Contentious

Code

See also

Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 28 October 1998, the Republic of Nigeria filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Cameroon, whereby it requested the Court to interpret the Judgment on the preliminary objections delivered on 11 June 1998 in the case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. In its Request for an interpretation, Nigeria submitted that one aspect of the case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary still before the Court was the alleged responsibility of Nigeria for certain incidents said by Cameroon to have occurred at various places in Bakassi and Lake Chad and also along the length of the frontier between those two regions. Nigeria held that, as Cameroon had not provided full information on those incidents, the Court had not been able to specify which incidents were to be considered further as part of the merits of the case. Nigeria considered that the meaning and scope of the Judgment required interpretation. The Court was asked to interpret the Judgment as suggested by the Applicant.

After the filing of written observations by Cameroon on Nigeria’s Request for interpretation, the Court did not deem it necessary to invite the Parties to furnish further written or oral explanations. On 25 March 1999, the Court delivered a Judgment, in which it concluded that, in its Judgment of June 1998, it had already dealt with certain of the submissions presented by Nigeria at the end of its Request for interpretation, and that the other submissions presented by Nigeria endeavoured to remove from the Court’s consideration elements of law and fact which the Court, in its 1998 Judgment, had already authorized Cameroon to present, or which Cameroon had not yet put forward. In any event, the Court concluded that it could not entertain Nigeria’s submissions. Accordingly, it declared Nigeria’s Request for interpretation inadmissible.

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

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

28 October 1998

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Written observations of the Cameroon on the Request submitted by Nigeria for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 (French version only)

13 November 1998

Available in:

French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1999/3 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Wednesday 17 February 1999, at 9.45 a.m., President Schwebel presiding

English French

Press releases

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 28 December 1998, Guinea filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in respect of a dispute concerning “serious violations of international law” alleged to have been committed upon the person of Mr. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, a Guinean national. In its Application, Guinea maintained that

“Mr. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, a businessman of Guinean nationality, was unjustly imprisoned by the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, after being resident in that State for thirty-two (32) years, despoiled of his sizable investments, businesses, movable and immovable property and bank accounts, and then expelled.”

Guinea added:

“[t]his expulsion came at a time when Mr. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo was pursuing recovery of substantial debts owed to his businesses [Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire] by the [Congolese] State and by oil companies established in its territory and of which the State is a shareholder”.

To found the jurisdiction of the Court, Guinea invoked in the Application the declarations whereby the two States have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.

On 3 October 2002, the DRC raised preliminary objections in respect of the admissibility of Guinea’s Application. In its Judgment of 24 May 2007 on these preliminary objections, the Court declared the Application of the Republic of Guinea to be admissible “in so far as it concerns protection of Mr. Diallo’s rights as an individual” and “in so far as it concerns protection of [his] direct rights as associé in Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire”. However, the Court declared the Application of the Republic of Guinea to be inadmissible “in so far as it concerns protection of Mr. Diallo in respect of alleged violations of rights of Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire”.

In its Judgment of 30 November 2010 on the merits, the Court found that, in respect of the circumstances in which Mr. Diallo had been expelled on 31 January 1996, the DRC had violated Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 12, paragraph 4, of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Court also found that, in respect of the circumstances in which Mr. Diallo had been arrested and detained in 1995-1996 with a view to his expulsion, the DRC had violated Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Covenant and Article 6 of the African Charter. The Court further decided that “the Democratic Republic of the Congo [was] under obligation to make appropriate reparation, in the form of compensation, to the Republic of Guinea for the injurious consequences of the violations of international obligations referred to in subparagraphs (2) and (3) [of the operative part]”, namely the unlawful arrests, detentions and expulsion of Mr. Diallo. In addition, the Court found that the DRC had violated Mr. Diallo’s rights under Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. It did not however order the DRC to pay compensation for this violation. In the same Judgment, the Court rejected all other submissions by Guinea relating to the arrests and detentions of Mr. Diallo, including the contention that he had been subjected to treatment prohibited by Article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant during his detentions. Furthermore, the Court found that the DRC had not violated Mr. Diallo’s direct rights as an associé in the companies Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire. Finally, the Court decided, with respect to the question of compensation owed by the DRC to Guinea, that “failing agreement between the Parties on this matter within six months from the date of [the said] Judgment, [this] question . . . shall be settled by the Court”.

The time-limit of six months thus fixed by the Court having expired on 30 May 2011 without an agreement being reached between the Parties on the question of compensation due to Guinea, it fell to the Court to determine the amount of compensation to be awarded to Guinea as a consequence of the unlawful arrests, detentions and expulsion of Mr. Diallo by the DRC, pursuant to the findings of the Court set out in its Judgment of 30 November 2010. By an Order of 20 September 2011, the Court fixed 6 December 2011 and 21 February 2012 as the respective time-limits for the filing of the Memorial of Guinea and the Counter-Memorial of the DRC on the question of compensation due to Guinea. The Memorial and the Counter-Memorial were duly filed within the time-limits thus prescribed. The Court delivered its Judgment on 19 June 2012.

In its Memorial, Guinea valued the mental and moral damage suffered by Mr. Diallo at US$250,000. The Court considered various factors in its assessment of that injury, notably the arbitrary nature of Mr. Diallo’s arrests and detentions, the unjustifiably long period of his detention, the unsubstantiated accusations of which he was the victim, his wrongful expulsion from a country where he had resided for 32 years and where he had engaged in significant business activities and the link between his expulsion and the fact that he had attempted to recover debts which he believed were owed to his companies by the Zairean State or companies in which that State held a substantial portion of the capital. It also took account of the fact that there was no evidence that Mr. Diallo had been mistreated. On the basis of equitable considerations, the Court found that the amount of US$85,000 would provide appropriate compensation for the non-material injury suffered by Mr. Diallo.

Finally, in its Memorial, Guinea valued the loss of earnings suffered by Mr. Diallo during his unlawful detention and following his unlawful expulsion at almost US$6.5 million. The Court ruled that Guinea had failed to prove the existence of any such loss. Consequently, it awarded no compensation on that basis.

The Court concluded that the total sum to be awarded to Guinea was thus US$95,000, to be paid by 31 August 2012. It decided that, should payment be delayed, post-judgment interest on the principal sum due would accrue as from 1 September 2012 at an annual rate of 6 per cent. The Court ruled that each Party would bear its own costs.

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

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

28 December 1998

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 19 June 2012

Compensation owed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea

English French

Summary 2010/3

Summary of the Judgment of 30 November 2010

Available in:

English French

Summary 2012/3

Summary of the Judgment of 19 June 2012

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 2 November 1998, the Republic of Indonesia and Malaysia jointly notified the Court of a Special Agreement between the two States, signed at Kuala Lumpur on 31 May 1997 and having entered into force on 14 May 1998. In accordance with that Special Agreement, they requested the Court to determine, on the basis of the treaties, agreements and any other evidence furnished by them, to which of the two States sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belonged.

Shortly after the filing by the Parties of the Memorials, Counter-Memorials and Replies, the Philippines, on 13 March 2001, requested permission to intervene in the case. In its Application, the Philippines indicated that the object of its request was to

“preserve and safeguard the historical and legal rights [of its Government] arising from its claim to dominion and sovereignty over the territory of North Borneo, to the extent that those rights [were] affected, or [might] be affected, by a determination of the Court of the question of sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan”.

The Philippines specified that it was not seeking to become a party in the case. Further, the Philippines specified that “[its] Constitution . . . as well as its legislation ha[d] laid claim to dominion and sovereignty over North Borneo”. The Application for permission to intervene drew objections from Indonesia and Malaysia. Among other things, Indonesia stated that the Application should be rejected on the ground that it had not been filed in time and that the Philippines had not shown that it had an interest of a legal nature at issue in the case. Meanwhile, Malaysia added that the object of the Application was inadequate. The Court therefore decided to hold public sittings to hear the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, before ruling on whether to grant the Application for permission to intervene. Following those sittings, the Court, on 23 October 2001, delivered a Judgment by which it rejected the Application by the Philippines for permission to intervene.

After the holding of public sittings in June 2002, the Court delivered its Judgment on the merits on 17 December 2002. In that Judgment, it began by recalling the complex historical background of the dispute between the Parties. It then examined the titles invoked by them. Indonesia asserted that its claim to sovereignty over the islands was based primarily on a conventional title, the 1891 Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands.

After examining the 1891 Convention, the Court found that, when read in the context and in the light of its object and purpose, that instrument could not be interpreted as establishing an allocation line determining sovereignty over the islands out to sea, to the east of the island of Sebatik, and that as a result the Convention did not constitute a title on which Indonesia could found its claim to Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court stated that that conclusion was confirmed both by the travaux préparatoires and by the subsequent conduct of the parties to the Convention. The Court further held that the cartographic material submitted by the Parties in the case did not contradict that conclusion.

Having rejected that argument by Indonesia, the Court turned to consideration of the other titles on which Indonesia and Malaysia claimed to found their sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan. The Court sought to determine whether Indonesia or Malaysia obtained a title to the islands by succession. In that connection, it did not accept Indonesia’s contention that it retained title to the islands as successor to the Netherlands, which had allegedly acquired it through contracts concluded with the Sultan of Bulungan, the original title-holder. Nor did the Court accept Malaysia’s contention that it had acquired sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan following a series of alleged transfers of the title originally held by the former sovereign, the Sultan of Sulu, that title having allegedly passed in turn to Spain, to the United States, to Great Britain on behalf of the State of North Borneo, to the United Kingdom and finally to Malaysia.

Having found that neither of the Parties had a treaty-based title to Ligitan and Sipadan, the Court next considered the question whether Indonesia or Malaysia could hold title to the disputed islands by virtue of the effectivités cited by them. In that regard, the Court determined whether the Parties’ claims to sovereignty were based on activities evidencing an actual, continued exercise of authority over the islands, i.e., the intention and will to act as sovereign.

In that connection, Indonesia cited a continuous presence of the Dutch and Indonesian navies in the vicinity of Ligitan and Sipadan. It added that the waters around the islands had traditionally been used by Indonesian fishermen. In respect of the first of those arguments, it was the opinion of the Court that from the facts relied upon in the case “it [could] not be deduced . . . that the naval authorities concerned considered Ligitan and Sipadan and the surrounding waters to be under the sovereignty of the Netherlands or Indonesia”. As for the second argument, the Court considered that “activities by private persons [could] not be seen as effectivités if they [did] not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority”.

Having rejected Indonesia’s arguments based on its effectivités, the Court turned to the consideration of the effectivités relied on by Malaysia. As evidence of its effective administration of the islands, Malaysia cited inter alia the measures taken by the North Borneo authorities to regulate and control the collecting of turtle eggs on Ligitan and Sipadan, an activity of some economic significance in the area at the time. It relied on the Turtle Preservation Ordinance of 1917 and maintained that the Ordinance “[had been] applied until the 1950s at least” in the area of the two disputed islands. It further invoked the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo had constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in 1962 and another on Ligitan in 1963, that those lighthouses still existed and that they had been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence. The Court noted that

“the activities relied upon by Malaysia . . . [we]re modest in number but . . . they [we]re diverse in character and include[d] legislative, administrative and quasi-judicial acts. They cover[ed] a considerable period of time and show[ed] a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands.”

The Court further stated that “at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, [had] ever expressed its disagreement or protest”.

The Court concluded, on the basis of the above-mentioned effectivités, that sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belonged to Malaysia.

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

Institution of proceedings

Special Agreement

2 November 1998

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

English French

Observations of the Government of Indonesia on the Philippines's Application for Permission to Intervene

2 May 2001

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

English

Observations of the Government of Malaysia on the Philippines's Application for Permission to Intervene

2 May 2001

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

English

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Judgments

Judgment of 23 October 2001

Application by the Philippines for Permission to Intervene

Procedure(s):Intervention

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Franck

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 17 December 2002

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Franck

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2001/3

Summary of the Judgment of 23 October 2001

Available in:

English French

Summary 2002/2

Summary of the Judgment of 17 December 2002

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

A certain quantity of monetary gold was removed by the Germans from Rome in 1943. It was later recovered in Germany and found to belong to Albania. The 1946 Agreement on Reparation from Germany provided that monetary gold found in Germany should be pooled for distribution among the countries entitled to receive a share of it. The United Kingdom claimed that the gold should be delivered to it in partial satisfaction of the Court’s Judgment of 1949 in the Corfu Channel case. Italy claimed that the gold should be delivered to it in partial satisfaction for the damage which it alleged it had suffered as a result of an Albanian law of 13 January 1945. In the Washington statement of 25 April 1951, the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States, to whom the implementation of the reparations agreement had been entrusted, decided that the gold should be delivered to the United Kingdom unless, within a certain time-limit, Italy or Albania applied to the Court requesting it to adjudicate on their respective rights. Albania took no action, but Italy made an Application to the Court. Later, however, Italy raised the preliminary question as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of its claim against Albania. In its Judgment of 15 June 1954, the Court found that, without the consent of Albania, it could not deal with a dispute between that country and Italy and that it was therefore unable to decide the questions submitted.

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

Institution of proceedings

Application Instituting Proceedings (bilingual version)

19 May 1953

Available in:

Bilingual

Written proceedings

English French Bilingual

Order of 3 November 1953

Fixing of time-limit: Written Statement on Preliminary Objection and Written Statements of observations and submissions on Preliminary Objection

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 26 January 1954

Extension of time-limit: Written Statements of observations and submissions on Preliminary Objection

Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1954

Available in:

English French

See also

Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 29 April 1999, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia filed in the Registry of the Court Applications instituting proceedings against Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom and United States of America for alleged violations of their obligation not to use force against another State. In its Applications against Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom, Yugoslavia referred, as a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court, to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court and to Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948. Yugoslavia also relied upon Article IX of that Convention in its Applications against France, Germany, Italy and United States, but also relied on Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court.

On 29 April 1999, Yugoslavia also submitted, in each case, an Application for the indication of provisional measures to ensure that the respondent State concerned “cease immediately its acts of use of force and . . . refrain from any act of threat or use of force” against Yugoslavia. After hearings on the provisional measures from 10 to 12 May 1999, the Court delivered its decision in each of the cases on 2 June 1999. In two of them (Yugoslavia v. Spain and Yugoslavia v. United States of America), the Court, rejecting the Request for the indication of provisional measures, concluded that it manifestly lacked jurisdiction and consequently ordered that the cases be removed from the List. In the eight other cases, the Court declared that it lacked prima facie jurisdiction (one of the prerequisites for the indication of provisional measures) and that it therefore could not indicate such measures.

In each of the eight cases which remained on the List, the Respondents filed preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility.

In its Judgments of 15 December 2004, the Court observed that the question whether Serbia and Montenegro was or was not a State party to the Statute of the Court at the time of the institution of the proceedings was fundamental; for if Serbia and Montenegro were not such a party, the Court would not be open to it, unless it met the conditions prescribed in Article 35, paragraph 2, of the Statute.

The Court therefore had to examine whether the Applicant met the conditions for access to it laid down in Articles 34 and 35 of the Statute before examining the issues relating to the conditions laid down in Articles 36 and 37 of the Statute.

The Court pointed out that there was no doubt that Serbia and Montenegro was a State for the purpose of Article 34, paragraph 1, of the Statute. However, the objection had been raised by certain Respondents that, at the time when the Application was filed, Serbia and Montenegro did not meet the conditions set down in Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Statute, because it was not a Member of the United Nations at the relevant time. After recapitulating the sequence of events relating to the legal position of the applicant State vis-à-vis the United Nations, the Court concluded that the legal situation that obtained within the United Nations during the period 1992-2000 concerning the status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, following the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, had remained ambiguous and open to different assessments. This situation had come to an end with a new development in 2000. On 27 October of that year, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requested admission to membership in the United Nations, and on 1 November, by General Assembly resolution 55/12, it was so admitted. The Applicant thus had the status of membership in the Organization as from 1 November 2000. However, its admission to the United Nations did not have, and could not have had, the effect of dating back to the time when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia broke up and disappeared. The Court therefore concluded that the Applicant thus was not a Member of the United Nations, and in that capacity a State party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, at the time of filing its Application to institute the proceedings in each of the cases before the Court on 29 April 1999. As it had not become a party to the Statute on any other basis, the Court was not open to it at that time under Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Statute.

The Court then considered whether it might have been open to the Applicant under paragraph 2 of Article 35. It noted that the words “treaties in force” in that paragraph were to be interpreted as referring to treaties which were in force at the time that the Statute itself came into force, and that consequently, even assuming that the Applicant was a party to the Genocide Convention when instituting proceedings, Article 35, paragraph 2, of the Statute did not provide it with a basis for access to the Court under Article IX of that Convention, since the Convention only entered into force on 12 January 1951, after the entry into force of the Statute.

In the cases against Belgium and the Netherlands, the Court finally examined the question whether Serbia and Montenegro was entitled to invoke the dispute settlement convention it had concluded with each of those States in the early 1930s as a basis of jurisdiction in those cases. The question was whether the conventions dating from the early 1930s, which had been concluded prior to the entry into force of the Statute, might rank as a “treaty in force” for purposes of Article 35, paragraph 2, and hence provide a basis of access. The Court first recalled that Article 35 of the Statute of the Court concerns access to the present Court and not to its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ). It then observed that the conditions for transfer of jurisdiction from the PCIJ to the present Court are governed by Article 37 of the Statute. The Court noted that Article 37 applies only as between parties to the Statute under Article 35, paragraph 1. As it had already found that Serbia and Montenegro was not a party to the Statute when instituting proceedings, the Court accordingly found that Article 37 could not give it access to the Court under Article 35, paragraph 2, on the basis of the Conventions dating from the early 1930s, irrespective of whether or not those instruments were in force on 29 April 1999, the date of the filing of the Application.

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

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

29 April 1999

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Request for the indication of Provisional Measures

29 April 1999

Written Statement of the Observations and Submissions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the Preliminary Objections made by the Italian Republic

18 December 2002

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Judgment of 15 December 2004

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Summary of the Order of 2 June 1999

Available in:

English French

Summary 2004/7

Summary of the Judgment of 15 December 2004

Available in:

English French

Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

In each of the eight cases which remained on the List, the Respondents filed preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility.

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

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

29 April 1999

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Request for the indication of Provisional Measures

29 April 1999

Written statement of the Observations and Submissions of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the Preliminary Objections made by the French Republic

18 December 2002

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Summary 1999/6

Summary of the Order of 2 June 1999

Available in:

English French

Summary 2004/5

Summary of the Judgment of 15 December 2004

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 23 September 1958, Belgium instituted proceedings against Spain in connection with the adjudication in bankruptcy in Spain, in 1948, of the above-named company, formed in Toronto in 1911. The Application stated that the company’s share-capital belonged largely to Belgian nationals and claimed that the acts of organs of the Spanish State whereby the company had been declared bankrupt and liquidated were contrary to international law and that Spain, as responsible for the resultant damage, was under an obligation either to restore or to pay compensation for the liquidated assets. In May 1960, Spain filed preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, but before the time-limit fixed for its observations and submissions thereon Belgium informed the Court that it did not intend to go on with the proceedings. Accordingly, the case was removed from the List by an Order of 10 April 1961.

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

Institution of proceedings

English French Bilingual

French

Correspondence

23 September 1958

Correspondence

Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala to the President of the International Court of Justice

9 September 1952

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English

Statement of the Observations of the Government of the Principality of Liechtenstein

11 May 1953

Verbatim record 1953/1 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on November 10th and 18th, 1953, the President, Sir Arnold McNair, presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1955/2 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on February 10th to 24th, March 2nd to 8th, and April 6th, 1955, the President, Mr. Hackworth, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

Judgments

Judgment of 18 November 1953

Preliminary Objection (including the text of the declaration of Judge Klaestad)

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 6 April 1955

Second Phase

English French

Summary 1955/1

Summary of the Judgment of 6 April 1955

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

The case was brought before the Court by Application by the United States following the occupation of its Embassy in Tehran by Iranian militants on 4 November 1979, and the capture and holding as hostages of its diplomatic and consular staff. On a request by the United States for the indication of provisional measures, the Court held that there was no more fundamental prerequisite for relations between States than the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies, and it indicated provisional measures for ensuring the immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the hostages. In its decision on the merits of the case, at a time when the situation complained of still persisted, the Court, in its Judgment of 24 May 1980, found that Iran had violated and was still violating obligations owed by it to the United States under conventions in force between the two countries and rules of general international law, that the violation of these obligations engaged its responsibility, and that the Iranian Government was bound to secure the immediate release of the hostages, to restore the Embassy premises, and to make reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government. The Court reaffirmed the cardinal importance of the principles of international law governing diplomatic and consular relations. It pointed out that while, during the events of 4 November 1979, the conduct of militants could not be directly attributed to the Iranian State — for lack of sufficient information — that State had however done nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises and release the hostages. The Court noted that, after 4 November 1979, certain organs of the Iranian State had endorsed the acts complained of and decided to perpetuate them, so that those acts were transformed into acts of the Iranian State. The Court gave judgment, notwithstanding the absence of the Iranian Government and after rejecting the reasons put forward by Iran in two communications addressed to the Court in support of its assertion that the Court could not and should not entertain the case. The Court was not called upon to deliver a further judgment on the reparation for the injury caused to the United States Government since, by Order of 12 May 1981, the case was removed from the List following discontinuance.

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

Institution of proceedings

Judgments

Judgment of 24 May 1980

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

English French

Summary 1980/1

Summary of the Judgment of 24 May 1980

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 29 May 1996, the Government of Botswana and the Government of Namibia notified jointly to the Registrar of the Court a Special Agreement which had been signed between them on 15 February 1996 and had entered into force on 15 May 1996, for the submission to the Court of the dispute existing between them concerning the boundary around Kasikili/Sedudu Island and the legal status of that island. The Special Agreement referred to a Treaty between Great Britain and Germany concerning the respective spheres of influence of the two countries, signed on 1 July 1890, and to the appointment on 24 May 1992 of a Joint Team of Technical Experts to determine the boundary between Namibia and Botswana around Kasikili/Sedudu Island on the basis of that Treaty and of the applicable principles of international law. Unable to reach a conclusion on the question submitted to it, the Joint Team of Technical Experts recommended recourse to a peaceful settlement of the dispute on the basis of the applicable rules and principles of international law. At a Summit Meeting held in Harare, Zimbabwe, on 15 February 1995, the Presidents of the two States agreed to submit the dispute to the Court.

Taking account of the relevant provisions of the Special Agreement, the Court, by an Order dated 24 June 1996, fixed time-limits for the filing, by each of the Parties, of a Memorial and a Counter-Memorial. Those pleadings were duly filed within the time-limits fixed.

The Court, in view of the agreement between the Parties, also authorized the filing of a Reply by each Party. The Replies were duly filed within the time-limits so prescribed.

In its Judgment of 13 December 1999, the Court began by stating that the island in question, which in Namibia is known as “Kasikili”, and in Botswana as “Sedudu”, is approximately 3.5 sq km in area, that it is located in the Chobe River, which divides around it to the north and south, and that it is subject to flooding of several months’ duration, beginning around March. It briefly outlined the historical context of the dispute, then examined the text of the 1890 Treaty, which, in respect of the region concerned, located the dividing line between the spheres of influence of Great Britain and Germany in the “main channel” of the River Chobe. In the Court’s opinion, the real dispute between the Parties concerned the location of that main channel, Botswana contending that it was the channel running north of Kasikili/Sedudu Island and Namibia the channel running south of the island. Since the Treaty did not define the notion of “main channel”, the Court itself proceeded to determine which was the main channel of the Chobe River around the Island. In order to do so, it took into consideration, inter alia, the depth and the width of the channel, the flow (i.e., the volume of water carried), the bed profile configuration and the navigability of the channel. After considering the figures submitted by the Parties, as well as surveys carried out on the ground at different periods, the Court concluded that “the northern channel of the River Chobe around Kasikili/Sedudu Island must be regarded as its main channel”. Having invoked the object and purpose of the 1890 Treaty and its travaux préparatoires, the Court examined at length the subsequent practice of the parties to the Treaty. The Court found that that practice did not result in any agreement between them regarding the interpretation of the Treaty or the application of its provisions. The Court further stated that it could not draw conclusions from the cartographic material “in view of the absence of any map officially reflecting the intentions of the parties to the 1890 Treaty” and in the light of “the uncertainty and inconsistency” of the maps submitted by the Parties to the dispute. It finally considered Namibia’s alternative argument that it and its predecessors had prescriptive titles to Kasikili/Sedudu Island by virtue of the exercise of sovereign jurisdiction over it since the beginning of the century, with the full knowledge and acceptance of the authorities of Botswana and its predecessors. The Court found that, while the Masubia of the Caprivi Strip (territory belonging to Namibia) did indeed use the island for many years, they did so intermittently, according to the seasons and for exclusively agricultural purposes, without it being established that they occupied the island à titre de souverain, i.e., that they were exercising functions of State authority there on behalf of the Caprivi authorities. The Court therefore rejected that argument. After concluding that the boundary between Botswana and Namibia around Kasikili/Sedudu Island followed the line of deepest soundings in the northern channel of the Chobe and that the island formed part of the territory of Botswana, the Court recalled that, under the terms of an agreement concluded in May 1992 (the “Kasane Communiqué”), the Parties had undertaken to one another that there should be unimpeded navigation for craft of their nationals and flags in the channels around the Island.

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

Institution of proceedings

Special Agreement

29 May 1996

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Orders

Order of 24 June 1996

Fixing of time-limits: Memorials and Counter-Memorials

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 27 February 1998

Fixing of time-limit: Replies

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 13 December 1999

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 1999/4

Summary of the Judgment of 13 December 1999

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Subscribe to Contentious

﻿Contentious

Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Institution of proceedings

28 October 1998

Available in:

Written proceedings

13 November 1998

Available in:

Oral proceedings

Public sitting held on Wednesday 17 February 1999, at 9.45 a.m., President Schwebel presiding

Available in:

Judgments

Available in:

Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma

Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Ajibola

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary of the Judgment of 25 March 1999

Available in:

Press releases

29 October 1998

Nigeria files a request for an interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 on Preliminary Objections - Cameroon to submit written observations by 3 December 1998

Available in:

16 February 1999

Available in:

22 March 1999

Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon) - Court to announce its decision on Thursday 25 March 1999

Available in:

25 March 1999

Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon) - Court declares inadmissible Nigeria's request for interpretation

Available in:

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Institution of proceedings

28 December 1998

Available in:

Written proceedings

23 March 2001

Available in:

1 October 2002

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

7 July 2003

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

27 March 2008

Available in:

19 November 2008

Available in:

5 June 2009

Available in:

6 December 2011

Available in:

21 February 2012

Available in:

Oral proceedings

Public sitting held on Monday 27 November 2006, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Tuesday 28 November 2006, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins and Vice-President Al-Khasawneh presiding, successively

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Wednesday 29 November 2006, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Friday 1 December 2006, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Higgins presiding

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Monday 19 April 2010, at 10.50 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada, presiding, in the case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Monday 19 April 2010, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Vice-President Tomka, Acting President, presiding, in the case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Monday 26 April 2010, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Vice-President Tomka, Acting President, presiding, in the case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Available in:

Translation

Public sitting held on Monday 26 April 2010, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, Vice-President Tomka, Acting President, presiding, in the case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)

Available in:

Translation

Contentious