/
fourrd in The Court fourrd in The Court

fourrd in The Court - PDF document

elena
elena . @elena
Follow
343 views
Uploaded On 2022-10-12

fourrd in The Court - PPT Presentation

monetarv cezain upon which depended the delivery to to the United Kingdom a quantity gold from Rome found to The Kingdom pointed out that the found that Allbania was under an obligation ID: 958978

united court albania kingdom court united kingdom albania italy jurisdiction questions albanian application claim italian proceedings statute decision objection

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "fourrd in The Court" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

monetarv fourrd in The Court ce~zain upon which depended the delivery to to the United Kingdom a quantity gold from Rome found to The Kingdom pointed out that the found that A.llbania was under an obligation to pay compensation to the United Kingdom for the damage the Corfu United paid. For its part, the first that she claim against itrising the measures confiscation allegedly taken try the Albanian 1945, and, place, that her claim should have the United Kingdom. re:lying Statement signed Washington on April 25th, the Governments France, the United Kingdom the United questions to the Couit. But had been of Italy. Levi Carneiro appended the Judgment of the a statement disscznting opinion (:on the second Memben; of the Court president, Sir Arnold McNair, and Judge Read), while voting in favour of the decision, appended to the Judgment a declaration individual opinion respectively. should-be pooled distributionBiong countries enti- receive a France, the resillt the Albanian law of the provisions the Italian the gold whether the Italian have priority the United Kingdom, this issue the prescribed which was comm~lnicated in the Continued on next page manner to States entitled appear before the the Albanian Government. for the were then fixed the Court. However, instead the merits, the Italian Government que:stioned the Court first question relat- the Italian claim against Albania. The Parties having their problem thus the Court did sufficient basis for adjudication the proceedings directed against Albania and the suit. the challenge the Court's jurisdiction for questioning the of the regarded as void, or as withdrawn. two other Francse deposit formal Submissions. After thus reciting the the Court dealt beginning with the Submissions Kingdom which have just summarimi. applicant State be had the case: it nating from the three Governments, that jurisdiction accepted pre-determined the

;taking the initial step that Preliminary Objec- Rules Court. This preclude the raising preliminary objection this Objection, the Court has not become less complete than was Court to settle the not tantamount questions set out the Applica- circumstances. The Applicistion and it remained real it was withclrawn; but Finally, the Application, not invalid the objection it had validly seised Application and that stilil proceeded to the jurisdiction to decide whether not it submitted to it the three Governments and Italy, the as regards the Parties to deal the questions Application. But was this jurisdiction co-exttmsive this connection the Court was not called gold should or to United Kingdom: it was requested to questions upon depended. The centred around against Albania, alleged wrong. Italy believed that she right against for the dress of an order, therefore, ib receive the whether Albania against Italy,, and whether compensation to determine also the compenr;ation. decide such questions, whether the Albanian 13th, international law. related to the lawful ilnlawful certain actions Statt:~, into the merits such questions to decide Italy and Albania-which the Court could the Court did would run well-established principle can only exercise jurisdiction over its con- Albania might have since Article .the Statute gives that it has im the decision to do Statute did prevent proceedings continuing, even which would from doing that consequently the fact that abstained from not make the Court Albania's legal interests would not wo~lld decision. Therefore, the Statute could not be authorizing that proceedings The Court dent States corlferred exercise this jurisdiction claim submitted priorily between the claims of Italy and United Kingdom, would only had been that, as between Italy and Albania, the to Italy. clairn the Application. The accordingly found that inasmuch it could it should refrain from examining the second