Summary of the Judgment of 26 May 1959

Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice

CASECONCERNING THEAERIALINCIDENTOF 27 JULY1955
(ISRAEL V. BUILGARIA (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS)

Judgmentof 26 May1959

The case concerningtheaerialincidentofJuly27th, 1955 which theystillhave torun and in accordancewiththeir
(Israel.Bulgaria),wassubmittedtotheCourtby an Appli- terms."
cationof the Governmentof Israel, onOctober16th, 1957, TojustifytheapplicationofthelatterprovisiontotheBul-
relating to a dispute which hadarisen with regard to the garianDeclarationof 1921,theGovernmentof Israel relied
destruction, on July27th. 1955, by the Bulgarian anti- onthe fact that Bulgariabecameapartytothe Statuteofthe
aircraft defence forces, of anaircraft belongingto El A1International Courd Justiceon December 14th, 1955,as
Israel AirlinesLtd.The ApplicationinvokedArticle36 of theresultofitsadmissiontothe United Nation. heBulgar-
theStatuteoftheCourtandtheacceptanceofthe compulsory ian Government deniedthat Article36, paragraph5, trans-
jurisdictionof the Courtby Israel, on the one hand, in iferredthe effectof its Declarationto thejurisdictionof the
Declarationof 1956replacingthatof 1950,andbyBulgaria, International Court4fJustice.
filed PreliminaryObjectiotothejurisdictionoftheCourt. TbeCourthadto determinewhetherArticle36,paragraph
5, is applicable totheBulgarian Declaration.That it should
T---o--t- u~heldthe firstoftheseobiections,accordingto apply inrespectof declarationsmadeby Stateswhichwere
whichtheDeciarationacceptingthecokpulsoryjurisdic6on repmsentedattheStunFranciscoConferenceand weresigna-
ofthepermanentCourtofInternationalJusticemadebyBul- toriesof the Charterandof the Statutecaneasilybe under-
gariain 1921cannotbe regarded asconstitutingan accept- stood.Butisthispmlvisionmeantalsoto cover declarations
ance of the compulsoryjurisdiction of the International madebyotherStates,including Bulgaria?Thetext doesnot
Court of Justice. It therefore declared itselfwithout saysoexplicitly.
jurisdiction. TheCourt observersthatat thetimeof theadoptionof the
Statutea fundamentaldifference existedbetween theposi-
tion of the signatoryStates and of the other States which
mightsubsequentlyt~ admittedto theUnitedNations.This
differencederivedfromthesituationwhichArticle 36para-
graph5, was meant toregulate, namely,the transfer tothe
InitsJudgment,theCourtfirstconsideredtheFirstPrelim- International CoudtJusticeof declarations relatingto the
inaryObjectionbyBulgaria. Permanent Court, wlhichwas onthe pointof disappearing.
In order tofindthe basisforthejurisdictionof theCourt, Thequestionwhichthe signatoryStateswereeasily ableto
the GovernmentofIsraelinvoked theDeclarationof accept- resolveas betweenthiemselvesat that timewouldarisein a
ance ofcompulsoryjurisdictionsignedbyBulgariain 1921, quitedifferentforminthefuturasregardstheotherStates.
atthesane time asProtocolofSignatureoftheStatuteofthe Article 36, paragriaph5, consideredin its applicationto
Permanent Courtof InternationalJustice, and Article 36, StatessignatoriesoftheStatute,effectedasimpleoperation.
paragraph5, of theStatuteoftheInternationrilCourtofJus- The positionwould have been quite differentin mspectof
tice, whichmadsasfollows: declarationsby non-signatoryStates. For the latter, such a
"Declarationsmade underArticle36 oifthe Statuteof transfer must necessarily involvetwo distinct operations,
thePermanent CourtofInternationalJusticeandwhichare which mightbeseparatedbyaconsiderable intervaloftime.
stillinforceshallbedeemed,as between thepartiestothe Onthe onehand, olcldeclarationswouldhave had to have
presentStatute,tobeacceptancesoftheco~npulsoryjuris- been preservedwith immediateeffect; on the other hand,
dictionof theInternational CourtofJustict:forthe periodtheywouldhavehad to be transferredto thejurisdictionof

Continuedon next pagethenewCourt.In additionto thisfundamentaldifferencein force in consequenceof the dissolutionof the Permanent
respectofthefactorsofthepn~blem,therewerespecialdiffi- Courtin 1946.The acceptancesetoutin thatDeclarationof
culties in resolving it in rer;:pct of acceptancesby non- the com~pulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Courtwas
signatoryStates.Inthe caseof signatoryStates,Article36, devoidofobject,sincethatCourtwas nolongerinexistence.
paragraph5, maintainedanexisting obligationwhilemodi- AndthereisnothinginArticle36,paragraph5, to reveal any
fying its subject-matte. ofaxasnon-signatoryStateswere intentioilof preservingall the declarationswhich werein
concerned,theStatute,intheabsenceoftheirconsent,could existenceatthetimeofthesignatureorentry intoforceofthe
neither maintain nor transfc~rmtheir original obligation. Charter,regardlessofthemomentwhena Statehaving made
Shortly after the entryintoorceof the Statute,thedissolu- a declarationbecamea party tothe Statute.The provision
tionofthePermanentCourtfreedthemfromthatobligation. determines,inrespectofaStatetowhichitapplies, the birth
Accordingly, thequestionof intransformatiorlof anexisting ofthecompulsoryjurisdictionof thenewCourt.It makes it
obligation couldno longer ariseso far as they werecon- subjectI:otwo conditions:(I) thattheStatehavingmadethe
cerned;allthatcould be envisagedintheircasewasthe cre- declarationshouldbeaparty totheStatute;(2)thatthedecla-
ationofanewobligationbindinguponthem.ToextendArti- rationofthat Stateshouldstillbe inforce. Sincethe Bulgar-
cle 36, paragraph5, to thoseStateswouldbe to allowthat ianDecllarationhadlapsed before Bulgaria wasadmittedto
provision todo intheircase somethingquite differentfrom the UnitedNations, it cannotbe saidthat at that time that
whatit didin thecaseof signatoryStates.It is truethatthe Declarationwasstillinforce. Thesecondco~idition isthere-
StatesrepresentedatSanFranciscocouldhavemadeanoffer forenot satisfiedinthe presentcase.
addressedto other States, forinstance,an offer toconsider Thusthe Courtfindsthat Article36, paragraph5, is not
theiracceptanceofthe compu:lsoryjurisdictio:ofthePerma- applicabletotheBulgarian Declarationof 1921.Thisviewis
Court, but thereis nothingof thiskind in Article36, para- confirmedbythefact thatitwastheclearintentioninspiring
Article36,paragraph5, topreserveexistingacceptances and
graph5. nottorestorelegalforcetoundertakingswhichhadexpired.
Torestricttheapplicationofthis provision1the signatory Ontheotherhand,inseekingandobtainingadmissiontothe
States is to take into account the purposefor which it was UnitedNations,Bulgaria acceptedall the provisionsof the
adopted.Atthetimeof its adoption,theimpendingdissolu- Statute,includingArticle36. ButBulgaria's acceptance of
tionofthePermanentCourtand,inconsequerlce,thelapsing Article:36,paragraph5, does not constitute consentto the
of acceptancesof its compulsoryjurisdictio~nwere in con- compulsoryjurisdictionof the Court;suchconsentcan val-
templation.RatherthanexpectingthatthesignatoryStatesof *dlybegivenonlyinaccordancewithArticle:36, paragraph
the new Statutewoulddepositnew declaratiionssf accept- L.
ance,itwassoughttoprovideforthistransitorysituation bya Article36,paragraph5, cannotthereforebad theCourtto
transitional provision. Thesituation is entirely different findthat theBulgarianDeclarationof 1921providesa basis
when, the old Court and the acceptanceof iitscompulsory for its jurisdictionto dealwith the case. In.these circum-
jurisdictionhavinglongsince disappeared,a State:becomes stancesitisunnecessaryfortheCourttoproceedtoconsider-
party to theStatuteof thenewCourt.Totheextentthat the ationoftheotherBulgarian Preliminary Objections.
recordsofthe SanFranciscoConference provideanyindica-
tionastothe scopeofthe applicationofArticle36,paragraph
5, theyconfirmthat thisparagraphwasintend.ed todeal with
declarationsof signatoryStatt:sonlyand notwitha Statein
the situationofBulgaria.
However,theGovernmentof Israel consm~edArticle36, Consequently, theCourt finds,by twelvevotes to four,
paragraph5, ascoveringa decilaratimadebyaStatewhich thatit is withoutjurisdictionto adjudicateuponthe dispute
had not participatedin the S'anFranciscoClonferenceand brought before itby the Applicationof the Governmentof
whichonlybecame apartyto the Statuteof the International Israel.
CourtofJusticemuchlater. Vice-PresidentZafrullaKhanhas appendeda Declaration
to the Judgment.Judges Badawi and Armand-Ugonhave
The Court, consideringthe matter fromthis angle also, appendedstatementsof their SeparateOpinions. JudgesSir
foundthat Article 36,paragraph5, could notinanyeventbe HerschLauterpacht,Wellington KooandSirPercySpender
operativeasregardsBulgaria untilthedateofitsad~missiotno have appendedtotheJudgmentastatementof'theirJointDis-
the UnitedNations,namely, :I)ecember14th 1955.At that senting Opinion. Judgead hocGoitein hasappendedto the
date, however, the Declarationof 1921was no longer in Judgmenta statementofhisDissentingOpinion.