Scribd
Upload
46 views1 page

US vs. Great Britain

The United States claimed that Canada incorrectly interpreted a treaty between the two nations from 1818. Canada seized an American fishing vessel for allegedly violating the treaty. The US sought damages, arguing the seizure was wrongful based on Canada's erroneous treaty interpretation. The issue was whether an international tribunal determines how treaty provisions are interpreted. The tribunal held that it has a duty to interpret treaties from an international perspective, not defer to one party's unilateral interpretation. While Canada's court did not err, unilateral interpretations are not binding on the other party.

Uploaded by

lmcarandang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
46 views1 page

US vs. Great Britain

The United States claimed that Canada incorrectly interpreted a treaty between the two nations from 1818. Canada seized an American fishing vessel for allegedly violating the treaty. The US sought damages, arguing the seizure was wrongful based on Canada's erroneous treaty interpretation. The issue was whether an international tribunal determines how treaty provisions are interpreted. The tribunal held that it has a duty to interpret treaties from an international perspective, not defer to one party's unilateral interpretation. While Canada's court did not err, unilateral interpretations are not binding on the other party.

Uploaded by

lmcarandang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

U.S. vs.

Great Britain

Citation. Cims. Arbitration under Special Agreement of August 18, 1910, 1921, Nielsen
Rep. 526. 6. U.N.R.I.A.A. 85.

Brief Fact Summary. According to the United States (P), the interpretation given to the
Treaty of London of 1818 by the Canadian government was not correct.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The determinations, from an international perspective of how


the provisions of a treaty are to be interpreted and applied to the facts are the duties of
an international tribunal.

Facts. In the Treaty of London of 1818, the United States (P) agreed that its citizens
would not fish in Canadian (D) waters. Precisely in 1886, an American fishing schooner
was seized by Canadian (D) authorities for allegedly violating the Treaty. After finding that
the vessel had indeed violated the Treaty and Canadian legislation, A Canadian (D) court
condemned the vessel.
Based on this judgment, the United States (P) sought damages from the British
government (D) on the grounds that the seizure of the schooner was wrongful based on
an erroneous interpretation of the Treaty. Britain (D) however posited that the Arbitral
Tribunal was not competent to re-examine the Canadian (D) court’s interpretation.

Issue. Is it the duty of an international tribunal to determine, from an international


perspective, how he provisions of a treaty are to be interpreted and applied to the facts?

Held. Yes. The determination, from an international perspective, of how the provisions of
a treaty are to be interpreted and applied to the facts is the duties of an international
tribunal. The unilateral interpretation of a bilateral contract by one party is not binding on
the other party. The fact that the international was given by legislative or judicial authority
does not make it enforceable on the other party.

Discussion. The Tribunal found that the Canadian (D) did not err in its interpretation.
Some courts have held that unilateral interpretations of treaties have only an advisory
effect. Others opine that such interpretations are to be seen as amendments to the treaty.

You might also like