Background Information and Legal Mechanism

The Treaty of 1961 – this gave Iceland 12 nautical miles off its coastline for exclusive
fisheries.
The United Kingdom ratified this treaty on the grounds that any future disputes
regarding fishing jurisdiction outside this zone must be settled by the ICJ.
In July 17, 1971, the Iceland stated that they do not recognize the Treaty of 1961. Their
aim was to increase their nautical jurisdiction from 12miles to 50miles.
On April 14, 1972, the United Kingdom brought the case to the ICJ. This was based on
the 1961 agreement that any future concerns regarding any fisheries jurisdictions must
be settled by the ICJ.
Immediately after the United Kingdom brought the case forward to the ICJ, the ICJ
passed a temporary protocol of protection until the case had been settled.

Iceland’s Argument
Iceland states that because there has been a change in the circumstances of
international law that the 1961 treaty does not apply. Iceland claims that the reason
behind their extension of their nautical 12miles jurisdiction is their depleting stock of fish.
United Kingdom’s Response
The United Kingdom claims that there has not been a radical change of circumstances
within international law, thus Iceland has no justification in breaking the treaty of 1961.
The United Kingdom also stated that there was no legal framework in place that permits
Iceland to extend their fishery jurisdiction to 50 nautical miles.
The United Kingdom also sheds doubt on Iceland’s claim that their fish stocks are
depleting.
Iceland cannot legally exclude UK’s fishing ships outside of their initial 12 nautical miles.
The UK also states that in order for Iceland to legally expand their exclusive fishing
zone, the reason of expansion must be examined in good faith by both parties.

The Court must make a decision based on the following definition of a change of
circumstances:
“In order that a change of circumstances may give rise to a ground for invoking the
termination of a treaty, is it necessary that it has resulted in a radical transformation of
the extent of the obligations still to be performed?”
RULING:
On February 2, 1973, the ICJ overruled Iceland’s claim to not hand over jurisdiction to
them.
Iceland had refused to take part in any phase of the court trial as they maintained their
stand that the ICJ had no jurisdiction over the matter.
Article 53, paragraph (1) and (2):
Par. 1. If one party fails to present their case, the court have the ability to rule in favor of
the other party.
Par. 2. In order for the ICJ to rule in favor of the party, the court must decide that their
claim is well founded.

FINAL VERDICT:
The ICJ decided that they met their requirements for jurisprudence.
Additionally, they ruled that the change in circumstances within international law were
not radical enough to justify Iceland’s claim to a larger exclusive fisheries zone.
The Treaty of 1961 was to be upheld and maintained.