SUMMARY OF RELEVANT ASPECTS OF CORFU CHANNEL CASE (MERITS) Judgment of 9 A !

"# $9%9 The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland-Albania) arose from incidents that occurred on October nd! "#$%! in the Corfu &trait' t(o British destro)ers struc* mines in Albanian (aters and suffered damage! including serious loss of life+ The United Kingdom first sei,ed the &ecurit) Council of the United Nations (hich! b) a -esolution of A.ril #th! "#$/! recommended the t(o Go0ernments to submit the dis.ute to the Court+ The United Kingdom accordingl) submitted an A..lication (hich! after an ob1ection to its admissibilit) had been raised b) Albania! (as the sub1ect of a 2udgment! dated 3arch 4th! "#$5! in (hich the Court declared that it .ossessed 1urisdiction+ On the same da) the t(o 6arties concluded a &.ecial Agreement as*ing the Court to gi0e 1udgment on the follo(ing 7uestions+ Onl) one as.ect of the first 7uestion 8 Is Albania res.onsible for the e9.losions: 8 is rele0ant for our .ur.oses here+ In its 2udgment the Court declared on the first 7uestion! b) "" 0otes against 4! that Albania (as res.onsible+ The facts are as follo(s+ On October nd! "#$%! t(o British cruisers and t(o destro)ers! coming from the south! entered the North Corfu &trait+ The channel the) (ere follo(ing! (hich (as in Albanian (aters! (as regarded as safe' it had been s(e.t in "#$$ and chec*-s(e.t in "#$4+ One of the destro)ers! the Saumarez, (hen off &aranda! struc* a mine and (as gra0el) damaged+ The other destro)er! the Volage, (as sent to her assistance and! (hile to(ing her! struc* another mine and (as also seriousl) damaged+ ;ort)-fi0e British officers and sailors lost their li0es! and fort)-t(o others (ere (ounded+ <<< In relation to the first 7uestion! the Court finds! in the first .lace! that the e9.losions (ere caused b) mines belonging to the minefield disco0ered on No0ember "=th+ It is not! indeed! contested that this minefield had been recentl) laid> it (as in the channel! (hich had been .re0iousl) s(e.t and chec*-s(e.t and could be regarded as safe! that the e9.losions had ta*en .lace+ The nature of the damage sho(s that it (as due to mines of the same t).e as those s(e.t on No0ember "=th> finall)! the theor) that the mines disco0ered on No0ember "=th might ha0e been laid after the e9.losions on October nd is too im.robable to be acce.ted+ In these circumstances the 7uestion arises (hat is the legal basis of Albania?s res.onsibilit): The Court does not feel that it need .a) serious attention to the suggestion that Albania herself laid the mines' that suggestion (as onl) .ut for(ard pro memoria, (ithout e0idence in su..ort! and could not be reconciled (ith the undis.uted fact that! on the (hole Albanian littoral! there are onl) a fe( launches and motor boats+ But the United Kingdom also alleged the conni0ance of Albania' that the mine la)ing had been carried out b) t(o @ugosla0 (arshi.s b) the re7uest of Albania! or (ith her ac7uiescence+ The Court finds that this collusion has not been .ro0ed+ A charge of such e9ce.tional gra0it) against a &tate (ould re7uire a degree of certaint) that has not been reached here! and the origin of the mines laid in Albanian territorial (aters remains a matter for con1ecture+

The United Kingdom also argued that! (hoe0er might be the authors of the mine-la)ing! it could not ha0e been effected (ithout Albania?s *no(ledge+ True! the mere fact that mines (ere laid in Albanian (aters neither in0ol0es prima facie res.onsibilit) nor does it shift the burden of .roof+ On the other hand! the e9clusi0e control e9ercised b) a &tate (ithin its frontiers ma) ma*e it im.ossible to furnish direct .roof of facts (hich (ould in0ol0e its res.onsibilit) in case of a 0iolation of international la(+ The &tate (hich is the 0ictim must! in that ease! be allo(ed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact and circumstantial e0idence> such indirect e0idence must be regarded as of es.ecial (eight (hen based on a series of facts! lin*ed together and leading logicall) to a single conclusion+ In the .resent case both e0idence of the Albanian Go0ernmentAs attitude (its intention to *ee. a close (atch on its territorial (aters! its .rotest against the .assage of the British fleet but not the la)ing of mines! its failure to notif) shi..ing of the e9istence of mines) and the fact that minela)ing (ould ha0e been 0isible to a normal loo*out on the Albanian coast! lead the Court to conclude that the la)ing of the minefield could not ha0e been accom.lished (ithout the *no(ledge of Albania+ The Court then considers AlbaniaAs obligations in light of this *no(ledge' The obligations resulting for Albania from this knowledge are not disputed between the Parties. Counsel for the Albanian Go ernment e!pressl" recognized that #translation$ %if Albania had been informed of the operation before the incidents of &ctober ''nd, and in time to warn the (ritish essels and shipping in general of the e!istence of mines in the Corfu Channel, her responsibilit" would be in ol ed.. . .). The obligations incumbent upon the Albanian authorities consisted in notif"ing, for the benefit of shipping in general, the e!istence of a minefield in Albanian territorial waters and in warning the approaching (ritish warships of the imminent danger to which the minefield e!posed them. Such obligations are based, not on the *ague Con ention of +,-., /o. VT00, which is applicable in time of war, but on certain general and well1 recognized principles, namel"2 elementar" considerations of humanit", e en more e!acting in peace than in war 3 the principle of the freedom of maritime communication 3 and e er" State4s obligation not to allow knowingl" its territor" to be used for acts contrar" to the rights of other States. 0n fact, Albania neither notified the e!istence of the minefield, nor warned the (ritish warships of the danger the" were approaching. (The Court goes on to consider (hether Albania (ould ha0e had sufficient time to notif) shi..ing of the e9istence of mines! and finds that! e0en if the mines had been laid at the last .ossible moment! in the night of October "st- nd! the Albanian authorities could still ha0e (arned shi.s a..roaching the danger ,one+ There (as an inter0al of t(o hours bet(een (hen the British shi.s (ere re.orted b) a loo*-out .ost and the time of the first e9.losion+ No (arning (as gi0en! and the Court held that the omission in0ol0e international res.onsibilit) for the e9.losions! and the damage and loss of human life to (hich the) ga0e rise+)