This article has been written by Ms. Supriya Singh, a third year student of Lloyd law School, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

ABSTRACT

The Corfu channel case is a first case that was presented before the International Court of Justice. This dispute took place between the United Kingdom and the Albania. Corfu is a channel between the United Kingdom and Albania. The two British warships were passing through this channel and a sea mine explosion took place which caused huge damage to the ships as well as lives of the crew members. Primarily this dispute went to the United Nation’s Security Council. Then, a resolution was made by the council by which both the parties were recommended to present this dispute before the International Court of Justice. Many important questions were raised before the court and many significant principles were observed and applied in this case by the judges. The judgment of the court was so accurate and commendable. But there is loophole with the International Court of Justice that its decisions are not binding on the parties of the case.

Due to which Albania saved itself from paying the compensation to the United Kingdom.

 

Court Name:- International Court of Justice.

 

Petitioners:-  1. United Kingdom of Great Britain, and

2. Northern Ireland.

 

Respondent:- Albania

 

Date of Final Judgment:-December 15th, 1949

Bench:-

 President- Guerrero, vice-president- Basdevant, 

Judges- Alvarez, Fabela, Hackworth, Winiarski, Zoricic, De Visscher, Sir Arnold McNair, Klaestad, Pasha Badawi, Krylov, Hsu Mo, Azevedo, Read, M. Ecer, M. Hambro, M. Daxner judge ad hoc.

 

INTRODUCTION

 It was the first case which was dealt by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ). The international Court of Justice was established in 1945 and this dispute was heard by the court in 1947. In the present case, there is a dispute between the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland v.  Albania. The two British ships were passing through the corfu channel and in the mean time the sea mine exploded and caused damage to the ships and many people were killed and injured. This case went to the international Court of Justice and the court ruled in the favor of the United Kingdom, resultant Albania was entitled to pay compensation to the government of United Kingdom but Albania refused to do so.

 

ACTS/PROVISIONS/ CONVENTIONS 

• Articles 36 (paragraph 1) and 40 (paragraph 1), 48, 49, 53 of the Statue of the ICJ.
• Articles 32 (paragraph 2), 54, 68 of the Rules of the ICJ.
• Articles 25, 32, 36 (paragraph 3) of the Charter of the United Nations,
• Articles 3 and 4 of the Hague Convention No. VIII of 1907

 

PRINCIPLE APPLIED– 

The “freedom of maritime communication” is a principle in international law which means an international route must be free from any danger, and the coastal states (if the state which controls the area causes any harm to the other states ships, which is passing through that route, must be responsible for the maintenance of such damage.

 

Principle of right to innocent Passage in Territorial sea- the term innocent passage, refers to a ship, or aircraft’s right to enter, and pass through another’s territory so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the other state.

BRIEF FACT–

Corfu is a channel between the United Kingdom and the Albania. Albania requested the United Kingdom to take their permission before entering into the territorial waters of Albania. In 1946, two warships of British were passing through the Corfu Channel without the permission of Albania and at the same time a sea mine exploded and it caused damage to both the British ships, death of 44 sailors and injury to 42 others. The United Kingdom was claiming a reparation or compensation from Albania for the damages caused. And the same time, Albania claimed that the United Kingdom has violated the sovereignty of Albania as their warships entered into the territorial waters of Albania. This case was brought before the United Nation.  Further on the recommendation of the Security Council, this case was referred to the International Court of Justice. The United Kingdom agreed to this recommendation and filed its application to the registrar of the International Court of Justice. And when the recommendation was made, the government of Albania did not communicate its dissent to the Security Council. The United Kingdom was claiming compensation for the damages caused due to the explosion. Albania has challenged the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and against the claims of the government of the United Kingdom.

 

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE–

 

There were majorly four important questions raised before the Court. These questions were-

1. Whether the court has the jurisdiction to deal with this case?
2. Whether Albania is responsible for the explosions that took place in the waters of Albania and for the damages, and loss of life of the crew members?
3. Whether the United Kingdom violated the sovereignty of Albania by sending warships into the territorial waters of Albania?
4. Whether the Government of Albania is responsible to compensate the government of United Kingdom?

 

CONTENTIONS OF UNITED KINGDOM- 

 

Contention in relation with issue 1- Article 36(1) of the United Nation charter empowers the International Court of Justice to deal with this matter on the four grounds-

1. Under Article 32 of the Charter, the Security Council recommended both the governments (of the United Kingdom and the Albania) to refer the present matter before the International Court of Justice.
2. The government of Albania accepted all the obligations which the United Nation would assume.
3. Article 25 of the Charter states that the members of the United Nation agree to accept the decisions of the Security Council of United Nation. 

Contention in relation with issue 2- 

The government of the United Kingdom contended that the Albania is responsible for the explosions that took place, and for the damages, and loss of life of people on the following grounds-

1. The Albanian government had either caused to laid, or secretly allowed or had the knowledge of the laying of mines in the Corfu Channel.
2. Albanian government had the knowledge that these areas were the part of an international highway and they are used by the shipping of other states.
3. Albanian government did not notified the existence of these mines to the government of United Kingdom. (as required by  The Hague Convention No. VIII, 1907- Articles 3 and 4, by general principles of international law and dictates of humanity).
4. The Albanian Government is responsible for the said damages, injuries and deaths.
5. The Albanian government is under an obligation to compensate to the United Kingdom government.

 

CONTENTIONS  OF ALBANIA-

1. The Albanian government contended that that they had made it clear to the government of the United Kingdom that before entering into the Albanian territorial waters, they have to take the permission of the Albanian Government. But they disregarded this thing and entered without permission into the territorial waters of the Albania.
2. There was happening a political chaos between these two countries and the two British ships were sailing into the waters of the Albania although without the permission, created a threat of national security in the minds of Albanian Government. Hence this explosion was unintentional and not otherwise.
3. The Albanian government had cleared it to the United kingdom that any sweeping carried out of the Albanian Territorial water without its permission would be violation of the national Sovereignty of Albania.
4. The International Central Mine Clearing Board (hereinafter ICMCB) agreed that on the approval of the Albania, there should be another sweep of the English channel. 

Hence it was the mandate from the ICMCB too, that in order to sweep through the Albanian Water territory, the approval of Albania is must. 

 

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT WITH REASONING

The court gave 3 judgments in this present dispute.

First, the court rejects the preliminary objection submitted by the government of Albania and decides that the proceedings shall continue on merits. The objection of Albanian government was rejected on the ground that that when the dispute was presented before the United Nation, the Security Council within its jurisdiction recommendation both the parties to present this dispute before the International Court of Justice (under Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Charter) and the government of Albania also accepted to participate in the discussion related to the dispute (under Article 32 of the Charter). And it did not show its dissent towards this recommendation, when it was communicated to it. Further Article 25 of the Charter makes this recommendation of the Security Council binding on the Albania and United Kingdom.

 

 Secondly, the Court held that Albania was responsible for the explosions that happened in the territorial waters of Albania under the international law. It rejected the idea that Albania had planted the mines on its own and rejected the idea that Albania had colluded with the Yugoslav Navy to plant explosives at Albania’s request. It said that the Albanian government had to have been informed before the mines could have been set. It specifically mentioned that a State’s ability to exercise exclusive control within its borders may make it difficult to provide firsthand evidence of events that fall under its international duty. 

In that instance, a more liberal application of conclusions of fact and circumstantial evidence must be permitted to the State, which is the victim; When such indirect evidence is based on a sequence of facts that are logically connected to one another and lead to a single conclusion, it must be given extra weight. The United Kingdom was judged to have exercised its right of innocent passage in international straits by the Court, which rejected the first of these complaints.

 However, because the minesweeping had been done against the will of the Albanian government, it was determined that this had infringed Albanian sovereignty. Specifically, it rejected the idea of “self-help” put forth by the United Kingdom to support its intervention.

Third, the Court imposed 844,000 pounds on Albania as a compensation for the damages caused due to the explosion. 

  

 

CONCLUSION

This case is based on the international law. It reveals many significant aspects and concepts which is involved in the international law. Many crucial principles and interpretations of the provisions of the United Nations Charter and ICJ rules and statutes were observed in this case. The Judgment made by the Court was accurate and commendable. The lawyers representing the petitioners and the respondent side have made good arguments regarding this dispute and hence they have done a commendable job to defend their clients. This is the first case which was heard by the International Court of Justice. The right to innocent passage was emphasized and observed by the Court. In this case a sea mine exploded and it caused damage to both the warships of the British and many crew members were injured and many crew members died.

This case was decided on merits. The government of United Kingdom proved that Albania was responsible for the damages caused due to sea mine explosion but it could not defend itself from the accusation that it violated the territorial sovereignty of Albania. 

At the end, Albania was held responsible for the explosion that took place in the territorial waters of Albania and the damages it caused. The court imposed 844,000 pounds on the Albania as compensation to the government of United Kingdom. But Albania did not pay the same to the United Kingdom. This is the demerits of the International Court of Justice that its judgments, or decisions and orders are not binding on the parties. The Albanian government was absent in the court and made no submissions at the last date of the judgment.

 

 REFERENCES

• United Nations
• United Nations Treaty Collection
• International Court of Justice
• International Committee of Red Cross
• SCC Online
• University of San Diego
• Cambridge University Press and Assessment
• Oxford Academic
• Institute for National Law and Justice
• Oxford Public International Law
• United Nations Commission on International Law