- •Casebook of The Jessup Competition
- •Krasnodar, Russia
- •Table of Cases
- •International Court of Justice (icj) 4
- •International Court of Justice (icj) East Timor Case (Portugal V. Australia): Judgment of icj, 1995
- •The Ambatielos Claim (Greece V. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (1956)
- •Nuclear Tests case (Australia V. France): Judgment of icj, 1974
- •North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany V. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany V. Netherland): Judgment of icj, 1969
- •Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium V. Spain) (New Application: 1962) icj
- •The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland V. People's Republic of Albania), icj
- •Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua V. United States of America), International Court of Justice (icj), 1986
- •Construction of a Wall Case (Advisory Opinion), icj, 9 July 2004
- •Oil Platforms Case (Islamic Republic of Iran V. United States of America), icj
- •La Grand Case (Germany V. Usa ), icj, 2 March 1999 Germany brings a case against the United States of America and requests the indication of provisional measures
- •Avena case and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico V. United States of America), International Court of Justice (icj), 31 March 2004
- •Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary / Slovakia), icj, 17/02/1997 - 7 December 1998
- •Arrest Warrant Case of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Belgium). International Court of Justice (icj), 14 February 2002.
- •Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Uganda), I.C.J., 2005
- •Asylum (Columbia V. Peru), Merits, 1950 I.C.J., 20 November 1950
- •Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru V. Australia), I.C.J., 1992
- •Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada V. U.S.), I.C.J., 1984
- •Elettronica Sicula s.P.A. (elsi) (u.S. V. Italy), 1989 I.C.J.
- •Fisheries Case (u.K. V. Norway), 1951 I.C.J.
- •Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso V. Republic of Mali), 1986 I.C.J.
- •Interhandel (Switzerland V. U.S), Preliminary Objections, 1959 I.C.J.
- •Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana V. Namibia), 1999 I.C.J.
- •Minquiers and Ecrehos (France V. U.K.), 1953 I.C.J.
- •Nottebohm (Liechtenstein V. Guatemala), Preliminary Objections, 1953 I.C.J.
- •Implications for international law
- •Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France V. United States of America), 1952 I.C.J.
- •Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia V. Singapore) 2008 I.C.J.
- •Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia V. Thailand), Preliminary Objections, 1961 I.C.J.
- •Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975 I.C.J.
- •Ss Wimbledon, p.C.I.J., Series a. No. 1, 1923
- •The Facts
- •The Applicants
- •The respondents
- •Jurisprudence
- •Russian Claim for Interest on Indemnities (Russia V. Turkey), Permanent Court of Arbitration (picj), 1912
- •Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, usa), Permanent Court of Arbitration (picj), April 1928
- •Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France Case (France V. Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), Permanent Court of International Justice (picj), 1929
- •The “Societe Commerciale De Belgique” (Belgium V. Greece), Permanent Court of International Justice, 1939
- •The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Greece V. Britain, Permanent Court Of International Justice (picj), 1924.08.30
- •Reports of International Arbitral Awards (r.I.A.A.) Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea V. Yemen), Reports of International Arbitral Awards (r.I.A.A.), 1998
- •Mexican Union Railway Company Claim (United Kingdom V. Mexico), February 1930, 5 r.I.A.A.
- •Chattin case, b. E. Chattin (United States.) V. United Mexican States
- •Other International Cases Trail Smelter (Canada V. United States): Arbitral Tribunal, 1941
- •Tinoco Claims Arbitration (Great Britain V. Costa Rica), Tinoco Claims Arbitration (1923)
- •Rainbow Warrior Case (New Zealand V. France)
- •Background
- •The Case
- •Consequences
- •National Cases Government of Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Venne: Supreme Court of Canada, 1971
- •Inter-Science Research and Development Services Ltd V. People's Republic of Mozambique: Full Transvaal Court, 1980
The Applicants
How can one possibly argue against Article 380? The applicants submitted the request before the PCIJ on the grounds of wrongfulness by German authorities when they refused access to the ship. The Neutrality Orders issued by Germany, were defined as inconsistant with Article 380 of the Treaty of Versailles. “The Kiel Canal and its approaches shall be maintained free and open to the vessels of commerce and war of all nations at peace with Germany on terms of entire equality.” This article has an uncomprimising tone, The boat was surely allowed to pass on this basis?
The respondents
Surely the sovereignty of Germany would allow her to protect her neutrality? The agent for Germany argued that Germany was sovereign over her own lands. The Article should not compromise her sovereignty or her sovereign right to neutrality. Boats could be refused access on many grounds, neutrality should be one.
Jurisprudence
As we can see, sovereignty is at the heart of the case. The judgement in the “Wimbledon” case was made in 1923 and has been used as precedent ever since.
The judgement – the court ruled in favour of the applicants. Treaty making is an attribute of sovereignty, Germany (and all states), although sovereign are without doubt bound to the treaties they sign.
http://courses.kvasaheim.com/ps376/briefs/lcmoskowitzbrief4.pdf
http://www.worldcourts.com/pcij/eng/decisions/1923.08.17_wimbledon.htm
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimbledon-Fall
Russian Claim for Interest on Indemnities (Russia V. Turkey), Permanent Court of Arbitration (picj), 1912
Arrears of interest claimed by Russia in indemnities due individuals injured in the war or 1877-1878.
Date of Award: 11 November 1912
This dispute concerned the commitment made by the Turkish government to indemnify the Russian subjects and institutions for the losses they suffered during the war of 1887-1878. Turkey’s pledge to pay indemnities was made in 1879, but the Turkish government did not discharge its debt until 1902.
This delay in the payment led to Russia’s demand of moratory interest. The two governments entered into negotiations on this issue in 1902 and in 1910 the matter was submitted to arbitration.
The governments submitted two questions to the Arbitral Tribunal. First, was the Turkish government bound to pay interest to Russian indemnities?
In the case of an affirmative answer to this question, the Tribunal was charged with determining the amount of interest owed to Russia.
The Tribunal found that while moratory interest could be granted in principle, Russia had renounced its rights to interest through the actions of its embassy at Constantinople.
http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=6135
Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, usa), Permanent Court of Arbitration (picj), April 1928
Island of Palmas Case, was a case involving a territorial dispute over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) between the Netherlands and the United States.
Palmas (known as Pulau Miangas in Bahasa Indonesian) was declared to be a part of the Netherlands East Indies and is now part of Indonesia.
The question before the arbitrator was whether the Island of Palmas (Miangas), in its entirety, was a part of the territory of the United States or the Netherlands.
The legal issue presented was whether a territory belongs to the first discoverer, even if they do not exercise authority over the territory, or whether it belongs to the state which actually exercises sovereignty over it.
Under the Palmas decision, three important rules for resolving island territorial disputes were decided:
Firstly, title based on contiguity has no standing in international law.
Secondly, title by discovery is only an inchoate title.
Finally, if another sovereign begins to exercise continuous and actual sovereignty, (and the arbitrator required that the claim had to be open and public and with good title), and the discoverer does not contest this claim, the claim by the sovereign that exercises authority is greater than a title based on mere discovery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Palmas_Case
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_ii/829-871.pdf