NAME ARTICLE FACT
Paquete v Habana The argument of the fishermen whose vessels
was seized by the U.S (P) officials was that
international law exempted coastal fishermen
from capture as prizes of war.
The lawless case European Mr. Lawless, an Irishman was detained without trail
Convention of in a military camp on the charge that he was a
Human Rights, suspected member of illegal Irish Republican Army.
1950 After his petition for habeas corpus was rejected by
Article 5. the High Court and Supreme Court of Ireland, he
approached the Commission of Human Rights
alleging violation of European Convention of Human
Rights, 1950
North Sea Continental Article 6 of the The view that customary rules of international
Shelf Cases Geneva law determined the boundaries of areas located
Convention on the continental shelf between their countries
and the Federal Republic of Germany (D) was
contended by Denmark (P) and the Netherlands
(P).
Nicaragua case . Nicaragua (P) brought a suit against the United
States (D) on the ground that the United States
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 application to the
I.C.J. was challenged by the United States.
1
JUDGEMENT
Coastal fishing vessels with their cargoes and
crews are excluded from prizes of war. The
doctrine that exempts coastal fishermen with
their vessels and crews from capture as prizes
of war has been known by the U.S. (P) from the
time of the War of Independence and has been
recognized explicitly by the French and British
governments.
The Court observe that an individual is as much a
subject of international law as a State is; it is
more so, when an individual suffers grievously by
the acts of his government for reasons which he
does not know. He has a natural and legal right to
know the reasons for his detention or for any act
of the government affecting his person, his life
and property.
Delimitation must be the object of an equitable
agreement between the states involved. As
stipulated in Article 6 of the Geneva
Convention, equidistance principle is not part
of customary international law.
In this case, after taking into consideration all
relevant circumstances, the delimitation here is
to be excused by equitable agreement.
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.
Asylum case The Colombian government gave asylum to a
Peruvian citizen, Haya de la Torre, in its embassy.
It claimed it had a right to do this both under
agreements between the states and in a local
custom in the Latin American states.
Right to passage case Portugal held several small enclaves of territory
within India; one on the coast but the others
inland. Portugal claimed they had a right of
passage to its inland territories over Indian land
which they alleged India had interfered with.
India argued before the Court that practice
between only two states was not sufficient to
form a local custom
Ss lotus case Turkey’s (D) assertion of jurisdiction over a
French citizen who had been the first officer of a
ship that collided with a Turkish ship on the high
seas was challenged by France (P) as a violation
of international law.
Genocide convention Croatia allegation against the Federal Republic of
case Yugoslavia (FRY), which had become “Serbia and
Montenegro” and then “Serbia” was that the
defendant had violated the Genocide Convention
of 1948 (Convention). Serbia (D) objected to the
Court’s jurisdiction by claiming that the FRY as
successor to the Socialist Federal Republic of
2
No such local custom exists sufficient to be
binding at international law.
The Court held that the party which relies on a
custom of this kind has the burden of
establishing that the custom exists in such a
way that it has become binding on the other
party, through constant and uniform usage of
the states.
A right of passage does exist in regional
custom. The Court rejected Indias’ reasoning,
finding no reason why a century and a quarter
of practice based on mutual rights and
obligations was insufficient for local custom to
arise. This local practice, thus, prevailed over
any general rules.
A rule of international law, which prohibits a
state from exercising criminal jurisdiction over
a foreign national who commits acts outside of
the state’s national jurisdiction, does not
exist. Hence, both states here may exercise
concurrent jurisdiction over this matter
because there is no rule of international law in
regards to collision cases to the effect that
criminal proceedings are exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the state whose flag is flown
A State will be bound as a party to a
Convention to which its predecessor was
bound if the State equivocally declares that it
will be bound by its predecessor state’s legal
obligations and consistently conducts itself in
accordance with such a declaration. There is a
distinction between the legal nature of
 Yugoslavia (SFRY)-which had adhered to the
Convention-did not become bound to the
Convention upon the dissolution of the SFRY
because it was not the continuator state
Island of Palmas case Both the United States (P) laid claim to the
ownership of the Island of Palmas. While the U.S.
(P) maintained that it was part of the Philippines,
the Netherlands (D) claimed it as their own.
Barcelona traction case Belgium (P) claimed Spain (D) should be held
accountable for the injury to a Canadian
corporation operating in Spain.
Namibia case Under a claim of right to annex Namibia, South
Africa occupied its territory in violation of a
United Nations (U.N.) Security Council Mandate
which though later terminated due to South
Africa’s breach, empowered the Security Council
to enforce its terms.
3
ratification of, or accession to, a treaty, and the
process by which a State becomes bound by a
treaty as a successor State or remains bound as
a continuing state
A title that is inchoate cannot prevail over a
definite title found on the continuous and
peaceful display of sovereignty. The peaceful
and continuous display of territorial
sovereignty is as good as title. The territorial
sovereignty of the Netherlands (D) was not
contested by anyone from 1700 to 1906. The
title of discovery at best an inchoate title does
not therefore prevail over the Netherlands (D)
claims of sovereignty.
A state assumes an obligation concerning the
treatment of foreign investments based on
general international law, once the state
admits foreign investments or foreign nationals
into its territory. It is only the party to whom
an international obligation is due can bring a
claim if a breach of an obligation that is the
subject of diplomatic protection occurs.
Member States of the United Nations are
bounded by its mandates and violations or
breaches results in a legal obligation on the
part of the violator to rectify the violation and
upon the other Member States to recognize
the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid
in such violation.
Chorzow factory case After the First World War due to a bipartite
agreement between Germany and Poland;
Germany agreed to transfer the control of Upper
Silesia area to Poland. On an agreement that
Poland would not forfeit any property of
Germany, but thereafter Poland forfeited two of
German Companies situated at that area.
Temple of preah vihear Preah temple was an ancient and significant
case temple ,situated in the border of Thailand and
Combodia. When UNESCO declared it as a world
heritage and thus take million dollar project to
save it, they demanded it as their land and put
some military personal on the other hand
Combodia rejected that claim
Arantzanu mendi case During the Spanish Civil War, the UK recognized
de jure the Republican government of Spain, but
also recognized de facto the rebel government
(the Nationalists). Both governments sued in
British courts to control the Spanish-flagged
vessel Arantzazu Mendi, when arrived in a British
port.
Great Britain - Costa The Tinoco regime, which was the former
Rica arbitration case government of Costa Rica, was alleged by
Great Britain to have granted oil concession
to a British company that had to be honored
by the present regime.
4
The Permanent Court of International Justice
has its jurisdiction to try the case. Poland had
violated the international agreement between
Germany and Poland. Poland would be liable to
repair any loss suffered by the Germany due to
the forfeit of that two company as they
violated that international agreement.
Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole
territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear
and that, in consequence, Thailand was under
an obligation to withdraw from that territory
the Thai military or police forces.
Court held that A de facto government has
control over state assets within the territory it
controls. A de jure government has control
even over state assets abroad.
A government need not conform to a previous
constitution if the government had established
itself and maintained a peaceful de facto
administration and non-recognition of the
government by other government does not
destroy the de facto status of the government.
The non-recognition of the Tinoco regime by
Great Britain did not dispute the de facto
existence of that regime. There is no estoppel
since the successor government had not been
led by British non-recognition to change its
position.
Corfu channel case The right to send its warship through the straits
used for international navigations was the claim
put forward by the United Kingdom (P).
Libya Tunisia Tunisia and Libya petitioned the ICJ to apply
continental shelf case international law to their border dispute
regarding the overlapping area for both countries
of the continental shelf area. In a special
agreement signed by both states, they asked the
court to use key principles to define and divide
the delimitation area between the two states
without violating any natural prolongations of
territory for either state if possible.
Nottebohm case A month after the start of World War II,
Nottebohn (P), a German citizen who had lived in
Guatemala (D) for 34 years, applied for
Liechtenstein (P) citizenship.
5
The geographical situation connecting two
parts of the high seas and not the fact of its
being used for international navigation is the
test of whether a channel should be considered
as belonging to the class of international
highways through which passage cannot be
prohibited by a coastal state in time of peace.
The North Corfu Channel can be categorized to
the class of international highways through
which passage cannot be prohibited by a
coastal state in time of peace. If Albania had
issued such regulation in light of the state of
war with Greece, then Albania would have
been justified in issuing regulations in respect
of the passage of warships through the strait.
The Court decided that because it was one
continental shelf, the only equitable solution
was to divide the zone into two sectors and
then divide those sectors in different way. The
first zone was decided on based on a historical
boundary of Libyan petroleum concessions.
Thus, from Ras Ajdir to the point 33 degrees
55’ N, 12 Degrees E the line of delimitation will
be marked by a 26 degree angle. The second
sector uses the Kerkennah Islands as a marking
point to divide this sector.
Issues relating to citizenship are solely the
concern of the granting nation. This is the
general rule. But it does not mean that other
states will automatically accept the conferring
state’s designation unless it has acted in
conformity with the general aim of forging a
genuine bond between it and its national aim.
In this case, there was no relationship between

Anglo Iranian oil co Article 36 (2) of An agreement was entered into by the
case the Statute of the Government of Iran with the Anglo-Iranian Oil
ICJ Company. In March, April and May 1951, there
were legislative measures passed in Iran that laid
down rules for nationalization of the oil industry
in Iran, and established the procedure to be
followed in enforcing the principle. As a
consequence of these rules, there was a dispute
between Iran and the Company – and the United
Kingdom adopted the cause of the Company.
Keeping in mind that it had the right to
diplomatic protection, it approached the
International Court of Justice, where Iran
questioned the jurisdiction of the Court.
Fisheries case On 24 September 1949, the UK requested that
the International Court of Justice determine how
far Norway's territorial claim extended to sea,
and to award the UK damages in compensation
for Norwegian interference with UK fishing
vessels in the disputed waters, claiming that
Norway's claim to such an extent of waters was
against international law.
6
Liechtenstein (P) and Nottebohm (P). the
change of nationality was merely a subterfuge
mandated by the war. Under this circumstance,
Guatemala (D) was not forced to recognize it.
Dismissed.
In a nine-vote judgment against five, the Court
held that it did not have jurisdictional
competence to take up the case. The Judgment
referred to the principle according to which the
will of the Parties forms the basis of the Court’s
jurisdictional control, and noted that the
jurisdiction in the present matter largely relied
on the acceptance of the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court that was made by Iran
and by the UK under Article 36 (2) of the
Statute of the ICJ. The declarations contained
the conditions of reciprocity and noted that
Iran’s Declaration was more limited in scope –
thereby becoming the one on which the court
based its decision.
On 18 December 1951, the ICJ decided that
Norway's claims to the waters were consistent
with international laws concerning the
ownership of local sea-space.
The Court found that neither the method
employed for the delimitation by the Decree,
nor the lines themselves fixed by the said
Decree, are contrary to international law; the
first finding being adopted by ten votes to two,
and the second by eight votes to four.
S.S. "Wimbledon" case Article 380 of the Germany had breached its international
Treaty of obligations by having refused (invoking its neutral
Versailles status in the Russian-Polish armed conflict) the SS
Wimbledon to pass through Kiel Canal to deliver
assistance to Poland.
The Gulf of Maine Case The Gulf of Maine area consists of a concave,
island-fringed coastline where the United States
and Canada are situated as adjacent, and in some
places arguably opposite, states. The Georges
Bank, particularly its northeastern third, is the
focus of the jurisdictional dispute because of the
valuable fisheries and hydrocarbon resources
located there.
Annex VII to Philippines v. China also known as the South
the United China Sea Arbitration, was an arbitration case
Nations brought by the Republic of the Philippines against
Convention on the People’s Republic of China under Annex VII to
the Law of the the United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea Sea (UNCLOS) concerning certain issues in
the South China Sea including the legality of
China's "nine-dotted line" claim.
The Court then considered the substantive
issue in the case and found that Germany was
perfectly free to regulate her neutrality in
the Russo-Polish war but the court found that
the Canal had ceased to be an internal
navigable waterway of Germany. The Court
found Germany had a definite duty of allowing
the passage of the “Wimbledon” through the
Kiel Canal, and her neutrality did not oblige her
to prohibit passage.
This dispute was taken to the International
Court of Justice, which delineated a maritime
boundary through the Gulf in 1984. Canada
and the U.S. continue to disagree on the
sovereignty of Machias Seal Island and the
waters surrounding it in the northeastern part
of the gulf. In recognition of the Gulf's
importance to marine habitat, both nations
currently maintain complementary embargoes
against offshore oil and gas exploration
activities on Georges Bank in the southern part
of the gulf.
On 12 July 2016, the Permanent Court of
Arbitration published an arbitration award by
the tribunal which it states is final and binding
as set out in the Convention.
Regarding the "Nine-Dash Line" and China's
claim in the maritime areas of the South China
Sea
The [UNCLOS] Convention defines the scope
of maritime entitlements in the South China
Sea, which may not extend beyond the limits
imposed therein