- •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
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
The Hanish Islands conflict,[2] was a dispute between Yemen and Eritrea over the island of Greater Hanish in the Red Sea, one of the largest in the then disputed Zukur-Hanish archipelago. Fighting took place over three days from 15 December to 17 December 1995. In 1998 the Permanent Court of Arbitration determined that the most of archipelago belonged to Yemen.
The case concerns a dispute between Eritrea and Yemen on the installation of maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Aden.
Regarding the erga omnes in Section territory arbitration said:
«If State A has title to territory and passes it to State B, then it is legally without purpose for State C to invoke the principle of res inter alios acta ...».
Turkey to agree to submit the island in the Gulf of Yemen. It is obliged to accept what happened, Imam took it as fact.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XXII/209-332.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanish_Islands_conflict
Mexican Union Railway Company Claim (United Kingdom V. Mexico), February 1930, 5 r.I.A.A.
The Mexican Union Railway Company, a British company operating in Mexico under a concession granted by the Mexican Government, suffered losses in the course of revolutionary disturbances in Mexico between 1919 and 1920.
The concession contained a Calvo clause, providing for the company to be deemed a Mexican corporation irrespective of its members being aliens, for the company to be exclusively subject to the Mexican courts, and for the company and all having an interest in it to forego foreign diplomatic protection.
The company did not seek redress in the Mexican courts for the losses suffered by it. In agreeing to submit various claims to a Claims Commission, Great Britain and Mexico agreed in the Convention of 19 November 1926 (85 L.N.T.S. 51) that claims should not be rejected on the grounds that legal remedies had not been exhausted prior to the presentation of the claim.
On a claim being made by Great Britain on behalf of the company, the Great Britain–Mexico Claims Commission held that the Commission had no jurisdiction. Although a Calvo clause could not deprive a government of its right to invoke its international legal rights or deprive the company of its British nationality to the extent of waiving its right to appeal to the British Government in cases of violation of international law, the clause was in this case an integral part of the concession, requiring the company to seek redress for any complaints through Mexican tribunals, and as the company had not attempted to do so there could be no question of any denial or delay of justice, as there could have been if the company had, as agreed, resorted to Mexican tribunals and had nevertheless failed thereby to obtain justice.
The provision in the 1926 Convention waiving the requirement for exhausting all legal remedies had to be read subject to particular obligation in the concession requiring recourse to Mexican tribunals.
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_V/115-129_Mexican_Union.pdf
http://www.answers.com/topic/mexican-union-railway-company-claim