Assignment

1. Barcelona Traction, Lights and Power Co Ltd (Belgium V Spain)

Brief Fact:

Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd. (Company) was a corporation organized
under the laws of, with a registered office in, Canada. Several citizens of Belgium (plaintiff) were
shareholders in the Company. Belgium brought suit against Spain (defendant) in the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) on the ground that the Spanish government violated international law and
caused injury directly to the Company and indirectly to its Belgian shareholders by reducing the
value of their shares. Belgium argued Spain should be held responsible for these injuries to its
citizens.

Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute

Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve

2. Maritime Delimitation

Brief Fact:

Qatar (plaintiff) brought suit against Bahrain (defendant) in the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
to determine whether two exchanges of letters between the countries constituted international
agreements establishing a jurisdictional basis for the ICJ to hear all disputes between Qatar and
Bahrain. The first letter was drafted by the Amirs of Qatar and Bahrain through the mediation of
the King of Saudi Arabia in 1987. The second document, titled “Minutes” had been signed in
Qatar by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Qatar argued that
the two documents were international agreements creating an obligation for Qatar and Bahrain
to submit to the ICJ the whole of their dispute involving sovereignty over certain islands,
sovereign rights over certain sholas, and the delimitation of a maritime boundary between the
two States. Bahrain argued that the two documents did not constitute international agreements,
and that Qatar did not have a jurisdictional basis for bringing a unilateral suit in the ICJ. The ICJ
found that both the 1987 and 1990 exchanges and their resulting documents constituted
international agreements. Thus, the ICJ concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear the sovereignty
and boundary disputes between Qatar and Bahrain.
 Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute
Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve

3. Concerning Territorial Dispute: Libyan Arab Jahiriyah V Chad

Brief Fact:

The Aouzou Strip (the Strip) is a narrow piece of land located on the border between Chad
(defendant) and Libya (plaintiff). Although the Strip is both economically and militarily valueless,
Chad and Libya became embroiled in conflict over the location of their common border and title
to the Strip after Libya’s independence from Italian colonial rule and Chad’s independence from
French colonial rule. Chad argued that the border was established by the 1955 Treaty of
Friendship and Good Neighbourliness (the Treaty) between Libya and France, in which Libya
acquiesced to France’s claims regarding the borders of Libya’s African colonial possessions.
Libya contended that the Treaty was invalid, arguing that Libya’s king had been coerced into
signing the Treaty and that the Treaty did not recognize the Chad-Libya border at all. The Treaty
did contain provisions allowing either party to terminate the Treaty after 20 years. Diplomatic
negotiations broke down after Libya set up a military occupation of the Strip. Libya then invaded
and occupied Chad, including land both inside and outside the Strip. In 1983, with Libya still
occupying the Strip, the Chad government asked the United Nations Security Council to require
Libya’s withdrawal. In 1989, after two more years of negotiations, Chad and Libya agreed to
resolve the border dispute within one year using political methods. Chad and Libya also agreed
to submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a decision if they failed. After
failed negotiations, Chad and Libya called upon the ICJ to determine their shared border.

Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute:

Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court:

The International Court of Justice ruled that the boundary between Chad and Libya is defined by
the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighborliness which was concluded between France and
Libya in 1955. Conversely, this gives Chad territorial sovereignty over the Aouzou Strip
 Approach TesT/ Principles Involve

4. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case: UK V Iceland (1973)

Brief Fact:

Iceland (defendant) sought to extend its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction from twelve to fifty miles
around its shores. The United Kingdom (UK) challenged this extension of jurisdiction and sought
to submit the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ.) The UK relied upon an earlier treaty
agreement between the parties where the UK agreed to recognize Iceland’s twelve-mile
exclusive fisheries jurisdiction in exchange for Iceland’s agreement to submit all disputes over
fisheries jurisdiction to the ICJ. Iceland argued that it was not bound by this agreement to submit
all disputes to the ICJ, however, because of changing legal circumstances in international law.
Iceland argued that the standard, default limit for exclusive fisheries jurisdiction for states was
typically now twelve miles. This was not the case when Iceland first signed its agreement with
the UK, however, and the agreement to a twelve-mile limit then constituted a compromise for
Iceland. Due to changing trends in international law, Iceland argued that its previous agreement
to the twelve-mile compromise in exchange for ICJ jurisdiction was now void for lack of
consideration on the UK’s part.

Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute

Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve

5. Free Zone Upper Savoy and Gex District: France v Switzerland (1932)
Brief Fact:
Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute
Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve

6. Legal Status of Eastern Greenland: Norway V Denmark

Brief Fact:
In the 1920s, Norway occupied and claimed as its own parts of Eastern Greenland, a territory
 previously claimed by Denmark. A Danish diplomatic representative asked Norway’s Minister of
Foreign Affairs about the country’s intentions toward Eastern Greenland. The Minister replied
that Norway did not intend to contest Danish sovereignty over the whole of Greenland. Denmark
later sued Norway before the Permanent Court of International Justice on the ground that Norway
violated Danish sovereignty in Eastern Greenland.

Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute:

Intention of the Treaty:

Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve:

The main source of international law on treaties is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The Convention was ratified by 35 countries but not by the United States. Unilateral statements
may also be binding on states.

7. Nuclear Test Case: New Zealand V France

Brief Fact:

After France conducted atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific, radioactive fallout spread
over New Zealand. Thereafter, New Zealand applied to the International Court of Justice for a
declaration that conducting atmospheric nuclear tests violated international law.

Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute

Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve

8. Reservation Case: Crime of Genocide (1951):Effect of State Reservation

Brief Fact:

A dispute arose regarding the legal effect of reservations made by several states to the United
Nations Genocide Convention of 1948 (78 U.N.T.S. 277). As a result, the U.N. General Assembly
adopted a resolution in 1950 asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory
 opinion on various issues in the dispute. Specifically, in a situation where a State ratifies the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide subject to a reservation
made either on ratification or on accession, or on signature followed by ratification, the General
Assembly requested the ICJ to answer whether the reserving State may be regarded as being a
party to the Convention while still maintaining its reservation, if the reservation is objected to by
one or more of the parties to the Convention but not by others. Additionally, if the answer to this
question is in the affirmative, the General Assembly requested the ICJ to answer the question of
what is the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and both the parties which
object to the reservation and the parties which accept it. The ICJ considered these questions.

Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute

Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve

9. Temple of Preach Vicar Case: Cambodia V Thailand 9 19620 (1978) (2001)

Brief Fact:
Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute
Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve

10. Gabchikovo - Nagumarous Project (Hungry v Slovenia)

Brief Fact:

In 1977, Hungary and Czechoslovakia entered into a treaty to build and operate various
structures (a reservoir, dam, bypass canal, hydroelectric power plants, and navigational and
flood control improvements) on the Danube River, their shared border. Construction began in
1978 but was not completed. In 1989, both countries experienced major political and economic
changes. New political leadership in both countries expressed concerns over going through with
the projects for environmental and economic reasons. Hungary first suspended its share of the
project in 1989 and later abandoned it. Czechoslovakia began work in 1991 on a new version of
the plan. However, in 1993, Czechoslovakia dissolved into two states, and Slovakia became
independent. Hungary and Slovakia submitted a dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
and requested the court to determine on the basis of international law whether Hungary was
entitled to suspend and then abandon its part of the Danube project. Hungary argued it was
entitled to suspend and abandon due to changed circumstances and impossibility of
performance.

Party to the Treaty, Name of the Treaty, Dispute

Intention of the Treaty
Objective and Purpose
Decision of The Court
Approach TesT/ Principles Involve