Summaries of Judgments, AdviNot an official document of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
MINQUIERS ANDECREHOSCASE
Judgmentof17Novemlber 1953
The Minquiersand Ecrehoscase was submittedto the mittedtheviewthatalloftheChannelIslands,includingthe
Courtby virtueof a SpecialAgreementconcludedbetween Ecrehosand the Minquiers,remained united withEngland
theUnitedKingdomandFranceonDecember 29th. 1950.In and thatthissituationof factwasplacedon a legalbasisby
a unanimousdecision,the Courtfoundthat sovereigntyover subsequent treatiesconcludedbetween the twocountries.
the isletsandrocksoftheEcrr:hosand the Minquiersgroups, The French Government contended for its part that, after
in so far as theseisletsandrocksare capableof appropria- 1204,the Kingof Franceheldthe Minquiersand the Ecre-
tion,belongstotheUnitedKingdom. hos, togetherwithsomeother islandscloseto theContinent,
and referredtothe same mediaevaltreaties asthose invoked
bythe lJnitedKingdom.
TheCourtfound thatnoneofthosetreaties(TreatyofParis
of 1259,TreatyofCalaisof 1360,TreatyofTroyesof 1420)
In its Judgment,theCourtbeganbydefiningtie task laid specifiedwhichislandswere heldbytheKingof England or
before itbythe Parties. Thetwogroupsof isletsInquestion by the King of France. Thereare, however,other ancient
liebetweentheBritish ChannelIslandofJerseyandthecoast documentswhichprovide someindicationsasto theposses-
ofFrance.TheEcrehoslie3.9 seamilesfromtheformerand sionof the isletsin dispute.The United Kingdomreliedon
6.6seamilesfromthelatter.TheMinquiersgrouplie 9.8 sea themtoshow thattheChannelIslandswereconsideredasan
milesfrom Jerseyand 16.2seamiles fromtie Frenchmain- entity and, since themore important islandswere held by
land and 8 miles away from tie Chailseyislands which England, this country alsopossessed thegroupsin dispute.
belong toFrance. Underthe Special Agreement,the Court For the Court, there appearsto be a strongpresumptionin
wasaskedtodeterminewhichofthePartieshadproducedthe favourof this view,without it beingpossible,however,to
moreconvincingproofoftitletothesegroupsandanypossi- drawanydefinitiveconclusionasto thesovweigntyoverthe
bilityof applyingto themthr:statusof terra nulliuassset groups, sincethis questionmust ultimately depend onthe
aside. In addition, the question of burden of proof was evidencewhichrelatesdirectlytopossession.
reserved:each Party thereforehad to proveits allegedtitle Foritspart,the FrenchGovernmentsaw Ipresumptionin
andthe factsuponwhichitnelied.Finally,whentheSpecial favourof French sovereigntyin thefeudallink between the
Agreementrefers to islets and rocks, in so filsthey are KingofFrance,overlordofthewholeofNormandy,andthe
capable of appropriation,it must be consideredthat these KingoffEngland,his vassalforthese territories.Inthiscon-
termsrelateto isletsandrocksphysicac la!yableof appro- nection, it relies on a Judgmentof the Court of France of
priation. The Courtdid nothaveto determinein detailthe 1202, which condemnedJohn Lacklandto forfeit all the
factsrelatingtotheparticularunitsofthetwogroups. landswhichhe heldinfeeof theKingof France, including
The Court then examinedthe titlesinvokedby both Par- the wholeof Normandy.But the United KingdomGovern-
ties. TheUnitedKingdomGovernmentderivesits titlefrom ment contendsthat thefeudal titleof the FrenchKings in
the conquestof Englandby "William Duke of Normandyin respectof Normandywas only nominal.It denies that the
1066.Theunionthus establishedbetweenEnglandandthe Channc:lIslandswerereceivedinfeeoftheK.ingofFranceby
Duchy of Normandyi,ncluding the ChanneI lslands,lasted the Dukeof Normandy, andconteststhe validity, and even
until1204,whenPhilip AugustusofFranceconqu.ered conti- the existence, of the judgmentof 1202. 'Withoutsolving
nental Normandy. But, his.attempts to occupyalso the these historical controversies, Courtconsideredit suffi-
islandshavingbeenunsuccessful, the UnitedKingdomsub- cienttostatethatthe legaleffectsattachedto,thedismember-
Continued on next pagementof the Duchyof Normandyin 1204,whenNormandy inquestson corpse!;found atthe Minquiers,theerectionon
was occupiedby the French,havebeen s~lpersededby the theisletsof habitatblehouses orhutsbypersonsfromJersey
numerouseventswhichoccurredinthe foll.owingcenturies. who paidpropertytaxeson thataccount, the registrationin
Inthe opinionoftheCourt,whatisofdecisiveimportanceis JerseyofcontractsofsalerelatingtorealpropertyintheMin-
not indirectpresumptions basedon matters in the Middle quiers.ThesevariousfactsshowthatJerseyauthoritieshave,
Ages, butthe evidencewhichrelates directlyto the posses- in severalways, exercised ordinarylocal administrationin
sionofthegroups. respectof the Min~quierd suring a long periodof time and
Beforeconsideringthisevidence, the Courtfirstexamined that,foraconsiderablepartofthenineteenthcenturyandthe
certain questionsconcerningbothgroups. TheFrenchGov- twentiethcentury, British authoritieshave exercised State
ernmentcontendedthata Conventiononfishery, concluded functionsinrespectofthis group.
in 1839,althoughitdidnotsettlethequestionofsovereignty, The French Government allegedcertain facts. Itcon-
affectedhoweverthat question. Itis saidthatthe groupsin tended that theMinquierswereadependencyoftheChausey
disputewereincludedinthecommon fisheryzonecreatedby islands,grantedby the Dukeof Normandyto theAbbey of
theConvention.Itissaidalsothattheconclc~sioo nfthisCon- Mont-Saint-Michelin 1022. In 1784 a correspondence
ventionprecludestheFartiesfromrelyingonsubsequentacts betweenFrench authorities concernedan applicationfor a
involvinga manifestationof sovereignty. The Courtwas concessionin respect of the Minquiersmade by a French.
unableto accept these contentionsbecausethe Convention national. The Court heldthe viewthat this correspondence
dealtwiththe watersonly,and not thecommon userof the did not disclosean;ythingwhich could supportthe present
territory of the islets. In the special circumstancesof theFrenchclaimtosovc:reigntyb ,utthatitrevealedcertainfears
case, andinviewof the dateatwhicha dislputereallyarose of creating difficultieswiththe English Crown.The French
betweenthe two Governments about thesg eroups,theCourt Government further contended that, since 1861, it has
shallconsiderall theactsof theFarties,unlessanymeasure assumedthe sole chargeof the lightingand buoyingof the
wastaken witha viewto improvingthelegalpositionofthe Minquiers,without havingencounteredany objectionfrom
Partyconcerned. theUnitedKingdom.T . heCounsaidthatthebuoys placedby
TheCounthenexaminedthesituationof e:achgroup.With the FrenchGovena~entat theMinquierswereplacedoutside
regard to thecrehosinparticular,andonthe basisof vari- thereefsofthegroupsand purportedtoaid navigationtoand
ousmediaevaldocuments,it heldthe viewthat theKingof fromFrenchportsandprotectshippingagainstthedangerous
Englandexercisedhisjustice and leviedhi.srightsin these reefsof the Minquictrs.The FrenchGovernmentalsorelied
islets.Those documentsalsoshowthattherewas atthat time on variousofficialvisitstothe Minquiersandthe erectionin
acloserelationshipbetweentheEcrehos and Jersey. 1939of a house ononeof theislets witha subsidy fromthe
Fromthe beginningofthe nineteenth century, thceonnec- MayorofGranville,incontinentalNormandy.
tion becamecloseragain,becauseofthe growingimportance TheCourt didnotfindthatthefactsinvokedbythe French
ofoyster fishery.TheCourtattached probative valuteo vari- Governmentweresufficientto showthat Francehasa valid
ous actsrelatingtothe exercisebyJerseyofjurisdiction and titletotheMinquier!;.Asto the above-mentioned factsfrom
local administration and legislation,suchascriminalpro- thenineteenthand twentiethcenturiesinparticular,suchacts
ceedings concerning the Ecrehos, the levying of taxes on could hardlybe considered as sufficientevidence of the
habitablehousesorhutsbuiltintheisletssinc:e1889,the reg- intentionof that Government toact as sovereign over the
istrationinJerseyofcontractsdealingwithn:alestateonthe islets.Norwerethoseactsofsuchacharacterthattheycould
Ecrehos. beconsideredasinvolvingamanifestationofStateauthority
The French Government invoked thfe actthat in1646the inrespectofthe islets.
States of Jersey prohibitedfishing at thelcrehosand the In such circumsumces,and having regard tothe view
Chauseyandrestricted visitsto theEcrehosin 1692.It men- expressedabove with regardtothe evidenceproducedbythe
tionedalsodiplomatic exchangesbetween the twoGoven- United Kingdom Government,theCourtwasofopinionthat
ments, in the beginningof the nineteenthcentury,to which the sovereignty overthe Minquiersbelongs to the United
wereattachedchartsonwhichpartoftheEcre:hos atleastwas Kingdom.
markedoutsideJersey waters andtreated as resnullius.In a
note to the Foreign Officeof December 15th, 1886, the
French Government claimed for the firsttime sovereignty
overtheEcrehos.
Appraising therelativestrengthof theopposingclaimsin
thelightofthesefacts,the Court found that sovereignty over Availingthemselvesof the right conferredon them by
theEcrehosbelongedtotheUnited Kingdom. Article57 of the Sta~tute,udges Basdevant andCarneiro,
whileconcurringin the decisionof the Court, appendedto
Withregard tothe Minquiers,theCourtnotledthatin1615, theJudgmentstatementsof their individualopinions. Judge
1616,1617and1692,theManorialcourtofthefiefofNoir- Alvarez,whilealsoconcurringinthe decisionof theCourt,
montinJerseyexerciseditsjurisdictioninthecaseofwrecks made a declaration 4:xpressingregret that the Partieshad
found at theMinquiers,becauseoftheterritorialcharacteof attributedexcessive importanceto mediaevalevidenceand
thatjurisdiction. had not sufficiently,akeninto account thestateof interna-
Otherevidenceconcerningthe end of theeighteenthcen- tionallaworitspresenttendenciesinregard toterritorialsov-
tury, the nineteenthand the twentiethcenturies concerned ereignty.
Summary of the Judgment of 17 November 1953