Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T21:00:05.880Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Get access

Extract

Following the judgments of the International Court of Justice on November 20, 1950 and November 27, 1950 (the request for an interpretation of the judgment), the government of Colombia filed a new claim requesting the Court to adjudge and declare the manner in which effect should be given to the judgment of November 20, and in particular whether Colombia was bound to deliver to the government of Peru Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. As an alternative claim Colombia requested that the Court declare whether in accordance with the law in force between the parties and particularly American international law Colombia was or was not bound to deliver the refugee to the government of Peru. In a letter the Colombian agent informed the Court that his government relied on the Convention on Asylum signed at Havana on February 29, 1928; under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, the government of Cuba as a signatory to that convention submitted a declaration of intervention which contained Cuba's views on the construction of the Convention of Havana of 1928 as well as its general attitude on asylum. A public hearing was held by the Court on May 15 to determine the admissibility of the Cuban intervention to which the government of Peru had objected on the ground that the Court had given a judgment on the construction of the Havana Convention of 1928, and that it was an attempt by a third state to appeal against the judgment of November 20.

Type
International Organizations Summary of Activities I. United Nations
Information
International Organization , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , August 1951 , pp. 584 - 592
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1951

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 For a summary of the judgments of November 20 and November 27, see International Organization, V, p. 191–194.

2 Haya de la Torre Case, Judgment of June 13, 1951; ICJ Reports 1951, p. 71–84.

3 For a summary of the questions presented to the Court, see International Organization, V, p. 194.

4 For a discussion of international practices on reservations to multilateral agreements, see International Organization, V, p. 167.

5 Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion; ICJ Reports 1951, p. 15–55Google Scholar.

6 ICJ Communiqué 51/20, 05 26, 1951Google Scholar.

7 ICJ 1951, General List, No. 16.

8 ICJ Communiqué 51/22, 05 28, 1951Google Scholar.

9 ICJ 1951, General List, No. 14.

10 Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case, Order of July 5, 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 89–95Google Scholar.

11 ICJ Communiqué 51/8, 04 13, 1951Google Scholar.

12 Ambatielos Case, Order of May 18, 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 11–13Google Scholar.

13 For a summary of the questions involved, see International Organization, V, p. 195.

14 ICJ 1951, General List, No. 11.

15 Case concerning rights of nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, Order of June 25, 1951; ICJ Reports 1951, p. 86, 87Google Scholar.

16 ICJ Communiqué 51/27, 07 3, 1951Google Scholar.

17 Ibid. 51/13, April 20, 1951.

18 Ibid. 51/14, May 8, 1951.