Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 209 views

    Case Concerning East Timor

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Gacutan
    The International Court of Justice heard a case between Portugal and Australia in 1995 regarding a treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia over oil and gas exploration rights in the Timor Gap region. Portugal argued it held administrative authority over East Timor and the treaty violated East Timorese self-determination rights. However, the Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction as Indonesia, whose authority was fundamental to the dispute, did not consent to the Court's jurisdiction over matters involving its state. The principle of state consent is critical to the Court's ability to arbitrate international disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Concerning East Timor

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Gacutan
    209 views2 pages
    The International Court of Justice heard a case between Portugal and Australia in 1995 regarding a treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia over oil and gas exploration rights in the Timor Gap region. Portugal argued it held administrative authority over East Timor and the treaty violated East Timorese self-determination rights. However, the Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction as Indonesia, whose authority was fundamental to the dispute, did not consent to the Court's jurisdiction over matters involving its state. The principle of state consent is critical to the Court's ability to arbitrate international disputes.

    Original Description:

    Case Concerning East Timor

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The International Court of Justice heard a case between Portugal and Australia in 1995 regarding a treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia over oil and gas exploration rights in the Timor Gap region. Portugal argued it held administrative authority over East Timor and the treaty violated East Timorese self-determination rights. However, the Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction as Indonesia, whose authority was fundamental to the dispute, did not consent to the Court's jurisdiction over matters involving its state. The principle of state consent is critical to the Court's ability to arbitrate international disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    209 views2 pages

    Case Concerning East Timor

    Uploaded by

    Cathy Gacutan
    The International Court of Justice heard a case between Portugal and Australia in 1995 regarding a treaty signed between Australia and Indonesia over oil and gas exploration rights in the Timor Gap region. Portugal argued it held administrative authority over East Timor and the treaty violated East Timorese self-determination rights. However, the Court ruled it did not have jurisdiction as Indonesia, whose authority was fundamental to the dispute, did not consent to the Court's jurisdiction over matters involving its state. The principle of state consent is critical to the Court's ability to arbitrate international disputes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case Concerning East Timor

    (Portugal v. Australia) International Court of Justice Reports 1995


    1. The International Court of Justice heard this case in 1995, and decided the case by
    fourteen votes to two.
    2. In the Treaty of 1989 between Indonesia and Australia, the two countries
    negotiated terms of agreements regarding the exploration and use of resources by
    both parties found in the area located between the south coast of East Timor and
    the northern coast of Australia known as the Timor Gap. Portugal argues that
    Indonesia does not have the authority to enter into treaties regarding East Timor
    because Portugal is the legal administrative authority as decreed by the Security
    Council of the United Nations. Therefore, Australia has proceeded in unlawful
    actions against Portugal and against the people of East Timor and their right to
    self-determination.
    3. The Plaintiff in this case is the Portuguese Republic (Portugal) who argues that
    when Australia signed the Treaty of 1989 with Indonesia regarding the Timor
    Gap, it did not respect the administrative authority of Portugal concerning East
    Timor, and thus, did not respect the right of the people of East Timor to selfdetermination.
    4. The Defendant in this case is the Commonwealth of Australia (Australia) who
    asserts that Indonesia is the legal authority concerning East Timor. Thus, there is
    no dispute between Portugal and Australia because Portugal has no standing to
    bring this case. In addition, the Court does not have jurisdiction in this case
    because Indonesia did not give compulsory jurisdiction to the Court. Therefore, it
    did not give consent to have matters regarding Indonesia and its territories
    decided by this Court.
    Questions
    1. Is there a dispute between Portugal and Australia?
    2. Does the Court have the jurisdiction to decide this case?
    Decisions
    1. The Court ruled that there was a dispute between Portugal and Australia
    regardless of whether Portugal had standing to bring this case. The Court
    reasoned that because there was a disagreement between facts and points of law,
    there was a conflict of legal views and thus, a dispute.
    2. The Court declared that it did not have jurisdiction to decide this case. Because
    the fundamental question pertinent to this conflict was, Who possessed the
    ultimate power to negotiate a treaty concerning East Timor, Indonesia or
    Portugal? the Court would
    have to decide on matters concerning Indonesian state and authority. Because Indonesia
    did not give consent for matters regarding its state, conflicts, and conduct to be heard to

    the Court, the International Court of Justice was unable to hear the case based on Article
    35, paragraph 2 of the Court Statute, which states that parties must give consent to the
    Court.
    Principles
    1. Jurisdiction is the main international law principle relevant to this case. .
    2. Consent to jurisdiction is an important international law principle that decides this
    case.
    3. The definition of a dispute is when there is disagreement between two parties on
    facts or the basis of legal points.
    Conclusion
    This case is important because it discusses the importance of jurisdiction in the Courts
    ability to hear and arbitrate a case. This is extremely important in international affairs and
    international law when peaceful means of arbitration are sought to settle international
    disputes.
    If a state does not recognize or consent to a courts authority to decide on an issue, it is
    logical to conclude that this state might not abide by the judgments of the court
    concerning their state affairs. Therefore, peaceful settlements of disputes between nations
    could be difficult to achieve.

    You might also like