The Corfu Channel case (French: Affaire du Dtroit de Corfou) was a public international law case heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) between 1947 and 1949, concernin state responsibilit! for da"aes at sea, as well as the doctrine ofinnocent passae# $ contentious case, it was the first of an! t!pe heard b! the ICJ after its establish"ent in 194%#Followin a series of encounters fro" &a! to 'o(e"ber 194) in the Corfu Channel between the *nited +indo" and the ,eople-s .epublic of $lbania/one of which resulted in da"ae to two .o!al 'a(! ships and sinificant loss of life/the *nited +indo" brouht suit in the ICJ see0in reparations# $fter an initial rulin on 1urisdiction in 1942, the ICJ issued separate "erits and co"pensation 1ud"ents in 1949# The Court awarded the *nited +indo" 3244,947# This a"ount re"ained unpaid for decades, and 5ritish efforts to see it paid led to another ICJ case to resol(e co"petin $lbanian and Italian clai"s to "ore than two tons of'a6i old# In 199), $lbania and the *nited +indo" settled the 1ud"ent alon with $lbania-s outstandin clai" to the old#Corfu Channel has had a lastin influence on the practice of international law, especiall! the law of the sea# The concept of innocent passae used b! the Court was ulti"atel! adopted in a nu"ber of i"portant law of thesea con(entions# The stance ta0en b! the Court on use of force has been of i"portance in subse7uent decisions, such as Nicaragua v. United States# $dditionall!, the case ser(ed to set a nu"ber of procedural trends followed in subse7uent ICJ proceedins#Contents8hide9 1Corfu Channel incident :Case histor!o :#1,reli"inar! ob1ectiono :#:&erits caseo :#4&erits 1ud"ento :#4;eter"inin co"pensation 4Fulfill"ent of the 1ud"ent 49 =pecificall!, two successi(e pieces of correspondence were held to ha(e established $lbania-s infor"al sub"ission to the Court-s 1urisdiction: the 5ritish trans"ission of the application to $lbania, followed b! the $lbanian letter to the Court# These docu"ents established 1urisdiction ratione personae and ratione ateriae#8::9 $n i"portant factor in this decision was the fact that the $lbanian letter had not been produced b! $lbania-s $ent, but b! the ;eput! &inister of Forein $ffairs#8:49 In a separate opinion, while concurrin with the "a1orit! that $lbania had (oluntaril! sub"itted to the Court-s 1urisdiction, Judes 5asde(ant, Hl(are6, Diniars0i, IoriJiK, de Lisscher, 5adawi, and +r!lo( arued that the =ecurit! Council-s $rticle 4) reco""endation did not place the case within the co"pulsor! 1urisdiction of the Court#8:49$nother issue the Court addressed was the difference between the rules o(ernin the institution of proceedins and 1urisdiction# $lbania-s ob1ection assu"ed that proceedins could onl! be instituted where co"pulsor! 1urisdiction e@isted or where a special aree"ent had been reached# In essence, to institute proceedins the part! appl!in to the Court needed onl! to plead as far as possible the basis of 1urisdiction, and not to establish it absolutel!#8:%9$fter the 1ude"ent, the parties sub"itted a special aree"ent in open court8:)9 certif!in two 7uestions: Dhether $lbania was responsible for the incidents, and whether the *nited +indo" (iolated $lbanian so(ereint!#8:>9 The Court accepted the special aree"ent as the basis for all further proceedins in the case on:) &arch#8:79 $dditionall!, the parties re7uested that the Court continue the consecuti(e/as opposed to si"ultaneous/pleadin for"at# The Court areed to this#8:29Followin the deca! of relations between $lbania and Muosla(ia in 1942, the Muosla(ian "e"bers of Cot-s leal tea" were replaced b! French barristers Joseph 'ord"ann,&arc Jac7uier and ,aul Lillard# These three were respected "e"bers of the French bar and affiliated with the French Co""unist ,art!# 'ord"ann had also been in(ol(ed in the French prosecution tea" durin the 'ure"ber trials#81)9Merits case8edit9The 5ritish leal tea"The "erits phase bean on 9 'o(e"ber 1942# The written pleadins phase has been described as concise b! "odern standards# The *nited +indo" filed so"e 27 paes of pleadins, while $lbania filed 74 paes# The oral proceedins were "uch "ore e@tensi(e, co(erin o(er one thousand paes#8:99$t one point, Muosla(ia desired to sub"it e(idence, but without inter(enin in the case# This was in response to the 5ritish aru"ent that Muosla(ia and $lbania had wor0ed toether in "inin the Corfu Channel, and the presentation of e(idence fro" +arel +o(acic,84>9a for"er officer of the Muosla( 'a(!#8419 En 2 'o(e"ber 1942, Muosla(ia trans"itted a co""uni7uN to the Court aruin aainst +o(acic-s credibilit! and den!in an! co"plicit! in the "inin# Muosla(ia also passed docu"entar! e(idence to $lbania, which the $ent for $lbania filedF while these were not ad"itted as e(idence, an aree"ent with the *nited +indo" per"itted the" to be used to e@a"ine a witness#8419$n i"portant "atter in(ol(ed a .o!al 'a(! docu"ent, referred to as OC*,84:98449 which co"prised the sailin orders issued to the flotilla on :: Ectober#8449 OC* was a "e"orandu" dated % Ectober 194),84%9 and sined b! thenC.ear $d"iral Garold +inahan#84)9 In an ad"iralt! docu"ent sub"itted as part of a *nited +indo" "e"orial to the ICJ, there was a reference to OC*# $s a result of this reference, $lbania re7uested the ICJ order the production of OC*, a re7uest which the Court accepted#8449 The ICJ in(o0ed $rticle 49 of its statute to order production of OC*#8479 $ccordin to $nthon! Cart!, this support for $lbania-s clai" ca"e as a surprise, and=hawcross had not at that point e@a"ined the sailin orders# The docu"ent posed a proble" for hi": =hawcross belie(ed it wor0ed aainst the innocent passae aru"ent#8449The consensus of the ad(isers was that OC* "iht be interpreted as e(idence of hostilit! on part of the *+# The $d"iralt! arued that the Court should e@a"ine the actions of the flotilla on the da! in 7uestion, rather than, as Cart! describes, Athe confused and contradictor! e@pressions of the 5ritish $d"inistration throuh such docu"ents as OC*A#8429Citin national securit!, the $ent for the *nited +indo" refused to produce OC*#8499 In its "erits 1ud"ent, the Court enerall! accepted the $d"iralt!-s aru"ent,8429 holdin that the refusal could not lead to Aan! conclusions differin fro" those to which the actual e(ents a(e riseA#84>9 In the decades followin the case, OC* and relateddocu"ents were declassified#8449The witness phase too0 three wee0s, durin which the *nited +indo" called se(en witnesses, while $lbania called three#84198b9 Ditness and e@pert8c9 e@a"inations enerall! followed the co""on law s!ste", with direct e@a"ination, crossCe@a"ination and redirect e@a"ination# This phase of the proceedins was also characteri6ed b! fle@ibilit! on the part of the Court, with a (iew to the no(elt! of the entire situation# En one occasion, the Court allowed recross e@a"ination# The Court itself as0ed 7uestions of so"e witnesses, al"ost alwa!s between the conclusion of crossCe@a"ination and the beinnin of redirect e@a"ination# En one occasion, the ad hoc 1ude as0ed a 7uestion of an e@pert witness between direct and crossCe@a"inationF the Court and the parties areed that the 7uestion would instead of sub"itted in written for" to the 1oint panel of e@perts# ?@a"inations were pri"aril! conducted in ?nlish and French, with interpreters where necessar!#84:9 ;urin the $lbanian crossCe@a"ination of +o(acic, the Court had to rule on an ob1ection reardin whether a photostatic cop! of a docu"ent was ad"issible as e(idence# The Court ruled that the oriinal docu"ent needed to be produced, thouh it confined its rulin to the indi(idual docu"ent# $ subse7uent e(identiar! dispute was si"ilarl! resol(ed solel! with respect to the disputed docu"ents, without ha(in an effect on precedence#8449The e@a"ination phase was co"parati(el! lon, re7uirin twent! sittins of the Court, co"pared to fifteen sittins for the two rounds of pleadins#84:9In a 1942 order, the ICJ called for the asse"bl! of a co""ittee of e@perts in accordance with $rticles 42 and %>of the ICJ =tatute#8449 =uch a co""ittee had been asse"bled 1ust once before, in the Chor!$% &actor'case#8d984%9 This co""ittee consisted of one na(al officer each fro" the .o!al ;anish 'a(!, the .o!al 'orweian 'a(! and the =wedish 'a(!# The! were for"all! appointed b! an ICJ order on 17 ;ece"ber#84)9 The! were acco"panied b! the ;eput!C.eistrar of the ICJ, as well as officers of the .o!al 'a(! and the $lbanian 'a(al Force#8479 $fter the co""ittee sub"itted its first written report, the ICJ decided to re7uest an onCtheCspot en7uir!#8429 Muosla(ia also participated in this phase b! i(in assistance to the co""ittee of e@perts#8499Merits judgment8edit9In 1949, the ICJ issued its "erits 1ud"ent, rulin partl! in fa(our of $lbania and partl! in fa(our of the *nited +indo"# The Court held that the *nited +indo" did not (iolate $lbanian territorial waters on :: Ectober 194)when the fourCship flotilla transited the parts of the Corfu Channel that were within $lbanian territorial waters#8%>9 The Court-s decision was based on its deter"ination that the character of an international strait was deter"ined b! its connection of two parts of the hih seas, and that the strait was used for international na(iation#8%19 The burden of proof had rested on the *nited +indo", as it had been the applicant#8%:9En the 7uestion of innocent passae, the Court found in fa(or of the *nited +indo", (otin fourteen to two#8%49 'otabl!, the Court held that a riht to innocent passae e@isted durin ti"es of peace throuh straits li0e the Corfu Channel, which connected two parts of the hih seas# The Court accepted that so"e $lbanian reulation of passae throuh the Channel would ha(e been acceptable, but not to the e@tent of de"andin prior authori6ation, or of barrin the passae of warships outriht# This ser(ed to clarif! the 194> Gaue Conference with respect to international straits# 5in 5in Jia stated that this decision "eant that in peaceti"e, a countr! could not prohibit the passae of all (essels, or otherwise re7uire authori6ation# Jia oes on to arue that, because $lbania was unable to rapidl! distinuish between the passae of Bree0 and other (essels durin ti"es of hih political tensions, the re7uire"ent of prior notification could be lawful#8%49Dhile findin $lbania responsible for the "inin of the two ships, the Court held that the subse7uentOperation #etail was a (iolation of international law#8%%9Dith respect to the "inefield itself, the Court re1ected the 5ritish contention that $lbania had laid it, statin that such a clai" was not credible: at the ti"e, $lbania lac0ed the capacit! for such operations# The Court also re1ected the $lbanian aru"ent that Breece "iht ha(e been responsible, as well as the clai" that the "ines had been laid after :: Ectober, as bein nothin "ore than con1ecture# The Court stated that it did not need to deter"ine who had placed the "ines: i(en that the! were in $lbanian territorial waters, and that the e(idence placed the "inela!in acti(it! at a recent ti"e, durin which $lbania was 0nown to ha(e hih le(els of securit!# Thus, the $lbanian o(ern"ent would ha(e had 0nowlede of an! "inela!in operations in the Corfu Channel, and as such, had a responsibilit! to notif! other states of the na(iational ha6ard the! presented#8%)9Ene co""entator has noted that the Court-s approach to the 5ritish clai"s illustrated how the standard of proof in the ICJ differed foractions (ersus oissions# The *nited +indo" had alleed that $lbania had laid the"ines, or alternati(el!, that $lbania and Muosla(ia had colluded in la!in the "ines# It also alleed that $lbania-s failure to warn ships of the daner of the "inefield constituted an o"ission that affected the rihts of other states: specificall!, the riht of innocent passae# Dith respect to the clai" of $lbanianCMuosla( collusion, the *nited +indo" could not pro(ide direct e(idence either of collusion or of who had actuall! laid the "ines#8%79 For the collusion, the Court de"anded Aa deree of certaint!A, while to establish the o"ission, the Court de"anded that there be Ano roo for reasonable doubtA that $lbania had 0nowlede of the "inefield# Dhile the latter standard see"s li0e it should be hiher, it was capable of bein satisfied b! indirect e(idence#8%29 $nother co""entator has noted that despite findin that the 5ritish sweepin of the Corfu Channel constituted a (iolation of international law, the Court did not rule that indirect e(idence inad"issible# Gowe(er, this "a! ha(e been because $lbania ne(er challened the e(idence#8%99In re1ectin the 5ritish aru"ent that Operation #etail was a 1ustified inter(ention, the Court fa"ousl! held8%%9 that such a riht was Athe "anifestation of a polic! of force, such as has, in the past, i(en rise to "ost serious abuses and such as cannot, whate(er be the present defects in international orani6ation, find a place in international lawA#8)>9 The Court also re1ected the 5ritish aru"ents that Operation #etail was 1ustified as selfCprotection or selfChelp,8%%9 holdin that Arespect for territorial so(ereint! is an essential foundation of international relationsA#8)>9 Dhile the Court found that $lbania-s conduct in the wa0e of the "inin constituted e@tenuatin circu"stances for the *nited +indo", that conduct did not (alidate Operation #etail#8%%9In a separate opinion, Jude Hl(are6 arued that warships were not entitled to innocent passae e@cept where such passae was to ta0e part in a *' enforce"ent action# Jude +r!lo(-s dissentin opinion arued that therewas no custo"ar! international law allowin passae, and that straits could be reulated b! the coastal state# Jude$6e(edo also dissented, aruin that territorial seas within international straits were treated the sa"e as an! other territorial seas, but that a special rei"e was needed for international straits#8)19Determining compensation8edit9The Court declined to rule on co"pensation durin the "erits phase, because $lbania had not indicated what portion, if an!, of the da"aes clai"ed b! the *nited +indo" it intended to dispute#8):9 ;urin the pleadins, the *nited +indo" arued that the 1urisdiction to award da"aes was a "atter of res (udicata/it had alread! been decided b! the ICJ# $rticle 4), pararaph ), and $rticle )> of the ICJ =tatute, ta0en with the "erits 1ud"ent, ser(ed to rant the ICJ 1urisdiction#8)49$lbania did not participate in the written or oral portions of the co"pensation proceedins, thouh late in the proceedins re7uested that a chane be "adeF the Court refused this, holdin that $lbania had wai(ed the riht to "a0e new assertions#8)49 $lbania-s nonCparticipation was because it challened the ICJ-s 1urisdiction to award da"aes#8)49 This refusal to participate resulted in the Court appl!in $rticle %4 of the ICJ =tatute,8)%9 to appoint e@perts to e(aluate the 5ritish clai"#8))9 The ICJ itself appointed the co""ittee of e@perts, consistin of two officers of the .o!al 'etherlands 'a(!# This co""ittee e@a"ined data rele(ant to the calculations of co"pensation, which was ulti"atel! anne@ed to the co"pensation 1ud"ent#8)795ecause $lbania did not participate an! further in the co"pensation proceedins, the *nited +indo" was awarded 1ud"ent b! default on 1% ;ece"ber 1949, with the court acceptin the aru"ent that the 7uestion ofits 1urisdiction was res (udicata under $rticle )>#8)49 =habtai .osenne re"ar0ed on the ICJ-s nonCreliance on $rticle 4), pararaph ) of the ICJ =tatute, notin that this was not e@plained in its 1ud"ent# Ge arues that the ICJ wanted it clear that its 1ud"ent was because $lbania defaulted, and because the "erits decision was res (udicata, not that the "atter of whether the ICJ had 1urisdiction to award da"aes at all was res (udicata#8)29 The Court, further"ore, held that the special aree"ent a(e it the power to deter"ine whether co"pensation was appropriate, and therefore the power to fi@ the a"ount of co"pensation# &oha""ed 5ed1aoui notes that this principle was borrowed fro" the Chor!$% &actor'#8)99External images Eriinal Corfu Channel (Co"pensation) 1ud"ent, includin ICJ wa@ seal#The ICJ ordered $lbania to pa! the *+3244,947 in co"pensation#87>9 This is e7ui(alent to 3:4#7 "illion in presentCda! ter"s#87195ro0en down, this represented 37>>,>27 for the loss of the Sauare!, 394,21: for da"ae to the "olage and 3%>,>42 for the casualties# The award for the Sauare! had been li"ited b! the non ultra petita rule, whereb! the Court could not award "ore than what had been clai"ed#87>9 $s of :>1:, it was the onl! case in which the ICJ "ade an award in the for" of li7uidated "one! to a state applicant#87:9Fulfillment of the judgment8edit9The Tripartite Co""ission for the .estitution of &onetar! Bold was for"ed to handle the "!riad clai"s ste""in fro" the disco(er! of 'a6i old# $lbania had one such clai"#The 1ud"ent aainst $lbania re"ained unsettled for decades# In neotiations that too0 place durin the su""er of 19%>, $lbania offered 34>,>>> to settle the clai" of the *nited +indo"#8749 This is the e7ui(alent of 31#1: "illion in presentCda! ter"s#8719 In Januar! 19%1, the *nited +indo" re1ected this offer#8749 =ettle"ent tal0ssubse7uentl! bro0e off#8749 $uthorities in the *nited +indo" then loo0ed to the possibilit! of sei6in $lbanian propert! in the *nited +indo"# This failed because there was no such propert! under *nited +indo" 1urisdiction#87%9The *nited +indo" then loo0ed to an $lbanian clai" for :,442#7%)% 0ilora"s (%,1%)#>7% lbF 7%,19:#77 o6t) of 'a6i old that had been looted fro" an Italian (ault in 1944# The Tripartite Co""ission for the .estitution of &onetar! Bold, of which the *nited +indo" is a "e"ber, for"ed an aree"ent on :% $pril 19%1 in Dashinton, ;#C#, whereb! it re7uested the ,resident of the ICJ to appoint an arbitrator to resol(e the co"petin clai"s of Ital! and $lbania as to the status of the old#87%9 In re7uestin arbitration, the Tripartite Co""ission issued the Dashinton =tate"ent, in which it stated that should the arbitrator rant $lbania-s clai"under ,art III of the Final $ct of the ,aris Conference on .eparations, the old would be ranted to the *nited +indo" to partiall! satisf! the Corfu Channel1ud"ent#8749 En :> Februar! 19%4, the arbitrator ranted $lbania-s clai"#87%9 This did not end the issue: Ital! asserted clai"s to the old that were not co(ered b! ,art III of the Final $ct#8749 These additional clai"s a(e rise to a new ICJ case, Monetar' )old #eoved fro #oe in*+,-,87)9 which Ital! co""enced on 9 &a! 19%4#8779 This case was dis"issed on 1urisdictional rounds on 1% June 19%4, and the old re"ained in a (ault in s, after the end of socialis" in $lbania# The *nited +indo" and $lbania reached an aree"ent on 2 &a! 199: whereb! the *nited +indo" would rant to $lbania so"e 1,%74 0ilora"s (4,47> lb) of Tripartite Co""ission old, and $lbania would pa! P: "illion to the *nited +indo"#8799 The settle"ent was finall! appro(ed in 199), after $lbania and the other Tripartite powers settled their own clai"s#82>9 $t this point, $lbania asserted that it was unable to pa! the P: "illion# 1 "illion in presentCda! ter"s#8219Legacy8edit9$r"ed onl! with the 1urisprudence of its predecessor, this new International Court would successfull! establish for the future a whole rane of procedural rules, as well as a foundation in a reat nu"ber of areas, while fortuitousl! strenthenin so"e leal principles for the ood of a world that was about to find itself in a period of stron ideoloical ri(alr!# It would e(en boldl! de(elop international law, notabl! within the area of en(iron"ental protection#5ed1aoui (:>1:, p# ))Law of the sea8edit9&urther inforation: La% of the sea and .nnocent passageThe Corfu Channel case has been called a land"ar0 case in the law of the sea#8clarification needed9 Dhile the 194> Gaue Conference on International >%# &an! others ha(e been brouht before the Court, thouh these others did not result in decisions# Gistoricall!, the ICJ-s stance has been to strictl! enforce the prohibition on the use of force, a stance which has pro(ed contro(ersial#82)9In decidin $lbania-s clai" that the *nited +indo" (iolated $lbanian so(ereint! with Operation #etail, the Court re1ected the 5ritish aru"ent that its acti(ities in $lbanian territorial waters were 1ustified as necessar! to obtain e(idence of the "inefield in the Corfu Channel, as well as that it was 1ustified as selfChelp or selfCprotection# =o"e contro(ers! surrounded the "a1orit! decision, which did not specificall! reference the *' Charter-s prohibition on the use of force, but si"pl! held that the *nited +indo" (iolated the so(ereint! of $lbania# In subse7uent cases in(ol(in use of force, Christine Bra! has noted that the Court has si"ilarl! a(oided specificall! referencin the *' Charter in its final pronounce"ents#8279The Court has subse7uentl! held that the *' Charter prohibition on the use of force constituted custo"ar! international law# In theNicaragua case, the parties were in aree"ent that the prohibition constituted a pere"ptor! nor", or (us cogens# In this case it was also held that the riht of selfCdefence, in response to an illeal use of force, has a dual basis in international law C both under custo"ar! international law and that deri(ed fro" $rticle %1 of the *' Charter# The practices of states ha(e enerall! confor"ed to the Court-s approach in the Corfu Channel case#8229 The *nited =tates has critici6ed the Court-s approach to the use of force# The *nited =tates- criticis" flows fro" the fact that, e(en owin to the use of force aainst $lCQaeda in $fhanistan, and the acceptance of the lealit! of such action, the ICJ still "aintains the position that nonCstate roups cannot co""it an -ar"ed attac0-# $n occurence of an -ar"ed attac0- is the necessar! condition for a state to use the riht of self Cdefence in response to an ileal use of force, and thus breach the territorial so(ereint! of a state# 8clarification needed98299$s to the law of war, or (us in bello, the Corfu Channel case "erits decision "ade reference to the concept, but onl! when the Court 1uded the Nicaragua case the ICJ i(e a sinificant treat"ent to the topic# The ,er"anent Court of International Justice had ne(er dealt with (us in bello#89>9 In both cases, the ICJ dealt with situations in(ol(in force, but which did not rise to the le(el of a for"al state of war#8919International enironmental law8edit9&urther inforation: 1nvironental protocol8T9he rele(ance of this 1ud"ent oes far be!ond the sub1ect "atter dealt with b! the Court in 1949, e@tendin to pressin conte"porar! proble"s such as transCboundar! pollution, terroris" or pirac!# In short, it was and re"ains a thorouhl! "odern decision/a land"ar0 for international lawF and one which toda! warrants reconsideration#5annelier, Christa0is R Geathcote (:>1:, p# @()$lthouh Corfu Channel was superficiall! a decision about the law of the sea and the use of force, scholars such as &alosia Fit6"aurice ha(e re"ar0ed on the i"pact of Corfu Channel on the de(elop"ent of international en(iron"ental law# =pecificall!, the case, alon with the 194>s arbitration fro" the Trail ="elter dispute and the subse7uent ICJ case in(ol(in 5arcelona Traction, articulated basic principles used e@tensi(el!in subse7uent cases and con(entions dealin with the en(iron"ent# In the Corfu Channel case, the Court articulated the principle that e(er! state is obliated not to 0nowinl! allow its territor! to be used to co""it acts aainst the rihts of an! other state# This "eant, with respect to the Corfu Channel, that $lbania was obliated to warn others that its territorial waters were "ined# The specific lanuae ca"e fro" the 0rail Selter case, and ulti"atel! was adopted into the =toc0hol" ;eclaration and .io ;eclaration#89:9Procedural legacy8edit9See also: United Nations Charter and Statute of the .nternational Court of 2usticeCorfu Channel has i"pacted the procedure of the International Court of Justice in subse7uent cases#$ccordin to $ristotles Constantinides, one of the "a1or reasons the Corfu Channel case has continued to be of i"portance in current public international law has to do with the standards it established in the e(identiar! and factCfindin portions of the case#8949 For instance,Corfu Channel differed fro" other cases in the ,er"anent Court in that witnesses, both e@pert and nonCe@pert, were a(ailable durin the oral proceedins for crossCe@a"ination, as well as for 7uestionin b! the 1udes# =habtai .osenne co""ents that because the 5ritish Atoo0 the initiati(e to call witnessesA, it was the 5ritish procedure for witness e@a"ination that the Court adopted in that case, and which has been rouhl! followed in all subse7uent contentious cases#8949 The use of circu"stantial e(idence also deri(es fro" Corfu Channel#89%9 $ccordin to Christian Ta"s, the acade"ic consensus is that the Court successfull! resol(ed the e(identiar! issues before it#89)9Corfu Channel also started a trend in the ICJ where states appointin 1udes ad hoc would not choose one of their own nationals to fill the role# This subse7uentl! happened in the Aerial .ncident of 34 2ul' *+55 and Arbitral A%ard of the 6ing of Spain cases, a"on others# In the 1972 .ules of Court, $rticle 4% pararaph 1 was intentionall! drawn up to encourae this practice#8979 It was also the beinnin of a trend where the ICJ-s final decisions occasionall! consisted of "ore than one 1ud"ent#8929Corfu Channel has been an outlier in ter"s of how the case reached the ICJ# The *' Charter, $rticle 4)(4), pro(ides that the =ecurit! Council "a! reco""end cases for settle"ent b! the Court# Corfu Channel has been the onl! ti"e the =ecurit! Council has openl! relied on that authorit! ((ia .esolution ::)# Christian To"uschat has arued that.esolution 49%, issued with respect to the $eean dispute, and which resulted in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelfcase, is a (eiled in(ocation of that sa"e power#8999 In two other situations, the =ecurit! Council has considered "a0in an $rticle 4)(4) reco""endation, onl! to ha(e it defeated b! (ote or (eto#81>>9 $dditionall!, Corfu Channel is unusual in that the e@pert testi"on! was considered in the 1ud"ent#81>19=o"e procedural issues decided in Corfu Channel ha(e been subse7uentl! superseded# $t that point, the rule with respect to e@perts pro(idin testi"on! to the Court re7uired that the part! callin the e@pert should pa! their e@penses# This has since been supplanted b! $rticle )2 of the .ules of the ICJ, which pro(ides that the Court-s own funds pa! for e@perts#81>:9 Corfu Channel also carried o(er the ,CIJ practice of as0in the parties- consent prior to resu"in proceedins with a 1ude who had been te"poraril! absentF this practice was eli"inated in 19%4#81>49 The case was also the first and final instance where the ,CIJ practice of readin separate opinions aloud before the court was followed# The practice of publicl! readin decisions was eli"inated entirel! after the case#81>49Corfu Channel !United "ingdom # $lbania%Date of $pplication& :: &a! 1947En :: Ectober 194) in the Corfu =trait, two 5ritish destro!ers struc0 "ines in $lbanian waters and suffered da"ae, includin serious loss of life# En :: &a! 1947, the Bo(ern"ent of the *nited +indo" filed an $pplication institutin proceedins aainst the Bo(ern"ent of the ,eople-s .epublic of $lbania see0in a decision to the effect that the $lbanian Bo(ern"ent was internationall! responsible for the conse7uences of the incident and "ust "a0e reparation or pa! co"pensation# $lbania, for its part, had sub"itted a counterCclai" aainst the *nited +indo" for ha(in (iolated $lbanian territorial waters# En 9 $pril 1949, the Court found that $lbania was responsible for the e@plosions and for the resultin da"ae and loss of hu"an life suffered b! the *nited +indo"# The Court also found that the later "inesweepin b! the *nited +indo" had (iolated $lbanian so(ereint!# En 19 ;ece"ber 1949, the Court ordered $lbania to pa! the *nited+indo" a total co"pensation of 244, 947# The Corfu Channel case was the first dispute to be brouht before the newl! established International Court of Justice C the successor to the ,er"anent Court of International Justice#International law8edit9Main article: Corfu Channel caseThe International Court of Justice rulin in the case established a precedent reardinwhether a (iolation of territorial so(ereint! is 1ustified inter(ention# The *nited +indo"clai"ed it was 1ustified in enterin $lbanian territorial waters on 1: and 14 'o(e"ber194) to secure e(idence needed to support its case# The ICJ responded,AThe Court cannot accept such a line of defence# The Court can onl! reard thealleed riht of inter(ention as the "anifestation of a polic! of force, such as has,in the past, i(en rise to "ost serious abuses and such as cannot, whate(er be the present defects in international oranisation, find a place in international law# Inter(ention is perhaps still less ad"issible in the particular for" it would ta0e hereF for, fro" the nature of thins, it would be reser(ed for the "ostpowerful =tates, and "iht easil! lead to per(ertin the ad"inistration of interCnational 1ustice itself#The *nited +indo" $ent, in his speech in repl!, has further classified AEperation .etailA a"on "ethods of selfCprotection or selfChelp# The Court cannot accept this defence either# 5etween independent =tates, respect for territorial so(ereint! is an essential foundation of international relations# The Court reconises that the $lbanian Bo(ern"ent-s co"plete failure to carr! out its duties after the e@plosions, and the dilator! nature of its diplo"atic notes, are e@tenuatin circu"stances for the action of the *nited +indo" Bo(ern"ent# 5ut to ensure respect for international law, of which it isthe oran, the Court "ust declare that the action of the 5ritish 'a(! constituted a (iolation of $lbanian so(ereint!#A8:99