Ambatielos (Greece v. United Kingdom) - Judgment

Z.C.J. w-

The following Lnformation from the Registry of the Internatianal
Court of Justice has been comunicated to the Press:

Todsy, Ph7 19th, 1953, the International Court of Justice
delivered its Judgment in the Ambatislos case (~erits : Obligation
to' ~rbitrake) , between Grcece and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland,

These proceedings had been instituted by an Application by the
Hellenic Goverment, which, having taken up the case of one of its
nationah, the shipomer Ambatielos ,ad przycd the CouA to declare
th~t the clkim which the latter. had made &gains% the Goverment of
the Unitcd Kingdom shauld bc submittcd to arbitration in accordance
with Anglo-Grce kgr~ements sancludcd fn 18G6 (Treaty md rotoc col)
and 'ln 1926 (Dcclaroit on) . Following a Preliminary Objection lodged
by the United Kingdom, the Court found th& it had jurisdiction to
adjudicate on this question by a J~dgm~nt delivered on July lst, 1952.

In its Sudment of todayrs data, the Court finds, by ken votes
to four, th& the United Kulgdom is iuider m obligzkion to submit to
zrbitr&ion, in accordancc with thc Declaration of 1926, the difference
as to the validity, undzrthe Trezty of 1886, cf thc Ambztielos claim.

Sir ArnoldI4cNeir, President , Judgos Basdcvmt ,Klacstad and
Rcad2-ppended to the Judpent a joint statsnent cf their dLsscntSig
opinion.

In its Judgrnent, thc Court begins by defining the question bafore
it: is the United Kjngdom under an obligation to accept arbitrztion
of the differencd bctween GhpPt Goverment and thc Hellenic Goverment
concerrhg the validitylr.ofthe 1'Ynbztielos claim, in so far as this
clairiiis based on the Tresty of k886? The distjnctive character of
this czse ia fhat quite unlike the Javrommatis Palestine Concessions,
decided byathe Femment Court of Irrternational Justice in 1924 Lhe
Court is called upon tu decide, no5 its avm jurisdiction, but whether
a dispute should be referred to another tribunel for arbitratian.

!The Parties have rested their cese on the Declaration of 1926
and the Sudgrnent of the Court of July lst, 1952. The Declaration
was agreed iapor~for the purposeof safeguarding the interests of the
Parties wikh raspect to claims on behalf of private persons based on
the Trezty of 1886,for which, on the tcmination of that Treaty,
thcre muid 'have becn no remedy 5n the event of the failure of the
Parties to ~rriva at arcable settlemonts. The !&remen% of 1926
rclatos. to a liriiibedcatcgory of differcnces which the Rgrecnent of
1886 provided should be scttlcd by arbitsat ion, nmely diffcrences
as to the vdidity of clslns on bchalf of privais persons bascd on
the Treaty of 1886. But in bath cases the Parties were promptcd
bg the smc motives and adopted the smc method of arbitrztion.

3y ths Judgment of JuLy Ist, 1952, the mrits of the Ambatlelos claim
wcre found to be outside the gurisdictio of the Coud , ...
which consists solely of deciding whether the United Kingdom is
uyides an obligation to accept arbitraVion . The lbited jurisdiction
of the Court is to be clearly diatinguishef drom the jurisdiction of
the Gomission of Arbitra;tion. Xhc Court must refrainfron
pronouncing final judgment upon my questionof fact or law falling
wîthlnthe merits; its task'will have been cornpleted whenit has
1
decided ....decided Whether the difference ?.ritregerd to the Ambatielos claim is *
a difference as to the validity of a clair? on behalf of a private
person based on the provisions of the Treaty of 1886 2nd whether,

in consequence, there is ul obligation blnding the United Kingdom to
accept arbitrztion,

FSnakmeankg is to be attributed .to the word "basedl1 on the
Trezty of 1886~ In the opinion of the Grcek Govemxent it would
sufficethat the cleh should not psba facie appear to be
unconnected with the Treaty. In the vlew of the United king don^,
i5 is necessary for the Court to determine, as a substantive issue,
whether the daim is actuelly or genuinely based on theTreaty.
The Court is unable ta accepLeither of these views. The first
muld constituie an Ulçufficlent reasdn; the second would lead GO

the substitutio nf the Court for the Cormission of hrbitrztion in
pessing on a point which constitutes one of the principal elements
of the claini. The Gomiussion alone has jurisdiction to adjudiczte
on the rnerits; and it cannot be asswl~ed that the 12greemonf; of 1926
contemplate shzt the verific~t ion of the il2zg~~tions of fact should
be the duty of the Commission, whilc the detemination of the question
whether the f acts allegedconstritute a violation of the Treixty of 1886 e
should form the task of :mothcr tribund.

At the Lime of the signature of the'Decl~rzkion of 1926, the

British and Greek Goverments never intended that one of thm alone
or some othcr orgm should decidewhethes 2 claim ms genuinely
besed on the Treaty of 1886; it filusthzve beeri thcir intention thai
the genuinenesc sf the Srezty basisof any clairiz, if contestecl,
should be a.~thoritnt ivelyde cided by the Comiss ion of Arbitrat ion,
togebher with any other questions rclating to the rncrits.

Far the purposeof determining the obligation of the United
Kingdon ta sccept arbl-tration, the exprcssivnclabas based on the
Trezty of 1886 cmnot bc understoad as meking clsllns actually
supportable under thd Treaty. Of course it is not anough that

3 claim should have e rernote connaçtion with thc 'Trexliy for it to
be besed on it; on the othar hnnd it is not neccsszry that m
unaisailabl Iegd basis should be shom for Zn alkgad Treaty
violation. 3.1iLs contcxt , the sxpressicin aeans cla5~s depending
for support on the provisions ci'the Trenty of 1886, so that the a
claims will evzntudly stmd or fa11according as thc provisions
of the Trea%y are construed in one way or mether. Consequently,
in respect of the mbztit.elos cl~jm,it is not necessary for the
Court to f ind th& thc Hellenic Ga&rment rs "htcrpretatiun, of the
Treaty is the only correct interpretadion: it is elacugh to
detemine whether the ergui~ents advmced by tha Hellenic Goverment

in support of its ulterpretation 2rc of n sufficientl ylzusible
character to warrank a conelusion thatthe clab is based on the
Treaty, In other wcrds, i2 Intcxpretation appears tc bc an
afguable one, whethcror net it ultbately prevails, then there are
reasonablo graunds for ~anc1u~rZixathat the claln is'based on-.the
Treaty. The vdidity of the rospecttve agments.yould be
d.etemied by the Commission of Arbitration in pasçing upon the
rnerits of the difference.

The Cou* tizen proceedç to deal with two of the contcntlons
put forward by Grsece ad contested by the United Kingdom,
One
is based on the most-favour2d-nation clsuse 111,;rticle X of the
Treaty of 1886 vhlch would permit Grreceto invoke the benefits
of Treaties concluded by the United Kingdom with third states and
obtafn redress for a denial of justice Bk. rlnbatielos wçiuld have
suffered - if the facts dleged wcre tme,

The .... The othes contonticir&basad on Article XV rcsts on m interpretation
of the words 'ffree access ta the Courts of Justicetf appesring in that
Article; again on the 3ssumption that the facts alleged are true, it
is contended that Tb. iimbatielos did not have '[free accesslT to English
courts .

Heving regard to these contentions, as ml1 as the divergsnce of
views whleh give rise to them, and bezriilg in mind especially the

possible interpretation put forward by the Hellenic Govsrnmsnt of the
provisions of the Trezty of 1886 whicb it invakes, the Court must
conclude that thisis a case in which the HellenicGoverment is
presenting a clah on behalf of 2 privste person bnsed on the Treaty
of 1886, ad that the differenc eetween the Parties is the kind of
differencs hhich, acçorduig to the Agreement of 1926, should be
submit ted to arbit railon.

The Hague, May l9th, 1953.