## Facts

- Iceland and the United Kingdom previously disputed Iceland’s 1958 extension of its fisheries limit to 12 nautical miles.
- The dispute was settled by an Exchange of Notes dated Mar. 11, 1961: the United Kingdom recognized the 12-mile limit, and Iceland undertook to submit to the ICJ disputes concerning fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles.
- In 1971–1972, Iceland announced a unilateral extension of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction from 12 to 50 nautical miles, effective Sept. 1, 1972.
- On Apr. 14, 1972, the United Kingdom instituted ICJ proceedings challenging the proposed extension, relying on Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute and the 1961 Exchange of Notes.
- Iceland notified the Court that it would not accept the Court’s jurisdiction and would not appoint an agent; it did not file a counter-memorial.
- The Court nonetheless proceeded and addressed jurisdiction as a preliminary question, including whether the 1961 undertaking remained in force despite Iceland’s claim of fundamental change of circumstances.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1961 Exchange of Notes constituted a binding agreement conferring ICJ jurisdiction over disputes concerning Icelandic fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 nautical miles.
2. Whether the 1961 jurisdictional undertaking had ceased to apply because changed circumstances allegedly eliminated the basis of the bargain (rebus sic stantibus), including an asserted failure of consideration.
3. Whether Iceland’s non-appearance and denial of jurisdiction prevented the Court from deciding jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction to entertain the United Kingdom’s application and to proceed to the merits.
- The Court found the 1961 Exchange of Notes remained in force and bound Iceland to submit the relevant dispute to the ICJ.
- The Court rejected Iceland’s changed-circumstances argument, concluding the asserted developments did not radically transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the 1961 agreement.
- The Court proceeded despite Iceland’s non-appearance because jurisdiction could be based on prior consent validly given and not lawfully terminated.

## Legal Principles

- An exchange of diplomatic notes can constitute a binding international agreement capable of conferring consent to ICJ jurisdiction under Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute.
- A respondent’s non-appearance does not bar the Court from determining jurisdiction; the Court must satisfy itself that a valid jurisdictional basis exists.
- Fundamental change of circumstances is narrowly construed; termination requires a change producing a radical transformation of the extent of obligations still to be performed.
- Jurisdictional undertakings in dispute-settlement clauses are not displaced merely because factual, economic, or legal conditions relating to the subject matter have changed; their function is to provide a forum when disputes arise.

## Conclusion

The ICJ determined that Iceland’s 1961 commitment to submit disputes over fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles remained binding and that alleged changes in fisheries practice and law did not terminate that jurisdictional obligation, permitting the case to proceed to the merits notwithstanding Iceland’s refusal to participate.


Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1973 I.C.J. 3 (Feb. 2)