INTERNATIONAL CASE LAWS

1) LIBYA V. MALTA (CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE)

 1982
 delimitation of the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of these two States
 customary international recognized as a source of law if opinion juris and state practice
can be established

2) U.K. V. ALBANIA (CORFU CHANNEL CASE)

 1948
 Question of civil liability of Albania, which had placed mines within its sovereign
waters and subsequently caused damage to two naval Destroyers of the United
Kingdom’s navy.
 Albania was held responsible under international law for the explosions which
occurred and for the damage and loss of human life that resulted there from
 The ICJ allowed application of the general principle ‘every internationally wrongful
act of a State entails the International responsibility of that State.’

3) U.K. V. NORWAY (FISHERIES CASE)

 1951
 Over how large an area of water surrounding Norway was Norwegian waters (that
Norway thus had exclusive fishing rights to) and how much was 'high seas' (that the
UK could thus fish).
 The ICJ decided that Norway's claims to the waters were consistent with international
laws concerning the ownership of local sea-space.
 State practice as an element of customary law can be established when many States
engage in the same practice.

4) NICARAGUA V. U.S.A. (MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES)

  1986
 Intervention by the United States in Nicaragua to overthrow of Nicaraguan President José
Santos Zelaya. A pro-U.S. government was then formed under the occupation.
 The ICJ ruled in favour of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded
reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by
supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by
mining Nicaragua's harbours.
 The International Court of Justice ruled that this passage confirmed the existence of the
right of self-defence under customary international law.

5) AUSTRALIA V. FRANCE (MOX PLANT CASE)

 Concerned with the conflict between Ireland and the United Kingdom about the building
and operation of the Mox Plant at Sellafield, on the Irish Sea.
 Liability cannot be established where the risk of injury or the consequence is uncertain.

6) U.S.A V. CANADA (TRAIL SMELTER CASE)

 The United States (P) sought damages from Canada by suing them to court and also
prayed for an injunction for air pollution in the state of Washington, by the Trail Smelter,
a Canadian corporation which is domiciled in Canada (D).
 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 international law.
 Canada (D) is responsible in international law for the conduct of the Trail Smelter
Company.
7) COLOMBIA V. PERU (ASYLUM CASE)
 1950
 The Colombian Ambassador in Lima, Peru allowed Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, head
of the American People's Revolutionary Alliance sanctuary after his faction lost a one-
 day civil war in Peru on 3 October 1949. The Colombian government granted him asylum,
but the Peruvian government refused to grant him safe passage out of Peru.
 The ICJ recognised that the scope of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice encompassed bi-lateral and regional international customary norms as well as
general customary norms, in much the same way as it encompasses bilateral and
multilateral treaties.
 The Court also clarified that for custom to be definitively proven, it must be continuously
and uniformly executed.

8) NETHERLANDS V. BELGIUM (DIVERSION OF WATER FROM MEUSE)

 An 1863 treaty between Belgium and the Netherlands regulated water use of the Meuse River
to ensure sufficient flow for navigation and irrigation.

 As the economic use of the river valley developed, increased pressure was placed on the river.
In 1937, the Netherlands brought proceedings, alleging that Belgium’s use of the river had
expanded beyond the terms of the treaty.

9) BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA V. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO (GENOCIDE

CASE)
 Bosnia and Herzegovina (P), Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia declared independence when
the Yugoslavia began to break up in the early 1990s. This led Serbia and Montenegro to
declare themselves the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) (D).

 A massacre was perpetrated by Serbian forces on 8000 Bosnia Muslim men of fighting age
in a small village called Srebrenica in July 1995 during armed conflicts that arose in 1992-
1995 within Bosnia and Herzegovina (P).

 A suit was filed against the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) (D) by Bosnia and Herzegovina
(P) in 1993 in the International Court of Justice, claiming violations of the Convention on the
 Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, on the theory that the FRY (D) was
responsible for the actions of Serbian forces.

 Under International law, the conduct of any state organ is to be considered an act of the state,
therefore giving rise to the responsibility of the state if the conduct constitutes a breach of an
international obligation of the state.