I.G.J. Communique NO, 53/40
(unofficial)
The following informatiofn mm the Registry of th2 International
Court of Justice has been communica'ted to the Press:
To-day, November l7th, 1953, Ghc International Court of Justice at
. . Tho Hague gave its Judgmei~t in t:ic case of the ~4.ljuiquivad %lm Ecrehas
submitted to i.t by virtue of a Special Agreementconcluded between the
. Unitki Kingdom and Frmce on Decomb2r29th, 19.50. In n unanimaus
dccision, tho Courtfou.nd thnisovereignt yvcr the islets and rocks of
the Ecrehos and the i4inquiers groups, in so far as these islets and rocks '
ar z cap8ble of nppropr j-ation,belongs to th ¢ United Kingdom.
In its Judgment, tlze Court hegan by definbg th0 task laidbefore
it by the Parties, The two groups of islets in question lie betwecn
the British Channel Islmd of Jersey and the coast of Prwco. The
Gcrahos fie 3-9 sea miles from the former and 6.6 sea miles from the
latter. The Piinquiers group lie 9.8 sea miles fmm Jersey ,and 16.2 sea
milosfrom the Frenchminland md 8 miles atrayfsom the Chauseyisbtnds
~fhich,belong ta France. Under the Special Agre~ment, the Court. was asked
to determine whlckof the Parties had producad themore convincing proof
of title to these groi;ps lhndany possibility of applying to them the
statu8 'ofterra nullius was set aside. In addition, thequestion of
burden of proof was reservedi each Party therefore had to proTe Its
aUeged title and the facts upon which Tt relied. FinaUy, wkn the
Special Agreement refers to islets and rocks, bn so far as theyare
capableof appropriation ,t must be considersd that these termsrelate
to islets ad rocks phgsically capable of appropriation. The Court did
not have ta determine in dztail.the fclcts relating to the particular
units of. the two groups,
The Court then ewd&ed the titles hvoked by bothParties. The
Unitcà Kingdom bvernment derives its ti-tle fmm the conquest of England
by Mll1i;im Dukeof Mormmdy in 1.066, The union thus established between
Znghd and the hchy of Nomndy, Ixicluding the Channel Islands,hsted
mtil lîQl+, when Pbilip :!ugustus of France conguered continental. Normandy.
But, his attemptsto occupyalso the islands havlng been unsuccessful,
the United Kingdom submitted theview that al1 of the Chamel Iskmds,
includuig the Xcrehos and the Piinquiers, rmined united with :&gland
bhat this situath-i of fnct w2,s placed on a LegA basis by subsequent
trexties concluded betweenthe two couritries. The French C-overnment
contended for its part that, af ter 1204, the King of Frmce held the
Minquiers and the Ecrehos,to.gether with some other isLands close to the
Continent, and referredto the sme mediaaval treaties as thoke hvokod
by the United Khgdom.
The Court found that none of those treotios (Troaty of Paris of .
U59, Tretzty of Calais of 1160, Treaty of Troyes of U20) specified
which islmds were held by the King of Engld or by the King of France.
There ara, however, othcr,mcient documentswhick providesome indica-
tions as to th% possessionof the isletsin dispute. The United Kingdom
relied on them to showthat the Chzmel Iskndç were considsred as asl
entity and, sincethe more important islnnds were h~ld by Engbd, this
country alsn possessed the graups in dispute. For the Court, there
appears to be a strong presum9tion jn falrour ofthis view, rdthout it
beluigpossible,however, to dr3.v~nny def initive conclusion as to the
sovereignty over the groups, sulce this questionmst ultimtcly depend
on the evidence which rel@es direqtly. t..possession. ,
For its part,the French Governmen-t;s;~wa preswnption in favow of
French 'sovereipty in the f eudnl link beheen the Ring of Frmco, everlord
of the whole of ru'omdy, the King of Zrighd, ,fisnss21 for these
tarritories. h this comection, It relies on n Judpent of the Court
of .,o. of France of 1202, vrllich condcmod John Lacklmd to forfzit nll the
Imds whlch he hvld tn fco of th0 Iibg of Frmca, including the whole
of 1Vormri.ndy. Sut the United Kingdom Goverment contands thnt the feudal
titla of the French Kkgs in respect of Normncly w:s only nominal, It
dznies that the Ch,?.nncl Jsl~~nds were rocoivcd in fee of th2 King of France
by tha &Ac: of Nom~ndy, 3.nd contests the vnlidity, mc! cven the existence,
of the judpent of 1202. i,!ithoutsolving those historical controversies,
the Cpurt considered it suff icient to state th~t the legal effects attached
to the dismembarmznt of the Duchy of i\iormnndg in 1204, when Nomwdy W~B
occupied by the French, have bezn superseded by the numerouseventswhich
occurred jn the followhg centuries. h the ophion of the Court, what
is of decisive inportmcz is not indirect prcsumptions based on mtters
in the Kiddlc Agcs, but tlîe evidence hich rolates directly to the
possessionof the groups.
Before considering this zvidencc, the Court first ex~~ed certain
questions concerning 60th groups. The French Govzrnment contended thnt a
Convent ion on fishery, concluded in 1839, although it did not settle the
question of sov:rcignty, nffected however Wlnb question. It is said that
the groups in dispute were included in the com~zon fisheryzone crented
by the Convention. It is s;:id also that th2 conclusion of this Convention
precludes the Partiesfrou relyuig on subseguent acts involving a nsni- e
festation of sovereignty. The Court was uncble to ncceptthese
contentions because the Convention denlt with the wsters only, and net
the commonuser of the torritory of the islets. In the special circum-
stanceso f the czse, md in view of tha date at wllich n dispute real3y
nrosc between the two Qoverwrients zbout these groups, the Court shall
consider al1 the acts of the Parties, unless nny men,sure was tnken with
a view to improving the legnl position of the Party concerned,
The Covrt thenexvnined the situation of cach group. Mith regard
- -
to the Gcrehos jn pnrticular, md on the basis of vnrious mediaeval
documents, it held the vizw thnt the Ring of figL,md excrcised hi,
justice Gd levied his rights in these iilets. Those documentsalso
. show that there was nt thnt tirnen close relntionship betweenthe
Ecrehos md Jersey.
From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the connectio neccame
closerngain, because of the graving importance of oyster fisheqr. The
Court attached probative value to various ncts relating to the exerçisa
by Jersey of jurisdictioa nnd loc,dndministrnt ion and to legis~~.tion,
such as criminal proceedhgs concerning the Ecrehos, the levyhg of
tas on hzbitnblehauses or hutsbuilt on the islets since 1889, the
registx~~tion in Jorsey of coïitracts dealing with real estate on the
Ecrchos .
The Frznch Governent invoked the füct that In 1646 tho States of
Jerscy prohj-nited fishing ,2tthe Scrchas and the Chausey and restricted
visits. to the Scr~hos in 1692. TL meztioned alse diplomtic exchanges
bet,wcen'the lm0 Governments, in the beginning of the nineteenth cantury,
to which were attnched chnrts on which part of the Screhos at hast was
rmrked outside Jerscy mtzrs and treztsd as res nullius. In a note to
'the Foreigi Off iCe of Decembcr 55th, 1886, the French Crwernment ,
claimed for the firstt,he s~vereignty over tho Ecrel~as.
I
Appraising the r.?lative strenah of the opposhg claims in the
light of these fncts,the Court found that sovarzignty over the Zcrehos
. .belongzd to the Gnited Kingdom.
Kith regard to the I)iinquiers, the Court noted th& in 1615, 1616,
1617 and 1692, the iknorinl court of the fief of Mairmont in Jersey
, . ex~rcised its jurisdiction in the cese of wrecksfound at the Plquiers,
because of the territorial chnrac ter of that jurisdict ion.
Other ,-;, Other evidençe concernirig the end of the eighteenth çentury, the
nineteenth and the twentieth centuries concerned inquests en corpses
found at the fin@ers, the erection on the islets of habitable houses
or huts by persons from Jersey who paid property taxes on thataccount,
the registration in Jersey of contracts of sale relating to real
property in the Plinquiers. These various facts show that Jersey .
authorities have, in several ways, exercised ordinary local adminis-
tration in respect of the Enquiers durlng a long periad of tim and
that, for a considerable part of the nineteenth century and the
twentletn century , British authoritics have exercised Statefunctions
in respect of this group,
The French Goverm-nt alleged certain facts, It contended that
the Minquiers were a dependencg of the Chausey Islands, granted by the
Duke of Nomdy to the Abbeg a£ Nont-Saint-Hichel in 1022. In1784
a correspondence be-tween French authori ticsconccrnzd an application
for a concession in r~spcct of the mnquicrs made by a French national.
The Court held the view that this corrcspondence did not disclose
anflhing which coüld support the prcs cnt French clalm ta soverei gnty,
but that it revealed certain fears of creating difficultics vith the
English Crorin. The French Gowrnmcnt furthcr contended that, since
1861, it has assunied the sale charg;: of thelighting and buoying of
the Minquiers, htithout having oncountcred any objection from the United
Kingdom, The Court said that the buoys phced by the French bvemunent
at the mnquiers were placed outside the rcefs of the groups and
purported to aid navigation to and fram French ports and protect shipping
against the dangerous rzef s of the Knquiars, Thc Frunch Government
also reliedon various official visits to the Iviinquicrs and the erection
in 1939 of a house on onc of thc islets with a subsidy from the Mayor
of Granville, in continental Normndy .
The Court did not find that the facts invoked by the French
Goverment were sufficiont to show that France has a valid titleto the
Phquiers, As to the nbove-mntioned facts from the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries in particular, such acts could hardly be considered
as sufficient evidence of the intention of that Goverment Lo ect as
sovereign over the islets, Nor wero thosc ncts of such a character
that they could bo considercd as involving n manifestatioo nf State
authority in resgect af the islets,
In such circmt~nces, and having rcgtrd -tothe vler.r exprcssed
above with regard to thc evidence produccdby the United Kingdom
Goverment, the Court was of opinion that the sowreignty ever the
Plinquiers belongs to the United Kingdom.
Availing tnemelves of the rigkt conferrcd on them by Article 57
of the Statute, Judgesksdcvant and Carneiro, while concurring in the
declsion of the Court, appcnded tc the Judgmcnt statements of the*
individual opinions. Judge Alvarez,hile also con~urring in the
'decisionof the Court, made a dcclaration expressing rcgrc t that the
Partieshad att Mbuted exces sivé importance to mediaeval evidence and
had not sufficientl taken into account the state of internationa lw
or its present tendencies in regard to tcrritorinl sovereignty.
The Hep, Novembcr L7th, 1957.
- Judgment
Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom) - Judgment