Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T04:18:41.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States of America).

International Court of Justice.  21 March 1959 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

State responsibility — Claims — In general — Exhaustion of local remedies — Nature of rule — Exceptions to rule — Whether rule applicable to wrongful acts of Government — Whether rule applicable when local courts not competent to examine relevant issues of international law — Whether rule applicable to claims arising directly between Governments — Determination of nature of claim — Whether dispute arises out of espousal of claim of a national — Exhaustion of local remedies as a procedural bar.

International Court of Justice — Contentious jurisdiction — Competence

Necessity to exhaust local remedies — Nature of plea that local remedies not exhausted — Whether directed to jurisdiction or to admissibility.

Preliminary objections — Reservations — Disputes arising prior to date of acceptance by defendant State of jurisdiction of the Court — Elements constituting dispute — Whether date of acceptance by plaintiff State is relevant — Limits of operation of rule of reciprocity.

International Court of Justice — Contentious jurisdiction — Procedure — Suspension of proceedin~s on the merits upon receipt of a preliminary objection — New submission amounting to new claim on the merits filed after suspension — Admissibility of — Rules of Court, Article 62 (3).

War — In general — Effects of outbreak of — On enemy subjects — With regard to their property — Measures of seizure and retention of enemy property — Determination of enemy character of property — Whether within domestic jurisdiction of State taking such measures.

Disputes — International Court of Justice — Contentious jurisdiction — Competence — Declarations under Article 36 (2) of Statute — Reservation of matters essentially within domestic jurisdiction of declarant State as determined by that State — “Automatic reservation” — Whether objection based on such reservation may be joined to merits — Validity of automatic reservation — Relevance of limited reliance on reservation — Whether affecting validity of declaration as a whole — Severability — Whether reservation compatible with Article 36 (6) of Statute — Immutable character of rules fixed by Statute — Meaning of “obligation” to recognize jurisdiction of Court in Article 36 (2) — Effect of reservation on character of declaration as a legal instrument — Relevance of intention of State to make valid and effective acceptance of jurisdiction — Relevance of past practice of State with regard to arbitral and judicial settlement — Whether condition that reservation be applied “reasonably” may be implied — Distinction between “determined” and “understood” — Whether Court has jurisdiction to decide if reservation exercised in good faith — Principle that Court must be cautious in attributing bad faith or unreasonableness to a sovereign State.

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1963

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.)