Various nations have fished in the waters surrounding Iceland for
centuries. After World War II, Iceland became concerned that these nations, using
advanced technology, were rapidly depleting valuable fishing resources and Iceland’s
primary livelihood.
In 1959, the parliament–called the Althing–declared that ?Iceland has
an indisputable right to fishery limits of 12 miles (rather than 3), that recognition should
be obtained of Iceland’s right to the entire continental shelf area (about 50 miles) and that
fishery limits of less than 12 miles [when the international norm was a three-mile
territorial sea] from the baselines around the country are out of the question.?
In 1961, Iceland and England were engaged in a diplomatic Exchange of Notes
that ultimately became a treaty. Iceland agreed to give England six months’ notice of any
further extension of Icelandic fisheries jurisdiction and to submit future fisheries disputes
to the ICJ.
In 1971, Iceland advised England about Iceland’s intent to extend its fisheries
jurisdiction again–this time to the entire Continental Shelf surrounding Iceland’s shores.
England objected, because a coastal state’s ability to control fishing in international
waters was well under the fifty-mile limit suddenly claimed by Iceland (at a time when
there was no Exclusive Economic Zone).
In 1972, the Althing adopted a resolution that the twelve-mile agreement of 1961
had to be repealed because of changed circumstances. England (and Germany) sued
Iceland in the ICJ to preserve their fishing rights under the 1961 treaty. Although Iceland
chose not to appear in the proceedings, it did provide the Court with a written defense:
The technological circumstances had changed so drastically that Iceland was compelled
to unilaterally abrogate its 1961 treaty with England. The court ruled (in Iceland’s
absence) that Iceland could not properly invoke changed circumstances. English ships
were not precluded from fishing within the fifty-mile area claimed by Iceland.
The portion of the opinion dealing with changed circumstances follows
immediately below. The paragraph numbers are those of the Court. The dissent deals
specifically with the changed circumstances issue, and generally with the larger problem
often described in Chinese literature as the “Big fish consuming the small fish.”