International Labour Organization | Public International Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

International Labour Organization (ILO)

• Established in 1919 as part of the Treaty ending World War I, driven by the belief that lasting peace requires social justice.
• Constitution drafted by a Labour Commission led by Samuel Gompers, with representatives from nine countries.
• Unique tripartite structure with government, employer, and worker representatives.

Founding Principles and Preamble

• Founded on the need for social justice to secure peace, addressing worker exploitation and global economic interdependence.
• Preamble emphasizes the link between peace and social justice, highlighting issues like unemployment,living wages, and worker protection.
• Recognizes principles like equal pay and freedom of association.

Core Labour Standards and Conventions

• Inclusion in the United Nations in 1946, expanding the ILO's role.
• Development of International Labour Standards to promote decent work globally.
• Core conventions include:Freedom of Association,Forced Labour,Child Labour, and Discrimination.
• Conventions are legally binding for ratifying countries; recommendations provide non-binding guidance.

Supervision and Enforcement

• Ratifying countries must implement conventions in law and practice, subject to ILO supervision.
• ILO lacks the power to enforce compliance but monitors adherence.

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work

• In 1998, the ILO adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, promoting core labour standards regardless of ratification.

Conclusion: ILO plays a crucial role in setting international labour standards and promoting social justice and decent work conditions globally.

Alabama Claims Arbitration (1872)

Topic — Judicial decisions as sources of International Law

Introduction

• Judicial decisions, along with international arbitral awards and national court rulings, play a crucial role in shaping international law. Since 1948, the United Nations has published the Reports of International Arbitral Awards, highlighting significant cases like the Alabama claims arbitration.
• The Alabama claims arbitration, stemming from a dispute between the USA and the UK during the U.S. Civil War, set an important precedent for resolving serious international disputes through arbitration.

Facts of the Case

• Despite the UK declaring neutrality during the US Civil War, British ports were used to equip ships for the Confederate Navy (the South). The Confederate ship "Alabama" became notorious for sinking over 60 Union ships before its eventual destruction.
• The Confederacy contracted with private shipbuilders in Liverpool, England, to refurbish ships for combat, including the Alabama. Although the British Foreign Enlistment Act of 1819 prohibited the construction of foreign warships, the Confederacy managed to evade this law and purchase several cruisers from Britain. These Confederate cruisers destroyed or captured over 250 American merchant ships and forced 700 more to change their flags. By the end of the war, the U.S. Merchant Marine had lost half of its ships.
• The United States brought the Alabama Claims against Great Britain for the damages caused by several Confederate warships, including the Alabama and the Florida. To avoid potential repercussions in future conflicts, British Foreign Minister Earl of Clarendon decided to submit the claims to arbitration.
• The arbitrators ultimately awarded the United States $15.5 million for the losses incurred due to the actions of the Confederate vessels.

Anglo Norwegian Fisheries Case

Topic — Custom as a source of international law

Principle

• Uniformity among state practices is essential for the establishment of a custom.

Facts of the Case

• Due to complaints from the Kings of Denmark and Norway in the early seventeenth century, British fishermen refrained from fishing in Norwegian coastal waters from 1616-1618 until 1906.
• In 1906, a few British fishing vessels appeared off the coasts of Eastern Finnmark. From 1908 onwards, they returned in greater numbers, equipped with improved trawling gear. This caused concern in the local population, prompting the Norwegian Government to specify fishing limits for foreigners.
• The first incident occurred in 1911 when a British trawler was seized and condemned for violating these fishing regulations. Negotiations between the two Governments were interrupted by the war in 1914.
• From 1922 onwards, incidents of British trawlers violating Norwegian fishing regulations recurred. Further conversations were initiated in 1924. In 1932, British trawlers extended their activities west of the North Cape, leading to increased warnings and arrests.
• On July 27th, 1933, the United Kingdom Government sent a memorandum to the Norwegian Government, complaining about the delimitation of the territorial sea using unjustifiable base-lines.
• On July 12th, 1935, Norway enacted a Royal Decree delimiting the fisheries zone north of 66 degrees 28.8' North latitude. Several British trawlers were arrested and condemned. This led to a dispute between the United Kingdom and Norway.
• The United Kingdom argued against the Norwegian method of measuring the territorial sea, citing a custom of drawing straight lines across bays of less than ten miles as the baseline for measuring the territorial sea.

Decisions

• The Court rejected Great Britain's argument, emphasizing the lack of uniformity in state practices to support the creation of such a custom.
• The Court's Judgment in this case resolved a longstanding controversy between the United Kingdom and Norway, attracting interest from other maritime States.
• In 1935, Norway enacted a decree reserving certain fishing grounds off its northern coast for exclusive use by its fishermen.
• The validity of this decree, which outlined the method for drawing the baselines to calculate the width of Norwegian territorial waters, was questioned in terms of international law.
• The intricacies of the Norwegian coastal zone, with its numerous fiords, bays, islands, islets, and reefs, complicated the legal assessment of the decree.
• The United Kingdom contended that some of the baselines fixed by the decree did not align with the general direction of the coast and were not drawn reasonably.
• In its Judgment of 18 December 1951, the Court concluded that the method and actual baselines established by the 1935 Decree were not contrary to international law, contrary to the claims made by the United Kingdom.

Colombian-Peruvian Asylum Case

Brief Summary

The granting of diplomatic asylum in the Colombian Embassy at Lima, on 3 January 1949, to a Peruvian national, Victor Ratl Haya de la Torre, a political leader accused of having instigated a military rebellion, was the subject of a dispute between Peru and Colombia which the Parties agreed to submit to the Court. The Pan-American Havana Convention on Asylum (1928) laid down that, subject to certain conditions, asylum could be granted in a foreign embassy to a political refugee who was a national of the territorial State. The question in dispute was whether Colombia, as the State granting the asylum, was entitled unilaterally to "qualify" the offence committed by the refugee in a manner binding on the territorial State that is, to decide whether it was a political offence or a common crime. Furthermore, the Court was asked to decide whether the territorial State was bound to afford the necessary guarantees to enable the refugee to leave the country in safety. In its Judgment of 20 November 1950, the Court answered both these questions in the negative, but at the same time it specified that Peru had not proved that Mr. Haya de la Torre was a common criminal. Lastly, it found in favour of a counter-claim submitted by Peru that Mr. Haya de la Torre had been granted asylum in violation of the Havana Convention.

Chung chi Cheung V R

Topic - Exemption from territorial jurisdiction of state, extent of immunity to foreign armed public ship, waiver of immunity from territorial jurisdiction

Facts of the case

• The appellant C, a British subject, who was cabin boy on board a Chinese Maritime Customs cruiser — a foreign armed public ship — killed by shooting the captain of the vessel, also a British subject in the service of the Chinese Govemment, while the vessel was in the ten-itorial waters of Hong Kong. C was arrested in Hong Kong and, with extradition proceedings instituted by the Chinese authorities having failed on the ground that the appellant was a British national, C was rearrested and charged with murder before the British court. He was ultimately convicted and sentenced to death, the acting chief officer and three of the crew of the Chinese cruiser having given evidence for the prosecution at the trial. C brought an appeal, alleging that the local British Court had no jurisdiction to try him.

Issues involved

1. Whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, the jurisdiction of the British Court had been validly exercised;
2. Whether the crew of a foreign public ship enjoys immunity from prosecution by virtue of such vessels being an extension of the territory to which they belong;
3. Whether, in any event, immunity from prosecution had been waived by the Chinese Government.

Decision

• A public armed ship in foreign territorial waters is not to be treated as a part of the territory of its own nation.
• The immunities which are generally accorded to a foreign armed public ship and its crew do not depend upon an objective extra-territoriality but rather upon an implication of domestic law, and flow from a waiver by a sovereign state of its full territorial jurisdiction.
• These immunities are therefore conditional and can themselves be waived by the home nation.
• As the Chinese government did not register a diplomatic request for the surrender of the appellant after the failure of the extradition proceedings, and as members of their service were subsequently granted permission to give evidence before the British Court in aid of the prosecution, the jurisdiction of the British Court had been validly exercised.

Corfu Channel Case

This dispute gave rise to three Judgments by the Court. It arose out of the explosions of mines by which some British warships suffered damage while passing through the Corfu Channel in 1946, in a part of the Albanian waters which had been previously swept. The ships were severely damaged and members of the crew were killed. The United Kingdom seised the Court of the dispute by an Application filed on 22 May 1947 and accused Albania of having laid or allowed a third State to lay the mines after mine-clearing operations had been carried out by the Allied naval authorities. The case had previously been brought before the United Nations and, in consequence of a recommendation by the Security Council, had been referred to the Court.

In a first Judgment, rendered on 25 March 1948, the Court dealt with the question of its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application, which Albania had raised. The Court found, inter alia, that a communication dated 2 July 1947, addressed to it by the Government of Albania, constituted a voluntary acceptance of its jurisdiction. It recalled on that occasion that the consent of the parties to the exercise of its jurisdiction was not subject to any particular conditions of form and stated that, at that juncture, it could not hold to be irregular a proceeding not precluded by any provision in those texts.

A second Judgment, rendered on 9 April 1949, related to the merits of the dispute. The Court found that Albania was responsible under international law for the explosions that had taken place in Albanian waters and for the damage and loss of life which had ensued. It did not accept the view that Albania had itself laid the mines or the purported connivance of Albania with a mine-laying operation carried out by the Yugoslav Navy at the request of Albania. On the other hand, it held that the mines could not have been laid without the knowledge of the Albanian Government. On that occasion, it indicated in particular that the exclusive control exercised by a State within its frontiers might make it impossible to furnish direct proof of facts incurring its international responsibility. The State which is the victim must, in that case, be allowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact and circumstantial evidence; such indirect evidence must be regarded as of especial weight when based on a series of facts, linked together and leading logically to a single conclusion. Albania, for its part, had submitted a counter-claim against the United Kingdom. It accused the latter of having violated Albanian sovereignty by sending warships into Albanian territorial waters and of carrying out minesweeping operations in Albanian waters after the explosions. The Court did not accept the first of these complaints but found that the United Kingdom had exercised the right of innocent passage through international straits. On the other hand, it found that the minesweeping had violated Albanian sovereignty, because it had been carried out against the will of the Albanian Government. In particular, it did not accept the notion of "self-help" asserted by the United Kingdom to justify its intervention.

In a third Judgment, rendered on 15 December 1949, the Court assessed the amount of reparation owed to the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay €844,000.

Cutting Case

Topic: Passive personality principle

• Passive Personality principle has been developed mostly through cases around the world rather than any specific codified set of rules. Under this principle, a state may claim jurisdiction to try an individual for offences committed abroad which have affected or will affect nationals of the state.
• The leading case in this principle is the Cutting's Case 1886. This case is concerned with the publication in Texas of a statement defamatory of a Mexican by an American citizen. Cutting was arrested while in Mexico and convicted of the offence (a crime under Mexican law) with Mexico maintaining its right to jurisdiction upon the basis of the passive personality principle. The United States strongly protested against this, but there was an inconclusive end to the incident, the charges being withdrawn by the injured party.

I'm Alone case

Topic: Passive Personality principle

• The 'I am Alone case' involved a British ship of Canadian registry controlled and managed by United States citizens that was sunk. It was alleged that the ship was used in smuggling alcoholic liquor into the United States. At that time, it was illegal to smuggle alcohol.
• It was ordered to stop for inspection at a point outside the U.S territorial waters but declined. This led to a pursuit of the ship by a vessel, Wolcott and after two days of pursuit it was joined by the coast guard vessel, Dexter, which eventually sunk the 'I'm Alone'. This resulted to death of one person and the rest of the crew was rescued.

The above actions led to diplomatic row between the US and Canada. Canada claimed that sinking the ship was illegal and not justified according to the "Convention between The United States Of America and Great Britain to Aid in The Prevention of The Smuggling of Intoxicating Liquors into the United States". The dispute between the paryies was subsequently submitted to a commission prescribed then by article 4 of that convention