LAW REPORTS INTERNATIONAL - Assetsassets.cambridge.org/97811070/59092/frontmatter/... ·...

Cambridge University Press978-1-107-05909-2 — International Law ReportsEdited by Elihu Lauterpacht , Christopher Greenwood , Karen Lee FrontmatterMore Information

www.cambridge.org© in this web service Cambridge University Press

INTERNATIONAL

LAW REPORTS

Volume 164

www.cambridge.org/9781107059092

www.cambridge.org



Volumes published under the title:

ANNUAL DIGEST AND REPORTSOF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW CASES

Volumes published under the title:

INTERNATIONAL LAW REPORTS

Vol. 1 (1919-22)Vol. 2 (1923-24) g Edited by Sir John Fischer Williams, KC,

and H. Lauterpacht, LLD

Vol. 3 (1925-26)Vol. 4 (1927-28) g Edited by Arnold D. McNair, CBE, LLD,

and H. Lauterpacht, LLD

Vol. 5 (1929-30)Vol. 6 (1931-32)Vol. 7 (1933-34)Vol. 8 (1935-37)Vol. 9 (1938-40)Vol. 10 (1941-42)Vol. 11 (1919-42)Vol. 12 (1943-45)Vol. 13 (1946)Vol. 14 (1947)Vol. 15 (1948)Vol. 16 (1949)

Edited by H. Lauterpacht, QC, LLD, FBA

9

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

=

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

;

Vol. 17 (1950)Vol. 18 (1951)Vol. 19 (1952)Vol. 20 (1953)Vol. 21 (1954)Vol. 22 (1955)Vol. 23 (1956)

Edited by Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, QC, LLD, FBA

Vol. 24 (1957) Edited by Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, QC, LLD, FBA,and E. Lauterpacht

Vol. 25 (1958-I)Vol. 26 (1958-II) g Edited by E. Lauterpacht, QC

Vols. 27-68 and Consolidated Tables and Index to Vols. 1-35 and 36-45Edited by E. Lauterpacht, QC

Vols. 69-150 and Consolidated Index and Consolidated Tables of Casesand Treaties to Vols. 1-80, Vols. 81-100and Vols. 1-125

Edited by Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, CBE, QC,and Sir Christopher Greenwood, CMG, QC

Vols. 151-64 Edited by Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, CBE, QC, LLD,Sir Christopher Greenwood, CMG, QC,and K. L. Lee

9

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

=

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

;


www.cambridge.org



Lauterpacht Centre for International Law

University of Cambridge

INTERNATIONALLAW REPORTS

VOLUME

164

Edited by

SIR ELIHU LAUTERPACHT, cbe, qc, lldHonorary Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge

Bencher of Gray’s Inn

SIR CHRISTOPHER GREENWOOD, cmg, qcJudge of the International Court of Justice

Bencher of Middle Temple

and

KAREN LEEFellow of the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge

Vice-Mistress and Fellow of Girton College, Cambridge

G R O T I U S P U B L I C A T I O N S


www.cambridge.org



University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of

education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.

www.cambridge.org

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107059092

© Cambridge University Press 2016

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place without the written

permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2016

Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd. Padstow Cornwall

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.

ISBN 978-1-107-05909-2 Hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy

of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication

and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,

accurate or appropriate.


www.cambridge.org



CONTENTS

Preface vii

Page

Editorial Note ix

Table of Cases (alphabetical) xiii

Table of Cases (according to courts and countries) xv

Digest (main headings) xvii

Digest of Cases Reported in Volume 164 xix

Table of Treaties xxxi

Reports of Cases 1

Index 669

v


www.cambridge.org



PREFACE

The present volume contains the 2012 Advisory Opinion of theInternational Court of Justice in Judgment No 2867 of the Adminis-trative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Com-plaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Developmenttogether with the related judgments of the ILO Administrative Tribu-nal. International jurisprudence is further reflected in decisions fromthe Court of Justice of the European Communities (Commission v.Belgium), the European Court of Human Rights (Lautsi v. Italy) andthe United Nations Human Rights Committee (Choudhary, Al-Gertaniand X v. Denmark). The volume also contains national decisions fromthe courts of Australia (Ure), England (Hassan, Wilhelm Finance Inc.,Croatia v. Serbia, Al Hassan-Daniel and Assange (Nos 1 and 2)), Jersey(La Générale des Carrières) and the United States (Chabad, Chafin,Kiobel and Bond).

The Editors are particularly grateful to Ms Ellie Fogarty, whosummarized the cases from the Court of Justice of the EuropeanCommunities, the European Court of Human Rights, the UnitedNations Human Rights Committee, England, Jersey and the UnitedStates, and has thus made an enormous contribution to this volume.They also wish to thank Mr David McKeever for summarizing theInternational Court of Justice’s IFAD Advisory Opinion and therelated judgments of the ILO Administrative Tribunal and Mr ChesterBrown for his summary of the Australian case. Our thanks also go toProfessor Gerald L. Neuman for supplying the text of the UnitedNations Human Rights Committee Views. Ms Maria Netchaeva, thenew ILR Editorial Assistant, prepared the Tables of Cases and Digestand provided invaluable assistance. Miss Maureen MacGlashan, CMG,compiled the Table of Treaties and the Index, Mrs Diane Ilott checkedthe copy and Mrs Jenny Macgregor read the proofs. Ms Karen Lee sawthe volume through the press.

vii


www.cambridge.org



Finally, we would like to extend our thanks to all the others whohave worked to complete this volume, particularly our publishers,Cambridge University Press, and typesetters, SPi Technologies IndiaPvt Ltd, and their staff.

E. LAUTERPACHTLauterpacht Centre

for International Law,University of Cambridge

C. J. GREENWOODThe Peace Palace,The Hague

K. L. LEELauterpacht Centre for

International Law,University of Cambridge

October 2015

viii PREFACE


www.cambridge.org



EDITORIAL NOTE

The International Law Reports endeavour to provide within a singleseries of volumes comprehensive access in English to judicial materialsbearing on public international law. On certain topics it is not alwayseasy to draw a clear line between cases which are essentially ones ofpublic international law interest and those which are primarily applica-tions of special domestic rules. For example, in relation to extradition,the Reports will include cases which bear on the exception of “politicaloffences” or the rule of double criminality, but will restrict the numberof cases dealing with purely procedural aspects of extradition. Similarly,while the general rules relating to the admission and exclusion of aliens,especially of refugees, are of international legal interest, cases on theprocedure of admission usually are not. In such borderline areas, andsometimes also where there is a series of domestic decisions all dealingwith a single point in essentially the same manner, only one illustrativedecision will be printed and references to the remainder will be given inan accompanying note.

Decisions of International TribunalsThe Reports seek to include so far as possible the available decisions ofevery international tribunal, e.g. the International Court of Justice, orad hoc arbitrations between States. There are, however, some jurisdic-tions to which full coverage cannot be given, either because of the largenumber of decisions (e.g. the Administrative Tribunal of the UnitedNations) or because not all the decisions bear on questions of publicinternational law (e.g. the Court of Justice of the European Union). Inthese instances, those decisions are selected which appear to have thegreatest long-term value.

Human rights cases. The number of decisions on questions ofinternational protection of human rights has increased considerablyin recent years and it is now impossible for the Reports to cover themall. As far as decisions of international jurisdictions are concerned, theReports will continue to publish decisions of the European Court ofHuman Rights and of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, aswell as “views” of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.Decisions of national courts on the application of conventions onhuman rights will not be published unless they deal with a major pointof substantive human rights law or a matter of wider interest to public

ix


www.cambridge.org



international lawyers such as the relationship of international law andnational law, the extent of the right of derogation or the principles ofthe interpretation of treaties.

International arbitrations. The Reports of course include arbitralawards rendered in cases between States which involve an applicationof public international law. Beyond this, however, the selection ofarbitral decisions is more open to debate. As these Reports are princi-pally concerned with matters of public international law, they will notinclude purely private law commercial arbitrations even if they areinternational in the sense that they arise between parties of differentnationality and even if one of them is a State. (For reports of a numberof such awards, see Yearbook Commercial Arbitration (ed. Albert Jan vanden Berg, under the auspices of the International Council for Com-mercial Arbitration).) But where there is a sufficient point of contactwith public international law then the relevant parts of the award willbe reported. Examples of such points of contact are cases in which thecharacter of a State as a party has some relevance (e.g. State immunity,stabilization clauses, force majeure) or where there is a choice of lawproblem involving discussion of international law or general principlesof law as possible applicable laws. The same criteria will determine theselection of decisions of national courts regarding the enforcement ofarbitral awards.

Decisions of National TribunalsA systematic effort is made to collect from all national jurisdictionsthose judicial decisions which have some bearing on international law.

Editorial Treatment of MaterialsThe basic policy of the Editors is, so far as possible, to present thematerial in its original form. It is no part of the editorial function toimpose on the decisions printed in these volumes a uniformity ofapproach or style which they do not possess. Editorial intervention islimited to the introduction of the summary and of the bold-letterrubric at the head of each case. This is followed by the full text ofthe original decision or of its translation. Normally, the only passageswhich will be omitted are those which contain either statements of facthaving no bearing on the points of international law involved in thecase or discussion of matters of domestic law unrelated to the points ofinternational legal interest. The omission of material is usually indi-cated either by a series of dots or by the insertion of a sentence in squarebrackets noting the passages which have been left out.

x EDITORIAL NOTE


www.cambridge.org



Presentation of MaterialsThe material in the volume has been typeset for this volume. Thesource of all such material is indicated by the reference to the “Report”in square brackets at the end of the case. The language of the originaldecision is also mentioned there. The bold figures in square brackets inthe body of the text in non-English cases indicate the pagination of theoriginal report.

NotesFootnotes. Footnotes enclosed in square brackets are editorial insertions.All other footnotes are part of the original report.

Other notes. References to cases deemed not to be sufficientlysubstantial to warrant reporting will occasionally be found in editorialnotes either at the end of a report of a case on a similar point or underan independent heading.

Digest of CasesWith effect from Volume 75 the decisions contained in the Reports areno longer arranged according to the traditional classification scheme.Instead a Digest of Cases is published at the beginning of each volume.The main headings of the Digest are arranged alphabetically. Undereach heading brief details are given of those cases reported in thatvolume which contain points covered by that heading. Each entry inthe Digest gives the name of the case concerned and the page reference,the name of the tribunal which gave the decision and an indication ofthe main points raised in the case which relate to that particularheading of the Digest. Where a case raises points which concern severaldifferent areas of international law, entries relating to that case willappear under each of the relevant headings in the Digest. A list of themain headings used in the Digest is set out at p. xvii.

Consolidated Index and TablesA Consolidated Index and a Consolidated Tables of Cases and Treatiesfor volumes 1-80 were published in two volumes in 1990 and 1991.A further volume containing the Consolidated Index and ConsolidatedTables of Cases and Treaties for volumes 81-100 was published in1996. A Consolidated Index, a Consolidated Tables of Cases and aConsolidated Table of Treaties for volumes 1-125 were published in2004. Volume 160 contains Consolidated Tables of Cases for volumes126-160.

EDITORIAL NOTE xi


www.cambridge.org



TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDALPHABETICAL

(Cases which are reported only in a note are distinguished from cases which arereported in full by the insertion of the word “note” in parentheses after the page numberof the report.)

Al Hassan-Daniel and Another v. Revenueand Customs Commissioners (JUSTICEIntervening) 451

Al-Gertani v. Bosnia and Herzegovina(Communication No 1955/2010) 261

Application for Execution of Judgment Nos2867 and 3003 Filed by SG (SG v.IFAD) (Judgment No 3152) 134

Application for the Suspension of theExecution of Judgment No 2867 Filedby the International Fund forAgricultural Development (SG v. IFAD)(Judgment No 3003) 18

Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority(Nos 1 and 2) 461, 568 (note)

Bond v. United States 624

Chabad v. Russian Federation 570Chafin v. Chafin 579Choudhary v. Canada (Communication

No 1898/2009) 234Commission of the European Communities

v. Belgium (Case C-437/04) 144Croatia (Republic of) v. Republic of Serbia

429

Execution of Judgment Nos 2867 and 3003Filed by SG (SG v. IFAD) (Judgment No3152), Application for 134

Hassan v. Secretary of State for Defence 391

ILO Administrative Tribunal Judgment No2867 1

ILO Administrative Tribunal Judgment No2867 upon a Complaint Filed against

the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment [ICJ] 37



International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment (Advisory Opinion) 37

Judgment No 2867 [ILO AdministrativeTribunal] 1

Judgment No 2867 of the AdministrativeTribunal of the International LabourOrganization upon a Complaint Filedagainst the International Fund forAgricultural Development (AdvisoryOpinion) [ICJ] 37



Kiobel v. Royal Dutch PetroleumCo. 596

La Générale des Carrières et des Minesv. FG Hemisphere AssociatesLLC 347

Lautsi and Others v. Italy (ApplicationNo 30814/06) 176

R (Hassan) v. Secretary of State for Defence391

SG v. International Fund forAgricultural Development(Judgment No 2867) 1

xiii


www.cambridge.org



Suspension of the Execution of JudgmentNo 2867 filed by the InternationalFund for Agricultural Development(SG v. IFAD) (Judgment No 3003),Application for 18

Ure v. Commonwealth of Australia 304

Wilhelm Finance Inc. v. EnteAdministrador del Astillero Rio Santiago407

X v. Denmark (Communication No 2007/2010) 286

xiv TABLE OF CASES


www.cambridge.org



TABLE OF CASES REPORTEDARRANGED ACCORDING TO COURTS ANDTRIBUNALS (INTERNATIONAL CASES) AND

COUNTRIES (MUNICIPAL CASES)

(Cases which are reported only in a note are distinguished from cases which arereported in full by the insertion of the word “note” in parentheses after the page numberof the report.)

I. DECISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS

Court of Justice of the European Communities

2007Commission of the European Communities

v. Belgium (Case C-437/04) 144

European Court of Human Rights

2011Lautsi and Others v. Italy (Application No

30814/06) 176

International Court of Justice

2012Judgment No 2867 of the Administrative

Tribunal of the International LabourOrganization upon a Complaint Filedagainst the International Fund forAgricultural Development (AdvisoryOpinion) 37

International Labour OrganizationAdministrative Tribunal

2010SG v. International Fund for Agricultural

Development (Judgment No 2867) 1

2011Application for the Suspension of the

Execution of Judgment No 2867 Filedby the International Fund forAgricultural Development (JudgmentNo 3003) 18

2013Application for Execution of Judgments

Nos 2867 and 3003 Filed by SG(Judgment No 3152) 134

United Nations Human Rights Committee

2013Al-Gertani v. Bosnia and Herzegovina

(Communication No 1955/2010) 261Choudhary v. Canada (Communication

No 1898/2009) 234

2014X v. Denmark (Communication No 2007/

2010) 286

xv


www.cambridge.org



II. DECISIONS OF MUNICIPAL COURTS

Australia

2015Ure v. Commonwealth of Australia and

Director of National Parks 304

Jersey

2012La Générale des Carrières et des Mines v.

FG Hemisphere Associates LLC 347

United Kingdom, England

2009Regina (Hassan) v. Secretary of State for

Defence 391Republic of Croatia v. Republic of Serbia

429Wilhelm Finance Inc. v. Ente

Administrador del Astillero Rio Santiago407

2010Al Hassan-Daniel and Another v. Revenue

and Customs Commissioners (JUSTICEIntervening) 451

2012Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority

(Nos 1 and 2) 461, 568 (note)

United States of America

2013Chabad v. Russian Federation and Others

570Chafin v. Chafin 579Kiobel and Others v. Royal Dutch

Petroleum Co. and Others 596

2014Bond v. United States 624

xvi TABLE OF CASES


www.cambridge.org



DIGEST OF CASESList of Main Headings

(Those headings for which there are entries in the present volume are printed in italics.For a guide to the Digest, see the Editorial Note at p. xi.)

Air

Aliens

Arbitration

Canals

Claims

Comity

Conciliation

Consular Relations

Damages

Diplomatic Relations

Economics, Trade and Finance

Environment

Expropriation

Extradition

General Principles of International Law

Governments

Human Rights


International Criminal Law

International Organizations

International Tribunals

Jurisdiction

Lakes and Landlocked Seas

Nationality

Recognition

Relationship of International Law andMunicipal Law

Reprisals and Countermeasures

Rivers

Sea

Sources of International Law

Space

State Immunity

State Responsibility

State Succession

States

Territory

Terrorism

Treaties

War and Armed Conflict

xvii


www.cambridge.org



DIGEST OF CASESREPORTED IN VOLUME 164

ClaimsPage

Order for surrender of property held by foreign State— Failure tocomply with court order — Inherent contempt power of UnitedStates federal courts — Civil contempt sanctions — Non-compliance with order to be demonstrated with reasonablecertainty to warrant contempt sanctions — United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia

Chabad v. Russian Federation and Others 570

Extradition

European Convention on Extradition, 1957 — European UnionFramework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Extradition Act 2003 —

Issue of European Arrest Warrants — Meaning of (issuing)“judicial authority” — Whether public prosecutor an issuing“judicial authority” — Validity of European Arrest Warrantissued by a public prosecutor — Vienna Convention on theLaw of Treaties, 1969 — Presumption that United Kingdomlegislating in conformity with its international obligations —

Rebuttal of presumption with clear parliamentary intent —

Pupino not binding on United Kingdom courts — Pepper v.Hart principle concerning scrutiny of parliamentary material incases of ambiguous primary legislation — United Kingdom,Supreme Court

Assange v. Swedish Prosecution Authority (No 1) 461

Human Rights

Asylum — Admissibility of author’s communication to HumanRights Committee — Consideration of merits — Whether StatesParties ensuring the extension of Covenant rights to all personswithin their territories without distinction — Prohibition ontorture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment orpunishment — Entitlement of all persons to a fair and publichearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunalestablished by law — Right to freedom of thought, conscienceand religion — Whether Article 18 engaging obligation of non-refoulement — Whether any non-refoulement obligation under

xix


www.cambridge.org



Human Rights (cont.)

Article 18 being absolute or subject to limitations —

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966,Articles 2, 7, 14 and 18 — Remedy for violation — UnitedNations Human Rights Committee

X v. Denmark 286

Jurisdiction — Whether exclusively territorial — Conditions forextraterritorial jurisdiction — Detention of civilian during armedconflict in foreign State — Transfer of detainees by a detainingState to responsibility of a second State—Duty of detaining Stateto conduct inquiry into alleged human rights abuses — EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 1 — Obligationto respect human rights — Convention not universallyapplicable — Jurisdiction — Territorial jurisdiction —

Extraterritorial jurisdiction — Extraterritorial application ofConvention only in exceptional circumstances — England,High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Regina (Hassan) v. Secretary of State for Defence 391

Property rights — Customary international law — Whether aprivate individual can obtain proprietary rights under customaryinternational law in terra nullius through occupation — Whethera State acquiring sovereignty over terra nullius must recognize andgive effect to subsisting property rights under customaryinternational law — Australia, Federal Court

Ure v. Commonwealth of Australia and Director of National Parks 304

Right to education — Freedom of thought, conscience andreligion — Article 2 of Protocol No 1 to European Convention,1952 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article9 — Freedom not to have a religion — Secularism — Duties inadministration of education extending to school environment —Duty of State to respect rights of parents to ensure education andteaching in conformity with their religious and philosophicalconvictions — “Respect” creating positive obligation forStates — Secular views as “convictions” — Pluralism —

Neutrality and impartiality — Duty to abstain fromindoctrination — Convention not conferring right not to beoffended — Margin of appreciation — Crucifix as religious,historical and cultural symbol — Passive symbols not “teaching”— Tradition — Proportionality — Competing interests ofparents and society — Lack of consensus between Member

xx DIGEST OF CASES


www.cambridge.org



States — Whether presence of crucifixes in State schoolclassrooms interfering with applicants’ right to freedom ofreligion — Whether Italy violating Article 2 of Protocol No1 and Article 9 of European Convention on Human Rights,1950 — European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)

Lautsi and Others v. Italy 176

Right to life — Prohibition of torture — European Conventionon Human Rights, 1950, Articles 2 and 3 — Obligations onStates — Damages for breach — Claims for breach —

Standing — Who constitutes a victim — Causation claims —England, Court of Appeal

Al Hassan-Daniel and Another v. Revenue and CustomsCommissioners 451

Right to life — Prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman ordegrading treatment or punishment — Right to liberty andsecurity of person — Whether States Parties ensuring theextension of Covenant rights to all persons within their territorieswithout distinction—Whether arrested persons being informed ofreasons for arrest— Entitlement of persons deprived of their libertyto challenge lawfulness of detention before a court — Whetheralien lawfully within the territory of a State Party being expelled inpursuit of a decision reached in accordance with law— All personsequal before courts and tribunals — Entitlement to a fair andpublic hearing by a competent, independent and impartialtribunal established by law — Prohibition on arbitrary orunlawful interference with privacy, family and home —

Recognition and protection of the family as the natural andfundamental group unit of society — Right of every child to suchmeasures of protection as are required by his status as a minor —International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966,Articles 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, 23 and 24 — Remedy forviolation — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Al-Gertani v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 261

States Parties to ensure Covenant rights are extended to all personswithin their territories without distinction — Right to life —

Prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatmentor punishment— Right to liberty and security of person— Alienlawfully within the territory of a State Party to be expelled only inpursuit of a decision reached in accordance with law — Allpersons equal before courts and tribunals — Prohibitionon arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family and

DIGEST OF CASES xxi


www.cambridge.org



Human Rights (cont.)

home — Recognition and protection of the family as naturaland fundamental group unit of society — Right of every childto such measures of protection as are required by his status as aminor — Committee not to examine factual assessments denovo — International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1966, Articles 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 17, 23 and 24 — Remedy forviolation — United Nations Human Rights Committee

Choudhary v. Canada 234


Advisory jurisdiction — International staff cases — Challenge tojudgment of International Labour Organization AdministrativeTribunal — Stay of execution of judgment pending opinion —

International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal

Application for the Suspension of the Execution of JudgmentNo 2867 Filed by the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment 18

Advisory jurisdiction — Scope and nature of jurisdiction —

Discretion of Court not to reply to request — InternationalLabour Organization Administrative Tribunal — Statute ofTribunal providing for challenge to judgments of Tribunal byway of request for advisory opinion — Whether contrary toprinciple of equality of arms — Whether appropriate for Courtto respond to request — International Court of Justice

Judgment No 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of theInternational Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filedagainst the International Fund for Agricultural Development 37

International Organizations

Personality — Legal capacity — Capacity to enter intocontracts — Arrangements whereby one organization hosted byanother — Modalities of hosting arrangement — Employment ofstaff members — Global Mechanism of the United NationsConvention to Combat Desertification — Arrangement forhosting by International Fund for Agricultural Development —Whether Global Mechanism a separate entity — InternationalLabour Organization Administrative Tribunal

SG v. International Fund for Agricultural Development(Judgment No 2867) 1

xxii DIGEST OF CASES


www.cambridge.org



Personality — Legal capacity — Capacity to enter intocontracts — Arrangements whereby one organization hosted byanother — Nature of hosting arrangements — Employment ofstaff members — Global Mechanism of the United NationsConvention to Combat Desertification, 1994 — Arrangementfor hosting by International Fund for Agricultural Developmentrequest — International Court of Justice


Staff — Appeals mechanism — International LabourOrganization Administrative Tribunal — Execution ofjudgments — Refusal by international organization to complywith earlier judgments — Award of interest for late payment —Award of moral damages — Imposition of penalties for anyfurther delays — International Labour OrganizationAdministrative Tribunal

Application for Execution of Judgments Nos 2867 and 3003Filed by SG 134

Staff — Appeals mechanism — International LabourOrganization Administrative Tribunal — Provision for challengeto judgment of the Tribunal by request to International Court ofJustice for advisory opinion — Request for suspension ofexecution of judgment pending opinion — Admissibility ofrequest — Powers of the Tribunal in the absence of expressprovisions in statute — Impossibility of tribunal assessingsoundness of its own judgments — Imbalance in rights of theparties — International Labour Organization AdministrativeTribunal

Application for the Suspension of the Execution of JudgmentNo 2867 Filed by the International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment 18

Staff members— Appeals— International Labour OrganizationAdministrative Tribunal — Jurisdiction — International Fundfor Agricultural Development — Acceptance of jurisdictionof Tribunal — Whether extending to complaints broughtby persons employed to work on programme of body hostedby Fund — Challenges to Tribunal judgments — Challenge by

DIGEST OF CASES xxiii


www.cambridge.org



International Organizations (cont.)

means of request for advisory opinion of International Court ofJustice— Binding character of opinion request— InternationalCourt of Justice


Staff members — Appeals — International Labour OrganizationAdministrative Tribunal — Jurisdiction — International Fund forAgricultural Development — Acceptance of jurisdiction ofTribunal — Whether extending to complaints brought by personsemployed to work on programme of body hosted by Fund —

Complainant offered position by IFAD to work as programmeofficer with Global Mechanism of the United Nations Conventionto Combat Desertification — Whether staff member of IFAD —

Redundancy — Decision not to renew contract — Grounds forchallenge — Excess of authority — Procedure — InternationalLabour Organization Administrative Tribunal

SG v. International Fund for Agricultural Development (Judg-ment No 2867) 1

Jurisdiction

Extraterritoriality — United States domestic law — Alien TortStatute 1789 — The law of nations — Causes of action —

Application to violations of specific, universal and obligatoryinternational norms only — Violation of safe conduct,infringements of rights of ambassadors, and piracy — Presumptionagainst extraterritorial application of statutes — Rebuttal ofpresumption against extraterritorial application — Clearcongressional intent for extraterritorial application required torebut presumption — Whether generic terms such as “any” and“every” sufficient to connote intended extraterritorial application—Whether use of term “tort” and transitory tort doctrine rebuttingpresumption — Comity — Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain — Universaljurisdiction — Whether claims touching and concerning UnitedStates with sufficient force to displace presumption — Whethercorporate presence alone sufficient — Circumstances for finding ofjurisdiction— United States Supreme Court

Kiobel and Others v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Others 596

xxiv DIGEST OF CASES


www.cambridge.org



Justiciability — Non-justiciability — Abstention of Englishcourts from adjudicating on transactions of foreign States —

Interpretation of unincorporated treaties beyond theinterpretative jurisdiction of English courts — Exceptions —

Protective measures to maintain status quo — England, HighCourt (Chancery Division)

Republic of Croatia v. Republic of Serbia 429

Subject-matter jurisdiction — Personal jurisdiction overdefendants — Merits — United States Constitution — Powerof federal courts restricted to cases and controversies — Litigantmust have suffered or been threatened with injury traceable todefendant — Dispute must be live at time of courts’consideration — Parties must have concrete interest inoutcome — Circumstances under which cases moot —

Availability of partial remedy — Whether rescuing case frommootness — United States Supreme Court

Chafin v. Chafin 579

Territorial — Extraterritorial jurisdiction — EuropeanConvention on Human Rights, 1950 — Extraterritorialapplication of Convention in exceptional circumstances only —

Effective control of relevant territory — Activities of consularagents abroad, on vessels or in military facilities — Actsproducing effects in or performed outside Contracting States’territory — England, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)


Relationship of International Law and Municipal Law

Act of State — Justiciability — Dismemberment of States —

Rights, obligations, liabilities and assets of successor States —

Dismemberment of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —

Agreement on Succession Issues, 2001 — Justiciability in Englishcourts — England, High Court (Chancery Division)


Jurisdiction — Claims in courts of one State for alleged violationsof international law in the territory of another State — Alien TortStatute 1789 — United States Supreme Court

Kiobel and Others v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Others 596

DIGEST OF CASES xxv


www.cambridge.org



Relationship of International Law and Municipal Law (cont.)

Justiciability of international law issue in municipal courts— Actof State doctrine — Whether mere allegations of an act of Staterendering a matter non-justiciable— Australia, Federal Court

Ure v. Commonwealth of Australia and Director of NationalParks 304

State Immunity Act 1978 — Section 14 — States entitled toimmunities and privileges— Section 12— Service of process andjudgments in default of appearance — England, High Court(Queen’s Bench Division)

Wilhelm Finance Inc. v. Ente Administrador del Astillero RioSantiago 407

Treaties — Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and onTheir Destruction, 1993— Scope and application—War crimesand acts of terrorism — United States domestic law — UnitedStates Constitution 1787 — Tenth Amendment 1791 —

Federalism — Balance of powers between Federal Governmentand states — Police power of states — Chemical WeaponsConvention Implementation Act 1998 — Section 229 —

Definition of “chemical weapons” — Interpretation of definedterms — Application of express definition or use of ordinaryreading — Intrusion of Federal Statute on traditionalresponsibilities of states — Scope of treaty power — Principlethat a constitutional question will not be considered if a case canbe otherwise disposed of — Clear congressional intent requiredfor a Federal Statute to abrogate state responsibilities— Commonlaw assault— Treaty power to be applied to matters of intercoursebetween nations — Whether treaty power applicable to purelydomestic matters — Scope of “necessary and proper” clause —

United States Supreme Court

Bond v. United States 624

Treaties — European Community — EC Treaty, 1957 andProtocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EuropeanCommunities, 1965 — Obligations of Member States ofEuropean Community under the EC Treaty and Protocol —Order of the Region of Brussels Capital of 23 July 1992 —

Court of Justice of the European Communities (First Chamber)

Commission of the European Communities v. Belgium 144

xxvi DIGEST OF CASES


www.cambridge.org



Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 —

Human Rights Act 1998 — Criminality defence — Applicationof common law defences to Convention claims — England,Court of Appeal

Al Hassan-Daniel and Another v. Revenue and CustomsCommissioners 451

Treaties — Interpretation — European Union FrameworkDecision 2002/584/JHA — Extradition Act 2003 — UnitedKingdom, Supreme Court


Treaties — United States domestic law — United StatesConstitution — International Child Abduction Remedies Act1988 — Child custody — Abrogating Bekier v. Bekier —

United States Supreme Court


United States domestic law — Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act1976 — Courts’ deference to alleged risks to foreign policyinterests — When appropriate — United States District Court,District of Columbia


State Immunity

Enforcement — Separate entities — Trendtex Trading test —

Applicability of Trendtex Trading test to issues of enforcementand liability — Distinction between States and separate legalentities — Liability of State-owned entities for debts of State —Lifting corporate veil — State Immunity Act 1978 — Jersey,Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

La Générale des Carrières et des Mines v. FG HemisphereAssociates LLC 347

Sanctions — Whether foreign State immune from civil sanctionsfor contempt of court — Whether issue comparable to immunityfrom jurisdiction or immunity from execution — Foreign Statedeclining to take part in proceedings following dismissal ofjurisdictional objection — Judgment in default — Foreign Statefailing to comply with judgment in default — United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia


DIGEST OF CASES xxvii


www.cambridge.org



State Immunity (cont.)

State Immunity Act 1978—Meaning of “a State” and “a separateentity” — Separate entities capable of suing and being sued, anddistinct from the executive organs of government — Acta jureimperii and acta jure gestionis — Whether creation of entity by aState indicative of entity being organ of that State— Relevance ofintent of State in creating entity — Whether status and separatelegal personality under entity’s home State’s law decisive —

Significance of entity’s constitution, functions, powers andactivities — Whether hierarchical dependence on ExecutivePower, and need for Executive Power to act as guarantor for entityin bank guarantees indicative of entity’s status as organ of State—Service out of jurisdiction — Substituted service — Whetherpermissible— England, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Wilhelm Finance Inc. v. Ente Administrador del Astillero RioSantiago 407

State Succession

Dissolution of States — Dismemberment of Socialist FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia — Successor States — Succession toassets and liabilities of SFRY — Whether justiciable in Englishcourt — England, High Court (Chancery Division)


States

State-owned corporations — Separate identity — Whether assetsof State-owned corporation subject to attachment to enforce debtdue from the State — Relationship to State immunity — Liftingcorporate veil — Presumption that separate identity of juridicalentity established by State will be respected in relation to its andthe State’s liabilities — When an entity to be regarded as Stateorgan — Function and control — Nature of “governmental acts”— Distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis —Status of entity as separate or organ of State to be considered inthe round — Circumstances justifying assimilation of States andseparate legal entities for all purposes — Jersey, JudicialCommittee of the Privy Council

La Générale des Carrières et des Mines v. FG HemisphereAssociates LLC 347

xxviii DIGEST OF CASES


www.cambridge.org



Territory

Acquisition of sovereignty — Islands — Whether internationallaw permitting acquisition of sovereignty over terra nullius by anindividual — Whether State acquiring sovereignty over territoryobliged to recognize existing private ownership — Australia,Federal Court

Ure v. Commonwealth of Australia and Director of NationalParks 304

Treaties

EC Treaty, 1957— Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities ofthe European Communities, 1965 — Vienna Convention onDiplomatic Relations, 1961 — Application andinterpretation — Court of Justice of the EuropeanCommunities — Member States of European Community —

Obligations on Member States under EC Treaty andProtocol — Article 3 of the Protocol — Fiscal immunity —

Communities’ immunity from direct and indirect taxes —

Whether Article 3 prohibiting direct taxes on persons who mightcontract with the Communities and pass on all or part of their taxliabilities to the Communities — Article 13 of the Protocolrelating to liabilities of servants of the Communities only —

Vienna Convention applicable to inter-State relations only —

Court of Justice of the European Communities (First Chamber)

Commission of the European Communities v. Belgium 144

Interpretation—Object and purpose—Hague Convention on theCivil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 1980—Object andpurpose— Country of habitual residence— Return orders— Re-return orders— Power of District Court to reverse return order—Necessity of expediting orders — Conditions for granting stays —Best interests of child— United States Supreme Court


Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,1969 — Subsequent practice of the parties — United Kingdom,Supreme Court


Nature — Memorandum of Understanding — Whether legallybinding — England, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)


DIGEST OF CASES xxix


www.cambridge.org



War and Armed Conflict

Occupation — Military intervention — Effective control overterritory or area of a second State — Iraq following militaryintervention in 2003 — Prisoners of war — Civilians —

Detention — Memorandum of Understanding betweenAustralia, United Kingdom and United States — England, HighCourt (Queen’s Bench Division)


xxx DIGEST OF CASES


www.cambridge.org



TABLE OF TREATIES

This table contains a list, in chronological order according to the date ofsignature, of the treaties referred to in the decisions printed in the presentvolume. It has not been possible to draw a helpful distinction between treatiesjudicially considered and treaties which are merely cited.

In the case of bilateral treaties, the names of the parties are given inalphabetical order and references to the texts of treaties have been supplied,including wherever possible at least one reference to a text in the Englishlanguage unless these are known to be included in the Flare Index to Treatiesavailable at http://ials.sas.ac.uk/treatyindex.htm. Multilateral treaties, allincluded in the Flare Index, are referred to by the name by which they arebelieved commonly to be known

1920Feb. 20 Svalbard [Spitsbergen] Treaty (2 LNTS 8; UKTS 18 (1924);

140 ILR 563 (extracts); 164 ILR (extracts)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333-7

Dec. 16 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)Art. 34(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112-14

1945June 26 Charter of the United Nations

Chapter XIVArt. 96(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Art. 96(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 61

June 26 Statute of the International Court of JusticeChapter II

Art. 34(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112-14, 117-20Art. 38(1)(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341-2

Chapter IIIArt. 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132-3

Chapter IVArt. 65. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Art. 65(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Art. 65(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142Art. 66(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-8Art. 66(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-8Art. 66(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-8

xxxi


www.cambridge.org



1947Nov. 21 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized

Agencies of the United Nations (SAPIC)Art. 2(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

1950Nov. 4 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms, First Protocol (20 March 1952)Art. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177, 182, 196-219, 223-33

1951July 28 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva

Convention)Chapter VArt. 33. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300-3

1957Mar. 25 Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community

(Treaty of Rome) (as amended by the Treaties of Amsterdam andNice) (EC) (numbers shown in square brackets indicate originaltreaty numbers)

Art. 10 [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162, 169Art. 34(2)(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469-568Art. 226 [169] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145, 152, 166, 539Art. 291 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

Dec. 13 European Convention on Extradition. 476-81, 484-5, 486, 488,543-4, 549

Art. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478Art. 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543-4Art. 12(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478-9Art. 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543-4Art. 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479, 482-3Art. 16(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501-3, 518-19, 549

1961Apr. 18 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR)

Art. 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154, 158, 165-7, 169-70Art. 23(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145-6Art. 23(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145-6, 156, 168

Dec. 2 International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties ofPlants

Art. 24(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

xxxii TABLE OF TREATIES


www.cambridge.org



1965Mar. 18 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between

States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61-2

Apr. 8 Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission ofthe European Communities (Merger Treaty)Art. 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150-2, 165-8Art. 28(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the EuropeanCommunities

Art. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144-5, 149-75Art. 13. . . . . . . . . 145-6, 150, 156, 159-60, 164, 169, 174-5Art. 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150, 154, 162, 164

1966Dec. 16 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

Art. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 238, 243, 246-7, 254Art. 2(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 257-60, 271Art. 2(3)(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285Art. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 238, 240-1, 242-3, 250-2, 262-3,

265, 270, 272-3, 275-6, 279-80, 300-1, 303Art. 6(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 255, 257-60Art. 7 . . . 235-6, 238, 240-1, 242-3, 250-2, 255, 257-60, 262-3,

265, 270, 275-6, 279-80, 287, 289, 293-5, 297, 300-1, 303Art. 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 238, 240-1, 243, 246-7, 262-3Art. 9(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 255, 258, 265, 280-2, 284-5Art. 9(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265, 280-5Art. 9(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265, 280-5Art. 13 . . 235-6, 238, 241, 243, 246-8, 254-5, 257-8, 262-3,

265, 271-3, 279-80Art. 14 . . . . . 235-6, 238, 241, 243, 246-8, 254-5, 257-8, 265

271-3, 279-80, 287, 289, 297-8Art. 14(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59, 235-6, 262-3Art. 17 . . . 235-6, 238, 242, 254-5, 265, 271-3, 280-1, 283-5Art. 17(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 262-3, 283-4Art. 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287, 289, 292-8, 300-3Art. 23 . . . . . . . . 235-6, 238, 242, 254-5, 271-3, 280-1, 283-5Art. 23(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 262-3Art. 24 . . . 235-6, 238, 242, 252, 254-5, 271-4, 280-1, 283-4Art. 24(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235-6, 262-3Art. 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271-4, 280

Dec. 16 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, OptionalProtocol (First)Art. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297-8Art. 5(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255, 281, 298

TABLE OF TREATIES xxxiii


www.cambridge.org

LAW REPORTS INTERNATIONAL - Assetsassets.cambridge.org/97811070/59092/frontmatter/... ·...

Documents

Transcript of LAW REPORTS INTERNATIONAL - Assetsassets.cambridge.org/97811070/59092/frontmatter/... ·...