Parties S. S. Lotus Case France v.

Turkey

Facts The question of jurisdiction arose between parties, following upon the collision which occurred between the steamships Boz-Kourt and Lotus.

Issues As to whether Turkey has jurisdiction to try Monsieur Demons, the French officer on watch duty at the time of the collision.

Contentions France: No jurisdiction of Turkey to try the French officers, because they were on a French boat in international waters at the time of the accident. As a matter of customary international law, the flag of the vessel (in this case France) has exclusive jurisdiction. Turkey: Since their nationals were killed, they had jurisdiction to try those responsible for the deaths.

Decision The PCIJ found that Turkey had the right to try the French sailors.

Contribution Usually considered a foundation of international law, says that sovereign states may act in any way they wish so long as they do not contravene an explicit prohibition. This principle an outgrowth of the Lotus case was later overruled by article 11 of the 1958 High Seas Convention.

Corfu Channel case United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People's Republic of Albania 1949

Royal Navy ships, HMS Orion and HMS Superb, crossed the Corfu Channel. Fire from fortifications situated on the Albanian coast. No material damage and no human casualties occurred. No public apology from the Albanian Government. But the Albanian Government claimed that the British ships had trespassed in Albanian waters. 3 Royal Navy ships - through the Corfu Channel - to test the Albanian reaction to their right of innocent passage. The crews were instructed to respond if attacked. Close to the Albanian coast,

Is Albania responsible for the explosions, and is there a duty to pay compensation? Has the United Kingdom violated international law by the acts of its Navy in Albanian waters, first on the day on which the explosions occurred and, secondly, on November 12th and 13th, 1946, when it undertook a sweep of the Strait?

UK says mines planted with the knowledge of Albania. Albania: carrying minesweeping activity UK has violated its sovereignty.

ICJ held that Albania was responsible. UK did not violate the sovereignty of Albania on Oct 22nd but it violated sovereignty when it conducted minesweeping act. Court ordered Albania to pay the United Kingdom a total compensation of 843, 947.

Warships of a foreign State had the right of innocent passage through the territorial waters of another State during peace. Definition of when a water body constitutes an international highway or international strait through which right of innocent passage can be claimed. Distinction drawn between 1). using force to affirm a legal right against an expected unlawful attempt to deny them, such use of force held lawful and 2). use of force for redressing of an already violated right, such use of force was found illegal by the Court.

considering to be a mine-free zone, one of ships struck a mine-damaged. 2nd ship towing the damaged one struck a mine also - heavy damage. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power co.ltd. (BELGIUM V. SPAIN), 1962

In 1948, a judgment was given by Spanish court, declaring the company bankrupt and ordering the seizure of the assets of Barcelona Traction and of two of its subsidiary companies.

Belgium alleged that the acts and omissions of the Spanish courts in placing Barcelona Traction into bankruptcy constituted a denial of justice and an expropriation of Barcelona Traction shares held by Belgian nationals.

Belgium

1). Through arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by Spanish Authorities caused abuse of rights; 2). Spanish courts by adjudging a Canadian Corporation bankrupt usurped its jurisdiction; 3). By a process of expropriation in violation of Spanish law, caused a denial of justice in broad sense; 4). By preventing Barcelona Traction and its subsidiaries from being heard, caused a denial of justice in strict sense. Spain Raised 4 objections

The ICJ rejected the first and 2nd Preliminary Objections. Clubbed 3rd and 4th objection in the merit part of the case. 3rd and 4th objection : The diplomatic protection of shareholders rejected. No jus standi of the Belgian govt. application of Belgian govt rejected.

Theory of diplomatic protection of shareholders was brought into question. Consideration of equity to establish jus standi of a state.

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA V. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO) 1993

The case is related to Serbia's alleged attempts to wipe out the Bosnian Muslim population of Bosnia.

Bosnia: Yugoslavia responsible for alleged acts of genocide committed against the Bosnian Population. Yugoslavia: Violations by Bosnia of the Genocide Convention, through acts of direct and public incitement to commit genocide

Whether the "obligation to prevent" subsumes an obligation on States "not to commit genocide themselves." ICJ held that effect of Article I of Genocide Convention is to prohibit States from themselves committing genocide.

ICJ in 2007 held that: 1). Court has jurisdiction; 2). Serbia not committed, not conspired and not been complicit in genocide, through its organs or persons. 3). Serbia violated the obligation to prevent genocide; 4).Serbia will take steps to

The Court's opinion that genocide did not take place across the entire occupied territory of BosniaHerzegovina and its finding that Serbia was not directly involved in the Srebrenica genocide have been strongly criticized.

and its actual commission against the Serbs in Bosnia.

APPEAL RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICAO COUNCIL INDIA v. PAKISTAN, 1971

India suspended the over flight of all Pakistani aircraft, civil or military over the territory of India. Reason being that Indian Airlines Fokker Friendship Aircraft was hijacked at the gunpoint and diverted to Lahore in Pakistan. Later it was blown up. Pakistan refused to assist India against hijacking. Pak moved to ICAO council and Council held that it has jurisdiction. In appeal India goes to ICJ.

Pakistan: In application, Pak says that suspension was disagreement between the two Governments; In complaint, it says that Action of suspension taken by India caused hardship to Pakistan. India: ICAO Council has no jurisdiction for matters of suspension. Only in matters of application and interpretation it has jurisdiction. Action was taken under special regime of 1966 and not under the Convention and Transit Agreement. Qatar: Jurisdiction of ICJ as it has been decided by the commitment of the parties to the Bahraini Formula. Bahrain: No jurisdiction of ICJ.

Whether ICAO Council has jurisdiction in Complaint and Application.

ensure full compliance with obligations under Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ICJ can entertain appeal against the decision of ICAO Council on preliminary matters; Council has jurisdiction in all the aspects of aviation and related disputes.

The jurisdiction of the Council is not merely confined to or governed by the provisions made in any Treaty. The Council has jurisdiction, in the matters concerning the aviation sector disputes, be it of interpretation or application or suspension.

Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between QATAR And BAHRAIN (QATAR v. BAHRAIN) 2001

Disputes between the two Qatar and Bahrain for 1). sovereignty over the Hawar islands, 2). sovereign rights over the shoals of Dibal and Qitat Jaradah, and 3). the delimitation of the maritime areas of the two States.

1). Jurisdiction of ICJ in the dispute submitted 2). sovereignty of which country over the islands?

The ICJ drew the equidistant line between Qatar and Bahrain and held: 1. Qatar sovereignty over Zubarah, Janan Island including Hadd Janan, the low- tide elevation of Fasht ad Dibal 2. Bahrain sovereignty over the Hawar islands, island of Qit at Jardah 3. Qatar enjoys the territorial sea of Bahrain separating the Hawar islands

2nd ICJ case combining territorial and maritime issues to reach the merits 1st case, wherein the Court had been asked to delimit the parties maritime boundaries. For delimiting a single maritime boundary in accordance with customary international law parties territorial sea boundary as well as that of the continental shelf/EEZ also to be delimited. equidistance-special circumstances rule was held to have a customary character.

from the other Bahraini Islands the right of innocent passage accorded by customary international law. 4. The single maritime boundary dividing the various maritime zones of States of Qatar and the State of Bahrain shall be drawn. ICJ held that there exists a legal dispute. Held right of Indonesia not to be decided.

Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) 1995

In 1991 Portugal proceedings against Australia "certain activities of Australia with respect to East Timor". Australia - conduct, "failed to observe -- the obligation to respect the duties and powers of Portugal as the administering Power of East Timor and the right of the people of East Timor to selfdetermination and the related rights".

Australia: There exists in reality no dispute between the Parties. Court is required to determine the rights and obligations of Indonesia Portugal: Questions the objective conduct of Australia, which consists in having negotiated, concluded and initiated performance of the 1989 Treaty with Indonesia.

Right of self determination by the people of E. Timor

ICJ concretized the right to self determination. Right to self determination had an erga omnes (owed toward all ) character. The Court also underscored that the right of peoples to self determination was one of the essential principles of contemporary international law.

Court cannot rule on Portugal's claims on the merits.

The Territory of East Timor remains a NonSelf-Governing Territory and its people have the right to selfdetermination.