3
COURINTERNATIONALEDE JUSTICE
MËMOIRESPLAIDOIRIETDOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DU DETROIT
DE CORFOU
VOLUME II
Piècede proceduécri(suite)
INTERNATIONALCOUOFJUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS
THE CORFU
CHANNEL CASE
VOLUMEEX
Documenofthe wriproceedings(con$.)Tous droits réservés pla
Cour internationdeJustice.
Al1 right~eserveby the
InternationCourt of Justice.
NOde vente:
1 Salenvmber 32 1 AFFAIRE 13U DETROIT DE CORFOU
. ,
THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE M~~MUIRPLAIDOIRIESDOCUMENTS
AFFAIRE DU DÉTROIT
DE CORFOU INTERNATIONALCOURS' OF TUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
THE CORFU
CHANNELCASE
JUDGMENTOFY.4RCI25thAPRI9th?!ND DEcE3lljtll, 1949
VOLUME II 8. - LETTRE DE L'AGENT ALBANALS
AU GREFFIER DE Lh COUR
:Parisle 29 juin 1349
Monsieur le Greffier,
Conformément aux instructions reques de mon Gouvernement,
cn réfSrence 5 l'Ordo11nanceémise par la Cour internationale de
Justice leg avril 1949 en l'affaire du Détroit de Corfou (C. 1.J.
Recueil 1949 ,.I~I), j'ai l'honneudc porter i votreconnaissance
ce qui suit :
Le Gouvernement de la Rhpublique populaire d'Albanie consi-
dère que, conformkment au compromis signé entre Iesagents de
la République populaire d'Albanie et de la Grande-Bretagne le
23 mars 1948 et qui a Ctéprésenteà la Cour le mêmejour, la Cour
devait examiner uniquement la question de savoir si 1'Albanie
;tait obligéeou non de payer les rkparatioils des dommages causés
aux navires de guerre britanniques dans l'incident du22 octobre
1946et le compromis ne prévoyait pas que la Cour aurait droit de
fixer le montant des réparations et de demander en conséquence
des informations à l'Albanieà ce sujet.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
'
L'Agent du Gouvernement de la
République populaire d'Albanie,
(Signé)BEHAKSIITYLLA.
9. - AFFI13AVLTSIGNED RY THE ,DEPljTY-SECR ETAK'I-
OF THE BRITISH ADMIRALTY
DEPOÇITES, BY THE AGENT FOR THE UNITED ~ I ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~
GOVERWMENT ON NOVEMBEB 8th, X949
In the matter of the Corfu Channel case before the International
Court of Justice.
I. 1, Richard Royle Powell, Cornpinion of the Most Dis-
tinguished Order of St. Rlichael andSt. George,at present seniing
as Deputy Secretary of the Admiralty, make oath and Say as
fqllows.
2. I have been asked :-
(A) What was the date of constructiori 'ofH.M.S. Satt?nartx and
the actual coçt of buildin- her ?
(B) How was the estimate of i7oo,ooo, given in paragraph 13
of the Observations of the Governnient 'of the United Kingdom BRITISH ADMIRALTY AFFIDAVIT 401
dated the 28th July, 1949, as the replacement value of H.M.S.
Sazrmarez,arrived at ?
(C) What would be the cost of replacing H.M.S. Sa~.rvzarez
to-day (1949) ?
(D) What would have been the market value of H.M.S. Saumarez
in 1946 ?
3. My answers to these questions are as follows.
4. In answer to (A) the order to proceed with the construction
of the destroyer leader afterwards named H.M.S. Saumarez was
placed with Blessrs. R. 8: W. Hawthorn Leslie Sr Co. Ltd., of
Hebburn-on-Tyne on the 9th January, 1941: she was handed over
after completion and received into the service of the Royal Navy
on the 1st July, 1943.
j. The actual recorded cost of construction of the ship was
£554,678 which, with the addition of k14,329for interes2 %t on
the growing capital outlay, and of an allowance of £21,359 for
insurance cover forbuilder's and King's Enemysks at the ordinary
market rate over the period of construction, brings the total sum
to £590,366.
6. In answer to(B) costs of shipbuilding in the United Kingdom
were rising during the whole period from the commencement of
construction of H.M.S.Sazrmarezin 1941 until the date on which
she was lost,viz., October, 1946, and continued to rise thereafter.
The average increase of cost of the building of comparable vessels
between the period of constriiction of Sazimarez (1941143) and
October, 1946, was approximately 30 %.
7. The figure of jC700,ooogiven in paragraph 13 of the Observ-
ations of the Governmenb of the United Kingdom dated the
28th July, 1949, was reached by adding 30 % to the figure of
£554,678 quoted in paragraph 5,above, and reducing the resulting
figure of £720,000 to a round one. It would have been justifiable,
however, to have added an allowance of jC14,joo for interest at
2 % on the growing capital outlay and of E2,ooo for insurance
covcr for builder's nsks at the ordinary market rate. This, added
to the j5720,ooo mentioned above, would have given £736,500.
S. In answer to (C)the cost to the Admiralty of the construction,
at prices obtaining at the present day, of a ship similar to H.M.S.
Saunzarez, is estimated at k802,000, which with the addition of
£16,500 for interest at2 % on the growing capital outlay, and
of an allowance of ;62,500for insurance cover for builder's risks
at the ordinary market rate, brings the total to jC821,ooo.
g. In answer to (D) an, Admiralty assessment of the market
value of H.M.S. Saumarezcould only be based on the premise that
she were being sold to another Govemment.
26402 BRITISH AD&!IRAI-TY AFFIDAVIT
IO. The Admiralty have, in fact, sold a number of warships to
foreign governments since the end of the Second World \Var. ln
calculating the price to be charged in such cases, the Admiraltjl
have had regard to-
(a) The current cost of building a comparable ship,
(b) the period of useful life which the ship may be reckoned still
to have,
(c) the conditio~i in which the ship may happen to be at the tiiiie
of sale,
(d) any special circumstaiices, political and otherwise, vrhich
might be relevant.
II. Ptly comments on the above factors in respect of H.ïl4.S.
Sa~marez are as foilows.
12. ASregards (a), 1have shown above that the cost of building
an identical ship in 1946 would have been £736,j00. As regards
(b),H.M.S. Saz~marezwas, before the incident of the 22nd October,
1946, as good as new. She had, it is true, received a certain amount
of action damage during the war, but this had involved re-cviring
and the incorporation of new parts, which enhanced her condition
rather than the contrüry. As regards (c), the sliip \vas in cscellent
condition, and as a flotilla-leader, incorporated a number of refine-
ments which would not normally be included in a ship of her
class or age.
13. But it would be an underlying assumption of any such
estimate of value that the transaction were one between a willing
seller and a willing buyer. So far as the Admiralty is concerned,
this assumption would mean that the sliip sold was surplus to the
requirements of the Government of the United Kingdorn, and
tlierefore would not require to be replaced by a comparable ship
of new construction. H.M.S. Sazkmarezwas not surplus to tliose
requirements, the factors referred to in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)
above do not apply, and the Admiralty consider themselves justifieci
in claiming, in compensation for her loss, the cost of building an
identical ship at 1946 rates and prices.
(Signed) R. R. POIVELL.
Sworn before me this seventh day of Novernber, nineteen hundred
and forty-nine. .
(Signed) JOHN NEWTON,
Commissioner for Oaths.
Affidavit signed by the Deputy-Secretary of the British Admiralty