Non corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2011/1
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2011
Public sitting
held on Tuesday 11 January 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Owada presiding,
in the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
________________
VERBATIM RECORD
________________
ANNÉE 2011
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 11 janvier 2011, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Owada, président,
en l’affaire relative à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière
(Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)
____________________
COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -
Present: Presiewtada
Vice-Presdenkta
Judges Koroma
Al-Khasawneh
Simma
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Dugard
Registrar Couvreur
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 -
Présents : M. Owada,président
vicepra,ident
KoMroMa.
Al-Khasawneh
Simma
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Skotnikov
Crinçade
Yusuf
Greenwood
XuMe mes
Dojnogshue,
GuMilMu.me
jDgesard, ad hoc
Cgefferr,
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 -
The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. René Castro Salazar, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica;
H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Republic of Colombia,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Jorge Urbina, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Special Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr.JamesCrawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister,
Mr.MarceloKohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva; associate member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica;
member of the Costa Rican Bar,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Manuel Dengo, Ambassador and Chief of Mission of Costa Rica to the United Nations Office
at Geneva,
Mr.Christian Guillermet, Ambassador and De puty Chief of Mission of CostaRica to the
United Nations Office at Geneva,
Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Minister and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Republic of Colombia,
Mr.GustavoCampos, Minister and Consul Ge neral of CostaRica to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Shara Duncan, Counsellor at the Costa Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
MsJuliette Marie Revell-Nussio, Research Associ ate at the Lauterpacht Centre for International
Law, University of Cambridge, Barrister,
Ms Katherine Del Mar, Teaching and Research Assistant, Faculty of Law, University of Geneva,
Ms Lilliana Arrieta, Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica,
as Advisers. - 5 -
Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :
S.Exc. M. René Castro Salazar, ministre des affaires étrangères et du culte du Costa Rica ;
S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur de la République du CostaRica auprès de la
République de Colombie,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Jorge Urbina, ambassadeur de la République du CostaRica auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M.SergioUgalde, conseiller spécial auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,
comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;
M.JamesCrawford, S.C., F.B.A., professeur de droit international à l’Université de Cambridge,
titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l’Institut de droit international, avocat,
M. Marcelo Kohen, professeur de droit internationa l à l’Institut de hautes études internationales et
du développement de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,
M.ArnoldoBrenes, conseiller principal auprès du mi nistère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre du barreau du Costa Rica,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M.ManuelDengo, ambassadeur, représentant pe rmanent du CostaRica auprès de l’Office des
Nations Unies à Genève,
M. Christian Guillermet, ambassadeur, représentant permanent adjoint du CostaRica auprès de
l’Office des Nations Unies à Genève,
M. Ricardo Otarola, ministre et consul général du Costa Rica en République de Colombie,
M. Gustavo Campos, ministre et consul général du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Shara Duncan, conseiller à l’ambassade du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Juliette Marie Revell-Nussio, Research Associate au Lauterpacht Centre for International
Law de l’Université de Cambridge, avocat,
MmeKatherineDelMar, assistante d’enseignement et de recherche à la faculté de droit de
l’Université de Genève,
MmeLilliana Arrieta, conseiller auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica,
comme conseillers. - 6 -
The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Agent and Counsel;
H.E.MsJuana Argeñal Sandoval, Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources of
Nicaragua;
Mr.Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of Internati onal Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge School of Law, Sacramento, former member of the International Law Commission,
Mr.AlainPellet, Professor at the University ParisOuest, Nanterre-La Défense, Member and
former Chairman of the International Law Co mmission, associate member of the Institut de
droit international,
Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., Member of the Bars of
the United States Supreme Court and the District of Columbia,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. César Vega Masís, Director of Juridical Affairs, Sovereignty and Territory, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
Mr. Walner Molina Pérez, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
Mr. Martin Lawrence H., Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., Member of the Bars of the United
States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Ms Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
as Counsel;
MsAlinaMiron, Researcher, Centre for International Law (CEDIN), University ParisOuest,
Nanterre-La Défense,
MsCicely Parseghian, Foley Hoag LLP, Member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts,
Mr. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
as Assistant Counsel. - 7 -
Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :
S.Exc.M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, amba ssadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme agent et conseil ;
S. Exc. Mme Juana Argeñal Sandoval, ministre de l’environnement et des ressources naturelles de
la République du Nicaragua ;
M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la McGeorge School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento, ancien membre de la Commission du droit
international,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Pari s Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense, membre et ancien
président de la Commission du droit internatio nal, membre associé de l’Institut de droit
international,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Fole y Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des barreaux
de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. César Vega Masís, directeur des affaires juridiques, de la souveraineté et du territoire au
ministère des affaires étrangères de la République du Nicaragua,
M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République
du Nicaragua,
M. Martin Lawrence H., cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des barreaux de la
Cour suprême des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, du district de Columbia et du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts,
Mme Tania Elena Pacheco Blandino, conseiller juridi que au ministère des affaires étrangères de la
République du Nicaragua,
comme conseils ;
Mme Alina Miron, chercheur au Centre de droit in ternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Mme Cicely Parseghian, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du Commonwealth du
Massachusetts,
M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua aux Pays-Bas,
comme conseils adjoints. - 8 -
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is open. The Court meets today under
Article74, paragraph3, of the Rules of Court, to hear the observations of the Parties on the
Request for the indication of provisional measure s submitted by the Republic of Costa Rica in the
case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua).
For reasons which he has duly conveyed to me, Judge Bennouna is unable to be present on
the Bench this morning.
Each of the Parties in the present case, the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of
Nicaragua, has availed itself of the possibility affo rded to it by Article31 of the Statute of the
Court to choose a judge ad hoc . Costa Rica has chosen Mr .John Dugard, and Nicaragua,
Mr. Gilbert Guillaume.
Article 20 of the Statute provides that “[e]very Member of the Court shall, before taking up
his duties, make a solemn declaration in open court that he will exercise his powers impartially and
conscientiously”. Pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 6, of the Statute, that same provision applies to
judges ad hoc. Notwithstanding that both Mr. Dugard and Mr. Guillaume have been judges ad hoc
and have made a solemn declaration in previous cases, Article 8, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court
provides that they must make a further solemn declaration in the present case.
In accordance with custom, I shall first say a few words about the career and qualifications
of each judge ad hoc before inviting him to make his solemn declaration.
Mr.Gilbert Guillaume, of French nationality, has a degree in law, a post-graduate diploma
from the Paris Institut d’études politiques and is an alumnus of the Ecole nationale
d’administration. An eminent jurist, he has combined the careers of judge and diplomat.
Mr.Guillaume is an honorary member of the Fren ch Council of State, after having served as a
Councillor of State. He was France’s representa tive on the Legal Committee of the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and, as such, Chairman of the Committee from 1971 to 1975.
He was Chairman of the Conciliation Commission of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) and sub sequently became the Director of Legal Affairs of that
organization. Mr.Guillaume has been the Director of Legal Affairs at the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and, as such, acted inter alia as the Agent of France before the Court of Justice of - 9 -
the European Communities and the European Court of Human Rights. He was a Member of the
International Court of Justice from 1987 to 2005 and President of the Court from 6 February 2000
to 6February2003. Mr.Guillaume has been chosen as judge ad hoc in the case concerning
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of Congo v. France), the case concerning the
Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), the case concerning
Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France) and the case
concerning Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile). A member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
since 1980, Mr.Guillaume has sat as arbitrator in a large number of disputes. Mr. Guillaume is
also the author of various books and articles and has been visiting professor at a number of
academic institutions. He is, inter alia, member of the Institut de France and of the Institut de droit
international, of which he has been Vice-President.
Mr. John Dugard, of South African nationality, is Professor Emeritus at the University of the
Witwatersrand, and Honorary Professor at the Univer sity of Pretoria and the University of West
Cape, and was until recently Professor of Public Inte rnational Law at Leiden University. He has
also acted as Director of the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law at the University of
Cambridge and has been visiting professor at numerous universities around the world. Mr. Dugard
has published works and articles in diverse fields of international law. In tandem with his
outstanding academic achievements, Mr.Dugard h as greatly contributed to the work of a number
of international fora in the field of internationa l law and human rights. He is a member of the
Institut de droit international, a member of th e International Law Commission and has been its
Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection. He has also been Special Rapporteur of the United
Nations Human Rights Council. Mr. Dugard has in addition served as a judge ad hoc at this Court
in the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Rwanda) and in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rock and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) . Mr.Dugard has been involved in the
constitutional negotiations leading to the establishment of a democratic South Africa and has
received various awards and honours for his work dedicated to the development of international
humanitarian law. - 10 -
In accordance with the order of precedence fixed by Article7, paragraph3, of the Rules of
Court, I shall first invite Mr.Gilbert Guillaume to make the solemn declaration prescribed by the
Statute, and I would request all those present to rise. Mr. Guillaume.
Mr. GUILLAUME: «Je déclare solennellement que je remplirai mes devoirs et exercerai
mes attributions de juge en tout honneur et dévouement, en pleine et parfaite impartialité et en toute
conscience.»
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. I shall now invite Mr.John Dugard to make the solemn
declaration prescribed by the Statute.
Mr. DUGARD: “I solemnly declare that I will perform my duties and exercise my powers as
judge honourably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously.”
The PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please be seated. I take note of the solemn declarations
made by Mr.Guillaume and Mr.Dugard, a nd declare them duly installed as judges ad hoc in the
case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua).
*
* *
The proceedings in the present case were instituted on 18 November 2010 by the filing in the
Registry of the Court of an Application by th e Republic of Costa Rica instituting proceedings
against the Republic of Nicaragua with regard to an alleged “incursion into, occupation of and use
by Nicaragua’s Army of Costa Rican territory as well as breaches of Nicaragua’s obligations
towards Costa Rica” under a number of international treaties and conventions.
To found the jurisdiction of the Court, Costa Rica relies first in its Application on Article
XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement of 30 April 1948, also known as the “Pact of
Bogotá”, which has been binding upon both Parties, respectively since 6May1949 and
21June1950. Secondly, Costa Rica invokes the respective declarations recognizing the - 11 -
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made, pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the
Court, by Costa Rica on 20February1973 and by Nicaragua on 24September1929, as modified
on 23 October 2001.
In its Application, Costa Rica contends that Nicaragua “has, in two separate incidents,
occupied the territory of Costa Rica in connecti on with the construction of a canal across Costa
Rican territory from the San Juan River to La guna los Portillos (also known as Harbor Head
Lagoon), and certain related works of dredging on the San Juan River”.
Costa Rica affirms that the first incursion occurred on or about 18October 2010 and that
“Nicaragua was reported felling trees and depositin g sediment from the dredging works on Costa
Rican territory”. Costa Rica contends further that “[a]fter a brief withdrawal, on or about
1November 2010, a second contingent of Nicara guan troops entered Costa Rican territory and
established a camp”. According to Costa Rica, this “second incursion has resulted in the
continuing occupation by [the armed forces of Nicar agua] of an initial area of around three square
kilometres of Costa Rican territory, located at the northeast Caribbean tip of Costa Rica”. Costa
Rica affirms also that “evidence shows that Nicaraguan military forces have ventured further inside
Costa Rican territory, to the south” of the abov e-mentioned area and that “Nicaragua has...
seriously damaged that part of Costa Rican territory under its occupation”, whereas the
“ongoing and planned dredging and the construction of the canal will seriously affect
the flow of water by the Colorado River of Costa Rica, and will cause further damage
to Costa Rican territory, including the wetlands and national wildlife protected areas
located in the region”.
Costa Rica further contends that Nicaragua inte nds, by the ongoing artificial canalization of the
San Juan river, “to modify the natural watercourse which forms the boundary” between the Parties.
I shall now ask the Registrar to read out the decision requested of the Court, as formulated in
the Application of Costa Rica:
The REGISTRAR:
“For these reasons, and reserving the right to supplement, amplify or amend the
present Application, Costa Rica requests the Cour t to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua is
in breach of its international obligations referr ed to in paragraph1 of this Application as
regards the incursion into and occupation of Costa Rican territory, the serious damage
inflicted to its protected rainforest and wetla nds, and the damage intended to the Colorado
River, wetlands and protected ecosystems, as well as the dredging and canalization activities - 12 -
being carried out by Nicaragua on the San Juan River. In particular the Court is requested to
adjudge and declare that, by its conduct, Nicaragua has breached:
(a) the territory of the Republic of Costa Rica, as agreed and delimited by the
1858 Treaty of Limits, the Cleveland Award and the first and second Alexander
Awards;
(b) the fundamental principles of territorial integrity and the prohibition of use of
force under the Charter of the United Nations and the Charter of the
Organization of American States;
(c) the obligation imposed upon Nicaragua by ArticleIX of the 1858Treaty of
Limits not to use the San Juan River to carry out hostile acts;
(d) the obligation not to damage Costa Rican territory;
(e) the obligation not to artificially channel the San Juan River away from its
natural watercourse without the consent of Costa Rica;
(f) the obligation not to prohibit the navigation on the San Juan River by
Costa Rican nationals;
(g) the obligation not to dredge the San Juan River if this causes damage to
CostaRican territory (including the Colorado River), in accordance with the
1888 Cleveland Award;
(h) the obligations under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands;
(i) the obligation not to aggravate and extend the dispute by adopting measures
against Costa Rica, including the expa nsion of the invaded and occupied
CostaRican territory or by adopting any further measure or carrying out any
further actions that would infringe Cost a Rica’s territorial integrity under
international law.
The Court is also requested to determine the reparation which must be made by
Nicaragua, in particular in relation to any measures of the kind referred to . . . above.”
The PRESIDENT: On the same day as the filing of the Application, Costa Rica submitted a
Request for the indication of provisional measures, referring to Article41 of the Statute of the
Court and to Articles73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court. In its Request for the indication of
provisional measures, Costa Rica refers to the basis of jurisdiction of the Court invoked in its
Application, and to the facts set out and the su bmissions made therein. Costa Rica requests
provisional measures to preserve its rights, pending the Court’s judgment. Costa Rica explains in
its Request that despite its
“regular protests and calls on Nicaragua not to dredge the San Juan River until it can
be established that the dredging operation will not damage the Colorado River and
other Costa Rican territory, Nicaragua h as nonetheless continued with its dredging
activities . . . and even announced . . . that it would deploy two additional dredges on
the San Juan River”.
According to Costa Rica, this “demonstrate[s] the likelihood of damage to Costa Rica’s Colorado
River and to Costa Rica’s lagoons, rivers, herb aceous swamps and woodlands”, the dredging - 13 -
posing “a threat to wildlife refuges in Laguna Maquenque, Barra del Colorado, Corredor Fronterizo
and the Tortuguero National Park”. Costa Rica affi rms that Nicaragua has refused to comply with
resolution978 adopted on 12November 2010 by the Permanent Council of the Organization of
American States regarding the “situation in the border area between Costa Rica and Nicaragua” and
that “all efforts to resolve the dispute by diplomatic negotiations have failed”.
I shall now ask the Registrar to read out the passage from the Request specifying the
provisional measures which the Government of Costa Rica is asking the Court to indicate.
The REGISTRAR:
“On the basis of the facts and law se t forth above and in order to prevent
irreparable prejudice to its sovereign right s under the Charter of the United Nations
and the 1858Treaty of Limits, as well as with regard to internationally recognized
standards of environmental protection, Co sta Rica respectfully requests the Court as a
matter of urgency to order the following provisional measures so as to rectify the
present ongoing breach of Costa Rica’s territo rial integrity and to prevent further
irreparable harm to Costa Rica’s territory, pending its determination of this case on the
merits:
1. the immediate and unconditional withdr awal of all Nicaraguan troops from the
unlawfully invaded and occupied Costa Rican territories;
2. the immediate cessation of the construction of a canal across Costa Rican territory;
3. the immediate cessation of the felling of trees, removal of vegetation and soil from
Costa Rican territory, including wetlands and forests;
4. the immediate cessation of the dumping of sediments in Costa Rican territory;
5. the suspension of Nicaragua’s ongoi ng dredging programme, aimed at the
occupation, flooding and damage of Costa Rican territory, as well as at the serious
damage to and impairment of the naviga tion of the Colorado River, giving full
effect to the Cleveland Award and pending th e determination of the merits of this
dispute;
6. that Nicaragua shall refrain from any other action which might prejudice the rights
of Costa Rica, or which may aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court.”
The PRESIDENT: On 18 November 2010, imme diately after the filing of the Application
and Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, the Registra r, in accordance with
Article40, paragraph2, of the Statute and Articl es38, paragraph4, and 73, paragraph2, of the
Rules of Court, transmitted certified copies thereof to the Government of Nicaragua. He also
notified the Secretary-General of the United Nations. - 14 -
According to Article74 of the Rules of Cour t, a request for the indication of provisional
measures shall have priority over all other cases. The date of the hearing must be fixed in such a
way as to afford the Parties an opportunity of be ing represented at it. Consequently, following
consultations, the Parties were informed that th e date for the opening of the oral proceedings
contemplated in Article74, paragraph3, of th e Rules of Court, during which they could present
their observations on the Request for the Indica tion of Provisional Measur es, had been set at
11 January 2011, at 10 a.m.
On 4 and 5 January 2011, Costa Rica transmitted to the Court “certain documents to which
Costa Rica will refer” during the oral proceedings on the Request for the Indication of Provisional
Measures. A copy of these documents was sent to Nicaragua.
On 4 January 2011, Nicaragua also submitte d to the Court certain documents to which
Nicaragua will refer during the present hearings. A copy of these documents was sent to Costa
Rica. In addition, Nicaragua deposited in the Regi stry electronic copies of an aerial photograph, a
satellite image and a video. By a letter of 7 January, Nicaragua indicated that it intended to present
those electronic copies, including the video, during the oral proceedings. By a letter of the same
day, Costa Rica informed the Registrar that it “had no objection” to such a presentation and added
that it did not intend, for its part, to present vide os during the hearings. The Court has decided to
authorize the presentation of the video deposited by Nicaragua.
On 4 January, Nicaragua moreover asked the Court, in the exercise of its discretion under
Article62, paragraph1, of the Rules, to call upon Costa Rica to produce certain documents in
advance of the hearings. On 7 January, Costa Rica produced a document in the Spanish language
and transmitted on 10January a certified transl ation thereof in French. Furthermore, on
10January, Costa Rica provided the Court with electronic copies on CD-ROM of a Nicaraguan
Atlas, specifying that some maps contained in this atlas would be used during the hearings. These
documents were immediately transmitted to Nicaragua.
I note the presence before the Court of the Agents and counsel of the two Parties.
The Court will hear Costa Rica, which has submitted the Request for the Indication of
Provisional Measures, this morning until 1 p.m. It will hear Nicaragua this afternoon at 3 p.m. - 15 -
For the purposes of the first round of oral argu ments, each of the Parties will have available
to it a full three-hour sitting. Due to the length of this opening speech of the President, additional
time will be allocated to Costa Rica after 1 p.m., as needed.
After the first round of oral arguments, the Par ties will have the possibility to reply, if they
deem it necessary; Costa Rica at 4.30p.m. tomorrow and Nicaragua at 4.30p.m. the day after
tomorrow. Each of the Parties will have a maxi mum time of one-and-a-half hours in which to
present its reply.
Before giving the floor to His Excellency Am bassador Edgar Ugalde, Agent of the Republic
of Costa Rica, I shall draw the attention of the Parties to Practice Direction XI, which states, inter
alia, that Parties should:
“[i]n their oral pleadings on requests for provisional measures . . . limit themselves to
what is relevant to the criteria for the indication of provisional measures as indicated
in the Statute, Rules and jurisprudence of th e Court. They should not enter into the
merits of the case beyond what is strictly necessary for that purpose.”
I now call upon His Excellency Ambassador Edgar Ugalde, Agent of the Republic of
Costa Rica.
M. UGALDE ALVAREZ :
1. Monsieur le président, distingués membres de la Cour, c’est un honneur pour moi de me
présenter à nouveau devant vous comme agent du Co staRica. Je le fais en présence du ministre
des affaires étrangères de mon pays, S.Exc. M.RenéCastro. Sa présence témoigne de
l’importance que mon gouvernement attache aux présentes audiences. Les raisons urgentes qui
motivent le CostaRica à demander à cette honorable Cour l’indication de mesures conservatoires
sont l’occupation, l’utilisation et la transforma tion opérées actuellement par le Nicaragua sur le
territoire costa-ricien. En ignor ant la démarcation de la frontière terrestre avec le CostaRica,
pleinement et clairement établie depuis plus d’un siècle, le Nicaragua viole le droit international, et,
en particulier, les instruments régissant les rela tions entre les deux pays. C’est la coexistence
pacifique dans la région qui est ainsi compromise.
2. L’histoire de nos deux pays reflète nos désaccords en matière du régime frontalier. Le
CostaRica n’a toutefois jamais cessé d’utiliser l es moyens diplomatiques et juridictionnels pour
arriver à un règlement pacifique et définitif de ces différends. Il est malheureux que le Nicaragua - 16 -
ait décidé continuellement de contester les term es du cadre juridique qui gouverne notre régime
frontalier. A titre d’exemple, seulement quelques semaines après que cette honorable Cour ait
rendu son arrêt du 13 juillet 2009, le Nicaragua a adopté un décret régissant de manière exclusive et
discriminatoire la navigation costa-ricienne sur le fleuve San Juan, d’une manière non conforme à
l’arrêt de cette Cour. Le CostaRica a, encore une fois, été patie nt et a essayé de résoudre cette
situation de manière bilatérale sans qu’aucun résultat positif n’ait pour le moment été obtenu.
3. Le Costa Rica réserve sa position sur cette question car cette situation n’est pas la raison
pour laquelle mon pays se présente à nouveau deva nt votre Cour. Le CostaRica comparaît
aujourd’hui devant votre haute juridiction en raison du comportement nicaraguayen suivant:
l’occupation et la dévastation d’une portion du territoire costa-ricien, et le rejet par le Nicaragua du
tracé frontalier établi par une sentence arbitrale liant les deux Etats.
4. Monsieur le président, l’occupation ni caraguayenne a commencé autour du 18octobre
passé. Depuis cette date, jour après jour, la situation s’aggrave. Le Nicaragua transgresse de
manière consciente, délibérée et continue l’intégrité
et la souveraineté territoriale du CostaRica.
Contrairement à l’argument élaboré à marche forcée par le Nicaragua, il ne s’agit absolument pas
d’un différend frontalier ou d’un problème d’interpré tation d’un traité ou d’une sentence arbitrale.
Non : il s’agit d’un différend relatif aux activités que le Nicaragua mène illicitement sur le territoire
du Costa Rica, ainsi qu’à celles qu’il projette de réaliser sur ce territoire ou ayant des répercussions
négatives pour ce territoire à l’avenir. Je dis bien «en territoire costa-ricien» car le Nicaragua a,
jusqu’à cette date, toujours reconnu que le territoire en question est effectivement costa-ricien. Le
Nicaragua prétend ainsi changer, unilatéralement, la frontière avec le CostaRica sur deux plans:
sur le plan juridique, en déclarant le territoire en question nicaraguayen et sur le plan matériel, en
modifiant la géographie de la région.
5. En installant ses forces militaires sur le territoire costa-ricien, la transgression du
Nicaragua a causé d’importants dommages au CostaRica. De plus, cette conduite se caractérise
par l’utilisation des forces armées, et ce, dans le but d’imposer une situation sur le terrain en
violation de l’ordre établi internationalement entr e les deux Etats. Les faits sont d’autant plus
graves que le Costa Rica ne dispose pas de forces armées, mon pays compte uniquement avec des
forces pour protéger la loi et l’ordre. Ces forces policières n’ont absolument pas les capacités - 17 -
défensives pour faire face aux incursions militaires. Cette transgression, comme nous le
montrerons au cours de ces audiences, l’est non seulement au regard des instruments établissant les
frontières entre les deux Etats, mais l’est également au regard de la Charte des Nations Unies et de
la charte de l’Organisation des Etats Américains. De telle sorte que la présence nicaraguayenne sur
le territoire du Costa Rica met non seulement en danger la stabilité et la paix entre deux pays frères,
mais remet aussi en cause le cadre juridique qu’ils se sont engagés à respecter.
6. Monsieur le président, outre sa présence illicite et continue sur le territoire costa-ricien, le
Nicaragua est également en train d’opérer une transformation planifiée d’une partie de notre
territoire. Ainsi que la Cour pourra s’en rendre compte aujourd’hui, le Nicaragua a déjà causé des
dommages importants à des écosystèmes fragiles, à des forêts et à des zones humides protégés tant
au niveau national qu’au niveau international. La poursuite de ces actions entraînera des
dommages irréparables. L’effet de cette dévastation met d’ailleurs en danger d’autres zones du
territoire costa-ricien. Tout cela nous conduit en conséquence à demander en urgence l’indication
de mesures conservatoires.
7. Outre les dommages déjà perpétrés sur son territoire, le CostaRica fait également face à
une autre menace. Selon des affirmations des fonctionnaires en charge du dragage du
fleuveSanJuan, ces travaux affecteront le fleuve Colorado qui se trouve entièrement en territoire
costa-ricien. Les travaux de dragage altère ront aussi d’importantes parties du littoral nord
costa-ricien sur la mer des Caraïbes. Il est bi en entendu que le CostaRica ne s’oppose pas à des
travaux de nettoyage du fleuve SanJuan, pourvu que ces travaux n’affectent pas son territoire, y
compris le fleuve Colorado, ni son droit de naviga tion sur le fleuve SanJuan, ni ses droits sur la
baie de SanJuandelNorte. En un mot, nous ne demandons ni plus ni moins que le respect du
traité de limites du 15 avril 1858, de la sentence arbitrale Cleveland du 22 mars 1888, des sentences
de l’ingénieur Alexander et de l’arrêt de cette honorable Cour du 13 juillet 2009. Le comportement
actuel du Nicaragua porte atteinte de manière flagrante aux droits établis par tous ces instruments.
8. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, même si les agissements nicaraguayens justifiaient une
saisine du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies, le Costa Rica, motivé par la mise en Œuvre et le
respect des mécanismes régionaux pour la sauvegarde de la paix et la sécurité internationales, s’est
présenté en première instance devant l’Organisation des Etats Américains (OEA). Malgré les - 18 -
résolutions de l’OEA, le Nicaragua a persisté dans son action, allant même jusqu’à rejeter ces
résolutions. Le Gouvernement nicaraguayen a systématiquement refusé de satisfaire aux
obligations découlant du cadre de l’OEA, et a mê me nié tout rôle à cette organisation dans le
règlement pacifique de ce conflit dont il est en outre à l’origine.
9. Monsieur le président, le Costa Rica ne peut passer sous silence les propos nicaraguayens
visant à salir la longue tradition institutionnelle et dé mocratique costa-ricienne, résultat d’un effort
constant et permanent de son peuple. J’invite les juges à lire le Livre blanc sur les prétendues
«vérités sur le fleuve SanJuan» produit par le Gouvernement nicaraguayen. Ce n’est pas la
manière selon laquelle deux Etats voisins qui se considèrent comme frères doivent se traiter
mutuellement. Cette publication est tout simpleme nt de la propagande enflammée. Les injures
lancées par le Nicaragua, les affirmations de ses dirigeants selon lesquelles la décision du
Costa Rica de défendre son intégrité territoriale obéit à des actions en faveur du trafic de drogues,
tout comme les affirmations de M.le préside nt du Nicaragua, le 13no vembre2010 dernier, selon
1
lesquelles, je cite, «les narcotrafiquants diri gent la politique extérieure costa-ricienne» ,
s’inscrivent dans une politique d’attaque sur tous les fronts contre mon pays.
10. Par respect pour ce haut tribunal, je ne souhaite pas abonder da ns ces affirmations
blessantes et sans fondement. Elles démontrent tout efois clairement la manière avec laquelle le
Nicaragua a décidé de se conduire internationalement vis-à-vis du Costa Rica.
11. De nouvelles provocations ont récemment eu lieu en mer, au moment même où votre
Cour délibère sur la requête à fin d’intervention du CostR aica dans l’affaire
Nicaragua c. Colombie. Malgré les provocations et agress ions nicaraguayennes constantes, le
CostaRica ne s’écartera pas du strict respect du principe du règlement pacifique des différends
internationaux. Mais le Costa Rica ne se laissera pas non plus intimider et n’acceptera pas que l’on
essaie de lui imposer des faits accomplis.
12. Le Costa Rica vous exposera la souverainet é sur le territoire occupé, les dommages déjà
produits et les dommages imminents et irréparabl es qui peuvent se produire, ainsi que le risque
d’une aggravation sérieuse du c onflit du fait du comportement nicar aguayen. Le CostaRica est
1
Référence au discours du président Ortega du 13 octobre 2010. - 19 -
confiant dans le fait que cette honorable Cour trouvera que l’indication des mesures conservatoires
sollicitées est urgente et nécessaire, et ce, dans le seul but de sauvegarder l’intégrité territoriale du
Costa Rica, la flore, la faune et les ressources hydriques de la région, et, ce qui est aussi de la plus
grande importance, de protéger des vies humaines costa-riciennes et nicaraguayennes. Si l’on n’a
pas, jusqu’à présent, eu à déplorer de victimes du fait de l’action militaire du Nicaragua, cela est dû
à l’attitude responsable dont ont fait preuve mon gouvernement et mon peuple, à savoir celle de ne
pas répondre à la force par la force.
13. Monsieur le président, je me permets respectueusement de vous présenter le programme
de ce matin. En premier lieu, M.ArnoldoBrenes présentera les aspects historiques et
géographiques de la situation. Ensuite, M.Serg ioUgalde expliquera les faits par rapport à
l’incursion, l’occupation et l’utilisation du territo ire costa-ricien par le Nicaragua. Le professeur
MarceloKohen exposera les droits que le CostaRica cherche à préserver par l’indication des
mesures conservatoires. Pour finir, le professeu r JamesCrawford exposera les aspects relatifs à
l’objet des mesures conservatoires sollicitées par le CostaRica et les raisons de l’urgence qui
justifient leur indication.
14. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je vo us remercie beaucoup de votre attention.
Monsieur le président, je vous prie de donner la parole à M. Arnoldo Brenes.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Ambassador Edgar Ug alde for his presentation. I now give the
floor to Mr. Arnoldo Brenes to make his presentation.
Mr. BRENES:
G EOGRAPHICAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF N ICARAGUA ’S
INCURSION AND OCCUPATION
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is my great honour to appear before
you on behalf of Costa Rica this morning.
2. Mr. President, in the long years between 1897 and 2010 Nicaragua had never questioned
Costa Rica’s sovereignty over the portion of land wh ich it is currently occupying and abusing.
Never in that period had Nicaragua disputed the location of the boundary along the lower San Juan.
Never before had Nicaragua produced such stori es as to lost channels cutting across Costa Rican - 20 -
territory. It is only today, and to be precise, this afternoon, that Costa Rica and this Court will learn
what the basis of Nicaragua’s alleged claim is. My task this morning is to refer to certain
geographical and historical issues relating to the area now occupied.
3. Before I begin, however, I would like to note that all the graphics we will be showing this
morning are contained in Volume III of your folders, so you will only need to refer this volume.
Historical and geographical facts of the occupied area
4. The territory occupied by Nicaragua is locat ed at the north-eastern tip of Costa Rica in a
region that in Costa Rican cartography is identified as Isla Portillos. The larger area is commonly
known as Isla Calero, as can be seen in the graphic on the screen, which is at tab 45 of your folders.
In turn, this larger area is divided into two: Isla Calero proper, south of what once was the Taura
river; and Isla Portillos, to the north of the Taura river. Although the events we will be referring to
are taking place in Isla Portillos, specifically in the area known as Finca Aragón, in popular terms
this whole area is referred to as Isla Calero a nd indeed not only the press and general public, but
even diplomatic correspondence have used this name to locate the area occupied by Nicaragua. As
a matter of fact, the Taura river which used to divide Isla Portillos from Isla Calero has nearly dried
up, thus rendering them into a single land mass.
5. As can be appreciated from the projection, Isla Calero and Isla Portillos are continental
areas, located between the San Juan and the Colorado rivers and bound by the Caribbean Sea. The
waters of the San Juan are Nicaraguan and the Costa Rican bank defines the boundary between the
two countries, while the Colorado is entirely Costa Rican.
6. As the Court will recall from the proceedings in the Navigational and Related Rights case,
in 1858 the Treaty of Limits definitively settled the territorial limits between Costa Rica and
Nicaragua. As stated in its Article 2:
“The dividing line between the two Republics, beginning at the North Sea
(Caribbean Sea), shall start at the extremity of Punta de Castilla, at the mouth of the
river San Juan de Nicaragua, and shall run along its right bank [that is to say, the right
bank of the San Juan] to a point 3 English Miles distant from Castillo Viejo . . .” 2
2Treaty of Limits between the Republics of Co sta Rica and Nicaragua, San José, 15 April 1858, (Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua, MCR, Vol. 2, Ann. 7 (b). - 21 -
From that point, the boundary runs through land until it reaches the common Bay of Salinas in the
Pacific Ocean.
7. In the aftermath of the 1888 Cleveland Awa rd both countries agreed to demarcate the
boundary. This was achieved through the Demarcation Commission established by the
3
1896 Pacheco-Matus Convention . The two countries agreed each to name commissioners who
would be engineers or surveyors 4. The Commission thus created was to be completed by a neutral
engineer appointed by the President of the United States of America. He would act as an Arbitrator
of any disputed points. In the words of Article 2 of the Pacheco-Matus Convention: “The engineer
shall have ample authority to decide any kind of dispute that may arise, and his decision shall be
5
final as to the operations in question.”
8. The appointment made by the President of the United States fell upon
EdwardPorterAlexander. Between 1897 and 1 900, acting together with the representatives of
each country, he accomplished the task of demarcating the boundary line of the entire Costa
Rican-Nicaraguan border. The complete proceedings of the Demarcation Commission, including
the five Arbitral Awards and 27 Minutes recording the complete work of the Commission and the
precise points where the boundary would run, are contained in two volumes. As provided by the
Pacheco-Matus Convention,
“[t]he minutes of the work, which shall be kept in triplicate and which the
commissioners shall duly sign and seal constitute, without the necessity of approval or
any other formality on the parts of the signatory Republics, the proof of the final
6
demarcation of their boundaries” .
According to Article 9 of the Convention, a manuscript copy of the Minutes was given to Costa
Rica, another to Nicaragua, and the third to the Arbitrator. Certified copies of this important
document are found in Volume II of your folders.
9. Mr. President, Members of the Court, one cannot read the proceedings of the Commission
without being impressed by two things. First, the meticulous care taken by the Commission and
3
Convention for the Demarcation of the Boundary Line between the Republics of Costa Rica and Nicaragua
(Pacheco-Matus) San Salvador, 27 March 1896, 182 CTS 359
4
Ibid., Art. 1
5Ibid., Art. 2.
6Ibid., Art 8. - 22 -
the complete professionalism of Alexander, who spent three years of his life devoted to this task.
Second, the high degree of accuracy and clarity in the determination of the boundary, which ⎯
subject to the five awards given by Alexander on disputed points ⎯ was agreed by all members of
the Commission and signed on multiple occasions. No r were the proceedings any secret. The first
key award of 1897 was published in 1898, with its accompanying map, in JohnBassetMoore’s
7
well-known compilation of international arbitral awards .
10. I shall not review at this point the whole findings of the Commission, or all of the awards
rendered by the Arbitrator. Nevertheless, I mu st mention the first Alexander Award, since it
established not only the location of the starting point of the boundary at Punta Castilla, but also the
boundary at the region that today is occupied by Nicaragua.
The origin of the official boundary
11. The graphic on screen is a sketch-map that accompanies the first Alexander Award,
rendered on 30 September 1897. As can be obser ved, starting at Punta Castilla, the boundary
follows the margin of Harbor Head Lagoon, know n in Spanish as “Laguna Los Portillos”, until it
reaches “the river proper by the first channel met. Up this channel, and up the river proper, the line
8
shall continue to ascend as directed in the treaty.” From that point, the boundary follows the right
margin of the San Juan up to a point “3 Englis h Miles distant from Castillo Viejo” in accordance
with Article2 of the 1858 Treaty of Limits. Cl early, every portion of land located on the right
margin of the San Juan river and Harbor Head Lagoon is Costa Rican. It can be observed that
Alexander applied strictly the spirit of the 1858 Tr eaty of Limits, since he awarded the water of
Harbor Head Lagoon to Nicaragua in so far as it was connected to the San Juan river, while all the
territory located on the right margin of the river and the Lagoon was recognized as Costa Rican.
You can find this map at tab 46 of your folders.
12. In accordance with the criteria established in Alexander’s First Award, the Demarcation
Commission proceeded to define on site the exact boundary. The graphic on screen, tab 47 of your
folders, is a photograph of a sketch-map containe d in Minute No.10 of 2March 1898, which is
7
John Basset Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitra tions to Which the Unit ed States has been a
Party, Vol. V, Washington, 1898, Government Printing Office, p. 5074.
8United Nation,Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), 2007, Vol. XXVIII, p. 220. - 23 -
found in page33 of VolumeI of the records of the Demarcation Commission. It can be clearly
observed that this sketch-map portrays the way the boundary was defined on the actual terrain.
This sketch-map reflects the boundary as defined by the different landmarks, co-ordinates, angles,
distances and directions contained in the actual text and charts of Minute No. 10. This has been the
basis of both Costa Rica’s and Nicaragua’s official cartography in this specific area ever since. If
the map is looked at carefully, one can even see the name “Hacienda Aragon” on it, which shows
that this Costa Rican region has existed at least since 1898 when the map was drafted.
Contemporary cartography shows the occupied area is Costa Rican
13. The map presented on screen is an official map produced by the National Geographic
Institute of Costa Rica in 1988, scale1:50,000. You can find it at tab48 of your folders. A
remarkable coincidence can be observed in the bo undary portrayed in this official map and the
sketch-map contained in Minute No.10. This is no surprise since this official map was drawn in
accordance with the limits established in Minute No.10 and with the aid of aerial photography
contemporary to the drawing of the official map. The morphology of the lower San Juan has not
suffered significant changes between the end of the nineteenth century and the mid-1980s.
14. Nicaragua’s official cartography faithfull y reflects the same boundary and topography.
In fact the official cartography of both countries is based on the same legal, historical and factual
elements. The map on screen is a 1988 official map produced by the National Institute of
Territorial Studies of Nicaragua— INETER— scale 1:50.000. I refer you to tab49 of your
folders. It can be observed that what is shown as blank is not Nicaraguan territory. The territory
currently occupied is shown in blank. As a matter of fact, both maps can be superimposed and they
match perfectly.
15. This official map by Nicaragua’s National Institute of Territorial Studies could be easily
downloaded from its website until quite recently, before the Nicaraguan Government decided to
block the website’s access to its official cartography. The Court may be interested to know that,
9
like the canal, this website states th at it is “currently under construction” . However, Nicaragua’s
9
Http://www.ineter.gob.ni/. - 24 -
attempt to hide its own maps is useless, since there are many official maps still around.
Professor Kohen will show you some of them.
16. But not only Nicaraguan and Costa Rican official cartography undoubtedly recognize the
area of Isla Portillos as Costa Rican. Third-party official maps do the same. The map projected on
the screen is a 1988 official map produced by the Defence Mapping Agency of the Inter American
Geodetic Survey, which you will find at tab52 of your folders. It refl ects exactly the same
boundary as Nicaraguan and Costa Rican official cartography.
17. This other map on the screen was produced by the Army Map Service of the United
States Army Corps of Engineers in 1966. It is at tab 54 of your folders. Again, it fully coincides
with the Nicaraguan and Costa Rican official cartography. There is no doubt that the boundary
between Costa Rica and Nicaragua in this region has been unaltered since it was authoritatively
depicted in 1897.
18. Finally, this graphic on the screen, which is at tab 55 of your folders, shows the precise
area where Nicaragua’s army and personnel are cu rrently occupying Costa Rican territory. You
can see the area where the trees have been felled and where the artificial canal is being built. The
precise zone is identified in Costa Rican official cartography as Aragón, a name that, as we have
already seen, existed in 1898 when the Demar cation Commission drafted and approved the
sketch-map contained in Minute No. 10.
19. It is important to note that the occupied area in Isla Portillos is part of Costa Rica’s
Border Zone Wildlife Reserve, created by Costa Rican legislation since 1994. This area is part of
an important biological corridor that joins differe nt protected areas in Costa Rica. The land, in
accordance with Costa Rican legislation, belongs to the Costa Rican State, although private
individuals may hold possession rights and make use of the land in ways which do not conflict with
its character of Wildlife Reserve. Professor Kohen will return to this point.
20. Mr. President, Members of the Court, there were, and there are, no doubts of any kind
about the demarcation between the two countries. Since the first Alexander Award of 1897, and
until the incursion by Nicaraguan military for ces on Costa Rican territory in October2010,
Nicaragua had never questioned Costa Rica’s sovereignty over that area. Anything Nicaragua says
this afternoon will be news not only to you, but to Costa Rica as well. - 25 -
21. Mr. President, distinguished members of the Court. I thank you all for your kind
attention. Mr President, I would be grateful if you could please call on my colleague
Mr. Sergio Ugalde.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr.ArnoldoBrenes for his presentation. I now invite
Mr. Sergio Ugalde to take the floor.
Mr. UGALDE:
N ICARAGUA ’S INCURSION AND OCCUPATION AND ITS EFFECTS
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is a great honour to appear before
you representing Costa Rica at this hearing.
2. My task today is to present to the Court the factual information surrounding the
occupation and use ⎯ or misuse ⎯ of Costa Rican territory by Nicaragua, and, an account of the
efforts by Costa Rica to resolve the conflict.
The Facts of the Incursion and Occupation
Antecedents
3. Mr. President, although the facts that are the core of the dispute and the request for
provisional measures mainly concern the occupation and use by Nicaragua of Costa Rican territory,
it is nonetheless necessary to give a brief account of the antecedents of the dredging works that
Nicaragua is currently carrying out on the San Juan river.
4. Whether Nicaragua can carry out works of improvement on the San Juan river, and the
legal conditions under which it may do so, are ques tions governed by the 1888Cleveland Award.
This issue was briefly considered by the Court in its recent Judgment of 13 July 2009 1. Nicaragua
then requested the Court to declare that it had “the right to dredge the San Juan [river] in order to
return the flow of water to that obtaining in 1858 even if this affects the flow of water to other
11
present day recipients of this flow such as the Colorado River” .
10
Case concerning the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment
of 13 July 2009, pp. 51-52, paras. 153 and155: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/133/15321.pdf.
1Ibid., p. 52, para. 153. - 26 -
To this, the Court stated, and I quote:
“In any event it suffices for the Court to observe that the two questions thus
raised were settled in the decision made in the Cleveland Award. It was determined in
paragraphs4 to 6 of the third clause of the Award that Costa Rica is not bound to
share in the expenses necessary to improve na vigation on the San Ju an river and that
Nicaragua may execute such works of improvement as it deems suitable, provided that
such works do not seriously impair navigation on tributaries of the San Juan belonging
to Costa Rica.
As Nicaragua has offered no explanation why the Award does not suffice to
make clear the Parties’ rights and obligations in respect of these matters, its claim in
this regard must be rejected.” ( Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 13 July 2009, p. 52, para. 155.)
5. I would now like to refer the Court to certain diplomatic exchanges between Costa Rica
and Nicaragua, on the subject of the works of improvement that Nicaragua had previously
announced it intended to carry out on the San Ju an. The first was sent by Costa Rica’s then
12
Foreign Minister, Roberto Tovar, on 26 January 2006 . In response to press statements about the
dredging of the San Juan river by Nicaragua, and pursuant to Article3, paragraph6, of the
1888Cleveland Award, the Minister requested that Nicaragua provide technical information in
relation to the possible effect of the dredging, in particular in connection to its effects on the
Colorado river.
13
6. Nicaragua responded on 17February2006 , rejecting the request for technical
information. Nicaragua did state that certain in frastructure works were being carried out in the
vicinity of San Juan de Nicaragua, but no techni cal information related to these or other works was
provided.
14
7. Costa Rica responded on 5May 2006 , stating that any works of improvement must be
carried out without any damage to Costa Rica’s territory, as stipulated by the Cleveland Award.
15
8. On 8May 2006 , Nicaragua responded in turn, again refusing to provide any technical
information and simply reaffirming its previous No te. The next three years passed without event,
as Nicaragua did not pursue any works on the river.
12
Tab21, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from the Ministof Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua; original and English translation, 26 Jan. 2006.
13Tab22, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from the Ministeof Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica; original and English translation, 17 Feb. 2006.
14Tab23, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from the Minist er of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua; original and English translation, 5 May 2006. - 27 -
9. On 25August 2009, both the manager of Nicaragua’s Port Company, VirgilioSilva, and
the new head of the dredging works on the San Juan, EdénPastora, informed two different news
organizations 16 of Nicaragua’s intention to dredge the San Juan river. Both were reported as
17
stating that Nicaragua’s intention was to r ecover 1,700cubic metres of water per second ,
allegedly lost to the Colorado river, a river wholly Costa Rican.
10. Concerned by the implications of Silva’s and Pastora’s words, on 27August 2009 18,
Costa Rica requested that Nicaragua clarify its intentions in relation to the works and the
statements thus made. Considering that the Colorado river only carries ⎯ in total ⎯ between
1,400 and 1,700cubic metres per second, Nicara gua’s purported plans implied the complete
devastation of the Colorado river. In his Note, Foreign Minister Stagno stated:
“It is evident that the public declara tions of the mentioned functionaries, who
indicate that Nicaragua intends to divert 1,700metres per second from the flow that
the Colorado River currently has, constitute unquestionable proof o19the intention to
cause irreparable damage to the territory of Costa Rica.”
11. The Minister warned of the serious environmental impact that the intended works would
have on Costa Rican territory, and urged Nicaragua not to carry out any of these works until there
20
was technical scientific evidence that they would not cause harm to Costa Rica .
12. Recently, in an unusual testimonial given 15months after the original press report,
Mr.Silva appears to retract his August2009 statement. However, it seems that Mr.Pastora does
21
not. It is noteworthy that, despite Mr.Silva’s backflip , Nicaragua has never responded to
Costa Rica’s letter.
1Tab 24, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica; original and English translation, 8 May 2006.
16
Tab 77, Vol. 3, judges’ folders: English translation of extract from La Prensa, 25 Aug. 2009, “They are going
for the flow of the San Juan River”; original avai lable at: http://archivo.laprensa.com.ni/archivo/2009/
agosto/25/noticias/nacionales/345585.shtml. See also tab 78, Vol. 3, judges’ folders: English translation of extract from
La Nación, 25Aug. 2009, “Nicaragua will dredge the San Juan to recover earlier flow”; original available at:
http://wvw.nacion.com/ln_ee/2009/agosto/25/pais2069754.html.
1Ibid.
1See Attachment PM1, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures submitted by the Republic of
CostaRica, 18Nov. 2010: Note from the Minister of Fo reign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica (DM-637-9), dated
27 Aug. 2009, and addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua.
1Ibid.
2Ibid.
21
See Document15, Declaration of the Executive Presid ent of the National Port Company, VirgilioSilva
Munguía, documents submitted by Nicaragua on 4 Jan. 2011. - 28 -
13. On 12 July 2010, after learning that the dredging of the San Juan would take place in the
coming weeks, the Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim , yet again, requested
22
environmental impact assessment reports from Nicaragua that would indicate that no damage
would be caused to Costa Rican territory.
14. Nicaragua’s President, Commander Daniel Or tega, reacted to this note in a speech given
23
on 15 July , stating that Costa Rica’s Foreign Ministry “mistakenly” informed Nicaragua’s
Foreign Ministry that Nicaragua needed permission from Costa Rica to undertake works on the
San Juan. The Nicaraguan President stated that he had given instructions to his Foreign Minister to
provide a “fraternal” response to Costa Rica. Again, no response, “fraternal” or otherwise, was
ever issued.
15. In fact Costa Rica had said nothing about the need for permission. But the desire to
maintain a good relationship with Nicaragua prompted the new Costa Rican Foreign Minister,
RenéCastro, to visit Nicaraguan Foreign Minist er, SamuelSantos, on 21July 2010, in order to
address Costa Rica’s concerns regarding the effect of the dredging on Costa Rican territory, among
other bilateral matters. At that meeting, Forei gn MinisterSantos assured Foreign MinisterCastro
that Nicaragua was planning only to undertake a minor cleaning job on the river, and that such
modest work would in no way entail any damage to Costa Rican territory. Foreign Minister Castro
24
accepted those assurances . But in fact it appears that Nicaragua had decided to carry out much
more than minor cleaning works. Indeed, it has just announced its intention to move a further three
25
dredges to the San Juan , bringing the total to four.
16. Naturally the prospect of having the flow of the Colorado river devastated greatly
concerned Costa Rica. But Nicaragua’s next act s took Costa Rica entirely by surprise, as they
came, in layman’s terms, wholly out of the blue.
22Tab 25, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua; original and English translation, 12 Jul. 2010.
23Tab 16, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: English translation of extract frEl Nuevo Diario , 15Jul 2010, “Ortega
rejects permission request to Costa Rica to dredge the San Juan River”; original available at:
http://www.elnuevodiario.com.ni/imprimir/78950.
24Document 19, statement by Mr. Rene Castro Salazar, Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs and Culture (sic),
to the Environmental Commission of Costa Rica’s Legislative Assembly, on 8Sep. 2010, documents submitted by
Nicaragua on 4 Jan. 2011.
25Tab 79, Vol. 3, judges’ folders:English translation of extract from La Prensa, 9Jan. 2011: “Another three
dredges to the [San Juan] river”; original available at: http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2011/01/09/nacionales/48512. - 29 -
Nicaragua’s Incursion: the Facts
17. So, Mr. President, I turn now to the incursion, occupation and use of Costa Rican
territory by Nicaragua.
18. Costa Rica’s Ministry of Public Security conducted an inspection on the area of Finca
Aragón in Isla Portillos, on 20October 2010, and found that the Nicaraguan dredge named
“Soberania” was depositing sediments from the San Ju an river onto Costa Rican territory, to be
precise, on Isla Portillos; and that a sizeable area of forest had been felled there as well. A picture
taken that day showing the sedimen ts being deposited is now on th e screen, and at tab 57 in your
folders. The next day, on 21October, a protest note was transmitted to the Nicaraguan
Ambassador 26, who was also informed that Costa Rica would be sending its police forces to the
site.
19. The following day, on 22 October, Costa Rica’s police forces did enter Finca Aragón, on
Isla Portillos, prior to the inspection. Once there, the Costa Rican official s raised the Costa Rican
flag.
20. On that same day, members of the Cost a Rican Ministries of Public Security, Foreign
Affairs and Environment inspected the area of Isla Portillos by means of a rented helicopter, and
found that sediments had been deposited on Costa Rican soil, and that a sizeable area of forest had
been levelled. That same day, the Regional Attorney General’s office inspected the area and
27
opened a criminal enquiry . A second inspection was also carried out by the Ministry of
Environment on 25 October. The Nicaraguan Army , posted on boats along the San Juan river and
on the dredge itself, did not react to Costa Rica’s presence on either date.
21. The inspections made clear that Nicaragua had been depositing a great deal of dredged
sediment on Costa Rica’s territory. The amount of sediment deposited equalled about 1,680 cubic
28
metres, or 240truck loads . The pictures of the sediment ta ken at that occasion are now being
shown on screen, and are at tab 58 of your folders.
26
Tab 26, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua; original and English translation, 21 Oct. 2010.
27Regional Attorney’s General Office of Guapiles, file number 10-004110-485 PE.
28Tab 37, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Misión Ramsar de Asesoramiento No. 69, Humedal de Importancia
Internacional Caribe Noreste, Costa Rica and English translation (“Ramsar Report”) 17 Dec. 2010, p. 25. - 30 -
22. The inspection also made clear that an area of some 16,700 square metres of primary
forest had been felled ⎯ at least 197trees had been cut down by that date. Among these, there
were some about 200 years old. Pictures of the deforested area are now being shown, and are
found at tab59. Furthermore, approximately 40,80 0 square metres of forest had been prepared to
29
be cut down , as the projected picture shows, which can be found at tabs 60 to 62.
23. On 26 October, Nicaragua responded to Costa Rica’s note of protest of 21 October 30,
raising, among other things, an entirely irrelevant allegation that two officers from the Costa Rican
Judicial Police had penetrated Nicaraguan territo ry some 200km away from the site of the
Nicaraguan incursion. The note appeared to be the first ⎯ ever ⎯ Nicaraguan attempt to deny
Costa Rica’s ownership of the area of Finca Aragón, in Isla Portillos. It further indicated that
Nicaragua would continue with the “clean up” work on the San Juan River 31.
24. On 31 October, Costa Rican police conducted another reconnaissance flight over
Isla Portillos, and found that Costa Rica’s flag had been removed, and that the Nicaraguan flag rose
in its place. They also observed that several m ilitary camps had been established. The following
day, on 1November, a further fly-over determined the presence of armed Nicaraguan Army
soldiers. You can see, from the projection that, as the aircraft carrying Costa Rican police passed,
Nicaraguan soldiers pointed their weapons at it, in a sign of imminent confrontation: the
photograph is at tab63. One of the Nicaragua n Army personnel appears to be pointing an
anti-aircraft type of weapon. Several other sold iers can be observed pointing their AK-47s at the
aircraft as well. Given the potential for armed conflict ⎯ something that Costa Rica wished by all
means to avoid ⎯ the Ministry of Public Security ceased all flights over in the area the following
days.
25. On 1 November, the Foreign Minister protested the second incursion and occupation of
Costa Rican territory at the site of Finca Ara gón, and demanded the immediate withdrawal of all
29Tab 37, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Misión Ramsar de Asesoramiento No. 69, Humedal de Importancia
Internacional Caribe Noreste, Costa Rica and English translation (“Ramsar Report”) 17 Dec. 2010, p. 25.
30Tab 27, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from acting Minist er of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of and Worship of Costa Rica, original and English translation, 26 Oct. 2010.
31Ibid. - 31 -
32
Nicaraguan personnel from Costa Rica’s territory . Nicaragua did not respond to this protest, or
withdraw its Army personnel from the occupied territory.
26. At the request of Costa Rica and on the basi s of Articles 21 and 62 of the Charter of the
Organization of American States, an immediate Special Session of the Organization was scheduled
for 3November 2010. At that meeting, the Nicaraguan Ambassador to the OAS argued that no
occupation had occurred, and gave co-ordinates fo r the location of certain Nicaraguan operations
and for the dredge itself. However, those co-ordinates did not correspond to any of the locations
where the Nicaraguan Army had established camps on Costa Rican territory 33.
27. Following the first OAS meeting, an invitation was issued to the Secretary General of the
OAS to visit both countries. The visit took place between 5 and 8 November. The Secretary
General met with both Presidents and flew over the occupied area. On the Secretary General’s
initiative, on 8 November, Presidents Ortega and Chinchilla held a telephone conversation 34. The
purpose of the phone call was to agree that Nicaragua would withdraw its troops from the occupied
area and that Costa Rica would not send its police to the same area, thus creating a conflict-free
zone, as a pre-condition for the conduct of a bila teral meeting to take place on 26November, to
discuss other relevant points of the bilateral ag enda. However, despite the sense that an
understanding had been reached with Nicaragua, no Nicaraguan troops were withdrawn.
28. On 9 November, the Secretary General pr esented his report to the Permanent Council of
the OAS. His four recommendations can be seen projected on the screen and can be found at
tab64. There was general agreement between th e Parties as to recommendations 1, 2 and 4, but
not recommendation 3, which was to avoid the presence of military or security forces in the area of
Isla Portillos. Nicaragua refused to accept this recommendation because it implied the withdrawal
of its troops from the occupied Costa Rican territory . In an attempt to reach a negotiated solution,
the meeting of the Permanent Council was susp ended for three days. However, Nicaragua’s
32Tab 28, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from the Minist er of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, original and English translation, 1 Nov. 2010.
33Tab 4, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Extracts of transcri pt from the OAS Permanent Council meeting held on 3, 4, 9
and 12 Nov.2010, Nicaragua’s Ambassador Denis Moncada, OAS Speech, 3Nov.2010, p.17. AmbassadorMoncada
provided the following co-ordinates: “10º, 54 minutes, 55.9 seconds, North Latitude; and 0.83º, 40 minutes, 43.2 seconds,
West Longitude”, and: “10º, 54 minutes, 77.1 seconds, North Latitude; and 0.83º, 41 minutes, 28.3 seconds West
Longitude.”
34Tab 80, Vol. 3, judges’ folders: Extract of transcri pt from the OAS Permanent Council meeting held on 3, 4, 9
and 12 Nov. 2010, Costa Rica’s Ambassador Enrique Castillo, 9 Nov. 2010, pp. 48-49. - 32 -
continuous objection to the withdrawal of its troo ps made a solution impossible. Accordingly, the
Secretary General’s recommendations were put to a vote. The Permanent Council, by a majority of
22 votes in favour, two against (Nicaragua and Ven ezuela) and three abstentions, adopted all four
35
recommendations .
29. Nicaragua immediately vowed not to comply with the resolution. Nicaragua’s
Ambassador Denis Moncada 36, as well as Nicaragua’s President, Commander Daniel Ortega 37,
refused to comply with the OAS recommendations. President Ortega went further, accusing
CostaRica, along with a number of other American countries and the OAS itself, of serving the
cause of narco-trafficking 38. These baseless allegations were firmly rejected by Costa Rica 39 and
the other countries.
30. On 18 November, and as a result of Nicaragua’s clear and adamant refusal to comply
with the recommendations of the OAS, in particular the call for the withdrawal of its troops; and
further considering Nicaragua’s intensification of canal building by that date, Costa Rica decided to
file the Application instituting these proceedings , together with the present Request for the
Indication of Provisional Measures.
31. On that same day, the OAS Permanent Council adopted a further resolution, convening a
Consultation Meeting of Foreign Ministers at OAS headquarters 40.
32. Meanwhile, Nicaragua continued with th e construction of a canal on Costa Rica’s
territory. Nicaragua had also started to cut across a meander located on its side of the border, with
the intention of straightening the naturally curved course of the San Juan, thus increasing the speed
of water flow in that part of the river, as is now being shown. This picture is found at tab65.
35
Resolution of the Permanent Council of the OAS, 12 Nov. 2010; Application of the Republic of Costa Rica,
18 Nov. 2010, Attachment 7.
36
Statement of Denis Ronaldo Moncada, Nicaraguan Amba ssador to the Organization of American States, as
reported in “Call for troop withdrawal in Nicaragua, Costa Rica dispute”; CNN International, 13 November 2010,
available at: http ://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/12/nicaragua.costa.rica.dispute/; Application of the
Republic of Costa Rica, 18 Nov. 2010, Attachment 8.
37English translation by Costa Rica of a speech given by President Ortega on national Nicaraguan television on
13 Nov. 2010; Application of the Republic of Costa Rica, 18 Nov. 2010, Attachment 6.
38Ibid.
39
Tab 30, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from the Minist er of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, original and English translation, 14 Nov. 2010.
40
Resolution of the OAS Permanent Counc il, 18 November 2010, available at:
http://www.oas.org/consejo/resolutions/res979.asp. - 33 -
Cutting across the meander would enable Nicaragua to more easily divert the waters of the
San Juan through the canal built on Costa Rica’s territory.
33. A bilateral meeting scheduled for 26 November was hosted by Costa Rica, but Nicaragua
did not attend and the meeting had to be cancelled. That same day, OAS members took part in a
41
flight over the occupied territory to report back to the Secretary General of the OAS .
34. Further evidence in the form of aerial a nd satellite pictures showed that Nicaragua had
accelerated the construction of the artificial canal and the felling of more forest, this time closer to
Laguna Los Portillos. Illustrations of this, now be ing projected, can be found at tabs 66 and 67.
On 29 November, the acting Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs sent a note reminding
Nicaragua,
“that the fundamental principle of good faith requires that once the International Court
of Justice has received a request for provi sional measures for its consideration, the
parties should suspend all action on the field relating to the subject of the measures, to
prevent the aggravation of the situation and to provide an opportunity for the Court to
hear the parties and decide on the merits of the requested measures, so as to avoid that
the Court’s decision be obstructed by a fait accompli situation” . 42
35. In response, Nicaragua indicated that the issues raised by Costa Rica were sub judice and
refused any interim solution 43. Indeed, it intensified and accelerated the construction of the canal.
On 7 December, the Nicaraguan authorities annou nced the completion of the canal and their
intention to widen it 44. They still did not withdraw from Costa Rica’s territory.
36. On 7 December, the Consultation Meeting of Foreign Ministers took place at the
OAS headquarters. The Secretary General presente d a report, which outlined recent developments
in the occupied area. Of interest is the account by Ambassador Dante Caputo, Special Adviser to
the Secretary General of the OAS and former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Argentina, who stated:
“My impression is that the area where trees have been felled is greater than
during the previous observation, tents can be seen in the location, the Nicaraguan flag,
and the entrance of the river course in the Río San Juan can be clearly distinguished ⎯
better than during our previous flyover. I photographed this entire area and these
41
See infra para. 36.
42Tab 31, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, original and English translation, 29 Nov. 2010.
43Tab 32, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Note from acting Minist er of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister of
Foreign Affairs of and Worship of Costa Rica, original and English translation, 30 Nov. 2010.
44Tab 17, Vol. 1, judges’ folders:English translation of extract from La Prensa, 8 Dec.2010: “Alexander’s
Channel gets cleaned”; original available at:http://www.laprensa.com.ni/2010/12/08/nacionales/45805. - 34 -
comments can be checked against the photos. I saw no members of the armed forces
on the ground. That does not necessarily mean that there were none. In contrast, the
military presence on board the dredger was obvious. It can be clearly seen in one of
45
the photographs.”
37. Photographs attached to his report are now being shown on the screen. They are found at
tab 68.
38. The result of this meeting was the adoption of a resolution calling for the parties to
implement, without delay, the recommendations adopted in the resolution of 12 November 46. The
resolution was passed with the vote of 24countries in favour, two votes against and five
abstentions. Nicaragua has not complied with either resolution.
Effects of the occupation and use of Costa Rica’s territory
39. Mr. President, from the beginning of the occupation, Edén Pastora, the “Contra”
commander, now in the service of the Sandinista Government and in charge o
f the dredging work
of the San Juan river, held himself out as respons ible for a novel “interpretation” given to the
47
Alexander Awards .
40. The astonishing contention is that the occupied Costa Rican territory is Nicaraguan, and
that the artificially constructed canal was the channel that Umpire Alexander referred to in his first
Award as connecting Harbour Head Lagoon with the San Juan river. This staggering conclusion
flies in the face of more than 100 years of Nicaragua’s settled and constant recognition of the true
agreed boundary. Of all things, this position was supported by nothing more than an incorrect map
sourced on “Google”; all official Nicaraguan maps were seemingly set aside. Indeed, Mr. Pastora
affirmed:
“It is enough to revise the Cleveland Award and the border agreements. On
24July1900 it was decided as such. The sed iments are in Nicaraguan territory and
the felling of trees, to discover the channel, is in Nicaraguan territory. Look at the
satellite photo from Google and there the border can be seen. In the last 3,000 meters
45Tab 7, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Report of th e OAS Secretary General, Pursuant to Resolution
CP/Res.979(1780/10), Presented to the Twenty-Sixth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
7 Dec. 2010.
46Resolutionof the OAS Permanent Council, D27c.10, available at:
http://scm.oas.org/IDMS/Redirectpage.aspx?class=II.26%20RC.26/RES&class….
47Tab 18, Vol.1, judges’ folder s: English translation Confidencial.Com.Ni, 30 Nov. 2010: “Pastora: I
interpreted the Alexander Award”; original available a t: http://www.confidencial.com .ni/articulo/2522/pastora-ldquo-
yo-interprete-el-laudo-alexander-rdquo. - 35 -
the two banks are Nicarag48n. From there to El Castillo, the border is the right hand
bank, it is very clear.”
41. Alerted to the mistake, and despite Nicaragua’s protests, Google acknowledged the
49
error and amended their map on Google Earth.
42. To complete this factual narrative, I would like to show you pictures of the digging of the
artificial canal through Costa Rican territory; these can be found at tabs 69 to 72.
43. I note that this area is a wetland whic h on 20 March 1996 was registered by Costa Rica
on the List of Wetlands of International Im portance under the Ramsar Convention of 1971.
Obviously, Nicaragua did not protest the inclusion of Isla Portillos as part of that Costa Rican
wetland at the time of registration. On 15 Nove mber 2010, Costa Rica requested that the Ramsar
Secretariat send an Advisory Mission to assess the ecological changes in the occupied Costa Rican
wetland.
44. The Ramsar Advisory Mission was made up of experts in the fields of limnology,
hydrology, hydrogeology, geology, aquatic ecology, water resources and ecosystem management.
The Advisory Mission received a substantial bod y of documentary evidence, including recent
satellite and aerial photographs and other related information.
50
45. The Ramsar Mission’s report, dated 17 December 2010 , acknowledges the serious
damage thus far inflicted on the protected wetlands.
46. To this day, Nicaragua has continued to increase its military presence in the occupied
territory. The pictures now being projected are found at tabs 73 to 76, demonstrate how the
military presence in the occupied territory has steadily increased.
47. Nicaragua’s presence in the occupied area coincided with new incidents, such as the
illegal intrusion by its naval vessels into Costa Rica’ s maritime waters. I w ould like to underline
that the inhabitants of the region are extremel y worried and scared, as there have already been
48Tab 19, Vol. 3, judges’ folderEnglish translation of extract from La Nación, 3 Nov. 2010: “The dredge is
financed by ALBA in Venezu ela”; original available a t: http://www.nacion.com/2010-11-
03/ElPais/NotasSecundarias/ElPais2576449.aspx.
49See Tab 20, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: English transla tion of extract from Google’s statement by Daniel Helft,
Google’s Senior Manager for P ublic Policies, 5 Nov. 2010; original available at:
http://googleamericalatinablog.blogspot.com/2010/11/aclaraciones-sobre-….
50Tab 37, Vol. 1, judges’ folders: Ramsar Report, 17 Dec. 2010. - 36 -
negative effects on the economy of Barra del Colo rado, a community heavily dependent on fishing
and tourism, activities now seriously affected by the present situation.
48. Mr. President, distinguished Members of th e Court, this concludes my presentation. I
thank you for your kind attention.
49. Mr. President, I would be grateful if you could call on Professor Marcelo Kohen.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr.SergioUgalde for his presentation. Before calling
Professor Marcelo Kohen who is the next speaker, I believe this is an appropriate moment for the
Court to have a brief recess for a coffee break for ten minutes because we are somewhat delayed,
behind the time schedule. I woul d like to ask you to come back in ten minutes. The session will
resume at 11.35 a.m. Thank you.
The Court adjourned from 11.25 a.m. to 11.40 a.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. I now gi ve the floor to Prof essor MarceloKohen to
make his presentation.
M. KOHEN :
LES DROITS QUE LE C OSTA R ICA DEMANDE DE SAUVEGARDER SONT AMPLEMENT PROUVÉS
ET MÊME RECONNUS PAR LE N ICARAGUA
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, c’est un honneur de comparaître
devant cette haute juridiction pour défendre une nouvelle fois les dr oits du CostaRica. Je le fais
avec amertume car notre présence devant vous aujourd’hui est motivée par des comportements
graves qui se déroulent en Amérique centrale depuis trois mois.
Introduction
2. Il m’appartient de vous exposer sommairem ent les droits que le CostaRica vous prie de
sauvegarder en attendant une décision sur le fond, conformément à l’article 41 du Statut de la Cour.
Selon votre jurisprudence constante, «la Courdoit se préoccuper de sauvegarder par de telles
mesures [des mesures conservatoir es] les droits que l’arrêt qu’aura ultérieurement à rendre
pourrait éventuellement reconnaître, soau demandeur, soit au défendeur» ( Application de la - 37 -
convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine
c.Yougoslavie), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8avril1993, C.I.J.Recueil1993, p.19,
par. 34) 51. Comme nous le verrons, la spécificité de cette affaire est que, même à ce stade
liminaire, il devient absolument patent que les droits fondamentaux du CostaRica sont bafoués,
qu’il n’existe aucun droit pour le Nicaragua d’ag ir de la sorte et qu’aucun droit nicaraguayen
éventuel et connexe à l’affaire n’est susceptible d’être affecté par les mesures conservatoires
demandées par le Costa Rica.
3. Il ne sera pas difficile de démontrer que les droits du Costa Rica apparaissent plausibles,
comme l’exige désormais clairement votre jurisprudence pour l’indication de mesures
52
conservatoires . En réalité, ces droits sont bien plus que plausibles. Ils sont établis par des
instruments conventionnels et juridictionnels déjà connus par la Cour ou reconnus devant vous par
les deux Parties dans l’affaire relative aux Droits de navigation et des droits connexes . Ils ont
également trait à des principes fondamentaux du droi t international incorporés dans les Chartes des
Nations Unies et de l’Organisation des Etats américains.
4. Monsieur le président, peut-être convie ndrait-il de commencer par distinguer notre
demande en indication de mesures conservatoir es d’autres demandes de ce genre que vous avez
connues par le passé. Mon collègue et ami James Crawford reviendra là-dessus ultérieurement.
Nous ne sommes pas, contrairement aux affaires Burkina Faso/Mali et Cameroun c.Nigéria,
devant un recours à la force qui intervient dans un contexte d’un différend frontalier porté devant
votre Cour. Non, Monsieur le président, ce diffé rend n’en est pas un concernant l’établissement
des frontières. Je démontrerai dans quelques instan ts que le Nicaragua est pleinement conscient de
cette situation et qu’il a tout simplement prétendu inventer ex post facto un différend frontalier
inexistant comme ultime recours justificatif de son occupation et utilisation illicites du territoire
costa-ricien.
51 Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéri a (Cameroun c.Nigéria), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 15ma rs 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 21, par. 35 ; Application de la convention
internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes discrimination raciale (Géorg ie c.Fédération de Russie),
ordonnance du 15octobre2008, p.388, par.118; Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader
(Belgique c. Sénégal), demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, par. 56.
52Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’ext rader (Belgique c.Sénégal), demande en indication
de mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, par. 57. Voir aussi opinions individuelles des juges Abraham et
Bennouna, Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Arg entine c.Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance
du 13 juillet 2006, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 141, par. 10-11 et p. 143-144, par. 5-6. - 38 -
5. Ce différend ne ressemble pas non plus à ceux du Passage par le Grand-Belt (Finlande
c. Danemark) ou des Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay) , dans
lesquels les Etats concernés avaient autorisé ou procédé à la construction des ouvrages sur un
territoire qui était le leur. Dans son aspect le plus grave, il s’agit ici de la dévastation d’une forêt
costa-ricienne et de la construction d’un canal artificiel par un Etat étranger en territoire
costa-ricien, sans le consentement du Costa Rica. En ce qui concerne le dragage que le Nicaragua
entreprend sur le fleuve San Juan, il est explicite ment régi par des dispositions conventionnelles et
53
juridictionnelles, y compris par ce que votre Cour a établi dans l’arrêt du 13 juillet 2009 .
6. La présente demande de mesures conserva toires a des traits comm uns mais se distingue
aussi de celles ordonnées dans l’affaire des Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo (République
démocratique du Congo c.Ouganda) . Votre ordonnance du 1 ejuillet2000 a reconnu que la
souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriale de la République démocratique du Congo étaient des droits en
54
cause en vertu de la requête congolaise . L’une des mesures conservatoires indiquées par votre
Cour a été que les deux Parties devaient immédiatement prendre toutes mesures nécessaires pour se
conformer à la résolution1304 du Conseil de sécurité 55, laquelle demandait le retrait complet et
56
immédiat des forces ougandaises de Kisangani . Dans la présente affaire, le Conseil de sécurité
n’a pas été saisi, mais le conseil permanent et la réunion de consultation des ministres des affaires
étrangères de l’OEA ont adopté des résolutions r ecommandant le retrait des forces armées et de
57
sécurité de la zone objet du différend .
7. Dans le présent exposé, je vais d’abord mont rer que les droits costa-riciens satisfont haut
la main le plus sévère test que l’on puisse imaginer quant à leur plausibilité de se voir reconnus lors
de l’examen du fond. Deuxièmement, j’expo serai comment la revendication territoriale ex post
facto de l’Etat occupant, dans le but de créer un «différend frontalier», n’est qu’une invention
53Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et de s droits connexes (CostaRica c.Nicaragua), arrêt du
13 juillet 2009, par. 155.
54
Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo (Répub lique démocratique du Congo c.Ouganda), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 1 erjuillet 2000, C.I.J. Recueil 2000, p. 127, par. 40.
55
Ibid., p. 129, par. 47.
56
Résolution1304 (2000) du Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies du 16 juin 2000, par. 3, reproduite in ibid.,
p. 124-126, par. 35.
57
Résolution978 (1777/10) du conseil permanent de l’OEA du 12novembre2010, requête introductive
d’instance introduite par la République du CostaRica, anne xe 7 ; et résolution 1/10 de la réunionode consultation des
ministres des affaires étrangères de l’OEA du 7 décembre 2010 (dossiers de plaidoiries, vol. I, onglet n 6). - 39 -
nicaraguayenne de dernière minute afin de justifier ses actes illicites et qu’elle ne peut pas
empêcher la Cour d’ordonner les mesures conservatoires demandées par le Costa Rica.
A. Le droit du Costa Rica d’exercer sa souveraineté sur Isla Portillos et de voir son intégrité
territoriale respectée, y compris par la non-occupation de celui-ci
8. Commençons par le droit du CostaRica d’ex ercer sa souveraineté sur IslaPortillos et de
voir son intégrité territoriale respectée.
a) La souveraineté du Costa Rica sur Isla Portillo s est incontestable : elle est reconnue par une
sentence arbitrale ayant force de chose jugée
9. La question est simple. Il y a une frontière établie par un traité qui a été interprétée par
une sentence arbitrale avec force de res iudicata entre les parties. En effet, la question de la
souveraineté costa-ricienne sur Isla Portillos est réglée depuis plus d’un siècle entre les parties.
10. M. Brenes vous a rappelé l’article II du tr aité de limites du 15 avril 1858, qui détermine
que la frontière commence «à l’extrémité de P unta de Castilla, à l’embouchure du fleuve San Juan
58
de Nicaragua, puis suivra la rive droite dudit fleuve» . La sentence arbitrale du président
Cleveland, après avoir confirmé la validité du traité a aussi confirmé la délimitation comme suit :
«La frontière entre la République du Costa Rica et la République du Nicaragua
du côté de l’Atlantique commence à l’extr émité de Punta de Castilla à l’embouchure
du fleuve San Juan de Nicaragua, en le ur état respectif au 15 avril 858.
L’appartenance de toute accrétion à Punta Castilla sera régie par le droit applicable en
59
la matière.»
M.Brenes a déjà mentionné la création par la convention Pacheco-Matus de1896 d’une
60
commission binationale chargée de la démarcation de la frontière et le fait que par la même
occasion les parties ont demandé au président des Etats-Unis de nommer un arbitre pour trancher
61
avec force obligatoire tout différend entre les commissaires des deux parties .
58
Traité de limites entre le Costa Ri ca et le Nicaragua conclu le 15 avril 1858. Traduction en français du Greffe
dans l’affaire du Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) , mémoire
du Costa Rica (MCR), vol. 2, annexe 7 b).
59
Sentence arbitrale du président des Etats-Unis relative à la validité du traité de limites entre le Costa Rica et le
Nicaragua du 15juillet1858, décision du 22mars1888. Droits de navigation et droits connexes , MCR, vol.2,
annexe 16. Traduction du Greffe, à l’exception de la dernière phrase, laquelle dans la traduction du Greffe se lit comme
suit : «La propriété de tous atterrissements à Punta Castilla sera régie par le droit applicable en la matière».
60 Convention de délimitation Costa Rica-Nicaragua (Pacheco-Matus), San Salvador, 27 mars 1896,
182 CTS 359, Droits de navigation et droits connexes , MCR, vol. 2, annexe 17, requête introductive d’instance du Costa
Rica, 18 novembre 2010, annexe 3. Aussi dans NationsUnies, Recueil des sentences arbitrales , vol.XXVIII,
p. 211-213.
61 Article III de la convention Pacheco-Matus. - 40 -
11. La frontière dans la zone envahie par le Nicaragua a été délimitée avec précision par la
première sentence arbitrale rendue par l’ingénieur Alexander le 30 septembre 1897. Elle constitue
l’interprétation obligatoire pour les parties de l’ar ticleII du traité Cañas-Jer éz et de l’article3,
paragraphe1, de la sentence Cleveland. Vous avez au volumeII du dossier de plaidoiries les
comptes rendus des travaux de la commission 62, dans lesquels on trouve le texte manuscrit des
sentences Alexander, la liste des coordonnées et un croquis établi par l’arbitre, que vous voyez
maintenant à l’écran. Ce croquis constitue la transcripti on graphique de la décision de l’arbitre et
des coordonnées établies par les commissaires et l’arbitre . Pas l’ombre d’un doute sur
l’interprétation à donner au texte ni sur la souveraineté costa-ricienne du territoire aujourd’hui
occupé par le Nicaragua.
12. La sentence Alexander indique qu’une carte est jointe à la décision arbitrale, dans
63
laquelle sont montrées les revendications des parties . Vous la voyez maintenant à l’écran,
reproduite une année plus tard avec la sent ence arbitrale dans l’ouvrage déjà cité de
64
John Basset Moore . On voit clairement que le Nicaragua revendiquait IslaPortillos, incluant la
région aujourd’hui occupée. On voit également que la délimitation opérée par l’arbitre déclare
clairement ces territoires comme étant costa-riciens. Cette carte a été reproduite avec le texte de la
65
sentence arbitrale dans le Recueil des sentences arbitrales des NationsUnies en2007 . Le
Nicaragua, naturellement, n’a soulevé aucune objection à cette reproduction.
13. J’attire votre attention Mesdames et Mess ieurs les juges sur la valeur juridique des
deuxcartes que je viens de vous présenter. Si l’ on applique votre jurisprudence, ces deux cartes
possèdent «une valeur juridique intrinsèque aux fi ns de l’établissement des droits territoriaux»
66
(Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/Mali), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p.582, par.54) . Cette
62 Procès-verbaux des travaux de la commission de dé marcation (dossier de plaidoiries, vol.II, onglet 41,
Acta X, p. 33 de la version originale).
63 NationsUnies, Recueil des sentences arbitrales, vol.XXVIII, p.216 (dossier de plaidoiries, vol.II, onglet
n 38).
64
John Basset Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States has been a
Party, vol. V, Washington, 1898, Government Printing Office, p. 5074.
65
NationsUnies, Recueil des sentences arbitrales , vol.XXVIII, p.221 (dossier de plaidoiries, vol.II, onglet
n 38).
66
Voir aussi: Ile de Kasikili/Sedudu (Botswana/Namibi e), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil1999, p. 1098, par. 84 ; affaire
relative à la Souveraineté sur Pulau Ligitan et Pulau Sipadan (I ndonésie/Malaisie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p.667,
par. 88. - 41 -
situation se produit selon vous lorsque les carte s «ont été intégrées parmi les éléments qui
constituent l’expression de la volonté de l’Etat ou des Etats concernés. Ainsi en va-t-il, par
exemple, lorsque des cartes sont annexées à un texte officiel dont elles font partie intégrante.»
(Ibid.) Dans le cas d’espèce, ces cartes font part ie intégrante des procès-verbaux des travaux
communs de démarcation et de la décision d’un arbitre ayant un caractère obligatoire et définitif.
14. D’autres cartes pertinentes de l’époque, que vous avez dans vos dossiers, y compris des
relevés topographiques effectués par les marines am éricaines et britanniques, ainsi que des cartes
officielles nicaraguayennes et du bureau interna tional des Républiques américaines, montrent
67
toutes la frontière qui commence à la mer des Caraïbes telle que nous l’avons présentée .
15. Dans son opuscule de propagande intitulé «Le fleuve San Juan de Nicaragua. Les vérités
que le CostaRica cache» 68, le Nicaragua présente une photographie dans laquelle on décrit
prétendument la frontière établie par la prem ière sentence Alexander comme passant par un
«canalHarborHead» qui, de toute évidence, n’ex istait pas en1897. C’est le premier dragueur
nicaraguayen, Edén Pastora, qui, prétendant interp réter à sa manière la sentence Alexander, est en
train de construire un canal artificiel en plein terr itoire costa-ricien, canal qui n’a auparavant existé
que dans sa riche imagination 69. Le professeur Crawford se référera aux paragraphes pertinents de
l’entretien du commandant Pastora dans quelques instants.
67
Voir Plano de la Bahía de San Juan del Norte marcando el punto de partida de la línea divisoria entre Costa
Rica, Nicaragua, levantado por las Co misiones respectivas, 30 septembre 1897 (dossier de plaidoiries, vol.III,
onglet n° 106) ; Greytown Harbor from Survey by Officers of USGB Newport, B.F.Tilley, Com’d’r USN, Commanding,
1898, reproduit in :Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, Un atlas histórico de Nicaragua (Managua, Nicaragua: Fundación
Vida, 2002) (dossier de plaidoiries, vol. III, onglet n° 107) ; San Juan del Norte or Greytown, Chart, Londres : Admiralty,
1899 (British Library Map Collection, Section 8 (2012)) (dossier de plaidoiries, vol. III, onglet n°110Official Map of
Nicaragua, compiled by order of His Excellency the Presiden t General Don Jose Santos Zelaya from surveys by
Maximiliano Sonnenstern, Government Civil Engineer, assist ed by William P.Colins G.C.E. Revised to Date 1898.
Published by H.G. Chalkley, Chicago, 1898), reproduit in : Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa, ibid., 2002) (dossier de
plaidoiries, vol.III, onglet n° 108) ; Línea Divisoria Costa Rica y Nicar agua Demarcada según el Tratado Cañas Jeréz
de 1858, de acuerdo con el Laudo de Mr. Grover Cleveland de 1888 y el Tratado Pacheco-Matus de 1896 , par Lucas
Fernandez, Ing°, 1900. Source: Nicaragua , Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Situación Jurídica del Río San Juan
(Managua, Nicaragua, Publicac iones del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores 1954 and ibid., 1974); (dossier de
plaidoiries, vol.III, onglet n°109); Nicaragua, from Official and other Sources prepared in the International Bureau of
the American Republics, William Woodville Rockhill, Director, 1903, reproduit in :Francisco Xavier Aguirre Sacasa,
op. cit. (dossier de plaidoiries, vol. III, onglet n° 111).
68Rio San Juan de Nicaragua. Las verdades que Costa Rica occulta, novembre 2010, p. 4 et 60, disponible sur le
site internet de la présidence de la République du Nicaragua (http://www.presid encia.gob.ni/documentos/
activos/descarga/Verdades%20que%20Costa%20Rica%20oculta.pdf). Version anglaise disponible sur le site internet de
la présidence de la République du Nicaragua (http: //www.el19digital.com/documentos/TruthsCostaRicaHides_
webVersion.pdf)
69
«Pastora: «Yo interpreté el laudo Alexander»» (traducti on: «Pastora: «J’ai interprété la sentence arbitrale
Alexander»», Confidencial.Com, 30novembre2010, disponible sur : http:/ /www.confidencial.com.ni/articulo/2522/
pastora-ldquo-yo-interprete-el-laudo-alexander-rdquo (dossier de plaidoiries, vol. I, onglet n 18). - 42 -
b) La cartographie officielle des deux pays reconnaît systématiquement la souveraineté
costa-ricienne
16. Les deux Parties ⎯ je souligne : les deux Parties ⎯ ont durant plus d’un siècle reconnu
ce tracé de la frontière. Systématiquement, toutes les cartes officielles produites de part et d’autre
ont montré la frontière telle qu’établie par l’arbitreAlexander et plaçant ainsi IslaPortillos en
territoire costa-ricien. A vrai dire, Monsieur le président, j’ai l’embarras du choix avec la
cartographie. Pour ne pas abuser de votre pa tience, je vais vous montrer uniquement quelques
cartes qui sont particulièrement significatives. Po ur faciliter la compréhension, je montrerai sur
quelques cartes que vous aurez à l’écran l’empl acement du canal artificiel que le Nicaragua
construit illicitement en territoire costa-ricien.
17. Voici, Mesdames et Messieurs les jug es, une carte officielle nicaraguayenne du
département du rio San Juan 70. Son auteur est le «Gouvernemen t de la République du Nicaragua.
Institut nicaraguayen d’études territoriales.» Elle da te d’avril2003. Vous voyez de manière très
claire que la frontière place le territoire occupé par le Nicaragua comme relevant du CostaRica.
Mais ce n’est pas tout. Regardez ici: il ne s’agit pas de ce qu’on appelle en anglais un
«disclaimer». C’est tout le contraire: c’est un «claimer», si vous me permettez l’expression. La
phrase se lit comme suit : «Los límites fueron revisados por la Dirección General de Ordenamiento
Territorial INETER.» Je traduis: «Les limites ont été vérifiées par la direction générale de
l’aménagement du territoire INETER (Institut nicaraguayen d’études territoriales).»
18. A en croire la déclaration du directeur de l’INETER présentée par le Nicaragua dans sa
documentation soumise à la Cour mercredi dernier, je dirais que le direct eur ne connaît pas très
bien la cartographie de son institut, puisqu’il affirme que les cartes officielles de la région signalent
71
qu’elles n’ont pas été vérifiées sur le terrain . En voici une qui dit exactement le contraire.
19. Dans l’affaire Malaisie/Singapour, votre Cour a conclu que les cartes officielles de la
Malaisie montrant Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh entre 1962 et 1975 «tend[aient] à confirmer que
la Malaisie considérait que PedraBranca/Pula uBatuPuteh relevait de la souveraineté de
70Gobierno de la República de Nicaragua. Instituto Nicaraguense de Estudios Terri toriales, Departamento de
Río San Juan, avril 2003 (dossier de plaidoiries, vol. III, onglet n 85).
71Declaration of Executive Director of Nicarag ua’s Institute of Territorial Studies (INETER),
Alejandro Rodríguez Alvarado, 1 décembre 2010. Documentation présentée par le Nicaragua à la Cour le 5 janvier 2011,
doc. n 11. - 43 -
Singapour» ( Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge
(Malaisie/Singapour), arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil2008 , p.95, par272). Il s’agissait de cartes contenant
des «disclaimers» à propos des frontières. Que dire alors de la cartographie officielle
nicaraguayenne publiée durant plus d’un siècle? La réponse saute aux yeux. Il y a une
reconnaissance claire, constante, dépourvue d’ ambiguïté, irréfragable, que le territoire
d’Isla Portillos relève de la souveraineté du Costa Rica.
20. Je vais arrêter mon exercice cartographique bientôt, Monsieur le président, parce que
votre Cour connaît très bien cette acceptation constante et uniforme de la frontière par les
deuxParties avant l’occupation nicaraguayenne. Dans le Différend relatif à des droits de
navigation et des droits connexes (CostaRica c.Nicaragua), les cartes que les deux Parties vous
o
ont présentées concordaient elles aussi. Le croquis n 5 dans le mémoire du CostaRica
reproduisait le tracé de la frontière à l’endroit de son commencement, tel que l’arbitre l’avait
établie en 1897. Dans une note de bas de page de son contre-mémoire, le Nicaragua a indiqué que
o
la frontière décrite dans le croquis n 5 n’était pas correcte et s’est borné à faire une réserve
72
générale de ses droits, sans aucune indication précise . Vraisemblablement, il ne devait pas s’agir
de la souveraineté sur IslaPortillos car les car tes produites par le Nicaragua dans le même
contre-mémoire et dans la dup lique montrent systématiquement et uniformément le territoire
aujourd’hui occupé comme relevant de la souve raineté costa-ricienne. A titre d’exemple, je
mentionnerai les cartes suivantes :
73
⎯ Nicaragua Sovereignty over the Whole Course of the San Juan de Nicaragua River ;
74
⎯ The Sarapiqui Route Envisioned before 1858 ;
⎯ Costa Rican Tourism Route from 1990s to the Present 75;
⎯ The Indio Maíz Biological Reserve (Dark Green) and the San Juan River Wildlife Refuge
76
(Yellow) ;
72
Contre-mémoire du Nicaragua (CMN), p. 9, note de bas de page 14.
73 CMN, p. 265, croquis n 1.
74 DN, p. 116, croquis n 1.
75 DN, p. 175, croquis n 3.
76 o
DN, p. 181, croquis n 4. - 44 -
77
⎯ Alleged Locations where Costa Rican Public Vessels Navigated .
21. Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, la pr euve de la souveraineté costa-ricienne est donc
accablante. Elle a été, entre autres, déjà fournie par le Nicaragua lui-même et devant votre même
Cour, il y a à peine deux ans et demi.
c) Les droits du Costa Rica d’exercer sa souveraineté, de voir son intégrité territoriale respectée
et de ne pas avoir une partie de son territoire occupée par un Etat étranger
22. Monsieur le président, après centquatorzeannées de reconnaissance ininterrompue par
les deux Parties de cette frontière, le Nicaragua l’ a d’abord violée et l’a ensuite contestée. Cette
séquence chronologique d’événements mérite d’être relevée. Le Nicaragua a d’abord occupé le
territoire costa-ricien et ce n’est qu’ensuite qu ’il a avancé pour la première fois, et encore de
manière elliptique, une revendication de souveraineté sur ce territoire, le 26octobre2010, en
réponse à une note de protestation costa-ricienne 78. C’est une revendication appuyée sur le recours
et la menace du recours à la force, en violation de l’article2, paragraphe 4, de la Charte des
Nations Unies et de l’article 22 de la Charte de l’OEA.
23. Il est un fait incontestable que le Nicaragua a déployé ses forces armées sur le territoire
en question. Mes collègues vous ont déjà montré le déploiement des troupes nicaraguayennes.
79
Dans son opuscule de propagande précité , le Gouvernement nicaraguayen affirme que ⎯ je cite
en traduction ⎯ «L’armée du Nicaragua a effectué ses activités militaires dans la zone de
80
Harbor Head et le canal du même nom, terr itoire souverain et indiscutable du Nicaragua.» Vous
voyez à l’écran la carte nicaraguayenne qui illustre ces propos dans l’opuscule mentionné 81 : la
région occupée d’Isla Portillos est présentée comme «zone revendiquée par le Costa Rica 3 km » et
l’on y voit un «poste de contrôle frontalier de l’armée du Nicaragua» qui n’a jamais existé avant
l’occupation. Vous le savez, Mesdames et Messi eurs de la Cour, puisque dans votre arrêt du
77DN, p. 256, croquis n 8.
78
Note du ministre des affaires étrngères par intérim du Nicaragua au ministre des affa ires étrangères du
Costa Rica du 26 octobre 2010, en réponse à la note du ministre costa-ricien au ministre nicaraguayen du 21 octobre 2010
(dossier de plaidoiries, vol. I, onglets n 27 et 26).
79Traduction anglaise : «The San Juan de Nicaragua River. The Truths that Costa Rica Hides.»
80
Rio San Juan de Nicaragua. Las verdades que Costa Rica occulta, novembre 2010, p. 15, disponible sur le site
internet de la présidence de laRépublique du Nicaragua (http://www.presid encia.gob.ni/documentos/activos/descarga/
Verdades%20que%20Costa%20Rica%20oculta.pdf).
81
Ibid. - 45 -
82
13juillet2009 vous avez inclus un croquis m ontrant les postes frontière existants . Ilyena
certainement un à la localité nicaraguayenne de San Juan del Norte, pas à Isla Portillos.
24. C’est donc dans cette brochure de pr opagande que le Nicaragua a produit pour la
première fois une carte montrant une partie d’Is laPortillos comme relevant de sa souveraineté.
Mais ce n’est pas tout. Même si cette carte était correcte ⎯ quod non ⎯, le canal construit par le
Nicaragua se trouverait toujours en territoire costa -ricien! Il s’agit d’une preuve supplémentaire
des activités nicaraguayennes en territoire costa- ricien, tout comme de l’incohérence de la
revendication nicaraguayenne.
25. Messieurs et Mesdames les juges, je laisse à votre réflexion l’affirmation selon laquelle
l’armée nicaraguayenne a effect ué ses activités «en territoire souverain et indiscutable du
83
Nicaragua». Evidemment, EdénPastora, le commandant «Zéro» bien connu de la Cour , et les
officiers de l’armée nicaraguayenne ne se sont pas servis de la carte officielle nicaraguayenne
de 1905 ⎯quelques années après la sente nce arbitrale Alexander donc ⎯ dont le titre est
précisément «Carte pour être utilisée pa r les officiers de l’armée du Nicaragua» 84 et qui place
Isla Portillos bien évidemment en territoire costa-ricien !
26. Revenons donc à l’occupation militaire. Il est incontestable que le Nicaragua se trouve
aujourd’hui, grâce au concours de son armée, en possession d’un territoire sur lequel il n’exerçait
pas auparavant sa juridiction ou contrôle. Qu e ses troupes n’aient pas rencontré de résistance
militaire n’est pas un obstacle pour qualifier cette situation d’occupation, comme l’établit l’article 2
85
de la quatrième convention de Genève de 1949 . Je rappellerai par ailleurs que le Costa Rica n’a
pas de forces armées.
27. La déclaration de principes de droit international contenue dans la
résolution 2625 (XXV) résume clairement l’état du droit en la matière : «Le territoire d’un Etat ne
peut faire l’objet d’une occupation militaire résulta nt de l’emploi de la force contrairement aux
82Voir croquis n 2 dans l’arrêt en l’affaire du Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des droits connexes
(Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) et croquis nº 5 du mémoire du Costa Rica.
83 Activités militaires et param ilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c.Etats-Unis d’Amérique),
fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 54, par. 94.
84 Mapa para uso de los Oficiales del Ejército de Nicaragua, 1905. Reproduit in : Francisco Xavier Aguirre
Sacasa, Un atlas histórico de Nicaragua (Managua, Nicaragua, 2002) (dossier de plaidoiries, vol. III, onglet n
85 Convention de Genève relative à la protec tion des personnes civile s en temps de guerre (convention de
Genève IV), 12 août 1949, entrée en vigueur le 21 octobre 1950, 75 RTNU 287. - 46 -
86
dispositions de la Charte.» La Charte de l’OEA, quant à elle, reconnaît aux Etats membres un
droit plus spécifique encore. Son article21 se lit comme suit: «Le territoire d’un Etat est
inviolable, il ne peut être l’objet d’occupation milita ire ni d’autres mesures de force de la part d’un
autre Etat, directement ou indirectement, pour quelque motif que ce soit et même de manière
87
temporaire.» Ainsi, le CostaRica a droit à ce que son territoire ne soit pas occupé, même
temporairement. Un droit qui deviendrait illusoire s’il fallait attendre la fin de la procédure pour
voir la fin de l’occupation nicaraguayenne.
28. Le Costa Rica a droit aussi à ce que l’on respecte son intégrité territoriale. Comme votre
devancière l’a relevé, «la limita tion primordiale qu’impose le droit international à l’Etat est celle
d’exclure ⎯ sauf l’existence d’une règle permissive contraire ⎯ tout exercice de sa puissance sur
o
le territoire d’un autre Etat» ( Lotus, arrêt nº 9, 1927, C.P.J.I. série A n 10, p. 18). Au moment où
je vous parle, le Nicaragua continue d’ignorer cette «limitation primordiale» et oublie, comme vous
l’avez souligné il y a plus de soixanteans qu’«[ e]ntre Etats indépendants, le respect de la
souveraineté territoriale est l’une des bases essentielles des rapports internationaux» ( Détroit de
Corfou (Royaume-Uni c. Albanie), fond, arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1949, p. 35) 88.
29. Le Nicaragua certainement n’ignore pas ces principes de base qui régissent les relations
internationales puisqu’il vous a demandé, et votre Cour a indiqué en 1984, la mesure conservatoire
suivante :
«Que le droit à la souveraineté et à l’indépendance politique que possède la
République du Nicaragua, comme tout autre Etat de la région et du monde, soit
pleinement respecté et ne soit compromis d’aucune manière par des activités militaires
et paramilitaires qui sont interdites par les principes du droit international, notamment
par le principe que les Etats s’abstiennent, dans leurs relations internationales, de
recourir à la menace ou à l’emploi de la force contre l’intégrité territoriale ou
l’indépendance politique de tout Etat, et par le principe relatif au droit de ne pas
intervenir dans les affaires relevant de la compétence nationale d’un Etat, consacrés
par la Charte des Nations Unies et la Charte de l’Organisation des Etats américains.»
(Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Ni caragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua
c.Etats-Unis d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 10mai1984,
C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 187, par. 41 B) 2).)
86Déclaration relative aux principes du droit international touchant les relations amical es et la coopération entre
les Etats conformément à la Charte des NationsUnies, en annexe de la réso lution 2625 (XXV) de l’Assemblée générale
des NationsUnies, Documents officiels de l’Assemblée générale , vingt-cinquièmesession, supplément nº18 ,
Nations Unies, doc. A/8010, p. 133.
87Les italiques sont de nous.
88Voir aussi Conformité au droit international de la déclar ation unilatérale d’indépendance relative au Kosovo,
avis consultatif du 22 juillet 2010, par. 80. - 47 -
A l’époque, le Nicaragua invoquait que les Et ats-Unis d’Amérique ne respectaient pas sa
souveraineté et son intégrité territoriale par l’intermédiaire d’une armée de mercenaires 89. Dans la
situation actuelle, le Nicaragua a stationné sa propre armée en territoire costa-ricien et y a entrepris
ses actions de dévastation forestière et de tentative de déviation du fleuve San Juan. Le Costa Rica
a lui aussi droit à ce que sa souveraineté et son intégrité territoriale soient respectées.
30. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, j’attire votre attention sur un autre fait important:
l’Etat qui exerçait juridiction sur IslaPortillo s avant l’invasion était incontestablement le
Costa Rica. Une manifestation claire et dépourvue d’ambiguïté de ce tte juridiction est l’octroi par
les autorités costa-riciennes de permis de possessi on de la région concernée inscrits au cadastre
costa-ricien. Vous voyez à l’écran l’un de ces pe rmis, et vous en avez dans vos dossiers d’autres
qui correspondent à d’autres zones de la région occupée aujourd’hui par le Nicaragua 90.
31. Le résultat de cette occupation, en dehor s de la dévastation importante produite par le
Nicaragua sur le territoire costa-ricien, est que le CostaRica se voit privé d’exercer ses
prérogatives de puissance publique sur ce territoire.
32. Le Costa Rica prie la Cour de préserver son droit de voir son territoire libre d’occupation
étrangère, de voir son intégrité territoriale respec tée et de pouvoir exercer la juridiction et le
contrôle sur son territoire aujourd’hui occupé par le Nicaragua.
d) La revendication de souveraineté nicaraguaye nne n’empêche pas d’ordonner des mesures
conservatoires
33. Monsieur le président, fort probablement, les représentants de l’Etat occupant nous diront
cet après-midi que le Nicaragua n’a pas agi en territoire costa-ricien, que ce territoire est
nicaraguayen. Ce ne sera pas hé las la première fois dans l’hist oire qu’un Etat invente de toutes
pièces un prétendu différend pour justifier une inte rvention militaire ou l’occupation d’un territoire
étranger. Chacune et chacun trouvera dans sa mémoire de tristes exemples pour illustrer mes
propos.
89 Activités militaires et param ilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celu(Nicaragua c.Etats-Unis d’Amérique),
mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 10 mai 1984, C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 180, par. 28.
90 Permiso de uso a: José Albe rto Alvarez Nuñez, T°14317, F°174 , annexe10 de la documentation présentée le
5 janvier 2011 (dossier de plaidoiries, vol. III, onglet n 102). Voir aussi les autres permis d’utilisation dans le volume I,
onglets ns11 à 15 du dossier de plaidoiries. - 48 -
34. Nous croyons avoir apporté sommairement la preuve de la souveraineté costa-ricienne.
Mais même si, par impossible, il existait l’ombr e d’un doute, cela n’empêcherait pas la Cour
d’ordonner des mesures conservatoires. Comme je l’ai déjà indiqué, l’Etat qui exerçait la
juridiction sur le territoire aujourd’hui occupé était le Costa Rica. La frontière internationalement
reconnue était celle que les deux Etats vous ont m ontrée dans l’affaire précédente. Ces données
sont fondamentales. Certains pourront évoquer que, même si la revendication nicaraguayenne est
totalement infondée, elle constitue néanmoins une revendication et qu’en tant que telle, elle doit
être tranchée par la Cour au stade du fond. Or, les mesures conservatoires ne préjugeront en rien
des droits ⎯ vrais ou totalement infondés ⎯ soulevés par l’une ou l’autre des Parties. Les mesures
demandées relatives aux droits du CostaRica de voir sa souveraineté et son intégrité territoriale
préservées visent à rétablir le statu quo ante. Si le Nicaragua souhaite formuler une revendication
territoriale, fût-elle absurde, visant à modifier la situation factuelle existante, personne ne peut l’en
empêcher. Ce que le Nicaragua ne peut pas faire, c’est de modifier unilatéralement la situation
existante par la menace ou le recours à la force et de vouloir imposer dans les faits sa nouvelle
revendication territoriale, fût-ce de manière transitoire.
35. Monsieur le président, le CostaRica souhaite préserver son droit à l’exercice de sa
juridiction sur le territoire occupé en attendant la fin de la proc édure. Votre Cour devrait-elle
s’abstenir d’ordonner le retrait du Nicaragua à ses pos itions antérieures à l’occupation du fait de sa
revendication extemporanée de souve raineté ? La réponse est certaine ment négative. Ce serait la
fin de l’interdiction du recours à la force, du principe de l’intégrité territoriale et du droit applicable
à l’occupation militaire si, par le fait que l’occupant prétend que le territoire qu’il contrôle relève
de sa souveraineté, toutes ces règles devenaient inap plicables si on ne détermine pas préalablement
qui en est le souverain. Comme le disait Oscar Schachter : «the expression «territorial integrity» in
Article 2 (4) refers to the State which actually ex ercises authority over the territory, irrespective of
disputes as to the legality of that authority» 91.
91Oscar Schachter, «International Law in Theory and Practice. General Course in Public International Law»,
RCADI, 1982-V, t.178, p.143 (Ma traduction: «l’expression «intégrité territoriale» à l’article2, paragraphe4, fait
référence à l’Etat qui exerce effectivemen t son autorité sur le territoire, sans tenir compte des différends qui pourraient
exister au regard de la légalité d’un tel exercice»). - 49 -
36. IslaPortillos se trouvait au moment de l’ occupation nicaraguayenne sous la juridiction
du CostaRica. Le Nicaragua avait l’obligation de respecter cette situation. S’il voulait soulever
une revendication territoriale, il avait les moye ns pacifiques de règlement des différends à sa
disposition, par ailleurs fort nombreux entre les deux Etats.
B. Le droit du Costa Rica au respect et à la préservation de ses ressources naturelles
et à son environnement
37. Dans sa demande de mesures conservatoir es, le CostaRica souhaite protéger aussi ses
droits au respect et à la préservation de ses r essources naturelles et de son environnement. Les
sources et le contenu de ses droits sont tant bila téraux que multilatéraux. Je vais distinguer le droit
au respect et à la préservation de ses zones humides ⎯ le territoire occupé par le Nicaragua en est
un ⎯ et le droit à ce que les activités de dragag e sur le fleuve SanJuan ne causent pas des
dommages au territoire costa-ricien ni n’affectent la navigation de ses affluents ni l’exercice de son
droit de navigation sur le fleuve San Juan.
a) Le droit du Costa Rica de préserver le site Ramsar occupé par le Nicaragua
38. Le territoire costa-ricien occupé a été désigné comme «zone humide d’importance
internationale» depuis le 20mars1996 et il est à ce titre soumis au régime établi par la
92
convention Ramsar de 1971 . Le Costa Rica et le Nicaragua en sont parties respectivement depuis
le 27avril1992 et le 30novembre1997. Le s ite Ramsar concerné est le «Humedal Caribe
93
Noreste» . Comme vous pouvez l’apprécier à l’écran, le territoire occupé par le Nicaragua se
trouve clairement sur ce site, sans que le Nicaragua ait formulé aucune réserve. Je signale en
passant que le Nicaragua n’y a pas inclus IslaPo rtillos lorsqu’il a inscrit son site Ramsar intitulé
«Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río San Juan» qui se trouve immédiatement de l’autre côté du
94
San Juan .
92Convention relative aux zones humides d’importance internationale partulièrement comme habitats de la
sauvagine (convention Ramsar), 2 février 1971, entrée en vigueur le 21 décembre 1975, 996 RTNU 245.
93Liste des zones humides d’importance internationa le costa-ricienne disponible à partir du site
internet du Ramsar (http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/rams ar-pubs-annolist-annotated-ramsar-16460/main/ramsar/1-30-
168%5E16460_4000_0_).
94Liste des zones humides d’importa nce internationale nicaraguayenne disponible à partir du site
internet du Ramsar (http://www.rams ar.org/cda/fr/ramsar-pubs-annolist-annotated-ramsar-16106/main/ramsar/1-30-
168%5E16106_4000_1_). - 50 -
39. Le CostaRica a le droit de préserver son site Ramsar, en exerçant ses droits et en
accomplissant ses obligations découlant de la conventi on de1971. En particulier, il s’agit de la
95
conservation de la zone humide incluse dans la liste Ramsar et de son utilisation rationnelle .
40. Conformément à l’article3, paragraphe 2, de la convention, le CostaRica a
immédiatement notifié les altérations de la zone humide provoquées par le Nicaragua. La
mission Ramsar n o69 envoyée en conséquence par le secrétariat a produit un rapport avec des
96
recommandations que le Costa Rica a le droit de mettre en Œuvre .
41. Le CostaRica a également le droit de voir le Nicaragua respecter son obligation
découlant de l’article5 de la convention, à savoir d’être consulté sur l’exécution des obligations
découlant de la convention, particulièrement da ns le cas d’une zone humide s’étendant sur les
territoires de plus d’une partie contractante ou lorsqu’un bassin hydrographique est partagé entre
plusieurs parties contractantes, comme c’est le c as dans la région frontalière en question. A ce
jour, le Nicaragua a obstinément refusé de s’acquitter de cette obligation et poursuit son Œuvre de
canalisation et d’abatage de la forêt en territoire costa-ricien.
42. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, en tant qu’Etat partie à la convention Ramsar, le
Nicaragua a reconnu que «les zones humides c onstituent une ressource de grande valeur
97
économique, culturelle, scientifique et récréativ e, dont la disparition serait irréparable» . Son
mépris pour cette zone et pour les droits et obligations découlant de la conventionRamsar à
Isla Portillos ne peut et ne doit pas continuer.
b) Le droit du CostaRica à ce que toute activité de dragage du SanJuan n’affecte pas son
territoire, y compris ses voi es navigables, ni n’empêche son droit de navigation sur le
San Juan
43. Je passe maintenant, Monsieur le président, au droit du Costa Rica à ce que toute activité
de dragage du San Juan n’affecte pas son territo ire, y compris ses voies navigables, ni n’empêche
son droit de navigation sur le fleuve San Juan.
95
Convention Ramsar, art. 4, par. 1.
96Rapport de la mission Ramsar n 69, 17 décembre 2010 (dossiers de plaidoiries, vol. I, onglet n 37).
97Convention Ramsar, préambule. - 51 -
44. En sus de l’utilisation du territoire costa-ri cien aux fins de la déviation artificielle du
cours du SanJuan, le Nicaragua s’est engagé dans une activité de dragage du fleuve qui entraîne
l’inondation du territoire costa-ricien et qui pourrait altérer le flux du fleuve Colorado.
45. Le comportement du Nicaragua ⎯ qui se poursuit au moment où je vous parle ⎯ est en
contradiction avec la sentence arbitrale du président Cleveland. Son article 6, énonce en particulier
que
«La République du CostaRica ne peut empêcher la République du Nicaragua
d’exécuter à ses propres frais et sur son propre territoire de tels travaux
d’amélioration, à condition que le territoir e du Costa Rica ne soit pas occupé, inondé
ou endommagé en conséquence de ces trava ux et que ceux-ci n’arrêtent pas ou ne
perturbent pas gravement la navigation sur ledit fleuve ou sur l’un quelconque de ses
affluents en aucun endroit où le Costa Rica a le droit de naviguer.» 98 [Traduction du
Greffe.]
46. Permettez-moi de répéter une fois encore , Monsieur le président, que le CostaRica
respecte le droit du Nicaragua de draguer le fle uve, dans la mesure où il respecte les conditions
définies par la sentence Cleveland. Le Nicara gua peut entreprendre ces travaux uniquement sur
son propre territoire et sans affecter les droits costa-riciens. A cet effet, le Costa Rica a le droit de
demander que des études d’impact lui soient transmises, ce que le Nicaragua n’a pas fait avant
l’occupation.
47. L’article 9 de la sentence Cleveland dispose pour sa part que
«La République du CostaRica peut refuser à la République du Nicaragua le
droit de dévier les eaux du fleuve SanJu an lorsque cette déviation arrêterait ou
perturberait gravement la navigation sur le dit fleuve ou sur l’un quelconque de ses
effluents en tout endroit où le CostaRica a le droit de naviguer.» 99 [Traduction du
Greffe.]
48. Il est entendu que cette possibilité de refus de la part du CostaRica s’entend des
déviations du fleuve que le Nicaragua ferait sur so n propre territoire. Que dire alors lorsque la
déviation se produit par un canal que le Nicaragua construit en territoire costa-ricien !
49. Le professeur JamesCrawford vous e xposera le préjudice irréparable aux droits du
CostaRica que le comportement nicaraguayen prod uit et risque de continuer à produire dans ce
domaine.
98
Sentence Cleveland, art. 6 ; les italiques sont dans l’original. Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des
droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), MCR, vol. 2, annexe 16.
99Sentence Cleveland, art. 9 ; les italiques sont dans l’original. Différend relatif à des droits de navigation et des
droits connexes (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), MCR, vol. 2, annexe 16. - 52 -
Conclusions
50. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, j’a rrive à mes conclusions. Nous croyons avoir
amplement démontré le caractère plus que plausible des droits costa-riciens en jeu, tout comme le
caractère «absolument non plausible» de la revendication nicaraguayenne ex post facto d’une partie
d’Isla Portillos.
51. Quelles sont pour autant les conséquences de cette démonstration pour l’ordonnance de
mesures conservatoires ? Qu’ici il y a sans l’ombre d’un doute des droits costa-riciens de premier
ordre à protéger et que la Cour, en ordonnant des mesures conservatoires pour leur préservation, ne
met en péril aucun droit du Nicaragua. Oui, Monsieur le président, si l’exigence du fumus boni
iuris doit être appliquée à la Partie qui demande d es mesures conservatoires, elle joue aussi par
rapport aux prétendus droits de l’autre Partie qui pourraient être affectés si l’on adopte des mesures
conservatoires. Le Nicaragua ne peut invoquer aucun droit pour occuper, modifier, endommager et
utiliser le territoire soumis avant l’occupation à la juridiction incontestée du Costa Rica.
52. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, ce n’est pas au CostaRica d’attendre la fin de cette
procédure. C’est au Nicaragua, Etat qui veut modifi er la situation existante et qui n’a pas hésité à
utiliser son armée pour le faire, avant même de rendre publique pour la première fois sa prétendue
revendication territoriale. En ordonnant le rétablissement du statu quo ante, vous préserverez non
seulement les droits costa-riciens objet de ce différe nd, mais aussi le maintien de la paix et de la
sécurité internationales.
53. Je vous remercie de votre attention et vous prie, Monsieur le président, de donner la
parole au professeur James Crawford.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor MarceloKohen for his presentation. Now I give the
floor to Professor James Crawford.
Mr. CRAWFORD:
T HE PRECONDITIONS FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES ARE MET
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is an honour to represent Costa Rica again.
CostaRica’s request today is prompted by Ni caragua’s incursion, continuing occupation and
construction of a canal through what has hith erto been unquestioned Costa Rican territory, - 53 -
involving dredging and other activitie s affecting that territory and the environment. Of course,
Mr. President, we take your point. We are not here today to establish Nicaragua’s responsibility
for these breaches of the established boundary régime between the two States. Costa Rica merely
seeks today appropriate orders to preserve its rights pending the Court’s final judgment.
2. The question presented in this phase of the case is simple. Can State A resist provisional
measures, after taking unilateral action on territory occupied under claim of right by State B for
many years ⎯ territory never previously claimed by State A ⎯ on the ground that State B, if it is
correct in its claim to title, will eventually get its territory back plus damages? I repeat: can
State A resist provisional measures, after taking unilateral action on territory occupied under claim
of right for many years by State B ⎯ territory never previously claimed by State A ⎯ on the
ground that State B, if it is correct in its claim to title, will eventually get its territory back plus
damages? The answer to that question is: obviously not. Any other answer would ratify the
politics of the fait accompli and would be inconsistent with international law’s strong preference
for the peaceful settlement of disputes over unilateral action. And the position is a fortiori when
StateA is engaged in chopping down trees, de positing sediment, and digging a canal in a
continuing experiment on nature, all at the expense of State B.
A. The criteria for provisional measures
3. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the criteria for the indication of provisional
measures are firmly settled in your case law.
4. There are four conditions for the exercise of this power:
1. first, that your jurisdiction over the dispute is established prima facie ( Anglo-Iranian Oil Co
Case, Order 5 July 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1951, pp. 89, 93; Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v.
France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 137, para. 14);
2. second, that the measures sought are necessary “i n order to ensure that irreparable prejudice
shall not be caused to rights which are the subj ect of dispute in [the] judicial proceedings”
(Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Request for the Indication of Provisional
Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 388, para. 118); - 54 -
100
3. third, that the rights requiring protection are asserted “at least plausibly” ;
4. and fourth, that “there is urgency in the sense th at there is a real risk that action prejudicial to
the rights of either party might be taken befo re the Court has given its final decision” (Georgia
101
v. Russian Federation case, p. 392, para. 129) .
My colleague, Professor Kohen, has dealt with the third of these conditions; I will deal with
the first, second and fourth.
(a) First condition: prima facie jurisdiction of the Court
5. Turning to prima facie jurisdiction. 102, this involves a relatively low threshold. As you put
it in the Nuclear Tests cases, in terms repeated on later occasions, the question is whether “the
provisions invoked by the Applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction
of the Court might be founded” (Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Interim Protection, Order
103
of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 138, para. 18 ; emphasis added) .
6. In the present case it is clear, and indeed it seems to be uncontested, that the Court has
more than prima facie jurisdiction over the merits of the dispute. Certainly, that is the case under
the Pact of Bogotá. It is true that Nicaragua has made a reservation to the effect that its ratification
“cannot be alleged as an acceptance of any arbitral decisions that Nicaragua has contested and the
validity of which is not certain”. But three point s can be made as to this reservation. First,
Nicaragua has never contested the validity of the Alexander Awards; indeed, until recently it had
never contested their interpretation. As you kn ow, Nicaragua has a long and distinguished record
of unilaterally declaring the invalidity of treaties a nd arbitral awards, but this has not been the case
with the Alexander Awards. Secondly, there is a very good reason why it has never challenged
100
“Whereas the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures should be exercised only if the Court is
satisfied that the rights asserted by a party are at least plausiblQuestions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or
Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), request for the indication of provisional measures, Order of 28 May 2009, para. 57.
101
See also Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Interim Protection, Order of 11 September 1976,
I.C.J. Reports 1976, p. 11, para. 33.
102
See, e.g., Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), In terim Protection, Order of 17
August 1972, I.C.J. Reports 1972 , p.33, para. 16; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria,
Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996(I), I.C.J. Reports 1996 , p.21, para.33. See on forum prorogatum in
general Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Order of 10 January 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 3.
103
See most recently to this effect Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports
2008, p. 377, para. 85. - 55 -
these, because the validity of those Awards is pate nt, clear, certain, and they have been expressly
accepted by Nicaragua at the time and since. And thirdly, even if Nicaragua had contested them,
and had had grounds to contest the validity of the Alexander Awards, its reservation to the Pact of
Bogotá does not qualify compulsory jurisdiction under the Pact. It is a saving clause: ratification
of the Pact of Bogotá does not,
“prejudice any position assumed by the Govern ment of Nicaragua with respect to
arbitral decisions the validity of which it has contested on the basis of the principles of
international law . . . Consequently, the si gnature of the Nicaraguan Delegation to the
Treaty in question [that is, to the Pact of Bogotá] cannot be alleged as an acceptance
of any arbitral decisions that Nicaragua h as contested and the validity of which is not
certain.”
As it stands, the reservation merely preserves Nica ragua’s position on substantive matters. It does
not go to jurisdiction: it is simply that Nicaragua reserves the right to continue to contest certain
arbitral decisions on the merits. But Costa Rica does not rely on the Pact of Bogotá as the reason
for claiming the existing boundary. We make no allegation that Nicaragua’s acceptance of the Pact
of Bogotá has any implications for the Alexander Awards.
7. Prima facie jurisdiction having been establishe d under the Pact of Bogotá, there is strictly
speaking no need to consider jurisdiction unde r the Optional Clause. Here the issue is the
reservation made by Nicaragua, to the effect that it will: “not accept the jurisdiction or competence
of the Court in relation to any matter or claim base d on interpretations of treaties or arbitral awards
that were signed and ratified or made, respec tively, prior to 31 December 1901”. I do not know
what position Nicaragua takes as to the applicati on of the reservation in the present case. All I
need say is that Costa Rica’s claim is based inter alia on the United Nations and OAS Charters,
protecting its territorial integrity and preventing even temporary occupation.
8. But in fact Nicaragua has already officia lly expressed its acceptance of the jurisdiction of
the Court in its Diplomatic Note of 30 November 2010, it is at tab 32 in your first binder, but we
promised we would not take you to the first binde r. You simply have it, but the text appears on
screen. There Nicaragua’s acting Foreign Minister stated:
“Nicaragua considers that the matters stated by the Government of Costa
Rica... are sub judice before the Internati onal Court of Justice, reason for which it
does not consider it proper to make comments about them outside from the mentioned
forum... Nicaragua reserves its rights to respond to the topics expressed in the - 56 -
mentioned letter at [its] due moment before the International Court of Justice, the
Judicial Organ of the United Nations competent to discern over those matters.” 104
The language is unequivocal: this Court is “the Judicial Organ of the United Nations competent to
discern over those matters” ⎯ that is to say, matters of substance.
(b) Second condition: the measures sought are necessary in order to ensure that irreparable
prejudice shall not be caused to the rights which are the subject of the dispute
9. I turn to the second condition, which is that irreparable prejudice not be caused to the
rights forming the subject of the pending proceedings . As you stated in the most recent Order
granting provisional measures: “the preservation of the respective rights of the parties pending the
decision of the Court, in order to ensure that irreparable prejudice shall not be caused to rights
which are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings...” ( Application of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian
Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 15October 2008, I. C.J. Reports 2008, p. 388,
para. 118). That is the criteria.
10. In the same Order you referred to the need for a “link . . . between the alleged rights, the
protection of which is the subject of the provisi onal measures being sought, and the subject of the
proceedings before the Court on the merits of the case” Ibid., p. 389, para. 118). In your practice,
you refer to the Application in order to establish such a link. Thus, for example, in Congo v.
Uganda, you noted that,
“the rights which, according to the Congo’s Application, are the subject of the dispute
are essentially its rights to sovereignty and te rritorial integrity and to the integrity of
its assets and natural resources . . . and . . . it is upon the rights thus claimed that the
Court must focus its attention in its consider ation of this request for the indication of
provisional measures” (Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo v. Uganda
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Order of 1 July 2000, I.C.J. Reports
2000, p. 127, para. 40; emphasis added).
In1. Congo/Uganda you prescribed provisional measures, unanimously, ordering the
parties to prevent and refrain from any action whic h might aggravate or extend their dispute and to
take all measures necessary to comply with all of their obligations under international law, in
particular under the Charter ( Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo v. Uganda
104
Note from acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of
Costa Rica, original and English translation, 30 Nov. 2010. - 57 -
(Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Order of 1 July 2000, I.C.J. Reports 2000, p. 127,
para. 40; emphasis added).
12. In the present case, the rights under threat of irreparable harm are set out in Part D of the
Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures. They were elaborated by ProfessorKohen.
Specifically, Costa Rica has the following rights, among others:
1. the right to sovereignty and territorial integrity;
2. the right not to have its territory occupied;
3. the right not to have its trees chopped down by a foreign force;
4. the right not to have its territory used for depositing dredging sediment or as the site for the
unauthorized digging of a canal; and
5. the several rights corresponding to Nicaragua’s obligation not to dredge the San Juan if this
affects or damages Costa Rica’s land, environmen t or the integrity and flow of the Colorado
river.
I could go on, but that is a sufficient basis for present purposes.
13. In its Application, Costa Rica seeks both the cessation of these activities and reparation
for the damage they have caused. In th e meantime, Costa Rica requests that the status quo ante be
restored pending the Court’s judgment. As you said in the Hostages case:
“a request for provisional measures must by its very nature relate to the substance of
the case since... their object is to preserve the respective rights of either party;
and . . . in the present case the purpose of the United States request appears to be not
to obtain a judgment, interim or final, on the merits of its claims but to preserve the
substance of the rights which it claims pendente lite” (Case Concerning United States
Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Request
for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 1979, p. 16, para.
28).
14. It is entirely appropriate for Costa Rica to seek to preserve the status quo ante or, in this
particular case, as in the Hostages case, to “temporarily undo a violent [and] sudden alteration of
the status quo” 105. As noted by ProfessorCollins in his Hague lectures, there is “nothing
106
exceptional or contrary to principle” in doing so . So those are the rights asserted.
105
L. Collins, “Provisional and Protective M easures in International Litigation” 234 Recueil des Cours, 1992-III,
232.
10Ibid. - 58 -
15. The scope is to be finally determined on the merits, but they are asserted and asserted
plausibly. They are under threat of irreparable prejudice from Nicaragua’s conduct 107.
16. The first point to make in this regard, as to prejudice, is that you are faced with a
situation where the prospects of the occurrence are certain, because the events have already taken
place and are continuing. This brings to mind again the situation before the Court in the Hostages
108
case ⎯ or that before the Permanent Court in Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 November 1865
between China and Belgium 109. In each of those cases, provisional measures were ordered in
favour of the applicant party on the basis of events that had already taken place. Here, too, the
question of prejudice is not contingent or speculativ e: Nicaragua proclaims, however implausibly,
the right to do what it is doing, and it refuses to desist.
17. At this stage it is necessary to take the Court briefly through the conduct of Nicaragua
that is causing irreparable prejudice to the rights of Costa Rica. Though the facts and the graphics
largely speak for themselves.
18. As you have seen, Isla Portillos is a sm all area of approximate ly 16.8sq km, located
between the San Juan river and the Laguna Los Portillos. It is here that a contingent of Nicaraguan
soldiers has encamped, occupying an area of about 3sq km, and embarked on a campaign of
dumping, digging and destruction.
19. This particular part of Isla Portillos is made up of primary rainforests and fragile
wetlands, and since 1996 has been listed on the Ramsar Convention’s List of Wetlands of
110
International Importance . The area provides habitat for many endangered species. It is home to
111
the only local population of manatees ⎯ a species under threat of extinction . In addition, the
107Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973 , p.103;
Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973 , p.139; Case
Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran), Request for the
Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 15December 1979 , para.36; Application of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide , para.34; LaGrand; Case concerning Armed Activities on the
Territory of the Congo, para. 39; Avena, paras. 49, 55.
108Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consul ar Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran),
Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 1979.
109Denunciation of the Treaty of 2November 1865 between China and Belgium , Order of 8January 1927,
P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 8, p. 7.
110The Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance, available at: http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-
documents-list/main/ramsar/1-31-218_4000_0__.
111Misión Ramsar de Asesoramiento No.69, Humedal de Importancia Internac ional Caribe Noreste, Costa Rica
and English translation (“Ramsar Report”) 17 December 2010, p. 15. - 59 -
112
beach areas provide food and a breeding site fo r the green sea turtle and the leatherback turtle .
The lagoon provides a stopover site for species of mi gratory fish such as the Atlantic tarpon and
bull shark, and a breeding site for some 26 species of fish. One third of Costa Rica’s species
113
declared under threat of extinction are present in the region .
20. At tab 9 in Volume 1 of your Binder ⎯ I do not take you to it because you do not need to
read the document now ⎯ there is a study overseen by the Co sta Rican Ministry of Environment,
Energy and Telecommunications produced in Decembe r 2010. Bearing in mind that more damage
has been inflicted since, this report indicates al ready the clearance of 1.67 hectares of primary,
old-growth wetland forest amounting to nearly 200 significant trees 114 as well as approximately
4.8hectares of forest undergrowth 115. Turning to tab117, which is in Volume3, a quarter of the
116
felled trees were over 100years old, and some were even older, more than 200years . The
graphic on the screen demonstrates clearly the significance of the older trees on the site.
21. Mr. President, Members of the Court, your Court has been in existence for 65years,
together with your predecessor a total of 90 years. If someone chopped this Court down that would
be an irreparable loss. And that is true even if in the fullness of time another Court was created to
replace it. No doubt forests, like courts, can regene rate, at least to some extent. But not in our
lifetime, I am afraid. It takes a lifetime to est ablish a permanent court; it takes hundreds of years
to establish old-growth forest. Cutting down such a forest, or a significant part of it, is irreparable
harm for our purposes.
22. The Court has before it a series of maps, illustrations and photographs which
demonstrate visually what Nicaragua is doing a nd proposes to continue doing. That Nicaraguan
troops are present on Isla Portillos is the first undeniable fact. Incursion and occupation of this area
presents a relatively straightforward situation. Nicaraguan troops are present on Costa Rican
112
Ramsar Report, pp. 15-16.
113Ramsar Report, p. 25.
114Costa Rica, Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications and Sist ema Nacional de Áreas de
Conservación Area de Conservacion Tortuguero, “ Estimación de edad máxima aproximada de los árboles cortados en
áreas de bosque primario en el sector de Punta Castilla, Colorado, Pococí, Limón, Costa Rica a raíz de la ocupación de
ejercito nicaragüense para el aparente restablecimiento de un canal existente”, December 2010 (“SINAC Report”), p. 1.
115SINAC Report, p. 2.
116SINAC Report, p. 10. - 60 -
territory. Turning to tab118 of your binder, you can see a series of four photographs taken on
1November 2010. The establishment of the camp is clearly visible. At least five soldiers are
there, armed and wearing camouflage gear. In the final photograph, it is evident that the
Nicaraguan soldiers are pointing their weapons at the civilian aircraft in which the Costa Rica
delegation is travelling. Moving to tab 119 of your binder, you can see a further two photographs
taken on 11 November 2010. It can be seen that the military camp is well-established. Finally, at
tab120 of your binder, we see a series of f our photographs taken on 14 November 2010. These
provide a view of the camp in relation to the broade r area and the canal. In the first two, the camp
can be seen in relation to the canal, construction of which at this stage is significantly advanced. In
the third, we have moved slightly to the left of the camp, and can see the Nicaraguan flag planted at
the intersection of the river and the canal. Finally, we see again the camp, which by now comprises
a number of structures and tents ⎯ even a clothesline for hangin g out the washing, and one can
assume in due course that there will be a laundry!
23. Turning to tab121, in an independent re port prepared by the Secretary General of the
OAS on 7 December 2010 11, following a fly-over conducted on 26November 2010, it was
reported:
“You can see . . . the San Juan, the river course that has been opened, the felled
trees, the cleared area with tents and clothing out to dry, although no soldiers are to be
seen, the dredger with three or four armed men in uniforms.
In addition, the felling of trees and the opening of a river channel in the area can
118
be seen.”
So that is the first fact.
24. The second fact that cannot be denied is that the Nicaraguan armed forces ⎯ or persons
acting under their direction and control ⎯ are involved in the felling of trees in the significant area
of what I might describe as canal-shaped land.
25. In tab122 of your binder you can see a series of photographs, which again speak for
themselves. The photographs are in chronological order, and show clearly the progression of the
damage caused. Starting in late October, you can see the dredge, the progression of the canal and
117
Report of the OAS Secretary General, Pursuant to resolution CP/Res. 979 (1780/10), Presented to the
Twenty-Sixth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 7 Dec. 2010.
11Ibid. - 61 -
the large deposit of sedimentary waste. Two hectares of forest have already been cleared. Moving
to 11November 2010, tab 123, we see the progressi on of tree felling and the development of the
canal.
26. At tab 124 of your binder, you will see the photographs taken by the OAS representative
during the 26November 2010 fly-over. Constructio n of the canal is now well-advanced, and the
waters of the San Juan have already begun to flow through it.
27. At tab 125 of your binder, there is a satellite picture taken on 14December 2010. The
San Juan river runs on its natural course to the left, and Laguna Los Portillos can be seen on the
right. The canal is visible between the two ⎯ not visible from the moon, I grant you, but visible
from a satellite photograph ⎯ the image on screen has circled the canal. The cleared forest is
visible here and here.
28. Nicaragua well understands the impact that such activities may have. In its Rejoinder in
the Navigational Rights dispute, Nicaragua referred to the San Juan Wildlife Reserve, which sits
directly across the river from Isla Portillos, a nd submitted that: “Apart from their natural beauty,
these and other sought-after trees are critical to maintaining the delicate ecological balance of the
reserves.” ( Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights, (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua),
Rejoinder of Nicaragua, 15 July 2008, para 4.52.) That is a Nicaraguan quote. There is very little
sign of delicacy or balance here!
29. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Nicar agua does not deny that it is engaged in the
construction of a canal on Isla Portillos, or that it is felling trees in large numbers. Instead, it seeks
to justify its conduct by reference to completely novel and frankly fanciful interpretations of the
Treaty of Limits and the Alexander Awards.
30. In short, Nicaragua’s plan to build a canal in Costa Rica’s territory and to divert waters
of the San Juan through that can al, is causing and will continue to cause flooding and damage to
Costa Rica’s territory, contrary to Costa Rica’s ri ghts as a sovereign under general international
law and specifically pursuant to the Cleveland Award and the Alexander Awards 119. The felling
of trees, the clearing of vegetation, the removal of soil, and the diversion of the waters of the San
119
Cleveland Award, p. 458. - 62 -
Juan river across this cleared territory not only viol ate Costa Rica’s territorial integrity but also its
120
right not to have its territory “flooded or damaged in any other way” . Moreover, not merely is
this irreparable, in the terms I have explained, it is intended by Nicaragua to be irreparable. They
are not doing this for temporary purposes.
31. Between 27November and 1December 2010, the Rasmsar Convention Secretariat sent
an independent Mission to assess the changes in the ecological character of the Isla Portillos
segment of the Ramsar site. This was done at Costa Rica’s request. The Mission’s full Report is at
tab 37 of Volume 1, and I commend it to you, but not now. Turning to tab 127, in Volume 3, the
Mission concluded,
“land clearing is a process that has an irreversible impact on vegetation cover in the
wetland . . . since in areas with high rainfall rates, such as this [Isla Portillos], the soil
and seed bank are lost. The process is exacerbated by the effect of fluvial erosion . . .
The clearing and flooding of the wetland coul d affect the distribution and abundance
of terrestrial species due to water stress, caused by excess water, and the subsequent
drying out of the wetland if the sandbank is breached.” [That is a reference to the
sandbank at the coast.] “The effect of water stress on terrestrial plants is a reduced
121
growth rate . . . a process ending in the death of individual species.”
And again at tab 128 from the same Report:
“The construction of the artificial can al will transform the Laguna Los Portillos
and wetland island... from an ecosystem with numerous habitats... to a single,
more extensive habitat dominated by the cond ition imposed by the San Juan River . . .
The partial flooding of the wetland due to th e construction of the artificial canal and
the clearing of vegetation would alter the distribution and abundance of terrestrial
species through the loss of habitat and reduction in water supply and wetland; [it
would isolate an important zone of we tland] from the remainder of the wetlands
located on the Isla Portillos, turning it into a barrier for terrestrial fauna with reduced
mobility.” 122
32. In other words, the potential effects on this environment could be serious and long-term.
The Court has stressed the significance of respect for the environment, and I quote your words in
the Advisory Opinion:
“the environment is not an abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of
life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn. The existence
of the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and
control respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control is
now part of the corpus of internationa l law relating to the environment.” (Legality of
12Cleveland Award, p. 458.
121
Ramsar Report, pp. 29-30.
12Ibid., pp.30-31. - 63 -
the Threat or Use of Nucl ear Weapons, Advisory Opinion , I.C.J. Reports 1996(I),
pp.241-242, para.29; see also Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia),
I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 78, para. 140.)
Mr. President, Members of the Court, the circumstances of the present case give the Court the
opportunity to give effect to this general statem ent, all the more so given that the actions of
Nicaragua are not “within [its] jurisdiction” but directly “ in and against” the territory of another
State, if I may paraphrase the title of the Nicaragua case.
33. This case is not at all like the Passage through the Great Belt case, where Finland
alleged that Denmark by its construction work for the bridge was seeking to impose a fait
accompli. That was activity on Denmark’s own territory, taken after due notice and consultation
with Finland, affecting only a small fraction of ships transiting the Great Belt; moreover, the
construction would not be completed prior to the final judgment on the merits. A clearer contrast
with the facts of the present case can hardly be imagined ⎯ here, a military occupation, no
consultation, no licit use of any kind, immediate and harmful impacts on the territory of another
State ⎯ a clear attempt to impose a fait accompli on the hitherto unquestioned territorial sovereign.
34. The head of the dredging operations, Mr EdénPastora, has confirmed in television
interviews that the purpose of the planned canal is “to restore the Nicaraguan border river to its
historic channel to the sea” and that the 1858 Treaty of Limits proves that Isla Portillos “is part of
123
Nicaragua, not Costa Rica” . I quote Mr Pastora:
“I studied the awards and I made it easy to interpret... I made it easy to
interpret them because I know that area in situ, channel by channel, lagoon by lagoon.
I know where Punta Castilla is. I walked on the right bank of Harbour Head. Then I
made it easy to interpret the awards... We started at that point... because the
border is there. We started dredging by what was said once about the exchange of
trade . . . I am familiar with the issues, without the need to be an engineer.” 124
That, to this date, is the most coherent explanation we have of what Nicaragua was doing. We will
see what happens this afternoon.
12Report of interview with Edén Pastora on Nicaraguan television channel 100% No ticias, in Tim Rogers,
‘Nicaragua Denies Reports of Intrusion into Costa Rica’, Tico Times, Nov. 2010, available at:
http://www.ticotimes.net/News/Daily-News/Nicaragua-Denies-Reports-of-In…-
November-02-2010/: Application Att. 9.
12Confidencial.Com, 30 Nov. 2010: “Pastora: I inte rpreted the Alexander Award”, available at:
http://www.confidencial.com.ni/articulo/2522/pastora-ldquo-yo-interpret… English translation,
tab 18. - 64 -
The reporter responded: “But you talked about Goog le Maps, said that you had used those maps.”
Mr. Pastora explained,
“because Google had used the Alexander awards to draw the border there. They say
that they were wrong, but all things have their reason for being. Why did they make a
mistake? Because they applied the Cleveland and Alexander awards. And now
CostaRica was asked where th ey wanted to put the markers and they corrected the
125
matter. Who is going to believe Google in mapping [matters] now?”
“Who is going to believe Google in mapping matters now?” Who indeed?
35. It seems from this and other statements that Nicaragua believes that the international
boundary lies upon a hitherto unnamed canal, newl y baptized “Harbour Head Caño”, not shown on
any of the relevant maps and which appears to have co-existed with trees several hundred years
old. In fact, the canal is an artifice, newly created, whose construction raises unresolved questions
of possible long-term harm. Let me read two passages from the Ramsar Report ⎯ the extracts are
at tab 131:
“It is estimated that the changes in the hydrographic network of the San Juan
River are minimal at the river basin level, but significant at the wetland level. By
connecting the San Juan River hydraulica lly with the Laguna los Portillos, the
network’s surface run-offs will be altered.. . if the San Juan Ri ver is also dredged
upstream of the site, its volume of water will increase and there would be a wider
effect.
Given the artificial hydraulic connec tion between the San Juan River and the
Laguna los Portillos, it is evident that there is, and will continue to be, further changes
in the local surface-water hydrology. The ch anges are apparent in the change in the
river’s rates of discharge and transportation of sediment between the river and the
lagoon. Similarly, the consequent effect w ill be a possible change in the local water
balance... the existing hydrodynamic balance in this area... will be altered, with a
consequent change in the water quality... the process and capacity to retain
sediments and nutrients in and around the is land wetland affected will be altered and
there will be a drastic change in flood control and sedimentation flux.” 126
36. Now, these possibilities may not all occur ⎯ there is the usual uncertainty, and this
makes the failure of Nicaragua to conduct an envi ronment impact assessment as to the canal even
more egregious. And there are indications that geomorphological change is occurring. I refer to a
joint UNITAR/UNOSAT Report, done at Costa Rica’s request, which is included in full at tab 113
of Volume 3 of your binders and is in the public domain. According to that Report:
125
Confidencial.Com, 30 Nov. 2010: “Pastora: I inte rpreted the Alexander Award”, available at:
http://www.confidencial.com.ni/articulo/2522/pastora-ldquo-yo-interpret… English translation,
tab 18.
12Ramsar Report, pp. 26-27. - 65 -
“The new channel has increased to an average diameter of 15m, showing a 5m
increase between 19 November and 14 December 2010. This increase of channel
width was likely due to erosion as new water flow cuts into the soil. Removal of
vegetation along the channel has helped facilita te the erosion processes as it develops.
This high rate of erosion is additionally f acilitated with the high velocity of water
flowing in from the San Juan River. As a result the banks of the channel appear to
have also increased in width from the erosi on process to an average of 23m in width.
It is likely that as the water cuts through th e soil, the existing banks will continue to
widen as sediment washes out into Los Portillos lagoon.” 127
Thus the possibility of “a drastic change in fl ood control and sedimentation flux” is not to be
underestimated. This is immediately prejudicial to Costa Rica’s rights.
(c) Fourth condition: there is urgency to stop Nicaragua’s actions given the likelihood of
prejudicial acts and aggravatio n of the dispute in the event of continuing presence of the
Nicaraguan Army in the occupied territory pending the judgment
37. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the final requirement that has to be satisfied is that
of urgency. As you have recently put it: “the power of the Court to indicate provisional measures
will be exercised only if there is a real risk that action prejudicial to the rights of either party might
be taken before the Court has given its final decision” ( Application of the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation),
Provisional Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 392, para. 129) 128.
38. In the Frontier Dispute case, a Chamber of the Cour t assessed the possibility of
irreparable damage to the rights of the parties pendente lite, taking into account: “that the armed
actions that gave rise to the requests for the i ndication of provisional measures... took place
within or near the disputed area as defined by the Special Agreement” (case concerning the
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Provisional Measures, Order of
10January1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p.9, para. 16). The Chamber concluded that the incidents
which occurred,
“not merely are likely to extend or aggravate the dispute but comprise a resort to force
which is irreconcilable with the principle of the peaceful settlement of international
disputes, there can be no doubt of the Chamber’s power and duty to indicate, if need
be, such provisional measures as may conduce to the due administration of justice”
12UNITAR/UNOSAT, “Morphological and Environmental Change Assessment: San Juan River Area (including
Isla Portillos and Calero), Costa Rica” (Geneva, 2011) p. 2.
12The Court there recalled the line of jurisprudence affirming this requirement, incPassage through the
Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), Provisional Measures, Order of 29 July 1991, I.C.J. Reports 199p. 17, para. 23;
Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France), Provisional Measure, Order of
17 June 2003, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 107, para. 22; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay),
Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), p. 11, para. 32. - 66 -
(case concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Provisional
Measures, Order of 10 January 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 9, para. 19).
The Chamber accordingly and unanimously ordered the withdrawal of troops. It should be stressed
that that was a case of a bona fide pre-existing notified territorial dispute, which had been the
subject of extensive negotiations prior to the conclu sion of the special agreement. Here we have a
new, and we say entirely artificial, claim that was raised for the first time after the occupation of
Costa Rican territory. Grab first and claim later. I note that every one of the witness statements
filed last Thursday by Nicaragua was given after Costa Rica’s Application was filed.
39. Rosenne, after examining your jurisprude nce on provisional measures since 1920, notes
that:
“In territorial disputes the Court will indicate provisional measures
if there have
been incidents, including incidents involvi ng the use of armed force, if there is a
likelihood of their recurrence, or if there is a risk that they could exacerbate the
129
dispute.”
The position must be a fortiori when there was not, as there was not here, any genuine prior dispute
as to sovereignty over the territory concerned, any specific statement of claim, any attempt at
negotiations; just a naked exercise in self-help buttressed by a reference to Google Maps.
40. The Court has also ruled on the matte r of urgency in cases involving the risk of
environmental damage. In the Nuclear Tests case, the Court concluded that there was “an
immediate possibility of a further... nuclear test being carried out by France in the Pacific”
(Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, p. 140,
paras.26-27; emphasis added) and that “for th e purpose of the present pr oceedings it suffices to
observe that the information submitted to the Court . . . does not exclude the possibility that damage
to New Zealand might be shown to be caused” ( ibid., p.141, para. 30; emphasis added).
Substitute for that statement in the present case for “immediate possibility” the phrase “virtual
certainty”; for “does not exclude the possibility that damage to New Zealand might be shown to be
caused” substitute the phrase “makes it quite clear that actual damage to Costa Rica will continue
to be caused”. In this case there is no continge ncy, there is no need for speculation, for not
excluding possibilities, for measuring harm in tiny traces of background radiation. Yet you ordered
12Shabtai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court 1920-200, 4th ed., Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, Leiden, 2006, Vol. III, p. 1410; emphasis added. - 67 -
that France avoid nuclear tests causing the deposit of radioactive fall-out on the territory of New
Zealand. Again, I use the phrase repeatedly, the present case is a fortiori.
(d) Conclusion
41. Mr.President, Members of the Court, to conclude on the general question of the
satisfaction of the criteria, the conditions for prov isional measures are met, and plainly met, here.
This can be seen by comparing the respective imp act on the Parties of provisional measures in the
present case. If the measures sought by Costa Rica are granted, this will in no way prejudice the
final determination of the respective rights and duties of the Parties in relation to the subject-matter
of the dispute. If Nicaragua’s continuous occupati on of the right bank of the lower San Juan were
eventually to be upheld as lawful, Nicaragua would be free to build canals and to chop down trees,
provided of course it complied with its other intern ational obligations. But contrast the position of
Costa Rica if the measures sought are not indicated . That would amount, with all respect, to the
ratification by the Court of Nicaragua’s policy of the fait accompli. How many more trees will be
chopped down in this old-growth forest in the period prior to your judgment? How much more
mayhem will be caused to the wetlands? How much modification of the existing geomorphology
will Nicaragua’s canal continue to produce, a nd how much more sediment will be dumped? As
noted in the Ramsar Report, which is at tab 133, should Nicaragua continue uninterrupted with the
construction of the canal:
“[i]t is estimated that within an approxima te period of one hydrological cycle [that is
one year] there will be partial or total loss of the Laguna los Portillos... The
sandbank currently separating the Laguna los Portillos from the Caribbean Sea is in
danger of being breached due to the change in the hydrodynamic balance that
maintains it between the flow of the San Juan River and the tidal limit. By connecting
the San Juan River with the lagoon hydraulically by means of the artificial canal, both
water flow and sediment transportation would increase and could destroy the
sandbank. This could change the beha viour and morphology of the Laguna los
Portillos, which is currently an estuarine la goon, into a bay with higher salinity...
On the wetland island, the flood zone might be extended, which will produce
fluctuations in level depending on the hydrol ogical dynamics of the San Juan River.
This process could increase the water stress on tree and undergrowth vegetation due to
flooding, giving r130 to a growing halo of dead vegetation, with a loss of habitat for
terrestrial fauna.”
130
Ramsar Report, p. 32; emphasis added. - 68 -
In short, both Costa Rica and the environment face the real and appreciable risk of immediate harm
in the period prior to your judgment on the merits.
B. The Provisional Measures requested by Costa Rica
42. Mr.President, Members of the Court, for these reasons, the general conditions for
provisional measures are met in this case. It rema ins to justify the speci fic measures we seek.
There are six of these.
(a) The immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Nicaraguan personnel from the territory
of Costa Rica
43. The first is the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Nicaragual personnel from
the right bank of the San Juan. Such measures ar e necessary to protect the Costa Rican right not to
have its territory occupied even temporarily, as set out in Article21 of the OAS Charter.
Scheduled meetings and mediati ons, due to be overseen by the OAS, could not take place due to
131
Nicaragua’s refusal to remove its military from positions recently occupied . The OAS has
repeatedly called for withdrawal, but Nicaragua has rejected those calls, calling instead for the
132
OAS to be wound up .
44. I have already referred to cases where milita ry withdrawal from a disputed area has been
ordered by way of provisional measures. That is ⎯ with great respect ⎯ absolutely required in the
present case.
45. Now, it is true in some cases there ma y be difficulty in requiring reversion to the status
quo ante because the parties may disagree as to what the status quo ante was, and the Court may
not be in a position to tell for itself at this stage. That was the situation in Cameroon/Nigeria. You
nonetheless ordered provisional measures in that case, in the following terms: “Both Parties should
ensure that the presence of any armed forces in the Bakassi Peninsula does not extend beyond the
positions in which they were situated prior to 3 February 1996.” ( Land and Maritime Boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria, Provisional Measur es, Order of 15 March 1996, I. C. J. Reports
13Report of the OAS Secretary General, Pursuant to Resolution CP/Res. 979 (1780/10), Presented to the
Twenty-Sixth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 7 Dec. 2010.
13Spanish original transcript of speech given by President Ortega on 13Nov.201Application, Attachment 6
and English translation. - 69 -
1996, p. 24, para. 49 (3).) The Court was not unanimous in doing so, but the lack of unanimity did
not arise from any doubts as to th e principle of return to the status quo ante. Rather, it arose from
the fact that the Court could not ⎯ as it admitted ⎯ work out what the status quo ante was, given
the conflicting evidence, the shroud of mystery th at surrounded the Bakassi Peninsula. The point
was made by JudgeShahabuddeen in a passage which, given the time, I will not read but it is at
page28 of his [Declaration] ( ibid., p.28, declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen, citing Frontier
Dispute Burkina Faso/Mali (Provisional Measures), I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 10-11, para. 27, p. 12,
para. 32 (1) (D)) 133.
46. There is no difficulty here of this kind because the status quo ante is perfectly
well-defined. It was presented to you by Nicaragua itself in the Navigational Rights Dispute just
over two years ago; Marcelo Kohen has shown you their maps. The status quo ante is Costa Rican
civil administration of the territory on the right bank of the San Juan river. The status quo ante is
that Nicaragua had no soldiers or other personnel encamped there. The status quo ante is that
Nicaragua has no right to enter the territory on the right bank of the lower San Juan except as
provided in the Treaty of Limits and for the purposes there laid down. The status quo ante is: no
canal on that territory. In this respect Costa Rica expressly reserves the right to close the canal.
Every minute the canal flows, the effect of Nicar agua’s occupation is mani fested and continued,
and the environmental damage aggravated.
(b) The immediate cessation of the construction of the canal across Costa Rican territory and
deviation of waters
47. Mr President, Members of the Court, the second provisional measure sought is a
corollary of the first. Nicaragua is not entitled, without Costa Rican consent, to divert the river, the
right bank of which constitutes the common boundary, or to build a diversion canal on Costa Rican
territory. It is a fairly elementary proposition. You should correspondingly order Nicaragua not to
construct or maintain a canal in the area in question pending the final judgment of the Court.
13See also, joint declaration of Judges Weeramantry, Shi and Vereschchetin, ibid., p.31; declaration of Judge
Koroma, ibid., p. 30). - 70 -
(c) The immediate cessation of the felling of trees, removal of vegetation and of soil from Costa
Rican territory, including its wetlands and forests
48. A further corollary, and this is the thir d request, is an order for the cessation of all
activities of felling of trees, removal of vegetation and of soil from Costa Rican territory, including
its wetlands and forests. This too is urgently re quired. I have referred already to the number and
ecological value of the trees, and you have seen pictures of them. This activity must stop
immediately.
(d) The immediate cessation of the dumping of sediment in Costa Rican territory
49. The fourth request: likewise must stop immediately the dumping of sediments on Costa
Rican territory. No doubt Nicaragua has the right to dredge the San Juan, provided it complies
with condition6 of the Cleveland Award. What it has no right to do is to dump the resulting
sediments on Costa Rican territory without Costa Rica’s consent. Its do ing so causes damage to
the territory which, in a wetland, is effectively irreversible. It should be stopped, by your order,
now.
(e) The suspension of Nicaragua’s dredging programme aimed at the occupation, flooding and
damage of the territory of Costa Rica, as well as at the serious impairment of the navigation
of the Colorado River
50. Fifthly, I turn to the question of Ni caragua’s dredging programme. The position with
respect to dredging of the San Juan itself is differe nt in principle, in that under the Treaty of Limits
and the Cleveland Award, such activity on Nicar aguan territory may, provided it otherwise
complies with Nicaragua’s international obligations under the relevant instruments, be lawful.
Moreover, while there was no prior notice whatever of the incursion into Costa Rican territory, the
matter of Nicaraguan dredging of the San Juan had been discussed at some level of generality in
the diplomatic correspondence, as Mr. Sergio Ugalde has shown.
51. Nonetheless, the dredging programme is cu rrently part of a programme of digging,
deviating and destroying Costa Rica’s territory and environment, and it infringes on Costa Rica’s
express rights under the Cleveland Award not to have any “works of improvement” undertaken
which “result in the occupation or floodi ng or damage to Costa Rican territory” 13. Moreover,
134
Cleveland Award (Tab 2), p. 458, para. 6. - 71 -
Nicaragua has expressly stated that it intends to divert 100per cent of the Colorado River 135, as
again you have been told. For this reason, the dredging too should be the subject of a provisional
measures order of the Court.
(f) That Nicaragua shall refrain from any other action which might prejudice the rights of
Costa Rica, or which may further aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court
52. Finally, Nicaragua should refrain from any other action which might prejudice the rights
of Costa Rica, or which may further aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court. The protean
character of Nicaragua’s conduct, covert, concealed and careless of Costa Rica’s rights, calls for a
more general measure, ordering it to refrain from any other action which might prejudice Costa
Rica’s rights, or further aggravate or extend the di spute before the Court. You discussed the point
in your second provisional measures Order in the Pulp Mills case:
“Whereas the Court has on several occasions issued provisional measures
directing the parties not to take any actions which could aggravate or extend the
dispute or render more difficult its settlement . . .; whereas in those cases provisional
measures other than measures directing the parties not to take actions to aggravate or
136
extend the dispute or to render more difficult its settlement were also indicated.”
I take this to mean that non-aggravation in the generic sense is unlikely to be ordered except in
conjunction with other more specific measures. Bu t I would make two points. First, Costa Rica
does in fact seek other specific measures as well . Secondly, the situation has indeed been
aggravated by Nicaragua since the introduction of these proceedings on 18 November 2010.
C. Conclusions
53. Mr. President, Members of the Court, to conclude, the measures requested by the
Republic of Costa Rica are the only ones capable of preserving its rights and of avoiding the
creation of an irremediable fait accompli pending your decision on the merits. All the conditions
are satisfied to enable you to indicate them.
54. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this may seem to be a small dispute between two
small countries a long way away. I use the phrase a long way away, it was used by
13See Attachment PM1, 18Nov. 2010. Note from the Mi nister of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica
(DM-637-9) addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, 27 Aug. 2009.
13Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2007,
I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 16, para. 49. - 72 -
Neville Chamberlain in relation to Czechoslovakia. But it raises a fundamental issue of principle,
to do with respect for territorial sovereignty. I began this morning by asking a question, and I will
repeat it. Can StateA resist provisional measu res, after taking unilateral action on territory
occupied under claim of right for many years by StateB ⎯ territory never previously claimed by
State A ⎯ on the ground that StateB, if it is correct in its claim to title, will eventually get its
territory back plus damages? The answer is, as I have said, obviously not. Otherwise the State As
of this world have a privilege to act unilaterally, to seize and to hold, to establish fait accomplis by
whatever physical means, and to rely on the contingency of quantum assessment as a ground for
projecting their unilateralism years into the future.
Mr. President, that closes the first round of Co sta Rica’s presentations. I thank the Court for
its careful attention.
The PRESIDENT: I thank ProfessorJamesCrawfo rd for his presentation. Now, that ends
the first round of oral observations of the Republic of Costa Rica. The Court will meet again this
afternoon, at 3 p.m., to hear the first round of oral observations of Nicaragua. The sitting is closed.
The Court rose at 1.10 p.m.
___________
Public sitting held on Tuesday 11 January 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)