You are on page 1of 2

Mavrommatis Case (Greece v.

Britain) (1924)
Mm. Loder (President of the Permanent Court of International Justice; the PCIJ is the predecessor of the ICJ)

FACTS:
Mavrommatis, a Greek national, was in 1914 granted concessions by the Ottoman authorities for certain public
works in what later became the British mandated territory of Palestine. The concessions were related to
constructions and working of electric tramway systems and supply of light power and electric power in Jerusalem
and Jaffa, as well as irrigation systems.
Mavrommatis tried to claim from the concessions granted via ordinary channels, but such claims were unheeded.
Britain refused to recognize Mavrommatis rights.
o Ordinary channels resorted to by Mavrommatis: In long correspondence, Mavrommatis and his solicitors
urged his rights with respect to these concessions in the British Colonial Office. He also got friends to
write privately to persons in the British Foreign Office upon the subject.
The dispute was initially between a private person (Mavrommatis) and a State (Britain).
Greece took up Mavrommatis case because the latter is a Greek subject. Greece filed a case before the PCIJ,
alleging that Great Britain, through the Palestine Government, had refused to recognize the concession in
Jerusalem and Jaffa, principally by having granted to a Mr. Rutenberg concessions partially overlapping those
enjoyed by Mavrommatis, and accordingly sought compensation.
Britain imposed its preliminary objection and argued that Greece had no standing in this case.
Greece argued that it is entitled to protect its subjects such as Mavrommatis when they have been injured by acts
contrary to international law by another state.

ISSUES + RULING:

Was there a dispute? YES.
A dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two
persons.
There is a dispute because Greece is asserting its own rights by claiming from Britain indemnity on the ground
that Mavrommatis, one of its subjects, has been treated by Palestine or British authorities in a manner
incompatible with certain international obligations which they were bound to observe.
o Art 26 of the Mandate of Palestine (legal document which formalized the creation of 2 British
protectorates Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, and Transjordan; took effect
in 1923, following the ratification of The Treaty of Lausanne) provides that the dispute must be between
the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations. Although at first, the dispute was between
a private person (Mavrommatis) and a State (Britain), the Greek government took up the case. The
dispute entered into a new phase; it entered the domain of international law, and became a dispute
between the 2 States.
The dispute could not, in the circumstances of the case, be settled by negotiation.
o For the case to come under PCIJ jurisdiction, it must be that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation.
o The Court recognized that the State does not substitute itself for the subject; it is asserting its own rights
and, consequently, factors foreign to the previous discussions between the individual and the competent
authorities may enter into the diplomatic negotiations. But it recognized that the character of the dispute
may render unnecessary the renewed discussion on opposing contentions from which the original dispute
arose. It is a matter of consideration in each case.
o The Court said that it isnt necessary to have lengthy correspondences to prove that negotiation can no
longer be had. In the case, it looked at the correspondences which evidenced the unwillingness of the
British government to negotiate and meet the claims of Mavrommatis.
o The Court realises to the full the importance of the rule laying down that only disputes which cannot be
settled by negotiation should be brought before it. It recognises, in fact, that before a dispute can be
made the subject of an action at law, its subject matter should have been clearly defined by means of
diplomatic negotiations. Nevertheless, in applying this rule, the Court cannot disregard, amongst other
considerations, the views of the States concerned, who are in the best position to judge as to political
reasons which may prevent the settlement of a given dispute by diplomatic negotiation. When
negotiations between the private person and the authorities have already -as in the present case -defined
all the points at issue between the two Governments, it would be incompatible with the flexibility which
should characterise international relations to require the two Governments to reopen a discussion which
has in fact already taken place and on which they rely.
Although Protocol XII of the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 which formed the Peace Treaty with Turkey, contained
provisions expressly relating to the recognition of concessions in Palestine but without recognizing the Courts
jurisdiction in cases of dispute, it complemented the mandate and did not render inoperative its jurisdictional
clauses.

Did PCIJ have jurisdiction over the case? YES.
Dispute was between States (Greece and Britain)
Case cannot be negotiated (see above)
The Mandate for Palestine provided for the courts jurisdiction: It must in the first place be remembered that at
the time when the opposing views of the two Governments took definite shape (April 1924), and at the time when
proceedings were instituted, the Mandate for Palestine was in force. The Court is of opinion that, in cases of
doubt, jurisdiction based on an international agreement embraces all disputes referred to it after its establishment.
In the present case, this interpretation appears to be indicated by the terms of Article 26 itself where it is laid down
that "any dispute whatsoever .... which may arise" shall be submitted to the Court.
The Rutenberg concessions, which is covered by the Mandate, is said to be the alleged breach of the
concessions of Mavrommatis: If the grant of the Rutenberg Concessions, in so far as they may be regarded as
incompatible, at least in part, with those of Mavrommatis, constitutes the alleged breach of the terms of the
Mandate, this breach, no matter on what date it was first committed, still subsists, and the provisions of the
Mandate are therefore applicable to it.

Did Greece have the standing to bring the present claim in the capacity of sole claimant? YES.
A State like Greece can take up the case of its subjects when they are injured by acts contrary to
international law committed by another State from who said subject had been unable to obtain
satisfaction through ordinary channels. The dispute is now a dispute in international law.
o This is founded on Greeces right to ensure respect for rules of international law, a right which in this case
appears to have been violated by Britain. By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to
diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on its behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own
rights its right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respects for the rules of international law.
o It should not be looked at not as a substitution between Greece and its subject, but as assertion of its own
rights as a State. This will lead to the conclusion that Greece is the sole claimant in this case.
o Greece has the right to ensure respect for rules of international law. It is not substituting itself with the
citizen, but is actually asserting its own rights.
o The court deemed as irrelevant whether the dispute originated from a personal injury or not. Once a State
has taken up a case on behalf of one of its subjects before an international tribunal, in the yes of the latter
the State is sole claimant. The fact that Great Britain and Greece are the opposing Parties to the dispute
arising out of the Mavrommatis concessions is sufficient to make it a dispute between 2 States is
sufficient to make it a dispute between 2 States within the meaning of Art. 26 of the Palestine Mandate.

DISPOSITION: On a 7-5 vote, Court held that it had jurisdiction in the Jerusalem concessions, but not in the Jaffa
concessions.

You might also like