Page 181 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

cerned, or beforehand by a separate agreement. cording to the date the Court is requested 69 to render the
A majority of the members of the United Nations has opinion.
not accepted the "optional clause". 66 Those that have, a. Contentious Cases.
have usually done so with reservations. The United States (1) Disputes relating to territorial rights. 70
has accepted the "optional clause" with a reservation The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania)
which reserves from the jurisdiction of the court. "Dis- (1947-1949). 71 In 1946 several British warships were
putes with regard to matters which are essentially within fued upon by Albania shore batteries while proceeding
the domestic jurisdiction of the United States." 67 This through the Corfu Channel which lies within the territorial
reservation would, on the whole, be innocuous but for the waters of Albania. Great Britain protested and announced
addition to it of the now well-known "Connally Reserva- that she was sending warships again through the Channel
tion." To this phrase Senator Connally added the words with instructions to fue iffued upon. No fue came from
"as determined by the United States." The legal diff~culty the Albanian shore batteries. However, two of the ships
created by this addition is that article 36, paragraph 6, of struck mines which caused considerable damage and loss
the Statute of the International Court requires: of life. Great Britain then, against the protests of Albania,
In the event of a dispute as to whether the court has ju- swept the Channel clear of mines.
risdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the
Court. Albania, along with all other Communist states, had not
accepted the "optional clause" in any form. However,
The Court has not yet been required to pass upon the upon the urging of the Security Council both Great Britain
compatibility of the Connally Reservation with the re- and Albania agreed to submit the dispute to the Interna-
quirements of article 36, paragraph 6. tional Court. After agreeing to submit the case, Albania
b. Advisory Opinions. The rendering of advisory op@- challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to award damages
ions by the International Court is governed by Article 96 against it, on the ground that it had only agreed to a
of the Charter of the United Nations and by Articles limited submission to the jurisdiction of the Court. This
65-68 of the Statute of the Court. Article 96 of the objection was overruled.
Charter authorized the General Assembly or the Security The Court considered that it could not hold a state auto-
Council to request the International Court of Justice to
matically responsible for everything that occurs within its
give an advisory opinion on any legal question. The territory. However, the evidence of this case certainly
General Assembly has taken advantage of this oppor- showed that Albania had knowledge of the existence of
tunity twelve times. The Security Council has asked the the mines. Therefore, Albania was liable to Great Britain
Court for only one advisory opinion. A brief analysis of for the damages sustained if Great Britain had a right to
the advisory opinions rendered by the Court follows.
use the Corfb Channel. The Court held that since it was a
9-7. Cases Before the Court. The International Court, as shipping lane connecting two open bodies of water all
any court, can best be understood and evaluated by states had a right to it in time of peace for innocent
analyzing and understanding the disputes with which it has passage. The Court refused to distinguish between major
dealt, and the effect it has had upon their solution. and minor shipping lanes for the purposes of the right of
Therefore, it will be the purpose of the remainder of this innocent passage. It also refused to say that Great Britain's
chapter to present the cases upon which the court has ren- second passage was not innocent merely because it was
dered an opinion. The contentious cases are presented performed to test Albania's hostile intentions. However,
under four general headings: Disputes relating to Ter- Great Britain's third entry into the channel in order to
ritorial Rights; Disputes relating to Violation of Airspace; sweep it of mines was not for the purpose of passage.
Disputes relating to Nationals; and Disputes of a Com- Therefore, it amounted to an unauthorized invasion of
mercial Nature. 68 Within each topic area the cases are Albanian territory. Albania was ordered to pay a total sum
generally presented chronologically according to the date of 844,000 pounds for the damage caused to the ships and
the dispute was presented to the Court. The advisoryopin-
ions are also generally presented in chronological order ac-
69. See supra note 9.
70. For related "contentions" case, see Appeal Relating to the Ju-
66. As of August 15, 1960, 38 states accepted the "optional risdiction ofthe ICAO Council, idra note 63;for related advisory opin-
clause," U.N. OK of Public Information, The International Court of ion, see International States of Southwest rqfrca, idra note 100;Legal
Justice, 9 (2d ed. 1960).This faure was unchanged as of Jan. 1, 1963, Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Ajrica in
Dep't State, Treaties in Force 280 (1963). Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Securiw Council Resolu-
67. Res. 196,Aug. 2, 1946. Text of the United States declaration at tion 276 (1970). idra note 108 and Western Sahara, iqfra note 113.
the time of its adherence to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Int'l Ct. 71. The case was heard in three phases by the Court: Corfu Chan-
Just. on Aug. 26, 1946 is contained in 15 Dep't State Bull. 452-453 nel Case (Preliminary Objection) [I9471I.C.J. Rep. 7, 15; Corfu Chan-
(1946)and in 61 Stat. 1218 (1946). nel Case (Merits) [I9471I.C.J. Rep. 4;Corfu Channel Case (Assess-
68. Where a particular decision may have connections with several ment of the Amount of Compensation) [I9491I.C.J. Rep. 237.Cases
topic areas, a cross-reference has been made. Additionally, several ad- are reported in 42 Am. J. Int? L. 690 (1948); 43 Am. J. Int? 558
visory opinions have been cross-referenced into the contentions cases. (1949);and in 44Am. J. Int'l L. 579 (1950).