Top 20 Landmark Judgements of International Law

 

Top 10 Landmark Judgments of International Law

According to the Oxford Dictionary, the International law refers to the rules, treaties, and agreements which are binding between Nations. In other words, when two or more Nations enter into an enforceable agreement, such an agreement is regarded as international law. The reason why countries sign treaties are that they have the conviction that it would be beneficial to their citizens. International law was conceived in order to promote peace and prosperity across the world. In addition, international law regulates global commons like sustainable development, environment, outer space, international waters, world trade, as well as, global communication.

In view of the above, this article will take a look at the top 19 landmark judgments of international law. So, sit back, relax your mind, and if possible take a cup of coffee while we walk you through these all-important judgments.

 

  1. The West Rand Central Gold Mining Company. v/s The King, 1905

 

FACT OF THE CASE

This is the first landmark judgement on our list. The case was about the petition of right instituted in June 1905 by the West Rand Central Gold Mining Company. The petitioner alleged that in the course of travelling from Johannesburg to Cape Town before the notorious war between the South African Republic and Great Britain which culminated into the death of several persons, two parcels of Gold were confiscated by the South African Republic Authorities. Not too long after the two parcels of gold were seized, the war broke out and Great Britain defeated the South African Republic. The West Rand Central Gold Mining Company in its petition claimed that the responsibility to confiscate any product or goods now falls within the purview of the state of Great Britain.

 

JUDGEMENT

The Divisional Court bench presided over by Lord Alverstone C. J after hearing the petition of the West Rand Central Gold Mining Company ruled that the principle of international law was not in existence making it impossible for a conquered state to be liable to the confiscated gold.

 

  1. Portugal v/s India, 1954

 

FACT OF THE CASE

The case between Portugal Vs India in 1954 is another landmark judgement of international law. In the case, Portugal in 1954 claimed possession of two enclaves in India – Nagar-Aveli and Dadra. In the petition filed by Portugal, the country claimed that it has the right of passage to the two enclaves in its possession in order to exercise its sovereignty. The petition also contended that India prevented it from carrying its statutory duties within the two enclaves, and thus sought the court’s intervention in the case. India, in its affidavit, maintained that the court had no jurisdiction over the case and that the case was unfounded.

 

JUDGEMENT

The court delivered its first judgment relating to jurisdiction on the 26th of November 1957, which was challenged by India. Here, the court rejected four preliminary objections that were raised by India. On the 12th of April 1960, the court delivered its second judgment. The court ruled that Portugal had the right of passage to the two enclaves, but that the right did not cover the Indian armed forces, police, and ammunition.

 

  1. 3. Paqueta v/s Habanna, 1898

 

FACT OF THE CASE

On the 4th of April 1898, two vessels used for fishing named Paquete Habana and the Lola left the Cuban port separately with a mission to fish. The US merchant vessels on the said date captured the two fishing vessels. The move to capture the vessels was sequeled to an order by Admiral William T. Sampson to clamp down on all vessels operating on the waters of Cuba. As of then, the market value of both vessels was $2,000(US). After a thorough search of the vessels, no incriminating items were found. The two vessels were subsequently placed on auctions.

The owners of the vessels approached a circuit court to file an appeal in order for the Navy to release the two vessels. The petitioners contended that during wars, fishing vessels were exempted from the vessels to be captured by the US Navy.

 

JUDGEMENT

The US Supreme Court after hearing the pleas of the petitioners asserted that there was an international law. The court cited legal precedents to deliver its judgement in the case, particularly the case between France and Great Britain in 1403. The court declared that the action of the US Navy was unlawful and then reversed the decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court subsequently ordered the Navy to restore the seize vessels or pay an amount commensurate with the value of the vessels.

 

  1. 4. Jolly George Varghese and Anr. v/s Bank of Cochin, 1972

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, in this case, suffered a decree worth over Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The Bank of Cochin was the holder of the decree. Two other decrees had already been instituted against the appellant which were a net sum of Rs. 7 lakhs. In a bid to execute the decrees, a court of competent jurisdiction issued a warrant under Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code to arrest and detent the appellant in civil prison. The appellant filed an appeal against the court’s decision.

 

JUDGEMENT

The appeal court viewed the case from an international law perspective. It declared that it was against the right to Life and Liberty of the appellant for the lower court to issue a warrant of arrest and detention. The court also contended that the lower court erred in law by leveraging International law to issue the warrant.

 

  1. Bank of Ethiopia v/s National Bank of Egypt and Liquori, May 11, 1937

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

In a bid to dissolve the bank of Ethiopia after Addis Ababa was captured, an Italian decree was promulgated. The Bank of Ethiopia claimed specific orders and accounts against the defendant – The liquidator and the National Bank of Egypt. The National Bank of Egypt was appointed by the Italian decree.

 

JUDGEMENT

The court determined whether the bank or Ethiopia had ceased to exist or has been dissolved. The court then ruled that effect must be given to the decree made by the Italian government since the British government had recognized the Italian government as the de facto government of the area, meaning the area is under the control of the Italian government.

 

 

  1. Luther v/s Sagor (UK), 1921

 

FACT OF THE CASE

The case was brought before the court to establish whether the plaintiff’s company had the right to some quantity of plywood that was imported from Russia by the defendants. The plaintiff, a Russian company into the business of plywood production had approached the court to stop the sale of their plywood that was seized by the Republican Government of Russia without any right to confiscate such goods. The plaintiff in their petition before the court contended that the action of the Republican Government of Russia a day-light robbery since the Republican Government of Russia was not recognized by the Government of His Majesty.

 

JUDGEMENT

The court was to determine whether or not it was illegal to nationalize all the factories producing plywood. The court after considering the case in its merit held that De Facto recognition was interim, particularly when it comes to the internal affairs of a state. The court also ruled that there is no established distinction de jure and de facto recognition in terms of giving effect to a recognized authority’s internal acts.

 

 

  1. The Caroline case, 1837

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

A group of men in 1837 led by William Mackenzie staged a rebellious protest in Upper Canada (Which today is known as Ontario) in a bid to compel the government to be more democratic. The group’s protest was hailed by some citizens of the United States. A steamer known as the Caroline and owned by some American citizens was deployed to convey supplies and men to the Canadian Navy Island from the Niagara River in the US. On the 29th of December, 1837, some persons loyal to the Canadian government crossed over the US side and then loosed the Caroline and set it on fire. One US citizen was killed in the process. Lawyers from the US approached a court for a judicial intervention in the dispute between Canada and the United States.

 

JUDGEMENT

The court was to determine whether or not the United States had the right to self-defense. The court in its wisdom after hearing all the pleas ruled that the petitioner had the right to self-defense only on the following basis;

  • When an attack is launched on a state
  • When the Security Council for International Peace and Security has not taken any action.

 

  1. Island of Palmas Arbitration, 1925

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Palmas is a strategic location which has little or no economic importance. The settlement is 1km in east-west width and 2.6km in north-south length. As of when this case was decided in 1932, the population of this settlement was recorded to be 750. In 1898, the Republic of Spain leveraged the Treaty of Paris (1898) to cede the Philippines to the US. The Palmas area was part of the areas that Spain ceded to the United States. The US in 1906 discovered that the Netherlands also had sovereignty over the Palmas Island. Both countries decided to enter into arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration on the 23rd of January, 1925. All the necessary papers were signed. The agreement was subsequently registered on the 19th of May 1925 at the League of Nations Treaty Series. A Swiss lawyer was the arbitrator in the case

 

JUDGEMENT

The arbitrator was to determine whether Palmas was part of the US or Indonesia since the latter was part of the Netherlands. The arbitrator ruled in favour of the Netherlands.

 

 

  1. Schooner Exchange v/s McFaddon, 1812

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Schooner Exchange on the 27th of October, 1809 sailed from Maryland in the United States to Sebastian in Spain. The ship was owned by the duo of John McFaddon and William Greetham. Then, on the 30th of December 1810, Napoleon Bonaparte ordered the seizure of the Schooner Exchange. The Exchange was subsequently commissioned as a warship in France. Not long after the commissioning, the vessel was docked in Philadelphia due to storm damage. The original owners of the vessel approached the district court, prayed the court to restore their rights to the vessel.

 

JUDGEMENT

The district court after hearing the owners of the vessel’s plea ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case. John McFaddon and William Greetham went on appeal at the circuit court. The circuit court ordered that the court should be returned back to the district court for trial. The case later proceeded to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench presided over by Chief Justice Marshall ruled that a state has exclusive and absolute jurisdiction in its territory. Chief Justice Marshall also noted that a friendly vessel could enter another country’s territory with its consent. To this end, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that leveraging International law, the original owners of the vessel should get back their property.

 

  1. Pakistan Vs India, 1958

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

This list wouldn’t be complete without this case. Two dominions, namely India and Pakistan were established by the Indian Independence Act, 1947. A Boundary Commission was subsequently appointed with a view to determining the two dominions’ boundaries. After the partition by the Boundary Commission, some areas in India became enclaves in eastern Pakistan. Conversely, two areas – Dehagram and Angarpota were also enclaves in India. Following the ensuing confusion, the Prime Ministers of both countries entered boundary disputes agreement in 1958. However, there were doubts about the agreement in certain quarters.

 

JUDGEMENT

The Indian President as of then referred the matter to the Supreme Court in an exercise of his Presidential powers under clause (1), Article 143 of the Indian Constitution. The supreme court bench led by the then Chief Justice of the country held that it amounted to servitude the move which concession three Bigha to Pakistan. The court also added that the concession does not translate to transfer of the territories to Pakistan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here