Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCERNING THEAPPEALRELATING TOTHEJURISDICTION
OFTHE ICAO COUNCIL
Judgmentof 18 August 1972
InitsjudgmentinthecaseconcerningtheAppealrelating exceptin sofar astlhoseelementsmightrelateto thepurely,
to the Jurisdictionof theICAOCouncil(Indiv.Pakistan), jurisdictional issuewhichalonehadbeenreferredto it.
stan'sobjectionsonthequestionofitscompetenceandfound
thatithadjurisdiction toentertainIndia's appeal. Underthe InternationalCivilAviationConvention andthe
InternationalAirervicesTransitAgreement,both signedin
By 14 votes to2, it heldthe Councilof the InternationChicagoin 1944,thecivilaircraftofPakistanhadtherightto
CivilAviationOrganizationto becompetent toentertainthe overfly Indiantem1:ory.Hostilities interrupting overflights
ApplicationandComplaint laid beforety theGovernment brokeout betweenthe two countriesin August1965,but in
the appealmadeto the Court by the Governmentof Indiad February 1966theycameto an agreementthat thereshould
against the decisionof the Councilassumingjurisdiction in animmediate resumptionofoverilightsonthesamebasis
thoserespects. asbefore1August 1965. Pakistainterpretedthat undertak-
ing as meaningthat overilightswould be resumedon the
FortheseproceedingstheCourtwascomposedasfollows: basis of the Convention andTransit Agreement,but India
Vice-ResidentAmmoun(ActingResident), PresidentSir maintained that those two Treahsadbeensuspended dur-
MuhammadZafrullaKhan,JudgesSir GeraldFitzmaurice, ing thehostilitand were neveras suchrevived,and that
Onyeama,Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, deCastro,Morozovand, accordingto whichtheycould takeplace onlyafter permis-
Jimbnezde Arbchaga,andJudgead hocNagiendraSingh. sionhadbeengrantedbyIndia.Pakistandeniedthatanysuch
dgime ever came into existenceand maintainedthat the
PresidentSirMuhammadZafrulla Khan andJudgeLachs Treatieshadneverceasedtobe applicablesince 1966.
appendedDeclarationstotheJudgment.
Judges Petdn, Onyeama,Dillard,deCastroand Jimbnez On 4 February 1971, following a hijacking incident
deMchaga appendedSeparateOpinions. involvingthe divenrionof an Indian aircraft to Pakistan,
Judge Morozov andJudge ad hoc Nagendra Singh Indiasuspendedoverflightsof itsrritoryby Pakistancivil
appendedDissentingOpinions. aircraft.On 3 March 1971Pakistan, alleging that Indiawas
inbreachofthetwo 'keaties,submittedtotheICAOCouncil
(a)anApplication under Artic84of theChicagoConven-
tion andcle 11,Section2, oftheTransitAgreement;(b)a
ComplaintunderArticle11,Section1,of theTransit Agree-
TheFactsandthe MainContentiono sftheAzrties ment.Indiahaving raisedpreliminaryobjectionsto itsjuris-
(paras. 1-12 ofthe Judgment) diction, the Council declared itself compty decisions
TheCourthasemphasizedinitsJudgmentthat ithadnoth- from thosedecisions, founding its rightto do so and the
ing whatever todowiththefactsandcontenltionof thFar- Court's jurisdictiontoentertain theappeal onArticle84of
Continued on next page latterfor the purposesof appealability:unlessthat wereso,
Transit Agreement(hereinafrercalled "the: jurisdictional paradoxicalsituationsmightarise.
clausesofthe Treaties").
Tosumup,theobjectionstotheCourt's jurisdiction based
on the dleged inapplicabilityof the Treaties assuch or of
Jurisdictionofthe CourttoentertaintheAppt!al theirjurisdictionalclausecould notbesustained.TheCourt
(paras.13-26 oftheJudgment) wastherefore investedwithjurisdictionunder thoseclauses
Pdkistanadvancedcertain objectionstothejurisdictionof anditbecameirrelevanttoconsiderobjectionstoother possi-
theCourttoentertainthe appe:al.Indiapointedout thatPaki- ble basesoftheCourt's jurisdiction.
stanhadnotraisedthoseobjectionsasprelimilraryobjections Furthermore,since it was the first timeany matter had
under Article62of theRules,butthe Court observesthatit come totheCourtonappeal, the Courtobserved thatinthus
must alwayssatisfyitselfthatithasjurisdictionand,ifneces- providingforanappeal totheCourtfromthedecisionsofthe
sary,gointothatmatterpropriomotu.Pakistanhadarguedin ICAOCouncil,theTreatieshadenableda certainmeasureof
the firstplace that Indiawas precluded frorr~affirmingthe supervisionbytheCourtof the validityofthe Council's acts
competenceof the Court byitscontention, on themeritsof andthat, fromthatstandpoint,therewas nogroundfordis-
thedispute,that theTreatieswere notinforce,which,ifcor- tinguishingbetweensupervisionastojurisdictionandsuper-
rect, wouldentail the inapplicabilityoftheirjurisdictional visionastomerits.
clauses. TheCourt,however, hasheldthathkistm's argu-
menthereonwasnot wellfountled,forthefollowingreasons: Jurisdictionof theICAOCouncilto entertainthe meritsof
(a)IndiahadnotsaidthatthesemultilateralT~eatieswere not thecase
in force in the definitivesenst:,but thattheyhad beensus- (paras.27-45 oftheJudgment)
pended or were not as a matter of fact beiingapplied as Withregardtothecorrectnessofthedecisionsgivenbythe
between India and Pakistan;(b) a merelyunilatersllsuspen- Council on 29 July 1971 ,.the questionwas whetherPaki-
sion of a treaty could not per se render its jurisdictional stan's casebeforetheCouncildisclosed,withinthemeaning
clauseinoperative;(c)thequerfionoftheCourt's jurisdiction of thejurisdictional clausesof theTreaties, disagreement
couldnotbegovernedbypreclusiveconsiderations; (d)par- relatingto the interpretationor applicationof one or more
ties must be free to invokejurisdictional cl.auseswithout provisionsofthose instruments.Ifso,theCouncilwas prima
being made to run the risk o:Fdestroyingtheir case on the facie competent,whetherconsiderationsclaimed to lie out-
merits. sidethe Treatiesmighbt einvolvedornot.
Pakistanhadfurtherassertedthatthejurisdictionalclauses
of the 'haties made provisic~isnolelyfor an appealto the resolved withoutanyreferenceto thet'haties andtherefore
Courtagainstafinaldecisiondthe Councilonthemeritsof layoutsidethe competence ofthe Council.Ithadcontended
disputes,and notforanappealagainstdecisionsof tm interim thatthe*Treatiesadneverbeenrevivedsince 1965andthat
orpreliminarynature. Tl~eCo~ulc t nsidersthatadecisionof Indiahad in any casebeenentitledto terminateor suspend
theCouncilonitsjurisdictiondoesnot come withinthesame themashm 1971byreasonofamaterial breachofthemfor
categoryasproceduralorinterlocutorydecisionsconcerning which Pakistan wasresponsible, arisingoutof thehijacking
time-limits, the production of documents etc., for (a) incident. India had further argued thatthe jurisdictional
althougha decisiononjurisdiction doesnotdecide theulti- clausesoftheTreaties allowedtheCouncil toentertainonly
mate merits, it is neverthelessa decisionof a su~bstantive disagreementsrelatingto the interpretationand application
character,inasmuchas it mightdecide thewholt:case by of those instruments,whereasthe presentcase concerned
bringing itto anend; (b)anol~jectiontojuristlictianhasthe their terminationor suspension. The Courtfound that,
significanceinteralia ofaffordingoneoftheparties thepos- although thosecontentionsclearlybelonged to the meritsof
sibilityof avoidinga hearingon the merits;(c) ajurisdic- thedispute,(a)suchnoticesorcommunications astherehad
tionaldecisionmayoften invalllsomeconsitlerationof the beenonthepartofIndia from1 %5 to 1971appearedtohave
merits;(d)issuesofjurisdictio~lanbe asimportantandcom- relatedto overflightsratherthanto theTreatiesas such;(b)
plicatedasanythatmightariseonthemerits; ~(et)oallowan India didnotappearevertohave indicatedwlhichparticular
Internationalorgan to examinethe meritsof a disputewhen provisions of the maties were alleged to have been
its competenceto doso has not beenestablishedwould be breached;(c)thejustification giveby Indiaforthe suspen-
contrarytoacceptedstandardsof the goodadministration of sionof theTreatiesin 1971wassaid tolie not in theprovi-
justice. sionsoftheTreaties themselves butina principleofgeneral
With regard more particularlyto its Conplaint to the international law,or of international treaty law. Further-
ICAOCouncil,Pakistanhadsubmittedthatitwasdying on more,mereunilateralaffirmationofthosecontentions, con-
Article11,Section1,oftheTransit Agreement(whereasthe testedbythe otherparty, couldnotbe utilizedsoastonega-
Application relied onArticle84of the ChicagoConvention tivetheC:ouncil'jurisdiction.
and onArticleI1ofSection2ofthe TransitAgreement)T . he lbming to the positive aspectsof thequestion,theCourt
point herewas that decisionstaken by the C!ouncilon the foundthatPakistan's claim disclosedthe existenceof a dis-
basisof Article 11,Section1, are not appeals~bleb,ecause, agreementrelatingto the interpretationor applicationof the
unlike decisionstaken undertheother twopnavisions men- Treatiesimdthat India's defences likewiseinvolvedques-
tionedabove,theydonotconcern illegalactionorbreaches tionsof their interpretationorapplication.In the firstplace,
oftreatybutactionlawful,yetprejudicial.TheCourtfound Pakistanhadcitedspecific provisionsof the Treaties as hav-
that the actualComplaintofRikistandidnot, ;uleastforthe ing been infringedby India's denialof overflightrights,
mostpart, relateto the kindof'situationforhichSection1 while Indiahad made chargesof a material breachof the
of ArticleI1wasprimarilyintended,inasmuclhas theinjus- ConventionbyPakistan:inordertodeterminethevalidityof
ticeand hardship alleged thereiweresuchasresulltedfrom thosechargesandcounter-charges,the Councilwouldinevi-
actionsaidtobeillegalbecaus~i:n: breachoftheTreaties.As tablybeobliged tointerpretorapplythe maties. Inthe sec-
the Complaintmadeexactly thesamechargesof breachof ond place, India had claimed that the Treatieshad been
theTreatiesas the Application,i,t couldbeassimilatedtothe replaced by a special dgime, but it seemed clear thatArticle82 and83 oftheChicagoConvention(relatingtothe declare them null analvoid and send the case backthe
abrogationof inconsistentarrangemenandthe registration Council for redecision. The Court considered thatthe
of newagreements)mustbe involvedwhenevercertainpar- allegedirregularities,evensupposingtheywereproved,did
tiespurportedtoreplacethe Conventionorsomepartofitby notpnejudicein anyfundamentalwaythe requirementsof a
other arrangementsmade betweenthemselves;it followed justprocedure,andthatwhether theCouncilhadjurisdiction
thatanyspecialdgime, or anydisagreementconcerningits wasanobjective questionoflaw, theanswerto whichcould
existence,wouldraise issuesconcerningtheterpretatorn notdependonwhat hi occurr before theCouncil.
applicationof those articles. Finally Pakistimhad argued
that, if India maintained thecontentionwhich formed the DECLARATIONS AND SEPARAT O R
substratumof its entire position, namelythat the 'Iteaties DI:SSENTE NPINIONS
wereterminatedor suspendedbetween the5ties, thensuch JudgeMorozovand Judge ad hocNagendra Singh(Dis-
matterswereregulatedbyArticles89md 95'oftheChicago sentingOpinions)wereunabletoconcurintheCourt's deci-
ConventionandArticlesI and111of theTransitAgreement; siononthejurisdictionftheICAOCouncil.
but the twoPartieshad given divergent interpretations of ResidentSirMuhammadZafrullaKhan(Declaration)and
thoseprovisions,whichrelatedowar andemergencycondi- Judges Petdn and Onyeama (Separate Opinions)were
tionsandtothedenunciationoftheTreaties. unabletoconcurintheCourt'sdecisionon itsownjurisdic-
The Court concludedthatthe Councilwas investedwith tion.
jurisdictioninthecaseandthat the Courtwasnotcalledupon
todefinefurthertheexact extentofthatjurisdiction,beyond JudgeJimbnezdeAdchaga (SeparateOpinion)concurred
whatithadalreadyindicated. in the operative clauseof the Judgmentbutdid notapprove
theCourt'sconclusioiastoitsjurisdiction tohearanappeal
It had further beenrgued on behalf of India, though distinctfromitsApplication.the ComplaintofPakistan,as
denied by Pakistan, thatthe Council's decisionsassuming
jurisdictionin the case had beenvitiatedby .variousproce-JudgesLachs(Declaration),DillardanddeCastro(Sepa-
dural irregularitiesand that the Court should accordinglyteOpinions)addedfurtherobservations.
Summary of the Judgment of 18 August 1972