Interhandel Case (Switzerland v. United States of America).

Abstract

State responsibility — Claims — In general — Exhaustion of local remedies — Nature of rule — Exceptions to rule — Whether rule applicable to wrongful acts of Government — Whether rule applicable when local courts not competent to examine relevant issues of international law — Whether rule applicable to claims arising directly between Governments — Determination of nature of claim — Whether dispute arises out of espousal of claim of a national — Exhaustion of local remedies as a procedural bar.

International Court of Justice — Contentious jurisdiction — Competence

Necessity to exhaust local remedies — Nature of plea that local remedies not exhausted — Whether directed to jurisdiction or to admissibility.

Preliminary objections — Reservations — Disputes arising prior to date of acceptance by defendant State of jurisdiction of the Court — Elements constituting dispute — Whether date of acceptance by plaintiff State is relevant — Limits of operation of rule of reciprocity.

International Court of Justice — Contentious jurisdiction — Procedure — Suspension of proceedin~s on the merits upon receipt of a preliminary objection — New submission amounting to new claim on the merits filed after suspension — Admissibility of — Rules of Court, Article 62 (3).

War — In general — Effects of outbreak of — On enemy subjects — With regard to their property — Measures of seizure and retention of enemy property — Determination of enemy character of property — Whether within domestic jurisdiction of State taking such measures.

Disputes — International Court of Justice — Contentious jurisdiction — Competence — Declarations under Article 36 (2) of Statute — Reservation of matters essentially within domestic jurisdiction of declarant State as determined by that State — “Automatic reservation” — Whether objection based on such reservation may be joined to merits — Validity of automatic reservation — Relevance of limited reliance on reservation — Whether affecting validity of declaration as a whole — Severability — Whether reservation compatible with Article 36 (6) of Statute — Immutable character of rules fixed by Statute — Meaning of “obligation” to recognize jurisdiction of Court in Article 36 (2) — Effect of reservation on character of declaration as a legal instrument — Relevance of intention of State to make valid and effective acceptance of jurisdiction — Relevance of past practice of State with regard to arbitral and judicial settlement — Whether condition that reservation be applied “reasonably” may be implied — Distinction between “determined” and “understood” — Whether Court has jurisdiction to decide if reservation exercised in good faith — Principle that Court must be cautious in attributing bad faith or unreasonableness to a sovereign State.