Culminated
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 17 May 1991 Finland instituted proceedings against Denmark in respect of a dispute concerning passage through the Great Belt (Storebælt), and the project by the Government of Denmark to construct a fixed traffic connection for both road and rail traffic across the West and East Channels of the Great Belt. The effect of this project, and in particular of the planned high-level suspension bridge over the East Channel, would have been permanently to close the Baltic for deep draught vessels of over 65 m height, thus preventing the passage of such drill ships and oil rigs manufactured in Finland as required more than that clearance. In its Application Finland requested the Court to adjudge and declare (a) that there was a right of free passage through the Great Belt which applied to all ships entering and leaving Finnish ports and shipyards ; (b) that this right extended to drill ships, oil rigs and reasonably foreseeable ships ; (c) that the construction of a fixed bridge over the Great Belt as currently planned by Denmark would be incompatible with the right of passage mentioned in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above and ; (d) that Denmark and Finland ought to start negotiations, in good faith, on how the right of free passage, as set out in subparagraphs (a) to (c) above, should be guaranteed. On 23 May 1991, Finland requested the Court to indicate certain provisional measures aimed, principally, at stopping all construction works in connection with the planned bridge project over the East Channel of the Great Belt which it was alleged would prevent the passage of ships, in particular drill ships and oil rigs, entering and leaving Finnish ports and shipyards.
By an Order dated 29 July 1991, the Court dismissed that Request for the indication of provisional measures by Finland, while at the same time indicating that, pending its decision on the merits, any negotiation between the Parties with a view to achieving a direct and friendly settlement was to be welcomed, and going on to say that it would be appropriate for the Court, with the co-operation of the Parties, to ensure that the decision on the merits was reached with all possible expedition. By a letter dated 3 September 1992, the Agent of Finland, referring to the relevant passage of the Order, stated that a settlement of the dispute had been attained and accordingly notified the Court of the discontinuance of the case. Denmark let it be known that it had no objection to that discontinuance. Consequently, the President of the Court, on 10 September 1992, 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
Written proceedings
22 May 1991
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
28 June 1991
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting held on Monday 1 July 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 1 July 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 2 July 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 2 July 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 4 July 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 5 July 1991, at 2.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Orders
Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
24 May 1991
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - Request for indication of provisional measures
Available in:
31 May 1991
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - Hearings to open on 1 July 1991
Available in:
1 July 1991
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - Solemn declarations of Judges ad hoc Paul Henning Fischer and Bengt Broms
Available in:
8 July 1991
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - Progress and conclusion of public hearings
Available in:
23 July 1991
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - Court to give its decision on Monday 29 July 1991
Available in:
29 July 1991
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - Fixing of time-limits
Available in:
29 July 1991
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - The Court decides not to indicate provisional measures, but to reach a decision on the merit with all possible expedition
Available in:
24 June 1992
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - Opening of Hearings
Available in:
11 September 1992
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark) - Discontinuance
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 22 February 1991, Portugal filed an Application instituting proceedings against Australia concerning “certain activities of Australia with respect to East Timor”, in relation to the conclusion, on 11 December 1989, of a treaty between Australia and Indonesia which created a Zone of Co-operation in a maritime area between “the Indonesian Province of East Timor and Northern Australia”. According to the Application, Australia had by its conduct failed to observe the obligation to respect the duties and powers of Portugal as the Administering Power of East Timor and the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination. In consequence, according to the Application, Australia had incurred international responsibility vis-à-vis the people of both East Timor and Portugal. As the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court, the Application referred to the declarations by which the two States had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute. In its Counter-Memorial, Australia raised questions concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application.
The Court delivered its Judgment on 30 June 1995. It began by considering Australia’s objection that there was in reality no dispute between itself and Portugal. Australia contended that the case as presented by Portugal was artificially limited to the question of the lawfulness of Australia’s conduct, and that the true respondent was Indonesia, not Australia, observing that Portugal and itself had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, but that Indonesia had not. The Court found in that respect that there was a legal dispute between the two States. The Court then considered Australia's principal objection, to the effect that Portugal’s Application would require the Court to determine the rights and obligations of Indonesia. Australia contended that the Court would not be able to act if, in order to do so, it were required to rule on the lawfulness of Indonesia’s entry into and continuing presence in East Timor, on the validity of the 1989 Treaty between Australia and Indonesia, or on the rights and obligations of Indonesia under that Treaty, even if the Court did not have to determine its validity. In support of its argument, Australia referred to the Court’s Judgment in the case concerning Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943.
After having carefully considered the arguments advanced by Portugal which sought to separate Australia’s behaviour from that of Indonesia, the Court concluded that Australia’s behaviour could not be assessed without first entering into the question why it was that Indonesia could not lawfully have concluded the 1989 Treaty, while Portugal allegedly could have done so ; the very subject-matter of the Court’s decision would necessarily be a determination whether, having regard to the circumstances in which Indonesia entered and remained in East Timor, it could or could not have acquired the power to enter into treaties on behalf of East Timor relating to the resources of the continental shelf. The Court took the view that it could not make such a determination in the absence of the consent of Indonesia.
The Court then rejected Portugal’s additional argument that the rights which Australia allegedly breached were rights erga omnes and that accordingly Portugal could require it, individually, to respect them. In the Court’s view, Portugal’s assertion that the right of peoples to self-determination had an erga omnes character, was irreproachable, and the principle of self-determination of peoples had been recognized by the Charter of the United Nations and in the jurisprudence of the Court, and was one of the essential principles of contemporary international law. However, the Court considered that the erga omnes character of a norm and the rule of consent to jurisdiction were two different things, and that it could not in any event rule on the lawfulness of the conduct of a State when its judgment would imply an evaluation of the lawfulness of another State which was not a party to the case.
The Court then considered another argument of Portugal which rested on the premise that the United Nations resolutions, and in particular those of the Security Council, could be read as imposing an obligation on States not to recognize any authority on the part of Indonesia over East Timor and, where the latter is concerned, to deal only with Portugal. Portugal maintained that those resolutions would constitute “givens” on the content of which the Court would not have to decide de novo. The Court took note, in particular, of the fact that for the two Parties, the territory of East Timor remained a non-self-governing territory and its people had the right to self-determination, but considered that the resolutions could not be regarded as “givens” constituting a sufficient basis for determining the dispute between the Parties. It followed from all the foregoing considerations that the Court would necessarily first have to rule upon the lawfulness of Indonesia’s conduct. Indonesia’s rights and obligations would thus constitute the very subject-matter of such a judgment made in the absence of that State’s consent, which would run directly counter to the principle according to which “the Court can only exercise jurisdiction over a State with its consent”. The Court accordingly found that it was not required to consider Australia’s other objections and that it could not rule on Portugal’s claims on the merits.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
18 November 1991
Available in:
1 December 1992
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting held on Monday 30 January 1995, at 10.35 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 31 January 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 1 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 2 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 3 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 6 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 7 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 8 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 9 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 10 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 13 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 13 February 1995, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 16 February 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 16 February 1995, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
13 May 1991
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Fixing of time-limits
Available in:
24 June 1992
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Fixing of time-limits
Available in:
20 May 1993
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Extension of time-limit
Available in:
31 October 1994
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Hearings to open on 30 January 1995
Available in:
18 January 1995
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Sitting of the Court of 30 January 1995
Available in:
17 February 1995
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Progress and conclusion of public hearing
Available in:
9 June 1995
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Judgment to be delivered on 30 June 1995
Available in:
27 June 1995
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Sitting of the Court of 30 June 1995
Available in:
30 June 1995
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
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
Written proceedings
4 March 1991
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
9 September 1992
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Other documents
Orders
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Available in:
Removal from list
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections,Discontinuance
Available in:
Press releases
15 June 1990
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Extension of time-limits for the filing of the initial written pleadings
Available in:
24 July 1990
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Filing of Iran's Memorial
Available in:
5 March 1991
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Filing of preliminary objections by the United States of America
Available in:
5 April 1991
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - The following information is communicated to the Press by the Registry of the International Court of Justice
Available in:
11 April 1991
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Fixing of the time-limit for the filing, by Iran, of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by the United States of America - Solemn declaration of Judge ad hoc Mohsen Aghahosseini
Available in:
18 December 1991
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Extension of time-limit
Available in:
17 June 1992
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Extension of time-limit
Available in:
14 March 1994
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Hearings to open on 12 September 1994
Available in:
11 August 1994
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Postponement of the hearings
Available in:
23 February 1996
Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) - Discontinuance
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 16 August 1988, the Government of Denmark filed in the Registry an Application instituting proceedings against Norway, by which it seised the Court of a dispute concerning the delimitation of Denmark’s and Norway’s fishing zones and continental shelf areas in the waters between the east coast of Greenland and the Norwegian island of Jan Mayen, where both Parties laid claim to an area of some 72,000 square kilometres. On 14 June 1993, the Court delivered its Judgment. Denmark had asked the Court to draw a single line of delimitation of those areas at a distance of 200 nautical miles measured from Greenland’s baseline, or, if the Court did not find it possible to draw such a line, in accordance with international law. Norway, for its part, had asked the Court to find that the median line constituted the two lines of separation for the purpose of the delimitation of the two relevant areas, on the understanding that those lines would then coincide, but that the delimitations would remain conceptually distinct. A principal contention of Norway was that a delimitation had already been established between Jan Mayen and Greenland, by the effect of treaties in force between the Parties — a bilateral Agreement of 1965 and the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf — as both instruments provide for the drawing of a median line.
The Court noted, in the first place, that the 1965 Agreement covered areas different from the continental shelf between the two countries, and that that Agreement did not place on record any intention of the Parties to undertake to apply the median line for any of the subsequent delimitations of that continental shelf. The Court then found that the force of Norway’s argument relating to the 1958 Convention depended in the circumstances of the case upon the existence of “special circumstances” as envisaged by the Convention. It subsequently rejected the argument of Norway according to which the Parties, by their “conjoint conduct” had long recognized the applicability of a median line delimitation in their mutual relations. The Court examined separately the two strands of the applicable law : the effect of Article 6 of the 1958 Convention, applicable to the delimitation of the continental shelf boundary, and then the effect of the customary law which governed the fishery zone. After examining the case law in this field and the provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Court noted that the statement (in those provisions) of an “equitable solution” as the aim of any delimitation process reflected the requirements of customary law as regards the delimitation both of the continental shelf and of exclusive economic zones. It appeared to the Court that, both for the continental shelf and for the fishery zones in the instant case, it was proper to begin the process of delimitation by a median line provisionally drawn, and it then observed that it was called upon to examine every particular factor in the case which might suggest an adjustment or shifting of the median line provisionally drawn. The 1958 Convention required the investigation of any “special circumstances” ; the customary law based upon equitable principles for its part required the investigation of the “relevant circumstances”.
The Court found that, although it was a matter of categories which were different in origin and in name, there was inevitably a tendency towards assimilation between the two types of circumstances. The Court then turned to the question whether the circumstances of the instant case required adjustment or shifting of the median line. To that end it considered a number of factors. With regard to the disparity or disproportion between the lengths of the “relevant coasts”, alleged by Denmark, the Court concluded that the striking difference in lengths of the relevant coasts constituted a special circumstance within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the 1958 Convention. Similarly, as regards the fishery zones, the Court was of the opinion that the application of the median line led to manifestly inequitable results. The Court concluded therefrom that the median line should be adjusted or shifted in such a way as to effect a delimitation closer to the coast of Jan Mayen.
The Court then considered certain circumstances that might also affect the position of the boundary line, i.e., access to resources, essentially fishery resources (capelin), particularly with regard to the presence of ice ; population and economy ; questions of security ; conduct of the Parties. Among those factors, the Court only retained the one relating to access to resources, considering that the median line was too far to the west for Denmark to be assured of equitable access to the capelin stock. It concluded that, for that reason also, the median line had to be adjusted or shifted eastwards. Lastly, the Court proceeded to define the single line of delimitation as being the line M-N-O-A marked on the sketch-map reproduced on page 80 of the Judgment.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
Oral proceedings
Public sitting held on Monday 11 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 12 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 13 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 14 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 15 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 18 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 20 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 21 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 22 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 25 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 27 January 1993, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Sir Robert Jennings presiding
Available in:
Other documents
12 August 1991
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
17 October 1988
Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) - Fixing of the time-limits for the filing of the initial written pleadings
Available in:
1 August 1989
Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) - Filing of Memorial
Available in:
26 June 1990
Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
24 June 1992
Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) - Opening of Hearings
Available in:
27 January 1993
Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) - Progress and conclusion of public hearings
Available in:
24 May 1993
Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) - Judgment to be delivered on 14 June 1993
Available in:
14 June 1993
Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 24 May 1989, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) adopted a resolution whereby it requested the Court to give, on a priority basis, an advisory opinion on the question of the applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in the case of Mr. Dumitru Mazilu, Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Mazilu, a Romanian national, had been entrusted, by a resolution of the Sub-Commission, with the task of drawing up a report on “Human Rights and Youth” in connection with which the Secretary-General was asked to provide him with all the assistance he might need. Mr. Mazilu was absent from the 1987 session of the Sub-Commission, during which he was to have filed his report, and Romania let it be known that he had been taken into hospital. Mr. Mazilu’s mandate finally expired on 31 December 1987, but without his being relieved of the task of Rapporteur that had been assigned to him. Mr. Mazilu was able to get various messages through to the United Nations, in which he complained that the Romanian authorities were refusing him a travel permit. Moreover, those authorities, further to contacts initiated by the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights at the request of the Sub-Commission, had let it be known that any intervention of the United Nations Secretariat would be considered as interference in Romania’s internal affairs. Those authorities subsequently informed the United Nations of their position with regard to the applicability to Mr. Mazilu of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, asserting, inter alia, that the Convention did not equate Rapporteurs, whose activities were only occasional, with experts on missions for the United Nations ; that they could not, even if granted some of that status, enjoy anything more than functional immunities and privileges ; that those privileges and immunities began to apply only at the moment when the expert left on a journey connected with the performance of his mission ; and that in the country of which he was a national an expert enjoyed privileges and immunities only in respect of actual activities relating to his mission.
The Court rendered its Advisory Opinion on 15 December 1989, and began by rejecting Romania’s contention that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Request. Moreover, the Court did not find any compelling reasons that might have led it to consider it inappropriate to render an opinion. It then engaged in a detailed analysis of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention, which relates to “Experts on missions for the United Nations”. It reached the conclusion, inter alia, that Section 22 of the Convention was applicable to persons (other than United Nations officials) to whom a mission had been entrusted by the Organization and who were therefore entitled to enjoy the privileges and immunities provided for in that Section with a view to the independent exercise of their functions ; that during the whole period of such missions, experts enjoyed these functional privileges and immunities whether or not they travelled ; and that those privileges and immunities might be invoked against the State of nationality or of residence unless a reservation to Section 22 of the Convention had been validly made by that State. Turning to the specific case of Mr. Mazilu, the Court expressed the view that he continued to have the status of Special Rapporteur, that as a consequence he should be regarded as an expert on mission within the meaning of Section 22 of the Convention and that that Section was accordingly applicable in his case.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
13 June 1989
Request for Advisory Opinion (including the dossier of documents transmitted to the Court pursuant to article 65, paragraph 2 of the Statute)
Available in:
Written proceedings
Oral proceedings
Oral Statements - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 4 and 5 October and 15 December 1989, the President, Judge Ruda, presiding
Available in:
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
26 May 1989
First-ever request by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations for an advisory opinion of the Court
Available in:
26 June 1989
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations - Fixing of the time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
1 August 1989
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations - Submission of written statements
Available in:
6 September 1989
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations - Hearings on 4 October 1989
Available in:
5 October 1989
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations - Oral proceedings held
Available in:
11 December 1989
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations - Advisory Opinion to be delivered on 15 December 1989
Available in:
15 December 1989
Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations - The Court delivers its Advisory Opinion
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 11 December 1986, El Salvador and Honduras notified to the Court a Special Agreement whereby the Parties requested the Court to form a Chamber — consisting of three Members of the Court and two judges ad hoc — in order to (1) delimit the frontier line in the six sectors not delimited by the 1980 General Treaty of Peace concluded between the two States in 1980 and (2) determine the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf of Fonseca and the maritime spaces within and outside it. That Chamber was constituted by an Order of 8 May 1987. The time-limits for the written proceedings were fixed, but extended several times at the request of the Parties.
In November 1989, Nicaragua addressed to the Court an Application under Article 62 of the Statute for permission to intervene in the case, stating that, while it had no desire to intervene in the dispute concerning the land boundary, it wished to protect its rights in the Gulf of Fonseca (of which the three States are riparians), as well as “in order to inform the Court of the nature of the legal rights of Nicaragua which are in issue in the dispute”. Nicaragua further maintained that its request for permission to intervene was a matter exclusively within the procedural mandate of the full Court. The Court, by an Order adopted on 28 February 1990, found that it was for the Chamber formed to deal with the case to decide whether the Application for permission to intervene should be granted. Having heard the Parties and Nicaragua at a series of public sittings, the Chamber delivered its Judgment on 13 September 1990. It found that Nicaragua had shown that it had an interest of a legal nature which might be affected by part of the Judgment of the Chamber on the merits, with regard to the legal régime of the waters of the Gulf of Fonseca.
The Chamber on the other hand decided that Nicaragua had not shown such an interest which might be affected by any decision it might be required to make concerning the delimitation of those waters, or any decision as to the legal situation of the maritime spaces outside the Gulf or any decision as to the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf. Within the framework thus defined, the Chamber decided that Nicaragua was entitled to intervene in the case. A written statement of Nicaragua and written observations on that statement by El Salvador and Honduras were subsequently filed with the Court. The oral arguments of the Parties and the oral observations of Nicaragua were heard at 50 public sittings, held between April and June 1991. The Chamber delivered its Judgment on 11 September 1992.
The Chamber began by noting the agreement of both Parties that the fundamental principle for determining the land area is the uti possidetis juris, i.e., the principle, generally accepted in Spanish America, that international boundaries follow former colonial administrative boundaries. The Chamber was, moreover, authorized to take into account, where pertinent, a provision of the 1980 Peace Treaty that a basis for delimitation is to be found in documents issued by the Spanish Crown or any other Spanish authority during the colonial period, and indicating the jurisdictions or limits of territories, as well as other evidence and arguments of a legal, historical, human or any other kind. Noting that the Parties had invoked the exercise of government powers in the disputed areas and of other forms of effectivités, the Chamber considered that it might have regard to evidence of action of this kind affording indications of the uti possidetis juris boundary. The Chamber then considered successively, from west to east, each of the six disputed sectors of the land boundary, to which some 152 pages were specifically devoted.
With regard to the legal situation of the islands in the Gulf, the Chamber considered that, although it had jurisdiction to determine the legal situation of all the islands, a judicial determination was required only for those in dispute, which it found to be El Tigre, Meanguera and Meanguerita. It rejected Honduras’s claim that there was no real dispute as to El Tigre. Noting that in legal theory each island appertained to one of the Gulf States by succession from Spain, which precluded acquisition by occupation, the Chamber observed that effective possession by one of the States could constitute a post-colonial effectivité shedding light on the legal situation. Since Honduras had occupied El Tigre since 1849, the Chamber concluded that the conduct of the Parties accorded with the assumption that El Tigre appertained to it. The Chamber found Meanguerita, which is very small, uninhabited and contiguous to Meanguera, to be a “dependency” of Meanguera. It noted that El Salvador had claimed Meanguera in 1854 and that from the late nineteenth century the presence there of El Salvador had intensified, as substantial documentary evidence of the administration of Meanguera by El Salvador showed. A protest in 1991 by Honduras to El Salvador over Meanguera was considered too late to affect the presumption of acquiescence by Honduras. The Chamber thus found that Meanguera and Meanguerita appertained to El Salvador.
With respect to the maritime spaces within the Gulf, El Salvador claimed that they were subject to a condominium of the three coastal States and that delimitation would hence be inappropriate ; Honduras argued that within the Gulf there was a community of interests necessitating a judicial delimitation. Applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation to the Special Agreement and the Peace Treaty, the Chamber found that it had no jurisdiction to effect a delimitation, whether inside or outside the Gulf. As for the legal situation of the waters of the Gulf, the Chamber noted that, given its characteristics, the Gulf was generally acknowledged to be a historic bay. The Chamber examined the history of the Gulf to discover its “régime”, taking into account the 1917 Judgment of the Central American Court of Justice in a case between El Salvador and Nicaragua concerning the Gulf. In its Judgment, the Central American Court had found inter alia that the Gulf was a historic bay possessing the characteristics of a closed sea. Noting that the coastal States continued to claim the Gulf as a historic bay with the character of a closed sea, a position in which other nations acquiesced, the Chamber observed that its views on the régime of the historic waters of the Gulf coincided with those expressed in the 1917 Judgment. It found that the Gulf waters, other than the three-mile maritime belt, were historic waters and subject to the joint sovereignty of the three coastal States. It noted that there had been no attempt to divide the waters according to the principle of uti possidetis juris. A joint succession of the three States to the maritime area thus seemed to be the logical outcome of the uti possidetis principle. The Chamber accordingly found that Honduras had legal rights in the waters up to the bay closing line, which it considered also to be a baseline.
Regarding the waters outside the Gulf, the Chamber observed that entirely new concepts of law, unthought of when the Central American Court gave its Judgment in 1917, were involved, in particular those regarding the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, and found that, excluding a strip at either extremity corresponding to the maritime belts of El Salvador and Nicaragua, the three joint sovereigns were entitled, outside the closing line, to a territorial sea, continental shelf and exclusive economic zone, but must proceed to a division by mutual agreement. Lastly, as regards the effect of the Judgment on the intervening State, the Chamber found that it was not res judicata for Nicaragua.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
1 June 1988
Available in:
10 February 1989
Available in:
17 November 1989
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
8 January 1990
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
12 January 1990
Available in:
15 January 1990
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
14 March 1991
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 5 June 1990, at 11 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 5 June 1990, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 6 June 1990, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 7 June 1990, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 8 June 1990, at 2 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Reading of the Judgment - Public sitting of the Chamber held on 13 September 1990, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 15 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 16 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 17 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 18 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 19 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 22 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 23 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 24 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 25 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 26 April 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 1 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 2 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 3 May 1991, 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 3 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 6 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 7 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 8 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 9 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 9 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 10 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 13 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 14 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 14 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 15 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 16 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 17 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 21 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 22 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 23 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 27 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 28 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 28 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 29 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 29 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 30 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 31 May 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 31 May 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 3 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 4 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 5 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 5 June 1991, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 6 June 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 7 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 10 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Monday 10 June 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Tuesday 11 June 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Wednesday 12 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Thursday 13 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 13 June 1991, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Public sitting of the Chamber held on Friday 14 June 1991, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Reading of the Judgment - Public sitting of the Chamber held on 11 September 1992 at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Judge Sette-Camara, President of the Chamber, presiding
Available in:
Other documents
5 September 1990
Available in:
Orders
Application for Permission to Intervene
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Fixing of time-limits: Written Statement and Written observations
Available in:
Judgments
Application by Nicaragua for Permission to Intervene
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
11 December 1986
El Salvador and Honduras bring a case to the Court
Available in:
11 May 1987
The Court forms a Chamber to deal with the case brought by El Salvador and Honduras
Available in:
15 May 1987
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Composition of the Court
Available in:
3 June 1987
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Judge José Sette-Camara elected President of the Chamber formed to deal with the case - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
2 November 1987
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Chamber to hold first public sitting
Available in:
10 November 1987
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Inaugural public Sitting of the Chamber
Available in:
1 June 1988
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Filing of Memorials
Available in:
15 January 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Filing of the Replies
Available in:
6 March 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Application for permission to intervene - Decision of the Court
Available in:
30 May 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Hearings to open on Tuesday 5 June 1990 on Nicaragua's Application for permission to intervene in the case
Available in:
11 June 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Progress and conclusion of public hearings
Available in:
5 September 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Chamber to deliver a Judgment on Thursday, 13 September 1990 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
13 September 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) - Judgment of the Chamber
Available in:
2 October 1990
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of additional written pleadings
Available in:
18 June 1991
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Conclusion of the hearings
Available in:
17 August 1992
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Judgment to be delivered on Friday 11 September 1992 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
11 September 1992
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Judgment of the Chamber
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This application was submitted to the Court by Tunisia, which took the view that the 1982 Judgment gave rise to certain problems of implementation. Although the Court had already had to deal with several requests for interpretation, this was the first time an application for revision had come before it. The Statute of the Court states that a judgment may only be revised if there has been a discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor. Libya opposed Tunisia’s twofold application, denying that there had been any problems of implementation of the kind invoked by Tunisia, and arguing that Tunisia’s request for interpretation was merely an application for revision, in another guise.
In its Judgment of 10 December 1985, rendered unanimously, the Court rejected the application for revision as inadmissible. It found admissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 so far as it related to the first sector of the delimitation laid down by that Judgment, stated the interpretation which should be made in that respect, and found that the submission of Tunisia relating to that sector could not be upheld ; it found moreover that the request made by Tunisia for the correction of an error was without object, and that there was no call for it to give a decision thereon. The Court also found admissible the request for interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 so far as it related to the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes in the second sector of the delimitation laid down by that Judgment, stated the interpretation which should be made in that respect, and found that it could not uphold the submission made by Tunisia relating to that sector. In conclusion, the Court found that no cause had arisen for it to order an expert survey for the purpose of ascertaining the precise co-ordinates of the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
15 October 1984
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 13 to 18 June 1985 and on 10 December 1985, President Nagendra Singh presiding
Available in:
Other documents
19 June 1985
Available in:
19 June 1985
Available in:
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
3 August 1984
Tunisia files in the International Court of Justice an Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
Available in:
5 June 1985
Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Hearing to open on 13 June 1985
Available in:
19 June 1985
Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Progress and Closure of Public Hearings
Available in:
29 November 1985
Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Court to give its Judgment on Tuesday 10 December 1985
Available in:
10 December 1985
Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) - Judgment of the Court
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 2 March 1988, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution whereby it requested the Court to give an advisory opinion on the question of whether the United States of America, as a party to the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations, was under an obligation to enter into arbitration in accordance with Section 21 of the Agreement. That resolution had been adopted in the wake of the signature and imminent entry into force of a law of the United States, entitled Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Title X of which established certain prohibitions regarding the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), inter alia, a prohibition
“to establish or maintain an office, headquarters, premises or other facilities or establishments within the jurisdiction of the United States at the behest or direction of, or with funds provided by the Palestine Liberation Organization”.
The PLO, in accordance with the Headquarters Agreement, had a Permanent Mission to the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations invoked the dispute settlement procedure set out in Section 21 of the Agreement and proposed that the negotiations phase of the procedure commence on 20 January 1988. The United States, for its part, informed the United Nations that it was not in a position and was not willing to enter formally into that dispute settlement procedure, in that it was still evaluating the situation and as the Secretary-General had sought assurances that the arrangements in force at the time for the Permanent Observer Mission of the Palestine Liberation Organization would not be curtailed or otherwise affected. On 11 February 1988, the United Nations informed the Department of State that it had chosen its arbitrator and pressed the United States to do the same. The Court, having regard to the fact that the decision to request an advisory opinion had been made “taking into account the time constraint”, accelerated its procedure. Written statements were filed, within the time-limits fixed, by the United Nations, the United States of America, the German Democratic Republic and the Syrian Arab Republic, and on 11 and 12 April 1988 the Court held hearings at which the United Nations Legal Counsel took part. The Court rendered its Advisory Opinion on 26 April 1988. It began by engaging in a detailed review of the events that took place before and after the filing of the request for an advisory opinion, in order to determine whether there was, between the United Nations and the United States, a dispute of the type contemplated in the Headquarters Agreement. In so doing, the Court pointed out that its sole task was to determine whether the United States was obliged to enter into arbitration under that Agreement, not to decide whether the measures adopted by the United States in regard to the PLO Observer Mission did or did not run counter to that Agreement. The Court pointed out, inter alia, that the United States had stated that “it had not yet concluded that a dispute existed” between it and the United Nations “because the legislation in question had not been implemented”. Then, subsequently, referring to “the current dispute over the status of the PLO Observer Mission” it had expressed the view that arbitration would be premature. After initiating litigation in its domestic courts, the United States, in its written statement, had informed the Court of its belief that arbitration would not be “appropriate or timely”. After saying that it could not allow considerations as to what might be “appropriate” to prevail over the obligations deriving from Section 21, the Court found that the opposing attitudes of the United Nations and the United States showed the existence of a dispute, whatever the date on which it might be deemed to have arisen. It further qualified that dispute as a dispute concerning the application of the Headquarters Agreement, and then found that, taking into account the United States’ attitude, the Secretary-General had in the circumstances exhausted such possibilities of negotiation as were open to him, nor had any “other agreed mode of settlement” within the meaning of Section 21 of the Agreement been contemplated by the United Nations and the United States. The Court accordingly concluded that the United States was bound to respect the obligation to enter into arbitration, under Section 21. In so doing, it recalled the fundamental principle of international law that international law prevailed over domestic law, a principle long endorsed by a body of judicial decisions.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
7 March 1988
Request for Advisory Opinion (including the dossier of documents transmitted to the Court pursuant to article 65, paragraph 2 of the Statute)
Available in:
Written proceedings
Oral proceedings
Oral Statements - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 11, 12 and 26 April 1988, the President, Judge Ruda, presiding
Available in:
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
4 March 1988
New request for advisory opinion received by the Court
Available in:
9 March 1988
The Court accelerate its procedure in the advisory case submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations
Available in:
30 March 1988
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 - Submission of Written Statements: Hearing on 11 April 1988
Available in:
14 April 1988
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 - Oral proceedings held
Available in:
22 April 1988
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 - Advisory Opinion to be delivered on 26 April 1988
Available in:
26 April 1988
Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 - The Court delivers its Advisory Opinion
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 6 February 1987, the United States instituted proceedings against Italy in respect of a dispute arising out of the requisition by the Government of Italy of the plant and related assets of Raytheon-Elsi S.p.A., an Italian company producing electronic components and previously known as Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI), which was stated to have been 100 per cent owned by two United States corporations. The Court, by an Order dated 2 March 1987, formed a Chamber of five judges to deal with the case, as requested by the Parties. Italy, in its Counter-Memorial, raised an objection to the admissibility of the Application on the grounds of a failure to exhaust local remedies, and the Parties agreed that that objection should “be heard and determined within the framework of the merits”. On 20 July 1989, the Chamber delivered a Judgment in which it rejected the objection raised by Italy and said that the latter had not committed any of the breaches alleged by the United States of the bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1948, or of the Agreement Supplementing that Treaty. The United States principally reproached the Respondent (a) with having effected an unlawful requisition of the ELSI plant, thus depriving the shareholders of their direct right to proceed to the liquidation of the company’s assets under normal conditions ; (b) with having been incapable of preventing the occupation of the plant by the employees ; (c) with having failed to reach any decision as to the legality of the requisition during a period of sixteen months ; and (d) with having intervened in the bankruptcy proceedings, with the result that it had purchased ELSI at a price well below its true market value. After a detailed consideration of the facts alleged and the relevant conventional provisions, the Chamber found that the Respondent had not breached the 1948 Treaty and the Agreement supplementing that Treaty in the manner claimed by the Applicant, and rejected the claim for reparation made by the United States.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
Oral proceedings
Oral arguments - Minutes of the Public sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 27 November 1987, President of the Chamber, President Nagendra Singh, presiding, and from 13 February to 20 July 1989, President of the Chamber, President Ruda, presiding
Available in:
Other documents
20 January 1989
Available in:
16 February 1989
Available in:
27 February 1989
Available in:
2 March 1989
Available in:
13 March 1989
Available in:
13 March 1989
Available in:
19 May 1989
Available in:
Orders
Constitution of Chamber, fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Available in:
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
5 March 1987
The Court forms a Chamber to deal with the case brought by the United States against Italy - Time-limits are fixed for the filing of pleadings
Available in:
27 May 1987
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Filing of Memorial
Available in:
4 November 1987
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Chamber to hold inaugural public sitting
Available in:
18 November 1987
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Inaugural public sitting of the Chamber
Available in:
18 March 1988
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Filing of Reply
Available in:
19 July 1988
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Filing of Rejoinder
Available in:
12 January 1989
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Hearing to open on Monday 13 February 1989
Available in:
2 March 1989
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Progress and conclusion of public hearings
Available in:
5 July 1989
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Judgment to be delivered on Thursday, 20 July 1989 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
20 July 1989
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy) - Judgment of the Chamber
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
A former staff member of the United Nations Secretariat had challenged the Secretary-General’s refusal to pay him a repatriation grant unless he produced evidence of having relocated upon retirement. By a judgment of 15 May 1981, the United Nations Administrative Tribunal had found that the staff member was entitled to receive the grant and, therefore, to compensation for the injury sustained through its non-payment. The injury had been assessed at the amount of the repatriation grant of which payment had been refused. The United States Government addressed an application for review of this judgment to the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements, and the Committee requested an advisory opinion of the Court on the correctness of the decision in question. In its Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1982, the Court, after pointing out that a number of procedural and substantive irregularities had been committed, decided nevertheless to comply with the Committee’s request, whose wording it interpreted as really seeking a determination as to whether the Administrative Tribunal had erred on a question of law relating to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, or had exceeded its jurisdiction or competence. As to the first point, the Court said that its proper role was not to retry the case already dealt with by the Tribunal, and that it need not involve itself in the question of the proper interpretation of United Nations Staff Regulations and Rules further than was strictly necessary in order to judge whether the interpretation adopted by the Tribunal had been in contradiction with the provisions of the Charter. Having noted that the Tribunal had only applied what it had found to be the relevant Staff Regulations and Staff Rules made under the authority of the General Assembly, the Court found that the Tribunal had not erred on a question of law relating to the provisions of the Charter. As to the second point, the Court considered that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction included the scope of Staff Regulations and Rules and that it had not exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.