222018992

The Lotus Case

Facts-
The French vessel Lotus collided with the Turkey vessel Boz Kourt which
caused the Boz kourt to sink and caused the death of Turkish citizens. However,
ten people survived this incident. The survivors were taken to the Lotus ship.
The officer and captain in charge of the Lotus ship were charged with
manslaughter. A French national was also sentenced to 80 days of imprisonment
and a fine . The French government protested, demanding the release of
demons or the transfer of his case to French courts. Turkey and France agreed to
refer this dispute to the International Court of Justice for abjudication.

Issues-
1. Whether or not Turkey violated international law when Turkish courts
exercised jurisdiction over a crime committed by a French national
outside Turkey.
2. Whether or not economic financial compensations should be made to Mr
Demons.
3. Does a rule of international law which prohibits a state from exercising
criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of
the state’s national jurisdiction exist?

Holding- A rule of international law, which prohibits a state from exercising

criminal jurisdiction over a foreign national who commits acts outside of the
state’s national jurisdiction, does not exist. Failing the existence of a permissive
rule to the contrary is the first and foremost restriction imposed by international
law on a state and it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of
another state.This does not imply that international law prohibits a state from
exercising jurisdiction in its own territory, in respect of any case that relates to
acts that have taken place abroad which it cannot rely on some permissive rule
of international law. In this situation, it is impossible to hold that there is a rule
of international law that prohibits Turkey (D) from prosecuting Demons
because he was aboard a French ship. This stems from the fact that the effects of
the alleged offense occurred on a Turkish vessel.
Hence, both states here may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over this
matter because there is no rule of international law in regards to collision cases
to the effect that criminal proceedings are exclusively within the jurisdiction of
the state whose flag is flown.

Reasoning- In 1975, France enacted a law regarding its criminal jurisdiction

over aliens because of this the situation surrounding this case. The law
stipulates that aliens who commit a crime outside the territory of the Republic
may be prosecuted and judged pursuant to French law, when the victim is of
French nationality. This is contained in 102 Journal Du Droit International 962
(Clunet 1975).

Comments- This case is highly criticized by eminent scholars for implying that
international law permits all that it does not forbid.
The Paquete Habana case

Facts-
The United States imposed a blockade of Cuba and declared war against
Spain. While they were out to sea, fishing along the coast of Cuba and near
Yucatan, two Spanish vessels engaged in fishing off the coast of Cuba were
captured by blockading squadrons. Until stopped by the blockading squadron,
the fishing vessels had no knowledge of the existence of the war, or of any
blockade. They had no arms or ammunition on board, and made no attempt to
run the blockade after they knew of its existence, nor any resistance at the time
of the capture. When the vessels returned with their catches of fresh fish, they
were seized and a libel of condemnation of each vessel as a prize of war was
filed against the vessel in court. The district court entered a final decree of
condemnation and public sale at auction. Claimants appealed on this.

Issues-
-Did the court have jurisdiction to issue a decree of condemnation and auction
the fishing vessels?

Holding-
It was held that the court did not have jurisdiction to issue a decree of
condemnation and auction the fishing vessels. The Supreme Court ruled that,
under the law of nations, in each case the capture was unlawful and without
probable cause. It was a rule of international law that coast fishing vessels,
pursuing their vocation of catching and bringing in fresh fish, were exempt,
with their cargoes and crews, from capture as prize of war. Although not
reduced to treaty or statutory law, courts were obligated to take notice of and
give effect to that rule. Thus, the decrees condemning the vessels were reversed
and, in each case, it was ordered that the proceeds of the sales of each vessel
and cargo be restored to the respective claimant, with compensatory damages
and costs. The Court also noted that it had appellate jurisdiction over the
controversy without regard to the amount in dispute and without certification
from the district court, as required by prior statutory law.

The Barcelona Traction case

Facts-
Barcelona Traction , light and Power Company Limited was a corporation
incorporated in Canada, with Toronto headquarters, that made and supplied
electricity in Spain . It issued bonds to non-spanish investors. However, during
the spanish civil war (1936-1939), the Spanish government refused to allow
BTLP to transfer currency to pay bondholders the interest that they were due .
In 1948 , a group of bondholders sued in Spain to declare the BTLP had
defaulted on the ground that it had failed to pay interest . The Spanish court
allowed the claim. The business was sold and the surplus distributed to the
bondholders , and a small amount was paid to shareholders.

Issues-
-Whether or not Belgium have jus standi to exercise diplomatic protection of
shareholder’s in a Canadian company.
-Does Belgium have the right and jurisdiction to initiate an action against
Spain in the court of law for the actions of the Canadian company.

Holding-
The diplomatic protection of shareholders was invalid because it would create
confusion and insecurity in economic relations shares .
The international court of justice held that Belgium had no legal interest in
matter. Therefore it had to right to bring forth the claim. The court ruled in
favour of Spain that Belgium had do jurisdiction to file an application and
shareholders who were seeking compensation were not given diplomatic
immunity. Therefore, it is not allowed for an individual to bring a claim against
a state .

Anglo-Norwagion case-

Facts-T he United Kingdom requested the court to decide if Norway had

used a legallyacceptable method indrawing the baseline from which it
measured its territorial sea.The UnitedKingdom argued that customary
international lawdid not allow the lengthof a baseline drawn across abay to be
longer than ten miles. Norway argued that its delimitation method was
consistent with general principles ofinternational law

Issue-
-Whether or not the decree which laid down a method for drawing the baselines
from which the width of the Norwegian territorial waters had to be calculated ,
was valid under international law.

Holding:
The method employed for the delimitation by the Decree nor the lines
themselves , fixed by the said decree are contrary to international law. The
International Court of Justice held that Norway’s claims to the water were
consistent with international laws concerning the ownership of local sea space .

Reasoning-
In these circumstances , the court deems it necessary to point out that although
the ten mile role been adopted by certain states both in their national law and in
their treaties and conversations, and although certain arbitral decisions have
applied it as between these state , other states have adopted it as between these
state, other states have adopted a different limit . Consequently , the ten-mile
rule has not acquired the authority of a general rule of international law. In any
eventthe ten -mile role would appear to be inapplicable as against Norway in as
much as she has always opposed any attempt to apply to the Norwegian Coast .

Asylum Case

Facts-
Peru issued an arrest warrant against Victor Raul Haya de la Torre “in respect of
the crime of military rebellion” which took place on October 3, 1949, in Peru. 3
months after the rebellion, Torre fled to the Colombian Embassy in Lima, Peru.
The Colombian Ambassador confirmed that Torre was granted diplomatic
asylum in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Havana Convention on Asylum of
1928 and requested safe passage for Torre to leave Peru. Subsequently, the
Ambassador also stated Colombia had qualified Torre as a political refugee in
accordance with Article 2 Montevideo Convention on Political Asylum of 1933
(note the term refugee is not the same as the Refugee Convention of 1951). Peru
refused to accept the unilateral qualification and refused to grant safe passage.

Issues-
(1) Whether or not Colombia competent, as the country that grants asylum, to
unilaterally qualify the offence for the purpose of asylum under treaty law and
international law?
(2) In this specific case, was Peru, as the territorial State, bound to give a
guarantee of safe passage?

(3) Did Colombia violate Article 1 and 2 (2) of the Convention on Asylum of
1928 (hereinafter called the Havana Convention) when it granted asylum and is
the continued maintenance of asylum a violation of the treaty?

Holding-
The court specified that Peru had not proved that Mr. Haya de la Torre was a
common criminal. It also found in favour of a counter-claim submitted by Peru
that Mr. Haya de la Torre had been granted asylum in violation of the Havana
Convention. Therefore, the granting of the asylum was unlawful.

North Sea Continental Shelf Case

Facts-
The boundaries between their respective areas of the continental shelf in the
North Sea and the area claimed by the Federal Republic of Germany (D), should
be determined by the application of the principle of equidistance as set forth in
Article 6 of the Geneva Convention of 1958 on the Continental Shelf, which by
January 1, 1969 had been ratified or acceded to by 39 states but to which
Germany was not a party, was the basis of Denmark’s (D) and the Netherland’s
(P) contention.
Because the use of the delimitation method was not merely a conventional
obligation, but a rule that was part of the corpus of general international law and
like other rules of general or customary international law, which was binding
automatically on Germany (D), independent of any specific assent, direct or
indirect, given by Germany (D), Denmark (P) and the Netherland’s (P)
contended that Germany (D) was bound to accept the delimitation on an
equidistance basis.
Issues-
- Whether or not delimitation must be the object of an equitable agreement
between the states involved?

Holding-
It was held that delimitation must be the object of an equitable agreement
between the states involved. As stipulated in Article 6 of the Geneva
Convention, equidistance principle is not part of customary international law.
Article 6 makes the obligation to use the equidistance method a secondary one
which comes into play only when agreements between the parties are absent.
Although the principle of equidistance is not given a fundamental norm-creating
character by Article 6, which is necessary to the formation of a general rule of
law.
In this case, after taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, the
delimitation here is to be excused by equitable agreement.