No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
International Court of Justice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
Extract
Judgments
Nottebohtn Case: On April 6, 1955, the International Court of Justice ruled on the admissibility of Liechtenstein's claim in the Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala). Liechtenstein had contended that Guatemala, in taking various actions in regard to Nottebohm, a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein, had acted in breach of its obligations under international law, and should be required to make reparations; Nottebohm, Liechtenstein contended, had received his Liechtenstein nationality in accordance with Liechtenstein's municipallaw, and there had been no breach of international law in that connection. Guatemala had argued that the Court should declare the claim of Liechtenstein inadmissible, claiming that Liechtenstein had failed to prove that Nottebohm's nationality had been properly acquired under the terms of Liechtenstein municipal law, that naturalization had not been granted to Nottebohm in accordance with “the generally recognized principles in regard to nationality”, and that in any case, Nottebohm, who had formerly been a German national, appeared to have solicited Liechtenstein nationality fraudulently, with the sole object of acquiring the status of a neutral national before returning to Guatemala, and without any genuine intention of establishing a “durable link” between himself and Liechtenstein”.
- Type
- International Organizations: Summary of Activities: I. United Nations
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The IO Foundation 1955
References
1 Nottebobm Case (second pbase), Judgment of April 6th, 1955: I. C . J. Reports 1955, p. 26; for previous information on this case, see International Organization, VI, p. 107, 295, and 429; ibid., VIII, p. 128, and 381.
2 Nottebohm Case (Second Phase), Judgement… cited above, p. 6–8.
3 Ibid., p. II.
4 Ibid., p. 21.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid., p. 22.
7 Ibid., p. 30.
8 Ibid., p. 34.
9 For information of the decision of the ninth session of the General Assembly to request the advisory opinion, see International Organization, IX, p. 125–127Google Scholar.
10 for further information on the advisory opinion of I950, see International Organization, IV, p. 476–478.
11 South. West Africa—Voting Procedure, Advisory opinion of June 7tb, 1955: I. C. J. Reports 1955, p. 72.
12 Ibid., p. 76.
13 Ibid., p. 115.
14 For information on the decision of the ninth session of the united Nations General Assembly to reuest am advospry opinion from the cCourt on the voting procedure to be followed on questions relating to reports and petitions concerning the Territory of South-West Africa, see International Organization, IX, p. 125–127; for the application to the Court, see International Court of Justice. Request for Advisory Opinion transmittedto the Court under the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of November 23rd, 1954. Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions Concerning the Territory of South-West Africa. 1954 General List No. 24; for the advisory opinion of the Court, see this issue, p. 417.
15 International Court of Justice. Application Insstituting Proceedings field in the Registry of the Court on March 29th, 1955. Aerial Incident of March 10tb, 1953 (United States of America v. Czechoslovakia). 1955 General List No. 25, p. 4.
16 Ibid., p. 6.
17 International Court of Justice, Application Instituting Proceedings field in the Registry of the Court on May 4th, 1955, Antartica Case (United Kingdom v. Chile). 1955 General List No. 27, p. 56–57.
18 International Court of Justice. Application Instituting Proceedings field in the Registry of the Court on May 4th, 1955, Antartica Case (United Kingdoom v. Argentina). 1955 General List No. 26.