I.G.J. Communique NO, 53/40 (unoff icial)

The following information fmm the Registry of th2 International Court of Justice has been communica'ted to the Press:

To-day, November l7th, 1953, Ghc International Court of Justice at . . Tho Hague gave its Judgmei~tin t:ic case of the ~4.ljuiquivrsad %lm Ecrehas submitted to i.t by virtue of a Special Agreement concluded between the . Unitki Kingdom and Frmce on Decomb2r 29th, 19.50. In n unanimaus dccision, tho Court fou.nd thni sovereignty ovcr the islets and rocks of the Ecrehos and the i4inquiers groups, in so far as these islets and rocks ' ar z cap8ble of nppropr j-ation, belongs to th ¢ United Kingdom.

In its Judgment, tlze Court hegan by definbg th0 task laid before it by the Parties, The two groups of islets in question lie betwecn the British Channel Islmd of Jersey and the coast of Prwco. The Gcrahos fie 3-9 sea miles from the former and 6.6 sea miles from the latter. The Piinquiers group lie 9.8 sea miles fmm Jersey ,and 16.2 sea milos from the French minland md 8 miles atray fsom the Chausey isbtnds ~fhich,belongta France. Under the Special Agre~ment, the Court. was asked to determine whlck of the Parties had producad the more convincing proof of title to these groi;ps lhnd any possibility of applying to them the statu8 'of terra nullius was set aside. In addition, the question of burden of proof was reservedi each Party therefore had to proTe Its aUeged title and the facts upon which Tt relied. FinaUy, wkn the Special Agreement refers to islets and rocks, bn so far as they are capable of appropriation, it must be considersd that these terms relate to islets ad rocks phgsically capable of appropriation. The Court did not have ta determine in dztail. the fclcts relating to the particular units of. the two groups,

The Court then ewd&ed the titles hvoked by both Parties. The Unitcà Kingdom bvernment derives its ti-tle f mm the conquest of England by Mll1i;im Duke of Mormmdy in 1.066, The union thus established between Znghd and the hchy of Nomndy, Ixicluding the Channel Islands, hsted mtil lîQl+, when Pbilip :!ugustus of France conguered continental. Normandy. But, his attempts to occupy also the islands havlng been unsuccessful, the United Kingdom submitted the view that al1 of the Chamel Iskmds, includuig the Xcrehos and the Piinquiers, rmined united with :&gland bhat this situath-i of fnct w2,s placed on a LegA basis by subsequent trext ies concluded between the two c ouritries. The French C-overnment contended for its part that, af ter 1204, the King of Frmce held the Minquiers and the Ecrehos, to.gether with some other isLands close to the Continent, and referred to the sme mediaaval treaties as thoke hvokod by the United Khgdom.

The Court found that none of those treotios (Troaty of Paris of U59, Tretzty of Calais of 1160, Treaty of Troyes of U20) specified . which islmds were held by the King of Engld or by the King of France. There ara, however, othcr ,mcient documents whick provide some indica- tions as to th% possession of the islets in dispute. The United Kingdom relied on them to show that the Chzmel Iskndç were considsred as asl entity and, since the more important islnnds were h~ldby Engbd, this country alsn possessed the graups in dispute. For the Court, there appears to be a strong presum9tion jn falrour of this view, rdthout it beluig possible, however, to dr3.v~ nny definitive conclusion as to the sovereignty over the groups, sulce this question mst ultimtcly depend

on the evidence which rel@es direqtly. to.. possession. ,

For its part, the French Governmen-t; s;~w a preswnption in favow of French 'sovereipty in the f eudnl . link beheen the Ring of Frmco, everlord of the whole of ru'omdy, the King of Zrighd, ,fis nss21 for these tarritories. h this comection, It relies on n Judpent of the Court of .,o. of France of 1202, vrllich condcmod John Lacklmd to forfzit nll the Imds whlch he hvld tn fco of th0 Iibg of Frmca, including the whole of 1Vormri.ndy. Sut the United Kingdom Goverment contands thnt the feudal titla of the French Kkgs in respect of Normncly w:s only nominal, It dznies that the Ch,?.nncl Jsl~~ndswere rocoivcd in fee of th2 King of France by tha &Ac: of Nom~ndy, 3.nd contests the vnlidity, mc! cven the existence, of the judpent of 1202. i,!ithout solving those historical controversies, the Cpurt considered it suff icient to state th~tthe legal effects attached to the dismembarmznt of the Duchy of i\iormnndg in 1204, when Nomwdy W~B occupied by the French, have bezn superseded by the numerous events which occurred jn the followhg centuries. h the ophion of the Court, what is of decisive inportmcz is not indirect prcsumptions based on mtters in the Kiddlc Agcs, but tlîe evidence hich rolates directly to the possession of the groups.

Before considering this zvidencc, the Court first ex~~edcertain questions concerning 60th groups. The French Govzrnment contended thnt a Convent ion on f ishery, c oncluded in 1839, although it did not settle the question of sov:rcignty, nffected however Wlnb question. It is said that the groups in dispute were included in the com~zonfishery zone crented by the Convention. It is s;:id also that th2 conclusion of this Convention precludes the Parties frou relyuig on subseguent acts involving a nsni- e festation of sovereignty. The Court was uncble to nccept these contentions because the Convention denlt with the wsters only, and net the common user of the torritory of the islets. In the special circum- stances,of the czse, md in view of tha date at wllich n dispute real3y nrosc between the two Qoverwrients zbout these groups, the Court shall consider al1 the acts of the Parties, unless nny men,sure was tnken with a view to improving the legnl position of the Party concerned,

The Covrt then exvnined the situation of cach -group. Mith regard- to the Gcrehos jn pnrticular, md on the basis of vnrious mediaeval documents, it held the vizw thnt the Ring of figL,md excrcised hi, justice Gd levied his rights in these iilets. Those documents also . show that there was nt thnt tirne n close relntionship between the Ecrehos md Jersey.

From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the connection beccame closer ngain, because of the graving importance of oyster fisheqr. The Court attached probative value to various ncts relating to the exerçisa by Jersey of jurisdiction and loc,d ndministrnt ion and to legis~~.tion, such as criminal proceedhgs concerning the Ecrehos, the levyhg of tason hzbitnble hauses or huts built on the islets since 1889, the registx~~tionin Jorsey of coïitracts dealing with real estate on the Ecrchos . The Frznch Governent invoked the füct that In 1646 tho States of Jerscy prohj-nited fishing ,2t the Scrchas and the Chausey and restricted visits. to the Scr~hosin 1692. TL meztioned alse diplomtic exchanges bet,wcen 'thelm0 Governments, in the beginning of the nineteenth cantury, to which were attnched chnrts on which part of the Screhos at hast was rmrked outside Jerscy mtzrs and treztsd as res nullius. In a note to 'the Foreigi OffiCe of Decembcr 55th, 1886, the French Crwernment , claimed for the first t,he s~vereigntyover tho Ecrel~as.

I Appraising the r.?lative strenah of the opposhg claims in the light of these fncts,the Court found that sovarzignty over the Zcrehos . .belongzd to the Gnited Kingdom. Kith regard to the I)iinquiers, the Court noted th& in 1615, 1616, 1617 and 1692, the iknorinl court of the fief of Mairmont in Jersey

, . ex~rcisedits jurisdiction in the cese of wrecks found at the Plquiers, because of the territorial chnrac t er of that jurisdict ion.

Other ,-', ;, Other evidençe concernirig the end of the eighteenth çentury, the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries concerned inquests en corpses found at the fin@ers, the erection on the islets of habitable houses or huts by persons from Jersey who paid property taxes on that account, the registration in Jersey of contracts of sale relating to real property in the Plinquiers. These various facts show that Jersey . authorities have, in several ways, exercised ordinary local adminis- tration in respect of the Enquiers durlng a long periad of tim and that, for a considerable part of the nineteenth century and the twentletn century , British authoritics have exercised State functions in respect of this group,

The French Goverm-nt alleged certain facts, It contended that the Minquiers were a dependencg of the Chausey Islands, granted by the Duke of Nomdy to the Abbeg a£ Nont-Saint-Hichel in 1022. In 1784 a correspondence be-tween French authoritics conccrnzd an application for a concession in r~spcctof the mnquicrs made by a French national. The Court held the view that this corrcspondence did not disclose anflhing which coüld support the prcs cnt French clalm ta soverei gnty, but that it revealed certain fears of creating difficultics vith the English Crorin. The French Gowrnmcnt furthcr contended that, since 1861, it has assunied the sale charg;: of the lighting and buoying of the Minquiers, htithout having oncountcred any objection from the United Kingdom, The Court said that the buoys phced by the French bvemunent at the mnquiers were placed outside the rcefs of the groups and purported to aid navigation to and fram French ports and protect shipping against the dangerous rzef s of the Knquiars, Thc Frunch Government also relied on various official visits to the Iviinquicrs and the erection in 1939 of a house on onc of thc islets with a subsidy from the Mayor of Granville, in continental Normndy .

The Court did not find that the facts invoked by the French Goverment were sufficiont to show that France has a valid title to the Phquiers, As to the nbove-mntioned facts from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in particular, such acts could hardly be considered as sufficient evidence of the intention of that Goverment Lo ect as sovereign over the islets, Nor wero thosc ncts of such a character that they could bo considercd as involving n manifestation of State authority in resgect af the islets,

In such circmt~nces,and having rcgtrd -to the vler.r exprcssed above with regard to thc evidence produccd by the United Kingdom Goverment, the Court was of opinion that the sowreignty ever the Plinquiers belongs to the United Kingdom.

Availing tnemelves of the rigkt conferrcd on them by Article 57 of the Statute, Judges ksdcvant and Carneiro, while concurring in the declsion of the Court, appcnded tc the Judgmcnt statements of the* individual opinions. Judge Alvarez, hile also con~urringin the

' decision of the Court, made a dcclaration expressing rcgrct that the Parties had attMbuted exces sivé importance to mediaeval evidence and had not sufficiently taken into account the state of international law or its present tendencies in regard to tcrritorinl sovereignty.

The Hep, Novembcr L7th, 1957.