FACULTY OF LAW, BUSSINESS INTELLIGENCE AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND LEGAL SERVICES

Program : Bachelor of Law Honours Degree.

Level : 2.1.
Module Title : Public International Law.
Module Code : LLB 214.
Lecturer : Ms Mushanguri.
Due Date : 10 March 2025.

Group 4 Members
 Chikasha Nokutenda R240378L
 Sadindi Promise R240383L
 Muzaza Clyton R240305L
 Mudhobhi Prince R240384L
 Kunaka Amanda R240313L
 Masango Tanaka R240332L
 Chikwiri Jephat S R240303L
 Fusire Tadiwanashe R240307L
 Gwema Tanaka R240392L
 Chiduku Heinrich R240388L

Assignment Question : Discuss the principle of state responsibility with

reference to the case of UK v Albania ICJ Reports 1949 4 , International
Court Justice.
Introduction.
The principle of state responsibility is a cornerstone of international law,
establishing that states are accountable for breaches of their international
obligations. In the words of Article 1 of the International Law Commission
Draft Articles , ‘every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the
international responsibility of that state’ .1It ensures that states can be held
liable for wrongful acts or omissions that cause harm to other states or their
nationals.2 The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania, ICJ Rep
1949 4), is a seminal one in illustrating the application of state
responsibility .3For a fruitful discussion , this essay seeks to outline the facts
of the case, the issue in question and the salient principles which were
raised . The application of the principles , the dissenting judgment and the
subject of reparations will also be addressed . Much detail will be fleshed out
to these skeletal structures herein below .

Facts.

On the 22nd of October 1946 , two British warships namely Volage and
Saumarez were badly damaged which resulted in the death of 44 and injuries
of 42 persons . The damage was caused by the explosion of automatic mines
which were allegedly deployed under the knowledge or connivance of the
Albanian Government by the Yugoslav Navy4 . The Albanian government
concealed the existence of these mines which in turn violated general
principles of international law and humanity5 . This blameworthy omission was
a lethal financial blow on the United Kingdom’s government . It then
approached the court to sought financial restitution for expenses incurred in
effecting repairs to the damaged warships and compensation for the pension
and other expenses in respect of the death and injuries of naval personnel .
The United Kingdom government wanted 875 000 pounds in total as
compensation .

1
International Law Commission Commentary 2001, 63.
2
J. Crawford , State Responsibility : The General Part , 2013 .
3
UK v Albania ICJ Rep 1949 4.
4
(See note 3 above) , 16.
5
https://lawsandmore.com/. (Accessed on 7 /3/25 ).
Issue .

1. Is Albania responsible under international law for the explosion which

occurred on the 22nd October 1946 in Albanian waters and for damage
and loss of human life which resulted from them and is there any duty
to pay compensation ?.

The principles / Rule of Law .

The International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for

Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) (‘ILC Articles’ or ‘Articles’), observed that
state responsibility hinges upon certain basic factors which include:

1.The existence of an international legal obligation in force as between two particular

states.

2. That there has to be an occurrence of an act or omission which violates that

obligation and which is imputable to the state responsible , and finally that loss or
damage has resulted from the unlawful act or omission 6 .

The requirements for liability includes breach of an international obligation ,

the conduct in question must be unjustified , the act must be attributable (or
imputable) 7 to a subject of international law and that fault must be established
upon the offender state. 8

Application .

1.The existence of an international legal obligation.

An international obligation arises from provisions stipulated in a treaty (a

decision of an organ of an international organization competent in the matter,
a judgement given between two states by ICJ or another tribunal .9 In casu ,

6
H. Mosler ,The international Society as a Legal Society , 1980, 157 ; see also E. Arechaga , ‘International
Responsibility’, in Manual of Public International Law , 1968 , 531 ,
; see also J Dugard , International Law , 2013 , 269 .
7
R Higgins ,’ The Concept of the State : A Variable Geometry and Dualist Perceptions in Melanges Abi-Saab,’
2001, 547, refers to the attribution as imputability .
8
M ,Shaw , International Law ,1997 , 542.
9
R ,Martha , 3 International Legal Obligation
,https://academic.oup.com/book/57130/chapter-abstract/47322181?redirectedFrom=fulltext .( Accessed on
7/3/25).
Albania violated an international obligation which is termed by the learned J
Dugard as an “international wrongful act “ 10 .Pursuant to Article 17 (1) of the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , coastal states are required
to allow innocent passage through the territorial sea for specific purposes, by
11
ships of all states whether coastal or land-locked . The Albanian
government by failing to alert the United Kingdom warships that the passage
was rigged , they contravened an international obligation as envisaged in the
article cited above . The State will be responsible in international law to the
12
state suffering damage irrespective of good or bad faith .Therefore , the
existence of an international obligation has been established given the right
of innocent passage exists amongst the two states .

The act or omission which violates that obligation and which is

imputable to the state responsible .

The government of Albania denied responsibility at first concerning

awareness on the existence of the explosive mines , Fortunately, the court
refused to have wool cast over it’s inner legal eye , which proved helped in
imputing the causal link between Albania and Yugoslav . They fabricated
13
defenses which ranged from denying owning a navy and even denying
having a vantage point for spotting activities in the strait . However ,they were
dismantled and fault was laid on the Albanian government . The omission by
the Albania to timely notify His Majesty’s warships of the minefield given they
had the time to do so made them liable . Further details to be provided below .

To begin with ,establishing the link between Albania and Yugoslav as a

requisite for imputing fault .The Albanian government was called upon to
disclose the circumstances in which the two Yugoslav war vessels the MIjet
and Meljine , carrying contract mines of the GY type ( the kind of mines which
were found by the British minesweepers ) . Evidence from one Lieutenant
Commander Kovacic , corroborate seeing Yugoslav war vessels carrying the
GY mines departing for Corfu on the 18th of October and returning a few days

10
J Dugard , International Law , 2013 , 269 .
11
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ,Article 17(1).
12
P Daillier .,Droit International Public, 2022, 854.
13
(See note 3 above) ,15 .
after the occurrence of this tragedy . The court said this evidence cannot
constituting decisive legal proof as shown by the following words :

“ a charge of such exceptional gravity a state would require a degree of certainty which
has not been reached here “.14

In a bid to bring the Albanian government to the book , the United Kingdom
proposed that “whoever the authors of the minelaying were it could not have
been done so without the Albanian’s government knowledge” .It then
proceeded to prove that Yugoslav and Albania shared a close bond of political
and military alliance resulting from the treaty of friendship and mutual
15
assistance signed by the two states on 9 , July ,1946 .The relationship was
established and the court had to rely heavily on facts as shown by the words :

“if a state is unable to furnish direct proof of facts giving rise to responsibility . It should
be allowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of facts and circumstantial evidence “.

From this avenue , the court had to determine ;

1) The means employed for laying the minefield discovered on November 13 , 1946.
2) The possibility of mooring those mines without the Albanian authorities being aware of it
having regard to the extent of the measure of vigilance existing in the Sarando region.

It is trite to opine that the Albanian government kept a close and jealous watch
over their waters on the North Corfu , which left no room for minelaying
without their knowledge . It was evidenced on 15 March 1946 when they shot
British cruisers Orion and Superband and on 29 October 1946 , they also fired
16
shots at the U.N.R.R.A on their territorial waters . This shows the level of
alertness the Albanian authorities had in regards to their territorial waters .
Additionally ,they are heights which offers existing views on activities going on
in their strait . Therefore , the Albanian government had the views and their
attitude over their waters excludes the possibility of an entity entering without
their sight or knowledge .

14
(See Note 3 above ) , 17 .
15
(See Note 3 above) ,16.
16
(See Note 3 above) , 19.
Moreover ,the court sent experts and they confirmed that any minelaying
activity could have been sighted and the report was as follows

(1) .That in the case of minelaying from the North towards the South , the minelayers
would have been seen from Cape Kiephali .
(2) In the case of minelaying from the South , the minelayers would have been seen
from Cape Kiephali and St George’s Monastery .

From the above expert report ,it became clear that minelaying could have
been spotted as they do have look out posts on these areas . The state also
could have stopped it as considering is ,“ every state’s obligation not to allow
knowing it’s territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights other states “.17

Moreso ,the final part was proving the omission by the Albanian authorities to
notify the United Kingdom government since it was proved that the mines
were laid under their knowledge. The learned author M Shaw, was convinced
that the court learned at the fault theory in the Corfu case and he cites, “ it
cannot be concluded from the ,mere fact of the control exercised by a state
over it’s territory and waters that state necessarily knew or ought to have
known the authors .The fact apart from another circumstances involves prima
facie responsibility nor shifts the burden of proof“. 18

Returning to the case , Albania could have notified His Majesty’s ships given
they was an interval of almost two hours that elapsed before the explosion
affecting Saumarez to warn. It was firstly spotted at approximately 13:00 and
the explosion took place on (14:53 or 14:55) .19 The learned author ,J
Crawford sums the outcome of the case as follows “ Albania was held
responsible for the consequences of minelaying in her territorial waters by
reason of the Albanian authorities knowledge and failure to warn of the
presence of mines “20 . The author M Shaw is of the view that , “…. ;even
21
through there was no finding as to who had actually laid the mines “ , the
Albanian government was found liable .

17
(See note 3 above ), 22.
18
(See note 7 above) , 783.
19
( See note 3 above ), 23.
20
J Crawford ,Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law , 2012 , 543.
21
(See note 7 above), 785 .
The conduct was not Justified

The conduct otherwise wrongful may be justified on the grounds that it was
committed in self defense , as a countermeasure or was due to force majoure
(unforeseeable circumstances that prevent someone from fulfilling a contract)
as provided in the Rainbow Warrior case ( New Zealand v France ) (1990) 20
RIAA 217 , and distress among other defenses.22However it must be noted
that none of these defenses is available if reliance therein would conflict with
a peremptory norm of general law. The case highlights on the principle that a
state could be liable for activities within its territory even if there is no direct
proof, relying on inferences and circumstantial evidence.

In summation in respect to the application of the principles of state

responsibility in the Corfu case . The government of Albania was held liable
for mines which were laid in their international territorial waters under their
knowledge or connivance . This was in violation of the right of innocent
passage as accorded by international law . The Albanian government had the
time to warn warships and the omission made the state legally responsible .

Dissent opinions on the judgment

They were dissenting voices and the loud one was that of the learned Judge
23
Zoricic who was not total satisfied by the conclusion reached by the majority
. Amongst the factors which led to such a departure from the majoritarian
thinking was ; Albania had a new govt with no military experience , the
conclusion reached by the experts of seeing the mines being laid was subject
to assumptions and no proof was established concerning Denta point which in
the judges view was the only point which the Albanian government could have
observed activities in and out of the strait . Further details to be provided
below .

To commence with , Albania being a newly formed government which lacked

24
experience in the international practice . It was alleged by Albania that it

22
Rainbow Warrior ( New Zealand v France ) (1990) 20 RIAA 217.
23
( See Note 3 above) , 37.
24
( See Note 3 above) , 37.
lacked a navy and in the learned judge’s this proposition was not contested. It
is reflected in the words,“ it is therefore difficult to draw any inferences
whatever from its attitude “. Therefore , the judgment was criticized by the
learned judge for imputing military liability on a newly developing government
without one .

In addition , the conclusion reached by the experts which was material in

attributing the wrongful omission of Albania was disputed also . The view that
the minelaying must have been seen as subject to an express reservation
was supposedly to be supported by other facts which were not proved . These
facts include the proper maintenance of the look out posts 25 and even the
existence of normal weather conditions on the date 26.The judge said the court
knows neither the day on which the mines were laid nor the weather
conditions at prevailing on that date but, nevertheless it found
fault .Therefore , the reports reached by the experts were criticized for its
failure to ascertain the day on which the mines were laid and the weather
conditions prevailing at that day .

Furthermore , the failure to produce proof concerning the Denta Point which
could have been the only point to observe the minelaying was another
grievance of the judge . The Judges understanding of the expert report made
summed up this conclusion . The failure to usher in evidence raised the level
of doubt in the learned judge’s mind as it can be deciphered from these
words:

“ the court is confronted with suspicions ,conjectures and presumptions , the

foundations of which ,in Judge Zoricic’s views ,are too uncertain to justify him in
imputing to a state the responsibility for a grave delinquency in international law “ .

In a nutshell concerning the criticism leveled against the judgment it is

judiciously to take note that indeed they are morsels of clinical wisdom in the
Judge’s analytical and insightful evaluation of the facts . However , at a point
of departure it can be noted that at times it can be impossible to state in exact

25
( See note 3 above) ,37.
26
(See note 3 above) , 38.
and precise terms what really transpired which is why the court draws upon
reasonable inferences from the facts .

Reparations

In a third Judgement , rendered on 15 December 1949 , the Court assessed

the amount of reparation owed to the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to
pay 844,000pounds .27 This obligation is now codified in Article 31 of the Draft
Articles . In passing it can also be noted reparations can take any other form
which may include an apology , restitution of the property unlawful taken or
even restitution in kind .28

It essential to note the importance of reparation. In the Chorzow Factory case

it was laid down as the follows “ reparations must as far as possible , wipe out
all the consequences of the illegal act and reestablish the situation which
would in all responsibility have existed if that act had not been committed “.29

Conclusion

All in all ,the Judgement in the Corfu Channel Case illustrates the courts
approach to balancing state sovereignty with accountability, ensuring that
states cannot evade responsibility for actions within their territory by merely
hiding behind procedural complexities . It further reinforced the principle that
international law could adapt to include a broader range of evidence types to
establish responsibility. The principles raised includes the existence of an
international obligation and an act or omission which violates that obligation
and can be imputed on the state considering it works through agencies. In
closing it must be noted that the wronged state party is paid reparations for
the loss or damage caused by the blameworthy state which may come in
other forms than money .

27
https://icj-cij.org/home ,(Accessed on 7/3/25).
28
M Dixon , Textbook on International Law , 2007 , 786.
29
Germany v Poland ,(Jurisdiction), (1927) PCIJ Ser A, No 9, (1928) PCIJ Ser A, No 17 (Chorzów Factory Case) .
. .
BIBLIOGRAPHY .

BOOKS

 Arechaga, E (1968) , ‘International Responsibility’, in Manual of Public

International Law .
 Crawford ,J (2013) State Responsibility : The General Part, Cambridge.
 Crawford ,J (2012) ,Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law,
8TH ED ,Ashford Color Press Ltd ,Gosport , Hampire Great Claredon
Street .

 Daillier , P (2022) ,Droit International Public, Paris .

 Dixon , M (2007), Textbook on International Law , Oxford University
Press .
 Dugard , J (2013 ), International Law ,Juta Academic .
 Higgins , R (2001) ,’ The Concept of the State : A Variable Geometry
and Dualist Perceptions in Melanges Abi-Saab,’ The Hague .
 Shaw M ,(1997) International Law , 4th ,Cambridge (England ) , New
York : Cambridge University Press .
 Mosler H (1980) ,The International Society as a Legal Society , Sijthoff
and Noordhoff .

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

 International Law Commission Commentary ,(ILC) 2001.

 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea .

INTERNATIONAL CASELAW

 Germany v Poland ,(Jurisdiction), (1927) PCIJ Ser A, No 9, (1928)

PCIJ Ser A, No 17 (Chorzów Factory Case).
 Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v France ) 1990 20 RIAA 217 .
 UK v Albania ICJ Rep 1949 4.

WEBSITES
 https://icj-cij.org/home ,(Accessed on 7/3/25).
 https://lawsandmore.com/. (Accessed on 7 /3/25 ).
 R ,Martha , 3 International Legal Obligation
,https://academic.oup.com/book/57130/chapter-abstract/47322181?
redirectedFrom=fulltext . (Accessed on 7/3/25).