Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland)
International Court of Justice
1973 I.C.J. 3
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
Iceland (defendant) sought to extend its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction from twelve to fifty miles around its shores. The United Kingdom (UK) challenged this extension of jurisdiction and sought to submit the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ.) The UK relied upon an earlier treaty agreement between the parties where the UK agreed to recognize Iceland’s twelve-mile exclusive fisheries jurisdiction in exchange for Iceland’s agreement to submit all disputes over fisheries jurisdiction to the ICJ. Iceland argued that it was not bound by this agreement to submit all disputes to the ICJ, however, because of changing legal circumstances in international law. Iceland argued that the standard, default limit for exclusive fisheries jurisdiction for states was typically now twelve miles. This was not the case when Iceland first signed its agreement with the UK, however, and the agreement to a twelve-mile limit then constituted a compromise for Iceland. Due to changing trends in international law, Iceland argued that its previous agreement to the twelve-mile compromise in exchange for ICJ jurisdiction was now void for lack of consideration on the UK’s part.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
