Contentious
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This case, a sequel to the earlier proceedings, was instituted by Colombia by means of a fresh Application. Immediately after the Judgment of 20 November 1950, Peru had called upon Colombia to surrender Mr. Haya de la Torre. Colombia refused to do so, maintaining that neither the applicable legal provisions nor the Court’s Judgment placed it under an obligation to surrender the refugee to the Peruvian authorities. The Court confirmed this view in its Judgment of 13 June 1951. It declared that the question was a new one, and that although the Havana Convention expressly prescribed the surrender of common criminals to the local authorities, no obligation of the kind existed in regard to political offenders. While confirming that diplomatic asylum had been irregularly granted and that on this ground Peru was entitled to demand its termination, the Court declared that Colombia was not bound to surrender the refugee ; these two conclusions, it stated, were not contradictory because there were other ways in which the asylum could be terminated besides the surrender of the refugee.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
7 February 1951
Available in:
13 March 1951
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
15 March 1951
Available in:
28 March 1951
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
2 April 1951
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from May 15th to 17th, and on June 13th, 1951, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Available in:
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from May 15th May 1951, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
(including the text of the declaration of judge ad hoc Alayza y Paz Soldán)
Procedure(s):Intervention
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
13 December 1950
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Filing by Colombia of an Application instituting proceedings against Peru
Available in:
4 January 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Order fixing the time-limits for the filing of the written pleadings
Available in:
9 February 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Appointment of Judges ad hoc, Agents and Counsels by each of the Parties
Available in:
15 March 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Communication of Cuba on the Convention on Asylum
Available in:
14 April 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Opening of the public hearings on 8 May 1951
Available in:
8 May 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - The Court will hold a series of public hearings beginning on 15 May 1951
Available in:
15 May 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 15 May 1951
Available in:
16 May 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearing of 16 May 1951
Available in:
17 May 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearing of 17 May 1951
Available in:
11 June 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - The Court will deliver its Judgment on 13 June 1951
Available in:
13 June 1951
Haya de la Torre (Colombia/Peru) - Judgment of the Court of 13 June 1951
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
By a decree of 30 December 1948, the French authorities in the Moroccan Protectorate imposed a system of licence control in respect of imports not involving an official allocation of currency, and limited these imports to a number of products indispensable to the Moroccan economy. The United States maintained that this measure affected its rights under treaties with Morocco and contended that, in accordance with these treaties and with the General Act of Algeciras of 1906, no Moroccan law or regulation could be applied to its nationals in Morocco without its previous consent. In its Judgment of 27 August 1952, the Court held that the import controls were contrary to the Treaty between the United States and Morocco of 1836 and the General Act of Algeciras since they involved discrimination in favour of France against the United States. The Court then considered the extent of the consular jurisdiction of the United States in Morocco and held that the United States was entitled to exercise such jurisdiction in the French Zone in all disputes, civil or criminal, between United States citizens or persons protected by the United States. It was also entitled to exercise such jurisdiction to the extent required by the relevant provisions of the General Act of Algeciras. The Court rejected the contention of the United States that its consular jurisdiction included cases in which only the defendant was a citizen or protégé of the United States. It also rejected the claim by the United States that the application to United States citizens of laws and regulations in the French Zone of Morocco required the prior assent of the United States Government. Such assent was required only in so far as the intervention of the consular courts of the United States was necessary for the effective enforcement of such laws or regulations with respect to United States citizens. The Court rejected a counter-claim by the United States that its nationals in Morocco were entitled to immunity from taxation. It also dealt with the question of the valuation of imports by the Moroccan customs authorities.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
1 March 1951
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
15 June 1951
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
28 July 1951
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
20 December 1951
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
13 February 1952
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
18 April 1952
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from July 15th to 26th, and on August 27th, 1952, the President, Sir Arnold McNair, presiding
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Other documents
10 July 1952
Available in:
Orders
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
Fixing of time-limit: Written Statements of observations and submissions on Preliminary Objection
Available in:
Withdrawal of Preliminary Objection, Fixing of time-limits: Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Judgments
(including the text of the declaration of Judge Hsu Mo)
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
28 October 1950
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Filing by France of an Application instituting proceedings against the United States
Available in:
23 November 1950
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Order fixing the time-limits for the filing of written pleadings
Available in:
25 June 1951
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Filing of a Preliminary Objection by the United States
Available in:
8 July 1952
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Representatives of the two Governments at the hearings
Available in:
23 August 1952
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - The reading of Court's Judgment will take place on 27th August, 1952, at 4 p.m.
Available in:
27 August 1952
Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America) - Judgment
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
The granting of diplomatic asylum in the Colombian Embassy at Lima, on 3 January 1949, to a Peruvian national, Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre, a political leader accused of having instigated a military rebellion, was the subject of a dispute between Peru and Colombia which the Parties agreed to submit to the Court. The Pan-American Havana Convention on Asylum (1928) laid down that, subject to certain conditions, asylum could be granted in a foreign embassy to a political refugee who was a national of the territorial State. The question in dispute was whether Colombia, as the State granting the asylum, was entitled unilaterally to “qualify” the offence committed by the refugee in a manner binding on the territorial State — that is, to decide whether it was a political offence or a common crime. Furthermore, the Court was asked to decide whether the territorial State was bound to afford the necessary guarantees to enable the refugee to leave the country in safety. In its Judgment of 20 November 1950, the Court answered both these questions in the negative, but at the same time it specified that Peru had not proved that Mr. Haya de la Torre was a common criminal. Lastly, it found in favour of a counter-claim submitted by Peru that Mr. Haya de la Torre had been granted asylum in violation of the Havana Convention.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
15 October 1949
Available in:
Written proceedings
10 January 1950
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
21 March 1950
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
20 April 1950
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
15 June 1950
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from September 26th to November 27th 1950, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Other documents
Orders
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
Judgments
(including the declaration of Judge Zoričić)
Procedure(s):Counter-claims
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
17 October 1949
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Filing by Colombia of an Application instituting proceedings against Peru
Available in:
20 October 1949
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Order fixing the time-limits for the filing of the written pleadings
Available in:
17 December 1949
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Order extending the time-limit for the filing by Colombia of its Memorial
Available in:
11 January 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Appointment of Judges ad hoc by Colombia and Peru
Available in:
22 September 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - The Court will hold a series of public hearings beginning 26 September 1950
Available in:
25 September 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Appointment of Judges ad hoc and representation of the Parties at the hearings
Available in:
26 September 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 26 September 1950
Available in:
29 September 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 26 to 29 September 1950
Available in:
3 October 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 2 and 3 October 1950
Available in:
6 October 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearings of 6 October 1950
Available in:
9 October 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Public hearing of 9 October 1950
Available in:
16 November 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - The Court will deliver its Judgment on 20 November 1950
Available in:
20 November 1950
Asylum (Colombia/Peru) - Judgment of the Court of 20 November 1950
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
As a consequence of certain measures adopted by the Egyptian Government against the property and persons of various French nationals and protected persons in Egypt, France instituted proceedings in which it invoked the Montreux Convention of 1935, concerning the abrogation of the capitulations in Egypt. However, the case was not proceeded with, as the Egyptian Government desisted from the measures in question. As France decided not to press its suit and as Egypt had no objection, the case was removed from the Court’s List (Order of 29 March 1950).
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Orders
Press releases
14 October 1949
Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons in Egypt (France v. Egypt) - Filing by France of an Application instituting proceedings against Egypt
Available in:
31 March 1950
Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons in Egypt (France v. Egypt) - Removal of the case from the List of the Court
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
The Judgment delivered by the Court in this case ended a long controversy between the United Kingdom and Norway which had aroused considerable interest in other maritime States. In 1935 Norway enacted a decree by which it reserved certain fishing grounds situated off its northern coast for the exclusive use of its own fishermen. The question at issue was whether this decree, which laid down a method for drawing the baselines from which the width of the Norwegian territorial waters had to be calculated, was valid international law. This question was rendered particularly delicate by the intricacies of the Norwegian coastal zone, with its many fjords, bays, islands, islets and reefs. The United Kingdom contended, inter alia, that some of the baselines fixed by the decree did not accord with the general direction of the coast and were not drawn in a reasonable manner. In its Judgment of 18 December 1951, the Court found that, contrary to the submissions of the United Kingdom, neither the method nor the actual baselines stipulated by the 1935 Decree were contrary to international law.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
27 January 1950
Available in:
31 July 1950
Available in:
31 July 1950
Available in:
28 November 1950
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from September 25th to October 29th, and on December 18th, 1951, President Basdevant presiding
Available in:
Other documents
19 September 1951
Available in:
Orders
Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
Extension of time-limits: Counter-Memorial, Reply and Rejoinder
Available in:
Judgments
(including the text of the declaration of judge Hackworth)
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
9 November 1949
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Order fixing the time-limits of the filing of the written pleadings
Available in:
10 January 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Order extending the time-limit for the filing, by Norway, of its Rejoinder
Available in:
22 September 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Representatives of the Parties at the public hearings opening on 25 September 1951
Available in:
25 September 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearing of 25 September 1951
Available in:
26 September 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 26 September 1951
Available in:
27 September 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 27 September 1951
Available in:
28 September 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 28 September 1951
Available in:
29 September 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 29 September 1951
Available in:
1 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 1 October 1951
Available in:
5 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 5 October 1951
Available in:
6 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearing of 6 October 1951 (Bilingual version)
Available in:
8 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 8 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
9 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 9 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
10 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 10 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
11 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 11 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
12 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 12 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
13 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearing of 13 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
15 October 1951
Pêcheries (Royaume-Uni c. Norvège) - Audiences publiques du 15 octobre 1951 (French version only)
Available in:
17 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 17 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
18 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 18 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
19 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 19 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
20 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearing of 20 October 1951
Available in:
24 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearing of 24 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
25 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 25 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
26 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearings of 26 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
27 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearing of 27 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
29 October 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Public hearing of 29 October 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
14 December 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - The Court will deliver its Judgment on 18 December 1951(Bilingual version)
Available in:
18 December 1951
Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway) - Judgment of the Court of 18 December 1951
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This dispute gave rise to three Judgments by the Court. It arose out of the explosions of mines by which some British warships suffered damage while passing through the Corfu Channel in 1946, in a part of the Albanian waters which had been previously swept. The ships were severely damaged and members of the crew were killed. The United Kingdom seised the Court of the dispute by an Application filed on 22 May 1947 and accused Albania of having laid or allowed a third State to lay the mines after mine-clearing operations had been carried out by the Allied naval authorities. The case had previously been brought before the United Nations and, in consequence of a recommendation by the Security Council, had been referred to the Court.
In a first Judgment, rendered on 25 March 1948, the Court dealt with the question of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application, which Albania had raised. The Court found, inter alia, that a communication dated 2 July 1947, addressed to it by the Government of Albania, constituted a voluntary acceptance of its jurisdiction. It recalled on that occasion that the consent of the parties to the exercise of its jurisdiction was not subject to any particular conditions of form and stated that, at that juncture, it could not hold to be irregular a proceeding not precluded by any provision in those texts.
A second Judgment, rendered on 9 April 1949, related to the merits of the dispute. The Court found that Albania was responsible under international law for the explosions that had taken place in Albanian waters and for the damage and loss of life which had ensued. It did not accept the view that Albania had itself laid the mines or the purported connivance of Albania with a mine-laying operation carried out by the Yugoslav Navy at the request of Albania. On the other hand, it held that the mines could not have been laid without the knowledge of the Albanian Government. On that occasion, it indicated in particular that the exclusive control exercised by a State within its frontiers might make it impossible to furnish direct proof of facts incurring its international responsibility. The State which is the victim must, in that case, be allowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact and circumstantial evidence ; such indirect evidence must be regarded as of especial weight when based on a series of facts, linked together and leading logically to a single conclusion. Albania, for its part, had submitted a counter-claim against the United Kingdom. It accused the latter of having violated Albanian sovereignty by sending warships into Albanian territorial waters and of carrying out minesweeping operations in Albanian waters after the explosions. The Court did not accept the first of these complaints but found that the United Kingdom had exercised the right of innocent passage through international straits. On the other hand, it found that the minesweeping had violated Albanian sovereignty, because it had been carried out against the will of the Albanian Government. In particular, it did not accept the notion of “self-help” asserted by the United Kingdom to justify its intervention.
In a third Judgment, rendered on 15 December 1949, the Court assessed the amount of reparation owed to the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay £844,000.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.