Some Important Cases under the International Court of Justice.

South West Africa case (Ethiopia Vs. South Africa) 

Facts 

In this case, on 4th November 1960, Ethiopia and Liberia, former State Members of the
League of Nations, opened a separate process for the cases cited in South Africa for the
continuation of the League of Nations mandate for South Africa. The Court was asked to
explain that South Africa remained a mandate territory, it had violated its obligations under
that mandate and therefore was under the legal authority of the United Nations. On 20th May
1961, the Court found that Ethiopia and Liberia had the same interests and joined the trial.
South Africa has submitted four initial objections to the jurisdiction of the Court. At the
judgement of 21st December 1962, the Court rejected them and confirmed their jurisdiction.
After the defence was basically completed within the time limit determined at the request of
the parties, the Court held a public hearing from 15th March to 29th November 1965 to hear
oral arguments and statements and the second stage of the decision. 

Judgement 

The Court decided to reject Ethiopia and Liberia because they could not establish legitimate
rights or interests in relation to their claims. 

Barcelona Traction case (Belgium vs. Spain) 

Facts 

In this case, the Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company Limited were incorporated in
1911 in Toronto (Canada), where it had its head office. 
To build and develop power plants and distribution systems in Spain, the company
established a number of subsidiaries, some of which were located in Canada and some in
Spain. In 1936, a subsidiary supplied most of Spain’s electricity needs. 

According to the Belgian government, a few years after the First World War it became clear
that most of Barcelona Traction’s share capital was held by Belgian citizens, but the Spanish
government rejected this claim. Barcelona Traction had issued several series of bonds, mainly
in the form of sterling. Sterling bonds were served by Barcelona Traction, which was
influenced by a subsidiary operating in Spain. In 1936, maintenance of crane bonds in
Barcelona was terminated due to the Spanish Civil War. 

After this War, Spanish exchange control authority refused to allow the transfer of foreign
currency needed to restart services on sterling bonds. When the Belgian government said that
the transfer displays that the foreign currencies must be used to pay off debts from actual
foreign capital from Spain, they did not confirm the currency exchange. 

Issues 

1. Does Belgium have the Jus Standi (right to bring an action) to have diplomatic
protection for shareholders of Canadian companies? 
2. Does Belgium have the rights and jurisdiction to bring Spain to justice for the
actions of Canadian companies? 

The judgement of the case 

The Court decided to reject this case which shows the difference between individuals who are
inherently sovereign at the national and international level. The Court ruled in favour of
Spain, as Belgium was not responsible for the war occurred in Spain, and diplomatic
immunity was not granted to shareholders requiring compensation. 

However, a lawsuit may arise if the shareholder is located in Canada and has the correct
identity. Therefore, since the country has not been given power, a person cannot take action
against one Country. This case is considered as a good benchmark for Governmental
requirements