Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Corfu Channel

    Uploaded by

    Kamugisha Jsh
    This dispute arose from explosions of mines in 1946 that damaged British warships passing through the Corfu Channel in Albanian waters. The UK accused Albania of laying or allowing others to lay the mines. The case was referred to the ICJ after a UN Security Council recommendation. In its first judgment, the ICJ found it had jurisdiction based on Albania's acceptance. In a second judgment, the ICJ found Albania responsible under international law for the explosions and damage, though not for directly laying the mines. It also found the UK violated Albania's sovereignty through unauthorized minesweeping. In a third judgment, the ICJ assessed reparations owed by Albania to the UK.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Corfu Channel

    Uploaded by

    Kamugisha Jsh
    54 views2 pages
    This dispute arose from explosions of mines in 1946 that damaged British warships passing through the Corfu Channel in Albanian waters. The UK accused Albania of laying or allowing others to lay the mines. The case was referred to the ICJ after a UN Security Council recommendation. In its first judgment, the ICJ found it had jurisdiction based on Albania's acceptance. In a second judgment, the ICJ found Albania responsible under international law for the explosions and damage, though not for directly laying the mines. It also found the UK violated Albania's sovereignty through unauthorized minesweeping. In a third judgment, the ICJ assessed reparations owed by Albania to the UK.

    Original Title

    Corfu Channel (1)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This dispute arose from explosions of mines in 1946 that damaged British warships passing through the Corfu Channel in Albanian waters. The UK accused Albania of laying or allowing others to lay the mines. The case was referred to the ICJ after a UN Security Council recommendation. In its first judgment, the ICJ found it had jurisdiction based on Albania's acceptance. In a second judgment, the ICJ found Albania responsible under international law for the explosions and damage, though not for directly laying the mines. It also found the UK violated Albania's sovereignty through unauthorized minesweeping. In a third judgment, the ICJ assessed reparations owed by Albania to the UK.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    54 views2 pages

    Corfu Channel

    Uploaded by

    Kamugisha Jsh
    This dispute arose from explosions of mines in 1946 that damaged British warships passing through the Corfu Channel in Albanian waters. The UK accused Albania of laying or allowing others to lay the mines. The case was referred to the ICJ after a UN Security Council recommendation. In its first judgment, the ICJ found it had jurisdiction based on Albania's acceptance. In a second judgment, the ICJ found Albania responsible under international law for the explosions and damage, though not for directly laying the mines. It also found the UK violated Albania's sovereignty through unauthorized minesweeping. In a third judgment, the ICJ assessed reparations owed by Albania to the UK.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Corfu Channel

    (United Kingdom v. Albania)

    This dispute gave rise to three Judgments by the Court. It arose out of the
    explosions of mines by which some British warships suffered damage while passing
    through the Corfu Channel in 1946, in a part of the Albanian waters which had been
    previously swept. The ships were severely damaged and members of the crew were
    killed. The United Kingdom seized the Court of the dispute by an Application filed on
    22 May 1947 and 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. The case had previously been brought before the United Nations and, in
    consequence of a recommendation by the Security Council, had been referred to the
    Court. In a first Judgment (25 March 1948), the Court dealt with the question of its
    jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application, which Albania had raised. The
    Court found, inter alia, that a communication dated 2 July 1947, addressed to it by
    the Government of Albania, constituted a voluntary acceptance of its jurisdiction. It
    called to mind on that occasion that the consent of the parties to the exercise of its
    jurisdiction was not subject to any particular conditions 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 Judgment (9 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 Albanian waters and for the damage and loss
    of life which had ensued. It did not accept the view that Albania had itself laid the
    mines or the purported connivance of Albania with a mine-laying operation carried
    out by the Yugoslav Navy at the request of Albania. On the other hand, it held that
    the 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. The State which is the victim
    must, in that case, be allowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact and
    circumstantial evidence; such indirect evidence must be regarded as of especial
    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 latter of having violated Albanian sovereignty by
    sending warships into Albanian territorial waters and of carrying out minesweeping
    operations in Albanian waters after the explosions. The Court did not accept the first
    of these complaints but found that the United Kingdom had exercised the right of
    innocent passage through international straits. On the other hand, it found that the
    minesweeping 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
    Judgment (15 December 1949), the Court assessed the amount of reparation owed
    to the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay £844,000 (see Italy v. France,
    United Kingdom and United States).

    _____*_____

    You might also like