Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
FISHERIESJURISDICTIO CNASE(FEDERALREPUBLIO CFGERMANY
v. ICELANII( )JURISDICTIONOFTH CEOURT)
Judgment of2 February1973
In its Judgmenton the questionof itsjuriisdictionin the71.On 28 July 1972the Ministerfor ForeignAffairsof
caseconcerningFisheriesJurisdictio(FederalRepublicof Iceland pointedoutin a telegram thatthe Federal Republic
Germany v.Iceland),theCourtfoundby 14votesto 1thatit hadthus acceptedthejurisdictiofthe Court only "afterit
hadjurisdictiontoentertainthe Application bytheFed- hadbeennotifiedby?heGovernmentof Iceland,inits aide-
eralRepublic on5 June 1972and todealwiththe meritsof memoireof 31August1971,that the objectandpurposeof
the dispute. the provisionfor recourseto judicial settlementof certain
The Court was composed as follows: President Sir mattershad beenfully achieved".The Court observes that
MuhammadZafrulla Khan, Vice-PresidentAmmoun and the binding force of' the 1961 Exchangeof Notes bears
JudgesSirGeraldFitzmaurice,PadillaNervo!.Forster,Gros, norelationto theateof depositof the declarationrequired
Bengzon,Petrkn,Lachs,Onyearna,Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, bythe SecurityCounlcilresolutionandthat the Government
de Castro,Morozov andJim6nezdeMhaga. ofthe FederalRepub1.i~ompliedwiththetermsbothof the
ThePresidentof the Court appendeda declarationto the resol~~tioin question and of Article 36 of the Rules of
Judgment.JudgeSirGeraldFitzmauriceappendedaseparate Couru.
opinion,and Judge PadilNervoadissentingopinion. It is, the Court observes,tobe regretted that the Govern-
ment ofIceland hasfailedtoappeartopleadtheobjectionsto
the Court's jurisdictionwhichit is understood toentertain.
NeverthelesstheCourt,inaccordancewith itsStatuteandits
settledjurisprudence,mustexaminethequestionon itsown
initiative, a duty reinforcedby Article 53 of the Statute
Rdsud oftheProceedings whexeby,wheneverone of the parties doesnot appear,the
(paras. 1-13ofthe Judgment) Cow:mustsatisfyitselfthatit hasjurisdictionbefore finding
on the merits.Althoughthe Governmentof Icelandhasnot
In itsJudgmentthe Court recalthaton 5June 1972 the setout thefactsand1.awon whichits objectionis based, or
Governmentof theFederal Republicof Gernianyinstituted adducedany evidence:t,he Court proceedstoconsider those
proceedingsagainstIcelandinrespectof a dispute concern-objectionswhich might, in its view, be raised against its
ingthe proposedextensionbythe Icelandic(iovernmentof opiniononmattersofsubstance,butalsoanypronouncementnsof
itsexclusivefisheriesjurisdictoadistanceof50nautical which mightprejudgeor appear to prejudge anyeventual
miles from the baselines round itcsoasts. By a letterofdecisiononthemerits.
informedthe Courtthat hisGovernmentwasnot willingtond
conferjurisdictiononit andwould notappointanAgent.By
Ordersof 17and 18August 1972 the Courtindicatedcertain Compromissory clauseofthe1961ExchangeofNotes
interimmeasuresof protectionat the requestof the Federalparas.14-23oftheJudgment)
Republicanddecidedthat thefirst writtenp1e:adishould By the 1961 Exchangeof Notesthe FederalRepublicof
be addressedtothequestionofitsjurisdictiontodealwiththeGermanyundertooktc,recognizeanexclusiveIcelandicfish-
case. The Governmentof theFederalRepub1i.of Germany eryzoneuptoa limit 13f12miles andtowithdrawitsfishing
fileda Memorial,whereas the Governmenotf Iceland filed vesselsfromthatzoneoveraperiodoflessthan3years. The
nopleadings. Exchangeof Notesfeatureda compromissoryclausein the
Takinginto account the proceediisstitutedagainstIce- followingterms:
landby the UnitedKingdomon 14April 19'72in the case "The GovernmentoftheRepublicofIcelandshallcon-
concerningFisheriesJurisdictiandthecompositionofthe tinuetoworkfortheimplementationoftheAlthing Reso-
Court in thiscase, whichincludesajudge of UnitedKing- lutionof5May,1999,regardingtheextensionofthefish-
domnationality,theCourtdecidedbyeightvotestofivethat ery jurisdiction of Iceland. However, itshall give
therewasinthepresentphase, concerninghejurisdictionof Government of the Federal Republic of Germany six
theCourt,acommoninterestinthesenseof kticle 31,para- months'noticeofanysuchextension;incaseofa dispute
graph 5, of the Statutewhichjustified the :reflf the relating to suchartextension, the matter shall, at the
requestoftheFederal RepublicofGermanyforthe appoint- request of either partbe referred to the International
mentofajudge ad hoc. CoiutofJustice!'
On8January1973apublic hearingwasheldinthecourse The Court observesthat thereis no doubt asto the fulfil-
of whichtheCourtheardoralargumentonthequestionofits mentbytheGovernmentoftheFederalRepublicofitspartof
jurisdictiononbehalfof the FederalRepublic:ofGermany, thisagreement andthat the Governmentoflceland, in 1971,
butIcelandwas notrepresented atthe hearing. gave thenoticeprovidedfor in the eventof a furtherexten-
InordertofoundthejurisdictionoftheCourt,theGovern- sionofitsfisheriesjurisdiction.Noristhereany doubtthata
ment of the Federal Republicof Germanyreliesa) on an disputehasarisen, thatithasbeensubmittedtothe Courtby
Exchangeof Notesbetweenthe Government d the Federal the FederalRepublicc~Germany andthat, onthe faceof it,
RepublicandtheGovernmentofIceland dated19July1961, the dispute thusfallsactlywithin the termsof the com-
and (b)onadeclarationforthepurposeofsecuringaccessto promissoryclause.
theCourt, inaccordancewitha SecurityCow~cilresolution Altllough,strictly speaking, the textofthis clauseissuffi-
of 15October1946,whichit made on29October1971and cientlyclearforthere tobenoneedtoinvestigatetheprepara-
depositedwiththe Registrar ofthe Courton 22November tory work,theCourtaeviewsthehistoryof the negotiations landtoextenditsfisherieszonewassubjecttotheassertionof
thereinoftheparties' intentiotoprovide the Federal Repub- sucha claim andwouldlastsolongasIceland might seek to
lic, in exchangefor itsreco~gnitinf the 12-milelimitand implementthe 1959Althingresolution.
the withdrawalofits vessels,withthe sameassulmceasthat
given a few weeks previouslyto the United Kingdom, Inastatement totheAlthing(theParliamentofIceland)on
includingtherightof challelnginbeforethe:Court the valid- 9 November1971,thePrimeMinisterof Iceland alluded to
ityofanyfurtherextensionofIcelandicfisheries jurisdiction changesregarding"legal opinionon fisheriesjurisdiction".
beyond the12-milelimit. His argument appearedto be that as the compromissory
clausewasthe pricethat Icelandhadpaidatthetimefor the
Itisthusapparentthat theCourt hasjurisdiction. recognitionby theFederalRepublicof Germanyof the 12-
mile limit, the presentgeneralrecognitio~iof such a limit
Validityanddurationofthe1961ExchangeofNotes constitutedachangeoflegalcircumstancesthatrelieved Ice-
(paras. 24-25oftheJudgment) landofitscommitment.TheCourtobservesthat,onthecon-
TheCourt nextconsiderswhether, as hasbeencontended, trary,sinceIceland has received benefitfsromthose partsof
the agreement embodied in the 1961 Exchangeof Notes theagreement alreadyexecuted,itbehovesittocomply with
eitherwasinitiallyvoidorhassinceceased.tooperate. itssidc:ofthe bargain.
The letterand statementjust mentionedalsodrew atten-
Intheabove-mentionedletterof27June1972 theMinister tion to "the changedcircumstancesresultingfromthe ever
forForeign AffairsofIceland saidthatthe1961Exchangeof increasing exploitationof the fisheryresourcesin the seas
Notes"took place under exlxemelydifficultcircumstances" surroundingIceland". It is, notes the Court, admitted in
and the Federal Republicof Germanyhas interpreted this internationallawthatifafundamentalchangeofthecircum-
statementasappearing"to intimatethat theconclusionofthe stances which inducedparties to accept a1treaty radically
1961Agreementhadtakenplace,onthepartof theGovern- transformsthe extent of the obligations undertaken, this
mentof Iceland,undersomekindof pressureandnotbyits may, under certain conditions,afford the partyaffecteda
own free will". TheCourt, however, notesthat theagree- ground for invokingthe terminationor suspensionof the
mentappearsto havebeenikxly negotiated on the basis of treaty.Itwouldappearthatinthe presentcasethereisadiver-
perfectequalityandfreedomofdecisionon bothsides. genceof viewsbetweenthe Partiesasto whether there have
In the samelettertheMinister forForeignAffairsof Ice- been anyfundamentalchangesin fishing techniquesin the
land expressedtheviewthat"an undertakingforjudicialset- watersaroundIceland. Suchchangeswould, however,be
tlement cannotbe considere:dto be of a pelmanentnature" relevantonlyforanyeventualdecisiononthemerits.Itcan-
and, as indicatedabove, tlie Governmentof Iceland had notbe saidthatthechangeof circumstancesallegedby Ice-
indeed,in anaide-mkmoireof31August1971,assertedthat landhas modifiedthe scopeof the jurisdictional obligation
the objectand purposeof the provisionfor ;recoursetojudi- agreed to in the 1961 Exchangeof Notes. Moreover,any
cialsettlementhadbeenfullyachieved.TheCourtnotesthat questionastothejurisdictionoftheCourt,derivingfroman
the compromissoryclause containsno express provision alleged lapse of the obligation through changedcircum-
regardingduration.Infact, therightoftheFederal Republic stances, is for theCourt todecideby virtueof Article36,
of Germany tochallengebeforetheCourtanyclaimbyIce- paragmph6, ofits Statute.
Summary of the Judgment of 2 February 1973