sland of Las Palmas Case (US v.

Netherlands) Eritea-Yemen
Facts. Both the United States (P) laid claim to the The State of Eritrea and the Republic of Yemen both
ownership of the Island of Palmas. While the U.S. (P) claimed sovereignty over a group of islands in the
maintained that it was part of the Philippines, the Red Sea and disagreed as to the location of their
Netherlands (D) claimed it as their own. The claim of maritime boundary. The Arbitration Agreement,
the U.S. (P) was back up with the fact that the islands between the Parties dated October 3, 1996, required
had been ceded by Spain by the Treaty of Paris in the Tribunal to rule on these two issues in separate
1898, and as successor to the rights of Spain over the stages.
Philippines, it based its claim of title in the first place
on discovery. On the part of the Netherlands (D), they In its award in the first stage dated October 9, 1998,
claimed to have possessed and exercised rights of
Object 1

the Tribunal found that neither Party made a

sovereignty over the island from 1677 or earlier to the significantly more convincing case for ownership of
present. any of the islands based on ancient title, as argued
Issue. Can a title which is inchoate prevail over a by Yemen, or a succession of title, as asserted by
definite title found on the continuous and peaceful Eritrea. After reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal
display of sovereignty? decided that Eritrea had sovereignty over the
Mohabbakhs, the Haycocks, and the South West
Held. (Huber, Arb.). No. A title that is inchoate cannot Rocks, because of their proximity to the Eritrean
prevail over a definite title found on the continuous mainland. The Tribunal found Yemen to be
and peaceful display of sovereignty. The peaceful and sovereign over the Zubayr group because of its
continuous display of territorial sovereignty is as good installation and maintenance of lighthouses on
as title. However, discovery alone without subsequent certain of these islands and the inclusion of the
act cannot suffice to prove sovereignty over the Zubayr group in two oil production agreements
island. The territorial sovereignty of the Netherlands contracted by Yemen with private firms. Yemen was
(D) was not contested by anyone from 1700 to 1906. also found to be sovereign over the Zuqar-Hanish
The title of discovery at best an inchoate title does not group on the balance of the evidence regarding the
therefore prevail over the Netherlands (D) claims of exercise of the functions of state authority.
sovereignty.
In the second award dated December 17, 1999, the
Tribunal effected its delimitation of the maritime
Eastern Greenland Case boundary between Eritrea and Yemen. While Eritrea
Facts. The agreement not to obstruct Danish (P) plans was not a party to the United Nations Convention on
with regard to Greenland was what Denmark wanted the Law of the Sea 1982 (“UNCLOS”), the Tribunal
to obtain from Norway (D). To this request, a found that many of the relevant elements of
declaration on behalf of the Norwegian government customary international law were incorporated into
(D) was made by its Minister for Foreign Affairs that the corresponding provisions of UNCLOS and that
Norway (D) would not make any difficulty in the Eritrea had accepted the application of these
settlement of the question. provisions by reference to UNCLOS in the
Arbitration Agreement.
Issue. Is a country bound by the reply given on its
behalf by its Minister of Foreign Affairs?
The Tribunal ruled that the international maritime
Held. Yes. A country is bound by the reply given on boundary between the Parties “shall be a single all-
its behalf by its Minister of Foreign Affairs. Therefore purpose boundary” that “should, as far practicable,
in this case, the response by the diplomatic be a median line between the opposite mainland
representative of a foreign power is binding upon the coastlines.” This solution was not only in accord
country the Minister represents. with precedent but was also familiar to both Parties
Discussion. The main source of international law on and reflected by offshore petroleum agreements
treaties is the Vienna Convention on the Law of entered into by Yemen, Eritrea, and Ethiopia. The
Treaties. The Convention was ratified by 35 countries Tribunal then calculated the boundary line resulting
but not by the United States. Unilateral statements from the application of these principles and set out
may also be binding on states. the geographical coordinates of the international
 maritime boundary in the dispositif of the award. rights claimed by the Parties. It noted that, in that
case, the principles that ought to be applied were the
principle of the intangibility of frontiers inherited
from colonization and the principle of uti possidetis
Temple of Preah Vihear juris, which accords pre-eminence to legal title over
Cambodia complained that Thailand had occupied a effective possession as a basis of sovereignty, and
piece of its territory surrounding the ruins of the whose primary aim is to secure respect for the
Temple of Preah Vihear, a place of pilgrimage and territorial boundaries which existed at the time when
worship for Cambodians, and asked the Court to independence was achieved. The Chamber specified
declare that territorial sovereignty over the Temple that, when those boundaries were no more than
belonged to it and that Thailand was under an delimitations between different administrative
obligation to withdraw the armed detachment divisions or colonies all subject to the same
stationed there since 1954. Thailand filed preliminary sovereign, the application of the principle of uti
objections to the Court’s jurisdiction, which were possidetis juris resulted in their being transformed
rejected in a Judgment given on 26 May 1961. In its into international frontiers, as in the instant case.
Judgment on the merits, rendered on 15 June 1962, It also indicated that it would have regard to equity
the Court noted that a Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904 infra legem, that is, that form of equity which
provided that, in the area under consideration, the constitutes a method of interpretation of the law and
frontier was to follow the watershed line, and that a which is based on law. The Parties also relied upon
map based on the work of a Mixed Delimitation various types of evidence to give support to their
Commission showed the Temple on the Cambodian arguments, including French legislative and
side of the boundary. Thailand asserted various regulative texts or administrative documents, maps
arguments aimed at showing that the map had no and “colonial effectivités” or, in other words, the
binding character. One of its contentions was that the conduct of the administrative authorities as proof of
map had never been accepted by Thailand or, the effective exercise of territorial jurisdiction in the
alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it, it had region during the colonial period. Having considered
done so only because of a mistaken belief that the those various kinds of evidence, the Chamber
frontier indicated corresponded to the watershed line. defined the course of the boundary between the
The Court found that Thailand had indeed accepted Parties in the disputed area. The Chamber likewise
the map and concluded that the Temple was situated took the opportunity to point out, with respect to the
on Cambodian territory. It also held that Thailand was tripoint Niger-Mali-Burkina Faso, that its
under an obligation to withdraw any military or police jurisdiction was not restricted simply because the
force stationed there and to restore to Cambodia any endpoint of the frontier lay on the frontier of a third
objects removed from the ruins since 1954. State not a party to the proceedings. It further
pointed out that the rights of Niger were in any event
safeguarded by the operation of Article 59 of the
Frontier Dispute Case
Statute of the Court.
On 14 October 1983 Burkina Faso (then known as
Upper Volta) and Mali notified to the Court a Special
Agreement referring to a Chamber of the Court the Libya v. Chad (1994)
question of the delimitation of part of the land frontier FACTS: In 1990, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya filed
between the two States. This Chamber was constituted in the Registry a notification of an Agreement that it
by an Order of 3 April 1985. Following grave had concluded with Chad in Algiers in 1989, in
incidents between the armed forces of the two which it was agreed, inter alia , that in the absence
countries at the very end of 1985, both Parties of a political settlement of their territorial dispute,
submitted parallel requests to the Chamber for the they undertook to submit that dispute to the Court.
indication of interim measures of protection. The
Chamber indicated such measures by an Order of 10 Chad filed an Application instituting proceedings
January 1986. against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya that was based
upon the aforementioned Agreement and,
In its Judgment delivered on 22 December 1986, the subsidiarily, on the Franco-Libyan Treaty of
Chamber began by ascertaining the source of the Friendship and Good Neighbourliness of 10 August
1955. Tthe oral proceedings were held in1993. to determine the exact content of the undertaking
entered into. The Court specified in that regard that
The Court delivered its Judgment in1994. It observed
there was nothing to prevent the Parties from
that Libya considered that there was no existing
deciding by mutual agreement to consider a certain
boundary, and had asked the Court to determine one,
line as a frontier, whatever the previous status of that
while Chad considered that there was an existing
line. If it was already a territorial boundary, it was
boundary, and had asked the Court to declare what
confirmed purely and simply.
that boundary was. Libya considers that the case
concerns a dispute regarding attribution of territory, Considering the attitudes adopted subsequently by
while in Chad's view it concerns a dispute over the the Parties with regard to their frontiers, it reached
location of a boundary. the conclusion that the existence of a determined
frontier had been accepted and acted upon by the
Libya’s claim was on the basis of a coalescence of
Parties.
rights and titles of the indigenous inhabitants, the
Senoussi Order, the Ottoman Empire, Italy and Libya
itself ; while that of Chad was on the basis of a Treaty Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case
of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness concluded
by France and Libya on 10 August 1955, or, The Judgment delivered by the Court in this case
alternatively, on French effectivités, either in relation ended a long controversy between the United
to, or independently of, the provisions of earlier Kingdom and Norway which had aroused
treaties. considerable interest in other maritime States. In
1935 Norway enacted a decree by which it reserved
certain fishing grounds situated off its northern coast
ISSUE: WON the boundary between Libya and Chad for the exclusive use of its own fishermen. The
is defined by a Treaty of Friendship and Good question at issue was whether this decree, which laid
neighbourliness as contended by Chad. down a method for drawing the baselines from
which the width of the Norwegian territorial waters
had to be calculated, was valid international law.
HELD: YES. The Court noted that it had been This question was rendered particularly delicate by
recognized by both Parties that the 1955 Treaty the intricacies of the Norwegian coastal zone, with
between France and Libya was the logical starting- its many fjords, bays, islands, islets and reefs. The
point for consideration of the issues before the United Kingdom contended, inter alia, that some of
Court. Neither Party questioned the validity of the the baselines fixed by the decree did not accord with
1955 Treaty, nor did Libya question Chad’s right to the general direction of the coast and were not drawn
invoke against Libya any such provisions thereof as in a reasonable manner. In its Judgment of 18
related to the frontiers of Chad. The Court pointed out December 1951, the Court found that, contrary to the
that if the 1955 Treaty did result in a boundary, this submissions of the United Kingdom, neither the
furnished the answer to the issues raised by the method nor the actual baselines stipulated by the
Parties. 1935 Decree were contrary to international law.
Article 3 of the Treaty provided that France and Libya
recognized that the frontiers between, inter alia, the
Western Sahara Case
territories of French Equatorial Africa and the territory
of Libya were those that resulted from a number of On 13 December 1974, the General Assembly
international instruments in force on the date of the requested an advisory opinion on the following
constitution of the United Kingdom of Libya and questions : “I. Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and
reproduced in Annex I to the Treaty. In the view of Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by
the Court, the terms of the Treaty signified that the Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra
Parties thereby recognized complete frontiers nullius) ?” If the answer to the first question is in the
between their respective territories as resulting negative, “II. What were the legal ties between this
from the combined effect of all the instruments territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the
listed in Annex I. By entering into the Treaty, the Mauritanian entity ?” In its Advisory Opinion,
Parties recognized the frontiers to which the text of delivered on 16 October 1975, the Court replied to
the Treaty referred ; the task of the Court was thus Question I in the negative. In reply to Question II, it
expressed the opinion that the materials and
information presented to it showed the existence, at
the time of Spanish colonization, of legal ties of
allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some
of the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara.
They equally showed the existence of rights,
including some rights relating to the land, which
constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity,
as understood by the Court, and the territory of
Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court’s
conclusion was that the materials and information
presented to it did not establish any tie of territorial
sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara
and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian
entity. Thus the Court did not find any legal ties of
such a nature as might affect the application of the
General Assembly’s 1960 resolution 1514 (XV) —
containing the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples — in
the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in
particular, of the principle of self-determination
through the free and genuine expression of the will of
the peoples of the territory.