UK vs Albania (Corfu Channel Case)

Facts:
-on May 15, 1946 two British Ships passed through Albania’s North Corfu Channel when suddenly Albanian forces fired
at them.
-there were then subsequent diplomatic discussions between the two states involved concerning the right of UK to pass
through the Albanian waters peacefully. The former argued that they should be allowed while the latter opposed said
position stating that they first must be notified.
-Between May 15, 1946 and May 22, the Albanian government placed mines in the Corfu Channel as part of its defense
with its war with Greece.
-October 22, 1946, British cruisers Mauritius and Leander and the destroyers Saumarez and Volmage proceeded through a
channel previously swept for mines in the North Corfu Straight. Eventually two of their ships were hit by landmines.
-UK then filed a case before the ICJ
-Albanian government contends that their sovereignty was violated because such passage by the British ships were not
innocent passage. There were soldiers on board which among other things gave a signal of intimidation.
-UK countered that their purpose was not to intimidate but to only navigate and test Albania’s attitude given their previous
encounter on May 15.
Issues:
1) Whether or not Albania was responsible for the explosion and subsequent damage and deaths caused to the British
ships.
2) Whether or not UK violated the territorial sovereignty of Albania.
Held:
-Albania was indeed responsible for said incident. The minefield was placed with the knowledge of the Albanian
Government and they failed to warn the British warships of the dangers from the existence of the minefields.
-According to the principle of State Responsibility, Albania has a responsibility to notify the British Warships in
the case at bar to prevent the damages brought about by their placing of mine in the Channel.
-UK did not violate the territorial sovereignty of Albania because the Corfu Channel should be classified as part of the
international highways. Which means states have a right to innocent passage with no need to notify other states.
-Despite the arguments of Albania that UK’s bringing of warships and destroyers with soldiers on it, the Court cannot
characterize this as a violation of Albania’s territorial sovereignty.
-However, the subsequent sweeping of UK of the mines in Albanian waters on November 12 and 13 was a violation of the
latter’s territorial sovereignty for intervention must be avoided by any means.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. International obligations in peace time are created through elementary consideration.
Facts. The explosion of mines in the Albanian (P) waters resulted in the death of a British naval personnel. It was on this
basis that the United Kingdom (D) claimed that Albania (P) was internationally responsible for damages.
Issue. Are international obligations in time of peace created through elementary consideration?

Held. Yes. International obligations in peace time are created through elementary consideration. Every state has an
obligation not to knowingly allow its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states.

Discussion. In this case, the Court found that the Hague Convention of 1907 could not be applied but the Convention was
applicable only in time of war. It was on the basis of the principle of freedom of maritime communication that this case
was decided.
The view that Article 2(4) should be broadly interpreted is also supported by the Corfu Channel case.27 In that case,
British warships had been struck by mines while exercising a right of innocent passage28 in Albanian territorial waters,
and the United Kingdom sent additional warships to sweep the minefield (‘Operation Retail’). Minesweeping is not
included in the right of innocent passage, but the United Kingdom argued that it had a right to intervene in order to make
sure that the mines29 were produced as evidence before an international tribunal. The International Court of Justice
rejected this argument:

The Court can only regard the alleged right of intervention as the manifestation of a policy of force, such as has, in
the past, given rise to most serious abuses and such as cannot, whatever be the present defects in international
organization, find a place in international law. It was held that Albania had violated its obligations under
international law by its failure to notify British ships of mines in its territorial waters. This finding was supported
by rules of customary law which were expressly invoked but in addition the Court made reference “first and
foremost” to elementary considerations of humanity even more exacting in peace than in war, as possible basis of
legal obligations. Such considerations were included,among the general and well-recognized principles upon which
the Court based its judgement.