International Law — Relation to Municipal Law — Interpretation of Statute Apparently Conflicting with International Law.

Jurisdiction — Exemptions from — Rulers of Vassal States — Immunity from Taxation.

Vassal States — Immunity of Indian Rulers from Taxation — International Law and Municipal Law — Law of Nations as Part of Law of the Land — The Law of India.

Recognition — Of Annexation — Non-recognition of Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic — Effects of — Recognition of Confiscatory Legislation of Foreign State.

States — Recognition of Legislative Decrees of Foreign States — Confiscatory Legislation — Recognition — Non-Recognition of Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic — Effects of.

States as international persons — Composite and dependent States and territories — Dependent States — Status of former Belgian Congo — Whether Belgium liable for debts — Belgian Act of 1908 (Colonial Charter) — Separation of assets and liabilities between Belgium and Belgian Congo — Scope of Act — Repeal on accession of Congo to independence — Status of Belgian civil servants in Belgian Congo — The law of Belgium

International law in general — Sources — State practice — United Nations General Assembly resolutions — Resolution on nationalization — Whether a source of international law — Whether evidence of dominant trend of international opinion

States as international persons — In general — Recognition of acts of foreign States and governments — Nationalization of concession held by foreign company — Act of State — Whether entitled to international recognition — Whether capable of being questioned in arbitration proceedings — Whether restitutio in integrum can be ordered by Tribunal to restore position prior to nationalization

State responsibility — Damages — Measure of damages — Award of damages in general — Damages for unlawful taking of property — Compensation for lawful nationalization — Principles of assessment — Equitable measure of compensation

State responsibility — Damages — Measure of damages — Indirect damages and damages for loss of profits — Whether damages for loss of profits required in case of unlawful taking of property — Whether compensation for lawful nationalization of concession should include loss of profits — Equitable measure of compensation

State responsibility — Interest — In general — Award of interest in case of termination of concession — Whether interest payable under proper law of concession — Whether interest usurious — Libyan law

State responsibility — Interest — Rate of interest — Termination of concession governed by Libyan law insofar as compatible with international law — Whether Libyan rate of interest payable

State responsibility — Interest — Diesa quo and dies ad quem — Date from which interest payable — Interest only due on liability to pay fixed amount of money — Interest payable from date of arbitration Award rather than date of termination of concession

International organization and administration — The United Nations — The General Assembly — Importance of General Assemblyre — solutions as source of international law — Evidence of dominant trend of international opinion — Resolutions on nationaliztion

Disputes — Arbitration — In general — The law applied by arbitral tribunals — Arbitration between State and foreign company — Lex arbitri — Whether governed by the law of the seat of arbitration Law applicable to concession contract — General principles of private international law for determining proper law of a contract

Disputes — Arbitration — In general — Appointment of arbitrators — Refusal of one party to appoint arbitrator — Appointment by President of the International Court of Justice

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Procedure before the tribunal — Power of tribunal to determine own rules of procedure — Procedure in default of appearance by one party

Disputes — Arbitration — Procedure — Competence to determine jurisdiction — Arbitrability of dispute — Survival of arbitration clause

Disputes — Arbitration — Evidence — Duty of tribunal to decide on best evidence available — Effect of failure of one party to appear Evidence regarding methods of computing sums claimed

State responsibility — Nature and kinds of — For revocation of, or interference with, concessions or concessionary contracts — Nature of concessions — Whether administrative — Whether primarily contractual — Property rights — Conditions of amendment or termination by State — Proper law of concessions — Reference to international law and general principles of law — Nationalization — Extent of State’s right to nationalize — Requirement that nationalization be for a public purpose — Whether still a rule of international law Requirement that nationalization be non — discriminatory — Effect of United Nations General Assembly resolutions on nationalization — Whether premature termination of concession by nationalization a delict or a lawful act giving rise to duty to compensate

Restitutio in integrum — Availability in international law — Whether contrary to sovereignty of State — Whether amounting to cancellation of nationalization measures — Act of State — Declaratory award — Similarity to restitutio in integrum

Compensation — Measure of compensation — Damnum emergens — Lucrum cessans — Whether compensation for loss of profits required — Equitable measure of compensation — Interest — Whether interest usurious — Rate of interest — Date from which interest payable — Costs

Arbitration — Arbitration between State and foreign company Procedure — Lex arbitri — Whether arbitration subject to the law of the Tribunal — Award given in default of appearance — Appointment of Sole Arbitrator by the President of the International Court of Justice

Treaties — Special kinds of — International Labour Conventions — Shipowners' Liability (Sick and Injured Seamen) Convention, 1936, Article 7.

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Conduct of foreign relations — Military assistance to foreign governments in south–east Asia — Funding — United States Constitution — Requirement of lawful appropriation of Treasury funds — Whether military assistance unlawful — Whether justiciable question — Political question doctrine

War and armed conflict — south–east Asia — Provision of military assistance to governments in south–east Asia by the United States — Whether military assistance lawful — Relationship between powers of United States courts, Congress and Executive — The law of the United States

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Embassy employee — Assistant in Press Section — Dispute concerning contract of employment — Whether foreign State entitled to jurisdictional immunity — Relevance of fact that employee had no special responsibility for public service — The law of France

State immunity — Attachment and execution — Embassy bank account — Judgment creditor seeking to levy execution against foreign State by attachment of bank account — Statement by foreign State that funds in bank account used to defray embassy expenses — Whether bank account liable to attachment — Conclusiveness of statement by foreign State

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Application by municipal courts — Practice and opinions of the Executive concerning customary international law — Whether binding on municipal courts

Diplomatic relations — Immunity — Embassy bank account — Account in use for defraying running expenses of embassy — Whether subject to execution in receiving State — The law of the Netherlands

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Alleged violations of jus cogens — Torture — Claims for damages for torture committed outside forum State — Whether defendant State immune — General provision for immunity — Whether exception for jus cogens violation — State Immunity Act 1978, Sections 1(1) and 5 — Whether Section 1(1) of the Act should be read subject to implied exception for claims which alleged torture — Whether English courts having jurisdiction

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Officials — Definition of State — Whether including officials — Whether officials acting in official capacity entitled to same immunity as State — Whether torture official act attracting immunity ratione materiae — Whether exception applying — State Immunity Act 1978 — Whether English courts having jurisdiction

State immunity — Human rights — Relationship between law of State immunity and human rights — State Immunity Act 1978 — Whether Act disproportionate — Whether Act inconsistent with a peremptory norm of international law prohibiting torture — Whether application of Act infringing claimants' right of access to a court under Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether English courts having jurisdiction to entertain claims — Whether States recognizing or giving effect to international law obligation to exercise jurisdiction over claims arising from alleged breaches of peremptory norms of international law — Sources of international law — Treaties — Judicial decisions — Reputed publicists — Whether recognizing exception to State immunity for torture cases in civil proceedings — Whether ancillary procedural rule entitling or requiring States to assume civil jurisdiction over other States in alleged torture cases

Human rights — Freedom from torture — Torture Convention, 1984 — Claimants alleging systematic torture by State officials while in custody of foreign State — Article 14 of Torture Convention, 1984 — Interpretation — Whether other States required to provide remedy for acts of torture committed outside their territory — Jus cogens prohibition of torture — Whether taking precedence over other rules of international law — Nature of State immunity international law rules — Whether States recognizing or giving effect to international law obligation to exercise jurisdiction over claims arising from alleged breaches of peremptory norms of international law — Whether entitlement to immunity when sued for torture

Human rights — Right of access to court — Kingdom of Saudi Arabia claiming immunity for itself and its officials — Whether immunity incompatible with claimants' right of access to court — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6

Relationship of international law and municipal law — State Immunity Act 1978 — Interpretation — Human Rights Act 1998, Section 3 — Whether Section 1(1) of State Immunity Act 1978 could be read in way compatible with Convention rights — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 6 — Whether State Immunity Act 1978 could be interpreted in manner permitting immunity to be refused to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its officials in respect of torture claims — The law of England

International tribunals — Provisional measures of protection — International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea — Applicable law — United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (“UNCLOS”) — Ireland and United Kingdom both States Parties to UNCLOS — Request by Ireland for the establishment of an Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal — Request by Ireland for the indication of provisional measures under UNCLOS Article 290(5) pending constitution of Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal

Sea — Marine environment — UNCLOS — Environmental effects of the MOX nuclear plant and of international movements of radioactive materials — Obligation to cooperate in taking measures to protect and preserve the Irish Sea — Precautionary principle

Treaties — Interpretation and application — UNCLOS — Compulsory procedures for settlement of disputes — UNCLOS Articles 281 and 282 — Whether applicable — Relationship between Article 282 and compulsory dispute settlement procedures under other treaties — Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 1992 (“OSPAR Convention”) — Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, 1957 (“Euratom Treaty”) — Treaty Establishing the European Community, 1957 (“EC Treaty”) — Commencement of dispute settlement procedures under the OSPAR Convention not precluding resort to compulsory dispute settlement under UNCLOS — Provisions of other treaties not relevant to dispute concerning the interpretation and application of UNCLOS — UNCLOS Article 282 not applicable

Sea — UNCLOS — Article 290(5) — Conditions to be satisfied for prescription of provisional measures under Article 290(5) — Whether prima facie basis for the jurisdiction of the Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal — Whether urgent necessity for prescription of provisional measures pending the constitution of Annex VII Arbitral Tribunal — Irreparable prejudice — Serious harm to the marine environment — Requirement of urgency not satisfied — Power of International Tribunal to prescribe provisional measures different in whole or in part to those requested

Federal States — In General — Conduct of Foreign Relations — Powers of the Executive — The Law of the United States

The individual in international law — Nationality — Acquisition of — As affected by change of sovereignty — Cession of territory — Whether Willstatt ceded in 1805 by Elector of Baden to Napoleon I — Whether persons born in Willstatt acquired French nationality — The law of France.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Agencies of — Whether municipal courts may interpet diplomatic treaties — Whether official Government interpretation must be adopted — The law of France.

State territory — In general — Acquisition of territorial sovereignty — Cession — Whether Willstatt ceded in 1805 by Elector of Baden to Napoleon I — Whether persons born in Willstatt acquired French nationality — The law of France.

Economics, trade and finance — International trade — Anticompetitive practices — Price fixing — Agreements between producers outside the European Community to fix prices — Effect on the European Economic Community — Whether involving violation of Community competition law — European Economic Community Treaty, 1957, Article 85 — Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Recommendation on Co-operation between States on Restrictive Practices affecting International Trade

Jurisdiction — Principles of — Whether international law conferring jurisdiction upon States or imposing limitations upon a jurisdiction derived from State sovereignty — Lotus principle — Territorial jurisdiction — Extent of territorial principle — Effects doctrine — Whether compatible with international law — Antitrust cases — Price fixing agreement concluded outside European Economic Community — Effects within Community — Acts inside Community in implementation of agreement — Whether parties to agreement violating Community law — Basis for Community to assert jurisdiction

Relationship of international law and municipal law — European Economic Community law — Relationship with international law — International law principles regarding jurisdiction of States — Whether applicable to European Economic Community

Treaties — Application — EEC-Finland Free Trade Agreement — Whether precluding application of Community competition law to Finnish undertakings — The law of the European Economic Community

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Exemptions from and restrictions upon — Foreign armed forces — Crew members of visiting foreign naval vessel — Whether subject to local immigration legislation — Deportation order — The law of Australia.

Aliens — Expulsion of — Right of expulsion — Deportation of person claiming political asylum — Crew members of visiting foreign naval vessel — Whether deportation order is misuse of executive power which is subject to examination by the courts — The law of Australia.

International law in general — Relation to municipal law — Treaties — Effect on private rights — Merller of Jind into Patiala Union Effect of Covenant of merger — Act of State — The law of India.

State territory — In general — Effects of changes of sovereignty — Covenant for merger of former independent Indian States into Patiala Union, 1948 — Effect on rights of subjects of those States based on prior contract with Ruler — Act of State — The law of India.

State succession — Succession with regard to contractual obligations — Concessions — Agreement as to rate of income-tax — Agreement between Ruler of Jind and a company — Effect of merger of Jind into Patiala Union — Effect on concession — Act of State — Whether previous obligations of Ruler Incorporated into Constitution of new State — The law of India.

Warfare on land — Appropriation, utilization and destruction of enemy property — Sequestration of German-owned patents — London Accord concerning the treatment of German-owned patents, 1946 — Disposal of German-owned patents (Article 1) — Right of signatory Governments to protect rights acquired by non-Germans (Article 4) — Application of — The law of France.

Jurisdiction-Exemptions from — Foreign States — Sovereign immunity — Where foreign State has broken off diplomatic relations with United States — The law of the United States of America.

Recognition — Of Governments — Rupture of diplomatic relations — Effect on standing to sue in courts in United States — Effect of breach of diplomatic relations upon sovereign immunity — The law of the United States of America.

Jurisdiction — Territorial — Applicability of English statute — Respondent bank registered and carrying on business in Jersey — Whether respondent out of jurisdiction of court — Section 238(2) of Insolvency Act 1986 — “Any person” — Meaning intended by Parliament — Whether encompassing “foreign” bank — Principles of statutory construction — Whether territorial scope of legislation unlimited — Whether Parliament intending limitation of application of statute — Court possessing discretion providing safeguards — Sufficient connection with England — Service out of jurisdiction — The law of England

Human rights — Jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — General duty of Contracting States under Article 1 of Convention — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant complaining respondent State violating his rights under Articles 3, 5, 6(1), 8, 10 and 13 of Convention, and Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Respondent State raising preliminary objection — Whether non-exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether to be joined to merits — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities under Article 38 of Convention — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged in respect of applicant at material time — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s treatment and detention by foreign officials on its territory — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s removal from its territory — Whether respondent State violating Convention

Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of ill-treatment by applicant — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether respondent State failing to carry out effective investigation of applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment when in United States custody on territory of respondent State — Substantive aspects of Article 3 — Whether derogation from Article 3 permitted in difficult circumstances of terrorism — Whether respondent State complicit in United States Central Intelligence Agency High-Value Detainees Programme — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to subject applicant to torture and ill-treatment on its territory — Whether treatment amounting to torture — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to transfer applicant from its territory despite existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of Convention

Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of arbitrary detention by applicant — Applicant’s detention on territory of respondent State — Whether real risk of further undisclosed detention following transfer by United States authorities enabled by respondent State — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Removal of legal protection and safeguards from individuals — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Programme requiring cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s detention on its territory — Respondent State enabling transfer of applicant from its territory to Central Intelligence Agency secret detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for exposing applicant to foreseeable serious risk of detention conditions not complying with Convention — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention

Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant separated from family while detained and transferred — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Notion of private life — Whether covering person’s moral and physical integrity — Acts and omissions of respondent State in respect of applicant’s detention and transfer — Whether amounting to interference with applicant’s right in accordance with law — Whether respondent State’s responsibility engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 8 of Convention

Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining of lack of effective remedy in respect of grievances under Article 3 of Convention — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Complaint linked to complaint under procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether complaints arguable — Whether criminal investigation effective — Requirements of Article 13 — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of flagrant denial of justice — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether United States military commission guaranteeing impartiality and independence — Whether United States military commission “established by law” — Probability of admission of evidence obtained by torture — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention

Terrorism — Terrorist suspects — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant detained in CIA-run secret detention facility in respondent State — Applicant ill-treated by CIA — Applicant transferred by CIA from respondent State — Complicity of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether respondent State violating European Convention on Human Rights, 1950

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Procedure and rules of Court — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 38 — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities — Whether respondent State complying — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether respondent State’s refusal to submit evidence based on alleged lack of procedural safeguards justified — Whether domestic law justifying refusal to submit evidence — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Articles 25(d) and 26 — Whether Court entitled to draw inferences from respondent State’s conduct

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts — Standard of proof — Whether approach of national legal systems relevant — Role and approach of Court — Article 19 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Burden of proof — Case law under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Extreme secrecy surrounding United States’ rendition operations — Respondent Government’s failure to cooperate — Circumstantial evidence — Whether respondent State’s responsibility under Article 1 of Convention engaged — Whether respondent State responsible for securing Convention rights for applicant at material time

State responsibility — Principles under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Responsibility of respondent State under Article 1 of Convention — Principles deriving from case law of European Court of Human Rights — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Responsibility of State under Convention for acts performed by foreign officials on its territory with acquiescence or connivance of its authorities — Responsibility of State where individual removed from its territory exposed to foreseeable violation of Convention rights in country of destination — Whether real risk of flagrant breach of Convention rights in destination country — Role of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether complaints and extent to which events complained of imputable to respondent State could be examined

Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Evidence obtained by torture — Whether admissible in criminal trial — Legal systems based on rule of law — Trial process cornerstone of rule of law — Whether admission of evidence obtained by torture irreparably damaging trial process — Whether evidence obtained by torture reliable — Whether flagrant denial of justice if evidence obtained by torture admitted in criminal trial — Probability of United States military commission admitting evidence obtained by torture — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention

Human rights — Right to life — Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 of Convention — Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Abolition of death penalty — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of imposition of death penalty — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Extradition — Extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorist facing capital charges — Whether substantial and foreseeable risk applicant would be subjected to death penalty following trial before United States military commission — Whether acts and omissions of respondent State engaging its responsibility under Convention — Whether respondent State required to seek appropriate diplomatic assurances from United States under Article 46 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention

Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Serious violations of several provisions of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant suffering non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violations sufficient — Article 41 of Convention

International law — Relation to municipal law — Consistency of municipal statute with treaty — Patent law — The law of the United States of America.

Treaties — Special kinds of — Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between United States and Italy — National treatment with respect to patents — Consistency of municipal statute with treaty — The law of the United States of America.