|
Читайте также: |
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia): Judgment of ICJ, 1995
East Timor was ruled by Portugal. Portugal went from there. Indonesia annexed East Timor. Australia acknowledged the capture. In East Timor was the continental shelf, which astral and Indonesia shared. Portugal was against and sued.
there are two different approaches by two different schools of thought to principle of self-determination:
1. External Self- Determination: this is also known as narrower approach. According to
this school of thought, self determination extends only to colonies or areas subject to foreign occupation the right to govern their own affairs free from outside interference.
2. Internal Self- Determination: this is also known as broader approach. According to this
school of thought, this right belongs to all peoples, including minorities & indigenous people living within existing countries. While some believe that the term included the right to succeed, others advocate no more than the right to select a representative government using a legitimate political process.
The case proves once again that you can not become involved in any country (Indonesia).
The Ambatielos Claim (Greece v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (1956)
The Ambatielos Case (Greece v. United Kingdom) was the culmination of a disagreement between the Grecian shipowner Nicolas Eustache Ambatielos and the British government, from whom he had commissioned nine ships at an agreed price and delivery date.
When the British government missed every deadline, the resulting financial losses caused Ambatielos to fail to meet payments, eventually resulting in the reseizure of the already completed ships, ruining Ambatielos, who failed to resolve the matter in UK courts.
On 9 April 1952, Greece took the UK to the International Court of Justice, claiming that the British Board of Trade disregarded British legal protocol by failing to fully disclose to the court the delivery dates promised by the British Government, and the British Court of Appeal disregarded British legal protocol regarding 'fresh evidence' by denying appeal, thus denying Ambatielos adequate legal protection, contrary to international law and the Greco-British Treaty of Commerce and Navigation (1886); and, by declining to enter into an arbitration process with Greece, the UK government was in breach of said treaty and its UN agreements to 'peacefully resolve' international disputes.
On 1 July 1952 the ICJ ruled that it had no jurisdiction in the issue of Mr Ambatielos' trial, but had jurisdiction to decide whether or not the UK is obliged to enter into an arbitration process under the Greco-British Treaty of Commerce and Navigation.
On 19 May 1953 it ruled that the UK was obliged to enter into an arbitration process with Greece (which it did, and which was arbitrated in the UK's favour)
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=80&code=guk&p1=3&p2=3&case=15&k=f7&p3=5
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/riaa/cases/vol_XII/83-153_Ambatielos.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambatielos_Case_(Greece_v._United_Kingdom)
Nuclear Tests case (Australia v. France): Judgment of ICJ, 1974
the proceedings instituted before the Court on 9 May 11973 concerned1 the atmospheric
nuclear tests conducted by France in the South Pacific
Australia complained to France for nuclear tests, and in the meantime thought France itself canceled tests and promised not to spend more. The court dismissed the case for reconciliation.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/58/6095.pdf
North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v. Netherland): Judgment of ICJ, 1969
The North Sea Continental Shelf cases were a series of disputes that came to the International Court of Justice in 1969. They involved agreements among Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands regarding the "delimitation" of areas—rich in oil and gas—of the continental shelf in the North Sea.
The Court ultimately urged the parties to "abat[e] the effects of an incidental special feature [Germany's concave coast] from which an unjustifiable difference of treatment could result." In subsequent negotiations, the states granted to Germany most of the additional shelf it sought.[2] The cases are viewed as an example of "equity praeter legem"—that is, equity "beyond the law"—when a judge supplements the law with equitable rules necessary to decide the case at hand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Continental_Shelf_cases
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application: 1962) ICJ
Barcelona Traction (the Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company, abbreviated BTLP) was a corporation that controlled light and power utilities in Spain and was incorporated in Toronto, Canada on September 12, 1911 by Frederick Stark Pearson.
It was operated in Spain but was owned mostly by Belgians. The company was developed by American engineer Dannie Heineman. It was the subject of the important International Court of Justice (ICJ) case, Belgium v. Spain (1970), also called the Barcelona Traction Case.
The government of Spain under Franco in the 1960s placed restrictions on foreigners doing business in Spain. The Belgian stockholders in Barcelona Traction lost money and wanted to sue in the International Court of Justice, but in the court Judge Fornier ruled on the side of Spain, holding that only the state in which the corporation was incorporated (Canada) can sue.
The decision in Belgium v. Spain is important in public international law because it demonstrates the importance of protections of corporate nationality in nominal ("paper") terms over effective nationality (siège social) where the ownership effectively resides. Unless a principle of law permits a country to espouse a national's claim in the ICJ, there cannot be an espousal.
The case is also important as it demonstrates how the concept of diplomatic protection under international law can apply equally to corporations as to individuals. It also expanded the notion of obligations owed erga omnes (in relation to everyone) in the international community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_Traction
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=1a&case=50&code=bt2&p3=5
The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People's Republic of Albania), ICJ
The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People's Republic of Albania) was a case brought against Albania by the UK, suing for compensation after, on 22 October 1946, two British destroyers hit sea-mines in Albanian waters at the straits of Corfu, damaging them and killing naval personnel during the Corfu Channel Incident.
The International Court of Justice ordered Albania to pay the UK £843,947 in compensation.
This was the first case brought before the ICJ.
The Corfu Channel case established that states must meet a preponderance of the evidence standard to prevail before the ICJ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corfu_Channel_Case_(United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_v._People's_Republic_of_Albania)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfu_Channel_incident
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. United States of America), International Court of Justice (ICJ), 1986
The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America [1] was a 1984 case of theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) in which the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua and against the United States and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by theUnited Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[2] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[3]
The Court found in its verdict that the United States was "in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State", "not to intervene in its affairs", "not to violate its sovereignty", "not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce", and "in breach of its obligations under Article XIX of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the Parties signed at Managua on 21 January 1956."
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?p1=3&p2=3&k=66&case=70&code=nus&p3=5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States
Construction of a Wall Case (Advisory Opinion), ICJ, 9 July 2004
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states the legal consequences arising from that illegality.
On 9 July 2004, the International Court of Justice (the ‘ICJ’ or ‘Court’) issued its Advisory Opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s construction of a barrier (the ‘Wall’) separating portions of the West Bank from Israel.
Because a number of the obligations breached by Israel were owed erga omnes — to the international community as a whole — all States were obligated to refrain from aiding Israel in its violations.
Palestine, given its responsibility for acts of violence against Israel and its population which the wall is aimed at addressing, cannot seek from the court a remedy for a situation resulting from its own wrongdoing. In this context, Israel has invoked the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de sua iniuria proprio [1] , which it considers to be relevant in advisory proceedings as it is in contentious cases. 3
Israel concluded that good faith and the principle of ‘clean hands’ provided a compelling reason for the court to refuse the General Assembly's request for an advisory opinion. The court did not consider this argument to be pertinent on the ground that the opinion was to be given to the General Assembly and not to a specific State or entity. On the other hand, the court did not reject the relevance of the argument to inter-State disputes in contentious proceedings.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&ca
http://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr27_4/Friedman.pdf
Oil Platforms Case (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), ICJ
The International Court of Justice case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) was a result of the destruction of three Iranian offshore oil platforms and multiple United States Navy.
In a unique twist, the legal proceedings and following verdict were not centered around general international law but rather a bilateral trade agreement between Iran and the United States called Treaty of Amity, Economic, and Consular Rights Between the United States of America and Iran. In 2003, 11 years after the initial application was submitted by Iran, the ICJ rejected the claims of both states.
In the Oil Platforms Case the US raised an issue of a preliminary character. It requested the court to dismiss the claims of Iran because of the latter's own unlawful conduct. Iran characterized the objection as being based on a ‘clean hands’ theory which was, so it claimed, irrelevant in direct State-to-State claims as a ground for inadmissibility of a claim, although it may be relevant in claims for diplomatic protection. Iran, however, acknowledged that the principle might be relevant at the merits stage. The ICJ rejected the argument that the claim of the US was one of inadmissibility but found that it was unnecessary to deal with the request to dismiss the claim of Iran on the basis of conduct attributed to the latter. The Court left open the question whether the ‘clean hands’ principle was a ground for inadmissibility of a claim only in the context of diplomatic protection, omitting to deal with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Platforms_(Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_v._United_States_of_America)
La Grand Case (Germany v. USA), ICJ, 2 March 1999
Germany brings a case against the United States of America and requests the indication of provisional measures
In Arizona arrested a German bank robber. Germany asked to give its citizens, but the Americans executed him.
In the La Grand Case the US objected to Germany's claim on grounds which appeared to relate to the ‘clean hands’ theory. The US argued that Germany's submissions were inadmissible on the ground that Germany sought to have a standard applied to the US which was different from that of its own practice.
The US maintained that it would be contrary to basic principles of administration of justice and equality of the parties to apply against the US alleged rules that Germany appeared not to apply to itself. Germany denied that it was seeking adherence to standards with which Germany itself did not comply. The ICJ found that it did not need to decide whether the objection of the US, if proven, would result in the inadmissibility of Germany's submissions because the evidence adduced by the US did not support the conclusion that Germany's own practice failed to conform to the standards it demanded of the US.
The court also found that the United States violated the Vienna Convention through its application of procedural default. The court was at pains to point out that it was not passing judgment on the doctrine itself, but only its application to cases involving the Vienna Convention.
On June 27, 2001, the ICJ, rejecting all of the United States' arguments, ruled in favor of Germany. The ICJ held that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 (Vienna Convention) granted rights to individuals on the basis of its plain meaning, and that domestic laws could not limit the rights of the accused under the convention, but only specify the means by which those rights were to be exercised.
The ICJ also found that its own provisional measures were legally binding. The nature of provisional measures has been a subject of great dispute in international law; the English text of the Statute of the International Court of Justice implies they are not binding, while the French text implies that they are. Faced with a contradiction between two equally authentic texts of the statute, the court considered which interpretation better served the objects and purposes of the statute, and hence found that they are binding. This was the first time in the court's history it had ruled as such.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=348&code=gus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=104&k=04
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaGrand_case
Avena case and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), International Court of Justice (ICJ), 31 March 2004
On 9 January 2003 Mexico instituted proceedings against the United States of America in a dispute concerning alleged breaches of Articles 5 and 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963 in relation to the treatment of a number of Mexican nationals who had been tried, convicted and sentenced to death in criminal proceedings in the United States. On 9 January 2003 Mexico also asked the Court to indicate provisional measures, and in particular to order the United States to take all measures necessary to ensure that no Mexican national was executed pending a final decision of the Court.
On 5 February 2003 the Court unanimously adopted an Order indicating such measures. On 31 March 2004, in the judgment on the merits, the Court found that the United States of America had breached its obligations to Mr. Avena and other Mexican nationals and to Mexico under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
On 5 June 2008 Mexico filed a Request for Interpretation of part of the Judgment of 31 March 2004.
In the Avena Case the US raised an argument similar to the one it raised in the La Grand Case without describing it as a ‘clean hands’ argument. The objection was presented in terms of the interpretation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. The interpretation given by the US was based on the rule that a treaty may not be interpreted so as to impose a significantly greater burden on any one party than the other. The ICJ dismissed the argument. The court relied on an approach to the interpretation of the Vienna Convention which did not permit it to accept the argument of the US. It then said:
Even if it were shown, therefore, that Mexico's practice as regards the application of article 36 was not beyond reproach, this would not constitute a ground of objection to the admissibility of Mexico's claim.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=605&code=mus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&
http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=6186
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_v._United_States_of_America
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary / Slovakia), ICJ, 17/02/1997 - 7 December 1998
The Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Dams (more precisely Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Waterworks) is a large barrage project on the Danube. It was initiated by the Budapest Treaty of 16 September 1977 between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the People's Republic of Hungary. The project aimed at preventing catastrophic floods, improving river navigability and producing clean electricity. Only a part of the project has been finished in Slovakia, under the name Gabčíkovo Dam, because Hungary first suspended then tried to terminate the project due to environmental concerns. Slovakia proceeded with an alternative solution, called "Variant C", which involved diverting the Danube. These caused a still unresolved international dispute between Slovakia and Hungary. Both parties turned to the International Court at The Hague for a ruling.
· The Court found that both Hungary and Slovakia had breached their legal obligations. It called on both States to negotiate in good faith in order to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the 1977 Budapest Treaty, which it declared was still in force, while taking account of the factual situation that had developed since 1989.[10]
· Each Party must compensate the other Party for the damage caused by its conduct.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/92/7377.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab%C4%8D%C3%ADkovo%E2%80%93Nagymaros_Dams
Arrest Warrant Case of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium). International Court of Justice (ICJ), 14 February 2002.
Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium). International Court of Justice (ICJ). 14 February 2002.
In 1993, Belgium's Parliament voted a "law of universal jurisdiction", allowing it to judge people accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. In 2001, four Rwandan people were convicted and given sentences from 12 to 20 years' imprisonment for their involvement in 1994 Rwandan genocide. There was quickly an explosion of suits deposed.
There was an in specie rejection of the argument based on the ‘clean hands’ doctrine, again based on the need to give the treaty a reasonable application. In the Arrest Warrant Case the Belgian judge ad hoc, Judge van den Wyngaert, dissenting, held that:
The Congo did not come to the Court with clean hands. In blaming Belgium for investigating and prosecuting allegations of international crimes that it was obliged to investigate and prosecute itself, the Congo acts in bad faith. 8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_Concerning_the_Arrest_Warrant_of_11_April_2000_(Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo_v._Belgium)
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), I.C.J., 2005
On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) instituted proceedings against Uganda in respect of a dispute concerning acts of armed aggression perpetrated by Uganda on the territory of the DRC, in violation of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity.
On 15 December 2005, the Court found that Uganda violated the principles of non-use of force in international relations and of non-intervention, that it violated its obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and that it violated other obligations owed to the DRC.
The Court additionally found that the DRC in turn violated obligations owed to Uganda under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.
http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/?id=2
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/116/10455.pdf
Asylum (Columbia v. Peru), Merits, 1950 I.C.J., 20 November 1950
In the Asylum Case (Colombia v Perú), judgement 20 November 1950 (General List No. 7 (1949–1950)), the ICJ recognised that Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice encompassed local custom as well as general custom, in much the same way as it encompasses bilateral and multilateral treaties. The Court also clarified that for custom to be definitively proven, it must be continuously and uniformly executed.
The Colombian Ambassador in Lima, Perú allowed Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, head of the American People's Revolutionary Alliance sanctuary after his faction lost a one day civil war in Peru on 3 October 1948. The Colombian government granted him asylum, but the Peruvian government refused to grant him safe passage out of Peru.
Colombia maintained that according to the Conventions in force - the Bolivian Agreement of 1911 on Extradition, the Havana Convention of 1928 on Asylum, the Montevideo Convention of 1933 on Political Asylum – and according to American International Law, they were entitled to decide if asylum should be granted and their unilateral decision on this was binding on Perú.
Both submissions of Colombia were rejected by the Court. It was not found that the custom of Asylum was uniformly or continuously executed sufficiently to demonstrate that the custom was of a generally-applicable character.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_Case_(Colombia_v._Peru)
http://www.tjsl.edu/slomansonb/2.7_ColvPeru.pdf
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), I.C.J., 1992
On 19 May 1989, Nauru filed an Application instituting proceedings against Australia in respect of a dispute over the rehabilitation of certain phosphate lands mined under Australian administration before Nauruan independence.
In its Application Nauru claimed that Australia had breached the trusteeship obligations it had accepted under Article 76 of the United Nations Charter and under the Trusteeship Agreement for Nauru of 1 November 1947.
On 9 September 1993, the Agents of Nauru and Australia notified the Court that, having reached a settlement, the two Parties had agreed to discontinue the proceedings.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=naus&case=80
http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=6232
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/80/6655.pdf
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada v. U.S.), I.C.J., 1984
Case concerning the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine – the continental shelf and the exclusive fishing zone in it.
United States in 1976 drew a line with the consent of Canada. But the problem is that the shelf with the resources went to the USA, and the fishing zone to Canada.
"No maritime delimitation between States with opposite or adjacent coasts may be effected unilaterally by one of those States. Such delimitation must be sought and effected by means of an agreement, following negotiations conducted in good faith and with the genuine intention of achieving a positive result. Where, however, such agreement cannot be achieved, delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third party possessing the necessary competence.
"In either case delimitation is to be effected by the application of equitable criteria and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring, with regard to the geographic configuration of the area and other relevant circumstances, an equitable result." (Para. 112.)
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=346&code=cigm&p1=3&p2=3&case=67&k=6f&p3=5
Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (U.S. v. Italy), 1989 I.C.J.
Raytheon-ELSI S.p.A. was an Italian company, 99% shares of which belonged to the U.S. Raytheon Company.
Due to financial problems the Americans closed the ELSI, despite the protest of the Italian authorities.
Italian forensic appropriated this factory, which violated Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation concluded between Italy and the United States (FCN Treaty). Americans turned to the ICJ.
Court decided:
Having thus found that the Respondent, Italy, had not violated the FCN Treaty in the manner asserted by the Applicant, it follows that the Chamber rejected the claim for reparation made by the Applicant.
http://www.mpil.de/ww/en/pub/research/details/publications/institute/wcd.cfm?fuseaction_wcd=aktdat&aktdat=dec0106.cfm
Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Norway), 1951 I.C.J.
The Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway) was the culmination of a dispute, originating in 1933, over how large an area of water surrounding Norway was Norwegian waters (that Norway thus had exclusive fishing rights to) and how much was 'high seas' (that the UK could thus fish).
On 24 September 1949, the UK requested that the ICJ determine how far Norway's territorial claim extended to sea, and to award the UK damages in compensation for Norwegian interference with UK fishing vessels in the disputed waters, claiming that Norway's claim to such an extent of waters was against international law.
On 18 December 1951, the ICJ decided that Norway's claims to the waters were not inconsistent with international laws concerning the ownership of local sea-space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisheries_Case_(United_Kingdom_v._Norway)
http://iilj.org/courses/documents/UnitedKingdomv.Norway_ICJ1951_.pdf
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali), 1986 I.C.J.
The Burkina Faso-Niger frontier dispute case is an on-going case with the International Court of Justice served by the neighbouring African states of Burkina Faso and Niger. [1]
Both nations submitted the dispute to The Hague on 20 July, 2010.
The dispute can be summarised by these points;
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=359&code=hvm&p1=3&p2=3&case=69&k=b3&p3=5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burkina_Faso%E2%80%93Niger_frontier_dispute_case,_2010
Interhandel (Switzerland v. U.S), Preliminary Objections, 1959 I.C.J.
dispute which had arisen with regard to the claim by Switzerland to the restitution by the United States of America of the assets of the Interhandel Company.
Case started in World War II.
There was the General Aniline and Film Corporation (GAR), a company incorporated in the United States, on the ground that those shares in reality belonged to the I.G. Falrben Company of Frankfurt or that the GAF was in one way 'or another controlled by that enemy (Germany) company.
In 1945, under a prosvisional agreement between Switzerland, the United States, France and the United Kingdom, property in Switzerland bel.onging to Germans in Germany was blocked.
Но швейцарцы не блокировали счета, так как то была частично их компания и доказателсьв связи с Германией они не нашли.
Switzerland пошла в the Court чтобы отсудить от США активы компании.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/34/2299.pdf
Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana v. Namibia), 1999 I.C.J.
By a special agreement of 15 February 1996, Botswana and Nigeria submitted to the I.C.J. the settlement of the dispute concerning the boundary around the island (known as Kisikili in Botswana and Sedudu in Namibia) in the Chobe River, on the basis of the Great Britain–German Treaty of 1 July 1890 delimiting their respective spheres of influence in Africa and the rules and principles of international law.
On 13 December 1999, the Court found (11 to 4) that the boundary followed ‘the line of deepest soundings in the northern channel’. The Court applied the criterion set out in art. III of the 1890 Treaty, which called for the boundary to be the ‘centre of the main channel’, adverting on the various meanings and possible applications of this thalweg principle and concluding that subsequent practice and later maps had not demonstrated any intention to deviate from that principle.
The Court also found (11 to 4) that the Kasikili–Sedudu Island formed part of the territory of Botswana. In denying Namibia's prescriptive claim, the Court stated that Namibia ‘has not established with the necessary degree of precision and certainty that acts of State authority capable of providing … justification for prescriptive title … were carried out by its predecessors or by itself’: at 1106.
Additionally, and on the basis of the specific agreement of 24 May 1992 between Namibia and Botswana, the Court found (unanimously) that the nationals and vessels of both parties are to enjoy ‘equal national treatment’ in both the north and south channels.
http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195389777.001.0001/acref-9780195389777-e-1253?rskey=7xcCOR&result=1027&q=
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=b7&case=98&code=bona&p3=5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasikili
Minquiers and Ecrehos (France v. U.K.), 1953 I.C.J.
The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France/United Kingdom) was an International Court of Justice case in which the UK and Francerequested that the ICJ determine which country held sovereignty over the islets and rocks in the Minquiers and Écréhous groups. France claimed sovereignty because it fished in the waters and because of its historic sovereignty over the area going back to the Duchy of Normandy in the eleventh century, whilst the UK claimed that Jersey had historically exercised legal and administrative jurisdiction over them.
Initially requested on 5 December 1951, the ICJ decided on 17 November 1953 that sovereignty over the islands belonged to the United Kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minquiers_and_Ecrehos_Case_(France_v._United_Kingdom)
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=88&code=fuk&p1=3&p2=3&case=17&k=19&p3=5
Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Preliminary Objections, 1953 I.C.J.
Nottebohm, born September 16, 1881 in Hamburg, Germany, possessed Germancitizenship. Although he lived in Guatemala from 1905 until 1943 he never became a citizen of Guatemala. On October 9, 1939, Nottebohm applied to become a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein. The application was approved under exceptional circumstances[ clarification needed ] and he became a citizen of Liechtenstein. He then returned to Guatemala on his Liechtenstein passport and informed the local government of his change of nationality. When he tried to return to Guatemala once again in 1943 he was refused entry as an enemy alien since the Guatemalan authorities did not recognise his naturalisation and regarded him as still German. It has been suggested that the timing of the event was due to the recent entry of the United States and Guatemala into the Second World War.
He was later extradited to the U.S., where he was held at an internment camp until the end of the war. All his possessions in Guatemala were confiscated. After his release, he lived out the rest of his life in Liechtenstein.
Дата добавления: 2015-10-23; просмотров: 225 | Нарушение авторских прав
| <== предыдущая страница | | | следующая страница ==> |
| Canadian Parliament consists of 2 Houses- the elected House of Commons and the Senate | | | Lean on smb succeed |