Here's a detailed explanation of UNIT I: Introduction to International Dispute Settlement

with a story-like coherence, covering key treaties, articles, and the historical evolution of
dispute resolution mechanisms in international law.

UNIT I: Introduction to International Dispute Settlement

1.1 International Dispute Resolution
Imagine a world before formal international law—where disputes between nations were
resolved through war, conquests, and power struggles. In ancient times, there were no
legal systems to mediate conflicts. However, as civilizations advanced, kingdoms and
empires began to establish diplomatic mechanisms to avoid unnecessary bloodshed.
One of the earliest recorded treaties in history—the Treaty of Kadesh (1259 BCE) between
the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite King Hattusili III—was a peace agreement
that sought to end hostilities through diplomatic negotiations rather than warfare. This treaty
symbolized an early attempt at peaceful dispute resolution.
Fast forward to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War in Europe.
This treaty introduced the idea of sovereignty, implying that disputes between nations
should be resolved diplomatically rather than through force.
In the 19th century, the world witnessed the first modern arbitration cases, such as the
famous "Alabama Claims" Arbitration (1872) between the United States and Great
Britain. This case was a major step toward codifying peaceful dispute settlement
mechanisms, as it used a tribunal to decide compensation for damages during the American
Civil War.
By the 20th century, the horrors of World War I prompted the formation of the League of
Nations (1920), which aimed to prevent conflicts through diplomacy and arbitration.
However, it lacked enforcement power, leading to its failure when World War II erupted.
After WWII, in 1945, the world established the United Nations (UN) and created a
framework to legally obligate states to resolve disputes peacefully, marking a new era in
international dispute resolution.

1.2 Obligation of Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

The modern obligation for peaceful dispute resolution is enshrined in Article 2(3) of the
UN Charter (1945), which states:
"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."
This was a turning point in international law, making it a legal duty (not just a moral one)
for states to avoid war and seek negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or adjudication
instead.
🔹 Key Treaties Supporting Peaceful Dispute Settlement:
 UN Charter (1945) - Articles 2(3) & 33-38
 Hague Conventions (1899, 1907) – Early dispute resolution mechanisms
 Pact of Paris (1928) / Kellogg-Briand Pact – Outlawed war as a means of dispute
resolution
 Manila Declaration (1982) – Reaffirmed peaceful dispute resolution obligations
The Cold War (1947-1991) saw intense diplomatic disputes (Cuban Missile Crisis, Korean
War, Vietnam War, etc.), but the superpowers (USA & USSR) avoided direct war due to
the risk of nuclear destruction. Instead, they engaged in negotiations and UN diplomacy,
proving the effectiveness of peaceful settlement mechanisms.

1.3 Principal Features of International Dispute Settlement in International Law

By the late 20th century, international law had developed six principal methods of peaceful
dispute settlement, as outlined in Article 33 of the UN Charter:
1. Negotiation 🤝
The simplest method, where states discuss the issue directly to reach a mutual agreement.
🔹 Example: Camp David Accords (1978) – Israel & Egypt negotiated peace under U.S.
mediation.
2. Mediation & Good Offices 🤲
A neutral third party assists in resolving disputes.
🔹 Example: Norway’s mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords (1993).
3. Inquiry 🔍
A fact-finding commission investigates disputes and recommends solutions.
🔹 Example: Lusitania Inquiry (1915) – Investigated Germany’s sinking of a British ship.
4. Conciliation ⚖️
An independent commission proposes a settlement, but it is non-binding.
🔹 Example: Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (2002) – Proposed border solutions
after a war.
5. Arbitration
Disputes are submitted to an independent tribunal, which makes a binding decision.
🔹 Example: South China Sea Arbitration (2016) - Philippines v. China (UNCLOS).
6. Adjudication (Judicial Settlement) ⚖️
Legal disputes are resolved by international courts like the International Court of Justice
(ICJ).
🔹 Example: Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya, 2021) – ICJ
determined the maritime boundary between the two states.

Evolution of International Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

🔹 Pre-20th Century: War was a primary tool, but treaties (e.g., Westphalia 1648, Hague
Conventions 1899) promoted diplomacy.
🔹 Early 20th Century: Arbitration (Alabama Claims, PCA), League of Nations' efforts.
🔹 Post-WWII: UN Charter mandates peaceful settlement, leading to structured courts &
tribunals (ICJ, ICC, WTO-DSB).
🔹 Modern Era: Binding mechanisms like WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB),
Investment Treaty Arbitrations (ICSID), and regional courts (EU Court of Justice,
African Court of Justice).

Conclusion: The Future of International Dispute Settlement

While international dispute resolution has evolved significantly, challenges remain: ✔️
Enforcement issues – ICJ & arbitral rulings depend on state compliance.
✔️Geopolitical power struggles – Powerful nations may ignore rulings (e.g., China rejected
South China Sea Arbitration).
✔️New legal areas – Climate disputes, cyber conflicts, space law are emerging frontiers.
Despite challenges, international dispute settlement remains crucial for global stability,
ensuring war is the last resort and diplomatic solutions are prioritized. 🌍⚖️✨

UNIT IV: International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United
Nations (UN). It plays a critical role in resolving disputes between states, interpreting
treaties, and shaping the development of international law. The story of the ICJ’s formation is
deeply intertwined with the evolution of peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms, growing
from centuries of war and diplomacy.

4.1 Importance of the ICJ in International Dispute Settlement

The Need for a Global Court: A Journey Through History
Imagine a world where international disputes were resolved only through war. That was the
reality for much of human history. However, after centuries of devastating conflicts, states
realized that legal mechanisms could provide a more peaceful way to settle disputes.
The 19th century saw the rise of international arbitration, such as the Alabama Claims
Arbitration (1872) between the United States and Britain. The success of these arbitrations
inspired the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in 1899 at The Hague
Peace Conference, which laid the foundation for a global judicial system.
After World War I, the League of Nations (1920) established the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PCIJ), the first world court. However, the PCIJ lacked enforcement
power, and it failed to prevent World War II.
In 1945, as world leaders gathered in San Francisco to draft the UN Charter, they decided
to replace the PCIJ with a stronger International Court of Justice (ICJ), enshrined in
Chapter XIV of the UN Charter. The ICJ was officially established in 1946, with its seat
in The Hague, Netherlands.

Key Contributions of the ICJ

🔹 Prevention of War: Resolves disputes before they escalate into armed conflicts.
🔹 Legal Clarity: Interprets treaties and sets legal precedents in maritime boundaries,
sovereignty, and human rights.
🔹 Peaceful Dispute Resolution: Provides a forum for states to present their grievances.
🔹 Influence on International Law: ICJ rulings shape the development of customary
international law.
📌 Example: Nicaragua v. United States (1986)
The ICJ ruled that the U.S. violated international law by supporting armed rebels in
Nicaragua. This case reinforced the prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4) of the UN
Charter).

4.2 Organization and Jurisdiction of the Court

Structure of the ICJ
The ICJ is composed of 15 judges, elected for nine-year terms by the UN General
Assembly and Security Council. Judges represent different legal traditions and cannot
have two from the same nationality.
Jurisdiction of the ICJ
The ICJ has two types of jurisdiction:
(A) Contentious Jurisdiction (Article 36, UN Charter)
The ICJ settles legal disputes between states when both parties consent to its jurisdiction.
The Court applies:
✔ International treaties and conventions
✔ Customary international law
✔ General principles of law recognized by nations
🔹 Example: Maritime Dispute (Somalia v. Kenya, 2021)
 The ICJ ruled in favor of Somalia, establishing a maritime boundary using the
equidistance principle.
(B) Advisory Jurisdiction (Article 65, ICJ Statute)
  The ICJ issues non-binding legal opinions when requested by UN bodies like the
General Assembly or Security Council.
🔹 Example: ICJ’s Advisory Opinion on the Legality of Nuclear Weapons (1996).

4.3 Incidental and Advisory Jurisdiction

(A) Incidental Jurisdiction
The ICJ has incidental jurisdiction to issue provisional measures (Article 41, ICJ Statute)
to prevent irreparable harm before a final ruling.
📌 Example: Ukraine v. Russia (2022)
The ICJ ordered Russia to stop military operations in Ukraine, pending the final judgment.
(B) Advisory Jurisdiction
The ICJ can give legal opinions on important global issues when requested by UN bodies.
Though not legally binding, these opinions influence international law.
📌 Example: Advisory Opinion on Israel’s Wall (2004)
The ICJ ruled that Israel’s construction of a security barrier in the West Bank violated
international law.

4.4 ICJ Judgments with Special Reference to India

India has been involved in several high-profile cases at the ICJ, including disputes with
Pakistan and Portugal.
1. Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India, 1960)
 Background: Portugal controlled Goa, Daman, and Diu, but India blocked
Portuguese access to these territories.
 ICJ Ruling: Portugal had a limited right of passage, but India had sovereignty over
the region.
 Outcome: In 1961, India annexed Goa, Daman, and Diu through military action.

2. The Kulbhushan Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan, 2019)

 Background: Pakistan arrested Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national, and
sentenced him to death for espionage and terrorism. India challenged the trial, citing
violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963).
 ICJ Ruling:
✔ Pakistan violated Jadhav’s consular rights by denying India access.
✔ Pakistan was ordered to review the death sentence.
 Impact: The case strengthened the rights of foreign nationals under international
law.
3. Kishenganga Hydroelectric Project (India v. Pakistan, PCA, 2013)
Although not an ICJ case, India and Pakistan settled the Indus Water Treaty dispute at the
Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague. The PCA ruled that India could
divert some water from the Kishenganga River but must maintain minimum
environmental flow for Pakistan.

4. India’s Role in the Chagos Archipelago Dispute

 India supported Mauritius in its case against the UK over Chagos Islands.
 The ICJ ruled that the UK must return Chagos to Mauritius, reinforcing the right to
self-determination.

Conclusion: The ICJ’s Enduring Legacy

The ICJ has played a vital role in promoting global peace and stability. However, its
jurisdiction depends on state consent, and some powerful nations ignore its rulings (e.g.,
the US in the Nicaragua case, China in the South China Sea dispute).
Despite these challenges, the ICJ remains the world’s most authoritative court for state
disputes, shaping the future of international law and diplomacy. 🌍⚖️✨

UNIT V: The WTO Settlement System

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement System is one of the most
efficient and structured mechanisms for resolving international trade disputes. It evolved as
a response to the flaws of previous trade agreements and has played a crucial role in
maintaining fair and predictable global trade rules.
Let’s explore the history, procedure, and impact of the WTO Dispute Settlement System
(DSS) as a story of evolution from early trade agreements to the modern dispute
resolution framework.

5.1 Procedure of Dispute Settlement

📖 The Origin of Trade Dispute Resolution
Before the WTO, global trade was governed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT, 1947). Under GATT, trade disputes were resolved through diplomatic
negotiations, but this system had serious weaknesses:
1. No binding enforcement – Countries could block rulings.
2. Lengthy delays – Disputes remained unresolved for years.
 3. Unequal power dynamics – Developing countries had little influence.
🔹 Example: The Banana Dispute (EU v. Latin American Countries, 1993)
 The EU imposed import restrictions on bananas, benefiting former colonies but
hurting Latin American producers.
 The GATT dispute system failed, as it lacked enforcement power.
To address these issues, world leaders created the WTO in 1995, introducing a strong
dispute resolution mechanism under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).

🔹 The WTO Dispute Settlement Process

Under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU, 1995), disputes go through the
following structured steps:
1. Consultation (60 days) 🤝
 The complaining country formally requests consultation with the responding
country.
 If they resolve the issue diplomatically, the case ends.
2. Establishment of a Dispute Panel (45 days) 📜
 If consultations fail, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) establishes a Panel
of 3 trade law experts.
 The panel examines the case and issues a report.
3. Panel Report & Adoption (6-9 months) ⚖️
 The panel reviews WTO agreements, evidence, and arguments.
 It issues a final report with recommendations.
4. Appeal to the Appellate Body (60-90 days) 🔄
 If dissatisfied, parties can appeal to the WTO Appellate Body.
 The Appellate Body’s decision is final.
5. Implementation & Retaliation 🚨
 The losing country must comply with the ruling.
 If it fails, the winning country can impose trade sanctions.
🔹 Example: US – Steel Tariffs Case (2002)
 The EU challenged US tariffs on steel imports.
 The WTO ruled against the US, which later removed the tariffs to avoid sanctions.
5.2 Legal Effect of Reports of WTO Panel and Appellate Body
The WTO dispute settlement system is binding, meaning its decisions have legal
consequences.
🔹 Key Legal Effects of WTO Panel & Appellate Body Reports
1. Binding on the parties – Countries must comply or face trade sanctions.
2. Sets legal precedents – WTO decisions influence future trade disputes.
3. Strengthens WTO agreements – Helps clarify vague provisions in WTO treaties.
4. Retaliation Measures – If a country does not comply, the complainant can suspend
trade benefits.
🔹 Example: The Boeing-Airbus Dispute (2004-2020)
 US and EU accused each other of illegal subsidies to Boeing & Airbus.
 The WTO ruled against both, leading to tariffs worth billions.
 In 2021, both parties agreed to a settlement.

5.3 The WTO Dispute Settlement and Developing States

Challenges Faced by Developing Countries 🌍
While the WTO dispute system is fairer than GATT, developing countries still face
challenges:
1. Legal and Financial Constraints
o WTO litigation is expensive and requires expert lawyers.
o Many developing states lack resources to fight prolonged disputes.
2. Power Imbalance
o Rich countries have stronger economic leverage.
o Developing nations fear retaliation in trade or foreign aid.
3. Slow Implementation
o Even when developing nations win a case, enforcement is slow.
🔹 Example: US – Cotton Subsidies (Brazil v. US, 2002)
 The WTO ruled US cotton subsidies hurt Brazilian farmers.
 US delayed compliance for years, forcing Brazil to impose countermeasures.
🔹 Success Stories for Developing Countries
Despite challenges, some developing nations have successfully used the WTO system:
🔹 Example: India – Solar Panels Case (2016)
 The US challenged India's domestic solar power policies.
 WTO ruled against India, forcing it to modify policies.
🔹 Example: Shrimp-Turtle Case (India, Malaysia v. US, 1998)
 The WTO ruled US environmental laws (banning shrimp imports) were unfair.
 India and Malaysia won the case.

Conclusion: The Future of WTO Dispute Settlement

The WTO Dispute Settlement System remains the backbone of global trade law, but it
faces challenges:
✔️US Opposition to the Appellate Body (2019-Present)
 The US blocked new appointments to the WTO Appellate Body.
 As of 2024, the WTO cannot hear appeals, creating a crisis.
✔️Need for Reform
 Developing countries seek more legal support.
 Calls for a faster and more transparent system are growing.
Despite challenges, the WTO Dispute System has revolutionized global trade, ensuring
fair competition and legal predictability. 🚀⚖️🌍

1. The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America

1. Background
This case concerned military and paramilitary activities conducted by or with the assistance
of the United States in Nicaragua.
 In 1909, the U.S. military intervened in Nicaragua, deposing the President and
establishing a pro-U.S. government.
 Several treaties were signed, granting the U.S. exclusive rights over Nicaragua’s
trade, transport, and commerce.
 From 1927 to 1934, a rebellion forced the U.S. to withdraw from Nicaragua, but it
installed Anastasio Somoza as head of state, who later became a dictator.
  Even after withdrawing military forces, the U.S. continued to exert control indirectly
through economic ties, diplomatic support, and military aid to the Somoza regime.
 This ensured continued U.S. dominance in Nicaragua without direct military
occupation.
 After the 1972 earthquake, the Sandinista (FSLN) movement emerged to support
affected people, eventually leading a rebellion against Somoza’s dictatorship.
 The U.S., fearing loss of control over Nicaragua, ceased aid in April 1981 and began
supporting rebel forces (FDN and ARDE) known as the Contras to suppress the
Sandinista movement.
 Armed activities escalated, leading Nicaragua to file a claim before the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) against the U.S. for violations of sovereignty and international
law.
The U.S. did not entirely "lose control" after 1934—it merely shifted its strategy from direct
occupation to indirect control via a pro-U.S. dictatorship (Somoza). The fear in the 1980s
was that, with the Sandinistas in power, the U.S. would completely lose its influence,
pushing Nicaragua into the Soviet sphere. Hence, the U.S. intervened through the Contras,
leading to the ICJ case.
2. Issues Raised and Arguments Presented
A. Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
 U.S. Argument: The ICJ lacked jurisdiction since Nicaragua’s claim involved
multilateral treaties (UN Charter and OAS Charter) requiring participation from all
member states. Additionally, the U.S. had reserved provisions invoked by Nicaragua,
making the ICJ incompetent to adjudicate.
 Nicaragua’s Argument: The U.S. actions constituted direct violations of Nicaragua’s
sovereignty and international law, thus falling under ICJ jurisdiction.
B. U.S. Support to the Contras and Interference in Nicaraguan Sovereignty
 Nicaragua’s Argument: The U.S. created and supported the Contras, an armed rebel
group, with financial aid, arms, and training, violating Nicaragua’s sovereignty and
international non-intervention principles.
 Nicaragua also claimed: U.S. attacks via land, air, and sea violated international
laws on territorial integrity.
 U.S. Defense: The U.S. denied direct involvement and claimed its actions were
justified as self-defense.
C. Violations of International Law
Nicaragua alleged the U.S. violated:
1. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: Prohibits force against another state’s sovereignty.
 2. Articles 18 and 20 of the OAS Charter: Forbids use of force in international
relations and mandates peaceful dispute resolution.
3. Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States: Prohibits
intervention in another state’s affairs.
 Nicaragua’s Argument: The U.S. recruited, trained, and supplied forces, violating
international treaties.
 U.S. Defense: Argued self-defense under international law, but the ICJ found no
credible threat justifying self-defense.

4. Judgment
The ICJ delivered a 142-page judgment with 291 points in its verdict:
Findings
1. Direct U.S. Involvement: The U.S. had a direct relationship with the Contras and
provided arms and training.
2. U.S. Violations: The U.S. engaged in illegal military activities, violating Nicaragua’s
sovereignty and international laws.
3. Illegal Trespass: U.S. military actions by land, sea, and air breached international
law.
4. Rejection of Self-Defense Claim: The U.S. failed to justify self-defense.
5. Violation of Customary International Law: The U.S. violated international treaties
and customary law.
Orders by the ICJ
 The U.S. was ordered to cease its support for the Contras and military actions against
Nicaragua.
 The U.S. was held liable for reparations.
 The court reinforced the distinction between customary international law and treaty
law.
Controversial Aspect: Definition of Armed Attack
 The ICJ defined armed attack as:
o Any armed force crossing international borders.
o Any group sent to carry out armed force acts against another state.
 This closely resembled Article 3(g) of UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX) on
Aggression.
5. Conclusion and Aftermath
 Establishment of Customary Law: The ICJ relied on customary international law
due to treaty reservations by the U.S.
 Opinio Juris vs. State Practice: The court focused on opinio juris (legal belief)
rather than state practice, which was criticized by scholars.
 Significance: This judgment was a landmark ruling asserting international law’s
authority over superpowers.
 U.S. Response:
o The U.S. rejected the ruling, refused to pay reparations, withdrew from ICJ
compulsory jurisdiction, and blocked Nicaragua’s appeal to the UN Security
Council.
o On January 18, 1985, the U.S. announced it would not participate in further
proceedings.
Impact on International Law
 Showcased the weakness of enforcement mechanisms in international law.
 Highlighted the ICJ’s limitations in compelling compliance from powerful nations.
 Emphasized the need for stronger legal frameworks in enforcing international
court decisions.
This case remains a significant precedent in international law regarding sovereignty, non-
intervention, and customary international law application.

WTO CASES
2 WTO DS598 - China’s Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on
Australian Barley

1. Background of the Dispute

On December 16, 2020, Australia filed a complaint against China under the WTO Dispute
Settlement Mechanism (DSM). The dispute was centered on China’s anti-dumping and
countervailing duties imposed on Australian barley imports. Australia alleged that China’s
measures were inconsistent with its obligations under:
 GATT 1994
  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping
Agreement)
 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement)
China’s duties were outlined in MOFCOM Notice No. 14 (2020) and Notice No. 15 (2020),
which Australia claimed were in violation of WTO rules.
2. Legal Claims by Australia
Australia challenged the legality of China's measures, claiming that they breached multiple
provisions under the WTO framework, including:
 Anti-Dumping Agreement (Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 6.1, 9.1, 12.2,
etc.)
 SCM Agreement (Articles 1.1, 2.1, 10, 11.1, 15.1, 19.4, 22.3, etc.)
 Article VI of GATT 1994 (General provisions on anti-dumping and subsidies)
Australia argued that the duties imposed by China lacked proper legal justification, did not
follow due process, and were based on flawed economic assessments.
3. Dispute Settlement Process
 January 28, 2021: Consultations were held between Australia and China but failed
to resolve the dispute.
 March 15, 2021: Australia requested a WTO panel to examine the case.
 May 28, 2021: WTO established the panel after receiving support from multiple
third-party countries (e.g., EU, U.S., Canada, Japan, etc.).
 September 3, 2021: WTO appointed the panel members.
4. Panel Proceedings
 The panel adopted its working procedures on October 22, 2021.
 The first hearing was held in March 2022 in a hybrid format due to COVID-19
restrictions.
 The second substantive hearing was initially scheduled for June 2022 but was
postponed to July 2022.
 The Final Report was completed on March 15, 2023.
5. Mutually Agreed Solution
 April 11, 2023: Both parties requested the suspension of panel proceedings for
negotiations.
 August 11, 2023: Australia and China notified the WTO that they had reached a
mutually agreed resolution.
 The WTO panel officially closed the case on August 24, 2023, stating that the
matter was resolved amicably.
6. Key Takeaways and Implications
A. Trade Relations & Diplomacy
 The resolution of DS598 reflects an improvement in Australia-China trade
relations.
 In May 2023, China removed the barley tariffs, likely as part of the diplomatic
negotiations.
B. WTO Dispute Settlement Process
 The case highlights the importance of bilateral negotiations, showing that formal
WTO litigation can pressure parties into diplomatic solutions.
 The use of Article 25 arbitration procedures (under the Multi-Party Interim
Appeal Arbitration Arrangement) shows the adaptability of WTO members despite
the non-functional Appellate Body.
C. Broader Trade Policy Implications
 The dispute was part of broader China-Australia trade tensions that had impacted
exports like wine, coal, and beef.
 The outcome suggests that Australia's legal challenge was strong, influencing
China’s decision to remove the duties.
7. Conclusion
The WTO case DS598 between China and Australia was resolved through negotiations,
avoiding a final ruling. However, the case underscores how WTO dispute mechanisms
remain crucial in resolving global trade conflicts. The settlement signals a thawing of
China-Australia trade tensions, and the outcome may set a precedent for future WTO trade
disputes.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement case DS598, titled "China — Anti-
Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Barley from Australia," centered on
Australia's challenge to China's imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on
Australian barley imports. Australia initiated the dispute on December 16, 2020, alleging that
China's measures violated various provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).
Key Developments:
1. Consultations and Panel Establishment: Following unsuccessful consultations,
Australia requested the establishment of a panel on March 15, 2021. The Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB) established the panel on May 28, 2021, with several WTO
members reserving third-party rights.
2. Procedures for Arbitration: On July 27, 2021, Australia and China agreed to
Procedures for Arbitration under Article 25 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
(DSU), aligning with the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement
 (MPIA). This agreement aimed to provide a framework for arbitration in the event of
an appeal, considering the Appellate Body's non-operational status at that time.
3. Panel Proceedings: The panel's work experienced delays due to the complexity of the
dispute and the large number of claims involved. Initially expected to issue its final
report by the end of 2022, the panel later anticipated releasing it in the first quarter of
2023.
4. Mutually Agreed Solution: On April 11, 2023, both parties jointly requested the
panel to suspend its work, indicating ongoing negotiations. Subsequently, on August
11, 2023, Australia and China notified the DSB that they had reached a mutually
agreed solution, effectively resolving the dispute. citeturn0search2
5. Panel Report: Following the mutually agreed solution, the panel issued a brief report
on August 24, 2023, summarizing the case and noting that a resolution had been
achieved.
Analysis:
The resolution of DS598 underscores the effectiveness of bilateral negotiations within the
WTO framework. By reaching a mutually agreed solution, Australia and China demonstrated
a commitment to resolving trade disputes amicably, thereby preserving their trade
relationship and upholding the principles of the multilateral trading system.
The case also highlights the utility of alternative mechanisms, such as the MPIA, in ensuring
the availability of appellate review during periods when the Appellate Body is non-
functional. The agreement between Australia and China to adopt arbitration procedures under
Article 25 of the DSU reflects the adaptability of WTO members in maintaining the integrity
of the dispute settlement process.
In conclusion, DS598 illustrates the importance of both formal dispute resolution
mechanisms and diplomatic negotiations in addressing and resolving international trade
disputes.

3 WTO DS599 - Panama’s Import Restrictions on Costa Rican Products

1. Case Overview
The WTO dispute DS599 involves Costa Rica challenging Panama's restrictive import
measures on various Costa Rican products. Costa Rica alleged that these measures violated
multiple WTO agreements, particularly the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and GATT 1994. The case was formally
initiated on January 11, 2021, and a panel was established to examine the dispute.
2. Key Legal Claims by Costa Rica
Costa Rica argued that Panama's import restrictions violated WTO rules in several ways,
including:
  Unjustified import prohibitions and delays in granting sanitary approvals.
 Discriminatory treatment against Costa Rican exporters compared to other
countries.
 Lack of scientific justification for Panama’s SPS measures.
 Use of trade-restrictive measures beyond what was necessary to achieve health and
safety objectives.
Costa Rica’s legal challenge covered four main product categories:
1. Dairy and meat products
2. Plantains and bananas
3. Strawberries
4. Pineapples (However, Panama did not challenge the panel’s findings on pineapples.)
3. WTO Panel Findings
The panel found Panama's measures violated multiple provisions of the SPS Agreement.
The key rulings included:
A. Dairy and Meat Products (Measure 2)
Panama refused to renew sanitary approvals for 16 Costa Rican processing plants,
effectively banning imports. The panel found that:
 Panama imposed undue delays in renewing approvals (SPS Agreement: Annex
C(1)(a) & Article 8).
 Panama demanded excessive information beyond what was necessary (Annex C(1)
(c) & Article 8).
 Discriminatory treatment was applied against Costa Rica (Article 2.3).
 Panama’s restrictions were more trade-restrictive than necessary (Articles 5.6 &
2.2).
B. Plantains and Bananas (Measure 4)
Panama revoked phytosanitary import requirements (PIR) for Costa Rican plantains and
bananas, citing concerns about Foc TR4, a banana disease. The panel ruled that:
 Panama failed to provide evidence that its measure was linked to preventing Foc
TR4.
 Panama’s measure was not provisional under SPS Article 5.7, as there was no
scientific uncertainty.
 The measure was not based on a risk assessment, violating SPS Articles 5.1, 5.2,
5.3, and 2.2.
 Costa Rica’s proposed alternative measure was valid and less trade-restrictive
(SPS Article 5.6).
C. Strawberries (Measure 1)
Panama suspended imports of Costa Rican strawberries due to pesticide residue (oxamyl).
The panel found:
 Panama failed to conduct a risk assessment before imposing the ban (SPS Articles
5.1 & 5.2).
 The measure was more restrictive than necessary (SPS Articles 5.6 & 2.2).
 Panama’s justification under SPS Article 5.7 (precautionary principle) was invalid
since only one instance of non-compliance triggered the ban.
4. Panama’s Appeal
On January 24, 2025, Panama appealed the panel’s findings on three measures
(dairy/meat, plantains/bananas, and strawberries). However, the WTO Appellate Body is
currently non-functional, meaning the appeal process is suspended indefinitely.
Main Arguments in Panama’s Appeal
 Dairy & Meat Products: Panama argued that its sanitary approval process was
justified and that Costa Rica failed to meet safety standards.
 Plantains & Bananas: Panama claimed the measure was justified under SPS rules
and aimed at protecting against Foc TR4.
 Strawberries: Panama asserted that its import ban was a legitimate precautionary
measure under SPS Article 5.7.
Costa Rica rejected all of Panama’s arguments, stating that the panel had correctly applied
WTO law.
5. Implications and Significance
A. WTO Dispute System Paralysis
 Since the WTO Appellate Body is non-functional, Panama’s appeal remains
unresolved, delaying the enforcement of the ruling.
 The case highlights the growing inefficiency of the WTO dispute settlement
system, as unresolved appeals undermine the credibility of trade rules.
B. Trade Policy and Market Access
 Costa Rica’s exporters face continued trade barriers due to the unresolved appeal.
 Panama’s actions set a precedent for using bureaucratic delays and SPS measures
as potential non-tariff barriers.
C. Future of Costa Rica-Panama Trade Relations
 If the case remains unresolved, Costa Rica may seek bilateral negotiations or
retaliatory tariffs.
  The case may influence future Central American trade disputes, especially in
agriculture and food safety regulations.
6. Conclusion
The DS599 dispute highlights ongoing challenges in WTO enforcement, particularly in
SPS disputes and the non-functional Appellate Body. While Costa Rica won the panel
ruling, Panama’s appeal into the void effectively stalls resolution. The case reinforces the
need for WTO reform to restore the dispute settlement system’s effectiveness.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement case DS599, titled "Panama —
Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Products from Costa Rica," involves a
dispute initiated by Costa Rica against Panama regarding import restrictions on various
agricultural products.
Background:
On January 11, 2021, Costa Rica requested consultations with Panama concerning measures
affecting the importation of several products originating from Costa Rica, including
strawberries, dairy products, bovine, pork, poultry and turkey meat products, fish food, fresh
pineapple, and plantains and bananas. Costa Rica alleged that these measures were
inconsistent with multiple provisions of the WTO agreements, including the Agreement on
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement), the Agreement on Agriculture, and
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994. citeturn0search0
Consultations and Panel Proceedings:
Following unsuccessful consultations, Costa Rica requested the establishment of a panel on
August 19, 2021. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established the panel on September
27, 2021, with several WTO members reserving third-party rights. Due to delays related to
staffing and the complexity of the dispute, the panel's work was postponed, with the final
report expected to be issued to the parties by the end of the third quarter of 2024.
Appeal Notification:
On January 24, 2025, Panama notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations in the panel report. However, as of that date, there were no Appellate Body
members to compose a Division to hear Panama's appeal, leading to a situation where the
appeal could not proceed.
Implications:
Panama's appeal "into the void" highlights the ongoing challenges within the WTO's dispute
settlement system, particularly the paralysis of the Appellate Body due to unfilled vacancies.
This situation underscores the need for WTO members to find alternative avenues to resolve
disputes and address systemic issues within the organization's dispute resolution mechanism.
Conclusion:
The DS599 case exemplifies the complexities and procedural challenges in the WTO's
dispute settlement process, especially in the context of an inoperative Appellate Body. The
inability to resolve appeals hampers the effectiveness of the WTO in providing definitive
resolutions to trade disputes, highlighting the urgency for institutional reforms.

4 WTO DS306 - India's Anti-Dumping Measures on Batteries from Bangladesh

1. Case Background
The dispute India – Anti-Dumping Measures on Batteries from Bangladesh (DS306) was
initiated by Bangladesh against India on February 2, 2004. Bangladesh challenged India's
imposition of anti-dumping duties on lead acid batteries imported from Bangladesh under
India's Customs Notification No. 1/2002-Customs dated January 2, 2002.
This case was significant as it was one of the first times a Least Developed Country (LDC),
Bangladesh, initiated a WTO dispute against a developing country.

2. Bangladesh's Claims
Bangladesh argued that India's anti-dumping measures violated WTO rules, particularly:
1. GATT 1994 Violations
o Article VI:1 and VI:2 (concerning anti-dumping duties).
o Article I:1 and II:1 (Most-Favored-Nation treatment and tariff bindings).
2. Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) Violations
o Unjustified Initiation: India initiated the anti-dumping investigation without
sufficient evidence.
o Flawed Injury Analysis: India's assessment of material injury was
inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, and 3.4 of the ADA.
o Dumping Margin Calculation Issues: Bangladesh contested India's
methodology for determining normal value and export price (Articles 2.1,
2.2, and 2.4).
o Failure to Consider Alternative Remedies: The anti-dumping duties were
more trade-restrictive than necessary.
Bangladesh claimed that India’s investigation process was not transparent and that the
duties unfairly restricted Bangladeshi exports to India.

3. India's Response and Justifications

India defended its anti-dumping measures, arguing that:
  The investigation followed the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and
Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty) Rules, 1995.
 The duties were imposed after a detailed investigation by the Directorate General of
Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties (DGAD).
 The duties were necessary to protect Indian domestic battery producers from
injury caused by low-priced imports.
However, a subsequent review of the anti-dumping duties in October 2004 found:
 Bangladesh had not exported lead-acid batteries to India during the period under
review.
 No evidence of dumping from Bangladesh.
 No material injury to India's domestic battery industry.
As a result, India decided to withdraw the anti-dumping duties on Bangladesh’s batteries.

4. Resolution of the Dispute

On February 20, 2006, India and Bangladesh jointly notified the WTO Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB) that they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution.
 India officially revoked the anti-dumping duties on January 4, 2005, through
Customs Notification No. 01/2005.
 Bangladesh withdrew its WTO complaint, as its primary concern had been
addressed.
This resolution prevented the need for a WTO panel ruling and helped maintain bilateral
trade relations between India and Bangladesh.

5. Implications and Significance

A. WTO Dispute Resolution Without Litigation
 The mutual resolution of DS306 shows that bilateral trade negotiations can
effectively resolve disputes, reducing reliance on WTO panels.
 This case demonstrates how WTO rules provide a mechanism for LDCs to
challenge unfair trade measures and seek redress.
B. Encouraging LDC Participation in WTO Disputes
 Bangladesh's role in this case highlights the empowerment of LDCs within the WTO
system.
 The successful challenge reinforced the need for fair anti-dumping investigations
and due process in trade remedies.
C. Precedent for Future Anti-Dumping Cases
  The case underscores the importance of rigorous injury analysis in anti-dumping
investigations.
 It serves as a warning against unjustified anti-dumping duties that can be
challenged under WTO rules.
D. Strengthening India-Bangladesh Trade Relations
 The withdrawal of anti-dumping duties helped facilitate smoother trade between
India and Bangladesh.
 It reinforced regional economic cooperation under SAFTA (South Asian Free
Trade Agreement).

6. Conclusion
The DS306 case serves as an important example of:
 The role of WTO dispute settlement in addressing unfair trade restrictions.
 The ability of LDCs to successfully challenge anti-dumping measures.
 The value of diplomacy in resolving trade disputes without full litigation.
By resolving the issue through negotiation rather than a formal panel ruling, both countries
avoided potential trade conflicts and maintained strong economic ties.

1. Background of the Dispute

On January 28, 2004, Bangladesh initiated a dispute against India concerning anti-dumping
duties imposed by India on imports of lead acid batteries from Bangladesh. This case is
notable as it marked the first instance where a Least Developed Country (LDC),
Bangladesh, acted as the principal party in a WTO dispute. citeturn0search0
2. Bangladesh's Claims
Bangladesh challenged several aspects of India's anti-dumping investigation and the
subsequent imposition of duties, alleging violations of various provisions under the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA).
The primary concerns included:
 Initiation of Investigation: Bangladesh argued that India initiated the investigation
without sufficient evidence that the application was made "by or on behalf of the
domestic industry," and failed to terminate the investigation despite the negligible
volume of imports from Bangladesh.
  Determination of Dumping Margin: Concerns were raised about India's
methodology in determining the normal value, the apparent use of constructed value,
the calculation of export price, and the comparison between normal value and export
price.
 Injury and Causation Analysis: Bangladesh contended that India improperly
assessed import volumes, their effect on prices, and the impact on domestic producers.
Additionally, Bangladesh claimed that India inappropriately included imports from
Bangladesh in its injury assessment and failed to properly evaluate the causal link
between imports and the alleged injury.
 Treatment of Evidence: Allegations were made that India failed to consider
information submitted by Bangladeshi interested parties, treated applicants'
information as confidential without justification, and did not disclose essential facts
forming the basis for definitive measures.
Bangladesh asserted that these actions were inconsistent with Articles VI:1, VI:2, and VI:6(a)
of GATT 1994, as well as multiple provisions of the ADA, including Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4,
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.4, 5.8, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8 (including Annex II, para. 3), 6.9, and
12.2. Furthermore, Bangladesh claimed that India's imposition of anti-dumping duties
potentially violated Articles I:1 and II:1 of GATT 1994, leading to the nullification or
impairment of benefits accruing to Bangladesh under the WTO Agreement.
3. Consultations and Resolution
Following Bangladesh's request, consultations were held to resolve the dispute. On February
20, 2006, both parties informed the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) that they had reached a
mutually satisfactory solution. India terminated the contested anti-dumping measure through
Customs Notification No. 01/2005 dated January 4, 2005, effectively resolving the matter
without proceeding to panel adjudication. citeturn0search0
4. Implications of the Dispute
 LDC Participation in WTO Disputes: This case set a precedent for LDCs actively
engaging in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, demonstrating that LDCs can
effectively challenge trade measures imposed by more developed countries.
 Bilateral Trade Relations: The resolution of this dispute amicably, without
escalating to a panel ruling, likely contributed to maintaining and potentially
strengthening bilateral trade relations between India and Bangladesh.
 Anti-Dumping Practices: The dispute highlighted the importance of adhering to
WTO rules and procedures when imposing anti-dumping measures, ensuring that
investigations are conducted transparently and based on substantial evidence.
5. Conclusion
The DS306 case underscores the accessibility of the WTO dispute settlement system to all
member countries, including LDCs. It emphasizes the necessity for WTO members to
conduct anti-dumping investigations in compliance with established international rules to
prevent unjust trade restrictions. The amicable resolution between India and Bangladesh
reflects the potential for diplomatic negotiations to resolve trade disputes effectively.
5 WTO DS550 – United States — Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products

1. Case Background
On June 1, 2018, Canada initiated a dispute against the United States at the WTO Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB) concerning additional tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminium
(10%) imports. The U.S. imposed these tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion
Act of 1962, citing national security concerns.
Canada challenged these measures, arguing that they were inconsistent with WTO rules and
constituted disguised protectionism rather than legitimate national security measures.

2. Legal Claims by Canada

Canada argued that the U.S. tariffs violated multiple provisions of GATT 1994 and the
Agreement on Safeguards, including:
A. Violations under GATT 1994
 Article I:1 – Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Treatment: Canada argued that the U.S.
applied the tariffs in a discriminatory manner by exempting certain countries (e.g.,
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, South Korea) while imposing them on others.
 Article II:1(a) & (b) – Tariff Concessions: The tariffs exceeded U.S. commitments
under its bound tariff rates.
 Article XI:1 – General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions: The U.S. effectively
restricted imports through these duties.
 Article XIX:1(a) & (b) – Emergency Action on Imports: Canada argued that the
tariffs functioned as safeguard measures but did not comply with safeguard
procedures.
B. Violations under the Agreement on Safeguards
 Article 2.1 & 2.2 – Conditions for applying safeguard measures were not met.
 Articles 3.1, 4.1, and 4.2 – The U.S. failed to conduct proper injury assessments.
 Article 5.1 – The tariffs were more restrictive than necessary.
 Articles 11.1, 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3 – The U.S. failed to follow transparency and
notification requirements.
C. Challenge to U.S. Domestic Law
 Canada argued that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 was itself
inconsistent with GATT 1994, as it allowed the U.S. to impose tariffs based on
economic welfare rather than legitimate security concerns.
  Canada also contested the presidential proclamations (9705, 9704, 9711, etc.) that
implemented the tariffs.

3. Panel Establishment and Composition

 July 20, 2018 – Canada and the U.S. held consultations, but no resolution was
reached.
 October 18, 2018 – Canada requested a panel under WTO rules.
 November 21, 2018 – The WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established the
panel.
 January 25, 2019 – The Director-General appointed the panel with the following
members:
o Chairperson: Mr. Elbio Rosselli
o Members: Mr. Esteban B. Conejos, Jr., Mr. Rodrigo Valenzuela
Several WTO members, including the European Union, China, Japan, India, Mexico, and
Norway, participated as third parties.

4. Mutually Agreed Solution

Before the panel could issue a final ruling, Canada and the U.S. reached a negotiated
settlement:
 May 23, 2019 – Canada and the U.S. jointly notified the WTO that they had resolved
the dispute.
 May 27, 2019 – The U.S. agreed to remove the tariffs on Canadian steel and
aluminium products.
 July 11, 2019 – The WTO panel issued its final report, noting that a mutually
agreed solution had been reached.
The settlement ensured that the tariffs were removed without a formal ruling, preventing
further escalation.

5. Key Implications of the Case

A. National Security vs. Trade Rules
 The case raised critical questions about how WTO rules apply to "national
security" measures under GATT Article XXI.
 The U.S. argued that its actions were justified under GATT Article XXI(b) (national
security exceptions), but Canada claimed they were purely protectionist.
  The dispute was part of broader trade tensions under the Trump administration’s
"America First" policy.
B. Impact on WTO Dispute Settlement
 Since the case was settled before a ruling, it did not establish a clear precedent on
national security tariffs.
 Other WTO cases, such as Russia – Traffic in Transit (DS512), provided further
clarity on the limits of national security justifications.
C. Broader Trade Relations
 The settlement helped stabilize U.S.-Canada trade relations, which were strained
due to the USMCA (NAFTA 2.0) negotiations.
 It prevented retaliatory tariffs that could have escalated the dispute further.
D. Future Use of Section 232 Tariffs
 The case highlighted the risks of unilateral tariff actions under Section 232, leading
to discussions on reforming U.S. trade policy.
 Future disputes (e.g., U.S. tariffs on autos and semiconductors) may still invoke
national security defenses.

6. Conclusion
The DS550 dispute was resolved diplomatically, avoiding a formal WTO ruling. However,
it underscored:
 The increasing use of national security arguments in trade disputes.
 The importance of negotiations in resolving trade tensions.
 The need for clearer WTO rules on security-related trade measures.
The case remains a key example of how geopolitical tensions affect global trade and the
role of WTO dispute resolution in addressing such conflicts.

WTO DS550 – United States — Certain Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products

1. Background of the Dispute

On June 1, 2018, Canada initiated a dispute against the United States concerning additional
duties imposed by the U.S. on imports of certain steel and aluminium products. These
measures were introduced under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, citing
national security concerns. The U.S. imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on
aluminium imports, affecting various trading partners, including Canada.
2. Canada's Claims
Canada challenged the U.S. measures, alleging violations of several WTO agreements:
 Agreement on Safeguards: Canada argued that the U.S. measures functioned as
safeguard measures but did not comply with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the Agreement on Safeguards.
 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994: Canada claimed violations
of Articles I:1 (Most-Favored-Nation Treatment), II:1(a) and II:1(b) (Schedules of
Concessions), XI:1 (General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions), XIX:1 and
XIX:2 (Emergency Action on Imports).
 WTO Agreement: Canada also cited Article XVI:4, which obligates members to
ensure the conformity of their laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with
their WTO obligations.
3. Consultations and Panel Proceedings
Following Canada's request for consultations, several WTO members, including Japan,
China, Thailand, the European Union, India, Mexico, Norway, and Russia, requested to join
the consultations. Despite these consultations, the dispute was not resolved, leading Canada
to request the establishment of a panel on October 18, 2018. The Dispute Settlement Body
(DSB) established the panel on November 21, 2018, with multiple members reserving third-
party rights.
4. Mutually Agreed Solution
Before the panel could issue its findings, Canada and the United States reached a mutually
agreed solution. On May 23, 2019, both parties notified the DSB of their agreement, which
involved the United States eliminating the additional duties on steel and aluminium products
from Canada. Consequently, the panel issued a brief report on July 11, 2019, noting that a
solution had been reached without delving into the merits of the case.
citeturn0search0
5. Implications of the Dispute
 National Security and Trade Measures: The U.S. justified its tariffs under national
security grounds, a rationale that is subject to scrutiny within the WTO framework.
This case highlighted the complexities surrounding the invocation of national security
exceptions in trade disputes.
 Bilateral Negotiations: The resolution of this dispute through bilateral negotiations
underscores the importance of direct dialogue in resolving trade tensions, potentially
avoiding prolonged litigation and fostering better relations.
 Precedent for Future Disputes: While the panel did not rule on the merits, the case
adds to the discourse on the limits and interpretations of national security exceptions
under WTO law, influencing how such defenses might be approached in future
disputes.
6. Conclusion
The DS550 case between Canada and the United States serves as an example of how WTO
members can resolve disputes through mutual agreement, even after formal dispute
settlement procedures have been initiated. It also highlights the delicate balance between
national security considerations and adherence to international trade obligations. The
resolution of this dispute without a panel ruling leaves open questions about the WTO's role
in adjudicating matters involving national security claims, a topic that remains pertinent in
ongoing and future trade discussions.

6 WTO DS588 – India — Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods in the ICT Sector

1. Case Background
The WTO dispute DS588 was initiated by the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan,
Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) against India on September 2, 2019. The
dispute concerned India's tariff treatment of certain information and communications
technology (ICT) products, including mobile phones, components, and accessories.
Chinese Taipei alleged that India imposed tariffs exceeding its bound commitments under
GATT 1994, violating WTO rules on tariff bindings.

2. Legal Claims by Chinese Taipei

Chinese Taipei claimed that India's tariffs on ICT products violated WTO obligations,
specifically:
A. Violations under GATT 1994
 Article II:1(a) – India failed to provide the tariff treatment promised in its Schedule
of Concessions.
 Article II:1(b) – India applied duties higher than its bound rates, exceeding its
commitments under the Information Technology Agreement (ITA-1), which
mandates a 0% tariff on certain ICT products.
Chinese Taipei argued that these tariff increases were inconsistent with India's
commitments and led to unfair trade restrictions on ICT imports.

3. India's Defense
India countered these claims, stating that:
1. Misclassification of Products: India argued that the products at issue were not
covered under ITA-1 and, therefore, were not subject to the 0% tariff commitment.
 2. Harmonized System (HS) Transposition Error: India claimed that due to an error
during the HS2007 transposition process, certain products were incorrectly listed
under its tariff commitments.
3. Right to Rectify Errors: India cited the 1980 Procedures for Modification and
Rectification of Schedules, stating that it had the right to correct the
misclassification.
Despite these arguments, the WTO panel found India's tariffs inconsistent with its
commitments.

4. Panel Proceedings & Findings

 September 2, 2019 – Chinese Taipei requested consultations with India.
 March 24, 2020 – After unsuccessful consultations, Chinese Taipei requested a
WTO panel.
 July 29, 2020 – WTO established the panel.
 April 17, 2023 – The panel ruled that India's tariffs violated GATT 1994
obligations.
 October 17, 2024 – India and Chinese Taipei requested the Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB) to adopt a decision, facilitating the resolution of the dispute.
Key Panel Findings
 India's tariffs on ICT products exceeded bound rates, violating Articles II:1(a)
and II:1(b) of GATT 1994.
 India could not justify the tariffs based on its claim of an HS transposition error.
 The panel recommended that India bring its measures into conformity with its
WTO obligations.

5. Resolution and Next Steps

On October 17, 2024, India and Chinese Taipei jointly requested the WTO Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB) to adopt the panel report.
 April 25, 2025 – The DSB is expected to adopt the panel report unless:
1. The DSB decides by consensus not to do so, or
2. India or Chinese Taipei files an appeal under Article 16.4 of the DSU.
As of now, the case awaits final adoption or appeal.

6. Key Implications of the Case

A. Enforcement of Tariff Commitments
 The ruling reinforces the importance of WTO members honoring their tariff
bindings.
 Countries cannot unilaterally impose higher tariffs on products covered under WTO
agreements.
B. Impact on India’s ICT Sector
 If India complies with the ruling, it may have to lower tariffs on ICT imports,
affecting domestic manufacturers.
 If India appeals the ruling, it could delay compliance and prolong uncertainty.
C. Future of ITA-1 & WTO Trade Commitments
 The case highlights disputes over ITA-1 product coverage and the scope of tariff
commitments.
 Other WTO members may challenge similar tariff measures on tech products.

7. Conclusion
The DS588 dispute emphasizes the importance of adhering to WTO tariff commitments.
The panel ruled against India, and the case is now awaiting final adoption or appeal.
If adopted, India must revise its ICT tariffs to comply with WTO rules. If appealed, the case
could be further delayed, especially given the WTO Appellate Body’s current dysfunction.

Case Analysis: WTO DS588 – India — Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods in the
Information and Communications Technology Sector

1. Background of the Dispute

On September 2, 2019, Chinese Taipei initiated a dispute against India concerning the tariff
treatment India accorded to certain information and communications technology (ICT)
products. The products in question included mobile phones, components, and accessories,
among others. Chinese Taipei alleged that India imposed duties of up to 20% on these
products, exceeding its bound rate commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) 1994, which stipulate a 0% tariff for these items.
citeturn0search0
2. Claims by Chinese Taipei
Chinese Taipei contended that India's tariff measures violated Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of
the GATT 1994 by imposing duties higher than those specified in India's Schedule of
Concessions. citeturn0search0
3. Consultations and Panel Proceedings
  September 2, 2019: Chinese Taipei requested consultations with India.
 September 13-25, 2019: Several WTO members, including Japan, the United States,
Singapore, Canada, and the European Union, requested to join the consultations.
 March 24, 2020: Chinese Taipei requested the establishment of a panel after
consultations failed to resolve the dispute.
 July 29, 2020: The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel to examine
the case. citeturn0search1
4. India's Defense
India argued that the products in question were not covered under the Information
Technology Agreement (ITA-1), to which India is a signatory. India claimed that due to a
transposition error during the HS2007 process, certain products were inadvertently included
under its Schedule of Concessions despite not being obligated under ITA-1. India invoked the
1980 Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules to rectify this error.
5. Panel Findings
The panel issued its final report on April 17, 2023, concluding that India's tariff measures
were inconsistent with its GATT 1994 obligations. The panel recommended that India bring
its measures into conformity with its commitments.
6. Implications of the Dispute
 Compliance with WTO Obligations: The ruling underscores the importance of
adhering to tariff commitments and the potential consequences of misclassification or
errors in tariff schedules.
 Impact on India's ICT Sector: The decision may affect India's tariff policy on ICT
products, influencing domestic industries and import dynamics.
 Precedent for Future Disputes: The case highlights the need for clarity in tariff
classifications and the significance of accurate transposition during updates to
harmonized systems.
7. Conclusion
The DS588 case emphasizes the critical nature of precise tariff commitments and the
mechanisms available within the WTO framework to address disputes arising from alleged
inconsistencies. It also illustrates the challenges countries may face in aligning domestic
policies with international obligations, particularly in rapidly evolving sectors like
information and communications technology.

7 India v. Pakistan (Jadhav Case), 2019

1. Introduction
On July 17, 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its judgment in the
case of India v. Pakistan (Jadhav Case) concerning the arrest, trial, and death sentence of
Mr. Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national detained in Pakistan. The dispute arose over
Pakistan’s alleged violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR),
1963 by denying India consular access to Jadhav and not informing him of his rights.
India sought the annulment of Jadhav’s death sentence, his release, and his return to India.
The ICJ ruled that Pakistan had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention and
ordered "effective review and reconsideration" of Jadhav’s conviction. However, it did not
order his release or annul his sentence, leading to mixed reactions from both sides.

2. Background and Key Legal Issues

A. The Arrest and Trial of Kulbhushan Jadhav
 March 3, 2016 – Jadhav was arrested by Pakistan, allegedly in Balochistan, on
charges of espionage and terrorism.
 March 25, 2016 – Pakistan informed India of the arrest but denied consular access,
citing national security concerns.
 April 10, 2017 – A Pakistani military court sentenced Jadhav to death under the
Pakistan Army Act, 1952.
 May 8, 2017 – India moved the ICJ, arguing that Pakistan had violated Jadhav’s
consular rights under Article 36 of the VCCR.
 May 18, 2017 – The ICJ issued provisional measures, staying Jadhav’s execution
pending a final ruling.
B. India’s Legal Arguments
India argued that:
1. Violation of Article 36 (1) of the Vienna Convention: Pakistan failed to inform
Jadhav of his consular rights and denied India consular access.
2. Denial of Due Process and Fair Trial: The military court lacked transparency, and
Jadhav was not given legal representation of his choice.
3. 2008 India-Pakistan Bilateral Agreement on Consular Access: India contended
that the agreement did not override the Vienna Convention.
4. Espionage Charges Do Not Nullify Consular Rights: India cited ICJ precedents
(LaGrand Case (Germany v. USA) and Avena Case (Mexico v. USA)) to argue that
even spies are entitled to consular access.
5. Jadhav’s Confession Was Coerced: India challenged the validity of the confession
video released by Pakistan, calling it forced and unreliable.
India demanded:
 Annulment of Jadhav’s sentence
  His release and safe return to India
 A public declaration that Pakistan had violated international law
C. Pakistan’s Legal Arguments
Pakistan contended that:
1. Jadhav Was an Indian Spy: Pakistan claimed Jadhav was a serving Indian naval
officer engaged in espionage and sabotage inside Pakistan.
2. Espionage Cases Are Exempt from Consular Access: Pakistan argued that
customary international law excludes spies from consular rights.
3. The 2008 India-Pakistan Agreement Modified the Vienna Convention: Pakistan
claimed that consular access in security-related cases was subject to mutual
agreement.
4. Pakistan Had a Fair Trial Mechanism: Jadhav had the right to appeal his death
sentence through clemency petitions before the Army Chief and the President.

3. ICJ’s Judgment and Legal Findings

A. Jurisdiction and Admissibility
The ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction under Article I of the Optional Protocol to the VCCR,
which grants the ICJ authority to settle disputes concerning the interpretation of the treaty.
B. Violations by Pakistan
The ICJ found Pakistan guilty of three major violations of the Vienna Convention:
1. Failure to Inform Without Delay: Pakistan waited three weeks to notify India of
Jadhav’s arrest, violating Article 36(1)(b).
2. Failure to Provide Consular Access: Pakistan denied India consular access,
violating Article 36(1)(c).
3. Failure to Notify Jadhav of His Rights: Jadhav was not informed about his right to
request consular assistance, breaching Article 36(1)(a).
C. ICJ’s Ruling on Remedies
The ICJ did not annul Jadhav’s sentence or order his release but instead ruled that
Pakistan must:
1. Ensure "effective review and reconsideration" of Jadhav’s conviction and
sentence.
2. Provide consular access to India immediately.
3. Take all necessary measures to give Jadhav a fair trial, considering the violations
of his rights.
The ICJ rejected Pakistan’s argument that espionage cases were exempt from consular
access, affirming that Article 36 applies universally.

4. Dissenting and Separate Opinions

A. Judge Cancado Trindade’s Separate Opinion (Pro-Human Rights)
 Criticized the ICJ for not linking consular rights to human rights.
 Argued for stronger remedies, such as ensuring Jadhav’s release.
B. Judge Jillani’s Dissenting Opinion (Pro-Pakistan)
 Supported Pakistan’s claim that espionage cases are exempt from consular
access.
 Criticized the ICJ for interfering in Pakistan’s legal system.

5. Key Implications of the Case

A. Strengthening the Vienna Convention
 The judgment reaffirmed the absolute nature of consular access, even for
nationals accused of espionage.
 The case set a global precedent for similar disputes.
B. Impact on India-Pakistan Relations
 The ruling was seen as a diplomatic victory for India.
 Pakistan retained Jadhav’s custody, which allowed it to claim a partial win.
 The case further strained India-Pakistan relations.
C. International Legal Precedent
 The ICJ’s emphasis on “effective review and reconsideration” established a
flexible approach to diplomatic remedies.
 Future cases on espionage and consular access may reference this ruling.

6. Post-Judgment Developments
 September 2, 2019 – Pakistan granted consular access to Jadhav, but India claimed
the conditions were restrictive.
 July 2020 – Pakistan enacted a new law allowing Jadhav to seek judicial review in a
civilian court.
 2021-Present – India continues to push for Jadhav’s safe return.
7. Conclusion: Who Won?
India’s Victory
✔ ICJ ruled that Pakistan violated international law.
✔ Pakistan was ordered to review Jadhav’s case.
✔ Strengthened the legal status of the Vienna Convention.
Pakistan’s Position
✔ Retained custody of Jadhav.
✔ ICJ did not order Jadhav’s release.
The case was not an outright win for either side but a legal and diplomatic milestone that
reinforced the importance of consular rights in international law.

Case Analysis: India v. Pakistan (Jadhav Case), 2019

1. Background
On 8 May 2017, India initiated proceedings against Pakistan at the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) concerning the detention and trial of Mr. Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, an
Indian national sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court in April 2017 on charges of
espionage and terrorism. India alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations (1963), asserting that Pakistan failed to:
 Inform India without delay of Mr. Jadhav's arrest.
 Notify Mr. Jadhav of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.
 Provide Indian consular officers access to Mr. Jadhav.
India sought the annulment of Mr. Jadhav's death sentence and his release.
citeturn0search0

2. ICJ Provisional Measures

On 18 May 2017, the ICJ directed Pakistan to "take all measures at its disposal" to ensure
that Mr. Jadhav was not executed pending the Court's final decision. citeturn0search0

3. ICJ Judgment (17 July 2019)

The ICJ delivered its judgment on 17 July 2019, addressing key issues:
  Jurisdiction & Admissibility: The ICJ affirmed its jurisdiction based on Article I of
the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention and deemed India's application
admissible, rejecting Pakistan's objections.
 Applicability of the Vienna Convention: The Court concluded that the Vienna
Convention applied regardless of the espionage allegations against Mr. Jadhav.
 Violations by Pakistan:
o Failure to Inform: Pakistan breached its obligation by not informing Mr.
Jadhav of his rights under Article 36(1)(b).
o Delayed Notification: Pakistan failed to inform India "without delay" of Mr.
Jadhav's detention, notifying them three weeks after his arrest.
o Denial of Consular Access: Pakistan violated Article 36(1)(a) and (c) by
denying India consular access to Mr. Jadhav.
 Remedies Ordered: The ICJ directed Pakistan to provide effective review and
reconsideration of Mr. Jadhav's conviction and sentence, ensuring that the violations
of his rights under Article 36 were fully examined. citeturn0search1

4. Reactions and Subsequent Developments

 India's Response: India hailed the ICJ's verdict as a victory for truth and justice,
urging Pakistan to implement the judgment promptly. citeturn0search2
 Pakistan's Actions: Following the ICJ's judgment, Pakistan granted consular access
to Mr. Jadhav. However, as of the latest available information, Mr. Jadhav remains in
custody, with ongoing discussions about ensuring compliance with the ICJ's
directives.

5. Implications
The Jadhav case underscores the significance of the Vienna Convention in safeguarding
consular relations and the rights of foreign nationals. It highlights the ICJ's role in resolving
disputes between nations and ensuring adherence to international legal standards.

8 Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France), 1974

1. Introduction
The Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France) were brought before
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1973 by Australia and New Zealand against
France. The cases concerned France’s atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific,
which Australia and New Zealand argued violated international law and posed serious
environmental and health risks.
The ICJ dismissed both cases on December 20, 1974, reasoning that France had already
committed to ceasing atmospheric nuclear tests, rendering the disputes moot. The cases
are significant for their ruling on unilateral state declarations as binding commitments in
international law.

2. Background of the Dispute

A. French Nuclear Testing in the Pacific
Since 1966, France had conducted atmospheric nuclear tests at Mururoa Atoll in the South
Pacific. These tests sparked protests from Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific island
nations, who were concerned about:
 Radioactive fallout affecting their territories and marine life.
 Violations of international environmental and sovereignty norms.
 Public health risks associated with radiation exposure.
By 1973, after years of unsuccessful diplomatic efforts, Australia and New Zealand filed
cases against France at the ICJ, seeking to:
 Stop further nuclear tests in the atmosphere.
 Declare such tests illegal under international law.

3. Legal Issues Raised in the Case

A. Jurisdiction and Admissibility
 Australia and New Zealand argued that the ICJ had jurisdiction based on:
o The General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
(1928).
o Articles 36 and 37 of the ICJ Statute.
 France rejected ICJ jurisdiction, refusing to participate in the proceedings and
claiming the Court had no authority to adjudicate the matter.
B. Violation of International Law
Australia and New Zealand alleged that:
1. The nuclear tests caused transboundary environmental harm, violating customary
international law.
2. The tests breached their sovereign rights, as radioactive fallout could affect their
territories.
 3. The tests violated the rights of Pacific peoples under human rights and
environmental law principles.

4. France’s Response and Unilateral Declaration

France refused to appear before the ICJ, claiming the Court lacked jurisdiction.
However, in 1974, the newly elected French government of President Valéry Giscard
d’Estaing announced that France would stop atmospheric nuclear testing after 1974 and
switch to underground tests.
 June 8, 1974 – The French government issued a public communiqué stating that the
1974 nuclear test series would be the last atmospheric tests.
 July 25, 1974 – The French President reaffirmed that future nuclear testing would
be underground.
 September 25, 1974 – France’s Foreign Minister confirmed this position at the
United Nations General Assembly.

5. ICJ Judgment (December 20, 1974)

A. The Court’s Findings
The ICJ ruled by a 9-6 majority that:
1. France’s public statements constituted a binding legal commitment under
international law.
2. The dispute was no longer valid, as France had already committed to ceasing
atmospheric nuclear testing.
3. There was no need to rule on the legality of nuclear tests, since the primary
objective of Australia and New Zealand had been met.
The ICJ stated:
"When a State makes a public declaration that it will undertake or refrain from a
certain action, that declaration can create a legal obligation under international law."
The Court ruled that France’s unilateral declaration was legally binding, and therefore,
the case no longer had an object.
B. Legal Significance of the Judgment
The ICJ’s ruling established that:
 Unilateral declarations by states can be legally binding if they express a clear
intent to be bound.
 A case becomes moot if the respondent state voluntarily complies with the requested
relief.
  The ICJ can dismiss cases when the dispute has effectively been resolved.

6. Dissenting Opinions
Some judges dissented, arguing that:
1. The ICJ should have ruled on the legality of nuclear testing instead of dismissing
the case.
2. France’s promise was not legally enforceable, as it could resume atmospheric
testing in the future.
3. The ICJ should have ruled on environmental protection and state responsibility
for nuclear pollution.

7. Key Implications of the Case

A. Strengthening the Legal Value of Unilateral Declarations
 The ruling confirmed that public commitments made by a state in international
forums can create legal obligations.
 This principle has since been applied in other cases, such as Armed Activities on
the Congo (2006).
B. Influence on International Environmental Law
 While the ICJ did not explicitly rule on environmental law, the case reinforced
state responsibility for transboundary environmental harm.
 The case influenced later treaties and legal frameworks on environmental
protection, including the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
C. Impact on Nuclear Disarmament Efforts
 The case did not establish a legal prohibition on nuclear testing, but it
strengthened diplomatic pressure against nuclear tests.
 France formally ended all nuclear testing in 1996 and signed the CTBT.

8. Conclusion: Was It a Victory for Australia and New Zealand?

What Australia and New Zealand Achieved:
✔ France ended atmospheric nuclear tests after 1974.
✔ The case strengthened the role of ICJ in resolving international disputes.
✔ The ruling set a precedent for the legal status of unilateral state declarations.
What They Did Not Achieve:
✘ The ICJ did not rule on the legality of nuclear testing.
✘ France was not penalized for past nuclear tests.
✘ The ruling did not prevent underground nuclear testing.
Overall, the Nuclear Tests Cases helped reinforce international legal norms but fell short
of establishing a legal ban on nuclear testing. However, they remain a significant milestone in
international environmental and nuclear disarmament law.

In the Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France), the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) addressed disputes arising from France's atmospheric nuclear tests in
the South Pacific during the early 1970s. Australia and New Zealand contended that these
tests were detrimental to the environment and public health, seeking cessation of the tests and
affirmations of their rights under international law.
Procedural History and Overview:
 Applications Filed: On May 9, 1973, Australia and New Zealand independently filed
applications with the ICJ, asserting that France's atmospheric nuclear tests violated
international law and infringed upon their rights.
 Provisional Measures: Both nations requested interim measures to halt the tests
pending the Court's final decision. The ICJ, however, did not grant these provisional
measures.
 France's Position: France abstained from participating in the proceedings, asserting
that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
Key Legal Issues:
1. ICJ's Jurisdiction and Admissibility: The Court had to determine whether it
possessed jurisdiction and if the applications were admissible, especially given
France's non-participation and its stance on jurisdiction.
2. Existence of a Dispute: The ICJ examined whether a legal dispute persisted,
considering France's subsequent declarations regarding the cessation of atmospheric
nuclear tests.
3. Legal Effect of Unilateral Declarations: A pivotal issue was whether France's public
statements about ending atmospheric nuclear testing constituted legally binding
commitments under international law.
ICJ's Findings and Judgment:
 Unilateral Declarations as Legal Commitments: The ICJ recognized that unilateral
declarations made by states can create legal obligations if they indicate an intent to be
bound. The Court noted:
"When it is the intention of the State making the declaration that it should become bound
according to its terms, that intention confers on the declaration the character of a legal
undertaking."
  France's Public Statements: The Court observed that French authorities had publicly
declared their intention to cease atmospheric nuclear tests following the 1974 series.
The ICJ interpreted these declarations as binding commitments, stating:
"The Court finds that France has undertaken the obligation to hold no further nuclear tests in
the atmosphere in the South Pacific."
 Resolution of the Dispute: Given France's binding commitment to cease atmospheric
testing, the ICJ concluded that the primary objective of Australia and New Zealand
had been achieved. Consequently, the Court found that the claims no longer had an
object and deemed it unnecessary to render a decision on the merits. The ICJ stated:
"The Court, as a court of law, is called upon to resolve existing disputes between States. Thus
the existence of a dispute is the primary condition for the Court to exercise its judicial
function."
Implications of the Judgment:
 Legal Status of Unilateral Declarations: The judgment underscored that unilateral
declarations by states can have binding legal effects, provided there is a clear intent to
be bound. This principle reinforces the significance of good faith in international
relations.
 Environmental Considerations: While the ICJ did not explicitly address
environmental protection in its judgment, the case highlighted growing international
concerns about environmental harm from nuclear testing. The dissenting opinions
emphasized the importance of safeguarding the environment from radioactive
contamination.
 Role of the ICJ in Dispute Resolution: The case demonstrated the ICJ's function in
resolving international disputes and interpreting state conduct, even when a
respondent state chooses not to participate in the proceedings.
Conclusion:
The Nuclear Tests Cases are landmark decisions in international law, illustrating the binding
nature of unilateral state declarations and reflecting the international community's evolving
concerns about environmental protection. The ICJ's judgments reinforced the principle that
states must act in good faith and honor their public commitments, thereby contributing to the
stability and predictability of international relations.

9 Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada) (1998) before the International Court of
Justice (ICJ).

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The dispute arose between Spain and Canada over the arrest of the Spanish fishing
vessel "Estai" by Canadian authorities on March 9, 1995.
 2. The vessel was seized in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO)
Regulatory Area, beyond Canada’s 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
3. Canada justified its action based on its Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (CFPA)
amendments of 1994, which extended its jurisdiction to foreign vessels fishing in the
NAFO zone.
4. Spain contended that Canada's actions violated customary international law and the
principle of exclusive flag state jurisdiction over its vessels on the high seas.
5. Spain filed an application before the ICJ on March 28, 1995, arguing that Canada’s
actions were illegal and sought reparation.

LEGAL ISSUES
1. Jurisdiction of the ICJ:
o Did the ICJ have jurisdiction to hear the case given Canada’s reservations to
its acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction?
2. Sovereignty & Jurisdiction over High Seas:
o Whether Canada had the right to enforce its fisheries conservation laws
beyond its EEZ against vessels flying a foreign flag.
3. Legality of Canada’s Actions:
o Whether the boarding, arrest, and detention of the Spanish vessel violated
international law, including the principles under the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
4. Spain’s Right to Seek Reparation:
o Whether Spain was entitled to reparations due to Canada’s alleged wrongful
exercise of jurisdiction.

ARGUMENTS BY SPAIN
1. Violation of International Law:
o Canada exceeded its jurisdiction by applying its domestic laws beyond its
EEZ.
o Spain emphasized the principle of exclusive flag-state jurisdiction under
Article 92 of UNCLOS, which prohibits interference with foreign vessels on
the high seas.
2. Use of Force:
o The boarding and seizure of Estai by Canadian forces constituted an illegal
use of force.
 o Spain claimed that such actions endangered the safety of the vessel and its
crew.
3. NAFO Convention Breach:
o Canada’s actions undermined multilateral conservation efforts and violated
its obligations under the NAFO Convention.
4. Illegality of Canada’s Fisheries Act:
o The 1994 amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act (CFPA)
were unilateral and not binding on Spain, making them non-opposable in
international law.
5. Reparation Demands:
o Spain requested that the ICJ declare Canada's legislation inapplicable to
Spanish vessels and order Canada to offer financial compensation.

ARGUMENTS BY CANADA
1. Conservation & Management Justification:
o Canada argued that overfishing by Spanish vessels threatened Greenland
halibut stocks.
o It claimed that Spain failed to regulate its fishing vessels effectively, leading
Canada to take unilateral conservation enforcement measures.
2. Self-Defense of Natural Resources:
o Canada invoked the principle of "self-help" to justify protective measures to
prevent stock depletion.
o It stated that international law was evolving to allow states to take necessary
enforcement actions.
3. ICJ Jurisdictional Exclusion:
o Canada had filed a reservation in 1994 excluding disputes concerning
conservation and fisheries management from the ICJ’s jurisdiction.
o Therefore, the case fell outside the ICJ’s jurisdiction.
4. NAFO Compliance:
o Canada contended that its actions were consistent with regional conservation
measures under NAFO, aiming to curb illegal and excessive fishing.

DECISION OF THE ICJ

1. Jurisdictional Ruling:
 o The ICJ ruled (12-5 majority) that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
o It held that Canada's 1994 reservation explicitly excluded disputes related to
fisheries conservation and enforcement.
2. No Determination on the Merits:
o Since the Court lacked jurisdiction, it did not rule on the legality of
Canada's actions under international law.
o The case was dismissed without addressing Spain’s claims on sovereignty
and reparations.

CONCLUSION
 The Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada) did not resolve the legal questions
regarding jurisdiction on the high seas.
 The ICJ's ruling was purely procedural, focusing on jurisdictional limitations
rather than substantive international law issues.
 The case highlighted conflicts between sovereignty, international jurisdiction, and
environmental conservation efforts.
 Despite Spain’s challenge, Canada’s expansion of fisheries enforcement measures
remained in effect, setting a precedent for unilateral enforcement against foreign
vessels.

The Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada, 1998) was a case before the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning a dispute over fishing rights and jurisdiction on the high
seas.
Background:
 In the early 1990s, Canada took measures to protect fish stocks in the Northwest
Atlantic, particularly the Greenland halibut, from what it saw as overfishing by
foreign vessels.
 In 1995, Canada enacted the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, which allowed
Canadian authorities to seize foreign fishing vessels operating outside Canada's
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) if they violated conservation rules.
 This led to the "Turbot War" between Canada and Spain, culminating in the seizure
of the Spanish fishing vessel Estai in March 1995 by Canadian authorities in
international waters (beyond Canada's EEZ).
Legal Issues:
  Spain brought the case to the ICJ in 1995, arguing that Canada's actions violated
international law, particularly the principle of freedom of the high seas.
 Canada contested the jurisdiction of the ICJ, citing a reservation in its declaration
under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, which excluded disputes concerning fisheries.
ICJ's Judgment (1998):
 The ICJ ruled in favor of Canada, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the
case.
 The Court agreed with Canada that its reservation on fisheries disputes applied,
preventing Spain from pursuing the case in the ICJ.
Significance:
 The case reaffirmed the importance of jurisdictional reservations in the ICJ's
adjudication process.
 It highlighted tensions between coastal states' conservation measures and the rights
of distant-water fishing nations.
 It underscored the growing global concerns about overfishing and the enforcement
of sustainable fishing practices.

10 India V Pakistan Aerial incident

The Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 refers to the shooting down of a Pakistani naval
aircraft by the Indian Air Force near the India-Pakistan border. This event escalated tensions
between the two nations and led Pakistan to file a case against India at the International Court
of Justice (ICJ).

FACTS OF THE CASE

 Incident Details: On August 10, 1999, the Indian Air Force (IAF) detected a
Pakistani aircraft intruding into its airspace and scrambled its fighter jets to intercept
it. The Pakistani aircraft, identified as a naval surveillance aircraft called the Atlantic,
was flying at a low altitude to avoid detection. Despite multiple warnings from the
IAF to turn back, the Pakistani aircraft did not comply, leading the IAF to fire a
missile that resulted in the aircraft's destruction. citeturn0search0
 Casualties: All 16 Pakistani naval personnel aboard the Atlantic were killed in the
incident. citeturn0search0

LEGAL ISSUES
1. Jurisdiction of the ICJ:
 o Whether the ICJ had jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, considering India's
reservations to its acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction.
2. Violation of Sovereignty:
o Whether India's actions constituted a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty and
territorial integrity.
3. Use of Force:
o Whether the shooting down of the unarmed Pakistani aircraft violated
international law prohibiting the use of force against another state.
4. Breach of Bilateral Agreements:
o Whether India's actions violated the Agreement of 6 April 1991 between
Pakistan and India on Prevention of Air Space Violations, which obliges both
parties to ensure that air violations of each other's airspace do not occur.

ARGUMENTS BY PAKISTAN
1. Violation of International Law:
o Pakistan argued that India's actions breached fundamental obligations under
the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2, paragraph 4, which prohibits
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any state. citeturn0search0
2. Breach of Bilateral Agreement:
o Pakistan contended that India's actions violated the 1991 bilateral Agreement
on Prevention of Air Space Violations, which enjoins both parties to ensure
that air violations of each other's airspace do not take place.
citeturn0search0
3. Customary International Law:
o Pakistan asserted that India's actions breached customary international law
obligations not to use force against another state and not to violate the
sovereignty of another state. citeturn0search0

ARGUMENTS BY INDIA
1. Lack of ICJ Jurisdiction:
o India contended that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction based on its 1974 declaration,
which excluded disputes with any state that is or has been a member of the
Commonwealth of Nations from the Court's jurisdiction.
citeturn0search1
2. Self-Defense:
 o India argued that the Pakistani aircraft deliberately entered Indian airspace and
was flying over sensitive military installations. The Indian Air Force attempted
to establish contact with the Pakistani plane but received no response, leading
them to believe that it was a hostile aircraft. India maintained that its actions
were in self-defense and that it had every right to shoot down the aircraft as it
posed a threat to national security. citeturn0search0
3. Violation of Indian Airspace:
o India maintained that the Pakistani aircraft had violated Indian airspace,
justifying the interception and subsequent action. citeturn0search0

DECISION OF THE ICJ

 Jurisdictional Ruling:
o On June 21, 2000, the ICJ ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain
Pakistan's application. The Court noted that India's declaration of acceptance
of the Court's jurisdiction contained a reservation excluding disputes with
members of the Commonwealth, which included Pakistan. Therefore, the
Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application on
the basis of the declarations made by the two States. citeturn0search1
 No Determination on Merits:
o Since the Court found it lacked jurisdiction, it did not examine the merits of
the case, including the legality of India's actions under international law.

CONCLUSION
The ICJ's dismissal of the case on jurisdictional grounds meant that the substantive issues
concerning the aerial incident were not adjudicated. The incident underscored the
complexities of international legal proceedings, especially when jurisdictional reservations
are in place. It also highlighted the challenges in addressing incidents involving the use of
force and sovereignty violations, particularly between neighboring states with a history of
conflict. The case remains a significant example of the limitations of international legal
mechanisms in resolving disputes where jurisdiction is contested.
The ICJ dismissed Pakistan’s application due to lack of jurisdiction. While the Court did not
decide on the merits of Pakistan’s claims, it reaffirmed that India and Pakistan had an
obligation to resolve disputes through peaceful means.
The judgment reinforced the importance of state consent in international dispute resolution
and upheld India’s reservations to its ICJ jurisdiction declaration. The case also demonstrated
the limitations of the ICJ in compelling states to submit to its jurisdiction without
express consent.
11 Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) ICJ Case (2021).

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Background:
o On 28 August 2014, Somalia filed an application before the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) against Kenya, seeking a ruling on the maritime
boundary delimitation between the two states in the Indian Ocean.
o Somalia requested the Court to determine "the complete course of the single
maritime boundary", including the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone
(EEZ), and continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
2. Jurisdictional Basis:
o Somalia invoked Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, referencing both countries'
declarations recognizing the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.
o Somalia also cited Article 282 of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (both states ratified UNCLOS in 1989), arguing
that ICJ jurisdiction was reinforced by UNCLOS provisions.
3. Kenya's Preliminary Objections:
o On 7 October 2015, Kenya challenged the Court’s jurisdiction and the
admissibility of Somalia’s case.
o Kenya argued that the dispute should be settled through bilateral negotiations
or the mechanisms under UNCLOS.
4. ICJ Ruling on Preliminary Objections:
o On 2 February 2017, the ICJ rejected Kenya's objections, ruling that:
 It had jurisdiction to hear the case.
 Somalia’s application was admissible.
5. Postponements and Kenya's Non-Participation:
o The public hearings on the case were postponed multiple times (September
2019, November 2019, June 2020, and March 2021) due to Kenya’s repeated
requests.
o In March 2021, the hearings were finally conducted in a hybrid format, but
Kenya refused to participate, stating that it had withdrawn its recognition
of ICJ's jurisdiction.

LEGAL ISSUES
 1. Maritime Boundary Determination:
o Did Somalia and Kenya have a previously agreed maritime boundary?
o If not, how should the ICJ delimit the maritime boundary according to
international law?
2. Applicable International Law:
o UNCLOS principles for equitable maritime delimitation.
o The equidistance/relevant circumstances method in maritime boundary
disputes.
3. Violation of International Obligations:
o Somalia claimed that Kenya had violated international law by granting oil
exploration licenses in the disputed area.
o Kenya denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the area was already within its
control.

ARGUMENTS BY SOMALIA
1. No Agreed Boundary:
o Somalia rejected Kenya’s claim that there was a previously established
maritime boundary along a parallel of latitude.
o It argued that no formal agreement existed and that Kenya’s claim was
unilateral.
2. Application of the Equidistance Principle:
o Somalia proposed using the equidistance/relevant circumstances method to
draw a median line as the boundary.
o This method is recognized under UNCLOS and ICJ jurisprudence.
3. Kenya’s Conduct was Illegal:
o Somalia claimed that Kenya had violated international law by conducting
activities in the disputed maritime area, including issuing oil exploration
licenses.

ARGUMENTS BY KENYA
1. Pre-Existing Maritime Boundary:
o Kenya argued that an implicit maritime boundary already existed along a
parallel of latitude, which both countries had historically recognized.
 o It referred to past diplomatic communications and maritime practice as
evidence of an agreed boundary.
2. ICJ Had No Jurisdiction:
o Kenya claimed that the dispute should be settled through bilateral
negotiations rather than ICJ adjudication.
o It cited UNCLOS dispute resolution mechanisms, asserting that ICJ was
not the appropriate forum.
3. Somalia's Claim was Politically Motivated:
o Kenya alleged that Somalia’s case was driven by political considerations
rather than legal principles.
o It accused Somalia of using the ICJ to gain an advantage in negotiations
over natural resource rights.

ICJ JUDGMENT (12 October 2021)

1. No Agreed Maritime Boundary:
o The ICJ ruled that no pre-existing maritime boundary along a parallel of
latitude had been established between Somalia and Kenya.
o The Court found that Kenya’s claims lacked legal basis.
2. Maritime Boundary Delimitation:
o The ICJ applied the three-step equidistance/relevant circumstances
method:
1. Territorial Sea (12 nautical miles):
 The Court drew a median line starting at the land boundary
terminus at Point A.
2. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) & Continental Shelf (up to 200
nautical miles):
 The Court extended the boundary along a geodetic line at an
azimuth of 114° from Point A to Point B.
3. Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles:
 The boundary continued along the same azimuth unless it
reached the limits of the continental shelf or third-state
rights.
3. Rejection of Somalia’s Allegations Against Kenya:
o The ICJ rejected Somalia’s claim that Kenya violated international law
through its conduct in the disputed area.
 o The Court found insufficient evidence to establish that Kenya had breached
its obligations.

CONCLUSION & IMPACT

1. Final and Binding Judgment:
o The ICJ's decision is final and legally binding, but enforcement remains a
challenge.
o Kenya rejected the ruling and stated it would not recognize the decision.
2. Geopolitical Implications:
o The ruling could impact regional relations and resource exploration rights
in the Indian Ocean.
o The decision has economic implications for offshore oil and gas activities.
3. Significance in Maritime Law:
o The case reaffirms the ICJ's role in resolving maritime boundary disputes.
o It reinforces the equidistance/relevant circumstances method as the primary
approach under UNCLOS.

The Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) case was adjudicated
by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve a maritime boundary dispute between
Somalia and Kenya.
Background
In 2014, Somalia instituted proceedings against Kenya at the ICJ, seeking to determine the
maritime boundary in the Indian Ocean. Somalia argued that the boundary should be
established based on the equidistance principle, while Kenya contended that the boundary
had already been agreed upon along a parallel of latitude. citeturn0search0
ICJ Judgment
On October 12, 2021, the ICJ delivered its judgment, concluding that there was no agreed
maritime boundary following the parallel of latitude as claimed by Kenya. The Court
proceeded to delimit the maritime boundary using a three-step approach:
1. Territorial Sea: The Court determined that the boundary in the territorial sea would
follow the median line between the two coastlines.
2. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf within 200 Nautical
Miles: The ICJ applied the equidistance/relevant circumstances method, adjusting the
 provisional equidistance line to account for factors such as the concavity of the
coastline, which could cause a disproportionate effect on the maritime entitlements of
the parties.
3. Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles: The Court extended the boundary
along the same geodetic line beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit, acknowledging that
both Somalia and Kenya have entitlements to the continental shelf beyond 200
nautical miles. citeturn0search0
Implications
The ICJ's judgment is final and binding on both parties. The decision clarified the maritime
entitlements of Somalia and Kenya in the Indian Ocean, potentially impacting access to
marine resources, including fisheries and hydrocarbons. The judgment also reinforced the
application of international legal principles in maritime delimitation disputes, emphasizing
the importance of equitable solutions. citeturn0search2
This case underscores the role of the ICJ in peacefully resolving complex maritime disputes
and contributes to the development of international maritime law.