This entry analyses the Corfu Channel Case, the first case before the International Court of Justice, concerning dammage to British navy ships due to mines in Albanian waters

1. Corfu Channel Case
3rd Internal Assessment of Environmental Law
IRAC
ABSTRACT
This entry analyses the Corfu Channel Case, the firstcase beforethe
InternationalCourt of Justice, concerning dammage to British navy ships
due to mines in Albanian waters.
Name: Utkarsh Kumar
Roll No.: 356
PRN No.: 12010123356
Division: D- BA LLB
Batch: 2013-14

2. CONTENTS
INTRODUTION…………………………………………………………………………………………3
FACTS……………………………………………………………………………………………………4
ISSUES……………………………………………………………………………………………………6
ARGUMENTS BY PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………7
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED……………………………………………………………………….……8
COMMENTS………………………………………………………………………………….…………10
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………...……11
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………..…………12

3. Petitioner ………..........……Albania
v.
Respondent ...... United Kingdom
Issues: Sovereignty in territorial sea; innocent passage of warships
Forum: International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Date of Decision: 25 March 1948 (Preliminary Objection)
9 April 1949 (Merits)
15 December 1949 (Amount of Compensation Assessment)
Published in:
 ICJ: Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders,1949, pp. 4-131
 International Law Reports, Vol. 15, p. 349 and Vol. 16, p. 155
Selectedcommentaries:
o Schultze, T., “Free Passage of Warships through the Strait ofHormuz: Is the
Logic of the Corfu Channel Case Applicable?”,18 Thesaurus Acroasium (1991),
pp. 603-612
o Gardiner, L., The Eagle Spreads his Claws: A History of theCorfu Channel
Dispute and of Albania’s Relations with theWest, 1945-1965, Edinburgh,
London, Blackwood, 1966
o Wright, Q., “The Corfu Channel Case”, 43 American Journal ofInternational
Law (1949), pp. 491-494
o Jones, J.M., " The Corfu Channel Case: PreliminaryObjection”, 24 British Year
Book of International Law, (1947),pp. 409-412
o Jones, J.M., “The Corfu Channel Case: Merits”, 26 British YearBook of
International Law (1949), pp. 447-453
o Chung, I.Y., Legal Problems in the Corfu Channel Incident,Geneva, Librarie E.
Droz, 1959
The Corfu Channel Case marks the beginning of a rich and diverse role played by
the → International Court of Justice in the → Judicial Settlement of International
Disputes, → Law of the Sea, Settlement of Disputes. After eight years of inactivity,
the reorganized World Court (→ Permanent Court of International justice (PCIJ)
laid lasting foundations for several important areas of international law. British →
warships passing through the Corfu Channel were severely damaged by mines in
Albanian waters. Forty-four sailors lost their lives. The court gave three
judgments. The first judgment rejected Albania’s → preliminary objections, the
second on the merits held Albania responsible and the third on → compensation
awarded damages to the UK.

4. 4
FACTS
On May 15 1946, two British warships crossed the Corfu Channel and came under fire
from Albanian fortifications. Albania refused the UK’s demand for an apology. In an
exchange of notes, the UK took the position that warships could pass through the
channel without Albania’s advance consent. Albania maintained that its advance
permission was needed. On October 22, 1946, three British ships crossed the Corfu
Channel, with the express instruction to test Albania’s reaction to their alleged right of
innocent passage. The crews were to respond if attacked. The UK considered the
channel to be free of mines, having swept the channel for mines in 1944 and again in
1945. Two British ships struck mines in the channel, and were heavily damaged. British
sailors died and were injured. No fire came from Albanian coastal batteries, and Albania
sent out a ship waiving a white flag.
On November 13, 1946, the British navy carried out a unilateral mine-sweeping and
evidence-gathering operation within Albanian territorial waters (Territorial Sea). While
the UK had announced these operations in advance, Albania had not authorized them
and protested strongly.
On April 9, 1947, the → United Nations, Security Council, by resolution, recommended
that the dispute be referred to the ICJ without delay. Albania was not a member of the
United Nations at that time, and was invited to be represented in the Council. Both
countries accepted the resolution. On May 22, 1947, the UK unilaterally instituted
proceedings. Albania strongly protested against the unilateral invocation of the court’s
jurisdiction, and argued that under the ICJ Statute, a compromise between the two
disputants was necessary to vest jurisdiction in the ICJ (International Courts and
Tribunals, Jurisdiction and Admissibility of Inter-State).
However, Albania’s letter of protest emphasized that notwithstanding the UK’s
unilateral application, it was prepared to exceptionally appear in court in this case,
without creating a precedent for the future. Thereafter, Albania objected to the court’s
jurisdiction. Subsequent to the court’s judgment on jurisdiction, Albania and the UK
concluded a compromis. They called on the court to decide whether Albania was
responsible for the explosion and whether the UK’s mine-sweeping operation violated

5. 5
Albania’s sovereignty. This compromis formed the basis of the merit and damage phases
of the proceedings.

6. 6
ISSUES
(i) Whether Albania was responsible under international law for the explosions that
occurred on 22 October 1946 in Albanian waters, for the resulting damage and loss
of human life and for payment of any compensation;
(ii) Whether the United Kingdom had violated the sovereignty of Albania under
international law by reason of the acts of the Royal Navy in Albanian waters
on 22 October and 12 and 13 November 1946 and if there was any duty to
give satisfaction;
(iii) Whether the minesweeping operation by the British Government in Albanian
waters had violated the sovereignty of Albania; and
(iv) If the Court found that it had jurisdiction to do so, to assess the amount
of compensation.

7. 7
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE
PARTIES
Albania asserted that foreign warships and merchant vessels had no right to pass
through Albanian territorial waters, without prior notification to, and the permission of,
the Albanian authorities. It further contended that the sovereignty of Albania was
violated because the passage of the British warships on 22 October 1946 was not
innocent. The Albanian Government also alleged that the said passage was a political
mission and the methods employed - the number of ships, their formation, armament,
manoeuvres, etc.- showed an intention to intimidate and not merely to carry out a
passage for purposes of navigation.
The United Kingdom claimed that innocent passage through straits was a right
recognized under international law. It further argued that the minesweeping operation of
13 November 1946 was justified by a right of self-help or self-protection.

8. 8
ANALYSIS/ ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
In its Judgement of 25 March 1948, the Court considered that the Albanian letter of
2 July 1947 constituted a voluntary and indisputable acceptance of the Court’s
jurisdiction and declared that unilateral applications to the Court were possible, even
though no compulsory jurisdiction existed.
In its Judgment of 9 April 1949, the Court considered Albania’s attitude before and
after the event of 22 October 1946 and the feasibility of observing the laying of mines
from the Albanian coast. The Court found that the factual evidence presented made it
improbable that the Albanian authorities had been unaware of the mine laying in
Albanian waters. The Court further stated that the presumed knowledge of the Albanian
Government entailed its obligation to notify “for the benefit of shipping in general, the
existence of a minefield in Albania territorial waters and in warning the approaching
British warships of the imminent danger to which the minefield exposed them”. Such
obligations, stated the Court, “were based on certain general and well-recognized
principles, namely: elementary considerations of humanity, even more exacting in
peace than in war; the principle of the freedom of maritime communication; and every
State’s obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the
rights of other States”.
The Court held that the United Kingdom had not violated Albanian sovereignty by
sending warships through the strait without the prior authorization of the Albanian
Government. In this connection, the Court made an important pronouncement on the
question of innocent passage through straits, stating that it is “generally recognized, and
in accordance with international custom that States in time of peace have a right to send
their warships through straits used for international navigation between two parts of the
high seas without the previous authorization of a coastal State, provided that the passage
is innocent”. The Court held that the Corfu Channel was such a strait and that the
passage of the British warship on 22 October 1946 was innocent. As for the contentions
of the Albanian Government with respect to measures taken by the United Kingdom
during the passage, the Court, taking into account the evidence presented, was unable to
characterize those measures as a violation of Albania’s sovereignty.

9. 9
As regards the minesweeping operation, the Court could not accept the United
Kingdom’s line of defence. The “right of intervention” mentioned by the United
Kingdom is regarded by the Court as a manifestation of a policy of force and therefore
inadmissible because it would be reserved for the most powerful States. The Court was
also unable to accept the notion of “self-help” since the respect for territorial sovereignty
between independent States is an essential foundation of international relations.
Consequently, the Court declared that the action of the Royal Navy constituted a
violation of Albanian sovereignty.
The Court concluded that it had jurisdiction to assess the amount of compensation. The
conclusion of the Special Agreement by the Parties had the main objective of
establishing complete equality between them by replacing the original procedure based
on a unilateral application with a procedure based on a Special Agreement. There was
no suggestion that this change of procedure was intended to involve any change with
regard to the merits of the British claim, as originally presented, including the claim for
a fixed sum of compensation. Although the Albanian Government disputed the
jurisdiction of the Court to assess the amount of compensation, the Court decided in
favour of the British claim and considered it well founded in fact and law.

10. 10
COMMENTS
The court analyses the geographical situation of the channel connects two parts of the
high seas and is in fact frequently being used for international navigation. Taking into
account these various considerations, the Court concludes that the North Corfu Channel
should be considered as belonging to the class of international highways through which
an innocent passage does not need special approval and cannot be prohibited by a
coastal State in time of peace.
The UK government claims that on October 22nd, 1946, Albania neither notified the
existence of the minefield, nor warned the British warships of the danger they were
approaching. According to the principle of state responsibility, they should have done all
necessary steps immediately to warn ships near the danger zone, more especially those
that were approaching that zone. In fact, nothing was attempted by the Albanian
authorities to prevent the disaster. These grave omissions involve the international
responsibility of Albania.
But Albania's obligation to notify shipping of the existence of mines in her waters
depends on her having obtained knowledge of that fact in sufficient time before October
22nd; and the duty of the Albanian coastal authorities to warn the British ships depends
on the time that elapsed between the moment that these ships were reported and the
moment of the first explosion.
The Corfu Channel Case has been criticized as giving insufficient weight to functional
considerations. That is it failed to balance the interest which the coastal state has in its
own territorial sea against that which the international maritime community has in
traversing that passage. Article 16(4) of the I958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone provides that there will be no suspension of the innocent passage
of foreign shims through straits which are used for international navigation between one
part of the high seas and another or the territorial sea of foreign state. The predecessor to
this Article limited the right of passage through straits to those which were normally
used tor international navigation between two parts of the high seas.

11. 11
CONCLUSION
Notwithstanding the fact that Albania considered the Court as incompetent to determine
the amount of reparations, on December 10, 1949, the ICJ set the amount of reparations
to 843.947 pounds that Albania had to pay regarding the Corfu Channel incident.1
This decision was communicated to the Albanian government which in turn will
continuously challenge the decision of the ICJ.
It'll be the Corfu Channel incident that will keep the relations between Albania and
England frozen for more than five decades.
Bilateral issues aside, with the verdict on the Corfu Channel case, the International
Court of Justice, and with that the United Nations, had shown the capacity to impose
international law as well as present itself as a credible institution to resolve conflicts of
international nature, be that among its members or beyond.
1 Puto, A. (2008). E drejta ndërkombëtare publike. Tiranë. p. 463.

12. 12
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
 HA Munro, 'The Case of the Corfu Minefield' (1947) 10 MLR 363-376 WW
Bishop, Jr., 'The Corfu Channel Case (Preliminary Objection)' (1948) 42 AJIL
690-703 HF Bancroft and E Stein, 'The Corfu Channel Case: Judgment on the
Preliminary Objection' (1949) 1 StanLRev 646-657
 RJ Wilhelm, 'La réalisation du droit par la force ou la menace des armes,
Considérations sûr l ́arrêt de la Court internationale de Justice en l ́affaire du
Détroit de Corfou' (1958) 15 Schweizer Journal für Internationales Recht, 93-130
 L Gardiner, The eagle spreads his claws: a history of the Corfu Channel dispute
and of Albania's relations with the West, 1945-1965 (Blackwood Edinburgh,
London, 1966) E Leggett, The Corfu incident (New English Library, London
1976) B Oxman, 'Le régime des navires de guerre dans le cadre de la
Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer' (1983) 28 Annuaire français
de droit international 1983 811-850
 G Cataldi, Il passaggio delle navi straniere nel mare territoriale (A. Giuffrè,
Milano, 1990) T Schulze, 'Free passage of warships through the Strait of
Hormuz: is the logic of the Corfu Channel Case applicable?' (1991) 18 Pacific
settlement of disputes 603-612 United Nations.
SELECT DOCUMENTS
 Corfu Channel, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports (1947-1948), 15-
48;
 Merits Judgment, ICJ Reports (1949), 4- 169;
 Assessment of Amount of Compensation, Judgment, ICJ Reports (1949), 244-
265 ICJ Pleadings, Corfu Channel, Vols. I-VI ADM 116/5759, Corfu Channel
Incident: correspondence and papers relating to the claim against Albanian
government, The National Archives (United Kingdom)