PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

CASE NO - 1

NAME OF THE CASE : The Asylum Case
PARTY : (Columbia Vs Peru,ICJ 1950)
FACT OF THE CASE :
                                   In this case,Haya De La Torre was a Peruvian citizen and also a Political leader.He was charged with rebellion in 1948.Columbia granted him Asylum,in her embassy,at Lima on 3^rd January,1949 in Peru.After granting asylum,Ambassador of Columbia requested Peruvian Government to provide facility to enable Columbia to take Haya De La Torre outside Peru.This request was made on the basis of Bolivian Agreement ,1911 and Pan American Havana Convention on Asylum 1928.Columbia contended that asylum was granted because Haya De La torre was accused of a political crime.Peru did not agree with this contention and rejected this request.

FACT IN ISSUE :
                                 - Was it was a political crime?
                                 - Was the Government of Columbia has the authority or power to give Asylum?
JUDGEMENT :
The International Court of Justice held that,”Columbia as the state granting asylum is not competent to qualify the offence (as political) by a unilateral and definitive decision, binding Peru.”However the court held that,Peru had failed to prove that Haya De La Torre was accused of an ordinary crime,and not a political crime.The court added that,asylum to Haya De La Torre had been irregularly granted because three months had passed after the suppression of the military rebellion which clearly showed that the urgency prescribed by Havana Convention as a condition for the granting of asylum had ceased to exist.But since Haya De La Torre was a political offender the court held that despite the fact that asylum had been irregularly granted,Columbia was not bound to surrender Hay De La Torre.
RELATED MATERIALS : ASYLUM,Classification of INTL.Act,Material Test of sources of INTL.Law.          

CASE NO-2

NAME OF THE CASE-Cuttng Case.(1886)
PARTY:USA Vs MEXICO
FACT OF THE CASE:
                                   Mr Cutting was a person who had published defamatory statement about a Mexican citizen on a newspaper that was published fromTexas.Then some of the copies of that newspaper had come to Mexico and some citizens of that country saw it.That published statement was a criminal offence under the Mexican Penal Code under section 184.Then after some days when Mr.Cutting went to Mexico for enjoying his vacation then the police of Mexico had arrested him.But then USA argued that Mr.Cutting is the citizen of USA and Mexico has no Locus standi to take action against Mr.Cutting.But Mexico stated that,though the statement published by Mr.Cutting is hampered to a citizen of their country then in accordance wit the Passive Nationality Principal Mexico has the right to take necessary actions against Mr.Cutting.

FACT IN ISSUE :    
                                 -Whether Mexico can take action against Mr.Cutting or USA will?
JUDGEMENT :   
But USA was strongly against the claim of Mexico.The decision of this case was not known because the claimant side had withdrawn their objections and their was no true ending of this case.


RELATED MATERIALS :  
This case stated the Statement of USA about the Passive nationality Principal and showed that USA has strongly opposite side of that Passive nationality Principal.But 100 years later,for their own benefit USA has changed their side and they are strongly argue on the side of Passive Nationality principal in USA Vs. Yunis Case. 

CASE NO – 3

NAME OF THE CASE - North Sea Continental Shelf Cases.
PARTY OF THE CASE - (Federal Republic of Germany Vs Denmark & Netherland,ICJ,1969)
FACT OF THE CASE-  
                                   In this case,Germany did a treaty with Netherland in 1964 and another treaty with Denmark in 1965.The subject of these treaties were to fix their continental shelf on the basis of principal equi-distance.But after that,they face problems to fix their territorry in North Sea Continental Shelf amoung them.For that reason the states went to the International Court of Justice to fix their problems about fixing their trritorry in North Sea Continental Shelf.Though the facts were same in both the cases,then the Court gave decision about these cases in a single trial.
Fact In Issue:

                 -Was Germany bound to maintain the Geneva Convention’s article 6 which is based on Principal Equi-distence,(because Germany was not it’s party) ?
                 -If Germany is not bound to maintain it then which convention will take place to solve the problem?

JUDGEMENT :
The Court held that,the problem will not be solved on the basis of ‘Principalof Equidistance’(claimed by Netherland and Denmark) because Germany had not ratified the Geneva Convention(1958) so Germany is not bound to maintain the convention’s rules.Then the court invented another Principal and told to solve the problem on the basis of that principal and it was ‘Equitable Principal’.

RELATED PRINCIPALS : SOURCES OF INTL.LAW.

CASE NO -4
NAME OF THE CASE : USA Vs. Yunis (1988).
PARTY OF THE CASE : United States of America and Mr. Yunis.
FACT OF THE CASE :
This case was related among three countries named Lebanon, America and Jardan.the fact of the case is,Mr.yunus was a citizen of Lebanon and he once hijacked a plane of Jardan.After many days, when he came to America, then the Govt. of America had arrested him and started a trial against him to give him punishment for hijacking that palne.but mr. Yunis argued that,though the plane was belonged to Jardan and Jardan has the authority to take action against him considering the PASSIVE NATIONALITY PRINCIPAL.but America argued that ,among the passengers,there were some USA citizens and they were really mentally harmed by the incident of hijacking.So,they have the right also to start trial and give punishment against him.
JUDGEMENT:
 Then the court of USA had given Mr.Yunis, punishment.
NOTE : Though USA is the opposite side of Passive Nationality Principal,by this case we can see how they turned to that side to the favour of passive nationality principal only for their benefit.
RELATED MATERIALS : Nationality Principle.

CASE  NO-5
NAME OF THE CASE : BHOPAL GAS LEAK DISASTER CASE.
PARTY OF THE CASE : GOVT. OF INDIA VS.U.C.C.(BHOPAL) CORP;(1987).
FACT OF THE CASE :
In this case, United Carbide Corporation (U.C.C.),which was a multinational company and their main branch was in USA.There is a branch of them at Bhopal in India, which was the main criminal of the Gas Explosion that was being taken place in 1984 at Bhopal. For their recklessness, it was happened and for that explosion many people had died and many were injured and being seriously harmed.
The explosion was too much bad that the Govt. of India had taken that matter seriously and claimed compensation of that explosion on behalf of the harmed people. They had passed an act named Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (processing of claims), ACT, 1985.On the authority of that act, the govt. of India claimed compensation on behalf of the citizens of India and file a case in South District Court snd its judge was John F.Keenan to get high compensation.They file this case on 8^th April,1985 against U.C.C.But the judge said that the place of occurrence is at Bhopal in India so that the Bhopal court is the best place to file this case and run this case.
JUDGEMENT  :
Bhopal court has given a decision that U.C.C. has to pay 3900 Crore Rupee as a compensation.And in accordance with the judgement ,Bhopal District Court is sentenced to install 350 Crore rupee as Installation Fee.U.C.C. then appealed in the High court and there the compensation money is being decreased to 250 Crore Rupee.Then U.C.C. appealed to supreme court and the supreme court decreased the compensation money to 470 million dollar and complete the procedure.
RELATED MATERIALS : 
Nationality principals

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 10^th 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 22^nd October, Britain removed mimes from that channel of Albania and produce it as a save channel of shipping communication.

In 22^nd October 1946, two Britain War ships destroyed while crossing that channel by mine explosion and some crews were died.

In 12 and 13^th 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.