Major Legal Judgements of International Laws & IPR | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

1. Nicaragua v. United States (1986) – State Responsibility

• Facts: Nicaragua sued the US at the ICJ, alleging that US support for Contra rebels and mining of Nicaraguan harbors violated international law.
• Issues: Did US actions breach sovereignty and non-intervention principles? Does the ICJ have jurisdiction?
• Principle: States are responsible for acts violating sovereignty, non-intervention, and the prohibition of force under customary international law and the UN Charter (Article 2(4)).
• Judgment: The ICJ ruled against the US, finding violations of international law and ordering reparations, though the US rejected the verdict.
• Significance: This case reinforced state responsibility and non-intervention, shaping ICJ jurisprudence on unlawful use of force.

2. North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (1969) – Maritime Delimitation

• Facts: Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands disputed continental shelf boundaries in the North Sea, seeking ICJ clarification on delimitation principles.
• Issues: Are equidistance principles customary law? How should maritime boundaries be delimited?
• Principle: Delimitation requires equitable solutions based on relevant circumstances, not solely equidistance, unless agreed by states.
• Judgment: The ICJ rejected mandatory equidistance, directing parties to negotiate equitable boundaries.
• Significance: This case established equitable principles for maritime delimitation, influencing the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

3. Lotus Case (1927) – Jurisdiction

• Facts: A collision between French and Turkish ships led to Turkey prosecuting a French officer. France challenged Turkey’s jurisdiction at the PCIJ.
• Issues: Can a state exercise jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts on the high seas? What limits state jurisdiction?
• Principle: States have jurisdiction unless prohibited by international law, based on sovereignty, with the “effects doctrine” allowing jurisdiction over acts impacting the state.
• Judgment: The PCIJ upheld Turkey’s jurisdiction, as the collision affected Turkish interests.
• Significance: This case established permissive jurisdiction principles, though modern law leans toward restrictive approaches.

4. Chorzów Factory Case (1928) – Reparations

• Facts: Germany sued Poland at the PCIJ for seizing a factory in violation of a treaty, seeking reparations for the unlawful act.
• Issues: What is the scope of reparations for breaches of international law? Must compensation restore the status quo ante?
• Principle: Reparations must wipe out all consequences of an illegal act, restoring the situation as it would have been, per customary international law.
• Judgment: The PCIJ ordered Poland to pay compensation to Germany for the factory’s seizure.
• Significance: This case set the standard for reparations, influencing state responsibility and remedies in international law.

5. Nuclear Tests Cases (1974) – Unilateral Declarations

• Facts: Australia and New Zealand sued France at the ICJ to stop atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific, citing environmental harm.
• Issues: Are unilateral declarations legally binding? Can the ICJ adjudicate based on France’s public statements?
• Principle: Unilateral declarations by states, if clear and intentional, can create binding obligations under international law.
• Judgment: The ICJ dismissed the case as moot after France declared it would cease tests, deeming the declaration binding.
• Significance: This case established the binding nature of unilateral declarations, impacting state commitments.

6. US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (1980) – Diplomatic Immunity

• Facts: The US sued Iran at the ICJ after Iranian students seized the US embassy in Tehran, holding diplomats hostage.
• Issues: Did Iran violate diplomatic immunity? What are a host state’s obligations under the Vienna Convention?
• Principle: States must protect diplomatic premises and personnel under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961.
• Judgment: The ICJ ruled Iran violated international law, ordering the hostages’ release and reparations.
• Significance: This case reinforced diplomatic immunity, shaping state obligations for embassy protection.

7. Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon (1998) – WTO Disputes

• Facts: Canada challenged Australia’s ban on salmon imports at the WTO, alleging violations of the SPS Agreement due to unscientific restrictions.
• Issues: Did Australia’s ban violate WTO rules? Must trade measures be based on scientific evidence?
• Principle: Trade restrictions under the SPS Agreement must be based on scientific evidence and risk assessments, per WTO law.
• Judgment: The WTO ruled against Australia, finding the ban lacked scientific justification.
• Significance: This case clarified SPS Agreement requirements, ensuring science-based trade measures.

8. Legal Consequences of the Wall (2004) – Occupied Territories

• Facts: The UN General Assembly sought an ICJ advisory opinion on Israel’s construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
• Issues: Does the wall violate international law? What are the legal consequences for Israel and other states?
• Principle: Occupying powers must comply with humanitarian and human rights law; actions like the wall may violate self-determination and territorial integrity.
• Judgment: The ICJ declared the wall unlawful, urging its dismantlement and reparations.
• Significance: This advisory opinion reinforced obligations in occupied territories, influencing humanitarian law.

9. Germany v. Italy (2012) – State Immunity

• Facts: Italy allowed civil claims against Germany for WWII atrocities. Germany sued at the ICJ, claiming state immunity.
• Issues: Does state immunity apply to serious human rights violations? Can domestic courts override immunity?
• Principle: States enjoy immunity from foreign jurisdiction, even for grave violations, under customary international law, unless waived.
• Judgment: The ICJ upheld Germany’s immunity, ordering Italy to cease claims.
• Significance: This case clarified state immunity, balancing sovereignty and accountability.

10. Sudan v. UAE (2024) – Genocide Convention

• Facts: Sudan sued the UAE at the ICJ, alleging support for militias committing genocide in Sudan, violating the Genocide Convention.
• Issues: Did UAE actions breach the Genocide Convention? What is state responsibility for aiding atrocities?
• Principle: States must prevent and punish genocide, including avoiding support for acts constituting genocide, per the 1948 Convention.
• Judgment: The ICJ found prima facie evidence of UAE violations, issuing provisional measures to halt support.
• Significance: This 2024 case highlighted state accountability for indirect genocide support, strengthening Convention enforcement.

11. Bayer Corp. v. Natco Pharma (2012) – Compulsory Licensing

• Facts: The Warhol Foundation used Goldsmith’s photo of Prince for a series, claiming fair use. Goldsmith sued for copyright infringement in the US.
• Issues: Is Warhol’s use transformative under fair use? How is commercial use assessed?
• Principle: Fair use (17 U.S.C. § 107) requires transformative purpose and minimal commercial impact; non-transformative commercial use infringes copyright.
• Judgment: The US Supreme Court ruled against Warhol, finding the use non-transformative and commercially harmful.
• Significance: This case clarified fair use boundaries, impacting artistic and commercial copyright disputes.

• Facts: Chakrabarty sought a US patent for a genetically modified bacterium. The USPTO denied it, arguing living organisms are not patentable.
• Issues: Are living organisms patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101? What constitutes patentable subject matter?
• Principle: Man-made living organisms are patentable if they meet novelty, utility, and non-obviousness criteria under US patent law.
• Judgment: The US Supreme Court allowed the patent, ruling the bacterium was a patentable invention.
• Significance: This case expanded patent law to biotechnology, fostering innovation in genetic engineering.

15. A&M Records v. Napster (2001) – Copyright Infringement