Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T09:44:31.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Haya De La Torre Case (Colombia/Peru)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

William W. Bishop JR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 1951 , pp. 781 - 788
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1951

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Caption by the Court.

2 I.C.J. Reports, 1950, p. 266; this JOURNAL, Vol. 45 (1951), p. 179.

3 I.C.J. Reports, 1950, p. 395; this JOURNAL, Vol. 45 (1951), p. 195.

4 José Joaquín Caicedo Castilla for Colombia, and Luis Alayza y Paz Soldán for Peru.

5 See this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 158.

6 Here the Court referred to the first part of the Colombian principal submission, and Peruvian submission I.

7 Here the Court referred to the Colombian alternative submission, and Peruvian submission II.

8 Here the Court referred to Peruvian submission III, which Colombia asked the Court to reject.

9 As to the Peruvian Judge, the report adds:“M. ALAYZA Y PAZ SOLDÁN, Judge ad hoc, declares that if the Court had stated under the second point of the operative clause that Colombia was under no obligation, as the sole means of executing the Judgment, to surrender the refugee to the Government of Peru, he would have been in a position to concur in the opinion of the majority of the Court. But the brevity of the sentence employed, which may be misunderstood, prevents him from concurring in the opinion of the Court as a whole.”