Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:49:26.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fisheries Jurisdiction Case(Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2017

Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 13 , Issue 5 , September 1974 , pp. 1090 - 1114
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

[Reproduced from the text provided by the International Court of Justice.

[In Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland, President Lachs and Judges Bengzon, de Castro, Dillard, Forster, Jiménez de Arechaga, Morozov, NagendraSing, Ruda and Sir Humphrey Waldock voted in favor of the Judgment; Judges Gros, Ignacio-Pinto, Onyeama and Petrén voted against.

[President Lachs and Judges Dillard, Nagendra Singh and Ignacio-Pinto appended declarations; Judges Forster, Bengzon, Jiménez de Arechaga, Nagendra Singh and Ruda appended a joint separate opinion; Judges de Castro and Sir Humphrey Waldock appended separate opinions; Judges Gros, Petren and Onyeama appended dissenting opinions.

[In the present case, the Federal Republic of Germany raised the question of compensation for alleged acts of harassment of its fishing vessels by Icelandic coastal patrol boats; this issue was not raised by the United Kingdom in United Kingdom v. Iceland. The excerpts from the declarations and separate and dissenting opinions have been selected, therefore, to consider the submission .concerning compensation.]

References

* [See I.L.M. page 1261.]

1 All of the Applicant’s submissions are set out in para. 12 of the Judgment and the fourth submission is also set out in para. 71.

1 See, for example, Art. 57, paras. 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court.