Suchergebnisse

Corfu Channel Case: Public sittings of the International Court of Justice on the preliminary objection filed by Albania on the Corfu Channe Case1 were held on February 26, 27, 28 and March 1, 2 and 5, 1948. The decision of the Court was given on March 25,1948.

South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa and Liberia v. South Africa): On October 2, 1962, the International Court of Justice held the first of the public hearings on the preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, raised by the government of the Republic of South Africa in these cases. After opening the sitting and briefly recalling the stages in the written proceedings covered since the institution of the cases on November 4, 1960, the President of the Court proceeded to the installation of the two judges ad hoc designated by the parties in accordance with Article 31, paragraphs 3 and 5, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The two judges ad hoc were Sir Louis Mbanefo, Chief Justice of the High Court, Eastern Region of Nigeria, designated by Ethiopia and Liberia acting in concert, and the Honorable Jacques Theodore van Wyk, Judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, designated by the government of the Republic of South Africa. The President announced that Judge Córdova was prevented by his health from sitting in the present proceedings.

In a cable dated July 9, 1951, from Foreign Minister Bagher Kazemi to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Iran withdrew its acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. Referring specifically to the Court's order on interim measures (issued on July 5), the cable stated that the Court "had shaken the confidence" which the Iranian government and people had always had in international justice. The Iranian note made four specific points: first, the Iranian declaration (ratified on September 19, 1932) accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, and extended to the International Court of Justice under the latter's Statute, extended such jurisdiction only to disputes relating to the application of treaties and conventions. The Declaration excluded questions within the exclusive jurisdiction of Iran. Agreements or contracts under private and domestic law (such as concessions to work certain sources of natural wealth, commercial matters, and matters relating to Iran's sovereign rights) "were and still are excluded" from compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Second, the note pointed out that the concession granted the "former Anglo-Iranian Oil Company" in 1933 did not mention the United Kingdom in any capacity and reserved no rights or powers to that government.

On December 18, 1951 the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the fisheries case which had been brought before the Court by the United Kingdom against Norway. By a vote of ten to two the Court established the validity of the Norwegian Royal Decree of 1935 in international law. This reserved to Norway an exclusive fishing zone of four miles based on lines connecting the outermost land points of the jagged coast. Through an eight to four vote the Court sanctioned the Norwegian system of straight baselines and overruled the United Kingdom contention that the four-mile belt should more closely follow coastal contours. This decision ended two years of litigation over a forty-five year controversy.

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27, 7955(United Kingdom v. Bulgaria): In response to a request from the government of Bulgaria, the International Court, in an order of May 27, 1959, extended the time limit for the deposit of the Bulgarian counter-memorial from June 9, 1959, to August 10, 1959.

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.

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): According to an order of December 5, 1959, the International Court of Justice in the case of the Temple of Preah Vihear fixed January 20, i960, as the time limit for filing the memorial of Cambodia, and May 23, 1960, for filing the counter-memorial of Thailand.

Minquiers and Ecrehos Case: In a judgment of November 17,1953, the International Court of Justice unanimously found that jurisdiction over the island groups of Minquiers and Ecrehos was vested in the United Kingdom. The Court interpreted the special agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and France on September 24, 1951, by which the Court was seized of the dispute, as eliminating the possibility of finding the territories to be res nullius or having a status of condominium. The Court further interpreted the phrase "in so far as they are capable of appropriation" as meaning that the Court was asked to determine which party had sovereignty over each island group and not the sovereignty of individual units of which each group consisted.

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 concerning the Guardianship of an Infant (Netherlands v. Sweden): In an order of April 17, 1958, the International Court of Justice fixed the following timelimits for the filing of further pleadings in the case concerning the guardianship of an infant: for the reply of the government of the Netherlands, June 18, 1958; and for the rejoinder of the government of Sweden, August 28, 1958.

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): In an order of June 10, 1960, the International Court of Justice, having received the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand to its jurisdiction within the timelimit fixed for the filing of the countermemorial, set July 22, 1960, as the timelimit within which the government of Cambodia might present a written statement of its observations and submissionson the objections.

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.

The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case: On June 26, 1952, the International Court of Justice fixed October 6, 1952 as the time-limit for the filing of the reply of the government of the United Kingdom and February 6, 1953 as the time-limit for the filing of the rejoinder of the French government in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case. However, at the request of the United Kingdom, and with the acceptance of the extension by France, the Court, on August 27, fixed November 6, 1952 and March 6, 1953 as the time-limits for the filing of the United Kingdom reply and the French rejoinder, respectively.

Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain): Preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company were filed in the Registry by the government of Spain on May 21, 1960, that is, within the time-limit fixed for the filing of the Spanish counter-memorial. In consequence of the filing of the objections, proceedings on the merits of the case were suspended.

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.