PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL LAW
M. Ahsan Habib , Faculty of Law
Case No: 07
Name of the Case: Luther vs. Sager
(King’s Bench Division, Court of Appeal, 1921)
Party of the Case: Luther vs. Sager
(1921).
Fact of the Case:
The claimant of this case as a British citizen. In Russia, there were
machineries’ and he had a Timber Industry. In 1917, After the Rush Rebellion,
the Soviet Govt. in an official
Gazette declared that, Luther’s industry will be the property of Soviet
Russia and Nationalism. Luther then made the society clear about Nationalism.
Luther in that time went to Britain.
In 1920, Soviet state trade agency had made a contract with British Wood
Businessman Sager. According to that treaty, trade agency sends their timber to
Britain. When those
timbers reached Britain, Luther went to
the court said that those and timbers were his companies timber, which came
from Russia. Russian Govt.
captured his timbers illegally. So, his property, self owned property, should
give to him. Then he also mentions about. The Britain had not given
recognition to Soviet Russia. So, the customs of Russia will not
applicable in Britain.
Fact in Issue:
-Was Luther entitled to have his timbers
back?
-If that is not
possible would he be receiving any compensative?
Judgment:
In this Case, the lower court has given the
decision, after considering the facts, to Luther that he should receive his
timber back. But the defendant Sager appealed against this decision and then it
came to the fact that, in1921. Britain recognized
incompletely, Soviet Russia. For that, the King’s Bench Division, Court of
Appeal gives the judgment on this side of the defendant Sager. Because after
semi-recognizing a state, Britain has no right to
say anything about that states acquisition of property. Here Recognitions
Retrospective effect was taken place.
Case No: 08
Name of the Case: Reparations Case
(ICJ, 1949).
Party of the
Case: UN vs. Israel.
Fact of the Case:
In, 1948, a person named Bernadette who was working as a mediator of
United Nation in Palestine, was died by
shoot. After this Incident, United Nations on behalf of that person, as an
appointing agency, claimed compensation from Israel at ICJ. And file a
case.
Fact in Issue:
-Being an organization, has United Nations any authority to file a case
against any state for compensation?
Judgment:
To give decision of this case, Court mentioned the support of the world
community to from UN and the spared working of UN and held that, if the legal
status of UN will not it will be a taken
any consideration then it’s working power will be revoked and un-realistic thing. Though UN is not equals to state, it
has its own legal status.
So, United Nations has the focus standing to claim compensation in
International Court of Justice.
Case No: 09
Name of the Case: Russia Ship Case.
Party of the
Case: USSR vs. USA, US Federal Court,
1948.
Fact of the
Case:
This Case is related to a ship named by Russia. In that Russian
ship, there were to American citizen. The ship was crossing the Atlantic Ocean to reach New York. But on the way, a
storm started and there was so much storming wind in the Ocean and the ship was
shaking heavily. For that, two American female citizens were fall down and
wounded themselves. When the ship reached to New York, they file a case
against that ship and claim compensation. They also ask for ceasing the ship so
that the ship could not leave the port before completing the trial process.
Fact in Issue:
-Immediately then New York’s Soviets
Consulate Communicate with US state department
and inform that the ship
Named “Russia” is a state
property and for this reason acquisition of state property and the ship will be
contrary to the International law.
Judgment:
The Federal Court of America held that though the ship is the property
of Soviet state and it is under the sovereign authority of Russia, Acquisitions
of much ship is not possible, America has no power to do that and told to free that ship immediately.
Case No: 10
Name of the Case: The Scotia Case.
Party of the Case :( USA vs. UK; Supreme Court of USA, 1871)
Fact of the Case:
In this case, the British Parliament has passed an act to avoid clashes
between water vehicles and ships in open sea at night and it is to use lights
as a preventive and secquritive matter. On that time Us Congress has also
passed an act which is same as that of UK. Gradually, many
states had taken such acts passed by their law house and those all were
Domestic Decision. Then in 1871, a British ship named Scotia had clash with an USA ship named Berkshire. Berkshire was not using any
light on their ship. Then Berkshire had sunk and also
some crews were died. The products were also very much damaged. Then Berkshire, in want of
compensation, files a case against Scotia.
Fact in Issue:
Were the ships duty and action being treated in accordance with the act
which had run as normal sea act would be in action?
Judgment:
The Case held that, Berkshire would not receive
any compensation. The court also added that, this case will be treated by
international customs and use of lights in ships at night is now an international
custom then Berkshire had broken the International law by not
using any light in ship at night. So, it will not receive any compensation.
Case No: 11
Name of the Case: Chorzow Factory Case.
Party of the Case: (Germany Vs. Poland, PICJ, 1928).
Fact of the Case:
This Case is about a treaty between Germany and Poland after the First
World War. In this treaty, it had held that, in Upper Silesia, which was an island of Poland, there Germany authority would be
served and there were some German companies and they would not be ceased. But Poland broke the treaty
and had declared two German Companies ceased in Upper Silesia. Then Germany file a case
against Poland in PCIJ.and blamed
that, Poland having made the
treaty and also broke the treaty and harm to their property heavily.
Fact in Issue:
-Did Poland have any
International duty?
-The Cessations of those two companies in Upper Silesia. Then is it a
giving of compensation.
-For breaking any law or customs, is compensation is necessary?
Judgment:
PCIJ has ceased two companies of Germany and that reason is
far.
Case No: 12
Name of the Case: Lotus Case
Party
of the Case: (France vs. Turkey, PCIJ, 192)
Fact of the Case:
In this Case a French ship named Lotus and
a Turkey ship Boz Kourt had
a clash with at clash, each other in the open sea. For that clash, Boz Kourt
Sank and some crews died. After that when Lotus reached in Istanbul, Turkey arrested Demos, a
crew of that ship and also captured the ship Lotus and also ask to pay
compensation.
Then France told Turkey to free the ship
Lotus but Turkey refused to make
the ship free. Then they started the trial in Turkish Court.
Fact in Issue:
-Does Turkey have any authority
to trial this case?
Judgment:
The International Court of Justice held that, France and Turkey both the states have the authority
to trial this case and Turkey have done no wrong to make this case trial in
their court.
The court again held that in different circurnstances, Flag state has
the extreme authority to judge the case but it does not mean that, a state has
no focus standing to judge a crime made by its citizens on its territory.
Case No: 13
Name of the Case: Fijens Case or
Wildenhus
Party of the
Case: Fijiens vs. Wildenhus (U.S.C., 1887)
Fact of the
Case:
In this Case, Belgium and USA was two parties. A
ship named “Nurland” which was a ship of Belgium. There
Mr.Wildenhus was a crew of that ship; he killed another crew named Fijens, when
the ship was in Newgercy Port. The Federal Court
of USA make the person wildenhus feel guilty and the police of Newgercy
arrested him and cease the ship.
Mr. Cherries Mali was the consulate of Belgium in New York. He applied for of
Habeas Corpus and mentioned that, International law and Belgium-US Consular
Convention of 1880, Act 11,after considering both only the Flag state has the
right to contingence that crime. So, USA has no right to
consider the crime.
Fact in Issue:
-Was USA has the authority to consider any crime and start the trial
procedure if any Belgium ship is acquired in the Port of USA when the crime had
formed?
Judgment:
The Court says that USA can take necessary actions against the crime.
Though in Customary sense, if any crime formed into any ship, then the flag
state has the extreme authority to take necessary action to punish the
criminal. But, these type of crime is a matter of threat to the peace, security
and other environmental matters, the ported state, also has the authority to
trial such case.
Case No: 14
Name of the Case: The Temple of the
Preah Vihear Case.
Party of the
Case: Cambodia vs. Thailand, ICJ, (1967)
Fact of the
Case:
This Case was being started to fix the border territory of Thailand and
Cambodia. Preah Vihear was a very ancient and historical heritage. This Vihear
was situated on the border area of Thailand and Cambodia. In 1904, Cambodia
(The Upanibesh of France) and Thailand border area were divided by a treaty
between France and Thailand. In that treaty, the considered border areas were
divided and after that France and siamij Commission had produced the Map of
those countries. There, Though, mistakenly, but specifically the vihear was
showed in the territory of Cambodia. Then the copy of that Map was produced to
Thailand but they had told no objection about that matter. They approved the
Map and asked for some more copies. Thai-Prince was visited the place within some
days and had been watching Flag of France was waving on the top of that Vihear,
he said nothing.
The problem started when UNESCO has declared the Vihear as an ancient
important and historical heritage, and give huge quantity of million dollars
for the maintains of that Vihear. Then Cambodia told that, Vihear was belonged
to them and it was mistakenly attached in the Map of Cambodia. But Cambodia
retained their supreme authority.
Fact in Issue:
-Was the claim of that Vihear will be applicable to Thailand?
Judgment:
When this Case has come to the
International Court of Justice, then the Court held that, for many days,
Thailand had not claimed the Vihear and the sovereignty of Cambodia was
retained peacefully, then the Vihear will be the state territorial object of
Cambodia.
Case No: 15
Name of the Case: Eastern Greenland
Case, 1933.
Fact of the Case:
From 1721, The Sovereignty of Denmark is sustained upon Greenland. The
problem was started from 1931 and date was 10th July, when with the
Royal Proclamation, Norway declared the East area of Greenland terraunllius and
they said that part of Greenland was in Flag of Norway. But Denmark claimed the
state as in their sovereign authority because after the First World War, the
Victories Friendly side’s states give their consent and give Greenland to
Denmark where the Foreign Minister of Norway had also given his consent. They
also claimed that, they were ruling this Greenland for many years and the
sovereignty of Denmark had retained there for many days, they have the legal
status of that Greenland and they showed their reflection of sovereignty over
Greenland. Denmark asks for PCIJ to judge the matter.
Fact in Issue:
-Which country is in possession?
-Which country has the legal status?
In Greenland, In Favor of Denmark there is 10 votes and opposite receive
2 votes. So, it is showed that Denmark has the supreme authority over
Greenland.
Greenland, Which is under the supreme territory of Denmark and only the
Norway is the whole place is in the supreme territory of Denmark, is it
reflected?
Judgment:
Then Denmark had given their papers and proving things to PCIJ Denmark
give evidence about following matters.
1. Upto 1931, no state claimed their share about that part.
2. Because of Greenland’s land position it is not possible continuous
possession but Denmark has taken many necessary steps related to the executive
and legislature, which was applicable to whole Greenland.
3. Other states treaties also recognize Denmark’s sovereignty over
Greenland.
4. When Norway waved their Flag, Denmark raised their objection at that
point,
So, Denmark has the sovereign power to control the Greenland.
Case No: 16.
Name of the Case: Confu Channel Case.
Party of the Case: UK vs. Albania, ICJ, 1949
Fact of the Case:
In this Case, Confu-Channel was
the area (North) between Greece and Albania. In 1946, before 22nd
October, Britain removed mimes from that channel of Albania and produce it as a
save channel of shipping communication.
In 22nd October 1946, two Britain War ships destroyed while
crossing that channel by mine explosion and some crews were died.
In 12 and 13th October 1946, Britain Navy Soldiers remove
mines from that channel without taking any permission from Albania. Then they claimed
compensation from Albania and they discharge the claim.
Fact in Issue:
-Was Albania has to pay the compensation and was they are to be claimed
party?
Judgment:
Albania was held to be a guilty
party because the Explosion of mines and loss of materials and also for the
loss of life, Albania is to be guilty. Because this Confu Channel is an
International Channel and everybody as well as War ships can pass through this
channel. So, it was the duty of Albania to prepare the channel for the welfare
of communication through water. They has told or published anything to prevent
the explosion for the betterment of people.
The Court sentenced to give, Britain a money of 843,947 pound, to
Albania.
Case No: 18
Name of the Case: Professor. Nurul
Islam vs. Govt. of Bangladesh.
Party of the Case: Nurul Islam, Govt.
of Bangladesh.
Fact in Case:
In 1999 the world famous cigarette producer “British American Tobacco”
company invited the voice of Discovery publishing of the gold leaf in
Bangladesh. For the betterment of the youngest generation Mr. Prof. the
Chairman of (ADUNIK) who works for prevention of smoking, made a writ of
petition in the high court for stopping the publicity of the voice of discovery
in Bangladesh.
Fact in Issue:
In absence of any statutory law. Can the court give a decree against the
voice of discovery?
Decision:
The learned Judges gave their decision; the govt. shall not undertake or
encourage any premedical ventures likes’ voyage of discovery and those shall be
strictly prohibited.
Case No: 19
Name of the Case: The Alabama claims
Award, 1872
Party of the Case: U.S.A, U.K
Fact of the Case:
In American Internal War (1861-1865), Britain declared it’s neutral. But
in this War time many War ship made in British of confederate Navy. America ambassador
is Britain said to U.K Govt. is that, this ship used against U.S.A and he
request to solution about it, but they can’t take any solution according logic
of they are neutral. At last ship used against U.S.A on their home War and
hampered many things. The most danger ship was “Alabama” which made in
Liverpool. After the War U.S.A said, U.K is liable for this damages, but U.K
they have no liability about that, because they are neutral. This went for
Arbitration.
Fact in Issue:
-Is U.K failed to do its duty under Washington treaty?
Decision:
There a Principal of International law situated that, by breach of any
treaty the party who fall too hampered has right to get compensation.
Related Principles:
Treaty.
