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 the Scientific Conservation
of the continental shelf.
d. However, Iceland and the United Kingdom reached an agreement in 1961 stating that the
United Kingdom would recognized the 12 miles fishery zone.
e. Iceland terminated this agreement in 1971 in which it set up its new fishery zone.
f. United King
g.
h. dom has been fishing in this region for many years and brought this issue to the ICJ when
Iceland set up its new parameters.
i. The ICJ found that it had jurisdiction in this matter.
j. Iceland failed to take part in the proceedings.
Questions
a. Does Iceland have the rights 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
courts decision?
c. What is the law of the high seas and has it been establish? Can it be enforced?
Decisions
a. The court found that Icelands extension of its fishery zone from 12 miles 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 practice, then this
concept is law.

b. The agreement made between Iceland and United Kingdom does play a key factor in the
courts decision. A signed agreement/treaty between two nations is binding agreement
that must be held between nations. This agreement also proves and shows that Iceland
accepted the 12 miles 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 establish in a treaty, states accepted this general
rule of a 12 miles 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 the 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 miles 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 nothing 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 aa 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 courts 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 miles 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 states 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 doesnt it must then follow the rules it has
agreed to.