INTERNATIONAL LAW

Case Comment
United Kingdom v. Iceland
(Fisheries Jurisdiction Case)

Submitted by: Monica Varaganti

B.A.,LL.B (hons)
III Year
Roll no: 71

Submitted to: Prof. Balakista Reddy.

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case:

United Kingdom v. Iceland.
1. This case is about the dispute concerning the extension which was proposed by the
Icelandic government of its fisheries jurisdiction from 12 nautical miles to 50 nautical
miles.
2. United Kingdom instituted proceedings against the Icelandic government for the same.
3. United Kingdom and Iceland in the year 1961, had reached an agreement that stating that
the United Kingdom will recognize the 12 nautical mile fishery zone of Iceland in return
for Icelands agreement that any issue concerning the Icelandic Fisheries jurisdiction
beyond the 12 nautical mile will be referred to the International Court of justice.
4. Iceland however, in 1971 terminated this agreement and set up a new fishery zone.
5. The United Kingdom had been fishing in this region for many years and it decided to
bring this issue to the International Court of Justice, as Iceland decided to set up its new
parameters.
6. Iceland now claimed that the due to the changed circumstances that is the 12 nautical
mile limit now being recognized generally, the agreement of 1961 will no longer be valid,
because the circumstances have changed now.
7. So Iceland now claimed that the treaty will no longer be applicable.
8. The International court of Justice found that it had jurisdiction in the matter.
9. Iceland however, had failed to take part in the proceedings.
Issues and Questions:
1. Is it necessary that the changed circumstances give rise to invoking the termination of
treaty?
2. And should there be a literal radical transformation to the extent of the obligations still to
be performed?
3. Does Iceland have the right to extend its jurisdiction of its fishery zone from 12 nautical
miles to 50 nautical miles?
4. Does the agreement of 1961, between United Kingdom and Iceland hold any value in the
courts decision?
What did United Kingdom ask for?
In its final submissions the United Kingdom asked the court to adjudge and declare the
following:

1. That the Iceland extending to 50 nautical miles from its baseline is without foundation in
international law and is invalid.
2. The Iceland should not unilaterally assert exclusive fisheries jurisdiction beyond the limit
of 12 nautical miles agreed to in an Exchange of notes in 1961.
3. The Iceland does not have the right to exclude United Kingdom fishing vessels to carry
on fishing activities in the area of high seas beyond the 12 nautical mile limit.
4. The United Kingdom and Iceland together have a duty to examine with or without the
interference of interested states the need for introduction of restrictions on fishing
activities in the said areas of high seas, and to negotiate such an establishment as Iceland
being in a preferential position as it is a state with economy dependant on its fisheries.
Iceland, as mentioned above did not take part in any of the proceedings, but it did inform the
court that it regarded the Exchange of Notes of 1961, treaty as terminated and that in its view the
court did not have jurisdiction and as far as the countrys interests are involved, it was not
interested in conferring jurisdiction on the court involving any case related to the extent of its
fishery limits. It did not accept any statements or allegations submitted on behalf of the United
Kingdom.
Even though it was regretted that Iceland did not appear for the proceedings, the court did take
notice of international law which lay within its own judicial knowledge.
History of the case:
On 11th March 1961, The United Kingdom and Iceland agreed on Exchange of Notes 1, which
stated that United Kingdom would no longer object to the 12 nautical mile fishery zone of the
Iceland and further Iceland would give a notice prior 6 months to the United Kingdom before
making any extension and any dispute related to the case would be referred to the International
Court of Justice. In the year 1971, Iceland terminated the agreement
The main question that the court was concerned about was whether it had jurisdiction in the
matter or not.
1 Compromissory clause of the Exchange of notes 1961: The Icelandic government will continue to work for the
implementation of the Althing resolution of May5, 1959, regarding the extension of fisheries jurisdiction 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 suchextension, the matter shall, at the request of either party, be referred to the International
Court of Justice.

The government of Iceland was not willing to confer jurisdiction on it and hence it did not
appoint any agent. The court however upheld the terms of the compromissory clause and held
that the dispute exactly falls within the terms and the court thus has jurisdiction. According to the
court the terms of the clause are sufficiently clear.
And the next important issue to be observed here is that the agreement based on the Exchange of
Notes, 1961, was initially void or it has cease o operate, for which the court observed that:
The agreement appears to have been freely negotiated between the parties with perfect equality
and freedom of decisions on both the sides. The Prime Minister of Iceland had claimed that the
compromissory clause is the price that Iceland had paid for the United Kingdom to recognize the
12 nautical mile limit, which is now generally recognized and hence there is a change in
circumstances leading to the termination of the treaty. A signed agreement is a binding agreement
between the two nations and the same should be upheld This agreement did play a key factor in
the courts decision.
Merits of the judgment: Among the Fourteen members of the jury, 10 voted for the judgment.
1. The court found that the unilateral extension of Iceland to50 nautical miles from the
baseline are not opposable to the United Kingdom.
2. It also found that the Iceland does not have the right to unilaterally exclude United
Kingdoms fishing vessels from the areas between 12 nautical miles to 50 nautical miles,
or to impose restrictions on such activities.
3. Iceland and the United Kingdom are under mutual obligation to undertake negotiations in
good faith and to find an equitable decisions that are in favor of both the countries.
4. Preferential rights of Iceland, Established rights of United Kingdom including interests of
other states have to be taken into account.
The important elements present in the judgment that we can analyze is the laws of the sea, the
theory of silence that ultimately leads to consent and the Latin phrase sub specie legis ferande2.
There was never a written rule for the fishery jurisdiction of the states. The states generally
started practicing this rule and gradually it had become a customary practice and also the concept
of preferential fishing rights in favor of the coastal states whose dependence on fisheries is
2 Anticipate the law before the legislator had laid it down.

massive and if its economy runs on it. Even though the International Court of Justice knew that
there are definitely going to be talks to increase the 12 nautical mile regulation, it did not
anticipate such a change to happen which is sub specie legis ferande.
United Kingdom has also been fishing on the waters since many centuries without any issues and
since Iceland had no prior issues with the United Kingdom fishing in those particular waters,
prior to this incident. So the United Kingdom had now become a permanent part of the region
and thus it cannot be exclude now form fishing. Icelands maintenance of silence over this issue
had let to its consent over the issue. So therefore if a State has any concerns with the
implementation of certain action then it has to raise the issue immediately and speak up against
it.
Conclusion:
Although the court focused more on the jurisdictional issues , when it comes to international law,
it is really important that the court rules in favor of the United Kingdom because, that shows that
the courts do follow rules, and just do not pass judgments based just on the changed
circumstances or laws. The facts must be taken as it is and the judgment should be based on that.
And it also shows that a state cannot certain regulations for years and then change it views
immediately because of the changed circumstances or any favorable situation or opportunity that
has risen. And similarly a state must speak up if it has any concerns in the initial stages itself as
raising certain concerns later will not be of any help to both the nations.