Greece v UK Ambatielos Case (Interpreting treaties requiring arbitration)

This case is pretty shameful for both the United Kingdom and international law. In 1919, Nicholas Ambatillos made a contract with the UK government to purchase nine steamships, which were already under construction in Hong Kong and Shanghai. The ships were already under construction because they had been intended as part of the merchant fleet to keep Britain supplied if the First World War continued. The UK shipbuilders missed deadline after deadline. Some of the ships were supplied, others were not. At the same time, trading conditions in the Far East became difficult and Ambatillos was running out of money. He mortgaged the vessels to stay afloat. The UK continued to miss deadlines, which meant Ambatillos got into an even bigger hole and failed to meet payment deadlines. The UK launched legal action claiming that Ambatillos was not ready, willing or able to meet his end of the contract. This was true, but only because the British had not met their end of the contract. The British courts, surprise surprise, came down on the side of the British. Greece stepped in on behalf of Ambatillos and demanded that the matter should be sent to an international arbitration, in accordance with a treaty which was in place between Greece and Britain. The British refused, and so Greece took them to the ICJ, arguing that the British had an actual obligation under their treaty to go to arbitration. The court agreed, and in doing so laid down a rule for the interpretation of treaties which required countries to arbitrate. The court said, it is not enough for the claimant government to establish a remote connection between the facts of the claim and the treaty. On the other hand, it is not necessary for that government to show for present purposes that an alleged treaty violation has an unassailable legal basis. The validity of the arguments presented by the Hellenic government, as well as the validity of those arguments presented by the United Kingdom government, would be determined by the commission of arbitration in passing upon the merits of the difference. As a result, the British were forced to arbitrate, and they won at arbitration on technical grounds by showing that Ambatillos had not followed every single legal pathway open to him under British law before resorting to international law. Yet again, international law prefers technical accuracy to actual justice.