CASE CONCERNING THE AERIAL INCIDENT OF JULY 27th, 1955

ISRAEL v. BULGARIA

Arguments of Applicant
 Bulgaria is responsible for the destruction of Israel aircraft 4X-AKC, on 27 July 1955.
(p.7)
 The financial loss amounted to USD 2,559,688.65. (p.7)
 ICJ should try the case and give judgment in favour of applicant.(p.7)
Arguments of Respondent
 ICJ is without jurisdiction to try the case. (p.8)
 Art. 36, par. 5, of the Statute of ICJ is inapplicable in regard to respondent. (p.8)
 Israel submits to the Court (ICJ) a dispute which relates to situations and facts that arose
prior to the alleged acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ by the People’s
Republic of Bulgaria. (p.8)
 The dispute is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of respondent and it falls essentially
within the domestic jurisdiction of respondent. (p.9)
 Applicant has not exhausted the remedies available in Bulgarian courts before applying
to ICJ. (p.9)
 Declaration of Aug. 12, 1921, by which Kingdom of Bulgaria had accepted the compulsory
jurisdiction of PCIJ ceased to be in force on the dissolution of said court by the Assembly
of the League of Nations on April 18th, 1946. (p.9)
 Declaration was no longer in force when People’s Republic of Bulgaria became a party to
the ICJ and cannot be regarded as constituting an acceptance of the compulsory
jurisdiction of ICJ by virtue of Art. 36, par. 5, of ICJ Statute.
 Applicant, in accepting the jurisdiction of ICJ, excludes disputes prior to the date of its
submission to the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ. (p.10)
 On the basis of reciprocity, People’s Republic of Bulgaria cannot be regarded as having
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in respect to facts prior Dec. 14 th, 1955.
(p.10)
 Applicant can act in defense of its nationals only. Not all of the insurance companies are
of Israel nationality and therefore applicant has no capacity to submit to the Court (ICJ)
claims to a right to be indemnified in favour of insurance companies of non-Israel
nationality. (p.10)

Judgment of ICJ
COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION
 Bulgaria was non-signatory to the San Francisco Conference where the
Statute of the ICJ was adopted.
o Article 36, paragraph transforms the acceptance of signatory states to the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court into an acceptance of the
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. (p.14)
 o Only those States present at the Conference, acting with a full knowledge of the
facts when they agreed to transfer the effect of those declarations to the
compulsory jurisdiction of the new Court, were bound by the transfer. (p.13)
o For non-signatory States, the operation of transferring from one Court to the
other acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction could not constitute a simple
operation, capable of being dealt with immediately and completely by Article 36,
paragraph 5. (p. 14)
o For non-signatory States, the transfer must involve two distinct operations:
a) old declarations would have had to have been preserved with immediate
effect as from the entry into force of the Statute;
b) they would have had to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice, a transfer which could only have been operated by the
acceptance by the State concerned of the new Statute, in practice, by its
admission to the United Nations (p.14)

 The 1921 Declaration by Bulgaria, as well as obligations therein, had already

lapsed.
o This was because of the dissolution of the PCIJ on 1946.
o For non-signatory States, shortly after the entry into force of the Statute, the
dissolution of the Permanent Court freed them from that obligation of original
jurisdiction to PCIJ. (p.15)
o All that could be envisaged in their case was the creation of a new obligation
binding upon them. (p.15)
o At the time when Bulgaria sought and obtained admission to the United Nations,
its acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court had long
since lapsed. There is nothing in Article 36, paragraph 5, to indicate any intention
to revive an undertaking which is no longer in force. (p.22)
o Bulgaria's acceptance of the provision does not constitute consent to the
compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice; such consent can
validly be given by Bulgaria only in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2.
(p.22)

 Art. 36, par. 5 of ICJ Statute did not provide a mode of reinstating lapsed
jurisdictions and transporting their subject-matter to ICJ. (p.15)

 States at the San Francisco Conference did not make an offer to non-present
States to consider their acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of PCIJ as
acceptance of jurisdiction of ICJ. (p.16).
o If there had been such an offer, the form and conditions of acceptance be
SPECIALLY DETERMINED AND PROVIDED FOR BUT Art. 36, par. 5, did not
provide any. (p.16)

 The ICJ can only exercise jurisdiction over a State with its consent. (citing the
Case of the Monetary gold removed from Rome in 1943).
NOTE: ICJ DID NOT CONFIRM WHETHER IT WAS BULGARIAN
DOMESTIC COURTS WHICH HAS JURISDICTION.