INTERNATIONALCOURTOF JUSTICE
Palace,251W TheHaye. Tel. (0-392 4441)CablesIntercourt,hHague.
unofficial
Interna1Dist: 11-9-92 furimmediote rcleose
P.O. Peace Palace14-9-92
No. 92/22
11 September 1992
Land.Islandand Maritime FrontierDispute
JE1 Salvador/Honduras:Nicaraauainterveninn)
The followinginformat.iois comrnunicateto thePress bythe Registry of
the International Courotf Justice:
Today,11 September 1992t,heChamberconstituted by the International
Courtof Justicein the case concernint gheLand.Islandand Maritime Frontier
DisvutebetweenEl Salvadorand Honduras, Nicaragua interveni deg,iveredits
Judgment. The Chamber firstadopted the cours of theboundary line itnhe
disputedlandsections betweeE nl Salvadorand Honduras. It thenruledon the
legal statusof the islandsof theGulf of Fonseca,as well as on the legal
situationof the maritimespaceswithinand outsidethe closinglineof that
Gulf.
The chamberwas composedas follows: JudgeSette-Camara, President
of the Chamber; President SirRobertJennings; Vice-PresidenO tda;
Judgesad hoc Valticos,Torres Bernardez.
A summaryof theJudgmentand of the declaratioa nnd opinionsappendedto
it is attached. This summary,prepared by thReegistry fortheuse ofthe
Press, inno way involvea theresponsibilitoyf theChamber. It cannotbe
quotedagainst the textof theJudgment,of which is doesnot constitutean
interpretation. It is illustrated bsyix sketch-mapshowing, in respectof
the disputedsectorsof the landboundary, the claim of the Partiesand the
boundaryas foundby the Chamber, togetherwith a map showing the whole
frontierwith a key to the positionof the sketch-mapsand a map of the Gulf
of Fonseca. Thesesketch-maps have been prepared purelfor illustrative
purposes,and haveno officialstatus. The operative partof the Chamber's
Judgment,set out below,definesthe landboundarysectorsby referenteto
turningpoints identifiedby letters; thosearenot reproduced on the
attachedsketch-maps.Copiesof the 1:50,000scalemaps attachedto the
Judgment,indicating the lineand thelettered points, are available for
inspectionin the Registry.
The fulltextof the operative partof theJudgmentis as follows: "425,For the reasonsset out inthe presentJudgment, in particular
paragraphs 68 to 103 thereof,
THE CHAMBER,
Unanimously,
Decidesthat the boundary line betweenthe Republic of El Salvadorand
the Republic of Honduraisn the firstsector oftheir comrnon frontiernot
describedin Article 16 of the GeneralTreaty of Peace signedby the Parties
on 30 October1980, is as follows:
From the internationaltripointknown as El Trifinioon the summitof the
Cerro Montecristo (pointA on Map No. 1 annexed; CO-ordinates: 14'25'10''N,
89°21'201'W), the boundaryruns in a generallyeasterlydirectionalong the
watershed between theriversFrio or Sesecapaand DelRosario asfar asthe
junctionof this watershed with thewatershedof the basin of the auebrada de
Pomola (point Bon Map No. 1 annexed; CO-ordinates: 14*25'05"N,
89°20'41"W); thereafter in a north-easterlydirection along thw eatershedof
the basin of the guebradade Pomola until thejunctionof this watershed with
the watershed between theauebradgde Cipresales and the guebradadel Cedron,
PefiaDoradaand Pomola proper(pointC on Map No. 1 annexed; CO-ordinates:
14°25109" N, 89°20'30"W); from that point,along the last-namew datershedas w
far as the intersectioonf the centre-linesof the auebradas ofCipresales and
Pomola (pointD on Map No. 1 annexed; CO-ordinates: 14'24'42"N,
89°18119"W); thereafter,downstream alongthe centre-lineof the auebradade
Pomola,until the point on that centre-linewhich is closestto the boundary
marker of Pomola aEtl Talquezalar; and from that point in a straight linaes
far as that marker (pointE on Map No. 1 annexed; CO-ordinates: 14'24'51"N,
89'17'54" W); from there in a straight line insoauth-easterlydirectionto
the boundarymarker ofthe Cerro PiedraMenuda (pointF on Map No. 1 annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14°24'021N1, 89'16'40'W), and thencein a straightline to the
boundarymarker ofthe Cerro Zapotal(pointG on Map No. 1 annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14'23'26''N, 89'14'43'W); for the purposesof illustration,
the line is indicatedon Map No. 1 annexed.
426. For the reasonsset out in thepresentJudgment,in particular
paragraphs104 to 127 thereof,
THE CHAMBER,
Unanimously,
Decidesthat the boundaryline betweenthe Republicof El Salvador and
the Republicof Honduras in the secon sectorof their common frontiernot
describedin Article16 of the General Treaty of Peace signb ed the Parties
on 30 October1980, is as follows:
From thePefiade Cayaguanca(PointA on Map No. II annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14'21'54'N, 89°10'11"W), the boundaryruns ina straight line
somewhat south of eastto the'Loma de LosEncinos(pointB on Map No. II
annexed; CO-ordinates: 14°21'08'' N, 89'08'54'W), and fromthere in a
straight line to the hi11 known as El Burroor PiedraRajada (pointC on Map
No. II annexed; CO-ordinates: 14O22'46"N, 89'07'32"W); from there the
boundary runs in a straight line ttohe headof the guebradaCopantillo,and
follows themiddle of the auebrada Copantillo downstr tomts confluence
with the riverSumpul (point D on Map No. II annexed; CO-ordinates:
14O24'12"N, 89'06'07"W), and then followsthe middleof the riverSumpuldownstreamto its confluencewith the auebradaChiquitaor Oscura (pointE on
Map No. II annexed; CO-ordinates:14"20125"N, 89°04'57"W); for the
purposesof illustration, the lin is indicatedon Map No. II annexed.
427. For thereasonsset out inthe presentJudgment, inparticular
paragraphs128 to 185 thereof,
THE CHAMBER,
Unanimously,
Decidesthat the boundary linb eetweenthe Republicof El Salvadorand
the Republicof Hondurasin the thirdsectorof their comrnofrontier not
describedin Article 16 of the General Treaty ofPeace signedby the Parties
on 30 October1980, is as follows:
From the Pacacioboundarymarker (pointA on Map No. III annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14O06'28"N, 88°49'181W1) along the rio Pacacioupstreamto a
point (pointB on Map No.ILI1 annexed; CO-ordinates: 14"06'38"N,
88O48'47"W), west of the CerroTecolateor Los Tecolates; from thereup the
auebradato thecrest of the CerroTecolateor Los Tecolates(pointC on Map
No. III annexed; CO-ordinates: 14"06'33"N, 88"48'18"W), and along the
watershedof this hi11 as far as a ridge approximatel1 y kilometreto the
north-east (point D on Map No. III annexed; CO-ordinates: 14"06'48"N,
88O47'52"W); from there inan easterlydirectionto the neighbouring hi11
above the source ofthe TorrenteLa Puerta (pointE on Map No. III annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14"06'48"N, 88°471311W 1) and down that Stream to whereit
meets the river Gualsinga(pointF on Map No. III annexed; CO-ordinates:
14O06'19"N, 88"47'01hW); from there the boundary runsalong the middle of
the riverGualsinga downstream to its confluencewith the river Sazalapa
(pointG on Map No. III an~iexed;CO-ordinates: 14"06'12"N, 88O46'58"W),
and thenceupstreamalong the middle of the river Sazalapa to th confluence
of the auebrada Llano Negrwoith that river (pointH on Map No. III annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14"07'11"N, 88'44'21"W); from there south-eastwardsto the
top of the hi11 (point1 or1Map No. III annexed; CO-ordinates: 14°07'01"N,
88O44'07"W), and thencesouth-eastwards to the crest of the hi11 marked on
the map as a spotheight of 1,017metres (pointJ on Map No. III annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14"06'45"N, 88"43'45"W); from there the boundary,inclining
still more to the south, riinsthroughthe triangulationpoint known as
La Canada (pointK on Map No. III annexed; CO-ordinates: 14°06'00'1 N,
88O43'52"W) to theridge joiningthe hills indicatedon the map as
Cerro ElCaraco1and CerroEl Sapo (throughpoint L on Map No. III annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14"0S123"N, 88°43'47"W) and fromthere to thefeaturemarked
on themap as the PortilloEl Chupa Miel(pointM on MapNo. III annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14°04'35"N, 88"44'101W '); from there, following the ridg to,
the Cerro El Cajete (pointN on Map No. III annexed; CO-ordinates:
14O03'55"N, 88°44'20"W), and thenceto the point where the present-dayroad
from Arcatao to Nombre de Jesus passesbetweenthe Cerro El Ocotilloand the
Cerro Lagunetas(pointO on Map No. III annexed; CO-ordinates:14"03'18"N,
88O44'16"W); from there south-eastward to the crest of a hi11 marked on the
map as a spot heightof 848 metres (pointP on Map No. III annexed;
CO-ordinates: 14O02'58"N, 88"43'56"W); from there slightlysouth of
eastwardsto a auebradaand down the bed of the auebradato its Junctionwith
the Gualcuquin river (pointQ on Map No. III annexed; CO-ordinates:
14"02'42"N, 88"42'34"W); the boundarythen follows the middle of the
Gualcuquinriver downstream to thePoza del Cajon (pointR on MapNo. III
annexed; CO-ordinates: 14°01'281N 1, 88"41'10"W); for purposesof
illustration,this line is shown on Map No.III annexed. 428. For the reasonsset out in thepresentJudgment,in particular
paragraphs 186 to 267 thereof,
THE CHAMBER,
By four votes to one,
Decidesthat the boundary line betwee the Republicof El Salvador and
the Republic of Hondura in the fourthsectorof their commonfrontiernot
describedin Article16 of the General Treaty oP feace signedby the Parties
on 30 October1980, is as follows:
From the sourceof the Orillastream (PointA on Map No. IV annexed;
CO-ordinates: 13'53'46"N, 88'20'36"W) the boundaryruns through thepaes of
El Jobo to thesourceof the CuevaHedionda stream (point Bon Map No.IV;
CO-ordinates: 13'53'39*N, 88'20'20"W), and thencedown the middleof that
stream toits confluencewith the riverLas Canas (Point C on Map No. IV
annexed; CO-ordinates: 13'53'19"N, 88*19'0OWW), and thencefollowing the
middle ofthe riverupstreamas far as a point (point o Dn Map No. IV
annexed; CO-ordinatea: 13'56'14" N,88'15'33''W) near the settlement of
Las Piletas; from there eaetwards overa col indicatedas point E on
Map No. IV annexed(CO-ordinates:13'56'19"N, 88*14*12"W), to a hi11
indicatedas point F on Map No. IV annexed(CO-ordinates:13'56'11"N,
88"13'4OWW), and thennorth-eastwards to apoint on the river Negro or
Pichigual (markedG on Map No. IV annexed; CO-ordinates: 13'57'12"N,
88"13'1lWW); downstream along thm eiddle of the river Negroor Pichigualto
its confluencewith the riverNegro-Quiagara(point H on Map No. IV;
CO-ordinates: 13'59'37"N, 88'14'18" W); then upstream alongthe middle of
the riverNegro-Quiagara as far as the Las Pilasboundary marker(point1 on
Map No. IV; CO-ordinates: 14°00'02*N', 88'06'29"W), and fromthere ina
straight line to theMalpasode Similaton(point Jon Map No.IV;
CO-ordinates: 13'59'28"N, 88'04'22''W); for the purposesof illustration,
the lineis indicatedon Map No. IV annexed.
IN FAVOUR: Jud~eSette-Camara, Eresidentof the Chamber;
President Sir RobertJennings; Vice-PresidentOda;
Judge ad hoc TorresBernirdez;
AGAINST: Judne ad hoc Valticos.
429. For the reasons set outin the presentJudgment, in particular
paragraphs 268 to 30t 5hereof,
THE CHAMBER,
Unanimously,
Decides that the boundary line betweenhe Republicof El Salvadorand
the Republicof Honduras in the fift sectorof theircommon frontiernot
describedin Article16 of the General Treaty of Peace signedby the Parties
on 30 October1980, is as follows:
From the confluencweith the riverTorolaof the stream identifiedin the
GeneralTreaty of Peace as the guebradade Mansupucagua(point Aon Map No. V
annexed; CO-ordinates: 13'53'59"N, 87'54'30'' W) the boundaryruns upstream
along the middleof the river Torolaas far as its confluencewith a stream
known as the auebradadel Arenalor auebradade Aceituno(point B on Map No.V
annexed; CO-ordinates: 13'53'50"N, 87"50'4OUW); thenceup the course ofthat Streamas far as a pointat or near its source(point Con Map No. V
annexed; CO-ordinates: 13'54'30"N, 87'50'20"W), and thencein a straight
line somewhatnorth of east to a hi11 some 1,100metreshigh (pointD on
Map No. V annexed; CO-ordinates: 13'55'03"N, 87'49'50"W); thencein a
straightline to a hi11 near the riverUnire (point Eon Map No. V annexed;
CO-ordinates: 13'55'16"N, 87'48'20"W), and thenceto thenearestpointon
the riverUnire; downstreamalong the middleof that river to the point known
as the Pasode Unire (pointF on Map No. V annexed; CO-ordinates:
13O52'07"N, 87°46'01"W); for the purposesof illustration, the lineis
indicatedon Map No. V annexed.
430. For the reasonsset out in the present Judgment,in particular
paragraphs306 to 322 thereof,
THE CHAMBER,
Unanimously,
Decidesthat the boundary line betweenthe Republicof El Salvadorand
the Republic of Hondurasin thesixthsectorof theircommonfrontiernot
describedin Article16 of the GeneralTreatyof Peace eignedby the Parties
on 30 October1980, is as follows:
From the point on the riverGoascoranknown asLos Amates (point Aon
Map No. VI annexed; CO-ordinates: 13'26'28"N, 87'43'25"W), the boundary
followsthe courseof the river downstreami ,n themiddleof the bed, to the
pointwhere it emergesin the watersof the BahiaLa Union,Gulf of Fonseca,
passingto the north-westof the IslasRamaditas,the CO-ordinatesof the
endpointin the bay being 13'24'26"N, 87'49'05"W; for the purposesof
illustration, the line is indicatedon Map No. VI annexed.
431. For thereasonsset out in the presentJudgment,in particular
paragraphs323 to368 thereof,
THE CHAMBER,
1. By four votesto one,
Decidesthat the Parties, by requestin the Chamber,in Article2,
paragraph2, of the SpecialAgreementof 24 May 1986,"to determine the legal
situationof the islands ...", have conferredupon the Chamberjurisdictionto
determine,as betweenthe Parties,the legalsituationof al1 the islandsof
the Gulf of Fonseca; but that such jurisdictionshould onlybe exercised in
respectof those islandswhich have beenshown to be the subject ofa dispute;
IN FAVOUR: Judne Sette-Camara, Presidentof the Chamber;
PresidentSir RobertJennings; Vice-President Oda; Judne ad hoc Valticos;
AGAINST: Judne ad hoc TorresBernirdez.
2. Decidesthat the islandsshown.to be in dispute between the Parties
are:
(i) by fourvotes to one, El Tigre; IN FAVOUR: Judne Sette-CarnaraP ,residentof the Chamber;
President SirRobertJennings; Vice-President Oda; Juda ad hoc Valticos;
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc TorresBemirdez;
(il) unanimously, Meanguera and Meanguerita.
3. Unanimously,
Decidesthat the islandof El Tigre is part of the sovereign territor of
the Republicof Honduras.
4. Unanimously,
Decidesthat the islandof Meanguerais part of the sovereign territory
of the Republic ofEl Salvador.
5. By four votes to one,
Decidesthat the islandof Meangueritais part of the sovereign territory
of theRepublicof El Salvador;
IN FAVOUR: Judne Sette-Camara, Presidentof the Chamber;
PresidenrSir RobertJennings; Vice-President Oda; Juda ad hoc Valticos;
AGAINST: Judne ad hoc Torres Bernhrdez.
432. For thereasons setout in the presentJudgment,in particular
paragraphs 369 t4 o20 thereof,
THE CHAMBER,
1. By fourvotes to one,
Decidesthat the legal situationof the watersof the Gulf of Fonsecais
as follows: the Gulf ofFonsecais an historiebay the waterswhereof, having
previously to 1821 beenunder the singlecontrolof Spain,and from 1821 to
1839 of the Federal Republic o Central America,were thereafter succeedet do
and held in sovereigntb yy the Republic ofEl Salvador,the Republicof
Honduras, and the Republic ofNicaragua,Jointly,and continue tobe so held,
as definedin the presentJudgment,but excludinga belt, as at present I
established, extendin 3gmiles (1 marine league) from thl eittoralof each of
the three States, such belt being under the exclusive sovereignty othe
coastalState, and subject to the delimitation between Hondur and Nicaragua
effectedin June 1900, and to the existingrightsof innocentpassage through
the 3-mile belt and the waters heldin sovereignty Jointly; twaters at the
central portion of the closing li ofethe Gulf, that is to Say, between a
point on that line 3 miles(1 marine league) from PuntaAmapalaand a point on
that line 3 miles(1 marine league) from Punta Cosigüina,are subjectto the
joint entitlementof al1 three Statesof the Gulf unlessand until a
delimitation of the relevam natritime areabe effected;
IN FAVOUR: Judne Sette-Camara, Presidentof the Chamber;
President Sir RobertJennings; Judne ad hoc Valticos;
Judne ad hoc TorresBernirdez; AGAINST: Vice-PresidenOtda.
2. By four votesto one,
Decidesthatthe Parties, by requestintgheChamber,in Article2,
paragraph 2,of the SpecialAgreementof 24 May 1986,"todeterminethe legal
situation of the... maritimespaces",havenot conferreu dpon the Chamber
jurisdictionto effect any delimitatioonf thosemaritimespaces,whether
withinor outsidethe Gulf;
IN FAVOUR: JudneSette-Camara, Presidentof theChamber;
President Sir Robert JenningV s;ce-PresidenOtda; Judnead hoc Valticos;
AGAINST: Judaead hoc Torres Bernardez.
3. By four votesto one,
Decidesthat thelegal situatioo nf thewatersoutsidethe Gulfis that,
the Gulfof Fonseca beingarihistoricbay with three coastal Statesthe
closinglineof the Gulf coristitutethe baselineof the territorialea; the
territorialsea,continental shela fnd exclusiveeconomiczoneof El Salvador
and thoseof Nicaragua offthe coastsof thosetwo States are al80 to be
measuredoutwardsfrom a sec:tioonf the closing linextending 3miles
(1 marineleague)alongthatlinefromPunta Amapala (inEl Salvador)and
3 miles(1 marineleague)from Punta Cosigüina(inNicaragua)respectively;
but entitlementto territorialsea, continental shelafnd exclusiveconomic
zone seawardof the central portioonf the closing line appertaitns the
three Statesof the Gulf,El Salvador, Hondura snd Nicaragua; and thatany
delimitationof the relevant maritimeareasis to be effectedby agreementon
thebasisof internationaL law.
IN FAVOUR: JudneSette-Camarap ,residentof the Chamber;
President Sir Robert Jennings; Judaae hoc Valticos;
Judnead hoc Torres Bernardez;
AGAINST: Vice-PresidenOtda."
Vice-President Od appended adeclarationto the Judgment;
Judgesad hoc Valticosand TorresBernardez appendedseparateopinions;
Vice-President Oda append aedissentingopinion.
The printed textof theJudgmentand of the opinionsappendedto it will
become availablien due cou:rs(ordersand enquiries should b eddressedto
the Distributionand Sales Section, Officof theUnited Nations, 1211
Geneva10; the SalesSection,UnitedNations,New York, N.Y. 10017; or any
appropriatelyspecializedbookshop).
SUMMARYOF THE JUDGMENT
1. Qualités(paras.1-26)
TheChamberrecapitulates the successive phases of the proceedings,
namely: notification to the Registraron 11December1986,of the Special
Agreementsignedon 24 May 1986(in forceon 1 October1986)for the
submissionto a Chamberof the Courtof a dispute betweetnhe twoStates;
formationby theCourt,on 8 May 1987, ofthe Chamberto dealwith the case;filingby Nicaragua, on 17 November 1989o,f an Application for permissi ton
intervene in the case; Orderby the Court, of 28 February1990,on the
questionwhetherNicaragua's Application for permissi tonintervenewas a
matterwithinthe competenco ef the fullCourtor of the Chamber; Judgment of
the Chamberof 13 September1990accedingto Nicaragua's application for
permissionto intervene(butsolely in respec tf the questionof the status
of the watersof the Gulf of Fonseca); holdingof oralproceedings.
Article2 of the SpecialAgreement, whichdefinesthe subject of the
dispute,reads,in an agreed English translation:
"TheParties request th Chamber:
1. To delimit the frontier liinethe areasor sectionsnot
describedin Article16 of the General Peace Treao ty
30 October1980.
2. To determinethe legalsituationof the islands and maritime
spaces."
The Judgmentthenquotesthe submissiono sf the Parties,and the
"conclusions"of the intervening State,as formulatedat the variousstages of
the proceedings. W
JI. General introductio (paras.27-39)
The dispute beforethe Chamberhas threeelements: a dispute over the
landboundary; a disputeover the legal situatio of islands(in the Gulf of
Fonseca); and a dispute over the legal situationf maritime space(swithin
and outsidethe Gulf of Fonseca).
The two Parties(and the interveninSgtate)came into beinwgith the
break-upof the Spanish Empirein Central America; their ferritories
correspondto administrativs eub-divisionsof thatEmpire.' Itwas from the
outsetacceptedthatthenew international boundaries shoui ldaccordance
with the principle generala lypliedin Spanish Americoaf the
uti ~0SSidetiSiuris,follow the colonial administrat boundaries.
After the independeno ce Central America froSpain wasproclaimed on
15 September 1821, Hondur and El Salvador firstade up, togetherwith Costa
Rica,Guatemalaand Nicaragua, the Federal Repubo licCentral America, I
correspondingto theformerCaptaincy-Genera olf GuatemalaorKingdomof
Guatemala. On the disintegratio of thatRepublicin 1839,El Salvadorand
Honduras, along wit the other component States, becameeparateStates.
The Chamberoutlinesthe development of the three elementsf the
dispute, beginningwith the genesisof the islanddisputein 1854and of the
landdisputein 1861. Border incidentl sed to tensionand subsequentlyto
armed conflictin 1969,but in 1972El Salvadorand Honduras were abl eo
agreeon themajorpartof theirlandboundary, whichhad not yetbeen
delimited,leaving however six sectorsto be settled. A mediation process
begun in 1978led to aGeneral Treaty of Peace,signedand ratifiedin 1980by
the two Parties, which defint ede agreed sectionsf the boundary.
The Treaty furtheprrovided that Jaoint Frontier Commissis onould
delimit the frontie in the remainingsix sectorsand "determinethe legal
situationof the islands and themaritimespaces". It provided that if within
fiveyearstotal agreement was not reached, the Parties would, s wixthin
months, negotiata endconcludea special agreement to submit anexisting
controversy to the International Couort Justice. As the Commissiodid riotaccomplishits taskwithinthe timefixed,the
Parties negotiate dnd concludedon24 May 1986 the Special Agreement
mentionedabove.
III.The landboundarv: Introductioq (paras.40-67)
The Parties agrethatthe fundamentalprinciplefordetermining the land
frontieris theuti Dossidetis luris. The Chambernotesthat the essenceof
the agreed principleis itsprimaryaim of securing respect fothe
territorial boundariaes tlietimeof independencea,nd its applicatiohas
resultedin colonial administrative boundariesingtransformed into
internationaflrontiers.
In Spanish Centralmericatherewere administrative boundaro ifes
differentkindsor degrees, and the jurisdictionsf general administrative
bodies didnot necessarilycoincideterritoriallwyith thoseof bodies
possessingparticular or specialurisdiction.In additionto thevarious
civil jurisdictions the were ecclesiasticaolnes,whichthemain
administrativuenitshad to followin principle.
The Parties haveindicated tohichcolonial administrative divisions
(provinces)theyclaimto have succeeded.The problem is to identifythe
areas,and the boundariesl,whichcorresponded toheseprovinces, whicihn
1821 became respective ElySalvadorand Honduras. No legislative or similar
materialindicating thishao been produced, but the Parthiese submitted,
interalia, documentr seferredto collectivelas "titles"Jtitulos),
concerning grantosf land by theSpanishCrownin thedisputedareas,from
which, it is claimed, the provincial boundarcansbe deduced.
The Chamberthenanalyses thevariousmeaningsof the term"title". It
concludes that, reserving, t for present,the special statusl Salvador
attributesto "formaltitle deedsto commons",none of the titlesproduced
recording grantosf land toindividualsor Indiancommunitiescan be
consideredas "titles"in the samesenseas, for example,a Spanish Royal
Decree attributingcertainareasto a particularadministrativuenit; they
are rather comparabl to "colonialffectivitésa"s definedin a previous
case, i.e.,"theconductof the administrative authorita iesproofof the
effective exercis ef territorialurisdictionin the regionduringthe
colonialperiod"(I.C.J.Rev-, p. 586,para.63). In some casesthe
grantof a titlewas not perfectedb,ut the record, particularlof a survey,
remainsa "colonial effectia" whichmay serveas evidenceof the position
of a provincialboundary.
Referringto theseven sectorsof the boundaryagreed inthe General
Treatyof Peace, theChamberassumesthat the agreeb doundarywas arrivedat
applying principle and processes similarothoseurgedupon the Chamberfor
thenon-agreed sectors. Observingthe predominanceof local features,
particularlyrivers,in the definitioonf the agreedsectors,the Chamberhas
takensomeaccountof the suitability of certain topographical featutres
providean identifiableand convenientboundary. The Chamberis here
appealingnot so much to any conceptof "naturalfrontiers", but rathera
presumption underlyinthe boundarieson whichthe utipossidetisluris
operates.
UnderArticle 5of the Special Agreementthe Chamberis to takeinto
accountthe rulesof internationallaw applicable betweetnhe Parties,
"including,where pertinentt,heprovisionsof" theTreaty. This presumably
meansthat the Chambershould alsoapply, where pertinenet,enthoseArticles
whichin theTreaty are addresse specificallyto theJoint Frontiercommission.One of theseis Article26 of the Treaty, to the effectthat the
Commission shalltakeas a basis for delimitatio thedocumentsissuedby the
Spanish Crownor any other Spanish authority, secu orarcclesiastical,
duringthe colonial period a,nd indicatingthe jurisdictionor limitsof
territories or settlement ass,wellas other evidencaend argumentsof a
legal,historical, humanor any otherkind,brought before it by theParties
and admittedunderinternational law.
~rawingattentionto the difference betwee ita taskand thatof the
Commission, whichhad merelyto proposea frontier line, theChamberobserves
that Article26 is not an applicablelaw clause,but rathera provisionabout
evidence. In this light,the Chambercommentson one particular clas of
titles, referretdo as the "forma1title-deedsto commons",forwhich
El Salvadorhas claimeda particular statuain Spanish colonial law thatof
acts of theSpanishCrowndirectly determiningthe extentof the territorial
jurisdictionof an administrativdeivision. Thesetitles, the so-called
titulos eiidales, are, accordt ingEl Salvador, thebestpossible evidenci en,
relationto the applicatioonf the uti~0SSideti8 lurisprinciple.
The Chamberdoesnot accept any interpretati ofnArticle26 as
signifyingthat the Parties havbey treatyadopted a specialruleor methodof
determinationof the uti ~ossidetislurigboundaries, on thebasisof
divisions betweenIndianpoblacioneg.It was the administrative boundaries
between Spanish colonial administrative un nitsthe boundaries between
Indiansettlements as such,thatwere transformed into international
boundariesin 1821.
El Salvadorcontendsthat thecommons whose forma1title-deeds it relies
on werenot privateproperties but belongt ed the municipalcouncilsof the
correspondinpgoblaciones.Controlover thosecommunal landbseingexercised
by the municipal authoritie and over andabovethemby thoseof the colonial
provinceto which the commonshad been declaredto belong,El Salvador
maintainsthatif sucha grantof cornonsto a communityin one province
extendedto lande situated within anotht ehr, administrative controol the
provinceto whichthe community belongw eads determinative fotrhe application
of theuti ~ossidetis iuris,i.e.,that,on independence, thewhole area of
the commons appertaine to the State withiwhichthe communitw yas situated.
The Chamber,which is facedwith a situationof thiskind inthreeof six
disputedsectors,has howeverbeen ableto resolve the issuewithout havingto
determinethisparticular questio of Spanish colonial lawand thereforesees
no reasonto attemptto do so. 1
In the absenceof legislativeinstruments formalldefiningprovincial
boundaries, not onl landgrantsto Indiancommunities but also grants to
privateindividuals affordsome evidenceas to the locationof boundaries.
There mustbe a presumptionthatsuchgrantswouldnormallyavoidstraddling a
boundarybetween different administrative authoria tiewhere the
provincialboundary locatio was doubtful the common boundaro iestwo grants
by different provincial authoritc iesldwell have become the provincial
boundary. The Chambertherefore consider the evidenceof eachof these
grantson itsmeritsand in relationto other arguments, but witho treating
themas necessarily conclusive.
With regardto the land thathad not been the subjectof grants of
variouskindsby the Spanish Crown, referredto as crownlands,tierras
realen~as,the Parties agreethatsuch landwas notunattributed but
appertainedto the one provinceor the otherand accordingly passedo,n
independencei,ntothe sovereignto yf the one Stateor the other. With regardto post-independenc grantsor titles,the so-called
"republican titles",the Chamberconsidersthat theymay wellprovidesome
evidenceof the position in 1821and both Parties have offeredthemas such.
El Salvador, whileadmittingthat theuti ~ossidetis luris is the primary
elementfor determiningthe landboundary, also puts forward, in relia once
the second partof Article ,26,argumentsreferred to as either"argumentsof a
humannature"or argumentsbasedon effectivités.Honduras also recognizesa
certain confirmatory rol for effectivitésand has submittedevidenceof acts
of administratioo nfits own for thatpurpose.
El Salvadorhas first advanced argument and materialrelatingto
demographic pressure in El Salvadorcreating a need for territorya,s
comparedwith the relativel: ~parselypopulatedHonduras,and to thesuperior
natural resourcessaid to be enjoyedby Honduras. El Salvador, howeverd ,oes
not appearto claimthat afrontierbasedon the principleof
uti DosSidetis.luriscould'beadjusted subsequentl yexceptby agreement)on
the groundof unequal populatiod nensity. The Chamberwill not losesightof
this dimension of thematter,which is however without direct legi alcidence.
El Salvador also relie on the allegedoccupationof disputed areasby
Salvadorians, theirownershipof land in thoseareas,the supplyby it of
publicservicesthereand its exercisein the areasof governmentpowers,and
claims, inter aliat ,hat the practicoef effective administrative control has
demonstrated an "animus"to possessthe territories.Honduras rejecta sny
argumentof "effectivecontrol",suggestingthat the concept only refer to
administrative controlpriorto independence.It considers that, at least
since1884,no acts of sovereignty in the disputedareascan be reliedon in
view of the duty to rèspectthe statusquo in a disputedarea. It has however
presentedconsiderable materialto show thatHondurascan also relyon
argumentsof a humankind.
The Chamberconsidersthat it may have regard, in certain instancest,o
documentary evidenc of post-independenceeffectivités affording indications
of the 1821uti ~0ssidetiS jurisboundary,provided arelationship exists
between the effectivité and the determinationof that boundary.
El Salvadordrew attentionto difficulties in collecting evidence in
certainareasowingto interference witg hovernmentalactivitiesdue to acts
of violence. The Chamber,while appreciatint ghesedifficulties, cannot apply
a presumptionthat evidence which is unavailable would, if produced, have
supporteda particularParty'scase, still lesa s presumptionof the existence
of evidence notproduced. In view of thesedifficulties, El Salvador
requested theChamberto considerexercisingits functionsunderArticle 66 of
the Rulesof Courtto obtainevidencein situ. The Partieswere however
informed that theChamberdid not considerit necessaryto exercisethe
functionsin question,nor to exercise its power,underArticle50 of the
Statute,to arrange foran inquiryor expertopinion inthe case,as
El Salvador had alsorequested it to do.
The Chamberwill examine, inresRectof each disputed sectort ,he
evidenceof post-colonial gffectivités.Even whenclaimsof effectivité are
given theirdue weight,it may occurin some areasthat,followingthe
delimitationof the disputed sector,nationalsof one Party will find
themselvesin the territory of the other. The Chamberhas everyconfidence
that thenecessary measuresto takeaccountof this willbe takenby the
Parties. In'connectionwith theconceptof the "criticaldate" the Chamber
observesthat thereseems to be no reason why acquiescence or recognition
should notoperatewhere thereis sufficientevidence toshow that the Parties
have in effect clearlyaccepted a variation o an interpretation of the
uti possidetis.lurisposition.
JV. First sectorof the land boundan (paras.68-103)
The firstdisputedsector ofthe land boundary runs fro the agreed
tripointwhere the frontiers of El Salvador,Guatemalaand Hondurasconverge
(Cerro Montecristot)o thesummitof theCerro Zapotal (ses eketch-mapA).
Both Partiesrecognizethat most of the area between the lines they put
forwardcorrespondsto the land thatwas the subjectof a tituloelidalover
the mountainof Tepangüisir, granted in 1776 t he Indiancommunityof
San Franciscode Citala,which was situatedin, and under the jurisdictionof,
the province of SaSnalvador. El Salvadorcontendsthat on independencethe
lands sograntedbecame partof El Salvador,so that in 1821 the boundaryof
the two provinceswas defined bythe north-eastern boundaryof the Cita16
ejido. Honduras,on the otherhand, points out thatwhen the 1776titlewas
granted,those lands includedin it were specifically statet do be in the
Honduran province oGfracias a Dioa, so that the lands becameon independence
part of Honduras. ‘rr
The Chamberconsidersthat it is not requiredto resolve thisquestion.
Al1 negotiationsprior to 1972 overthe disputeas to the location of the
frontier inthis sector wereconductedon the basie, acceptedby both aides,
that it was the boundary between thee.lidoof Citalaand Ocotepequethat
defined thefrontier. The frontiercorresponding to Honduras'scurrent
interpretationof the legal effectof the 1776 Citalatitlewas firstput
forwardin negotiations heli dn 1972. Moreovera title granted by Hondurasin
1914, and the positiontakenby Hondurasin the courseof tripartite
negotiationsheld betweenEl Salvador,Guatemalaand Hondurasin 1934-1935,
confirmed the agreemen betweenthe Partiesthat the boundary between Cita16
and Ocotepeque definedthe frontier betweetnhem. After recalling that the
effectof theuti ~0sSidetiSlurisprinciplewas not to freezefor al1 time
the provincialboundaries,the Chamberfinds that Honduras'sconductfrom 1881
to 1972may be regarded as acquiescence in baoundarycorresponding to that
betweenthe Tepangüisir lando sf Citalaand those of Ocotepeque.
The Chamberthen turns to the questionof a triangular area where,
accordingto Honduras,the 1818titleof Ocotepequepenetratedthe 1
north-eastern boundar of Citala, and to thedisagreementbetweenthe Parties
as tothe interpretation of the Cita16surveyas regards thenorth-western
area.
With regardto the triangulararea, the Chamberdoes not considerthat
such an overlapping would have beecnonsciously made,
and that it shouldonly
be concludedthat an overlap cameaboutby mistakeif there is no doubt that
the two titlesare notcompatible. The identification of the variousrelevant
geographical location cannothowever beachievedwith sufficientcertaintyto
demonstrate anoverlap.
With respectto the disagreementon the boundaryof the Citalatitle,the
Chamberconcludesthat on this point the Honduran interpretatio of the
relevant survey recordis to be preferred.
The Chamberthen turns to thepart of the disputed area lying betwet ene
lands comprisedin theCitala titleand the international tripoint. Honduras
contendsthat since,accordingto the survey, the lan idn this area was crownland (tierrasrealennas),and the surveywas being effecteidn the provinceof
Graciasa Dios,thesemust:have been tierrasrealennasof thatprovinceand
henceare now part of Honduras.
El Salvador however claimshisareaon the basisof effectivités,and
pointsto anumberof villagesor hamlets belongint go themunicipality of
Citalawithinthe area. The Chambernotes however the absenceof evidence
that theareaor its inhabitants weruenderthe administratio of that
municipality. El Salvador also relieosn a report by aonduran Ambassador
statingthatthe lands of t'hdisputedareabelonged to inhabitantsof the
municipalityof Citaldin El Salvador. The Chamberhoweverdoesnot regard
thisas sufficient sinceto constitutean effectivitérelevantto the
delimitationof the frontierat leastsomerecognition or evidencewas
requiredof the effective administrato ionthe municipalitoyf Citalain the
area, which,it notes,has not beenproved.
El Salvador alsocontendsthatownership of landby Salvadoriansin the
disputed area lessthan 40kilometres frotmhe line Honduras claimas the
frontiershowsthatthe areawas not partof Honduras,as underthe
Constitutionof Honduras lanwdithin 40 kilometresof the frontiermay onlybe
acquiredor possessed bynativeHondurans. The Chamberrejectsthis
contentionsinceat the veryleastsomerecognition by Hondurasof the
ownership of landby Salvadorians woulhave to be shown,which is not the
case.
The Chamberobservesthatin the courseof the 1934-1935 negotiations
agreementwas reachedon a particular frontier linin thisarea. The
agreementby the representative of El Salvadorwas onlyad referendum,but
the ChambernotesthatwhiletheGovernment of El Salvador dindot ratify the
terms agreedupon ad referendum, neitherid it denouncethem; nor did
Honduras retracitts consent.
The Chamberconsidersthatit can adopt the 1935 line, primars ilyce
for themost part it followsthewatersheds, whicp hrovidea clearand
unambiguous boundary; it reiteratesitsview that thesuitabilityof
topographical featurt esprovidea readily identifiableand convenient
boundary is thematerialaspect whereno conclusion unambiguousp lyintingto
another boundary emergefromthe documentary material.
As regardsmaterialput forward byHonduras concerning the settlem ofnt
Honduransin the disputedareasand the exercise ther of governmentfunctions
by Honduras,the Chamberfinds thismaterialinsufficient to affectthe
decisionby way of effectiv-.
The Chamber'sconclusionregardingthe firstdisputed sectoorf the land
frontieris as followsl:
"It beginsat the tripointwith Guatemalat,he 'pointknownas
ElTrifinioon the summitof the CerroMontecristo' ... From this
point,the frontier betweeEnl Salvadorand Honduras runsin a
generally easterly directio following thdeirect lineof
watersheds, in in accordance wt ith agreement reachied 1935,and
acceptedad referendum by th representativeosf El Salvador,..
l~eesketch-map A annexed; for the identification lettea
rsd CO-ordinates
of thevariousdefined points, se the operative clausef the Judgment, set
out above,and the 1:50,000maps availablfeor inspectionin theRegistry. In accordancewith the 1935 agreement... ,the frontier run'salong
the watershedbetweenthe riversFrio or Sesecapaand Del Rosario as
far as thejunctionof this watershewdith thewatershedof the
basinof the guebradd ae Pomola'... ; 'thereafterin a
north-easterly direction alo thewatershedof the basinof the
auebradade Pomola until thJeunctionof thiswatershed with the
watershed between the auebrd adaCipresalesand the auebrada del
Cedron,PeZaDoradaand Pomolaproper' ...; 'fromthatpoint,
alongthe last-namew datershedas far as the intersectioonf the
centre-linesof the quebradasof Cipresalesand Pomola' ...;
'thereafter, downstream along c thetre-lineof the quebradade
Pomola, until the poionnt that centre-linwhichis closestto the
boundary markeorf Pomolaat El Talquezalar;and from that poini tn
a straight lineas far as that marker'... From the boundary marker
of El Talquezalar, the frontier contii nueasstraight linein a
south-easterldyirectionto the boundary marke rf the Cerro Piedra
Menuda ..., and thencein a straight lineto theboundary markeo rf
the CerroZapotal ..."
V. Secondsectorof the land boundar( yparas.104-127)
The second disputesdectorof the land boundary lies betwe the
Pena de Cayaguanca,and the confluencoef the Streamof Chiquitaor Oscura
with the river Sumpu(lsee sketch-ma p). Honduras bases its claim chieflon
the 1742 titleof Jupula,issuedin the context of the long-standin dispute
betweenthe Indiansof Ocotepeque in the provinceof Graciasa Dios,and those
of Citala,in the provinceof SanSalvador. The principal outcom eas the
confirmationand agreementof the boundarieosf the landsof Jupula, over
which the Indiansof Ocotepequeclaimedto have rightsand which were
attributedto the Indiansof Citala. It washoweverrecorded that the
inhabitantsof Ocotepeque, having recogniz thde entitlemenof the
inhabitantsof Citalato theland surveyed, also request "tdhattherebe left
free forthema mountain called Cayaguanca whichis abovetheJupulariver,
which is crownland,"and this request was accededto.
The ChamberfindsthattheJupulatitlewas evidencethat in 1742 the
mountainof Cayaguanca was tierras realennaand sincethe community of
Ocotepeque,in the Provinceof Gracias a Dios,was to cultivateit, it
concludesthat the mountainwas uerras realennas of that province, for which
reasonthemountainmust on independence havf eormed partof Hondurason the
basisof theuti ~0sSidetisluris.
v
The Chamberthenturnsto the location and extentof themountain, which,
accordingto Honduras,extendedover thewholeof the disputed arei an this
sector,a claim disputed b El Salvador. In additionto arguments basedon
thewordingof the 1742 title, El Salvador reft ersthe 1818 titleof
Ocotepeque,issuedto the community of Ocotepequeto re-establishthe boundary
markersof its lands, contendintghatthe mountain of Cayaguancawould
necessarilyhave been includedin thattitleif it had trulybeen awardedto
the inhabitantsof Ocotepequein 1742. ~heChamberdoesnot acceptthis
argument; it findsthatin 1821the Indiansof Ocotepeque, in the province of
rightsof usageover theimountainof Cayaguanca somewher1to the east,and
thatthe area subject to theserights, beingtierras realenna of theprovince
of Graciasa Dios,became Hondurau npon independence.
The problemremains, howevero,f determiningthe extentof themountain
of Cayaguanca. The Chamberseesno evidenceof itsboundaries, and in
particularnone to support the Honduran cla that theareaso referredto in
1742 extendedas far eastas the riverSumpul,as claimed by Honduras. The Chambernext considers whatlightmightbe thrownon thematterby
the republican titlienvoked byEl Salvador,referredto as thatof Dulce
Nombrede la Palma,grantedin 1833to thecommunity of La Palma in
El Salvador. The Chamberconsiders this titl significantin thatit showed
how theuti ~ossidetis Auriaposition was understow oden it was granted,
i.e.,very shortly afte rndependence.The Chamberexaminesin detailthe
Parties'conflicting interpretati ofnthe title; it doesnot accept
El Salvador'sinterpretatiowiierebyit wouldextendas farWest as thePeRa
de Cayaguancaa,nd as CO-terminouwsith the land surveyein 1742 forthe
Jupula title,and concludesthat therewas an interveningareanot covered by
either title.On thisbasisthe Chamberdetermines the course ofthe
northwestern boundar of the titleof Dulce Nombrede la Palma; the eastern
boundary,as recognized by both Parties,s the riverSumpul.
The Chamberthenexamiiietshree Honduran republican titi lethe
disputed area, concludi ngat theydo not conflicwith the Dulce Nombre de
la Palma titlseo as to throw doubton its interpretation.
The Chambergoeson to examinethe effectivités claime by each Partyto
ascertain whethetrheysupport the conclusib onsedon the latter title. The
Chamberconcludesthat there is no reasonto alterits findingsas to the
positionof the boundary in thisregion.
The Chambernext turnsto the claim byEl Salvadorto a triangular strip
along andoutsidethenorth-west boundaryof the Dulce Nombre dela Palma
title,whichEl Salvador claimt so be totally occupied bSalvadoriansand
administeredby Salvadorianauthorities. Novidenceto that effechtas
howeverbeen laid before theChamber. Nor does it considerthat a passagien
the Replyof Honduras 'regardedy El Salvadoras an admissionof the existence
of Salvadorian effectivitésti his areacan be so read. Therebeingno other
evidenceto support ElSalvador's claimto the stripin question,the Chamber
holdsthatit appertains to Honduras, havingormed partof the "mountaionf
Cayaguanca"attributed to the communitof Ocotepequein 1742.
The Chamberturnsfinally to the par of the boundary between thPeRade
Cayaguanca and the westerboundaryof the areacoveredby the Dulce Nombrd ee
la Palmatitle. It findstlhat El Salvadorhas notmade good any claimto any
area furtherWest thanthe:Loma de losEncinosor "Santa Rosa hillock",the
mostwesterlypointof the Dulce Nombre de la Palmatitle. Notingthat
Hondurashas only asserteda claim,on the basis of the rightsof Ocotepeque
to the "mountainof Cayagua:ncaWso far southas a straight linjoiningthe
Pefiade Cayaguancato the beginningof thenext agreedsector,the Chamber
considersthatneither the principlene ultrapetita,nor any suggested
acquiescenceby Hondurasin the boundary asserted byt,debarsthe Chamber
fromenquiring whethet rhe "mountaionf Cayaguancamight haveextended
further south,so as to be CO-terminousith the eastern boundaroyf the
Jupulatitle. In view of the referencein the latterto Cayaguancaas lying
eastof the most easterl landmarkof Jupula,the Chamberconsidersthatthe
areabetweentheJupulaand the la Palma lands belong to Honduras,and that
in the absenceof any othercriteriafordetermining the southwardextentof
thatarea,the boundary betwee thePesade Cayaguanca and theLoma de los
Encinosshouldbe a straightline.
The Chamber'sconclusionregarding thceourseof the frontierin the
second disputesdector is as follows2:
2~eesketch-map B annexed; for the identification lettearsd CO-ordinates
of thevariousdefinedpoints,see the operative clauso ef theJudgment,set
out above,and the 1:50,000maps availablfeor inspection inthe Registry.
0635j "From ...the PeEade Cayaguanca, the frontir erns ina
straight line somewhatsouthof east to the Lomade Los
Encinos ... ,and from there ina straight lineon a bearingof
N 48O E, to thehi11 shownon thernap producedby El Salvadoras
El Burro(andon the Honduran mapa snd theUnitedStatesDefense
Mapping Agencymaps as PiedraRajada) ... The frontierthentakes
the shortestcourseto the headof the auebrada del Copantill and
follows the auebrad del Copantillo downstreato its confluence
with the riverSumpul ... ,and follows the river Sumpi ul turn
downstream untilits confluencewith the auebradaChiquitaor
Oscura ...'
VI. Thirdsectorof the landboundary(paras.128-185)
The third sectorof the land boundariyn dispute lies between the
boundary markerof the Pacacio,on the riverof thatname, and theboundary
marker Pozadel Cajon,on the river knownas El Amati110or Gualcuquin (see
sketch-map C).
In termsof the grounds asserted for the cla ofmshe Partiesthe
Chamberdividesthe disputed arei antothreeparts.
In the first part, the north-western area, Honduras it nvokes Ir
uti oossidetis.lurisof 1821on the basisof landtitles granted between 1719
and 1779. El Salvadoron the contrary claims tm hejorpartof the areaon
the basisof post-independenc effectivitésor argumentsof a humannature.
It doeshowever claim a portionof the areaas partof the landsof the 1724
titleof Arcatao.
In the secondpart,the essential questionis the validity,'extentand
relationship to each otherof the Arcatao title relioedby El Salvadorand
18thcentury titles invokedby Honduras.
In the thirdpart, the south-eastsection, thereis a similarconflict
betweentheArcatao title and alost title, thatof Nombrede Jesusin the
provinceof San Salvador,on the onehand,and theHonduran titleo sf San Juan
de Arcatao, supplemente by the Honduran republican tito leLa Virtudand
San Sebastiindel Pa10Verde. El Salvador claima s furtherarea,outsidethe
asserted limitosf theArcataoand Nombrede Jesustitles,on the basisof
effectivités and humanarguments.
7
The Chamberfirstsurveysthe uti ~ossidetis lurispositionon the basis
of the varioustitlesproduced.
With regard to thfeirstpartof the thirdsector, the Chamberupholds
Honduras's contentio in principlethatthe positionof the pre-independence
provincial boundaryis definedby two18thcenturyHondurantitles. After
first reservintghe questionof preciselywhere their southern limits lay,
sinceif the Chamberfoundin favourof El Salvador's claimbasedon
effectivités,it wouldnot have to be consideredt,he Chamberultimately
determinestheboundaryin thisareaon thebasisof thesetitles,
As for the secondpartof the thirdsector, the Chamberconsidersit
impossibleto reconcile al1 the landmarks, distanceand directionsgivenin
the various18thcenturysurveys: thmeost thatcan be achievedis a line
whichharmonizes with such featuresas are identifiable witahhighdegree of
probability, corresponds more or l tosthe recordeddistancesand doesnot
leave any major discrepan unexplained.The Chamberconsidersthat three
features are identifiab aled thatthesethreereference points mak itpossibleto reconstruct thb eoundarybetweenthe Provinceof Graciasa Dios
and thatof SanSalvadorin the areaunderconsideratioa nnd thusthe
uti D0SSidetiS -4uriline,whichthe Chamberdescribes.
With regardto the third part of the sector, theChamberconsiders that
on the basisof the reconstructe1 d742 titleof Nombrede Jesusand the 1766
and 1786surveysof San Juande Arcatao, it is established that the
uti ~ossidetis -lurilinecorresponded tt ohe boundary betweethosetwo
properties, whichlinethe Chamberdescribes. In orderto definethe line
more precisely theChamberconsiders it legitimateto have regard tothe
Chamberbeing consistentewithwhat it regardsas the correct geographical
locationof thosetitles.
Having completedits surveyof theu - position,the
Chamberexaminesthe claims made in thewholeof the thirdsectoron thebasis
of effectivités. Regardingthe claims made by El Salvadoron suchgrounds,
the Chamberis unableto regardthe relevant materialas sufficient to affect
its conclusion as to thepositionof theboundary. The Chamberreachesthe
same conclusion as regardst.heevidenceof effectivités submittb ed Honduras.
The Chamber'sconclusion regardingthe course of the boundaryin the
thirdsector is as follows3:
"Fromthe Pacacio boundarymarker ... along the rio Pacacio
upstreamto a point ... West of the CerroTecolateor
Los Tecolates; from theure theauebradato the crestof the Cerro
Tecolatoor Los Tecolates ... ,and alongthe watershed of thishi11
from thereain an easterlydirectionto theneighbouringhhi11 above;
the sourceof theTorrenteLa Puerta ... and down thatStreamto
where it meetsthe river Gualsing a.. ; from there the boundary
runsalong'the middleof the river Gualsinga downstre tomits
confluence with the Sazala ... ,and thenceupstream along the
middleof the river Sazalap ao theconfluence with the river
Sazalapaof the auebrada Llano Negro... ; from there
south-eastwardt so thehi11 indicated... , and thenceto the crest
of the hi11markedon maps as beingan elevation of
1,017 metres....; fromtheretheboundary,inclining stillmore to
the south,runs through the triangulatiopnointknownas
La Canada ...to therfdgeJoiningthehillsindicated on the
El Salvadormap asCerroEl Caraco1and CerroEl Sapo ..., and from
thereto the feature markedon themaps as the PortilloEl Chupa
Ml . ; fromthere following th ridgeto the Cerro
El Cajete ... ,and thenceto the point wherethe present-day road
fromArcataoto Nombrede Jesuspassesbetweenthe CerroEl Ocotillo
and the CerroLagunetas ... ; fromthere south-eastwardt s, the
top of thehi11 ... markedon themaps witha spot height of
848 metres; fromthereslightlysouthof east to a small quebrada;
eastwardsdown thebed of the auebradato its junctionwith the
middleof the Gualcuquinuriver downstreatmo the Pozadelllowsthe
Caj6n ... ,the point wherethenext agreedsectorof boundary
begins."
3~eesketch-map C annexed; for theidentification lettea rsd CO-ordinates
of the variousdefinedpoints, see the operative clauso ef theJudgment,set
out above,and the1:50,000maps available for inspection thin Registry. VII. Fourthsectorof the landboundarv(paras.186-2671
The fourthand longestdisputed sector of the landboundary,also
involvingthe largestarea indispute,lies between the source o the Orilla
Streamand theMalpasode Similatonboundary marker (ses eketch-mapD).
The principal issue in this sector,at leastas regards thesize of the
area concerned, is whether the boundary follot wse riverNegro-Quiagara, as
Hondurascontends,or a line contended fob ry El Salvador,some 8 kilometres
to the north. In terms of the uti ~ossidetie-luria principle,the issueis
whetheror not the provinceof San Miguel,which on independence becamepart
of El Salvador, extendet do thenorth of that river or whether on the contrary
the latterwas in 1821 the boundary betwee that provinceand the provinceof
Comayagua,which became part of Honduras. El Salvador relies on a title
issued in 1745 to the communitiesof Arambalaand Perquinin the province of
San Miguel; the lands so granted extended north and southof the river
Negro-Quiagara, but Hondurascontendsthat,north of that river,the lands
were in the province ofComayagua.
The Chamberfirstsets out the relevantevents,in particular a dispute
in the province of
betweenthe Indiancommunityof Arambalaand Perquin,
San Miguel, and an Indiancommunity establishei dn Jocoraor Jocoarain the
provinceof Comayagua. The positionof the boundarybetweenthe provinceof
San Miguel and that of Comayaguawas one of the main issues inthe dispute
betweenthe twocommunities, which gave rise to a judicialdecisionof 1773.
In 1815 a decisionwas issuedby theReal Audiencigof Guatemalaconfirming
the rights ofthe Indianeof Arambala-Perquin. The Partiesmade extensive
referenceto thesedecisionsin support oftheir contentions as to the
locationof the boundary; theChamberis howeverreluctantto base a
conclusion,one way or theother,on the 1773 decisionand does not regard the
1815 one as wholly conclusive in respectof the locationof the provincial
boundary.
The Chamberthen considersa contentionby Hondurasthat El Salvadf .Iiad
in 1861 admittedthat the ~rambala-Perquin didos extendedacross the
provincialboundary. Itrefers toa note of 14 May 1861 inwhich the Mliilster
for ForeignRelationsof El Salvador suggested negotiations to set itlr
long-standing disputebetween theinhabitantsof the villagesof Ara~i~il' anda
Perquin,on the one hand, andthe village of Jocoara,on the other, and to the
reportof surveyors appointed to resolve the inter-vild lageute. It
considers this note to be significantnot only as,in effect,a recognition
that the landsof the Arambala-Perquin communih tyd, prior toindependence,
straddled the provincia bloundary,but also as recognition that a,s a result,
they straddled the internationf alontier.
The Chamberthen turns to the south-western part of the disputed
boundary, referret do as the sub-sectorof Colomoncagua. The problemhere is,
in broad terms,the determination of the extentof the landsof Colomoncagua,
provinceof Comayagua(Honduras),to the West, and thoseof the communitiesof
Arambala-Perquin and Torol Pr,ovinceof San Miguel (El Salvador),to the east
and south-east. Both Partiesrely on titlesand otherdocumentsof the
colonialperiod; El Salvadorhas also submitted a remeasurement and renewed
title of1844. The Chambernotes that apart from the difficultiesof
identifyinglandmarksand reconciling the varioussurveys, thematter is
complicatedby doubtseach Party castson the regularityor relevance of
titlesinvokedby the other. After listingchronologicalltyhe titles andocumentsclaimedby the one
sideor the otherto be relevant, thCehamberassessesfiveof thesedocuments
to whichthe Parties tookobjectionon variousgrounds.
The Chambergoeson to determine,on the basis ofan examinationof the
itles andan assessmentof the argumentsadvanced bythe Partiesby reference
O them, the lineof theuti possidetis.lurisin the sub-sectornder
consideration.Havingestahlished tha the inter-provincial bounda was, in
one area, theriverLas Canas,the Chamberrelieson a presumption thatsucha
boundary is likelyto followthe riverso longas its courseis in the same
generaldirection.
The Chamberthenturnsto the final sectio of the boundary betweetnhe
riverLas Canasand the source of the Orillastream(end-pointof the
sector). With respectto this section, theChamberacceptsthe line claimed
by Hondurason the basisof a titleof 1653.
The Chambernext addressesthe claimof ElSalvador, basedupon the
uti ~ossidetisAurisin relationto the conceptof tierras realenna(scrown
land),to areasto theWest and south-west of the landcomprisedin thee-lidos
of Arambala Perquinl,yingon eachsideof the river Negro-Quiagar bounded
on the West by theriverNegro-Pichigual. The Chamberfindsin favourof part
of El Salvador'sclaim,southof the riverNegro-Pichigual, bu is unableto
acceptthe remainder.
TheChamberhas finallyto dealwith the easternpartof theboundary
line,thatbetween the river Negro-Quiagaa radMalpasode Similaton. An
initial problemis that thePartiesdo not agreeon the positionof the
Malpasode Similaton,althovghthispointdefinesone of the agreed sectorsof
theboundaryas recordedin Article16 of the 1980 Peace Treaty, thewo
locations contended fb oring2,500 metresapart. The Chambertherefore
concludesthatfhere is a dispute betweenhe Partieson this point, whicht
has to resolve.
TheChambernotesthat this disputeis partof a disagreementas to the
courseof the boundarybeyond theMalpasode Similaton, in the sector whicis
deemed tohave beenagreed. Whileit doesnot considerthat ithas
jurisdictionto settledisputedquestions in an "agreed"sector,neitherdoes
it considerthat the existenc of sucha disagreement affectitsjurisdiction
to determinethe boundary upto and includingtheMalpasode Similaton.
Noting thatneithersidehas offeredany evidence whateve as to the line
of the uti~ossidetislurisin thisregion,the Chamber,beingsatisfiedthat
thisline is impossibleto determine inthisarea, consideri st rightto fa11
backon equityinfralenem,in conjunction with an unratified delimitatiofn
1869. The Chamberconsidersthatit can in thiscase resortto the linethen
proposedin negotiationsa,s a reasonableand fair solutioin al1 the
circumstances, particularlyincethereis nothingin the recordsof the
negotiationsto suggestany fundamental disagreement betwt eenPartieson
thatline.
TheChamberthenconsidersthequestionof the effectivités El Salvador
claims inthe areanorth ofthe river Negro-Quiagara, whicthheChamberhas
foundto fa11on the Honduransideof the lineof theuti ~ossidetis iuris,as
well as theareasoutsidethoselands. Afterreviewingthe evidence presented
by El Salvador,the Chamberfinds that,to the extentthatit can relate
variousplace-names tt ohedisputedareasand to theuti possidetis iuris
boundary,it cannotregard thismaterialas sufficient evidenc of any kindof
effectivitéwshichcouldbe takenintoaccountin determining the boundary. Turningto the effectivités claimed byHonduras, theChamberdoesnot see
here sufficient evideno cfeHonduran effectivité to an area clearly showtno
be on the El Salvadorside of theboundary line to justifydoubtingthatthat
boundary represent the uti ~ossidetisdurisline.
The Chamber'sconclusion regardingthe courseof the boundary in the
fourthdisputed sectoi rs as follows4:
"fromthe source of the Orillastream ... the boundary runs through
the passof El Jobo to the sourceof the CuevaHedionda stream ... ,
and thencedown the middleof thatstreamto its confluence with the
riverLas Canas ... , and thencefollowing themiddleof the river
upstreamas far as a point ...near the settlemenotf Las Piletas;
from there eastwards ova ercol ...to ahi11 ... ,and then
north-eastwardtso apointon the river Negro or Pichigual... ;
downstream along the midd ofethe river Negror Pichigualto its
confluencewith the river Negro-Quiaguar a.. ; thenupstreamalong
boundary marker...v,rand from therein a straightlineto thelas
Malpasode Similatonas identified by Honduras".
VIII.Fifth sector of the landboundarv(paras.268-305)
The fifth disputedsectorextends from"thepointon thenorthbank of
the river Torola whereit is joinedby theManzupucagua stream to the Pasode
Unire in theUnireriver(seesketch-map E).
El Salvador'sclaimis basedessentially on the tituloe.iidalgrantedto
the village of Polords, Provincoef SanMiguel,in 1760, followina g survey;
theboundary line El Salvador claimsis what it considersto be the northern
boundaryof the lands comprise in thattitle, Save for a narrowstripon the
western side,claimedon the basisof "humanarguments".
Honduras, whiledisputingEl Salvador's geographic interpretati ofnthe
Polorostitle,concedesthat it extendedacrosspartof the river Torola, but
nevertheless claim thatthe frontier todayshould follow thatriver. It
contendsthatthe northern partof the elidosgrantedto Polordsin 1760,
including al1 the landsnorthof the riverand also extendins gouthof it,had
formerly beenthe landof SanMiguelde Sapigre,a village which had
disappearedowingto an epidemicsome timeafter 1734, and that thevillage
had been in the jurisdictioonf Comayagua,so thatthoselands, although
grantedto Poloros,remainedwithinthatjurisdiction.It follows,according 1
to Honduras,thattheuti possidetislurialineran alongtheboundary between
thoselandsand the otherPoloroslands; but Hondurasconcedesthatas a
resultof eventsin 1854 it acquiescedin a boundary furthe rorth,formedby
the Torola.Alternatively Honduras clai the Poloroslandsnorth ofthe
riveron the basisthatEl Salvador acquiescei d, the 19thcentury,in the
Torolaas frontier.The westernpartof thedisputed area, which Honduras
considersto fa11outsidethe Polords title ,s claimedby it as partof the
landsof Cacaoterique, a village in the jurisdicti ofnComayagua.
4~eesketch-map D annexed; for the identification lettea rsd CO-ordinates
of the variousdefinedpoints, see the operative clausoef theJudgment, set
out above,and the 1:50,000maps available for inspection tinRegistry. Noting that the titleof Poloroswas granted bythe authorities of the
provinceof San Miguel,the Chamberconsidersthat it must be presumedthat
the lands comprised in theaurveywere al1 within the jurisdiction of San
Miguel,a presumptionwhich, the Chambernotes, is supported by the text.
After examiningthe availablematerialas to the existence,locationand
extentof the villageof San Miguelde Sapigre,the Chamberconcludesthat the
claimof Honduras through that extinctvillageis not supportedby sufficient
evidence; it does not therefore havt eo go into the questionof the effectof
the inclusion in an e-lidof one jurisdiction of tierrasrealenaasof
another. Iconcludesthat the e-lidograntedin 1760 to thevillageof
Poloros,in theProvinceof San Miguel,was wholly situated in that province
and thataccordinglythe provincial boundary lay beyo the northernlimitof
that eJidoor coincidedwit:hit. Therebeing equallyno evidenceof any
changein the situationberween1760 and 1821,the uti ~0SSidetiSluris line
may be takento have beeni.nthe same position.
The Chamberthen examinesthe claimof Hondurasthat,whatever the 1821
position,El Salvadorhad, by its conductbetween 1821 and 1897, acquiesced in
the riverTorola asboundary. The conductin questionwas the grantingby the
Governmentof El Salvador,in 1842,of a titleto an estatethatboth parties
claimwas carvedout of the elidosof Polorosand El Salvador'sreaction,or
lack of reaction,to the grantingof two titles over landn sorth of the river
Torolaby Hondurasin 1856 and 1879. From an examinationof theseevents,the
Chamberdoes not find it possibleto upholdHonduras'sclaim that El Salvador
acquiescedin theriverTorolaas theboundaryin the relevant area.
The Chambergoes on to interpret the extentof the Poloroselidoas
surveyedin 1760,on the faceof the text and in thelightof developments
after 1821. Followinga lengthyand detailedanalysisof the Polorostitle,
the Chamberconcludesthatneitherof the interpretations of it by the Parties
can be reconciledwith the relevantlandmarksand distances; the
inconsistency crystallizedduringthe negotiationsthat led up to the
unratifiedCruz-LetonaConventionin 1884. In the lightof certainrepublican
titles,the Chamberarrives at an interpretationof the Polorostitlewhich,
if not perfectly in harmonywith al1 the relevant data,producesa better fit
than eitherof the Parties8interpretations.As to neighbouringtitles,the
Chambertakes the view that,on the materialavailable,no totally consistent
mappingof the Polorostitleand the surveyof Cacaoteriquecan be achieved.
In the easternpart of'the sector,the Chambernotes that the Parties
agree that the riverUnire constitutesthe boundaryof their territories for
some distance upstreao mf the "Pasode Unire",but disagreeas to whichof two
tributariesis to be regardedas the headwaters of the Unire. Hondurasclaims
that betweenthe Unire and the headwatersof the Torola the boundariys a
straightline corresponding to the southwesternlimitof the landscomprised
in the 1738 Honduran titl of San Antoniode Padua. After analysingthe
Polorostitleand 1682 and 1738 surveys of San Antonio,the Chamberfindsthat
it is not convinced btyhe Honduranargumentthat the San Antoniolands
extendedwestwards across thr eiverUnire and holds that it was the river
whichwas the uti ~ossidetis-lurisline,as claimed byEl Salvador.
To the West of the Poloroslands,sinceEl Salvador'sclaim toland north
of the river is based solelyon the Polorostitle (savefor the stripon the
west claimedon the basis o~f"humanarguments"),the riverTorola forms the
boundarybetween thePoloroslandsand the startingpoint of the sector. With
regardto the stripof land claimed byEl Salvadoron the west, the Chamber
considersthat, for lack of'evidence,this claim cannot be sustained. Turning finallyto the evidence of effectivitéssubmittedby Honduras
with respect toal1 six sectors,the Chamberconcludesthat this is
insufficient to justifyre-examiningits conclusion as to theboundaryline.
The Chamber'sconclusion regardint ghe courseof the boundaryin the
fifthdisputedsector is as follows5:
"From the confluencewith theriver Torolaof the stream
identifiedin the GeneralTreaty of Peaceas the auebradade
Mansupucagua ...the boundary runuspstreamalong the middleof the
riverTorolaas far as its confluence with a streamknown asthe
auebradadel Arenalor guebradgde Aceituno ...; thenceup the
middle of the courseof that streamas far as [a]point,at or near
its source, ...,and thencein a straightline somewhatnorth of
east to a hi11 some 1,100metreshigh ...; thencein a straight
line to ahi11 near the riverUnire ...,and thenceto thenearest
point on the riverUnire; downstreamalong that river to the point
known as the Paso de Unire..."
IX. Sixth sectorof the land boundary(paras.306-322)
The sixthand finaldisputedsectorof the landboundaryis that between
a pointon the river Goascorin known as Los Amates,and the waters of theGulf r$
of Fonseca(see sketch-map F). Hondurascontendsthat in 1821 theriver
Goascorinconstitutedthe boundary betweet nhe colonialunits to whichthe two
Stateshave succeeded,that therehas been no materialchangein the courseof
the riversince 1821, and that the boundary therefore follows t present
stream flowinginto the Gulf north-westof the IslasRamaditasin the Bay of
La Union. El Salvador however claimsthat it is a previous coursefollowedby
the riverwhich definesthe boundary and that this coursecan be traced and
reaches theGulf at EsteroLa Cutti.
The Chamberbeginsby examiningan argumentEl Salvador bases on
history. The Parties agreethat during the colonial perioda rivercalledthe
Goascorinconstitutedthe boundary between the provinceof SanMiguel and the
AlcaldiaMayor de Minas of Tegucigalpa,and thatEl Salvador succeedeo dn
independence to theterritoryof the province; but El Salvadordeniesthat
Honduras acquiredany rightsover theformer territoro yf theAlcaldiaMayor
of Tegucigalpa,which accordingto El Salvador did not in 1821 belongto the
provinceof Hondurasbut was an independent entity. The Chamberhowever
observesthat on the basisof the uti ~ossidetisluris,El Salvadorand
Hondurassucceeded to al1 the relevantcolonialterritories,leavingno terra
nullius,and thatthe formerAlcaldiaMayor was at no time after 1821an
independentstateadditionalto them. Its territory had tpoass either to
El Salvadoror to Hondurasand the Chamberunderstandsit to have passedto
Honduras.
The Chamberobservesthat El Salvador'sargumentof law, on the basis
that the formerbed of the river Goascorinformsthe uti ~ossidetis.luris
boundary,is thatwhere a boundaryis formedby the courseof a riverand the
stream suddenly forma snew bed, this processof "avulsion"does not bring
abouta changein the boundary,which continues along the old channel.No
recordof an abruptchangeof course havingoccurredhas been broughtto the
5~eesketch-mapE annexed; for the identification lettersand CO-ordinates
of thevariousdefined points, see the operativeclauseof the Judgment,set
out above,and the 1:50,000maps available for inspectionin theRegistry.Chamber'sattention, butwere the Chambersatisfied that the coursweas
earlierso radically differentfromitspresentone, thenan avulsion might
reasonablybe inferred. The Chambernotesthatthereis no scientific
evidence that the previo cuoursewas suchthat theriver debouched i the
EsteroLa Cut6 ratherthan i,any of the other neighbouringnletsin the
coastline.
El Salvador'scase appearsto be thatif the changein the river'scourse
occurred after1821,the river wastheboundary which underthe
uti ~ossidetislurishad become the international frontier, wouldhave
been maintaineads it was by virtue ofa ruleof international law; ife
course changed befor 1821and no further changetookplace after 1821,
El Salvador'sclaimto the wold"courseas themodern boundarw youldbe based
on a ruleconcerning avulsion which wob uldonenot ofinternational law but
of Spanish coloniallaw. El Salvadorhas not committeditselfto an opinion
on thepositionof the riverin 1821,but does contendthat aruleon avulsion
supporting its clai was partof Spanish coloniallaw.
In the Chamber'sview, however, anclaim byEl Salvadorthat the
boundary followasn old courseof the riverabandoned atsome timebefore1821
must be rejected. It is a elaimthatwas firstmade in 1972and is
inconsistenwtith the previous historoyf the dispute.
The Chamberthenturnsto theevidence concerning the couo rsthe
Goascoranin 1821. El Salvador relieo sn certain titleso privatelands,
beginningwith a 1695surveyr.Hondurasproduceslandtitles dating fromthe
17thand 19thcenturies as well as a map orhartof the Gulf of Fonseca
preparedby an expeditioniri1794-1796, and maap of 1804.
The ChamberconsidersLhatthe reportof the expeditiot nhatled to the
preparationof the 1796rnap,and themap itself,leave little room for doubt
thatin 1821the Goascoranwas already flowinign itspresent-deycourse. It
emphasizes that'the1796rnapis not one whichpurportsto indicatefrontiers
or political divisions, b the visualrepresentatioo nf whatwas recordedin
the contemporaryreport. The Chamberseesno difficulty in basinga
conclusionon the expeditioireportcombinedwith themap.
The Chamberadds that~imilarweight may be attachedto theconductof
the Partiesin negotiationsin 1880and 1884. In 1884 it was agreed that the
Goascorén rivervas to be regardedas theboundary between the two Republics,
"fromitsmouth in the Gulfof Fonseca ...upstreamas far as the confluence
with the Guajiniquilor Pescado river...",and the 1880recordrefersto the
boundary followingthe rive:fromitsmouth"upstreamin a north-easterly
direction",i.e.,thedirec.tiot nakenby the presenc tourse,not the
hypotheticalold courseof the river. The Chamberalso observes thatan
interpretatioonf thesetextsas referring to the oldcourseof the riveris
untenable in vieowf the cartographicaterialof the period, presumably
availableto thedelegates, whicp hointedoverwhelmingltyo theriver being
thenin its presentcourseand forming the internationabloundary.
Referringto a suggestionby El Salvadorthatthe riverGoascoran would
have returned toits old course hadit not beenpreventedfromso doingby a
wall or dikebuiltby Hondurasin 1916,the Chamberdoesnot considerthat
this allegation,even if proved,wouldaffectits decision.
At itsmouthin the Bay of La Unionthe riverdividesintoseveral
branches, separate by islandsand islets. Hondurashas indicatedthatits
claimedboundary passetso the north-wesotf theseislands,thus leavingthem
al1 in Honduranterritory.El Salvador, contendingas it does thattheboundarydoes not follow the presenc tourseof the Goascorinat all, has not
expresseda view on whethera line following that courseshouldpass
north-westor south-eastof the islands or betwee them. The area atstake is
very small andthe islets involved do not seem to beinhabitedor habitable.
The Chamberconsiders,however, that it would not completeits taskof
delimitingthe sixth sectorwere it to leaveunsettledthe question of the
choiceof one of the presentmouths of the Goascoranas the situation ofthe
boundaryline. It notes at the same time thatthe materialon which to found
a decisionis scanty. After describingthe positiontakenby Hondurassince
negotiations held in 1972, as well as its positionduring the work of the
Joint FrontierCommission and in its submissions,the Chamberconsidersthat
it may uphold the relevan Honduransubmissionsin the termsin which they
were presented.
The Chamber'sconclusionregardingthe sixthdisputedsector is as
follows~:
"From the point known as Los Amates...the boundary follows
the middleof the bed of the riverGoascorinto the point where it
emergesin the watersof the BahiaLa Union,Gulf of Fonseca,
passingto the north-westof the IslasRamaditas."
X. Lena1 situatb of the islands (paras. 323-368)
The major islands inthe Gulf are indicatedon sketch-mapG annexed.
El Salvador asks the Chamberto declarethat it ha8 sovereignty over al1 the
islandswithin the GulfexceptZacate Grandeand the Farallones; Honduras
asks it to declarethat only Meanguera and Meanguerita islandasre in dispute
betweenthe Partiesand thatHonduras hassovereigntyover them.
In the view of the Chamberthe provision ofthe Special Agreement that it
determine"la si tuacionAuradica _inularWconfersupon it jurisdictionin
respectof al1 the islandsof the Gulf. A judicialdetermination, however is
only requiredin respectof such islandsas are in dispute'between the
Parties; this excludes, inter alh, the Farallones,which are recognizedby
both Partiesas belongingto Nicaragua.
The Chamberconsidersthat prima facie the existenco ef a dispute over an
islandcan be deduced from the faco tf its being the subject ofspecificand
argued claims. Noting thatEl Salvadorhas pressed its claim to El Tigre
islandwith argumentsin support andthat Honduras has advanced
counter-arguments, thoughwith theobjectof showing thatthere is no dispute
over ElTigre, the Chamberconsidersthat, eithersince 1985 or atleastsince v
issuewas Joinedin theseproceedings,the islandsin disputeare El Tigre,
Meangueraand Meanguerita.
Hondurascontendshoweverthat,since the 1980 GeneralTreatyof Peace
uses thesame termsas Article2, paragraph 2,of the SpecialAgreement, the
Jurisdictionof the Chambermust be limitedto the islands in dispute atthe
time the Treaty was concluded,i.e.,Meanguera and Meanguerita the
Salvadorianclaim toEl Tigrehaving beenmade only in 1985. The Chamber
howeverobservesthat the question whether a given islandis in disputeis
6~eesketch-mapF annexed; for the identification letter and CO-ordinates
of the variousdefinedpoints, see the operative clauseof the Judgment,set
out above,and the1:50,000maps availablefor inspectionin the Registry.relevant,not to the question of the existenceof jurisdiction,but to thatof
its exercise. Honduras also claimt shat thereis no real dispute over
El Tigre, which hassince 1854been recognized by El Salvadoras belongingto
Honduras, but thatEl Salvadorhas made a belated claim toit as a political
or tacticalmove. The Chambernotes that for it to find that thereis no
dispute would requireit firstto determinethatEl Salvador'sclaimis wholly
unfounded,and to do so can hardlybe viewedas anything but the determination
of a dispute. The Chambertherefore concludet shat it should determine
whether Honduras or El Salvadorhas jurisdictionover eachof the islands of
El Tigre, Meanguera and Meanguerita.
Hondurascontendsthatby virtueof Article26 of the General Treaty of
Peacethe law applicableto the disputeis solely the uti ~ossidetis -4urisof
1821, whileEl Salvador maintaint shat theChamberhas to applythe modernlaw
on acquisition of territory andlook at the effectiveexerciseor displayof
State sovereignty ove the islandsas well as historicaltitles.
The Chamberhas no doubt that the determinatioonf sovereignty overthe
islands must starw tith thewti ~0SSidetiSluris. In 1821,none of the
islandsof the Gulf,whichhad been underthe sovereigntyof the Spanish
Crown,were terranullius. Sovereignty over them couldthereforenot be
acquiredby occupationand the matterwas thusone of the succession of the
newly-independenS ttatesto theislands. The Chamberwill therefore consider
whetherthe appurtenance in 1821of each disputed islandto one or the other
of the variousadministrative units o tfhe Spanish colonial structucren be
established, regardbeinghad not only to legislative and administrativetexts
of the colonial period, buatlso to "colonialeffectivités". The Chamber
observesthat in the case of the islands thelegaland administrative texts
are confused and confli,ctingand thatit is possiblethatSpanish colonial
law gave no clearand definiteansweras to the appurtenanco ef someareas.
It therefore consideri st particularlappropriate to examinethe conduct of
the new States duringthe periodimmediately after1821. Claimsthenmade,
and the reaction- or lackof reaction - to themmay throw light on the
contemporary appreciatio on what the situationin 1821had been, or shouldbe
takento have been.
The Chambernotes that ElSalvador claims al1 the islands inthe Gulf
(exceptZacateGrande)on the basis thatduringthe colonial period they were
within the jurisdictionof the townshipof San Miguel in the colonia province
of San Salvador, whichwas in turn within thejurisdictionof the &aJ
Audienciaof Guatemala. Honduras assert tsat the islandsformed partof the
bishopricand provinceof Honduras,that theSpanish Crown had attributed
Meangueraand Meangueritato thatprovinceand that ecclesiastical
jurisdiction over the islandasppertained to th earishof Cholutecaand the
Guardaniaof Nacaome,assignedto the bishopric of Comayagua. Honduras has
also presentedan arrayof incidentsand eventsby way of colonial
effectivités.
The fact that theecclesiasticaljurisdictionhas been reliedon as
evidenceof "colonialeffectivités-presentsdifficulties, as the preaenceof
the churchon the islands, which were sparsely populat was,not permanent.
The Chamber'stask is made more difficulbty the fact thamtany of the
historical eventrseliedon can be, and have been, interpretedn different
ways and thusused to supportthe arguments of eitheP rarty. The Chamberconsidersit unnecessaryto analyse in furthed retail the
argumentseach Party advancesto show that it acquiredsovereignty over some
or al1 of the islandsby the application of the uti ~0SSidetiSiuris
principle, the materialavailable being too fragmentary andambiguous toadmit
of any firm conclusion.The Chambermust therefore considerthe
post-independence conductof the Parties,as indicativeof what musthave been
the 1821 position. This may be supplemented by considerationsindependentof
the uti ~ossidetielurisprinciple,in particularthe possible significanco ef
the conductof the Partiesas constitutingacquiescence. The Chamberalso
notes that underArticle26 of the GeneralTreaty of Peace, it may consider
al1 "otherevidence and arguments ofa legal,historical,human or otherkind,
broughtbefore it by the Partiesand admittedunder international law".
aw of acquisition ofterritory, invoked b El Salvador,is in
The 1
inciple clearly established an buttressedby arbitraland judicial
cisions. The difficultywith its applicationhere is that it vas developed
imarily to deal with the acquisitionof sovereignty over%erra nullius.
th Parties howeverasserta title of successionfrom the SpanishCrown,so
that the questionariseawhether theexerciseor displayof sovereigntyby the
one Party, particularlywhen coupledwith lack of protestby the other,could
indicate the presence o an uti ~ossifleti.slurititle inthe formerParty,
where theevidence based on titlesor colonialçffectivitéais ambiguous. The
Chambernotes that in the Kinauieraand Ecrehoacase in 1953 theCourtdid not
simplydisregard the ancient titles a decideon the basis of more recent
displaysof sovereignty.
In the view of theChamber,where therelevantadminietrative boundaryin
the colonial periodwas ill-definedor its position disputed, the behaviour of
the two Statesin the years followingindependence may serve as a guide to
where the boundarywas, either in their sharedview, or in the viewacted on
by one and acquiescedin by the other.
Being uninhabitedor sparselyinhabited,the islands,did not arouseany
interestor disputeuntil theyears nearingthe mid-19th century. What then
occurred appears tb oe highlymaterial. The islandswere notterranullius
and in legal theoryeach island already appertaint ed one of the Gulf States
as heir to the appropriatpeart of the Spanishcolonialpossession,which
precludedacquisitionby occupation; but effective possessiob ny oneof the
Statesof an islandcould constitutea post-colonial effectivité,throwing
light on the contemporary appreciatio on the legalsituation. Possession
backedby the exercise of sovereignty may confirm theuti Dossidetis.luris
title. The Charnberdoes not find it necessaryto decidewhethersuch W
possession could be recognizedeven in contradictioo nf such a title,but in
the case of theislands,where thehistorical materialof colonialtimes is
confusedand contradictory and independencewas not immediatelyfollowedby
unambiguousacts of sovereignty, this is practicallythe only way in whict hhe
uti vossidetisiuriscould find forma1expression.
The Chamberdeals firstwith El Tigre, and reviews the historicae lvents
concerning it from 1833 onward. Noting that Hondurashas remainedin
effective occupatioo nf the islandsince 1849, the Chamberconcludesthat the
conductof the Partiesin the yearsfollowingthe dissolution of the Federal
Republicof Central Americawas consistentwith the assumption that El Tigre
appertainedto Honduras. Given the attachent of the Central AmericanStates
to the principle of utiDoSSidetiS-luris, the Chamberconsidersthat that
contemporary assumption alsoimpliedbeliefthat Honduraswas entitledto the
islandby successionfrom Spain,or, atleast,that such successionby
Honduras wasnot contradicted by any known colonial title. Although Hondurashas not formally requeste adfindingof its sovereignty oveE rl Tigre,the
Chamberconsidersthat it shoulddefineits legalsituationby holdingthat
sovereignty overEl Tigre belongsto Honduras.
RegardingMeangueraand Meanguerita,the Chamberobservesthat throughout
the argumentthe two islands were treated byboth Partiesas constituting a
singleinsularunity. The smallnessof Meanguerita, its contiguityto the
largerisland, and the fact thatit is uninhabitedallow its characterization
as a "dependency"of Meanguera. That Meangueritais "capableof
appropriation" is undoubted: although without fres water, it is not a
low-tideelevationand is covered byvegetation. The Parties havetreatedit
as capableof appropriation, sincethey claimsovereigntyover it.
The Chambernotes that the initialforma1manifestation of the dispute
occurredin 1854,when a circularlettermade widelyknown El Salvador'sclaim
to the island. Furthermore,in 1856 and 1879El Salvador's officia1journal
The Chamber
carriedreportsconcerning administratia vets relatingto it.
has seenno recordof reactionsor protestby Hondurasover thesepublications.
The Chamberobservesthat from the late 19th centurythe presenceof
El Salvadoron Meangueraintensified, stillwithoutobjectionor protestfrom
Honduras,and that it has received considerabldocumentaryevidenceon the
administration of Meangueb ra El Salvador. Throughoutthe period covered by
thatdocumentation there is no recordof any protestby Honduras, with the
exceptionof one recent even,t,describedlater. Furthermore, El Salvador
calleda witness,a Salvadorianresidentof the island, and hie testimony,not
challenged by Honduras shows thatEl Salvadorhas exercisedStatepower over
Meanguera.
Accordingto the materialbeforethe Chamber,it was only in January 1991
that the Governmentof Hondurasmade proteststo the Government of El Salvador
concerning Meanguera which were rejectedby the latter Government. The
Charnberconsidetsthat the Honduranprotestwas made too late to affect the
presumptionof acquiescence on the part of Honduras. The conductof Honduras
vis-à-visearliereffectivitk reveals someformof tacitconsent tothe
situation.
The Chamber'sconclusionis thus the following. In relationto the
islands,the "documentswhichwere issuedby the Spanish Crown or by any other
Spanishauthority,whether secular or ecclesiastical"d,o not appear
sufficientto "indicatethe jurisdictions or limitsof territories or
settlements"in termsof Article 26 of thatTreaty,so thatno firm conclusion
can be basedupon such material,takenin isolation, for decidingbetweenthe
two claimsto an uti ~0SSidetiSluristitle. Under the finalsentence of
Article26, the Charnberis howeverentitledto considerboth the effective
interpretation of the uti Dossidetis.iuriby the Parties,in the years
following independence as throwinglighton the application of the principle,
and the evidenceof effective possessio and controlof an islandby one Party
without protestby the other,as pointingto acquiescence.The evidenceas to
possessionand control,and the displayand exerciseof sovereignty, by
Honduras overEl Tigre and by El Salvador over Meanguer (to whichMeanguerita
is an appendage),coupled in each cas with the attitudeof the other Party,
clearlyshows that Honduraswas treatedas having succeeded to Spanish
sovereigntyover El Tigre,and El Salvadorto Spanish sovereignto yver
Meangueraand Meanguerita. ZI. Leaal situation of the maritis meaces(paras. 369-420)
The Chamberfirstrecallsthat Nicaraguahad been authorized to intervene
in the proceedings,but solely onthe question of the legal régime ot fhe
waters of theGulf of Fonseca. Referringto complaints by the Partiesthat
Nicaragua had dealw tith mattersbeyond the limitsof its permitted
intervention, the Chamberobservesthat it has takenaccountof Nicaragua's
argumentsonly where they appearrelevantin its considerationof the régime
of the watersof the Gulf of Fonseca.
The Chamberthen refers to the disagreement between the Parties on
whether Article 2,paragraph 2, of the SpecialAgreementempowers orrequires
the Chamberto delimita maritimeboundary,within or without the Gulf.
El Salvador maintainsthat "the Chamberhas no jurisdiction to effec tny
delimitationof the maritime spaces",whereas Honduras seeks the delimitation
of the maritimeboundaryinsideand outsidethe Gulf. The Chambernotes that
these contentionshave to be seen in relationto the position ofthe Parties
as to the legalstatusof the Gulf waters: El Salvador claims that theyare
subjectto a condominium in favourof the three coastal Statesand that
delimitation would therefore beinappropriate,whereas Honduras arguesthat
within the Gulf there is a communityof interests which necessitates a
judicialdelimitation. 'II
In application ofthe normal rulesof treatyinterpretation (Article31
of theViema Convention ofthe Law of Treaties),the Chamberfirstconsiders
what is the "ordinarymeaning"of the termsof the SpecialAgreement. It
concludesthat no indicationof a common intention to obtain a delimitation
from the Chambercan be derivedfrom the textas it stands. Turning to the
context, the Chamberobserves thatthe SpecialAgreement used the wording"to
delimit theboundary line" regardingthe land frontier, while confiningthe
task of the Chamberas it relates to the island and maritimespacesto
"determine[their]legal situationw, ths eame contrastof wordingbeing
observedin Article18, paragraph 2, of the General~reat~of Peace. Noting
that Hondurasitselfrecognizesthat the islanddispute is not a conflictof
delimitation but of attributionof sovereignty over a detache territory,the
Chamberobservesthat it is difficultto acceptthat the wording"to determine
the legalsituation",used for both the islands and the maritimespaces,would
have a completeld yifferentmeaningregarding the island and regarding
maritimespaces.
Invokingthe principleof effectiveness, Honduras argues that the context
of the Treatyand the SpecialAgreementmilitateagainst the Partieshaving
intended merely a determination ofthe legal situation ofthe spaces
unaccompanied by delimitation,the objectand purposeof the SpecialAgreement
being to disposecompletelyof a longstanding corpusof disputes. In the
Chamber'sview,however,in interpreting a text of this kind,regard mustbe
had tothe common intention as it is expressed. In effect,what Hondurasis
proposingis recourseto the "circumstances" of the conclusion of the Special
Agreement,which constitute no more than a supplementarymeans of
interpretation.
To explainthe absenceof any specific referenc eo delimitation inthe
SpecialAgreement,Honduraspointsto a provisionin the Constitutioo nf
El Salvador such that its representatives coulnever have intendedto sign a
special agreementcontemplating any delimitatio ofn the watersof the Gulf.
Hondurascontendsthat it was for this reason that the expression"determine
the legal situation was chosen,intendedas a neutralterm which would not
prejudice the position ofeitherParty. The Chamberis unable to acceptthis
contention,which amounts to a recognitit onat the Parties werenableto
agree that the Chambershouldhave jurisdictionto delimit the waters ofthe Gulf. It concludes that the agreemeb nttween theParties, expressei dn
.Article2, paragraph2, of the Special Agreement,that the Chambershould
determine the legal situation of the maritime sp didesot extendto their
delimitation.
Relyingon the factthat the expression "detemine the legal situation of
the islandand the maritimeapaces"is also usedin Article18 of the General
Treaty ofPeace of 1980, definingthe role of the Joint FrontieC rommission,
Hondurasinvokesthe subsequent practico ef the Partiesin the application of
the Treaty and invitesthe Chamberto take into account the fact thatthe
Joint Frontier Commissionexaminedproposalsaimed atsuch delimitation.The
Chamberconsidersthat,while both customarylaw and the Vienna Convention.on
the Law of Treaties(Art.31, para. 3 (b)) allow such practiceto be taken
into account for purpose oaf interpretation,one of the considerations raised
by Honduras can prevailover the absence from the text of any specific
reference to delimitation.
The Chamberthen turns ro the legal situationof the watersof the Gulf,
which fallsto be detemined by the application of "the rules of international
law applicable between th Parties, includin where pertinent, the provisions
of the General Treaty ofPeaice",as providedin Articles2 and 5 of the
SpecialAgreement.
Followinga descriptionof the geographical characteristics t ohfe Gulf,
the coastlineof which is dividedbetweenEl Salvador, Hondurasand Nicaragua
(see sketch-map Gannexed) and the conditions of navigationwithin it, the
Chamberpoints outthat the dimensions and proportionsof the Gulf aresuch
that it would nowadaysbe a juridicalbay under the provisions(which mightbe
found to express generalcustomarylaw) of the Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone(1958)and the Convention on the Law of the Sea
(1982),the consequence being that, if it were a single-Statebay, a closing
line mightnow be drawnand thewatersbe thereby enclosed and "consideredas
internal waters1'.The Parties,the intervening State as well as commentators
generally,are agreedthat the Gulf is an historic bay,and thatits waters
are accordinglyhistoricwaters. Suchwaterswere defined in the Fisheries
case betweenthe UnitedKingdomand Norwayas "waterswhich are treatedas
internalwaters butwhichwould not havethat characterwere it not for the
existenceof an historic tit,lel(I.C.J.Re~orts1951,p. 130). This shouldbe
read in the lightof the observationin the ContinentalShelf .(Tunisia/Libvan
Arab Jarnahirivac)ase,that
llgeneralinternational law... does not providefor a sinule
'régime'for 'historicwaters1or 'historicbays', but only for a
particularrégimefor each of the concrete, recognizedcasesof
'historic waterso'r 'historicbaysl"(J.C.J.Revorts1982,p. 74).
The Court concludes thatit is clearlynecessary toinvestigatethe
particularhistory of the Gulf to discoverthe "régime"resultingtherefrom,
addingthat the particularhistoricalrégime establisheb dy practicemust be
especially importani tn a pluri-Statebay, a kind of bay forwhich thereare
notoriouslyno agreed and codifiedgeneralrulesof the kindso well
establishedfor single-Statebays.
Since its discovery in 1522 unti l821, the Gulfwas a single-State bay
the waters ofwhich wereunder the single sway of the SpaniC shown. The
rights inthe Gulf of thepresentcoastalStateswere thus acquired, like
their land territories by successionfrom Spain. The Chambermust therefore
enquire intothe legal situatioo nf the waters of theGulf in 1821; for the
principleof uti.~ossidetis luris should applyto thosewaters as well asto
the land. The legal status ofthe Gulf watersafter 1821was a questionwhich faced
the Central AmericanCourt of Justicein the case betweeE nl Salvador and
Nicaragua concerning the Gulfin which it renderedits Judgementof
9 March 1917. That Judgement, which examinedthe particular régimo ef the
Gulf of Fonseca,must thereforebe taken into consideration as ai nmportant
part of the Gulf'shistory. The case beforethe Central American Courtwas
brought by El Salvador againstNicaragua becauseof the latter'sentry into
the Bryan-ChamorrT oreaty of 1914 withthe UnitedStates,by which Nicaragua
granted thelattera concessionfor the construction of an interoceaniccanal
and of a naval basein the Gulf, an arrangementthatwould allegedly prejudice
El Salvador's own rights in theGulf.
On the underlyingquestionof the statusof the waters of theGulf there
were threematterswhich practiceand the 1917Judgementtook accountof:
first, thepractice of al1 three coastal Statehsad established an mutually
recognizedas 1 marine league (3 nauticalmiles) littoral maritimebelt off
their respectivemainlandcoastsand islands,in which belt they each
exercisedan exclusivejurisdictionand sovereignty, thoughwith rightsof
innocentpassageconcededon a mutual basis; second,al1 threeStates
recognizeda furtherbelt of 3 marine leagues(9 nauticalmiles) for rightsof
"maritime inspection" ff orscalpurposesand fornational security;third,
therewas anAgreementof 1900 between Honduras and Nicaragua bywhich a
partial maritime boundar betweenthe two States had been delimited, which,
however,stopped well shoro tf the watersof the main entranceto thebay.
Furthermore the Central AmericC anurtunanimously held that the Gulf"is
an historicbay poasessed ofthe characteristics of a closedsea" and that
"... the parties are agreetdhat the Gulf is a closedsea ..."; by 'lclosed
sea" the Court seems to mean simplythat it is not part of the high seas and
its waters arenot international waters. At anotherpoint the Judgement
describesthe Gulf as "an historic or vitalbay".
The Chamberthen pointsout thatthe term "territorial waters" ui sed
the Judgementdid not thennecessarily indicatw ehat would now be called
"territorialsea"; and explainswhat might appear tobe an inconsistency in
the Judgement concerning righ ts"innocentuse", which areat odds withthe
presentgeneral understandino gf the legalstatusof the watersof a bay as
constituting "interna1waters1'.The Chamberobservesthat the rulesand
principles normally applicable st ingle-Statebays are not necessarily
appropriate to a bay whichis a pluri-Statebay and also a historicone.
Moreover, there is a need for shippingto have accessto any of the three
coastalStates throughthe main channels between thb eay and the ocean.
Rightsof innocent passage are not inconsistentwith a régimeof historic
waters. There is furthermore the practicapoint that since thesewaters were
outsidethe 3-milemaritimebelt of exclusivejurisdictionin which innocent
passagewas neverthelessrecognizedin practice,it would have been absurdnot
to recognize passagreightsin thesewaters,which haveto be crossedin order
to reach thosemaritime belts.
Al1 three coastalStatescontinue toclaim thatthe Gulf is an historic
bay with the characterof a closedsea, and it seems alsoto continueto be
the subject ofthat "acquiescence on the part of othernations"to which the
1917 Judgementrefers; moreoverthat positionhas been generally accepteb dy
commentators.The problem is the precisecharacter ofthe sovereignty the
three coastalStatesenjoy in thesehistoricwaters. Recallingthe former
view that ina pluri-Statebay, if it is not historic waterst,he territorial
sea followsthe sinuositiesof the Coast and theremainderof the watersof
the bay are part ofthe high seas, the Chambernotes that this solutionis not
possiblein the caseof the Gulf of Fonsecasince it is an historic bayand
therefore a "closedsea". The Chamberthen quotes the holding by thCeentral AmericanCourt that
"... the legal statusof theGulf of Fonseca ..,is that of propertybelonging
to the threecountries that surroundit ..."and that "... the high parties
are agreedthat the waterswhich form the entranceto the Gulf
intermingle ...". In addition the Judgemenrtecognizedthatmaritime belts of
1 marine league from thecoastwere within the exclusivejurisdictionof the
coastalState and therefore should "be exceptedfrom the communityof
interestsor ownership". After quotingthe paragraphsof the Judgement
setting forththe Court'sgeneralconclusions, the Chamberobservesthat the
essenceof its decisionon the legal statusof the watersof the Gulf was that
thesehistoricwaterswere then subjectto a "CO-ownership" (condomini02of
the three coastaS ltates.
The Chambernotes thatEl Salvador approves strongl of the condominium
concept,and holds that this statusnot only prevails but also cannotbe
changedwithout its consent. Honduras opposes thceondominiumidea and
accordinglycalls in questionthe correctness ofthis part of the 1917
Judgement, whilsa tlso relyingon the fact thatit was not a partyto the case
and so cannotbe bound bythe decision. Nicaraguais, and has consistently
been, opposed tt ohe condominiumsolution.
Hondurasalso arguesagainstthe condominiumon the ground that
condominia can only be established byagreement. Its doubtlessright in
claimingthat condominia, i the senseof arrangements fot rhe common
governmentof territory,have ordinarilybeen created bytreaty. But what the
Central American Court hadin mind was a joint sovereigntyarisingas a
juridical consequenc of the 1821succession. State succession is one ofthe
ways in whichterritorialsovereignty passes fro ome State to anotherand
thereseemsno reasonin principlewhy a successionshouldnot createa joint
sovereignty where a singlea.ndundividedmaritime area passet so two or more
new States. The Chamberthus sees the 1917 Judgemenats using the term
condominiumto describewhat it regardsas the joint inheritance by three
Statesof waters which had b~elongedto a single Stateand in whichtherewere
no maritime administrativ boundariesin 1821or indeedat the end of the
Federal Republic of CentralAmericain 1839.
Thus the r-di of the Judgementappearsto be that there was,
at the time of independence,no delimitation between the thrc eeuntries; and
the watersof the Gulf haveremained undividea dnd in a stateof community
which entailsa condominiumor CO-ownership.Furtherthe existence ofa
communitywas evidenced by continue and peacefuluse of the watersby al1 the
riparianStatesafter independence.
As regardsthe statusof the 1917 Judgement, the Chamberobservesthat
although the Court'sjurisdiction was contested by Nicaragua which also
protestedthe Judgement,it is neverthelessa valid decisionof a competent
court. Honduras, which, on learningof the proceedings befort ehe Court,
formally protested t El Salvadorthat it did not recognizethe statusof
CO-ownershipin the watersof the Gulf,has, in the presentcase, relied on
the principlethat a decisionin a judgmentor an arbitralaward can only be
opposed to the parties. Nicaragua, a part to the 1917case, is an intervener
but not a Party in the presentone. It thereforedoes not appearthat the
Chamberis requiredto pronounceupon the question whether the 19 Judgement
is res ludicatabetweenthe States parties to it, only one of which is a Party.
to the present proceedinga s,questionwhich is not helpfulin a case raising
a questionof the joint ownership of threecoastalStates. The Chambermust
make up its own mind on the statusof the watersof the Gulf, takingsuch
accountof the 1917 decisionas it appears tothe Chamberto merit. The opinionof the Chamberon the régime ofthe historic waters of the
Gulf parallelsthe opinionexpressedin the1917 Judgement. The Chamberfinds
that, reservingthe questionof the 1900 HonduradNicaraguadelimitation,the
Gulf waters, other than the 3-milemaritimebelt, are historic waters and
subJect to a joint sovereignty otfhe threecoastalStates, basing itsel ofn
the following reasons. As to the historic characte of the Gulf waters, there
are the consistent claim of the threecoastalStatesand the absence of
protestfrom other States. As to the character of rightsin the watersof the
Gulf, thesewere waters of a single Statebay during the greaterpart of their
known historyand were not dividedor apportionedbetweenthe different
administrative unitw shich became the threecoastalStates. Therewas no
attempt to divide and delimitthe waters according t the principleof
uti ~ossidetisluris, this beinga fundamental difference betwet ene land
areas and the maritimearea. The delimitationeffectedbetweenNicaraguaand
Honduras in 1900, which wassubstantially an applicationof the method of
equidistance, givesno clue that it was inany way inspiredby the application
of theuti p~~sidetisiuria. A joint succession of the three Statesto the
maritime area therefore seet mos be the logical outcomof the principleof
uti possidetis luris itself.
The Chambernotes that Honduras, whilst arguing againstthe condominium,
does not considerit sufficient simply to rejectit, but proposesan W
alternativeidea, that of "communityof interestslo @r of "interest*'That
there is a communityof interestsof the three coastal State of the Gulfis
not open to doubt,but it seems odd to postulatesuch a conununityas an
argumentagainsta condominium, which is almostan idealembodimentof the
communityof interestrequirementsof equalityof user, conunon legal rights
and the "exclusionof any preferential privilege". The essential featuroef
the "communityof interests"existing,accordingto Honduras,in respectof
the waters of the Gulf, and which distinguishest from the çondom-
referred to by the CentralAmericanCourt orthe condominiumaasertedby
El Salvador, is that the "communityof interests"does not merelypermitof a
delimitationbut necessitatesit.
El Salvadorfor its part is not suggesting thatthe waters subjectto
joint sovereignty cannotbe divided,if thereis agreementto do 80. What it
maintainsis that a decisionon the statusof the waters is an essentiel
prerequisite to thp erocessof delimitation. Moreoverthe geographical
situationof the Gulf is such thatmere delimitatiow nithout agreemeno tn
questionsof passageand accesswould leavemany practical problemu snsolved.
iIir
The Chambernotes that the normalgeographical closing line of t bay
would be the line Punta Amapala to PuntaCosigüina; it rejects athesis
elaboratedby El Salvador ofan "inner gulf" and an "outergulf",based on a
reference inthe 1917 Judgement to an inner closingline, therebeing nothing
in thatJudgement to support the suggesti tohat Honduranlegal interestsin
the Gulfwaters werelimitedto thearea insidethe inner line. Recalling
that therehad been considerable argumentbetween thePartiesaboutwhether
the closing lineof the Gulf is also a baseline, th Chamberaccepts the
definitionof it as the ocean limitof the'Gulf,which however must be the
baselinefor whatever régim' eliesbeyond it, whichmust be differentfrom that
of theGulf.
As to the legalstatusof the waters insidethe Gulf closing lineother
than the 3-milemaritimebelts, the Chamberconsiders whether or not they are
"interna1watersw; noting that rightsof passagethrough them must be
availableto vesselsof thirdStates seeking access t aoport in any of the
three coastalStates, it observes that it might be sensible toregardthose
waters,in so far as they are the subjectof the condominium or CO-ownership,as suigeneris. The essential juridicalstatusof thesewatersis howeverthe
sameas thatof internal waterss ,incethey areclaimedà titrede souverain
and are not territorialsea.
With regard tothe 1900Honduran/Nicaragua delimitation linethe
Chamberfinds, from the conductof El Salvador,thatthe existenceof the
delimitationhas been acceptedby it in the termsindicatedin the 1917
Judgement.
In connectionwith any delimitatioonf thewatersof the Gulf,the
Chamberfindsthat theexistence of joint sovereigntin al1 thewaters
subjectto a condominium othetrhanthosesubjectto thetreatyor customary
delimitationsmeansthatHondurashas existinglegal rights (notmerelyan
interest) in the Gulf waterep to the bayclosing line,subjectof courseto
the equivalent right sf El Salvadorand Nicaragua.
Regarding the questioon the watersoutsidethe Gulf, theChamber
observes thatit involvesentirelynew conceptsof lawunthought-of in 1917,
in particular continent shlelfand the exclusiveeconomiczone. There is
alsoa priorquestion about territori sea. The littoral maritime belts of
1 marine league alon the coastlineof theGulf arenot truly territorial
seas in the senseof themodernlaw ofthe sea. For a territorial sea
normallyhas beyondit the continental shela f,d either watersof thehigh
seasor an exclusive economic zoa ned themaritime beltwsithintheGulfdo
not have outsidethem anyof theseareas. The maritime belts map yroperlybe
regardedas the internal waterosf the coastal State, even thousubject,as
indeedare al1 thewatersof theGulf,to rightsof innocentpassage.
The Chambertherefore findtshatthereis a territorial sea proper
seawardsof the closing linoef the Gulf and,sincethereis a condominiuo mf
thewatersof the Gulf, there is a tripartite presencat the closing lineand
Honduras is not.lockedout fromrights inrespectof the ocean watersoutside
thebay. It is only seaward of the closing linethatmodernterritorial seas
can exist,sinceotherwise the Gulf watec rsuldnot bewatersof an historic
bay,whichthe Parties and the interveninState agreeto be thelegal
position. And ifthewaters internat lo that bayaresubjectto a threefold
joint sovereignty,it is the threecoastal Statesthatare entitledto
territorialsea outsidethebay.
As for the legal régimof thewaters, seabeadnd subsoil offthe closing
ineof the Gulf, theChamberfirstobservesthatthe problem mustbe confined
O the area off the baselinbut excludinga 3-mile,or 1 marine leagues,trip
f it at either extremitycorresponding to the existm ingitime belts of
El Salvadorand Nicaraguarespectively.At the timeof the Central American
Court's decisionthewatersoutsidethe remainder of thebaseline were high
seas. Nevertheless themodern law of the sea has addedterritorial sea
extending from th baseline,has recognizedcontinentalshelfas extending
beyond theterritorial seaand belongingi~solure to the coastal State ,nd
confersa righton the coastal Stateto claiman exclusiveeconomiczone
extendingup to 200 miles fromthe baselineof the territoriasea.
Sincethe legal situatioonn the landwardsideof the closinglineis one
of joint sovereignty,it followsthatal1 threeof the joint sovereign sust
be entitledoutsidethe closingline toterritorial sea, continental shelafnd
exclusive economi cone. Whetherthissituation shouldremain inbeingor be
replacedby a divisionand delimitationintothree separatezonesis, as
insidethe Gulf also,a matterfor the three Statesto decide. Any such
delimitationof maritimeareaswill fa11to be effectedby agreement on the
basisof international law. XII. Effectof Judnmentfor the interveninn State (paras.421-424)
Turningto the questionof the effectof its Judgmentfor theintervening
State, the Chamberobservesthat the terms in which interventionwas granted
were that Nicaraguawould not become partyto the proceedings. Accordingly
the binding forco ef the Judgmentfor the Parties,as contemplatedby
Article59 of the Statuteof the Court,does not extendto Nicaragua as
intervener.
In its Applicationfor permission tointervene,Nicaraguahad statedthat
it "intendsto subjectitself to the bindine gffectof the decision", but from
the written statement submittb edNicaraguait is clear that Nicaraguadoes
not now regarditselfas obligated totreat the Judgmentas bindingupon it.
With regardto theeffect,if any, of the statement in Nicaragua's
Application, the Chamber,notes that its Judgmentof 13 September1990
emphasizedthe need, if an interveneris to becomea party, for the consentof
the existingpartiesto the case; it observesthat if an intervenerbecomesa
Party, and is thus bound by the Judgment,t becomesentitled equally to
assert the bindingforceof the judgmentagainstthe otherparties. Noting
that neither Partyhas given any indicationof consentto Nicaragua'sbeing
recognized tohave any statusenablingit to rely on the Judgment, the Charnber
concludesthat in the circumstances of the case the Judgm isntot res
judicatafor Nicaragua. FirstSector- DisputedArea
.,., Agreedboundary
...-...-...-lSalvadorclairnedboundary
- --- - HondurasclairnedboundaryDeclaration of Judne Oda
On the subject ofNicaragua'sintervention, JudgeOda, in an appended
declaration,disputes theChamber'sfindings as to its Judgment'slack of
bindingeffectupon the intervening State. Thoughnot a party to the case,
Nicaraguawill in his view certainlybe bound bythe Judgmentin so far as it
relatesto the legal situatio nf the maritime spaceosf the Gulf, andhe
refersin that connection to his views on the general subject otfhe effects
of Judgmentson interveningStatesas expressedin two previouscases.
Judge OdaStatesthat,by his declaration, he does not, however,intend
to lendhis accordto theChamber'sfindingson the maritime spaces dispute,
the subjectof his dissentingopinion.
Se~arateo~inionof Judne ad hoc Valticos
me scoDe of theuti possidetis Juris ~rinci~le
and the effectivités
The applicationof the yti ~0SSidetiS-lurisprinciplehas given rise to
difficultiesinasmuchas the rightsinvolved could date backseveralcenturies
and it has not been easy to determinethose thatwere relevantin determining
the boundariesin question. Accordingto theopinionsummarized,in view of
the conditions inwhich and the reasonsfor which they were granted,the issue
of titulos elidalescouldnot be disregarded for purposesof delirnitintghe
boundaries.
Furthermore,the rolegiven to the effectivitég ha8 been insufficient.
In any event,the care the Chamberhas takento resolvethe difficulties
it has met is worthy ofpraise.
Te~annüisirsector. While in variousrespects theauthorof the opinion
concurswith the views ofthe Chamber,he believesthat the boundarydrawn to
the West of Talquezalarshouldhave run ina north-westerly direction, towards
the CerroOscuro, beforeonce again turningdownward(in a south-westerly
direction towardsthe tripointof Montecristo).
SaZalaDa-Arcata~sector. The Chamberbased itselfon various
questionabletitles,as a resultof which it cut back El Salvador'sclaims
excessively, particularw lyth regardto two protrusions to th north-westand
the north-eastof thearea in question,as well as in the centrap lart, at the
levelof theso-calledGualcimacatitle.
Naguateriauesector. The authorof the opinion disagreeswith the
boundary linedrawn by the Chamberalong the riverNegro-Quiagara.He sets
forthhis reasonsfor preferingthe CerroLa Ardillaline.
Doloressector. The 1'760 title concerninPgolorosshouldtake precedence
in this regard andthe boundary shouldrun to thenorth of the riverTorola.
The difficultyis due tothe distancesand the area mentioned in the title.
The Chamberhas thereforedecidedto grantEl Salvador,in thisarea, a
quadrilateral considerably smallerthanwhat thatState claimed. But this
solutionhas involveda questionablechangein thenames of the summitsand
riversconcerned. The maritimemaces. Despitethe seriousobjections to which theare
open,the authorof the opinion feeltshat thearguments endorse by the
majorityof the Chamberare acceptable, regarbeinghad to the special
character of the Guolff Fonsecaas ahistoricbay with three coastaSltates.
With regardto thevariousother points (concerningthe land, the islands
and the waterswithintheGulf),the authorof the opinion concurs fully with
theviews ofthe Chamber.
Se~arateO~inionof Judnead hoc TorresBemlrdez
In his SeparateOpinion,JudgeTorresBernirdez givesthe reasons fo ris
overall concurrencweith the Judgmenof the Chamberand forhis havingvoted
for al1 itsoperative partw,ith the exceptionf thedecisionsconcerning the
attributionof sovereignty ovetrhe islandof Meanguerita and the
interpretatioonf Article2, paragraph2, of the SpeciaAgreement.Following
an introductionunderliningtheunityof the caseas well as its fundamental,
althoughnot exclusive,Statesuccession character, the considerations,
observationsand reservations containiedthe Opinion are presentednderthe
mainheadingsof the three major aspeco tsthe case, namely th"eland
boundarydispute",the "islanddisputew, and the "maritimdispute".
JudgeTorresBerndrdez stresses the importa ofcehe
uti possidetisiurigprinciple as the fundamentanorm applicableto thecase,
examiningin thisconnection the contents,objectand purposeof the
uti possidetisAuriaas customarily understob od the Spanish-American
Republics,and the relationship betweethatprinciple and theUctivitéa
as well as the questioof the proofof the,
invokedin the case,
uti possidetisAurisprinciple, the evidentiary va luthe tituloseAidales
submittedby the Partiesincluded.Judge Torres Berndrdez approves the
Chamber'sgeneral concentratio on applyingtheyti ~ossidetisAurisprinciple
in the lightof the fundamental State succession chara oftthe caseand the
fact thatboth Partiesare Spanish-America nepublics.However, Article5 of
the Special Agreemednotesnot excludethe application, wherever pertino ent,
otherrulesof international law alsobindingthe Parties. The principleof
consent, including any consi entlied bythe conductof the Parties
subsequentto the criticaldateof 1821,is forJudge Torres Bernirdez oneof
thoserulesof international law whichalsoappliedin the casein various
ways (elementof confirmationor interpretatioonf the 1821
uti ~ossidetis.luris;stablishmenotf effectivités alleged; determinaotion
situationsof "acquiescenceo"r "recognition").
Regarding thelandboundarvdis~ute, Judge TorresBerndrdez considerthe
overall resultosf the applicatiobny the Chamberof the law describto the
six sectorsin disputeto be asa whole satisfactory, havi regardto the
evidence submitte by the Parties; subjetct afew specific reservations,
the frontier line defined for eo acthosesectorsby the Judgment are
de jurelinesby virtue eitheo rf the 1821uti Dossidetiiurisor of the
consent derived from condo ucttheparties,or of both. His specific
reservations concern the line between Talque andlaredraMenudain the
firstsector(thequestionof the Tepangüisir boundary mara ker
correspondinigndentation)t,he line betweeLnas Lagunetaor Portillode Las
Lagunetasand Pozadel Caj6nin the third sector(theGualcuquin or
El Amati110riverline)and theLas Canasriver line of the frontierin the
fourthsector, particularly the segm ofnthatlinerunningfrom the Torola
landsdown to theMoj6nof Champate. JudgeTorres Bernirdez voted, however,seawardof the central portioo nf the closing lineof the Gulf ofFonseca as
that line is definedin the Judgment, delimitation o thosemaritimespaces
outsidethe Gulf of Fonsecahaving to be effectedby agreement onthe basis of
internationallaw. Thus the rightsof the Republicof Hondurasas a State
participatingon a basis ofperfectequalitywith the other twoStatesof the
Gulf in the"particular régimeo "f the Gulf of Fonseca,as well as the status
of the Republicof Hondurasas a PacificcoastalState,have beenfully
recognizedby the Judgment,which dismissessome arguments advancea dt the
currentproceedings aimed at occludingHondurasat the back of the Gulf.
As to the "particularrégime**of the Gulfof Fonseca,
Judge Torres Bernirdez underlinesi,n his Opinion, thatthe Gulf of Fonsecais
a "historicbay" to which the Republic ofHonduras,the Republicof
El Salvadorand the Republicof Nicaragua succeedei dn 1821 on the occasion of
their separation from Spain and their constitutions independentsovereign
nations. The "historic"statusof the watersof theGulf of Fonseca wasthere
when the "successoralevent"took place. This means, in the opinion of
Judge Torres Bernardez,that the sovereign righto sf each andevery one of the
three Republics in the waters of the Gulfcannotbe subjectto questionby any
foreignPower. But at the moment whenthe succession occurred tp heedecessor
Statehad not - administrativelyspeaking - divided thewaters of the historic
bay of Fonsecabetweenthe territorialjurisdictions of the colonial
provinces,or units thereof,which in 1821 formedrespectively one or another
of the three States of the Gulf. Thus JudgeTorresBernardezconcludesthat
the Judgmentis quite right in declaringthat the historic watero sf the Gulf
which had notbeen divided byHonduras, El Salvadorand Nicaraguasubsequent
to 1821, continuedto be held in sovereigntb yy the three're~ublicsjointly,
pendingtheirdelimitation.
In this connection,Judge Torres Bernirdezemphasizesthat the "joint
sovereigntyQs*tatusof the undivided"historicwaters"of the Gulf of Fonseca
has, therefore,a "successorialorigin**as statedin the Judgment. It is a
"jointsovereignty8* p,ending delimitationw,hich results frotmhe operation of
the principles and rules of internationallaw governing successio to
territory,the "historic waterso "f the Gulf of Fonsecaentailing,like any
other historic waters, "territorialrights". Judge TorresBernirdezalso
stressesthat the presenJ tudgmentlimitsitselfto declarim the legal
situationof the waters of the Gulf ofFonseca resulting frornthe above and
subsequentrelated developments, i.e., to declaringthe existing"particular
régime**of theGulf of Fonsecaas a "historicbay" in termsof contemporary
international law, but without adding elementof any kindto that"particular
régime"as it existsat present. The Judgmentis not therefore a piece of
judicial legislationand shouldnot be read thatway at all. Nor is it a
Judgmenton the interpretation and/orapplicationof the 1917 Judgement ofthe
CentralAmericanCourt of Justice. Converselythat 1917 Judgementis not an
element for the interpretationor application ofthe presentJudgment,which
standson its own feet.
By declaring the"particularrégime"of the historicbay of Fonseca in
terms of the international law in for ce, notof theinternational lai wn
force in 1917 or earlier, theChamber,accordingto Judge TorresBernardez,
has clarifieda number of legal issues such as the"intemal" characterof the
waterswithin the Gulf,the meaningof the "one-marine-leagueb 8*lt of
exclusive jurisdictionover them, the "baseline"characterof the
"closing-line" of the Gulf, and the identification othoseStateswhich
participateas equal partners in the "jointsovereignty"over the undivided
watersof the Gulf. The individual element now composing the "particularrégime"of the Gulf of Fonsecadeclared bythe JudgmentVary, however,in
nature. Some result fromthe succession,othersfrom subsequentagreementor
concurrent conduct (impliedconsent)of the three nations of the Gulfas
independentStates. In this respectJudge TorresBernirdez refers to the
"maritimebelt" of exclusive sovereignt or jurisdiction- considered by the
Judgmentas formingpart of Lhe "particularrégime"of Fonseca - as one of
thoseelementsof the "partic:ular régime"which possessa "consensual" origin,
pointingout that the scopeof the States1present consent to the "maritime
belt"had not beenpleadedbeforethe Chamber. It follows,in his view, that
any problemwhichmight arise concerning entitlemen to, delimitationof,
location, etc., of "maritimebeltselare mattersto be solvedby agreement
among the Statesof the Gulf ,,
As to thecornpetenco ef theChamberto effect"delimitations" - a
question relating to the interpretationof paragraph2 of Article2 of the
SpecialAgreementon which thePartieswere greatly atvariance -, Judge
Torres Bernirdezconsidersthat the issuehas become "moot"becauseof the
Judgment'srecognitionof rightsand entitlemento sf the Republicof Nicaragua
within and outsidethe Gulf. As a resultof this supervenient"mootness",
Judge TorresBernirdez, invokingthe Jurisprudence ot fhe Court,considers
that the Judgment shouldhave refrained from makingany Judicialpronouncement
on the said interpretativedispute. As to the substanceof this dispute,
Judge Torres Bernardezconcludesthat the Chamberwas competentto effect
"delimitations" underArticle2, paragraph2, of the SpecialAgreement,
dissociating himself fromthe findingto the contraryof the majorityof the
Chamber.
Lastly,Judge TorresBernardezexpresseshie agreementwith the tenorof
the Declaration appende bdy Vice-PresidentOda. In the viewof Judge
TorresBernardez,a n~n-~art~ State intervening underArticle62 of the
Statute - as the Republicof Nicaraguain thecurrentproceedings - is under
certain obligationo sf a kind analogous mutatis mutandt is that provided for
in Article63 of the Statute,but the Judgmentas such is not resludicatafor
Nicaragua.
Dissentinnopinionof Judne Oda
In his dissentingopinionJudge ODA Statesthat,while he is in agreement
with theChamber's findingson the disputesconcerningthe land frontier and
the islands,his understanding of both thecontemporary ant dhe traditional
law of the sea is greatlyat;variancewith theviews underlying thJ eudgment's
pronouncements in regard tothe maritimespaces. He considersthat the
conceptof a 'Ipluri-State bay has no existenceas a legal institutionand
that consequently theGulf of Fonsecais not a "bay" in thelegalsense.
Neitherwas the Chamberright to assumethat it belongedto thecategoryof a
"historicbay". Insteadof its watersbeing heldin jointsovereigntyoutside
a three-milecoastalbelt, as the Chamberholds, they consis otf the sumof
the territorialseas of each State.
In the contemporarylaw of the sea, Judge Odaexplains,watersadjacent
to coastshave to beeither"interna1waters" - the caseof (legal)"bays"or
of "historicbays" countingas such - Dr territorialwaters: there is no
thirdpossibility(exceptingthe newconceptof archipelagic waters,not
applicablein the instantcase). But the Chamberhas obscured theissueby
employingvocabulary extraneout so the past and presentlaw of thesea. Its
assessmentof the legal status of the maritime spacesthus findsno warrant in
that law. Judge Oda supportshis positionwith a detailed analysio sf the
developmentsince 1894 of the definition and statusof a "bay" in
international law, from the earlywork of the Institutde droit international
and International Law Association,to the most recentUnitedNations
Conferenceon the Law of the Sea, passing througharbitralcase-lawand the
opinionsof authoritative writer and rapporteurs.
Judge Oda lists five reasons whyfull weightshould not have been given
to theconclusionsof the Central AmericaC nourt of Justicein 1917 to the
effect that the waters of the Gulf weresubjectto a condominium, createdby
Joint inheritance of anarea which had constituteda unity previous to the
1821 succession,except fora three-milecoastalbelt under the exclusive
sovereigntyof the respectiveriparianStates, andhe points out the exiguity
of the area remainingafter deduction of that belt. Indeed,the Central
AmericanCourt appearsto have acted under the influenceof a senseprevalent
among thethree riparianStatesthat the Gulf should not remainopen to free
use by anyother State than themselves, and to have authorizeda suineneris
régimebased on a local illusion as to the historical backgroun of law and
fact. Yet there is no ground for believingthat,prior to 1821 or1839 either
Spain or theFederalRepublicof Central America haa dny control in the Gulf
beyond the traditional cannon-range fr ome shore. Both the 1917and the
presentJudgmentdependon the assumption that the Gulf watersprior tothose
dates notonly formedan undividedbay but lay alsoas an entiretywithina 1
singlejurisdiction. But atthose times there didnot exist any concepo tf a
bay as a geographical entitp yossessinga distinctlegal status. Moreover,
even if in 1821 or 1839al1 the watersof the Gulf did possess unitarystatus,
the naturalresultof the partition of the coasts among thre new territorial
sovereigns wouldhave been the inheritance anc dontrolby each one separately
of its own offshorewaters, a solutionactually reflected in the.
achowledgementof the littoral belt. Judge Odaconsidersthat by endorsing
that belt and treatingit as "interna1 waters"the Chamber'sJudgmenthas
confused thelaw of the sea. It similarlyrelieson a conceptnow discarded
as superfluouswhen it describeethe maritime spaces in the Gulf as "historic
waters"; this descriptionhad been used on occasionto justifythe status
eitherof internalwaters or of territorialsea, though not both at once,but
the concept had never existedas an independentinstitution in the lawof the
sea.
As to the truelegal statusof the waters ofthe Gulf of Fonseca,Judge
Oda find thatthere is no evidenceto suggestthat,as from the timewhen the
conceptof territorial see amergedin the last centuryt ,he claimsof the
three riparianStates to territorialseas in the Gulf differef drom their
claims offtheir othercoasts,thoughEl Salvadorand Honduraseventually
legislatedfor the exercise ofpolice power beyont dhe three-mileterritorial
sea and Nicaraguareportedlytook the same position,which receivedgeneral
acceptance. Neitherdid theirattitudes in 1917 featurea commonconfidence
in rejectingthe application to al1 the Gulf waters of th ehen prevalent
"open seas" doctrine, evenif they al1 preferredthat an area coveredentirely
by their territorial seas and policezonesshould not remain opet no free use
by other States - a preference behind thec irmmonagreementin theinstant
proceedings to denominat the Gulf (erroneously)as a "historicbay".
The boundaryline drawnby the Honduran/Nicaraguam nixed commission in
1900 demonstratedthat at any time the watersof the Gulf couldbe so divided,
thoughas between ElSalvador and Honduras the presence ofscatteredislands
would havecomplicatedthe task. Whateverthe statusof such divided waters
may earlier have been,the Gulf ofFonsecamust now be deemed entirely coveredby the respective territoria seas of thethreeriparianStates,given the
universallyagreed12-milelimitand the claims of Latin-AmericanStates that
contributedto its acceptance. No maritime space existi sn the Gulf morethan
12 miles from any of its coasts.
Beyond establishint ghe legalstatus of the waters, th Chamberwas not
in a position toeffectany delimitation. Nevertheless,
Article15 of the 1982UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea, providingfor
delimitation,failingagreement,by the equidistance methou dnlesshistoric
titleor other special circumstancd eisctateotherwise,should notbe
ignored. Judge Oda pointsout thatapplicationof the equidistance method
thus remainsa rule in the delimitation ot fhe territorialsea, evenif that
of achieving"an equitablesolution" prevaili sn the delimitation otfhe
economiczone and continental shelf of neighbouring States.
Againstthat background,Judge Oda considers the righo tf Honduras within
and withoutthe Gulf. Within it, Hondurasis in his view not entitledto any
claim beyondthe meeting-pointof the three respective territorial seas. Its
title is thus lockedwithin t.heGulf. In its decisionas to the legalstatus
of the waters,the Chamberseems to have been concernedto ensurethe innocent
passage ofHonduranvessels,but such passage through territoris alas is
protected for anS ytateby international law. In any case, the mutual
understanding displaye by the three riparianStatesshouldenablethem to
CO-operate,in keepingwith the provisionson an "enclosedor semi-enclosed
sea" in the 1982Convention.
As for the watersoutsidethe Gulf,Judge Oda cannotaccept theChamber's
findingthat, sincea condominiumprevailsup to theclosing-line, Hondurasis
entitledto a continental shelf or exclusive econoz mice inthe Pacific.
That conclusion flies ih the face of a geographical realityuch as therecan
never be any question of completel refashioning.WhetherHonduras,which
possesses along Atlanticcoastline,can be includedin the category of
"geographically disadvantagedStates"as definedby the 1982 Conventionis
open to question. This does not, however,rule out the possibilityof its
being granted the right t fish in the exclusiveeconomiczonesof the other
two States. @"- L'1 p&'tr,p;-L Ldû*
15 I
INTERNATIONAL 'COUR O F JUSTICE
PeacePalac2517KJ TheHaye. Tel. (0-3924441).CableIntercourt,TheHague.
Telefax(07-3649928).Telex32323.
Press roomonly 11-9-92- SummaryofCorn. 92/22
--
Addendm to PressCommuniquéNo. 92/22
11 September 1992
Land. Islandand Maritime FrontieDisvute
IEl Salvador/HondurasNicaranuainterveninn)
PressCommuniquéNo. 92/22containsa fullsummaryof the Judgment
in this caseand of the declaratiand opinions appendeto it, and
reproducesthe operativepart thereof. For the convenience fhe Press,
a much more concise summaryf the Judgmentis set outbelow. This
summary, preparedy theRegistryfor theuse of the Press,in no way
involvesthe responsibilitof the Chamber; it cannotbe quotedagainst
the textof the Judgment,of whicht doesnot constitutean
interpretation.Reference shoulde made to PressCommuniquéNo. 92/22
for the operative claussf the decision,and for sketch-maps showing,
in respectof the disputedectorsof the landboundary,the claimsof
the Partiesand the boundaryas foundby thehamber,together witha map
showingthe whole frontierwith a key to thepositionof the sketch-maps,
and a map of the Gulf of Fonseca.
On 11 September 199the Chamberformedto deal with the case
concerning the Land. Islaand Maritime Frontierisvute
IEl Salvador/HondurasNicaraguainterveninn)deliveredits Judgment.
The case,in whichNicaragua waspermittedto intervene irespect
of the statusof the watersof the Gulf of Fonseca, was brought before
the Court,in 1986,by a Special Agreemety which the Partierequested
the formationof aChamberto (1) delimitthe frontier line ithe six
sectorsnot delimiteby the1980General Treaty of Peaceand (2)
the maritime spacewithinandooutsideit.ndsin the Gulf ofFonsecaand
The Chambernotes the agreementof both Partithat the fundamental
principlefordeterminingthe land frontier is tuti possidetisiuris,
i.e.,the principle, generallacceptedin SpanishAmerica,that
internationaboundaries follow former colonial administrabounedaries. The Chamberwas authorizedto take intoaccount, where pertinen at,
provisionof the 1980 PeaceTreatythat abasis for delimitatii on to be
foundin documentsissued by thSepanish Crownor any other Spanish
authority duringthe colonial period and indicatintghe jurisdictionsr
limitsof territories, as well as other evidencend argumentsof a
legal, historical,humanor any otherkind.
With regardto the landboundary,the Chambernotesthatwhilethe
Partieshave indicated to which colonial administrative divisions
(provinces) theyclaimto have succeeded, thehyave notbeen ableto
producelegislative or similarmaterialindicating the limitsof such
divisions; theyhave submitted titles concerning gra oftland by the
Spanish Crown,in particular grantosf cornonsto Indiancommunities,
fromwhich the provincial boundariescan allegedlybe deduced.
El Salvador maintain shat if aforma1grantof cornonsto a
communityin oneprovinceextended to land situatedin another,the
administrative contro ol the former provincwas determinativefor the
application of theuti ~0SSidetiSiuris. The Chamber,facedwith sucha
situationin threeof the disputed sectors,has been able to resolvethe
issue withoutdetermining this particular questioonSpanishcolonial w
law.
The Chamberrecognizes thatgrantsto privateindividuals may afford
evidenceas to the locationof boundaries,and will considerthe evidence
of suchgrantson its merits, but without treatin themas necessarily
conclusive.
The Chambernotesthe agreement of the Partiesthat landnot
attributed by the SpanishCrown(tierrasrealennasl becamepartof one or
the otherStatedependingon its location, and thatland grants made
after the independeno ce the twoStatesmay provideevidenceof the
positionin 1821.
Notingthat the Partieh save invokedthe exerciseof Governrnent
powersin disputedareasand other forms of effectivité,the Chamber
considersthat it may have regardto evidenceof actionof thiskind
affording indicatioo ns theuti possidetislurisboundary.
The Chamber,proceedingfromWest to east, deals successive wiyth
eachof the six disputedsectorsof the landboundarv.
Firstsector: the Chamberconsidersa claimby El Salvadorbasedon
a land grant(Tepangüisirb)y colonial authoritie toa communityin a
provincethaton independence becam partof El Salvador. Honduras
contendsthatwhen the titlewas grantedthe landsit included were
specifically state to be ina Honduran province ,nd that the landsn
independencethusbecame part of Honduras. The Chamberupholds
El Salvador'sclaimon thebasisthatHonduras's conduct from 182t1o
1972may be regardedas acquiescence.It has thento determinethe
locationof the boundaryof the landgranted, whichin two respectwsas
disputed between th Parties. The Chamberthenturnsto a disputed area
outsidethe grant,claimed by Hondurason the basis thatit was Crownlandsituatedin a province tha tecame Hondurana,nd by El Salvadoron
the basisof effectivités.The Chamberadoptsa topographicalls yuitable
boundary line acceptb ed El Salvadoradreferendum in negotiations held
in 1934-1935.
Second sector; tChamberupholdsa claimby Hondurasthat a1742
title(Jupula)showsthat the "mountai of Cayaguanca",whicha community
in a provincethatbecame Honduraw nas allowedto cultivate,was Crown
landof thatprovince,and is now partof Honduras.
The locationand extentof thatmountainwas notspecified;
accordingto Honduras itextendedover thewholeof the disputed area.
The ChamberexaminestlieParties'conflicting interpretatio ofsan 1833
Salvadorian titl(eDulceNombrede la Palma),deemed significant in
showinghow the uti ~ossidetisAurispositionwas understood at the
time. On thatbasis theChamberdetermines the courseof the boundary
lineso far as the 1833 titleextends. The Chamberfixes the remainder
of theboundaryon the basis,interalia,of an interpretatioo nf the
Jupulatitle.
.invokedy each Partyin the areado not alter
The effectivités
thesefindingsor justifyEl Salvador's claimto an additional strip of
land.
Thirdsector; the Chamberdealswith claims based on various
colonialtitles,including interlockingones,and post-colonia litles,
as well as claims, madparticularlyby El Salvador,on the groundof
post-independenc effectivitésor argwnentsof a humannature.
Surveying the Dossidetisdurispositionon the basisof the
titles,the Chamber,beingunable,with regardto part of the sector, to
reconcile al1 the data containedn the 18thcenturysurveys,
reconstructs the boundao rythe basisof identifiable referenp ceints.
It cannot regartdhe claims baseodn effectivitéas sufficientto affect
this conclusion.
Fourthsector; t'heprincipal issuies whether the boundary follows
the riverNegro-Quiagaraa,s argued byHonduras,or a line furthernorth
contendedfor by El Salvador. The disagreement centreon a grantof
lands straddlintghe riverto an Indiancommunity(Arambala-Perquin in a
provincethatbecame Salvadorian, and a dispute wita communityin a
province thabtecameHonduran: judicial decisionin thisdisputewas
interpreted bHyondurasas showingthatthe river was the provincial
boundary. The Chamberupholdsa contention by Hondurasthat in 1861
El Salvadoradmittedthat the rivew ras the boundary.
In other partsof thissector, theChamberdetermines the lin of
the uti Dossidetis.lurion the basisof an interpretatioonf the various
colonialtitlesproduced by each Party,and aSalvadorian clai basedon
theuti Dossideti~ lurisin relationto the conceptof crownland
itierrasrealennas). The Chamberhas to determine, for lacof agreement betweenhe
Partieson the point, the locatio on the end-poinof an agreedsector
of the boundary.
In the absenceof evidenceas to theuti possidetislurisin a small
part of the boundary, thCehamberappliesequityinfra lenemin
conjunctionwith an unratified 1869elimitation. Finally theChamber
finds claims baseodn effectivitéinsufficientto affectits findings.
Fifthsector; El Salvador claimt shatthe boundary follow the
northern limitof landscomprisedin a 1760title(Poloros); Honduras
claimsthatthenorthernpartof thoselands had belongedpriorto 1734,
to avillagein the province of Comayagua,andthusremainedin the
jurisdictionof thatprovince, now a partof Honduras.The Chamberdoes
not accept this claiomf Honduras. The Chamberfurtherrejectsa
contentionof HondurasthatEl Salvadorhad, by its conduct between 1821
and 1897,acquiesced in the river Torolas boundary.
The ChamberdetertitleofhPolorosdifferent from thonescontended
interpretatioonf the -
for by the Parties.In the east theChamberholdsthatthe river Unire
was the uti vossideti.lurisline,as claimed byEl Salvador. Between
the Poloroslandsand the starting-poinotf the sector, thehamberfinds
thatthe Torolariver forms theboundary. Finally, theChamberrejects
claims basedby both Partieson effectivités.
Sixthsector; the essential questii on whether the colonial
boundarywae formedby the preeent riverGoascoran,or, as claimedby
El Salvador,by a former courseof thatriver.
The Chamberdoesnot accept thatthebed of the riverGoascoran
changedsincethe independenc ef the two Statesin 1821. The mainbasis
for this findingis a map of the Gulf of Fonsecaof 1794-179and the
conductof the Partiesin negotiationsof 1880and 1884.
The lenalsituationof the islandsin the Gulf; the Chambernotes
thatEl Salvador asksit to declarethatit has sovereignty ovearl1 of
themexceptZacateGrandeand theFarallones; accordito Hondurasonly
Meanguera and Meanguerita islandsia nreispute,and Hondurashas
sovereigntyover them.
The Chamberconsidersthatalthoughit has Jurisdictionto determine
the legal situatio ofal1 the islands,a judicialdeterminationis
required only fotrhosein dispute,which it findsto be El Tigre,
Meangueraand Meanguerita; it rejectsHonduras'sclaimthatthereis no
real disputeas to El Tigre.
TheChamberdeemsit unnecessary to analysein detailthe arguments
each Partyadvancesto show thatit had acquiredsovereignty ovetrhe
islandsunderthe uti ~ossidetisluris,thematerialbeingtoo
fragmentaryand ambiguousto allowa firmconclusion. Noting thint
legal theory eacihslandappertainedto one of the Gulf Statesby
succession from Spaiwn,ichprecludedacquisition by occupationtheChamberobservesthat effective possessio ny one ofthe Statescould
constitutea post-colonial effectivitéthrowinglight on,thelegal
situation.
SinceHondurashas been occupying El Tigresince 1849, theChamber
concludesthat the conductof the Parties accorde with the assumption
thatEl Tigreappertainsto it. Although Hondurah sas not formally
requested such a finding, theChamberconsiders thatit shouldhold that
El Tigre belongsto Honduras.
The Chamberfinds Meangueritaw,hich is very small, uninhabit edd
contiguousto Meanguera,to be a "dependency" of Meanguera. It notes
thatEl SalvadorclaimedMeanguerain 1854 and thatfrom the late 19th
centurythe presence thero ef El Salvador intensified, there being
considerable documentary eviden ofethe administratioonf Meangueraby ,
El Salvador. protest:of 1991 byHondurasto El Salvador over Meanguera
is considered toolate to affect the presumptioonf acquiescenceby
Honduras. The Chamberthus finds that Meanguera and Meanguerita
appertainto El Salvador.
The maritimespaceswithinthe Gulf: El Salvador claims that these
are subjectto a condominium of the three coastaSltatesand that
delimitation would henc be inappropriate; Honduras argu ehatwithin
the Gulf thereis a communityof interests necessitatin agjudicial
delimitation.
Applying the normalrulesof treaty interpretatio to theSpecial
Agreementand thePeaceTreaty,the Chamberfindsthat it has no
jurisdictionto effect a delimitation, whetherinsideor outsidethe Gulf.
As for the legal situatioof the watersof the Gulf, the Chamber
notes that,given its characteristics it is generally agreedthat the
Gulf is an historicbay.
The Chamberexamines the historoyf the Gulf to discoverits
"régime",takinginto account the 1917 Judgmenof the Central Arnerican
Courtof Justicein a case between El Salvadorand Nicaragua concerning
the Gulf. That Judgement notedthatpractice had establishe ad
1-marineleague maritime belt off themainlandcoastsand a further
3-marineleaguebelt for inspection, also holdit nhgat the Gulfis an
historic baypossessedof the characteristico sf a closedsea.
Notingthat the coastal States contint ue claim the Gulfas an
historic baywith the characterof a closedsea, a positionin which
other nations acquiesce, theChamberobservesthat its viewson the
régimeof the historic watersof the Gulf parallelthat of the 1917
Judgement. It findst'hat the Gulf waters, otherhan the 3-milemaritime
belt,are historic watera snd subjectto a joint sovereigntoyf the three
coastalStates. It notes that therehas been no attemptto dividethe
waters accordingto the principleof uti ~ossidetis.luris.A joint
successionof the three Statesto the maritime areathus seems to be the
logical outcomeof the uti ~0SSideti~lurisprinciple.
The Chamberfindsthat accordingly Hondurah sas legal rightsin the
Gulf watersup to the bayclosingline,which the Chamberconsiders also
to be a baseline. Regardingthe watersoutsidethe Gulf, the Chamberobserves that
entirelynew concepts oflaw, unthought-ofwhen the Central Arnerican
Court gave its Judgement in1917,are involved,in particular continental
shelf and exclusiveeconomic zone, and findsthat, excludinga stripat
eitherextremitycorresponding to the maritime bel ofsEl Salvadorand
Nicaragua,the three joint sovereign are entitled,outsidethe closing
line, to territorialsea, continental shelf and exclusiveeconomiczone,
but may proceedto adivisionby mutual agreement.
Turningfinallyto theeffectof the Judgment for the intervening
State, the Chamberfinds that it is not res iudicatafor Nicaragua.
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening) - Judgment of the Chamber