Summary of the Judgment of 25 July 1974

Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice

FISHERIES JURISIDICTIOC NASE(UNITEDKINGDOM v. ICELAND)
(MERITS)

Judgmentof 25 July 1974

InitsJudgmentonthe meritsinthe caseconcerning Fish--=August 1972andcorrfirmedthembyafurtherOrderdated12
eriesJurisdiction(UnitKingdom v.Iceland),theCourt,by July 1972. By a Judgmentof 2 February 1973the Court
tenvotestofour: found that ithadjurisdictionto deal withthe meritsof the
(1) foundthat theIcelandic Regulatioof 1972consti- dispute.
tutingaunilateral extensionoftheexclusivefishingrightsof In its finalsubmissions,the United Kingdom askedthe
Icelandto50nautical milesfromthebaselinesrnotoppos- Courttoadjudge anddeclare:
abletotheUnited Kingdom; (a) that theclairnby Icelandto be entitled toa zoneof
(2) found that Iceland is not entitled unilaterally toxclusivefisheriesjilrisdictionextending 50 nautical miles
excludeUnited Kingdomfishingvesselsfromareasbetween from the baselinesiswithoutfoundationininternationallaw
the 12-mileand 50-mile limits, or unilaterallyto imposeandisinvalid;
restrictionsontheiractivitiesinsuchareas; (b) that, as against theUnitedKingdom, Icelandis not
(3) heldthatIceland andtheUnited Kingdom areunder entitledunilaterallyto assertanexclusivefisheriesjurisdic-
mutualobligationstoundertakenegotiatio:igoodfaithfor tionbeyond thelimitof 12milesagreedtoin anExchangeof
anequitablesolutionoftheirdifferences; Notes in1961;
(4) indicatedcertain factorswhichare to be taken into (c) that Icelandis not entitled unilaterallyto exclude
accountin these negotiations (preferentialof Iceland, British fishing vessels theareaofthehighseasbeyond
established rightsof theUnitedKingdom,r~tereof other the 12-mile limitor unilaterallyto imposerestrictionson
States,conservationof fisheryresources,nt examination theiractivitiesin that area;
ofmeasuresrequired). (4 that Icelandand the United Kingdomare under a
The Court was composedas follows: PresidentLachs, duty to examine together,either bilaterallyor with other
Judges Forster,Gros, Bengzon,Petdn, Onyeama,Dillard, interestedStates, the:need on conservation groundsfor the
Ignacio-Pinto,de Castro, Morozov,Jirnh&zde Whaga, introductionof restrictionson fishingactivities inthe said
Si r umphreyWaidock,NagendraSinghanclRuda. areaofthehighseas;indtonegotiatefortheestablishmentof
Amongthe tenMember sftheCourtwhovoted in favour sucha dgime inthatarea aswillinteraliaensureforIceland
of the Judgment, the Presidetnd JudgeNagendraSingh a preferentialsitio:nconsistentwithits position asa State
appendeddeclarations;JudgeForster,Beng~on,Jimenezde specially dependentitsfisheries.
Ad-chaga,Nagendra Singh(already mentioned)and Ruda Icelanddid nottake partinanyphaseof the proceedings.
appended a joint separate opinion,nd Judges Dillard, Byaletterof29May1972IcelandinformedtheCourtthatit
de Castro and Sir HumphreyWaldockappended separate regarded theExchangeof Notesof 1961as terminated,that
opinions. initsviewtherewasnobasis under theStatuteforthe Court
Of thefourjudgeswhovoted againsttheJu~dgmenJt,udge to exercisejurisdiction;and that, as it consideredits vital
Ignacio-Pintoappended a declaration and Judges Gros, inte~ststobeinvolvtxl,itwasnotwillingtoconferjurisdic-
Peen andOnyeamaappendeddissentingopinions. tionontheCourtin anycaseinvolving the extentof itsfish-
In these declarationsand opinionsthejudges concerned ery limits.na letterdated 11January 1974, Icelandstated
makeclearandexplaintheirpositions. that itdidnotacceptany ofthe statementsoffactorany ofthe
allegationsorcontentions oflawsubmittedon behalfof the
Procedure-FailureofRartytoAppear United Kingdom.
(para s-.8oftheJudgment) TheUnited Kingdomhaving referredto'Article53of the
Statute,the Courthad to determine whether the clwas
In its Judgment, the Court recallstrcceedingswere foundedinfactandlaw. ThefactsrequiringtheCourt'scon-
institutedbytheUnited KingdomagainstIceltindon 14April siderationin adjudicatingupon the claimwere attestedby
1972.AttherequestoftheUnitedKingdom, the Court indi- documentaryevidencewhoseaccuracy there appearedtobe
cated interimmeasuresof protectionby an Orderdated 17 no reasonto doubt. .Asfor the law, althoughit wasto be

Continued on next pageregrettedthatIcelandhadfailedtoappear, theCourtwasnev- Revertingto the 1961Exchangeof Notes, which in the
erthelessdeemedto takenoti,=of internationallaw, which Court'sJudgmentof 1973washeldtobeatreatyinforce, the
lay withinitsownjudicialknclwledge.Having taken account Courtemphasizedthatit wouldbetoo narrow aninterpreta-
of the legalpositionof eachIXartandactedwithparticular thatitlimitedtheCourt's jurisdictitogivinganaffirmative
circumspectionin view of the absence of rhe respondent ora negative answertothequestionofwhetherthe Icelandic
State,the Courtconsideredthatithadbeforeitthe elements Regulationsof 1972were in conformitywith international
necessarytoenableittodeliverjudgment. law. It seemedevident that the disputebetweenthe Parties
Historyof theDispute-Jurisci'ictioftheCourt includeddisagreementsas to their respective rightsin the
(paras. 19-48oftheJudgment) fisheryresourcesandtheadequacyof measurestoconserve
them.It waswithinthepower ofthe Court to takeinto con-
TheCourtrecalledthatin 1!248theAlthing(theParliament siderationall relevantelements.
of Iceland)hadpasseda lawconcerningthe:Scientific Con-
servationof the-continentalShelf~ishsries,whiclempow- ApplicableRules of InternationaLlaw
ered the Government to establish conservation zones (paras.49-78 oftheJudgment)
whereinallfisheries shouldbesubjecttoIcelxlndicrulesand
controlto the extent compatiblewithagreements withother ThefirstUnited Nations Conferenceon th LeawoftheSea
countries.Subsequentlythe 1'901Anglo-DanishConvention (Geneva, 1958)hadadoptedaConvention ontheHighSeas,
whichhadfixedalimitforIceland's exclusivreight:offishery Article:2of whichdeclaredthe principleof the freedomof
round its coasts was denouncedby Icelandas from 1951, thehighseas,thatis to say, freedomofnavigation, freedom
new Icelandic Regulationsol!F1958 proclaimeda 12-mile offishing,etc.,o "be exercisedbyallStateswithreasonable
limitandtheAlthing declaredby a resolutioiiin 1959"that regard to theinterestsof other Statesintheir exerciseof the
recognitionshouldbeobtainedofIceland's righttotheentire freedomofthehighseas".
continentalshelfareainconformitywiththe policy adopted Thequestionofthebreadthoftheterritorialseaandthatof
series of negotiations,Icelaild and the United Kingdom the extentofthe coastal State'sfisheryjurisdictionhad been
agreed on an Exchangeof Notes which took place on 11 leftunsettledatthe 1958Conferenceand werenotsettledata
March1961and specified interaliathatthe UnitedKingdom second Conferenceheld inGenevain 1960. However,aris-
wouldnolongerobjecttoa 12-milefisheryzo:ne,thatIceland ing outof thegeneralconsensusat thatsecondConference,
wouldcontinueto workfor theimplementation d the 1959 twoconceptshadsincecrystallizedascustomary law:thatof
resolution regarding the extensionof fisheriesrisdiction a fisheryzone,betweenthe territorial seaandthehighseas,
but wouldgive the UnitedKingdomsix months' notice of withinwhichthecoastalStatecouldclaimexclusivefisheries
suchextensionand that "in case of a disputeinrelationto jurisdiction-it nowbeing generally accepted thatthat zone
suchextension,themattershall,at therequestofeitherParty, could extend to the 12-mile limit-and the concept, in
bereferredto the InternationalCourtofJustice". respectof watersadjacentto the zoneof exclusivefishing
In 1971, the IcelandicGovernment announcedthat the rights, of preferentialfishingrightsin favourof the coastal
agreement onfisheriesjurisdictionwiththeUnitedKingdom Stateinasituationofspecialdependenceonitsfisheries.The
wouldbeterminatedandthatthelimitofexclusiveIcelandic Courtwasaware thatinrecentyearsa numberof Stateshad
fisheriesjurisdictionwouldte extendedto !iOmiles. In an assertedan extensionof their exclusivefisherylimits. The
aide-mdmoireof24February 1972the United Kingdom was Court was likewise awareof present endeavours,pursued
formallynotifiedof this intention.Inreplythe latterempha- undertheauspicesoftheUnitedNations,toachieveinathird
sizedthat theExchangeof Noteswasnot open tounilateral ConferenceontheLawoftheSeathefurthercodificationand
denunciationandthatin its viewthemeasun?contemplated progressive developmeno tfthatbranchofthelaw, asitwas
"would havenobasisininternationallaw". On 14July1972 also of variousproposalsand preparatory documents pro-
newRegulationswereintroducedwherebyIceland'sfishery ducedinthatframework.But, asacourtof law, itcould not
limitswould be extended to iiOmiles as fro111 September lawbeiorethelegislatorhadlaid it down.It musttake into
1972andallfishingactivitiesbyforeignvesselsinsidethose account the existing rules of international law and the
limitsbeprohibited.Theirenforcementgaverise,whilepro- ExchangeofNotesof 196 1.
ceedingsbeforethe CourtwerecontinuingandIcelandwas
refusingto recognize theCourt's decisions,to n seriesof Theconceptofpreferentialfishingrightshadoriginatedin
incidentsand negotiationswhichresultedon 13November proposalssubmittedbyIcelandattheGenevaConferenceof
1973inanexchangeof Notesconstitutinganinterim agree- 1958,whichhadconfined itselfto recornrnen~dintgat:
ment betweentheUnitedKingdom andIceland.l'hisagree- ".. .where,for thepurposeofconservation,it becomes
ment, concluded for two years, provided for temporary necessarytolimitthetotalcatchofastockorstocksoffish
arrangements"pendinga settlementof the r;ubstmtivedis- inanareaofthehighseasadjacenttotheterritorialseaofa
pute and without prejudicetothe legalposition or rightsof coastalState,any other Statesfishingin that area should
eitherGovernmentinrelationthereto". collal~oratwiththe coastal Statto securejust treatment
The Court considered that:the existenceof the interim of suchsituation,by establishingagreed measureswhich
agreement ought not to lead itto refrainfrompronouncing shall recognize any preferential requirementsof the
judgment: it coulnotbesaid thattheissuestefon: the Court coastal Stateresultingfromitsdependenceuponthefish-
hadbecome withoutobject, sincethedisputestillcontinued; ery concernedwhile having regard tothe interestsof the
and,though itwasbeyondthepowersoftheCourttodeclare other States".
thelaw betweentheParties as itmightbeatthedateofexpi- Atthe 1960Conference the samc eoncepthadbeenembod-
ration of the interimagreement,that couldnot relieve the iedinanamendment incorporated by a substantialvoteinto
Court fromitsobligationtorenderajudgmentonthebasisof oneof the proposalsconcerningthe fishingzone. The con-
thelawasitnowexisted;furftiermore,theColurtoughtnotto temponuy practiceof States showedthat that concept,in
discouragethemaking ofinterimarrangemer~tisnfuturedis- additionto its increasingand widespreadacceptance,was
puteswiththe objectof reducingfriction. being implementedby agreements, either bilateral ormultilateralInthe presentcase,in whichtheexclusivefish- givenmoment oftherelativedependenceof eitherStateon
eryzonewithinthelimitof 12miles wasnot indispute,the thefisheriesinquestion,while takingintoaccounttherights
United Kingdomhad expressly recognizedthe preferential ' of other Statesandthe needsof conservation.Thus Iceland
rights of the otherParty in the disputed waterssituated was notin law entitledunilaterallyto excludeUnited King-
beyondthatlimit.Therecouldbenodoubtoftheexceptional dom fishingvesselsfromareasto seawardof the limitof12
dependenceof Iceland on its fisheries and the situation milesagreedto in 1!961orunilaterallytoimposerestrictions
appeared tohavebeenreachedwhen itwasiinperativetopre- on their activities.But that did not mean thatthe United
serve fish stocksin the interestsof rationadand economic Kingdomwasunderno obligationto Icelandwithrespectto
exploitation. fishinginthedisputedwatersinthe 12-mileto50-milezone.
However,thevery notionofpreferential fisheryrightsfor BothPartieshadtheobligationtokeepunderreviewthefish-
thecoastalStateina situationofspecialdep:n&nce, though ery resourcesinthozewatersandtoexaminetogether,inthe
itimpliedacertainpriority,couldnotimplytheextinctionof lightoftheinformationavailable,themeasures requiredfor
the concurrentrightsof otherStates. The fact that Iceland the conservationand development,and equitableexploita-
wasentitledtoclaimpreferentialrightsdidnotsufficetojus- tion,ofthoseresourc:es,takingintoaccountanyinternational
tify its claimunilaterallyto excludeBritishfishingvessels agreementthat might at Presentbe in force or might be
from all fishing beyond the limit f 12miles agreedto in reachedafternegotiation-
1961. The mostapprop~iatemethodfor thesolutionof the dis-
Theunited Kingdomhad outthatitsvesgls had pute wasclearlythatofnegotiation with a vietodelimiting
beenfishing inIcelandicwaters for centurie.s,thattheyhad thelightsandinterestsofthePartiesandregulatingequitably
donesoina mannercomparablewiththeirpresentactivities SUC~ questionsasth~Seofcatch-litnitation,shalt allocations
forupwards of fiftyyears thattheirexclu;;ionwouldhave and relatedrestrictic~n. he obligationto negotiateflowed
veryseriousadverse consequencesT . heretco theeconomic li-Omthe natureofthe rightsofthePartiesand
dependence and livelihood of whole conlmunitieswere correspondedtothe~)rovisionosftheUnitedNationsCharter
affected,andtheUnitedKingdom thesameinterestin :*~0ncemingpeacefulSettlementofdisputes.TheCourtcould
theconservationof fishstocks asIceland,whichhadforits notaccepttheviewthattheCommonintentionoftheParties
part admittedthe existence of theApplicant'shistoricand Wastobereleasedfmm negotiating throughoutthe whole
special interestsin fishingin the disputedwaters.h~land*~ beforethem wouldy theto conducttheirnegotiationson the
1972Regulations werethereforenot opposaMetotheUnited basisthateachmustin goodfaithPayreasonableregardto
Kingdom; they disregardedthe establisheilrights of that thelegalfightsoftheother,tothefactsoftheparticularsitua-
StateandalsotheExchangeofNotesof 1961 , andtheycon- tionandtotheintfxelstsofotherStateswithestablishedfish-
stitutedan infringementof the principle(1958Convention jngrightsinthearea.
on theHigh Seas,Art. 2) ofreasonableregardfor theinter-
estsofotherStates,includingtheUnitedKingdom. *
In orderto reachan equitablesolutionof lthepresent dis- * *
pute it was necessary thatthe preferentialfi.shingrights of
Iceland shouldbe reconciledwith the traditional fishing For thosereasons,theCourtgave(Judgment,para.79)the
rightsof the United Kingdomthrough the appraisalat any decisionindicatedabove.