Charter of the United NationsCHAPTER VI
PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Article 33
The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.Charter of the United Nations
両国政府は，別段の合意がある場合を除くほか，両国間の紛争は，まず，外交上の経路を通じて解決するものとし，これにより解決することができなかつた場合は，両国政府が合意する手続に従い，調停によつて解決を図るものとする。日韓基本条約の関係諸協定，日韓紛争解決交換公文（紛争の解決に関する交換公文日韓基本条約の関係諸協定，日韓紛争解決交換公文（紛争の解決に関する交換公文）１９６５年６月２２日
List of Cases brought before the Court since 1946
I owe oppekepe a lot for picking out the following judgement at ICJ
SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN (ICJ 2002)
The Court moreover cannot disregard the fact that at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest.
[EFFECTIVE CONTROL]
PALMAS CASE (P.C.I.J. 1928)
“He growing insistence with which international law, ever since the middle of the 18th century, has demanded that the occupation shall be effective would be inconceivable, if effectiveness were required only for the act of acquisition and not equally for the maintenance of the right.”
“Territorial sovereignty, as has already been said, involves the exclusive right to display activities of a state. This right has corollary a duty: the obligation to protect within the territory the rights of other States, in particular their right to integrity and inviolability in peace and in war, together with the rights which each State may claim for its nationals in foreign territory. Without manifesting its its territorial sovereignty in a manner corresponding to circumstance, the State cannot fulfill this duty.”
“An inchoate title could not prevail over the continuous and peaceful display of authority by another State; for such display may prevail even over a prior, definitive title put forward by another State.
EASTEN GREENLAND CASE( P.C.I.J. 1933)
“Even little effective control can assume title of the territory in the uninhabited island. However, clear evidence without the doubt is requested also in the uninhabited island.It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.”
LIGITAN AND SIPADAN CASE（ICJ）
Effectivités generally scarce in the case of very small islands which are uninhabited or not permanently inhabited, like Ligitan and Sipadan–Court primarily to analyse the effectivités which date from the period before 1969, the year in which the Parties asserted conflicting claims to Ligitan and Sipadan — Nature of the activities to be taken into account by the Court in the present case.
Effectivités relied on by Indonesia — Activities which do not constitute acts à titre de souverain reflecting the intention and will to act in that capacity.
Effectivités relied on by Malaysia — Activities modest in number but diverse in character, covering a considerable period of time and revealing an intention to exercise State functions inrespect of the two islands ¾ Neither the Netherlands nor Indonesia ever expressed its disagreement or protest at the time when these activities were carried out — Malaysia has title to Ligitan and Sipadan on the basis of the effectivités thus mentioned.
JUDGMENT
In the case concerning sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan,
between
the Republic of Indones
PALMAS CASE
“An inchoate title could not prevail over the continuous and peaceful display of authority by another State; for such display may prevail even over a prior, definitive title put forward by another State. ”
[PEACEFUL AND CONTINUOUSLY]
SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN (ICJ 2002)
The Court moreover cannot disregard the fact that at the time when these activities were carried out, neither Indonesia nor its predecessor, the Netherlands, ever expressed its disagreement or protest.
EASTEN GREENLAND CASE( P.C.I.J. 1933)
“Even little effective control can assume title of the territory in the uninhabited island. However, clear evidence without the doubt is requested also in the uninhabited island.It is impossible to read the records of the decisions in cases as to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many cases the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of the actual exercise of sovereign rights, provided that the other State could not make out a superior claim. This is particularly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly populated or unsettled countries.”
LIGITAN AND SIPADAN case (ICJ 2002)
“The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such. ”
MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE (ICJ 1953)
“The Court attached probative value to various acts relating to the exercise by Jersey of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation.”
{Critical date]
LIGITAN AND SIPADAN CASE (ICJ 2002)
According to Indonesia, it was thus at that time that the “critical date” arose in the present dispute. It contends that the two Parties undertook, in an exchange of letters of 22 September 1969, to refrain from any action which might alter the atus quo in respect of the disputed islands. It asserts that from 1969 the respective claims of the Parties therefore find themselves “legally neutralized”, and that, for this reason, their ubsequent statements or actions are not relevant to the present proceedings.
The Court will, therefore, primarily, analyse the effectivités which date from the period before 1969, the year in which the Parties asserted conflicting claims to Ligitan and Sipadan.
[control by a local government and a private person]
MINQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE(ICJ 1953)
The Court attached probative value to various acts relating to the exercise by Jersey of jurisdiction and local administration and to legislation,
CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ 2002)
Finally, Indonesia states that the waters around Ligitan and Sipadan have traditionally been used by Indonesian fishermen. The Court observes, however, that activities by private persons cannot be seen as effectivités if they do not take place on the basis of official regulations or under governmental authority.
The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such.
[The designation]
The Court finally observes that it can only consider those acts as constituting a relevant display of authority which leave no doubt as to their specific reference to the islands in dispute as such.
CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN(ICJ 2002)
{the islets belonging thereto]
CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PULAU LIGITAN AND PULAU SIPADAN（ICJ)
The Court further recalls that it stated above that the words “the islets belonging thereto” can only be interpreted as referring to the small islands lying in the immediate vicinity of the three islands which are mentioned by name, and not to islands which are located at a distance of more than 40 nautical miles. The Court therefore cannot accept Indonesia’s contention that it inherited title to the disputed islands from the Netherlands through these contracts, which stated that the Sultanate of Bulungan as described in the contracts formed part of the Netherlands Indies.
[The value of the maps]
68. It does not seem necessary to recall in great detail what the Chamber of the Court had to say about the value of map evidence in the case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali), viz., that maps cannot constitute a territorial title but are usually merely extrinsic evidence which may be used, along with other circumstantial evidence, to establish or reconstitute the real facts (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 582, para. 54). Since Qatar has in my view not been able to demonstrate that it has title to the Hawar Islands based on the display of authority - even in the most limited way - in combination with a legally recognized mode of acquisition, the cartographic evidence must in my view be discarde
link
[Subject of the treaty]
VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES (UN 1969)
Article 7 Full powers
2. In virtue of their functions and without having to produce full powers, the following are considered as representing their State:
(a) Heads of State, Heads of Government and Ministers for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of performing all acts relating to the conclusion of a treaty;
VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES is a codification of the judicial precedent that is already and the common lawopp
Interpretation
p101 good interpretation must be grounded in reasons and evidences, and should provide a rich complex and illuminating way to comprehend a work or art.
Interpretations are superior if they explain more aspects of the artist's work.p103
He is talking about interpretation of art work, but I think it holds true for any interpretation.
The Principle of The Identity of Indiscernibles
The Identity of Indiscernibles (hereafter called the Principle) is usually formulated as follows: if, for every property F, object x has F if and only if object y has F, then x is identical to y. Or in the notation of symbolic logic:
∀F(Fx ↔ Fy) → x=y.
link
No comments:
Post a Comment