Corrigé
Corrected
*
CR 2013/28
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2013
Public sitting
held on Tuesday 5 November 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Tomka presiding,
in the cases concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua
in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)
________________
VERBATIM RECORD
________________
ANNÉE 2013
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 5 novembre 2013, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Tomka, président,
dans les affaires relatives à Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan
(Nicaragua c. Costa Rica) ; Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua
dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua)
____________________
COMPTE RENDU
____________________
*Reissued for technical reasons Nouveau tirage pour raisons techniques. - 2 -
Present: President Tomka
Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor
Judges Owada
Abraham
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
Abraham
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 Nicaragua is represented by:
H.E. Mr. CarlosJosé Argüello Gómez, Ambassador of Nicaragua to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
as Agent and Counsel;
Mr. Stephen C. McCaffrey, Professor of International Law at the University of the Pacific,
McGeorge Sch ool of Law, Sacramento, former M ember and former Chairm an of the
International Law Commission,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University Paris Ouest, Nanterre -La Défense, former member and
former Chairman of the International Law Commission, member of the 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., member of the Bars of the United
States Supreme Court, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
as Counsel;
Mr. EdgardoSobenes Obregon, 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 United States Supreme
Court, the District of Columbia and New York,
as Assistant Counsel;
Ms Sherly Noguera, Consul General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
as Assistant. - 5 -
Le Gouvernement du Nicaragua est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. CarlosJosé ArgüelloGómez, 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 School of Law de
l’Université du Pacifique à Sacramento (Etats- Unis d’Amérique), ancien membre et ancien
président de la Commission du droit international,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de Paris Ouest (Nanterre-La Défense), ancien membre et
ancien président de la Commission du droit international, membre de l’Institut de droit
international,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP ( 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 au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Claudia Loza Obregon, premier secrétaire à l’ambassade du Nicaragua au Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
M. Benjamin Samson, chercheur, C entre 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 de la Cour suprême des Etats- Unis d’Amérique, du district de Columbia et de
New York,
comme conseils adjoints;
Mme Sheryl Noguera, consul général, ministère des affaires étrangères du Nicaragua,
comme assistante. - 6 -
The Government of Costa Rica is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Edgar Ugalde Álvarez, Ambassador of Costa R ica 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, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of C osta Rica,
Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration,
as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr. Marcelo Kohen, Professor of International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva; 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 at the Costa Rican Embassy in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Katherine Del Mar, Ph.D., Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies,
Geneva,
Mr. Rowan Nicholson, Research Assistant, Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, University of
Cambridge,
as Advisers. - 7 -
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,
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 principal auprès du ministère d es affaires étrangères et du culte du
Costa Rica, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,
comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;
M. Marcelo Kohen, professeur de droit international à l’Institut de hautes études internationales 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,
Mme Katherine Del Mar, titulaire d’un doctorat de l’Institut de hautes études internationales et du
développement de Genève,
M. Rowan Nicholson, assistant de recherche au Lauterpacht Centre for International Law de
l’Université de Cambridge,
comme conseillers. - 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 Nicaragua in the case concerning
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). This
case was joined with the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border
Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), by two separate Orders of the Court dated 17 April 2013.
Each of the Parties in the present case, the Republic of Nicaragua and the Republic of Costa
Rica, has availed itself of the possibility afforded to it by Article 31 of the Statute of the Court to
choose a judge ad hoc. Nicaragua chose Mr. Gilbert Guillaume and Costa Rica chose
Mr. Bruno Simma. By a communication dated 17 April 2013, Mr. Simma informed the Court of
his decision to resign from his functions, further to the aforementioned joinder of proceedings.
It is recalled that, in the case concer ning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the
Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Costa Rica chose Mr. John Dugard and Nicaragua,
Mr. GilbertGuillaume. Judges Guillaume and Dugard were each installed as judge ad hoc in 2011,
during the phase of that case devoted to the Request for the indication of provisional measures
submitted by the Republic of Costa Rica on 18 November 2010, and continue to sit for the
purposes of all phases of the joint proceedings.
*
I shall now briefly recall the p rocedure so far followed in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica
case — case relating to Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River . On
22 December 2011, the Government of Nicaragua filed in the Registry of the Court an Application
instituting proc eedings against the Government of Costa Rica for “violations of Nicaraguan
sovereignty and major environmental damages on its territory”, contending, in particular, that
Costa Rica was carrying out major works along most of the border area between the two countries
along the San Juan River, namely the construction of a road, with grave environmental
consequences. - 9 -
By an Order of 23 January 2012, the Court fixed 19 December 2012 and 19 December 2013,
in light of the agreement reached between the Parties, as the respective time-limits for the filing of
a Memorial by Nicaragua and a Counter-Memorial by Costa Rica. Nicaragua’s Memorial was filed
within the time-limit thus prescribed.
On 11 October 2013, Nicaragua filed in the Registry a Request for the i ndication of
provisional measures in the present case. Nicaragua clarified that it was not seeking the
modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, but rather “the adoption of new provisional measures
linked with the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case”.
The Registrar immediately communicated a copy of the said request to the Government of
Costa Rica.
Nicaragua, in outlining the facts which led it to bring the present request, states that “Costa
Rica has repeatedly refused to give Nicaragua appropriate information on the road works” and “has
denied that it has any obligation to prepare an E nvironmental Impact Assessment or to provide
such a document to Nicaragua”. Nicaragua contends that,
“[a]s the rainy season enters into its heaviest stage washing even greater quan tities of
sediment and run- off into the river’s waters, Costa Rica has still not provided the
necessary information to Nicaragua, nor has it taken the necessary actions along the
160 km road to avoid or mitigate the irreparable damage that is being infl[i] cted on the
river and its surrounding environment, including on navigation and the health and
wellbeing of the population living along its margins”.
I shall now ask the Registrar to read out the passage from the Request specifying the
provisional measures which the Government of Nicaragua is asking the Court to indicate.
Monsieur le Greffier, vous avez la parole.
The REGISTRAR: Merci.
“Nicaragua, therefore, respectfully requests the Court, as a matter of urgency to
prevent further damage to the River and to avoid aggravation of the dispute, to order
the following provisional measures:
(1) that Costa Rica immediately and unconditionally provides Nicaragua with the
Environmental Impact Assessment Study and all technical reports and assessments
on the measures necessary to mitigate significant environmental harm to the River;
(2) that Costa Rica immediately takes the following emergency measures:
(a) Reduce the rate and frequency of road fill failure slumps and landslides where
the road crosses the steeper hill slopes, especially in locations where failed or - 10 -
eroded soil materials have been or could potentially be delivered to the Río
San Juan.
(b) Eliminate or significantly reduce the risk of future erosion and sediment
delivery at all stream crossings along Route 1856.
(c) Immediately reduce road surface erosion and sediment delivery by improving
dispersion of concentrated road runoff and increasing the number and
frequency of road drainage structures.
(d) Control surface erosion and resultant sedimen t delivery from bare soil areas
that were exposed during clearing, grubbing and construction activities in the
last several years.
(3) Order Costa Rica not to renew any construction activities of the road while the
Court is seised of the present case.”
The PRESIDENT: Merci. 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 proceedi ng to a decision on the request as a
matter of urgency. 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 t he Request for the indication of provisional measures, had been set at
5 November 2013, at 10 a.m.
I note the presence at the hearing of the Agents, c ounsel and Advocates of both Parties. In
accordance with the arrangements on the organization of the pro cedure 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. These are of course maximum speaking times, that the Parties ought not to use if not
necessary.
Nicaragua will present its first round of oral observations on its request for the indication of
provisional measures this morning. Costa Rica will present its first round of ora l observations on
that request on Wednesday 6 November, at 10 a.m.
Nicaragua will then present its second round of oral observations on Thursday 7 November
at 10 a.m., for a maximum speaking time of one -and-a-half hours. Costa Rica will then present its
second round of oral observations on Friday 8 November at 10 a.m., also for a maximum speaking
time of ninety minutes. - 11 -
The PRESIDENT:
Before giving the floor to His Excellency Ambassador Carlos ArgüelloGómez, Agent of
Nicaragua, I shall draw the attention of the Parties to Practice Direction XI, which states, inter alia,
that Parties should:
“[i]n the 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.”
So the purpose of this hearing is to provide an opportunity to the Parties to addres s the
request of Nicaragua to indicate provisional measures in Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). The Court has already closed the arguments
on the request of Costa Rica for the indication of provisional measures in Certain Activities carried
out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), on 17 October 2013 and it is in an
advanced stage of its deliberation. You will shortly hear from the Registrar of the Court and the
Parties will be convened to this Great Hall for the purpose of the delivery of the Order by the Court
in that case. I shall now give the floor to His Excellency Ambassador CarlosArgüello Gómez,
Agent of Nicaragua. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. ARGÜELLO GÓMEZ:
1. Mr. President, Distinguished Members of the Court . Good morning. As always it is a
great honour to address you on behalf of my country.
2. I should add at the start that I would have preferred to have had this honour of addressing
Nicaragua’s request for pr ovisional measures that is now under consideration, during the previous
hearings of last October . This is not to say that we do not understand the reasons for having
separate hearings, particularly in view of the fact that Nicaragua introduced its request at a late
stage.
3. This deserves an explanation. This was no last moment add- on. During the previous
request for provisional measures filed by Costa Rica, Nicaragua presented a letter to the Court on
10 October 2013 accepting the facts as generally claimed and indicating that the situation had been - 12 -
immediately stopped once the President of Nicaragua became aware of it, and that steps had been
taken to avoid any recurrence of these events.
4. Our view of the situation was that with this explanation the request for new provisional
measures requested by Costa Rica had become moot and that it might be withdrawn. It was only
after Costa Rica rejected as insufficient the statement by Nicaragua and insisted that the hearings
continue that we determined to f ile our own petition for provisional measures with the intention
that they be pleaded during those hearings . The reason of joining Nicaragua’s request to that of
Costa Rica was due to the fact that Nicaragua wanted to avoid the expense and inconvenience f or
the Members of the Court of having separate public hearings . As can be appreciated from a brief
summary of the procedural history in the short review below, Nicaragua had already made several
attempts to obtain some form of protection of its rights without going through the formal process of
public hearings.
5. Unfortunately this has not been possible and we must inevitably tax the Court’s time.
Effect of the joinder of the two cases
6. Mr. President, the present hearings involve in one way or anothe r two cases presently
before the Court that have been joined by the Order of 17 April 2013. One case was brought by
Costa Rica against Nicaragua ( the Certain Activities case) by means of an Application filed by
1
Costa Rica on 18 November 2010 and the other case was brought by Nicaragua against Costa Rica
(the Construction of a Road case) by means of an Application filed on 22 December 2011 2.
7. For this reason, please allow me to reiterate the statement made in our letter of
11 October 2013 requesting the provisional measures now under consideration. This letter stated:
“Nicaragua would like to point out that although it has filed a case against Costa
3
Rica for the construction of a Road (Road 1856) , the damage done to the River by the
construction of t his road also constitutes an independent aggravation of the dispute
under consideration in the case concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica). The damages caused by the road
are an inextricable part of the case concerning Certain Activities carried out by
Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), as explained in Nicaragua’s
1Available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/150/16279.pdf .
2Available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/152/16917.pdf.
3
See the Application of the Republic of Nicaragua instituting Proceedings against the Republic of Costa Rica,
21 December 2011. - 13 -
pleadings, Costa Rica’s road works have caused a surge in the San Juan River’s
sediment load requiring Nicarag ua to take active efforts, including dredging, to
maintain the quality and quantity of the river’s waters.” 4
8. This was also the reason why in my Agent’s speech during the hearings for Costa Rica’s
5
request for new provisional measures in the Certain Acti vities case on 15 October last , I pointed
out the damages caused by the roadwork and the need to put a stop to this day-to-day destruction of
the river system . What I stated in that speech is equally applicable during these hearings for
provisional measures in what Nicaragua understands are joined cases.
Background of the dispute
Certain Activities case: territorial dispute
9. In the Certain Activities case, Costa Rica claims sovereignty over a wetland of
approximately 250 hectares located at the mouth of the San Juan de Nicaragua River which
Nicaragua also considers part of its sovereign territory.
6
10. The area in dispute was demarcated in the first Alexander Award . In the pertinent part
the Arbitrator declares that the initial line of the boundary w as to run as follows:
“Its direction shall be due northeast and southwest, across the bank of sand,
from the Caribbean Sea into the waters of Harbor -Head Lagoon. It shall pass, at its
nearest point, three hundred (300) feet on the northwest side from the small hut now
standing in the vicinity.”
11. On the screen [ tab 1] we can observe that this line crosses the sand bank already in
existence since that time, leaving sovereignty over it on the Nicaraguan side, and then the line runs
into Harbor Head Lagoon, from where, the Award states:
“the boundary line shall turn to the left, or south eastward, and shall follow the water’s
edge around the harbor, until it reaches the river proper by the first channel met . Up
this channel, and up the river proper, the line shall continue to ascend as directed in
the treaty.”
12. For Nicaragua this means that the first channel or caño is located inside Harbor Head
Lagoon and from there it runs into the river proper. For Costa Rica the first channel runs out to the
sea and not into the river.
4
Letter from the Republic of Nicaragua to the International Court of Justice, dated 11 October 2013,
Ref: HOL-EMB-196.
5Available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/150/17588.pdf.
6
First Award by the Umpir e E.P. Alexander rendered on 30 September 1897 in San Juan del Norte, Nicaragua,
United Nations, Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA), Vol.XXVIII, p. 220 (MCR, Vol. II, Ann. 9, p. 69). - 14 -
13. This difference of opinion crystallized into the territorial dispute over the 250 hectares of
swampland [tab 1 off].
Certain Activities case: dredging and cleaning of the San Juan and its channels
14. The other claim of Costa Rica in that case is that Nicaragua should cease any dredging
activities in the last 30 kilometers before the r iver reaches the sea, and to cease all activity in any
other part of the river that could cause damage to Costa Rican territory.
15. This question has been at the heart of most disputes with Costa Rica over the San Juan
River for over 150 years. At present, approximately 90 per cent of the waters of the Nicaraguan
San Juan River find their outlet to the sea through the branch of the Colorado River that runs
entirely in Costa Rican territory . Nicaragua’s position is that the Jerez -Cañas Treaty of 1858 and
the Cleveland Award of 1888 make clear that Nicaragua has a right to dredge the r iver and its
channels to maintain the situation in place in 1858.
Provisional measures
16. As a corollary to its Application instituting proceedings against Nicaragua, Costa Rica
also filed a request for provisional measures . The Court decided to o rder certain measures on
8 March 2011. One of these measures was that
“Each Party shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the
dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.”
Construction of a Road case
17. After this Order on provisional measures was given, Costa Rica embarked on the
construction of an extremely damaging and environmentally destructive road, which its President
hastily authorized by emergency decree. In building the road, Costa Rica bypassed its normal
vetting processes, and failed to carry out an Environmenta l Impact Assessment . The inevitable
result was shoddy design and construction condemned by Costa Rica’s own Association of
Engineers and Architects 7 amounting to an environmental nightmare. What I want to emphasize
See Ann. 4 to the Memorial of the Republic of Ni caragua in the case concerning the Construction of a Road in
Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 19 December2012. - 15 -
is that the damages to the San Juan River and its protected wetlands caused by the roadwork
prompted Nicaragua to bring a case against Costa Rica before the Court on 22 December 2011.
18. The construction of this road was justified, according to Costa Rica, for security reasons
subsequent to the activities in the disputed territory . On the basis of an emergency decree this road
was constructed without environmental impact assessment and without any elementary
environmental precautions or regard for good neighbourliness.
19. In fact the reckless and unfriendly construction of the road was largely a product of spite.
This is exemplified by the statement of the second Vice- President of Costa Rica, Alfio Piva, who
indicated that since the new road being constructed made the r iver unnecessary for Costa Ricans,
8
he called upon Nicaraguan’s to “eat the San Juan [River]” .
20. The fact that the road was designed and executed without any environmental
considerations, or concern for the risks to the contiguous territory of Nicaragua, has been
acknowledged by the highest authorities of Costa Rica . On 13 December 2011, the President of
Costa Rica, Ms Laura Chinchilla, declared that Costa Rica “ issued an emergency decree due to
national necessity and it is on that basis that we have developed the pro jects. We are not taking
even one step back.” 9 Accordingly, President Chinchilla concluded, Costa Rica has “no reason to
10
offer explanations to the Government of Nicaragua” .
21. Foreign Minister of Costa Rica, Minister Castillo, stated also with Olympia n disregard
that his country is not obligated to give any kind of explanation, “ nor to suspend its work being
carried out as a consequence of an emergency provoked by Nicaragua” and declared : “This is a
sovereign project we are carrying out under a decree that exempts us from environmental impact
studies, that is why we owe no explanations ”, confirming that behind these projects there is no
study for mitigating environmental damage in the zone 1.
8
El Nuevo Diario, Nicaragua, “Costa Rican Vice- President suggests eating the San Juan”, 23 January 2012
(CMN, Vol. III, Ann. 102).
9Memorial of the Republic of Nicaragua in the case concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along
the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Ann. No. 24, El País, Costa Rica “Chinchilla defends highway criticized
by Nicaragua, rejects dialogue”,Wednesday 14 December 2011. (Source: EFE / 13 December 2011.)
10Ibid.
11
Ibid. - 16 -
Impact of the road
22. The road was cut parallel and perilously close to the right margin of the San Juan River
without any consideration of the environmental consequences even inside Costa Rica, and even in
violation of Costa Rica’s internal law that prohibits such constructions within 50 meters of a river.
This disregard of all caution and legal obligations has been confirmed by Costa Rica’s
Administrative Environmental Court 12 and the reports issued by Costa Rica’s Association of
Engineers and Architects (CFIA) and Costa Rica’s National Laboratory (LANAMME) among
others issued by Costa Rica’s institutions and international experts 13. If no regard was taken of the
Costa Rican environment on the basis of a decree of a dubious national emergency, then what
regard could be expected for Nicaraguan territory and environment?
23. For example, Costa Rica’s Association of Engineers and Architects have indicated that
the destruction of the vegetation along the right bank of the river, together with the creation of
unstable, unprotected slopes and a lack of proper drainage , result in both increased land collapse,
and excessive erosion and sediment run -off into the San Juan de Nicaragua River which aggravate
the obstacles to navigating the river, and concluded that the road construction project may
14
negatively impact the abil ity of Costa Ricans to navigate the r iver . This is Costa Rica’s
Association of Engineers and Architects.
24. The reports of these independent Costa Rican institutions contrasts entirely with the
self-serving conclusions of the reports of the g overnmental institutions filed by Costa Rica
yesterday and on which we will comment shortly.
25. The Court has already had an opportunity of viewing some of the images taken from the
roadwork. A short reminder is on screen [tab 2]. [Tab 2 off]
12
Costa Rica’s Administrative Environmental Court confirmed excessive felling of trees and found clearings that
were more than eight times the established width of the roaSee more at El País, Costa Rica, “Environmental Court
Confirmed Excessive Felling for Construction of 1856 Trail”, 15 July2012. (MN, Vol.II, Ann. 37.)
13See e.g. the Costa Rican Environmental Management Plan, April 2012, pp. 22-23 (MN, Vol. II, Ann. 2), CFIA
Report DRD-INSP-0299-2012, 8 June 2012, pp. 15-17 (noting the existence of high, nearly vertical slopes without
protection of any kind) (MN, Vol. II, Ann. 4) and LANAMME Report, pp. 49 & 51 (MN, Vol. II, Ann. 3), “First Kondolf
Report”, July 2012, Sect . 2.14 (App. 1 to the Counter -Memorial of Nicaragua (CMN) in the dispute concerning Certain
Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)), Kondolf Report, e.g., Sect . 6 (MN,
Vol. II, Ann. 1). See also Kondolf Report “Confirmation of Urgent Measures to Mitigate Erosion & Sediment Delivery
from Rte 1856, Costa Rica, into the Río San Juan, Nicaragua, 12 October 2013” and Kondolf Report “ Planning &
Geography, University of California, Berkeley Continued Impacts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the Río San
Juan, Nicaragua, 30 October 2013”.
14Memorial of the Republic of Nicaragua in the case concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along
the San Juan River ( Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), para. 4.15 - 17 -
26. The consequences of this reckless disregard of the environment and of the territory of its
neighbour is noted in the report of ProfessorKondolf, that points out that,
“The poor siting of the road across steep, unstable hill slopes and in close
proximity to the river, was compounded by poor construction practices, which in the
United States and Europe were used in the 1950s but have been illegal for decades.” 15
27. In Spanish we have a saying “para muestra un boton” that loosely translated into English
might read “as an example a button is enough” . On the screen we will shortly see an incident that
occurred 10 days ago that evidences the poor construction practices pointed out by
Professor Kondolf. The incident involves not a small button but a large culvert that was washed
away into the San Juan River after an average rainfall . The persons you will see on the screen
collecting the debris and breaking it up for transportation are personnel from MARENA, the
environmental agency of Nicaragua. The place where the destro yed culvert was found was not
immediately in the area where it had been located . It was some distance from its original
emplacement. On screen we have a short version of the cleaning up of the culvert debris [tab 3].
28. You must have noted that the rem ainder of the culvert s hown on the screen was not
home-made, like many that have been placed along the route (for example, adapted truck
containers), but it was a regular custom-made culvert and that it was washed out quite a distance
from its original emplacement after only a normal rainfall . [Tab 3 off] What would happen to the
more numerous home-made versions during the frequent tropical storms that beset the region? In
any case there are not many left to test the issue. As reported in the Costa Rica n news media,
“The evidence that the bridges and culverts were improperly built is that almost all of them
16
do no longer exist.”
Actions taken by Nicaragua to preserve its rights
29. Mr. President, the mechanisms open for a State to attempt to preserve its rights when it is
faced by illegal activities of another S tate are not only those contemplated in Articles 41 of the
Statute and 73 of the Rules of Court, even if the preservation of its rights are a matter of urgency
15Kondolf Report “ Continued Impacts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the Río San Juan, Nicaragua,
30 October 2013”, p. 1.
16
See “Another bridge collapsed on the Trail Parallel to the San Juan River, Noticia Contacto, 15 July 2,13”
available at http://www.radiosantaclara.org/article/se-desplomo-otro-puente-en-la-tr…-
r/#sthash.cckqFqXf.dpuf. - 18 -
and could result in irreparable pr ejudice. There are bilateral procedures, requests addressed to
international organizations and also the possibility for the Court itself to take action proprio motu.
30. Nicaragua has tried all of these approaches before deciding to request these measur es
through the formal mechanisms involved in these hearings.
Bilateral measures
31. Since the magnitude of the roadwork first became evident, Nicaragua has been
requesting that Costa Rica furnish it with an Environmental Impact Assessment.
32. On 29 November 2011, the acting Foreign Minister of Nicaragua sent a Note to his Costa
Rican counterpart requesting information on the road under construction and pointing out,
“(a) that all projects of this nature should have an Environmental Impact Assessment
17
due to their characteristics” .
33. This Assessment has never been furnished to Nicaragua. According to the statements
cited above by the President of Costa Rica and the Foreign Minister, the environmental impact
assessment was never even made. This is r ecognition of a violation of Costa Rica’s international
obligations.
Communications to international organizations
34. In view of this blatant disregard by Costa Rica of its international obligations not only
stemming from general principles of internatio nal law but also on specific Conventions to which it
is a party, Nicaragua took the steps it had ready at hand to try to obtain Costa Rican compliance
18
with its obligations . As indicated in Nicaragua’s Memorial , it proceeded to inform the
Secretariats of these several Conventions about the major environmental threats due to the
activities underway in Costa Rica. Nicaragua sent Notes to Unesco, since it relates to a Biosphere
Reserve recognized by that entity, the RAMSAR Secretariat since it also relates t o wetlands
recognized under this Convention, as well as to the United Nations Environmental Program
(UNEP) and the regional Central American Commission on Environment and Development
1Memorial of the Republic of Nicaragua in the case concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along
the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Ann. No. 14, Note from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua to
the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica, Ref: MRE/DVM/AJST/500/11/11, Managua, 29 November 2011.
18
Memorial of the Republic of Nicaragua in the case concerning the Const ruction of a Road in Costa Rica along
the San Juan River ( Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), para. 2.34-2.37. - 19 -
(CCAD), since Nicaragua has the obligation of informing them about the da mage and imminent
19
threats to our natural patrimony in the biosphere reserve at Río San Juan . These Notes also
request these international organizations to send an investigative mission to visit the affected area
and assess on the ground the harms and pot ential harms caused by Costa Rica’s violations of the
20
applicable Conventions .
Requests to the Court for ordering measures on the basis of its statutory powers
35. Since this had no effect, Nicaragua proceeded to request to the Court to order measures
on the basis of its statutory powers. When Nicaragua filed its Application instituting proceedings
against Costa Rica for the roadwork on 22 December 2011, it accompanied a Note that stated,
“(a) In its Application Nicaragua has made clear that Costa Rica is carrying out major
construction works along most of the border area with Nicaragua with grave
environmental consequences without producing and communicating to Nicaragua
an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) that would permit an evaluation of the
works.
(b) For this reason, Nicaragua has requested that the Court on the basis of its statutory
powers order that Costa Rica produce and communicate to Nicaragua such
document. Given the evident importance of the EIA in the circumstances of this
case, Nicaragua considers that the exercise of these powers by the Court at this
time would be amply justified.”
36. Again, when Nicaragua filed its Memorial on 19 December 2012, in the submissions it
requested the Court
“to order Costa Rica to immediately take the emergency measures recommended by
its own experts and further detailed in the Kondolf Report, in order to alleviate or
mitigate the continuing damage being caused to the San Juan de Nicaragua River and
the surrounding environment . If Costa Rica does not of itself proceed to take these
measures and the Court considers it cannot order that it be done without the full
procedure contemplated in Articles 73 et seq. of the Rules of Court, the Republic of
Nicaragua reserves its right to request provisional measure s on the basis of Article 41
of the Statute and the pertinent procedures of Articles 73 and ff. of the Rules of Court
and to amend and modify these submissions in the light of the further pleadings in this
case.”
37. In a Note dated 19 December 2012 accompanying its Memorial, Nicaragua explained
that it considered,
1Ibid., Anns. Nos. 18, 19 and 21 . Notes sent from the Minister of Environment of Nicaragua and Natural
Resources (MARENA), to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), Central American Commission on
Environment and Development (CCAD) and Unesco, on the 10 December 2011.
2Ibid, Ann. No. 20. Note from the Minister of Environment of Nicaragua and Natural Resources (MARENA), to
the Secretary General, RAMSAR Convention, 28 November 2011. - 20 -
“that the Court has been provided with the necessary information in order to decide
‘proprio motu whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of
provisional measures’, without having to go through the costly and lengthy exercise of
public hearings”.
38. The attempts by Nicaragua to avoid ti me-consuming and expensive formal hearings
came to an end when it received a communication dated 11 March 2013 from the Registrar
informing 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 under Article 7 5
of the Rules of Court to indicate provisional measures proprio motu.
39. Even after this rejection Nicaragua made one further attempt to avoid formal hearings by
using the request made by Costa Rica on 23 May 2013 for the modification of the Order of
8 March 2011. In its written observations to this request of 14 June 2013, Nicaragua asked the
Court to reject Costa Rica’s request and at the same time requested that the Court adapt its Order of
8 March 2011 in order to embrace the situation of the joined cases and particularly to take into
account the situation created bythe roadwork.
40. In its Order of 16 July 2013 the Court rejected Nicaragua’s request indicating that:
“even if the situation invoked in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case were to justify the
indication of provisional measures, the appropriate method of sec uring that is not the
modification of the Order [of 8 March 2011] made in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua
case” .1
41. With this communication it became clear to Nicaragua that the Court would only
consider Nicaragua’s request for provisional measures, if this was made in a formal request on the
basis of Article 41 of the Statute and 73 of the Rules of Court.
Renewal of the roadwork
42. Apart from all other procedural doors being closed to Nicaragua’s attempt to avoid
prejudice to its rights, another perilous situation came looming again. That is the fact that public
announcements have been made by Costa Rican authorities that the roadwork would be continued
at the end of this year . This announcement, coupled to the fact that there will be general elections
in Costa Rica in February 2014, and that repeated statements have been made by the Costa Rican
Government that it intends to finish its term of office with the roadwork finished or in full process
2Order of 16 July 2013 regarding the Request for the Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 indicating
Provisional Measures, p. 9, para. 28, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/150/17500.pdf. - 21 -
of construction before the new Government is sworn in on Ma y 2014, convinced Nicaragua that it
could not wait any longer for requesting provisional measures.
43. The details of the renewal of the roadwork will be expounded by Mr. Reichler, but for
the moment I would bring to the attention of the Court that the i nformation given here has been
amply and joyfully confirmed by the Minister of Communication of Costa Rica,
Mr. Carlos Roverssi, who stated just last week on Monumental press that: “construction of the
Borderline Trail will continue to a priority piece of work until termination by the current
government and anticipates that it will also be (a priority) for the next (government) ” 2.
44. In addition, he emphasized that “the works will continue forward even though this does
23
not please Nicaragua” .
Question of awaiting the decision on the merits
45. There is an important element that Nicaragua has taken into consideration carefully .
This is the question of what further damage could happen between the filing of this request for
provisional measures and the pos sible dates for the judgment on the merits to be given by the
Court. This date is very difficult to anticipate . First of all, the unforeseeable agenda of the Court
that is subject to urgent requests for advisory opinions and other urgent measures by State parties.
46. Nicaragua has already experienced the impact of these circumstances on the agenda of
the Court in the proceedings in its case against Colombia that made it one of the longest lasting
cases in the history of the Court . Apart from these unforeseeable requests that could disrupt the
agenda of the Court, it is not possible to anticipate if there is to be a second round of written
pleadings in this case. But even in the most optimistic circumstances, it is not possible for the
judgment on the merits to be read before the works on the road are restarted as announced by the
Government of Costa Rica.
47. So, does Nicaragua have to wait at least one more year, after the end of another rainy
season and after the restart of the roadwork without any environmental impact assessment, for a
22Country Expects to Demonstrate that Trail construction di d not damage the San Juan River , Hearings in The
Hague begin on 5 November Roverssi warns that trail works will continue even it displeases Nicaragua, 28 October 2013
available at:http://www.monumental.co.cr/noticia/pais-espera-demostrar-que-construcc…-
san-juan.
23
Ibid. - 22 -
decision on the merits in order to put a stop to the trampling of its rights? In that case, Article 41 of
the Statute would be redundant.
48. In the case of the Great Belt, the projected bridge would not cause the foreseen damage
until it was completed and this was not anticipated to happen before the judgment on the merits.
The Court indicated that its decision on the merits might imply tearing down the structure and that
was a risk the respondent had to assume . In the present case, the roadwork so far constructed is
causing damage every day of the year and, as indicated in Professor Kondolf’s report, “[i]f work
continues on Rte 1856, its impact will be devastating to the areas directly affected and to
downstream receiving waters” 24. That is to say, to Nicaraguan waters.
Expert reports filed by Costa Rica
49. Costa Rica has filed more than 300 pages of documents containing technical reports that
were not prepared for these oral hearings since they date from before the request for the measures
presently under consideration was made. These documents mostly date from January to August of
this year and could have been furnished earlier and not at the last moment to the inconvenience of
the staff of the Registry and of the other Party. Naturally, Nicaragua does not have the time, in the
three hours of pleadings presently allotted to it, to respond to these documents on which it has
heard no argument yet. Nonetheless, Professor Mccaffrey will address some comments.
50. After tomorrow’s pleadings in which Costa Rica will presumably explain these
documents and base arguments on them, Nicaragua will have an overnight opportunity to address
this issue in the one -and-a-half hours allotted to it for argument . It is obviousl y not possible for
Nicaragua in one-and-a-half hours to analyse and address these extensive documents that have been
prepared during months under careful scrutiny of the Costa Rican representatives.
51. These documents were evidently prepared for fili ng w ith the Costa Rican
Counter-Memorial and reflect this purpose in many ways. They look to the past and not the future
which is the preventive objective of provisional measures . Thus, they have absolutely no
comments on the impact of the future continuation of the roadwork; they have no indication that
any environmental impact assessment has been prepared for this renewal of the roadwork; they
2Kondolf Report “ Continued Impacts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the Río San Juan, Nicaragua,
30 October 2013”, p. 1. - 23 -
make no attempt to foresee the consequences that would ensue after the next tropical storm
inevitably hits the area. In fact, their only objective is to try to minimize the amount of damages so
far caused by the roadwork.
52. Due to the nature of these documents, Nicaragua reserves its rights to comment and
respond fully to them and the arguments based on them, unt il it has an opportunity to plead on the
merits, be they written or oral pleadings.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, this finishes my presentation. Thank you for your kind
attention. I will continue, simply indicating the order and general subject t o be addressed by the
speakers, which is as follows:
Professor Stephen McCaffrey will address the irreparable harm caused by the roadwork and the
aggravation of the renewal of the works;
Mr. Paul Reichler will address the urgent need of the provisional measures requested;
And Professor Alain Pellet will address the specific standards for granting provisional
measures.
Mr. President, I ask you to call Professor McCaffrey, please.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Ambassador Argüello Gomez. And I now invite
Professor Stephen McCaffrey to address the Court. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. McCAFFREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. President.
IRREPARABLE PREJUDICE TO N ICARAGUA ’S RIGHTS
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is a great honour and privilege to
appear before you again on behalf of the Republic of Nicaragua.
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this case can fairly be described as one of death by a
thousand cuts: death of the Lower San Juan River by accretion, by t he slow but steady changes
wrought by sedimentation. The change s may be gradual, but they are no less inevitable, and no
less threatening to past, present and future uses of the river by Nicaragua. The change may be
incremental, but it is no less cumulative. It is accomplished by a continuing incursion into - 24 -
Nicaragua’s sovereign territory, one that results in what amounts to an ever -increasing occupation
of that territory and a slow but inexorable strangulation of the river.
2. That such a result may have been the intent of Costa Rica ’s road project all along is
indicated by the name that Costa Rica chose to give to the road Juan Rafael Mora Porras,
Route 1856 an appellation apparently calculated to insult Nicaragua, because it refers to the
Costa Rican invasion and occupation of Nicaraguan territory — including the San Juan River and
Lake Nicaragua — during the period when Nicaragua was fully engaged with fighting off the
invasions of William Walker 25.
3. Mr. President, this continuing trespass in blatant violation of Nicaragua ’s sovereign rights
must be stopped. Nicaragua has tried to stop it through diplomatic channels — as the Agent
chronicled for you — but to no avail. Costa Rica has still not so much as provided Nicaragua with
plans or an environmental impact assessment, whether domestic or transboundary, concerning the
project. Nevertheless, as my friend and colleague Mr. Paul Reichler will discuss, Costa Rica now
appears bent on resuming road construction activities in the very near future. Nicaragua therefore
looks to the Court to halt this ongoing insult, so that by the time the Court is able to render its
judgment there will be something left to remedy.
4. My task today, Mr. President, is to address the implications of the fact that Cos ta Rica’s
road project is contributing significantly, and on a daily basis, to the filling in of the L ower San
Juan, to the conversion of those reaches of the watercourse from a river to land and impassable
wetlands and shallows. In particular, I will show that the effects of the road have caused, and
particularly in view of the imminent resumption of work on the road, threaten to continue to cause,
irreparable prejudice to Nicaragua’s rights. Mr. Reichler will then show why provisional measures
are urgently necessary.
Requirements for provisional measures
5. Mr. President, Members of the Court, allow me to turn first to the conditions for the
ordering of provisional measures, which are of course well known. The Court recalled these
conditions in its Order of 8 March 2011 in the Certain Activities case: first, that irreparable
2See CMN in Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Vol. I,
6 Aug. 2012, paras. 2.25-2.27. - 25 -
prejudice be caused to rights of the parties that are the subject of the judicial proceedings ; and
second, that there be urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent ri sk that irreparable
26
prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court has given its final decision .
6. Finally, the rights requiring protection from irreparable prejudice must be plausible.
7. Mr. President, these requirements are easily satisfied in the present case. The factual basis
for Nicaragua’s Request is the urgent situation arising from Costa Rica ’s reckless and unplanned
construction of a road along the right bank of the San Juan de Nicaragua River and the imminent
resumption of work on it. The unengineered road construction has given rise to a real and
imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court has
given its final decision. This risk will be aggravated greatly by the imp ending resumption of work
on the road by Costa Rica.
Rights of Nicaragua that are prejudiced by Costa Rica’s road project
8. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the rights of Nicaragua that are breached by
Costa Rica’s road project are set forth fully in Nicaragua’s Memorial in the case concerning the
road (Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River) 27. I will not repeat the list of
rights of Nicaragua that are being prejudiced, many irreparably, but will f ocus here on three of the
most important of them in the context of these provisional measures hearings: first, Nicaragua’ s
rights of territorial sovereignty and integrity ; second, Nicaragua’s right to be free from
transboundary harm; and, third, Nicaragua’s right to receive a transboundary environmental impact
assessment from Costa Rica, together with associated information and consultations. I will
illustrate the concrete manifestations of the actual and threatened prejudice with recent slides and
observations. This prejudice will only be magnified by Costa Rica’s imminent resumption of work
on the project.
26Certain Activitie s carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, p. 16, paras. 63 -64 (citations omitted). See also, e.g., Pulp Mills on the River
Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 13 July 2006, I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 129,
paras. 61-62; Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v.Denmark), Provisional Measures, Order of 29 July 1991 ,
I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 17, para. 23; Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France),
Provisional Measures, Order of 17 June 2003, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 107, para. 22.
27
MN, Vol. I, chaps. 4 and 5. - 26 -
a. Nicaragua’s rights of territorial sovereignty and integrity
9. First and foremost, Mr. President, the road project is causing irreparable prejudice to
Nicaragua’s sovereign rights, prejudice that will be aggravated if work on t he road is permitted to
resume. Nicaragua is, as the Court knows, sovereign over the whole of the San Juan River. This
point is not disputed by Costa Rica.
10. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the images you now see on your screens, which are
at tab 4 of your folders and were taken just last week, are emblematic of all that is wrong with
Costa Rica’s road project and of the project’s effects on Nicaraguan sovereign territory. You have
in this slide arrows pointing to the remains of a culvert and there is something green there, in the
background, that turns out to be erosion control fabric when you look more closely. It seems to
have failed to achieve its objective because it is washing down this channel into the San Juan River.
The observations by Dr. Matthias Kondolf during his field visit late last month are reflected in his
most recent report, filed with the Court. They indicate that these effects will in all likelihood
continue, and that they will only be made worse by Costa Rica’s impending resumption of work on
28
the road .
11. Dr. Kondolf has shown that the road was constructed so sloppily, and in such haste, that
no amount of superficial make -up can save it. In his report on his recent field visit, Dr. Kondolf
states: “It is urgent that . . . real, substantive measures be taken to repair and relocate the road . . .
These measures will not be trivial, but will require removal of large volumes of fill and their
transport to a stable disp osal site . . .”9 Yet it appears, Mr. President, that that is what Costa Rica
has been doing recently , in other words, precisely the kind of trivial measures Dr. Kondolf
indicates will be ineffective : trying to camouflage a massive, virtually irreparable scar along the
right bank of the San Juan by attempting to make it look better on the surface, when the problems
go far deeper, both literally and figuratively. The fundamental problems with the manner in which
the road was constructed have been catalogued in detail by the University of Costa Rica’s National
28G. Mathias Kondolf, Ph. D., “Continued Impacts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the Río San Juan,
Nicaragua”, 30 Oct. 2013 (hereafter “Kondolf Report”).
29Ibid., p. 2. - 27 -
Laboratory and Costa Rica’s Federation of Engineers and Architects, as shown in Nicaragua ’s
30
Memorial in the Road case , and referred to earlier by the Agent.
12. Dr. Kondolf’s field visit late last m onth updates these findings. His report states, for
example: “Our field observations in October 2013 (last month) clearly showed that erosion is
actively occurring along multiple parts of the road, and that erosion control and drainage works
31
have been ineffective in addressing the serious erosion and slope stability problems.”
13. It is evident that the culvert itself was not designed and installed according to accepted
engineering standards, which are described and illustrated in S ection 3.1.3 of the Kondolf Report,
entitled “Stream Crossings” 32. If this culvert washed out, which it appears to have done, all of the
earthen fill material depicted in the sketch in f igure 2 at page 6 of Dr. Kondolf’s report in all
probability washed out with it and was ca rried into the San Juan. Dr. Kondolf and his colleagues
estimate that between 87,000 and 109,000 cubic meters of sediment are delivered into the San Juan
from the road project annually under what he calls “normal” conditions, and that “the rates would
be at least 10 -100 times higher during the intense rains associated with hurricanes or tropical
storms, which pass through the region frequently” 33. Thus, while the image of the rogue culvert in
the river is impressive, it is but a tiny part of the figurative tip of the iceberg of sediment and other
debris that is constantly deposited in the river by the road project. The image of the damaged
culvert in the San Juan is emblematic of the incursions into Nicaraguan sovereign territory by the
road project. But it is only a tell- tale sign of the much larger invasion by coarse and fine sediment
from the road.
14. And, Mr. President, it should be borne in mind that the rains can be heavier than they
have been this year. Dr. Kondolf observes: “The fact that so much fresh erosion is visible (and a
culvert has washed out) after a season with less than exceptional rains demonstrates how prone the
landscape is to intense rains.” 34
30
See MN, Vol. I, Chap. 3.
31Kondolf Report, op. cit. supra, p. 2.
32Ibid., pp. 5-7.
33
Ibid., pp. 1-2.
34Ibid., p. 9. - 28 -
15. These t respasses upon Nicaraguan territory by sedim ent and other debris from
Costa Rica’s road project constitute constant, and irreparable, prejudice to Nicaragua ’s rights of
sovereignty and territorial integrity prejudice which, again, will only be multiplied many- fold
with the resumption of work. The prejudice is irreparable because neither Costa Rica, nor even this
Court, can un-ring the bell of a violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity. There can be no
restitutio in integrum for such violations. Moreover, each day brings a fresh assault on Nicaragua’s
territory, and thus on its rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity. These assaults must stop
pending the delivery of the Court’s judgment.
b. Nicaragua’s right to be free from transboundary harm
16. Second, Mr. President, Members of the Court, Nicaragua’ s right to be free from harm
emanating from Costa Rica ’s territory is suffering irreparable prejudice on an ongoing basis. The
right of a S tate to be free from transboundary harm originating in another S tate is venerable and
widely recognized by authorities too numerous to list comprehensively here. I will therefore
mention only a few.
17. In its unanimous Partial Award of 18 February 2013, the seven- member Court of
Arbitration in the Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration, chaired by a former President of thi s
Court, noted the recognition of this principle in the 1941 Award in the Trail Smelter arbitration 3.
It also referred to what it called “[a] broader restatement of the duty to avoid transboundary harm”
in Principle 21 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration,
“pursuant to which States, when exploiting natural resources, must ‘ ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment
of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction’” . 36
The principle was stated as early as Max Huber ’s 1928 Award in the Island of Palmas case , and 37
38
again in this Court’s 1949 Judgment in the Corfu Channel case . It was reaffirmed by this Court
35
In the Matter of The Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration , Partial Award, 18 February 2013, p. 169,
para. 448, available at http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1392.
36Ibid.; emphasis added.
37Arbitral Award, 4 April 1928, Island of Palmas (Netherlands vUnited States of America ), UNRIAA, Vol. II,
p. 839.
38
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, I.C. J. Reports 1949, p. 4. - 29 -
39
in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapo ns in a passage
that was quoted with approval by the Court in the Gab ĉíkovo-Nagymaros Project case 40. In the
Kishenganga case, the Court of Arbitration concluded :
“There is no doubt that States are required under contemporary customary
international law to take environmental protection into consideration when planning
41
and developing projects that may cause injury to a bordering State.”
18. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in a moment you will see images on your screens
showing that Nicaragua ’s right to be free from harm emanating from Costa Rica ’s territory is
suffering irreparable prejudice on an ongoing basis. Costa Rica ’s road project is affecting the
San Juan, and in particular the L ower San Juan, every day. The existing sedimentation from the
road project will be very difficult, if not impossible, for Nicaragua to remove with its small
dredgers. More delay in taking protective measures will make it virtually impossible for Nicaragua
to remedy the situation. And the present sedimentation of the river threatens to be exacerbated
considerably by the impending resumption of work, as will be discussed by Mr. Reichler.
19. Mr. President, Members of the Court, you now see on your screens images that show
serious erosion and related problems along the course of the road. [narrative of images of erosion
along road] . We begin with sketches from Dr. Kondolf’s report which, in graphic form,
demonstrate some of the problems that can arise with the construction of roads on slopes. You see
the natural situation in sketch A, a natural hill slope, you see groundwater flowing downhill, of
course, infiltration of water from precipitation into the ground. Then in sketch B you see what the
effect is of cutting that slope, creating what is known as a cut slope, I’ve learnt the water still
has to go somewhere and what happens is that it goes down into the road and can undermine,
without proper engineering, the fill prism which you see happening in this photograph, which also
shows some failed erosion control fabric, or perhaps it is plastic sheeting.
The slide now on the screen shows cut slope failures, those are the upper side of the road and
a road that I certainly would not want to drive on, the fill slope also is failing because of erosion. It
39
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 19(I), pp. 241 -242,
para. 29.
40Case concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C. J. Reports 1997, p. 41,
para. 53.
41
Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration, op. cit. supra, p. 169, para. 449; emphasis added. - 30 -
appears that roughly a half of the road surface has been removed by this erosion. Again we see an
image illustrating different styles of cut bank failure and lots of erosion. This context view shows
that this is a complex site with multiple cuts and failures, both cut slopes and fill slopes. This slide
displays active failures of cut slopes and fill slopes as well as failing stream fill and please note the
fallen trees where the soil has eroded out from under them. This site has a massive valley fill,
about 20 to 25 metres high, perched just above a house. This fill is failing through a complex set of
rotational slumps and gullies. There is an under -sized culvert, it is visible in the gully to the right
of the house. It is impressive to see the degree of in stability and the severity of erosion that has
occurred in response to the modest rains experienced since construction.
Again we have multiple active deltas forming from erosion from road material, forming
along the San Juan, associated with ongoing fill slope failures and concentrated road run-offs. You
can see the eroding cut slope above leading to that delta, as they call that fan-shaped piece of
sediment on the lower left of the image.
Three years after road construction across steep inner gorge hi ll slopes we have major fill
slope failures continuing to occur. This slide shows pervasive slope instabilities along Route 1856,
which continue to impact the Rio San Juan. And here, again, large poorly constructed cut slopes
and fill slopes are actively failing, resulting in large volumes of sediment delivery to the San Juan,
Route 1856 in the background there with large, actively forming deltas along the river, delivering
significant quantities of poor sediment to the river. And I should emphasize Mr. President, that
when you see these deltas above water you do not see the rest of the iceberg, as it were,
underwater. So there is a projection of that same delta, perhaps four to six metres, according to
Dr. Kondolf and his colleagues, underwater.
This is another large delta. And significant erosion which results in massive amounts of
sediment delivery to the river.
Thank you all for your kind attention to those images. Mr. President, these images document
invasions of sovereignty and territorial integrity of Nicaragua.
20. Mr. President, Members of the Court, as Mr. Reichler will show, Costa Rica has
indicated that it will resume work on the road very soon. Here ’s what Dr. Kondolf’s report has to
say about this prospect: - 31 -
“If work continues on Rt e 1856, its impact will be devastating to the areas
directly affected and to downstream receiving waters. Already we see extensive,
severe environmental damage, with only ‘normal’ rains. There is no question that
when intense rains associated with tropical storms and hurricanes occur, the damage
will be widespread and severe. These effects will be irreversible in that there will be
no way to recover the prior environmental values and intact ecosystem, nor to reverse
the massive transfers of sediment from uplands to the river and other wetlands. The
land and waters will be permanently altered for the worse, with an environmental
legacy that could be likened the effects of massive mining, such as seen in California
in the mid-19th century or extensive logging such as occurred in the Pacific Northwest
of the US in the 1950s and 1960s. The landscapes are still attempting to recover from
these trau42s, and many important species (notably salmon) have not, and never will
recover.”
21. Mr. President, Members of the Court, resumption of work on the road must be stopped in
order to prevent these “irreversible” that is, irreparable environmental effects.
22. Mr. President, in the documents it filed yesterday morning , Costa Rica makes much of
what it holds out as mitigation measures on the road project. Unfortunately, these measures are but
a band-aid on an open wound. They do little if anything to stem the tide of sediment and other
debris flowing into the San Juan. In fact, the measures appear to be d esigned to preserve the
road-bed more than to prevent sedimentation of the river, as Dr. Kondolf observed in his report.
With your permission, Mr. President, I would like to read a rather lengthy pair of quotes from his
report that you will find at tab 7 of your folders:
“Our field observations in October 2013 clearly showed that . . . erosion control
and drainage works have been ineffective in addressing the serious erosion and slope
stability problems. Roughly half of the road above Boca San Carlos has now been
covered in gravel, a technique designed to reduce the rate of surface erosion of the
road. However the fill slopes below the road surface are largely unprotected, and are
being actively eroded by water running off the road.
The most common erosion control measure employed along Rte 1856 has been
black plastic sheeting, but most of this has already failed. Many drainage culverts
appear to be undersized, and we observed one that completely washed out and ended
up in the river. ”
I assume that is the one we have already seen this morning.
“. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In our field visit of May 2013, we observed some surface and gully erosion
control measures had been installed (since October 2012) at some actively eroding
sites. [Then Dr. Kondolf describes some of these measures] . . . While these
measures may reduce surface and gully erosion from the few treated areas during
42
Kondolf Report, op cit supra, p. 2; emphasis added.
4Ibid., p. 2. - 32 -
small and moderate r ains, they will do nothing to prevent massive failures of fill
prisms [that is the part on the downhill side of the road] and cut slopes with
unfavorable rock type and geologic structural orientation, and associated with poorly
designed and constructed fil l slopes. Moreover, the erosion control measures we
observed were deployed only to mostly protect the road surface ; they did nothing to
safely manage the concentrated runoff from the roads . In fact, we observed one of
these sites immediately after an in tense rain, and we observed road runoff being
directed from a new concrete drain into the fill slope, eroding the fill slope itself,
44
which is the foundation for the road .. .”
23. Mr. President, you now see on your screens figure 4, a photo of Route 1856 from the
San Juan River taken on 22 May 2013 showing a concrete -lined ditch discharging flow into road
45
fill, which is the foundation of the road, as Dr. Kondolf explains . This would seem to make the
sedimentation of the river worse, not better.
24. You now see on your screens [further narrative from slides] an impressive looking
concrete-lined trench leading, apparently under the road, although it looks like it leads to the top of
the road, but let us assume it leads to a culvert passing under the ro ad. Now the larger context of
that picture showing that this trench does nothing to alleviate the erosion of the cut slope above the
road.
25. But, Mr. President, there is more involved here than filling up a river bed with sediment
from a badly- constructed road. There are living things in the river. These are affected by this
sediment.
26. The report of Dr. Kondolf shows that there is a serious risk of irreparable harm to species
and the ecosystem itself from the delivery of coarse and fine sediment into the river from the road.
In addition to his findings already quoted concerning what he describes as the “irreversible”
impacts of work on the road upon ecosystems and the environment, Dr. Kondolf states that:
“[i]ncreased delivery of coarse sedi ment to rivers can result in significant changes to
river processes, causing aggradation [or build -up] of the river channel . . .
Aggradation results in burial of important aquatic habitats and consequent loss of
native species, impacts that have been documented to persist for decades.” 46
44
Kondolf Report, op cit supra, pp. 9-10; emphasis added.
45Ibid., p. 10.
46
Ibid., p. 7. - 33 -
27. Ecological sampling conducted in late May of this year and reported at page 13 of
Dr. Kondolf’s report confirms the “negative ecological effects of sediment eroded from R oute 1856
47
upon the Rio San Juan” .
28. These consequences can be quite serious, and there is a clear, scientifically -based risk
that they will be with respect to the ecosystems of the San Juan. Dr. Kondolf notes that the effects
of the delivery of large quantities of sediment into rivers has been “especially well-document[ed] in
North America . . . where logging roads were once constructed using exactly the same practices we
have document[ed] on Route 1856. (These practices are now outlawed in North America.)”
Dr. Kondolf concludes:
“The increased sediment loads to rivers are documented to have caused the loss
of aquatic vegetation, macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and valued fish species, as well
as degraded water quality. These effects have been docu48nted in multiple sites
around the globe in a wide range of ecosystems.”
29. Mr. President, Nicaragua has a right to ecosystems within its sovereign territory that are
undisturbed by conduct and resulting events in Costa Rica. As Dr. Kondolf’s report demonstrates
on the basis of well -documented experience, this right is subject to a serious and imminent risk of
suffering irreparable prejudice before the Court has given its final decision in the case, all the more
if Costa Rica is permitted now to resume work on the road.
30. And, Mr. President, Members of the Court, it should not be forgotten that the territory
surrounding the road includes more than four different protected areas within both countries.
In 2001, the San Juan River itself was designated a wetland of international importance under the
49
Ramsar Convention , of which we have heard so much from Costa Rica. According to Ramsar,
the San Juan River Wildlife Refuge and the adjoining Indio Maíz Reserve form part of “one of the
two most extensive biological nuclei of the Mesoamerican Biologi cal Corridor” 50. The river’s
wetlands support 303 bird species, 26 mammals, and 23 fish species, in addition to a great diversity
47
Ibid., p. 13.
48Ibid.
49
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, concluded at Ramsar,
Iran, 2 February 1971, United Nations, Treaty Series (UNTS), Vol. 996, Reg. No. 14583, 17 February 1976.
50
See Summary Description of Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río San Juan Ramsar site on Ramsar official website,
available at: http://www.ramsar.org/cda/fr/ramsar-news-archives-2002-nicaragua-announ…-
87%5E17907_4000_1__ (last visited 4 December 2012). - 34 -
of plant-life . Many of these animal species are threatened with extinction. There are no less than
52
46 endangered species in habiting the Refuge, including the rare manatee . Mr. President,
Members of the Court, interim measures are necessary to protect these species from irreparable
harm pending the Court’s judgment in the case.
(c) Nicaragua’s right to receive a transboundary environmental impact assessment on the road
project from Costa Rica
31. Mr. President, allow me now to turn to a third right of Nicaragua whose continuing
breach threatens irreparable prejudice, and I refer here to the right to receive a transboundary
environmental impact assessment on the road project from Costa Rica.
32. Mr. President, preparation of an environmental impact assessment, or EIA, prior to
beginning work on a project that may have a significant impact on the environment is now common
practice internationally. The domestic laws of many, if not most, States require that an EIA be
prepared, and this is true of Costa Rica. Unfortunately, one was not prepared prior to the
commencement of work on the project, which was embarked upon without any plans or
preparatory studies, pursuant to the emergency decree referred to by the Agent. What was the
supposed emergency? The cleaning of a small caño by Nicaraguan labourers using hand tools,
work that is now the subject of the Certain Activities case. What is the relationship of the road to
the caño cleaning? That is far from clear, especially since the road stops at the Colorado branch of
the San Juan River, well short of the “area in dispute” in the Certain Activities case.
33. Thus we have, Mr. President, a very curious situation: Costa Rica, which holds itself out
as a paragon of environmentalism, responds to Nicaragua ’s actions along a narrow strip of some
1,500 m in the vicinity of Harbor Head Lagoon 53 by despoiling some 160 km of its own territory,
54
120 of which are along the Rio San Juan . And it does this without any prior study, let alone
notification of Nicaragua.
51
See MARENA, The San Juan River Wildlife Refuge Management Plan, 2005, p. 37 (Ann. 40 to the Rejoinder
of Nicaragua (RN) in the Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Riv. Nicaragua), 15 July 2008);
see also pp. 119-128 (ibid., Ann. 1) for a table of the numerous animal species found in the San Juan River Wildlife
Refuge.
52See ibid., p. 39.
53CMN (Certain Activities case), Vol. I, p. 44, para. 2.60.
54
See MN, Vol. I, p. 150, para. 5.3. - 35 -
34. If preparation of a domestic EIA is advisable 55, preparation of a transboundary EIA is
now required by customary international law, as this Court is well aware, because you made this
obligation clear in the Pulp Mills case when you said,
“it may now be considered a requirement under general international law to undertake
an environmental impact assessment where there is a risk that the proposed industrial
activity may have a significant adverse impact in a transboundary context, in
particular, on a shared resource” . 56
35. In fact, Costa Rica itself has insisted on this requirement in the Certain Activities case, in
which its Memorial underscores “[t]he necessity of a proper environmental impact assessment in
order to prevent or minimize transboundary harm”, emphasizing that this “is now a well-recognized
57
requirement of general international law . . .” .
36. Costa Rica howeve r breached the requirement to prepare a transboundary EIA and thus
breached Nicaragua’s rights. Among the rights of Nicaragua that Costa Rica has breached by this
failure are the rights to notification and consultation concerning the potential transboundary impact
of the proposed activity 58. Without this information, Nicaragua is left entirely in the dark about
Costa Rica’s intentions, and cannot prepare to protect itself, to the extent that this is at all possible.
This is a continuing breach and a ripe subject of a provisional measures order. At the very least,
Costa Rica must be ordered to prepare a proper transboundary EIA and share it with Nicaragua
before it is allowed to resume any road construction activities.
Conclusion
37. Mr. President, Member s of the Court, it is easy to di scount the seriousness of
Costa Rica’s conduct and its effects on Nicaragua because of the human tendency to think of rivers
as “a convenient sink into which to dump wastes” 59, in the words of a United Nations report, which
55Principle 17 of the Rio Declarati on requires such domestic EIAs : “Environmental impact assessment, as a
national instrument, shall be undertaken . . .” (Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted by the United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 14 June 1992, 31 ILM 874 (1992), Principle 17;
emphasis added). For a full discussion of Costa Rica’s actions in this regard on the national level, see CMCertain
Activities case), Vol. 1, pp. 152-165.
56Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010 (I), p. 83, para. 204.
57
MCR (Certain Activities), para. 5.23.
58See, e.g., the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, 25 Feb. 1991,
Espoo, Finland, 1989 UNTS 309, 30 ILM 800 (1991). For a discussion, see M N (the Road case), Vol. 1, pp. 169-171,
paras. 5.37-5.39.
59Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World , World Meterological
Organization/Stockholm Environment Institute 1997, U nited Nations doc. A/CN.17/1997/9, 4 Feb. 1997. - 36 -
60
humans have done, unfortunately, “[f]or millennia” . It is not hard to understand why: you put
something in a river, and it goes away, as if by magic.
38. The problem for Nicaragua is twofold: first, the river is indisputably Nicaragua’s
territory. If we were dealing with a land boundary, it would be as if Costa Rica sent 5,000 dump
trucks full of sediment 5,000 being the number of trucks it would take to carry the average
quantity of sediment Dr. Kondolf’s team estimates to be delivered into the ri ver annually 61 and
had these trucks dump this waste over the border into and onto Nicaraguan land. No country or
court would tolerate this.
39. Yet when the incursion is invisible, as compared with dumping across a land boundary,
there was historicall y no comparable sense of urgency or outrage. Our modern understanding of
the dangers of water pollution has changed this. But conceptually, the problem of the “wet
trespass” persists: a territorial violation by dumping into a river somehow may not seem as grave
as the same violation on land, because the material is hidden by the very water it is polluting.
Nicaragua trusts that the Court will recognize the violation as being equally serious, if not more so
due to the multiple ecosystems affected.
40. The second aspect of the problem is precisely that where Nicaragua is concerned, the
waste does not “go away”. It settles in the already slow -moving Lower San Juan River, creating
further impediments to navigation, causing irreparable harm to ecosystems, a nd further occluding
the mouth of the river.
41. Nicaragua trusts that the Court will recognize the violations of its sovereignty and
territorial integrity that have occurred, are occurring, and particularly with Costa Rica’s
imminent resumption of work on the road, as Mr. Reichler will presently show will occur, and
that the Court will see fit to grant its request for provisional measures to protect its river, its
sovereign territory, from further irreparable prejudice. Nicaragua’s territorial integr ity has been,
60Ibid.
61
As indicated earlier, Dr. Kondolf’s team estimates that between 87,000 and 109,000 cubic meters of sediment
are delivered into the river annually by the road project under “normal” precipitation conditions. The typical dump truck
holds a maximum of 20 cubic meters of material (MN, para. 3.79). Thus it would take 5,000 fully -loaded dump trucks to
haul some 100,000 cubic meters of sediment. - 37 -
and continues to be violated by Costa Rica. Nicaragua relies on the Court to bring this continuing
violation to a stop, at least pending its judgment in the case.
42. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, that concludes my inte rvention this
morning. Thank you for your kind attention. Mr. President, I would be grateful if you would now
call my friend and colleague Mr. Reichler to come to the podium, perhaps after a break.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Professor McCaffre y. The Court will now take a
15-minute break and after that I shall give the floor to Mr. Reichler. For planning purposes, in
view of the few minutes I took to open the proceedings, Nicaragua may take a few minutes after
1 o’clock, if needed; certainly not beyond 10 minutes past 1 p.m.
The sitting is adjourned.
The Court adjourned from 11.25 a.m. to 11.40 a.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Mr. Reichler, it is now your turn. You have the floor,
Sir.
Mr. REICHLER:
THE URGENT NEED FOR THE MEASURES REQUESTED BY N ICARAGUA
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, good morning. I will speak today about urgency,
specifically: why the need for the provisional measures Nicaragua has requested is urgent.
2. The Court may be asking itself : if the need for these measures is so urgent, why didn ’t
Nicaragua ask for them earlier ? Nicaragua has had almost two years to do so . It filed its
Application in December 2011. As the Application stated, construction of the road had already
begun, and it had already begun to harm the San Juan River, in violation of Nicaragua ’s sovereign
rights. Nicaragua expressly reserved the right to request provisional measures to stop further
construction, especially if Costa Rica continued to refuse to inform Nicaragua about it s activities,
refused to consult with it about possible transboundary harm to the r iver and its environs, and
refused to furnish it with an Environmental Impact Assessment addressed to that issue. - 38 -
3. Nearly two years have passed since the Application was filed. Throughout this entire
period, Costa Rica has never informed Nicaragua about any of its road construction plans or
activities, never consulted with Nicaragua about ways to mitigate harm to the river or its environs,
and never furnished Nicaragua with an Environmental Impact Assessment. And, during this entire
period, Costa Rica has caused significant volumes of sediments and road construction debris to
continue to be deposited into the river.
4. So why has Nicaragua chosen now to request provisio nal measures? What makes them
urgent now?
5. The answer is this: first, since filing its Application Nicaragua has exhausted every other
avenue available to it, before a variety of international organizations and forums, in its effort to
cause Costa Ric a to comply with its international obligations in regard to notice, consultation,
Environmental Impact Assessment, and the avoidance of harm to Nicaragua ’s sovereign territory.
As Ambassador Argüello explained, Nicaragua had hoped that these efforts would avoid the need
to impose on the Court the burden of holding these hearings . But they have all been unsuccessful,
leaving the Court as Nicaragua’s last recourse to protect its sovereign rights, and to prevent further
harm to the San Juan River.
6. Second , after two years of ongoing discharges into the river, the sediments and
construction debris are accumulating to dangerous levels that have already harmed the river
irreparably, and threaten to cause further irreparable harm if they are allowed to continu e.
Professor McCaffrey has explained this.
7. Third, and this is what most underscores the urgency and immediacy of Nicaragua ’s
request, Costa Rica has recently announced that it will redouble its road construction activities
before the end of this year, so that it can complete construction between October and December of
2014, which is very likely before the Court will have had a chance to issue its judgment in this
case 62.
62Government of Costa Rica, Minister for Public Works and Transportation, “National Route 185Action Plan
for Completion”, available at http://www.presidencia.go.cr/index.php/prensa/prensa -presidencia/2123-gobierno-firme-en-
desarrollo-integral-de-cordon-fronterizo-norte (hereinafter “Action Plan for Completi; President of Costa Rica,
Government Strong on Comprehensive Development of the Boundary Strip Guarantees Conclusion of Route 1856,
March 2013, available at http://www.presidencia.go.cr/index.php/prensa/prens-presidencia/2123-go…-
desarrollo-integral-de-cordon-fronterizo-norte (NPM-2). - 39 -
8. Mr. President, it had appeared that Costa Rica had decided not to complete con struction of
the road. In fact, in the middle of 2012, Costa Rica suspended all new construction activities on the
road . At the time, only the first phase of construction had been completed. None of the five
sections was finished, and work on some of them had not even started. Since then, for more than a
year, there has been no significant new road construction, only efforts to remediate or mitigate the
harmful consequences of the first phase of construction activities . C ontracts to complete
construction of the road were cancelled 64. The need for provisional measures, therefore, was less
urgent.
9. Until now, that is. Costa Rica has now announced that it is resuming full -scale
65
construction, and that it will complete the project by the end of 2014 . Here is the construction
66
schedule publicly announced by Minister of Public Works Dr. Pedro Luis Castro Fernandez .
[Graphic]. These are slides from the Minister’s powerpoint presentation, available on the Internet .
They are at tab 10 of your judges’ folder, in both the original Spanish and English translation.
According to the schedule, Section 1 is to be constructed between September 2013 and
October 2014; Section 2, the construction is to be completed between September 2013 and
October 2014; Sectio n 3, construction is to be completed by December 2014; Section 4 by
December 2014 and Section 5 by October 2014.
10. There appears to have been some delay in restarting the works, resulting from
administrative challenges to the process by which contracts for road design and construction were
awarded, pushing the start-date for the “construction phase” beyond September 67. But Costa Rica
63
“Contracts Entered Into with Companies Involving Route 1856 Suspended Due to Irregularities.” El País ,
9 May 2012, available at http://elpais.cr/frontend/noticia_detalle/1/66735 (NPM-7); Guerrero, Eugenio. “Completion of
Route 1856 Works Will be Undertaken with Five Bids”, CRHoy , 22 Oct. 2012, available at
<http://www.crhoy.com/finalizacion-de-obras-de-la-ruta-1856-se-hara-con-…; (NPM-5).
64
Ibid.
65Government of Costa Rica, Minister for Public Works and Transportation, “National R oute 1856: Action Plan
for Completion”, available at http://www.presidencia.go.cr/index.php/prensa/prensa -presidencia/2123-gobierno-firme-en-
desarrollo-integral-de-cordon-fronterizo-norte (hereinafter “Action Plan for Completion”) ; President of Costa Ric a,
Government Strong on Comprehensive Development of the Boundary Strip Guarantees Conclusion of Route 1856,
March 2013, available at http://www.presidencia.go.cr/index.php/prensa/prensa -presidencia/2123-gobierno-firme-en-
desarrollo-integral-de-cordon-fronterizo-norte (NPM-2)
66“Action Plan for Completion.”
67Azofeifa, Mariela. “ Once Again, CONAVI’s Carelessness Leaves Route 1856 Without a Redesign”
El Guardián, 20 Sept. 2013, , available at http://www.elguardian.cr/es/Nacionales/Descuido_del_CONAVI_
deja_otra_vez_sin_redise%C3%B1o_a_la_Trocha_1856/ (NPM-15). See also, Herrera, Luis M. “Stretch from Pocusul
up to Delta Costa Rica: MOPT will Tender New Desgins for the Trail Works” La Nación, 22 July 2013, available at
http://www.nacion.com/nacional/MOPT-licitara-nuevos-disenos-trocha_0_13… (NPM-9). - 40 -
has very recently publicly reiterated its commitment to resume construction activities before the
end of this year; that is, by next month at the latest, and to complete the project by the end of next
year .8
11. It is the imminence of Costa Rica ’s resumption of new road construction activities that
gives particular urgency to Nicaragua’ s Request. Professor McCaffrey has explained that
irreparable harm to Nicaragua’ s rights and the San Juan River has already been and is still
being caused by Costa Rica’s hasty and slip-shod road construction in 2011 and early 2012, as
well as the unfinished and unprotected conditions in which the partially performed works were left
for the past year and a half. Even more importantly for present purposes, the evidence leaves little
doubt that even greater irreparable harm to the river and its environs is likely if construction is
allowed to resume. That new construction is now imminent . It will go forward, very soon, if
provisional measures are not ordered. Costa Rica has given Nicaragua no notice about its start -up
plans. But its senior officials have spoken loudly and clearly about them to their domestic
audience.
12. Costa Rica did not stop constructing the road in mid- 2012 because of Nicaragua ’s
protest, or because of the Application in this case . The reasons were given in public statements by
Costa Rica’s highest officials, inc luding its President. Two reasons were stated . First, the funds
appropriated for the project had been exhausted . It could not be completed without additional
69
financing . Second, Costa Rica announced that the first phase of the project had been plagued by
corruption 70. The Minister of Public Works and Transport, who was in charge of the project, was
71 72
forced to resign . Criminal indictments were issued against others .
68
Colombari, Stefanía. “Country Expects to Demonstrate that Trail Construction Did Not Damage the San Juan
River”, Monumental, 28 Oct. 2013, available at <http://www.monumental.co.cr/noticia/pais -espera-demostrar-que-
construccion-de-la-trocha-no-dano-el-rio-san-juan> (NPM-14).
69
“Contracts Entered Into with Companies Involving Route 1856 Suspended Due to Irregularities.” El País,
9 May 2012 (NPM-7); Ruiz Ramón, Gerardo. “Two Charged for Trail Case Freed this Friday”, La Nación, 11 Oct. 2013,
available at http://www.nacion.com/sucesos/juicios/Trocha_Fronteriza-imputados-Poder…
(NPM-13) Herrera, Luis M. “ MOPT Invested ₵33.000 Million on Three Deficient Road Works ”, La Nación ,
6 Sept. 2013, available at http://www.nacion.com/nacional/MOPT -invirtio-millones-proyectos-
malogrados_0_1364463543.html (NPM-11).
70
Ruiz Ramón, Gerardo, “Two Charged for Trail Case Fre ed this Friday”, La Nación, 11 Oct. 2013 (NPM -13);
“Contracts Entered Into with Companies Involving Route 1856 Suspended Due to Irregularities, El País, 9 May 2012,
(NPM-7)
71
Ruiz Ramón, Gerardo, “Two Charged for Trail Case Freed this Friday”, La Nación, 11 Oct. 2013 (NPM-13).
72Ibid. - 41 -
13. I point this out not to embarrass Costa Rica, which deserves credit for exposing a nd
condemning the corruption of its officials, but because of the implications for the state of the works
at the time they were suspended . With contracts being inappropriately issued, and contractors
buying their way out of proper management and supervisi on of their performance, it is not
surprising that the road was constructed so shoddily, and without regard for environmental risks, as
shown by Professor McCaffrey, and as fully elaborated in Nicaragua’s Memorial.
14. Nicaragua was sufficiently troubled by the ongoing harm to the river caused by the
partially competed works, and by Costa Rica’s continuing refusal to give notice about future plans
for the road, or to provide Nicaragua with a transboundary EIA, that it wrote to the Court on
19 December 2012 suggesting that the Court might wish proprio motu to indicate provisional
measures to protect the San Juan River from further harms. Nicaragua did not then wish to burden
the Court with oral hearings, at a time when new construction activities had been suspended. Costa
Rica assured the Court in June 2013 that it was then engaged only in remediating problems from
73
earlier construction, not in any new construction .
15. But all that has now changed. We are in a new situation . Costa Rica has publicly
announced that it will resume road construction before the end of the year, that is, in a matter of
74
weeks . Maybe sooner . Only Costa Rica knows for sure . It still refuses to provide any
information to Nicaragua about its activities, to consult about transboundary harm and what can be
done to avoid it, or to produce an EIA addressed to the harms and risks posed by the road to the
San Juan River. Nicaragua is forced to rely exclusively on public statements by senior Costa Rican
officials, as reported in the media and on government websites. But these have been clear enough .
The resumption of road construction activities is imminent . And so is the aggravation of the
irreparable harm to the San Juan River and its environs that will inevitably result.
16. Mr. President, let me be clear about what Nicaragua seeks to prevent . It does not ask the
Court to stop Costa Rica from taking appropriate steps to remediate the problems c aused by its
7Written Observations on the Request by Nicaragua for the Modification of the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011
on Provisional Measures in the Case Concerning Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, p. 16,
para. 40 (20 June 2013).
7“Action Plan for Completion”; President of Costa Rica, Government Strong on Comprehensive Development of
the Boundary Strip Guarantees Conclusion of Route 1856, Mar. 2013 (NPM-2). - 42 -
earlier construction activities . To the contrary, based on Dr. Kondolf’s analysis, there are specific
remediation measures that should be undertaken immediately to prevent further irreparable harm to
Nicaragua. These are the object of the second set of measures requested by Nicaragua, which
Professor Pellet will discuss short ly. What Nicaragua seeks to prevent is a resumption of new
construction activities, aimed at building or completing the road. This is the substance of the third
provisional measure that has been requested.
17. Only by preventing these activities now, be fore they restart, can the threatened
aggravation of the environmental and other harm s to the river and to Nicaragua ’s rights in
regard to it be prevented. The situation is urgent because the threat to Nicaragua ’s rights is
imminent, and the harm cannot be undone by the Court ’s final judgment. By that time, the road
construction activities will have been completed . Costa Rica itself says that its goal is to complete
the road between October and December 2014 7. We still don ’t know whether there will be a
second round of written pleadings in this case. But even if there is not, the Court has yet to set oral
hearings and it is unlikely that the Court could hold them and issue its judgment before the road is
completed. By that time, it will be a fait a ccompli. The need for provisional measures is urgent
because irreparable harm to the river has already occurred, and additional and even greater
irreparable harm is imminent, and cannot be prevented or reversed by the Court’s judgment.
18. In its Order of 8 March 2011, the Court addressed the meaning of “urgency” in the
context of a request for provisional measures : “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 i mminent
risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court has given its
76
final decision” . Mr. President, that is the situation we have here. The risk of further irreparable
prejudice, in the form of violation of Nica ragua’s sovereignty and harm to the San Juan River and
its protected environment, is real. It is imminent, as well, because Costa Rica is planning to resume
its harmful activities imminently . And the harm to Nicaragua ’s rights, in the form of continued
75“Action Plan for Completion”.
76
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. 64Questions relating to the Obligation to
Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Provisional Measures, Order of 28 May 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
pp. 152-153, para. 62. - 43 -
construction of the road until its completion next year, will be caused before the Court has given its
final decision.
19. In the Nuclear Tests case New Zealand demonstrated that irreparable harm was real and
imminent because France had already carried ou t a series of atmospheric tests, had refused to give
assurances that it would conduct no further tests, and had made official pronouncements from
78
which it appeared that further tests were envis ioned . The Court indicated provisional measures,
finding that there was “an immediate possibility of a further . . . test being carried out by France in
the Pacific” and that “for the purpose of the present proceedings it suffices to observe that
information submitted to the Court . . . does not exclude the possibil ity that damage to New
79
Zealand might be shown to be caused” .
20. In the present case, Costa Rica has likewise refused to give assurances that it will engage
no further in its harmful activity. To the contrary, it has publicly announced that it will resume
construction of the road as soon as possible, and that it will complete the project before the Court
has a chance to give its final decision.
80
21. The latter point is critical . In the Great Belt case , Denmark argued that there was no
urgency to Finland’s request for provisional measures because “according to the planned schedule
for construction . . . no physical hindrance for the passage through the Great Belt [would] occur
before the end of 1994” and “by that time the case could have been finally decided by the Court” 81.
It was not all construction by Denmark that posed a risk of irreparable harm to Finland, only that
portion of the works that would have obstructed passage . The Court accepted Denmark ’s
assurances that there would be no physical obstr uction before the end of 1994. On that basis, it
concluded that “the proceedings on the merits in the present case would, in the normal course, be
completed before that time,” and therefore, that Finland had failed to show that “the right claimed
will be infringed by construction work during the pendency of the proceedings” 82. We are in the
77
Nuclear Tests (New Zealandv. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 135.
7Ibid,, p. 140, para. 26.
7Ibid., pp. 140-141, paras. 27 and 30.
80
Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark), Provisional Measures, Order of 29 July 1991, I.C.J.
Reports 1991, p. 12.
81
Ibid., p. 17, para. 24.
8Ibid., p. 18, para. 27. - 44 -
opposite situation here. Any construction of the road by Costa Rica will cause still more harm to
the river, and will therefore aggravate the ongoing infringement of N icaragua’s rights during the
pendency of these proceedings.
22. The Pulp Mills case 83also offers useful lessons . The Court will recall that it denied
Argentina’s request for provisional measures to stop Uruguay from commissioning two paper pulp
mills on the Uruguay River. At the time, Uruguay had authorized construction, but not operation
84
of the mills, which would not commence, even if authorized, for another two years . And
Argentina acknowledged that there was no irreparable harm from construction alo ne, only from
85
operation . Thus, irreparable harm, if any, was far from imminent.
23. Moreover, Uruguay had provided Argentina not only with its own e nvironmental impact
assessment, but also with two comprehensive studies done at the behest of the World Bank, which
showed that the two mills could be safely operated without harming the river or its environs 8.
Uruguay also pledged to conduct a further EIA, and subject the mills to additional environmental
87
conditions recommended by the World Bank, prior to authorizing their operation . Finally,
Uruguay agreed not to present Argentina or the Court with a fait accompli. It gave an undertaking
to tear down the plants, or convert them to another use, if the Court determined in its final
Judgment that the plants should not be operated 8. The Court thus found that “their construction at
89
the current site cannot be deemed to create a fait accompli” , and that provisional measures were
not necessary.
24. The Court distinguished that situation from the one in which construction itself cause s
the irreparable harm:
83
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 13 July 2006, I.C.J.
Reports 2006, p. 113.
84
Ibid., p. 125, para. 46.
85Ibid., pp. 124-125, para. 45.
86Ibid., p. 124, para. 45.
87
Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, CR 2006/47, p. 47, para. 16.
88Ibid., p. 50, para. 26.
89Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Provisional Measures, Order of 13 July 2006, I.C.J.
Reports 2006, p.132, para. 78. - 45 -
“if it is established that the construction of works involves an infringement of a legal
right, the possibility cannot and should not be excluded a priori of a judicial finding
that such works must not be continued or must be modified or dismantled.” 90
25. Mr. President that is the situation we have here. In this case, unlike in Pulp Mills , the
irreparable harm comes from the construction of the works that is the building of the road as
much as, if not more than, by its use.
26. Nicaragua, unlike Argentina, cannot sit tight during the construction phase and hope that
the operation of the facility is unharmful . By that time, still more irreparable harm will have been
done to the river, and still more prejudice will have been caused to Nicaragua’s rights.
27. Also, unlike Argentina, Nicaragua has not been given an undertaking by Costa Rica that
it will un-build the road at the end of the day if the Court determines it is harmful to the river . Nor
would such an undertaking do any good here. The major irreparable damage, from construction of
the road, will already have been done . Un -building it would make things even worse .
Deconstruction of the road would be just as harmful to the river, in terms of massive deposit of
sediments and other pollutants, as constructing it . Only the measures recommended by
Dr. Kondolf and his team, and requested by Nicaragua, would stand any chance of protecting the
river from the sediment and debris that are constantlyentering the river from the road.
28. In this case, unlike Pulp Mills , there is a grave risk of irreparable environmental harm,
not only to the river, but to the protected wetlands on both sides, the importance and vulnerability
of which Costa Rica itself has highlighted. We take Costa Rica at its word in regard to its interest
in protecting these wetlands, at the mouth of the San Juan River, from irreparable harm . Three
weeks ago, Costa Rica’s expert, Dr. Thorne, warned that if enough silt were deposited at the mouth
of the San Juan River, there would be “a significant risk that it would close entirely at times of low
runoff during the next and subsequent dry seasons” 91. According to Dr. Kondolf, that is the same
risk that is exacerbated by Costa Rica’ s road construction activities, and the sediments they drive
into the river, which are carried down to the mouth where they accumulate.
90Ibid., p. 132, para. 78, referring to Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v.Denmark), Provision al
Measures, Order of 29 July 1991, I.C.J. Reports 1991, p. 19, para. 31.
91
Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Impact of the Construction of the two New Caños on Isla Portillos,
Attach. PM-33, Request for Provisional Measures by Costa Rica, Case Concerning Certain Activities Carried out by
Nicaragua in the Border Area (10 Oct. 2013), p. 6, para. 4.7. - 46 -
29. Mr. President, Costa Rica, as well as Nicaragua, would appear to gain from measures
that reduce the sediment load of the river, and enable it to continue to supply fresh and clean water
to the wetlands, and the flora and fauna that inhabit it, on both banks of the Lower San Juan near its
mouth. Keeping the river from silting up also serves Costa Rica ’s interests in bei ng able to
exercise its right to navigate on the river for commercial purposes. How then would Costa Rica be
harmed by provisional measures requiring it to refrain from further road construction activities
pending the issuance of the Court’s Judgment?
30. To answer this question, we have to hear from Costa Rica on why it is building the road
in the first place. Nicaragua offers no conjecture here. Again, we take Costa Rica at its own word .
According to the President of Costa Rica, and various senior government officials, there is one
purpose for the construction of this road : national defence 92. President Chinchilla has repeatedly
stated that the road is necessary to protect Costa Rica specifically to protect the disputed area
that is the subject of the Certain Activities case against a “military invasion” by Nicaragua 93.
The President, and other officials of her government, characterized Nicaragua ’s clearing and
dredging activities in 2010, in regard to the first caño in the disputed area, expressly as a “military
invasion” of Costa Rican territory 9. Route 1856 has been justified as a direct and immediate
response to th is so-called military invasion. Its construction was quickly authorized under an
emergency decree as vital to the protection of Co sta Rica’s territorial integrity and national
95
security . Costa Rica has not sought to justify it on the basis of economic development,
commercial activity, or civilian transportation or communication needs. Its raison d’être is to
facilitate the movement of Costa Rican security personnel to the region, to safeguard against
potential Nicaraguan military encroachments upon the disputed area, and to evacuate civilians in
92Presidency of the Republic of Costa Rica, Position of the Government of the Republic in Relation to
Route 1856, 24 May 2013, available at http://presidencia.go.cr/index.php/centro-de-prensa/prensa-presidencia/…-
posicion-del-gobierno-de-la-republica-en-relacion-con-la-ruta-1856 (NPM-3)
93Ibid,; Decree No. 36440-MP, Costa Rica, Official Daily Gaz ette No. 46, 7 March 2011 (CM N, Vol. III,
Ann. 35 (1)).
94
Ibid.
95Presidency of the Republic of Costa Rica, Position of the Government of the Republic in Relation to
Route 1856, 24 May 2013 (NPM -3). See also , By -laws and regulations, Presidency of the Republic, National
Commission on Risk Prevention and Attention to Em ergencies, Decision No. 0362-2011, Specific By-Laws regarding
purchasing and contracts procedures under exception mechanisms regime by virtue of the Declaration of a State of
Emergency by virtue of Decree No. 6440, 21 Sep. 2011 (MN, Ann. 12, in the Dispute Concerning Construction of a
Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)). - 47 -
96
case of a Nicaraguan armed attack . [Graphic] Here, in its own words, is how Costa Rica
explained the purpose of the road as recently as May 2013. This is from a document, produced in
its entirety at t ab 11 of your judges’ folder, both in the Spanish original and English translation.
The document bears the heading : “Position of the Gover nment of the Republic in Relation to
Route 1856.”
“Costa Rica assumed defense of its national sovereigntyand territorial integrity
as a consequence of acts carried out by Nicaragua in the northern borderline area.
That country is the one that militarily invaded Costa Rican territory and keeps
threatening us with a scale-up of the conflict.
At that time, our policemen did not have access to the area in conflict by land,
they could not access it by water, and it was very difficult to do so by air. This
obliged us to take urgent and immediate actions to allow them access to the area. In
addition, the risk of an escalated conflict could result in the displacement of borderline
communities, which required a road to facilitate civil evacuation actions, mobilization
and defense.” 97
31. There are, then, two competing rights at issue in these proceedings . One is Nicaragua’ s
right to protection against harm to the San Juan River and its environment resulting from
Costa Rica’s road-building activities. The other is Costa Rica’s right to construct a road in its own
territory. These rights did not have to come into conflict, if Costa Rica had constructed a road after
careful preparation of plans, following professional engineering standards, and observing its
international obligations vis-à-vis Nicaragua. But Costa Rica did not do any of this, and a dispute
has resulted. The Court will ultimately decide which of these rights prevails over the other, or
whether they can be balanced in a manner that is equitable to both Parties . For present purposes,
however, only one of these rights is threatened with irreparable harm. And that is Nicaragua’s right
to protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and protection of the river from silting up,
from pollution and from other environmental harm . Professor McCaffrey has shown how that
harm is irreparable, and I have explained why it is imminent — such that protective measures are
required as a matter of urgency.
32. The same cannot be said of Costa Rica’s right. Postponing the resumption of
construction activities for another year or so, until the Court issues its judgment, would do no
96
24 May 2013 (NPM-3).f the Republic of Costa Rica, Position of the Government of the Republic in Relation to Route 1856
9Ibid., paras. 1-2. - 48 -
irreparable harm to Costa Rica’s right. Costa Rica has already delayed construction for more than
a year due to its own internal difficulties . It has not been the victim of a Nicaraguan military
invasion during this period. Nor is any such invasion likely, or even, to be blunt, remotely
imaginable. Costa Rica’ s interest in having a road to protect its interests in the disputed area
against a Nicaraguan attack is already protected by the Court ’s Order of 8 March 2011, which
requires Nicaragua to refrain from sending military personnel into the disputed area.
33. Mr. President, even uttering the words “Nicaraguan military invasion” or “Nicaraguan
attack” seems surreal. It is difficult to believe that Costa Rica takes this delusion seriously . Yet,
this is what Costa Rica’s most senior officials, including their President, repeatedly invoke as the
reason for constructing H ighway 1856, and the reason for rushing to complete it . This does not
mean, however, that there is any basis for the Court to take it seriously . The evidence shows that it
need not.
34. The day after the Court issued its Order — as the Court is aware — the Commander of
the Nicaraguan a rmy for the southern region issued his own order that explicitly forbade all
military personnel from entering the area 98. This order was issued pursuant Presidential Decree
No. 79 of the year 2009, which gave the a rmy commander authority over all military and civilian
governmental activities and personnel in the remote area of the L ower San Juan River. For at least
two-and-a-half years, until August 2013, Nicaraguan military and civilian personnel faithfully
complied with this order and, more importantly, with the Order of the Court. The Court has been
informed of Mr. Pastora’s activities in the area during late August and September, which
President Ortega immediately put an end to , as soon as he learned of them . Costa Rica has
complained of no other intrusions into the disputed area by Nicaraguan military or governmental
personnel, and there have been none . Nicaragua remains subject to the Court ’s Order, and has
reiterated to the Court its commitment to comply with it. I n short, Costa Rica has a better means
than Route 1856 of protecting itself from the purely hypothetical incursion of Nicaraguan military
forces into the disputed area. It has an Order from the Court.
9Order No. 005 from the Chief of the South Military Detachment for compliance of order from the Chief of S taff
regarding the implementation of special measures based on provisional measures of protection ordered by the
International Court of Justice and ma intenance of the anti -drug trafficking plan, rural, security plan and presidential
Decree 79/2009 at the San Juan de Nicaragua directorateMarch 2011 (CMN, Ann. 36, in the Dispute Concerning
Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)). - 49 -
35. I should also point out another reason for the la ck of urgency, if not lack of need itself,
for the completion of this road. [Graphic] This is CostaRica’s map, from its Written Observations
on the Admissibility of Nicaragua’s Counter -Claims, in the Certain Activities case . It is at tab 12
of your judges’ folder. The disputed area is indicated in the upper right quadrant, near the very top
of the page. T he road is shown as a green line, in the lower left quadrant. As depicted here, t he
road ends more than 25 km from the disputed area . It is a long 25 km. There is no way to get by
land from the end of the road to the disputed area . Nor does Costa Rica have the right to send its
security forces to the disputed area via the river . It would have to build a bridge across the
Colorado branch of the San Juan, which is not included in their road construction project, and even
then it would have to build a road across more than 20 km of impassable swampland that also
happens to be a protected Ramsar site. This is truly, literally, a road to nowhere . It is difficult to
imagine how it would be of use to Costa Rica in self -defence against a Nicaraguan military
invasion of the disputed area, even if one were willing to suspend disbelief long enough to imagine
such a possibility.
36. In the Certain Activities case, the Court will ultimately decide whether the disputed area
belongs to Nicaragua or to Costa Rica . If it decides in favour of Nicaragua, then Costa Rica can
have no interest in protecting that area against a so -called Nicaraguan “invasion”. If it d ecides in
favour of Costa Rica, then Nicaragua will no longer have a claim to the area, and will be bound by
the Court’s judgment, as well as the U nited Nations and OAS Charters and general international
law, to respect Costa Rica’ s sovereignty and territo rial integrity. Nicaragua has already told the
Court it would abide by its Judgment, whatever it may be, and there is no reason to doubt this
undertaking.
37. Thus, Costa Rica ’s right to protect itself by building a road on its territory is not
threatened by the provisional measures requested by Nicaragua. If Nicaragua’s request is granted,
Costa Rica’s right will not be irreparably harmed . In fact, it w ill not be harmed at all, given the
stated purpose of the road. Costa Rica’s security interests are already protected by an Order of the
Court. Should a mythical Nicaraguan military in cursion occur, or should Costa Rica have grounds
for believing that it might, it can come back to the Court for further protection . It has shown no
hesitancy about coming here in the past. - 50 -
38. In conclusion, it is Nicaragua’s right and only Nicaragua’s right that is threatened
with irreparable harm. The threat is grave, and it is imminent . The harm is such that it could not
be prevented or reversed by the Court ’s final judgment. The Court’s jurisprudence makes clear
that, when considering the indication of provisional measures, the Court takes the interests of both
parties into account and seeks to ensure that neither party’s right in issue is subjected to irreparable
prejudice pending the final j udgment. Mr. President, Costa Rica ’s right in issue to protect its
claimed territory from military incursion by Nicaragua by construction of this roa has already
been protected pendente lite by the Court. It is Nicaragua’s right that requires protection now. The
measures requested by Nicaragua would protect that right, without diminishing Costa Rica ’s. As
Professor Pellet will now explain, those measures meet the well -known standards for the issuance
of provisional measures, and should be indicated by the Court.
Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind and courteous attention and
ask that you call my distinguished colleague Professor Pellet to the podium.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you , Mr. Reichler. Je passe la parole à M. le professeur
Alain Pellet. Vous avez la parole, Monsieur.
M. PELLET :
L ES MESURES DEMANDÉES PAR LE N ICARAGUA
1. Merci, Monsieur le président . Monsieur le président, j’ai bien noté que je pouvais
continuer jusqu’à 13 heures 10, cela m’évitera d’engager avec les interprètes une course qu’ils
risqueraient de ne pas gagner.
Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, il m’appartient de détailler les
mesures demandées par le Nicaragua et d’en établir le bien -fondé (II.). Auparavant, je souhaite
dire quelques mots sur les relations qui peuvent exister entre nos propres demandes et celles dont le
Costa Rica vous a saisis il y a trois semaines (I.). - 51 -
I. Les relations entre les mesures demandées par le Nicaragua et
par le Costa Rica
2. Monsieur le président, comme la Cour l’a expliqué dans ses ordonnances du 17 avril2013,
les deux affaires dont le Costa Rica d’abord, le Nicaragua ensuite, l’ont saisie, sont indissociables.
3. Il reste qu’elles demeurent des affaires distinctes en ceci au moins que celle dont le
Nicaragua vous a saisis, l’affaire de la route 1856, concerne des problèmes de beaucoup plus
grande ampleur aussi bien géographiquement que matériellement que ceux liés à la parcelle
frontalière contestée . Dès lors, bien qu’il soit légitime, tant pour la Cour que pour les Parties, de
tenir compte du contexte commun aux deux affaires et, à mon sens, que vous soyez parfaitement en
droit, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, de vous prononcer par une ordonnanc e commune sur les
deux demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires, il convient certainement que vous
appréciez leur bien-fondé individuellement et de manière distincte.
4. Il est fréquemment arrivé, dans le passé, que les deux Parties à un différend porté devant
la Cour aient formulé des demandes croisées en indication de mesures conservatoires. Je pense par
exemple à l’affaire Burkina/Mali 100, à celle du Génocide 101ou encore à Cameroun c. Nigeria 10. Et
c’est aussi ce que nous avons voulu faire dans le cadre du présent différend après que le Costa Rica
vous a saisis d’un incident, qu’il eût pourtant été facile de résoudre par la voie diplomatique.
5. Il nous a semblé que cette «contre -demande», si l’on veut, était justifiée car, en vous
saisissant de l ’incident que je viens de mentionner aussi regrettable qu’il pût paraître le
Costa Rica tentait de détourner l’attention des activités polluantes de grande ampleur qu’il mène ou
prévoit de mener à nouveau, incessamment , sur le San Juan, activités qui constituent une menace,
autrement plus grave, à la navigabilité et à l’environnement du fleuve. Pour reprendre une formule
que vous aviez utilisée dans votre ordonnance de 1997 relative aux demandes reconventionnelles
99 Voir mutatis mutandis, Plateau continental de la mer du Nord (République fédérale d’Allemagne/Danemark)
(République fédérale d’Allemagne/Pays-Bas), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 19, par. 11.
100
Différend frontalier (Burkina F aso/République du Mali) , mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
10 janvier 1986, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 4, par. 2, p. 5-6, par. 5-6, p. 7-8, par. 8 et p. 8, par. 9.
101
Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie -Herzégovine c.
Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)), mesures conservatoires, ordonnancedu 8 avril 1993 , C.I.J. Recueil 1993, p. 7-8,
par. 3 et p. 9-10, par. 9 et Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide
(Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 13 septembre
1993, C.I.J. Recueil 1993, p. 332-333, par. 6 et p. 335-336, par. 19.
102 Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Cameroun c. Nigéria), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 15 mars 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 18, par. 20, p. 19, par. 23 et p. 20, par. 26. - 52 -
dans l’affaire du Génocide , les deux demandes costa -ricienne et nicaraguayenne relèvent d’«un
même ensemble factuel complexe» 103. Il n’y a donc rien d’incongru à ce que la Cour soit appelée à
examiner deux demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires introduites successivement par
les deux Parties à des affaires que vous avez jointes.
6. Ceci étant, nous le reconnaissons bien volontiers, les délais étaient fort courts et il est
compréhensible que, dans sa sagesse, la Cour ait décidé de dissocier la demande du Costa Rica, qui
nous a réunis dans ce grand hall de justice il y a trois semaines, de celle que nous avons formulée à
notre tour.
7. Outre les considérations pratiques qui suffisent à la justifier, cette dissociation a l’avantage
de lever l’ambiguïté qui avait marqué le précédent de mai dernier. Je me permets de rappeler qu’à
cette occasion le Costa Rica, fidèle à sa stratégie du harassement de la Cour par mesures
conservatoires interposées, vous avait priés, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, de modifier votre
ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires du 8 mars 2011, ce à quoi le Nicaragua avait
répondu par une demande modificatrice du même type. En même temps que vous rejetiez la
demande costa- ricienne, vous avez, dans les motifs de votre ordonnance du 16 juillet dernier,
considéré que :
«27. la demande du Nicaragua tendant à ce que l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011
soit modifiée ou adaptée [était] sans rapport avec la situation considérée dans cette
ordonnance»,
et que :
«même si la situation invoquée dans l’affaire Nicaragua c. Co sta Rica justifiait
l’indication de mesures conservatoires, la voie appropriée pour ce faire ne saurait être 104
la modification de l’ordonnance rendue dans l’affaire Costa Rica c. Nicaragua» .
8. La dissociation que vous avez opérée 105permet, je crois, de clarifier les choses : certes,
notre demande en indication de mesures conservatoires est liée au même contexte factuel que l’était
celle du Costa Rica ; mais il s’agit d’une demande autonome portant sur le volet Nicaragua
103
Application de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bo-Herzégovine
c. Yougoslavie), demandes reconventionnelles, ordonnance du 17 décembre 1997, C.I.J. Recueil 1997, p. 258, par. 34.
104Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua/Construction
d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fl euve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
16 juillet 2013, par. 26-29.
105
Lettre en date du 14 octobre 2013 adressée à l’agent du Nicaragua par legreffier (réf. 142617). - 53 -
c. Costa Rica des affaires jointes par vos ordonnances du 17 avril 2013 et cette demande
n’implique pas nécessairement une modification de votre décision du 8 mars 2011 : elle peut aussi
bien se traduire par l’adoption d’une ordonnance distincte, entièrement nouvelle, s’ajoutant à
celle-ci.
II. Les demandes du Nicaragua
9. Au bénéfice de ces remarques, j’en viens, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, à l’examen du
contenu des mesures conservatoires que le Nicaragua vous prie de bien vouloir décider.
10. Dans un débat public récemment organisé pa r l’American Society of International
Law 10, l’une d’entre vous donnait ce sage conseil aux avocats se présentant devant vous : «ne dites
jamais : «comme l’a dit mon confrère X ou Y...»». Je suis bien conscient que ce n’est pas de la
bonne plaidoirie et que les rappels de ce genre ne sont, en principe, pas de mise : votre écoute est,
bien sûr, attentive... Mais je me permets de penser que la formule est tolérable si elle est suivie
par : «ceci me dispense d’y revenir». Je dirais donc : «comme l’ont montré de manière fort
convaincante mes collègues et amis, Steve McCaffrey et Paul Reichler», les agissements du
Costa Rica risquent de causer de manière imminente et, à vrai dire, causent d’ores et déjà un
préjudice irréparable mettant en péril les droits d u Nicaragua en cause dans l’affaire de la
o
construction de la route n 1856 ; «il n’est donc pas nécessaire que j’y revienne».
11. Cela signifie que, globalement, les deux conditions de fond qui doivent être réunies pour
que vous indiquiez des mesures cons ervatoires sont remplies. Je vais m’employer maintenant à
montrer spécifiquement que ces circonstances appellent plus précisément les mesures provisoires
que le Nicaragua vous a priés de bien vouloir indiquer et je me réfère à la lettre de l’agent
107 o
du Nicaragua au greffier de la Cour du 11 octobre 2013 ; elle se trouve sous l’onglet n 13 de
votre dossier.
o
[Projection n 1 : La première mesure conservatoire demandée par le Nicaragua.]
106J. Donoghue, Keynote Discussion, jeudi 31 octobre 2013, «A Conversation on the Art of Judging».
107
Réf. HOL-EMB-196. - 54 -
1. La première mesure conservatoire demandée par le Nicaragua
12. Aux termes de sa première demande, le Nicaragua prie la Cour de décider «that
Costa Rica immediately and unconditionally provides Nicaragua with the Environmental Impact
Assessment Study and all technical reports and assessments on the measures necessary to m itigate
significant environmental harm to the River ». Ceci, Monsieur le président, est la première des
mesures indispensables pour préserver les droits du Nicaragua, celle qui conditionne l’efficacité de
toutes les autres.
13. Le Nicaragua a justifié la nécessité d’une telle étude d’impact sur l’environnement , une
(«EIE»), dès sa requête introductive d’instance. Dès cette première étape, il avait demandé
«à la Cour de bien vouloir exercer le pouvoir que lui confère son Statut d’ordonner
au Costa Rica de produire le document en question».
Et nous avions ajouté :
«En tout état de cause, et surtout si cette demande ne donne aucun résultat,
le Nicaragua se réserve le droit de demander formellement l’indication de mesures
conservatoires sur la base de l’artic le 41 du Statut et des procédures pertinentes
prévues aux articles 73 et suivants du Règlement de la Cour.» 108
C’est ce à quoi vise la première demande du Nicaragua, puisque, jusqu’à présent, la Cour n’a pas
donné suite à celle qu’il avait formulée dans sa r equête et sur laquelle son agent avait à nouveau
appelé son attention dans sa lettre au greffier du 19 décembre 2012 soumettant notre mémoire 10.
14. De même, dans le mémoire en question, le Nicaragua a établi que le Costa Rica ne
pouvait écarter d’un rever s de la main l’obligation d’établir une étude d’impact sur
l’environnement et de lui en communiquer le résultat 11, et il en a conclu que le Costa Rica était
dans l’obligation
«Not to continue or undertake any future development in the area without an
appropriate transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment and that this assessment
must be presented in a timely fashion to Nicaragua for its analysis and reaction.» 111
15. Il est clair que le Nicaragua a donc toujours présenté l’établissement et la communicatio n
o
d’une EIE comme le préalable indispensable à toute décision concernant la route n 1856. Il s’agit
108
Requête introductive d’instance, p.33, par. 55.
109 Lettre en date du 19 décembre 2012 adressée à la Cour par le Nicaragua, accompagnant le mémoire
du Nicaragua (réf. 02-19-12-2012).
110Voir notamment p. 152-171, par. 5.6-5.41.
111
Submissions, par. 2 iv). - 55 -
là non pas de l’objet de la requête du Nicaragua, mais d’un acte préalable, préparatoire, nécessaire
pour évaluer le bien-fondé de celle-ci.
16. Telle est d’ailleurs aussi la manière dont le Costa Rica lui-même voit les choses :
«States are under an obligation to ensure that such activities within their
jurisdiction and control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or
areas beyond their national jurisdiction 112. Stemming from this obligation, a proper
environmental impact assessment is a prerequisite . A State is obliged, as a matter of
general international law, to assess the extent to which activities within its jurisdiction
will cause ha rm to other States, particularly in areas or regions of shared
environmental conditions, and to consult with neighbouring 113te114bout the
environmental implications of the planned activities .»
Je ne saurais mieux dire, Monsieur le président : l’EIE est une condition préalable, a prerequisite, à
l’appréciation du bien-fondé de toute action envisagée dans des circonstances de ce genre.
17. Telle est aussi la très ferme position prise par la Cour, qui a rappelé, dans l’affaire des
Usines de pâte à papier, l’existence d’
«une pratique acceptée si largement par les Etats ces dernières années que l’on peut
désormais considérer qu’il existe, en droit international général, une obligation de
procéder à une évaluation de l’impact sur l’environnement lorsque l’act ivité
industrielle projetée risque d’avoir un impact préjudiciable important dans un cadre
transfrontière, et en particulier sur une ressource partagée. De plus, on ne pourrait
considérer qu’une partie s’est acquittée de son obligation de diligence, et du devoir de
vigilance et de prévention que cette obligation implique, dès lors que, prévoyant de
réaliser un ouvrage suffisamment important pour affecter le régime du fleuve ou la
qualité de ses eaux, elle n’aurait pas procédé à une évaluation de l’impact s 115 ur
l’environnement permettant d’apprécier les effets éventuels de son projet.»
Tout récemment, le Tribunal arbitral constitué dans l’affaire du Barrage de Kishenganga a
également rappelé avec fermeté l’obligation d’évaluer le risque écologique avant de pr océder à la
116
réalisation de tout projet de ce type .
18. Il s’agit bien d’une condition préalable, préparatoire, conservatoire par excellence, en
l’absence de laquelle aucune action ne peut être décidée ou entreprise et aucune appréciation du
bien-fondé d’une telle action ne peut être faite en connaissance de cause. Comme la Commission
112
Note 443, Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Rio Declaration on
Environment and Development, 1992, A/CONF.151/26 ( Vol. I), Principle 2 ; see also Principle 21.
113 Note 444, Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm,
16 June 1972, Principle 14.
114MCR, p. 208, par. 5.22 - souligné par moi.
115
Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2010 (I), p. 82-83,
par. 204.
116 Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration, sentence partielle du 18 février 2013, p. 169, par. 450,
http ://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1392. - 56 -
du droit international l’a noté dans son pourtant très prudent projet d’articles sur la prévention des
dommages transfrontières :
«Toute décision relative à l’autorisatio n d’une activité entrant dans le champ
d’application des présents articles, repose, en particulier, sur une évaluation du
dommage transfrontière possible du fait de cette activité, dont une évaluation de
l’impact sur l’environnement.» 117
19. Dans la lettre qu’il a adressée à l’agent du Nicaragua le 11 mars 2013, le greffier
indiquait que la Cour était d’avis «that the circumstances of the case, as they now present
themselves to it, are not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 75 of the Rules of
118
Court to indicate provisional measures proprio motu» . Outre qu’il n’est plus demandé à votre
haute juridiction de se prononcer proprio motu, sans avoir été éclairée par les éléments de preuves
discutées par les Parties, les circonstances elles- mêmes ont changé et l’exigence préalable d’une
EIE s’est faite particulièrement pressante du fait de l’annonce par le Costa Rica de son intention de
reprendre les travaux de construction de la route n o 1856.
[Fin de la projection n 1 Projection n 2 : La deuxième mesure conservatoire demandée par le
Nicaragua.]
2. La deuxième mesure conservatoire demandée par le Nicaragua
20. Monsieur le président, la deuxième mesure conservatoire ou plutôt la deuxième série
de mesures conservatoires que le Nicaragu a prie la Cour de bien vouloir indiquer est plus
complexe. Ces demandes sont projetées à l’écran en ce moment et figurent à l’onglet no 14 du
dossier des juges.
21. L’érosion des rives du fleuve est continue ; et l’éboulement des pentes de la route
menace constamment. Tout ceci est d’autant plus préoccupant que tout accident météorologique se
traduira inévitablement, si l’on n’y veille, par une aggravation dramatique de la situation.
117
Article 7 (Evaluation du risque) du Projet d’articles sur la préve ntion dee dommages transfrontières résultant
d’activités dangereuses, Annuaire de la Commission du droit international (2001), vol. II, 2, p. 169 ; les italiques
sont de moi. Voir aussi, par exemple, la convention sur l’évaluation de l’impact sur l’environnement dans un contexte
transfrontière, 25 février 1991, Espoo, Finlande, Nations Unies, Recueil des traités, vol. 1989, p. 333- 334, art. 2, al. 3)
et 7).
118
Lettre en date du 14 mars 2013 adressée à l’agent du Nicaragua par le greffier (réf. 141600). - 57 -
22. Or, depuis que le Nicaragua a déposé sa requête, pratiquement rien n’a été fait et la
situation s’est au contraire considérablement dégradée, ce que confirme le rapport du
professeur Kondolf de la semaine dernière :
«Our field observations in October 2013 clearly showed that erosion is actively
occurring along multiple parts of the road, and that erosion control and drainage works
have been ine119ctive in addressing the serious erosion and slope stability
problems.»
23. Des mesures conservatoires d’urgence semblent, dans ces conditions, plus qu’amplement
justifiées. L es quatre mesures concrètes que le Nicaragua prie la Cour de bien vouloir indiquer
sont de nature à éviter l’accumulation des dommages causés au fleuve dont il me paraît
120
important de rappeler à nouveau qu’il est sous souveraineté nicaraguayenne et ces mesures
semblent relativement aisées à mettre en Œuvre.
24. [Surligner 2 a)] La première de ces mesures s’avère tout particulièrement nécessaire car
comme l’écrivait le professeur Kondolf dès décembre 2012,
«[s]ediment eroded from Route 1856 has already reached the Río San Juan through a
number of pathways» 121.
25. Le professeur de Berkeley n’est pas seul à s’alarmer des risques d’affaissement de la
route. Ainsi, dans un rapport de mai 2012 (mais la situation ne s’est pas améliorée depuis lors bien
au contraire), le laboratoire national des matériaux et des modèles structurels de l’Université du
Costa Rica dénonçait the «high risk of collapsing during the rainy season as a result of nonexistent
drainage structures and instability of a large number of cuts and fills»and stressed that,
«Leaving the Border Trail in full operating condition immediately requires a
major additional investment of resources to build missing drainage structures,
complete and stabilize many cut and fill sectors, and particularly b uild bridges over
Sarapiquí, San Carlos, and Pocosol rivers.» 122
119
G. M. Kondolf, «Continued Impacts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the Río San Juan, Nicaragua»,
30 octobre 2013, annexe2 de la lettre du 1novembre 2013, p. 2 (réf. HOL-EMB-223).
120
Voir l’article VI du traité de limites du 15 avril 1858 ; voir aussi : CMN, p. 32, par. 2.29, p. 33, par. 2.35 et
p. 52-56, par. 3.3-3.13.
121G. Mathias Kondolf, Danny Hagans, Bill Weaver & Eileen Weppner : «Environmental Impacts of Juan Rafael
Mora Porras Route 1856, Costa Rica, on the Río San Juan, Nicaragua », décembre 2012, par. 1.3.5 (MN, vol. II, p. 6).
122 National Laboratory of Materials and Structural Models of the University of Costa Rica, «Report
INF-PITRA-014-12 : Report from Inspection of Route 1856 - Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road », mai 2012 (MN,
annexe 3, vol. II, p. 255) ; voir aussi : Federated Association of En gineers and Architects of Costa Rica, «Report on
Inspection on the Border Road, of the Northern Area Parallel to the San Juan River CFIA Repor», 8 juin 2012, par. 5.8
(MN, annexe 4, vol. II, p. 284). - 58 -
26. Ces propositions du laboratoire costa -ricien rejoignent largement les mesures
conservatoires que le Nicaragua prie aujourd’hui la Cour d’indiquer conformément aux
préconisations du profess eur Kondolf que je n’ai pas le temps de lire ; mais elles se trouvent
sous l’onglet n o15 du dossier des juges. En les lisant, vous pourrez constater, Mesdames et
Messieurs de la Cour, à la fois combien elles sont indispensables, précises, raisonnables, et, autant
que je puisse en juger, relativement faciles à mettre en Œuvre (même si elles doivent l’être
sérieusement).
27. [Surligner 2 b) ] En deuxième lieu, Monsieur le président, le Nicaragua a prié la Cour
d’indiquer au Costa Rica qu’il doit d’urgenc e «(b) Eliminate or significantly reduce the risk of
future erosion and sediment delivery at all stream crossings along Route 1856.»
28. Les vices qui entachent la conception et la construction des nombreux franchissements
de cours d’eau (stream crossings) par la route 1856 (il en existe déjà une soixantaine) en font des
endroits particulièrement exposés en cas de pluies. En conséquence, comme le souligne le
professeur Kondolf, ils peuvent être à l’origine de déversements massifs dans le fleuve et de
pollutions très importantes 12.
29. Ici encore ces observations rejoignent celles du laboratoire de physique des matériaux de
l’Université du Costa Rica qui dénonce «the poor management of this issue [concerning the
stream-crossing] in the project» 124.
30. Dès mai 2012, ce laboratoire costa-ricien faisait les propositions suivantes pour tenter de
remédier à la situation :
«Completing the construction of adequate drainage structures in trail sectors
having a stable gravel platform as a high priority, in order to protect road investment
and functionality.
Building drainages in the other road sectors consisting of a dirt trail. All these
drainage works should be designed according to hydrological requirements in the area
and existing waterbody hydraulic characteristics.» 125
123
G. Mathias Kondolf, Danny Hagans, Bill Weaver & Eileen Weppner : «Environmental Impacts of Juan Rafael
Mora Porras Route 1856, Costa Rica, on the Río San Juan, Nicaragua », décembre 2012, par. 1.3.4 (MN, vol. II, p. 7-8) ;
voir aussi G. M. Kondolf, «Continued Imperts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the Río San Juan, Nicaragua»,
30 octobre 2013, annexe2 de la lettre du 1novembre 2013 (réf. HOL-EMB-223), p. 5-7, 10, 26 et 29.
124
National Laboratory of Materials and Structural Models of the University of Costa Rica, «Report
INF-PITRA-014-12: Report from Inspection of Route 1856 - Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road », mai 2012 ( MN,
annexe 3, vol. II, p. 239-240). - 59 -
31. Rien n’ayant bien sûr été fait en ce sens depuis lors, les propositions du
professeur Kondolf qui vont dans le même sens et que relaient les demandes du Nicaragua
paraissent faire l’unanimité des spécialistes au moins lorsqu’ils se prononcent à titre indépendant.
Les recommandations motivées du professeur Kondolf figurent sous l’onglet n o16 du dossier des
juges. Comme les précédentes, il me semble qu’elles méritent une lecture attentive.
32. [Surligner 2 c) ] Les deux autres mesures d’urgence que, selon nous, la Cour devrait
indiquer dans son ordonnance sont étroitement liées l’une à l’autre.
33. Dès son premier rapport, le professeur Kondolf avait attiré l’attention sur l’importance de
l’érosion de surface :
«We estimate that an annual and ongoing sediment input of 87,000 to 109,000
cubic meters [reaches the San Juan]. Future erosion and sediment delivery during a
tropical storm or hurricane will likely be greater than the current sediment transfer by
126
a factor of at least ten.»
34. Dans son rapport du 30 octobre de cette année, M. Kondolf montre que l’effet de cette
127
érosion massive se fait sentir immédiatement sur le fleuve et il rappelle combien les pluies
abondantes favorisent cette érosion 128. Il y constate en outre que les choses ne se sont pas
améliorées malgré quelques aménagements de fortune :
«Our field observations in October 2013 clearly showed that erosion is actively
occurring along multiple parts of the road, and that erosion control and drainage works
have been ineffecti ve in addressing the serious erosion and slope stability
problems.» 129
35. Et, conformément à la méthode constamment suivie par l’expert, celui -ci conclut cette
partie de son rapport en faisant un certain nombre de propositions précises et très concrètes, qui
o
sont reproduites sous l’onglet n 17 du dossier des juges. On peut considérer la demande 2 c) que
nous formulons comme une version abrégée de (et une référence à) ces préconisations.
125
National Laboratory of Materials and Structural Models of the University of Costa Rica, «Report
INF-PITRA-014-12: Report from Inspection of Route 1856 - Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road », mai 2012 (MN,
annexe 3, vol. II, p. 255-256).
126
G. Mathias Kondolf, Danny Hagans, Bill Weaver & Eileen Weppner : «Environmental Impacts of Juan
Rafael Mora Porras Route 1856, Costa Rica, on the Río San Juan, Nicaragua», décembre 2012, par. 1.3.6 (MN,
vol. II, p. 9).
127
G. M. Kondolf, «Continued Imercts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the Río San Juan, Nicaragua»,
30 octobre 2013 (annexe 2 à la lettre du 1ovembre 2013 (réf. HOL-EMB-223)).
128Ibid., p. 1-2, 8-10, 14 et 29.
129Ibid., p. 2 ; voir aussi, par exemple, le rapport de la délégation territoriale du fleuve San Juan du ministère de
l’environnement et des ressources naturelles, 27septembre 2013 (annexe 1 à la lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée
à la Cour par le Nicaragua (réf. HOL-EMB-220)). - 60 -
36. [Surligner 2 d)] Par ailleurs, dans son rapport de 2012 et ceci se rapporte davantage à
la mesure 2 d) le professeurKondolf dénonce
«The evident lack of measures to prepare for the wet season and lack of erosion
control measures along the route has resulted in persistent and serious erosion of bare
soils all alo ng the recently bulldozed alignment and at disturbed rock quarry sites .
Much of this eroded sediment has been delivered to the Río San Juan.» 130
37. Ici encore, ces constatations débouchent sur des propositions de sauvegarde que l’expert
131
consulté par le Ni caragua énonce dans son rapport du 12 octobre 2013 . Elles sont reproduites
o
sous l’onglet n 18 de vos dossiers.
38. Les recommandations du Professeur Kondolf rejoignent celles malheureusement
jamais suivies d’effet faites dès mai 2012 par le laborat oire de physiques des matériaux de
l’Université du Costa Rica :
«Expanding the use of erosion stabilization and control practices to the different
project sectors requiring them. Assessing the use of vegetative methods that could be
132
easily applied in several sectors.»
Je note en passant qu’aux fins de la présente instance, la Partie costa- ricienne s’est bien gardée de
133
faire appel à l’expertise considérable réunie dans ce laboratoire...
39. Monsieur le président, les photos qu’ont projetées mes collègue s ne me paraissent pas
laisser de grands doutes sur les graves malfaçons qui marquent la construction de la route ; et les
risques en résultant pour le San Juan paraissent également assez évidents même à un Béotien.
Mais, pas davantage, sans doute, que la très grande majorité des juristes, je n’ai la moindre idée sur
la manière dont, techniquement, on peut supprimer ces risques ou, au moins, en diminuer
130
G. Mathias Kondolf, Danny Hagans, Bill Weaver & Eileen Weppner : «Environmental Impacts of Juan
Rafael Mora Porras Route 1856, Costa Rica, on the Río San Juan, Nicaragua», décembre 2012, par. 3.8 (MN, vol. II,
p. 37-38).
131
G. M. Kondolf, «Confirmation of Urgent Measures to Mitigate Erosion & Sediment Delivery froerRte 1856,
Costa Rica, into the Río San Juan, Nicaragua» , 12 octobre 2013, annexe 1 de la lettre du 1 novembre 2013
(réf. HOL-EMB-223), p. 5. Voir aussi : G. M. Kondolf, «Continued Impacts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the
Río San Juan, Nicaragua», 30 octobre 2013.
132
National Laboratory of Materials and Structura l Models of the University of Costa Rica, «Report
INF-PITRA-014-12: Report from Inspection of Route 1856 - Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road », mai 2012 (MN,
annexe 3, vol. II, p. 255-256).
133
Voir Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE), SBU Projects and Associated Services, Centre for Basic
Engineering Studies, Department of Hydrology, «Report on Hydrology and Sedimerts for the Costa Rican River Basins
draining to the San Juan River », août 2013 (annexe 1 à la lettre en date du 1novembre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le
Costa Rica) ; et University of Costa Rica Cen tre for Research in Sustainable Development, Department of Civil
Engineering, «Report on Systematic Field monitoring of Erosion and Sediment Yield along Route 1856» ,
septembre 2013 (annexe 2 à la lettre en date du 1rnovembre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le CostaRica). - 61 -
l’intensité. Et c’est la raison pour laquelle nous avons reproduit les conclusions du
professeur Kondolf dans le dossier des juges, afin de bien montrer que nous n’avons rien inventé.
40. Monsieur le président, je ne pense pas qu’il faille avoir du principe de précaution une
conception rigide et dogmatique car on risque alors l’immobilisme. Il n’en reste pas moins que les
prévisions à la fois très posées et alarmistes du Professeur Kondolf ne doivent pas être prises à la
légère : il existe, indiscutablement, un risque grave et imminent de préjudice irréparable, et des
mesures doivent et peuvent être prises pour le minimiser. L’indication des mesures
suggérées par le Nicaragua dans le point 2) des demandes formulées dans la lettre de
l’ambassadeur ArgüelloGómez du 11 octobre dernier irait dans le sens de cette minimisation.
o o
[Fin de la projection n 2. Pr ojection n 3 : La troisième mesure conservatoire demandée par le
Nicaragua/The Third Provisional Measures Requested by Nicaragua.]
3. La troisième mesure conservatoire demandée par le Nicaragua
41. Monsieur le président, dans le point 3 de ces mêmes con clusions, le Nicaragua prie la
Cour to «Order Costa Rica not to renew any construction activities of the road while the Court is
seized of the present case.»
42. Cette demande paraît, à vrai dire relever du simple bon sens. Dans votre ordonnance du
8 mars 2011, vous avez, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, enjoint à l’unanimité aux Parties de
«s’abst[enir] de tout acte qui risquerait d’aggraver ou d’étendre le différend dont [elle] est saisie ou
d’en rendre la solution plus difficile» 134 et, toujours à l’unan imité, vous avez réaffirmé «en
135
particulier» cette mesure dans votre ordonnance du 16 juillet 2013 . Certes, cette injonction est
contenue dans les ordonnances relatives à l’affaire Costa Rica c. Nicaragua alors que la reprise de
o
la construction de la rout e n 1856 relève plus directement de Nicaragua c. Costa Rica ; mais,
comme le confirme leur jonction, les deux affaires sont étroitement liées et il n’est pas douteux que
la relance des travaux envisagée par la Partie costaricienne aggravera considérablement la
134Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalier (CosRica c. Nicaragua), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 27, par. 86, point 3).
135
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 Costa Rica), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 16 juillet 2013, par. 40, point 2. - 62 -
sédimentation du fleuve San Juan, rendant ainsi impossible le rétablissement de la situation
136
existante en 1858 à laquelle le Nicaragua a droit .
43. Du reste, la mesure que vous avez ordonnée en 2011 et réaffirmée en juillet dernier, n’est
que l’expression d’une obligation plus générale. On peut en effet considérer que les parties à toute
affaire portée devant la Cour sont tenues de ne pas aggraver la situation et de ne pas rendre plus
difficile le règlement du différend. Cette obligation est, en quelque sorte, le substrat, l’arrière-plan,
de toutes les autres mesures conservatoires que vous indiquez.
44. Comme vous l’avez rappelé dans vos ordonnances du 23 janvier 2007 et du
8 mars 2011 :
«la Cour a déjà indiqué à plusieurs reprises des mesures conservatoires ordonnant à
l’une ou l’autre des parties, voire aux deux, de s’abstenir de tous actes de nature à
137
aggraver ou étendre le différend ou à en rendre la solution plus difficile» .
et, vous avez ajouté que :
«dans ces affaires, des mesures conservatoires autres que celles ordonnant aux parties
de s’abstenir de tous actes de nature à aggraver ou étendre le différend ou à en rendre
la solution plus difficile ont été également indiquées…» 138
45. Dans notre espèce, l’adoption d’une mesure rappelant au C osta Rica qu’il ne doit pas
o
entreprendre de nouveaux travaux de construction de la route n 1856 aussi longtemps que votre
arrêt sur le fond n’aura pas été rendu n’est que la conséquence évidente de l’obligation dans
laquelle il se trouve comme le Nicaragua d’ailleurs de ne pas aggraver le différend. C’est
aussi, typiquement, une mesure entrant dans le cadre du
«droit pour la Cour d’indiquer des mesures conservatoires, prévu à l’article 41 du
Statut, [qui] a pour objet de sauvegarder les droits des parties en attendant que la Cour
rende sa décision, [et qui] présuppose qu’un préjudice irréparable ne doit pas être
136CMN, p. 60, par. 3.20, p. 95-96, par. 4.33 et p. 456, Submissions, par. 2 iv).
137 Voir, par exemple, Personnel diplomatique et consulaire des Etats -Unis à Téhéran, mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 15 décembre 1979, C.I.J. Recueil 1979, p. 21, par. 47, point B) ; Application de la convention pour la
prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosnie-Herzégovine c. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 avril 1993, C.I.J. Re cueil 1993, p. 24, par. 52, point B) ; Frontière terrestre et maritime
entre le Cameroun et le Nigeria (Cameroun c. Nigeria), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 15 mars 1996,
C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 24, par. 49, point 1) ; Activités armées sur le territoire du Congo (République démocratique du
Congo c. Ouganda), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 1 erjuillet 2000, C.I.J. Recueil 2000 , p. 129, par. 47,
point 1).
138 Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c.Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance
du 23 janvier 2007, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (I), p. 16, par. 49 ; et Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région
frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 ( I),
p. 21, par. 62. - 63 -
causé aux droits en litige devant le juge et qu’aucune initiative concernant les mesures
139
litigieuses ne doit anticiper sur l’arrêt de la Cour» .
46. En effet, ici, comme, mutatis mutandis, dans l’affaire de la Compétence en matière de
pêcheries, la reprise de travaux de construction de la route par le Costa Rica, en anticipant sur
l’arrêt de la Cour, «porterait préjudice aux droits invoqués pa r le [Nicaragua] et nuirait à la
140
possibilité de leur rétablissement intégral au cas où la Cour se prononcerait en sa faveur» .
47. J’ajoute que votre haute juridiction a eu, à maintes reprises, l’occasion d’ordonner la
suspension ou la non-reprise de certaines activités dans ses ordonnances en indication de mesures
conservatoires 141. Certes, dans deux affaires qui présentaient certains points communs avec celle
qui nous occupe celle du Grand Belt et celle des Usines de pâte à papier , la Cour a refusé
d’indiquer les mesures conservatoires demandées par l’Etat requérant. Mais, comme l’a
excellemment montré Paul Reichler, la question qui nous retient s’y posait, en réalité, tout à fait
différemment, en particulier parce que le caractère imminent de la menace, qui faisait défaut dans
ces deux affaires, n’est pas douteux dans la nôtre et, faute d’une ordonnance de la Cour, elle se
concrétisera bien pendente litis.
48. A cet égard, je relève que, assurément, il est difficile de préciser la date exacte à laquell e
celle-ci se concrétisera car la reprise annoncée des travaux semble se heurter à des difficultés
142
financières et à des soupçons de corruption . Mais la ferme volonté des autorités costa- riciennes
d’y procéder dès que possible ne fait pas le moindre doute : la date de passation des contrats
nécessaires au début des travaux et celle de leur commencement effectif ont été plusieurs fois
139Compétence en matière de pêcheries (Royaume-Uni de Grande -Bretagne et d’Irlande du Nord c. Islande),
mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 17 août 1972, C.I.J. Recueil 1972, p. 16, par. 21.
140Voir ibid., par. 22.
141
Voir, par exemple, Essais nucléaires (Australie c. France), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
22 juin 1973, C.I.J. Recueil 1973, p. 106 ; Essais nucléaires (Nouvelle-Zélande c. France), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 22 juin 1973, C.I.J. Recueil 1973, p. 142 ; Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre
celui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 10 mai 1984, C.I.J. Recueil 1984,
p. 187, par. 41 ; Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/République du Mali), mesu res conservatoires, ordonnance
du 10 janvier 1986, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 11 -12, par. 32 ; Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le
Nigéria, mesures conservatoires,ordonnance du 15 mars 1996, C.I.J. Recueil 1996 (I), p. 24, par. 49 ; et Activités armées
sur le territoire du Congo (République démocratique du Congo c. Ouganda), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
er
1 juillet 2000, C.I.J. Recueil 2000, p. 129, par. 47.
142Voir, par exemple, le communiqué de presse de la présidence du Costa Ri ca du 14 mars 2013 (annexe 2 à la
lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le Nicaragua(réf. HOL-EMB-220)). - 64 -
143
annoncées et repoussées, mais ceci n’a visiblement pas entamé la résolution des plus hautes
autorités de l’Etat de procéder aux travaux aussitôt que possible, sans égard pour l’affaire
actuellement pendante devant la Cour. Pas plus tard que la semaine dernière, et je crois important
de le citer à nouveau, le ministre costa-ricien de la Communication déclarait encore :
«that construction of the Borderline Trail will continue to a priority piece of work until
termination by the current government and anticipates that it will also be (a priority)
for the next (government).
In addition, he emphasized that the works will continue forward even though
144
this does not please Nicaragua.»
49. Au demeurant, l’absence de date précise n’empêche nullement qu’une menace de risque
irréparable soit considérée comme imminente et, par conséquent, comme étant de nature à justifier
145
l’indication de mesures conservatoires propres à écarter une telle menace . Monsieur le président
je ne me hasarderai pas à avancer la date à laquelle les travaux de construction de la route
débuteront à nouveau ; mais la décision est prise et, même s’il est impossible de déterminer
précisément la date à laquelle elle se concrétisera, la menace est suffisamment réelle pour que cette
incertitude ne soit pas «de nature à interdire à la Cour d’indiquer des mesures conservatoires» et,
143Voir CRHoy, «Completion of Route 1856 Works Will be Undertaken with Five Bids», 22 octobre 2012
(annexe 5 à la lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le Nicaragua (réf. HOL-EMB-220)) ; communiqué
de presse de la présidence du Costa Rica du 14 mars 2013 (annexe 2 à la lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée à la
Cour par le Nicaragua (réf. HOL-EMB-220)) ; El País, «Contracts Entered into with Companies Involving Route 1856
Suspended Due to Irregularities», 9 mai 2013 (annexe 7 à la lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le
Nicaragua (réf. HOL-EMB-220)) ; La Nación, «Stretch from Pocosul up to Del ta Costa Rica. MOPT will Tender New
Designs for the Trail Works include grave) road design; also walls and drainage systems. The head of MOPT expects to
commence Works within a month, at the latest», 22 juillet 2013 (annexe 9 en date du 31octobre 2013 adressée à la Cour
par le Nicaragua (réf. HOL-EMB-220)) et El Guardian, Costa Rica, «Once Again, CONAVI’s Carelessness Leaves Trail
1856 Without a Redesign», 28 octobre 2013 (annexe 15 à la lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le
Nicaragua (réf. HOL-EMB-220)).
144Déclaration du ministre de la communication du Costa Rica, Carlos Roverssi, 28 octobre 2013 (annexe 14 à la
lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le Nicaragua (réf. HOL -EMB-220)). Voir aussi, notamment,
L. M. Herrera, La Nación, «Stretch from Pocosol up to Delta Costa Rica. MOPT will Tender New Designs for the Trail»,
22 juillet 2013 (annexe 9 à la lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le Nicaragua
(réf. HOL-EMB-220)); CRHoy, Costa Rica, «Works of the Road Set to Continue Without an Environmental Mitigation
Plan», 25 January 2013, available at http ://www.crhoy.com/trabajos-en-la-trocha-estan-por-
reiniciar-sin-plan-de-mitigacion-ambiental/ ; La Nación, Costa Rica, «Route 1856 does have a destiny », 3 February 2013,
available at http ://www.nacion.com/2013-02-03/Opinion/la-ruta-1856-si-tiene-un-destino.aspx ; CRHoy, Costa Rica,
«Government will present road works plan» , 31 January 2013, available at http ://www.crhoy.com/
gobierno-presentara-plan-de-trabajos-para-la-trocha/ ; communiqué de presse de la présidence du Costa Rica du
14 mars 2013 (annexe 2 à la lettre en date du 31 octobre 2013 adressée à la Cour par le Nicaragua
(réf. HOL-EMB-220)) ; Service de presse de la Fracción Parlamentaria P.L. N. citant La Voz Liberacionista, San José,
19 mars 2013 (http ://www.asamblea.go.cr/Diputadas_Diputados/Sitio_Fraccion_Liberacion_Nacion… La Voz
Liberacionista/2013 MARZO/Licitación abreviada y recorrido ruta0001.pdf) ; J. Bravo, La Prensa , Managua,
«Chinchilla no verá culminada carretera fronteriza durante su mandato », 18 juin 2013
(http ://www.laprensa.com.ni/2013/06/18/ambito/151335-chinchilla-no-vera-culmina…).
145Avena et autres ressortissants mexicains (Mexique c. Etats -Unis d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 5 février 2003, C.I.J. Recueil 2003,p. 90-91, par. 53-54. - 65 -
tout spécialement, la non- reprise des t ravaux en question. De toute évidence, à moins que le
Costa Rica se borne à jouer des nerfs des dirigeants nicaraguayens par des provocations pures et
simples, ces nouveaux et désastreux travaux interviendront «avant que la Cour n’ait eu l’occasion
146
de rendre sa décision définitive» . Il est donc plus que probable que, si la Cour n’intervient pas,
«une action préjudiciable aux droits de l’une ou de l’autre Partie sera commise avant que la Cour
147 148
n’ait rendu sa décision définitive » .
50. Et il y a une autre raison tout aussi décisive que celles que je viens d’exposer.
51. Par une décision préliminaire du 17 janvier 2012, la Cour de justice centraméricaine a
ordonné :
«To immediately suspend the construction of the road that the Government of
Costa Rica i s building parallel to the south bank of San Juan River, so that the
situation does not escalate, thus protecting the rights of each of the parties 149
preventing the occurrence of irreversible and irreparable damage.»
Or, comme l’a relevé la même Cour dans sa décision du 21 juin 2012, dont certains extraits
figurent au dernier onglet de votre dossier,
«These protective measures were not respected by the State of Costa Rica,
violating Article 39 of the Convention on the Statute of the Central American Court of
150
Justice…» ,
146
Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance
du 23 janvier 2007, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (I) , p. 11, par. 32. Voir aussi Passage par le Grand-Belt (Finlande c.
Danemark), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 29 juillet 1991, C.I.J. Recueil 1991 , p. 17, par. 23 ; Convention de
Vienne sur les relations consulaires (Paraguay c. Etats -Unis d’Amérique), mesures c onservatoires, ordonnance du
9 avril 1998, C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 257, par. 37 ; Certaines procédures pénales engagées en France (République du
Congo c. France), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 17 juin 2003, C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 107, par. 22 ; Usines de
pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 13 juillet 2006,
C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 131, par. 70 ; Demande en interprétation de l’arrêt du 31 mars 2004 en l’affaire Avena et autres
ressortissants mexicains (Mexique c. Etats -Unis d’Amérique) (Mexique c. Etats -Unis d’Amérique), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 16 juillet 2008, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 330, par. 72.
147Suite de la citation : «(voir, par exemple, Passage par le Grand -Belt (Finlan de c. Danemark), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 29 juillet 1991, C.I.J. Recueil 1991, p. 17, par. 23 ; Certaines procédures pénales
engagées en France (République du Congo c. France), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 17 juin 2003,
C.I.J. Recueil 2003, p. 107, par. 22 ; Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 23 janvier 2007, C.I.J. Recueil 2007 (I), p. 11, par. 32».
148
Demande en interprétation de l’arrêt du 31 mars 2004 en l’aff aire Avena et autres ressortissants mexicains
(Mexique c. Etats -Unis d’Amérique) (Mexique c. Etats -Unis d’Amérique), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
16 juillet 2008, C.I.J. Recueil 2008, p. 328-329, par. 66.
149 o
Cour de justice centraméricaine, affaire n 12-06-12-2011, ordonnance du 17 janvier 2012, citée dans Cour de
justice centraméricaine, affaire n12-06-12-2011, décision du 21 juin 2012, p. 10-11, considérant IX (MN, annexe 13,
vol. II, p. 380).
150 o
Cour de justice centraméricaine, affaire n 12-06-12-2011, décision du 21 juin 2012, p. 10-11, considérant IX
(NM, annexe 13, vol. II, p. 380-381). - 66 -
ce qui a conduit la Cour de Managua à condamner le Costa Rica «for incurring in contempt of court
by not complying with the precautionary measures ordered by the Central American Court of
Justice on January seventeen, two thousand twelve» and the Court added: «the order to definitively
151
suspend the construction of this road is reaffirmed» . Le Costa Rica s’est empressé de proclamer
qu’il ne respecterait pas cette décision 152.
52. Certes, Monsieur le président, la Cour de céans n’est pas un «agent d’exécution» de la
Cour de justice centraméricaine ; mais les décisions de celles- ci sont obligatoires pour les Parties
en vertu de l’article 39 du traité l’instituant ; peu importe qu’il s’agisse d’obligations «secondaires»
plutôt que «primaires» elles s’imposent aux Parties. En indiquant la troisième mesure
demandée par le Nicaragua, vous ne ferez, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, que confirmer, avec
l’autorité particulière qui est la vôtre, la décision prise à deux reprises et à l’unanimité mais en
vain par la Cour de Managua et vous ferez ainsi respecter le principe sacré de la res judicata.
53. Monsieur le président, le Costa Rica aime à donner des leçons de bonne conduite et de
moralité internationales. La présente affaire montre à quel point il peut faire fi de ses principes s’il
estime n’y pas trouver son compte :
o
1) la poursuite de la construction de la route n 1856 confirmerait l ’outrage au tribunal the
contempt of Court dont il est responsable en faisant fi des décisions dépou rvues de toute
ambiguïté de la Cour d’Amérique centrale lui enjoignant de cesser ces travaux ;
2) la reprise des travaux, annoncée comme imminente, porterait une atteinte irréversible à
l’environnement du San Juan et aux droits que le Nicaragua a entendu faire respecter en portant
le présent différend devant la Cour ;
3) en tout état de cause, il est impossible à quiconque même à votre haute juridiction,
Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, de prendre quelque décision éclairée que ce soit concernant
tant le t ronçon déjà construit de la route que ceux que le Costa Rica continue à vouloir
construire, en l’absence d’une étude d’impact environnemental sérieuse, préalable et nécessaire
à toute action future et à toute appréciation du fait accompli jusqu’à présent ; et
151Ibid., p. 27, point VIII du dispositif.
152
Inside Costa Rica , «Costa Rica : Central American Court Ruling Illegitimate », 3 juillet 2012
(http ://www.insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2012/july/03/costarica120070301.htm) , v oir MN, vol. I, p. 235, par. 6.20,
note 587. - 67 -
4) il n ’est guère envisageable de laisser le statu quo produire ses effets catastrophiques en
attendant votre arrêt ; des mesures d’urgence s’imposent dans la ligne des recommandations très
motivées du professeur Kondolf (qui elles -mêmes vont dans le même sens que les
préconisations du laboratoire costa-ricien de physique des matériaux et de la modélisation, que
le Costa Rica tient dorénavant soigneusement à l’écart).
54. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, ceci conclut les plaidoi ries du
premier tour du Nicaragua. Nous vous remercions bien sincèrement de votre écoute d’autant
plus «méritoire» si je peux dire, que vous aviez déjà dû siéger, il y a peu, pour entendre les
plaidoiries des mêmes Parties sur un autre volet de ces affa ires jointes. Je me permets
respectueusement de dire que je continue de penser nous continuons de penser que s’y arrêter
ne vous aurait permis de n’avoir qu’une vue très partielle et fort déséquilibrée des choses. Merci de
nous avoir donné l’occasion de les remettre en perspective. Je vous souhaite un excellent appétit.
Le PRESIDENT : Merci Monsieur le professeur. Ceci met fin à l’audience d’aujourd’hui.
La Cour se réunira demain à 10 heures pour entendre le Costa Rica dans son premier tour des
arguments oraux. Je vous remercie. La séance est levée.
La séance est levée à 13 h 5.
___________
Public sitting held on Tuesday 5 November 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the cases concerning Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica); Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)