Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso V. Republic of Mali), 1986 I.C.J.

The Burkina Faso-Niger frontier dispute case is an on-going case with the International Court of Justice served by the neighbouring African states of Burkina Faso and Niger. ^[1]

Both nations submitted the dispute to The Hague on 20 July, 2010.

The dispute can be summarised by these points;

• determine the course of the boundary between the two countries in the sector from the astronomic marker of Tong-Tong to the beginning of the Botou bend;

• take cognizance of the Parties’ agreement on the results of the work of the Joint Technical Commission on demarcation of the Burkina Faso-Niger boundary at the sector from the heights of N’Gouma to the astronomic marker of Tong-Tong and the sector from the beginning of the Botou bend to the River Mekrou

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=359&code=hvm&p1=3&p2=3&case=69&k=b3&p3=5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso%E2%80%93Niger_frontier_dispute_case,_2010

Interhandel (Switzerland V. U.S), Preliminary Objections, 1959 I.C.J.

dispute which had arisen with regard to the claim by Switzerland to the restitution by the United States of America of the assets of the Interhandel Company.

Case started in World War II.

There was the General Aniline and Film Corporation (GAR), a company incorporated in the United States, on the ground that those shares in reality belonged to the I.G. Falrben Company of Frankfurt or that the GAF was in one way 'or another controlled by that enemy (Germany) company.

In 1945, under a prosvisional agreement between Switzerland, the United States, France and the United Kingdom, property in Switzerland bel.onging to Germans in Germany was blocked.

Но швейцарцы не блокировали счета, так как то была частично их компания и доказателсьв связи с Германией они не нашли.

Switzerland пошла в the Court чтобы отсудить от США активы компании.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/34/2299.pdf

Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana V. Namibia), 1999 I.C.J.

By a special agreement of 15 February 1996, Botswana and Nigeria submitted to the I.C.J. the settlement of the dispute concerning the boundary around the island (known as Kisikili in Botswana and Sedudu in Namibia) in the Chobe River, on the basis of the Great Britain–German Treaty of 1 July 1890 delimiting their respective spheres of influence in Africa and the rules and principles of international law.

On 13 December 1999, the Court found (11 to 4) that the boundary followed ‘the line of deepest soundings in the northern channel’. The Court applied the criterion set out in art. III of the 1890 Treaty, which called for the boundary to be the ‘centre of the main channel’, adverting on the various meanings and possible applications of this thalweg principle and concluding that subsequent practice and later maps had not demonstrated any intention to deviate from that principle.

The Court also found (11 to 4) that the Kasikili–Sedudu Island formed part of the territory of Botswana. In denying Namibia's prescriptive claim, the Court stated that Namibia ‘has not established with the necessary degree of precision and certainty that acts of State authority capable of providing … justification for prescriptive title … were carried out by its predecessors or by itself’: at 1106.

Additionally, and on the basis of the specific agreement of 24 May 1992 between Namibia and Botswana, the Court found (unanimously) that the nationals and vessels of both parties are to enjoy ‘equal national treatment’ in both the north and south channels.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195389777.001.0001/acref-9780195389777-e-1253?rskey=7xcCOR&result=1027&q=

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=b7&case=98&code=bona&p3=5

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