FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE:

UNITED KINGDOM VS ICELAND

Presented by: Vivian Leyes

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CONSIDERED A DISPUTE BETWEEN ICELAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
REGARDING A PROPOSED EXTENSION BY ICELAND OF ITS FISHERIES JURISDICTION FROM 12 TO 50 NAUTICAL MILES.
SOURCE: ICJ REPORT OF JUDGMENT 25 JULY 1974
 CASE DETAILS
Case Facts:
In 1948, Iceland’s Parliament passed a law directing the Ministry of Fisheries
to issue regulations establishing explicitly bounded conservation zones for
fishing. A 4-mile zone was subsequently drawn in 1952.
In 1958 this zone was extended to 12 miles, establishing a new 12-mile
fishery limit around Iceland which was reserved for Icelandic fisherman. The
United Kingdom did not accept the validity of the new regulations, and its
fisherman continued to fish inside the 12-mile limit.
After the 1960 Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea,
England and Iceland began a series of negotiations to resolve their
differences.
In March 11th 1961, UK and Iceland agreed through an Exchange of Notes
which stated UK will no longer object to the 12 nautical mile fishery zone of
Iceland and further, Iceland would give notice prior 6 moths to UK before
making any extensions and any dispute related to the case would be referred
to the International Court of Justice.
In 1971, Iceland decided to extend its fisheries jurisdiction to a 50-mile zone,
and maintained that the 1961 Exchange of Notes was no longer in effect as
they are terminating from it.
UK’s Argument:
1. That claim by Iceland to be entitled to a zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction extending 50 nautical
miles from the baselines is without foundation in international law and is invalid;
2. that, as against the United Kingdom, Iceland is not entitled unilaterally to assert an exclusive
fisheries jurisdiction beyond the limit of 12 miles agreed to in an Exchange of Notes in 1961;
3. that Iceland is not entitled unilaterally to exclude British fishing vessels from the area of the high
seas beyond the 12-mile limit or unilaterally to impose restrictions on their activities in that area;
4. that Iceland and the United Kingdom are under a duty to examine together, either bilaterally or
with other interested States, the: need on conservation grounds for the introduction of restrictions
on fishing activities in the said area of the high seas and to negotiate for the establishment of such
regime in that area as will interalia ensure for Iceland a preferential position: inconsistent with its
position as a State specially dependent on its fisheries.
Iceland’s Argument:
Iceland did not take part in any phase of the proceedings. By a letter of 29 May 1972 Iceland informed
the Court
• that it regarded the Exchange of Notes of 1961 as terminated
• that in its view there was no basis under the Statute for the Court to exercise jurisdiction; and that,
as it considered its vital interest to be involve, it was not willing to confer jurisdic- tion on the Court
in any case involving the extent of its fishery limits.
In a letter dated 11 January 1974, Iceland stated that it did not accept any of the statements of fact or
any of the allegations or contentions of law submitted on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Issue/s:
1. Whether ICJ has jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether Iceland’s extension to 50 mile violative of the Exchange of Notes with UK in 1961
3. Whether there is change of circumstance for Iceland material enough that will merit the
expansion of fishing jurisdiction and non compliance to the 1961 Exchange of Notes
 ICJ RULING
International Court of Justice Ruling: Votes: 10 vs 4

On Jurisdiction issue:
Reverting to the 1961 Exchange of Notes, which in the Court's Judgment of 1973was held to be a treaty in force

Exchange of Notes which took place on 11 March 1961and specified interalia that the United Kingdom would no longer object toa 12-mile fishery zone,that Iceland would
continue to work for the implementation the 1959 resolution regarding the extension of fisheries jurisdiction but would give the United Kingdom six months' notice of such
extension and that "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".

On Expansion Validity:
(1) found that the Icelandic Regulations of 1972 constituting a unilateral extension of the exclusive fishing rights of Iceland to 50 nautical miles from the baselines are not
opposable to the United Kingdom;

(2) found that Iceland is not entitled unilaterally to exclude United Kingdom fishing vessels from areas between the 12-mile and 50-mile limits, or unilaterally to impose
restrictions on their activities in such areas;

(3) held that Iceland and the United Kingdom are under mutual obligations to undertake negotiations in good faith for an equitable solution of their differences;

(4) indicated certain factors which are to be taken into account in these negotiations (preferential rights of Iceland, established rights of the United Kingdom, irterests of other
States, conservation of fishery resources, joint examination of measures required).
 INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCEPTS
Law of the Sea (Geneva, 1958)
Convention on the High Seas, Article :2 of which declared the principle of the freedom of the high seas, that is to say, freedom of navigation, freedom of fishing,etc., to "be
exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas"

The court noted two concepts that had been accepted as part of customary law in this case:
(1) the idea of a fishery zone in which each state may claim exclusive fishery jurisdiction independently of its territorial sea, and that a fishery zone up to a 12-mile limit from
the baseline is generally accepted in line with the 1961 agreement
(2) the concept of preferential rights of fishing in adjacent waters in favor of the coastal state which has special dependence on its coastal fisheries.

The concept of preferential fishing rights had originated in proposals submitted by Iceland at the Geneva Conference of 1958, which had confined itself to recommending
that:
". . . where, for the purpose of conservation, it becomes necessary to limit the total catch of a stock or stocks of fish in an area of the high seas adjacent to the territorial sea of
a coastal State, any other States fishing in that area should collalborate with the coastal State to secure just treatment of such situation, by establishing agreed measures which
shall recognize 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".

A coastal state entitled to preferential rights is not free, unilaterally and according to its own uncontrolled discretion, to determine the extent of those rights. The
characterization of the coastal state's rights as preferential implies a certain priority, but cannot step other's right.

Doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (things standing thus) - Vienna Convention on Law of Treaty Article 62
The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus provides that an unforeseen fundamental change of circumstances can be invoked as grounds for terminating a treaty if it
affects the essential basis of the treaty and radically transforms obligations still to be performed.

Reference: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/55
MORE INSIGHTS AND HOW IT IS NOW..

A more serious turn of events came when Iceland threatened closure of the NATO base at Keflavik, which could
impaired NATO's ability control access to the Atlantic Ocean to the Soviet Union. As a result, the British
government agreed to have its fishermen stay outside Iceland's 200 nmi (370 km) exclusion zone without a
specific agreement.
NATO mediated sessions and agreement between Iceland and the UK on 1 June 1976. The British were allowed
to keep 24 fishing boat within the 200 nautical miles limit 30,000 tons of fish

Since then relations have improved, mainly because both countries have common interests including

Free Trade

Defense

Protection of Environment

International Peace
THANK YOU