1 Excerpted and digested by Wm. W. Bishop, Jr.

The almost identical order of the same date in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case brought by the Federal Republic of Germany against Iceland is reported in [1972] ICJ Rep. 30. Vice-President Ammoun and Judges Forster and Jimenez de Arechaga made the same joint declaration: Judge Padilla Nervo gave a dissenting opinion very similar to that he gave in the case brought by the United Kingdom. In both Orders the English text is authoritative.

2 Composed for this case, and that referred to in the preceding footnote, of President Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan; Vice-President Ammoun; and Judges Fitzmaurice, Padilla Nervo, Forster, Gros, Bengzon, Petren, Lachs, Onyeama, Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, de Castro, Morozov, and Jimenéz de Aréchaga.

3 In the case of the German Federal Republic the requested interim measures were as follows:

(a) The Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Iceland should each of them ensure that no action of any kind is taken which might aggravate or extend die dispute submitted to the Court.

(b) The Republic of Iceland should refrain from taking any measure purporting to enforce the Regulations issued by the Government or Iceland on 14 July 1972 against or otherwise interfering with vessels registered in the Federal Republic of Germany and engaged in fishing activities in the waters of the high seas around Iceland outside the 12-miles limit of fisheries jurisdiction agreea upon in the Exchange of Notes between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of Iceland dated 19 July 1961.

(c) The Republic of Iceland should refrain from applying or threatening to apply administrative, judicial or other sanctions or any other measures against ships registered in the Federal Republic of Germany, their crews or other related persons because of their having been engaged in fishing activities in the waters of the high seas around Iceland outside the 12-mile limit as referred to in paragraph 22(b) [of the request].

(d) The Federal Republic of Germany should ensure that vessels registered in the Federal Republic of Germany do not take more than 120,000 metric tons of fish in any one year from the ‘Sea Area of Iceland’ as defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea as area Va (as marked on the map [annexed to the request] as Annex B).

(e) The Federal Republic of Germany and the Republic of Iceland should each of them ensure that no action is taken which might prejudice the rights of the other party in respect of the carrying out of whatever decision on the merits the Court may subsequently render.

4 In the case of the German Federal Republic the date of the Exchange of Notes was July 19, 1961.

5 The Court said that Prof. Dr. Giinther Jaenicke had spoken on behalf of the German Federal Republic.

6 At this point in the case concerning the German Federal Republic the Court inserted a paragraph as follows:

15. Whereas in its message of 28 July 1972, the Government of Iceland further recalled that the Federal Republic of Germany had only accepted the jurisdiction of the Court by its declaration of 29 October 1971, transmitted to the Registrar of the Court on 22 November 1971, after it had been notified by the Government of Iceland, in its aide-memoire of 31 August 1971, that the object and purpose of the provision for recourse to judicial settlement of certain matters had been fully achieved;

The following paragraphs have a number one greater than in the case involving the United Kingdom.

7 The corresponding paragraph in the German case reads:

26. Whereas the total catch by vessels of the Federal Republic in that area in the year 1970 was 111,000 metric tons and in the year 1971 was 123,000 metric tons; and whereas the figure of 120,000 metric tons mentioned in the Federal Republic’s request for interim measures was based on the average annual catch for the period 1960–1969;

8 Here and in paragraph ( 1 ) ( e ) infra the figure is 119,000 metric tons in the German case.