Case Note On ICJ Judgement In Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK Vs Iceland)
- IJLLR Journal
- 57 minutes ago
- 2 min read
J. Gayathri, School of Excellence in Law, TNDALU
This case discusses the disputes between the United Kingdom and Iceland and analyses how Iceland, a micro nation won 4 disputes against the UK, a great power in the world.
HISTORY
The history of the case begins with the Proto Cod War which extended from 1952 to 56, where Iceland, in 1952 had unilaterally extended the fisheries jurisdiction from 3 to 4 nautical miles. The British had opposed the extension of the jurisdiction but did not deploy the Royal Navy. Iceland, in return, threatened to withdraw from NATO and expel US forces from Iceland unless the extension of the fisheries jurisdiction was accepted. The UK complied.
The threat of withdrawal from NATO was significant as Iceland’s location makes it a valuable partner for other countries in monitoring and responding to security threats in the North Atlantic and Iceland being a non-military country, has the presence of military troops of other NATO countries including USA, for peacekeeping of the region.
The First Cod War extended from 1958 to 61, when Iceland unilaterally extended the fisheries' jurisdiction from 4 to 12 nautical miles. But this time, the UK employed the British Royal Navy and imposed economic sanctions on Iceland, who once again used the threat of withdrawal from NATO and expulsion of US troops. This constituted a significant historical moment as this served as the only time when one NATO nation deployed military troops to threaten another nation. The war came to an end through a compromissory treaty where the UK, once again agreed to the extension but this time they drew up an Exchange of Notes which required multiple negotiations between the countries and acquired the characteristic of a treaty or convention. The crux of the convention was that the UK would accept the fisheries jurisdiction of Iceland for up to 12 nautical miles and had acquired an assurance from Iceland that the fisheries jurisdiction would not be further extended and that any disputes regarding the fisheries jurisdiction shall be referred to the International Court of Justice by either of the parties.
