INTERNATIONCOURTOF JUSTICE
PLEADINGSORAI, AKG UMENTDOCUMENTS
FlSHERlES JURISDICTION CASES
VOLUME II
(FEDEKALREPUBLIOF GERMANY rt. ICELAND)
COUR INTERNATIONDE JUSTICE
MEMOIRES.PLAIDOIRIEET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRES DE LA COMPÉTENCE
EN MATIÈRE DE PÊCHERIES
VOLUME 11
(RÉPUBLIQUFEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNEc, ISLANDE) INTERNATIONAL COURTOF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASES
VOLUME Il
(FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GvICELAND)
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE
MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRESDE LA COMPÉTENCE
EN MATIÈRE DE PÊCHERIES
VOLUME Il
(REPUBLIQUE FÉDÉRALE D-ALCISLANDE) REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF
INTERIM MEASURES OF PROTECTION
SUBMITTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC
OF GERMANY REQUEST
Ministry for Foreign Afiairs,
Bonn.
21 July 1972.
(1) 1 have the honour to refer to.the Application submitted to the Court on
5 June 1972 instituting proceedings on behalf of the Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany against the Government of the Republic of
Iceland and to submit in accordance with Article 41 of the Statute and Article
61 of the Rules of Court a request that the Court should indicate the pro-
visional measures~~ich oue~t~ " b~~-aken to oreserve the riehts of the narties
pending the final decision of these pr<icecdings.
(2) The right? of the Federal Republis of Germnny to bepreservedare the
riahti to eniure that the vesce1~.~r~-tered in the Federal Reoublic olGermnnV
continue to enjoy the bndisturbed rights hitherto exercised by them to fish
in the waters of the high seas around Iceland outside the 12-mile limit of
fisheries iurisdiction a"reed unon in the Exchanee of Notes between the
G<i\ernm~ent of the Fcderal Réptiblic of Gcrmdnidnd the Government of
lieland hied 19 July 1961 and set out in Anneu C 10 the Applicdtion incti-
tutin-.oroceedines
u-
(3) The interim measurcs of protection which are xought by rhir request
are set oui in pnrapraph 22 below. The grounds on which the Federdl Republic
of Germany asks the court to indicatethe said interim measuresof protection
are the following:
(4) On 5 lune 1972the Federal Republic of Germany hadsubmitted to the
Court the Aoolication institutine ".oroceedines aaainst the Renublic of Iceland
in the que\i;;n of 1cçla"dic fishcrics ,urisd;cti;n. In ifs aidi-m~moire dated
14 Mlirch 1972 (setou! in ftill in Anne\ J to the Application) the Govcrnment
of the Federal Republic of Germany expressed~its willingness to continue
discussions with the Government of Iceland in order to agree uponsatis-
factory practical arrangements for the period while the case is before the
Court. Such discussions have been held at bath Official and Ministerial level
on various dates in May, June and July 1972. Up to now tbese discussions
have not led to satisfactory arrangements. Notwithstanding the pendency of
the proceedings and notwith~tandin~ the discussions referred to above, the
Government of Iceland, on 14 July 1972, has issued regulations which carry
into efiect the declared intention of lceland to extend unilaterally the limits
of its fisheries jurisdiction to 50 nautical miles from the present baselines. BY
these regulations, the fishing vessels of other nations including those of the
Federal Republic of Germany are excluded from that part of the high seas
around lceland which lies between 12 and 50 nautical miles and which is a
traditional and most important fishing ground for German fishermen. The
full text of the regulations issued by the Government of lceland on 14 JUIY
1972 and which will came into efiect on 1 September 1972 is annexed to this
request as Annex A.
(5) The unilateral extension of the fisheries limits of lceland and the ex-
clusion of foreign fishing vesselsfrom the extended zone by the regulations
issued on 14July 1972 have, in view of the Federal Republic of Germany, no
basis in international Iaw. The regulations would, if carried into efiect for any
substantial period, for the reasonsset out in detail in paragraphs 10 K. below,
result in an imniediate and heparable damage to the fisheries of the FederalRepublic of Germany and the related industries. The damage would be of a
Dermanent nature and could not be remedied bv the oavment of an indem-
nization by lceland should the Court decide thatsuch ;nilateral extension by
the Government of lceland is inconsistent with international law. Further-
more, the enforcement by lceland of the regulations mentioned above during
the pendency of the proceedings would be capable of aggravating the dispute.
For these reasons which will be elaborated more fullv in the paragraphs ~ -~
below, the Federal Republic of Germany asks the ~ou~rtto indicate provi-
sional measures 10 preserve the rights of the Federal Republic of Germany
pending the final decision of the Court.
. . The Government ~ o~ the~Fed~ ~l Reoublic of Ge~man~ has been com-
pelled to make this request fi~r inierim mcasures of protection at 3 ctage of
ihe proccedincs 3t ivhich the Court has no1 yet had the opportiinity to niïke
an affirmative-determination of ils jurisdiction to deal w-iih the case on the
merits. As the Court is faced with the unwillingness of the Government of
lceland to recognize any longer the jurisdiction of the Court which both
Parties have acceoted bv their Exchanee of Notes of 19Julv 1961for the case
of an eventual diipute relating ta an extension by lceland if ils fisheriesjuris-
diction, il may be appropriate at this stage 10 dispel any doubt about the
Court's competence ii indicate interim measures of protection under Article
41 of ils Statute.
(7) The objections ta the jurisdiction of the Court which have been raised
hy the Minister of Foreign Affairs of lceland in his letter of 27 June 1972
addressed to the Court, cannot in any way affect the exercise by the Court of
ils power under Article 41 of its Statute. The Court may issue an Order
indicating interim measiires of protection without a prior affirmative deter-
mination of ils jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case. As the Court
has constantly held, its power to indicate interim measures of protection does
no1 depend on any direct consent by the Parties to the exercise of siich power
but is part of ils inherent judicial power liowing directly from Article 41 of ils
Statute (cf. Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, "The Law and Procedure of the Inter-
national Court of Justice 1951.1954: Questions of Jurisdiction and Proce-
dure", Bririslr Year BookofliiteriiationalLaw, Vol. XXXlV (1958). pp. 1-161,
al p. 107).
(8) The Court has-rules on this question in ils Orders concerning requests
for interim measuresof protection in the Airglo-lrorri(rrrOil Co. case(Order of
5 July 1951. I.C.J. Reports1951,pp. 89-98) and in the Ii~rerliai~~lelcas(e Order
of 14 October 1957. I.C.J. Reoorts 1957. oo.. .5-112):in bath cases the
rcspondcnl hiid objccicd 1.)the ji.risdiciion of thc Co.irt hy soiilcn~tiiig ih3t
lhc prerii>.is rei<ign.tion by tlic p~riies oi ihc Jur:sd.ction of the Coilrt iiiidcr
Article 36. naraeraoh. .2., of the St.iluts did not cover the J.;~i.te siibniitied
10the CO&. lnboth cases,howevsr, the Court had declined.at this stage of
the proceedings, to take up the questions of ils jurisdiction to deal with the
dispute on the merits. but relied solelv on Article 41 of ils Statute for enter-
taining the request for interim measuies. In both casesthe Court obviously
regarded il as sufficient for the exercise of ils power under Article 41 of the
Statute that proceedings had been instituted in a proper way on the basis of
an instrument whereby both parties had previously conferred jurisdiction on
the Court, and that, as the Court has said in ils Order of 5 July 1951, the
claim submitted to the Court did no1 "fall conipletely outside the scope of
international jurisdiction" (loc. rit., 1951, p. 93). In ils Order of 14 October
1957 in the Iiirerhairdcl case the Court dislinguished clearly between the
question ofjurisdiction as to the merits of the case ushichhad ta be dealt with -
ai a Pliterstage of the proceedings under the procedure reliiting to preliininary
uhjectiuns (Art. 62 of the Riiler of Cuurt). and the procedure for cntertaining
a rcquest for interim iiielisures of protection (Art. 61 of the Kiiles of Court):
the Court exprcsri) declined to coiisider the objc;tion to its~urisdiction by the
rsrpondcnt as a relevant Fd;tur in the proceedings under Article 41 of the
St;itiite (lu<. cir.. 1957D III). This is the niore sii 3s the Court hxs niadc il
clear that the indication of interirtt nieasures of protection should in no way
prejudge the question of ils jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case.
(9) Although il follows from the preceding considerations that objections
to the jurisdiction of the Court are not relevant at this stage of the proceed-
ings, nevertheless, the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
wouldlike to make it clear that. in ils view. the jurisdiction of the Court in this
case is well founded: the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
and the Government of the Republic of lceland have by paragraph (5) in their
Notes exchanred on 19 Suly 1961 (see Annex C to the Aovlication of the
Government if the ~ederal-~epublic of Germany in the hésent case) con-
cluded an agreement whereby they have, in accordance with Article 36 of the
Statute of the Court. conferred iurisdiction on the Court for a disoute such
as at present hefore the Court. ~fter recording the intention of thé Govern-
ment of lceland IO "work for the extension of the fisheries jurisdiction of
Iceland" the above-mentioned paragraph (5) continues as follows:
"However, it (i.e., the Government of Iceland) shall give the Govern-
ment of Germany six nionths' notice of any such extension; in case of a
dispute relating to such extension, the matter shall, al the request of
either party, be referred to'the International Court of Justice." (Paren-
theses added.)
This constitutes a valid international agreement on the acceptance of thejuris-
diction of the Court in case a dispute would arise between the Parties with
resDect to an extension bv lceland of its fisheries jurisdiction and one of the
~aities would want to subniit the dispute to the court. The Government of
lceland had never contested the validity of this agreement until, by aide-
mémoire of 31 Aunusr-1971. il declared that "the object and purpose of the
provision for rcïourw tcjiiJici;il \ettleiiient ol'certsin nilitteri h;ive beçn fully
aihietecl" anil. hy aiclc-iiiiiiioiof24 tehruary 1972, further declsred thht il
"corici<ic,rs the proiiiionsof thc Notcs e\ch.ingsil no longer lipp1~c;ibleand
c<insequentl!. teriiiinated" (>ce Atinews D and II to the Appli~stion of the
Ci<i\,erni~ieiit of the tcdcralRepuhli: of Gcriiixny in the prcsent c&eJ. The
Giitcrnriicnt of the Fe<lersl Hcpublic of Gcrmaiiy hiis imniediately rejected
theie dcclar:itii>n.; of the Go\crnnirnt of Iceland and decl.ircd thit the agree-
iiient cont~iincd in the Exchlingeof Soie.; of 19Jul) 1961clinnui he dcnounccd
unilaterallv. If art international agreement conferrinr jurisdiction on the
lnternational Court of Justice doesnot contain a denunciaiion clause, it is a
question of interpretation under the law of treaties whether and under what
conditions such an acreement mav be terminated. As the agreement contained
ln p~raprtiph (5) of the ~xchxngeof Notes of IY Ji~ly 1961;ïl niade precirely
for iisitii.itionwch :in a.iiiild lirise in the çvent ofliunilateriil e\teiiriunby
Icel:in<l ofit% li\hrriei jiirirdiitibeyond the 12-niilr Iimit. IIcsnnot posslhly
be inferred that it wzs the common~iinderstanding of both Parties that this
agreement could be unilaterally denounced by one of the Parties already at
the very first instance for which its application had been envisàged. The
Government of lceland has failed ta show any other valid ground which
niight justify a terniination of that agreement. Therefore, the Government ofthe Federal Republic of Germany maintains that paragraph (5) of the Ex-
change of Notes of July 1961by which both Parties have recognized thejuris-
diction of the Court with resoect to anv disoute such as oresentlv submitted
to thc Court. is still \,alid and governr the relations betuecn the I'ariies io this
caw. Conscquenily. thcrc can he no doubt ah<itiuever ahoui ihç jur~*dictional
basis for the Court to deal with the merits of this caseand. o . ,forriori.to decide
on interim measures of protection.
(10) As has been already stated in paragraph 5 above. the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court for interim rneasures of
protection because the Regulations issued by the Governrnent of Iceland on
14 July 1972 which exclude the fishing vessels of the Federal Republic of
Germany from their habitua1 fishing grounds, will, if enforced, as contem-
plated by the Government of Iceland result in an immediate and irreparable
damage Io the Federal Republic of Germany. and because such unilateral
action undertaken durina the oendencv of the oroceedinas before the Court
with complcte disregardÏo thrcristingtishing r'ights ofthe FeJeral Kepublic
of Gcrmnny in ihdi part of the high sc~s.could only ltggra\ale the Jispuie
submittcd io ihc Couri. The facti anJ consideraiions \\hich in the \ici\ of the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany justify a request for the
urgent application of interim measures of protection under Article 41 of the
Statute will be set out in more detail in the following paragraphs.
(11) The high seas around lceland are one of the mort important fishing
areas for German fishermen. German fishing in these waters dates back Io
1891. Maior German fisherv activities took olace since the beninnina -f this.
century and hïve. ehicpi in iiine of \\ar. been continvoudy excrcircd ihro~igh-
out the years lcclltnd ivi>uld b) ihc eiiension of 11.fishcry zone tu a breddih
of 50 nauiical niilcs ai provided in the rcgulaiions of 14 July 1972 c~cludc
fishing vesicls from the I'edcrltl Republic of Ciermany froiii about 90 percent.
of thcir iradiiion;il fishing yrounds in ihis area. The reniaining 10 pcr cent.
would hetoo small to allow distant-water fishing on them, becausesuchfishing
depends on the availability of a chain of interconnected fishing grounds
between which vessels can move according to the ever-chan~ing weather
conditions and concentrations of fish. In Drdctice. the exclusion of fishing
vcssel\ froni the Iiigh \cas beiur.cn 12:in,! 50 ii:iiiii:aliii!lcs oti' I~clltnd hroiilj
thercfore medn d toial lus>of the lishing ground :irodnd Icel.ind.
Since ihc ireltther condilions and the availltbiliiv of lish in ihc lccland arca
of the North-East Atlantic a.~ow f~shine-activiti;~ throue-out the vear and
since the composiiion of catches ihere correiponds par1isul;irly ircll lu the
demand of the market in the I'cdcral Kcoublii of Gcrnianu aboui 62 per cent.
of the wet fish and about one-third of the total landings (&et and frozen fish)
of distant-water fishing vesselsof the Federal Republic of Germany are taken
in these waters.
The main specieswhich are caught by German fishermen in waters around
Icetand are red fish, coal fish, halibut, cod and haddock.
(12) Seventy-five "wet-fish trawlers" (i.e., vessels without freezing equip-
ment on board) from Bremerhaven .nd ~ ~hav~ ~ ~eularlv fish .. . in waters
around Iceland. Furtherniorç. 27 "frcezcr irauleri" tish ïroni tiiiie io iiilie in
ihcse waters. Frcerer ira\ilers c:iii siay at sea for a longer pcriod hec:iusc the
catchesare immediatelv orocessedand deeo frozen on board. Therefore. thev
operate mostly in more'distant grounds of the North-West Atlantic. HO;-
ever, due to weather conditioiis and seasonal fluctuations of fish stocks in the
North-West Atlantic, freezer trawlers fish also regularly in the waters around
Iceland and other parts of the North-East Atlantic. REQUEST 27
The average catch of demersal fish (ground fish) taken by distant-water
fishing vessels of the Federal Republic of Germany in the "lceland Area"
(statistical area Va of the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea-ICES-sec Annex B) in the years 1900-1969 was slightly more than
120,000 metric tons (see Annex C). This was about 17 percent. of the total
catch taken in the area which amounted to 714,000 metric tons (average
1960.1969). Froni this total average Iceland took about 366,000 tons = 51
percent. and the United Kingdom 185,000tons = 26 percent.; the remainder
of 43.000 tons = 6 Dercent. beinn taken bv several other nations.
(13) The distant-hater fishing ;essels of the Federal Republic of Germany
cannot compensate the loss of their fishing grounds off lceland by diverting
their activitjes to other ocean areas. (The fishinn crounds of al1 twes of
- -
German fishing vessels are shoan on ihe map in Annex D: the reipective
~roportions of the catch of the Federal Republic of Germany in each of these
are& in 1969and 1970can be found in the schedule Io this Annex.)
The range of wet-fish trawlers is limited by technical and economic factors.
A shift to more distant grounds would nlean longer voyages to and from
home ports and thereby leave conventional wet-fish trawlers with an unpro-
fitable short period of fishing becaiise they cannot keep their catch fresh
longer than 12 to 14 days. Besides, among the more distant grounds, East
Greenland wo~ild allow only seasonal fishing for a liinited variety of species.
The far more distant fishing groiinds in the North-West Atlantic. e.g., West
Greenland, Labrador and the west Coast of North America are only within
the range of freezer trawlers. However. even freezer trawlers can hardly
intensify their operations in the North-West Atlantic because the fishing
grounds there are already partly subject to quota limitations. The Interna-
tional Conimission for North-WestAtlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) isconsidering
such quota regulations for al1 major fisheries in the North- es Attlantic b~
which in most areas the total catch will be limited to the present level or even
be reduced. Since the allocations to member countries are mainly based on
their pas1perforniance there will be no prospects for an increased fishery in
these waters.
In the more distant fishinn-rrounds of the North-East Arctic (Norwegian
Se.!. Bear I\l.ind. Spit7hergenl \.liere Jittiiult \,catlicr<.~nditioiii(>rcvmI.
iatih raies hiiic c<intiniioitilillcn in the lasi ).cars aiid u.illc<iiitiniic iof~II
in 1972 and 1973 (iollo\r.nc ihc renort of itie I.ijii~Coi~iiiiiitcc oi !CES 10
the 10th meeting if the ort th-Ea Atlantic Fisheries Coiiimission). For this
reason, only a few German vessels have fished there in recent years. Any
intensification of fishins eflort in these reaions would therefore not onlv be
ineffective but also res;lt only in a further depression of catch rates below
econoinic levels. The nearer fishing grounds (North Sea. Faroe Islands, Nor-
wegian Coast) are alreadv e.olo.tëd bv Gernlan ivet-fish trawlers. The inter-
n3iioiial rihery In tlicsc grùun~li kas rcached lebel$:iuhich an intsn~itication
of fishing clfori i*uiild rerult i.iredi,citon of ;ilicady low clilch rates (carch
rates per hoiir in the North Seaare already one-sixthof those in the "Lceland
Area") and depress the profits of traditionül coastal fisheries in these regions.
Tt can be concluded therefore that trawlers such as have been fishins tra-
ditionally in the high seasaround lceland which are equipped with expensive
technical near and which ooerate on hieh costs. co.-~ not. if excluded from
the high seas around lceland. 'hopi t&d other fishing giounds where they
could continue their activities under comparable and economic conditions.
(14) The inescapable consequence would be the necessity to withdraw
immediately the major part of the wet-fishtrawlers of the Federal Republic ofGermanv from service. That would afict also a wide range of supporting and
related industries. Since the trawler owners are already in; very tjght financial
situation and operating at marginal profits they cannot afford to continue
operating their vesselsat considerable lossesonly in the hope 10regain access
to the waters around lceland some time in the future. Even if the vesselswere
tied up, their maintenance would be so costly that a great number of the
trawlers would certainly be scrapped rather soon with considerable financial
losses to their owners. Past experience has shown that there are no ready
markets for used wet-fish trawlers. About 1.700 fishermen in the wet-fish
trawler Reetwould be affected by such a development. The number of workers
in related industries which would also be affected is even much higher.
(15) The consequences set out above would follow rather quickly. In a
short period the wet-fish trawler Reetwould have been scrapped to an extent
that would make a return to the sralrisqrto aiiteimpossible. The replacement
of a greater number of scrapped vessels would be a very miich slower and
more costlv orocess than the normal aradual re~lacement of aeed vessels.It is
doubtful whether crews which have turned to other industries will return to
the fleet. Therefore. it cannot be expected that the trawler Reetof the Federal
Reoublic of Germanv. if onceexcluded from fishinr! arounds where more than
60 ber cent. of ils wei-fish landings and about one-thrrd of al1its catches (fresh
and frozen) are taken, could easily be restored. Those branches of the fishing
industrv which are deoendent on a continuina sup~l- of ... fish (processing
industry iind irade) and romç relatecl ind~stries iroulJ s~kr \uili werï loises
tk~t they ioo could reio\cr onl) \\:th ditliciilttes.
Furthermore, a shortage of fish supply in the German market could lead
to a considerable rise in prices which in turn woiild certainly lead to a re-
duction in fish consuniption and to a change of consumer habits. It is doubtful
whether and to what degree such habits could be reversed should supplies
from the "lceland Area" become availeble again.
(16) The special importance of the fishing grounds in the waters around
lceland for the entire German fishin~ industry may be demonstrated by the
remarkable long-term stability of German catches in those waters: table I in
Annex C gives details of the catches of the Federal Republic of Germany
through the years 1960to 1969.Tables 2 and 3 show ihat considerable fishing
;ictiviiics octhe Fcderül Kepuhli,. of Ccrniany arc being conducted in ail
monihs of ihc ycar The iinil.~teral aciii~n of Iceland irc~ulddisrupi ihis long-
establijhed and siahlc situ;iiion hcfore the Couri hlis hdd thc (ippor. .iiiy Io
decide iipon the rights of the Parties.
(17) In view of the facts and considerations set out in the preceding para-
graphs the Government of the Fcderal Republic of Germany respectfully
requests the Court to indicate the interini nieasures of protection siich as are
suggestedin paragraph 22 (0)-(c) and (e).
The Government of lceland has expressed its fear that the fishing vesselsof
the Federal Reoublic of Gernianv ni.eht -ncrcas~ ~hei~ f~~ ~ne effo-t in the
area around Iceland as a result of the declining catches or quota regulations
in other parts of the North Atlantic Ocean. and that this mipht result in an
overfishine- of the stocks around lceland and therebv lea~,to-a reduction of
Iccland's share in ihe loial raichcs of ihis region. 'l'lie <;ovcininçni af the
Federal Repuhlic of Gcrniany has repe;ttcdly a<\ilrcd the <;o\ernnicnt of
lieland that iherc is no iniention of incrctiring ihs C;ernian fi>hing ctrort in
ihis rerion. 11ha\ furthcrniore chpressed ils i,>nvicii.in tli;iiniernsti<~nal
mcasures for the ciinscrvsiion uf fi~h .;tockr aroiind Iceliin~l-if the? hcc~lits
necessary-could timely and effectively be achieved by action through the REQUEST 29
h'urti\.Ed\t Atlxntic Fisheries Coinmissii>n (NIIAFC). Besides. the <;<ivern-
ment of the Federïl Kepuhlic of Gerniany hï~ repeatedly assured the Gorern-
ment of Iceland of iis ieadiness to enter in!^ arrangements between the two
Governments as referred to in paragraph (20) of the Application. Such
arrangements could include a vdriety of effective measures to prevent any
future damage to the fish stocks in the waters around Iceland. The Govern-
ment of the Federdl Republic of Germany, however, accept that the Court
may consider it appropriate that these fears, whether well founded or not,
should be allayed pending the final judgment of the Court in these pro-
ceedings. If the Court so considers, the Government of the Federal Republic
of Germany suggests that the Court should indicate, as a part of the provi-
sional measures, that the Federal Repuhlic of Germany should ensure that,
uniil the final judgment of the Court, vessels registered in the Federal
Republic of Germany do not take more fish in the ]CES statistical area Va
(lceland Areal than their averaee catch in those waters in the vears 1960-1969.
. ~ ~-
namely 120,Ob0me~~ tons per annum (sec-~nne C). In haking this sug:
gestion the Government of the Federal Re~uhlic of Germany wish to point
out that it does not admit that any such catch limitation is "ecessary for the
conservation of fish stocks in the area and that the suggested limitation does
not in aliy way prejudge eventual later arrangements relating to this area.
~181,~he ~ndication of interim measures of orotection is furthermore
necessary and justified becausethc ~egulations isked by the Government of
lceland on 14 July 1972 (see Annex A to this Request) seriously threaten to
aggravate and extend the'dispute between the parties.
(19) If these Regulations were to be enforced according to the laws of
lceland referred to in Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Regulations as contemplated
bv the Government of Iceland. onlv two courses will then be ooen Io the
fiihing vesselsof the Federal ~e~ublic of Germany aîTectedby these Regu-
lations: either the~.may find themselves com~elled to absrain from fishing in
the extended zone over which lceland claim-~~uri~-iction in order to avoid
enforcement measures which might be taken t;y lceland against them; then
immediate and irreoarable damage will ensue to the fisheries of the Federal
Republic of Germany as has beefi stated in detail in paragraphs (10) to (16)
above. Or, they may continue to fish in these waters of the high seasbecause
they rightly consider the exclusion from habitua1 fishing grounds as an un-
warranted encroachment upon the freedom of the high seas; in that case,
the repeated declarafion of the Government of lceland gives every reason to
fear that enforcement measures will he taken by the authorities of lceland
against these vesselseither by directly interfering with their fishing operations
in the fishing zone or indirectly by applying or threatening to applyadmini-
strative, judicial or other sanctions against these vessels, their crews or other
Dersonsconnected with their fishiii~.-.oerations as soon asthev ha.oen ?. cal1
dt lcclandic h;irbc)urz or enier Icelandic territi>ry. The Kegulatiuns eiclude
sll forcign Iiching i,csselsfron~ the riendrd fi3heries rime and do not provide
for an exemption for those foreign fishing vessels that have fished there ha-
bitually; nor has the Governmeni of lceland declared that it will not enforce
the Regulations during the pendency of the proceedings before the Court.
As long as enforcement measures must be exoected to be taken bv the
Cioveriment of lceland against German fishing ;essels and their crews.there
is an apparent and imminent danger that de~lorable conseauencesmay ensue,
es~ecially for the individuals conierned. an.d the disoute b~ ~een ~ ~ Parties
may beseriously aggravated thereby.'~he Court Las never construed its
power to indicate interim measures of protection so narrowly as to excludeconsiderations of that sort and has. if it appeared necessary.adinonished the
parties to refrain from actions which might aggravate or extend the dispute
(see P.C.I.J., Series AIE, A'o. 79, p. 109;I.C.J. Reports 1951. p. 93).
(20) The Regulations issued by the Governnient of lceland on 14 July
1972 purport to exclude the fishing vesselsof the Federal Republic of Ger-
manv from their habitua1 nrounds in the waters of the hiahseas around
lceland where they have fisied since the beginning of this century in con-
iormity with the rules of international maritinie law. This is probably the
first time that a party to a dispute undertakes by unilateral action, Io establish
faits accomplis during the pendency of the proceedings. The action of the
Republic of lceland miist be viewed within the general conipass of the present
situation of the law of the sea and on the background of the efforts of some
States to change the law of the seaby unilater:il Üction. While it might happen
that a country tries to bring abolit a change of the law to its advantage in the
pursuance of~ts national interests, the inteinational legal order does not allow
this being done by unilateral action and complete disregard to the well-
established rights and interests of other menibers of the international com-
munitv. Bv its oresent unilateral action the Governnient of lceland iindertakes
to changcin fact the legal status of waters which are part of the high seas,
and takes nway the fishing rights which the Federal Republic of Germany and
other countries have leeitimatelv acauired under international law. BY such
an action during the pendency of the'proceedings the Governn~ent of Geland
undertakes to prejudice the rights and duties of the Parties on which the
Court will pars judgment in this case.
(21) In vie\\. of the regulations issued by the Government of lceland on
14 July 1972 which are to take effect on I September 1971 ithas beconie a
matter ofurgency for the Federal Republic of Gerniany and for her fishernien.
that the Coiirt should indicate provirional nieasures to preserve the rights of
the Parties.
(22) In view of the considerations set out in the ~reccdinc ~aracravhs 1
respeitlully request on behalf of the Government of ihc ~edeki ~epubiic of
Germany that the Court should indicate the following interiiii nieasures of
protection, pending the final judgment of the Court:
(a) The Federal Repiiblic of Germany and the Republic of lceland shoold
each of them ensore that no action of anv kind is takcn which niicht -
aggravate or extend the dispute subniitted Cothe Court.
(b) The Repliblic of lceland should refrain from taking any measiire pur-
porting ta enforce the Regiilations issued by the Governnient of Iceland
on 14 July 1972 against or otherwise interfering with vesselsregistered
in the Federal Republic of Gerniany and engaged in fishing activities in
the waters of the hieh seasaround lceland outside the 12-mile liniit of
fisherier jurisdi~tion agreed upon in the C\~h.!nSe of Soie, bet\reen the
Go\ernmciit i~fthe Fcderal Kcpiihlic of Geriiiany and the Go\erniiient
of lceland dated 19July 1961.
(c) The Republic of lceland should refrain irom applying or threatening to
apply administrative, judicial or other sanctions or any other measures
aeainst shius reristered in the Federal Reoublic of Gernianv. their crews
or other relatedpersons becauseof their'having been engagid in fishing
activities in the waters of the high seasaround lceland outside the 12-mile
limit as referred to in paragraph 22 (h) above.
(d) The Federal Republic of Gerniany should ensure that vesselsregistered
in the Federal Republic of Germany do not take more than 120,000 REQUEST 31
metric tons of fish in any one year from the "Sea Area of Iceland" as
defined bv the International Council for the Exoloraiion of the Sea as
arca \'a (js marked on the niîp hcreto as Annex h)
(e) The Federal KepublicorGermany 3nd thc Kspiiblic of Iceland should
esch of iheni ensure ihat no action is Idken \r,hich niipht ~reiudice the
rights of the other party in respect of the carrying ouiof ;hatever de-
cision on the merits the Court may subsequently render.
(Signed) Günther JAENICKE,
Agent for the Government
of the Federal Republic of Germany.ANNEXES TO THE REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF INTERIM
MEASURES OF PROTECTION
AnnexA
[See Annex 9rothe UniredKingdomMernorial on the Merirs of theDispute,
1,p.3841AnnexB - z? mm*
'4 2 =$O
52
C-
n~1
h 79"
2 -",-
g",
<b 32
z6 E.:
O- 5.2 ..,22:
W'o '-9 5 22~
3>
om à4 9s~
-2 soa
Ub YU
<,- ,.s
u.- -a; 2 22::
1 -G
CV)
LU g SvlX
m.. 2 -sz
$ g
os X
C1 2Annex D REQUEST 37
TOTAL CATCHES (LANDINGS INFOREION PORTS INCLUDED BY) FlSHlNG GROUNDS
- - -- ~ --
Fishing grounds 1969 1970 1969 1970
1000t "/.
North Sea
West Brit.Waters
Baltic Sea
Faroe Islands
lceland
Norwegian Coast
Bear Island
Greenland
Labrador
Newfoundland
Nova Scotia
New England
South Atlantic
Total 641.7 597.6 100 1O0
Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany