0:06 on March 11th 1961 Iceland and the UK
0:08 came to an agreement to resolve a
0:11 dispute over Iceland's exclusive fishery
0:14 limit the result was a compromissory
0:16 treaty wherein the UK agreed to accept
0:19 Iceland's 12 nautical mile exclusive
0:21 fishery Zone and Iceland agreed to have
0:23 any dispute concerning Icelandic fishery
0:26 jurisdiction beyond the 12 mile limit to
0:28 be referred to the international court
0:32 of justice on July 17th 1971 Iceland
0:34 issued a policy statement that they were
0:36 terminating the 1961 treaty and
0:38 extending their fishery jurisdiction
0:40 from 12 to 50 nautical miles effect of
0:42 September 1st
0:45 1972 this prompted the UK to file an
0:48 application before the icj on April 14th
0:52 1972 the icj issued an order indicating
0:54 interm measures of protection which were
0:56 to remain in place until a final
0:58 judgment was reached on the
1:00 case the ISS the issue the court had to
1:02 decide upon was whether there needs to
1:04 be a radical transformation of the
1:06 extent of the obligations on each state
1:08 in order for there to be a change of
1:10 circumstances that would give grounds
1:12 for invoking a revision or termination
1:15 of the treaty as Iceland was proposing
1:17 the United Kingdom submitted a claim to
1:19 the icj stating that there was no
1:21 foundation in international law for the
1:22 claim by Iceland to be entitled to
1:25 extend its Fisheries jurisdiction by
1:26 establishing a zone of exclusive
1:28 Fisheries jurisdiction extending to 50
1:31 nautical miles the United Kingdom also
1:32 had questions concerning the
1:34 conservation of fish stocks which was
1:36 is's claim used to justify that there
1:37 had been a radical change of
1:39 circumstances and this warranted an
1:41 extension of the jurisdiction from 12 to
1:43 50 nautical miles which effectively
1:45 terminated the treaty the United
1:46 Kingdom's Memorial on the merits were
1:48 four claims which were submitted to the
1:51 icj to be judged upon the first were
1:52 that the claims by Iceland to be
1:54 entitled to a zone of exclusive
1:55 Fisheries jurisdiction extending to 50
1:57 nautical miles from the Baseline around
1:59 the coast was without foundation in
2:01 international law
2:03 number two Iceland was not entitled
2:05 unilaterally to assert exclusive
2:06 Fisheries jurisdiction beyond the limits
2:09 agreed to in the treaty number three
2:11 Iceland is not entitled to unilaterally
2:12 exclude British fishing vessels from the
2:14 area of the high seas beyond the limits
2:15 agreed to in the
2:18 treaty number four to the extent that a
2:20 need to extend exclusive Fisheries
2:22 jurisdiction be asserted on conservation
2:24 ground Iceland and the United Kingdom
2:26 are under a duty to examine together and
2:31 in good faith the existence of said
2:32 Iceland initially stated that it would
2:35 not confer jurisdiction to the icj on
2:37 those matters because they did not have
2:40 jurisdiction but on February 2nd 1973
2:43 the court found that it did in fact have
2:45 jurisdiction Iceland had not taken part
2:47 in any phase of the proceedings and on
2:50 the 29th of May 1972 the government of
2:51 Iceland informed the court that it
2:53 regarded the treaty terminated because
2:55 of the change of circumstances the
2:56 government of Iceland did not appear
2:58 before the court at any time nor file
3:00 any pleadings because it maintained its
3:02 stance that the court lacked
3:05 jurisdiction in considering Iceland's
3:06 absence from all of the proceedings the
3:08 court was confronted with a difficult
3:10 decision in balancing two contradictory
3:12 legislative articles article 53
3:15 paragraphs 1 and
3:18 2 paragraph one states that if one party
3:20 fails to defend its case the court May
3:22 rule in favor of the other party whereas
3:24 paragraph two states that the court must
3:25 first satisfy that the claim is well
3:28 founded in fact and law the Court held
3:29 that it had performed its Juris prudence
3:31 and considered all relevant rules of Law
3:33 and was therefore able to render a
3:35 verdict the court reached its judgment
3:37 and held that changes in circumstances
3:39 on the obligations of each state must be
3:41 radical the change of circumstances
3:43 alleged by Iceland were found not to
3:45 reach the threshold of radical change
3:47 based on change circumstances since the
3:49 implementation of the original treaty
3:50 meaning there was no grounds for
Chrome Extension