Page 190 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

(4) Disputes of a Commercial Nature. 135 quested that the court order Iran to cease its measures
The Ambatielos Case (Greece v. United Kingdom) against the Company pending the outcome of the contest
(1951-1953). 136 In 1919, Ambatielos, a Greek over jurisdiction. The Court granted this request over the
shipowner, entered into a contract for the purchase of protests of Iran. Iran refbed to comply with these interim
ships with the Government of the United Kingdom. measures.
Because of a delay in the delivery of the ships, Ambatielos The Court then dismissed the casefor lack of jurisdiction
claimed he suffered pecuniary damage. He took his case because Iran had only agreed that the Court would have
through the British courts and lost. He then maintained jurisdiction over treaties entered into after 1932. The
that the judgments of the British courts were contrary to 1933 agreement was not a treaty between states. Anglo-
'international law because they amounted to a denial of Iranian Oil was a private company despite the fact that
justice. The Greek Government, exercising its right of most of its shares were owned by Great Britain. The
diplomatic protection, took up the caseof its national and legality under international law of Iran's nationalization
sought to compel Great Britain to arbitrate under arbitra- decrees was never decided by the Court. Since this case
tion agreements between the two countries. The sole Iran has withdrawn entirely its submission to the com-
question presented to the Court was whether Great Britain pulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
must arbitrate. The Court was not called upon to decide The Monetary Gold from Rome in 1943 Case (Italy v.
the merits. The British position was that this was not the
type of dispute included in the arbitration agreement. The France, United Kingdom and United States)
(1953-1954). 139 In 1943 Germany removed from Rome
question for the Court was a dficult one because to hold a to Germany certain gold belonging to Albania. Both Italy
dispute as to whether a case should be arbitrated a matter and Great Britain claimed the gold, Italy for satisfaction of
for arbitration would tend to make any matter subject to a claim against Albania and Great Britain for a satisfaction
arbitration upon the insistence of one party to the agree- of the still outstanding Corfu Channel 140judgment it held
ment. The Court held that Great Britain should arbitrate. against Albania. Acting under a 1946 agreement, France,
In the arbitration on the merits, which followed in 1956 U.S.A., and Great Britain decided jointly that the gold
the decision of the I.C.J., the Greek Government was un-
should go to Great Britain. Under a separate provision of
sucuxsful in sustaining Ambatielos' claim. 137
the same treaty, Italy challenged the decision and took the
The Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case (United Kingdom v. Iran) matter to the International Court. The Court ruled that it
(1951-1952). 138 In 1932 Iran adhered to the "optional had no jurisdiction to adjudge Italy's right to the gold
clause" of the Permanent Court of International Justice, because to do so would involve the merits of Italy's claim
with the reservation that such adherence only applied to against Albania. Since Albania was not a party to the
disputes based on treaties concluded by Iran after that proceedings and could not without its consent be made a
date. In 1933 Iran entered into an agreement with the party the Court had no alternative but to dismiss the case.
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Iran's 1932 limited The 'Electricite de Beyrouth" Company Case (France v,.
adherence to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court had
Lebanon) (1953-1954). 141
been transferred to the International Court in 1945. In The Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entre pots de
1951Iran nationalized the properties of the Oil Company. Beyrouth and Societe Radio - Orient Case (France v.
The Company maintained that such nationalization was Lebanon (1959-1960). 142 In 1948 the Governments of
contrary to the 1933 agreement. Great Britain sought France and Lebanon entered into an agreement, which
before the International Court of Justice to enforce the purported to settle all the f~nancial problems resulting
rights of the OilCompany under the 1933 agreement. Iran from the liquidation of the past and at the same time the
contested the jurisdiction of the Court. Great Britain re-
monetary and fmancial relations of the two countries for
the future. It included an undertaking by the Lebanese
135. For related "contention" cases, see Fisheries Jurisdiction. Government relating to concessions of the French com-
supra notes 42 and 44; Certain Norwegian Loans, supra note 76; and panies and companies with French capital in Lebanon. It
Interhandel, supra note 78. For related advisory opinions, see meet of
Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tri- also contained in its Article 23 a clause granting jurisdic-,
bunal, irlfm note 104; Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the tion to the Court. 143 "Eledricite de Beyrouth Company"
ILO upon ComplainLs made against Unesco; irlfra note 105; Constitution considered that measures taken by Lebanon were con-
of the Maritime S@iery Committee of the Inter-governmentcrl Maritime trary to the 1948 agreement, and it was able to persuade
Consultative Organization, irlfra note 106; and Application for Review of the Government of France in 1953 to institute proceed-
Judgment [sicj No. I58 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal,
irlfm note 111. ings before the Court against Lebanon. Before arguments
136. (19531 I.C.J. Rep. 10; digested in 46 Am. J. Int? L. 733
(1952). 139. 119541 I.C.J. Rep. 4;reported in 48 Am J. Int?L. 649 (1954).
137. Opinion of the Arbital Commission is digested in 50 Am. J. 140. See supm note 18.
Int'l L. 674 (1956). 141. [I9541 I.C.J. Rep. 13.
138. [I9521 I.C.J. Rep. 13; reported in 45 Am. J. Int'l L. 789 142. [I9601 I.C.J. Rep. 3.
(1951). 143. [1954-19551 I.C.J.Y.B. 75; seealso [1960-19611 I.C.J.Y.B. 83.