CORRESPONDENCE 391
45. THE COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM TO THE REGISTRAR
3 August 1972.
On 2 August you were good enough to hand me the text of 2 questions
which the Court wished to address to the Agent for the Government of the
United Kingdom.
The first question reads as follows:
"ln the course of counsel's argument on 1August, reference was made
to various negotiations for a provisional agreement (see verbatim
record, 1, pp. 96-97). Can lhe Court be given further details of any
proposais made by Iceland in the course of those negotiations?"
The following are the further details requested by the Court.
The first specific lce\andic proposai made in the course of negotiations was
that only vessels of less tha160 feet in length which had fi.shed off Iceland in
the past two years would be allowed to continue to fish. Freezers would be
excluded. The area within 25 miles from baselines would be reserved to
Icelandic vessels. Outside this limit there would be two areas closed on con
servation grounds to al\ trawling whether by Icelandic or foreign vessels. The
rest of the area between a 25-mile limit and a 50-rnilelimit would be divided
into six sectors of which two at a time would be open in rotation to British
vesse\s for three or four months of lhe year. The lcelandic authorities would
be responsible for enforcement including the right to arrest and punish
vessels for any infringement of the arrangements. The agreement would run
until 1 January 1974.
Subsequently these proposais were modified to the extcnt that the area
permanently closed to British vessels would be bounded by a line whose
distance from the baselines would vary between 14 and 27 miles but which
would have substantially the samc restrictive effcct as a line at a uniform
distance of 25 miles from the baseline. The sectors outside this line which
would be open in rotation two at a time for four months were specified. On
this basis Her Majesty's Government calculatcd that the areas in question
during the respective periods in which they would be open currcntly produced
only 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom catch. The Icelandic delegation
indicated that the details of the arrangement were negotiable and were
prepared to discuss modifications in the original proposais regarding restric
tions on the size of vessels and the duration of the agreement. At the con
clusion of the talks the Ice\andic delegation asserted that the total Jffect on
British fishing of the restrictions ke\and required need not be greater than a
reduction of 25 percent. below the 1971 catch Jevel but the lcelandic author
ities have not put forward any further specific proposais or withdrawn any of
the restrictive elements in their previous proposais.
The second question reads as folJows:
"The Court has taken note of the proposai by the United Kingdom
that as part of the intcrim measures, the United Kingdom would be
prepared to limit the annual catch of fishing vessels registered in the
United Kingdom to a certain definite tonnage.
If possible would the Agent of the United Kingdom kind\y assist the
Court by indicating one or more methods or institutional devices which
might be feasibly dcsigned to furnish both Parties the assurance that
such limits would not be exceeded? F!SHERIES JURISDICTION
392
In particular does the Agent have in mind in the interests of protecting
the respective rights of both the United Kingdom and Iceland, that the
assurance noted in paragraph 19 of its Request cou Id be implemented by
somc appropriatc method of supervision or accounting, and if so can he
throw some light on such a method."
In reply to the above questions I am authorized to submit the following
statements.
1. Her Majesty's Government have no doubt that should 'the Court
indicate as part of the interim measures the limitation on the catch of United
Kingdom fishing vessels which they have suggested, this limitation could be
enforced by Her Majesty's Government without difficu!ty and to the satisfac
tion of the kelandic Government.
2. Catch limitation schemes for conservation purposes are at the present
time occupying the attention of Her Majesty's Government and other
nations in particular in connexion with the schemes for the North-West
Atlantic referred ta by Her Majesty's Attorney-General in his speech on
1 August.
3. In general the implementation of such schemes, once they are agreed,
does not appear ta give rise to any great difficu\ty because of the existence of
long-establishcd systems of collecting statisticsof fish catches and the
existence of statutory powers of control. There is a long-standing system in
the United Kingdom as in other countries for a collection of statistics of
fishing catches by reference to the area from which the fish are taken. This
system forms the basis of United Kingdom statistics for the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (which has published fishing statistks
since 1909).
4. The lcelandic area is separated from other distant water fishing grounds
by wide stretches of sea which contain no trawling grounds, and catches
from the kelandic area are readily distinguishable by inspection from catches
taken in other areas, e.g., off the Norwegian coast or the Faroes. Inspection
of the logs, which ail ships are legally required to complete, and the daily
position reports which distant-water vessels are required to make for safety
purposes, would show whether any particular vessel purporting ta have
fished elsewhere had in fact been fishing in the Iceland area, thereby making
further examination of catches necessary. Jn this way the United Kingdom
authorities would be able ta ascertain whcn any catch limitation had been
reached and an order would then be made under the Sea Fish (Conservation)
Act 1967 closing the area to further fishing by British vessels for the remainder
of the year. In practice Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to agree
arrangements with the United Kingdom fishing industry under which fishing
would be spread over the whole year without excecding the prescribed limit.
5. While no doubt has been cast in the past on the validity of United
Kingdom fishing statistics by Iceland or by ri.ny other party, Hcr Majesty's
Governmcnt are perfectly willing, should lceland so wish, or the Court think
it desirable, to give to the lcelandic Government or to any other agency
indicated by the Court access to any relevant records or other relevant
documents they may wish to see.
(Signed) J. L. SIMPSON.
Written answers of the United Kingdom to the questions posed by the Court