Page 182 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

as compensation for the deaths of the members of the weight in and of itself to the fact that the islets were
\ crews and for personal injuries. Albania refused to take geographically closer to France than they were to England.
part in the hearing on the amount of the damages and has The Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Argentina)
ignored the order to pay Great Britain.
(1955- 1956). 75 The government of the United Kingdom
The Security Council played a role in this case that from instituted this proceeding against the government of
subsequent cases, has been somewhat unique. It was the Argentina seeking a resolution of a dispute as to the
Security Council which recommended, pursuant to its sovereignty of certain islands and lands in the Antarctic.
authority under article 36, paragraph 1, of the Charter that Since the government of Argentina did not consent to the
the parties take their disputes to the International Court. It jurisdiction of the court, the case was removed from the
was also the Security Council to which Great Britain, Court's list without decision. 76
under article 95, paragraph 2, of the Charter, brought its
The Antarctica Case (United Kingdom v. Republic of
complaint of Albania's refusal to pay the assessed
Chile) (1955-1956). 77 The government of the United
damages.
Kingdom instituted this proceeding against the govern-
The Fisheries Case (United Kingdom v. Norway) ment of Chile seeking a resolution of a dispute as to the
(1949-1951). 72 In 1935 Norway enacted a decree by sovereignty of certain islands and lands in the Antarctic.
which it measured its territorial waters outward from a Since the government of Chile did not consent to the ju-
series of straight base lines which were drawn between risdiction of the court, the case was removed from the
points along its famous rock rampart. This rampart is Court's list without decision. 78
formed by numerous small islands lying off almost the en- The Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case (Portugal
tire length of the Norwegian Coast. By such a method v. India) (1955-1960). 79 Portugal possessed in India, at
Norway was able to include within its territorial waters some distance inland from the Portuguese port of Daman,
certain fishing grounds for the exclusive use of its own the two enclaves of Dadia and Nagar-Aveli. Portugal con-
fishermen to the detriment of British fishemen. Great tended that the right of passage to and between these
Britain challenged the validity of this system of measure- enclaves suff~cient for the exercise of its sovereignty had
ment, contending that a time-honored rule of interna- been denied by India. Portugal based its right of passage
tional law required that territorial seas be measured from on agreements entered into in the 18th century, local
the coast. The Court did not dispute the general ap- custom since that time, and on general international law
plicability of the rule contended for by Great Britain, but concerning enclaves. The Court found that Portugal had
qualified it in this case because of the geographical in 1954 the right of passage claimed by it but that such
peculiarities of the Norwegian Coast.
right was limited to the passage of private persons, civil of-
The Minquiers and Ecrehos Case (France v. United ficials, and goods in general and did not extend to armed
Kingdom) 73 (1 95 1 -1 953). 74 Minquiers and Ecrehos are forces, armed police, arms, and ammunition. The Court
two small groups of islets lying off the coast of France. found that the control so far exercised by India did not
Both were claimed by Great Britain and France. Under a restrict Portugal in the exercise of its legitimate limited
special agreement between France and the United right of passage. In deciding the case, the Court
Kingdom, the Court was asked to determine which of the acknowledged the existence of binding custom of local ap-
partieshad produced a more convincing proof of title. The plication distinct from general customary international
decision of the Court reveals its approach to ownership of law. India contested vigorously the Court's jurisdiction in
territory. It gave little weight to titles founded on docu- this case. On December 18,1961, seventeen months after
ments drawn up in the Middle Ages. It was more con- this opinion was delivered, India seized all Portuguese ter-
cerned with the direct evidence of possession and the ac- ritory on the subcontinent of India. 80
tual exercise of sovereignty. Both sides contended for cer- The Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land Case
tain "critical dates" at which their titles became vested. (Belgium v. The Netherlands) (1957-1 959). 81 The
They then sought to exclude evidence of the exercise of Belgian commune of Baerle-Duc and the Netherlands
sovereignty by the other which might have occurred after commune of Baarle-Nassau adjoin. A Communal Minute
their proposed "critical date." The Court avoided setting drawn up about 1838 attributed the now disputed land to
such a date, noting that Great Britain had exercised almost
uninterrupted sovereignty over both islets. On that basis
title in Great Britain was affied. The Court gave no 75. [I9561I.C.J. Rep. 12;digested in 51 Am. J. Int'IL. 11 (1957).
76. See [1955-19561I.C.J.Y.B. 77.
77. [I9561I.C.J. Rep. 15;digested in 51 Am J: Int'IL. 11 (1957).
72. [I9511I.C.J. Rep. 3;reported in 46 Am J. Int? L. 348 (1952). 78. See [1955-19561I.C.J.Y.B.77.
cf, North Sea Continental SheU; idra note 39 and Fisheries Jurirdlcrion 79. (19601I.C.J. Rep. 6;digested in Am. J. In17 L. 673 (1960).
idra notes 42 and 44. 80. For a legal analysis of this seizure see Wright, The GOA Inci-
73. In proceedings instituted by means of a special agreement, the dent, 56 Am. J. Int? L. 617 (1962).
names of the parties are separated by an oblique line. 81. [I9581I.C.J. Rep. 209; digested in 53 Am. J. Int7 L. 937
74. [I9531I.C.J. Rep. 4;reported in 48Am. J. Int7 L. 316 (1954); (1959).