Search results

Ambatielos Case: When oral proceedings in the preliminary objection in the Ambatielos Case opened on May 15, as announced, the President of the Court stated that the Greek government had designated an ad hoc judge in the person of Mr. Jean Spiropoulos. Sir Eric Beckett, counsel for the United Kingdom, stated that, in spite of the United Kingdom's contention that the jurisdiction of the Court should be accepted as widely as possible by states, it felt bound to contest the jurisdiction of the Court in the case under consideration because: 1) the dispute related to facts occurring before 1930 when the United Kingdom first accepted the Optional Clause; 2) it considered the claim of denial of justice completely unfounded on the merits; 3) it considered it clear that municipal remedies had not been exhausted; and 4) no claim of any denial of justice or other breach of an international obligation was made until 1933, ten years after the events and eight years after a refusal of a request ex gratia in which it had been admitted that no legal claim could be made. Sir Eric explained that the United Kingdom, although it took the preliminary objection that the Court had no jurisdiction, had filed a comprehensive counter-memorial on the merits of the case in order that the Greek government's aspersions on the administration of justice in the English High Court and Court of Appeal should not appear on the record unrefuted. Further, the United Kingdom denied that the terms of the 1886 or 1926 treaties (or the declaration appended to the latter) between the two governments lent any support to the Greek government's claims on behalf of Mr. Ambatielos.

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27th, 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria): On October 16, 1957, Israel filed an application instituting proceedings against the People's Republic of Bulgaria regarding an aerial incident which occurred on July 27, 1955. The application recalled that on that date an aircraft belonging to an Israeli airline company was shot down on Bulgarian territory by the Bulgarian Security Forces, fifty-one passengers and seven crew members being killed. The government of Israel requested the Court to declare Bulgarian responsibility under international law for the damage caused and to determine the amount of compensation.

Anglo-Iranian Oil Case: On December 20, 1951, at the request of the Imperial Government of Iran, the Court granted a one month extension of the time-limit (to February 11, 1952) for the deposit of Iran's counter-memorial or preliminary objection.1 On February 11, the government of Iran deposited with the Registry of the Court a document entitled "Preliminary observations: refusal by the Imperial Government to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court". As a result of the Iranian objection, which was presented in accordance with the conditions laid down by the rules of the Court, the proceedings on the merits were, as of that date, suspended. By an order of the same date, the President of the Court fixed March 27, 1952, as the time-limit granted to the United Kingdom to submit to the Court its written observations on the Iranian exception.

South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. Union of South Africa and Liberia v. Union of South Africa): On November 4, 1960, applications were filed in the Registry of the Court by Ethiopia and Liberia, instituting separate proceedings against the Union of South Africa. Both applications concerned the mandate for South West Africa and the duties and performance of the Union, as mandatory, thereunder. The applicants alleged that the Union, acting through official bodies created by it to administer the territory, had violated, and was continuing to violate, Article 2 of the mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations by: 1) arbitrary and unreasonable legislation; 2) the suppression of rights and liberties essential to the orderly evolution of the inhabitants toward self-government; 3) the failure to render annual reports concerning the territory to the General Assembly of the UN; and 4) the exercise of administrative and legislative powers inconsistent with the international status of the territory. The applications contended that the Union of South Africa had thereby modified substantially the terms of the mandate without the consent of the UN, and sought declarations by the Court in accordance with their allegations.

Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain): On June 19, 1962, the Belgian government filed with the Registrar of the Court an application instituting new proceedings against Spain on the subject of the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited. This claim, the subject of which is reparation for the damage caused to a number of Belgian subjects by organs of the Spanish state, had been the subject of earlier proceedings brought before the Court. Because of the possibility of negotiating the issue, the Belgian government had informed the Court that it did not wish to continue proceedings, and the Court on April 10, 1961, had removed the case from its list. The negotiations, however, failed, and the Belgian government had instituted new proceedings.

Corfu Channel Dispute: Following the Security Council's decision of April 9, 1947, to refer the Corfu Channel dispute to the Court, Great Britain submitted an application on May 22, 1947, instituting proceedings against Albania for the destruction of two British destroyers in the Corfu Channel in October, 1946. The dispute was to constitute the first case to come before the Court. As of July 15, 1947, no word had been received from Albania regarding British action, and there had been no decision as to the date on which the case would reach the Court.

Case of the Norwegian Loans Issued in France (France v. Norway): In an order of April 24, 1956, the Court fixed June 4, 1956, as the time-limit within which the French government might present a written statement of its observations and submissions in regard to certain preliminary objections raised by the Kingdom of Norway, questioning the jurisdiction of the Court and contending that the claim submitted by the application of France was inadmissible. In an order of May 29, 1956, the Court decided, as a result of a request presented on behalf of the Kingdom of Norway, to depart from its original intention of opening the oral hearings on June 25, 1956, and postpone the opening of the oral proceedings. In the same order, the Court extended to August 31, 1956, the time-limit for the filing by France of its observations and submissions in regard to the preliminary objections raised by the Kingdom of Norway.

"Most studies describing this evolution have either drawn on classical legalistic approaches (see e.g. Aust and Nolte 2016; Keller and Stone Sweet 2008 or Mackenzie, Romano and Shany 2010) or been developed by constitutionalists?often from political science and sociology?preoccupied with mapping the global development and influence of ICs (see e.g. Slaughter 2000; Slaughter 2004; Slaughter and Burke-White 2006; Romano, Alter and Shany 2013 and Alter 2014). While the more classical legal scholarship has been predominated by accounts that outline principles and application of IC case law in national courts, constitutionalists have focused on actual practice, describing the evolution and functioning of ICs more broadly. What has unified both strands of research, however, is the often implicit description of a universal and unidirectional strengthening of legalization and judicialization in global affairs. The present volume puts the question in a different way. We do not from the outset normatively assume that ICs are important and powerful actors or that national actors without further ado cite, embrace or enter into a constructive dialogue with these supranational bodies. Rather what this book does is to ask?from a multidisciplinary perspective?how and to what degree do ICs actually influence, impose constraints on and create loyalty from those actors involved? It is our claim that rather little research has been occupied with the actual effects on the ground for those national courts, political institutions and citizens who are formally governed by the increased judicialization"--

Amhatielos Case: On May 19, 1953, the Court, by a vote of 10 to 4 decided that the United Kingdom was "under an obligation to co-operate with Greece in constituting a Commission of Arbitration, in accordance with the Protocol of 1886, as provided in the Declaration of 1926". After reviewing the submissions of the two parties, and recalling that the Court had previously held that it had no jurisdiction to decide of the merits of the Ambatielos claim, the Court stated that the question at issue was whether the United Kingdom government was under an obligation to accept arbitration of the difference between that government and Greece concerning the validity of the claim presented by Greece "in so far as this claim is based on the Treaty of 1886". The majority of the Court felt that, for the purpose of determining the obligation of the United Kingdom, the words "claims … based on the provisions of the … Treaty of 1886" could not be understood as meaning claims actually supportable under that Treaty. The Court believed that these words could only mean "claims depending for support on the provisions of the Treaty of 1886, so that the claims will eventually stand or fall according as the provisions of the Treaty are construed one way or another". In its argument, the Greek government had invoked Articles I, X, XII and XV of the Treaty of 1886 and, relying on the most-favored-nation clause in Article X therein, invoked Article 16 of a treaty of peace and commerce between the United Kingdom and Denmark signed in 1661 as well as additional treaties between the United Kingdom and third states. The Hellenic government argued that these provisions supported their claim that the Ambatielos claim for denial of justice in British courts was based on the provisions of the 1886 treaty. The Court agreed that the difference between the parties was "the kind of difference which, according to the Declaration of 1926, should be submitted to arbitration".

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of November 7, 1954 (United States v. Soviet Union): On July 7, 1959, an application instituting proceedings against die Soviet Union was filed in the Registry of the Court by the government of the United States. In its application the government of the United States alleged that on November 7, 1954, one of its aircraft was attacked and destroyed over the Japanese island of Hokkaido by fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union. It requested the Court to find that the Soviet Union was liable for the damages caused and to award damages in the sum of $756,604. It also stated that it had submitted to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case and that it was open to the government of the Soviet Union to do likewise. In accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the application was thereupon communicated by the Registry to the government of the Soviet Union.

Right of Passage Through Indian Territory (Portugal v. India): On April 15, 1957, the government of India filed with the Court a preliminary objection to the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the application of the government of Portugal. By an order of April 16, President of the Court fixed June 15, 1957, as the time-limit within which the government of Portugal could present a written statement of its observations and submissions on the objection. Meanwhile, proceedings on the merits were suspended.

Case of the Norwegian Loans Issued in France (France v. Norway): In an order of September 28, 1956, the Court fixed December 20, 1056, as the time-limit for the counter-memorial of the Kingdom of Norway, February 20, 1957, as the time-limit for the reply of the government of France and April 25, 1957, for the rejoinder of Norway. In the same order, the Court joined the objections raised by the Kingdom of Norway to the merits in the proceedings instituted by the French government in order that it might adjudicate in one and the same judgment on these objections and, if necessary, on the merits.

This case was brought to the Court following a dispute between Colombia and Peru on the interpretation of the Convention on Asylum signed at Havana in 1928 and the right of asylum. The government of Peru charged that the government of Colombia did not keep within the terms of the treaty when asylum was granted to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre, a writer and the head of a political party, by the Colombian government in the Colombian Embassy in Lima, Peru. Since the Court had neither a national of Colombia or Peru sitting on the bench, both governments availed themselves of Article 31 (3) of the Statute and named Dr. José Joaquin Caicedo Castilla (Colombia) and Dr. Luis Alayza y Paz Soldan (Peru) to sit as judges ad hoc.

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 2J, 1955 (United States v. Bulgaria): In an order of October 8, 1958, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent for the government of Bulgaria, extended the time limit for the filing of the counter-memorial of the government of Bulgaria to September 9, 1959.

Right of Passage Through Indian Territory (Portugal v. India): In an order of March 13, 1956, the Court fixed June 15, 1956, as the time-limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Portugal, and December 15, 1956, as the time-limit for the filing of the counter-memorial of the Indian government.