Corrigé
Corrected
CR 2013/24
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2013
Public sitting
held on Monday 14 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Tomka presiding,
in the cases concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)
________________
VERBATIM RECORD
________________
ANNÉE 2013
Audience publique
tenue le lundi 14 octobre 2013, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président,
dans les affaires relatives à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région
frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) et Construction d’une route au Costa Rica
le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c.Costa Rica)
____________________
COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -
Present: President Tomka
Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor
Judges Owada
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Xue
Donoghue
Gaja
Sebutinde
Bhandari
Judges ad hoc Guillaume
Dugard
Registrar Couvreur
- 3 -
Présents : M. Tomka, président
M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice-président
MM. Owada
Keith
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Cançado Trindade
Yusuf
Greenwood
Mmes Xue
Donoghue
M. Gaja
Mme Sebutinde
M. Bhandari, juges
MM. Guillaume
Dugard, juges ad hoc
M. Couvreur, greffier
- 4 -
The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Organization of American
States, Washington D.C.,
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 Affair s and Worship of Costa Rica,
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr. James Crawford , A.C., S.C., F.B.A., Whewel l Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international, Barrister,
Mr. Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva; associate member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth Q.C., member of the English Bar, member of the Paris Bar, Essex Court
Chambers,
Mr. Arnoldo Brenes, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Costa Rica;
member of the Costa Rican Bar,
Ms Kate Parlett, Solicitor admitted in Queensland, Australia, and in England and Wales,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Ricardo Otarola, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Republic of
Colombia,
Mr. Gustavo Campos, Minister Counsellor and Consul General of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
Ms Ana Marcela Calderón, Minister Counsellor atthe Costa Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Advisers.
The Government of Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Carlos José A rgüello Gómez, Ambassador of Nicaragua to the K ingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Agent and Counsel;
Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge Sch ool of Law, Sacramento, former M ember and former Chairman of the
International Law Commission, - 5 -
Le Gouvernement du Costa Rica est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, ambassadeur de la République du Costa Rica auprès de
l’Organisation des Etats américains, Washington D.C.,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Jorge Urbina, ambassadeur de la République du Costa Rica auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
M. Sergio Ugalde, 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. James Crawford, A.C., 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 international à l’Institut de hautes études internationa les et
du développement de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,
M. Samuel Wordsworth, QC, membre des barreaux d’Angleterre et de Paris, Essex Court
Chambers,
M. Arnoldo Brenes, conseiller principal auprès du ministère des affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre du barreau du Costa Rica,
Mme Kate Parlett, solicitor (Queensland (Australie) et Angleterre et pays de Galles),
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. Ricardo Otarola, ministre-conseiller, consul général du Costa Rica en République de Colombie,
M. Gustavo Campos, ministre-conseiller, consul général du Costa Rica au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Ana Marcela Calderón, ministre- conseiller de l’ambassade du Costa Rica au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme conseillers.
Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Carlos José Argüello Gómez, ambassadeur de la République du Nicaragua auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme agent et conseil ;
M. Stephen C. McCaffrey, professeur de droit international à la McGeorge S chool of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento (Etats- Unis d’Amérique), ancien membre et ancien
président de la Commission du droit international, - 6 -
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre -La Défense, former member and
former Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the Institut de droit
international,
Mr. Paul S. Reichler, Attorney-at-Law, Foley Hoag LLP, 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. Julio César Saborio, Juridical Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
Mr. Lawrence H. Martin, Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., m ember of the Bars of the United
States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
as Counsel;
Mr. Edgardo Sobenes O bregon, Counsellor, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Claudia Loza Obregon, First Secretary, Embassy of Nicaragua in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Mr. Benjamin Samson, Researcher, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Ms Clara E. Brillembourg, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District of Columbia and
New York,
as Assistant Counsel. - 7 -
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Paris Ouest, Nanterre -La Défense, ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit
international,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, 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 du Nicaragua,
M. Walner Molina Pérez, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,
M. Julio César Saborio, conseiller juridique au ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,
M. Lawrence H. Martin, avocat au 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,
comme conseils ;
M. Edgardo Sobenes Obregon, conseiller à l’ambassade du Nicaragua aux Pays-Bas,
Mme Claudia Loza Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua aux Pays-Bas,
M. Benjamin Samson, chercheur, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université
Paris Ouest, Nanterre-La Défense,
Mme Clara E. Brillembourg, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, Washington D.C., membre des
barreaux du district de Columbia et de New York,
comme conseils adjoints. - 8 -
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is open. The Court meets today, pursuant
to Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, to hear the observations of the Parties on the
Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Costa Rica in the case concerning
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), which
was joined with the case concerning Construction of a Road in Cos ta Rica along the San Juan
River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), by two separate Orders of the Court dated 17 April 2013.
Judge Abraham, for reasons which he has explained to me, is unfortunately prevented from
being present today on the Bench.
Each of the Pa rties in the present case, the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of
Nicaragua, has availed itself of the possibility afforded to it by Article 31 of the Statute of the
Court to choose a judge ad hoc . Costa Rica has chosen Mr. John Dugard and Nicarag ua,
Mr. GilbertGuillaume. Judges Guillaume and Dugard were each installed as judge ad hoc in 2011,
during the phase of the case devoted to the Request for the indication of provisional measures
submitted by the Republic of Costa Rica on 18 November 2010.
*
I shall now very briefly recall the procedure so far followed in this case. On
18 November 2010, the Government of Costa Rica filed in the Registry of the Court an Application
instituting proceedings against the Government of Nicaragua for “the incurs ion into, occupation of
and use by Nicaragua’s army of Costa Rican territory”, as well as for “serious damage inflicted to
its protected rainforests and wetlands”, “damage intended [by Nicaragua] to the Colorado River”
and “the dredging and canalization ac tivities being carried out by Nicaragua on the San Juan
River”. According to Costa Rica, these activities were connected to the construction of a canal
(referred to in Spanish as caño) across Costa Rican territory from the San Juan River to Laguna los
Portillos.
On 18 November 2010, having filed its Application, Costa Rica, as already indicated, also
submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures, under Article 41 of the Statute of
the Court and Articles 73 to 75 of the Rules of Court. - 9 -
By an Order of 8 March 2011 made in that case, the Court indicated the following
provisional measures to both Parties:
“(1) Each Party shall refrain from sending to, or maintaining in the disputed territory,
including the caño, any personnel, whether civilian, police or security;
(2) Notwithstanding point (1) above, Costa Rica may dispatch civilian personnel
charged with the protection of the environment to the disputed territory, including
the caño, but only in so far as it is necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice being
caused to the part of the wetland where that territory is situated; Costa Rica shall
consult with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention in regard to these actions,
give Nicaragua prior notice of them and use its best endeavours to find common
solutions with Nicaragua in this respect;
(3) Each Party shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the
dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve;
(4) Each Party shall inform the Court as to its compliance with the above provisional
measures.”
By an Order of 5 April 2011, the Court fixed 5 December 2011 and 6 August 2012 as the
respective time- limits for the filing in the case of a Memorial by Costa Rica and a
Counter-Memorial by Nicaragua. The Memorial and the Counter-Memorial were filed within the
time-limits thus prescribed.
At the time of the filing of its Memorial, Nicaragua requested the Court, inter alia, to
“examine proprio motu whether the circumstances of the case require[d] the indication of
provisional measures”. By letters dated 11 March 2013, the Registrar informed the Parties that the
Court was of the view that the circumstances of the case, as they presented themselves to it at that
time, were not such as to require the exercise of its power s under Article 75 of the Rules of Court
to indicate provisional measures proprio motu.
At a meeting held by the President of the Court with the representatives of the Parties on
19 September 2012, the Parties agreed not to request the Court’s authorization to file a Reply and a
Rejoinder.
On 23 May 2013, Costa Rica, with reference to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and
Article 76 of the Rules of Court, filed with the Registry a request for the modification of the Order
indicating provisional measures of 8 March 2011. In its w ritten observations thereon, Nicaragua
asked the Court to reject Costa Rica’s request, while in its turn requesting the Court to modify or
adapt the Order of 8 March 2011 on the basis of Article 76 of the Rules of Court. - 10 -
By an Order of 16 July 2013, the Court found that the circumstances, as they then presented
themselves to the Court, were not such as to require the exercise of its power to modify the
measures indicated in the Order of 8 March 2011. By the same Order, the C ourt also reaffirmed
the provisional measures indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011, in particular the requirement that
the Parties “shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the
Court or make it more difficult to resolve”.
On 24 September 2013, Costa Rica, with reference to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court
and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court, filed in the Registry a new Request for the
Indication of Provisional Measures in the present case. Costa Rica clarified that it was not seeking
the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, but rather that its request was “an independent
[one] based on new facts”.
The Registrar immediately communicated a copy of the said request to the Government of
Nicaragua.
Costa Rica, in outlining the facts which led it to bring the present request, states that since
the Court’s Order of 16 July 2013 on the Parties’ requests to modify the measures indicated in its
Order of 8 March 2011, it has found out about “new and grave activities by Nicaragua in the
disputed territory”, through the receipt of satellite imagery of that area. In particular, Costa Rica
contends that Nicaragua has commenced construction of two new artificial caños in the disputed
territory.
I shall n ow ask the Registrar to read out the passage from the Request specifying the
provisional measures which the Government of Costa Rica is asking the Court to indicate.
The REGISTRAR:
“Costa Rica respectfully requests the Court as a matter of urgency to or der the
following provisional measures so as to prevent further breaches of Costa Rica’s
territorial integrity and further irreparable harm to the territory in question, pending
the determination of this case on the merits:
(1) the immediate and unconditi onal suspension of any work by way of dredging or
otherwise in the disputed territory, and specifically the cessation of work of any
kind on the two further artificial caños in the disputed territory, as shown in the
satellite images attached [to the Request]; - 11 -
(2) that Nicaragua immediately withdraw any personnel, infrastructure (including
lodging tents) and equipment (including dredgers) introduced by it, or by any
persons under its jurisdiction or coming from its territory, from the disputed
territory;
(3) that Costa Rica be permitted to undertake remediation works in the disputed
territory on the two new artificial caños and the surrounding areas, to the extent
necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice being caused to the disputed territory;
and
(4) that each Party shall immediately inform the Court as to its compliance with the
above provisional measures not later than one week of the issuance of the Order.”
The PRESIDENT: According to Article 74 of the Rules of Court, a request for the
indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases and the Court, if it is not
sitting, shall be convened forthwith for the purpose of proceeding to a decision on the request as a
matter of urgency. The date of the hearing must be fixed in such a way as to afford the Parties an
opportunity of being represented at it. Consequently, the Parties were informed that the date for the
opening of the oral proceedings contemplated in Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court,
during which they could present their observations on the Request for the Indication of Provisional
Measures, had been set for today,14 October 2013.
Subsequently, in a letter addressed to the Registrar dated 10 October 2013, Nicaragua stated
that, in its view, the new Pr ovisional Measures requested by Costa Rica were superfluous because
they were already being complied with voluntarily by Nicaragua. Nicaragua further committed
itself to abide by them. Costa Rica, for its part, by a letter dated 11 October, informed the Court,
that it sought confirmation from Nicaragua that it agreed to an Order on provisional measures being
issued by the Court with the consent of both Parties. In the affirmative, Costa Rica stated that the
time and expense of a hearing before the Court could be avoided. In reply by a letter also dated
11 October 2013 Nicaragua reiterated its view that Costa Rica’s Request for provisional measures
was moot since the measures requested had in essence already been implemented. In addition,
Nicaragua pointed out that by its actions taken in response to alleged unauthorized activity in the
disputed territory it was faithfully carrying out the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011 and that there
was no need for an additional Order on the same subject-matter.
On 11 October 2013 Nicaragua filed its own Request for Indication of Provisional Measures
in the case concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River - 12 -
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). The Court is at present considering this Request and the Parties will be
informed of the decision of the Court as far as the procedure to be followed later, hopefully today.
I note the presence at the hearing of the Agents, c ounsel and advocates of both Parties. In
accordance with the arrangements on the organiz ation of the procedure decided by the Court, the
hearings will comprise a first and a second round of oral argument. Each Party will have one full
session of three hours for the first round and a session of one -and-a-half hours for the second
round. Thes e are of course maximum speaking times, that the Parties ought not to use if not
necessary.
Costa Rica will present its first round of oral observations on its Request for the indication of
provisional measures this morning. Nicaragua will present its fi rst round of oral obse rvations on
that Request on Tuesday 15 October, at 10 a.m. The Parties will be later informed about the
organization of the second round.
Before giving the floor to His Excellency Ambassador Edgar Ugalde, Agent of the Republic
of Costa Rica, I shall draw the attention of the Parties to Practice Direction XI, which states,
inter alia, that Parties should:
“[i]n their oral pleadings on requests for provisional measures . . . limit themselves to
what is relevant to the criteria for the indication of provisional measures as indicated
in the Statute, Rules and jurisprudence of the Court. They should not enter into the
merits of the case beyond what is strictly necessary for that purpose.”
I shall now give the floor to His Excellency Am bassador Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Agent of
Costa Rica.
M. ÁLVAREZ :
1. Monsieur le président, distingués Membres de la Cour , c’est un honneur de me présenter
aujourd’hui une nouvelle fois devant vous en tant que représentant du Costa Rica. Plus de deux ans
se sont écoulés depuis notre demande urgente en indication de mesures conservatoires, qui faisait
suite à l’occupation illégale, l’utilisation et la transformation de notre territoire par le Nicaragua.
J’ai signalé à l’époque qu’en bafouant la frontière terrestre avec le Costa Rica, frontière pleinement
et clairement établie conformément au droit international, depuis plus d’un siècle et acceptée
comme telle par les deux pays, le Nicaragua violait le droit international et mettait en péril la
coexistence pacifique de nos deux pays. - 13 -
2. En 2010, lorsque nous nous sommes présentés devant vous afin de vous demander
d’ordonner des mesures conservatoires, le Nicaragua occupait le territoire d e Isla Portillos, qui
appartient au territoire du Costa Rica, et était en train de mettre à exécution un projet consistant à
transformer cette partie de notre territoire. Ce projet comprenait la construction d’un caño artificiel
entre le fleuve San Juan et la lagune Los Portillos, connue en anglais sous le nom de Harbor Hea d
Lagoon. Ce caño artificiel est indiqué en rouge dans la partie inférieure du croquis cartographique
affiché sur les écrans et reproduit à l’onglet n 2 de vos dossiers.
3. En mars 2011, en réponse à la demande urgente du Costa Rica, votre Cour a indiqué des
mesures conservatoires, et demandé aux deux Parties de s’abstenir d’envoyer ou de maintenir tous
agents, notamment civils, de police et de sécurité, sur le territoire litigieux, y compris sur le caño
artificiel construit par le Nicaragua vers la fin de l’année 2010, à l’exception des agents
costa-riciens en charge de l’environnement.
4. Malheureusement, le Costa Rica est contraint de vous solliciter encore une fois, des
mesures conservatoires afin d’obtenir la protection urgente de sa souveraineté te rritoriale et de ses
droits internationaux, en conséquence de nouvelles actions injustifiées du Nicaragua. A l’heure où
nous parlons, le Nicaragua entreprend un nouveau projet de transformation d’une autre partie du
territoire du Costa Rica, à nouveau dans le secteur nord de Isla Portillos. Sur le croquis
cartographique affiché sur les écrans, vous pouvez constater en rouge deux nouveaux caños
artificiels entre le fleuve San Juan et la mer des Caraïbes. Le Nicaragua a commencé la
construction de ces deux nouveaux caños cette année entre les mois de juillet et de septembre. Le
Costa Rica a fait cette découverte il y a seulement quelques semaines.
5. Les travaux du Nicaragua sont d’ores et déjà à un stade avancé et sont actuellement en
cours. Si les travaux continuent, il y a un risque imminent qu’ils causent un dommage irréparable
supplémentaire sur le territoire du Costa Rica.
6. Dès que le Costa Rica a découvert que le Nicaragua était en train de construire deux
nouveaux caños sur le territoire du Cos ta Rica, notamment sur le territoire litigieux qui faisait
l’objet des mesures conservatoires indiquées par la Cour en 2011, le Costa Rica a immédiatement
protesté auprès du Nicaragua, et lui a demandé d’expliquer sa conduite. Le CostaRica a également
demandé au Nicaragua d’arrêter immédiatement toutes activités de construction sur les deux - 14 -
nouveaux caños ainsi que toutes autres activités de construction sur le territoire litigieux, et de lui
promettre ensuite que toutes les activités de construction avai ent cessé et qu’elles ne reprendraient
pas leur cours. Le Costa Rica a inclus dans sa demande des preuves irréfutables de l’existence des
nouveaux caños, clairement indiqués par les images satellite.
7. Regrettablement, la réponse du Nicaragua a été tou t à fait insuffisante, allant même
jusqu’à refuser de reconnaître ses propres actions dans la région. En conséquence, le Costa Rica
n’a pas eu d’autre choix que celui de demander de façon urgente la protection de ses droits par cette
Cour.
8. Monsieur le président, les actions du Nicaragua ne sont ni ponctuelles ni accidentelles. Le
Nicaragua s’est engagé dans une campagne constante et de longue date consistant à braver ses
obligations international es vis-à-vis du Costa Rica, en se moquant du principe de bonne foi. Le
Nicaragua continue d’envoyer des groupes de ressortissants nicaraguayens sur le territoire litigieux,
malgré les mesures conservatoires que vous avez indiquées le 8 mars 2011 et les préoccupations
que vous avez exprimées dans votre ordonnance du 16 juillet 2013, selon lesquelles «la présence de
ressortissants nicaraguayens sur le territoire litigieux comporte un risque d’incidents susceptibles
d’aggraver le présent différend». Comme vous l’avez signalé, cette situation «est exacerbée par la
taille réduite du territoire concerné et le nombre de ressortissants nicaraguayens y étant présents de
manière régulière». Et pourtant, il s’avère que le Nicaragua est allé encore plus loin puisqu’il est
en train de construire deux nouveaux caños dans le secteur nord de Isla Portillos zone pour
laquelle vous aviez ordonné des mesures conservatoires le 8 mars 2011. Si vous ne preniez pas des
mesures visant à empêcher le Nicaragua de continuer ses travaux, il y aurait un réel risque que
le Nicaragua im pose effectivement comme fait accompli un dommage irréparable pour
le Costa Rica et pour cette Cour, avant que celle-ci puisse rendre son arrêt final et obligatoire.
9. Monsieur le président, les droits que le Costa Rica cherche à protéger sont parmi les plus
importants dans les relations internationales : le droit à la souveraineté et le droit à l’intégrité
territoriale. Votre Cour a déjà reconnu que « le titre de souveraineté revendiqué par le Costa Rica
sur l’ensemble du territoire de Isla Portillos est plausible». Avec l’occupation du territoire du
Costa Rica en novembre 2010, le Nicaragua a revendiqué ce territoire pour la première fois dans
l’histoire, et en conséquence ce territoire fait l’objet du litige entre les parties dans l’affaire - 15 -
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière. En s’engage ant dans ces
actions illicites dans la région deIsla Portillos, le Nicaragua a causé et continue de causer un
dommage irréparable aux droits du Costa Rica. Il existe un risque de do mmage irréparable
supplémentaire, y compris à travers la déviation du fleuve San Juan, qui semble précisément être
l’intention du Nicaragua derrière la construction de ces nouveaux caños. Dans ces circonstances,
de nouvelles mesures conservatoires sont nécessaires, plus particulièrement afin de prévenir un
préjudice irréparable supplémentaire sur les droits souverains du Costa Rica, et par voie de
conséquence, afin d’éviter l’imposition d’un fait accompli sur nous tous.
10. Monsieur le p résident, je vais désormais, si vous me le permettez, vous présenter le
programme du premier tour de l’exposition des arguments du Costa Rica de ce matin. Pour
commencer, M. Sergio Ugalde présentera les faits concernant les actions illicites du Nicaragua sur
le territoire litigieux entre juin et septembre 2013.M. Samuel Wordsworth démontrera que la
requête du Costa Rica est d’une urgence réelle afin d’éviter un préjudice irréparable sur les droits
du Costa Rica. Le professeur James Crawford expliquera ensuite les mesures conservatoires
demandées. Enfin, le professeur Marcelo Kohen expliquera les conséquences d ’un refus éventuel
de votre honorable Cour d’ordonner des mesures conservatoires.
Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, je vous remercie infiniment de
votre aimable attention. Monsieur le p résident, je vous prie de donner la parole à M. Ugalde.
Merci.
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Agent for Costa Rica. May I ask Mr. Ugalde to continue.
You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. UGALDE:
T HE F ACTS
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a great honour to appear before you once again,
and a privilege to do so on behalf of Costa Rica.
2. Mr. President, my task this morning is to present the facts surrounding the new activities
that Nicaragua is carrying out in Costa Rican territory; in fact, in the “disputed territory”, as you - 16 -
called it, ex hypothesi, an area which is subject to your Order on provisional measures of
8 March 2011.
3. The Court is wel l acquainted with the circumstances g iving rise to the dispute in these
proceedings, and therefore there is no need to discuss the background facts in any great detail. It
suffices to recall that as a result of Nicaragua’s illegal military occupation, use and partial
destruction of Costa Rican territory in t he northern part of Isla Portillos, Costa Rica initiated
proceedings on 18 November 2010 and, at the same time, made a request for the indication of
provisional measures. The Court considered Costa Rica’ s request and ordered provisional
measures 1.
A. The “disputed territory”
4. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, you will reca ll that, in your Order of
March 2011, you defined the “disputed territory” as:
“the northern part of Isla Portillos, that is to say, the area of wetland of some 3 squ are
kilometres between the right bank of the disputed caño, the right bank of the San Juan
River up to its mouth at the Caribbean Sea and the Harbor Head Lagoon (hereinafter
the ‘disputed territory’)” .
5. You will see this area depicted on the image now displayed on your screens , and at tab 4
of your folders. The “disputed caño” to which you referred which I will call the “2010 caño”,
to distinguish it from the new caños is the red line near the middle of the image. The disputed
territory runs from the right bank of that caño to the outlet of the San Juan in the Caribbean Sea.
As is clearly indicated on the same image you have before you, the two new artificial caños which
prompted Costa Rica’s request to the Court today are visible towards the top of the image. They
are on Isla Portillos between the right bank of the 2010 caño and the Caribbean Sea. They are,
without a doubt, on the disputed territory.
1Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 6.
2
Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 19, para. 55. - 17 -
6. In its Order of 8 March 2011, the Court decided that Costa Rica’s rights of sovereignty
over the entirety of Isla Portillos were plausible 3, and found th at continued activities on
4
Isla Portillos by Nicaragua “would be likely to affect” the rights asserted by Costa Rica .
7. Furthermore, the Court considered that Nicaragua “intend[s] to carry out certain activities,
if only occasionally, in the disputed territory” and that this “creates an imminent risk of irreparable
prejudice to Costa Rica’s claimed title to sovereignty . . . and to the rights deriving therefrom” 5. As
a result, the Court decide d to indicate the first provisional measure, according to which “ [e]ach
Party shall refrain from sending to, or maintaining in the disputed territory, including the caño , any
personnel, whether civilian, police or security” 6.
8. The Court also required the Parties to report to it thei r compliance with the Order on
provisional measures. Accordingly, since April 2011, Costa Rica has filed six reports 7evidencing
Nicaragua’s policy and practice of sending to the “disputed territory”, and maintaining thereon, its
citizens. These persons have been carrying out additional activities on the disputed territory, a fact
8
that is acknowledged by Nicaragua . Nicaragua has organized, directed and sponsored their
presence there. Costa Rica also reported to the Court new camps Nicaragua erected on the disputed
territory 9. The photograph tendered by Costa Rica as evidence of this fact is at tab 5 of your
folders.
9. Prompted by the fact that the Government of Nicaragua is sending to and maintaining
thousands of its nationals in the disputed territory, on 23 May 2013 Costa Rica filed a Request for
the M odification of the 2011 Order on P rovisional Measures 10. On 16 July 2013, the Court
Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Cos ta Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 19, para. 58.
Ibid., p. 20, para. 60.
5
Ibid., p. 24, para. 75.
6
Ibid., p. 27, para. 86(1).
See Reports submitted by Costa Rica to the Internat ional Court of Justice on 8 Apr. 2011, Ref. ECRPB-029-11;
13 Apr. 2011, Ref. ECRPB-030-11; 23 June 2011, Ref. ECRPB-039-11; 3 July 2012, Ref. ECRPB-026-12;
21 Nov. 2012, Ref. ECRPB-045-12 and 15 March 2013, Ref. ECRPB-016-13.
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Written Observations
on the Request by Costa Rica for the Modification of the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011, 14 June 2013, para. 29. See
also CMN, para. 7.19.
See Report submitted by Costa Rica to the International Court of Justice on 15 Mar. 2013, Ref. ECRPB-016-13.
1Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Request for the
Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 Indicating Provisional Measures , 23 May 2013. - 18 -
concluded that, as the facts presented themselves at that time, it was not necessary to modify its
Order of 8 March 2011 . However, the Court made plain its concern about “the presence of
12
organized groups of Nicaraguan nationals in the disputed area” in large numbers . Only weeks
after the Court expressed its concern in this regard, the Ni caraguan press boasted that by
13
August 2013, over 10,000 Nicaraguans had been sent to the disputed territory .
B. Nicaragua’s new activities on the disputed territory
10. Mr. President , since the Court’s Order of 16 July 2013, alarming new events have
occurred. Nicaragua has made new attempts to alter the geography of Costa Rica by constructing,
not merely one, but two new artificial caños . With these new artificial caños, Nicaragua intends to
create a new outlet of the San Juan River into the Caribbean S ea, cutting across Costa Rican
territory in the process.
11. In late August this year, Costa Rican police became aware of unusual activity and noise
in the area, including noises made by chainsaws cutting down trees . They alerted other Co sta
Rican authorities around 30 August 2013. Upon receiving this news , the Costa Rican Foreign
Ministry requested a Costa Rican company that supplies satellite imagery to obtain current images
of the disputed area from satellite operators . Due to heavy cloud cover in t he area, particularly at
this time of year, it is difficult to obtain clear images, and the first clear image of the disputed
territory could not be taken until 5 September 2013. It w as provided to Costa Rica on
13 September 2013.
12. That image, which is at tab 6 of your folders and is now on your screens, clearly shows
two channels in the northern corner of the disputed territory. The opening to the left shows a small
caño. The opening to the right, shows a much larger caño. On this eastern caño , two vessels are
also visible, one of which is clearly a dredger . The Nicaraguan camps, which Costa Rica reported
11Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa RicaNicaragua), Requests for the
Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 Indicat ing Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July2013, para. 36.
12Certain Activities c arried out by Ni caragua in the Border Area (Costa RicNicaragua), Requests for the
Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 Indicating Provisional Measures, Order, 16July 2013, para. 37.
13
See the reports referred to in Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo Barra ntes, Minister of Foreign Affairs
and Worship, Costa Rica, to Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, 17 Sept. 2013,
Ref. DM-AM-536-13, Att. PM-1. - 19 -
to the Court in its report of 15 March 2013 , are also clearly visible. It has become apparent why
Nicaragua decided to install its camps at this location.
13. In order to confirm that these were two new openings, Costa Rica reviewed satellite
images from 2010, 2011, 2012 and 30 June 2013, which you will find at t abs 7 to 10 of your
folders. In none of these images are the two new caños visible. As you can see on the screen , at
tab 11 of your folders, when superimposed, the infrared image from 30 June 2013 and the infrared
image from 5 September 2013 show clearly what took place: two new caños appear in the image
of 5 September on what was on 30 June untouched wetland. There is also no sign of the two
new caños in satellite images obtained from previous years, including images annexed to
15
Nicaragua’s Counter-Memorial . An additional image taken on 14 September 2013, at t ab 12 of
your folders, confirms that the Nicaraguan dredger remains in the eastern caño, as it was on
5 September.
14. As a result of this discovery, Costa Rica immediately wrote to Nicaragua requesting an
explanation for the construction of these new caños. Costa Rica al so requested that Nicaragua
immediately cease all construction activities in the disputed territory, and that it provide an
immediate assurance that such construction activities will not be recommenced, and that Nicaragua
16
keep the disputed territory clear of any person emanating from Nicaraguan territory . So that there
could be no possible confusion as to the activities of which Costa Rica complained, Costa Rica
attached to its letter the relevant satellite images, together with co -ordinates of the locati on of the
newly built caños.
17 18
15. On 17 September 2013, Costa Rica notified Nicaragua , the Court , and the Ramsar
Secretariat 19 that it was necessary for Costa Rican personnel charged with the protection of the
14Letter from Costa Rica to theICJ, Ref. ECRPB-016013, 15 Mar. 2013.
15
See, e.g, CMN, Ann. 135 (2007 Satellite Image) and Ann. 136 (2010 Satellite Image). See also CMN Fig. 6.8
(Jan. 2011 image), p.330.
16
Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs aWorship, Costa Rica, to
Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, 17Sept. 2013, Ref. DM-AM-536-13, Att. PM-1.
17See Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica,
to Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, 17Sept. 2013, Ref. DM-AM-537-13, Att. PM-2.
18See Note sent by Ambassador Jorge Urbina, Co-Agent of Costa Rica, to His Excellency Mr. Philippe Couvreur,
Registrar of the International Court of Justice, 17 Sept. 2013, Ref. ECRPB-059-13, Att. PM-3. - 20 -
environment to carry out a site visit to the “disputed territory”, pursuant to the Court’s Order of
8 March 2011, in order to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the wetland. As the Court is
well aware, Costa Rica has obligations under the Ramsar Convention in respect of the wetland in
Isla Portillos, and construction activities such as those which are apparent from the satellite
imagery Costa Rica has obtained are activities which may cause irreparable prejudice to the
wetland, the protection and preservation of which Costa Rica is responsi ble for . Costa Rica
explained that, depending on weather conditions, Costa Rican personnel would try to reach the area
by navigating on the San Juan, or by conducting an overflight.
16. On 18 September 2013, weather conditions permitted Costa Rica to car ry out a site visit.
Costa Rican personnel attempted to access the disputed territory by hiring a private boatman to
navigate on the San Juan River. However, when the Costa Rican personnel reported to the nearest
Nicaraguan post, known as “Delta”, Nicaraguan army officers detained Costa Rica’s personnel and
20
prevented them from navigating on the river .
17. Other Costa Rican personnel charged with the protection of the environment hired a
private helicopter, and were able to carry out an overflight of the “disputed territory”. Given the
possible presence of Nicaraguan military personnel in the area, and the threat this presence posed to
the security of the Costa Rican personnel involved, the overflight over the disputed territory was of
extremely short duration, approximately three minutes . However, during this overflight, it was
possible to observe and record the harm which is being caused to the disputed territory as a
consequence of Nicaragua’s activities therein . These observations are recorded in a report of
21
18 September 2013 which was submitted with Costa Rica’s Request .
19See Note sent by Ambassador Manuel B. Dengo, Permanent Representativeof the Republic of Costa Rica to the
United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva , to Mr. Christopher Briggs, Secretary General to
the Ramsar Convention, 17 Sept. 2013, Ref. MPCR-ONUG/2013-407, Att. PM-4.
20Report of Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) and the National System of Conservation
Areas (SINAC), 18 Sept. 2013, Att. PM-6, p 2; and Diplomatic Note sent by Gioconda Ubeda Rivera, Acting Minister
of For eign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, to Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua,
24 Sept. 2013, Ref. DM-D VM-550-2013, Att. PM-20.
21
Report of Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE) and the National System of Conservation
Areas (SINAC), 18 Sept. 2013, Att. PM-6. - 21 -
18. The series of photographs taken from the helicopter are reproduced at tabs 13 to 17,
shown on your screens, and they show the larger of the two new caños , constructed in a st raight
line, with a width varying between 20 to 30 metres, measuring nearly 300 metres. At the top of
your screen you see the Caribbean Sea, and the narrow strip of beach separating it from a small
lagoon which is at the northern end of the newly constructed caño. On the banks of this new caño,
you can see that vegetation has been recently removed . Some tall trees remain intact, as you see
from the shadows on both banks . They assist to conceal the construction works from the view of
Costa Rican police on undisputed Costa Rican territory. In the middle of the photograph, you see a
Nicaraguan dredger working to enlarge and deepen the caño. Towards the bottom left of the
photograph, you see a dredger pipe, placed in the direction of the San Juan River. This suggests
that sediment generated through the construction of the caño is being deposited into the
San Juan River to block the main channel of the River, and thereby redirect its waters into the new
caño. At the top right of the photograph, on the beac h just beyond the vegetation, you see what
appear to be Nicaraguan Army camps, including a rudimentary observation tower . This area is
now enlarged on your screens , visible at tab 14, and you see the structures and the observation
tower clearly . These ne w camps are akin to those Nicaraguan military camps placed in the
occupied territory back in 2011 22, which you can see at tab 15.
19. On the photograph now on your screens, at tab 16, you can see the northern part of the
caño in close-up, and tree stumps can be seen in middle of the channel . It appears that not all tall
trees there were lucky to survive. You also see, at the top of the photographs, a trench which is
being dug from the small lagoon across the beach.
20. You can now see at tab 17, in close-up, a photograph of the dredger . At the time this
photograph was taken, on 18 September 2013, the dredger was in use. This is apparent because the
cutter head (the black structure towards the bottom of the dredger) is deployed, and the pipe at the
23
rear of the dredger, towards the top of the photograph, is trailing through the water . Thus on
18 September, Nicaragua was continuing its construction work on the caños.
2See Photographs showing the presence of Nicaraguan troops in IslLos Portillos after oral hearings on
Provisional Measures, 19January 2001, MCR Annex 223.
23
See also Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Impact of the Construction of the two New Caños on
Isla Portillos, Attachment PM-33, p. 3, para. 4.1 (d). - 22 -
21. On 18 September 2013, Nicaragua’s Foreign Minister responded to Costa Rica’s letter.
In the letter Nicaragua refused to accept the fact that these caños were being built despite having
in its possession undeniable evidence in the form of satellite imagery which Costa Rica attached to
its letter, which I have shown to you today . It refused to cease the work or to give any of the
assurances requested by Costa Rica.
22. Mr. President, the facts I just presented to you are unquestionable. They speak clearly of
deliberate activities undertaken by Nicaragua in contempt of the Court’s aut hority, and the basic
tenets of international law.
23. Mr. President, Members of the Court, on 24 September, Costa Rica found itself in the
following situation:
(a) One: It had received clear evidence that Nicaragua was constructing two caños on Costa Rican
territory, in Isla Portillos, on the disputed territory which is the subject of the Court’s Order.
(b) Two: It provided that evidence to Nicaragua and asked Nicaragua to cease the works, and to
provide assurances that it would not recommence them.
(c) Three: Nicaragua refused to provide those assurances, blaming any alleged appearance of
caños and dredgers, apparently on the rain. Indeed, it even denied the construction of the
new caños, in the face of indisputable evidence in satellite images.
(d) Four: Nicaragua then suggested, through Mr. Pastora, that it was indeed carrying out works in
the disputed territory, but that this work was cleaning “aquatic plants”, not constructing and
dredging caños.
24. In these circumstances, and in order to st op a new fait accompli from being imposed,
Costa Rica was compelled to file this new Request for the indication of provisional measures on
24 September.
C. Events after Costa Rica’s Provisional Measures Request
25. Mr. President, on the late afternoon of last Thursday, 10 October, Costa Rica received a
24
communication from Nicaragua, transmitted by the Registrar . In that letter, sent more than three
weeks after Costa Rica notified Nicaragua about the caños , Nicaragua managed to fabricate a
2Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 10 October 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-193, attached to Letter from the ICJ to
Costa Rica, 10 October 2013, Ref. 142571. - 23 -
different explanation of the facts . It suggested that it is all the fault of Mr. Pastora. But
Mr. Pastora is Nicaragua. He acts on behalf of the Government of Nicaragua. He was appointed
by Commander Ortega, the Nicaraguan President, to carry out, in Nicaragua’s name, the dredging
of the San Juan and Isla Portillos, the very same activities that Nicaragua’s Agent and counsel have
so staunchly defended throughout these proceedings . In the letter dated 22 September 2013 from
Nicaragua’s National Port Authority, Pastora is addressed as “Government Delegate for the
25
Dredging Works” .
26. Notwithstanding last Thursday’s denials, on Friday, a day later, Nicaragua, in its letter to
the Court, acknowledged that unauthorized activities were, indeed, carried out by Nicaragua 26. As
a matter of fact, in documents filed by Nicaragua on that day, it is now found that a 20 September
report prepared by the technical manager of Nicaragua’s National Port Authority (the Government
agency in charge of the dredging operations), states that “cleaning works began in August in order
to guarantee the natural flow of the San Juan River into the river mouth Delta . These works
27
include the use of a suction dredger .” This is remarkable news. It is remarkable because it
clearly shows that this was a Nicaraguan Government sanctioned operation, and because it squarely
contradicts the statement made by Nicaragua’s Foreign Minister on 18 September, and the
statement made to the Court on Thursday by Nicaragua’s Agent . On Thursday, Nicaragua’s Agent
stated: “As Nicaragua advised Costa Rica by Diplomatic Note on 18 September, it ‘has not
authorized any type of work in the disputed area and has not sent personnel there’ . Nicaragua
formally reiterates this statement.” 28 That is simply not true . The Nicaraguan Government did
know and did authorize personnel and equipment to carry out these works in August.
25Letter f rom the Executive President of the National Port Authority to the Government Delegate for the
Dredging Works of the San Juan de Nicaragua, Ref. PE-VSM-0592-09-2013, 22 September 2013, Annex 8 to Letter from
Nicaragua to the ICJ, 11 October 2013, Ref . HOL-EMB-197, attached to Letter from the ICJ to Costa Rica,
11 October 2013, Ref. 142609.
26Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 11 October 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197, attached to Letter from the ICJ to
Costa Rica, 11 October 2013, Ref. 142609, p. 1.
27
Letter from the T echnical Manager of the National Port Authority to the Executive President of the National
Port Authority, Ref . GT-LAQG-0886-09-2013, 20 September 2013, Annex 3 to Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ,
11 October 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197, attached to Letter fromthe ICJ to Costa Rica, 11October 2013, Ref. 142609.
28
Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 11 October 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197 (reference omitted), attached to Letter
from the ICJ to Costa Rica, 11October 2013, Ref. 142609. - 24 -
27. On Friday, Nicaragua stated that it had suspended all works and removed all machinery
and personnel on 23 September, which apparently makes it all good. It should be noted, however,
that Nicaragua did not give any such explanation to Costa Rica, or to the Court, until the very last
minute on Friday. It said nothing when the Court scheduled these hearings, and, before Friday, it
said nothing to Costa Rica or to the Court about its alleged belated compliance with the Order.
28. Mr. President, this evidence proves beyond doubt the deliberate activities which
Nicaragua has carried out, in complete disregard of the rights of Costa Rica and the Court’s
authority. We trust the Court will view these new developments for what they truly are: acts in
defiance of Costa Rica’s rights and of the Court’s authority, by which Nicaragua is seeking to
refashion the border, at whatever cost.
29. Mr. President, that concludes my presentation today . I wish to thank you and the
Members of the Court for your attention this morning . Mr. President, I ask that you now call upon
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth.
Mr. WORDSWORTH:
THE CRITERIA FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES
A. Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a privilege to appear before you, and to have
been asked by the Republic of Costa Rica to address the criteria for the indication of provisional
measures and their application in this case. These criteria are very well known to you.
(a) first, of course, the existence of the Court ’s prima facie jurisdiction over the dispute must be
29
established ;
(b) secondly, Costa Rica must show that there is a risk of irreparable prejudice, and that the
measures sought are necessary “in order to ensure that irreparable prejudice shall not be caused
to rights which are the subject of dispute in [the] judicial proceedings” 3;
29
Anglo-Iranian Oil Co Case, Order 5 July 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1951pp. 89 and 93; Nuclear Tests (New
Zealand v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports137, para. 14; Certain Activities
carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011,
I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 17, para. 49. - 25 -
31
(c) thirdly, the rights requiring protection must be asserted “at least plausibl[y]” ; and
(d) fourthly, we must show that “there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk
that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court ha s given its
final decision” 32.
2. As to the first and the third criteria, there can be no dispute at all. The Court has already
concluded in its 2011 Order that it had prima facie jurisdiction 33 and, since then, Nicaragua has
34
expressly accepted the Court ’s jurisdiction . Likewise, the Court has already said that Cos ta
Rica’s title to sovereignty claim is plausible 35. So, it is on the second and the fourth criteria that I
will have to devote a little bit more time.
3. The relevant legal standards on irreparable prejudice and urgency are very well known to
this Court, and I need not dwell on those . But I do need to take you to some of the evidence,
although I emphasize that the Court is not of course being asked to reach any definitive findings .
The key questions go to risk risk of irreparable prejudice, and risk that action prejudicial to the
rights of either party might be taken before the Court has given its final decision . And of course in
this context we accept that risk means a real and imminent risk, not some insignificant or
speculative risk.
B. Risk of irreparable prejudice to Costa Rica’s rights in dispute
4. I turn first to the rights forming the subject of the pending proceedings . The relevant
rights are as stated at paragraph 21 of Costa Rica ’s Request for Provisional Measures of
30
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Georgia v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008 , p. 388,
para. 118; Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 21, para. 63.
31
Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Provisional Measures,
Order of 28 May 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 151, para. 57; Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border
Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 18, para. 53.
32
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 21, para. 64; see also Application of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Provisional
Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 392, para. 129.
33
Certain Activities carried ou t by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 18, para. 52.
3CMN, paras. 1.5-1.8.
3Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 19, para. 58. - 26 -
24 September these are rights to sovereignty over the northern sector of Isla Portillos, to
territorial integrity, and to non-interference with its lands and environmentally protected areas.
5. Stepping back, all Costa Rica is seeking to preserve is the status quo ante pending
resolution of the territorial dispute . On conclusion of these proceedings, Costa Rica wishes to
exercise sovereignty over territory where the San Juan River remains on its existing course, not
diverted to the east, and likewise it wishes to exercise sovereignty over Ramsar protected wetlands,
not de -forested areas where the environment has already been significantly impacted by the
Nicaraguan works that have been taking place, apparently since July or August of this year.
6. Now, certain aspects o f the risk of irreparable prejudice to Costa Rica ’s rights are
straightforward. Let me take you to paragraph 75 of the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011, where the
Court was also dealing with Nicaraguan works on a ca ño in the disputed area. Nicaragua had said
that it had withdrawn its troops, that it did not intend to station troops or personnel in the area, and
that any ongoing works in the area were confined to the planting of trees . The Court, however,
recalled that there were competing claims over the disputed territory, and continued
“whereas this situation creates an imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to Costa
Rica’s claimed title to sovereignty over the said territory and to the rights deriving
36
therefrom” .
7. Precisely the same applies today . So that is one aspect to the current Request, so far as
concerns risk of irreparable prejudice.
8. But there is a second aspect, concerning diversion of the course of the River San Juan and
related environmental impacts. The basic facts here are as follows:
(a) first, Nicaragua has again been seeking to alter the course of the San Juan River . It contests
that; but the explanations that it is putting before you are inconsistent and implausible . My
good friend Professor Crawford will be coming back to some of the details;
(b) secondly, the caño that Nicaragua has excavated this time and I am going to be focusing on
the channel to the east that you have just seen up on your screens this caño to the east is
much shorter and much wider tha n the caño that Nicaragua was excavating in 2010 and 2011.
It has been dug by machine, not by hand. In simple terms, the new route to the Caribbean Sea
3Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Ricav. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 24, para. 75. - 27 -
is short, direct, and was very nearly complete when the photographs that you have just seen
were taken three or four weeks ago. And of course, the new route goes straight through part of
the disputed territory;
(c) thirdly, there is a marked shift in gradient between the existing meandering river course and the
new caño. I shall show you the details in a moment, but t he gradient of the new ca ño is four
times steeper than that of the existing river course. One does not have to be an engineer or a
physicist to work out which way the water is likely to flow; and
(d) finally, and as follows from all the above, there is a real and imminent risk that waters from the
San Juan River will be diverted, and also that it would be practically impossible to restore them
to their former course.
9. Now, to make these points good, I want to take you to the two expert reports that ha ve
been put before you in support of Costa Rica ’s current Request and you will find both of these
in your judges’ folder, in the tab in fact, with my name on it.
10. The first report I want to take you to is at tab 19, and this is the Technical Assessm ent
carried out by the University of Costa Rica , the Centre for Research in Sustainable Development,
the Department of Engineering 3; and I am going to this first, as it introduces some basic
engineering principles in terms of how you divert the course of a river.
(a) And perhaps this is rather basic as when it comes down to it, the report is explaining that
you either dig a new channel that is as wide and deep as the existing watercourse, and then
divert, or you build what is called a pilot channel . This is a smaller channel, which lets the
tractive force of the river, in essence, that is the power of the river ’s flow and its erosion
processes, it lets that do some of the work in bringing about the diversion.
(b) And what the evidence shows and I just want to take you to a passage from page 10 of
tab 19 it shows the significant risk that the eastern caño will enable diversion of the river ’s
course, even if it is seen as a pilot channel some of the background is set out at the top of
page 10:
3University of Costa Rica Centre for Research in Sustainable Development, Department of Civil Engineering,
“Technical assessment of the artificial canals on Isla Portillos”, October 2013, Attachment PM-19. - 28 -
“The United States Army Corps of Engineers ’ experience dictates that for a
pilot channel to scour and enlarge its cross- section the ratio of tractive force in the
pilot channel to that in the river should be greater than 1.5 for channels cut in sandy
material, and greater than 2 for channels cut in more erosion resistant materials .
Attractive force ratio less than 1 is expected to lead to closure of the pilot channel due
to insufficient sediments transport capacity. In other words, if the tractive force is
strong enough the flow will erode the bottom and sides of the pilot channel, causing
the river to switch its alignment from its natural course to a new, artificial course
following the alignment of the pilot channel.” 38 [Judges folder, tab 19, p. 10.]
So, obviously, having read that, one wonders what is the tractive force at issue when it comes
to this particular diversion.
(c) Now, Costa Rica ’s experts have not had access to the disputed area to carry out a detailed
assessment of the precise tractive force. But they are able to establish the change in gradient in
the caño, and to assess its width.
(d) The change in gradient is easy to establish . Along the existing route to the river, it is
1800 metres to the Caribbean Sea. Along the ca ño, it is just 450 metres. And of course, t he
Caribbean Sea is at the same sea level no matter which exit route is taken, so the caño route is
four times steeper, four times shorter; it therefore follows four times steeper . That is all
explained at page 11 of this report. One is therefore going to expect some significant tractive
force. So far as concerns the respective widths of the existing river and the ca ño, the report
explains at page 11, and this is the second paragraph:
“The average widths of the San Juan River downstream from Point 8 [Point8 is
effectively the diversion point ] and the new canal to the east were measured in the
satellite image to be 65 m and 30 m, respectively. These widths are sufficient to
consider both water bodies as being ‘ wide’ for the purpose of calculating the tractive
force. Therefore, if the depths of the San Juan River and the canal to the east are
about the same, the tractive force ratio between the new canal (pilot channel) and the
natural course of the River is 4. Even if the San Juan River is assumed to be twice as
deep as the new canal to the east, the tractive force ratio between them would be 239nd
would therefore still be sufficient to force a shift in the River ’s alignment.” [Judges’
folder, tab 19, p. 11.]
(e) So sufficient tractive force, it appears. And, from the figure at page 12 of the report (which we
have now put up on the screen), one can get a flavour of the width of the caño, and also its
proximity to the Caribbean Sea.
38
Ibid., Attachment PM-19, p. 10 (reference omitted).
39Ibid., Attachment PM-19, p. 12. - 29 -
(f) Moving to page 14 of this report, one c an see that there is a significant risk of rapid and
irreparable change. The report explains (and this is the last sentence on page 14):
“Once the dredge completes its work and these obstructions are removed there
is a significant risk that, during the high flow period later this year, a rapid and
irreparable change in the course of the San Juan River will come about as the eastern
channel becomes fully operational as a pilot channel. ” 40 [Judges’ folder, tab 19,
p. 14.]
(g) So that is very clear. And it is important to emphasize that there are two further factors for the
Court to bear in mind.
(h) First, it is not just the downstream sector of the San Juan River that would be impacted through
a change of course . As this report explains, there would li kely be upstream impacts too,
including in terms of increased scour and lowering of the channel bed elevation upstream, and
aggravated bank erosion. One can see that from page 15 of the report.
(i) Secondly, it is not as if one can reverse the effects of a diversion simply by turning off the tap,
or by switching, as I can, between the bath and shower option on the mixer tap in my hotel
bathroom. And one can see this on page 16 of the report:
“In our capacity, as civil engineers, we believe that remedial activities to close
the mouth of the new canals appear necessary to avoid the risk of a shift in the
San Juan River course. Notwithstanding, it is not possible to give any detailed answer
as to the activities necessary to achieve the closure of the canal s, as we have not been
able to visit the area in question and carry out a detailed site inspection, which, in
these circumstances, would be required. However, what can be said is that the
San Juan is a significant sized river, even at this location, and t hat the change of
course of the River could become permanent . Therefore, if the course of the River is
altered, it would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible to shift it back through
civil engineering works, and any such works would anyway likely be at high
environmental (and financ41l) cost, and would likely also involve works on the River’s
current main channel.” [Judges’ folder, tab 19, p. 16.]
11. I should like to take you now to the second expert report that Costa Rica has put before
you, and that is the report of Professor Thorne dated 10 October 2013 (and that is at tab 20 of your
42
bundle) . And Professor Thorne has been asked to give his independent expert view on the
potential impacts of construction of the two new ca ños, and he comes at t his from the perspective
of somebody with over 35 years of professional experience in matters relating to rivers, river
40
Ibid., Attachment PM-19, p 14.
4Ibid., Attachment PM-19, p. 16.
4Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Impact of the Construction of Two New Ca ños on Isla Portillos,
10 October 2013, Attachment PM-33. - 30 -
sedimentation and river morphology. And you can see his qualifications and terms of reference as
43
set out at sections 2 and 3 of his report .
12. The first point to take you to in Professor Thorne’s report is a river morphologist ’s
opinion on Nicaragua’s case that these new caños are somehow the result of natural forces. I very
much doubt you need this, but for good measure, this is from Section 4.1 of Professor Thorne’s
report at page 3 of tab 20.
“(a) Vegetation was cleared from strips of land in the Isla Portillos, at some time
subsequent to late-June 2013, to create the corridors within which to construct the
two 2013 caños.
(b) The two 2013 caños have been artificially constructed through excavation and
dredging of formerly undisturbed terrain in the northern part of Isla Portillos. The
caños are not the result of natural processes. They could not have been formed as
a result of r ainfall or erosion driven by other natural processes, especially given
the short period of time between photographs taken in late -June and
early-September 2013 that respectively s44w the relevant areas to be undisturbed
and occupied by artificial channels.” [Judges’ folder, tab 20, p. 3.]
13. So there is no doubt at all about any of that. Professor Thorne then explains at
paragraph 4.3 of his report that the works have already had a detrimental impact on the
environment, on what is an environmentally pr otected and sensitive area. Then I want to take you
briefly to a passage from 4.11, which is at page 7 of his report, half-way down on page 7:
“It is difficult to predict precise impacts on the ecosystem on the basis of the
limited available information . However, there is certainly a real risk that diverting
some portion of the flow in the Rio San Juan into the 2013 caños would have multiple
impacts on the River, biota that inhabits the River as well as the ecological services it
supplies. Flow diversion has the potential to produce multiple, consequential impacts
on the right bank, wetland floodplains including, but not limited to : toe scour and/or
bank instability in the Rio San Juan upstream of the ca ños, leading to channel and
sinuosity adjustments and associated loss of benthic, riparian and floodplain habitats
and ecosystems.” 45 [Judges’ folder, tab 20, p. 7 of his report.]
14. Now, as to the risk that the current works will result in diversion, let me take you back to
page 5 of the report and there you see at 4.4, Professor Thorne explains that:
“The shape and alignment of the new caño to the east suggest to me that it is
intended to divert a portion of discharge from the Rio San Juan into a new course and,
43
Ibid., Attachment PM-33, pp. 2-3.
44Ibid., Attachment PM-33, p. 3, paras. 4.1 (a) and (b).
45Ibid., Attachment PM-33, p. 7, para. 4.11. - 31 -
46
in doing so, induce scouring of the bed and/or banks that will enlarge the ca ño.”
[Judges’ folder, tab 20, p. 5 of his report]
15. Now I have to say that f rom the perspective of Costa Rica ’s legal counsel, this intention
appears blindingly obvious, but it is important to see that this is als o how an expert river
morphologist sees matters.
16. Professor Thorne then compares the current works with those that Nicaragua carried out
on the caño before the Court in 2011, and he explain s that this new ca ño is much wider and was
built using differe nt engineering techniques. He continues at paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 (I am still at
page 5 here, the final sentence of 4.5):
“As a result, the risk that these works will succeed in diverting the natural
course that the Rio San Juan currently takes to the sea is now much increased as
compared with the earlier works.
This is the case because, should the eastern ca ño divert the course of the
Rio San Juan (as appears to be intended from my assessment of the works), there is a
significant risk that there will be no practi47l possibility of reversing the situation and
restoring the River to its natural course.” [Judges’ folder, tab 20, p. 5 of his report.]
17. So this is all very much in line with the views expressed by the University of Costa Rica
report, and the same applies where one comes to the prospects of this eastern ca ño fulfilling the
apparent intention of diverting the course of the Rio San Juan.
18. If I can take you to paragraph4.7, on page 6 of tab 20, reading from the second sentence:
“In the case of the eastern ca ño, the trench already dug part way across the
beach could be extended to achieve this with very little difficulty . Once the trench is
completed, increasing wet season runoff from the catchment of the Rio San Juan will
raise the elevation of the water surface in the River compared to that in the sea,
creating the gradient necessary to drive flow through the caño with sufficient force to
scour its bed and enlarge the ditch through the beach . Connecting the River to the
Caribbean Sea via the eastern ca ño would provide a short cut to the sea for water
flowing along the Rio San Juan. Through time, this short cut would convey
progressively more of the flow, which would reduce the discharge in the San Juan
River downstream of the caño, causing it to deposit silt, with a significant risk that it
would clos48entirely at times of low runoff during the next and subsequent dry
seasons.” [Judges’ folder, tab 20, p. 6 of his report.]
So again, significant risk.
19. And, finally, Professor Thorne’s views are in line with those o f the University of
Costa Rica when it comes to upstream morphological impacts . He explains at paragraph 4.8 that,
46
Ibid., Attachment PM-33, p. 5, para. 4.4.
47Ibid., Attachment PM-33, p. 5, paras. 4.5-4.6.
48Ibid., Attachment PM-33, p. 6, para. 4.7. - 32 -
as one would expect, the “longer-term morphological consequences of the construction of the
caños are difficult to predict on the basis of the available information”. However, he continues
“what can be predicted is that should either or both of the ca ños capture a significant
portion of flow in the Rio San Juan, as to which there is a significant risk, this could
destabilize the channel of the River upstream. This risk will increase in the event that
there is a flood in the River,49hich is more likely to occur in the coming months than
in the dry season next year.” [Judges’ folder, tab 20, p. 6.]
20. So, to draw all of this together, there is substantial evidence before you of actual adverse
impact, and of the significant risk of irreparable prejudice to CostaRica with respect to its asserted
rights to sovereignty, to territorial integrity, and to non-interference with its lands and
environmentally protected areas . The work on the eastern ca ño was nearly complete when
Costa Rica last had its minimal access to the site we simply do not know how matters stand
today. But you have the experts ’ views as to the significant risk of diversion, and also that there
would be no practical possibility of reversing the diversion and restoring the river to its natural
course.
21. Where, then, is the evidence to the contrary ? There is none ; and that presuma bly
reflects the fact that the views of Costa Rica’s experts appear intuitively correct . And perhaps
Nicaragua did not wish to let its experts anywhere near the new ca ños, not least as they would
inevitably confirm the absurdity of the suggestion that the sudden appearance of the caños is the
result of natural processes.
22. The only point that Nicaragua has, as we understand it, is to say that it has now stopped
the works, and that it will make sure that these will not continue.
23. But that is no mor e an adequate response today than it was in 2011, when the Court
correctly held that the situation created an imminent risk of irreparable prejudice.
24. And the situation here is much starker . For how can the Court place any weight on
statements that t he works have been stopped when, at one and the same time, Nicaragua ’s
explanation to Costa Rica is that there were never any works in the first place, and that the ca ños
have appeared through natural causes, or that they are in any event nothing to do wit h Nicaragua.
That is not just implausible ; it undermines any suggestion that a mere assertion of “ trust us, we
4Ibid., Attachment PM-33, p. 6, para. 4.8. - 33 -
have stopped” could somehow be sufficient to address the risk of irreparable prejudice. It clearly
could not.
25. Professor Crawford is going to deal with the detail of Nicaragua’ s oscillating position.
But the short point for now is that one does not look at issues of risk in the abstract . You have to
look at where the risk is coming from, the originator of the risk, as it were ; which, in this case,
means that you have to look very carefully at Nicaragua and its past and recent conduct, at what it
has been saying, and at what it has in fact been doing.
C. There is urgency requiring the indication
of provisional measures
26. I turn to the need for a showing of urgency “in the sense that there is a real and
imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court ha s
50
given its final decision” .
27. There is very little to add here, so I shall be brief. Just two points.
28. First, the Court found that there was urgency in the similar circumstances before it at the
time of the 2011 Order 51.
29. Secondly, the urgency is readily a pparent, and supported by Costa Rica’s expert
evidence. The works were nearly complete when Costa Rica was last able to get any view of them,
some weeks ago; and to extend the trench across the beach and through to the Caribbean Sea can,
52
as Professor Thorne noted, be achieved with “ very little difficulty ” it may already have been
completed for all we know. The risks are then immediate, in particular as we are now entering the
height of the rainy season, when flows in the River will be at their highest . There is no sense in
which the matters now before you can be left until your final decision.
50Certain Activities c arried out by Nic aragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 21, para. 64; see also Application of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v . Russian Federation), Provisional
Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J Reports 2008, p. 392, para. 129.
51
Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 24, para. 75.
52
ProfessorColin Thorne, Report on the Impact of the Construction of Two New Ca ños on Isla Portillos,
10 October 2013, Attachment PM-33, p. 6, para. 4.7. - 34 -
D. Conclusion
30. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Costa Rica has had the most limited access to the
disputed area, but through the photographs that you have been shown, and the expert evidence now
before you all of which is supported by a lay person’ s intuitive appreciation of the
situation you have the materials to conclude without difficulty that there is a compelling case
before you of real risk and urgency.
That concludes my remarks. I thank you for your kind att ention, and I ask that the floor be
given to Professor Crawford perhaps after the break.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Wordsworth. The Court will now take a 20- minute
break and after that I will give the floor to Professor Crawford. The hearing is suspended.
The Court adjourned from 11.20 a.m to 11.45 a.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The hearing is resumed and the Court is ready to listen
to your presentation, Professor Crawford. You have the floor.
Mr. CRAWFORD: Thank you, Sir.
T HE NEED FOR PROVISIONAL M EASURES
A. Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court , last Friday evening, Nicaragua at the very last
moment said that it had withdrawn from the disputed territory, though without admitting it had
ever been there. It said that whether or not it had ever been there, it would not go back. It said it
had instructed the Nicaraguan Army to be vigilant to ensure that it would not go back though it
still hasn’t admitted there was any being there in the first place. Still less has it apologized to the
Court nor to Costa Rica for its egregious breach of your Provisional Measures Order. But now, or I
should say once more, Nicaragua says to the Court “Trust us. We didn’t do it and we won’t do it
again.” - 35 -
2. The Peace Palace is 100 years old and you, Mr. President and Members of the Court, were
not born yesterday. Nicaragua asks for another chance. But the first step is to admit the truth.
This Nicaragua will not do. Its word is not to be trusted.
3. The proceedings were instituted by Costa Rica in 2010. On the same day, Costa Rica
sought provisional measures for the withdrawal of Nicaraguan tro ops; the cessation of the
construction of a canal; and other measures to protect its sovereign and territorial rights.
4. During those oral hearings , Nicaragua articulated for the very first time its claim to
sovereignty over what became for the very first time the “disputed territory”. All Nicaraguan
maps, including those presented to the Court in the Navigational Rights case, had shown that
territory as part of Costa Rica. Engineer Alexander had unequivocally attributed it to Costa Rica.
On the basis of this new and unsupportable claim, articulated more than three months after
Nicaragua began digging the artificial caño in October 2010, Nicaragua argued that it was entitled
53
to dig the caño . The digging came first, the argument came later. As you carefullynoted in your
Provisional Measures Order, “the part of Isla Portillos in which the ac tivities complained of by
Costa Rica took place is ex hypothesi an area which, at the present stage of the proceedings , is to
54
be considered by the Court as in dispute” . You chose your words very carefully.
5. You granted two of the measures requested by Costa Rica, the Parties should refrain from
sending any personnel to the disputed territory, with an exception for Costa Rican personnel
charged with the protection of the environment 5. You made no such exception for Nicaragua.
6. But Nicaragua gave three assurances to your Court: (1) that its operations in respect of the
caño were “over and finished”; (2) that none of its armed forces was stationed on Isla Portillos;
and (3) that it did not intend to send any troops or other personnel to the region nor to establish a
53CR 2011/2, p. 13, para. 25 (Argüello) (“Nicaragua is not occupying Costa Rican territory. It is simply
exercising the sovereignty over this small area that it has always exercised”) ; CR 2011/2, p. 52, para. 10 (Pellet) (“Le
conte du canal (que le Nicaragua serait d’ailleurs parfaitement en droit en creuser)”).
54Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 19, para. 56; emphasis added.
55
Ibid., p. 27, para. 86 (1). - 36 -
56
military post there in the future . In specific reliance on those assurances, you said there was no
need to grant any of the other measures requested by Costa Rica 5.
7. Mr. President, Members of the Court , at least two and a half of these assurances were
either untrue or have been shown to be utterly unreliable. At the time it gave these assurances,
58
Nicaraguan armed forces were stationed on Isla Portillos . Since that time, work on the Pastora
first caño has been continued, including by more than 10,000 Sandinista youth who have been
officially brought to the area to further Nicaragua’s policies. Moreover and this is the third
point as Nicaragua’s documents now confirm, Nicaraguan personnel have been in the disputed
59
territory carrying out dredging and other wor ks, as late as 18 September 2013 . I said two and a
half; there are also what appear to be Nicaraguan military camps in the disputed territory, but we
have not been able to verify them because we have only limited access to the territory.
8. In the light of Nicaragua’s sending to the disputed territory and maintaining their
thousands of persons who are carrying out activities in pursuit of its policies, in May this year we
60
requested the modification of your 2011 Order . In your Order of 16 July of this year, you
declined this request, but you expressed concern about “the presence of organized groups of
61
Nicaraguan nationals in the disputed area” in large numbers . The word “organized” was likewise
carefully chosen.
9. Between August and September this y ear, Nicaragua carried out substantial works in the
disputed territory, and constructed two new artificial caños , with the assistance of at least one
56Ibid., p. 23, para. 71.
57
Ibid., p. 24, para. 74.
58
MCR, Ann. 223; MCR, para. 3.53; Comments by Costa Rica on the Reply of Nicaragua to the questions put by
Judges Simma, Bennouna and Greenwood at the end of the hearing on provisional measures requested by Costa Rica in
the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Are a (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua),
20 January 2011, Ref. ECRPB-017-11.
59
See, e.g., Letter from the Technical Manager of the National Port Authority to the Executive President of the
National Port Authority, Ref . GT-LAQG-0886-09-2013, 20 September 2013, Ann. 3 to Letter from Nicaragua to ICJ,
11 October 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197.
60Costa Rica’s Request for the Modification of the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011, 21 May 2013.
61Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Requests for the
Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 Indicating Provisional Measures , Order of 16 July 2013, para. 37. - 37 -
dredger. Costa Rica, as soon as it became aware of these activities, protested against Nicaragua’s
62
actions .
10. Mr. President, Members of the Court, you have at tab 23 of your folders a table which
shows what Nicaragua has said on relevant dates following our letter of protest of 16 September,
compared to what Nicaragua now says are the facts. I stress tha t documents submitted to or
through the Court constitute representations to the Court itself, and in this regard, the legal
representatives of a country have a distinct obligation of good faith.
62
Diplomatic Note sent by Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, to
Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Niaragua, 16 September 2013, Ref. DM-AM-536-13, Attachment
PM-1. - 38 -
B. Nicaragua’s Oscillating Position
11. Nicaragua’s explanations so far have been hopelessly inconsistent.
Narrative No. 1: an apparition caused by the rain
12. On 18 September, the Foreign Minister of Nicaragua said that the channels must have
63
appeared because of heavy rain, if indeed they existed at all . He said and I quote “we are in
the heavy rain season, which normally alters the water levels in the entire area . . . it would not be
64
abnormal for the aspect of some channels to have changed in the last few months” . The weather
forecast apparently read “cloudy with a chance of dredgers”.
65
13. But and this was repeated only last week the Foreign Minister in that letter also
asserted that “the Government of Nicaragua has not authorized any type of work in the disputed
66
area and has not sent personnel there” .
Narrative No. 2: “cleaning aquatic plants”
14. On 18 September 2013, a different story was told by Commander Pastora, who is
described in Nicaragua’s Presidential Decree of 10 January 2012 as “Delegate of the Presidency of
67
the Republic to the Com mission for the Development of the San Juan River” . Mr. Pastora can
fairly be described as a repeat offender in so far as works in the disputed territory are concerned.
15. You will find extracts from his speech at pages 1 and 2 of tab 23. The statements he
made on national televisions include the following:
“I have cleaned the Delta in the mouth of the San Juan River, I am cleaning and will
68
clean all of this . . .”
“this channel, it’s a lie, it’s not a channel” . 69
63Diplomatic No te sent by Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, to
Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, 18 September 2013,
Ref. MRE/DM/521/09/13, Attachment PM-5.
64Ibid., Attachment PM-5.
65
Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 10 October 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-193, p. 2, tab 25 of judges’ folders.
66Diplomatic Note sent by Samuel Santos López, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, to
Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica , 18 September 2013,
Ref. MRE/DM/521/09/13, Attachment PM-5.
67Nicaragua, Presidential Decree 01-2012, 10 January 2012, tab 25 of judges’ folders, p. 8.
68Video interview of Mr. Edén Pastora, 18 September 2013, “Noticias Nicaragua”, Attachment PM-18. - 39 -
“So we are clearing of aquatic plants all of this and we will clean until here
[You can see that he is indicating the disputed territory from the graphic on the
screen], so that the stream of water can flow directly as it did in the past. ” 70
“all of these are aquatic plants that we are cl eaning out and we will separate them and
leave free navigation . . . [W]e are cleaning here, here is the dredger and the cleaning
71
work is done with a dredger, that’s why they call it dredging.”
“I am the one who directs where we are going to clean the aquatic plants . . .” 72
16. As Mr. Ugalde has shown you, the “aquatic plants” include quite tall trees, a genus of
aquatic plant hitherto unknown to science. The Court has been provided with a complete copy of
73
the press interviews plus transcripts .
Narrative No. 3: partial disavowing of Pastora
17. So that was where things stood on 24 September when Costa Rica filed its Request for
New Provisional Measures. It had been told that the caños did not exist, that they had been created
by the rain and that they were the result of cleaning aquatic plants.
18. And then silence. On 1 October, Nicaragua did write to Costa Rica, but only to
74
complain that Costa Rica had conducted an overflight of the disputed territory . No mention of
any of the correspondence filed on Friday evening. No explanation. Nothing.
19. This silence lasted until 10 October, last Thursday, when Nicaragua wrote to say that it
“had no knowledge of Mr. Pastora’s ‘alleged activities’” (emphasis added) in the disputed territory
75
until he made the announcement on national television . Although admitted by Mr. Pastora, those
activities were still described by Nicaragua as “alleged” a fantastic failure to face the facts. This
information came a full 25 days after Costa Rica first wrote to Nicaragua to protest the construction
of the caños, and 20 days after the “alleged” activities were reported to the President’s Office.
69Ibid., Attachment PM-18.
70Video interview of Mr. Edén Pastora, 18 September 2013, “100% Entrevistas”, Attachment PM-31, p. 2.
71
Ibid., Attachment PM-31, p. 3.
72
Ibid., Attachment PM-31, p. 4.
73Video interview of Mr. Edén Pastora, 18 September 2013, “Noticias Ni caragua”, Attachment PM-18; and
Video interview of Mr. Edén Pastora, 18 September 2013, “100% Entrevistas”, AttachmentPM-31.
74Diplomatic Note sent by Orlando Gomez, Vice -Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, to
Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of F oreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, 1 October 2013,
Ref. MRE/DM/DGAJST-VMOG/293/10/13, Attachment PM-22.
75Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 10 Oc.2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-193, p. 2, tab 25 of judges’ folders. - 40 -
20. This is the very first time that Nicaragua had disclaimed the actions of Mr. Pastora. It
has had multiple opport unities to do so and it has never done so before. In its Application
commencing the present case, Costa Rica identified Mr. Pastora as “head of the dredging
operations” 7. Nicaragua said nothing to disavow it. In our first request for provisional measure s
77
we complained about his leading of the dredging operations . Nicaragua did not respond. In the
hearing on provisional measures, we referred to Mr. Pastora as head of the dredging operations 78.
79
Nicaragua referred to his statements but never suggested t hat he was not acting on behalf of
Nicaragua. In the second round, Nicaragua said that it did not believe that he was accurately
quoted. It said that press reports of his statements were not to be believed 80. It said that he was
81
“helping his own country to recover the treasure of the San Juan river” . It never disclaimed, on
those multiple opportunities, that he was acting on behalf of, and with the full support of
Nicaragua.
21. The narrative developed further this is narrative three on Friday evening, when we
82
had nine pieces of correspondence filed with the Registry . This correspondence was all
completed some time before our request of 24 September. None of it was mentioned in
Nicaragua’s letter of 1 October2013. Nothing.
22. Now, I suppose the Court may hear from Nicaragua tomorrow two arguments. First, it
will say that it did not authorize the work. In fact it said so already, I refer to tab 25 of your folders
and I quote from the Agent:
“As Nicaragua informed Costa Rica by D iplomatic Note on 18 September, it
‘has not authorized any type of work in the disputed area and has not sent personnel
there.’ Nicaragua formally reiterates this statement.” 83
76
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua inthe Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) case, Application,
para. 6.
77Ibid., Provisional Measures, 18 Nov. 2010, para. 6, referring to Att. PM1 (reproduced in MCR, Ann. 45) and
Att. PM2.
78See, e.g., CR 2011/1, p. 29, para. 9 (Ugalde); CR 2011/1, p. 41, para. 15 (Kohen); pp. 63-64, para. 34
(Crawford); CR 2011/3, pp. 27-30, paras. 25-30 (Crawford).
79CR 2011/3, p. 42, para. 30 (Reichler).
80CR 2011/4, pp. 18-19, paras. 12-13 (Reichler).
81
CR 2011/4, p. 36, para. 12 (Argüello).
82Letter from Nicaragua to ICJ, 11 Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197.
83Letter from Nicaragua to ICJ, 10 Oct.2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-193 (ref. omitted), tab 25 of judges’ folders. - 41 -
That statement was made originally, by the Foreign Minister, on 18 September, a statement
evidently made in complete ignorance of the facts. Now it is repeated by the Agent in full
knowledge of the facts.
23. In short the work conducted by Mr. Pastora, Government Delegate for the Dredging
Works of the San Juan River, is somehow not attributab le to the Government. That is the first
argument. Second, it will say that the work has ceased and there is no longer any need for a
provisional measures order. Let me deal with those two arguments.
C. Attribution of the construction of theCaños to Nicaragua
24. First the first argument. The conduct of a person empowered to exercise governmental
authority is an act of the State, even if that person exceeds authority or contravenes instructions
which we certainly do not accept was the case here. Thi s long -standing rule of customary
international law is codified in Article 7 of the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility. It was
recognized by your Court in Congo v. Uganda 84. It has been recognized by other international 85
86
and domestic courts . It is e lementary, my dear Watson. If it were not the rule, governments
everywhere could authorize abuse, for in most cases there would be no practical way of proving
87
that the agent had or had not acted upon orders .
25. The case has talked about agents being “c loaked with governmental authority” 88.
Mr. Pastora is more than cloaked with governmental authority he wears it like a wetsuit. He
89
was appointed by the President of Nicaragua to carry out works on the San Juan . The project he
is carrying out has been approved by the Nicaraguan Ministry of Environment and Natural
84
Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v . Uganda),
I.C.J Reports 2005, p. 242, para. 214; see also p.251, para. 243.
85
See, e.g., Ilasçu and others v. Moldova and Russia (Application No. 48787/99) , Judgment, ECtHR, 8 July 2004,
p. 73, para. 391 (“A State may also be held responsible even where its agents are acting ultra vires or contrary to
instructions.”)
86
See, e.g., Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Another (Secretary of State for
Constitutional Affairs and Another Intervening) , Judgment of House of Lords, 14 June 2006, reported in 129 ILR 629,
pp. 718-719; Distomo Massacre Case (Greek Citizens v. Federal Republic of Germany), Case No. III ZR 245/98, Federal
Republic of Germany, Federal Supreme Court (BGH), 26 June 2003, 129 ILR 513, p. 596.
87
ILC Commentary to the Articles on State Res ponsibility, Commentary Art. 7, para. 3, ILC Yearbook 2001 ,
Vol. II, Part Two, p. 45.
88 Petrolane, Inc. v. The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 27 (1991) Iran-US C.T.R. 64, p. 92. See
also ILC Commentary to the Articles on State Res ponsibility, Comment ary Article 7, para. 7, ILC Yearbook 2001,
Vol. II, Part Two, p. 46.
89Nicaragua, Presidential Decree 01-2012, 10 January 2012, tab 25 of Judges’ folders, p 8. - 42 -
Resources . He is working with the National Port Authority, which Nicaragua has told the Court
91
is the “government agency responsible for river transportation and ports” . He was doing what he
had done before, and what he intimates he intends to continue to do again. He is still in post.
Where, you might well ask, were the instructions from the Government, before the letter of
22 September 2013, telling him not to dredge in the disputed area?
26. Moreover, he has said that he was acting under instruction. He said in his interview he
92
was not “tak[ing] liberties” .
27. There is also the position of the Army. Is the Court to believe that in this intensively
militarized sector of the San Jua n Nicaraguan officers were unaware of the dredging? It is
actually striking that the Army’s vigilance so far has not extended to the dredger Soberaní a, to
Mr. Pastora’s team, to 10,000 Sandinista youth. It is only when Costa Rican boats appear on the
San Juan that there is vigilance triggered. It is a strangely selective vigilance.
28. To summarize, Mr. Pastora had both actual and ostensible authority to do what he did,
and no Nicaraguan document so far produced suggests otherwise. Moreover other org ans and
agencies of the Nicaraguan State knew, or must have known, what he was doing. If Nicaragua had
really wanted to comply with your provisional measures Order, why was Commander Ortega’s
order of 21 September 2013 not issued in 2011?
D. Nicaraguan Assurances are insufficient, are not accepted by Costa Rica
and should not be accepted by the Court
29. I turn to the second argument. Nicaraguan assurances are insufficient, they are not
accepted by Costa Rica, they should not be accepted by the Court. On Thursday afternoon last
week Nicaragua told you that Costa Rica’s requested measures were “superfluous . . . because they
are already being complied with by Nicaragua, and Nicaragua . . . further commits itself to abide by
90See, e.g., Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua (MARENA), “Specific Ter ms of
Reference for the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Study for the Project ‘Dredging of the San Juan River’”,
MCR, Ann. 159; Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua (MARENA), DGCA Administrative
Resolution Re: No. 038-2008, 22 December 2008, MCR, Ann. 160; Declaration of the Technical Manager of the
National Port Company (EPN), Lester, Antonio Quintero G ómez, 16 December 2010, MCR, Ann. 164; and Affidavit of
Hilda Espinoza Urbina, National Director of the Department of Envir onmental Quality at the Ministry of the
Environment and Natural Resources of Nicaragua (MARENA), 20December 2010, MCR, Ann. 165.
91CMN, para. 4.28; see also para. 2.52.
92
Video interview of Mr. Edén Pastora, 18 Sept.2013, “100% Entrevistas”, Att. PM-31, p. 4 - 43 -
93
them” . On Friday morning, Costa Rica wrote to the Court proposing that the Parties agree to an
order being made by consent 94. But Nicaragua flatly refused, saying that an Order was not
required. It asserted that its assurances were sufficient and, perplexingly, that Costa Rica had, by
its proposal for a consent order, accepted that 95. Of course we did no such thing. We proposed a
consent order, approved by the Court, precisely because we cannot accept Nicaragua’s assurances.
We merely sought to explore an avenue for avoiding the ti me and expense of this hearing.
Nicaragua’s refusal, by contrast, tells you that it is not in earnest. Nicaragua’s assurances are not
sufficient. We do not accept them, and there are six reasons which I shall give you why the
Court should not accept them.
30. The first reason: Nicaragua has not admitted the facts. It has not faced up to the truth.
The proposition that Mr. Pastora was “not authorized to perform any kind of work in the disputed
area” is both irrelevant and, as far as appears, untrue. As a matter of the law of attribution, it is
ridiculous, as I have shown. As a matter of fact, it is little better. Nicaragua produced an
instruction dated 22 September 2013 ostensibly prohibiting Mr. Pastora from working in the
disputed area 9. Where are his earlier instructions? Nicaragua has them; you do not. Moreover
Mr. Pastora is still in post as Government Delegate. He has not been repudiated, he has not been
dismissed, he has not even been reprimanded. The sole communication from Nicaragu a to Costa
97
Rica between 18 September and 10 October was a letter protesting our overflight . For Nicaragua
the only sin is to be found out!
98
31. Second reason. Nicaragua has done this before, and promised not to do it again , and
has done it again. It i s a repeat offender. Is the conduct which justified your first provisional
93Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 10 Oct.2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-193, p. 2, tab 25 of judges’ folders.
94
Letter from Costa Rica to the ICJ, 11 Oct.2013, Ref. ECRPB-073-13.
95
Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 11 Oct.2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197, p. 3.
96Letter f rom the Executive President of the National Port Authority to the Government Delegate for the
Dredging Works of the San Juan de Nicaragua, Ref. PE-VSM-0592-09-2013, 22 Sep. 2013, Ann. 8 to Letter from
Nicaragua to ICJ, 11 Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-197.
97Diplomatic Note sent by Orlando Gomez, Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nicaragua, to
Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica, 1 Oct. 2013,
Ref. MRE/DM/DGAJST-VMOG/293/10/13, Att. PM-22.
98Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 23, para. 71. - 44 -
measures Order, when repeated in even more threatening form, to be met by you with silence?
What a victory for recidivism that would be!
32. Third reason. Nicaragua’s assurances towards Costa Rica in the matter of the San Juan
are not to be trusted. The Nicaraguan Agent told the Court in January 2011 that there were no
Nicaraguan troops in Isla Portillos 99. Nicaragua repeated that assurance on 18 January 2011 in its
100
written reply to the Court, in response to a question asked by Judge Bennouna . One day later,
Nicaraguan troops were still encamped on Isla Portillos. We presented photographs from
101
19 January, showing their continued presence . Another assurance given was that wor k on the
first Pastora caño was “over and finished” 102. But since you issued your Order on provisional
measures, more than 10,000 Nicaraguan nationals have been sent in an organized manner to
the disputed territory to carry out activities in pursuance of Nicaragua’s policies. You have already
103
expressed your concern about their presence on the disputed territory .
33. Fourth reason. If you were to say nothing now, the authority of this Court would have
been flouted, and would have been seen to be flou ted. The authority of this Court, the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, is not to be mocked. Confidence in the Court, and in the
authority of your rulings, would be eroded.
34. Fifth. Provisional measures, in particular the closing of th e new caño, are urgent a
point already demonstrated by Mr. Wordsworth by reference to evidence , and which
Professor Kohen will further develop. Nicaragua has no plans to close the caño, you may be sure
about that. Yet Costa Rica’s demands were not limi ted to mere evacuation temporary or even
permanent. We seek to restore the status quo ante , something to which we are entitled as a matter
99
CR 2011/ 2, 11 January 2011, p. 13 , para. 28 (Argüello); CR 2011/4, 13 January 2011, p. 37 , para. 15
(Argüello).
100
Reply of the Republic of Nicaragua to the question put by Judges Simma, Bennouna and Greenwood at the end
of the hearing on provisional measures requested by Costa Rica in the c ase concerning Certain Activities carried out by
Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), 18 January 2011, Ref. 18012011-01, p. 6.
101
Comments by Costa Rica on the Reply of Nicaragua to the question put by Judges Simma, Bennouna and
Greenwood at the end of the hearing on provisional measures requested by Costa Rica in the case concerning Certain
Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), 20 January 2011,
Ref. ECRPB-017-11. Photograph also exhibited as MCR, Annex 223.
102Certain Activities c arried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 23, para. 71.
103Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica vNicaragua), Requests for the
Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 Indicating Provisional Measures , Order of 16 July 2013, para. 37. - 45 -
of international law given the binding character of your first provisional measures Order, and
irrespective of your final decision on the merits.
35. And sixth, if Nicaragua is to be taken at its word, the provisional measures we seek will
have little impact upon it. Your Order would be not to return to the disputed territory; Nicaragua
says it will not do so. Yo ur Order would be not to complete the caño ; Nicaragua says it never
planned to construct it anyway. Your Order would be to facilitate Costa Rica’s closure of the caño;
Nicaragua says the caño was never authorized. If Nicaragua is to be taken at its wor d, what has it
to lose? Yet if Nicaragua is not to be taken at its word, what has Costa Rica to lose? A very great
deal. The effective benefit of your first Order. The status quo . Costa Rica would run
alone unsupported by the Court the risk that the caño could in the coming weeks and months
perform its intended function in artificially changing the course of the river with serious
practical implications for the settlement of the present dispute. You only have to think for a
moment about the actu al situation on the ground to see what the implications would be of the
change of the course of the river. Not to order provisional measures would be wholly unjust.
36. Mr. President, Members of the Court, before Professor Kohen explains further the
consequences if an Order granting the measures we seek is not issued, I would like to say a brief
word about procedure. There is of course another case on the Court’s docket relating to a road
constructed entirely within undisputed Costa Rican territory. It was constructed in order to give
access to Costa Rican communities and posts, which access has been practically denied, if not
made impossible, by Nicaragua following your Judgment in the Navigational Rights case.
37. On 22 December 2011, Nicaragua submitted an Application to the Court concerning this
104
road. That is 22months ago. Its Application referred to the imminent danger the road presented .
It reserved the right to bring a provisional measures request, in view of the urgency of the
situation 10. This was in December 2011. Nicaragua then informed the Court that it would not be
106
in a position to present a Memorial for a whole year . When it submitted its Memorial on
104
Nicaragua’s Application in Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v.
Costa Rica), 22 December 2011, paras. 1 and 36.
10Ibid., para. 55.
106
See Court’s Order of 23 January 2012 in Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), p. 2. - 46 -
19 December 2012, it asked the Court to grant provisional measures proprio motu, i n view of
107 108
urgency . This was a year later. The Court declined to do so .
38. When Costa Rica requested modification of your provisional measures Order in the
Certain Activities case in May this year, Nicaragua made yet another half -hearted attempt to obtain
109 110
provisional measures relating to the road . You rejected that request . Last Friday evening, two
days ago, Nicaragua submitted a request for provisional measures in the Road case that had taken it
111
22 months . The measures requested are not provisi onal measures, they are provisional
counter-measures. They have been requested more than 22 months after the Application which
was said to be urgent. They have repeatedly been said to be urgent, they have not been brought
before. Mr . President, in the c ircumstances that have occurred, Costa Rica has not had the
opportunity yet to plead to the merits of the Road case. We are preparing our Memorial in
relation to the Court schedule as laid down following Nicaragua’s statement that it required a year.
The Court has asked us if we are prepared to argue the provisional measures application this week.
To argue it this week would require us to present argument on the run, on two days’ notice, in
relation to a case that has been fully pleaded by one party and not pleaded at all by the other. With
respect, the Court cannot expect us to present argument in relation to a factual situation, without the
opportunity to present evidence. If as a result of discussions with the Registry it proves
possible for us to present evidence, in short order, we would consider that request. But it is unfair
to require us to do so without the presentation of material evidence.
Mr. President, thank you for your patience.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Professor Crawford. Je passe la parole maintenant à
Monsieur le professeur Kohen. Vous avez la parole, Monsieur.
107
MN in Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) ,
19 December 2012, pp. 252-253, para. 4.
108
See Letter from ICJ to Costa Rica, 11 March 2013, Ref. 142641.
10Request by Nicaragua that the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011 in Certain Activities case be Modified or
Adapted to the Situation Created by the Joinder of the Construction of a Road in C osta Rica case, 14 June 2013.
11Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica Nicaragua), Requests for the
Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 Indicating Provisional Measures , Order of 16 July 2013, paras. 26-29.
111
Letter from Nicaragua to ICJ, 11 October 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-196. - 47 -
M. KOHEN :
L ES CONSÉQUENCES DÉCOULANT D ’UN HYPOTHÉTIQUE REFUS D ’INDIQUER
DES MESURES CONSERVATOIRES
1. Monsieur le p résident, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, c’est un honneur renouvelé de
comparaître devant vous aujourd’hui pour défendre les droits du Costa Rica. Je le fais une
nouvelle fois en raison de comportements graves du Nicaragua, comportements qui exigent une
réponse claire, urgente et dépourvue d’ambig uïté, si tant est que la justice et le droit international
ont un sens.
2. L’article 73, paragraphe 2, du Règlement de la Cour requiert de la partie qui demande
l’indication des mesures conservatoires d’expliquer les conséquences d’un éventuel rejet. Ce sera
ma tâche à la fin de cette matinée.
3. Cette exigence du Règlement apparaît en effet d’une grande sagesse. C’est la question
que l’on doit se poser afin de savoir si les circonstances exigent l’indication des «mesures
conservatoires du droit de chac un», comme le prévoit l’article 41 du Statut 112. C’est en fait à la
lumière de l’examen des conséquences d’une décision de ne pas indiquer des mesures
conservatoires que les conditions pour exercer ce pouvoir, déterminées par votre jurisprudence,
doivent être appréciées.
4. Mes collègues vous ont montré que toutes ces conditions étaient en l’espèce réunies.
L’existence d’une base de compétence et le fumus boni iuris ne sont plus à établir . C’est votre
Cour elle -même qui a déjà établi le caractère pl ausible des droits que le Costa Rica souhaite
113
protéger . Mes collègues ont ainsi démontré le lien entre ces droits et les mesures demandées,
ainsi que le periculum in mora , autrement dit le risque de préjudice irréparable et l’urgence
nécessitant leur indication.
5. Mon exposé sera divisé en quatre parties :
La première portera sur l’élément temporel dans l’évaluation de l’adoption des mesures
conservatoires demandées, autrement dit la détermination de la situation sur le terrain au
112Texte anglais : «provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either
party».
113
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalièreRica c. Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 19, par. 55-58. - 48 -
moment où l’instance a été i ntroduite, la situation actuelle et celle que l’on peut envisager au
moment où l’arrêt sur le fond sera rendu ;
La deuxième partie examinera ce qui pourrait se passer concrètement si votre Cour n’ordonne
pas les différentes mesures conservatoires demandées par le Costa Rica ;
La troisième partie aura trait à l’incapacité des mesures conservatoires actuellement en vigueur
à faire face à la nouvelle situation créée par le Nicaragua avec la construction des deux
nouveaux canaux ; et
Finalement, la quatrième p artie reviendra sur les prétendues assurances données par le
Nicaragua, qui n’empêchent en aucun cas votre Cour d’ordonner des mesures conservatoires.
A. L’élément temporel dans la détermination des mesures conservatoires
6. Je commence donc par l’élémen t temporel. Quels sont les moments auxquels il faut se
placer en vue d’évaluer le periculum in mora pendente lite ? Il y a deux moments clefs. La date du
premier est connue, celle du deuxième demeure inconnue . La première est le 18 novembre 2010,
date d e l’introduction de l’instance où le Costa Rica a fait valoir ses droits au respect de sa
souveraineté et intégrité territoriales ainsi qu’à son environnement dans des zones humides
protégées dans la partie nord de Isla Portillos, en conformité avec la convention de Ramsar . La
deuxième date sera le moment auquel la Cour rendra son arrêt. En effet, tant les juges internes que
les juges internationaux prennent en considération la durée probable de la procédure dans
l’évaluation du besoin des mesures conservatoires. La question fondamentale qui se pose est alors
celle de savoir quel serait, à la fin de la procédure, l’état des droits à protéger tels qu’ils existaient
au moment où cette procédure a commencé.
7. Comme vous le savez, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, la phase écrite de cette affaire est
terminée depuis votre rejet des demandes reconventionnelles du Nicaragua 11, mais la suite reste
subordonnée au sort de la procédure dans l’affaire concernant la Construction d’une route au
Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan, après votre décision de joindre les deux instances 115. De ce
114 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua) ;
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica), demandes
reconventionnelles, ordonnances du 18 avril 2013 .
115
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua),
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Ricajonction d’instances,
ordonnances du 17 avril 2013. - 49 -
fait, de longs mois devraient encore se passer avant qu’une décision sur le fond n’intervienne . Du
fait du comportement du Nicaragua dont nous nous occupons aujourd’hui, cette prol ongation de la
date à laquelle votre arrêt déterminera qui détient la souveraineté sur la partie septentrionale de
Isla Portillos ajoute un élément de risque suppléme ntaire pour les droits du Costa Rica. J’y
reviendrai dans quelques instants.
8. La prise en compte des deux dates, celles du commencement et de la fin de la procédure,
permettent d’établir une distinction importante entre la présente demande en mesures
conservatoires et les mesures ordonnées par votre Cour le 8 mars 2011. La construction par le
Nicaragua d’un canal artificiel à partir d’octobre 2010 a motivé la requête costa -ricienne du
18 novembre 2010. Donc, au moment de l’introduction de la requête, le premier «caño» était déjà
présent sur le terrain . Par contre, les deux nouveaux canaux construits récemment viennent à
modifier j’insiste, à modifier radicalement dans l’extrême nord de Isla Portillos près de la m er
des Caraïbes la situation existante pendente lite.
9. Les faits qui motivent cette demande de mesures conservatoires se sont produits durant la
procédure et non au préalable. Les mesures conservatoires visent ainsi à remédier à cette rupture
du statu quo, rupture produite par l’une des Parties au détriment évident et grave des droits que
l’autre fait valoir devant votre Co ur. Dans l’attente de votre décision sur le fond quant à la
souveraineté sur la partie nord de Isla Portillos, il est légitime que les Parties à la procédure
s’attendent à ce que le territoire en question ne subisse pas de modifications matérielles altérant sa
configuration physique, d’autant plus qu’en l’espèce, ces modifications risquent d’être
matériellement irréversibles.
10. Cette différence par rapport au premier « caño» nicaraguayen appelle une approche
distincte de celle employée pour les mesures conservatoires déjà indiquées dans cette affaire. Le
8 mars 2011, vous n’avez pas ordonné et le Costa Rica n’avait pas demandé non plus , de
combler le premier «caño». Sans doute, certains ou certaines d’entre vous auraient pu penser que
cela aurait supposé une sorte de préjugement sur un point qui divise les Parties, c’est -à-dire le fait
de savoir si le « caño» est naturel ou artificiel. Aujourd’hui, ce problème ne se présente pas par
rapport à ces deux nouveaux «caños». La preuve est accablante. Il n’y avait pas ces deux «caños» - 50 -
ni lorsque le Costa Rica a commencé cette procédure en 2010, ni lorsque votre Cour a ordonné ses
mesures conservatoires en 2011, ni lorsque le Nicaragua a déposé son contre-mémoire en 2012.
11. Comme vous l’aurez compris tout au long de cette matinée, ces deux nouveaux «caños»,
construits pendente lite et malgré vos mesures conservatoires, risquent de modifier de manière
permanente la configuration physique de la région frontalière et appellent donc à des travaux de
remédiation pour l’éviter. C’est la seule manière de permettre que votre décision sur le fond opère
sur le territoire tel qu’il fut soumis à votre détermination et non sur une autre réalité géographique
modifiée ex professo et en sa faveur par l’une des Parties.
B. Les effets de la non-indication de mesures conservatoires
12. J’en viens donc à examiner maintenant les conséquences qui découleraient d’une
décision de ne pas ordonner les mesures conservatoires demandées. Ces conséquences sont de
deux types. Les premières sont celles relatives à la zone où les deux canaux ont été construits. Les
deuxièmes sont celles liées au possible comportement nicaraguayen dans l’ensemble de la zone que
116
vous avez «par hypothèse» dû «considérer comme contestée» .
a) Les risques relatifs aux canaux construits récemment
13. Il découle de la documentation scientifique produite par le Costa Rica, ainsi que du reste
de la preuve, que le Nicaragua a construit deux canaux réalisant la déviation des eaux du fleuve
San Juan dans le bu t de modifier son cours et tout particulièrement son embouchure dans la mer
des Caraïbes 11. Cela a lieu en territoire costa-ricien soumis aux mesures conservatoires indiquées
par la Cour en 2011.
14. Le type de construction des canaux employé par le Nicaragua entre juin et
septembre 2013 engendre leur propre expansion dans le temps du fait de l’action érosive naturelle
118
liée au flux des eaux qui se produit dans les canaux ainsi construits . Il ne serait donc pas
nécessaire pour le Nicaragua de faire quoi que ce soit une fois les travaux de construction terminés .
116 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 19, par. 56.
117
Oreamuno Vega, R et Villaobos Herrera, R., Technical assessment of the artificial canals on Isla Portil,os
University of Costa Rica Centre for Research in Sustainable Development, Department of Civil Engineering, pp. 9-10
(Costa Rica, Further Documents Submitted to the Court, 9 October 2013, Attachment PM -19).
118
Ibid. - 51 -
Ne pas ordonner les mesures conservatoires implique donc tout simplement, si je puis dire, ou
plutôt très gravement de permettre que l’Œuvre d’ouverture des canaux et de déviation du
fleuve San Juan dans son embouchure à la mer des Caraïbes en territoire litigieux atteigne
naturellement son but.
15. Au moment où je vous parle, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, nous ne savons pas si les
travaux de construction des canaux ont été achevés . Nous ne savons pas non plus s’il est vrai que,
comme le Nicaragua en a informé votre Cour jeudi dernier seulement, le G ouvernement
nicaraguayen a retiré son personnel et son matériel 11. Je constate par ailleurs que le Nicaragua est
resté silencieux en ce qui concerne le sort des installations nicaraguayennes en territoire «contesté»,
120
et dont la présence fut aussi amplement documentée et leur retrait demandé . Leur maintien
constituerait sans aucun doute un signe tangible d’un éventuel retour.
o
16. Monsieur le président, le rapport du professeur Thorne que vous avez à l’onglet n 20
de votre dossier explique le caractère irrémédiable qu’aurait la déviation du fleuve San Juan de
son cours naturel à l’embouchure dans la mer des Caraïbes. Il souligne le caractè re chimérique
d’une tentative tardive de restauration de la situation préexistante 121, par exemple j’ajoute
une fois votre arrêt rendu. Le risque d’une modification permanente du cours du fleuve San Juan
au détriment du Costa Rica est ainsi une possibilité réelle et concrète si les mesures conservatoires
demandées ne sont pas indiquées.
b) Les risques relatifs à de nouveaux comportements nicaraguayens dans la région litigieuse
17. Malheureusement, Monsieur le président , Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, les dangers
ne s’arrêtent pas là. Si le Nicaragua n’a pas encore réussi à relier l’un des deux canaux construits à
la mer des Caraïbes, cette opération serait relativement facile et rapide à mettre en Œuvre à l’avenir.
o
[Projection n 1.]. Comme vous le voyez à l’écran, pour ce qui est du canal le plus oriental, il ne
resterait plus qu’à le relier à la mer à travers la plage, cela ne nécessitant donc pas de procéder au
o
préalable à l’abattage de la forêt existante aux alentours [fin de la projection n 1].
119 Note (réf. HOL-EMB-193) en date du 10 octobre 2013 de l’ agent du Nicaragua. Voir aussi note
(réf. HOL-EMB-197) de l’agent du Nicaragua en date du 11 octobre 2013.
120Costa Rica, demande d’indication de nouvelles mesures conservatoires, annexe15.
121
Thorne, C., Report on the Impact of the Construction of Two New Caños on Isla Portillos , par. 4.6
(Costa Rica, 10 octobre 2013, annexe 33). - 52 -
18. Mais ce n’est pas tout. Le Nicaragua, dans son contre-mémoire [projection n 2] vouso
122
voyez à l’écran une photo tirée du contre-mémoire ainsi que dans une correspondance
récente 123, insiste sur l’existence de plusieurs «caños» dans la région «contestée». Expérience faite,
est-il vraiment exagéré de s’interroger sur les dangers de nouveaux travaux de prétendu
«nettoyage» que le G ouvernement nicaraguayen et son délégué, le c ommandant Edén Pastora,
affectionnent tellement ? Non seulement le Nicaragu a voit des «caños» partout, mais son
gouvernement et son délégué se croient en droit, à supposer même qu’ils aient un jour existé, de
soi-disant les «nettoyer» qu’importe où ils se trouvent [fin de la projectionn o 2].
19. L’expérience démontre aussi il suffit de lire la réponse du m inistre des affaires
étrangères du Nicaragua à son collègue costa-ricien du 18 septembre dernier 124 [projection n 3]
que le Nicaragua impute à la nature l’action que personne d’autre que le Nicaragua lui -même a
provoquée sur le terrain. Si on relit le c ontre-mémoire du Nicaragua en perspective, donc à la
lumière de ce qui se passe depuis le début du différend et même après votre indication de mesures
conservatoires en 2011, il y a de quoi s’inquiéter fortement lorsque l’ on y remarque les longues
citations nicaraguayennes relatives à la perte de la souveraineté territoriale par l’action de la
125 o
«nature» [fin de la projection n 3].
20. Monsieur le président , Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, toutes les conséquences
possibles d’un éventuel rejet de la demande en mesures conservatoires conduisent à constater le
periculum im mora et donc le besoin de les ordonner . La Cour permanente de Justice
internationale, dans sa première ordonnance indiquant des mesures conservatoires, s’est référée à
ce qui est désormais considéré comme la définition classique de la notion de préjudice irréparable.
Le préjudice irréparable serait constitué lorsque la violation éventuelle des droits en cause « ne
122CMN, p. 330, fig. 6.8.
123Note diplomatique en date du 18 septembre 2013 adressée au ministre des affaires étrangères et des cultes du
Costa Rica par le ministre des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua (Costa Rica, demande d’indication de nouvelles mesures
conservatoires, annexe 5).
124
Costa Rica, demande en indication de nouvelles mesures conservatoires, annexe 5.
125
CMN, p. 382-383, par. 6.173-6.177. - 53 -
saurait être réparée moyennant le versement d’u ne simple indemnité ou par une autre prestation
126
matérielle» . C’est évidemment le cas ici.
21. Nous sommes ici dans une situation dans laquelle l’une des P arties, durant la procédure
en cours, s’adonne à des dégradations matérielles du territoire litigieux. Je dis bien, pendente lite.
Et j’utilise l’expression «dégradations matérielles» car il ne s’agit de rien d’autre que d’abattre des
arbres et de la végétation existante, et d’excaver des canaux en utilisant cette fois- ci des machines
(des dragueurs) à la différence du « caño» de 2010 pour dévier les eaux du fleuve San Juan.
Le tout sur un territoire que vous avez considéré par hypothèse litigieux et sur lequel vous avez
estimé que les droits du Costa Rica sont plausibles, même si l’on pourrait fai re de nouveau valoir
127
qu’ils sont bien plus que « plausibles» ce que nous ferons bien évidemment lors du débat sur
le fond. [Projection n o4.] Vous avez également constaté que le Costa Rica a assumé des
obligations internationales de protection de l’env ironnement dans le territoire que le Nicaragua a
occupé puis revendiqué en octobre 2010 128[fin de la projection n 4].
22. Il ne s’agit pas de la préservation in abstracto du droit du Costa Rica à la souveraineté
territoriale. Le titre de souveraineté ne se perd pas du fait de l’action destructrice de l’autre P artie.
Le but des mesures conservatoires est précisément d’éviter qu’un jugement sur le fond n’arrive trop
tard sur le plan des faits. C’est cela, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, la question fondamentale.
Peut-on demander au Costa Rica d’attendre un jugement qui, certes, constaterait sa souveraineté,
mais qui, sur le terrain, ne lui permettrait que de retrouver un territoire morcelé, coupé par des
canaux artificiels et même devenu en partie aquati que, si le Nicaragua parvient à dévier le
fleuve San Juan en territoire costa- ricien ? Si le Nicaragua réussit à imposer son action sur le
terrain, Isla Portillos deviendra alors un chapelet de plusieurs îlots séparés par les canaux construits
par le Nicaragua.
23. Si les mesures conservatoires ont un sens, que ce soit dans les ordres juridiques internes
ou en droit international devant votre haute juridiction, c’est précisément pour éviter que les droits
126Dénonciation du traité sino-belge du 2 novembre 1865, ordonnance du 8 janvier 1927, C.P.J.I. série A n8,
p. 7 ; texte en anglais : «as, however, in the event of an infraction . . . , such infraction could not be made good simply by
the payment of an indemnity or by compensation or restitut ion in some other material form».
127CR/2011/1, p. 36-52 (Kohen).
128
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 25-26, par. 80. - 54 -
en cause subissent une telle dégradation pendente lite. Il y va aussi d’une bonne administration de
la justice.
24. Mesdames et Messieurs les j uges, les conséquences d’un hypothétique rejet de la
demande en mesures conservatoires montrent ainsi plutôt l’urgence de les indiquer . Le Costa Rica
respecte et continuera de respecter votre ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 et , de ce fait, il se voit dans
l’impossibilité d’exercer sa souveraineté dans cette partie de son territoire. Le Nicaragua, qui a
modifié la situation existante en occupant le territoire, n’a pa s fait de même et continue d’envoyer
des agents g ouvernementaux, et en première ligne, le respons able des travaux, le
commandant Pastora, ainsi que de nombreux contingents de Nicaraguayens qui, de l’aveu même du
défendeur 12, s’adonnent à des activités soi -disant «environnementales». Par ailleurs, il est
curieux en réalité je devrais dire que tout cela est consternant il est curieux, Monsieur le
président, que depuis trois ans ces «environnementalistes» nicaraguayens continuent de planter des
arbres dans une région dont l’agent du Nicaragua ne perd jamais une occasion de minimiser
l’importance, en insistant sur son caractère inhabité, son étendue minuscule et sa nature de prétendu
«marécage» («swampland» en anglais) 130. Affirmation qui non seulement ne correspond pas tout à
fait à la réalité mais qui dissimule à peine une vision dépréciative des zones humides protégées et
qui prétend implicitement de ce fait sous-estimer la gravité de l’action nicaraguayenne en territoire
étranger.
25. Mesdames et Messieur s les j uges, dans la présente affaire, il n’est point nécessaire de
spéculer sur la probabilité, l’imminence ou la réalité d’un risque de préjudice ou de dommage
e
irréparable aux droits du Costa Rica. M Wordsworth vous l’a déjà expliqué. La jurisprudence a
considéré la condition d’urgence comme satisfaite lorsqu’ «il est probable qu’une action
préjudicielle aux droits de l’une ou de l’autre Partie sera commise avant » que la décision finale soit
129CMN, p. 395, par. 7.28, p. 396-397, par. 7.32, p. 400-401, par. 7.43.
130Voir CR 2011/2, p. 11-12, par. 20 (Argüello), note réf. HOL -EMB-193 en date du 10 octobre 2013 adressée
au greffier par l’agent du Nicaragua. - 55 -
rendue , ou lorsqu’il existerait un risque «réel» ou «imminent» qu’un préjudice irréparable à ces
132
droits se produise .
26. Ces préjudices ou dommages irrépar ables ne sont pas hypothétiques dans les
circonstances d’aujourd’hui : ils sont en train de se produire chaque jour qui passe . A vrai dire, le
seul risque qui demeure actuellement, c’est de voir ces dommages irréparables, sur une zon e
humide pour laquelle le Costa Rica a assumé des obligations internationales, de se perpétuer dans
le temps et de s’aggraver, au point de devenir définitifs. Pour toutes ces rais ons, Mesdames et
Messieurs les j uges, l’indication des mesures conservatoires demandées s’avère urgente et
indispensable.
C. Les mesures conservatoires du 8 mars 2011 ne sont pas suffisantes
27. Dans sa communication de vendredi soir, le Nicaragua soutient qu’il n’y a aucune raison
d’adopter d’autres mesures conservatoir es et que celles ordonnées par votre Cour le 8 mars 2011
133
seraient suffisantes . Je vais expliquer à présent pourquoi la situation actuelle exige l’indication
de nouvelles mesures conservatoires.
28. Il y a deux ans et demi, votre Cour a ordonné aux Parties de s’abstenir «d’envoyer ou de
maintenir sur le territoire litigieux, y compris le caño, des agents, qu’ils soient civils, de police ou
131Texte en anglais : «action prejudicial to the rights of either party is likely to be taken before such final decision
is given». Passage par le Grand Belt (Finlande c. Danemark), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 1991,
p. 17, par. 23. Texte en anglais : «Whereas provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute are indicated «pending
the final décision» of the Court on the merits of the case, and are therefore only justified if there is urgency in the sense
that action prejudicial to the rights of either party is likely to be taken before such final decision is given » ; Demande en
interprétation de l'arrêt du 15 juin 1962 en l'affaire du Temple de Préah Vihéar (Cambodge c. Thaïlande)
(Cambodge c. Thaïlande), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance, p. 12, par. 47 ; Certaines activités menées par le
Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance , p. 16, par. 63 ;
Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique c. Sénégal), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2009 , p. 152-153, par. 62 ; Application de la convention internationale sur l’élimination de
toutes les for mes de discrimination raciale (Géorgie c. Fédération de Russie), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance,
C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 392-393, par. 129 ; Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay),
mesures conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (I), p. 11, par. 32.
132Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 16, par. 64. Texte en anglais : «Whereas the power of the Court to
indicate provisional measures will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk
that irreparable prejudice may be caus ed to the rights in dispute before the Court has given its final decisionVoir
également Demande en interprétation de l'arrêt du 15 juin 1962 en l'affaire du Temple de Préah Vihéar (Cambodge c.
Thaïlande) (Cambodge c. Thaïlande), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance, p. 12, par. 47 ; Questions concernant
l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique c. Sénégal), mesures conservat oires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2009,
p. 152-153, par. 62 ; Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Ur uguay), mesures conservatoires ,
ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 13, par. 42.
133Note (réf. HOL-EMB-197) en date du 11 octobre 2013 adressée au greffier par l’agent du Nicaragua. - 56 -
134
de sécurité» . Que s’est-il passé ces dernières semaines ? Il ne s’agit pas d’une simple incursion
d’agents nicaraguayens en territoire « litigieux» qu’il faudrait donc éviter de reproduire à l’avenir .
Si tel avait été le cas, votre première mesure conservatoire aurait été suffisante. Non, Monsieur le
président, ce qui s’est passé, c’est que le Nicaragua a engagé une action d’envergure dans ce
territoire, avec des dragueurs et des tronçonneuses, et qui a requis des semaines pour être réalisée.
Il ne suffirait donc pas de rappeler aux Parties l’obligation existante de ne pas envoyer des agents,
il faudrait ordonner une mesure visant à ce que cesse tout travail de canalisation, dragage ou autre
sur le territoire litigieux, et à ce qu’il n’y en ait pas de nouveaux à l’avenir . Cela exige aussi que
soit indiqué le démantèlement de toute installation sur le territoire et l’abstention d’en introduire de
nouvelles pendentelite. Il en va de même pour le matériel grâce auquel les travaux de canalisation
ont été menés.
29. A ce propos, je voudrais, Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, attirer
votre attention sur un autre aspect important de la situation. Comme vous le savez, le Nicaragua
considère que ses citoyens sont en droit de se rendre sur le territoire litigieux et d’y poursuivre des
activités de prétendue protection de l’environnement 135. Ce n’est pas le moment d’examiner si
cette présence est licite ou non, si les comportements de ces personnes peuvent ou non être
attribués au Nicaragua. Nous le ferons au stade du fond. Supposons, aux fins du raisonnement sur
les mesures conservatoires, que les faits sont comme le présente le Nicarag ua, c’est-à-dire qu’il
s’agit d’une ONG, Guardabarranco, qui agit sans suivre les instructions du gouvernement, ou que
cette organisation ou ses composantes ne sont pas sous contrôle gouvernemental . Supposons, pour
les besoins de notre exposé, si l’équipement reste sur place, si les installations demeurent en l’état,
il n’y aura personne sur le territoire litigieux pour contrôler les agissements de ce groupe organisé
de Nicaraguayens ni la façon dont ils pourraient faire emploi de tels installations et équipements .
A nouveau, et indépendamment de l’analyse que l’on puisse faire de leur respect ou non par le
Nicaragua, les mesures conservatoires de 2011 ne pe uvent pas empêcher que des travaux de
canalisation ou autres ne se poursuivent ou ne soient repris.
134 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière ( Costa Rica c. Nicaragua),
mesures conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 27, par. 86, point 1 du dispositif.
135CMN, p. 390-398, par. 7.15-7.33. - 57 -
30. Pour toutes ces raisons, le Costa Rica vous prie respectueusement , Mesdames et
Messieurs les juges, d’indiquer les deux premières mesures conser vatoires demandées, à savoir
1) la suspension immédiate et inconditionnelle de tous travaux de dragage ou autres dans le
territoire litigieux et, en particulier, la cessation de tous travaux sur les deux nouveaux «caños»
artificiels, et 2) l’obligation, pour le Nicaragua, de retirer immédiatement du territoire litigieux tous
agents, installations (y compris celles de campement) et matériels (notamment de dragage) qui y
ont été introduits par lui-même ou par toute personne relevant de sa juridiction ou venant de son
territoire.
31. Dans votre ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, vous avez permis que des agents civils
costa-riciens chargés de la protection de l’environnement puissent être envoyés afin d’éviter qu’un
136
préjudice irréparable ne soit causé au territoire litigieu x . Jusqu’à maintenant, leurs visites n’ont
pu être que très brèves et affectées par une atmosphère de tension certaine motivée par la présence
des Nicaraguayens sur place, ceux -ci n’ayant pas hésité à maltraiter ledit personnel
137
environnemental lors de sa première visite . La troisième mesure conservatoire demandée par le
Costa Rica vise tout particulièrement le risque spécifique de préjudice irréparable résultant de la
présence des deux nouveaux canaux et le besoin d’entreprendre des travaux, afin d’évit er que la
déviation du fleuve San Juan en territoire costa- ricien ne devienne irrémédiable. Cela requiert
davantage que l’envoi de personnel en charge de l’environnement . Cela requiert la réalisation de
travaux d’une certaine importance afin de remédier à la situation, avec ce que cela nécessite en
termes de main-d’Œuvre et d’équipement. Ces travaux devraient se faire sans en traves ni menaces
d’aucun type.
32. L’accès à cette zone s’avère extrêmement difficile par voie terrestre du fait de l’absence
de routes dans la région et de la densité de la forêt . Le Nicaragua a récemment empêché l’accès
des agents environnementaux costa -riciens par voie fluviale, qui constitue la voie d’accès la plus
simple, sûre et rapide, arguant que cette navigation ne tombe p as sous le coup du droit costa-ricien
136Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2011(I), p. 27, par. 86, point 2 du dispositif.
137MCR, p. 268, par. 6.9. - 58 -
138
de libre navigation reconnu par le traité de limites de 1858 . De nouveau, ces questions feront
l’objet d’examen au stade du fond de cette affaire . Mais q uelle que soit l’interprétation que l’on
donne à ce droit de navigation, ce qui est vrai c’est que le Nicaragua ne devrait pas entraver
mais bien au contraire, devrait faciliter les travaux de remédiation afin d’éviter que les deux
nouveaux canaux n’entraînent de préjudices irréparables . Cela comprend l’accès à la région
litigieuse par le fleuve San Juan, sans préjudice des positions des Parties à l’égard de l’étendue du
droit costa-ricien de navigation.
D. Les «assurances» nicaraguayennes n’empêchent pas l’indication
de mesures conservatoires
33. Monsieur le président, mon collègue James Crawford vous a démontré les flagrantes
contradictions dans lesquelles le Nicaragua s’est enfermé en essayant de manière incongrue de
justifier un comportement de toute évidence injustifiable, niant d’abord la matérialité des faits pour
affirmer ensuite que son personnel s’est retiré et ne reviendra pas. Répétant ainsi exactement ce
139
qu’il avait déjà fait en 2011 au moment des mesures conservatoires précédentes . Mon estimé
collègue vous a aussi expliqué pourquoi les prétendue s «assurances» nicaraguayennes ne sont pas
recevables dans la présente instance.
34. Nous ne venons pas ici au début d’une affaire pour nous référer à un comportement passé
de l’Etat défendeur qui pourrait porter un préjudice irréparable aux droits reven diqués par le
demandeur. La réalité est, Monsieur le président, que le Nicaragua avait l’obligation établie par
votre Cour de s’abstenir d’envoyer du personnel à Isla Portillos et ne l’a pas fait . Ce n’est pas par
ailleurs la première fois que le délégué gouvernemental pour les Œuvres du fleuve San Juan, le
138Note en date du 18 septembre 2013 adressée au ministre des affaires étrangères du Costa Rica, M. Castillo par
le ministre des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua, M. Santos, (demande du Costa Rica en indication de nouvelles mesures
conservatoires, annexe5) ; demande du Costa Rica, par. 18.
139
CR 2011/2, p. 13, par. 28 (Argüello) ; CR 2011/4, p. 37, par. 15 (Argüello) ; Reply of th e Republic of
Nicaragua to the question put by Judges Simma, Bennouna and Greenwood at the end of the hearing on provisional
measures requested by Costa Rica in the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), 18 January 2011, Ref. 18012011-01 ; Comments by Costa Rica on the Reply of Nicaragua to
the question put by Judges Simma, Bennouna and Greenwood at the end of the hearing on provisional measures
requested by Costa Rica in the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa
Rica v. Nicaragua), 20 January 2011, Ref. ECRPB-017-11 ; MCR, annexe 233. - 59 -
commandant Edén Pastora, pénètre sur le territoire litigieux, comme nous l’avons prouvé dans nos
rapports à la Cour sur la mise en Œuvre des mesures conservatoires 140.
35. La note que le Nica ragua a envoyée à la Cour le 10 octobre 2013, qui dresse un tableau
selon lequel le gouvernement du président Ortega semblait ignorer les activités du délégué
gouvernemental Edén Pastora et de son équipe de dragueurs, renforce en réalité le besoin
d’indiquer des mesures conservatoires 141. En supposant même que cette ignorance inexcusable fût
vraie, elle témoignerait de l’incapacité du Nicaragua d’empêcher que ses propres organes entrent en
territoire litigieux et s’adonnent à des activités de large envergure.
o
36. L’a ffirmation de dernière minute du Nicaragua [projection n 5] selon laquelle son
président aurait ordonné à Edén Pastora et son équipe de quitter la zone «contestée» le
142
21 septembre 2013 se heurte, à supposer que ce soit vrai, à un problème supplémentaire : pour le
délégué gouvernemental aux travaux de dragage du San Juan, M. Pastora, [fin de la projection n o 5]
o
[projection n 6] la zone des nouveaux canaux ne fait pas partie du territoire litigieux, comme il l’a
expliqué dans son entretien télévisé reproduit comme annexe PM -31, dont vous voyez un extrait à
l’écran. Dès lors, compte tenu des instructions du président Daniel Ortega de continuer les travaux
143
de «nettoyage» du delta du San Juan à l’exception de la zone litigieuse et de l’interprétation de
son délégué Edén Pastora quant à l’étendue du delta et de la zone objet du différend, il existe un
risque que des travaux de déforestation, d’excavation et de dragage se poursuivent dans la zone
nord de Isla Portillos si les mesures demandées ne sont pas ordonnées [fin de la projection n o6].
37. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, vous avez indiqué des mesures conservatoires le
8 mars 2011 [projection n o7] parce que, parmi d’autres raisons, le Nicaragua avait mentionné qu’il
144
comptait faire des travaux de replan tation d’arbres dans la zone aujourd’hui litigieuse . Votre
140
Rapport du Costa Rica à la Cour internationale de Justice, note réf. ECRPB-026 en date 3 juillet 2012.
141
Note (réf. HOL-EMB-193) en date du 10 octobre adressée au greffier par l’agent du Nicaragua.
142Note (réf. SPPN-E-13-712) en date du 21 septembre 2013 adressée au président de l’autorité portuaire par le
secrétaire des politiques publiques nationales, ote réf. HOL-EMB-197 en date du 11 octobre 2013 de l’ agent du
Nicaragua. Annexe 6.
143 Note (réf. SPPN-E-13-712) en date du 21 septembre 2013 adressée au président de l’autorité nationale
portuaire par le secrétaire des politiques nationales, n ote réf. HOL-EMB-197 en date du 11 octobre 2013 de l’agent du
Nicaragua. Annexe 6.
144 Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 23-24, par. 72 et p. 24, par. 75. - 60 -
mesure visait à empêcher cela. Le Nicaragua s’est engagé depuis lors, et l’a répété vendredi
o
dernier même, à respecter votre ordonnance. Que s’est -il passé en réalité ? [Projection n 7] Le
Nicaragua a recouru à une «argutie», à savoir que la mesure conservatoire empêcherait les agents,
mais pas les citoyens nicaraguayens d’entrer en territoire litigieux et de planter des arbres. Le
Nicaragua vous a dit que les travaux dans la région litigieu se étaient finis 145 [fin de la projection
o o
n 7]. [Projection n 8.] La réalité démontre le contraire et le Costa Rica est malheureusement dans
l’obligation de vous en informer régulièrement 146 [fin de la projection n 8].
38. L’information du Nicaragua transmise à la Cour jeudi et vendredi derniers, selon laquelle
son personnel serait parti et qu’il ne reviendra pas, s’inscrit clairement dans sa volonté d’obtenir de
vous, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, de laisser la situation en l’état actuel que le Nicaragua a
créé. James Crawford vous a amplement montré les effets et le degré de crédibilité que ces
informations méritent. L’expérience a déjà été faite, Monsieur le président. Ce qui est en jeu n’est
pas seulement la préservation des droits du Costa Rica pendente lite. Il y va aussi du respect dû à
la juridiction internationale.
Conclusions
39. J’arrive maintenant à mes conclusions. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs
les juges, si vous n’indiquez pas les mesures conservatoires demandées, le Costa Rica recevra,
lorsque vous rendrez votre décision sur le fond, un territoire, dans le meilleur des cas, dont la
configuration aura été substantiellement modifiée et morcelée et, dans le pire des cas, aura en outre
une partie de sa surface irrémédiablement submergée sous les eaux du fleuve San Juan.
40. [Projection n o 9] La convention de Ramsar débute avec le constat que «les zones humides
constituent une ressource de grande valeur économique, culturelle, scientifique et récréative, dont
la disparition serait irréparable» 147. Chacun et chacune appréciera le traitement que le Nicaragua
145
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 23, par. 71.
146Rapports présentés par le Costa Rica à la Cour internationale de Justice : le 8 avril 2011, réf. ECRPB-029-11 ;
le 13 avril 2011, réf. ECRPB-030-11 ; le 23 juin 2011, réf. ECRPB-039-11 ; le 3 juillet 2012, réf. ECRPB-026-12 ; le
21 novembre 2012, réf. ECRPB-045-12 et le 15 mars 2013, réf. ECRPB-016-13.
147 Convention relative au x zones humides d’importance internationale particulièrement comme habitats de la
sauvagine (convention de Ramsar), 2 février 1971, entrée en vigueur le 21 décembre 1975, NationsUnies, Recueil des
traités, vol. 245, p. 996. - 61 -
inflige pendente lite à une zone humide inscrite comme telle par le Costa Rica [fin de la projection
n 9].
41. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, les mesures conservatoires demandées ne cherchent
pas à rompre un quelconque équilibre entre les P arties pendant la décision sur le fond. Au
contraire, c’est leur indication qui permettra de maintenir cet équilibre, rompu par la construction
par le Nicaragua de ces deux canaux su r le territoire litigieux alors que la phase écrite de l’affaire
est terminée, et dans l’attente des audiences et de la décision sur le fond . Le Costa Rica ne
demande pas davantage que le maintien de la situation factuelle telle qu’elle existait au début de
l’affaire pendant la décision sur le fond.
42. Je vous remercie de l’attention que vous nous avez portée , Monsieur le président,
Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, tout au long de cette matinée. Merci.
The PRESIDENT : Thank you, Professor Kohen. This brings to an end today’s sitting. The
Court will meet again tomorrow , Tuesday 15 October , at 10 a.m. to hear the first round of oral
argument of Nicaragua. Any decision which the Court may take as far as the procedure is
concerned will be communicated to the Parties. Thank you.
The sitting is adjourned.
The Court rose at 12.55 p.m.
___________
Public sitting held on Monday 14 October 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the cases concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)