Chattin case, b. E. Chattin (United States.) V. United Mexican States

In Mexico, Mr. Chattin was arrested for embezzlement.

USA sued United Mexican States to the Court.

The presiding arbitrator in the Chattin Case was of the view that the ‘clean hands’ principle did not apply to a claim brought on behalf of an alien who had acted unlawfully but had been injured by the host State.

http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_IV/282-312.pdf

http://books.google.ru/books?id=sr9WSp3sih0C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=%22Chattin+Case%22&source=bl&ots=0gf_crslyP&sig=ZtGVAuIlCqcE1M0y_trk3mdH258&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0a4DUf_OGair4ASzooHwCg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Chattin%20Case%22&f=false

Other International Cases Trail Smelter (Canada V. United States): Arbitral Tribunal, 1941

Once upon a time, somewhere in the U.S. was a big coal plant Trail. He blew gases what uset to kill Canadians living nearby.

One day, during the Second World War, Canadians unhappy patience snapped, and they sued the plant (and at the same time, the whole of America) to arbitration.

The court thought and decided. Accused the U.S. Transboundary pollution, and awarded to Canadians thousands of dollars.

The case is interesting in that it is Transboundary international law precedent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_Smelter_dispute

Tinoco Claims Arbitration (Great Britain V. Costa Rica), Tinoco Claims Arbitration (1923)

Overview: Great Britain (P) claimed that the former government of Costa Rica (D), the Tinoco regime, had granted oil concessions to a British company that had to be honored by the present regime. The Tinoco regime had seized power in Costa Rica by coup. Great Britain (P) and the United States never recognized the Tinoco regime. When the Tinoco regime fell, the restored government nullified all Tinoco contracts, including an oil concession to a British company. Great  Britain (P) claimed that the Tinoco government was the only government in existence at the time the contract was  signed and its acts could not be repudiated. Costa Rica (D) claimed that Great Britain (P) was estopped from enforcing the contract by its nonrecognition of the Tinoco regime. The matter was sent for arbitration.

Issue: Does nonrecognition of a new government by other governments destroy the de facto status of the government?

Rule: -A government that establishes itself and maintains a peaceful de facto administration need not to conform to previous constitution and nonrecognition of the govt. by other govt.’s does not destroy the de facto status of the govt.

Analysis:  The arbitrator found there was no estoppel. The evidence of nonrecognition did not outweigh the evidence of the de facto status of the Tinoco regime. Unrecognized governments thus may have the power to form valid contracts.

Outcome: No. A government that establishes itself and maintains a peaceful de facto administration need not conform to a previous constitution and nonrecognition of the govern ment by other governments does not destroy the de facto status of the government. Great Britain's (P) nonrecognition of the Tinoco regime did not dispute the de facto existence of that regime. There was no estoppel since the successor government had not been led by British nonrecognition to change its position.

http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2012/04/tinoco-claims-arbitration-great-britain.html

http://ladysilhouette.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/tinoco-arbitration-case-great-britain-vs-costa-rica-1923-2/