Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T10:56:18.795Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discovery by Intervention: The Right of a State to Seize Evidence Located within the Territory of the Respondent State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2017

Nasim Hasan Shah
Nasim Hasan Shah*
Affiliation:
Supreme Court of Pakistan, University Law College, Lahore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Do states possess the right to seize evidence located within the territory of another, by forcible measures if necessary, if the object of this action is to procure the best evidence and thereby facilitate the task of an international tribunal in the decision of a dispute brought before it? In other words do states have the right to obtain discovery of evidence by intervention? This was one of the questions which the International Court of Justice was called upon to decide in the Corfu Channel Case.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , July 1959 , pp. 595 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 12 Halsbury's Laws of England, Pt. I, p. 2 (3rd ed.).

2 Scott, Hague Court Reports, p. 1.

3 Quoted in C. M. Bishop's International Arbitral Procedure 42-43.

4 U. S. A. (William A. Parker) v.United Mexican States, 4 U.N. Reports of Arbitral Awards; 21 A.J.I.L. 174 (1927).

5 U. S. A. (Edgar A. Hatton) v.United Mexican States, 4 U.N. Rep. of Art. Awards 239; U. S. A. (L. J. Kalklosch) 1). United Mexican States, ibid.412; U. S. A. (Lillie S. Kling) v.United Mexican States, ibid.575, 25 A.J.I.L. 367 (1931); Rép. française (Georges Pinson) v.Etats-Unis Mexicains, Jurisprudence de la Commission Franco- Mexicaine des Réclamations (1922-32) (Paris, A. Pedone, 1933).

6 These were documents regarding orders given to the fleet effecting the passage through the Corfu Straits on Oct. 22, 1946, in case they were fired upon from the coast.

7 Corfu Channel Case (Merits), [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4, at 32; 43 A.J.I.L. 558, at 579 (1949).

8 Annex 15 to United Kingdom Memorial, pp. 103, 104.

9 Charles G. Fenwick, International Law (3rd ed., 1948).

10 The Corfu Channel Case, Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, Vol. I, p. 25.

11 report of the Special Committee of Jurists.

12 League of Nations Official Journal, 1924, p. 524; 18 A.J.I.L. 537 (1924). The report was adopted by the Council. League of Nations Official Journal, 1924, p. 527.

13 2 U.N. reports of Arbitral Awards 1011, at 1025-1026.

14 Sir Erie Beckett, Corfu Channel Case, Oral Arguments, p. 579.

15 Under the Code Civile Suisse the following interesting provision exists: ‘ ‘ Celui qui recourt à la force pour protéger ses droits ne doit aucune réparation, si d'après les circonstances, 1'intervention de l'autorité ne pouvait être obtenue en temps utile et s'il n'existait pas d'autre moyen d'empêcher que ces droits ne fussent perdus ou que l'exercice n'en fût rendu beaucoup plus diffieile.” Art. 52, Code des Obligations.

16 Corfu Channel Case (Merits), [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 35.

17 ibid.

18 Ibid.76. . 19 Ibid 111, 112.

20 Ibid.130.

21 Jessup, A Modern Law of Nations (1950).

22 B. W. Tucker, ‘’ The Interpretation of War under Present International Law,'’ 4 Int. Law Q. 32 (1951).

23 This is very well demonstrated by the Hungarian situation, where even a United Nations Special Committee, entrusted with the function of investigating the charges as to whether the intervention in Hungary of the U.S.S.E. was illegal and if the latter state had committed acts contrary to international law against the Hungarian people as the prima facie evidence suggested, did not enter Hungary to investigate the nature of the delinquency, but requested the permission of Hungarian authorities to enter that country for this purpose, and on being refused permission, submitted a report (General Assembly, 11th Bess., Official Records, Supp. No. 18 (A/3592)) with whatever evidence was available outside Hungary.

24 Corfu Channel Case (Merits), [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 14, 15.

25 A. V. W. Thomas and A. J . Thomas, Jr., Non-intervention: The Law and its Import in the Americas 136 (1956).

26 189 Ky. 152, 224 S.W. 860 (1920).

27 Sloane, J., in People v.Mayen, 188 Cal. 237, 205 Pac. 435: The return of articles found under an invalid search warrant on a charge of larceny had been wrongfully refused and the articles were afterwards used in evidence.

28 Rea v.United States, 359 U. S. 214 (1956); but see also Stefanelli v.Miuard, 342 U. 8. 117 (1951), and Wolf v.Colorado, 338 U. S. 257 (1949).

29 A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Vol. 8, p. 5 (3rd ed.).

30 116 U. S. 616.

31 192 U. S. 585.

32 232 U. S. 383.

33 Kuruma v.B., [1955] A.C. 197.

34 Australia:Miller v.Noblet, (1927) SASE 385; Canada:Rex v.Durousel, 41 Manitoba L. 15 (1933) ; Regina v.Doyle, 12 Ont. E. 347; Rex v.Kostachut, 24 Sask. L. 485; England:Elias v.Pasmore, [1934] 2 K.B. 164; India:Ali Ahmed Khan v.Emperor, 81 I.C. 615; Baldeo v.Emperor, 142 I.C. 639 (Cal.); Bang. ;Burma) :Chwa Hum Htive v.Emperor, 143 I.C. 834; Scotland:Hodgson v.Macpherson, 193 S.C. (g) 68; Pakistan:The Crown v.Muhammad Siddique, 1955 P.L.R. 695 (Lahore).

35 Oscar Chinn Case, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 63, p. 46; Palmas Case, Rec, p. 20 (1928).

36 The Corfu Channel Case (Merits), [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 18.

37 Art. 49.

38 Art. 41.

39 The Corfu Channel Case, Oral Proceedings, Vol. IV, p. 679.

40 Sir Gerald Pitzmaurice, ‘ ‘ The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: General Principles and Substantive Law,” 27 Brit. Yr. Bk. of Int. Law 5 (1950); Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953); 1 Oppenheim-Lauterpacht, International Law 311 (8th ed., 1955); Thomas and Thomas, op. cit.137.