Suchergebnisse

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.

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.

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.

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".

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".

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 December 17, 1948, a Committee of Naval Experts was appointed by the International Court of Justice to report on eight technical points involved in the Corfu Channel case. Under the order of the Court the Committee, whose members were Commodore J. Bull of the Royal Norwegian Navy, Commodore S. A. Forshell of the Royal Swedish Navy and Lt. Commander S. J. W. Elfferich of the Royal Netherlands Navy, was to submit a report on the situation in the north Corfu strait at the time the incident took place, the type of mines involved, the possibility of laying mines without the knowledge of Albania, and the technical possibilities involved in testimony of a witness for the United Kingdom, former Lt. Commander Kovacic of the Yugoslav navy.

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.

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.