United Kingdom v Iceland (Fisheries Jurisdiction) | Vitor Oliveira | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: United Kingdom v Iceland (Fisheries Jurisdiction)
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
on March 11th 1961 Iceland and the UK
came to an agreement to resolve a
dispute over Iceland's exclusive fishery
limit the result was a compromissory
treaty wherein the UK agreed to accept
Iceland's 12 nautical mile exclusive
fishery Zone and Iceland agreed to have
any dispute concerning Icelandic fishery
jurisdiction beyond the 12 mile limit to
be referred to the international court
of justice on July 17th 1971 Iceland
issued a policy statement that they were
terminating the 1961 treaty and
extending their fishery jurisdiction
from 12 to 50 nautical miles effect of
September 1st
1972 this prompted the UK to file an
application before the icj on April 14th
1972 the icj issued an order indicating
interm measures of protection which were
to remain in place until a final
judgment was reached on the
case the ISS the issue the court had to
decide upon was whether there needs to
be a radical transformation of the
extent of the obligations on each state
in order for there to be a change of
circumstances that would give grounds
for invoking a revision or termination
of the treaty as Iceland was proposing
the United Kingdom submitted a claim to
the icj stating that there was no
foundation in international law for the
claim by Iceland to be entitled to
extend its Fisheries jurisdiction by
establishing a zone of exclusive
Fisheries jurisdiction extending to 50
nautical miles the United Kingdom also
had questions concerning the
conservation of fish stocks which was
is's claim used to justify that there
had been a radical change of
circumstances and this warranted an
extension of the jurisdiction from 12 to
50 nautical miles which effectively
terminated the treaty the United
Kingdom's Memorial on the merits were
four claims which were submitted to the
icj to be judged upon the first were
that the claims by Iceland to be
entitled to a zone of exclusive
Fisheries jurisdiction extending to 50
nautical miles from the Baseline around
the coast was without foundation in
international law
number two Iceland was not entitled
unilaterally to assert exclusive
Fisheries jurisdiction beyond the limits
agreed to in the treaty number three
Iceland is not entitled to unilaterally
exclude British fishing vessels from the
area of the high seas beyond the limits
agreed to in the
treaty number four to the extent that a
need to extend exclusive Fisheries
jurisdiction be asserted on conservation
ground Iceland and the United Kingdom
are under a duty to examine together and
in good faith the existence of said
Iceland initially stated that it would
not confer jurisdiction to the icj on
those matters because they did not have
jurisdiction but on February 2nd 1973
the court found that it did in fact have
jurisdiction Iceland had not taken part
in any phase of the proceedings and on
the 29th of May 1972 the government of
Iceland informed the court that it
regarded the treaty terminated because
of the change of circumstances the
government of Iceland did not appear
before the court at any time nor file
any pleadings because it maintained its
stance that the court lacked
jurisdiction in considering Iceland's
absence from all of the proceedings the
court was confronted with a difficult
decision in balancing two contradictory
legislative articles article 53
paragraphs 1 and
2 paragraph one states that if one party
fails to defend its case the court May
rule in favor of the other party whereas
paragraph two states that the court must
first satisfy that the claim is well
founded in fact and law the Court held
that it had performed its Juris prudence
and considered all relevant rules of Law
and was therefore able to render a
verdict the court reached its judgment
and held that changes in circumstances
on the obligations of each state must be
radical the change of circumstances
alleged by Iceland were found not to
reach the threshold of radical change
based on change circumstances since the
implementation of the original treaty
meaning there was no grounds for
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
