Suchergebnisse

South West Africa cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa): By an order of February 5, 1963, the President of the International Court of Justice fixed September 30, 1963, as the time limit for the filing of the South African countermemorial in the South West Africa cases. At the request of the government of South Africa, the Court in its order of September 18, 1963, extended this time limit to January 10, 1964. By its order of January 20, 1964, the International Court noted that the South African countermemorial had been filed, and it fixed as time limits June 20, 1964, for the filing of the replies of Ethiopia and Liberia; and November 20, 1964, for the filing of the rejoinder by South Africa

Following the judgments of the International Court of Justice on November 20, 1950 and November 27, 1950 (the request for an interpretation of the judgment), the government of Colombia filed a new claim requesting the Court to adjudge and declare the manner in which effect should be given to the judgment of November 20, and in particular whether Colombia was bound to deliver to the government of Peru Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. As an alternative claim Colombia requested that the Court declare whether in accordance with the law in force between the parties and particularly American international law Colombia was or was not bound to deliver the refugee to the government of Peru. In a letter the Colombian agent informed the Court that his government relied on the Convention on Asylum signed at Havana on February 29, 1928; under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, the government of Cuba as a signatory to that convention submitted a declaration of intervention which contained Cuba's views on the construction of the Convention of Havana of 1928 as well as its general attitude on asylum. A public hearing was held by the Court on May 15 to determine the admissibility of the Cuban intervention to which the government of Peru had objected on the ground that the Court had given a judgment on the construction of the Havana Convention of 1928, and that it was an attempt by a third state to appeal against the judgment of November 20.

Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor Organization Upon Complaints Made Against the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: On November 30, 1955, the Legal Adviser of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) transmitted to the Court a resolution of the 42d session of die UNESCO Executive Board dated November 25, 1955, under which the Board, acting within the framework of Article XII of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor Organization (ILO), had decided to challenge the decisions rendered by the Tribunal on April 26, 1955, in die Leff, Duberg and Wilcox cases and on October 29, 1955, in the Bernstein case, and to refer die question of their validity to the International Court. The Board had decided to put to die Court die following questions: 1) had die ILO Administrative Tribunal been competent, under Article II of its Statute, to hear the complaints introduced against UNESCO on February 5, 1955, by Messrs. Duberg and Leff and Mrs. Wilcox, and on June 28, 1955 by Mrs. Bernstein: 2) in the case of an affirmative answer to the first question, a) had the Administrative Tribunal been competent to determine whether the power of die UNESCO Director-General not to renew fixed-term appointments had been exercised for the good of the service and the interest of the organization, and b) had die Administrative Tribunal been competent to pronounce on the attitude which the UNESCO Director-General, under the terms of die UNESCO constitution, should maintain in his relations with a member state, particularly as regarded the execution of the policy of the government authorities of that member state; and 3) in any case, what was the validity of the decisions given by die Administrative Tribunal in the four cases in question. Following receipt of die request for an advisory opinion, the Court fixed April 30, 1956, as the time-limit within which written statements might be submitted by any state entitled to appear before the Court, or any international organization considered by the president of die Court as likely to be able to furnish information on the questions referred to the Court, and reserved the rest of the procedure for further decision.

Following the decisions of the International Court of Justice on November 20 and 27, 1950 on the question of asylum for the refugee, Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, the government of Colombia (on December 13, 1950) instituted new proceedings before the Court against the government of Peru. The applicationof Colombia requested the Court to adjudge and declare, in pursuance of Article 7 of the Protocol of Friendship and Cooperation of 1934 in force between Colombia and Peru, the manner in which effect should be given to the Court's judgment of November 20, 1950, and in particular whether Colombia was or was not bound to deliver Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, a refugee in the Colombian embassy at Lima, to the government of Peru. As an alternative claim, in the event that the principal claim was disallowed, Colombia requested the Court to declare in exercise of its ordinary competence whether, in accordance with the law in force between Colombia and Peru and particularly American international law, the government of Colombia was or was not bound to deliver Haya de la Torre to the government of Peru.

Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America: On March 3, 1954, the United States filed with the Registry of the International Court of Justice Applications dated February 16, 1954, instituting proceedings against the governments of Hungary and the Soviet Union in the matter of the treatment in Hungary of aircraft and crew of the United States. In two orders of July 12, 1954, the Court removed the cases from its list, since neither Hungary nor the Soviet Union had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter.

Corfu Channel Case: Following the resolution of the Security Council on April 9, 1947, recommending that the United Kingdom and the Albanian governments should immediately refer the Corfu Channel question to the International Court of Justice, the United Kingdom on May 22, 1947, filed an application with the Registry of the Court instituting proceedings against Albania. By a reply dated July 21, filed July 23, 1947, Albania accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, protesting against the unilateral act of the British government in its application. On December 9, 1947, the Albanian government filed a document entitled "Preliminary Objection".

Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943: On June 15, 1954, the International Court of Justice rendered a judgment on the preliminary question raised by Italy in the case of the monetary gold removed from Rome in 1943. Italy had asked the Court to declare itself incompetent to determine the first question raised by Italy in its application instituting proceedings; namely, whether or not the United States, United Kingdom, and France should deliver to Italy rather than Albania any share of the monetary gold which might be due to Albania under the Paris Act of January 14, 1946, in partial satisfaction for the damage caused to Italy by the Albanian law of January 13, 1945. Italy felt that the Court could not decide this question without passing judgment upon the international responsibility of Albania to Italy as a result of the Albanian law in question; Italy felt that the Court could not adjudicate such a question without the consent of Albania. Neither the United States nor France deposited formal submissions to the Court on the preliminary question; the United Kingdom, the third defendant in the case, argued that in view of Italy's objection to the competence of the Court, its application instituting proceedings of May 19, 1953, no longer conformed to the conditions or intentions of the tripartite Washington statement of April 25, 1951, and was, therefore, invalid and void. As an alternative, the United Kingdom argued that the action of the Italian government in raising the preliminary question constituted in fact a withdrawal or cancellation of its application.

Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal: On December 9, 1953, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions: 1) has the General Assembly the right to refuse to give effect to an award of compensation made by the Administrative Tribunal in favor of a United Nations staff member whose contract of service had been terminated without his assent? and 2) if the Court's answer to the first question was in the affirmative, what were the principal grounds on which the Assembly could lawfully exercise such a right? After copies of this resolution were transmitted to the Court by a letter of the Secretary-General (Hammarskjold) dated December 16, the Court fixed March 15, 1954, as the time-limit within which written statements might be submitted by any state entitled to appear before it or any international organization considered by the president as likely to be able to furnish information on these questions, and reserved the rest of the procedure for further decision. Members of the United Nations and the International Labor Organization were then notified that, in accordance with Article 66 (2) of the Statute, the president considered them likely to be able to furnish such information.

On November 5, 1948, the International Court of Justice began oral hearings on the merits of the Corfu Channel case between Albania and the United Kingdom. By a decision on March 25, 1948, the Court had affirmed its competence in the case, and the following day had fixed time-limits for the subsequent pleadings; the last document of the written procedure, the Albanian rejoinder, had been filed with the Court on September 20, 1948. For the oral pleadings Professor B. Ecer of Czechoslovakia acted as judge ad hoc chosen by the Albanian government, replacing Judge Igor Daxner who was ill. Counsel for the United Kingdom were Sir Hartley Shawcross, Sir Eric Beckett, and Sir Frank Soskice, while Kahreman Ylli, Pierre Cot, and Joë Nordmann represented the Albanian government.

On April 9, 1949, the International Court of Justice gave its judgment in the Corfu Channel Case. By eleven votes to five the Court gave judgment that the People's Republic of Albania was responsible under international law for the explosions which occurred on October 22, 1946, in Albanian waters and for the damage and loss of life resulting therefrom; by ten votes to six it reserved for further consideration the assessment of the amount of compensation; by fourteen votes to two it gave judgment that the United Kingdom did not violate the sovereignty of Albania by reason of the acts of the British Navy in Albanian waters on October 22, 1946; and it unanimously gave judgment that the acts of the British navy during the course of the minesweeping activities on November 12 and 13, 1946 did constitute violation of the sovereignty of Albania.

JudgmentsNottebohtn Case: On April 6, 1955, the International Court of Justice ruled on the admissibility of Liechtenstein's claim in the Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala). Liechtenstein had contended that Guatemala, in taking various actions in regard to Nottebohm, a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein, had acted in breach of its obligations under international law, and should be required to make reparations; Nottebohm, Liechtenstein contended, had received his Liechtenstein nationality in accordance with Liechtenstein's municipallaw, and there had been no breach of international law in that connection. Guatemala had argued that the Court should declare the claim of Liechtenstein inadmissible, claiming that Liechtenstein had failed to prove that Nottebohm's nationality had been properly acquired under the terms of Liechtenstein municipal law, that naturalization had not been granted to Nottebohm in accordance with "the generally recognized principles in regard to nationality", and that in any case, Nottebohm, who had formerly been a German national, appeared to have solicited Liechtenstein nationality fraudulently, with the sole object of acquiring the status of a neutral national before returning to Guatemala, and without any genuine intention of establishing a "durable link" between himself and Liechtenstein".

On January 12, 1946, a list of candidates nominated for membership on the International Court of Justice was submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with invitations issued by the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission.As a result of elections held on February 6, the following were elected: Alvarez (Chile), Azevedo (Brazil), Badawi (Egypt), Basdevant (France), de Visscher (Belgium), Fabela (Mexico), Guerrero (Salvador), Hackworth (United States), Hsu (China), Klaestad (Norway), Krylov (USSR), McNair (United Kingdom), Read (Canada), Winiarski (Poland), and Zoricic (Yugoslavia).The first meeting of the Court was held on April 3 at the Peace Palace at the Hague, and the inaugural sitting on April 18. On April 6 the Court elected Mr. J. G. Guerrero as President and M. J. Basdevant as Vice-President. Mr. Edvard Hambro was appointed Registrar and M. J. Garnier-Coignet, Deputy Registrar. On May 3 the Court formed the Chamber for Summary Procedure, provided for by Article 29 of the Statute, composed of the following members: Guerrero (President), Basdevant, McNair, Krylov, Hsu, with Fabela and de Visscher as substitute members.