CORFU Channel ICJ Case | International Law Disputes | UK ALBANIA | LEX ANIMATA | Hesham Elrafei

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASES SUMMARY

CORFU CHANNEL CASE EXPLAINED AND SIMPLIFIED IN A VISUAL NUTSHELL
BY Hesham Elrafei

IN MAY 1946, THE UK SENT TWO WARSHIPS THROUGH THE CORFU CHANNEL, SITUATED BETWEEN ALBANIA AND THE NORTHERN ISLAND OF CORFU.

THE BRITISH SHIPS WERE FIRED AT BY ALBANIA BUT WITHOUT BEING Hit.

THE UK CLAIMED ITS RIGHT TO PASS THROUGH THE CORFU CHANNEL WITHOUT ALBANIA'S PER­MISSION, WHILE ALBANIA ARGUED THAT FOREIGN SHIPS HAD TO BE ANNOUNCED IN ADVANCE, AND REQUIRED ALBANIAN CONSENT.

THE UK IGNORED THAT, AND SENT MORE 4 WARSHIPS TO THE CORFU CHANNEL.

HOWEVER, THE BRITISH DESTROYERS STRUCK MINES, AND WERE HEAVILY DAMAGED, WITH Resulting DEATHS AND INJURIES AMONG THE NAVAL PER­SONNEL.

AFTER THE INCIDENT, THE UK UNILATERALLY UNDERTOOK MINESWEEPING OPERATIONS IN THE CHAN­NEL, WITH STRONG PROTESTS FROM ALBANIA.

THE TWO COUNTRIES ACCEPTED THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL REQUEST, TO REFER THE DISPUTE TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, AND ASKED THE COURT TO DECIDE ON 2 POINTS:
First, WAS ALBANIA RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXPLOSIONS IN THE CORFU CHANNEL?
SECOND, HAD THE UK MINESWEEPING OPERATIONS VIOLATED ALBANIA'S SOVEREIGNTY?

THE COURT ISSUED THREE JUDGMENTS OF LASTING INTEREST IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, AS THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE MARKED THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD COURT INVOLVEMENT IN INTER-STATE DISPUTES.

IN ITS JUDGMENT, THE COURT REJECTED ALBANIA'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO THE COURT JURISDICTION, AND DECIDED TO CONTINUE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE MERITS.

THE COURT HELD ALBANIA RES­PONSIBLE FOR CERTAIN EXPLOSIONS IN ALBANIAN WATERS, AND FOR THE DAMAGE AND LOSS OF HUMAN LIFE, AS IT WAS OBLIGED TO NOTIFY AND WARN THE APPROACHING BRITISH WARSHIPS, OF THE EXISTENCE OF A MINEFIELD IN ALBANIAN TERRITORIAL WATERS.

ON THE QUESTION OF IN­NOCENT PASSAGE THROUGH STRAITS, THE COURT HELD THAT THE PASSAGE OF THE BRITISH SHIPS WAS INNOCENT, AS THE CORFU CHANNEL IS SUCH A STRAIT USED FOR INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION.

THE COURT ALSO DECIDED THAT THE MINESWEEPING OPERATION OF THE BRITISH NAVY IN ALBANIAN WATERS, HAD VIOLATED THE SOVEREIGNTY OF ALBANIA, AND REJECTED THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED BY THE UK, THAT A RIGHT OF SELF-HELP COULD JUSTIFY THE OPERATION.

FINALLY, THE COURT ASSESSED THE COMPENSATION DUE FROM ALBANIA BASED ON THE EXPERTS REPORT, AND ORDERED ALBANIA TO PAY THE UK A COM­PENSATION.

HOWEVER, ALBANIA DID NOT TAKE PART IN THIS FINAL STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS, NOR DID IT PAY THE AMOUNT.

[linahelazab]

This is very useful and easy to understand!! Thank you and cannot wait for more 😍😍😍

[g.ricepad]

International Relations Student from Brazil, great series

[jonathanhandy]

Good brief summary, though raises questions too.

[papapeethehunks]

Very useful for a Filipino like me to study this stuff on maritime disputes as China continuously violates our territorial waters.

[giulianag]

Genuine question: why where the British there?

[fejzianpetritaj]

they took money from our confiscated gold then... so we paid eventually

[halillika]

Of course Albania paid the amount of money which it was 2 tone of gold even though was British fault

[camilorivera]

Shouldn't have there been any dispute? Since the ICJ made a conclusion for Albania to pay for damages and they just leave like that. Still a great video, concrete and short!

[AminahRizwan]

Albania didn't pay the reparations? I read somewhere that it did but later, pls confirm.

[dokyungsoo]

it's a very great video, i love it
may i ask you what app do you use for making this video?

[girllll]

I like your explanation🔥🔥May I explain your video as an example to my task?