Fisheries Jurisdiction Case

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland) I.C.J. Reports 1974

Facts

a. The International Court of Justice delivered judgment, by 10 votes to 4.

b. Iceland (Althing) attempted to extend its exclusive fishing rights to 50 nautical miles from the baseline, over its 12 mile allowance.

c. The law Iceland passed to enact such a regulation dealt with Scientific Conservation of the continental shelf.

d. However, Iceland and the United Kingdom reached an agreement in 1961 stating that the United Kingdom would recognize the 12 mile fishery zone.

e. Iceland terminated this agreement in 1971 in which it set up its new fishery zone.

f. United Kingdom has been fishing in this region for many years and brought this issue to the ICJ when Iceland set up its new parameters.

g. The ICJ found that it had jurisdiction in this matter.

h. Iceland failed to take part in the proceedings. Questions a. Does Iceland have the right to extend its fishery zone from 12 miles to 50 miles?

b. What role does the agreement between Iceland and United Kingdom play within the court’s decision?

c. What is the law of the high seas and has it been established? Can it be enforced?

Decisions a.

The court found that Iceland’s extension of its fishery zone from 12 to 50 miles is not permissible and not “opposable” to the United Kingdom. Two concepts that arose from the second Conference of the Law of the Sea was that a fishery zone, “between the territorial sea and the high seas, within the coastal State could claim exclusive fisheries jurisdiction.” This area has been accepted to be 12 miles from its baseline. In international law, if a general practice is accepted by states and is practiced, then this concept is law.

b.

The agreement made between Iceland and the United Kingdom does play a key factor in the court’s decision. A signed agreement/treaty between two nations is binding agreement that must be upheld between nations. This agreement also proves and shows that Iceland accepted the 12 mile fishery zone jurisdiction and was content with it. Thus the United Kingdom has two factors that play favorably in the courts eyes; the facts of the case line up with International Law and an agreement was struck between both nations that lined up with what International Law would allow.

c.

According to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea it declared freedom of the high seas and this freedom is to be exercised by all states. However, nothing arouse from these conferences concerning fishery jurisdiction and where it stops. All that was confirmed was a zone between the territorial zone and the high sea is where fishery jurisdiction stops. Although it was not established in a treaty, states accepted this general rule of a 12 mile fishery zone and given that Iceland did not protest this rule it thus gave consent to it.

Principles a. The international law elements of the case are the laws of the sea, the theory that silence

leads to consent, and sub specie legis ferendae.

b. The rule of law that was used in this case was the general rule under the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. This conference set out to establish rules and regulations for the sea. Although there was no written rule for fishery jurisdiction, silent consent was given to the 12 mile regulation thus making it law. Although the ICJ knew that talk was going to happen to increase this area, it could not anticipate such a change (sub specie legis ferendae) and needed to wait until it was written down.

c. One final principle that is extremely important in noting is that the United Kingdom has been fishing in these waters for centuries without any issues. Since Iceland had no issues prior to this incident, the United Kingdom had become a permanent part within the region and cannot be removed. Silence lead to consent, thus if a state has an issue with a certain action, it should speak up.

Conclusion The court’s ruling in favor of the United Kingdom is important when it comes to international law. It shows that the courts follow the rules and laws exactly as stated or practice and does not judge based off of what is to come (a law change). A court must take the facts as is and base their judgments off of that. As well it provides a written account of the 12 mile fishery jurisdiction that many of the states have consented to. But most importantly it shows and proves the theory of ‘silence leads to consent.’ A state cannot follow certain regulations for years and then change its views immediately because a new favorable opportunity has risen. A state must speak up with any concerns it may have and if it doesn’t it must then follow the rules it has agreed to.

Bibliography Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (United Kingdom v. Iceland) (Merits) Judgment of 25 July 1974. Submitted Keith Masiulis, November 5, 2009