Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v Iceland) (Coastal rights)

Name: Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK v Iceland) (Coastal rights)
Uploaded: 2026-06-25T23:05:57.331Z
Duration: 3 min 14 s
Channel: Global Affairs Academy
Description: In this international law case, the court made important observations about the limits of national maritime claims, the importance of nations honouring their voluntary international commitments, and the importance of nations ensuring the proper stewardship and conservation of shared resources.

Global Affairs Academy

6 followers

Jun 25, 2026

In this international law case, the court made important observations about the limits of national maritime claims, the importance of nations honouring their voluntary international commitments, and the importance of nations ensuring the proper stewardship and conservation of shared resources.

Music For centuries, northern fishing communities in the UK have shared fishing rights in the North Atlantic Ocean with fishers from Iceland. In 1948, the authorities in Iceland sought to unilaterally extend their exclusive fishing area to a full 50 miles out from the Icelandic coast. This would give Icelandic fishers exclusive access to the full continental shelf and would deny UK fishers from traditional fishing areas. The UK protested and the parties came to an agreement through what's called an exchange of notes in 1961. Things were fine for a decade and then Iceland again unilaterally extended its exclusive fishing zone to 50 miles. The UK took the matter to the International Court of Justice but Iceland refused to participate. The court proceeded anyway. The court accepted that Iceland and particularly its fishing communities were particularly dependent on the fisheries near Iceland and that they should have preferential rights over those fishing areas. At the same time, however, the court found that Iceland should comply with the agreements it had previously made with the United Kingdom and that preferential rights could not be used to extinguish the rights of other nations. The court said, the concept of preferential rights is not compatible with the exclusion of all fishing activities of other states. A coastal state entitled to preferential rights is not free unilaterally and according to its own uncontrolled discretion to determine the extent of those rights. The characterization of the coastal state's rights as preferential implies a certain priority but cannot imply the extinction of the concurrent rights of other states. The coastal state has to take into account and pay regard to the position of other states, particularly when they have established an economic dependence on the same fishing grounds. Accordingly, the fact that Iceland is entitled to claim preferential rights does not suffice to justify its claim unilaterally to exclude the applicant's fishing vessels. In addition, the court said that where nations like Iceland and the United Kingdom share fisheries or have adjacent fishing areas, they must also consider the conservation needs of their neighbours so they do not harm the fishing rights of their neighbours. So, ultimately, the court confirmed the concept of preferential rights but also the need for nations to deal with one another in good faith. The court ruled that both countries should return to the table and negotiate in good faith.