 1,pp. 178-228.
C 1, pp. 229-237.402 FJSHERIES JURJSD!CTJON

Secretary -for Press and Information, Prime Minister·s Office,
Reykjavik (see paragraph 4/ of the Memorial);
(e) the Report Iof the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea made to the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission meeting
in 1972 (paragraph 58 of the Memorial); and

(!) the Report I of the ICES/ICNAF Working Group on Cod Stocks in
the North Atlantic made to the International Commission for the
North West Atlantic Fisheries in June 1972 (paragraph 58 of the
Memoria/).

65. THE REG1STRAR TO THE MIN1STER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

13 October 1972.

I have the honour to transmit herewith five copies, one of which is a
certificd truc copy, of the Memoria[ fifcd today in the Registry of the Court
by the Agent for the United Kingdom in the Fisheries J11risdictio11case

( United Kingdom of Great Brita/11 and Norrhern Ire/and v. /cela11d) togcthcr
with a copy of the covering letter from the Agent and a further letter con·
cerning certain documents referred to in the Memorial which, in accordance
with Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, have been deposited in

the Registry. The documents in question will remain available in the Rcgistry
for consultation by the representatives of lceland.

66. THE AGE:-:T FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL

REPUBLIC Of GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

13 October 1972.

Ihave the honour to transmit to you for communication to the President
2
and the Judges of the Court, a signed copy of the Memorial submitted on
bchalf of the Federal Republic of Germany in pursuance of the Order made
by the Court on 18August J972 in the Fisheries Jurisdicrion (Federa! Republic
of Germany v. /ce/and) case, and 39 addition al copies.

67. THF; REGISTRAR TO THE M!N!STER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF JCELAND

13 Octo ber l972.

I have the honour to transmit herewith three copies, one of which is a

certified truc copy, of the Memorial filed today in the Registry of the Court
on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany in the Fisheries Jurisdiction
( Republic of Germany v. lcefa11d) case together with a copy of the covering
]etter from the Agent of the Federal Republic.

Printed copies of the Memorial will be despatched to you in due course.

l Not reproduced.
2 See pp. 65-96,supra. CORRESPOND ENCE 403

68. THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN\'
TO THE REGISTRAR

31 October 1972.

I have the honour to refer to my letter of 6 October 1972 stating that the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany intends to exercise the
right under Article 31 paragraph (3) of the Statute to choose a Judge ad hoc
to sit in the Fisher/es Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Ice[and)

case, and to your letter of 12 October 1972 informing me that the President
of the Court has fixed 6 November 1972 as the time-limit within which the
person chosen to sit as Judge ad hoc should be nominated.
I have the further honour to inform you that the Government of the

Federal Republic of Germany has chosen Professor Dr. Hermann Mosler,
69 Heidelberg, Berliner Strasse 48, Max-Planck-Institut für ausllindisches
Recht und Vèilkerrecht, to sit as Judge in this case.
Professor Dr. Mosler is Professor of Law at Heidelberg University,

Director of the Max Planck lnstitute for Comparative Public Law and
International Law in Heidelberg, Judge of the European Court of Human
Rights, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and Associate
Member of the Institute of International Law (Institut de Droit International).
Professor Dr. Mosler 1 had been Judge ad hoc in the North Sea Continental

Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Kingdom of Denmark, Federal
Republic of Germany v. Kingdom of the Netherlands).

69. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

(telegram)

3 Novernber 1972.

Have honour inform Your Excellency Federal Republic of Germany today
notified Court of choice of Professor Hermann Mosler to sit as judge ad hoc
in Fisheries Jurisdiction case. President has fixed 17 November J972 as time­
limit for submission views of Iceland pursuant Rules, Article 3, paragraph 1.

Letter follows.

70. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN\' 2

20 Novernber 1972.

I have the honour to refer to my Ietter of 3 November, in which I informed
you that, pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the
President of the Court had fixed 17 November 1972 as the time-Iimit within
which the views of the Government of lceland might be submitted to the

Court with regard to the choice of Professor Dr. Hermann Mosler to sit as
judge ad hoc in the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v.
!ce/and) case.

1 l.C.J. Yearbaak 1968-1969, pp. 23-24.
2 A communication in the same terms wassent to the Minister for Foreign Affairsof
keland.404 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

The time-limit fixed by the President having expired without any doubt or
objection having been expressed by the Government of lceland, I am trans­
mitting the documents in the case to Professor Mosler forthwith.

71. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE PRESIDENT

(telegram)

4 December 1972.

In my previous communications to the Court I had the honour to set forth
the position of rnyGovernment as it emerged from the diplomatie correspon­
dence with the Government of the United Kingdom previous to 14 April
1972. lt was indicated that the agreement embodied in the Exchangc of Notes

of 1961 which itself took place under extremely difficult circumstances had
already terminated, that no basis exists for the Court to exercise jurisdiction
in the case sought to be instituted by the Government of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern lreland and that the Government of lccland
would not appoint an Agent and would not be represented in those proceed­
ings. The Court was also informed that the vital interests of the people of

Iceland are involved and that the Government of lceland is not willing to
confer jurisdiction on the Court in any case involving the extent of the fishery
limits of lceland, and specifica\Jy in the case sought to be instituted by the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irc\and
on 14April 1972. This notwithstanding, the Court made its Orders of 17 and

18 August 1972. Moreover in the second of those Orders, by disturbing the
established order of things, the Court has caused further detrimcnt to the
people and Government of lceland now again being subjected to cocrcion
in their effortsto reach an agrced solution. Reiterating ail of the foregoing I
now have the honour respectfully to inform the Court that the position of the
Government of fceland is unchanged.

72.THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE PRESIDENT

(te/egram)

4 December 1972.

In my previous communications to the Court l had the honour to set forth
the position of my Government as it emerged from the diplomatie cor­
respondence with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
previous to 5 June 1972. lt was indicated that the agreement embodied in the

Exchange of Notes of t961 which itself took place under extremely difficult
circumstances had already terminated, that no basis exists for the Court to
exercise jurisdiction in the case sought to be instituted by the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany and that the Government of lceland would
not appoint an Agent and would not be represented in those proceedings. The
Cot1rt was also informed that the vital interests of the people of lceland arc

involved and that the Government of lceland is not willing to confer juris­
diction on the Court in any case involving the extent of the fishery limits of
lceland and specifically in the case sought to be instituted by the Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany on 5 June 1972. This notwithstanding,
the Court made its Orders of 17 and 18 August 1972. Moreover in the second CORRESPONDENCE 405

of those Orders, by disturbing the established order of things, the Court has
caused further detriment to the people and Government of lceland now
again being subjected to coercion in their efforts to reach an agreed solution.
Reiterating ail of the foregoing I now have the honour respectfully to inform

the Court that the position of the Government of lceland is unchanged.

73. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 1
5 December 1972.

1 have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a telegram received today
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland.

74. THE REGISTRAR TO THE M!NISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND2
11 December 1972.

1 refer.to the Court's Orders dated 18 August 1972, fixing time-limits for
the initial pleadings in theFisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v.[ce/and
and Federal Republic of Germany v. Jceland) cases and have the honour to

inform Vaur Excellency that, no Counter-Memorial having been filed by the
Government of Iceland in either of these cases within the time-limits fixed
therefor, the Court will proceed to hold public sittings to hear the oral
arguments of the Parties on the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to

entertain the dispute in each case.
The public hearing in the proceedings brought by the United Kingdom
will open at 10 a.m. on Friday, 5 January 1973 3, and the hearing in the
proceedings brought by the Federal Republic will open at 3 p.m. on Montlay
8 January 1973 4,in each case at the Peace Palace, The Hague.

The Agents of the Parties are aise asked to be at the disposai of the Court
with a view to a possible preliminary meeting with the President on 4 January
1973 to deal with procedural matters s.

75. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED K!NGDOM
TO THE REGIS'!RAR

19 December 1972.
l. I have the honour to refer to the Ortler made by the Court on 17 August

1972 on the request made by the Government of the United Kingdom on
19 July 1972 for the indication of interim measures of protection pending the
Court's final decision in these proceedings. In paragraph (1) (e) of the
operative passage of the Order the Court indicated that the United Kingdom
should ensure that vessels registered in the United Kingdom did not take an

1 A communication in the same terms was sent to the Agent for the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 Similarcommunications weresent to the Agentsfor the Governments ofthe United
Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
3 I, pp. 241-262.

4 See pp. 120-136,supra.
5 On 4 January 1973,the President met successivelythe Agentsfor the Govemments
of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.406 FISHERIES JURISDICT!ON

annual catch of more than 170,000 metric tons of fish from the "Sea Area of
Iceland", as defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea as Area Va. ln paragraph (1) (!) of the Order the Court indicated that
the United Kingdom Government should furnish the Government of Iceland
and the Registry of the Court with ail relevant information, orders issued and

arrangements made concerning the contrai and regulation of fish catches in
the area. ln compliance w\th the said paragraph (1) (!) l now have the
honour to supply the follo:wing information to the Court.
2. The Government of th'.: United Kingdom have introduced a statutory
system for regulating the operation of British fishing vessels in the sea area of

Iceland, as defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea as Area Va. This statutory system was put into effect by the Sea Fishing
(Specified Northern Waters) Licensing Order 1972 (Statutory Instrument
No. 1477 of 1972) which is hereinafter referred to as "the Licensing Order"
and a copy of which is attached hereto as Annex A. The Licensing Order was

made on 29 September 1972 by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food and the Secretaries of State respectively concerned with the sea fishing
industry in Scotland and Northern Jreland and, having been laid before the
Parliament of the United Kingdom, came into operation on 30 October 1972.
It was made under powers conferred by the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967

(which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1967" and a copyofwhich is
attached hereto as Annex B), as amended by the Sea Fisheries Act 1968
(which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1968" and a copy of which is
attached hereto as Annex C).
3. The statutory system opera tes, so as to give effect to the Court's Ordcr,

in the following way.
4. The Licensing Order applies, by virtue of Article 4 thereof, to fishing
for ail sea fish inthe area of sea comprising the International Council for the
Exploration of the Sea Area Va. By virtue of section 4 of the Act of 1967, the
effect of the Licensing Order being given that application is that British
vessels may not fish in the a:rea except under the authority of a licence granted

by one of the Ministers concerned. Licences are being issued under the
Licensing Order in a standard form and a specimen copy is attached hereto
as Annex D.
5. Itwill be seen from Annex D that it is a condition of the licence that the
skipper and owner of the vesse! concerned should keep and provide full and

accurate records of ail fishing activity during the whole of each voyage in
the course of which fishing is conducted in the International Councîl for the
Exploration of the Sea Area Va. (The reason for the requirement being
expressed in this form in that fishing vessels do occasionally catch fish in
other waters, for example off the Faroes, when travelling to or from the

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Area Va.) The informa­
tion which the licence requires to be supplied has to be provided on certain
standard forms which are numbered CL.! and CL.2. Copies of these are
attached hereto as Annex E and Annex F respectively.
6. Form CL. l (Annex E), which is a record of each consecutive haul (in

effect a fishing log-book) is made out by the skipper during the voyage and
indeed must be completed immediately after each haul. As indicated in
paragraph 4 of the reply, given in the letter of 3 August 1972 1,to the second
of the two questions addressed by the Court to the Agent of the Government

1 See p. 394,supra. CORRESPONDENCE 407

of the United Kingdom on 2 August 1972, the competent authorities of the
Govemment of the United Kingdom are able, by means of spot-checks of

these records and of the ships' ordinary logs (and also, if the need should
arise, by checking against the daily position reports which fishing vessels are
required to make both to their owners and, for safety reasons and at certain
tirnes of the year, to British Government support ships and coastguard
authorities), to satisfy themselves of the veracity and accuracy of these
records.
7. The information to be provided by means of form CL.2 (Annex F)
consists partly of information alrcady supplied in form CL. I but this informa­
tionis to be furnished in form CL.2 in a summarised form. In addition to this
and to certain other, purely incidental, information, a statement of the
quantity of fish actually landed must also be supplied on form CL.2. The
Summary of Fishing is supplied by the skipper, the Statement of the Quantity
Landed by the owner's representatives.

8. The supplying of al! the information required by Forms CL.1 and CL.2
represents an extension of a scheme atready in use for fishery statistics
purposes. Government statistics co\lectors normalty compile fishing records
on the basis of information provided by the ship's skipper or mate and they
check landings from the Sales Notes resulting from the sale of the catch
after a voyage. Although the information relating to the size of the catch·that
is now to be provided by the skipper in forms CL.1 and CL.2 can obviously
only be an estimate, the records of fish 1anded and sold are precise and are
verifiableand can be taken as completely accurate. (Records of fish landed
and sold are indeed used as the basis for paying off the crew.) As was explained
in the footnote on page,4 of the request 1by the Government of the United
Kingdom for the indication of interim measures of protection which was

filed with theCourt on 19 July 1972 (the second footnote to paragraph 6 of
that request), there is an accepted direct relationship, varying with the species,
between landings and catch; accordingly, the record of landings at any one
time is a precise indication of the catch.
9. Simultaneously with the publishing of the Licensing Order, the Ministry
of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and
Fisher/es for Scotland put out documents entitled Notes for the Guidance of
Owners and Skippers (together with an illmtrative map) and a Coveri11gNote
for Owners, Skippers and Ot/rers. Copies of these two documents are attached
hereto as Annex G and Annex H respectively.
10. The enforcement of the statutory scheme, by way of monitoring the
information provided and checking and inspecting vessels, catch and records,
is the responsibility of the Government Fisheries lnspectorates of the United

Kingdom. The lnspectorates include the statistics collectors referred to in
paragraph 8 above and officers of the lnspectorates have the status, under
section 7 (1)of the Act of 1968, of ..British sea-fishery officers". Il witl be seen
that Article 5 of the Licensing Order confers on every British sea-fishery
officer, for the purposes of the enforcement of section 4 of the Act of 1967 in
conjunction with the Licensing Ortler, the powers which are specified in
section 8 (2) to (4)of the Act of 1968. Jt will also be seen that fishing without
a licence or the contravention' of any of the conditions of a licence may
attract heavy penalties by way of a fine, imprisonment and the forfeiture of
catch and gear; see footnotc ( 1) of the licence (Annex D) and also section 11
of the Act of 1967. In addition the licence may be withdrawn.

t I, p. 72.408 FISHERIES JURISDJCTION

11. Itwill be seen from condition (3) of the licence (Annex D) and from
the explanations given in the various Notes published together with the

Licensing Order (Annexes G and H) that the Government of the United
Kingdom intend to cancel licences if they are satisfied that the total catch by
British vessels from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
Area Vais likely to exceed l70,000 metric tons in any one year beginning on
1 September unless fishing by such vessels in that area is reduced. However,
as was indicated in the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the reply, given in the
letter of 3 August 972, to the second of the two questions addressed by the
Court to the Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom on 2 August
1972, the Government of the United Kingdom expect that in those circum­
stances they would in practice be able to agree arrangements with the United
Kingdom fishing industry under which the industry would itself operate a
voluntary scheme of rationing catches so that the total catch for the whole
year could not exceed 170,000 metric tons and no licences would have to be

cancelled.
12. Because of the need for consultatioii. with the industry and because of
the time required to prepare and make the necessary fegislation and the
accompanying documents, the statutory scheme could not be introduced in
time to take effect on I September 1972. But measures to a similar effect were
applied on an administrative basis, by arrangement with the industry, so as to
secure the necessary information relating to catches made by British vessels
in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Area Va during
the period l September 1972 to 30 October 1972. (These measures were based
on the existing arrangements for the collection of statistics mentioned in
paragraph 8 above.) Accordingly, by taking this information into account
together with the information obtained under the statutory scheme, it will be

possible for the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure that the total
catch for the year beginning l September 1972 does not exceed the amount
specified in paragraph (1)(e) of the Court's Order.
13. In compliance with the Court's Ortler, the Government of the United
Kingdom are communicating a copy of this letter and its various annexes to
the Government of lceland.

Annex A

THE SEA FISHING (SPECIFIED NORTHERN WATERS)
LICENSING OROER 1972

....... · ............. .

Ci1a1ionand Commencemem

1. This order may be cited as the Sea Fishing (Specified Northern Waters)
Licensing Order 1972 and shall corne into operation on 30th October 1972.

lnterpretation
2.-(1) In this order:-"The Act" means the Sea Fish (Conservation Act)
1967. CORRESPONDENCE 409

(2) The Interpretation Act 1889 (c) shall apply for the interpretation of this
order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament.

Appointed day

3. The appointed day for the purposes of section 4 of the Act (which
provides for the licensing of British fishing vessels in relation to fishing by
way of trade or business in specified areas) in conjunction with this order, is
30th October 1972.

Area

4. This Order applies to fishing for all sea fish in the area of sea comprising
the International Commission for the Exploration of the Sea Statistical Area
VA, which area is described in the Schedule to this order.

Enforcement

5. For the purposes of the enforcement of section 4 of the Act in conjunc­
tion with this order there are hereby conferred on ~very British sea fishery
officer the powers of a British sea fishery officer under sections 8 (2) to (4) of
the Sea Fisheries Act 1968.

.SCHEDULE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE EXPLORATION OF THE
SEA STATISTICAL AREA VA

The area of sea contained within a line drawn from a position having the co­
ordinates of 68° north latitude and 27° west longitude due south to the paral­
lel of 62° north latitude, thence duc east to the meridian of 15°west longitude,
thence north to the parallel of 63° north latitude, thence east to the meridian
of 11°west longitude, thence north to the parallel of68° north latitude, thence
west to the meridian of 27° west longitude.

AnnexB

SEA FISH (CONSERVATION)
ACT 1967

Regulation of jishing for sea fish

4.-(1) As from such day as may be appointed by an order made by the
Ministers and subject to such exceptions as may be made by any such order,
no British fishing boat registered in the United Kingdom shall be used by
way of trade or business for fishing in any area specified in the order, and no

fishing boat which is ·British-owned but not registered under the Merchant
Shipping Act 1894 shall be used by way of trade or business for fishing for
salmon or migratory trout in any area so specified, except under the authority
of a licence granted by one of the Ministers and for the time being in force. 410 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

(2) An order made under this section in respect of fishing in any area may
be made so as to apply to fishing in that area generally, or may be made
subject to any one or more, or any combination, of the following limitations,
that is to say, limitations whereby the or.der applies to fishing in that area-

(a) for fish of a description specifi.ed in the order and not for any other
descriptions of fish, or for fish of any description except a descrip­

tion so specified;
(b) by a method specified in the order and not by any other method, or
by any method except a method so specified;
(c) during a season of the year specified in the order and not during any
other season of the year, or at any season of the year except a
season so specified;

(d) during a period specified in the order and at no other time.

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, any licence granted under this section
may authorise either fishing generally or fishing for, or except for, any des­
cription of fish specified in the licence, and may do so either unconditionally
or subject to such conditions as appear to the Minister granting the licence
·expedient for the purpose of preventing overfishing.
(4) Where an order under this section is made subject to any such limi­

tations as are mentioned in subsection (2) above, the licensing powers
exercisable under this section in pursuance of that order shall be exercisable
only within those limitations.
(5) The licensing powers conferred by this section may be so exercised as
to limit the number of British fishing boats, or any class of such boats,

engaged in fishing in any area or in fishing in any area for any description of
fish to such extent as appears to the Ministers to be necessary or expedient
for the purpose of preventing overfishing, but the Ministers shall exercîse
those powers in such a way as appears to them to be likely to cause the least
possible hardship.

(6) An order under this section, made with the consent of the Treasury
for the purposes of this subseCtion, may authorise any of the Ministers to
make a charge, not exceeding such amount as may be specified in the order,
for the granting of a licence under thîs section, and different amounts may be
so specified in relation to different classes of licences.

(7) Ifsubsection (l) above is contravened in the case of any fishing boat,
the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) shall each bè guilty of an
offence under this section.
(8) Subject to subsection (9) below, an order appointing a day for the
purposes of this section shall not be made in relation to any area unless the
Ministers are satisfied that measures substantially equivalent to the pro­

visions of this section are being taken by the governments of other countries
interested in fishing in that area, and in exercising in relation to any area the
powers conferred by this section the Ministers shall have regard to the extent
to which fishing in that area is being restricted by those governments.
(9) Subsection (8) above shall not apply in relation to the imposition of any

restrictiori-

(a) on fishing for salmon or migratory trout, whether within or outside
the fishery limits of the British Islands, or
(b) on fishing for any other sea fish in any waters adjacent to Great
Britain and within those Iimits. CORRESPOND ENCE 411

Penalties for, and other provisions as to, ojfences

11.-(1) Any person guilty of an offence under any provision of this Act

shall be liable on summary conviction-
(a) in the case of a first offence under that provision, to a fine not ex­

ceeding f:!00;
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence under section 1(1) or
(3), section 2 or section 5(6), to a fine not exceeding f200; and
( c) in the case of a second or subsequent offence under any other
provision of this Act, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding

three months or a fine not exceeding L200 or both.
(2) Subject to the fol\owing provisions of this section, the court by which a

person is convicted of an offence under any of the following provisions of this
Act, that is to say, sections 1(3), 3, 4, 5(1) or (6) and 6, mày~

(a) in the case of an offence under section 1(3), order the forfeiture of
any fish in respect of which the offence was committed;
{h} in the case of an offence under section 3, order the forfeiture of the
net or other fishing gear in respect of which the contravention
constituting the offence occurred;

(c) in the case of an offence under section 4 or section 5(1) or (6), order
the forfeiture of any fish in respect of which the offence was com­
rnitted and of any net or other fishing gear used in comrnitting the
offence;
(d) in the case of an offence under section 6, order the forfeiture of any
fish in respect ofwhich the offence was cornrnitted and of any net or

other fishing gear used on the vesse\ in catching any fish landed in
contravention of an order under that section.

(3) Any person guilty of an offence under section 4, section 5(1) or (6) or
section 6 of this Act shall, subject to subsection (5) below, be liable on sum­
rnary conviction to a fine not exceeding the value of the fish in respect of
whteh the offence was comrnitted.
(4) A persan shall not be liable to a fine under subsection (3) above in
respect of an offence if, under subsection (2) above, the court orders the

forfeiture of the fish in respect of which the offence was committed; and where
a fine is impOsed under subsection (3) above in respect of any ofîence, the
court shal\ not have power under subsection (2) above to order the forfeiture
of the fish in respect of which the offence was committed.
(5) Subject to subsection (4) above, any fine to which a person is liable

under subsection (3) above in respect of an offence shall be in addition to any
other penalty (whether pecuniary or otherwise) ta which he is liab\e in respect
of that offence under this section or under any other enactment.

Enforcement of orders, etc.

15.-(1) Subject to the provisions of section 18 of the Sea Fish lndustry
Act 1962, every British sea-fishery officer sha\l have the powers conferred by
the following provisions of this section.
(2) Any such officer may seize-

(a) any net or other fishing gear in respect of which a contravention of412 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

an order under section 3 of this Act has been, or is being, corn,
mitted;
(b) any fish caught by the use of a fishing boat contravening section
4(1) of this Act, or caught in contravention of a prohibition im­
posed by an order under section 5 thereof, where the fish are on the
fishing boat or, as the case may be, on the fishing boat used in
contravention of such a prohibition or are in the ownership or
custody, or under the control, of the owner or master or the char­
terer (if any) of the fishing boat;
(c) any net or other fishing gear used in contravening the said section
4(1) or used in contravention of a prohibition imposed by an order
under the said section 5;
(d) any fish landed in contravention of an order under section 6 of this
Act, and any net or other fishing gear used in catching any fish so

landed.
(3) Any such offlcer may exercise, with respect to any fishing boat in any
waters adjacent to the United Kingdom and within the fishery limits of the
British Islands, and with respect to any British fishing boat registered in the
United Kingdom, wherever it may be, such of the powers conferred on
British sea-fishery officers by paragraphs (]) to (8) of section 12 of the Sea

Fisheries Act 1883 as may be conferred on him by order of the Ministers,
being powers which the Ministers consider necessary for the enforcement of
section l, 3, 4(}) or 5(6) of this Act or of any order under section 1, 3, 5 or 6
thereof.
(4) Any such officer may exercise with ·respect to any fishing boat which is
British-owned but not registered under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894,
Wherever it may be, such of the powers mentioned in subsection (3) above as
may be conferred on him by order of the Ministers, being powers which (in so
far as they are not exercisable with respect to any such fishing boat by virtue
of an order under subsection (3) above) the Ministers consider necessary for
the enforcement of section 4(1) of this Act in respect of fishing for salmon or
migratory trout or of any order under section 5 or 6 thereof in relation to~the
fishing for, or landing of, salmon or migratory trout.
(5) Any such officer may make any examination or inquiry which he deems
necessary to ascertain whether any contravention of any of the following

provisions of this Act, that is to say, sections 1, 3, 4(1), 5, 6 and 7, or of an
order under any of the said sections 1, 3, 5 and 6, has been committed and
may administer an oath for that purpose.
(6) Any such offi.cershall be entitled to the same protection in respect of
any action brought against him for any act done or omitted to be done in the
exercise of any power conferred on him by virtue of this section to seize or
detain a fishing boat as is given, with respect to the seizure or detention of any
ship, to an offi.cer of customs by section 76 of the Merchant Shipping Act
1894.
(7) Ifany person obstructs any such officer in acting under the powers
conferred by this section or refuses or neglects to comply with any requisition
or direction lawfully made, or to answer any question lawfully asked, by any

such offi.cer in pursuance of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and
Iiable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding f50 or, in the case of a
conviction in Scotland, f200 or to irnprisonment for a term not exceeding
three months. CORRESPOND ENCE 413

Annex C

SEA F1SHERIES ACT 1968

Regulation of sea fishing operations

7.-(1) The following persons shall be British sea-fishery officers for the

purposes of the Sea Fisheries Acts, that is to say-
(a) officers of the sea-fishery inspectorates of each of the appropriate
Ministers other than assistant fishery offi.cers;
(b) commissioned offi.cersof any of Her Majesty's ships;

(c) persons in command or charge of any aircraft or hovercraft of the
Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force;
(d) officers of the fishery protection service of the Secretary of State
holding the rank of commander, first officer or second offi.cer;
(e) officers of Customs and Excise;
(f) the following members of the Coastguard, that is to say, inspectors,
district offi.cersand members in charge of coastguard stations;
(g} other persans appointed as British sea-fishery officers by one of the
appropriate Ministers.

8.-(1) For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of any order under
section 5 above or of section 6 above or any order thereunder a British sea­
fishery officer may exercise in relation to any fishing boat within the fishery
limitsof the British Islands and in relation to any British fishing boat any­
where outside those limits the powers conferred by subsections (2) to (4)
below.
(2) He may go on board the boat, with or without persons assigned to

assist him in his duties, and for that purpose may require the boat to stop and
do anything else which will facilitate the boarding of the boat.
(3) He may require the attendance of the master and other persons on
board the boat and may make any examination and inquiry which appears
to him to be necessary for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) above and,
in particular,-

(a) may examine any fish on the boat and the equipment of the boat,
including the fishing gear, and require persons on board the boat to
do anything which appears to him to be necessary for facilitating
the examination; and
{b) may require any person on board the boat to produce any docu­
ments relating to the boat or the persons on board which are in his
custody or possession and may take copies of any such document.

(4) Where it appears to a British sea-fishery officer that a contravention of
any provision of an order under section 5 above or of section 6 above or any
order thereunder has at any time taken place within the fishery limits of the
British Islands, he may take the boat in relation to which the contravention414 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

took place and the crew of the boat to the port which appears to him to be the
nearest convenient port and detain the boat and the crew in the port until the
completion of proceedings for the contravention.

Supp/emental

22.-(1) The enactments specified in Schedule 1 to this Act shall have
effect subject to the amendments set out in that Schedule, being minor

amendments and amendments consequential on the foregoing provisions of
this Act. ·

SCHEDULE 1
MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

PART II

AMENDMENTS COMING INTO FORCE ON APPOINTED DA Y

The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act /967 (c. 84)

38.-(1) Section 15 (powers of British sea~fishery officers) shall be amended

in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) the words from the beginning to "1962" shall cease
to have effect.
(3) For subsections (3) to (7) there shall be substituted the fo!lowing sub­
sections :-

"(3) Any such officer may exercise in relation to any fishing boat in
any waters adjacent to the United Kingdom and within the fishery limits
of the British Islands, and in relation to any British fishing boat registered
in the United Kingdom and any British owned fishing boat (not so
registered) anywhere outside those limits, such of the powers of a British

sea~fishery officer under section 8(2) to (4) of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968
as may be conferred on him by order of the Ministers, being powers
which the Ministers consider necessary for the enforcement of any of the
provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this Act or any order made under any of
those sections.
(4) An order under this section may make different provision for
different cases.
(5) Section 10 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 shall apply in relation to

the provisions of an order under this section and the powers thereby
conferred as they apply in relation to section 8 of that Act and the powers
thereby conferred; and, in relation to an offence under the said section
10 as it applies by virtue of this subsection, sections 12 to 14 of that Act
shall apply accordingly." CORRESPONDENCE 415

Annex D
•

Licence No. SPECIMEN

SEA FISH (CONSERVATION) ACT 1967

THE SEA F1SH1N0 (SPEClFlED NORTHERN WATERS) UCENS\NG OROER \972

NAME OF VESSEL

REGISTERED NO.

NAME OF OWNER

The above vesse! is hereby licenscd to be used for fishing under the terms of
the above Ortler from to 3\ August, 1973. The vesse\ may
fish in the area defined in the Schedule to the Order and at Note 2 below,

known as ICES Statistical Area Va, subject to the following conditions:

(1) A Record of fishing activity shall be kept during the whole of each voyage
in the course of which fishing is conducted in the said area, in a form
prescribed by the Ministers, and shall be produced to the authorised
agents of the Ministers on request.
(2) On the completion of each such voyage, the owners shall provide to the

authorised agent of the Ministers:-

(a) a certified summary of the daily record, in a form prescribed by the
Ministers
(b) a certified statcment of the quantity offish landed.

(3) This licence may be cancelled if the appropriate Minister is satisfied that
the total catch by British vesscls from ICES Statistical Arca Vais likely to

exceed 170,000 metric tons in any one year beginning on lst September
unless fishing by such vessels in that Area is reduced.

Signed
District Inspector/ Area Inspector

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food/Secretary of State
for Scotland.
Date

Notes
1. Failure to comply wi1h the terms of this licence may constitute an
offence under the terms of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967,

Section 4, which carries maximum penalties of a fine of f!OO for a first
offence and f200 or three months imprisonment or both for second or
subsequent offcnces. Additiomilly, the fish in respect of which the of­
fence was committed may be forfeited, together with any net or other
fishîng gear used in committing the offence.

2. ICES Statistical Region Va is the arca of sea bounded by a line drawn
from a position 68°N, 2T.,W due south to the parallcl 62°N, thence cast
to the meridian 15°W, thence north to the parallel 63°N, thcnce cast to
the meridian 11°W, thence north to the parallet 68°N, thcnce west to the
meridian 27°W.416 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

Annex E

RECORD OF EACH CONSECUTIVE HAUL

(Form CL.!)

[ Not reproduced]

Annex F

SUMMARY OF FISHJNG

(Form CL.2)

[Not reproduced}

Annex G

THE SEA FISHING (SPECIFIED NORTHERN WATERS) LICENSJNG ÜRDER. 1972

Notes for the Guidance of Owners and Skippers

1. Licences issued under the above Order a!low British Vessels to fish in
kelandic waters (ICES Statistical Area Va, defined below). From the
30 Octobcr 1972 no British fishing boat registered in the United Kingdom
may fish in that arca unless it has the authority of such a licence. A copy

of the licence should be carried on board at all times.
2. ICES Statistical Area Va îs the area ofsea bounded by a Jine drawn from a
position 68°N, 2T'W due south to the parallel 62°N, thence east to the
meridian 15°W, thence north to the parallel 63°N, thence east to the
meridian 11°W, thence north to the paratlel 68°N, thence west to the

meridian 27~w. An illustrative map is enclosed.
3. Each licence is issued on the condition that certain information issu pplied
to the Ministry. This information is needed in order to satisfy the Inter­
national Court of Justice that the United Kingdom fishing industry is

respecting the catch limitation laid down in the Court's interim judgment
on Icelandic fishing limits.
4. Licences will be issued on application to your District Inspector of
Fisheries.

5. Throughout any voyage which încluded fishing in Statistical Area Va,
fishing records must be kept on Form CLI and at the end of the voyage a
return must be completed on Form CL2.
6. Instructions on the use of thesc forms are given below and should be
carefully followcd. Both types of form should be completed in duplicate

and one copy of each forwarded by the owner to the District Jnspector of
Fisheries within two days of the end of the voyage.

Instructions for Completion of Forms

7. Form CLJ-Record of Hauts
This record must be cornpleted immediately after each haul, including
hauls made outside Arca Va. CORRESPONDENCE 417

A separate sheet should be used for each region fi.shed, and the appropriate
letter for that region should be entered at the top of cach sheet. A fresh
sheet should also be used if the vesse! returns to a region already fished,
after moving tonother region.
Hauls must beumbered consecutively throughout the voyage.
Species other than Cod, Saithe, Haddock and Redfish should be recorded
under "Others", unless they forma substantial portion of a haul.
If there are any rejections, indicate the main species under "Remarks".
8. Form Cl2~FishingS11mmaryand Statement of Quantity Landed
This will be compiled from the forms CLl, and all fishing will be included.
If more than four regions are fished during a trip the Summary should be
continued on a second form.
The FishingSummary should be signed by the Skipper and hantothe
Owner together with the Record of Hauls.
The Statement of Quantity Landed gives totals of ail fish landed from a
voyage and must be supported by sales notes or other documentltion.
should be completed and signed by the Owner or his reprcsentative.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
for Scotland.

October 1972.
27~ 2S~ 2G0 15° 11°
68° ___ .,._______ __,l"""""..,..-""T"-,..--,.~.,.......,-'T""68°

A C D E

66° 66°

64°

F G

620 11...........~...... _................._....... __..52•

27° 25° 20° 15°418 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

Annex H

THE SEA F!SHING (SPECIFIED NORTHERN WATERS) LICENSING ÜRDER 1972

Covering Note for Owners, Skippers and Others

1. Purpose of this Note
This note is being îssued with the formai Notes for Guidance and the forms
which make up the rnechanism for introducing and enforcing the catch

limitation scheme which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has directed
the British Government to irnplement. lt gives the background to the scheme,
and some informai advice on the part skippers and owners have ta play in it.
It is issued at the request of the industry's Joint Action Committee on lceland,
which has been consulted on and approved the scheme.

2. Genera/
From the point of view of the owners and skippers, the scheme represents a
further burden of form-filling, partly under the difficult conditions of fishing
operations off Iceland. It is however absolutely necessary, and in the interests

of ail in the fishing industry that it is scrupulously observed. lt is designed to
cause the minimum possible inconvenience consistent with the proper
discharge of our international obligations.

3. Needfor the scheme
When the ICJ gave its ruling on the Government's application for ''measures
of interim relief"'-a sort ofresrraining injunction-in the malter of the lirnits·
dispute with lceland, it directed !ce/and to let us go on fishing up to 12 miles
and the United Kingdom to ensure that our catch did not exceed 170,000 tons

caught weight (the average catch for the previous five years). The Governrnent,
and the industry, accepted this ruling. We have to demonstrate to the Court,
and to Iceland, that our catches are being effective\y checked and that the
170,000 ton ceiling will not be exceeded. Any doubt as to our capacity to do

this will seriously hinder the conduct of our case, and undermine our chances
of achieving a satisfactory resolution of the dispute.
The internatiorial conservation commissions are turning to catch limitation
schemes as the most effective, and in economîc terms the most efficient, means
of achieving proper management of the stocks. Catch limitation schemes

have already been agreed for the North West Atlantic, and the extension of
the system to the North East can be expected before long. These schemes will
rely upon records made during fishing operations, and a form of fishing log­
book has been agreed (after consultation on our part between industry and the
Ministry). It is very desirable that this catch limitation scheme for lceland

follows the internationally agreed lay-out with which skippers and owners
will become familiar over the next few years.

4. Details of the scheme

We have had for decades a very effective machinery for gathering catch
statistics for economic and scientific purposes, run on a voluntary, agreed
basis with the full co-operation of the industry. The new scheme makes full
use of that machinery. But it is necessary to supp[ement it in two ways to
create a water-tight scheme that will command the international confidence

we require. First, the statistics at present gathered by the Fîsheries Inspecta­
rate on the completion of each voyage will have to be provided and certified
by skippers and owners. Just the same information is required, but the form .CORRESPOND ENCE 419

will need to be filled in by the skippers and owners, and its correctness
vouched for by a signature, instead of being filled in by the lnspector on the

basis of information given to him. Second, this information, which is at
present based on mcmory and/or records kcpt privately will have to be docu­
mented by records in standard form made on the grounds while fishing is
going on. This is esscntial for <t crcdible scheme. For any Court, special
validity attaches to records made on the spot, and only if records arc kept

day-to-day will the scheme achieve its objective. These are the rcquirements
that have dictated the introduction and the design of the two forms referred
to in the formai Notes for Guidance.

5. Filling in theforms
Form CL I is in effect a fishing log-book. Form CL 2 is a summary of it. ln

CL 2, complete(j aftcr landing, it will be possible to give the actual quantities
of fish. Whcn the skipper makes out a record of cach haul in CL 1, however,
he will only be able to make an estimate of the amount of fish. Prccise mea­
surement is not possible, nor is it required. The skipper can only estimate as
bcst he can. Estimates in terms of kits would be preferred, but if it is casier
estimates in terms of the other measures shown on the form are perfectly

acceptable. The only thing is to ensure that the same unit is used throughout­
hopping about from kits to stones to baskets will cause problems.
The information asked for in form CL I is on the lines of that requircd at
prescnt by the Ministry's Collecter to make his summary at the end of each
voyage. So although making the record whilc fishing may be a chore, it

should make things casier for skipper and mate at the end of the trip.
The absolutely essential pieces of this form are the records for each haul of
the date, the ground, the esrimated number of kits (or other unit of measure),
and the main species caught. Unless this information is providcd to the
Ministry the control will not be effective and the object of the scheme wi\\be
lost. This is a statutory scheme, and providing this data is a condition of the

licence.
The other information required-time spent steaming, the timing of shooting
and hauling, and information on rejects-is not essential for the purposes of
meeting our obligations to the ICJ. lt is however essential information for the
proper management of any catch limitation scheme, and it will be a statu tory
requirement for the schemes introduced by the international commissions.

Turning to CL 2, it will be notcd that the information described as absolutely
essential in the case of CL I is the information summarised in CL 2, on the
front. The skipper is requircd to complete and sign this summary. The back
of the form is in effcct a summary of the sales note, to be completed by the
owners.

Conclusion

This scheme will enable our fishing off lceland to be monitorcd and the catch
limitation observed. lcelanct·s rejcction of the ICJ ruling has made for difficult
working on lcelandic grounds, and unless the situation irnproves thcre may
well be difficulty in catching enough fish over the years to approach the

170,000 ton figure. Howcver, if that figure is approached, the Minister will
have to make another Ortler stopping all fishing at a time judgcd to keep the
total just below the ceiling. Howcver, this monitoring system will enable the
Ministry to foresee the approach of the ceiling, and in the eventuality arrange­
ments will be agreed with the industry's representatives to avoid sudden and420 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

disruptive action or the ban being put on well before the end of the year.
FinalJy, the scheme can be changed in detail in the light of practical ex­
perience. Suggestions for improvements should be sent to Fedcration or
Guild representatives in the first instance rather than direct to the Ministry.

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
for Scotland.

October 1972.

76, THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
22 December l972.

With reference to the Fisheries Jurisdîction ( United Kingdom v.!ce/and and
Federal Republic o(Germany v. /ce!and) cases, may Iinvite Your Excellency's

attention to Article 44, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court (1946 edition),
which reads as follows:

"The Court, or the President if the Court is not sitting, may, with the
consent of the Parties, authorize the pleadings and annexed documents
in regard to a particular case to be made accessible to the public before
the termination of the case."

It has for some years been the practice of the Court to seek the parties'
consent to the pleadings and annexed documents in cases before the Court
being made accessible to the public with effect from the opening of the oral

proceedings in each case; the oral proceedings themselves are, by virtue of
Article 46 of the Statu te of the Court, public unless the Court decides other­
wise, and it is often difficult to undcrstand the oral argument without having
had sight of the pleadings.
In order that the Court may, if it sees fit, consider this question, I shall be
grateful if Your ExcelJency will inform me whether the Governrnentof Iceland

would have any objection to the pleadings and annexed documents so far
filed in each of the two Fisheries Jurisdiction cases being made accessible to
the public with effect from the opening of the oral proceedings in each case.
The Court may also wish to consider making accessible to the public the
various communications which I have had tli.e honour to receive from Your

Excellency setting out the position of the Government of Ice\and with
reference to the proceedings. These documents, although they do not fa]]
within the category of pleadings, rnay well be referred toin oral argument, and
would normally be published after the termination of the case in the appro­
priate part of the relevant volume in the Court's series of publications devoted

to l'leadings, Oral Arguments, Documents. I would therefore be grateful if
Your Excellency would also indicate whether the Government of Iceland
would have any objection to these documents also being made accessible to
the public at the sarne time as the pleadings.
I am writing also to the Agents of the United Kingdom and the Federal
Republic of Gerrnany to enquire whether their respective Governments, with

regard to the proceedings they have each instituted, would have any objection
to the pleadings and other documents referred to above being made accessible
to the public 1.

l I, p.242, and p. 121,supra. CORRESPONDENCE 421

77. THE REG!STRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

4 January 1973.

I have the honour to refer to my letters of 3 and 20 November concerning
the choice by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany of Pro­
fesser Dr. Hermann Mosler to sit as judge ad hoc in the Fisheries Jurisdiction
(Federal Republic of Germany v. lceland) case.

l have the honour to inform Your Excellency that the Court, after deli­
berating on the question, is unable to find that the appointment of a judge
ad hoc by the Federal Republic of Germany in this phase of the case would be
admissible. This decision affects only the present phase of the proceedings,

that is to say that concerning the jurisdiction of the Court, and does not in
any way prejudice the question whether, if the Court finds that it has juris­
diction, a judge ad hoc might be chosen to sit in the subsequent stages of the
case 1•

Accordingly the Court will sit in its regular composition, without a judge
ad hoc, for the public hearing to be held on Monday 8 January, and the su b­
sequent deliberation in this phase of the case.

78. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REG1STRAR

5 January 1973.

I have the honour to transmit to you a written statement of the formai
contentions and submissions of the Government of the United Kingdom as
made at the conclusion of the presentation of the case for the United King­

dom at today's oral hearing by the Court.
The Governmcnt of the United Kingdom contend

[see I,p. 262}

79. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

5 January 1973.

1 have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of the verbatim
record of today's hearing in the Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Ki11gdom v.
Iceland) case, and a certified true copy of a letter from the United Kingdom
Agent, filed in the Rcgistry immediately after the hearing, setting out the

formai submissions of the United Kingdom.
ln accordance with the request made in Your Excellency's telcgram of
3 August 1972, I am sending under separate cover 24 furthcr copies of the
verbatim record of today's hearing.

1 See p. 120, supra, an/.C.J.Reports 1973, p. 51.422 FTSHERIES JURISDICTION

80. THE REG!STRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFA!RS OF JCELAND 1

(telegram)

30 January 1973.

Have honour inform you Court will hold public sitting on Friday 2 Feb­
ruary at 10 a.m. at which Judgments will be delivered on question of Court's
jurisdiction in Fisheries J11risdictio11cases instituteby United Kingdom and
Federal Republic of Germany.

81. THE REG!STRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

(telegram)

2 February 1973.
Have honour inform you Court today delivered Judgments in Fisheries

Jurisdiction cases. Operative clause in Judgment in case instituted by United
Kingdom reads as follows:

[See I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 22]

Operative clause in case instituted by Federal Republic of Germany reads
as follows:

[See I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 66]

Judgments airmailed to you today.

82. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(telegram)

12 February 1973.

On instructions of President of Court have honour inform Your Excellency
that he is convening meetings in Fisheries J11risdic1ion cases on Thursday

l5 February to ascertain views of Parties regarding questions of procedure in
cases on merits pursuant Article 37 Rules of Court; Federa! Republic of
Germa11y v. lcefa11d, 10 a.m., Agent for Federal Republic of Germany will
attend, United Ki11gdom v. lcefa11d, 11 a.m., Agent for United Kingdom will
attend. Whilst noting that Agent has not been appointed by Iceland am

instructed inform you that should Your- Excellency's Government wish to be
represented at these meetings person designated would be welcome to
attend 2.

1 Similar communications were sent to the Agents for the Governments of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 On I5 February 1973, the President met successivelythe Agents for the Govern­
ments of the United Kingdom and the Fedcral Republic of Germany. CORRESPONDENCE 423

83. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D"AFGHANISTAN 1

13 février 1973.

Le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice a l'honneur de transmettre,
sous ce pli, un exemplaire de chacun des arrêts rendus par la Cour le 2 fé­

vrier 1973 dans les affaires relatives à la Compétence en matière de pêcheries
( Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord c. lsla11de;République
fédéraled'Allemagne c. Islande).
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.

84. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO 2

(te/egram)

15 February 1973.

Have hônour inform Your Excellency that by two OrdersJ of today Court
fixed following time-limits for written proceedi ngs on merits in Fisheries
Jurisdiction cases: 1 August. 1973 for Memorials of United Kingdom and
Federal Republic of Germany; 15 January 1974 for Counter-Memoria\s of

Jceland.

85. THE MIN1STRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO TO THE REGISTRAR

(te!egram)

16 February 1973.

Would appreciate receiving earliest opportunity 20 copies each of Judgment
delivered by the Court 2 February in Fisheries Jurisdiction cases.

86. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC

OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR
21 May 1973.

I have the honour to refer to the Order made by the Court on 17 August

1972 in the Fisheries Jurisdiction ( Federal Republic of Germany v. lce/and}
case on the Request made by the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany dated 21 July 1972 for the indication of interim measures of pro­
tection pending the Court's final decision in these proceedings. In paragraph

(1) (e) of the operative passage of the Order the Court indicated that the

l Une communication analogue a étéadressée aux autres Etats Membres des
Nations Unies et aux Etats non membres des Nations Unies admis à ester devant la
Cour.

2 Similar communications were sent to the Agents for the Governments of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
3 l.C.J. Reports 1973, pp. 93 and 96.424 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

Federal Republic should ensure that vessels registered in the Federal Re­
public do not take an annual catch of more than 119,000 metric tons of fish
from the "Sea Area of Iceland", as defined by the International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea as Area Va. ln paragraph (1) {!) of the Ortler the
Court indicated that the Federal Republic should furnish the Government of
Iceland and the Registry of the Court with ail relevant information, orders
issued and arrangements made concerning the control and regulation of fish

catches in the area. ln compliance with the said paragraph (IJ (f) I now have
the honour to supply the following information to the Court:

l. Statu tory authority for regulating the operation of fishing vessels of the
Federal Republic, in particular for regulating the amount of total catch or the
amount of fishing effort in any perlod or any area, is contained in the Law
Implemcnting the International Convention for the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries and the North-East Atian tic Fisheries Convention and Making
Further Provision for the Regulation of Sea Fishing, enacted on 25 August

1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971). A
copy of the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971, together with an English
translation, is attached hereto as Annex A l,
2. Statutory authority for regulating the operation of fishing vessels of the
Federal Republic had been primarily introduced for the purpose of putting
into cffect proposais and recommendations of the Northwest Atlantic and
North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commissions (sec Article 2 of the Sea Fisheries
Convention Law J971). This authority may, however, also be sued indepen­
dently from proposais or recommendations of the Fisheries Commissions
if regulatory measures prove necessary for the conservation and optimal

utilization of fish stocks (Article 3 of the aforementioned Law). Under Articles
2 and 3 of the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971 the Federal Minister of
Food, Agriculture and Forestry (hereinafter referred to as the "Federal
Minister") is authorized to issue regulations whereby, inter alia, the amount
of total catch in a specified area may be limîted, and, for the implementation
of such a catch limitation, fishing in the specified area may be prohibited or
made subject to a licence to be issued by the Federal Minister (Article 2,
paragraph (2), No. 4, and paragraph (3) of the Sea Fisheries Conventions
Law J971). For securing compliance with such Regulations, the Federal

Minister is further authorized to impose on the masters of fishing vessels or
on the fishing enterprises the ·duty to keep the necessary records of their
operations or to give other requisite information which shows the compliance
with regulations issued for the purpose of catch limitation (Article 2, para­
graph (2), No. 6, of the Sea Fisheries Convention Law 1971). Supervision of
compliance with the regulations by the fishing vessels of the Federal Republic
on the High Seas, is carried out by the masters or ships' officers in the nautical
serviceof the fishery protection vessels of the Federal Republic of Germany,
or by other officiais appointed by the Federal Minister (Article 4 of the Sea
Fisheries Conventions Law !971).

3. For the purpose of compliance with the Court's Ortler of 17August 1972
the Federal Minister issued the Third Regulation Implementing the Sea
Fisheries Conventions Law 1971 on 6 September 1972. A copy of this Regu­
lation, together with a translation is attached hereto as Annex B 2. Section 1

t Seep. 427, infra.
2 See p.434, infra. CORRESPOND ENCE 425

ofthis Regulation deals with the limitation offishing for herring in the North­

west Atlantic which is not relevant here; Section 2 relates to the fishing in the
"Sea Area of lceland", i.e., the statistical area Va of the International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea to which the Order of the Court refers in para­
graph (!) (e) of its operative passage. Paragraph (1) of section 2 of the afore­
mentioned Regulation makes fishing within the said area subject to a licence
issued by the Fcderal Minister, and stipulates that the total catch within one
calendar year shall not exceed 119,000 tons. Paragraph (2) imposes certain
dulies on the masters of fishing vessels for keeping daily records of their
catches, and on fishing enterprises in possession of a licence to furnish the
requisite statements and documents for proving that the amount of the total
catch is not in excess of the amount laid down in the licence. The scheme of

control will be explained in more detail in the later paragraphs of this report.
4. By Jetter of 16 October 1972 addressed to the German Trawler Owners'
Association, a copy of which together with a translation is attachcd hereto as
Annex C '• the Fcderal Minister issued a general licence to the enterprises
members of the German Trawler Owners' Association tocatch 119,000 tons
of fish in the area mentioned in the Sea Area of lceland. The Minister left it
to the Association to distribule this amount among the members of the
Association but reserved the right to revoke this licence with regard to in­
dividual enterprises ifthis would be necessary in the interest of an equitable
utilization by ail enterprises of the total quota granted. ltwas made clear
that, for the calendar year 1972, the catches already ·made prior the entry into

force of the Regulation of 6 September 1972 were to be deducted from the
amount stated in the licence. As landings from the lceland area in the calendar
year 1972 remained considerably below 119,000 tons, it was not necessary to
revokc the licence for all or some fishing enterprises being members of the
German Trawler Owners· Association before the end of 1972.
5. The system for controlling the compliance with the Regulation of
6 September 1972 and with the condition of the general licence issued on
16 October 1972 opera tes in the following way:
6. An obligatory statistical information scheme had already been in
operation under the Law on Fishery Statistics of 21July 1960 (BGBI. I, p. 589).
According to this Law all landings of German deep-sea fishing vessels in the

Federal Republic of Germany are being recorded and specified as to the
fishing vessel, the fishing ground and the catch after each fishing voyage. The
heads of the sea fish market administrations are responsible for giving infor­
mation on the fishing vcssels; the heads of the fishing enterpriscs are res­
ponsible for giving information on the fishing ground and the catch. The data
are being entered by the head of the fishing enterprise in the green "Re­
gistration Form J b" (attached hereto as Annex D 2). As regards "frcsh fish
voyages" the registration form will be supplemented by a "catch list"
prepared by the sea fish market administration (attached hereto as Annex
E 2) containing the species of fish landed and its weight, and the prices
obtained at the auction. For landings abroad the head of the fishing enter­

prise will have to enter the necessary data in the "Registration Form 3" (at­
tached hereto as Annex F 2).According to sections 6, IOand 14 of the Law
on Statistics for Federal purposes of 3 September 1953 (BGBI. 1, p. 1413)
amended for the last time by Article 35 of the Law introducing the Ordnungs-

1 See p. 436, infra.
2 See p. 438, infra.426 FISHER!ES JURISDtCTION

widrigkeite11-Gesetz ,(Law on Minar Offences) of 27 May 1968 (BGBI. I,

p. 503) refusaior delay in furnishing the required data, as well as incorrect or
incomplete supply of data will be punishcd by a fine up to !0,000 DM. The
registration forms and catch lists will be handed over by the heads of the sea
fish market administrations to the Federal Research Board for Fisheries
which is a federal agency under the supervision of the Federal Ministry of

Food, Agriculture and Forestry. There they will be scrutinizcd and evaruated
(extrapolation to the "nominal catch" requested by the international or­
ganizations = life weight of the fish intended for human consumption
including the fish processed into fish meal on board) and then forwarded to
the Federal Office of Statistics in Wiesbaden where the final statistical com­
pilation will be made. In addition, the specified origin of the catches {fishing

grounds) is being checked on the sea fish markets according to certain ex­
terior criteria of the fish landings (composition of the catch and size of fish)
although thcre is no lcgal obligation to do this. The determination of origin is,
however, relevant to the classification of catches and thus has an effect on the
price which can be obtained in the auction on the sea fish markets.

7. Since the spccifications required by the Law on Fishery Statistics cover
the fishing ground, the catch and the duration of the voyage, but do not
include the exact time and place where the individual catches have been made,
the following supplementary requirements were introduced by the Third
Regulation of 6 September 1972. For the purpose of control of compliance

with the catch limitation'containcd in Section 2, paragraph (1), of this Regu­
lation, Section 2, paragraph (2), refers to Section 1, paragraphs (2) to (4), of
the Regulation. This means that the mastcrs of the fishing vessels have to
kccp daily records of thcir catches, spccifying the date, position, quantity,
waste, and utilization of the catch and stating the type of fishing gear used as
well as the amount of fishing effort (numbcr of hauls multiplied by fishing

timc) (Section 1, paragraph (2)). Thcsc data arc put down by the master of
the fishing vessel in the fishing log book [logbuc/1schein} (sec Annex G l).
Section 1, paragraph (3), of the Regulation requires that fishing enterprises
have to givc information on the duration of the fishing voyages of their vesscls
to the Fcderal Rescarch Board for Fisheries and to the Fcderal Office of

Statistics at their request which information has to be accompanied by all
relevant dcclarations and documents which are neccssary for vcrification;
if so rcqucsted thcy shall furthermore submit the necessary statements and
documents to prove that the amount of catch allowed by the licence had not
been exceeded. According to Section 4 of the Regulation in connection with

Article 6 of the Sea Fishcries Convention Law 1971 infringcments may be
·punished by fines up to 10,000 DM together with a confiscation of fishing
gear and catch.
8. In his lcttcr of 16 October 1972 the Minister had requestcd that all
catches have to be reported to the Fcdcral Rescarch Board for Fishcries. This
was carried out in the following way: The fishing enterpriscs passed on the

fishing log books and the green registration forms to the sea fish market ad­
ministrations which in turn handed thcm ovcr to the Fcderal Research Board
for Fishcries. The Rescarch Board was able to scrutinizc thcsc documents
together with the data of the sca fish markets on landings and thus to check
exactly for each vesse] and each voyage when and where which type and

which amount of fish had been caught. ln addition, the information of the
fishing enterprises could be compared with the reports of the German fishcry

1 See p. 438, infra. CORRESPONDENCE 427

protection vcsscls on the number of German vessels which operated around
1celand and on their catches. These reports arc rather comprehensive because

ail 4 protection vessels have been concentrated in the waters around [ce]and
since I September 1972.
9. On the information provided by the Fcdcral Research Board for
Fisheries, the provisional figure of the nominal catch of the fishing vessels
of the Federal Republic in the Iceland Arca (lceland = ICES Arca Va) in the

year 1972 amounts to 93,672 tons. This amou nt kccps within the lirnit set
by the Court in its Order of 17 August I972.

Annex A

Law
Approving Amendments to and Implementing the International Convention
for the Northwest Atian tic Fisheries and the North-East Atian tic Fishcries
Convention, and Making Further Provision for the Rcgulation of Sea Fishing

- Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971 -
25 August 1971

[ Trc111s/atiJ1

Be it enacted by the Bundestag as follows:

Article 1

The following international agreements are approved:
1. The Protocol of I October 1969 to the International Convention for the

Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (Bundesgesetzblatt 1957 li, p. 265), signed
by the Federal Republic of Germany in Washington on 3 October 1969,
relating to Panel Membership and to Regulatory Measures.
2. The Protocol of 6 October 1970 to the International Convention for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (B1111desgesetzhlat11957 Il, p. 265), signed

by the Federal Republic of Germany in Washington on 9 October 1970,
relating to Amendments to the Convention.
3. The Proposai to supplement the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention
(B1111desgese1zhla111963 II, p. 157) in accordance with its Article 7 para­
graph (2) which proposai was adopted by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries
Commission atits Eighth Meeting held in London from 6 to II May 1970.

The Protocols and the Proposai rcferred to above are published hereunder.

Article 2

(1) The Federaf Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forestry ("the Federal
Minister") is authorized to issue Regulations which do not require prior
consent of the B1111dtsra1 (Federal Council), for the purpose of giving effect

to

1 Originaltexl (B1mdesgese1zb/at1971 lI, pp. 1057-1064) not reproduced.428 FISHERJES JURISDICTION

1. proposais put forward by the International Commission for the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries under the provisions of Article VIII of the International

Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries of 8 February 1949, as
amended;
2. recommendations made by the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
under the provisions of Article 7 of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries
Convention of 24 January 1959, as amended.

(2) Under the provisions of paragraph (1) above, and in so far as such
action is required to attain the objectives of the Convention, measures may
be taken for

1. the regulation of the properties of fishing gear and appliances,
2. the regulation of the species, quantity and size of fish that may be retained
on board vessels or landed or exposed or offered for sale,
3. the establishment of closed seasons and closed areas,
4. the rcgulation of the amount of total catch or the amount of fishing effort
in any period or any area,

5. any other regulation directly related to the conservation and optimal
utilization of ail fish stocks in the Convention area,
6. the imposition of the duty to record, give information on, notify or other­
wise report details of compliance with regulations issued under sub-para­
graphs 1 to 5 above,

7. the supervision of compliance with regulations issued under sub-para­
graphs J to 6 above. Such supervision may include in particular the stop­
ping of fishing vessels, access to and inspection of rooms and containers for
fishing gear and appliances or fish or logbooks and other ship's papers,
and may further include inspection of such books and papers as well as

requiring the necessary explanations with respect to the abjects of control.
The fundamental right of privacy of the home (Article 13 of the Basic Law)
may be restricted to that extent.

(3) In implementation of the regulations under paragraph 2 (4) above,
fishing for certain species of fish may in certain periods or areas be prohibited

or made subject to a licence from the Federal Minister. There may be attached
to such licence certain conditions pertaining to the maximum permissible
catch, the use of certain types of fishing vessels or of fishing gear and appli­
ances or of fishing methods, or to the duration of the fishing effort or of the
stay of the vesse! in the fishing grounds concerned. When grantiflg such li­

cence the fishing capacity and qualification of the fishing enterprise and its
previous participation in the fishery concerned shall be taken into consider­
ation and allowance shall be made for the rational utilizationof the fishing
fleet and the best possible supply of the market. If there exists a marketing
association (Section 7 of the Fish Law of 31 August 1955 (Bundesgesetzb!att 1,
p. 567)), most recently amended by the Marketing Fund Law of 26 June 1969

(Bundesgesetzb/att l, p. 635), it shall be heard before a licence will be
granted.

Article 3

The Federal Minister is authorized, even without a proposai from the Inter­
national Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries or a recommen­
dation from the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, ta take regulatory CORRESPONDENCE 429

measures pursuant to Article 2 (2) of this Là.wby means of Regulations which
do not require the prior consent of the Federal Councîl, provided that this
proves necessary for the conservation and optimal utilization of fish stocks
or for supervising compliance with the regulations issued on the basis of this
Law; the said authorization may, in addition, be used for the implementation
of Regulatîons issued by the Council of the European Communities under
Article 5 of EEC Regulation No. 2141/70 of 20 October 1970 concerning the
Adoption of a Common Structural Policy for the Fishing lndustry (Official
Gazette of the European Comm1111ities, No. L 236 of 27 Octobcr 1970, p. 1).

Article 4

(1) Supervision of compliance with the Regulations îssued under the
authority of this Law, outside the limits of the territorial sea of the Federal
Republic of Germany shall be carried out by the masters or ship's offkers in
the nautical service of the fishery protection vessels of the Federal Republic of
Germany, by other officiais appointcd by the Ferlerai Minister or, provided
reciprocity is guaranteed, by specially authorizcd inspectors of the fishery

contrai services of the States parties to the International Fisheries Conven·
tians.
(2) Any act of specially authorizcd inspectors in the exercise of supervision
shall be deemed equal to official acts of civil servants within the meaning of
Article 113 of the Penal Code.

Article 5

(1) Any persan who, without authority, discloses a secret of another,
notably a business secret, of which he has obtained knowledge as a member
or representative of an agency fulfil!ing rcsponsibilities under this Law, shall
be liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year and with a fine
or with either of these penalties.
(2) If the offender acts for a considcration or with intent to enrich himself
or injure another party, the penalty shall be imprisonment not exceeding two
years; in addition, a fine may be imposed. Similarly, any persan who, without
authority, uses a secret of another, notably a business secret of which he has
obtained knowledge under the circumstances described in paragraph I above,

shall also be liable to punishmenl.
(3) The offcnce shall be prosecuted only upon the application of the injured
party.

Article 6 ·

(1) Any persan who wilfully or negligently contravencs a Regulation issued

under the provisions of Article 2 or 3 of this Law shall be deemed to have
committed an offence in so far as that Regulation refers to this Article with
regard to that specific contravention.
(2) Such offence may be punished with a fine not exceeding ten thousand
German Marks.
(3) Any fishing gear and appliances used or fish caught in contravention to
a Regulation envisaged by paragraph t above, may be confiscated. Section 19
of the Law on Minar Offences (Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten) shall
apply. 430 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

Article 7

The present Law shall also apply to Land Berlin, provided that Land Berlin
makes an enactment to this elTect. Regulations issued under this Law shall
be applicable in the Land Berlin in accordance with Section 14 of the Third

Transitional Law ( Über/eit11ngsgesetz) of 4 January 1952 (Bimdesgesetzblatt I,
p.1).

Article 8

(1) This Law shall enter into force on the day after its promulgation. At the

same time, Article 2 (3) of the Law of 28 April 1954 concerning the Accession
of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Convention of 5 April 1946 of the
International Overfishing Conference, as amended by the Supplementary Law
of 13 June 1955 (Bundesgesetzblatt II, p. 697), Articles 2 to 4 of the Law of
22 Dccember 1959 Amending and mplementing the Law concerning the

Accession of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Convention of 5 April
1946 of the International Overfishing Conference (B1111desgezetsblat11959 II,
p. 1511), and Article 3 of the Law of 19 March l963 relating to the North­
Atlantic Fisheries Convention (B11ndesgezetzhlart 1963 Il, p. 157) shall cec~e
to have effect.

(2) The date on which
1. the Protocol relating to Panel Membership and to Regulatory Measures,

pursuant toits Article IV, paragraph (2);
2. the Protocol relating to Amendments to the Convention, pursuant to its
Article Il, paragraph (2);
3. the Proposai to supplement the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention,
pursuant to Article 7, paragraph (2), of that Convention,

enter into force for the Federal Republic of Germany, shall be published in
the Bundesgesetzblatt.

The constitutional rights of the Bundesrat (Federal Council) are observcd.
The foregoing Law is hereby promulgated.

Bonn, 25 August 1971.

·The Federal President

HEINEMANN
The Federal Chancellor

BRANDT

The Federal Minister of
Food, Agriculture and Forestry
J. ERTL

The Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs
SCHEEL CORRESPONDENCE 431

PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTHWEST
ATLANTIC FISHERIES RELATING TO PANEL MEMBERSHIP AND TO
REGULATORY MEASURES

The Governments parties to the International Convention for the North­
west Atlantic Fisheries signed at Washington under date of 8 February 1949,
which Convention as amended is hereinafter referred to as the Convention,

desiring to establish a more appropriate basis for the determination of re­
prescntation on the Panels established under the Convention, and desiring to
provide for greater flexibility in the types of fisheries regulatory measures
which may be proposed by the International Commission for the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries, agree as follows:

Article I

Paragraph 2 of Article IV of the Convention shall be amended to read as
follows:

2. Panel representation shall be reviewed annually by the Commission, which
shall have the power, subject to consultation with the Panel concerned, to
deterrnine representation on each Panel on the basis of current substantial
exploitation of the stocks of fish in the subarea concerned or on the basis

of current substantial exploitation of harp and hood seals in the Conven­
tion Area, except that each Contracting Government with coastline ad­
jacent to a subarea shall have the right of representation on the Panel for
the subarea.

Article II

Paragraph 2 of Article VJI of the Convention shall be amended to read as
follows:

2. Each Panel, upon the basis of scientific investigations, and economic and
technical considerations, may make recommendations to the Commission
for joint action by the Contracting Governments within the scope of para­
graph I of Article VIII.

Article III

Paragraph I of Article VIII of the Convention shall be amended to read as
follows:

I. The Commission may, on the recommendations of one or more Panels,
and on the basis of scientific investigations, and economic and technical
considerations, transmit to the Depositary Government appropriate
proposais, for joint action by the Contracting Governments, designed to
achieve the optimum utilization of the stocks of those species of fish which
support international fisheries in the Convention Area.

Article IV

I.This Protocol shall be open for signature and ratification or approval
or for adherence on behalf of any Government party to the Convention.432 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

2. This Protocol shall enter into force on the date on which instruments of

ratification or approval have been deposited with, or written notifications of
adherence have been received by, the Government of the United States of
America, on behalf of ail the Governments parties to the Convention.
3. Any Government which adheres to the Convention after this Protocol
has been opened for signature shall at the same time adhere to this Protocol.

4. The Government of the United States of America shall inform ail
Governments signatory or adhering to the Convention of ail ratifications or
approvals deposited and adherences received and of the date this Protocol
enters into force.

Article V

1. The original of this Protocol shall be deposited with the Governm.ent of
the United States of America, which Government shall communicate certified
copies thereof to ail the Governments signatory or adhering to the Con­
vention.
2. This Protocol shall bear the date on which it is opened for signature and

shall remain open for signature for a period of fourteen days thereafter, fol­
lowing which period itshall be open for adherence.

In Witness Whereof the undersigned, having deposited their rcpective full
powers, have signed this Protocol.

Done at Washington this first day of October 1969, in the English language.

PROTOCOL Tû THE INTERNATlONAL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTHWEST

ATLANTIC FISHER!ES RELATING TO AMENOMENTS TO THE
CONVENTION

The Governments partiesto the International Convention for the North­
west Atlantic Fisherîes signed at Washington under date of February 8, 1949,

which Convention, as amended, is hereinafter referred to as the Convention,
desiring to facilitate the entry into force of amendments to the Convention,
agree as follows:

Article I
Article XVH of the Convention is renumbered "Article XVIII" and a ne\\

Article XVII is inserted to read as follows:

"Article XVII

1. Any Contracting Government or the Commission may propose amend­
ments to this Convention to be considered and acted upon by a regular
meeting of the Commission or by a special meeting of the Commission called

in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6 of Article II of the Conven­
tion. Any such proposed amendment shall be sent to the Executive Secretary
at Ieast ninety days prior to the meeting at Which it is proposed to be acted
upon, and he shall immediately transmit the proposa! to ail Contracting
Governments and to ail Commissioners.

2. A proposed amendment to the Convention shall be adopted by the
Commission by a three-fourths rnajority of the votes of all Contracting

,J CORRESPONDENCE 433

Governrnents. The text of any proposed amendment so adopted shall be
transmîtted by the Depositary Governrnent to ail Contracting Governments.

3. Any arnendment shall take effect for ail Contracting Governments one
hundred and twenty days following the date on the notification by the
Depositary Government of receipt of written notification of approval by
three-fourths of ail Contracting Governments unless any other Contracting
Government notifies the Depositary Government that itabjects to the amend­
ment, within ninety days of the date on the notification by the Depositary
Govemrnent of such receipt, in which case the amendment shall not take
effect for any Contracting Government. Any Contracting Governrnent which
has objected to an amendment may at any time withdraw that objection. If
ail objections to an amendment are withdrawn, the amendment shall take
effect for ail Contracting Governments one hundred and twenty days fol­
lowing the date on the notification by the Depositary Government of receipt of
the last withdrawal.

4. Any Government which bccomes a party to the Convention after an
amendment has been adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article
shall be deerned to have approved the said amendment.
5. The Depositary Government shall promptly notify ail Contracting
Governments of the receipt of notifications of approval of amendments, the
receipt of notifications of objection or withdrawal of objections, and the e-ntry
into force of amendments."

Article II

1. This Protocol shall be open for signature and ratification or approval
or for adherence on behalf of any Governrnent party to the Convention.
2. This Protocol shall enter into force on the date on which instruments
of ratification or approval have been deposited with, or written notices of
adherence have been received by, the Government of the United States of
America, on behalf of ail Governments parties to the Convention.
3. Any Government which becomes a party to the Convention after this
Protocol has been opened for signature sha\l at the same time adhere to this
Protocol.
4. The Government of the United States of America shall inform ail

Governments signatory or adhering to the Convention of all ratifications and
approvals deposited and adherences received and of the date this Protocol
enters into force.
5. Any Protocol amending the Convention which has been signed but
which has not entered into force at the date of entry into force of the present
Protocol shall thereafter enter into force in accordance with the provisions
of the present Protocol, provided, however, that, if instruments of ratifi­
cation or approval or notices of adherence with respect to such Protocol have
been rcceived by the Depositary Governrnent from three-fourths of al! Con­
tracting Governments at the time of entry into force of the present Protocol,
the date on which the ninety, and one hundred and twenty, day periods
specified in the first sentence of paragraph 3 of Article XVII shall commence
with regard to such amendrnent shall be the date of entry into force of the
present Protocol.

Article Ill
1.The original of this Protocol shall be deposited with the Government of
the United States of America, which Government shall communicate certified434 FISHERIES JURJSDICTJON

copies thereof to ail the Governments signatory or adhering to the Conven­
tion.
2. This Protocol shall bear the date on which it is opened for signature and
shall remain open for signature for a period of fourteen days ·thereafter,
following which period it shall be open for adherence.

In Witness Whereof the undersigned, having deposited their respective full

powers, have signed this Protocol.
Done at Washington this sixth day of October 1970, in the English language.

Activation of Article7 (2)

The Commission agreed a proposai reading as follows:

"in accordance with Article 7 (1) of the Convention the Commission hereby
proposes that the following additions be made to the list of measures in
Article 7 (1):-

(g) any measure.s for the regulation of the amount of total catch and its
allocation to Contracting States in any period; and

(h) any measures for the regulation of the amount of fishing effort and its
allocation to Contracting States in any period."

Annex B

THIRD REGULATION lMPLEMENTlNG THE SEA FISHERIES CONVENTIONS LAW 1971
OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1972
[Translation 1}

By virtue of Articles 2 and 3 of the Sea Fîsheries Conventions Law 1971 of
25 August 1971 (Bundesgesetzblatt II, p. 1057) it is ordered as follows:

Section 1

(]) Fishing for herring (Clupea harengus L.) shall be subject to a licence
issued by the Federal Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forestry ("the
Federal Minister") in the following areas:

1. within that part of area NW 4 designated in Section 1 (1) (8)of the First
Regu!ation Implementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971 of
26 August 1971 (Bundesgesetzblatt II, p. 1065) which lies between the
boundary between areas NW 4 and NW 5 and the coasts of New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia and between a line running from the east coast of Nova

Scotia along 44°52' north latitude to 60° west longitude; thence southward
along that parallel to 44°10' north latitude; thence due east along that
parallel to 59° west longitude; thence to the south along that parallel to
39° north latitude; thence westward along that parallel up to the boundary
between areas NW 4 and NW 5;

1 Original text (Bundesgesetzblatt 1972 II, pp. 1109-1110) not reproduced. CORRESPOND ENCE 435

2. within area NW 5 designated in Section 1 (1) (9) of the First Regulation
lmplementing the Sea Fisherics Conventions Law 1971, as well as in the
waters adjacent thereto to the west and south between the east coast of the
United States, 35° north latitude and 65°401 west longitude.

(2) The masters ofvessels fishing for herring in the areas designated in para­
graph 1 above shall keep daily records of their catches, specifying the date,
position, quantity, waste, and utilization of the catch and stating the type of

fishing gear used as well as the amount of fishing effort (number of hauls
multiplied by fishing time).
(3) Fishing enterprises in possession of a licence issued under paragraph 1
above, shall upon request inform the Ferlerai lnstitute for the Exploration of
Fisheries and the Federal Office of Statistics of the dates of commencement 1·

and termination of their herring fishing and in substantiation thereof submit
the requisite statements and documents; if so requested they shall furthermore
submit the necessary statements and documents to prove that the amount of
herring catch is not in excess of the amount laid down in the licence.
(4) For the calendar year 1972 the catches made prior to the entry into

force of this Regulation shall be deducted frorn the amount stated in the
licences issued under paragraph I above.

Section 2

(1) Within that part of a'rea NE 1 designated in Section 1 (1) (1) of the
First Regulation Jmplementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971,
which lies around Jceland and which is delimited by straight lines betwcen the
following points: 68° N, 27° W; 68° N, 11° W; 63° N, 11° W; 63° N, 15° W;
62° N, 15° W; 62° N, 27° W (statistical area Va of the International Council

for the Exploration of the Sea), the total catch within one calendar year shall
not exceed 119,000 tons. Fishing within the said area shall be subject to a
licence îssued by the Federal Minister.
(2) Section 1, (2) to (4), shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Section 3

Within area NW 5 and within that part of area NW 4 designated in Section
(1) (1) it is forbidden to catch or retain on board herring of a size not
exceeding 22.7 centimetres measured from the tip ofsnout to thé:extreme end

of the tail fin (undersize herring). However, 10 percent of the total w~ight of
the herring caught by a vesse! within one calendar year in the areas designated
in the first sentence above,may be undersize.

Section 4

Any person who, wilfully or negligently,

1. contrary to Section 1 (1) fishes for herring in a closed area without a
licence;
2. contrary to Section 1 (2) or Section 2 (2) in conjunction with Section I (2)
fails to keep the prescribed record or to keep it properly or fully;
3. failsto comply, or to comply properly or fully, with a request pursuant to

Section I (3) or Section 2 (2) in conjunction with Section 1 (3);
4. contrary to Section 2 (l) fishes for herring in the area designated without a
licence, or FJSHERIES JURJSDICTION
436

5. contrary to Section 3 fishes for or retains on board undersize herring,
shall be deemed to have committed an offence within the mcaning of Article

6 (]) of the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971.

Section 5

Pursuant to Section 14 of the Third Transitional Law ( Überlei111ngsgese1z)
of 4 January 1952 (Bundesgesetzbfall 1, p.1)in conjunction with Article 7 of
the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971, the present regulation shall also be

applicable within the Land Berlin.

Section 6

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day after its promulgation.

Bonn, 6 September 1972
The Federal Minister
of Food, Agriculture and Forestry
J.ERTL

Annex C

THE FEDERAL MIN1STER OF FOOD, AGRJCUL TURE AND FORESTRY TO THE

GERMAN TRAWLER OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
16 Octobcr 1972.
[Translation IJ

Ref.: My Letter of 22 June 1972
Third Regulation Jmplementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law
1971

J.

The above-mentioned Regulation was issued on 6 September 1972 and
promulgated in the Bundesgesetzblatt (Ferlerai Law Gazette) Part Il,No. 61,

of 27 September 1972, page 1109, ten copies of which are enclosed here""ith.
ln deviation frorn the original draft, two major altcrations have been made:
1. In order to dispel doubts as toits constitutionality the Regulation has not

been given retroactive effect; however, ils Section 1, paragraph (4),
provides that catches made prior to the entry into force of the Regulation
shall be deducted from the amount laid down in the licences issued, so
that in effect the quotas granted cover the whole calendar year 1972.
'2. A new Section 2 takes into account the order of the International Court of
Justice of 17August 1972,and Jimits the German catch within the statistical
area "Iceland" to 119,000 tons for the year 1972.

1 Original text not reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 437

ln addition, 1 wish to inform you that the Soviet Union has already filled its
herring quota within arca 5 Z and has terminated its herring fishing there.

II.

After having heard the Federal Marketing Association of the Fish lndustry,
I hcrcby grant a licence to the entcrpriscs members of your Association to fish
for herring throughout the year 1972, subject to the provisions of Article 2,
paragraph (3), of the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law J971 (Bundesgesetzblatt
II, p. 1057).

J. in the area dcsignatcd in Section l, paragraph (1) No. (1),of the Third
Regulation Jmplementing the Sea Fisherics Conventions Law 1971 of
6 Septembcr 1972 (Bundesgesetzh/att Il,p. 1109). As soon as catches made
by the enterprises members of your Association have reached the amount of
100 tons, J must be informed immediately as well as of any further 100-ton
catch. 1 reservc the right to revoke this licence at any time since the total
herring catch limit for the Statc parties to the ICNAF is 1,000 tons only;

2. (a) to catch 2,500 tons of herring in the northern part of the area de­
signated in Section 1, paragraph (1), No. (2), of the Third Regulation
lmplementing the Sea Fisheries Convention Law 197l (statistical
part-area 5 Y of the International Fisheries Commission);
(b) to catch 31,600 tons of herring in the southern part of the area de­
signated in Section 1, paragraph (1), No. (2), of the Third Regulation
Implementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971 (statistical
sub-areas 5 Z and 6 of the International Commission for the North­
west Atlantic Fisheries): allocation to the enterprises concerned shall
be according to the schedule set out in your Jetter of 17 July 1978;,

3. to catch 119,000 tons of fish in thearea mentioned in Section 2, paragraph
(1), of the Third Regulation lmplcmc.-nting the Sea Fisheries Conventions
Law 1971. ln so far as you do not distribute this amount among the various
enterprises, 1 reserve the right to revoke this licence with regard to in­
dividual enterprises if this will be necessary in the interest of an equitable
utilization by ail entcrprises of the total quota granted.

The catches must be reported to the Federal lnstitute for the Exploration of

Fishcrics and the Federal Office of Statistics in the usual way. ln addition,
1 require immediate information of any termination of herring fishing in the
arcas dcsignated in paragraph 2 (a) and (h}.
Jn conclusion, 1 wish to point out that fishing enterprises catching herring
in excess of the amount pcrmittcd in the areas designated in paragraphs 1
and 2 above, or catching fish of all species in the area designated in paragraph
3 above, and fishing cntcrprises failing to keep, or to keep properly or fully,
the records prescribcd in Section 1, paragraph (2), of the Third Regulation
lmplemcnting the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971, may be liable to a

fine.
Will you plcasc confirm in writing that you have reccivcd this information
and cornmunicatcd its contents to the enterprises members of your Asso­
ciation.

By order
MOCKLINGHOFF438 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

Annex D

Registra/ion Form I b

[Not reproduced]

Annex E

Catch List

[Not reproduced]

Annex F

Registration Form 3

[Not reproduced]

Annex G

Fishing Log Book
[Not reproduced}

87. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

22 May 1973.

With reference to my Jetter of 7 May, a copy of which was, as mcntioncd in
the letter, communicated to the Agent of the United Kingdom in the Fisheries
Jurisdictioncase, Ihave the honour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy
of a letter from the United Kingdom Agent dated 14 May and received in the
Registry on 17 May.

88. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

30 May 1973.

I have the honour to inform you that the report on the orders issucd and
arrangements made by the Governmcnt of the Federal Republic of Germany
concerning the contre! and regulation of fish catches in the "Sea Area of
lceland" which 1 have submitted to the Court by my letter of 21 May 1973 in
compliance with paragraph (1) lit. (f) of the Court's Order of 17 August 1972
in the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. /ce/and} case,
has also been transmitted to the Government of lceland through the diplo­

matie channel. CORRESPOND ENCE
439

89.THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR
22 June 1973.

1.I have the honour to refer to operative paragraph (2) of the Order made
by the Court on 17 August 1972 which reads as follows:

"Unless the Court has meanwhile delivered its final judgment in the
case it shall, at an appropriate time before 15 August 1973 review the
matter at the request of either Party in order to decide whether the
foregoing measures shall continue or need to be modified or revoked."

2. Sînce it is clear that the Court will not deliver final judgment before
15 August 1973, the Government of the United Kingdom now ask the Court
to consider the measures and to confirm that they will continue without
modification until final judgment is given or until further order.
3. The measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 17 August 1972

were as follows:
{a) the United Kingdom and the Republic of lceland should each of them
ensure that no action of any kind is taken which might aggravate or
extend the dispute subrnitted to the Court;
{b) the United Kingdom and the Republic of Iceland should each of them
ensure that no action is taken which might prejudice the rights of the
other Party in respect of the carrying out of whatever decision on the

merits the Court may render;
(c) the Republic of Iceland should refrain from taking any measures to
enforce the Regulations of 14 July 1972 against vessels registered in the
United Kingdom and engaged in fishing activities in the waters around
Iceland outside the twelve-mile fishery zone;
(d) the Republic of Iceland should refrain from applying administrative,
judicial or othcr rncasures against ships registered in the United King­
dorn, their crews or other related persons because of their having
engaged in fishing activities in the waters around Iceland outside the
twelve-rnile fishcry-zone;
(e) the United Kingdorn should ensure that vessels registcred in the United

Kingdom do not take an annual catch of more than 170,000 metric tons
of fish from the "Sea Arca of lceland" as defined by the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea as area Va;
(f) the United Kingdom Government should furnish the Government of
Iceland and the Registry of the Court with all relevant information,
orders issued and arrangements made concerning the control and
regulation of fish catches in the area.
4. The Government of the United Kingdom for their part have complied

fully with the requirements of the Court's Ordcr. They have donc everything
within their power to ensure that no action of any kind is taken which might
aggravate or extend the dispute. They have done so in the face of serious
difficulties causcd by theGovernrnent of lceland. They have taken no action
which might prcjudice the rights of Iceland in respect of the carrying out of
whatever decision on the merits the Court may render.
5. The Governrnent of the United Kingdorn have introduced a statutory
scheme to ensurc that British vessels do not take an annual catch of more than
170,000 metric tons of fish from the "Sea Arca of lceland" and they have
given full particulars thereof, by letter of 19 December 1972, to the Registry440 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

of the Court. ln conformity with paragraph (!)of the measures indicatcd by
the Court, a copy of that letter was transmitted to the Government of lceland
on 3 January 1973. The Annex to the present letter gives details of fish taken
in the "Sea Arca of lceland" by British vessels sincc I September 1972. They

show that the catch up to 2 June 1973 was 106,259 metric tons. Later figures
will be put before the Court whcn the Government of the United Kingdom
make their oral observations to the Court on the prcsent request. The
Government of the United Kingdom repeat their assurance to the Court that
thcir statutory powers will, if ncccssary, be excrcised to ensure that British

vessels do not take more than 170,000 rnetric tons of fish from the said area
before I September 1972.
6. On the other hand, the Govcrnmcnt of lccland have unfortunately not
complied with the Court's Order. The Attorney-Gencral, in addressing the
Court on 5 January 1973 on behalf of the Governmcnt of the United King­

dom, gave somc account of the breaches of the Ortler which the Govcrnment
of lceland had committcd up to that date. ln their oral observations to the
Court on the prcsent request, the Government of the United Kingdom will
give the Court a full account of the still more serious brcaches of the Ortler
committed by the Government of lccland sinec that date and of the measures

taken by the Govcrnment of the United Kingdom in the light of those
breaches.
7. The Government of the United Kingdom subrnit that the Court's Ortler
of 17 August 1972 remains wholly appropriate to the situation and that no
modification of the measures indicated in that Order is required. Accordingly,

the Government of the United Kingdom now request the Court to confirm
that thosc measures will continue until the Court has given final judgment in
this case or until further order. At this stage of the procecdings, there would
secm to be little point in the Court's fixing a further date on which those
measures should again be reviewed. If there is at any time a change in the

situation, the Court may, under Article 61 (7) of the Rules of Court, revoke
or modify its decision.

Annex

WEEKLY LANDINGS BY UK TRAWLERS FROM THE "SEA AREA OF ICELAND''

Week ending Landings: (long tons)
cumulative totals

9 Septembcr 1972 338
16 Scptcrnber 1972 1,897

23 Scptcm ber 1972 4,217
30 Septcrnbcr 1972 7,931
7Octobcr 1972 11,364
14 Octobcr 1972 14,593
21 Octobcr 1972 17,607

28 Octobcr 1972 20,795
4 November 1972 24,023
11 November 1972 26,572
18 Novcrnber 1972 29,324 CORRESPOND ENCE 441

Week ending landings: (long tons)
cumulative totals

25 November 1972 31,149

2 December 1972 33,522
9 December 1972 36,677
16 Decembcr 1972 38,752
23 Dcccmber 1972 41,531

30 December 1972 43,497
6 January 1973 45,266
13 January 1973 46,462
20January 1973 48,365
27 January 1973 50,073

3 February 1973 51,477
10 February 1973 53,576
17 February 1973 56,007
24 February 1973 57,714
3 March 1973 59,348
10 March 1973 61,671

17 March 1973 64,415
24 March 1973 66,439
31 March 1973 69,356
7 April 1973 71,665

14 April 1973 74,050
21 April 1973 76,991
28 April 1973 79,857
5 May 1973 82,777
12 May 1973 83,670

19 May 1973 85,201
26 May 1973 87,062
2 June 1973 88,427

Note: The figures given in this Annex show the Janded (guttcd) weight since
in practice fish are weighed on landing rather than on being caught. The
catch (original) weight is higher and is obtained by applying a known factor
for each species of fish, which is <lctermined by the anatomical characteristics
of that species. For demersal spccies catch weights are betwcen 18 per cent.

and 20 per cent. higher than lan<led weights. The cumulative total of 88,427
long tons landed weight in fact represents a total catch weight of 106,259
metric tons.

90. THE AGENT OF TUE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

22 June 1973.

I rcfer to the Order made by the Court on 17 August 1972 in the Fisheries

Jurisdiction( Federal Republic of Germany v. lceland} case concerning the
Request for the lndication of lnterim Measures of Protection.
1. By paragraph (1) of the operative passage of its Order the Court had
indicated, pcnding its final dccision in the proceedings, the following proviw
sional measures:442 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

(a) The Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Iceland should

each of them ensure that no action of any kind is taken which might
aggravate or extend the dispute submitted to the Court;
(b) the Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of lceland should
each of them ensure that no action is taken which might prejudice the
rights of the other Party in respect of the carrying out of whatever

decision on the merits the Court may render;
(c) the Republic of Iceland should refrain from taking any measures to
enforce the Regulations of 14 July 1972 against vessels registered in the
Federal Republic and engaged in fishing activities in the waters around
Iceland outside the 12-mile fishery zone;

(d) the Republic of Iceland should refrain from applying administrative,
judicial or other sanctions or any other measures against ships registered
in the Federal Republic, their crews or other related persans, because of
their having engaged in fishing activities in the waters around Jceland
outside the 12-mile fishery zone;
(e) the Federal Republic should ensure that vessels registered in the Federal

Republic do not take an annual catch of more than 119,000 metric tons
of fish from the "Sea Area of Iceland" as defined by the International
Council for the Exploration of the Seas as area Va;
(!) the Government of t_heFederal Republic should furnish the Government
of Iceland and the Registry of the Court with ail relevant information,

orders issued and arrangements made concerning the contrai and
regulation of fish catches in the area.
In the succeeding paragraph (2) of the operative passage of its Order the

Court had stated:
Unless the Court has meanwhile delivered its final judgment in the
case, it shail, at an appropriate time before 15 August 1973, review the

matter at the request of either Party in order to decide whether the
foregoing measures shall continue or need to be modified or revoked.
2. As the Court, in the introductory words of paragraph (1) of the operative
part of its Order of 17 August 1972, had expressly stated that it indicated the

provisional measures "pending its final decision",the Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany interprets the Order of the Court in the sense
that it should normally remain operative until the final judgment will be
rendered by the Court in the proceedings, without prejudice of course, to the
Court's competence under Article 61, paragraph 7, of the Rules of Court to

review the matter at any time. It is true that in paragraph (2) of its Order the
Court had provided that it would before 15 August 1973 review the matter
"at the request of either Party" in order to decide whether the interim
measures indicated by the Court shall continùe or need to be modified or
revoked.
However, the Government of the Ferlerai Republic understands this part

of the Ortler not as providing for à definite time-limit for the duration of the
Court's Order of 17 August 1973, but rather as being a proviso which should
give either Party, apart from the Court's general competence to review the
matter ex officio, the opportunity to ask specifically for such a review by the
Court before the final judgment. Therefore, the Government of the Federal

Republic of Germany is of the opinion that the Court's Order of 17 August
1972 will continue to be operative after 15 August 1973 if neither Party asks
for such a review and the Court, too, does not consîder such a review being
necessary in view of the circumstances of the case. CORRESPOND ENCE 443

3. As it is within the competence of the Court to interpret the meaning
of its Order of 17 August 1972 if any doubts in this respect persist, the
Government of the Federal Republic leaves it to the Court to decide whether

the interpretation outlined in the preceding paragraph conforms with the
Court's own interpretation of its Order or whether, in the Court's view, it
would be necessary to takc a formai and express decision on the continuation
of its Order after 15 August 1973 at a specific request by the Federal Republic
to this effect. Whatever may be the view of the Court in this respect, the
Government of the Federal Republic considers it being imperative, in view
of the aggravated situation between the Parties which is due to the persistent
non-observance of the Court's Order by the Government of lceland, to ask
the Court to ensure by such procedure ::lsit considers appropriate for this
purpose, that the measures indicated in its Ortler of 17 August 1972 will
remain operative after 15 August 1973.
4. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has faithfully
observed its obligations under the Court's Order of 17 August 1972 and has
taken no action of any kind which might have been capable to aggravate or
extend the dispute between the Parties. I refer in this context to my letter of
21 May 1973 whereby I have furnished the Registry of the Court with an
relevant information on the mcasures taken by the Governrnent of the Ferlerai

Republic of Germany concerning the control of fish catches in the keland
area, and where I have stated that according to the provisional statistical
figures available to the Government of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany the
1annual catch taken by the vessels registered in the Ferlerai Republic of
Germany from the sea area of lceland in 1972 has been kept well below the
limit indicated by the Court in paragraph (]) (e) of the operative passage of
its Order of 17 August 1972. The fishing vessels of the Ferlerai Republic of
Germany have been carrying on their fishing operations in the waters around
Iceland to which they were entitled under international law and under the
Court's Ortler of 17 August 1972, in the normal way without taking any
provocative attitude which might have been capable of aggravating the
situation. No incidents have been due to any action of the vessels of the
Federal Republic of Germany; ail incidents that occurred since the Court's
Ortler of 17 August had been caused by illegal actions of the coastal patrol
boats of the Republic of keland in defiance of the express stipulations

contained in paragraph (1) (c)and ( d) of the operative passage of the Court's
Ortler.
5. The Government of Iceland, moreover, has openly declared that it
would not cornply with the Court's Order of 17 August 1972 and has given
plain evidence of its defiant attitude by the continuing actions of its coastal
patrol boats. The coastal boats of the Government of lceland had not only
illegally assumed police functions in the waters of the high seas outside the
12-mile limit by ordering the fishing vessels of the Federal Republic of
Germany to leave the 50-milc zone c1aimed by Iceland, but had also con­
tinuously used force against the vessels of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany
by tryîng and in many cases succeeding in cutting the trawl-wires or warps of
German trawlcrs. These actions do not only constitute an illegal use of force
and an arrogation of sovereign powers by the Government of lceland in
waters of the high seas; they also violate the generally recognized rules for
the safety of navigation. ln particular, these actions taken by the lcelandic
coastal patrol boats on the order of the Govcrnment of lceland constitute a
deliberate non-observance of the Court's Ortler of 17 August l972 by which
the Court had indicated that the Government of lceland should refrain from444 FJSf!ERIES JURISDICTION

taking any mcasurcs to cnforcc its Rcgulations of 14 July 1972 against vcssels

rcgistcrcd in the Fcdcral Republic or Gcrmany and cngagcd in fishing
activitics in the waters around lccland outsidc the 12-milc zone and, in
particular, refrain from applying administrative, judicial or othcr sanctions
or any othcr mcasurcs against ships rcgistcrcd in the Fcdcral Republic of
Gcrmany bccausc of thcir having cngagcd in fishing activitics in the waters

around lccland outsidc the 12-milc zone.
6. A list of incidents that have occurrcd sincc l Scptcmbcr 1972, the day
on which the lcclandic Rcgulations of 14 July 1972 wcrc put into cffcct, and
which have bccn causcd by illcgal actions of the lcclandic coastal patrol
boats against German fishing vessels in the waters of the high seas outside the

12-mile limit, has been attached hereto as A,mex A.
The list contains those incidents during the period from I September 1972
to the beginning of May 1972 which have been reported by the German
Trawler Owners' Association to the Government of the Federal Republic of
Gerrnany. The cases listed illustrate the continuous attempts by lcclandic
coastal patrol boats to interfere with the fishing operations of the German

fishing vcssels and to destroy or damage intentionally thcir fishing equipment
thercby causing not only considerable material loss but cven endangering the
safcty of the ship and the crcw. As the list of cases shows thcre have been 61
reported atternpts to eut the trawl-wires or warps of German fishing vcsscls.
ln 13 cases the trawl-wires or warps werc eut and in 10 cases the fishing gcar

had been lost thcreby. ln one case a member of the crew was injured having
becn struck by the brokcn end of a wire which nung back 10 the deck of the
trawler.
As it became apparent that the Governn1ent of keland had no intention
to comply with the Court's Order of 17 August 1972 and started to interfere

with the fishing operations of German fishing vessels wîthin the 50-milc zone
the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany continued its erTorts to
bring about an interim agreement with the Government of lceland in order
to prevent further incidents. ln September 1972 the Government of the
Federal Republic proposed trilateral talks betwcen lceland, the United
Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany for negotiating such an

interim agreement. The Government of lceland, however, refused to take up
negotiations on a trilateral basis but seemed to be inclined to enter into
negotiations on a bilateral basis. The Government of the Federal Republic,
through ils Ambassador in Reykjavik, invited the Government of lccland to
take up negotiations for the conclusion of an interim agreement with respect

to the exercise of the fishing rights of the Federal Republic on the waters
around lceland outside the 12-rnile limit during the pendency of the proceed­
ings before the Court. The Government of lceland, however, made it clcar
that il was not willing to start such negotiations until the Government of the
Federal Republic had bcforehand proposais for a possible interim settlernent

which the Government of lccland would consider as a sui table basis. Although
this demand for a prior conimitment by the Fcderal Republic bcfore the
beginning of negotiations was somewhat unusual, the Federal ReJ)ublic
being anxious to bring about an interim agreement as soon as possible in
order to prevcnt further incidents, evcntually agreed to this proccdure and on
12 February 1973 transmitted, through its Ambassador in Reykjavik, a paper

to the Government of lceland which contained dctailed proposais for such
an interim agreement. A copy of the paper has becn attached hercto as
Anne.\· B. The main fcatures of these proposais were that the Government of
the Fcderal Republic of Gerinany in conjunction with an agrccd catch CORRESPONDENCE 445

limitation would be prepared ta abstain voluntarily from cxercising its fishing

rights in certain areas within the 50-mile zone which would vary on a rota­
tional brsis from timc to time during the year and, in addition, to abstain
from fishing in certain specific arcas which arc known as spawning and
nursery grounds (conservation arcas) or which are frequcntcd by kclandic
small boat fishermcn. The proposai expressly stated that the interim agree­

ment would not arrect the basic question of the rights of the Fcdcral Republic
of Germany and its trawlcrs in the waters around lccland nor its positions
beforc the International Court of Justice. The Govcrnment of lccland
indicatcd its willingncss to enter into ncgotiations on the basis of these
proposais, and talks wcrc held bctwecn reprcsentatives of bath Governments

in Reykjavik on 3 and 4 April 1973. During thcse talks, howcver, the repre­
sentatives of the Government of the Federal Republic were unexpected\y
again confrontcd with a refusai of the Government of keland to negotiate an
interim agrecn1ent on the proposcd basis bccausc, in the vicw of the Govcrn­
ment of kcland, these proposais were still unacceptable. lnstead, the Govern­

ment of lceland presented a counter-proposal the main points of which
consisted in asking the Federal Republic of Germany to refrain from exer­
cising its fishing rights within a 25-30-milc zoned to refrain from e111ploying
factory ships or freezer trawlers in the rcmaining part of the 50-milc zone
around lccland; in addition, fishing vcsscls of the Federal Republic of
Germany operating within that remaining part should be subject ta catch

limitation,as well as to contrai and enforccment by the lcelandic coastal
patrol. Thcsc lcclandic proposais were unacccptablc for the Fcdcral Republic
of Gcrmany. They would not only rcsult in a drastic rcduction of the
obtainab\c catch by the fü:.hing vesscls of the Fcdcral Republic, but would
also seriously prejudice the fishing rights of the Fcderal Republic in the

waters of the high seas around lccland. A new round of talks is scheduled for
29 June 1973. The attitude so far shown by the Government of Iccland as
well as the actions of its coastal pat roi boats against the vessels of the Ferlerai
Republic have aggravated the dispute to Such an extent that the necd for
interim protection of the rights of the Fcdcral Republic of Gcrmany during

the pendency of the proccedings is now even more apparent than it was
already at the time when the Court made its Order of 17 August 1972. Linder
these circumstances the Government of the Federal Republic of Gcrmany
considers it necessary to ask the Court to issue an urgent appeal to the
Parties to refrain rrom any further action which might aggravate the dispute,
and in particular to call upon the Republic of lceland which until now had

thought it fit to disregard the Court's Ordcr of 17 August 1972, to comply in
future with the measures indicated in the Court's Order of 17 August 1972.
8. In its reasons for the Order made on 17 August 1972 the Court had
statcd that the provisional measures indicated under Article 41 of its Statute
had the abject to prescrve the respective rights of the Parties pending the

final decision of the Court so that no irrcparable prcjudicc should be caused
to rights which are the subjcct of dispute and that the Court's judgmcnt
should not be anticipated by rcason of any initiative rcgarding the measures
which arc in issue. The Court had furthcr stated that the implcmentation by
lccland of its Rcgulations of 14 July 1972 conccrning the extension of its

fishery jurisdiction to a 50-milc zone would, by anticipating the Court's
judgmcnt, prcjudicc the rights claimcd by the Federal Republic of Germany
and arTect the possibility of thcir full restorationin the cvcnt of a judgment
jn its favour. Thcse rcasons on which the Court relicd for the measures
indicated in ils Order of 17 August 1972, are still valid today and, in view of 446 FISHERIES JURISDICT!ON

the attitude of the Government of fceland, will remain valid in the future as
long as no interim agreement between the Parties is forthcoming which

· effectively preserves and protects the fishing rights of the Federal Republic
in the waters of the high seas around Jceland.
9. Therefore, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
respectfully requests the Court to consider the following:

(1) that the measures indicated in the Order of 17 August 1972 should be
maintained and continued after 15 August 1973 pending the final decision
of the Court in the dispute between the Parties;
(2) that the Government of the Republic of lceland should be called upon to

comply with the measures indicated by the Court in its Order of 17 August
1972 and in particular to refrain in future from any action against the
vessels of the Federal Republic of Germany engaged in fishing activities in
the waters around Iceland outside the 12-mile limit;

(3) that the Parties should again be adrnonished to ensure that no action of
any kind is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute submitted
to the Court.

AnnéxA

ÜBSTRUCTIVE AcTIVITY AND INCIDENTS W!THIN THE 12-50 SEA MILE ZONE

OFF ]CELANO
[See Annex L to the Federal Republic of Germany Memorial on the

Merirs of the Dispute, pp. 279-284, supra, Nos. (1)-(73)}

Annex B

PROPOSALS OF THE ÜOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF ÜERMANY OF 12 FEBRUARY 1973

[See A11nex D ta the Federal Republic of Germany Memorial on the
Merits of the Dispute, pp. 269-270, supra]

91. THE REG!STRAR TO THE MIN!STER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND 1

(te/egram)
22 June 1973.

Have honour inform Your Excellency that letter from Agent of United

Kingdorn in Fisheries Jurisdiction case filed today refers to Courl's Order of
17 August 1972 and to alleged breaches of said Order by Iceland and con­
tinues:

"Government of the United Kingdorn submit that the Court's Order
of 17 August 1972 rernains wholly appropriate to the situation and that
no modification of the measures indicated in that Order is required.

Accordingly the Government of the United Kingdom now request the

1 A similar communication was sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland
regarding theFedera/ Republic of Germany v. !ce/and case. CORRESPONDENCE 447

Court to confirm that those measures will continue until the Court has
given final Judgment in this case or until further Ortler."
Copy of letter airmailed express to you today.

92. THE REGISTRAR "fO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO l
22 June 1973.

Express Airmail
I refer to my cable of today's date, a confirmatory copy of which isenclosed,
and have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of a letter

received in the Registry today from the Agent of the United Kingdom in the
Fi'sheriesJ11risdicrio1(1United Ki11gdomv. lceland) case.

93,THE REG!STRÀR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED K!NGDOM

27 June 1973~
I have the honour to confirm the information conveyed to you yesterday
by telephone, namely that the Court does not find it necessary to hold a

public hearing in respect of the request of the United Kingdom Government,
made in your letter of 22 June 1973, for confirmation of the continuance in
force of the interim measures of protection indicated on 17 August 1972 in the
Fi.sheriesJ11risdicrio1(1United Kingdom v. lce!and) case; and that the decision
of the Court on the said request will be made known in due course.

94. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS Of !CEi.AND

28 June 1973.

Ihave the honour to enclose for Your Excellency's information a copy of
a Ietter which l addressed yesterday to the Agent of the United Kingdom in
the Fisheries J11risdictiocase ( United Kingdom v. /ce/a11d).

95. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN Aff AIRS OF !CEi.AND TO THE REGISTRAR

(telegram)

2 July 1973.

With reference to your telegrams and letters of22 June 1973 1wish to recall
the protests made by the lcelandic Government on 28 July1972 and 4 Decem­
ber 1972 against an indication by the Court of provisional measures in
August 1972.
The Government or lceland now protests against the continuation of
measures indicated.
The extension of the fishery limits of Iceland was efîected in order to
protect vital interests of the kelandic nation and conserve fish stocks in

1 A.communication in the same terms was sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Iceland regarding the Federa/Republicof Germany v. /cecase.448 F1St1Ell.1ES JUll.lSl)fCT!ON

arcas within as wcll as outsidc the former 12-milc limit. This has not bccn

rcspccled by the United Kingdom. British and tcclandic catches continue to
dccrcasc pcr unit clîort and small immature fish of the 1970 ycar-class which
is the onfy known sizcablc ycar-dass and should constitutc the main source
of supply in 1976-78 (and the ncccssary rccruitment) arc now incrcasingly

bcing landcd in United Kingdom ports.
On the basis of the said Coun's Ordcr the United Kingdom sent their navy
inside the fisherics limits thus suspcnding further negotiations for the settle­
mcnt of the dispute after having offcred a catch limitation of 145 thousand
tons on annual basis which rny Govcrnment considcrs excessive. Sincc 1969

the share of Jceland in the total dcrmcrsal catch in the lccland arca has bccn
reduccd from approx. (,0pcr cent. to approx. 53 pcr cent.
The basic prorosition maintaincd by lccland is lhat highly mobile fishing
lleets of the distant-water fishing nations should not be allowcd to cause
dangcrous fluctuations in the catch rates and inllict a constant thrcat of the

dctcrioration of the fishstocks and thus cndangcr the viability of a one-source
economy. Jtis submiLted that the Court by cndeavouring to frcczc the prcsent
dangcrous situation is complctcly ignoring the scicntific and econornic facts
of the case. ln that nwnncr irrcparablc harm n1ight be donc to the intcrcsts of

the lcclandic nation for the tcmporury bcncfit of priva te industries in a forcign
country.

96. TIIE AGENT FOH TIIE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

TO THE REGISTRAR
4 July 1973.

I have the honour to acknowlcdgc rcccipt of your lettcr of 2 July 1973
enélosing a copy of a tclcgram rcccivcd on that day from the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of the Govcrnmcnt of lccland. The Govcrnmcnt of lccland
have refuscd to acccpt the Court"s decision that it has jurisdiction in this

mattcr and have rcfuscd to appc,ir before the Court to rnakc any submissions
or tender to it in thesc procccdings any cvidcncc in support of thcir conten­
tions, ln particular thcy have not so tendcrcd any cvidcncc of what arc
dcscribcd in the tclcgram as "the scicntific and cconornic facts of the case". ln
thesc circumstanccs, the Govcrnmcnt of the United Kingdom do not consider

that it would be appropria te for thcm, unlcss the Court so wishcs, to olîer any
observations on the contents of the tclcgram. But thcy would of course be
ready at any timc to su bmit such observations as the Court might indicate
would be of assistance to it.

97. THE REGIST!l.AR Tû THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN Al'FA!ll.S OF ICELAND 1

(telegram)

12 July 1973.
Have honour inform you that Court today, 12 July, made two separatc

Orders 2 in proccedings conccrning Fisheries Jurisdiction institutcd by United
Kingdorn and Fcdcral Republic of Gcrmany. In cach Ordcr the Court:

1
Sirnilar communications were sent 10 the Agcnls for the Govcrnmenls of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Gcrmany. ·
2 I.C.J. Reports /973, pp. 302 and 313. CORRESPONDENCE 449

"Confirms that the provisional rneasures indicated in operative

paragraph l of the Order of 17 August 1972 shm,ld, subjct:l to the power
of revocation or modification conferred on the Court by paragraph 7 of
Article 61 of the 1946 Ru les, remain operative until the Court has given
final judgmcnt in the case."

One official copy of each Ordcr cxpressed lO you today and ol1icial trans·
mission follows.

98. TIIE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRET/\R Y·GENERAL OF TH(
UNITED NATIONS l

12 July 1973.

J have the honour, in accordance with Article 41, paragraph 2, of the
Statutc of the Court and with rcfcrcncc to the Ordcr made hy the Court on
17 August 1972 in the c,ise concerning Fislrcrie.1J·11ri.1dic1(1U11i1cdKinplum
v. Jce/a11d), to scml you hcrcwith an o11icial copy for transmission to the

Security Council of an Ordcr of today's date whcrcby the Court, following a
request which the Govcrnmcnt of the United Kingdon, submittcd on 22 June
1973 under operativc paragraph (2) of the Ordcr of J7 August 1972, has
confirmed that the intcrim mcasures of protection indicated thercin should
remain operative unü\ the Court has givcn final judgmcnt in the case.

99. TIit AGENT FOR THE FEDE:RAI. REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
TO TUE R!:GISTRAR

13 July 1973.

I have the honour to acknowlcdge the rcccipt of your lcttcr of 2 July 1973
containing a copy of the tclcgram receivcd by the Court from the Ministcr for
Foreign AfTairs of lccland on 2 July 1973. .

The telegram of the lcclandic Minister does not rcfcr specifica lly to facts
or considcrations containcd in my lettcr of 22 June 1973 rclating to the
continuation of the Court 's Order of 17 August 1972; it contains, howevcr,
some remarks alleging a deterioration of fishstocks in the lceland Arca. Thcse
remarks do not constitutc an adequate presentation of the facts. The Govern­

ment of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany will, in its Mcmorial to be filcd on
1 August 1973, comment in more dctail on the factual situation in the lceland
Arca.

100. Tllfc DEPUTY·REG!STRAll 1·0 T\IE MINISTER fOR fOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ICE:LAND

18 July 1973.

l have the honour, with refercnce to the cases concerning Fisheries Juris·
dic1io11( United Kingdom v. Jceland; Federal Republic of Germany v. /ce/and),

l A communication in the samc terms was sent ta the Secrctary-Gencral of the
United Nations rcgarding the Federal Republic ofGermany v. Jcelandcase. 450 FISHERIES JURISDICTiON

to enclose herewith copies of letters dated respectively 4 July and 13July 1973
frorn the Agents of the applicant Governrnents, containing observations on
Your Excellency's telegram of 2 July 1973.
(Signed) W. TAIT.

101. LE GREFFIER ADJOINT AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES
D'AFGHANISTAN 1
20 juillet 1973.

Le Greffier adjoint de la Cour internationale de Justice a l'honneur de
transmettre, sous ce pli, un exemplaire de l'ordonnance rendue par la Cour
le 12juillet 1973 prévoyant le maintien en vigueur de mesures conservatoires
dans l'affaire relativeà la Compétence en matière de pêcheries( Royaume-Uni
c. Islande).
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.

102. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFfAlRS Of !CELANO TO lHE REGISTRAR

(te/egram) 23 July 1973.

I have the honour to refer to your telegram of July 12 1973 concerning
the Orders of the Court of that date continuing interim measures of protection
in the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases.
The Government of Iceland main tains ail the reservations previously made

with regard to al! questions of jurisdiction and admissibility. With regard to
the scientific and factual aspects I wish to state that scientific evidence shows
clear signsof overfishing of the cod stocks in Icelandic waters. The proportion
of immature fish in the total catch of cod has increased at an alarming rate in
the past few years, and catch per unit effort of a!l vesse! and gear categories
has gone down for all demersal species including cod. This is inter a/ia shown
by the report of the joint ICNAF/ICES Working Group on the state of the
cod stocks in lhe North Atlantic, particular/y in the Jight of developments
since that report was made.

In the opinion of my Government the continued maintenance of the interim
measures which have ulready led to serious incidents will cause irreparable
prejudicc to the rights of lceland. It is also to be noted that, as appears from
the discussions in the 27th session of the General Assembly of the United
Nations and the work in 1973 of the Sea-Bed Committee in preparation for
the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference, the international community
today generally supports extensive coastal jurisdiction over fisheries which
takes fullaccounl of the vital interests of the coastal Statc in the conservation
and exploitation of the resources of the coastal area. ltis inter alia in the Iight

of this that the Government of lceland must take all the necessary measures
to protect the vital interests of the lcelandic nations.
ln consequence, 1have the honour to inform you that while reserving ail
ils rights, theGovernment of lceland is unable to modify its position with
regard to the interim measures.

1 Cette communication a étéadressée,pour chacune des deux affaires, aux Etats
Membresdes Nations Uniesetaux Etats non membresdes Nations Uniesadmis àester
devant la Cour.

l CORRESPONDENCE 451

103. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
' OF THE UNITED K!NGDOM l

24 July 1973.
l have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a telegram received
yesterday from the Foreign Minister of Iceland referring to the telegram by

which the Government of lccland was notified of the Order made by the Court
on 12July 1973 in the Fisheries Jurisdiction ( United Ki11g(/om v, /ce/and) case.

104. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO Tl!E REGlSTRAR

31 July 1973.
l have the honour to refer to the Order made by the Court on 15 February

1973 and to transmit herewith one signed copy and twenty-nine unsigned
copies of the Memorial of the United Kingdom (together with the Annexes
thcreto) 2 on the merits of the dispute. Because of their bulk the remaining
ninety-five unsigned copies are being sent to you separately.

105. THE AGENT FOR THE GOYERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

31 July 1973.

Ihave the honour to refer to my letters to you of today's date, under cover
of which l transmitted to you the Memorial of the United Kingdom (together
with the Annexes thereto) on the merits of the dispute as required by the
Order made by the Court on 15 February 1973. At various points in the
Memorial reference is made to documents 3 which, because of their length,

are not themselves annexed and in each case the Memorial states that a copy
of the document will be communicated to you in accordance with Article 43
( 1)of the Rules of Court. lenclose with this letter a list of the documents so
referred to (with an indication, in each case, of the passage in the Memorial
in which the reference is first to be found) and one copy of each of those
documents.

List of documents communicated to the Registrar in accordance with
Article 43 (1) of the Rules of Court:

A. Report of ICES/ICNAF Working Group on Cod Stocks in the North
Atlantic (C.M. 1972/F:4)
Paragraph 76: foomote

1 A communication in the same terms was sent to the Agent for the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany,
2 I, pp.267-432.
J Not reproduced.452 FISHERIESJURISDICTION

B. United Kingdom Sea Fisheries Statistical Tables, 1971
Paragraph 77: Jootnote

C. ICES Report of North-Western Working Group, 1970 (Liaison Commit­
tee/Li: 3, February I971)
Ibid.

D. Review of the Status of Sorne Heavily Exploited Fish Stocks, FAJ
Fisheries Circular No. 313, FID/C/313
Paragraph 7~

E. ICNAF Annual Proceedings, Vol. 22, 1971-72
Paragraph 81: footnote

F. NEAFC, Summary Record for 7th Session of 11th Meeting (NC 11/195,
7th Session)
Paragraph 82: foot note

G. NEAFC, Summary Record for 8th Session of 11th Meeting (NC 11/195,
8th Session)
Ibid.

H. lcelandic Government pamphlet: /ce/and and the Law of the Sea
Paragraph 84

I. List of Recommendations by NEAFC currently in force
Paragraph 96: footnote

J. NEAFC, Summary Record for 3rd Session of 10th Meeting (NC/175,
3rd Session)
Paragraph 98: footnote

K. NEAFC Summary Record for 2nd Session of 11th Meeting (NC 11/195,
2nd Session)
Ibid.

L. NEAFC 11th Meeting, Conclusions and Recommendations (NC 11/204)
Paragraph 99: /ootnote

M. NEAFC, Scheme of Joint Enforcement
Paragraph /02

N. NEAFC, Report of 5th Meeting
Paragraph 105: footnote

O. NEAFC, Report of 6th Meeting
Paragraph 109: footnote
P. NEAFC, Summary Record of 8th Session of 6th Meeting (NC 6/90,

8th Session)
Paragraph JJO:footnote

Q. NEAFC, Report of !CES Liaison Committee for 1971 (NC 9/141)
Paragraph JJ2: footnote
R. NEAFC, Summary Record for 7th Session of 9th Meeting (NC 9/150,
7th Session)

Paragraph Jl3: Jootnote
S. NEAFC, 9th Meeting, Conclusions and Recommendations (NC 9/163)
Paragraph 119: footnote CORRESPOND ENCE
453

T. NEAFC, Summary Record for 3rd Session of Special Ministerial
Meeting (NC M/7, 3rd Session)
Paragraph 117: footnote

U. NEAFC, Report of !CES Liaison Committee for 1972 (NC 10/165)
Paragraph 118: footnote
V. OECD Draft Revicw of Fisheries in Member Countries, 1972
Paragraph J23: foot note

W. OECD Economie Surveys: "lceland", March 1972
Paragraph 129: footnote

X. Limits and Status of the Territorial Sea, Exclusive Fishing Zones,
Fishery Conservations Zones and the Continental Shelf, FAO Fish­
eries Circular No. 127, FID/C/127
Paragraph 245: footnote

Y. International Boundary Study, Series A, Limits in the Seas, "National
Ciaims to Maritime Jurisdictions", No. 36, March 1973
Ibid.

106. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGJSTRAR

31 July 1973.

I have the honour to refer to the letter to you, dated 14 April 1972, from
Her Britannic Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at The Hague, in which he notified
you, in accordance with Article 35 (2) of the Rules of Court, of my appoint­
ment as Agent for the Government of the United Kingdom for the purposes
of the procecdings in the above case. I now have the honour to notify you
that my place as Agent will be taken, as from 2 August 1973, by Mr. David
Heywood Anderson, one of the Legal Counsellors in the Foreign and Com­
monwealth Office.
Mr. Anderson's address for service will be the British Embassy at The

Hague. I certify that the signature below mine on this letter is Mr. Anderson's
signature.

107.THE REGISTRAR TO THE MJ:,,,:JSTERFOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
31 July 1973.

I have the honour to send you herewith five copies, one of which is a
certified true copy, of the Memorial on the merits of the dispute in the
Fisher/es Jurisdictiou ( United Kingdom v. !celand), case filed today in the
Registry of the Court by the Agent of the United Kingdom. I also enclose

copies of two letters from the United Kingdom Agent, one of which concerns
certain documents referred to in the Memorîal, and the other the appointment
by the United Kingdom of Mr. D. H. Anderson as Agent in place of Mr.
H. Steel. The documents listed in the attachment to the first of these Jetters
have been deposited in the Registry in accordance with Article 43, paragraph
1, of the 1946 Rules of Court, and will thus be available for consultation by
the representativcs of Iceland.454 FISHERTES JURISDICTION

108. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

lAugust 1973.

I have the honour to transmit herewith, in accordance with the Court's
Order of 15 February 1973, one signed copy of the Memorial l of the
Government of the Federal Republic on the Merits in the Fisheries Jurisdiction
(Federal Republic of Germany v. !cela11d)case, together with 35 additional
mimeographed copies of that Memorial.

109. THE DEPUTY·REGISTRAR TO THE MINISiER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
1 August 1973.

I have the honour to send you herewith a certified copy of the Mcmorial
of the Federal Republic of Germany on the merits of the dispute in the
Fislreries Jurisdicrion (Federal Republic of Germany v. !ce/and) case, which

was filed in the Registry today. Two further copies arc bcing sent under
separate caver; additional printed copies will be dcspatched to you in duc
course.

110. THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
TO THE REGISTRAR

1 August 1973.

I have the honour to refer to my letters of 21 July 1972 and 6 October 1972
whereby I notificd the Court that the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany would like to avail itself of the right under Article 31, para­
graph 3, of the Statu te of the Court to choose a persan to sil as judge ad hoc

in the Fisheries J11risdic1io11{Federal Republic of Germa11y v. /cela11d) case.
In the Public Sitting 2, hcld on 8 January 1973, the President of the Court
stated that the Court, after deliberating on this question, had been unable
to find that the appointment of a judge ad hoc by the Federal Republic of
Germany in that phase of the proceedings would be admissible. The President
added, however, lhat this decision of the Court affected only that phase of the
proceedings, that is to say that concerning the jurisdiction of the Court, and

does not in any way prejudice the question whether, if the Court finds that
it has jurisdiction, a judge ad hoc might be chosen to sit in subsequent stages
of the case. In its Judgment 3 of 2 February 1973, the Court explained this
decision by stating that, taking into account the proceedings instituted
against Iceland by the United Kingdom on 14 April 1972 and the composition
of the Court in that Case which includes a judge of United Kingdom nation­
ality, the Court had found that there was, in the phase of the proceedings

concerning the jurisdiction of the Court, a common interest in the sense of
Article 31, paragraph 5, of the Statute which justified the refusa! of the
request of the Federal Republic of Germany for the appointment of a judge
ad hoc.

t See pp. 141-265, supra.
2 See p. 120, supra.
3 J.C.J.Reports 1973, p. 51_.. CORRESPONDENCE 455

have the honour to state,. on behalf of the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany, that the Government of the Federal Republic proceeds
on the assumption that its requcst to have a judge ad hoc in this case still
stands. However, the Government of the Federal Republic, before taking a
decision on the nomination of a person to sit as judge ad hoc in the future
proceedings in this case, would like to know whether in the opinion of the

Court, in the prcsent phase of the proccedings a common interest continues
to exist which might be rcgardcd as an obstacle to the admission of a judge
ad hoc.

111. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
3 August 1973.

I have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a letter received in the
Registry on I August 1973 from the Agent for the Federal Republic of
Germany in the Fisheries Jurisdirtioncase.

112. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
17 August 1973.

I have the honour to refer to paragraph 7 of the Court's Judgment of
2 February 1973 in the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federa/ Repuhlic ofGermany v.
!ce/and) case, and to the dccision of the Court, recorded in that paragraph,
that, taking into account the proceedings instituted by the United Kingdom,
and the composition of the Court in the case between the Federat Republic
and lceland, there was in that phase of the latter case a cornrnon interest in
the sense of Article 31, paragraph 5, of the Statute which justified the
refusai of the request of the Federal Republic for the appointment of a judge

ad hoc.
In this connection, I have the honour to confirrn the information already
conveyed orally to your predecessor as Agent, narnely that the Court does
not propose to take a decision at this time on the question of appointrnent of
a judge ad hoc by the Fcdcral Republic of Germany to sit in the present phase
of the procccdings institutcd by the Ferlerai Republic, it being understood
that this does not irnply any taking of position by the Court on this question.
In deciding to defcr its decision, the Court took into account that it would
shortly be in possession of the Mernorial of the Federal Republic on the

rnerits of the case betwecn the State and lceland, and of the Mernorial of the
United Kingdorn on the rnerits of the case between the United Kingdorn and
Iceland, both of which have in fact now been filed, Furtherrnore the Court
was aware that your predecessor as Agent had expressed on behalf of your
Governrnent the wish of your Governrnent to present observations on any
conternplated joinder of these proccedings with those instituted by the Federal
Republic of Germany; and the Court considers that these observations should
now be made availahle to it.

Accordingly, 1 have the honour to inforrn you that the Court has fixed
30 Septernber 1973 as the time-lirnit within which any written observations
which the Governrnent of the United Kingdorn rnay wish to present on the
question of possible joinder of the two Fisheries Jurisdiction ( United Kingdom
v. /ce/and and Federa/ Republic of Germany v. /ce/ami) cases are to be filed.456 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

The Government of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany is being similarly
invited to present its observations on joinder; ànd a copy of this letter is being
transmitted to the Government of Iceland.

113. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
17 August 1973.

I have the honour to refer to your letter of 1 August I973, by which you
inform me, with reference to the decision of the Court refusing the request of
the Federal Republic of Germany for the appointment of a judge ad hoc to

sit in the jurisdictionphase of the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of
Germany v. lce/and) case, that the Governrnent of the Federal Republic
proceeds on the assumption that its request to have a judge ad hoc in that
case still stands; and that that Government, before taking a decision on the
nomination of a person to sit in that capacity, would like to know whether
in the opinion of the Court, in the present phase of the proceedings a common
interest continues to exist which rnight be regarded as an obstacle to the

admission of a judge ad hoc.
In this connection, I have the honour to confirm the information already
conveyed to you orally, narnely that the Court does not propose to take <1.
decision at this time on the question of the appointrnent of a judge ad hoc by .
the Federal Republic to sit in the present phase of the proceedings, itbeing
understood that this does not irnply any taking of position by the Court on

the question.
In deciding to defer its decision, the Court took into account that it would
shortly be in possession of the Memorial of the Federal Republic on the
rnerits of the case, and Of the Memorial of the Government of the United
Kingdom in the proceedings insrituted by that Governrnent against keland,
both of which have in fact now been filed. Furthermore the Court was aware
that you had exPressed on behalf of your Governrnent the wish of your

Government to present observations on any contemplated joînder of these
proceedings with those instituted by the United Kingdorn; and the Court
considers that these observations should now be made available toit.
Accordingly, I have the honour tq inform you that the Court has fixed
30 September 1973 as the time-limit within which any written observations
which the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany may wish to
present on the question of possible joinder of the two Fisheries Jurisdiction

( Federa/ Republic of Germany v. /ce/and and United Kingdom v. lceland)cases
are to be filed.
The Government of the United Kingdom is being similarly invited to
present its observations on joinder; and a copy of this letter is being trans­
mitted to the Government of Iceland.

114. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

25 September 1973.
I have thehonour to refer to your letter of t7 August 1973 in the Fisheries
Jurisdiction (Federa/ Re[)uhlic of Germany v. /ce/and) case by which you
informed me that observations of the Government of the Federal Republic CORRESPONDENCE 457

of Germany with respect to a possible joinder of the proceedings in this case
with those instituted by the United Kingdom against lceland should be made
available to the Court until 30 ::ieptember 1973. In response to this request,
I respectfully submit, on behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany, the following observations:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany is·aware of the fact
that important legal issues arc common to both proceedings; the Court will,
however, recognize that the facts and considerations as well as the submis­
sions put forward in the Memorials on the Merits filed by the Government of

the United Kingdom and by the Government of the Federal Republic
respectively dilfer,nd that the disputes submitted to the Court in both cases
have distinct features. Moreover, the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany attaches great value to pleading its case separately and proposing
its own submissions. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
has on the other hand no objection to and would favour the continuance of
the co-ordination of the proceedings in both cases with respect to their timing
as practised previously, if that would be convenient to the Court. ln view of
these considerations the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

is of the opinion that thcrc is no sufficient reason for a formai joinder of the
proceedings in both cases 1.
1 have the further honour to revert to the question of the appointment of a
judge ad hoc and to inform the Court, on behalf of the Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany, of the following: The Government of the
Federal Republic has examined this question in the light of the situation in
the present phase of the proceedings. The Government of the Federal
Republic takes account of the fact that the Government of Iceland still
declines to take part in the proceedings and to avail itself of the right to have
a judge ad hoc on the bench of the Court, and, as long as this situation persists,

the Government of the Federal Republic, for its part, does not feel it neces­
sary to insist on the appointment of ajudge ad hoc.

115. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

26 September 1973.
1. I have the honour to refer to your letter dated 17 August 1973 and

respectfully to submit the following observations of the Government of the
United Kingdom on the question of possible joinder of the two Fisheries
Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Icela11dand Federai Republic of Germany V.
/celand) cases.
2. The Government of the United Kingdom have given the most careful
consideration to this question. There are of course legal issues and other
features which are common to the two cases, but as the Court will be aware
from the Memorials on the Merits which have already been filed by the
Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany, there arc also differences as to the facts of the two

cases and in the considerations and submissions presented by the two
Governments. If the cases wcre joined these differences could give rise to

1 See p.289, supra.458 FISHERIES JURlSDICTION

practical difficultiesin the conduct of the proceedings and hamper the
parties in the prescntation of their cases. The Govcrnment of the United
Kingdom thereforc attach importance to being able to conduct their own
case separately as in the earlier stages of the procccdings.

3. ln view of the above considerations, the Governmcnt of the United
Kingdom wish respectfully to state that they do not wish their case to be
joined to that bctwcen the Federal Republic of Gcrn1any and lccland 1.

(Sig11ed) D. H. ANDERSON.

116. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER fOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
28 September 1973.

1 refer to my lctter of 17 August 1973, with which I sent Your Excellency
copies of the letters I had on that date addrcsscd to the Agents of the United

Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Gcrmany in the Fisheries J11risdic1io11
cases; I now have the honour in this connection to scnd Your Excellency
herewith a copy of a letter dated 26 September 1973 from the Agent of the
United Kingdom, and a copy of a letter dated 25 Septcmbcr 1973 from the

Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany, both of which were received in
the Registry today.

117. THE AGENT FOR HIE GOVERNMENT OF HIE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR
25 October 1973.

1. f have the honour to refer to the letter of the Agent for the Government
of the United Kingdom dated 19 December 1972 conccrning parn.graphs 1
(e) and 1 (/) of the Order made by the Court on 17 August 1972 indicating

Interim Measures of Protection.
2. In compliance with the said paragraph 1 (!),1 now have the honour to
sup.ply the following further information to the Court. Accordi ng to informa­
tion supplied to the competent British authorities in accordance with the

legislation in force in the United Kingdom, the total catch ofvessels registered
in the United ~ingdom in the ycar from I Septembcr 1972 to 31 August 1973
from the "Sea Arca of lceland", as defined by the International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea as area Va, was 160,714 metrie tons.

3. A copy of this letter will be comrnunicated to the Govcrnmcnt of Iceland
in conforrnity with paragraph 1 (!) of the Order of 17 August 1972.

118. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KtNGDOM
TO THE REGJSTRAR
21 Nove nbcr 1973.

1. J have the honour, wirh refcrence to the Orders made in this case on
17 August 1972 and 12 July 1973 indicating lnterirn Measurcs of Protection,
to convey the following information to the Court.

2. On 13 November 1973, an Exchange of Notes was conc!uded betwecn
the Foreign Minister of lceland and the British Ambassador in Reykjavik.

t I, p. 437. CORRESPONDENCE 459

Enclosed with this letter are copies of the Exchange of Notes constituting an
lnterim Agreement in the Fisheries Dispute between the Government of the
United Kingdom and the Government of Iceland. The Exchange of Notes,
which is stated to be without prejudice to the legal position or rights of either
Government in relation to the substantive dispute, will be registered with the

Secretary-General of the United Nations in accordance with Article !02 of the
United Nations Charter.

EXCHANGE OF NOTES

CONST!TUTING AN INTERIM AGREEMENT IN THE FISHERIES
DISPUTE OETWEEN TfIE GûVERNMENT OF THE UNITED
KINGDOM OF GREAT BRlTAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND

No. I

The Minister for Foreign Affairs of lcela1110 Her Majesty's Ambassador
at Reykjavik

No. 23
Reykjavik,
November 13, 1973
Your Exce\lency,

I have the honour to refcr to the discussions which have taken place
between our two Governmcnts concerning the fisheries dispute between our
two countries. Jn these discussions the following arrangements have been
worked out for an interim agreement 'relating to fisheries in the disputed area,

pending a settlement of the substantive dispute and without prejudice to the
legal position or rights of either Government in relation thereto, which are
based on an estimated annual catch of about 130,000 metric tons by British
vessels:
1. The British fteet of fresher trawlers which will fish in the area will be

reduced, by comparison with the number of vessels notified as fishing in 1971,
by 15 of the largest trawlcrs and 15 other trawlers so that it will consist of not
more than 68 trawlers of 180 feet or more in registered length and 71 trawlers
of less than 180 feet in rcgistercd length; and no freezer or factory trawlers

will fish in the area.
2. British trawlers will not fish in conservation areas during periods
specified as follows:

(I) Off the Northwest Coast a11year in an area demarcated by a line
between the following points:

(a} 66° 57' N, 23° 36' W.
(b} 67° 01' N, 22° 24' W
and a line drawn 340° from point (a} and 22° 24' W.
(11) Off the South Coast during the period 20 March to 20 April in an

area demarcated by Iines between the following points:
(o) 63° 32' N, 21° 25' W
(b) 6r 00' N, 21° 25' W

(c} 63° 00' N, 22° 00' W
(d} 63° 32' N, 22° 00' W460 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

(fil) Off the Northeast Coast during the period I April to I June in an area

demarcated by J6° JJ '8 W and a Jjne drawn 045° from Langanes
(66° 22'7 N, 14° 31'9 W).
3. British trawlers will not fish in small boat areas as follows:

(1) Off the West Coast in an arca bounded by a line drawn 20 nautical
miles outside baselines, north of 65° 30' N and wcst of 22° 24' W.
(Il) Off the East Coast in an area bounded by a line drawn 20 nautical
miles outside baselines, north of 64° 44'4 N and south of a line

drawn 045° from Bjarnarey (65° 47'1 N, 14° 18'2 W.)
(Ill) Off the North Coast in an area bounded by a line between the fol­
lowing points:
(a) 66° 39'7 N, 22° 24'0 W

(b) 66° 23'8 N, 18° 50'0 W
4. British trawlers will not fish in the following areas during the periods
indicated:

(A) Off the Northwest Coast an area demarcated by 22° 24' western
longitude and 65° 30' norrhern latitude. Closed September/Octobcr.
(B) Off the Southwest Coast an area dernarcated by 65° 30' northern
latitude and 20° 30' western longitude. Closed Novcrnbcr/Dccember.
(C) Off the South Coast an area dcmarcated by 20" 30' and 14°30' western

longitude. Closed May/June.
(D) Off the Southeast Coast an area dernarcatcd by 14° 30' western
longitude and a line drawn 045° from Bjarnarey (65° 47'1 N, 14° 18'2
W). Closed January/February.
(E) Off the ·Northeast Coast an area demarcated by a Jine drawn 045°

from Bjarnarey and 16° 11'8 western longitude. Closed July/August.
(F) Off the North Coast an arca dernarcated by 16° 11'8 and 22° 24'
western longitude. Closed March/April. ·
5. The arrangements specified in subparagraphs 2, 3 and 4 abovc are

indicated on the attached map.
6. An agreed list of vessels which may fish in these waters in terms of this
interim agreement shall be established. The lcelandic Governmcnt wi[Inot
object to the named vessels fishing around Iceland as· long as they comply
with the terms of this interim agreement. Should a vesse! be discovered

fishing contrary to the terms of the agreement, the lcelandic coastguard shall
have the right to stop it, but shall summon the nearest British fishery support
vesse! in order to establish the facts. Any trawler found to have violated the
terms of the agreement will be crossed off the list.
7. The agreement will run for two years from the present date. Its ter­
mination will not affect the legal position of either Government with respect

to the substantive dispute.
lf the foregoing is acceptable to the British Government, 1have the honour
to propose that this Note and Your Excellency's reply in that sense shall
constitute an interim agreement between our two countries which shall
become effective forthwith and be registered with the Secretary-General of the

United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations
Charter.
Iavail myself of this opportunityto renew to Your Excellency the assurance
of my highest consideration.

EINAR AGÜSTSSON,
Minister for Fordgn Affllirs. CORRESPONDENCE 461

No. 2

Her Majesty's Ambassador at Reykjavik to the Minister for F~reign Affairs
of Iceland

British Embassy,
Reykjavik.
13 November,-1973
Your Excellency,

I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency's Note of
today's date, together with the map attached, concerning the fisheries dispute
between our two countries.
Ihave the honour- to confirm that the contents of Your Excellency's Note
are acceptable to the British Government, who therefore agree that Your
Excellency's Note and this reply constitute an interim agreement which shall
become effective forthwith and be registered with the Secretary-General of

the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations
Charter.
I avail myselfofthis opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurance
of my highest consideration.
John McKENZIE.

(Cmnd. 5484)

"
CLOSeD
CLOSED
Jurl' ci,.,d .-."gui!
6J

r

63 l
~(cn.~,,~(l(J,ea,
t..=-=-]Smo!I boat o•o:<J 462 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

119. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
22 November 1973.

I have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of a letter I
have today received from the Agent of the United Kingdom in the Fisheries
Jurisdiction ( United Kingdom v. /ce/and) case, together with a copy of the

Exchange of Notes (in the form of a United Kingdom Government publi­
cation, Cmnd. 5484) which was enclosed with that letter.

120. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(te/egram)
8 January 1974.

On instructions of President of Court have honour înform Your Excel­
lency that he-is convening meetings on Fisheries Jurisdictioncases on Wed­
nesday, 16 January, to ascertain views of Parties with regard to questions of
further procedure pursuant Rules, Article 37: United Kingdom v. lccland,
3 p.rn., Agent of the United Kingdom will attend; Ferlerai Republic of
Gerrnany v. Iceland, 4 p.rn., Agent of Federal Republic of Germany will
attend. Whilst noting that Agent has not been appointed by lceland am
·instructed inform you that should Your Exccllency's Govcrnment wish to

be rcpresented at these meetings pcrson dcsignated would be welcome to
attend 1. ·

121, THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE REGISTRAR

(te/egram)
II January 1974.

With reference to your telegram T have the honour to inform you·that the
following Ietter has been airmailed to you:

[See No. 125, be/ow]

122, THE MJNISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE REGISTRAR

11 January 1974.
I have the honour to refer to the cases entered in the Court's general Iist,
entitled Fisheries J11risdictioncases, and to bring the following to your

attention.
In the period between 15 October and 6 November 1973 the First Com­
mittee of the General Assembly of the United Nations examined the Report
of the Comrnittee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor
beyond the Iimits of national jurisdiction. This discussion Ied to the adoption
by the General Assembly of resolution 3067 (XXVIII). Under that resolution
the Third United Nations Confercncc on The Law of the Sea has been con­
vened. The first session of the conferencc took place in New York between

1 On 16January and 5February 1974,the Pre~identmet the Agentsfor the Govern­
mentsof the United Kingdomand the Federal Republicof Germany. CüRRESPONDENCE 463

3 and 15 Dcccmber 1973. The second session which will deal with substantive
matters is scheduled lo take place in Caracas, Venezuela, for a period of 10
weeks commencing on 20 June 1974.
During the long period of preparation for this conference it was freouently

pointed out that the Sea-bed Committec was a principal forum for ascer­
taining the views of the members of the international community on the
various aspects of the Law of the Sea, including the extent of the jurisdiction
of a coastal State. lt is now a fact that the concept of an exclusive economic

zo:1e (to which many different names are given) of up to 200 miles in extent
enjoys very wide support. This finds expression in a number of legislative
enactments, conclusions of international meetings and staternents by dele­
gations in the formai and informai meetings of the Sea-bed Committee as well
as in the General Assembly of the United Nations. One of the most recent

examples is the Conferenee on Non-Aligned States in Algiers, 5-9 September
1973.
The evidence available as to the views of States is aimed not only at what
should be decided by the Law of the Sea Conference but no less at reflecting

what the law is today.
As a result of this the comp\ex and delicate process of consolidating,
codifying and progressively devcloping the entire law of the sea has entered
upon a new and, it is hoped, a final stage.
On 13 November 1973 an Agreement was concluded between the Govern­

ments of lceland and the United Kingdom and a copy of it is enclosed l.
Under ils lerms authorization is given for a specified number of British
trawlers to continue fishing within the 50 mile limit, subjcct to the restrictions
laid down. Thcse relate to size and type of vessels, areas and pcriods, and are
based on an estimated total catch of about 130,000 tons. This Agreement is in

further implementation of the policy of the. Government of lceland to salve
the practical difîiculties of the British trawting industry arising out of the
application of the 1948 law and the Althing resolution of 14 February 1972,
by providing an adjustment during the next two years. 1t also contritrntes to

the reduction of tension which has been provoked by the presence of British
armed naval vesscls within the 50-mile limit.
Negotiations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
are progressing.
With reference to the time-limit fixed by the Court for the submission of

Counter-Memorials by the Government of lceland, 1 have the honour lo
inform you that the position of the Government of Iceland with regard to the
proceedings in question remains unchanged and, consequently, no Counter­
Memorials will be subrriitted. At the samc time, the Government of Iceland
does not accept or acquiesce in any of the statements of facts or al!egations or

contentions of law contained in the Memorials filed by the Parties concerned.

123, THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE UNITED KING DOM 2
14 January, 1974.
1 have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a telegram from the

Minis ter for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, referring to the Fisheries Jurisdiction

, lSee pp. 459-461,supra.
2 A similar communication was sent to the Agent for the Governmcnt of the
Federal Republic of Germany.464 FISHERIFS JURISDICTION

cases, and a copy of the letter referred to in the telegram, which was received
in the Registry today. The text of the Exchange of Notes enclosed with the
letter is identical with the printed text (Cmnd. 5484) transmitted to the Court
with your letter of 21 November 1973.

124. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGJSTRAR

20 February 1974.
1. I have the honour, with reference to the United Kingdom Agent's
letter of 19 December 1972 furnishing the Court with information, etc., in
compliance with paragraph 1 (!) of îts Order of 17 August 1972 (Interim
Measures of Protection), to supply the following further information to the
Court.
2. The Sea Fishing (Specified Northern Waters) Licensing Order 1972 (a
copy of which was enclosed with the letter of 19 December 1972) has been
replaced by the Sea Fishing (Specified Northern Waters) Licensing Order
1973 (a copy of which is enclosed with this letter). The broad effect of the
Order of 1973 is the same as that of the Order of 1972 e1cept that the Order
of 1973 applies to the area between the 12-mile line and the 50-mile line
around Iceland (as defined in its Article 2 (1) and Schedule 2). That area lies
within ICES Statistical Area Va but does not include ail of it.
3. The arrangements for recording the catch by British vessels within the
12 to 50-mile belt around lceland remain very substantially the same as those
setout at paragraphs 5 to 7 of the United Kingdom Agent's letter of 19 De­
cember 1972. Any catch taken in the area between the 50-mile line and the
boundary of ICES Statistical Area Va will be recorded under the existing
system used by the Fisheries Departments for recording the catch and area of
capture.
4. In compliance with the Court's Order of 17 August 1972, a copy of this
letter (with its enclosure) will be communicated to the Government of lceland.

THE SEA FISHING (SPECIFTED NORTHERN WATERS) LtCENSJNG
ÜRDER 1973

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Citation and commencemem
1.This order may be cited as the Sea Fishing (Specified Northern Waters)
Licensing Order 1973, and shall corne into operation on 1st December 1973.

Interpretation .

2.-(1) In this order-
"the Act" means the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967;
"the baselines" means the lines drawn round the coast of lceland so as
to join successively, in the order in which they are there set out, the CORRESPOND ENCE
465

points identified by the co-ordinates of latitude and longitude in Schedule
1 to this order;
"mile" means nautical mile;
"the 12 mile line" means a line drawn round the coast of Iceland 12
miles frolll the baselines and extended seawards by lines drawn 12 miles
from and around the Island of Grimsey (from its outermost headlands
and skerries) and around Hvalbakur (64° 35.8' north latitude 13° 16.7'
west longitude);
"the 50 mile line" means a line drawn round the coast of Iceland
50 miles from the baselines and extended seawards by lines drawn
50 miles around Hvalbakur (64° 35.8' north latitude 13° 16.7' west
longitude) and Kolbeinsey (67° 07.5' north latitude 18° 36' west lon­

gitude).
"the specified area" means the area described in Schedule 2 to this
Ortler.
(2) The Interpretation Act 1889 shall apply for the interpretation of this
order as it applies for the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and as if this
ordcr and the order hereby revoked were Acts of Parliament. ·

Revocation ofprevious Order

3. The Sea Fishing (Specified Northern Waters) Licensing Order 1972 is
hercby revoked.

Appointed Day

4. The appointed day for the purpose of section 4 of the Act (which
provides for the licensing of British fishing vessels in relation to fishing by
way of tracte or business in specified areas) in conjunction with this order is
the day on which this order comes into operation.

Area and Period

5. This order applies to fishing for sea fish in the specified area for the
period beginning with the day on which this order cornes into operation and

ending on 13th November 1975 (both dates inclusive).

Provided that nothing in this ordcr shall authorize a licence under section 4
of the Act to be granted in respect of any part of the specified area in any
period in which fishing for sea fish in such part is prohibited by the Sea
Fishing (Specified Northern Waters) Prohibition Ortler 1973.

Euforcement

6. For the purposes of the enforcement of section 4 of the Act in conjunc~
tion with this order there are hercby conferrcd on every British sea-fishery
officer the powers of a British sea-fishery offi.cerunder section 8 (2) and (3)
of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968.466 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

SCHEDULE 2

The area of sea between the 12 mile line and the 50 mile line but excluding
therefrom the area within a radius of 12 miles from Kolbeinsey (67° 07.5'
north latitude 18° 36' west longitude).

125. THE AGENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

TO THE REGISTRAR
6 March 1974.

I have the honour to refer to the Order made by the Court on 17 August
J972 inthe Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. lceland) case

indicating interim measures of protection, and to the Order made by the
Court on 12 July 1973 by which the Court confirmed that the provisional
measures indicated in the operative paragraph (l) of the Order- of 17 August
1972 should, subject to the power of revocation or modification conferred
on the Court by paragraph (7) of Article 61 of the 1946 Rules, remain

operative until the Court has given final judgment in the case. In the operative
paragraph (1) (e) of the Order, the Court had indicated that the Federal
Republic should ensure that vessels registered in the Ferlerai Republic· do
not take an annual catch of more than 119,000 metric tons of fish from the
"Sea Area of lceland", as defined by the International Council for the

Exploration of the Sea as Area Va; and in the operative paragraph (1) (!}
of the Order, the Court had indicated that the Federal Republic should
furnish the Government of lceland and the Registry of the Court with ail
relevant information, orders issued and arrangelTlents made concerning the
contrai and regulation of fish catches in the area.

In compliance with the said paragraph (1) (f) of the Ortler of 17 August
1972, I had already informed the Registry of the Court by letter of 21 May
1973 of the measures taken by the Govcrnment of the Federal Republic of
Germany with respect to the contrai and regulation of fish catches in the
"Sea Arca of lceland". l have the honour to rcfer to the contents of my letter

of 21 May 1973, and to inform the Court, on behalf of the Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany, that the statu tory basis for the regulation and
contrai of fish catches in the aforementioned area, the Regulations issued
by the Federal Minîster of Food, Agriculture and Forestry to this effect, and
the administrative machinery for controlling the compliance with these

regulations have remained unchanged. Again the general licence had been
issued which allowed the enterprises members of the German Trawler
Owners' Association to catch not more than 119,000 tons of fish in the "Sea
Area of Iceland" during the year 1973.
According to the information provided by the Ferlerai Research Board for

Fisheries, the provisional figure of the nominal catch by fishing vessels of the
Ferlerai Republic in the "Sea Area of keland'' during the year 1973 is esti­
mated as amounting to approximately 85,000 tons. This figure, howcver, is
only a roughestimate on the basis of the statistical data sa far supplied; the final
figure might well be 3,000 tons higher or lower than at present estimated.

Final figures are available only for the seven months from January to July
1973, showing a total catch of 53,608 tons (nominal catch) in the Iceland area
during these seven months. fn any event, the final figure for 1973 will keep
within the limit set by the Court in its Order of 17 August 1972. CORRESPONDENCE 467

While the Governrnent of the Fedcral Republic of Gcnnany has faithfully

observed its obligations under the Court's Ortler of 17 August 1972 and has
taken no action of any kind which rnight have been capable to aggrava te or
extend the dispute bctween the Parties, the Government of lceland has per­
sistedin not obscrving the express stipulations contained in the operative
paragraphs (1) {c) and {d) of the Court's Order, and its coastal patrol boats
have continucd, by the threat or use of force, to prevent vessels of the Federal
Republic of Germany frorn carrying out fishing operations in the waters
around lceland to which thcy were entitled under International Law and
under the Court's Order of 17 August 1972.
A report of the incidents that have been caused by the actions of the Ice­
landic coastal patrol boats, up to the first days of July 1973, had already been
given by the Governrnent of the Federal Republic of Gerrnany in its Request
to theCourt, dated 22 June 1973, for the continuation of interirn rneasures of
protection and in its Mernorial on the Merits (Part V) filed on I August 1973.
Since thcn, the actions of the kelandic coastal patrol boats continued and
even intensified in the following rnonths of 1973, in particular during the

months of August, Scpternber and again in December 1973. In addition to
the 111 incidents listed in the Annex L of the aforementioned Memorial
covering the time from 3 Septernber 1972 to 4 July 1973, 126 more incidents
were reported until the end of 1973. In most cases the lcelandic coastal patrol
boats attemptcd to eut the fishing lines of German trawlers which had been
fishing within 50 miles off fceland; in three cases the fishing gear was lost
thereby.
l attach to this letter copies of two Verbal Notes, handcdby the Ambassa­
dor of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Minister for Foreign Atfaîrs
of lceland on 31 December 1973 and 7 January 1974 respectively, by which
. strong protests were lodged with respect to incidents which had occurred on
22 and 31 Dccember 1973. In both cases the fishing lines of German trawlers
wcre eut without prior warning.
The continuous harassing by the Jcclandic coastal patrol boats and the
resulting manoeuvres of the German trawlcrs to avoid their fishing lines being
eut have repcatedly forced the German trawlers to curtail thcir fishing ac­

tivities or cven to !cave the lcelandic fishing grounds. Thcre can be no doubt
that the actions or the lcelandic coastal patrol boats which were undertaken
on the order of the Governmcnt of lceland, have contributcd to the low
figure of the total catch in the year 1973compared with catches in the previous
years.
ln order to prcvent further incidents, the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany has, within the framework of the Court's Ortler of
17 August 1972, continued in its efforts to reach an interim agreement with
the Governmcnt of Iceland. Negotiations proceeded along the lines of the
proposai made by the Government of the Federa1 Republic of Germany on
29 June 1973 (see Part I, paragraphs 49 to 51 of the Memorial of the Federal
Republic on the Merits). Since 1August 1973, the date on which the Memorial
of the federal Republic was filcd, talks were held at Bonn on 6 to 7 Septem­
ber, and at Reykjavik on 22 October 1973. An exchange of letters took place
betwecn the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the two countries on 7 December
1973 and 11 January 1974 respcctivcly, and it is hoped that negotiations will

be resumed in the near future.
l should rccall that the essence of the Federal Rcpublic's compromise
proposai conslstcd in that the Federal Republic would, pending a settiement
of the fisheries dispute and without prejudice to the legal position of the468 FJSHERIES JURISDICTION

Federal Republic of Germany as submitted to the Court in its pleadings,
voluntarily reduce its fishing effort in the area concerned to a degree even
below the requitements contained in the Court's Order.
In the talks which were held on 6 to 7 September and 22 October 1973 an
agreement seemed to be in reach, in particular wîth regard to the location of
the ..line of abstention" proposed by the Federal Republic of Germanyand
reproduced in Annex F to the Memorial of the Ferlerai Republic filed on
1 August 1973. However, the representatives of the Government of Jceland
remained adarnant, during ail these discussions, in insisting that no factory
ships and freezer trawlers should be admitted in the remaining parts of the

area concerned.
The representatives of the Federal Republic have made it clear that the
complete exclusion of freezer trawlers from the waters around lceland would
entai!, in view of the present structure of the German fishing fleet which
comprises now already 39 freezer trawlers representing 70 per cent. of the
total tonnage, serious economic consequences which would by far exceed the
concessions made by the United Kingdom in the Exchange of Notes with
Iceland of13 November 1973.
Although the Governrnent of the Federal Republic has olTered guarantees
which would in effect ensure that the German freezer trawlers would operate
around Iceland under the same conditions as wetfish trawlers and would

use the same fishing gear, the Governrnent of lceland made it a question of
principle to insist on the total exclusion of freezer trawlers from the waters
around Iceland. In a persona! letter, dated 7 December 1973, the Minister
for Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany made an urgent
appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of fcelalld to reconsider the po­
sition of the Government of Iceland in this respect. In his letter of 11 January
1974, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, however, restated that the
Government of Iceland were not in a position to agree to the admission of
freezer trawlers within the area concerned. Under these circumstances, the
negotiations for an interim agreement have remained adjourned. Up to now,
no date for further negotiations has been agreed upon. Nevertheless, the

Government of the Federal Republic earnestly hopes that it may become pos­
sible to find a way out of this deadlock; but it is unfortunately unable to see
prospect of an interim agreement in the near future.

AnnexA

VERBAL NOTE OF THE EMBASSY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
IN REYKJAVl,K OF 3] DECEMBER 1973

The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany presents its compliments
to the Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honour, upon in­

structions of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, to com­
municate the following.
In the course of the last weeks, a number of incidents have occurred in
the waters of the high seas around lceland which werc caused by lcelandic
coast guard vessels using or threatening to use force against German fishing
vessels.
The most serious incident happened on 22 December 1973 at 13 hours 45,
when the Icelandic coast guard vesse! Odin eut off the fishing gear of the
German trawler Spitzber1renfishing at position 63 degrecs 3 minutes North CORRESPONDENCE 469

and 24 degrees 16 minutes West, consequently at a distance of 46 miles off the
Icelandic coast, without having previously warned the captain of the Spitz­
bergen.
The action taken by the Odin against the Spitzbergen on the high seas,
which evidently had been ordered, or in any case permitted, by the Icelandic
Government, constitutes an offence against elementary principles of inter­
national law, namely against the prohibition of the use of force and the prin­
ciple that no State has the right to prevent foreign vessels from fishing
peacefully on the high seas. The action is moreover contrary to the Orders on
interim measures of protection issued by the International Court of Justice
on 17 August 1972 and 12 July 1973 according to which the Republic of

Ice1and shou\d "refrain from taking any measures to enforce the Regulatlons
of 14July 1972 against vessels registered in the Federal Republic'and engaged
in fishing activities inthe waters around Iceland outside the twelve-mile
fishery zone".
The action taken by the Odin moreover is not consistent with the fact, that
the Federal Government and the Icelandic Government have entered into
negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on a modus vivendi by con­
cluding an interim agreement, which ta bring ta a·successful end the Federal
Government is making ever.y effort. In this connection a statement had been
given by the Icelandic side in the course of the latest negotiation in Reykjavik
on 22 October 1973, to inform the competent Icelandic authorities of the

German request that any further incidents should be avoided.
The Ferlerai Government expresses its particular surprise over the fact
that the incidents were caused at the very moment when the negotiations.
promised to enter into a new and more successful phase, after the personal
letter of the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs from 7 December 1973 had
been handed over to H.E. the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Iceland in Reykjavik on 19 December 1973. The incident of 22 December 1973
is not conducive to a peaceful settlement of the fisheries dispute, which the
Federal Government has been trying to achieve ail along. Nor could it be
estimated in the public opinion of'the Federal Republic of Germany as a sign
forthe Icelandic Government's readiness to reach agreement.

The Government of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany hereby protests
strongly against the irresponsible and unlawful action taken by the lcelandic
coast guard vessel Odin. Jt will, in particular, hold the lcelandic Government
responsible for the damage caused to the Spitzbergen equally as for all
damage which has been caused to German fishing vessels by similar action
taken by lcelandic coast guard vessels in earlier cases.

AnnexB

VERBAL NOTE OF THE EMBASSY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

IN REYKJAVIK OF 7 JANUARY 1974

The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany presents its compliments
to the Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has the honour to com­
municate the foBowing on behalf of the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany.
The Federal Government has seen itself obliged to protest with its Note of
31 December 1973 against the action taken by the coastguard vessel Odin
against the German trawler Spitzbergen on 22 December 1973 on the high470 FISHERIES JURISDICT[ON

seas. Hardly had it taken this step than il had to takc note with great dismay

of anolher equally grave incident again caused by the Odin. According to the
facts so far established, the Odin tore away the fishing gear of the German
trawler Orthmarsche11 whilst it was fishing at position 64 degrecs 4 min1;1tes
North and 13 degrees 8 minutes West at approximately 0500 hours on 31
December 1973. The Odin':;action was ail the more dangerous as it was again
taken without previous warning.
The Federal Government strongly protests against this rcpcated action by
the Icelandic coastguard vessel Odin, which was both irresponsible and in
violation of international law. For the rest, it refers to its commcnts in the ·
Note handed over by the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany on

31 December 1973, which apply to this case also. The Federal Governrnent
reserves ail its rights to daim compensation for the damage to the Orth­
marschen.

126. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MIN!STER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND l

12 March 1974.

I refer to my letter of 22 December 1972 concerning the question of making
accessible to the public the pleadings and annexed documents in the juris­
diction phase of the two Fisheries J11risdictio11( U11iredKingdom v.lce/and and
Federal Republic v./ce/and) cases, pursuant to Article 44, paragraph 3, of the
1946 Rules of Court.
In order that the Court may, if it secs fit, consider the question, I shall be
grateful if Your Excellency will inform me whether the Government ot
lceland would have any objection to the pleadings and annexed documents
relating to the merits in the two Fisheries J11risdictiocases being made ac­
cessible to the public with effect from the opening of the oral proceedings in

that phase of the cases.
The Court may also wîsh to consider making accessible to the public the
further communications which I have had the honour to receive from Your
Excellency setting out the position of the Government of Iceland with refe­
rence to the proceedings. As I observed in my letter of 22 December 1972,
these documents, although they do not fall within the category of pleadings,
may well be referred to in oral argument, and would normally be published
after the termination of the case in the appropria te part of the relevant volume
in the Court's series of publications devoted to P/eculi11gs,Oral Arguments,

Doc11me111s .would therefore be grateful if Your Excellcncy would also indi­
cate whether the Government of lceland would have any objection to these
documents also being made accessible to the public at the same time as the
pleadings.
I am writing to the Agents of the United Kingdom and the Federal Re­
public of Germany to enquire whether their respective Governments, with
regard to the proceedings they have each instituted, would have any ob­
jection to the pleadings and other documents referred to above bcing made
accessible to the public 2.

1 Similar communications were sent to the Agents for the Govcrnmenls of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 I, p. 438and p.289, supra. CORRESPONDENCE 471

)27. THE REG1STRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

OF HIE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

13 March 1974.

I have the honour to ncknowlcdge receipt of your lctter of 6 !V1arch,
referring to your letter of 21 May l973, and containing further information
supplied in cornpliance with opcrative paragraph 1 (/) of the Court's Order
of 17 August 1972 in the Fis/H'riesJ11ri.wliction( Federnl Rep11/1{icnf Germaay

v. Jceland) case. It is my understanding, following our telcphonc conversation
this morning, that, in furthcr compliance with that paragraph, the Govern­
ment of the Federal Republic of Germany is transmitting a copy of your
letter to me of 6 March to the Governmcnt of lceland.

128. THE REG1STRAR TO THE Ml1'1STER FOR FOREIGN AFFA!RS OF ICELAND 1

14 March 1974.

I refer to the Court·~ Orcier dated 15 February 1973, fixing time-limits for

the pleadings on the merits in th·e two Fisheries J11risdictio11cases ( United
Kingdom v. /ce/and al!(/ Federaf Republic of Germa11y v. lceland), ,ind have
the honour to inform Your Exccllency that, no Countcr-Mcmorial having
been filed by the Government of lceland in either of these cases within the

time-limit fixed therefor, the Court will procecd to hold public sittings to
hear the oral arguments of the Parties.
As Ihad the honour to infori11 Your Excellency by my tclegram of today's
date (a confirmatory copy of which is enclosed), the public hearings in the
procecdings instituted by the United Kingdom will open at 10 a.m. on Mon­

day 25 March \974 2, and the hcarings in the proceedings institutcd by the
Federal Republic will open at 10 a.m. on Thursday 28 March 1974 3, in each
case at the Peaee Palace, The Hague.

129. THE AGENT l'ûR THE GOV(RNMENT OF TIIE UNITED K!NGIJOM
TO TIIE REG1STRAR

14 March 1974.

\. [ have the honour to infonn you that consideration is bcing given to the
possibility of citing cert,1in documents of recent date du ring the .:ourse of the

oral arguments to be advanccd on bchalf of the United Kingdom in this case.
The documents in question are the following:

(1) The Declaration of the Organisation of African Unity on the Issues of
the Law of the Sea of 24 May 1973 (Report of the Committee on the

Peaceful Uses of the Seabcd and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of
National Jurisdiction, 1973, Otlicial Records of the Twcnty-Eighth

t Similar communications werc scnl to the Agents for the Govcrnmcnts of the
United Kingdom and the Fcdcral Republic of Gcrmany.
2 I, pp. 435-478.

3 See pp. 287-351, supra.472 F!SHERIES JURISDICTION

Session of the General Assembly Supplement No. 21 (A/9021), Volume
II, page 4) t.
(2) The Resolution Concerning the Law of the Sea adopted by the Fourth
Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries
of9 September 1973 (NAC/ALG/CONF.4/Res.13) 1,

(3) The Exchange of Notes constituting an Jnterim Agreement in the Fisheries
Dispute between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of
Jceland of 13 November 1973 (Cmnd. 5484, copies ofwhich were enclosed
with my letter of 21 November 1973)2.
(4) Provisional Verbatim Record of the 2203rd Meeting of the General As­
sembly on 17 December 1973 (A/PV.2203) •.

(5) General Assembly resolution 3171 (XXVIII) of 17 December 1973 1.
(6) Arrangement relating to fisheries in waters surrounding the Faroe
Islands of 18 December 1973 3,
(7) Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ice!and to the Registrar
of the International Court of Justice dated 11 January 1974 4.

130. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

20 March 1974.

Express Airmail

I have the honour to enclose herewith a copy of a letter dated 14 March
1974 which I have received from the Agent for the United Kingdom in the
Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. /ce/and) case. The Agent therein
indicates that consideration is being given to the possibility of citing certain

documents which are listed. Sorne of the documents concern proceedings of
the United Nations and the work of the conference of Non-Aligned States
which were alluded to in Your Excellency's letter of 11 January 1974 while
others are Your Excellency's letter above referred to and the Exchange of
Notes a copy of which was transmitted to me with that letter.
I am enclosing herewith a Xerox copy of the Arrangement relating to
fisheries in waters surrounding the Faroe Islands of 18 December 1973,

made from a Xerox copy transmitted to me by the Agent for the United
Kingdom.
Having regard to the possible application of Article48 of the 1946 Rules
of Court, I should be most grateful if Your Excellency would be so good as to
take the earliest possible opportunity of informing me whether the Govern­
ment of Iceland would desire to make any observations concerning the pro­
duction of the documents in question at the hearing on 25 March 1974.
1am attaching, for the convenience of Your Excellency, a copy of the text

of the provision of the Rules in question.

1Not reproduced.
2 See pp. 459-461, supra.
J I, pp.455 and 513-514.
4 See p. 462, supra. CORRESPONDENCE 473

131. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

20 March 1974.

1. I have the honour to inform you that consideration is being given to
the possibility of citing a further document of recent date during the course
of the oral arguments to be advanced on behalf of the United Kingdom in

this Case.
2. This document is the: Agreement between the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland, the Government of
the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Union of Soviet Soci'alist
Republics on the Regulation of the Fishing of North-East Arctic (Arcto­
Norwegian) Cod which was signed at London on 15 March 19741. Enclosed

is a certified copy of this Agreement. Further copies will be supplied shortly.

132, THE REGISTRAR TO THE M!NlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFfAlRS OF !CELANO

22 March 1974.

Expre~s Airmail.
Further to my letter of 20 March 1974, with which I sent Your Excellency

a copy of a letter from the Agent of the United Kingdom inthe Fisheries
J11risdictioncase and of certain documents referred to therein, 1 have the
honour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of a further letter from the
Agent of the United Kingdom, dated 20 March and receivcd in the Registry
today, and a copy of the Agreement dated 15 March 1974 referred to in and

enclosed with that letter.

133. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REG!STRAR

25 March 1974.

1. I have the honour to communicate the Submissions of the United
Kingdom in this case.
2. The Governrnent of the United Kingdom submit to the Court that the
Court should adjudge and declare:

[See l,p. 476]

134. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFA!RS OF !CELANO

26 March 1974.

I have thehonour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of the verbatim
record of the hearing of 25 March 1974 2 in the FisheriesJurisdiction( United
Kingdom v. /ce/and) case, and a copy of a letter from the United Kingdom

Agent, filed in the Registry immediately after the hearing, setting out the
formai submissions of the United Kingdom.

1 l, pp.455, 503 and 513-514.
2 I,pp. 435-478.474 FlSHERIES JURISDICTION

T have the further honour to enclose the text, in French and English, of
two written questions addressed to the Agent of the United Kingdom by
Members of the Court, which were handed by me to the United Kingdom

Agent today 1. It is contemplated that the Court will hold a further public
sittingon Friday 29 March at 10 a.m. to hcar the réplies of the United King­
dom Government to thesc questions 2,and to those put orally at yesterday's
hearing.
ln accordance with the request made in Your Excellency's telegram of 3

August 1972, I am sending under separatc cover 24 further copies of the
ver(',atim record of the hearing of 25 March.

Question poséepar l'vf.Gros

Dans le mémoire et en plaidoirie le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni s'est
référé à plusieurs reprises à la position prise sur la question des pêcheries

autour de l'Islande par les pays directement intéressés(par exemple: mémoire,
paragraphes 240, 242, 243, 244, 280 et 306, cc dernier paragraphe ayant été
lu en plaidoirie le 25 mars 1974, J, p. 474). A cet égard: quelle conséquence
est-il possib)e de déduire de l'accord entre la Communauté économique

européenne et rtslande du 22 juillet 1972, y compris le protocole n° 6, tant
pour la position de l'Islande que pour celle des Etats de la Communauté
économique européenne?

Question poséepar lvf. Perrén

Au paragraphe e) des conclusions finales est envisagée l'éventualité de
négociations bilatérales entre le Royaume-Uni et l'Islande devant conduire à

l'instauration d'un "régime qui, compte étant dûment tenu des intérêtsdes
autres Etats, garantisse à l'Islande, relativement aux restrictions qui apparaî­
traient nécessaires ainsi qu'il est dit plus haut, une situation privilégiée
conforme à sa position d'Etat spécialement tributaire desditcs pêcheries, et

qui assure également au Royaume-Uni une situation conforme à ses intérêts
traditionnels et à ses droits acquis sur lesdites pêcheries, ainsi qu'à sa situa­
tion actuelle de dépendance à l'égard de ces pêcheries ».
Est-i I prévu par là que le régime de pêcheriesà établir bilatéralement par le
Royaume-Uni et l'Islande serait fondé aussi sur une appréciation globale des

intérêts d'autres Etats à titre d'intérêtstraditionnels ou de droits acquis?

135, THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

TO THE REGISTRAR
28 March 1974.

1. I have the honour, with refercnce to my lettérs of 14 and 20 March 1974,

to confirrn that copies of the documents mentioned in those letters have
been delivercd to the Registry of the Court. with the exception of item 7 in
the letterof 14 March.

1 T,p. 478.
2 J,pp. 505-507. CORRESPONDENCE 475

2. The Exchange of Notes of 13 November 1973 between Jceland and the
United Kîn~gdom, the Arrangement relating to fisheries in waters surrounding
the Faroe Islands of 18 Deccntber 1973 and the Agreement of 15 March 1974
between Norway, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United

Kingdom on the Regulation of the Fishing of North East Arctic (Arcto­
Norwegian) Cod have been registered with the Secretariat of the United
Nations.

136. THE AGENT FOR THE fiOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

28 March 1974.

I have the honour, with reference to Question 4 asked by Judge Sir
Humphrey Waldock on 25 March 1974 during the course of the oral pro­
ceedings 1,to inform you that Counsel for the United Kingdom proposes to
refer to the tables of figures set out in the enclosure to this lctter durinii: the

sitting of the Court to be held on 29 March 1974 2.

137. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ,HE UNITED K!NGDOM

TO ,HE REGISTRAR
2 April 1974.

1. I have the honour, with reference to the question put by Judge Pctrén to

Counsel for the United Kingdom du ring the course of the public sitting of the
Court on 29 March 1974 (Verbatim record, 1, p. 494), to submit the following
response on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
2. ln paragraph 297 of the United Kingdom's Memorial, the intention was
essentially to make the point that the fonhcoming Third United Nations

Conference on the Law of the Sea may reveal whether a consensus can be
reached which will bring about a development in the law so as to permit the
kind of claim which Jceland is now making. Such a devclopment may corne
about as a rcsult of the adoption of a new Convention on the Law of the Sea

and subsequent State practice. Hence, since in the view of Her Majcsty's
Government the Jcelandic claim was not pcrmissible whcn made and is still
not permissible ut this time, the proper course for Iceland to have taken would
have been to have awaited the outcome of the forthcoming Confcrcnce. The

United Kingdom could not have delayed the institution of procccdings before
the Court until the outcon,e of that Conference was known. British fishing
vessels were being prevented from fishing and harasscd from Scptcn1ber 1972
onwards and Hcr Majesty's Government at that stage saw no real alternative
to seeking the protection of the Court. The refusa! by lccland to ,1ccept the

Courfs Order of 17 August 1972, indicating interim measures of protection,
was part of the background against which Her Majesty·s Government
concluded the lnterim Agreement of 13 November 1973. Therc has bccn no
further harassment since the conclusion of the Agreement, but that in no way

lessens the importance of the Court's judgment in this case. The lnterim
Agreement expressly states thal it is "without prejudicc to the legal posllion
or rights of either governmcnt in relation" to the substantive dispute.

L I, pp. 477-478.
2 [,pp. 502-503 and p. 519.476 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

3. With regard to the forthcoming Conference on the Law of the Sea, the

first substantive session is due to begin on 20 June 1974. Itis widely expected
that a second substantive session will be held during 1975. Accordingly, it is
far from certain that the forthcoming Conference wi!J have produced a clear
outcome by 13 November 1975 when the Interim Agreement, in the absence
of agreement to the contrary, it due to expire. This consideration lay bchind

paragraph 298 of the United Kingdom Memorial where itis stated that "what
a new Conference might agree about changes in the law is irrelevant to the
present case before the Court".
4. Her Majesty's Government will take a positive attitude towards the
negotiations on the many inter-related items on the List of Subjects and Issues

before the Conference, with a view to contributing to the adoption of a new
convention. Such a convention may clarify a number of existing issues, as
well as con tribute to the progressive dcvelopment of international law in this
field. However, even if a new convention were to be concluded reasonably
quickly, it would remain to be seen how long it woUid take formally toenter

into force or to have an impact upon the development of the law through
state practice. It also remains to be seen whether Iceland will become a party
to a new convention: Her Majesty's Government feel bound to point out
that Jceland to this day has not become a party to.any of the Geneva Con­
ventions of 1958.

5. The Court's judgment in this case will constitute an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under existing law and
may provide a basis for the negotiation of arrangements to follow those
contained in the lnterim Agreement.
6. For these reasons, Her Majesty's Government consider it quite compat­

ible with the view expressed at the beginning of paragraph 297 of the Me­
morial that they should seek of the Court a judgment on the United King­
dom's submissions, a judgment moreover which the Court could be expected
to give after the normal time required for deciding matters of this degrce of
importance.

138. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

2 April 1974.
have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of a letter,

dated today, which I have received from the Agent of the United Kingdom
in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case, setting out the reply of the United Kingdom
Government to the question put by Judge Petrén at the hearing of 29 March
1974 ([, p. 494).

)39. THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

3 April 1974.
I have the honour to refer to the questions put by Judges Jiménez de
Aréchaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock, and Dillard to the Federal Republic of

Germany during the course of the public sitting of the Court on 2 April 1974
(pp. 358 and 367, suf}ra) in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case (Federal Republic
ofGermany v. lceland), and to submit on behalfof the Government of the
Federal Republic the answers to these questions in the same order as they
were asked by theJudges during the course of the sitting: CORRESPONDENCE 477

I

1. The first question posed by Judge Jiménez de Aréchaga (p. 358,
supra) relates to some differences which seem to have appeared in the state­
ments made by the Attorney-General for the United Kingdom on 25 March
1974 and by the Agent for the Federal Republic of Germany on 28 March

1974 in expresstng the position of the United Kingdom and the Federal Re­
public of Germany with respect to the degree of preference to be accorded ta
Iceland.
2. I do not think that these differences are expression of a different po­
sition as to the substance of the malter, and that for the following reasons:
the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany, both maintain that the allocation of shares in an
agreed catch-limitation scheme, if such a measure would become necessary,
should be determined by equitable principles. The Attorney-General for the
United Kingdom, in discussing the dependence of Iceland, the United King­
dom and the Federal Republic on the fisheries around lceland (25 March
1974, I, p. 456), indicated that "it may be that ta enable Iceland to maintain a
reasonable rate of expansion, she should be permitted to take a larger share
of the demersal fishery than in the past"; he mentioned this, as I understand
it, as a possibility, notas a foregone or necessary conclusion for the eventua­
lityof an agreed catch limitation scheme. He did not elaborate the equities
in the determination of the national shares in an eventual catch-limitation

scheme any further, but continued ta state that it "would obviously be in­
equitable" if lceland which for many years has taken about half the demersal
catch, would be allowed, "suddenly and from a date of its own choice to take
it ail". The essential point in this statement is, in my view, that the Attorney­
General made clear that lceland's preferential share had to be settled by
agreement, not by unilateral action, and that in view of the heavy depen­
dence of other countries like the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic
on the same fisheries, certainly not ail the catch of demersal fish in the waters
around lceland cou Id be accorded to lceland.
3. The Agent for the Government of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany,
in his pleadingson 28 March 1974 (p. 345, supra), discussing the applicability
of the concept of preferential rights of the coastal State contained in the
resolution of the 1958 Conference on the Law of the Sea to the present case,
made a statement to the same etfect when he admitted that "it mîght certainly
be argued that there is room for negotiation between the Parties about the

future respective shares of each of the Parties", thus admitting the possibility
that, in applying equitable principles, an enlargement of Iceland's share is not
excluded a priori, but would have to be determined with regard to the
circumstances then prevailing, and in particular with regard to the respective
dependence of both Parties on the fisheries around Iceland at that time. The
Agent for the Government of the Federal Republic has, in this context, tried
to define some equitable considerations which, in the view of the Government
of the Ferlerai Republic, should among others be applied, ircatch limi­
tations require equitable apportionment of the total allowable catch among
the countries whîch are fishing for the same stocks of fish. lt is
in this context that the Agent for the Government of the Ferlerai Republic of
Germany concluded that, under present circumstances, Iceland had by taking
now (according to the latest statistical figures of 1972) practically ail pelagic
fish and 55 percent. of the demersal fish, in total nearly 68 percent. of ail the
fish around lceland (in the ICES-Area Va) "already· secured a very prefe-478 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

rential position" (p. 345, supra) and that there are some important con­
siderations (pp. 343 and 345, supra) which seem to rnilitate against

according lccland an even largcr sharc at the expense of the fisheries of the
Federal Republic whîch, for their part, also heavily depend on the fishing
grounds around Iceland and now (figures of 1972) take only 13.6 percent. of
the dcmcrsal and about 9.8 per cent. of the total catch of all species in. this
area.

4. Judge Jiménez de Aréchaga rcfcrrcd spccifically to one of these con­
sidcrations advanced by the Agent for the Fcderal Republic, namely to the
consîderation that lceland, having alrcady securcd for itsclf a share of nearly
70 pcr cent., could not, under equitablc principlcs, by enlarging its deep-watcr
flshing fleet and thereby dcliberately creating a hcavier econornic dependence

on the fisheries around Iceland, daim priority for such econornic needs over
those of the Fedcral Republic of Gcrrnany, and ask, under present circurn­
stances, for a larger share in these fisheries. This consideratian should be
understood in the lîght of the situation with respect ta the fisheries around
lccland; it does certainly not apply ta cases where a coastal State, in par­

ticular a developing State, has still anly a rninor sharc in the deep­
water fishcries before its coast and is about to develop its national fishing
in9ustry.
5. The discussions which led to the adoption of the resolution on Speciaf
Situations relating to Coastal Fisheries at the 1958 Geneva Conference and
to the adoption of the Brazil, Cuba and Uruguay arnendrncnt at the 1960

Geneva Conference, do not throw much light on the question under what
circurnstances and to what cxtent a "dependance" of the coastal State on the
fisherics before its coast rnight justify a claim for preferential treatment in
relation to other States. The concept of "prcfcrcntial" rights of the coastal
State had been introduced in bath Conferences as a more acceptable alter­

native to the claim of somc States for ''exclusive" righls beyond 12 miles
which was not acceptable to the rnajority of the other States. Thus, it is beyond
doubt that "preferential" rights should not be "exclusive" rights; those who
advocated the preferential right concept admittcd, that it should not Jcad to
the exclusion of other States, but should merely secure a special consideration
of the special nccds of the coastal StatC.

6. lt had, however, never been defined what facts constitute a special
dependencc on the coastal fisheries in the scnse of the preferential right
concept. The rcsolution of the 1958 Conference referred in its prearnble to the
"overwhelrning" dcpendence of the people of the State concerned on the
coastal fisheries "for their livelihood or economic developmcnt''; similarly,

the Brazil, Cuba and Uruguay amendment at the 1960 Conference referred
to the "fundamental importance" of the fishery resourccs for "'the feeding
of its population'" and "the econom.ic dcvelopment" of the coastal State.
lt seems that the preferential rights concept had mainly two situations in
mind:

Firsr, the situation where the population makes a living out of the
fishcries; this relates clearly to a situation where there exists already an
economic dcpendence of some part of the population on the fisheries
bcfore the coast, and where a rcduction of the possible catch would
result in a deterioration of the living standard of that part of the po­

pulation because they could not divcrt to othcr occupations.
Second, the situation wherc a continuation of the fisheries on the
present scale is needed to safeguard the economic development of the CORRESPONDENCE 479

country, and a reduction of the possible catch rnight hamper the course
of steady economic development, because the econon1ic effort couId not
be diverted to other sectors.

It may be questioned whether and under what circumstances a situation,
where an enlargernent of the present fishing effort is sought for the expansion
of the country's economy, rnight qualify as a special depcndcnce on the
fisheries for economic developrnent in the sense of the second alternative.
Obviously, an enlargernent of the fisheries would normally always assist the

econornic development of a country; therefore, this interest alonc could not
well creatc the spccial dependencc requircd for a prefercntial claim of the
coastal State. The test must rathcr be whether the special necd of the coastal
State to enlarge its fisheries is so outstanding and indeed indispensable for its
economic developrnent that, under equitable principles, this need deservcs
spccial consideration in relation to the vested interests of other countries
which fish in the sarne area of the high seas. Such rnay be the case of States
which are still in a stage of development and have only a minor sharc in the
fisheries before their coast; in their case an enlargement of their sharc, at the
expense of the sharcs presently held by distant-water fishing States could be
considered equitable. If, howevcr, a coastal Statc has already a dcvelopcd
economy (sec Part ll of the Memorial on the rnerits as ta lccland's economy)
and, in the fishcries before its coast, securcd a position undcr which it

takes more than 50 per cent. of the total catch, its interest to invcst further
in the fishing industry does not, undcr equitabtc principlcs, scem to carry
the same weight if cornpared with the intcrests of the other States whosc
economy already relies on the fisheries in question. Reference may be made
in this context to the proposai for a fisheries régimesubmittcd by Japan to the
United Nations Scabed Committce on 14August 1972 (A/AC.138/SC.II/L.12)
which had been describcd by the Agent for the Government of the Fcdcral
Republic of Germany in his statefllent in the public sitting of the Court on
28 March 1974 (pp. 300-301, supra).

Il

7. The second question posed by Judge Jiménezde Aréchaga(p. 358, supra)
relates to the different termino1ogy used ln the Notes exchangcd bctwccn the
Governments of the United Kingdom and lccland on 11 March 1961 and the
Governrnents of the Federal Republic of Germany and lccland on 19 July
1961.
8. In the concluding paragraph of its Note of 11 March 1961, the Govcrn­
rnent of the United Kingdom confirrns ··that in view of the c.xccptional

dependence of the lcelandic nation upon coastal fisherics for thcir livclihood
and cconomic development, and without prejudicc to the rights of the United
Kingdom under international Jaw towards a third party" the contents of the
corresponding Note of the Government of lccland wcre acceptable to the
United Kingdom. In the concluding paragraph of its Note of 19 July 1961,
the Governmcnt of the Federal Republic of Germany, ''mindful of the c.x­
ceptional importance of coastal fisheries ta the Icclandic economy", agrecs
to the arrangement set forth in the Note of the Governrnent of lceland
..subject ta the stipulation by the Governmcnt of the Federal Republic of
Gerrnany that this agreement is without prejudice to its rights under inter­
national law towards third States". The full text of these Notes has been re­
produced in Annexes Band C to the Application of the Federal Republic in
this case.480 FISHERJES JURISDICTION

9. The history of the negotiations which led to the Exchange of Notes on

19 July 1961 as far as it can be ascertained from the files of the Foreign
Ministry of the Federal Republic of Gerrnany, does not indicate that the
aforementioned difference in the wording of the concluding paragraphs in the
Notes of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany bas
any Jegal significance or had been meant to have such significance; in parti­
cular, the phrase contained in the Note of the Federal Republic had not been
formulated for the purpose to define the conditions under which a daim for a
special treatment of the coastal State's interest in the fisheries before its coast
would be recognized. As it appears from the context in which reference was
made to the "exceptional importance of coastal fisheries to the Icelandic
economy", this phrase was only meant to emphasize the exceptional cir­
cumstances under which Iceland's claim for a 12-mile exclusive fishery zone

was, at that time, recognized de facto by the Federal Republic in order to
make clear that this agreement could not be used by other States as a prece­
dent against the Federal Republic for similar claims.

III

10. The question posed by Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock (p. 367,
supra) relates to the meaning which the Federal Republic of Germany
attaches to the word "preferential" in the concept of the preferential rights or
the preferential position' of the coastal State; it is specifically asked whether
this word connotes some absolute or independent element of priority in the
allocation of resources or involves merely some element of bias in favour of
the coastal State when the rights or equities of the parties are otherwise more

or Jessequal.
11. It is indeed a fondamental question of interpretation of the concept of
the coa~tal State's preference whether such preference derives its legal justifi­
cation solely from the existence of special economic needs, if any, on the part
of the coastal State or whether such preference is the legal consequence of an
equitable evaluation of the respective weight of the interests of the coastal
State and other States fishing for the same stock or stocks offish. The Ferlerai
Republic is of the opinion that the very notion of "preference", if contrasted
with exclusiveness, forbids an interpretation of the concept of the coastal
State's preference which would imply an absolute priority of the coastal
State's interests over those of the other States and might, if carried to the
extreme, result in total exclusion of other States from the fisheries in question.
The Ferlerai Republic takes the view that coastal States' "preference"

requires special consideration of the coastal States' interests in the case of an
equivalent scheme, but does not necessarily imply that a coastal State should
always get a preferential share; nor could the preference be extended to such
a degree that would be incompatible with the reasonable regard standard as
set out in Article 2 of the High Seas Convention, with respect to the înterests
of non-coastal States.
12. This interpretation seems to be in harmony with the notion of prefe­
rence, as understood in the context of the resolution of the 1958 Conference
on Special Situations of Coastal Fisheries. Jt had been conceived, at that time,
in contrast to claims made by some States for "exclusive" rights over the
fisheries in the high seas beyond the 12-mile limit, and also in contrast to
daims for preferential rights in the sense of accqrding absolute priority to
the needs of the coastal State. The essential element of the concept of the CORRESPONDENCE 481

coastal State's preference as it was understood in the resolution of the 1958
Geneva Conference and in the Brazil, Cuba and Uruguay amendment at the
1960 Geneva Conference, was that, if catch limitations become necessary, the

needs of the coastal Statc and the interests of the other non-coastal States
fishing for the samc stock or stocks of fish had to be balanced against each
other, under equitable principles, either by agreement or by the finding of an
international arbitral commission. The legal impact of the coastal State's
preference on the allotment of national shares in any catch limitation scheme
consists in allowing a deviation from the principle of non-discrimination
which governs the application of conservation measures on the high seas.
The coastal State's prefcrencc allows the application of special criteria in
faveur of the coastal State, supplemcntary to other criteria applied indis­
criminately to ail States, such as the criterion of the so-called past perfor­
mance.
13. To demonstrate the legal impact of the coastal State's preference in
catch limitation schemes, reference may be made to the situation where such

a scheme entails a more or Jess drastic reduction of the total allowable catch
cornpared with previous catches. As long as no sensible reduction is imposed,
there wi!Inormally be no apparent need to give an additional quota to the
coastal State. The more the allowable catch is reduced below the previous
level, the heavier may be the effect on the coastal State's economy if no other
alternatives of fishing possibilitics or other sources of fish supply rnay be
available to the coastal State; in such cases the allotment of an additional
quota to the coastal State might be justified with due regard to the interests
of the other States afTected hercby.
14. Jt should be noted, howcver, that in practice agreements on catch
limitation need not necessarily apply rigid formulas in determining national
catch quotas, but may accommoda te the different interests of the States which
participate in such arrangements, by aBottîng special quota~ with respect to

certain fish stocks in whîch a State is most interested, by reserving specially
bounded areas for the coastal small boat fishery, or by other regulations
which faveur the fisheries of the coastal State (see the Faroese Arrangement of
18 Decernber 1973). Thus, agr:eed catch limitation schemes rnay provide more
and sometimes better alternatives to satisfy the special economic needs of the
coastal State than any rigid preferential formula.

IV

15. The question put by Judge Di/lard to the Federal Republic of Germany
(p. 367, supra) relates to the exclusiveness of the fishery zone proclaimcd by
the Governrnent of lceland in the lcelandic Regulations No. 189/72 of 14July
1972. The Agent for the Government of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany
has made special reference to this subjcct in his statement on 28 March 1974

(p. 341, supra); the counsel for the United Kingdom had very extensively
covered this field in his statement on 29 March 1974(I, pp. 488-493), to which
it may be allowed to refer for the purpose ofthis answer. The Government of
the Federal Republic maintains that the fishery Jimits decreed in the Regu­
lations No. 189/72 issued by the lcelandic Minister for Fisheries on 14 July
1972 and put in force on 1·Septembcr 1972, purport to establish a fishery zone
which is truly exclusive in character, and not merely preferential, not evcn
"preferential" in the limited sense that Iceland would feel obliged to allow
foreign fishing in so far as. Icelandic fishing vessels were not able to harvest
ail the fish in this zone. The decisive criterion which, in the view of the482 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

Government of the Fedcral Republic, characterizes the kelandic 50-mile

fishery lirnits as a daim for fully exclusive fishing rights, is found in the well­
known position of the lcelandic Government that they were under no obli­
gation to allow any Foreign fishing in this zone, and that, ifthey did, they did
so merely to facilitatc the adjustment of foreign fisheries to the new lin~its.

140, THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO

8 April 1974.

l have the honour to send Your Exccllcncy herewith a copy of a letter,
dated 3 April 1974 and rcccivcd in the Registry on 6 April, from the Agent of
the Fcderal Republic of Gcrmany in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case, setting

out the reply of the United Kingdom Govcrnment to the questions put by
Judges Jiménez de Aréchaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock and Dillard at the
hearing of 2 April 1974 (pp. 358 and 367, supra).

141. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED KJNGDOM

10 May 1974.

I have the honour ta send you herewith the text oftwo questions put ta the
Government of the United Kingdom by Judge Petrén in the Fisheries J11ris­
dictio11 ( United Kingdom v. /ce/and) case, which were communicated ta you
over the telephonc this morning. As I stated in our telcphone conversation, it

would be appreciated if the replies ta these questions could be comnrnnicated
ta the Court by 12 noon on Wednesday next, 15 May.

Questions poséespar M. Petrén

1. L'article 7 de l'accord intérimaire conclu entre les Parties le 13 novembre
1973 stipule que son expiration ne modifiera paS la position juridique de l'un
ou J':!utre gouvernement en cc qui concerne le fond du différend. En revanche,
aucune référence n·est faite à un effet à cet égard de l'accord Pendant que
celui-ci sera en vigueur.Cela n'implique-t-il aucune limitation dans la liberté

d'action des Parties pendant cette période en ce qui concerne la poursuite de
leurs revendications respectives devant la Cour ou ailleurs?
2. Quelle Partie a proposé la rédaction de l'article 7 avec la référence à
l'expiration de l'accord? Cette rédaction a-t-elle fait l'objet d'une discussion
quelconque au cours des négociations qui ont précédéla conclusion de l'ac­

cord?

142. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF !CELANO
10 May 1974.

I have the honour ta send Your Excellency herewith the text of two ques­
tions put ta the Governmcnt of the Unired Kingdom by Judge Petrén in the

Fisheries Jurisdiction ( United Kingdom v. /ce/and) case, which were commu­
nicated to the United Kingdorn Agent by telephon"e today, and by letter
despatched today. CORRESPONDENCE 483

143. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

14 May 1974.

As requested in your lcucr of 10 May, I have the honour to communicate
the replies of Her Majcsty's Govcrnment to the two questions put by Judge
Petrén, the text of which was enclosed with your letter.

Question l

The Interim Agreement of 13 November 1973 was concludcd by rneans of
an Exchange of Notes between the Minister for Foreign Atîairs of lceland and
the British Arnbassador in Reykjavik. Both Notes wcre in the English
language and each consisted of three paragraphs.
The first paragraph of the Foreign Minister·s Note begins by referring to

discussions concerning the fisheries dispute and continues:

··in these discussions the followîng arrangements have been worked
out for an interiin agreement relating to the fisheries in the disputed
area, pending a settlerncnt of the substantive dispute and witlwm pre­

judice ro the lega/ position or rights of either Gorernmem in relation
rhereto, which ... " (emphasis added).

This part of the first paragraph of the Note is part of the text of the Agree­
ment.

The opening part of the first paragraph of the Foreign Ministcr·s Note was
followed by seven subparagraphs (which were describcd as such in sub­
paragraph 5). The sevcn subparagraphs set out the dctailcd arrangements,
including those in subparagraph 7 on the duration and tcrmination of the
Agreement. The words underlined in the above quotation preservc the legal

position or rights of each Govcrnment in relation to the substantive dispute.
Accordingly, the lnterim Agreement docs not imply any limitation of the
Parties· freedom of action with regard to pursuît of thcir respective daims
with respect to the substantive dispute, before the Court or elsewhcre. ln a
statement made in the Ho use of Commons on ·the day of signature of the

Agreement, the Prime Ministcr of the United Kingdom, Mr. Edw;,1rd Heath,
said:

"Our position at the World Court remains cxactly as it is, and the
agreement is without prcjudice to the case of eithcr country in this
malter."

Question 2

After the conclusion of the agreement in principlc between the two Prime
Ministers in October 1973, the following form of words was putto the lce­

landic authorities during discussion between them and the British Ambassa­
dor in Reykjavik of the proposed Exchange o_fNotes:

"The agreement will run for two ycars from the prescnt date. The
Governments will rcconsider the position before that term expires unless
they have in the 1Y1cantimcagreed to a settlemcnt of the substantive
dispute. ln the absence of such a settlement, the tcrmination of this
agreement will not a!Tcct the legal position of either Government with

respect to the substantive dispute." FISHERIES JURISDJCTION
484

Part of the above form of words was taken out at the suggestion of the Ice­
landic authorities and agreement was reached on the wording now contained
in sub-paragraph 7 of the lcelandic Foreign Minister's Note.
Accordingly, the form of words in sub-paragraph 7of the Note emerged in the
course of discussion during the negotiations prior to the conclusion nf the

Agreement. The intention of the British authoritics was to make clear that the
termination of the Agreement would not in itself extinguish whatever rights
either Government had at that time. In particular, the Interim Agreement was
not intended by the British authorities to be a "phase out" agreement.

]44. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MTNISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

17 May 1974.

Further to my letter of 10 May, 1 have the honour ta send Your Excellency·
herewith a copy of a letter dated 14 May from the United Kingdom Agent
setting out the replies of his Governmenl to the two questions put by Judge
Petrén in the Fisheries J11risdictio11( United Kingdom v./ce/and) case, the text
of which was enclosed with my letter of 10 May.

145. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFF AIRS OF ICELAND1

(te/egram)

18 July 1974.

Have honour inform Your Excellency Court will sit on Thursday 25 July for
public reading Fisheries Jurisdiction Judgments on Merits. 10 a.m. for
United Kingdom case and 3.30 p.m. for Federal Republic.

146. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND 2

(telegram)

25 July 1974.

Have honour inform you Court today delivered Judgment in Fisheries Juris­
diction case (United Kingdom v./ce/and). Operative Clause reads as follows:

[See I.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 34-35)

Judgment airmailed today.

1 Similar communications were sent to the Agents for the Governments of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 A similar communication was sent regarding the Federal Republic of Germany v.
[ce/and case (sel.C.J.Reports 1974, pp.205-206). CORRESPONDENCE 485

147. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE

FEDERAL RliPUDLJC OF GERMANY
2 August 1974.

Article 35, paragraph 3, of the Statu te of the Court provides that:

"When a State which is nota Member of the United Nations is a party
to a case, the Court shall fix the amount which that party is to contribute
towards the expenses of the Court. This provision shall not apply if such
State is bearing a share of the expenses of the Court."

At the date of the filing of its Application instituting proceedings against
Iceland in the Fisheries J11risdictio11case, the Federal Republic of Germany
was nota Member of the United Nations, nor bearingashare of theexpenses
of the Court, and the paragraph quoted above therefore became applicable.
1have the honour to inform you that the Court, pursuant to the paragraph
quoted, having regard to the practice of the Court and to ail relevant cir­
cumstances, including the period which elapsed between the filing of the
Application and the admission of the Ferlerai Republic of Germany as a
Member of the United Nations, and taking into account the expenses incurred
by the Court in connection with the above-mentioned case, has fixed the

amount to be contributed to the expenses of the Court by the Federal Re­
public of Germany at One hundred and sixty-three thousand, five hundred
and one United States Dollars ($163,501). •
I should be obliged ifyou would arrange for the sum in question to be paid
to the Officeof Financial Services, United Nations, New York, to which I am
sending a copy of this letter. ltwould be of assistance if the payment by the
Federal Republic of Germany were accompanied by a note referring to this
letter.

148. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN!
6 août 1974.

Le Greffier de laCour internationale de Justice a l'honneur de transmettre,
sous ce pli, un exemplaire de chacun des arrêtsrendus par la Cour le 25juillet
1974 dans les affaires relatives à la Compétence en matière de pêcheries
(Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord c. Islande; République
féderaled'Allemagne c. Islande).
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.

l Une communication analogue a éréadresséeaux amres Eiars Membres des Na­
tions Unies et aux Etats non membres des Nations Unies admisester devant la Cour.486

TABLE OF CONCORDANCE OF THE ORAL STATEMENTS

The followin g table indicates the relationship betwcen the pagination of the
present volume a11d that of the provisional verbatim record (stencil-du pli-
catcd) of the speeches made in Court, issucd to Mcmbers of the Court du ring
the hcarings, carrying the references CR 72/ , CR 73/ , and CR 74/
A numbcr of rcfcrenccs to the CRs appcar in the separatc and dissenting

opinions of Members 'Jfthe Court annexcd to the Judgment of 25 July 1974
(I.C.J. Reports /974, pp. 217-251); the passages so refcrred tocan be identi-
fied by means of this table.

CR Prese11t CR Pri'sc11t CR Prese11t CR Present
Page Volume Page Volume Page Volume Page Volume
Page Page Page Page

CR 72/lf 29-31 132 54-55 316 15-16 357
31-33 133 55-57 317 J6-J 7 358
6-8 42 33-35 134 57-60 319 17-18 359
8 43 35-37 135 60-62 324 18-20 360
9-10. 44 37 136 62-63 327 20-22 361
22-24
10-12 45 63-65 328 362
12-14 46 65-66 329 24-25 363
14-16 47 CR 74/2 66-67 331 25-28 364
16-18 48 67-68 332 28-30 365
18-21 49 6-7 288 68 334 30-32 366
21-23 50 7-8 289 68-71 335 32-34 367

23-25 51 9-10 290 71 337
25-28 54 11-13 291 71-73 338
28-30 55 13-14 292 73-76 339
30-32 56 14-16 293 76-77 340
32-34 57 16-l 8 294 77-79 341

34-36 58 18-20 295 79-81 342
36-39 59 20-22 296 81-83 343
39-40 60 22-24 297 83-84 344
24-26 298 84-86 345
26-29 299 86-88 346
29-30 300 88-90 347
CR 73/2
30-33 301 90-92 348
6-7 120 33-35 302 92 349
7 121 35-37 303 92-95 350
8-9 122 37-39 304 95 351
9-11 123 39-41 305

l 1-l3 124 41-43 306
13-l 6 125 43-45 307 CR 74/4
l6-l 8 126 45-47 308
18-19 127 47-49 309 6-7 352
19-21 128 49-51 310 7-8 353
21-23 129 51-52 311 8-11 354

23-26 130 52-53 312 11-12 355
26-29 131 53-54 313 12-15 356 The publications of the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE may be ordered
from any bookseller.For information regarding the sale of the Courrs publications

please write to the Distribution and Sales Section, Office of the United Natio1211
Geneva JO (Switzerland),or the Sales Secrio1t, United Nations, New YorkN.Y. 10017
(USA).
The publications of the PERMANENT COURT OF JNTERNATJONALJUSTICE

(1920.J 946) are obtainable from Kraus Reprint Ltd., 949 l Nendeln, Liechtenstein, to
which all requests shouldbe addressed.

On peut acquérir les publications de la COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
auprès des librairies spécialiséesdu monde entier. Pour tous renseignements, prière
de s'adresser à la Section de la distribution et des ventes, Office des Nations Unies,

1211 Genève JO(Suisse) ou àla Section des ventes, NatiUnies, New York, N.Y. 10017
(Etats·Unis).
On peut acquérir les publications de la COUR PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONALE (1920.J946) auprès de Kraus Reprint Ltd., 9491 Nendeln,

Liechtensrein. Pour tous renseignements, prière de s'adresser à cette société.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS