Page 186 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

many v. Iceland) (1972-1974). 97 In this proceeding the (2) Disputes relating to Violation of Airspace. 103
Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) protested Iceland's The Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953 Case (United
extension of its exclusive fisheries from 12 miles to 50 States v. Czechoslovakia) (1955-1956). 104 In 1955 the
miles, arising out of the same facts as the immediately pre- United States instituted proceedings before the Court to
ceding case. The Court declined to join this case with that complain of "certain wrongful acts committed by MIG-
brought by the United Kingdom, because the FRG case type aircraft from Czechoslovakia within the United States
had an additional element, i.e., the FRG sought a deter- zone of occupation in Germany on March 10, 19 53. " 105
mination that "the acts of interference by Icelandic coastal Since Czechoslovakia did not consent to the jurisdiction of
patrol boats with fshing vessels registered in the Federal the Court, the case was removed from the List of the
Republic of Germany were unlawful under international Court without decision.
law and that Iceland was under an obligation to make The Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952Case (United States
compensation therefore to the Federal Republic. 98 Other
v. U.S.S.R.) (1955-1956). 106 In 1955 the United States
than for this additional item, the decision in this casemir-
rored that issued in the United Kingdom case (see im- instituted proceedings before the Court to complain of
certain willful acts committed by fighter aircraft of the
mediately preceding case). With respect to the damages Soviet government against a United States Air Force B-29
issued, the Court held that because of the abstract form of aircraft and its crew off Hokkaido, Japan, on October 7,
the claim, it was unable to render a decision because of in- 1952. 107 Since the U.S.S.R. did not consent to the juris-
sufficient evidence.
diction of the Court, the case was removed from the List
The Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France) of the Court without decision.
(1973-1974). 99 The Nuclear Tes~ Case (New Zealand v.
France) (1973-1974). 100 In 1973 Australia and New The Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 Case (Israel v.
Bulgaria) (1957- 1959). 108 Bulgarian fighter craft shot
Zealand instituted proceedings in the Court to obtain a down an Israeli civilian commercial airliner with the loss
determination that France's atmospheric nuclear testing of life of all passengers. Israel attempted to bring Bulgaria
in the South Pacific Ocean was inconsistent with interna- before the International Court in order to obtain a judg-
tional law. During 1974, the French government made ment awarding it damages for the incident. The case
various representations that it intended to cease such test-
aroused interest because no Communist country has ac-
ing (e.g., Communique of the Office of the President of cepted in any way the jurisdiction of the Court. However,
the French Republic, dated 8 June 1974; note from Bulgaria had accepted for an unlimited period the jurisdic-
French Embassy to New Zealahd Ministry of Foreign tion of the Permanent Court before World War 11. Article
Affairs, dated 10 June 1974; and various other statements 36(5) of the present Court's Statute provides:
made by French officials, President of the Republic (25 Declarations made under Art. 36 of the Statute of the
July 1974), Minister of Defense (16 August 1974) and Permanent Court of International Justice and which are
Minister of Foreign Affairs in the United Nations General still in force shall be deemed . . . to be acceptances of the
Assembly (25 Sep 74)). Considering the totality of all the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of
French pronouncements, the Court concluded that it was Justice for the period which they still have to run. . . .
France's intention to terminate the tests and that they Israel contended that Bulgaria was still bound by its 1921
"constituted an undertaking possessing legal effect," 101 acceptance. The Court disagreed with this argument. It
notwithstanding they were of a unilateral nature without a restricted the application of article 36(5) to the original
quid pro quo. The Court refused to speculate whether at members of the U.N. Since Bulgaria did not become a
some future time France would not comply with its com- member until 1955 its adherence to the Permanent Court
mitment. Such being the case, the Court found that "no had lapsed and could not now be revived. Israel's case was
further pronouncement is required in the present case. It dismissed.
does not enter into the adjudicatory functions of the Court The Aerial Incident of 27July 1955Case (United States v.
to deal with issues in abstracto, once it has reached the
Bulgaria) (1 957- 1959). 109
conclusion that the merits of the case no longer are to be The Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 Case (United
determined. The object of the claim having clearly disap-
peared, there is nothing on which to give judgment." 102
103. For related "contentions" cases see Treatment in Hungary of
Aircrqft and Crew of the United States, irlfra notes 73 and 74 and
97. [I9741 I.C.J. Rep. 175; reported in 69 Am. J. Intl L. 154 Nuclear Tests, supra notes 46 and 47.
(1975). 104. [I9561I.C.J. Rep. 6;digested in 51 Am. J. Int'l L. 11 (1957).
98. [1973-19741I.C.J.Y.B. 116, 117. 105. [1955-19561I.C.J.Y.B. 73.
99. [I9731I.C.J. Rep. 99;reported in 67Am. J.Int'l L. 778 (1973). 106. [I9561I.C.J. Rep. 9;digested in 51 Am. J.Int'l L. 12 (1957).
100. [I9731I.C.J. 135;reported in 67 Am. J. Int'l L. 778 (1973). 107. (1955-19561I.C.J.Y.B.75.
101. Nuclear Test Cases, Int'l Lawyer 563, 571 (1975), quoting 108. (19591 I.C.J. Rep. 127; digested in 53 Am. J. Int'l L. 923
I.C.J. opinion. (1959), Ct; Temple of Preah Vihear, supra note 31.
102. Id. at 573. 109. [I9601I.C.J. Rep. 146.