1.

Jean-Baptiste Caire Claim (France vs Mexico) (1929)

FACTS: On 11 December 1914, Jean-Baptiste Caire, a French national, was

unlawfully shot and killed at an army barracks in Mexico by two Mexican army
officers, a major and a captain aided by a few privates, after Caire refused a
demand by one of the officers to pay a sum of money. This prompted Caire’s
widow to sue Mexico for indemnity.

ISSUE: WON Mexico is responsible for actions of individual military

personnel acting without orders or against the wishes of their commanding
officers

HELD: YES. The French-Mexican Claims Commission held that Mexico was
internationally responsible for the conduct of the army officers. In this regard,
Presiding Commissioner Verzijl observed that, under the doctrine of objective
responsibility (state responsibility for the acts of state officials or state organs
even in the absence of “fault” on the part of the state), a state is internationally
responsible for acts committed by its officials or organs outside their
competence if the officials or organs “acted at least to all appearances as
competent officials or organs, or… used powers or methods appropriate to their
official capacity… .”

Here, The officers in question … consistently conducted themselves as officers

…; in this capacity they began by exacting the remittance of certain sums of
money; they continued by having the victim taken to a barracks of the
occupying troops; and it was clearly because of the refusal of Caire to meet
their repeated demands that they finally shot him. Under these circumstances,
there remains no doubt that, even if they are to be regarded as having acted
outside their competence, which is by no means certain, and even if their
superior officers issued a counter-order, these two officers have involved the
responsibility of the State, in view of the fact that they acted in their capacity of
officers and used the means placed at their disposition by virtue of that capacity.

Indemnity awarded.
 2.

NICARAGUA VS UNITED STATES:

Facts:

In July 1979, the Government of President Somoza was replaced by a

government installed by Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN).
Supporters of the former Somoza Government and former members of the
National Guard opposed the new government.

Nicaragua also alleged that the United States is effectively in control of

the contras, the United States devised their strategy and directed their
tactics, and that the contras were paid for and directly controlled by the
United States. Nicaragua also alleged that some attacks against Nicaragua
were carried out, directly, by the United States military – with the aim to
overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. Attacks against Nicaragua included
the mining of Nicaraguan ports, and other attacks on ports, oil installations,
and a naval base. Nicaragua alleged that aircrafts belonging to the United
States flew over Nicaraguan territory to gather intelligence, supply to the
contras in the field, and to intimidate the population.

The United States did not appear before the ICJ at the merit stages, after
refusing to accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction to decide the case. The United
States at the jurisdictional phase of the hearing, however, stated that it relied
on an inherent right of collective self-defence guaranteed in A. 51 of the UN
Charter when it provided “upon request proportionate and appropriate
assistance…” to Costa Rica, Honduras, and El Salvador in response to
Nicaragua’s acts of aggression against those countries (paras 126, 128).

ISSUE:

1. Did the United States violate its customary international law obligation
not to intervene in the affairs of another State, when it trained, armed,
equipped, and financed the contra forces or when it encouraged,
supported, and aided the military and paramilitary activities against
Nicaragua?
2. Did the United States violate its customary international law obligation
not to use force against another State, when it directly attacked
Nicaragua in 1983 and 1984 and when its activities in point (1) above
resulted in the use of force?
HELD:

1. The Court held that the United States violated its customary international
law obligation not to use force against another State when its activities with
the contras resulted in the threat or use of force

The Court held that:

* The prohibition on the use of force is found both in Article 2(4) of the
Charter of the United Nations (UN Charter) and in customary international
law.

* The United States violated the customary international law prohibition on

the use of force when it laid mines in Nicaraguan ports. It also violated this
prohibition when it attacked Nicaraguan ports, oil installations, and a naval
base (see below). The United States could only justify its action on the basis
of collective self-defence, if certain criteria were met.

2. The Court held that the United States violated its customary international
law obligation not to use force against another State when it directly
attacked Nicaragua in 1983 and 1984

The Court further held that:

* Mere frontier incidents will not considered as armed attacks, unless,

because of its scale and effects, it would have been classified as an armed
attack had it been carried out by regular forces.

* Assistance to rebels by providing weapons or logistical support did not

constitute an armed attack. Instead, it can be regarded as a threat or use of
force or an intervention in the internal or external affairs of other States
 3.
United States v Iran1

Facts

The United States embassy was attacked on the 4th of November 1979 by Muslim
militants, who overran its premises, seized hostages, and appropriated its property.
The militants weren’t acting on behalf of the Iranian government. However the
Iranian State which as the state to which the mission was accredited was under the
obligation to take appropriate steps to protect the United States Embassy. They
Iranian State did nothing to prevent the attack or to stop it before it reached its
completion or instructed the militants to withdraw from the premises and to release
the hostages. The Iranian government remained silent.

The procedure then continued in accordance with the Statute and Rules of Court.
Another issue brought before the Court by the United States was that Iran failed to
appear before it and put forward its arguments. The absence of Iran from the
proceedings brought into operation Article 53 of the Statutes, under which the Court
is required, before finding in the applicants favour, to satisfy itself that the allegations
of fact on which the claim is based are well founded.

HELD:

In its judgment the Court decided

(1) That Iran has violated and is still violating obligations owed by it to the United
States.
(2) That these violations engage in Iran’s responsibility.
(3) That the government of Iran must immediately release the United States
nationals held as hostages and place the premises of the embassy in the
hands of the protecting power.
(4) That no member of the United States diplomatic or consular staff may be kept
in Iran to be subjected to any form of judicial proceedings or to participate in
them as a witness.
(5) That Iran is under an obligation to make reparation for the injury caused to the
United States.
 (6) That the form and amount of such reparation, failing agreement between the
parties shall be settled by the Court.

4.
HOME MISSIONARY SOCIETY CLAIM (US vs. Britain)

Facts:

The collection of a tax newly imposed by Great Britain on the natives of Sierra
Leone known as the “hut tax” was the signal fir as serious and widespread
revolt in the Ronietta district.

In the course of rebellion, all US’ Missions were attacked, and either destroyed
or damaged, and some of the missionaries were murdered.

US contents that British Government is responsible for the revolt since it wholly
failed to take proper steps for the maintenance of order and the protection of life
and property, and that the loss of life and damage to property is the result of
such neglect.

Issue:

Whether or not revolt is attributable to the British Government.

Held:

Even assuming that the “hut tax” was the effective cause of the native rebellion,
it was in itself a fiscal measure to which British Government was perfectly
entitled to exercise.

It is well established principle of international law that no government can be

held responsible for the act of rebellious bodies of men committed in violation
of its authority, where it is itself guilty of no breach of good faith, or of no
negligence in suppressing insurrection.
 5.

SHORT V. IRAN,U.S. V. IRAN(1987)

Facts.

After the 1975 Iranian revolution, Iranian militants seized U.S.

diplomatic and consular personnel in Iran (D) as hostages. In
retaliation, the United States seized Iranian assets in the United
States, and people and companies with claims against Iran (D)
filed suit in U.S. courts, levying attachments against blocked
Iranian assets. A solution was mediated by Algiers in January
1981 culminating in the Algiers Accord, which was adopted by
both states. Included in the provision of the Algiers’s Accords
was a Claims Settlement Declaration, and created an arbitral
tribunal in The Hague to hear claims by the nationals of either
state against the government of the other state. Certain people
with dual Iranian-U.S. citizenship (P) brought Iran (D) before
the tribunal and the jurisdiction of the tribunal was challenged
by Iran (D).

Issue. If the dominant and effective nationality of the claimant

is that of the United States, then, can the Claims Settlement
Declaration arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction over claims
against Iran by dual Iran-United States nationals?

Held. If the dominant and effective nationality of the claimant is

that of the United States, then, can the Claims Settlement
Declaration arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction over claims
against Iran by dual Iran-United States nationals.
 6.
CHORZOW FACTORY CASE, GERMANY V. POLAND(1928)
 7.

Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania)

Facts. The explosion of mines in the Albanian (P) waters

resulted in the death of a British naval personnel. It was on this
basis that the United Kingdom (D) claimed that Albania (P) was
internationally responsible for damages.

Issue. Are international obligations in time of peace created

through elementary consideration?

Held. Yes. International obligations in peace time are

created through elementary consideration. Every state has
an obligation not to knowingly allow its territory to be used
for acts contrary to the rights of other states.