Do states possess the right to seize evidence located within the territory of another, by forcible measures if necessary, if the object of this action is to procure the best evidence and thereby facilitate the task of an international tribunal in the decision of a dispute brought before it? In other words do states have the right to obtain discovery of evidence by intervention? This was one of the questions which the International Court of Justice was called upon to decide in the Corfu Channel Case.

Among the nationalities having no diplomatic representation in China, only the Russian emigrants come strictly within the terms of “unrepresented foreigners.” The Russian emigrants, whose legal status has been defined by the League of Nations as citoyen sans patrie, form at present the majority of the foreign population (to be exact—of Western population) not only in the treaty ports open for foreign trade but also in the interior of China. According to a very modest estimate, the number of Russian emigrants in China, not including Manchuria and Chinese Turkestan, amounts to over 100,000. The Russian colony in Shanghai alone counts 20,000, while that of Tientsin is 10,000, both showing a tendency toward a continuous increase owing to the influx from Manchuria, where, since the Japanese occupation, the conditions of life have become extremely hard for the early Russian settlers.

On February 17, 1992, police found the body of Ruth Dickie in her apartment in Arlington County, Virginia. She had been stabbed to death and her assailant had attempted to rape her. Six months later, Angel Francisco Breard was apprehended in the course of an attempted rape in Washington, D.C., and also became a suspect in Dickie’s murder, for which he was subsequendy indicted. As summarized in the appellate review of Breard’s conviction by the Supreme Court of Virginia,

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda). At <http://www.icj-cij.org>.

International Court of Justice, December 19, 2005.

In its December 19, 2005, judgment in Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo v. Uganda (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found Uganda to have engaged in grave violations of the prohibition on the use of force and of its international humanitarian and human rights obligations during its occupation of Congelese territory. The Court also found that the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) had violated the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations for its treatment of Ugandan diplomats and also for the destruction of their diplomatic premises and the associated archives and records.

The train of events leading to this case originated in May 1997 with President Laurent-Desire Kabila's deposition of Zairean dictator Mobutu-Ssese Seko. Having come to power with Ugandan and Rwandese military assistance, Kabila was unsuccessful in his effort to remove Ugandan and Rwandese troops from the DRC (paras. 48–50). The DRC alleged that in August 1998, Ugandan armed forces invaded (para. 29) and then captured and occupied Congolese towns and territory in defiance of Kabila's decision that Ugandan and Rwandese forces should leave the DRC (para. 29–31). Further, the DRC contended that Uganda recruited, funded, trained, equipped, and supplied armed Congolese groups opposed to the Kabila government (para. 32).

The 150,000 radio amateurs of the world today operate on groups of frequencies and under broad regulatory measures determined by the international radio conference and implemented in considerable detail by the various national administrations comprising the international community.