General Principles - Unwritten agreements

The Eastern Greenland Case (1933, World Court)

Summary:
In 1931, the Royal Norwegian Gov't declared that it had proceeded to occupy
certain Eastern territories in Greenland, which the Danish Gov't said were subject
to the Crown of Denmark.
• Denmark's claim:
○ During WWI, US & Denmark entered into a treaty whereby US would not object
to Denmark extending their interests to Greenland.
○ In 1919, after Denmark approached Norway with the question of whether they
would object to Denmark's interests in Greenland, Norwegian minister of foreign
affairs basically said, "that the Norwegian gov't would not make any difficulties
in the settlement of that question."
§ Question is whether this statement - even if not constituting a
definitive declaration of Danish sovereignty - did not constitute an engagement
obliging Norway to refrain from occupying any part of Greenland.
□ Court says the statement is binding upon the country to which
the Minister belongs. Norway is under obligation to refrain from contesting Danish
sovereignty over Greenland as a whole, and a fortiori to refrain from occupying a
part of Greenland.

Notes

• Vienna convention asks treaty to be in writing, but this was before 1980.
○ Dispute over whether this is really a treaty, because not written, it was
spoken
○ From general principles - Can't say necessarily that verbal agreements
cant be enforced. But from an evidentiary perspective, this type of agreement
can't be so easily enforced
• Denmark willing to give up Spitsbergen to Norway, and Denmark gets Greenland.
○ Not an actual agreement; but they would agree to help each other gain
sovereignty over the respective lands
• Then Norway started occupying eastern Greenland
○ Violation - this is a valid agreement that is enforceable
§ ****Because there was a consent to be bound
§ Pg 87 - the attitude of the parties in this exchange. From dialogue
both parties showed an intent to be bound to the agreement
• This case shows the nature of consent - intent to be bound
• Although not an enforceable treaty, there may be a claim of estoppel
○ Nowadays (after Vienna) Cant rely on treaty law, they could perhaps rely
on estoppel law
○ So shows that these types of claim are not exclusive
• Court here didn’t deal with issue of the minister's power to bind the state
○ Do parties negotiating have to do background research to find out if the
parties have the authority
○ Note 2
• A state can't defend itself against being bind to a treaty because it is a
violation of its internal law (court says this)
○ These incidents don’t happen so often anymore
• This case basically shows the aspect of a loophole to get out of a contract.
Can't be a defense.