## Facts

- Norway (and certain Norwegian public banks) issued public loans on the French market between 1885 and 1909 that were purchased by French nationals.
- The bonds contained “gold clauses” expressing payment obligations in gold or gold-convertible value alongside national currencies.
- After 1914, Norway suspended gold convertibility at various times and serviced the loans in Norwegian kroner notes at nominal value rather than gold-equivalent value.
- A 1923 Norwegian law allowed a debtor who had agreed to pay in gold to seek postponement of payment while the central bank was exempt from gold convertibility, with interest payable at 4% in banknotes at nominal value.
- France filed an application in 1955 asserting Norway’s payment practice and reliance on domestic law violated obligations arising from the loans and international law.
- Norway raised preliminary objections challenging the Court’s jurisdiction and/or admissibility; the 1957 judgment addressed only those objections.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction under the parties’ Article 36(2) optional-clause declarations to hear France’s claims concerning Norway’s servicing of the loans.
2. Whether, by reciprocity, Norway could rely on France’s reservation excluding disputes “essentially within the national jurisdiction as understood” by the French Government.
3. Whether Norway’s characterization of the dispute as essentially within its national jurisdiction barred the Court from proceeding.

## Decision

- The Court upheld Norway’s preliminary objection and dismissed France’s application for lack of jurisdiction (12–3).
- The Court held that its optional-clause jurisdiction extends only to the extent the parties’ declarations coincide, including their reservations.
- By reciprocity, Norway was entitled to invoke France’s domestic-jurisdiction reservation in its own favor.
- Because the reservation left the national-jurisdiction determination to the reserving government’s “understanding,” and Norway regarded the dispute as domestic, the reservation excluded jurisdiction.
- The Court did not reach the merits and did not examine other objections once jurisdiction was found lacking.

## Legal Principles

- Under Article 36(2) optional-clause jurisdiction, the Court’s jurisdiction exists only to the extent the parties’ declarations overlap, including any reservations.
- Reciprocity permits a respondent to invoke the applicant’s reservations and to benefit from limitations the applicant has placed on compulsory jurisdiction.
- A reservation excluding matters “essentially within the national jurisdiction as understood by the Government” gives the reserving state a unilateral power of appreciation, limiting the Court’s capacity to substitute its own assessment in deciding jurisdiction.
- When such a reservation applies via reciprocity, a respondent state’s view that the dispute is essentially domestic can preclude the Court’s jurisdiction at the preliminary stage.

## Conclusion

The Court declined jurisdiction because France’s optional-clause declaration contained a domestic-jurisdiction reservation framed by the government’s own understanding, and Norway could invoke that reservation by reciprocity after treating the loans dispute as a matter within its national jurisdiction.


Certain Norwegian Loans (Fr. v. Nor.), 1957 I.C.J. 9 (July 6)