Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In its Judgment on the question of its jurirrdiction in the protection at the request of the United Kingdom and decided
case concerning Fisheries Jurisdiction (Uni.ted Kingdom that the first written pleadings should be addressed to the
v. Iceland), the Court found by 14 votes to 1 that it had juris- question of its jurisdicltion to deal with the case. The Govern-
diction to entertain the Application filed by the: United King- ment of the United Kingdom filed a Memorial, and the Court
dom on 14 April 1972 and to deal with the merits of the heard oral argument on its behalf at a public hearing on 5 Jan-
dispute. uary 1973. The Governmentof Iceland has filed no pleadings
The Court was composed as follows: President Sir and was not represented at the hearing.
Muhammad Zafrulla Khan. Vice-President .Ammoun and It is, the Court obst:wes, to be regretted that the Govern-
Judges Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, Padilla Nervo, Forster, Gros, ment of Iceland has failed to appear to plead the objectionsto
Bengzon, Peen. Lachs, Onyeama, Dillard, lignacio-Pinto, the Court's jurisdiction which it is understd to entertain.
de Castro, Morozov and Jimbnez de W h a g a . Nevertheless the Court, in accordance with its Statute and its
The Resident of the Court appended a dec'laration to the settled jurisprudence, must examine the question on its own
Judgment. Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended a separate initiative, a duty reinforced by Article 53 of the Statute,
opinion, and Judge Padilla New0 a dissenting .opinion. whereby, whenever one of the parties does not appear, the
Court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction before finding
on the merits. Although the Government of Iceland has not
set out the facts and law on which its objection is based, or
adduced any evidence, the Court proceeds to consider those
objections which might, in its view, be raised against its
jurisdiction. In so doing, it avoids not only all expressions of
R b s d of the Proceedings opinion on matters of substance,but also any pronouncement
(paras. 1-12 of the Judgment) which might prejudge! or appear to prejudge any eventual
decision on the merits.
In its Judgment the Court recalls that on 14April 1972the
Government of the United Kingdom instituted proceedings Compromissory claust!ofthe 1961 Exchange of Notes
against Iceland in respect of a dispute concerning the pro- (paras. 13-23 of the Judgment)
posed extension by the Icelandic Government alf its exclusive
fisheries jurisdiction to a distance of 50 nautical miles from To found the Court's jurisdiction, the Government of the
the baselines around its coasts. By a letter of 29 May 1972the United Kingdom relies on an Exchange of Notes which took
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iceland infornned the Court place between it and the Government of Iceland on 11March
that his Government was not willing to confer jurisdiction on 1961, following an eldier dispute over fisheries. By that
it and would not appoint an Agent. By Orden of 17 and 18 Exchange of Notes the United Kingdom undertook to recog-
August 1972 the Court indicated certain interim measures of nise an exclusive Iceltlndic fishery zone up to a limit of 12