## Facts

- The S.S. *Wimbledon*, a British steamship time-chartered by a French company, carried approximately 4,200 tons of munitions and artillery stores from Salonica to Danzig for delivery to Poland.
- On March 21, 1921, German canal authorities refused the ship entry to the Kiel Canal, citing German neutrality orders issued during the Russo-Polish war.
- France protested, asserting the refusal violated Article 380 of the Treaty of Versailles, which established an equality-based open-access regime for the canal.
- Germany maintained Article 380 did not prevent application of its neutrality orders to the canal and continued to bar the transit.
- The ship was detained and then rerouted through the Danish Straits, arriving in Danzig after an eleven-day detention plus additional delay from the deviation.
- The United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Japan brought proceedings seeking a declaration of wrongful refusal and monetary reparation (174,082.86 francs plus interest).
- Poland was permitted to intervene under Article 63 of the PCIJ Statute because interpretation of a treaty to which Poland was a party was at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the applicants’ claim was admissible and within the Court’s jurisdiction, and whether Poland’s intervention under Article 63 was proper.
2. Whether the Kiel Canal was governed by an international treaty regime limiting Germany’s discretion, or remained subject to Germany’s unilateral sovereign control.
3. Whether Germany could rely on neutrality obligations and neutrality orders to deny passage to a vessel otherwise entitled to transit under Article 380 of the Treaty of Versailles.
4. Whether Germany incurred international responsibility and owed reparation for the detention and rerouting of the vessel, and in what amount.

## Decision

- The Court held the claim was admissible and within its jurisdiction.
- The Court permitted Poland’s intervention, treating Article 63 intervention as turning on whether treaty interpretation involving the intervening state was in question.
- The Court held the Treaty of Versailles subjected the Kiel Canal to an international regime requiring openness on equal terms to vessels of states at peace with Germany.
- The Court found Germany’s refusal of passage violated Article 380 and could not be justified by Germany’s neutrality orders.
- The Court ordered Germany to make reparation in the amount claimed (174,082.86 francs plus interest).

## Legal Principles

- A state may not invoke neutrality regulations or other unilateral measures to avoid performance of treaty obligations concerning freedom of transit.
- Treaty provisions establishing freedom of navigation and transit are enforceable international obligations; exceptions are construed narrowly.
- Sovereignty includes the capacity to accept binding treaty limits on freedom of action; compliance with such limits is required once undertaken.
- Where a canal is placed under an international access regime by treaty, it is not treated as a purely internal waterway for purposes of transit restrictions.
- Breach of treaty-based transit rights entails a duty to make reparation for the harm caused, including delay and deviation costs.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Germany’s denial of the *Wimbledon*’s passage through the Kiel Canal breached the treaty regime of open access created by the Treaty of Versailles and that neutrality-based orders could not override that obligation; Germany was therefore responsible for the resulting loss and required to pay monetary reparation.


S.S. “Wimbledon” (U.K. v. Ger.), 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 1 (Aug. 17)