- Home (current)
- Intellectual Property Law
- Constitutional Developments
- Protests and Riots
- Recent Updates
- Criminal Law
- Finology Legal
10 Landmark Cases of International Law
International Law includes rules, treaties & agreements binding upon their nation. The foremost reason why countries sign treaties is that they believe it will be beneficial for their citizens. International law governs several global matters like the environment, world trade, wars, diplomatic relations, etc. So, dealing with the landmark case laws based on such matters is important for your better understanding. Hence, we have wrapped up detailed versions of ten landmark cases on international law. Let's get started.
Landmark Cases on International Law
1. corfu channel case .
(Heard before the International Court of Justice between 1947 and 1949)
Subject matter: state liability for maritime damages, as well as the theory of innocent passage
This lawsuit considered Albanian culpability for mining the Corfu waterway and the following damage to two British naval vessels caused by the hitting mines.
In October 1946, two British warships collided with mines in Albanian seas. Both destroyers were severely damaged, 45 British officers and men were killed, and 42 others were injured.
Following that, in November 1946, the British Navy searched for mines in Albanian seas in the Corfu Channel without Albanian approval. The United Kingdom applied to initiate proceedings against the People's Republic of Albania, seeking a determination that the Albanian Government was globally accountable for the incident's repercussions and must make reparation.
Albania, for its part, has filed a counter-claim against the UK for violating Albanian territorial seas. The British government alleged that the minefield that caused the explosions was laid by or with the agreement or knowledge of the Albanian government between May 15th and October 22nd, 1946.
As a result, Albania had to reimburse the UK government for the blasts and deaths. The second question in the Special Agreement, along with the issue of passage of the British warships on October 22nd, 1946, relates to the actions of the British Navy in Albanian waters on 12th and 13th November, 1946, when the UK government conducted a minesweeping operation called 'Operation Retail' without the approval of Albania.
1) Should the North Corfu Channel be included in international highways?
2) Is Albania liable under the international law regime for the events that happened in Albanian seas on October 22, 1946, as well as the damage and loss of life that came from them, and is there any need to pay compensation?
Holding of the court
The majority opinion held that Albania was liable for the blasts for the resultant devastation and loss of human life that the United Kingdom had experienced. Albania was made liable by majority as it had continuous surveillance over the Channel and, therefore, ought to have known about Corfu Channel.
2. SS Lotus case
Subject matter: lays down the foundation of international law, says that sovereign states may act in any way they wish so long as they do not contravene an explicit prohibition
The Lotus case is about a criminal trial resulting from a crash between the S.S. Lotus, a French steamship, and the S.S. Bozkourt, a Turkish vessel, on August 2, 1926, in an area just north of Mytilene (Greece).
Eight Turkish people on the boat the Bozkourt drowned because of the catastrophe when the Lotus ripped the vessel apart.
The question was whether Turkey had the authority to trial Monsieur Demons, the French officer on duty at the time of the crash. France asserted that because the incident happened on the high seas, the nation whose flag the vessel flew should have the exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
France presented case law to demonstrate at least state practice supporting its argument. Those situations, however, included ships flying the same state's flag. As a result, the Court rejected France's claim by a narrow majority, declaring that there was no norm in international law to that effect.
The first principle that emerges of the Lotus Case is that a nation cannot exert its jurisdiction outside its borders unless authorised by an international treaty or customary law.
The second important principle that emerges out of the Lotus Case is that a Nation may exert its jurisdiction in any subject inside its territory, even if no express rule of international law allows it to do so. Governments have broad latitude in these cases, which is only restricted by the prohibitive standards of international law.
To know more about such international topics, enrol on our course of International Law
3. Anglo-Norway Fisheries case
Subject: Elements of international custom
Norwegian decree of 1935, which claimed territorial waters of more than 4 nautical miles, which was contested by UK.. The point from which the territorial waters was to be determined thus became an important factor, and the ICJ gave judicial recognition to Norway (which is an archipelagic State under the UNCLOS, as it is a collection of islands). The islands are connected to the mainland, and Norway employed straight baseline, wherein the outermost point of the archipelagic islands was taken and a straight line was drawn to the mainland, thus including a good chunk of the sea would fall within Norway’s territorial waters, which disturbed UK’s fishing rights in the same waters. UK argued that the normal method for calculation is as is provided under UNCLOS Article 5, which States “the normal baseline for measuring the breadth of the territorial sea is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal State.”
When both parties placed the dispute before the ICJ, the issue which arose was whether the Norwegian decree of 1935 was in conformity with the then existing customary international law
Holding of the court:
The Court observed that the historic title that Norway had over the waters contributed to treating them as an exception in the method chosen for determining their baseline. The court thus held that in exceptional circumstances like the Anglo-Norway fisheries case, a State may be justified in moving away from the normal baseline rule to determine its territorial waters, which is also heeded to in Article 7 of the 1982 UNCLOS, pertaining to straight baselines.
4. Hungary vs Slovakia, Gabjikovo Nagymaros Project Case
Subject matter: Termination/suspension of treaties
In 1977, Hungary and Czechoslovakia signed a Treaty for the construction of dams along the Danube River that bordered both nations (‘1977 Bilateral Treaty’). The construction work was to be undertaken by the two governments as a joint operation. There were provisions for which State was to operate on which part of the project, but there was no scope for unilateral engagement on the project by only one State. If investments were to be made in establishing the hydroelectric dam, both the States had to contribute.
Hungary stopped working on the project in 1989, and negotiations could not resolve the matter, which led to Hungary abandoning its side of the treaty obligations. During negotiations, the Hungary government paid no attention to the request made by the Czechoslovakia government, and the latter started investigating alternative solutions. One of the solutions entailed a unilateral diversion of the Danube by Czechoslovakia on its territory (plan ‘Variant C’). In 1991, Czechoslovakia started the unilateral hydroelectric dam construction on its side. A bypass canal was dug, and then the water from the river was diverted into the bypass canal.
Hungary brought its case before the ICJ and based its action on the fact that the damming of the river had been agreed to only on the ground of a joint operation and sharing of benefits associated with the project, to which Czechoslovakia had unlawfully unilaterally assumed control of a shared resource. It claimed that Czechoslovakia, which put into operation plan ‘Variant C’ after the project was halted, was a material breach of the 1977 Bilateral Treaty.
Hungary claimed that suspending the 1977 Bilateral Treaty and abandoning its side of the treaty obligation conformed with the well-established customary international law rules concerning termination of international treaties. These rules were squarely brought into effect in Articles 60, 61 and 62 of VCLT.
Arguments by Hungary: There was a three-prong argument advanced by the Hungarian government in support of the suspension and abandoning of its treaty obligations:
Article 60: Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach
Article 60(3) states:
“A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.”
Holding of the court
The Court had to make two sets of facts on the part of the Czechoslovakia government: One, the diversion of water of river Danube into the bypass canal on this side of the Czechoslovakia state. Two, construction of the works in general, which would have led to putting into application Variant C. By distinguishing these two sets of apps on the part of the Czechoslovakia state, ICJ observed that the Czechoslovakia government violated the 1977 Treaty only as far as the first act is concerned. On the second act of construction, which led to putting into practice Variant C, ICJ observed that there was no violation on the basis of the evidence produced.
5. Iran US Hostage Crisis
Subject matter: diplomatic immunity and state responsibility
For 444 days, more than 60 Americans feared for their lives during the Iran Hostage Crisis. This was a siege lasting from November 1979 to January 1981, which began when angry Iranians stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took hostages. The United States filed an application with the Court following Iranian radicals' seizure of its Embassy in Tehran on 4th November, 1979, and the abduction and detention of its diplomatic and consular employees as hostages.
Was the Iranian government in any way responsible for the actions of the militias, and was it complacent to the extent of the responsibility and obligations it owed as the host state to the diplomats?
On the United States request for provisional measures, the Court held that there had been no more fundamental prerequisite for State relations than the immunity of diplomats and the embassies, and it suggested provisional measures to ensure the immediate return of the Embassy premises to the United States and the release of the hostages.
In its judgement on the Court,t , remarked that Iran had breached and was still contravening obligations owed by it to the United States under the existing conventions between the 2 nations and rules of general international law, that the violation engaged its obligation, and that the Iranian state was obligated to secure the immediate release. The Court emphasised the fundamental relevance of international law rules regulating diplomatic and consular interactionsIt stated that, while the actions of militants could not be attributed directly to the Iranian Nation, due to a lack of sufficient information, the Iranian State had done nothing to prevent the attack, stop it before it was completed, or compel the insurgents to disengage from the facilities and release the hostages.
The Court recognised that, after November 4, 1979, some organs of the Iranian State supported and determined to perpetuate the acts complained of, transforming them into acts of the Iranian State... Despite the absence of the Iranian Government, the Court issued its decision, rejecting the grounds advanced by Tehran in two communications addressed to the Court in support of its contention that the Court could not and should not hear the matter. Since the matter was removed from the List upon cessation by Order of 12 May 1981, the Court was not called upon to give a further decision on the restitution for the harm caused to the Government ofUnited States
6. Luther v. Sagor Case (KB, CoA 1921)
Subject matter — Conclusiveness of Statements by Executive — Recognition of Foreign Governments and States.
Luther was a British Citizen who used to run a Timber industry in Soviet Russia. On 1917 the Russian Government nationalized his factory and thereafter Mr Luther left Russia and went to the UK. In 1920 Mr. Sagor came to an agreement with Russian Nationalized business company to buy some timber, the company sent timbers accordingly but when timers reached in UK Mr. Luther claimed that those timbers were his timbers, he pointed that as UK never recognized the government of Russia, as well as Russia, wrongfully took over his factory. Therefore, the civilized court of UK cannot validate the rule of Russian law.
The question of whether Russia is recognised by Britain was brought before the King's Bench Division. And how lawful or genuine was the nationalisation?
The court held that the recognition of the state was retroactive in effect, thus the change of govt and the delay in recognising the new govt would have no impact before the English courts. t was held that the British Government recognized the Government of Russia and the retrospective effect will be applicable for that recognition. So the Nationalization by Russia was legal and valid. Kings Bench Division considered the following matters: That the British Government provided de-facto recognition of the present government of Russia. That the recognition of Russia had retrospective effect, therefore, the time in question is not a concern. That, in the matter of effective relationships and in the question of law De-facto or De-jury recognition does not create any real difference
7. Nuclear Tests Case – 1974 ICJ
Subject matter: Unilateral declarations as a source of International-law
On May 9, 1973, Australia and New Zealand separately started actions against France about nuclear weapons tests that France planned to conduct in the South Pacific region's atmosphere. France indicated that it believed the Court lacked jurisdiction and did not present at the public sessions or file any pleas.
At the request of the tow pacific nations, the Court issued two orders on June 22, 1973, indicating, among other things, that France should refrain from conducting nuclear tests that would result in radioactive fallout over Australian or New Zealand territory while the case was being heard. By two Judgments given on 20 December 1974, the Court determined that the Applications of New Zealand and Australia no longer had any aim and that it was thus not required to rule on them. In doing so, the Court relied on the finding that Australia and New Zealand's goal had been met, because France had indicated in different public declarations its determination to conduct no additional atmospheric nuclear tests following the end of the 1974 series.
May a unilateral proclamation have the effect of generating legal obligations?
Declaration made through unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal obligations.
French Minister has made a statement before the UNGA. Prez and PM had also made public statements. The defence minister also made a statement on TV.
ICJ took the first 3 statements together, to mean that France had given an undertaking, not only to Australia and New Zealand, to not conduct an atmospheric nuclear test.
The statements were made publicly, which applies to the international community. It was identified as state policy. It was not made in response specifically to Australia and New Zealand.
8. Asylum Case- between Columbia and Peru
Subject matter : Customs as a source of International-law
The dispute was regarding diplomatic asylum to a Peruvian national accused of actions intended to topple the Peruvian government. Columbia, where he had sought asylum, refused to hand him over to Peru for trial. This case is an example of regional custom. Columbia argued that the Latin American countries had adopted a convention whereby asylum could be provided to such people and that this was regional custom. Peru said this state practice was however inconsistent.
Peru was the receiving state (read as who sent ambassador), Colombia was the sending state. The sovereign rights of the receiving state can be limited in foreign offices. - principle of inviolability of foreign embassies
Peru wanted colombia to hand him over - matter when to ICJ. Peru said that there was a state practise in a latin america, that any person taking refuge in a foreign embassy will be allowed to move to the respective sending country. Both countries were signatories to the Montevido (Havana) convention which talked of political asylum - but Peru had not ratified it.
Can the Colombian government provide refuge in accordance with local custom?
The ICJ made the following observations- the states falling within the concerned region must have observed the practice in a constant and uniform way; but on the facts of the case, it is not possible to conclude that the practice was constant (the court does not use the word consistent); further, there is no uniformity in the sense that not all states in the region has ratified the convention.
9. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)
Subject matter: Diplomatic Immunity
Belgium had enacted 2 legislations (criminal statutes) – one before the present case arose (1993) and one after (to address the negative fallout of the case by broadening the exercise of criminal jurisdiction by Belgian courts – prescriptive as well as enforcement jurisdiction)
Around the 2000s, a Belgian investigating judge issued an international arrest warrant in absentia for a Mr. Yerodia, a national of the DRC. He was charged with war crimes amounting to grave breaches of the Genocide Convention of 1949, and crimes against humanity. Belgium claimed that Mr. Yerodia was responsible for mass killings because his speeches around 1998 incited racial hatred, leading to mass murders and lynching by some groups. When the arrest warrant was issued, he was not in Belgium, and thus not under the territorial control of Belgian authorities. The arrest warrant was sent to the DRC government and to Interpol. Interpol in turn circulated the warrant to other states.
Under the former Belgian law, Belgium had criminal jurisdiction over offences irrespective of where they had been committed – ‘sweeping jurisdiction’. Alleged offenders could be booked under the Belgian law no matter where in the world they were. The law did not specify how they were to be brought back to Belgian. But, one of the procedures followed here was that copies of the arrest warrant were transmitted to DRC and Interpol.
Did Belgium break customary international law standards governing an incumbent Foreign Minister's full inviolability and immunity from criminal prosecution when it issued and publicly distributed the arrest warrant?
If so, did it breach the concept of sovereign equality among states?
Does this claimed illegality bar the States who got the warrant from using it?
Should the Court seek reparations?
Should Belgium recall and rescind its arrest warrant?
Diplomatic Immunity: The accused was a Minister for Foreign Affairs. (discussed later while dealing with diplomatic immunity). This case did not directly deal with the exercise of protective principle as basis for criminal jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. DRC argued that Mr. Yerodia was entitled for immunity, which was accepted by the ICJ. It held that the immunity claim was legitimate, and did not examine the question of Belgian jurisdiction.
3 judges dissented (Rosalyn Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, JJ) and made some observations with respect to the nature of the Belgian criminal statutes in
10. The Schooner Exchange v M’Fadden (1812)
Subject matter: Absolute state immunity
The case involved an admiralty suit (action in rem*) brought by the claimant before an American court. The suit was related to a naval vessel that entered Philadelphia for repair purposes. The claimant (who sought possession of the vessel) argued that they owned the vessel but that the French government had seized the vessel by means of a Napoleonic decree. The Attorney General filed a suggestion that the SC should refuse jurisdiction on the ground of SI since it was a French naval vessel.
Are national ships of war considered exempted if the power of the friendly jurisdiction whose port the ship enters consents?
Supreme Court – Courts of one country do not investigate into the law of other countries by the application of which properties are acquired. So, the court applied the doctrine of SI and decided in favour of the French government. The principle of par in parem non habet imperium was invoked. The court combined two doctrines - that the absolute jurisdiction of the territorial sovereign by assuming the latter’s implied consent to immunity from its courts’ jurisdiction. The distinction between commercial and administrative acts of the state was not made in this case. Here are some more blogs related to landmark cases, you can click on the link and know more about that-
1. Top 10 Landmark Cases of Constitution 2. Top 10 Landmark Supreme Court Judgments of 2022 3. Famous Landmark Cases of India
Kakoli Nath is a legal Content Manager at Finology Legal who pursued BBA.LL.B (5 years integrated course). She is a patent analyst & had also done advanced certification in Forensics Psychology and Criminal Profiling from IFS, Pune.
Liked What You Just Read? Share this Post:
Wanna share your views on this comment here:.
Related to this
Top 10 Current Affairs 2022
Know the Difference between LOC and LAC
Polluter Pays Principle: Everything about PPP
Israel Palestine War: The Israel- Hamas Conflict Explained
Bhopal Gas Tragedy
Why is The Places of Worship Act 1991 the Most Controversial Law in India?
Should you be doing an LLM in 2024-25?
Judgement on Electoral Bonds Scheme 2024
Gyanvapi Mosque Case Explained
Understanding the Farmers' Protest 2024
Finology legal on facebook, finology legal on twitter.
Copyright © 2024 Finology Ventures Pvt. Ltd. | All Rights Reserved
International Law: International Cases
- International Courts
- Laws of Nations
- Criminal Law
- Environmental Law
- Maritime Law
- Minorities & Indigenous Peoples
- Technology & Intellectual Property
- African Court on Human and People's Rights
- Benelux Economic Union Court Of Justice
- Caribbean Court of Justice
- European Court of Human Rights
- European Free Trade Agreement Court Of Justice
- European Union Court of Justice
- Inter-American Court of Human Rights
- International Criminal Court (ICC)
- International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
- UN's Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
- UN's International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Cases (1994-2015)
- UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
- United Nations International Court of Justice
- United States Court of International Trade
- World Trade Organization Dispute Court international court cases involving trade
- << Previous: Treaties
- Next: International Courts >>
- Last Updated: Dec 21, 2023 10:47 AM
- URL: https://csulb.libguides.com/international_law
Public International Law
Turkiye halk bankasi a.s. v. united states, torture in our schools.
- Leila Nadya Sadat
The Promise and Perils of Carbon Tariffs
Fedotova v. Russia
European Court of Human Rights Holds That Russia Must Give Legal Recognition to Same-Sex Couples
Legal Responses to Black Subordination, Global Perspectives
- Kevin E. Davis
The “Prudential Exhaustion” Doctrine in Transnational Litigation in U.S. Courts
United states v. hamidullin.
Fourth Circuit Holds Taliban Member Not Entitled to Combatant Immunity.
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
American courts and the u.n. high commissioner for refugees: a need for harmony in the face of a refugee crisis, bin ali jaber v. united states.
D.C. Circuit Holds Statutory Challenge to Drone Strike is Nonjusticiable.
- --> Login or Sign Up
Shop by Author
- Harvard Law Case Studies A-Z
- Free Materials
- Workshop-Based Case Study
- Discussion-Based Case Study
- Sabrineh Ardalan
- Sharon Block
- Robert Bordone
- Emily M. Broad Leib
- Robert Clark
- John Coates
- Susan Crawford
- Alonzo Emery
- Philip B. Heymann
- Howell E. Jackson
- Wendy Jacobs
- Adriaan Lanni
- Jeremy McClane
- Naz Modirzadeh
- Catherine Mondell
- Ashish Nanda
- Charles R. Nesson
- John Palfrey
- Bruce Patton
- Todd D. Rakoff
- Lisa Rohrer
- Jeswald W. Salacuse
- James Sebenius
- Joseph William Singer
- Holger Spamann
- Carol Steiker
- Guhan Subramanian
- Lawrence Susskind
- David B. Wilkins
- Heidi Gardner
- Jonathan Zittrain
Shop by Brand
- Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Semi Haas
- Chad M. Carr
- John Coates, Clayton Rose, and David Lane
Ashish Nanda and Lauren Prusiner
- Ashish Nanda and Lisa Rohrer
- Ashish Nanda and Monet Brewerton
- View all Brands
Harvard Law School
The Case Studies
The Case Study
a valuable tool for experiential, participant-centered learning
Public Company Analysis
Understand the control structures within US public companies
Explore emerging challenges in regulating financial institutions
Mediation & Negotiation
Develop the theory and practice of negotiation and dispute resolution
Shop by Category
A Difficult Discussion with the Board (A)
John Coates, Karina Shaw, Nathan Cisneros
GE Capital after the Crisis
John Coates, John Dionne, David Scharfstein
Noorain Khan and Disability Inclusion at the Ford Foundation
Laura Winig and Susan Crawford
BYOB in Boston
Susan Crawford and Brittany Deitch
Current Top Sellers
Lawrence Susskind and Eileen Babbitt
Ernest Shackleton's Journey to the Endurance
Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Tabor
Linklaters (A): Seeking Clear Blue Water
Hogan Lovells’ Sector-Focused Client Service Approach: Put to the Test During Covid
Heidi K. Gardner
First National Bank of Ames Corporation (Teaching Note)
Investor Access to Private Investment (Teaching Note)
Investor Access to Private Investment
Hannah Valentine under the supervision of Howell Jackson
Please note that each purchase of a product entitles the purchaser to one download and use. If you need multiple copies, please purchase the number of copies you need. For more information, see Copying Your Case Study .
- Law Library
Public International Law
- International Case Law
- Secondary Sources
- Customary International Law and "General Principles"
International Court of Justice
Permanent court of international justice, european court of justice.
- Scholarly Works / Teachings of Publicists
- Globalex Repository of research guides on international, comparative, and foreign legal research.
- EISIL Free online searcheable database of international law information with links to authentic primary materials and authoritative web sites.
- ASIL Electronic Research Guide Provides information and links to primary documents for a variety of important international law topics.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has two roles: it decides cases of international law between separate countries, and it issues advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the UN.
1. Online Resources
- ICJ Website Includes text of all cases and advisory opinions since 1947, the rules of procedure, and other information on the history and structure of the court.
- Westlaw: ICJ Decisions Contains the judgments, opinions, and orders of the ICJ from 1947 to 2000, with selective coverage from 2001 to the present.
- Lexis: ICJ Judgments Includes full text of judgments from 1948 to the present.
- Lexis: ICJ Advisory Opinions Includes full text advisory opinions from 1948 to the present.
- Lexis: ICJ Filings Includes full text filings for various cases from 2004 to the present, with with limited coverage from 1986 through 2003.
2. Print Resources
- Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders. Recueil des Arrets, Avis Consultatifs et Ordonnances Official compilation of the ICJ’s judgments, advisory opinions and orders. Most are bound, but the most recent decisions are separate slip opinions. In English and French. Library: KZ214 .I58a (Stacks)
- Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents. Memoirs, Plaidoiries et Documents Contains documentation related to individual ICJ cases. May be in either English or French. These are catalogued individually in the UCLA Library Catalog. Use the above link to use the advanced search on UC Library Search, click UCLA Library Catalog, and search for the name of the case in the title (starts with) field. (Or search: pleadings, oral arguments, documents using the same search field to retrieve a complete list of titles.)
The Permanent Court of International Justice was the precursor to the International Court of Justice. Established in 1922, it was associated with, though not a part of, the League of Nations. It was dissolved in 1946.
- ICJ Website The ICJ Website includes a link to a page focused on the PCIJ. Here one can find decisions, pleadings, records of public hearings, rules of court, and many other materials, organized chronologically in different “Series” (A through F). There is also a catalog and subject index of all publications of the Court.
- HeinOnline (UCLA Only) HeinOnline’s Foreign & International Law Resources Database also contains the full-text of the PCIJ series. This database is searchable, but the search capabilities are not adequate as of this writing and should not be relied upon for thorough research.
2. Print Resources
- Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice These are the print versions of the cases and materials available at the ICJ Website. Library: KZ 208-209 (Stacks)
The European Court of Justice decides cases arising from EU law including, but not limited to, disputes about interpretation and application of treaties and/or failure to implement EU legislation. It may decide cases arising between member states, EU institutions, businesses, and individuals. Its decisions are binding.
- EUR-Lex (from the EUROPA site) The “Case Law” database contains full-text of cases from all EU courts (1954 onwards), as well as Advocate’s General’s opinions.
- Westlaw: EU-CS-ALL database Contains full-text of English-language Court of Justice cases since 1954 and Court of First Instance cases since 1989.
- LexisNexis: EURCOM;ECJ Same coverage as Westlaw.
- CURIA The application of EU law by national courts and legislatures as the result of ECJ judgments is summarized annually and these summaries are available at this website.
- Reports of cases before the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance [continues: Court of Justice of the European Communities. Reports…] This is the official reporter, which also includes the EU's lower court, the Court of First Instance and the Advocate’s General’s Opinions. The Law Library has from 1954 onwards. Library: KJE 924.5 .R471
- Official Journal of the European Communities. [Information Notices (Series C)] Cases accepted and decisions rendered are noticed (but not fully reported) in the C series. Library: KJE 908 Ser. C
- << Previous: Customary International Law and "General Principles"
- Next: Scholarly Works / Teachings of Publicists >>
- Last Updated: Jul 20, 2023 1:22 PM
- URL: https://libguides.law.ucla.edu/publicinternationallaw
© The Regents of the University of California. UCLA School of Law. All Rights Reserved.
Study at Cambridge
About the university, research at cambridge.
- Events and open days
- Fees and finance
- Student blogs and videos
- Why Cambridge
- Course directory
- How to apply
- Frequently asked questions
- International students
- Continuing education
- Executive and professional education
- Courses in education
- How the University and Colleges work
- Visiting the University
- Term dates and calendars
- Video and audio
- Find an expert
- International Cambridge
- Public engagement
- Giving to Cambridge
- For current students
- For business
- Colleges & departments
- Libraries & facilities
- Museums & collections
- Email & phone search
- Research Centres
- Institute of Criminology
- Computer Office
- Squire Law Library
Faculty of Law
- About overview
- History of the Faculty
- Equality, diversity & inclusion overview
- Athena SWAN
- Diversifying the Law: Postgraduate research poster exhibition
- Equal opportunities
- Dignity at work
- Societies overview
- Graduate Law Society (CUGLS)
- Events at the Faculty
- Public media collections
- Cambridge LawLink newsletter overview
- LawLink January 2024
- LawLink October 2023
- LawLink July 2023
- LawLink April 2023
- LawLink January 2023
- LawLink October 2022
- LawLink July 2022
- LawLink April 2022
- LawLink January 2022
- LawLink October 2021
- LawLink July 2021
- LawLink May 2021
- LawLink January 2021
- LawLink October 2020
- LawLink July 2020
- LawLink May 2020
- LawLink January 2020
- LawLink October 2019
- LawLink July 2019
- LawLink April 2019
- LawLink January 2019
- LawLink October 2018
- LawLink July 2018
- LawLink April 2018
- LawLink January 2018
- LawLink October 2017
- LawLink July 2017
- LawLink April 2017
- LawLink January 2017
- LawLink October 2016
- LawLink July 2016
- LawLink April 2016
- LawLink January 2016
- LawLink October 2015
- LawLink August 2015
- LawLink April 2015
- LawLink January 2015
- LawLink October 2014
- LawLink July 2014
- LawLink April 2014
- How to find Us
- People overview
- University and College Teaching Officers in Law Faculty Officers University Teaching Officers in the Institute of Criminology University Teaching Officers in the Department of Land Economy Affiliated Lecturers Retired and honorary members Research Staff Research Students Development and Communications Administrative Staff Computing Staff Squire Library Staff
- Directors of Studies and College Teaching Affiliates
- College Research Fellows in Law
- Human Resources
- Courses overview
- Research overview
- Current research grants
- Faculty Centres, Networks and Groups overview
- Network of Empirical Labour Law Scholars (NELLS)
- Cambridge Socio-Legal Group
- Criminal Jurisprudence and Philosophy Group (CrimJur)
- Cambridge Legal Theory Discussion Group (CLTDG)
- Cambridge Law Club
- Financial support for research
- International Research Groups and Networks
- Our PhD students
- Prizes and distinctions for research
- Research ethics
- Research highlights
- Research with impact
- SSRN Legal Studies Research Paper Series
- Cambridge Law Eminent Scholars Archive
- International links overview
- Faculty academic visitors
- Exchange schemes
- Access & outreach overview
- Why study law?
- How do I become a lawyer?
- Outreach initiatives
- Exploring Law Course: Studying Law at University
- Exploring Law Conference overview
- Attending the conference
- Exploring Legal Futures Webinars
- Student recruitment events
- Life at Cambridge/Applying
- Finding out more: Helpful links
- Alumni & development overview
- Cambridge Women in Law (CWIL) overview
- Statement of aims and objectives
- CWIL Advisory Board
- CWIL mailing list
- Alumni events
- Our benefactors
- Squire Law Library appeal
- Planned giving and bequests
Landmark Cases in Private International Law
This collection of essays contains in-depth analyses of eighteen landmark cases in private international law, from Penn v Lord Baltimore in 1750 to Brownlie v FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC in 2021. The contributors are experts drawn from academia and practice as well as from the bench, including other members of the Faculty.
This book sheds new light on the past and future evolution of private international law by focusing on the landmark cases which have fundamentally shaped the way that we think about this subject. The focus is on the English common law, but landmarks in Scotland, Australia and Canada are covered as well. Many of them concern disputes between commercial parties; others deal with issues such as marriage and domicile; and some arise from controversies in political, constitutional and international affairs.
The landmark cases tackled in this collection address significant issues in civil jurisdiction, governing law, foreign judgments, and public policy. The essays place those landmarks in their historical context, explain their contemporary importance, and consider their future relevance.
For more information about this book, please refer to the Bloomsbury website . Current University of Cambridge staff and student members can access the ebook via Bloomsbury Collections .
For information about other publications by Mr Day and Professor Merrett please refer to their Faculty profiles .
The Faculty of Law The David Williams Building 10 West Road Cambridge CB3 9DZ United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 1223 330033 Email: [email protected]
Terms and Conditions
Connect with us.
© 2024 University of Cambridge
- University A-Z
- Contact the University
- Freedom of information
- Terms and conditions
- Spotlight on...
- About research at Cambridge
- Browse Topics
- Executive Committee
- Affiliated Faculty
- Harvard Negotiation Project
- Great Negotiator
- American Secretaries of State Project
- Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
- Negotiation Programs
- Mediation Programs
- One-Day Programs
- In-House Training and Custom Programs
- In-Person Programs
- Online Programs
- Advanced Materials Search
- Contact Information
- The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Negotiation Journal
- Harvard Negotiation Law Review
- Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
- Free Reports and Program Guides
- Upcoming Events
- Past Events
- Event Series
- Our Mission
- Keyword Index
PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu
Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization
Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.
Top 10 International Business Negotiation Case Studies
International business negotiation case studies offer insights to business negotiators who face challenges in the realm of cross-cultural business negotiation..
By PON Staff — on August 8th, 2023 / International Negotiation
If you engage in international negotiation , you can improve your odds of success by learning from these 10 well-known international business negotiation case studies:
Claim your FREE copy: International Negotiations
Claim your copy of International Negotiations: Cross-Cultural Communication Skills for International Business Executives from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
- Apple’s Apology in China
When Apple CEO Timothy D. Cook apologized to Apple customers in China for problems arising from Apple’s warranty policy, he promised to rectify the issue. In a negotiation research study, Professor William W. Maddux of INSEAD and his colleagues compared reactions to apologies in the United States and in Japan. They discovered that in “collectivist cultures” such as China and Japan, apologies can be particularly effective in repairing broken trust, regardless of whether the person apologizing is to blame. This may be especially true in a cross-cultural business negotiation such as this one.
- Bangladesh Factory-Safety Agreements
In this negotiation case study, an eight-story factory collapsed in Bangladesh, killing an estimated 1,129 people, most of whom were low-wage garment workers manufacturing goods for foreign retailers. Following the tragedy, companies that outsourced their garment production faced public pressure to improve conditions for foreign workers. Labor unions focused their efforts on persuading Swedish “cheap chic” giant H&M to take the lead on safety improvements. This negotiation case study highlights the pros and cons of all-inclusive, diffuse agreements versus targeted, specific agreements.
- The Microsoft-Nokia Deal
Microsoft made the surprising announcement that it was purchasing Finnish mobile handset maker Nokia for $7.2 billion, a merger aimed at building Microsoft’s mobile and smartphone offerings. The merger faced even more complexity after the ink dried on the contract—namely, the challenges of integrating employees from different cultures. International business negotiation case studies such as this one underscore the difficulties that companies face when attempting to negotiate two different identities.
- The Cyprus Crisis
With the economy of the tiny Mediterranean island nation Cyprus near collapse, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Central Bank (ECB), and the European Commission teamed up to offer a 10-billion-euro bailout package contingent on Cyprus provisioning a substantial amount of the money through a one-time tax on ordinary Cypriot bank depositors. The move proved extremely unpopular in Cyprus and protests resulted. The nation’s president was left scrambling for a backup plan. The lesson from international business negotiation case studies such as this? Sometimes the best deal you can get may be better than no deal at all.
- Dissent in the European Union
The European Union (EU) held a summit to address the coordination of economic activities and policies among EU member states. German resistance to such a global deal was strong, and pessimism about a unified EU banking system ran high as a result of the EU financial crisis. The conflict reflects the difficulty of forging multiparty agreements during times of stress and crisis.
- North and South Korea Talks Collapse
Negotiations between North Korea and South Korea were supposed to begin in Seoul aimed at lessening tensions between the divided nations. It would have been the highest government dialogue between the two nations in years. Just before negotiations were due to start, however, North Korea complained that it was insulted that the lead negotiator from the South wasn’t higher in status. The conflict escalated, and North Korea ultimately withdrew from the talks. The case highlights the importance of pride and power perceptions in international negotiations.
- Canceled Talks for the U.S. and Russia
Then-U.S. president Barack Obama canceled a scheduled summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, citing a lack of progress on a variety of negotiations. The announcement came on the heels of Russia’s decision to grant temporary asylum to former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who made confidential data on American surveillance programs public. From international business negotiation case studies such as this, we can learn strategic reasons for breaking off ties , if only temporarily, with a counterpart.
- The East China Sea Dispute
In recent years, several nations, including China and Japan, have laid claim to a chain of islands in the East China Sea. China’s creation of an “air defense” zone over the islands led to an international dispute with Japan. International negotiators seeking to resolve complex disputes may gain valuable advice from this negotiation case study, which involves issues of international law as well as perceptions of relative strength or weakness in negotiations.
- An International Deal with Syria
When then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, announced a deal to prevent the United States from entering the Syrian War, it was contingent on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s promise to dismantle his nation’s chemical weapons. Like other real-life negotiation case studies, this one highlights the value of expanding our focus in negotiation.
- A Nuclear Deal with Iran
When the United States and five other world powers announced an interim agreement to temporarily freeze Iran’s nuclear program, the six-month accord, which eventually led to a full-scale agreement in 2015, was designed to give international negotiators time to negotiate a more comprehensive pact that would remove the threat of Iran producing nuclear weapons. As Iranian President Hassan Rouhani insisted that Iran had a sovereign right to enrich uranium, the United States rejected Iran’s claim to having a “right to enrich” but agreed to allow Iran to continue to enrich at a low level, a concession that allowed a deal to emerge.
What international business negotiation case studies in the news have you learned from in recent years?
- Top International Negotiation Examples: The East China Sea Dispute
- Best Negotiators in History: Nelson Mandela and His Negotiation Style
- Cross Cultural Negotiations in International Business: Four Negotiation Tips for Bargaining in China
- How to Solve Intercultural Conflict
- Negotiation Case Studies: The Bangladesh Factory-Safety Agreements
No Responses to “Top 10 International Business Negotiation Case Studies”
One response to “top 10 international business negotiation case studies”.
It would be interesting to see a 2017 update on each of these negotiations.
Click here to cancel reply.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Negotiation and Leadership
- Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership
NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS
- Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class
Negotiation Essentials Online
- Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online
Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes
- Download Program Guide: March 2024
- Register Online: March 2024
- Learn More about Beyond the Back Table
Select Your Free Special Report
- Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) Spring 2024 Program Guide
- Beyond the Back Table Spring 2024 Program Guide
- Negotiation Master Class May 2024 Program Guide
- Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2024 Program Guide
- Make the Most of Online Negotiations
- Managing Multiparty Negotiations
- Getting the Deal Done
- Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
- Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy
- Negotiation Training: How Harvard Negotiation Exercises, Negotiation Cases and Good Negotiation Coaching Can Make You a Better Negotiator
Teaching Negotiation Resource Center
- Teaching Materials and Publications
Stay Connected to PON
Preparing for negotiation.
Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.
Articles & Insights
- BATNA Examples—and What You Can Learn from Them
- Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
- Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers
- The Good Cop, Bad Cop Negotiation Strategy
- BATNA and Other Sources of Power at the Negotiation Table
- In the Negotiation Planning Process, to Capture the Force, be Patient
- Negotiation Skills in Business Negotiation and Status Consciousness
- Win-Win Bargaining: Private Negotiation, Public Auction, or Both?
- Contract Negotiations and Business Communication: How to Write an Iron-Clad Contract
- Negotiation Tactics, BATNA and Examples for Creating Value in Business Negotiations
- How to Deal with Threats: 4 Negotiation Tips for Managing Conflict at the Bargaining Table
- Interpersonal Conflict Resolution: Beyond Conflict Avoidance
- Using Conflict Resolution Skills: Trying to Forgive and Move Forward
- Strategies to Resolve Conflict over Deeply Held Values
- Types of Conflict in Business Negotiation—and How to Avoid Them
- Negotiating Change During the Covid-19 Pandemic
- AI Negotiation in the News
- Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
- Crisis Negotiation Skills: The Hostage Negotiator’s Drill
- Police Negotiation Techniques from the NYPD Crisis Negotiations Team
- Ethics in Negotiations: How to Deal with Deception at the Bargaining Table
- Trust and Honesty in Negotiations: Dealing with Dishonest Negotiators
- Negotiation Tips: Listening Skills for Dealing with Difficult People
- M&A Negotiation Strategy: Dealing with an Unpredictable Counterpart
- Dealing with Difficult People and Negotiation: When Should You Give Up the Fight?
- Negotiation Techniques: The First Offer Dilemma in Negotiations
- 5 Dealmaking Tips for Closing the Deal
- Managing a Multiparty Negotiation
- What Leads to Renegotiation?
- How Does Mediation Work in a Lawsuit?
- Top 10 Dispute Resolution Skills
- 3 Negotiation Strategies for Conflict Resolution
- In Contract Negotiations, Agree on How You’ll Disagree
- Conflict Negotiation Strategies: When Do Employees Choose to Negotiate?
- The Importance of Power in Negotiations: Taylor Swift Shakes it Off
- Challenges Facing Women Negotiators
- Negotiations, Gender, and Status at the Bargaining Table
- What Is Facilitative Leadership?
- What Is Collective Leadership?
- Nelson Mandela: Negotiation Lessons from a Master
- Types of Mediation: Choose the Type Best Suited to Your Conflict
- Mediation Training: What Can You Expect?
- What is Med-Arb?
- Employee Mediation Techniques – Resolve Disputes and Manage Conflict with These Mediation Skills
- How Mediation Works When Both Parties Agree They Need Help Resolving the Dispute
- Persuasion in Negotiation: How Tracy Chapman Was Convinced to Play at the 2024 Grammys
- Reservation Point in Negotiation: Reach Negotiated Agreements by Asking the Right Questions
- Expanding the Pie: Integrative versus Distributive Bargaining Negotiation Strategies
- Ask Better Negotiation Questions
- 10 Real-World Negotiation Examples
- Trust in Negotiation: Does Gender Matter?
- Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
- Collaborative Negotiation Examples: Tenants and Landlords
- Best Negotiation Books: A Negotiation Reading List
- 3-D Negotiation Strategy
- Salary Negotiation: How to Ask for a Higher Salary
- How to Ask for a Salary Increase
- Setting Standards in Negotiations
- How to Negotiate Salary: 3 Winning Strategies
- Negotiating a Salary When Compensation Is Public
- Power Asymmetry and the Principal Agent Problem
- The Best New Simulations
- Advice for Peace: Ending Civil War in Colombia
- Asynchronous Learning: Negotiation Exercises to Keep Students Engaged Outside the Classroom
- Teaching Mediation: Exercises to Help Students Acquire Mediation Skills
- For NFL Players, a Win-Win Negotiation Contract Only in Retrospect?
- Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
- Win-Win Negotiation: Managing Your Counterpart’s Satisfaction
- 5 Win-Win Negotiation Strategies
- How to Use Tradeoffs to Create Value in Your Negotiations
- Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
- New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
- Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
- Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
- Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
- Gender and Privilege in Negotiation
Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.
Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.
Copyright © 2024 Negotiation Daily. All rights reserved.
- Help & FAQ
International Environmental Law: A Case Study Analysis
- Law Academic
Research output : Book/Report › Book › Research › peer-review
Access to Document
T1 - International Environmental Law
T2 - A Case Study Analysis
AU - Nagtzaam, Gerry
AU - van Hook, Evan
AU - Guilfoyle, Douglas
N2 - This book seeks to better understand how International Environmental Law regimes evolve. The authors address throughout the major environmental, economic, and political tensions that have both shaped and constrained the evolution of international environmental policy within regimes, and its expression in international legal rule and norm development.Readers will gain an increased understanding of the growing role played by non-state actors in global environmental governance, including environmental non-government organisations, scientists, the United Nations, and corporations. The authors also look ahead to the future of International Environmental Law, evaluating key challenges and decisions that the discipline will face.The text is clear, concise, and accessible. It is ideally suited to students and professionals interested in International Environmental Law, and individuals who are intrigued by this dynamic area of law.
AB - This book seeks to better understand how International Environmental Law regimes evolve. The authors address throughout the major environmental, economic, and political tensions that have both shaped and constrained the evolution of international environmental policy within regimes, and its expression in international legal rule and norm development.Readers will gain an increased understanding of the growing role played by non-state actors in global environmental governance, including environmental non-government organisations, scientists, the United Nations, and corporations. The authors also look ahead to the future of International Environmental Law, evaluating key challenges and decisions that the discipline will face.The text is clear, concise, and accessible. It is ideally suited to students and professionals interested in International Environmental Law, and individuals who are intrigued by this dynamic area of law.
U2 - 10.4324/9781315150291
DO - 10.4324/9781315150291
SN - 9781138556737
SN - 9781138556768
BT - International Environmental Law
PB - Routledge
CY - Abingdon UK
- JD Programs
We have placed 105 students in global internships and externships during the past five years, on five continents and in 41 countries. Very few schools can match our numbers. Our International Law Research Lab and three international law clinics complement our work in the field.
Our international law program holds a proud place — consistently in the top ten in the U.S. News & World Report and PreLaw Magazine rankings. Our globally renowned faculty, trend-setting curriculum and plentiful opportunities for hands-on experience keep us solidly at the forefront of international legal education.
Save your Euros*
Our $4 million Cox International Law Center endowment enables us to provide grants to more than 20 students every year for their international travel and living expenses. You’re eligible for Cox grants for your first and second summer and during your third-year capstone. We want every graduate of our international law program to have hands-on experience in the field and do our utmost to make it possible.
Concurrent JD/LLM Degree
Concurrent degree programs with prestigious partner universities in London, Paris and Madrid can elevate your third year of law school into a joint JD/LLM program — for the same tuition and time investment as your CWRU JD degree. An LLM is an invaluable asset in this area of law.
Take a Deep Dive
Our 34 international law professors teach 31 international law courses, from international trade to international environmental law, from international business law to human rights law and from international arbitration to international criminal law. We offer international law as a 1L elective. We have two international law journals and three international law clinics. And students who focus on international law may graduate with an international law concentration, a distinction that can open doors in this exciting field.
*baht, riels, or pesos
- Election 2024
- Press Releases
- Israel-Hamas War
- Russia-Ukraine War
- Latin America
- Middle East
- Asia Pacific
- AP Top 25 College Football Poll
- Movie reviews
- Book reviews
- Financial Markets
- Business Highlights
- Financial wellness
- Artificial Intelligence
- Social Media
Majority of countries argue Israel violated international law in last historic hearing at UN court
A Palestinian flag flies outside the United Nations’ highest court, rear, during historic hearings in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2024, into the legality of Israel’s 57-year occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, plunging the 15 international judges back into the heart of the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Six days of hearings at the International Court of Justice, during which an unprecedented number of countries will participate in proceedings, are scheduled as Israel continues its devastating assault on Gaza. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
A pro-Palestinian demonstrator holds a sign outside the United Nations’ highest court, rear, during historic hearings in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2024, into the legality of Israel’s 57-year occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, plunging the 15 international judges back into the heart of the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Six days of hearings at the International Court of Justice, during which an unprecedented number of countries will participate in proceedings, are scheduled as Israel continues its devastating assault on Gaza. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
Judges enter the United Nations’ highest court during historic hearings in The Hague, Netherlands, Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2024, into the legality of Israel’s 57-year occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem, plunging the 15 international judges back into the heart of the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Six days of hearings at the International Court of Justice, during which an unprecedented number of countries will participate in proceedings, are scheduled as Israel continues its devastating assault on Gaza. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)
- Copy Link copied
THE HAGUE (AP) — The United Nations’ highest court on Monday wrapped up historic proceedings into the legality of Israel’s 57-year occupation of lands sought by Palestinians for a future state, with most voices at the hearing arguing against the Israeli government.
Over six days, the International Court of Justice heard from an unprecedented number of countries and the majority argued Israel was violating international law and called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
“The real obstacle to peace is obvious — the deepening occupation by Israel of the Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, and failure to implement the two-state vision, Israel and Palestine living side by side,” Turkey’s Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Yildiz said.
The hearings addressed a request by the U.N. General Assembly for a non-binding opinion on the legality of Israel’s policies. The court says it will issue its opinion in “due course.” On average, advisory opinions are released six months after oral proceedings.
Fiji was one of a handful of countries to argue that the court should refuse the request and directly mentioned the Hamas attacks that set off the war in Gaza and left about 1,200 people dead while Hamas militants also took nearly 250 others hostage.
“The events of 7 October 2023 have shown us what could happen if there were a complete and unconditional withdrawal without the necessary arrangements in place to guarantee the security of Israel,” Filipo Tarakinikini said on behalf of the South Pacific Island nation.
The United States also cautioned the court against issuing an opinion, calling for an immediate withdrawal from the territories. Acting State Department legal adviser Richard Visek said last week the judges should not seek to resolve the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict “through an advisory opinion addressed to questions focusing on the acts of only one party.”
Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki had previously urged the 15-judge panel to uphold the Palestinian right to self-determination and to declare “that the Israeli occupation is illegal and must end immediately, totally and unconditionally.”
Though the hearings were held against the backdrop of the Israel-Hamas war , which has killed more than 29,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, it pre-dated this round of conflict and focused instead on Israel’s open-ended occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.
Late last month, the court ordered Israel to do all it can to prevent death, destruction and any acts of genocide in its military offensive in Gaza. South Africa also filed a separate case accusing Israel of genocide because of its actions in the Strip, a charge that Israel denied.
Israel rejects accusations that its treatment of Palestinians amounts to apartheid and has accused U.N. bodies and international tribunals of bias.
It did not participate in the oral proceedings but, in a five-page written submission, Israel said the questions put to the court are prejudiced and “fail to recognize Israel’s right and duty to protect its citizens.”
Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians seek all three areas for an independent state. Israel considers the West Bank to be a disputed territory, whose future should be decided in negotiations.
The peace process has repeatedly stalled because of Palestinian attacks, Israel’s expansion of settlements in occupied territory and the inability of the two sides to agree on issues like final borders, the status of Jerusalem and the fate of Palestinian refugees.
In 2004, the court said that a separation barrier Israel built through east Jerusalem and parts of the West Bank was “contrary to international law.” It also called on Israel to immediately halt construction. Israel has ignored the ruling.
- Verify Documents, Clients & Products
- Offices & Labs
- Our Services
- Our Company
- News & Resources
What are you looking for?
Some topics you might be interested in, sgs gains gs mark approval for juvenile product testing at aix en provence, france.
SGS has gained GS-Mark lab approval from the German Central Authority of the Federal States for Safety (Zentralstelle der Länder für Sicherheitstechnik - ZLS) for juvenile product testing at its state-of-the-art facilities in Aix en Provence.
Catherine Follin-Arbelet, Global Product Line Manager: Juvenile Products, SGS said: “We are delighted to have gained approval as a certification body for GS mark certification, one of the best-known and most important test marks for goods and consumer products. This is great news for our clients to whom we can now offer a complete solution for juvenile products intended for the German market.”
Products covered by the GS mark include for example baby strollers, cots and folding cots, cribs and cradles, highchairs, baby carriers and furniture for babies and children. Tests cover aspects including physical and mechanical safety, and chemical and hazardous material use; as well as evaluations of manufacturers’ factory production.
ZLS approval enables SGS to deliver the GS mark based on tests carried out in both Aix en Provence and Shanghai under the approval of SGS’s German certification body, SGS Institut Fresenius.
Learn more about SGS Juvenile Products .
We are SGS – the world’s leading testing, inspection and certification company. We are recognized as the global benchmark for sustainability, quality and integrity. Our 99,600 employees operate a network of 2,600 offices and laboratories around the world.
© SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA.
For further information, please contact:
Get insights on international developments, new regulations, case studies and updates on sgs activities..
Read more in our consumer compact newsletter.
EC Website Issues Latest Current Thinking on Microplastics in Products
Ukraine Regulates Food Contact Plastics
China Consults Over Proposed Standards for Toys and Jewelry
CPSC Reminds Interested Parties About Reese's Law Implementation Dates
News & insights.
- SGS North America Inc.
+1 201 508 3000
+1 201 508 3183
201 Route 17 North,
Rutherford, New Jersey, 07070,