International Court of Justice

1961 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 511-512 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Administrative Services ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
General Assembly Resolution ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): On May 30, 1961, the government of the Republic of Cameroun filed in the Registry of the Court an application instituting proceedings against the United Kingdom.1 The applicant alleged that the United Kingdom had failed to respect certain obligations of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Cameroons under British Administration of December 13, 1946. The application stated specifically: 1) that the Northern Cameroons had not been administered as a separate territory within an administrative union, but as an integral part of Nigeria; 2) that the objectives set forth in article 6 of the trusteeship agreement—the development of free political institutions and an increasing share for the inhabitants in the administrative services, as well as their participation in advisory and legislative bodies and in the government of the territory—had not been attained; 3) that the agreement did not authorize the administering power to govern the territory as two separate parts evolving differently politically; 4) that, with respect to General Assembly Resolution 1473 (XIV) of December 12, 1959, (a) provisions relating to the separation of the administration of the Northern Cameroons from that of Nigeria, had not been followed, and (b) conditions laid down for the drawing up of electoral lists had been interpreted in a discriminatory manner; and 5) that the acts of the local authorities in the period preceding the plebiscite authorized by the afore-mentioned resolution and during the subsequent election involved consequences in conflict with the trusteeship agreement.

International Court of Justice

1962 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 217-217 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): In an order of July 6, 1961, the International Court of Justice fixed the time limits for the filing of pleadings in the case concerning the Northern Cameroons as follows: for the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun, November 1, 1961; and for the countermemorial of the United Kingdom, March 1, 1962. Subsequently, in an order of November 2, 1961, the Court, in accordance with a request from the agent of the government of the Republic of Cameroun, extended to January 3, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the memorial of the Republic of Cameroun and to May 2, 1962, the time limit for the filing of the countermemorial of the United Kingdom.

The Obligations concerning Negotiations Cases and the “Dispute” Requirement in the International Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 373-397
Author(s):  
Ori Pomson
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Republic

Abstract In the Obligations concerning Negotiations cases, the International Court of Justice (icj) ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed to the merits since there was no dispute prior to the filing of the application by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (rmi) against the three respondent states – India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom – respectively. The present article considers more closely the basis of the requirement that a “dispute” exists for the icj to exercise its jurisdiction. It submits that the condition that a “dispute” exists relates to the essence of the Court’s judicial function. It then questions whether the respondent’s awareness of the applicant’s opposition to its views is a requirement for engaging the Court’s judicial function. After answering this question affirmatively, it questions whether reasons of judicial propriety dictate that a dispute must exist prior to the filing of an application. This question is also answered affirmatively.

International Court of Justice

1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-295
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

Anglo-Iranian Oil Case: On December 20, 1951, at the request of the Imperial Government of Iran, the Court granted a one month extension of the time-limit (to February 11, 1952) for the deposit of Iran's counter-memorial or preliminary objection.1 On February 11, the government of Iran deposited with the Registry of the Court a document entitled “Preliminary observations: refusal by the Imperial Government to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court”. As a result of the Iranian objection, which was presented in accordance with the conditions laid down by the rules of the Court, the proceedings on the merits were, as of that date, suspended. By an order of the same date, the President of the Court fixed March 27, 1952, as the time-limit granted to the United Kingdom to submit to the Court its written observations on the Iranian exception.

International Court of Justice

1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-628
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
French Government ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case: On June 26, 1952, the International Court of Justice fixed October 6, 1952 as the time-limit for the filing of the reply of the government of the United Kingdom and February 6, 1953 as the time-limit for the filing of the rejoinder of the French government in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case. However, at the request of the United Kingdom, and with the acceptance of the extension by France, the Court, on August 27, fixed November 6, 1952 and March 6, 1953 as the time-limits for the filing of the United Kingdom reply and the French rejoinder, respectively.

International Court of Justice

1963 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 254-260 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
United Kingdom Government

Case concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroun v. United Kingdom): By an order of November 27, 1962, the International Court of Justice extended to March 1, 1963, the time limit for the filing of the observations and submissions of Cameroun on the preliminary objection raised by the United Kingdom in the Northern Cameroons case. By an order of January 11, 1963, the President of the Court extended to July 1, 1963, the time limit for the filing by the government of Cameroun of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objection raised by the United Kingdom in the Northern Cameroons case. The extensions were at the request of the government of Cameroun with the agreement of the United Kingdom government.

A Bibliographic Review: Studies of Libya's International Borders

1996 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 89-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Ciarli ◽  
Keith McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Land Claims ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Boundary ◽  
Select Bibliography ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government ◽  
International Boundaries

AbstractThe Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has, since 1980, been involved in no fewer than three important judgments at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, dealing with Libya-Tunisia, the Libya-Malta and the Libya-Chad boundaries. The Government of Libya accepted all the judgments made at the ICJ without equivocation.The settlement of the Mediterranean continental shelf issues with Tunisia (1982) and with Malta (1985) may be seen as technical adjustments leading to a fixing of boundaries in undemarcated areas. Both judgments were comparatively favourable to Libya and extended Libya's area of hydrocarbon activities off-shore.In the matter of Libyan land claims to the Aouzou strip on the Chad borderlands, the situation was rather different. The international boundary between Libya and Chad was laid down under a 1955 convention. In 1972 the Libyan Government annexed the Aouzou strip. The ICJ gave its judgment on 3rd February 1994, by 16 votes to 1 finding that the boundary between the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the Republic of Chad is defined by the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness concluded on 10th August 1955 between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Libya, thus restoring the Aouzou strip to Chad.A select bibliography of sources dealing with Libya's international boundaries is attached, itemising key texts in Western languages.

International Court of Justice

1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-107
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
Royal Decree ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On December 18, 1951 the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the fisheries case which had been brought before the Court by the United Kingdom against Norway. By a vote of ten to two the Court established the validity of the Norwegian Royal Decree of 1935 in international law. This reserved to Norway an exclusive fishing zone of four miles based on lines connecting the outermost land points of the jagged coast. Through an eight to four vote the Court sanctioned the Norwegian system of straight baselines and overruled the United Kingdom contention that the four-mile belt should more closely follow coastal contours. This decision ended two years of litigation over a forty-five year controversy.

International Court of Justice

1959 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 446-463 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of July 27, 7955 (United Kingdom v. Bulgaria): In response to a request from the government of Bulgaria, the International Court, in an order of May 27, 1959, extended the time limit for the deposit of the Bulgarian counter-memorial from June 9, 1959, to August 10, 1959.

International Court of Justice

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-118
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
British Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Corfu Channel Case: Following the resolution of the Security Council on April 9, 1947, recommending that the United Kingdom and the Albanian governments should immediately refer the Corfu Channel question to the International Court of Justice, the United Kingdom on May 22, 1947, filed an application with the Registry of the Court instituting proceedings against Albania. By a reply dated July 21, filed July 23, 1947, Albania accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, protesting against the unilateral act of the British government in its application. On December 9, 1947, the Albanian government filed a document entitled “Preliminary Objection”.

Limitations Upon the Judicial Function

1964 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 415-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gross
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

The case of the Cameroons v. The United Kingdom concerning the Northern Cameroons, described, in a typical understatement, as “almost unique in the annals of international litigation,” has been terminated by a judgment of the International Court of Justice which appears as well to be “almost unique.” In fact, neither the Court nor any of the separate opinions referred to any precedent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document