Udara Soysa, Attorney-at-Law, BA(Hons), LLB(Hons), PGDHR, MPA(Colombo)
Tel: 077-3235418/E-mail: udara2004@gmail.com
Summaries of the Decisions
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v. Bahrain)
The Court held that the exchange of letters, together with the Doha Minutes, constituted an agreement
between the parties to submit the whole of the dispute to the Courts
[Jurisdiction case / ICJ]
Congo V Uganda
While the Court concluded that there was no credible evidence to suggest that Uganda created the
Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), an irregular force that fought against the DRC
government, it found that Uganda provided training and military support to the MLC. Relying on its
earlier opinion in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United
States of America), the Court affirmed that the principle of non-intervention prohibits a State ?to
intervene, directly or indirectly, with or without armed force, in support of an internal opposition in
another State.
Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo: The ICJ Finds Uganda Acted Unlawfully
and Orders Reparations
[ Use of force case]
Same case summary --- On December 19, 2005, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its final
judgment in the Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of
the Congo v. Uganda). The Court held that the armed activities of Uganda in the Democratic Republic of
Congo (?DRC?) between August 1998 and June 2003 violated the international prohibition against
aggressive use of force as well as international human rights and international humanitarian law. The
Court ruled in favor of Uganda on its counter-claim that the DRC violated obligations owed to Uganda
under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Court ordered Uganda to pay reparations to
the DRC.
Pakistan V India ( Jurisdiction)
ICJ did not have jurisdiction in this case refusing the claim of Pakistan which sought reparation.
Aerial Incident of 1999 (Pakistan Vs India, 1999)
Pakistan had filed a case at the ICJ in 1999 regarding a dispute relating to the destruction of a Pakistani
aircraft by India in 1999. Pakistan contended that the ICJ had jurisdiction in this issue. India on the other
hand contested the jurisdiction of ICJ in the issue saying that Pakistan’s application to the ICJ did not
refer to any treaty or convention in force between the two countries.
Case Concerning the Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan Vs India, 1973)
Pakistan filed a case in the ICJ in 1973 for instituting proceedings against India in the case of the charges
of genocide against 195 Pakistani nationals, prisoners of war or civilian internees in Indian custody.
Decision in 1973: Pakistan had informed the ICJ that both India & Pakistan governments held discussions
and came to an agreement on the issue. Pakistan also informed the court that they are not going ahead
with the proceedings in this case.
Matters can be solved better through negotiation than use of international law
Case About Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal Vs India, 1955)
Portugal filed a case in 1955 at the ICJ claiming that Portugal had a right of passage through the territory
of India to ensure communications between its territory of Daman (coastal Daman) and its enclaved
territories of Dadra and Nagar-Haveli. Portugal argued that this right of passage comprises transit of
persons and goods and passage of representatives & armed forces necessary to exercise the sovereignty
of its territories.
India on its part contended that the events that took place in Dadra on 21 & 22 July 1954 overthrew
Portuguese authority in these enclaves creating tension in the surrounding Indian territory. India further
contended that suspension of passage became necessary because of the abnormal situation in Dadra
and the tension created in surrounding Indian territory.
Decision in 1960: The ICJ did not find fault with India and ruled that India has not acted contrary to its
obligations.
(Merits) This case has various points - the above point is the final judgment of ICJ
Second aspect of that case on CIL -- CIL can exist between two states only. As long as they have the
opinio Juris and state practice.
Libya v Chad
The ICJ ruled that even though one treaty supercedes another, the boundary still remain.
Treaty 1 - Libya and France
Treaty 2 - Lydia and Chad
Treaty 1 boundary remained
(Sources) (ICJ)
Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara - constructive case for SD
Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt (Advisory Opinion)
This case shows that INT organizations have a standing under international law and ICJ can advice on
matters related to international organizations as well
Nuclear test cases PACTA SUND SERVANDA
(NZ v France) and (Australia v France)
Whether an agreement was reached orally or in writing does not make a difference under international
law in terms of pacta sund servanda.
(Sources) (ICJ)
Certain expenses of UN case - UN held to have a personality under international law
PROBLEM 1
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
PROBLEM 2
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
PROBLEM 3
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………
