Corrigé
Corrected
CR 2015/16
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2015
Public sitting
held on Thursday 30 April2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Abraham presiding,
in the cases concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua
in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
ANNÉE 2015
Audience publique
tenue le jeudi 30 avril 2015, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président,
dans les affaires relatives à Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan
(Nicaragua c. Costa Rica) ; Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua
dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)
________________
COMPTE RENDU
________________ - 2 -
Present: President Abraham
Vice-President Yusuf
Judges Owada
Tomka
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Robinson
Gevorgian
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Dugard
Registrar Couvreur
- 3 -
Présents : M. Abraham, président
M. Yusuf, vice-président
MM. Owada
Tomka
Bennouna
Cançado Trindade
Greenwood
Mmes Xue
Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
MM. Bhandari
Robinson
Gevorgian, juges
MM. Guillaume
Dugard, juges ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier
- 4 -
The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambass ador of the Republic of Nicaragua to the Kingdom
of the Netherlands,
as Agent and Counsel;
Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, former Member and former Chairman of the
International Law Commission,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, former Member
and former Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de droit
international,
Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the United States
Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,
Mr. Andrew B. Loewenstein, Attorney- at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. César Vega Masís, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Director of Juridical Affairs,
Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Counsel;
Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Mr. Benjamin Samson, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Ms Cicely O. Parseghian, Attorney -at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Mr. Benjamin K. Guthrie, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Mr. Ofilio J. Mayorga, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the Republic of
Nicaragua and New York,
as Assistant Counsel; - 5 -
Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez , ambassadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme agent et conseil ;
M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la McGeorge Schoo l of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento, ancien membre et ancien président de la Commission
du droit international,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre- La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commissio n du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit
international,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux de la Cour suprême
des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
M. Andrew B. Loewenstein, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. César Vega Masís, ministre adjoint des affaires étrangères, directeur des affaires juridiques, de
la souveraineté et du territoire au ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,
M. Julio César Saborio, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères,
comme conseils ;
M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, conseiller à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Claudia Loza Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
M. Benjamin Samson, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Mme Cicely O. Parseghian, avocate au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,
M. Benjamin K. Guthrie, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,
M. Ofilio J. Mayorga, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux de la République
du Nicaragua et de New York,
comme conseils adjoints; - 6 -
Mr. Danny K. Hagans, Principal Earth Scientist at Pacific Watershed Associates, Inc.,
Mr. Robin Cleverly, Geographical and Technical Consultant,
Ms Blanca P. Ríos Touma, Ph.D., Assistant Professor at Universidad Tecnología Indoamérica in
Quito, Ecuador,
Mr. Scott P. Walls, Master of Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning, Sole Proprietor
and Fluvial Geomorphologist at Scott Walls Consulting, Ecohydrologist at cbec ecoengineering,
Inc., and Chief Financial Officer and Project Manager at International Watershed Partners,
Ms Victoria Leader, Geographical and Technical Consultant,
as Scientific Advisers and Experts.
The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Manuel A. González Sanz, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of the Republic of
Costa Rica;
H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador on Special Mission,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Member of
the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr. Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva, member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth, Q.C., member of the English Bar, member of the Paris Bar, Essex Court
Chambers,
Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, member of
the Costa Rican Bar,
Ms Kate Parlett, Solicitor admitted in Queensland, Australia, and in England and Wales,
Ms Katherine Del Mar, member of the English Bar, 4 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Simon Olleson, member of the English Bar, 13 Old Square Chambers,
as Counsel; - 7 -
M. Danny K. Hagans, spécialiste principal des sciences de la terre de Pacific Watershed
Associates, Inc.,
M. Robin Cleverly, consultant dans les domaines géographique et technique,
Mme Blanca P. Ríos Touma, Ph.D., professeur adjoint à l’Universidad Tecnología Indoamérica
de Quito (Equateur),
M. Scott P. Walls, titulaire d’une maîtrise en architecture paysagère et en planification de
l’environnement, propriétaire unique et géomorphologue fluvial de Scott Walls Consu lting,
spécialiste en écohydrologie de cbec ecoengineering, Inc., directeur financier et chef de projet
pour International Watershed Partners,
Mme Victoria Leader, consultante dans les domaines géographique et technique,
comme conseillers scientifiques et experts.
Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Manuel A. González Sanz, ministre des affaires étrangères et des cultes de la
République du Costa Rica ;
S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur en mission spéciale,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Sergio Ugalde, ambassadeur du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des Pays -Bas, membre
de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,
comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;
M. MarceloKohen, professeur de droit international à l’Institut de hautes étude s internationales
et du développement de Genève, membre de l’Institut de droit international,
M. Samuel Wordsworth, Q.C., membre des barreaux d’Angleterre et de Paris, Essex Court
Chambers,
M. Arnoldo Brenes, conseiller principal auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
membre du barreau du Costa Rica,
Mme Kate Parlett, solicitor (Queensland (Australie), Angleterre et pays de Galles),
Mme Katherine Del Mar, membre du barreau d’Angleterre, 4 New Square, Lincoln’s Inn,
comme conseils et avocats;
M. Simon Olleson, membre du barreau d’Angleterre, 13 Old Square Chambers,
comme conseil ; - 8 -
Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,
Ms Shara Duncan, Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,
Mr. Gustavo Campos, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
Mr. Rafael Saenz, Minister Counsellor at the Costa Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Ana Patricia Villalobos, Official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,
as Assistant Counsel;
Ms Elisa Rivero, Administrative Assistant at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship,
as Assistant. - 9 -
M. RicardoOtarola, conseiller auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
Mme Shara Duncan, conseillère auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
M. Gustavo Campos, ministre-conseiller et consul général du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
M. Rafael Saenz, ministre-conseiller à l’ambassade du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Ana Patricia Villalobos, fonctionnaire du ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
comme conseils adjoints ;
Mme Elisa Rivero, assistante administrative au ministère des affaires étrangères et des cultes,
comme assistante. - 10 -
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. L’audience est ouverte. La Cour se réunit
aujourd’hui pour entendre le second tour de plaidoiries du Nicaragua dans l’affaire relative à la
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica). Je
donne maintenant la parole à l’agent du Nicaragua, Monsieurl’ambassadeur Argüello Gómez.
Mr. ARGÜELLO: Merci, Monsieur le président.
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, good morning. The first round of oral
pleadings centre on specific harm that the road has already caused to the environment and, in
particular, to the San Juan River. This is an important part of the case because Nicaragua is
seeking compensation for all damages including t he costs added to the dredging of the r iver due to
the amount of sediment the construction of the road has caused and is still causing due to the sorry
state the road has been left in.
2. Nicaragua has requested that the extent of this damage and the cost s be determined in a
subsequent phase of the case. For present purposes, the important point is that Costa Rica has
accepted that it has caused damage to Nicaraguan territory by depositing, according to its own
estimate, 300,000 tons of sediment in the r iver since the construction works began. What it
contests is that this harm is significant. Mr. Reichler showed you last week that it is, and he will
show you today that Costa Rica has failed to establish that it is not.
3. Nicaragua is not only concerne d about the harm caused up to the present, but the
likelihood that even greater harm will be caused in the future. Costa Rica paid no attention to its
international obligation to refrain from starting the construction of the road in 2011 without first
preparing a transboundary environmental impact study. As you heard from Costa Rica’s counsel
last week, and as Mr. Reichler will examine in more detail, Costa Rica now intends imminently to
demolish much of the existing road in order to build what amount s to an almost entirely new one,
with even greater potential impacts on the San Juan River, again without any intention of fulfilling
its obligation to conduct a prior transboundary EIA.
4. There are certain types of construction works that are considered i ntrinsically to create a
risk of serious harm. One of these is the construction of roads. If the road had not been
immediately next to the river border but exclusively next to the land border with Nicaragua, - 11 -
the EIA would have been required in spite of t he fact that there would be no sediments involved.
The reason is simple. Roads inevitably bring about changes in land use that have serious impacts
on the environment, as well as political and security consequences. If the road is a few metres from
another State, the impact is even more important. The fact that this extensive construction is next
to an endangered river and crosses natural reserves and wetlands only makes it more imperative to
have prepared an EIA and the more reckless not to have done so.
5. Professor McCaffrey will go into more detail on the probable impacts the EIA should have
assessed and the details an EIA should contemplate before the road works are continued. Some of
these obvious impacts that need to be studied are:
on navigation, due to accumulation of sediment at shoals in the Lower San Juan that block
navigation.
on fauna, flora, air, water, soil, climate, landscape, people, etc.
those that could be caused by the future operation of the road including the type and volume of
traffic, air pollution, dust, etc.1.
the access to land created by the road , e.g., settlement, both formal/planned (e.g ., hotels,
tourism) and informal/unplanned/illegal and the (indirect) impacts these could have.
6. General i nternational law and m any national laws require that an EIA be prepared for
certain type of constructions due to their inherent capacity or probability of causing significant
damage to the environment.
7. Costa Rican internal law provides that an EIA is required for the constr uction of national
2
roads more than 5 km long .
8. The existence of regional laws and regulations for constructing roads in Central America
was taken into account in the Judgment of the highest judicial a uthority in the region: the Central
1The use given to the road is particularly important in view of the fact that Costa Rica has the highest level of use
of pesticides in the world; see para. 32 of the Nicaraguan Application.
2
“According to the text of Costa Rica’s EIA Decree, the creation of this classification scheme was
intended to embody the screening process as developed globally over the past decades, and illustrates
many of the considerations described above. For example, the scale of a project can determine in part the
level of EIA required: construction of national roads more than 5 km long are deemed Category A
projects, which require full EIA.” (Footnote omitted.)
See more at “Comments on the lack of EIA for the San Juan Border Road in Costa Rica ”, Dr. William R. Sheate,
Reader in Environmental Assessment, Imperial College London Centre for Environmental Policy, UK Technical
Director, Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd. , London, UK, July 2014, p. 12; Reply of Nicaragua (RN) in the
Road case, Vol. II, Ann. 5. - 12 -
American Court of Justice. In a case brought against Costa Rica by non- governmental
organizations for the construction of a road without previous environmental impact studies, the
Court considered, [tab 26 on]
“WHEREAS XXVII: The Court estimates that it is public know ledge, . . . that
the Government of that State made unilateral decisions, in a hasty manner and without
consultation, in light of the Community Integration System, which affect the bilateral
commitments of that Government with the neighbouring State of Nic aragua. In
addition, these news of obvious notoriety, known by the majority of the Central
American and international community, reveal the absence of environmental impact
and mitigation studies by Costa Rica, which are essential for commencing works of
this magnitude.” [Tab 26 off]
9. And the Central American Court decided, by unanimous vote, that: [tab 27 on]
“THIRD: The State of Costa Rica acted without consultation, in a unilateral,
inappropriate and hasty manner, violating international bilateral and multilateral
agreements validly contracted by building the road in question, which cannot be
obviated by alleging internal provisions. FOURTH: The State of Costa Rica started
the work in question without conducting the studies and previous analyses required in
the context of the obligations imposed by Regional Community and International Law,
ignoring collaboration, mutual understanding and communication between the State
Parties of all these conventions that should exist in the field of environment and
sustainable development.” [Tab 27 off]
10. Professor McCaffrey will explain later that in many national and regional regulations and
in general international law, a transboundary EIA is mandated when similar roads are to be
constructed.
11. Professor Kohen spoke in error when he stated that : “Le risque doit être conforté par
l’existence de preuves.” 3
12. This cannot be so. It is not the legal obligation of Nicaragua to prove the level of risk or
damage the construction would have in order to tri gger Costa Rica’s transboundary EIA
obligations. Nicaragua does not have if anyone ever had the plans for the construction of the
Costa Rican road. Only Costa Rica has the designs and plans for the original road and the one that
they said they are go ing to build in its place. Only Costa Rica is in a position to assess potential
impacts on the environment, including the San Juan River. If Costa Rica conducts an EIA, before
commencing any new works on the road, and notifies and consults with Nicaragua , Nicaragua will
certainly co-operate with Costa Rica to assess the transboundary impacts. That is all Nicaragua can
CR 2015/11, p. 49, para. 32 (Kohen). - 13 -
do. The rest is up to Costa Rica, or up to the Court t o assure that Costa Rica fulfil s its
transboundary EIA obligations . 4
13. Mr. President, this case was not brought to the Court as a way to divert attention from the
other case, as has been asserted by Costa Rican representatives. It is obviously a case where
Nicaragua’s rights have been seriously violated and its territory already damaged and further
imperiled.
14. Costa Rican counsel has argued that a “list of scientific studies produced by Costa Rica
in relation to the road” that was placed in the j udges’ folder of 20 April 2015, at t ab 3, is a
substitute for an EIA. These studies date from the year 2013 to the present year 2015, that is, a few
years after the road works began. They are not the equivalent of an EIA. They do not cover the
ground an EIA covers. They look backward, while an EIA looks forward to assess potential
impacts. And they certainly do not substitute for an EIA with respect to the new construction that
Costa Rica has planned. There has been no EIA process no screening, no scoping, no ex ante
identification and assessment of impacts, no integration of its f indings with a design and planning
process for the road.
15. If, in the circumstances of the case, Costa Rica’s declaration of a state of emergency is
allowed to overrule its international obligations, then the obligation might as well be eliminated
from the rules of international law.
16. As indicated above, the Central American Court of Justice, very well placed to evaluate a
claim of emergency, disregarded it.
17. Let us briefly review the facts before the Decree was enacted and published on
7 March 2011 in the Costa Rican Official Gazette. They speak for themselves.
5
18. Nicaragua began its dredging of the San Juan River proper on 18 October 2010 . The
actual work of clearing the caño commenced, in November 2010 and it was fully completed in
6
December 2010 .
4
See diplomatic Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Nicaragua, r ef. DVM-Am-286-11, dated 20 Dec. 2011; Memorial of Costa Rica (M CR) in the Certain
Activities case, Vol. III, Ann. 74.
5Counter-Memorial of Nicaragua (CMN) in the Certain Activities case, p. 94, para. 4.30 and p. 176, para. 5.84.
See also MCR, p. 102, para. 3.70.
6
CR 2011/2, para. 39, p. 44 (Reichler). See also CMN, p. 48, para. 2.69. - 14 -
19. On 3 November 2010, Costa Rica brought the situation to the O rganization of American
States (OAS) claiming an act of aggression and invasion by Nicaragua. The O rganization of
American States, in resolution No. CP/RES 978 of 12 November 2010 , found that it was a border
issue that should be resolved in good faith between the Parties who should “Immediately resume
the talks on aspects concerning the demarcation of the boundary line done to date, in accordance
with the treaties and decisions in force.” No emergency was seen by the OAS.
20. On 18 November 2010, Costa Rica filed the Certain Activities case before the Court and
requested provisional measures.
21. On 7 March 2011, one day before the Court ordered provisional measures, Costa Rica
published its Emergency Decree. The Agents of the Parties before the Court are given sufficient
8
notice before the reading of the j udgments and orders of the Court , so Costa Rica was well aware
that the Court was to read its Order on 8 March and hurried the publication of its Emergency
Decree to issue it one day earlier.
22. Mr. Brenes argued that the Emergency Decree was also justified by President Ortega’s
public statements that he would bring a claim to the Province of Nicoya (Guanacaste) before thi s
Court. Apart from the fact that these statements were made months after the Emergency Decree
was published, and could scarcely justify it, since when is it a threat to come before this Court?
23. One final comment: i f this road was a milita ry response to a Nicaragua’s so -called
“invasion”, almost five years after the facts, the Costa Rican security forces would not still be
waiting to use this “emergency” road. If building the road was a true emergency, why has
Costa Rica never appropriated the funds necessary to build it? It is only common logic that if a
measure is urgently needed to protect national security, it will be given the highest budgetary
priority and necessary funds will be found for it. Costa Rica’s own actions belie any claim that a
real emergency ever existed.
24. Mr. President, once it is established that Costa Rica should not have begun the
construction of the road without a previous transboundary EIA (TEIA), then it is a logical
7Available at http://www.oas.org/council/resolutions/res978.asp.
8The ICJ informed the P arties of the date of the reading of the Order on 18 Feb. 2011; letter from the Registry of
the Court dated 18 Feb. 2011, ref. 138066. - 15 -
consequence that the Court should order, adjudge and declare, as requested by Nicaragua, that
Costa Rica should refrain from further development in the area without an appropriate TEIA.
Future developments in the area include the continuation of the construction of the road itself as
well as any building pe rmits for popul ation settlements, hotels, etc., as well as any permits for
significant land use along the route. It does not mean that Costa Rica should suspend the slow and
hesitant mitigation works it has announced are in progress or scheduled, even if , as Dr. Thorne
indicated, these mitigation works, these band aids over the deep and lengthy gash Costa Rica has
9
left open next to the river, will only last a short time.
25. In conclusion, Costa Rica has violated international law and the rights of Nic aragua by
the construction of t he road without an appropriate transboundary EIA and damaged Nicaraguan
territory. The amount of these damages and their compensation, as requested by Nicaragua, will be
established in a subsequent phase. A transboundary EI A has to be prepared before any of the
contemplated new works of construction on the road can be resumed.
26. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I have tried to concentrate this speech on the
central issues. There is not enough time for me , as Agent, to respond to last Thursday’s speeches
that amounted, because of the content, to political speeches m ade by Mr. Brenes and
Professor Kohen.
27. I will only take the Court’s time to address quickly two points raised by Costa Rica.
28. One refers to the a irport that was built to service the population of several thousand
inhabitants of San Juan de Nicaragua. This airport was built in the area w here the old city of
Greytown had been located until it was destroyed in the 1980s by paramilitary forces coming from
Costa Rica. So it was not built in an international reserve or a wetland but on the site of a former
town or city. Furthermore, it was built because, apa rt from the limited use of the r iver during the
wet season, it is the only means of transport to or from the city of San Juan de Nicaragua.
29. Professor Kohen also referred to the interoceanic canal that Nicaragua is developing. He
included 16 pages of material on this topic in the judge’s folders for 23 April at tabs 58 to 60. Let
me point out from the start that the p roblem Costa Rica has with the c anal is not fear of
9CR 2015/12, p. 29 (Thorne). - 16 -
environmental damage. Si nce independence in the early nineteenth century, before anyone was
concerned with the environment, Costa Rica coveted the canal route, which has been the cause of
most of the problems in our bilateral relations. Bringing up this subject in the context of this case
is only an alert signal that Costa Rica, as always, will try its utmost to prevent the construction of
any Nicaraguan canal. But since the canal has been brought into this case where it does not fit, and
is not under consideration, I will only remark that, quite contrary to what Costa Rica did with the
construction of the road, Nicaragua has seen to it that a very comprehensive and expensive
environmental impact study be prepared prior to the construction of the canal. This study is being
made by Environmental Resources Management (ERM), a highly reputable international company.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, this ends my presentation. Thank you for your kind
attention. Mr. President, may I ask you to please call Mr. Reichler.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur l’ambassadeur. Je donne la parole à présent à
M. Reichler.
Mr. REICHLER: Mr. President, Members of the Court, good morning!
T HE ROAD AND SIGNIFICANT HARM
1. I will respond to Mr. Brenes and Dr. Del Mar on the current condition of the road, as
allegedly mitigated by Co sta Rica, and on what Professor Thorne called the permanent works 10,
11
that is, the rebuilding of the road that he told us Costa Rica is now planning . Then I will respond
to Mr. Wordsworth on the significant harm that eroded sediment from the road has caused to
Nicaragua.
2. Mr. President, I do not need to say much more about the condition of the road. At least, I
do not need to say much more than Professor Thorne did last Friday. You will recall that he
12
confirmed the numbers in his two charts , which were prepared by Dr. Mende, and then accepted
10
CR 2015/12, 2015, pp. 27-30 (Thorne).
1Ibid., p. 30 (Thorne); see also, CR 2015/11, p. 28, para. 46 (Brenes); p. 31, para. 6 (Del Mar); p. 37, para. 22
(Del Mar).
12
CR 2015/12, pp. 21-26 (Thorne). - 17 -
13
by Professor Thorne himself, through a process that Professor Thorne described as “negotiated ” .
The charts are in your j udges’ folder of 20 April, morning session, t abs 3 and 4 for that session.
You have seen them before. I need not display them again. But recalling the numbers is usefu l,
especially in light of Costa Rica’s presentation on the current condition of the road in the first
round.
3. Dr. Del Mar’s entire speech was devoted to showing you that Costa Rica has mitigated the
problems at seven specific locations 14, the same seven locations that Costa Rica promised to
15
mitigate during the provisional measures hearings in November 2013 . Frankly, I am not sure
what that evidence contributed. In my first round speech, I said that Nicaragua was already
assuming that those seven sites were mitigated to some degree after November 2013 16.
4. In fact, Nicaragua accepted in the first round that Costa Rica has done more than that. We
accept the numbers in Professor Thorne’s two charts 17. As of December 2014, according to his
charts, Costa Rica had mitigated 28 failing sit es where the road crosses watercourses, and
11 failing slopes, a total of 39 sites 18, not just seven. But, as we emphasized , this is a tiny drop in
the bucket, compared to how many failed or failing water crossings and slopes there are, which
have not been mitigated.
5. On Friday, Professor Thorne confirmed the figures in his two charts. There are still
54 water crossings that currently require mitigation, of which, at 31, mitigation work was not even
commenced 20. He was unable to tell us when mi tigation would be commenced at these sites, or
when it would be completed. Nor did he know when mitigation would be completed at the
1CR 2015/12, p. 23 (Thorne).
14
CR 2015/11, pp. 31-36, paras. 7-18 (Del Mar).
15
CR 2013/29, p. 20, para. 24 (Brenes).
1CR 2015/8, pp. 32-33, para. 48 (Reichler).
1Ibid., pp. 29-30, paras. 39-40 (Reichler).
1Andreas Mende, “Inventory of Slopes and Wat er Courses related to the Border Road No. 1856 between
Mojón II and Delta Costa Rica: Second Report”, Dec. 2014, Rejoinder of Costa Rica ( RCR), Vol. II, Ann. 3, pp. 29-30,
tables 5 & 7, provided in Nicaragua’s judges’ folder for 20 April 2015 at tab 3, p. 6 & tab 4, p. 2; Thorne, “Assessment
of the Impact of the Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica on t he San Juan River: Reply Report ”, Feb. 2015,
RCR, Vol. I, App. A, pp. 137-138, tables 7.4-7.5, provided in Nicaragua’s judges’ folder for 20 Apr. 2015, tab 6.
1CR 2015/8, 20 April 2015, p. 29, para. 39 (Reichler); see also p. 18, para. 7; p. 22, para. 17; p. 26, para. 28;
p. 28, para. 36; p. 32, para. 47 (all Reichler).
2CR 2015/12, pp. 22-23 (Reichler & Thorne). - 18 -
23 locations where it remains unfinished . In regard to failed or failing slopes, Professor Thorne
confirmed that mitigation is still required at 165. It was not even started yet at 58. He was unable
to give us any starting dates at these 58 locations, or tell us when the work would be completed at
any of the 165 failed or failing slopes 22.
6. And this is especially troubl ing, Mr. President, because Professor Thorne candidly told us
that: “[T]he slopes are the heart of the matter. They are the source of, by Dr. Kondolf’s survey,
23
75 per cent of the sediment. It is quite correct to focus on the slopes primarily.”
7. Even more troubling is what Professor Thorne told us about the mitigation Costa Rica has
thus far performed, including at the seven locations of which Dr. Del Mar spoke. “[T]hese are
temporary works that mitigate but do not permanently solve erosion problems, and a permanent
solution will not be achieved until design, planning and construction of the Road are completed.” 24
8. Here is how Professor Thorne explained the difference between the temporary work that
Costa Rica has performed at the allegedly mitigat ed sites, and the permanent work that is
necessary, but has not yet even been attempted:
“So, if we took an example of the fill slopes, where material has been side- cast
off the side of the road and it is not compacted, a temporary solution may be to cover
that with coconut matting and protect it from raindrop impact and run- off. The
permanent solution may be to take it away because it hasn’t been properly
compacted . . . and built up in layers in the proper fashion, and the only thing you can
do with that fill slope is take it away and start again. So, that is the difference for a fill
slope between protecting it for a year or two and mitigating and then actually the cure
for that site; it may not be possible to stabilize that fill slope in that locat ion. In
extremis, the permanent solution may be to re -route the road and, again,
Dr. Weaver I wouldn’t argue with a lot of his recommendations; he knows what he
is talking about.” 25
9. Dr. Weaver, the Court will recall, is Nicaragua’s road expert, who appeared on Monday,
20 April, but whom Costa Rica chose not to cross -examine. Dr. Del Mar, rather unconvincingly,
explained that Costa Rica did not question him because its “mitigation works ha [d] been removed
21CR 2015/12, pp. 22-23 (Reichler & Thorne).
22
Ibid., pp. 23-25 (Reichler & Thorne).
23Ibid., p. 24 (Thorne).
24Ibid., pp. 27 -28 (Thorne), c onfirming statement from Prof. Thorne’s November 2013 report, para. 11.19,
CMCR, Vol. I, App. A.
25
Ibid., p. 29 (Thorne). - 19 -
26
from the equation. Costa Rica ’s case does not depend on them.” Then she spent the rest of her
speech, some 21 paragraphs, describing the mitigation works in graphic detail 27, with a special
volume of their judges’ folder filled with 47 travel -agency style photographs of the works
Costa Rica claims to have carried out at a handful of different sites.
10. That’s all well and good. What is not, is the unfounded and unfair accusation that my
28
colleague, Professor Pellet, or I, displayed photos last Tuesday that “risk misleading the Court” .
She rather unkindly accused us of displaying old photos of various sites while giving the
29
impression to the Court that they were recent . Mr. President, included in your judges’ folder
today at tab 28 is the map Nicaragua submitted to the Court, at its request, on 10 April. There is no
need for me to display it now. It is included so that you can see, at your convenience, that the
photographs Nicaragua submitted with its map, properly bear the dates on which they were taken .
After counsel for Costa Rica spoke, I checked the photos that I displayed in Court on 20 April,
during my speech on the road. Every photo displayed was properly dated. I displayed no photos of
the road on Tuesday, 21 April. Professor Pellet did. Each of his photos was identified by its source
in the case file. He did not make any representations about the dates they were taken, or suggest
that they were the most recent. His point was to show how badly the road had been initially
constructed at those sites. His photos accurately depicted that. He did not say or imply that no
subsequent mitigation was attempted. That is because, as Professor Thorne emphasized, the
mitigation work, where it was performed, was at best only a temporary solution.
11. In regard to the effectiveness of Costa R ica’s mitigation efforts, here is how Dr. Weaver
assessed them, in his summary report, based on his very recent observations. I think you will
discern a difference from the way counsel for Costa Rica portrayed them:
“Four years after construction of the Road, widespread and effective mitigation
is not apparent. We observed no indication of ongoing or recent earthmoving in
February-March 2015. The majority of watercourse crossings, cut slopes and fill
slopes remain unstable, exhibit significant visible erosion, and have not been treated or
26
CR 2015/11, p. 29, para. 1 (Del Mar).
27Ibid., pp. 29-37 (Del Mar).
28Ibid., p. 36, para. 20 (Del Mar).
29
Ibid., pp. 31-35, paras. 8-11 & 14-16 (Del Mar); see also pp. 20-21, para. 22 (Brenes). - 20 -
fully treated with appropriate stabilization and erosion control measures. The lack of
30
progress is striking, as is the amount of work that remains to be done.”
12. To fix the problems with the road, Dr. Weaver prov ided specific recommendations,
which Professor Thorne has endorsed, because, as he told you on Friday, Dr. Weaver “knows what
he is talking about” 31. [Slide on] Dr. Weaver’s recommendations are at paragraph 53 of his
summary report, subparagraphs A through E at tab 29 today, they are projected on the screen .
The Court may wish to review them at its convenience 32. I will read only the first one:
“A. Assess the relocation of portions of the Road built on steep, unstable and
erodible terrain and in close proximity to the Río San Juan, to a more inland, stable
route33as recommended in our 2014 report, and in the 2013 EDA and 2015 follow
up.”
I should point out that the 2013 EDA and 2015 follow-up recommending relocation of the road to a
34
more stable place inland, are Costa Rica’s own reports . [Slide off]
13. On Friday, I asked Professor Thorne what Costa Rica needs to do about the road; this is
at tab 30 of the folder. [Slide on] My question, and Professor Thorne’s answer:
“Mr. REICHLER: What you a re recommending that Costa Rica do is not just
mitigate, but perform the works necessary to permanently resolve the problems at
these sites?
Mr. THORNE: Yes, Route 1856 should be brought to the same standard as all
other comparable roadways in Costa Ri ca, many of which are built to an extremely
high standard and this one should be too, but it is not being built that way.” 35
14. Professor Thorne has thus answered an important question that Judge Bhandari put to
both Parties on Friday; his question number 2. Judge Bhandari asked: “How much weight should
the Court place on standards or ‘best practices’ from highly developed countries while evaluating
Costa Rica’s construction of the Road?” 36 Nicaragua’s answer to Judge Bhandari’s question is that
Costa Rica need not be required to construct a road to the same standard as may be applicable in
the United States, or the European Union, or in other countries with a higher level of economic
30
Weaver Summary Report, Mar.2015, p. 19, para. 50.
31
CR 2015/12, p. 29 (Thorne).
32See Weaver Summary Report, Mar. 2015, p. 20, para. 53, provided in judges’ folder, tab 29.
33Ibid.
34
Centro Científico Tropical, “Environmental Diagnostic Assessment (EDA), Route 1856 Project Ecological
Component”, Nov. 2013, pp. 13, 147, CMCR, Vol. II, Ann. 10; Centro Científico Tropical, “Follow-up and Monitoring
Study Route 1856 Project EDA Ecological Component”, Jan. 2015, pp. 10, 57, RCR, Vol.III, Ann. 14.
35
CR 2015/12, p. 30 (Thorne).
36CR 2015/13, p. 55 (Bhandari). - 21 -
development. However, in Nicaragua’s view it is appropriate to hold C osta Rica to its own
Costa Rican standard, which, as Professor Thorne himself has stated, is an “extremely high
37
standard, and this [road] should be [held to that standard] too, but it is not being built that way.”
[Slide off]
15. Mr. President, we are t old by Costa Rica that the permanent works recommended by
Professor Thorne and Dr. Weaver will be performed. Dr. Del Mar assures us that new construction
will commence right after CONAVI receives and approves the design plans 38. What this means,
Mr. President, is that Costa Rica is planning imminently to embark on new road construction,
adjacent to the San Juan River, that will dwarf everything that has been done until now. This
consists of two enormous projects, each of which will necessitate the bulldoz ing of massive
amounts of earth in close proximity to the river, including on more than 100 steep slopes that are
already eroding sediment into the San Juan. First, they are planning to demolish all of the unstable
cut and fill slopes they have already cr eated, which, by moving or removing so much earth, risks
bringing many thousands of tons of sediment into the river; and then they plan to construct what
amounts to an entirely new road in the same vicinity, again disturbing enough earth in the process
to cause even more sediment to be deposited in the river, even if they build it better this time.
16. Such a project, such a major demolition and construction effort, screams out for an EIA,
before any of these works are undertaken, while there is still tim e to influence the design and
construction choices; that is the very purpose of EIA 39. What they have done to date has already
caused significant harm to Nicaragua, as I will come to shortly. What cannot be denied is that the
new works, which Costa Rica’ s counsel told you they will undertake, as soon as the designs are
approved by CONAVI 40, will create a major risk of much greater harm to Nicaragua in the near
future. There is simply no argument that Costa Rica legitimately can make to escape its
international obligation to conduct an EIA prior to commencement of a project of this scale.
37
CR 2015/12, p. 30 (Thorne).
38CR 2015/11, p. 37, para. 22 (“Construction of the road will be resumed once designs are ready.”) (Del Mar).
39Sheate Summary Report, March 2015, paras. 3 & 22.
40
CR 2015/11, p. 31, para. 6 & p. 37, para. 22 (Del Mar). - 22 -
17. Mr. President, as Professor McCaffrey will elaborate, it is Costa Rica’s obligation to
conduct a proper EIA one that includes an assessment of the transboundary impacts on the
San Juan River and Nicaragua prior to commencement of the permanent works that Costa Rica
says it is planning to carry out. I am instructed by the Agent of Nicaragua to state that, if
Costa Rica carries out such an EIA, either on its own accord or by order of the Court, Nicaragua
will co-operate in every way possible in assessing the impacts on the river. However, i t appears
that Costa Rica needs some motivation from the Court to f ulfil its EIA obligation. How else can
we explain that the d esigns are almost ready, and construction will comme nce soon thereafter,
without even a thought given to carrying out a transboundary EIA prior to making irrevocable
design and construction choices? The evidence suggests Costa Rica has no intention of hono uring
its international obligations in regard to EIA, unless it is ordered to do so by the Court.
18. I turn now to the significant harm that Costa Rica’s construction of the road has already
caused to the river. I will begin , Mr. President, by showing you that Costa Rica’s counsel have
already made our case on significant harm for us. First, both Professor Kohen and
Mr. Wordsworth two good friends of mine and each other helpfully told the Court what the
legal standard is for showing significant tra nsboundary environmental harm. They both invoked
the ILC’s definition 4. Nicaragua is pleased to agree that this is the applicable legal standard in
regard to its environmental claims.
19. [Slide on] Let us look at it . Here and it is also at tab 31 exactly as
Professor Kohen projected it. It is worth a careful reading. “The term ‘significant’ is not without
ambiguity and a determination has to be made in each specific case. It involves more factual
determination than legal determination.” There is no disagreement to this point. But the next
sentence appears to be problematical for Costa Rica. Mr. Wordsworth skipped it entirely,
beginning his reading with the next sentence, as if this one did not exist. So it falls to me to read it
now. “It is to be understood that ‘significant’ is something more than ‘detectable’ but need not be
at the level of ‘serious’ or ‘substantial’. ” These seem like important words that should not be
ignored, as Costa Rica does. Then: “The harm must lead to a real d etrimental effect on matters
4CR 2015/11, pp. 46- 47, para. 27 (Kohen); CR 2015/13, p. 13, para. 14 (Wordsworth). Both referencing ILC,
Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, Commentary t2, para. (4),
Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YILC), 2001, Vol.II (2), p. 152. - 23 -
such as, for example, human health, industry, property, environment or agriculture in other States.”
Certainly, navigation fits into at least one of these categories. It does not appear that Costa Rica
contends otherwise. And finally: “Such detrimental effects must be susceptible of being measured
by factual and objective standards.” [Slide off] End of quote, end of definition.
20. Mr. President, my friends on the other side have not only given us the applicable legal
standard; they have shown us that, in this case, it has been met!
21. They concede, and Professor Thorne confirms, that many thousands of tons of sediment
from the road are transported to the delta, and to the Lower San Juan River, where it aggrades or
accumulates, especially at shoals that obstruct navigation, enlarging those shoals and other barriers
to navigation, and thereby adding to the amount of sediment Nicaragua has had to dredge over the
42
last four years . They claim that it is a very small amount. But, most importantly, and this is their
most critical admission, they measure it! Here are the measurements Mr. Wordsworth gave you:
“For 2012, the dredging was 176,918.90 cubic metres, as to which the
percentage figure of sediment from the road woul d be 2.57 per cent. The dredgi ng
was much higher in 2013, 304,490.84 cubic metres, so the percentage would be
1.49 per cent. And then, in 2014, less dredging, so the percentage is 2.88 per cent.” 43
22. I will leave to one side, for the moment, the fact t hat Mr. Wordsworth reduced my figure
of 22,000 tons per year of sediment from the road accumulating in the Lowe r San Juan River, to
only 7,600 tons per year. That is not unimportant, but the critical point is this: he has given us
estimates, that is measurements, of the amount of sediment that the road contributes to the sediment
already accumulated in the Lower San Juan, which Nicaragua has been dredging. Ergo , the
applicable legal standard is satisfied: the detrimental effects of construction of the r oad, in the
form of additional accumulated sediment in the Lower San Juan that has to be dredged out by
Nicaragua, is susceptible of being measured! And we have that on Costa Rica’s own authority. In
fact, actual or exact measurements may not be required to meet the ILC standard. The harm need
only be “susceptible of measurement” to qualify as significant. Costa Rica’s counsel have
confirmed that it is.
4CR 2015/12, pp. 42-44 (Reichler & Thorne); Thorne Summary Report for the Construction of a Road case,
Mar. 2015, para. 4.6; see also RCR, para. 2.55; ICE (2014), pp. 29-31; RCR, Vol. III, Ann. 4.
4CR 2015/13, p. 22, para. 46 (Wordsworth). - 24 -
23. We say the measurement here should be considerably higher. As I said last Tuesday, at
44
22,000 tons per year , instead of the 7,600 tons measured by Mr. Wordsworth, the impact of
45 46
sediment from the road is higher : 8.5 per cent of the amount Nicaragua dredged in 2014 . But
in terms of Costa Rica’s international responsibility, it makes no difference whether Nicaragua’s
measurement or Costa Rica’s measurement is more accurate. Nor would it make a difference if
Costa Rica could show you that the actual amount of sediment from the road reaching the river is
half, or less than half, of the amount or perc entages its counsel gave you. Mr. Wordsworth says
that Nicaragua is “dramatically overestimating the amount of sediment” going into the river 47. We
disagree, but even if he is right, quod non, Costa Rica loses. What is important, under the ILC
standard, is not the actual numerical measure of sediment, but whether it is suscep tible of being
measured. Both P arties have now shown you that it is. The applicable legal standard for
48
significant harm, the one invoked by Costa Rica , is satisfied whether you accept Nicaragua’s
measurement or Costa Rica’s.
24. Under that legal standard, the Court need not consider the impact to be “serious” or even
“substantial” for it to be “significant ”. Costa Rica’s attempt to ignore those critical words only
makes them stand out that much more. The requirements are that the impact must be “detrimental”
and “susceptible of being measured”. On Costa Rica’s own evidence and argument, those
requirements are met. It is true that the Parties, in measuring the impact, have calculated different
amounts. But that only affects the amount of significant harm Nicaragua has suffered, that is, the
quantification of the damages, which can, and should, be determined in subsequent proceedings on
compensation.
25. Costa Rica has made a number of arguments that the harm it has caused to Nicaragua is
not significant. None of them, Mr. President, withstands even modest scrutiny. First, Costa Rica
argued that there is no impact because the sediment from the road spreads evenly across the bo ttom
of the Lower San Juan River, such that its effect is to raise the bed by no more than the width of a
44CR 2015/10, p. 13, para. 14 (Reichler).
45
CR 2015/13, p. 22, paras. 45-46 (Wordsworth).
46CR 2015/10, p. 13, para. 15 (Reichler).
47CR 2015/13, p. 18, para. 33 (Wordsworth).
48
Ibid., p. 13, para. 14 (Wordsworth); CR 2015/11, pp. 46-47, para. 27 (Kohen). - 25 -
49
few grains of sand . That , Mr. President, you will recall was their main argument at the
provisional measures hearing in November 2013 50. It is now dead. Professor Thorne told us at his
cross-examination last Friday that the sediment does not spread evenly across the river bottom. H e
agreed with Dr. Andrews that: “It will instead tend to form [shoals], creating reach -wise
instabilities and obstructi ons to navigation that will need to be removed through dredging .” 51 He
52
emphasized: “ [t]he shoals are the problem” in the Lower San Juan , becaus e they “are
depositionary centres and they do accumulate sediment” 53.
26. Costa Rica’s second argument against significant harm likew ise failed to survive
Professor Thorne’s testimony. Undaunted, Mr. Wordsworth made it last week anyway, unchanged
from the November 2013 hearing: “[T]he sediment coming from the road represents only a tiny
54
fraction of the total annual sediment load of the Río San Juan.” He said that it was 0.6 per cent,
according to Costa Rica’s measurement of the amount of sediment coming from the road, and
55
1-2 per cent according to Nicaragua’s measurement .
27. This may be true, but it is not re levant, and it is certainly not determinative of the
significant harm caused by that sediment. Everyone agrees that navigation is not seriously
impeded in the San Juan River proper, upstream from the delta . The “problem” , which is what
Professor Thorne called it 5, is in the Lower San Juan, due to the accumulation of sediment
including sediment from the road at shoals in that Lower San Juan River , creating or enlarging
obstacles to navigation 57.
58
28. On Friday, Professor Thorne told us: “Context is everything.” I thought I heard myself
59
talking, because those were my words earlier in the week, on 21 April . Professor Thorne made
49CMCR, para. 3.76 (c).
50CR 2013/29, p. 10 (Ugalde Álvarez) and p. 27 (Wordsworth).
51CR 2015/12, pp. 43-44 (Reichler & Thorne); see also CR 2015/9, pp. 31-33 (Andrews).
52
CR 2015/12, p. 43 (Thorne).
53Ibid., p. 44 (Thorne).
54CR 2015/13, p. 22, para. 48 (Wordsworth).
55Ibid.
56
CR 2015/12, p. 44 (“The Lower Río San Juan is a problem, I agree.”) (Thorne).
57
Ibid.; van Rhee Summary Report, Mar. 2015, paras. 4-6; Andrews (2014), pp. 26-29; RN, Vol. II, Ann. 3.
58CR 2015/12, p. 39 (Thorne).
59CR 2015/10, p. 14, para. 17; p. 15, para. 19; p. 18, para. 27; p. 23, para. 42 (all Reichler). - 26 -
them vividly clear. He told us the Colorado River receives at least four times as much sediment as
60
the Lower San Juan, but has no navigation problem because sediment does not accumulate there .
By contrast, he said: “Although the Lower San Juan River receives less of the sediment than the
61
Colorado, it is unable even to accommodate that load.”
29. And this is because, as Pr ofessor Thorne explained, the Lower San Juan is a “response
reach”, which he defined to mean “that the river has no unfilled capacity to transport additional
sediment and morphologic adjustments are likely to occur in response to changes in sediment
supply” 62. And he told us what these morphologic changes, caused by “additional sediment” ,
would be: the formation and enlargement of shoals that obstruct navigation, especially at and
below the delta 63. Magnitude is not everything. Context is. Professor Thorne confirmed this.
30. I come to what appears to have now become Costa Rica’s main argument against
significant harm: that Nicaragua has failed to make out a case for it, because it has not proven that
sediment from the road is entering the river. This argument was made at great length by
Mr. Wordsworth 64. Nicaragua is alleged to have failed to make its case, because it did not produce
samples of sediment concentrations upstream and downstream of the road, show ing that the
sediment concentrations downstream were higher. Not only Mr. Wordsworth, but several of
Costa Rica’s advocates harped repeatedly on this theme: Nicaragua’s failure to produce samples
showing increased sediment concentrations downstream of the road. Costa Rica now seems to
have put all its eggs in this one basket. But it is a basket with an enormous hole at the bottom; and
Costa Rica’s eggs have fallen through it.
31. The hole is this. The Parties’ experts are agreed that massive amounts of sediment have
entered the river from the road. Mr. Wordsworth somehow avoided mentioning this, but
Costa Rica’s own expert, Professor Thorne, measured that up to 75,000 tons of sediment from the
60
CR 2015/12, p. 38 (Thorne).
61Ibid., p. 39 (Thorne)Thorne October 2011 Report in Certain Activitiescase, p. II-27; see also CR 2015/8,
p. 42 (Kondolf).
62CR 2015/12, pp. 40-41 (Thorne); Thorne, “Assessment of the Impact of the Construction of the Border Road in
Costa Rica on the San Juan River”, November 2013, p. 34, para 6.12, CMCR, Vol. I, App. A; see also CR 2015/8, p. 42
(Kondolf).
63
CR 2015/12, pp. 43-44 (Thorne).
64
E.g., CR 2015/13, pp. 13-17, paras. 15-27 (Wordsworth). - 27 -
65
road has entered the river every year since 2011 . By now, the total has surpassed 300,000 tons by
his count. On cross-examination last Friday, Professor Thorne confirmed to us that he has
66
concluded that sediment is going into the river as a result of construction of the road , and
Dr. Kondolf reached the same conclusion; the only difference between them is in the amount
measured 67. For Professor Thorne, it was 75,000 tons annually . For Professor Kondolf, it was
69
between 190,000 and 250,000 tons annually .
32. As Dr. Kondolf testified, in response to Mr.Wordsworth’s questions:
“[T]he Court already has hard data in front of it that sediment is entering the
Río San Juan from the eroding sites on the road . . . [I]t is very clear that sediment is
getting into the river, that is agreed by experts for Costa Rica and Nicaragua, and there
are different e stimates for how much that is but it is very clear that sediment is
70
entering the river and adding to the sediment load.”
71
Professor Thorne made the same point .
33. In these circumstances, what would Mr. Wordsworth’s sampling exercise tell us?
Nothing that we don’t already know. The sampling exercise Costa Rica seems so devoted to would
add nothing of importance to the conclusion already reached by both Parties’ experts: that at least
75,000 tons, and possibly as much as 190,000 to 250,000 tons of sediment, are contributed by the
road to the river annually. The purpose of sampling as Costa Rica’s counsel have repeatedly
told us is to determine whether sediment from the road is entering the river and, if so, how much
of it. But we already know that, from both Parties’ experts, and from the more direct and reliable
methods they used to measure the amount of sediment eroding from specific sites. Both experts
measured the size of the area at each of these sites that is eroding as a result of construc tion of the
road, and applied erosion rates in many cases the same ones to determine the total volume of
65
Thorne Summary Report for Construction of a Road case, March 2015, p. 11, Table 4.16 & para. 3.17; Thorne
Reply Report, February 2015, p. 56, Table 4.16, RCR, Vol. I, App. A (both reporting sediment yields of 74,949 t/year);
see also RCR, para. 2.61.
66
CR 2015/12, pp. 33-34 (Thorne).
67
Ibid.
68Thorne Summary Report for Construction of a Road case, March 2015, p. 11, Table 4.16 & para. 3.17; Thorne
Reply Report, February 2015, p. 56, Table 4.16, RCR, Vol. I, App. A; see also RCR, para. 2.61.
69CR 2015/9, p. 14 (Kondolf); see also Kondolf Summary Report for Construction of a Road case, March 2015,
pp. 7-8, para. 22 & table (estimating an annual contribution of 116,000- 150,000 m 3, which equals approximately
190,000-250,000 t/year); Kondolf, “Erosion and Sediment Delivery to the Río San Juan from Route 1856” , July 2014,
p. 62, RN, Vol.II, Ann. 1 (same estimate).
70CR 2015/8, p. 41 (Kondolf).
71CR 2015/12, pp. 33-34 (Thorne). - 28 -
eroded sediment entering the river from all of the sites that are eroding. That is a direct
measurement of the sediment entering the river. What Costa Rica proposes, and accuses Nicaragua
of failing to do, is an indirect and far less reliable method of obtaining the same information.
34. Please permit me to give you an illustration. I hope you will indulge me for a moment.
[Slide on] To assist, we have prepared a drawing : on the screen, and at t ab 32 of the judges’
folder. Imagine, if you will, that I have placed on the lectern in front of me a bucket of sand.
Alongside it, I have placed a tank of water, which already has a lot of sand mixed in. I am planning
to dump the sand from the bucket into the tank. The most direct way the most reliable way
to determine the amount of sand that is going to go into the tank is to measure the sand directly,
before I pour it into the tank. To do that , I measure the volume of the bucket, determine the
fraction of the bucket that is filled, and multiply the two. That tells us the volume of sand that is
going to be poured into the tank. And t hat is effectively how Professors Thorne and Kondolf
measured the amount of sediment entering the river from the road. They measured the area subject
to erosion, multiplied it by a fraction the erosion rate and got the volume of eroded sediment
going into the river.
35. But that is not the way Costa Rica says you should do it, Mr. President. For them, you
first have to take a microscopic measurement of the concentration of sediment in the tank , or sand
in the tank . Then you dump the bucket of sand into it. Then you take another microscopic
measurement of the sediment concentration in the tank , and then you compare the two
measurements. And if you do, what do you get ? A nother way an indirect and less reliable
way of determining the same thing that Professors Thorne and Kondolf determined directly:
how much sediment or sand enters the river from the road. This is an unnecessary exercise if you
already have the direct measurement from Professor Thorne or Professor Kondolf. And also, as
applied to this case, it is an unreliablemethod. [Slide off.]
36. Professor Thorne prepared four reports regarding the road, including his summary report
of 15 March, prior to these oral hearings. In none of them did he suggest that there was a need for
sampling to determine how much sediment was entering the river from the road, or even to confirm
his measurement that the amount was 75,000 tons per year. To the contrary, here is what he wrote
in his November 2013 report: “[N]o possibility exists for using measured loads to estimate how - 29 -
much sediment derived from erosi on of the Road has been added to the Río San Juan, due to the
72
very high natural variability in those loads.”
37. My friend Mr. Wordsworth strained to invoke Dr. Kondolf in support of Costa Rica’s
73
sampling theory . But Dr. Kondolf repeatedly confirmed that the most reliable way to determine
the amount of sediment coming into the river from the road was by direct measurem ent, as both he
74
and Professor Thorne had done . Professor Kondolf in his testimony, like Professor Thorne in his
reports, emphasized that: “there is a lot of variability in suspended sediment data . . . such that that
75
would have to be taken into account in trying to interpret whet her there is a change reflected ” .
When pressed by Mr. Wordsworth, Dr. Kondolf explained how sampling could be done. But he
never said, as Costa Rica would have it, that sampling would be a reliable, or a more reliable, way
of measuring the sediment from the road that is entering the San Juan River 7. In fact, he said
exactly the opposite, as you will see in the citations that are provided in the footnotes to this
speech 77.
38. Mr. President, Costa Rica’s “sampling” argument is a diversionary tactic. It is intended
to divert you from the undisputed evidence provided by Professors Thorne and Kondolf that
massive quantities of sediment have been entering, and are continuing to enter, the river from the
road. The only disagreement is over the amount. The argument is also intended, as are many of
Costa Rica’s arguments, to cast Nicaragua as some sort of sinister vi llain. Nicaragua is blamed for
preventing a joint sampling exercise by insisting, as a precondition, that construction of the road be
suspended. What is wrong with that? Assuming, quod non, that sampling would have produced
anything useful and it migh t have been one way of gaining some information, before
Professors Thorne and Kondolf measured the amount of sediment entering the river by their more
direct methodology why not assess impacts before the works are carried out? That is what EIA
is all about.
72Thorne, “Assessment of the Impact of the Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica on the San Juan
River”, November 2013, p. 70, para. 8.17, CMCR, Vol. I, App. A.
73
CR 2015/13, p. 12, para. 7 (b); p. 14, para. 17; p. 17, para. 26 (all Wordsworth).
74CR 2015/9, pp. 14-16 (Kondolf).
75CR 2015/8, p. 41; see also, pp. 42 & 48 (Kondolf).
76
Ibid.
77Ibid., p. 16 (Kondolf). - 30 -
39. Mr. Wordsworth referred you to Nicaragua’s correspondence of August 2013. That was
several months before Costa Rica submitted its Counter-Memorial in December of that year, which
included Dr. Thorne’s original estimate of the amount of sediment entering the river each year.
What Mr. Wordsworth did not tell you, is that, after receiving Dr. Thorne’s report, Costa Rica
78
withdrew its offer to engage in a joint sampling exercise . Apparently they considered that
Professor Thorne’s measurements ren dered sampling unnecessary. Their arguments at these
hearings thus ring hollow.
40. What about t he difference between Professor Thorne’s and Professor Kondolf’s
measurements of the amount of sediment eroding into the river from the road? In the first pl ace,
we say that the harm to the Lower San Juan River is significant in either case because, as both
experts have shown, it is susceptible of being measured and they have in fact measured it. Second,
we say that Professor Kondolf is right. In explaining why, I will attempt to answer the question put
by Judge Robinson at the end of Professor Kondolf’s examination on 20 April in regard to the
differences between the Parties’ measurements.
41. Mr. President, I beg your indulgence because answering Judge Rob inson’s question
requires me to enter into some detail. I will do it as briefly as possible. There are at least four
reasons why Costa Rica’s measurement of eroded sediment entering the river is too low. At the
outset, it should be pointed out that some of the measurements relied on by Professor Thorne were
not act ually made by him, but by Costa Rica’s Dr. Mende 7. You will recall from Fri day’s
testimony, that Professor Thorne expressed some consternation with Dr. Mende’s numbers in
regard to mitigated o r partially mitigated sites, explaining that they were not what he would have
determined, but were “negotiated” with Dr. Mende to produce figures that Professor Thorne
ultimately could consider acceptable 80. As I take you through the process, I believe you will
understand why Professor Thorne was not entirely comfortable with the reliability of Dr. Mende’s
measurements.
78
Letter from the Co -Agent of Costa Rica to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice,
ref. ECRPB-63-2013, 27 Sep. 2013, CMCR, Vol. III, Ann. 65.
7Thorne (2015), paras. 4.21-4.40; RCR, Vol. I, App. A.
8CR 2015/12, p. 23 (Reichler & Thorne). - 31 -
42. The difficulty is this: Dr. Mende underreported the area of land moved or disturbed by
construction of the road and that was thereby subject to erosion; and to this unreasonably small
area, arbitrarily low erosion rates were applied. Here are four of the ways in which this was done.
43. First, Dr. Mende did not include in the a rea subject to erosion over 2.2 million sq m of
bare earth in close proximity to the river that had been disturbed, moved and devegetated in the
construction process, and which was eroding sediment into the river. Dr. Mende arbitrarily limited
81
the area of concern the area he measured only to slopes and roadbed . Had he included all
areas subject to erosion, Costa Rica’s estimate of total annual erosion woul d have been at least
40,000 tons higher annually: 75,000 + 40,000 = 115,000.
44. Second, Dr. Mende’s measurement did not account for any eroded sedime nt contributed
by the more than 300 km of access roads constructed or improved by Costa Rica to connect with
Route 1856. [Slide on] On the screen, and at t ab 33, is Costa Rica’s map showing in red these
access roads. As you can see, the access roads all come right up close to the river. Most
significantly, they all cross numerous streams and other tributaries that feed into the San Juan.
That is how sediment from these road surfaces gets into the river, at the water crossings that have
82
also been such a problem all along Route 1856 itself . Dr. Kondolf conservatively applies very
low rates of erosion and sediment delivery here 83. If Dr. Mende had accounted for any sediment
from these access roads, instead of zero, his measurement would have been increase d by at least
another 16,000 tons per year 84: 115,000 + 16,000 = 131,000 tons. [Slide off]
45. Third, in its 2013 report, ICE, the Costa Rican government agency, measured road
surface erosion at 24,200 tons per year 85. However, the next year, in its 201 4 report, it arbitrarily
reduced this to 2,900 tons, partly by reclassifying large portions of what was previously called road
as trail, and then applying an unjustifiably low rate of erosion to the newly designated trail
81
Kondolf Summary Report for Construction of a Road case, Mar ch 2015, paras. 10, 44- 47; see also ,
Mende (2014), pp. 8, 31-33, RCR, Vol.II, Ann. 3.
82
Kondolf Summary Report for Construction of a Road case, March 2015, para. 21.
83Ibid.
84
See ibid.
85
Ibid., para. 37. - 32 -
86
portions . If the higher 2013 mea surement by ICE is taken as co rrect, this adds another
21,300 tons per year of eroded sediment to the river: 131,000 + 21,300 = 152,300 tons.
46. Fourth, Dr. Mende, without justification, reduced the rates of erosion he applied to slopes
from his 2013 to his 2014 report 8. Had he applied his own erosion rates from 2013, this would
have added another 12,000 tons of sediment eroding into the river annually:
152,300 + 12,000 = 164,300 tons.
47. Mr. President, by simply correcting for four of Costa Rica’s errors, or, if you will, bias in
favour of itself, we have narro wed the difference between the P arties’ measurements to some
25,000 tons per year: at least 190,000 for Dr. Kondolf, and at least, or approximately,165,000 tons
for Dr. Mende. I could go on and account for the rest of the difference but I think this is enough to
make the point, and I hope Judge Robinson will be satisfied with the answer.
48. Mr. Wordsworth’s main criticism of Dr. Kondolf’s measurement is that, allegedly,
Dr. Kondolf’s estimate of the total area of slopes subject to erosion is considerably higher than
Dr. Mende’s, who, according to Mr. Wordsworth, “walked the length of the road”, electronic range
88
finder in hand . Nicaragua woul d have more confidence in Costa Rica’s measurement if it had
been Professor Thorne who walked the length of the road and did the actual measurement.
Dr. Kondolf used standard methods, based on remotely- sensed images, to measure the sizes of the
89
eroding slopes . Nicaragua considers his measurements more reliable than Dr. Mende’s.
49. Mr. President, based on the measurement of the amount of sediment entering the river
from the road, Nicaragua’s experts have measured the amount that accumulates in the Lower San
Juan, where it aggrades primarily at shoals, enlarging them and exacerbating their capacity to
obstruct navigation. [Slide on] At tab 34 you will find three sets of alternative calculations, using
as a starting-point, the amount of sediment entering the river as measured, respectively, by
Professor Thorne and the two estimates, the low and the high, provided by Professor Kondolf.
These calculations are consistent with t he methodology I outlined on 21 April. As
86
Kondolf Summary Report for Construction of a Road case, March 2015, paras. 37-43.
8See ibid., paras. 34, 36.
8CR 2015/13, p. 19, para. 35 (Wordsworth).
89
See Kondolf Summary Report for Construction of a Road case, Mar. 2015, para. 14. - 33 -
Mr. Wordsworth acknowledged, Nicaragua is content to use Costa Rica’s own figures, as
determined by ICE, for the distribution of sediment between coarse and fine, and the proportions of
coarse and fine sediment that are transported to the Lower San Juan River. Why fault us for that?
Often, the best way to prove a case is by using the other side’s evidence. They can not dispute it
that way. Because he does not like Costa Rica’s own evidence, Mr. Wordsworth has done his best
90
to discredit it. But it was good enough for Professor Thorne, who relied on it in his reports .
50. Mr. President, y ou have the calculations before you. Even if, quod non,
Professor Thorne is right about the amount of sediment entering the river from the road, the portion
of that sediment that accumulates in the Lower San Juan is susceptible of measurement. And it is
detrimental. As Dr. Andrews testified on 20 April, it is a “large amount” and it “has to be
dredged” 91. [Slide off ] Even Professor Thorne, who is not an admirer of Nicaragua’s particular
dredging programme, agreed in his testimony that there is still a “dredging requirement” , especially
“dredging of the tops of the shoals . . .” 92. Mr. Wordsworth told you that some of the sediment
93
accumulates downstream of the area where Nicaragua is currently dredging . That is correct. But
that sediment still is an ob stacle to navigation and has to be dredged. [Slide on.] At tab 35 is the
same map I showed you last week, indicating the eight locations, including downstream locations,
where Nicaragua must eventually dredge. Costa Rica has not disputed this evidence. [Slide off]
51. On Friday, Costa Rica came up with an entirely new argument, one that they had never
made before: that not all the coarse sediment gets to the Lower San Juan, because some of i t
aggrades upstream. Professor Thorne, who did not address this subject in any of his written
reports, told us during his re -examination by Mr. Wordsworth, that some of the coarse sediment
gets trapped upstream 9. But Professor Thorne also testified that this entrapment was only
temporary, like stayin g at a “hotel r oom for sediment”, and that it eventually, in a year or more,
will be transported downstream to the Lower San Juan 95. Well, we are now four years into
90E.g., Thorne (2015), para. 5.23, RCR, Vol. I, App. A; Thorne Summary Report for Construction of a Road
case, Mar. 2015, para. 4.3.
91
CR 2015/9, pp. 30-31 (Andrews).
92CR 2015/12, p. 52 (Thorne).
93Ibid., p. 49 (Thorne).
94
Ibid., pp. 49-50 (Thorne).
95Ibid. - 34 -
construction of the road, so it means, according to Professor Thorne, that it is now year three’s
sediment that is accumulating in the Lower San Juan. That does not even put a dent in Nicaragua’s
argument about significant harm.
52. In fact, it strengthens our argument. [Slide on] This figure which is at tab 36
shows where, in the San Juan River, just upstream from the Lower San Juan, sediment
96
accumulates. The figure is from the 2014 EPN report . Perhaps counter -intuitively, the figure
shows the shallow parts of the river in blue; the darker the blue, the shallower the water, and the
greater the obstruction of navigation. As you can see, the part of the San Juan proper, immediately
upstream of the entrance to the Lower San Juan, is the shallowest, just as shallow as the other
problematic stretches a short distance downstream. This is one of the pla ces on the river where
navigation is obstructed because sediment accumulates. And, as shown on the figure through the
yellow and red lines, this is precisely where Nicaragua has been required to dredge and is dredging.
So it does not help Costa Rica that some of the coarse sediment accumulates, temporarily, upstream
of the Lower San Juan. In fact, as this figure shows, that only makes the problem of sediment
accumulation, and obstruction of navigation, worse. It blocks entrance to, and exit from, the Lower
San Juan. Professor Thorne’s comment that some of the sediment also ends up in marshlands does
not change this conclusion 9. The marshlands, including the disputed area, are downstream of the
sediment-obstructed reaches, so they do not trap sediment before it gets to those reaches. [Slide
off]
53. Finally, Mr. President, I want to address Costa Rica’s casual dismissal of the total
98
maximum daily load requirements imposed by many States , including Argentina and Uruguay,
and Costa Rica’s even brisker dismissal of the Pulp Mills case 99. What these TMDL requirements
undeniably show, is that the international community recognizes that magnitude should not be
confused with significance in determining environmental impacts on rivers. Once a pre- established
level of a particular substance, including sediment, has been reached, any amount, no matter how
96
EPN, “Project 262-09: Improvement of Navigation in the San Juan de Nicaragua River: Physical-Financial
Progress Report Corresponding to 2014” (i.e., EP N 2014 Annual Report), 2015, p. 37, Ann. 1 to letter from Nicaragua to
the ICJ, ref. HOL-EMB-0035, 9 Mar. 2015. Figure provided in judges’ folders at tab 36.
97CR 2015/12, p. 49 (Thorne).
98CR 2015/13, pp. 22-24, paras. 50-52 (Wordsworth).
99
Ibid., p. 24, para. 52 (Wordsworth). - 35 -
small in quantity, is prohibited. That is because, after a river accumulates as much of the substance
as it can accommodate, anything above that amount is considered harmful.
54. We recognize that Nicaragua has not established a TMDL for sediment , with respect to
the San Juan River. But that is wholly beside the point. Both Parties’ experts agree that the Lower
San Juan was already “unable to accommodate” the sediment load it received from upstream before
100
the road was constructed . In Professor Thorne’s words, it had “no unfilled capacity to transport
additional sediment” 101. By definition, therefore, any quantity of sediment added by the road is
102
harmful . Nicaragua has not needed to establish TMDLs for the San Juan River because it has
never authorized Costa Rica to dump any substances, including sediment, into a river over which
Nicaragua alone is sovereign. In effect, the TMDL for the San Juan River, in regard to Costa Rican
sediment, is zero.
55. Mr. Wordsworth’s description of the Pulp Mills case was not entirely accurate. He told
the Court that Argentina proved its case by use of the sampling methods Costa Rica has advocated
103
here . I do know a litt le bit about that case. Mr. Wordsworth is wrong on two counts. First,
104
Argentina did not prove its case. Its claim of environmental harm was rejected by the Court .
Second, and more importantly for present purposes, the contribution of phosphorous by th e pulp
mill to the river was determined not by sampling, but by direct measurement, at the mill, before it
entered the river, before it entered the river it was determined how much phosphorous was included
105
in the mill’s discharge. This was calculated at 1 5 tons . This was a mere 0.1 per cent of the
phosphorous already in the river, one-tenth, percentage-wise, of the contribution of sediment by the
road to the river in this case, according to Costa Rica ’s measurement. The Court itself considered
this proportion to be insignificant. But it was not the proportionate contribution that mattered in
the end. It was the fact that even 15 tons of phosphorous would have been too much, because the
100
CR 2015/12, p. 39 (Reichler & Thorne); Thorne October 2011 Report for Certain Activities case, p. II-27,
CMCR, Vol. I, App. A.
101CR 2015/12, pp. 40- 41 (Thorne); Thorne November 2013 Report for Construction of a Road case, p. 34,
para. 6.12, CMCR, Vol. I, App. A.
102E.g., CR 2015/8, p. 42 (Kondolf).
103
CR 2015/13, p. 13, para. 11 (Wordsworth).
104
Case concerning Pulp Mills on t he River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I),
p. 96.
105Ibid., para. 240. - 36 -
river had already accumulated, and surpassed, the maximum amount of phosphorous it could safely
106
accommodate under the applicable legal limit .
56. Thus, it was because Uruguay compensated for the mill ’s addition of phosphorous to the
river, by requiring the operators to reduce the emission of phosphorous elsewhere along the river in
an equal or greater amount, that international responsibility was avoided. Costa Rica, unlike
Uruguay only adds sediment to the river; it does nothing to offset that contribution. In fact, it has
done very little even to mitigate it. And now it is preparing to embark on an enormous new project
that, at least during the execution phase, will greatly multiply the amount of sediment going into
the river. And it is preparing to do so w ithout complying with its obligation to perform a prior
transboundary EIA.
57. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this concludes my presentation. As it is my last
one in these joint proceedings, I want to thank the Court especially for all the courtesy, and patient
attention, you, the Members of the Court, the Registry, the interpreters, the entire staff of the Court,
have honoured me with these past three weeks. And I want to compliment the Court, including the
Registry, on the masterful way it arranged for, and supervi sed, the cross -examination and
re-examination of the experts. I ask that you call Mr. Loewenstein to the podium, perhaps after a
break.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Reichler. En effet, la Cour va à présent se retirer pour
une pause de 15 minutes. L’audience est suspendue.
L’audience est suspendue de 11 h 25 à 11 h 45.
10Case concerning Pulp Mills on t he River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I),
paras. 244-247. - 37 -
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez-vous asseoir. Je donne la parole à M. Loewenstein pour la suite
des plaidoiries du Nicaragua.
Mr. LOEWENSTEIN:
T HE RISK TO THE S AN J UAN RIVER ’S ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1. Mr. President, Members of t he Court, good morning. I will respond to Costa Rica ’s
pleadings concerning the risk the road poses to aquatic life.
2. Last week, we saw that data reported by Costa Rica’ s Tropical Science Center, or CCT,
show the road is harming macroinvertebrates and water quality in the tributaries that flow into the
San Juan. Costa Rica ’s response was to urge the Court to disregard these data in favour of
conclusions drawn by CCT that would minimize the data’s obvious import.
3. The Court should decline this invi tation. These studies were “ commissioned” by
Costa Rica’s Foreign Ministry to respond to Nicaragua ’s claims in this case 107. As the Court
observed in analogous circumstances, this makes the conclusions suspect, especially when they
serve Costa Rica’s litigation interests10. This does not mean everything in CCT ’s reports should
be discarded it is for the Court to decide how much weight to give its various findings.
Objective data, for instance, may prove credible. But it does suggest that CCT ’s conclusions,
especially those that appear to serve Costa Rica ’s interests in this case, should be approached with
caution. That is especially warranted where the conclusions contradict the data.
4. Consider CCT ’s conclusion that the water quality “ index scores were not substantially
different downstream and upstream ” and that there was “ no ‘extreme difference’” between the
upstream and downstream sites 109. Costa Rican law sets six water quality levels, each defined by a
10Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 P-EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 2015; Rejoinder of Costa Rica (RCR), Ann. 14, p. 10.
108
Territorial and Maritime Dispute betweeicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaraguv.
Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep orts 2007 (II), p. 731, para. 244; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Rep orts 2005, pp. 225-226, para. 159; Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicav. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1986, p. 43, paras. 69-70).
109
CR 2015/13, p. 36, para. 31 (Parlett). - 38 -
110
range of scores . The lower the score, the w orse the water quality. For instance, “polluted” is
defined as ranging from 36 to 60; and “very polluted” as 16 to 35 11. The EDA describes an
112
“extreme change” as a shift oftwo or more water quality levels .
5. Given the data we reviewed last week , how could CCT conclude there were no extreme
changes? The answer: i t treated the categories of “polluted” and “very polluted” as a single
category 113. That eliminated the two-level changes. At site 6, the water quality score fell from 80
114
to 35 . The water quality index defines this as a two- level shift: from “moderate pollution” to
“very polluted”. Hence, an extreme change. By collapsing the “ polluted” and “very polluted”
categories, CCT converted this two -level change into a one- level change. Presto ! N o extreme
change. The same thing happened at site 9. The water quality score fell from 44 to just 10, that is,
from “polluted” to “extremely polluted”, a two-level change 11. But because CCT lumped together
“polluted” and “very polluted”, another extreme change was eliminated.
6. What about CCT ’s conclusion that impacts are “ temporary”? Again, the data contradict
the conclusion. CCT sampled the same ten streams twice. The first time showed that five streams
116
had lower water quality downstream of the road than upstream . When CCT resampled, the same
sites still had worse water quality downstream than upstream. Four more sites did as well 117. So
the impacts persisted, and became more widespread. They were not temporary.
7. The conclusion that impacts are only local? CCT did not support this with analysis, and it
is disproven by photographic evidence. Consider the photos taken in March of this year which
you can find at tab 38. The coconut fibre and geotextile have not prevented plumes of sediment
from sweeping the bank of the river. These areas are habitat for macroinvertebrates, which the
110
Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project -EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 15; Rejoinder of Costa Rica (RCR), Ann. 14, p. 99.
111
Ibid.
112Ibid., p. 50.
113Ibid., p. 99.
114Ibid., p. 98.
115
Ibid.
116Ibid.
117Ibid. - 39 -
experts for both Parties agree are food for many species of fish. Professor Cowx’s report shows
118
that 37 species in the San Juan dependupon various forms of macroinvertebrates .
8. CCT also ignores the cumulative effect of sediment from the 127 tributaries that cross the
119
road. I raised this in the first round ; Costa Rica said nothing in response. As you can see at
tab 39, in the stretch between Majon 2 a nd Boca San Carlos there are 75 such watercourse
crossings identified by Dr. Mende. There are 12 in just the 2.5 km stretch where some of the worst
eroding sites are located, on average only about 200 m apart. It is indefensible to assume there is
no risk from the cumulative impact of such closely spaced tributaries.
9. The deltas that have arisen, or grown, from road-derived sediment, such as those shown at
tab 40, also contradict CCT’s assumption that the road’s impacts are confined to Costa Rican
tributaries. Not only do they bury habitats in the San Juan with sediment, the deltas have effects
downstream. Professor Thorne’s report observes that r oad-derived deltas tend to , in his word,
120
“disintegrate”, with the eroded sediment transported by the river’s current . As a result, sediment
from the deltas sweeps along the bank, impacting the aquatic organisms and their habitats. In
contrast, Professor Thorne states that natural deltas that is, those that are not caused by the
121
road are “stable and persistent morphological features” .
10. Dr. Parlett suggested that aquatic organisms in the San Juan are adapted to high sediment
loads. The reason, she said, is that much of the San Juan’s sediment is contributed by a few large
tributaries, including the San Carlos, which accounts for a 70 per cent increase in sediment load 122.
But, as you can see at t ab 41, the San Carlos is downstream of 14 of the 17 severely eroding sites
that contribute most of the r oad’s sediment. The upstream area, where road erosion is particularly
bad, does not have the high sediment load to which Dr. Parlett referred. It is a different habitat.
Even if the organisms downstream of the San Carlos are adapted to high sediment loads, there is no
118
Ian Cowx, “Ecological Impacts of Route 1856 on the San J uan River, Nicaragua”, Dec. 2014; RCR, Ann. 2,
App. 1, pp. 26-31.
119CR 2015/10, p. 28, para. 14 (Loewenstein).
120Colin Thorne, “Assessment of the Impact of the Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica on the San
Juan River: Reply Report”, Feb.2015, p. 98, para. 5.16; RCR, Vol. I, App. A.
121
Ibid.
122
CR 2015/13, p. 30, para. 12 (Parlett). - 40 -
justification for assuming the same is tru e of the upstream part o f the river, where most of the
road’s erosion into the river is occurring.
11. In any event, t he Parties agree there have been no studies of the fish species in the
123
San Juan to determine whether they are vulnerable to elevated leve ls of sediment .
Professor Cowx agreed that a “species by species” study would need to be done, taking into
124
account “each species’ habitat and environmental tolerances” . He testified this is the “classical
way” of determining vulnerability to sediment, and he also testified that no such studies have been
125
carried out . Although he suggested that a high sediment load might be required to impact
macroinvertebrates, when asked repeatedly during re -examination what studie s support this claim
126
in the San Juan, the only study he mentioned concerned a river in Papua New Guinea . Tellingly,
he did not refer to the EDA.
12. Mr. President, the picture that emerges is that the San Juan is a remote river in a
developing country where the aquatic life has not been the subject of much scientific study. A
major infrastructure project is being built metre s away, and the project promises to become larger.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) anticipated this type of situation. Its Technical
Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries address how States should approach lack of data about fish.
They say: “The absence of adequate scientific information should not be used as a reason for
postponing or failing to take measures to conserve target species, associated or dependent species
127
and non-target species and their environment.”
13. The FAO also says that EIA is how lack of data should be addressed. “In inland waters,
where the major impacts arise from activities outside the fishery, the precautionary approach
should be extended to all developments within the basin. This means that careful impact
128
assessments should be made of non-fishery projects.” The FAO could easily have been referring
to the San Juan when it warned that “major damage” can arise “from a series of minor interventions
123
CR 2015/12, p. 14 (Cowx).
124CR 2015/12, p. 14 (Cowx).
125Ibid.
126
Ibid., p. 17 (Cowx).
127
Inland Fisheries: FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 1997, a vailable at:
http://www.fao.org/3/a-w6930e.pdf , p. 10, para. 6.5.
128Ibid. - 41 -
129
whose cumulative or antagonistic impacts can be enormous” . It mentioned “diffuse pollution
caused by widescale agriculture” as an example 130. The need to evaluate the “cumulative” impacts
on fish from “diffuse pollution” applies a lso to eroded sediment, which the United States
Environmental Protection Agency describes as a major non-point source of pollution 131.
14. Costa Rica’s expert, Professor Cowx, endorsed the FAO’s approach in both his academic
writing and his testimony. Here is what he said about what should be done when there is a “lack of
baseline data”: “Where information on which to make a decision remains inadequate the
precautionary approach must be adopted. This is particularly important where development
schemes are likely to impact on fish communities about which little is known.” 132
15. Mr. President, that describes the present situation. There have been no studies of fish in
the San Juan 133. The two studies relied upon by Costa Rica are both studies of fish in Cost a Rica,
not the San Juan. Moreover, the San Juan is not just a Ramsar site, it is a Ramsar site that is
specifically designated for fish 13, a fact that Professor Cowx testified is particularly important,
135
although he appeared to be unaware that it applies to the San Juan . By Costa Rica and
Professor Cowx’s estimation, there are 11 aquatic sp ecies in the San Juan that are specially
designated, nationally or by the IUCN 13, because of their vulnerable state.
16. Nicaragua’s ecological resources should not be placed in jeopardy simply because it is a
developing country that has not been able to devote the human and financial resources needed to
study the San Juan’s flora and fauna. Some d eveloped States may have had the luxury of building
extensive datasets for their riverine biota, but this was not something Nicaragua has been able to
129
Inland Fisheries: FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 1997, available at:
http://www.fao.org/3/a-w6930e.pdf , p. 10, para. 6.5.
13Ibid.
13US EPA, NPS Categories, available at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/categories.cfm.
132
CR 2015/12, p. 15 (Cowx) ; Ian Cowx, “The role of catchment scale environmental management in freshwater
fish conservation”; judges’ folder, tab 26.
133
CR 2015/12, p. 14 (Cowx).
13Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands, Rio San Juan Wildlife Reserve, NI1138RISformer2000, p. 3 available
at: https://rsis.ramsar.org/RISapp/files/.../NI1138RISformer2000_EN.pdf.
13CR 2015/12, pp. 12-13 (Cowx).
13Ian Cowx, “Ecological Impacts of Route 1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua”, Dec. 2014; Rejoinder of
Costa Rica (RCR), Ann. 2, p. 9, table9. - 42 -
do, at least with respect to the San Juan. And, because the road was built without prior notification,
Nicaragua had no reason to make this a priority.
17. Mr. President, the expert evidence and international guidelines are clear about what
should be done in these circumstances: EIA is necessary. Not to carry one out, especially in light
of the new road construction that appears to be imminent , would be a violation of Costa Rica’s
international obligation in regard to transboundary EIA. The EIA should especially consider the
impacts of new road construction on aquatic life, an d fill in the blanks that CostRica has left
concerning these potential impacts. If, as Mr. Reichler said this morning, Costa Rica carries out an
EIA, either on i ts own accord or by order of thisCourt, Nicaragua will co -operate in every way
possible.
18. Mr. President, this concludes my presentation. Thank you once again for your kind
attention. I invite you to call upon Professor McCaffrey.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci. Je donne la parole à M. le professeur McCaffrey.
Mr. McCAFFREY:
COSTA R ICA’S EMERGENCY DECLARATION AND ITS BREACHES OF ENVIRONMENTAL
AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS OWED TO N ICARAGUA
1. Merci Monsieur le président. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, my task
today is to respond to Costa Rica’s argument that it has not breached obligations of environmental
impact assessment, or EIA, owed to Nicaragua.
2. Before addressing tha t topic, Mr. President, allow me to recall the basic features of the
context in which these issues arise.
1. Costa Rica’s violation of Nicaragua’s territorial integrity
(a) Costa Rica’s knowing violation
3. Mr. President, over the millennia, humans have used rivers as a convenient way to dispose
of waste : you put something in the river, it goes away. Or it seems to. But we have now long
13See, e.g., Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of th, World Meterological
Organization/Stockholm Environment Institute 1997, United Nations doc. A/CN.17/1997/9, 4 Feb. 1997. - 43 -
understood the fallacy of that assumption. Waste deposited in rivers does have effects, both on
other humans and on aquatic ecosystems, and Nicaragua has shown the Court what some of those
effects are in the present case. Yet Costa Rica is still operating under the antiquated, fallacious
assumption in respect of its road project: put dirt into the river, and it magica lly disappears.
[Slide 1 on]
4. There is visible, tangible evidence of the enormous quantities of sediment Costa Rica is
knowingly causing to be deposited in the San Juan River: the large sediment deltas that have
formed on the right bank of the river directly below some of the road’s seriously eroding sites.
You see one of them on your screens and at tab 44 of your folders; this was an image shown last
week by Costa Rica. Breathtakingly, this is one of what Dr. Parlett has called “micro deltas” 138.
One wonders how large a delta would have to be by her standard not to qualify as “micro”.
5. In fact, Mr. President, it is a universally accepted principle that one may be said to have
intended the consequences that are substantially certain to follow f rom one’s acts. This principle
fits Costa Rica’s conduct with respect to the road perfectly. In this sense, these deltas are literal,
physical invasions, incursions by Costa Rica into Nicaragua’s sovereign territory, incursions that
Costa Rica has knowingly caused by its careless road construction methods. Incursion through the
agency of sediment is no less real, as evidenced by the photograph on the screen, than incursion by
humans.
6. As if to drive this point home, Mr. President, Costa Rica now appar ently claims that these
incursions form a part of its own territory. This is evident from the title of the slide on your
screens, which contains the words: “illegal presence in Costa Rican territory”, evidently referring
to the fact that individuals are standing on the edge of the enormous delta depicted in the
139
photograph . Thus Costa Rica is claiming that it can acquire Nicaraguan territory by causing
Costa Rican soil to be deposited across the border into Nicaragua. Such a stunning claim is
unprecedented, both in its boldness and in its lack of any legal foundation.
7. And, Mr. President, it should be borne in mind that the visible portions of these deltas
the portions above the water’s surface are only the virtual tips of the sediment icebergs, i n two
13CR 2015/13, p. 40 (Parlett).
13Costa Rica judge’s folder, 23 Apr. 2015, tab 55 (Kohen). - 44 -
senses: first, that as with icebergs, the portion of the deltas beneath the surface dwarfs the portion
that is visible above the surface; and second, that the deltas form only a tiny fraction of the total
sediment coming into the river from the road, the rest of which is transported downstream. [Slide 1
off]
8. Mr. President, if these quantities of sediment had been dumped by Costa Rica onto
Nicaragua’s land territory rather than into the river, this would be a violation of its territorial
integrity, a trespass that no country would tolerate. Nicaragua submits that the fact that Costa Rica
has knowingly undertaken an activity that will result in sediment being deposited into the river,
also Nicaragua’s territory, should likewise not be tolerated, including by this Court.
(b) No requirement of harm for a violation of territorial integrity
9. Mr. President, there is another aspect of Costa Rica’s causing of sediment to be deposited
into the river, which in law may be regarded as an intentional act, as I have explained, that bears
emphasis, and to which I have already alluded. It is that a violation of a State’s territorial integrity
by another State need not cause any actual harm at all to be wrongful. Mr. Wordsworth
acknowledged this on Tuesday 140. It is perhaps an obvious point but it nonetheless bears emphasis
because Costa Rica has based their entire case on what they say is a lack of “significant harm” from
the sediment pollution. But, Mr. President, as the Court is well aware, whether it is an
unauthorized entry of troops or overflight by an airplane, or the deposit of waste into the territory
of another State, it is the trespass that is prohibited by international law; there is no requirement
that the trespass be harmful 141. A rule that knowing but harmless trespasses were not prohibited
would encourage all sorts of violations of the territorial integrity of States, contrary to the most
fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter.
10. For these reasons, Nicaragua rejects Costa Rica’ s contention that it is not responsible for
the sedimentary encroachments on Nicaragua’s territory caused by the haphazard construction of
142
the road .
140
CR 2015/14, p. 21, para. 37 (Wordsworth): (“The precise minutiae of damage inflicted on Costa Rican
territory by Nicaragua are irrelevant to the question now before you, which is the question of breach.”)
14Ibid. Cf. CR 2015/3, p. 16, paras. 24-25 (Wordsworth).
142
E.g., CR 2015/11, pp. 41-42, paras. 10-14 (Kohen). - 45 -
2. Environmental impact assessment
11. Mr. President, allow me now turn to environmental impact assessment.
(a) Costa Rica h as not answered Nicaragua’s c ase on the l ack of effect of Costa Rica’s
emergency declaration
12. In order to escape from what the Court has found to be “a requirement under general
international law to undertake an environmental impact assessment” 143, Costa Rica would have to
show one of two things: either that its emergency declaration of 21 February 2011 exempts it from
the requirement; or, if it is not exempted, that the threshold for triggering the obligation to conduct
an EIA was not satisfied in the present case 144. Costa Rica has demonstrated neither. I will address
these requirements briefly, in turn.
13. First of all, Mr. President, Costa Rica has not chosen to challenge Nicaragua’s case that
Costa Rica may not assert its declaration of emergency under its domestic law to exempt it from its
international obligations, or that the only way Costa Rica can exempt itself from its international
obligation, to prepare an EIA for the road, is to establish an applicable circumstance precl uding
wrongfulness. Professor Kohen said simply : “Il n’y a nul besoin de se référer aux règles
secondaires de la responsabilité, pour utiliser la terminologie de Roberto Ago, relatives aux
145
circonstances excluant l’illicéité.” Professor Kohen also said it was not necessary to refer to
what he called the very interesting but irrelevant rule that domestic law cannot trump international
146
obligations .
14. Instead, Professor Kohen referred to what he called the “long list” of national and
international instruments recognizing an exemption from EIA obligations in cases of emergency.
But as Nicaragua has pointed out, the glaringly obvious problem for Costa Rica here is that it is not
a party to any of these international instruments, and its own EIA law does not recognize an
emergency exemption.
143
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 83, para. 204.
144Professor Kohen dealt with these requirements in reverse order (CR 2015/11, p. 45, para. 25), but the first, the
applicable threshold, would only become relevant if Costa Rica were not exempted from the obligation by its em ergency
declaration.
145CR 2015/11, p. 51, para. 41 (Kohen).
146
Ibid., pp. 51-52. - 46 -
15. The only other possibility, Mr. President, is that Costa Rica is implicitly arguing that
such an exemption is recognized by general international law. If this were the case, then surely with
the exemption would come the full panoply of safeguards that condition its applicability in all of
the domestic and international instruments Costa Rica cites safeguards that Costa Rica has
studiously failed to observe.
16. At bottom, Costa Rica seems to have chosen to cling to the vain notion that international
law will exempt a State from its obligation to conduct an EIA whenever that State chooses to
declare an emergency, whether or not the emergency is genuine, whether it bears any relation to the
project involved, and no matter how long it lasts. If this were the case, Mr. President, there would
be little left of the rule of law in international relations.
17. The second point, Mr. President, is that these hearings have added yet more evidence that
there was no genuine emergency justifying the disastrous construction of the road. Mr. Brenes last
Thursday repeated the same arguments supporting construction of a road that Costa Rica made in
the Navigational and Related Rights case in 2006 and that relate to problems Cos ta Rica should
have remedied since that time if it were really concerned about them.
18. For example, Mr. Brenes said the purpose of the road “was to allow land communication
to protect the border area . . ., particularly by allowing travel between the police posts along the
147
border by land, and allowing access to emergency personnel” . This and other similar points he
raised were in fact addressed in your Judgment in Navigational and Related Rights 148.
19. Mr. President, this is not the proper forum in which to complain of such internal matters.
The fact that Costa Rica has failed to address these rather mundane situations for such a long time
demonstrates that Costa Rica clearly does not consider them to amount to an “emergency”.
20. But Mr. Brenes went further in his attempts to justify the emergency declaration, and
thus the haste with which the r oad project was undertaken, stating that : “The need to have access
to [the delta] area was prompted by comments made by the President of Nicaragua[, who ] publicly
announced that Nicaragua could claim rights on the Colorado River, . . . [and with respect to] the
14CR 2015/11, p. 22, para. 27 (Brenes).
14Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009 ,
p. 270, paras. (1) (f) and (g). - 47 -
149
Costa Rican province of Guanacaste . . .” [Slide 2 on] You see on your screens and it is at
tab 45 of your folders the slides shown by Mr. Brenes as he was making these charges. What he
did not call to your attention is that President Ortega said in both instances these claims would be
brought before this Court. You can see the references to the Court outlined by Nicaragua in
yellow. There was absolutely no implication that such claims would be pursued by forceful or any
other unlawful means. Nicaragua trusts that it is not a violation of international law to declare that
a dispute may be brought before the p rincipal judicial organ of the United Nations and that such a
statement offers no justification for an emergency declaration, let alone otherwise unlawful acts.
All the less so because some of these statements were made by President Ortega months, and even
years, after the emergency decree was issued in February 2011 150. [Slide 2 off]
21. To conclude on this point, Mr. President, there was no emergency that justified
Costa Rica’s reckless construction of the r oad without preparing and notifying Nicaragua of
an EIA. This is not to say the road was not needed; that is something for Costa Rica to determine.
But the fact that there was no genuine emergency means Costa Rica had no excuse for
circumventing normally applicable national and regional requirements and standards for road
planning and construction, much less an excuse for not preparing a transboundary EIA as you have
said is required by general international law.
22. Mr. President, even though its own EIA law contains no emergency exemption,
Costa Rica repeats its ar gument that virtually all EIA ré gimes, whether domestic or intern ational,
contemplate exempting States from the requirement of conducting an EIA in cases of emergency,
and cites Professor Craik, whom it did not call as a witness, perhaps because he substantially agrees
151
with Professor Sheate . Costa Rica ignores the fact, pointed out by Nicaragua in our first round,
that all of these régimes limit strictly both the circumstances in which emergency exemptions may
be invoked and the duration of their validity, and also typically provide for the preparation of a
substitute form of ex ante assessment, such as in the Mt. St. Helens case I mentioned in an earlier
intervention.
149
CR 2015/11, pp. 24-25, paras. 33-36 (Brenes).
15E.g., Costa Rica judges’ folder, 23 Apr. 2015, tab 14 (6 Apr. 2011), and tab 15 (14 Aug. 2013).
151
CR 2015/11, p. 51, paras. 40 and 41 (Kohen). - 48 -
23. None of these limitations is present in this case. Costa Rica thus invokes precedent that
has nothing to do with its declaration of an emergency where, demonstrably, there was none, in
152
relation to a project that, by Costa Rica’s own admission, must be entirely re built some
four-and-a-half years after construction commenced. Yet we have heard t hat the state of
153
emergency declared in February of 2011 “est loin d’être terminée” . Nicaragua is left to wonder
how long this will continue to be the case, and for how many other obligati ons owed to Nicaragua
Costa Rica will invoke it? Finally, on this point, Mr. President, it is important to recall that an EIA
must be conducted prior to the implementation of a project as you said in Pulp Mills . Thus,
Costa Rica’s post-hoc EDA, environmental diagnostic assessment which I prefer to call its
environmental damage assessment is no substitute for an ex ante EIA.
B. The Trigger for EIA: Risk of a Significant Adverse Impact
24. Mr. President, I turn now to what has been called in these proceedings the “trigger” for
the obligation to prepare a transboundar y EIA. A fundamental point is that it is important to bear
in mind with regard to EIA in relation to Costa Rica’s project is that the trigger for the obligation to
conduct an EIA is the “risk” , as you called it in Pulp Mills , that the planned project “may have a
154
significant adverse impact in a transboundary context” . The trigger is thus risk of significant
adverse impact, not significant impact itself 155.
25. Under the heading, “Absence de risque”, Professor Kohen relied on the ILC’s Draft
156
Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous Activities, adopted in 2001 , in
his effort to show that the road posed no risk of such harm. At the outset, Mr. President, one is
bound to have some misgivings about the applicability of this set of draft arti cles to Costa Rica’s
road project, since it deals with “hazardous” activities. Yes, hazardous materia ls may be
transported on the road, but the road itself would not seem to be a hazardous “activity”. Indeed, the
Commission’s commentary says: “For the p urposes of these articles, ‘risk of causing significant
15CR 2015/12, p. 29 (Thorne). Cf. CR 2015/11, p. 31, para. 6 and p. 37, para. 22 (Del Mar).
153
CR 2015/11, p. 53, para. 45 (Kohen).
15Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 83, para. 204.
15Cf. CR 2015/14, p. 51, para. 10 (Ugalde).
156
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous
Activities, Yearbook of the International Law Commission (YILC), 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 148, para. 98. - 49 -
transboundary harm’ refers to the combined effect of the probability of occurrence of an accident
and the magnitude of its injurious impact .” 157 This explanation tells us that the Draft A rticles are
concerned, at least primarily, with activities that may result in “accident[s]” . While Nicaragua is
properly concerned about future accidents on the road that may involve spills of hazardous
substances into the San Juan River, and that these be taken into acco unt in a full EIA on a rebuilt
road, the question under consideration is whether Costa Rica should have prepared an EIA prior to
beginning construction of the road itself. And roads themselves are generally not considered to be
hazardous activities, which is what these Draft Articles are concerned with though one could be
forgiven for concluding that Costa Rica has done its best to make this particular road a hazardous
activity.
26. But the poi nt, Mr. President, is that the D raft Articles are calib rated according to the
concept of “hazardous activities ”, and therefore contemplate higher thresholds of potential
harmfulness for determining whether a given activity is covered by the Articles. Costa Rica would
like the Court to apply such higher thresholds to the road, when it comes to such things as triggers
for EIA and the obligation of prevention of transboundary harm. Nicaragua believes such high
thresholds are not intended by the ILC to be applicable in such cases as the present one, and indeed
are not applicable in this case.
27. To illustrate Costa Rica’s strategy, Mr. President, Professor Kohen said that according to
Article 2 of the Draft Articles, the A rticles «utilise l’expression «risques» dans le sens des risques
«dont il est fort probable [internal quote with his emphasis] qu’ils causeront un dommage
158
transfrontière significatif»» . [Slide 3 on] What Article2 actually says is the following, which is
now on your screens and is at tab 46 of your folders:
“For the purposes of the present articles:
(a) ‘Risk of causing significant transboundary harm’ includes risks taking the form of
a high probability of causing significant transbound159 harm and a low probability
of causing disastrous transboundary harm; . . .”
15International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from H azardous
Activities, YILC, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 152, para. 2 of commentary to Art.2.
15CR 2015/11, p. 46, para. 27 (Kohen).
159
International Law Commission, Draft Articles on Prevention of Transboundary Harm from Hazardous
Activities, YILC, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, pp. 151-152. - 50 -
28. Well, this is in keeping with the substantive scope of the draft articles which, again, deal
with “hazardous activit ies”. However, the national and international EIA r égimes cited by
Costa Rica generally do not contain such a high threshold of “probability” of ca using significant
harm. Indeed, you did not use this standard either, in your statement of the rule in Pulp Mills ,
which referred only to a requirement to undertake an EIA “where there is a risk that the proposed
industrial activity may have a significant adverse impac t in a transboundary context” (emphasis
added). “May have” is certainly less than “a hi gh probability of”. And it should be borne in mind
that “significant adverse impact”, or “effect”, is an expression used by the Commission , the ILC, to
refer to someth ing less than significant “harm” 160 and is also used in Principle 17 of the Rio
Declaration, which concerns EIA. Thus, the obligation to conduct an EIA is triggered by a “risk”,
or possibility, of “adverse impacts”, which do not rise to the level of “signif icant harm”. [Slide 3
off]
29. The ILC’s commentaries are useful in determining what constitutes a “risk” for the
purpose of triggering the EIA obligation. [Slide 4 on] They say, and this is on your screens and at
tab 47, and I will just hit the highlights:
“As to the element of ‘ risk’, this is by definition concerned with future
possibilities, and thus implies some element of asses sment or appreciation of risk . . .
[and that] appreciation of possible harm resulting from an activ161 which a properly
informed observer had or ought to have had [is the key].” [Slide 4 off]
30. It should of course be borne in mind that this explanation relates to risk in relation to
hazardous activities, not activities such as road construction. But the commentary conv eys the idea
that a person with a modicum of knowledge should be able to tell whether the applicable threshold
would be met.
31. Here, that threshold, as we have seen, is the possibility that building the road could have
a significant adverse impact “in a transboundary context” and I would note that you refrained
from saying and this is in the Pulp Mills decision you refrained from saying “transboundary
16See, e.g., the Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses, 21 May
1997, UNGA res. 51/229, Ann. , Art. 12, and commentary thereon by the ILC, inILC, 1994, Vol. II, Part Two, p. 111 ,
para. 222 (“The threshold established by this standard is intended to be lower than that of ‘significant harm’ under
Article 7. Thus a ‘significant adverse effect’ may not rise to the level of ‘significant harm’ within the meaning of Article
7.”).
161
Ibid., p. 151, para. 14, (commentary on Art. 1). - 51 -
impact”, saying “in a transboundary context” instead which broadens the applicability of the
requirement. Nicaragua submits that (a) the proximity of the road to the border, which in places
is only a matter of meters away ; (b) the fact that the river, which runs along the border for some
108 km of the road, is itself a Ramsar site and thus sensit ive; (c) that Costa Rica’s expert,
Dr. Thorne, has described the Lower San Juan as “unable to accommodate” even its pre- road
sediment level; and (d) the fact that international experience and mere common sense indicate that
development follows road const ruction, as described by the Agent this morning all of these
factors should lead any such observer to conclude that it would be essential to conduct an EIA with
respect to the road project.
32. And, Mr. President, this would be all th e more true of th e wholesale rebuilding of the
road that Professor Thorne says, and again, common sense indicates, is required.
33. Mr. President, I unfortunately do not have time to discuss some of the detail on EIA
referred to by Ambassador Argüello this morning. But f ortunately the Agent himself provided
some of this detail. And in addition I addressed this in my first round speech. And the details as to
what EIA shouldcover, are set forth in Professor Sheate’s reports to which I would refer the Court.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, this concludes my presentation this morning. Thank
you very muchfor your kind attention. Mr. President, I would be grateful if you would call next on
my colleague Professor Alain Pellet.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Je donne la parole au professeur Pellet.
M. PELLET :
RESPONSABILITÉ
1. Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs
les juges, il m’appartient ce matin de discuter la responsabilité du Costa Rica du fait de la
construction de la route 1856 et une précision déjà : le mot «construction» vise à la fois une
action (construire) et un fait (qui est le résultat de cette action). - 52 -
2. On le sait, et l’ambassadeur Ugalde s’en est montré d’accord 162, pour que la responsabilité
d’un Etat soit engagée sur le plan international, il faut et il suffit qu’une violation d’une obligation
internationale de l’ Etat puisse lui être attribuée. Le p rofesseur McCaffrey a montré que le
Costa Rica avait manqué (et continuait de manquer) à plusieurs de ses obligations
environnementales. Les mêmes faits constituent également des manquements aux obligat ions lui
incombant en vertu du traité de l imites de 1858 ; c’est ce que je m’efforcerai d’établir dans un
premier temps ; puis, dans un sec ond temps, je reviendrai sur les réparations qui sont dues en
conséquence au Nicaragua dans la limite du temps mesurée que mes collègues ont eu la bonté de
me laisser.
I. Les violations du traité de 1858
3. Monsieur le président, je conviens avec le profe sseur Kohen que «le traité du
15 avril 1858 est une pièce maîtresse dans la relation bilatérale» 163 et que le fleuve San Juan «joue
164
un rôle capital» dans le règlement des questions frontalières entre les deux pays . Et nous ne
contestons nullement, comme vous l’avez expliqué dans votre arrêt de 2009, «que les Parties n’ont
pas entendu établir une hiérarchie entre la souveraineté du Nicaragua sur le fleuve et le droit,
qualifié de «perpétuel», de libre navigation du Costa Rica» 165. MAIS et quel «mais», Monsieur
le p résident ! «la formule employée à l’article VI signifie que le droit de libre navigation
reconnu au Costa Rica par cette disposition ne s’applique que dans le domaine de la navigation
166
«aux fins du commerce» et cesse de s’appliquer en dehors de ce domaine...» .
4. De ce «mais» capital, le Costa Rica se refuse toujours à tirer les conclusions et s’obstine à
revendiquer un droit de navigation «tout court» et à «oublier» qu’il est limité «aux fins du
commerce» : dans l’ensemble de ses plaidoiries de la semaine dernière, il se prévaut abondamment
de ce droit de navigation illimité six fois dans la seule plaidoirie du 23 avril de Marcelo Kohen,
162
CR 2015/13, p. 46, par. 12 (Ugalde).
163CR 2015/11, p. 38, par. 3 (Kohen).
164Ibid.
165
Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrêt ,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 237, par. 48.
166
Ibid., p. 241, par. 61 (les italiques sont de nous) ; voir aussi notamment p. 244, par. 71. - 53 -
qui ne rappelle que deux fois que ce droit n’est reconnu au Costa Rica que «con objectos de
comercio» . 167
5. Au demeurant, cette discussion récurrente sur la portée du droit de navigation du
Costa Rica sur le San Juan de Nicaragua est d’autant plus révélatrice qu’elle n’a aucun intérêt
particulier pour résoudre le différend que le Nicaragua vous a soumis. Ce qui est en cause ici, ce
n’est pas le droit de navigation du Costa Rica mais entre autres celui du Nicaragua
lui-même et ceci non seulement sur toute sa partie commune, mais aussi jusqu’à son
embouchure. (Si le Costa Rica porte du même coup atteinte à son propre droit de navigation aux
fins du commerce, c’est son affaire et il ne peut que s’en prendre à lui.)
o
[Projection n 1 : Les atteintes au droit de navigation sur le San Juan]
6. Ceci me conduit, Monsieur le président, à préciser à nouveau en quoi la construction de la
route (dans ses deux aspects : action et fait) a porté et porte atteinte à la libre navigation (du
Nicaragua donc) sur le fleuve. Les quatre collègues et amis qui m’ont précédé à cette barre l’ont
montré : la question n’est pas e ssentiellement que cette construction a entraîné une sédimentation
globale (ou moyenne) accrue du fleuve et de son lit ; elle est que ce surplus de sédiments
s’accumule en des endroits particuliers qui forment des obstacles à la navigation.
7. Selon le professeur Thorne lui -même, l’e xpert du Costa Rica, la sédimentation
additionnelle résultant de la construction de la route 1856 constitue effectivement un obstacle à la
navigation dans le cours inférieur du San Juan et que l’on ne vienne pas se prévalo ir du fait que
nous citons le professeur Thorne de préférence à nos propres experts 168 : nous avons évidemment
pleine confiance en eux ; mais qui peut être moins suspect de complaisance pour nos thèses que
l’expert auquel le Costa Rica a fait pleine confiance et qui a revendiqué avec panache son
indépendance 169, que nous saluons d’ailleurs ?
167
CR 2015/11, p. 38, par. 3 et p. 40, par. 8 (Kohen).
168Voir CR 2015/13, p. 11, par. 5 et p. 21, par. 41 (Wordsworth).
169
Voir CR 2015/3, p. 30. - 54 -
8. Admettons donc que la sédimentation ne constitue un obstacle à la navigation que dans le
170
cours inférieur du fleuve, même si d’assez nombreux doutes me semblent subsister il n’en
reste pas moins que le fait internationalement illicite est établi et cela , je pense, me dispense de
discuter l’argumentation de nos contradicteurs, bien que tout de même, Monsieur le président, je ne
puisse résister à la tentation de citer un argument que je crois vraiment sot (et pourtant répété deux
fois par les conseils du Costa Rica) 171 selon lequel l’existence de deltas sédimentaires le long des
deux rives du fleuve prouverait que leur formation n’est pas due à la construction de la route ! Les
sédiments d’où qu’ils viennent (et y compris de la route bien sûr) s’arrêtent là où ils rencontrent un
obstacle sans, évidemment s’attacher particulièrement à la rive du fleuve dont ils proviennent !
9. Ceci étant et quoi qu’il en soit, il n’en reste pas moins que la construction de la
route toujours dans ses deux acceptions est contraire aux dispositions du traité :
d’abord parce que le Nicaragua a le droit d’ «empêcher l’obstruction de la baie de
San Juan del Norte, pour assurer une navigation libre et sans encombre sur le fleuve ... ou pour
172
améliorer celle -ci dans l’intérêt commun » et donc d’y naviguer et d’y assurer cette libre
navigation «sans encombre» («unembarrassed») le Costa Rica a le devoir corrélatif de ne
pas l’empêcher («not to embarass it»), y compris dans le delta ;
o
[Fin de la projection n 1]
ensuite parce que le Costa Rica a d’autres obligations en vertu du traité, des obligations qu’il a
gaillardement violées, non pas j’y insiste en construisant la route (nous ne contestons
évidemment pas son droit de construire une route sur son territoire), mais en la construisant
n’importe comment et sans concertation aucune avec le Nicaragua malgré le voisinage très
particulier résultant de la fixation de la frontière à la rive.
10. La première de ces violations, « la mère de toutes les autres» en quelque sorte, est
l’atteinte portée à la souveraineté territoriale du Nicaragua. Le Costa Rica tente de s’en exonérer
170 MN, p. 128-133, par. 4.13-4.19 et RN, p. 170-172, par. 5.22-5.25. Voir aussi not amment : r apports du
professeur Kondolf, décembre 2012, sect. 6 (MN, vol. II, annexe 1) et juillet 2014, sect. 11 (RN, vol. II, annexe 1),
rapport du professeur Andrews, juillet 2014, sect. V I) (RN, vol. II, annexe 3) et la d éclaration écrite de
M. Edmund D. Andrews, professeur émérite, 15 mars 2015, p. 2, par. 5. Voir également le rapport de la Federated
Association of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica, 8 juin 2012, p. 16 (MN, vol. II, annexe 4).
171
CR 2015/11, p. 42, par. 14 (Kohen) ; CR 2015/13, p. 32, par. 18 et p. 40, par. 41 (Parlett).
172
Sentence arbitrale du président des Etats-Unis d’Amérique au sujet de la validité du traité de limites de 1858
entre le Costa Rica et le Nicaragua, 22mars 1988, Nations Unies, RSA, vol. XXVIII, p. 210, point 4 (MCR, vol. II,
annexe 7). - 55 -
un peu facilement en assénant qu’il «n’a pas exercé la moindre autorité ou activité en territoire
nicaraguayen. Cela» dit, le professeur Kohen, «suffirait largement pour écarter le grief
173
nicaraguayen de violation de sa souveraineté et de son intégrité territoriales» . Tel n’est
assurément pas le cas, Monsieur le président. Mon contradicteur a de ces principes une conception
abusivement restrictive. Il oublie en particulier qu’ils sont indissociables de celui de l’utilisation
non dommageable du territoire qui implique d’une façon très générale, selon la célèbre formule du
Détroit de Corfou, « l’obligation, pour tout Etat, de ne pas laisser utiliser son territoire aux fins
174
d’actes contraires aux droits d’autres Etats» .
[Projection n° 2 : Atteintes à la souveraineté territoriale du Nicaragua – chute de débris dans
le fleuve ]
11. Nous ne sommes plus ici dans le domaine de la protection de l’environnement mais dans
celui, plus général, de la défense de la souveraineté territoriale. Celle- ci implique qu’un E tat
n’utilise pas, ni ne laisse utiliser, son territoire à des fins dommag eables par un pays voisin sans
l’autorisation du souverain territorial. En d’autres termes, qu’il fasse preuve de vigilance, de
due diligence pour empêcher toute atteinte à cet autre territoire. Et je dis bien « toute atteinte» sans
qu’il y ait lieu de di scuter un seuil particulier : la gravité du préjudice n’a d’effet qu’en ce qui
concerne les modalités ou le montant de la réparation. Ceci a été parfaitement exposé avant -hier
par Mme Parlett : «there is no threshold of ‘significant’ when it comes to dama ge caused on
another States’ territory » 17. Le problème n’est donc pas que le dommage soit d’une gravité
particulière (ce qui ne signifie pas qu’il ne l’est pas en l’espèce).
12. Il n’est pas non plus que les atteintes au territoire d’un E tat voisin soient objectivement
volontaires ou délibérées comme semble le penser le professeur Kohen 176, mais que l’E tat sur le
territoire duquel est menée l’activité litigieuse ait laissé celle -ci être menée, alors qu’il aurait pu
empêcher ses répercussions sur le territoire de l’autre Etat. C’est évidemment le cas ici : n’eussent
été les malfaçons de la route, je n’aurais pu, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, faire défiler les
173
CR 2015/11, p. 41, par. 11 (Kohen).
174 Affaire du Détroit de Corfou (Royaume -Uni c. Albanie), fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1949, p. 22 ; voir aussi
sentence arbitrale (Max Huber), 4 avril 1928, Ile de Palmas (Pays-Bas c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), Nations Unies, RSA,
vol. II, p. 839.
175CR 2015/14, p. 41, par. 8 b) (Parlett) ; voir aussi, ibid., p. 20, par. 36 (Wordsworth).
176
CR 2015/11, p. 41, par. 12 (Kohen). - 56 -
images que vous voyez depuis quelque temps sur vos écrans : de nombreux débris de la route, ou
de ponts, ou de matériaux de construction, sont tombés dans le fleuve qui ont ensuite dû être
déblayés. Il s’agit là d’autant d’atteintes à la souveraineté territoriale du Nicaragua que moins de
négligence et d’impéritie de la part des autorités costa -riciennes «compétentes» eussent pu (et dû)
éviter.
[Fin de la projection n° 2]
13. Je ne m’attarde pas sur la justification que le Costa Rica a cru pouvoir trouver dans
l’invocation de l’article IV du t raité. Il concerne la défense du San Juan «en cas d’agression
extérieure».
14. Pour sa part, l’obligation de notification qui peut être déduite du t raité de la même
manière que la Cour a déduit une telle obligation à la charge du Nicaragua s’agissant de la
réglementation de la navigation sur le fleuve. Nous avi ons montré qu’il en est ainsi dans notre
177
réplique ; le professeur Kohen a l’obligeance de se référer à cette démonstration dans une note de
bas de page 17; mais il ne juge pas utile de la réfuter, je me permets donc de vous y renvoyer. Voilà
qui renforce le poids de la même objection telle qu’elle découle des règles environnementales
décrites par le professeur McCaffrey.
15. Monsieur le président, ces violations du traité de limites de 1858 s’ajoutent à celles de ce
que nos amis de l’autre côté de la barre appellent le «régime de protection de l’environnement» (the
«Applicable Environmental Law Regime»). Que ce soit à l’un ou à l’autre de ces points de vue, le
Costa Rica a violé et continue de violer ses obligations en matière de :
respect de la souveraineté du Nicaragua ;
respect de la liberté de navigation sur le fleuve San Juan ;
respect de son obligation de ne pas utiliser son territoire à des fins préjudiciables à un E tat
voisin.
En l’absence de toute circonstance excluant l’illicéité (et Steve McCafrrey a montré que le
soi-disant état d’urgence n’en constituait certainement pas une !) en l’absence de cause
177MN, p. 135-139, par. 4.22-4.27 et RN, p. 172-177, par. 5.26-5.34.
178CR 2015/11, p. 40, par. 9, note 150 (Kohen). - 57 -
exonératoire donc, il s’agit là de faits internationalement illicites qui engagent la responsabilité du
Costa Rica. Il me reste à dire quelques mots des conséquences à en tirer.
II. Les remèdes demandés par le Nicaragua
16. En d’autres termes, j’en arrive aux «remèdes» demandés par le Costa Rica, terme qui ne
veut rien dire de bien précis en tout cas en français ; d’ailleurs, il n’y a pas d’e ntrée «remède» dans
le Dictionnaire Salmon de droit international public 17. Disons que cela recouvre l’ensemble des
conséquences de la responsabilité, y inclus, mais pas seulement, la réparation.
17. Au bénéfice de cette remarque, je peux confirmer en p remier lieu à l’ ambassadeur
Ugalde 180 que, dans les conclusions que va lire notre a gent dans quelques instants , nous ne
demanderons pas que la Cour adopte une déclaration autorisant le Nicaragua à suspendre le droit de
navigation du Costa Rica sur le San Juan ne serait-ce que parce que ce serait inutile : si les
conditions pour adopter une contre -mesure étaient réunies, une «autorisation» de la Cour ne serait
pas nécessaire ; et parce que, de toute manière, une telle mesure n’est pas envisagée à l’heure
actuelle.
18. En revanche, je suis au regret de devoir détromper mon contradicteur lorsqu’il dit que
nous avons renoncé à prier la Cour de déclarer, dans le dispositif de son arrêt, que le Nicaragua est
en droit «d’effectuer des travaux pour améliorer la nav igabilité du fleuve San Juan, y compris des
travaux de dragage visant à lutter contre la sédimentation et les autres obstacles à la navigation»
conformément au t raité de 1858 18. Nous vous le demandons plus que jamais, Mesdames et
Messieurs les juges.
19. Les événements récents ont en effet prouvé que, malheureusement, ceci était beaucoup
moins inutile que vous le pensiez dans votre arrêt de 2009 puisque le Costa Rica s’obstine à refuser
ce droit de dragage au Nicaragua. Il ne peut prétendre que cette dema nde, formulée dans le
mémoire 182 du Nicaragua, n’entre pas dans le cadre de la présente affaire : le dragage du cours
inférieur du San Juan, dont il conteste la licéité, est rendu indispensable par la construction de la
179
J. Salmon (dir.), Dictionnaire de droit international public, Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2001, 1198 p.
180Voir CR 2015/13, p. 44, par. 5.
181Voir ibid., p. 44-45, par. 6-7.
182
MN, p. 252, par. 3i). - 58 -
route 1856 ; c’est celle-ci qui a entraîné une surcharge supplémentaire insupportable pour le cours
inférieur du San Juan. Cette déclaration de la Cour nous paraît non seulement être utile mais être,
en réalité, un élément clef en vue d’un règlement durable de ce différend récurrent entre les Parties.
Il s’agit là d’ailleurs d’un point commun entre l’affaire qui nous occupe ce matin et celle qui nous
réunissait hier, et peut -être de l’un des aspects qui justifie le plus rationnellement la jonction que
vous avez décidé d’opérer entre elles.
20. La première déclaration figurant dans les conclusions nicaraguayennes vise à faire
constater par votre haute juridiction que «par ses agissements, la République du Costa Rica a
enfreint ... i) l’obligation lui incombant de ne pas violer l’intégrité du territoire nicaraguayen».
21. J’avais rappelé en passant à cet égard dans ma présentation du 21 avril que la
responsabilité de l’Etat était engagée en conséquence de la seule existence d’un fait
183
internationalement illicite . L’ambassadeur Ugalde a eu la bonne grâce de s’en dire d’accord en
principe, mais il relève qu’il en va différemment si la règle primaire elle- même fait dépendre la
violation de la commission d’un dommage comme c’est le cas de certaines règles protectrices de
l’environnement 184. Cette fo is c’est moi qui tombe d’accord avec une égale bonne grâce,
Monsieur le président avec mon contradicteur ! Mais en ajoutant trois précisions :
d’une part, en l’espèce, la construction de la route a causé un préjudice réel (et qui existe quel
que soit le qualificatif dont on l’assortit) ;
d’autre part, s’agissant de certaines règles, même environnementales, violées par le Costa Rica,
celles-ci n’exigent pas la preuve d’un dommage mais du risque de sa survenance ; il en va ainsi
de l’obligation de ne pas mettre en Œuvre un projet présentant un risque de dommage
transfrontière sans avoir procédé à une étude d’impact de l’environnement, dont l’absence est
capitale en la présente espèce c’est l’objet de la conclusion 3) i) du Nicaragua sur laquelle je
n’aurai pas le temps de revenir : elle a été commentée abondamment par mes collègues ;
enfin et de toute manière, la conclusion nicaraguayenne relative à sa souveraineté territoriale ne
porte ni exclusivement ni principalement sur la violation de règles protectrices de
l’environnement, mais sur celles des principes généraux du droit international la
183CR 2015/10, p. 50-51, par. 5 (Pellet).
184CR 2015/13, p. 46, par. 12-13 (Ugalde). - 59 -
souveraineté territoriale, l’utilisation non dommageable du territoire, etc. qui ne fixent pas
de seuil du préjudice pour que la responsabilité de l’Etat soit engagée et pour que la réparation
et les autres «remèdes» en découlant soient dus.
22. Par contre, Monsieur le président, je ne suis pas sûr que mon contradicteur ait bien
compris ce que j’ai dit en ce qui concerne notre demande tendant à ce que la Cour dise et juge
«qu’il incombe au Costa Rica de mettre fin à tous les faits internationalement illicites en cours qui
portent atteinte ou sont susceptibles de porter atteinte à ses droits». C’est sûrement parce que je me
suis mal exprimé. M. Ugalde affirme «[u]timately, [I Alain Pellet would have] accepted that
the declaration for cessation sought by Nicaragua is indistinguishable from the measures it is
seeking by way of restitution [185. The claim for cessation therefore appears no longer to be
186
pursued as a separate head of relief.» With respect, Mr. President, I have conceded nothing of
the kind and Ambassador Ugalde assumes erroneously when he asserts that «[t]he claim for
187
cessation therefore appears no longer to be pursued as a separate head of relie f» . Certes, la
demande d’une décision ordonnant au Costa Rica de cesser ses faits internationalement illicites
n’aura plus de raison d’être lorsque la Partie costa- ricienne aura procédé à la restitution qui
implique notamment une relocalisation, au moins partielle, de la route. Mais, comme je l’ai montré
la semaine dernière 188, en cas de violation continue, la première conséquence de la responsabilité
de son auteur est qu’elle doit cesser. En particulier, il convient que les futurs travaux de remise en
état soient effectués conformément aux règles de l’art et n’ajoutent pas de nouvelles malfaçons à
celles qui existent.
23. Nous n’abandonnons pas davantage nos demandes concernant le comportement futur du
189
Costa Rica .
24. Pour ce qui est de l’exclusion de la circulation sur la route de camions ou d’engins
transportant des matières dangereuses, le Costa Rica nous oppose un décret de 1995 dont il n’a
185
Note de bas de page 172 : CR 2015/10, p. 58, par. 19 (Pellet).
186
CR 2015/13, p. 46-47, par. 16 (Ugalde).
187Ibid., p. 47, par. 16.
188
CR 2015/10, p. 52, par. 10 (Pellet).
189
Voir ibid., p. 64, par. 32. - 60 -
190
produit que des extraits mais dont il n’est pas évident qu’il concerne les produits courants
comme l’essence ou le fuel, dont le déversement accidentel d’une quantité même moyennement
importante dans le San Juan serait pourtant fort catastrophique. Nos contradicteurs clament qu’il
ne s’agit que d’un risque hypothétique. Lorsque l’on voit l’état de la route en certains endroits,
l’hypothèse ne paraît malheureusement pas si chimérique que cela. Au demeurant et de toute
manière, selon la célèbre formule de l’article 15 de la déclaration de Rio, «En cas de risque de
dommages graves ou irréversibles, l’absence de certitude scientifique absolue ne doit pas servir de
prétexte pour remettre à plus tard l’adoption de mesures effectives visant à prévenir la dégradation
191
de l’environnement.»
25. Le Costa Rica a construit sa route sans étude d’impact de l’environnement, dans des
conditions extrêmement préjudiciables au Nicaragua. Ceci étant, Monsieur le président, le mal est
fait et il incombe au Costa Rica d’en réparer les conséquences dommageables. Ceci suppose
d’abord qu’il s’efforce de rétablir la situation qui exis tait avant que le fait illicite c’est-à-dire la
192
construction défectueuse de la route ne soit commis . Certes, comme le disent nos
contradicteurs, cette obligation de remise en état doit s’entendre en fonction du contenu de
193
l’obligation primaire qui es t violée ; en l’espèce, ces obligations sont nombreuses et pas
limitées, comme ils l’ont affirmé, à l’obligation de ne pas causer de dommage significatif 194. En
outre, M. Ugalde se montre surtout préoccupé que le Costa Rica soit libre de procéder à la restitutio
par les moyens de son choix 195. Mais il va un peu vite en besogne lorsqu’il suggère que nous avons
196
abandonné l’idée que, ce faisant, il devait respecter un certain nombre de contraintes . Même si
nous n’avons pas spécifié celles-ci dans le corps d e nos conclusions, il nous semble toujours aussi
190 Décret exécutif n° 24715 -MOPT-MEIC-S, 6 octobre 1995 (DCR, vol. IV, annexe 15). Voir CR 2015/13,
p. 39-40, par. 38 (Parlett) et p. 47, par. 20 (Ugalde).
191 Déclaration de Rio sur l ’environnement et le développement, 14 juin 1992, a rt. 15 ; voir aussi l’article 3 du
projet d’articles de la CDI sur la responsabilité internationale pour les conséquences préjudiciables découlant d’activité s
qui ne sont pas interdites par le droit international et son commentaire, amment, Annuaire 2001, vol. II, deuxième
partie, p. 166, par. 14.
192 Voir l’article 35 des Articles de la CDI de 2001 sur la responsabilité d’Etat pour fait internationalement
illicite.
193CR 2015/13, p. 50, par. 33 (Ugalde).
194
Ibid., p. 50, par. 34.
195
Ibid., p. 50-51, par. 35-41.
196Ibid., p. 50, par. 36. - 61 -
nécessaire que le Costa Rica respecte les avis d’experts compétents y compris ceux qu’il a
consultés lui-même ; et je note à cet égard que le professeur Thorne a estimé que cela a déjà été
cité mais c’est fort important : «In extremis, the permanent solution may be to re -route the road
and, again, Dr. Weaver, I wouldn’t argue with a lot of his recommendations; he knows what he is
197
talking about.»
26. Avant, Monsieur le président, avec votre permission, encore un mot très court sur
l’indemnisation dont le Nicaragua vous demande de fixer le principe dans l’arrêt à venir et le
montant dans une phase ultérieure de l’affaire. J e n’ai vraiment pas besoin de m’y attarder ,
l’ambassadeur Ulgade s’est borné à af firmer que le Nicaragua n’avait pas prouvé avoir subi de
198
dommage et qu’il n’y avait dès lors pas lieu à indemnisation . Puisque nos contradicteurs
s’obstinent à affirmer que la terre est plate, il ne me paraît pas utile de vous démontrer le contraire :
vous savez ces choses, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour !
[Projection n o3 : Désignation d’un ou de plusieurs experts]
27. Ceci me permet d’en arriver à la question de la nomination d’un ou de plusieurs
experts 199.
28. Dans sa réplique (ainsi que dans la let tre de l’agent au greffier de la Cour du
4 août 2014), le Nicaragua a demandé que la Cour procède à la nomination d’un expert neutre et
cela sans faire nulle injure ni au professeur Thorne 200ni aux autres éminents experts qui ont assisté
les Parties dans cette affaire. L’expert ainsi désigné, dont le Nicaragua a proposé que les Parties
partagent le coût des frais et honoraires, pourrait d’ailleurs être assisté par des experts nommés par
les Parties un peu à l a manière dont a fonctionné la c ommission ar bitrale présidée par le
général Alexander. Cet expert, ou cette commission d’experts, pourrait, dans un premier temps,
assister la Cour pour déterminer l’ampleur des dommages résultant de la constructio n de la route
pour le Nicaragua si, du moins, les pr euves abondantes et expertes que nous avons produites
197
CR 2015/12, p. 29 (Thorne) ; voir en ce sens : déclaration écrite de William E. Weaver, Ph.D. 15 mars 2015,
p. 20, par. 53.
198CR 2015/13, p. 52, par. 44 (Ugalde).
199Voir RN, p. 260-263, par. 7.13-7.15, p. 273, par. 7.35 et DCR, p. 126-128, par. 4.15-4.17.
200
Voir CR 2015/3, p. 30 (Reichler et Thorne). - 62 -
n’avaient pas suffi à convaincre votre haute j uridiction. Mais, même si c’est le cas, cet expert ou
cette commission pourrait, croyons-nous, jouer un rôle très utile à au moins deux points de vue :
d’une part, pour assister la Cour dans l’évaluation des dommages subis par le Nicaragua du fait
de la construction de la route ; et,
d’autre part, pour s’assurer de l’adéquation des mesures de remise en état prises par la Partie
costa-ricienne.
29. Le Costa Rica, fidèle à sa politique de défiance systématique, a rejet é assez vertement
cette proposition : «Costa Rica is of the view that there is no basis for the Court to exercise its
power to appoint an expert as requested by Nicaragua.» 201 Ceci dans une lettre adressée au greffier
par le coagent du Costa Rica. Et, encore plus négative, la Partie costa -ricienne écrit dans la
duplique :
«The obvious explanations for this late request are that either it is a dilatory
tactic or it constitutes a belated recognition that it has been unable to make out its case
by reference to its own evidence. Either way, the proposal should be rejected.» 202
30. Monsieur le président, comme on dit familièrement, « il n’y a que les imbéciles qui ne
changent pas d’avis» ! Le Costa Rica semble en avoir changé, même si l’on peut attribuer au souci
de ne pas perdre la face, le libellé un peu différent de la lettre du coagent du Costa Rica en date du
2 février dernier, proposant non pas la nomination d’un expert mais la visite sur les lieux d’une
délégation, pourquoi une délégation, d’une délégation de la Cour, qui, je cite : «would allow the
Court to have a better understanding of the scale and location of the Road, of the context of the
allegations of harm, and of the Road’s capacity (if a ny) to cause harm to or on the territory of
Nicaragua.» 203 C’est une façon de reconnaître qu’une vérification sur place est indispensable (sauf,
bien sûr, je le répète, si la Cour se satisfait des preuves apportées par les Parties et nous pensons
que les nôtres sont solides).
31. Comme je l’ai indiqué vendredi dernier, à propos d’un problème comparable se posant
204
dans l’affaire relative à Certaines activités , le Nicaragua a, par une lettre de notre agent adressée
201
Lettre du coagent du Costa Rica adressée au greffier de la Cour, 14 août 2014, réf. ECRPB-085.
202DCR, p. 128, par. 4.17.
203Lettre du coagent du Costa Rica adressée au greffier de la Cour, 2 février 2015, réf. ECRPN010-15.
204
CR 2015/7, p. 63-64, par. 51 (Pellet). - 63 -
au greffier le 10 février dernier, approuvé dans son principe la proposition costa-ricienne tout en
relevant qu’elle était fort tardive, et réitéré celle de nommer un ou plusieurs experts.
32. Certes, comme je l’ai rappelé il y a quinze jours, et à nouveau hier dans l’affaire r elative
à Certaines activités, il est loisible à la Cour, en vertu de l’article 66 de son Règlement d’effectuer
205
une visite sur les lieux « à tout moment » . Ce n’est cependant peut -être pas l’option la plus
réaliste... Mais la désignation d’un expert ou d’une commission d ’experts comme nous l’avons
suggéré, demeure et serait, selon nous, une initiative procédurale particulièrement bienvenue.
33. Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, les deux affaires dont vous avez été saisis
respectivement par le Costa Rica et le Nicaragua sont liées au fleuve San Juan. Elles posent à juger
des questions qui ne sont pas identiques c’est sans doute pourquoi vous avez fixé un calendrier
fort complexe pour les audiences dont il est résulté un jeu inédit ici de chaises musicales. Il reste
que vous avez joint ces affaires en estimant que
«Elles sont l’une et l’autre fondées sur des faits en rapport avec des travaux
exécutés sur le San Juan, le long de ce fleuve ou à proximité immédiate de celui -ci, le
Nicaragua se livrant à des activités d e d ragage du fleuve et le Costa Rica ayant
entrepris de construire une route le long de sa rive droite. Les deux instances ont pour
objet les conséquences de ces travaux pour la l iberté de navigation sur le San Juan et
leur incidence sur l’environnement local et l’accès au fleuve. A cet égard,206s Parties
font l’une et l’autre état d’un risque de sédimentation du San Juan.»
Ceci justifie au moins que l’on effectue des rapprochements et des comparaisons.
34. Pour faire bref, Monsieur le président, ce qui ca ractérise nos deux affaires c’est que leur
importance est sans aucune commune mesure. Dans un cas, celui des Activités reprochées au
Nicaragua dans la région frontalière, l’incertitude concernant le tracé de la frontière constitue une
donnée fondamentale ; si cette incertitude é tait levée au bénéfice du Costa Rica et si, en outre, une
violation du droit international était avérée je me place dans cette hypothèse pour les seuls
besoins de la discussion le dommage subi par le Costa Rica, de nature exclus ivement juridique,
serait tout juste symbolique malgré la dramatisation orchestrée par nos amis de l’autre côté de la
barre. Dans l’autre, il ne fait aucun doute que la construction de la route 1856 par le Costa Rica,
205CR 2015/7, p. 63-64, par. 51 (Pellet).
206 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière ( Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) ;
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica, jonction d’instances,
ordonnance du 17 avril 2013, C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 170, par. 20 et p. 187, par. 14. - 64 -
dans les conditions dans lesquelles elle a effectuée, a causé et continue de causer au territoire
incontesté du Nicaragua des dommages très concrets et considérables.
35. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, ceci conclut ma présentation que je vous remercie
d’avoir bien voulu écouter mais pas tout à fait notre second tour de plaidoiries puisqu’il reste à
notre agent le devoir de lire les conclusions finales du Nicaragua. Avant que vous l’appeliez à la
barre, Monsieur le président, permettez -moi une petite remarque personnelle : nous devons nous
retrouver ici demain, qui est le 1 ermai ; comme je l’ai constamment fait durant ma longue
participation à la Commission du droit international, je fais remarquer que je trouve vraiment
regrettable que les Nations Unies n’observent pas cette trêve du travail ; la seule fête vraiment
internationale et sans connotation religieuse ; j’ai décidé que demain je ferai grève de la toge ! Je
vous demande de ne pas prendre ceci comme une offense, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges ; c’est
juste une preuve d’attac hement aux valeurs internationalistes qui sont les miennes. Monsieur le
président, pourriez-vous donner la parole à M. l’ambassadeur Argüello Gomez?
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Je donne la parole à l’agent du Nicaragua,
M. l’ambassadeur Argüello Gómez.
Mr. ARGÜELLO: Thank you, Mr. President, dis tinguished Members of the Court. I am
thankful that today I could continue working and have an opportunity of reading the submissions.
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I will now proceed to read the final
submissions of Nicaragua.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS
1. For the reasons explained in the w ritten and oral phase Nicaragua requests from the Court to
adjudge and declare that, by its conduct, the Republic of Costa Rica has breached:
(i) Its obligation not to violate the integrity of Nicaragua ’s territory as delimited by the
1858 Treaty of Limits as interpreted by the Cleveland Award of 1888 and the five Awards
of the Umpire Edward Porter Alexander of 30 September 1897, 20 December 1897,
22 March 1898, 26 July 1899, and 10 March 1900;
(ii) Its obligation not to damage Nicaraguan territory; - 65 -
(iii) Its obligations under general international law and the relevant environmental
conventions, including the Ramsar Convention on Wetla nds, the Agreement over the
Border Protected Areas between Nicaragua and Costa Rica (International System of
Protected Areas for Peace [SI -A-PAZ] Agreement), the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the Convention for the Conservation of the Biodiversity and Protection of
the Main Wild Life Sites in Central America.
2. Nicaragua also requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Costa Rica must:
(i) Cease all its continuing internationally wrongful acts that affect or are likely to affect the
rights of Nicaragua;
(ii) Inasmuch as possible, restore the situation to the status quo ante , in full respect of
Nicaragua’s sovereignty over the San Juan de Nicaragua River, including by taking the
emergency measures necessary to alleviate or mitigate the con tinuing harm being caused
to the River and the surrounding environment;
(iii) Compensate for all damages caused in so far as they are not made good by restitution,
including the costs added to the dredging of the San Juan de Nicaragua River, with the
amount of the compensation to be determined in a subsequent phase of the case.
3. Furthermore, Nicaragua requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Costa Rica must:
(i) Not undertake any future development in the area without an appropriate transboundary
Environmental Impact Assessment and that this assessment must be presented in a timely
fashion to Nicaragua for its analysis and reaction;
(ii) Refrain from using Route 1856 to transport hazardous material as long as it has not given
the guarantees that the road complies with the best construction practices and the highest
regional and international standards of security for road traffic in similar situations.
4. The Republic of Nicaragua further requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua is
entitled:
(i) In accordance with the 1858 Treaty as interpreted by the subsequent arbitral awards, to
execute works to improve navigation on the San Juan River and that these works include
the dredging of the San Juan de Nicaragua River to remove sedim entation and other
barriers to navigation. - 66 -
Mr. President distinguished Members of the Court, this is the end of Nicaragua’s final
submissions and I must add that, this is the first time that Nicaragua has had to express its gratitude
and read its submissi ons two days in a row. Nevertheless, I once again thank you for your
attention; this is extensive to the Registrar and the staff, the interpreters and general staff that have
made possible the orderly proceedings during these three long weeks. Finally, I must specially
thank the members of the Nicaraguan team for their dedication and, frankly, for their instinct for
survival after such a long hard work. Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Court.
Le PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur l’ambassadeur. La Co ur prend acte des conclusions
finales dont vous venez de donner lecture au nom de la République du Nicaragua.
La Cour se réunira de nouveau demain après- midi, de 15 heures à 18 heures, pour entendre
le second tour de plaidoiries du Costa Rica.
Je vous remercie. L’audience est levée.
L’audience est levée à 13 h 5.
___________
Audience publique tenue le jeudi 30 avril 2015, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président, dans les affaires relatives à Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica) ; Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)