As compared with the Interhandel Case, discussed under A, the Israeli-Bulgarian Case, dismissed in its preliminary phase on May 26th, 1959, was from the factual angle very simple. On July 27th, 1955, an aircraft of El-Al, the Israel air navigation company, was shot down over Bulgarian territory, an incident resulting in the death of all the crew, consisting of seven members, and also of the fifty-one passengers of various nationalities. As usual, the first aim of the respondent party was to evade examination of the case on its merits, by submitting preliminary objections to the application. They were again five in number, namely:

1. Bulgaria is no longer bound by her declaration of acceptance of 29 July/12 August 1921, because the Permanent Court of International Justice ceased to exist in 1946 and the provision of Article 36 (5) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, running as follows:

“Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms”

does not apply to States, like Bulgaria, which did not become a Member of the United Nations from the beginning.

1. When a municipal court, in accordance with the rules on the conflict of laws applicable in foro, has to apply the law of a foreign country, it may happen that that country has not been recognised as a state by the state of the forum, or that, although the country concerned has been recognised as a state, the government actually in power in that country has not been recognised as such, e.g. in case of a revolutionary government. It may also happen that the court has to apply the law of a country in which a change of law has taken place as a result of an event which has not been recognised by the state of the forum, e.g. in case of annexation of territory of a state by another state. In all those cases the question arises whether and to what extent the court can apply the law actually in force in the country concerned as a result of the unrecognised event, or whether and to what extent it has to ignore that law. Can it apply laws of an unrecognised state, laws promulgated by an unrecognised government, or laws introduced as a result of an unrecognised annexation? Conversely, where the law-creating event has been recognised by the state of the forum, the question arises whether and to what extent the court has to apply the law in force in the country concerned as a result of that event, or whether and to what extent it can ignore that law, despite the recognition. This gives rise to the question whether and to what extent the court is bound to respect the foreign act of state, and notably whether and to what extent the court can review the foreign law in the light of international law. Finally, where the court ignores the foreign law, the question arises as to whether it should be replaced by the former law of the country concerned, by the law of the forum, or by rules derived from general principles of right and justice.

In het “Liber Amicorum” J. P. A. François, maakt Prof. Mr. B. V. A. Röling enkele volkenrechtelijke aantekeningen bij bovengenoemde Wet. Schrijver dezes, die zowel bij de voorgeschiedenis van deze Wet als bij het totstandkomen daarvan betrokken is geweest, gelooft echter, dat er wel aanleiding is, de verschillende opgeworpen problemen nog eens van andere zijde te belichten.

La Cour s'est réunie pendant une très grande partie de l'année 1959. A partir du 20 février, elle s'est consacrée à l'affaire Interhandel (Etats-Unis - Suisse); l'arrêt fut prononcé le 21 mars. Le 16 mars, les plaidoiries en l'affaire entre Israël et la Bulgarie ont commencé, affaire portant sur un incident aérien; le prononcé de l'arrêt eut lieu le 26 mai. Du 27 avril au 20 juin, la Cour a traité l'affaire entre la Belgique et les Pays-Bas relative à certaines parcelles frontalières à Baarle-Duc. Après les vacances d'été, la Cour a abordé l'affaire du passage sur territoire indien (Portugal-Inde); l'arrêt ne sera rendu qu'en 1960.