CORFU CASE Facts: Sometime in May 1946, an Albanian battery fired in the direction of two British cruisers and

the Albanian government declaring that Foreign warships and merchant vessels had no right to pass through Albanian Waters without prior authorization. Months after, Two British Destroyers struck mines and suffered damages, in Albanian Waters when it entered the North Corfu Strait. The channel they were following was regarded as safe. It had been swept in 1944 and check-swept in 1945. After the second incident, The UK Government sought to sweep the Corfu Channel, which was swept sometime in November 1946, where 22 moored mines were cut. The UK alleged that there been a connivance of Albania that the mines were laid by Two Yugoslav warships by the request of Albania, otherwise the mine laying could not have been possible without Albanias consent. Issue: Whether or Not Albania is liable to UK for damages incurred by the British Destroyers. Ruling: Yes. When the Albanian Government became fully aware of the existence of a minefield, she did not notify shipping of the existence of the minefield, as would be required of her by international law, and she didnt undertake any of the measures of judicial investigation which is incumbent on her in such case. Also, geographically speaking, the channel were the minefield was easily watched. The methodical and well-thought-out laying of the mines compelled the minelayers to remain from two to two and a half hours in the waters. If a normal look-out was kept then mine-laying would have been noticed by the coast guards. The court draws the conclusion that the laying of the mines would not have been accomplished without the knowledge of Albania. As regards the obligations from this knowledge, it was her duty to notify shipping and to warn the ships proceeding through the strait of the danger to which they were exposed. Nothing was attempted by Albania to prevent the disaster and these grave omissions involve her international responsibility. RAINBOW WARRIOR Fact: Greenpeace International, a civilian organization, owned the Rainbow Warrior kept it docked at Auckland Harbor, New Zealand. While the ship was moored in New Zealand, several agents of France destroyed the ship through explosive devices. Two French agents were captured by New Zealand after the incident.

In an Arbitration before the UN SG it was ruled that France required to pay reparations of $7 million and to stop interfering with New Zealands international trade affairs. The Secretary General also required the transfer of the two French agents to a French military facility for a three-year period, in the Island of Hao. The two agents were prohibited from leaving the facility for any reason, except with the consent of the two governments.

Five months after the agreement, France requested permission to transfer one of the agents to an offsite hospital for urgent care. In the process of conducting negotiations with New Zealand, France unilaterally completed the transfer. New Zealand objected to this act, and sent its own physician to examine the agent. The physician disagreed with the emergency evacuation, but agreed that the agent required medical procedures unavailable at the military facility. Once the agent was successfully treated, the New Zealand physician recommended he be transferred back to the military facility. However, France released him as repatriated for health reasons. A similar situation occurred with the other agent, as when her father was sick and dying, France requested to transfer her for humanitarian reasons but unilaterally made the transfer during negotiations with New Zealand. New Zealand and France submitted their dispute again to an arbitral tribunal. New Zealand demanded a declaration that France had breached its obligations by unilaterally transferring the agents without New Zealands consent, and an order that France be required to return the two agents to the military facility. France denied international responsibility on the grounds of force majeure and distress. Issue: Whether or Not the breach by France gave rise to International Responsibility. Ruling: YES. A mere breach / violation by a State of a treaty obligation gives rise to State responsibility, by virtue of pacta sunt servanda. Of the principles which the International Law Commission, in its Draft Articles on State Responsibility, had recognized as grounds for excluding wrongfulness, (1)force majeure (Article 31), (2)distress (Article 32) and (3)necessity (Article 33). Which in this case, doesnt apply. For these grounds to be applicable in the case of Major Mafart and Captain Prieur, three conditions were required: (i) the existence of exceptional medical or other circumstances of an elementary nature of extreme urgency, provided that a prompt recognition of the existence of those circumstances was subsequently obtained from, or demonstrated by, the other Party; (ii) the re-establishment of the original situation of compliance in Hao as soon as the circumstances of emergency had disappeared; and (iii) a good faith attempt to obtain the consent of New Zealand under the terms of their agreement; the staying of the Major and Captain in Hao. (The fact that the Major and Captain might have been entitled

to leave under French military law was no justification, since a State was not entitled to rely upon its own domestic law as grounds for failure to comply with its international obligations) US V IRAN Facts: The US Embassy was attacked by Militants, where there was overrunning of its premises, seizure of its inmates as hostages, appropriation of property, among others. During the attack, the Iranian Authorities did nothing to prevent the attack. Instead, what resulted were expressions of approval from numerous Iranian Authorities. Ayatollah Khomeini even proclaimed the Iranian States endorsement of the seizure and the hostaging, and declared that the hostages would remain as such til the US would return the former Shah and his property to Iran. Issue: Whether or Not the act of the Militants can be attributed to reap State Responsibility. Ruling: Yes. The Iranian State was under the obligation to take steps to protect the United States Embassy, but it did not do anything to prevent the attack or stop it before it reached its completion or oblige the militants to withdraw from the premises and release the hostages. They had the means at their disposal to do all these. So, the inaction on their part is a clear and serious violation of the Irans Obligation to the United States. Further, when organs of the state gave their approval to the acts of the militants, those acts transformed onto acts of the Iranian State. The militants became agents of the state, which itself became internationally responsible for their acts. DC DECISION ON UNOCAL Facts: In September 1996, Burmese villagers filed suit against the Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) and the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise ("MOGE"), the State Law and Order Restoration Council ("SLORC") under the Alien Tort Claims Act (also known as the Alien Tort Statute), The suits alleged various human rights violations, all relating to the construction of the Yadana gas pipeline project in Myanmar, formerly Burma. SLORC is a military junta that seized control in Burma in 1988, and MOGE is a state-owned company controlled by SLORC that produces and sells energy products. Plaintiffs seek injunctive, declaratory and compensatory relief for alleged international human rights violations perpetrated by defendants in furtherance of defendants Unocal, Total and MOGE's joint venture, the Yadana gas pipeline project. After three years of discovery, the plaintiffs presented evidence demonstrating that, in the court's words, Unocal knew that the military had a record of committing human rights abuses; that the Project hired the military to provide security for the Project, a military that forced villagers to work and entire

villages to relocate for the benefit of the Project; that the military, while forcing villagers to work and relocate, committed numerous acts of violence; and that Unocal knew or should have known that the military did commit, was committing and would continue to commit these tortious acts. Issue: Whether or Not UNOCAL has incurred state responsibility Ruling: Yes. A private party may be considered to have acted under color of state law when it engages in a conspiracy or acts in concern with state agents to deprive one's constitutional rights. UNOCAL having known the past human rights abuse in Burma, the alleged human rights abuses that came with the Yadana pipeline project were completely foreseeable. Hence, UNOCAL is held accountable for their involvement in human rights abuses, in violation of international law, by simply doing business in Burma. SLORC and MOGE are agents of the private defendants; that the defendants are joint venturers, working in concert with one another; and that the defendants have conspired to commit the violations of international law alleged in the complaint in order to further the interests of the Yadana gas pipeline project. The Private defendants and UNOCAL were and are jointly engaged with the state officials in the challenged activity, namely forced labor and other human rights violations in furtherance of the pipeline project. The Court ruled that corporations and their executive officers can be held legally responsible under the Alien Tort Claims Act for violations of international human rights norms in foreign countries. Later, The parties announced that they had a settlement. According to a joint statement released by the parties, "the settlement will compensate plaintiffs and provide funds enabling plaintiffs and their representatives to develop programs to improve living conditions, health care and education and protect the rights of people from the pipeline region. These initiatives will provide substantial assistance to people who may have suffered hardships in the region. CHORZOW CASE Facts: This case involved an expropriation by Poland of a factory at Chorzow, which is contrary to the 1992 Geneva Convention. German Empire had a contract with a company, where the company undertook to establish for the Reich and forthwith to begin the construction of a nitrate factory at Chorzow, Upper Silesia. Subsequently, Germany and Poland signed a convention concerning the Upper Silesia of Geneva. A Polish was then delegated with the full powers to take charge of the factory, thus, causing the end of the contract between Germany and the companies. Germany brought action against Poland in behalf of the companies in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Issue: To what extent is Germany entitled to in terms of Reparations? Ruling:

A state that has committed such an internationally wrongful act is obligated to a) discontinue the act and restore the situation to the status quo ante; b) apply remedies provided under its internal law (if they exist) and to pay appropriate compensation if restoration of the pre-existing status is impossible; and c) provide guarantees that the act will not recur. A state to which a claim is made must negotiate in good faith to resolve it. General Rule: when an expropriation is legal, the amount of the reparation is the logistical value of the property taken at the time of the expropriation. But in this case, since there is an illegal expropriation, the amount of the reparation includes intangible assets. PROSECUTOR V TADIC Facts: Dusko Tadic was a Lieutenant-General for the ____ of Yugoslavia. He was accused of committing atrocities at the Serb-run Omarska concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992, wherein he was accused for participated with Serb forces in the attack, destruction and plunder of Bosnian Muslim and Croat residential areas, the seizure and imprisonment of Muslims and Croats in the Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje camps, and the deportation and expulsion by force or threat of force of the majority of Muslim and Croat residents from Opstina Prijedor. Issue: Whether or Not the acts of Dusko Tadic can be considered act of the State (YUgoslavia) Ruling: Yes.

ADVISORY OPINION ON THE WALL Facts: Request was made for advisory opinion by the UN General Assembly through Resolution No. ES-10114 of 2003 for the determination of the legal consequences arising from the construction of a Wall being built by Israel, the occupying power, over the Occupied Palestinian territory including in and around East Jerusalem considering the rules and principles of International Law including the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 and Security Counsil and General Assembly Resolutions. ICJ allowed submission of written statements from UN Members, United Nations, League of Arab States and Organization of Islamic Conference. None of the Members argued in favor of the wall. Issue:

Ruling:

The Israeli West Bank barrier is a security and separation barrier (see "Names of the barrier") under construction by the State of Israel along and within the West Bank, creating a Separation between Israel and Palestinian West Bank. Israel argues that the barrier is necessary to protect Israeli civilians from Palestinian terrorism, including the suicide bombing attacks. Opponents of the barrier object that the route substantially deviates from the Green Line into the occupied territories. They argue that the barrier is an illegal attempt to annex Palestinian land under the guise of security, violates international law, has the effect of undermining negotiations (by establishing new borders), and severely restricts Palestinians who live nearby, particularly their ability to travel freely within the West Bank, including to and from the lands on which their subsistence depends, and to access work in Israel.
Issue: Whether or Not, Israel

In a 2004 advisory opinion resulting from a Palestinian-initiated U.N. resolution, the International Court of Justice considered that "Israel cannot rely on a right of self-defence or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of the construction of the wall". The Court asserted that "the construction of the wall, and its associated rgime, are contrary to international law"

The Court cited illegal interference by the government of Israel with the Palestinian's national right to self-determination; and land confiscations, house demolitions, the creation of enclaves, and restrictions on movement and access to water, food, education, health care, work, and an adequate standard of living in violation of Israel's obligations under international law.