Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:03:40.893Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon V. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

John R. Stevenson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 488 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Caption by the Court.

2 Excerpted text of majority opinion prepared by Wm. W. Bishop, Jr. (English language text is authoritative.)

3 Composed for this case of President Winiarski, “Vice President Alfaro, Judges Basdevant, Badawi, Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo, Spiropoulos, Sir Percy Spender, Sir Gerald Pitzmaurice, Koretsky, Tanaka, Bustamante y Bivero, Jessup and Morelli, and Judge ad hoc Beb a Don.

4 Art. 19 of the Trusteeship Agreement provides: “ I f any dispute whatever should arise between the Administering Authority and another Member of the United Nations relating to the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Agreement, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation or other means, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice, provided for in Chapter XIV of the Charter of the United Nations.” 8 U.N. Treaty Series 119, 132.

5 Art. 32 (2) of the Rules of Court provides: “When a case is brought before the Court by means of an application, the application must, as laid down in Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute, indicate the party making it, the party against -whom the claim is brought and the subject of the dispute. It must also, as far as possible, specify the provision on which the applicant founds the jurisdiction of the Court, state the precise nature of the claim and give a succinct statement of the facts and grounds on which the claim is based, these facts and grounds being developed in the Memorial, to which the evidence will be annexed.“

6 The negative votes were apparently cast by Judges Koretsky and Spiropoulos, each of whom made a short statement of opposition, and by Judges Badawi and Bustamante y Rivero and Judge ad hoc Beb a Don, each of whom wrote dissenting opinions. Judge Jessup made a short declaration agreeing with the reasoning of the majority but calling attention to the validity in the instant case of his separate opinion in the South West Africa cases. Judges Wellington Koo, Sir Percy Spender, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, and Morelli gave separate opinions concurring in the result.