Correspondance

CORRESPONDENCE

(UNITEDKINGDOM V.ICELAND;

FEDERAL REPUBLICOFGERMANY V. ICELAND) 1.THE CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES OF THE BRITISH EMBASSY IN THE NETHERLANDS
TO THE RECISTRAR

14 April 1972,

1am directed by Her Maiestv's Princioal Secretarv of State for Foreian and
Commonwealth ~fairs to notiiy you. in accordanci 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
lreland aaainst the Government of lceland bv means of a written Aoolica-
tion1 under Article 40 (1) of the Statute and-~rticle32 (2) of the ~"ies of

Court 2 in respect of a dispute that has arisen concerning the proposed exten-
sion bv the ~overnment & lceland of its fisheries iurisdictionarouIceland.
1 ceitify that the signature on the applicatiiSthe signature of Mr. Steel.
In accordance with Article 35(5) of the Rules of Cour1,havethe honour to
state that the address for service of the Agent of Her Majesty's Government is

this Embassy.

(Signedl R. S. Fneen.

2.THE REGISTR TAORTHE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANO

(telegram)
14 April 1972.

Have honourinform you that on 14April Application was filed in Registry
of'Court on behalf of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
lreland instituting proceedings against Iceland concerning dispute relating Io
legality of decision said to be announced by Government of lceland unilat-

erally to extend exclusive fisheriesjurisdictioIceland. Application requests
Court to declare:

Have honour to draw vour attention to Article 35. ~aragraph 3. of Rules
of Court u.hich.pro\,ides ihat pxty agdinst whom appl~caiion is made and Io
uhom itis notificd shall. when acknouledging receipt of notification. or as
soon as oossible, inform Court of name of its aaent. Paragra~h5ofsame
Article p;ovides that appointmcnt of agent must he accompanicd by stiitcment

of address for service at searof Court. Copies of Applicaiion airmailed todsy.

1 1,pp.1-10,
2 Rulesof Court adoptedon 6 May 1946,I.C.JActs and Documents. No. 1, 2nd
edition, pp. 54-83. 3. THEREGISTRAR TO THEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
14 April 1972.

1have the honour to enclose herewith a confirmatory copy of a cable which
1 have today addressed to Your Excellency, together with two copies, of which
one is a certified true copy, of the Applicatiofiled today in the Registry of
the Court, by which the Government of the United Kingdoni of Great
Britain and Northern lreland institutes proceedings againstIceland.

1 also enclose herewith a copy of a letter of today's date froni thechargé
d'Affaires at The Hague of the United Kingdom, which accompanied the
filing of the Application.
1 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 lime-limits for the filing of pleadiiigs in the
case will form the subject of a later communication. In this connection 1

would venture to draw Your Excellency's attention to Article 37, paragraph 1.
of the Rules of Court.

4. THE REGISTRAR TO THE CHARG~ D'AFFAIRES OF THE

BRITISH EMBASSY IN THENETHERLANDS

14 April 1972.

'1have the honour 10acknowledge the receipt of the letter of 14 April 1972
whereby you transmitted to the InternationalCourt of Justice an Application
on behalf of the Government of the United Kinedom of Great Britain and

Ntirthern Ireland insiilutin<procesJinci ixc:iin,i ihe G.>\erniiienr i~fIcel;itiJ
and inforincd iiie of ihe 3ppointnierii i)f >Ir. Hcnr) Steel. Odi thc ,\gent
fair thc Governniciit of the CniieJ Kinzd.)tii h~rthe riurpore oi ihc\c proceeJ-
ings. It has been duly noted that the address for sirvice ofMr. steel is the
British Embassy in The Hague.

5. THE REGISTRAR IO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

14 April 1972

1 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 nie of your
appointment as Agent of the Government of the United Kingdoni of Great
Britain and Northern lreland in proceedings instituted before the Interna-
tional Court of Justice against the Governnient of lceland by means of a

written Application under Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the
Court, and to inform you that an Application in these proceedings was filed
in the Registry today, 14 April 1972.
1havethe further honour to inform you that acertified copy of the Applica-
tion has been transmitted to the Res~ondent.

The question of the fixing of time-lcmits for the filing of the pleadings in this
case will form the subject of a later communication. In this connection 1
venture Io draw your attention to Article 37, paragraph 1, of the rules of
Court. 6. THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATTONS

5 May 1972.

1have the honour to refer to my cable of 14April 1972, a copy of which is
enclosed herewith, and to inform you that 1 am forwarding to you under
sepdrate cover (by airmdiled parcel post, marked "Attention, Director,
General Legal Division") 150 copies of the Application filed on 14April 1972

on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern lreland instituting proceedings against the Government of lceland
in a dispute relating tothe fisheries jurisdiction of Iceland.
lshould 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.

7.LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN~

5 mai 1972.
Le 14 avril 1972 a été déposée auGreffe de la Cour internationale de

Justice. au nom du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'lrlande du Nord.

un exemplaire de cette requête.

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

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

l'Islande une instance en l'affaire intitulée Compétenceen malière de pêcheries.
Me référanta l'article 40, paragraphe 5, du Statut, j'ai l'honneur,à toutes
fins utiles, de transmettre ci-joint a Votre Excellence un exemplaire de cette
requête.

9.THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
9 May 1972.

1 h;i\c thc honour to ir.insriiit hcrewiih for your inform.ition ihree copics
or the bilirigiicdiiiiin. printeiby the Reg~,ir", of the ,\pplic~iion tif thc
Ilnlted KiiicJoni of <;re~i Urit3in and Yorihern Ireland in the case relaiine
-
to the fisheries jurisdiction of Iceland.

1 La mêmecommunication a étéadressée auxautres Etats Membres desNations

Unies.
2 La mêmc eommunication a étéadresséeauxautres Etatsnon membresdesNations
Unies admis à ester devant laCour.
3 A communicationin the sametermswassent to the MinisterforForeign Affairsof
Iceland. 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 1, of !he Rules of Court, he will summon the Agents to The Hague
in order to ascertain the views of the Parties with regard to queslions of
procedure.

10. THEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGNAFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE REGISTRAR

(telegram)

15 May 1972.

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

letter to you will be despatched assoon aspossible.

(Sigtred) Einar AGUSTSSON

11. THESTATESECRETAR OYF THE FOREIGN OFFICE OF THE FEOERAL
REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

26 May 1972.

1 have the honour to transmit to vou. for communication to the President
and the Judges of the 1nternational~o;rt of Justice, the Application1insti-
tuting proceedings on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany against the
~eoublic of Iceland relatine to the extension of fisheries iurisdiction bv the
-
~epublic of Iceland.
1 have thefurther honour toinform you that Professor Dr. Günther Jaenicke
has been appointed Agen1 of the Federal Republic of Germany for the
purposes of these proceedings, and tu certify that the signature under the

Application referred toabove is the signature of Professor Dr. Günther
Jaenicke. Agent of the Federal Reoublic of Germanv. The Enibassr of the
Federal ~epihlis of Cicrnian)a1 ~he Hague. Niruue i3;irk La~n 17. has becn
selccicd a5the addrc~sfor service a1the scat of ihe Couri io which al1comniL-

nications relating to the procéedings should be sent

For the Federal Minister forForeign Atfairs.
(Signed) FRANK.

12. THEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANDTOTHE REGISTRAR

29 May 1972.

1 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 Iceland".

The United Kingdom Government relies "on the jurisdiction vested in the

--
1 Seepp. 1-11supra. 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 Iceland dated II March 1961 ".
In that connection 1 have the honour io request you to bring to the atten-

tion of the Court the contents of the Icelandic Government's aides-mémoire
of 31 August 1971and 24 February 1972, as well as the Law concerning the
Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fisheries of 5 April 1948and
the Resolutions adooted unaniniouslv bv the Althine. the Parliament of
Iceland, on 5 May 1959and 15 ~ebruary i972 (annexesi, 11, III,IV and V).
Those documents deal with the background andtermination of the agreement

recorded in the Exchanee of Notes of II March 1961. and with the~chanaed
circumstances resulting-from the ever-increasing expioitation of the fish;ery
resources in the seassurrounding Iceland. 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 look place under extremely difficult circum-
stances, when the British Royal Navy had been using force to oppose the
12-mile fishery limit established by the Icelandic Government in 1958. It
constituted the settlement of that dispute, but the agreement it recorded was
not of a Dermanent nature. The United Kinadom Government acknowled~ed
the excePtional dependence of the lcelandic-people upon coastal fisheriesfor

their livelihood and economic development and recognized the 12-mile
fisherv zone..sub.ect to an adiustnient oeriod of three vears. (Incidentally, the
~nited Kingdom Governmem has since adopted a j2-mile fishery zone in
British waters.) The lcelandic Government for its part stated that it would
continue to work for the imolementation of the Althine Resolution of 5 May

1959 regarding the extension of fisheries jurisdictionaround Iceland, but
would give to the United Kingdom Government six months' notice of such
extension. with a ~ossibilitv of recourse to the InternationalCourt of Justice
in theevent of 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 warningfurther 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 (ta which the Government of lceland
was consistently opposed as far ;is concerns disputes over the extent of ils
exclusive fisheries jurisdiction,as indeed the United Kingdom recognizes),

was not of a vermanent nature. In oarticular. an undertakine for iudicial
rettlcment c3nnot beconsjdered to be of a perlnanent nature.There is nothing
in that situation. or in any general rule ofcontemporary intcrnaiionîl law, to
justify any other view.
In theaide-memoire of 31Augu5t 1971the Government of lscland rn~rrul~a
gave to the United Kingdom Cio\ernmeni iuelve months' noii~.eof 11sinten-

tion to extend the zone of exclusive fisheries iurisdiction around ils coasts 10
include ihr arcas of se3covering the coniine~tal shelf, the precisc boundaries
of \rh~sh\rould be furnished Iater. ltalso expresbedils uillingness to explore
possibilities for finding a priciiial solution to the prohlenis wiih ivhich
the British traulcr industry round ilself faced and such discussions are siill in
progress betuecn representaiiver of ihe tuo <iovernriients in vicw ofjhe Tact

thût the exten\i,in ha%not )et come iiito ciTcct. It uas soecifically siated that
the new limitswould enterhto force not later than 1 ~ebtember~l972. At the
same lime it was intimated that the object and purpose of the 1961agreement
had been fully achieved. The position of the lcelandic Government was376 FISHERIES JURISDICT~ON

reiterated in the aide-mémoire of -~ -eh~u~ ~ ~972. whi.h a.ain i-dicated
thïi the 1961Exchange of Notes uas no longer 3ppl~i~blc;t11daas terniinated.
Copies of thai ïide-mCmoire merc trÿnsrnitted tu the Secrciary-Ciencra1 of ihe
~nited Nationsand the Reeistrar of the Internationa~ Cou-~-of ~ustice.

Alter the tcrminïtiun of the aprcenieni recorded in thc Ewhangc of Noies
of 1961. ihcre u,ïs i)n 14 Apr~l 1972 no ha.15 undcr the St~tutc for tlie Court
10e~crci~c~urisdiction in thesï\e to trhich the United Kingdoiii rr'lcrs.
The Go\crnnient of Icel.ind. conriJering thït the \.ilal intercsiof ihe

people of Icelïnd ïrc in\,olved..rçrn.itfulls infornis the Court thst IIi< no1
willing to confer jurisdiction on the Court in any case involving the entent of
the fishery limits of Iceland, and specifically in the casesought to be instituted
by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
lreland on 14 April 1972.

Having regard to the foregoing, an Agent will not be appointed to repre-
sent the Government of Iceland.

Annex 1

[See Annex C ro the United KitrgdomApplicnrioii, 1,p. 141

Annex II

(including Memorandum entitled FisheriesJl~risdicrioiri,r Icelaird)

[See Atmex H to the United KingdomApplicnrion, 1,pp. 26-66]

Annex III

LAW CONCERNING THESClENTlFlCCONSERVATION
OF THECONTINENTAL SHELF FISHERIES,

DATED 5 APRlL 1948 .

iSee Anna H ro the United KingdoniAipliration, 1,pp. 45-47]

Annex IV

RESOLUTION OF THEALTHING,5 MAY 1959

The Althing resolves Io protest emphatically against the violations of
Icelandic fisheries jurisdictioninstigated by British authorities with constant
acts of violence of British naval vessels inside the lcelandic fishery limits.
recently even within the 4 mile fishery limits of 1952. Since such activities are
evidently aimed al forcing the lcelandic people to retreat the Althing declares CORRESPONDENCE 377

that it considers that Iceland has an indisputable right to fishery limits of 12

miles. that recoenition should be ohtained of I~elan~'s rieh- to the e~t~re~ ~ ~
continental shelf area in conformity with the policy adopted by the Law of
1948.concernina the Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fisheries
and ;ha! fishery Ïimits of lessthan 12miles from base-lines around the country

are out of the question.

Annex V

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THEALTHlNO

ON 15 FEBRUARY 1972

[See Air~ie.~C to the UniteclKingdom Application, 1,p. 251

13. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THEGOVERNMENT
OF THEUNITEDKINODOM

31 May 1972.

1 have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a letter received in the
Registry today from the Minister for Foreign Afiirs of Iceland, referring to

the Application filedhy the United Kingdom Government on 14 April 1972.
Enclosed with that letter were five Annexes, copies of which 1 am also
sending herewith, and a copy of the Memorandum entitled FisheriesJttrisdic-
tion in Iceland issued by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Iceland in

February 1972; 1 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.

(telegram)

5 June 1972.

Have honour inform you that on 5 June Application was filed in Registry
Court on behalf of Federal Rcpublic of Germany instituting proceedings

aeainst lceland concernine -isout.~as to comoatibilitv or otherwise with
international law of unilateral extension of exclusive fisheries jurisdictioof
Iceland sdid to have heen decided hy Government of Iceland. Application
requests Court to declare:

[See p. II,supra]

Have honour to draw your attention to Article 35, paragraph 3, of Rules
of Court 1which provides that party against whom Application is made and

to whom it is notified shall, when acknowledging receipt of notification, or as
soon as oossible. inform Court of name of its aeent. Paraarao-. 5 of same
Arii.lc pri>v:ilïj ih~i .ippi,cnimeni oi;igeni muit hen:compxn.ed b) >iateiiicrir
of sddrc\\ fiBr wr\,ic31 \eai <iCo.ir1. Cc>py id Appl:ilil~.>n airnid~lerl ioday.

Rulesof Court adoptedon 6 May 1946,I.C.J. Acts and Documents, No. 1, 2nd
edirion,pp. 54-83. 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 1

have today addressed ta 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 Iceland.
1also enclose a copy of a letter dated 26 May 1972from the State Secretary
of the Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany, which accom-

panied the filing of the Application.
1 shall in due course transmit to Your Excellency printed copies of the
Application in the English and French edition which will beprepared by the
Registry.
The auestion of the fixine of time-limits for the filina of uleadinps in the
casewili formthe subject of%.later communication. In this connection 1would

venture to draw Your Excellency's attention to Article 37, paragraph 1, of
the Rules of Court.

16.THE REGISTRAR 'IO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

5 June 1972.

1 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 Federal
Re~uhlic of Germanv aeainst the Reouhlic of Iceland. and informed me of
the appointmeni or ~ro6ssor Dr. ~ünthçr Jaenickc ai ,\gent af the Fedrral
Rcpuhltr: For the purpoici oi ihcse procecdirig$. II has bcen duly noled ihat

the addrehs for seriicc of I'r~~~-*or~~acnackc is the Ernb'issv of the Federal
~epublic of ~ermany at The Hague.

17. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLLC OF OERMANY

5 June 1972. ,

1have the honour to refer to a letter of 26 May 1972by 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 hefore the International Court of Justice against the Government of
lceland hy means of a written Application under Article 40, paragraph 1, of
the Statute of the Court, and to inform you that these proceedings were filed
in the Registry today, 5 June 1972.
1have the further honour to inform you that a certified copy of the Applica-

tion has heen 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, 1
venture to draw your attention to Article 37, paragraph 1, of the Rules of
Court. CORRESPONDENCE 379

18. THE AGENT FOR THE OOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR
7 June 1972.

1. 1have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 31 May 1972
which enclosed a copy of a letter, dated 29 May 1972, from the Minister for

Foreign Affairs of Iceland referring to the Application filed by the Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom in the above case.
2. The Government of the United Kinadom have taken note of what is
>;ii<in ihc leitcr ir<>iiiihc hlini\icr fur taireign Atbir(iflielînd. Thcy arc
iin:ahle io a;ccpi ihc \îlidity uf ilic :irgumçntr csni~inc.nthst lciicr relatng
t<itlie Ehili~nge 01 U<IIL.)i 1YhI 211dIo the legdl cllcct of thc\~~riousAiJcs-
hlcnioire :inJ oihcr Jo:iimcnt, ciicd hy the Gd\crnmrni of lielînd.
3. The <io\erniiicni id the L'niieJ Kingd<iiiirrgrei ihüi the C;oi,crnnicnt of

lceland 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 tliis question of law as is provided for by Article 36 (6)
of the Statute, and that they have indicated their intention of not appointing
an Agent to represent them in this case. The Government of the United
Kingdom reiiiain hopeful that the Government of lceland 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. In 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, requestthe
Court to continue with the consideration of this case and in due course to
decide in favour of their claim therein.

(Signed) H. STEEL.

19.THE REGISTRAR T0 THE MtNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS d~ ICELAND

9 June 1972.

1have the honour to refer to Your Excellency'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
7Junefrom the Agent of the United Kingdom, received in the Registry today.

20. THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS

22 June 1972.

I have the honour to refer to my cable of 5 June 1972, a copy of whichis
enclosed herewith, and to inform you that 1 am forwarding to you under
separate cuver (by airmail pdrcel post, marked "Attention, Director, General
Lesal Divison") 150 cooies of the Aoolicÿtion filed on 5Jun~~1972 on behalf
of The Government of tic Federnl &public of Germany instituting proceed-
ings against lceland in a dispute relating to the fisheries iurisdiction of Iceland.

I should be grateful if,in accordance with Article 6, 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. 21. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN 1

22 juin 1972.

Le 5juin 1972 a étédéposéeau Greffe dela Cour internationale de Justice,
au nom de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, une requéteintroduisant une
instance contre I'lslande.
J'ai l'honneur, à toutes fins utiles,de.transmettreci-jointVotre Excellence
un exemplaire de cette requéte.

22. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANOÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN 1
.22 juin 1972.

Le 5juin 1972a étédéposéeau Greffe de la Cour internationale de Justice,
au nom de la République fédéraled'Allemagne, une requête introduisant une
instance contre I'lslande.
hlc rL:fr.rÿitI'srt~cl40, pîrxgraphe 3~du Statiit delaCour, j'aiI'hdnncdr
de tranwiettre ci-joint3 \'titre Exiellr.ncs un cxcmpldirJe ~cttc requi'ic.

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

On instructions of President of Court have honour inform Your Excellency
that in case concerning Fisheries Jiirisdictio(UK v. Iceland) he will hold
meeting at Peace Palace Hague on Thursday 29 June at 14.30hrs to ascertain

views of Parties with regard to questions of procedure in accordance with
Article 37 ofRules of Court. Agent for UK will attend. Whilst noting that an
agent will not be appointed to represent Government of lceland 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.

M. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND 70 THE REGISTRAR
27 June 1972.

1have 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 Statute, by an Exchange of Notes between

the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of
lceland dated 19July 1961 (which provides for reference to the Court of any
dispute in relation to the extension of fisheries jurisdiction round Iceland)
and by the declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany in connec-
tion with the Exchange of Notes mentioned above on 29 October 1971, and

l La mêmecommunicationa étéadresséeaux autres Etals Membres desNations
Unies.
On 29 June 1972the Presidentmet the Agent of the Govcrnmentof the United
Kingdom. CORRESPONDENCE 381

transnlitted Io the Registrar of the International Court of Justice on 22 No-
vember 1971".
In that connection 1 have the honour to request you to bring to the attention

of the Court the contents of the lcelandic Government's aides-mémoire af
31 August 1971 and 24 February 1912, as well as the Law concerning the
Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fisheries of 5 April 1948and
the Resolutions adopied unanimously by the Althing, the Parliament of

Iceland, on 5 May 1959and 15 February 1972(Annexes 1, 11,III. 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 Iceland. The danger which this
entails for the lcelandic people necessitatesfurther 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 settleinent 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 Icelandic 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 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 Iceland, but would
give to the Government of the Federal Republic six months' notice of such
extension, with a possibility of recourse to the InternationalCourt 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 Icelandic Covernment 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 conccrns disputes over the extent of its
exclusive fisheriesjurisdiction). was not of a permanent nature. In particular,
an undertaking for judicial settlement cannot be considered to be of a

pernianent nature. There is nothing in that situation, or in any general rule of
contemporary international law, to justify any other view.
In the aide-mémoire of 31 Aiigust 1971 the Covernment oficeland inter
alia gave to the Government of the Federal Republic twelve months' notice

of its intention to extend the zone of exclusive fisheriesjurisdiction around its
coasts to include the areas of sea coverine t-e~ ~~tinental~shelf. the orecise
boundaries of which would be furnished later. Italso expressedit; willingness
to explore possibilities for findina a practical solution to the oroblerns with

which the German trawler indus-ri,f~ ~d its~-~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~h discussions are
still in Progress between representatives of the two Governments in view of
the fact that the extension has not yet come into effect. It was specifically
stated that the new limits would enter into force not later than I 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 lcelandic
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 transmitted to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Registrar of the Interna-
tional Court of Justice. After the termination of the agreement recorded in the Exchange of Notes
of 1961,there was on 5 lune 1972 no hasis under the Statute of the Court to
exercise jurisdiction in the case to which the Government of the Federal

Reoublic refers.
The Government of Iceland, considering that the vital interests of the
people of Iceland are involved, respectfully informs the Court thatit is not
willi-e to confer iurisdiction on the Court in anv case invo.vine the extent of
the fishrryIiniiis &IIIccland. and pcciticïlly in the idie stobcinbtii~tcd
b, theG<ivernnient of the tsdcral Kepiiblii)Geriii~ny on 5Junc 1972.

Having regard ta the foregoing, an Agent will not be appointed to repre-
sent the Government of Iceland.
(Signed) Einar AG~STSSON.

Annex 1

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

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

AnnexII

(including Memorandum entitled FisheriesJurisdictionin Iceland)

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

Annex III

LAW CONCERNING THE SClENTlFlCCONSERVATION OF THE
CONTINENTAL SHELI. FISHERIE SA,TED 5 APRIL 1948

[See AnnexHto the UnitedKingdornApplication, 1,pp. 45-47]

Annex IV

[See Anriex IV to the letter of the Foreign Minister of Iceland to the Registrar
dated 29 May 1972,pp. 376-377, supra]

AnnexV

RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ALTHING ON 15 FEBRUARY 1972

[See Annex G to the United KingdomApplication, 1, p251 CORRESPONDENCE 383

25.THE REGISTRAR TO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFfAlRS Of ICELAND

(relegram)
30 June 1972.

On instructions of President of Court have honour inform Your Excellency
that in case concerning Fisheries Jerisdicrion(Germany v. Icelai~d)he will
hold meeting at Peace Palace, Hague, on Tuesday 4 July 14.30hrs to ascertain
views of Parties with regaid to questions of procedure in accordance with
Artic~~ 37 of Rules of Court. Agent for Germanv will attend. Whilst noting

that an agent has not yet been appointed to repreFent Government of lceland
in the case am instructed inform you that should Your Excellency's Govern-
ment wish to bereoresented at the fore-oin- meeting. .rson designated would
be welcome to atiend 1.

26. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF CERMANY
4 July 1972.

1 have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of a letter which 1 have
today received from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of lceland with reference
to the Application filed on 5 June 1972 on behalf of the Federal Repiiblic of

Germany.
There were attached to the Minister's letter the following documents:
Annex 1-Government of Iceland's Aide Mémoire of 31 Augiist 1971 ;Annex
Il-Governnient of Iceland's Aide Mémoire of 24 February 1972; Annex
III-Law Concerning the Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf
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 a copy of a Memorandum entitled Fi~heriesJiirisdicrioniti Icelarissued
by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of lceland in February 1972.
The documents listed above as Annexes 1, II 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.

1am enclosing herewith copies of Annexes III and IV.

27. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEOERAL REPUBLIC
Of CERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

14 July 1972.

1 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 Anairs of lceland referring ta the
Application filed by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on
5 June 1972 in the Fishrries case between the Federal Republic of Germany

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

I On 4 luly 1972 the President met the Agent for the Covernment of the Federal
Republic of Germany.the contents of this letter froni the Foreign Minister of Iceland, and in

particular ol the unwillingiiess of the Government of lceland Io recognize
the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in this case.
The Governnient of the Federal Republic of Germany is unable to accept
the validity of the argunients advanced by the Government of lceland in
sumort of its contention that the agreement bctween the Governments of the
~e.dera1 Republic of Ger~iiany and-thc Republic of lceland contained in the
Exchange of Notes of 19July 1961 by which both Governments accepted the
jurisdiction of the International Court with respect to any dispute relating Io
an extension by lceland of ils fisheries jurisdiction, should be considered as
being "no longer applicable" and "terniinated".
The arguiiients contained in the letter of 27 June 1972 froni the Minister
for Foreign Anairs of lceland are the same as had been put forward in the

aide-ménioires of the Government of lceland of 31 August 1971 and 24
February 1972 which had already been rejected by the Governnient of the
Federal Republic of Germany. According to Article 36, paragraph (61, of the
Statute of the Court. it is for the Court to decide on itsjurisdiction, and the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany will submit further argu-
nients in its pleadings in support of its contention that the validity of the
agreenient contained in the Exchange of Notes of 19July 1961, has remained
iinaiïected and that, consequently, the Court has jurisdiction in this case. At
this stage of the proceedings il may suffice to point to. the fact that the
agreement contained in the Exchange of Notes of 19July 1961 by which the
Governments of the Federal Reuublic of Gernianv and of the Republic of
Iceland accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, wis specificiilly deiigned to

provide for the judicial settlenient of any dispute which might arise between
them in case the Republic of lceland would, as already envisaged in the
agreement, extend ils fisheries jurisdiction beyond the 12 miles liniit. The
present dispute is precisely of such a nature as the parties had envisaged in
paragraph 5 of that açreeineiit.
The Government of the Federal Rep~iblic of Germany regrets that the
Government of lceland 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 might have to the jurisdiction of the Court, and has indicated its intention
of no1 appointing an agent to represent the Republic of lceland before the
Court. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany remainshopeful
that the Government of Iceland will reconsider that decision at a later stage of

the proceedings.
In themeantirne, the Governnient of the Federal Republic of Germany for
ils part avails itself of the right under Arti5?eof the Statute ofthe Court to
request the Court to continue with the consideration of this case and in due
course to decide in favour of ils claim.
(Signeci) Güntber JAENICKE.

28. THE REClSTRAR TO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

19July 1972.
1 have the honour Io refer Io Your Excellency's letter of 27 June 1972

relating to the Application filed by the Governinent of the Federal Republic
of Gernianv on 5 June 1972. institutina Droceedincs against Iceland. and Io
send you hérewith a copy of a letter daGd 14July fi72from the gent of the
Federal Republic of Germany, received in the Registry today. CORRESPONDENCE

29. THE REGISTRAR TO THEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(~elesrom)
19 July 1972

Reference FisheriesJ~iris<licrion case brought by United Kinedom have
honour inform you United Kingdom filed Gis day request foFindication
interim measures of protection in accordance with Articles 41, Statiite, and

61, Rules. Measures requested read asfollows:

[See 1, pp. 77-78]

Coov reauest airmailed to vou todav exo.ess. In accordance with Rules
~rticie61, paragraph 8, couri ready to receive observations of lceland on
therequest in writing and will hold hearings opening on I August at 10 a.m.1
in Peice Palace The Haeiie to rive parties o~oortunitv of oresentine their
observations on the request. ~ould appreciate beinVginiorn~ed soonest

whether your Government intends avail itself provisions Article 31. ~aragraph
2,of ~taiute of Court.

30.THE REGISTRAR TO THEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

19 July 1972.

Express Airmail

1 refer Io the proceedings institrited by the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland against lceland on 14 April las1 (Fisheries
Jarisdiction case), and to my cable of today's date, of which a confirmatory
copy isenclosed, and have the honour to transmit Io Your Excellency here-

with a certified true 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

"Thr Court sli;tll unl! inJic~.iic interim nic.i>iire< of protr.:iisrn sficr
eving tlie p:irtir.$ ln <ipport.inii). oi preienting rlicir i>h\cr\.iti<,ii\ on the
subject ..:'

1 confirm that, as stated in my cable, the Court is ready to receive the
written observations of the Government of Iceland on the subiect. and will
hold public hearings at the Peace Palace. The ~agiie, openingon'~uesday,

1'August 1972 al 10 a.m., to give both Parties the opportunity of presenting
their observations orallv,
1 venture to draw ~our Excellency's attention to Article 31, paragraph 2,
of the Statute of the Court, the first sentenceof which reads asfollows:

"If the Court includes upon the Bench ajudge of the nationality of one
of the parties, any other Party may choose a person to act asjudge."

Should the Covernment of lceland consider that it oossesses.and intcnd
to exercise, the right to choose a judge under this Article, Your Excellency
will appreciate that il should so notify the Court in accordance with Article 3of the Rules of Court, in sufficient time for the person chosen Io be able to
take his place on the bench for the consideration of the United Kingdom's
request.

31.THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THEUNITEDKINGDOM

19 July 1972.

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of a request by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland for the indication of interim
measures of protection in the Fislsheriesirïsdiclion 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 10 the
Ministerfor Foreien Affairs of lceland bv exoress air mail.
1havefurther toinform you that theCOU; willhold public hearings at the
Peace Palace, The Hague, opening on Tuesday 1 August 1972, at 10 am.,

to give both Parties the opportunity of presenting their observations on the
subject.
Copies of the telegram and letter Ihave today despatched to the Foreign
Minisier of lceland are enclosed.

32. THEREGISTRAR TOTHEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(relcsram)

21 July 1972.

Reference Fisheries Jliris[licricase brought by Federül .Republic of
Cermany have honour inform you Federül Republic filed this day requesi for
indication interim measures of protection in accordance with Articles 41.

Statute, and 61, Rules. Measiires requested read as follows:

[See pp. 30-31, supra]

Copy request airmailed to you today express. In accordance with Rules
Article 61..~ar-.ra~h 8. Court readv toreceive observations of lceland on ihe
request in writing and will hold hearings opening on 2 August 10 a.ni.1 in
PeacePalaceThe Hague to give Parties opportunity of presenting their obser-
vations on the request.

33. THE REGISTRAR 70 THEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANO

21 July 1972.

Express Airmail

1 refer to the proceedings institiited by the Federal ~esublic of Germany
against lceland on 5 June last (Fislieries J~irisdicrion case), and to niy cable of
today's date, of which a confirmatory copy is enclosed, and have the honour
to transmit to Your Excellency hercwith a certified true copy of a request by

1 Seepp. 41-60. supra the Federal Republic of Germany for the indication of interim measuces 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 alter
giving the parties an opportunity of presenting their observations on the

subject . .."
1 confirm that, as stated in my cable, the Court is ready to receive the
written observatioiis of the Government of Iceland on the subject, and will
hold public hearings al the Peace Palace, The Hague, opening on Wednesday
2 August 1972at 10&m., to give both parties the opporfunity of presenting

their observations orally.

34. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THO.FEUERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
21 July 1972.

1 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 FisheriesJurisdicfiorzcase, filed in the Registry today. The Governirient 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
Alïairs of lceland by express air mail.
1have 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.in., to
give bath Parties the opportunity of presenfing their observations on the,

subject.
Copies of the telegram and letter 1have today despatched to the Foreign
Minister of Iceland are enclosed.

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

21 July 1972
I have the honour to inform vou that the Government of the Federal

Republic of Germany having no Judge of the nationality of the Federal
Republic of Germany on the Bench would like to avail itself of the right under
~rticle 31, paragraph 3,of the Statute of the Court to choose a persoii to sit
as Judge in the FisheriesJitrisdiction (Federal Repriblicof Germany v.Iceland)
case. However, in view of the urgency of the decision of the Court on the
reauest for interim measures of orotection. the Government of the Federal
~epublic of Germany will, at thisitage of the proceedings, not yet nominate a

person of itschoice, thereby reserving ils right under Article 31 to a later stage
of the proceedings

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

24 July 1972
1 have the honour to transmit to Your Excellency herewith a copy of a '
letter dated 21 July, received in the Registry today, from the Agent of the

Federal Republic of Germany in the FisheriesJ,rrisdicfioncase.388 FISHERIElS URlSDICTION

37. THEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAlRS OF [CELANOTO THE RECISTRAR

(lelegram)
28 July 1972

1 have the honoor to acknowledge receipt of your telegram concerning the
United Kingdom's request filed 19 July 1972. In my letter of 29 May 1972 1

stated that "after the termination of the Agreement recorded in the Exchange
of Notes of 1961,there was on 14April 1972no basis under the Statutefor the
Court to exercisejurisdictioiiin the caseto which the United Kingdom refers"
and that "an agent will not be appointed to represent the Government of
Iceland".
~
It follows that there is no basisfor the request to whichyour telegram refers.
Iii anv event the A. .ication of 14April 1972refers to the legal position of the
two States and not to the economic 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 Rules of the
Court in the case to which the United Kingdom refers, where no basis for

jurisdiction isestablished.
For the information of the Court the Government of lceland also wishes in
this conneclion to refer to its arguments for the extensiori of the fisheries
jurisdiction which were embodied in ils letter to the Court dated 29 May and

the documents attached thereto.

38. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANO TO THE RECISTRAR

(relegram)
28 July 1972.

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your telegram concerning the
Federal Reoublic of Germanv's request filed 21 Julv 1972. In mY letter of
27 June 197i 1stated that "aftér the termination of théAgreement rëcorded in

the Exchange of Notes of 1961 there was on 5June 1972 no basis under the
Statute for 'he Court to exercisejurisdiction in the caseto which the Govern-
ment of the Federal Repiiblic refers" and that "an agent will not be appointed
to represent the Government of Iceland".

It follows that there is no basis for the request to which your telegram
refers. In any event the Application of 5June 1972refers to the legal position
of the two States and not to the economic position of certain private enter-
prises or other interests in one of those States. It is ülso recalled that the

Federal Republic of Gerniany 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 notificd by the Government of Iceland, in ils
aide-mfmoire of 31 A~igust 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 objects specifically to the indication by the Court of provisional
measures under Article 41 of the Statute and Article 61 of the Rules of the
Coiirt in the case to which the Government of the Federal Republic refers

where no basis for jurisdiction is estahlished. CORRESPONDENCE 389

For the information of theCourt the Government of lceland also wishes in
rhis conrieclion to refer to its arguments for the extension of the fisheries
jurisdiction which were enibodied in its letter to theCourt dated 27 June and
the docunients attached thereto.

39. THE REGISTRAR 10 THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMLNT
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM1

31 July 1972
1 have the honour to transmit herewith a certified copy of the telegram

dated 28 July 1972 and received on 29 July fro!ii the Miiiister for Foreign
Afïairs of Iceland, thecontents of whicli 1communicated to you by telephone
as soon as it was received.

40. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVEI<NhlENT
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

31 July 1972.

Article 60, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court provides, with reference Io
speeches and statements made durins the oral proceedings, that:
"A transcript of speeches or declarations made by agents, coiinsel or

advocates shall be made available to theiii 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 interim mea-

sures of protectiori will be made available on the saine day.
In order Io facilitate any supervision which the Court niay feel il proper to
exercise, and in order not to delay the Court's consideration of the request for
the indication of interim measures of protection, any correction or revision
which Aeents. counsel or advocates mav wish to make Io the transcriot
should be handed to the Registrar's secreiary as early as possible on the day
following the sitting, and in any event no1 later than6 p.m. on that day.

(telegram)
31 July 1972.

For the information of theCourt 1am transmitting below the text of my Note
of today to the Emhassy of the United Kingdom:
"The Ministrv for Foreign Affairs oresents ils comoliments to the

British ~nibass; and has the honour'to acknowledge receipt of the
Embassy's Note No. 40 dated 28 July 1972 confirming a communication

A cornmiinicationin the sanieterniswar sent to the Agentfor the Governrnentof
the Fedcral Republicof Gerrnany.
2 A Conirnunication inthe sameterrnsuas sent tothe Agentfor the Governmentof
the FederalRcpiiblicofGerniany and sirnilarcomrnrinicationswcresentIO the Agents
before thc openingof the oral procecdingon thejiirirdiction of the Court aon the
merits of the dispuie in both cases. 390 FISHERIEIS URISDlCTlON

which the British Ambassador made to thelcelandic Minister for Foreign

Atfairs on that date. In this communication it is stated among other
things that:

.'the British Government have been and remain oreoare. to.meet the
Icelandic authorities at short notice and at whatever level is appropriate
if such D~oPOS~~ aSre forthcoming. but in their absence there is no basis

for furiher~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 Government of lceland has both before and after the issiiance of
the Regulations concerning the fishery limits OR Iceland. on 14 July
1972, made known ils willingness to continue discussions with the

-n~ ~ ~ Ki~rdom with a vie~ ~o f~ ~ine a -oluti~~ to the fisheries
dispute on an interim basis. That position of willingness on the lcelandic
side is still unchanaed. The Ministrv for Foreign AHairs avails itself of

this opportunity toienew to the ~ritish ~mbassy the assurances of its
highest consideration."

42. THE REGISTUAU TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND 1
2 August 1972.

1 have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith three copies of the

provisional verbatim record of the public hearing of today's date, relating to
the reauest bv the Federal Reptiblic of Germanv for the indication of interim
measuies of protection in the~isheries ~urisdichn case, together with a copy
ofa map deposited and referred Io in the course of that hearing.

43. THERECISTRAR TOTHEMlNtSTER FOR FOREIGNAFFAIRS OF lCELAND2

3 August 1972.

1 refer to my letter of yesterday enclosing three copies of the provisional
verbatim record of the hearing of2 Augiist. and now have the honour to send

Your Excellency herewitti a further copy of the verbatim record, incorpor-
'atinç the corrections made by the Agent of the Federal Republic of Ger-
many.

44. THEMlNlSTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS Of ICELANDTOTHERECISTRAR

lrelegram)
3 August 1972.

Receipt is acknowledçed with thanks of your letter dated I Aiigust with
enclosed 3 exemplars of verbatini record of 1 August 1972. Would much

appreciate if possible receiving 25 exemplars of future verbatim records in
Fi.~heriesJ~iris~lilicr~ases.

1 Similar commiinicatiansweresentto the hlinister for Foreign ARairs of lceland
after eachpublic sittingheldin both case.
2 Similar communicationswere sentio the Minisier for Foreign AHairs of lceland
concerningeachpublic sitting held in both cases. CORHESPONOENCE

45. THE COUNSEL FOR THE COVERNMENO TF THE
UNITEDKINCl>OhtTO THE REGlSTRAR

3 ~ugust 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 Governnient of the
United Kingdom.

The first question reads as follows:

"ln the course of counsel's argument on 1 August, reference was made
to various negotiations for a provisional agreement (see verbatim
record, 1, pp. 96-97). Can ihe Court be siven further details of any
proposals rnade by lceland in the course of those negotiations?'

The following are the further details requested by the Court.

The first specific Icelandic proposal made in the course of negotiatioiis was
that only vessels ofessthan 160feet in lengthwhich had fished off Icelaiid 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
I~elandic \c\,cl~. Oiit>ide thii Iiiiiit tlierr. a,,i.lJ hs itro .irca, closej ,in coii-

ser\.ilioii grounds Io al11r:ttrIing \rhether h) IcelJnd~~<>rfurcign vr.,sclr. The
rcsi of thdred bctueen 3 ?S-~ii~lrI.onlit i2i5U.111.1IIII~I\\<)!~ldhc ~11\.Jerl
into six sectors of which two at a time would be open in rotation to British
vesselsfor three or four months or the year. The lcelondic authorities would

he responsible for enforcement including the right to arrest and punish
vesselsfor any infringement of the arrangements. The agreement would run
until 1 January 1974.
Sohsequently these proposals u8eremodified 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 niiles but which
would have substantially the same restrictive elfect as a line at a uniforrn
distance of 25 miles from the baseline. Tlie sectors outside this line which
would be open in rotation two at a time for four months were specified. On
this basis Her Maiestv's Governnient calculated that the areas in auestion

during the respectiGeieriods in which they would beopen currently produced
only 20 per cent. of the United Kingdoin catch. The lcelandic delegation
indicated that the details of the arrangement were negotiable and were
prepared to discuss modificatioiis in the original proposals regarding restric-

tions on the size of vessels and the duration of the agreeiiient. At fhe con-
clusion of the talks the Icelandic delegation asserted that the total effect on
British fishing of the restrictions Iceland required need not be greater than a
reduction of 25 percent. below the 1971catch level but the Icelaiidic author-
ities have not out forward anv further soecific orooosals or withdrawn anv of

the restrictive élementsin thel'r previou~'~ro~o;als:
The second question reads as follows:

"The Court has takeri note of the proposal by the United Kingdom
that as part of the interini measures, the Uriited Kingdoni woold be
prepared to limit the annual catch of fishing vessels registered in the
United Kingdom to a certain definite tonnage.
Ifpossible would the Agent of the United Kingdom kindly assist the

Court by indicating one or more methods or institutional devices which
might be feasibly designed to furnish both Parties the assurance that
such limits would not be exceeded? 392 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

In oarticular does the Axent have in mind in the interests of orotectine
the réspectiverights of boïh the United Kingdom and lceland, that the
assurance noted in paragraph 19of ils Request could be irnplemented bv
some appropriate method of supervision or accounting, and if so can hé

throw some light on such a method."
In reply to the above questions 1 am authorized to submit the following
statements.

1. Her Majesty's Government have no doubt that should 'the Court
indicate as "art of the interim nieasures the limitation othe catch of United
.~
Kingdom fishing vesselswhich they have suggested, this limitation could be
enforced bv Her Majesty's Government without difficulty and to the satisfac-
tion of the-lcelandic 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 to by Her Majesty's Attorney-General in his speech on
I August.
3. In general the implementation of such schemes, once they are agreed,
does not appear to give rise to any çreat difficulty becauseof the existence of
long-established systcrns of collecting statistics of 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 bv reference to the area from which the fish are taken. This
system forms the basis of United Kingdoni statistics for the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea(which has published fishing statistics

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 Icelandic area are readilv distinquishable by ins~ection from catches
taken in other areas, e.g., off the-~orweiian Coastor thé Faroes. Inspection
of the logs, which al1 ships are legally required to complete, and the daily
position reports which distant-water vesselsare required to make for safety
piirposes, would show whether any particolar vesse1purporting to have

fished elsewhere had in fact been fishing in the lceland area, thereby inaking
further examination of catches necessary. In this way the United Kingdom
authoritics would be able to ascertain when any catch limitation had been
reached and an order would then Demade under the SeaFish (Conservation)
Act 1967closinc the area to fiirther fishinc Bitish vesselsfor the remainder
of the year. In practice Her Majesty's G&e;nment expect to be able to agree

arrangements with the United Kingdom fishing industry under which fishing
would be spreadover the whole year without exceedingthe prescribed limit.
5. While no doubt has been cast in the past on the validity of United
Kingdom fishing statistics by Iceland or by any other Party, Her Majesty's
Government 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 otber 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

Ihave the honour to transmit to Your Excellency herervith a copyof the

text of a written request for further information which. on the instructions
of the Court, 1 handed to a representütive of the United Kingdom yesterday
evening. I also enclose a copy of the information filed in the Registry today
by the United Kingdoni in response to that request.

47. THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF GERMANY
TO THE REGISTRAR

frelegram)
4 August 1972.

1 have the honour to refer to the questions of the Coiirt which you kindly
have transmitted to me after the oral proceedings on 2 Augiist 1972and which

read as follows:
"(1) In 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 Coiirt be given further details of
any proposals made by lceland in thecourse of tliese negotiations?
(2) The Court has taken note of the proposal by the Federal Republic

of Germany that as part of the interim measurer, the Federal Republic
would be prepared to limit the annual catch of fishing vesselsregistered
in the 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 both parties the
assurance that such linlits would not be exceeded?
In particular, does the Agent have in mind in the interests of protecting
the respective rights of both 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 sonie light on such a
method."

In anshrcring ihc fir.1 <if thc i\\o qiicitiuns. I 10fJscrc, JI'i~lk, whtrh
uerc hclJ hel\reeii the fFcdcr.il Rrpiihlic of Gernitin) :inJ I.'el.i~iJhlii),
? Jiinc .ind 7Ji1191972 In the iiicct:niof 15 hl>\. the rcr>rc~cntati\edi ihe

Federal ~overnment explained the concept of the~ederal Governnient of an
interim arrangement on the basis of limiting the annual catches of fishing
vessels from the Federal Republic of Germany to the average of the years
1960 ta 1969. The Foreign Minister of lceland at that litne informed the

delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany that lcelandic proposals were
being prepared, but had still to be agreed upon by the lcelandic Cabinet. He
promised to forward these concrete proposals in the near future to the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
At the meeting of 2 lune 1972, the lcelandic Foreign Minister presented

proposals 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 proposals, consisting of seven points, read as
follows: "1. We propose that the arrangement should stipulate the number of
German vessels which are authorized Io fish within the 50-mile limits. The
authorization should onlv cover vessels of a limited sire which have been
fishing off lceland during the last two years. We consider it natural that
fishing vessels, which have notfished off Iceland, should be ercluded. We also

want to exclude freezer trawlers, factory'vessels and other large fishing vessels
from fishing within the 50-mile limits.
2. We propose that the fishing areas, where German trawlers would fish,
should he outside 25 miles from the baselines and thus lcelanders would
benefit from having the exclusive right to fish on additional grounds outside
the present 12-mile fishing limits. This proposal is similar to the one agreed
upon in 1961when 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 fishing area should he specially agreed upon.
3. We have orooosed tentativelv which fishin~ zones could be considered.
The main poini isihat the fi~hin~grounds arouid Iceland 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. ln that way it will,be~possihle for German
vessels to fishl1year 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 fishingareas will be completely closed off for a

short time each year, 1-2 months, for trawling by Icelandic 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 Io protect the
important spawning grounds at Selvogshank. However, most of that fishing
eround is alreadv within the oresent fishine limits.
- 6. We considér it nece~sa;~ irrespectiie of the possible arrangement, that
the Icelandic Government can continue to reserve certain grounds for line
and net fishing exclusively to the Icelandic motor vesse1fleët. In such cases
trawling by lcelandic as well as foreign trawlers would be prohibited.
7. We wish to emphasire that the lcelandic 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 whichthese lcelandic proposals would have. The limitation of types
and sizes of vessels, the exclusion of freezer trawlers, the total'exclusion of
vessels from the Federal Republic of Germany from the 25-mile zone, andthe

discriminatorv closine of areas outside this 25-mile limit would in their
combination iesult in; drastic reduction of the amount of annual catches of
fishing vessels of the Federal Reoublic of Germany to approximately'only
20 ver cent. of the actual annuai catches. The assumotion of the riaht to
enforce the rules and regulations by the Icelandic Government would amount
in effect,to an acceptance by the Government of the Federal Republic of
Germany of Icelandic jurisdiction over fishing vessels from the Federal
Republic of Germany on the high seas.
It follows from these proposals that the intention of the Icelandic 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 Icelandic attitude that the lcelandic Foreian Minister
introduced these proposals with the following words to the ~orei'gnMinister
of the Federal Republic of Germany : CORRESPONDENCE 395

"The British and German proposals for catch limitation and, the
closure of certain areas for al1 trawling (Icelandic and foreian) althouah

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. It would rather mean the freezing of the
status quo . ..What we are rcally talking about is the rediiction of your

fishing in Icelandic waters in a tangible, visible manner."

In the nieeling of 7 J~ly 1972, the Go\rrnmr.nt of the Federdl Repiiblis of
Germ.iny set out the reJion< uh) the pr<>pi>,~i\<ifthe Go\ernnieni of I~eldnd
were not ao~rooriate as a basis for an interim arrangement. No other
.. .
prhposals were made at this meeting by the lcelandic ~eligate.
After the talks of 7 July 1972, the Government of the Federal Republic of
G~r~anv throuah d-.lomatic cliannels exoressed its readiness Io continue
negoliaiion\ for an intcrim Jrrsngemeni iaking d~e :iccouni of the inierests
of hoth rides eithcr on ihe bniis of n cntih Ii~ii~tat~rchcmc asproporcd by

the Federal Reoublic of Germany or on the basis of anv new ~rooosals from
the lcelandic side. No further proposals however, were made by the lcelandic
Government.
An answer to the second question asked by the Court will be transmitted
ta you as soon as possible.

48. THEREGISTRAR TOTHEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGNAFFAlRS OF ICELAND

4 August 1972

1 have the honour to transmit to Your Excellency herewith a copy of the
tex1of a written request for further information which, on the instructions of

the Court, 1 handed to the Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany on the
evening of 2 August. I also enclose a copy of the information filed in the
Registry today, by the Federal Republic in response to that request.

49. THEAGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
TOTIIE RECISTaAR

(relegram)

5 August 1972.

1 have the honour Io refer Io 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 eiiectively secured by
currently recording the landipgs of the trawlers of the Federal Republic of

Germany [rom 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 relatine to catches of the distant water fishinv fleet. This qcheme ha<
pro\ed to be rel13ble Once the md\inir iiiquantil) h:$ving been redched, Jny

further fishingiithe lceland are3 (111then be prohib.tcd 2, Legislation as basis for such regulation does already exist in the Federal
Republic of Germany: (O) according to the "Gesetz über Eine Fischerei-
statistik" (Act on Fisheries Statistics) of 21 July 1960 (BGRI. 1, p. 589). al1
landings by fishing vessels whether in the Federal Republic of Gerniany or in

other countries have to be reported currently to the competent Federal
authorities and specified, inter alia,as to the amount of catch of the dilïerent
species and as to the statistical areas where such catches have been taken.
Omission or neglect ta comply with the reporting requiremenis, and the
submission 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 asto the geographical

origiii of the catches is normally checked by external characteristics of the
fish. Moreover, the legally prescribed daily entries of the vessels' position and
course in the log-books eive evidence on the areasin which the vesse1ooerated
during its trip. FurthernTore. the three fishery assistancevessels of the ~ederal
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Forestry which are permaneiitly assisting

the deep-seafishing iieet at seaand also controlling the observance of national
and international fishery regulations. may 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 Germany in the lceland area and the prohibition of further
fishing after the allowed quantity has been reached could, if an Order of the
Court should so require, be prescribed 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 "Seefischereivertragsgesetr1971" 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 Government of Iceland, the
Secretariat of the Court or another agency ta 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 ifso requested.
4. The Federal Government would also be willine to eive a-reoresentative
of the Government of Iceland, of the Coiirt or of an agency to bédesignated
by the Court an opportunity to inspect, if they so want, the relevant statistical
documents and to inform themselves of the collection, evaluation and control

of data.
5. The Federal Government would also be prepared to enter into an
agreeiiient with the lcelandic Government which allows the lcelandic
authorities to stop and board vesselsfishing in the lceland area in order to
sdtisfy themselves of the correct keeping of log-books and catch recordings.
The procedure for such controls could be modelled after the "ioint enforce-

nient \cherne" for ihc horih-ta,t Atlaiiilc Fiihcrie\ C,iniiiiisiion5%hizh ha.;
been ~ic~epicdfor ci~nirols rclating II>the <~hwri,anccof regi.lat<ir) nic3,ures
~ifihe Norih-C;ist Atlaniic Fisheries Commi~%ionbv ihe~,cderal Keoiiblic of
Germany as well as by Iceland.,
6. A similar method of current control of catches assuggestedin paragraph
I 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 landings by their fleet from these areas andreport 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 time limit. CORRESPONDENCE 397

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

5 August 1972.

1 have the honour to refer to the letter of 4 August 1972 with which 1
transmitted a copy of the text of a written reqiiest for further information
handed to the Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany on 2 August,
together with a copy of a telegram in response thereto.
The final paragraph of the telegram received on 4 August referred to an

answer to the second question which would be transmitted as soon as
possible.
1 now have the honour to enclose herewith a copy of a telegrain which L
have today received from the Agcnt of the Federal Republic of Germany.

51. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF lCELAND1

(telesram)

11 August 1972.
Have honour inform you Court will hold public sitting on Thursday

17Augiist at 10am. at which decisions on requests of United Kingdom and
Federal Republic ofGermany for indication of interim nieasures of protection
will be announced. President proposes convene Agents of Parties to Fisherirs
Ji,risdictiorr cases for meeting immediately following sitting to ascertain
views with regard to questions of procedore pursuant Rules Article 37.
Without prejudice to provisions of Statute and Rules regarding appointment

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

52. THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANO 70 THE REGISTRAR

(telegram)
1I August 1972.

1 have today delivered to the British Ambassador a note verbale of the

following content:

[See Annex 10 to the United Kifwdom Memorial on the Merits of the
Disprrte,1, p. 3871

The Government of lceland avails itself of this o~portunity to reiterate its
view that there is no basis for the InternationalCourt of Justice to enercise

jurisdiction in the cases filed against Iceland by the United Kingdom Govern-
ment andthe Goveroment of the Federal Republic of Germany.

1 Similar communications were sent Io the Agents for the Governments of the

United Kingdomand the Federal Repiiblic ofGermany.
2 On 17Aiigust 1972,the Presidentmet successivtheAgentsfor theGovernnients
of the United Kingdam and the Federal Republicof Gerrnany. 53. THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ]CELANO 70 THE RECISTRAR

11 August 1972.

1 have the honour to transmit herewith a copy of the note delivered today
to the United Kingdom Ambassador referred 10 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 thecases filed against Iceland by the Government ofthe
United Kingdom and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

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

(telegram)
17 August 1972

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

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

Official copy Order and 25 other copies airniailed to you today

55. THE RECISTRAR IO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANO

(telegruni)
17 August 1972.

Have honour inform Your Excellency Court todav delivered Order on
request of Federal Republic of Germany-for indication provisional measures
in Fisheries J~~risdicticase. Following is operative clause of Order.

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

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

56.THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE
UNITED NATIONS1
17 August 1972.

1 have the honour, in accordance with Article 41, paragraph 2, of the
Statute oftheCourt, to send you herewith an oficial copy for transmission to

the SecurityCouncil of an Order of today's date by which theCourt, following
the request dated 19 July 1972 of the United Kingdoni of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, indicated interirn measures of protection in the Fisheries
Jurisdirtio~rcase.

A communication in the same terms was sent Io the Secretary-General of the
United Nations regardingthe FederalRepubliofGermanv. Ieelondcase. CORRESPONDENCE

57. THE PRIME MlNlSTER OF ICELANO TO THE REGISTRAR

Irelegram)
18 August 1972.

The Government of lceland strongly protests against the Order delivered
by the International Court of Justice on the casesfiled against Iceland by the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. The Government

exoressesils astonishment al the fact that the Court considers itself Io be in a
7.-.ition to~ ~li~er~such an order while it has no1 ruled on its iurisdi~~-onin
the said cases.The Go\crnmcnt <,f Iceland. considering thst the Exchinge of

Sotcs of 1961"Don i$hich ihe Uiiired Kjngdom and ihe FçJeral Repiiblic of
Germanv base their institution of oroceedin~s is no loneer in force. has from
the beginning and repeatedly objécted emphatically tothe 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 Iceland.
The Government of lceland which-as was known Io the Court-has

üluüys c\pressed its uillingne\s to solrc this di\pute by interim arrangement.
considers ihat this intcrlcrence in a dispute still ai the stage of negotiations is
highly unfortunate and likely ta hamper the negotiations.
As hitherto the Government of lceland protests against the Court's right

of jurisdictionin the said cases and it will no1 consider this Order by the
Court binding in any way.
The Government will firmlicarry out ifs decision ta extend the fisheries

jurisdiction ta 50 nautical miles as of September 1st 1972 in conformity with
the resolution adopted unanimously by the Parliament of Iceland.

(Signed) Olafur JOHANNESSON.

58. THE REGISTRAR TO THEMIXISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANO1
18 August 1972

1 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 ofeach
of the two Orders 2 of today's date, by wkich the 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 l972as the
lime-limit for the Memorials of the United Kingdom and the Federal
Republic of Germany. and 8 December 1972 for the Counter-Memorials of
Iceland.

59. LE GREFFIER EN EXERCICE AU MINISTREDES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES

D'AFOHANISTAN 3
28 aoilt 1972.

Le Greffier en exercice de la Cour internationale de Justice a I'honneur de
transmettre, sous ce pli. un exemplaire de l'ordonnance rendue par la Cour le

1 Similar communications were sent to the Agents For the Governments of the
United Kingdam and ihe FederalRepublic of Germany.
I.C.J. Re~orts1972.pp. 181and 188.
3 Cette communication a étéadresséep ,our chacunedes deux affaires,aux Etats
MembresdesNations Unies etauxEintsnon membresdesNationsUnies admisàester
devantla Cour.17 août 1972sur la demande en indication de mesuresconservatoires presen-
~ ~ 7~~le~ ~uverne~~nt du Rovaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande
du Nord en l'affaire relative a la Comp@reirceeii nmrière(lep~cllcries.

D'autres exemplaires seront expedies ulterieureiiient par la voie ordinaire.

60. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOEI<AL
REPUBLICOFGERMANY TO THERECISTRAR

. 6 October' 1972.

1have thehonour to refer ta my letter of 21 July 1972by which 1informed
you that the Governnient of the Federal Republic of Germany would like to

avail itself of the right under Article 31, paragraph O), of the Statute of !lie
Court to choose a person to si1 as Judge ad hoc in the FishcricsJorisdicrioi~
case(Federal Republic of Germany v.Iceland), but that, in view of the urgency
of the proceedings on the Request by the Federal Republic of Germany for

interim measures of protection, the Governinent of the Federal Republic
would no1 yet nominate a person of its choice at that stage of the pro-
ceedings.

In view of the time-liniit prescribed in Article 3 of the Rules of Court 1
would like to state that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
still intends 10 exercise the right under Article 31, pnragraph (3), of the

Statute of the Court.

61. THE RECISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF THE COVERNMENT
OFTHEFEDERALREPUBLIC OF CERMANY

12 October 1972.

1have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 6 October 1972,
stating that the Government of the Federal Republic of Geriiiany intends to
exercise the right under Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Stntute to choose a

judge to si1 in the Fislieries Jlirisdicrioir(Fedcral Reprtblicof Gernluiiy v.
Icclarrd) case. Pursuant ro Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Rulcs of Court, the
President of the Court has fixed 6 November 1972 as the tinie-limit within

which the nanie of the person chosen to sit asjudge is 10be stated.

62. LEGREFFIER AU MINISTREDESRELATIONS ExT~R~EUKE SE L'ÉQUATEUR

12 octobre 1972.

Me référantà votre lettre du 1" juin 1972 et à la réponsedu Greffier en
date du 26 iu-n. ,.ai l'honneur de vous faire savoir aue les Parties à l'affaire
concernant la Compérence eii marière dc pécheries(Royorit,~r-Uiric. Islande)
ont indique ne voir aucune objection à ce que le Gouvernement équatorien

reqoive les pièces de ~rocéduri et que le President de la Cour a décide en

Cnc ;omrnunicJiidn nnaloguc ï GiéaJrrrrCcpour I'aFalrî Ro.~,~z~n~o-U Ç~,>~ /r
au g<'u\ernernini dc la Ripubliqi.~ fc<lr'ralcrl',\llcrnagnc il0 <r.iohrc 19721.po..r
I'afiirrKip~~hlrq~re~d~ro/e~l'nllc~~r~~I~ ,~a~/,~ailG~>,ncrnenicnd i u R<i)iiiimr.-Uni

12noicrnbrc 19721 et podr Ici dcii* anàlrcr3~x <iou\zrnrincnis Jii Ssnr'gal18 Isn\icr
19711.de I'~\urlralic 16Tr\rtcr1411),dcla IN<,ii~çllc-ïr'land.8ri 20 fr'srier197.31d.e
I'lnJeil3 marsci 9a)ril IY73)r.i ilI',\rgrniinc(Y ci21juin 1973) CORRESPONDENCE 401

conséquence, enapplication de l'article 44, paragraphe 1, du Règlement, de

tenir lesdites piécesà votre disposition.
Dans ces conditions, je vous adresse deux exemplaires de la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires présentéepar le Royaume-Uni le
19 juillet 1972et vous enverrai les piècesde procédure suivantes aufur et a
mesure de leur depbt. Je me permets d'appeler votre attention sur le caractère

confidentiel des piècesde procédure tant que les affaires sont sribjudice.

63.THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KlN~~ohf
70 THE REGISTRAR

13 October 1972
1 have the honour to refer to the Order'made by the Court on 18 August

1972and ta transmit herewith one signed copy and 29 unsigned copies of the
M.emoria 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.

61.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 niade by the Court on 18 August 1972,

copies of the Memorial of the United Kingdom on Jurisdiction (together
with the Annexes thereto). In comvliance with Article 43 (1) of the Rules of
Couri, I now transmit tn ;i>u. for the ure or the Coiiri 2nd of the Guverniiieni
oflceland. onc copy of eachof certain docuineni> referred io in ihdt \lemorial
which. in accordance with the said Article 43 (1). are not annexed to it.

~hese documents are as follows:
(a) the Mernorandumz entitled The Problern of the FisheriesArorrnd

Iceland which was submitted to the General Assembly of the United
Nations bv the Governinent of the United Kinadom in November
1958 (seeparagrriph20 of the Mernorial and m ni Bexheretb) ;
(b) the contemporary records of the Anglo-lcelandic Discussions3
which look place between 1 October 1960 and 4 December 1960

(inclusive)(seeparagraph21 of rhe Mernorial) ;
(c) the contemporary records of the Anglo-lcelandic Discussions which
took place between 17 December 1960 and 20 December 19604
(inclusive) (see paragraph38 of the Mernorial) ;
(d) the full text of the speech2 to the Althing made by the Prime

Minister of lceland on 9 November 1971, as set out in Background
Information No. 4. Icelandic FisheriesJurisdiction,published by the

11,pp. 123-152.
2Not reproduced.
31,pp. 178.228.
'1,pp. 229-237.402 FISHERIES JURISDICT~OS

Secretary .for Press and Information, Prime Minister's Office.

Reykjavik (seeparagrapli41 ofrhr Memoriul);
(r) the Report 1 of the International Council for the Exploration of the
Seaniade to the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commi~sion meeting
in 1972 (paragrapli 58 ofrhe blemorial) ; and

( the Report 'of the ICESIICNAF Working Group on Cod Stocks in
the North Atlantic made 10 the International Commission for the
North West Atlantic Fisheries in June 1972 (parograph 58 of rhe

Memorial).

13 October 1972

1 have the honour to transmit herewith five copies, one of which is a
certificd true copy, of the Meniorial filed today in the Registry OFthe Court
by the Agent for the United Kingdorn in the FisheriesJuri.~dicrioi~ case
(Utrired Kit~gdomof Greor Oriloiir aiid Norrhrrn Irelu~ldv. Icelotid) together

with a copy of the covering letter from the Agent and a further letter con-
cernina certain documents referred to in the Mernorial which. in accordance
UII~ Arli.'le 43. p:ir.igr~ph 1. of the Rille> .iiC'oiirt. h3t.e bcen Jep<i\iieJ in

the Kcg~jtr). Tne d@c~menisin quesiion \\III rcmaln mailanle iiilhe Keg.str,
for consultation by the representatives of lceland

66. THE AGEST FOR THE GOVERSMENT OF THE FEDERAL
REPUBLICOFCERMASYTOTHE REGISTRAR

13 October 1972.

1have the honour to transmit to you for communication to the President
and the Judees of the Couri. a siened co~v of the Memorial 2 submitted on
~~ ~ ~ ~ -~
behalf of theFederal ~epubiic of"Germa& in pursuance of the Order niade
by the Court on 18August 1972in the FisheriesJ~~ri~dicrio(iF i rderal Re~sblic
of Germartyv. ~ccloizd~casea ,nd 39 additional copies

13 October 1972.

1 have the honour to transmit herewith three copies, one of which is a
certified true copy, of the Mernorial filed today in the Registry of the Court
on behalf of the Federal Republic of Germany in the FixheriesJirrisdicrion

(Repi~hlicofGermatiy v. Irclaitd) case together with a copy of the covering
letter from the Agent of the Federal Republic.
Printed copies of the Memorial will be despatched to you in due course.

1 Not reproduced.
2 See pp. 65-96,supra. CORRESPONDENCE 403

68.THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
TO THE REGISTRAR

31 October 1972.

1 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
rightunder Article 31 pdrzgraph (3) of the Statute to choose a Judge ad hoc
to sit in theFisheriesJurisdiction (Federal Repiiblic of Germony v. IrelandJ '
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.
1 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-lnstitut für auslandisches
Recht und Volkerrecht, to sit as Judge in this case.
Professor Dr. Mosler is Professor of Law at Heidelberg University,

Di~ ~t-~ o-~t~e Max Planck lnstitute forComoarative Public Law and
lnternational Law in Heidelberg, Judge of the ~"ropean Court of Human
Rights. Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and Associate
~ember ofthe Institute oflnternational Law (Institut de Droit International).
~rofessir~~r. Mosler 1 had been Judge ad hoc in the North Seo ~ontinenr~l
Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany v.Kingdom of Denmark, Federal
~ep;blic of ~ermany v K.ingdom of the ~etherlands)

(telegram)
3 November 1972.

Have honour inform Your Excellency Federal Republic ofGermany today
notified Court of choice of Professor Hermann Mosler to sit as judgead hoc

in FisheriesJarisdictioi!case. President has fixed 17 November 1972 as time-
limit for submission views of lceland pursuant Rules, Article 3, paragraph 1.
Letter follows.

70.THE REGISTRARTOTHE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF CERMANY
20 November 1972.

1 have the honour to refer to my letter of 3 November, in which 1informed
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-limit within
which the views of the Government of Iceland 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 J~irisdicrion(Federal Repi!blicof Germany v.
Ice/rind)case.

I.C.JYenrboo 1968-1969,pp. 23-24.
A Communicationinthe sametermswassentto the Ministîr forForeignAnairs of
Iceland,404 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

The linle-liniit fixed by the President having-.xoired without anv doubt or
objcîii<.n having becn cxpresscd by ihs Ciovernmeni i~f Iccllind. Ian1trans-
miiiing ihe documcnis in ihe caseIo I'roïe\sor Xloilcr lurthrr iih.

71. THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREION AFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE PRESIDENT

(relegram)

4 December 1972.

In m)' prcvious comniiinicaiinns Io the Ciluri 1hxd the honoiir IO sci forih
the ni)siiionofniy Go\ernnicni .ts ii ei~iergedïrom ihe diploniaiic corrcjDon-
dence with the Government of the United Kinedom vrevious to 14 Avril

1972111was indicaied that the agreenient embodiid in the Exchange of ~ites
of 1961 which itself took place under extremely difficult circumstances had
alre~d~ terminated. that no basis exists for the court to exercise iurisdiction
in the5;he souehl to be insiiiuied by the Cii>verniiicni of ihc uniied Kingdimi

of Grcal Britxin and Northern lrelnnd and ih:il the Governnient oï Iceland
would not appoint an Agent and would no1be represented in those proceed-
ings. The Court was also informed that the vital interests of the people of
lceland are involved and that the Government of lceland is not willine to

confer jurirJictl.)non ihe Court ln an). casc invol\ing ihc e.\tent of ihc fi>icry
limiii of IcelanJ, snJ spccifically in ihc case soughi ici be iii\iiidieJtiy the
Cii)vernmeni of the \.'nitcd Kincduni of Cirelit Hriiain and iiurthcrn lrcland
on 14April 1972.This notwithstÿnding, the Court made ils Orders of 17and
18 August 1972. Moreover in the second of those Orders, by disturbing the

established order of things, the Court has caused further detrinient to the
people and Government of lceland now apain being subjected io cocrcion
in their efforts to reach an agreed solution. Reiterating al1of the foregoing 1
now have the honour respectfully to inform the Court that the position of the

Government of lceland is unchanged.

(lelegram)
4 Deceniber 1972.

In my previous communications to the Court 1 had the honour to set forth

the position of my Government as it emerged froin the diploinatic cor-
respondence with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germuny
previous to 5 June 1972.It was indicated that the agreement embodied in the
Exchange of Notes of 1961 which itself took place under extremely difficult

circumstances had already terminated, that no basis exists for the Court Io
exercisejurisdiction in the casesought to be instituted by the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany and that the Government of lceland would
no1appoint an Agent andwould not be represented in those proceedings. The
Court was also informed that the vital interests of the people of lceland are

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 s~ecificallv in the casesoueht to be instituted bv the Government
of the tederil ~epubiic of Gcrman). 8n 5 Junc 1972. hi; noiwiihstanding.

the Couri mdde tirOrders of 17and 18 Augu,i \972. Moreover in the second CORRESPONDENCE 405

of those Orders, hy disturhing the estahlished order of things, the Court has
caused further detriment to the oeoole and Government of lceland now
again being suhjected to coercion i; their efforts to reach an agreed solution.
Reiteratin~ al1of the foregoing 1 now have the honour respectfully to inform
the Court ihat the position of the Government of lceland is unchanged

73. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AOENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED KlNGDOM
5 December 1972.

1havethe 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 MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND~
11 Decemher 1972.

1 refer to the Court's Orders dated 18August 1972, fixing lime-limits for
the initial pleadings in theFisheriesJurisdiction(United Kingdom v.Iceland
and Federol Republicof Cermany v. Iceland) cases and have the honour Io
inform Your Excellency that, no Counter-Memorial having been filed by the
Government of lceland 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 Io
entertain the dispute in each case.
The public hearing in the proceedings hrought by the United Kingdom
will open at 10 a.m. on Friday, 5 Jaituary 1973 3,and the hearing in the
proceedings hrought hy the Federal Republic will open at 3 p.m. on Monday
8 Januarv 1973 4, in each case at the Peace Palace, The Haeue.
The ,\icnts of the Pdriiei Jrr ,,I>c~keJ ta bc ai ihc di\posal of ihe Court

iv:ih3 viea 10J p<~>slhlcprel.itiinnr) iiieeiing niih the I're~ideni on 4 Jlniiary
1973 to deal with ~rocedurdl mattek 5.

75. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGOOM
TU THE REGISTRAR

19 Decemher 1972.

1. 1havethe honour to refer to the Order made hy the Courton 17August
1972 on the request made hy the Government of the United Kingdom on
19July 1972 for the indication of inierim 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 communicationin the sametcrms was sent to the Agentfor the Governmentof
the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 S~milarcommunicationsweresentto the Agentsforthe Governmentsofthe United
Kingdom and the Federal Republic ofGermany.
3 -.--. 741.762
4 See pp. 120-136,supra.
5 On4 January 1973,the Presidentmet successivelythe Agentsfor the Governments .
of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany. annual catch of more than 170,000 metric tons of fish from the "Sea Area of
Iceland", as defined by the lnternational Council for the Exploration of the
Sea as Area Va. In paragraph (1) (f) of the Order the Court indicated that
the United Kingdom Government should furnish the Government of lceland
and the Registry of the Court with al1relevant information, orders issued and
arrangements made concerning the control and regulation of fish catches in
the area. In compliance with the said paragraph (1) (f) 1 now have the
honour to supply the following information to the Court.
.
2. The Government of th- United Kingdom have introduced a statutory
system for regulating theoperation of British fishing vessels in the sea area of
Iceland, as defined by the lnternational Council for the Exploration of the
Sea as Area Va. This statutorv svstem was out into effect bv the Sei Fishine
(Specified Northern ~aters).~;censing 0;der 1972 (stat;tory lnstrumen?
No. 1477 of 1972)which is hereinafter referred to as "the Licensing Order"
and a co~v of which is attached hereto as Annex A. The Licensine 0r..r was
niade on >Y Sepiciiiber 1972 hy ihe Sliii:,ier for Agri-iiltiire. I.i,hcri:!ni
Food auid ihe Sr~rciarie, oi Si;ite ie~pecii\el) ~oii:eriied uiih the .;cd tish.!ig
indubirs in S:oil;ind aiiJ hi~rihcrn Irsl;inJ xnd. h:iviiig hceii liid hci<>rcihe
Parli3nieni of the Uniicd hing~loiii. ssiiiiiii,aipcration on 30 0:iohdr 1972.

Il iii.iJe under p<nrerscùiiferred b) ihe Se., Ii\h l('<>njervaiiùn,\LI 1967
(iih~h is hercindfier rsfcrred IO a, "the .Actof 1967" .in4 A c,ins<if$\hicli13
attached hereto as Annex B), as amended by the Sea ~isheiiis 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 operates, so as to give effect to the Court's Order,
in the following way.
4. The Licensing Order applies, by virtue of Article 4 thereof, to fishing
for al1sea fish in the ared of sea comprising the lnternational Council for the
Exploration of the Sea Area Va. By virtue of section 4 of the Act of 1967,the
efect of the Licensing Order being given that application is that British

vessels may not fish in the area except under theauthority of a licence grdnted
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 heseenfrom Annex D that it is a condition of the licence that the
skipper and owner of the vesse1concerned should keep and provide full and
accurate records of al1 fishing activity during the whole of each voyage in
the course of which fishing is conducted in the lnternational Council for the
Exploration of the Sea Area Va. (The reason for the requirement being
expressed in this form in that fishing vessels do occasioiially 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 numhered CL.] and CL.2. Copies of these are
attached hereto as Annex E and Annex F respectively.
6. Form CL.1 (Annex E), which is a record of each consecutive haul (in
efect a fishing log-book) is made out by the skipper during the voyage and
indeed must be completed immediatelv after each haul. As indicated in
paragraph 4 of the reply, given in the leGer of 3 August 19721,to the second
of the two questions addressed by the Court to the Agent of the Government CORRESPONDENCE 407

of the ~"ited Kingdom on 2 Aiigust 1972, the competent authorities of the

Government 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 vesselsare
required to make both to their owners and, for safety reasons and al certain

times of the year, Io 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 already supplied in form CL.] but this informa-
tion is 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 ofthe Quantity
Landed by the owner's representatives.
8. The suo..,inr!-of al1the information reouired bv Forms CL.1 and CL.2
represents an extension of a scheme already in use for fishery statistics

DurposeS. Government statistics collectors normally 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 Io the size of the catch'thal

is now to be ~rovided bv the skiooer in forms CL.l and CL.2 can obviouslv
only be an esiimate, thé records'& fish landed and sold areirecise and aie
verifiable and can be taken as ci~mpletely accurate. (Records of fish landed
andsold areindeed usedasthe basisfor paiing of the crew.) As was explained

in the footnote on page.4 of the request 1 by the Government of the United
Kingdom for the indication of interim measurei of protection which was
filed with the Court on 19 July 1972 (the second footnote IO 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 isa o,eci.~~ndicat~on~of ~ ~ catch.~~
Y ~imultüneoiisly u,ith the puhlishing of th2 I.iccn5ing Ordcr. the hlinistry
of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and the Departnient of Agriculture and

Fisheries for Scotland put out dociimenis entitlsd .\'orr, for rhr G~riiiunreuf
0.i1srs o~idSkipprr, (together \rith an iIlu.trative ni~p) and J Cuvrritig z\'urt'
/or Oiv,s,rs, Skippers and Orlirr,. Con.er of thcse tao documents are attached
hereto as ~nnexG 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". It will be seen
that Article 5 of the Licensing Order confers on every British sea-fishery
officer, for the Durposes of the enforcement of section 4 of the Act of 1967in

conjunction whh the Licensing Order, the powers which are specified in
section 8 (2) to (4) of the Act of 1968. It will also be seeii that fishing without
a licence or the contraveniion' of any of the conditions of a licence may
;ittr:ict hcsi.). penalties by uliyof J fine. imprisonment and the forleiturc of

catch :inJ gelir; .ce f<iotn<ite(1)of the licence (hnnex D) and also section 1I
of the Act of 1967.In addition the licence riiïy be uithdriitrn. II. It willbe 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 Va is likely to exceed 170,000metric 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 las1sentence of paragraph 4 of the reply, given in the
letter of 3 August 1972,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
Kinadom fishina industry under which the industry would itself oQerate a
voluntary scheme of rationing catches so that the Ïotal catch for the whole
year could not exceed 170,000metric tons and no licences would have to be
cancelled.
12. Because of the need for consultation with the industry and because of
the tirne required to prepare and make the necessary legislafion and the
accomoanvina documents. the statutorv scheme could not be introduced in
time to iake ekcct on 1Septemher 1972:But medjures to a siniilar elFeciacre
applied on an adminisir~ti\e basis. hy arrdngemciii with the industr50 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 1September 1972to 30 October 1972.(These measures were based
on the existin- arrang-ments for the collection of statistics mentioned in
paragrliph 1)above.) Accordingly, hy taking thij inforinaiion into iiciount
together uith the inform3tion ohtained iinder the sixtutory sihcniciiuill he
oossible for the Government of the United Kingdom to ensure that the total
catch for the year beginning I September 1972does not exceed the amount
specified in paragraph (1)(e) of the Court's Order.
13. In compliance with the Court's Order, the Government of the United
Kingdom are communicating a copy of this letter and its various annexes to
the Government of Iceland.

AnnexA

THE SEA FlSHlNG (SPECIFIE DORTHERN WATERS)
LICENSING ORDER 1972

Cirarionand Commencement

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.

Inrerprerarion

2.41) In this order:-othe Act" means theSea Fish (Conservation Act)
1967. CORRESPONDENCE 409

(2) Thelnterpretation Act 1889(c) shall apply for the interpretation of this
order as it applies for the interpretation of anAct of Parliament.

Appoirrled 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 al1seafish in the area of seacomprising
the International Commission for the Exploration of the Sea Statistical Area
VA, which area is described in the Schedule Io this order.

En/orcement

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

SCHEDULE

The 3reï of ci)nt:iined iviihi;ilinc drawn from a position having ihe cu-
ordin:lles of 68" norih laiiiude and 27'ucit longitude due south Io the varal-

le1of 62" north latitude. thence due east to the meridian of 15'west loneitude.
thence north to the par'allel of 63" north latitude, thence east to the meridian
of I Io Westlongitude. thence north to the parallel of 68" north latitude, thence
Westto the meridian of 27" Westlongitude.

Annex B

SEA FlSH (CONSERVATION)
ACT 1967

........................

Regrilation o/fishing/or senfish
..................................

4.41) As from such day as may be appointed by an order made by the
' Ministers and subject Io 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 reeistered under the Merchant
Shipping ,\ci 1894 <hall be uscd Iiy aay of traie or bu5iness for firhing for
salmon or migrdlory trou1 in any ;ireli ïo specified. ehccpi under ihc authority
of a licence grdnted by une of the Mini~terr and for the iinic being in force. (2) An order made under this section in respect of fishing in any area may
be made sa 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 ta say, limitations whereby the o-er applies to fishing in that area-

(a) forfish of a description specified 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 ofthe 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;
(di 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 a,ithin 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 exercise
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
fo~ the purposes of this subsictio", 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 this section, and different amounts may be
so specified in relation to different classes of licences.
(7) If subsection (1) above is contravened in the case of any fishing boat,
the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) shall each be 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 ta the extent
ta 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
restriction-

(ai on fishing for salmon or migratory trout, whether within or outside
the fishery limits of the British Islands, or
(6) on fishing for any other sea fish in any waters adjacent ta Great
Britain and within those limits.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . CORRESPONDENCE 411

Penaltiesfor, andorher provisions as to, ofences

II.-(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 f100;
(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence under section l(1) or
.3,. section 2 or section 5(6),,to a fine not exceedine"200: and
(ci in the case of a second or subsequent offence under any other

provision of this Act, to imprisonrnent for a term not exceeding
three months or a fine no1exceeding£200 or both.
(2) Subiect to the followin~ orovisions of this section. the court bv which a
-.
pcrson ismiii .~.teJ,iian .ilTericc iinJer >ridf ihr. f<>llciis.ngprjvi>i<'ui ihis
Act. th:it IO .a?, ,c<ios>n.l(31, 3. 4, 511, or (61 and 6, nias-

(a) in the case of an offence under section 10). 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 caseof an offence under section 4 or section S(1)or (6). order
the forfeiture of any fish in respect of which the offence was com-
mitted and of any net or other fishing gear used in committingthe
offence;
(ci) in the case of an oRence under section 6, order the forfeiture of any

fish in respect ofwhich the offence was committed and of any net or
other fishing gear used on the vesse1in catching any fish landed in
contravention of an order under that section.

(3) Any person guilty of an offence under section 4, section S(1) or (6) or
section 6 of this Act shall, subject to subsection (5) below, be liable on sum-
mary conviction to a fine not exceeding the value of the fish in respect of
whkh the offence was committed.
(4) A person shall not be liable to a fine under subsectioii (3) above in

respect of an offence if, under subsection (2) above. the court orders the
forfeiture of !he fish in respect of which the offence wascommitted: and where
a fine is imposed under subsection (3) above in respect of any ofence, the
court shall not have power under subsection (2) above Io 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) to which he is liable in respect
of that offence under this section or under any other enactment.

Enforcrmenrof orders,erc.

15.-(1) Subject to the provisions of section 18 of the Sea Fish lndustry
Act 1962, every British sea-fishery officer shall 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 of an order under section 3 of this Act has been, or is being, com.
mitted;
(b) any fish caught hy the use of a fishing boat contravening section
4(1) of this Act, or caught in contravention of a prohibition im-
posed hy an order under section 5 thereof, where the fish are on the

fishing hoat or, as the case may be, on the fishing boat used in
contravention of such a orohibition or are in the ownershio or
custody, or under the conirol, 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;
(di 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 officer 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 hoat registered in the

United Kingdom, wherever it may be, such of the powers conferred on
British sea-fishery officers hy paragraphs (1) to (8) of section 12 of the Sea
Fisheries Act 1883 as may he conferred on him by order of the Ministers,
heing powers which the Ministers consider necessary for the enforcement of
section 1, 3,4(1) or 5(6) of this Act or of any order under section 1, 3, 5 or 6
thereof.
(4) Any such oficer may exercise withrespect to any fishing boat which is
British-owned but not registered under the Merchant Shi~~ing Act 1894,
wherever it mav be. such if ~h~ ~owers mentioned in subseciion~73)~ ~ove as
. .
may be conferred on him hy ordérof the Ministers, being powers khich (in so
far as they are not exercisable with respect to any such fishing boat by virtue
of an order under subsection (3) abovel the ~inisters consider necessarv for
the enforcement of section 4(l) of this Act in respect of fishingfor 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. Anr.such officershall be entitled to the same ~rotection in resoect of
any action brought against him for any act done or omitted to bedon; 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 officer of customs by section 76 of the Merchant Shipping Act
1894.
(7) If any 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 officer in pursuance of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and
liahle on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 or, in the case of a
conviction in Scotland, £200 or ta imprisonment for a term not exceeding
three months. CORRESPONDENCE

Annex C

SEA FlSHERlES ACT 1968

Rex~tlalionof seafiching operations

7.-(1) The following persons shall be British sea-fishery officers for the
purposes of the Sea Fisheries Acts, that is to say-

. .
'<. per\toris in ~oliini~nd <>r~h~rgeof an) ur;riift or ho\.r.r:rdil LI^the

Ko).il Uû,).. the ..\riil'. tir ihe K<iy;il Air Fdr~.e;
'il c,iti.,erdi the fi\hcrv nrùixtion >erii<c or the Seirerlir? oi State
h<ilJirig the rank c,f i;>i;inidn~er. tir\[ otti~er or second oilicer;
/r. aitliceri of Ciijt<inii and txc:se;
ihe fcillo\r~ng iiicniher, si the Cod.igii:irJ. ihai i. to rïy. inspcctors.
/
dirtri~t <illi~ersand iiieiiihrriin c1i;xrgeof ioastgu.1rd ilistion*:
/r. orher pcrion, .ipp~,inrix! ;is Ilriiish it~-ti,hcr)oiliier, by ilne of the
appropriate Ministers.

S.-(!) 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 office1 may exercise in relation to any fishing boat within the fishery

limits of 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 mav reauire the attendance of the master and other versons on
h<nrj. the bkt ;iii'd iii~y ili;1l;e xny ehliminaiion 2nd inquiry uhkh ~ppe<irs
t3 hi11IO he neces,ar) for the purpose iiicniioned IIIsiibse;iion (1) abùvc and.

(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 he necessary for facilitating
the examination; and
fb) may require any person on board the boat to produce any docu-
ments relaling 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 contraventioii of
any provisionof 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 IURISDICTION

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

22.41) 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 I

MINOR ANU CONSEQUENTIA AML ENDMENTS
..................................

PARTII
AMENDMENT COSMINO IN10 FORCE ON APPOINTED DAY

TheSea Fish (Conservalion) Act 1967 (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 efiect.
(3) For subsections (3) to (7) there shall be substituted the following sub-
sections:-

" (3) Any such officer may exercise in relation to any fishing boat in
any waters adiacent to the United Kinadom and within the fishery limits
of ihe British islands, and in relation to-any British Firhinpboat 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-fizhery ofiicer under sectio8(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 orany of the
provisions of sections 1to7 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 1968shall apply in relation to
the Drovisions of an order under this section and the Dowers thereby
iùnfcrred 35thcy 3pply in rclalion10section X of ~hat..\CI';IIIJihe pi)uer\
therehy confcrred; iind, in rcl:iiioitian otlenie iin<lerthc slii<l.eciion
10 asilaD~ltcsbv virtuc of this ~ubsccti<in.aections I?1.)14of that ,\Ci
shall appiy accordingly."
................................... CORRESPONDENCE 415

Annex D

Licence No. SPECIMEN

NAMEOFVESSEL

NAMEOFOWNER

The above vesse1is hereby licensed to be used for fishing under the terms of

the above Order from to 31 August, 1973.The vesse1may
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 ofeach 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
aeents of the Ministers on reauest.

(2) On the completion ofeach sikh 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
(6) a certified statement of the quantity of fish landed.

(3) This licence may be cancelled if the appropriate Minister is satisfied that
the total catch by British vessclsfrom ICES Statistical Area Va is likely to
exceed 170,000 metric tons in any one year beginning on 1st September

unless fishing by such vesselsin that Area is reduced.

Signed
District Inspector/Area lnspector
on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food/Secretary of State
for Scotland.
Date

Notes
1. Failure to coinply wiih the terms of this licence may coiistitute an
onence under the terins of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967,
Section 4. which carries maximum ena alti of a fine off 100 for a first
<ilTencc;inJ f?OO or threc ritontlis inipriwnnienor both ior recon~lor
subsequent onénccs. AJdi1i<in:~lly. ihc lis1in rchpcst of whi~h the or-

fence was committed mav he forfeited. tocether with anv net or other
fishing gear usedin committing the offence:
2. ICES Statistical Region Va is the area of sea bounded by a line drawn
from a uosition 6S0N. 27"W due south to the uarallel 62"N. thence east
10 ihc ~ncridi:in 15"\V. ihcncc northi,ihe pa;nllel 63'N. ihencc e:is10
ihc nieri<li:in I Ir\V, ihcncc nitcithe parlillc 6Y'h. tncnce $rcstto itic FISNERIES JURISDICTION

Annex E

RECORO OF EACH CONSECUTIVE HAUL

(Form CL. 1)

[Nor reprodttced]

Annex F

SUMMARY OF FlSHlNC

(Forrn CL.2)

[Nor reprod~,ced/

Annex G

Notes for the Guidance of Owners and Skippers

1. Licences issued under the above Order allow British Vessels to fish in
lcelandic waters (ICES Statistical Area Va, defined below). From the
30 Octohcr 1972 no British fishing boat registered in the United Kingdom
niay fish in that area unless it has the authority of such a licence. A copy
of the licence should be carried on board at al1times.
2. ICES Statistical Area Va is the area ofsea bounded by a line drawn from a
position 68"N. 27'W due south to the parallel 62"N, thence east to the
meridian IYW, ihence north to the parallel 63"N, thence east to the
meridian II"W, thence north to the parallel 68"N. thence West to the
meridian 27'W. An illustrative inap is enclosed.

3. Each licence is issued on the condition thït certain informationis supplied
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 interini judgment
on lcelandic fishing limits.
4. Licences will be issued on application to your District Inspector of
Fisheries.
5. Throughout any voyage which included fishing in Statistical Area Va,
fishing records must be kept on Form CL1 and at the end of the voyage a
return mus1 be conipleted on Forni CL2.
6. Instructions on the use of these forins are given below and should be

carefiilly followed. Both types of forni should be completed in duplicate
and one copy of each forwarded by the owner to the District Inspector of
Fisheries within two days of the end of the voyage.

Instructions for Completion of Forms
7. Form CLI-Recordof Horils
This record mus1 be completed immediately after each haiil, including

hauls made outside Area Va. CORRESPONDENCE 417

A separatesheetshould be usedfor eachregion fished, and the appropriate
letter for that region should be eniered at the top of each sheet. A fresh
sheet should also be used if the vesse1returns to a region already fished,
after moving to another region.
Hauls must be numbered consecutively throughout the voyage.

Speciesother than Cod, Saithe, Haddock and Redfish shoiild be recorded
under "Others", unless they forma substantial portion ofa haul.
Ifthere are any rejections, indicate the main speciesunder "Remarks".

8. Form CL2-Fishing Sitmmary aiidSrolemenrof Qr!anriryLairded
This will be compiled from the forms CLI, and al1fishing will be included.
If more than four regions are fished during a trip the Summary should be
continued on a second form.
The Fishing Summary should be signed by the Skipper and handed to the

Owner together with the Record of Hauls.
The Statement of Quantity Landed gives totals of al1 fish landed from a
voyage and must be supported by sales notes or other documentation. IC
should be completed and signed by the Owner or his representative.

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

October 1972.418 FISHERIES IURISDICTION

Annex H

Covering Note for Owners, Skippers and Others
1. Plrrposeof tlzisNote
This note is being issued with the forma1 Notes for Guidance and the forms

which make up the mechanisni for introducing and enforcing the catch
limitation scheme which the InternationalCourt of Justice (ICJ) has directed
the British Government to implement. lt gives the background to the scheme,
and some informal advice on the part skippers and owners have Io play in it.
It is issued at the request of the industry's Joint Action Committee on Iceland,
ivhich has been consulted on and approved the scheme.

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
ooerationc of Iceland. Itis however ahsolutelv necessarv. and in the interests
of al1 in the-fishing industry that it is scrupul'uslobse;ved. It is designed to
cause the minimum possible inconvenience consistent with the proper

discharge of our international obligations.

3. Need for the scheme
Whenthe ICJ eave its ruline on the Government's avolic. .on for "measures
of interimrelief"-asortofrestraining injonction-in the matter of the liniiti
dispute with Iceland, it directed Icelatrdto let us go on fishing up to 12miles
and the UrriredKi,ipdom to ensure that our catch~did not exceed 170.000tons

caught weight (the averagecatch for the previous five years). The ~ovirnment,
and the industry, accepted this ruling. We have to demonstrate Io the Court,
and to lceland.~that our catches are beine effectivelv checked and that the
170,000 ton ceiiing will not be exceeded. iny doubt as to our capacity Io do
this will seriously hinder the conduct of Our case.and lindermine Our chances
of achievine a s~tisfactorv resolution of the disvute.
-
The international conservation commissions are turning tocatch limitation
schemesas the most effective, and in economic ternis the most efficient. means
of achieving proper nianageinent 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 schenieswill
relv u.on r~ ~ ~s made diirine fishine -oe.~tions. and a forin of fishinr lo--
book has beenagreed (after consultation on Our part between industry and the

Ministry). It is very desirable that this catch limitation scheme for Iceland
follows the interna~ionally agreed lay-out with which skippers and owners
will become familiar over the next few years.

4. der ail.of thesclreme
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 lhat machinery. Bu1 ifis necessary to supplement it in t\vo ways to
create a water-tight scheme that will comrnand the international confidence
we re~uire. First. the statistics al present eathered bv the Fisheries Insvecto-
rate on the completion of each voyage wii have to be provided and certified
by skippers and owners. Just the sanie information is required. but the form CORRESPOSDESCE 419

will need to be filled in by the skippers and owners, and ils correctness
vouched for by a signature, instead of being filled in by the lnspector on the
basis of information given tu him. Second, this information. which is at
present based on memory and/or records kept privately will have tu be docu-
mented by records in standard form made on the grounds while fishing is
roine on. This is essential for o credible scheme. For anv Court. soecial

;alid;tyattaches tu records made on the spot. and only if kcords =ri kept
day-to-day will the scheme achieve ils objective. These are the reqiiireinents
that have dictated the introduction and the design of the two foriiis referred
tu in the formal Notes for Guidance.

5. Filling in rhejorms

Form CL 1 1sin effect a fishing log-book. Form CL 2 is a summary of il. In
CL 2, completed after landing, ilwill be possible to give the actual quantifies
of fish. When the skipper makes out a record of each haul in CL 1,however,
he will only beable tu make an estimate of the amount of fish. Precise mea-
surement is not possible. nor is it required. The skipper can only estiinate as
best he can. Estimates in terms of kits would be preferred. but if it is easier

estimates in terms of the other measures shownon the forni are perfectly
acceptable. The only thing is tu ensure that thesame unit is used throughout-
hopping about fromkits 10 StonesIo baskets will cause problems.
The information asked for in form CL I is on the lines of that required at
present by the Ministry's Collector tu make his summüry at the end of each
voyage. Su although making the record while fishing nizy 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 e.srimorednumber of kits (or other unit of mcÿsure).
and the main s~ecies caurht. Unless this information is orovided tu the
Ministry the coitrol will nit beeffective and the object of the scheme will be
lost. This is a statutory scheme, and providing tliis data is a condition of the

licence.
The other information required-timespent steaniing. the timing of shooting
and hauling,and information on reiects-is not essential for the purposes of
meeting our obligations tu the ICJ. It is however essential informatiok for the
proper management of any catch limitation scheme, and itwill be a statutory
requirement for the schemesintroduced by the international commissions.

Turnine tu CL 2.il will be noted that the information described as absolutelv
essenti; in the c'ascofCL I is the information summürised in CL 2. on thé
front. The skipper is required to complete and sign this sommary. The back
of the form is in eflèct a summary of the sales note, tu be completed by the
owners.

Concliision

This jîheiiic \\.III cnable Our fishing olr Iccland to hz nirinitorcd dnd the catch
Iiniitation oh\erved. Iccland'r reicction i)f the IC'Jruliiil: 111sniadc for difliiult
working on lcelandic grounds, and unless the situation improves there may
well be difficulty in catching eiiough fish over the years to approach the
170,000 ton figure. However, if that figure is approached, the Minister will

have tu make another Order stoi>o..e a-1fishine at a time ilidecd tu keeo the
total just below the ceiling. However, this monTtoring sysiemkill enabk the
Ministry tu foresee the approach of the ceiling, and in the eventuality arrange-
ments will be agreed withthe industry's repr~sentatives tu avoid sudden anddisruptive action or the ban being put on well before the end of the year.
Finally, the scherne can be changed in derail in the light of practical ex-
perience. Suggestions for improvements should be sent to Federation 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 MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

22 Decernber 1972.
With reference to the FisheriesJrrrisdiciion(United Kingdomv. Icelandand

Federal Republicof Grrmany v. Icelond) cases, may 1 invite 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 tu a particular case to be made accessible Io 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 Statute of the Court, public unless the Court decides other-
wise, and it is often difficult to understand the oral argument without having
had sight of the pleadings.
In order that the Court may, if itsees fit. consider this question, 1shall be
grateful if Your Excellency will inform me whether theGovernmentof lceland
would have any objection Io the pleadings and annexed documents so far
filed in each of the twn FisheriesJlirisdiction cases being made accessible to
the public with effect from the opening of the oral proceedings in each case.
The Court rnay also wish to consider making accessible to the public the

various communications which 1 have had the honour tu receive from Your
Excellency setting out the position of the Government of lceland with
reference to the proceedings. These documents, although they do not fall
within the category of pleadings, may well be referrecl to in oral argument, and
would normally be published after the termination of the case in the appro-
priate part ofthe relevant volume in theCourt's series of publications devoted
to Pleodings,Oral Argrrrneirfs,Docnmetrfs. 1 would therefore be grateful if
Your Excellency would also indicate whether the Government of lceland
would have any objection tu these documents also being made accessible Io
the public at the same time as the pleadings.
1 am wrifing also tu the Aeents of the United Kinadom and the Federal

Republic of G;rmany to eriqiire whether their respeccve Governments, with
regard Io the ~roceedings they have each instituted, would have any objection
toihe oleadinis and other documents referred tu above being mad- accessible
tu the public ï

1 1,p. 242,and p. 121,supra, CORRESPONDENCE 421

77. THE REOISTRAR TO THEMINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

4 January 1973.

1 have the honour to refer to niy letters of 3 and 20 November concerning
the choice by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germiiny of Pro-
fessor Dr. Hermann Mosler ta sit asjudge ad hoc in the FisIrcriesJrrrisdicrion
(Federal Repi,blic ofGermatry v. Irelaridlcase.

1have the honour to inform Your Excellency that the Court, after deli-
berating on the question, is unable ta find that the appointnient of a judge
ad hoc by the Federal Republic of Germany in this phase of the casewould be
admissible. This decision afiects only the present phase of the proceedings,

that is toSay that concerning the jurisdiction of the Court, and does not in
any way prejudice the question whether, if the Court finds that ilhas juris-
diction, a judge adlroc 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 ta be held on Monday 8 Janitary, and the sub-
sequent deliberation in this phase of the case.

78.THE AGENT FOR THE OOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

5 January 1973.

1 have the honour Io transmit to you a written statement of the formal

contentions and submissions of the Government of the United Kingdom as
made at the conclusion of the ~resentation of the case for the Uniied King-
dom at today's oral hearing by the Court.
The Government of the United Kingdom contend

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

5 January 1973

1have the honour Io send Your Excellency herewith a copy of the verbatim
record of today's hearing in the Fislieries Ji,risdiciion (Unilcd Kiitgdom v.
Icelond) case, and a certified true copyof ü letter from the United Kingdom
Agent, filed in the Registry immediately after the hearing, setting out the

formal submissions of the United Kingdom.
In accordance with the requesr mude in Your Excellency's telegram of
3 August 1972, 1 am sending under separate cover 24 further copies of the

verbatim record of today's hearing.

--
1 Seep. 120,suproandI.C.J. Reporrs1973,p. 51. (telegrom)

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 ofcourt's
jurisdiction in FisheriesJltrisdicrio,~casesinstituted by United Kingdom and
Federal Republic of Germany.

(telegram)

2 February 1973.

Have honour inforni you Court today delivered Judgments in Fisheries
Jl~risrlicrioilases.Operative clause in Judgment in case instituted by United
Kingdom reads as follows:

[See I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 221

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

[See I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 661

Judgnients airniailed to you today.

Irelegram)

12 February 1973.

On inilrt.tlions of Preiidsni of Court h>\e honoiir inforni Yuiir C~cellency
th:ii tic Ir con\ciiing iiicctrig. in li.,lir,riîJ~rri~rlrcrroi»dse\ on Th.irsJs!
15 Fcbri.:ir, 1,)2s:ert:iin \icu, 01 I'hrt.c$ rçc~rd~neaiie>rit>iisiiinr<>~ed.tr~ in

cases on merits pursuant Article 37 ~ulei of Coiirt; ~eilerai Repithl;cof
Ccrmairy v. lerla~r<l,10 a.m., Agent for Federal Republic of Germany will
attend, UiriredKirrpdornv. Iceloizd,II a.in., Agent for United Kingdom will
attend. Whilst noting that Agent has not been appointed by Iceland am

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

1 Sirnilar conirnunications were sent ta the Agents fur the Governmentsof the
I1n:ied Kincd.>iii anil the I:cui.rst Kepcnl.: .,i Gcriiiany
1 On 15 IFchri.~r)1973. ihc l'rcridcni niei >u:.v\\CS ilic.\gr.nislurthe Ci~\crn-
rncnir <>ifhc 1.ln.IK,ndd~>iiiandihe I:~~dcr3K1cp~hllc~iiCieriiian) CORRESPONDENCE 423

83. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN~
13 février 1973.

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

vrier 1973 dans Ics affaires relativesà laComplte~iceet?mati6re de pécheries
(Royaitme-Uiri dc Grailde-Bretagireet d'lrlaiide di,Nord c.Islaiide; R6p11bliqite
fédéraled'Alkmab.iie c.Isla»rlr.).
D'autres exeniplaires seront expédiés ultérieurenientpar la voie ordinaire.

(telegram)

15 February 1973.
Have honour inforni Your Excellency that by two Orders) of today Court

fixed following tiiiie-liiiiits for written proceedings on merits in Fisheries
Ji,risdicrioicases: 1 August. 1973 for Mernorials of United Kingdoni and
Federal Republic of Germany; 15 January 1974 for Counter-Memorials of
Iceland.

(telegram)

16 February 1973

Would appreciate receiving earliest opportunity 20copies each of Judgment
delivered by the Court 2 February in FishrriesJi,risdicliocases.

86.THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF OERMANY 10 THE RECISTRAR
21 May 1973.

1have the honour to refer to the Order inade by the Court on 17 Augilst
1972 in the FisheriesJitrisdicrion(Federal Repitblicof Germa11. v. Icelat~d)
case on the Request made by the Government of the Federal Republic of

Germany dated 21 July 1972 for the indication of interiiii nieasures 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 tliat the

1 Une communication analogue a étéadresséearix autres Etats Membres des
Nations Unieset aux Etats non menibres des Nations Uniesadmis à ester devant la
Cour.
2 Similar comm~nicalionswere sent to the Agents for the Governmenrs of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republicof Germany.
3 I.C.J. Repom1973, pp. 93and 96.Federal Republic should ensure that vessels registered in the Federal Re-

public do no1 take an annual catch of more than 119,000 metric tons of fish
froni the "Sea Area of Iceland". as defined bv the lnternational Council for
the Exploration of the Sea as Area Va. In parigraph (1) (f)of the Order the
Court indicated that the Federal Republic should furnish the Government of
lceland and the Rer..trv.of the Court with al1 relevant information. orders
i>.iir.d dn~i;srrangetnr.tiis iii3Jc concertiing ille contrul aiid regiil,\ti\~nor li5h

c;tiche\ ~tiihc ;irc,t. In cuniplt.in:e ii.iti the .dtd p3rsgr;ipli (i 11 1nou Iiu\c
the honour to supply the following information to the court:

1. Statutory authority for regulating the operation of fishing vessels of the
Federal Renublic. in,nar.icular for reeula-ine the amount of total catch or the
amount of fishing effort in any period or any area, is contained in the Law

Im~lementinn the lnternational Convention for the Northwest Atlantic
~isheries and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention and Making
Further Provision for the Regulation of Sea Fishing, enacted on 25 August
1971 (hereinafter referred Io 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 1.
2. Statutory authority for regulating the operation of fishing vessels of the

Federal Renublic had been nrimarilv intr~~uced for ~h~ ~,nur~.se of outtine
into effect broposals and re~omnieidations of the Northwest ~tlaniic an:
North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commissions (see Article 2 of the Sea Fisheries
Convention Law 1971). This authority niay, however, also be sued indepen-
dently from proposals 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 reeulati~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~-i2.er a~ ~ ~ ~e amount
of total catch in a specified area may be limited, and. for the imblementation
of such a catch limitation. fishinn in the snecified area mav be ~rohibited or

made sobject Io a licence Io be-issued by the Federal ~inister (Article 2,
paragraph (2), No. 4, and paragraph (3) of the Sea Fisheries Conventions
Law 1971). 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 theduty to keep the necessary records of their
operations orto 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 witb 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
service of 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 1971).

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

1 Secp. 427, infra.
2 See p.434, infra. CORRESPONDENCE 425

of this Regulation deals with the limitation of fishing for herring in the North-
WestAtlantic which is not relevant here: Section 2 relates to the fishing in the
"Sea Areh of Iceland", i.e., the siatisticai area Va of thinternational ~ouncil
for the Exploration of the Seato which the Order of the Court refers in para-

graph (1) le) of ils operative passage.Paragraph (1) of section 2 of the afore-
mentioned Regulation niakes fishing within the said area subject to a licence
issued by the Federal Minister, and stipulates that the total catch wiihin one
calendar year shall not exceed 119,000 tons. Paragraph (2) iiiiposes certain
dulies on the masters of fishing vessels for keeping daily records of their

catches, and on fishing enterprises in possession of a licence Io furnish the
requisite statements and docunients for proving that the aniount of the total
catch is not in excessof the amount laid down in the licence. The scheme of
control will beexplained in more detail in the later paragraphs of this report.

4. Bv letter of 16October 1972addressed Io the German Trawler Owners'
A%<iciaiion, a ~.opyt~f~h~ih logcihcr \vilh 2 Ir~nil;il~o~IS allachcd hcrclo rl
Anne., ('1, the 1-cJcr31 \Itnisicr is,ued 3 gcncrdl ltcencc io ihc rntcrpri~rs
nieiiibcrr of the Cicrniin Trawlcr O~vners'A55i)ciaili>n Io caich 119.000 ion,
of fi>h 111ilic arc3 nieniioncd in ihc Sei Arc2 <if Iccl;inJ. Tlic hltnisicr Icfi II

ii> ilic Arii>ciati<in tu d:stribiiic 1h.i ai~itiurii :iiiiong the iiicmher\<if the
Association but reserved the riaht .o revoke this licence with regard Io in-
dividu;il cnicrpri,es if this riould be ne<e,ssr). iii rlie iiiiercit iiicq.iirxhlr.
utili,sti.)nh) .,IIenierpri>cs i>f inc ta>131q.1011cr~nicd. II ir:i.niiide ~lear
that, for the calendar year 1972.the catches already niade prior the enlry into

force of the Regiilation of 6 September 1972 were to be deducted frorn the
amount stated in the licence. Aslandingsfrorn the lceland areï in thc calendar
vear 1972 reiiiained considerablv below 119,000tons. il wüs no1 necessaryto
ievokc the licence for al1 or sonie fishing enterprises being menibers 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 issuedon
16October 1972operates in the following way:
6. An obligatory statisticalinformation scheme had already been in

operation under the Law on Fishery Statistics of 21July 1960(BGBI. 1.p. 589).
According 10 this Law al1 landings of German deep-seafishing vesselsin the
Federal Reoublic of Germany are being recorded and s~ccified as Io the
fishing \essel. ihc Lhing grouiid ;inci ihcCiih aïicr elch fiihing voyage ~he
hwds of tlic ses iish iii.irkci adiiiini~ir4tiuii.irc rc\p<in,ihle ior giting inior-

mation on the fishing vessels; tlie heads of the fishing enterprises are res-
ponsible for givinginforiiiation on the fishing groundand the catch. The data
are being entered by the head of the fishing enterprise in the green "Re-
gistration Form 1 b" (attached hereto as Annex D 2).As regards "fresh fish
voyages" the registration form will be supplemented by a "catch list"

prepared by the sea fish market administration (attached hereto as Annex
E2) contailling 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 necessarydata in the "Registration Form 3" (al-

tached hereto as Annex F 2). According to sections 6, 10 and 14 of the Law
on Statistics for Federal purposes of 3 September 1953 (BGBI. 1. P. 1413)
amended for the las[ time by Article 35 of the Law introducing the 0rh1,ng.v-

1 Seep. 436,;n/ra.
2 See P. 438,iilfra.widrigkeifeir-Geserr.(Law on Minor Offences) of 27 May 1968 (BGBI. 1,
p. 503) refusal or delay in furnishing the required data, as well as incorrect or
incomplete supply of data will be punished by a fine up to 10,000 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. .gr-culture and Foreslry. There they will be scrutinized and evaluated
(extrapolation to the "nominal catch" rèquested by the international or-
ganizations = life weight of the fish intended for human consumption
includinc the fish orocessed into fish meal on board) and then forwarded to

the Federal ~fice'of Statistics in Wiesbaden where the final statistical com-
pilation will be niade. In addition, the specified origin of the catches (fishing
eroundsi is beine checked on the sea fish markets accordinc! to certain ex-
terior criteria ofihe fish landings (composition of the catch and size of fish)
although there is no lcgal obligation to do this. The determination of origin is,

however. relevant to the classification ofcatches and thus has an effect on the
price which can be obtained in the auction on the sea fish markets.
7. Since the specifications required by the Law~on Fishery Statistics cover
the fishinc eround, the catch and the duration of the voyage,.b-t do not
incliide ihGe\s~t tinie ïriJ p1.ir.ehhcre the indi\idu:cstches ha\e hecn niïde.

the lollouing supplcment;lry req.iirenienir vere ~ntroduced by the Third
Recul3tii>n ol 6 Seoteinher 1972. ti~r the ourriose of control uf comoli;inie
with the catch limi~ation'contained in section 2, paragraph (1). ofthis Regu-
lation, Section 2, paragraph (2), refers to Section 1, paragraphs (2) to (4). of
the Reaulation. This means that the masters of the fishing vessels have to

keep daily records of thclr catches. specifying the date. pusilion. quaniil)..
iraste. and utili7ïtion of the catch 3nJ stat!ng the type of tishinggelir usedai
irell 3s the anii)uni of tishing effort (number of hauls multiplicd hy fishinc
time) (Section 1, paragraph (2)).~hese data are put down by the master of
the fishing vesse1in the fishing log book /Logbr,clischeinJ(seeAnnex G 1).

Section 1,paragraph (3), of the Regulation requires that fishing enterprises
have to give information on the duration of the fishing voyages of their vessels
to the Federal Research Board for Fisheries and to the Federal Ofice of
Statistics at their request which information has to be accompanied by al1
relevant declarations and documents which are necessary for verification;

if so req~iestedthey shall furthermore submit the necessary statements and
documents to prove that the amount of catch allowed by the licence hadnot
been exceeded. According to Section 4 of the Regulation in coniiection with
Article 6 of the Sea Fisheries Convention Law 1971 infringements may be
punished by fines up to 10,000 DM together with a confiscation of fishing

gear and catch.
8. In his letter of 16 October 1972 the Minister had requested that al1
catches have to be reported Io the Federal Research Board for Fisheries. This
was carried out in the following way: The fishing enterprises passed on the
fishing log books and the green registration forms to the sea fish market ad-
ministrations which in turn handed them over to the Federal Research Board

for Fisheries. The Research Board was able to scrutinize ihese documents
together with the data of the sea fish markets on landings and thus to check
exactly for each vesse1and each voyage when and where which type and
which amount of fish had been caught. In addition, the information of the
fishing enterprises could be compared with the reports of the German fishery

1 Seep. 438,iir/rn. CORRESPONDENCE 427

proteciii~n i'esscls on the nuiiiher (II tierman vcssel~uhich i~perated aroiind
1cel:tnd and on iheir carchci. Thcrc reports Jrc ralhcr c,>nnprchcn\)vr hrc:iiiss

al14 protection vessels have been concentrated in the u,aters around lceland
since ISeptember 1972.
9. On the inforniation provided by the Federal Research Board for
Fisheries, the provisional ligure of the nominal catch of the fishing vessels
of the Federal Repiiblic in the 1cel;ind Area (Iceland = ICES Area Va) in the
year 1972 atiiounts Io 93,672 tons. This amount keeps within the limit set
by theCourt in ils Order of 17Auçust 1972.

[.au,
Approiing ,\nicndnicnis IO ;and Implimrniins the Iniern3iional Conventton
fur ilic Sorthuesi t\tlantt~ 1-.rherics ;~nd ihc Sorih-Eaii Atlanii~ 1-i*hcries

C'on\cnii<>n.anJ \I.thinr 17iiriherI1r~\..,.i)nCorthc Kcc~I:iii~~if Sea rishin.
- Sm kisheries Conventions Law 1971 -
25 Auçust 1971
[Tr~117sl~rio1i1

Be itenacted by the Bundestag as follows:

Article 1

The following international agreements are approved:
1. The Protocol of I October 1969 to the lnternational Convention for the
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (B~rnd~sgeser;hlr,rr 1957 11, p. 265). signed
by the Federal Republic of Germany in Washington on 3 October 1969,
relating to Panel Menibership and to Regulatory Measiires.
2. The Protocol of 6 Octobcr 1970 to the lnternational Convention for the

Northwest All;intic Fisheries (B~oirles~esrrzhlorr 1957 11. p. 265). signed
by the Federal Repiiblic of Germany in Washington on 9 October 1970,
relating to Amendinents to the Convention.
3. The Proposal to supplenient the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention
(B~,i~<les~eser~hla1~r63 11.D. 157) in accordance with its Article 7 vara-
iraph (Yiuh~h proposal ad;adoitcd by ihe Sortli-Exit At13nt;c l',rherics
('iimniission ai il\ Elghth hleeiiiiç held in Loiidon froni 6 io I I hlxs 1970.

The Protocols and the Proposal referred to above are published hereunder.

Article 2

(1) The Federal Minisier of Food, Agricult~ire and Forestry ("the Federal
Minister") ia aiithorized to issue Regulations which do not require prior
consent of the B/,/I~/~J~II(IFederal Council), for the purpose of giving effect
10

-~~
1 Originallexi (Bitndtsgeiel2bl~ti19II,pp. 1057-1064)no1reproduced.1. proposals put forward by the International Commission for the Northwest

Atlantic Fisheries under the provisions of Article Vlll of the International
Convention for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries of 8 February 1949, as
amended;
2. recoinmendations 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 orëx~osed or offered for sale.
3. ihe e~ialil.~hiiieiit of ..<>\ciljs,iwn\ 2nd rl<~\cd:irc:is,
4. ilic rcgu .iii<ini>filie iiiisiini 10131i:itch or ihc.aniouni of lishing etTiiri
in any period or any area,
5. any other regulation directly related to the conservation and optimal
utilization of al1fish 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 I to 5 above,
7. the su~ervision of comuliance with reeulations issued under sub-vara-

graphs 1to 6 above. ~uch supervision Gay include in particular thestop-
ping of fishing vessels, access to and inspection ofrooms and containersfor
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 ta the objects ofcontrol.
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 paraaraph 2 (4) above,
fishing for certain species of fish ma? in certain periods orarias be piohibited
or made subject to a licence fromthe Federal Minister. There may be attached
to such licence certain conditions pertaining Io the maximum permissible

catch, the use of certain types of fishing vessels or of fishing gear and appli-
ances or of fishing methods, orto the duration of the fishing effort or of the
stay of the vesse1 in the fishing grounds concerned. When granting such li-
cence the fishine cana,~tv 2nd aualification of the fishine e-te~ ~ise and its
previous participa&on in the fiskery concerned shall be taken into consider-
ation and allowance shall be made for the rational utilization of 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 (Btrndesgesetzblat t,
p. 567)). most recently amended by the Marketing Fund Law of 26 June 1969
(Birndes~esetzblorr1, p. 635), it shall be heard before a licence will be
granted.

Article 3

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

measures pursuant to Article 2 (2)of this Law by meansof Regulations which

do not require the prior consent of the Federal Council, provided that this
proves necessary for the conservztion and optimal utilization of fish stocks
or for su~ervisins com~liance with the resulations issued on the basis of this
Lsu ; the'r~.~ :i.iÏliori~;iiiiii:iy. n i~ilit;uibe ii\e.l for the iniplenientlii.an
of Kcgiilation< i>,iied by the Ciiiinc 1<if the Eur,rpc:,n <'iimiii.init.c~ ~tiilcr
Ar1i;le 5 of LLC Kegiil;iiioi> So. 2141 70 d?O Oct~her 1970:Jn:criiaiig ihc

Ad,~ptiot~ of :* Co~iinion Str.i~iur.il P~>I(:! f,>r ttic lT.,h!n$ lndc..try IOJ/~C~~~/
G~:~~rre #./rliL-t,r,>pcu~r,nl~~al~iri.<,hL>. L 210 ,ii27 (Jiiohcr 1070. p. II.

Article 4

(1) Supervision of cornpliance with the Regulations issued under the
authority of this Law, outside the liniits of the territorial sea of the Federal
Republic of Gerniany shall be carried out by the masters or ship's officers in
the nautical service of the fishery protection vesselsof the Federal Republic of

Gerniany, by other officiaisappointed by the Federal Minister or, provided
reciprocity is guaranteed, by specially authorired inspectors of the fishery
control services of the States parties to the International Fisheries Conven-
tions.
(2) Any act of specially authorized inspectors in the exercise of supervision
shall be deemed equal to oficial ects of civil servants within the nieaning of

Article 113of the Penal Code.

Article 5

(1) Any person u,ho. withoot ;iiithority,discloses a secret of another,
iiotablv a bosiness secret. of which he has obtaiiied knowledee as a nieniber
or reprcbent:jti\e of An ;t-,eiiz) fi.lfillre~pun\ihiliiies under [hi< I..ie. sh:ill
he 1i.ible taJ terni of iiiipri~onniciino1 e\cecdiiig ilne yc;ir xnJ irith .Ifinc
or with either of these penalties.

(2) If the otiender acts for a consideration or with intent to enrich hiniself
or injure another Party, the penalty shall be imprisonment not exceeding Iwo
years; in addition, a fine rnay be imposed. Similarly, any person who. without
authority, usesa secret of another, noiably a business secret of which he has
obtained knowledge under the circumstances described in paragraph I above,
shall also be liable to punishmeni.

(3) The offence shall be prosecuted only tipon the application of the injured
pariy.

Article 6

(1) Any person who wilfully or negligently contravenes a Regulation issued
iinder the provisions of Article 2 or 3 of this Law shall be deemed to have
committed an otience in so far as that Regulation refers to this Article with
regard to that specific contravention.
(2) Such otience may be punished with a fine not exceeding ten thousand

Gernian Marks.
(3) Any fishing gear and appliances used or fish caught in contravention to
a Regulation envisaged by paragraph 1above, may be confiscated. Section 19
of the Law on Minor Onences (Geserz iiber Ordizr,ngs:vidrigkeire,z) shall Article 7

The present Law shall also apply to Land Berlin, provided that Land Berlin
makes an enactment to this eîïect. Regulations issued undzr this Law shall

be applicable in the Land Berlin in accordance with Section 14 of the Third
Transitional Law (UberleirtozgsgesetzJ of 4January 1952(B~ttrdesgeserzblalr1,
P. 1).

Article 8

(1) Th... LA\\ slisll criicr iiiio f<>r<con ihc &y sfi11.proniiilç.~tion.,\iihc
.linle iinic. Artic2e(3) olthc L3a of 23 April 1954siin;erninl: ihc A~ccss.oii
of the I:cderdl Rcoiihlic ,>fGerni2ni io the C<>n\cni.oii of 5 ,\nril 1946 oi the
International ~v&fishing Conference, asamended by the ~uppiementary Law

of 13 June 1955 (Bundesneserzblart II. p. 697). Articles 2 to 4 of the Law of
22 Dcceniber 1959 ~méndine and lmolementine the Law concernine the
A~~.cj.ioii vÇ the FeJcral Kcp~hli; .)f C~criii;i~iyio thc Coii\eniisii of 5 Apr.1
1946 i>Iiiie liitcrnsttonit0,criishing C'.iiiÇcrcniri lltii~<lc.y~~:~~r.19u59 11,
n. l5Ili. siiil 4riiilc3 tif the1L;iudi 19 hl~rch 1963 rcl.ii.iic t<ithe Ni~rih-

Ât1antic'~isheries Convention (~itndesgezelzblorr 1963 11,p. i57) shall cezw
to have effect.
(2) The date on which

1. the Protocol relating to Panel Membership and 10 Regiilatory Measures,
pursuant to its Article IV, paragraph (2);
2. the Protocol relating to Amendrneiits to the Convention, pursuant to its
Article II, paragraph (2);

3. the Proposal to supplement the North-East Atlantic FisheriesConvention,
pursuant to Article 7,paragraph (2), of that Convention,

enter into force for the Federal Republic of Germany, shall be published iii
the B~!ndesgesefzblarr.

The constitutional rights of the Bttirdesrar (Federal Council) are observed.

The foregoing Law is hereby promulgated.
Bonn, 25 August 1971.

'The Federal President
HEINEMANN

The Federal Chancellor
BRANOT

The Federal Minister of
Food, Agriculture and Forestry

J.ERTL

The Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs
SCHEEL CORRESPONDENCE 43 1

PROTOCOT LOTHC1NTERNATlONAC LONVENTlON FOR THENORTWWEST
ATLANTIC FISHERIES RELATINCTO PANEL MEMBERSHtP AND 70
RECULATORY MEASURES

The Governments ~arties Io the International Convention for the North-

uest Atlantic Fisheriej signed a1 Washington iinder date of 8 Febrtiary 1949.
uhich Conrcntiun as aniended 1shcretnsfter rclerred io as the Cun\ention.
desiring to establish a more appropriate basis for the determination of re-
presentation on the Panels established under the convention, and desiring to
provide for greater flexibilityin the types of fisheries regulatory measures

which rnay be proposed by the International Commission for the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries, agree as follows:

Article 1

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

2. Panel re~resentation shall be reviewed annuallv bv the Commission. which
. .
shall h3i.e ihe poxer. iubjectticon5ultation \vith the Panel conccrned, Io
determine representation on e.ich Panel on the basis ofcurreiitsuhstantial
ex~loitation of the stocks of fish in the subarea concerned or on the basis
or'current substantial exploitation of harp and hood seals in the Conven-
tion Area, except that each Contracting Government with coastline ad-

iacent Io a subarea shall have the riahtofre~resentation on the Panel for
the subarea.

Article II

Paragraph 2of Article VI1 of the Convention shall be amended Io read as
follows:

2. Each Panel, upon the basis of scientific investigations, and economic and
technical considerations, may make recommendations Io the Commission

for joint action by the Contracting Governments within the scope of para-
graph 1 of Article V111.

Article III

Paragraph Iof Article VllI of the Convention shall be amended to read as
follows:

1. The Commission may, on the recommendations of one or more Panels,
and on the b~ ~s o-~~~~entific investieations. and economic and technical

considerationr. trnnsniit to the Depositary Goternment appropriate
proposais. For joint action by the Contracting Governn~ents. designed 10
achieve the ooGmum utilization of the stocks of those s~eciesolfish which
support international fisheries in the Convention ~rea:

Article IV

1. This Protocol rhall bc open lor signature and ratification or approval
or for adherence on behiilfof nny Go,,ernmenr party to the Convention. 2. This Protocol shall enter into force on the dateon 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 al1the Governments oarties to the ~ ~ve~tio~-~~
3. ~n; 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 al1
Governments signatory or adhering to the Convention of al1ratifications or
approvals deposited and adherences received and of the date this Protocol
enters into force.

Article V

1. The original of this I'roroc<>lrh~ll hc dcpojitcd trith the Go\crniiicnt of
the United St;ifer oiAnicri:î. \rhich Ci<i\zrniiieni sh~ll:oniniunl:~tcccri.ficd
cooies thereof to al1 the Governments si-natorv or adhering to-the Con-
vention.
2. This Protocol shall bear the dateon which it is opened for signature and

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

In Wirness Whereof the undersigned, having deposited their repective full
powers, have signed this Protocol.

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

PROTOCOL TO THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE NORTHWEST

ATLANTIC FISHERIES RELATINO 'IOAMENOMENTS TO THE
CONVENTION

The Governments oarties to the International Convention for the North-
ncst 4il~nl.: Fisherics signcd :IIWashiiigt<in undcr dstc of Fchrii~ry '1. 1949.

uhish Con\rniii)n. .i\ ïnicndcd, ijhcrcin~itcr reicrred io :i\the Con\eniion.
desirine to facilitate the entrv into force of amendments to the Convention.
agree ai follows:

Article 1
Article XVll of the Convention is renumbered "Article XVIII" and a ne*

Article XVll is inserted to read as follows:

"Article XVll

1. Anv Contractine Government or the Commission mav orooose .. . amend-
nie!its tc> ihis Con\eniii>n iti he :,>n,iJcrcd 2nd ;,ad upon hy ;i rcgullr
mccting of ihe <'onini.rston or h) s spc;i.tl inecting df tlic Coni~iiirsioii c:~lleJ

in accordance with the orovisions of ~araeraoh 6 of Article II of the Conven-
tion. Any such proposid amendnieni shaïl besent to the Executive Secretary
at least ninety days prior to the meeting at which it is proposed to be acted
upon, and he shall immediately transmit the proposal to al1 Contracting
Governments and to al1Commissioners.

2. A proposed amendment to the Convention shall be adopted by the
Commission by a three-fourths majority of the votes of al1 Contracting CORRESPONDENCE 433

Governments. The text of any proposed amendment so adopted shall be
transmitted by the Depositary Government to al1 Contracting Governments.
3. Any amendment shall take eifect for al1 Contracting Governments one
hundred and twenty days following the date on the notification by the
Deoositarv Government of receiot of ufritten notification of aooroval bv
..
thrce.f~~urths uf üII C'untrùiting Cio\crnmcnts unless any othcr C:ontraiting
Governnient notifie.. the Uspo$!t;iry Gincrnmcnt that tobjcct, to theamend-
ment, within ninety days of the date on the notification by the Depositary
Government of such receipt, in which case the amendment shall no1 take
effect for any Contracting Government. Any Contracting Government which

has objected to an amendment may at any Lime withdraw that objection. If
al1 objections to an amendment are withdrawn, the amendment shall take
effect for al1 Contracting Governments one hundred and twenty days fol-
l~~ine thedateon thenotification bv the De~ositarv Government of receiot o.
the lait withdrawal.

4. Any Government which bccomes a party to the Convention after an
amendment has been adonted in accordance with oaraeran. 2 o" rhis Article
shall be deemed to have approved the said amendment.
5. The Depositary Government shall promptly notify al1 Contracting
Governments of the~receint of notifications of a~oroval of amendments. the

receipt of notifications of Abjection or withdrawai of objections, and the &try
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 Government 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
,\iiieri;a.on hehilf of .il1Gs\criitiicnt.;p;irtier to the Contenti~n.
3. Any Gi~vcrnriicnt ulii;li hrconics a party t<ithc Coni,cnt!<in aftcr !hi\
Prolocol hs heen oncned for >!criturc ,hall &t the sdmc timc adhere tu thii
.
Protocol.
4. The Government of the United States of America shall inform al1
Governments signatory or adhering to the Convention of al1ratifications 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 ofentry into forceofthepresent
Protocol shall thereafter enter into force in accordance with the provisions
of the oresent Protocol. ~rovided. however. that. if instruments of ratifi-
cation Ar approval or notices of adherence with respect tosuch Protocolhave

been received by the Depositary Government from three-fourths of al1Con-
tracting Governments at the time of entry into force of the uresent Protocol,
the date on which the ninety, and one- hundred and twenty, day periods
specilied in the first sentence of paragraph 3 of Article XVll shall commence
with regard to such amendment shall be the date of entry into force of the
present Protocol.

Article III

1. The original of this Protocol shall be deposited with the Government of
the United States of America, which Government shall communicate certified434 FlSHERlES IURlSDlCTlON

copies thereof to al1the 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
powets, have signed this Protocol.

Done at Washington this sixth day ofOctober 1970,in the English language.

Acrivarion of Article 7 (2)

The Commission agreed a proposal reading as follows:

"in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Convention the Commission hereby
proposes that the following additions be made to the list of measures in
Article 7 (1):-

(g) any measures 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 efort and its
allocation to Contracting Statesin any period."

Annex B

THIRD RECULATION IMPLEMENTING THE SEA FlSHERlES CONVENTIONS LAW 1971
OF 6 SEPTEMBER 1972
[Translation 11

By virtue of Articles 2 and3 of the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971of
25 August 1971 (Bundesgesefzblart II, p. 1057) it is ordered as follows:

Section 1

(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
Regulation Implementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971 of
26 August 1971 (Bundesgesefrblarf II, p. 1065) which lies hetween the
houndarv between areas NW 4and NW 5and the coasts of New Brunswick

and Nova Scotia and bctusen a Iinc riinning from the cnst co.i\i i>fSov3
Scoii3 along 44'52'north I:ititiiJe i60- iicst Iongit~Je; thcncc souih\i.ird
dong lhdt parallel IO 44'10' north Iîtiiude; tlicncc due eJst dong that
parallel io 59' uert Itingitudc: ihcncc to the htiuih sliing thai par3llcl to
39'norih latitude; thencc irriiiiard along thai parallcl tu the boundar)
hetween areas NW 4 and NW 5;

1 Original text(Bundesgeserzblal972 II,pp. 1109-1110)not reproduced CORRESPONDENCE 435

2. within area NW 5 designated in Section 1 (1) (9) of the First Regulation
Implementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971, as well as in the

waiers adjacent thereto to the Westand south between the eastCoastof the
United States, 35" north latitudeand 65"401 Westlongitude.

(2) The mastersof vesselsfishing for herring in the areasdesignated in para-
graph 1 above shall keep daily records of their catches, specifying the date,
oostion. auantitv. waste. and utilization of the catch and stating the type of
fishing gear used as weli as the amount of fishing eiïort (number of hauls
multiplied hy fishing time).
(31Fishina enter~rises in oss sessio on a licence issued under paragraph 1
. -~
above. sh3llupon ;cqucst ifiform the Frdrrsl In\tiiute for the Ehplorïiion of
Fisheries ïnd thc Fedcrïl Oifice of Siaiiiiicrof the dates of comnienccnient
~ ~ ~ermination of their herrin- fishin- and in substantiation thereof submit
the requisiie siaie8iients anJ doiuinents; so requested they shall furtherniore
siibniit the ncccssary stalenients and docunicnis 10 prove that the amount of

herring catch is not in excessof 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 from the amount stated in the
licences issued under paragraph 1above.

Section 2

(1) Within that part of area NE 1 designated in Section 1 (1) (1) of the
First Regulation lmplementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971,
which lies around Iceland and which is delimited by straight lines between the
following points: 68' N, 27' W; 68' N, I IDW; 63' N, Il0 W; 63' N, 15" W;
62" N, 15' W; 62' N, 27' W (statistical area Va of the InternationalCouncil

for the Exploration of the Sea). the total catch within one calendar year shall
not exceed 119,ûûûtons. Fishing within the said area shall be subject ta a
licence issued 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) (1) it is forbidden to catch or retain on board herring of a size not
exceeding 22.7 centimetres measured from the tip of snout ta the extreme end
of the tail fin (undersize herring). However, 10percent of the total weight of

the herring caught by a vesse1within one calendar year in the areasdesignated
in the first sentenceabove, 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 1(2)
fails to keep the prescribed recordor to keep it properly or fully;
3. fails to comply, or to comply properly or fully, with a request pursuant to
Section 1(3) or Section 2 (2) in conjunction with Section 1(3);
4. contrary to Section 2 (1) fishes for herring in the area designated without a
licence, or5. contrary to Section 3 fishes for or retains on board undersize herring,
shall be deemed Io have committed an offence within the medning of Article

6 (1) of the SeaFisheries Conventions Law 1971.

Section 5

Pursuant to Section 14 of the Third Transitional Law lÜbcrIeirr~nr.s~~e.serzi
014 Jxnuiiry 1952 (Rtr»i/<~.,gi~<~~~:u.p. lj ln .otujt,nct~c,n with Ari.cle 7 c~f
the Seii 1:isherie. Convention, I.iu 1971,the preseni regiilaiion sliall slao he
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 Minisler
of Food, Agriculture and Forestry
J. ERTL

Annex C

THEFEDERALMlNlSTER OF FOOD,AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY TOTHE
GERMAN TRAWLEH OWNERS' ASSOCIATION

16 October 1972.
[Translarion 11

Ref.: My Letlerof 22 June 1972
Third Regulation Implementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law
1971

The above-mentioned Regulation was issued on 6 September 1972 and
promulgated in the Bundesgeserrblar(rFederal Law Gazette) Part II, No. 61,
of 27 September 1972, page 1109, ten copies of which are enclosed herewith.

In deviation from the original drafl,two major alterations have been made:
1. In order to dispel doubts as toits constitutionalittheRegulation 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 wholecalendar year 1972.

2. A new Section 2takes into account the order of the International Court of
Ju\iiceof 17Augusi 1972.and Iiniiis the C;erinïnc<iich uitliin ihest:it.sI,cal
areJ "lsrland" Io 119.000 ion., for the year 1972.

1Original text no1reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 437

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

II.

Aftcr haliiig heard ihc Federal Marketing A\su~.tation of the Fish Industry.
I hcrcb) graiila I.ceiiicIOitic eiitzrpr..cs ~tieiliher, i>f>o~r Asroci.ttion lu li<h

for hcrrinc Ihr<1~llho~t the \car 1972. siihicii Io tlie r>ro\isioni of Ari.cle 2.
paragraph(3). ofihe Sea ~iiheries ~onvcntions Law j971 (~tdndcsgcsc~zblu~f
Il, p. 1057).

1. in the area designated in Section 1, paragraph (1) No. (1). of the Third
Regulation lmplementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971 of

6 Se~tember 1972(Bioidcmrs~~zhlrir, II. p. 1109). As soon ascatches made
by theenterprises memberiofyour Association havereached theamount of
100tons, I must be informed iinmediately as well asofany further 100-ton
catch. 1 reservc the right ta revoke this licence at any lime since the total
herring catch limit for the State parties to the ICNAF is 1,000tons only;

2. (O) ta catch 2,500 tons of herring in the northern part of the area de-
signated in Section l, porzigraph (I), No. (2), of the Third Regulation
lmplementing the Sea Fisheries Convention Law 1971 (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 l, paragraph (l), No. (2), of the Third Regulation
lmplementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971 (statistical
sub-areas 5 Z and 6 of the International Commission for the North-
west Atlantic Fisherics): allocation to the enterprises concerned shall

be according Io the schediile set out in your letter of 17July 1978;,
3. to caich I I9.000 tons offi,h in theÿrca mcntioned in Seciton 2. paragraph
II). of the Third Rcgulxtion Iinpleinrniing ihe Sea Fisheries Conveniions
Law 1971.In so far asvou do no1distribute this amount amone the various

enterprises, 1 reserve ihe right ta revoke this licence with regard to in-
dividual enterprises if this will be necessary in the interest of an equitahle
utilization by al1enterprises of the total quota granted

The catches must bc reported to the Federal lnstitute for the Explorationof

Fisheries and the Federal Ofice of Statistics in the usual way. In addition,
1require immediate information of any termination of herring fishing in the
arcas dcsignated in paragraph 2 (0) and (hl.
In conclusion, I wish ta point out that fishing enterprises catching herring
in excess of the amount permitted in the areas designated in paragraphs 1

and 2 above, or catching fish of al1speciesin the area designated in paragraph
3 above, and fishing enterprises failing 10 keep, or to keep properly or fully,
the records prescribed in Scction 1. paragraph (2). of the Third Regulation
Implementing the Sea Fisheries Conventions Law 1971, may be liable to a
fine.
Will you pleasc confirm in writing that you have received this information

and communicatcd ils contents to the enterprises members of your Asso-
ciation

By order
MOCKLINGFIOFF Annex D

Re,?isrrolionForm 16
[Nor reproduced]

Annex E

CarchLisr

[Nor reprodrrced]

Annex F

RegisrrorionForm 3

[Nor reprodr~cedl

Annex G

Fi.shingLog Book
[Nor rcprodrrcedl

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

22 May 1973.

With reference to my letter of 7 May, a copy of which was, as mentioned in
the letter, communicated to the Agent of the United Kingdom in theFisheries
Jurisdirtioncase. 1have the honour Io send Your Exceilency herewith a copy
of aletter 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 REPUIILIC
OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR

30 May 1973.

1 have the honour to inform you that the report on the orders issued and
arrangements made by the Government of the Federal Republic of Gerniany
concerning the control and regulation of fish catches in the"Sea Area of
Iceland" which 1have submitted to the Court by my letter of 21 May 1973 in
compiiance with paragraph (1) lit(f)of the Court's Order of 17August 1972
in the FisheriesJirrisdicrion(Federal Repr,blicof Germoiry v.Iceland) case,

has also been transmitted to the Government of lceland through the diplo-
rnatic channel. CORRESPONDENCE 439

89.THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THEUNITED KINGDOM
70 THE REGISTRAR

22 June 1973.

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

"Unless the Court has meanwhile delivered ils final judgment in the
case il shall, al an appropriate time before 15 August 1973review 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. Since itis 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

ensurc that no action of any kind is taken which might aggravate or
extend the dispute submitted to the Court;
(b) the United Kingdom 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 whalever decision on the
merits the Court may render;
(c) the Republic of lceland should refrain from taking any measures Io
enforce the Regulations of 14 July 1972against vesselsregistered in the
United Kingdom and engaged in fishing activities in the waters around

Iceland outside the twelve-mile fishery zone;
(dl the Republic of lceland should refrain from applying administrative,
judicial or other measures against ships registered in the United King-
dom, their crews or other related persons because of their having
engaged in fishing activities in the waters around lceland outside the

twelve-mile fishery-zone;
(e) the United Kingdom should ensure that vesselsregistered in the United
Kingdom do not take an 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 Seaasarea Va;

If) the United Kingdom Government should furnish the Government of
lceland and the Registry of the Court with al1 relevant information,
orders issued and arrangements made concerning the control and
re-ulation 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 Order. They have done everything
within their vower to ensure that no action of anv kind is taken which miaht.
axgrii\.iicor chtend the dispute. ïticy hï\e done S<Iin the faceof 5erious

ditiic.ilricaii\eJ by the Cidteriinienr of licland. Thc) hx\e iakrit no a~,tioit
iili~ch iniighi prcjurlice the righi>iIcelsnJ iiireipcci of the cürr.in- out of
whatever decision on the mehts the Court may render.
5. The Government of the United Kingdom have introduced a statutory
scheme to ensure that British vesselsdo not take an annual catch of more than

170,000 metric tons of fish from the "Sea Area of Iceland" and they have
given fullparticulars thereof, by letter of 19 December 1972, to the Registry CORRESPONDENCE

Week ending Londings: (long tons)
crtmrr/otivetorols

25 November 1972
2 December 1972
9 December 1972
16 December 1972

23 December 1972
30 December 1972
6 January 1973
13January 1973

20 January 1973
27 January 1973
3 February 1973
10 February 1973
17 February 1973

24 February 1973
3 March 1973
10 March 1973
17 March 1973
24 March 1973

31 March 1973
7 April 1973
14 April1973
21 April 1973
28 April 1973

5 May 1973
12 May 1973
19 May 1973
26 May 1973

2 June 1973

Note: The figures given in this Annex show the landed (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 speciesof fish, which is determined the anatomical characteristics
of that species. For dcmersal species catch weights are betwcen 18 per cent.
and 20 per cent. higher than Ianded weights. The cumulative total of 88,427
long tons Iünded weight in fart represents a total catch weight of 106,259

metric tons.

90. THEAGENTOF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OFCERMANY TO THEREClSTRAR

22 June 1973.

1refer to the Order made by the Court on 17 August 1972 in the Fisheries
Jori.sdiction (Fcd~r~l Rrp~~hIicof Gcrrnanv. Icrlond) case concerning the

Request for the Indication of lnterim Measures of Protection.
I. By paragraph (1) of the operative passage of its Order the Court had
indicated, Dcnding ifs final decision in the proceedings, the following provi-
sional measures:(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 ta 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-milefishery zone;
fd) the Re~ublic of Iceland should refrain from anolvin..a>mi-istrative.
judiciaior other sanctions or any other measures against ships registered
in the Federal Republic, their crews or other related persons, because of
their having engaged in fishing activities in the waters around lceland
outside the 12-milefishery zone;
(el 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;

(fi the Government of the Federal Republic should furnish the Government
of Iceland and the Registry of the Court with al1 relevant information,
orders issued and arrangements made concerning the control and
regulation of fish catches in the area.
In the succeeding paragraph (2) of the operative passage of ils Order the
Court had stated:

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. As the Court, in the introductory words of paragraph (1) of the operative
part of its Order of 17 August 1972. had ex~resslv stated that it indicated the
provisional measures "pe"ding itsfinal décision", 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, ta 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 continlie or need to be modified or
revoked.
However, the Government of the Federal Republic understands this part
of the Order not as providing for i definite time-limit for the duration of the
Court's Order of 17 August 1973. but rather as beine ..or.viso which should '
give eirher Party, ap~f from th; Court's gencrîl coriipeiençe io retieu the
maiter ex ollici6).the opporriinify IL,;isk ~pciifii~.illyfor si.ire\icw hy the
Co~rt hefi)re the final juJpment. Therciore. the Go\ernliieni oi the FeJcrdl
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 consider such a review being
necessary in view of the circumstances of the case. CORRESPONDENCE 443

3. As it is within the competence of the Court to interpret the meaning
of its Order of 17 Aurust 1972 if anv doubts in this resoect ~ersist. the
Government of the ~edëral Republic leives it to the Court to decide whether
the interpretation outlined in the preceding paragraph conforms with the
Court's own inter~retation of its Order or whether. in the Court's view. it
would be necessary Io take a fornial and express decision on the continuation

of itsOrder after 15August 1973at a specific request by the Federal Republic
to this effect. Whatever mav be the view of the Court in this resDect. the
Government of the ~ederal-~epublic considers it being imperative; in "iew
of the aggravated situation between the Parties which is due to the persistent
non-observance of the Court's Order bythe Government of Iceland, to ask
the Court to ensure by such procedure as it considers appropriate for this

purpose, that the measures indicated in its Order of 17 August 1972 will
remain operative after 15Auaust 1973.
4. ~he Government of the Federal Republic of Germany has iaithfully
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. 1 refer in this context to my letter of

21 May 1973 whereby 1 have fiirnished the Registry of the Court with al1
relevant information on the measurestaken by the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany concerning the control of fish catches in the lceland
area, and where 1 have stated that according to the provisional statistical
figures available to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany the
iannual catch taken by the vessels registered in the Federal Rep~iblic of

Germany from the sea area of lceland in 1972 has been kept well below the
limit indicated by the Court in paragraph (1) (e) of the operative passageof
its Order of 17 August 1972. The fishing vesselsof the Federal 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 Order 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; al1 incidents that occurred since the Court's
Order of 17 August had been caused by illegal actions of the coastal patrol
boats of the Republic of lceland in defiance of the express stipulations
contained in paragraph (1) (cl and (4 of the operaiive passageof the Court's

Order.
5. The Government of Iceland, moreover, has openly declared that it
would not comply with the Court's Order of 17 August 1972 and has given
plain evidence of ifs 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 hy ordering the fishing vessels of the Federal Republic of

Germany to leave the 50-mile zone claimed by Iceland. but had also con-
tinuously used force a-ainst the vesselsof the Federal Re~ublic of Germanv
by irying and in many cdscssuccccding in cutiing the iraal-irircs or asrp, of
Germ~in tra~ler~. These xtionr di>not only consi~iiiie an iIlcy.tl use of forcc
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. In particular, these actions taken by the Icelandic
coastal patrol boats on the order of the Government of lceland constitiite a
deliberate non-observance of the Court's Order of 17 August 1972 by which
the Court had indicated that the Government of lceland should refrain fromtaking any mcasurcs to cnforcc ils Rcgulations of 14July 1972against vcssels
rcgisicrcd in thc I:cdcral Rcpiiblic of Gerrnany and engagcd in fishing
;ictivitics in thc watcrs around Iccland outsidc the 12-milc zonc and, in
particulor. rcfrain from applying adiiiinistrativc. judicial or other sanciions

or any othcr niciisiircs ag;iinsi ships rcgisicrcd in the Fcdcral Rcpublic of
Gcrnisny bccausc of thcir having cngagcd in lishing activitics iiithe walers
aroiind Iccland oiiisidc ihc 12-inilc zonc.
6. A lis1 of incidcnts 1h;it havc occiirrcd sincc I Scpicinbcr 1972. the day

on which the Icclandic Rcgiilaiions of 14July 1972wcrc put in10 crieet. and
which have becn causcd by illcgÿl actions of thc lcclandic coaslal pairol
,,ot.,s.ig.inst Gcrinzin lishing vcssclsin ihc wstcrs of ihc high scasoutside the
12-iiiilc limii, has bccn attachcd hcrcto as A,iiie.vA.
The lis1contains ihosc incidcnts during the pcriod frotii I Scptcnibcr 1972

to ihc bcginning of May 1972 which havc bcen rcportcd by thc Gcrman
Tfiiwlcr Owncrs' Association Io thc Govcrni~icnt of the Fcdcral Repiiblic of
C;criii;inv. Thc c;iscs listcd illustraie the continiious attcmnis bv Iccliindic
cmistal p:iirol boais in inicrfcrc with thc fishing opcr~iioni of the Gcrnian
(ishing vcsscls;iiid Io ilcsiroy or d;iiii;igc inicniionally ihcir lishing cqiiipiiient

thcrchy caiisiiig no1 only considcrableinatcri;il loss biii cvcn cndi~ngcring the
s;ifciy of ihc ship ;ilid thc crcw. As thc list of c;iscs shows ihcrc have bccn 61
rcportcd ;iitcnipts Io cul the irawl-wircs or warps of Gcrtiian lishing vesscls.
Iii 13c;iscs thc trawl-wircs or warps wcrc ciit :inil in 10ç;iscs thc lishing gear
had bccn los1 thcrcby. In one cïsc a ~iiciiibcr of the crcw was injiircd having

bccn siriick by ihc brokcn cnd of a wirc whicli flung back io ihc dcck of the
tr;iivler.
As it bccaiiic :ipp;ircnt th;it ihc Govcrnriicnt of lccland had no intention
Io coiiiply wiih thc Coiiri's Ordcr of 17 Aiigiist 1972and started 10 intcrfcre

with ihc lishing opcrniions of Gcriii;in fishing vcsscls within the 50-iiiilc zone
the Govcrniiicnt of ihc Fcdcral Rcpiiblic of Gcrmüny continucd ils clTorts to
bring ;ibnut an intcrini agrceiiicnt with the Govcrniiicnt of Iccland in ordcr
10 nrcvcnt fiirthcr incidcnts. In Scntcinbcr 1972 ihe Govcrnmenl of the
~cdcral Rcpublic proposcd trilatcral talks bctwecn Iccland. the United

Kingdom and thc Fcdcral Rcpublic of Gcrniany for ncgotiating such an
intcriiii ;icrceiiicnt. The Govcrnmcnt of Iceland. howevcr. refiiscd ln take uo
ncgotiati~ns on a trilatcral basis but sccmed 'IO bc inclincd to enter in&
ncgoiiations on a bilaicrül basis. The Govcrnmcnt of the Fcdcral Rcpublic,
throiich ils Ainhass;idor in Rcykiavik. invitcd the Govcrniiicnt of lceland 10
- .. .
kikc up ncgoiiations for the concliision of an interini agrccincnt with respect
10 the cxcrcisc of the lishing rights of the Fcdcral Rcpublic on ihe waters
aroiind Icclünd oiiisidc the 12-mile limit durinc the nendencv of thc orocccd-
ingç bcforc ihc Coiirr. The Go$erniiicni of l;l.tnil; hi>\rcvér. made it ilcar
thxi il U.IC 1101uill~ng to siari siich ncçoti:riion% iintil ihc G<i\eriinicni of ihc

t'cJcr:il Kcpiihlic Ii:id hcforchaiid pronosïls for ï possible intcriiii sciilement
which the Govcriiiiicnt of 1ccl;ind wbiild considcras a siiitablc basis. Although
ihis dciii;ind for ;iprior coininiinicnt by the Fedcral Rcpublic before the
bcgiiining of ncsotiations was soiiicwhat unitsual, the Fcdcral Rcpublic
bcinc anxioiis Io britic :ibout an intcriin acrccincnt as soon as nossihic in

ordcr to prcvciil fiirlhc-r incidcnts, cvcntiiall;agrced to this proccd;ire and on
12 IZcbriiary 1973transmittcd, through its Ambassador in Reykjavik, a paper
Io the Govcriiiiiciit of lccland which containcd detailcd proposals for soch
an intcritn tigrccmcnt. A copy of the papcr has bccn attachcd hereto as

AIIIIP.T8. Thc iiiain fc;itiircs of ihcse proposals wcrc that the Govcrninent of
the Fcdcral Rcpiiblic of Gcrinany in conjiinction with an agrced catch446 FISHERIES lURlSDlCTlON

the attitude of the Government of Iceland, 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 theigh seas around Iceland.
9. Therefore, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
respectfullyrequests the Court to consider the following:

(1) that the measures indicated in the Order of 17 August 1972 should be
maintained and continued after 15August 1973 pending the final decision
of the Court in the disnute hetween the Parties:
(2) ihai ihc G<~\erniiicnl of the Kçpubltc of Icelmd \hoithccallcd iipi>nio
comply iiiih ihc mcasurcs indic~iehy the Coiirt iII;Orcler <if17Aiigii,~

1972 and in oarticular to refrain in future from ünv action aaainst-the
vessels of the~ederal Republic ofGermany engaged Lnfishing activities in
the waters around Iceland outside the 12-mile limit:
(3) that the Parties should again be admonished to ensure that no action of
any kind is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute submitted
to the Court.

Annex A

OBSTRUCTIVA ECTIVITY AND ~NCIDENTS WITHIN THE 12-50 SEAMILEZONE
OFF ICELAND

[See Amiex L rothe Federal ReprtblicofCerniany Mernorialon the
Merits of the Disprrre,pp279-284, supra, Nos. (1)-(73)]

Annex B

PROPOSAL S FTHE GOVERNMEN OF THE FEDERAR LEPUBLIC

OF GERMANY OF 12 FEBRUARY 1973
[See Alineu D IO rhe Federal Reprcblicof Cerrnatiy Mernorial on the

Merirs of the Dispitre,pp.269-270, supra]

(telegram)

22 June 1973.

Have honour inform Your Excellency that letter from Agent of United
Kingdom in FisheriesJ~irisdicricase filed today refers to Court's Order of
17 August 1972 and to alleged breaches of said Order by lceland and con-
tinues:

"Government of the United Kingdom submit that the Coort's Order
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 Governinent of the United Kingdom now request the

1 A similarcommunicationwas sent to the Minister for Foreign Affairsof Iceland
regardingtheFerleralRepriblicofCermunyv. lcelacase. CORRESPONDENCE 447

Court to confirm that those measures will continue until the Court has

given final Judgment in this case or until further Order."
Copy of letter airmailed express to you today.

92. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANO
22 June 1973.

Express Airmail

1refer 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 Kingdoni in the
FisheriesJllrisdicrioir(Ulrited Kifrgdomv.Iceland) case.

93. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITED KLNGDOM

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 interimmensiires of protection indicated on 17August 1972in the
FislreriesJl,risdicrio~r(Uitired Kii,gdov.Iceloi~d)case: and that the decision

of the Court on the said reauest will be made known in due course.

I hdve the honour to cnclosc Tor Yoiir 1'xc.cllr.ncy'inforn~ation 3 copy of

a leitcr which I addrc\sed ycsierJay to ihc ,\gent of ihc Un~tcd Kingdom in
the F,sher<r.J~<ri<<ltrt,onase (l/,,,,i,t~/K;»ry<n.!/t.el~r,id~

95. THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANO TO THE REGISTRAR

(telefrom)
2 July 1973.

With reference to your telegrams and letters of 22 June 19731wish to recall
the protests made by the lcelandic Government on 28July 1972and 4 Decem-
ber 1972 against an indication by the Court of provisionai measures in

August 1972.
The Government of lceland now prolests against the continuation of
measures indicated.
The extension of the fishery limits of lceland was effected in order to
protect vital interests of the lcelandic nation and conserve fish stocks in

1 A communicationin the sametermswassent 10 the MinisterforForeign Afain
of Iceland regarding tFrdernlRepublicof Germany v. Icelottdcase.448 FISHEKICS JUHISI>ICTION

arcas within as wcll as outsidc the fcirmcr 12-niile liniit. This has no1 bccn
rcspcctcd by thc United Kincdoiii. British and lcclandic catchcs continuc to
dccrcasc pc; unit cfi~rt and s>iall iiiiiiiaturc iish of the 1970ycar-class which
is the only known sizcablc ycar-class and should constitutc the niain sourcc

of supply in 1976-78 (and the ncccssary rccruitincnt) arc now incrcasingly
being landccl in United Kingdoni ports.
On the basis of tlic said Coitrl's Ordcr thc Unitcd Kingdoin scnt thcir navy

insidc thc lislicrics liiiiitthus suspcnding furthcr ncgotiations for thc scttlc-
nicnt of thcclispiitc ;ifter having onércd a catch liiiiilation of 145 thousand
tons on anniial basis which tny Govcrnnient considcrs cxccssivc. Sincc 1969

the sharc of Iccland in thc total dcrmersal catch in thc Iccland arca has bccn
reduccd fro~ii approx. 60 pcr ccnt. to approx. 53 pcr ccnt.
Thc basic proposition iiiaintaincd by Iccland is that highly mobile fishing
flccts of the distant-watcr fishing nations should no1 bc allowed to cause

dan~c-oiis fluctuations in thc catch rates and innict a co~~tant threat of the
dctcrioration of the fishstocks and thus cndangcr the viübility ofa onc-source
economy. Il is subiiiiitcd that the Court by cndcÿvouring to frcczc the prcsent

dangcroüs situation is coinnlctclv ic.or..c tlic-scientiiic and cconomic facts
ofilic abc. In tlist iri.iniicr irrsp:ir~hlc Ii;xri,i iiight h&inc tu ~hcintcrc\t\ of
ihc IccliinJic iiatwn for ilic tciiiporiry bcncfit of privitc nJ~j1r.c'. in s fi~rcgn

country.

96. TIIE AGENT 1:OIl T11EGUVEIlNMCNT 01'Tllli UNITEI>KINÇUOM
TO TIiC KEGISTl<Al<
4 Jiily 1973.

1 havc the honour to acknowlcdge rcccipt of your lcttcr of 2 July 1973

enclosing a copy of a tclcgrani rcccivcd on that day from thc Ministcr for
Foreign Aiïairs of the Covcrnmcnt of Iccland. The Govcrnmcnt of Iccland
havc refused to accent the Court's dccision that it has iurisdiction in this
mattcr and have refuscd to appciir bcforc thc Court to inakc any submissions

or tender to il in thcsc procccdings any cvidcncc in support of thcir conten-
tions. In varticular thcy havc not so tendcrcd an" cvidcncc of what are
dcscribcd inthe telcaran; as "the~ ~ ~nti~ic and ccon~hic ~acts of ~~ ~case". Ln

thesc circumstanccs, the Govcrnmcnt of the United Kingdoiiido not considcr
that it would bc appropriatc for thcni. unlcss the Court so wishcs, tooiïcr any
observations on the contents of thc tclcgram. But thcy would of course bc

ready at any tiiiic to subniil such obscrvations as thc Court iiiight indicate
would bc of assistancc Io il.

97. THE HEGISTHAH TOTllE MINISTEI< FUI< FOl<lilUN ,%l:l~AlKS OFlCELAND1

(relc~rurn)

12 Iuly 1973.

Have honour inform you that Court today, 12 July, made two scparate
Ordcrs 2 in procecdings conccrning F;,sheriesJi<risiliclio,i institutcd by United
Kingdom and Fcderal Rcpublic of Gcrmany. In cach Ordcr the Court:

Similar communications werc scnt IO the Agcnls for the Govcrnments of the
United Kingdom and ihc FcderalRepublicofGermany.

I.C.J. Reporlr 1973, pp. 302and 313. "Confirnis that the provisional mcasurcs indicatcd in opcrativc
pÿragraph 1 of thc Ordcr of 17 hiigiist 1972should, subjcct to thc pciwcr
of rcvocÿtion or iiiodificÿtion confcrrcd on thc Court by ~>aragralili 7 of
Article 61 ofthc 1946 Rules, rcniain opcrativc until the Court has givcn

final judgnicnt in the case."
One official copy of cach Ordcr cxprcsscd tu you today and ofiicial trans-
mission follows.

98. TIIE itricisii<~aTU THE SECI<F.I'AI<Y-GENEIUI.OF THE
UNITE0 NA1 IONS

12 July 1973.

1 havc the honour. in accordancc with Articlç 41. paracranli 2. of the
Statutc of thc Court and with rcfcrcncc to the Ordcr Adc hy ;hc Coiirt on
17August 1972in the ciise conccrning Fixlzeri<.s~ti.i.irlicriot(rUiiiri~l Ki!i~<lurn
v. Ireluiifll, to scnd you hcrcwith an onicial copy for trÿnsniission to the

Security Council of an Order of today's date whcrcby the Coiirt. following a
request which thc Covcrnmcnt of the Unitcd Kingdoiii subniittcd on 22 Junc
1973 undcr o~crativc .ara~-.nh (2)..f the Ordcr of 17 Auaust 1972. has
confirmed that the intcrini meÿsurcs of prolcction indicatcd fhcrcin should

rernain operativc until the Court hos givcn final judgmcnt in the casc.

13 July 1973.

1havc the honour to acknowlcdgc the rcccipt of your lcttcr of 2 July 1973
containing acopy of the tclegram rcccived by the Court from the Ministcr for
Foreign AKairs of lccland on 2July 1973.

The tclcgralii of thc lcelandic Ministcr docs no1 refcr specificÿlly 10 Tacts
or considerations containcd in my letter of 22 Junc 1973 relating to the
continuation of the Court's Order of 17 August 1972; it contains, howevcr,
some remarks allcai- -adeterioration of fishstocks in thc lceland Area. Thcse
remarks do no1constitutc an adequatc prescntation of the Facts.Thc Govcrn-

ment of the Fcderal Rcpublic of Germany will. in ils Meinorial 10bc filcd on
I Auaust 1973.comment in morc detail on the factual situation in the lceland

100. TIIT. I>F.PUTY-REGISTItAITO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOItEICN
AFFAIRS OF !CELANI>

18 July 1973.
1havc the honour, with refcrcncc to the casesconcerning Fisheric.~ Juris-

dicrion (United Kinb.dom v.Icrlund; Fedrrul ReprrblicoJGcrmanyv. Icelund),

1 A communication in thc sameterms was sent to the Secreiary-Generalof the
UnitedNations rcgardingtheFederolRepublic of Germany v.Icelandcase.450 FlSHERlES JURISDICTION

to enclose herewith copies of letters dated respectively 4 July and 13July 1973
from the Agents of the applicant Governments, containing observations on
Your Excellency's telegram of 2 July 1973.

(Signed) W. TAIT.

101. LEGREFFIER ADJOINT AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES LTRANGÈRES
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 Compérence en matière depécheries(Royaume-Uni
c. Islande).
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.

102. THEMINISTERFORFOREIGNAFFAIRSOFICELANO TO THEREGISTRAR

(telegram)
23 July 1973.

1 have the honour to refer to your telegram of July 12 1973 concerning
the Orders of the Court of that date continuinginterim measuresof protection
in the Fislieries Jiirisdicrion cases

The Ci<i\ernnieni of Icrland iiiaintain, al1the rï\crvaitons prc\iouily maile
wtih rcgürd ru a11questions of jiirisdictiun and adniissibility. \\'iih rcgii10
thc scientific and ~~ilu31asoccti 1 \viih10sutc thiit scient~ficevidencï shows
clear siens of overfis~ ~ ~ ~ihe cod stocks in ~~elandic waters. The ~rooortion
" - ~ ~ . .
of immature fish in the total catch of ;id has increased at an alarming rate in
the past few years, and catch per unit effort of al1 vesse1and gear categories
has eone down for al1demersal soeciesincludine cod. This is inter alia shown
by tlhe report of the joint ICNAF/ICES ~orki'fig Group on the state of the

cod stocks in the North Atlantic, particularly in the light of developments
since that report was made.
In the opinion of my Governnient the continued maintenance of the interim
measures which have already led to serious incidents will cause irreparable
prejudice to the rights of Iceland. It is also to be noted that, as appears from

the discussions in the 27th session of the General Assemhly 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
ioda). gcnerall~siipporrs exicnsi\e coastal jurisdiction over firherics which

takes fu.1acsouni of ihc \,ital intcrcstr of the cossial Stalc in ihe c,in\eri,ilion
and ex~luiraiion of ihe rcsources of ihc coastal arca. 1t is inrrr alra in ihc ltght
of this-that the Government of lceland must take al1 the necessary measuÏes
to protect the vital interests of the lcelandic nations.

In consequence, 1 have the honour to informyou that while reserving al1
its rights, the Government of lceland is unable to modify its position with
regard to the interim measures.

1 Cette communication a étéadresséep ,our chacunedesdeux affaires,aux Etats
MembresdesNations UniesetauxEtatsnonmembres des Nations Uniesadmis àester
devantla Cour. CORRESPONDENCE 451

103. THEDEPUTY-RECISTRATR OTHEAGENT FOR THEGOVERNMENT
OF THEUNITEDKINGDOM l

24 July 1973.

1 have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a telegram received
yesterday from the Foreign Minister of lceland referring to the telegram by
which the Governnient of lceland was notified of therder made by the Court

on 12July 1973in the FisltericsJl,ris<liîfion (Unired Ki,rg<lurnv. Iceluird) case.

104. THEAGENT FOR THECOVERNMENO TFTHEUNITEDKINGDOM

TO TllE RECISTRAR
31 July 1973.

1have the honour to refer to the Order made bv the Court on IS Februarv
1973 and to transmit herewith one signed cop;and twenty-nine unsigned

copies of the Memorial of the Utiited Kingdom (together with the Annexes
thcreto) 2on the merits of the dispute. Because of their bulk the remaining
ninety-five unsigned copies are being sent to you separately.

105. THEAGENT FOR THEGOVERNMEN OTFTHEUNITEDKINGDOM
'IOTHEREGISTRAR

31 July 1973

1havethe honour to refer to my letters to you of today's date, under cover
of which 1transmitted 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 3which. because of their len-.h.
are noi ihtniselvcs anne~cd and iii each ase the hleniorial rtaics thai a iopy
of the docuiiicnt \\,III be soiiimunic~ted Io sou in a<cordaiicc ii,iih Article! 43

(1) of the Rules of Court.1enclose with this letter a lis1 of the documents so
ieferred 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 conimunicated to the Registrar in accordance with
Article 43(1) of the Rules of Court:

A. Report of ICES/ICNAF Working Croup on Cod Stocks in the North
Atlantic (C.M. 1972/F:4)
Paragraph 76:foornote

1 A communicationin thesametcrmswassentto theAgent for theCovernmentof
the FederalRepublicof Cermany.
2 1DO. 267-432. CORRESPONDENCE 453

T. NEAFC. Summary Record for 3rd Session of Special Ministerial
Meeting (NC M/7, 3rd Session)
Porograph 117:foornore

U. NEAFC, Report of ICES Liaison Committee for 1972(NC 101165)
Poroh7raph118:foornote

V. OECD Draft Review of Fisheries in Member Countries, 1972
Paragrop11123:foornore
W. OECD Economic Surveys: "Iceland", March 1972

Puragroph129:foolnote
X. Limits and Status of the Territorial Sea, Exclusive Fishing Zones,
Fishery Conservations Zones and the Continental Shelf, FA0 Fish-
eries Circular No. 127, FID/C/127

Paragroph245: foornote
Y. International Boundary Study, Series A, Liinits in the Seas, "National
Claims to Maritime Jurisdictions", No. 36, March 1973
Ibid.

106. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNhlENT Of THE UNITED KINGDOM
T0 THE REGISTRAR
31 July 1973.

1have the honour to refer to the letter Io you, dated 14 April 1972, from
Her Britannic Majesty's Charge d'Affaires al 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 proceedings in the above case. 1 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 Onice.
Mr. Anderson's address for service will be the British Embassy at The
Hague. 1certify that the signature below mine on this letterMI. Anderson's
signature.

107.THE REGISTRAR TO THE h1iSlSTERFOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

31 July 1973.

1 have the honour to send you herewith five copies, one of which is a
certified true copy, of the Memorial on the merils of the dispute in the
FisheriesJ~irisdicriorr(Utrired Kiiigdomv.Icelotzd),case filed today in the
Registry of the Court by the Agent of the United Kiiigdom. 1 also enclose
copies of two letters from the Unitedingdom Agent, one of which concerns
certain documents referred to in the Memorial, andtheothertheappointment
by the United Kingdoni of Mr. D. H. Anderson as Agent in place of Mr.

H. Steel. The documents listed in the attachment to the first of these letters
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 representatives of Iceland. 108.THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERPÏMENT OF THE FEOERAL REPUBLIC
OF GERMANY TO THE RECISTRAR

1 August 1973.

1 have the honour to transmit herewith, in accordance with the Court's
Order of 15 Februarv 1973. one siened co~v of the Memorial 1 of the

Government of the ~eieral ~epublic on the ~Lr;ts in the Fis1ieric.J cttrisdicrion
(Fcrl<.ralRepr,hlicof Germatryv. Icelatzd) case, together with 35 additional
minieographed copies of that Meniorial.

109. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

IAugust 1973.

1 have the honour to send you herewith a certified copy of the Memorial
of the Federal Republic of Germany on the merits of the dispute in the
FislzcriesJtirisdicrio~r(Fedrral Repr,blicof Grrmai~yv. Icclaiid) case, which

was filed in the Kegistry today. Two further copies are being sent under
separate cover; additional printed copies will be despatched to you in duc
course.

110. THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
10 THE REGISTRAK

IAugust 1973.

1have the honour to refer to my letters of 21 July 1972and 6 October 1972
whereby 1 notified the Court that the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germanv would like to avail itself of the riaht under Article 31. oara-

graph 3.of-the Si3tuie of the Couri IO choose a pcr>on IO sit3sjiidgruk hor
in the k~~<l~erJi.trird~cr~n(~F~r<lrral Rrp«hlir <i/Gcrma~r.v. lrrl~r~td,case.
In the I'iihlic Siiti2. hcld on 8 Januirv 1973. the I'rebidcnt of ihs Court
stated that the cour< a'fter deliberating &n thisquestion, had been unable

to find that the appointment of a judge ad hoc by the Federal Republic of
Germany in that ohase of the Droceedines would be admissible. The President
added, ho\ici,er. ihat thii dccision of lhè~ouri aiTecicdonly that phase of the
proceedings. that isto s;iy ih.it concerninc. ihejuriidici~oof the Co~rt, and

does not in any way prejudice the question whether, if the Court finds that
it has jurisdiction,ajudge 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 lceland by the United Kingdom on 14April 1972and the composition
of the Court in that Case which includes ajudge 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 refusa1 of the
request of the Federal Republic of Germany for the appointment of a judge
ad hoc.

1 See pp. 141-265,supra.
2 See p. 120,supra.
3 I.C.J. Reporis1973,p. 51. 1 have the honour to state,.oii behalf of the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany, that the Government of the Federal Republic proceeds
on the assuniption that its request to have a judge od 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 od hoc in the future
proceedings in this case, 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 might bc rcgarded as an obstacle to the admission of a judge
ad hoc.

111. THEOEPUTY-REGISl'RA7R 0 THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
3 August 1973.

1 have the honour 10 send you herewith a copy of a letter received in the
Registry on I August 1973 froni the Agent for the Federal Republic of

Germany in the Fislieries Jorisdirticase.

112. THE RECISTRAR TO THE AGENT FOR THE OOVERNMENT
OC THEUNITEDKINGDOM

17 Augusf 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to paragraph 7 of the Court's Judgment of

2 February 1973 in the Fi.sIi~riesJttrisdicrioir (Federal Rrprthlicof Cermv.ty
Icela~tdlcase, and 10 the decision 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 Federal Republic
and Iceland, there was in that phase of the latter case a common interest in

the sense of Article 31. paragraph 5, of the Statute which justified the
refusal of the request of the Federÿl Republic for the appointment of ajudge
ad hoc.
In this connection, 1 have the honour to confirm the information already
conveyed orally to your predecessor as Agent, namely that the Court does

not propose to take a decision ai this lime on the question of appointment of
ajudge ad hoc by the Fedcr~l Republic of Germany to si1 in the present phase
of the proceedings instituted by the Federal Republic, it being understood
that this does not imply any taking of position by the Court on this question.
In deciding to defer ils decision, the Court took into account that it would
shortly be in possession of the Memorial of the Federal Republic on the

merits of the case between the State and Iceland, and of the Menlorial of the
United Kingdom on the merits of the case between the United Kingdom and
Iceland, both of which have in fact now been filed, Furthermore the Court
was aware that your predecessor as Agent had expressed on behalf of your
Government the wish of your Ciovernment to present observations on any

contciiiplated~i>indcr of therc pr,icredinsj iiiih those instituted by the Fcderal
Republic of Gcrmany; and ihc Court c<in\i<lersthai ihcw observations shoiild
now be made availahle IOil.
Accordingly, 1 have the honour to inform you that the Court kas fixed
30 September 1973 as the time-limit within which any written observations

which the Government of the United Kingdom may wish to present on the
question of possible joinder of the twofisheriesJ«risdicfion (UnifedKitt#dom
v.Icrlandaird Fcderol Rcpriblic of Cermany v. Icelari~casesare to be filed. The Government of the Federal Re~ublic of Germany is being similarly

invited to present its observations on jolnder; a'ndacopy of this letterhein
transmitted to the Government oflceland.

113. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT fOR THE GOVERNMENT

OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC Of GERMANY
17 August 1973.

1 have the honour to refer to your letter of 1 August 1973,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 od hoc to
sit in the jurisdictiophase of the FishericsJrtrisdicrion (Federal Repr<blicof
Germony v. Iceland) case, that the Government of the Federal Republic
proceeds on the assumption that its request to have a judge od 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 phaseof the proceedings a common
interest continues to exist which might be regarded as an obstacle fo the
admission of ajudge od hoc.
In this connection. 1 have the honour to confirm the information already

conveyed to you orally, namely that the Court does not propose to take a
decision at this time on the question of the appointment of ajudge od hoc by
the Federal Republic to sit in the present phase of the proceedings, it being
understood that this does not imply any taking of position by the Court on
the question.

In deciding todefer its decision, the Court took into account that it would
shortlv be in nossession of the Meiiiorial of the Federal Reoublic on the
iiierit; of the Case.anJ of the Sleiiiorial of ihc Governmeni hl.the Unitrd
KlngJiini in the pru:cediiigs instituicJ hy itixt Go~erninent againsi I~.cland.
buth si nhi~h 1i.itin fdct nuir bceii filcd. Furihcrinore tlic Cour.3.aivare

that you had exiressed on behalf of your Government the wish of your
Government to present observations on any contemplated joinder of these
proceedings with those instituted by the United Kingdom; and the Court
considers that theseobservations should now be made available to it.
Accordingly, 1have the honour to 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 Fisireries Jurisdicrion
(FéderalRcpftblic of Germony v.Iceiand and U~riredKiiigdom v.Ice1orrd)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 GOVERNMEN OF THE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC OF GERMANY 10 THE REGISTRAR

25 September 1973.
1have thehonour to refer to your letter of 17 August 1973in the Fisheries

Jurisdicrion (Federal Repuhlic of Cermarry v. Icelond) 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 Seplember 1973. In response to this request,
1 respectfully subiiiit, 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 issuesare common to both proceedings; the Court will,

however, recognize that the facts and considerations as well as the submis-
sions put forward in the Memorinls on the Merits filed by the Government of
the United Kingdom and by the Government of the Federal Republic

res~ectivelv dinèr. and that the disoutes submitted to the Court in both ca~es ~
hai;e disiinci features. hloreoier. 'thc Govcrnnient of the Federal Republic

of Cicrni~ny attaches grcat value to pleadinç ils c3sesep3raiely and propoiing
ilsoun suhiiiisrions. The Governnient of thc Fedcral Reoublic o~ G~rii~.~~
has on the other hand no objection to and would favour'the continuance if

the CO-ordination of the proceedings in both caseswith respect to their timing
as ~ractised oreviouslv. if that would be convenient to the Court. I~ ~~ew .. of
these considérations the Governnientof the Federal Republic of Germany

is of the opinion that there is no sufficient reason for a formal ioinder of the
oroceedinrs in both cases 1.

I hÿ\e the i.irther honour io rcvcrt to the questtori of the appointnient ofa
judgc <idhoc and ti~inftiriiithc Court, on bchalf of the G<i\ernment of the
Federil Keoiibiic of Ciernidn\,. ni thc fulloiiinc' The Go\,er~ ~ ~ ~of. .e

Federal ~ebublic has examined this question inthe light of the situation in
the present phase of the proceedings. The Government of the Federal
Reoublic takes account of the fact that the Government o~~lcelan~ - ~ll

declines to take part in the proceedings and to avail itself of the right to have
a judae odhocon the bench of the Court. and, aslong asthis situation versists,
the ~overnment of the Federal Republic, for its part, does no1 feel ii neces-

sary to insist on the appointment of ajudge ad hoc.

115. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITEDKINGDOM

TOTHE REGlSrRAR

26 ~eptekber 1973.

1. 1 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 Iwo Firheries

Jltrisdicrion(Urfired KNia.domv. Icelatrdand FederalReprrblicof Cermonyv.
fcela>rd)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 are also diferences as to the facts of the Iwo

cases and in the considerations and submissions presented by the Iwo
Governments. If the cases were joined these diferences could give rise to

1 See p. 289, supra.practical dificultiesin the conduct of the proceedings and hamper the
parties in the presentation of their cases. The Governnient of the United
Kingdom therefore attach importance to being able Io conduct their own
caseseparately as in the earlier stagesof the proceediiigs.
3. In view of the above considerations, the Government of the United

Kingdom wish respectfully to state that they do no1 wish their case to be
joined to that betwecn the Federal Repiiblic of Gcrmiiny and Iceland1.

116. THE I>EPUTY-REGISTRA TR THE ~IINISTEP FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
28 September 1973.

1 refer to my letler of 17 August 1973, with !\,hich 1sent Your Excellency
copies of the letters 1had on that date addressed Io the Agents of the United
Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany in the Firhrries JI!!-is~licfioii

cases; 1 now have the honour in this connection to send Your Excellency
herewith a copy of a letter dated 26 September 1973 froni the Agent of the
United Kingdoni, and a copy of a letter dated 25 Septeiiiber 1973 froiii the
Agent of the Federÿl Republic of Germany, both of which wcre received in

the Registry today.

117. THEAGENT FOR THECOVERNMEN TF TIIE UNITEI>KINGI>O~I
70 THE RECISTRAR

25 October 1973.
1. 1have the honour to refer to the letter of the Agent for the Government

of the United Kingdom dared 19 Deceniber 1972 concerning paragraphs I
(d and 1 (/) of the Order made by the Court on 17 August 1972 indicating
lnterim Measures of Protection.
2. In compliance with the said paragraph I (f),I now have the honoor to

supply the folloiving further information Io the Court. AccordinIo informa-
tion supplied to the coinpetent British authorities in accordance with the
legislation in force in the United Kingdonthe total catch of vesselsregistered
in the United Kingdoni in the ycar from I Septeiiibcr 1972to 31 Augiist 1973
from the "Sea Area of Iceland", as defined by the International Council for

the Exploration of the Sca asarea Va, was 160,714nietric tons.
3. A copy ofthis letter will beconimunicated to thc Governnient of lceland
in conformity with pardgraph I (/) of the Order of 17Aiigiist 1972.

118. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERN~IENT OF THE UNITED KINGDO~I
TOTHERECISTRAR
21 Novenber 1973.

1.1 have the honour. with reference to the Ordcrs niade in this case on
17 August 1972 and 12 July 1973 indicating lnterim Measures of Protection,
to convey the following information to the Court.

2. On 13 November 1973, an Exchange of Notes was concliided between
the Foreign Minister of lceland and the British Aiiibass;idor in Reykjavik. CORRESPONDENCE 459

Enclosed with this letter are cooies of the Exchanee of Notes constitutine an
lnterim Agreement in the ~isheries Dispute between the Government ojthe

United Kingdom and the Government of Iceland. The Exchange of Notes,
which is stated to be without oreiudice to the lezal oosilion or riehts of either
Government in relation to thésibstantive disp;te,'willbe registered with the
Secretary-General of the UnitedNations in accordance with Article 102of the

United Nations Charter

EXCHANGE OF NOTES

CONSTITUTING AN 1NTl:RlhlAGREEMEN IN THE FlSHERlES
DISPUTE DETWEEN TIIEGOVERNMENT 01' THE UNlTED
KINGDOM 01'GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
AND THE GOVERNMEN OTF THE REPUBLIC OF ICELAND

No. 1

The Minisrerfor I.orcig,r Afiirs oflceland ro Her Majesry's Ambassador

or Reykjavik
No. 23
Reykjavik,
November 13,1973

Your Excellency,
1 have the honour to refcr to the discussions which have taken place
between our two Governmcnts concerning the fisheries dispute between Our

two countries. In these discussions the following arrangements have been
worked out for aninterim agreenient'relating to fisheries in the disputed area,
pending a settlement of the substantive dispute and without prejudice to the
legal position or righrs of either Government in relation thereto, which are

based on an estirnated annual catch of about 130,000 metric tons by British
vessels:
1. The British Reet of fresher trawlers which will fish in the area will be
rcdii<ed. hycimparison niih the nunibcr <if\cj\els notifieci as fiihing1971.

by 15,)t'the I~rgc\t iraalcrs xnJ 15iithcr tr3alcrr so tilaiII ionsis1 of no1
more than 68 trawlers of IR0 feet or more in reaistered lenath and 71 trawlers
of less than 180 feet in registered length; andno freezeror factory frawlers
will fish in the area.

2. British trawlers will not fish in conservation areas during periods
specified as follows:

(1) Off the Northwest Coast al1 year in an area dernarcated by a line
between the following points:

(O) 66" 57' N, 23' 36' W.
(b) 67" 01' N, 22' 24' W
and a line drawn 340' from point (O) and 22" 24' W.

(II)Off the South Coast during the period 20 March to 20 April in an
area demarcated by lines between the following points: (111) Off the Northeast Coast during the period I April to I June in an area
demarcared by 16" 11'8 W and a line 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 area bounded by a line drawn 20 natitical
miles outside baselines, north of 65" 30' N and west of 22" 24' W.
(II) Off the East Coast in an area bounded by a line drawn 20 natitical
miles outside baselines, north of 64" 44'4 N and soiitli of a line
drawn 045' from Bjarnarey (65" 47'1 N, 14" 18'2 W.)
(111) 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
. . 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' norlhern latitude. Closed Seplember/October.
(B) OR the Southwest Coast an area demarcated bv 65" 30' northern
. .
latitude and 20' 30' western longitude. Closed ~obember/~eceiiiber.
(C) Off the South Coast an area demarcated by 20' 30' and 14"30' western
loneitude. Closed MavlJune.
(D) ofTuthe Southeast ~oast an area demarcated by 14' 30' western
longitude and a line drawn 042" from Bjarnarey (65' 47'1 N. 14' 18'2
W). Closed JanuaryIFebruary.

(E) Off the 'Northeast Coast an area demarcated by a line drawn 045"
from Bjarnarey and 16" 11'8 western longitude. Closed July/August.
(F) Off the North Coast an area demarcated by 16' 11'8 and 22' 24'
western longitude. Closed March/April.
5.The arrangements specified in subparagraphs 2, 3 and 4 above are

indicated on the attached map.
6. An agreed list of vesselswhich may fish in these waters in ternis of this
interim agreement shall be established. The lcelandic Governmcnt will not
object to the named vessels fishing around lceland as,long as they coniply
with the terms of this interim acreement. Should a vessel be discovered
fishing contrar). to the tcrms of th;agrecment,the Icslandic co~stgu.ir<l ih311
have the right to stop11.but sh311sumiiiùn ihc nc3rcst nritijh fishcry support

vessel in order to establish the facts. Anv trawler found Io have violated the
terms of the agreement will be crossedofi the list.
7. The agreement will run for Iwo years froni the present date. Ifs ter-
mination will not affect the legal position of either Governnient with respect
to the substantive dispute.
If the foregoing is acceptable to the British Governiiient, 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
becomeeffective forthwith and be registered with the Secretary-General OF the
United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations
Charter.
1 avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurance

of my highest consideration.
EINAR Acüsrssos.
Minister for Foreign Aflriirs. CORRESPONDENCE 461

No. 2

Her Majesty's Ambossador at Reykjavik to the Ministerfor ForeignAffairs
of Iceland

British Embassy,
Reykjavik.
13 November, 1973
Your Excellency,

1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency's Note of
today's date, together with the map attached. concerning the fisheries dispute
hetween our two countries.
1 have 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 whichshall
become effective forthwith and be registered with the Secretary-General of
the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations
Charter.
1avail myself of this opportunity to renew to Your Excellency the assurance

of my highest consideration.
John MCKENZIE.

(Cmnd. 5484) 119. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF [CELANO

22 November 1973

1 have the honour to $end Your Excellency herewith a copy of a letter 1
have today received from the Agent of the United Kingdom in the Fisheries
Jurisdicrion (Unired Kingdom v. Icelat~d) case, together with a copy of the

Exchange of Notes (in the form of a United Kingdom Government publi-
cation, Cmnd. 5484) whiçh was enclosed with that letter.

120. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINIST FER RFOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

(telegram)
8 January 1974.

On instructions of President of Court have honour inform Your Excel-
lency that hp is convening meetings on Fisheries Jvrisdictiorr cases on Wed-
nesday, 16 January, to ascertain views of Parties with regard Io questions of
further procedure pursuant Rules, Article 37: United Kingdom v. Iceland,

3 *.m., Agent of the United Kingdoni will attend; Federal Republic of
Germany v. Iceland, 4 p.m., Agent of Federal Republic of Germany will
attend. Whilst noting that Agent has no1 been appointed by Iceland ain
.instructed inform you that should Your Excellency's Govcrn~iient wish to

be represented at these meetings person designated would be welcoine Io
attend 1.

121. THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND 70 THE REGISTRAR

(lelegram)
11 January 1974.

With reference to your telegram 1have the honour to inform you.that the
following letter has been airmailed to you:

[See No. 125, below]

122. -THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND TO THE REGISTRAR
II January 1974

1 have the honour to refer to the cases entered in the Court's general list,

entitled Fïsheries J~irïsdictio~lcases, and to bring the following to your
attention.
ln the oeriod between 15 October and 6 November 1973 the F~rs~ ~~-~ ~ ~ C-~ ~ ~ ~
mittee ofihe General Assembly of the United Nations examined the Report
of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor

bevond the limits of national iurisdiction. This discussion led to the adoo.ion
b) the Gencrdl Aiiciiibl) si re~i~liili,~!067 (YN\'III) L'nder iliiirei<>.ilii,>n
the Third Ilnitcd Saiiiini ('oi~fcr~ncc<inThe I.;iir of ilic Sc;i Ii:i. hcciiCori-
vened. The first session of the conferencc took place in New York between

1 On 16lanuary and 5February 1974,the Presidentmeithe Agentsfor the Covern-
mentsof the United Kingdomand the FederalRepublicof Germany. CORRESPONDENCE 463

3 and 15December 1973.Thesecond session which will deal with substantive
matters is scheduled to take place in Caracas, Venezuela, for a period of 10

weeks coiiirnencing on 20 June 1974.
During the long period of preparation for this conference it was freauently
pointed out that the Sea-bed Committee was a principal forum for ascer-
taining the views of the membcrs of the international community on the
various aspects of the Law of the Sea, including the extent of the jurisdiction

of a coastal State. It is now a fact that the concept of an exclusive economic
zone (to which many different names are given) of up to 200 niiles in extent
enjoys very wide support. This finds expression in a niimber of legislative
enactments, conclusions of international meetings and statenients by dele-
galions in the fornial and inforinal ineetings of the Sea-bedCornmittee aswell

as in the General Assernbly of the United Nations. One of the most recent
examples is the Conference on Non-Aligned States in Algiers, 5-9 September
.,,*.
The evidence available as Io 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 complex and delicate process of consolidating,
codifying and progressively developing the entire law of the sea has entered
iipon a new and, itis hoped, a final stage.
On 13 Noveniber 1973an Agreement was concluded between the Govern-

ments of Icelünd and the United Kingdom and a copy of if is enclosed 1.
Under ils terms authorization is given for a specified number of British
trawlers to continue fishine within the 50 mile limit. subject to the restrictions
laid down. These relate toiize and type of vessels,areas and periods, and are
based on an estimated total catch of about 130,000tons. This Agreement is in

further im~lenientation of the ~olicv of the Government of lceland to solve
the practical dilficulties of the l3ri;shtrading 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. It also contributes to

the reduction of tension which lias been provoked by the presence of British
armed naval vesselswithin the 50-mile limit.
Negotiations with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
are progressing.
With reference to the time-liniit fixed by the Court for the submission of

Counter-Memorials by the Government of Iceland, 1 have the honour to
inform .oii that the ,osition of the Government of lceland with reaa-d to the
proceed ngi :IIiIiicriii>n rcm.tin\ i.nih:inge;inJ. cori~eq.~enrly.noCaiinter-
3lemori.,li tiill bc ,uhniliieJAI ihs <.tiiic itine. tlic Go\eriiiiiofi Iirl;ind
does not accept or acquiesce in any of the statements of facts or allegations or

contentions of law contained in the Memorials filed by the Parties concerned.

123. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGEN FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UNITEDKINGDOhl
14January 1974.

1 have the honour ta send you herewith a copy of a telegram from the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, referring Io the Fisheries Jiirisdiclion

.1 See pp.459-461, supra.
2 A similar communicaiion was sent to the Agent for the Government of the
Federal Republicof Germany.464 FISHERIFS IURISDIC~ON

cases, and a copy of the letter referred to in the telegram, which was received
in the Registry today. The tex1 of the Exchange of Notes enclosed with the
letter is identical with the printed text (Cmn5484) transmitted to the Court
with your letter of 21 November 1973.

124. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGOOM
TO THE REOISTRAR

20 February 1974.

1.1 have the honour, with reference to the United Kingdom Agent's
letter of 19 Decemher 1972 furnishing the Court with information, etc., in
compliance with paragraph 1 (f) of ils 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 hy the Sea Fishing (Specified Northern Waters) Licensing Order
1973 (a copy of which is enclosed with this letter). The hroad eiiect of the
Order of 1973 is the same as that of the Order of 1972,except that the Order
of 1973 aoolies to the area hetween the 12-mile line and the 50-mile line
around 1chi;ind(as dcfined in its Article 2 (1) and Schedulc 2). Th31 areJ lies
within ICES Statisiical Arc3 Va but does no1 includc al1of ir.
3. The arrangements for recordine the catch bv British vessels within the
12to 50-mile bit around lceland remain very substantially the same as those
set out at paragraphs 5 to 7 of the United Kingdom Agent's letter of 19 De-
cember 1972. Anv 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.

Cirarionandcommencemenr

1. Thts ordcr niay bc cited as the Sc3 Fiihing (Sperificd Norihcrn Waters)
Liccnsing Order 1973.and shA1come into operïtion on 1st I)e<ember 1973.

Interprefafion.
2.41) In this order-

"the Act" means the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967;
"the baselines"means the lines drawn round the Coast of lceland soas
to join successively, in the order in which they are there set out, the CORRESPONDENCE 465

points identified by the co-ordinates of latitude and longitude in Schedule
I to this order;
"mile" means nautical mile:

"the 12 mile line" means a line drawn round the coast of Iceland 12
miles froh the baselines and extended seawards by lines drawn 12 miles
from and around the Island of Grimsey (from ils outermost headlands
and skerries) and around Hvalbakur (64' 35.8' north latitude 13' 16.7'
wesi 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 iniles 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
Order.
(2) The Inierprï1:ition Act 1889 \hall apply for the inierpretaiion of this

srclcr:l5,i;ipplic\ for inc inlcrprctaiionof an Ac1 of I'drlianicnt. anda\ if this
order and the order hereby revoked were Acts of Parliament.

Revocarioir ofpreizions Order

3. The Sea Fishing (Specified Northern Waters) Licensing Order 1972 is

hereby revoked.

Appoirired Day

4. The appointed day for the purpose of section 4 of the Act (ihich
provides for the licensing of British fishing vessels in relation to fishing by
w;iy of (rade or business in specified areas) in conjunclion with this order is

the day on which this order comes into operation.

Area aridperiod

5. This order applies to fishing for sea fish in the specified area for the
period beginning with the day on which this order comes into operation and
ending on 13thNovember 1975(both dates inclusive).

Provided that nothing in this order shall authorize a licence under section4
of the Act ta he 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 Order 1973.

6. For the purposes of the enforcement of section 4 of the Act in conjunc-
tion wiih this order there are hereby conferred on every British sea-fishery
oficer the powers of a British sea-fishery oficer under section 8 (2) and (3)
of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968. 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' Westlongitude).

125. THE AGENT OF THE FEOERAL REPUBLIC OF CERMANY
70 THE RECISTRAR

6 March 1974.

1 have the honour Io refer to the Order made by the Court on 17 August
1972in the Fisheries Jiirisdicrion (Fe(lera1Rcpuhlic of Germo,zy v. Icel<i,icl)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 (1) of the Order of 17 August
1972 should, subject to the power of revocdtion or modification conferred
on the Court by paragraph (7) of Article 61 of the 1946 Rules, remain
operative until the Court has given finaljudgmeni 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 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 Sea as Area Va; and in the operative paragraph (1) (f)
of the Order, the Court had indicated that the Federal Republic should
furnish the Government of lceland and the Registry of the Court with al1

relevant information, orders issued and arrangements made concerning the
control and regulation of fish catches in therea.
In compliance with the said paragraph (1) (f) of the Order of 17 August
1972, 1 had already informed the Registry of the Coort by letter of 21 May
1973 of the measures taken by the Government of the Federal Republic of

Germany with respect to the control and regulation of fish catches in the
"Sea Area of Iceland". I have the honour to refer 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 Germanv. that the siatutory basis for the reaulation and
control of ksh catches in theaforementioned area. the ~egulsions issued
hy the Federal Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forestry Io this eiïect, and

the administrative machinery for controlling the compliance with these
regulations have remained unchanged. Again the gencral licence had been
issued which allowed the enterprises members of the German Trawler
Owners' Association Io catch not more than 119,000tons of fish in the "Sea
Area of Iceland" during the year 1973.

According Io the information provided by the Federal Research Board for
Fisheries, the provisional figure of the nominal catch by fishing vesselsof the
Federal Reoublic in the "Sea Area of Iceland" durinc the vear 1973 is esti-
matcd as iih<iuntino, ta?approhini:ttcl)55.000 iiini. l'his lieure. hvtre\erii
nnlya riiii~hest~in~~e~inihç hiiis~~fthertaiisticJ.iia iofar supplieJ; ihsIin31
ficure mieht well be 3.000 tons hieher or lower than al oresent estimated.

ina aiures are available only for-the seven months from January toJuly
1973, showing a total catch of 53,608 tons (nominal catch) in the Iceland area
during these seven months. In any event, the final figure for 1973 will keep
within the limit set by the Court in its Order of 17August 1972. CORRESPONDENCE 467

While thc Government of the Fcderal Republic of Geriiiany has faithfully
observed ils obligations under thc Court's Order of 17 August 1972and has
taken no action of any kind which iiiight have been capable to aggravate or

extend the dispute between the Parties. the Government of lceland has per-
sisted in no1 observing the express stipulations contained in the operative
paragraphs (1) (c) and (d) of the Court's Order, and ils codstal patrol boats
haveconlinued, by the threat or useof force, 10prevent vesselsof the Federal
Republic of Germany from cdrrying out fishing operations in the waters
around lceland Io which thcy were entitled under International Law and

under the Court's Order of 17August 1972.
A report of the incidents that have been caused by the actions of the Ice-
landiccoastal pütrol boats, up to the first days of July 1973,had already been
given by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in its Request
to the Court. dated 22 June 1973,for the continuation ofinterim measuresof
protection and in ils Memorial on the Merits (Part V) filed on I August 1973.

Since then, the actions of the lcelandic coastal patrol boats continued and
even intensified in the following months of 1973, in particular during the
months of Aiigust, Scptember and again in December 1973. In addition to
the III incidents listed in the Annex L of the aforenientioned Memorial
covering the tiiiie froni 3 Septeriibcr 1972 t4 July 1973, 126more incidents

were reported until the end of 1973.In niost casesthe lcelandic coastal patrol
boats atteiiiptcd 10cul the fishing lines of German trawlers which had been
fishing within 50 iiiiles off Iceland; in three cases the fishing gear was lost
thereby.
1attach 10this leiter copies of two Verbal Notes, handed by the Amhassa-
dor of the Federal Republic of Germany Io the Minister for Foreign Affairs

of lceland on 31 December 1973 and 7 Januarv 1974 res~eclivelv. bv which
strong protcsts were lodged with respect to incidents which had occurrcd on
22 and 31 Deceinbcr 1973. In both casesthe fishing lines of German trawlers
were cut without prior warning.
The continuoiis harassing by the lcelandic coastal patrol boats and the
resulting inianoeuvres of the German trawlers Io avoid their fishing lines being

cul have rcpcatedly forced the Gcrnian trawlers to curtail thcir fishing ac-
tivities or even Io lcave the Icelandic fishing grounds. There can be no doubt
that the actions of the lcelandic coastal patrol boats which were undertaken
on the ordcr of the Government of Iceland, have contributed to the low
figure of the total catch in the year 1973compared with catches in the previous

years.
In order to prcvent further incidents, the Governnient of the Fcderal
Republic of Gerniany has, within the framework of the Court's Order of
17 August 1972, conlinued in ils elîorts to reach an interim agreement with
the Government of Iceland. Negotiations proceeded along the lines of the
proposal made by the Govcrnnient of the Fcderal Republic of Germany on

29 June 1973(see Part 1, paragraphs 49 Io 51 of the Memorial of the Federal
Republic on the Mcrits). Since I August 1973,the date on which the Memorial
of the Federal Reoublic was filed. talks were held at Bonn on 6 to 7 Sentem-
hcr. ;inIl si Kcykj:tvik un ?? Ociobcr 1973.An ewhlinge of lctters look plxv
bctvccri ihc hlii~i<tcrs for 1:orcign nlTdirr ofthc t\i,i>soiintricr on 7 Deceniber
1973:iiid I I Jilil~;iry 1973 ~espcit.\cIs, ünitirhoncd th~t ne~~tlatioti~ \\,Ill
. . -
be resumed in the near future.
1 should recel1 that the essence of the Federal Rcpublic's compromise
proposal consisted in that the Irederal Republic would, pending a settlemenl
of the fisheries dispute and without prejudice to the legal position of theFederal Republic of Germany as submitted to the Court in its pleadings,
voluntarily reduce its fishina effort in the area concerned to a derree even
.
below the~requirements confained in the Court's Order.
ln the talks which were held on 6 to 7 September and 22 October 1973an
agreement seemedto be in reach, in particular with 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 Federal Republic filed on

1 August 1973. However, the representatives of the Government of lceland
remained adamant, during al1 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
entail, 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 consequenceswhich would by far exceed the

concessions made by the United Kingdom in the Exchange of Notes with
Iceland of 13 November 1973.
Although the Government of the Federal Republic has olïered 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 Government of lceland made it a question of
principle to insist on the total exclusion of freezer trawlers from the waters
around Iceland. In a oersonal letter. dated 7 Deceinbe~~1973. the Minister
for Foreign Affairs & the Federal ~epublic of Gerniany mide an urgent

appeal to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of lceland to reconsider the po-
sitionof the Government of Iceland in this resoect. In hisletter of 1I Januarv
1974, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of lcelind. 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 ~ederal Republic earnestlyhopes ihat it may becomepos-
sible tofind a way out of this deadlock; but it is unfortunately unable to see

prospect of an interim agreement in the near future.

Annex A

VERBAL NOTE OF THE EMBASSY OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF OERMANY
IN REYK~AY~K OF 31 DECEMB6R 1973

The Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany presenls itscompliments

to the lcelandic 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 seasaround lceland which were caused by lcelandic
coast guard vesselsusing or threatening to use force against German fishing
vessels.
The most serious incident happened on 22 December 1973at 13 hours 45,
when the lcelandic coast guard vesse1Odin cut off the fishing gear of the

German trawler Spirzberpenfishing at position 63 degrees 3 minutes North 13 March 1974

1 have the honour to acknowlcdge receipt of yoiir lctter of 6 March,
referring 10 your lettcr of 21 May 1973, and containing furthcr inforinalion
supplied in compliance with operative parzigraph 1 (f) of the Co~irt's Order
of 17 Augusr 1972in the Fi.sl~rrie.sJl~ri.s<lirfio?r(Fèrle~ol Repiihlic <if G'<,rr~r<i~iy

v. Icelaiidi case. Il is niy iindersi;tndinc. following our tele~honc coiiversation
thismorning, thal, in iurther cornpliance with chat pzira~r;tpli, the Govern-
ment of the Federal Kepublic of Gerniany is transiiiitting ;Icopy of your
letter to ine of 6 March to the Government of Iceland.

128. THE REGISTRAR TO THE ~IISISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIUS OF ICELAND 1

14 March 1974

1 refer to the Coitrt'~ Order dated 15 Fcbruary 1973, fixing lime-limilsfor
the pleadings on the nicrits in tk two Fislieries Jiiri.sdirlio,r cases (Uiiired
Kirrgdoiomv. Ir~l<riid oiif?~/er<i/Repiihlir of Cernrrriryv. /c<,/<,tid)2nd have
the honour 10 inforni Your Excellency that, no Coiinter-Mciiiorial having

been filed by the Governilient of Iceland in either of these c;tses within the
tirne-limit fixcd therefor, the Court will procccd 10 hold public sittings Io
hear the oral arguments of the Parties.

As 1had the honotir to infor111Your Excellency by iiiy tclegrnni of today's
date (a confirtiiatory copy of which is enclosed). the public heltriiigs in the
procecdings instituted by the United Kirigdoni rvill open ;il10 o.iii. on Mon-
day 25 March 19742, and the liearings in the proceedings iiistitiited by the
Federal Republic ,vil1 open at IOa.ni. on Thi~rsday 28 March 1974 3, in each

caseat the PeacePalace, The Hague.

129. THE AGENT I:OR THE GOVEKNMEST OF TIIE USITEI) KINGUOY

TO Tif€ REGtSTRAR

14 March 1974

1. Ihave the honoiirto inf~iriii yoii that conside~ttion is bcins givcii 10the
oossibilitv of citinr certaiii docuiiients of recent date dorina the coilrsc of the

oral arguments tobe advanccd on bchalf of the United ~in&luiii in tliis case.
The documents in question are the following:

(1) The Declarafion of the Organisation of African Unily on the Issues of

the Law of the Sca of 74 May 1973 (Report of the Coiiiniitiee on the
Peaceful Usesof the Seabed and the Ocean Floor Rcyond the Liiiiits of
National Jiirisdiciion, 1973, OtEcial Records of the Twenty-Eighth

1 Similar corninrinicationswcrc sent IO the Agents Corthe Covernments of the
United Kingdom and thc Fedcrÿl Rcpublic of Ccrniany.
2 1, pp.435-478.
3 Sec pp. 287.351,rilprcr. Session of the General Assembly Supplement No. 21 (A/9021), Volume
II, page 4)1.
.2. The Resolution Concernine the Law of the Sea adooted hv the Fourth
Confercnce of lleadi of ~tdÏe or Governniçnt of son-~lignéd Counirici
or9 Sepicniber 1973 (NAC A1.G CONF.4 KesliJ 1.
13) The Erchaneeof Noieiconsiitui~ne~n Interiin Aereemeiit in tlie Fiiherie.;
. .
Dispute hecween the Government of the ~nzed Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of
Iceland of 13November 1973(Cmnd. 5484,copies of which were enclosed
with my letter of 21 November 1973)z.
(4) Provisional Verbatim Record of the 2203rd Meeting of the General As-
semblv on 17 December 1973 (AIPV.2203) 1.
(5) Generd Assembly resolution 3171 (XXVIII) of 17 December 1973 1.
(6) Arrangement relating to fisheries in waters surrounding the Faroe
lslands of 18 December 1973 3.
(7) Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iceland to the Registrar

of the International Court of Justice dated Il January 19744.

130. THE REGlSTRAR TO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

20 March 1974.

Express Airmail

1 have the honour to enclose herewith a copy of a letter dated 14 March
1974 which 1 have received from the Aee-t for the United Kinedom-in the
Fisheries Jurisdiction (Urrited Kingdom v. Iceland) case. The Agent therein
indicates that consideration is being given to the possibility of citing certain
documents which are listed. Some ofthe 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.
1 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.
Havine reeard to the oossible aonlication of Article48 of the 1946 Rules
of ~ourtr1 should be most grateful'if~our Excellency would be so good as to
take the earliest possible opportunity of informing me whether the Govern-

ment of Iceland would desite to make anv observations concernina the pro-
diiction of the do<unient\ in question it the heaiing on 25 March 1974. -
I xm attx.hing. for ille coni,enience of Your txcellency. a copy of the icxi
of the provision of the Rules in question

1Not rcproduced.
2 See pp. 459-461,supra.
3 1, pp.455 and 513-514.
See p. 462,supra. CORRESPONDENCE 473

131. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KJNGD~~~
TO THE REGISTRAR

20 March 1974.
1.1 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 Ireland, the Governme?t of
the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics on the Regulation of the Fishing of North-East Arctic (Arcto-
Norwegian) Cod which was signed at London on 15 March 1974 1. Enclosed
is a certified copy of this Agreement. Further copies will be supplied shortly.

132. THE REGISTRAR TO THE hllNlSTERFOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
22 March 1974.

Exprers Airmail.

Further Io my letter of 20 March 1974, with which 1sent Your Excellency
a copy of a letter from the Agent of the United Kingdom in the Fisheries
Jttrisdictioncase and of certain documents referred to therein, 1 have the
honourtosend Your Excellency herewith a copy of a further letter from the

Agent of the United Kingdom, dated 20 March and received 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 REGISTRAR
25 March 1974.

1.1 have the honour to communicate the Submissions of the United
Kingdom in this case.

2. The Government of the United Kingdom submit to the Court that the
Court should adjudge and declsre:

[See 1,p. 4761

134.THE REGISTRAR TO THE MLNISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND

26 Mürch 1974.

1 have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of the verbatim
record of the hearing of 25 March 1974 2in the FishrriesJltrisdicrion (United
Kinsdom v.Icelatrd) case, and a copy of a letter from the United Kingdom
Agent, filed in the Registry inimediately after the hearing, setting out the
formal submissions of the United Kingdom.

1 1,pp. 455, 503and 513-514.
2 1,pp. 435-478.474 FISHERIES IURISDICTION

1 have the further honour to enclose the text, in French and English. of
two written questions addressed to the Agent of the United Kinçdom by
Members of the Court, which were handed by nie to the United Kingdoin

Agent today 1.It is contemplated that the Court will hold a further public
sitting on Friday 29 Miirch al 10a.m. to hcar the replies of the United King-
dom Government to thesequestions*, and to those put orally at yesterday's
hearing.
In accordance with the reqiiest made in Your Excellency's telegram of 3

August 1972, 1 am sending under separate cover 24 further copies of the
verbatini record of the hearing of 25 March.

Q,testioi~poséepou M. Gros

Dans le mémoire et en plaidoirie le Gouvernement du Royauine-Uni s'est
référéà plusieurs reprises à la position prise sur la question des pccheries
autour de I'lslande par lespays directement intéressés(par exemple: mémoire,

paragraphes 240, 242, 243, 244. 280 et 306. ce dernier paragraphe ayant été
lu en plaidoirie le 25 niars 1974,1, p. 474). A cet fgard: quelle conséquence
est-il possibje de déduire de l'accord entrc la Coniiiiunauté écononiique
européenneet I'lslande du 22 juillet 1972, y compris le protocole no 6, tant
pour la position de I'lslande que pour celle des Etats de la Coinmunauté

économique européenne?

Qr~rsriolrposéepar M. Petuitr

Au paragraphe e) des concltisions finales est envisagée l'éventualité de
négociations bilatéralesentre le Royaume-Uni et I'lslande devant conduire à
l'instauration d'un irégime q~ii, conipte ftiint dûment tenu des intérêtsdes
autres Etats, garantisse à I'lslande, relativement aux restrictions qui apparai-
traient nécessaires ainsi qu'il est dit plus haut, iine situation privilégiée

confornie à sa position d'Etat spécialement tributaire desdites pëcheries, et
qui assure également au Royaume-Uni iine situation conforme i sesintérfts
traditionnels et à ses droits acquis sur lesdites pccheries, ainsi qu'a sa situa-
fion actuelle de dépendanceà l'égard de ccs pécheries ».

Est-il arévu var là aue le régimede aêcheriesà établir bilatéralement var le
Royaume-Uni et I'lslande serait fondéaussi sur une appréciation globale des
intérétsd'autres Etats à titre d'intertts traditionnels ou de droits acquis?

135. THE AGENT FOR THEGOVERNMEN TF THE UNITEDKlNCUOM
TO THE REGISTRAR

28 March 1974.
1. 1have the honour, with reference to niy letters of 14and 20 March 1974,

to confir~n that copies of the dociiments mentioned in those letters have
been delivered to the Registry of the Court. with the exception of item 7 in
the letter of 14 March.

1 1, p. 478.
' 1,pp. 505-507 CORRESPONDENCE 475

2. The Exchange of Notes of 13 November 1973 between lceland and the
United Kingdom, the Arrangement relating to fisherics in waters stirrounding
the Fÿroe Islands or 18 Deceniber 1973and the Agreenient of IS March 1974

betiveen Norway, the Union of Soviet Socialist Repiiblics and the United
Kingdom on the Regulation of the Fishing of North East Arctic (Arcto-
Norwegian) Cod have bccn registered with the Secretariat of the United
Nations.

136. THE AGENT FOR THE (:OVERNMENT OF THE UNITEI) RINGI>OM
70 THERECISTRAR

28 March 1974.

1 have the honour, wilh reference to Question 4 asked by Jiidge Sir
Humphrey Waldock on 25 March 1974 during the course of the oral pro-
ceedings ',to inform yoti ihat Counsel for the United Kingdom proposes lo
refer to the tables of figures set out in the enclosure to this lettcr durinp the
sitting of the Court to be held on 29 March 1974 2.

137. THEAGENT FOR THEGOVERNMEN TF THEUNlTEll KINGLJOM
TO THE RECISTRAR

2 April 1974.

1. I h.i\c ihe Iionoiir. uitli rsfcrcncc to ttieq~ic~tion put b) Ji.Jgc 1'ctai:n
Cg~i~iijclfor ilic UniicJ Kingdoiii diiring the ;oi.ri.>ftlic piibl:~ j.ttofiilic
C'oiiri un 29 h1;ircli 1974(\'crb:iti~ii rciord. 1, P.4911,to ,.ibiilic f<~llu\rins
response on behalfof ~er~ajesly's ~overniiient.

2. In paragraph 297 of the United Kingdom's Meniorial, the intention was
esscntially to makc the point thai the forthcoming Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea mav reveal w~ ~her a consensus can bc
reached which will bring about a development in the law so as to perniit the
kind of claim which Iceland is iiow makinr. Such a devclopment niay come

about as a result of the adoptioii of a new Convention on the Law of the Sea
and subsequent State practice. Hence, since in the view of Hcr hlajcsiy's
Government the lcelandic claini was not permissible when made and is still
not perrnissible at this tiiiie, the proper course for lceland to have takcn would

have been to have awaited the oiticome of the forthcoming Conference. The
United Kingdom could not have delayed the institutionof proccediiigs before
the Court until the outcoiiie of that Conference \vas known. British fisliing
vesselswere being prevented from fishing and harassed froin Septciiiber 1972
onwards and Her Majesty's Government at that stagesaw no real altcrnative

to seekina-the ~rotection of thc Court. The refusal bv Iceland to accent the
Cuiiri'> Orilcr tif 17 Au~ii\i1972. indiaiiiig interfin iiic:tsi.rcr of pr,jteciion.
\rai plrt (11 ihe h;iikgroiiiid ;igJ!nlt iil1i.h Hcr hl2~cli)'s ~;i~vcrnlllcn~
concliidcd ihe Inieriiiii\creciiiciiof 13 Ni>vciiihcr 1973 Thcrc h;is hwn n<i
further harassment since Ïhe coiiclusion of the Agreement. but that in no way

lessens the importance of the Court's judgment in this case. The Interim
Agreenient expressly stiitcs thai it is "without prejiidice in the Icçal position
or rights of either government in relation" to the substantive dispute.

1 1, pp.477-478.
1,pp. 502-503and p. 519 1. \\'ith re~drd to tlie lorihcomine. Conference on the Laiv of the Sed. ihc
tirhi \ub~htnU\,c sc%i<in 15diie to heëin on ?il Jiinr. 1074. li.,aidely cxpecied

that a second substantive session will be held during 1975. ~ccordingh, it is
far from certain that the forthcoming Conference will have produced a clear
oiitcome by 13 November 1975 when the lnterim Agreement, in the absence
i>Izprr'ciiientIO the coiiirdr?. itdur. is eipirr.. .Ili:onsiJcr.iii<iiiI.iy ocliind

p:ii.tgr.ipl293 of ihc IJiiiied K~ngJ~~iiilelnorizl uhcrr' ili>sidterl ih~t '\ih;ir
a new Conference inight arree about changes in the law is irrelevant tu the
present case before thé~oirt".
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 tu contributing tu the adoption of a new
convention. Such a convention may clarify a number of existing issues, as
well as contribute tu the progressive development of international law in this
field. However, even if a new convention were to be concluded reasonably

qiiickly, it would remain tu be seen how long it would take formally tu enter
into force or to have an impact upon the development of the law through
-~~~e .ractice. Italso remaini tu beseen whether lceland wi~ ~hec~-~~a oa;tv . ~.
to a new convention: Her ~ajesty's Government feel bound tu point out
that lceland tu this day has no1 become a Party toany of the Geneva Con-

ve.~i~~~~-~ 19~ ~ ~
5. The Court's judgment in this case will constitute an authoritative
statement of the rirhts and oblirations of the parties under existinn law and
may provide a baiis for the negotiation of arrangements tu folÏow 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 Coiirt a judgment on the United King-
dom's suhmissions, a judgment moreover which the Court could be expected

tu give after the normal time required for deciding matters of this degree of
importance.

138. THE REGISTRAR TU THE MINISTEK FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
2 April 1974.

1 have the honour tu send Yoiir Excellency herewith a copy of a letter,
dated today, which 1 have reçeived from the Agent of the United Kingdom

in the FisheriesJltrisdicfiorrcase,setting out the reply of the United Kingdom
Government tu the question put by Judge Petrén at the hearing of 29 March
1974(1, p. 494).

139. THEAGENT FOR THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF GERMANY TU THE REGISTRAR

3 April 1974.
1 have the honour to refer tu the qiiertions put hy Jiidges Jiménez de

Aréchaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock, and Dillard tu the Federal Republic of
Gerniany during the course of the public sitling of the Coiirt on 2 April 1974
(pp. 358 and 367, sr,pra) in the FisheriesJr,risdicfioncase (Feileral Repithlic
of Germanv v. IcelandJ. and tu submit on behalf of the Governnient of the

~ederal ~épublic the answers tu these questions in the same order as they
were asked by the Judges during the course of the sitting: CORRESPONDENCE 477

1. Tlie firsf question posed by Judge Jiménez de ArPrhnga (p. 358,
supra) relates to some difierences 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 expressing the position of the United Kingdom and the Federal Re-
public of Germany with respect to the degree of preference to be accorded to
Iceland.

2. 1 do not think that these diferences are expression of a dinèrent po-
sition as to the substance of the matter, and that for the following reasons:
the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Federal
Reoublic of Germanv. both maintain that the allocation of shares in an

agceed catch-limitation scheme, if such a measure would become necessary,
should be determined by equitable principles. The Attorney-General for the
United Kinadom. in discussina the deoendence of Iceland. the United Kina-
dom and t6e ~ederal ~epublic on the fisheries around Iceland (25 ~arch
1974,1, p. 456). indicated that "it may be that to enable lceland to maintain a

reasonable rate of exoansion. she should be oermitted IO take a laraer share
of the dcmerriil fislie;). than in the past"; he;iicntionedthis. asI understand
11.3s 3 p~s~ih~l~tyn. o1 as a foregone or necessarycuncluri<in for the evcntua-
lity of 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 continiied to state that it "would obviously be in-
equitable" if lceland which for niany years has taken about half the demersal
catch, would be allowed, "suddenly~and from a date of ils own choice to take
it all". The essential point in this statement is, in my view, that the Attorney-
General made clear that Iceland's preferential share had to be settled by

aereement. not bv unilateral action. and that in view of the heavv deoen-
dence of ofher co"ntries like the ~nited Kingdom and the Federal ~ep"blic
on the same fisheries, certainly not al1the catch of demersal fish in the waters
around Iceland could he accorded to Iceland.
3. The Agent for the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany,

in hispleadingson 28 March 1974(p. 345, supra), discussing the applicribility
of the conceot of ~referential riehts of the coastal State contained in the
rcrolution ufihe 1458~onfcrenc~ on the Lai" of the Sca to ihe presenicase,
niadc a \tatenicnt 1,)ihc samectlèct nhen heïdmittcd th.11"ii m.ghi certainly
be ar~ued tbat there is room for neaotiation between the Parties about the

future respecti\e sharcs of each uf the Pdrtics". thu, adrnittiiig the pos~ihility
that. in ïpplying equitable principlcs. an cnlargenicnt of Iceland's share is nul
excluded a oriori. but would have to be determined with regard to the
circumst;inc~s then prcvailing. and in pïrticular iriih rcgard to the rcspect1i.e

dependence of buth Parties on the fishcrie\ iiround Iceland at that lime. The
hgcnt for ihe Governnient of the Federd Republic h3~.In ihiq ;unte\t. tricd
IO dcfinc some cquiiiihlc coiis~rlerarions which, in ihc iieu of ihc Guiernmcnt
of the tederal Hepublic. should among others be applied. if catch limi-
tations require equitable apportionment of the total allowable catch among
the countries which are fishine for the same stocks of fish. It is

in thi\ contcxt that the Agent for the Goicrnnient of the reder;il Republic of
Gcrm~ny concluded th~t. unJer prcscni circiim\tanccs, Iceland had by taking
now (accordine to the latest statistical fieures of 1972) oracticallv al1 oelaeic
fish and 55 percent. of the demersal fish,;n total nearG'68 per cent. ofall Che
fish around Iceland (in the ICES-Area Va) "alreadysecured a very prefe-478 FISHERIES JURISOICT~ON

rential position" (p. 345, snipro) and that there are some important con-

siderations (pp. 343 and 345, snpro) which seem to rnilitate against
according lceland an even larger share at the expenseof the fisheries of the
Federal Republic which, for their part, also heavily depend on the fishing
grounds aroi~nd lceland and now (figures of 1972)take only 13.6percent. of
the demcrsal and about 9.8 per cent. of the total catch of al1species in.this
area.

4. Jiidce Jiminez de Arechara referred specifically to one of these con-
siderations advanced by the f nt for the Federiil ~epublic, nainely to the
consideration that Iceland, heving alreiidy seciired for itself a share of nearly
70 Dercent.. coiild not, under eqiiitable "rinciples. byenlarging its deep-wüter
fishing flcet and thereby deliberÿtely creÿting n hea;ier econoiic dependence
on the fisheries around Icelaiid. claim priority for sitch economic needsover

those of the Fcderal Repiiblic of Gcrmany. and ask, under present circum-
stances. for a larger share in these fisheries. This consideration should be
iinderstood in the light of the sitiialion with respect to the fisheries around
Iceland; it does certainly not apply to cases where a coastal State, in par-
ticular a developing State, has still only a rninor share in the deep-
water fisheries before its coast and is about to develop ils national fishing

industry.
5. The discussions which led to the adoption of the resolution on Special
Situations relating to Coastal Fisheries nt the 1958 Geneva Conference and
to the adoption of the Brazil. Cuba and Uruguay amendment at the 1960
Geneva Conference, do not throw nirich light on the question under what
circiimstances and to what extent a "dependance" of the coastal State on the

fisheries before its coast might justify a cliriin for preferential treatment in
relation to other States. The conccpt of "preferential" rights of the coastal
Skite had been introduced in both Conferences as a Iiiore acceptable altcr-
native to the claim of some States for "exclusive" righls beyond 12 miles
whiçli wasnot acccotable to the iiia.orit. of the other Statcs. Thus,itis beyond
doiibt that "preferential" rights shorild not be "excl~isive" rights; those who

advocaled the preferential right conccpt iidmitied. that il should not lead Io
the exclusion of other States, but shoiild merely securea special consideration
of the special ncedsof the coastal Staté.
6. It had. however, never been dcfined what facts constitute a special
dependence on the coastal fisheries in the sense of the preferential right
concept. The resolution of the 1958Conference referred in its preamble to the

"overwhelrning" dcpendence of the people of the State concerned on the
coastal fisheries "for their li\,elihood or econornic development"; siniilarly.
the Brazil, Cuba and Uruguay aniendment at the 1960 Conference referred
to the "fundamental importance" of the fishery resourccs for "the feeding
of its population" and "the econoniic der,elopnient" of the coastal State.
It seenis that the preferential rights concept had mainly two situations in

niind:

F;r.~r,the situation where the population makes a living out of the
fisheries; thisrelates clearly to a situation where there exists already an
ecoiioiiiic dependence of sonie part of the population on the fisheries
before the coast. aiid where a redoction of the ~ossible catch would
resiilt in a deterioration of the living standard of that part of the po-

piilation becaiisethey could nui divert lo other occiipations.
Sero,~d, the situation where a continuation of the fisheries on the
present scale is needed to safegitard the economic development of the CORRESPONDENCE 479

country. and a reduction of the possible catch iiiight hnmper the course
of stcady economic development, becausethe econoAic effort could not
bç diverted Io other sectors.

It may be questioned whether and under what circuiiistances a situation,
where an enlargement of the present fishing effort is sought for thc expansion
of the country's economy, might qualify as a special dependence on the

fisheries for economic dcvelopnient in the sense of the second alternative.
Obviously, an enlargement of-the fisheries would noriiially always assisr the
ccononiic development of a cotintry; therefore, this intercst alone could not
well create the s~ccial deocndencc reouired for a ~referential claini of the
coastal State. The test muit rather be whether the special necd of the coastal

State Io enlarge ils fisheries is so outstanding and indccd indispensable for its
economic development that, under equitable principles, this nced deservcs
spccial consideration in relation to the vested interests of othcr coiintries
which fish in the rame area of the high seas. Such may be the case of States
which are still in a stage of developiiient and have only a niinor sharc in the

fisheries before their coast; in their casean enlargenicnt of their sharc, at thc
expense of the shares presently held by distant-water fishing States could be
considered equitable. If. howevcr, a coastal State has alrcady a developed
econoiny (sec Part III of the Mernorial on the nierits as10Iccland'secononiy)
and, in the fisheries before ils coast, secured a position under rvhich it
takes more than 50 percent. of the total catch. ifs intercst to invest fiirther

in the fishing industry does not, under equitable principles, seeni to carry
the same weight if compared ~'ith the interests of the other States ivhose
economy already relies on the fisheries in question. Refercncc iiiay hc niiidc
in thiscontexf Io the proposal fora fisheries réginicsiibiiiitteby Japiin 10the
United Nations SeabedCommitteeon 14August 1972(A/AC. 138/SC.II/L.12)

which had been described by the Agent for the Governnient ofthc 12edcral
Repiiblic of Germany in his statemcnt in the piiblic Sitting of the Court on
28 March 1974(pp. 300-301, siqra).

II

7. The secondquestion posed by Judge Ji,néirez de Aréchopo (p.358, sitprn)
relates to the dilïerent terniinology used in the Notes exchÿnged betwccii the

Governnients of the United Kingdom and lceland on II March 1961and the
Governments of the Federal Republic of Gerniany and Iceland on 19 Jitly
1961.
8. In theconcluding Darasraoh of ils Note of II March 1961.the Govcrn-
ment of the United Kingdom confirms "that in view of the exceptional

dependence of the lcelandic nation upon coastal fisheries for their livelihood
and cconoriiic development. and rvithout prciudice to the riehls of thc United
Kingdoin under inteknational law towards a-third party" the contents of the
corresponding Note of the Governnient of lceland wcre acceptable to the
United Kingdom. In the concluding paragraph of its Note of 19 Jiily 1961,

the Governmcnt of the Federal Republic of Germany, "niindful of the ex-
ceptional iniportance of coastal fisheries 10 the Icelandic econoniy". cigrces
to the arrangement set forth in the Note of the Government of lceland
"subiect 10 the sti~ulation bv the Government of the Federdl Re~ublic of
Germany that this'agreemeni is without prejiidice to ils rights under intcr-
national law towards third States". The full tex1of thcse Notes has been re-

Droduced in Annexes Band C IO the A~oiication of the Federal Rc~ublic in 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 Germany. does not indicate that the

aforemëntioned difference inthe wording of théconcluding paragraphs in the
Notes of the United Kingdom and the Federal Repuhlic of Germany has
any legal significance or had been meant ta have such significance; in parti-
~~~~r. th~ C~r~.e c~~tained in the Note of the Fede~~ ~Reoubl~r had not been
formulated for the purpose to define the conditions under which a claim for a
s~ecial 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-mileexclusive fishery zone
was, at that lime, recognized de facto by the Federal Repuhlic in order to
make clear that this agreement could no1 be used by other States as a prece-
dent against the Federal Republic for similar claims.

III

10. The question posed by Judge Sir Hitn~phrey 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 nreferential position of the coastal State: it is s~ecifically asked whether
ilii.;'uord ~~inno~c~\i>mc ahi<ilutc or indepciidcni elciiicni <ifprioriiy in the
alluc~rion of re.i>ursc\ or ini,ol\es rncrcly some clcmeni of biai ln favo~r of
the coastal State when the rights or equities of the parties are otherwise more

-- ~~-
Il. It is indeed a fundamental question of interpretation of the concept of
the coastal State's preference whether such preference derives its legal justifi-
cation silelv from ihe existence of soecial economic needs. if anv. .n,the nart
of the coascal State or whether suchprefeience is the legaiconsequence if an
eauitable evaluation of the respective weirht of the interests of the coastal
~iate and other States fishing f& the same 'tock or stocks of fish. The Federal
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 Statesfrom the fisheries in question.
The Federal Repuhlic 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 im~lr that a coastal State should
al-wavseet a nrefeiential share: nor could ihe orëference he extended to such
~~, -~ ~r . ~ ~ ~
a degree that would be incompatible withthe reasonableregard standard as
set out in Article 2 of the High Seas Convention. with respect to the interests
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. Tthad been conceived, at that lime,
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
claims 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 itwas understood in the resolution of the 1958
Geneva Conference and in the Brazil, Cuba and Uruguay amendment at the
1960Geneva Conference, was that, if catch limitations become necessary.the
needs of the coastal State and the interests of the other non-coastal States
fishing for the same stock or stocks of fish had to be balanced against each

other, iinder equitable principles, either by agreement or by the finding of an
international arbitral coniiiiission. The le~-l im~act of the coastal State's
preference on the allotnient of national shares in any catch liiiiitation scheine
consists in allowing ü dcviation from the principle of non-discrimination
which governs the application of conservation measures on the high seas.

The coastal State's preference allows the application of special criteria in
favour of the coastal State, supplementary to other criteria applied indis-
criminately 10 al1 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 niore or less drasticreduction of the total allowable catch
compared with previous catches. As long as no sensible reduction is imposed,
thcre will normally be no apparcnt need to give an additional quota to the
coastal State. The more the allowable catch is reduced below the prcvious

level, the heavier niay be the efïect on the coastal Srete's econorny if no other
alternatives of fishing possibilitics or other sources of fish siipply inay be
available to the coastal State; in such cases the allotnient of an additional
quota 10 the coastal State iiiight bc jiistified with due regard to the iiiterests
of the other States aiTectcd hereby.

14. It should be noted. h.u~~-r. that in ~ractice agreements on catch -~~
limitation need not nccessarily appl; rigid formulas in Gterniining national
catch quotas, but may accoiiimodate the difïerent interests of the States which
participate in such arrangements, by allotting special quotas with respect to
certain fish stocks in which a State is most interested. by reserving specially

bounded areas for the coastal siiiall boat fishery, or by other regulations
which favour the fisheries of the coastal State(see the Faroese Arrangenient of
18 December 1973). Thus, agved catch limitation schenies may provide more
and sometimes better alternatives to satisfy the special economic needsof the
coastal State than any rigid preferential formula.

15. The question put by Judge Dillardto the Federal Republic of Germany
(p. 367, sr~pro)relates to the exclusiveness of the fishery zone proclaiiiicd by
the Governinent of Iceland in the Icelandic Regulations No. 189172of 14July

1972. The Agent for the Goveriimcnt of the Federal Republic of Geriiiany
has made special reference 10 this subject in his statenient on 28 March 1974
(p. 341, siipro); the coiinscl for the United Kingdoni had very extcnsively
covered this ficld in his statement on 29 March 1974(1, pp. 488-493), to which
it may be allowed 10refer for the purpose ofthis answer. The Governmenl of

the Federal Reoublic maintains that the fisherv limits decreed in the Rem-
lations No. 189172issued by the lcelandic Miiister for Fisheries on 14 ~;ly
1972and put in force on ISepteniber 1972,purport 10establish a fishery zone
which is truly exclusive in char:icter, and not merely preferential, not evcn
"preferential" in the limited sense that lceland would feel obliged to allow

foreign fishing in so Far as lcelandic fishing vesselsu8ereno1 able Io harvest
al1 the fish in this zone. The decisive criterion which, in the view of theGovernment of the Federal Republic, characterizes the lcelandic 50-mile
fishery limits as a claim for iullv exclusive fishina richts. is found in the well-
knowo position of the lcelandic Governnient that ihey were under no obli-

gation to allow any forcign fishing in this zone, and that. if they did, theydid
so merely Io facilitate the ridjustnient of foreign fisheries 10the new lin:its

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

8 April 1974.

1 have the honour to send Yoiir Excellency herewith a copy of a letter,
dated 3 April 1974and receivcd in the Registry on 6 April, from the Agent of
the Federal Republic of Gerniany in the FisheriesJ,,ris(licrioncase, selting

out the reply of the United Kingdoin Government to the questions put by
Judges Jiménez de Aréchaga. Sir Humphrey Waldock and Dillard at tlie
hearing of 2 April 1974(pp. 358 and 367, sripra).

141. THE REGISTRAR TOTHEAGENT FOR THEGOVERNhlENT
OFTHEUNITEDKINGDOh!

10 May 1974.

1have the honour to send yoii herewith the tehl of two questions put to the
Govern~nent of the Unitcd Kingdom by Judge Petrénin the Fi.~lirhcriJ ers~ris-

rlirriort(Ui~ifcdKi>~pcio»V. lrel~ii~<case, which were conimunicnted to you
over the telephorie this iiiorniiip. As I st;ited in our telephone conversatiit,
would be appreciated if the replies to these questions could be comniiinicated
to the Court by 12 noon on Wednesday next, 15 May.

Qsestioirsposées par M. Pclrin

1. L'article 7 de l'accord intérimaireconclu entre les Parties le 13novembre
1973stipule que son expiration ne modifiera va2 la position juridique de l'un

ou l'autre gouvernement en cequi concerne lefond du difirend. En revanche,
aucune référencen'est raite à un eKet a cet é~a-dde l'accord Dendant aue
celui-ci sera en vigueur. Cela n'implique-t-iaucune limitation dans la liberté
d'action des Parties pendant cette période en ce qui concerne la poursuite de

leurs revendications resnectives devant la Cour ou ailleurs?
2. Quelle Partie a p;oposé la redaction de l'article 7 avec la référence à
l'expiration de I'accord?Cette rédaction a-1-elle fait l'objet d'une discussion
qitelconque au cours des négociations qiii ont précédéla conclusion de I'ac-

cord?

142.THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
10 May 1974

1 have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith the tent of two qucs-

lions put to the Governnient of the Unired Kingdom by Judge Petrénin the
Fisl~crierJ~rrisdicrioi(~Unircd Xiirp(/oniv. lcela~~d)case, which were conimu-
nicated to the United Kingdom Agent by telephone today, and by letter
despatched today. CORRESPONDENCE 483

143. THEACEST FOR THE GOVERNhIEN TF TIIE UNITEUKISCIJOM

TOTHE REGISTRAR
14 May 1974.

As requested in your letter of 10 May. 1have the honoiir to coiiiniunicate
the replies of Her Majcsty's Govcrnnient to the two questions piit by Judge

Petrén, the tex1of which was cnclosed with your letter.

Qnesrioir 1

The lnterim Agreement of 13 November 1973 was concluded by means of
an Exchange of Notes between the Minister for Foreign Alfüirsoflcelandand
the British Ambassador in Reykjavik. Both Notes werc in the English
language and edch consisted of three paragraphs.

The first paragraph of the Foreign Minister's Note begins by referring 10
discussions concerning the fisheries dispute and continues:

"ln tliese discussions the following arrangements have been worked
out for an inieriin agreeinent relating to the fisheries in the disputed

area, pending a settleiiienti~rthe substantive dispute and bvithorrr pre-
jridire ro rliIc,g<iposiriui~or righrs of either Gui.crrr~~teirir~r~elr,rioir
rherero, which ..."(eiiiphasis added).

This part of the first pnragr;ipli of the Note is part of the tex1of the Agree-
ment.

The opening part of the first pciragraph of the Foreign Minister's Note was
followed by seveii subpiiragraphs (which were described as such in sub-
paragraph 5).The sevcn siibpari~graphs set oiit the det:iiled arrangenielits,
including those in subparagraph 7 on the duration and leriiiination of the
Agreement. The words iinderlined in the above quotation prcserve the lesal

position or riçhis of each Governmcnt in relation to the substantive dispute.
Accordingly. thc Inierini Agrcc~iient does not imply any limitation of the
Parties' freedoni of action with regard to pursuit of their respective clainis
with resnect to the substantive disnule. before the Coort or elsewhere. In a
statement made in the Hoiise of ~oi~i~iionson.the day of signature or the

Agreement, the Prinie Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Edwird Heath,

"Our position at the World Coiirt retnains ex:ictly as it is. and the
agreement is without prcjudice to the case of either country in this
niatter."

Qrresrion2

After the conclusion of the agreenient in principle betweeii the two Prime
Ministers in October 1973, the following form of words was put to the Ice-

landic authorities during discussion between theni and the British Ainbassa-
dor in Reykjavik of the proposed Exchange of Notes:

"The agreeiiient will run for two ycars from the present date. The
Govcrnments ivill reconsider the position before that tcriii expires unless
thev have in the tiieantiiiieaereed to a settlement of the suhstantive
dispute. In the absence of such a settlement, the terniinaiion of this
agreement will not anèct the lesal position of either Govcrnnient with

respect to the substantive dispiik."Part of the above form of words was taken out at the su~aestion.-f the Ice-
I.in.lic ~uihoriiie:~it..,grcernent \tir rcaclied (in lhe ui)rJing nùir i,inisined
in wh-pdrdgr~plt 7 of the I~el~itd~cFi~rcign hlinister's Xaitc.
Ascordinrly, theformof words in sub-paraaraph 7ofthe Noteemerned in the

course of diicussion during the negotiatiorÏs prior to the conclusion i,f the
Agreement. The intention of the British authoritieswas to make clear that the
terniinalion of the Agr-ement would no1 in itself extinauish whatever riehts
eiihcr Cio\critiiierit hdd:ti1li.1tinie. In p.irti:uldr, the litterini ,\yrceiiinlii
net intendcd hy tlie t(riii\h suihurttics IO he a "phx\e otit" agreeiiiciit.

17 May 1974.

Further to niy ietter of 10 May, I have thehonour to send Your Excellency'
herewilh a copy of a letter dated 14 May froin the United Kingdom Agent
setting out the replies of his Government to the -O questions put by Judge

Petrén in the FisheriesJ~,risdicrioir(Utrited Kingdomv. Iceland) case, the text
of which was enclosed with my ietter of 10May.

145. THE REGlSTRAR TO THE MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELANU~ '

(telegram)

18 Jiiiy 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 Kingdoni case and 3.30 p.ni. for Federal Republic.

(telegram)

25July 1974.

Have honour.inforni you Court today delivered Judgment in Fi.~heriesJeris-
dictio~~case(Uirired Kingdom v. Iceland). 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 Governmentr of the
United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
2 A similar canimunication was sent regarding the Federol Republic of Germony v.
Icelandcase (see I.C.J. Reporls1974,pp. 205-206). CORRESPONDENCE 485

147.THE REGISTRAR TO THEMlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFALRS OF THE
FEDERALRBPUBLIC OF GERMANY

2 August 1974.
Article35, paragraph 3. of the Statute of the Court provides that:

"When a State which is not a Member of the United Nations is a oartv

to a case,the Court shall fix the amount which that party is to contr~bu~e
towards the expensesof the Court. This provision shall not a~-l~ if such
State is bearing a share of the expenseofthe Court."

At the date of the filing of its A~oiication instituting oroceedinrs arainst
Iceland in the Fi,rheries~trisdictioii'case, the Federal Républic or~ermany
was not a Member of the United Nations, nor hearingashare 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 prnctice of the Court and to al1 relevant cir-
cumstances. includina the ~eriod which elaosed between the filina of the

~~~lication and the admission of the ~ede~al Republic of ~ermany as a
Member of the United Nations, and taking into account the expensesincurred
by the Court in conneciion witli 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).
1should be obliged ifyou would arrange for the sum in question to be paid
to the Office of Financial Services, United Nations, New York. to which 1am
sending a copy of this letterIt would be of assistance if the payment by the

Federal Republic of Germany were accompanied by a note referring Io this
letter.

148. LEGREFFIER AU MINISTREDES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHAN~STAN'
6 août 1974.

Lc Grelfier de la Cour internationale de Justi3el'honneur de transmettre.
sousce oli. un c~einolüirc de chacun dcs arri.1~rendus Par Ir(Cour l25~ulllet

1974 dani les affafres relatives à la Compétence en matière de pëiheries
(Royatime-Uni de Gronde-Bretagneet d'lrlatrdedrrNord c. Islande;Répr~bliqrie
fédiraled'AIlemog~te c.Isla~zde).
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.

1 Une communication analoguea été adresséeaux autresEtats MembresdesNa-
tions Unieset aux Etatsnon membresdesNations Unies admisàesterdevantla Cour.

! The following table indicates the relationship between the pagination of the
present volunie and that of the provisional verbatini record (stencil-dupli-
cated) of the speechesmade in Court, issiied to Members of the Court during
the heari~igs, carrying the references CR 721 ,CR 731 ,and CR 741 ,
A niifliber of references to the CRS appear in the separate and dissenting

opinions of Menibers ?f the Court annexed to the Judgment of 25 July 1974
(I.C.J. Rc>ports1974. pp. 217-251); the passages soreferred to can be identi-
lied by means of this table.

CR Prcscirr CR Prcseill CR Presc,rr CR Preseal
Page Volilii~e Page Vo/iti>ir Page Vol~,i>s Page Volitmp
Page Page Page Page The publications of the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE may be ordered

from anv bookseller. For information rerardinr: thesale ofthe Court's ~ublications
please wiite to theDisrriburionand ~oles-~ecri&, Ofie ofthe Uniled &lions, 1211
Genevo IO (Swirrerland), or theSolesSCCI~OIU I,niredNorions,New York, N.Y. 10017
/USAI.
,- ,
The publications of the PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
(1920-1946) are obtainable froni Kraus Reprint Ltd., 9491 Nendeln, Liechtenstein, to
which al1requests shouldbe addressed

On peut acquérir les publications de la COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
auprès des librairies spécialiséesmonde entier. Pour tous renseignements, prière

de s'adresserà laSerriottde la distributioner des vrnresOfice des NoriotrsUnies,
1211GenèveIO (Suisse) ou àla SecriondesvenresN, oriotzsUnies.New York,N.Y. 10017
(Elors-Unir).
On peut acquérir les publications de la COUR PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE

INTERNATIONALE (1920-1946) auprès de Kraus Reprint Ltd., 9491 Nendeln,
Liechtenstein. Pour tous renseignements, prière de s'adresserette société.

PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS