Culminated
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
In November 1950, the General Assembly asked the Court a series of questions as to the position of a State which attached reservations to its signature of the multilateral Convention on Genocide if other States, signatories of the same Convention, objected to these reservations. The Court considered, in its Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, that, even if a convention contained no article on the subject of reservations, it did not follow that they were prohibited. The character of the convention, its purposes and its provisions must be taken into account. It was the compatibility of the reservation with the purpose of the convention which must furnish the criterion of the attitude of the State making the reservation, and of the State which objected thereto. The Court did not consider that it was possible to give an absolute answer to the abstract question put to it. As regards the effects of the reservation in relations between States, the Court considered that a State could not be bound by a reservation to which it had not consented. Every State was therefore free to decide for itself whether the State which formulated the reservation was or was not a party to the convention. The situation presented real disadvantages, but they could only be remedied by the insertion in the convention of an article on the use of reservations. A third question referred to the effects of an objection by a State which was not yet a party to the convention, either because it had not signed it or because it had signed but not ratified it. The Court was of the opinion that, as regards the first case, it would be inconceivable that a State which had not signed the convention should be able to exclude another State from it. In the second case, the situation was different : the objection was valid, but it would not produce an immediate legal effect ; it would merely express and proclaim the attitude which a signatory State would assume when it had become a party to the convention. In all the foregoing, the Court adjudicated only on the specific case referred to it, namely, the Genocide Convention.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
Written proceedings
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on April 10th to 14th and on May 28th, 1951, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Available in:
Other documents
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
1 December 1950
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Fixing of the time-limit for the filing of written statements
Available in:
5 April 1951
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - The Court will hold a series of public hearings beginning 10 April 1951
Available in:
10 April 1951
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Opening of the public hearings
Available in:
11 April 1951
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Public hearings of 11 April 1951
Available in:
12 April 1951
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Public hearing of 12 April 1951
Available in:
13 April 1951
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Public hearings of 13 April 1951
Available in:
14 April 1951
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Public hearings of 14 April 1951
Available in:
24 May 1951
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - The Court will give its Advisory Opinion on 28 May 1951
Available in:
28 May 1951
Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide - Advisory Opinion of the Court of 28 May 1951
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This case, a sequel to the earlier proceedings, was instituted by Colombia by means of a fresh Application. Immediately after the Judgment of 20 November 1950, Peru had called upon Colombia to surrender Mr. Haya de la Torre. Colombia refused to do so, maintaining that neither the applicable legal provisions nor the Court’s Judgment placed it under an obligation to surrender the refugee to the Peruvian authorities. The Court confirmed this view in its Judgment of 13 June 1951. It declared that the question was a new one, and that although the Havana Convention expressly prescribed the surrender of common criminals to the local authorities, no obligation of the kind existed in regard to political offenders. While confirming that diplomatic asylum had been irregularly granted and that on this ground Peru was entitled to demand its termination, the Court declared that Colombia was not bound to surrender the refugee ; these two conclusions, it stated, were not contradictory because there were other ways in which the asylum could be terminated besides the surrender of the refugee.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
7 February 1951
Available in:
13 March 1951
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
15 March 1951
Available in:
28 March 1951
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
2 April 1951
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from May 15th to 17th, and on June 13th, 1951, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Available in:
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from May 15th May 1951, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
(including the text of the declaration of judge ad hoc Alayza y Paz Soldán)
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
13 December 1950
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Filing by Colombia of an Application instituting proceedings against Peru
Available in:
4 January 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Order fixing the time-limits for the filing of the written pleadings
Available in:
9 February 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Appointment of Judges ad hoc, Agents and Counsels by each of the Parties
Available in:
15 March 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Communication of Cuba on the Convention on Asylum
Available in:
14 April 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Opening of the public hearings on 8 May 1951
Available in:
8 May 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - The Court will hold a series of public hearings beginning on 15 May 1951
Available in:
15 May 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 15 May 1951
Available in:
16 May 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearing of 16 May 1951
Available in:
17 May 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearing of 17 May 1951
Available in:
11 June 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - The Court will deliver its Judgment on 13 June 1951
Available in:
13 June 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Judgment of the Court of 13 June 1951
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
By a decree of 30 December 1948, the French authorities in the Moroccan Protectorate imposed a system of licence control in respect of imports not involving an official allocation of currency, and limited these imports to a number of products indispensable to the Moroccan economy. The United States maintained that this measure affected its rights under treaties with Morocco and contended that, in accordance with these treaties and with the General Act of Algeciras of 1906, no Moroccan law or regulation could be applied to its nationals in Morocco without its previous consent. In its Judgment of 27 August 1952, the Court held that the import controls were contrary to the Treaty between the United States and Morocco of 1836 and the General Act of Algeciras since they involved discrimination in favour of France against the United States. The Court then considered the extent of the consular jurisdiction of the United States in Morocco and held that the United States was entitled to exercise such jurisdiction in the French Zone in all disputes, civil or criminal, between United States citizens or persons protected by the United States. It was also entitled to exercise such jurisdiction to the extent required by the relevant provisions of the General Act of Algeciras. The Court rejected the contention of the United States that its consular jurisdiction included cases in which only the defendant was a citizen or protégé of the United States. It also rejected the claim by the United States that the application to United States citizens of laws and regulations in the French Zone of Morocco required the prior assent of the United States Government. Such assent was required only in so far as the intervention of the consular courts of the United States was necessary for the effective enforcement of such laws or regulations with respect to United States citizens. The Court rejected a counter-claim by the United States that its nationals in Morocco were entitled to immunity from taxation. It also dealt with the question of the valuation of imports by the Moroccan customs authorities.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
1 March 1951
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
15 June 1951
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
28 July 1951
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
20 December 1951
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
13 February 1952
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
18 April 1952
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from July 15th to 26th, and on August 27th, 1952, the President, Sir Arnold McNair, presiding
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Other documents
10 July 1952
Available in:
Orders
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
Fixing of time-limit: Written Statements of observations and submissions on Preliminary Objection
Available in:
Withdrawal of Preliminary Objection, Fixing of time-limits: Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Judgments
(including the text of the declaration of Judge Hsu Mo)
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
28 October 1950
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Filing by France of an Application instituting proceedings against the United States
Available in:
23 November 1950
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Order fixing the time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
25 June 1951
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Filing of a Preliminary Objection by the United States
Available in:
8 July 1952
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Representatives of the two Governments at the hearings
Available in:
23 August 1952
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - The reading of Court's Judgment will take place on 27th August, 1952, at 4 p.m.
Available in:
27 August 1952
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Judgment
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
The granting of diplomatic asylum in the Colombian Embassy at Lima, on 3 January 1949, to a Peruvian national, Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre, a political leader accused of having instigated a military rebellion, was the subject of a dispute between Peru and Colombia which the Parties agreed to submit to the Court. The Pan-American Havana Convention on Asylum (1928) laid down that, subject to certain conditions, asylum could be granted in a foreign embassy to a political refugee who was a national of the territorial State. The question in dispute was whether Colombia, as the State granting the asylum, was entitled unilaterally to “qualify” the offence committed by the refugee in a manner binding on the territorial State — that is, to decide whether it was a political offence or a common crime. Furthermore, the Court was asked to decide whether the territorial State was bound to afford the necessary guarantees to enable the refugee to leave the country in safety. In its Judgment of 20 November 1950, the Court answered both these questions in the negative, but at the same time it specified that Peru had not proved that Mr. Haya de la Torre was a common criminal. Lastly, it found in favour of a counter-claim submitted by Peru that Mr. Haya de la Torre had been granted asylum in violation of the Havana Convention.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
15 October 1949
Available in:
Written proceedings
10 January 1950
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
21 March 1950
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
20 April 1950
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
15 June 1950
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from September 26th to November 27th 1950, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Other documents
Orders
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
Judgments
(including the declaration of Judge Zoričić)
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
17 October 1949
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Filing by Colombia of an Application instituting proceedings against Peru
Available in:
20 October 1949
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Order fixing the time-limits for the filing of the written pleadings
Available in:
17 December 1949
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Order extending the time-limit for the filing by Colombia of its Memorial
Available in:
11 January 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Appointment of Judges ad hoc by Colombia and Peru
Available in:
22 September 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - The Court will hold a series of public hearings beginning 26 September 1950
Available in:
25 September 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Appointment of Judges ad hoc and representation of the Parties at the hearings
Available in:
26 September 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 26 September 1950
Available in:
29 September 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 26 to 29 September 1950
Available in:
3 October 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 2 and 3 October 1950
Available in:
6 October 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 6 October 1950
Available in:
9 October 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearing of 9 October 1950
Available in:
16 November 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - The Court will deliver its Judgment on 20 November 1950
Available in:
20 November 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Judgment of the Court of 20 November 1950
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This Advisory Opinion, given on 11 July 1950, at the request of the General Assembly, was concerned with the determination of the legal status of the Territory, the administration of which had been placed by the League of Nations after the First World War under the Mandate of the Union of South Africa. The League had disappeared, and with it the machinery for the supervision of the Mandates. Moreover, the Charter of the United Nations did not provide that the former mandated Territories should automatically come under trusteeship. The Court held that the dissolution of the League of Nations and its supervisory machinery had not entailed the lapse of the Mandate, and that the mandatory Power was still under an obligation to give an account of its administration to the United Nations, which was legally qualified to discharge the supervisory functions formerly exercised by the League of Nations. The degree of supervision to be exercised by the General Assembly should not, however, exceed that which applied under the Mandates System and should conform as far as possible to the procedure followed in this respect by the Council of the League of Nations. On the other hand, the mandatory Power was not under an obligation to place the Territory under trusteeship, although it might have certain political and moral duties in this connection. Finally, it had no competence to modify the international status of South West Africa unilaterally.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
27 December 1949
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
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from May 16th to 23rd, and on July 11th 1950, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Available in:
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
30 December 1949
International status of South West Africa - The General Assembly requests the Court to give an Advisory Opinion
Available in:
23 March 1950
International Status of South West Africa - The Court will hold public hearings beginning on 16 May 1950
Available in:
12 May 1950
International Status of South West Africa - Information concerning the oral proceedings which will begin on 16 May 1950
Available in:
6 July 1950
International Status of South West Africa - The Court will give its Advisory Opinion on 11 July 1950
Available in:
11 July 1950
International Status of South West Africa - Advisory opinion of the Court of 11 July 1950
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This case concerned the procedure to be adopted in regard to the settlement of disputes between the States signatories of the Peace Treaties of 1947 (Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, on the one hand, and the Allied States, on the other). In the first Advisory Opinion (30 March 1950), the Court stated that the countries, which had signed a Treaty providing an arbitral procedure for the settlement of disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the Treaty, were under an obligation to appoint their representatives to the arbitration commissions prescribed by the Treaty. Notwithstanding this Advisory Opinion, the three States, which had declined to appoint their representatives on the arbitration commissions, failed to modify their attitude. A time-limit was given to them within which to comply with the obligation laid down in the Treaties as they had been interpreted by the Court. After the expiry of the time-limit, the Court was requested to say whether the Secretary-General, who, by the terms of the Treaties, was authorized to appoint the third member of the arbitration commission in the absence of agreement between the parties in respect of this appointment, could proceed to make this appointment, even if one of the parties had failed to appoint its representative. In a further Advisory Opinion of 18 July 1950, the Court replied that this method could not be adopted since it would result in creating a commission of two members, whereas the Treaty provided for a commission of three members, reaching its decision by a majority.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
4 November 1949
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
5 June 1950
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on February 28th, March 1st, 2nd and 30th 1950, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Available in:
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on June 27th and 28th and July 18th 1950, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Available in:
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
5 November 1949
Interpretation of the Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - The General Assembly requests an Advisory Opinion
Available in:
20 January 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - The Court will hold public hearings beginning 28 February 1950
Available in:
23 February 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - List of Governments who have submitted written statements and who have announced that oral statements would be presented on their behalf
Available in:
25 February 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Background information
Available in:
28 February 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Beginning of public hearings - Statement by Dr. Ivan S. Kerno
Available in:
1 March 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Statement by Mr. Benjamin Cohen (U.S.)
Available in:
2 March 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Statement by Mr. G. G. Fitzmaurice (U.K.) - Public hearing concluded
Available in:
27 March 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - The Court will give its Advisory Opinion on 30 March 1950
Available in:
30 March 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Advisory Opinion of the Court of 30 March 1950
Available in:
6 May 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Fixing of the time-limit for the filing of written statements on the second phase of the case
Available in:
6 June 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Two Governments have filed written statements
Available in:
9 June 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - The Court will hold a public hearing on 27 June 1950 to hear the oral statements on the second phase of the case
Available in:
23 June 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - The Secretary-General of the United Nations and two Governments will present an oral statement
Available in:
27 June 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Public hearings of 27 June 1950
Available in:
28 June 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Public hearing of 28 June 1950
Available in:
13 July 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - The Court will give its Advisory Opinion on the second phase of the case on 17 July 1950
Available in:
14 July 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Change in the date of the reading of the Advisory Opinion
Available in:
18 July 1950
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Advisory Opinion of the Court of 18 July 1950 on the second phase of the case
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
From the creation of the United Nations some 12 States had unsuccessfully applied for admission. Their applications were rejected by the Security Council in consequence of a veto imposed by one or other of the States which are permanent members of the Council. A proposal was then made for the admission of all the candidates at the same time. The General Assembly referred the question to the Court. In the interpretation it gave of Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations, in its Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948, the Court declared that the conditions laid down for the admission of States were exhaustive and that if these conditions were fulfilled by a State which was a candidate, the Security Council ought to make the recommendation which would enable the General Assembly to decide upon the admission.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
12 December 1947
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
Pleadings, Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on April 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 1948, the President, M. Guerrero, presiding
Available in:
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
16 February 1948
Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) - The Court fixes the date for the opening of the oral proceedings
Available in:
19 February 1948
Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) - Siam presents a written statement
Available in:
19 February 1948
Conditions de l'admission d'un Etat comme membre des Nations Unies (article 4 de la Charte) - La Cour remet au 22 avril 1948 la date d'ouverture de la procédure orale (French version only)
Available in:
19 April 1948
Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) - Historical Background
Available in:
22 May 1948
Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) - The Court will give its Advisory Opinion on 28 May 1948
Available in:
28 May 1948
Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter) - Advisory Opinion of the Court
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
As a consequence of the assassination in September 1948, in Jerusalem, of Count Folke Bernadotte, the United Nations Mediator in Palestine, and other members of the United Nations Mission to Palestine, the General Assembly asked the Court whether the United Nations had the capacity to bring an international claim against the State responsible with a view to obtaining reparation for damage caused to the Organization and to the victim. If this question were answered in the affirmative, it was further asked in what manner the action taken by the United Nations could be reconciled with such rights as might be possessed by the State of which the victim was a national. In its Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949, the Court held that the Organization was intended to exercise functions and rights which could only be explained on the basis of the possession of a large measure of international personality and the capacity to operate upon the international plane. It followed that the Organization had the capacity to bring a claim and to give it the character of an international action for reparation for the damage that had been caused to it. The Court further declared that the Organization can claim reparation not only in respect of damage caused to itself, but also in respect of damage suffered by the victim or persons entitled through him. Although, according to the traditional rule, diplomatic protection had to be exercised by the national State, the Organization should be regarded in international law as possessing the powers which, even if they are not expressly stated in the Charter, are conferred upon the Organization as being essential to the discharge of its functions. The Organization may require to entrust its agents with important missions in disturbed parts of the world. In such cases, it is necessary that the agents should receive suitable support and protection. The Court therefore found that the Organization has the capacity to claim appropriate reparation, including also reparation for damage suffered by the victim or by persons entitled through him. The risk of possible competition between the Organization and the victim’s national State could be eliminated either by means of a general convention or by a particular agreement in any individual case.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
7 December 1948
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
Pleadings, Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on March 7th, 8th and 9th and April 11th, 1949, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Available in:
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
1 March 1949
Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations - The public hearings will begin on 7 March 1949
Available in:
2 March 1949
Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations - List of the governments who have presented written observations
Available in:
7 April 1949
Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations - The Court will give its Advisory Opinion on 11 April 1949
Available in:
11 April 1949
Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations - Advisory Opinion of the Court of 11 April 1949
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
As a consequence of certain measures adopted by the Egyptian Government against the property and persons of various French nationals and protected persons in Egypt, France instituted proceedings in which it invoked the Montreux Convention of 1935, concerning the abrogation of the capitulations in Egypt. However, the case was not proceeded with, as the Egyptian Government desisted from the measures in question. As France decided not to press its suit and as Egypt had no objection, the case was removed from the Court’s List (Order of 29 March 1950).
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Orders
Press releases
14 October 1949
Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons in Egypt (France v. Egypt) - Filing by France of an Application instituting proceedings against Egypt
Available in:
31 March 1950
Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons in Egypt (France v. Egypt) - Removal of the case from the List of the Court
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
The Judgment delivered by the Court in this case ended a long controversy between the United Kingdom and Norway which had aroused considerable interest in other maritime States. In 1935 Norway enacted a decree by which it reserved certain fishing grounds situated off its northern coast for the exclusive use of its own fishermen. The question at issue was whether this decree, which laid down a method for drawing the baselines from which the width of the Norwegian territorial waters had to be calculated, was valid international law. This question was rendered particularly delicate by the intricacies of the Norwegian coastal zone, with its many fjords, bays, islands, islets and reefs. The United Kingdom contended, inter alia, that some of the baselines fixed by the decree did not accord with the general direction of the coast and were not drawn in a reasonable manner. In its Judgment of 18 December 1951, the Court found that, contrary to the submissions of the United Kingdom, neither the method nor the actual baselines stipulated by the 1935 Decree were contrary to international law.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.