QATAR vs BAHRAIN

1. Qatar and Bahrain have been seeking out measures to settle their dispute (relating to
sovereignty over the Hawar islands, sovereign rights over the shoals of Dibal and Qit'at
Jaradah, and the delimitation of the maritime areas of the two States)
2. In January 1987, Bahrain and Qatar adopted the Saudi proposals (letters sent to the Amirs of
Bahrain and Qatar by the King of Saudi, Saudi Arabia being the mediator of the dispute)
3. Included in the Saudi proposals was that the disputed matters shall be referred to the ICJ for
a final and binding decision
4. In 1988, Bahrain transmitted to Qatar a text, called the Bahrain formula, which provides
that the parties request the ICJ to decide their dispute
5. In 1990, during the annual meeting of the Co-operation Council of Arab States of the Gulf,
Qatar made it known that it accepted the Bahrain formula.
6. Qatar’s acceptance was recorded in the Minutes of the meeting. Included in the minutes is
the agreement that Qatar and Bahrain shall continue the mediation with the help of Saudi
7. The mediation did not yield any results; hence, on July 8, 1991, Qatar instituted proceedings
before the ICJ against Bahrain.
8. Qatar’s basis for ICJ’s jurisdiction was the agreements made in 1987 and 1990.
9. Bahrain contends that the ICJ does not have jurisdiction because the exchange of letters in
1987 and the minutes of the meeting in 1990 are not legally binding instruments.
10. Furthermore, Bahrain says that it never intended to conclude in an agreement in signing the
Minutes.
11. Issue: WON the ICJ has jurisdiction over the dispute
12. Yes. The ICJ has acquired jurisdiction.
13. That the parties have agreed that the exchanges of letters of December 1987 constitute an
international agreement with binding force in their mutual relations.
14. That the 1990 Minutes are not a simple record of a meeting; they enumerate the
commitments to which the Parties have consented. They thus create rights and obligations
in international law for the Parties. They constitute an international agreement.
15. The ICJ then said that it does not find it necessary to consider the intentions of the parties in
signing the 1990 Minutes.
16. Therefore, the exchanges of letters in 1987, and the document headed "Minutes" are
international agreements creating rights and obligations for the Parties; that by the terms of
those agreements the Parties have undertaken to submit to the Court the whole of the
dispute between them.

NORWAY vs DENMARK

On international agreements

1. There is a dispute between Denmark and Norway on sovereignty over Eastern Greenland.
2. During negotiations, Denmark wanted to obtain Norway’s agreement to do nothing to
obstruct the Danish plans with Greenland.
3. On July 22, 1919, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Norway replied: “I told the Danish
Minister today that the Norwegian Government would not make any difficulty in the
settlement of this question.” (called the Ihlen Declaration; Foreign Minister Nils Claus Ihlen)
4. Issue: WON this statement constitutes an international agreement
5. Yes. The Court considers it beyond all dispute that a reply of this nature given by the
Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of his Government in response to a request by the
 diplomatic representative of a foreign power, in regard to a question falling within his
province, is binding upon the country to which the Minister belongs.

On the legal status of Eastern Greenland

1. On July 10th, 1931, the Norwegian Government published a proclamation declaring its
occupation in certain territories in Eastern Greenland, that it is terra nullius
2. Denmark argued that the Norwegian occupation of part of the East coast of Greenland is
invalid because it has already claimed and exercised sovereign rights over Greenland as a
whole for a long time and has obtained thereby a valid title to sovereignty.
3. Denmark’s argument is based on the Palmas Island decision of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration that there is a title "founded on the peaceful and continuous display of State
authority over the island".
4. In order to render the Norwegian occupation invalid, Denmark must have exercised
sovereignty over the territory on July I0th, 1931.
5. Issue: To which territory does Greenland belong?
6. Denmark. It has succeeded in establishing her contention that at the critical date, on July
10th, 1931, she possessed a valid title to the sovereignty over all Greenland.
7. A claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title but merely upon
continued display of authority, involves two elements: the intention and will to act as
sovereign, and some actual exercise or display of such authority.
8. The extent to which the sovereignty is also claimed by some other Power must also be taken
into account. The tribunal has had to decide which of the two is the stronger.
9. The Court holds that, as a result of the separation of Norway and Denmark and culminating
in Article 9 of the Convention of September 1st, 1819, Norway has recognized Danish
sovereignty over the whole of Greenland and consequently cannot proceed to the
occupation of any part thereof.
10. The Ihlen Declaration was used by Denmark as a ground that Norway has recognized
Danish title over the territory. The court rejected this ground.
11. However the court concluded that Norway’s attitude in making the declaration had the
ability of making a bilateral agreement.
12. In accepting these bilateral and multilateral agreements as binding, Norway reaffirmed that
it recognizes Danish sovereignty; thereby debarring herself from contesting such, and, in
consequence, from proceeding to occupy any part of Greenland.
13. Furthermore, the Court has regarded that Denmark displayed authority over the territory
even before July 10, 1931 sufficient to confer valid title to sovereignty.

AIR FRANCE vs SAKS

1. On November 16, 1980, Valerie Saks boarded an Air France jetliner in Paris for a 12-hour
flight to Los Angeles.
2. Saks felt severe pressure and pain in her left ear.
3. Saks disembarked without informing any Air France crew member. She consulted a doctor
who concluded that she had become permanently deaf in her left ear.
4. Saks filed suit against Air France alleging that her ailment was caused by negligent
maintenance and operation of the jetliner's pressurization system.
5. Air France responded that Saks could not prove that her injury was caused by an "accident"
within the meaning of the Warsaw Convention.
 6. Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention makes air carriers liable for injuries sustained by a
passenger "if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the
aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking."
7. Evidence shows that the aircraft's pressurization system had operated in the usual manner.
8. The District Court granted summary judgment to Air France. The Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit reversed the decision.
9. The CA defined accident as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which
takes place between the times any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and
all such persons have disembarked . . . ." That normal cabin pressure changes qualify as an
"accident" under this definition. The Warsaw Convention imposes absolute liability on
airlines for injuries proximately caused by the risks inherent in air travel.
10. Issue: Whether a loss of hearing proximately caused by normal operation of the aircraft's
pressurization system is an `accident' within the meaning of Article 17 of the Warsaw
Convention
11. The judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case must accordingly be reversed.
12. We conclude that liability under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention arises only if a
passenger's injury is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is
external to the passenger.
13. But when the injury indisputably results from the passenger's own internal reaction to the
usual, normal, and expected operation of the aircraft, it has not been caused by an accident,
and Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention cannot apply.
14. To ascertain the meaning of treaties the SC looked beyond the written words to the history
of the treaty, the negotiations, and the practical construction adopted by the parties. With
the principle in mind that treaties are more liberally construed than private documents.
15. The SC looked into the French legal meaning because the Warsaw Convention was drafted
in French by continental jurists.
16. The SC also referred to the records of its drafting and negotiation. As well as how courts in
other jurisdictions, who are signatories to the treaty, defined the term accident.
17. French courts observed that the term "accident" in Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention
embraces causes of injuries that are fortuitous or unpredictable. European legal scholars
have generally construed the word "accident" in Article 17 to require that the passenger's
injury be caused by a sudden or unexpected event other than the normal operation of the
plane.
18. All records show that the interpretation of the term accident is in accord with American
decisions. And that there is a refusal to extend the definition to routine procedures.

FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (UK vs ICELAND)

1. Iceland agreed with the UK that any dispute concerning Icelandic fisheries jurisdiction
beyond the 12-mile limit be referred to the International Court of Justice.
2. In return the United Kingdom recognized Iceland's claim to a 12-mile fisheries limit.
3. This was referred to as the 1961 Exchange of Notes.
4. In 1972, Iceland proposed to extend its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction from 12 to 50 miles
around its shores.
5. As a result, the United Kingdom filed an application before the ICJ, based on the 1961
Exchange of Notes.
6. Iceland contended that it has been relieved of its commitment from such agreement
because of a change of legal circumstances that relieved Iceland of its commitment – the
general recognition of the limit.
 7. Issue: WON the change in circumstances resulted in the termination of the treaty? And
WON the ICJ has jurisdiction.
8. Yes. Change in circumstances could result in the termination of a treaty. But it is necessary
that the change has resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of the obligations still
to be performed.
9. The change must have increased the burden of the obligations yet to be executed to the
extent of rendering the performance something essentially different from that initially
undertaken.
10. The change of circumstances alleged by Iceland in this case cannot be said to have
transformed radically the extent of the jurisdictional obligation that was imposed in the
1961 Exchange of Notes.
11. Furthermore, Iceland has received benefits from those parts of the agreement already
executed; it should comply with its side of the bargain.
12. With the treaty still in force, the ICJ has jurisdiction.

NAMIBIA CASE

1. Under a claim of right to annex the Namibian territory and under the claim that Namibia’s
nationals desired South Africa’s rule, South Africa began the occupation of Namibia.
2. On 27 October 1966, the UN General Assembly decided that the mandate for South West
Africa (Namibia) was terminated (Resolution 2145)
3. The Security Council then issued Resolution 276 that South Africa had no other right to
administer the Territory.
4. The mandate system’s objective was self-determination and independence. The mandatory
was to observe a number of obligations.
5. The UN Mandate prohibited South Africa from taking physical control of other territories
because it was a Member State of the United Nations.
6. Included in Resolution 276, the UN called upon all States to refrain from any dealings with
the South African Government that were incompatible with that declaration.
7. South Africa demanded an ICJ Advisory Opinion.
8. Issue: Are mandates adopted by the United Nations binding upon all Member States so that
breaches or violations thereof by the violator result in a legal obligation on the part of other
Member States to recognize the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid in such
violations?
9. Yes. Member States of the United Nations are bounded by its mandates and violations or
breaches results in a legal obligation on the part of the other Member States to recognize
the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid in such violation.
10. As Member States, the obligation to keep intact and preserve the rights of other States and
the people in them has been assumed.
11. So when a Member State violates the mandate, that State cannot be recognized as retaining
the rights that it claims to derive from the relationship.
12. In this particular case, the General Assembly discovered that South Africa contravened the
Mandate because of its deliberate actions and persistent violations of occupying Namibia.
Hence, it is within the power of the Assembly to terminate the Mandate with respect to a
violating Member State, which was accomplished by resolution 2145 (XXI) in this case.
13. The resolutions and decisions of the Security Council in enforcing termination of this nature
are binding on the Member States, regardless of how they voted on the measure when
adopted. South Africa is therefore bound to obey the dictates of the Mandate, the resolution
terminating it as to South Africa, and the enforcement procedures of the Security Council.