The Thirty-First Year of the World Court

1953 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
First Year ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Oil Company

The International Court of Justice had a relatively busy year in 1952. The judges were in continuous session at The Hague from May 5 to August 27,1952; judgments were given in the Anibatielos Case between Greece and the United Kingdom (on a preliminary objection), in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case between the United Kingdom and Iran (on a preliminary objection), and in the Case Concerning Bights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco between France and the United States. At the end of the year three cases were pending: the Amhatielos Case, the Minquiers and Ecrehos Case between the United Kingdom and France, and the Notteiohm Case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala.

Case Analysis: Some Procedural and Substantive Aspects of the Libya/Chad Case

1996 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-183
Author(s):  
Carlos J. Argüello-Gomez
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Libya has come three times before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the basis of special agreements. At present, Libya has pending before the Court two cases it has brought by unilateral application, respectively against the United Kingdom and against the United States, concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie. For its part, Chad had never come before the Court since its accession to independence in 1960.

International Court of Justice

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 380-381
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Third ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Italian Government ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Responsibility

Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943: On June 15, 1954, the International Court of Justice rendered a judgment on the preliminary question raised by Italy in the case of the monetary gold removed from Rome in 1943. Italy had asked the Court to declare itself incompetent to determine the first question raised by Italy in its application instituting proceedings; namely, whether or not the United States, United Kingdom, and France should deliver to Italy rather than Albania any share of the monetary gold which might be due to Albania under the Paris Act of January 14, 1946, in partial satisfaction for the damage caused to Italy by the Albanian law of January 13, 1945. Italy felt that the Court could not decide this question without passing judgment upon the international responsibility of Albania to Italy as a result of the Albanian law in question; Italy felt that the Court could not adjudicate such a question without the consent of Albania. Neither the United States nor France deposited formal submissions to the Court on the preliminary question; the United Kingdom, the third defendant in the case, argued that in view of Italy's objection to the competence of the Court, its application instituting proceedings of May 19, 1953, no longer conformed to the conditions or intentions of the tripartite Washington statement of April 25, 1951, and was, therefore, invalid and void. As an alternative, the United Kingdom argued that the action of the Italian government in raising the preliminary question constituted in fact a withdrawal or cancellation of its application.

The world court lawsuits by the Republic of Iraq against the United States and the United Kingdom

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-216
Author(s):  
Francis A. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The People ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Republic

The article explores the author’s experience of crafting legal actions meant to bring a case against the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom for the genocidal conditions that arose from their actions against the people of Iraq from 1991 to 2003. Based on a similar effort, successfully brought to the International Court of Justice on behalf of the people and Republic of Bosnia in 1993, the strong potential for a legal and peaceful remedy to bring an end to Iraqi civilian suffering ‐ as well as the potential to avert a future war ‐ existed and drove the author to implore Iraqi legal action before the ICJ. Iraqi state officials, from the President’s Office to that of Deputy PM Tariq Aziz, through Iraqi diplomats in New York, were canvassed and engaged in an effort for the author to receive their support to act on Iraq’s behalf at the ICJ. Published here is the author’s recollection of this effort to prosecute international crimes against the Iraqi people as well as an overview of the ICJ case that while never brought forward, could have prevented the 2003 invasion and its aftermath.

The British title to sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies

Polar Record ◽  
1956 ◽  
Vol 8 (53) ◽  
pp. 125-151 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Falkland Islands ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
United Kingdom Government

In an attempt to settle the dispute between the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile over sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies, the United Kingdom made unilateral Applications to the International Court of Justice at The Hague on 4 May 1955. The Applications set out the British title, and asked the Court to declare that the Argentine and Chilean encroachments in British Antarctic territory were illegal and invalid under international law.Both the Argentine and Chilean Governments refused to accept the jurisdiction of the Court.* The United Kingdom Government subsequently expressed its regret at these refusals, and placed on record the fact that it had now taken every step open to it to bring about a peaceful and amicable determination of this question of sovereignty in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. On 18 March 1956 the International Court announced that since neither Argentina nor Chile was prepared to accept the Court's jurisdiction, both cases had been removed from its list.

The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case and Its Legal Consequences

1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 609-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Evensen
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Legal Consequences

On December 18, 1951, the International Court of Justice at The Hague rendered its judgment in the Fisheries Case between the United Kingdom and Norway. By ten votes to two the International Court declared “that the method employed for the delimitation of the fisheries zone by the Royal Norwegian Decree of July 12, 1935 is not contrary to international law.”

International Court of Justice

1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-116
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
Vice President ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague

On January 12, 1946, a list of candidates nominated for membership on the International Court of Justice was submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with invitations issued by the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission.As a result of elections held on February 6, the following were elected: Alvarez (Chile), Azevedo (Brazil), Badawi (Egypt), Basdevant (France), de Visscher (Belgium), Fabela (Mexico), Guerrero (Salvador), Hackworth (United States), Hsu (China), Klaestad (Norway), Krylov (USSR), McNair (United Kingdom), Read (Canada), Winiarski (Poland), and Zoricic (Yugoslavia).The first meeting of the Court was held on April 3 at the Peace Palace at the Hague, and the inaugural sitting on April 18. On April 6 the Court elected Mr. J. G. Guerrero as President and M. J. Basdevant as Vice-President. Mr. Edvard Hambro was appointed Registrar and M. J. Garnier-Coignet, Deputy Registrar. On May 3 the Court formed the Chamber for Summary Procedure, provided for by Article 29 of the Statute, composed of the following members: Guerrero (President), Basdevant, McNair, Krylov, Hsu, with Fabela and de Visscher as substitute members.

Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom and France: The Channel Arbitration

1978 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 173-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. McRae
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Body ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Important Addition

The decision of the ad hoc court of arbitration on the delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and France is undoubtedly the most important addition to the body of law relating to the delimitation of the continental shelf since the decision of the International Court of Justice in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases. The reasons for the decision will be of particular interest in Canada in view of unsettled boundaries with the United States on the east and west coasts and in the Beaufort Sea, and with France in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The arbitration was a consequence of the inability of France and the United Kingdom to settle by negotiation their continental shelf boundary westward of 30 degrees west of Greenwich to the outer limit of the shelf. The principal difficulties were the effect to be given to the Channel Islands and the method for delimiting the area of shelf lying beyond the land of either country out into the Atlantic, the area denoted by the tribunal as the “Atlantic region.”

The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction

1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 699-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis O. Wilcox
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Senate ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
One Year ◽  
United Nations Charter

On August 2, 1946, the United States Senate approved the Morse resolution by the overwhelming vote of 62-2, thereby giving its advice and consent to the acceptance on the part of the United States of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It was the same Senate which, just one year and one week earlier, had cast a vote of 89-2 in favor of the United Nations Charter. On August 26 Herschel Johnson, acting United States representative on the Security Council, deposited President Truman’s declaration of adherence with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At long last the United States assumed far-reaching obligations to submit its legal disputes to an international court.

Some Observations on the ICJ’s Procedural and Substantive Innovations

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Franck
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Future

The decision of the International Court of Justice in the case between Nicaragua and the United States brims with important procedural and substantive implications for the future of law and adjudication in disputes between states.

Judge Stephen Schwebel: International Jurist Extraordinaire

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley Dingle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Distinguished Career ◽  
International Court ◽  
Law Library

AbstractThis is a further contribution to the Squire Law Library Eminent Scholars Archive by Lesley Dingle. It is based on interviews with Stephen Schwebel about his distinguished career as an international jurist in the United States and at the International Court of Justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document