Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
FISHERIESJWSDICTION CASE(UNITEDKINGDOMv.ICELAND)
(JURCSDICTION OFTHECOURT)
Judgmentof2 February 1973
In its Judgmenton the question ofitsjurirrdictionin therotectionattherequestofthe UnitedKingdomand decided
case concerning Fisheries Jurisdiction(Uni.tedKingdom that the firstwrittenpleadings shoube addressed to the
v.Iceland),the Court foundby 14votesto 1thatithadjuris- questionofitsjurisdicltionto dealwiththecase.TheGovern-
diction to entertaintheApplicationfiledbythe:United King-entofthe UnitedKingdomfiledaMemorial,andtheCourt
dom on 14 April 1972and to deal with the merits of the heardoralargumentonitsbehalfatapublichearingon5Jan-
dispute. uary1973.TheGovernmentofIcelandhasfilednopleadings
The Court was composed as follows: President Sir andwasnotrepresented atthehearing.
MuhammadZafrulla Khan. Vice-President.Ammounand It is, the Courtobst:wes,to be regretted thatthe Govern-
JudgesSirGeraldFitzmaurice,Padillaervo,Forster,Gros, mentofIcelandhasfailed to appeartoplead theobjectionsto
Bengzon,Peen. Lachs,Onyeama,Dillard,lignacio-Pinto, the Court'sjurisdictionwhichit is understd to entertain.
deCastro,MorozovandJimbnezdeWhaga. NeverthelesstheCourt,inaccordancewithitsStatuteandits
TheResident of the Courtappendeda dec'laratioto the settledjurisprudence,mustexaminethequestionon itsown
Judgment.JudgeSirGeraldFitzmauriceappendedaseparate initiative, a duty reinforcedby Article 53 of the Statute,
opinion,and Judge Padillaw0adissenting.opinion. whereby,whenever one of the partiesdoes not appear,the
Courtmustsatisfy itself thatithasjurisdictionbefore finding
setoutthefacts and lawon whichits objectionis based, or
adducedanyevidence,the Courtproceeds to consider those
objectionswhich might, in its view, be raised against its
jurisdiction.so doing,itavoidsnotonlyallexpressionsof
Rbsd oftheProceedings opiniononmattersofsubstance,butalsoanypronouncement
(paras. 1-12 ofthe Judgment) which might prejudgeo!r appear to prejudgeany eventual
decisiononthemerits.
InitsJudgment theCourtrecalls thaton 14April1972the
Governmentof the UnitedKingdominstitutedproceedings Compromissory claust!ofthe1961ExchangeofNotes
against Icelandin respectof a disputencerningthe pro- (paras. 13-23oftheJudgment)
posedextensionbytheIcelandicGovernmentalfitsexclusive
fisheriesjurisdictiona distanceof0 nauticalmilesfrom Tofound theCourt's jurisdiction,the Governmentof the
the baselines arouitscoasts.Byaletterof29May1972the UnitedKingdom reliesonanExchangeofNoteswhichtook
Ministerfor ForeignAffairsof Icelandnfornnedthe Court place between itandthe GovernmentofIcelandon11March
thathis Governmentwas notwillingtoconferjurisdiction 1961, followingan eldier dispute over fisheries.By that
it andwouldnotappointan Agent.By Orden of 17and 18 ExchangeofNotes the UnitedKingdomundertooktorecog-
August 1972 the Court indicatedcertinterimmeasuresof nisean exclusiveIceltlndicfishery zoneup to a limitof 12
Continued on next pagemiles and to withdrawitsfishingvesselsfrom1that zoneover In the samelettertheMinister forForeign Affairsof Ice-
a periodof 3 years.TheExch~ango efNotesfeaturedacom- landexpressedtheviewthat"an undertakingforjudicial set-
promissoryclauseinthefollowingterms: tlementcannotbeconsideredto beof a permanentnature",
"The Icelandic Governrr~enw t illcontinueto workfor and the Governmentof Iceland had indeed, in an aide-
the implementationof the AlthingResolultionof May5, memoireof31August1971,assertedthattheobjectandpur-
1959, regarding theexte~lsion d fisheriesjorisdiction beenfully achieved.TheCourtnotesthatthecompromissorythad
around Iceland, but shall giveto the Ur~itedKingdom clause containsnoexpressprovisionregarding duration.In
Government six monthsn 'oticeofsuchextension, and,in fact, the:right of the UnitedKingdom to challengebefore
caseof a disputein relatiotosuchextension, thematter the Court any claimby Iceland toextend its fisherieszone
shall,at the requestofeitherparty,refend to the Inter- wassubjecttotheassertionofsuchaclaimandwouldlastso
nationalCourtofJustice." long as Icelandmightseekto implementthe 1959 Althing
The Court observesthat th~zris nodoubtasto thefulfil- resolution.
mentbytheGovernmentofthe:UnitedKingdomofitspartof
thisagreementor asto the factthat theGovernmentof Ice- Inastatement to theAlthing(theParliamentofIceland)on
land, in 1971,gavethenotice:providedforin theeventof a 9 November1971,theRime Ministerof Icelandalludedto
furtherextensionofitsfisheriesjurisdiction.ris thereany changesregarding "legalopinionon fisheriesjurisdiction".
doubt thata disputehasarisen, thatithask:n sul)mittedto His argument appearedto be that as the compromissory
theCourtbytheUnitedKingdomandthat,onthe faceof it, clausewasthepricethatIcelandhadpaidat thetimeforthe
the disputethus falls exactlywithinthe terns of the com- recognitionbytheUnited Kingdom of the 12.-millimit, the
promissoryclause. present general recognitionof such a limit constitutea
Although, strictlyspeaking, thetexotfthisclauseissuffi- commitment.TheCourtobservesthat,onthecontrary,sincef its
cientlyclearfortheretobe noneedtoinvestigt~tteheprepara- Icelandhasreceived benefits from thospeartsof the agree-
torywork, the Court reviewsthehistoryof thenegotiations mentalreadyexecuted, itbehoves it to complywithits side
which led tothe Exchangeof Notes, finding confirmation ofthebargain.
thereinof theparties*intentionto providetheUnited King-
dom, inexchangeforitsrecogpitionofthe 12-milelimitand The la:& and statementjust mentionedalsodrewatten-
thewithdrawalofitsvessels,withagenuineassurancewhich tionto "the changedcircumstancesresultingfrom theever-
constitutedasine qua nonfor?hewholeagreement,namely increasingexploitationof the fisheryresourcesin the seas
therighttochallengebeforetheCourt the validity of anyur- surroundingIceland". It is, notes theCourt, admittedin
ther extensionof Icelandic fisheriesjurisdictionbeyondthe internationallawthatifafundamentalchangeofthecircum-
12-milelimit. stanceswhich inducedparties to accept a treaty radically
Itisthusapparentthat theCourh t asjurisdiction. transforrns theextent of the obligations undertaken, this
ground for invoking theterminationor suspensionof theda
Validityanddurationofthe1951Exchange of Notes treaty.Itwouldappearthatinthepresentcasethereisa seri-
(paras.24-45 oftheJudgment) ous differenceof views between thePartiesas to whether
developrnentsinfishing techniquesinthe watersaroundIce-
TheCourtnextconsiderswhether,ashasbeencontended, land have resultedin fundamentalor vital changesfor that
the agreement embodiedin t!he1961Exchrmgeof Notes country. Suchchangeswould,however,berelevantonlyfor
eitherwasinitiallyvoidorhassinceceasedtoopaite. anyeventualdecisiononthemerits.Itcannot ;bsaidthatthe
Inthe above-mentioned lem,rof29May1972the:Minister change of circumstancesalleged by Iceland has modified
forForeign AffairsofIcelandsaidthatthe1961Exchangeof the scope of the jurisdictional obligation agreedto in the
Noteshadtakenplaceata timt:whentheBritirihRoyalNavy 1961Exchangeof Notes. Moreover, any questionas to the
had been usingforceto opposethe 12-milefisherylimit. The jurisdictionof the Court, derivingfroman allegedlapse of
Court, however, notes that th~eagreement appears to have the obligation through changed circumstances, is for the
been freelynegotiatedon the basisof perfectequalityand Court todecide,by virtueof Article36, paragraph6, of its
freedomofdecisiononbothsi8cles. Statute.
Summary of the Judgment of 2 February 1973