Contentious

Code

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 14 October 1983 Burkina Faso (then known as Upper Volta) and Mali notified to the Court a Special Agreement referring to a Chamber of the Court the question of the delimitation of part of the land frontier between the two States. This Chamber was constituted by an Order of 3 April 1985. Following grave incidents between the armed forces of the two countries at the very end of 1985, both Parties submitted parallel requests to the Chamber for the indication of interim measures of protection. The Chamber indicated such measures by an Order of 10 January 1986.

In its Judgment delivered on 22 December 1986, the Chamber began by ascertaining the source of the rights claimed by the Parties. It noted that, in that case, the principles that ought to be applied were the principle of the intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization and the principle of uti possidetis juris, which accords pre-eminence to legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty, and whose primary aim is to secure respect for the territorial boundaries which existed at the time when independence was achieved. The Chamber specified that, when those boundaries were no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign, the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris resulted in their being transformed into international frontiers, as in the instant case.

It also indicated that it would have regard to equity infra legem, that is, that form of equity which constitutes a method of interpretation of the law and which is based on law. The Parties also relied upon various types of evidence to give support to their arguments, including French legislative and regulative texts or administrative documents, maps and “colonial effectivités” or, in other words, the conduct of the administrative authorities as proof of the effective exercise of territorial jurisdiction in the region during the colonial period. Having considered those various kinds of evidence, the Chamber defined the course of the boundary between the Parties in the disputed area. The Chamber likewise took the opportunity to point out, with respect to the tripoint Niger-Mali-Burkina Faso, that its jurisdiction was not restricted simply because the endpoint of the frontier lay on the frontier of a third State not a party to the proceedings. It further pointed out that the rights of Niger were in any event safeguarded by the operation of Article 59 of the Statute of the Court.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Agreement (French version only)

16 September 1983

Available in:

French

Special Agreement (French version only)

20 October 1983

Available in:

French

Written proceedings

French

Counter-Memorial of Burkina Faso (French version only)

2 April 1986

Available in:

French

Counter-Memorial of Mali (French version only)

2 April 1986

Available in:

French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1985 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings - held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 9 and 10 January 1986, President of the Chamber, Judge Bedjaoui, presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1986 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings - held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 16 to 26 June and on 22 December 1986, President of the Chamber, Judge Bedjaoui, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

English French Bilingual

Order of 9 April 1987

Nomination of Experts

Summary of the Order of 10 January 1986

Available in:

English French

Summary 1986/3

Summary of the Judgment of 22 December 1986

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 25 November 1981, Canada and the United States notified to the Court a Special Agreement whereby they referred to a Chamber of the Court the question of the delimitation of the maritime boundary dividing the continental shelf and fisheries zones of the two Parties in the Gulf of Maine area. This Chamber was constituted by an Order of 20 January 1982, and it was the first time that a case had been heard by an ad hoc Chamber of the Court.

The Chamber delivered its Judgment on 12 October 1984. Having established its jurisdiction and defined the area to be delimited, it reviewed the origin and development of the dispute and laid down the principles and rules of international law governing the issue. It indicated that the delimitation was to be effected by the application of equitable criteria and by the use of practical methods capable of ensuring, with regard to the geographical configuration of the area and the other relevant circumstances, an equitable result. It rejected the delimitation lines proposed by the Parties, and defined the criteria and methods which it considered to be applicable to the single delimitation line which it was asked to draw. It applied criteria of a primarily geographical nature, and used geometrical methods appropriate both for the delimitation of the sea-bed and for that of the superjacent waters. As for the plotting of the delimitation line, the Chamber distinguished between three segments, the first two lying within the Gulf of Maine and the third outside it. In the case of the first segment, it considered that there was no special circumstance precluding the division into equal parts of the overlapping of the maritime projections of the two States’ coasts. The delimitation line runs from the starting-point agreed between the Parties, and is the bisector of the angle formed by the perpendicular to the coastal line running from Cape Elizabeth to the existing boundary terminus and the perpendicular to the coastal line running from that boundary terminus to Cape Sable. For the second segment, the Chamber considered that, in view of the quasi-parallelism between the coasts of Nova Scotia and Massachusetts, a median line should be drawn approximately parallel to the two opposite coasts, and should then be corrected to take account of (a) the difference in length between the coasts of the two States abutting on the delimitation area and (b) the presence of Seal Island off the coast of Nova Scotia. The delimitation line corresponds to the corrected median line from its intersection with the above-mentioned bisector to the point where it reaches the closing line of the Gulf. The third segment is situated in the open ocean, and consists of a perpendicular to the closing line of the Gulf from the point at which the corrected median line intersects with that line. The terminus of this final segment lies within the triangle defined by the Parties and coincides with the last point of overlapping of the respective 200-mile zones claimed by the two States. The co-ordinates of the line drawn by the Chamber are given in the operative part of the Judgment.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Special Agreement

25 November 1981

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1984 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 29 January 1982 and from 2 to 19 April 1984, President of the Chamber, Judge Ago, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1984 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments (Concluded) - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 3 to 11 May and on 12 October 1984, President of the Chamber, Judge Ago, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

Order of 20 January 1982

Constitution of Chamber

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Morozov

English French Bilingual

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 12 October 1984

Judgment of 12 October 1984 given by the Chamber constituted by the order made by the Court on 20 January 1982

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Schwebel

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Gros (translation)

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 1982/1

Summary of the Order of 20 January 1982

Available in:

English French

Summary 1984/4

Summary of the Judgment of 12 October 1984

Available in:

English French

North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

These cases concerned the delimitation of the continental shelf of the North Sea as between Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany, and as between the Netherlands and the Federal Republic, and were submitted to the Court by Special Agreement. The Parties asked the Court to state the principles and rules of international law applicable, and undertook thereafter to carry out the delimitations on that basis. By an Order of 26 April 1968 the Court, having found Denmark and the Netherlands to be in the same interest, joined the proceedings in the two cases. In its Judgment, delivered on 20 February 1969, the Court found that the boundary lines in question were to be drawn by agreement between the Parties and in accordance with equitable principles in such a way as to leave to each Party those areas of the continental shelf which constituted the natural prolongation of its land territory under the sea, and it indicated certain factors to be taken into consideration for that purpose. The Court rejected the contention that the delimitations in question had to be carried out in accordance with the principle of equidistance as defined in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Court took account of the fact that the Federal Republic had not ratified that Convention, and held that the equidistance principle was not inherent in the basic concept of continental shelf rights, and that this principle was not a rule of customary international law.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Special Agreement

20 February 1967

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1968 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 23 October to 11 November 1968 and on 20 February 1969, the President, M. Bustamante y Rivero, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

Summary of the Judgment of 20 February 1969

Available in:

English French

North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Special Agreement

20 February 1967

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1968 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 23 October to 11 November 1968 and on 20 February 1969, the President, M. Bustamante y Rivero, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

Summary of the Judgment of 20 February 1969

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 10 August 1976, Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey in a dispute over the Aegean Sea continental shelf. It asked the Court in particular to declare that the Greek islands in the area were entitled to their lawful portion of continental shelf and to delimit the respective parts of that shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey. At the same time, it requested provisional measures indicating that, pending the Court’s judgment, neither State should, without the other’s consent, engage in exploration or research with respect to the shelf in question. On 11 September 1976, the Court found that the indication of such measures was not required and, as Turkey had denied that the Court was competent, ordered that the proceedings should first concern the question of jurisdiction. In a Judgment delivered on 19 December 1978, the Court found that jurisdiction to deal with the case was not conferred upon it by either of the two instruments relied upon by Greece : the application of the General Act for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Geneva, 1928) — whether or not it was in force — was excluded by the effect of a reservation made by Greece upon accession, while the Greco-Turkish press communiqué of 31 May 1975 did not contain an agreement binding upon either State to accept the unilateral referral of the dispute to the Court.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

10 August 1976

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1976 (bilingual version)

Oral arguments on the Request for the indication of Interim Measures of Protection - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 25 to 27 August and on 11 September 1976, President Jiménez de Aréchaga presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1978 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 9 to 17 October and on 19 December 1978, President Jiménez de Aréchaga presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stassinopoulos (translation)

English French Bilingual

Order of 14 October 1976

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 18 April 1977

Extension of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Summary of the Order of 11 September 1976

Available in:

English French

Summary 1978/1

Summary of the Judgment of 19 December 1978

Available in:

English French

English French

Press release 1978/9

19 December 1978

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey) - Judgment on the question of the Court's jurisdiction

Available in:

English French

Correspondence

10 August 1976

Correspondence

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 9 May 1973, Australia and New Zealand each instituted proceedings against France concerning tests of nuclear weapons which France proposed to carry out in the atmosphere in the South Pacific region. France stated that it considered the Court manifestly to lack jurisdiction and refrained from appearing at the public hearings or filing any pleadings. By two Orders of 22 June 1973, the Court, at the request of Australia and New Zealand, indicated provisional measures to the effect, inter alia, that pending judgment France should avoid nuclear tests causing radioactive fall-out on Australian or New Zealand territory. By two Judgments delivered on 20 December 1974, the Court found that the Applications of Australia and New Zealand no longer had any object and that it was therefore not called upon to give any decision thereon. In so doing the Court based itself on the conclusion that the objective of Australia and New Zealand had been achieved inasmuch as France, in various public statements, had announced its intention of carrying out no further atmospheric nuclear tests on the completion of the 1974 series.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

9 May 1973

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1973 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Pease Palace, The Hague, on 24 and 25 May 1973, President Lachs presiding, and on 22 June 1973, Vice-President Ammoun presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1974 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 10 and 11 July and 20 December 1974, President Lachs presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Order of 12 July 1973

Application by Fiji for Permission to Intervene

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Gros (as appended immediately after the order)

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Petrén (as appended immediately after the order)

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Onyeama (as appended immediately after the order)

English French Bilingual

English French

Summary 1974/4

Summary of the Judgment of 20 December 1974

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Belgium had ceased pursuing the aforementioned case on account of efforts to negotiate a friendly settlement. The negotiations broke down, however, and Belgium filed a new Application on 19 June 1962. The following March, Spain filed four preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction, and on 24 July 1964 the Court delivered a Judgment dismissing the first two but joining the others to the merits. After the filing, within the time-limits requested by the Parties, of the pleadings on the merits and on the objections joined thereto, hearings were held from 15 April to 22 July 1969. Belgium sought compensation for the damage claimed to have been caused to its nationals, shareholders in the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd., as the result of acts contrary to international law said to have been committed by organs of the Spanish State. Spain, on the other hand, submitted that the Belgian claim should be declared inadmissible or unfounded. In a Judgment delivered on 5 February 1970, the Court found that Belgium had no legal standing to exercise diplomatic protection of shareholders in a Canadian company in respect of measures taken against that company in Spain. It also pointed out that the adoption of the theory of diplomatic protection of shareholders as such would open the door to competing claims on the part of different States, which could create an atmosphere of insecurity in international economic relations. Accordingly, and in so far as the company’s national State (Canada) was able to act, the Court was not of the opinion that jus standi was conferred on the Belgian Government by considerations of equity. The Court accordingly rejected Belgium’s claim.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings (French version only) (French version only)

19 June 1962

Available in:

French

Written proceedings

Verbatim record 1964/1 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 11 March to 19 May and 24 July 1964, the President sir Percy Spender, presiding (Minutes and Annexes to the Minutes)

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1964/2 (bilingual version)

Annexes to the Minutes of the Public hearings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 16 April to 19 May 1964, the President sir Percy Spender, presiding (concluded)

Judgments

Judgment of 24 July 1964

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgment of 5 February 1970

Second Phase

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

English French

Summary 1970/1

Summary of the Judgment of 5 February 1970

Available in:

English French

South West Africa (Liberia v. South Africa)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 4 November 1960, Ethiopia and Liberia, as former States Members of the League of Nations, instituted separate proceedings against South Africa in a case concerning the continued existence of the League of Nations Mandate for South West Africa and the duties and performance of South Africa as mandatory Power. The Court was requested to make declarations to the effect that South West Africa remained a territory under a Mandate, that South Africa had been in breach of its obligations under that Mandate, and that the Mandate and hence the mandatory authority were subject to the supervision of the United Nations. On 20 May 1961, the Court made an Order finding Ethiopia and Liberia to be in the same interest and joining the proceedings each had instituted. South Africa filed four preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction. In a Judgment of 21 December 1962, the Court rejected these and upheld its jurisdiction. After pleadings on the merits had been filed within the time-limits fixed at the request of the Parties, the Court held public sittings from 15 March to 29 November 1965 in order to hear oral arguments and testimony, and judgment in the second phase was given on 18 July 1966. By the casting vote of the President — the votes having been equally divided (7-7) — the Court found that Ethiopia and Liberia could not be considered to have established any legal right or interest appertaining to them in the subject-matter of their claims, and accordingly decided to reject those claims.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

4 November 1960

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

10 January 1964

Books VII-X

English

Reply of the Governments of Ethiopia and Liberia

20 June 1964

Available in:

English

Rejoinder filed by the Government of the Republic of South Africa

22 December 1964

Orders

Judgments

Judgment of 21 December 1962

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgment of 18 July 1966

Second Phase

Summary of the Judgment of 21 December 1962

Available in:

English French

Summary 1966/1

Summary of the Judgment of 18 July 1966

Available in:

English French

French

Press release 1966/7 (French version only)

20 July 1966

Deuxième phase des affaires du Sud-Ouest africain (Ethiopie c. Afrique du Sud; Libéria c. Afrique du Sud) (French version only)

Available in:

French

Correspondence

28 October 1960

Correspondence

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

In this case, as well as in the cases concerning the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of the United States of America (United States of America v. Hungarian People's Republic); Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of the United States of America (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics); Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953 (United States of America v. Czechoslovakia); Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics); and Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), the United States did not claim that the States against which the Applications were made had given any consent to jurisdiction, but relied on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Court’s Statute, which provides that the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it. The United States stated that it submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction for the purpose of the above-mentioned cases and indicated that it was open to the other Governments concerned to do likewise. These Governments having stated in each case that they were unable to submit to the Court’s jurisdiction in the matter, the Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with these six cases, and removed them from its List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application Instituting Proceedings

English

Observations and Submissions of the Government of the Federal Republic of Cameroon on the Preliminary Objection of the Government of the United Kingdom (French version only)

27 June 1963

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgments

Judgment of 2 December 1963

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 1963/1

Summary of the Judgment of 2 December 1963

Available in:

English French

Press release 1963/12

﻿Contentious

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Institution of proceedings

16 September 1983

Available in:

20 October 1983

Available in:

Written proceedings

3 October 1985

Available in:

3 October 1985

Available in:

30 December 1985

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

2 April 1986

Available in:

2 April 1986

Available in:

Oral proceedings

Minutes of the Public Sittings - held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 9 and 10 January 1986, President of the Chamber, Judge Bedjaoui, presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Minutes of the Public Sittings - held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 16 to 26 June and on 22 December 1986, President of the Chamber, Judge Bedjaoui, presiding

Available in:

Orders

Constitution of Chamber

Available in:

Fixing of time-limit: Memorials

Available in:

Fixing of time-limit: Counter-Memorials

Available in:

Request for the indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Nomination of Experts

Available in:

Judgments

Available in:

Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Luchaire

Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Abi-Saab

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary of the Order of 10 January 1986

Available in:

Summary of the Judgment of 22 December 1986

Available in:

Press releases

25 October 1983

Upper Volta and Mali bring a case before the Court

Available in:

10 April 1985

The Court forms a Chamber to deal with the case submitted by Burkina Faso and Mali

Available in:

22 April 1985

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Chamber to hold first public sitting

Available in:

1 May 1985

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Judge Mohamed Bedjaoui elected President of the Chamber formed to deal with the case - Solemn declarations of Judges ad hoc François Luchaire and Georges Michel Abi-Saab

Available in:

6 January 1986

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Chamber of Court to hear Burkina Faso and Mali on possible indication of provisional measures

Available in:

10 January 1986

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Provisional measures are indicated in the case of the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali)

Available in:

3 April 1986

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Filing of Counter-Memorials by the Parties

Available in:

5 June 1986

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Hearing to open on Monday 16 June 1986

Available in:

30 June 1986

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Progress and conclusion of public hearings

Available in:

12 December 1986

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Judgment to be delivered in Frontier Dispute case between Burkina Faso and the Republic of Mali

Available in:

22 December 1986

Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) - Judgment of the Chamber

Available in:

Contentious