Suchergebnisse

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".

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.

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.

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.

Advisory Opinion on Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations: A General Assembly resolution of November 17,1947, requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following question: "Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to theadmission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? In particular, can such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State?"

Case concerning the Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on December 23rd, 1906(Honduras v. Nicaragua): On July 1, 1958, Honduras filed an application instituting proceedings against Nicaragua concerning an arbitral award made by the King of Spain with regard to the demarcation of the limits between the two countries. According to Article 5 of the Bonilla-Gamez Treaty which determined the limits, certain points in dispute might, in certain circumstances, be referred to the decision of the government of Spain. Thus an arbitration was requested from the King of Spain in October 1904, and the award was made on December 23, 1906. The application stated that, when the time came to proceed to the delimitation, Nicaragua contended that the arbitral award was a nullity and that it was not possible to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means or through the mediation of friendly nations and governments. Under the resolution adopted by the Organization of American States on July 5, 1957, the governments of Honduras and Nicaragua concluded an agreement at Washington on July 21, 1957, by virtue of which their dispute should be referred to the International Court of Justice. In its application Honduras requested the Court to declare that Nicaragua's failure to give effect to the arbitral award of 1906 constituted a breach of an international obligation and that Nicaragua was under an obligation to carry out the award.

The International Court of Justice handed down its decision in the Colombian-Peruvian asylum case on November 20, 1950. The application had been submitted by Colombia to the Court under article 7 of the Protocol of Friendship and Cooperation between Colombia and Peru, Articles 40 and 36, paragraph 1 of the Statute, and article 32 of the rules of procedure. Colombia submitted two questions for the Court's adjudication: 1) within the limits of the obligations resulting from the Bolivarian Agreement on Extradition of 1911 and the Havana Convention of 1938 in particular, and general American international law, was Colombia competent to qualify unilaterally and definitively the nature of the offense for which diplomatic asylum had been granted, and 2) was Peru, the territorial state, obliged to grant a safe-conduct to Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, the refugee who had been granted asylum in the Colombian embassy in Lima. The pertinent facts of the case were: 1) on October 3, 1948 there had been a military rebellion in Peru which had been put down immediately; 2) on October 4, 1948 the Peruvian government charged the American People's Revolutionary Alliance, a political party of which Haya de la Torre was the leader, with attempted rebellion and stated that its leaders would be brought to justice; 3) on October 27, 1948 there was a coup d'etat in Peru and a subsequent decree which prescribed summary procedure in cases of rebellion; and 4) on January 3, 1949 Haya de la Torre sought and was granted asylum in the Colombian embassy.

For the first time the International Court of Justice has squarely faced and ruled upon the right of a third state to intervene in a case to which two other states are parties. The litigation was the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application of Malta for Permission to Intervene, Judgment of April 14, 1981. The Court unanimously denied permission to intervene, but three judges appended separate opinions which contain matters of considerable interest.

Advisory OpinionsInterpretation of the Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania: Early in May the Secretary-General (Lie) advised the International Court of Justice that neither Bulgaria, Hungary or Rumania had designated its representatives to the commissions provided in the treaties before the deadline of within thirty days from March 30. Therefore the United Kingdom and United States deposited their written statements within the time limit of June 5 for the second phase of the case.1 The two questions under consideration were: 1) "If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania where that party is obligated to appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is the Secretary-General of the United Nations authorized to appoint the third member of the Commission upon the request of the other party to a dispute according to the provisions of the respective Treaties?" In the event of an affirmative reply to that question: 2) "Would a Treaty Commission composed of a representative of one party and a third member appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a Commission, within the meaning of the relevant Treaty articles, competent to make a definitive binding decision in settlement of a dispute?"

ApplicationsAerial Incident of October y, 1952 (United States v. Soviet Union): On June 2, 1955, the United States filed with the International Court of Justice an application instituting proceedings against the Soviet Union, on the grounds of certain willful acts said to have been committed by Soviet fighter aircraft against a United States Air Force B-29 aircraft andits crew off Hokkaido, Japan, on October 7, 1952. The United States claimed that a Soviet fighter aircraft, unlawfully overflying the territory of Japan at the instigation of the Soviet government, had without any provocation attacked and destroyed the United States Air Force B-29, causing it to crashinto the sea at a point between Yuri Island and Akiyuri Island in territory rightfully belonging to Japan; that the crew of eight, all members of the United States Air Force and nationals ofthe United States, had failed to return, and that the Soviet government had concealed from the United States government information as to the fate of the crew, and had notmade provision for the prompt return of any crew members whom it might still be holding or of whose whereabouts itwas informed. The United States application stated that the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case was accepted by the United States. The damages the United States claimed to have suffered and for which it claimed the Soviet Union to beliable were specified in a note annexed to the application; the United States claimed that the actions withwhich it charged the Soviet government constituted serious violations of international obligation for which it demanded monetary and other reparation.