Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    The Fisheries Jurisdiction Case

    Uploaded by

    AN NA
    The Fisheries Jurisdiction case involved a dispute between Iceland and the United Kingdom over Iceland's extension of its exclusive fishing zone from 12 to 50 miles. In 1961, the two countries had agreed to a 12-mile fishing zone around Iceland and to refer any future disputes to the International Court of Justice. However, in 1971 Iceland unilaterally extended its zone to 50 miles. The Court ruled that Iceland could not unilaterally exclude the UK from the agreed fishing areas and that a fundamental change in circumstances along with a transformation in obligations was needed to terminate the 1961 treaty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    The Fisheries Jurisdiction Case

    Uploaded by

    AN NA
    78 views2 pages
    The Fisheries Jurisdiction case involved a dispute between Iceland and the United Kingdom over Iceland's extension of its exclusive fishing zone from 12 to 50 miles. In 1961, the two countries had agreed to a 12-mile fishing zone around Iceland and to refer any future disputes to the International Court of Justice. However, in 1971 Iceland unilaterally extended its zone to 50 miles. The Court ruled that Iceland could not unilaterally exclude the UK from the agreed fishing areas and that a fundamental change in circumstances along with a transformation in obligations was needed to terminate the 1961 treaty.

    Original Title

    Rebus Sic Stantibus.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Fisheries Jurisdiction case involved a dispute between Iceland and the United Kingdom over Iceland's extension of its exclusive fishing zone from 12 to 50 miles. In 1961, the two countries had agreed to a 12-mile fishing zone around Iceland and to refer any future disputes to the International Court of Justice. However, in 1971 Iceland unilaterally extended its zone to 50 miles. The Court ruled that Iceland could not unilaterally exclude the UK from the agreed fishing areas and that a fundamental change in circumstances along with a transformation in obligations was needed to terminate the 1961 treaty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views2 pages

    The Fisheries Jurisdiction Case

    Uploaded by

    AN NA
    The Fisheries Jurisdiction case involved a dispute between Iceland and the United Kingdom over Iceland's extension of its exclusive fishing zone from 12 to 50 miles. In 1961, the two countries had agreed to a 12-mile fishing zone around Iceland and to refer any future disputes to the International Court of Justice. However, in 1971 Iceland unilaterally extended its zone to 50 miles. The Court ruled that Iceland could not unilaterally exclude the UK from the agreed fishing areas and that a fundamental change in circumstances along with a transformation in obligations was needed to terminate the 1961 treaty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    The Fisheries Jurisdiction case

     The most important case of the use of rebus sic stantibus in recent
    times is that of the Fisheries Jurisdiction case (United Kingdom of
    Great Britain & Northern Ireland v. Iceland [I.C.J. Reports 1973, p.
    3.) In this case, the International Court of Justice judged a dispute
    wherein Iceland sought to extend its fisheries jurisdiction from 12 to 50
    miles.
      In 1961, the United Kingdom reached a settlement with Iceland that
    there would be a 12-mile fishery zone around Iceland and in return,
    any dispute regarding the Icelandic fishing zones shall be referred to
    the International Court of Justice. 
     However, in 1971, Iceland decided to extend the fishing zone to 50
    miles and also decided that the 1961 settlement was no longer in
    effect. The United Kingdom thus approached the International Court of
    Justice. 
     Iceland contended that there had been a change in the circumstances
    since the 12-mile limit was now recognized by both parties through the
    1961 settlement and this change necessitated the extension of the
    zone. 
     The main issue to be dealt with here by the Court was whether it was
    necessary that there be a transformation of the extent of the obligation
    to be performed by the party so that a change in circumstances may
    give rise to the termination of a treaty.
     The Court thus held that the 1978 Icelandic Regulations were a
    unilateral extension exercised by only Iceland and that it could not
    unilaterally exclude the United Kingdom from fishing in the areas
    agreed under the 1961 settlement. It was further held that in order to
    effect a change in circumstances for termination of a treaty, it is
    necessary that there has been a transformation of the extent of
    obligations yet to be performed. The change in the circumstances did
    not transform the extent of the jurisdictional obligation of Iceland to
    limit the fishery zone to 12 miles under the 1961 settlement.

    Conclusion 
    The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is a controversial one, embroiled in fears of
    its misuse. It can be observed that international law has, to an extent, laid
    down the limits of the use of this doctrine through express provision as well as
    procedure, wherein objections can be raised towards the actions of a party.
    However, the use of the doctrine is still under the scanner, and it actually
    depends upon the discretion of the judicial body to determine whether there has
    been a fundamental change in circumstances along with a transformation in the
    extent of the obligation to be performed.

    You might also like