CLIPPERTON ISLAND CASE
Clipperton Island is an uninhabited island coral
atoll in the eastern Pacific Ocean, southwest of Mexico,
west of Costa Rica and northwest of Galapagos Islands,
Equador. It was named after John Clipperon, an English
pirate who fought the Spanish during the 18th century
who is said to have passed by the island. It was
discovered by French discovers Martin de Chassiron
and Michel du Bocade in 1711, commanding the
French ships La Princesse and La Dcouverte. They
drew up the first map and annexed it to France. The
first scientific expedition took place in 1725 under
Frenchman M. Bocage, who lived on the island for
several months.
Other claimants included the United States,
whose American Guano Mining Company claimed it
under Guano Islands Act of 1856. Mexico also claimed
it due to activities undertaken therein as early as
1848-1849. On November 17,1858, Emperor Napoleon
III annexed it as part of the French colony of Tahiti .
This did not settle the ownership question. After which,
there were no apparent acts of sovereignty on the part
of France. The island remained without population. On
November 24, 1897, French naval authorities found
three Americans working for the American Guano
Company, who had raised the American flag. U.S.
authorities denounced their act, assuring the French
that they did not intend to assert American
sovereignty.
Mexico reasserted its claim late in the 19th
century, and on December 13, 1897 sent the gunboat
La Democrata to occupy and annex it. A colony was
established, and a series of military governors was
posted, the last one being Ramn Arnaud (1906
1916). France insisted on its ownership, and a lengthy
diplomatic correspondence between the two nations
led to the conclusion of a treaty on March 2, 1909, to
seek the arbitration of King Victor Emmanuel III of
Italy, with each nation promising to abide by his
determination. All the inhabitants of the island sent by
Mexico died in 1917.
On January 28, 1931, King Victor Emmanuel of
Italy declared Clipperton to be a French possession. It
was ruled that Mexico was not able to prove historic
right over the Island. Part of the decision says:
When France proclaimed her sovereignty over
Clipperton, the Island was in a legal situation of terra
nullius, and therefore susceptible to occupation. By the
regularity of the act of France, it is clear that it had the
intention to consider the island as his territory.
It is beyond doubt that by immemorial usage
having the force of law, besides the animus occupandi,
the actual, and not the nominal, taking of possession is
a necessary condition of occupation. This taking of
possession consists in the act, or series of acts, by
which the occupying state reduces to its possession
the territory in question and takes steps to exercise
exclusive authority there. Strictly speaking, and in
ordinary cases, that only takes place when the state
establishes in the territory itself
an organization
capable of making its laws respected. But this step is,
properly speaking, but a means of procedure to the
taking of possession, and, therefore, is not identical
with the latter. There may also be cases where it is
unnecessary to have recourse to this method. Thus, if
a territory, by virtue of the fact that it was completely
uninhabited, is, from the first moment when the
occupying state makes its appearance there, at the
absolute and undisputed disposition of that state, from
that moment the taking of possession must be
considered as accomplished, and the occupation is
thereby completed.
Norway (D) would not make any difficulty in the
settlement of the question.
Issue. Is a country bound by the reply given on its
behalf by its Minister of Foreign Affairs?
Held. Yes. A country is bound by the reply given on its
behalf by its Minister of Foreign Affairs. Therefore in
this
case,
the
response
by
the
diplomatic
representative of a foreign power is binding upon the
country the Minister represents.
Discussion. The main source of international law on
treaties is the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties. The Convention was ratified by 35 countries
Brief Fact Summary. The statement made by the
but not by the United States. Unilateral statements
Norwegian Minister was claimed to be binding on his
may also be binding on states.
country by Denmark (P).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A country is bound by the
reply given on its behalf by its Minister of Foreign
Affairs.
Facts. The agreement not to obstruct Danish (P) plans
with regard to Greenland was what Denmark wanted
to
obtain
from
Norway
(D).
To
this
request,
declaration on behalf of the Norwegian government
(D) was made by its Minister for Foreign Affairs that
The Eastern Greenland Case (Denmark/Norway;
PCIJ 1969; p. 81)
Denmark wanted a judgment saying that
Norways proclamation (claiming that it had proceeded
to occupy eastern Greenland) and steps taken in
regards to it were unlawful and invalid. Danes had
been trying to get sovereignty over Greenland for yrs.
Norway guy told them that its govt wld not make any
difficulties in the settlement of the question (Ihlen
Declaration).
Ct says the Ihlen cldnt have meant (or be
understood to mean) that it recognized Danish
sovereignty over Greenland. But the statement did
mean
that
Norway
wld
refrain
from contesting Danish
sovereignty
over
Greenland as a whole and (thus to refrain from
occupying it.)
The Ihlen statement is binding, unconditional,
and definitive.
The court reasoned by looking at the activities
of Norway both before and after the remarkincluding
other of Ihlens remarks.
Art. 2, Vienna Convention (p. 868) says treaties
must be written. There was an unwritten
agreement in this case. Since it wasnt an
agreement, cld it be a K? Could have been. Though the
ct seems to say this was an unwritten treaty. See p.
85, n. 1.
Did this case say essentially that statements by
foreign
ministers
could
be
binding
on
a
country? According to intl law, it is irrelevant
whether domestic law has been violated or
whether a country is bound by domestic law. The
party is still bound by intl law.
Ct does say that there was a legal obligation
btwn the coutnires and that good faith was enough to
create a norm. The ct says that Norway is estopped
based on Ihlens statementeven if the statement
doesnt constitute a treaty.
What if the constitution of such countries
requires that treaties be written and ratified? P. 85, n.
2.
Could the Ihlen Declaration be instead the
consummation of a Bargain btwn two parties instead
of a treaty? Or a unilateral, but binding, promise in intl
law?
Animus occupandi, or animus possidendi is the will to
act as sovereign over a particular territory and is the
subjective element of effective occupation and corps
possession, the objective element, is the actual steps
that have been taken to further that intention.
Corpus possessionis includes the actual possession
and administration over the territory concerned.
Administration has to be for a reasonable period of
time though.
Frontier
Procedural
Petition
Dispute
to
Case
resolve
(Burkina
border
Faso/Mali)
History:
dispute.
Overview:
Burkina Faso and Mali submitted a question to the International Court of
Justice
regarding
a
border
dispute.
Issue:
Does there exist an obligation to respect preexisting international frontiers
in
the
event
of
a
state
succession?
Rule:
-There exists an obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in
the
event
of
a
succession.
Analysis:
-The principle of uti possidetis developed with respect to the Spanish
American colonies. In a similar dispute between El Salvador and Honduras,
the Court described the principle as follows: The general principle
offered the advantage of establishing an absolute rule that there was not
in law in the old Spanish America any terra nullius; while there might exist
many regions that had never been occupied by the Spaniards the regions
were reputed to belonging in law to whichever of the republics succeeded
to the Spanish province to which these territories attached by virtue of the
old
Royal
ordinances
of
the
Spanish
mother
country.
Outcome:
-There exists an obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in
the event of a state succession, whether or not the rule is expressed in
the form of uti possidetis. Thus, the numerous declarations of the
intangibility of the frontiers at the time of the declaration of
independence of the African states are declaratory. The fact that the
principle did not exist when the states declared such independence in 1960
does not foreclose its present application.
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
In March 1994, Cameroon filed a case before the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning a dispute
relating essentially to the question of sovereignty over
the Bakassi Peninsula. In June 1994, Cameroon
extended the subject of the dispute to include the
question of sovereignty over Cameroonian territory in
the area of Lake Chad and the frontier between
Cameroon and Nigeria from Lake Chad to the sea. In
1999, the Court authorised an intervention by Guinea,
which sought to protect its legal rights in the light of
pending maritime boundary claims between Cameroon
and
Nigeria.
The ICJ delivered its judgment in the case on 10
October 2002. The Court decided that sovereignty over
the Bakassi Peninsula lies with Cameroon and that the
boundary is delimited by the Anglo-German agreement
of 11 March 1913. The Court noted that the land
boundary dispute falls within an historical framework
including partition by European powers in the 19 th and
early 20th centuries, League of Nations mandates, UN
Trusteeships and the independence of the two states.
The Court also ruled on the 1690 km border between
Lake Chad and the sea, the maritime boundary, and
issues of state responsibility. The Court requested that
both
Nigeria
and
Cameroon
withdraw
their
administration and their military and police forces from
certain areas according to the judgment. Nigeria
agreed to withdraw its troops from the Bakassi region
in accordance with the 2002 judgment under a deal
brokered by the United Nations.
