CASES

1. THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE (UK v ALBANIA)

The dispute arose out of the explosions of mines by which some British warships suffered
damage while passing through the Corfu Channel in 1946, in a part of the Albanian waters. The
ships were severely damaged and members of the crew were killed. The UK approached the
court and accused Albania of having laid or allowed a third State to lay the mines after mine-
clearing operations had been carried out by the Allied naval authorities.
HELD - The Court found that Albania was responsible under international law for the explosions
that had taken place in Albanian waters and for the damage and loss of life which had ensued. It
held that the mines could not have been laid without the knowledge of the Albanian
Government. The Court assessed the amount of reparation owed to the United Kingdom and
ordered Albania to pay £844,000.
2. GABCIKOVO NAGYMOROS PROJECT (HUNGARY V SLOVAKIA)
The Governments of the Republic of Hungary and of the Slovak Republic submitted to the Court
certain issues arising out of differences regarding the implementation and the termination of the
Budapest Treaty of 16 September 1977 on the Construction and Operation of the Gabčíkovo-
Nagymaros Barrage System.
HELD - The Court asserted that Hungary was not entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon,
in 1989, the works on the Nagymaros project and on the part of the Gabčíkovo project for which
it was responsible, and that Czechoslovakia was entitled to proceed, in November 1991, to the
“provisional solution” as described by the terms of the Special Agreement. The Court also
decided that Hungary and Slovakia must negotiate in good faith in the light of the prevailing
situation and must take all necessary measures to ensure the achievement of the objectives
Treaty,
3. LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (ADVISORY OPN)
The Secretary-General of the United Nations submitted to the Court, for advisory opinion, the
following question: “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under
international law?” The Court found that the most directly relevant applicable law was that
relating to the use of force, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, and the law applicable in
armed conflict, together with any specific treaties on nuclear weapons that the Court might find
relevant.
HELD - It observed, that the same provisions applied to any use of force, regardless of the
weapons employed. In addition it stated that the principle of proportionality might not in itself
exclude the use of nuclear weapons in self-defence in all circumstances. However at the same
time, a use of force that was proportionate under the law of self-defence had, in order to be
lawful, to meet the requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict, including, in particular,
the principles and rules of humanitarian law. It pointed out that the notions of a “threat” and
“use” of force within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter stood together in the
sense that if the use of force itself in a given case was illegal — for whatever reason — the
threat to use such force would likewise be illegal.
4. PULP MILLS ON THE RIVER URUGUAY (ARGENTINA V. URUGUAY)
Argentina filed an Application instituting proceedings against Uruguay concerning alleged
breaches by Uruguay. In its Application, Argentina charged Uruguay with having unilaterally
authorized the construction of two pulp mills on the River Uruguay without complying with the
obligatory prior notification and consultation procedures under the 1975 Statute. Argentina
claimed that those mills posed a threat to the river and its environment and were likely to impair
the quality of the river’s waters and to cause significant transboundary damage to Argentina.
HELD - The Court found, based on a detailed examination of the Parties’ arguments, that there
was no conclusive evidence in the record to show that Uruguay has not acted with the requisite
degree of due diligence. Uruguay had nit breached its obligations under the statute.
5. TRAIL SMELTER ARBITRATION (US V CANADA)
The Tail Smelter located in British Columbia since 1906, was owned and operated by a Canadian
corporation. The resultant effect of from the sulfur dioxide from Trail Smelter resulted in the
damage of the state of Washington between 1925 and 1937. This led to the United States (P) suit
against the Canada (D) with an injunction against further air pollution by Trail Smelter.
HELD - It is the responsibility of the State to protect other states against harmful act by
individuals from within its jurisdiction at all times. No state has the right to use or permit the use
of the territory in a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the
properties or persons therein as stipulated under the United States (P) laws and the principles of
internationallaw. the arbitration held that Canada (D) is responsible in international law for the
conduct of the Trail Smelter Company.
6. NUCLEAR TESTS (AUSTRALIA V FRANCE)
A series of nuclear tests was completed by France (D) in the South Pacific. This action made
Australia and New Zealand (P) to apply to the I.C.J. demanding that France (D) cease testing
immediately. Before the case could be completed, France (D) announced it had completed the
test and did not plan any further test. So France (D) moved for the dismissal of the application.
HELD - Declaration made through unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal
obligations. In this case, the statement made by the President of France must be held to constitute
an engagement of the State in regard to the circumstances and intention with which they were
made. Therefore, these statement made by the France (D) are relevant and legally binding.
Application was dismissed.
7. SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA CASES (NEW ZEALAND V. JAPAN; AUSTRALIA V.
JAPAN)
New Zealand and Australia instituted arbitral proceedings before the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea in a dispute concerning southern bluefin tuna.
New Zealand and Australia alleged that Japan had failed to comply with its obligation to
cooperate in the conservation of the southern bluefin tuna stock by, inter alia, undertaking
unilateral experimental fishing for southern bluefin tuna in 1998 and 1999 and had requested an
arbitral tribunal to be constituted. The Applicants asked the arbitral tribunal to declare that Japan
had breached its obligations under Articles 64 and 116 to 119 of UNCLOS.
The Tribunal was without authority to prescribe any provisional measures. The Request for
provisional measures by Australia and New Zealand should be denied.
The Tribunal decided that the fact that the Convention of 1993 applied between the parties did
not exclude their right to invoke the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in
regard to the conservation and management of southern bluefin tuna.
8. FISHERIES CASE (UNITED KINGDOM V. NORWAY)
Norway enacted a decree by which it reserved certain fishing grounds situated off its northern
coast for the exclusive use of its own fishermen. The question at issue was whether this decree,
which laid down a method for drawing the baselines from which the width of the Norwegian
territorial waters had to be calculated, was valid international law. This question was rendered
particularly delicate by the intricacies of the Norwegian coastal zone, with its many fjords, bays,
islands, islets and reefs. The United Kingdom contended, inter alia, that some of the baselines
fixed by the decree did not accord with the general direction of the coast and were not drawn in a
reasonable manner.
HELD - In its Judgment of 18 December 1951, the Court found that, contrary to the submissions
of the United Kingdom, neither the method nor the actual baselines stipulated by the 1935
Decree were contrary to international law.
9. UNITED STATES-IMPORT PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN SHRIMP AND SHRIMP
PRODUCTS (COMPLAINT BY THE UNITED STATES)
The Complainants India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand had asked for a joint consultation, to
examine their complaint regarding a prohibition imposed by the United States on the importation
of certain shrimp and shrimp products by Section 609 of Public Law 101- 1625 ("Section 609")
and associated regulations and judicial rulings.

HELD- The Panel reached the following conclusions that the import ban on shrimp and shrimp
products as applied by the United States on the basis of Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 were
not consistent with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, and cannot be justified under Article XX of
GATT 1994.1

10. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestine Territory (US v
Israel)

1
Panel Report, para. 8.1.
 The wall which Israel (D) constructed on the Palestinian territory and its route impaired the
freedom of the Palestinians. The I.C.J. was however asked to provide an advisory opinion on
the matter when the U.N. General Assembly (P) requested Israel (D) to halt and reverse the
construction of the wall.
HELD - International law, the Fourth Geneva Convention, The Hague Convention, relevant
Security Council and General Assembly resolutions were all contravened by Israel (D), the
occupying power, for constructing a wall on the Palestinian occupied territory.
11. DIFFERENCE RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM LEGAL PROCESS OF A SPECIAL
RAPPORTEUR OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (ADVISORY OPINION)

the Secretary-General of the United Nations officially communicated to the Registry Decision
1998/297 of 5 August 1998, by which the Economic and Social Council requested the Court for
an advisory opinion on the legal question of the applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to a Special Rapporteur of
the Commission on Human Rights, and on the legal obligations of Malaysia in that case.

HELD - Questions of immunity are preliminary issues which must be expeditiously decided by
national courts in limine litis. As the conduct of an organ of a State, including its courts, must be
regarded as an act of that State, the Court concluded that the Government of Malaysia had not
acted in accordance with its obligations under international law in the case concerned.

12. PROSECUTOR V TADIC

For committing war crimes at a Serb-run concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Tadic (D)
was prosecuted in Court. The jurisdiction of the tribunal was however challenged by Tadic (D)
on the ground that it exceeded the authority of the U.N. Security Council. This argument of
Tadic (D) was dismissed by the trial court but Tadic (D) appealed. Can plea against the
International Tribunal jurisdiction be examined by the International Tribunal based on the
invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council?

HELD - Plea against the International Tribunal jurisdiction can be examined by the International
Tribunal based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council. The criteria for
establishing an International Tribunal includes the establishment in accordance with the proper
international standards, the provision of guarantees of fairness, justice, and evenhandedness, in
full conformity with internationally recognized human rights instruments. Hence, a tribunal like
the one created in this case must be endowed with primacy over national courts.

13. Yeager v. Islamic State of Iran

HELD - 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.

14. CYPRUS V TURKEY

In July and August 1974, Turkey conducted a military operation and occupied the northern part
of Cyprus. In 1983, the leader of Turkish Cypriots proclaimed the Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus (TRNC), and in 1985 the “TRNC Constitution” was enacted. In 1981 the United
Nations Committee on Missing Persons (“CMP”), was set to draw up comprehensive lists
of missing persons of both communities specifying as appropriate whether they were still
alive or dead.

Turkey’s continual and severe failure to carry out an effective investigation into the
circumstances of disappearance of Greek-Cypriots, who were at the time under the control of its
agents, constituted a violation of Articles 2,3 and 5 of the ECHR. The circumscription of
freedom of movement, religion and association of Greek-Cypriots in Northern Greece
constituted violations of Articles 9 and 10 and the continual violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 by
virtue of preventing Greek Cypriot owners from having access to, control and use of their
property was also found by the Court

15. FOREMOST TEHRAN V IRAN

The action was brought in 1982 by Foremost-McKesson, Inc., and several of its wholly owned
subsidiaries. Plaintiffs alleged that Iran, acting through its codefendant agencies, illegally
divested Foremost of its investment in an Iranian dairy company by using its majority ownership
and board membership to lock Foremost out of management and deny it a share of the company's
earnings.
McKesson's cross-appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction the judgment of the
district court denying Iran's motion to dismiss is affirmed.

16. UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR STAFF IN TEHRAN (UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA V. IRAN)

The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States following the
occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on 4 November 1979, and the capture
and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. On a request by the United States for
the indication of provisional measures, the Court held that there was no more fundamental
prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and
embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the immediate restoration to the
United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the hostages.