Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits,  1949

Case Title & Citation

Full Title: Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.  People’s Republic of Albania)

Citation: Corfu Channel case, Judgment of April 9, 1949, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4

This case was one of the earliest and most significant cases decided by the International Court  of Justice (ICJ), marking a pivotal moment in the development of international legal principles  governing state responsibility, the right of innocent passage, and violations of sovereignty.

Court Name & Bench

• Court: International Court of Justice (ICJ), The Hague
• Presiding Officers and Judges:

Acting President Guerrero (in the absence of President Basdevant)

Judges: Alvarez, Fabela, Hackworth, Winiarski, Zoricic, De Visscher, Sir  Arnold McNair, Klaestad, Badawi Pasha, Krylov, Read, Hsu Mo, Azevedo

Judge ad hoc: M. Bohuslav Ečer (appointed by Albania)

This was a full bench (15 judges), reflecting the seriousness and complexity of the matter. The  decision established early jurisprudence in post-World War II international law.

Date of Judgment

April 9, 1949

Parties Involved

• Applicant (Petitioner): United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• Represented by: Sir Eric Beckett, Sir Hartley Shawcross, Sir Frank Soskice,  Prof. C.H.M. Waldock, and others
• Respondent: People’s Republic of Albania

Represented by: Kahreman Ylli, Behar Shtylla, Prof. Pierre Cot, Joe Nordmann,  and others  The UK, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, accused Albania, a newly  established communist state, of being internationally responsible for explosions involving  British naval vessels in Albanian territorial waters.

Facts of the Case

• On October 22, 1946, a squadron of British Royal Navy ships (HMS Saumarez and HMS Volage, among others) sailed through the North Corfu Channel—a strait between the Greek island of Corfu and the Albanian coast—when Saumarez struck a mine.  Volage, which came to assist, also struck a mine. These explosions caused serious  damage, killed 44 British personnel, and injured 42 more.
• The incident occurred within Albanian territorial waters, in a section of the North Corfu Channel previously swept for mines during World War II and declared safe.
• On November 12–13, 1946, the UK conducted Operation Retail, an unauthorized minesweeping operation in Albanian waters. They found 22 German-made GY-type moored mines, confirming the presence of a minefield. This operation was conducted  without Albania’s consent or prior notice.
• The UK brought the matter before the ICJ, claiming Albania was internationally responsible for the explosions, either by laying the mines, allowing another state to do so, or failing to warn vessels of their existence.
• Albania denied any responsibility, claimed it had no knowledge of the minefield, and counterclaimed that the UK’s naval actions in November violated its sovereignty.

Issues Raised

1. Whether Albania was responsible under international law for the explosions that occurred in its territorial waters on October 22, 1946, and whether it was under a duty to compensate the UK.
2. Whether the United Kingdom violated Albanian sovereignty by:Sending warships through Albanian territorial waters on October 22, 1946, and Conducting minesweeping operations on November 12–13, 1946, without  consent.

3. Whether the UK was entitled to compensation for its losses, and whether Albania was entitled to satisfaction for the UK’s violation of its sovereignty.
4. Arguments of the Parties

United Kingdom’s Contentions:

• The mines were recently laid, between May and October 1946, contradicting Albania’s argument that they were remnants from WWII.
• Either Albania laid the mines or allowed a third party to do so with its knowledge or connivance. The UK specifically suspected Yugoslav involvement, citing circumstantial evidence and surveillance capabilities from Albanian posts.
• Albania failed in its duty to notify other states or warn approaching vessels of the danger, thereby breaching fundamental principles of international law and humanitarian obligations.
• The UK asserted its ships exercised the right of innocent passage through an international strait, based on established customary international law.
• The November minesweeping was necessary for self-protection, justified under theory of intervention or self-help to protect international navigation.

Albania’s Contentions:

• It did not lay the mines, and had no means or naval capability to do so at the time. • There was no evidence of collusion with Yugoslavia or any other state.
• Albania had no knowledge of the minefield; thus, it bore no international responsibility.
• The UK violated its sovereignty by conducting unauthorized minesweeping, which amounted to intervention and breach of territorial integrity.
• The right of innocent passage did not apply to warships without prior notification or consent from the coastal state.

Judgment / Final Decision

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a split decision in the Corfu Channel  Case, addressing both the United Kingdom’s claims of international responsibility and  Albania’s counterclaims concerning breaches of sovereignty. The judgment reflected a  careful balancing of principles involving state responsibility, maritime rights, and  territorial sovereignty.

Albania’s Responsibility for the Explosions of October 22, 1946

The ICJ held Albania internationally responsible for the mine explosions that  damaged HMS Saumarez and HMS Volage, resulting in 44 deaths and 42 injuries. The  incident occurred within Albanian territorial waters in the North Corfu Channel—an  area previously swept and declared safe during WWII.

Although the UK presented no direct evidence that Albania laid the mines or  collaborated with another state, the Court found that Albania had constructive  knowledge of the minefield. In cases where direct evidence lies exclusively within one  state’s control, international law permits the use of circumstantial evidence. The  Court found that Albania exercised strict surveillance over the area, and the mine laying operation, involving 22 mines, must have taken at least two to two and a half  hours—making it easily observable from coastal posts like Cape Kiephali and St.  George’s Monastery.

Moreover, Albania failed to investigate or notify the international community about  the minefield, even after the incident. The Court held that this constituted a breach of  international obligations, based on elementary considerations of humanity and the  principle that a state must not knowingly allow its territory to be used for hostile acts  against other states. Consequently, Albania was found to have violated international law  and was held liable to make reparations to the United Kingdom. The amount of  compensation was deferred to separate proceedings.

United Kingdom’s Actions and Violation of Albanian Sovereignty i. Passage on October 22, 1946

Albania contended that the UK violated its sovereignty by navigating warships through  its territorial waters without prior authorization. The Court rejected this, ruling that the North Corfu Channel qualifies as an international strait connecting parts of the high  seas. Accordingly, warships enjoy the right of innocent passage during peacetime.  The British vessels, navigating in formation, flying flags, and engaging in no hostile  activity, exercised innocent passage. Thus, the UK did not violate Albanian  sovereignty on this occasion.

Minesweeping on November 12–13, 1946

The Court found the UK’s Operation Retail, involving unauthorized minesweeping in  Albanian waters, to be a violation of Albania’s sovereignty. The UK had argued it was  justified under self-help and intervention to preserve navigation and collect evidence.  The Court firmly rejected these justifications, holding that international law does not  permit the use of force or intervention, even for evidentiary purposes, without  consent.

As satisfaction, the Court granted a declaratory judgment affirming Albania’s  sovereign rights had been breached. No monetary compensation was awarded, as no  material damage resulted.

Final Disposition of Claims

This judgment was notable not only for its substantive holdings but also for its  procedural significance. It clarified the scope of the ICJ’s jurisdiction, especially in  relation to Special Agreements and Security Council referrals. It also illustrated the  Court’s willingness to rely on indirect evidence and logical inference where direct  proof was inaccessible, thus enhancing the flexibility and efficacy of international  dispute resolution.

In sum, the ICJ’s decision in the Corfu Channel Case reflected a careful balancing of  legal principles: affirming state responsibility on the one hand, and reiterating the  limits of unilateral action and respect for sovereignty on the other. It set enduring  precedents for maritime law, state accountability, and the law on the use of force,  and continues to be widely cited in subsequent international jurisprudence.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

State Responsibility & Circumstantial Evidence:

• The Court affirmed that circumstantial evidence and inferences can be valid in international adjudication, especially where direct proof lies within a sovereign state’s control (Albania, in this case).
• It relied on the exclusive control Albania exercised over the territory and its vigilant surveillance system to infer that Albania must have known about the minefield.
• The judgment emphasized that territorial control imposes obligations—states must not knowingly allow their territory to be used for acts violating international law.

Obligation to Warn:

• Drawing from the Hague Convention No. VIII of 1907 and customary international law, the Court found Albania breached its duty to notify other states of the danger, invoking elementary considerations of humanity and freedom of maritime  communication.

Innocent Passage & International Straits:

• The Court clarified that the right of innocent passage applies to international straits connecting parts of the high seas, even through territorial waters of a coastal state.
• The North Corfu Channel, connecting the Ionian and Adriatic Seas, qualified as such.
• The British warships’ passage on October 22, 1946, was found to be peaceful and non threatening, and thus protected by customary international law.

Violation of Sovereignty by UK:

• The ICJ firmly rejected the UK’s justification of self-help and intervention, affirming that even actions motivated by humanitarian or defensive concerns do not legalize a breach of another state’s territorial sovereignty.
• The Court stated that territorial integrity is a foundational principle, and its violation—no matter how justified in purpose—remains unlawful unless authorized by international law or consent.

Conclusion / Observations

The Corfu Channel Case laid down foundational principles in international law, including:

• Recognition of state responsibility for acts committed (or allowed) within a state’s territorial jurisdiction;
• Codification of the right of innocent passage for warships through international straits;
• Limits of unilateral action, rejecting doctrines of self-help or intervention in violation of another state’s sovereignty;
• Reliance on circumstantial evidence and indirect proof in the adjudication of international disputes;
• Reaffirmation of the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity, even in cases involving navigation, minesweeping, or humanitarian concerns.

The case set a precedent for future cases involving maritime law, sovereignty, and state  responsibility, influencing later decisions including the Military and Paramilitary Activities  in and against Nicaragua case (1986) and the Oil Platforms case (Iran v. USA, 2003).

It also served as an early instance of the ICJ exercising its adjudicatory authority in a post WWII global order, solidifying its role as a forum for peaceful settlement of inter-state  disputes.

Reference(S):

1. Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Merits, Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9).
2. Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 38, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055, T.S. No. 993.
3. U.N. Charter art. 2, ¶ 4.
4. Hague Convention No. VIII Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2332, 205 Consol. T.S. 331.
5. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, Judgment, 1986 I.C.J. 14 (June 27).
6. Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), Judgment, 2003 I.C.J. 161 (Nov. 6).
7. Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Recognition in International Law 162–68 (1947). 8. Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law 712–15 (8th ed. 2017).
8. James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law 546–50 (9th ed. 2019).