该案的判决涉及到Aissu的西装（申请人）与Ecnar（被告）。在这里，原告声称，后者ecnar是违反国际法的。本案事实如下：对ecnar和aissu美国，共享一个500英里 宽的水域称为昆直道和这条水域的鱼类和其他海洋资源丰富，这些都是由美国渔业和捕捞业务因此繁荣的应用。这导致了许多国家之间的争端。然而，许多管辖权争议导致的惯例，来到ecnar和aissu之间存在的形成。这里可以看出，每个国家拥有100 英里在昆直道管辖。这种惯例后来在1984年变成了条约.。这里的两 国家签署和批准条约，将现有的100英里的管辖范围。然而，在1994年，条约的规定发生了变化.。对昆直道管辖权是从100英里到50英里 改变 。之所以出现的问题，主要是因为新政府在1996上台，反对条约的条款.。在这种情况下，有问题的条约是否可以终止或其规定被忽视，因为一个政治权力不批准的条款。此外，新政府还通过立法，将冲突与Aissu的条约还截获，传递到70英里的区域，它集最近的船只已先行。
The case for which judgment is rendered involves a suit by Aissu (applicant) against Ecnar (respondent). Here the plaintiff has claimed that the latter Ecnar is in violation of international law. The facts of the case are as follows: The states of Ecnar and Aissu, share a 500-mile wide body of water known as the Straights of Kom and the waters of this straight are rich in fish and other marine resources and these are used by both the states for fishing and the fishing business is hence prosperous. This has led to many disputes between the states. However, the many jurisdictional disputes led to the formation of a customary practice that came into existence between Ecnar and Aissu. Here it is seen that each of the state claimed for 100 miles of jurisdiction over the Straights of KOM. This customary practice was later converted into a treaty in the year 1984. Here the two states signed and ratified a treaty that codified the existing 100-mile jurisdictional limit. However, in the year 1994, the provision of the treaty was changed. The Jurisdiction for the Straights of KOM was changed from 100 miles to 50 miles. The issue that has come into picture is mainly because of the newer Government that has come into power in 1996 which opposes the terms of the treaty. In this context there are issues of whether the treaty can just be terminated or its provisions ignored because a political power does not ratify the terms. In addition the new Government has also gone ahead with passing legislation that would conflict with the treaty with Aissu and also intercepted vessels that passed into the 70 miles zone that it set recently.
a. Rules and the Application of Rules
Aissu has brought about the suit against Ecnar stating that Ecnar has breached the provisions of the treaty that it has ratified with Aissu. Some of the rules and applications of the rules that should be used to arrive at the proper judgment for the law suit are discussed here.