Suchergebnisse

No international institution of general scope can continue its normal functioning in a period of a great world upheaval, and any international institution for the preservation of law and order must find its activities circumscribed at such a time. The Permanent Court of International Justice was no exception to the rule.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.