Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Corfu Channel Case: At a public hearing on December 15, 1949 the International Court of Justice gave judgment in the last stage of the Corfu Channel Case between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of Albania. The two experts appointed by the Court to examine the figures and estimates of damages produced by the United Kingdom had reported on December 2, 1949 and had been further questioned by the judges. Because the Albanian government had failed to defend its case, procedure in default of appearance was brought into operation. After finding that the figures given by the United Kingdom government for the replacement of the destroyer Saumarez and for the damage sustained by the destroyer Volage were an exact and reasonable estimate of the damage sustained, and after finding the documents produced by the United Kingdom regarding deaths and injuries of naval personnel sufficient proof, the Court gave judgment in favor of the claim of the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay that country a total compensation of £843,947.

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.