Giurisdizione in materia di pesca (Spagna v. Canada)
Giurisdizione in materia di pesca (Spagna v. Canada)
PANORAMICA DEL CASO
On 28 March 1995, Spain filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against Canada with respect to a dispute relating to the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as amended on 12 May 1994, to the implementing regulations of that Act, and to certain measures taken on the basis of that legislation, more particularly the boarding on the high seas, on 9 March 1995, of a fishing boat, the Estai , sailing under the Spanish flag. Spain indicated, inter alia , that by the amended Act an attempt was made to impose on all persons on board foreign ships a broad prohibition on fishing in the Regulatory Area of the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), that is, on the high seas, outside Canada’s exclusive economic zone, while expressly permitting the use of force against foreign fishing boats in the zones that that Act terms the “high seas”. Spain added that the implementing regulation of 3 March 1995 “expressly permit[s] such conduct as regards Spanish and Portuguese ships on the high seas”. The Application of Spain alleged the violation of various principles and norms of international law and stated that there was a dispute between Spain and Canada which, going beyond the framework of fishing, seriously affected the very principle of the freedom of the high seas and, moreover, implied a very serious infringement of the sovereign rights of Spain. As a basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, the Application referred to the declarations of Spain and of Canada made in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court. As Canada contested the jurisdiction of the Court, on the basis of its aforementioned declaration, it was decided that the written pleadings should focus initially upon that question of jurisdiction. Al riguardo sono state depositate memoria del ricorrente e contromemoria del convenuto. Con ordinanza dell'8 maggio 1996, la Corte ha deciso di non autorizzare la presentazione di una replica del ricorrente e di una controreplica del convenuto.
Nella sentenza del 4 dicembre 1998, la Corte ha ritenuto che la controversia tra le parti fosse una controversia che era “derivata” da “misure di conservazione e gestione adottate dal Canada nei confronti delle navi che pescano nella zona di regolamentazione NAFO” e “dall’applicazione di tali misure”, e che, di conseguenza, rientrava nei termini di una delle riserve contenute nella dichiarazione canadese. La Corte ha ritenuto pertanto di non essere competente a statuire sulla controversia.