Case Laws.

1. Belgium v. Spain
Facts :
Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Ltd was a corporation incorporated
in Canada, with Toronto headquarters, that made and supplied electricity in Spain. It had
issued bonds to non-Spanish investors, but during the Spanish Civil War (1936-9) the
Spanish government refused to allow BTLP to transfer currency to pay bondholders the
interest they were due. In 1948 a group of bondholders sued in Spain to declare that
BTLP had defaulted on the ground it had failed to pay the interest. The Spanish court
allowed their claim. The business was sold, the surplus distributed to the bondholders,
and a small amount was paid to shareholders. The shareholders in Canada succeeded in
persuading Canada and other states to complain that Spain had denied justice and
violated a series of treaty obligations. However, Canada eventually accepted that Spain
had the right to prevent BTLP from transferring currency and declaring BTLP bankrupt.
Of the shares, 88 per cent were owned by Belgians, and the Belgian government
complained, insisting the Spanish government had not acted properly. They made an
initial claim at the International Court of Justice in 1958, but later withdrew it to allow
negotiations. Subsequent negotiations broke down, and a new claim was filed in 1962.
Spain contended that Belgium had no standing because BTLP was a Canadian company.

Judgement :
The International Court of Justice held that Belgium had no legal interest in the matter to
justify it bringing a claim. Although Belgian shareholders suffered if a wrong was done
to the company, it was only the company's rights that could have been infringed by
Spain's actions.
It was a general rule of international law that when an unlawful act was committed
against a company, only the state of incorporation of the company could sue.

2. Greece v. Great britain

Facts :
A Greek shipowner, Nicolas Eustache Ambatielos, had commissioned nine ships at an agreed
price and delivery date from the British government. The British government missed every
deadline. The resulting financial losses caused Ambatielos to fail to meet payments, eventually
resulting in the reseizure of the already completed ships, ruining Ambatielos, who failed to
resolve the matter in UK courts.
On 9 April 1952, Greece took the UK to the International Court of Justice, claiming that
the British Board of Trade disregarded British legal protocol by failing to fully disclose to the
court the delivery dates promised by the British Government, and the British Court of Appeal
disregarded British legal protocol regarding 'fresh evidence' by denying appeal, thus denying
Ambatielos adequate legal protection, contrary to international law and the Greco-British Treaty
of Commerce and Navigation (1886); and, by declining to enter into an arbitration process with
Greece, the UK government was in breach of said treaty and its UN agreements to 'peacefully
resolve' international disputes.
Judgement :
 On 1 July 1952 the ICJ ruled that it had no jurisdiction in the issue of Mr Ambatielos'
trial, but had jurisdiction to decide whether or not the UK is obliged to enter into an
arbitration process under the Greco-British Treaty of Commerce and Navigation.

3. Greece v. U.K.

Facts :

On 27 January 1914, the Ottoman authorities granted Mavrommatis, a Greek

national, concessionsrelating to an electric tramway system, the supply of electric light
and power and of drinking water in the city of Jerusalem. An agreement for similar
concessions for the city of Jaffa was concluded in 1916. Due to the outbreak of World
War I, the execution of the Jerusalem concessions was postponed in July 1914. During
the war, Palestine was occupied by British troops. In 1920, it became a British Mandate
(Mandates). In the following year, British authorities reached an agreement on
concessions with a certain Rutenberg, which partly conflicted with the Mavrommatis
concessions. Rutenberg should obtain the right to request the expropriation of conflicting
concessions, but he did not exercise the right. At the same time, negotiations between the
Palestinian and British authorities and Mavrommatis on the execution of his concessions
continued without substantial results. In 1923, Greek authorities first intervened on behalf
of their national, and in 1924, Greece filed an application to the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ)

Judgement :
The judgment is also relevant for the law of treaties. Whilst Art. 33 (4) VCLT confirms
the principle of harmonizing interpretation in the case of divergent authentic texts in
different languages, the ILC, when it adopted the Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties,
did not accept a general rule that the more limited interpretation should be retained in
such cases. Nor did the ILC opt for a presumption in favour of the language version in
which the treaty was drafted.
The judgment is also referred to in support of a general rule of State succession according
to which concessions granted by the predecessor State are binding upon the successor
State. It has to be remembered, however, that the PCIJ exclusively applied the provisions
of Protocol XII to the Lausanne Peace Treaty without any need to look for general rules
of State succession.

4. Libya v. US
Facts :
-An airplane exploded over Scotland, killing many American citizens.
-The US and the UK traced the bomb back to two Libyans.
-The Libyan government refused to extradite the Libyans for trial.
-Libya argued that under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against
Civil Aviation (the Montreal Convention) (974 U.N.T.S. 177 (1971)), Libya could either
extradite or prosecute the suspects themselves.
-Libya chose to prosecute the suspects themselves.
 -The United States and the UK accused the Libyans of "Forum Shopping" and took the
case to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
-UNSC issued two resolutions (UNSC Resolutions 731/748). These urged Libya to hand
over the bombing suspects.
-UNSC also embargoes arms sales to Libya, told member states to close offices of the
Libyan Airlines.
-Coercive powers are detailed in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.

Judgement :
-Article 39 allows the UNSC to take enforcement actions to restore international peace.
You could argue that international terrorism is a breach of the peace.
-But how could you say that Libya's exercising their rights under a multilateral treaty is a
threat to the peace?
-Libya went to the International Court of Justice to protest the UNSC resolutions.
-Libya claimed that it was fully within its rights under the Montreal Convention to try the
suspects in Libya and not have to turn them over.
-The I.C.J. found that the UNSC resolutions were permissible, and the Libya must hand
over the suspects.
-Basically, the I.C.J. found that UNSC resolutions trumped everything else, even
multilateral treaties.
-Article 103 of the United Nations Charter says, "In the event of a conflict between the
obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their
obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present
Charter shall prevail."
-Article 25 says that member States must follow UNSC resolutions.

5. Liech v. Ghuat
Fact :
In this case, Liechtenstein claimed restitution and compensation from the Government of
Guatemala on the ground that the latter had acted towards Friedrich Nottebohm, a citizen
of Liechtenstein, in a manner contrary to international law. Guatemala objected to the
Court’s jurisdiction but the Court overruled this objection in a Judgment of 18 November
1953. In a second Judgment, of 6 April 1955, the Court held that Liechtenstein’s claim
was inadmissible on grounds relating to Mr. Nottebohm’s nationality. It was the bond of
nationality between a State and an individual which alone conferred upon the State the
right to put forward an international claim on his behalf. Mr. Nottebohm, who was then a
German national, had settled in Guatemala in 1905 and continued to reside there. In
October 1939 — after the beginning of the Second World War — while on a visit to
Europe, he obtained Liechtenstein nationality and returned to Guatemala in 1940, where
he resumed his former business activities until his removal as a result of war measures in
1943. On the international plane, the grant of nationality is entitled to recognition by
other States only if it represents a genuine connection between the individual and the
State granting its nationality. Mr. Nottebohm’s nationality, however, was not based on
any genuine prior link with Liechtenstein and the sole object of his naturalization was to
enable him to acquire the status of a neutral national in time of war. For these reasons,
Liechtenstein was not entitled to take up his case and put forward an international claim
on his behalf against Guatemala.

Judgement :
Although the Court stated that it is the sovereign right of all states to determine its own
citizens and criteria for becoming one in municipal law, such a process would have to be
internationally scrutinized if the question is of diplomatic protection. The Court upheld
the principle of effective nationality (the Nottebohm principle): the national must prove a
meaningful connection to the state in question. That principle had previously been
applied only in cases of dual nationality to determine the nationality that should be used
in a given case. The court ruled that Nottebohm's naturalization as a citizen of
Liechtenstein had not been based on any genuine link with that country, but for the sole
purpose of enabling him to replace his status as the national of a belligerent state with
that of a neutral state in a time of war. The Court held that Liechtenstein was not entitled
to take up his case and put forward an international claim on his behalf against
Guatemala