CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CEREN ZEYNEP PIRIM CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ of unjust enrichment 92 . Similarly, it is stated that in Benjamin R. Isaiah v. Bank Mellat and Sea-Land Service cases, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal decided that the principle of unjust enrichment constitutes a general principle of law. 93 Article 8 of the International Law Institute’s text on State Succession in Matters of Property and Debts which provides that State succession shall be equitable, and that States shall not be unjustly enriched at the expense of another by the way of succession is also quoted as a legal justification. 94 In this context, it is argued that if obligations arising from an internationally wrongful act committed by the predecessor State which is enriched through this act is not devolved upon the successor State, there would be an unjust enrichment. 95 On the other hand, it is also stated that in cases of State succession where the principle of unjust enrichment plays an equalizer role between ‘justice’ and ‘law’, 96 it should be adjusted to the specific nature of international law. In other words, the concept of unjust enrichment should, under international law, be isolated from the technical meaning that it has under municipal laws. 97 For instance, according to Dumberry, ‘the successor State should be held accountable to pay compensation to an injured third State based on the evaluation of a factual situation : whether or not it has unjustly enriched itself as a result of an unlawful act committed before the date of succession. (…) it is the State (the predecessor State or the successor State) which has unjustly enriched itself as a result of an internationally wrongful act committed before the date of succession which should provide reparation to the injured third State’. 98 Therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment shall not be excluded from the law of State succession but shall be taken into account in the context of every case. 99 Dumberry also states that the principle of unjust enrichment is not denied by the International Court of Justice. 100 It is the Ambatielos case between Greece and the United Kingdom 101 to which the author refers, where Greece argued that the United Kingdom was responsible based on the notion of unjust enrichment. Before saying a few words about the substance itself, it should be remembered that in this case the Court, without using the principle of unjust enrichment to render its judgment, decided that the parties were under the obligation to submit the case to arbitration and refused to examine the case on the merits. In this context, the author of this article finds it difficult to interpret the Court’s decision as adopting or refuting the concept of unjust enrichment in international law. 92 Emeric Koranyi and Mme. Ernest Dengcjel v. Rumanian State [1929-1930] Hungary-Romania Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, pp. 64-65. Lighthouses Arbitration (Greece v. France) [1956] 12 RIAA 155, p. 209. 93 Benjamin R. Isaiah v. Bank Mellat (Case 219) [1983] 2 Iran-USCTR 232, pp. 236-237; Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Ports and Shipping Organization of Iran (Case 33) [1984] 6 Iran-USCTR 149, pp. 168-169. 94 ‘State Succession in Matters of Property and Debts’, 69 Annuaire I.D.I. (2000-2001), 712-42. 95 Volkovitsch (n 46) 2210-11. 96 O’Connell (n 11) 34; Ripert (n 91) 631-32.

97 Friedmann (n 89) 207. 98 Dumberry (n 47) 276. 99 Ibid 263. 100 Ibid 267-68. 101 Ambatielos Case (Greece v. United Kingdom) (19 May 1953) ICJ Rep. [1953] 10.

124