Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
AMBATIELOS CASE(PRELIM[INARO YBJECTION)
Judgmentof 1July 1952
The proceedingsin the Ambatielos Cax (Pkeliminay conditionswhich they wouldconsider requisite,and in the
Objection), between Greece:and the United Kingdom of absence of a clear agreementbetween the Partieson that
GreatBritain and Northern1n:landhadbeeninstitutedbyan point,theCourtconsidersthatithasnojurisdictionto gointo
Applicationby the Hellenic Government which, having alltherneritsofthe presentcase.
taken up the case of one of its nationals, the shipowner The Court then proceeds to examine thedifferent argu-
Ambatielos,prayedtheCourttodeclarethat theclaimwhich mentsput forwardby the United KingdomGovernmentin
the latter had made against the Governmentof the United supportof its PreliminaryObjectionto thejurisdictionand
Kingdommust, inaccordancewith theterm!; of theTreaties thoseadvancedbythe Hellenic Governmenitnreplythereto.
concluded in 1886 and in 1926 between ('ireeceand the Article29oftheTreatyof 1926enables eitheroftheParties
UnitedKingdom,be submittedto arbitration. The Govern- tosubrrlittotheCourt anydispute astothe interpretationor
mentof the UnitedKingdom, on theother hand,contended theapplicationof anyof theprovisionsof thatTreaty. Butit
thattheCourtlackedjurisdictiontodecideonthat question. has no retroactiveeffect; accordingly,the Court findsit
InitsJudgment the Court foundbyten votestlofivethatithad impossibleto acceptthe theory advancedon behalfof the
jurisdiction to decide whether the United Kingdom was HellenicGovernment,thatwhereinthe 1926Treatythereare
underanobligationto submil:toarbitrationthedifferenceas substantive provisions similarto substantive provisionsof
tothevalidityoftheAmbatielosclaim,inso.farasthisclaim the 1886Treaty,thenunderArticle29ofthe 1926Treatythe
was based ontheAnglo-HellenicTreatyof 1886. Courtcanadjudicateuponthe validityofaclaimbasedonan
JudgeLeviCarneiroand Id. Spiropoulos, Judgead hoc, allegedbreachof anyofthese similarprovisions,evenifthe
appendedtheir individual opinionsto the Judgment. Five allegedbreachtookplace whollybefore thenewTreatycame
Judges - Sir ArnoldMcNair,Basdevant,Zcdcic , Klaestad into force.It is thereforeimpossible tohold that any of its
and Hsu Mo-appended their dissenting opinionsto the provisionsmust be deemed to havebeen in force earlier.
Judgment. Moreover,theDeclaration accompanyingthT ereatyof 1926
makes nodistinctionbetweenclaimsbasedon one classof
provisionsoftheTreatyof 1886andthose basedon another
class;theare all placedonthesamefooting,anddifferences
relatingtotheirvalidity arereferatothesamearbitralpro-
cedure.
In its Judgment, the C13urtindicates the nature of The(jovernmentofthe UnitedKingdomhascontended-
Ambatielos's claim:it wasallegedthat hehad sufferedcon- andthatisthemostimportantofitsarguments- thattheDec-
siderableloss in consequenceof a contractwhich hecon- larationwas nota part of theTreaty within the meaninof
cludedin 1919withthe GovernmentoftheUnitedKingdom Article 29. The Court does not agreewith that view. The
(representedbytheMinistryofShipping)forthe purchaseof Ifeaty, thecustomsscheduleappendedtheretoandthe Dec-
ninesteamshipswhich werethenundercons~truction a,nd in laration were includedby the plenipotentiariesin a single
consequenceof certain adv8f:rsejudicial dtxisions in the document,publishedin the sameway inthe Engl~shTreaty
EnglishCourtsinconnectiontherewith. TheCourtrefersto Series,andregisteredunderasinglenumberwiththe League
the treaty clauses relied on by theParties: the Protocol of Nations.The instrumentsofratificationofthe two Parties
annexed totheTreatyof 1886,which provicles that contro- cite the three texts withoutmaking anydistinctionbetween
versies thatmayariseinconnectionwiththat:treatyshallbe them. The British instrumentof ratificatieven declares
referredto arbitration;theTreatyof 1926,whichcontainsa thatthe'Ifeatyis "word forwordas follows": afterwhichit
similar clause; theDeclaraticwaccompanyingthat treaty, goesontocitethe threetextsintheirentirety.Moreovert,he
whichstatesthatthelatterdoer;notprejudiceclaimsbasedon very natureoftheDeclarationalsopoints totllesameconclu-
the'Ikeatyof 1886andthatanydifferencethatmayarisein sion. It recordsan understandingarrivedat by the Parties
accordancewiththe provisionsofthemProtocc~olf 1886.on in beforetheTreatyof 1926wassignedastowhattheTreaty,or
asCounselforthe Governmentof theUnitedKingdom pre-
The Court then goeson to reviewthe submissionsof the ferredtoputit, the replacementoftheTreatyof 1886bythe
Partiesastheywere developedduringtheprcxeedings.It is Treatyaf 1926,would notprejudice.Forthese reasons,the
evidentfrom this review that:both Partiesask the Court to Court holdsthat theprovisionsof theDeclarationreprovi-
decideastoitsjurisdictionandwl hether thereisanobligation sionsofthe'IfeatywithinthemeaningofArticle29. Conse-
to submitthe differencetoarbitration.It is alsoevidentthat quently,thisCourthasjurisdictiontodecideanydisputeasto
bothPartiesenvisaged thattheCourt itselfmightundertake theinteipretationor applicationof the Declarationand, in a
thefunctionofarbitration,uttherewassome:doubtastothe propercase, to adjudgethatthere shouldbe a referenceto a
Continued on next pageCommissionof Arbitration.Anydifferencesas tothe valid- forcewithoutabreaksince 1886.TheCourtcannot accept an
ity of the claims involved will,however, have tobe arbi- interpretationwhichwould havea result obviouslycontrary
trated,as providedinthe Declarationitself,bytheCommis- tothe languageofthe Declarationandtothe continuous will
sion. of both Partiesto submit all differencesto arbitrationof one
kindoranother.
TheUnited Kingdom has alsocontendedthattheDeclara- For these reasons.,the Court finds,by thirteen votes to
force.ButtheDeclarationcontainsnoreferencetoanydate.into two, thatisis withoutjurisdictionto decideon themeritsof
Moreover,theresultof suchan interpretationwouldbe that the Ambatielos claim;and by ten votes to five, that it has
claimsbasedontheTreatyof 1886,butbrouglhtafterthecon- jurisdictionto decidewhether the UnitedKingdomis under
clusionof the Treatyof 1926,would be left withouta solu- anobligationtosubmitto arbitration,inaccordancewiththe
tion. They would not be subjectto arbitrationundereither Declarationof 1926,the differenceas tothe validityof the
Treaty,although the provisionon whose breach theclaim Ambatielosclaim, in so far as thisclaim is based onthe
wasbased mightappearinboth andmight thushavebeen in Treatyof 1886.
Summary of the Judgment of 1 July 1952