CORFU CHANNEL CASE

Facts:

May 15, 1946: an Albanian battery had fired in the direction of two British cruisers in the North
Corfu Strait (Albanian waters). The UK government protested stating that innocent passage
through straits is a right recognized by international law. The Albanian government replied that
foreign warships and merchant vessels had no right to pass through Albanian territorial waters
without prior authorization.

October 22, 1946: two British cruisers and two destroyers entered the North Corfu Strait
(Albanian waters) which was regarded as safe from mines since it has been swept in 1944 and
check-swept in 1945. One of the destroyers struck a mine and was gravely damaged. The other
destroyer was sent to assist but while towing the first destroyer, struck another mine and was
also seriously damaged. 45 officers and sailors lost their lives and 42 others were wounded.

After the explosions on October 22, the UK government sent a Note to Tirana announcing its
intention to sweep the Corfu Channel shortly. The reply was that its consent would not be given
unless the operation in question took place outside Albanian territorial waters and that any
sweep undertaken in those waters would be a violation of Albanias sovereignty.

The British Navy effected the sweep on November 13 1946 in Albanian territorial waters and
within the limits of the channel previously swept. 22 moored mines were cut which were of the
German GY type.

The two parties concluded a Special Agreement asking the Court to give give judgment on the
following questions

ISSUES:

1. Is Albania responsible for the explosions, and is there a duty to pay compensation?

2. Has the UK violated international law by the acts of its Navy in Albanian waters, first on the day on
which the explosions occurred (May and October) and, secondly, on November when it undertook a
sweep of the Strait?

RULING:

1. Yes. The laying of the minefield could not have been accomplished without the knowledge of
Albania. And with this knowledge, Albania has the duty to notify shipping and especially to warn
ships proceeding through the Strait. In fact, nothing was attempted by Albania to prevent the disaster,
and these grave omissions involve her international responsibility. Two series of facts which led the
court to draw the aforementioned conclusions:

A. Albanian Governments attitude before and after the catastrophe: did not notify shipping
of the existence of the minefield and did not undertake any measures of judicial investigation.
 B. The possibility of observing the mine laying from the Albanian coast as based on the
reports of naval experts assigned by the Court.

2. On innocence of the passage: Its conclusion is that the passage was innocent both in its principle,
since it was designed to affirm a right which had been unjustly denied, and in its methods of
execution, which were not unreasonable in view of the firing from the Albanian battery on May 15th.

On the minesweeping operations: As regards the operation on November 12th/13th, it was

executed contrary to the clearly expressed wish of the Albanian Government; it did not have the
consent of the international mine clearance organizations; it could not be justified as the exercise of
the right of innocent passage.

As between independent States the respect for territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation
for international relations. Certainly, the Court recognises the Albanian Government's complete
failure to carry out its duties after the explosions. But, to ensure respect for international law, of
which it is the organ, the Court must declare that the action of the British Navy constituted a
violation of Albanian sovereignty.

DISCLAIMER: The ruling in number two was based on our previous digest in the past topics. Ruling
number one is the one related to our topic now in State Responsibility.

IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW: Although Corfu Channel was superficially a

decision about the law of the sea and the use of force, scholars such as Malgosia Fitzmaurice have
remarked on the impact of Corfu Channel on the development of international environmental law.
Specifically, the case, along with the 1930s arbitration from the Trail Smelter dispute and the
subsequent ICJ case involving Barcelona Traction, articulated basic principles used extensively in
subsequent cases and conventions dealing with the environment. In the Corfu Channel case, the
Court articulated the principle that every state is obligated not to knowingly allow its territory to be
used to commit acts against the rights of any other state. This meant, with respect to the Corfu
Channel, that Albania was obligated to warn others that its territorial waters were mined. The specific
language came from the Trail Smelter case, and ultimately was adopted into the Stockholm
Declaration and Rio Declaration.