Page 185 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

natural prolongation of its territory, exist pro facto and ab provisions "pending a settlement of the substantive dis-
initio by virtue of its sovereignty over the adjacent pute and without prejudice to the legal position or rights of
land." 93 The Court concluded by delineating its solution: either government in relation thereto." The United
''Vlhe boundary lines were to be drawn by agreements Kingdom sought a determination of four issues: Was Ice-
reached through good faith and meaningful negotiations, land's claim to a 50 mile exclusive fisheries zone founded
on the basis of equitable principles and taking into account in international law? Was Iceland entitled, as against the
the following particular factors; the general configuration United Kingdom, to extend the zone beyond the 12 miles
of the parties' coastlines and any special or unusual agreed to in the 1961 agreement? Was Iceland entitled
features thereof; so far as known or readily ascertainable, unilaterally to exclude or impose restrictions on United
the physical and geological structure and natural resources Kingdom ships beyond the 12 mile zone? And were the
of the continental shelfarea involved; and the element of United Kingdom and Iceland under a duty to enter into
a reasonable degree of proportionality between the extent negotiations with respect to conservation of the fisheries?
of the continental shelfarea appertaining to each party and Before addressing these matters on the merits, the Court
the length of its coast measured in the general direction of concluded that the existence of the interim 1973 agree-
the coastline, taking into account the actual or prospective ments was not a bar to its reaching a decision since the &is-
effects of any other continental shelf delimitations in the pute was still ongoing. The Court recognized several prin-
ciples of customary international law: the acceptance of a
Same region." 94
12-mile exclusive fisheries zone and preferential fishing
The end result, the Court said, should be that each coun- rights for the coastal state in the water immediately con-
try would receive the natural prolongations of its territory, tiguous to the exclusive zone in situations of special de-
with any overlap worked out by agreement, either as by a pendence. The Court also quoted Article 2 of the 1958
division or by joint exploration.
Convention of the High Seas which declares that the prin-
The Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kmgdom v. Ice- ciple of freedom of fishing is to "be exercised by all states
land) (1972- 1974). 95 In this proceeding the United with reasonable regard to the interests of other states in
Kingdom protested Iceland's extension of its exclusive their exercise of the freedom of the high seas." (Emphasis
fisheries jurisdiction from 12 miles to 50 miles. Iceland added.) Notwithstanding Iceland's preferential fishmg
did not take part in the proceedings, even though invited rights, the Court concluded that Iceland could not ex-
to on several occasions. (The Court declined to join this tinguish the concurrent rights of the United Kingdom in
case with that of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) the adjacent waters beyond the 12-mile limit agreed to in
against Iceland because, although the basic issues were 1961. The United Kingdom had traditional fishtng rights
similar, the United Kingdom and the FRG took different in and a certain dependence on the same waters. The at-
positions with respect to their submissions; see next case.) tempt by Iceland to extend, as against the United
The Court found that it had jurisdiction to render a judg- Kingdom, its 12-mile limit to a 50-mile limit disregarded
ment, despite the absence of Iceland's participation, the exchange of notes in 1961, the interests of the United
because it had before it the necessary facts and law: In Kingdom, and was an infringement on the "reasonable-
1961 the United Kingdom and Iceland agreed by an Ex- ness" principle of Article 2 of the 1958 Convention of the
change of Notes (which the Court considered a treaty) High Seas. Therefore, the Court concluded that Iceland
that the United Kingdom would no longer contest a 12- could not unilaterally exclude or impose restrictions on
mile f~hingzone and that Iceland, while working on an United Kingdom ships beyond the 12-mile limit;
extension of its fisheries jurisdiction under the 1959 policy however, the United Kmgdom was under an obligation in
of its Parliament ("Recognition should be obtained of Ice- the 12-50 mile zone to take into consideration conserva-
land's right to the entire Continental Shelf area"), would tion of the fisheries resources. Iceland and the United
not extend the zone without six months notice to the Kingdom were found by the Court to be under an obliga-
United Kingdom; if a dispute were to arise, the matter tion to negotiate a solution for the fishing rights in the 12
would be referred to the International Court of Justice. In to 50 mile zone, taking into consideration five factors: Ice-
1971 Iceland announced to the United Kingdom that the land's preferential fishing rights as a specially dependent
1961 agreement would be terminated and that the 12- coastal state; the traditional fishing rights and dependence
mile limit would be extended to 50 miles. The United of the United Kingdom in these waters; the interests of
Kingdom disputed the right of Iceland to unilaterally ter- conservation; the fishing rights of both Iceland and the
minate the 1961 agreement. After a number of incidents, United Kingdom should be maximized, consonant with
the two countries in 1973 entered into a two year agree- conservation considerations; and a continuing obligation
ment by an Exchange of Notes which provided for interim to review the resources and the appropriate conservation
measures. 96
93. Himel, Decisions of Internationaland Foreign Tribunals, 4Int'l
Lawyer 920, 922 (1970). The Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (FMeral Republic of Ger-
94. Id.
95. [I9741I.C.J. Rep. 3;reportedin 69Am.J. Int'lL. 154 (1975). 96. See [1973-19741I.C.J.Y.B. 109.