Page 189 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Liechtenstein citizenship; as a consequence, Liechtenstein scope of the treaty and therefore not in violation of it.
was not entitled to extend its protection to Nottebohm The Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States)
and the claim must fail.
(1957-1959). 131 In 1942, the United States appropriated
The Treatment in Hunggry of Aircrqft and Crew of the almost all the shares, estimated at $150,000,000, of the
United States Case (United States v. Hungary) General Aniline and Film Corporation, an American
(1954). 126 Corporation, on the ground that these shares, though in
The Treatment in Hungary of Aircrqft and Crew of the the name of Interhandel, were in reality owned by I.G.
United States of America (United States v. U.S.S.R.) Farben, a German corporation. Interhandel, a Swiss cor-
(1954). 127 In 1954 the United States instituted proceed- poration, contested such a f~nding, maintaining that it was
ings before the Court "against the Hungarian People's the real owner of the shares and not merely a holder in
Republic and against the U.S.S.R., on account of certain trust for I.G. Farben. White Interhandel's case was
actions of the Hungarian Government in concert with the proceeding through the United States Courts, Switzer-
Government of the U.S.S.R." 128 Since neither Hungary land, exercising its right of diplomatic protection, asked
nor the U.S.S.R. consented to be jurisdiction of the the International Court of Justice to declare that the
Court, the cases were removed fiom the list of the Court
without decision. United States Government was under an obligation to
restore to Interhandel its property. It also asked interim
The Certain Norwegian Loans Case (France v. Norway) measures of protection for the seized property. The Court
(1955-1957). 129 Certain Norwegian loans had been saw no need for interim measures and refused to impose
floated in France between the years 1885 and 1909. By them. 132 The United States defended on the grounds that
their terms these loans were convertible into gold as well
as various national currencies. Norway then suspended (1) Interhandel had not. exhausted its local remedies in
the convertibility into gold. France, exercis'hg its right of the U.S. Courts and (2) that certain actions taken against
diplomatic protection on behalf of its nationals, sought to the American Corporation were within the exclusive
compel Norway to redeem the bonds in gold. France had domestic jurisdiction of the U.S., as determined by the
adhered to the Court's jurisdiction under the optional U.S. The Court disposed of the case on the first ground,
clause with a reservation similar to the U.S. Connally that Interhandel had not exhausted its local remedies, a
Reservation. prerequisite for the exercise of diplomatic protection. It
Under conditions of reciprocity, both parties are en- passed no judgment on the controversial domestic juris-
titled to take advantage of any reservations the other has diction implications of the second defense of the United
made. Norway, therefore, maintained that the case in- States.
volved a matter exclusively within the domestic jurisdic-
In April 1964 U.S. District Judge David A. Pine lifted
tion of Norway as determined by Norway. The Court
therefore dismissed the case. It was not forced to rule on an iqjunction he imposed in 1963 and thereby cleared the
the validity of France's reservation because neither party way for the Justice Department to sell General Aniline
contested it. Rather both were committed to argue for its and Film Corporation, thus ending the long litigation,
validity, France in order to be a proper plaintiff before the both national and international, surrounding the legality
Court, and Norway in order to use the reservation to of the seizure by the American government in 1942.
defeat France's claim. Since this case France has with- The Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War Case (Pakistanv.
drawn its reservation.
India) (1973). 133 In 1973 Pakistan instituted proceedings
The Application of the Convention of 1902 governing the before the Court against India because "India was propos-
Guardianship of Idants Case (Netherlands v. Sweden) ing to hand over 195 Pakistani prisoners of war to the
(1957-1958). 130 In 1902 Sweden and the Netherlands Government of Bangladesh, which intended to try them
became parties to the Hague Convention on the guardian-
for acts of genocide and crimes against humanity." 134
ship of infants. The Swedish authorities placed an infant of 'Before the Court could schedule arguments on the juris-
Netherlands nationality residing in Sweden under the
regime of protective upbringing instituted by Swedish law. diction of the Court to hear the dispute, Pakistan in-
The Netherlands maintained that the 1902 Convention formed the Court of negotiations between India and
required that the child be brought up according to Dutch 'Pakistanand requested that the proceeding be discon-
law. The Court held that the Swedish law was outside the tinued. As a result, the case was removed from the list of
the Court without decision.
126. (19541LC.J. Rep. 103.
127. (19541I.C.J. Rep. 99. 131. (19591I.C.J. Rep. 6; digested in 53Am. J. InrlL.671 (1959).
128. (1953-19541I.C.J.Y.B.92. 132. (19571 I.C.J. Rep. 105; digested in 52 Am J. Int7 L. 320
129. (19571I.C.J. Rep. 9;digested in 51 Am J. Int7L. 777 (1957). (1958).
130. [I9581 I.C.J. Rep. 55; digested in 53 Am. J. Int7 L. 436 133. (19731I.C.J. Rep. 347.
(1959). 134. (1973-19741I.C.J.Y.B. 123.