Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada) - Conclusion of the hearings on the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court - The Court ready to consider its Judgment

----------- -

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Te1.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address: http: Il www.icj-cij.org

Communiqué
unofficial
forimmediaterelease

No. 98/24
17 June 1998

Case concerning Fisheries Jurisdiction
CSpain v. Canada)

Conclusion of the hearings on the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court

The Court ready to consider its Judgment

TIIE HAGUE, 17June 1998. The public hearings in the current phase of the case conceming
Fisherjes Jurjsdjctjon betweenain and Canada at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which
•
started on 9 June 1998, were concluded today, enabling the Judges to start their deliberations.
The Court bas to decide whether it bas jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case.
Canada challenged that jurisdiction.

The Judgment conceming the preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the·Court raised by
Canada will be delivered in the autumn. lt will be read during a public sitting at a date which will

be announced in a forthcoming press release.

During the hearings, the delegation Spain was led by Mr. JoséAntonio Pastor Ridruejo,
Director of the International Legal Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Agent,
and the delegation of Canada by Mr. Philippe Kirsch, Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Agent.

Histacy of the dispute

On 28 March 1995 Spain filed an application instituting proceedings against Canada with
respectto a dispute relating to the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (as amended on
12 May 1994), to the implementing regulations of that Act and to certain measures taken on the

basisof that legislation. The dispute deals in particular with the boarding on the high seas, on
9 March 1995, of a fishing boat, the .E.mii,flying the Spanish flag and with a Spanish crew, by a
Canadian patrol boat. .

In its Application,ain maintained that by this action Canada bad violated the principles of
international law which proclaim freedom of navigation and freedom of fishing on the high seas,
as weilas the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State over its ships on the high seas. As a basis of

the Court'sjurisdiction, Spain relied upon the declarations of both States by which they accept that
jurisdiction as compulsory (Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court).

On 21 April 1995,Canada infonned the Court that it lackedjurisdiction to deal with the case
because of a reservation made in its Declaration recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Court of 10 May 1994. In this Declaration, Canada said the Court bad a compulsory jurisdiction

"over ali disputes ...other than ... disputes arising out of or conceming conservation and
management measures taken by Canada with respect to vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory
Area ... and the enforcement of such measures". - 2 -

During a meeting held on 27 April 1995 between the then President of the Court, Judge
Mohammed Bedjaoui, and the representatives of the Parties, it had been agreed that the question
of the jurisdiction of the Court should be separately determined before any proceedings on the
merits. The President fixed, by an Order of 2 May 1995, time-limits for the filing of written
pleadings on that question: a Memoriby Spain and a Counter-Memorial by Canada. These were

duly filed. The hearings concluded today complete the pleadings on jurisdiction.

Internai Judicialactice of the Court with respetodeliberations

As outlined in the Internai Judicial Practice of the Court with respect to deliberations, the
Judges will saon hold a preliminary discussion at which the Prewilloutline the issues which
require discussion and a decision by the Court.

After initial consideration, a full deliberation will be heid during which, on the basis of the

views expressed, a Drafting Committee will be chosen by secret ballotThat Committee will
consist of two Judges holding the majority view and the President if he shares that view.

The drafttext will go through two readingsMeanwhile, Judges who wish to do so may
prepare a separate or dissenting opinion.

The final vote will be taken after adoption of the final text in the second reading.

NOTE FOR THE PRESS

The full transcripts of the hearings of 9-17 June 1998 can be found on the Website ofthe
Court at the following address: http://www.icj·cij.org

Information Office:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, Secretary of the Court (tel: 31-70-302 2336)
Mrs. Laurence B)airon, Information Officer (tel: 31-70-302 2337) •