Non corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2011/4
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2011
Public sitting
held on Thursday 13 January 2011, at 4.30 p.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 jeudi 13 janvier 2011, à 16 h 30, 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
Bennouna
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
Bennouna
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 now open. The Court meets this
afternoon to hear the second round of oral observations of the Republic of Nicaragua on the
Request for the indication of provisional measures filed by the Republic of Costa Rica. I believe
that the first speaker on the list is Professor McCaffrey. You have the floor.
Mr. McCAFFREY:
1. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, good
afternoon. in the brief time available today I will address several points concerning the boundary
in the lower San Juan river and Nicaragua’s right under the relevant instruments to dredge the river
without Costa Rica’s permission.
Nicaragua’s sovereignty over the San Juan river
2. Mr.President, Costa Rica’s presentations yesterday confirmed that this is, at its core, a
dispute about sovereignty. There can be absolu tely no doubt that Nicaragua has sovereignty over
the San Juan river ⎯ although one might not realize this fro m listening to Costa Rica’s counsel. I
will not belabour this point or recite again the relevant instruments confirming it. The dispute is
about whether Nicaragua’s sovereign territory embraces the area between the “caño” she recently
cleaned and the River San Juan near its mouth.
Maps show the disputed area as being in Nicaragua
3. We heard counsel for Costa Rica yesterday say that there is not a single map showing the
disputed territory in Nicaragua. Unfortunately for Costa Rica, this is not the case. There are in fact
a number of maps indicating that the disputed area lies in Nicaraguan territory, and one that is
particularly damaging to Costa Rica’s case. [McC 1 on screen] Two illustrations are shown on the
screen and are in your folders together with seve ral other maps, all showing the disputed area as
being within Nicaragua. [McC 2 on screen] All of these, by the way, are taken from a Nicaraguan
atlas deposited with the Court by Costa Rica. Both of these early maps are from the first part of the
twentieth century. If further evidence in the form of maps were needed, it is provided by Costa
Rica herself. [McC 3 on screen] Now on the scr een is a 1971 map prepared by the Costa Rican
Geographic Institute, in collaboration with the Inter-American Geodesic Service. It is labelled - 9 -
“provisional edition”, but the fact that it was prepared by Costa Rica, the level of detail, and the
obvious fact that Costa Rican cartographers would take special care about the location of the
boundary between the two countries, makes this a highly probative piece of evidence. This Costa
Rican map clearly shows the disputed area as being located in Nicaragua. At the very least, the
map shows that not even Costa Rica is entirely clear on where the boundary is in the disputed area.
[end McC 3]
The existence of the caño
4. Perhaps being aware of the uncertainty of the map-based evidence, Costa Rica’s counsel
decided to focus on the caño, whose lower reaches were recently cleaned by Nicaragua.
Professors Kohen and Crawford did their best yest erday to cast doubt on the very existence of the
caño ⎯ although they proved its existence themselves, evidently unwittingly.
5. Costa Rica did not challenge General Alex ander’s ruling that the beginning of the border,
starting from the Caribbean, goes around Harbor Head Lagoon in a clockwise direction until
reaching “the first channel met”. However, ProfessorCrawford claimed that Nicaragua had
provided absolutely no evidence that the caño exists 1.
6. Mr. President, maps and satellite images shown on Tuesday, a video deposited with the
Court ⎯ part of which I will show in a few minutes ⎯ and, most interestingly, many of the
multitudinous maps and satellite images Costa Rica herself put on the screen yesterday, all show
this caño, as well as others. Professor Crawford seemed to be entirely unaware of this yesterday as
he projected a satellite image clearly showing the caño, while he intoned that it showed none. I
will put that image back on the screen presently. But it is important to emphasize that we are not
talking about the Panama Canal here. We are talking about a small channel whose size decreases
as it moves away from Harbor Head Lagoon. Much of it is covered by forest canopy ⎯ as is true
of other caños ⎯ making it difficult to see from satellite photographs. But it is there, and it does
communicate with Harbor Head Lagoon on one end, a nd the San Juan river on the other. It does
not have to be the Nile; it only has to be the “first channel met”, and it is, and has been for quite a
long time, the “first channel met” that connect s the lagoon and the river when following the shore
1
CR 2011/3, p. 22, paras. 4 and 6 (Crawford). - 10 -
of the lagoon in a clockwise direction. Let us take a look at two satellite images to demonstrate
this.
7. [McC 4 on screen] The first image is Costa Rica’s ⎯ if it will come up, the satellite must
be behind the clouds today! This might be dubbed the “Trojan Horse image” because it carries
with it the seeds of destruction of Costa Rica’s cas e. The first slide now on the screen is the 1997
image Costa Rica showed yesterday. The caño, including its extension down to the slight bend in
the river, is clearly visible ⎯ and my colleague is showing this with the cursor now. In the second
slide we have superimposed a highlighting of the caño for the Court’s convenience. We will show
it again without the highlighting ⎯ you have to look carefully, but it is there ⎯ and then with the
highlighting. [end McC 4]
8. [McC 5 on screen] The second image is Ni caragua’s 2007 satellite photo, also shown by
Costa Rica yesterday to prove that there is no caño. In fact, the caño appears clearly in this
photograph, as well ⎯ as my colleague is indicating now with the cursor. The image even shows
an ephemeral lake astride the path of the caño, demonstrating just how wet this region can be ⎯ so
long as it is nourished by the water of the San Juan river. It is hardly Alexander’s “flat and sandy
2
delta” . Again, the second version of this image superimposes highlighting over the caño for ease
of reference. We will show it again without the hi ghlighting; and with the highlighting. [end of
McC 5]
9. If further evidence is necessary of the existence of the entirely natural caño recently
cleaned by Nicaragua, please allow me, Mr.Presiden t, to project on the screen several sets of
images: [McC 6, 7 and 8] First, you will see some of the pictures taken during one of two visits to
the caño by Maria Vivas Soto, an environmental engineer with Nicaragua’s Environment Ministry,
MARENA; the visit being for the purpose of inspecting the caño in connection with the
Environmental Impact Study described by my fri end and colleague, Mr. Reichler, during the first
3
round . [end McC 6, 7 and 8]
2
E. P. Alexander, First Award of the Engineer-Umpire, under the Convention between Costa Rica and Nicaragua
of 8Apr.1896 for the Demarcation of the Boundary be tween the Two Republics, Deci sion of 30Sep.1897, United
Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), Vol. 28, p. 224.
3Docs. of Nicaragua. Doc. 14. - 11 -
10. We will next project extracts from a video, from which I showed some screen-captures
on Tuesday. These images of the caño demonstrate that it is hardly an “artificial canal”
constructed by Nicaragua, as Costa Rica has repeat edly characterized it, and also that major
stretches of it are navigable by small boats even with no cleaning.
11. Finally, Mr. President, I will project passages from MsVivasSoto’s statements
concerning her two visits to the caño 4, which I will also read out: I am not sure these are even
visible to the Court and I apologize for that, Mr. President.
September 2009 visit
“We traveled through the caño until we found a layer of sediment and dried
fallen trees that prevented the passage of water and transportation toward the San Juan
River side [of the caño], thus affecting the flow volume, the depth and the width of the
caño. Due to this sedimentation of the section, we were forced to continue the trip on
foot . . .
The need to remove the sediment to restore the flow volume of the caño was
visible, so that it could again flow from the Lagoon to its natural mouth in the San
Juan River. The need to remove the ve getation that obstructed the caño was also
visible, to improve its navigability as pa rt of the sustainable development of the
region.”
November 2010 visit
“17. On that occasion, our entire trip through the caño was undert
aken in a
small boat, from the San Juan River to the Harbor Head Lagoon. The caño area near
the river, which a year ago was filled with sediment, had become a section navigable
by small boats. The depth at the time of my visit was between 1 to 1.20 meters.
18. While we advanced we were able to see that the workers, who were
performing the caño clearing activities, were civilians, workers from the area, with
manual equipment, such as shovels, pickaxes and buckets.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I did not see any worker present on the Co sta Rican bank of the caño, nor did I
see any destruction of vegetation on the Costa Rican side indicating that it was done
during the cleaning activities.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
During my visit I did not see any debris at all deposited on the Costa Rican
bank of the caño.”
4
Docs. of Nicaragua. Doc. 14. - 12 -
12. Mr. President, at the very least, these images and statements leave no doubt that the caño
is not artificial.
The “First Channel Met”
13. Mr. President, now that we know that the caño does indeed exist, I must return to the
question of whether it could in fact be Alexander’s “first channel met” due to the kinds of changes
in the river’s channels the General said could occur, despite the hand-drawn map accompanying the
Acts of the Costa Rica-Nicaragua Demarcation Co mmission. This map may be found at tab 40 of
VolumeII of Costa Rica’s judges’ folder for the first round. It was especially striking in this
connection that neither ProfessorKohen nor ProfessorCrawford yesterday addressed the long
quotation I inflicted on the Court on Tuesday in which GeneralAlexander emphasized that there
could be gradual or sudden changes in the river’s channels in its delta region, and that such changes
would affect the location of the boundary line. I am not bold enough to read that quotation again,
but the gist of it is that the boundary would change with the changes in the channels. Instead of
trying to deal with this inconvenient ruling h ead on, Professor Kohen looked for a different quote
in his zeal to show that what he called th e “principle of the stability of borders” ⎯“le principe de
stabilité des frontières” 5 ⎯ somehow applied to the Sa n Juan delta area, despite
GeneralAlexander’s clear explanation of why it could not. ProfessorKohen found such a
quotation, but it was in an award of General Alexander ⎯ the Third one ⎯ dealing with an entirely
different question: whether the boundary followi ng the bank of the river proper would change
depending on changes in water levels ⎯ not whether the boundary would change according to
changes in channels in the delta. Noting that “in the rainy season, the river’s waters submerge
many miles of land in some localities” 6, effectively leaving Costa Rica with less dry territory,
GeneralAlexander made the common-sense ruling that the bank is the bank, whether or not it is
temporarily submerged in floodwater. This takes absolutely nothing away from his earlier ruling
5CR 2011/3, p. 14 para. 21 (Kohen).
6E. P. Alexander, Third Award of the Engineer-Umpire, under the Convention between Costa Rica and Nicaragua
of 8Apr.1896 for the Demarcation of the Boundary between the Two Republics, Decision of 22Mar.1898, RIAA,
Vol. 28, p. 229. - 13 -
about changes in the boundary in the delta region due to changes in the channels. But
Professor Kohen was right about one thing: I was not born in the nineteenth century.
The absence of Costa Rican effectivités in the disputed area
14. Mr.President, turning briefly to the question of Costa Rica’s effectivités in the disputed
area, having used a number of affidavits of present and former Nicaraguan army and law
enforcement personnel to support the proposition that th ey have always patrolled the disputed area,
I was chagrined to hear Professor Kohen say that Costa Rica does not accept the veracity of these
sworn and notarized statements 7. It is of course for the Court to determine the authoritative value
of such affidavits, upon which parties to cases befo re it frequently must rely. But one cannot help
but observing that if denying their veracity is the best Costa Rica can do in this case, she has
effectively proved ⎯ especially in view of her failure to produce any evidence of her own law
enforcement activities in the area ⎯ that Nicaragua is right.
15. The only evidence of effectivités Costa Rica has been able to produce are a series of use
permits 8 regarding land in the disputed area, all granted, rather oddly, in 2006 ⎯ and all pertaining,
Mr.President, to a wetland Costa Rica claims to be so eager to protect. But ⎯ no actual
possession, no official activities. Very thin evidence of effectivités, especially when contrasted
with Nicaragua’s long and consistent record of official presence in the area. [McC 11] And,
Mr.President, Costa Rica’s own permits each clearly show the caño! This is an image of one of
the permits. [end McC 11]
Nicaragua’s right to dredge without Costa Rica’s permission
16. Finally, Mr. President, Costa Rica’s argument yesterday compels me to return to a point
that I had thought was pellucidly clear and unchallengeable: that Nicaragua does not have to obtain
Costa Rica’s permission to dredge the San Juan river. Professor Crawford, in his parting words and
without citing authority, said that “there is the sa me obligation of co-operation [with respect to the
San Juan] that would exist if this was a regular river with a median line” 9. He then appealed to
7CR 2011/3, p. 18, para. 30 (Kohen).
8
Costa Rican judges’ folder, 11 Jan. 2011, Vol. I, tabs Nos. 10 to 15.
9CR 2011/3, p. 35, para. 58 (Crawford). - 14 -
your predecessor’s Judgment in the River Oder case, without referring to it by name, and in
particular the Permanent Court’s declaration that th ere is “a community of interest in a navigable
10
river” . He said that that community of interest ought to give rise to co-operation, including
provision of information and consultation, ignoring the lex specialis in the form of the 1858 Treaty,
which makes the river part of Nicaragua ’s territory. Mr. President, both the Navigational and
Related Rights case and the present one show that there is regular co-operation between the
authorities of both countries in the area of the San Juan river. I referred to some of this
co-operation in my intervention in the first round of these hearings. But, Mr. President, there is a
limit to what Costa Rica can insist upon, and that limit is defined by the sovereignty of Nicaragua
over the river and all that that entails. One of the incidents of Nicaragua’s sovereignty was
recognized in no uncertain terms by President Clevel and in paragraph6 of the third article of his
Award, which I read out and showed on the screen during the first round. The nub of that passage
11
is that “Costa Rica cannot prevent” Nicaragua from executing works of improvement relating to
the river. It should be added that Nicaragua also has an obligation under international law to do so.
It is obviously difficult for Costa Rica to accept that Nicaragua does not in fact have the same
obligations vis-à-vis Costa Rica as if the border fo llowed the median line of the San Juan. This
difficulty persists even after a treaty, six arbitral awards, and a judgment of this Court. Finally on
this point, the Court will recall that it declined to indicate provisional measures in the Pulp Mills
case even though there was, there, an actual duty under the relevant treaty to engage in consultation
12
and the moving party claimed it had not been observed . The fact that there is no such duty here
should not lead to a different outcome.
17. Mr. President, Members of the Court, th at concludes my presentation. Thank you once
again for your kind attention. Mr. President, I would now ask that you call to the podium
Mr. Paul Reichler, who will address Costa Rica’s environmental claims.
10
Territorial Jurisdiction of the Inter national Commission of the River Oder , Judgment No.16, 1929, P.C.I.J.,
Series A, No. 23, p. 27.
11Award of the President of the United States in regard to the Validity of the Treaty of Limits between Costa Rica
and Nicaragua of 15 July 1858, Decision of 22 Mar. 1888, RIAA, Vol. 28, p. 210.
12Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentinav. Uruguay ), Provisional Measures, Order of 13July2006,
I.C.J. Reports 2006. - 15 -
The PRESIDENT: I now call upon Mr. Reichler to make his presentation.
RMEIr. HLER:
C ONCLUDING REMARKS ON THE EVIDENCE
1. Mr.President, Members of the Court, good afternoon. Costa Rica’s second round
pleadings yesterday called to mind Dinah Washingt on’s hit song from 1959: “What a difference a
13
day makes, twenty-four little hours.”
2. Two days ago, Costa Rica came out aggressively and insisted on the suspension of all
14
dredging activities on the San Juan river . That was before they heard Nicaragua’s first round
response. Yesterday, 24 little hours after hearing our response, they all but abandoned their request
for interim measures in regard to the dredging of the river 15.
3. This is reflected in their new submissions , which were scaled way down from one day to
the next. In regard to the dredging, now they seek a suspension of activities only in the area
16
adjacent to the caño . That is a major retreat. But it is not far enough, because there is no
evidence that Costa Rica will be harmed by dredging in this area, or any other.
4. Costa Rica questions how Nicaragua could have prepared a transboundary environmental
impact study without its assistance. Very easily. The dredging of a river entails three
environmental impacts: on hydraulic flow, on th e disposition of extracted sediments, and on the
sediments released into the water column 17.
5. In regard to hydraulic flow, Nicaragua’s EIS calculated that the transboundary impact, on
the Colorado river in Costa Rica, would be a diminution in flow of less than 5 per cent, not enough
13To give credit where it is due, the song was actually composed by Mexican composer María Méndez Grever
in 1934. Its original title was Cuando Vuelva A Tu Lado.
14E.g., CR 2011/1, pp. 70-71, para. 51 (Crawford).
15CR 2011/3, p.38, para.17 (Ugalde Álvarez) (“En attendant la décision finale sur le fond, le Nicaragua doit
suspendre son programme de dragage de fleuve San Juan dans la zone adjacente á la zone pertinen”; emphasis
added.)
16Ibid., paras. 15-17.
17
See doc. No. 13, affidavit of Hilda Espinoza Urbina (her eafter “document 13: Espinoza affidavit”), paras. 14
and 20 (c-f). - 16 -
18
to harm navigation or anything else . Costa Rica’s own study, which I discussed in the first
19
round and which Costa Rica conspicuously avoide d mentioning yesterday, showed that the
dredging project would diminish the flow of the Colorado by less than 4.5percent 20. That is a
pretty close match.
6. In regard to the deposition of extracte d sediments, Nicaragua’s EIS ensured that there
would be no impacts on Costa Rica by requiring that all sediments be deposited in 24designated
21
sites on the Nicaraguan side of the river . Yesterday, my friend Professor Crawford challenged
22
this, alleging that one of the sites, Number 2, was in Costa Rica . Reviewing the compte rendu, I
found no citation for this statement. In any event, I am afraid Professor Crawford miscalculated.
When the co-ordinates of the site are plotted correctly, they show that it is plainly in Nicaragua, as
are all the rest. [PSR1]
7. In regard to sediments in the water co lumn, the EIS showed that these would have no
impact on either bank of the river, that they wo uld not accrete but would quickly settle to the river
bottom at the conclusion of the dredging activity, or wash out to sea 23. Costa Rica has not
challenged this.
8. In the end, Costa Rica accepts the EIS and its findings in regard to the dredging of the
river. However, Professor Crawford drew a distinction yesterday between what he called two
different projects: the one described in the EIS, to which he in the end took no exception, and the
24
one he labelled the “Pastora Plan” .
9. In fact, the actual dredging project that is being carried out is a lot smaller and less
ambitious than the one described in the EIS. In the first place, as Costa Rica has acknowledged,
18Doc. No. 15, declaration of Virgilio Silva Mungía (hereafte r “document 15: Silva declaration”), paras.2-3;
doc. No. 16: declaration of Lester Antonio Quintero Gómez (hereafter “document 16: Quintero declaration”), para. 7, as
well as corresponding pages of Ann. 3 thereto; see also doc. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 20 (f).
19CR 2011/2, p. 32, para. 5 and p. 41, para. 28 (Reichler).
20Área de Ingeniería Hidráulica, C.S. Diseño, ICE, “Estudio de comportamiento de caudales en la bifurcación
Río San Juan ⎯ Río Colorado” (hereafter “Costa Rican Flow Report”), p. 5. Spanish version submitted to the Court by
Costa Rica on 7 Jan. 2011; English translation provided at the back of Nicaragua’s judges’ folders on 11 Jan. 2011.
21E.g., doc. No.16: Quintero declar ation, para. 9 and Ann. 3: Excerpts from Environmental Impact Study
Final Report, p. 24; see also doc. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 20 (c).
22CR 2011/3, p. 32, para. 41 (Crawford).
23See doc. No.16: Quintero declaration, para. 9 and corresponding pages of Ann. 3 thereto; see also
doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 20 (c).
24
CR 2011/3, p. 21, para. 2 (iv), p. 25, para. 15 and pp. 27-29, paras. 25-28 (Crawford). - 17 -
the budget for it is only $7.5 million 25. In this regard, here is what the Costa Rican Foreign
Minister told the Costa Rican Parliament in his September speech to that body:
“[W]e have reviewed the costs of the dredging works in Caldera and in the
Panama Canal, which has allowed us to establish an approximate cost of $700K to
$1M per linear kilometer for the dredging of the river. Based on this, we estimate that
the budget announced by Nicaragua will allow th em to dredge or clean between 7 and
10linear kilometers of the San Juan, which would represent a small segment of the
26
river.”
The project described in the EIS was for 42 km of dredging, so the actual budget for it cuts it down
27
significantly, at least in half .
10. In regard to the amount of sediment to be extracted, I pointed out on Tuesday that the
actual project had been scaled down by more than a third from the one described in the EIS, from
28
1.5 million to 900,000 cubic metres . Yesterday, Professor Crawford hypothesized a dredging of
more than 3 million cubic metres, based on a com putation of four dredgers working full time for a
year 29. Again, it turns out there is no citation for this statement in the compte rendu, but I do not
question his arithmetic. I do not doubt that four dredgers with sufficient capacity working full time
could perform that much work. But that is not this project, and it is not within the permit issued by
the Environment Ministry, nor within the small capacity of the dredgers built in Nicaragua 30.
11. And speaking of dredgers, these too have been scaled down substantially from the ones
contemplated in the EIS; instead of the foreign- built dredgers Nicaragua then hoped to import, it
switched to much smaller, homemade dredgers because the foreign ones were too expensive and
too big for the river 31. Until now, Nicaragua has been using one local model, with a capacity of
32
only 350cubic metres per hour . The ones it plans to add are even smaller: 150 and
25
CR 2011/3, p. 28, para. 25.
2Doc. No. 19: statement by Mr. René Castro Salazar, Costa Rican Minister of Foreign Affairs and [Worship],
to the Environmental Commission of Costa Rica’s Legisla tive Assembly, on 8 Sep. 2010 (hereafter “document19:
Castro statement”), para. 18.
27
See, e.g., doc. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 3 (“As prmitted, the project includes the dredging of the last
42 kilometers of the San Juan River”).
28
CR 2011/2, p. 17, para. 40 (Reichler); see also doc. 16: Quintero declaration, paras. 10-11.
2CR 2011/3, pp. 29-30, para. 30 (Crawford).
3See doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, Ann. 8.
3Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, para. 12.
32
Ibid., para. 13 as well as corresponding page of Ann. 4 thereto. - 18 -
75 cubic metres per hour . According to the Dutch dredging experts from Delft Technical
University, the San Juan river dredging project “i s of a very small scale compared to the large
Dutch dredging contractors currently working glob ally with hourly productions of more than
10,000 m3/hr” 34. All together, the combined productivity of all the Nicaraguan dredgers is less
35
than 600 cubic metres per hour .
12. Costa Rica reveals the weakness of its ow n argument when it bends over backwards to
describe this extremely modest endeavour as the “Pasto ra Plan”, as if branding it with that name is
36
alone sufficient to condemn it . In fact, Costa Rica’s whole argument against the dredging project
now boils down to certain statements attri buted to Mr.Pastora by the Nicaraguan press 37. These
supposed press statements are an extremely weak foundation on which to base a claim for interim
measures, even if Mr.Pastora were accurate ly quoted, which Nicaragua does not accept.
Costa Rica ignores the fact that the scope of this project is not governed by any individual’s wishes,
but by the detailed permits which were issued after comprehensive reviews by qualified
38
regulators . Costa Rica has not proven that Nicaragua deviated from these permits; in fact,
Nicaragua has not. On this point, I should add that the permit for the dredging project actually took
effect in July2009; so, contrary to what the Court was told yesterday, the commencement in
October 2010 was within the 18-month starting time.
13. It is amusing that Professor Crawford has now assumed the role of Mr.Pastora’s chief
character witness: “I think we should give some credibility to Mr. Pastora,” he says 39. “We have
every reason to believe Mr.Pastora when he sp eaks to the press about this project. So far,
40
everything he has announced to the press seems to come true.” Is that so? What about his
supposed announcement that Nicaragua would divert 100percent of the flow of the Colorado
3333
Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, para. 13, Ann. 4.
34
Doc. No. 18: Expert Report of Professors van Rhee and de Vriend of Delft University of Technology
(4 Jan. 2011) (hereafter “document 18: Report of Dutch Experts”), p. 3.
35
See doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, Ann. 4.
36
CR 2011/3: pp. 27-29, paras. 25-29 (Crawford).
37Ibid.
38Doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, paras. 12-22 and corresponding Anns. thereto.
39See CR 2011/3, p. 29, para. 28 (Crawford).
40
Ibid., p. 28, para. 26. - 19 -
river, all 1,700 cubic metres per second of it? 41 Professor Crawford may be the only one on earth
who believes that this absurd statement was made by anyone, let alone Mr. Pastora. He insisted on
42
it again yesterday , even though his own client, the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica, summarily
43
dismissed it in his speech to the Costa Rican Parliament in September . And if they really believe
Mr.Pastora said this, why has Costa Rica now ab andoned its opposition to the dredging project,
except for a very tiny piece of it? 44
14. In the end, Costa Rica has no case against th e dredging. Full stop. There is no evidence
of any kind that the dredging of the river, at an y location, will cause harm to Costa Rica, let alone
harm that is irreparable or irreversible.
15. That brings us to the caño. The response here can be very simple. In its scaled down
Submissions filed yesterday, Costa Rica now asks only for an Order prohibiting further
45
construction or enlargement of a canal . Nicaragua has already stated that its work on the caño
46 47
was finished in December . There will be no construction or enlargement . The Agent of
Nicaragua has already made this clear 48, and will do so again this afternoon. There is no need for
an Order. Costa Rica asks for an Order against the felling of more trees 49. Again, as Nicaragua has
50 51
stated, the felling of trees is over and done with . The replanting of trees is in progress . Again,
there is no need for an Order. Finally, Costa Rica asks for an Order against the dumping of
sediments 52. Here again, there is no need for an Order. Since there will be no construction work or
enlargement, there will be no extracted sediments to deposit.
4CR 2011/3, p. 29, para. 28.
4Ibid.
4Doc.No.19: Castro statement, paras.15-17 (the statement made by Mr. Pastora does “not constitute
sufficient proof in and of [itself] that this damage will occur... nobody has been able to show calculations or sustain
flow reductions close to 80%, as published in some media”).
4CR 2011/3, p. 38, para. 17 (Ugalde Álvarez).
4Ibid., para. 16 (b).
4CR 2011/2, p. 33, para. 9 and p. 44, para. 39 (Reichler); see also doc.No. 12, declaration of Roberto
Araquistain Cisneros (hereafter “document 12, Cisneros declaration”), paras. 1-3; doc. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 31.
4CR 2011/2, p. 33, para. 9 (Reichler).
4CR 2011/2, p. 15, para. 33 (Argüello-Gómez).
49
CR 2011/3, p. 38, para. 16 (c) (Ugalde Álvarez).
50
CR 2011/2, p. 16, para. 35 (Argüello-Gómez); p. 46, para. 44 (Reichler).
51
Ibid.
52
CR 2011/3, p. 38, para. 16 (d) (Ugalde Álvarez). - 20 -
16. On Tuesday, I said that no trees were felled by Nicaragua on the Costa Rican side of the
caño, and no extracted sediments were deposited there 53. My statement was not disputed
yesterday. On Tuesday, I said that, despite all of Costa Rica’s protestations in the first round about
the flooding of the wetlands adjacent to the caño, Costa Rica had submitted no evidence of
flooding 54. They did not dispute that statement yesterday either. Nor did they submit any evidence
to back up this claim. They remained silent in the face of my direct challenge on the point. In their
two rounds of pleading they showed us dozens of photos of the caño from every angle. Does the
Court recall seeing any flooded areas? If not, it is because there were none. There is no evidence
of flooding, actual or potential, at or near the caño. They did not even mention the word yesterday.
17. Nor did they mention the word “erosion” yesterday. This is another example of “What a
difference a day makes.” On Tuesday, Professor Cr awford called attention to satellite photographs
55
to support his contention that the clearing of the caño had caused erosion of the adjacent banks .
But he made no mention of the photos yesterday; nor did he say a word about erosion. Apparently
this argument has been jettisoned, too. It is not difficult to understand why.
18. Costa Rica obtained the satellite photos fro m UNOSAT, which in this regard was acting
as a private contractor, retained by Costa Rica 56, rather than an organ of the United Nations ⎯
much the same way the UK Hydrographic Office hires itself out to private parties and
governments. The photos depict the San Juan river, the caño and the Harbor Head Lagoon quite
nicely 57. But the interpretation that has been given to them is very strange. First, by comparing the
photos taken on 19November and 14December, one can see that there wa s more water flowing
through the caño on the latter date. Fair enough. We agree. But then Costa Rica attributes this
58
increased amount of water in the caño to erosion of the banks . Quite obviously, the cause of this
greater volume of water, as distinguished from it s existence, is not something that can be
determined by a photo taken from a satellite orbiting the earth. In fact, there is a much simpler
5CR 2011/2, p. 45, para. 43 (Reichler).
54
Ibid., p. 50, para. 53.
55
CR 2011/1, pp. 64-65, para. 36 (Crawford).
5Ibid. (“I refer to a joint UNITAR/UNOSAT Report, done at Costa Rica’s request”) (emphasis added).
5Ibid.
5See CR 2011/1, p. 65, para. 36 (Crawford). - 21 -
explanation for the increased water: the clearing of the caño was not completed until December,
well after the first photograph was taken, but before the second one 59. Of course, more water was
flowing through the caño after it was fully cleared. That is not a sign of erosion. It is a sign that
there was less resistance in the caño after it was cleared, so more water was able to flow through it.
It is also the result of more rain, especially duri ng the peak of the rainy season in late November
and early December, when there is more water in the river generally, as is also clear from Costa
Rica’s photos. Significantly, Costa Rica has not produced any photos showing a widening of the
caño since its clearing was completed. And although it is perfectly capable of doing so, as it owns
the right bank of the caño and enjoys navigation rights in it, Costa Rica has supplied no actual
measurements of the width, depth, water volume or velocity in the caño. Only Nicaragua has done
so 60, and its measurements are unchallenged. Th e satellite photos submitted by Costa Rica state
61
explicitly that their measurements have not been verified in the field .
19. Another curious interpretation of the photos is the one read aloud by Professor Crawford
in the first round: that “This high rate of erosion” ⎯ which we have seen is not erosion at all but
simply the result of the completion of the caño clearing ⎯ “is additionally facilitated with the high
velocity of water flowing in from the San Juan river” 62. Costa Rica does not explain how it is able
to determine the velocity of a flowing river from a satellite photo. I am sure this would be of great
interest to the scientific community. It might even qualify someone for a Nobel Prize. But
fortunately, there is accurate information, rather than rank speculation, about water velocity in this
part of the San Juan, measured not from outer space but in situ. It is included in the EIS, which
determined the water velocity in the last 6 km of the river to be only 0.569 m/s ⎯ which is almost
63
exactly 2 km/hour ⎯ which means the water is barely moving at all . The velocity in the caño is
59See, e.g., doc.No. 14, statements of Elsa María Vivas Soto (hereafter “document 14: Vivas statements”),
paras.4 and 24 (explaining that “[t]he progress of the cleaing activities in the caño at the time of [her] visit [from
24-26 Nov. 2010] was approximately 50%”); see also CR 2011/2, p. 33, para. 9 and p. 44, para. 39 (Reichler).
60
E.g., doc.No. 17, certification of Lester Antonio Quintero Gómez (hereafter “document17: Quintero
certification”), paras. 1-2.
61CR 2011/1, pp. 64-65, para. 36 (Crawford).
62CR 2011/1, p. 65, para. 36 (Crawford).
63Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, Ann. 3: Excerpts from Environmental Impact Study Final Report, p. 12. - 22 -
64
even slower, at 0.397m/s . So much for Costa Rica’s high water velocity/erosion theory. No
wonder they stopped arguing it.
20. Costa Rica suggests that the dredging activity some 400 m upstream from the entrance to
the caño will somehow increase the water velocity in the river and the amount of water flowing
65
into the caño . But this makes no sense. The dredging they complain about is actually on the
Nicaraguan bank of the river, rather than in the river itself. And they acknowledge this 6. Cutting
this channel increases neither the volume of water in the river or its velocity. Velocity depends on
the gradient, or slope of the river, not its path , and Costa Rica provides no information on that at
all. But that too is contained in the EIS, which says the slope in this part of the river is “quite flat
and low” ⎯ in fact, it is a mere .02 per cent, which is, for all practical purposes, almost completely
flat67. That is why the water is barely moving in this section. The dredging here will not increase
either the amount of water or the velocity as it approaches the caño 400m downstream. It will
have no effect on the caño.
21. Professor Crawford pointed out yesterday that a separate EIS was not prepared for the
caño clearing, as it was for the dredging of the river 68. That is true, but beside the point. In the
first place, as the evidence shows, an environmental analysis of the caño clearing project was
submitted by EPN to the Environment Ministry, an d the Ministry conducted its own review of the
69
potential environmental impacts, including a site visit and an inspection report . Second, the EIS
for the dredging project already included an exha ustive analysis of the impacts on sedimentation
and water quality in the San Juan 70. These are the same sediments and water that flow through the
caño to Nicaragua’s Harbor Head Lagoon; no additional analysis of them was required. As
explained in the documents Nicaragua submitted to the Court last week, the Environment
64
Doc. No. 17: Quintero certification, para. 2.
65E.g., CR 2011/1, p. 32, para. 32 (Crawford) (“Nicaragua had also started to cut across a meander located on
its side of the border, with the intention of straightening th e naturally curved course of the San Juan, thus increasing the
speed of water flow in that part of the river . . .”).
66Ibid.
67Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, Ann. 3: Excerpts from Environmental Impact Study Final Report, p. 12.
68CR 2011/3, p. 27, para. 24 (Crawford).
69
Doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, paras. 22-29 and Ann. 9; see also No. doc. 14: Vivas statements, paras. 1-
13 and Ann. 1.
70
Doc. No. 16: Quintero declaration, para. 8 as well as corresponding pages of Ann. 3 thereto; see also
doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 20 (c). - 23 -
Ministry’s review “was carried out in conformity wi th the applicable legal requirements . . . which,
in the case of strictly manual works of such a small scope, do not mandate the preparation of a
separate Environmental Impact Study” 71. Another site inspection by the Ministry near the
conclusion of the project confirmed that there were no significant, irreversible or unanticipated
72
environmental impacts .
22. In any event, the issue for Costa Rica is not whether there was a separate EIS in regard to
the clearing of the caño, but whether it has shown a likelihood of imminent and irreparable harm as
a result of that activity. Nicaragua submits that Co sta Rica has failed to meet this burden. In fact,
Costa Rica has not shown the likelihood of any harm, let alone irreparable harm.
23. This conclusion is confirmed by the repor t of the Dutch experts from the Delft Technical
University. ProfessorCrawford said yesterday that there are aspects of this report that he agrees
73
with . That was nice. Then he said “I have not got time to deal with the inadequacies of the Delft
report.” 74 I think we all know what that means. I understand my friend’s time is extremely
valuable, especially when he is arguing in this Court, but could he not have spared a minute,
30seconds even, to identify at least one little inadequ acy of this report? If, indeed, there is one.
After all, he did find the time to tell us an amusing anecdote about Admiral Horatio Nelson 75. I
think it is safe to assume that if there were any de ficiencies in the Delft Report, he would have told
us about them.
24. In any event, the conclusions of the Delft report are fully corroborated by other evidence,
including the EIS and Costa Rica’s own studies. In particular, it is indisputable that the impact of
the dredging project on the flow of the Colorado river will be less than 5percent as the Dutch
experts found 76, and Costa Rica’s study confirms . And it is indisputable that the water volume in
7Doc. No. 13: Espinoza affidavit, para. 23.
7Doc. No. 14: Vivas statements, paras. 18-25.
7CR 2011/3, p. 33, para. 45 (Crawford).
74
Ibid., para. 46.
75
Ibid., p. 30, para. 32.
76
Doc. No. 18: Report of Dutch Experts, p. 4 (“In the EIS, it was calculated that the proposed dredging project
decrease the flow of the Colorado river by less than 5%. .. the EIS conclusion was correct and... conservatively
estimated, the proposed dredging project is likely to decrease no more than 20 cubic meters per second of the flow in the
Colorado River (which is of the order of 1400 – 1700 m³/s).”).
77
Costa Rican Flow Report, p. 5. - 24 -
the caño is a miniscule 2.38m3/s ⎯ which is not enough to cause a significant environmental
impact ⎯ and that the water velocity in the caño is less than 0.4 m/s ⎯ which is barely moving 78.
These measurements, the only ones taken in the field, stand unchallenged.
25. In sum, there is not the slightest evidence that the clearing of the caño, which was
completed last month, is likely to cause any harm to Costa Rica. There is certainly no evidence of
the likelihood of irreparable harm.
26. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this completes my presentation today. I thank you
again for your courtesy and kind attention, and I ask that you call Professor Pellet to the podium.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr.PaulReichler for his presentation. I now call upon
Professor Alain Pellet.
M. PELLET : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président.
LES NOUVELLES MESURES CONSERVATOIRES DEMANDÉES PAR LE C OSTA R ICA
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Me ssieurs les juges, lors du premier tour de
plaidoiries du Costa Rica, le professeur Crawford a posé, avec une certaine insistance, la question
suivante :
«Can StateA resist provisional measures, after taking unilateral action on
territory occupied under claim of right by StateB for many years ⎯ territory never
previously claimed by State A ⎯ on the ground that State B, if it is79orrect in its claim
to title, will eventually get its territory back plus damages?» Objection Your
Honour ! This is a leading question ⎯ that is «one that suggests the desired answer or
80
assumes the existence of a disputed fact» («misleading» might be more accurate...).
2. «With respect», ou plutôt, avec tout le respect qui s’impose, Monsieur le président, car il
serait mal séant que je continue à plaider en anglais dans cette enceinte où opèrent de remarquables
interprètes, cette question est mal posée et n’appelle pas de réponse, mais elle reflète fort bien les
demandes que le CostaRica avait formulées initialement et qui, comme la «question Crawford»,
relevaient de la méthode Coué ou du wishful thinking. Pour parler plus familièrement et reprendre
78
Doc. No.17: Quintero certification, paras. 1-2; see also CR 2011p. 33, para. 9 and p. 45, para. 40
(Reichler).
79
CR 2011/1, p. 53, par. 2 (à deux reprises) et p. 72, par. 54 (Crawford).
80Blackstone Society, Trial Advocacy Guide (http://www.blackstone.asn.au/). - 25 -
l’expression que j’ai utilisée lors du premier tour 81, c’est mettre la charrue avant les bŒufs. La
véritable question, ouverte et franche, qui se pose, est toute différente; elle est de savoir si,
lorsqu’un territoire est contesté entre deux Etats, l’un d’eux peut obtenir, par le biais d’une
demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, que les activités menées par l’autre Etat dans la
zone contestée fassent l’objet d’une condamnation par la Cour, fût-elle provisoire, avant qu’elle se
prononce, plus tard, au sujet de la souveraineté su r le territoire en cause. Le CostaRica semble
s’en être finalement aperçu comme le montrent les conclusions finales lues par son agent à la fin de
l’audience d’hier.
3. Lors du premier tour de plaidoiries du demandeur, le professeur Crawford avait beaucoup
82
insisté sur sa question ⎯ qu’il avait lue pas moins de trois fois . Il s’agissait en fait d’essayer de
vous convaincre d’adjuger au Costa Rica ses conclu sions au fond, avant même que l’affaire ait été
plaidée. Ce faisant, le demandeur espérait obtenir que vous prononciez des mesures conservatoires
partant du postulat (car, à ce stade, ce n’est qu’un postulat) que la «zone frontalière» dans laquelle
ont pris place les activités que le demandeur repr oche au Nicaragua relè ve de la souveraineté
costa-ricienne.
4. Les mesures que le Costa Rica vous priait de décider telles qu’elles étaient exposées à la
fin de sa demande en indication de mesures con servatoires étaient biaisées, au même titre que «la
question Crawford», car, elles aussi, postulaient que le Nicaragua avait envahi un territoire
costa-ricien, qu’il occupait et sur lequel il se livrait à des activités, en conséquence, illicites.
5. Comme je l’ai montré mardi, procéd er de cette manière au stade des mesures
conservatoires aurait été totalement inacceptable (je dis «aurait été» car ce n’est plus ce que le
CostaRica vous demande). Pour faire droit aux demandes de l’Etat requérant, vous eussiez dû
admettre son postulat, à savoir que les activités contestées seraient menées par le Nicaragua «sur le
territoire costa-ricien». Or, ceci ne peut être affirmé par le demandeur comme une vérité révélée :
il lui appartient de le démontrer. Et il ne peut le démontrer au stade où nous en sommes, celui des
mesures conservatoires ; ce sera l’un des objets de la procédure principale ⎯ celle durant laquelle
81
CR 2011/2, p. 65, par. 35 (Pellet).
82Voir note 1, supra. - 26 -
les Parties s’expliqueront sur le fond de l’affair e à la suite d’un débat contradictoire, serein et
complet.
6. Nos amis de l’autre côté de la barre ont, dans un premier temps, tenté d’écarter ce
préalable aussi indispensable que gênant pour eux, en plaidant l’évidence.
7. A cette fin, ils ont affirmé d’abord qu’il ex isterait une sorte de parallèle entre d’une part,
la condition du fumus boni juris (qui implique que le demandeur de mesures conservatoires
invoque des droits au moins plausibles) et, d’autr e part, la prétendue obligation dans laquelle se
trouverait le défendeur d’établir que les droits dont il se prévaut seraient vraisemblablement
affectés par l’indication des mesures demandées 83. Cette exigence, qui ne trouve aucun appui dans
la jurisprudence de la Cour, n’a pour elle que l’apparence, très trompeuse, de la logique.
8. Ce serait en effet mettre l’Etat défendeur dans une position très difficile. Une demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires est une procédure incidente qui le prend par surprise et se
déroule dans l’urgence : même si, parfois, l’urge nce est relative, le défendeur doit se défendre sans
vraiment savoir ce dont on l’accuse. Le demandeur a pu fourbir ses arguments et préparer ses
preuves; le défendeur, lui, ne sait ce qui lui est reproché que par une requê te et une demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires de quelques pages; et il est dans une position
particulièrement difficile lorsque, comme c’est le cas en l’espèce, le demandeur tente de le noyer
(et la Cour avec lui!) sous une avalanche de docum ents fournis à la dernière minute, et je ne
compte pas les quelque huitcentspages du dossier des juges dont le CostaRica nous a affligés
mardi dernier. En fait, en procédant ainsi, l’ Etat demandeur poursuit toujours le même objectif:
imposer à la Cour, ou tenter d’imposer à la Cour , de se prononcer sur le fond de sa requête par le
biais de l’examen, nécessairement sommaire, de sa demande en indication de mesures
conservatoires.
9. L’autre motif invoqué par le Costa Rica pour tenter de vous faire avaliser son postulat de
base (le caractère costa-ricien de la zone sur laquelle les activités litigieuses ont pris place) a été
que l’affaire qui nous réunit aujourd’hui ne ser ait pas un différend territorial ou frontalier 84 (votre
83
CR 2011/1, p. 52, par. 51 (Kohen).
84CR2011/1, p.16, par.4; p.18, par.7 (UgaldeAlvarez); p. 37, par. 4, p. 38, par. 7 (Kohen) ; p. 66, par. 38
(Crawford). - 27 -
jurisprudence établit de manière très convaincante qu’ il n’y a pas lieu de faire la différence dans la
85
plupart des cas) .
10. Il est exact que le demandeur ne vous a p as saisis directement d’un différend de ce type.
Et le titre que vous avez retenu pour notre affaire reflète bien l’objet proclamé de sa requête: il
s’agit d’un litige concernant «certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région
frontalière». Mais cela laisse entière la question de savoir si ces activités sont ou non licites. Et ce
titre ⎯qui, contrairement à la leading ou misleading question du professeurCrawford, est sans
parti-pris ⎯ implique aussi que la licéité de ces activit és ne peut être appréci ée qu’en fonction de
l’emplacement de la frontière. Celui-ci ⎯ cet emplacement ⎯ n’est pas l’objet du différend; sa
détermination n’en est pas moins un préalable nécessaire à sa solution ⎯ un parmi d’autres car il
me semble évident que, sur le fond, vous serez a ppelés aussi à répondre à d’autres questions ; mais
un problème préliminaire obligé. Et incont ournable, il l’est aussi au stade des mesures
conservatoires.
11. Le refus de cette évidence était tellem ent évidemment mal fondé que les conclusions
finales revues par le demandeur confirment de manière éclatante que la question posée par le
professeur Crawford n’était pas la bonne.
12. En effet, Monsieur le président, la Par tie costa-ricienne, s’apercevant sans doute de sa
bévue, s’essaie à un mouvement de contournement de dernière minute, en modifiant in extremis ses
conclusions de façon à «gommer» l’aspect «territo rial» de ses demandes. Elle ne vous prie plus
d’ordonner «the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Nicaraguan troops from the
86
unlawfully invaded and occupied CostaRican territories» , elle vous demande seulement de
décider que le Nicaragua ne doit plus faire stationner de troupes ar mées ou d’autres agents dans la
zone contestée ⎯dans laquelle elle renonce, très rais onnablement, à parler d’invasion et
d’occupation. Elle ne vous demande plus la «cessation i mmédiate du percement d’un canal en
territoire costa-ricien», «la cessation de l’abattage d’arbres, de l’enlèvement de végétation et des
travaux d’excavation en territoire costa-ricien » ou «du déversement de sédiments en territoire
85
Plateau continental de la mer Egée (Grèce c.Turquie, compétence de la Cour, arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil197,
p. 35, par. 84 ; Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/République du Mali), arrC.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 563, par. 17 ;
Différend territorial (Jamahiriya arabe libyenne/Tchad), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1994, p. 38, par. 75.
86Demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, par. 19.1 ; les italiques sont de nous. - 28 -
costa-ricien», ou encore «du programme de dragage en cours, mis en Œuvre par [le Nicaragua] en
vue d’occuper et d’inonder le territoire costa-ricien» 87 : elle se garde dorénavant de préjuger, dans
ses demandes, l’appartenance du territoire sur lequel elle vous prie de décider ⎯ car vous décidez
lorsque vous indiquez des mesures conservatoires ⎯ que le Nicaragua ne doit pas construire ou
élargir un canal, abattre des arbres, enlever la végé tation ou déverser de sédim ents. Et elle définit
le territoire en question de façon plus neutre comme étant «la zone comprenant l’entièreté de
IsladePortillos, c’est-à-dire, à la rive droite du fleuve SanJuan et entre les rives de la lagune
88
los Portillos (connue aussi comme Harbour Head Lagoon) et de la rivière Taura» .
13. De l’avis du Nicaragua, Monsieur le président, ces changements ne sont nullement
«cosmétiques»: en renonçant à postuler que le te rritoire contesté est cost a-ricien, le demandeur
reconnaît du même coup qu’à la base de l’affaire qu’il a soumise à la Cour, il y a un contentieux
territorial ; ceci contrairement à ses allégations insistantes de mardi 89, dont on ne trouve plus qu’un
écho très assourdi dans celles d’hier, «What a di fference a day makes, twenty-four hours later», un
jour plus tard les lendemains déchantent 90.
14. Cet abandon a deux conséquences fondamentales.
15. En premier lieu, la «question Crawford» ne se pose plus ⎯en admettant qu’elle se fût
jamais posée : le Costa Rica a renoncé à faire, dans un même mouvement, la question et la réponse.
Raisonner ainsi revenait à demander à la Cour de préjuger que la zone frontalière où les activités
litigieuses du Nicaragua avaient pris place était cost a-ricienne. Cette tentative du demandeur de se
faire adjuger par avance ses conclusions sur le f ond a fait long feu ou, comme l’eût dit un ancien
91
président de la République française, elle a fait «pschitt» ... Et, en tout cas, dès lors que le
demandeur admet enfin l’évidence, à savoir que le territoire sur lequel les activités litigieuses se
sont déroulées est contesté, on ne voit plus co mment la Cour pourrait ordonner au seul Nicaragua
des mesures qui ne s’appliqueraient pas tout autant au Costa Rica.
87
Ibid. ; les italiques sont de nous.
88
Conclusions du CostaRica, dans le texte français lu par l’agent du Cost a Rica à l’audience le 12janvier2011
(CR 2011/3, p. 38, par. 16).
89 Voir supra, note 84.
90 Voir notamment CR 2011/3, p. 22, par. 7-8, «The absence of a territorial dispute» (Crawford).
91 Jacques Chirac, allocution du 2juilt001 (http: //www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/justice-et-faits-
divers/video/1756263001009/interview-jacques-chirac-billets-d-avion.fr.html). - 29 -
16. Mais, à vrai dire, il faut aller plus loin, car on ne voit plus du tout ce que la Cour pourrait
bien décider :
⎯ le stationnement de troupes? La nouvelle ré daction de cette conclu sion implique que le
Costa Rica a pris conscience de l’inconvénient qu’il y aurait à empêcher toute patrouille dans la
zone litigieuse, ce qui reviendrait à créer une zone d’impunité pour les narcotrafiquants et
92
autres malfaiteurs ; en revanche, l’agent du Nicaragua l’a dit , et il le redira, aucune troupe ne
stationne sur le territoire ainsi défini ;
⎯ la construction ou l’élargissement d’un canal ? Il n’y a jamais eu rien de tel ⎯ comme l’a
montré le professeur McCaffrey tout à l’heure ; et, je le redis 93, il n’est pas davantage question
de ceci pour un avenir proche; si un canal deva it être percé un jour (conformément au droit
que le Nicaragua tient de l’articlVIII du traité de 1858 et du poin1 t 0 de la
sentence Cleveland 94), ce ne serait que dans une perspective très lointaine ;
⎯ l’abattage d’arbres et le dépôt de sédiments dans cette zone? Co mme nous l’avons dit et
répété 95, le nettoyage et le débroussaillage du caño sont terminés et ce n’est que dans ce cadre
que la question se posait.
17. Or, Monsieur le président, il n’est peut-être pas inutile de le rappeler, lorsque, durant une
audience de la haute juridiction, l’agent d’une Partie fait part de l’intention de l’Etat qu’il
représente de ne pas se livrer à certains actes dont il est suspecté, la Cour se fonde sur ces
assurances et, lorsque celles-ci sont données à l’occasion d’une procédure en indication de mesures
96
conservatoires, elle s’abstient d’ordonner les mesures sollicitées . L’ambassadeur
Arguëllo Gómez a donné de telles assurances, et, sans êt re devin, je crois qu’il a l’intention de les
répéter tout à l’heure. Il n’existe dès lors, de toute manière, aucun motif justifiant que la Cour
92 CR 2011/2, p. 13, par. 28 (Argüello Gómez).
93 CR 2011/2, p. 54, par. 10 (Pellet) ; voir aussi supra, par. 4-9 (McCaffrey).
94 Sentence Cleveland rendue le 22ma rs1888 à Washington au sujet de la va lidité du traité de limites conclu
en1858 entre le CostaRica et le Nicaragua, RIAA., vol.XXVIII, p.210, point6 (annexe2 à la requête introductive
d’instance, 18 octobre 2010).
95 CR 2011/2, p. 16, par. 36 (Argüello Gómez).
96
Voir par exemple: Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c.Uruguay), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 13 juillet 2006 , C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 134, par. 83-84 ou Questions concernant
l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrade r (Belgique c.Sénégal), mesuresconservatoires, ordonnance du 28mai2009,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, par. 72. - 30 -
indique les mesures conservatoires demandées par le demandeur; nous aurions bien aimé que
l’agent du Costa Rica soit aussi rassurant...
18. S’agissant du dragage, les choses sont di fférentes. Mais avant de commenter la nouvelle
rédaction de la demande costa-ricienne sur ce point, il me semble nécessaire de procéder à une
petite, mais je crois utile, mise au point. Dans sa présentation d’hier, le professeurCrawford a
affirmé : «Mr. President, there are two dredging proj ects, not one. Project one is the one described
97
by the EIS. Project two is the project th at Mr. Eden Pastora is actually carrying out.» Dit ainsi,
cela n’est pas exact: certes (et PaulReichler vient de l’expliquer très clairement), il y a
deuxprojets: l’un, qui est terminé, a consisté dans le nettoyage du caño; il n’a comporté aucune
opération de dragage (ce qui eût, du reste, été tec hniquement irréalisable). Seul le second, qui est
en cours, sous la direction de M.Pastora, et s’étendra sur plusieurs années, est une opération de
dragage des derniers 42 kilomètres du San Juan.
19. La nouvelle conclusion du Costa Rica con cernant cette opération s’abstient d’imputer au
Nicaragua de sombres desseins et contraste, par sa sobriété en tout cas, avec celle qui figurait dans
la demande costa-ricienne du 18 novembre par laquelle il exigeait :
«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 navigation of the Colorado River, giving full effect 98
to the Cleveland Award and pending the determination of the merits of this dispute» .
Dorénavant, le Costa Rica ne demande plus à la Cour que d’ordonner au Nicaragua la suspension
99
de «son programme de dragage du fleuve San Juan dans la zone adjacente à la zone pertinente» .
Ceci étant, le dragage est une réalité, à la grande différence des activités que j’ai évoquées
précédemment, qui soit ne sont nullement envisag ées, soit sont terminées, et qui, pour celles qui
sont terminées, se sont déroulées sur un territoire dont l’appartenance à l’une ou l’autre des Parties
est contestée. Et le Nicaragua n’a l’intention ni d’arrêter ni de suspendre cette opération qui est
menée exclusivement sur le San Juan, c’est-à-dire sur un territoire dont il n’est pas contesté qu’il
97
CR 2011/3, p. 25, par. 15 (Crawford).
98 Demande en indication de mesu res conservatoires déposée par la République du CostaRica,
18 novembre 2010, p. 7, par. 19, point 5.
99Conclusions du CostaRica, dans le texte français lu par l’agent du Cost a Rica à l’audience le 12janvier2011
(CR 2011/3, p. 38, par. 17). - 31 -
100
est nicaraguayen . Elle présente au surplus une importance fondamentale pour le désenclavement
économique de la région et le dé veloppement d’un tourisme écologi que et durable; et la mener
seulement sur une portion du fleuve entre la bifurcation du Colorado et la ville de
San Juan del Norte n’aurait aucun sens.
20. Ceci étant, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, il existe plusieurs excellentes raisons pour
lesquelles nous sommes convaincus que vous vous abstiendrez d’ordonner la suspension du
dragage demandée par le Costa Rica :
1) comme Paul Reichler l’a montré à nouveau, il ne peut en résulter aucun dommage tangible pour
l’Etat demandeur, qu’il s’agisse de la naviga bilité du Colorado ou de l’environnement de la
région (qui devrait même s’en trouver plutôt amélioré) ;
2) en tout état de cause, parler d’urgence est une mystification : même si les renforts de dragueurs
attendus par M. Pastora devenaient une réalité, il faudrait encore plusieurs années avant que la
e
situation existant à la fin du XIX siècle soit rétablie (si elle peut l’être) et que des navires d’un
gabarit «commercialement intéressant» puissent l’emprunter ;
3) il n’empêche qu’en imposant la suspension de ces travaux indispensables, dans une aire qui plus
est indéterminée (qu’est-ce que c’est que «la zone adjacente à la zone pertinente»?),
l’ordonnance de la Cour espérée par le Costa Rica infligerait au Nicaragua un préjudice
indiscutable ⎯ sans contrepartie positive pour le demande ur ; même M. Crawford a admis que
le SanJuan est affecté par un problème de sédimentation (au sujet duquel il a été jusqu’à
101
invoquer les mânes de Nelson...) tout en s’efforçant de le minimiser ;
4) hier, le même avocat du CostaRica est revenu sur le point3.6 de la sentence Cleveland pour
faire remarquer que l’autorisation qui y est do nnée au Nicaragua de procéder à des travaux
d’amélioration n’était pas inconditionnelle 102 ; nous ne contestons pas du tout cela, Monsieur le
président, mais ce n’est pas le problème ; si, mard i, j’ai mis l’accent sur cette dispos ition tout à
fait essentielle de la sentence de 1888 en ce qui no us concerne, ce n’était pas pour revendiquer
pour le Nicaragua un droit illimité de procéder à n’importe quels travaux sur le San Juan, mais
100
Voir notamment CR 2011/1, p. 70, par. 49 (Crawford) ; CR 2011/3, p. 25, par. 13 (Crawford).
101
CR 2011/3, p. 30-31, par. 32-33.
102CR 2011/3, p. 34-35, par. 52-56 (Crawford). - 32 -
pour souligner que la sentence Cleveland envisageait expressément l’hypothèse dans laquelle de
tels travaux seraient illicites et causeraient des dommages au Costa Rica ⎯ et je cite le passage
pertinent :
«The Republic of Costa Rica has the ri ght to demand indemnification for any
places belonging to her on the right bank of the River San Juan which may be
occupied without her consent, and for any lands on the same bank which may be
flooded or damaged in any other way in consequence of works of improvement.»
De manière fort significative, mon contradicteur et grand ami ⎯ l’un, heureusement,
n’empêche pas l’autre ! ⎯ a cité le début du point 3.6 mais, une nouvelle fois, pas l’extrait que
je viens de lire. C’est pourtant celui-ci qui est pertinent ; d’abord parce qu’il en résulte que la
sentence Cleveland envisage expressément et la possibilité de travaux d’amélioration (et nul ne
conteste que c’est ce dont il s’agit) et le risque d’un dommage 103, ce qui interdit de considérer
que la demande remplit la déso rmais très fameuse condition du fumus boni juris; et, ensuite
parce que cette disposition dit pour droit que, si ce risque se réalisait, la seule réparation
envisageable serait l’indemnisation. Une telle décision ne pourrait évidemment être prise par la
Cour que lors de l’examen du fond de l’affaire et, tout aussi évidemment, le Costa Rica ne peut
prétendre arracher par le biais d’une ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires ce
qu’il ne saurait obtenir dans votre futur arrêt.
21. Quant à la conclusion C, vous priant d’ordonner que le Nicaragua ne fasse rien qui puisse
«porter préjudice aux droits du CostaRica, ou...aggraver ou étendre le différend porté devant la
Cour», je n’ai pas grand-chose à ajouter à ce que j’avais dit mardi au sujet de la conclusion
correspondante qui figurait dans la demande du 18novembre dernier, et qui était rédigée de la
même manière: une telle demande de mesure de non-aggravation n’a et ne peut avoir aucune
104
autonomie par rapport aux autres mesures . Si, comme le Nicaragua en est convaincu, vous
n’ordonnez pas ces autres mesures, vous ne déci derez pas non plus celle-là, Mesdames et
Messieurs les juges ⎯ et si, par impossible, vous décidiez, malgré votre jurisprudence maintenant
établie et les raisons sérieuses qui la justifient, de faire droit à cette dernière demande du
CostaRica, il n’y aurait bien sûr aucune rais on que vous adressiez cette objurgation au seul Etat
103
Voir CR 2011/3, p. 31, par. 34-35 (Crawford).
104Voir CR 2011/2, p. 56-57, par. 14 et p. 61, par. 24 (Pellet). - 33 -
défendeur: l’article41 de votre Statut vous donne mission de préserver les droits de chacune des
Parties, pas du seul demandeur et nous savons que vous ne l’oublierez pas. Mais, encore une fois,
cette demande n’est pas justifiée et l’accepter, même en indiquant la même mesure au Costa Rica et
au Nicaragua, ne pourrait qu’encourager les parties à de futures affaires devant la Cour à introduire
des demandes en indication de mesures conservato ires dans l’espoir d’une victoire factice dont
elles pourraient se prévaloir devant leurs opinions publiques. Je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit un très
bon signal.
22. Monsieur le président, au début de ma plaidoirie du premier tour j’avais indiqué qu’à
mon sens l’instance imposée par le CostaRica était superflue 105. Mes amis de l’autre côté de la
106
barre ont fait mine de s’en offusquer . Et pourtant… Etait-il vraiment nécessaire de presser la
Cour de se réunir et de donner la priorité à ce s demandes sur toutes autres affaires (comme l’exige
l’article 74 de son Règlement) ? En modifiant ses conclusions, l’Etat demandeur a ramené l’affaire
à ses justes proportions : un différend territorial portant sur l’appartenance de 2 kilomètres carrés et
demi de marécages peu hospitaliers, dont la détermination est le préalable nécessaire à la décision
au fond que la Cour devra prendre sur l’affaire pa rtielle dont le CostaRica l’a saisie. Du même
coup, cela fait ressortir le caractère artificiel et assez vain des mesures conservatoires qui lui sont
demandées : elles sont sans objet et ne pourraient être que sans portée.
Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je vous remerc ie de votre patiente attention, et je vous
prie, Monsieur le président, de bien vouloir appe ler l’agent de la République du Nicaragua à cette
barre.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr.Pellet for hi s presentation and now I ask His Excellency
Ambassador Carlos José Argüello-Gómez to make his statement.
Mr. ARGÜELLO:
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, good afternoon. The distinguished Agent of Costa
Rica began his closing statement yesterday by asserting that the Agent of Nicaragua had “manqué à
la vérité”, that is, that I had not told the truth when I stated in my first presentation that:
105
CR 2001/2, p. 51, par. 1 (Pellet).
106CR 2011/3, p. 21, par. 1 (Crawford). - 34 -
“The sequence of events that has brough t the Parties again before the Court can
be explained briefly. It is a repetition of what has been happening for nearly two
centuries: every time Nicaragua attempts to make any substantial use of the San Juan
river, Costa Rica finds a reason for dispute.”
2. I am not going to get involved in a historical debate on the reasons that have originated the
disputes of Nicaragua and Costa Rica. In the judges’ folders you have a copy of an article
published in the New York Times in 3April1898, that is, at the time GeneralAlexander was in
Nicaragua. The title itself is interesting, not only for the present case brought by Costa Rica, but
also as an explanation of its attempt to intervene in the Nicaragua v. Colombia case that is also
presently before the Court.
3. The headlines of the article reads, “Plan to Grab Nicaragua; Colombia said to be behind
Costa Rica against the other South American; State Scheme to Control Canal” ⎯ I continue
quoting what is on the screen. [CAG1] ⎯ and this is from the New York Times 110 years ago ⎯
“Without attempting now to go into the intricate history of the matter, which
dates back to colonial days, it may be said that while Costa Rica may have very good
reason to press Nicaragua into a war à outrance instead of trusting to the more modern
and humane method of arbitration, Nicaragua on her part feels that she must come up
to the line and fight for her life.
The situation, briefly reviewed, is just this: Costa Rica has long but
unsuccessfully tried to establish territorial claims that would entitle her to a material
share in and control of any canal that might be devised to connect the Atlantic and
Pacific through Central American territory. So long as such a canal was a mere
speculative theory, however, Costa Rica saw no reason to press the claim. Colombia
apparently was going to have the monopoly of the waterway, and without a canal in it
the territorial question was not worth pressing.”
4. Costa Rica has attempted to portray the assertion of Nicaragua’s rights over the area of
Harbor Head as a newfangled claim by Nicaragua invented by Mr.Pastora. In the previous case
brought by Costa Rica, the issues before the Court did not involve questions of sovereignty but
only of Costa Rica’s limited rights of navigation in th e river. For this reason, Nicaragua did not go
into these questions and limited itself to making certain reservations with relation to the situation at
the mouth of the San Juan river. But these reserv ations do not leave room for doubt that Nicaragua
was indicating that there was a dispute in relation to the situation at
the mouth of the river.
5. Thus, Nicaragua stated in its Counter-Mem orial that it reserved its rights generally on all
questions of attribution of territory at the general area of the mouth of the San Juan river. Although - 35 -
this reservation pointed to a specific sketch-map, it is nonetheless a very clear general reservation
on territorial sovereignty at the mouth of the river 107.
6. Another very important reservation on questi ons relating to sovereignty at the mouth of
the river was made at the oral hearings of that case. On that occasion, as Agent of Nicaragua, I
stated:
“Other very important issues stemming from the 1858 Treaty are still in dispute
between the Parties and involve, for example, the situations of the Bays of San Juan
and Salinas. Since assertions have been made on these questions during the present
hearings, Nicaragua leaves on record that it reserves its rights on all questions relating
to these issues.” 108
7. In speaking of the previous case, it must be placed on record that Nicaragua denies that it
has prohibited navigation on the San Juan rive r by Costa Rican nationals as alleged in
paragraph 41 (f) of Costa Rica’s Application. Yesterday, Costa Rica’s distinguished Agent claimed
that the regulations enacted by Nicaragua on na vigation in the San Juan breached Costa Rica’s
rights and were also contrary to the Judgment of 13 July 2009. This is not a correct statement and
Nicaragua denies any violations of Costa Rica’s right s. Since this is a question for the merits, at
this time Nicaragua would simply point out that wh at Costa Rica is attempting to do is to also
reopen the previous case.
8. Mr. President, there were several referen ces by Costa Rica that distort the issues presently
before the Court. The present situation has been portrayed as similar to the situation faced by
Nicaragua in the 1980s, when it had recourse to th e Court requesting provisional measures in order
to stop the military and paramilitary attacks it was suffering. Professor Kohen, for example, stated:
“A l’époque, le Nicaragua invoquait que les Etats-Unis d’Amérique ne
respectaient pas sa souveraineté et son intégr ité territoriale par l’intermédiaire d’une
armée de mercenaires 109. Dans la situation actuelle, le Nicaragua a stationné sa
propre armée en territoire costa-ricien et y a entrepris ses actio110de dévastation
forestière et de tentative de déviation du fleuve San Juan.”
107
Sketch-map 5 of the Costa Rican Memorial does not reflect the correct attribution of territory of Nicaragua and
Costa Rica at the general area of the mouth of the San Juriver. Nicaragua therefore reserves her rights generally on
these questions. (Counter Memorial of Nicaragua, p. 9, fn. 14.)
108
CR 2009/4, para. 35, 5 Mar. 2009.
109Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et cont re celui-ci (Nicaragua c.Etats-Unis d’Amérique),
mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 10 mai 1984, C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 180, par. 28.
110CR 2011/1, para 29. - 36 -
9. The reference to a case where thousands of lives were lost and many more imperilled,
and with enormous destruction of the economy a nd infrastructure of Nicaragua, and where there
was not the most remote claim of territorial sovereignty in dispute, is totally out of place.
10. Even more so is Professor Crawford’s e quating the present situation with the invasion of
Czechoslovakia 111. The comparison of a dispute over a small uninhabited swamp with the invasion
of Czechoslovakia is completely out of place and unnecessarily unmindful of the tragedy of the
Czechs and Slovaks under the boots of the Nazis. Attempting to place the Court in the position of
Neville Chamberlain is well . . . the Court can be the judge of that. Since it is difficult to believe
that the distinguished Professor is seriously asserting this, I must presume that the comparison was
made in the same vein as the comparison of a felling of a tree to the destruction of the Court.
11. Mr.President, Members of the Court, Costa Rica apparently has a fixation with
Mr.Pastora. He was mentioned by Costa Rican counsel yesterday in a preliminary count at least
36 times. But it is not the first time Mr. Pastora’s name comes up in Court. Twenty-five years ago
Nicaragua filed a case against Costa Rica because of its collaboration with the contra forces
attacking Nicaragua from Costa Rican territory. Their main support and assistance was to the
contra forces organized and headed by Mr.Pastora. If the Court is interested in reviewing the
record, Nicaragua’s Memorial in that case mentioned Mr. Pastora 48 times. If 25 years ago Costa
Rica was boosting Mr.Pastora for attacking Nica ragua, now it has accused him of criminal
activities and formulated charges against him in Costa Rican courts because he is back home
helping his own country to recover the treasure of its San Juan river. The unjust criminal
proceedings against Mr. Pastora are just another escalation of this situation by Costa Rica.
12. Costa Rica has thrown aspersion on the declarations of Nicaraguan officials attesting that
they regularly patrolled and kept peace in the area of Harbor Head. As can be seen from the map
on the screen [CAG 2] and the general area, the Harbor Head area is only a few minutes away by
boat and it is only common sense that they have patr olled the area and should continue to do so.
As you can see on the screen, the town of San Ju an del Norte, San Juan de Nicaragua and the
former Greytown, are just under 3 km away from the area in dispute. So, if this is not patrolled by
111
CR 2011/1, para. 54. - 37 -
Nicaragua, the area of Harbor Head would have b ecome the modern Tortuga’s Island retreat for all
the criminals and drug traffickers in the Caribbean. Costa Rica, for her part, has not dared to allege
that her forces patrolled or kept peace in the area. In fact they have not been in the area and their
nearest post is 40 km away at the point of the formation of the delta of the San Juan river.
13. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Costa Rica’s first request for provisional measures
called for “the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Nicaraguan troops”.
14. Costa Rica’s new final submissions request that the Court should order that Nicaragua:
“shall not, in the area comprising the entirety of Isla Portillos, that is to say, across the
right bank of the SanJuan River and be tween the bank of the Laguna Los Portillos
(also known as Harbour Head Lagoon) and th e Taura River (‘the relevant area’):
1.Station any of its troops or other personnel; 2. Engage in the construction or
enlargement of a canal; 3.Fell trees or remove vegetation or soil; 4.Dump
sediment”.
15. In my first presentation I indicated that:
“There are no troops presently in the swampland. There is no permanent
military post in the area. The patrol of the area is presently done as it has always been
done by boat along the waters of the river which are indisputably Nicaraguan.”
I can further add to this that Nicaragua has no intention of stationing tr oops or personnel of any
type in the swampland Nicaragua identifies as the area of Harbor Head and which coincides with
the area Costa Rica alludes to with other names.
16. Costa Rica’s second request is for “the immediate cessation of the construction of a canal
across Costa Rican territory”. No canal was being constructed or is planne d to be constructed in
this area. What was being done ⎯ and it is now over ⎯ was the cleaning of the main channel that
flows from the San Juan proper to Harbor Head.
17. Costa Rica’s third request is for “the immediate cessation of the felling of trees, removal
of vegetation and soil from Costa Rican territory, in cluding its wetlands and forests”. Since this
request refers to the operations involved in the cleaning of the channel, the same reasoning applies,
since it is over.
18. The fourth request calls for “the immediate cessation of the dumping of sediment in
Costa Rican territory”. In so far as this so-called dumping refers to any operations during the
cleaning of the channel, these are over and finished. - 38 -
19. This new request from Costa Rica for the Court to order these new provisional measures
is recognition that what was stated in Nicaragua’s first presentation is true; that is, that those
activities are presently not going on. In this respect , this new request for reformulated provisional
measures is irrelevant and should be denied by the Court. It is in fact asking the Court to order
Nicaragua not to do something which it is not doing, and has told the Court it will not be doing.
20. Costa Rica’s original fifth request called for:
“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 navigation of the Colorado River, giving full effect
to the Cleveland Award and pending the determination of the merits of the dispute”.
21. Costa Rica’s new request asks the Court to order Nicaragua to “suspend its ongoing
dredging programme in the River San Juan adjacent to the relevant area”. This ambiguous request
by Costa Rica cannot prosper. What part of the Sa n Juan is adjacent to the “relevant area”? The
mouth of the river? From what point? The whole area of the river from the point that the Colorado
branches off the San Juan river? But more important than this ambiguity is the fact that it is not
reasonable to accept that Nicaragua can dredge th e river but not all of it. How can a river be
dredged if part of it is plugged or corked? If the river is to be left corked at the mouth then
dredging upstream is pointless, unless Costa Rica is thinking that a dam should be erected at the
mouth of the river. Nicaragua accepts Costa Rica’s implicit recognition that Nicaragua can
continue with it dredging programme of the ri ver, but cannot accept the limit Costa Rica requests
be imposed on the dredging of part of the river. This is a question of either Nicaragua has a right to
dredge or it has not that right.
22. Costa Rica’s final request remains invariable in asking the Court to order “that Nicaragua
shall refrain from any other action with might pr ejudice the rights of Costa Rica, or which may
aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court”. As ProfessorPellet explained, this request is
irrelevant and should not be granted. In fact, it is a request that the Court order something so that
the Party not go away empty-handed. Granting it is an invitation to States to come to invoke the
Court’s emergency procedures for minor grievances, real or imagined.
23. If the Court were to consider there is a need for ordering this type of measure, then it is
only logical and fair that it should be applicable to both States. - 39 -
24. Mr.President, Members of the Court, Ni caragua needs no encouragement to protect its
unique environmental riches, including its wetlands at the mouth of the San Juan river. Although
Nicaragua takes exception to the report of the RAMSAR Advisory Mission, and the manner in
which it was conducted, our Minister of the Environment, Mrs. Juana Argeñal, who has been part
of our delegation to the Court, is proceeding tomorrow to Geneva, to meet with the RAMSAR
Secretariat and renew our invitation for an advisory mission to visit Nicaragua and lend its
technical support for the protection and preservation of these wetlands.
25. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the dispute over a 2.5 sq km area at the mouth of
the river is something that could easily be resolved by negotiations. In the case brought by
Nicaragua against Honduras for the delimitation of the maritime boundary ( Territorial and
Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Ho nduras in the Ca ribbean Sea (Nicaragua v.
Honduras)) a significant issue was the problem of the changes of the starting-point of the boundary
located at the thalweg of the mouth of the Coco river where it reached the Caribbean Sea. This
point had been exactly determined by a bilateral commission of Nicaragua and Honduras in 1963.
Forty years later, when the case came before the Court, this point was no longer located at the
mouth of the Coco river but was located approximately 1.5 km inland. In that case, the Court, after
fixing an extensive maritime boundary, determined that this small portion of the boundary should
be left undetermined and should be negotiated by both Parties. The Court found
“that the parties must negotiate in good faith with a view to agreeing on the course of
the delimitation line of that portion of the territorial sea located between the endpoint
of the land boundary as established by the 1906 Arbitral Award and the starting-point
of the single maritime boundary determined by the Court” ( Territorial and Maritime
Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the CaribbeanSea (Nicaragua v.
Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (Vol. II), p. 763, para. 321 (4)).
26. The small area involved in that case was mo re extensive than the area now disputed by
Costa Rica.
Mr. President, I will now place on record Nicaragua’s submissions: - 40 -
F INAL SUBMISSION
In accordance with Article 60 of the Rules of Court and having regard to the Request for the
indication of provisional measures of the Republic of Costa Rica and its oral pleadings, the
Republic of Nicaragua respectfully submits that,
For the reasons explained during these hearings and any other reasons the Court might deem
appropriate, the Republic of Nicaragua asks the Court to dismiss the Request for provisional
measures filed by the Republic of Costa Rica.
27. Mr. President, distinguished Members of C ourt, to conclude our participation in this
stage of oral proceedings, I wish to express, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of
Nicaragua, our thanks to you, Mr. President, and each of the distinguished Members of Court, for
the attention you have kindly provided to our presentations. May I also offer our thanks to the
Court’s Registrar, his staff and to the interpreters and translators.
28. Finally, I would also like to thank publicly the skilful counsel and advisers and all the
members of our delegation. Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: I thank His Excellency Ambassador CarlosJoséArgüelloGómez, the
Agent of Nicaragua for his statement.
Now, this concludes the second round of oral observations of the Republic of Nicaragua on
the Request for the indication of provisional measures filed by the Republic of Costa Rica. But
before closing, three judges have asked to take th e floor to ask questions to one of the Parties.
They are JudgeSimma, Judge Bennouna and JudgeGreenwood. I am going to call upon each of
the three judges in that order. First, Judge Simma, you have the floor.
Judge SIMMA: Thank you, Mr. President. I have three questions for Nicaragua:
1. Before the hearing of 11 January 2011, di d Nicaragua ever make, or attempt to make,
CostaRica aware of its claim according to which the course of the boundary does not follow
that documented on all existing ⎯ including Nicaraguan ⎯ maps, but “reaches the river proper
by the first channel met” ⎯ that is the First Alexander Award of 1897 ⎯ this clause being
interpreted as referring to the “Caňo Harbour Head”? - 41 -
2. Considering the physical changes in the area of the delta of the San Juan river already known at
the time of the Cleveland and Alexander awards, why has Nicaragua, within the last century or
so, never made an attempt to negotiate a new cour se of the boundary, or at least to change its
maps?
3. The dredging project concerning the San Juan rive r relates to a shared environment. In light of
this, why was the Nicaraguan Environmental Impact Study prepared from 2006 onwards and
the permit of the Environment Ministry of December 2008 for the San Juan dredging project to
proceed, as well as the extension of the permit to the cleaning of the “ca ňo”, never
communicated to Costa Rica?
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Judge Simma. Next I call upon Judge Bennouna to ask his
questions.
M. le juge BENNOUNA : Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président. Monsieur le président,
j’ai aussi trois questions qui s’adressent au Nicar agua. Je pense que ces questions devraient être
l’occasion pour le Nicaragua dans ses réponses de clarifier et de préciser certains points qu’il a
évoqués au cours de la procédure. Ces trois questions sont les suivantes :
1. Est-ce que le Nicaragua entreprend actuellement des travaux sur le canal dit «First Caño»,
ycompris ceux relatifs à la construction et à l’ élargissement de ce canal, l’abattage d’arbres,
l’enlèvement de la végétation ou de la terre, et le déversement des sédiments ?
2. Est-ce que le Nicaragua maintient sur la por tion du territoire dénommé e l’île de Portillos des
troupes armées ou d’autres agents, quels qu’ils soient ?
3. Est-ce que le Nicaragua s’engage à ne pas entreprendre de tels travaux, ni à envoyer ses troupes
armées ou d’autres agents sur l’île de Portillos, jusqu’à ce que la Cour rende son jugement au
fond ?
Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Judge Bennouna. Now I ask Judge Greenwood to ask his
questions. - 42 -
Judge GREENWOOD: Thank you, Mr. President . Mr. President, I have two questions for
Nicaragua:
1. First, at what date did Nicaragua first form the opinion that what it has described as the “First
Caño” was the boundary between itself and Costa Rica in accordance with the First Alexander
Award?
2. Secondly, did it notify Costa Rica of that opinion? And if so, when and by what means?
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Judge Greenwood. Now the text of these questions of the
three judges will be sent to the Parties as soon as possible. The Party to whom the questions are
addressed is invited to provide its written replies to the questions before Tuesday 18 January 2011
at 6 p.m. at the latest.
In addition, Article72 provides that any wr itten reply by a party to a question put under
Article61, supplied by a party under Article62 of these Rules, received by the Court after the
closure of the oral proceedings shall be communicat ed to the other party which shall be given the
opportunity of commenting upon it. Now, in accordance with this rule, the other party is given this
opportunity to offer comments, and that deadline is set for Thursday 20January 2011 at 6p.m. at
the latest.
This brings the present series of sittings to an end. It remains for me to thank the
representatives of the two Parties for the assistance they have given to the Court by their oral
observations in the course of these four hearings. In accordance with practice, I would ask the
Agents to remain at the Court’s disposal.
The Court will render its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures as
soon as possible. The date on which this Order w ill be delivered at a public sitting will be duly
communicated to the Agents of the Parties.
As the Court has no other business before it today, the sitting is closed.
The Court rose at 6.20 p.m.
___________
Public sitting held on Thursday 13 January 2011, at 4.30 p.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)