Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:25:58.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States of America). Request by the Swiss Government for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection. I.C.J. Reports, 1957, p. 105

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Brunson MacChesney
Brunson MacChesney*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1958 , pp. 320 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1958

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 Vice President Badawi, Acting President; President Hackworth; Judges Guerrero, Basdevant, Winiarski, Zoričić, Klaestad, Head, Armand-Ugon, Kojevnikov, Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Moreno Quintana, Córdova, Wellington Koo; M. Paul Carry, Judge ad hoc.

2 Judge Klaestad in his separate opinion took the position that, prima facie, the American objection was valid, but that this finding is itself provisional. No party having challenged the validity of the American reservation, it will be given effect.

3 Judge Lauterpacht's concurring opinion stated, inter alia, that the American objection destroyed any prima facie jurisdiction and that, therefore, the Court had no power under Article 41.