1 Quatar vs.

Bahrain: An international agreement creating rights and obligations can be constituted by

the signatories to the minutes of meetings and letters exchanged.
1. A dispute concerning sovereignty over certain islands and shoals, including the delimitation of a
maritime boundary were issues upon which Qatar (P) and Bahrain (D) sought to resolve for 20 years.
2. During this period of time, letters were exchanged and acknowledged by both parties heads of state.
3. A Tripartite Committee for the purpose of approaching the International Court of Justice.. was
formed by representatives of Qatar (P), Bahrain (D) and Saudi Arabia.
4. Though the committee met several time, it failed to produce an agreement on the specific terms for
submitting the dispute to the Court.
5. Eventually, the meetings culminated in Minutes, which reaffirmed the process and stipulated that the
parties may submit the dispute to the I.C.J. after giving the Saudi King six months to resolve the
dispute.
6. The Courts jurisdiction was disputed by Bahrain (D) when Qatar (P) filed a claim in the I.C.J.
2 Norway vs. Denmark:
Affairs.

A country is bound by the reply given on its behalf by its Minister of Foreign

1. The agreement not to obstruct Danish (P) plans with regard to Greenland was what Denmark wanted to
obtain from Norway (D).
2. To this request, a declaration on behalf of the Norwegian government (D) was made by its Minister for
Foreign Affairs that Norway (D) would not make any difficulty in the settlement of the question.
3 Australia vs. France, New Zealand vs. France: Declaration made through unilateral acts may have
the effect of creating legal obligations.
1. A series of nuclear tests was completed by France (D) in the South Pacific.
2. This action made Australia and New Zealand (P) to apply to the I.C.J. demanding that France (D) cease
testing immediately.
3. Before the case could be completed, France (D) announced it had completed the test and did not plan
any further test.
4. So France (D) moved for the dismissal of the application.
4 EU vs US (The Trade Act of 1974):
1. US legislation (i.e. Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974) authorizing certain actions by theOffice
of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), including the suspension or withdrawal of
concessions orthe imposition of duties or other import restrictions, in response to trade barriers
imposed
by
other
countries.
(???
Cant
find
case
brief.
See:
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/1pagesum_e/ds152sum_e.pdf)
5 Reservations to the Genocide Convention: A reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide may
be effected by a state and still be considered a signatory thereto.
1. The convention on Genocide was unanimously adopted by the United Nations in 1951.
2. Several states made reservations to one or more of its provisions.
3. An opinion as to whether a party could express reservations and still be considered a signatory was laid
before the International Court of Justice.
6 Air France vs Saks: (Read book.)
7 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (UK vs. Iceland): In order that a change of circumstances may give rise to
the premise calling for the termination of a treaty, it is necessary that it has resulted in a radical
transformation of the extent of the obligations still to be performed.
1. Icelands (D) claim to a 12-mile fisheries limit was recognized by the United Kingdom (P) in 1961 in
return for Icelands (D) agreement that any dispute concerning Icelandic fisheries jurisdiction beyond
the 12-mile limit be referred to the International Court of Justice.

2. An application was filed before the I.C.J. when Iceland (D) proposed to extend its exclusive fisheries
jurisdiction from 12 to 50 miles around its shores in 1972.
3. By postulating that changes in circumstances since the 12-mile limit was now generally recognized was
the ground upon which Iceland (D) stood to argue that the agreement was no longer valid.
4. Iceland (D) also asserted that there would be a failure of consideration for the 1961 agreement.
8 Namibia Case: Member States of the United Nations are bounded by its mandates and violations or
breaches results in a legal obligation on the part of the violator to rectify the violation and upon the other
Member States to recognize the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid in such violation.
1. Under a claim of right to annex the Namibian territory and under the claim that Namibias nationals
desired South Africas (D) rule, South Africa (D) began the occupation of Namibia.
2. South Africa was subject to a U.N. Mandate prohibiting Member States from taking physical control of
other territories because it was a Member State of the United Nations.
3. The Resolution 2145 (XXI) terminating the Mandate of South Africa (D) was adopted by the U.N and the
Security Council adopted Resolution 276 (1970) which declared the continuous presence of South Africa
(D) in Namibia as illegal and called upon other Member States to act accordingly.
4.

An advisory opinion was however demanded from the International Court of Justice.

9 Danube Dam Case (Hungary vs. Slovakia): A vital change of circumstances must have been
unforeseen and the existence of the circumstances at the time of the treatys conclusion must have
constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by their agreement.
1. In 1977, Hungary (D) and Slovakia (P) agreed to build and operate a system of locks along the Danube
River made up of a dam, reservoir, hydroelectric power plant and flood control improvements.
2. This project never saw the light of the day and the two countries went through different changes in
their political and economic systems beginning in 1989.
3.

Hungary (D) was the first to stop and abandon its part of the works and later give notice of termination
of the treaty.

4. In 1992 and based on international law, both countries asked the I.C.J. to decide whether Hungary (D)
was entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon its part of the work, on the grounds of the doctrine
of impossibility of performance.
10 Goldwater vs. Carter: This is a political question and not justiciable.
1. President Carter terminated a treaty with Taiwan, and a few Congressional members felt that this
deprived them of their Constitutional function.
2. However, no Congressional action was ever taken.

3. The Senate considered a resolution that would require the President to get Senate approval before any
mutual defense treaty could be terminated, but there was no final vote on the resolution.