## Facts

- Iceland progressively expanded fisheries limits (4 miles in 1952; 12 miles in 1958) and, in 1972, adopted regulations extending exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to 50 nautical miles and excluding foreign vessels.
- Germany’s fishing fleet had long fished in waters off Iceland and asserted historic fishing rights in the affected area.
- Iceland justified the 50-mile exclusion on conservation needs and Iceland’s exceptional economic dependence on fisheries.
- Germany instituted proceedings challenging the legality and opposability of the 1972 regulations and sought compensation for alleged interference with German vessels.
- Iceland did not appear, but the Court proceeded and had earlier indicated provisional measures limiting enforcement pending a merits decision.

## Issues

1. Whether Iceland could unilaterally extend exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to 50 nautical miles, excluding German vessels, under applicable international law.
2. How Iceland’s claimed preferential rights based on special dependence and conservation should be reconciled with Germany’s historic fishing rights.
3. Whether the parties were under a legal duty to negotiate in good faith toward an equitable solution on conservation and access.
4. Whether Germany was entitled to compensation for alleged harassment or interference, and whether the record allowed findings on liability and damages.

## Decision

- The Court held that Iceland’s 1972 regulations extending exclusive fisheries rights to 50 nautical miles were not opposable to Germany.
- The Court held that Iceland was not entitled unilaterally to exclude German fishing vessels from the disputed area.
- The Court recognized Iceland’s preferential rights arising from exceptional dependence on fisheries and conservation needs, but held they did not extinguish Germany’s historic rights.
- The Court held that both states had a mutual obligation to negotiate in good faith to reach an equitable solution, including conservation measures and allocation of fishing opportunities.
- The Court declined to grant Germany’s compensation claim because it was presented in abstract form without concrete submissions and proof on specific damage and quantum.

## Legal Principles

- A unilateral assertion of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction that purports to determine other states’ established fishing rights is not opposable to those states absent consent where applicable law does not recognize such exclusivity.
- Coastal states with exceptional dependence on adjacent fisheries may have preferential rights, but such rights are not inherently exclusive and must be reconciled with other states’ established historic fishing rights.
- Where states have concurrent rights and legitimate interests in shared fisheries resources, international law requires good-faith negotiations aimed at an equitable solution informed by conservation needs and relevant factual factors.
- International adjudication of compensation requires specific pleadings and evidence on the existence of damage and its amount; abstract or unquantified claims are insufficient for an all-encompassing liability finding.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected Iceland’s attempt to unilaterally impose an exclusive 50-mile fisheries zone against Germany, recognized both Iceland’s preferential interests and Germany’s historic fishing rights, required good-faith negotiations toward an equitable and conservation-based arrangement, and denied compensation absent specific proof of loss.


Fisheries Jurisdiction (Ger. v. Ice.), 1974 I.C.J. 175 (July 25)