International Court of Justice
In: Harvard international law journal, Band 28, Heft 1, S. 146
ISSN: 0017-8063
In: Harvard international law journal, Band 28, Heft 1, S. 146
ISSN: 0017-8063
In: International organization, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 623-628
ISSN: 1531-5088
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.
In: Harvard international law journal, Band 27, Heft 2, S. 725
ISSN: 0017-8063
In: Harvard international law journal, Band 26, Heft 2, S. 622
ISSN: 0017-8063
In: International organization, Band 14, Heft 4, S. 658-658
ISSN: 1531-5088
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.
In: International courts and tribunals series
In: International organization, Band 17, Heft 1, S. 254-260
ISSN: 1531-5088
Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): By an order of November 27, 1962, the International Court of Justice extended to March 1, 1963, the time limit for the filing of the observations and submissions of Cameroun on the preliminary objection raised by the United Kingdom in the Northern Cameroons case. By an order of January 11, 1963, the President of the Court extended to July 1, 1963, the time limit for the filing by the government of Cameroun of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objection raised by the United Kingdom in the Northern Cameroons case. The extensions were at the request of the government of Cameroun with the agreement of the United Kingdom government.
In: International organization, Band 5, Heft 2, S. 364-365
ISSN: 1531-5088
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.
In: International organization, Band 16, Heft 1, S. 217-217
ISSN: 1531-5088
Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): In an order of July 6, 1961, the International Court of Justice fixed the time limits for the filing of pleadings in the case concerning the Northern Cameroons as follows: for the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun, November 1, 1961; and for the countermemorial of the United Kingdom, March 1, 1962. Subsequently, in an order of November 2, 1961, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent of the government of the Republic of Cameroun, extended to January 3, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun and to May 2, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the countermemorial of the United Kingdom.
In: International organization, Band 3, Heft 4, S. 703-703
ISSN: 1531-5088
On July 27 the Security Council by 9 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions, recommended that the Principality of Liechtenstein be permitted to become a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice. By this decision the Security Council endorsed the opinion of its Committee of Experts that Liechtenstein was a state under the provisions of Article 93 (2) of the Charter and that the same conditions should apply to it as to Switzerland: acceptance of the provisions of the Statute, acceptance of all the obligations of a Member of the United Nations under Article 94 and agreement to contribute to the expenses of the Court upon assessment by the General Assembly after consultation with the government. The recommendation was to be considered by the General Assembly at its fourth session.
In: International organization, Band 14, Heft 3, S. 453-459
ISSN: 1531-5088
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.
In: International organization, Band 5, Heft 3, S. 584-592
ISSN: 1531-5088
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.
In: International organization, Band 3, Heft 3, S. 518-521
ISSN: 1531-5088
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.
In: International organization, Band 7, Heft 4, S. 556-557
ISSN: 1531-5088
"Société Électricité de Beyrouth" Case: On August 15, 1953, an application instituting proceedings on behalf of the government of France against the government of Lebanon was filed with the Registry of the International Court of Justice by André Gros, agent for the French government. The French government alleged that the Lebanese government, by a series of acts or omissions dating from the end of 1951 and culminating in placing the Société Électricité de Beyrouth under provisional state control by decrees of March 19 and April 4, 1953, had violated the Franco-Lebanese Treaty of January 24, 1948, and general principles of international law.
In: International organization, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 139-141
ISSN: 1531-5088
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.