- •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 Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland V. People's Republic of Albania), icj
The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People's Republic of Albania) was a case brought against Albania by the UK, suing for compensation after, on 22 October 1946, two British destroyers hit sea-mines in Albanian waters at the straits of Corfu, damaging them and killing naval personnel during the Corfu Channel Incident.
The International Court of Justice ordered Albania to pay the UK £843,947 in compensation.
This was the first case brought before the ICJ.
The Corfu Channel case established that states must meet a preponderance of the evidence standard to prevail before the ICJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corfu_Channel_Case_(United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_v._People's_Republic_of_Albania)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfu_Channel_incident
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua V. United States of America), International Court of Justice (icj), 1986
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America[1] was a 1984 case of theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by theUnited Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[2] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[3]
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?p1=3&p2=3&k=66&case=70&code=nus&p3=5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
Construction of a Wall Case (Advisory Opinion), icj, 9 July 2004
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states the legal consequences arising from that illegality.
On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice (the ‘ICJ’ or ‘Court’) issued its Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s construction of a barrier (the ‘Wall’) separating portions of the West Bank from Israel.
Because a number of the obligations breached by Israel were owed erga omnes — to the international community as a whole — all States were obligated to refrain from aiding Israel in its violations.
Palestine, given its responsibility for acts of violence against Israel and its population which the wall is aimed at addressing, cannot seek from the court a remedy for a situation resulting from its own wrongdoing. In this context, Israel has invoked the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de sua iniuria proprio1, which it considers to be relevant in advisory proceedings as it is in contentious cases. 3
Israel concluded that good faith and the principle of ‘clean hands’ provided a compelling reason for the court to refuse the General Assembly's request for an advisory opinion. The court did not consider this argument to be pertinent on the ground that the opinion was to be given to the General Assembly and not to a specific State or entity. On the other hand, the court did not reject the relevance of the argument to inter-State disputes in contentious proceedings.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&ca
http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr27_4/Friedman.pdf