S.S WIMBELDON V/S GERMANY- (Case Commentary)

 INTRODUCTION

S.S. The "Wimbledon" case, Britain and others. v. Germany, (1923) PCIJ Series A01 is the judgment of the Permanent Court given on August 17, 1923. The case relates primarily to issues of sovereignty, contractual obligations and internal law and jurisprudence. To international sewers. The British, French, Italian and Japanese governments filed an application with the Court Registry (PCIJ) against the German government on January 16, 1923. PCIJ decided to hear the case on August 17, 1923.

Background of the case.

The English steamship "Wimbledon", time-chartered by the French company Les Afratours Runis, was loaded on the Salonica in March 1921, with cargo of arms and artillery to the Polish naval base at Danzig. While the ship was sailing at the entrance to the Kiel Canal, permission to go was denied by the Director of Canal Traffic, who based his action on German neutral orders issued in connection with the Russo-Polish war, based on the instructions, he received. The French ambassador to Berlin urged the German government to lift the ban and S.S. Requested that "Wimbledon" be allowed to pass through the canal, in accordance with Article 380 of the Treaty of Versailles. In response, he was informed that the German government had not allowed the ship, which was loaded with weapons and artillery stores assigned to the Polish military mission in Danzig, to cross the canal, because German neutral orders dated July 25 and 30, 1920, prohibited the shipment of this type of cargo intended for Poland or Russia. The keel is not an obstacle for applying these orders to the canal. Without further order, the Society des Afratours Rounis telegraphed to the "Wimbledon" captain, ordering the Danish Straits to continue his voyage. The ship had anchor weight on April 1, and Skagen advanced and reached its destination port of Danzig on April 6; It was detained for eleven days, to which two days must be added for deviation.

 During this time, the event led to talks between the ambassadors' meeting and the Berlin government; But these talks, the difference between the opposing perspectives became apparent and were met with protest by the Allied powers through the declaration of the rights and responsibilities of Germany, which was neutral in the war between Russia and Poland. The British, French, Italian and Japanese governments — thereby adopting a course prescribed by the German government — decided to bring the matter before the jurisdiction established by the League of Nations to deal with, among other things. Articles 380 to 386 of the Treaty of Versailles or with any dispute regarding their interpretation. Permanent Court of International Justice. The application of these powers, dated January 16, 1923, submitted that the German authorities had erred in denying SS "Wimbledon" free access to the Kiel Canal and that the German government had a responsibility to do better. The bias continued as a result of the ship's stated action: 174,084 francs 86 centimeters, with 6 percent interest, for the year from March 20, 1921. If the payment is not affected within the stipulated period, interim interest is claimed.

The Court’s judgment (analysis).

In judgment, the court may, in the first place, find out about the claim, despite the fact that not all applicants can add bias to some monetization. They have a clear interest in enforcing the terms of the Versailles Treaty on the Kiel Canal. 1 Article 63 of Article 2. Article 31 of Article 2 of the Constitution. The canal is said to have ceased to be an inland naval waterway, and its use remains entirely at the discretion of that state by ships other than the Riparian State. This rule is also good in the case of Germany's neutrality. For reservations made in Article 380, a ship must fly the flag of a country peacefully with Germany in order to benefit from access rights, which shows that the authors of this treaty thought of Germany's abrupt position. The agreement would not have failed to say so if the conditions for entering the canal had also been modified in the event of a dispute between the two remaining powers in peace with Germany. But it did not say so and this exception was intentional. Therefore the general rule of establishing a free route in the case of Germany's neutrality also applies. Again, a separate section of the Agreement is devoted to the Kiel Canal, and in this section some of the provisions relating to the inland shipping lanes of Germany are repeated, that the provisions relating to this canal are autonomous and that the principles taken from other articles of the Agreement, for example, in the case of the Neutrality of the Riparian State Related to conditions controlling waterways, not applicable. There is no doubt that the provision under consideration places an important limitation on the exercise of German sovereign rights over the canal, especially with regard to the rights of the neutral force during the war. The Court agreed that this fact was an appropriate reason for the compelling interpretation of the provision in the case of doubt. But this compulsive interpretation cannot be taken so far as contrary to the plain terms of the article. Furthermore, the waiver of the rights in question shall not be permitted for reasons connected with German sovereignty; The court refuses to see at the conclusion of any agreement that a state may take a specific action or abstain, relinquishing its sovereignty. In contrast, the right to enter into international engagement is a feature of state sovereignty. Again, the court sees a similarity between the new regime of the Kiel Canal and the two open seas that apply to artificial waterways, which are compatible with natural species, proving that even the battlefields cannot be compromised by the neutrality of the sovereign state under whose jurisdiction the Kiel Canal is. In addition, the German delegation clearly acknowledged that the German government would apply its neutral orders only to merchant ships and not to warships; The path of the neutral vessels that forbade war in neutrality Germany would not fail to carry out its duties in neutral. The court held that Germany was completely free to control its neutrality in the Russo-Polish war, but that she was subject to the condition of respecting and continuing her contractual obligations, i.e., what she entered into.

-Muskan Gupta

Maharaja Aggrasen Institute of Management.