Suchergebnisse

In his concluding volume in the Carnegie Endowment's series of National Studies on International Organization, Professor Maclver observes that the International Court of Justice, as set up in 1945, was not so much a new institution as a new promise. It was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, and Article 92 of the UN Charter expressly recognized the continuity with the past in affirming that the Statute of the new Court was based upon chat of the old one. The promise lay in the fact that the new Court was declared to be "the principal judicial organ of the United Nations" and thus called upon to play a more significant role than the old Court, which had never been an organic part of the League of Nations structure. Professor Maclver concludes, however, that the promise remains in important respects unfulfilled.

South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa and Liberia v. South Africa): On October 2, 1962, the International Court of Justice held the first of the public hearings on the preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, raised by the government of the Republic of South Africa in these cases. After opening the sitting and briefly recalling the stages in the written proceedings covered since the institution of the cases on November 4, 1960, the President of the Court proceeded to the installation of the two judges ad hoc designated by the parties in accordance with Article 31, paragraphs 3 and 5, of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The two judges ad hoc were Sir Louis Mbanefo, Chief Justice of the High Court, Eastern Region of Nigeria, designated by Ethiopia and Liberia acting in concert, and the Honorable Jacques Theodore van Wyk, Judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, designated by the government of the Republic of South Africa. The President announced that Judge Córdova was prevented by his health from sitting in the present proceedings.

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): According to an order of December 5, 1959, the International Court of Justice in the case of the Temple of Preah Vihear fixed January 20, i960, as the time limit for filing the memorial of Cambodia, and May 23, 1960, for filing the counter-memorial of Thailand.

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.

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.

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.

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27, 7955(United Kingdom v. Bulgaria): In response to a request from the government of Bulgaria, the International Court, in an order of May 27, 1959, extended the time limit for the deposit of the Bulgarian counter-memorial from June 9, 1959, to August 10, 1959.

South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. Union of South Africa and Liberia v. Union of South Africa): On November 4, 1960, applications were filed in the Registry of the Court by Ethiopia and Liberia, instituting separate proceedings against the Union of South Africa. Both applications concerned the mandate for South West Africa and the duties and performance of the Union, as mandatory, thereunder. The applicants alleged that the Union, acting through official bodies created by it to administer the territory, had violated, and was continuing to violate, Article 2 of the mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations by: 1) arbitrary and unreasonable legislation; 2) the suppression of rights and liberties essential to the orderly evolution of the inhabitants toward self-government; 3) the failure to render annual reports concerning the territory to the General Assembly of the UN; and 4) the exercise of administrative and legislative powers inconsistent with the international status of the territory. The applications contended that the Union of South Africa had thereby modified substantially the terms of the mandate without the consent of the UN, and sought declarations by the Court in accordance with their allegations.

Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain): On June 19, 1962, the Belgian government filed with the Registrar of the Court an application instituting new proceedings against Spain on the subject of the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited. This claim, the subject of which is reparation for the damage caused to a number of Belgian subjects by organs of the Spanish state, had been the subject of earlier proceedings brought before the Court. Because of the possibility of negotiating the issue, the Belgian government had informed the Court that it did not wish to continue proceedings, and the Court on April 10, 1961, had removed the case from its list. The negotiations, however, failed, and the Belgian government had instituted new proceedings.

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): On May 30, 1961, the government of the Republic of Cameroun filed in the Registry of the Court an application instituting proceedings against the United Kingdom.1 The applicant alleged that the United Kingdom had failed to respect certain obligations of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Cameroons under British Administration of December 13, 1946. The application stated specifically: 1) that the Northern Cameroons had not been administered as a separate territory within an administrative union, but as an integral part of Nigeria; 2) that the objectives set forth in article 6 of the trusteeship agreement—the development of free political institutions and an increasing share for the inhabitants in the administrative services, as well as their participation in advisory and legislative bodies and in the government of the territory—had not been attained; 3) that the agreement did not authorize the administering power to govern the territory as two separate parts evolving differently politically; 4) that, with respect to General Assembly Resolution 1473 (XIV) of December 12, 1959, (a) provisions relating to the separation of the administration of the Northern Cameroons from that of Nigeria, had not been followed, and (b) conditions laid down for the drawing up of electoral lists had been interpreted in a discriminatory manner; and 5) that the acts of the local authorities in the period preceding the plebiscite authorized by the afore-mentioned resolution and during the subsequent election involved consequences in conflict with the trusteeship agreement.

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): On October 6, 1959, an application instituting proceedings against the Kingdom of Thailand was filed in the Registry of the Court by the Kingdom of Cambodia. In its application the Kingdom of Cambodia alleged that since 1949 the Kingdom of Thailand had persisted in the occupation of a portion of Cambodian territory—the area surrounding the Temple of Preah Vihear, a sacred place of pilgrimage and worship for the Cambodian people—and that in 1954 it had sent detachments of its armed forces into the territory in question. The Kingdom of Cambodia alleged also that its tide to sovereignty over the land had been established by treaties, that it had effectively exercised territorial powers, and that the Kingdom of Thailand had not performed any acts of sovereignty which would displace them. The Court was thus requested to adjudge whether or not the Kingdom of Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw its troops, and whether or not territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah belonged to the Kingdom of Cambodia.

Case concerning the "Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth" and the "Société Radio-Orient" (France v. Lebanon):On February 13, 1959, an application instituting proceedings before the Courtagainst Lebanon was filed by France. The application noted that in accordance with the terms of their constitutional instruments, theCompagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and the Société Radio-Orientenjoyed certain customs and tax exemptions in Lebanon during the life of their concessions. The Lebanese government, it continued, having, on July 26, 1956, enacted a law providing for the imposition of income tax and other fiscal and municipal taxes on all companies enjoying an exemption under agreements ratified by special legislation, the French government considered that this constituted a unilateral alteration of the position of the companies concerned, which was contrary to the Agreement of January 24, 1948, between France and Lebanon.

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 2J, 1955 (United States v. Bulgaria): In an order of October 8, 1958, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent for the government of Bulgaria, extended the time limit for the filing of the counter-memorial of the government of Bulgaria to September 9, 1959.

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of November 7, 1954 (United States v. Soviet Union): On July 7, 1959, an application instituting proceedings against die Soviet Union was filed in the Registry of the Court by the government of the United States. In its application the government of the United States alleged that on November 7, 1954, one of its aircraft was attacked and destroyed over the Japanese island of Hokkaido by fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union. It requested the Court to find that the Soviet Union was liable for the damages caused and to award damages in the sum of $756,604. It also stated that it had submitted to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case and that it was open to the government of the Soviet Union to do likewise. In accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the application was thereupon communicated by the Registry to the government of the Soviet Union.