Ure v. Commonwealth of Australia and Another

Abstract

Territory — Acquisition of sovereignty — Islands — Whether international law permitting acquisition of sovereignty over terra nullius by an individual — Whether State acquiring sovereignty over territory obliged to recognize existing private ownership — Whether rule deriving from customary international law — Whether rule deriving general principle of law — Article 38(1) of Statute of International Court of Justice

Human rights — Property rights — Whether rights created by international law proprietary — Whether international law permitting acquisition of sovereignty over terra nullius by an individual — Whether State acquiring sovereignty over territory obliged to recognize existing private ownership — Sources of international law

Sources of international law — Substantive — Customary international law — Content — Article 38(1)(b) of Statute of International Court of Justice — General principles of law — Article 38(1)(c) of ICJ Statute — Whether appellant establishing rule of customary international law — Whether Norwegian Supreme Court decision in Jacobsen sufficient — State practice — Opinio juris — Whether other jurisdictions dealing with similar issues under municipal law — Whether appellant establishing existence of general principle of law recognized by civilized nations — Whether deriving from municipal legal systems — Operation of Article 38(1)(c) — ICJ Statute

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Customary international law — Norwegian Supreme Court decision in Jacobsen — Status of decision — State practice — Opinio juris — Whether Jacobsen concerning content of municipal law or customary international law — Whether judicial authority for purpose of Article 38(1)(d) of Statute of International Court of Justice — Whether correct statement of international law — General principles of civilized nations — Whether focusing upon municipal systems — Article 38 of ICJ Statute — The law of Australia