8/12/2019 The Corfu Channel Case

1/2

THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE (UNITED KINGDOM VS. ALBANIA), 1949 ICJ 4

Facts:

October 1944, the British Navy verified that no mines existed through the North Corfu

Channel in the territory of Albania. The channel was again checked (one in January and theother in February 1945) and had negative results.

October 22, 1946 a squadron of British warships (the Mauritius, Leander, Saumarez, and

Volage) left the port of Corfu and proceeded through the channel. While in Alabanian territorial

waters, two of the warships (Saumarez and Volage) struck floating mines and sustained serious

damage. 44 British officers and crew members died, while 42 were injured.

November 1946, British mine sweepers went through the North Corfu Channel, cut 22

moored mines and took them to Malta for examination. By a Special Agreement, the British

government instituted proceedings against Albania in the International Court of Justice (ICJ),demanding compensation for damage to its ships and for the loss of lives.

Albanias contention is that there was no proof that such mines that damaged the ships

were their own. It also asserted that coastal States have a right to regulate the passage

of foreign ships through its territorial waters, and that prior authorization to pass should be

acquired. Since Britain did not obtain prior authorization, its passage was not innocent. For this

breach of international law, Albania demands compensation from Britain.

Issue:

Should Albania be held responsible for the mines that struck the British warships?

Held:

Yes, Albania is responsible under international law for the damage and loss of lives,

and that it owned a duty to pay compensation to Great Britain. Before and after the incident,

the Albanian Governments attitude showed its intention to keep a jealous wat ch on its

territorial waters. And when the Albania came to know of the minefield, it protested strongly

against the minesweeping conducted by Britain but not to the laying of mines. It is but showing

that Albania desired the presence of such mines. Moreover, the layout of the minefield shows

that this could only be accomplished by stationing a look-out post near the coasts (that is in

Albania). The inevitable conclusion is that the laying of the minefield could not have been done

without the knowledge of Albania. It is then its duty to notify and warn ships proceeding

through the Strait. Its failure to undertake such constitutes neglect of its international

8/12/2019 The Corfu Channel Case

2/2

responsibility .As to the argument on passage through territorial waters, the ICJ ruled that the

North Corfu Channel constituted a frontier between Albania and Greece, that a part of it is

wholly within the territorial waters of these 2 States, and that the Strait is of special importance

to Greece. Hence, the Channel belongs to a class of international highways through which

passage cannot be prohibited by a coastal State in time of peace. Moreover, the passage ofthe British war ships through the Channel was carried out in such manner that is consistent

with the principle of innocent passagethe guns were in a normal position and not targeted to

the shores.