![]() | Corfu Channel case received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Corfu Channel case appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 July 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Despite being cited all over the place, Gardiner is not likely to be a useful source (either for the case or the incident), except perhaps as a discussion of the British reaction to either. Everything's from a pretty blatantly British (or at least anti-Albanian) POV. Some of the paragraphs from early in the chapter on the ICJ case, however, are quite good... two in particular seem to encapsulate the feeling of frustration that surely was present in the British public in response to the case taking so long to reach a conclusion. Otherwise, sadly, it seems to have been pretty well a wasted trip to the library. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 01:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Something that might be worth sticking in further reading, or maybe on the Japanese Wikipedia version? Najima, K. (1958).
"コルフ海峡事件と無害航行権に関する今日的省察" (PDF). 経営と経済 (in Japanese). 38 (1): 71–86. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) Wish I could read it. Probably gives some interesting relationship to straits in the far east that would be relevant to the impact discussion. If I had an indication that the author was somebody significant I'd probably stick it in further reading. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
21:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And here's a couple of sources in French. I figure some of these ought to be good for balancing the pro-English viewpoints that many of the sources give without needing to find someone who can read Albanian. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 02:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Reed, Lucy (March 2012). "Confronting Complexities in Fact-Finding and the Nature of Investor-State Arbitration". American Society of International Law Proceedings. 106: 233–237. This source talks about the (mis)use of Corfu Channel in arbitration between investors and States, where investors argue for a liberal drawing of inferences against the State, citing Bayindir v. Pakistan and Rumeli v. Kazakhstan as two examples where it's been done. Very short article, but might provide an interesting starting point for a new subsection in the legacy section. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 06:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting to go through these, and they're excellent points. With respect to the "intelligence-gathering activities" sentence, I'm inclined to just drop the latter clause (I think I'd just taken it from the Corfu Channel incident article when I initially wanted to just give a summary style overview of the incident. I don't think the fact of the Royal Navy doing intelligence-gathering in the Corfu Channel is particularly relevant for the case, but the fact that they regularly transited the channel was significant at least in the arguments. I'll try to find a citation and explain it a bit more.
The cable to fleet command... if I recall correctly (I need to check my sources), that was from the Foreign Office. Again, it was a bit of trying to be abbreviated... but the orders that the cable stimulated (XCU, which are mentioned further down) were a matter of significant contention in the case. I'm also just considering dumping the sentence. It might flow better without. Hmm.
The shore batteries took no action, and the ships took no action with respect to them; the sentence was intended to talk about the shore batteries though.
The "special agreement" thing is an international tribunal thing... like a stipulation as to the issues the court is to resolve. I'm thinking about how to address that. Ideally, there should be an article on special agreements in international law. It might be worth redlinking.
Professors Vochoc and Lapenna... I have no idea what they're professors of. I wish I had more information on them. They weren't part of the case for long. I don't even know their given names. I guess the answer to that would be to just drop any mention of them. I'm going to have to think about that.
The deadline... basically, while Albania met the deadline, they submitted an objection instead of a memorial (hence the jump to the next subsection). It's a flow problem, for sure. Would the better solution be to end the section with "On 9 December, Albania objected to the application." rather than starting the subsequent section with that clause? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 13:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Concerning these reversions: [1] [2]
The first has the reason "the citation of the Hague Convention isn't mentioned in the news article". This is on page 4 of the ICJ PDF, marked page 9 in the original document, in paragraph 3. The second has the reason "unsourced: no mention of reparations in ICRC cite". This is correct, the ICRC site does not mention reparations; it shows that Albania is not a party to the convention. The other two references mention reparations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.249.113 ( talk) 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
3. The claim of the Government of the United Kingdom is that the Albanian Government either caused to be laid, or had knowledge of the laying of, mines in its territorial waters in the Strait of Corfu without notifying the existence of these mines as required by Articles 3 and 4 of Hague Convention No. VI11 of 1907, by the general principles of international law and by the ordinary dictates of humanity ; [...]
(4) that the Court shall decide that the -4lbanian Government is internationally responsible for the said loss and injury and is under an obligation to make reparation or pay compensation to the Government of the United Kingdom therefor; and (5) that the Court shall determine the reparation or compensation.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Corfu Channel case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Corfu Channel case received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Corfu Channel case appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 6 July 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Despite being cited all over the place, Gardiner is not likely to be a useful source (either for the case or the incident), except perhaps as a discussion of the British reaction to either. Everything's from a pretty blatantly British (or at least anti-Albanian) POV. Some of the paragraphs from early in the chapter on the ICJ case, however, are quite good... two in particular seem to encapsulate the feeling of frustration that surely was present in the British public in response to the case taking so long to reach a conclusion. Otherwise, sadly, it seems to have been pretty well a wasted trip to the library. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 01:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Something that might be worth sticking in further reading, or maybe on the Japanese Wikipedia version? Najima, K. (1958).
"コルフ海峡事件と無害航行権に関する今日的省察" (PDF). 経営と経済 (in Japanese). 38 (1): 71–86. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help) Wish I could read it. Probably gives some interesting relationship to straits in the far east that would be relevant to the impact discussion. If I had an indication that the author was somebody significant I'd probably stick it in further reading. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
21:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
And here's a couple of sources in French. I figure some of these ought to be good for balancing the pro-English viewpoints that many of the sources give without needing to find someone who can read Albanian. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 02:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Reed, Lucy (March 2012). "Confronting Complexities in Fact-Finding and the Nature of Investor-State Arbitration". American Society of International Law Proceedings. 106: 233–237. This source talks about the (mis)use of Corfu Channel in arbitration between investors and States, where investors argue for a liberal drawing of inferences against the State, citing Bayindir v. Pakistan and Rumeli v. Kazakhstan as two examples where it's been done. Very short article, but might provide an interesting starting point for a new subsection in the legacy section. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 06:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting to go through these, and they're excellent points. With respect to the "intelligence-gathering activities" sentence, I'm inclined to just drop the latter clause (I think I'd just taken it from the Corfu Channel incident article when I initially wanted to just give a summary style overview of the incident. I don't think the fact of the Royal Navy doing intelligence-gathering in the Corfu Channel is particularly relevant for the case, but the fact that they regularly transited the channel was significant at least in the arguments. I'll try to find a citation and explain it a bit more.
The cable to fleet command... if I recall correctly (I need to check my sources), that was from the Foreign Office. Again, it was a bit of trying to be abbreviated... but the orders that the cable stimulated (XCU, which are mentioned further down) were a matter of significant contention in the case. I'm also just considering dumping the sentence. It might flow better without. Hmm.
The shore batteries took no action, and the ships took no action with respect to them; the sentence was intended to talk about the shore batteries though.
The "special agreement" thing is an international tribunal thing... like a stipulation as to the issues the court is to resolve. I'm thinking about how to address that. Ideally, there should be an article on special agreements in international law. It might be worth redlinking.
Professors Vochoc and Lapenna... I have no idea what they're professors of. I wish I had more information on them. They weren't part of the case for long. I don't even know their given names. I guess the answer to that would be to just drop any mention of them. I'm going to have to think about that.
The deadline... basically, while Albania met the deadline, they submitted an objection instead of a memorial (hence the jump to the next subsection). It's a flow problem, for sure. Would the better solution be to end the section with "On 9 December, Albania objected to the application." rather than starting the subsequent section with that clause? —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 13:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Concerning these reversions: [1] [2]
The first has the reason "the citation of the Hague Convention isn't mentioned in the news article". This is on page 4 of the ICJ PDF, marked page 9 in the original document, in paragraph 3. The second has the reason "unsourced: no mention of reparations in ICRC cite". This is correct, the ICRC site does not mention reparations; it shows that Albania is not a party to the convention. The other two references mention reparations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.249.113 ( talk) 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
3. The claim of the Government of the United Kingdom is that the Albanian Government either caused to be laid, or had knowledge of the laying of, mines in its territorial waters in the Strait of Corfu without notifying the existence of these mines as required by Articles 3 and 4 of Hague Convention No. VI11 of 1907, by the general principles of international law and by the ordinary dictates of humanity ; [...]
(4) that the Court shall decide that the -4lbanian Government is internationally responsible for the said loss and injury and is under an obligation to make reparation or pay compensation to the Government of the United Kingdom therefor; and (5) that the Court shall determine the reparation or compensation.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Corfu Channel case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)