Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, 2 and 17 August 1972, President Sir Muhammad Za

ORAL ARGUMENTS ON REQUEST FOR
THE INDICATION OF INTERIM

MEASURES OF PROTECTION

MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC SlTTINGS

held ar The PeacePalace, The Hague,
on 2 and 17 Augusr1972, PresidenrSir
Muhammad Zafiulla Khanpresiding FLRST PUBLIC SITTING (2 Vll172, 10 a.m.1

Presenf: PresidentSir Muhammad ZAFRULLAKHAN; Vice-Presidenf
AMMOUN ;iidgesSiGerald Fi~z~~onrcE, PADILLANERVO,FORSTERG , ROS,
BENGZONP ,ETRÉN,LACHS.ONYEAMA D,ILLARDI,GNACIO-PINTO DECASTRO,
Mo~ozov, JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA ;egistrarAQUARONE.

Also presenf:

For theGovernmz of theFederal Republicof Germany:

Professor Dr. Günther Jaenicke, Ageizfand Counsel;
Mr. D. von Schenk, Legal Adviser.MinistofForeign Affairsas Corinsel;
Mr. G. Moecklinghoff, Director of Fisheries, Ministry of Food, Agri-
culture and Forestry,
Dr. S. Vollmar, Ministry of Foreign AffasAdvisers. OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS

The PRESIDENT: The Court meets today to consider a request for the

indication of interim measures of orotection. under Article 41 of the Statute
and Article 61of the ~iilesof couri,filed by the Federal Republic of Gerniany
on 21 July 1972, in the Fisheries Jrrrisdicrion case, between the Federal
Republic and the Reoublic of Iceland.
I'hc procccding< in ihiscase ucrc bcgun hy an Applicïtion 1by ihc Fcdcrdl

Repuhliz. liled in the Registr, of ihc <'ourt on 5 June 1972.Thc Application
fvundr the jurisdi~iion of the Coiirt on Ariizle 36, paragraph 1,ofthc Statute,
and an E.\zh.inge of Notes hei\rccn the Cio\crnment of the Fedçral Kepublic
and the Go\crnnieni of lcelnnd datcd 19 July 1961.The Applicant asks the
Court to declare that the unilateral extension by Iceland of ils zone of ex-

clusive fisheries jurisdictionto 50 nautical miles from the present baselines
would have no basis in international law and could not therefore be opposed
to the Federal Reoublic and to its fishine vessels and that if lceland estab-
lishes a necd for spccinl fishcrics conseriitioniiieasurei in the u,aiers adjacent
Io iij coasi hut bcyonJ the c~i\ting cxclusivr tishcrics zone. such meawres mïy

not he taken under international law on the hasis of a unilateral extension by
Iceland of its fisheries jurisdictionbut only on the basis of an agreement
between the countries concerned.
The Government of lceland was informed forthwith by telegram 2of the
filing of the Application, and a copy thereof was sent to it by air mail the

same day. On 4 July 1972 a letter 3 was received in the Registry from the
Minister for Foreign AiTairs of Iceland, dated 27 June, in which it was stated
(inter alia) that there was on 5 June 1972, the date on which the Federal
Republic's Application was filed, no basisunder the Statute of the Court to
exercise iurisdiction in the case.and that an Aeent would not be aooointed to
- . .
rcprcsen; the Goternmcnt of lccland
On 21 July 1972. the Fedcral Repuhlic filed a rcqucst J undcr Article 41 of
the Slattiie of the Couri and Article 61of the Rules of Court for the indication
of inierini nieaçurcs of prottction.I %hallask thc Registrar 10 read from thnt
rçquesi ihc dciails of the inedsurcs which thc Fcderal Kepublic asks the Court

to indicate.
[The Registrar reads the details of the measures 5.1
On 21 July, the day on which the request was filed. details of the measures

requested were communicated to the Government of lceland by telegram 6,
and a complete copy of the request was sent to ifthe same day by express air
mail. In the telegram and the letter enclosing the copy of the request, the
Government of Iceland was informed that in accordance with Article 61,
paragraph 8, of the Rules of Court, the Court was ready to receive the

observations of Iceland on the request in writing, and that the Court would OPENlNG OF ORAL PROCEEDINGS ON lNTERlM MEASURES 43

hold hearina-. oo.ninn on Wednesdav. 2 Aunust at 10 am.. in order to eive
the parties the opport;nity of presencng thei; observations on the reques;.
On 29 July 1972,a telegram 1dated 28 July was received from the Minister
for Foreian Affairs of Iceland. in which. alter reiteratinr! that there was no
basis in the Statute for the CO& to exercise jurisdiction,he stated that there
was no basis for the request by the Federal Republic of Germany. and that,
without prejudice to anfof its previous argumenfs, the Governnient of Iceland
objected specifically 10 the indication by the Court of provisional measures
under Article 41 of the Stattite and Article 61 of the Rules of Court where no
basis for jurisdiction is established.
1 note the presence in Court of the Agent and Counsel of the .Federal

Republic of Germany and declare the oral proceedings, on the request for the
indication of interim measures of protection, open.

1 Seep. 388, in/ro.

- ARGUMENT OF MR. JAENICKE

AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMEN TF THE FEOERALREPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Mr. JAENICKE: Mr. President, Members of the Court: before 1 begin to
state the arounds which have com~elled the Governnient of the Federal
Republic if ~erniany to ask the ~ou;t to indicate interini measuresof protec-

tion under Article 41 of the Statute, 1would like to express, on behalf of the
Federal Republic of Germany, our deep appreciation for the prompt steps
you have taken to assenible and to hear Our request.

Lt is the second time, after a relatively short interval, that the Federal
Re~ublic of Gerrnanv has broueht a casebefore this Court. and 1mvself vew
much appreciate the-privilege Coappear again before youin orderto repre-
sent the Federal Republic of Gerrnany in this case. The Federal Republic

has recognized the jurisdiction of the Court in numerous internarional
agreements; the Federal Republic has thereby acknowledged the role of the
Court as the principaljudicial organ of the international community and as

the most comoetent institution to solve leaal differences between States. It has
been In confi>;niity aith !hi> xttitiide th:iÏthe Fedcral Repuhli; of Gçrniany
iigreed ii.lliihç Kepiibllc of I~eland. hy the Eh~hxnge of Ki,tc\ on 19 Jdly
1961, to jcttle e\enti~xI dtiputes xhoiit thc Ilmit< <~Cthehheric. jurirdictisn of

lsrland hy refcrring thciii IO the CuurI. The Fcdcral Kcp~blic <if Ciermxny is.
thereiore. \cry iiiuch Jibappointeil IO hexr that the Governnisnt <if Iceland
endeavours to withdraw from this engagement and has, up till now, not felt

able to appear before the Court in order to defend its case. In view of the
friendly relations prevailing between Our two countries. the Federal Republic
remains hopeful that the Government of Iceland will, at a later stage, join
the proceedings and argue their case before you in order to solve the'direr-

ences not by unilateral action or by establishing faits accomplir, but in an
amicable way by resorting to judicial process in accordance with the obliga-
tions under the Charter of the Uni~ed~ ~tions.

Turning now to the grounds of Our Request for lnterim Measures of
Protection, 1do not intend to reiterate al1the facts and arguments which have
already been stated in Our written request; 1would rather-like to concentrate,
without prejudice to Our previous arguments, on some basic points which, in

my view, are especially relevant for the consideration ofour request.
It mav be for the convenience of t~e~Court if. at.~ ~~~~tset. 1o.e.ent a brief
3ccoiint of the situation \rhich hxr conipçlled the Go\erniiicnt uf the Fcderal

Kcpublic 0fGeriiiany Io x<k the Coiirt for interim measJres of groisciion. A5
you will recall, the~~ederal Republic has instituted proceedings against
Icelandby Application. filed with the Court on 5 June 1972,and hasasked the
Court to adjudge and declare:

"(a) that the unilateral extension by Iceland of ils zone of exclusive
fisheriesjurisdiction to 50 nautical miles. ..would have no basis in

international law and could therefore no1be opposed to the Federal
Republic of Germany and to its fishing vessels;
fb) that if Iceland, as a coastal State specially dependent on coastal
fisheries, establishes a need for special fisheries conservation

measuresin the watersadjacent to itscoast but beyondtheenclusive ARGUMENT OF MR. JAENICKE 45

fisheries ;one provided for by the Exchange of Notes of 1961,
such conservation iiieasures, as Caras they would affect fisheries of

the Federal Republic of Gerniany. may not be taken, under inter-
national law, on the basisof a unilateral extension by lceland of its
fisheries iurisdiction. but onlv on the basisof an agreement between
the ~ederal ~epubljc of Gérmany and lceland-concluded either

bilaterally or within a multilateral framework."

This Application relies on the agreement contained in the Exchange of
Notes of 19 July 1961 between the Government of the Federal Republicand
the Government of Iceland. wherebv both Governments recoenized the

jurisdiction of the Court in c'asea dirpute would arise between theni aboi!l
the extension by Lceland of its fisheries iurisdiction beyond the 12-mile lirnit.
After the Government of lceland had made known its intention to extend
its fisheries jurisdictionbeyond that lirnit, repeated negotiations have taken

place between the two governments, and we have already made reference to
these ne-otiations in more de~a~l in Our Anoli7 .ion of 5 June 1972. These
nrgoiiaiions. houe\.rr. rciii~incd l'ruiilesc hecaiise ihc <io\srrinicoi I~cl.ind
\r,:is no1 prrpared to recugnlx dny li.;hinp rights of Ihc Fedcral Rçpublii in
the futurein~theextended zone. exceot durinea limited nhasinr-out oeriod,

The Government of the ~ederal &publicof ~erman; has Llways been and
still is prepared to pay due attention to the special dependency of the lcelandic
ueople on the fisheries in the waters around Iceland. and to the need to
preserve eristing fish stocks in order ta sustain those fisheries. On the other
hand, the Federal Republic of Germany can likewise expect that the Repub-

lic of lceland reco.nises the 1on~-existin-.deoendency of the German fisheries
on the fi,hing groiinds in ihs norih-east Atl~niic riroiinil IcslxnJ Jnd ihe loiip
ierm in\,estiiient of \killlabour dnd c~piial by rhe Ciiriii.in firhcrirs in ihat
region. In such a situation. where legitimate interests of more than one party

are nt stake, the conflicting interests cannot be reconciled by unilateral
appropriation of the fishing grounds by the coastal Stace, but rather by
equitable allocation of the available resources between the States which have
used these fishing grounds in the part.
As the Government of lceland persisted in its unflexible.position, the

Governwent of the Federal Repiiblic of Germany had no other choice than to
refer the dispute to the Court.
After the decision to submit the dispute to the Court had been taken, the
Government of the Federal Republic, nevertheless, continued negotiations

with the Government of lceland in the hope ta reach an interim agreement
until a final settlement. at least for the time of the pendency of the proceed-
ings. Such negotiations have taken place between representatives of bath
Governments on 15 May at Reykjavik; on 2 June, and again on 7 July 1972,
at Bonn.

In these negotiations the Govcrnment of the Federal Republic went a great
length to meet the aspirations of the Government of lceland, u,ith respect to
the allocation of the living resources before their Coast: the Government of
the Federal Republic was prepared to ensure that the fishing vessels of the
Federal Republic would not take more fish from the fishing grounds in the

neighbourhood of lceland than they had taken in the average throughout the
las1 ten years.
However, no agreement on an interim arrangement coiild be reiiched in
these negotiations: the Government of Iceland claimed full jurisdiction and

controi over foreign fishing in the 50-mile zone, and was prepared to allowfishing by German vessels only outside the 25-mile line in certain bounded
areas, which were to be opened in rotation for some months in the year to
German vessels.An interim arraneement on this basis was not acce~table for
the Government of the Federal ~epublic, for the following reasonsi it would
have involved recognition of rights of jurisdictionand control over German

ships on the high seas and would have reduced the German catch in the
Iceland area. becauseof the limited area and time opened for fishing, to only a
fraction of the normal catch iii these waters.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany had hoped that the
Government of lceland would not, during the pendency of the proceedings

before the Court, take any action against foreign fishing vessels in order to
enforce Iceland's claim for an extended exclusive fisheries zone. However, the
Regulations issued on 14 July 1972 leave no doubt that the Government of
lceland is now determined to do so asfrom I-September 1972.
These Re~ulations orohibit al1 fishine bv foreien fishine vessels in the

extended zone; up to 50 nautical miles. :rom the Gw-estabcshed baselines;
according to the lcelandic laws. which the Regulations have declared applica-
ble to fishina activities in the extended zonc. foreieners who eneaee in fishine.
activities inthis zone may then be pmished by &es up to 10O,G0 lcetand~
crowns; foreign ships which enter lcelandic ports or territorial waters will be

subject to ins~ection of their oaoers and enauiries in order to ascertain that
the-lcelandic laws concerning fisheries have not been violated or evaded, and
may probably be exposed ta seizure if they were found to have contravened
the new Regulations.
The lcelandic Reguliitions of 14JLI) 1972will ha\c the folli)\ririg elTecton
the situation uhish exi*trd
the comnlcnccmcnt of the proieedings in lhis
--..-.
F~rct.the Repi~bltc of Iccl~nd piirl>t>li16cciend ilsjurisdiciion and conirol
tnto the uatcr. <ifthc high scaj i.p tu 50iiiilcs (rom iltoast and. hv exiluding
forcign iesscls froni fi\hink! ;icti\itiin this zonc. ri>apr>rt>priatethese parts

of the high seasand its living resources for the exclus;vi u;e by its own na-
tional~.
Secondly, the Republic of lceland purports ta force the fishing vessels of
the Federal Republic of Germany to leave their traditional fishing grounds in
the waters of the high seasaround lceland with the inescapable consequence

of immediate and irreparable damage to the German fisheries, or to run the
risk of heing exposed to enforcement measures or other incidents which
everyone wishes Io avoid.
Whatever the fishing vesselsof the Federal Republic might do under these
circumstances, the following eiiect will be certain: the hitherto undisturbed

and undisputed right of the Federal Republic of Germany and of her na-
tional~ to fish in the waters of the high seasaround lceland will be seriously
impaired, if not already taken away by the action of the Government of
Iceland, and the legal status of these waters will, in fact, be changed by way
of afoir occornpli.

In view of this situation. the Governnient of the Federal Reoublic of
German) secsno other altcrnati\c th:in tu aik the C'iurt for inrcrini iiicdsiires
ofproteittun for tlicir fishing rights pcnding the lin:il dsci,iun of the Court on
the lawfulnessor otherwiseof the extension bv lceland of its excliisive fisheries
zone.
Mr. President and Members of the Court, in order to show that there is

sufficient ground for indicating interim measures of protection in this case,
would you pleaseallow me to refer to the practice of the Court in determining ARGUMENT OF MR. lAENlCKE 47

when, and under what circumstances, interim measures had been considered

appropriate for the protection of the rights of the parties.
1 need not dwell here any longer on the details of the cases in yhich this
Court. or the former Permanent Court of International Justice. has aranted
or rejecled requests for interim measores of protection. Al1 these cises are
very well known to YOU. 1shall confine myself to draw some conclusions from

this practice as to the criteria which the court has thought relevant in dealing
with such requests.
Article 41 of the Statute of the Court states that the Court may indicate, if
the circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to be
taken to preserve the rights of either Party. This formula leaves much room
for interpretation as to what circumstances niay require measures for the

oreservation of the riehts of the ~arties to a disoute which has been submitted
io the Court. In orde;tianalysi the practice oi the Court in dealing with this
question, it mliy probably be useful first to turn to those casesin which the
Court had reiected a reuuest for interim measuresand to ascertain the reasons
ivhich had lei the ~our't to deny the existence of a situation which otherwise

might have justified the indication of interim measures.
In the foui caseswhere the foriner Permanent Court and the present Court
had rejected such requests, the reasons may be summarized as follows:
First, in the Foctory at Chorrdw case, the Gerinan Government had in-
stituted proceedings against Poland, claiming reparation for the unlawful

taking of the property of a German company and, becausethe company had
fun inIo financial ditliculties, had asked the Court to order, as a provisionai
measure of protection, the payrnent of a certain sum in advance. pending the
decision of the Court on the exact amount of reparation which was then the
only point still in dispute between the parties. The Court. by Order of

21 November 1927, rejected this request on the ground that ordering the
payment of a certain sum in advance would amount to partial relief and
would not constitute merely a preserviition of the right in dispute.
Second. in the South-Eoscern Territorv o, Gr.rnlrind case. Denmark and
hi>r\ra! h~d iiisiiiutcJpr,icccdings ag~insi eaih other beiausc caih tlf ihçni

cl:iiriicd suvcrcignt? uvcr thai Iiart of Grcenl~nd. N<ir\riy 3skcd the Court for
interim measures of protection, alleging that Denmark might take coercive
measures against Norwegian nationals in the disputed territory, and that
regrettable incidents might ensue. The Court, by Order of 3 August 1932,
rejected the Norwegian request on the ground that incidents as had been
anticipated by the Norwegian Government were niost unlikely to occur in

sparsely inhabitcd territory, taking into account-and that is important-
specific assurances of the Danish Government to this eflect. and that, there-
fore, the circuiiistances, at least at that tiine, did not rcquire any interim
measures of protection.
Third, in the Polish dgroriatr Reform case. Germany had instituted pro-

ceedin~s aeainst Poland. allerrine that the Polish authorities. in a..lv.ne- the
~srarNn Keform Law, had coiiimitted discriminatory acts against persons of
German origin in violation of the Minority Treaty of28 June 1919, and had
asked the Court to indicate as interim measures of orotection that the Polish
Agrar.3n Reforni LJW should n<it bc appl~cJ. pending the pro~ccdings hrfore
thc Coiirt. aedinit per.;on> he1ting:rig ri, rhc Cerinafi niinor.ry. Thc Ci11rr. by

Ordcr of 29 JiiI? 1933. rcicctcd the Gerni:in reuucst <in the cro~nd ihtit the
requested measure woulé result in a general Suspension if the agrarian
reform for the future, as far as it would apply to persons of German origin,
while the dispute before the Court concerned only past cases of alleged discriminatory treatment and that, therefore, the nieasure requestcd could
not be regarded as solely designed to protect the rights which were the
subject-matter of the dispute.

Fourth, in the It,tcrhrinrlelcase Switzerland had instituted proceedings
against the United States becauseof the allcged iinlawful seizure and disposal
of the property of the Interhandel Company which was claimed by Switzer-
land to be a Swiss company, and becauseof the disposal of that property by
the United States authorities under their eneniv DroDertv legislation. Switzer-
land requested interim measures of protection which shiuld restrain the

United States authorities from selling shares in an American company which
were held bv the Swisscomoanv as i& orincival asset.The Court. bv Order of
24 oclober-1957, declined io indicate'the réquestedmeasure on the ground
that the danger of the shares being sold was not so imminent as to justify
interim protection. particularly,and that is again important, in view of the
assurancesof the United States Government to this cffect.

The grounds on which the Court declined to issue an Order for intcrim
protection in these four caseswere. in short. the followina:. in the first and
ihird cases, ihc iilleged iinliia:ici. for irhich rclirf \va<soiighi Iiid iilready
tiikcn pliicc and thc rcquc\iïd riieasiires of protectiiln ireni in rïibeyond .
the mere ~rotection of the riphts in disvute: in the second and fourth cases

the anticipated action of the-other party directed against the rjghts of the
Applicant did not appear to be sufficiently iniminent as to justify interim
protection of these rights pending the decision of the Court.
1 need not stress the fact that thc'reqilest for interim measures which we
have submitted to this Court cannot he rejected on such grounds; the re-
quested interini inensures are solely designcd to protect the fishing rights

which have, up to now, been exercised by the Fcderal Republic of Germany
unchallenged, and which are the subject-niatter of the dispute between the
Parties, and there can also be no doubt that the Regulations issued by the
Government of lceland on 14July of this year presentan imminent danger t0
the exrrcisc of thesefishing rights, as\\.el1asto their legal and factual basis.
Allow me now to turn to the three casesin'which the Permanent Court of

International Justice and this Court have indicated interim measures of
protection. In these cases, the reasons for indicating such meastires may be
summarized as follows:
First: in the Siiio-BeljiirrirTreary case, Bclgiilnl had institutcd proceedings
against China contesting the lawfulness of the iinilateral denunciation by
China of a treaty between both States. The Belgian Government requestcd

lnterim measures of protection maintaining that the legal status of Belgian
nationals in China inight be impaired by actions of the Chinese authorities
who were not prepared to recognize the provisions of the Treaty any niore.
The President of the Court, by Order of 8 January 1927, granted interim
protection by ordering that the Belgian nationals in China should continue to
enjoy certain treaty rights which might be prejudiced by measuresenacted by

the Chinese Government in contravention of the provisions of the denounced
Treatv.
Second: in the Electriciry Companyof Sofia and B~flgoriacase, the Belgian
Government had instituted proceedings against Bulgaria contesting the
lawfulness of a huge financial claim which had been maintained and enforced
by tk Bulgarian authorities, through the Bulgarian courts, against that

Belgian company. The Belgian Government asked for interim protection
against the execution of the judgment of the Bulgarian court against that
Company. The Court, by Order of 5 November 1939,granted interim protec- ARGUMENT OF MR. JAENICKE 49

tion on the =round that the measiires of execution with which the comDanv
- . .
\rd5 threïtcneil a<iuld serioiisl) prejiidice il> poiitwn 2nd ihe rebtor~tiiiii of ils
r;g,I~tif 1I1c('riurt \\oIII~ l:~tcrdçiitlc' in Pi\,our i>fthe Rclg~i<ii\:b>e
Third. in the .-I,ir./<~-/r<i~1r1<#I.c.ascthc L niizd King<l,ini h;td inrt~tiiied
prr>.xi.dingi ;id.iinrt Irdn. hei.,iiIIcunidcreJ the ;ippli;ation of the Iraniail
OiI Sdiioiililil;itloA:! IO the Angle-lrdnian Oil Coiiinany 3s being conIrdry
to the concession aareeiiient beÏween the Iranian Governnient and that

conipany. The Gove~niiient of the United Kingdom asked for interim mea-
sures of protection on the ground that the lranian Government was going to
seize the~~ne-o-lranian Oil Comoanv...,.ooertv and to transfer the manage- -
ment of the company's business in lran to a State-owned national Company in
execiition of the Oil Nationalization Act, and that siich action would inflict

considerable iniiirr to the com~iinv's business in lran ~endirig the dccision of
the Court on the Iawfulness or naiionalization, caused by the loss ofskilled
personnel, foreign markets and goodwill. The Court, by Order of 5 July 1951.
rranted interiin protection to the effect that the Iranian Government should
not take any measure designed to hinder the carrying on of the industrialand

commercial operations of the Anglo-lranian Oil Company, and that these
operations should continue under the direction of the comoany's management
ai il was wnstituted before the beginning of the prociedings. ~he-court
further indicated that both Governments should constitute a joint Anglo-
lranian Su~ervisorv Board which would. ;,,ter alio. satisfv the interest of the

lranian ~ivernnient in keeping the operations of the conipany under control
unlil final judgment of the Court.
If we comnare the situations in these three cases where the Court has
thought it advisable to order iriterim measures of protection, we find some
striking similaritics. In al1these cases,one of the parties was likely to employ

messures of enforcement or execution in order to chanae. durin- the Pen-
dcncy of the pr,oceed~ngs.the fjctual \itu<ition according to ilso\vn logal point
of vieii. In311 iheie casesit had heen the Ci,urt'$ concern 10 preherveihc Stat11S
au0 with resuect to the ~osition of the oarties which existed at the time when
the dispute &as broughi before the ~0th. The reasons given by the Court in
these casesdo no1 indicate how much further aggravating circumstances had

influenced the decision of the Court to order interim protection, or whether
the Court had already found siificient grounds for ordering interim protec-
tion in the fact that the status quo was going to be changed hy one of the
parties during the pendency of the proceedings.
It is true that in the Sitro-Belgion Treoty case the President of the Court

intimated that the prospect of mere pecuniary loss to one of the parties or 11s
natiyKIls would probably not justify the indication of interim measures: but
nevertheless, he issued an Order which was designed to secure for the Belgian
nationals the undisturbed enjoyment of their treaty rights, relating 10 the
Protection of their properiy and the carrying on of their business. He granted
interim protection in this case, although one might have argued that the

interference with these rights could later have been made good by the PaY-
ment of damages.
In ils later Orders, the Coiirt did never revert in its reasonins to this
aspect, and ilmay safely be concluded from the practice of the Court that
tliere is sufficient ground for the indication of interim measures if, in case

the, dispute concerns such rights, the legal status or the business of the
natlonals of one party might be impaired or destroyed hy actions of the other
Party during the pendency of the proceedings.
Oneof the main provisions which the Court usually inserted in ils Orders50 FISHERIES JURISDICTION

under Article 41 of the Statute was 10 the eiïect that no action should be

taken by one of the parties which might prejudice the rights of the other party
in respect of the carrying out of any decision on the merits which the Court
may subjequently render. Although this provision was but only one of the
several orovisions in the Orders which were issued under Article 41 of the
Statute, il had been argued that the powcr of the Court to grant interiiii

protection was limited Io such situations; in other words, the Court shoiild
irant interim protection only in those situations where the rights of a party
could otherwise not be restored if siibsequently the Court would decide in
favour of these rights.
The cases Io which 1 have referred do no1 sumort, in my view, such a

narrow interpretation of the Court's powers under-~rticle 41~of the Statute.
1cannot share the view that it is a necessarycondition, for the exercise or the
power to grant interim protection, that the action of one of the parties will
affect the rights of the other party in such n way as Io make ilimpossible Io

restore theserights in caseof a favourablejudgment.
It will be rather sufficient that the right which is in dispute might be
"prejudiced" by the action of the other party during the pendency of the
proceedings, that is to say that the action of the other party will make il
necessaryIo restore this right again if subsequently the Court would dccide in

favour of such a riehtu In shor~.~an. .ction durine the oendencv of the
proiecdiiigs ah:ch distiirhs the <itiis qiio as 11r'~istr.dhcfc~rcthe prs~ec~lirigs
uercstarted. uiII he snd should he x suflicicnt eroiind for indi;atine inicrinl
protection, becauseotherwise ifwill be more difficult to restore the l&al situa-
tion if the finaljudgment woiild so require.

In this connection the special situation in the present case should be
recognizcd. The dispute in the presen1case concerns the question whether
lceland could change the existing status of the waters of the high scasaround
ils Coastby unilaterally extending its fisheries jurisdiction beyond the 12-niile

limit. The Court will have Io decide whether lceland is entitled to such an
extension of ils jurisdiction or not. Until this decision is rendered, the mainte-
nance of the status quo will not in any way interfere with the fishing or other
rights of both Parties as presently exercisedby them in thesewaters, and there
will then be no difficulty in carrying out any judgment which this Court niay

render in this case. If. however, the Repiiblic of Iceland, by prohibition and
other sanctions under the Reeulations of 14Julv 1972.ouroortsto orevent the
Federal Republic of Germaiy and its fishini vessels frk exercising their
hitherto undisturbed and unchallenged right to fish in the extcnded fisheries
zone for a considerable lime. such-action constitutes a serious and lastina

impairment of thesefishing rights to the eiTectthat they will not automaticall;
be restored if the final judgment would declarc the extension of Iccland's
fisheries iurisdiction as beine contrarv to international law.
The ~éderal Republic ofGerman;, therefore, maintains that the Regula-
tions which have beenissued by the Government of lceland on 14July 1972,

and which purport to preventfurther fishing operations by ~ermanfishing
vesselsin the extended fisheries zone, are by themselves already a sufficient
ground for the indication of interim measures of ~rotection. There are,
however, additional circumstances which should be taken into consideration.

Thesecircumstances are the following:

(1) the irnmediate and irreparable damage that will be inflicted on the
German fisheries by the loss of their traditional fishing grounds in the
waters around Iceland; and ARGUMENTOF MR. JAENICKE 51

(2) the assertion of powers of jiirisdiction and executory control over large
parts of the high seas which hitherto were common property of mankind
and open to common use

1 should first deal with the immediate and irreparable damage that will
ensue for the German fisheries by the loss of their traditional fishing grounds
in the waters around Iceland. I should not reDeat here al1the facts and arnu-
ments,which we have already advanced in oir request filed on 21 July 1972;
1may, respectfully, refer in this respect to paragraphs II to 16of that request.
Todav 1 would rather focus on some im~ortant points which should be ke~t

in mind if the importance.of the fishing groundsaround lceland for the Gër-
man distant-water fishing fieet had ta be evaluated.
The distant-water fishine fleet. as distinct from short range coastal fishing
vessels, of the Fedeial ~e~ublic of Germany comprises,~according to thé
statistical status of 31 December 1971, 75 "wet fish" and 27 "freezer"
trawlers. the number mentioned in DaraeraDh 12 of Our resuest. All of them
visit the &hing groundsîround lceland a-nd.areton varying'degree dependent
on uninterrur>ted fiihing on thesr: grounds. The no-salled "net fish" trau,lcrs
are those which are mas dependent on fishing in the lceland area. In contrast
to the sa-called "freezer" trawlers the "wet fish" trawlers have no processing
and dcep-freezing installations on board: they have ta store the catch on ice.
This method does not allow keeping the fish fresh longer than 12to 14days;
that has the consequence that "wet fish" trawlers cannot do their main

fishing on more distant fishing grounds than Iceland because otherwise the
time left for fishing between the voyages to and from the more distant fishing
grounds would be tao short to allow to catch enough fish to sustain such a
fishing voyage economically. This accounts for the fact that about 62 per
cent. of the landings by "wet fish" trawlers have been taken in the waters
around lceland. This illustrates already the heavy dependency of the "wet
fish" trawler fleet on undisturbed fishing in these waters.
The Icelandic Regulations of 14 July 1972, which prohibit foreign fishing
within the 50-mile zone around Iceland, would practically close 90 percent.
of the available fishing grounds around Iceland to German fishing vessels.
May 1 refer the Court to the map which has already been distributed, with
your permission and is before you on your table. This map shows the fishing

grounds in the lceland area which are visited by German trawlers. On this
map you will find two black lines around Iceland, the innermost line repre-
sents the 12-mile limit, the outermost line represents the 50-mile limit. The
hatched areas between these two lines and on some parts reaching over the
outermost line represent the fishing grounds which are usually visited by
German trawlers. The different hatching in these areas shows which species
of fish aremainly caught in thesc areas. As you see from this map only a very
limited area of these fishine erounds reaches over the 50-mile limit and would
then be still avnilable for cehan trawlers Other fishinggroundc heyond the
50-mile Iimit 3re not available in this part uf the htlaniic because the concen-
tration of fish in the deeoer wüiers bcyond the 50-mile Iimit ismuch tao low Io
allow eco- ~ - ~ ~~-~~~~~
If 90per cent.of the-fishing grounds around Iceland would bcclosed to the

"wet fish" trawler fleet of the Federal Republic of Germany. they would have
to look for other fishing grounds withintheir reach. However, there are no
other fishing grounds available which could be exploited by "wet fish"
trawlers with a result that would compensate them for the loss of the fishing
grounds around Iceland. The nearer fishing grounds which are within theARGUMENT OF MR. IAENCKE 53 reach of the "wet fish" trawlers, as the North Sea, Faroe Islands and the

Norwegian Coast, are already exploited by. German "wet fish" trawlers.
The concentration of the international fishing effort on these arounds has
already reached a lcvel ÿt ivhich any addiiio'al etiort ivould oRly result in
louer catch raies and laier in regulations limiting the allou,able catch. There-
fore, the ship-owners will have no other alternative than to tie UD and eventu-

ally to scrap a considerjhle pari of iheir vessels.Such 3 irholesak tying up or
sirirpping uould not only result in unbwrable finincial lossesfor the oxncrr.
but would also considerably reduce the tonnage of the German distant-water
fishing fleet from which the latter could hardly recover within a foreseeable
time. There would also result a shortage in the supply of fish which might
disrupt market conditions or chanae consumer habits because the lcelandic

fishin6 fleei uould the nexi lime n; he ahle tu miike up for the catch deficit
caused by the missing Geriiian and English fishing ciTuri. And 111salso very
probable ihat the reduction in the landings of fish \riIl affect vcry seriuusly
the coasial areas of the Federal Republic of Germany. especially the towns
which are the basisof the German fishingfleet. in thrir cconomies.

Although the imr>ïct of the closure of the fishinr: erounds around lccldnd
would in Ïhe first line affect the "wet fish" trawlers,;t-shouldnevertheless, be
recognized that the "freezer" trawlers, too, would have difficulties in com-
pensating their loss by exploiting other distant fishing grounds more heavily.
At the fishing grounds of the north-west Atlantic, especially at those before

Labrador and New England, which are visited by German freezer trawlers,
fishing is already regulated by quotas for the most important fish stocks-cod
and haddock-which provide the bulk of the catch in that region. Quotas
have been allotted to the member countries of the North-West Atlantic
Fisheries Commission in proportion to their average catch within the last

years so that there is not much room for an additional fishing effort on
economic levels. In the area of Greenland, where German freezer trawlers
take a considerable catch. the seasonal conditions do not allow all-year
fishing so that this region could only provide marginal compensation for the .
loss of catches in the lceland area.
1respectfully submit that the decisive factor which makes interim measures

for the protection of the traditional fishing rights of the Federal Republic in
the waters around lceland most imperative, is the almost certain prospect
that otherwise the German fishing fleet, if excluded from their traditional
fishing grounds, will be forced to reduce its tonnage considerably and that it
will then, in case of a favourahle judgment, have the greatest difficulty to

recover to its previous position, if that will be possible at all.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland, in his telegram dated 28 July,
and.delivered on 29 July to the Court, maintains that the Application of the
Federal Republic of 5 June 1972 referred to the legal position of the two
States and "not to the economic position of certain private enterprises". By
that remark he probably wants to intimate that al1 these considerations

relating to the economic consequences for German fisheries were irrelevant,
and went beyond the scope of the subject-matter of the dispute before the
Court. Iam unable to accept the validity ofthis argument. In Our submission
(a) of Our Application in this case. filed on5 June 1972, we have asked the
Court to adjudge and declare that the unilateral extension bv lceland of its

exclusive fisherres jurisdiction, having no foundation in inkrnational law,
could not be opposed to the Federal Republic of Germany and to its fishing
vessels. 1 specifically cal1 your attention to those last words: "and to its
fishing vessels." ARGUMENT Of UR. JAENtCKE 55

Thus, the right of the Federal Republic, that its fishing vessels may con-

tinue fishing in Iceland's extended fisheries zone, is certainly part of the
sub~,ct-matter of the disou.e. .nd interim measures. which are desizned I-
pr<)leit this right prnding the rinïl dccision of the Court. tire. consequently.
also uithin the scope of the subje;i-matter of the dispute between the Parties
to this case. 11needsno further areument that the ~ederal Reoublic is entitled

to take up and defend the rightsof itsnationals to fish on the high seas in
accordance with generally recognized rules of international law. This being so,
il cannot be ar~ued that anv one of the effects which the Icelandic Regula-
tions of 14 SUI; 1972 mighi have on the exercise of these fishing rights, be
they legal, economic. or other effects, should be excluded from the considera-

tion whether or not the circumstances require the interim protection of these
-ueht~.
1should now turn to the other aggravating aspect of the situation created
bv the Reaulations of 14Julv 1972.the assertion of Dowers ofjurisdiction and
cbntrol o;er large parts of ihe high seas.

It is this fact which distinguishes this case from earlier cases, where the
Court had granted or rejected interim measures of protection. In the earlier
cases protection had been asked against actions which one of the parties
might take against the rights of the other within its own territory in the
exercise of its territoriasovereisntv. how lawful or unlawful that niay have

hcen. In the present case. the <%\;rnmeni of Iceland not only deprives the
firhing vcsselsof the Fcderal Rcpublic of their ~radiiional rishing rights. but,
by pr,)hib~ting a11foreign fishing activitss in the e.xrended fisheriei 7one and
by applying criniinal sanctions agïinst those foreign national5 who do not
conlply with ihese Regulïtions, the Government of Iceland asserts sovereign

powers over parts of the high seaswhich hitherto were open to common useof
al1 nations. By excluding foreign fishing vessels from the extended fisheries
zone and reserving the exploitation of ils living resources for its own na-
tional~, the Government of lceland appr..ria.es these parts of the high seas
uhich had hntherfo been the common pruperty of inankind.

In short. the action of the Government of lceland purport5 to change the
stütus of the matersof the hiah sel, unilaterülly by estahlishing ïliiilarrompl~.
The action of the ~overnmënt of Iceland does iot stop at the mere assump-
tion of control rights in order to secure compliance with indiscriminately
appliedconservation measures, but goesso far asto regard the living resources

in these waters as belonging exclusively to the Republic of lceland and to
disregard completely the traditional fishing rights of other nations-and
among them of the Federal Republic of Germany-in these waters. Such
action extends the disoute between the Parties into much wider dimensions.
and one mighr very well argue that this is an additional ground which justifieS

interim measures for the protection of the fishing rights of the Federal
Republic of Germanv and its nationals,
It is submitted thaï the action of the Government of Iceland is not, during
the pendency of the proceedings before the Court, in any way necessitated by
reasons of Iceland's economv. The Government of Iceland has not Yet

asserted that foreign fishing in the-waters around lceland has resulted-in
lower catches by the fishing vesselsof Iceland, or reduced Iceland's predomi-
nant share in the exploitationof the fishing grounds before its coasts.
If, on the other hand. the Government of lceland would be allowed to
suceeed in excluding the fishing vesselsof the Federal Republic of Germany

from their traditional fishing grounds, that would give the Republic of
Iceland full satisfaction of its disputed claim for a 50-mile exclusive fisherieszone, and establisha fait accompli before the Court has an opportunity to
decide the validity of such a claim. In view of this situation, it seems parti-

cularly imperati\,e Io preseri,e the statu5 quo ïnd to protect the long.cstüb-
lishcd fishing rights of the Federal Republic and ils fiihins \essels by appro-
priate interim measures.
By asking the Court for the protection of the fishing rights of the Federal
Republic of Germany in order to preserve the status quo between the Parties,

we are not goine,.to i-nore the fact that the Re~ublic of lceland has an equal
inicrest in the preservïtion of the >tatu, quo. ~he Federal Republic hïs alu-ay.i
recognized the speckdldependency of the Icelïndic people 2nd thcir eci>nomy
on the exploitation of the fishine. arounds before their coasts. and on the con-
servation-of these resources. If. the ba~s of a thorough scientific invesiiga-

lion, catch Iimitütions should hecome nccesvdry for the conservation of fish
stocks. the Federal Re~ublic ir fullv ~rewared to enter inio ï bilateral or
multilateral aereement -whic~ ~ ~ ~ ~r~-idé for such limitation and for the
equitable allocation of these resources among those nations which have
regularly fished in this area and are de~endent on their exploitation.

Üp tAl now lceland has taken th; bulk of the total catch in the waters
around its Coast,on the average more than 50 per cent., while the United
Kingdom has taken 26 percent. and the Federal Republic of Germany only
17 percent. of the total catch in these waters. You will find the statistical data

about the total catch and its distribution over the years 1960 to 1969 in
Annex C to Our written request. We have no information that the capacity of
the Icelandic fishine fleet was not fullv utilized. The rnmiernization and
expansion of 1celand:s fishing fleet, which is in progress, indicates rather the
contrary. Thus, the preferential right of Iceland in the exploitation of the

resources before its~coastshas been amply presewed.
The Government of lceland tries to justify the exclusion of foreign fishing
vessels from the waters around Iceland by asserting a nced to protect its
fisheries aeainst an increased fishine effort bv other nations. directed s~ecific-
ally to the fishing groundsaround lceland; and asseriingon this basis the

need to prevent overfishing of certain imDortant fish stocks in these waters. 1
may refer in lhis respectto the various statements of lcelandic Ministers
which are reproduced in the Appendices of the Memorandum on Fisheries
Jurisdiction in Iceland issued by the Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs in

February 1972and attached to the aide-mémoire of 24 February 1972. which
is annexëd to Our Application as Annex H; 1may quote one stitement given
by the Minister for ForeignAffairs of Iceland on 29 September 1971, which is
at 1,page 52 of this Memorandum, and which reads:

"The Icelandic Government considers that as far as lceland is con-
cerned we have to Dr.tect Our interests now. It is auite clear that at anv
tirne the highly developed fish~ngfleets of distant \r,ater fishing countries
will be incre3singly directed io the Icelïnd area. Theie fleeis hïw nuw

for some time had huge catches from the Barents Sea.Fishing there is no
longer asprofitable as it was, and they are directing their attention to the
lceland area."

1 doubt whether these apprehensions of the Government of lceland are
already justified at present. The consistent volume of the catch taken in the
Iceland area, according to the statistical data reproduced in Annex C to Our

written request for interim measures, rather shows that, al least at present,
the danger of overfishing has not yet materialized. Furthermore, the Govern-
ment of the Federal Republic of Germany has repeatedly assured the Govern- ARGUMENT OF MR. JAENlCKE 57

ment of Iceland that there is no intention of increasing the German fishing
effort in the waters around Iceland.
However. in order to allav the fear of the Government of lceland that the

German fishing effort mighiincrease in the waters around lceland as a result
of declining catches or quota regulations in other parts of the Atlantic, the
Government of the Federal Reoublic is also oreoared to maintain the status

quo in this respect. We have iherefore suggesied, in paragraph 17 of our
written request, that the Court niay consider it appropriate to indicate as part
of the interim measures that the fishing vessels of the Federal Republic do
not take more fish in the lceland area during the pendency of the proceedings

than the average catch they have taken throughout the years 1960 ta 1969,
-these are the years for which statistical data is already available-namely
120,000 metric tons per annum; 1 refer to Annex C to our request filed on
21 July 1972 where you find the figure of the average German catch in this

res-on.
If the Court would indicate interim measures which, on the one hand,
protect the hitherto undisturbed and undisputed fishing rights of the German

fishine vessels and. on the other hand. iecure that iheir annual catch is
limited to theaverage figure of the last iears, the interests of bath Parties in
the maintenance of the status quo unfil the final iud.men. of the Court will be
eauallv observed.

'~r..~resident and Members of the Court, in this last part of my staternent
1 would like to make some additional remarks on the jurisdictional basis for
an Order of the Court under Article 41 of the statute. In the resuest of
21 Jiily sic have >Iread) delilt «,th this question at sonie lcnyih. I uill not

rcpçii hue 1\11 th31 hid bccn siatcd in the pdragraphr 7 to 9 of Ihis request.
io trh~ch I niav re;nectTullv refer. Torihç iiioiiieni. Thcre thc Feder~i Keoublic
has mainiained: .

(1) that the power of the Court to indicate interim measures of protection
flows directly froni Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and is not

dependent on any direct consent of the Parties to the exercise of that
power, and that therefore no prior affirmative determination of the
Court's jurisdiction to deal iviih the merits of the caseis necessary;
(2) that, according to the practice of the Court, it is sufficient for the exercise

of the power under Article 41 that proceedings have been instituted in a
proper way on the basis of an instrument whereby both Parties had
previously conferred jurisdiction on the Court, and that any objection

raised by one of the Parties against this jurisdiction is irrelevant at this
stage, but has ta be dealt with at a later stage of the proceedings under the
procedure relïting to preliminary objections; and
(3) that at al1events. the iurisdiction of the ~o~rt~ ~ well foundod in this case
. >
and that afoirior thiere is an equily well-founded jurisdictional basis for
the exercise of the Court's Dower to order interim measures of protection
under Article 41 of the statute.

As the Government of Iceland, in a telegram froni ils Minister for Foreign
'AlTairs transmitted to the Court and dated 28 July 1972,has again questioned

the iurisdictional basis of the Court's Dower to entertain the request of the
~edéral Reoub.~~ of Germa~v~for in,erim mea~ ~es o~ orotection. some
wpplenientxy rciiiark> uill be neiessdry.
Thc qiicslion nhcther an obiciti.in rüi\ed by tlic derendani 10 the jdrisdic-

tionof the Court may affect théCourt's powerto grant interirn protection has
been dealt with by the Court on two occasions: in the A~rglo-lraniaftOil Co. case and in the Interhandelcase. In both casesthe Court exoresslvdeclined to
. ~--, -~~ ~ ~- ~-
make n prior nffirmiitive determination on its jurisdiction to deal with the
mcrits of the caseor 10consider the objection tu ils jurisdiction as in any . .ay
relevant al this staae of the proceedings. 1 tbink that there are valid reasons
for this attitude ofthe couri. The puriose of Article 41 of the Statute of the
Court would be defeated if the defendant could, by raising objections to the
Court's jurisdiction. prevent the expeditious exerciG of thatpower to preserve

the status quo. Itis the main function of the power under Article 41 to give
the Court sufficient time to decide the controversial issues,the jurisdictional
as well as the substantive issues. unham~ered bv the oressure of time. The
Court should not be obliged IO form nlrç<ldy an opinion on the prospects of
the casebecausesuch a preliminnry determination might otherwise be clothed
with an authoritv which the Court does not want to confer on itsaction under

Article 41 of thé Statute. The Court has, therefore, taken pains to make il
perfeclly clear that the indicationof interim measuresunder Article 41 of the
Statute in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court 10
deal wilh the merits of the case.
It is true that in the Iwo casesreferred to above not al1 the Judges con-
ciirred fullv in this attitude but the difierence of ooinion seemsto have heen
more apprént than redl becausenone of the ~udgei uent so Fdras 10 require

that the Court should. if only on a summary consideration, relich a previous
affirmative determination of its jurisdiction. II there was a difierence betueen
the majority of the Court and the Judçes who did not feel able IO concur fully
in the reasoning of the Court. iirelated to the question u,hether there was rush
an apparent lack of iurisdiction that iudicialcaution would make it advisable
no1 io engage the auihority of the court. In his separate opinion to the Order

of the Court in the Interhandel case, Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht circum-
scribed these caseswith the follo.wing words:
"Governments ... have the right to expect that the Court will no1 act

under Article 41 in casesin which absenceof iurisdiction is manifest .. .
Accordingly, the Court cannot, in relation toa request for indication of
interim measures,disregard altogether the question of ils competence on
the merits. The Court mav ..oroi. .v act under the terms of~rticle 41
provided thït there is in exi5ience;uch an instrunient ruch as a Declara-
lion of Acceptiince of the Optional Cl~use. ernandting froni the Parties

to the dispute which, prima facie, confers jurisdiction upon the Court-and
which incorporates no reservations obviously excluding its jurisdiction."

1do no1 think that the Court has ever disregarded the question of ils corn-
petence altogether. In the Interliandel casethe Court expressly referred to the
fact that both Parties had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court by declara-
tions under Article 36 of the Statute, so thai prima facie jurisdiction had been
established. In the present case, the Government of lceland and the Govern-
ment of the Federal Re~ublic of Germanv have. bv the Exchanee of Notes of
. ,
19 July 1961, concludéd an agreement'whereby they have icognized the
jurisdiction of the Court and agreed to submit dis~utes about the extension
of fisheries limits to the Court. in the Exchane- of Notes there is no or.vision
which allowt a unilateral denunciaiion of this agreement hy either IJarty and.
therefure. the unilateral denunsiiition of ihas iigreenient by Icelxnd has heen
rejected as being invalid and without legal efféctby the Government of the
Federal Republic of Germany.

In view of these facts, there is no manifest absence of jurisdiction which
could, if one would follow the views of Judge Lauterpacht, prevent the Court60 FISHERIES lURlSOlCTlON

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

each of them ensure that no action of an~ k~ < ~ ~- .aken which mieht -
aggravate or extend the dispute submitted ta the Court.
(b) The Republic of Iceland should refrain from takine. any measure pur-
oortineto enforce the Reeulations issued hv the ~~,er~ ~ - ~f Iceland
on 14iuly 1972 against, or otherwise interfering with, vessels registered

in the Federal Reoublic of Germany and engaaed in fishing activities in
the waters of thehieh seas around~~celand ~utr~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ -imit of
fisheries jurisdiction-agreed upon in the Exchange of Notes between the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government

of Iceland dated 19 July 1961.
(c) The Republic of Iceland should refrain from applying or threatening ta
apply administrative, judicial or other sanctions or any other measure
against ships registered in the Federal Republic of Germany, their

crews or other related persons, because of their having been engaged in
fishing activities in the waters of the high seas around Iceland outside
the 12-milelimit as referred ta in subparagraph (b) above.
(d) The Federal Republic of Germany should ensure that vessels registered
in the Federal Republic of Germany do not take more than 120,000

metric tons of fish in any one year from the "Sea Area of Iceland" as
defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea as
area Va, as marked on the map Annex B to the Request.
(e) The Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Iceland should

eachof 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 subsequently render.

That concludes my statement, Mr. President and Members of the Court,
and 1thank you for listening ta my statement.

ThePRESIDENT: On behalf of the Court, 1wish ta thank the Agent of the
Federal Republic of Germany for his assistance. The oral proceedings on the
request for the indication of interim measures of orotection are now com-

pleted, but 1 would ask the Agent of the Federal ~épublic of Germany ta be
at the disposal of the Court to furnish any further informztion 1 the Court
may rwuire. Subiect to that reservation. 1 declare the hearing closed. The
defisiaiof the court on the request for the indication of interim measures of

protection will be given in due course in the form of an Order. ïhe sitting is
closed.

The Corrrt rose at 11.35 a.m.

1 See pp. 393-396, infra. READING OF THE ORDERS

SECOND PUBLlC SITTING (17 VIL172, 10 a.m.)

Presenr:[See sitting of 2 VI1172.1

READING OF THE ORDERS

[i, pp. 119-1201