Monetary Gold | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | International Court of Justice |
Full case name | Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States) |
Decided | June 15, 1954 |
Italy v France, United Kingdom and United States [1] (also called the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 case) was a case decided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1954, and part of a long-running dispute over the fate of Nazi gold that was originally seized from Rome. The ICJ held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
On 17 September 1943, 2,338 kg of gold was seized by the Germans from Rome. After the war, both Italy and Albania claimed that this gold was theirs, and that the Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Monetary Gold should return it to them. On 17 November 1950, the commission informed their forming governments (France, the UK and United States) that they could not resolve the issue. On 25 April 1951, the three governments, having failed to reach an agreement, agreed to request that the International Court of Justice appoint an independent arbitrator, who, on 20 February 1953, decided that the gold belonged to Albania.
However, the UK and Italy still laid claim to the gold: the UK as partial payment towards the (still unsettled) compensation that Albania was ordered to pay them against damage to UK navy vessels and loss of life during the Corfu Channel Incident, caused by an undisclosed Albanian mine-field in Corfu (see the Corfu Channel Case), whilst Italy claimed that most of the gold was originally Italian, seized by the Albanian government when it took control of the National Bank of Albania (which Italy had the majority of shares in), and additionally that the Italian Peace Treaty specifically gave them claim to the gold.
On 19 May 1953, Italy requested that the ICJ determine how much of the gold Italy had claim to, and whether the UK's or the Italian's claim should take precedence, stating that the three countries responsible for the redistribution of the gold should give it all to Italy in partial compensation for the Albanian seizure of the National Bank of Albania, and that this claim should over-ride the UK's claim.
On 15 June 1954, the ICJ decided that, as the first issue to be addressed was the resolution of the legal dispute between Italy and Albania over the seizure of the National Bank of Albania, and as Albania had not deferred to the ICJ in this case, the ICJ had no jurisdiction in this matter. [2]
The International Court of Justice, also called the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.
The Corfu incident was a 1923 diplomatic and military crisis between Greece and Italy. It was triggered when Enrico Tellini, an Italian general heading a commission to resolve a border dispute between Albania and Greece, was murdered in Greek territory along with two other officers of his staff. In response, Benito Mussolini issued an ultimatum to Greece and, when it was not accepted in whole, dispatched forces to bombard and occupy Corfu. Mussolini defied the League of Nations and stated Italy would leave if it arbitrated in the crisis, and the Conference of Ambassadors instead eventually tendered an agreement favouring Italy. This was an early demonstration of the League's weakness when dealing with larger powers.
The United Kingdom, at the request of the United States, began expelling the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago in 1968, concluding its forced deportations on 27 April 1973 with the expulsion of the remaining Chagossians on the Peros Banhos atoll. The inhabitants, known at the time as the Ilois, are today known as Chagos Islanders or Chagossians.
The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in two types of cases: contentious cases between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do.
Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro [2007] ICJ 2 is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice.
United States of America v. Islamic Republic of Iran [1980] ICJ 1 is a public international law case brought to the International Court of Justice by the United States of America against Iran in response to the Iran hostage crisis, where United States diplomatic offices and personnel were seized by militant revolutionaries.
The Corfu Channel case was the first public international law case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) between 1947 and 1949, concerning state responsibility for damages at sea, as well as the doctrine of innocent passage. A contentious case, it was the first of any type heard by the ICJ after its establishment in 1945.
United Kingdom v Norway [1951] ICJ 3, also known as the Fisheries Case, was the culmination of a dispute, originating in 1933, over how large an area of water surrounding Norway was Norwegian waters and how much was 'high seas'.
The United Kingdom v Iran [1952] ICJ 2 was a public international law dispute between the UK and Iran. This case concerned the nationalization of Iran's oil which had been, in large part, controlled by the United Kingdom since the early 20th century.
France v United Kingdom [1953] ICJ 3 was an International Court of Justice case concerning sovereignty over seas.
The Oil Platforms case is a public international law case decided by the International Court of Justice in 2003 in which Iran challenged the U.S. Navy's destruction of three oil platforms in the Persian Gulf in 1987-1988. The Court affirmed that it could exercise jurisdiction over the case based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran but decided with strong majorities against both Iran's claim and the United States' counterclaim.
The Corfu Channel incident consists of three separate events involving Royal Navy ships in the Channel of Corfu which took place in 1946, and it is considered an early episode of the Cold War. During the first incident, Royal Navy ships came under fire from Albanian fortifications. The second incident involved Royal Navy ships striking mines; and the third occurred when the Royal Navy conducted mine-clearing operations in the Corfu Channel, but in Albanian territorial waters, and Albania complained about them to the United Nations.
Albania–United Kingdom relations are the bilateral relations between Albania and the United Kingdom. Albania has an embassy in London, and the United Kingdom has an embassy in Tirana.
The Case concerning maritime delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v Ukraine) [2009] ICJ 3 was a decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). On September 16, 2004, Romania brought its case to the court after unsuccessful bilateral negotiations. On February 3, 2009, the court handed down its verdict, establishing a maritime boundary including the continental shelf and exclusive economic zones for Romania and Ukraine.
Sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago is disputed between Mauritius and the United Kingdom. Mauritius has repeatedly stated that the Chagos Archipelago is part of its territory and that the United Kingdom claim is a violation of United Nations resolutions banning the dismemberment of colonial territories before independence. On 22 May 2019, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution declaring that the archipelago was part of Mauritius, with 116 countries voted in favor of Mauritius while six opposed it.
Jurisdictional Immunities of the State was a case concerning the extent of state immunity before the International Court of Justice. The case was brought by Germany after various decisions by Italian courts to ignore the state immunity of Germany when confronted with claims against Germany by victims of Nazi-era war crimes. The court found that Italy was wrong to ignore German immunity, and found that Italy was obligated to render the decisions of its courts against Germany without effect.
The Chorzów Factory case was a case heard before the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1927. It was an early authority in international law that established a number of precedents in International Law.
Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. 212 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that found that a law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government. The plaintiffs, in the case had initially obtained judgments against Iran for its role in supporting state-sponsored terrorism, particularly the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings and 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, and sought execution against a bank account in New York held, through European intermediaries, on behalf of Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs obtained court orders preventing the transfer of funds from the account in 2008 and initiated their lawsuit in 2010. Bank Markazi raised several defenses, including that the account was not an asset of the bank, but rather an asset of its European intermediary, under both New York state property law and §201(a) of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In response to concerns that existing laws were insufficient for the account to be used to settle the judgments, Congress added an amendment to a 2012 bill, codified after enactment as 22 U.S.C. § 8772, that identified the pending lawsuit by docket number, applied only to the assets in the identified case, and effectively abrogated every legal basis available to Bank Markazi to prevent the plaintiffs from executing their claims against the account. Bank Markazi then argued that § 8772 was an unconstitutional breach of the separation of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government, because it effectively directed a particular result in a single case without changing the generally applicable law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and, on appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit both upheld the constitutionality of § 8772 and cleared the way for the plaintiffs to execute their judgments against the account, which held about $1.75 billion in cash.
Certain Iranian Assets is the formal name of a case in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The application was lodged by Iran against the United States on 14 June 2016, on grounds of violation of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, shortly after Bank Markazi v. Peterson was decided by the United States Supreme Court. The Iranian case seeks the unfreezing and return of nearly $2 billion in assets held in the United States. The case focuses specifically on assets seized from the Iranian national bank, Bank Markazi. These funds were seized to compensate victims of a 1983 suicide bombing of a Marine Corps base in Beirut, Lebanon, which has been tied to Iran. The attack killed more than 300 and injured many more, including U.S. military members. Iran has argued in the case that, among other things, the United States has failed to accord Iran and Iranian state-owned companies, and their property, sovereign immunity, and failed to recognize the juridical separateness of Iranian state-owned companies.