NAME: PRIYANSHU KUMAR ENROLMENT NO: L20BALB051

CASE COMMENTARY: FISHERIES JURISDICTION (UNITED KINGDOM V.

ICELAND)

TITLE
FISHERIES JURISDICTION (UNITED KINGDOM V. ICELAND)

BENCH & QUORUM

In the International Court of Justice, before:
President: Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan.
Vice-President: Ammoun.
Judges: Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, Padilla Nervo, Forster, Gros, Bengzon, Petren, Lachs,
Onyeama, Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, de Castro, Morozov, Jimenez de Arechaga.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The issue about the planned expansion of Iceland's fisheries authority was deliberated by the
International Court of Justice, involving both Iceland and the United Kingdom. Iceland did
not make an appearance or present its opposition in this particular instance.
In the year 1948, the Parliament of Iceland enacted legislation that mandated the Ministry of
Fisheries to formulate laws for the establishment of clearly defined conservation zones for
fishing purposes. In 1952, a zone spanning a distance of 4 miles was subsequently delineated.
In 1958, an expansion of territorial waters occurred, resulting in the establishment of a 12-
mile fishing restriction surrounding Iceland. This exclusive zone was designated for the
benefit of Icelandic fishermen. The United Kingdom contested the legitimacy of the newly
implemented laws, resulting in its fishermen persisting in fishing activities inside the 12-mile
boundary.
Following the 1960 Second United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, England and
Iceland engaged in a series of discussions aimed at resolving their disputes. In 1961, the two
parties successfully negotiated a settlement via an Exchange of Notes, whereby they agreed
upon the establishment of a 12-mile fisheries zone around Iceland.
In the year 1971, the nation of Iceland made the decision to expand its control over fisheries
to include a zone of 50 miles. Furthermore, Iceland said that the Exchange of Notes from
1961 was no longer applicable. These activities provide the fundamental basis of the present
conflict.
The Court determined that the 1972 Icelandic Regulations were a unilateral expansion of
Iceland's exclusive fishing rights to include a 50 nautical mile zone. Iceland lacked the
authority to independently exclude the United Kingdom from the regions situated within the
fisheries boundaries that were mutually agreed upon in the 1961 Exchange of Notes.
The Court rendered a decision stipulating that Iceland and the United Kingdom are obligated
to engage in discussions in a sincere and fair manner with the aim of reaching a just
resolution to their disputes pertaining to their individual fishing entitlements. The parties
were tasked with acknowledging that Iceland had a legitimate claim to a preferential
allocation of fishing resources. This claim was based on the unique reliance of its population
on coastal fisheries, as well as the principle that each state must consider the interests of
others in the sustainable management and fair utilisation of these resources.
The court observed two principles that have been acknowledged as components of customary
law. Firstly, the notion of a fishery zone, wherein each state has the right to assert exclusive
jurisdiction over fisheries, regardless of its territorial sea. It is generally accepted that a
fishery zone extending up to a 12-mile limit from the baseline is valid. Secondly, the concept
of granting preferential fishing rights in neighbouring waters to the coastal state that heavily
relies on its coastal fisheries.

ISSUES
1. Is it legal for Iceland to expand its fishing zone from 12 to 50 miles?
2. What role does Iceland's and the United Kingdom's agreement play in the court's decision?
3. What is high seas legislation, and has it been established? Is it possible to enforce it?

JUDGMENT