No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
International Court of Justice: Judgments in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Cases*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 April 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Judicial and Similar Proceedings
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1974
Footnotes
*
[Reproduced from the text provided by the International Court of Justice.
[In United Kingdom v. Iceland, President Lachs and Judges Bengzon, de Castro, Dillard, Forster, Jiménez de Arechaga, Morozov, Nagendra Singh, Ruda and Sir Humphrey Waldock voted in favor of the Judgment; Judges Gros, Ignacio–Pinto, Onyeama and Petrén voted against.
[President Lachs and Judges Ignacio–Pinto and Nagendra Singh appended declarations; Judges Forster, Bengzon, Jiménez de Aréchaga, Nagendra Singh and Ruda appended a joint separate opinion; Judges Dillard, de Castro and Sir Humphrey Waldock appended separate opinions; Judges Gros, Petrén and Onyeama appended dissenting opinions. These have been excerpted for International Legal Materials by S. Jacob Scherr, Fellow of the American Society of International Law.
[The Court’s Judgment of February 2, 1973, concerning the question of jurisdiction, appears at 12 I.L.M. 290 (1973). Orders concerning interim measures of protection appear at 11 I.L.M. 1069 (1972) and 12 I.L.M. 743 (1973). The interim agreement between Iceland and the United Kingdom, done at Reykjavik on November 13, 1973, appears at 12 I.L.M. 1315 (1973).]
References
* See I.L.M. page 1261.]
page no 1068 note 1 See paras. 11 and 12 of the Judgment for the text of the submissions.
page no 1071 note 1 International Convention (with annex and Protocol) for the High Seas Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean signed on 9 May 1952 by the United States of America, Canada and Japan (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 205, p. 65); Convention concerning the High Seas Fisheries of the North-West Pacific Ocean signed on 14 May 1956 by Japan and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (AJIL, 1959, p. 763); Agreement between the Government ofrhe United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Certain Fishery Problems in the North-Eastern Part of the Pacific Ocean off the Coast of the United States of America. signed on 13 February 1967 (UnitedNations Treaty Series, Vol. 688, p. 157); Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Certain Fishery Problems on the High Seas in the Western Areas of the Middle Atlantic Ocean, signed on 25 November 1967 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 701, p. 162); Agreements effected by Exchange of Notes signed on 23 December 1968 between the United States and Japan on Certain Fisheries off the United States Coast and Salmon Fisheries (T1AS of the United States, No. 6600).
page no 1073 note 1 All of the Applicant's submissions are set out in para. 11 of the Judgment.
page no 1073 note 2 Judgment of 2 February 1973, l.CJ. Reports 1973, pp. 8-16.
page no 1073 note 1 There are many ways of analysing the concept of distributive justice and some were discussed in various opinions in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. I would agree that in the context of that case the use of the concept by the Federal Republic of Germany was questionable.
page no 1074 note 1 The distinction (although not in the form I have put it) is usually attributed to Aristotle who discusses it in connection with "particular" justice in his Politics (III, 9 and V, 1) and his Nicomachean Ethics (V, 3, 1-17). See also Aristotle, Ethics (Everyman edition, 1950), pp. 112 et seq. Additional references and a brief explanation of the distinction may be found in Academy of International Law, 91 Recueil des cows, 1957-1, pp. 549-550.
page no 1088 note 1 "The coastal State has no jurisdiction over the superjacent waters" [of the continental shelf] (l.CJ. Reports 1969, p. 37, para. 59).
page no 1088 note 2 See para. 52 of the Judgment.
page no 1088 note 3 Operative part, subparas. 3 and 4.
page no 1088 note 1 See Annex 10 to the Memorial on the merits.
page no 1088 note 2 Memorial on the merits, para. 31.
page no 1088 note 3 "Measures for regulating the amount of total catch, or the amount of fishing efTort in any period, or any other kinds of measures for the purpose of the conservation of the fish stocks in the Convention area, may be added to the measures listed in paragraph 1 of this Article on a proposal adopted by not less than a two-thirds majority of the Delegations present and voting and subsequently accepted by all Contracting States in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures."
page no 1088 note 4 The North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention of 1959.
page no 1089 note 1 P.C.U., Series A, No. 2, p. II.