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

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

1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 310-312
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Reasonable Estimate ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Last Stage ◽  
United Kingdom Government ◽  
Sufficient Proof

Corfu Channel Case: At a public hearing on December 15, 1949 the International Court of Justice gave judgment in the last stage of the Corfu Channel Case between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of Albania. The two experts appointed by the Court to examine the figures and estimates of damages produced by the United Kingdom had reported on December 2, 1949 and had been further questioned by the judges. Because the Albanian government had failed to defend its case, procedure in default of appearance was brought into operation. After finding that the figures given by the United Kingdom government for the replacement of the destroyer Saumarez and for the damage sustained by the destroyer Volage were an exact and reasonable estimate of the damage sustained, and after finding the documents produced by the United Kingdom regarding deaths and injuries of naval personnel sufficient proof, the Court gave judgment in favor of the claim of the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay that country a total compensation of £843,947.

International Court of Justice

1953 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 405-407
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Most Favored Nation ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Greek Government ◽  
Most Favored Nation Clause ◽  
The Difference ◽  
United Kingdom Government

Amhatielos Case: On May 19, 1953, the Court, by a vote of 10 to 4 decided that the United Kingdom was “under an obligation to co-operate with Greece in constituting a Commission of Arbitration, in accordance with the Protocol of 1886, as provided in the Declaration of 1926”. After reviewing the submissions of the two parties, and recalling that the Court had previously held that it had no jurisdiction to decide of the merits of the Ambatielos claim, the Court stated that the question at issue was whether the United Kingdom government was under an obligation to accept arbitration of the difference between that government and Greece concerning the validity of the claim presented by Greece “in so far as this claim is based on the Treaty of 1886”. The majority of the Court felt that, for the purpose of determining the obligation of the United Kingdom, the words “claims … based on the provisions of the … Treaty of 1886” could not be understood as meaning claims actually supportable under that Treaty. The Court believed that these words could only mean “claims depending for support on the provisions of the Treaty of 1886, so that the claims will eventually stand or fall according as the provisions of the Treaty are construed one way or another”. In its argument, the Greek government had invoked Articles I, X, XII and XV of the Treaty of 1886 and, relying on the most-favored-nation clause in Article X therein, invoked Article 16 of a treaty of peace and commerce between the United Kingdom and Denmark signed in 1661 as well as additional treaties between the United Kingdom and third states. The Hellenic government argued that these provisions supported their claim that the Ambatielos claim for denial of justice in British courts was based on the provisions of the 1886 treaty. The Court agreed that the difference between the parties was “the kind of difference which, according to the Declaration of 1926, should be submitted to arbitration”.

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.

International Court of Justice

1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 518-521
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Loss Of Life ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On April 9, 1949, the International Court of Justice gave its judgment in the Corfu Channel Case. By eleven votes to five the Court gave judgment that the People's Republic of Albania was responsible under international law for the explosions which occurred on October 22, 1946, in Albanian waters and for the damage and loss of life resulting therefrom; by ten votes to six it reserved for further consideration the assessment of the amount of compensation; by fourteen votes to two it gave judgment that the United Kingdom did not violate the sovereignty of Albania by reason of the acts of the British Navy in Albanian waters on October 22, 1946; and it unanimously gave judgment that the acts of the British navy during the course of the minesweeping activities on November 12 and 13, 1946 did constitute violation of the sovereignty of Albania.

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.

The Doctrine of the Equality of Nations in International Law and the Relation of the Doctrine to the Treaty of Versailles

1920 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 540-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. W. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Treaty Of Versailles ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague

The Hague Conference of 1907 had for one of its objects the formation of an international court of justice, the decisions of which were to systematize international law and resolve its inconsistencies. Such an international court, the “Court of Arbitral Justice,” was approved in principle by the Conference, but failed to be established because the Conference was unable to agree on the composition of the court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document