CORRESPONDENCE 475
2. The Exchange of Notes of 13 November 1973 between Jceland and the
United Kîn~gdom, the Arrangement relating to fisheries in waters surrounding
the Faroe Islands of 18 Deccntber 1973 and the Agreement of 15 March 1974
between Norway, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United
Kingdom on the Regulation of the Fishing of North East Arctic (Arcto
Norwegian) Cod have been registered with the Secretariat of the United
Nations.
136. THE AGENT FOR THE fiOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
TO THE REGISTRAR
28 March 1974.
I have the honour, with reference to Question 4 asked by Judge Sir
Humphrey Waldock on 25 March 1974 during the course of the oral pro
ceedings 1,to inform you that Counsel for the United Kingdom proposes to
refer to the tables of figures set out in the enclosure to this lctter durinii: the
sitting of the Court to be held on 29 March 1974 2.
137. THE AGENT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ,HE UNITED K!NGDOM
TO ,HE REGISTRAR
2 April 1974.
1. I have the honour, with reference to the question put by Judge Pctrén to
Counsel for the United Kingdom du ring the course of the public sitting of the
Court on 29 March 1974 (Verbatim record, 1, p. 494), to submit the following
response on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
2. ln paragraph 297 of the United Kingdom's Memorial, the intention was
essentially to make the point that the fonhcoming Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea may reveal whether a consensus can be
reached which will bring about a development in the law so as to permit the
kind of claim which Jceland is now making. Such a devclopment may corne
about as a rcsult of the adoption of a new Convention on the Law of the Sea
and subsequent State practice. Hence, since in the view of Her Majcsty's
Government the Jcelandic claim was not pcrmissible whcn made and is still
not permissible ut this time, the proper course for Iceland to have taken would
have been to have awaited the outcome of the forthcoming Confcrcnce. The
United Kingdom could not have delayed the institution of procccdings before
the Court until the outcon,e of that Conference was known. British fishing
vessels were being prevented from fishing and harasscd from Scptcn1ber 1972
onwards and Hcr Majesty's Government at that stage saw no real alternative
to seeking the protection of the Court. The refusa! by lccland to ,1ccept the
Courfs Order of 17 August 1972, indicating interim measures of protection,
was part of the background against which Her Majesty·s Government
concluded the lnterim Agreement of 13 November 1973. Therc has bccn no
further harassment since the conclusion of the Agreement, but that in no way
lessens the importance of the Court's judgment in this case. The lnterim
Agreement expressly states thal it is "without prejudicc to the legal posllion
or rights of either governmcnt in relation" to the substantive dispute.
L I, pp. 477-478.
2 [,pp. 502-503 and p. 519.476 FISHERIES JURISDICTION
3. With regard to the forthcoming Conference on the Law of the Sea, the
first substantive session is due to begin on 20 June 1974. Itis widely expected
that a second substantive session will be held during 1975. Accordingly, it is
far from certain that the forthcoming Conference wi!J have produced a clear
outcome by 13 November 1975 when the Interim Agreement, in the absence
of agreement to the contrary, it due to expire. This consideration lay bchind
paragraph 298 of the United Kingdom Memorial where itis stated that "what
a new Conference might agree about changes in the law is irrelevant to the
present case before the Court".
4. Her Majesty's Government will take a positive attitude towards the
negotiations on the many inter-related items on the List of Subjects and Issues
before the Conference, with a view to contributing to the adoption of a new
convention. Such a convention may clarify a number of existing issues, as
well as con tribute to the progressive dcvelopment of international law in this
field. However, even if a new convention were to be concluded reasonably
quickly, it would remain to be seen how long it woUid take formally toenter
into force or to have an impact upon the development of the law through
state practice. It also remains to be seen whether Iceland will become a party
to a new convention: Her Majesty's Government feel bound to point out
that Jceland to this day has not become a party to.any of the Geneva Con
ventions of 1958.
5. The Court's judgment in this case will constitute an authoritative
statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under existing law and
may provide a basis for the negotiation of arrangements to follow those
contained in the lnterim Agreement.
6. For these reasons, Her Majesty's Government consider it quite compat
ible with the view expressed at the beginning of paragraph 297 of the Me
morial that they should seek of the Court a judgment on the United King
dom's submissions, a judgment moreover which the Court could be expected
to give after the normal time required for deciding matters of this degrce of
importance.
138. THE REGISTRAR TO THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF ICELAND
2 April 1974.
have the honour to send Your Excellency herewith a copy of a letter,
dated today, which I have received from the Agent of the United Kingdom
in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case, setting out the reply of the United Kingdom
Government to the question put by Judge Petrén at the hearing of 29 March
1974 ([, p. 494).
)39. THE AGENT FOR THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO THE REGISTRAR
3 April 1974.
I have the honour to refer to the questions put by Judges Jiménez de
Aréchaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock, and Dillard to the Federal Republic of
Germany during the course of the public sitting of the Court on 2 April 1974
(pp. 358 and 367, suf}ra) in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case (Federal Republic
ofGermany v. lceland), and to submit on behalfof the Government of the
Federal Republic the answers to these questions in the same order as they
were asked by theJudges during the course of the sitting:
Written answers of the United Kingdom to the question posed by Judge Petrén on 29 March 1974