<html>
<head>
<meta name="Generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 8">
<meta name="DATE" content="12/3/1998">
<meta name="Author" content="Laurie Wright">
<title>INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE DECLINES JURISDICTIONIN FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (SPAIN V. CANADA)</title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" link="#0000ff" vlink="#551a8b" alink="#ff0000" bgcolor="#c0c0c0">
<p><font face="Arial"></font><font face="Arial" size="+1"></font><font face="Arial" size="+1">December 4, 1998 <em>(6:10 a.m. EST) </em> No. 284</font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial" size="+1">INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE DECLINES JURISDICTION</font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial" size="+1">IN <em>FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (SPAIN v. CANADA)</em></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">The International Court of Justice today decided that it does not have jurisdiction to hear Spain's application
against Canada concerning the 1995 seizing of the Spanish fishing vessel <em>Estai</em>. The Court accepted the
arguments made by Canada on jurisdiction, and the decision means that Spain may not proceed with its case.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">The Court held that it could not hear the application because the dispute falls within the terms of Canada's
reservation to its general acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction. Every country has the right to make a
"reservation" about which matters the Court will not have jurisdiction to hear. In 1994, even before the Estai
case was brought to the Court by Spain, Canada had registered such a reservation, which excluded from the
Court's jurisdiction those disputes concerning or arising out of conservation and management measures taken
by Canada with respect to foreign vessels fishing in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)
Regulatory Area, and the enforcement of those measures.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">"We welcome the Court's decision, which affirms the importance of the consent of States to the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice in The Hague," said Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Anne
McLellan.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">"The International Court of Justice is one excellent tool to resolve disputes between States, but we prefer when
we can negotiate a good settlement, as we have already done on the Northwest Atlantic fishery with the
European Union," said Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy. "Even better is to agree on a good set of rules
to enforce conservation of straddling Atlantic fish stocks so that disputes don't arise in the first place. This we
have done by negotiating a United Nations multilateral agreement of straddling stocks, which Canada hopes to
ratify soon."</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Legislation for the implementation of the United Nations agreement on straddling stocks is currently being
considered by Parliament.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">The decision of the Court may be found at the Court's Internet site:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">http://www.icj-cij.org</font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial">- 30 -</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">A backgrounder is attached.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">For further information, media representatives may contact:</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Pierre Gratton Debora Brown</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Office of the Minister of Justice Office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">(613) 992-4621 (613) 995-1851</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Media Relations Office Media Relations Office</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Department of Justice Department of Foreign Affairs and</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">(613) 957-4207 International Trade (613) 995-1874</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">This document is also available on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Internet site:
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca</font></p>
<p align="CENTER"><font face="Arial"><strong>Backgrounder</strong></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">On May 10, 1994, Canada deposited a new reservation to its general acceptance of the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice, excluding from the Court's jurisdiction "disputes arising out of or concerning
conservation and management measures taken by Canada with respect to vessels fishing in the NAFO
Regulatory Area...and the enforcement of such measures."</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">On the same day, amendments to the <em>Coastal Fisheries Protection Act</em> were introduced in Parliament
authorizing the enforcement of Canadian conservation and management measures in the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Regulatory Area. The NAFO Regulatory Area is that portion of the Northwest
Atlantic falling outside Canada's 200-mile zone that is regulated by the NAFO. The amendments were adopted
by Parliament and given Royal Assent on May 12, 1994.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">On March 3, 1995, Spain and Portugal were added to the list of countries whose vessels were subject to the
<em>Coastal Fisheries Protection Act</em>. On March 9, 1995, the Spanish fishing vessel <em>Estai</em> was seized and its master
arrested by Canadian officials in the NAFO Regulatory Area for violations of the <em>Coastal Fisheries Protection
Act</em>.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Spain then filed an application against Canada at the International Court of Justice, claiming that the Court had
jurisdiction under Canada's general acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. Canada immediately
objected to the application on the basis that the Court was without jurisdiction because of the terms of the
reservation to Canada's acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Spain and Portugal were removed from the list of countries subject to the <em>Coastal Fisheries Protection Act</em> in
May of 1995, pursuant to an agreement with the European Union. The charges against the master of the <em>Estai</em>
were also stayed.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">With the parties' agreement, the Court ordered that the first phase of the <em>Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v.
Canada)</em> be devoted to the question of the Court's jurisdiction. Spain filed its memorial in September of 1995,
and Canada its counter-memorial in February of 1996. The Court denied Spain's request for a second round of
written pleadings, and the oral pleadings took place in June of 1998.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Throughout the written and oral pleadings, Canada maintained its position that the Court was without jurisdiction
because of the plain wording of the reservation to Canada's acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, Spain argued that its application was outside the scope of Canada's reservation, principally on the
grounds that the dispute was not about conservation and management measures and their enforcement, but
rather on Canada's jurisdiction to enforce its laws on the high seas and about the illegal use of force on the high
seas.</font></p>
</body>
</html>
