Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE(FEDERAL REPlUBLIC OFGERMANY
V.ICELAND)(MJXRITS)
Judgmentof25July1974
InitsJudgmentonthemeritsinthe caseca~ncerningish- (5) found thatit isunable toaccedetothesubmissionof
eriesJurisdiction(Federl epublicofGermanyv.Iceland), the Federal Republicconcerninga claimto be entitledto
theCourt,bytenvotestofour: compensation.
(1) found thatthe IcelandicRegulationsof 1972consti- The Court was composedas follows:PresidentLachs;
Icelandto50nauticalmilesfromthebaselinesarenot oppos-oJudges Forster,Gros,Bengzon,Petdn, Onyeama,Dillard,
abletothe Federal RepublcfGermany; SirHumphreyWaldock,NagendraSinghandRuda.Mchaga,
(2) found thatIceland is not entitledunilaterallyto AmongthetenMembersoftheCourtwhovotedinfavour
excludefishingvesselsof the Federal RepucfGermany of the Judgment,the Presidentand Judges Dillard and
from areabetweenthe 12-mileand50-mileliimitorunilat- Nagendra Singh appended declarations; JudgesForstet,
erallytoimposerestrictionstheir activitiesinsuchareas;Bengzon,Jimdnezde Adchaga, Nagendra Singh(already
(3) held that Icelandandthe FederalRepublicof Ger- opinion,andJudgescleCastmandSirHumphrey Waldockarate
manyareundermutualobligationsto undertakenegotiations appendedseparateopinions.
in goodfaith foranequitablesolutionoftheirdifferences;
(4) indicatedcertain factorswhicareto be taken into Ofthe fourjudgesvrhovotedagainsttheJudgment,Judge
accountinthesenegotiations(preferentiallntsofIceland, Ignacio-Pintoappended a declarationand Judges Gros,
establishedrighoftheFederal RepubliofGermany, inter- PeMnandOnyeamaappendeddissentingopinions.
estsof otherStates,conservationof fisheryourcesj,oint In thesedeclaratiomasd opinionsthe judgesconcerned
examinationofmeasuresrequired); makeclearandexplaintheirpositions.
Continued on next pageProcedure-Failure ofhrty toAppear of the legalpositionof eachFkty and actedwithparticular
(paras. 1-19 oftheJudgment) State,theCourt consideredthatit hadbefore itthe elements
In its Judgment, the Courtrecalledthat proceedingswere necessarytoenableittodeliverjudgment.
institutedby the Federal Republicof GermrtnyagainstIce-
landon 26May 1972.Atthe ~zquestoftheFlederdRepublic HistoryoftheDispute- Jurisdictionofthe Court
ofGermany, theCourt indicaltedinterim measuresofprotec- (paras.20-40 oftheJudgment)
tionbyanOrderdated 17August 1972and confirmed them
by a furtherOrderdated 12.luly1973.By aiJudgmentof 2 'fie Courtrecalledthatin 1948theAlthing(thebliament
February 1973 theCourtfouridthatithadjurisdictiontodeal ofIceland)passeda lawconcerningtheScientificConserva-
withthe meritsofthedispute. tionof theContinentalShelfFisherieswhichempoweredthe
TheCourt didnotincludewlpon thebenchimyjudgeofthe Governmenttoestablishconservation zones whereinallfish-
nationalityof eitherof theWies. In a letterdated25 Sep- eriesshouldbe subjectto Icelandicrulesandcontrol, tothe
tember 1973the Federal Republic informed the Court that, extent compatiblewithagreementswithother countries.In
asIcelandwasdecliningto tdkepartintheprc~eedingsandto 1958 Icelandissued regulations extending the limitof its
avail itselfof the rightto haveajudge adhot, the Federal exclusive rightof fishery roundits coasts to 12 nautical
Republicdidnotfeelitneces:;arytoinsistonhe appointment miles,andin 1959theAlthingdeclaredbyaresolution "that
ofone.On 17January1974 theCourtdecidedby9votesto5 recognition shoulbeobtainedofIceland's righttotheentire
not to jointhe proceedingstc3thoseinstitutedby the United continentalshelfareainconformitywiththepolicy adopted
KingdomagainstIceland.Inleachingthis decision the Court bythe IAWof 1948".Afterrefusingtorecognizethevalidity
tookintoaccountthe factthat, while the basiclegalissuesin ofthenewRegulations,theFederalRepublicn : egotiatedwith
each case appearedto be identical, therewere differences Icelandand,on 19July 1961,concluded with itanExchange
betweenthe positionsof the two Applicants,and between ofNoteswhichspecifiedinteralia that theFederalRepublic
their respective submission,ndthatjoinderwouldbecon- would 110longerobjecttoa 12-milefisheryzone,thatIceland
trarytotheir wishes. wouldcontinueto workforthe implementationof the 1959
In its final submissionstlheFederal Republic askedthe Resolutionregarding the extensionof fisheriesjurisdiction
Courttoadjudgeanddeclare: but wouldgive the FederalRepublicsix months'noticeof
(a) that the unilateralxrensionbyIcelandofitszoneof such extensionand that "in case of a disputein relationto
exclusivefisheriesjurisdictioto 50nauticalmilesfromthe such an extension, themattershall, at the irequestof either
baselineshas, as against theFederalRepublic of'Germany, Party,te referredtotheInternationalCourtofJustice".
nobasisininternationallaw; In 1971 theIcelandic Governmentannouncedthat the
(b) thattheIcelandicRegulationisssuedforthispurpose agreementonfisheriesjurisdictionwiththeFederal Republic
shall not be enforcedagainstthe FederalR.epublicof Ger- wouldbeterminatedandthatthelimitofIceland's exclusive
manyorvesselsregisteredtbmin; fisheriesjurisdictionwouldbe extendedto 50 miles. By an
(c) that if Iceland establishesa need fbr conservation aide-memoireof24February 1972 theFederalRepublicwas
measuresinrespecttofishstocksbeyondthelimitof 12miles formallynotifiedof that intentionand replied that, in its
agreed to in anExchange of'Notes in 1961,such measures view, themeasurescontemplatedwould be "incompatible
maybetaken only onthebasisof anagreemlenb t etweenthe with the generalrules of internationallaw" and that the
Parties,concludedeitherbilrlterallyor withina multilateral Exchangeof Notescouldnotbe denounced unilaterallyO . n
framework,withdueregard tothespecialdependenceofIce- 14July 1972newRegulationswereintroducedwherebyIce-
land onits fisheriesandtothe traditionalfisheoftheFed- land'sfisherylimitswouldbeextendedto 50milesasfrom.1
eralRepublicinthewaters c~~ncerned; September 1972andall fishingactivitiesbyforeign vessels
(4 that the acts of interferenceby Icelandic coastal inside those limits be prohibited. Theirenforcementgave
patrol boatswith fishingvc:sselsregistereclin the Federal rise,whileproceedingsbeforetheCourtwerecontinuingand
Republicareunlawful underinternationallaw a~dthat Ice- Icelandwas refusingto recognize theCoui-t'sdecisions,to
landisunderanobligationtc,makecompensationthereforto incidents, and to negotiationswhich did not lead toany
theFederalRepublic. agreelrlent
Icelanddidnottakepart in anyphaseofthe proceedings. The Court, having in its Judgrilentof 1973 held the
Byaletterof27June1972Iceland informedtheCourtthatit Exchangeof Notesof 1961to be a treatyin force, empha-
regardedtheExchangeof Notesof 1961as terminated;that sizedthatitwouldbetoonarrowaninterpretationofitscom-
initsviewtherewasnobasisundertheStatutefortheCourt promissoryclause(quotedabove)toconcludethatit limited
to exercise jurisdiction;anclthat, as it consideredits vitalheCourt'sjurisdictiontogivinganaffirmativeoranegative
intereststobeinvolved,itwitsnot willingtoconffejurisdic- answerto the questionof whetherthe IcelandicRegulations
tion onthe Courtin anycast:involvingthe extentof itsfish- of 1972were inconformitywithinternationallaw.Itseemed
ery limits.In a letter datedJanuary1974,Iceland stated evident thatthe dispute between the Parties included dis-
thatitdidnotacceptanyofthestatementsoffactoranyofthe agreementsas to their respective rightsin iishery resources
allegationsor contentionsf lawsubmittedon behalfof the and the adequacy of measures toconserve them. It was
FederalRepublic. withinthe powerof the Courtto take into consideration all
In thosecircumstances.theCourt,underthetermsofArti- relevatitelements.
cle53oftheStatute,had determinewhethertheclaimwas
well foundedinfactandlaw. The factsrequiringtheCourt's ~p~lid~ RulesOf~nteTMtioM l~,,,
considerationinadjudicatingupontheclaimwere:attestedby @aras .1-70 ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ )
documentaryevidencewhose accuracy there appearedto be Thefirst United NationConferenceontheLawoftheSea
no reasonto doubt. As for the law, although itwas to be (Geneva,1958)hadadoptedaConvention ontheHighSeas,
regrettedthatIcelandhadfailedtoappear,theCo~~r wtasnev- Article:2 of whichdeclared the principle ofthe freedomof
erthelessdeemedto take noticeof internationallaw, which thehighseas,thatisto say, freedomof navigation,freedom
laywithinitsownjudicialluiowledge.Havingtalcenaccount offishi,ng,tc., to"be exercisedbyallStateswithreasonableregardto theinterestsof other Statesin their exerciseof thelossof the fishinggrounds concerned wouldhavean appre-
freedomofthehigh seas". ciableimpactonits cxonomy.Theretootheeconomicdepen-
denceand livelihoodof whole communities wereaffected,
Thequestionofthebreadthofthe tenitorid seaandthatof' andthe Federal RepublicofGermanysharedthesameinter-
theextentof thecoastalState's fisheryjurisdictinad been est inthe conservationof fishstocksas Iceland,whichhad
secondConference heldinGenevain 1%0..However,aris-data foritspartadmittedtheexistenceof theApplicant'shistoric
ingoutof the general consensusat that secondConference, and specialinterestsin fishingin the disputedwaters. Ice-
twoconceptshadsincecrystallizedas customary law:thatof land's1972Regulationswerethereforenotopposableto the
a fisheryzone,betweentheterritorialsea andthehighseas, FederalRepublic01'Germany:they disregarded theestab-
withinwhichthecoastalStatecouldclaimexclusivefisheries lishedrightsof thatStateandalsothe Exchangeof Notesof
jurisdiction-it nowbeinggenerally acceptedthatthat zone 1961, andtheyconstitutedan infringementof theprinciple
could extend to the 12-mile limit-and theconcept, in (1958Conventionon the High Seas, Art. 2) of reasonable
respectof waters adjacentto the zoneof exclusive fishing regardfortheinterestsofotherStates,includingtheFederal
rights, of preferential fishingrightsin favourof thecoastalRepublic.
Stateinasituationofspecialdependence onitsfisheries.The In order toreachim equitablesolutionof thepresentdis-
Courtwasawarethatinrecent yearsa numberof Stateshad pute it was necessarythat the preferential fishing rigofs
assertedan extensionof their exclusivefisherylimits. The Iceland shouldbe reconciled with the traditionalfishing
Court was likewise awareof present endea.vours,pursued rights of the Fedecal Republic of Germany throughthe
undertheauspicesoftheUnitedNations,toachieveinathird appraisalat anygivenmomentofthe relativedependenceof
ConferenceontheLawoftheSeathefurthercodificationand either Stateon the fisheriesin question, while taking into
progressive developmeno tfthatbranchof thelaw,asit was account therightsof other Statesand the needsof conserva-
also of various proposalsand preparatory clocumentspro- tion. Thus Iceland was not in law entitled unilaterallyto
ducedinthatframework.But, asacourtoflrlw,itcouldnot excludefishingvesselsoftheFederal Republic from areasto
renderjudgment subspecielegisferendae or anticipatethe seawardofthelimitalf12miles agreedtoin 1961orunilater-
law before thelegislatorhad laidit down.It musttakeinto allytoimposerestrictionsontheiractivities.Butthatdid not
account the existing rules of internationd law and the mean that the FederalRepublicof Germanywas under no
ExchangeofNotesof 1961. obligationto Icelandwithrespectto fishingin the disputed
The conceptofpreferential fishingrightstldoriginatedin watersin the 12-milet:o 50-mile zone.BothPartieshad the
proposals submittedby Icelandatthe GenevaConferenceof obligationtokeepunckrreviewthefisheryresourcesinthose
1958,whichhadconfined itselftorecommendingthat: waten andto examinetogether,in the lightof the informa-
".. .where,forthe purposeof conservation,it becomes tion available, the measures requiredfor the conservation
necessarytolimitthe totalcatchofastockclrstocksoffish and development, and equitable exploitation, of those
in anareaofthehighseasadjacenttotheterritorialseaofa resources, taking intoaccountany internationalagreement
coastalState, anyother Statesfishingin that areashould that mightat presentbe inforce or might be reachedafter
collaboratewiththecoastal Stateto securejust treatment negotiation.
of suchsituation,byestablishingagreed measureswhich The mostapproprir~temethodfor the solutionof the dis-
shall recognize any preferential requirementsof .the putewasclearlythatofnegotiationwithaviewtodelimiting
coastalStateresulting fromitsdependenceuponthe fish- therightsandinterestsofthe Partiesandregulatingequitably
ery concernedwhilehaving regardto the interestsof the suchquestionsasthoseofcatch-limitation,shareallocations
otherStates". and relatedrestrictions. 'Theobligationto negotiateflowed
Atthe 1960Conference the same concept haclbeenembod- fromthevery nanueoiftherespectiverightsofthePartiesand
iedinanamendmentincorporatedbya substantial voteinto corresponded totheprovisionsoftheUnitedNationsCharter
one of the proposals concerning the fishizcane.The con- ' concerningpeacefulsettlementof disputes.The task before
temporary practiceof States showedthat thiu concept, in thePartieswouldbetoconducttheirnegotiationsonthe basis
additionto its increasingand widespreadacceptance,was thateachmustingoodfaithpayreasonableregardtothelegal
beingimplementedby agreements,eitherbilateral ormulti- rightsof theother, tothefactsof theparticularsituationand
lateral.n the presentcase, in whichthe exclusivefishery totheinterestsofother Stateswithestablished fishingrights
zonewithin thelimitof 12mileswasnotindispute,the Fed- inthearea.
eralRepublicofGermanyhadexpressly recognizedthepref- The interimmeasun:sindicatedinthe Orderof 17August
erentialrightsof theotherPartyin thedisputedwaterssitu- 1972wouldceasetohiweeffectasfromthedateoftheJudg-
ated beyond that limit. Therecould be no doubt of the ment,butthe Partieswould notthereforebeatlibertytocon-
exceptionaldependence ofIcelandonitsfisheriesandthesit- duct their fishingactivitiesin the disputed waters without
uationappearedtohave beenreachedwhenitwasimperative limitation.Theywould beundertheobligation topayreason-
to preservefishstocksin the interestsof rationaland eco- ableregardtoeachothea'srightsandtoconservationrequire-
nomicexploitation. ments pendingtheconclusionofthenegotiations.
However, theverynotionofpreferentialfisheryrights for
thecoastalStateinasituationofspecial dependlencet,hough ChimtoBeEntitledtoCompensation
it impliedacertainpriority, couldnot imply theextinctionof (paras.71-76 ofthe Judgment)
the concurrentrightsof other States.The fact that Iceland
wasentitledtoclaimpreferentialrightsdidnotsufficetojus- The fourth submissionof the Federal Republicof Ger-
tify its claim unilaterallyto exclude fishingvesselsof the many (see above)raised the questionof compensationfor
Federal Republic fromall fishingbeyond the limit of 12 allegedactsofharassmentof itsfishingvesselsbyIcelandic
milesagreedtoin 1%1. whichwas the subject-.matteogrf the Application,that sub-
TheFederal Republicof Gennany had poinuxiout thatits mission fell within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction.
vesselsstartedfishingintheIcelandicareaaslongagoasthe However,it waspresentedin anabstractformandthe Court
endof the nineteenth century,ndhadfurther statedthatthe waspreventedfrommaking anall-embracing findingof lia-bilitywhicwouldcover muten astowhichithd onlylim- Forthosereasons, eCourtgave(Judgmentp.ara.77)the
itedinformationndslendeevidence. decisionindicatabove.
Summary of the Judgment of 25 July 1974