Summary of the Judgment of 25 March 1948

Summaries of Judgments, AdviNot an official document of the Internationa
l Court of Justice

CORFUCHANNELCASE (PRELIMINAR OYBJECTION)

Judgment of 25 March 1948

This case was broughtbefore the Court on May 22nd. Court. Itmade, however,mostexplicitreservationsrespect-
1947, by an Applicationfiled by the Governmentof the ing themannerinwhichthe che hadbeenbrought beforethe
United Kingdom oG f reaBritainandNorthern Irelandinsti- Court and more especially respectingthe interpretation
tutingproceedingsagainstitheGovernmentof the People's whichthe Application sought to placen Article25 of the
Republicof Albania;on De:cember9th. 1947, the Albanian Charterwithreferenceto the bindingcharacterof theSecu-
GovernmentrequestedtheCourtto declare:the Application rity Council's recommendations.It emphasized that its
inadmissible. constituteaprecedentforthefuture.onforthis casecouldnot
In itsjudgment theoun:rejectedtheAlbanian objection
and fixedthe time-limitsfor the subsequentproceedingon Followinguponthedepositofthe AlbanianGovernment's
the merits. letter,anOrderwasmadefixing thetime-limitsforthepre-
Thejudgmentwasrenderedbyfifteenvotestoone;thedis- sentationof a Memorialby the Governmentof the United
sentingjudge appended to thejudgmenta statementof the Kingdomandof a Counter-Memorialbythe Albanian Gov-
reasonsforwhichhewasunabletoconcurinit. Sevenofthe ernment.Withinthe time-limitfixedforthelatter,the Alba-
Membersof theCourt,whilst concurringinthejudgmentof nianGovernment submitted a "preliminary objectiontothe
the Court, appended a statement of supplementary Applicationon the groundof inadmissibility". The Court
considerations. acceptingthe Security Council'srecommendationof April, in
9th 1947,the AlbanianGovernmenh tadonly undertakento
submit thedisputeto the Courtinaccordancewiththe provi-
sionsof the Statuteand, in the secondplace, to givejudg-
mentthatthe Applicationof theUnited Kingdom waisnad-
missible,becauseitcontravenedthe provisionsof Articles
In itsjudgment, the Court recalls the conditin which 40anti 36ofthe Statute.
thecasewas referredto itand,inthefirst place,the incident
which gaverisetothe dispu~te. Having thus indicatedthe circumstancesin which it is
On October 22nd, 1.945,two British destroyers struck calledupontoadjudicate,theCourtproceeds toconsiderthe
mines in Albaniantemtoriid watersin the Corfu Channel. submissionsoftheAlbanianpreliminary objection. It places
Theexplosionscauseddamrlgeto the vessels andlossoflife. the obligation incumbetponthat Governmentasaresultofat
Holdingthat the responsibilityoftheAlbanian Government its acceptanceof the Security Council'srecommendation
wasinvolved, theGovernmentof theUnitedKingdom,fol- couldonlybecarriedoutinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof
lowingupon diplomaticcorrespondencewith Tirana, sub- the Statute. Itpointsout, however, that Albhad subse-
mittedthematterto theSecurityCouncil.Thatbodyinvited quently contracted other obligations,the date and exact
Albania, whichis not a Memberof the UnitedNations,to scopeofwhichitestablisheslateronintheJudgment.
participateinthediscussio~~s,nconditionthat sheaccepted
allthe obligationsof a Memberin a similarcase. Albania TheCourtnextturnsto the second subrr~issionI.t appears
accepted and, on April 9th, 1947, the SecurityCouncil toconstituteanobjection on thegrouoftheinadmissibility
adopteda resolutionrecon~~mendin tge Governmentscon- ofthe ApplicationinthatitreferstoArticle0 ofthe Statute:
cernedimmediatelytorefer,thedisputetotheCOI~inaccord- resultingfrom thefactthat themainpraceedingswereinsti-ity
ance withtheprovisionsofits Statute. tutedbyApplication insteadof by specialagreement.Butit
Thereupon the Govern~imeno tf the United Kingdom alsocitesArticle36 whichrelatesexclusivelytothe Court's
addressedanApplication tc,theCourtaskingforadecisionto jurisdictionandthecriticism,which inthey oftheobjec-
the effect that theAlbanianGovernmentwasinternationally tion,aredinxted againsttheApplication,areconcernedwith
responsibleforthe consequencesofthe incidentseferredto anallegedlackofcompulsoryjurisdiction.
aboveandthatitmust makereparationorpaycompensation.
TheApplication adduced varioup srovisionsof theCharter, Government somewhatobscure, may be explainedby thean
acceptandcarryout thedt:cisionsof theSecurityCouncil), connectionwhichthe Governmentof the UnitedKingdom,
onwhichit founded thejurisdictiooftheCourt. for its part,had madebetween theinstitutionofproceedings
by Al~plication,nd theexistence,allegedbyit, ofa caseof
OnJuly23rd, 1947,theAlbanian Government deposited compulsoryjurisdiction.However,that may be, the Coun
withtheRegistryoftheCoiclratletterdatedJuly2ndin which doesnotconsiderthat it needs toexpressanopinion onthis
it expressed theopinion that the Applicatof the United point, since it holds that the letter of July 2nd, 1947,
Kingdomwas not inconformitywiththeSecurityCouncil's addressedbytheAlbanianGovernment to theCourt,consti-
recommendationof April 9th. 1947,because theinstitution tutes a voluntary acceptanceof itsjurisdiction. Thisletter
the Charter,by the Statute:or by general internationallaw.emoves alldifficultiesconcerningboththequestionof the
Nevertheless,itfullyacceptedtheSecurityCouncil's recom- admissibility of the Application andthe question ofthe
mendationprofoundlyconvinceo dfthejusticeofitscaseand Court's jurisdiction.
resolvedto neglectno oppc~rtunityf giving evidenceof its When, infact,theAlbanianGovernmens ttatesinitlettet
devotionto the principlesoffriendlycollr~boratnetween that it is prepared,notwithstanding the"irregularityin the
nationsandof the pacificsettlementof disputes,it waspre- action takenby the Governmentof theUnitedKingdom,to
pared,notwithstanding the irregularnthe actiontakenby appearbefore theCourt", itisclearthat itwaivedtheright
the United KingdomGovernment, to a.ppearbefore the adduce the objection that the Applicatwnasinadmissible.And whenitexpresslyrefersto"its acceptanceoftheCourt's institutionoprocee:dingsby Applicationwhichis not pre-
jurisdictiontothis case", thesewordsconsti.tutea voluntary cludedbyany provir;ion.
andindisputableacceptanceoftheCourt's jurisdiction. It is true thatin itsletterof July2nd, 1947,the Albanian
Inthisconnection,the Courtrecallsthat while theconsent Governmentmade reservationsrespecting the mannerin
of theparties confersjurisdictionontheCourt,suchconsent whichthe case had beenbrought before theCourt and the
need not beexpressedin anyspecial form.Inparticular, as interpretationwhichtheUnited Kingdomsought to place on
the Permanent Court of International Justicedecided in Article25of theCharterwithreferenceto thebinding char-
'1928,thepreviousformalconclusionofaspecialagreement acterofthe SecurityCouncil'srecommendations.Butitrests
is unnecessary. Insubmittingthe case by Application, the withtheCourttointerprettheletter, this interpretatbeing
United Kingdomgave theAlbanianGovernmentanopportu- bindinguponthe parties;andthe Courtholds that thereser-
nityofacceptingthejurisdictionoftheCourt;andthisaccept- vationscontainedin :thletteareintendedonly to maintaina
ance was given in the Albanianletter of July 2nd, 1947. principleandto preventthe establishmentofa precedentfor
Moreover,separateactionofthiskindwasappropriatetothe thefuture.Italsoaddsthatitisclearthatnoquestionofaprec-
respectivepositionsofthe Partiesinacasewhere thereis, in edentcouldariseunless thelettersignifiedinthepresentcase
fact, a claimant, the United Kingdom, and a defendant, theacceptanceoftheCourt'sjurisdictiononthemerits.
Albania. For these reasons, the Court rejectsthe objection;and it
Accordingly,the Court cannot hold to te irregularthe fixestime-limitsforthesubsequentpleadingson themerits.