INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
FISHERIESJURISDICTIONCASES
VOLUME I
(UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAlN AND NORTHERN
1RELAND 1·ICELAND)
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRES DE LA COMPÉTENCE
EN MATIÈRE DE PÊCHERIES
VOLUME 1
(ROY AU ME-UNI DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE ET
D'IRLANDE DU NORD c. ISLANDE) Abbreviated reference:
!.C.J. P!eadings,
Fisheries JurisdictiVo1. I
Référenceabrégée:
· C.l.J. Mémoires,
Compétence en matière de pêcheries, vol. I
Salesnumbcr
N° de t·cntc: 405 FISHERfES JURISDICTION CASES
AFFAIRES DE LA COMPÉTENCE EN MATIÈRE
DE PÊCHERIES INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
FISHERIESJURISDICTIONCASES
VOLUME I
(UNITED KINGDOM IRELANDAv. JCELAND)ND NORTHERN
COUR INTERNATIONALDE JUSTICE
MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRlESET DOCUMENTS
AFFAIRES DE LA COMPÉTENCE
EN MATIÈRE DE PÊCHERIES
VOLUME I
(ROYAUME.UNI DE GRANDE·BRETAGNE ET
D'IRLANDE DU NORD c.ISLANDE) The present volume (I} contains the record filed in theFisheries Jurisdiction
( United Kingdom v. /ce/and) case.
This case, entered on the Court's General List on 14 April 1972 under
number 55, was the subject of two Orders on lnterim Measures of Protection
(Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. /ce/and), lnterim Protection, Ordù
of 17 August 1972, l.C.J. Reports 1972, p. 12 and id., Order of 12 Ju/y 1973,
I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 302) and two Judgments. The first Judgment was
delivered on 2 February 1973 (Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v.
/cc/and), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, /. C.J. Reports 1973, p. 3), and the
second Judgment on 25 July 1974 (id., Merits, Judgment, l.C.J. Reports 1974,
p. 3).
The United Kingdom Application, Request for Interim Measures of
Protection, Memorials and Oral Arguments appear in this volume in chrono
logical order.
The record filed in the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany
v. /ce/and} case and the correspondence relating to the two cases appear in
Volume Il.
The page references originally appearing in the pleadings have been altered
to correspond with the pagination of the present edition. Where the reference
isto Volume Il of the present edition, it is indicated in bold type.
The Hague, 1975.
Le présent volume (1) reproduit le dossier de l'affaire de laCompétence ~n
matière de pêcheries(Royaume-Uni c. Islande).
Cette affaire, inscrite au rôle généralde la Cour sous le n° 55 le 14 avril 1972,
a faitJ"objet de deux ordonnances portant indication de mesures conserva
toires (Compétence en matière de pêcheries( Royaume-Uni c. Islande), mesures
consermtoires, ordonnance du 17 août 1972, C./.J. Recueil 1972, p. 12; et id.,
ordonnance du 12juil/et 1973, C.l.J. Recueil /973, p. 302) et de deux arrêts.
Le premier arrêt a étérendu le 2 février 1973 (Compétence en matière de
pêcheries ( Royaume-Uni c. /s/ande}, compétence de la Cour, arrêt, C.I.J.
Recueil 1973, p. 3) et le secondle 25 juillet 1974(id.,fond, arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil
1974, p: 3).
La requête, la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, les
mémoires et les plaidoiries du Royaume-Uni sont reproduits dans le présent
volume suivant leur ordre chronologique.
Un autre volume (Il) contient le dossier de l'affaire de la Compétence en
matière de pêcheries( Républiquefédéraled"Al/emagne c. Islande), ainsi que
ta correspondance relative aux deux affaires de la Compétence en matière de
pêclll'ries.
Les renvois d'une pièce à rautre ont étémodifiés pour tenir compte de la
pagination de la présente édition. Lorsqu'il s'agit d'un renvoi au volume Il,
ce chiffre est indiqué en caractères gras.
La Haye, 1975. CONTENTS
Page
Application lnstituting Proceedings submitteby the Gm'ernment of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1
Annexes to the Application
Annex A. Exchange of Notes of 1961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Annex B. Government of the United Kingdom's aide-mémoire of
17 July 1971 13
Annex C. Government of Ice\and's aide-mémoire of 31 August
1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A1111exD. Government of the United Kingdom's aide-mémoire of
27 September 1971. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Annex E. Resolution on special situations relating to coastal fisheries
adopted at Geneva on 26 April 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Annex F. North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention of 24 January
1959. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Annex G. Resolution adopted by the Althing on 15 February 1972 25
Annex H. Government of lceland's aide-mémoire of 24 February
1972 . . . . 26
Enclosure 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Enclosure 2. Memorandum entitled Fisher/es Jurisdiction in
!ce/and issued by the lcelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs in
February 1972
f. Tntroduction . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Il. The importance of the fisheries in the lcelandic economy 33
Ill. Conservation and utilization of fishery resources. 36
A. Conservation of fishery resources . . . . . . . . . 36
B. Utilization of fishery resources . . . . . . . . . . 37
IV. The principal types of fishing gear used within the fishery limits
of lceland and rules concerning their use . . . . . . . 40
Appendix r. Law concerning the scientific conservation of the
continental shelf fisheries, dated 5 April 1948 . . . . . . . . 45
Appendix Il. Map of lceland showing the 400 metres isobath, the
existing 12-mile fishery limits and a 50-mi\e 1imit . . . . . . . 4B
Appendix Ill. Statement by Mr. Ôlafur. J6hannesson, Prime
Minister of Jceland, at the meeting of the Nordic Council on
19 February 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix IV. Statement by Mr. Einar Âgllstsson, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of lcetand, during the general debate in the
General Assembly of the United Nations on 29 September
1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Appendix V. Statement from Mr. Lllôvik J6sepsson, Minister of
Fisheries of lceland, at the ministerial meeting of the North East
Atlantic Fisheries Commission in Moscow on 15 December 1971 54
Appendix VI. Statements in the Preparatory Committee for the
Law of the Sea Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57X FISHERIES JURISDICTION
Page
Annex /. Statement read by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland
on 24 February 1972 . . . . . . . 67
Annex J. Government of the United Kingdom's aide-mémoire of
14 March 1972 ........ . 68
Request for the Indication of lnterim Measurcs of Protection submitted
by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern lreland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Annexes to the Request for the Indication of lnterim Measures of
Protection
Annex A. Text of the Regulations issued by the Government of
lceland on 14 July 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Annex BI. Map of fishing grounds in the Iceland area [see Annex 20
to the Memorial on the Merits of the Dispute, p. 402]
Annex 82. Map of United Kingdorn distant-water and middle-water
fishing grounds in relation to ICES and ICNAF statistical regions
[see Annex 28 to the Memoria/ on the Merits of the Dispute, p. 41J
A1111exC. Landings in the United Kingdom by United Kingdom
vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Annex D. Supplies of fish to the United Kingdom . . . . . . . . 83
Annex E. Landings of demersal fish in the United Kingdom during
1971 by area of capture 84
Annex F. Relative importance of United Kingdom distant-water
ports in 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Annex G. United Kingdom, IceJandic, and total catch of demersaJ
species in the lcelandicArea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Annex H. Note by lcelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs to British
Embassy, dated 14 July 1972 ....... ·. . . . . . . . . 87
Oral Arguments on Request for the Indication of lnterim l\feasures of
Protection
ÜPENING OF THE ÜRAL PROCEEDINGS . . . . 92
STATEMENT BY MR. STEEL (UNITED KINGDOM) 94
ARGUMENT OF StR PETER RAWLINSON (UNITED KlNGDOM) 94
Opening remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Reasons for Application . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Exchange of Notes of 11 March 1961 constituting agreement between
United Kingdom and Jceland . . . . . . 94
lcelandic policy statement of 14 July 1971 95
Attempts to reach a seulement by agreement . . . . 95
United Kingdom proposai for catch-limitation scheme 95
Althing resolution of 15 February 1972. . . . . . . 96
Renewed proposai for interim agreement rejected by lceland. 96
United Kingdom proposai for "effort limitation" rejected by
lceland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
United Kingdom proposai for partial seasonal closures rejected by
lcelànd. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Proposais by lceland unacceptable to United Kingdom. . . . . . 96 CONTENTS XI
Page
lcelandic Regulations of 14 July 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Request for interim measures filed when situation reached a deadlock 97
Principles and law which should guide the Court . . . . . . . . 98
United Kingdom request comp\ies with conditions for indication of
interim rneasures 98
Conditions which request for indication of interim rneasures must
satisfy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Urgency of need for interirn measures 98
Need to preserve rights of Parties , . 98
Court's decisions on previous requests for indication of interim
measures of protection . 99
Capacity of Court to order interim measures . . . . 102
lcelandic denial of Court's jurisdiction Jacks foundation !07
Effect of proposed Regulations if implernented 108
Economie resu\ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Effects on national diet. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Proportion of United Kingdom catch outside 50-rni\e \imit 112
United Kingdorn catch in lcelandic area compared with total catch
and with lcelandic catch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
First interirn measure requested by United Kingdom: no interfcrence
with United Kingdorn vessels outside 12-mile lirnit. . . . . . . 113
United Kingdorn proposai ta limit aonual catch . . . . . . . . . 114
Control of fishing outside 12-rnile limit rnay be carried out by
internationa) agreement under North-East Atlantic Fisheries
Convention with recognition of Iceland's special needs t17
Closing remarks . . . 118
READING OF THE ÛROERS • , . . , • . . • , • . . 119
Memorial on Jurisdictîon submitted by the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland
Part A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Part 8. Meaning and intention of the Exchange of Notes of 1961. 126
1.The terms of the Exchange of Notes of 1961 . . . . . . . 126
2. The origins of the Exchange of Notes of 1961. . . . . . . 129
3. Submissions on the meaning and intention of the Exchange of
Notes of 1961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Part C. The lcelandic assertions that the Exchange of Notes of 1961
should be considered as terminated . . . . . 139
1. lntroductory . 139
2. The argument that the Exchange of Notes of 1961 is void for
duress . . . . . . . . . . ,. 140
3. The argument that the Exchange of Notes of 1961 has lapsed
owing to a fundamental change of circumstances . . . . . . . 143
~- The argument that the Exchange of Notes of 1961 has lapsed or
been validly termînated by reason of the development of a new rule
permitting coastal States to assert exclusive fishing rights over the
waters above their continental shelves . . . . . . . . . . . . 149XII FISHERIES JURlSDICTION
Page
Part D. Final submissions of the Government of the United Kingdom 152
1. Summary of contentions put forward in this Memorial. . 152
2. Submissions of the Government of the United Kingdom . . . . 152
Annexes to the Memorial on Jurisdiction
Annex A. Extract from speech made by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, to the General Assembly of the United
Nations on 25 September 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Annex B. Extract from Memorandum submitted to the General
Assembly of the United Nations by the Government of the United
Kingdom in November 1958 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Annex C. Note by the Government of lceland dated 18 December
1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
Annex D. Draft Exchange of Notes put forward by the Government
of the United Kingdom on 9 December 1960 . . . . . . . . . 157
Annex E. Draft Exchange of Notes put forward by the Government
of lceland on 10 December 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Annex F. Text of message by Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
delivered 14 December 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Annex G. Draft Exchange of Notes put forward by the Government
of the United Kingdom on 16 December 1960 ......... 162
Annex H. Letter from Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to
Foreign Minister of Iceland, dated 21 December 1960, and en
closing two draft Exchanges of Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Annex /. Translation of memorandum submitted to Althing on
28 February 1961 together with draft Exchange of Notes . .. . . 168
Annex J. Texts of reports publîshed in The Times and in Morgun
b/adid on 13 April 1961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Annex K. Text of exchange of letters between the Prime Ministers of
lceland and the United Kingdom, 11 March 1961 and 23 March
1961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Records of Anglo-lcelandic discussions, 1 October to 4 December
1960......................... 178
Records of Anglo-lcelandic discussions, 17-20 December 1960. 229
Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction of the Court
ÛPENING OF THE ÛRAL PROCEEDINGS . . . . 242
ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON (UNITED KINGDOM) . 243
Opening remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
United Kingdom compliance with interim measures indicated by
Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
Iceland deliberately disobeyed interim measures ordered . . . . . 244
United Kingdom reserves right to protect safety and legitimate
interestsof nationals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244
United Kingdom efforts to reach interim agreement with lceland. . 244
Unsuccessful negotiations concerning possible restrictions on fishing
by United Kingdom vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
United Kingdom founds jurisdiction of Court on Article 36 (1) of
Statute ·of Court in conjonction with Exchange of Notes of
11 March 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 CONTENTS XIII
Page
Iceland's non-appearance and challenge to jurisdiction of Court 246
Court not concerned with question of admissibility of United
Kingdom claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Court's jurisdiction depends on the willof the Parties . . . . . . 247
Consent to Court's jurisdiction cannot be withdrawn at will of one
Party . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
Court decides as to its own jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Court's jurisdiction depends on question whether Ex.change of Notes
of 11 March 1961 is a treaty or convention in force . . . . . . . 250
Negotiations of 1960-1961 leading to Exchange of Notes conferrîng
jurisdictionon Court. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
lceland's contention that 1961 Exchange of Notes is no longer in force 254
Iceland's undertaking to give six months' notice of any proposed
extension of limits did not cancel commitment to refer dispute to
Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
lceland's argument that Exchange of Notes lapsed because it had
fulfilled its purpose is devoid of substance . . . . . . . . . . 255
Parties did not intend or imply any unilateral right of termination of
Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·. . . . . . . . . 256
Method of settling disputes agreed in Exchange of Notes must be
observed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
Iceland's contention that Agreement is void for duress not supported
by any evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Iceland's claim that Agreement Japsed through change of circu01-
stances is not supported by evidence and is irrelevant . . . . . . 259
Iceland's objection based on jus cogenshas no relevance to Exchange
of Notes of 1961. . . . 261
Closing remarks . . . . . 262
READING OF THE JUDGMENT • 263
Memorial on the Merits of the Dispute submitted by the Government of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Part. I. Introduction. . . . . 267
Part. If. History of the Dispute 268
A. Introduction . . . . • . 268
B. History up to the filing of the Application instituting proceedings 268
C. History after the filing of the Application instituting proceedings 278
Part. Ill.Facts concerning the conservation and utilization of the
fisheries . . . . . . . . . . 288
A. Introduction . . . . . . . 288
B. The conservation problem . 288
Introduction . . . . . . . 288
The interest of the United Kingdom 289
The fisheries of the lceland Area . . 289
Conservation rneasures - national or international 293
International control of fishing in the lceland Area 296
lceland's fears for the fisherîes . . 307
The present position . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308XIV FISHERIES JURISDICTION
Page
C. The utilization problem 308
Introduction . . . . . 308
The lcelandic economy . . . . . . 309
Limits on Iceland's need for more fish . . 312
The effect on the United Kingdom fishing industry 312
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
Part. IV. The law relating to fisheries judsdiction 317
A. Introduction. . . 317
B. Historical analysis . 317
General approach . 317
History up to 1901 318
The period from 1901 to 1945 323
The period between 1945 and the Geneva Confeence of 1958. 328
The Geneva Conference of 1958 . . . . . . . 330
The Geneva Conference of 1960 . . . . . . . 335
The period after the Geneva Conference of 1960 339
C. The current law . . .. . 346
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
II. The burden of proof . . . . . . . . . . 346
III. The grounds upon which Iceland might seek to argue that the
law has changed so as to permit an exception to the general
rule or, alternatively, that the general rule itself has change348
(i)The continental shelf doctrine . . . 348
(ii) The concept of "preferential rights" . . . . . . . . . 357
(iiiThe need for conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
(iv)The concept of "the patrimonial sea'' . . . . . . . . 366
(v) The doctrine of "Permanent Sovereignty over Natural
Resources" . . . . . . . . . 367
IV. Limitations on the judicial function . . . . . . . 370
V. The judicial function and equity . . . . . . . . 372
Part V. Compensation for interference with British shipping . 375
Part VI. Final Submissions of the Government of the United Kingdom 379
A. Summary of Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379
B. Submissions of the Government of the United Kingdom . . . . 380
Annexes to the Memorial on the Merits of the Dispute
Annex l. Law concerning the scientific conservation of the conti
nental shelf fisheries, dated 5 April 1948 together with a commen
tary thereon as submitted to the Althing [see A11nex H to the
Application, pp.45-47]
Annex 2. Government of the United Kingdom·s aide-mémoire of
17 July 1971 [see Annex B tothe Application, p. 13)
.A11nex3. Government of Iceland's aide-mémoire of 31 August 1971
[see Annex C to the Application, p.14]
Annex 4. Government of the United Kingdom's aide-mémoire of
27 September 1971 [see Annex i) to the Application,p.15}
Annex 5. Resolution adopted by the Althing on 15 February 1972
[see A11nex G to the Application, p. 25J
Annex 6. Govemment of lceland's aide-mémoire of 25 February 1972
[see Annex H to the Application, p. 26] CONTENTS
XV
Page
Annex 7. Statement read by Minister for Foreign Affairs of lceland
on 24 february 1972 [see Annex l to the Application, p67 J
Annex 8. Government of the United Kingdom's aide-mémoire of
14 March 1972 [ see A1111exJ10 the Application, p. 68]
Annex 9. lcelandic regulations of 14 July 1972 . . . . . . . . . 384
Annex 10. Government of lccland's Note of 11 August t972 . .. . 387
Annex 11. Government of the United Kingdom's Note of 28 August
1972. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
Annex 12. Government of lceland's Note of 30 August 1972 . . . 389
A1111ex13. Memorandum handed over by Minister for Foreign
AfTairsof Iceland on 19 January 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
Annex 14. Confirma tory copy of message from Secretary of State for
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Minister for Foreign
Alfairs, dated 22 January 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
Annex 15. Message from Sccretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs to Minister for Foreign Affairs, trans
mitted by British Embassy in Reykjavik on 8 March 1973 . . . 394
Annex 16. Statement made to House of Commons by Secretary of
State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 7 May 1973 . . 395
Annex 17. British counter-proposals for an interim arrangement as
put forward in writing at the end of discussions in Reykjavik
on 3 and 4 May 1973 . . . . . . . . . . 396
Annex 18. Table. United Kingdom, lcelandic, and total catch of
demersal species in the Iceland Area 398
Annex 19. Graph. Catch taken at lceland (ICES Area Va), 1920-1971 400
Annex 20. Map: lceland. Fishing grounds related to statistical rec
tangles together with cod spawning grounds and sea currents. . . 402
Annex 21. Table. Number of cod of each age caught at Iceland, 1970 404
Annex 22. Graph. Total catch of cod in lceland Area (ICES Va) by ail
countries related to relativeear c\ass strength . . . . . . . . 405
Annex 23. Tab\e, Herring: catch by lce\and from ail lCES regions 406
Annex 24. Table. Herring: catch taken at lceland (ICES Arca Va)
by ail countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 407
A1111ex25. Graph. Herring: catch taken at Iceland (ICES Arca Va)
by lceland and all other couotries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408
Annex 26. Table. Total catch of native Icelandic spawning herring . 409
Annex 27. Graph. Total catch of lcelandic herring taken by Icelandic
and Norwegian fleets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410
A1111ex28. Map. United Kingdom distant and middle water fishing
grounds in relation to ICES and ICNAF statistical regions . . . 412
Annex 29. Table. Distribution of cmployment in Iceland by seclor 4\4
Annex 30. Table. Growth of gross national product, 1960 to 1971 . 415
Annex 31. Table. International tourism (1969). . . . . . . . . . 416
Annex 32. Table. Landings in the United Kingdom by United
Kingdom fishing vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
Annex 33. Table. Supplies of fish to the United Kingdom. . . . . 418
Annex 34. Table. Average annual landings of demersal fish in the
United Kingdom, 1967-1971, by area of capture. . . . . . . . 419
Annex 35. Table. Relative importance of United Kingdom distant
water ports in 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
Anno: 36. Major incidents in the lcelandic campaign of harassment
of British fishing vessels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421XVI FISHERIEJSURISDICTION
Page
Annex 37. Text of Notes of protest concerning harassment of
British vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
Oral Arguments on the Merits of the Dispute
ÜPENJNG OF THEÜRALPROCEEDINGS . . . . 436
STATEMENT BYMR. ANDERSON (UNITEDKlNGDOM). 439
ARGUMENTOF THE R!GHT HoNOURABLESAMUELS!LKIN (UNITED
K!NGDOM) . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Opening remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Regret that kcland not represented . . . . . . . . 440
United Kingdom approach to case in light of Article 53 of the
Court's S!atute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Summary of arguments in United Kingdom Memorial . . . . 441
History of the dispute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
Early difficullies and uncertainty in delimiting the territorial se442
MultilateralConvention for Regulating the Police of the North
Sea Fisheries, 1882. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
Bilateralonvention between United Kingdom and Denmark, 1901 442
Jcelandic Law of 1948 . . . . . . . . . 443
Tcelandicdenunciation of 1901 convention . . . . . . . . . . 443
New Ice\andic Regulations, 15 May 1952. . . . . . . . . . . 443
Agreement in November 1956 limiting value of catch by United
Kingdom vessels .... ·.............. , . 443
First United Nations Conference on the Law of 1he·sca 1958 . 444
Jcelandic decreeof 30 June 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, 1960 . 444
Negotiations between United Kingdom and lceland in October 1960 444
Agreement of 11 March 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444
Jcelandic policystatement of 14 July 1971 . . . . . . . . . . 445
In negolialîons United Kingdom contended that proposed extension
of fishery limits to 50 miles would have no basis in law. 445
United Kingdom offer to \imit catch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Application initiating proceedings filed on 14 April 1972 . . . . . 445
Further negotiations dirccted to reaching interim agreement were
unsuccessfuland ended on 14 July 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Ortler indicating interimmeasures of protection made on 17 August
1972. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
Order was implernented by United Kingdom but disregarded by
Iceland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
Interim agreement 13 November 1973 does not affect legal position
or rights of either Government with regard to dispute under !961
Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446
Tension prier to interim agreement was not caused by presence of
British naval vessels within 50-mile limi. . . . . . . . . . . 447
Conservation and utilization of fish stocks in lcelandic area . . . 447
Iceland's allegation that fish stocks are in danger is without
foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
Conservation matters éould be dealt with by North-East Atlantic
FisheriesCommission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 CONTENTS XVII
Page
QUESTIONS BY JuoGE Ji.MÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA. 451
QUESTIONS BY JuoaE DILLARD ••.... 451
ARGUMENT OF THE R!GHT HONOURABLE SAMUEL S1LKIN (UNITED
KtNGDOM) {conf.) ............. . 453
lceland's claim that conservation problems cannot efTectively be dealt
with by international agreement is not borne out by facts . 453
Food and Agriculture Organization report . . . . . . . . . . 453
Iceland's failureto conserve stocks of herring . 453
North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention provides for catch-quotas 454
lceland's alleged need ta take al\ fish in the interests of her own
economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456
Iceland's economy not entirely dependent on fisheries 456
Fishing is important to United Kingdom economy. . 456
The law as it relates to lcelandic· claim . . . . . . . . 457
Three possible solutions ta problem of limits of national fisheries
jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . 457
Universa\ treaty or convention not yet achieved . . . . . . . 457
International custom as evidence of general practicè acccpted as
Jaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
The wil\ of the coastal State-already excludcd by Court in
Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case . . . . . . . 458
International custom 458
As between United Kingdom and Iceland 3-mile limit from 1901
(Anglo-Danish convention) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
1958 Conference on the Law of the Sea did not agree on maxi-
mum breadth of territorial sea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
Convention on the Territoria\ Sea and the Contiguous Zone, \958 459
Trend towards acceptance of principle of exclusive fishcries zone of
12 miles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
Extension of exclusive fisheries zone beyond 12-mile limit would be
illegal . . . . . . . . . 460
Exceptionally coastal State might claim non-exclusive conservation
zone beyond t2-mile Jimit 460
Does international law permit lceland to make and enforce claims
to 50-mile exclusive fisheries Jimit? ... ~ 461
Burden of proof lies on lce\and to establish legality of daim to
jurisdiction beyond 12-mile limit. . . 461
Sources of law which Court should apply . . 461
Customary international law concerning continental shelf does
not support l.cclandic contention . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
Concept of preferential rights is nota basis for daim toexclusive
rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ~ . . . 462
State practice as basis for customary international law to regulatc
conservation problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
Law does not permit unilateral-monopolistic daims to exclusive
fishery rightson the high seas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
The concept of patrimonial sea or "economic zone" is a concept
de /ege ferenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465XVIII F!SHERIES JURISDICTION
Page
Doctrine of permanent sovereignty over natural resources. 465
United Nations resolutions are nota source of Iaw. . . . 465
The claîm that new customary law exists requires proof. . . . 466
Occasional or isolated acts cannot create a new customary rule 469
To become a customary rule practice must be based on opinio
juris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
A minority of States cannot change international Iaw. . . ~. . 470
There is no uniform practice to support lceland's claim. . . . 470
There is no regional or local custom in support of lceland's claim 472
Court cannot anticipate future revision of international law . . 472
United Kingdom withdraws submission concerning request for
compensation . . . . . . . . . 472
Partiesare un der an obligation to negotiate in goodfaith concerning
conservation . 472
Question of conservation is a matter of common coricern . 474
Factors relevant to producing a just and equitable result. . 474
Final submissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
QUESTIONS BY ]UDGES PETRÉN AND SIR HUMPHREY WALDOCK 477
ARGUMENT OF MR. SLYNN ...•........ , . 479
Replies to questions put by Judge Jjménez de Aréchaga 479
Reply to first question . . 479
Rep\y to second question . . . . . . 484
Reply to third question. . . . . . . 485
Replies to question put by Judge Dillard 487
Reply to first question . . . . . . . 487
Reply to second question . . . . . . 488
Reply to first question put by Judge Petrén 493
Third question put by Judge Petrén 494
Replies to questions put by Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock 494
Reply to first question 494
Reply to second question . 497
Reply to third question. 499
Reply to fourth question . 500
Reply to fifth question . . 504
Reply to question by Judge Gros 505
Reply to second question of Judge Petrén. 506
READING OF THE JUDGMENT 509
Documents submittcd to the Court after the closure of the written pro~
ceedings
Arrangement relating to Fisheries in waters surrounding the Faroe
Islands . . 513
Annex l . 516
Annex li . 516
Annex III 517 CONTENTS XIX
Page
Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government of the Kingdom
of Norway and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics on the regu\ation of the fishing of North-East Arctic
(Arcto-Norwegian) cod. 518
Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
Correspondence [see Il, pp. 371-485]
Table of Concordance of the Oral Statements 522 APPLICATION INSTITUTING
PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND 3
l.have the honour to refer to Article 40 (!)of the Statute of the International
Court of Justice and Article 32 (2) of the Rules of Court and, by direction of
Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs and in reliance on the jurisdiction vested in the Court by Article 36 (1)
of the Statute and by an Exchange of Notes between the Government of the
United Kingdom and the Government of lceland dated 11 March 1961(which
provides for reference to the Court of any dispute in relation to the extension
of fisheries jurisdiction round lceland), to submit an Application instituting
proceedings in the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem
lreland against lceland in the following case.
.2. ln 190l, and for some years thereafter, the conduct of the international
relations of Iceland was the responsibility of the Kingdom of Denmark. By
virtue of a Convention which was concluded on 24June 1901between Denmark
and the United Kingdom, the fisheries limits and territorial sea around
lceland were then recognized as extending generally to three miles from low
water mark. On 5 April 1948 the Althing, that is to say, the Parliament of
lceland, enacted a law entitled""A Law.concerning the Scientific Conservation
of the Continental Shelf Fisheries". Under this law, the Ministry of Fisheries
of the Government of lceland was authorized to "issue regulations establishing
explicit\y bounded conservation zones within the limits of the continental shelf
of lceland; wherein al! fisheries shall be subject to lcelandic rules andcontrol".
(In an accompanying commentary [see p. 26 of the second enclosure to Annex
H to this Application 1] the Government of lceland said: "The continental shelf
of Iceland is very clearly distinguishable, and it is thcrefore natural to take it
as a basis" and subsequently: "At present, the limit of the continental shelf
may be considered as being established precisely at a depth of l00 fathoms. lt
will, howcver, be necessary to carry out the most carcful investigations in order
to establish whether this limit should be determined at a different depth. ") On
3 October 1949 the Government of lceland gave notice to the Government of
the United Kingdom of thè denunciation of the Anglo-Danish Convention of
1901 in accordance with the terms of that Convention and this denunciation
took effect on 3 October 1951.
3. On 19 March 1952 the Government of lccland issued regulations ex
tending Icelandic fisheries limits to four miles measured from straight baselines.
This extension ol fisheries limits, which came into effectn 15 May 1952, evoked
a formai protcst from the Government of the United Kingdom and for several
years thercafter was the subject of dispute between the two Governments and
also between the fishing industries of the two countries. ln consequence of
action taken by the fishing industry of the United Kingdom, landings in the
United Kingdom of fish caught by lcelandic vessels were suspended for some
years. However, in 1956, as a result of talks which wcre conducted under the
auspices of the Organization for European Economie Co-operation and in
which representatives of both Governments and of both industries took part, an
agreement was reached which provided, inter aliathat, on the one hand, land
ings in the United Kingdom of fish caught by Icelandic vcssels were to be
resumed and, on the other hand, there were to be no further extensions of
fisheries limits by Iceland pending the outcome of the discussion by the General
1 See p. 46, infra.4 F!SHERIES JURISDICTION
Assembly of the United Nations of the report of the International Law Commis
sion concerning the codification and progressive development of the interna
tional law of the sea. This discussion eventually resulted in the convening of the
first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva in 1958. That
Conference did not, however, reach any agreement on the maximum breadth
of the territorial sea or on fisheries limits and, after the conclusion of'the Con
ference, the Government of Iceland declared that they regarded themselvesas
having complete freedom of action both as regards the extent of their fisheries
limits and as regards the drawing of the relevant baselines.
4. In conformity with a further announcemerit of intention which they made
on 1 June 1958 the Govemment of lceland issued on JO.Juhe 1958 a decree
(Decree No. 70) which came into effect on 1 September .1958, and which ex
tended Iceland's fisheries limits to a distance of 12miles from the baselines round
the coast of Iceland that were specified in the Decree. The validity of this action
was not accepted by the United Kingdom and fishing vessels from the United
Kingdom continued to fish inside the 12-mile limit. There then ensued a
number of incidents involving, on the one hand, Icelandic coastguard vessels
and, on the other hand, British fishing vessels and fisheries protection vessels of
the Royal Navy.
5. Shortly after the announcement of intention made by the Govemment
of lceland on 1 June 1958(see the preceding paragraph) the Govemment of the
United Kingdom had made further attempts to settle the dispute by negotiation.
These attempts had broken down by the end of August 1958, but they were
resumed in Septernber 1958 against the background of the incidents that were
taking place between vessels of the two countries. On 25 September 1958 the
Governrnent of the United Kingdom offered to place the legal aspects of the
dispute before the International Court of Justice but this offer was declined by
the Government of Iceland (who had not at that stage bound themselves to
accept the Court's jurisdiction in that respect). However, attempts at negotia
tion continued and, though these were unsuccessful in themselves, they did
result, by the early summer of 1959, in a situation in which both sides were exer
cising considerable restraint on the fishing grounds. Each side, however, main
tained its position and, on 5 May 1959, the Althing passed a resolution protest
ing against what it regarded as continuing violationsoflcelandic fisheries limits
by British vessels.he resolution inclu'dedthe following passage:
"... the Althing declares that it considers that lceland has an undisputable
right to a 12-mile fishery limit, that a recognition of its rights to the
whole continental shelf should besought, as provided in the Law concerning
the Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fisheries of 1948,
and that a smaller fishing limit than 12 miles from baselines around the
country is out of the question".
6. In 1960 the second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
was held in Geneva. lts object was to make a further atternpt to reach agreement
on the maximum breadth of the territorial sea and fisheries limits. Once again,
this attempt was not successful and the Conference terminated withoût any
agreement being reached. Nevertheless, as a result of the discussions and
negotiations at this Conference and at the preceding Conference, a considerable
body of opinion emerged in support of the proposition that a coastal State
should, subject to certain conditions, be able to claim an exclusive fisheries zone
of not more than 12 miles. This subsequently became the basis of a number of APPUCA TION 5
bilateral and multilateral agreements, including the agreement between the
United Kingdom and keland that is referred to in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 of this
Application.
7. During the course of the United Nations Conference on·the Law of the
Sea·in 1960the United Kingdom delegation had made certain proposais to the
Icelandic delegation for a bilateral agreement to resolve the fisheries dispute
between the two countries. ·These proposais were not acceptable to the GoVetn
ment of Iceland but, shortly after the end of the Conference, the Government
of the United Kingdom reiterated their willingness to enter into negotiations
to that end. This offer to negotiate was eventually accepted by the Government
of Jceland on 10 August 1960 and preparatory talks were held in Reykjavik
between I October 1960 and 9 October 1960. Thcre was then, by agreement, a
short adjournment until 27 October 1960 after which the ta\ks resumed and
were held, at both Ministerial and official Jevels, in Reykjavik, London and
Paris at various times upto December 1960.Thereafter they continued through
diplomatie channels.
8. As a result of these negotiations, it was announced in London and
Reykjavik on 27 Fcbruary 1961 that the Government of the United Kingdom
and the Governmcnt of Iceland had reached agreement on proposais for a
settlement of the dispute on fisheries limits. The agreement was to be embodied
inan Exchangc of Notes between the two Governmcnts. This Exchange would
consist of a Note from the Government of Jceland making certain proposais and
a Note from the Government of the United Kingdom accepting those proposais.
On 28 February 1961 the Government of lceland submitted to the Althing for
its approval the draft of their Note containing the proposais in question. This
draft was appended to a draft resolution by the Althing which was in the follow
ing terms: "The Althing resolves to permit the Government to settfe the fishery
dispute with Britain in harmony with the Note which is printed with this
Resolution." A substantial debate thcn took place in the Althing and the
Resolution was eventually adopted by the Althing on 9 March 1961. On
11 March 1961 the Exchange of Notes was effected.
9. The full text of the Exchangc of Notes of 1961 is annexed to this Appli
cation as Annex A. Jt will be seen that, in view of the recognition by the
Governrnent of the United Kingdom of the exceptional dependence of the
lcelandic nation upon coastal fisheries for their livelihood and econornic
development, and•without prejudice to the rights of the United Kingdom under
international law towards a third party, the Government of the United Kingdom
accepted the following proposais put forward by the Government of lceland as
th"eterms on which the dispute should be settled:
(a) that the Govemment of the United K.ingdom would no longer abject to
a 12-mile fishery zone around Iceland measured from certain specified
baselines which related solely ta the delimitation ofthat zone;
(bj that the baselines in question would be those set out in Decree No. 70
of 30 June 1958 (see para. 4 above), modified in four specified respects;
(c) that for a·transitional period of three years from the conclusion of the
agreement, British fishing vessels would continue to be entitled to fish
in certain specified areas within the outer six miles of the 12-mile zone
during certain seasons of the year respectively specified for those areas; and
(d) that the Government of lceland would continue to work for the imple
mentation of the Althing resolution of 5 May 1959regarding the extension
of fisheries jurisdiction around Jceland (see para. 5 above) but would be
obliged to give the Governmefit of the Urîited Kingdom six months' notice6 FISHERIES JUR!SDICTION
of any such extension: if there were a dispute in relation to any such exten
sion, the matter would, at the request of either party, have to be referred to
the International Court of Justice. ·
The agreement expressly provided that it should be registered with the Secretary
General of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United
Nations Charter. It was so registered by the Government of Iceland on 8 June
1961.
' 10. With the conclusion of the Exchange of Notes of 1961, and on the
basis of the rights and obligations which the parties to it thereby acquired and
accepted in relation to each other, the fisheries dispute between the two coun
tries, as ithen existed, was settled on terms which have since been acted upon
by both countries. On 14 July 1971, however, following a general election in
lceland and the formation of a new Government, a policy statement was issued
by the Government of Iceland which ·included the following passage:
"Territorial waters
The Fisheries Agreements with the United Kingdom and the Federal
German Republic shall be terminated and a resolution be made about an
extension of the fishery limit up to 50 nautical miles from the baselines,
effectivenot later than 1 September 1972. At the same time a zone of
jurisdiction of 100 nautical miles shall be enacted for protection against
pollution. The Government will in this matter consult the Opposition and
give it an opportunity to follow its entire development."
(The rest of the policy statement is not relevant to the question of fisheries
jurisdiction. The above passage is taken from an unofficial English translation
supplied by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Iceland.)
1L The Government of the United Kingdom were naturally disturbed by
what was said in the policy statement not only about the proposed extension of
fisheries limits but also about the "termination" of the agreement const.ituted
by the Exchange of Notes in 1961. Accordingly; on 17 July 1971, the British
Embassy in Reykjavik delivered to the Secretary-General of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the Government of Iceland an aide-mémoire which expressed
their concern, reminded the Government of Iceland of the provisions of the
Exchange of Notes of 1961 relating to the reference of disputes to the Inter
national Court of Justice, pointed out that that Exchange of Notes was not
open to unilateral denunciation or termination, and fully reserved the rights
thereunder of the Government of the United Kingdom. A copy of the text
of this aide-mémoire is annexed to this Application as Annex B.
12. Following the delivery of the aide-mémoire of 17 July 1971, talks were
held in London on 18 August 1971 between Ministers of the two Governments.
No reconciliation of their views was achieved and, on 31 August 1971, an
aide-mémoire was handed to the British Ambassador in Reykjavik by the
Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of
Iceland. After referring to some of the relevant provisions of the Exchange of
Notes of 1961 and in particular to the provision therein for the reference of
disputes to the International Court of Justice, and after asserting that "the
object and purpose of [that provision] have been fully achieved", the aide
mémoire went on to say that, in view of certain alleged considerations which it
describcd, "the Govemment of Iceland now finds it essential to extend further
the zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction around its coasts to include the
area of sea covering the continental shelf. It is contemplated that the new
limits, the precise boundaries of which will be furnished at a later date, will APPLICATION 7
enter into force not later than 1September 1972." The aide-mémoire concluded
by indicating that the Governmcnt of lceland were prepared to hold further
meetings between representatives of the two Governments "for the purpose of
achieving a practical solution of the problems involved". A copy of the full text
of the aide-mémoire of 31 August 1971 is annexed to this Application as
Annex C.
13. On 27 September 1971 the British Embassy in Reykjavik delivered to the
Secretary-General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of
lceland an aide-mémoire in reply to the latter's aide-mémoire of 31 August 1971.
This reply placed on record the view of the Government of the United Kingdom
that such an extension of the fisheries zone around lce1and as was described
in the aide-mémoire of 31 August would have no basis in international law.
ltalso rccorded the rejection by the Government of the United Kingdom of the
view expressed by the Government of lceland that the object and purpose of
the provision, in the Exchange of Notes of 1961, for recourse to judicial settle
ment of disputes rclating to an extension of fisherics jurisdiction around
lceland had been fully achieved. It reserved ail the rights of the Government of
the United Kingdom under the 1961 Agreement including the right to rcfer
disputes to the International Court of Justice. lt then went on to note the
proposai of the Government of lceland that there should be further discussions
and it indicated that, without prejudice to the legal position of the Government
of the United Kingdom as just outlined, they were prepared to enter into
further exploratory discussions. The full text of the aide-mémoire of 27Septem
ber 1971 is annexed to this Application as Annex D.
14. In pursuance of these references by both Governments to the possibility
of holding further discussions, such discussions were in due course arranged and
took place at official level in London on 3 and 4 November 1971, and in
Reykjavik on 13 and 14 January 1972. In these discussions the kelandic
delcgation reiterated that lceland was entitled to, and intended to, extend its
exclusive fisheries limits with effect from a date not latcr than 1September 1972
as indicated in the aide-mémoire of the Governmcnt of lceland of 31 August
1971. They recognized, however, that this would create difficulties for the
British fishing industry and offered to consider practical arrangements under
which, without Iceland's abating its insistence on exclusive jurisdiction over the
whole area in question, British fishing vesscls mightbe permitted, subject to cer
tain conditions, to continue to fish in that area for a limited phase-out period.
The British delegation, for their part, made clear that they could not accept that
Iceland was entitled in international law to extend its exclusive fisheries limits
in the way indicated. On the other hand, they recognizcd the concern which
the Government of lceland might feel about the possibility of injury to fish
stocks in the area in question if fishîng therc remained unregulated and they
expresscd thcir readiness to consider practical means to satisfy that concern.
Having regard to the resolution on Special Situations relating to Coastal
Fisheries adopted on 26 April 1958 by the first United Nations Conference on
the Law of the Sea at Geneva, they indicated that in their view an appropriate
method of doing this would be (instead of the unilateral arrogation of exclusive
jurisdiction over areas of the high seas) the adoption of mutually agreed
conservation measures. They offered, as an interim measure, pending the
elaboration of a multilateral arrangement within the North-East Atlantic
Fisheries Commission, to limit the total catch of demersal species in Icelandic
watêrsby United Kingdom vessels to the average taken by such vessels during
the 10 years 1960 to 1969. (A copy of the Resolution on Special Situations
relating to Coastal Fisheries is annexed to this Application as Annex E, and8 FIS~EIUES JURISDICTION
a copy of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention of-24 January 1959,
which establishes the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, is annexed as
Annex F. In May 1970 the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 7
(2) of the Convention, unanimously adopted a proposai to -add to the list of
measures listed in Article 7 (1) measures for regulating the amount of total
catch and the amount of fishing effort in any period. This proposai has since
been accepted by ail except four of the Contracting States and it ,isunderstood
by the Government of:the United Kingdom that those four States expect to
accept it, in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures, in the
near future.} ·
15. ln view of the different approaches of the two delegations, as dèscribed
in the preceding paragraph, to the appropriate basis forà .Practical solution of
the problems involved", thesèdiscussions did not lead to an agreement. Mean
while, the Althing had had befote it a draft of a further Resolution on this
matter and, on 15 February 1972, it ·adopted an amended form of that draft.
This Resolution, as so adopted, reiterated that "the continental shelf of Iceland
and the superjacent waters are within the jurisdiction of Jceland" and resolved
that "the fishery limits will be extended to 50 miles from baselines round the
country, to become effective not later than 1 September 1972", that "the
Governments of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany be
again informed that because of the vital interests of the nation and owing to
changed circumstances the Notes concerning fishery limits exchanged in 1961
are no longer applicable and that their provisions do not constitute an obliga
tion for Iceland" and that ...efforts to reach a solution of the problems con
nected with the extension be continued through discussions with the Govem
ments of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany". The
full text of an English translation of the Resolution is annexed to this applica-
tion as Annex G. ·
16. The passage of this Resolution was followed, on 24 February 1972, by
the delivery of an aide-mémoire to 'theBritish Ambassador in Reykjavik by the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Government of Jceland. (A copy of the
full text of this aide-mémoire, together with the second enclosure thereto, is
annexed to this Application as Annex H; the first enclosure, which was the
text of a statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the General
Assembly of the United Nations on 29 September 1971, is·not so annexed since
itis in fact reproduced, so far as it is relevant to the question offisheries juris
diction, on pp. 31to 33ofthe second enclosure i.)At thesame timeashedelivered
this aide-mémoire, the Minister for Foreign_Affairs read a formai statement,
the text of which is annexed to this Application as Annex 1. The aide-mémoire
stated that, for the reasons indicated in their earlier communications on the
matter, the Government of Iceland "considers the provisions of ·the Notes
exchanged [in 1961] no longer to be applicable and consequently terminated"
and announced that "the Government of lceland has accordingly decided to
issue new regulations providing for fishery limits of 50 nautica! miles from the
present baselines, to become effective on 1 September 1972, as set forth in the
Resolution of the Althing unanimously adopted on 15 February 1972". It
will be seen from the penultimate paragraph on page 8 of the second enclosure2
to Annex H and from the antepenultimate paragraph on page 183 that the
figure of 50 nautical miles which was referred to in the aide-mémoire and in
1 See pp. 51-53,i11fra.
2 See p.W, infra.
3See p. 38, infra. APPLICATION 9
the Resolution adopted by the Althing on 15 February 1972, and which was
also, of course, the figure referred to in the policy statement of 14 July 1971
(see para. 10 above), was represented as corresponding generally to the outer
limit of the Icelandic continental shelf. This outer limit, however, was taken
as itse!f coinciding with the 400 metres isobath,. as contrasted with the 1~
fathoms isobath referred to in the commentary accompanying the Law of 1948
(see para. 2 above). No explanation is given of this choice of the 400 metres
isobath for defining the extent of the continental shelf. It ,will a!so be seen
from the map 1on page 28 of the same document that even if the 400 metrcs
isobath is taken as the appropriate index, that isobath lies at distances from the
coast of lceland which range between about 70 nautical miles and Jess than
12 nautical miles: in general the distance is somewhat less than 50 nautical
miles.
17. In the light of the Government of Iceland's aide-mémoire of 24 February
and the statement which accompanied it (which together reiterated the definitive
decision of the Government of Iceland to extend their exclusive fisheries zone to
50 nautical miles with effect from 1 September 1972, and their definitive rejèc·
tion of the representations relating to the illegality of such action that had been
addressed to them by the Government of the United Kingdom), the Govern·
ment of the United Kingdom concluded that they had no course open to them
but to have the dispute referred to the International Court of Justice as provided
for by the Exchange of Notes of 1961. The Government of Iceland, who had
previously been informed that this would be the probable outcome of their
insistence on a unilateral extension of their exclusive fisheries zone, were
notified of this decision by the British Ambassador in Reykjavik on 3 March
1972. On 14 March 1972 an aide-mémoire from the Government of the United
Kingdom, formally re•stating their position in reply to the Government of
Iceland's aide-mémoire of 24 February 1972, and giving formai notice of their
intention to invoke the agreed procedure for obtaining the adjudication of the
International Court of Justice thercon, was delivered to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Government of Jceland by the British Ambassador in Reykjavik.
Having in mind the imminence of the threatened action by the Government
of Iceland, the aide-mémoire indicated that the United Kingdom's application
to the International Court of Justice would be made "shortly" but it went on
to point out that "the British Government are very willing to continue dis
cussions with the Government of lceland in order to agree satisfactory practical
arrangements for the period white the case is before the International Court of
Justice". A copy of the full text of the aide-mémoire is annexed to this applica·
tion as Annex J.
18. In the circumstances which are described in the preceding paragraphs
of this Application and which the Government of the United Kingdom will set
out more fully in their Memorial and in subsequent written and oral pleadings,
a dispute exists between the Government of Iceland and the Government of the
United Kingdom. ln reliance on the jurisdiction vested in the Court by Article
36 of the Statute of the Court and by the Exchange of Notes of 1961, the
Government of the United Kingdom have deemed it appropriate to submit
that dispute to the Court.
19. The subject of the dispute is the legality or otherwise of the decision
which the Government of Iceland have announced that they intend to put into
effect on 1 September 1972, that is to say, unilaterally to extend the exclusive
fisheries jurisdictionof Iceland to embrace an area bounded by 50 nautical
1 See p.48, infra.10 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
miles from baselines drawn round its coast corresponding to those referred to
in the Exchange of Notes of 1961(see para. 9 (b) above). The United Kingdom
contends that lceland has no authority for such action in international law,
whether conventiona\ or customary. The United Kingdom therefore contends
that such an extension is unjustifiable and invalid and that, accordingly, Iceland
is not entitled in international law unilaterally to exclude the fishing vessels of
other countries, and specifically those of the United Kingdom, from the afore
said area with effect from 1 September 1972, or from any other date.
20. It is the further contention of the United Kingdom that, to the extent that
Iceland may, as a coastal State specially dependent on coastal fisheries for
its livelihoodor economic development, assert a need to procure the establish
ment of a special fisheries conservation régime(including such a régimeunder
which itenjoys preferential rights) in the waters adjacent to its coast but
beyond the exclusive fisheries zone provided for by the Exchange of Notes of
1961, it can legitimately pursue that objective by collaboration and agreement
with the other countrics concerned (as contemplated by the Resolution on
Special Situations relating to Coastal Fisheries of 26 April 1958) but not by the
unilateral arrogation of exclusive rights within those waters; such collaboration
and agreement might be on either a bilateral or a multilateral basis and might
include collaboration and agreement achieved through the machinery of such
bodies as the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The United Kingdom
has at ail times stood ready, and continues to stand ready, to collaborate
with Iceland to that end and to negotiate such an agreement with Iceland
(either bilaterally or multilaterally as aforesaid) in good faith and with due
regard to the rights and interests of all concerned.
21. ACCORDINGLY, THE UNITED KINGDOM ASKS THE COURT TO ADJUDGE
AND DECLARE:
(a) That there is no foundation in international law for the daim by Iceland to
be entitled to extend its fisheries jurisdiction by establishing a zone of
exclusive fisheries jurisdiction extending to 50 nautical miles from the
baselines hereinbefore referred to; ànd that its daim is therefore invalid;
and
(b) that questions concerning the conservation of fish stocks in the waters
around Iceland are not susceptible in international law to regulation by the
unilateral extension by Iceland of its exclusive fisheries jurisdictito 50
nautical miles from the aforesaid baselines but are matters that may be
regulated, as between Iceland and the United Kingdom, by arrangements
agreed between those two countries, whether or not together with other
interested countries and whether in the form of arrangements reached in
accordance with the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention of 24
January 1959, or in the form of arrangements for collaboration in accor
dance with the Resolution on Special Situations relating to Coastal
Fisheries of 26 April 1958, or otherwise in the form of arrangements
agreed between them that give effect to the continuing rights and interests
of both of them in the fisheries of the waters in question.
(Signed) H. STEEL,
Agent for the Government of the
United Kingdom. APPLICATION 11
ANNEXES TO THE APPLICATION
Annex A
EXCHANGE OF NOTES OF ]961
No. l
The Foreign Minister of !ce/and to
Her Mojesty's Ambassador at Reykjavik
Reykjavik, 11 March 1961.
have the honour to refer to the discussions which have taken place·in
Reykjavik and London between our Governments concerning the fisheries dis
pute between our two countries. In view of these discussions my Government
is willing to settle the dispute on the following basis:
1.The United Kingdom Govemment will no longer object to a twelve-mile
fishery zone around Iceland measured from the base lines specified in
paragraph 2 below which relate solely to the delimitation of that zone.
2. The base lines, which will be used for the purpose referred to in paragraph
1 above, will be those set out in the kelandic Regulation No. 70 of June
30, 1958, as modified by the use of the base lines drawn between the fol
lowing points:
A. Point I (Horn) to Point 5 (Asbudarrif).
B. Point 12 (Langanes) to Point 16 (Glettinganes).
C. Point 51 (Geirfugladrangur) to Point 42 (Skâlasnagi).
D. Point 35 (Geirfuglasker) to Point 39 (Eldeyjardrangur).
These modifications will enter into force immediately.
3. For a period of three years from the date of Your Excellency's reply to
this Note, the lcelandic Government will not object to vcsscls registered
in the United Kingdom fishing within the outer six miles of the fishery
zone referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above within the following areas
during the periods specified:
(i) Horn (Point 1)-Langanes (Point 12) (June to September).
(ii) Langanes (Point 12)-Glettingancs (Point 16) (May to December).
(iii) Glettinganes (Point 16)-Setusker (Point 20) (January to April and
July to August).
(iv) Setusker (Point 20)-Medallandssandur 1 (Point 30) (March to July).
(v) Medallandssandur I (Point 30)-20° west longitude (April to August).
(vil 20° west longitude-Geirfugladrangur (Point 51) (March to May).
(vii) Geirfugladrangur (Point 51)-Bjargtangar (Point 43) (March to May.)
4. There will, however, be no fishing by vessels registered in the United King
dom in the outer six miles of the fishery zone rcferrcd to in paragraphs 1
and 2 during the aforesaid period of three years in the following areas:
(i) Between 63° 37' north latitude and 64° 13' north latitude (Faxafl6i).
(ii) Between 64° 40' north latitude and 64° 52' north latitude (Snrefellsnes).
(iii) Between 65° north latitude and 65° 20' north latitude (Breidafjordur).12 FISHERIES JURISDICTJON
(iv) Between Bjargtangar (Point 43) and Horn (Point 1).
(v) Off the mainland in the area delimited by lines drawn from the south-
ernmost point of Grimsey to base points 6 and 8.
(vi) Between 14°58' west longitude and 15°32'west longitude (Myrabugt).
(vii) Between l6°12'west longitude and 16°46'westlongitude (Ing6lfshôfdi).
The Icelandic Government will continue to work for the implementation of
the Althing Resolution of May 5, 1959, regarding the extension of fisheries ju
risdiction around Iceland, but shall give to the United Kingdom Government
six months' notice of such extension and, in case of a dispute in relation to such
extension, the matter shall, at the request of either party, be referred to the
International Court ofJustice.
I have the honour to suggest that this Note and Your Excellency's ·reply
thereto, confirming that its contents are acceptable to the United Kingdom
Government, shall be registered with ·the Secretary-General of the United
Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United Nations Charter, and
further to suggest that a settlement on this basis shall become effective forth
with.
(Signed) Gudmundur I.GuoMUNDSSON.
No. 2
Her Majesty's Ambassador at Reykjavik to
the Foreign Minister of !ce/and
Reykjavik, March 11, 1961.
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency's Note of
today's date reading as foliows:
[As in No. I]
I have the honour to confirm that in view of the exceptional dependence
of the Icelandic nation upon coastal fisheries for their livelihood and economic
development, and without prejudice to the rîghts of the United Kingdom under
international law towards a third party, the contents of Your Excellency's
Note are acceptable to the United Kingdom and the settlement of the dispute
has been accomplished on the terms stated therein. I also confirm that the
United Kingdom Government agrees that the settlement becomeseffective forth
with and that the Notes exchanged today shall beregistered with the Secretary
General of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the United
Nations Charter.
(Signed) Charles STEWART. APPLICATION 13
Annex B
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM'S AIDE-MÉMOIRE
OF 17 JULY 197}
The British Government have noted with concern that the policy statement
issued by the Icelandic Government on 14 July 1971 states that the fisheries
agreement with the United Kingdom "shall be terminated and a resolutîon be
made about an extension of the fishery limits up to fiftynautîcal miles from
the baselines, effective not later than 1 September 1972".
2. The British Government regret that a statement involving an agreement
with the United Kingdom has been made by the IŒlandîc Government without
prior consultation with or advance warning to the British Government. The
Exchange of Notes on 11 March 1961settling the fisheries dispute between the
Icelandic and British Governments provides that the British Government will
be given six months' notice of any extension of fisheries jurisdiction around
Iceland and, in case of a dispute in relation to such extension, the matter shall,
at the request of either party, be referred to the International Court of Justice.
In the view of the British Government, that Exchange of Notes is not open to
unilateral denunciation or termination. In the circumstances, the British
Government fully reserve their rights under the Exchange of Notes.
3. The British Government also note that the policy statement envisages
the establishment of "a zone of jurisdiction of one hundred nautical miles . . •
for protection against pollution". The British Government cannot accept the
right of any State unilaterally to assume jurisdiction over areas of the high
seas and they therefore wish to reserve their position in this respect also.14 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
AnnexC
ÜOVERNMENT OF JCELAND'S AIDE-MÉMOIRE
OF 31 AUGUST 1971
The Government of Iceland bas studied the contents of the Embassy's
aide-mémoire of 17 July 1971, arid with reference to discussions in London on
18 August 1971, between Mr. Einar Âgustsson, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
and Mr. Joseph Godber, Minister of State for Foreign Atfairs and Common
wealth Affairs, wishes to communicate the following:
On 11 March 1961 the Governments of lceland and the United Kingdom
exchanged Notes for the settlement of the fisheries dispute between the two
countries, which had its origin in the extension of lceland's fishery limits
effected in 1958. In that Exchange of Notes it was stated:
"The kelandic Government will continue to work for the implementa
tion of the Althing Resolution of 5 May 1959 regarding the extension of
fisheriesjurisdiction around lceland, but shall give to the United Kingdom
Government six months' notice of such extension and, in case of a dispute
in relation to such extension, the malter shall, at the request of either
party, be referred to the International Court of Justice."
In the opinion of the Icelandic Government, which is continuing to work for
the implementation of the Althing Resolution in the light of increased know
ledge and other developments that have occurred since thàt Exchange of Notes,
the object and purpose of the provision for recourse to judicial seulement of
certain matters envisaged inïhe passage quoted above have been fully achieved.
In the period of ten years which has elapsed, the United Kingdom Government
enjoyed the benefitofthe Icelandic Government's policy to theeffectthat further
extension of the limits of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction would be placed in
abeyance for a reasonable and equitable period. Continuation of that po!icy
by the lcelandic Government, in the light of intervening scientificand economic
evolution (including the ever greater threat of increased diversion of highly
.developed fishing effort to the lcelandic area) has become excessivcly onerous
and unacceptable, and is harmful to the maintenance of the resources or the
sea on which the Iivelihood of the lcelandic people depends.
In order to strengthen the measures of protection essential to safeguard the
vital interestsof the Jcelandic people in the seas surrounding its coasts, the
Govemment of Iceland now finds it essential to extend further the zone of
exclusive fisheries jurisdiction around its coasts to include the areas of sea
covering the continental shelf. lt iscontemplated that the newlimits, the precise
boundaries of which will be furnished at a later date, will enter into force
not Iater than l September 1972.
Having regard to the foregoing the Government of Iceland is prepared, on
the basis of the discussions which have already taken place in London, that
representatives of the Governments or the United Kingdom and Iceland should
meet for the purpose of achieving a practical solution of the problems involved.
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Reykjavik, 31 August 1971. APPUCATION )5
Annex D
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED K1NOD0M'S AIDE-MÉMOIRE
OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1971
The British Government have studied the contents of the Government of
Iceland's aide-mémoireof 31August 1971concerning a proposai by theGovern
ment of lceland "to extend further the zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction
around its coasts to include the area of sea covering the continental shelf'. The
British Government wish to place on record their view that such an extension
of the fishery zone around Jceland would have no basis in international law.
The British Govemment further cannot accept the viewexpressed in the aide
mèmoire that the object and purpose of the provision, contained in the Anglo
Icelandic Exchange of Notes of March 1961,for recourse to judicial seulement
of disputes relating to an extension of fisheriesjurisdiction around lceland have
been fully achieved. The British Govemment wish formally to reserve ail their
rights under that agreement including the right to refer disputes to the Inter
national Court of Justice.
The British Government note the Government of Iceland's proposai of
further discussions. Without prejudice to their legal position outlined above
the British Govemment are prepared to enter into further exploratory discus
sions with the Oovemment of Iceland.16 FISHEllJES JURISDICTION
Annex E
RESOLUTfON ON SPECIAL SITUATIONS RELATING Tû COASTAL
FISHERIES ADOPTED AT GENEVA ON 26 APRIL 1958
The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
Having considered the situation of countries or territories whose people are
overwhelmingly dependent upon coastal fisheries for their livelihood or
economic development,
Having considered also the situation of countries whose coastal population
depends primarily on coastal fisheries for the animal protein of its diet and
whose fishing methods are mainly limited to local fishing from small boats,
Recognizing that such situations call for exceptional measures befitting
particular needs,
Considering that, because of the limited scope and exceptional nature of
those situations, any measures adopted to meet them would be complementary
to provisions incorporated in a universal system of international law,
Belie~·ingthat States should collaborate to securc just treatment of such
situations by regional agreements or by other means of international co-opera
tion,
Recommends:
J. That where, for 1he purpose of conservation, it becomes necessary ta /imit
the total catch of a stock or stocks of fish in an area of the high seas adjacent
to the territorial seaf a coastal State, any other States fishing in that area
should collaborate with the coastal State to secure just treatment of such
situation, by establishing agreed measures which shall recognize any pre
ferential requirements of the coastal State resulting from its dependence
upon the fishery concemed while having regard to the interests of the other
States;
2. That appropriate conciliation and arbitral procedures shall be established
for the settlement of any disagreement. APPLICATION 17
Annex F
NORTH-EAST.ATLANTIC FISHERIES CONVENTION OF 24 JANUARY 1959
The States Parties to this Convention
Desiring to ensure the conser:vation of the fish stocks and the rational ex
ploitation of the fisheries of the North-East Atlantic Ocean and adjacent waters,
which are of common concem to them;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1
(1) The area to which this Convention applies (hereinafter referred to as
a.the Convention areà") shall be ail waters which are situated
(a) within those parts of the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and their dependent
seas which lie north of 36° north latitudé and between 42° west longitude
and 51° east longitude, but cxcluding
(i)the Baltic Sea and Belts lying to the south and east oflinesdrawn from
Hasenore Head to Gniben Point, from Korshage to Spodsbierg and
from Gilbierg Head to the Kullen, and
(ii)the Mediterranean Sea and its dependent seas as far as the point of
intersection of the parallel of 36° latitude and the meridian of 5° 36'
west longitude.
(b) within that part of the Atlantic Ocean north of 59' north latitude and
between 44° west longitude and 42° west longitude.
(2) The Convention area shalJ be divided into regions, the boundaries of
which shall be those defined in the Annex to this Convention. The regions
shal1 be subject to such alterations as may be made in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph (4)of Article 5 of this Convention.
(3) For the purposes of this Convention
(a) the expression "vesse!'' means any vessel or boat employed in fishing for
sea fish or in the treatment of sea fish which is registered or owned in
the territories of, or which flics the flag of, any Contracting State; and
(b) the expression "territories" ln relation to any Contracting State, extends
to
(i) any territory within or adjacent to the Convention area for whose
international relations the Contracting State is responsible;
(ii) any other territory, not situated within the Convention area or
adjacent to it, for whose international relations the Contracting
State is responsible and for which such State shall have made known,
by written declaration to the Govemment of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern lreland (hereinafter referred to as the
Govemment of the United Kingdom), either at the time of signature,
of ratification, orof adherence, or subsequently, that this Convention
shall apply to it;
(iii)the ~waterswithin the Convention area where the Contracting State
has exclusive jurisdiction over fisheries.18 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
Article 2
Nothing in this Convention shall be deemed to affect the rights, daims, or
views of any Contracting State in regard to the extent of jurisdiction over
fisheries.
Article 3
{l)A North-East Atlantic F.isheries Commission (hereinafter referred to as
the Commission) is hereby established and shall be maintained for the purposes
of this Convention.
(2) Each Contracting State may appoint as its Delegation to the Commission
not more than two Commissioners and such experts and adviscrs to assist them
as that State may determine.
(3) The Commission shall elect its own President and not more than two
Vice-Presidents who need not be chosen from the Commissioners or their
experts or advisers. If a member of a Delegation has been elected President he
shall forthwith cease to actas a member of that Delegation, and if a Commis
sioner has been elected the State concerned shall have the right to appoint
another person to serve in his place.
(4)The Office of the Commission shall be in London.
(5)Except where the Commission determïnes otherwise, it shall meet once a
year ip.London at such time as it shall decide: provided, however, that upon the
request of a Commissioner of a Contracting State and subject to the concurrence
of a Commissioner of each of three other Contracting States, the President
shall, as soon as practicable, summon a meeting at such timc and place as he
may determine.
(6) The Commission shall appoint its own Secretary and may from time to
tirne appoint such other staff as it may require.
(7)The Commission may set up sllch Committees as it considers desirable to
perform such functions as it may determine.
(8)Each Delegation shall have one vote in the Commission which may be
cast only by a Commissioner of the State concerned. Decisions shall be takeiI
by asimple majority except where otherwise specifically provided. Ifthere is an
even division of votes on any matter which is subject to a simple majority
decision, the proposai shall be regarded as rejected.
(9)Subject to the provisions of thfs Article, the Commission shall draw up
its own Rules of Procedure, including provisions for the election of the President
and Vice-Presidents and their terms of office.
(10) The Government of the United Kingdom shall call the first meeting of
the Commission as soon as practicable after the coming into force of this
Convention, and shall communicate the provisional agenda to each of the
other Contracting States not less than two months before the date of the
meeting.
(11) Reports of the proceedings of the Commission shall be transmitted and
proposals and recommendations shall be notified as soon as possible to ail
Contracting States in English and in French.
Article 4
(1) Each Contracting State shall pay the expenses of the Commissioners.
experts and advisers appointed by it. .,.
(2) The Commission shalJ prepare an annual budget of the proposed ex
penditures of the Commission. APPLICATION 19
(3) In any year in which the annual budget amounts to J:200or less for each
Contracting State, the total sum shall be shared equally between Contracting
States.
(4) ln any year in which the annual budget exceeds !200 for each Contracting
State, the Commission shall.calculate the payments due from each Contracting
State according to the following formula:
(a) fron, the budget there shall be deducted a sum of f200 for each Con
tracting State;
(h) the rernainder shall be divided into such number of equal shares as cor
respond to the total number of Regional Comffiittee memberships;
(c) the payment due from any Contracting State shall be the equivalent of
J:200 plus the number of shares equal to the number of Regional Com-
mittees in which that State participates. ·
(5) The Commission shall notify to each Contracting State the sum due from
that State as calculated under paragraph (3) or (4) ofthiS Article and as soon as
possible thertafter each Contracting State shall pay to the Commission the sum
so notified.
(6) Contributions shall be payable in the èurrency of the country in which
the Office .of the Commission· is located, except that the Commission may
accept payment in the currencies in which it may be expected that expenditures
of the Commission wîl1 be made from time to time, up to an amount established
each Year by the Commission when preparing the annual budget.
(7) At ils first meeting the Commission shall approve a budget for the balance
of the first financial ycar in which the Commission functlons and shall trari.smit
to the Contracting States copies of that budget together with notices of
their respective contributions as assessed under paragraph (3) or (4) of this
Article.
(8) In subsequent financial years, the Commission shall submit to each
Contracting State drafts of annual budgets~ together with a schedule of alloca
tions, not Jess than six weeks before the annual meeting of the Commission at
which the budgets are to be considered.
Article s·
(1) The Commission shall establish a Regional Committee, with the powers
and duties described in Article 6 of this Convention, for each of the regions
into which the Convention area is divided.
(2) The representation on any Regiona\ Committee so estab\ished shall be
determined by the Commission, provided, however, that any Contracting State
with a coastline adjacent to that region, or exploiting the fisheries of the region,
has automatically the right of representation on the Regional Conunittee.
Contracting States exploiting elsewhere a stockwhich isalso fi.shedin thatregion
shall have the opportunity of being represented on the Regional Conunittee.
(3) Subject to the provisions of Article 6 ofthis Convention, the Com.rhission
shalt determine the terms ofreference of, and the procedure to be followed by,
each Regional Committee.
(4) The Commission may at any time alter the boundaries and vary the
number of the regions defined in the Annex to this Convention, provided this is
by the unanimous decision of the Delegations present and voting and no objec
tion is made within three months thereafter by any Contracting State not
represented, or not votîng, at the meeting.20 FISHERIES JURISDICTIQ:,.;
Article 6
(1) Il shall be the duty of the Commission:
(a) to keep under review the fisheries in the Convention area;
(b) to consider, in the light of the technical information available, what
measures may be required for the conservatiÔn of the fish stocks and for
the rational exploitation of the fisheries in the area;
(c) to consider, at the rcquest of any Contracting State, representations made
to itby a State which is not a party to this Convention for the opening
of negotiations on the conservation of fish stocks in the Convention area
or any part thereof; and
(d) to make to Contracting States recommendations, based as far as prac·
ticable on the results of scientific research and investigationwith regard to
any of the measures set out in Article 7 of this Convention.
(2) It shallbe the duty of a Regional Committee to perform, in relation toits
Region, functions of review and consideration similar to those·described in
paragraph (1)of this Article in relation to the Commission and the Convention
area. A Regional Committee may initiate proposais for measures in relation to
its region and shall consider any such proposais as may be remitted toit by the
Commission.
(3) A Regional Committee may prepare draft recommendations for con·
sideration by the Commission, which may adopt any such draft recommenda·
tions, with any modifications it may consider desirable, as recommendations
for the purpose of Article 7 of this Convention.
(4) A Regional Committee may at any time appoint sub-committees to study
specific problems affecting parts of the Region and to report thereon to the
Regional Committee.
Article 7
(1) The measurcs relating to the objectives and purposes of this Convention
which the Commission and Regional Committees may consider, and on which
the Commission may make recommendations to the Contracting States, are
(a) any measures for the regulation of the size of mesh of'fishing nets;
(b) any measures for the regulation of the size limits of fish that may be re·
tained on board vessels, or laÎlded, or exposed or offered for sale;
(c) any measures for the establishment of closed seasoris;
(d) any measures for the establishment of closed areas;
(e) any measures for the regulation of fishing gear and appliances, other than
regu1ation of the size of mesh of fishing nets;
(!) any rneasures for the improvement and the increase of marine resources,
which may include artificial propagation, the transplantation of organisms
and the transplantation of young.
(2) Measures for regulating the amount of total catch, or the amount of
fishing effort in any period, or any other kinds of measures for the purpose of
the conservation of the fish stocks in the Convention area, rnay be added to the
measures listed in paragraph (1) of this Article on a proposai adopted by not less
than a two-thirds majority of the Delegations present and voting and subse
quently accepted by ail Contracting States in accordance with their respective
constitutional procedures.
(3) The measures provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this Article may
relate to any or ail species of sea fish and shell fish, but not to sea mamrnals;
~oany or ail methods of fishing; and to any or ail parts of the Convention area. APPLICATION 21
Article 8
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Article, the Contracting States undertake
to give effect to any recommendation made by the Commission under Article 7
of this Çonvention and adopted by not less than a two-thirds majority of the
Delegations present and voting.
(2) Any Contracting State may, within ninety days of the date of notice
of a recommendation to which paragraph (1) of this Article applies, object toit
and in that event shall not be under obligation to give effect to the recom
mendation.
(3) In the event of an objection being made within the ninety-day period,
any other Contracting State may sirnilarly object at any time within a further
period of sixty days, or within thirty days after receiving notice of an objection
by another Contracting State made within the further period of sixty days.
(4) If objections to a recomrnendation are made by three or more of the
Contracting States, all the other Contracting States shall be relieved forthwith
of any obligation to give effect to that recommendation but any or all of them
may nevertheless agree among themselves to give effect to it.
(5) Any Contracting State which bas objected to a recommendation may at
any time withdraw that objection and shall then, subject to the provisions of
paragraph (4) of this Article, give etfect to the recommendation within ninety
days, or as from the date determined by the Commission under Article 9 of this
Convention, whichever is the later. ·
(6) The Commission shall notify each Contracting State immediately upon
receipt of each objection and withdrawal.
Article 9
Any recommendation to which paragraph (I) of Article 8 of this Convention
applies shall, subject to the provisions of that Article, become binding on the
Contracting States from the date determined by the Commission, which shall
not be before the pedod for objection provided in Article 8 has elapsed.
Article 10
(1) At any time after two years from the date on which itnas oeen required
to give effect to any recomrnendation to which paragraph (I) of Article 8 ofthis
Convention applies, any Contracting State may give the Commission notice of
the termination of its acceptance of the recommendation and, if that notice is
not withdrawn, the recommendation shall cease to be binding on that Con
tracting State at the end of twelve months from the date of the notice.
(2) At any time after a recommendation has ceased to be binding on a
Contracting State under paragraph (1) of this Article, the recommendation
shal\ cease to be binding on any other Contracting Statéwhich so desires upon
the date of notice, to the Commission of withdrawal of acceptance of that
recommendation by such other State.
(3) The Commission shall notify ail Contracting States of every notice under
this Article immediate1y upon the receipt thereof.
Article 11
(1) In order that the recommendations made by the Commission for the
conservation of the stocks of fish within the Convention area shall be based so
far as practicable upon the iesults of scientific research and investigation, the
Commission shall when possible seek the adviceof the International Council for22 FJSHERIES JURISDICTION
the Exploration of the Sea and the co-operation of the Council in carrying out
any necessary investigations and, for this purpose, may rnake such joint ar
rangements as may be agreed with the International Council for the Exploration
of the Sea or may make such other arrangements as it may think fit.
(2) The Commission may seek to establish and maintain working ai-range
ments with any other international organization Which has related objectives.
Article 12
(1) The Contracting States undertake to furnish on the request of the Com
mission any 3.vailable statistical and biological information the Commission
may need for the purposes of this Convention.
(2) The Cominîssion may publish or otherwise disseminate reports of its
activities and such other information relating to the fisheries in the Convention
area or any part of that area as,it may deem appropriate.
Article 13
(1) Without prejudice to the sovereign rights of States ln regard to their
territorialnd internai waters, each Contracting State shall take in its territdries
and in regard to its own nationals and its own vessels appropriate measures .to
ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention and of the recom
mendations of the Commission which have become binding on that Contracting
~tate and the punishment of infractions of the said provisions and recommen-
Jations. .
(2) Each Contracting State shall transmit annually to the Commission a
statement of the action taken by it for these.purposes:
(3} The Commission may by a two-thirds majority make recbmmendations
for, on the one band, measures of national contrai in the territories of the
Contracting States and, on the other hand, national and international measures
of control on the high seas, for the purpose of ensuring the application of the
Convention and the measures in force thereunder. Such recommendations shall
be subject to the provisions of Articles 8, 9 and 1O.
Article 14
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to fishing operations con
ducted solely for the purpose of scientific investigation by vessels authorized
by a Contracting State for that purpose, or to fish taken in the course of such
operations, but in any of the territories of any Contracting State bound by a
recommendation to which paragraph (1) of Article8 applies, fish so taken shall
not be sold or exposed or offered for sale in contravention of any such recom
mendation.
Article 15
(!) This Convention shall be open for signature until 31st March, 1959. It
shall be ratified as soon as possible and the instrument of ratification shall be
deposited with the Govemment of the United Kingdom.
(2) This Convention shall enter into force upon the deposit of instruments
of ratification by ail signatory States. If, however, after the lapse of one year
from 31st March, 1959,ail the signatory States have notratified thisConvention,
but not Jesstha,n seven of them have deposited instruments of ratification, these
latter States may. agree among themselves by special protocol on the date on
which this Convention shall enter into force; and in that case this Convention APPLICATION 23
shall enter into force with respect to any_State that ratifies thereafter on the
date of deposit of its instrument of ratification.
(3) Any State which has not signed this Convention may accede thereto at
any time after it h~s corne i~to force in accordance with paragraph (2) of this
Article. Accession shall be effected by means of a notice in writing addressed to
the Government of the United Kingdom and shall take effect on the date of its
receipt. Any State which accedes to this Convention shall simultaneously
undertake to give effect to those rccommendations which are, at the time of its
accession, binding on ail the other Contracting States as well as to any other
recommendations which are, at that time, binding on one or more of the èon
tracting States and are not specifically excluded by the acceding State in its
notice of accession.
(4) The Government of the United Kingdom shall inform ail signatory and
acceding States of all ratifications deposited and accessions received and shall
notify signatory States of the date and the States in respect of which this Con
vention enters into force.
Article 16
(l) In respect of each State Party to this Convention, the prov1s1ons of
Articles 5,6, 7, 8 and 9 and Annexes I, II and III of the Convention for the
Regulation of the Meshes of Fishing Nets and the Size Limits of Fish, signed
at London, on 5th April, 1946, as amended by'decisions made Underparagraph
(IO)of Article 12 ofthat Convention shall remain in force but shall be deemed
for the purposes of the present Convention to be a recommendation made and
given effect without objection under this Convention as from the date of its
entry into force in respect of that State within the area covered by the 1946
Convention; provided that in the period· of \wo years after the coming into
force ofthis Convention, any co·ntracting State may, on giving twelve rnonths'
written notice to the Governrnent of the United Kingdorn, withdraw from the
whole or any part of the said recommendation. Ifa Contracting State has, in
accordance with the provisions of this Article, given notice of its withdrawal
from a part of the said recommendation, any other Contracting State may,
with effect from the same date, give notice of its withdrawal from the same or
any other part of the said recommendation, or from the recommendation as a
whole.
(2) The provisions of the Convention for the Regulation of the Meshes of
Fishing Nets and the Size Limits of Fish signed at London on 5th April, 1946,
shall, save as provided in paragraph (1) of this Article, cease ta apply ta each
Contracting State to this Convention as from the date of the entry into force of
this Convention in respect of that State.
Article 17
At any time after two y~rs from the date on which this Convention bas
corne into force with respect ta a Contracting State, that State may denounce
the Convention by means of a notice in writing addressed to the Govemment of
the United Kingdom. Any such denunciation shall take effect twelve months
after the date of its receipt, and shallbe notified to the Contracting States by
the Govemment of the United Kingdom.
IN w11NESS WHEREOF the undersigned, being duly authorized thereto, have
signed this Convention.24 FISHERIES JURISD1CTION
DoNE in London this twenty-fourth day of January nineteen hundred and
fifty nine in two copies, one in the English language, the other in the French
language. Both texts shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of
the United Kingdom and shall be regarded as equally authentic.
The Government of the United Kingdom shall transmit certified copies of
both texts of this Convention in the two languages to ail the signatory and
acceding States.
For Belgium: R. L. van MEERBEKE.
For Denrnark: B. D1NESEN.
For France: J. CHAUVEL.
For the Federal Republic of Germany: HERWARTH.
For Iceland: H. G. ANDERSEN.
For the Republic of Ireland: M. J. GALLAGHER.
For the Netherlands: A. BENTJNCK.
For Norway: Klaus SUNNANÂ.
For Poland: Ludwik MILANOWSKI.
Fpr Portugal: Daniel SILVAcorn. Mario Ru1vo.
For Spain: Manuel ORBiA.
For Sweden: Gunnar Hii.GGLOF.
For the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: M. SuKHORUCHENKO.
For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland: R. G, R.
WALL,A J, AGUN, H. J, JOHNS.
ANNEX
The regions provided for by Article l of this Convention shabe as follows:
Region J-The part of the Convention area bounded on the south by a
line running from a point 59° north latitude 44° west longitude due east to
the meridian of 42° west longitude; thence due south to the parallel of 48°
north latitude; thence due east to the meridian of18°west longitude; thence
due north to the parallel of 60° north latitude; thence due east to the meridian
of s~west longitude; thence due north to the parallel of 60° 30' north latitude;
thence due east to the meridian of 4° west longitude; thence due north to the
parallel of 62° north latitude; thence due east to the coast .of Norway; thence
north and east along the coast of Norway and along the coast of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics as far as the meridian of 51° east longitude.
Region 2-The part of the Convention area not covered by Region l and
north of 48° north latitude.
Region 3-The part of the Convention area between 36° and 48° north
latitude. APPLICATION 25
Annex G
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE ALTHING ON 15 FEBRUARY 1972
(English translation)
The Althing reiterates the fondamental policy of the Icelandic People that
the continental shelf of Iceland and the superjacent waters are within the
jurisdiction of Iceland and adopts the following Resolution:
l. That the fishery limits willbe extended to 50 miles from base-lines around
the country, to become effective not later than 1 September 1972.
2. That the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic
of Gennany be again informed that because of the vital interests of the
nation and owing to changed circumstances the Notes concerning fishery
limits exchanged in 1961 arc no longer applicable and that their provisions
do not constitute an obligation for Jceland.
3. That efforts to reach a solution of the problems connected with the exten
sion be continued through discussions with the Governments of the United
Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.
4. That effective supervision of the fish stocks in the Iceland arbe continued
in consultation with marine biologists and that the necessary measures be
taken for the protection of the fish stocks and specified areas in order to
prevent over-fishing.
5. That co-operation with other nations be continued conceming the necessary
measures to prevent marine pollution and authorizes the Government to
declare unilaterally a special jurisdiction with regard to pollution in the
seas surrounding Iceland.26 FISHERIES JURISDICT\ON
Annex H
GOVERNMENT OF lcELAND'S AIDE-MÉMOIRE
OF 24 FEBRUARY ]972
Negotiations have been proceeding between the Governments of Iceland
and the United Kingdom for the purpose of achieving a practical solution of
the problems of the British trawler industry, while safeguarding the vital in
terests of the Icelandic People. The position of the lcelandic Government has
been expressed on a number of occasions, notably in an aide-mémoire of
31 August 1971.and in the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs
during the Twenty-sixth Session of the United Nations General Assembly on
29 September 1971, of which a copy is enclosed'. The considerations which
lead the Government of Iceland to issue new regulations relating to exclusive
fisheries jurisdiction in the continental shelf area are set forth in the enclosed
Memorandutn•, entitled "Fisheries Jurisdiction in Iceland" and dated February
1972.
Reiterating al! those considerations, the Government of Iceland now wishes
to state the following:
In the aide-mémoire of 31 August 1971 it was intimated that "in order to
strengthen the measures of protection essential to safeguard the vital interests
of the lcelandic People in the seas surrounding its coasts, the Government of
Iceland now finds it cssential to extend further the zone of exclusive fisheries
jurisdiction around its coasts to include the areas of sea covering the con
tinental shelf". It was further stated that in the opinion of the Icelandic Gov
ernment, the object and purpose of the provisions in the 1961 Exchange of
Notes for recourse to judicial seulement in certain eventualities have been
fully achieved. The Government of Iceland, therefore, considers the provisions
of the Notes exchanged no longer to be applicable and consequently terminated.
The Government of Iceland has accordingly decided to issue new regulations
providing for fishery limits of50 miles from the present base-lines, to become
effective on 1 September 1972, as set forth in the Resolution of the Althing
unanimously adopted on 15 February 1972.
The Government of Iceland hopes that the discussions now in progress will
as soon as possible Jead to a practical solution of the problems involved.
A copy of this aide-mémoire will be transmitted to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations and the Registrar of the International Court of Justice.
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Reykjavik, 24 February 1972.
ENCLOSURE 1
Statement by /ce/andic Minister for Foreign Affairs made in the General
Assembly of the United Nations on 29 September 1971
[Not annexed: see paragraph 16 of the Application and
pp. 51-53 of Enclosure 2} APPLICATION 27
ENCLOSURE 2
Memorandum Entitled "Fisheries Jurisdiction in !ce/and"
lssueq by the lcelandic Ministry of Foreign Ajfairs in
February 1972
1.
INTRODUCTION
The coastal fisheries in lceland have always and in the nineteenth century had been reduced
been the foundation of the country's economy. to 16 miles. During the latter part of the nine
The country itself ls barren and most of the teenth century a 4 miles limit seems to have
necessities of life have to be imported and been practiced although all the bays were
financed through the export of fisheries pro closed to foreign fishing during the entire
ducts which have conslituted approximately period. Finally, .in 1901, an Agreement was
90% of the total exports (Fig. 1). The coastal made between Denmark (then in charge of the
fisheries are thecondilio sine qua non for the foreign relations of lceland) and the Uriited
lcelandic economy; wilhoul them the country Kingdom providing for .a 10 mile rule in bays
would not have been habitable. lt is indeed and 3 mile fishery limits around lceland. This
as if Nature had intended ta compensate for Agreement was terminated by the lcelandic
the barrenness of the country itself by surro Government in 1951. At that lime the approac
unding it with rich fishing grounds. hing ruin because of overfishing was .quite
lceland rests on a plalform or continental clear.
~helf whose oullines follow those of the coun ln view of the gravity of the situation the
try itself. ln these shallow underwater terraces, lcelandic Parliament, in 1948, authorized the
ideal conditions are found for spawning areas Government to establish explicit!y bounded
and nursery grounds upon whose preservation zones within the limits of the continental shelf
and utiHzation the Hvelihood of the nation dep of lceland where ail fishing should be subiect
ends. lt ls increasingly being recognized that ta lcelandic jurisdiction and controt and to
coastal fisheries are based on the special issue the necessary regulations. lt was consi
conditions prevailing in the coastal areas which dered natural ta use as a criterion the continen
provide the necessary envlronment for the fish tal shelf, whose outlines, as already stated,
roughly follow lhose of the coastA topographie
stocks. These conditions provide the essential
combination of nutrient rich water from curr chart makes it clear that the shelf is really the
enls, upwelling and the phytoplankton which platform of the country and must be considered
forms the basis of the food chain. This environ to be a part of the country itself. The fo!!owing
mentis an in!egral part of the natural resources year, in 1949, the lcelandic Delegation ta the
of the coastal State. United Nations General Assemb!y successful!y
Allhough the interests of the lcelandic proposed that the International LawCommission
People were carefully protec!ed in earlier times -Should be entrusted with the study of the Law
their protection was dis~strously reduced at of the Sea in its entlrety. Important progress
the very time when it was most needed. Thus, in was made at the Geneva Conferences in 1958
the seventeenth, eighteenth and part of the and 1960, but agreement was not reached on
nineleenlh centuries the fishery limits were the extent of the territorlal sea and fishery
four leagues - the league being at first the limits.
equivalent of 8 miles, later of 6 miles and finally The 1948 Law on the Scientific Conservation
4. ln other words, they were at the beginning of the Continental Shelf Fisheries was imple
of the period 32 miles, rater became 24 miles mented through Regulations in·1950 and 1952,28 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
rant Influence of distant water fishery nations
providing for straight base-llnes and 4 miles
fishery limits around lceland. ln 1958the fishery who wlshed to fish as close as possible to the
limits were drawn at 12 miles. sh'ores of other nations, frequently destroying
These measures have undoubtedly been of one area and then proceeding ta another.
inestimable valÎJeand it can safely be asserted Under this system, narrow fishery limits to
gether with nondiscriminatory conservation
that without them the fishstocks in lcelandic
waters might have been destroyed. measures were supposed to solve the problems
Further implementation of the 1948 Law is involved. That simply is not true because even
becoming ever more urgent. Fishing techniques if proper conservation measures are adopted,
and catch capacity are rapidly being developed e. g. through reduced fishing efforts, the max
imum sustainable yield frequently is not suffi
and about hait of the catch of demersal fish in
the lcelandic area has been taken bY foreign cient to satisfy the demands and requirements
trawlers (Fig. 2). The danger of intensified for involved. ln such cases - and lceland provides
eign fishing in lce!andic waters is now immi there an obvious example - the utilization
nent. The catch capacity of the distant water aspect becomes the crux of the matter. ln a
system of progressive development of Inter
fleet of nations fishing in lcelandic waters has
reached ominous proportions (Fig. 3) and it is national Law the question of fishery limits has
well known that their activities are i11creasingly to be reconsidered in terms of the protection
being directed towards the waters around lce and utillzation of coastaJ resources regardless
land. The vital interests of the lcelandic people of other considerations which apply to the
extent of the territorial sea. The international
are therefore at stake. They must be protected.
Such remediaJ action would also enhance the community has increasingly recognized that the
role of lceland in a system of an equitable coastal fishery resources are to be considered
division of labour whereby lceland would be a as a part of the natural resources of the coastal
prime supplier of fish from her own waters. state. The special situation of countries who
The Government of lceland has repeatedly are overwhelmingly dependent on coastal fish
drawn attention to the fact that two problems eries was generally recôgnized at both Geneva
are principàlly_ involved,i.e. the conservation Conferences in 1958 and 1960. Since then this
problem arld the utilization problem. Theoreti view has found frequent expression both in the
caJJy,adequate conservation measures can be legis.lation of various countries and in important
adopted through agreement between nations politicalstatements. The course of events is
fishing in a given area. Experience has shown, decidedly progressing in this direction.
however, that the imp1ementation of such Exclusive fisheries jurisdiction wou1d have to
agreements has given very meager results take into account the interests of the coastal
indeed. And it ls difficult to devise a workable state. The coastal state should itself determine
system. The coastal state, being vitally con the extent of its coastal jurisdictiono.ver fish
cerned, is there in the best position to take eries on the basis of all relevarjt local con
the measures required. siderations. ln lce!and these considerations
But even if proper conservation measures would coincide with the continental shelf
are applied the question of utirization remains. area, which, e.g. at the depth of 400 meters
The priority position of the coastal state has would be approximately 50-70 miles from the
then always been recognized through the coast.
system of fishery limits. ln the past these limits The Government of lceland has announced
have to a great extent not been established with that it will issue new regulations in conformity
any regard to the interests of the coastal state. with the above considerations before Septem
They owe their origin rather to the preponde- ber 1, 1972. APPLICATION 29
EXPORTS 1969 IMPORTS 1969 fig.1
100 100
Fish 31,7% Capital Goods
9Q_ 81,8% products 9 0
-
80 8Q_
-
7Q_ 7Q_
Various Consumer
28% Articles
6- 6Q_
59- 50
-
4Q_ 40
20.1% Raw Materials
3
3Q_ Q_
2Q_ 20
Agricultural 10,5% Fuel
6,5% products
1Q_ 10
5,5% Aluminium
9,7% Food Stuffs
3,6"/r·, Micellaneous
Light industriel
2,%
products
The accampanylng ligure explafns graphlcalfy pointsn that of the lior only abaut
1The paramaunt importance al fish praducts fartha earnlumn in conjwith points 1~minium.
lng al the viial foreign exchange cames clearly inta view.trongty the dependence ol the lcelandlc
Aluminium ls gnldually becomlng more Important acinternalional trade bath,onh regard to
cordinga the export statlstics. The benelil ls ho·Neverd same basic loodstunlrend also
mo,e apparent than real, as tt,e net contribution of thisof "al! Industries" for raw materlal, fuel
cammodil)' lo the lncome of lorelgn exchange ls much goods.30 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
DEMERSAL CATCH Fig. 2
800
700
TOTAL
CATCH
600
500 ,....
I \
1 1
1 \
I \
400 ''
ICELANO
I
I ' OTHER
300 I COU NTRIES
I
I
II
I
I
200 I
I
I
I
J
I
100 I
1000tons
YEAR 50 55 60 65 70 APPLICATION 31
CODCATCH Fig.3
500
400
TOTAL CATCH
300
ICELAND
200
U.K.
100
1000
tons
GERMANY
· YEAR 50 60 7032 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
HADDOCKCATCH Fig. 4
roo
80
60
40
20
1000
tons
YEAR 50 55 60 65 70 APPLICATION 33
Il.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FISHERIES
IN THE ICELANDIC ECONOMY
lceland is in a unique position in the commu The investment behind each fisherman is
nity of nations relying to a great extent on na therefore greater in lceland than in most
turat resources - the fisheries - over which she countries. Although the national economic im
only has a limited jurisdiction.lcetand and her portance of the fishing industry is extremely
economy are more dependent on the fisheries great as related above - ils importance for
than any other independent country in the numerous communities around the coast of
world. This is clearly indicated by various lceland is even greater. Their inhabitants are
publications of international agencies where so entirely dependent on fishing and fish pro
atlempts are made to account for the contribu cessing that a failure of catch for several 9on
tion of different industries to the national seculive seasons would render lhem destitute
economy of the various countries. The overall as there are no alternative short term employ
importance of the fishing industry to the ment possibililies available. The experience of
national economy of lceland is clearly iltu the last decade demonstrates clearly the eco
strated by the following points: nomic interests involved. The total lcelandic
1) Almost a fifth of the GNP isderived from catch fluctuated sharply from 1200 th. melric
the fishing industry. tons in 1965 to 600 th. Ions in1968, mainly due
2) Marine Products conslitute between 80 to a failureof the herring catch, which stocks
and 90% of the exports of the country. are now very small. ln 1967 and 1968 the
3) Foreign trade amounts to between 45 and national income fell by some 17%.
50% of the GNP. Since 1968 some gains have been made
4) The country having no minerai or fuel especially in the fishery for demersal species
resources, is almost totally dependent on and in 1970 the total catch had reached some
imports of these commodities. 720 thousand metric tons. The herring fishery
5) The geographical position ofthe country has continued at a low level and no prospects
and the climate result in great dependence for improvement are in sight a! least for the
on lmports of vital foodstuffs apart from nexl 4-5 years. The stocks of demersa! spe
fish, multon and certain dairy products. cies in lcetandic waters are now fully utilized.
6) Olher manufacturing industries than the Every increase in effort will lead to overflshing.
fishing lndustry are dependent on impor A similar failure in the catch of demersa! spe
ted raw materials. Ali lcelandic industries cies as occurred in the herring fishery would
are dependent on imports of machinery have catastrophic elfects on the lcelandic
and other capital goods. economy. Most of the lcelandic catch is taken
Fishing in lcelandic waters is both difficult by relatively immobile inshore vessels. No
and hazardous due to long winters (when fish wonder that the lcelanders fear the conse
is usually most abundant) and the general quences of increased activilies of foreign fac
harshness of nature. This has made ·itneces tory trawlers and other highly mobile efficient
sary to use only the best available fishing lishing vessels in lcelandic waters. Not only
vessels and equipl)'lent. are they hamperir;g the operations of the small34 FISHERIES JURJSDICTION
Jcelandic vesseJs lislling witll long Une, gi/l tons. Of this total the share ot the lcelanders
nets and other gear, but they are also endang themselves has been about one-half. Table 1
ering the life blood of lceland, the fish stocks. shows the relative importance of the fisheries
The average annual catch of demersal spe on lcelandic grounds to the various nations
cies in lcelandic waters is around 730 thousand fishing there:
Table 1
Average Yields of Demersal Species from lcelandic Waters 1962-1969
Average catch pr. year Number o1inhabilanls Yield pr.
(Melric tons) {milUons) Capita
Belgium 16.460 9.4 1.75 kg
Britain 187.194 54.0 3.57-
Germany 121.043 58.0 2.09-
USSR 7.540 241.0 0.03-
Netherlands
1.057 12.0 0.09-
lceland 363.433 0.201 1808.12-
Faroe Islands 7.413 0.038 195.07-
France 5.180 48.7 0.11-
E. Germany '64-67 3.525
Other countries• 4.488
> Norway, Poland
Table Il
Jceland. Total Nominal Catch. Thoutand Melrlc Tons
Year Total Oemersal Species Herring Other
1961 709.9 381.1 326.0 2.8
1962 832.1 350.8 475.7 5.6
1963 782.0 379.9 395.2 6.9
1964 971.4 416.3 544.4 11.7
1965 1.199.1 381.8 763.0 54.3
1966 1.243.0 339.4 770.3 132.9
Table Il illustrates c/early the great 1967 897.7 333.5 461.5 102.7
fluctuations, that occurred in the lce- 1968 601.4 373.0 142.8 85.6
landic catch·during the last decade.
Bearing in mind the great impor- 1969 688.6 450.2 56.6 181.8
tance of the fisheries for the lce- 1970 733.0 474.2 50.7 208.1
landic economy, the consequences
of the failure of the herring catch 1971
. (estim.) 679.4 419.6 61.0 198.8
become obvious. APPLICATION 35
Figure• relatlng to the fishing power of various countries
Size GRT 1963 1968 1969
Table Ill 1. Britain 501- 900 185 122 116
901-1800 3 27 29
1801--3000 3 2 2
191 151 147
2. Germany 501- 900 110 82 62
901-1800 30 45 45
1801--3000 12 13
140 139 120
3. Belglum 501- 900 5 5 5
901-1800 1 1
over 1800
6 6 5
4. Poland 501- 900 67 65 65
901-1800 3 12 11
over 1800 7 32 40
77 109 116
5. Portugal 501- 900 31 27 27
901-1800 45 50 51
Table Illdoes not include over 1800 7 6
tlgu res !rom two important ,76 84 84
lishlng nationsthe Soviet
6. Spain 501- 900 19 40 56
Union and Eastern Germany. 901-1800 56 71 76
Accurateligures retating to
the f!shing power al these over 1BOO 1 6 9
countries are not easily ab- 76 117 141
tainabte. lt is assumed that
the Soviet fishing f[eet a7. France 501- 900 28 31
500 Gr. Reg. Tons consists
ol some 1000 vessais. Be- 901-1800 27 30
sldes thisthere are some over 1800 6
2000 vessels in the slze cate- 61 61
gory 100-SOO Gr. Reg. Tons
8. Norway 501- 900 19 48 49
as well as many big factory
ships upto 40 thousand Gr. 901-1800 3 6 7
Reg. Tons with whlch the over 1800
smaller vessais operate.
Thus the Soviet distant water 22 54 56
fieet is of form ioable siCountries 1-5 501- 900 398 301 275
whose fishing power is not
easily assessed. The fishing 901-1800 82 135 136
fleetof Eastern Germany over 1800 10 53 61
consists of some BOvessels
nbove 500 Gr. Reg. "Tons. 490 489 472
Countries ~ 501- 900 116 136
Besides there are many
smaller vessefs, that can be 901-1800 104 113
operated on distant grounds over 1800 12 9
incombination with mother-
ships. 232 25836 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
"'·
CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION OF FISHERY RESOURCES
A. Conservation of fishery resources. landic waters combined with an increase in
The ideal state of affairs in the exploitation fishing effort and this development culminated
of a stock of fish is to maintain the maximum in1954 when the total /andings reached about
sustainable yield, i. e. to employ the optimum
550 thousand tons.
degree of flshing effort to ensure the maximum The decrease in landings jn recent years is
constant weight of fish. If the intensity of fish ~o a certain extent caused by a momentary
ing, either by increased effort or improved decrease in fishing effort by forelgn trawlers,
methods, goes beyond this optimum the total but on the other hand there has been a con
catch will decrease and the stock will be over siderable increase in Jcelandic fishing ~ffort
fished. for cod in the last years. Because of the failure
Before the First World War there were al of the herrlng fisheries since 1967 a great part
ready several examples of overfishing. During of the modern and very efficient herring fleet
the war, the stocks enjoyed a very considerabte has been engaged in the fishery for cod.
degree of protection owing ta the absence of The effects of intensive fishing effort on the
foreign trawlers and in 1919 to 1920 the yield stock of cod have been amply demonstrated:
was much higher than il had been in 1912/ The total mortality in the spawning population
1913. This applied to several lcelandic species, is now over 70% annually and the fisheries
e. g. haddock, plaice and halibut. During the are responsible for four-fifths of this amount.
period between the World Wars the stocks of The average age of the spawning stoe:k has
haddock and plaice in lcelandic waters were been sharply reduced; fish over ten years of
reduced by 80%. With the exception of herring age are now very rare whereas 15-20 years
and redfish, probably the majority of the im ago fish up to 15 years old were not unusual.
portant species in lcelandic waters were over The increased fishing effort seems to have
fished. ln spite of doubled effort smaller total drasticallyreduced the spawning potential of
catches were obtained. the stock. The cod is now in a way similar to the
During the Second World War the fishing salmon or capelin; the greatest part of the stock
effort in lcelandic waters was again greatly has now only the possibility to spawn once in
diminished owing to the almost complete ab its life. The biologicaimplications of this are
sence of foreign trawlers on the grounds. The bound to be very negative for the survival of the
result was a trernendous recovery of the fish stock.
stocks in lcelandic waters in the latter hait of Another malter of grave concern is the fact
the war and the first poslwar years. that in recent years the spawning fishery hasto
The cod is by far the most important species a considerable extent been based upon fish of
in the lcelandic fisheries today and in Fig. 3 Greenland origin, which corne to lceland to
are shown the total annual landings since spawn and mix there with the local stock. ln
1946 together with the landings of lcelandic-, the years 196CÎ-69 about 21%·of the fish on the
German-, and British vessels from lcelandic lcelandic spawning grounds were considered
waters. to be of Greenland origin. The spawning stock
After the Second World War there was a of cod of lcelandic origin therefore appears to
rapid increase in landings of cod from lce- be at least 20% bigger than it is in reality. The APPLICATION 37
migration of cod from Greenland to lceland is lion problems are solved, e. g. through reduced
not constant from one year to another and can fishing effort, the maximum sustainable yield
not be predicted with any certainty. frequently is not sufficient to satjsfy the
All the factors mentloned above add up to demands and requirements involved. '1n such
uncertainty regarding this part of the population cases - and lceland then provides the obvious
and as there has been a considerable lcelandic example - the requlrements of the coastal
increase in the fishing effort the stock is not State have a priority position. The international
thought to be able to withstand any real community has now realized this just claim and
increase in fishing effort. the solution must be found on a pragmatic
As far as the haddock is concerned this basis. That is why the lcelandic Government
species was before the last World War the has steadfastly maintained that formalistic and
crassical example of an overfished stock. obsolete rules based on the concept of a terri~
During the war the stock got a valuable protec torial sea which does not take the real problems
tion, but increased fishing after the war soon into account would not solve them. From the
brought the stock to a low unprofitable level. beginning the lcelandic Government has there
After the extension of the lcelandic fishery fore maintained that the territorial sea could
limits in 1952 the stock soon improved and this be limited to a relatively narrow area, provided
resulted in a great increase in the annual land a fishery jurisdiction were established which
ings up to 1962. But since then there has been would adequately safeguard the interests of the
a.great decrease in the annual landlngs, partly coastal State as regards both the conservation
in spite of increased lcelandic fishing effort, so aspect and the utilization problem. And indeed
the density of the stock is low for the moment. the two are often interrelated because reduced
lt is quite clear that it is in the interest of allshing effort through closure of vital areas or
concerned that necessary conservation mea limitations of catch relate to bath aspects.
sures be adopted. ln the areas adjacent to its lt is not necessary or even reasonable that
coast the coastal State is in the best position the same rules shoutd apply in ail regions. The
to evaluate and entorce the necessary measur views of the lcelandic Government in this field
es, since its vital interests are at stake. Agree were summarized in a communication to the
ments between various nations to so1ve the International Law Commission already on May
problems involved have proved to be slow and 5,1952. lt is there said inter alia:
ineffectual because even if scientists may agree
on what measures are desirable and necessary, "2. The views of the lcetandic Governmenl
other considerations can prevent the enforce with regard to fisheries jurisdiction can be
ment of the recommended action. On the vast described on the basis of ils own experience,
regions of the High Seas beyond the coastal as fottows:
areas that, however, is the only possible re Investigations ln lceland have quite clearly
medy. Therefore a twofold system is here re shown that the country rests on a platform or
quired. On the one hand, strict measures taken continental shelf whose outlines follow :hase
by the coastal state and beyond the coastal area of the coast itself whereupon the depths of the
a system based on agreements between na real high seas follow. On this platform invalu
tions. able fishing banks and spawning grounds are
1ound upon whose preservation the surviva\ o1
the lcelandic people depends. The country
B. Utilization of fishery resources.
itself is barren and atmost ail necessities hal{e
The necessary conservation measures to be imported and financed through the export
national and international - ifeffectively ad of fisheries products. lt can truly be said that
ministered will ensure the maximum sustainable the coastal fishing grounds are the conditio sine
yield of the fishstocks. But evenifthe conserva- qua non of the lcelandic people for they make 38 FISHEIUES JURISDICTION
the country habitable. The lcelandic Govern siderations into account. Such an evaluation
ment considers itself entitled and indeed bound leads to different resu!ts ·1ndifferent cases.
to take all necessary steps on a unilateral basis Thus many States consider that fishery limits of
to preserve these resources and is doing so as 12 miles are quite sufficient for their purposes.
shown by the attached documents. lt considers Others consider that the vital interests involved
that itis unrealistic that foreigners can be are not sufficientlyprotected in that manner.
prevented from pumping oil from .f:hecontinen
The relevant local considerations in lceland
tal shelf but that they cannot in the same would generally speaking coincide with the
manner be prevented from destroying other outer limits of the continental shelf or p!atform
resources which are based on the same sea which, e. g. at the depth of 400 meters
bed. would go out to 60 to 70 miles from shore.
3. The Government of lceland does not main Other countries requirestill more and the coastal
tain that the same rule should necessarily apply state must determine the limits on the basis of
in ail countries. lt feels rather that each case a realistic appraisal of local conditions. The
should be studied separately and that the lcelandic Law of 1948 concerning the continen
coastal State could, within a reasonable dist tal shelf fisheries is based on this policy.
ance tram ils coast, determine the necessary At the present time about one half of the
measures for the protection of its coastal fish total catch of demersal fish in lcelandic waters
eries in view of economic, geographic, biologi is taken by foreign natibnals. That is why it is
cal and other relevant considerations". urgently required both for purposes of con
These views have on many occasions been servation and utmzation to extend the fishery
repeated and remain unchanged. ln other limits on the basis of the above considerations.
words, each case must be decided on its merits On February 15, 1972 the lce'.andic Althing
by the coastal State itself taking those con- unanimous\y passed the following Resolution: APPLICATION 39
RESOLUTION OF THE ALTHING ON FISHERIES JURISDICTION
The Althing reiterates the fundamental policy 3. That efforts to reach a solution of the
of the lcelandic People that the continental problems connected with the extension be
shelf of lceland and the superjacent waters are continued through discussions with the
within the ju~isdiction of lceland and adopts Governments of the United Kingdom and
the following Resolutlon: the Federal Republic of Germany.
1. That the fishery limits will be extended to 4. That effective supervision of the fishstocks
50 miles from base-lines arou·ndthe coun in the lceland area be continued in con
try, to ·become eHective not later than sultation with marine b\ologists and that
September 1, 1972. the necessary measures be taken for the .
protection of the fishstocks and specified
2. That the Governments of the United King areas in order ta prevent overfishing.
dom and the Federal Republic of Germany
be again informed that because of the 5. Thal cooperation with other nations be
vital interests of the nation and owing to continued concerning the necessary mea
changed circumstances the Notes con sures to prevent marine pollution and
cerning fishery limits exchanged in 1961 authorizes the Government to declare
are no longer applicable and that their unilaterally a special jurisdiction with re
provisions do not constitute an obligation gard to pollution in the seas surrounding
for lceland. lceland.•
40 FJSHERIES JURISDICTJON
IV.
THE PRINCIPAL TYPES OF FISHING GEAR
USED WITHIN THE FISHERY LIMITS OF ICELAND
AND RULES CONCERNING THEIR USE
ln principle lce1andic citizens have the ex time to time. During this century the long line
clusive right to fish within the lcelandic fishery has been an important type of gear and one that
/imits with any kind ot fishing gear un/ess other has been extensive/y used by sma//er craft.
wise decided by law. On the other hand various About 15-20% of the catch of cod is now
restrictions and prohibitions concerning the being caught by the long line. Special fishing
use of fishing gear are strictly enforced. This is grounds solely reserved for line fishing in
a long and complicated story, too long ta relate January-April have been set out off the
in full. The principal reason for the rules pre SW Coast, Faxa Bay and Breidifjordur. (See
vailing from time to time has been to protect the annexed charts).
the fish stocks from overfishing and to ensure
the continued economic exploitation of the
3. Gillnets.
stocks. Special local reasons may also deter Nets have bee;n used for cod since mid-1Bth
mine rules for preventing collisions on the
fishing grounds. century. But their use did not really spread until
the last years of the 19th century. There were
We shall now try very briefly to give an ex many kinds of restrictions to curtail their
posé on the use of the principal types of
general use, such as a maximum number of nets
fishing gear used within the lcelandic fishery per craft and a timited fishing time of the year.
limits, beginning with gear used for demersal
fish (1--6) and continue with gear used for Du.ring the present century cod-nets (gill
nets) have been of great importance for the
lobster (7), shrimp (8) and herring and capelin lcelandic fishing vessels. But they are mostly
(9).
used in certain areas (off the SW Coast in
March and April). Cod nets account for 35-
1. Hand lines. 55% of the catch of the motor vessels.
Up to the end of the 15th century hand lines Special fishing areas for nets in March and
were exclusive!y used. ln many areas hand !ines April are set out off the SW Coast as shown
were almost exc1usively used until the ·end of on the attached chart.
the last century and in some areas even longer. The rule prevails that fishing boats with a
This gear is stilt used to-day and accounts for crew of 10 may use. up to 90 nets and with a
5-10% of the catch of cod. There are no crew of 11 up to 105 nets. Cod nets shall be
restrictions on the use of hand lines. laid in one direction only within each area as
far as practicable.
2. Long Jine.
The long tine seems to have been used since 4. Trawl.
the last part of the 15th century but its employ Trawling began in lceland early in this cen
ment has been spasmodic, it has been pro tury. The big trawlers when fishing for cod and
tested against and it has been forbidden from related species, and for ocean perch, use only APPLICATION 41
1972:
Q
Exclusivetyfor use
of long tîne and cod
nets.1. Mar.-1. May.
Exclusivelyfor use
ol \ine and long \ine
12. Jan.-1. April.
Use of cod nets
prohibitedall year.
105 GAT and Joss
1. Mar.-1.May.
22·
the otter trawl. lt has also been used by the granted permission to fish in a large area in the
smaller motor vessets. These fisheries have outermost zone within the fishery limits.
increased somewhat ln recent years. Vessels up to 350 GRT are permitted to trawl
ln 1889 the first Law was enacted forbidding nearer and vessels up to 105 GRT in the zones
trawling within the fisheries jurisdiction. Up to nearest to land. The exemptions are limited to
1956 when the fishery limits were extended to certain periods of the year and are not granted
12 miles, lcelandic nationals were forbidden to for zones nearer than 3 miles offshore on the
trawl within the limits. ln 1958 lcelandic natio South Coast. Off the North Coast the minimum
nals were permitted to use trawl in specified distance is 4 and 6 miles and off the East Coast
zones and periods in the area between 4 and 4 miles from the base-\\nes. OH the N and E
12 miles off the base tinés. From 1961 they Coasts bays and firths are thus closed as wetl
have also been permitted to trawt within the as large adjacent zones. Off the West Firths
limits in the zones and periods which were very small zones are open. Breidifjordur (Broad
provisionally opened to British trawters under firth) is mostly protected and Faxafl6i (Faxa
the lcelandic-British Agreement of 11th March Bay) · absotutely protected against trawling.
1961. Trawling here applies to the use of bottom and
By an Act of 1969 most o1 the exemptions floating haw!.
now in force were granted to lcelandic vessels
to use otter and floating trawl within the fishery 5. Danish seine.
limits. These exemptions were, however, cur During the last decade of the last century
tailed by an Act of 1971; they are shown on the Danish fishermen began to use the Danish
annexêd charts. ln general ail trawlers are seine net with good results for flatfish in lce-42 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
.350Ulw-. Y150 -AND L~SS 0
:i.J5Q111~• 350 - - L.AlGER
i,,350Bll 1OCT- 16 ,A,l'A
105ll,1,EAA'
AREASANDPERIODSINWHIO!USEOf' TRAWL
ANDOANISHSEINEIS ALLOWEDBYICELANDIC
VESSELSINSIDETHEFISHERYLIMIT,.ACCORD
ING TOLAWNO.21, 10MAY1%9.
lOCf•IJAN
....,""
3$0HT
All'fE:AII!
•.. ...
..
landic waters. lcelandic fishermen did not to Danish seine fisheries within the fishery
any extent begin the use of this gear until the limits are now governed- by Act No. 40 of 9th
second decade of this century. The Danish June 1960 "concerning a limited permission for
seine was extensive/y used for a time and was Danish seine fish/ng within the fishery limits of
an important gear for smaller craft and for fish lceland under scientific supervision". Here
ing stations outside the winter cod fishing area, under such fisheries are subject to a licence
where such fisheries were usually operated in from the Minister of Fisheries.
late summer and autumn. ln the period from The Minister may after receiving proposais
1928 to 1952 various restrictions on the use from the Marine Research lnstitute and the
of this gear were enacted both as regards Fisheries Directorate decide to allow suc::h
areas and periods and in 1952 Danish seine fisheries in a certain area or areas for one
fisheries were absolutely forbidden, within the year at a lime in the period from 15th June to
fishery limits, which were extended to 4 naut. 31st October or less as prescribed in this Act.
miles outside straight base-lines drawn be On the north coast, however, such fisheries are
tween the outermost points on the coastline, only permitted between 15th July and 30th
thus closing all bays and fjords. ln 1958 the November and such fisheries are absolutely
limits were extended to 12 miles outside the prohibited in the Faxa Bay.
base-lines and Danish seine fishing permittèd Before making proposais about the ,opening
in certain zones between the 4 and 12 mile of certain areas, the Fisheries Directorate shall
limils during certain. periods of the year. seek the opinion of local administrations and APPLICATION 43
LICENCEDUSE ()' DANISHSEINE
BY \IESSELS SMALLERTHAN 45 BRT.
§ 15 JUNE TO 31CêT06ER197L
[jfil15 JU.Y TO 30 NDVEM6ER/9 71
other bodies interested in the said areas. If be a long story· to relate how the areas have
such opinions are expressed the Minister may been set out each year, but a chart of these
not open the areas concerned or part thereof for 1971 is annexed. As seen from the chart
unless generally supported by such opinions. these areas are off the N Coast in the period
Should local administrations, associations of 15th July to 30th November and off the E Coast
shipowners, seamen or labourers argue that it and the West Firths from 15th June to 30th
would be better to use other methods of fishing October. Zones open for trawl!ng as already
in certain parts of the area concerned and stated are arso open for Danlsh seine lishing.
express the wlsh that such parts be specially The Danish seine fisheries have been some
prolected against Danish seine fishing, the what reduced ln later years and are now con
Minister shall after consultation wilh the ducted by only 40-70 boats.
Direclorate compiy with such a wish.
Licences for Oanish seine netting may be 6. Purse seine.
granted to lcelandic fishing craft up to'45 GRT A new deve1opment of the purse seine is
and be valid for one year al a lime. the use of this gear in the cod fisheries during
The Minister shall impose the necessary the winter season. Most of this fishing is done
conditions for granting the licence, violationsf by vessels under 300 GRT. Cod fisheries with
which shall lead to the revocation of the licence. this gear have, however, been reduced in later
Under this Law the said areas have been years. Severe rules about the fishing of cod
determined and advertised each year. lt would and related species have been imposed. The44 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
rules govern the type of the seine, size of mes the number of licences, areas, time and quan
hes, fishing periods and the composition of the tity caught,in order to avoid overfi.stiing and the
catch. catch of other animais of the sea. Shrimping
is subject to strict supervision, Joss of licence
7. Lobster trawl. and other penalties.
lcelandic nationals began fishing . lobster
soon after 1950: Not until 1958 did lobstering 9. Seine fishing of herring and capelin.
become important but has been regular since The fishing of herring with drift nets was
then. Lobster is caught off the south and west begun at the turn of the century and some time
coasts from mid-May until October by over 100 later the first vesse] was fitted with a purse
boats with an annual catch of 2500-3500 tons. seine.
Lobster is caught in the so-called tobster trawl, lnthe herring fisheries the purse seine is no"V
a bottom trawl with smalf meshes specially almost the only gear used. Recent devefop
made for such operations. Special licences are ments in fish detection technique and mecha
Qranted for lobstering according to law, severe nized handling of the net have greatly increased
rules being imposed about fishing gear, areas, the efficiency of this gear.
reports etc. Lobstering is banned in waters The lcetandic herring stocks have been in
shallower than 60 fathoms, and thus operations danger of overfishing. These stocks l!ve mostly
do not take place on the spawning grounds in the waters of the lcelandic continental shelf.
and nursery areas of important fish species. Hence, lceland has lately taken unilateral steps
Lobstering is subject ta strict supervision, in for their protection. Herring fisheries are pro
particular in order to prevent the lobster seine hibited until September 1, 1973, except with drift
being used for catches of white fish, violàtions nets and there is a ban on the catch of small
being punished by the revocation of the licence sizes. The measures only affect lcelandic fisher
and other penalties. men and are a certain burden to them. There
has not been much interest in making similar
8. Shrimp lrawl. provisions for distant herring grounds Where
Shrimp have been caught in lcetand since a total destruction of the stocks is feared.
1936, principally in two fjords, lsafjardardjUp Hereunder the capelin fisheries should be
and ArnarfjOrdur. During the past decade the mentioned. Capelin was untH recent1y caught
fishing area has spread to HLlnafléi, Breidi off lce!and in only sma11quantities for bait and
fjôrdur, off the SW Coast and the eastern fjords. fodder. Large scale ·capelin fisheries began in
A further extension of operatinq areas may be 1964 and have been important since 1966.
expected because much work is done to seek About 40-60 vesse1s are engaged in these
new grounds. To begin with, fisheries were fisheries (with purse seines) in January to
limited to autumn and winter but are now con April each year in the area from the southern
ducted more or less the year round. About 100 part of the east coast to the west of Reykjanes.
boats do shrimping at various periods each For the protection of the capelin stock lce
land has taken uni/atera! steps. From 1st March
year. Shrimping is done with the so-cal/ed
shrimp trawl, a special kind of a ti9htmeshed to 30th April 1972 capelin fishing is forbidden
bottom trawl. Shrimpinq is subject to licence ta the east of longitude 12° 30' W, between
under the law. There are particular conditions latitudes 64° 30' and 66" 00' N. From 1st May
about the type of the trawl and great efforts to 31st Juty 1972 all such fisheries are pro
have been made to improve the trawl in order hibited.
to find an ideal type that would let sma11fry These measures affect lcelandic nationals
and, fish escape. Severe rules, although diffe only.
rent as to areas, have been enacted concerning APPLICATION 45
Appendix 1
LAW CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC CONSERVATION
OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF FISHERIES,
DATED APRIL 5, 1948
The President of lceland Proclaims: The Althing Article 5
has passed the present law which is hereby This law shall take affect immediately.
approved and confirmed: Done ln Reykjavik, 5 April 1·948.
Article 1
{Signed) Sveinn Bjôrnsson.
The Mir:iistry of Fisheries shall issue reguta President of lceland.
tions establishing explicitly bour:ided con
J6hann .P. J6sefsson.
servation zones within the limits of the con Minister of Fisheries.
tinental shelf of lceland; wherein ail fisheries
shall be subject to lcelandic rutes and contrai;
Reasons for the law of 5 April 1948 (sub
Pro\Jided that the conservation measures now mitted to the lcelandic Parliament)~
in effect shall in no way be reduced. The
lt is well known that the economy of lceland
Ministry shall further Issue the necessary regu depends almost entirely on fishing in the
lations for the protection of the fishlng grounds vicinity ·of its coasts. For this reason, the
within the said zones. The Fiskifélag Islands
population of fceland has followed the pro
(Fisheries Society) and the Atvinnudeild Hâ gressive impoverishment of fishing grounds
sk61a Islands (University of lceland lndustrial with anxiety. Formerly, when fishing equipment
Research laboratories) shall be consulted prier was far less efficient than it is today, the ques
ta the promulgation of the said regulations. tion appeared in a different light, and the rlght
The regulations shall be revlsed ln the light
of providing for exclusive rights of fishing by
of scientific research. lceland itself in the vicinity of her coasts exten·
ded much further than is admitted by the prac
Article 2
tice genera11y adopted since 1900. lt seems
The regu!atlons promulgated under Article 1 obvious, however, that measures to protect
of the present law shall be enforced only to
the extent compatible with agreements with fisheries ought to be extended in proportion
to the growing efficiency of flshing equipment.
other countries to which lceland is or may Most coastal States which engage in fishing
become a party.
have long recognized the need to take posi·
tive steps to prevent over-exp1oitation resulting
Article 3
Violations of the regulations issued under in a complete exhaustion of fishing grounds.
Article 1.shall be punishable by fines from kr. Nevertheless, there is no agreement on the
manner in which such steps should be taken.
1,000 to kr. 100,000 as specified in the regula
tions. The States concerned may be divided into two
categories. On the one hand, there are the
Article 4 countries whose interest in fishing in the vicinity
The Ministry of Fishe_riesshall, to the extent of foreign coasts is greater than their interest in
practicable, participate in International scien fishing in the vicinity of their own coasts. While
tific research in the interest of fisheries con recognizing that it is impossible not to take
servation. steps to mitigate the total exhaustion of fishing 46 FISHERlES JURISDICTJON
grounds, these States are nevertheless gene· of cases, they adopted a specified number of
rally of opinion that unilateral regulations by nautical miles: three miles, four miles, six miles
littoral States must be limited as far as possible. or twetve kilometres, etc. lt would appear, how
They have atso insisted vigorously that such ever, to be more nalural to follow the example
measures can onJy be taken by virtue of inter of those States which have determined the
national agreements. limil of their fisheries jurisdiction in accordance
On the other hand, there are the countries with the contour of the continental shelf along
whlch engage in fish'1ng mainly in the vicinlty their coasts. The continental shelf of lcetand
of their own coasts. The latter have recognized is very clearly distinguishable, and it is there
to a growing extent that the responsibility of fore natural to take il as a basis. This is the
ensuring the protection of fishing grounds in reason why this solution has been adopted in
accordance with the findings of scientific re the present draft law.
search is, above all, that of the littoral State. Commentary on Article 1.Two kinds of pro
For this reason, several counlries belonging to visions are involved: on the one hand, the
the latter category have, each for ils own delimitation of the waters wlthln which the
purposes, made legislative provision to this measures of protection and prohibition of
end the more so as international negotiations fishing should be applied, i. e., the waters
undertaken with a view to settl ing these malters which are deemed not to extend beyond the
have not been crowned with success, except continental shelf; and, on the other hand, the
in the rather rare cases where neighbouring measures of protection and prohibition of fish
nations were concerned wilh the defence of tng which should be applied within these
common interests. There is no doubt that mea waters. ln so far as the enactment of measures
sures of protection and prohibition can be to assure the protection of stocks of fish is
taken better and more naturally by means of concerned, the views of marine biologists wiU
International agreements in relation to the open have to be taken into consideration, not only
sea, i. e., in relation to the great oceans. But as regards fishing grounds and methods of
different considerations apply to waters in the fishing, but also as regards th~ Seasons during
.~icinity of coasts. which fishing shall be open, and the quantities
ln so far as the jurisdiction of States over of fish which may be caught.
fishing grounds isconcerned, two methodshave At present, the limit of the continental shelf
been adopted. Certain States have proceeded may be consldered as being eslablished pre
to a determination of their territorialwaters, cisely at a Jepth of 100 fathoms. lt will, how
especlalfy for fishing purposes. Others, on ever, be necessary to ca~ry out the most careful
the other hand, have left the question of the investigations inorder to establlsh whelher this
territorial waters in abeyance and have conten limil should be determined at a dltrerent depth.
ted themselves with asserting their exclusive Commentary on Article 2. The provisions of
r!ght over fisheries, independently of territorial this article have a bearing upon the following
waters. Of these two methods, the second agreements: the Agreement between Denmark
seems to be the more natural, having regard to and the United Kingdom, of 24 June 1901, and
the fact that certain considerations arising from· the International Conventlon for the Regula
the concept of "territorial waters" have no tion of the Meshes of Fishing Nets and the
bearing upon the question of an exclusive right Size limits of Fish, of 23 March 1937. Should
to fishing, and that there are therefore serious the provisions contained in this draft law
drawbacks in considering the two questions appear to be incompatible with these agree
together. .ments, they wouJd not, of course, be applied
When States established their jurisdiction over against the States signatories to the said agree·
fishing zones in the vicinity of their coasts they ments, as long as these agreements remain in
adopted greatly varying limils; in the majorlty force. APPLICATION 47
Commentary on Article 3. The amount of the the fullest possible extent, in any initiativef
fines wiU be assessed with due regard to the this kind in relation to her own coast as wen
relative importance of the measures of pro as others; She has already given proof of her
hibition which may.have been.infringed. lnterest in thesê problems, ln particular by
Commentaryon Article 4. On 17 August 1946, taking part in International oceanographic re,.
the International Council for the Exploration search.
of the Sea recommended that measures be Artlèle 5. This article does · not c~II for
taken ta prohibit fishing ln the Faxafl6i. lt goecomment.
without saying that lceland will take part, to48 FJSHERIES JURISDICTION
Appendix Il
MAP OF ICELAND SHOWING THE 400 METRES ISOBATH,
· THE EXISTING 12 MILE FISHERY LIMITS
AND A 50 MILE LIMIT
16. Ill'
r
iSLA ND
.. .. 17 Kr APPLICATION 49
Appendix Ill
Statement by Mr. Ôlafur J6hannesson Prime Minlster of lceland
al the Meeting of the Nordic Councll on February 19, 1972
1now want to turn to the matter which formutated already in 1948, is based on thq
at the present time is of overriding importance nature of things and common sense.
in lceland - a matter which affects the eco lt cannot be denied that the implementation
nomic survival and independence of the lce of this policy has been thwarted by great
landic nation. 1am here, of course, referring to obstacles but slow and steady progress has
the extension of the lcelandic fishery limits. been achieved towards the established goal.
lt is a we!I known fact that the economic sur The obstacles involved evidently have theîr
vival of the lcelandic nation is dependent upon
roots in the interests of other nations who for
the fisheries. Eighty to ninety per cent of the a long period have utilized the lcelandic con
foreign exchange incarne of the country are tinental shelf area for their own enri~hment. lt
derived from the export of fishery products. If is a well known fact that the interests of these
the fishing grounds in lceland are destroyed the nations in utilizlng distant fishing grounds have
basis for the economic survival of the nation shaped the obsolete rutes concerning a narrow
is demolished. Therefore the extension of the territorialsea which in no manner took into
limits is a matter of vital interests. This is a account the tact that the natural resources of
malter in which the entire nation is united. The the coastal State are involved. On the contrary,
foundation was established already in 1948, they were solely based on the policy of en·
almost a quarter of a century ago, when the abting them to fish as close as possible to the
lcelandic Althing {Parliament) enacted the Law shores of other nations for their own benefit.
conceming the Scientmc Conservation of the Until recently it was · maintained in various
Continental Shelf Fisheries. Already at that . quarters that the three mile limit was the only
time the fundamental proposition .was that the proper piinciple in this field without regard to
coastal fisheries formed a part of the natural local considerations. lt was then said that this
resources of the country within a reasonable principle should appty everywhere. At the pre
distance from the coast in view of the relevant sent time, however, it has fortunately been de
local considerations. Such considerations are stroyed. To·day nobody would think of advanc
evident in the case of lceland. lt is the con ing such assertions. But now the tweh1e mile
tinental shelf, the platform upon which the doctrine is advocated in their place - obvious
country rests, which provides the environment ly for the purpose of serving exactly the same
and the biological conditions required for the interests. Fortunately, as far as lceland is con
spawning areas, nursery grounds and food re cerned, this fundamental approach is no longer
servoirs for the fishstocks. Ali the elements are acceptable to the community of nations and
there united in providing the environment now it is confidently expected that at the Law
which forms the basis for the very existence of the Sea Conference, which is scheduled for
and maintenance of the fishstocks. When it is next year, steps will be taken to provide the
Jt;eptin mind that lceland does not possess any only realisÎic basis, which is the evaluation of
other natural resources it can be faithfully as· the relevant local considerations. The 25 years'
serted that the policy which, as I said, was old policy of lceland enjoys ever increasing 50 FISHERIES JURISDICTJON
support and we are hopeful that the goal will in view of the fact that various other fishing
there be attained so that it will no longer be grounds have already been destroyed. These
necessary to engage in conflicts with regard to discussions have been in progress since Au
this malter of vital interests. lt remains to be gust and still continue. lt is our sincere wish
seen whether il will be possible to convene the that it will prove possible to achieve a prac
Conference next year and some delay may be tical solution of the problems involved. ln the
invo!ved in securing the necessary ratifications opinion of the lce/andic Govemment such a
of the agreements eventually arrived at. solution ·1sthe only right one and now we have
ln lceland we have waited for a long time experienced the historie occasion lhat this poli
and we have participated in one conference cy has been approved unanimously by all the
after another but now we cannot afford to wait Members of the Althing.
any longer. The ever increasing development 1 am not going to pursue this matter any
of fishing techniques and the imminent danger further at present but I want to use this op
of ever increased effort of the fishing vessels portunity at this meeting of the Nordic Council
of many nations in the lceland area might lead to appeal to our friands here to show their
to lrreparable damage of the vital interests at
understanding of the fight of the lcelandic
stake. Consequently the Government of lce people for their existence and we continue to
land has now decided to extend the lcelandic hope that other nations will not try to apply
fishery limitsto50 miles not later than Septem economic sanctions for the purpose of divert
ber 1, 1972.At the same time we are engaged ing us from the course which we must follow.
in dicussions with the two nations who have On the contrary, we hope that their reaction
the greatest interes!s in the !celandic fisheries. wi/1be to recognize the proper place of lcerand
Although we cannot agree that their over-ex - to assume her role in the international di
ploitationof the lcelandic fishing grounds over vision of labour which has been allotted to lce
a long period of lime gives them a right to land by Nature, i.e. to produc_ethe goods which
continue their activities in the area we want to are derived from the only avaîlable natural
make an effort to seek a solution of the pro resources for the beneflt of the lcelandic na·
blems which face their trawling industries be tion and her friends."
cause of the extension of the limits - not least APPLICATION 51
Appendix IV
Slatemenl by Mr. Einar Agüstsson, Minister for Foreign Affairsof lceland,
during \he General Debate in the General Assembly of ,he United Nations -
on September 29, 1971
"... 1should like to dwell briefly on one such Sea Conference. lt is of course clear that the
matter today - a malter which for centuries solution of these remaining probtems would
has had in it the seeds of struggle, conflict and greatly contribute to peace and stability instead
even war, but which is now, with patience and
of the present dangerous conflicts and un
hard work, being dealt with in the spirit of in· certainty.
ternational co·operatlon for the benefit of man The Government of lceland welcomes this
kind. 1am referring here to the valuable efforts opportunity to thank the Preparatory Committee
to prepare the Third United Nations Conference for its valuable efforts during the meetings of
on the Law of the Sea, which is scheduled for
the Committee in March and again in July and
1973. At present the representatives of 86 August of this year. Progress has seemed
States are engaged in this preparatory work; rather slow in the initial stages, but it is hoped
but since the problems involved are of great that next year further accomplishments will be
and even vital interest to all the Members of facilitatedby the extremely valuable ground
the United Nations, they are an appropriate work already done, although many complicated
subject in this general debate. They wi11of problems are involved. 1 am not going to dis.
course also attract the attention of the Fïrst cuss the work of the Preparatory Committee
Committee when the report of the Preparatory further here; but since, as I said, the issues
Committee for this year is dealt with there in involved are also important to a large number
due course. of States which are represented in this As
The preparatory work for the Third Law of sembly but not on the Committee, 1 should
the Sea Conference has in effect been going like to make a few 'additional remarks con
on for more than twenty years. The General cerning the views of my Government in this
Assembly in 1949 instructed the International field.
Law Commission to deal with the Law of the We fully support the endeavours to establish
Sea in its entirety, and the Geneva Conferences an appropriate régime for the international sea
on the Law of the Sea of 1958 and 1960 used bed area and will do our utmost to contrlbute
the work of the International Law Commission
to the accomplishment of the task outlfned by
as a basis for their efforts. A large number of the adoption of the Declaration of Principles
the problems were successfully dea1t with in by the General Assembly last year. The wealth
that way, but the fundamental questions of the of material already available in this field is
extent of the territoriasea and fishery limits being studied by the appropriate authorities in
were not solved. Those two questions, together my country with the utmost attention. The same
with other fundamental issues - such as the applies to the questions of pollution and scien
international sea-bed area, pollution, archipels· tific research.
goes, fishing on the high seas and problems Slnce jurisdiction and control over coastal
of the land-locked States - still remain un fisheries is a malter of fundamental importance
solved and are now being studied by the Pre· to lceland and forms an inseparable part of the
paratory Committee for the Third Law of the problem of coastal iurisdiction in its entirety, 1 52 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
should like to take this opportunity to sum water terraces ideal conditions are found for
marize in just a few words the position of the spawning areas and nursery grounds for the
Government of lceland in this field. fish stocks upon whose preservation and' utiJ
A great development is taking place as re ization the llvelihood of the lcelandic nation
gards the problem of coastal fisheries. Jt is depends. That environment is an integral part
generally admitted that the system of narrow of the natural resources of the country. lndeed
fishery limits on the one hand and the so-called the coastal fisheries in lcetand have always
freedom of fishing - subject to minimal agreed been the foundation of the country's economy.
conservation measures equally applicable to The country itself is barren - there are no
all beyond that area - on the other hand, was minerais or forests - and most of the necessi
heavi/y weighted in favour of the countries ties oflife have to be imported and financed
that want to fish as close as possible to the through the export of fisheries products which
coasts of other nations. This obsolete system have constituted approximately 90 per cent of
is now being replaced by a new pragmatic total experts. The coastal fisheries are the
approach. This new progressive international conditio sine qua non for the lcelandic econo
law is based on two fundamental propositions. my. Without them the country would not have
The first is that the interest of the international been habitable. /t is indeed as if Nature had
community in the freedom of the seas for pur intended to compensate for the barrenness of
poses of navigation and commerce should be the country itself by surrounding it with rlch
protected. The other fundamental proposition fishing grounds. The continental shelf area in
is that the coastal fisheries are a part of the our case constitutes the natural fishery limits
natural resources of the coastal State up to a and the lcelandic Government has announced
reasonable distance from the coast and that that lt wilf fssue new regulatîons in conformity
this problem is entirely different from the con with these considerations before 1 Sept. 1972.
cept of the territorial sea. The distance re
The lcelandic Government considers that as
quired for this specialized jurisdiction over far as fceland is concerned we have to protect
fisheries would vary in different countries and
our interests now. lt is quite clear that at any
regions, but it would be determined on the time the high1y developed fishing fleets of dis
basis of the relevant local considerations - tant-water fishing countries will be increasing\y
geographical, biological, economic and others.
directed to the lceland area. These fleets have
The task is now to ascertain the claims of the now for some time had huge catches from the
various States in this field as regards exclusive Barents Sea. Fishing there is no longer as
fishery limits, preferential rights and conserva profitable as it was, and they are directing
tion zones. Such a pragmatic approach will their attention to the lceland area. As the
provide the necessary foundation for a realistic
existence of highly developed fishing techni
and reasonable system. ques and fishing capacity with huge factory
My Government is convinced that this new trawlers, electronic equipment and so on, could
system already has the support of the inter very well cause irreparab1e harm to the lce
national community and is preparing the ex land area. 1 might mention in this connexion
tension of the lcelandic tishery lim1ts in con
that the three nations mostly concerned in the
formity with these views so as to caver the Barents Sea area have for some time tried to
waters of the continental shelf of lceland. That establish some kind of quota system for that
criterion is clearly indicated in lceland, i.e. area, but as far as we know those efforts have
an area which, for example at the depth of 400 not met with success. ln any case we cannot
meters, would extend to approximately 50-70 afford to take the risk of just doing nothing and
miles from the coast. The outlines of this plat we sincerely hope that our actions will be
form on which the country rests follow those understood in that light by other delegations in
of the coast itse\f, and in these shallow under- this Assembly. APPLICATION 53
We are hopeful that the forthcoming con The delegation of lceland joined hands with
ference wHl eventually provide a system that other delegalions at both the twenty-third and
would consider the measures which we are the twenty-fourth sessions of the General As
going lo take, and must take, to be entirely sembly in urging that those problem be given'
lawful, just and equilable. Our action is in con priority attention by the relevant United Nations
formity with that spirit. lt is in conformity with bodies.
the strong conviction that progressive inter We are gratified to observe the progress
national law will replace the system which for that has since been made in this field in th"e
far too long has been tolerated. lndeed, more · preparations for the Stockholm Conference
than 20 nations have already proc1aimed rules
next year, as well as by the lnter-Governmenta!
and regulations for their increased protection Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) and
in this field. olher agencies, and also on a regional basis.
A malter which is clearly related to the pro The question is how we can best obtain early
blems of t~e· conservation and utilization of and effective results in our endeavours rn this
fishery resources is the protection of the important field. We believe that all Member
marine environment. Thal matter is also re states should as soon as possible take the
ceiving the attention of the Preparatory Com necessary steps to stop the growing pollution
mittee for the Conference on lhe Law of the of the oceans caused by their citizens. This
Sea. The Committee had before it a valuable should include effective prohibition against
report from the Secretary-General on the pre dumping poisonous or radioactive waste in the
vention and contrai of marine pollution. oceans.
We are now faced with the ominous fact Global and regional agreements must be
that ocean pollution presents a very serious negotiated to lhese ends, establishing the
danger to marine life, and even to man's activi obligation of all States to desist from destroy
ties in this environment. Scientific studies have ing marine resources and the marine environ
indeed made it clear that in lime all oceans ment by pollution and defining pollution stan
will be threatened with pollution. Il is therefore dards, liability and damages.
high lime that the United Nations should under Only by such early and concerted action can
take effective and speedy action to reverse we hope to avert the present threat to ocean
these developments and preserve the oceans resources and thereby protect alike the in
for rational exploitation of their valuable re terests of the coastal Stale and the interna
sources. tional community as a whole." 54 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
Appendix V
Statement from Mr. LUovik J6sepsson, Mlnlster of Fisheries of lceland,
al the Ministerial Meeting of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
in Moscow on December 15, 1971
"Mr. Chairman, - Delegates, to the Arctic circle. lt is devoid of metals; no
Every one who has watched the Northeast grain is grown; there are no forests for timber
Atlantic fisheries for some years past has production.
feared the consequences of the ever-increas Therefore we must import relatively much
ing fishing effort on the grounds in this area. more of all kinds of goods than is common in
An ever-growing fishing fleet has been seek other countries.
ing these grounds. ln the course of a few years For our proportionately large imports we
the vessels have undergone a complete change must pay with the valuables we get from our
in size and outfit. exported fish products. The foundation of our
economic system, therefore, is the fishing
The Old side trawlers have been replaced by
a large number of stern trawlers. lnstead of industry, - fisheries and fish production. Our
the former three to five hundred ton trawlers, fisheries pollcy has been clear and consistent.
these fishing grounds are now frequented by ln 1948 that policy was manifest in an Act of
modem vessels of one thousand to twelve the Althiog, whereby it was determ/ned that the
whole of the sea surrounding the country above
hundred tons, and in addition there are two
to four thousand ton factory trawlers, capable the continental shelf shall corne under lcelandic
of remaining on the grounds for months on jurisdictionfor all fistîing as further decided in
end. The gear used by the vessels now fre regulations by the Ministry of Fisheries.
quenting these grounds has also undergone lt was decided in 1952 according to this Act
that the fishery jurisdiction should extend to
enormous changes.
Ali these vessels are now equipped with the four nautical miles from base-lines and at the
latest electronic instruments, and they have same time base-1/nes were drawn across bays
fishing gear many times more productive than and fjords.
before. And now this fishing fleet has the ln 1958 according to the same Act the fishery
benefit of all the latest and best information jurisdiction was again extended to twelve
about fish migrations, weather conditions, and nautical miles from base-lines.
everything else Pertaining to fishing. lt is And now the Government of lceland has
obvious that the knowledge of the new and decided to extend the fishery jurisdiction of the
changed conditions has still increased the fear country to 50 nautical miles from base-lines
of all concerned, the fear of impending over on September firsr next year. This fishery juris
fishing of the various fish stocks in the area. diction covers in a11essential points the sea
lt is understandable that we lcelanders should above the continental shelf.
fill the ranks of those who most fear overfishing Our fishery policy is based upon our betief
in this area. that coastaf States must have full sovereign
We lcelanders are more dependent on fishing rights over all fishing in the sea above the
than any other independent nation. Up to ninety continental shelf extending from the coast line
per cent of the value of our experts have been of the country to a reasonable and normal limit
obtained from fish products. Our land lies close according to the circumstances prevailing in APPLICATION 55
the locality. We consider that the submarine
Therefore we must increase our national in
platform on which lcefand rests is a natural corne if we are to keep in step with other na
continuation of the country itself, and the right tions in th-e malter of standard of living and
of exploiting the continental seabed by the economic security.
coastal State has achieved recognition. Only five years ago, fifty per cent of the
lt is our opinion that the seabed of the con
total of fish products exported by lceland con·
tinental shelf and the waters above it, together sisted of herring products. Now the Atlanto
with the country itself form one physical and Scandian herring stock, on which nearly all
organic unit. We consider it paradoxical that the herring fisheries were based, has totally
vessels of other nations should have the right disappeared.
without licence to use their gear, as bottom The consequences of overfishing this herring
trawl, on our continental seabed, and we con stock have weighed very heavily upon our
sider it unnatural that they should be able with economy.
out our permission to prosecute fishing in the As herring fishinQ in our waters is now
sea above our continental shelf. ln the malter of practically non-existent, we have in an increas
fishing rights, we believe the only conceivable ing measure turned our herring fishing vessels
way to prevent overfishing and securing a to other fisheries. And we are now in the
rational exploit'ation of the fish stocks is for process of enlarging our trawler fleet greatly.
coastal States to have a wide fishery jurisdic This is an inevitable economic necessity.
tlon and to be capable beyond dispute of For us there exist no other possibilities.
making rules necessary for the inshore fishe For this reason the fishing effort directed
ries. Side by side with an extensive fishery by the lcelanders to the cod stock and other
jurisdiction, we consider it necessary that the demersa! fish stocks is being intensified, while
nations concerned should work in collaboration at the same time the number of foreign fishing
and consultation on rules regarding fisheries
vessels on our grounds continues to increase.
outside the fishery jurisdictions of the respec Foreign vessels have been taking about fifty
tive countries, that is to say on the high seas. per cent of the total catch of demersal species
We have in the past participated in such obtained annually on the lcelandic fishing
collaboration, and we wish to do so in the grounds, or a share equal ta our own.
future. ln the opinion of our marine biologists an
lt is our opinion that international collabora increase of the fishing effort from what it is
tion on rules regarding fisheries cannot replace now will inevitably lead to overfishing.
a large fishery jurisdictionof a coastal State. These are the reasorls underlying the deci
Experience has shown, for example that pre sion to enlarge our fishery jurisdiction to 50
parations for such rules take too long, and it is miles, for we must secure for ourselves a larger
very difficultto reach an agreement on partof the catches and safeguard at the same
them. The decision of lceland to enlarge its time the fish stocks around the country, on
fishery jurisdictionto 50 nautical miles from which our economic syst~m rests, against
base-lines on September 1st, next year is first extermination by overfishlng.
and foremost based upon two premises: Mr. Chairman. - l have now given you a
Firstly,we consider it necessary to take brief description of the basic principles of our
immediate measures to prevent overfishing of fishery policy and the reasons for our decision
the fishstockS in lcf!landic waters. We know to enlarge our fishery jurisdiction. The fisheries
that the fishing effort on the lcelandic grounds and the fish industry are for us the absolute
is now increasing enormously, and that various foundation for economic progress. Our lives
fishstocks are in evident danger. and existence in the country are based upon a
Secondly, there is our economic necessity. rational exploitation of the fishing grounds
The popu1ation of our country is increasing. surrounding the country. We realize that our 56 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
decision to increase the slze of our flshery Wéhave no doubt that before long We shall
jurisdictionwifl be met by opposition of many achieve fulfrecognition of our fifty-mile fishery
nations. And we may expect hostile counter Jurlsdiction, and we know that forelgn ve~sels
measures tram various quarters, as has always will never be able to prosecute profitable
been the case when we have extended our flshlng off lceland in conflict with lcelandic
fishery jurlsdiètion. laws and in opposition ta the lcelandic people.
No such ·inconveniences and no such pro Because of the nature of the case I have ln
tests can alter our position. my statement dwelt chfefly upon the probfems
The decision that has been taken has the facing the lcelandic people.
backing of the entire lcelandic nation. lt ls a lt is clear to me, however, that slmilar
total misunderstanding to say that we lce problems or parallel ones are faced elsewhere
landers are not willing ta conform to Inter on the North-east Atlantic fishlng grounds.
national law and rules in these matters. 1t is the joint problem of us ail to prevent
But we know perfectly-well that no interna dangerous overtishing in this area.
tional law on the limits of fishery jurisdiction We lcelanders are ready to collaborate. But
exists, and it is atact that the fishery jurisdic we emphasize that our collaboration in making
tions of the different countries vary a great deal rules regarding fisheries in this area does not
in size. alter 9ur fundamental opinion that each indivi
ltis known to us that the number of nations dus! coastal State should have sovereign rights
which recognize the right of coastal States to over ail fisheries up ta a reasonable and natural
a large fishery jurisdiction is growing. limit in the area of its continental shelf." APPLICATION 57
Appendix VI
COMMITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USES OF THE SEA-BED AND THE
OCEAN FLOOR BEYOND THE LIMITS OF NATIONAL JURISDICTION
Slaloment by Ambassador H, G. Andersen (lceland) 16 March 1971
Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Mr. Chalrman, Turning first to the international sea-bed
At the outset of our deliberations for the régime we feel that the work a1ready.accom
preparation of the forthcoming Conference on plished in the Sea·bed Committee and the
the Law of the Sea it would, in the opinion of working papers sub~itted there together with
the lcelandic delegation, be vert useful if the the Declaration of Princip\es adopted by the
different delegations would outline their views General Assembly last December provide a
with regard to the most important issues con basis for further deliberations.
fronting us in order to ascertain the degree of Turning to the question of the extent of the
possible accomplishments. Of course there territorial sea it seems to us that a solution
will be ample opportunity to discusS all the should be found on the basis advocated by us
problems involved in detail during the next and many others at the Geneva Conferences of
two years but a general panorama would 1958 and 1960, namely that a relatively narrow
facilitate the task.ln that spirit I would now territoriasea is acceptable provided that the
like to present .the pre\iminary views of the question of fishery limits ls adequately dealt
lcelandic Government. with. On that basis my delegation would agree
What is most important is, of course, to bring to a comparatively narrow territorialsea.
to fruition the codification and progressive Then there is the question of the fishery
deve\opment of the law of the sea which was limits which in our view is the crux of the
started more than twenty years ago by the whole matter and must be dealt with in real
General Assembly of the United Nations in istic terms. That question will not be solved
1949. Much was accomplished through the by the assertion that the concept of the free
work of the International Law Commission, the dom of the seas calls for narrow fishery Jimits
Sixth Committee of the Assembly, the Rome and by branding the claims for extended
Conference of 1955 on the Conservation. of fisheryJimits as national·parochialism or narr
the Living Resources of the Sea and, of course, OW·mindedselfishness.Such vjews now belong
to the past when the interests of nations fish
the Geneva Coriferences on the Law of th~ Sea
in 1958 and 1960. ln our opinion many pro ing off the shoresof·other countries were pro
b1ems were thus solved in a satisfactory tected at the expense of the nationsin whose
manner but agreement has not been reached waters fishing was conducted. Account must
on the extent of the territorial sea, fishing be taken of the tact that many new states
limits and now also the international sea·bed have emerged who rightry consider that coastal
régime.These problems are still our main pro fishing resources are a part of the natural re
blems and in seeking their solution we must be sources of the coastal nation and this is, ln
prepared to make the necessary adjustments deed, the predominant view of the international
in related fields such as fishing and the con community to·day.
servation of the living resources of the sea, The vlews of the lcelandic Government ln
pollution and scientific research. this field were.summarlzed in a communication
1 would now like to make a few remarks to the International Law Commission already
on May 5, 1952. lt is there said, Inter alla:
wlth regard to these main categories. 58 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
''2. The views of the Jce/andic Government levant local considerations in lceJand would
-with regard to fisheries jurisdictioncan be de generally speaking coincide with the outer
scribed on the basis of its own experience, as limits of the continental shelf or platform at the
follows: depth of 400 meters which in some areas would
Investigations in lceland have qulte clearly go out to 60-70 miles from shore. Other coun
shown that the country rests on a platform or tries require still more and the coastal State
continental shelf whose outlines follow those must determine the Jimits on the basis of a
reallstic appraîsal of local conditions. The lce
of the coast itseJf whereupofl the depths of the
real high seas fol[ow. On this platform invalu landic Law of 1948 concerning the continente:1,I
able fishing banks and spawning grounds are shelf fisheries is based on this policy.
found upon whose preservation the survival of Ail these matters will, of course, be debated
the lcelandic people depends. The country it in our forthcoming discussions. lt has some
self is barren and almost all necessities have times been said that the general maximum
to be imported and financed through the ex should be set at 12 miles and more extensive
port of fisheries products. lt can truly be said claims should be dealt with on a regional basis
that the coastal fishing grounds are the con through agreements between the nations con
ditio sine qua non of the lcelandic people cerned. 1would be lacking in candour if I dîd
for they make the country habitable. The lce not say right away at the outset that this is not
landic Government considers itself entitled and a realistic approach in our opinion. The real
indeed bound to take all necessary steps on a problem indeed does arise when the other
unilateral basis to preserve these resources nations of a given region do not want to give
and is doing so as shown by the attached up their clalms - when they perhaps al/ want
documents. lt considers that it is unrealistic to fish off the coasts of one nation in the
that foreigners can be prevented from pumping region. A reference to them for a solution after
oil from the continental shelf but that they
a general limit has been fixed would not be a
cannot in the same manner be prevented from just or equitable remedy. Therefore, the gene
destroying other resources which are based rat rule itself must include the solution of the
on the same sea-bed. special cases.
3. The Government of lceland does not main The determination of the fishery Hmits îs also
tain that the same rule should necessarily ap closely related to the general problems of con
ply in all countries. lt feels rather that each servation of the resources also beyond the
case should be studied separately and that the fishery limits and the prevention of pollution
coastal State could, within a reasonable dis and other damage to the marine environment
tance from its coast, determine the necessary as well as the protection of scîentific research.
measures for the protection of its coastal fish The problems of conservation of fishstocks and
eries in view of economlc, geograph/c, b;o1ogi protection of the environment are becoming
cal and other relevant considerations."
ever more important. Fishing techniques are
These views have on many occasions been becoming more effective and soon we may be
repeated and remain unchanged. ln other faced with huge factory ships equipped with
words, we feel very strongly that -each case electrical devices for fishing whlch will be cap-
must be decided on its merits by the coastal . able of directing vast quantities of fish right
State itself taking these considerations into into a factory on board. The overfishing pro
account. Such an evaruation feads to different blem has for a long time been an imminent
results in different cases. Thus many States danger in lcelandic waters. OUr resou~ces were
consider that fishery limits of 12 miles are indeed threatened with depletion after the Sec
quite sufficient for their purposes. Others con ond World War but through the extension of
sider that the vital interests inVolved are not our fishery 1imits the danger was temporarily
sufficient1y protected in that manner. The re- averted. And the pollution problem already has APPL!CA TION 59
reached proportions which no longer can be JMCO ta provide experts ta the secretariat to
endured or tolerated. No longer can it be toler assist in this important work. 1 would visualize
ated that dangerous wasle and poisons are that they should be fully integrated into the
deliberately dumped inlo the oceans with mor present secretariat.The result should be a
tal consequences ta the living resources of the strengthened secretariat of maximum service
sea. This kind of action constitutes a marked ta the Preparatory Committee. Il would also be
abuse of the freedom of the seas. desirable ta bring up to date the FAO list of
These, Mr. Chairman, are the fundamental limits of national iurisdictlonwhich appeared
views of the lcelandic delegation. And we feel in 1969.
very strongly that they are reasonable and just. Mr. Chairman, 1 will not take up more lime
Before J leave the floor l would also like ta in this initial statement slnce we are equally
make a comment about the rôle of the specia interesled in learning the views of other dele
lized agencies in the coming work of the Pre gations with whom, through a common effort,
paratory Committee. My delegation would wel we hope to bring twenty years of work by the
come the technical competence they can offer United Nations for the progressive develop
as observers ta the Preparatory Committee. 1 ment of the international law of the sea ta
would suggest that because of the complex fruition. And when we are engaged in this task
technical discussions we will have in fisheries, we should never Jose sight of the frequently
pollution etc. and the resulting demands on the declared view of the General Assembly thât all
secretariat that consideration be given ta ask the different parts of the law of the sea hold
ing those specialized agencies such as the together and must be solved together.
FAO Departrnent of Fisheries, the IOC and 60 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of. the Sea-bed
and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdicllon
Statement by Ambassadar Hans G. Andersen {lceland) 6 August 1971
Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Mr. Chairman, examination of the whole prob(em of fisheries
For various reasons work in our Committee has - the conservation of fishstocks and the utili
been proceeding rather slowly. One of the zation of fîshstocks. Since the details will have
reasons has been the problem of the list of to be worked out in the appropriate working
tapies but fortunately it now seems to be in... groups, 1will at this stage confine my remarks
creasingly felt by delegations that itwould be to general principles.
reasonable ta keep a flexible attitude in that
matter. ln other words, that the list might be
open-ended sa that any delegation should be ln a statement on March 16, during the
free ta suggest any matter which itwants to be general debate in our Main Committee, my
discussed. Ifin the end the general feeling is defegation outlined our basic pre!iminary views
that some suggested items have been suffi in this field. Without repeating now what was
ciently dealt with, e.g. at the 1958 Conferel1ce, said then Iwoutd like to discuss the problems
such items will be removed from the list again. involved somewhat further.
At this stage my delegatlon will proceed on First ofa_llmy delegation wants to emphasize
that assumption. that the task of the fqrthcoming Conference on
the Law of the Sea is the progressive deve
lopment of international law - not the codi
Regardless of the eventuaJJength of the list fication of obsolete theories or petrified postu·
of topics itis, of course, clear that the funda.. lates from the more or less distant past. What
mental questions of the bread.th of the terri.. is now called for is a fresh look at an the pro·
torial sea and the extent of fishery limits will blems involved on a realistic, pragmatic basis
have to be on the list and my delegation wishes and taking into account the emergence of a
to confine its remarks to these fundamental great number of new states with fegitimate
issues for the time being. Sorne other delega.. interests and policies which were not·taken into
tions who have already taken part in the debate account in the past.
have proceeded in a similar manner. These Proceeding on this basis my deleigation
two fundamental questions were specificall}' strongly feels that it is not necessary to insist
referred to the Second Geneva Conference in
on a wide territorial sea iffisheries Jurisdiction
1960. They were not solved there and, as my is adequately dealt with. ln that manner the
delegation sees it, it is the urgent task of this legitimate interests of navigation and corn·
Committee to devote its tireless attention to merce can be maintained. If fisheries jurisdic
solving the problems involved. 1 am not mini.. tion is adequately safeguarded my delegation
mizing the importance of other problems such woutd not consider that a territorial sea of 12
as the problems of the landlocked states which miles would be an insurmountable obstacle. But
certainly must be solved, but indeed these two at the same time it is also clear that that parti·
questions are the most important. ln their curar distance has then been determined on
proper perspective they also necessitate the the basis of considerations ot:ier than those APPLICATION 61
relevant to fisheries. If we ·proce·ed in that function of regional organizations in the inter·
manner we can avoid the mistake on which ests -of conservation has to be greatly streng
past practices have been based. And I woutd thened in order that the necessary conserva
now ·discuss that ·particular problem a little tion measures can be adopted nationally and
further. internationallyfor..the protection of the fish
ln the past it has been maintained in some stocks as a whole.
quarters that each coastal state has a terri ln order to sustain the maximum yield of the
torial sea which for various reasons such as fishstocks the total allowable catch must be
navigation, commerce, strategic reasons etc., determined and international or regional stand
should be kept as narrow as possible, and that ards of protection have ta be establîshed which
in the area outside these limits Hshing was free should apply ta al\ waters - on the high seas
for all although it was admitted that conserva and in the territorial sea. My Government has
tion measures equally applicable ta all should cooperated fully in such endeavours but -
be taken in the common interest. Regional and this I must emphasize - it has for a long
organizations were then supposed to deal with time adopted much more severe standards
such conservation measures but in these or within the fishery limits than the ·regiona~
ganizations unanimity ·was required. standards adopted for the area outside. This,
ln our opinion this system is totally unac in our view, is quite natural because it is the
ceptable to coastal fishery nations and of coastal state which has the greatest interest in
course it is clear that the system was designed conserving the coastal resources. Other na·
to protect the interests of nations who wanted tians may not be as concerned. Their highly
to fish as close as possible ta the shores of developed fishing fleets frequentry find it to
other nations. lts basic elements consist of
their advantage to take all the fish theiy can get
limits which are not determined with regard to in one area and then proceed to another even
the fishery interests of the coastal states. The if they destroy the resources in the process.
regional organizations have not been in any ln any case it is quite clear to my delegation
position. to deal adequately with the conserva that the conservation measures have to be
tion measures required. And the important ele composed of international or regional stand
ment of the coastal state's legitimate interest ards established by the appropriate organiza·
in the utilization of the resources is not taken tians and complernented by any further con
into consideration. servation measures within the fishery limits
lnstead of this kind of system progressive which are considered necessary by the coastal
international law has to use an entirely differ state. Thal aspect must be kept in mind when
ent approach that would consist of the follow the extent of the fishery limits themselves ·is
ing two elements: determined.
2. Utilization of resources
1. Conservation of resources Even if the necessary conservation measures
Conservation measures àre required to main are adopted - nationally and internationally
tain the maximum sustainable yield of the fish - the problem of sharing the resOurces is not
stocks. For that purpose national conservation solved. ln that connection the preferential posi
measures are of the greatest importance since tion of the coastal state has to be recognized.
spawning areas and nursery grounds are for As far as we can see there are two ways of
the most part found in shallow coastal areas. dealing with the prnblem. On the one hand it
But intern~tionally agreed _measures are also has been suggested that a regional organiza
necessary to prevent the overfishing of the tion should allot quotas to the various nàtions
stocks as a whole throughout the vast areas interested in the fisheries. That method may be
beyond national jurisdiction.Therefore the useful in some area~ but itdoes not salve the 62 FlSHERIES JURISDlCTlON
problem in an area where possibly. one coastal these considerations before September 1,
fisheries nation is concerned and perhaps 10 1972.
or 12 others want to continue their own fishing 1 am not going to elaborate further on the
in that area. They would possibly be extremely -lcelandic case at the present stage. My delega
reluctant to allocate a greater quota to the tion will"shortly circulate a Memorandum deal
coastal state. That is the situation in the lceland ing with these problems in more detail and we
area and as my delegation stated on March 16, hope that our friends and col/eagues here wiU
ln our Main Committee a reference to the other take time to examine that Memorandum.
nations or the area for a solution after a gene
ral limit has been fixed would not be a just or
Mr. Chairman,
equitable remedy. Although in the case of lceland the conti
The other method is to recognize that the nental shelf is the natural criterion for fishery
coaslal fishery resources form a part of the limits, in other countries other local considera·
natural resources of the coastal state up to a tians may apply. Il is for lhem to appraise
reasonable distance from the coast based on these local considerations and their right to
the relevant local considerations. ln lceland determine their fishery limils on that basis
these relevant considerations would clearly should be recognized. When all such claims
indicate the waters of the continental shelf, i.e. have been stated in this committee itshould be
an area of approximately 50-70 miles from the possible to work out the solutions which should
coast. The outrines or lhis platform on which apply and there is no reason why the same
the country rests follow those of the Coast it limits should be applied everywhere. lndeed
self. ln these shallow underwater terraces ideal some nations are quite content wilh narrow
·conditions are found for spawning areas and fishery limits.
nursery_grounds upon whose preservation and lt has sometimes been sald that if wide
utilization the livelihoodof the nation depends. fishery limils are recognized some of the re
These conditions provide the essenlial com sources would perhaps not be utilized, i. e.
bination of nutrient rich water Jrom currents, !ha! in some cases the coastal nation wourd no!
upwerring and phytoplankton which in turn be able or willing to harvest the resources and
forms the basis of the food chain. This environ they would become lost to mankind. Ta avoid
ment is an integral part of the natural re such an eventuality the coastal slate concerned
sources of the country. lndeed the coastal might accept the obligation to admit foreign
fisheries ·in lceland have always been the nationals to the extent required for the full
foundation of the country's economy. The utilizalionof the fishstocks in question. The
country itself is barren - there are no minerais regional organizations could be given the task
oi forests - and most of the necessities or Jife of supervising such situations. At the same
have to be imported and financed through the time ilmust no! be forgotten that even over
export of fisheries products which have con- · protection in areas adjacent to the coast would
stituted approximately 90% of the total export. result in greater catches outside the fishery
The coastal fisheries are the conditio sine limils so that the full utilizationof the stocks
qua non for the lcelandic economy. Wilhout might be ensured anyway.
them the country would not have been habit The basic principle should be that the
able. lt is indeecl as if Nature had intended to coastal fisheries form a part of the natural
compensate for the barrenness of the country resources of the coastal state. ln that manner a
itself by surrounding il with rich fishing state would not be in a position to say as so ·
grounds. The continental shelf area in our case often is said now: We are entitled to the
constitutes the natural fishery limits and the resources of the sea-bed and the subsoil of the
lcelandic Government has .announced that it continental shelf because we have oil and gas
will issue new Regulations in conformity w!th resources there which we want to utilize for APPLICATION 63
ourselves. We also have jurisdiction over the claims of the coastal states to their coastal
crabs and other sedentary species because fishery resources. When they have been pre
that is alsoin our 1nterest.On the other hand
sented in this Committee itis very likely that
we want ·10 get as close as possible to the it will become relatively easyto find a formula
shores of other nations where fish is more which within a system of progressive interna
abundant than in our coastal region. Therefore tional law would recognize the coastal
we cannot be prevented from utilizing the fisheries as the natural resources of the
coastal fishery resources of other nations. coastal state. lt Will then emerge that it is not
lt would on the contrary be recognized that a question of choosing between narrow fishery
the principles announced by the International limitsfor all or very wide fishery limits for all.
Court of Justice in the Anglo-Norwegian Fish There is absolutely no reason why the same
eries Case should apply. ltwi11be recalled that limits should apply e. g. on the one hand in
the Court then said that it is the land which the North Sea, the Miditerranean and the
confers upon the coastal state a right to the Carribean Sea and on the other in Australia,
waters off its coast And in the recent Conti Canada, New Zealand, Chile, Peru and lceland.
nental Shelf Cases the Court stressed the The situations are different and il should be
tact that continental shelves are a natural possible to devise a harmonious system. ln
prolongation of the territory. · that manner the proper solutions might vary.
Il shou1d be recognized that the coastal ln some areas the coastal state may be content
fishery resources are a part of the natural with narrow fishery limits. ln others there
resources of the coastal state. Sorne coastal might be varying degrees of lnterest ranging
states - like lceland - in reality have practi from conservation and management zones or
cally no other resources. And it is no argument preferential zones to reasonably extensive
to say that because of the concentration of exclusive limits. Sufficient safeguards to pre
phytoplanldon the fishery resources are vent abuse should be defined so that valuable
located off the coasts of a few countries. If we resources are not simply closed and then re
look at the phytoplankton maps we see that main unutilized or no! fully ulilized. Various
very many coastal states are so endowed. lt methods to that effecl should be studied in
is a part of their environment. Il is a part of the appropiate working groups. And perhaps
their natural resources in an area which often this Sub-Commiltee could devote special
would be described as a natural prolongation meetings to the discussion of fishery problems.
of their territories. Of course, natural resourcesThe essential thing is to recognize the basic
.are unevenly distributed in the world. But my principle that to the extent lhat the coastal
delegation feels very strongly that the claims state is willing and able to utilize its coastal
of forelgn nations to harvesting the coasta\ 1isheryresources it should be allowed to do so.
fishery resources of other nations would be As far as lceland is concerned, although one
parallel to a claim by foreign nations to access hait of the sustainable yield has been taken by
to the mines and forests of other countries foreign nationals the lcelandic people are
because they do not have the same riches quite capable of fully utilizing the maximum
themse1ves.As far as the coastal state is able yield themselves. Thal is why the lcelandic
and willing to harvest its coastal fishery Government has announced that before
resources it is ils function in a world of divi September 1, 1972, the lcelandic fishery limits
sion of labour to do so and furnish other will be extended so as to cover the waters of
nations with the products just as they in tum the continental shelf area. These measures
uti\ize their own natural resources in the same are urgently required because of scienlific,
way. technical and economic development. One of
As I mentioned earlier this Committee is the the most important reasons is the ever greater
appropriate forum to examine the various danger of increased diversion of highly deve- 64 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
loped fishing fleets from other countriès to of the allowable catch of a stock traditionally ·
the lcelandic area. W~ hope that other coastal taken by the flshermen of other states shall
states here represented will proceed with not"be allocated to the coastal state. And il is
staling their cfaims so that the Committee added that in the view of the United States
wifl as soon as possible be in a position to Government an appropriate text with respect
evaluate the different situations and work out to traditional fishing should be negotiated
à just and equitable formula where the right between coastal and distànt water fishing
of coastal states to utilize and develop their states. My delegation has given this matter a
coastal fishery resources for the well-being of great deal of thought but as far as we can see
their peoples will be Jully recognized. the final solution then would depend on to
ln conclusion I would like to refer to the what extent the distant water fishing nations
statement made by the delegation of the in the region were willing to allocate to the
United States in this Sub-Committee on August coastal state. ln other words, the coastal state
3rd. ln the Dralt Articles on the Breadth of the would be at the mercy of the distant water
Territorial Sea, Straits, and Fisheries submitted fishing states as they indeed have been in the
by the delegation of the United States, Article past. Perhaps some formula can be found,
Ill, Paragraph C reads as follows: which would clearly establish in what manner
"The portion of the allowable catch of a the general prini::ip!e should be implemented,
stock in any area of the high seas adjacent i. e. of allocating to the coastal state that
to a coastal state that can be harvested by portion of the aHowqble catch that can be
that state shalbe allocated annually toit". harvested by that state. We sincerely hope so.
But in the meantime we do not see that the
As my delegation understands this para
graph and the explanations contained in the problem can be solved in any other way than
statement of the delegation of the United through fishery limits beyond the territorial sea
States this principle would recognize the in the manner which my delegation has sub·
fundamental proposition that the coastal mitted to-day. We would, therefore, propose
fishery resources form a part of the natural as a tapie for inclusion in the list of topics the
resources of the coastal state and we certainly topic of fisheries jurisdiction covering exclu
welcome that proposai wholeheartedly. How sive fishery·limits, preferential rights and con
ever, the limitation contained in paragraph E servation and management zones.
of the same Article states that the percentage APPLICATION 65
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-bed
and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Llmits of National Jurlsdictlon
Statement by Ambassador Hans G. Andersen (lceland) 19 August 1971
Palais des Nations, Geneva.
Mr. Chairman, the International Law· Commission should be
1 When my delegation submitted ils views entrusled with the task of dealing with the
regarding fisheries jurisdiction in thls Commit· Law of the Sea in its enlirety on the basis of
tee on August 6th discussions on that subject the progressive develoment of international
had just started. Since then many other -0e1e law. Since then we have been waiting, 1.e.
gations have discussed thfs problem and as the for almost 25 years. ln this connection it may
distrnguished representative of the Soviet be recalled that when we extended our fishery
Union said last Friday in this Committee our limits to12 miles in 1958 - after the 1958
task here is to exchange views in order to conference - it was maintained that we should
arrive at appropriate solutions. ln the light of wait until 1960 conference. We maintained,
what has been sa,kl since we ·submitted our however, that we had already waited a long
statment I would like to make soma additional time and that there was no assurance that the
comments. 1960 conference would solve the problems
Reference has been made lo the declared involved. As we all know it did not. We are now
policy of the lcelandic Governmenl to extend faced with a similar situation.We do not know
the lcetandic fisheries limits before Septem whether it will be possible to convene a con
ber 1st, 1972. Il has been said that such a ference in 1973 or whether any agreement will
step would not be in conformity with inter be reached there. And if it is maintained that
national law and that it -would not contribute we are now making it more difficult to arrive
to international co-operation inlhisfietd. Myde al an agreement to the elfect that the maximum
legatlon considers thatthe statemenlsofvarious limit of 12 miles could be fixed for fisheries
delegations. here and the extremely valuable Jurisdiction we want to emphasize that we
listof FAO concerning limits of national juris would consider such an agreement comp!etely
diction clearly show that a great. number of unjust and we would not want to contribute
states would not consider our policy in this to a final result of that nature.
respect to be contrary to international law. lt The lcelandic Government conslders that as
is based on the necessity to protect vital far as lceland is concerned we have to protect
interests. And the record clearly shows that our interests now. Il is quite clear that at any
the lcelandlc Government for a long lime has lime the highly developed fishing fleets of
done its utmost to further intemat!ona\ c<r distant water lishing countries wm be increa
operation in this field. The Government of singly directed to the lceland area. These
lceland declared its policy through the enact fleets have now for some tirne had huge
ment of the Law concerning the Scientific catches from the Barents sea. Flshing lhere
Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fish ls now no longer as profitable as il was and
eries already in April 1948 which so fàr has they are now directing their attention to the
only been implemented to the extent of 12 lcetand area. The United Kingdom fishing
miles from the coast. Already in 1949 the lce interests themse!ves have declared that their
Jandic Delegation to the United Nations efforts in the lceland area will be doubled in
General Assembly successfully proposed that the near future. And the existence of highly 66 F!SHERTES JURISDICTION
developed fishing tecnlque and fishing capa servation of fisherles and the control of
city with huge factory trawlers, electronic fishing off Africa. Ali delegations present
equipment etc., could ·very well cause irrepar indicated that in their view lhis should be
able harm to the lceland area. 1 might in this done by establishîng zones in which
connection mention that the three nations coaslal states would exercise exclusive
mostly concerned in the Barents Sea area have rights with respect .to fisheries and in
for some time tried to establish some kind of which foreign vessels could operate only
quota system for that area but as far as we with the permission of the coastal state,
know those ·efforts have not met with success. obtained through negotiation. They added
ln any case we cannot afford to take the risk that preference should be granted in this
of Just doing nothing. respect to other African counlries. As to
We are convinced that the forthcoming con the outer limit of the exclusive fishing
ference will eventually provide a system that zones, several delegates felt that, for
would consider the measures which we are technical and scientific reasons, lt should
going lo take and must take to be entirely law coincide with the edge of the continental
shelf, whlle others expressed a preference
ful, just and equitable. Our action is in con
formity wlth that spirit.lt is in conformlly with for a limit delermined by· a fixed depth".
the strong conviction that progressive inter
national law wm replace the system which My delegation agrees with these views. They
for far too long has been tolerated. are in conformity with the basic principle that
Let me in this conneclion draw attention to the limits should be determined in view of the
the conclusions reached by the meeting for relevant local considerations. We are convfn
consultation on the conservation of fishery ced that this principle has the support of the
resources and the control of fishing in Africa, majority of the international community. Until
which was held in Casablanca, Morocco, from that support has been formally endorsed we
May 20th to 26th, 1971, under the au99ices of will have to protecl our vital interests by impie
FAO. In paragraph 72 in this very interesting menting our 1948 law in the way which we have
report, the following is said: already announced. ln our statement of August
6th, we drew attention to the factors which
''ln view of the deterioration of the state made the coastal fisheries in Jceland the basis
of resources in some areas the consulta of the lcelandic economy and really make the
tion felt that African counlries should con country habitable. 1 am not going to repeat
sider what measures would best enable ail those arguments here now.
them to participate actively in the con- APPLICATION 67
Annex I
STATEMENT READ BY MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Of lcELAND ON 24 FEBRUARY 1972
This aide-mémoire recapitulatcs the position of the Government of lceland
with regard to this matter. It states our views concerning the extension of the
fishery limits and the question of the applicability of the 1961 Exchange of
Notes. As far as the Government of lceland is conccmed it will be interpreted,
should the occasion arise, as implying ail arguments relative to the rules of
international law in this field, including ail aspects of the termination of agree
ments in the light of the aide-mémoire of 31 August 1971, as wcll as the prcscnt
aide-mémoire. ltshould be notcd in that conncction that the effective date of
the ncw rcgulations, to be issucd on the basis of the 1948 Law conccrning the
Scicntific Conservation of the Continental Shelf Fisheries, wiII be I Scptcmbcr
1972, and that the hope has on various occasions bcen cxprcsscd that a practical
solution of the problcrns involvcd will be achievcd as soon as possible. The
Governmcnt of !celand has indicated a basis for a possible mod11s ifrendi which
is still under consideration by both Govcrnments.68 FISHER!ES JURISDICTION
Annex J
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDüM's AIDE-MÉMOIRE
OF 14 MARCH 1972
The British Government have takcn note of the Governmcnt of lccland's
aide-mémoire of 24 February 1972 concerning the decision by the Govern
mcnt of lceland to issue ncw regulations for fishery limits of fifty miles to
bccomc e/Tectivc on l Septcmbcr 1972, and also of the Icelandic Foreign
Minister's statement of the same date. The British Government wish to reiterate
their view that such an extension of the fishcry zone around Iceland would
have no basis in international law.
The British Government reject the view of the Government of lceland
expressed in its aide-mémoire of 24 February on the subject of the 1961 Ex
change of Notes between the two Governments, to the cffect that "'the
Govcrnment of Jcerand considers the provisions o_fthe Notes cxchanged no
longer to be applicable and consequently tcrminated". The Briti~h Govern
ment repeat their view that the Exchange of Notes remains in force and hereby
give to the Government of Iceland formai notice that an application to the
1ntcrnational Court of Justice in accordancc with the Exchange of Notes will
shortly be made.
The British Govcrnment are very willing to continue discussions \vith the
Governmcnt of fccland in order to agree satisfactory practica( arrangements
for the pcriod while the case is bcfore the International Court of Justice.
A copy of this aide-mémoire is being transmittcd, as was the Govcrnment
of Iceland's aide-mémoire of 24 February 1972, to the Secretary-Gcncral of
the United Nations and the Registrar of the International Court of fosticc. REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF
INTERIM MEASURES SUBMITTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERNIRELAND REQUEST
71
Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
LONDON, SWI,
19 July 1972.
Case to Which this Request Relaies
1. 1have the honour to refer to the Application submitted to the Court on
14 April 1972 instituting proceedings in the name of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern lreland against lcelund, and to submit, in ac
cordance with Article 41 of the Statute and Article 61 of the Rules of Court,
a request that the Court should indicate the interim measures which ought to
be taken to preserve the rights of the parties pending the final decision of
these proceedings.
Rights to Be Protecled
2. :rhe rights of the United Kingdom to be protected are the rights to
ensure that vessels registered in the United Kingdom should be permitted as
heretofore to take fish on the high seas in the neighbourhood of keland out
side the 12-mile limit of fisheries jurisdiction agreed upon in the Exchange of
Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Govern
ment of lceland dated 11 March 1961 (as set out in Annex A to the Appli
cation instituting proceedings) except in so far as may be provided for by
arrangements agreed between the Government of the United Kingdom and
the Government of lceland such as are referred to in paragraph 21 (b) of the
said Application.
lnterim Measure.'iProposed
3. The intcrim measures of which the indication is proposed are those set
out in paragraph 20 below.
Gro1111dosf Applicario11
4. The grounds on which the indication of the said interim measures is
requested are that the Government of lceland have issued regulations pur
porting to carry into effcct their declared intentionof unilaterally extending
the limits of their fisheries jurisdiction to a distance of 50 miles from baselines
round lceland on I Septcmber 1972 and thereaf1er wholly excluding the
fishing vcssels of other nations, including those of the United Kingdom, from
that part of the high scas which is included within the said extended limits.
These regulations were issued notwithstanding the pcndency of these pro
ceedings and notwithstanding the discussions refcrred to in paragraph 21
below, held bctwccn the parties in an attempt to rcach satisfactory arrange
ments pending a dccision of the Court. The regulations, the full text of
which it set out in Annex A hereto, were published by the Governrnent of
lceland on 14 July 1972 and are expresscd to corne into effcct on I Septem
ber 1972.72 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
5. If such unilateral exclusion, which, in the submission of the United
Kingdom Government, is wholly unwarranted by international law, were
carried into effect for any substantial period, it would, for the reasons set out
below, result in immediate and irremediable damage to the United Kingdom
fishing and associated industries. Such damage could not be made good by
the payment of monetary compensation by the Government of fceland should
the· Court decide that the exclusion was unlawful. Accordingly, the United
Kingdom would be deprived of much of the benefit of any order made by the
Court in pursuance of such a decision by it. Furthermore, such unilatera\.
exclusion during the pendency of the suit could only aggravate the dispute
which has been submilted for the decision of the Court. These are consid
erations which, in the submission of the Government of the United Kingdom,
make it eminently just and expedient that the Court should indicate appro
priate interim measures to preserve the rights of the United Kingdom while
this suit is pending.
United Kingdom Catch in the lce/and Area
6. The exclusion of United Kingdom fishing vessels that is threatened by
the said regulations would leave open only an insignificant part of the fishing
grounds in the lceland area l (see map at Annex B1). The waters in the Tceland
area constitute by far the most important of the United Kingdom distant
water fishing grounds and one of the longest established. United Kingdom
vessels fish in the lceland area only for demersal or "bottom" fish. Of these
by far the most important are cod (75.9 percent. of the catch in 1971). Others
include saithe (11.7 percent.), haddock (4 percent.) and redfish (2 percent.).
Pelagic (or surface) fish such as herrings, capelin, etc., which are found in the
lceland area, and some species of which are found there in abundance, are
not fished for by United Kingdom vessels there. Over the period 1960-1969
the United Kingdom's average annual demersal catch 2from the lceland area
was about 185,000 metric tons. (See Annex G .) It was valued at .l:'.12million
and made up 45 per cent. by weight and 49 per cent. by value of all United
Kingdom distant-water landings of these species. Looked at in terms of the
total landings of fresh and frozen fish (i.e., ail the commercially impor
tant demersal and pelagic fish excluding shellfish) by United Kingdom
fishing vessels, the landings from the lceland area have accounted for 19.2
percent. by weight and 21.7 percent. by value over the years 1960-1969. (See
Annex C.) Over the same period the landings by United Kingdom fishing
vessels frorn the lceland area accounted for 16.1 percent. by weight and 16.6
per cent. by value of the total United Kingdom supplies of fish frorn ail
sources. (See Annex D.)
1 Rcference~ to sea arcas are referenccs to the areas shown on the map attached
herèto at Annex B2.
2 Wcights of fish are givcn where possible, in accordance with the practice adopted
by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ("!CES") and other inter
national fishcrics organizations,s "catch" weights, that is to say, the weight of fish
actually caught. ln othcr cases they are given as "landings", that is to say, the weight
of fish landed. The latter is a smaller figure since the fish are Jightencd by being gutted
at sea. ln practice the fish are weighed on landing rather than on being caught and the
calch weight is obtained from the landed weight by applying a known factor for each
species of fish depending on its anatomical characteristics. Very approximately, for
most demersal speciescatch weightsare 18 per cent.-20 per cent. higher than landed
weights. REQUEST 73
United Kingdom Vesse/s A.ffected
7. In 1971 there were 194 United Kingdom vessels which fished in the
lceland area. These came from the ports of Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood, North
Shields and Aberdeen. Sorne of these were relatively small vessels that usually
fishdoser to the United Kingdom and only visit the grounds around Iceland
from time to time. Others were freezer trawlers-there are 37 of these in the
flect of which 25 visited the Iceland area in 1971-which are also mainly
intermittent visitors to the Iceland area, having the capacity to stay at sea for
long periods and to fish any of the grounds in the North Atlantic. Over 94
percent. by weight of the catch in 1971 was taken by "fresher" trawlers, that
is to say, vcssels which have no facilities for freezing fish at sea and are
accordingly confined ta voyages of not more than 3 weeks. The ycar 1971 was
in thesc respects a normal year, showing perhaps a slightly highcr effort
deploycd in the lceland area than in some recent years. lt wi[[ thus be seen
that, leaving aside those vessels that do not regularly fish in the lccland arca,
there remain betwcen 160 and 170 vessels that rely on the fceland area year
by year for ail or a significant part of their catch.
Other Ami/able Fishing Groumls
8. ·The' demersal.fishing grounds within reach of the United Kingdom
fishing fleet are indicated on the map at Annex 82: they are as follows:
Distall/-Water C:rounds
Barents Sea
Bear Island
Spitzbergen 1 N-C. A""') N .e. "'"""
Norwegian Coast
lccland
East Greentand
West Grecnland )
Labrador
Grand Banks (Newfoundland) N.-W. Atlantic
Gulf of St. Lawrence
Gulf of Main and Georges Bank
Middfe-Warer and Otlier Grounds
North Sea
Farocs
West of Scotland
Rockall
Irish Sea
West of lreland and Porcupine Bank
English Channel
Bristol Channel
South of lreland and Sole Banks
The respective proportions of the United Kingdom catch contributed by each
ofthcse areas in 1971 is set out in Annex E.74 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
Opportunity of Diversion
9. 1t is not possible for the fishing effort from the lceland area to be diverted
at economic levels to other fishing grounds. The remaining grounds in the
North-East Arctic (Barents ·Sea, Norwegian Sea, Bear fsland, Spitzbergen)
are approaching twice the distance away from the United Kingdom, with
harsh (and during long periods of the year extremely harsh) weather and sea
conditions. lt is unsafe for trawlers not capable of withstanding such con
ditions to operate on these grounds. Catch rates in this area have already
falien from the high levels recorded in the late sixties and the Liaison Com
mittec's Report to the 10th Meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries
Commission predicted a continuing fall in catch levels for 1972 and 1973. ln
any case, any substantial diversion to this North-East Arctic area by trawlers
(both United Kingdom and others) displaced from the lceland area would
stillfurther depress catch rates below economic levels. The unfamiliarity of
many trawler skippers with these grounds would add to the difficulties of
securing an adequate catch to make the voyage pay.
lO. There is no prospect of the displaced "fresher"' trawlers making up
their loss in catch by fishing the grounds of the North-West Atlantic since the
longer voyage time (roughly 2 V: imes the distance from lceland) would leave
them with an unprofitably short period of fishing. 1n effect, only freezer
trawlers can operate on thesc distant-water grounds from which the United
Kingdom took a catch of 7,652 tons in 1971. However, these vessels account
for only 6 per cent. of the total United Kingdom catch in the lceland area
(see para. 7 above) and their opportunitics to increase their catches in the
North-West A!!antic will be severeJy limiced by schemes of quota limitation,
recently approved by the International Commission for the Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), which wîll become operative from January 1973
in four of the five sub-areas into which the Commission's area is divided. In
these sub-areas the United Kingdom's catch will be limited to just over
24,000 tons, and although there is no limitation in catches in the remaining
sub-area (where the United Kingdom catch was 2,731 tons in 1971) it is
evident that increased catches in the North-West Atlantic as a whole can at the
best replace only a small fraction of the catch in the lceland area and offer no
solution to the difficulties of the "fresher" trawlers which constitute the great
majority of the vessels which would suffcr by exclusion from lcelandic grounds.
11. Distant-water trawlers displaced from lceland could not profitably fish
on near-water or middle-water grounds. The catch rates per hour in the North
Sea, for example, are only one-sixth of those in the lceland area (one-third
when expressed as catch per day absent from port). Furthermore, these
fisheries are mixed, unlike the essentially single species grounds in distant
water regions, and this factor would also seriously impair fishing operations
and their financial returns. These grounds nearer home are in any case
already fully exploited: any additional effort by United Kingdom and other
vessels diverted from the Iceland area would reduce catch rates, further
deplete fish stocks and depress the profits of the traditional near-water and
middle-water sectors of the United Kingdom flect and, in turn, the current
returns of the United Kingdom inshore fleet.
12. ln general, therefore, modern distant-water trawlers, such as are used
by the United Kingdom fishing fleet in the lceland area, equipped with ex
pensive and sophisticated technical gear and having inflexibly high operating
costs, could not, if excluded from the lceland area, hope to gain, let alone
sustain, fish yields which would keep them in business. REQUEST 75
Economie Consequences
13. Given this Jack of alternative fishing opportunity, the threatened
exclusion of United Kingdom fishing vessels from the lceland area would
have vcry serious adverse consequences, with immediate results for the affect
ed vessels and with damage extending over a wide range of supporting and
rclated industries. There would very quickly have to be a withdrawal of some
vessels from service. lt is unlikely that many owners would have the necessary
financial resources to continue operating at a Joss for more than a few months
in the hope that they would regain access to the lceland arca. Most of those
vcssels now opcrating at or near the margin of profitability would have to be
withdrawn at once, since they could not operatc profitably on any of the
grounds open to them. But others would have to follow and the number of
vcssels withdrawn would increase rapidly and include the more modern
vessels as reducing catch rates dcpressed returns bclow operating costs in the
areas to which they had been divcrted or might otherwise be diverted. Owing
to the high cost of maintaining trawlers which are not in use, a large propor
tion would have to be scrapped if there was no certain prospect of their re
employrnent within a very few months. There is no ready market for second
hand distant-water trawlers. The scrapping of these vcssels would constitute
the loss of a considerable national asset.
14. Withdrawal of vessels would cause widespread unemp\oyment amongst
ail sectors of the United Kingdom fishing industry. At present there are about
18,000 fishermen in the United Kingdom: of these approximately 3,500 are
employed on the 160 to 170 vessels referred to in paragraph 7 above as fishing
regularly in the lceland area. ln addition it is estimated that a further 40-
50,000 workers draw their living from the ancillary industries (e.g., ship
building and repairing, packing, transport and marketing). Three ports
-Hull, Grimsby and Fleetwood-are cspecially reliant on the lceland area,
which accounled for 49.6 per cent., 49.6 per cent. and 69.2 per cent. res
pectively oflandings at thesc ports in 1971. (See Annex F.) At Hull alone it is
estimated that 7,000 workers (other than fishermen) dcrivc thcir livetihood
directly from the fishing industry. The problem would be made worse because
the rcsultant unemployment would occur in those areas (Humberside and
West Lancashire) where there is a scvere shortage of work and little scope
for alternai ive employment: neither are the specialized skills of fishermen
appropriate to work on shore.
15. Furthermore, to the extent that vessels displaccd from the lceland area
are redcployed in near-water and middle-water areas the consequent re
duction in the catch rate referred to above will have its effect upon the pro
fitability of the vesscls already fishing there and in turn force the more
cconornically vulncrable out of service with consequent unemployment at
thosc ports (c.g., Lowestoft) which are conccrned with the near-water and
middle-w,tter fishing fleet. Although the numbcrs involved would be smallef,
it is cxpccted that the impact would be proportionatcly grcater because these
smallcr towns are even less able to absorb a sudden cconomic change of this
magnitude. The employment structure at ail fishing ports. both large and
smalt would be severely disrupted and many who have no direct connection
with the fishing industry would be involved.
16. If United Kingdom trawlers wcrc cxcluded from the lceland area as
thrcatcncd. the effects noted above would follow relatively quickly: in a
period of 12 rnonths the fleet and shore-based facilities would have been
disruptcd and reduced to an extent and in a way that wou\d make an early76 FISHERIF.S JURISDICTION
return to the status quo ante impossible. The replacement of scrapped vessels
would be a very much more costly and slower process than the continued
opera tian and graduai replacement of ageing vessels, and the re-establishment
of shore-based cnterprises would also take time. Because of the local scarcity
of employment that îs rcferred to in paragraphs 14 and 15 above, many of the
employces who had been dischargcd and who could do so would move to
other areas in search of jobs. Once the labour force, particularly of fishermen,
had been thus dispersed, they would be induced only with difficulty and to a
Jimited extent to return to their former occupations. Confidence in the future
of the industry as a wholc would be destroyed and it would become relatively
more difficult than at present to attract învestment. No industry could easily
recover, if it recovcred at ail, from such a blow as would be inflicted on the
United Kingdom fishing industry by the exclusion of the distant.water fleet
from the principal fishing grounds on which it has traditionally relied and
which provides half its catch.
17. The United Kîngdom market for fish is characterized by a high demand
for dcmersal species (particularly cod, haddock and plaice). There would be a
sudden severe shortage if supplies from United Kingdom vessels taken from
the lceland area were eut off in the manner threatened. At best, there could
thereafter be a partial replacement as prices were forccd up on the United
Kingdom market and attr'actcd alternative supplies. Prices could nevertheless
be expected to remain high, reflecting relative scarcity and a firm world
demand. The scarcity and gencrally highcr levcl ofprices on the United King.
dom market would, as well as causing hardship to rnany consumers, lead to
a stabilized reduction in the consurnption of fish and the establishment of
different consumption patterns and tastes: it is doubtful whether such a
national tendency could be easily or who\ly reversed if and when supplies
from the lceland area were resurned. To that extent the unlikelihood of the
United Kingdom fishing industry being able to make an early return to its
present position if the Court decided this case in favour of the United King.
dom would be increased.
Conclusion
18. Vessels from the British Isles have fished in the Iceland area for many
years and British trawlers have operated there since 1891. Set out in Annex G
hereto are details of United Kingdom and lcelandic catches of demersal
specîes in the lceland area over the years 1950·1971 and of the proportions
which these constituted of the total catches in that area in each of those years.
Given the inevitability ofson1e natural seasonal fluctuation, there is a notable
long·term stability in the catches of both countries and in tlie proportion of
their catches to the total. The proposed exclusion of the United Kingdom
vessels would disrupt this long-established and stable situation and, in the
submission of the United Kingdom Government, should not be permitted
until the rights of the parties have been finally settled by the Court.
Proposed lmerim Meas11res
19. The Government of lceland have stated that they fear that the United
Kingdom fishing interests intcnd to increase their fishing efforts in the Jceland
area in the near future to an cxtent which will be harmful to the fish stocks in
that area-sec, for example, the Statement datcd 19 August 1971 by Am- REQUEST
77
bassador Hans G. Anderson to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the
Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction set
out in Enclosure 2 to Annex H to the Application instituting proceedings in
this suit. While theGovernment of the United Kingdom do not concede that
any such intention exists and contend that any fears which the Government of
lceland may have as to future damage to fish stocks should be dealt with by
such arrangements between governments as are referred to in paragrnph 21
(h) of the said Application, they neverthelcss accept that the Court may
consider it appropriate that thesc fears, whether well founded or not, should
be allayed pending final judgment of the Court in this suit. If the Court does
so consider, the Government of the United Kingdom suggest that the Court
should indicate as part of the provisional measures that the Government of
the United Kingdom should ensure that, until such final judgment, United
Kingdom vessels do not take more fish in the Iceland area than their average
catch in those waters in the years 1960-1969, namely, 185,000 metric tons per
annum (see Annex G). ln making this suggestion the Government of the
United Kingdom wish to make it clear that they do not admit that any such
limitation isjustified and fully reserve all their rights in the malter against the
Government of lceland.
20. In view of the considerations set out above I have the honour to request
on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom that the Court should
indicate that, pending the final judgment of the Court in the suit submitted
by the Application instituting proceedings of 14 April 1972:
(a) the Government of lceland should not seek to enforce the regu
lations referred toin paragraph 4 above against, or otherwise interfere or
threaten to interfere with, vessels registered in the United Kingdom
fishing outside the 12-mile limit agreed on by the parties in the Exchange
of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom and the
Government of lceland dated 11 March 1961 (as set out in Annex A
to the said Application);
(b) the Government of lccland should not take or threaten to take
in their territory (including their ports and territorial wateor)inside the
said 12-mile limit or elsewhcre measures of any kind against any vessels
registered in the United Kingdom, or against persons connected with
such vessels, being measures which have as their purpose or efîect the
impairment of the freedom of such vcssels to fish outside the said 12-mile
limit;
( c) in conformity with subparagraph (a) above, vesscls registered
in the United Kingdom should be free, save in so far as may be provided
for by arrangements between the Government of the United Kingdom
and the Government of lceland such as are referred to in paragraph 21
(b) of the said Application, to fish as heretofore in ail parts of the high
seas outside the said 12-mile limit, but the Government of the United
Kingdom should ensurc that such vessels do not take more than 185,000
metric tons of fish in any one year frorn the sea area of lceland, that is
to say, the area defined by the International Council for the Exploration
of the Sea as area Va and so marked on the rnap attached hereto at
Annex 82;
(d) the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of
Iceland should seek IO avoid circurnstances arising which are inconsistent
with the foregoing measures and wich are capable of aggravating or
extending the dispute submitted to the Court; and78 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
(e) in conformity with the foregoing measures, the Government of
the United Kingdom and the Government of lceland should each 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.
21. ln their aide-mémoire to the Government of lceland dated·J4 March
1972 (which is referred to in para. 19 of the Application instituting pro
ceedings in this suit and is set out in full in Annex J thereto) the Government
of the United Kingdom expressed their willingness to continue discussions
with the Government of lceland in order to agree satisfactory practical arran
gements for the period while these proceedings are before the Court. Since the
institutionof proceedings such discussions have been hcld at both official and
Ministerial levels in Reykjavik and in London on various dates in April,
May and July 1972. On 12 July 1972 it became clear that it would not be
possible to agree satisfactory arrangements and that the Government of lce
land then intended, notwithstanding the pendency of these proceedings, to
issue the regulations referred to in paragraph 4 above. As is there stated, the
regulations were made on 14July 1972 in the form set out in Annex A hereto.
The text of the regulations was transmitted on that date to the British Embassy
in Reykjavik under cover of a Note from the Ministry for Foreign Atfairs of
the Government of lceland, the text of which is set out in Annex H hereto.
Though it will be seen that the Government of lceland suggest in that Note
that further discussions should be held in order to reach "a practical solution
of the problems involved" and though the Government of the United King
dom stand ready at all times to çonsider any reasonable proposais which
might lead to an agreement providing such a solution, the Government of the
United Kingdom do n9t consider that they can any longer delay in requesting
the Court to indicate interim measures for the protection of the Parties. United
Kingdom vessels will not be able to continue fishing in the lceland area on
and after l September 1972 unless certain preparations are made by the
fishing industry in the very near future. If these preparations are not made in
lime or if, once they are put in hand, they have to be reversed or substantially
altered, the industry may suffer considerable loss and hardship. Accordingly,
the indication by the Court of interim measures for the protection of the
interests of the parties has, in the submission of the Government of the
United Kingdom, now become a matter of urgency. Lnthis connection the
attention of the Court is respectfully drawn to the provisions of Artide 61 (2)
of the Rules of Court which provides that such an application shall be
given priority over ailther business of the Court.
(Signed) H. STEEL,
Agent for the Govemment of
the United Kingdom. REQUEST 79
ANNEXES TO THE REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION
OF INTERIM MEASURES OF PROTECTION
Anncx A
TEXT OF THE REGULATIONS ISSUED BY THE GovERNMENT OF
lcELAND ON 14 JULY 1972 '
REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE FISHERY LIMITS OFF
ICELAND
Article J
The fishery limits off Jceland shall be drawn 50 nautical miles outside
baselincs drawn bctwccn the following points:
[The rcgulations herc spccify31 points by name and by reference to geo
graphical co-ordinatcs. Thesc arc not reproduced in this Annex but the
Court's attention is invited to the Note at the end of this Annex.]
Limits shall also be drawn round the following points 50 nautical miles
seaward:
[The regulations here specify 2 points by namc and by reference to geo
graphical co-ordinates. Thcsc are not reproduced in this Annex but the
Court's attention is invited to the Note at the end of this Annex.]
Ar,ic/e 2
Within the fishery limits all fishing activities by foreign vessels shall be pro
hibitcd in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 33 of 19 June 1922,
conccrning Fishing inside the Fishery Limits.
Article 3
kelandic vcsscls using botlom trawl, mid-water trawl or Danish seine
netting are prohibited from fishing inside the fishery limitsn the following
areas and periods:
1. Off the north-c,1st coast during the period 1 April to 1 June in an
arca which in the wcst is demarcatcd by a linc drawn true north from
Rifstangi (Base Point 4) and in the east by a line which is drawn truc
north-east from Langanes (Base Point 6). '
2. Off the sou th coast du ring the period 20 March to 2April in an area
dcmarcated by lines drawn betwccn the following points;
(A) 63 dcgrees 32 0 N 21 dcgrccs 25' 0 W
(8) 63 degrccs 00' 0 - 21 dcgrees 25' 0 -
(C) 63 degrecs oo· 0 - 22 degrccs 00' 0 -
(D) 63 degrees 32' 0 - 22 degrecs 00' 0 -80 FJSHERIES JURISOICTION
Prohibition of Fishing with Trawl and Mid-water Trawl. Cf. Law No. 21 of
10 May 1969, or special provisions made before these regu\ations become
effective.
Article 4
Trawlers shall have ail their fishing gear properly stowed aboard white
staying in areas where fishing is prohibited.
Article5
Fisheries statistics shall be forwarded to the Fiskifelag Islands (Fisheries
Association of Iceland} in the manner prescribed by Law No. 55 of 27 June
1941, concerning Catch and Fisheries Reports. If the Ministry of Fisheries
envisages the possibility of over-fishing, the Ministry may limit the number of
fishing vesse1sand the maximum catch of each vesse!.
Article 6
Violation of the prov1S1ons of these regulations shall be subject to the
penalties provided for by Law No. 62 of 18 May 1967, concerning Prohibition
of Fishing with Trawl and Mid-water Trawl, as amended, Law No. 40 of
9 June 1960, concerning Limited Permissions for Trawling within the Fishery
Limits off Jceland under Scientific Supervision, Law No. 33 of 19 June 1922,
concerning Fishing inside the Fishery Limits, as amended, or if the provisions
ofsaid laws do not apply, to fines from Kr.1,000.00 to Kr.100,000.00.
Article 7
These regulations are promulgated in accordance with Law No. 44 of
5 April 1948, concerning the Scientific Conservation of the Continental Shelf
Fisheries, cf. Law No. 81 of 8 December 1952. When these regulations
become effective, ReguJations J of 11 March 1961, concerning the Fishcry
Limits off lceland shall cease to be effective.
Article8
These regulations becomc effective on 1 September 1972.
Ministry of Fisheries, 14 July 1972.
Ludvik JoSEPSSON.
Jan L. ARNALDS.
[Note:
The baselines indicated in the above regulations appear to dilTer in certain
respects from those provided for by the Exchange of Notes of 1961. To the
extent that they involve, as they appcar to do, a daim by the Govcrnment of
lceland to draw fishery limits from baselines more favourable to themselves
than those established in 1961, the Government of the United Kingdom fully
reserve ail their rights in respecthereof and specifically reserve thcir right to
address submissions relating thereto to the Court at a later stage of this suit.] REQUEST 81
Annex 81
MAP OF FlSHING ÜROUNDS lN THE lCELAND AREA
[See Annex 20 to the Memorial on the Merits of the Dispute,
p. 402, infra}
Annex B2
MAP OF UNITED KINGDOM ÜISTANT·WATER AND MIDDLE-WATER
FlSHtNG ÜROUNDS IN RELATION TO lCES AND lCNAF STATISTlCAL
REGIONS
[See Annex 28 to the Memorial 011the Merits of the Dispute,
p. 412, infra] Annex C
LANDINGS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM BY UNITED KINGDOM VESSELS
Landin.gsot l'bh other than. SM!llfiah
l.a.ndia,ga f.rom Laadbp Gt
Year Total l>eur.nal 'to,ta.l P&lagic ~otal Landin.91 LM<ling,,froa IcelandngA.rea u IC"eh.nd.A.na u Shollfio!i
.Laadinp. W.ndinga lc-tland A:rea " of 1'otal W.ndings " or Total I>eme.raal
l..!lli.l'l.din.p
Weight V11,lue v~luit \leight Va.lue \le!gbt Value Weight Value Woight
Value 'Weight Weight Yalu•
()0:•etric 1000 111~trie ,. ~ooo :metric ,. '000 •etric tOClQ Itric ,.
to"" "' tona to .. t... "' " " " " tona
(1) (2) (3) [•) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
19/io 693.4 i.a.2 121-9 2.8 815.3 51.0 153.• 10.} 18.8 20.2 22.1 21.4 28.0 2.1
61 654.1 46.6 101.0 2.6 755.1 "9.2 163.} 11.6 21.6 .2}.6 25.0 24.9 . .z.i.
62 687.7 45.7 109.1 ,., 796.8 • 48.8 178.4 11.8 22.4 24,2 25.9 25,8 30.0 2.5
63 674.2 47.9 1,7.2 ,.1 821,4 51,0 187,1 1}.4 22.8 26.3 27,8 28.0 28,2 2.:;
64 681.7 51,1 11+2.4 3.2 8_;o,1 54.} 184,7 14.5 22,3 26.7 26,9 28.4 28.4 2.9
65 73},8 51+.1+ 161+,6 }.6 B<J••a :;a.o 195.7 15.4 21,8 26.6 26.7 28., 21.8 3.0
:;B.1 16.1
66 ?15,7 ;100.2 }.7 915,9 1•?., 11.6 20.0 20.6 21., 31+.1 3.6
67 710.~ ,,.·1 " 151,} ,., 862.1 57.0 161.6 11,? 18.7 20,5 22.7 21.8 42,2 4.0
68 729.5 54.1 140.9 ,.2 870.4 57.3 13&., 9.2 ,5,6 16.1 18.7 17,0 41.8 4,8
69 727,9 4.o 59,9 111.0 a., 13.u 14.2 16.1 15,2 50,6 6,0
55,9 175.5 9o3,•
196o-69 101.:; 51.2 1•5,4 ,., 8.6.9 S-,5 16<.:; 11.8 19.2 21,7 23,2 23,0 }4,6 ,.~
AYerage
1970 731.0 6,.o 187.6 ,., 918,6 69.5 142.6 13.2 15.5 19,0 19.5 · 20,6 %,4 6,7
71 715,1 78.9 206,0 6.2 921,1 a,., 180.9 22.4 19.6 26.} 25.} 28,• 54,5 7;5
Notes: l. Quantities shown in terms of landed equivalent weight, i.e., head on, gutted, plus livers.
2. Source: Columns (2) to (9) and (14) and (15) from Sea Fisherics Statistical Tables 1960-71.
Colunms ( 10) to (13) by calculation.
3. ln columns (8) and (9) a small adjustment has been made to take account of the fact that in the Statistical Tables the figures
for landings from different areas of origin do not include livers, whereas the figures for total landings do. The livers represent
approximately 2.7% oflandings by weight, and 0.5% by value.
4. Ali weights have been converced from ewts. to metric tons.
• Figures not available. Annex D
SUPPLIES OF flSH TO THE UNITED K!NGDOM
Sufplies of Fiah (exclUding Bhellrish) to the United Kingdom
i.e. Landinge by United Kingdom and Foreign Ves,.els, and Landings from Ic:ela.nd Aree.
Importa of P'res.h,Prozen,and Bemi-preserved Fiah) by United Kingdom Vessels
Supplieu of
Iear La.ndinga fro11 BhelU'ilh
Total Demersal Total Pelagio Landings rrom Iceland .lrea
Supplies Suppliaa Total Supplies Icela.nd .u-ea by lJK VeeGels
by UK Vessele as a " of
Total Supplias
VeigbiJ; Value Weight Value Weight Value Weight Value lleight Value lleight Value
'000 metric .:.a '000 metric .[a '000 metric ù, •ooo metric .[a '000 metric r.
tons toi>e tone tone " " tons
(1) (2) (3,) (4) (5) (6) (7) {8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
1960 820.4 60.5 137.7 3.4 958,1 63.9 153.4 , 10.3 16,0 16.1 33.1 3,1
61 808,6 60.9 117,7 3.1 926.3 64,0 163,3 11.6 17.6 18,1 • 4,5
62 120.0 62.6 178,4 11.8 18,8 18.8 5,} ,,
830.7 59.1 3.5 950.7 36,5
5} 806.5 61.1 164.9 3.5 971.4 64.6 157.1 13,4 19,;.I 20,7 ;.14.3 5.2 C:,
64 852.1 68.6 150.7 3,5 1002,8 72.1 184.7 14.5 18.4 20.1 36.5 6.6 m
18.2 6.6 -!
65 905,4 74.4 170.5 3.9 1075,9 ?8.3 195.7 15.4 19.7 35,8
66 866.4 72.6 207.9 4.1 1074,3 76.7 147,4 11.6 13,7 15.1 40.8 8,0
67 862,6 70.6 163,'I- 3.7 1026.0 74,3 1&'1,6 11.7 15.a 15.7 48,9 8.2
12,8
68 902.6 7},0 162.4 3.7 1065.0 76.7 136,1 9.2 12.0 49.0 10.1
69 878,0 74,3 190.4 4,4 1068.4 78,7 117.0 8.5 11.0 10.8 57,5 11.a
1960-69
J...-erage a5;.1.3 67,5 158.6 3,7 1011.9 71.2 162.5 11.8 16.1 16.6 41.4 6,9
1970 888.6 197.1 1085,7 92.4 142.6 13.2 1;.1,1 14,3 63.9 13,6
86.5 5.9
71 846.1 102.3 213.0 6,5 1059.1 108,8 180,9 22.4 17.1 20,6 63,2 15,2
Notes: 1. Quantities shown in terms of landed equivalent weight, i.e., head on, gutted, plus livers,
2. Source: Columns (2) to (9) and (12) and (13) frorn Sea Fisheries Statistical Tables 1960-71.
Columns (10) and (11) by calculation,
3. ln columns (8) and (9) a smalt adjustment has been made to take account of the fact that in the Statistical Tables the figures
for landings from different areas of origin do not include livers, whereas the figures for total landings do. The livers represent
approximately 2.7% of landings by weight and 0.5% by value. w0
4. Ail weights have bccn convcrtcd from cwts. to mctric tons.
* Figures not available.84 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
Annex E
LANDINGS OF DEMERSAL FISH IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
DURING 197( BY AREA OF CAPTURE
Q11c111tity % o/totul
'000 metrfr ums demersal /u11di11gs
Barents Sea 56.6 7.9
Norwegian Coast 42.9 6.0
keland 180.9 25.3
Bear lsland/Spitzbergen 3.1 0.4
West Greenland 2.3 0.3
Newfoundland 4.3 0.6
East Coast or Greenland
290.1 40.5
Faroes 30.8 4.3
North Sea JOJ.7 42.S
Roekall 2.1 0.3
West Scotland 67.2 9.4
Irish Sea 13.0
English Channel 1.8
5.2 0.7
Bristol Channel 2.9 0.4
West of Ireland and Porcupine Bank
South of Ireland 0.1
425.0 59.4
Total ail regio11s 715.1 99.9
Source: Sea Fisheries Statistiml Tables 1971. Quantities shown are in lerms of landed
equivalent weight, i.e., head on, guUcd, plus livcrs.
An adjustment has becn made to the figures obtaincd from the sft11istiml tables,
whieh do not include livcrs, so as to prescnt the table on the same basis as those in
Annexes C and D.
Ali weights have been converted from cwts. 10 metric tons. Anncx F
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF ÜNITED KINGDOM DISTANT-WATER PORTS
IN 1971
% of total % of total % of total % of total Demcrsal Demersal Demersal
demersal fish dcmcrsal iish landings of distant water catch on catch on landings from
landed al cach landcd from dcmcrsal fish landings by distant water distant water ail grounds
Port port caught in distant water by UK vcsscls UK vcsscls grounds as a % grounds as a % asa %
the lceland grounds caught caught in the of total UK of total of total
arca by UK in the lceland lccland area demcrsal demersal UK demersal
vessels arca by UK landings landings al ail landings
vcsscls UK ports
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Grimsby 38.0 77.6 49.6 31.0 63.9 12.7 19.8 t"'
Hull 42.6 50.7 49.6 53.3 97.8 21.8 22.2 C:
Fleetwood 15.2 99.1 69.2 9.8 69.9 4.0 5.7 ...
North Shields O."I 13.2 4.9 3.3 37.0 l.3 3.6
Aberdeen 3.5 83.0 6.5 2.6 7.8 1.1 13.8
Ail D.W. Ports 100.0 63.4 39.7 100.0 62.7 40.9 65.l
Source: British Trawlcrs Fcderation, Statistical Section.
V, Annex G
00
UNITED KINGDOM, lcELANDIC, AND TOTAL CATCH OF DEMERSAL SPECIES °'
IN THE lCELANDIC AREA
United Kingdom /ce/and Total Catch by ail
Catch % of Total Catch % of Total States in lcelandic Waters
('000 metric tons) Catch ('000 metric tons) Catch ('000 metric tons)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
1950 155.8 25.3 323.0 52.4 616.0
1951 169.6 24.8 342.2 50.0 684.4
1952 149.1 20.6 352.9 48.7 724.I
1953 242.0 27.8 365.1 42.0 870.0 'Tl
1954 234.4 26.6 388.6 44.l 881.1 v:i
tTj
1955 199.0 24.3 397.3 48.5 820.0 :,<!
1956 181.7 23.7 391.9 51. l 767.0 ;;
1957 208.1 27.9 352.0 47.4 743.3 "'
1958 217.5 27.3 374.3 46.9 797.4 C:..
1959 176.6 24.8 367.4 51.7 710.9 :,<!
1960 173.5 22.8 v:i
405.1 53.4 758.9 0
1961 184.2 27.1 350.4 51.5 679.9 ...;
1962 203.5 28.5 340.0 47.6 714.7 ô
1963 213.4 29.0 359.7 48.9 735.9 z
1964 210.2 27.5 398.1 52.1 763.6
1965 223.9 30.1 364.6 49.0 744.3
1966 169.5 26.1 325.0 50.1 648.2
1967 185.5 27.9 310.0 46.6 665.9
1968 156.8 22.8 361.6 52.6 687.4
1969 134.7 18.2 443.9 59.9 741.3
1970 164.7 20.9 471.3 59.8 788.1
1971 207.7 26.5 410.6 52.4 (783.0]*
Note: Total UK catch 1960-1969 = 1,855,200 metric tons equivalent 10 an average annual catch of 185.5 thousand metric tons.
Source: Columns (2), (4and {6) from Bulletin statistique des pêchesmaritimes. Figures for 1970 and 1971 provided by ICES from, as yer,
unpublished material. Columns (3) and (5) by calculation.
"' Estimated figure. Rl:QUEST 87
Annex H
NOTE BY lcELANDIC MlNISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS TO BRITISH EMBASSY,
DATED 14 JULY 1972
The Ministry for Foreign AITairs presents its compliments to the British
Embassy and has the honour to enclose 5 copies cifregulations concerning the
Fishery Limits off lceland, datcd 14 July 1972. Under the provisions of
Article I of the regulations the fishery limits off lceland shall be drawn 50
nautical miles outside baselines and under Article 2 ail fishing activities within
the fishery limits by foreign vessels shall be prohibited in accordance with the
provisions of Law No. 33 of 19 June 1922, concerning Fishing inside the
Fishery Limits. In accordance with Article 8 these regulations become effec
tive on I September 1972.
As specified in Article 7 of the regulations they are promulgated in accor
dance with Law No. 44 of 5 April 1948, concerning the Scientific Conservation
of the Continental Shelf Fisherics. Article 2 of the 1948 Law provides that
the regulations promulgated under that Law shall be enforced only to the
extent compatible with agreements with other countries to whom lceland is
or may become a party.
Although efforts to reach a solution of the problems connected with the
extension through discussions with the Government of the United Kingdom
have not as yet becn successful it is still the hope of the Governmenof lceland
that continued discussions will as soon as possible lead to a practical solution
of the problems involved. ORAL ARGUMENTS ON REQUEST FOR
THE INDICATION OF INTERIM MEASURES
OF PROTECTION
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC SlTTlNGS
held at the Peace Palace, The Hague,
011 and J7 August 1972, President Sir
Muhammad Zafr11llaKhan presiding 91
FIRST PUBLIC SITTING (1 VIII 72, 10 a.m.)
Present: President Sir Muhammad ZAFRULLA KHAN; Vice-President
AMMOUN; Judges Sir Gerald FITZMAURICE,PADlLLANERYO, FORSTER,GROS,
BENGZON, PETRÉN, LACHS, ÜNYEAMA,DILLARD, IGNACIO-PINTO,DECASTRO,
MOROZOY,JIMÉNEZDEARÉCHAGA; Registrar AQUARONE.
A!so present:
For the Government of the United Kingdom:
Mr. H. Steel, Legal Counsellor, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as
Agent;
Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Rawlinson, Q.C., M.P., Attorney-General,
Mr. J. L. Simpson, Second Legal Adviser, Foreign and Commonwealth
Office,
Professor D. H. N. Johnson, Professor of International and Air Law,
University of London,
Mr. G. Slynn, Member of the English Bar,
Mr. P. Langdon-Davies, Member of the English,Bar, as Counsel;
Mr. P. Pooley, Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Food,
Mr. G. W. P. Hart, Foreign and Commonwealth Office,as Àd~•1sers.92 FJSHtRIES JURISDICTION
OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS
The PRESIDENT: The Court meets today to consider a request for the
indication of interim measures of protection, under Article 41 of the Statute
and Article 61 of the Rules of Court, filed by the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland on 19 July 1972, in the Fisheries Jurisdictio11
case, between the United Kingdom and the Republic of lceland.
The procccdings in this case were begun by an Application Iby the United
Kingdom, filed in the Registry of the Court on 14 April 1972. The Appli
cation founds the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the
Statute, and an Exchange of Notes between the Governmcnt of the United
Kingdom and the Government of lceland dated 11 March 1961. The Appli
cant asks the Court to declare that there is no foundation in international law
for the daim by lccland to be entitled to extend its fisheries jurisdiction by
establishing a zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction extending to 50 nautical
miles from the relevant baselines, and that that claim is therefore invalid, and
that questions concerning the conservation of fish stocks in the waters around
Iceland are not susceptiqle in international law to rcgulation by unilateral
extension of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction but are matters that may be
regulated by arrangements 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 il by airmail the
same day. On 31 May, a letter 3 was received in the Registry from the Minister
for Foreign Atfairs of lceland, dated 29 May, in which it.was stated {inter
alia) that there was on 14 April 1972, the date on which the United Kingdom
Application was filed, no basis under the Courfs Statute for the Court to
exercisejurisdiction in the case, and that an Agent would not be appointed to
represent the Government of lceland.
On 19 July 1972, the United Kingdom filed a request 4 under Article 41 of
the Statute and Article 61 of the Rules of Court for the indication of interim
measures of protection. I shall ask the Registrar to read from that request the
details of the measures which the United Kingdom asks the Court to indicate.
[The Registrar reads the details ·ofthe measures 5.J
On 19 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 it the same day by express air
mail. ln the telegram and the letter enclosing the copy of the request, the
Government of lceland was informed that in accordance wîth Article 61,
paragraph 8, of the Rules of Court, the Court was ready to receive the obser
vations of lceland on the request in writing, and that the Court would
1 See pp. 1-10,supra.
2 Il.p. 371.
J II,p. 374.
4 Seepp. 71-78,supra.
5 Seepp. 77-78,supra.
6 H, p.385. OPENING OF THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS ON INTERIM MEASURES 93
hold hearings, opening on Tuesday, 1 August at JOa.m., in order to give the
Parties the opportunity of presenting their observations on the rcqucst.
1
On 29 July 1972, a telegram dated 28 July was received from the Ministcr
for Foreign Affairs of keland, in which, after reiterating that there was no
basis under the Statute for the Court to exercise jurisdiction, he statcd that
there was no basis for the request of the United Kingdom and that, without
prejudice to any of its. previous arguments, the Government of lceland ob
jected specifically to the indication by the Court of provisional measures un
der Article 41 of the Statute and Article 61 of the Rules of Court where no
basis for jurisdiction is establishcd.
I note the presence in Court of the Agent and Counsel of the United
Kingdom, and declare the oral proccedings on the rcquest for the indication
of interim measures of protection, open.
1 Il,p. 388.94 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON
COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE. UNITED KINGDOM
Mr. STEEL: May it please the Court; with the Court's permission, the
Attorney-General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, will put the submissions of the
United Kingdom Government.
Sir Peter RAWUNSON: May it please the Court:
1n this rcqucst, Hcr Majesty's Government arc sccking from this Court an
indication of interim measures of protection. lt does so at a time whcn the
Court has not considered the merits of the case and when the respondent
Party is not beforc the Court and appears to be challcnging the right of the
Court to cxcrcise jurisdiction. Her Majesty's Government are fully conscious
of the gravily of this request, as they arc apprcciative of the steps which the
Court has takcn, under Article 61 (2) of its Rulcs, to give the request priority
and to trcat it as a malter ofurgency.
ln the absence of ;my represcntative of the lccland Government, it is rny
dut y .to the Court not only to explain the facts and circurnstances which make
it neccssary to rnake this application but also to set out the \egal principlcs
which, in rny submission, make it a proper case for the exercise of the Court's
power.
The reason why Her Majesty's Government has been forced to institute
these procccdings is that keland has threatcncd to cxtcnd the limits of her
fisherics jurisdiction unilaterallyto a distance of 50 miles from basclines
drawn round her coasts and thereafter to exclude from that part of the high
seas included within those extended limits all fishing vesselsf other nations.
including those of the United Kingdom. This, in the submission of Her
Majesty's Government, is without any justification in internationalaw,
Moreover, notwithstanding the pcndency of these proceedings before the
Court, lceland, has persisted in her deterrnination to put the restrictions into
elTect on I Septem ber next.
The fishing vessels of the United Kingdom and other nations have for vcry
many ycars shared with those of lceland the valuable fishing grounds in the
high seas in the area of lceland.
On 11 March 1961 Her Majesty·s Governmcnt cntered into a formai
agreement with the Government of lccland that, in view of the exccptional
dependcnce of the lcelandic nation upon coastal fisheries for their livelihood
and economic development, Her Majest/s Government would no longer
object to a 12-mile fishing zone around lceland, rneasured from certain
spccifled basclines. This agreement was contained in an Exchange of Notes,
which arc set out in full in Annex A to the Application initiating procecdings
in this case.
The lcelandic Note, the contents of which wcrc accepted by Her Majcsty's
Government, contained the following passage:
"The Jcelandic Government will continue to work for the implcment
ation of the Althing Resolution of May 5, 1959, regarding the extension
of fishcries jurisdictionaround lceland, but shall give to the United
Kingdom Governmcnt six months' notice of such extension and, in case ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON 95
of a dispute in relation to such extension, the matter shall, at the request
of either party, be referred to the International Court of Justice."
The resolution of the Althing (which is the Parliament of lceland) to which
that Note referred had declarcù that a recognition of the rights of lceland
to fisheries limits extending to the whole continental shelf "should be
sought".
ln the submission of Her Majesty's Government, the meaning of that
agreement is beyond doubt. If ]çeland should seek to extend her fisheries
limits beyond the agreed 12 miles, and should any dispute arise, the malter
should, at the request of either party, be referred to this Court.
Now lceland has sought to extcnd her jurisdiction. She has given due notice
of her intention. A dispute has arisen.
On 14 July 1971, the very day on which they took office, the kelandic
Government issued a policy statcment announcing their intention to extend
fishery limits to 50 miles with cffect from 1 September 1972. This announ·
cernent was made without any prior consultation with the United Kingdom
Government.
Since Her Majesty's Government have al ail limes denicd the right in
international law of lccland to extend the limits of her fisheries jurisdiction
unilaterally, a dispute, in my submission, thereupon arose. lt is a dispute
within the definition of the Court in the Mavrammatis case (P.C.!.J., Series A,
Na. 2, p. 11), namely "a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of
legal views or of interests betwcen two persons''. The lcelandic Government
have recognized that their proposed action would cause great difficulties for
the United Kingdom fishing inùustry and professed to be willing to discuss
what they have called ··a practical solution of the problems involved".
Accordingly, Her Majesty's Govcrnment did not immediately refer the
malter to this Court. On the contrary, they first sought to settle the matter, if
possible, by agreement.
The first round of talks between officiais of the two Governments was held
in London on J and 4 Novembcr 1971. 1n viei.vof Jccland's profcssed concern
about the danger to fish stocks of an expansion in fishing by foreign vessels,
the United Kingdom dclegates at that very early stage thereupon proposed
that the solution of the problcm which had arisen between the two Govern
ments might be a catch-limitation scheme imposed on the United Kingdom
fishing fleet. This would, in the first instance, be a bilateral Anglo-lcelandic
agreement; but it would stand a very good chance of subsequent approval by
the member States of the North-East Atlantic Fishcries Commission if it
were an alternative, and not complementary, to the extension of lcelandic
limits.
This proposai was elaborated at a meeting in Reykjavik on 13 and 14
January 1972 when the British delegation proposed specifically that the British
catch in the lcelandic area might be limited to 185,000 tons a year, a rcduction
of 22,000 tons from the 1971 level.
At this stage, the endeavour of the United Kingdom negotiators was to
persuade the lceland Government that, evcn if lceland regarded her fishery
interests as of over-riding import:rnce, there was no need to renege upon the
1961 Agreement, and to dcny that this Court had jurisdiction and to proceed
to an extension of limits which would have no basis in international law.
lceland's fishery interests could be safeguarded by an agreement with Her
Majesty's Government which there was every reason to think cou Id and would
be followed by agreements wtth other governments; but hopes that lceland96 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
might choose the path of agreement rather than that of conflict were doorned
to disappointrnent.
On 15 February 1972, the Althing passed a resolution which reiterated the
intention to e.,dend Jce!and's fisheries limits to 50 miles. On 24 February /972,
the Government of Iceland delivered an aide-mémoire to Her Majesty's
Government which in effect served six rnonths' notice on Her Majesty's
Government that the extension of fisheries lirnits to 50 miles would be put
into effect not later than I September 1972. After receipt of this aide-mémoire,
negotiations had, in the words of the Court in the Right of Passage case
(l.C.J. Reports 1957, p. 145), "reached a deadlock". Accordingly, the United
Kingdom Government filed the Application instituting these proceedings on
14April 1972.
However, discussions 1 between the two Governments did continue; but
on the British side they now had a different objective. Although Her Majesty's
Government had concluded that they must Contest before this Court the
legality in international law of the purported unilateral extension by keland
of fishery limits to 50 miles, they sought to reach an interim arrangement
which would apply until the judgment of this Court in the present pro
ceedings. Such agreement would have made it unnecessary for Her Majesty's
Government to request the indication of provisional measures.
The Government of lceland was informed that the catch-limitation plan,
which the British d'elegation had put forward in January, was to be regarded
as a formai British proposai to form the basis of an interim arrangement, and
that Her Majesty's Government awaited the considered response of the
Government of fceland. The considered response, when icame, was rejection.
Among the Icelandic objections was that a catch-limitation scheme would not
be capable of supervision and verification by the Icelandic authorities. Only •
by the operation of controls of ports of landing in the United Kingdom would
it be possible to establish when the catch limit had been reached.
rn ordcr then to mect this objection, the United kingdom delegation next
offered a scheme of "effort limitation",that is to say, a scheme which would
restrict the time spent on the fishing grounds by United Kingdom fishing
vessels of differing efficiency. The restrictions would be devised so as to lmit
the amount of fish caught to the )evel of 185,000 tons proposed under the
catch-limitation scheme, and the Icelandic authorities would be in a position
to check independently, from their own observations, that the agreed res
trictions were being observed. This proposai too was rejected; apparently
becausc, although the lcelandic authorities would be able to check for them
selves, they would not be able to show the public that British ships were being
visibly restrictcd in their activities.
ln an endeavour to meet this latest objection, Her Majesty's Government
discussed with the [celandic Government yet a third proposai, by which
certain areas would, at certain seasons of the year, be closed to United
Kingdom vessels. Her Majesty's Government were willing to contemplate
such an arrangement so long as it cou Id be justified on conservation grounds,
or on grounds of the preference which keland, as a coastal State dependent
on fisheries, might claim.
The negotiations failed, because again and again the United Kingdom
negotiators were met with some fcelandic requirement which was inconsistent
with the preservation of the rights of both Parties pending the judgment of
1 II,pp.391-39::[. ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON 97
this Court on the merits, and which were therefore inappropriate to the in
terim arrangement pending judgment which Her Majesty's Government was
seeking.
At one stage Iceland proposed that British vessels should be wholly
excluded from a 25-mile limit. At another, lceland put forward proposais
which would have had the effect of reducing the British catch in the lceland
area to as litt le as 20 per cent. of the usual ·level. Running through the nego
tiations was lceland's insistence that jurisdiction, in the sense of arresting,
trying and punishing any vessels that might infringe whatever arrangements
might be agree·d between the two Governrnents, should be a matter for lce
land and lceland atone, notwithstanding the fact that lceland has yet to
establish before this Court her right to exercise jurisdictionin the waters she
daims.
On 14 July 1972, lceland promulgated the regulations purporting to estab
lish fishery timits off lceland, drawn 50 miles outside baselincs, and pro
hibiting all fishing activities by foreign vessels within these limits. The regu
lations are to corne into effect on ! September next. They were sent to the
British Embassy in Reykjavik under cover of a Note, a copy of which forms
Annex H of the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures. ln the
final paragraph of that Note, the Government of lceland express the hope
that continued discussions will, as soon as possible, lead to a practical
solution of the problems involved.
At the conclusion of the last round of negotiations on 12 July 1972, the
British delegation had indicated one basis for an înterim arrangement, and
had offered to consider any specific proposai which the Government of
lceland might wish to put forward on that basis. None was forthcoming.
The United Kingdom filed its request for înterim measures on 19 July.
Nevcrtheless. the British Ambassador in Reykjavik was instructed on 25 July
to inform the Govcrnment of lccland that Her Majesty's Government had
askcd this Court for a postponement of the hearing of our request in order
to givc time for consideration of any specific proposais which the fcelandic
authorities might wish to put forward. Her Majesty's Government remained
ready to meet the lcelandic authohties at short notice, at whatevcr level was
appropriate, if such proposais were forthcoming; none were. Since no such
proposais have been made, there is no basis for further discussions. The
United Kingdom is thus lcft with no alternative but to bring this request
before the Court as a matter of urgency. To repeat the words of the Court in
the Rig/rt of Passage case (/. C.J. Reports 1957, p. 145), the situation had
"rcached a dcadlock".
l shall deal latcr and in dctail with the effect which these regulations, if
implemcntcd, would have on the United Kingdom fishing industry and on the
public; but let me now say generally that the effect would be drastic and
immediate.
The lceland area has, for many years, provided the United Kingdom
fishing ncct with about one·fifth of its total catch, and very nearly.one-half
of the catch of the large distant-water 11eet. Virtually ail the fishing grounds
available to United Kingdom vessels in the lcelandic are,1 are within the
proposed 50-milc limit. If United Kingdom fishing vessels were excluded
from that area, while these procecdings are pending, not only would a very
large quantity of fish be permanently lost to the United Kingdom public,
but ttie fishing industry would be forced to scrap vessels and to.turn off many
men.
Thesc consequences could not be corrected if the Court were, in its decision98 F!SHERIES JURISDICTION
on the merits, to upho[d the contention of the United Kingdom that such
unilateral exclusion by the lceland Government is unlawful.
Accordingly; circumstances have arisen which, in my submission, require
the indication of provisional measures by the Court, under Article 41 of the
Statu te, to prescrve the rights of the Parties. The right of the Court to indicate
such measures in the appropriate circumstances is firmly grounde~: first, in
the Statute of the Court; secondfy, in the Rules whîch the Court has made in
furtherance of its Statute; and, thirdly, in the practice of the Court. To sub·
stantiate that submission, 1 invite the Court to consider the principles and
law which should guide its decision upon this Application. ·
Article 41 of the Statute recites that the Court "shall have the power to
indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any provisional
measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either
party". As with similar remcdies in municipal law, the Court enjoys a dis
cret ion,but it is a discret ion which must be exercised judicially.
Thus the Court will not make an Order: first, if it considers that in the
circumstances therè is no need for interim measures; and, secondly, if, in the
opinion of the Court, there is no real urgency. Moreover, the Court itself may,
at any time, indicate interi m measures proprio mot 11.
With regard to the principle that an applicant must satisfy the Court upon
the urgency for an interim order, I cite the lnterhande/ case (I.C.J. Reports
1957, p. 105): that case concerned the possible sale of some shares in the
General Aniline and Film Corporation by the United States Government.
Those shares, which had become vested in the United States Government as
the result of trading-with-the-enemy legislation, were being claimed by the
Swiss Government as the property of its nationals. The latter Government,
fearing that the United States Government was about to sell the shares,
requested the Court to prevent it from so selling, "so long as the proceedings
in this dispute are pending" (p. 106).
1n principle, that case was certainly a suitable case for the grant of interim
relief; but the Court declined to grant such relief on evidence being produced
that the shares could not be sold until after the termination of judicial pro
ceedings in the United States, in respeçt of which there was no likelihood of a
speedy conclusion; and furthermore, upon the United States Government
giving an undertaking that it was not taking action at that time even to fix a
time schedule for the sale of the shares.
On those facts, there clearly was no urgency in that case, and the Court
understandably denied interim relief.
Contrast those facts with the facts in this dispute. Here the Government of
lceland is preparing to take within a month action which, if the Court should
find in favour of the United Kingdom's claim on the merits, would render
large!y nugatory and inelfective any judgment of the Court.
Moreover, although lceland's proposed measures only take efTect on
1 September, in view of the need for fishing companies to plan in advance the
grounds to which they direct their vessels, and that a voyage to lceland takes
perhaps three weeks to prepare and undertakc, such measures already
impede the operations of the United Kingdom fishing industry. Thcrefore,
on the issue of urgency, l submit, there could hardly exist a·clearercase.
The next condition for the granting of interim relief is that the rncasures
requested must be for the purpose of preserving the respective rights of the
parties. 1t was because the Permanent Court decided, on the facts, that this
condition was not present that it denied Germany interim relief in the Pofish
Agrarian Reform case in 1933 (P.C.l.J., Series Af B, No. 58). ln that case ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLlNSON 99
Germany asked the Court to dcclare that Poland had, through its agrarian
reforms, committed violations of the Polish Minorities Treaty of 28 June
1919. Germany also requested the Court to indicate interim measures "in
order to preserve the status quo until the Court has delivered final judgment
in the suit submitted by the Application". Thus Gcrmany was asking the
Court to order Poland to suspend its agrarian reform programme as it
applied to Polish nationals of German race.
The Court declined to make an Ortler on the ground that the essential
condition, which must necessarily be fulfilled in order to justify a request for
the indication of interim rneasures, is that such measures "should have the
effectof protecting the rights forming the subject of the dispute submitted to
the Court" (p. 177).
Taking what Professor Vcrzijl has described in The Jurisprudence of the
World Court (Vol. 1, p. 341) as a '·formalistic" view of the matter, the Court
held that interim measures were not appropriate in a case where the subject
of the dispute submitted to the Court concerned only past violations of a
treaty.
Baron Rolin-Jaequemyns however declared that interim measures should
have been ordered, since their indication "would considerably facilitate the
reparatio11-so far as may be necessary-of these rights in the fonn of their
preservation, rather than by compensation for their Joss" (p. 180).
Judges Schücking and Van Eysinga also disagreèd with the majority, They
said:
"Having regard to the continuous character of the acts impeachcd, the
undersigned consider that any attempt to read into the words formulating
the abject of the dispute, in the Application instituting proceedings, a
definite distinction between acts which have already been accomplished
and those which belong to the future, would be an utter distor.tion of the
clear meaning of the Application." (P. 186.)
In a powerful opinion, Judge Anzilotti said that the German· Application
was open to di!Tcrent interpretations, and on a point on which perfect clarity
was essential. He could, hc said, "readily understand that the Court should,
on that ground, refuse to grant the request for interim measures of protec
tion". But, and this is important, Judge Anzilotti held that ··this should not
prejudice the German Government's right to submit a fresh application
indicating the subject of the suit with the necessary clearness and precisions,
and to follow it up by a frcsh Request for the indication of interim measures
appropriate to the rights claimed'' (p. 182).
The Judge considered that "if there was ever a case in which the application
of Article 41 of the Statute would be in every way appropriate, it would
certainly besoin the case before us".
This was becausc the ground of the complaint was acts of expropriation
involving discriminatory trcatment of Polish citizens of German race,
contrary to the Minorities Treaty.
"Founding itself on this reason [the learncd Judge continued] it {the
German Government] asks that the expropriations now in progress
should be suspended, as an interim measure of protection, until the
Court has finally decided whether the said expropriations are legal or
illegal.
If the summaria cog11itio which is characteristic of a procedure of this
kind, enabled us to take into account the possihility of the right claimed
by the German Government, and the possibility of the danger to which100 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
that right was exposed, 1 should find it difllcult to imagine any request
for the indication of interim measures more Just, more opportune or
more appropriate than the one which we are considering." (P. 181.)
That then was a case where the Application instituting proceedings was
deposite<l on 3 July 1933 and was accompanied by a request for the indication
of interim measures deposited on the same date. Certain observations were
made by the Parties before the Court Jess than three weeks later, and in the
course of these observations, the representative of the Respondent challenged
both the admissibility of the Applicanrs daim and the jurisdiction of the
Collrl (P.C.I.J., Series C, No. 71,pp. 41, 54). JlldgeAnzilotti on a preliminary
view in that case, and taking into account rnerely a possible danger 10 a
possible right of the Applicant, was prepared to order the Respondent 10 sus
pend a major programme of agrarian reform taking place in its own territory.
These separate opinions, 1 submit, are important because all the learned
judges who expressed them obviously took a broad view of the Court's
function on the principle of interim relief. ·
A narrower view of the Court's function may be found in the preamble of
the Ortler made by President Huber in the Si110-Be/gia11Treaty case in 1927
where he suggested that an infraction of Belgium·s rights under the Trcaty
of 2 November 1865 might occur; that "such infraction could not be made
good simply by the payment of an indemnity or by compensation or res
titution in some other material form"; and that "the object of the measures
of intcrim protection to be indicated in the present case must be 10 prevent
any righls of this nature from being prejudiced" (p. 7).
The cautious approach of President Huber, who at lirst declined to make
an Ortler but later changed his opinion on receiving more documentary
evidence, is understandable when it is recalled that this was the first request
for the indication of interim measures to come bcfore the Permanent Court,
and that under the Court's Rules, as they then were, the Court, and even the
President alône, had power to order interim measures without even hearing
the Parties.
Even so, the President did in fact make an Order in that case, granting
protection, inter alia,"against any sequestration or seizure not in accordance
with generally uccepted princîples of international \aw and against any des
truction other than accidentai". Moreover, that particular measure concerned
protection against sequestration or seizure of property and shipping, injuries
which could have been made good "simply by the payment of an indemnity
or by compensation or restitution in some other material form".
Furthermore, the President was prepared to make an Ortler despite the
fact that he had not heard argument on China's contention that the Treaty of
1865 had ceased to be effective. It is to be noted that the President's Ortler lcd
to a resumption of negotiations between the Parties which proved successful.
Jn the present case, accepting ihe narrowest possible view of the function
of interim measures, namely protection against irremediable damage only,
the United Kingdom, for reasons which have been set out in the written
request. and which I shall explain further, is entitled to relief. But the Court
has acted upon a much broader view of its function and role under Article 41
of its Statute.
This broader view was clearly stated by the Permanent Court in the
case of the Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (P.C.f.J., Series A/8,
No. 79) in 1939 when it said that Article 41 of the Statute applied ''the
principle universally accepted by international tribunals", viz.:
• ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLTNSON 101
"The parties to a case must refrain from any rneasure capable of exer
cising a prejudicial effect in regard to the execution of the decision to be
given and, in general, not allow any step of any kind to be4taken which
might aggravate or extend the dispute."
This broad language would appear to extend the Court's raie beyond the
strict terms of Article 41 which rcfcrs simply to preserving "'the respective
rights of either party".
Ncverthelcss it is a logical consequence that, if rights are to be preserved,
action should not be taken pendellfe lite which is capable of exercising a
prejudicial effect in regard to the execution of any decision of the Court on
the rnerits which has for its abject the protection of those rights. As to
allowing steps to be taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute, itis
reasonable to assume that any such aggravation or extension might have
prejudicial effect in regard to the execution of the Court"s decision on the
rnerits.
1n this context it is significant that Article 41 provid~s that notice of the
measures suggested by the Court is to be given forthwith to the Security
Council as wcll as to the parties themsclves, and in Article 38 of its Statute
the Court is given the fonction of deciding "in accordance with·international
law such disputes as are subrnittcd to it".
The Court, which was spccîfical\y created by the Charter as one of a team
of agencies of the United Nations havîng as their purpose the settlement of
international disputes, cannot be expected to discharge thi.s wide respon
sibility to the international community if it has not the right to expect of the
parties, and the power to ensure, that during the procecdings they shall
abstain from actions capable of prejudicing the execution of the Court's
evcntual decisions and of aggravating or extending the dispute submitted to
the Court.
1n the case concerning South-Eastern Green/and (P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No.
48) in 1932, the Permanent Court clearly took the view that the prevcntion of
"regrettable events" was mainly the rcsponsibility of the Parties themselves,
especially since they had bath bound thernselves to avoid incidents in de
clarations "officially proclaimed before the Court"' which the Court found
to be "eminently reassuring" (pp. 286-287).
Another reason given by the Court for dec\ining to grant relief was that
"even adopting the broader interpretation of Article 41 of the Statute, there
would seem to be no reason to fcar that the incidents contemplated by the
Norwegian request will actually occur" (p. 285).
Indeed, in a straightforward territorial dispute, as in that case, the Court
would not norrnally be expectcd to make an Order for interim measures,
bccause il would clearly be the dut y of the party against whom 'the Court's
decision on sovereignty went to vacate the territory, and the other party's
tîtlc could not be affected by any action his opponent might take in the
meantime.
If, however, one of the parties were to commence operations on the
territory in dispute capable of rendering the terri tory of Jess value to the other
party, should that other party evcntually be awardcd the territory by the
Court, then it is to be expected that the Court would order interim relief.
As the Permanent Court put it in the South-Eastnn Green/and case:
" ...the incidents which the Norwegian Government aims at preventing
cannot in any event, or to any degree, affect the existence or value of the
sovereign rights claimed by Norway over the territory in question, werc102 FISHERIES JURISDlCTTON
thesc rights to be duly recognized by the Court in its future judgment on
the merits of the dispute" (p. 285).
The present case before the Court, although it concerns an extension of
fisheries jurisdiction aroupd lceland, is not in the normal sense a territorial
dispute. lceland is not claiming an extension of her territory. She claims only
an extension of her fisheries jurisdiction over what is adrnitted to be a portion
of the high seas. Neither is the United Kingdom clairning any terri tory.
The point at issue is simply whether the United Kingdom's continued
enjoyment of frccdom of fishing in this area of the high seas, which it expects
to be confirmed by a decision of the Court on the merits of its daim, wifl be
prejudiced by action taken during the proceedings against its fishing fleet by
lceland. If, as I shallshow later, such prejudice is likely to occur~and indeed
is in fact already bcginning to occur~then l submit that the Court must in
law grant interim relief.
The United Kingdom fuJJy realizes thal in any Order the Court may make,
the Court has the responsibility of protecting the rights of lceland just as
muchas the rights of the United Kingdom. This is so even if lceland does not
appear bcfore the Court to give the Court the benefit of her views as to how
these rights might best be protected in the meantime. Thus it may well be
that lccland, as a nation especially interested in the yield of the fisheries of the
area in question, is entitled to some interim protection in case the Court
should find in favour of her claim to extended fisheries jurisdiction.
For this reason the United Kingdom has submitted a suggestion, which l
shall explain later, as to how lceland's rights might be protected. Iemphasize
that this is 110ta territorial dispute where, for the reasons I have given,
intcrim measures may sometimes not be appropriatc. lt is a disputeabout the
validity of a purported extension of fishcries jurisdiction where interim mea
sures to protect the rights, ccrtainly of one of the Parties, and perhaps of both
of them, are not only appropria te but essential.
The final test, which a request for the indication of interim measures must
satisfy before the Court can order interim protection, is that the Court should
have jurisdiction to make such an Order, and here it is necessary to make a
careful distinction.
ln any contentious case the Court, before giving a decision on the merits,
must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction under Article 36 of its Statute, or,
as the case may be, under Article 37 in addition. The Court's jurisdiction to
indicate înterim measures under Article 4 r is related to, but not wholly
depcndent upon, its jurisdiction under Article 36. The position has been
clearly stated by Sir Hersch Lauterpacht when he said, in the foterhandel case:
"ln deciding whether it is competent to assumejurisdiction with regard
to a request made undcr Article 41 of the Statute the Court need not
satisfy itself-cither proprio motll or in response ta a Preliminary Ob
jection-that it is competent with regard to the merits of the dispute. The
Court has stated on a number of occasions that an Order indicating, or
refusing ta indicate, interim measures of protection is independent of the
affirmation of its jurisdiction on the merits and that it does not prejudge
the question of merits ... Any contrary rulc would not be in accordance
wifh the nature of the request for measures of interim protection and the
factor of urgency inherent in the procedure under Article 41 of the Sta
tutc." (/. C.J. Reports /957, p. 118.)
The capacity of the Court to ordcr interim measurcs, if necessary in ad vance ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWUNSON 103
of confirmation of its jurisdiction to deal with the merits, was closely examined
by my predecessor as Attorney-General, Sir Frank Soskice, in the speech he
made before this Court over 20 years ago on 30 June 1951 and which is
reported in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company case. 1 refer the Court to that
speech, especially pages 407-418, although l do not propose to take up the
time of the Court by reading the whole of the passages now. I would, how
ever, refer to three particular passages, which I think may be of assistance to
read at this stage. In the first the then Attorney-General is reported as saying
as follows:
"lt will be convenient, Mr. President and Members of the Court, if,
in the first instance, I recall the jurisprudence and pronouncements of the
Court on the subject. On 8th January 1927, the President of the Court
issued an Order for interim measures of protection in the case betwecn
Belgium and China arising out of the denunciation of the Treaty of 1865
between those two countrics. At the time when the order was made,
China had not expressly acccpted the jurisdiction of the Court. ln making
the order, the President indicated: 'provisiona!ly, pe11ding the final
dccision of the Court in tire case submitted by the Application of Novemher
25th, 1926-by which decision the Court wil! eirher decfare iself to have
110j11risdictio11or give j11dgme11t011the merits .. .', the various rneasurcs of
protection. ln the second Order in the same case, the Court once more
put on record the fact that the Order for Interim Measures of Protection
was made independently of the question whether the Court had juris
diction lo dea\ with the case on the merlts. lt recalled 'that the present
suit has been brought by unilatcral application and that, as the time
allowed for the filing of the Counter-Case has not expircd, the respon
dent lws 110thad an opportunity o/indicating whether he accepts the Côurt's
j11risdictio11in this case'."
It goes on:
"Another case in which an order relating to interim measures of
protection was made before the Court acccpted jurisdiction on the mcrits
was that made on 11th May 1933 in the case concerning the Adminis
tration of the Prince von P/ess (P. C.l.J., Series A/ B, No. 54, at p. 153).
The last recital preceding the operative part of the Ortler was as follows:
'Whereas, furthermore, the prescnt Ortler must in no way prcjudge
eithcr the question of the Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
German Government's Application lnstituting Proceedings of May
18th, 1932, or that of the admissibility of that Application.'" (/.C.J.
Pleadi11gs, Oral Arguments, Doc11me11ts,pp. 407, 408.)
Sir Frank Soskicc thcn rcfcrred in his argument to passages in the work by
Professor Hudson and in the Po/ish Agrarian Reform and the Germany
Minority case. He citcd a numbcr of decisions of the Mixetl Arbitral Tribu nais,
which hc subrnittctl iltustrated and affirrned the same principles. And he
conti nuctl in his argument:
"The Court will find a statcment of the effect of the dccision of the
Mixetl Arbitral Tribunals in this matter in the following passage in
Dr. Dumbauld's book on intcrim mcasures of protection:
'Another important principle emphasized in thejurisprutlencc of the
Mixed Arbitral Tribunals is that in order to grant intcrim measures104 FISHERIES JURISOICTION
it is not necessary to decide whether the tribunal has jurisdiction in the
main proceedings on its merits, but it suffices that primafacie there is a
possibility of a decision in faveur of the plaintiff and the tribunal's
Jack of jurisdiction is not manifest.' (/nrerirn Measures of Protection
1932, p. 140.)
In the same work, Dr. Dumbauld states the principle as being of
general application. He says:
'Equally fondamental is the rule that the principal proceedings
( Hclllpf.rnche)are in no wise affected by interim measures. The action
in chief and the action with a view to security are altogether indepen
dent of each other. In rendering its final judgment the Court is not
bound by its interlocutory decisions, and may disregard it entirely.
Consequently jurisdiction to grant protection pendente lite is not
dependent upon jurisdiction in the principal action. From this it
folrows that interim measures may be grantcd before a plea to the
jurisdiction is disposed of; and that one court may provide a remedy
pendente lite in aid of an action of which another court has cognizance.'
(At p. 186.)
The author of another book on the same subject, published in 1932,
expresses the samc view even more clearly. I rcfer to the monograph, in
German, of Dr. Niemeyer, entitled Provisional Orders of the Wor!d
Court. Their Ohject and Umits. He rejects emphatically the view that a
decision on jurisdictîon îs necessary before the Court can make an
order for interim protection. He says:
'This would necessitatc an exhaustive cxamination of the case; it
would make necessary an examination of the evidcnce. ln brief, the
exact situation would arise which must be avoided: a protracted
argument which would waste time, which would deprive the pro
visional measures both of their truc character and of their urgency,
and which would prejudge the eventual outcome of the final decision
which is in no way connected with the object of provisional measures.
A provisional order given in that way would achieve only a neg!igib!e
degree of its intended etrectiveness. lt is, therefore, clear that, for
reasons of practical convenîence, there is no room for an examination
of the question of jurisdiction on the merits in connection with a
requcst for interim protection.' (P. 70.)
ln the latest edition, published in 1943, ofhis treatise on the Permanent
Court of International Justice, Professer Hudson summarizes the legal
position as follows:
'Nor isjurisdiction to indicate provisional measures dependcnt upon
a previous determination of the Court's jurisdiction to dea\ with the
case on the merits.' "(At p. 425.)
I. may add ... that there is, so far as Iam aware, no writer who has
on this question expressed a view differing from that which I am now
submitting to the Court.
Quite apart from the opinions expressed by writers on the subject,
thcre are, I submit, Mr. President the strongest practîcal rcasons to
support the view which I have presented to the Court. To concede to a
party the right to ask, before any interim order can be made, for a
decision on the question of jurisdiction-a matter which, as the ex- ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON 105
perience of the Court has shown, may necessitate weeks, if not months,
of oral and written pleadings~would altogether frustrate the object of
the request for interim measures of protection. Undoubtedly, it is
conceivable that a party may abuse the right to ask for interim measures
by asking for them in a case in which it is apparent that the Court has
no jurisdiction on the merits. If that were to happen, the Court would
find means to discourage any such abuse of its process. lt may wish to
satisfy itselfthat there is a prima facie case for the exercise of its juris
diction. There is no such difficulty in the present case."
In my submission there is certainly no difficulty in this present case before
the Court this morning. Finally, may I refer to a short passage in the argument
advanced to the Court in 1951 in which Sir Frank Soskice referred to the case
of the Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria. He set out the Ortler which
was made by the Court in the following terms and commented as follows:
" 'The Court,
indicates as an interim measure that, pending the final judgment of the
Court in the suit submitted by the Belgian Application on January 26th,
1938, the State of Bulgaria should ensure that no step of any kind is taken
capable of prejudicing the rights claimed by the Belgian Government or
of aggravating or extending the dispute submitted to the Court.' (P. 199.)
lsubmit (said Sir Frank] that this is the most complete statement of the
principles on which the Court should act in grànting interim relief. I
submit further that the principles so enunciated precisely cover the
circumstances which the Court is now considering."
So much then, Mr. President, for the argument in 1951, in the Ang/o
lra11ia11Oil Company case. In that case, despite the fact that the lmpcrial
Government of Iran had appointed no agent, but had confined itself to
sending a tclegram stating that that Government hoped that the Court would
declare that the case was not within its jurisdiction, the Court ruled that it
could not be accepted a priori, that the claim based on the United Kingdom's
complaint of an alleged violation of international law fell completely outside
the scope of international jurisdiction and that this consideration sufficed
"to empower the Court to entertain the request for interim measures of
protection" (p. 93).
Although in the submission of Hcr Majesty's Government the law was
clear before 195l, [ submit that there is no doubt whatsoever that it has been
definitively clarified by_the Ortler made by this Court on 5 July l951 (/. C.J.
Reports 195!, p. 89).
Mr. President and Members of the Court, there arc three views on the
capacity of the Court then to ordcr interim measures before confirming its
jurisdiction to deal with the merits. The first, and possibly the widest, view is
that of the Court itself, as expresscd in the A11glo-lra11ia11Oil Company case.
And according to this view it appears to be sufficicnt for the appellant to show
that a priori his claim docs not fall "outside the scope of international juris
diction".
This statement was of course made in the context of that particular case,
but it clearly shows that, in considering a request for the indication ofinterim
measures of protection, the Court does not require the applicant to do more
than show that prima facie thcre are reasonablc grounds for believing that
the Court possess jurisdiction to deal with the merîts. This f submit must be
right in principle. 1 repeatthat passage from Sir Hersch Lauterpacht:106 FlSHERIES JUR!SD!CTION
"Any contrary rule would not be in accordance with the nature of the
request for measures of interi m protection and the factor of urgency
inherent in the procedure under Article 41 of the Statu te.··
Secondly, there is the v_iewof Sir Hersch Lauterpacht where, discussing the
principles undcrlying the suggestion in a more general way than the Court
understandably was able to do so in the contcxt of a particular case, he said
that interim measures ought not to be ordered "in cases in which there is no
reasonable possibi[ity, prima facie ascertained by the Court, of jurisdic
tion on the merits"; and that the correct principle is that:
"... the Court may properly act under the ter ms of Article 41 provided
that there is in existence an instrument such as a Declaration of Accep
tance of the Optional Clause. cmanating from the Parties to the dispute,
which prima facie confers jurisdiclion upon lhc Court and which in
corporates no reservations obviously excluding its juris<liction" (!,11er
ha11delcase, l.C.J. Reports 1957, pp. 118-119).
Thirdly, there is the view expressed by Judges Winiarski and Badawi in
their dissenting opinion in the A11gla-lra11ia11Oil Company case (I.C.J. Reports
1951, pp. 96-98), where rhcy said:
··... the Court ought not to indicate interim measures of protection
unless its competence, in the event of this bcing challcngcd, appears to the
Court to be ncvertheless reasonably probable"'.
In the submission of Hcr Majesty's Government, that view is wrong in
principle. For that view would necessarily involvc the Court in preju<lging
the question of its jurisdiction without having heard proper argument, and it
could have a serious prejudicial effcct on the applicant's position if hc wcrc
<lenied interim reliefon the ground that the Court, on a purcly summary view,
had corne to the conclusion that it would probably hol<l latcr on thut it was
not entitled to exercise jurisdiction.
But notwithstanding and, even so, in the submission of Hcr Majesty's
Government, whichever of these three tests is applied, although I repeat, the
third vicw is in my submission clearly wrong, it matters not in the prcsent
case. For, in my submission, the Court hus jurisdiction to deal with the merits
on ail three tests. First, the United Kingdonù claim is certainly based on a
complaint of a violation of international Jaw and it ccrtainly "cannot be
accepted a priori that a claim based on such a complaint falls completely
outside the scope of international jurisdiction". Secopd, it cannot be argued,
to adapt Sir Hersch Lauterpacht's phrase. that "there is no rcasonable possi
bility p1·imafacie ascertainable by the Court, of jurisdiction on the merits".
Third, and tinally, even if the Court were to follow the stricter view of Judges
Winiarski and Badawi. there is every reason why it should appcar 10 lhe
Court, upon ..a consideration. cntirely summary in character", to borrow
their phrase, of the ground upon which the Govcrnment of the United
Kingdom allcges that the Court has jurisdiction that '·its competence, in the
event of this being challenged, appears ... to be nevcrthcless rcasonably
probable",
As I have said. Mr. President and Mcmbcrs of the Court. 1-fer Majesty's
Government founds the jurisdiction of the Court on the penultimate para
graph of the exch.angc of Notes of 11 March 1961 betwecn the Government
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland and the Go
vernment of Iceland. Thal Note, after referring to the intention of the Ice- ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWUNSON 107
landic Governrnent to continue to work for the irnplernentation of the Althing
Resolution of 5 May 1959 regarding the extension of fishcries jurisdiction
around lceland, provides, and Irepeat again, "in case of a dispute in relation
to such extension, the matter shall, at the request of eithcr party, be referred
to the International Court of Justice". This exchange of Notes contains no
termination clause, and it is thcrefore covered by what Lord McNair has
referred to in The Law o/Trcatics, 1961, as the "gencral prcsumption against
the existence of any right of unilateral termination of a treaty".
1should now, Mr. President, rcfcr bricfly to the \etter sent to the Registrar
of the Court of 29 May 1972 by the Minister for Foreign AITairs of lceland.
ln that Ictter the Foreign Minister gave a nurnber of reasons why his Govern
rnent were unwilling to rccognizc the jurisdiction of the Court in this case or
to appoint an agent, as thcy would norrnally have been cxpected to do under
Article 35 (3) of the Rules of Court.
lt is the understanding of Hcr Majesty's Governmcnt that this lettcr does
not constitute a prcliminary objection within the meaning of Article 62 (1)
of the Rules. It docs not therefore have the effect of suspending the proceed
..ingson the merits. Accordingly Hcr Majesty's Governmenl have the right to
expect that aflcr the Court has given its ruling at the conclusion of the present
hearings, it will givc directions for the filing of the Mernorial and Counter
Memorial of the Parties, as rcquired by Articles 37 and 41 (2) of the Rules.
1-Jer Majesty's Government bclieve that it is not only unneccssary, but
would also be wrong in principlc, for the Court to examine at this stage the
arguments on the question or jurisdiction proffered by the lcclandic Foreign
Minister in his lctter of 29 May. Such an examination would be cntirely
incompatible with the urgcncy or the present proceedings.
The Court will have read that tclcgram from the Foreign Minister of lccland
filed with the Rcgistrar of the Court on 29 July, just thrce days bcfore this
hearing. If this telcgram is directed to suggest that the Requcst for the In
dication of lnterim Measures is inadmissible, thcn Icmphasize that the rights
for whîch the United Kingdom has requested protection undcr Article 41 of
the Statute are the rights of the United Kingdom, that is to say its rights as a
State under public international Jaw to ensure that its fishing vessels be
permitted to fish on the high seas in the neighbourhood of lceland outside the
12-mile limit as agrced upon in the Exchange of Notes of 11 March 1961.
If, on the other hand, the telcgram is intended to suggest that the claim as
formulated in the United Kingdoni Application of 14 April 1972 is inad
missible, thcn, first, the United Kingdom is claiming its right under public
international law as a State and second, even if it were found to be proceeding
on behalf of the priva te interest of its nationals, this it is entitled to do, under
public international law, and third. questions of admissibility, likc those of
jurisdictîon should be dealt with at a later stage of the proceedings.
Her Majesty's Government, in any event, contend that the lcelandic
arguments arc cntircly without foundation and do not affect in any way the
right of the Court to exercise jurisdiction in this case. Nevertheless, if it is the
wish of the Court to accclerate the normal procedure and to takc up the
question of jurisdiction bcforc the Parties have filed plcadings on the merits,
wc are at the disposai of the Court and stand ready to do so at a convenient
time.
1 submit thercfore that there are no considerations rclating to the juris
diction of the Court which shoulcl inhibit the Court from indicating interirn
measures in this case if, in the opinion of the Court, circumstanccs requirc
that such measures be takcn. Jt is abundantly clear that "the indication of 108 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
such measures in no way prcjudges the question of the jurisdiction of the
Court to deal with the merits of the case and !caves unafTected the right of the
Respondcnt to submit arguments against such jurisdiction" (A11g/o-Ira11ian
Oil Compa11y case, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p.93).
There is thus no reason to fcar that the rights of lceland would in any way
be prejudiccd if the Court were to exercise its jurisdiction undcr Article 41 of
ils Statute and so wcrc to indicate interim measures us sought by Her Ma
jesty's Government.
The Co11rradjournedfrom Il.JO ro 11.30 a.m.
1 now turn to the effect which the proposed regulations, if implemented,
would have on the United Kingdom fishing industry and on the public.
The regulations promulgated by lceland to take efTect on I September,
are set out in Annex A 10 1he request.
Article 1 starts as follows: ''The fishing limits off lccland shall be drawn 50
nautical miles outside baselines drawn between the following points.''
The regulations then specify some 31 points by nume and by reference to
geographical co-ordinates. These baselines appear to differ in certain respects
from those which wcre agreed upon between the United Kingdom and lceland
in the 196r Exchange of Notes as the basis for the 12-milc li mit. This is a
matter to which we may have to revert at a later stage in thcse proceedings
but it does not a!Tect our present case.
The article continues: "Limits shall also be drawn round the following
points 50 nautical miles seaward."
Two o!Tshore points are then defined, one to the north and one to the
east of lceland.
Article 2 is qui te categorical:"Within the fishery limits ail fishing activities
by foreign vesscls shall be prohibited in accordance with the provisions of
Law No. 33 of 19 June 1922, concerning Fishing inside the Fishery Limits."
Articles 3, 4 and 5 concern the regulation of lcelandic vesscls within the
50-mile Jimit.
Article 6 provides that violation of the provisions of these regulations is to
be subject to certain penalties including fines of up to 100,000 lcelandic
Kronur.
Article 7 provides that:
"These rcgulations are promulgated in accordance with Law No. 44
of 5 April 1948, concerning the Scientific Conservation of the Continental
Shclf Fisheries, cfr. Law No. 81 of 8 December 1952. When these regu
lations become effective, Regulation 3 of r1 March 1961, concerning the
Fishery Limits olT lccland shall cease to be ctTectivc."
Those, Mr, President and Members of the Court, are the regulations imposing
the 12-mile limit which formed the subject of the 1961 agreement between
lceland and the United Kingdom.
Law No. 44 of 5 April 1948, which is refcrred to in the Article 7 which 1
have just read to the Court, is set out in enclosure 2 to Anncx H of the Appli
cation initiating these proccedings, at page 45, and Article 2 of that Law
·provides that "the regulutions promulgated under Article 1 of the present
law"-which now by virtue of Article 7 include these regulations-"shall be
enforced only to the extent compatible with agreements with other countries
to which lceland is or may become a party". ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON 109
Since, however, Tceland has made it clear that she proposes to repudiate
the 1961 agreement, United Kingdom vesse\s have nothing to hope from that
provision.
Article 8 of the regulations provides that the regulations become effective
on 1 September 1972.
ln the request, Her Majesty's Government has recited in some detail the.
economic resu\ts which would flow from such a drastic exclusion from these
very important fishing grounds. Her Majesty's Government has shown the
impossibility of redeploying any considerable portion of the fishing fleet in
other areas. We have referred to the unemployment and the permanent Ioss
of vessels which would fo\low, and to the financial and economic conse
quences. I hope that there has been set out therein sufficient detail for the
purposes of this application.
In essence our case is very simple.
If a nation such as the United Kingdom, with a large and important fishing
industry, is abruptly deprived of fishing grounds which her vessels have
fished for rnany years and which, over a long period of time, have provided
nearly one-half of that nation 's distant water catch and approximately one
fifthof her total catch of all fish, demersal and pelagic, in all waters, that
fishing industry must inevitably suffer grave dislocation, which will have
disastrous economic effects on that industry and on other industries depen
dent upon it.
Apart from the hardship to the industry, there would arise widespread
hardship to the population as a whole. Fish is an important part of the diet
of the population of the United Kingdom, and in particular as a source of
protein. If the proposed regulations are enforced, the population of the
United Kingdorn would be deprived at once of a source of fish supplying,
on the 1971 figure, which is shown in column 9 of Annex C, something over
f22 million worth of fish to the United Kingdom market. This is the landed
price. The retail valueis of course much higher.
This would undoubtedly lead to an immediate shortage and, we fear, a
dramatic rise in the price. The supply of fresh wet fish through the fishmonger
and processed fish such as fish fingers would be seriously affected. Housewives
would find fish scarce in the shops. If it were obtainable, the price couId well
soar beyond the budget of the housewife for whose family fish is a traditional,
important and regular item of food. Moreover much of the fish from the
Iceland area and other distant water fisheries has for a long time been taken
by the traditional fish and chip shops which are a popular feature of British
towns and especially industrial towns, and at least one of which is usually
found in most neighbourhoods, where fish is sold fried and hot, to be taken
away and eaten off the premises. A large proportion of the population would
at once feel the consequences of the proposed Icelandic regulations. As Her
Majesty's Government has pointed out in the request there is no available
alternative source of supply.
Let there then be no doubt that the lcelandic regulations, if implemented,
would exclude fishermen of othcr nations, including those of the United
Kingdom, from ail but a minute part of the fishing grounds. This is, 1 hope,
clearly shown by the map which is before the Court at Annex Bl 1 to the
request for interim measures and, if l may, Mr. President, 1 invite the Court
to study that map, so that I might shortly expIain some of the features of the
map.
1 Sec p.81, supra. 110
000
metrIC Total catch of fish in the lcelandic
tons United Kingdom. and total catch b:
1950 to 1971 {"000 metric tons.>.S,
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400 -
350
300
250
185
150
100
50
1950 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 111
countries; total catch by lceland and
riing countries (demcrsal species only)
.n Statistique des Pèches Martimes
1 otal
lcelünd
United
Kingdom
-- Ail other
countries
(,2 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 112 FlSHERIES JURISDICTION
lt is described thereon as the lceland fishing grounds related to statistical
rectangles. The innermost line is the coast line of Iceland. The next outer
lines are the baselincs which were agreed between the United Kingdom and
lceland in 1961for the purpose of drawing the agreed 12-mile limit of fisheries
jurisdiction. The broken line shows the 12-mile limit. Now there are of
course many valuable fishing grounds within that limit, but they are not
shown on the map because we are not concerned with them in this case.
The thin continuous black line outside that represents the 50-rnile lirnit
now claimed by lceland. The fishing grounds outside the 12-mile limit are
indicated by the shaded areas on the map.
The heavy broken line is the 400-metre isobath. That is a line similar to a
contour line joining ail points at which the sea reaches a depth of 400 metres,
a figure which is sometimes taken arbitrarily as marking the 1imit of the
Continental Shelf around lceland.
Now, demersal fish are caught at varying depths by different methods of
fishing, for example, by drift nets and purse seines near the surface, and by
long lines and trawls on the bottom. The use of trawl nets which, with negli
gible exceptions, is the only rnethod used by United Kingdom fishermen in
the lceland area, is restricted to grounds where the bottom is relatively free
from obstructions which would impede or damage the trawl. While the prin
cipal trawling grounds from which the catch has been taken are indicated by
the shaded areas on the map before the Court, their limits cannot be precisely
defined, and a certain amount of fishing takes place from tîme to time in
other places which are not fi.shed with sufficient regularity to be regarded as
established fishing grounds.
For the purposes of the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea, the whole area is divided into the statistical squares indicated on that
map, and after each voyage trawlers are required to state the squares frorn"
which their catch is taken. The figures for 1971 have been used to form an
estima te of the proportion of the catch taken outside the 50-mile limit. When
the limit line-as you will see it does on occasion-crosses a square, a national
apportionment of the catch inside and outside the limit has been made, ac
cording to the proportion of the area of the square which lies outside or
inside the limit line. This shows that only 4 per cent. of the total United
Kingdcim catch in the lceland area was taken outside the proposed 50-mile
limit.
This method of assessment can only be applied to fresher trawlers, because
freezers are not required to attribute their catches to particular squares within
the area, but there is no reason to suppose that their pattern of fishing differs
significantly from that of the fresher trawlers, and in any event the freezer
trawlers accounted for only 6 percent. of the United Kingdorn catch in the
lceland area.
These fishing grounds have, as I have said, been a very important source
of fish for the United Kingdom over very rnany years. Not only has this
source been important both in absolute terms and in terms of the percentage
of the total United Kingdorn catch it has supplied, but the catch obtained has
remained remarkably consistent from year to year.
ln Annex G to the request the court will see figures derived from the Bulletin
statistique des pêchesmaritimes which go back to 1950, that is to say about the
period when conditions returned to normal after the Second World War. This
table shows year by year the total dernersal catch in the lceland area and how
much of that catch was taken by lcelandic and United Kingdom vessels
respectively. ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON 113
Whatever fears the lcelandlC Government may express about the future,
there is no doubt that the picture which emerges from these figures for 21
years up to and including 1971 is of remarkable stability. This is illustrated
by the graph of those figures (see pp. l I0-111), copies of which have been
put before the Court and, if I may, I would once again invite the Court to
look at the document and to look in particular at that graph.
It is simply a graphical representation of Annex G which is ainong the
Court's papers, but this is just a simple graph which I think will i11ustrate,
I hope clearly, to the Court, the point that I am submitting. That document
-the graph-is headed "Total catch of fish in the lcelandic area by ail
countries ... " and so on.
The top line in the graph shows the total catch. Now that in itself is a
remarkab\y consistent record. The lowest figureis616,000 tons in 1950, rising
to the highest figure recorded so far of 881,000 tons in 1954. That is the total
catch. Since then, the total catch has varied very little from year to year and
has certainly shown no tendency to decline in recent years. On the contrary,
the catches for 1970 and.1971 are the highest since 1958. .
Now the second line down from the top shows the catch taken by lcelandic
vessels. Their share has consistently been larger than that of any other nation,
and in 12 out of the Iast 21 years, including each of the last 4 years, has been
larger than that of al! the other nations put together.
The general trend of the Icelandic catch is upward, and the drop in 1971
from the high peak of 1970 is no greater than the fluctuation in the past
between one year and another. There is certainly nothing in these figures
which suggests any tendency to a decline in the lce\andic catch.
Weil below the lcelandic graph are two intertwining lines. They represent
the catches of the United Kingdom and ail other nations respectively. The
United Kingdom catch has consistently been higher than that of any other
nation except Iceland. By and large, United Kingdom vessels have usually
taken about half as much as those of lceland, and about the same amount
as the vessels of ail other nations put together. The straight line, in heavy
black ink, represents 185,000 tons which is the average United Kingdom catch
for the years 1960 to 1969 which I shall refer to later when 1refer to the interim
rneasures which I invite the Court to indicate.
In my submission, the figures in the Annex and as represented on this graph
show conclusively: first, that if the United Kingdom fishing vessels were to
be excluded as is proposed by Iceland, the effect on the United Kingdom
fishing industry would be immediate and disastrous; second, that if the status
quo were allowed to continue for the period which must elapse before the
Court gives its final decision on the merits, the Icelandic fi.shing industry will
not be affected.
So, in terms used by the English courts in such matters, the "'balance of
convenience" is heavily in faveur of maintaining the present position pendente
lite. ln terms of the Statu te of this Court, tha~ is the way in which "the rights
of the parties" will best be "preserved". ln terms of the French text of Article
41 of the Statute, such rneasurcs would be in the truest sense "mesures
conservatoires".
The first of the interim measures which we ask the Court, then, to indicate.
is in subparagraph (a) of paragraph 20 of the request, and it is, if I may read
it, as fol!ows, "that, pending the final judgment of the Court" in this suit,
"{a) the Government of Iceland should not seek to enforce the regu
lations referred to in paragraph 4 above against,- or otherwise interfere FISHERIES JURISDICTIO:-.
114
or threaten to interfere with, vessels registered in the United Kingdom
fishing outside the 12-mile limit agreed on by the parties in the Exchange
of Notes between the Government of the United Kingdom and the
Government of Iceland dated 11 March 1961 (as set out in Annex A
to the said Application)".
This deals with the direct interference with the vessels fishing or threats of
such interference. But it is not only on the high seas that measures may be
taken to enforce a fishing ban. The Government of Iceland might, for example,
attempt to arrest a United Kingdom fishing vesse! which was pcrfectly
Jawfully sailing within the 12-mile limit on the grounds not that it had been
fishing within that limit but that it had been fishing on the high seas outside
that limit contrary to their regulations. Or the lcelandic Government might
take measures against a fishing vesse! which, whether in distress or in the
ordinary course of business, put in at an lcelandk port, on the grounds that it
had in the past infringed the regulations. Furthermore, the possibility of
other methods of interfering with the freedom of fishing such as measures
against sister shipsor the attempted organization of boycotts cannot be ru\ed
out.
Accordingly, the measurcs set out in subparagraph (a) which I have just
read are not enough in themselves to meet "the requirements of the case. In
my submission they should be supplemented by those set out in subparagraph
(b) namely:
"(b) the Government of Ice\and should not take or threatcn to take
in their territory (inc\uding their ports and territorial waters) or inside
the said 12-mile limit or elsewhere measures of any kind against any
vessels registered in the United Kingdom, or against persons connected
with such vessels, being measures which have as their purpose or effect
the impairment of the freedom of such vessels to fish outside the said
12-mile limit."
Subparagraph (c), the third of the subparagraphs of paragraph 20,
requires further explanation.
The Government of lceland have said that they fear that the United
Kingdom fishing fleet intends to increase its effort in the lccland area in the
near future to the detriment of the lcelandic catch and of fish stocks. If this
is their fear, it was of course perfectly open to them to corne to the Court and
ask for interlm measures which would prevent this happening. They have not
chosen to do so.
Her Majesty·s Government does not accept that lceland has any vaÙd
grounds for fearing a significant increase in the effort by United Kingdom
fishing vessels. But as it appears that these fears may exist, however ill
founded, Her Majcsty's Government arc wi\ling that they should be allayed
pending the decision of this case. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government
have includcd in their request for the indication of interim measurcs, in sub
paragraph (c), a request that the Court should indicate that the United
Kingdom should itself place certain restrictions on its tishing vessels while
these proceedings are pending.
The full text of the subparagraph runs as follows:
"( c) in conformity with sub-paragraph ( a) above, vessels rcgistcred in
the United Kingdom should be free, save in so far as may be provided
for by arrangements between the Government of the United Kingdom
and the Government of lceland such as are referred to in paragraph 21 ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON 115
(b) of the said Application, to fish as heretofore in ail parts of the high
seas outside the said 12-mile limit, but the Government of the United
Kingdom should ensure that such vcssels do not take more than 185,000
metric tons of fish in any one year from the sea area of Lceland, that is to
say, the area defined by the ·international Council for the Exploration
of the Sea as area Va and so marked on the map attached hereto at
Annex B2".
This figure of 185,000 tons is the average United Kingdom annual catch
in the Lceland area over the decade 1960 to 1969 and it was shown on the heavy
black line on the graph which the Court recently examined. lt is less than the
United Kingdom catch last year which was 207,700 tons.
Moreover, while the United Kingdom invites the Court, if it considers it
appropriate, to place United Kingdom vessels under this limitation pendente
lite, Her Majesty's Government does not propose any corresponding restric
tion on lcelandic vessels. The measures requested in subparagraphs (d) and
(e) are of a more general nature. They are based on the general measures
indicated by the Court in the Anglo-Jranian Oil Co. case and are, in our sub
mission, measures which it is desirable that the Court should indicate. ln
submitting these proposais, Her Majesty's Government have sought to adapt
the form used by the Court in the Anglo-lranian Oil Co. case to the require
ments of the prescnt case.
To return now to the measurcs requested in subparagraph (b), it will be
noted that Her Majesty's Government does not daim absolutely and without
qualification that United Kingdom vessels should be free to fish as heretofore
in the water outside the 12-mile limit. The claim is that they should be free
to do so "save in so far as may be provided for by arrangements between the
Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of lceland such as
are refcrred to in paragraph 2\ (b) of the said Application", which is the
Application instituting proceedings in this suit.
Now paragraph 21 (b) of this Application asks the Court when it comes to
deal with the case on the merits, to declare that:
"... questions concerning the conservation of fish stocks in the waters
around lccland are not susceptible in international law to regulation by
the unilateral extension by lceland of its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to
fifty nautical miles from the aforesaid baselines but are matters which
may be regulated, as between Iceland and the United Kingdom, by
arrangements agreed between those two countries, whether or not
together with other interested countries and whether in· the form of
arrangements reached in accordance with the North-East Atlantic
Fishcries Convention of 24 January, 1959, or in the form of arrangements
for collaboration in accordance with the Rcsolution on Special Situations
relating to Coastal Fisheries of 26 April, 1958, or otherise in the form
of arrangements agreed between them that give effect to the continuing
rights and interests of both of them in the fisheries of the waters in
question."
I advise the Court that Her Majesty's Government attaches the greatest
importance to this part of the case. I do not assert that no control of fishing
in the lceland area is, or ever will be, necessary. Far from it.
Her Majesty's Government's case is that any control which is required can
be effectively carried out by international agreement by the machinery set up116 FISHER1ES JURISDICTION
under the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention, and that if it should be
necessary to adopt measures restricting the total catch in the area, as may
well happen, the undoubtedly strong claim of lceland to preferential treatment
can be adequately met. The text of that North-East Atlantic Fisheries Con
vention is set out in full at Annex F in the Application. The preamble is as
follows:
"The States Parties to this Convention
· Desiring to ensure the conservation of the fish stocks and the rational
exploitation of the fisheries of the North-East Atlantic Ocean and adja
cent waters, which are of common concern to them;
Have agreed as follows :".
The area covered by the Convention is shown on the map at Annex 82 to
our request and includes Iceland. lt is the unshaded portion of the ocean on
the east side of the map which is divided into areas indicated by roman
figures. The lceland area is area Va.
The 14contracting States include lceland, the United Kingdom, the Federal
Republic of Germany and ail the States whose vessels fish to any extent in the
lceland area. Under that Convention, a permanent commission has been set
up with its headquarters in London. This Commission is advised on scientific
questions of fish conservation by the International Council for the Ex
ploration of the Sea (ICES).
Acting on this scientific advice, the Commission has recommended to the
contracting States, and the contraèting States have accepted and imposed on
their fishing vessels, various conservation measures of the type described in
Article 7 (1) of the Convention, namely measures, such as the regulation of
the size of mesh of fishing nets or for the minimum size of fish to be landed,
falling short of regulating, however, the amount of catch. These measures
apply, among others, to the lceland area.
Even more important, the Commission, which consists of representatives
of all the contracting States, has proposed to the contracting States under
Article 7 (2) that the Commission should be empowered to recommend mea
sures which include limitation of catch and of fishing effort, and this proposai
has now been formally approved by all the contracting States except Belgium,
Jceland and Poland whosc formai approval is expected shortly.
Accordingly, when these formalities are completed, the Commission will
be able to recommend measures of catch limitation in any part of the North
East Atlantic, including the Jceland area, if it is satisficd on scientific advice
that such are necessary.
There is, therefore, certainly no necessity on conservation grounds for
Iceland to take this drastic and unilateral step. lndeed, if implemented, the
action lhreatened would predude any possibility of resolving the difTerences
between Iceland and those other nations who fish in the Jceland area of the
high seas, through the machinery of the Convention.
Nor is there any reason why the special needs of lceland should not receive
recognition. Paragraph 21 (b) of the Application refers to the Resolution on
Special Situations Relating to Coastal Fisheries adopted at Geneva on 26
April 1958, the full text ofwhîch îs set out at Annex E to the Application. This
resolution was accepted by Her Majesty's Government when it was adopted
at Geneva, and its implementation remains the policy of Her Majesty's
Government. ARGUMENT OF SIR PETER RAWLINSON 117
It recommends that:
"... where, for the purpose of conservation, it becornes necessary to
limit the total catch of a stock or stocks of fish in an area of the high seas
adjacent to the territorial seaof a coastal State, any other States fishing
in that area should collaborate with the coastal State to secure just
treatment of such situation, by establishing agreed measures which shall
recognise any preferential requirements of the coastal State resulting
from its dependence upon the fishery concerned while having regard to
the interests of the other States".
The United Kingdom recognizes that lceland is a coastal State which is
dependent upon this fishery, and that lceland should receive preferential
treatment if it should becorne neccssary to limit the total catch in the lceland
area.
In the north-west Atlantic, a very similar Convention is in force, to which
both the United Kingdom and keland are contractirtg States, setting up a
similar Commission, known as the International Commission for the North
West Atlantic Fisher/es. The parties to this Convention, of whom there are
15, have actually agreed measures of catch limitation covering the princi
pal species in four out of the five of the sub-areas into which the Convention
area is divided. This agreement was reached in Washington in June of this
year.
In agreeing those measures the parties to that Convention have, in con
formity with the spirit of the Geneva resolution, given preferential treatment
to the coastal States.
. Accordingly, Mr. President and Members of the Court, the issue in this
case is not whether the fish stocks of the lceland area should receive any
protection which may be necessary. Her Majesty's Government have agreed
that they should. Nor is the issue whether the protective measures should, if
necessary, include a limitation on catch. Her Majesty's Government agrees
that they should. Nor is it that lceland's need for preferential treatment in allo
cation of catch quotas should be recognized. Her Majesty's Government
agrees that it should.
The issue in this case is whether lceland should be entitled by unilateral
decision to take all the fish for herself, notwithstanding the disastrous effect
this would have on those who, up to now, have shared the fishery with her.
At the proper time I shall argue that lceland has no right in international
law to do any such thing. At this stage my contention is simply that Iceland
should not take such drastic and unilateral action while her right to do so is
the subject of proceedings before this Court.
The contracted negotiations to which I have referred, with Her Majesty's
Government meeting point by ·point the Icelandic objections but without
achieving agreement, are evidence of Her Majesty's Government's determined
and urgent desire to avoid litigation. Her Majesty's Government sought first
an agreed settlement of the whole issue; when that failed, Her Majesty's
Government sought fair and just conditions pending the decision of the true
arbiter of this disagreement, namely this Court.
Whatever measures this Court may indicate, Her Majesty's Government
will certainly co-operate in their implementation.
Ishould like, Mr. President, to thank the Court for the expedition with
which, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Rules, this application
has been heard by the Court.
I much regret that reasons of State compel my immediate return to London118 FISHERIES JURISD!CTION
after the conclusion of these submissions, but my counsel will remain to
afford the Court any additional information which it may seek.
I end, if I may, by emphasizing once again that this application arises out
of an issue which is a matter of the utmost gravity for the United Kingdom
for whom l appear in this Court.
Iremind the Court of the solemn agreement made between the two Govern
ments on 11 March 1961. I remind the Court of the unilateral and precipitate
act of the lcelandic Government. I remind the Court of the length of time
which must pass before a final decision can be given by the Court, and of the
grave consequences which must follow from this act by the lceland Govern
ment upon the fishermen, the people, and the economy of the United King
dom.
ln my submission there couJd be no stronger case to fallwithin Article 41
of the Statute. l repeat, Mr. President, that this is a matter of the gravest
urgency to the United Kingdom and l respectfully but earnestly request the
Court to indicate interim measures in the form presented in paragraph 20
of the request.
The PRESIDENT: On behalf of the Court, l wish to thank the Agent and
counsel of the United Kingdom for their assistance. The oral proceedings on
the request for the indication of interim measures of protection in this case
are now completed, but I would ask the Agent of the United Kingdom to be
at the disposai of the Court to furnish any further information 1 the Court
may require. Subject to that reservation I declare the hearing closed. The
decision of 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.
The Court rose at 12.10 p.m.
L Il, pp. 391-392. READING OF THE ORDERS 119
SECOND PUBLIC SITTING (17 VIII 72, 10 a.m.)
Present: [See sitting of I VHI 72.]
READING OF THE ORDERS
The PRESIDENT: The Court meets today to announce its decisions on
two requests for the indication of interim measures of protection, under
Article 41 of the Statute and Article 61 of the Rules of Court, made by the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1 and by the Federal
Republic of Germany 2, in the proceedings instituted by those two States
against the Republic of keland concerning the fisheries jurisdiction of Ice1and.
These are two separate cases pending before the Court, but the requests for
interim measures of protection were made within two days of each other, the
oral proceedings on the two requests were held on two successive days, and it
has been considered convenient to announce the two decisions at a single
sittingof the Court.
I shall first read the Ortler of the Court in the proceedings instituted by the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland against the Republic
of Iceland.
[The President reads from paragraph I to the end of the Ortler 3.]
fn accordance with the usual practice of the Court, I call upon the
Registrar to read the French text of the operative clause of the Ortler.
[The Registrar reads the operative clause in French 4.]
The Vice-President, Judges Forster and Jiménez de Aréchaga append a
joint declaration to the Ortler of the Court; Judge Padilla Nervo appends a
dissenting opinion to the Ortler of the Court.
I now turn to the proceedings instituted by the Federal Republic of
Germany against thi; Republic of Iceland, and shall now read the Court's
Ortler in that case.
[The President reads from paragraph I to the end of the Ortler s.J
1 call upon the Registrar to read the French text of the operative clause of
the Ortler.
[The Registrar reads the operative clause in French 6.J
The Vice-President, Judges Forster and Jiménez de Aréchaga append a
joint declaration to the Ortler of the Court; Judge Padilla Nervo appends a
dissenting opinion to the Ortler of the Court.
lSec pp. 71-78, supra.
2 11, pp. 23-31.
3 I.C.J. Reports 1972, pp. 13-18.
4 Ibid.,pp. 17-18. See alsoIl, p.61, and I.C.J. Reports 1973, p.302.
5 I.C.J. Repons 1972, pp. 31-37. •
6 Ibid.,pp. 36-37. See also Il,p.61,and also J.C.J. Repons 1973, p. 313.120 FJSHERIES JURISOICTION
In view of the urgency of a decision on a request for the indication of in
terim measures of protection, the two Orders of today have been read from
a mimeographed text. The usual printed copies will be available in about ten
days' time.
(Signed) ZAFRULLA KHAN,
President.
(Signed) S. AQUARONE,
Registrar.
Application instituting proceedings