You are on page 1of 6

Brief Fact Summary.

The fact that the Albanian (P) authorities did not make the
presence of mines in its waters was the basis of the United Kingdom (D) claim against
them.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. International obligations in peace time are created through
elementary consideration.

Facts. The explosion of mines in the Albanian (P) waters resulted in the death of a
British naval personnel. It was on this basis that the United Kingdom (D) claimed that
Albania (P) was internationally responsible for damages.

Issue. Are international obligations in time of peace created through elementary


consideration?

Held. Yes. International obligations in peace time are created through elementary
consideration. Every state has an obligation not to knowingly allow its territory to be
used for acts contrary to the rights of other states.

Discussion. In this case, the Court found that the Hague Convention of 1907 could not
be applied but the Convention was applicable only in time of war. It was on the basis of
the principle of freedom of maritime communication that this case was decided.

HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY CLAIM (US vs. Britain)

Facts:
The collection of a tax newly imposed by Great Britain on the natives of Sierra Leone
known as the “hut tax” was the signal for a serious and widespread revolt in the
Ronietta district.

In the course of rebellion, all US' Missions were attacked, and either destroyed or
damaged, and some of the missionaries were murdered.

US contends that British Government is responsible for the revolt since it wholly failed to
take proper steps for the maintenance of order and the protection of life and propert,
and that the loss of life and damage to property is the result of such neglect.

Issue:

Whether or not revolt is attributable to the British Government?


Held:

Even assuming that the “hut tax” was the effective cause of the native rebellion, it
was in itself a fiscal measure to which British Government was perfectly entitled to
exercise.

It is well established principle of international law that no government can be held


responsible for the act of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation of its authority,
where it is itself guilty of no breach of good faith, or of no negligence in suppressing
insurrection.

Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, Case No. A/18

Brief Fact Summary. A suit was filed against Iran (D) in an arbitral tribunal in the
Hague by people with dual Iranian-U.S. citizenship (P) under a claim Settlement
Declaration, which was part of the Algiers Accords reached in the aftermath of the 1979
Iranian seizure of U.S. diplomatic and consular personnel in Iran (D) as hostages. The
jurisdiction of the tribunal was however challenged by Iran.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. If the dominant and effective nationality of the claimant is
that of the United States, then, the Claims Settlement Declaration arbitral tribunal has
jurisdiction over claims against Iran by dual Iran-United States nationals.

Facts. After the 1975 Iranian revolution, Iranian militants seized U.S. diplomatic and
consular personnel in Iran (D) as hostages. In retaliation, the United States seized
Iranian assets in the United States, and people and companies with claims against Iran
(D) filed suit in U.S. courts, levying attachments against blocked Iranian assets. A
solution was mediated by Algiers in January 1981 culminating in the Algiers Accord,
which was adopted by both states. Included in the provision of the Algiers’s Accords
was a Claims Settlement Declaration, and created an arbitral tribunal in The Hague to
hear claims by the nationals of either state against the government of the other state.
Certain people with dual Iranian-U.S. citizenship (P) brought Iran (D) before the tribunal
and the jurisdiction of the tribunal was challenged by Iran (D).

Issue. If the dominant and effective nationality of the claimant is that of the United
States, then, can the Claims Settlement Declaration arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction
over claims against Iran by dual Iran-United States nationals?

Held. If the dominant and effective nationality of the claimant is that of the United
States, then, can the Claims Settlement Declaration arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction
over claims against Iran by dual Iran-United States nationals?

Discussion. The tribunal closed to new claims by private individuals in 1982. It received
approximately 4,700 private U.S. claims, ordered payment by Iran (D) to U.S. nationals
amounting to over $2.5 billion.
Chorzow Factory Case Germany vs Poland

Facts:

German Empire had a contract with a company, where the company undertook to
establish Reich and forthwith to begin construction of a nitrate factory at Chorzow,
Upper Silesia. Subsequently, Germany and Poland signed a convention concerning
Upper Silesia of Geneva.

A polish was then delegated with full powers to take charge of the factory, thus, causing
an end of the contract between Germany and the companies. Germany brought the
action in behalf of the companies of the Geneva Conventions

Issue:

Nicaragua v. United States


Brief Fact Summary. Nicaragua (P) brought a suit against the United States (D) on the
ground that the United States (D) was responsible for illegal military and paramilitary
activities in and against Nicaragua. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
to entertain the case as well as the admissibility of Nicaragua’s (P) application to the
I.C.J. was challenged by the United States (D).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Nicaragua (P) brought a suit against the United States (D)
on the ground that the United States (D) was responsible for illegal military and
paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. The jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice to entertain the case as well as the admissibility of Nicaragua’s (P)
application to the I.C.J. was challenged by the United States (D).

Facts. The United States (D) challenged the jurisdiction of the I.C.J when it was held
responsible for illegal military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (P) in
the suit the plaintiff brought against the defendant in 1984. Though a declaration
accepting the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court was deposited by the United States
(D) in a 1946, it tried to justify the declaration in a 1984 notification by referring to the
1946 declaration and stating in part that the declaration “shall not apply to disputes with
any Central American State”�.”�
Apart from maintaining the ground that the I.C.J lacked jurisdiction, the States (D) also
argued that Nicaragua (P) failed to deposit a similar declaration to the Court. On the
other hand, Nicaragua (P) based its argument on its reliance on the 1946 declaration
made by the United states (D) due to the fact that it was a “state accepting the same
obligation”� as the United States (D) when it filed charges in the I.C.J. against the
United States (D).
Also, the plaintiff intent to submit to the compulsory jurisdiction of the I.C.J. was pointed
out by the valid declaration it made in 1929 with the I.C.J’s predecessor, which was the
Permanent Court of International Justice, even though Nicaragua had failed to deposit it
with that court. The admissibility of Nicaragua’s (P) application to the I.C.J. was also
challenged by the United States (D).

Issue. (1) Is the jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between two states, if they both
accept the Court’s jurisdiction, within the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice?
(2) Where no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state, is the application of
such a state to the International Court of Justice admissible?

Held. (1) Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a dispute between two states if
each of the States accepted the Court’s jurisdiction is within the jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice. Even though Nicaragua (P) declaration of 1929 was not
deposited with the Permanent Court, because of the potential effect it had that it would
last for many years, it was valid.

Thus, it maintained its effect when Nicaragua became a party to the Statute of the I.C.J
because the declaration was made unconditionally and was valid for an unlimited
period. The intention of the current drafters of the current Statute was to maintain the
greatest possible continuity between it and the Permanent Court.

Thus, when Nicaragua (P) accepted the Statute, this would have been deemed that the
plaintiff had given its consent to the transfer of its declaration to the I.C.J.

(2) Yes. When no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state, the application of
such a state to the International Court of Justice is admissible. The five grounds upon
which the United States (D) challenged the admissibility of Nicaragua’s (P) application
were that the plaintiff failed because there is no “indispensable parties”� rule when it
could not bring forth necessary parties, Nicaragua’s (P) request of the Court to consider
the possibility of a threat to peace which is the exclusive province of the Security
Council, failed due to the fact that I.C.J. can exercise jurisdiction which is concurrent
with that of the Security Council, that the I.C.J. is unable to deal with situations involving
ongoing armed conflict and that there is nothing compelling the I.C.J. to decline to
consider one aspect of a dispute just because the dispute has other aspects due to the
fact that the case is incompatible with the Contadora process to which Nicaragua (P) is
a party.
CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND
CONSULAR STAFF IN TEHRAN
Judgment of 24 May 1980

Facts:
In November 4, 1979, student militants of the group Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's
Line barged into the US Embassy in Tehran and held US diplomats and consulars hostage for
444 days. The cause of the Iranian students’ action against the US was believed to be the
latter’s grant of medical asylum to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and its refusal to turn the
Shah over for trial.

The US sought recourse before the international court, asking that the hostages be freed and
that reparations be given to the US by the Iranian government for the latter’s failure to carry its
international legal obligations. US averred that Iran was responsible due to its initial inaction to
the crisis and its subsequent statement of support to the seizure.

Issue:
Whether or not Iran was liable to the United States for the seizure of the US embassy and the
hostage-taking of the US nationals by the Iranian militants.

Ruling:
Iran was under obligation to make reparations for the injury caused to the United States.

Iran’s failure to take appropriate steps to protect the US embassy and Consulates was a
violation of its obligations under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the 1963
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and
Consular Rights between Iran and the United States. Iran had the international legal
responsibility to keep the embassy inviolable. Iran was fully aware of its obligations but it did
nothing to prevent the take over and the captivity of the US nationals.

Although the take-over of the embassy was not held to have been an act of the state, the
consequent detention of the US nationals was attributed to Iran because of its approval and
support to said detention, such act was a violation of the provisions in the aforenamed
conventions and treaty. “Once organs of the Iranian State had thus given approval to the acts
complained of and decided to perpetuate them as a means of pressure on the United States,
those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State: the militants became agents of that
State, which itself became internationally responsible for their acts.”

For its breaches, the Islamic Republic of Iran had incurred responsibility towards the United
States of America. Iran is obliged to make reparations and to endeavor for the release of the
hostages.