Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice, 1948 ...

236 Pages·2007·9.79 MB·English

ST/LEG/SER.F/1
SUMMARIES OF
Judgments, Advisory Opinions
and Orders
OF THE
International Court
ofJustice
1948-1991
UNITED NATIONS
ST/LEG/SER.F/1
Summaries of
Judgments, Advisory Opinions and
Orders of the International Court
ofJustice
1948-1991
United Nations • New York, 1992
CONTENTS
ñtge
FOREWORD 1
1. CORFU CHANNEL CASE (PRELIMINARY OBJECTION)
Judgment of 25 March 1948 3
2. CONDITIONS OF ADMISSION OF A STATE TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE
UNITED NATIONS (ARTICLE 4 OF CHARTER)
Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948 4
3. CORFU CHANNEL CASE (MERITS)
Judgment of 9 April 1949 5
4. REPARATION FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UNITED
NATIONS
Advisor/Opinion of 11 April 1949 8
5. CORFU CHANNEL CASE (ASSESSMENT OF AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION)
Judgment of 15 December 1949 9
6. COMPETENCE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR THE ADMISSION OF A
STATE TO THE UNITED NATIONS
Advisory Opinion of 3 March 1950 10
7. INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES WITH BULGARIA, HUNGARY
AND ROMANIA (FIRST PHASE)
Advisory Opinion of 30 March 1950 11
8. INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950 12
9. INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES WITH BULGARIA, HUNGARY
AND ROMANIA (SECOND PHASE)
Advisory Opinion of 18 July 1950 14
10. ASYLUM CASE
Judgment of 20 November 1950 16
11. REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 20 NOVEMBER
1950 IN THE ASYLUM CASE
Judgment of 27 November 1950 18
12. RESERVATIONS TO THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951 18
13. HAYA DE LA TORRE CASE
Judgment of 13 June 1951 20
14. FISHERIES CASE
Judgment of 18 December 1951 21
15. AMBATIELOS CASE (PRELIMINARY OBJECTION)
Judgment of 1 July 1952 23
16. ANGLO-IRANIAN OIL CO. CASE (PRELIMINARY OBJECTION)
Judgment of 22 July 1952 24
17. CASE CONCERNING RIGHTS OF NATIONALS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA IN MOROCCO
Judgment of 27 August 1952 25
18. AMBATIELOS CASE (MERITS)
Judgment of 19 May 1953 26
19. MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE
Judgment of 17 November 1953 27
20. NOTTEBOHM CASE (PRELIMINARY OBJECTION)
Judgment of 18 November 1953 29
21. CASE OF THE MONETARY GOLD REMOVED FROM ROME IN 1943
Judgment of 15 June 1954 29
iii
toge
22. EFFECTS OF AWARDS OF COMPENSATION MADE BY THE UNITED
NATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Advisory Opinion of 13 July 1954 31
23. NOTTEBOHM CASE (SECOND PHASE)
Judgment of 6 April 1955 32
24. VOTING PROCEDURE ON QUESTIONS RELATING TO REPORTS AND
PETITIONS CONCERNING THE TERRITORY OF SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
Advisory Opinion of 7 June 1955 34
25. ADMISSIBILITY OF HEARINGS OF PETITIONERS" BY THE COMMITTEE
ON SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
Advisory Opinion of 1 June 1956 36
26. JUDGMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE ILO UPON
COMPLAINTS MADE AGAINST UNESCO
Advisory Opinion of 23 October 1956 37
27. CASE OF CERTAIN NORWEGIAN LOANS
Judgment of 6 July 1957 39
28. INTERHANDEL CASE (INTERIM PROTECTION)
Order of 24 October 1957 41
29. CASE CONCERNING RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY
(PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS)
Judgment of 26 November 1957 41
30. CASE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION OF 1902
GOVERNING THE GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS
Judgmentof28 November 1957 44
31. INTERHANDEL CASE (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS)
Judgment of 21 March 1959 46
32. CASE CONCERNING THE AERIAL INCIDENT OF 27 JULY 1955 (ISRAEL v.
BULGARIA) (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS)
Judgment of 26 May 1959 48
33. CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER CERTAIN FRONTIER LAND
Judgment of 20 June 1959 50
34. CASE CONCERNING RIGHT OF PASSAGE OVER INDIAN TERRITORY
(MERITS)
Judgment of 12 April 1960 52
35. CONSTITUTION OF THE MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE INTER-
GOVERNMENTAL MARITIME CONSULTATIVE ORGANIZATION
Advisory Opinion of 8 June 1960 54
36. CASE CONCERNING THE ARBITRAL AWARD MADE BY THE KING OF
SPAIN ON 23 DECEMBER 1906
Judgment of 18 November 1960 55
37. CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR (PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS)
Judgment of 26 May 1.961 57
38. CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR (MERITS)
Judgmentof 15 June 1962 58
39. CERTAIN EXPENSES OF THE UNITED NATIONS (ARTICLE 17,
PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE CHARTER)
Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962 60
40. SOUTH-WEST AFRICA CASES (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS)
Judgment of 21 December 1962 63
41. CASE CONCERNING THE NORTHERN CAMEROONS
Judgment of 2 December 1963 65
42. CASE CONCERNING THE BARCELONA TRACTION, LIGHT AND POWER
COMPANY, LIMITED (PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS)
Judgment of 24 July 1964 67
43. SOUTH-WEST AFRICA CASES (SECOND PHASE)
Judgmentof 18July 1966 69
44. NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASES
Judgment of 20 February 1969 72
45. CASE CONCERNING THE BARCELONA TRACTION, LIGHT AND POWER
COMPANY, LIMITED (SECOND PHASE)
Judgment of 5 February 1970 76
iv
toge
46. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE
OF SOUTH AFRICA IN NAMIBIA (SOUTH-WEST AFRICA) NOTWITH-
STANDING SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 276 (1970)
Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 78
47. FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (UNITED KINGDOM v. ICELAND)*
(INTERIM PROTECTION)
Order of 17 August 1972
^81!
48. FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v.
ICELAND) INTERIM PROTECTION
Order of 17 August 1972 >
49. CASE CONCERNING THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE ICAO COUNCIL
Judgmentof 18 August 1972 82
50. FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (UNITED KINGDOM v. ICELAND) (JURIS-
DICTION OF THE COURT)
Judgment of 2 February 2 1973 84
51. FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v.
ICELAND) (JURISDICTION OF THE COURT)
Judgment of 2 February 1973 86
52. NUCLEAR TESTS CASE (AUSTRALIA v. FRANCE) (INTERIM PROTECTION)
Order of 22 June 1973 87
53. NUCLEAR TESTS CASE (NEW ZEALAND v. FRANCE) (INTERIM PROTEC-
TION)
Order of 22 June 1973 88
54. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF JUDGEMENT NO. 158 OF THE UNITED
NATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Advisory Opinion of 12 July 1973 89
55. FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (UNITED KINGDOM v. ICELAND)'
(INTERIM PROTECTION)
Order of 12 July 1973
>9l
56. FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v.
ICELAND) (INTERIM PROTECTION)
Order of 12 July 1973 >
57. FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (UNITED KINGDOM v. ICELAND)
(MERITS)
Judgment of 25 July 1974 92
58. FISHERIES JURISDICTION CASE (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY v.
ICELAND) (MERITS)
Judgment of 25 July 1974 94
59. NUCLEAR TESTS CASE (AUSTRALIA v. FRANCE)
Judgment of 20 December 1974 97
60. NUCLEAR TESTS CASE (NEW ZEALAND v. FRANCE)
Judgment of 20 December 1974 ; 97
61. WESTERN SAHARA
Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975 100
62. AEGEAN SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE (INTERIM PROTECTION)
Order of 11 September 1976 102
63. AEGEAN SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE (JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT)
Judgmentof 19 December 1978 103
64. CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR
STAFF IN TEHRAN (PROVISIONAL MEASURES)
Order of 15 December 1979 106
65. CASE CONCERNING UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR
STAFF IN TEHRAN
Judgment of 24 May 1980 106
66. INTERPRETATION OF THE AGREEMENT OF 25 MARCH 1951 BETWEEN
THE WHO AND EGYPT
Advisory Opinion of 20 December 1980 110
Page
67. CASE CONCERNING THE CONTINENTAL SHELF (TUNISIA/LIBYAN ARAB
JAMAHIRIYA) (APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE)
Judgment of 14 April 1981 113
68. CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY IN
THE GULF OF MAINE AREA (CONSTITUTION OF CHAMBER)
Order of 20 January 1982 115
69. CASE CONCERNING THE CONTINENTAL SHELF (TUNISIA/LIBYAN ARAB
JAMAHIRIYA)
Judgment of 24 Februiiry 1982 116
70. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF JUDGEMENT NO. 273 OF THE UNITED
NATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1982 118
71. CASE CONCERNING THE CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIBYAN ARAB
JAMAHIRIYA/MALTA) (APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE)
Judgment of 21 March 1984 123
72. CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN
AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES)
Order of 10 May 1984 125
73. CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN
AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA) (DECLARATION OF INTERVENTION)
Order of 4 October 1984..... 128
74. CASE CONCERNING DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY IN
THE GULF OF MAINE AREA
Judgment of 12 October 1984 130
75. CASE CONCERNING MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN
AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA) (JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY)
Judgment of 26 November 1984 141
76. CASE CONCERNING THE CONTINENTAL SHELF (LIBYAN ARAB
JAMAHIRIYA/MALTA)
Judgment of 2 June 1985 147
77. APPLICATION FOR REVISION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE
JUDGMENT OF 24 FEBRUARY 1982 IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE
CONTINENTAL SHELF (TUNISIA/LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA)
Judgment of 10 December 1985 153
78. CASE CONCERNING THE FRONTIER DISPUTE (BURKINA FASO/
REPUBLIC OF MALI) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES)
Order of 10 January 1986 160
79. CASE CONCERNING THE MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN
AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA) (MERITS)
Judgment of 27 June 1986 160
80. CASE CONCERNING THE FRONTIER DISPUTE (BURKINA FASO/
REPUBLIC OF MALI)
Judgment of 22 December 1986 171
81. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF JUDGEMENT NO. 333 OF THE UNITED
NATIONS ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Advisory Opinion of 27 May 1987 181
82. APPLICABILITY OF THE OBLIGATION TO ARBITRATE UNDER SECTION
21 OF THE UNITED NATIONS HEADQUARTERS AGREEMENT OF 26 JUNE
1947
Advisory Opinion of 26 April 1988 188
83. CASE CONCERNING BORDER AND TRANSBORDER ARMED ACTIONS
(NICARAGUA v. HONDURAS) (JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY)
Judgment of 20 December 1988 192
84. CASE CONCERNING ELETTRONICA SICULA S.P.A. (ELSI)
Judgment of 20 July 1989 197
85. APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22, OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Advisory Opinion of 15 December 1989 204
vi
toge
86. CASE CONCERNING THE ARBITRAL AWARD OF 31 JULY 1989 (GUINEA-
BISSAU v. SENEGAL)
Order of 2 March 1990 210
87. CASE CONCERNING THE LAND, ISLAND AND MARITIME FRONTIER
DISPUTE (EL SALVADOR/HONDURAS) (APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
TO INTERVENE)
Judgment of 13 September 1990 212
88. CASE CONCERNING PASSAGE THROUGH THE GREAT BELT (FINLAND v.
DENMARK) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES)
Order of 29 July 1991 218
89. CASE CONCERNING THE ARBITRAL AWARD OF 31 JULY 1989 (GUINEA-
BISSAU v. SENEGAL)
Judgment of 12 November 1991 220
vn
FOREWORD
The International Court of Justice was founded as the prin- Furthermore, over the years, a growing number of delega-
cipal judicial organ of the United Nations on 26 June 194S, tions have expressed a wish, both in the Sixth Committee of
when its Statute was adopted in San Francisco at the same the General Assembly and in the Advisory Committee of the
time as the Charter of the Organization and annexed to it as United Nations Programme of Assistance in the Teaching,
an integral part. The Statute of the Court is based very Study, Dissemination and Wider Appreciation of Interna-
closely on the one that had governed the work of the Court's tional Law, to the effect that the jurisprudence of the Interna-
predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, tional Court of Justice should be the subject of a wider dis-
which, though provision for its foundation had been made in semination in all the official languages of the Organization.
the Covenant of the League of Nations, had never become an This concern found its way into paragraph 14 of General
organ of the League. Assembly resolution 44/28 of 4 December 1989 and chapter
IV, paragraph 8, of the "Programme for the activities to be
While the International Court of Justice is endowed with commenced during the first term (1990-1992) of the United
the independence necessary to its judicial role and, in accord- Nations Decade of International Law" contained in the
ance with its Statute, has its seat in The Hague, hence at some annex to General Assembly resolution 45/40 of 28 Novem-
distance from the daily business of the other main organs, its ber 1990, which reads in part:
integration into the United Nations system is underscored in
"It would be conducive to the teaching and dissemina-
the Charter not only by the definition of its contentious and
tion of international law if all judgments and advisory
advisory functions in Chapter XIV, but also by references in
opinions of the International Court of Justice were avail-
Chapter VI, concerning the pacific settlement of disputes,
able in all official languages of the United Nations."
which in Article 33 mentions judicial settlement in general
and in Article 36 enjoins the Security Council to bear in mind As a result of a cooperation effort by the Court's Registry
that legal disputes between States should as a general rule be and the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs,
referred to the Court. and in the framework of the United Nations Programme of
Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider
It is therefore fitting that the United Nations Secretariat, in Appreciation of International Law and of the United Nations
collaboration with the Registry of the Court, should from Decade of International Law, it has proved possible to take a
time to time issue publications designed to increase public significant step toward closing the information gap men-
awareness of what the Court is and does or facilitate access to tioned above by preparing the present compilation of the ana-
its jurisprudence. These joint efforts are essential, in particu- lytical summaries of the Court's decisions, to be issued now
lar, under the auspices of the United Nations Programme of in all the official languages of the United Nations. These
Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider summaries are based closely on the texts which have, over
Appreciation of International Law. In the past, through coop- the years, been regularly prepared by the Registry of the
eration with the Department of Public Information of the Court for information purposes and incorporated into press
United Nations Secretariat, these joint efforts have resulted communiqués issued in English and French at the time of the
in the publication in several languages of a general work enti- pronouncement of the judgment or advisory opinion con-
tled The International Court of Justice and of a booklet cerned.
containing succinct case summaries of a purely factual
Given the ad hoc origin of the summaries and the changes
nature. Both of these publications are updated from time to
in approach or style which have inevitably occurred over a
time, and a growing demand for them has necessitated regu- period of more than 40 years, this compilation cannot be
lar reprinting. expected to possess a completely homogeneous character. It
was nevertheless decided, in the interest of authenticity, to
In recent years, Governments have shown an increasing
reduce editing to a minimum. The reader, it is hoped, will
awareness of the Court's potential and brought it more cases
find the publication no less useful.
than ever before. A rekindling of interest among scholars and
In the United Nations booklet mentioned above, which
the public has been no less noticeable. It is plainly desirable
gives brief accounts of the Court's decisions, the advisory
that this positive trend should continue to be sustained by the
opinions are treated separately, in a chapter apart from that
provision of accessible information at different levels of
on contentious decisions. While that arrangement has the
technicality. Here two unfulfilled needs have become
merit of underlining, for the general public, the distinction
increasingly evident. In the first place, the Court's publica-
between judgments delivered in cases between States and
tions, in the official series which cover all its judicial work
advisory decisions rendered at the request of an international
and are the sole authentic source of such information, appear
organization or organ thereof, it has been felt preferable in
exclusively in its only two official and working languages:
the present publication, which is aimed at perhaps not quite
English and French. Access to the full contents of the Court's
as broad a readership, strictly to observe the chronology of
decisions is thus denied to persons unable to understand
the Court's decisions, in order to present as faithful and
either of those languages. In the second place, members of
unbroken a picture as possible of the evolution of the Court's
the public, journalists, lawyers, diplomats, or even special-
jurisprudence. The summary of each advisory opinion is
ists in international law without ready access to those series
therefore found in its chronological position.
are ill served if they require something more detailed than the
minimal summaries gathered into the booklet mentioned It will be noticed that a number of Orders of the Court are
above,useful as those may be in providing a historical bird's- also summarized in their chronological position. These are
eye view of the Court's decisions. For the person in quest of Orders of a more substantive nature, concerning for example
deeper understanding, the problem is compounded by the requests for provisional measures or the constitution of a
fact that with the passage of time, the more a body of case- Chamber. Other Orders of the Court or its President, most of
law is built up and consolidated, the more important it which concern such procedural matters as the fixing of time-
becomes to trace the thread of principle in the reasoning limits, have not yet been made the subject of analysis and are
behind each decision. therefore not covered. '
1
It is to be noted that, while the summaries have been pre- It is to be noted that the present publication would not have
pared by the Court's Registry over the years for public infor- been possible without the close cooperation between the
mation purposes, they do not involve the responsibility of the International Court of Justice and its Registry and various
Court itself. They therefore cannot be quoted against the units of the United Nations Secretariat, such as the Codifica-
actual text of the judgments, advisory opinions or orders, of tion Division of the Office of Legal Affairs and its secretariat
which they do not constitute an interpretation. for the Programme of Assistance, the Office of Programme
The present publication, which condenses in a single and Planning, Budget and Finance and the Department of Con-
handy volume die case-law of the Court for tide period 1948- ference Services and its Publications Board.
1991 and is intended to be updated on a regular basis in sub-
sequent years, constitutes a new addition to the Publications
programme of the Office of Legal Affairs, Codification Divi-
sion, under the budgetary subprogramme "Making interna-
tional law and United Nations legal activities more accessi- NOTES
ble", which already includes the United Nations Legislative
Series, the United Nations Juridical Yearbook and the 'Specific information on the composition, governing texts and work-
ings of die Court is contained in l.C.J. Acts and Documents No. 5 and, each
Reports of International Arbitral Awards.
year, in an l.C.J. Yearbook covering the twelve months up to the end of the
All these publications also perform an important role in previous July. The Court also submits an annual report issued as a document
fulfilling the goals of the United Nations Programme of of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Chapter VII of each l.C.J. Yearbook explains the different series of the
Assistance in the Teaching, Study, Dissemination and Wider
Court's publications and lists the modes of citation of the decisions rendered
Appreciation of International Law. both by the present Court and by its predecessor.
1. CORFU CHANNEL CASE (PRELIMINARY OBJECTION)
Judgment of 25 March 1948
This case was brought before the Court on May 22nd, Court. It made, however, most explicit reservations respect-
1947, by an Application filed by the Government of the ing the manner in which the case had been brought before the
United Kingdom of Great Biitain and Northern Ireland insti- Court and more especially respecting the interpretation
tuting proceedings against ¡the Government of the People's which the Application sought to place on Article 25 of the
Republic of Albania; on December 9th, 1947, the Albanian Charter with reference to the binding character of the Secu-
Government requested the Court to declare: the Application rity Council's recommendations. It emphasized that its
inadmissible. acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction for this case could not
constitute a precedent for the future.
In its judgment the Court rejected the Albanian objection
and fixed the time-limits for the subsequent proceedings on Following upon the deposit of the Albanian Government's
the merits. letter, an Order was made fixing the time-limits for the pre-
The judgment was rendered by fifteen votes to one; the dis- sentation of a Memorial by the Government of the United
senting judge appended to the judgment a statement of the Kingdom and of a Counter-Memorial by the Albanian Gov-
reasons for which he was unable to concur in it. Seven of the ernment. Within the time-limit fixed for the latter, the Alba-
Members of the Court, whilst concurring in the judgment of nian Government submitted a "preliminary objection to the
the Court, appended a statement of supplementary Application on the ground of inadmissibility". The Court
considerations. was requested, in the first place, to place on record that, in
accepting the Security Council's recommendation of April
9th, 1947, the Albanian Government had only undertaken to
submit the dispute to the Court in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Statute and, in the second place, to give judg-
ment that the Application of the United Kingdom was inad-
missible, because it contravened the provisions of Articles
In its judgment, the Court recalls the conditions in which
40 and 36 of the Statute.
the case was referred to it and, in the first place, the incident
which gave rise to the dispute. Having thus indicated the circumstances in which it is
called upon to adjudicate, the Court proceeds to consider the
On October 22nd, 1946, two British destroyers struck
submissions of the Albanian preliminary objection. It places
mines in Albanian territorial waters in the Corfu Channel.
on record, as requested by the Albanian Government, that
The explosions caused damage to the vessels and loss of life.
the obligation incumbent upon that Government as a result of
Holding that the responsibility of the Albanian Government
its acceptance of the Security Council's recommendation
was involved, the Government of the United Kingdom, fol-
could only be carried out in accordance with the provisions of
lowing upon diplomatic correspondence with Tirana, sub-
the Statute. It points out, however, that Albania had subse-
mitted the matter to the Security Council. That body invited
quently contracted other obligations, the date and exact
Albania, which is not a Member of the United Nations, to
scope of which it establishes later on in the Judgment.
participate in the discussions, on condition that she accepted
all the obligations of a Member in a similar case. Albania The Court next turns to the second submission. It appears
accepted and, on April 9th, 1947, the Security Council to constitute an objection on the ground of the inadmissibility
adopted a resolution recommending the Governments con- of the Application in that it refers to Article 40 of the Statute:
cerned immediately to refer the dispute to the Court in accord- accordingly it seems to relate to a procedural irregularity
ance with the provisions of its Statute. resulting from the fact that the main proceedings were insti-
tuted by Application instead of by special agreement. But it
Thereupon the Government of the United Kingdom
also cites Article 36 which relates exclusively to the Court's
addressed an Application to the Court asking for a decision to
jurisdiction and the criticism, which in the body of the objec-
the effect that the Albanian Government was internationally
tion are directed against the Application, are concerned with
responsible for the consequences of the incidents referred to
an alleged lack of compulsory jurisdiction.
above and that it must make reparation or pay compensation.
The Application adduced various provisions of the Charter, This argument, which leaves the intention of the Albanian
inter alia, Article 25 (which provides that Members agree to Government somewhat obscure, may be explained by the
accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council), connection which the Government of the United Kingdom,
on which it founded the jurisdiction of the Court. for its part, had made between the institution of proceedings
by Application, and the existence, alleged by it, of a case of
On July 23rd, 1947, the Albanian Government deposited
compulsory jurisdiction. However, that may be, the Court
with the Registry of the Court a letter dated July 2nd in which
does not consider that it needs to express an opinion on this
it expressed the opinion that the Application of the United
point, since it holds that the letter of July 2nd, 1947,
Kingdom was not in conformity with the Security Council's
addressed by the Albanian Government to the Court, consti-
recommendation of April 9th, 1947, because the institution
tutes a voluntary acceptance of its jurisdiction. This letter
of proceedings by unilateral application was not justified by
removes all difficulties concerning both the question of the
the Charter, by die Statute or by general international law.
admissibility of the Application and the question of the
Nevertheless, it fully accepted the Security Council's recom-
Court's jurisdiction.
mendation profoundly convinced of the justice of its case and
resolved to neglect no opportunity of giving evidence of its When, in fact, the Albanian Government states in its letter
devotion to the principles of friendly collaboration between that it is prepared, notwithstanding the "irregularity in the
nations and of the pacific settlement of disputes, it was pre- action taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, to
pared, notwithstanding the irregularity in the action taken by appear before the Court", it is clear that it waived the right to
the United Kingdom Government, to appear before the adduce the objection that the Application was inadmissible.