The International Court of Justice (ICJ), established in 1945, serves as the main judicial organ of the UNO, resolving disputes between states and shaping international law through landmark cases like the Corfu Channel case, which established principles of state responsibility and innocent passage.The International Court of Justice (ICJ), that was established in the year 1945. So, the ICJ is one of the main organs of the UNO. It serves as the main judicial organ of the UNO. Its primary role is to resolve disputes between states by international law, or under international law, and to provide advisory opinions on some legal questions that may be referred to it by the United Nations and other international bodies. So, more than 80 years have gone by. Over the years, the ICJ has significantly influenced the development of international law by adjudicating cases involving territorial disputes, human rights, environmental protection, and diplomatic immunity. So, in this respect, I am telling you that the International Court of Justice is not the first international forum. So, before it, the League of Nations created the PCIJ, that was the Permanent Court of International Justice, that was established in 1920, and that had been in existence until the formation of the International Court of Justice. So, the Permanent Court of International Justice was the predecessor of the ICJ, and the ICJ is the successor of that PCIJ. So, since its formation, the ICJ has been delivering some important judgements that shape international law. The first important ruling of the ICJ was the Corfu Channel case that was decided between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland versus Albania. So, Albania is a tiny, poor state of Europe. So, while that case was decided by the ICJ, the United Kingdom of Great Britain happened to be a major power of the world. So, this dispute gave rise to three judgements by the ICJ. It arose out of the explosion of mines by which some British warships suffered substantial damage while passing through the Corfu Channel in 1946 in a part of the Albanian waters, which had been previously swept. So, we all know that the sea water of any sea or ocean is part of a sovereign state. In other words, the sovereign state can exercise its jurisdiction over that water. So, there are international charters on it. The British ships were severely damaged, and members of the crew were killed. The United Kingdom approached the International Court of Justice by an application that was filed on 22nd May 1947, and Britain accused Albania of having laid, or allowed a third state to lay, the mines after mine clearing operations had been carried out by the Allied naval authorities. Though the World War Two officially ended in 1945 in Europe after the surrender of Nazi Germany, but the bitter and battle war was fought in Europe, and that Mediterranean region was heavily mined to prevent any Nazi ships to enter, or the Italian ships were not allowed to enter. That's why that channel was heavily mined. So, mine means, so mines are like bombs, and if any ship collides with those mines, it causes a massive explosion, and the result is the sinking of that ship. The case had previously been brought before the United Nations, and in consequence of a recommendation by the Security Council, that had been referred to the Court. At that time, Britain was one of the main members of the Security Council. In a fourth judgement rendered on 25th March 1948, the ICJ dealt with the question of its jurisdiction and admissibility of the application, which Albania had raised. The Court found, inter alia, that a communication dated 2nd July 1947 addressed to it by the Government of Albania constituted a voluntary acceptance of its jurisdiction. That means Albania had accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ. It recalled on that occasion that the consent of the parties to the exercise of jurisdiction was not subject to any particular condition of form, and stated that at that juncture it could not hold to be irregular a proceeding not precluded by any provision in those texts. A second judgement that was decided on 9th April 1949 related to the merits of the dispute. The Court found that Albania was responsible under international law for the explosions that had taken place in the Albanian waters and for the damages and loss of lives which had ensued. It did not accept the view that Albania had itself laid the mines or the purported connivance of Albania with mine-laying operations carried out by the Yugoslavian navy at the request of Albania. On the other hand, it held that mines could not have been laid without the knowledge of the Albanian government. On that occasion, it indicated in particular that the exclusive control exercised by a state within its frontiers might make it impossible to furnish direct proof of facts incurring its international responsibility. So, every sovereign state has some responsibilities under international law. The state which is the victim must in that case be allowed a more liberal recourse to interference of the facts and circumstantial evidence. Such indirect evidence must be regarded as of special weight when based on a series of facts linked together and leading logically to a single conclusion. Albania for its part had submitted a counter-claim against the United Kingdom. It accused the United Kingdom of having violated Albanian sovereignty by sending warships into Albanian territorial waters and of carrying out mine-sweeping operations in Albanian waters after the explosion. The Court did not accept the first of these complaints but found that the United Kingdom had exercised the right of innocent passage. One of the important principles under international law is innocent passage through international straits. On the other hand, it found that the mine-sweeping had violated Albanian sovereignty because it had been carried out against the will of the Albanian government. In particular, it did not accept the notion of self-help asserted by the United Kingdom to justify its intervention. In a third judgement rendered on 15th December 1949, the Court assessed the amount of compensation, which is known as reparation, that was owed to the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay 844,000 British pounds. So, Albania was held responsible for that explosion, though that explosion had occurred within the territorial waters of Albania, and Albania was a sovereign state. But every state has some responsibility under it because when the mines are laid on its water, so that is always dangerous. So, a state has to accept responsibilities. Of course, the British mine-sweeping operation exceeded its jurisdiction because Britain, without obtaining the consent of Albania, had entered into Albanian waters and went for that mine-sweeping operation. But the International Court rightly held that though that mine-sweeping operation by the UK navy had violated Albanian sovereignty because that was done against the will of the Albanian government, but still the Court ruled that Britain had exercised the right of innocent passage through that international strait. So, basically, we must not forget that the waters up to certain nautical miles, though that falls within the jurisdiction of a particular state, but still in exceptional cases, the innocent passage is allowed. So, to some extent, I believe that Britain had exceeded its jurisdiction, but nevertheless, Albania was held accountable for that explosion which killed several British sailors. So, that judgement was the first major judgement pronounced by the International Court of Justice, and the rulings of the ICJ are the main sources of international law.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more