Summary of the Judgment of 9 April 1949

Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document

CCDRFC UHANNELCASE (MERITS)

Judgment of9April11949

12thand13th,1946,whenitundertookasweepoftheStrait?
ainandNorthernIreland-All'baniaa)rosefrincidents that
occurredOnOctober 22114 1946, in the C:O~Strait: two InitsJudgmenttheCow declaredonthefirstquestion,by
Britishdestroyersstruckminesin Albanianwatersandsuf- 11vo&sagainst5, thatAlbania responsible.
fered damage, including seriousloss of life. 'fie United1, n:gardto the secondquestiondeck& by 14votes
Kingdom first seized the SecurityCounci,lof the United 2 thatthe united ~ i ~ didnot,,idate*1banian
Nations which,by a Resoluidonof April9th, 1947, recom- on octobe 22nd;but it declaaedunanimously
mendedthe Governmelltsto submitthe to the thatit.violatedthatsovereion~~~~~h~ 12th/13th,and
Court. The United Kingdbmaccordingly submittedan faction.declaration,in itself, constitutedappropriatesatis-
Applicationwhich,afteran objectiontoitsHdmissibhadty
beenraisedbyAlbania,wasthe subjectofaJudgment, dated The factare as On October22nd*1946*two
March25th, 1948,in whic]btlhe Courtdec.1-d thapas- entered theNorthCorfuStrait. The channel theywerefol-
sessedjurisdictioon the same day the mies con- lowing:,whichwasinAlbanianwaters,wasregardedassafe:
clu&d a SpecialAgreementaskingthe Cow to givejudg- it had beensweptin 1944andcheck-sweptin1945.One of
mentonthe followingquestions: the destroyers,the Saumarez,when off Sarandas,truak
1. ISAlbaniaresponsibjkforthee~pl~~i~n~a,disthere minemdwasgravelydamaged.Theother'lestroyer, theVo-
adutytopaycompensation'? lage,wassenttoherassistanceand,whiletowingher,struck
2. Has the UnitedKin;ydomviolatedinternationallaw anothermine and was also seriouslydamaged: Forty-five
bytheactsofitsNavyinAlltbanian aters,firstonthedayon British officersandsailorslosttheirlives,andforty-two0th-
whichthe explosionsoccunredand,secondly0xNovember erswere~~~nded.

Continued on next page Anincidenthadalreadyoccurredinthese waterson May TheUnited Kingdomalso arguedthat,whoever might be
15th,1946:anAlbanian batteryhadfired inthe directionof theauthorsofthem~inelaying it,couldnothavebeeneffected
two Britishcruisers. TheUnited KingdomGovernmenthad withoutAlbania'skaowledge.We, themerefactthatmines
protested, statingthat innocent passage throustraits isa were laidin Albanianwaters neither involves primafacie
rightrecognizedbyinternationallaw; the AlbanianGovern- responsibilitynor does it shiftthe burdenof proof. On the
menthadreplied that foreign warships and merchavntssels otherhand,theexclusivecontrol exercisedbya Statewithin
hadno righttopassthrough Albaniantemtorialwaterswith- itsfrontiersmaymakeitimpossibletofurnishdirectproofof
outpriorauthorisation;andonAugust 2nd, 1946,theUnited factswhichwouldinvolveitsresponsibilityincaseofa vio-
Kingdom Governmenh t adrepliedthat if, in thefuture,firelation of internationallaw. The Statewhich is the victim
wasopenedon a British warshippassing hugh the chan- must, inthatcase,beallowedamoreliberalrecoursetoinfer-
nel, thefirewouldbe returned.Finally,on September 21st, encesof factand circumstantiaelvidence; such indiretvi-
1946, the Admiralty in Londonhad cabled to the British dencemustberegardedasofespecialweightwhenbasedon
Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean to the following a seriesof facts,inkedtogetherand leading logicallyto a
effect:"Establishmentof diplomaticrelationswithAlbania singleconclusion.
is againunderconsiderationby His Majes~y'sGovernment In thepresentcase two seriesof facts, whichrroborate
whowishto know whetherthe Albanian Giovernmenthave oneanother, havetc,beconsidered.
learnt to behave themselves. Information is requested The first relates to the Albanian Government'attitude
whether anyshipsunderyourcommandhavepassedthrough beforeandafterthecatastrophe.Thelayingoftheminestook
theNorth CorfuStraitsinceAugustand,ifnot,whetheryou placein a periodinwhichIthadshownitsintentiontokeepa
intendthemtodososhortly." jealous watch onits territorial watersand inwhichit was
After the explosionson October 22nd. tlheUnited King- requiringprior authorisationbeforethey wereentered,this
domGovernmentsent aNotetoTiranaannaluncing itsinten- vigilance sometimes goingso far as to involvethe use of
tiontosweepthe Corfu Channel shortlyT .hereply was that force:allofwhichrenderthe assertionofignorancea priori
thisconsentwould not begiven unless theoperationinques- improbable. Moreover, when theAlbanianGovernmenthad
tiontook placeoutsideAlbaniantemtorial waters andthat becomefully aware ofthe existenceof a minefield,it pro-
anysweepundertakeninthosewaterswould beaviolationof testedstronglyagai:nstthe activityof the BritishFleet, but
Albania's sovereignty. not against the laying of the mines, though this act, if
The sweep effectedby the British Navy took place on effectedwithouther consent,wouldhavebeenaveryserious
November 12th/13 19h46,inAlbanianterritorial watersand violationof hersov,ereignty;he did notnotifyshippingof
withi te limits of the channelpreviouslyswept.Wenty- theexistenceofthe minefield,aswould berequiredbyinter-
two moored mineswerecut;they were minesoftheGerman national law; andshedid not undertake anof the measures
GYtype. ofjudicialinvestigationwhich wouldseem tobeincumbent
on her in such a case.Such an attitudecould only be
explainediftheAlbanianGovernment,whileknowingofthe
minelaying, desireclthe circumstancesin which it was
effectedtoremain se:cret.
The second series of facts relatesto the possibilityof
Thefirst questionputbythe SpecialAgreementisthatof observingthe minellayingfrom the Albaniancoast. Geo-
Albania'sresponsibility, underinternation.allaw, for the graphically,thechanneliseasilywatched:itisdominatedby
explosionsonOctober 22nd, 1946. heights offering excellent observation points,and it runs
close to the coast (thenearest mine was500 m. from the
TheCourtfinds,inthefirstplace,thattheexplosionswere shore). Themethodiicaland well-thought-outlaying of the
causedby mines belongingto the minefielcldiscoveredon mines compelledtheminelayerstoremainfromtwoto two-
November13th. It isnot, indeed,contested thatthismine- and-a-halfhoursinthewatersbetweenCapeKiephaliandthe
field had beenrecentlylaid;itwasinthechannel,whichhad St. George'sMonastery.In regard to that point, thenaval
been previously swept and check-swept and couldbe expertsappointedby the Court reported, after enquiryand
regardedas safe, that the explosionshad taken place.The investigation onthespot,that they considereditto be indis-
nature ofthedamage showsthat it wasdueto minesof the putablethat,ifanormallook-outwas keptatCapeKiephali,
sametypeasthoseswepton November13th.finally,thethe- DentaPoint, andSt. George'sMonastery, andif the look-
ory thattheminesdiscoveredonNovember1.3thmighthave outswereequippedwith binoculars, under normalweather
been laidaftertheexplosionsonOctober 22ndistooimprob- conditions for thisarea, the mine-layingoperationsmust
abletobeaccepted. havebeennoticedby these coastguards. The existenceofa
In thesecircumstancesthequestionariseswhatisthelegal look-outpost at Dents Point was notestablished;but the
basis of Albania'sresponsibility?TheCourt does not feel Court,basing itselfonthedeclarationsofthe AlbanianGov-
that itneed payseriousattentiontothe suggestionthatAlba- ernmentthat lock-0u.tposts were stationedat otherpoints,
niaherselflaidthemines:that suggestion WiB only putfor- referstothefollowingconclusionisntheexperts'report: that
ward pro memoria,withoutevidencein support,andcould in the case of minelaying 1) from the Northtowards the
notbereconciled withtheundisputedfactthat,onthewhole South, the minelayerswould have been seen from Cape
Albanianlittoral, therereonly afew launchesand motor Kiephali;iffrom Sou.thtowardsthe North, they wouldhave
boats. ButtheUnited Kingdomalsoalleged.theconnivance beenseenfromCapeKiephali andSt. George'sMonastery.
of Albania:that theminelayinghadbeencanied outbytwo Fromallthe factsiindobservationsmentionedabove,the
Yugoslavwarshipsby the request of Albania, or with her Court drawstheconclusionthat thelaying of theminefield
acquiescence.The Court finds thatthis collusionhas not could nothavebeenaccomplishedwithouttheknowledgeof
been proved. Achargeofsuchexceptionalgravityagainsta Albania. As regardsthe obligations resulting for her from
Statewould =quire a degreeof certaintythat has not been this knowledge,they arenot disputed.It was her duty to
reachedhere,andtheoriginofthemineslaidinAlbanianter- notifyshippingandespeciallyto warnthe ships proceeding
ritorialwatersremains a mattefrorconjecture. through the Straiton October22ndof the dangerto whichtheywereexposed.In fact, nothingwasattemptedbyAlba- tion, armament,manoeuvres, etc.-showed an intentionto
niatopreventthedisaster,andthesegraveonnissionsinvolve intimidate.TheCourtexaminedthe differentAlbanian con-
herinternationalresponsibility. tentionsso far as they appearedrelevant. Its conclusionis
The SpecialAgreementaskstheCourtto saywhether,on thatthepassage was innocentboth inits principle, sinceit
this ground,there is"any duty" for Albania"to pay com- was designed to affirm a right which had been unjustly
pensation"totheUnited Kingdom.Thistextgaverisetocer- denied, and in its methodsof execution, which werenot
tain doubts:couldtheCourtnotonlydecideontheprinciple unreasonableinviewofthefiring fromtheAlbanianbattery
of compensationbut also rlssessthe amollnt?The Court onMay15th.
answeredin the affirmative;and,by a speciialOrder, it has Asnegardstheoperationon November12th/13th,it was
fixedtime-limitstoenablethePartiestosubmittheirviewsto executedcontrarytothe clearlyexpressedwishof the Alba-
itonthis subject. nianG~vernment;it did not havethe consentof theinterna-
tionalmineclearanceorganizations;itcouldnot bejustified
as the exerciseofherightof innocentpassage. TheUnited
Kingdomhas statedthat its objectwastoecuretheminesas
quicklyaspossibleforfearlesttheyshouldbetakenawayby
thiswaspresentedeither asa newandspecialapplicationof
The CourtthengoesontothesecondquestionintheSpe- the theoryofintervention,bymeansof whichtheintervening
cial Agreement:Didthe UnitedKingdomviolateAlbanian Statewasactingto facilitatethe taskof theinternationaltri-
sovereignty on October 2;!nd, 1946, or on November bunal, or as a method ofself-protectionor self-help.The
12th113th.1946? Courtcannotaccepttheselinesof defence. ctan only regard
theallegedrightofinterventionasthemanifestationofapol-
The Albanian claimto makethe passageof ships condi- icyofforcewhichcannotfindaplaceininternationallaw.As
tional on a prior authorisati.onconflictswith the generallregardsthe notionof self-help,the Courtiisalso unableto
admittedprinciplethatStates,intimeof peace,havea right acceptit:betweenindependentStatestherespectforterrito-
to sendtheirwarships throughstraitsusedfor international rial sovereigntyis an essential foundationfor international
navigationbetweentwopart!;ofthehighseas,providedthat relations.Certainly,the CourtrecognisestAlbanian Gov-
thepassageisinnocent. The(CorfuStraitbelongs geographi- ernment's complete failureto carry outits duties after the
cally to this category,even thoughit is onof secondary explosionsandthedilatory natureof its diplomaticNotesas
importance(in the sense tlb~aitt is not a necessary routeextenuatingcircumstancesfortheactionof theUnited King-
betweentwo partsof the high seas)and inespectiveof the dom.But,toensurerespectforinternationallaw,ofwhichit
volume of traffic passing through it. A fiict of particulaistheorgan, theCourtmustdeclarethattheactionoftheBrit-
andGreece,andthata partnsofthestraitis whollywithintheia ish Navy constituteda violationof Albanian sovereignty.
territorialwatersofthoseStates.ItisafactthatthetwoStates This declarationis in accordancewiththerequestmadeby
didnotmaintain normalrelations, Greeceiving made terri- Albania through hercounsel and is in itself appropriate
torial claimspreciselywith :regard partofthecoastbor- satisfa~ction.
deringthestrait.However,theCourtisofq,inion thatAlba-
nia wouldhave beenjustifiedin view ofthese exceptional
circumstances,in issuing regulationsinespectof the pas-
sage,butnotinprohibitings.11chassageorinsubjectingitto
therequirementof speciala~~thorisation.
TotheJudgmentoftheCourtthereareattachedonedecla-
Albania has denied thatthe passageon October22 was rationandthedissentingopinionofJudges Alvarez,Winiar-
innocent. She alleges thatit wasa politicalmissionandthat ski, Zoricic,BadawiPasha,Krylovand Azevedo, andalso
the methods employed-the number ofshiips,their forma- thatofDr.Ecer,Judgead hoc.