Corfu Channel Case Brief

Pragya Sharma 20131034 Group-1

Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania) FACTS On May 15, 1946, two British ships passed through Albania’s North Corfu Channel where Albanian’s fired at them. This led to diplomatic discussions about the right of British ships to pass peacefully through Albanian waters. Albanian’s contented that the ships shall not pass through without providing prior notification to the

Albanian

government.

However,

UK

argued

that

under

international law it has a right to innocently pass through the straits. After this incident (between 15 th May, 1946 and 22nd October, 1946), the Albanian government placed mines in the Corfu Channel. Albania was at war with Greece, and the mines were supposed to be a part of its defense. On the 22nd October the British again attempted to pass through the straits, and de-mined the channel, which led to a loss of human life. UK claimed that the ships were involved in an innocent passage. Albania claimed that sending

warships

through

the

channel

was

meant

to

be

intimidating and thus not ‘innocent’. ISSUE The UK brought a suit in the ICJ on the ground that Albania had a duty to warn the approaching British ships of the mines. It sought damages from Albania. Albania argued that the British ships had violated its territorial rights on May 15, 1946, and that it was entitled to a satisfaction. STATUTE APPLICABLE Articles 17-21 of the Convention - Rules of innocent passage. Article 39 of the Convention - Rules of transit passage.

Pragya Sharma 20131034 Group-1 REASONING The ICJ found that ships could use narrow channels for ‘innocent passage’, even if that meant they had to enter the 12-mile territorial waters of a coastal country. The ICJ found that the UK had a right to traverse the Channel. The ICJ found that since the Channel could be used to innocent passage, Albania could not mine it without giving prior notice.

The ICJ also said that UK couldn’t sweep the Channel for mines, since minesweeping was outside the definition of innocent passage. The Court recognized that the Albanian Government completely failed to carry out its duties after the explosions, and the dilatory nature of its diplomatic notes, were extenuating circumstances for the action of the United Kingdom Government. This case mainly decided based on customary international law, as it occurred prior to the Convention on the Law of the Sea [1833 U.N.T.S. 3 (1982)], which would now apply. DISPOSITION To ensure respect for international law, of which it is the organ, the Court declared that the action of the British Navy constituted a violation of Albanian sovereignty.