Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from September 17th to October 8th, and November 17th, 1953, the Vice-President, M. Guerrero, presiding
/themes/custom/icj/images/favicon.ico
INTERNATIONAL COUOFJUSTfCE

PLEADINGS,ORAL ARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS

THE MINQUIERS

AND ECREHOS CASE

(UNITED KINGDOMFRANCE)

VOLUME n

Oralarguments.-Documents.-Correspondence.-Indes

COUR INTERNATIONADEJUSTICE

MEMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE DES MINQUIERS

ET DES ECRÉHOUS

(ROYAUME-UNIIFRANCE)

VOLUME II

Proceduora-eDocumen-sCorrespond-IndexAl1 rights reserved by the

International Court of Justice

Tous droits réservés par la

Cour internationale de Justice Thi'svolume should be quoted as:

"I.C.J.Pleadings,The Minqttiers and Ecrehos Case

(Unite Kdingdom/France"

Le prCsent volilme doiêtrecitécomme suit :

iC. 1.1.Afti'moirAeaire des Minquiers edes Ecréhozds

(Hoyrzzinte-UailFrnîz>i)

Sales number

NO de vente :134 1THE MlNQUIERS AND ECREHOS CASE

(UNITED KINGDO/FRANCE)

AFFAIRE DES MINQUIERS ET

DES ÉCRÉHOUS

(ROYAUME-UN/FRANCE) INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS

THE MINQUIERS

AND ECREHOS CASE

(UNITED KINGDO1FRANCE)

JUDGMENT NOVEMB17th, 1953 COURINTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE DES MINQUIERS

ET DES fi~~É~~~~

(ROYAUME-UNI FRAhTCE)

AR&TDU17NOVEMBR1953PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS PART II

ORAL ARGUMENTS.

PUBLIC SITTINGS

heldat the PeacPalace,The Hngzte,

/rom Septeder17th toOctober8thasd November 17tlzrg53,

the Vice-PresideM., Guerrero,presiding

DEUXIBRI EARTIE

PROCÉDURE ORALE

S~ANCES PUBLIQUES

knues au Palais de lPaix,La Haye,

du 17 sefltenzbau8 octobreetle 17novembre1953,

SOGSIa firésidencede M. Guerrero,Vice-PrésidentMINUTES OF THE SITTINGS HELD FROM

SEPTEMBER 17th TO OCTOBER 8th, AND

NOVEMBER 17th, 1953

YEAR 1953

Present : Vice-President GUERRERO, Acting Yresidenl ; Presidellt

Sir ARNOLD MCNAIR ; Jzidges ALVAREZB , ASDEVANTH , ACKWORTH,

~VINIARSKIK , LAESTADB , ADAWI,KEAD, HSU MO, LEVICARNEIRO,

ARMAND-UGO ;NDe;bzdyR- egistrarGARNIER-COIGNET.

FortheFrenchRepublic :

Professor André GROS,Legal Adviser ta the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs,

as Agewt ;

assistedby:

M. BUIINAYC , onseillerd'Ét;t

Admiral DURAND DE SAINT-FRON T

M. Prosper WEIL,Professar at theLaw Faculty ofGrenoble ;

M. Pierre DUPARCA , ssistant Kceper of Archives at the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs,

as ExpertAdvisers ;

Forthe UgtitedKingdom ojGreatBritain and Northcrnlreland :

Mr.R. S. 13.BEST , liirLegal Adviser to thForeign Office,

as Aged ;

assistedIi:

Sir Lionel HEALDQ , .C., M.P., Attorney-Genera;

Air. C. S. HARRISONO , .B.E., Attorney-General forthe Island of

Jersey ;

Mr. G. G.FITZMAURICE C,.M.G.,Legal Adviser, Foreign Offi;e

Professor E. C. S. $VADE, owning Professor of the Laas of Englantl

in the University of Cambridge;

Mr. D. H. N.JOHNSON, AssistantLegal ~dviser, Foreign Office,

asCozrrzsel

and by:

&Ir.J. D. LAMBERR Te,search Department, Foreign Office,

as Expert Adviser. PROCÈS-VERBAUX DES SÉANCES TENUES

DU 17 SEPTEMBRE AU 8 OCTOBRE ET

LE 17 NOVEMBRE 1953

Présents:M. GUERRERO ,ice-Présidentfaisant fonctionde Prési;ent

Sir ARNOLD MCNATR P,réside;tMM,ALVAREZB , ASDEVANH T, CK-

WORTH, WINIARSKIK , LAESTAD B,ADAWIR , EAD,Hsu MO,LEVICAR-

NEIRO, ARMAND-UGO jN~,g;s RI. GARNIER-COIGNG Eref,ier adjoint.

Sont également#re'se?st

Pour la Républiquefrançais:

M. le professeur AndréGROS, jurisconsultdu ministére des Affaires

étrangères,

enqualitifd'agen;

assistkpar:

M. BURNAY c,onseiller d'É;at

Amiral DURAND DE SAINT-FRON ;T

M.Prosper WEIL,professeur A la Facultéde droit de Grenobl;

M. Pierre DUPARCc,onservateur adjoint des archives du ministére

des Affairesétrangéres,

commeexperts ;

Pour le Royaume-Uni de ~rande-~reta~iieetd'Irlandedu Nord.

M.R. S. B. BEST,troisiéme jurisconsulte au Foreign Ofice,

enqualitéd'agent;

assisté pa:

Sir Lionel HEALD,Q. C., M. P., Attorney-Genera;

M. C. S. HARRISON O,. B. E., Attorney General pol'îlde Jersey;

AI. G. G. FITZMAURIC CE.hl.G., jurisconsuIte au Foreign Offi;e

M. lc professeur E. C. S. \VADE,titulaire de la chaire Downing

sur lesloisde l'Angleterre l'Universitéde Cambridge;

M. D. H. N. JOHNSON, jurisconsulte adjoint du Foreign Office,

comme conseil;

etpar :

M. J.D. LAMBERS Te,rvice des recherches du Foreign Office,

commeconseiZlerexpert.II SI~NG OF 17 IX 53

The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President in the case, opened the hear-

ing and stated that the Court was assembled to deal with the dispute

between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of GreatBritain

and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the islets and rocks

of the Minquiersand Ecrehos. Proceedingç in this case were institiited

by a Special Agreement dated December zgth, 1950 w,hichwas notified

to the Court on December 6th, rg51. The written pleadings had been

frled within the tirne-lir fixedsby the Court and the case waç now

ready to be heard.

Two Members of the Court were not sitting to-day :Judges ZoriPik

and Sir Benegal Rau, who were prevented by the state of their health

from taking part in the present case. Furthermore, M. Golunsky had

resigned from the Court for reasons of health ; this resignation was

notified to theSecretary-General of the United Nations on July 27th,

1953.

The Vice-President, Acting Yresident, noted the presence in Court

of the Agents of both Parties with their CounseIand Experts, andstated

that pursuant to the agreement between the Parties,in accordance witli

Article 51of the Rules of Court, the Court would hear in the first place

the Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom. He requested

speakers to interrupt their speeches from time to time at convenient

intervals, for example every ten minutes, in order to allow the oral

translation to be made.

The Vice-President, Acting President, called upon the Agent of the

Government of the United ICingdom,

Mr. R. S.B. BESTrequested the Court to allow the Attorney-General

to open his Government's case.

The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, called upon Sir Lionel HEALD,

who began the statement reproduced in the annex l.

(The Court adjourned from I p.m. to 4p.m.1

The Attorney-General, Sir Lionel HEALD,continued the statement

reproduced in the annex Z.

(The Court rose at6 p.m.)

(Signed) J. G. GUBRRERO,

. Vice-President.

(Signed) GARNIER-COIGNET,

Deputy-Registrar.

See pp. 19-53.

ii i> 33-45. Le VICE-PRÉSIDEN faisant fonctionde Président, ouvrant l'audience,

déclare que la Cour se réunit pour examiner le différend existant cntre

la RépubIique française et le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et

d'Irlande du Nord concernant la souveraineté sur les îloet rochers des

Minquiers et des Écréhous. Cette affaire a été introduite par un com-

romis daté du 29 décembre 1950 et notifiéà la Cour le GdécembreIgjX.

Ees piPccs de la procédure écriteont étédéposéesdans les delris impartis

par la Cour et l'affaire est maintenant en état.

Deux membres de laCour n'ont pas pris séanceaujourd'hui : il s'agit

de AI.Zoritié et sir Benegal Rau, qui sont empêchéspar leur état de

santé de prendre part à la présente affaire. D'autre partfil.Golunsky

a donriésa démission de membre de la Cour, pour raisons de santé ;

cette démission a éténotifiée au Secrétaire -énkral des Nations Unies

le 27juillet1953.

Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Président constate la présence

devant la Cour des agents, conseilset experts des deux Gouvernements

et déclare que, suivant l'accord intervenu cntre les Parties conformé-

ment i. l'article51 du Réglcment, la Cour entendra cn premier lieu

l'agent du Gouvernement du Rovatime-Uni. Il prie les orateurs d'inter-

rompre de temps à autre leurs exposés,aux intervalles qui leur convien-

dront, par exemple to~tesles dix minutes, pour Ies traductions.

Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Présidènt donne la parole à

Wf.l'agent du Royaume-Uni.

RI. R. S. B. BEST prie la Courde permettre à l'Attorney-General de

plaider le premier.

Le VICE-PRESIDEX aisant fonction de Prksident donne la parole à

sir LionelHEALD, qui prononce l'exposéreproduit en anncxe l.

(L'audienceest suspendue de rg heure à 16 heures.)

Sir Lionel HEALD ,ttorney-General. continue 1splaidoirie reproduite

en anncxe

(1,'audience estlevée a 18 lieures.)

Le Vice-Président,

(Sig~té)J. G. GUERRERO.

Le Greffier adjoint,

(Sig~zéG)ARNIER-COTCNET.

Vo"r 'p33-45. TENTH PUBLIC SITTING (18IX 53, 10.30 am.)

Present: [See sittingof September 17th.3

The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President. called upon the Attorney-

General, Counsel for the United Kingdom Government.

Sir Lionel HEALD concluded the statement reproduced i11the annex l.

(The Court adjourned from 12.50 p.m. to 4 p.rn.1

The VICE-PREÇIDENTA , cting President, called upon Mr. G. G.

Fitzmaurice.

Mr. FIT~MAURICE began the staternent reproduced in the annex *.

(The Court rose at 6.05p-m.)

(Sigj~aatt.]

ELEVENTH PUBLICSITTING (19 IX 53,10.3 a.rn.1

Present : [See sitting of September 17th.1

Tlie VICE-PKESIDENTA ,cting President, called upon hIr. G. G.

Fitzmaurice to continue his speech on behalf of the United Kingdom

Government.

Mr. FIT~~~AURIC coEntinued the statement reproduced in the annex

(The Court rose at rz.55p.m.)

[Sig?.tnlttres.]

TIVELFTH PUBLIC SITTIBG (21 rx 53,10.30 a.nz.)

. Pvcsent : [Scesitting of September 17th.)

The VICE-PRESIDENTA , cting President, called upon Mr. G. G.

Fitzmaurice, Counsel for the United Kingdom Government, to continue

his speech.

MI. FITZMAURIC cEoncluded the statement reproduced in the annex ".

The VICE-PRESIDENT A,ctingPresident, called upon Professor E. C.S.

1irade.

Professor \VADEbegan the statement reproduced in the annex 6.

(The Court adjourned from I p.m. to 4 p.m.)

Professor WADEcontinued the statement reproduced in the annex '.

(The Court rose at 6.3 j p.m.)

1See pp. 46-60.

,, ,, 61-72.

,, ri72-85

' ,. P.85-95.

,, a,9.5-101.

",. ,.101-114. DIXI~ME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (18 rx 53, IO h.30)

Préselit: [170irséancedu 17septembre.]

Le VICE-PRESIDEN faisant fonction de Président donne la parolà

l'AttorneyGenera1, conseil du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.

Sir LionelHEALD termine l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.

{L'audience,suspendue à12 h. 50,est reprisà 16heures.)

Le VICE-PRESIDEN faisant fonction de Président donne la paroIà

Ri.G. G. Fitzmnurice.

M.FITZ~~AURIcC omEmence l'exposéreproduit en annexe *.

(L'audience est levéh 18h. 05.)

[Signatures.]

ONZIÈAIE SEANCE PUBLIQUE (19 IX 53, IO k. 30)

Préses~t spoir séancedu 17septembre.]

Le VICE-PRÉSIDEX fisant fonction de Président invite$1. G. G.

Fitzmaurice A continuer sa plaidoirie au nom du Gouvernement du

Koyazime-Uni.

. hl. FITZ~~AURcIo Cntinue l'exposéreproduien annexe

(L'audience est levéeà12 h. 55.)

[Signatures.]

DOUZI~AIE SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (21 XI 53, IO k.30)

Présents :[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]

Je VICE-PRÉSIDEK fisant fonction de Président inviteM. G. G.

Fjtzmaurice, conseil du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, à continuer

sa plaidoirie.

M. FITZMAURtIeC rEine l'exposéreproduit en annexe4.

Le VICE-PRESIDEN faisant fonction de Président donne la parole au

professeurE. C. S. IVade.

Le professeur WADEcbmmence l'exposéreproduit en annexe

(L'audience, suspendueà 13 heures, est repriàe16heures.)

Le professeur \VADEcontinue l'esposéreproduit en annexe

(L'audience est levée 18h..35.) [Sig?zaluves.]

Voir pp46-th.

n u 61-72,

a n u 72-85.

h B n 996-101.

" Y 101-114 THIRTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (22 IX 53, 10.30 a.m.)

Pvesent : [See sitting of September 17th.l

The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, called upon Professor E. C.S.

Wade, Counsel for the United Kingdom Govemment.

Professor WADEcontinued the statement reproduced in the annex '.

(The Court adjourned from 12.50 p.m. to 4p.m.)

Professor \VADEcontinued the statement reproduced in the annex

(The Court rose at 6.15p.m.)

[Signatures. J

FOURTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (23 rx53,10.3a 0.m.)

Present : [See sittingof September r7th.I

The VICE-PREÇIDENT A,cting President, cal~edupon Professor E. C.S.

iVade, Çounsel for the United Kingdom Government, to continue his

speech.

Professor WADEconcluded the statement reproduced in the annex a.

The VICE-PRESIDEST A,ctingPresident, called upon Mr. C. S. Harrison,

Attorney-General for the Island of Jersey.

Mr. HARRISON began the statement reproduced in the annex I.

(The Court adjourned from 1.10 p.m. to 4 p.m.)

&Ir. HARRISOX continued the statement reproduced in the annex

(The Court rose at 6.30 p.m.)

[Signatures .]

FIFTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (24 IX 53, IO am.)

' Prese~z t [Seesitting ofSeptember I7th.l

The VICE-PRESIDENA T,cting Preçident, calIedupon Mr.C.S.Harrison,

Attorney-General for the Island of Jersey, Counsel for the United King-

dom Government, to continue hisspeech.

&Ir.C.S. HARRISON continued thestatement reproduced in the annex O.

1 See pp.114-126.

,, ., 126-139.

.. ,, 139-145.

,, ,, 146-153.

\..,. ,. 167-184. SEA~~C DESS. 22-24 IX 53

I3

TREIZIAME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (22 IX53, IO A. 30)

Présents :[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]

Le VICE-PRÉSIDEN faisant fonction de Prksident donne la parole au

professeur E. C. S. Wade, conseildu Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.

Le professeur WADE continue l'exposéreproduit en annexe l.

(L'audience, suspendueà 12h. 50,est repriseà 16heures.)

Le professeurWADE continue l'exposéreproduit en annexe2.

(L'audience est levéà 18h. 15.)

[Signatures.]

QUATORZIBM S~~ANCEPUBLIQUE (23IX 53,IO la.0)

Présents: [Voirséancedu 17 septembre.]

Le VICE-PRÉSIDEN faisant fonction de Présideninvitele professeur

E. C. S. Wade, conseil du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, à continuer

sa plaidoirie.

Le professeur WADE termine I'exposéreproduit enannexe 3.

Le VICE-PRÉSIDESfT aisant fonction de Président donne la parole

à M. C.S. Harrison, Attorney-General pour I'üede Jersey.

M. HARRISOc Nommence l'exposéreproduit en annexe 4.

(L'audience, suspendue 13h. IO, est reprisà 16heures.)

M. HARRISON continue l'exposéreproduiten annexe

(L'audience est levéà 18h. 30.)

[Signatures.]

QUINZIGM EEANCE PUBLIQUE (24 IX 53, IO A.)

Présents: [Voir séancedu 17septembre.]

Le VICE-PR~SIDEN fTisant fonction de Président invite M. C. S.

Harrison, Attorney-General pour l'île de Jersey, conseidu Gouverne-

ment du Royaume-Uni, àcontinuer sa plaidoirie.

M. HARRISON continue I'exposéreproduit en annexe

.. l Voir ppiI4-126.

u » 126-139.

a D 1 139-145.

M r 146-153.

n i 167-184.14 SITTINGS OF.28-30 IX 53

(The Court adjoumed from I p.m, to 4 p.m.)

Mr.C. S.HARRISO concluded thestatement reproduced in the annex l.

(The Court rose at 5p.m.)

[Signatures.]

SIXTEENTH PUBL'C SITTING (zSIX 53, 10.30am.)

Present :[Seesitting of September 17th.j

The VICE-PRESIDEN ATc,ting President, called upon Profesçor André

Gros, Agent of the French Government, to begin his speech on behalf of

his Government.

Professor André GROS began the statement reproduced in the annex =.

(The Court adjourned irom 12.55 p.m. to 4 p.m.)

Professor André GROS continued the statement reproduced in the

annex

(TheCourt rose at 6.25 p.m.)

[Signatures.]

SEVENTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (29IX 53,10.3 a0.m,)

Present : [Seesitting of September 17th.l

The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, calIed upon the Agent of

the French Government to continue his speech on behalf of hisGovern- ,

ment.

RI. André GROS, Agent of the French Government, continued the

statement reproduced in the annex

(TheCourt adjourned from 1.10 p.m. to 4 p.m.)

M. André GROS,Agent of the French Government, continued the

staternent reproduced in theannex 5.

(TheCourt rose at 6 p.m.)

[Signatures.]

EIGHTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (30IX 53,10.3a 0m.)

Present: [Seeçittiriof September 17th.3

The VICE-PRESIDENT ,cting President, called upon the Agent of

the French Government to continue his speech on behalf of his Govern-

-ent.

l Seepp. 184-189.

' ,, ,, 190-204.

.. ,, 204-219.

,, ,, 220-236.

.. ,, 236-248. (L'audience, suspendue à 13heures, est repriseà16heures.)

M.HARRISO ermine l'exposéreproduit en annexe l.

(L'audience est levéeà 17 heures.)

[Signatures.]

SEIZII~IE S~ANCE PUBLIQUE (28 IX 53, IO h. 30)

Prèsetzds:poir séance du 17 septembre.]

Le VICE-PRÉIIDENT faisant fonction de Président invite le professeur

AndréGros, agent du Gouvernement français, à commencer sa plaidoirie

au nom de son Gouvernement.

Le professeur GROScommence la plaidoirie reproduite en annexe l.

(L'audience, suspendue à 12 h. j, est reprise 16 heures.)

Le professeur GROS continue la plaidoirie reproduiten annexe 3.

(L'audience eçt levéeà 18 h.25.}

[Signnlz~res.]

DIX-SEPTIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (29 ix 3j, IO It.30)

Prisents :voir séancedu 17septembre.]

Le VICE-PRÉSIDENT faisant fonction de Président invite l'agent du

Gouvernement français à continuer sa plaidoirie au nom de son Gouver-

nement.

M. André GROS, agent du Gouvernement français, continue la plai-

doirie reproduite en annexe'.

(L'audience, suspendue A 13 h.IO, est reprisà 16 heures.)

M. André GROS,agent du Gouvernement français, continue la plai-

doirie reproduite en annexe=.

(L'audience est levéeà 18heures.)

[Signatures.]

DIX-HUITIÈME SÉAKCE PUBLIQUE (30 rx 53, IO A. 30)

Présents :[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]

Le VICE-PRÉÇIDENT faisant fonctionde Président invite l'agent du

Gouvernement français à continuer sa plaidoirie au nom de son Gouver-

nement.

VoYr ip.Ig0-204-

P B 204-219-

220-236.

P n 236-248. hl. André GROS, Agent of the French Government, continued the

statement reproduced in the arinex l.

(TheCourt adjourned from r p.m. to 4p.rn.)

M. André GROS, Agent of the French Government, continued and

concluded the statement reproduced in the annex 2.

The VICE-PRESIDENA T,cting President, askethe Agent of the United

Kingdom ifhe intends to reply and, if so,when he willbe ready.

The AGENT OF THE UNITED KINGDO~d Ieclared that he would be

ready to reply on Friday, October 2nd.

The VICE-PREÇIDENT,Acting President, announced that the next

hearing would take place on Friday morning, October end, at10.30.

(The Court rose at 6 p.m.)

[Signatures.]

NINETEENTH PUBLIC SITTING (2 x 53, 10.30 am.)

Present: [See sitting of Septernber 17th, with the exception of Sir

Arnold McNair, President .]

The VICE-PREÇIDENT,Acting President, opened the hearing and

stated that the President of the Court, Sir ilrnold McNair, was slightly

indisposed and unable to sit.

The Vice-President, Acting President, requested the Agents of the

Parties at the end of the oralreply and rejoinder, either to confirm the

Submissions set out in the written Pleadings or to read the final Submis-

sions of theirGovernment. In the latter case, he requested them to

handto theRegistry a written textof their final Submissions.

The Vice-President, Acting President, called upon the Agent of the

United Kingdom Government, Mr. R. S. B. Best.

Mr. R. S.B. BESTstated that the oralreply of his Government would

be opened by the Attorney-General.

Sir LionelHEALD made the speech reproduced in the annex a.

The VICE-PRESIDEN Ac,tin Pgreçident, called upon Professor E. C.S.

Wade.

Professor WADEbegan the speech reproduced in the annex ".

(TheCourt adjourned from 1.10 to 4 p.m.)

Professor WADEcontinued the speech reproduced in the annex

(TheCourt rose at 5.55p.m.)

[Signatures.]

Sec pp.248-263.

J ,, ,,,277-288.

,. ,. 289-293,

i, ii 293-304- M. André GROS, agent du Gouvernement français, continue la plai-

doirie reproduite en annexe l.

(L'audience, suspendue à 13heures, est repriseà 16 heures.)

M. André GROS, agent du Gouvernement français, continue et termine

la plaidoirie reproduite en annexe2.

Le VICE-PRESIDEfN asant fonction de Président demande à l'agent

du Royaume-Uni s'il a l'intention de présenterune plaidoirie en réplique

et quand celle-ci sera prête.

L'AGENT DU ROYAUME-UN aInonce que la plaidoirie en réplique de

son Gouvernement sera prêtevendredi 2 octobre.

Le VICE-PRESIDENT faisant fonction de Président'annonce que la

prochaine audience auraliw vendredi matin, 2 octobre,à IO heures 30,

(L'audience est levéeà 18 heures.)

[Signatures.]

DIX-NEUVI~ME SEANCE PUBLIQUE (2 x 53, IO h. 30)

Présents : [Voir séancedu 17 septembre, A l'exception de sir Arnold

McNair, Préçident.]

En ouvrantla séance,le VICE-PRÉSIDEfN aisant fonction de Président

annonce que le Président de la Cour, sir Arnold NcNair, est retenu en

chambre par une légéreindisposition.

Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Président prie les agents, quand

ils finiront leur plaidoirie en réplique, soit de confirmlesconclusions

énoncéesau cours de la procédure écrite, soit de donner lecture des

conclusions finaIesde leur Gouvernement. Dans ce dernier cas, il les prie

de remettre au Greffele texte écrit de ces conclusions finales.

Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Président donne la parole à .

M. l'agent du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni, BI.R. S. B. Best.

hl. R. S. B. BEST déclare que lJAttorney-General commencera la

répliqueorale au nom de son Gouvernement.

Sir Lionel HEALDprononce l'exposéreproduit en annexe 3.

Le VICE-PRÉSIDEfN asant fonction de Président donne la parole au

professeur E. C. S.Wade.

Le professeur WADE commence l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.

(L'audience, suspendue A 13.10, est repriseà 16 heures.)

Le professeur WADEcontinue l'exposéreproduit en annexe6.

(L'audience est levée A17 h. 55,)

[Signatures.]

lVoir pp. 248-263.

2 B 263-276.

a r L 277-288.

4 u n 289-293.

3 n > 293-304. TWENTIETH PUBLIC SITTING (3 x 53, 10.30 am.)

Present : [Seesitting of October znd.]

The VICE-PRESIDENA Tc,ting President, cailed upon Professor E. C. S.

Wade to continuehis speech on behalf of the United Kingdom Govern-

ment.

Professor WADE concluded the statement reproduced inthe annex l.

The VICE-PRESIDENcT alled upon hlr. C.S. Harrison.

Mr. HARRISON began the speech reproduced in the annex 2.

(The Court rose at I p.m.j

[Signatures.]

TWENTY-FIRST PUBLIC SITTING (5 x 53, 10.30 a.rn.1

Present: [See sitting of September 17th.I .

The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, opened the hearing and

called upon the Attorney-General for the Island of Jersey to continue

hiç speech on behalf ofthe Government of the United Kingdom.

Mr.C.S. HARRISON continued the statement reproduced in the annex 9.

Judge Hsu hlo put to Mr. Harrison two questions reproduced in the

annex 4.

Mr.HARRISOg Nave the answersreproduced in the annex and conclud-

ed his statement

(The Court adjourned from Ip.m. to 4 p.m.)

The VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, called upon Mr. G. G.

Fitzmaurice, Counsel for the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. FITZMAURIb Cegan the speech reproduced in the annex O.

(The Court rose at6.10 p.m.)

[Signatures.]

TWENTY-SECOND PUBLIC SITTING (6 x 53,10.3 a0.m.)

Presed :[Seesitting of September i7th.l

The VICE-PRESIDENTA , cting President, called upon Mr. G. G.

Fitzmaurice, Counsel for the United Kingdom Government, to continue

his speech.

See pp. 304-312.

a J. 327-332.

a ii ii 332.343.

i* P. 343.

,s PP.343-316,

#> 8 .347-35'- VINGTI~ME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (3 x 53, IO h.30)

Présents :voir séancedu z octobre.]

Le VICE-PR~SIDENT faisant fonction de Président donne la parole

au professeur E. C. S. Wade pour la continua!ion de sa plaidoirie au

nom du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.

Le professeur WADEtermine l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.

Le VICE-PRÉÇIDENT faisant fonction de ~r~sident donne la parole à

M.HARRISON.

RI. HARRISON commence l'exposéreproduit en annexe 2.

(L'audience est levéeà 13heures.)

[Signdures.]

VINGT-ET-UNIÈME S~ANCE PUBLIQUE (5 x 53, IO h. 30)

Présents :[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]

. En ouvrant laséance,le VICE-PRESIDENfT aisant fonction dePrésident

donne la paroleà M.l'Attorney-General pour l'îlede Jersey pour la suite

de sa plaidoirie au nom du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni.

M. C. S. HARRISON continue l'exposéreproduit en annexe 3.

M. Hsu Mo, juge, pose à M. Harrison les deux questions reproduites

en annexe '.

M.HARRISOd Nonne à cesquestions lesréponsesreproduites en annexe4

et termine sa plaidoiriB.

' (L'audience, suspendue à 13heures, est repriseà 16heures.)

Le VICE-PRÉSIDENf Taisant fonction de Président donne la parole A

M. G. G. Fitzmaurice.

M. FITZMAURIC cEmmence l'exposéreproduit en annexe '.

(L'audience est levée à18 h, IO.)

[Signattrres.]

VINGT-DEUXIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (6 x 53, IOh. 30)

Présents :voir séancedu 17 septembre.]

Le VICE-PRÉSIDENT faisant fonction de Président donne la parole

à M. G. G. Fitzmaurice, conseil du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni,

pour la suite de sa plaidoirie.

.

lVoir pp. 304-312.

' W D 327-332.

a ' 332-343.

* * P. 343.

* PP- 343-346.

* 347-358. Mr. G. G. FITZMAURIC cEncluded the speech reproduced in the

annex &.At the end of his speech, he stated that he maintained the

conclusions put fonvard in the Memorial but that he wished to rnake

one or two small changes of wording and would therefore hand in a

written version to the Registry.

- .

(The Court rose at 12.40 p.m.)

[Signatures.]

TWENTY-THIRD PUBLIC SITTING (7 x53, 4 $.m.)

Presenf :[Seesitting of September r7th.l

The VICE-PRESIDEN ATct,ing President in this case, called upon the

Agent of the French Government.

Professor André GROS, Agent of the French Republic, began the oral

rejoinder reproduced in the annex e.

(The Court rosa at 6.30 p.rn.)

[Signa~ures.]

TWENTY-FOURTH PUBLIC SITTING (Sx 53,10.3a0 m.)

Present :[Secsitting of Sepiember 17th.1

The VICE-PRESIDENA Tc,ting President in this case, called upon the

Agent of the French Govemment.

Professor A. GROS continued the statement reproduced in the annex

(The Court adjourned from x.ro p.m. to 4 p.m.)

Professor A. GROSconcluded the oral rejoinder repraduced in the

annex '.At the end ofhis speech, he read the final Submissions of the

Government of the French Repùblic 6,of which he handed the written

text to the Registry.

The VICE-PRESIDEN ATc,ting President, asked both Agents to hold

themselves at the disposal of the Court in order that they might furnish

any further information which the Court might require from them and,

subject to that reservation, he declared the hearing closed. The Court

would now deliberate and in due course both Agents would be warned

of the date on which Judgment would be delivered in public session.

(The Courtrose at 6.35 p,m.)

(Signatures.J

l See pp.358-371.

' ,. ., 372-384-

.. ,, 386-402.

P. 3, 403-412-

' ,, ,, 411.412. M. G. G. FITZMAURICtE ermine l'exposéreproduit en annexe l. A la

finde son exposé,il annonce qu'il maintient les conclusions énoncées

dans le mémoire, mais qu'il désire en modifier légkrerneatle texte. Ii

remettra ce texte final au Greffe.

(L'audience estlevéeà 12 h.40)

[Signatures.]

VINGT-TROISIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (7 x 53, 16 h.)

Présents:voir séancedu 17 septembre.]

Le VICE-PRESTDEN fisant fonction de Président donne la parole A

l'agent du Gouvernement français.

M. André GROS, agent du Gouvernement de la République française,

commence la duplique orale reproduite en annexe *.

(L'audience est levéà 18 h. 30)

[Signatures.]

VINGT-QUATRIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (8 x 53, xoh. 30)

Présents:[Voir séancedu 17 septembre.]

Le VICE-PRÉSIDENfT aisant fonction de Président ouvre l'audience

et donne la parole rll'agent du Gouvernement français.

M.le professeur A, GROS continue la plaidoirie reproduite en annexe

(L'audience, interrompue à 13h. IO, est repriseA 16heures.)

M. le professeur A. GROS termine Ia duplique orale reproduiteen

annexe'. A la fin de son exposéil donne lecture des conclusions finales

du Gouvernement de la République française \ dont il a remis le texte

au Greffe.

Le VICE-PRESIDEN fTisant fonction de Président demande aux deux

agents de se tenià la disposition dla Cour afind'être enmesure de lui

founir tous renseignements additionnels qu'elle pourrait leur demander

et, sous cette réserve, il prononce la cibturdes débats. La Cour va

maintenant délibéreret les deux agents seront dûment avertisde la date

A laquelle l'arrêtsera rendu en audience publique.

(L'audience est levéeà 18 h.35.)

[Signatures.]

1Voir pp. 358-371.

3 D P 372-386.

i P 356-402.

" n i '$11-412.18 SITTING OF 17 XI 53

TWENTY-SIXTH PUBLIC SITTING (17 xt53,4.30 am.)

Present : The Presidend and the Judges present at the sittingof

September 17th ; M. GARNIER-COIGN DEeiu,ty-Registrar; Mr.G. G.

FITZMAURIC C.M, .G.,Legal Adviser of the Foreign Officeas Agent ;

Professor André GROS, Legal Adviser of the Ministry for Foreign

Mairs, as Agent.

The. VICE-PRESIDENT A,cting President, said that the Court was

sitting to deliver its Judgment in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case

between the French Republic and the United Kingdom ofGreat Brltain

and Northern Ireland, a case brought before the Court by means of a

SpecialAgreement concluded by the two Governments.

In accordance with Article58 of the Statute, the Agents both Parties

had been notified that the Judgment would be read atthat sitting. The

Acting President said that, upon receipt ofthe communication, the

United Kingdom Government had announced that its Agent, Mr. R. S.B.

Best, Third Legal Adviser of the .ForeignOffice,had died and that Mr.

G.G.Fitzmaurice, Legal Adviser ofthe Foreign Office,had been appoint-

ed to replace him. The Acting President expressed to Mr. Fitzmaurice

the condolencesof the Court which heasked him to convey to hisGovem-

ment and to the bereaved family.

Professor GROS, Agent of the French Government, associated himseif

with the President's words of sympathy.

Mr. F~~znr~u~rcte hanked the Court and the Agent of 'the French

Government and said that he would transmit their condolences to his

Government and ta Mr. Best's family.

The ACTING PRESIREK rTad the French text of the Judgment, of

which the English text was to beconsidered authoritativel.

The DEPUTY-REGISTR rAaR the English text of the operative part

of the Judgment.

The ACTING PRESIDENr Tead the Declaration of Judge Alvarez

annexed to the Siidgrnent and stated that Judges Basdevant and Levi

Carneiro had availed thernselves of the right to append to the Judg-

ment staternents of their individual opinions. However, they did not

propose to read them.

(TheCourt rose at 5.55 p.m.)

[Signatures.]

l SeeCourt'spublications, Repoofsjudgnu~ts,Advisory Opinionand Orders

1953,PP. 47-73.

Ibid., 73.

,, 4~~.74-84.

., . ,.85-109. VINGT-SIXIÈME SÉANCE PUBLIQUE (17 xr 53, 16 h. 30.)

Présents:Le Présideniet les,Juges présents à la séancedu 17septem-

bre ; RI. GARNIER-COICNEG T,refieradjoilzt M.G. G. FITZMAURICE,

C. M. G., jurisconsulte au Foreign Office, en qualitéd'agent; M. André

GROS, jurisconsulte du rninistére des Affaires étrangéres, en qualité

d'agent.

Le VICE-PRESIDENT faisant fonction de Président en cette affaire

annonce que la Cour est réuniepour prononcer son arrêten l'affaire des

Minquiers et des gcréhous, entre la République française et le Royaume-

Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord, affaire portee devant

la Cour en vertu d'un compromis conclu entre les deux Gouvernements.

Le Vice-Président faisant fonction de Président rappelle que, confor-

mément à l'article 58 du Statut, les agents des Parties ont étéprévenus

qu'il serait donné lecture de cet arrêt au cours de l'audienIl.annonce

qu'au reçu de cette communication, le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni

au Foreign Office,étaitdécédétet que.M..G.G. Fitzmaurice, jurisconsultete

de ce ministère, avait été désigné pour 1eremplacer. Le Vice-Président

faisant fonction de Président exprime àM.Fitzrnaurice les condoléances

de la Cour qu'il le prie de transmettàeson Gouvernement et àla famille

du défunt.

M. GROS ,gent du Gouvernement français, s'associe auxparoles de

sympathie qui viennent d'être exprimées par le Président.

bI. FITZMAURrIeC mEercie la Cour et l'agent'du Gouvernement français

et transmettra leurs condoléances à sonGouvernement et àla famille de

hl. Best.

Le VICE-PRESIDEN fTisant fonction de Président donne en français

lecture de l'arrêt dontle texte faisant foi serletexte anglais1.

Le GREFFIER ADJOINT donne Iecture du dispositif danletexte anglais.

Le VICE-PRESID Eaiant fonction de Président donne lecture dela

déclarationannexée àl'arrêtpar $1.Alvarez et annonce que MM.Basde-

vant et Levi Carneiro4 ont fait usage de leur droit de joindràl'arrét

les exposésde leur opinion individuelle. Ils ne désirentcependant pas en

donner Iecture.

(L'audience est levéA 17 h. 5j.)

[Signaltcres.J

Voir publications de laCour, RecueidesArrêtsAvis consultatiel Ordon-

nances,1953. pp. 47-73.

Ibzd., p. 73.

a 8 , pp74-84.

' ,D 85-109. ANNEX TO TBE MINUTES

ANNEXE AUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX

1. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR LIONEL HEALD

(COUNSEL FOR THE COVERWMENT OF THE UNITED KINCDOM)

AT THE PUBLIC SITTINGS OF SEPTEMBER 17th AND 18th, 1953

hlr. Presidentand Members of the Court :

In presenting to you the case of Her Majesty's-Government upon the

question of the title to the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, 1 would like

firstto Say how much 1 appreciate the privilege of appeanng again

before the International Court of Justice.

1 need hardly tell yau, Mr. President, that the present case differs

greatly from that in which 1had the honour of addressing you last year,

both in subject-matter and in atmosphere-that was the Iranian case.

To-day Great Britain and France come before you am-in-am, as it

were, asking you to resolve our disputeWe are here, in factnot in any

spirit of bittemess or hostility, but as friends and good neighbours, both

of us declared supporters of the pnnciple of the international adjudica-

tion of disputes.

Before the case is over, I have no doubt that some shrewd blows will

have been exchanged between the represcntative advocates, but the

Court will not need tobe assured that these will betaken in good part

on both sides, and that, whatever your decision may be, it will be

loyaily accepted, and wil1not disturb the present excelIent relations

between Our two Governments.

as this, ifange, Rlr.President, from the old days, when sucha dispute

the spot and decided by force of arms, leading perhaps to a serious con-

flict. To-day a question of national sovereignty is by mutual consent the

subject of fair legal argument and thereafter of mature adjudicatioby

erninent jurists, as the result of the Special Agreement to which you

have referred, dated 29th December 1950. Progress may be slowtowards

the attainment of the noble ideal which inspired the building of this

place ;but the present reference must surely be acknowledged, even by

the cynics, not only as a tribute to the Court itself but also as a practical

contribution of lasting value to the cause of peace.

Apart from the symbolic aspect of the matter, to which 1have already .

referred, 1feeljustified in asking the Court to regard thiç as an important

case upon its own merits. Itiçtrue that the actuaI area of land in issue

is not very great. But, as youwiH hear later, the population of Jersey

attaches the deepest moral significance to the result of this case which,

if the French claim were to succeed, would mean the loss of something

much more preciousthan a mere group of islets-something which has

come to be regarded by Jersey men and women with pride and affection

as an integral part of their island heritage.

Mr. President, no advocate with any knowledge of the work of this

Court could fail to recognize with real gratitude the care andimpartiality

with which its members study the written proceedings inadvance of the 20 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

oral hearing. I shall not therefore occupy your time with detailed refer-

ences to the pleadings, but, in view of the volume and complexity ivhich

they have inevitably assumed, 1 feel that it may be helpful tothe Court

if 1 make a general opening statement, summarizing the main points

wbich seem to us to arise from the documents, togethe rrith a brief'

indication of how we propose to deal with them. 1 use the word "indi-

cation" deliberately, because 1 do not myself feel qualified, in this com-

pany, ta discuss in detail many of the highly technical points that are

in dispute. For that purpose 1 have armed myself with the assistance of'

a team of experts, who are-1 have no doubt-well matched by those

accompnnyingmy Iearned frjend Professor Gros-not that 1suggest that

heis nearly as much in need of expert assistance as 1 am. I will mention

who my assistants are, and what they propose to deal ivith, in a few

moments ; but Grst may 1 inform the Court of the presence at rny side

of my very good friend and learned colleague, Rlr.Cecil Harrison, who

is Her Majesty's Attorney-General for the island of Jersey, and himself'

a Jerseyman. Apart from the practical value of Iiis collaboration, the

nature and history of his officeand the special and distinctive robe which

he wears are in themselves significant. For they emphasize, as he him-

self cm explain to you much better than 1,that, although this case is.

brought before you by Her hlajesty's Govemment in the United King-

dom, of which I have the honour to be a member, it is one particular-

part of Her Majesty's dominions that is directly affected-a small part

perhaps, but one which is nevertheless largely self-governing. For Jersey

. enjoys almost compIete autonomy, and it is from Jersey and not from

London that administrative control has long been exercised over the

very islets whose title is in issue,s proof of this,and of the reality of.

Jersey's independent status, I would like to refer you to the language of'

the officiaidocument which testified Jersey's agreement to the submis-

sion of the present dispute io the International Court :it was a Resolu-.

tian of the States of Jcrsey on the 14th September of the year 1948,and

it stated that the States, in the name of the Government of Jersey, had

taken into consideration a Resolution adopted at a joint meeting of'

certain Committees, and it stated this, that :

"The Cornmittees of Finance and of Harbours and Airport have.

the honour to inform the States that His Majesty's Government,.

following consultation with the Lieutenant Governor, the Bailiff,

the Law Officersof the Crown and the Cornmittees concerned, has.

sought, by negotiations through diplomatic channels, to obtain Jrom

the French Government an unequivocal acknowledgement of His.

Majesty's ~overeignty over the Minquiers and Ecréhous Islands.

The Committees regret to inform the States that these negotia-

tions have not been productive of the results hoped for.

Under these circumstances, His Majesty's Govemment recom-.

mends that the question of sovereignty should be referred to the.

International Court of Justice.

The Committees are in agreement with this recommendation.

and ask the concurrence of the States therein.

The States unanimously concurred in the recommendation of'

Wis Majesty's Government and requested their President to take:

the necessary action in the matter."

Signed by the Greffier des États. ORAL ARGUM OFESNR T.HE~D (u.K.)-17 IX 53 21

hlr. President, one can see at once from that document that the real

and the United Kingdom, as between France and Jersey, who çeeksFrance

to retain certain adjacent islets, which, as the evidencewillreally

show, the inhabitants of Jersey have for many generations thought

of and dealt with as part of themselves.

In view of theattitude taken upby Ouropponents in certain portions

of their pleadings,1 have felt it essential to leave no doubt on this.

point. 1 can testify from my own persona1 experience to the intensity

of the local feeling. 1 have twice visited Jersey since I was last here,

in order to qualify myself to present their case, and in particular to

ensure that 1 should correctly interpret the views of the population.

In September of Iast year 1 was fortunate in being able to sail round

the Minquiers and the Écrbhous in perfect weather and to land on

both those groups. I only wish the mernbers of the Court had been

able to go there also, not only to enjoy the beautifuI sunshine anda

scenery but alço because an actual view of the locus in quo iç al~vays

of such assistance, provided always of course that one is a good sailor.

Last week 1 was in Jersey again, and on this occasion 1 had the great

advantage and interesting experience of Qing over the whole of this

area and thus obtaining an intimate picture-more intimate perhaps

of hearingatheviews of Jersey menhaand women in al1 walks of life on

this subject, and 1 can assure you that they regard this matter before

the Court with great seriousness and real emotion. They do not profess

to understand the legal refinements of the pleadings: they look on

the matter in a very simple way-which may perhaps appear to the

Court as fundarnentally sound. They base themselves in the first

instance on the traditions handed down to them by their fathers and

grandfathers, according to which these islets have been for al1practical

purposes part of Jersey for hundreds ofyears past. They aIso rely

strongly on the fact that the Channel Islands themselves are unquestion-

ably, and have been for nearly a thousand years, possessions of the

British Crown. How, in these circumstances, Jersey men and women

ask, can it beseriously suggested that the Minquiers and the Écréhous

belong to France ?

In connection with this point of view of the Jerseyman, the Court

has no doubt exarnined with intereçt the French argument, and it may

have occurred to you that thiproves fatoo much. For you wili remem-

ber that the French argument relies very strongIy on such allegations as

that King Henry III of England did homage to the French King in the

were any validity in that argument, it would follow that the rest of the

Channel Islands-Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark and al1the others-

are al1French to-day. Indeed 1could not help wondenn as 1 read the

French Rejoinder whether, when we arrived before this fourt, I rhould

hear my learned fnend, Professor Gros, make an application to arnend

his pleadings so as to include a final daim to French sovereignty over

the whole of the Channel Islands,

Thismay be descnbed as a reductio ad absurdum,but if the French

argument does not have this effect, what does it really amount to 7

It is no doubt a strange historical circumstance tfar,from there

being any question of the British title to the Channel Islands being22 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

based upon any British act of aggression, it resulted in fact from the

aggression which England suffered at the time of the Norman conquest

but the Court must remember that our opponents claim that the Dukeor-

of Norrnandy was a French baron. The fact remains-and its importance

for present purposes is surely this-that, since one must accept asa

legal fait accomfilithe British title to the Channel Islands, there is no

validity at al1in the comment which appears on page 687 of theFrench

Rejoinder (1quote) : "The most sober-minded person may view with

astonishment the fate of these islands, lying in a French bay, which have

become English because a French baron, a Duke of Normandy, con-

quered England in the year 1066." Indeed once it is conceded, asit

must be, that the British title to the Channel Islands has to be accepted

by everyone-whether sober-minded or otherwise-the French case

becomes unarguable, unless,unless itcan be shown that the title to the

Minquiers and the Écréhousis governed b some entirely different and

distinct consideration-a somewhat di cult proposition surely to

establish.

Jerseymen contend, and we support them strongly in this, that when

in the thirteenth century there was a division between continental

Normandy and the Islands, and King ohn of England retained the

Channel Islands, the Minquiers and the d créhouswerethen, and remain

ta-day, part of the possessions of the Crown along with the island of

Jersey. Unless that contention can be displaced, 1 think it must be

agreed that most of the detailed discussion in the pleadings becames

irrelevant. And when this single historical argument is supplemented

by the ovenvhelming evidence of continuous and effective possession,

particularly over the last hundred years and more, it isnot difficult to

understand the impatience of the average Jersey man or woman with

any lawyer who disputes their claim.

An interesting light on this aspect of the case is provided by the

Chausey group ofislets-which, as the Court wiiino doubt already be

aware, is close tr, Granville on the French coast. The Chausey group, as

everyone agrees, are French to-day, and it is therefore pertinent to ask

bnesKing Henry III in?the yeare1259,land, in fact, as late as the reign of

dng Henry VI1 of England in the year 1500, we find the Chausey

described in a Papal Bull, the Buli of Pope Alexander VI, as part of the

Channel Islands, and unquestionably at that tirne, ~'Bntiçh.I refer to

page 532 of the United Kingdom Reply, where the details of that Buil

WU be found. The Chausey group became French much later, as the

result of specificacts in the exercisof French sovereignty. And when

you find, in the case of the Minquiersand the Écréhous,not this process

of trançfer to France, but, on the contrary, the intensification of acts

and incidents of British sovereignty and character, preciseIy paralIeI to

those exercised by France in the case of the Chausey, the admitted title

of France to the Chausey becomes a very relevant point, not infavour

of the French claim but againstit.

The French legal advisers clearly appreciated the danger of this

argument and with characteristic quickness of thought they adopted

the offensive in their pleadinga by asserting that the Minquiers are

dependenciesofthe Chauseygroup. This, ofcourse,would be an excellent

point, iit could be established, butaU the evidence is tothe contrarfr ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53 23

effect. It is summarized in the Reply of the United Kingdom Government

at pages531-53t2 o,which1 havealready referred. Finally, upon thispoint,

the actual behaviour of the French Government itself is sureIy quite

inconsistent with any relation of dependence between the Chausey groiip

and the Minquiers. In the case of the former, the Chausey, a number

of administrative and protective acts are on record, and if one sees the

Chausey from the air, one sees the concrete results in siich things as

jetties and buildings. The French have, in fact, done at the Chausey

exactly the same as Jersey has done at the Minquiers and Écréhous :

they have constructcd slipways, landing stages and so on. They have

also performed numerous other acts of sovereignty, no doubt. If the

Minquiers really are a dependency ofthe Chausey, as is alleged, how is it

that France has never extended to the Minquiers any ofthe adminis-

trative or governmental acts of which the Chausey provide such clear

evidence ? We see that where the French.admittedly do possess the

sovereignty, namely, at the Chausey, they behave accordingly. Then why

not at the Minquiers and the ficréhousif France hai the sovereignty?

And if that were not enough, how can one reconcile with the French

contention the fact thatprecisely thoçe acts, which have been performed

by France at the Chausey but not at the Minquiers or the Écréhous,

have been performed at the latter by Jersey? So 1 maintain that the

circumstances of theChausey, far from assiçting the French case, provide

a strong inferential argument againçt it.

As regards both the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, the Jerseyman

says it is a strange thing that, if the French Government ever had a

good title, it has done so little-infact nothing-to assist or maintain

that title. He finds sucha clairn put fonvard now, after al1these years

of neglect, contrary to a11the realities as he knows them. This is surely

also a perfectly sound objection in law. We are not concerned here

to-day with what \vas the position seven hundred years or even one

hundred years ago. What the Court has to decide, according to the

Compromis, is the position to-day. The words are : "Whether the

sovereignty belongsV-not whether the sovereignty "belonged" in the

past. If we were to take the French argument literally and ignore

everytiiing that has happened "after the dispute was bom", asthey

Say, we rnight fmd ourselves arguing quite easily that, despite what

happened in 1776. New York is still really a British colony. If one

is to-ignore everything which happens "after the dispute is born",

as the French Say, al1 the acts of the United States Congress, let aIone

those of Jefferson and Lafayette, must equally be ignored. We shall

deal with this argument of "critical dates" in detail later, but it is,

I think, relevant to mention it here, to show how manifestly absurd

iC would be to ignore the modem history of the Minquiers and the

Ecréhous. For, we contend, it is precisely by such evidence, and by

no other, that the recent acts of peaceful and effective possession

required by international tribunals can be established.

As regards the geographical aspect of the case,some members of

the Court rnight possibly have been moved by the French plea that

these two groups are situated very close to France. But aIIthe Channef

instance,riçractually nearer to the French mainland than are thefor

Minquiers. Moreover, the Minquiers are nearer to Jersey than they

are to the mainland of France, and they are actually further away ,

3£rom the mainland of France than Jersey itself is. If any member of

the Court should feel sympathy with this particular French plea,

however, I would ask him to remember what I said earlier, that the

entity actually affected by these proceedings is Jersey. Now, al1 these

islands are closer to Jersey than they are to the French mainland.

It iç certainly not Our view that geogaphical propinquity is in itselfiis.

a ground of title, and we should never think of putting fonvard a

claim to the Minquiers and the Écréhous on that ground alone. Al1

that we Say, and this is what 1 want to draw to the attention of the

Court, is that in so far as this consideratioisat al1relevant, it operates

just as much in our favour as it does in that of France, if not more so.

To conclude these introductory remarks, 1 would like to Say some-

thing about the actual facts as they exist to-day, in relation to the

disputed groups. The claims of both the parties are alike in this, that

they are founded on a clah of ancient right and title. But there the

resemblance ends. The United Kingdom claim is also founded on

Iong continued effective possession and control of the groups and on

the actual and concrete exercise of sovereignty in respect of thern.

France's claim is not so founded, and it would be no exaggeration

to Say that the French claim is founded on an aIIeged original title

and nothing else-for never at any time-at any time at d-has

France, as France, ever possessed these groups or exercised the least

control or authorit y over them except during certain temporary military

occupations. Indeed, French acts of savereignty in respect of them

are virtually non-existent. You wiilhear in greater detail £romMr. Har-

rison later about the present-day situation, but to dl outward appear-

ance, these içlands are purely British and nothing else. The groups,

as the Court is weU aware, do not consist of mere rocks and reefs,

though our opponents have at times suggested that they do. A glance

at the photographs comprising the Annex C series to Our Mernorial

shows the faliacy of this-and 1 am sure the Court will carefully study

these photographs, which, I venture to suggest, are of considerable

intereçt. The two groups are adminiçtered aspart of parishes situated

in Jersey. The houses on them, owned by Jersey residents and others,

are registered in Jersey. Rates and taxes in respect of thern are paid

to the Jersey authorities. The same authorities have carried out public

works on the islandç, such as the construction of sljpways and landing

stages,the establishment of custom-houses, and so on. AU this has

been in existence for a long time. With the single exception, to which

nlr.Hamson wiii refer in due course, of a hut for the protection of

mariners in stormy weather, the houses and buildings on both groups

aredl Jersey or English owned. They have been erected by Jerseymen

or by the authorities of Jersey. There are no French residents there

nor are there any French perçons registered as owners of property

on the groups. The law which is applied there is purely Jersey law.

If the rnernbersccauldpay a visit to these islets, as I myself havedone,

they would find that such officiaisasthey met would be Jersey officia$;

the residents they found there would be Jersey or English. It would

be the arms of Jersey that they would find on the Custorn-House, .

the British flag on the flagstaff, andso forth. If they asked any owner

of property where his property was registered, they would be told

"in Jersey". If they askedto whom he paid his rates and taxes in ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L, HEALD (u.K.)-17 1x 53 25

respect of his property, they would be toId "to the Jersey authorities,

of course". If they asked when a French officialhad last visited either

of the groups, a Jerseyman would certainly answer : "Not within

living memory", or if he said "Never", it would probably not be very

far from the actual tnitli. They would also find much evidence, both

on the islets themselves and in Jersey, that this situation has been

in existence for a great many years, that it ha been in existence really

for centuries, and that the direct evidenceof it during the 1st century

and a half, or even longer, rvasabundant.

What better example, Mr. President, couId one have of the existence

and exercise of sovereignty ? The flagstaff, the execution of public

works, the imposition of local taxation, custom-houses, registration

of title to land, inquest on dead bodies, jurisdiction over criminal

ofThose being the actua! facts, the actual situationdineand relating to

these groups, the Court can well imagine the effect produced on the

rninds of the people of Jersey by this French claim, based as it ison

nothing more tangible or concrete than the claim of ancient right-

a highly technical claim, deriving from nothing more than an abstract

feudal title.

There is in fact absolutely no reality about this clai;and that is so

obvious to anyone who visits the islets that one cannot Iielp asking

perhaps-and 1 believe ithas been asked-what it is that has caused

this matter to be brought before the Court. Anyone ~vhoreads the diplo-

matic correspondence of the last 70 or 8o.years cannot faiI to be struck

by the fact that the claims, which France has at certain times put

forward, have remained paper claims, never followed up in any way.

As regards the Écréhous, no interchanges at al1 took place between the

parties after the year 1888, and very few about the Minquiers. Taken

in relation to the history of the case in the Middle,Ages and aftenvards,

and to the situation of fact in the islands which 1 have described, it

seems cIear that France, while not willing formally to abandon her

claim, was not prepared to assert it, or to ernbark on any attempt

actually to exercise sovereignty over the groups. We on the other hand

in Jersey were exercising sovereignty, and we had no doubt at al1about

our right so to do.

In Jersey, ashlr. Harrison will te11you, it never occurred to anyone

that these isIands were other than dependencies of Jersey and in every

respect British territory. Before the war there was no reason why the

case should ever come before an internation-a1 tribunal, because there

was really nodoubt about the position. It was really asan indirect reçult

of the war that this case has now come before the Court. During the

war, the Channel Islands were occupied by the Gerrnans, and Jersey

fishermen were forbidden to visit the Minquiers or the Ecréhous. When

the occupation ended, and natives of Jersey were for the first time in

five years able to go to these isIets, they found, especially at the Min-

quiers, that they were being fished by French fishermen in considerable

numbers. As Mr. Harrison will tell you and as appears from certain of

the affidavits of Jerseymen which have been reproduced in the annexes

to the written pleadings, this was something new-for in fact there was

very little French fishing at these islets before. 1 shodd perhaps have

mentioned that the mainland of France was liberated in 1944 but the

ejection of the Germans from the Channel Islands could not be effected26 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

until May 1945 .t was only then that this new state of affairs at the

Minquiers and the Écréhous was discovered, and a difficult situation

naturaliy arose, as the Jersey fishermen's Iivelihood was being senously

afiected by this cornpetition. The United Kingdom Governmcnt there-

fore asked the Government of the French Republic to recognize and

admit the British title. But, as1said just aow, the Government of the

French Republic, while it had in practice, and indeed really for many

centuries, acquiesced in the Britis phossession of these islets-not on

paper, of course, but in substance-the Government of the Republic

was not willing formally to admit our claim, and therefore the upshot

ofthe matter was the submission of the dispute to this Court.

It is not easy to understand the attitude of the French authorities

in regard to these groups. For example, they have let pass not only

without protest, but without the slightest comment, acts of the most

public character-clear exercises of State. aythori,ty-carried out by

the Jersey authorities in the Minquiers and the Ecréhous-acts of a l

kind such as-one would think-no country genuinely possessed of

sovereignty over a temtory could possibly pass over in silence if done

by another country. The French explanation of this-fhat they could

not be expeçted to know everything that was going on in the islets-

is not very convincing. It is, in fact, significant, for surely a govern-

ment does know what goes-on in what it claims as its territory, so

near its coasts.

Again, we shall show later how considerable is the extent to which

there can be said to have been a veritableBriti~hcornmrcnityliving,

or owning property, on the Minquiers and the Ecréhous, registenng

in Jersey the title totheir property or dwellings on the islets, paying

their rates and taxes for them to the Jersey authorities, and submitting

themselves generally to Jersey law and jurisdiction : and, of course,

no such French community at any time. I would ask the Court to

consider how extraordinary has been the attitude of the Govcrnment

of the French Republic to this, comrnunity, if, as our opponents

maintain, the Minquiers and the Ecréhous are, and always have been,

French. If this were correct, it would rnean that this comrnunity has

been living or owning property on French soil for one hundred years

or more. Yet there is no evidence that any French official ever went

of the application of French laiv, there is no judgment of any Frenche

courts in respect of them, or of anything occurring in thcm or in

relation to them. If the houses and buildings concerned are on French

soil, in what registcr of property is theowrierçhip recorded ? To what

French authorities have their owners ever bcen responsible for them,

or for any taxes or rates due in respect of them ? If this is indeed

French territory, how can it be explained that propertyha been bought

and sold there in accordance with Jersey law, and registered in Jersey?

Mr. President, iis notsufficient to Saythat al1this happened because

the pcrsons concerned were Jerseymen, that it was based on some

persona1 consideration. We shall bring out this point very clearly

Iater and we can show clearly that the basis of all these acts was not

personal but territorial. But in any event, surely the merc fact that

al1 those concerned were Jerseymen, or English, is significant. If this

were French soil, dependent on the French mainland, as our apponents

clairn, why were tliey not Frenchmen ? Why were not at least some ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

27

of them French, at any rate ? Normdly, if a country has sovereignty

over a given piece of temtory. the persons, or most of them, or some

of them at least, in that territory or owning property in it, would be

expected to be nationals of that country and not of some other.

We say, therefore, that al1 these things on the Minquiers and the

Ecréhous were carried out in accordance with Jersey law because this

was the applicable law and no other law was applicable. 1 would

invite the attention of the Court to the liçt of perçons given in

Annex A 98 to the United Kingdom Memorial as owning dwellings,

buildings or other property on the Minquiers or the Écréhous. If the

French claim were to be admitted, those persons would suddenly find

that they were and always had been subject to French Iaw, that their

property was on French, not British, soil, that even to visit their own

property they would require a passport and would Iiave to conform

to French immigration, customs, and other regulations. In other wordç,

they would find themselves in a position totally at variance with fact

and reality, and I submit that this is an aspect of the matter to which

the Court cannot fail to give the most serious attention.

If 1 may give one concrete example, if the Court would look at the

photograph Annex C6, Part IV,Volume IV, of the Memorial, the Court

will see there a picture of a two-storied house at Blanc lle, owned by

hfajorR. J. B. Bolitho, a Jersey resident. Rlr. President, Major Bolitho

and his wife are here to-day in Court, having sailed here in their oivn

boat from Jersey in order to attend this case to which they and the other

inhabitants of Jersey attach so much importance. Major Bolitho's wife

enjoys the name of Lemprière, one of the best-known names in Jersey,

and her family have owned this land for many, many years past. So

there we find a concrete example of someone, a man and his ivife, the

wife belonging to an ancient family of Jersey, who, ifthis Court were to

decicle in accordance with the French claim, will suddenly find that al1

this time, without knowing it, they have been really for al1 practical

purposes living in France. Well, that seems to me a rather remarkable

situation.

In thefirst instance, therefore, hlr. Presiden1maintain quite simply

that, although France claims sovereignty and, by insisting on that claim

in the face of al1 the realities, has compelled this dispute to be brought

before the Court, she has not in fact conducted herself in relation to the

islands as a country normally would do which possesses sovereignty.

The Jersey authorities, on the other hand, have, If you ask, for instance,

who constructed the necessary public works and facilities on theisIands,

again the answer is : the Jersey authorities. If you ask who has installed

and wlio keeps up the buoys, beacons, marks and other aids to the

navigation of the islands, the answer is the same. The French buoying

of the Minquiers, on wliich they rely, as we shallshow later, is outside

the reef or plateau, at a distance of more than threc miles from the

main islands, directed towards facilitating the entry of ships into St.

Ma10and Granville, and, in fnct, rather to keep shipping away from the

Minquiers than to facilitate the approach to it. Again, when you corne

to askywho has esercised the necessary jurisdiction in respect of offences,

who has held inquests and so on, the answer is equally : the authorities

and courts of Jersey. There isno trace of any evidence of such things

being cloneby any French authority. Equally one can Say this of espcndi-

ture. Considerable sums have been expended by the Jersey authorities : ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

28

none, so far as weknow, has ever been expended by France. Mr.Harrison

will give the details of this in due course: 1 shall not delay the Court

over them. It is, however, important to emphasize that claims to sover-

eignty cannot be divorced from responsibility for the territory claimed.

An affirmation of sovereignty involves a duty to carry outits obligations.

No one can doubt that it isby Jersey that these obligations and responsi-

bilities have, in fact, been carrieclout and discharged. France has not

been willing to make any forma1admission of the British claim, but she

has, nevertheless, been willing to allow the Jersey authorities to carry

out theresponsibilitiesand incur espenditure in connection with these

groups. 1 venture to suggest that these are points of significance. Deci-

sions of international tribunals, to which we shall later refer, showvery

clearIy the importance that has always becn attached to the question :

which party has demonstrated by its conduct its belief in the validity of

its claim, and has on that basis conducted itself after the manner of a

responsible sovereign authority ? . ,

Our opponents have, of course, naturally tried to discount and to

minimjze the significance of much that Jersey has done, principally,

I think, upon the ground-as 1 have already mentioned in passing-

that most of those acts are explicable on a basis of jurisdiction exercised

ratione @ersom over Jerseymen, not ratione soli .his argument, 1 sub-

mit, is misconceived. In the first place, it could not apply at ail to many

of the acts concerned, for example, the construction of public works

and facilities on the isletthe opening of cnstom-houses, and so on. For

these are clear acts 01sovereignty in any event.

As regards police and the exercisc of legal jurisdiction, thereisno

doubt at all-as iveshali suggest to the Court-that the basis is tem-

hearing from hlr. Hamson in due course, but also, 1suggest,h yasa matter

of generallegal principle.I willgire the Court one exampie-the holding

of inquesb on deceased perçons who might be found at the Minquiers

and the Ecréhous. The basis of this act could not be personal, for the

followingreasons. In the first place, the nationality of the deceased person

is,not officially established until the enquiry is held. Part of the object

of the enquiry, in fact, would be to ascertain the identity of the dead

person. Secondly, at the inquest no accused person is before the court,

for the other object of the enquiry is to ascertain how the deceased met

his death. It rnay have been accident, it may have been suicide: only

if the facts pointed to a crime ~vouldthe rnatter lead to a triaand that

would be quite a separate proceeding. Unquestionably, therefore, the

holding of an inquest on the finding of a dead body is an act of territorial

jurisdiction. Iis an enquiry carried outby authorities ofaterritory with

regard to something which has occurred in that territory, an adminis-

trative rather than a judicial act, carricd out as a measure of good

government. So far as 1 am aware, proceedings of thiç character are

never held except in respect of bodies which are found within the terri-

torial jurisdiction of the authority concerned. Can it be imagined that

the Jersey authorities would hold an inqucst on the death of a man in

France ? And, in fact, some of the deceased persons who have been

concemed in inquests in Jersey have, in fact, been Frenchmen whose

bodies have been found there, but the nationality of the deceaçed is

quite irrelevant. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

29

Mr. President, a few moments ago, when 1was refen-ing to the actual

list of residents in houses on these islets, 1 mentioned that one of those

inhabitants and hiswife were present here andhad come here in order

to act as representatives of al1those who were interested in the matter,

and 1 notice that the interpreter, who serves us so weii and faithfully

in these matters, did not mention that fact. 1 think that it is perhaps

desirable that itshould be made quite clear when people have taken

the trouble to come here inorder to show the great local interest in the

matter.

1 now wish to Say one word with regard to this question of rating.

Rating, as the Court wiil probably know, is an expression used particu-

larly in English law in relation to the local taxation of property, as

opposed to the word "taxes" which is used in relation to the national

taxation. Towards the bottom of page 721 of the French Rejoinder, 1

find it stated(1quote) :

"As regards the rating of houses, these mesures were in Jersey

and did not give rise to any important or overt act in thetemtory

under dispute."

The implication here is that no act is an act of sovereignty in relation

to given territory unless it takcs place inside that territory. There is, so

far as 1am aware, no warrant for any such proposition. History abounds

in examples ofacts of sovereignty carried out by or from one temtory

in relation to another. Canone think of a clearer example of an assertion

of sovereignty than the levying of taxes on houses and property ? In

no country in the world, 1believe, do the authorities levy taxes on houses

and property which is not within their jurisdiction. For example, if an

Englishman owns property in France, it is the French authorities who

levy the rates and taxes on that property. It would be inconceivable

that the United Kingdorn authorities wouid think of doing so, and

therefore surely such mesures are the clearest possible evidence that

the authorities concerned have, or at least claim to have, authority over

the territory in question. The passage which 1 cited from the French

Rejoinder continues as follows (1 quote) :

"Actually they [that is to Say, the rating measures] only consti-

tute evidence of the existence on those reefs of the houses on which

the rates were levied."

But surely these measures are evidencc of much more than that : they

are evidence of sovereignty over the territory, otlierwise the measures

could never have been taken. For such rates are essentially a Ievy for

services which the local authorities render in respect of the property

concerned. The services are rendered in respect of houseç and property

would not be rendering any service if the house was in France, even ifs

it belonged to a Jerseyman. They would leave that to the French author-

ities,,who would also Ievy the rates. It is just because the Minquiers and

the Ecréhousare Jersey territory that such rates are Ievied. There is no

other possible basis in law or principle that 1 can understand.

I think it is helpful if 1 invite the Court to consider a little more

closely what are the implications of the French attitude in these sorts

of matters. There is no attempt to show why, if the islets were French,

and, as is maintained, dependencies of the French coast, there is no ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

30

attempt to show why the houses on them were not French, registered

in France according to French law and with these rates levied upon

them by the local authorities inreturn for services performed for the

inhabitants by those authorities. There is no suggestion. that I am

aware of, of anyinstance of the exercise of jurisdiction ratione soli on

the basis of French law. It is merely denied that it has been so exercised

on the basis of English or Jersey law, Now if this were to be correct it

could surely only lead ta the conclusion that there is or was no law

territoridy applicable to this land at ali-thathe land is land without

a jus soliN,ow is that a tenable proposition ? In the first instance it

implies that the groups are or were res ndius. That will be discussed

nextrit fails to provide for something which with such islands asthese is

surely an absolute essentid. It might not matter very much if some

remote atollin the Pacific, or rock in the Arctic sea, lacks any applicable

jws soli but such a situation cannot be admissible with regard to islands

close to the mainland of Europe and close to important sea traffic

routes. Suppose, for example, that someone who is neither French nor

British were to commit a crime on these islands. Neither country could

try hirn rationepersonce,and if, as is apparently contended, there is no

applicable jus soli, there would be no power to arrest him and send

him back to his own country. Obvioudy there must be a jus solii: t is

required by reason andnecessity. And if so, what is it ? It must be

English or Jersey. Further, we Say that in fact and in history the sole

evidence of the exercise of jurisdiction, of the ap lication of law, isof

the application of English or Jersey lawand for eat, wc suggest, there

is a very good and sufficient reason which is this : that a art from

visiting fishermen, al1the residents on both groups anda11t1 e owners

of property are andalways have been Jerseymen or Englishmen and

nearly al1 the habitations, practically al1 the habitations, have always

been Jersey or English built and owned, with their title deeds registered

be Jersey or English law. That really cornes to the application of thell

old tag res ipsa loquitur, for it is just what one would expect, if the

islands are British islands, dependencies of Jersey. In those circum-

stances there would be notliing surprising in finding that the residents

and property owners are English or Jerseymen. It is what one would

expect. What would be surprising would be to find this degree of English

and Jersey residence and the absence ofFrench residence, if the groups

were French. That would indeed require some explanation. The obvious

conclusion is surely the natural one. Jersey people live on the islets and

own houses there, and Jersey law applies, because the islets are British,

and because they are dependencies of Jersey.

MT.President, 1have now cornpleted what 1 wish to say about what

1 might call the setting and context of this case, and 1 hope that 1

have not detained the Court too long with that part of my address.

Next, 1 would iike to tellthe Court how we propose to present Our

argument. It seems to us that this case falls naturally into three

different parts. There is first the older, more historical part, the events

of the Midde Ages and of Iater years up to the eighteenth and nine-

teenth centuries-what 1 might call the "ancient times". Next there

i"recent times", leading up to the very point where the dispute was referred to the Court. But then there is a third and quite separate

section of the case-in our view quite irrelevant and quite unnecessary

-which anses entirely from the French contention that al1the events

which have occurred since a date in 1839, when a certain Fishery Con-

vention*was signed between the Parties, should be ignored and treated

as if they never took place at all. This has always seemed to us to be

a very extraordinary contention, especially when one rernembers the

slender foundation on which it is based-a simple provision about

fishing for oysters-something that seems to have nothing to do with

any question of sovereignty. \Ve are not ail of us assembled here to-

day to decide to which country these islets belonged in 1839, but to

decide to which country they belong fiow.That was the question put

to the Court by the Special Agreement or Compromis which submitted

this dispute to the Court. And it seems a strange thing that our French

friends should now really seek, in efiect, to put a severe limitation

uthey have referred to it.e Court to decide the very question which

' However, since our opponents have raised this curious issue, we

shall be obliged to deal with it. Our scheme of presentation of the

case wiIl be this. My own remaining observations will be of a general

character relating to the case as a whole, but in the course of them 1

shaii try to bring out certain further points of particular interest and

importance. But 1 shall also draw the attention of the Court to certain

legal considerations, which arise out of past decisions of international

tnbunals on questions of territorial sovereignty, decisions which, in

our view, are of special relevance to the present case. Mr. Fitzmaurice

wili then deal with the French contention about the year 183-that

is, what has been called the question of the "critical date". Here 1

ought to Say at once that of course we in no way dispute that in this,

as in every other case of a disputed clairn to temtory, there must be

some date which can be described as the "critical date", subsequent

to which no legal significance or effect would attach to acts which

might otherwise be relevant from the point of view of title. We, how-

ever, differ from our opponents radically as to what that date should

be in the present case. According to us, the proper date to take for

that purpose is the date of the signature of the Compromis-Decem-

ber 2gth, 1950 O.bviously, anything which has happened since that date

can be disregarded. But, according to Our opponents, the critical date

is August znd, 1839,the date of the signature of the 1839 Fishery Con-

vention, and our opponents appear to have made this differencebetween

the Parties a principal issue in the case. We do not so regard it, as 1

have already pointed out, and we Say that, in effect, it isquite incon-

sistent with the very terms of the Compromis which has brought the

matter before the Court. The Court does not need to be reminded

whom the sovereignty at present rests. And it wouId be a strangee in

thing if,at the same time, one has to read into that document some

implication that there is some temporal bar to the Court considering,

and that the Court must shut its eyes to, these most important events

which have occurred dunng the last hundred years. But that issue,

however irrelevant it may be, is certainly the first-as obviously,

logically, it precedes ail the others. We shail therefore deal with it

first, for that reason only, not because of what we think of its intrinsic32 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 1X 53

importance-and, as1 have said, Mr. Fitzmaurice will assume that

task on oiir behalf. Then, Mr+Preçident, next Professor Wade, who

is Professor of the Law5of England in the University of Cambridge

(and, 1 may Say, one of the most distinpished living British author-

ities on constitutional law), will deal with the Middle Ages and the

following period ; and then Mr. Harrison, the Attorney-General for

Jersey, as you know, wiil deal with more recent events. He will put

the particular point of view of Jersey, andhe wïUbe able to deal with

certain interesting and important legal points, and, as 1 havealready

said, he will be speaking on behalf of people whose own position will

be directIy affected by the outcome of the case.

It may be convenient if, at this point, 1 recall to the Court what

the basis of the United Kingdom claim is, as pleaded and asmaintained

by us. In the first place, we argue that the United Kingdom is entitled

to sovereignty over the groups-and 1 quote the actual words that

have been used: "by reason of having established the existence of

a root of title in ancient times, which is supported by effective pos-

session in recent times to be found in acts which manifest continuous

and peaceful display of sovereignty over the territories". Secondly,

and in the alternative, we argue that the United Kingdom is entitled

to sovereignty over the groups (1quote) "by reason ofhaving established

title by effective poçsession alone, such possession being found in acts

which manifest a continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty over

the territories".

Those are our daims. But there are certain points arising out of

them which 1must clarify beyond any possibility of misunderstanding.

To begin with, the expressions "ancient" and "recent", which 1 used

just now, were first used in theMernorial-they were used before there

was any question of the raising of the date of 1839.And our expressions

"ancient" and "recent" have no relation to the year 1839 at all. We

regard 1839as a date which haî no significance ai all in thedispute,

and the use of those words "ancient" and "recent" arose from the

consideration that this case was essentially one in which the claimç

of the respective Parties should be considered as a whole over the

entire period. The division of the history into ancient and modem

times is simply for the purpose of çonvenience in dealing with the

matter, particularly having regard to the separation of the subject

between two speakers. When we used the expressions in the Memorial,

we had in mind certain famous words of Judge Huber in the Island

of Palnzascase, which 1 am sure are familiar to members of the Court.

They are to be found on page go8 of the report in Volume 22 of the

American journal ofInbernationalLaw, and they are these (1 quote) :

"It is not necessary that the display of sovereignty should be

established as having begun at a precise epoch; itsufices that

it had existed at the critical period ....It is quite natural that

the establishment of sovereignty may be the outcome of a slow

evolution, of a progressive intensification of State control."

Havlng that passage in mind, and having regard also to the fact

that this case covers a period of over a thousand years, the expressions

"ancient" and 'Irecent"-however loose-seem to US to have the

right significanceand thereforeto be suitable for use in stating the case. The second point arising out of our basis of clairn which I should

'like to make clear beyond any possibility of misunderstanding is this.

1 have already said that we are not interested in the date of 1839,

1 now wish to emphasize that, when in the second, or alternative,

claim we refer to our title based on "effective possession alone", we

are again not limiting ourselves in any way by reference to the year

1839. The second claim covers the entire period just as much as the

6rst. It affirrns that there are acts of effective possession, spread over

the entire thousand years. In the second claim, therefore, we provide

for the possibility-though of course we deny that it is so-that at

some point in time the title to sovereignty may have been with France ;

but we contend that, even if that was so, the United Kingdom has

exercised effective possession over the groups for a sufficiently long

period to be entitled now to claim sovereignty over them. In that

respect, and in that done, does the second claim differ from the first,

which assertts hat the United Kingdom done has been sovereign

over the groups throughout the entire period.

The fact, therefore, Mr. President, that Professor Wade will deal

with the period broadly up till the end of the eighteenth century and

that Mr. Harrison will deal wjth the period broadly after 1800, does

not in any way mean that Professor Wade is dealing with the first

part of the claim and Mr. Harrison with the second. It will also be

partof Professor Wade's task to show that the United Kingdorn can

invoke an ancient title and has supported that ancient title by effective

But it will also. be part of Professor Wade's task-andby Mrthis is what

1 am concerned to emphasize lest there should be any misunderstanding

-it will also be part of Professor Wade's task to show that, even if

we could not establish the existence of a root of title in ancient times,

we could nevertheless prove that by the nineteenth century the United

Kingdom was entitled to sovereignty over the groups by reason of

effective possession alone. If that should be the case, Mr. Harrison.

will equally be able to show that the title hasbeen effectively main-

tained evcr since, just as he will also be able to show that the title

which we claim asbeing rooted in ancient right has been effectively

maintained.

[Public sittingofSeptember17th,1953a ,jternoon]

Mr. President, when the Court adjourned I had just stated how we

proposed to put our case before the Court and I had said that 1 myself

intended to deal with one or two of the fundamental questions. I begin

now with a rhetorical question:what does one do-what does a govern-

ment ordinarily do-when it is called upon to prove or to make good a

claim to possess, and be the sovereign over, certain territory ? The

answer, surely, is that you bring forward positive evidence of your

sovereignty, by showing how, and in what way, you have exercised it,

and still do esercise it. You may show how your title originated-but

you would never normally stop at that. You would show that you not

only had a title, but that you exercised it-and wereexercising it now-

at the very moment. That is how the existence of sovereignty is proved. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L. HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

34

I ho e I can claim that this is just what the United Kingdom Govern-

ment R as done in its written pleadings. We claim an original root of

title in ancient times-but we have not rested on that. je have been

at pains to show that we have exercised this sovereignty and have

exercised it for a very long time. We have brought forward a great mass

of carefully documented and fully authenticated evidence, which not

only supports our claim to possess sovereignty, but also shows in very

considerable detail how we have exercised this sovereignty in concrete

fashion. In short, we have made a serious-and 1hope not unsuccessful

-attempt to prove Our case.

To what extent then have Our opponents demonstrated or tried to

demonstrate theirsovereignty ? To ascertain this, we must examine what

exactly the French case consists of. And I am bound to suggest that it

consists not of any real affirmative proof of French title, but much more

of an attack on the United Kingdom evidence, with a view to weakening

or destroying its value. It is in fact a negative case,1ashall show later

that it depends almost exclus~vely on establishing and rnaintaining a

presumption ofan original French sovereignty, which, it is said, must be

assumed still to exist. Yet, as the preamble of Article II of the Com-

title:the French Government paysr eaclipaservice to this proposition, but

then fails altogether to accept its implications. As we pointed out in

paragraph 182 of our Memorial, the fact that the United Kingdom put

in the first written pleading, andisopening the present oral hearing, in

no way makes us plaintiff, or France defendant. It creates no presump-

tion of French sovereignty to be displaced by us, nor does it relieve Our

opponents from the obligation to prove their own title. If indeed any

presumption could be said to exist in the matter, it would surely be in

favour of the United Kingdom, which is unquestionably actualky exer-

cising the sovereignty at the present time.

In any event, the fact that the French case takes the form essentially

of an attack on the United Kingdom evidence, emphasizes that al1the

positive evidence of title which the Parties are able to adduce cornes

from the British side. The Court cannot ignore the fact that practically

every originai document, practically all the evidence of the concrete

exercise of sovereignty, has been put inby us,

If the Court will look at the Annexes to the British Memorial, it will

find na less than about 75 of such documents and pieces of evidence in

the Annexes A 7-22 and A 79-140I. n the French Counter-Memorial,

where, if anywhere, one might have expecled ta find the positive evid-

ence of the French title, there is hardlyasingle original document, and

hardly any extracts from contemporary records, cxcept such as had

already been cited by us. The whole French Counter-Mernorial on its

historical side is simply an attempted refutation of the English case, not

a statement ofa French claim to the islets.

Similarly, the Court will findannexed to the United KingdomReply

more original documents or pieces of concrete evidence, and still more

are furnished in the volume of Additional Annexes ; whereas annexed

to the French Rejoinder there is nothing except some material relating

the Bay of Cotentin. This obviously can have a nodrjuridical relevance of

any kind to the question of titIe, and indeed, if it were reaIIy material,

would it surely not have made such a tardy appearance in the pleadings. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53 35

Now, as with the earlier periods, it is equally noticeable that virtually

ail the evidence of concrete exercise of sovereignty over the groups in

the last 150years cornesfrom the United Kingdom's side. To set against

this, the Government of the Republic can in the same period onlyinvoke

three acts, al1of them incidentally relating to the Minquiers alone. As

regards the Écréhous there are non?. These three acts relative to the

Minquiers are considered in detail in the United Kingdom Reply, para-

graphs 233-239 w,here it is shown why we contend that they are quite

insufficient to support the French claim. We shall go into this again

later ;1merely surnrnarize the facts now.

The French pleadings and their method of presentation of documents

consist of the allegation that modern acts are al1 automatically and

ipso facto without value because they occurred after 1839 (although,

in fact, even if it could be accepted that 1839 were the critical date,

some of the acts occurred before that date). Or else-this was an earlier

to the period 1869-~876wd , hen the dispute is said to have been "born"s

(though here again, even if that date could bc accepted, many of the

acts in question occurred before). Alternatively, the value of individual

acts is attacked upon the basis that most of them can be explained

as exercises of jurisdiction ratione persona rather than ratione soli.

In any case, the French position appears to be not only that the Gov-

ernrnent of the Republic need not show any manifestations of French

sovereignty .during this period, but that it is not even necessary

seriously to consider the United Kingdom acts. The general line taken

-1 quote from page 399 of the Counter-Memorial-is that the Govern-

ment of the Republic considers it(1 quote) : "..., unnecessary to

proceed to a detailed examination of the factuaI arguments brought

forward in the British Mernorial" in respect of the more recent periods.

But whatever Our opponents may Say, we cannot believe that the

Court will refuse to give this very important evidence the attention

and consideration it obviously merits. \Ve believe that no court would

care to give a decision in a case of this kind that took no account of

anything that had happened in the previous 114 years. Ive suggest,

moreover, that when the Court finds that the whole case, broadiy

looked at, consists of a process whereby one side furnishes al1or nearly

al1the positive evidence of title,and the other side produces practically

no counter-evidence, but merely criticizes the value of the other's

evidence, or seeks to write it off as beinga firiori irrelevant, there can

only be one deduction. Even if it were considered that not al1

the evidence produced on the British sideisconclusive, or even capable

of being questioned, and even if tliere can be said to be certain gaps

and lacun2 or unexplained factors, nevertheless, it is virtually the

only positive evidence that exists :there is a considerable quantity of

itand it all points one way.

If, therefore, the question which the Court has to determine is, as

we believe, which of the two countries ha the superior title, then we

venture to think that, taking the weight of the evidence as a whole,

there can only be one answer.

1 would like to give just one example of the French technique of

mere denial to which I have been referring ; others willemerge later.

For this instance 1 go back to the Middle Ageç. The Court will recollect

that the Abbot of Val-Richer, throggh his Prior on the gcréhous,36 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L, HEALD (u.K,)-17 IX 53

was summoned to appear, and did appear, before the King's Justices;

in Jersey on a writ of quo warranta, to answer in respect of certain.

matters affecting his priory. We have claimed this as constituting a.

clear exercise of sovereign jurisdiction over the Écréhous, and as'an,

acknowledgment of it on the part of the Prior, who wns not an English--

man-so that there could be no question here of any exercise of juris--

diction ratione persona. If, therefore, the Prior, or his syperior the

Abbot-equally not an Englishman-had considered the Ecréhous to~

be French territory, they must surely have refused to appear before.

an English court and would have regarded themselves as answerable,

only to a French court. On this basis we have argued that the outcome-

of the proceedlngs was irnmaterial. Whai counted was the clear exercise.

and admission of territorial jurisdiction. That the jurisdiction was in.

fact territorial admits of no doubt, since the subject-matter of the.

proceedings was a nght of property in land, and it is a universal:

principle of law, applicable then, as now, that jurisdiction in respect

of territorial rights can only be exercised by the courts of the country-

in which the land issituated or uncler whose sovereignty it cornes,

The point that I wish to make at this stage is that the French method. !

of dealing with this particular matter is sirnply to deny that the appear--

ance of the Prior before the King's courts in Jersey had any implication

that the Écréhous was English. Our opponents fumish no counter-.

courts,eorthat French courts everconcerned thernseIveswith the Ecrehous.

before any French court in respect of the Ecréhous, as the Prior didd

before the English court. Thus, the only positive evidenceof the ex-ercise-

of jurisdiction by any courts over the Ecréhousat that period is on the

part of the English courts, and of this fact the Court cannotfail to takea

due account. Broadly, it is the same thing al1along the line.

Mr. President, we naturally do not criticize our opponents for their.

failure to adduce positive evidence ofany actual French exercise of sov--

ereignty. They cannot make bricks without straw. But the significant fact

remains that this negative presentation of their case is the best that

they can dc-the only thing they can do in the absence of any positive-

evidence. Even if Ouropponents succeeded in discounting the significance-

of the British evidences of title, they would still, we suggest, not have.

eçtablished the title of France, because they have shown no instance in

which, in all the long history of these islands, France has ever actuaUy.

exercisedany sovereignty over, or in respect of, them. Yet the dispute-

has been submitted to the Court under the Compromis on the basis-

that in fact these islands must be under the sovereignty of one or other.

of the two couniries, Can there then be any doubt that they must be-

under the sovereignty of that one ofthem which can produce the greatest

weight of positive evidence in support of its claim ? And can there be-

any doubt, if the evidence islooked at as a whole, that the country which

can do this is the United Kingdom 7 We shaU show that so far as any

considerations based on history, geography, or contiguity are concemed,

we can at least match any title France can put fornard ;while, on the-

other hand, we can put forward an incornparably greater weight of-

evidence of the actual exercise of sovereignty far exceeding, particularly.

(but by no means exclusively) during the last century or two, anything.

Francecan addüce. ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD @.K.)-17 IX 53 37

1have insisted somewhat on this matter because, unleçs the evidence

were looked at as a whole, it would be very easy to corne to a conclusion

which woüld not accord with the facts or the realities of the situation.

The history of the case extends to over a thousand years if we take as

the starting point the year 933,at about which time William Longsword,

Duke of Normandy, extended his nile over the Channel Islands. It is

now 1953-one thousand and twenty years on. Much that has happened

in those thousand and twenty years may be obscure, there are certain

gaps and silences, there is room for dispute and argument, and the

medievalists may not always agree about the exact value or legal effect

of this or that act or factor. Rut al1 doubt and uncertainty vanishes

when we look at the case and the evidence as a whole, for then the

picture is one of Britishvereigiity definitely and continuously exercised

for many centuries and evidenced b numerous concrete acts.

May 1 now carry my analysis O rthe French case a stage further.

Careful consideration wiIl show not only that it is a negative case.

offering practically no evidence of French exercise of sovereignty, but

also that it is founded and depends on one single, simple and all-

embracing proposition, which really constitutes the entire French case.

This proposition isas follows. Our opponents Say that France originally

had the sovereignty, in the serise that it was vested in the Kings of

France asfeudal overlords of the Dukes of Normandy. (Whether that

view is correct or not,1 am not concerned at this moment to discuçs,

though, aswe shall show later, it is in fact dubious. However, 1 will

pass that over for the moment.) The next step in the French argument

is that soon after 1200 the Channel Islands became separated from

continental Normandy ; but, according to. the French thesis, the

sovereignty of the Kings of France over the Channel Islands auto- '

matically continued except to the extent to which the English were

or came to be in actual possession or control of any of the islands.

and control of certain of the islands such as Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney

and others, but, according to our opponents, we cannot show this

with regard to the Minquiers and Écréhous. Consequently, they Say,

the original French sovereignty over these two groups automatically

continued and still exists to-day.

Such is, fundamentally, the French argument, and on that basis

Our French friends, metaphoricall speaking, sit back and say that

there is no more for them-to do. I he bal1 is now in our court and it

is for us to prove out effective possession and control of ttwo groupa

in dispute. If we cannot do this, they say, France must be adjudged

sovereign, and therefore al1 that the Government of the Republic

has to do is to show that the evidence we can adduce of having exer-

cised, and of nolv exercising, the effective possession and control is,

for one reason or other, dubious, or valueless for the purpose of

establishing our sovereignty. If the Court wili look atpage 722 of the

French Rejoinder, and at the conclusion which appears asthe final

paragraph of Sub-Section 1, it will see that the French position is,

in effect, precisely as1 have suggested, narnely, it is said that the

United Kingdom is not entitled to invoke any acts perforrned çub-

sequent to 1839, and France is not under any necessity to do so,

but need only show that the United Kingdom acts are inadequate or

invalid.38 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR L.HEALD (u.K.)-17 IX 53

It is literally true, therefore, that the Frenchcase begins and ends

with the Middle Ages. After that there isnothing. Even in the Middle

Ages what was there? Nothing but an abstractioa-nothing but a

bare feudal right devoid of any content or substance.

Now, Mr. Yresident, as I shall presently show, on the bais of

revious decisions of international tnbunals, the French attitude which

P have describcd is unsound, and the whole French thesis is based

upon a misconception. For international law requires something more

than ancient titles or abstract right. It is