Facts
The case involved Mavrommatis, a Greek national who had received concessions from the Ottoman Government to develop public utility services in Palestine, including water, electricity, and tramway systems.[1]
After World War I, the Ottoman Empire collapsed and Palestine was under British administration through a League of Nations Mandate.[2] Mavrommatis claimed that the British authorities failed to recognize his concession rights and granted similar rights to another company, causing him financial loss.[3]
Greece took up Mavrommatis's claim and brought the matter before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) against the United Kingdom.[4]
The United Kingdom objected to the Court’s jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute was purely a private contractual matter involving an individual and not an international dispute between two states.[5]
Statutory Provisions Involved
The main legal rules involved in this case were:
Article 11 of the Palestine Mandate
This article regulated public works and concession agreements in Palestine while it was under British administration.[6]
Protocol XII of the Treaty of Lausanne (1923)
This protocol protected certain concessions that had been granted by the Ottoman Empire before British rule began in Palestine.[7]
Article 26 of the Palestine Mandate
This article allowed disputes about the interpretation or application of the Mandate to be brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ).[8]
Customary International Law on Diplomatic Protection
This principle allows a state to bring an international claim on behalf of one of its nationals who has been treated unfairly by another state.[9]
Together, these provisions formed the legal basis for Greece's claim against the United Kingdom before the PCIJ.
Issues Raised
The main questions the Court had to decide were:
1. Whether the PCIJ have jurisdiction to hear the case?[10]
2. Whether Greece had the right to represent and protect the interests of its citizens in an international case?[11]
3. Whether the matter become a dispute between Greece and the United Kingdom, rather than simply a private disagreement involving Mavrommatis?[12]
4. Whether the actions of the British administration regarding the concessions violate international obligations and make the United Kingdom liable under international law?[13]
Arguments from Both Sides
Greece's Arguments
Mavrommatis had legally valid concession rights that were granted by the Ottoman Government before British rule began in Palestine.[14]
The British authorities failed to respect those rights and violated international obligations.[15]
Greece argued that they had the right to protect its citizens and seek compensation for the losses he suffered.[16]
By taking up Mavrommatis's claim, Greece maintained that the matter became an international dispute between Greece and the United Kingdom.[17]
United Kingdom's Arguments
The United Kingdom argued that the dispute was a private matter between Mavrommatis and the Palestine administration, not a dispute between states.[18]
They claimed that Greece could not turn a private business dispute into an international legal claim simply by supporting its citizens.[19]
The United Kingdom also argued that the PCIJ did not have jurisdiction over the case.[20]
They maintained that no international legal obligation had been violated.[21]
Judgment by the Court
The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) rejected the United Kingdom’s argument that it had no authority to hear the case. The Court ruled that it did have jurisdiction over the dispute.[22]
The Court held that when a state chooses to take up the claim of one of its citizens, the claim becomes the state's own claim under international law. Therefore, Greece was not merely supporting Mavrommatis, it was asserting its own rights as a state.[23]
As a result, the Court acknowledged Greece's right to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of Mavrommatis and allowed the case to proceed as an international dispute between Greece and the United Kingdom.[24]
Ratio Decidendi of the Judgment
The main legal principle established by the Court was diplomatic protection.[25]
The PCIJ held that:
A state has the right to bring a claim on behalf of its citizens if that citizen has been harmed by another state.[26]
Once the state takes up the claim, the matter is no longer a private dispute, as it became an international dispute between two states.[27]
In international law, harm done to the citizen is treated as harm done to the state itself.[28]
This case became one of the most important authorities on diplomatic protection and remains a key case in the law of state responsibility.[29]
Personal Comment / Opinion on the Judgment
In my opinion, the PCIJ made a fair and important decision. At that time, individuals could not usually bring cases directly before international courts. The doctrine of diplomatic protection permitted people who were harmed by another state to seek justice through their own government.
The judgment also helped reinforced state responsibility, as it made clear that a state could be held liable for its actions even when the victim was a private individual.
However, the decision also shows a weakness of traditional international law. An individual can only benefit from diplomatic protection if their home state decides to support the claim. As a result, some valid claims may never be pursued because of political or diplomatic reasons.
Despite this limitation, the judgment remains extremely important as it established the modern doctrine of diplomatic protection and was influential in the development of international law, human rights law, and investment law.[30]
Reference
[1] Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v United Kingdom) (Jurisdiction) PCIJ Rep Series A No 2 (1924) 11–13.
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid.
[4]ibid.
[5] ibid 10–12.
[6] League of Nations, Mandate for Palestine art 11.
[7] Treaty of Lausanne (signed 24 July 1923, entered into force 6 August 1924) 28 LNTS 11, Protocol XII.
[8] League of Nations, Mandate for Palestine art 26.
[9] James Crawford, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (9th edn, OUP 2019) 523–528.
[10] Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (n 1) 15–20.
[11]ibid.
[12] ibid.
[13] ibid.
[14] ibid 11–13.
[15] ibid.
[16] ibid 12–15.
[17] ibid.
[18] ibid 10–12.
[19] ibid.
[20] ibid.
[21] ibid.
[22] ibid 15–20.
[23] ibid 12.
[24] ibid 20.
[25] ibid 12.
[26] ibid.
[27] ibid.
[28] ibid.
[29] Crawford (n 9) 523–528.
[30] Malcolm N Shaw, International Law (9th edn, CUP 2021) 732–739.