United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania (1949)

The Corfu Channel case explains three ideas: jurisdiction of the ICJ, innocent passage through international straits, and state responsibility. Albania was held responsible for the mine explosions by circumstantial evidence. The UK’s later minesweeping inside Albanian waters was ruled unlawful.

• ICJ had jurisdiction based on Albania’s acceptance (no rigid form needed).
• UK warships enjoyed innocent passage through the strait.
• Albania owed reparations (£844,000); UK’s self-help minesweeping violated sovereignty.

1. Did the ICJ have jurisdiction over the dispute?
2. Was the UK’s minesweeping operation in Albanian waters lawful?
3. Could circumstantial evidence fix state responsibility on Albania?

• Consent to Jurisdiction: Acceptance can be express or implied; no fixed form is required.
• Innocent Passage: Ships may pass through international straits so long as the passage is peaceful and not prejudicial.
• Sovereignty & Non-Intervention: Self-help operations inside another state’s waters breach sovereignty.
• Circumstantial Evidence: Allowed where direct proof is unavailable due to a state’s exclusive control over facts.
• Reparation: A responsible state must make good the injury (here, money damages).

The ICJ delivered three rulings. It confirmed jurisdiction (1948), held Albania responsible for the explosions by circumstantial evidence and recognised the UK’s innocent passage (April 1949), and ordered £844,000 as reparations (December 1949). The UK’s minesweeping inside Albanian waters was declared unlawful.

1. Consent to ICJ: A state’s acceptance can be inferred from its communications; no strict formality.
2. Circumstantial proof: When facts lie within a state’s control, responsibility can be inferred from strong circumstances.
3. Innocent passage vs sovereignty: Passage was lawful; self-help minesweeping was not.
4. Reparation duty: A responsible state must compensate the injury caused.

The case is a starter pack for PIL: how the ICJ takes jurisdiction, how innocent passage works in straits, how sovereignty limits unilateral action, and how reparations are calculated. It is frequently cited in exams and memos.

• Jurisdiction can be accepted without rigid forms.
• Circumstantial evidence can ground state responsibility.
• Innocent passage ≠ license for self-help operations.
• Reparations make the injured state whole (money damages here).

Mnemonic: C-I-R-R = Consent → Innocent passage → Responsibility (circumstantial) → Reparation.

1. Consent: Check how ICJ gets jurisdiction.
2. Innocent Passage: Passage OK; intervention not.
3. Remedy: Responsibility leads to money damages.

Issue: Who is responsible for the mine damage, was the UK’s passage lawful, and could the UK sweep mines inside Albanian waters?

Rule: Consent to ICJ; innocent passage in international straits; sovereignty and non-intervention; circumstantial proof allowed; reparation principle.

Application: Albania had control of the area; mines likely laid with its knowledge → responsibility. UK’s passage was innocent; but later minesweeping breached sovereignty.

Conclusion: Albania responsible; UK’s minesweeping unlawful; reparations awarded (£844,000).

Innocent Passage

Peaceful transit through an international strait without harming the coastal state’s security.

Circumstantial Evidence

Facts that, taken together, strongly point to a conclusion when direct proof is unavailable.

Reparation

Compensation or other relief owed by a responsible state for its internationally wrongful act.