Aint Vincent and the Grenadines V. Guinea International Tribunal

Case Briefings

Table of Contents

Title: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea International Tribunal        

Facts        

Procedure        

Issues        

Holding        

Reasoning        

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions        

Title: Shell v. R.W. Sturge Ltd.        

Facts        

Procedure        

Issues        

Holding        

Reasoning        

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions        

Title: Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v. Bankers Trust Company        

Facts        

Procedure        

Issue        

Holding        

Reasoning        

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions        

Title: Japan-Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages        

Facts        

Procedure        

Issue        

Holding        

Reasoning        

Case Title: Monsanto Co. v. Coramandal Indag Products Pvt. Ltd.        

Facts        

Procedure        

Issue        

Holding        

Reasoning        

References        

Title: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea International Tribunal

Facts

M/V Saiga operating as an oil tanker was involved in selling ‘gas oil’ to both fishing and other types of vessels that operated within the periphery of Guinea’s economic zone. Guinean Naval Authorities boarded M/V Saiga on the subsequent day just before it entered the exclusive economic zone of Guinea and thereby arrested the master and crew operating the ship. The master and the crew were charged by the Guinean government of importing ‘diesel oil’ without bringing into notification to the Guinean authorities. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the crew and the master of the vessel in terms of activities like fraud, evasion of tax and also relating to contraband  (Casey-Maslen, 2014).

Procedure  

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines issued an appeal to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) to which during 4th December ITLOS issued an order of release to Guinea upon the gaining of around $400,000 Letter of Credit from SVG. Subsequently during December 17, a trial court based in Guinea reaffirmed the criminal charges levied against the Master of M/V Saiga and generated an order of six months imprisonment and fine of 15,354,040,000 Guinean Francs  (Casey-Maslen, 2014).

Issues

Two main issues come into light relating to the case. Firstly, the court needs to identify that whether there was any proper link between M/V Saiga and the country, Saint Vincent and Grenadines. The second issue relates that whether the absence of an authentic link between a nation and a vessel entitle the court to reject the nationality of the same  (Casey-Maslen, 2014).

Holding

Yes the court earned inferences to the above issues.

Reasoning

The obligations regarding a genuine link between a State and a Vessel is observed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea during 1958. Article 94 of the Convention however fails to permit a state (Guinea) to refuse the vessel (M/V Saiga) the right of flying the flag of a state (Saint Vincent) where it fails to identify any authentic relation between the state and the vessel. The tribunal thus required the generation of criteria which would help the other state (Guinea) to question or challenge the validity of flying of flag of another state (Saint Vincent) by the vessel (M/V Saiga)  (Casey-Maslen, 2014).

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

The requirement of a genuine link between M/V Saiga and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines however does not allow Guinea to challenge the registration done in Saint Vincent. Saint Vincent being the flag state has jurisdiction over the ship and its crews and thus can file appeal (Casey-Maslen, 2014).

Title: Shell v. R.W. Sturge Ltd.

Facts

The plaintiffs or the investors pertaining to the Society of Lloyds brought about a diversity action against a large set of defendants like R.W. Surge Ltd., the Society, Council and Corporation of Lloyds. The diversity action was brought about by the plaintiffs to revoke the investment contracts that were made under the Ohio Securities Law. The Defendants on the other hand were observed to have filed a motion under section 12(b) (3) relating to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for dismissal in terms of improper revenue  (Oceana Editorial Board, 2009).

Procedure

During 1st November, 1993 the Plaintiffs filed a plea in the Court of Common Pleas pertaining to the Hamilton Country. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants violated the Ohio Securities Law in terms of selling unregistered securities. The District Court during 22nd December, 1993 supported the Defendants and thereby generated a motion to dismiss on grounds of improper revenue  (Oceana Editorial Board, 2009).

Issues

• The Society of Lloyd’s does not operate as an insurance company while the Corporation of Lloyd’s is not an underwriter.
• The Plaintiffs relating to the case feel that they have incurred higher losses compared to profits gained from the Defendants  (Oceana Editorial Board, 2009).

Holding

The District Court gave the decision that granted the motion generated by the defendants in that the same involves a security based under the Ohio Securities Law.

Reasoning

The Plaintiffs in the case have remedies that can be obtained by them from courts in England. The Plaintiffs further argue that the decision of the District Court to make the contracts void also requires the forum selection clauses to be turned void. They also stated that the District Court prior to evaluating the forum selection clauses whether they are void or not tended to enforce them.         This made the Plaintiffs entitled to earn an indemnity relating to the liabilities incurred by them  (Oceana Editorial Board, 2009).

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

The refusal by the Courts of one country to relating to enforcement of an international arbitration agreement does not limit the international nature of the clauses (Oceana Editorial Board, 2009).

Title: Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v. Bankers Trust Company

Facts

The then President of United States, Ronald Reagan issued a Presidential Order to freeze the money generated in the form of a deposit in the Bankers Trust Company. Subsequently the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank focused on recovering the funds rendered in the form of a deposit (Rutzke, 1988).

Procedure

The procedure relating to the case was carried out in the Queen’s Bench Division relating to the Commercial Court.

Issue

Two main issues arise relating to the case. Firstly the courts are required to evaluate that whether the Bankers Trust Company is needed to pay Libyan Arab Foreign Bank the amount of money withheld owing to the Presidential order generated by Ronald Reagan. Secondly the courts need to evaluate whether government of one country has the right to block assets held by branches operating in other nationalities (Rutzke, 1988).

Holding

According to the British Law it is ‘Yes’ in that it requires the Bankers Trust Company to repay the Libyan Arab Foreign Bank which in turn violates the Presidential Order in United States.