Page 187 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

Kingdom v. Bulgaria) (1957-1959). 110 In 1957 the jacked to Pakistan; thereafter, India refused any over-
United States (and the United Kingdom) instituted flightsby Pakistani civilian aircraft. Pakistan submitted the
proceedings before the Court "against the government of dispute to the International Civil Aviation Organization
the Peoples Republic of Bulgaria with regard to the (ICAO) alleging that India was in breach of the two
damage suffered by American [and United Kingdom] na- treaties. The ICAO found that it had jurisdiction to hear
tionals, passengers on board an aircraft of El A1 Israel the dispute; India appealed from thisrulingto the Court.
Airlines, Ltd., which was destroyed on 27 July 1955 by a After discussing Pakistan's objections to the Court hear-
Bulgarian fighter aircraft. 111 Several years later the United ing the appeal and overruling the objections, the Court
States (and the United Kingdom), after the judgment of upheld the competence of the ICAO to hear the com-
the Court involving proceedings brought by Israel against plaint. 117
Bulgaria out of the same incident was decided adverse to
(3) Disputes relating to Nationab. 118
Israel (seeimmediately preceding case), requested discon-
The Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons
tinuance of the case(s). The request(s) were granted and
in Egypt Case (France v. Egypt) (1949-1950). 119 In 1948
the case(s) were removed from the List of the Court with- France instituted proceedings against Egypt before the
out decision.
Court to complain of "certain measures [taken] against
The Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 Case (United the persons and property, rights and interests of certain
States v. U.S.S.R.) (1958). 112 In 1958 the United States French nationals and protected persons in Egypt." 120
instituted proceedings before the Court against "certain Two years later, the French government notified the
willful acts committed by military aircraft of the Soviet Court that the dispute had been settled by Egypt ceasing to
government on September 4, 1954, in the international take the complained of measures and requested the Court
air space over the Sea of Japan against a United States to discontinue the proceedings. There beii no objection
Navy P2-V-type aircraft, commonly known as a Neptune from Egypt, the case was removed from the List of the
type, and against its crew." 113 Since the U.S.S.R. did not Court without decision.
consent to the jurisdiction of the Court, the case was
The Asylum Case (Columbia v. Peru) (1949-1950). 121
removed from the List of the Court without decision. The Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20
The Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 Case (United November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Columbia v. Peru)
States v. U.S.S.R.) (1959). 114 In 1959 the United States (1950). 122
instituted proceedings before the Court against the Soviet The Haya de la Torre Case (Columbia v. Peru)
government "on account of the destruction on Novem- (1950- 195 1). 123 The Pan-American Havana Convention
ber 7, 1954, of a United States Air Force B-29 aircraft [by on Asylum of 1928, of which both Peru and Colombia
Soviet fighter planes] in the Japanese territorial air space were parties, provided (1) that political asylum could be
over Hokkaido, Japan. 115 Sithe U.S.S.R. did not con- granted in a foreign embassy to political offenders in an
sent to the jurisdiction of the Court, the casewas removed emergency, and (2) that asylum could not be granted to
from the List of the Court without decision. common criminals who, if found in an embassy, must be
The Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO turned over to the local authorities.
CouncilCase (India v. Pakistan) (1971-1972). 116 Under In 1949 Haya de la Torre, claiming to be a political of-
the International Civil Aviation Convention and the In- fender, sought asylum in the Colombian embassy in Peru.
ternational Air Services Transit Agreement, both signed Peru demanded his release. Colombia refused. The par-
by Pakistan and India in 1944, civilian aircraft of Pakistan ties to the dispute asked the court very niurow questions,
had the right to overfly Indian territory. After the the answers to which failed to resolve all the problems
hostilities of 1965 between Pakistan and India had sub- connected with the case. The questions and answers at the
sided, the two countries agreed in 1966 that overflights fvst hearing are as follows:
should continue on the same basis as before. Pakistan
took this to mean under the 1944 Convention and Treaty, 11'. [1972-19731 I.C.J.Y.B. 111.
while India maintained the two treaties had been sus- 118. For related "contentions" cases, see Corjir Channel, supm
note 18; South West Afrca, supra note 35; Aerial Incident of 27 July
pended and never revived; i.e., Pakistan overflights
1955, supra notes 55 to 58; and Barcelona Traction, Light and Power
would be permitted only after specific permission was Company, Limited, idra notes 91 and 92. For related advisory opinions
granted by India. In 1971 an Indian aircraft was high- see Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romania, igra note 99; International Status of Southwest qfrica, idra,
110. [I959 I.C.J. Rep. 264. note 100, and Reservation to the Convention on the Prevention and
111. [1959-19601 I.C.J.Y.B.93. Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, idra note 103.
112. [I9581 I.C.J. Rep. 158.
119. [I9501 I.C.J. Rep. 59.
11'. [1958-19591 I.C.J.Y.B. 90.
120. [1949-19501I.C.J.Y.B. 68.
114. 119591 I.C.J. Rep. 276. 121. [I9501 I.C.J. Rep. 266; reported in 51 Am. J. Int? L. 179, 781
115. (1959-19601I.C.J.Y.B.85, 86. (1951).
116. [I9721 I.C.J. Rep. 46; reported in 67 Am. J. Int? L. 127 122. (19501 I.C.J. Rep. 395.
(1 973). 123. [I9511 I.C.J. Rep. 4.