Citation. Court of Int’l Justice, 1993 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No.

53 at 71

Brief Fact Summary. The statement made by the Norwegian Minister was claimed to be
binding on his country by Denmark (P).

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A country is bound by the reply given on its behalf by its
Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Facts. The agreement not to obstruct Danish (P) plans with regard to Greenland was
what Denmark wanted to obtain from Norway (D). 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.

The Royal Danish Government, relying on the optional clause of Article 36, paragraph
2, of the Statute, brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice a suit
against the Royal Norwegian Government on the ground that the latter Government
had, on July 10th, 1931, published a proclamation declaring that it had proceeded to
occupy certain territories in Eastern Greenland, which, in the contention of the Danish
Government, were subject to the sovereignty of the Crown of Denmark. Denmark now
asks the PCIJ of a judgment to the effect that "the promulgation of the above-mentioned
declaration of occupation and any steps taken in this respect by the Norwegian
Government constitute a violation of the existing legal situation and are accordingly
unlawful and invalid".

Issue. Is a country bound by the reply given on its behalf by its Minister of Foreign Affairs?

Held. Yes. A country is bound by the reply given on its behalf by its Minister of Foreign
Affairs. Therefore in this case, the response by the diplomatic representative of a foreign
power is binding upon the country the Minister represents.

Discussion. The main source of international law on treaties is the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties. The Convention was ratified by 35 countries but not by the United States.
Unilateral statements may also be binding on states.