## Facts

- Iceland announced that, effective September 1, 1972, it would extend exclusive fisheries jurisdiction from 12 to 50 nautical miles from its coasts, citing economic dependence on fisheries and conservation needs.
- The United Kingdom had accepted Iceland’s 12-mile limit in a 1961 Exchange of Notes in which Iceland agreed that disputes concerning fisheries jurisdiction beyond 12 miles would be submitted to the International Court of Justice.
- The United Kingdom instituted proceedings on April 14, 1972 challenging the legality of Iceland’s proposed 50-mile exclusive regime as against the United Kingdom.
- Iceland notified the Court by letter (May 29, 1972) that it did not accept the Court’s jurisdiction and would not participate or appoint an agent; it did not appear at the merits hearings.
- The Court indicated provisional measures (Aug. 17, 1972), later continued (July 12, 1973), aimed at preventing unilateral enforcement against U.K. vessels and setting interim catch limits.
- In November 1973, the parties reached a temporary, without-prejudice arrangement by Exchange of Notes pending resolution of the dispute.
- A prior judgment (Feb. 2, 1973) held the Court had jurisdiction under the 1961 Exchange of Notes; the case then proceeded to the merits despite Iceland’s non-appearance under Article 53 of the ICJ Statute.

## Issues

1. Whether Iceland’s unilateral extension of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to 50 nautical miles was opposable to the United Kingdom under international law.
2. Whether Iceland could unilaterally exclude U.K. fishing vessels from the area between 12 and 50 nautical miles.
3. How Iceland’s special dependence on fisheries (as a coastal State) should be reconciled with the United Kingdom’s historic fishing rights and interests.
4. Whether the parties were mutually obliged to negotiate in good faith toward an equitable arrangement for conservation and exploitation of fisheries in the disputed area.

## Decision

- The Court held (10–4) that Iceland’s unilateral 50-mile extension of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction, as embodied in its regulations, was not opposable to the United Kingdom.
- The Court ruled Iceland was not entitled unilaterally to exclude U.K. fishing vessels from the waters between 12 and 50 nautical miles.
- The Court recognized Iceland’s preferential interest in adjacent fisheries due to its exceptional dependence, but found that preference did not amount to an exclusive right vis-à-vis the United Kingdom’s established fishing activities.
- The Court held both States were under mutual obligations to negotiate in good faith to reach an equitable solution addressing access, allocation, and conservation measures.
- Proceeding under Article 53 due to Iceland’s non-appearance, the Court determined it was required to satisfy itself that it had jurisdiction and that the U.K.’s claims were well founded in fact and law.

## Legal Principles

- A unilateral claim to expanded exclusive fisheries jurisdiction is not enforceable against another State where international law requires consideration of that State’s established rights and interests and no binding legal basis supports opposability.
- A coastal State may hold preferential rights in adjacent living resources where its population is specially dependent on those resources, but such preference is not equivalent to absolute exclusivity.
- Historic or established fishing activities of another State constitute legally relevant interests that must be considered in any new fisheries regime and cannot be extinguished solely by unilateral action.
- Conservation of living marine resources is a responsibility of all States concerned; effective conservation and rational management require cooperative, equitable arrangements rather than unilateral exclusion.
- Where States have overlapping legitimate interests in fisheries, international law imposes a duty to negotiate in good faith to reach an equitable solution.
- In cases of non-appearance, the Court may decide the case but must independently confirm jurisdiction and the factual and legal merits of the applicant’s claims.

## Conclusion

The Court rejected Iceland’s attempt to impose an exclusive 50-mile fisheries zone against the United Kingdom, while acknowledging Iceland’s preferential coastal interest grounded in special dependence on fisheries; it required the parties to negotiate in good faith toward an equitable, conservation-minded arrangement that also accounted for the United Kingdom’s historic fishing interests.


Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), 1974 I.C.J. 3 (July 25)