Corrigé
Corrected
CR 2015/15
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2015
Public sitting
held on Wednesday 29 April 2015, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Abraham presiding,
in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
ANNÉE 2015
Audience publique
tenue le mercredi 29 avril 2015, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président,
dans les affaires relatives à 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)
________________
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 Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Manuel A. González Sanz, Minist er 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;
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. - 5 -
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 é tudes 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 ;
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. - 6 -
The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador 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 L aw, 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 Inst itut 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 o f 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; - 7 -
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, pr ofesseur de droit international à la McGeorge School 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 Commission 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, d e
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; - 8 -
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. - 9 -
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, P h.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 Consulting,
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. - 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 en l’affaire relative à
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région fr ontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua).
Je donne maintenant la parole à S on Excellence M. Argüello Gómez, agent du Nicaragua. Vous
avez la parole, Monsieur l’ambassadeur.
Mr. ARGÜELLO: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the
Court, good afternoon.
1. My presentation today will centre on the question of sovereignty over the territory in
dispute.
2. In this respect, it is necessary to separate two phases of the dispute as presented by
Costa Rica. The first phase is the ter ritorial claim presented by Costa Rica when it filed its
Application in 18 November 2010 and maintained during the proceedings for provisional measures
and when filing its Memorial.
3. Costa Rica presented maps indicating that the border started in the ea st side of Harbor
Head Lagoon and followed the coastline but inside the bar of land that extended from present day
Punta de Castilla in Harbor Head all the way to the present day main mouth of the San Ju an River.
1
[Tab 1 on] This claim can be clearly seen on the screen with the 1988 Costa Rican map where we
see that the contour of the border is inside the surrounding feature which is clearly part of
Nicaraguan territory [tab 1 off]. This is reiterated in other maps included in Costa Rica’s Memorial
2 3
dated 1966 and 1970 , that are included in tab 14 of your folders.
4. The second phase of the Costa Rican claim was made during the hearings on provisional
measures held in October 2013 [ tab 2 on]. Costa Rica claimed that the territory in dispute
comprised the whole area out to sea including the surrounding outer feature. In this image 4 we
now appreciate the increase in Costa Rica’s territori al claim. In response to Judge Donoghue’s
1
MCR, Vol. V, Ann. 185.
2Ibid., Ann. 222.
3Ibid., Anns. 178-179.
4
Satellite image, 14 Sep . 2013, Costa Rica’s Request for n ew provisional measures, 23 Sep . 2013, att. PM-28,
detailed area. Certain Activities 2nd round CR judges’ folder, tab 19. - 11 -
question, Professor Kohen indicated that the part o f the surrounding feat ure (sandbank) located
between Harbor Head Lagoon and the sea appertained to Nicaragua . We will say some more on
this point when we respond to Judge Donoghue’s question.
5. Nicaragua’s position is that the whole area is part of its territory. [Tab 2 off]
6. The first and most important basis for Nicaragua’s claim is based on the international
instruments that have delimited and demarcated its territory. These instruments are by now well
known by the Court: the delimitation Treaty of 1858, the A rbitral Award of President Cleveland
of 1888 and the five Arbitral Awards of General Alexander dating from 1897 to 1900.
7. In yesterday’s session, Costa Rican counsel quoted these documents profusely and
selectively, with one very telling exception. They hav e forgotten the Cleveland Award. It was not
mentioned by counsel i n the oral pleadings and it is not mentioned in the submissions. Why?
Because it gives the lie to everything they have been arguing.
8. I am not complaining that Costa Rica mentions Art icle II of the Jerez- Cañas Treaty of
15 April 1858 that stipulates that the border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica [ tab 3 on] “starting
from the Northern Sea, shall begin at the end of Punta de Castilla, at the mouth of the San Juan de
Nicaragua River, and shall run along the right bank of the said River up to a point three . . . miles
6
distant from Castillo Viejo” .
9. But Costa Rican c ounsel seems to forget that both Parties were not in agreement on the
exact location of the starting -point of the bounda ry. That is why they had recourse to the
arbitration of President Cleveland who indicated the exact and unmovable location of the
starting-point. [Tab 3 off]
10. The Award of President Cleveland of 22 March 1888 declared in point three (1) [tab 4
on]: “The boundary line between the Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, on the Atlantic side,
begins at the extremity of Punta de Castilla at the mouth of the San Juan de Nicaragua River, as
7
they both existed on the 15th day of April 1858.” [Tab 4 off]
5
CR 2015/14, p. 33, para. 31. See tab 19 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folder of 28 April 2015.
6Treaty of Limits of 1858, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 1; emphasis added.
7
Cleveland Award, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 7; emphasis added. - 12 -
11. Perhaps Costa Rica ignores President Cleveland because he does not say that the border
follows the mouth of the river. He says that it is located at the extremity of Punta de Castilla at the
mouth of the San Juan de Nicaragua River, as they both existed on the 15th day of April 1858. That
is, at a fixed unmovable point that does not follow the changes in the river mouth.
12. When the question of the starting-point of the demarcation was before arbitrator engineer
Alexander, the situation became completely clear. The F irst Award of September1897 deals with
this question. The Court will not find in the Award any place where Alexander indicated he wa s
looking for the mouth of the river. His Award goes to great length to find where Punta de Castilla
was located because that was the fixed starting-point for the border. It turns out that Alexander was
faced with the fact that the original Punta de Castilla in the previous 40 years since the
8
1858 Treaty “has long been swept over by the Caribbean Sea” . Therefore, he went to great
pains to establish where it would have been located because that was the fixed starting -point of the
border. If the location of the mouth of the river had been the determining factor, he would have
simply decided where the m outh was located at that moment . But he was not looking for the
mouth of the river, only for Punta de Castilla.
13. Before going on with the analysis of the Award and t he implications for the present-day
situation, it is useful to point out that Costa Ri ca has brought before this Court a maritime
9
delimitation case against Nicaragua in respect of the Caribbean Sea . [T ab 5 on] The
starting-point for that delimitation according to the Memorial filed on 3 February 2015 is located
somewhere by the present main mouth of the San Juan River, a few kilometres from the fixed point
10
determined in the 1858 Treaty and Cleveland and Alexander Awards . This brings into
perspective the real interest of Costa Rica in this case. This clarifies the incredible ado started by
Costa Rica over 250 ha of what the Secretary -General of the O rganization of American States,
surprised, called a “swamp” 11 when he visited the site. The case is really about a substantial
8
Award of 30 Sep. 1897, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 9.
9Dispute concerning Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbea n Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua), Memorial of Costa Rica, 3 Feb. 2015.
10Image is taken from Costa Rica’s Memorial in the Certain Activities case, Ann. 196.
11
CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 26, White Book, The Truth Costa Rica Hides, p. 15. - 13 -
amount of maritime spaces that would be generated by a change in the boundary terminus. That is
what this case is about. [Tab 5 off]
14. To examine the present -day situation let us place on screen the sket ch attached to
Alexander’s 1897 Award. You might remember that in my first presentation I pointed out that the
First Alexander Award calls attention to the existence of an important island at the mouth of the
San Juan River. In his words : “The great feature in the local geography of this bay, since our
earliest accounts of it, has been the existence of an island in its outlet, called on some early maps
the island of San Juan.” 12
15. [Tab 6 on] Here we have this island on the screen marked in red. In the three -hour
session of yesterday morning Costa Rica did not refer to this “great feature” or to anything
involving it. So, I wi ll have to go over this material more carefully because they appear to have
deliberately ignored the importance given by Alexander to this feature and which I pointed out in
my last speech.
16. If you look at the sketch you will note also that the indication of the line of demarcati on
sought by Costa Rica in 1897, that this claim of Costa Rica consisted principally of claiming
sovereignty over the whole of the island of San Juan. In Alexander’s words,
“Now, the whole claim of Costa Rica is based upon the assu mption that on
April 15, 1858, the date of the Treaty, a connection existed between the island and the
eastern headland, and that this converted the island into mainland . . .
But even if that be true, it would be unreasonable to suppose that such
temporary connection could operate to chan13 permanently the geographical character
and political ownership of the island.”
17. So, Alexander decided that this island appertained to Nicaragua. Where has it gone since
he issued his Award? Costa Rica is silent because it knows it is part of the disputed territory.
14
18. In Nicaragua’s Counter-Memorial we point out that the position of Costa Rica in 1897
was that the border should follow a channel headed west (to the left of the sketch -map) and
Alexander clearly ruled that it should follow a channel heading east (to the right of the sketch-map)
into Harbor Head Lagoon.
12
Award of 30 Sep. 1897, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 9.
1Ibid.
14
CMN, p. 28, para. 2.19. - 14 -
19. Well, almost 120 years after Alexander’s Award it turns out that Costa Rica is now again
claiming what Alexander denie d it: sovereignty over San Juan island and a channel heading west
to the Punta Arenas area and not east to Harbor Head Lagoon. [Tab 6 off]
20. At this point I must indicate that alth ough the question asked by Vice -President Yusuf
was addressed to Costa Rica, what follows will give Nicaragua’s point of view generally on the
subject of his question. It will also respond generally to Judge Donoghue’s question. But, s ince
this last was posed directly to Nicaragua, at the end of this presentation I will gi ve a more direct
reply to Judge Donoghue.
21. Mr. President, let us turn to the situation on the ground when Alexander was selecting
channels or caños.
22. First, he noted, as quoted above 15, that already in 1858 the island of San Juan was
connected in the dry season to the right margin. You will note that this means that the channel
separating the island of San Juan from the right bank could not have been navigable year round,
even at the time of the 1858 Treaty, that is, 40 years before Alexander first saw the San Juan River.
23. In his Award, Alexander refers to this area and states “T hat the peculiarity of this
Bay . . . is that the River brings down very little wat er during the annual dry season . . . so that a
man might cross dry-shod.” 16
24. What does all this amount to? [Tab 7 on] Firstly, on the sovereignty over the i sland of
San Juan. If we look at the map on the screen that was compiled by the B inational Commission
Nicaragua/Costa Rica on 30 September 1897, we clearly see that a sand bank is running from the
island of San Juan towards Punta de Castilla and that from Punta de Castilla another sandbank is
running in the opposite direction. Both sandbanks are running to meet each other in the middle of
the mouth of Harbor Head Lagoon. The first interesting thing about this map (and note the authors
call it a “plano”, that is, a map and not a sketch like General Alexander’s contemporaneous one) ;
the first interesting thing about this map is that the sandbank protects the island of San Juan from
the Caribbean Sea. [Tab 7 off] This sandbank is still there, as can be appreciated in almost all the
cartography and aerial and satellite p hotos that are in the files on tab 14 of your folders
1See para. 16 above.
1Award of 30 Sept. 1897; MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 9. - 15 -
[Tab 14 (b)-14 (c) on/off]. Also, on the screen , as an exam ple, the 1988 Costa Rican map that
shows clearly the sandbank. [Tab 1 on]
25. The point is, if the sandbank is still out there, what happened to the i sland of San Juan?
It could not have been swallowed by the sea because the sandbank would have been the first to go.
It naturally serves as a shield for the island. So, even if Costa Rica refuses to acknowledge t he
issue, the territory of the island is out there precisely in the area in dispute.
26. I will not try to pontificate to the Court on the lega l consequences emanating from the
channel separating the island of San Juan from the mainland having diminished in size substantially
or having totally disappeared. It is gener ally accepted that when a water course forming the limit
between two sovereigns disappears, then the border between both areas continues to follow the
original channel. So the land that comprised the Nicaraguan island of San Juan is still there, it still
appertains to Nicaragua, and it is possible to establish its location on the ground. [Tab 1 off]
27. But let me make it clear that this is not the limit of the m ainland of Nicaragua with
Costa Rica. That limit follows what the Alexander Award clearly said,
“On reaching the waters of Harbor Head Lagoon the boundary line shall turn to
the left or southeastward, and shall follow the water’s edge around the harbor until it
reaches the river proper by the first channel met.” 17
28. This has been repeated ad nauseam but it is the only way to follow and respect
Alexander’s decision. As I indicated in my first speech, the first channel met was not identified by
Alexander who could easily have said that it was the channel separating the i sland of San Juan
from the mainland, which was the channel indicated in his sketch. In short, he could have used any
other identification mark if he considered that this channel was invariable. But no, the first channel
was not invariable. The only invariable part of the border was the starting -point that
President Cleveland said was at Punta Arenas at the mouth of the river “as they both existed on the
15th day of April 1858” 18.
29. If the i sland of San Juan was connected to the mainland in 1858 it is obvious that a
careful engineer and soldier like Alexander would realize in 1897 that it was quite probabl e that in
some years the channel separating the island would clog up permanently. That is the only sensible
17Award of 30 Sept. 1897; MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 9.
18Cleveland Award; MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 7. - 16 -
explanation why he did not indicate a fixed channel. Alexander did not conceive that Harbor Head
should become an enclave inside Costa Rica, which is what this State now wants. He knew there
would always be changes in the channels in that area. He stated as much in his Second Award,
“the San Juan river runs through a flat and sandy delta in the lower portion of its
course and that it is obviously possible that its banks will not only gra19ally expand or
contract but that there will be wholesale changes in its channels”.
30. Professor Kohen stated that it was not possible to have a movable frontier that would be
dancing around. What is certain is that Alexander was not thinking of a wallflower stuck fixedly to
the floor, or he would have made it clear, in fact he acknowledged “that the boundary line must
necessarily be affected in future” . Alexander was leaving the mouth of Harbo r Head Lagoon to
Nicaragua since this was envisioned at that time as the mouth of the interoceanic canal that
eventually would be excavated across Nicaragua along the San Juan River. He wo uld not be
leaving an enclaved h arbour to Nicaragua. After the First Alexander Award was rendered,
Costa Rica was very angry and there was talk of war. This was reported in the news in Central
America and the U nited States. Here is how general Alexander, an experienced Confederate
General, described the situation in his letters from San Juan del Norte [tab 8 on]:
“I think that Costa Rica having lost control of the mouth of the Canal here by
my decision would not regret an excuse for going to war and trying to capture 21 as a
prize for she believes she could whip Nicaragua and I believe so too.” [Tab 8 off]
A confederate general speaking.
31. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in sum,
(a) the island of San Juan is located in the area in dispute and is indisputably Nicaraguan territory,
as General Alexander expressed it to be.
(b) The “first channel met” selected by Alexander was not navigable all year round. There is no
reason to belittle the present-day channels as being inconceivable as a border by Alexander.
19Award of 30 Sept. 1897; MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 9.
20Ibid.
21
Folder 41, Oct . 1897, Wednesday morning 13 Oct . 1897, in the E dward Porter Alexander Papers, No. 7,
Southern Historical Collection, The Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, available online at
http://memoriacentroamericana.ihnca.edu.ni/uploads/media/Fondo%20Edward…
%20No.%2041.pdf(last checked on 29 April 2015). - 17 -
22
32. Profesor Kohen asserted yesterday that it was necessary to “ démonter une fois pour
toutes l’interprétation nicaraguayenne visant à transformer l’expression ‘first channel met’ en
‘first caño met’.” And he goes on to say that caño does not mean channel in English but only a
creek or stream or a ruisseau in French. Fi rst of all, I must point out it is not Nicaragua’s
translation. It is the translation that the B inational Commission agreed on in 1897 23and has been
used ever since by both countries. It is used by Costa Rica in its Rejoinder defining caño as
follows: “channel, water course that runs through muddy, flooded terrain, or through palustrine or
lacustrine wetlands, whose depth and appearance change as a function of the level of water” 2.
33. I would have dismissed this as simply another plaisanterie from Professor Kohen but the
point is of interest and goes beyond his intent, if there was one at all. The engineers, la wyers and
other members of the B inational Commission in 1897 were clear that the channel Alexander was
talking about was not the English Channel or had any such grandiose meaning. They knew they
were referring to a very minor feature that was clogged up part of the year. They agreed to call it a
caño.
34. Mr. President, Members of the Court, what is the answer to today’s situation? Nicaragua
maintains and reaffirms that the caño that was cleaned in 2010 is now the first caño met. But
Nicaragua has always maintained that there are many other caños that are navigable, certainly
during the rainy season, and several all year round if the vegetation is cleared up.
35. In this respect, the Court does not have to take Nicaragua’s word for it. Although
Nicaragua cannot enter the area and take its own experts inside the disputed territory, there are two
independent experts that have confirmed the existence of natural caños.
36. First, the Report of the Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 77, dated August 2014 [tab 9a on]
states that: “The area is characterized by a complex mosaic of water courses and bodies, many of
which may be of natural origin.”
22
CR 2015/14, p. 27, para.11 (Kohen).
23In Minute No. VII of the Proceedings of the Binational Commissions, Nicaragua and Costa Rica agreed to a
common Spanish translation of the Alexander Award of 30 Sept . 1897, which had already been put on record in English
in Minute V of the Proceedings.
24
Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), Follow -up and Monitoring Study Route 1856 Project -EDA Ecological
Component, Jan. 2015, p. 6; RCR, Vol. III, Ann. 14. - 18 -
37. You can see on screen photographs from the Ramsar report of some of the natural
channels they had found just around the area they were covering. [Tab 9a off]
38. Second, and very telling, the Costa Rican expert Professor Thorne very clearly confirmed
this position. Here is what he said.
39. Professor Thorne was shown a map prepared by the U nited States Defense Mapping
Agency (DMA) in 1988 based on aerial photography taken in 1961 with updated photoplanimetric
methods from 1987. He agreed that the DMA map depicts a Y -shaped channel connect ing the
San Juan River to Harbor Head Lagoon and, based on the map’s legend, testified that it is
“intended to be a perennial water course” 25. Professor Thorne later testified, in response to a
question from Judge Greenwood, that a map produced in 1949 by Costa Rica’s National
Geographical Institute was likely intended to depict the same “Y -shaped distributarie s in the
manner of the 1988 map” 26.
40. Professor Thorne also agreed that the 1988 DMA map was produced in collaboration
with Costa Rica’s official mapping agency, the Instituto Nacional Geografico. And he further
agreed that the Instituto’s own map, also published in 1988, showed the same perennial channels
connecting the San Juan River to Harbor Head Lagoon as are showed in the DMA map.
41. Even though the 1988 DMA map was based on aerial imagery, Professor Thorne testified
that, to be considered fully reliable, it should be checked in the field. He testified:
“in conducting any kind of fieldwork, the use of remote sensing is becoming almost de
rigueur and it is a fantastic source of information. But, you cannot tell everything
from 1,000 km in space or even from an aircraft and so I am a supporter of the
concept of ‘ground truthing’, perhaps not everywhere, but [in] terms of checking some
of the apparent features of an image taken by a satellite or by an aircraft, it is
preferable to do some checks on the ground.” 27
42. Professor Thorne was clear that the tree canopy in the disputed area makes it impossible
to determine with reliability from satellite imagery or aerial photography, one way or the other,
whether there are channels that connect the San Juan River to Harbor Head Lagoon. He based this
determination on his personal experience[tab 9b on], during cross-examination Mr. Reichler asked:
25
CR 2015/3, p. 23 (Thorne).
2Ibid., p. 39 (Thorne).
27
Ibid., p. 24 (Thorne). - 19 -
“Would the [1988 DMA ] map be reliable, in your opinion, if its depictions of
channels connecting the river to the lagoon had been confirmed by a field check?”
Mr. Thorne responded:
“In as much as based on my overflight on 7 July 2011 and my inspection of
the imagery, some aerial photographs, some satellite images what I would take
from my personal experience is that the canopy of the forest makes it extremely
difficult to see the ground . . . So where that leads me, I think, is that in terms of
verifying the conditions of those particular waterway features if that is what you
28
are asking me about then ground truthing would be highly advisable .” [Tab 9b
off]
43. Professor Thorne’s agreement on the necessity o f a field check is also evident from his
answer to Mr. Reichler’s question whether a good way to confirm whether the perennial channels
shown on the 1988 DMA and official Costa Rican maps exist would be for a technical expert, or
group of experts, to do a field check. [Tab 10 on] I quote Mr. Thorne’s response:
“I agree entirely, that would be an excellent way of establishing whether a
channel exists at a given location or does not exist at that location. It would have to be
done before there were artifi cial interventions in the way of cleaning, cleari29 or
excavating channels. But if it could be done a priori, I agree entirely.” [Tab 10 off]
44. When Mr. Wordsworth, during re-examination, showed Professor Thorne an aerial image
taken in 1961 and asked if it assists in determining whether the channels depicted in the 1988 map
“joins to the Rio San Juan?”, Professor Thorne responded: “I am not able to tell from this
particular image. It is not a high enough quality, the tree canopy is obscuring the wa ter course we
30
believe to be Y-shaped and in that location.”
45. Just like aerial images, photographs taken from the San Juan River cannot,
Professor Thorne testified, substitute for ground-truthing. Although such photographs might “yield
useful evidence”, he was insistent that “any image, remotely sensed or otherwise, is not a complete
substitute for a field inspection, in person” 31.
46. Professor Thorne also testified that on- site ground truthing is needed to determine
whether the channels connecting the river to the lagoon are navigable and by what type of vessel.
Upon being asked whether a “field check would be able to determine whether the channels are
28
CR 2015/3, p. 24 (Thorne).
29Ibid., p. 31 (Thorne).
30Ibid., p. 37 (Thorne).
31
Ibid., p. 38 (Thorne). - 20 -
navigable and, if so, by what kind of vessels ”, he testified: “Well, if I was going to check that, I
would attempt to navigate them in the vessel that was of interest. And if I was able to navigate the
32
channel in that vessel, I would conclude that it was navigable.”
47. Professor Thorne agreed that the San Juan River and Harbor Head Lagoon, at least some
of the time, are hydrologically connected in the area where Nicaragua cleared the caño in 2010.
Consistent with Costa Rica’s own report to Ramsar in October 2010, Professor Thorne agreed that
the area between the San Juan and the lagoon is “an exten sive block of flooded forest ” 33. And,
upon being asked whether “during overbank floods there may be a connection between the Rio San
Juan and the southern tip of Harbor Head Lagoon” , Professor Thorne testified: “During extreme
events I am sure there is a connection between the Rio San Juan and all of its adjacent wetlands,
34
including the southern end of the Harbor Head Lagoon.”
48. Yesterday, none of Costa Rica’s counsel said a word about Professor Thorne’s testimony
on any of these points. They have no response to them. In fact, they appear to have abandoned
Professor Thorne altogether. He has not been in Court the past two days. Nicaragua, as its counsel
have said, takes Professor Thorne at his word. And, according to his words, the most reliable
evidence that is before the Court, [tab 11 on] is the 1988 US DMA map, prepared in collaboration
with Costa Rica’s own official mapping agency, and that agency’s own official map of the same
year, that show that there are perennial channels connecting the San Juan River to Harbor Head
Lagoon. On this evidence, the Court may find that one of these channels is the first channel met.
In Nicaragua’s view, such a finding is fully justified. [Tab 11 off]
49. However, if the Court wants to be completely convince d, then, in Nicaragua’s view, it
should follow Professor Thorne’s advice, and appoint a team of technical experts, including
Professor Thorne himself, to perform the field check, the “ground truthing”, that he recommended.
50. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, permit me to turn to another subject,
which I will phrase in a question. Why did Nicaragua not pay more attention to the cartography
showing the greater part of the area in dispute as part of Costa Rica?
32
CR 2015/3, p. 25 (Thorne).
33Ibid., p. 27 (Thorne).
34
Ibid., p. 29 (Thorne). - 21 -
51. In the first place it has to be clear that the tiny area in dispute had never been on any
priority list of the very small cartographic department of Nicaragua. Perhaps a way of bringing this
across is to point out that the priority of the Binational Commission that had been put in place in
1991 was to reach an agreement in densifying the markers along the border with Costa Rica but
from marker 2, placed 3 miles from Castillo Viejo, to marker 20 on reaching the Pacific Ocean;
that is, the problems were with the markers placed on the land border. Why? Because these
markers were placed many miles apart and there were farms and houses in the area that needed to
know on which side of the border they were located. There were land disputes that could only be
resolved by determining who the authority was that could decide the issue.
52. In the 250-ha area in dispute there were no farmers or inhabitants or competing private
claims over land. There were farms on the Costa Rican side, but none in the area in dispute in
possession of a person that wanted to know under what authority he was. Nicaraguan officials and
the military went in and out of the area unopposed and unchallenged. In short, no person or
authority was putting pressure on the cartographic office to come down and ver ify on the ground
where the border exactly was located. The cartographic office was satisfied that all its international
maps had indications that they had not been verified on the ground. The problem only arose and
became immediately of the highest priority when the dredging process started.
35
53. Nicaragua has filed numerous affidavits from different authorities that have been
working in the area for several decades that give faith that they entered and patrolled or visited the
area in dispute without challenge. Costa Rica dismisses these affidavits pointing out that the Court
cannot give them credence because they are Nicaraguan authorities. Mr. President, Members of the
Court, there is one interesting observation on this.
54. In the late 1920s the e ngineer corps of the U nited States Army were surveying the area
for the interoceanic canal that the U nited States was planning to cut through Nicaragua. A fuller
account of this can be read in the Nicaraguan Memorial in Territorial and Maritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia) 3. [Tab 12 on] For present purposes I would point your attention to the
3See CMN, Anns. 80-90.
3Memorial of the Government of Nicaragua in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute
(Nicaragua v. Colombia), Vol. I, pp. 94-95, paras. 2.74-2.76, 28 April 2003. - 22 -
37
map on the screen which was prepared by the U nited States Engineer Office between 1929-1931 .
You will note that the border follows roughly the area Nicaragua claims. Now, to prepare that map
the American engineers covered all that ground which was essential for determining the feasibility
and the route the canal was to follow. These engineers were not opposed by Costa Rican
authorities. The conclusions and al l the on the ground investigations including notes on caños in
the area are public records in the United States. But the point here is that they entered the area in a
quite open manner , known to everyone in the area, and they did this under the authority of
Nicaragua and they were not challenged by Costa Rica. [Tab 12 off]
55. In fact the only evidence of Costa Rican activity in the disputed area is paper evidence.
Ramsar had never set foot in the area in dispute before 2011. The area was included as a Ramsar
site in an inexact map presented by Costa Rica that also included areas located about 10 km inside
other undisputed parts of Nicaraguan territory 38.
56. The f irst time that the Costa Rican auth orities came into the area was on 20 and
22 October 2010 39. Heavily armed security forces of Costa Rica entered the disputed area or
should we use the favourite word of Costa Rica, “invaded” the disputed area ? [Tab 13 on] They
raised a Costa Rican flag for the first time in history in the disputed territo ry. But, as was to be
expected from a force that didn’t know the ground they were entering, they found that the
conditions were very harsh and abandoned the post , leaving the Costa Rican flag as the only
inhabitant in the area. [Tab 13 off] After the Costa Rican forces left, the Nicaraguan forces, who
knew the area well, came in and stayed until the Court ordered them out. Yes, they might have left
one day after Judge Bennouna asked the question because, as I was later informed, they were
taking down the camp and were not going to leave the Nicaraguan flag in place unattended as their
military rules do not allow for that.
57. Mr. President, Professor Pellet will have more to say on the location of the boundary. In
Nicaragua’s view it follows the 2010 caño, but if the Court determines that it does not, then it must
in any event follow the first channel met. We have shown that the first channel met could be no
37
CMN, Vol. V, Ann. 123.
3In fact the co-ordinates of the site given by Costa Rica to Ra msar indicate that the starting -point is more than
10 km inside undisputed Nicaraguan territory. CM N, Certain Activities case, p. 352, para. 6.109.
39
CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 26, White Book. - 23 -
farther from Punta Castilla than the Y -shaped channel depicted as perennial on both of the 1988
maps. But if the Court has any doubt, we submit that the proper course would be to appoint a
commission of technical experts, as recommended by Professor Thorne, to perform a field check, a
ground-truthing and report to the Court on the existence and loc ation of any channels in this area
connecting the San Juan River proper to the lagoon, and to report on whether these channels are
navigable and, if so, by what kind of vessel.
58. Mr. President, before asking you to call Mr. Reichler to the podium I will answer
Judge Donoghue’s question.
59. The question Judge Donoghue states is:
“Some photographs, s uch as the one that appears at t ab 10 of today's j udges’
folder, depict a sandy feature lying between the Caribbean Sea and the body of water
known as Har bor Head Lagoon or Laguna Los Portillos. I request that each Party
describe its understanding of the current shape and configuration of this feature.
If this feature exists today, does it comprise land territory that can appertain to a
State? If so, to which State does it appertain and why?”
60. My response:
1) The Cleveland Award of 22 March 1888 provided that: [Tab 4 on]
“the boundary line between the Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, on the
Atlantic side, begins at the extremity of Punta de Cas tilla at the mouth of 40e San Juan
de Nicaragua River, as they both existed on the 15th day of April 1858”. [Tab 4 off]
2) It was General Alexander’s task to determine on the ground where Punta de Castilla was
located. He discovered that the exact spot where Punta de Castilla was located in
15 April 1858 had long been swept over by the Caribbean Sea and proceeded to describe the
direction the line should follow:
“Its direction shall be due northeast and southwest, across the bank of sand,
from the Caribbean Sea into the waters of Harbor Head Lagoon . It shall pass, at its
nearest point, 300 feet on the northwest side from the small hut now standing in that
vicinity. On reaching the waters of Harbor Head Lagoon the boundary line shall turn
to the left, or southeastward, and shall follow the water’s edge around the harbor until
it reaches the river proper by the first channel met.” 41
3) The present feature extends from the border area marked by Alexander at the entrance of
Harbor Head Lagoon to Isla de San Juan on Nicaraguan territory. [Tab 14a on] The evolution
4Cleveland Award, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 7; emphasis added.
4Alexander Award 30 Sep. 1897, MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 9. - 24 -
of this feature can be appreciated in this map drawn by the Binational Territorial Commission
in 1897 42where we can see the sandbar extending from the island of San Juan in the direction
of the sandbank extending from Punta de Castilla. These banks have united and for more than
a hundred years have been in the situation we at present appreciate. [Tab 14a off]
4) [Tab 14b-14c on] Although occasionally the Caribbean Sea breaks through, the sandbank is
43
now solid ground with vegetation as can be appreciated in these recent aerial photographs and
satellite imagery 4.
5) To the question whether this feature exists today and does it comprise land territory that can
appertain to a State, the answer is yes . This feature exists today, it has vegetation and it can
appertain to a State. [Tab 14b-14c off]
6) This feature appertains to Nicaragua for the following reasons:
(a) This feature existed in Alexander’s time and he cut through it separating it from t he
Costa Rican headland and leaving it on the Nicaraguan side. [Tab 14d on] At
Alexander’s time, the feature had vegetation as can be appreciated in the map titled
45
Greytown Harbor from Survey by Officers of U .S.G.B. Newport, B.F.Tilley, 1898 .
[Tab 14d off]
(b) Whether in Alexander’s time this feature was land territory or not, the main point of the
delimitation and demarcation was that Nicaragua was to have and control the outlet to the
sea. If a sandbank formed at the close of the mouth of Harbor Hea d, it would have to
appertain to Nicaragua, if not Costa Rica would control the mouth of the harbour.
(c) This feature is as much grounded on Isla de San Juan as it is on the Punta Arenas
headland. If there is any question of attribution, points (a) and (b) above clarify the
point.
(d) All Costa Rican maps show this area as appertaining to Nicaragua. See for example at
tab 14 of the folders, a 1966 and a 1988 map, both reproduced in Costa Rica’s Memorial;
42
MCR, Vol. V, Ann. 169.
43CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 26, White Book, p. 66.
44Satellite image of 29 Jan. 2011, produced by Costa Rica on 29 July; fig. I.19 (Thorne).
45
MCR, Vol. V, Ann. 170. - 25 -
the first one prepared by the U nited States Corps of Engineers and the latter by the
Geographical Institute of Costa Rica in collaboration with the Defense Mapping Agency -
Interamerican Geodetic Survey.
61. This ends my answer to Judge Donoghue’s question. Thank you, this ends my
presentation.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank you for your attention. Mr. President, may I ask
that you now please call Mr. Reichler.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur l’ambassadeur. Je donne la parole à M. Reichler.
Mr. REICHLER: Mr. President, Members of the Court, good afternoon.
D REDGING
1. I will address Nicaragua’s dredging programme, and Costa Rica’s failure to demonstrate
that the programme causes it harm. In so doing, I will respond to the remarks made by my friend,
Ambassador Sergio Ugalde, yesterday.
2. Happily, Mr. President, there are now quite a few points of agreement between the Parties,
especially on the most critical issues.
3. First, Costa Rica has acknowledged that Nicaragua has the right to dredge the river in
order to maintain its navigabi lity. That is no longer disputed, if it ever was. In any event, the
Cleveland Award makes Nicaragua’s right to dredge undeniable.
4. Second, Ambassador Ugalde yesterday expressly agreed:
(a) that the Lower San Juan River is subject to the accumulation of sediment 46;
47
(b) that this causes problems for navigation ;
(c) that there is a need for dredging in order to maintain navigation on the main channel of the
Lower San Juan River 48; and
(d) that Nicaragua designed its dredging programme to deal with these problems with the aim of
facilitating navigation 49.
4CR 2015/14, p. 49, para. 2 (Ugalde).
4Ibid.
48
Ibid., p. 60, para. 49 (Ugalde). - 26 -
5. Citations to these four very explicit admissions by Ambassador Ugalde are provided in the
footnotes to my presentation, which will appear in the transcript.
6. Third, Costa Rica has now abandoned its c laims of actual harm. It no longer alleges that
Nicaragua’s dredging programme has caused a significant diversion of the Colorado River’s flow.
Of course, there is no way Costa Rica could continue to maintain such a claim when its own expert,
Professor Thorne, has concluded that the dredging programme’s impact on the flow of the
50 51
Colorado is “meagre” and “negligible” .
7. Nor does Costa Rica continue to claim that the dredging of the river has harmed wetlands
downstream, either in the disputed area or on the right bank of the river in territory that is
indisputably Costa Rican. That claim has now been reduced to one of risk of harm, requiring an
52
EIS , and I will return to that shortly.
8. In addition, Costa Rica has now dropped its claim that Nicaragua has harmed it by
depositing sediment on its territory. As I showed in the first round, UNITAR/UNOSAT concluded
53
that there were no such deposits on Costa Rican territory . Ambassador Ugalde accepted
yesterday that the photo he displayed in the first round depicted a sediment pile on Nicaragua’s
54
territory, not Costa Rica’s .
9. Finally, Costa Rica has dramatically downgraded its claim of harm caused by the clearing
of caños in 2010 and 2013. Costa Rica did not dispute Mr. Loewenstein’s submissions that th ese
impacts were minimal 55. Instead, Mr. Wordsworth argued that, for purposes of determining
whether there has been a breach of its sovereignty or of the Court’s Order on Provisional Measures,
the “precise minutiae of damage” those are his words are not germane, but are relevant only
56
to the assessment of compensation . Costa Rica said nothing to suggest that the alleged damage
from the caños was anything more than just that minute.
49Ibid., p. 49, para. 3 (Ugalde).
50
Thorne Summary Report for Certain Activities case, March 2015, p. 11, para. 4.16(a).
51
Thorne 2011 Report for Certain Activities case; MCR, App. 1, p. (vii).
52CR 2015/14, pp. 51-56, paras. 8-33 (Ugalde).
53CR 2015/6, pp. 21-22, para. 43 (Reichler).
54
CR 2015/14, p. 60, para. 47 (Ugalde).
55
See CR 2015/7, pp. 12-22 (Loewenstein).
56CR 2015/14, p. 21, para. 37 (Wordsworth). - 27 -
10. To sum up, Mr. President, this is now agreed: Nicaragua has th e right to dredge;
dredging is required to maintain the navigability of the Lower San Juan; Nicaragua’s dredging
programme was designed with that aim; it has caused no harm to the Colorado River, the wetlands
downstream, or any other Costa Rican territory; and the clearing of caños has had only minimal, or
minute, effect. The Court will recall that Professor Thorne testified in regard to the latter that, at
the locations of the two 2013 caños , there were no mature trees cut, and the vegetation that was
disturbed has fully recovered naturally 5.
11. So, Costa Rica’s case now boils down to one thing: EIS. That is now the sum and
substance of it. They claim that Nicaragua’s 2006 EIS was inadequate, because, according to them,
it did not sufficiently add ress the potential impact of the dredging programme on the wetlands
58
downstream . And they claim that a new EIS would be required if Nicaragua were to significantly
59
expand its current dredging programme .
12. Mr. President, Ambassador Ugalde has very help fully simplified the case that is before
you. And Nicaragua can simplify it further. I am instructed by the Agent of Nicaragua to state that
Nicaragua agrees with Costa Rica that, if it were to expand its current dredging programme
substantially beyond what is presently authorized, it would conduct a new EIS, and obtain a new
authorization from its environmental protection agency, MARENA, before it could begin to
implement that programme. This is not only an international obligation, but a national one.
Nicaragua’s own laws prohibit EPN, or any other public or private entity, from carrying out new or
expanded works without conducting an EIS, and obtaining the requisite permit from MARENA.
13. Furthermore, Nicaragua agrees with Costa Rica that the EIS fo r any expanded dredging
programme would be a transboundary EIS, assessing potential impacts on Costa Rican territory,
including the Colorado River. And, as part of that transboundary EIS, Nicaragua would notify and
consult with Costa Rica about the expand ed programme. Consultation with Costa Rica, however,
does not imply that Nicaragua must obtain Costa Rica’s consent. That would give Costa Rica a
veto over Nicaragua’s works of improvement, which would contradict both the Cleveland Award
57
CR 2015/3, p. 42 (Thorne).
58CR 2015/14, p. 52, paras. 16-17 (Ugalde).
59
Ibid., pp. 56-57, paras. 34-36 (Ugalde). - 28 -
and the requirem ents of transboundary EIS. It has been well established, at least since the
Lac Lanoux case, that consultation, in good faith, with a neighbouring State is required; but that
State’s consent is not.
14. So there is no dispute over Nicaragua’s obligation to perform a transboundary EIS, and
to notify and consult with Costa Rica, before it could begin to implement an expanded dredging
programme. This is important because it fully addresses the problems that Costa Rica associates
with such an expanded programme. Ambassador Ugalde continues to assert that Nicaragua intends
to widen the river, by cutting away at its banks, but all he offers are the same stale assertions that
we have heard before, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever 60. He displayed three ph otos
yesterday which showed nothing more than Nicaraguans navigating close to the Costa Rican
bank but what’s wrong with that? Nicaragua is sovereign over every bit of the river right up to
the bank. My friend told you the Nicaraguans were engaged in the nefarious work of trimming tree
61
branches , which obstructed navigation. They did it from their boats. What’s wrong with that?
The Cleveland Award gives Nicaragua that right. Where is the harm to Costa Rica?
15. Ambassador Ugalde invoked Professor Thorne’s answer to a question from
Judge Tomka, in support of his assertion that the dredging programme would have “devastating
effects” 62 those are Ambassador Ugalde’s words, not Professor Thorne’s on the wetlands
downstream. Here is what Professor Thorne actually said in response to Judge Tomka: “The
dredging programme, if it cuts off the sediment supply , will starve the delta, the Caribbean Sea will
take it away, we will lose hundreds of hectares of wetland due to coastal erosion” 63. “If it cuts off
the sediment supply.”
16. Nowhere in his testimony, or in his seven written reports, did Professor Thorne say that
Nicaragua’s current dredging programme cuts off, or is likely to cut off, sediment supply. To the
contrary, he made it absolutely clear th at, in his opinion, the current dredging programme is
overwhelmed by the supply of sediment coming from upstream, so much so that it canno t keep up
60
CR 2015/14, p. 59, para. 45 (Ugalde).
6Ibid.
6Ibid., p. 56, para. 33 (Ugalde).
63
CR 2015/12, p. 52 (Thorne); emphasis added. - 29 -
64
with it . Far from cutting off the supply of sediment, Professor Thorne has stated that the dredging
is stirring up even more sediment, which is then transported downstream 6. Moreover, if we were
losing hundreds of hectares of wetland due to coastal erosion, or even one hectare, there would be
some evidence of that. There is none. Plainly, Professor Thorne w as talking about potential harm
from an expanded dredging programme, not the modest one Nicaragua is currently executing.
17. Professor Thorne expressed the opinion that the dredging Nicaragua is now carrying out
may not be the best way to resolve the problem of navigation in the Lower San Juan River; he
believes that it would be wiser for Nicaragua to address this problem by implanting wooden,
in-stream training structures below the water level, as the U nited States Army Corps of Engineers
66
has done in the Lower Mississippi . But he said that this would not eliminate the need for
dredging: “I am not saying there is no dredging requirement, there is but spot dredging of the
tops of the shoals during the low season when you just need to knock the top off to get your 2 m
67
draft boat through. That is what I would say.”
18. Professor Thorne is a man of good will, as are, I might add, Nicaragua’s experts. I am
also instructed by the Agent of Nicaragua to inform the Court that Professor Thorne’s views on
how best to solve the problems caused by excessive sedimentation of the Lower San Juan,
especially the obstruction of navigation, will be communicated to the appropriate authorities in
Managua, so that they can give his views the consideration they deserve. Nicaragua, of course,
wants to do what is best for the river, its river. But nothing that Professor Thorne has said changes
these fundamental facts, which Costa Rica now accepts: (1) it is Nicaragua’s right to dredge the
river; (2) dredging is required to facilitate navigation, which is obstructed by the excessive
accumulation of sediment in certain stretches of the Lower San Juan; and (3) there is no evidence
that Nicaragua’s current dredging programme, as opposed to a hypothetical expanded programme
that Costa Rica fears, causes any harm to Costa Rica.
64
CR 2015/12, p. 46 (Thorne).
65Thorne Summary Report for Certain Activities case, March 2015, p. 7, paras. 4.4-4.5.
66CR 2015/12, p. 52 (Thorne).
67
Ibid., pp. 52-53 (Thorne). - 30 -
19. These conclusions are supported by Professor van Rhee’s testimony, to which
Ambassador Ugalde also referred. He recalled Professor van Rhee’s statement that Nicaragua’s
current dredging programme is insufficient to reverse the situation, where the San Juan River is
68
progressively contributing more of its flow to the Colorado River and less to the Lower San Juan .
I do not see how this helps Costa Rica’s case, except to re-emphasize that the dredging programme,
as currently implemented, does not materially reduce the Colorado River’s flow. In order to
reverse this situation, according to Professor van Rhee, an expanded dredging programme would be
69
required . Precisely. And Nicaragua has no plans fo r such a programme, and will not undertake
one, if ever, unless it first performs a new EIS justifying it.
20. So this brings us to the only remaining issue concerning dredging: Ambassador Ugalde’s
claims, that Nicaragua (a) did not prepare an EIS prior to carrying out its current dredging
programme; and (b) that its 2006 EIS for this programme was inadequate. Apart from these two
claims being somewhat inconsistent with one another, they have no merit.
21. Mr. President, it cannot be seriously dispu ted that, in 2006, Nicaragua prepared an
extensive EIS for the current dredging programme, well before it commenced. Parts of that EIS are
70
in the record. They were submitted as annexes to Nicaragua’s Counter-Memorial . The entire EIS
71
consists of 225 pages, plus hundreds of pages of technical appendices . It was on the basis of this
EIS that MARENA authorized the programme 72. So now we are down to the question of whether
its contents are adequate. But Mr. President, the adequacy of Nicaragua’s EIS as distinguished
from its existence is a matter of national law, not international law. This is what the Court held
in Pulp Mills: “it is for each State to determine in its domestic legislation or in the authorization
process for the project, the specific content of the environmental impact assessment required in
73
each case” . And there is no evidence that the 2006 EIS failed to fulfi l the requirements of
68
CR 2015/14, pp. 55-56, para. 31 (Ugalde).
69
CR 2015/6, p. 35 (Reichler and van Rhee).
70Environmental Impact Study for Improving Navigation on the San Juan de N icaragua River (excerpts),
Sep. 2006; CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 7; Project Design Study (excerpts), Sep. 2006; CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 8.
71CR 2011/2, p. 38, para. 22 (Reichler).
72
CMN, paras. 5.77-5.78.
73Case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I),
p. 83, para. 205. - 31 -
Nicaraguan law, which are very similar to those of Costa Rican law. In fact, Ambassador Ugalde
read to you from a Nicaraguan document stating that the 2006 EIS was sufficient, and that no
74
additional EIS was required, to satisfy Nicaraguan law . There is no evidence otherwise.
22. However, for the sake of completeness, let us examine the adequacy of Nicaragua’s
2006 EIS. Ambassador Ugalde told you yesterday that it failed to assess, and said nothing about,
75
impacts on the flow rate of the Colorado River . He was mistaken. At tab 15 of your folders, and
on the screen, you can find two excerpts from the 2006 EIS. The first is from one of the
appendices. It says, following some rather sophisticated mathematical calculations which proceed
it, which you can see in the tab : “we require just 2.01% of additional flow volume for the section
of the new channel to function permanently, maintaining the same current charac teristics of the
76
channel or San Juan River” . The other excerpt is from the main body of the EIS. It is at tab 16,
and now on the screen. I will take you right to the conclusion: “This of cour se does not
substantially harm the flow of the Colorado River, since we will only take 5% of the total flow,
ensuring permanent navigation on the San Juan River.” 77
23. Mr. President, you will recall that, in September 2010, Costa Rica’s Foreign Minister,
relying on studies conducted by Costa Rican experts, publicly stated that such a diversion of flow
would have no harmful effect on the Colorado River or Costa Rica 78. In fact, as calculat ed by
Professor Thorne, if there has been a diversion of flow, it is no more than 1.5 per cent, which
Professor Thorne characterized as “meagre” 79and “negligible” . 80
74
CR 2015/14, p. 54, paras. 23, 25 (Ugalde).
75
Ibid., p. 51, para. 11 andp. 53, para. 19 (Ugalde).
76Project Design Study (excerpts), Sep. 2006, p. 18; CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 8.
77Environmental Impac t Study for Improving Navigation on the San Juan de Nicaragua River ( excerpts),
Sep. 2006, p. 10; CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 7.
78Speech of Mr. René Castro Salazar, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica, before the
Environmental Commission of the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica, 8 Sep . 2010; CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 24,
pp. 402-403; see also Esteban A. Mata, “Chancellery accepts Nicaraguan plan to dredge San Juan River”, La Nación,
Costa Rica, 8 Sep. 2010, reproduced in Complete Nicaraguan White Book, p. 39 ; CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 26, p. 451
(“Castro said that he was satisfied with Nicaragua’s technical environmental impact justifications. . . ‘There is an
environmental impact study made by Nicaragua and we have made our own analyses’, justified Chancellor Castro.”).
79Thorne Summary Report for Certain Activities case, Mar. 2015, p. 11, para. 4.16 (a).
80Thorne 2011 Report for Certain Activities case, p. (vii); MCR, App. 1. - 32 -
24. Ambassador Ugalde also criticized Nicaragua’s 2006 EIS on the ground that it failed to
adequately measure flow rates in the San Juan River 81. Wrong again. We c an see this by turning
back to tab 15. These three pages, from the same appendix to the EIS that I just referred to, are
headed: “Gauging in the Project Area. ” 82 As you can read at your convenience, measurements
83
were taken at eight different areas along a 42 km stretch of the r iver : “To determine the
behaviour, characteristics and volumes of water that move in the river, seven measurements were
84
taken.” You can see in this document the averages of these seven measurements for each of the
85
eight locations . That amounts to a lot of measurements.
25. Now this bring us to what Costa Rica repeatedly refers to as “the Ramsar report”, on
which it now bases its entire case regarding dredging. Let us review the undisputed facts
concerning this document. Nicaragua, on its own initiative, invited a Ramsar advisory mission to
inspect its dredging operation. As is Ramsar’s standard practice, the advisory mission submitted a
draft report to Nicaragua, so that Nicaragua could comment on it, and Ramsar could take
Nicaragua’s comments into account before preparing a final report. Nicaragua did comment on the
Ramsar draft, as Ambassador Ugalde helpfully showed you yesterday, pointing out what Nicaragua
considered a number of serious errors in the draft 86. Ramsar’s response, dated 19 December 2011,
81CR 2015/14, p. 51, para. 11 and p. 52, para. 14 (Ugalde).
82
Project Design Study (excerpts), Sep. 2006, p. 16; CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 8.
83
Ibid., pp. 16-18.
84Ibid., p. 16.
85Ibid., pp. 16-18.
86
CR 2015/14, pp. 53-54, paras. 20-25 (Ugalde); discussing “Considerations and Changes of the Government of
Nicaragua to the draft of RamsarMission Report No. 72: Wetland of International Importance Wildlife Refuge of the Rio
San Juan, Nicaragua” , annexed to letter from Ms Juanita Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of Environment and Natura l
Resources of Nicaragua, to Mr. Anada Tiega, Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 30 Nov. 2011,
tab 37 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folder for 28 Apr. 2015. - 33 -
87
was included in Costa Rica’s folder yesterday , and for the Court’s convenience is included in
ours today, at tab 17 and on the screen:
“We are grateful for the communication sent on 30 November2011, referring to
the considerations on the Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72 to the Wildlife Refuge of
the San Juan River Ramsar site. In this regard, the team of the Ramsar Mission . . .
will analyse the considerations sent and will be contacting you in case any
clarification is necessary to have a final version of the document.” 88
In fact, Ramsar never again contacted Nicaragua about this mission, and it never produced a final
version of the document. Nicaragua has been waiting to hear from Ramsar for over four years. But
Ramsar has done nothing, at least as far as Nicaragua is aware, since its letter of
19 December 2011.
26. Mr. President, f rom these facts, several conclusions can be drawn. First, the document
relied on by CostaRica is not an official “Ramsar report”. It is a draft that Ramsar never finalized.
Second, Ramsar did not respond to Nicaragua’s very well -placed criticisms of the draft. The
excerpt from the appendix to the 2006 EIS, at t ab 15, concerning “Gauging in the Project Area” ,
shows that Nicaragua was right and the Ramsar draft was wrong about whether Nicaragua had
measured flow rates in the San Juan River. Perhaps the Ramsar people did not read the appendices
to the 2006 EIS. Third, the draft pertains only to the “Wildli fe Refuge of the San Juan River ”
Ramsar site. That is the river itself. It called for mor e study, and ongoing monitoring of the
hydrology, hydrogeology and hydrodynamics of the river that is, Nicaragua’s river. It said
nothing about measuring any impacts on the wetlands on the right bank.
27. But how could it? The right bank belongs to Costa Rica, and Ramsar was surely aware
that Nicaragua could not enter or perform studies in Costa Rican territory. Nor could Nicaragua
send its officials into the disputed area because of the Court’s March 2011 Order, of which Ramsar
certainly was also aware.
28. But the draft did get at least one thing right: “[T]he dredging of the San Juan River with
the purpose of improving river navigation will effectively improve navigation on the rive r during a
8Letter from Mr. Anada Tiega, Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, to Ms Juanita Argeñal
Sandoval, Minister of Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua, 19 Dec. 2011, tab 38 of Costa Rica’s judges’
folder for 28 Apr. 2015. See also today’s judges’ folder, tab 17.
8Ibid. - 34 -
89
certain period of time.” It endorses the dredging of the river. The draft goes on to say: “it is
expected that over time the river will fill with sediment once again downstream from the delta” 90.
And that is exactly why Nicaragua has been required , not only to carry out its initial capital
dredging programme, but to engage in maintenance dredging to redredge the sediments that
continue to accumulate in the channel that Nicaragua has excavated. Professor van Rhee, a
dredging expert with more than 30 years of experience in the field 91, told us that this is entirely
normal in river dredging, and that maintenance dredging is always required after the initial capital
dredging is performed 92. Ambassador Ugalde repeatedly mischaracterized this ordina ry
maintenance dredging to preserve the excavated channel as a different progr amme. It is not. As
Professor van Rhee explained, maintenance dredging does not change any of the flow rates or have
93
any different impacts than the initial capital dredging .
29. And that reduces Costa Rica’s case on dredging to absolutely nothing.
30. Mr. President, I will close by responding to two additional comments made by
Ambassador Ugalde, and then by offering Nicaragua’s answers to questions put by
Judges Cançado Trindade and Xue in regard to dredging. Ambassador Ugalde said that Nicaragua
94
still asks for an order declaring that it may restore the river to its condition in 1858 . This is
wrong. Nicaragua is not including that in its submissions.
31. Then, Ambassador Ugalde accused me of being wrong when I said that there was no
evidence in the record to support his assertion that Nicaragua’s “ultimate aim” was to “refashion
95
geography” and divert most of the Colorado River’s flow . He accused me of “miss[ing]” this
evidence 96. Well, Mr. President, it is possible that I might have missed something, although I do
take pride, when discussing evidence in this Great Hall, in being comprehensive and accurate. In
89Ramsar Secretariat, Draft “Report: Ramsar Advisory Mission No. 72: Wetland of International Importance
Refugio de Vida Silvestre del Río San Juan, Nicaragua”, 18 Apr. 2011, extract of E nglish translation provided at tab 36
of Costa Rica’s judges’ folder for 28 Apr. 2015, pp. 42-43.
90
Ibid., p. 43.
91
Van Rhee Summary Report, March 2015, para. 1.
92CR 2015/6, p. 33-34 (van Rhee).
93Ibid.
94
CR 2015/14, p. 59, para. 44 (Ugalde).
95
Ibid., p. 58, para. 44 (Ugalde).
96Ibid. - 35 -
this case, the Parties, between them, have submitted many thou sands of pages of document s. And
it is possible that I missed something in one of t hem. After all, I am not Judge Greenwood, who
misses nothing. But, as it turns out, I missed nothing in this case, or at least nothing of the sort that
Ambassador Ugalde has described.
32. I looked carefully at the documents to which he referred the Court, at tabs 39 to 43 of
Costa Rica’s judges’ folder 9. All of t hese are newspaper articles that I had read several times
before. None of them says that Nicaragua’s aim is to “refashion geography.” There is one article
that cites a Nicaraguan official as proposing a diversion of the Colorado River’s flow, but as
Costa Rica itself has acknowledged 98, that statement was retracted 99. Further, the 2006 EIS
100
concluded, as you have seen, that the diversion would be no more than 5 per cent , thus harmless
to Costa Rica, and the actual diversion has been a “meagre” 1.5 per cent 10. If there was anything
useful in these articles, Ambassador Ugalde would have done what all good advocate s do: he
would have highlighted the text and projected it on the screen. If I have missed anything in this
case, it is not in the newspaper articles to which he referred you.
33. I come now to Nicaragua’s answers to questions from the Court.
Judge Cançado Trindade asked:
“In the course of the oral arguments this week, references have been made to
the natural sedimentation process and the constant morphological changes of the area,
in particular around the mouth of the San Juan River. In your assessm ent, are recent
or current dredging works final, or would there be a need for clearing the caño
constantly, from time to time? In case such clearing is regarded as necessary, how can
it be technically conducted to the satisfaction of both Parties?”
34. As the experts of both P arties have stated, in their written reports and oral testimony,
because of sediment accumulation, there is a need for regular and repeated dredging of the
Lower San Juan River and its navigable channels. This includes what Nicaragu a regards as the
first channel met, and all other channels in Nicaragua’s territory. Under the Cleveland Award, it is
97CR 2015/14, p. 58, para. 44 (Ugalde).
98
CR 2015/3, p. 57, para. 13 (Ugalde).
99Declaration of Virgilio Silva Munguia (EPN), d oc. 15 submitted by Nicar agua on 4 Jan. 2011 in connection
with the oral hearings on provisional measures.
10Environmental Impact Study for Improving Navigation on the San Juan de Nicaragua River ( excerpts),
Sep. 2006, p. 10; CMN, Vol. II, Ann. 7.
101
Thorne Summary Report for Certain Activities case, Mar. 2015, p. 11, para. 4.16 (a). - 36 -
Nicaragua’s right to dredge the river and keep the channels navigable, without a need to obtain
Costa Rica’s consent. However, when ther e is a risk that the dredging or clearing activities might
significantly harm Costa Rican territory, Nicaragua is obligated to conduct a prior transboundary
environmental impact assessment, which would include notification to, and good faith consultation
with, Costa Rica, in order to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse impacts.
35. Judge Xue asked:
“In order to possibly assess the intolerable level of sediments in the Lower San
Juan, could Nicaragua inform the Court during the second round of oral hearings
whether in the past century it has done dredging operations on the Lower San Juan; if
so, how frequently such operations have been done and each time, approximately how
many tons of sediments they dredged, if such data is available?” 102
36. Nicaragua did not dredge the Lower San Juan prior to the commencement of the current
dredging programme. The reasons are these. First, there was no need to dredge prior to the 1970s,
because the river did not naturally carry much sediment, and sediment did not accumulate to any
harmful degree, before then. The massive quantities of sediment that now characterize the river are
mainly the result of Costa Rica’s deforestation of its side of the river, between Boca San Carlos and
the delta, from the 1940s to the la te 1990s and the conversion of this land to agricultural use .
Mr. Brenes very helpfully confirmed the massive deforestation during this half century when he
displayed the image from the journal Environmental Monitoring and Assessment last week 103. To
be sure, as he showed, there has been some reforestation since then. But the clearing of the
landscape and the consequent erosion of soils into the river had already been accomplished and the
damage continues, because the primary forests are now almost completely gone.
37. On the screen , and at t ab 18, is what Costa Rica’s expe rt geologist wrote in
September 2011, before Nicaragua presented its Memorial in the Road case this is Dr. Astorga
to whom I am referring:
“The rivers of San Carlos and Sarapiqui contribute an important volume to the
water flow of the San Juan River, on average around 500 cubic metres per second.
For this reason, it is absolutely clear that those rivers contribute a substantial part to
the sediment load of the San Juan River, approximately 60% of the entire sediment
10CR 2015/10, 21 April 2015, p. 66 (Xue).
10CR 2015/11, pp. 14-15, para. 5 (Brenes). - 37 -
load. This is especially evident because those confluents drain land used
predominantly for agricultural production with only small amounts of forests.” 104
Deforestation. The Court will recall Mr. Wordsworth’s irritation with two of Nicaragua’s experts,
Professor Kondolf and Dr. Andrews, when they pointed to Costa Rica’s deforestation of its land,
and conversion to agricultural usage, as the most significant cause of sedimentation of the river. As
you can see, this was what Costa Rica’s own expert concluded before Nicaragua made an issue of it
in its Memorial.
38. It took several decades for the sedimentation resulting from Costa Rica’s deforestation to
clog up the river. But by the 1970s, when this first became a prob lem, as the Court is well aware,
Nicaragua was engulfed in civil war. During much of the 1980s, the area below the delta was
controlled by paramilitary forces fighting against Ni caragua from bases inside Costa Rica. The
combat ended only in 1990, but the Government’s focus then was on national reconciliation and
recovery from the ravages of the war. It was only in the early 2000s that Nicaragua had rebounded
sufficiently to embark on a dredging project of this nature.
39. Mr. President, this concludes m y presentation. I thank you and the Members of the
Court for your patient attention. I ask that you call Professor McCaffrey to the podium , perhaps
after a break.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur Reichler . La Cour va maintenant se retirer pour une
pause de 15 minutes. L’audience est suspendue.
L’audience est suspendue de 16 h 15 à 16 h 30.
10Allan Astorga Gättgens, “Technical Report: Geology, Sedimentology and Tectonics within the Surroundings
of the San Juan River and Calero IslandSep. 2011, p. 21, provided to Nicaragua by Costa Rica on 16 M. 2015 in
response to Nicaragua’s request of 24 Feb. 2015; judges’ folder, tab 18. - 38 -
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. Je donne la parole au professeur McCaffrey.
Mr. McCAFFREY:
N ICARAGUA ’S RIGHT TO DREDGE : NICARAGUA HAS NOT BREACHED
ANY ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS
Nicaragua has not breached its environmental or other obligations
1. Merci, Monsieur le président. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, this
afternoon I will respond to Costa Rica’s arguments concerning alleged breache s of environmental
and other obligations. At the end of my remarks I will offer answers to two of the questions asked
by Judge Bhandari, the third one will be answered by Mr. Reichler tomorrow.
1. Alleged breaches of environmental obligations
2. First, M r. President, the environmental obligations. Costa Rica persists in its effort to
shoe-horn contemporary international environmental law into a 19th century treaty and arbitral
award. Nicaragua is well aware of the tendency of this Court and other tribunals to interpret some
treaties in an evolutionary manner. But such interpretation s should obviously not contradict the
object and purpose of the treaty or render it a hollow shell; otherwise it would be inconsistent with
the general rule of interpretation in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
3. Yesterday Dr. Parlett argued that the lex specialis principle leaves ample room for the
application of principles of international environmental law to matters governed by the 1858 Treaty
and the 1888 Cleveland Award, and that the T reaty and A ward should be interpreted in light of
105
those principles as they stand today . She proceeded to put on your screens what she described as
Article 3 (6) of the Cleveland Award and to give you a close interpretation of it as seen by
Costa Rica.
4. In fact, Dr. Par lett only put half of paragraph 6 on your screens; she left out the crucial
second sentence, stating that Costa Rica “has the right to demand indemnification” for any damage
caused to Costa Rican territory or navigation rights by Nicaragua’s works of improvement. This,
together with the opening words of paragraph 6, “Costa Rica cannot prevent . . . Nicaragua” from
10CR 2015/14, p. 45, para. 19 (Parlett). - 39 -
carrying out works of improvement, give Nicaragua freedom to undertake such works, subject only
to an obligation to compensate Costa Rica for any damage of the kinds referred to by
President Cleveland that may be caused by those works. The Court will recall that Costa Rica had
argued quite vehemently before President Cleveland that it could prevent Nicaragua from carrying
out such works. President Cleveland decisively slammed the door on that idea in paragraph 6. But
Costa Rica continues to make it anyway, res judicata or not.
5. Dr. Parlett’s argument on this point was simply a repetition of what Costa Rica had argued
at length earlier, with its interpretation in rather agonizing detail of the word “provided”.
106
Nicaragua responded to that argument in two separate interventions in the first round . I will not
repeat those responses here.
6. However, Mr. President, Dr. Parlett’s lex specialis argument does deserve a moment’s
attention. First, she rather cleverly puts the question back wards, asking “whether the 1858 Treaty
and the 1888 Award override the application of environme ntal obligations under general principles
107
of law and under international treaties” . It should be whether the lex specialis leaves room for
the applicability of any other rules of law. Dr. Parlett proceeds to misstate the lex specialis rule,
requiring th at “Nicaragua . . . point to [a] provision of the 1858 Treaty or the 1888 Award that
108
excludes the application of rules relating to protection of the environment” . Again, this turns the
lex specialis principle on its head. The question is rather one of c onsistency, or compatibility, of
the other rules with the lex specialis.
7. Applying this test, the words “Costa Rica cannot prevent” clearly mean that Nicaragua is
free to proceed with works of improvement. Costa Rica “cannot prevent” Nicaragua from doi ng
this by claiming that Nicaragua should delay undertaking the works pending the fulfillment of
whatever other obligations Costa Rica thinks should apply. Quite simply, “cannot prevent” means
“cannot prevent”.
8. Dr. Parlett further said that I had “e ffectively conceded last week that enviro nmental law
obligations do not ‘conflict in any way’ with the 1858 Treaty and the 1888 Award, while at the
106
CR 2015/7, p. 38 (Pellet) and p. 29 (McCaffrey).
10CR 2015/14, p. 45, para. 17 (Parlett).
108
Ibid., pp. 45-46. - 40 -
same time maintaining that the San Juan River was somehow immune, on the basis of lex specialis,
from the application of all of those non- conflicting obligations” . She seems to have missed the
explanation at the outset of my speech on theRoad case last Tuesday that
“This case, unlike Certain Activities, does not involve claims by Costa Rica
concerning Nicaragua’s dredging of the San Juan River, cleaning caños , or anything
of the sort, all of which were dealt with by President Cleveland in his 1888 Award.
Instead, it involves . . . the breathtakinglycareless construction of a road.” 110
That was my explanation and this careless construction of a road is something that is not governed
by the Treaty or the Cleveland Award. Therefore, there is a clear possibility of conflict between
lex specialis and the other obligations regarding dredging and similar issues in Certain Activities,
but there is no possibility of a conflict in the Road case. The 1858 Treaty is, of course, not
inapplicable in the Road case, but it applies not to Costa Rica’s road construction but to
Nicaragua’s sovereignty over the San Juan, which is what is being trampled upon as a result of
Costa Rica’s construction of the road.
9. Then Dr. Par lett addressed the term “damage” , as used by President Cleveland, and
concluded that it means “any ‘damage’ and not merely ‘significant harm’”. Thus, she says, it
111
constitutes “a more stringent obligation . . . than general international law ” . Mr. President, we
are all familiar with the maxim , de minimis non curat lex . I cannot believe that President
Cleveland, a very capable lawyer, intended by using the term “damage” simpliciter, to mean
insignificant damage. If so, why would he also have said that Costa Rica would have a right to
claim indemnification for it? What would there be to indemnify?
10. Costa Rica also points to the Cleveland Award’s provis ions for “asking the opinion” of
Costa Rica under paragraph 10 and obtaining Costa Rica’s consent under paragraph 11, where
injury to its “natural rights” was involved, in both cases as to a possible canal. Costa Rica feigns
confusion about why these prov isions do not also suggest that notification and consultation are
112
required in respect of dredging . Mr. President, again, President Cleveland was not sloppy. If he
had intended to require notification and consultation with regard to dredging , he clearly knew how
109
CR 2015/14, p. 46.
11CR 2015/10, p. 32 (McCaffrey).
11CR 2015/14, p. 46.
112
Ibid., p. 47, para. 25. - 41 -
to say so and would have said so. But Costa Rica ignores the travaux of the Award, which was
113
cited by Nicaragua , showing that Costa Rica made a big to-do of what it claimed to be its right to
prevent Nicaragua from dredging, a right that Preside nt Cleveland declared to be non- existent.
Clearly, in light of what the arbitrator said about “asking the opinion” of Costa Rica, and even
obtaining its consent in respect of possible injury, both relating to canal construction, he would
have said Nicarag ua should ask the opinion of Costa Rica before dre dging, rather than saying
Costa Rica could claim indemnity for any damage resulting from dredging, if he had intended to do
so.
11. Mr. President, Costa Rica repeats its charges as to Nicaragua’s environmental impact
study concerning its dredging project on the Lower San Juan. It says Nicaragua did not consider
transboundary impacts of its dredging programme, which I take to mean impacts on the flow of the
Colorado branch of the San Juan River.
12. Mr. Reichler has already shown you that Nicaragua’s EIS fully addressed this issue and
concluded there was no possibili ty of a significant diversion of the Colorado’s flow and both
Parties’ experts agreed that there was none.
13. As Mr. Reichler has shown, Nicaragua did consider transboundary impacts as part of its
2006 EIS 114, and because there is no new programme and no plans for an expanded one, no new
EIS is required.
14. Any duty to notify and consult would not be triggered because both countries’ stud ies
have shown that Nicaragua’s dredging program me poses no likelihood of significant harm to
Costa Rica, and indeed that there has been no such harm from the inception of the programme to
date.
2. Other Alleged Breaches
a. Alleged Breaches of Costa Rica’s Navigational Rights
15. Mr. President, I now turn to other alleged breaches by Nica ragua. I will begin with
Costa Rica’s additional allegations that Nicaragua has breached its navigational rights.
11CR 2015/7, p. 39, para. 45 (McCaffrey).
11See, e.g., CMN, p. 150, para. 5.40; pp. 151-152, para. 5.43; pp. 154-155, para. 5.47; and p. 172, para. 5.78. - 42 -
16. Dr. Del Mar trotted out a veritable parade of horribles yesterday to illustrate what she
called “harassment” of Costa Rican citizens in violati on of the 1858 Treaty and your J udgment in
the Navigational and Related Rights case. She echoed the familiar refrain I would call it a stuck
record but I am not sure that expression has much meaning anymore that hapless Costa Ricans
are preyed upon by Nicaraguan border control authorities. The underlying assumption, of course,
is that Costa Ricans have every right in the world to navigate on the San Juan and it is for
Nicaragua to prove otherwise.
17. But you were clear in your 2009 Judgment, Mr. President. You said that Costa Rica has
the right to navigate on the San Juan, Nicaragua’s territory, for the purposes of commerce. You
also, in your dispositif, carved out carefully limited exceptions. The one that would be applicable
to Dr. Del Mar’s “victims” is contained in paragraph (1) (f) of the dispositif , which reads as
follows: “The Court . . . (1) (f) . . . Finds that the inhabitants of the Costa Rican bank of the San
Juan River have the right to navigate on the river between the riparian communities for the
purposes of the essential needs of everyday life which require expeditious transportation; . . .” 115
18. So, there are three qualifications to this right: first, navigation must be between riparian
communities; second, it must be “for the purposes of the e ssential needs of everyday life”; and
third, those needs must “req uire expeditious transportation” . And , Mr. President, it must be
remembered that Nicaraguan authorities have to make these determinations on the spot.
Obviously, it is for the person or persons seeking to navigate on the river again, Nicaragua’s
territory to prove to the satisfaction of the authorities that they have met these conditions.
19. The individuals whose affidavits are cited by Dr. Del Mar were obviously unable to carry
that burden. Of the eight affidavits she cited, two concerned the journalists already discussed in
116
these hearings , five have to do with one i ncident involving invitees to a farm who were not
actually engaged in commerce 117, and the last was the case made so much of by Ms Del Mar,
11Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
p. 270, para. (1) (f).
11Certain Activities, MCR, Anns. 27 and 28, Affidavits of Franklin Gutierrez Mayorga and Jeffrey Prendas
Arias. Cf. CR 2015/7, p. 51, para. 26 (Pellet).
117
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), RCR, Anns. 62, 63,
64, 65 and 66, Affidavits of Victor Julio Vargas He rnandez, William Vargas Jimenez, Mayela Vargas Arce,
Gabriela Vanessa Lopez Gomez, Claudio Arce Rojas. - 43 -
involving a man who, from all that appears from the affidavit, only wanted to travel to the nearest
town, without showing that his trip was for commercial purposes or that he “require[d] expeditious
118
transportation” “for the purposes of the essential needs of everyday life” . All in all, a
remarkably good record for Nicaragua’s authorities.
20. Nicaraguan authorities must in any event be left some margin of appreciation in making
these determinations, which must be made quickly, on boats bobbing i n the water, and in the
context of the officers’ responsibility to control immigration and protect Nicaraguan territory.
21. When all of these considerations are taken into account, it is remarkable, Mr. President,
that Costa Rica can come up with so few cases, considering that there are approximately
450 riparian inhabitants that use the river every day . Often, multiple times in a single day. Apart
from the journalists who appear not to have been rip arians, the evidence presented by Costa Rica
concerns two incidents since 2009 one, involving five persons. But Costa Rica make the cases
seem to be many, because of the hall o f mirrors effect created by its constant repetition of them.
The disrespectful treatment in one case is regrettable and Nicaragua by no means condones it. But
Mr. President, is it appropriate to make a international incident or impose international
responsibility every time an uncouth border guard hassles a would -be visitor or immigrant? If
Nicaraguans who are “lawfully on Costa Rican territory” are free to use the road as
Professor Kohen told us in response to Judge Greenwood’s question 119, so are Costa R icans who
are lawfully on the river, and thus lawfully in Nicaragua, free to use it. There is a parallelism here
that seems to have been lost on Costa Rica.
(b) The provisional measures orders
22. Mr. President, I turn finally to one of Costa Rica’s favourite themes, Nicaragua’s alleged
violations of the Court’s Provisional Measures Orders. Yesterday, Dr. Parlett wondered if she was
120
in a time machine, hearing my colleague Professor Pellet address this question in these hearings .
I can assure her that she was not.
118
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), RCR, Vol. IV,
Ann. 67, Affidavit of Ruben Francisco Valerio A rroyo.
11CR 2015/13, p. 54(Kohen).
120
CR 2015/14, p. 39 (Parlett). - 44 -
23. Costa Rica has conceded that Nicaragua has not violated the 2013 Order. It has also
recognized that Nicaragua’s Agent told you in these hearings that he got the message delivered in
your 2013 Order. Ambassador Argüello said: “Nicaragua deeply regrets the actions following the
2011 Order on Provisional Measures that led the Court to determine, in November 2013, that a new
Order was required. The Court need not doubt that Nicaragua received and understood [this]
121
message.” But Costa Rica says despite this cl ear statement, that you should now order
satisfaction, compensation, and a guarantee of non -repetition122, notwithstanding the fact that you
have already addressed this situation in your new Provisional Measures Order of 2013.
24. Mr. President, for this reason Nicaragua believes what Costa Rica now requests would be
redundant, and that there is therefore no need for future remedial measures.
ANSWERS TO JUDGE BHANDARI ’S QUESTIONS 1 AND 3
25. Mr. President, I will now answer two of the questions put to the Parties by
Judge Bhandari, questions 1 and 3. My colleague, Paul Reichler, will answer question 2 tomorrow
as I indicated earlier. Questions 1 and 3 are as follows:
“1. How, if at all, should the authorities I have just mentioned be applied by the
Court in assessing whether Costa Rica exercised sufficient care in constructing the
Road? . . . [and]
3. What exactly is the standard of care that should be applied to Costa Rica in
this case? For instance, is it one of recklessness? Neg ligence? Due diligence? Strict
liability? Or something else?”
26. Mr. President, in answering these questions, Nicaragua would begin by emphasizing that
in its view the populations of both countries deserve to benefit from the highest possible standards
of environmental protection. Furthermore, Nicaragua of course agrees with the statement in
Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration that “ In view of the different contributions to global
123
environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities.”
27. As far as Costa Rica and Nicaragua are concerned, as the Court is aware from the written
and oral pleadings, the two States have adopted and implemented modern environmental laws
121
CR 2015/5, p. 18, para. 42 (Arguello).
12CR 2015/14, pp. 40-41, para. 8 (Parlett).
123
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I), Principle 7. - 45 -
including high standards of protection. In addition, the States of Central America have also
adopted environmental and related laws of this kind. Thus the standard to be applied to Costa Rica
in this case by which Judge Bhandari was referring to the Roadcase is the one the Court has
applied in other, similar, cases involving developing countries in Latin America, notably the Pulp
Mills case, namely, that of due diligence. Further in the case of transboundary environmental
harm, the standard is one of significant harm. As that term is defined by the ILC [ International
Law Commission]. Tomorrow, Nicaragua will show you that Costa Rica has caused significant
harm to Nicaragua in the Road case.
28. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my presentation this afternoon.
Thank you very much for your kind attention. Mr. President, I would be grateful if you would now
call on my colleague Professor Alain Pellet.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci. Je donne la parole au professeur Pellet.
M. PELLET : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président
LE TRACÉ DE LA FRONTIÈRE ET SES CONSÉQUENCES
EN MATIÈRE DE RESPONSABILITÉ
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, chaque affaire est un unicum
ne m’en veuillez pas pour cette banalité ; les platitudes peuvent avoir du bon ! Et d’ailleurs, ce
lieu commun a été cautionné hier par Marcelo Kohen . L’affaire qui nous occupe confirme ce
lieu commun de façon éclatante : elle n’entre dans aucune des deux grandes catégories de
contentieux soumis en général à la Cour : les litiges frontaliers , d’une part, les affa ires de
responsabilité, d’autre part. Le Costa Rica vous l’a soumise comme relevant de la seconde et
très dramatiquement : invasion militaire, occupation de guerre... Elle se révèle cependant comme
portant d’abord sur un problème, compliqué, de délimit ation frontalière. Et, à vrai dire, sauf si
vous en veni ez à considérer, comme le Costa Rica vous le demande avec beaucoup d’ insistance,
que le tracé de la frontière relève de l’évidence, le conflit frontalier conditionne, et je dirais même
12CR 2015/14,p. 38, par. 47 (Kohen). - 46 -
éclipse complètement, l’affaire en responsabilité que l’autre Partie a cru pouvoir vous soumettre
sans doute pour satisfaire son opinion publique.
2. Je me propose donc , dans un premier temps, de prendre le relais de ce qu’a montré
l’ambassadeur Argüello au début de cet après-midi, à savoir que, décidément, la frontière n’est pas
là où le Costa Rica l’affirme ; et, dans un second temps, que, dès lors, les réparations qu’il demande
doivent être rejetées et qu’ elles le devraient d’ailleurs de toute manière même si vou s estimiez,
en contradiction avec les termes clairs des textes applicables, qu’elle n’est pas non plus située à la
rive gauche du premier chenal rencontré le long de la rive méridionale de HarborHead Lagoon.
I. Le tracé de la frontière
3. Monsieur le pré sident, la question du tracé de la frontière est le préalable obligé à tout
règlement du différend que le Costa Rica a soumis à la Cour même si, comme je viens de le
rappeler, il l’a présenté comme un pur litige en responsabilité : vous ne pouvez pas, Mesdames et
Messieurs les j uges, vous prononcer sur celle -ci sans avoir déterminé d’abord sur le territoire de
quelle Partie ont pris place les faits prétendument internationalement illicites que l’Etat requérant
attribue au Nicaragua. Ceci veut dire que vous devez inévitablement, peut-être pas vous prononcer
expressément sur l’emplacement de la frontière dans le dispositif de votre arrêt (encore que ce ne
serait pas forcément une mauvaise idée si l’on veut faire en sorte que le véritable différend qui
oppose les Parties soit réglé avec l’autorité de la chose jugée...), mais en tout cas, vous devez vous
convaincre qu’ il vous appartient de déterminer où cette frontière se trouve avant de prendre
quelque position que ce soit sur la responsabilité.
4. A cet égard quatre solutions, abstraitement possibles, s’offrent à vous :
ou bien, premièrement, vous estimez que la frontière se trouve là où le Costa Rica la place ;
ou bien, deuxièmement, vous optez pour celle qui correspond à notre ferme conviction ;
ou bien, troisièmement, vous tranchez pour un tracé alternatif mais, pour être franc, je n’en vois
pas se dessiner j’élimine l’hypothèse pour l’instant, j’y reviendrai un peu plus tard ;
ou bien, quatrièmement et finalement, vous estimez n’être pas suffisamment écla irés et il
faudra en tirer les conséquences. - 47 -
J’examinerai successivement les deux premières hypothèses à la lumière des arguments mis en
avant hier par nos contradicteurs dans la très modeste mesure où notre agent n’y a pas
complètement répondu. Et je discuterai dans la seconde partie de mon exposé, celle consacrée à la
responsabilité, les conséquences qui résulteraient également des deux autres possibilités qui vous
sont ouvertes.
1. L’impossibilité du tracé frontalier défendu par le Costa Rica
[Projection n 1 La frontière selon le Costa Rica]
5. Il a fallu du temps, Monsieur le président, et l’opportune question du
vice-président Yussuf, pour que le Costa Rica se résigne à nous dire où, selon lui, passe la
frontière. Encore n’a -t-il fait que la proje ter furtivement à la to ute fin de la plaidoirie de
Sam Wordsworth. Vous pouvez la voir en ce moment plus à loisir. Elle nous permet de combiner
deux jeux intéressants celui auquel nous a conviés le Costa Rica : «A la recherche du caño
perdu» 125et, un autre, plus classique : «chercher l’erreur».
6. Pour figurer la frontière, nous avons tous utilisé l’image satellite tirée de la p age 353 du
mémoire costa- ricien ou, plus exactement, de la p age I-29 du r apport Thorne annexé à ce
mémoire 12. C’est sur elle qu e M Wordsworth a tracé la frontière que vous pouvez voir en rouge
sur la projection actuelle mais il s’est gardé d’expliquer précisément comment il l’avait tracée,
même s’il a donné quelques indications sur lesquelles je reviendrai . Ceci dit, sur le pr incipe, les
Parties sont d’accord. Ce ne peut être que conformément à la première sentence Alexander : «[the
description made by General Alexander], together with the attached sketch -map, established with
127
binding effect the precise line of the boundary in the area currently at issue» c’est une citation
de M. Wordsworth au début de nos audiences. Donc, je retourne à ma citation favorite, celle sur
laquelle doit se fonder toute tentative pour déterminer le tracé de la frontière dont je souligne
qu’aucun conseil du Costa Rica ne s’est hasardé à faire usage le paragraphe final de la première
sentence Alexander. Et je vais tenter de l’appliquer à la ligne frontière que vous a montrée
M. Wordsworth:
125
CR 2015/14, p. 23, par. 2 et p. 24, par. 4.
126Voir MCR, p. 353, appendice I, fig.I.19 et CMN, p. 330, fig. 6.8.
127
CR 2015/2, p. 41, par. 18 (Wordsworth). - 48 -
[Projection n 1 animation : effacer la ligne rouge puis la rajouter au fur et à mesure]
«the initial line of the boundary [runs] as follows […]: Its direction shall be due northeast and
southwest, across the bank of sand, from the Caribbean Sea into the waters of Harbor Head
Lagoon» ; apparemment, il n’y a pas de divergence là- dessus entre les Parties : le point de
départ de la frontière terrestre ainsi décrite est bien là où il apparaît sur la carte costa-ricienne ;
puis la frontière, je continue ma lecture de la sentence Alexander, «shall pass, at its ne arest
point, 300 feet [this is around 91 meters I think] on the northwest side from the small hut now
standing in that vicinity» ; ni les uns ni les autres ne semblons capables de dire où pouvait bien
se trouver cette petite hutte ; mais, sous réserve peut -être de démarcation précise sur la bande
de sable en question, nous semblons là aussi être d’accord ;
«On reaching the waters of Harbor Head Lagoon the boundary line shall turn to the left, or
southeastward, and shall follow the water’s edge around the ha rbour…» ; jusque-là, toujours
pas de divergence entre les Parties ;
«until it reaches the river proper by the first channel met» ; et c’est là le point qu’est le point
crucial de l’opposition entre les Parties : le tracé retenu par le Costa Rica ne s’arrêt e ni au
premier, ni au deuxième, ni au troisième , ni à vrai dire à aucun chenal ; il file droit jusqu’au
fleuve proprement dit (the river proper) ; ceci est incompatible avec la phrase que je viens de
lire («jusqu’à atteindre le fleuve proprement dit p ar le premier chenal rencontré» ), mais c’est
aussi incompatible avec la phrase qui suit;
«Up this channel, and up the river proper, the line shall continue to ascend as directed in the
treaty» ; «et jusqu’au fleuve proprement dit» , voilà qui ne peut laisser a ucun doute sur l e fait
que l’une des directives cl efs en vue de délimiter la frontière est qu’elle ne suit pas le chenal
principal, mais bien «le premier chenal rencontré» en suivant la rive de la lagune.
Ce sont là, Monsieur le p résident, deux erreurs fatales, car irréconciliables avec le text e clair de la
première sentence Cleveland.
o
[Fin de la projection n 1]
7. Du reste, nos contradicteurs, qui se sont bien gardés de se référer à cette description ont
cherché à contourner le problème : l’un et l’autre M e Wordsworth et M. Marcelo Kohen ont
décrit la frontière défendue par le Costa Rica «à l’envers», si je puis dire. C’est -à-dire qu’au lieu - 49 -
d’aller d’abord du nord-est au sud-ouest (northeast and southwest), puis d’obliquer vers le sud -est
(southeastward) pour suivre la rive de Harbor Head Lagoon, ils négligent cette description pour
focaliser l’attention exclusivement sur le fait que le Costa Rica est souverain sur la rive droite du
fleuve dont ils postulent, au mépris du texte clair de la première sentence (que les deux suivantes ne
remettent nullement en question), qu’il s’agit forcément de son chenal principal : «Alexander thus
made quite clear that Costa Rica was sovereign over all of the right bank of the river, not just the
right bank of the riv er until it meets a non -existent non-navigable channel» dit Sam Wordsworth
citant (exceptionnellement) la troisième (mais soigneusement pas la première) sentence 128. Et il
précise : «It is self-evident that the drafters of the Treaty considered that the boundary followed the
main channel, i.e., the right bank of the river, all the way to the river mouth»; en quoi ceci
relève-t-il de l’évidence ? Il s’agit d’un delta et il est tout aussi logique de suivre le chenal le plus
excentré surtout lorsque l’on fixe une frontière à la rive en admettant que les îles du fleuve et
tout le monde l’admet appartiennent à l’Etat qui exerce sa souveraineté sur celui-ci.
8. Dans sa réponse au v ice-président Yussuf, Marcelo Kohen part du même postulat et il
poursuit :
o
[Projection n 2 : La description de la frontière selon le Costa Rica]
«La frontière dans le « territoire litigieux» suit donc la rive droite du fleuve San Juan dès son
embouchure vers le sud»;
puis il repart à l’embouchure du fleuve (il s’agit toujours bien s ûr du chenal principal) : «Vers
l’est, depuis l’embouchure du fleuve jusqu’à la lagune Los Portillos, le territoire est par
conséquent costa-ricien» ; mais notre contradicteur ne nous dit pas pour autant où passe la
frontière ;
ce n’est qu’ensuite qu’il en reprend la description : «La frontière suit ensuite le rivage autour
129
de la lagune Los Portillos» .
CQFD ? Assurément c’est ce que le Costa Rica veut démontrer, mais sûrement pas en respectant
les données de l’équation constituées par la sentence Alexander.
o
[Fin de la projection n 2]
128CR 2015/14, p. 18, par. 28 (Wordsworth).
129
Ibid., p. 31. - 50 -
9. Monsieur le président , je ne reviens ni sur la question de la frontière mobile (mais pas
capricieuse), ni sur l’instabilité rel ative du delta et des chenaux la composant, dont notre agent,
aujourd’hui promu conseil, a p arlé. Je souhaite seulement souligner un point complémentaire :
e
M Wordsworth fait grand cas de l’insistance mise par Alexander sur la notion d’ «outlet for
130
commerce», de «point de sortie pour le commerce» . Cela appelle quelques remarques :
1) contrairement à ses affirmations, cette notion n’est pas liée à celle de navigabilité : dans sa
sentence du 30 septembre 1897, l’arbitre écarte à la fois le Colorado et le Taura, tous deux
indiscutablement navigables, comme candidats possibles à constituer le fleuve frontalier, en
disant : «It cannot follow either of them, for neither is an outlet for commerce, as neither has a
harbor at its mouth» 131;
2) tout port a disparu de la région depuis des lustres : Greytown n’était déjà plus que l’ombre de
lui-même à la date de la sentence et, malgré son nom, Harbor Head n’a, aujourd’hui, rien d’un
port et ne l’a peut-être jamais été ; et
3) si commerce il y a ou pourrait y avoir il est limité au seul tourisme, le véritable «outlet of
commerce» dont bénéficie le Costa Ric a (mais dont le Ni caragua est exclu) étant le
Rio Colorado ; et, assurément, «aux fins du commerce réduit au tourisme», le caño qui, selon le
Nicaragua, constitue la frontière fait aussi bien (et sans doute mieux) l’affaire que le chenal
principal, de toute manière rendu inapte à une navigation quelconque en saison sèche du fait de
la sédimentation de son lit phénomène dont on sait ce qu’il doit à l’action du Costa Rica
lui-même, et auquel le trop modeste dragage entrepris par le Nicaragua ne peut pas mettre fin.
Quand je dis «ne peut pas», c’est «n’arrive pas».
10. Quoi qu’il en soit, c’est aussi à la lumière de ces données qu’il faut apprécier le
bien-fondé des tracés frontaliers proposés respectivement par les Parties. Nous venons de le v oir,
celui so utenu par le Costa Rica ne prend nullement en considératio n le texte clair de la
première sentence Alexander et ne tient pas compte des modifi cations que l’embouchure du
130CR 2015/2, p. 39-40, par. 13, p. 40, par. 14 et CR 2015/14, p. 14, par. 11 et 15, p. 15, par. 16, p. 16, par. 19,
p. 17, par. 22 et p. 18, par. 26 (Wordsworth).
131Première sentence arbitrale en vertu de la convention entre le Costa Rica et le Nicaragua du 8 avril 1896 pour
la démarcation de la frontière entre les deux Républiques, 30 septembre 1897, NationsRSA, vol. XXVIII, p. 217
(MCR, vol. II, annexe 9). - 51 -
San Juan a connues tant en ce qui concerne le réseau de ses canaux que l’évolution (régressive) de
sa navigabilité ou l’action de l’érosion marine, et qui aboutit en outre à un résultat pour le moins
singulier : l’octroi au Nicaragua d’une lagune enclavée !
[Projection n o 3 : La lagune enclavée]
11. Résultat tellement singulier que le p rofesseur Kohen s’est bien gardé de vous montrer,
Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, à quoi cela pouvait bien ressembler. Sans doute à ce que vous
pouvez voir s ur vos écrans en ce moment également à l’onglet no 21 de vos dossiers. Et i ci
encore, quelques brèves remarques, Monsieur le président, si je puis :
le professeur Kohen à l’aplomb de comparer cette configuration à Makassar, qui appartient à
132
Timor-Leste et est enclavé dans la partie occidentale, indonésienne, de l’île de Timor , ou,
encore plus osé !, à l’enclave (il y en a deux à vrai dire) que constitue Brunei dans l’île
malaisienne de Sarawak 133; je lui suggère une autre comparaison : l’Alaska ; à moins au
contraire que ce soit le Canada qui soit enclavé dans le territoire des Etats-Unis ?
comme l’a expliqué l’ambassadeur Argüello tout à l’heure, cette invention de la lagune
enclavée l’est uniquement avec d’évidentes arrière- pensées : le Costa Rica s’approprie tout
simplement Head Harbor Lagoon dans le cadre de l’autre affaire qu’il vous a soumise au sujet
de la Délimitation maritime dans la mer des Caraïbes et l’océan Pacifique ; ce que l’érosion
marine n’a pas fait, l’appétit territorial du Costa Rica le réalise ; tout donne d’ailleurs à croire
que l’enjeu en tout cas l’un des enjeux véritable de sa requête relative à
Certaines activités est d’essayer de conduire la Cour à lui adjuger un point de départ de la
délimitation maritime qui entraînerait des gains considérables de zones marines ;
en outre, si vous deviez, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, donner suite, même partiellement, à
sa suggestion, c’est alors que vous porteriez un grave coup au principe de la stabilité des
frontières auquel il proclame son attachement 134: il est clair qu’Alexander estimait que toute la
façade maritime se trouvant au nord-ouest du point où la fr ontière qu’il décrit
commence c’est-à-dire lorsqu’elle traverse «le banc de sable séparant la m er des Caraïbes
132Voir le dossier des juges du 28 avril 2015, onglet n 26.
133Ibid., onglet n 27.
134
CR 2015/2, p. 27, par. 24 (age nt), p. 48, par. 7, p . 70 -71, par . 67 -71 ( Kohen) et CR 2015/14, p. 29-30,
par. 17-19. - 52 -
des eaux de Harbor Head Lagoon» («across the bank of sand, from the Caribbean Sea into the
waters of Harbor Head Lagoon») il est clair, disais-je, qu’Alexander estimait que toute cette
façade maritime appartenait au Nicaragua et son graphique, pour rudimentaire qu’il soit, en
témoigne également.
o o
[Fin de la projection n 3 - Projectionn 4 : Le tracé frontalier]
12. La ligne frontière que le Nicaragua vous propose de retenir, Mesdames et Messieurs de la
Cour, tient pleinement compte de toutes ces considérations, avec lesquelles le tracé costa- ricien est
totalement incompatible :
il suit à la lettre la description de la frontière dans la sentence Alexander ;
il en vaut une autre pour ce qui est de constituer un outlet of commerce dans la situation
actuelle, dans laquelle il n’y a de toute façon plus de port et plus guère de commerce ;
tout en restant fidèle à l’esprit de la délimitation arrêtée par la sentence de 1897, il est adapté à
la situation actuelle, ce qui répond aux directives générales relatives à l’interprétation des
traités conclus pour une longue période ou sans limitation de durée, telles qu’elles ressortent de
o 135
votre arrêt de 2009 dans l’affaire du San Juan n I ;
notre tracé ne prive pas, au mépris du principe de la stabilité des frontières, le Nicaragua de la
façade maritime que lui avait reconnue la sentence Alexander ; et
il n’aboutit pas à la solution aberrante que constitue l’enclavement de la lagune.
[Fin de la projection n 4 Projection n 5 : Cartes confirmatives du tracé frontalier]
13. Au surplus, cette frontière raisonnable n’a rien d’une invention ou d’une «revendication
artificielle»136. E lle est représen tée sur de nombreuses cartes elles défilent actuellement à
o
l’écran et figurent à nouveau dans vos dossiers (sous l’onglet n 23). Je les avais déjà montrées lors
du premier tour 137, mais les avo cats du Costa Rica n’y ont pas prêté attentio n. Je suis sûr,
Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, que l’intérêt de ces cartes ne vous aura pas échapp é, mais
comme cela, vous les av ez sous la main. De son côté, M. Kohen en a invoqué deux, à l’appui du
tracé frontalier défendu par le Costa Rica, datées de 1988, qui ont la même origine (des photos
135 Voir Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (CosRica c. Nicaragua), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 242-244, par. 63-71.
136
CR 2015/14, p. 23, par. 2 (Kohen).
137
Voir CR 2015/5, p. 30-32, par. 21. - 53 -
aériennes de 1961) et qui figurent sous l’onglet n 24 du dossier de ce jour
l’ambassadeur Argüello vous les a montrées tout à l’heure. C es deux cartes figurent des
chenaux ou caños expressément qualifiés de «pérennes», comme l’a confirmé le professeur Thorne
lors de son contre-interrogatoire du 14 avril 13. Je n’y insiste pas : l’ambassadeur Argüello a déjà
attiré votre attention sur ces cartes.
14. Il a également rappelé que, contrairement aux affirmations d e nos contradicteurs 139, les
autorités nicaraguayennes avaient été présentes dans le territoire comme l’attestent les affidavits
joints à notre contre -mémoire (ce sont les annexes 80 à 89 qui figurent dans le volume III). Ces
documents «méritent un détour», Mesdames et Messieurs les juges : ils montrent que depuis, en
tout cas, la chute de la dictature somoziste, la police et l’armée nicaraguayennes ont procédé à
d’assez nombreuses opérations de contrôle et à des arrestations dans la zone que le Costa Rica
revendique pour sienne. Certes, il s’agit d’une présence policière qui n’est ni dense ni permanente
et il y a certainement moins de contrôles d’alcoolémie là- bas qu’à La Haye mais,
compte tenu du caractère fort peu hospitalier de cette région pratiquem ent inhabitée, cela est déjà
beaucoup. Selon une jurisprudence constante,
«[i]l est impossible d’examiner des décisions rendues dans les affaires visant la
souveraineté territoriale sans observer que, dans beaucoup de cas, le tribunal n’a pas
exigé de nombreuses manifestations d’un exercice de droits souverains pourvu que
l’autre Etat en cause ne pût faire valoir une prétention supérieure. Ceci est
particulièrement vrai des revendications de souveraineté sur des territoires situés dans
des pays faiblement peuplés ou non occupés par des habitants à demeure.» 140
Vous aurez reconnu l’arrêt de la CPJI dans l’affaire du Groënland oriental.
o
[Fin de la projection n 5]
II. La (non-)question de la responsabilité
15. Il va de soi, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour , que la position que vous prendrez en ce
qui concerne l’emplacement de la frontière conditionne celle que vous adopterez en matière de
responsabilité. Je montrerai cependant qu’à moins que vous considériez que le professeur Kohen
138CR 2015/3, p. 23 (Thorne).
139
Voir MCR, p. 174-176, par. 4.55-4.57 et CR 2015/2, p. 57, par. 30 (Kohen).
140Statut juridique du Groënland oriental, arrêt, 1933, C.P.J.I.A/B n 53, p. 46 ; voir aussi : Souveraineté
sur Pulau Ligitan et Pulau Sipadan (Indonésie/Malaisie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p. 682, par. 134 et Différend
territorial et maritime entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras dans la mer des Caraïbes (Nicaragua Honduras), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (II), p. 712, par. 174. - 54 -
est fondé à prétendre qu e «le Costa Rica ne pouvait imaginer une revendication nicaraguayenne
141
comme celle formulée en 2010» hypothèse qui ne me paraît pas très sérieuse (mais que les
conseils de l’Etat requérant martèlent abondamment 142comme pour se persuader eux-mêmes d’une
évidence improbable) , il me semble presque évident que vous ne pourriez faire droit, sauf à cette
condition, aux demandes de réparation qu’a faites le Costa Rica, que la frontière soit située à la rive
droite du caño qui est à l’origine de toute l’affaire, ou qu’elle soit située ailleurs. Ce n’est donc que
par souci de ne rien laisser au hasard que je discuterai succinctement, dans un second temps, les
conséquences ou certaines des conséquences que le Costa Rica voudrait vous faire tirer de la
responsabilité alléguée du Nicaragua telles qu’elles sont énoncées dans ses très prolixes
conclusions finales.
1. La Cour ne peut que rejeter les conclusions du Costa Rica
16. Il me semble, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, que nous avons montré à suffisance, tant
dans notre contre-mémoire que durant les présentes audiences, que la frontière établie par le t raité
de 1858, interprété par les sentences Cleveland et Alexander, suivait bien la rive occidentale de
Harbor Head Lagoon, pour longer la rive droite du caño contesté et rejoindre «le fleuve proprement
dit», toujours en suivant sa rive droite. Si tel est le cas, il est bien évident que le Nicaragua ne
saurait être tenu pour internationalement responsable des faits que le Costa Rica lui reproche.
17. Quid de l’hypothèse que je n’évoque que pour surplus de droit où vous ne seriez
pas totalement convaincus ? Eh bien, Monsieur le président, cela ne devrait rien changer à
l’absence de responsabilité du Nicaragua. Qu’en serait -il en effet ? Comme je l’ai dit t out à
l’heure, trois autres voies s’ouvriraient à la Cour.
18. Elle pourrait fixer la frontière le long d’un autre caño par exemple au débouché de l’un
des chenaux pérennes en «Y» que l’on voit sur les photographies de 1961 143 ou sur les cartes de
144
1988 même si je n’aperçois pas bien la logique de la chose : pourquoi choisir un deuxième ou
141CR 2015/2, p. 48, par. 8 (Kohen).
142Voir ibid. et CR 2015/14, p. 28, par. 13 (Kohen) ou CR 2015/4, p. 35, par. 4 (Kohen). Sur la question de la
nature du différend : CR 2015/2, p. 19, par. 3 (Ugalde), p. 47-54, par. 6 -24 et p. 71-72, par . 72-73 (Kohen), ou
CR 2015/3, p. 10, par. 2 (Wordsworth).
143 o
Dossier des juges, 29 avril 2015, onglet n 24.
144 o
Dossier des juges, 29 avril 2015, onglet n 24. - 55 -
un troisième chenal s’il en existe un premier ? Mais supposons que tel soit le cas : quel que soit le
caño que vous retiendriez, il est clair qu’en choisissant un tracé frontalier que ni l’une ni l’autre des
Parties n’avait tenu pour acquis, vous ne pourriez reprocher au Nicaragua d’avoir ignoré où se
trouvait la frontière quand bien même, le « caño Pastora» se trouverait en territoire costa -ricien : il
aura fallu des cen taines de pages de plaidoiries écrites elles se comptent même en milliers, je
pense plusieurs rapports d’experts, et la moitié de trois semaines d’audiences pour que vous
puissiezla déterminer à la surprise de l’une comme l’autre des Parties ; on ne saurait reprocher ni à
l’une ni à l’autre de ne l’avoir pas respectée.
19. Ce raisonnement vaut a fortiori si un doute subsistait dans l’esprit de la majorité d’entre
vous et que vous ordonniez un «supplément d’instruction» afin de déterminer, par une expe rtise
indépendante ou une «descente sur les lieux», l’emplacement du «premier chenal rencontré» sur la
rive de Harbor Head Lagoon en venant de la m er des Caraïbes, et afin d’effectuer, le cas échéant,
d’autres vérifications sur place. Cela serait possible en vertu de l’article 50 de votre Statut, qui
dispose, qu’«[à] tout moment, la Cour peut confier une enquête ou une expertise à toute personne,
corps, bureau, commission ou organe de son choix» . Et cela s’est fait au moins une fois mais
145
avant la fin de la procédure orale : dans l’affaire du Détroit de Corfou , la Cour a considéré «que
certains points débattus entre les Parties rendaient une expertise nécessaire, a formulé ces points et
a confié l’expertise à un comité composé» d’experts ayant la nationalité de pays tiers. C’est
également suite à une suggestion faite durant les p laidoiries orales que la CPJI a décidé «de
procéder à une descente sur les lieux afin de voir sur place l’ensemble des installations, canaux et
146
voies d’eau, auxquels [avait] trait le ... litige» relatif aux Prises d’eau à la Meuse . Ceci vous est
également loisible en vertu de l’article 66 de votre Règlemen t. Moyennant quoi, je tiens à redire
que cette solution ne serait à nos yeux qu’un pis -aller car il nous semble que vous avez assez
d’éléments pour vous prononcer en faveur du tracé que nous proposons en tout cas ! Ceci étant,
si vous reteniez cette solution, le Nicaragua coopérerait pleinement à cette vérification de terrain
quelle qu’en soit la forme. Mais il va de soi que, dans une telle hypothèse, il ne saurait être
145Détroit de Corfou (Royaume-Uni c. Albanie), fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1949, p. 9. Voir aussi Délimitation de
la frontière maritime dans la région du golfe du Maine (Canada/Etats -Unis d ’Amérique), nomination d ’experts,
ordonnance du 30 mars 1984, C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 165.
146 o
Prises d’eau à la Meuse, arrêt, 1937, C.P.J.I. série A/B n 70, p. 9. - 56 -
question de responsabilité : on ne peut pas reprocher à une Partie d’avoir ignoré l’emplacement
précis de la frontière alors que vous -mêmes, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, forts de vos
compétences (que je m’interdis de qualifier pour que notre équipe ne soit pas taxée de flagornerie,
qu’elle soit collective ou sélective) et d’un débat contradictoire, vous auriez été vous -mêmes
hésitants à décider.
20. Et, à vrai dire, il en irait de même dans l’hypothèse, que je ne peux guère envisager au
terme de cette procédure, où vous donneriez raison à la Partie costa-ricienne et fixeriez la frontière
à la rive droite du chenal principal du fleuve, ce qui reviendrait à accepter l’invraisemblable
demande du Costa Rica d’enclaver Harbor Head Lagoon dans son territoire. Nous serions alors
ramenés à la situation du Nigéria dans l’affaire qui l’opposait au Cameroun 147 ou à celle de la
148
Colombie au regard de l’arrêt du 19 novembre 2012 . Je pense m’être suffisamment exprimé su r
ce point dans ma plaidoirie du premier tour sans avoir été contredit, et je me permets de vous y
renvoyer 149. La conclusion est claire : il faudrait vraiment que l’emplacement de la frontière soit
l’évidence même pour que vous considériez que son non-respect avant sa fixation avec l’autorité de
la chose jugée entraîne la responsabilité de l’un ou l’autre des protagonistes. Je vois mal comment
il pourrait en aller ainsi dans la présente affaire dans laquelle la configuration changeante du delta
et de la cô te, combinée à une nature peu hospitalière et à l’absence de population n’ont pu que
renforcer les incertitudes et les excuser et nos longs débats témoignent pour le moins que ces
incertitudes ont quelque fondement.
21. Monsieur le président, quelle que puisse être la position qu’adoptera la Cour quant à la
ligne frontière et, par voie de conséquence, quant à la souveraineté territoriale sur le territoire
litigieux, elle ne peut, je crois, que rejeter la requête en responsabilité de l’Etat requérant.
2. Les remèdes demandés par le Costa Rica
22. Et cela pourrait presque me dispenser de commenter les improbables pour ne pas dire
invraisemblables conclusions du requérant. Mais au risque de vous décevoir p uisqu’il nous
147
Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun Nigéria; Guinée équatoriale
(intervenant)), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil 2002, p. 451-452, par. 315 et p. 452, par. 319.
148Différend territorial et maritime (Nicaragua c. Colombie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2012 (II), p. 718, par. 250.
149
CR 2015/7, p. 54-57, par. 35-36 (Pellet). - 57 -
reste un peu de temps, Monsieur le président, je souhaite tout de même en dire quelques mots car
elles sont, à maints égards, révélatrices de ce que l’on pourrait appeler la «politique judiciaire» du
Costa Rica.
23. Elles sont improbables pour plusieurs raisons et d’abord par leur long ueur très
inhabituelle aussi exagérée que l ’est leur contenu. Mais cela tient à une erreur de perspective,
voire à une erreur de droit même si, finalement, je la crois bénigne. Nos amis de l’autre côté de la
barre font en effet une confusion entre , d’une part, les conclusions (submissions) lues à la fin des
audiences et, d’autre part, les arguments qu’ils ont fait valoir. L’article 60, paragraphe 2, du
Règlement distingue soigneusement les deux aspects. J’en donne une lecture rapide : «A l’issue du
dernier exposé présenté par une partie au cours de la procédure orale, l’agent donne lecture des
conclusions finales de cette partie sans récapituler l’argumentation». Or l’essentiel de ces vingt-six
demandes, vingt-six, Monsieur le président, revient à prier la Cour de reprendre dans le dispositif
de son arrêt à venir les arguments que le Costa Rica a fait valoir à l’appui de sa position et qui, si
vous les suiviez, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, feraient partie des motifs de votre arrêt, mais
pas du dispositif.
24. Certes, il peut y avoir des exceptions, au moins apparentes, à cette distinction. C’est en
particulier le cas lorsque la Cour se laisse convaincre de rendre un jugement déclaratoire ce qui
150
n’est en principe pas exclu , mais encore faut -il que ce jugement soit «susceptible d’application
ou d’exécution à un moment quelconque de l’avenir» 151. Au surplus, il faut de bonnes raisons, des
raisons particulières, pour que la Cour reprenne l’énoncé d’obligations existantes dans son
dispositif comme vous l’avez fait remarquer, par exemple dans notre affaire : les motifs de vos
arrêts suffisent normalement «à répondre au souhait [d’une partie] que soient précisées par la Cour
152
les obligations [de l’autre] à son égard» .
25. En l’espèce, le Costa Rica n ’a aucunement expliqué en quoi la reprise de ses arguments
juridiques dans le dispositif de l’arrêt s’imposerait ou présenterait un intérêt particulier. Le seul de
150 Affaire du Cameroun septentrional (Cameroun c. Royaume-Uni), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1963, p. 37.
151Ibid.
152
Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 268-269, par. 154. - 58 -
ses avocats qui se soit exprimé sur ce point, le p rofesseur Kohen, a seulement considéré qu e la
constatation des violations de ses obligations internationales attribuées au Nicaragua «bien que
nécessaire, n’est pas suffisante» 153 piètre justification qui, a priori, ne devrait pas être de nature
à vous convaincre d’accueillir la longue litanie de demandes «déclaratoires» figurant sous le
paragraphe 2) des conclusions costa-riciennes. (Pour votre commodité, Mesdames et Messieurs les
juges, ces conclusions sont reproduites sous l’onglet n o 25 de vos dossiers.)
26. Pourtant, Monsieur le président, parmi ces demandes, quelques -unes ont retenu plus
particulièrement notre attention. C’est le cas d’abord de celle nouvelle figurant au
paragraphe 2) a), vous appelant à dire et juger que « Sovereignty over the ‘disputed territory’, as
defined by the Court in its Orders of 8 March 2011 and 22 November 2013, belongs to the
Republic of Costa Rica». Dans cet esprit, cette demande rejoint la conclusion suivante , que vous
trouvez au paragraphe 2) b) i), sur le respect de la souveraineté et de l’in tégrité territoriales du
Costa Rica dans les frontières délimitées par le t raité de 1858 et les deux premières sentences
Alexander je note en passant l’absence de la sentence Cleveland et de la troisième sentence
Alexander. Je comprends cette omission , Monsieur le président, elles ne sont pas de nature à
conforter la thèse 154du Costa Rica comme l’a à nouveau expliqué notre a gent au début de cette
audience. Au- delà de ces oublis, soigneusement calculés, je note, d’une part, que le Costa Rica
s’est enfin aperçu que l ’affaire concerne un territoire litigieux (disputed territory) et, d’autre part,
que la première chose que doit faire la Cour est de se prononcer sur la souveraineté sur le territoire
en question. Je relève également que ces deux conclusions recoupent les deux premières demandes
que le Nicaragua avait formulées à la fin de son contre-mémoire et qu’il maintient.
27. Cette concordance des conclusions des deux Parties justifie, je crois,
que la Cour se prononce, dans le dispositif de son arrêt, sur le tracé de la frontière et la
souveraineté territoriale en résultant. Les deux Parties le lui demandent. Mais, dès lors, les choses
devraient s’arrêter là, au moins en ce qui concerne le strict terrain de la responsabilité ; comme je
viens de le montrer, lorsqu ’un territoire est contesté, il n’y a pas lieu pour la Cour d’entrer en
153CR 2015/4, p. 34, par. 1 (Kohen).
154Voir notamment CMN, p. 32-33, par. 2.31- 2.36, p. 34, par. 2.40, p. 58-59, par. 3.17-3.18, p. 302, par. 6.23 et
p. 305, par. 6.29-6.31 et CR 2015/5, p. 24-25, par. 10 et p. 15-16, par. 26 (Pellet). - 59 -
matière rétrospectivement sur le terrain de la responsabilité : ce n’est qu’à compter de sa décision
sur le contentieux territorial et pour l’avenir qu’il est possible de déterminer lequel des deux
Etats est chez lui et peut prétendre «y exercer, à l’exclusion de tout autre Etat, les fonctions
155
étatiques» , selon la célèbre formule de Max Huber.
28. Même si je me refuse à les prendre au sérieux et donc à les commenter, je ne peux
résister à la tentation de relever le caractère outrancier des trois demandes suivantes qui montrent à
quel point le Costa Rica et ses conseils ont le goût de l’exagération et de la dramatisation. Malgré
156
nos objections, un peu ironiques je dois dire , nos amis de l’autre équipe persistent et signent et
continuent à parler qui d’invasion 157, qui d’occupation militaires 158. Ni une contestation
frontalière, ni le nettoyage ou le curage d’un chenal dans une zone inhospitalière et disputée, ni
même l’installation d’ un campement militaire temporaire (et prestement déplacé) sur un territoire
litigieux, n’appellent de tels qualificatifs ; et de telles déclarations par votre haute juridiction ne
seraient certainement pas de nature à régler paisiblement le différend entre les deux Etats mais ne
feraient évidemment que jeter de l’huile sur le feu on a quelquefois l’impression que tel est le
but recherché par nos contradicteurs... La demande visant à faire mettre à la charge du Nicaragua
les dépens occasionnés par la troi sième demande en indication de mesures conservatoires est du
159
même acabit. Parce qu’ils ont perdu la deuxième , est-ce qu’on devrait-on demander que les
dépens soient à leur charge ?
29. Deux autres remarques mais deux seulement . Monsieur le président, sur cette liste
hypertrophiée de demandes déclaratoires, je voudrais faire deux remarques qui concernent ce que
l’on pourrait appeler deux «obsessions costa-riciennes» :
la première est la déclaration concernant le droit de navigation du Costa Rica sur le fleuve
160
San Juan de Nicaragua dont l’Etat requérant précise qu’il est perpétuel mais omet de
155
Sentence arbitrale (Max Huber), 4 avril 1928, Ile des Palmes (Pays -Bas c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique) ,
Nations Unies, RSA, vol. II, p. 281.
156Voir CR 2015/7, p. 49, par. 23 (Pellet).
157CR 2015/14, p. 10, par. 1, p. 18, par. 29, p. 22, par. 41 (Wordsworth).
158
Ibid., p. 26, par. 9, p. 38, par. 47 (Kohen), et p. 66, par. 1 ( agent).
159 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région fr ontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua);
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 16 juillet 2013, C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 230.
160Conclusion 2 c) ii). - 60 -
rappeler qu’il est limité «aux fins du commerce» ; j’ai déjà eu l’occasion de dire que cette
demande, de toute manière infondée, était hors sujet, je ne peux que répéter en particulier que
saisir l’occasion de la présente affaire pour essayer d’obtenir la modification ou l’abrogation du
décret de 2001, fût -ce par des moyens laissés au choix du Nicaragua, est particulièrement
artificiel ;
la seconde de ces obsession s costa-riciennes concerne le dragage du fleuve ; elle est reflétée
161
dans pas moins de cinq des conclusions du Costa Rica ! Ceci dit, nous convenons que,
même si une seule conclusion eût suffi, la question est au cŒur du litige que le Costa Rica vous
a soumis. Le Nicaragua vous demande donc également de vous prononcer sur la question et de
constater, dans le dispositif de votre arrêt , que (je cite le point iii) des conclusions de notre
contre-mémoire)«(iii) Nicaragua is entitled, in accordance with the 1 858 Treaty as interpreted
by the subsequent arbitral awards, to execute works to improve navigation on the San Juan
River as it deems suitable, and that these works include the dredging of the San Juan de
Nicaragua River». Il est vrai que vous avez rappel é, dans votre arrêt de 2009, que la question
était réglée «dans le dispositif de la sentence Cleveland. Cette sentence a en effet décidé, ...
que le Nicaragua peut exécuter les travaux d’amélioration qu’il estime convenables, à condition
que lesdits travaux ne perturbent pas gravement la navigation sur les affluents du San Juan
appartenant au Costa Rica»; et, estimant que «[l]e Nicaragua n’ayant nullement expliqué en
quoi la sentence précitée ne suffirait pas à préciser les droits et obligations des Parti es sur ces
162
questions», vous avez rejeté sa demande à cet égard . Il me semble, Monsieur le président,
que les contestations récurrentes du droit du Nicaragua par le Costa Rica répétées
abondamment au cours de la présente procédure constituent une justif ication à cette nouvelle
demande et ce d’autant plus qu ’ici encore les Parties s’accordent à considérer qu’une
décision revêtue de l’autorité de la chose jugée d’un arrêt rendu par la Cour mondiale sur ce
point serait utile. Il nous paraît en revanch e superflu de répéter le texte même des instruments
pertinents étant entendu qu’ils réglementent complètement tant le droit très large reconnu au
161Voir les paragraphes 2 c) iii), 2 c) v), 2 d), 3 b) et 3 b) iii).
162Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (CostRica c. Nicaragua), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 269, par. 155. - 61 -
Nicaragua que ses limites et celles-ci ne comprennent pas l’obligation de notification ou de
consultation préalable avec le Costa Rica qui peut exister par ailleurs à certaines conditions.
e
Mais M Reichler et le professeur McCaffrey (encore lui !) ont suffisamment précisé les choses
à cet égard et montré qu’il fallait raison gard er en ce qui concerne l’impact et plus encore les
effets préjudiciables, à vrai dire inexistants, de ces activités de dragage.
30. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, le Costa Rica a cru pouvoir
escamoter une incertitude sur l’appartenance d’un tout petit territoire p eu hospitalier et qui n’est
guère fréquenté que par les trafiquants de drogue et les policiers (nicaraguayens) les traquant, en
vous soumettant une affaire en responsabilité dont il a fait une sorte de «grande cause nationale».
Du même coup, il espérait s ans doute obtenir une approbation ex ante au moins implicite quant au
point de départ de la frontière maritime entre les deux Etats qu’il vous a soumise par ailleurs. Nous
pensons avoir montré :
que la solution du litige passait nécessairement par la détermination de la frontière ;
que celle-ci telle qu’elle avait été déterminée dans le t raité de 1858 interprété par la sentence
Cleveland, puis précisée par la première sentence du général Alexander, à son tour éclairée à
certains égards par ses deuxième et troisième sentences, que ce tracé ne pouvait pas
correspondre à celui enfin «dévoilé» furtivement hier grâce à l’insistance de certains d’entre
vous après quatre ans de procédure ;
que, pour déterminer la frontière, il convenait de suivre la méthode prônée par Alexander, qui
impose de spécifier quel est le premier chenal renco ntré sur la rive de Harbor Head Lagoon en
venant de la mer des Caraïbes ;
que l’érosion marine (d’ailleurs non exclusive d’accrétion dans d’autres zones voisines) ne
saurait justifier que le Nicaragua soit privé de la façade maritime que lui reconnaissait la
sentence Cleveland jusqu’à «the extremity of Punta de Castilla at the mouth of the San Juan de
Nicaragua River, as they both existed on the 15th day of April 1858» , point précisé ensuite
dans la sentence Alexander de 1897 ;
que, dès lors, aucun fait internationalement illicite ne peut être retenu à la charge du
Nicaragua ; - 62 -
que si, par impossible, vous ne reteniez pas le tracé que cet Etat vous a soumis, vous devriez
sans doute procéder ou faire procéder à une reconnaissance des lieux, qui seule serait , dans ce
cas, de nature à lever les incertitudes ; et
qu’en tout état de cause, l es doutes concernant l’emplacement de la frontière, qui demeurer ont
jusqu’au prononcé de votre arrêt, e xcluent que vous donniez suite aux conclusions du
Costa Rica concernant la responsabilité alléguée du Nicaragua.
Merci, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour d’avoir écouté patiemment mon exposé, qui clôt
les plaidoiries du Nicaragua sous réserve, bien entendu, des conclusions que notre agent va lire
maintenant si vous voulez bien lui redonner la parole, Monsieur le président.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Je donne la parole à l’agent du Nicaragua,
M. l’ambassadeur Argüello Gómez.
Monsieur l’ambassadeur, vous avez la parole.
Mr. ARGÜELLO:
1. Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President , distinguished Members of the Court, we have
heard from Costa Rica a shopping list of submissions that shed light on several points and reveal
the real reasons behind this case: (1) that Costa Rica contests the boundary line as established by
the Cleveland Award and Alexander determining Punta de Castilla as the starting and immovable
point of the boundary; (2) that Costa Rica rejects Nicaragua’s right to clean the river, in particular
its right to dredge the San Juan River to improve navigation ; (3) that Costa Rica aims at having a
veto over Nicaragua’s activities on the river, which are contemplated in the relevant treaties; and
finally that (4) Costa Rica continues to misconstrue its right t o free navigation and attempt s to
reopen the Navigational Rights case by challenging Nicaragua’s right to regulate navigation
through the course of the whole river and in relation to all users of the river.
Mr. Presiden t, Members of the Court, I will now proceed to read Nicaragua’s final
submissions.
F INAL SUBMISSIONS
For the reasons explained in the written and oral phase Nicaragua requests from the Court to: - 63 -
(a) Dismiss and reject the requests and submissions of the Republic of Costa Rica.
(b) Adjudge and declare that:
(i) Nicaragua enjoys full sovereignty over the caño joining Harbor Head Lagoon with the
San Juan River proper, the right bank of which constitutes the land boundary as
established by the 1858 Treaty as interpreted by the Cleveland and Alexander Awards;
(ii) Costa Rica is under an obligation to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Nicaragua, within the boundaries delimited by the 1858 Treaty of Limits as interpreted by
the Cleveland and Alexander Awards;
(iii) Nicaragua is entitled, in accordance with the 1858 Treaty as interpreted by the subsequent
arbitral awards, to execute works to improve navigation on the San Juan River as it deems
suitable, and that these works include the dredging of the San Juan de Nicaragua River;
(iv) The only rights enjoyed by Costa Rica on the San Juan de Nicaragua River are those
defined by said Treaty as interpreted by the Cleveland and Alexander Awards.
2. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Cou rt, this ends the final submissions of
Nicaragua. But Nicaragua wishes to reiterate its long-standing commitment to the rule of law and
to the decisions of this highest tribunal. On behalf of Nicaragua I thank you, all of you, for your
attention, and also extend my gratitude to the judges, the Registry, the Secretariat, interpreters and
general staff. Finally, I would like to specially thank the members of the Nicaraguan team for their
committed job. Thank you very much.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur l’ambassadeur. La Cour prend acte des conclusions
finales dont vous venez de donner lecture au nom de la République du Nicaragua, comme elle
l’avait fait hier pour les conclusions finales présentées par le Costa Rica.
Cela nous amène à la fin des audienc es consacrées aux plaidoiries des Parties en l’affaire
relative à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière - 64 -
(Costa Rica c. Nicaragua). La Cour se réunira à nouveau demain matin pour entendre le second
tour de plaidoiries du Nicaragua en l’affaire relative à la Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le
long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica).
L’audience est levée.
L’audience est levée à 17 h 45.
___________
Audience publique tenue le mercredi 29 avril 2015, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Abraham, président, dans les affaires relatives à 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)