Preliminary objections

Code

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 19 May 1989 the Republic of Nauru filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Commonwealth of Australia in respect of a dispute concerning the rehabilitation of certain phosphate lands mined under Australian administration before Nauruan independence. In its Application, Nauru claimed that Australia had breached the trusteeship obligations it had accepted under Article 76 of the Charter of the United Nations and under the Trusteeship Agreement for Nauru of 1 November 1947. Nauru further claimed that Australia had breached certain obligations towards Nauru under general international law, more particularly with regard to the implementation of the principle of self-determination and of permanent sovereignty over natural wealth and resources. Australia was said to have incurred an international legal responsibility and to be bound to make restitution or other appropriate reparation to Nauru for the damage and prejudice suffered. Within the time-limit fixed for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, Australia raised certain preliminary objections relating to the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court.

On 26 June 1992, the Court delivered its Judgment on those questions. With regard to the matter of its jurisdiction, the Court noted that Nauru based that jurisdiction on the declarations whereby Australia and Nauru had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. The declaration of Australia specified that it did “not apply to any dispute in regard to which the Parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement”. Referring to the Trusteeship Agreement of 1947 and relying upon the reservation contained in its declaration to assert that the Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with Nauru’s Application, Australia argued that any dispute which arose in the course of the trusteeship between “the Administering Authority and the indigenous inhabitants” should be regarded as having been settled by the very fact of the termination of the trusteeship (provided that that termination had been unconditional) as well as by the effect of the Agreement relating to the Nauru Island Phosphate Industry of 1967, concluded between the Nauru Local Government Council, on the one hand, and Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, on the other, whereby Nauru was said to have waived its claims to rehabilitation of the phosphate lands. As Australia and Nauru did not, after 31 January 1968, when Nauru acceded to independence, conclude any agreement whereby the two States undertook to settle their dispute relating to rehabilitation, the Court rejected that first preliminary objection of Australia. It likewise rejected the second, third, fourth and fifth objections raised by Australia.

The Court then considered the objection by Australia based on the fact that New Zealand and the United Kingdom were not parties to the proceedings. It noted that the three Governments mentioned in the Trusteeship Agreement constituted, in the very terms of that Agreement, “the Administering Authority” for Nauru ; but this Authority did not have an international legal personality distinct from those of the States thus designated ; and that, of those States, Australia played a very special role, established, in particular, by the Trusteeship Agreement. The Court did not consider, to begin with, that any reason had been shown why a claim brought against only one of the three States should be declared inadmissible in limine litis, merely because that claim raised questions regarding the administration of the territory, which was shared with the two other States. It further considered, inter alia, that it was in no way precluded from adjudicating upon the claims submitted to it, provided the legal interests of the third State which might possibly be affected did not form the actual subject-matter of the decision requested. Where the Court was so entitled to act, the interests of the third State which was not a party to the case were protected by Article 59 of the Statute. The Court found that, in the instant case, the interests of New Zealand and the United Kingdom did not constitute the actual subject-matter of the Judgment to be rendered on the merits of Nauru’s Application and that, consequently, it could not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction and that the objection argued on that point should be dismissed.

Lastly, the Court upheld the preliminary objection addressed by Australia to the claim by Nauru concerning the overseas assets of the British Phosphate Commissioners, according to which it was inadmissible on the ground that it was a completely new claim which appeared for the first time in the Memorial, and that the object of the dispute originally submitted to the Court would have been transformed if it had dealt with that request. A Counter-Memorial of Australia on the merits was subsequently filed and the Court fixed the dates for the filing of a Reply by the Applicant and a Rejoinder by the Respondent. However, before those two pleadings were filed, the two Parties, by a joint notification deposited on 9 September 1993, informed the Court that they had, in consequence of having reached a settlement, agreed to discontinue the proceedings. Accordingly, the case was removed from the General List by an Order of the Court of 13 September 1993.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

19 May 1989

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Memorial of the Republic of Nauru

20 March 1990

Available in:

English

Written Statement of Nauru

8 July 1991

Oral proceedings

Orders

Available in:

English French

On 27 February 1998, the Court delivered two Judgments on the preliminary objections raised by the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The Court first began by dismissing the Respondents’ respective objections to jurisdiction on the basis of the alleged absence of a dispute between the Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Montreal Convention. It declared that it had jurisdiction on the basis of Article 14, paragraph 1, of that Convention to hear the disputes between Libya and the respondent States concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention. The Court then went on to dismiss the objection to admissibility based on Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993). Lastly, it found that the objection raised by each of the respondent States on the ground that those resolutions would have rendered the claims of Libya without object did not, in the circumstances of the case, have an exclusively preliminary character.

In June 1999, the Court authorized Libya to submit a Reply, and the United Kingdom and the United States to file Rejoinders. Those pleadings were filed by the Parties within the time-limits laid down by the Court and its President.

By two letters of 9 September 2003, the Governments of Libya and the United Kingdom on the one hand, and of Libya and the United States on the other, jointly notified the Court that they had “agreed to discontinue with prejudice the proceedings”. Following those notifications, the President of the Court, on 10 September 2003, made an Order in each case placing on record the discontinuance of the proceedings with prejudice, by agreement of the Parties, and directing the removal of the case from the Court’s List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

3 March 1992

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Request for the indication of Provisional Measures

3 March 1992

Observations and Submissions of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya on the Preliminary Objections of the United States of America (French version only)

22 December 1995

Judgment of 27 February 1998

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

English French

Summary 1998/1

Summary of the Judgment of 27 February 1998

Available in:

English French

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting Proceedings

4 November 1960

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

10 January 1964

Books VII-X

English

Reply of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia

20 June 1964

Available in:

English

Rejoinder filed by the Government of the Republic of South Africa

22 December 1964

Orders

Judgments

Judgment of 21 December 1962

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgment of 18 July 1966

Second Phase

Summary of the Judgment of 21 December 1962

Available in:

English French

Summary 1966/2

Summary of the Judgment of 18 July 1966

Available in:

English French

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

6 October 1959

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Verbatim record 1961 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 10 to 15 April 1961, and on 26 May 1961, the President, M. Winiarski, presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1962 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 1 to 31 March 1962, and on 15 June 1962, the President, M. Winiarski, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

Judgments

Judgment of 26 May 1961

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgment of 15 June 1962

Merits

Summary of the Judgment of 26 May 1961

Available in:

English French

Summary 1962/1

Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962

Available in:

English French

On 20 March 1993, immediately after the filing of its Application, Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute and, on 1 April 1993, Yugoslavia submitted written observations on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Request for provisional measures, in which it, in turn, recommended the Court to order the application of provisional measures to Bosnia and Herzegovina. By an Order dated 8 April 1993, the Court, after hearing the Parties, indicated certain provisional measures with a view to the protection of rights under the Genocide Convention. On 27 July 1993, Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a new Request for the indication of provisional measures and, on 10 August 1993, Yugoslavia also submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures. By an Order dated 13 September 1993, the Court, after hearing the Parties, reaffirmed the measures indicated in its Order of 8 April 1993 and declared that those measures should be immediately and effectively implemented. Then, within the extended time-limit of 30 June 1995 for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, Yugoslavia, referring to Article 79, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, raised preliminary objections concerning both the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the case.

In its Judgment of 11 July 1996, the Court rejected the preliminary objections raised by Yugoslavia and found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, dismissing the additional bases of jurisdiction invoked by Bosnia and Herzegovina. Among other things, it found that the Convention bound the two Parties and that there was a legal dispute between them falling within the provisions of Article IX.

By an Order dated 23 July 1996, the President of the Court fixed 23 July 1997 as the time-limit for the filing by Yugoslavia of its Counter-Memorial on the merits. The Counter-Memorial was filed within the prescribed time-limit and contained counter-claims, by which Yugoslavia requested the Court, among other things, to adjudge and declare that Bosnia and Herzegovina was responsible for acts of genocide committed against the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and for other violations of the Genocide Convention. The admissibility of the counter-claims under Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court having been called into question by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court ruled on the matter, declaring, in its Order of 17 December 1997, that the counter-claims were admissible as such and formed part of the proceedings in the case. The Reply of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Rejoinder of Yugoslavia were subsequently filed within the time-limits laid down by the Court and its President. During 1999 and 2000, various exchanges of letters took place concerning new procedural difficulties which had emerged in the case. In April 2001, Yugoslavia informed the Court that it wished to withdraw its counter-claims. As Bosnia and Herzegovina had raised no objection, the President of the Court, by an Order of 10 September 2001, placed on record the withdrawal by Yugoslavia of the counter-claims it had submitted in its Counter-Memorial. On 4 May 2001, Yugoslavia submitted to the Court a document entitled “Initiative to the Court to reconsider ex officio jurisdiction over Yugoslavia”, in which it first asserted that the Court had no jurisdiction ratione personae over Serbia and Montenegro and secondly requested the Court to “suspend proceedings regarding the merits of the case until a decision on this Initiative”, i.e., on the jurisdictional issue, had been rendered. On 1 July 2001, it also filed an Application for revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 ; this was found to be inadmissible by the Court in its Judgment of 3 February 2003. In a letter dated 12 June 2003, the Registrar informed the Parties to the case that the Court had decided that it could not accede to the Applicant’s request to suspend the proceedings on the merits.

Following public hearings held between 27 February 2006 and 9 May 2006, the Court rendered its Judgment on the merits on 26 February 2007. It began by examining the new jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent arising out of its admission as a new Member of the United Nations in 2001. The Court affirmed that it had jurisdiction on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, stating in particular that its 1996 Judgment, whereby it found it had jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, benefited from the “fundamental” principle of res judicata, which guaranteed “the stability of legal relations”, and that it was in the interest of each Party “that an issue which has already been adjudicated in favour of that party be not argued again”. The Court then made extensive findings of fact as to whether alleged atrocities had occurred and, if so, whether they could be characterized as genocide. After determining that massive killings and other atrocities were perpetrated during the conflict throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court found that these acts were not accompanied by the specific intent that defines the crime of genocide, namely the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the protected group. The Court did, however, find that the killings in Srebrenica in July 1995 were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of Bosnian Muslims in that area and that what happened there was indeed genocide. The Court found that there was corroborated evidence which indicated that the decision to kill the adult male population of the Muslim community in Srebrenica had been taken by some members of the VRS (Army of the Republika Srpska) Main Staff. The evidence before the Court, however, did not prove that the acts of the VRS could be attributed to the Respondent under the rules of international law of State responsibility. Nonetheless, the Court found that the Republic of Serbia had violated its obligation contained in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention to prevent the Srebrenica genocide. The Court observed that this obligation required States that are aware, or should normally have been aware, of the serious danger that acts of genocide would be committed, to employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide, within the limits permitted by international law

The Court further held that the Respondent had violated its obligation to punish the perpetrators of genocide, including by failing to co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) with respect to the handing over for trial of General Ratko Mladić. This failure constituted a violation of the Respondent’s duties under Article VI of the Genocide Convention.

In respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s request for reparation, the Court found that, since it had not been shown that the genocide at Srebrenica would in fact have been averted if Serbia had attempted to prevent it, financial compensation for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica was not the appropriate form of reparation. The Court considered that the most appropriate form of satisfaction would be a declaration in the operative clause of the Judgment that Serbia had failed to comply with the obligation to prevent the crime of genocide. As for the obligation to punish acts of genocide, the Court found that a declaration in the operative clause that Serbia had violated its obligations under the Convention and that it must transfer individuals accused of genocide to the ICTY and must co-operate fully with the Tribunal would constitute appropriate satisfaction.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

20 March 1993

Available in:

English French

Supplementary Submission in support of the Application of the Bosnia and Herzegovina instituting legal proceedings against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention and in the support of its Request for an Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection

22 March 1993

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English

Document submitted by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as constituting additional source of jurisdiction

31 March 1993

Available in:

Written proceedings

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection submitted by the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

20 March 1993

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English

22 March 1993

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Written Observations on the Request submitted by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English

Withdrawal of Counter-claims by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

20 April 2001

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 8 April 1993

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Kreca

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 11 July 1996

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 2 November 1992, the Islamic Republic of Iran filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America with respect to the destruction of Iranian oil platforms. The Islamic Republic founded the jurisdiction of the Court upon a provision of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between Iran and the United States, signed at Tehran on 15 August 1955. In its Application, Iran alleged that the destruction caused by several warships of the United States Navy, in October 1987 and April 1988, to three offshore oil production complexes, owned and operated for commercial purposes by the National Iranian Oil Company, constituted a fundamental breach of various provisions of the Treaty of Amity and of international law. Time-limits for the filing of written pleadings were then fixed and subsequently extended by two Orders of the President of the Court. On 16 December 1993, within the extended time-limit for filing the Counter-Memorial, the United States of America filed a preliminary objection to the Court’s jurisdiction. In accordance with the terms of Article 79, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, the proceedings on the merits were suspended ; by an Order of 18 January 1994, the Court fixed 1 July 1994 as the time-limit within which Iran could present a written statement of its observations and submissions on the objection, which was filed within the prescribed time-limit.

In its Judgment of 12 December 1996, the Court rejected the preliminary objection raised by the United States of America and found that it had jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of 1955, to entertain the claims made by Iran under Article X, paragraph 1, of that Treaty, which protects freedom of commerce and navigation between the territories of the Parties.

When filing its Counter-Memorial, the United States of America submitted a counter-claim requesting the Court to adjudge and declare that, through its actions in the Persian Gulf in 1987 and 1988, Iran had also breached its obligations under Article X of the Treaty of 1955. Iran having disputed the admissibility of that counter-claim under Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules, the Court ruled on the matter in an Order of 10 March 1998. It found that the counter-claim was admissible as such and formed part of the current proceedings, and directed Iran to submit a Reply and the United States to submit a Rejoinder. Those pleadings were filed within the extended time-limits thus fixed. In its Order of 1998, the Court also stated that it was necessary, in order to ensure strict equality between the Parties, to reserve the right of Iran to present its views in writing a second time on the counter-claim, in an additional pleading, the filing of which might be the subject of a subsequent Order. Such an Order was made by the Vice-President on 28 August 2001, and Iran subsequently filed its additional pleading within the time-limits fixed. Public sittings on the claim of Iran and the counter-claim of the United States of America were held from 17 February to 7 March 2003.

The Court delivered its Judgment on 6 November 2003. Iran had contended that, in attacking on two occasions and destroying three offshore oil production complexes, owned and operated for commercial purposes by the National Iranian Oil Company, the United States had violated freedom of commerce between the territories of the Parties as guaranteed by the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran. It sought reparation for the injury thus caused. The United States had argued in its counter-claim that it was Iran which had violated the 1955 Treaty by attacking vessels in the Gulf and otherwise engaging in military actions that were dangerous and detrimental to commerce and navigation between the United States and Iran. The United States likewise sought reparation.

The Court first considered whether the actions by American naval forces against the Iranian oil complexes were justified under the 1955 Treaty as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States (Art. XX, para. 1 (d), of the Treaty). Interpreting the Treaty in light of the relevant rules of international law, it concluded that the United States was only entitled to have recourse to force under the provision in question if it was acting in self-defence. The United States could exercise such a right of self-defence only if it had been the victim of an armed attack by Iran and the United States actions must have been necessary and proportional to the armed attack against it. After carrying out a detailed examination of the evidence provided by the Parties, the Court found that the United States had not succeeded in showing that these various conditions were satisfied, and concluded that the United States was therefore not entitled to rely on the provisions of Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the 1955 Treaty.

The Court then examined the issue of whether the United States, in destroying the platforms, had impeded their normal operation, thus preventing Iran from enjoying freedom of commerce “between the territories of the two High Contracting Parties” as guaranteed by the 1955 Treaty (Art. X, para. 1). It concluded that, as regards the first attack, the platforms attacked were under repair and not operational, and that at that time there was thus no trade in crude oil from those platforms between Iran and the United States. Accordingly, the attack on those platforms could not be considered as having affected freedom of commerce between the territories of the two States. The Court reached the same conclusion in respect of the later attack on two other complexes, since all trade in crude oil between Iran and the United States had been suspended as a result of an embargo imposed by an Executive Order adopted by the American authorities. The Court thus found that the United States had not breached its obligations to Iran under Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty and rejected Iran’s claim for reparation.

In regard to the United States counter-claim, the Court, after rejecting the objections to jurisdiction and admissibility raised by Iran, considered whether the incidents attributed by the United States to Iran infringed freedom of commerce or navigation between the territories of the Parties as guaranteed by Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty. The Court found that none of the ships alleged by the United States to have been damaged by Iranian attacks was engaged in commerce or navigation between the territories of the two States. Nor did the Court accept the generic claim by the United States that the actions of Iran had made the Persian Gulf unsafe for shipping, concluding that, according to the evidence before it, there was not, at the relevant time, any actual impediment to commerce or navigation between the territories of Iran and the United States. The Court accordingly rejected the United States counter-claim for reparation.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

2 November 1992

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion by Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion by Judge Higgins

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 12 December 1996

Preliminary Objection

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgment of 6 November 2003

Merits

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

English French

Summary 2003/2

Summary of the Judgment of 6 November 2003

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

By an Application dated 17 May 1989, the Islamic Republic of Iran instituted proceedings before the Court against the United States of America, further to the destruction in the air by the USS Vincennes, a guided-missile cruiser of the United States armed forces operating in the Persian Gulf, of an Iran Air Airbus A-300B, causing the deaths of its 290 passengers and crew. According to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States, by its destruction of that aircraft occasioning fatal casualties, by refusing to compensate Iran for the damage caused and by its continuous interference in aviation in the Persian Gulf, had violated certain provisions of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation and of the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The Islamic Republic of Iran likewise asserted that the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) had erred in a decision of 17 March 1989 concerning the incident. Within the time-limit fixed for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, the United States of America raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court.

Subsequently, by a letter dated 8 August 1994, the Agents of the two Parties jointly informed the Court that their Governments had “entered into negotiations that may lead to a full and final settlement of [the] case” and requested the Court “[to postpone] sine die the opening of the oral proceedings” on the preliminary objections, for which it had fixed the date of 12 September 1994. By a letter dated 22 February 1996 and filed in the Registry on the same day, the Agents of the two Parties jointly notified the Court that their Governments had agreed to discontinue the case because they had entered into “an agreement in full and final settlement”. Accordingly, the President of the Court, also on 22 February 1996, made an Order recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the Court’s List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

17 May 1989

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Memorial of the Islamic Republic of Iran

24 July 1990

Available in:

English

Preliminary Objections submitted by the United States of America

4 March 1991

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English

Observations and Submissions of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the Preliminary Objections

9 September 1992

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English

Orders

Order of 13 December 1989

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion by Judge Schwebel

English French Bilingual

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Belgium had ceased pursuing the aforementioned case on account of efforts to negotiate a friendly settlement. The negotiations broke down, however, and Belgium filed a new Application on 19 June 1962. The following March, Spain filed four preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction, and on 24 July 1964 the Court delivered a Judgment dismissing the first two but joining the others to the merits. After the filing, within the time-limits requested by the Parties, of the pleadings on the merits and on the objections joined thereto, hearings were held from 15 April to 22 July 1969. Belgium sought compensation for the damage claimed to have been caused to its nationals, shareholders in the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd., as the result of acts contrary to international law said to have been committed by organs of the Spanish State. Spain, on the other hand, submitted that the Belgian claim should be declared inadmissible or unfounded. In a Judgment delivered on 5 February 1970, the Court found that Belgium had no legal standing to exercise diplomatic protection of shareholders in a Canadian company in respect of measures taken against that company in Spain. It also pointed out that the adoption of the theory of diplomatic protection of shareholders as such would open the door to competing claims on the part of different States, which could create an atmosphere of insecurity in international economic relations. Accordingly, and in so far as the company’s national State (Canada) was able to act, the Court was not of the opinion that jus standi was conferred on the Belgian Government by considerations of equity. The Court accordingly rejected Belgium’s claim.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings (French version only) (French version only)

19 June 1962

Available in:

French

Written proceedings

Verbatim record 1964/1 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 11 March to 19 May and 24 July 1964, the President sir Percy Spender, presiding (Minutes and Annexes to the Minutes)

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1964/2 (bilingual version)

Annexes to the Minutes of the Public hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 16 April to 19 May 1964, the President sir Percy Spender, presiding (concluded)

Judgments

Judgment of 24 July 1964

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgment of 5 February 1970

Second Phase

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

English French

Summary 1970/1

Summary of the Judgment of 5 February 1970

Available in:

English French

See also

South West Africa (Liberia v. South Africa)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

4 November 1960

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Memorial submitted by the Government of Ethiopia

15 April 1961

Available in:

English

Preliminary Objections filed by the Government of the Republic of South Africa

30 November 1961

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English

Observations of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia

1 March 1962

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English

Counter-Memorial filed by the Government of the Republic of South Africa

10 January 1964

Books VII-X

English

Reply of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia

20 June 1964

Available in:

English

Rejoinder filed by the Government of the Republic of South Africa

22 December 1964

Orders

Judgments

Judgment of 21 December 1962

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgment of 18 July 1966

Second Phase

Summary of the Judgment of 21 December 1962

Available in:

English French

Summary 1966/1

Summary of the Judgment of 18 July 1966

Available in:

English French

French

Press release 1966/7 (French version only)

20 July 1966

Deuxième phase des affaires du Sud-Ouest africain (Ethiopie c. Afrique du Sud; Libéria c. Afrique du Sud) (French version only)

Available in:

French

Correspondence

28 October 1960

Correspondence

English

Observations and Submissions of the Government of the Federal Republic of Cameroon on the Preliminary Objection of the Government of the United Kingdom (French version only)

27 June 1963

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgments

Judgment of 2 December 1963

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 1963/1

Summary of the Judgment of 2 December 1963

Available in:

English French

Press release 1963/12

Preliminary objections

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Institution of proceedings

19 May 1989

Available in:

Written proceedings

20 March 1990

Available in:

8 July 1991

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

29 March 1993

Available in:

18 April 2017

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Oral proceedings

Public sitting held on Monday 11 November 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Oral Arguments on the Preliminary Objections - Public sitting held on Tuesday 12 November 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Oral Arguments on the Preliminary Objections - Public sitting held on Wednesday 13 November 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Oral Arguments on the Preliminary Objections - Public sitting held on Friday 15 November 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Oral Arguments on the Preliminary Objections - Public sitting held on Monday 18 November 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Oral Arguments on the Preliminary Objections - Public sitting held on Tuesday 19 November 1991, at 9.30 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Oral Arguments on the Preliminary Objections - Public sitting held on Thursday 21 November 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Oral Arguments on the Preliminary Objections - Public sitting held on Friday 22 November 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Reading of the Judgement - Minute of the Public sitting held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 26 June 1992, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Other documents

19 November 1991

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

10 August 1993

Available in:

Orders

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

Fixing of time-limit: Written Statement

Available in:

Fixing of time-limit: Counter-Memorial

Available in:

Fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder

Available in:

Discontinuance

Procedure(s):Discontinuance

Available in:

Judgments

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Separate opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen

Dissenting opinion of President Jennings

Dissenting opinion of Vice-President Oda

Dissenting opinion of Judge Ago

Dissenting opinion of Judge Schwebel

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary of the Judgment of 26 June 1992

Available in:

Press releases

22 May 1989

Nauru brings a case against Australia

Available in:

31 July 1989

Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia) - Fixing of the time-limits for the filing of the initial written pleadings