<p>The case of the S.S. Wimbledon is all about sovereignty. </p><p>The Facts In 1923, the situation in international law (particularly as regards international treaty making) was struggling to come to terms with the concept of state sovereignty. How could a state be completely sovereign, yet remain bound to some higher “authority” in the form of a treaty signed with another sovereign state?</p><p>The situation in this case regards the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and German sovereignty. The British ship, the S.S. Wimbledon (owned by a French company) attempted to carry munitions and supplies to Poland as they fought a war with Russia. Germany refused the boat access through the Kiel Canal. The canal is in German territory. Germany was a neutral party in the war and it did not wish to support either side. The application was made to the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) to gain damages for lost time and money in the transport of the goods. </p><p>The Applicants How can one possibly argue against Article 380? The applicants submitted the request before the PCIJ on the grounds of wrongfulness by German authorities when they refused access to the ship. The Neutrality Orders issued by Germany, were defined as inconsistant with Article 380 of the Treaty of Versailles. “The Kiel Canal and its approaches shall be maintained free and open to the vessels of commerce and war of all nations at peace with Germany on terms of entire equality.” This article has an uncomprimising tone, The boat was surely allowed to pass on this basis?</p><p>The respondents Surely the sovereignty of Germany would allow her to protect her neutrality? The agent for Germany argued that Germany was sovereign over her own lands. The Article should not compromise her sovereignty or her sovereign right to neutrality. Boats could be refused access on many grounds, neutrality should be one.</p><p>Jurisprudence As we can see, sovereignty is at the heart of the case. The judgement in the “Wimbledon” case was made in 1923 and has been used as precedent ever since. Howcan we apply the principle of sovereignty to our modern world (with international organisations etc)? Is the case out of date? Should a state only be bound by a treaty only while the treaty provides fruitful results (or until circumstances fundamentally change)?</p><p>We wish to prompt questions in this summary. </p><p>The judgement – the court ruled in favour of the applicants. Treaty making is an attribute of sovereignty, Germany (and all states), although sovereign are without doubt bound to the treaties they sign. </p>