Corrigé
Corrected
CR 2013/29
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2013
Public sitting
held on Wednesday 6 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 mercredi 6 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
____________________ - 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. Carlos José 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 forme r Chairman 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, Min istry 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, Washi ngton 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 Pacifi que 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 droi t 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, Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université
Paris Ouest (Nanterre-La Défense),
Mme Clara E. Brillembourg, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP ( Washington D.C.), membre des
barreaux 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 Rica to the Organization of American
States, Washington D.C.,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Jorge Urbina, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
Mr. Sergio Ugalde, Senior Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Wors hip of Costa 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; 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 S tudies,
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 des 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 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: Good morning, please be seated. The sitting is now open and the Court
meets this morning to hear the first round of oral observations of Costa Rica on the Request for the
indication of provisional measures submitted by Nicaragua. I now call upon his Excellency
Ambassador Edgar UgaldeÁlvarez, Agent of Costa Rica. Excellency, you have the floor.
Mr. UGALDE ÁLVAREZ:
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is an honour for me to appear before
you again on behalf of the Republic of Costa Rica.
2. Mr. President, Nicaragua asserts that Costa Rica is causing irreparable harm to the
San Juan River by constructing a road which is entirely within Costa Rican sovereign territory.
Nicaragua even objects to the name of the road. Yesterday Professor McCaffrey suggested that the
name Road 1856 Juan Rafael Mora Porras was calculated to insult Nicaragua because
President Mora Porras invaded Nicaragua in the nineteenth century. Mr. President, nothing could
be further from the truth. Nicaragua has paid homage to the actions of President Mora Porras on
many occasions. In 2005, the then President of Nicaragua, President Enrique Bolaños, noted that
the incursion of President Mora Porras onto Nicaraguan territory in 1856 not only was authorized
by Nicaragua, but it was decisive for achieving the defeat of the filibusters, and was a display of the
solidarity shown to Nicaragua by its “Costa Rican brothers” 1. The way Nicaragua has understood
the road’s name is misconceived and unfortunate.
3. Mr. President, there is a curious pattern:
(a) First, Cost a Rica initiates proceedings against Nicaragua. Subsequently Nicaragua also
initiates proceedings against Costa Rica.
(b) Second, Costa Rica requests the Court to modify the provisional measures it indicated.
Subsequently, Nicaragua also requests the Cou rt to modify the provisional measures it
indicated.
(c) Third, Costa Rica requests the Court to indicate new provisional measures. Subsequently,
Nicaragua also requests the Court to indicate new provisional measures.
Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Reply of Costa Rica,
15 Jan. 2008, App. A, para. A.22. - 9 -
4. This sequence is not coincidental. It is an inappropriate use of the Court’s time, and
highly regrettable.
5. Costa Rica carried out the road works on its sovereign territory for the development of the
northern areas of the country as a response, first, to the aggressive actions and thr eats that led it to
commence the proceedings in the Certain Activities case, and second, as a result of the continuous
threats made to its territorial integrity. Mr. Brenes will detail the context in which the road works
were carried out. Suffice to say, the Border Road was a wholly reasonable reaction to Nicaragua’s
unlawful incursion, occupation and use of Costa Rican territory, and other aggressive acts and
threats that followed.
6. Mr. President, yesterday Nicaragua complained that it has been left in the dark about
2
Costa Rica’s road works . Nicaragua conveniently fails to mentions that it was Costa Rica who
wrote to Nicaragua on 29 November 2011 before Nicaragua initiated proceedings in the present
3
case, and invited Nicaragua to enter into a co -operative dialogue with Costa Rica . Nicaragua was
publicly making allegations about Costa Rica’s road infrastructure works, but it had not provided
any basis for these allegations, nor had it raised these directly with Costa Rica.
7. Costa Rica then reacted by immediately writing to Nicaragua and asking it to substantiate
its concerns so as to be in a position to deal with them . Nicaragua’s response was litigious, not
co-operative. It initiated the present proceedings on 22 December 2011.
8. After the initiation of these proceedings, Costa Rica has tried to co-operate with Nicaragua
in order to establish whether there is any basis for its allegations of environmental damage. As you
know, Mr. President, it was Costa Rica who proposed a joint monitoring programme for the waters
of the San Juan to determine the sources of sediment input into the r iver, from both banks .
Nicaragua has shown its unwillingness to participate by imposing unreasonable conditions at every
opportunity, effectively derailing the programme.
2CR 2013/28, p. 38, para. 3 (Reichler).
3Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan Rive r (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) , Application
Instituting Proceedings, 21 Dec. 2011, Ann. 17, 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, 29 Nov. 2011.
4
Letter from H.E. Enrique Castillo Barrantes, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Worship, Costa Rica to
H.E. Samuel Santos Lopez, Foreign Affairs Minister, Nicaragua, 6Feb. 2013, Ref. DM-AM-063-13. - 10 -
5
9. Nicaragua has vehemently criticized Costa Rica’s decision to undertake the road works .
But it is not for Nicaragua to challenge the decision of Costa Rica to undertake urgent
infrastructure works entirely within its own territory. For the purposes of Nicaragua’s Request now
being considered by the Court, Nicaragua must show that the road is putting its rights at imminent
risk of irreparable prejudice. This it cannot do.
10. Nicaragua alleges that large amounts of sediment have been de posited in the
San Juan River as a result of the construction of the road. Nicaragua has not carried out any
credible study of the impact of the road on the river, but Costa Rica has, and the measurements
which result from Costa Rica’s technical studies show that on the worst -case analysis the volume
of added sediment is trivial, and in fact imperceptible, when the sedime nt load of this
sediment-heavy river is taken into account. In respect of the L ower San Juan, where Nicaragua
claims it is forced to car ry out dredging works because of the impact of the road, the evidence
shows that the maximum contribution of road- related sediment to the bed of the r iver could be, at
6
its worst, twice the width of a grain of sand . There is no risk of the road causing an y irreparable
harm to the San Juan River. That is a fact which Mr. Wordsworth will explain in greater detail.
11. Unlike Costa Rica’s Request in the Certain Activities case, Nicaragua’s Request in the
Road case is not based on any new facts or any new ev ents. Nicaragua has been making the same
complaint to the Court since December 2011, and the Court has not accepted that complaint at any
time.
12. Mr. President, I shall now set out the programme for Costa Rica’s first round argument
this morning. To begin, Mr. Arnoldo Brenes will set out the facts relating to the construction of the
road, including the works which are currently being pursued on the road. Mr. Sam Wordsworth
will demonstrate that there is no risk of irreparable prejudice to Nicaragua’s rights.
Mr. Sergio Ugalde will then explain that Nicaragua has not met the requirement of urgency, such as
would justify the indication of provisional measures. Finally, Professor MarceloKohen will
5See e.g. Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (icaragua v. Costa Rica), MN,
paras. 1.9 and 5.20.
6ProfessorColin Thorne, Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov . 2013, Attachment CR-7, p. 27, para. 73. - 11 -
conclude Costa Rica’s first round presentation, by explaining that Nicaragua’s Request is not
justified and that Nicaragua is not entitled to the specific measures sought by it.
Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, t hank you very much for your kind
attention. Mr. President, I ask that you give the floor to Mr. Brenes.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Ambassador Ugalde, and I call on
Mr. Arnoldo Benes. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. BRENES:
R ELEVANT FACTS ABOUT THE BORDER R OAD
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, it is a great honour to appear before
you on behalf of Costa Rica.
A. Introduction
2. My task today is to present some basic facts about the Border Road and the context in
which it was planned and constructed. Firstly, I will explain that the constructionhe Border
Road was a reasonable and entirely lawful measure taken in direct response to the national
emergency in Costa Rica; an emergency caused by Nicaragua. Secondly, I will set the record
straight by setting out the true characteristics of the Border Road. Finally, I will refer to some of
the mitigation measures Costa Rica has already taken and which are ongoing. Indeed, several
months before Nicaragua requested the Court to indicate provisional measures proprio motu,
Costa Rica had already carried out mitigation and correctional works. Yesterday Nicaragua
attempted to portray them as failed mitigation works by showing a selective series of photographs.
This is far from the situation on the ground, as we will see. Nicaragua is not entitled to the
provisional measures it now requests. This is not only because there is no urgency, nor any risk of
irreparable harm, as my colleagues will show you shortly. It is also because Costa Rica has been
carrying out, on its own initiative and in an effective manner, the measures Nicaragua now asks the
Court to order Costa Rica to perform. - 12 -
B. Context in which the road works were undertaken
3. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Costa Rica’s decision to undertake road works in
the border area is a direct respo nse to a series of aggressive acts and threats by Nicaragua since
October 2010 against Costa Rica, a neighbouring State with no standing army. The Court is well
aware of Nicaragua’s incursion into and occupation of previously undisputed Costa Rican territ ory
in the northern sector of Isla Portillos. The damage Nicaragua caused there is also well known. By
these actions, Nicaragua intended to modify an international border established since 1858 and
determined in 1897, and to annex a portion of Costa Rican territory.
4. But Nicaragua is mistaken in suggesting that the construction of the Border Road was
intended to provide land access to the “disputed territory” . This was never the purpose of the
road, and the map that Nicaragua showed us yesterday, tak en from Costa Rica’s Written
Observations on the Counter -Claims submitted by Nicaragua in its Counter -Memorial for the
Certain Activities case 8, makes this clear. The main purpose of the Border Road was to facilitate
Costa Rica’s protection of its border and the communities living in the border area in light of the
situation created by Nicaragua’s military incursion in October 2010. Indeed, less than a month
after the unlawful incursion, in November 2010, President Ortega claimed non -existent rights of
navigation on the Colorado River, a Costa Rican river running entirely within Costa Rican
9
territory . President Ortega’s threat to claim navigational rights on the Colorado River was
accompanied by an increased military presence along the San Juan River 10, particularly the Lower
San Juan, that is, the stretch between the delta of the Colorado River and the outlet of the San Juan
in the Caribbean. In the circumstances, Costa Rica had a very real and plausible concern that the
situation would further escalate into an armed conflict. This concern was exacerbated by Costa
Rica’s lack of military capacity to repel an armed invasion.
7CR 2013/28, p. 49, para. 35 (Reichler).
8Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Written Observations
of Costa Rica on the Admissibility of Nicaragua’s Counter -Claims, 30 Nov. 2012.
9
El 19 (Nicaragua), “Nicaragua will request before the ICJ navigation through Río Colorado”, 13 Nov. 2010,
available at http://www.el19digital.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 18149:nicaragua -pedira-
ante-cij-navegacion-por-rio-colorado&catid=23:nacionales&Itemid=12; tab 3 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
10La Nación (Costa Rica) “Nicaragua Reinf orces Troops at the Border”, 24 Oct. 2010 available at
http://www.nacion.com/sucesos/Nicaragua -refuerza-tropas-frontera_0_1154884554.html tab 4 of Costa R ica’s judges’
folders. - 13 -
5. In light of Nicaragua’s aggressive actions, Costa Rica’s National Security Council met on
the 24 November 2010 to analyse the si tuation. It requested Ministers to carry out the necessary
actions to ensure access to the border area 1. This was because the only way to access the police
posts at Delta Costa Rica and Boca Sarapiquí was via Costa Rican rivers, such as the Colorado and
the Sarapiquí. The map now projected on the screen and found at tab 6 of your folders shows the
location of these police posts. The only police post that could be accessed by land was the post at
Boca San Carlos, and then only with great difficulty during the rainy season. Furthermore, there
was no connection by land between all of these police posts.
6. Following the request of the National Security Council, on 1 December 2010 Costa Rica’s
Minister of Public Security wrote to the Costa Rican Minister of Public Works, pointing out the
need to provide access by land to the police posts at Delta Costa Rica, Boca Río Sarapiquí, Puerto
12
Lindo and Los Chiles. He also requested that the access routes be repaired . Following that
request, in December 2010, work began on providing land access to the police posts at Delta
Colorado and Boca Sarapiquí. Eventually, it was decided to extend the works along the border
between Delta and the town of Los Chiles. This was in order to provide a continuous route of
communication along the border between these police posts.
7. This was one of the principal motivations for the Border Road: as defensive infrastructure
to allow Costa Rican police to have direct and expeditious access by land to the border with
Nicaragua, and to provide the local population with essential services. This sense of urgency
increased after Nicaraguan President Ortega claimed on 6 April 2011 that the Costa Rican province
13
of Guanacaste, bordering the Pacific Ocean, was actually Nicaraguan . This same threat in respect
of Guanacaste was reaffirmed by President Ortega during a speech delivered at the celebration of
14
the 33rd Anniversary of Nicaragua’s Naval Force less than three months ago .
11Government of Costa Rica, Certification of Minutes of National Security Council Ordinary Session N o. 3 of
24 Nov. 2010; tab 5 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
12
Note from the Minister of Public Security of Costa Rica to the Minister of Public Works and Transportation of
Costa Rica, 1 Dec. 2010, Ref. 2278-2010; tab 7 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
13See “Inaugural Lesson of the Academic Year 2011, 6 April 2011”, available at
http://www.presidencia.gob.ni/index.php?option=com_content&view=article… -del-ano-
academico-2011&catid=84:abril-2011&Itemid=54&showall=1; tab 9 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
14El 19 (Nicaragua) “33rd Anniversary of the Naval Force”, 14 Aug. 2013, available at
http://www.el19digital.com/index.php/discurso/ver/12213/33-aniversario -de-la-fuerza-naval-b 10 of Costa Rica’s
judges’ folders. - 14 -
8. Yesterday, Nicaragua suggested that the only reason for constructing the Border Road was
national defence . There was also another very important reason, and that is the need to reduce the
dependence of the Costa Rican inhabitants and public authorities on the San Juan River for
purposes of communication. Costa Rica possesses perpetual navigation rights in the border region.
Historically, the inhabitants of the region, apparently some 1,900 people, as well as public
authorities, had relied on the San Juan River as the only means of communication in the bor der
16
area. This was because there were not adequate roads , a fact that Nicaragua itself has
acknowledged 17. The need to provide land access routes was exacerbated by Nicaragua’s increased
obstructions to Costa Rica’s navigational rights. As explained by Costa Rica in the Certain
Activities case, Nicaragua prevented Costa Ricans from navigating the San Juan River 18.
Nicaragua aggravated its policy of restricting Costa Rican navigation on the San Juan, the most
recent incident being the obstruction of navig ation by Costa Rica’s personnel charged with the
protection of the environment. On 18 September 2013, they attempted to navigate the San Juan
River to verify the existence of the new artificial caños that Nicaragua was constructing on the
disputed territory in Isla Portillos 1.
9. It was in this context that in December 2010 Costa Rica commenced infrastructure works
to provide land access to its police posts along the border. This entailed undertaking improvement
works on some pre -existing rudimentary roa ds that connected those police posts to other
Costa Rican communities. In some cases, new sections of road were constructed so as to connect
all of the communities in these remote areas. This road would permit the mobilization of public
15CR 2013/28, p. 46, para. 30 (Reichler).
16Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), MCR, paras. 2.05, 2.06 and
4.53.
17
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), CMN, Ann. 12,
Technical Opinion, Environmental Impact Study Project, Improvement of Navigation on the San Juan de Nicaragua
River, Nov. 2008, p. 263.
18
Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica vNicaragua), MCR, pp. 290-294,
paras. 6.54-6.60; Anns. 121, 122 and 131, La Nación (Costa Rica), “Nica Army impedes teacher access to Isla Calero”,
16 Feb. 2011; La Nación (Costa Rica), “MEP will relocate the school located in Isla Calero”, 17 Feb. 2011; La Nación
(Costa Rica), “Border School started lessons with a 100 days delay”, 19 May 2011. See also La Nación (Costa Rica)
“Nicaraguan immigration denies ent ry to journalists through San Juan River”, 22 Oct. 2010, available at
http://www.nacion.com/archivo/Migracion-prohibe-periodistas-San-Juan_0_… ; tab 11 of Costa Rica’s
judges’ folders.
19See Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Request by
Costa Rica for New Provisional Measures,Report of Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINA E) and the
National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC), 18 Sept.2013, Attachment PM-6. - 15 -
authorities and the local population in general and in case of an emergency. It would also permit
Costa Rica to provide other essential services to these areas when necessary, without having to rely
on the San Juan River. This was particularly necessary in view of Nicaragua’s restrictions on
Costa Rican navigation. With these needs in mind, and in order to provide the proper legal
framework to carry out the necessary works, on 21 February 2011 the Costa Rican Government
issued an Executive Decree entitled “To Declare tha t the Situation brought about by the Violation
of Costa Rican Sovereignty by Nicaragua constitutes a State of Emergency” 20.
10. This Emergency Decree has been the subject of three different cases before Costa Rica’s
Constitutional Court. In every one of t hese cases, the Constitutional Court upheld the Decree as
being in full accordance with Costa Rica’s Constitution. The road works have thus been adjudged
to be consistent with Costa Rica’s legal system. In accordance with the established jurisprudence
of its Constitutional Court, due to the national emergency Costa Rica was facing as a result of
Nicaragua’s actions, there was no obligation under Costa Rican law to conduct environmental
studies or present detailed designs of the Border Road. Nicaragua’s a ssertions to the contrary are
groundless 21. I note also that, under Nicaraguan domestic law, the usual requirement to undertake
an environmental impact assessment may be displaced in situations of national emergency,
22
including for security reasons .
11. In light of the extraordinary circumstances created by Nicaragua, which presented a real
and imminent threat to Costa Rica’s territorial integrity, and to the welfare of its inhabitants,
Costa Rica decided to take lawful and peaceful measures as quickly as it was able to. All of the
actions taken by Costa Rica as a result of the emergency described in the Emergency Decree, and
in particular works undertaken on Costa Rica’s road infrastructure in the border area, are lawful
under Costa Rica’s domestic law. They would equally be lawful under the domestic law of most
other countries. Costa Rica will also demonstrate in due time that it acted lawfully under
international law.
20
See dispute concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa
Rica), MN, Ann. 35, Executive Decree 36440-MP of 21 Feb. 2011, published in La Gaceta, No. 46 of 7 March 2011.
21MN, Vol. I, para. 2.20.
22
Nicaragua, Decree No. 76-2006, approved on 19 Dec. 2006, published in La Gaceta No. 248 of 22 Dec. 2006,
Art. 12, available at http://www.ine.gob.ni/DCA/leyes/decreto/Decreto_76-2006_SistemaEvaluaci…. - 16 -
C. Setting the record straight about the Border Road
12. Mr. President, I will now set the record straight about the Border Road. In all, the Border
Road project entails carrying out works on some 380 km of access roads and approximately
160 km along the border between Los Chiles and Delta Costa Rica. The map being shown on the
screen n ow is at tab 12. Of the 160 km comprising the entire Road in the border area,
approximately 108 km of the road runs between Marker II and Delta Colorado 2, that is, the area
where the right margin of the San Juan River marks the boundary between Costa Rica and
Nicaragua. This is the portion of the road that is the subject of Nicaragua’s claims in this case.
Significantly, almost 64 per cent of the total length of the 160 -km-long road between Los Chiles
24
and Delta Costa Rica, is comprised of pre -existing rustic roads . Similarly, in the area between
Marker II and Delta Costa Rica, some 46 per cent of Route 1856 was built on pre -existing rustic
25
roads .
13. The fact that Route 1856 used these pre -existing paths also means that, in reality, the
impact of the Border Road was much lower than Nicaragua would have you believe. As the Land
Use Change Report submitted by Costa Rica evidences, around 72 per cent of the area which was
used for the Border Road was pasture which had already been cleared of trees and v egetation, long
26
before the road was constructed . Therefore, the impact of the road on the Costa Rican
environment, ecology, soil erosion and sediment production along nearly three quarters of its
27
length, ranges between low and imperceptible .
14. Given the emergency situation in which the work was to be carried out, the Department ,
known by the Spanish acronym “CONAVI” , of Costa Rica’s Ministry of Public Works and
Transportation engaged the services of several local contractors to carry out the necessary works on
the Border Road. In order to advance the work in the pressing circumstances of the national
emergency, the Border Road was divided into five sections. Each of these were assigned to
different contractors, with the intention that work could be c arried out simultaneously in all of
23Allan Astorga G. and Andreas Mende, Route 1856: Analysis of the Change in Land use Based on Satellite
Images Before and After the Construction of the Border Road, Aug. 2013, Attachment CR-4, p. 4.
24
Ibid., p. 6.
25Ibid., p. 6.
26Ibid., p. 27.
27
Ibid. - 17 -
them. The map now projected on the screen and at tab 13 of your folders is the official
CONAVI map showing the different sections of the Border Road that were assigned to different
contractors. It also shows the roads that would permit access to the Border Road from different
parts of the country.
15. The contractors hired by CONAVI had to implement solutions of a temporary nature,
such as small bridges and culverts using logs and metal containers. These temporary sol utions
were used to put in place basic infrastructure to provide provisional access to towns and locations
along the border that had no other viable means of access. This was done in case such access
became necessary in light of the national emergency, as well as to allow the mobilization of the
machinery and construction personnel from one location to another to advance the works on the
Border Road.
16. Yesterday, Nicaragua made reference to some reports made by the National Laboratory
of Materials of t he University of Costa Rica and of the Costa Rican Association of Engineers.
Nicaragua essentially repeated the misrepresentation of these reports which is contained in its
Memorial. It contended yesterday that these reports suggested that construction of the Border Road
has led to sediment run -off creating obstacles in the San Juan River, which in turn has obstructed
28
navigation on the river . It is simply not true that the reports suggest this. This much is clear from
the reports themselves. If there were any doubt about it, a letter from the President of the
Association of Engineers explaining how Nicaragua has misused its report is at tab 14 of your
29
folders .
17. Initially, the work progressed in an efficient and accelerated manner. However, funds
were depleted by December 2011, and in early 2012, work progressed more slowly. Before the
project could be finalized, in May 2012 the Government of Costa Rica exposed and denounced
alleged irregularities concerning payments made in connection with the works. This prompted
immediate action on the part of the Costa Rican administrative and judicial authorities, and a
large-scale investigation was launched. As Nicaragua acknowledged yesterday 30, the rule of law in
28
CR 2013/28, p. 16, para. 23 (Arguëllo).
29Letter to Minister Enrique Castillo Barrantes from the President of the CF IA, 28 Aug. 2013,
Ref. 034-2012-2013-PRES, tab 14 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
30
CR 2013/28, p. 40, para. 12 (Reichler). - 18 -
Costa Rica is sufficiently robust as to det ect apparent acts of corruption and to take measures to
address them. Investigations carried out by Costa Rica’s Judiciary and Congress, as well as the
National Comptroller’s Office are still ongoing. The Government has striven to apply the most
stringent contracting procedures, which include public tenders and a system of appeals. It has done
so in the interests of complete transparency. It has also taken all steps to ensure that the road will
be built with first -class engineering and environmental standards. Efforts are being made to
finalize contracts for the final design plans of the whole road, before tendering for and concluding
contracts for its construction.
18. Nicaragua seems to base its entire claim of urgency upon a presentation made by the
Minister of Public Works during a press conference that took place on 14 March 2013, which
contained a graphic that outlined the expected dates for the construction of the road in five phases.
It is at tab 23 of your folders, and it is now projected on the screen. It is curious that Nicaragua just
recently “discovered” this timetable, since it has been publicly available since March of this year.
My colleague Mr. Ugalde will explain this further shortly. In any event, Nicaragua’s selective
interpretation of this timetable is curious, because it only focuses on the column on the right, which
refers to the expected dates for construction, but it ignores the column on the left, which refers to
the design phase. Clearly this timetable is outdated. The de adlines corresponding to the design
phase have not been met, so the entire schedule has been pushed back. Although several public
tenders have been carried out in recent months to contract the final designs of the road, at the
present time, it has not been possible to conclude any contracts. And without designs, there will be
no further construction work on the road in the short term, except for some works on bridges which
are currently being carried out.
D. Mitigation works
19. Mr. President, Members of the Court, despite the exaggerated claims made by Nicaragua,
this is a project which is certainly being proceeded with as a matter of priority. It is also being
pursued with all due regard for environmental impact, and in full compliance with the law,
particularly public contracting requirements. This is precisely the reason why works have not
advanced as rapidly as we would all have liked. But the setbacks that the Costa Rican Government - 19 -
has encountered have not led to the disaster Nicaragua is trying to make out. Plainly, they do not
risk irreparable prejudice to any of Nicaragua’s rights claimed in the present case. This is the issue
which is the subject of these hearings on Nicaragua’s Request forprovisional measures.
20. Since April 2012 the Costa Rican Government has been carrying out works to
consolidate what has already been commenced, and to remediate aspects of it. In fact, a series of
remedial actions have been undertaken by Costa Rica, and technical reports explaining them have
been provided to the Court and to Nicaragua in the context of these hearings. Nicaragua itself
included in its Memorial an environmental management plan prepared by Costa Rica’s Ministry of
31
the Environment, which has formed the basis for many of the mitigation wor ks . Among the
documents Costa Rica has submitted is an updated report by the Vice- Minister of the Environment
32
explaining some of the actions taken so far in accordance with this plan . A more complete
environmental diagnostic study will be annexed to Costa Rica’s Counter-Memorial next month.
21. The reports that Costa Rica has now submitted at this incidental phase suffice to deny the
picture Nicaragua is trying to portray. A report published by CONAVI on 25 October 2013details
33
the works on the road that Costa Rica completed between February and April of this year . A
series of “ before” and “after” photographs are included in this report , some of which are now
shown on the screen.
22. The expert report by Professor Colin Thorne refers to the works he personally witnessed
during the visits he made to Costa Rica this year, including the reforested areas 34. He concludes
that “the measures taken by Costa Rica have reduced and will continue to reduce the risk that
significant erosion might occur during heavy rainstorms, compared to conditions immediately
following construction of the Road”, and “they will significantly reduce local erosion rates for the
next year or two, allowing time for the work necessary to design, contract and build permanent
works”.
3Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v . Costa Rica) MN, Ann. 2.
3Report from Ana Lorena Guevara Fernández, Vice-Minister of the Environment, Costa Rica, to Enrique
Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Costa Rica, Ref. DVM-293-2013, 8 Oct. 2013, Attachment CR-5.
33
Consejo Nacional de Vialidad (CONAVI), Program for the Consolidation and Continued Improvement of Route
No. 1856, Ref. DIE-02-13-3107, 25 Oct. 2013, Attachment CR-3.
3ProfessorColin Thorne, Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov. 2013, Attachment CR-7, p. 41, para. 89 - 20 -
23. The picture of the road that Nicaragua is trying to portray does not correspond to reality.
The road is not the huge disaster that Nicaragua claims it to be. The photos on the screen give a
fair overview of the situation on the ground. They show what has been done, and they demonstrate
that the situation is not as Nicaragua would have you believe.
24. Additional works are currently being carried out, and concrete plans are in place for
future work. Seven locations where remediation work will be undertaken have been identified
between Marker II and Delta Costa Rica, and these are shown in the map at tab 15 of your folders
and now projected on the screen. Work at the first three points, which are located between the
town of Tiricias and east of t he Infiernito River, will be carried out directly by Costa Rica’s
Ministry of Public Works, with its own machinery and personnel. In the case of points four, five
and six — in order to avoid using heavy machinery that might create additional disturbances —
manual labour will be used, for which the Ministry of the Environment is in the process of
contracting an NGO specializing in this kind of work. These works will include the stabilization of
slopes, building ditches, culverts and sediment traps, as well as planting of vegetation. Grass
particularly adapted to prevent erosion has already been planted on a number of slopes.
Attachment CR-6 includes several photos showing the slopes both before and after the works were
35
carried out .
25. Costa Rica has als o carried out tree planting on a large scale in the border area since
April 2012, mainly on the bank of the San Juan River, and proximate to the road. To date,
Costa Rica has planted approximately 27,000 trees of native species in different sites along th e
road, which currently range in height between 1 and 3 metres 36. In late September 2013, a second
phase of the reforestation project began, and it is expected to include the planting of 25,000 more
37
trees, to reach a total of 52,000 trees .
26. In its Request, Nicaragua has listed a series of measures that it asks the Court to order
Costa Rica to undertake as part of the second provisional measure it is seeking. Mr. President,
35
Comisión de Desarrollo Forestal de San Carlos (CODEFORSA), Consulting Services for the Development and
Implementation of an Environmental Plan for the Juan Rafael Mora Porras Border Road, Report of Activities to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Costa Rica, January2013, Attachment CR-6.
3Report from Ana Lorena Guevara Fernández, Vice-Minister of the Environment, Costa Rica, to Enrique
Castillo Barrantes, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Costa Rica, Ref. DVM-293-2013, 8 Oct. 2013, p. 2, Attachment CR-5.
37
Ibid. - 21 -
Costa Rica is already undertaking necessa ry measures to improve the roadworks in the border area
and it has been doing so for a long time. Professor Kohen will discuss in more detail why the
second provisional measure requested by Nicaragua is not only groundless but unnecessary.
27. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your patience, and I respectfully
ask you to call on Mr. Wordsworth.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Brenes. Now I call on
Mr. Samuel Wordsworth to continue. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. WORDSWORTH:
N O IRREPARABLE PREJUDICE
A. Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it is a privilege to appear before you, and to have
been asked by the Republic of Costa Rica to address the risk of irreparable prejudice as put forward
by Nicaragua; and there are four introductory points that I wish to make, before turning to the
details on this aspect of Nicaragua’s Request.
2. First, Nicaragua’s Request has, of course, been made at an unusual stage in the
proceedings, and the Court may feel that it has an unusually large body of evide nce before it for a
provisional measures hearing, including two new reports from Nicaragua’s expert, Dr. Kondolf, as
well as his report submitted with Nicaragua’s Memorial — and I hear that there may even be a
fourth report on its way. And it follows that, even more than usual, there is an important filtering
exercise in which the Court must engage so far as concerns the assertions and evidence before it at
this provisional measures stage. All that is relevant for present purposes is Nicaragua’s case, and
its evidence, on whether there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused
to the rights in dispute before the Court give s its final decision8. Nicaragua’s points, such as on
corruption on the part of various contractors two or t hree years ago, or on whether the r oad as
3See Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 21, para. 64; see also Application of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (GeorgRussian Federation), Provisional
Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 392, para. 129. - 22 -
initially built was accompanied by an environmental impact assessment , may conceivably be
relevant when it comes to the merits; but they offer little if any assistance in terms of whether, as
of today, there is the requisite real and imminent risk.
3. Secondly, Nicaragua has now had some 23 months to collate its evidence on real and
imminent risk, which makes it all the more remarkable that the evidence — when one drills down
to what is potentially relevant data, as opposed to general proposition — comes to no more than
(a) a large number of photographs of alleged slope failures, and so-called “deltas” of sediment;
(b) two limited sampling exercises; and, of course,
(c) the captivating video, and stills, taken of a plastic culvert that Nicaragua has apparently
dragged into the river from some Costa Rican side -stream, some two weeks after Nicaragua
had made its provisional measures request.
4. I shall come back to the details shortly, but the point for now is that Nicaragua has had
nearly two years to submit detailed evidence on the sediment content of the r iver pre- and
post-construction of the road, together with detailed evidence of how an increased sediment load is
creating a real and imminent risk to navigatio n, to identified species within the r iver’s ecosystem,
and to human health. But, despite the impressionistic picture that Nicaragua presented to you
yesterday, accompanied by reference to a limited number of passages from Dr. Kondolf’s report of
30 October, that necessary evidence is wholly lacking on Nicaragua’s side. Much was made by my
friend Professor McCaffrey yesterday of the accretion of sediment, a supposed death, he said, by a
39
thousand cuts . But it was, perplexingly, accretion in the abstract, and he gave you none of the
data that you need to assess whether increased sediment from the r oad adds materially to what is
already a sediment-heavy river, and whether this, in turn, creates a risk of irreparable prejudice.
5. Thirdly, and by contrast, the necessary studies on increased sediment load in the San Juan
have been carried out by Costa Rica’s experts. Now that work , of course, has not been done
overnight, but it has been underway for many months, as part of the research needed for the
Counter-Memorial that you ’re going to be receiving in around six weeks. And the focus of the
research has not just been on how much sediment may come from the r oad, but how much there is
3CR 2013/28, p. 23, para. 1 (McCaffrey). - 23 -
already in the river because, of course, you can not even begin to conside r actual or potential
impacts to the river until you have identified the relevant baseline conditions. If and this struck
me as being notably defensive Nicaragua’s case on risk is of death by a thousand cuts, then that
risk cannot be made out by submi tting evidence in the abstract o f cuts number s 999 and
number 1000, which in effect is all that Nicaragua has done. You have to look at what happened
beforehand to see if these alleged additional cuts will have any material impact. And that has been
Costa Rica’s approach to engage in a detailed study of past and current sediment loads, and
monitoring of sedimentation from the road, as contained in the reports carried out by the
Department of Hydrology at Costa Rica’s Institute of Electricity and by the Department of Civil
Engineering at the University of Costa Rica, all as requested by Costa Rica’s independent expert
Professor Thorne, who has also submitted a report.
6. These reports are at tabs 17- 19 of the judges’ folder, and I’ll return to them shor tly, but
what I hope is going to be helpful to the Court is that, when it comes to looking in greater detail at
the expert evidence, it will become clear that this is not a request that is likely to turn on whether
the Court prefers the evidence of expert X or expert Y. Rather, the evidence submitted respectively
by Costa Rica and by Nicaragua is different in scope and approach; and, when it comes to the issue
of risk of irreparable prejudice, there are material gaps in data and monitoring that Nicaragua has
seemingly chosen not to fill.
7. And this leads to my fourth introductory point, which is that, stepping back for a moment,
such gaps in Nicaragua’s evidence are entirely as one would expect. If Nicaragua really had a
hard-edged case on real and imm inent risk, that case would have been vigorously pursued when
Nicaragua’s Application was made almost two years ago, or at the very latest when its Memorial
was lodged in December of last year. But of course there was nothing merely a reservation of
rights, coupled with the fig leaf of a request that the Court order some measures of its own accord.
States faced with real risks of irreparable prejudice do not hesitate to pursue what and I fear this
is another fig leaf Nicaragua now chooses to charact erize as costly and time- consuming
provisional measures proceedings 4. Of course they just get on with it. In Nicaragua’s prior failure
4CR 2013/28, p. 12, para. 4 (Argüello). - 24 -
to pursue a provisional measures request with the usual vigour speaks volumes as to the reality, that
is, the absence of the risks that it is belatedly alleging.
B. Nicaragua’s case on irreparable prejudice
8. Now, with those four introductory points in mind, I turn to the details of Nicaragua’s case
on irreparable prejudice which, as set out in its Request of 11 October 2013, is to the effect that
there has been “a surge in the San Juan River’s sediment load requiring Nicaragua to take active
efforts, including dredging”, and that there is “irreparable damage that is being inflicted on the
river and its surrounding environment, including on navigation and the health and the wellbeing of
41
the population living along its margins” .
9. So far as concerns the alleged surge, this should be easy for Nicaragua to evidence
through sampling and monitoring. There either has been a marked jump in sediment content of the
river since the initial construction of the road in 2011, or there has not. And it is Nicaragua’s
sovereign river, so it has had every opportunity to conduct and submit the relevant sampling data.
But it has submitted nothing by way of datato support the existence of the alleged surge.
10. By contrast, Costa Rica’s experts have compared records of measured suspended
sediment concentration in periods prior to and subsequent to construction of the road. So far as
concerns the pre-construction period, the available records are from 1974- 1976, and in fact were
recorded jointly by the two parties, and were, as I understand it , relied on in Nicaragua’s
Counter-Memorial in the Navigational Rights case (at para. 1.1.8). The methodology followed in
effecting the necessary comparison is detailed in section 2 of the Institute of Electricity report at
tab 18 of your folders, and the comparison has also been made by Professor Thorne in his report at
tab 17.
(a) If I can ask y ou to turn to Professor Thorne’s report at tab 17, and to go to page 8. One sees
there, toward the top of the page the heading “ Is there evidence of a surge in sediment load in
the Río San Juan since December 2010?”.
(b) And Professor Thorne says:
4Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 11 Oct.2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-196. - 25 -
“To ascertain whether there is evidence to support Nicaragua’s assertion that
there has been a surge in the San Juan River’s sediment load since construction of the
Road, I examined available records of measured Suspended Sediment Concentration
(SSC) in the Río San Juan Río Colorado system prior to and following construction
of the Road.” 42
(c) And if I can ask you then to turn to paragraphs 18-19, which are on page 10. One sees there
below figure 2:
“If additional sediment from the Road had caused a surge in the rate of sediment
transport in the Río San Juan, this would reflect in Figure 2 through increases in the
SSCs measured since 2010 and a corresponding upward shift in the 2010 -2013
suspended sediment rating curve compared to that for 1974- 1976. [ It is a very
straightforward comparison.] It is clear from Figure 2 that this is not the case.
-1
On the contrary, the highest measured concentration (SSC > 600 mg l ) was
actually observed during the period prior to construction of the Road and the
distribution of 27 of the 31 post -Road measured concentrations in Figure 2 coincides
with that of the pre-Road data. Not only is there no statistically significant difference
between the pre - and post-Road suspended sediment rating curves, Figure 2 reveals
them to be practically identical. This suggests that any differences between pre - and
43
post-Road SSCs measured at these stations are the result of random chance.”
11. So in short, there is no evidence of any surge, and that point is reinforced when one
considers the relative increase in river sediment content that the road leads to, even on the figures
of Nicaragua’s expert, Dr. Kondolf.
12. If I can ask you to stay with Professor Thorne’s report for the moment, still at tab 17 of
your folders, and move onto paragraph 56 which is at page 23 of the report.
(a) And you see there under the heading “Estimated annual load of Road-related sediment supplied
to the Río San Juan”:
“According to the data and calculations presented in the 2012 Kondolf Report
(page 46), the average total quantity of sediment supplied to the Río San Juan by the
Road annually is 87 000 to 109 000 m3 y-1. As explained in paragraph 31 above, this
estimate includes all potential sources of sediment input considered significant in the
2012 Kondolf Report (a finding not revisited in Annex 2) [and that is a reference to
Dr. Kondolf’s reports of this October], including surface erosion and mass wasting.” 44
42Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov. 201Attachment CR-7, tab 17 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders,
para. 15.
43Ibid., paras. 18-19. See also Comparison of Sediment Load in the San Juan River before and after1856,e
tab 20 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
44
ProfessorColin Thorne, Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov. 2013, Attachment CR-7, tab 17 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders,
para. 56. - 26 -
Now, Professor Thorne says that Dr. Kondolf’s figures are wrong, and I’ll come back to that later ;
but the important point for now is that Professor Thorne is taking the figures of Nicaragua’s expert,
Dr. Kondolf, and overleaf you can see at paragraph 61, Professor Thorne has to go through the
process of converting these figures in m 3, into metric to nnes in order to be able to effect the
comparison with the sediment load that this already in the river . And he converts the figures to
157,180 to 182,030 tonnes per year. Still Dr. Kondolf’s figures. And then of course these figures
must be compared to the annual average sediment load in the river so that one can start to consider
issues of impact the key issue before you today: whether there is a real and imminent risk of
irreparable prejudice.
(b) Moving on to paragraph 63, at the top of page 25, there is a reference there to the ICE, that is
the Institute of Electricity, Report:
“ICE monitor sediment transport at multiple gauging stations within the basin of
the Río San Juan, including the Delta Colorado (Station 691104) on the Río Colorado
immediately downstream of the Delta (see F igure 1). According to their records, and
as explained in the ICE Report, the average annual total sediment load (that is
suspended load plus bed load) carried by the -1o San Juan between December 2010
and June 2013 was around 9 133 000 t yr . In the ICE Report, it is estimated that at
the Delta, 8 470 000 t yr pass to the Río Colorado and 663 000 t yr to the lower Río
San Juan.”
Professor Thorne then starts to draw conclusions, at paragraphs 64 and 65.
“5.5.4 Input of Road-derived sediment to the Río San Juan
The sediment derived from erosion related to the Road as estimated by
Dr. Kondolf, makes up 1 or 2% of the total sediment load carried by the Río San Juan
which is obviously too small a proportion to have a significant impact on the River.
Assuming that 10% of the additional sediment enters the lower Río San Juan
suggests that the average annual input of Road -derived sediment to the lower Río San
Juan is 15 718 to 18 203 t y , which constitutes 2 or 3% of the total load in the lower
Río San Juan downstream of the Delta.”
Now it is important of course to pause here, because I may need to emphasize the d ownstream of
the sector of the r oad that is at issue, the waters and the sediment load divide, with appr oximately
90 per cent I believe those are Nicaragua’s figures going into the Rio Colorado in Costa
Rica, and 10 per cent going into the L ower San Juan. So, this diversion of the waters and their
sediment load must of course be taken into account. Pro fessor Thorne’s Report continues , at
paragraph 66: - 27 -
“5.5.5 Potential impact on sedimentation in the lower Río San Juan
The lower Río San Juan is approximately 30 km long and it has an average
2
channel width around 90 m, giving it a bed area of about 2.7 mi llion m . Using
Dr. Kondolf’s estimate of sediment delivery to the Río San Juan (87 000 to 109 000
m y ), conservatively assuming that 10% of this enters the lower Río San Juan (8 700
to 10 900 m y ), and supposing that all of the Road-related sediment were deposited
on the bed of the lower Río San Juan (with none at all deposited on the floodplains
and in the wetlands or passing through to the Caribbean Sea, which is extremely
conservative), the average increase in the rate of aggradation of the bed wou ld be 3 to
4 mm y .”1
He continues at paragraph 67:
“It is immediately obvious that the addition of even the quantity of additional
Road-derived sediment estimated by Dr. Kondolf to the total annual sediment load of
the lower Río San Juan could not have impeded navigation or required Nicaragua to
take active efforts, including dredging, to maintain the capacity and quantity of the
River’s waters.” 45
(c) And of course i t follows that the accretion that Professor McCaffrey referred to yesterday is
entirely illusory. And it is not just that it is counter to Costa Rica’s evidence that I am just
taking you to now; it is unsupported even by Nicaragua’s evidence.
(d) For good measure, if I can just take you to how Professor Thorne concludes in his report
you will there, at the top of page 26, under the heading “Inputs of Road- derived sediment are
not just insignificant, they are undetectable”.
And one goes down then, for the conclusion, to paragraphs 72 and 73:
“The increase of 1 or 2% predicted based on Dr. Kondolf’s estimated range for
delivery of road-derived sediment to the Río San Juan falls well within the range of
natural variability of sediment loads in the River represented by a confidence interval
of +/- 20%, meaning that even if such a change in loa d were to occur it would be
indiscernible and statistically undetectable in records of measured loads.
The bed of the lower Río San Juan is formed in mobile sand, self-organised into
ripples and dunes with amplitudes ranging from centimetres up to a metr e or more,
respectively. The bed also features pools and bars that cause in-channel depths to vary
from several metres to a metre or less. It follows that a change in the rate of
-1
sedimentation by 3 or 4 mm y (which is one and a half to two times the diameter of a
single sand grain) would be imperceptible in the field and immeasurable using even
high precision sonar equipment.” 46
13. So much, one might also say, for Mr. Reichler’s contention that there is urgency because
the sediments are “accumulating to dangerous levels that have already harmed the river irreparably,
4Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov. 2013, Attachment CR-7, tab 17 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders,
paras. 63-67.
46
Ibid., paras. 72-73. - 28 -
and threaten to cause further irreparable harm” . Where, one must ask, is the evidence to support
that contention?
14. It follows that one can deal in very short order with the alleged ri sks to navigation.
These are illusory. Sediment increases that equate to 1 -2 times the diameter of a grain of sand do
not risk impacting on Nicaragua’s navigation on the Lower San Juan.
15. One can deal in equally short order with the alleged irreparab le damage to the health and
wellbeing of the population living on the margins of the San Juan River. Nicaragua has not
troubled to go beyond the bare assertion that is to be found in its Request of 11 October, and there
is no evidence of any kind to support this facet of alleged irreparable prejudice.
16. That leaves the alleged irreparable damage to the San Juan River and its environment.
17. The Court already has the big point on this, which is that the r iver is already adapted to
carrying a heavy sediment load, and such increased sediment as the r oad has led to is very small in
relative terms, even on Dr. Kondolf’s figures on sediment coming from the road.
18. However, and this is the point that follows from the detailed monitoring exercise carried
out by the University of Costa Rica at tab 19 of your judges’ folder, Dr. Kondolf’s figures are a
significant over-estimate. The research work of the University of Costa Rica is summari zed and
considered at Section 5.3 of Professor Thorne’s report. As one can see from paragraph 32 of that
report, nine of the most active sites for erosion and landslides have been selected for monitoring by
the University of Costa Rica.
19. The conclusions are then summarized at paragraphs 43- 44, and this is at page 18 of
Professor Thorne’s report, where he says,
“Monitoring of landslide and gully erosion reported by UCR above suggests
that the rate of land surface lowering estimated in the 2012 Kondolf Report is
probably too high by a factor of five. Further, UCR fie ld monitoring indicates that
landslides and gullies on average cover around 10 to 15% of the slopes with these
features, so the 40 to 50% estimate of the area of the Road on which this erosion is
occurring which is adopted in the 2012 Kondolf Report would also appear to be
significantly too high.
In my experience, including my inspections of the Road in February and
-1
May 2013, of land surface lowering due to landslides and gullies averaging 1 m y is
too high and it is unlikely to be accurate. Also, the a ssumption that landslides and
gullies cover 40 to 50% of slopes and other disturbed areas overstates the extent of
4CR 2013/28, p. 38, para. 6 (Reichler). - 29 -
these features. Conversely, the monitored rates and areas affected as summarised in
Table 3 [that is a table that is taken from the data in the University of Costa Rica
48
report] are entirely reasonable and, in my opinion, more reliable.”
20. Professor Thorne then addresses , at section 5.4, at page 20 of tab 17, the question of
whether the calculated delivery rates for road -derived sediment ba sed on the result of field
monitoring are sufficient to cause significant or irreversible damage to the Rio San Juan. The
answer, as appears from paragraphs 52-54 of his report, is “no”.
21. Again, Nicaragua has not provided you with evidence to the contrary that is based on
actual monitoring, or actual measurements of sediment increases in the river.
22. You do have Professor McCaffrey’s image of 5,000 dumper trucks pouring their loads of
49
sediment into a sink , but that is at best an inaccurate analog y because it implies the use of the
river for waste disposal, whereas Nicaragua’s evidence is all about alleged failures in construction
and mitigation measures, not deliberate tipping by Costa Rica of sediment into the river. It is also
an unhelpful analogy for Nicaragua, as talk of the river as a sink leads naturally to the question of
what happens next with the plumbing. And the answer to that question is that the waters of the
river and the sediments they carry split downstream, with around 90 per cent going into Costa Rica
and 10 per cent remaining in the Lower San Juan. So if the road were causing risk of irreparable
prejudice to the environment, which it is not, that risk would be felt by Costa Rica also, and it is
not.
23. Now, you have been shown various photographs, but these do not evidence real and
imminent risk of irreparable prejudice.
50
24. I take the photos of the sediment deltas that you were shown yesterday . These are said
to be caused by the road. Well, maybe yes, maybe no; but the important point for now is that such
deltas are also to be found on the Nicaraguan side of the river, where they can have nothing
whatsoever to do with the road.
48Professor Colin Thorne, R eport on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov. 2013, Attachment CR-7, tab 17 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders,
paras. 43-44.
49CR 2013/28, pp. 35-36, paras. 37-39 (McCaffrey).
50
Ibid., p. 30 (McCaffrey). - 30 -
25. Now I refer you to the photographs at pages 28-32 of Professor Thorne’s report, some of
which are now up on the screen, and you can see, there again, these sand sediment deltas on the
Nicaraguan side of the river.
26. Further, these deltas are not harmful: one can see that from paragraph 77 of
Professor Thorne’s report (from the end of the fifth line on page 33) where he says:
“The limited size and wide spacing of the tributary deltas I observed in the
Río San Juan in May 2013 means that they do not harm the River. Indeed, to the
contrary, tributary bars and deltas are beneficial to the aquatic and riparian ecosystems
because, for 51ample, they provide fresh habitats and open niches for pioneer plant
species . . .”
27. You were also shown photographs of erosion and what were said to be various slope
failures . But what matters is how much of the sediment is in fact reaching the river , and whether
it risks causing irreparable harm there.
28. The high point of Nicaragua’s case, in this respect, is at page 2 of Dr. Kondolf’s report of
30 October, which was put up on your screens, and quoted at various junctures by Nicaragua’s
counsel. And, to remind you, what he says is as follows:
“If work continues on Rte 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
53
will be widespread and severe.”
29. Now, there are two points to make about this.
30. The first is that this is not a region where there are hurricanes or tropical storms. I am
sure that Nicaragua will be doing its homework on this overnight, but this is the map, which is
actually of historical hurricane tracks, prepared by the Unite d States National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration it is also at tab 22 of your judges’ folder and what you can see
from that is how the hurricanes pass to the north of the area that we are now concerned with. As
51
Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov. 2013, Attachment CR-7, tab 17 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders,
para. 77.
52CR 2013/28, pp. 29-30 (McCaffrey).
53
G. Mathias Kondolf, Continued Impacts from Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica, to the Rio San Juan,
Nicaragua, 30 Oct. 2013, Ann. 2 to letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 1 Nov. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-223, p. 2. - 31 -
Professor Thorne explains, at paragraph 83 of his report: “if this region were to suffer a tropical
storm or a hurricane, not only would this be devastating, it would be unprecedented” . 54
31. Secondly, we obviously want the Court to review Dr. Kondolf’s recent reports with great
care, but we have been struck by how much has been taken from his report of December 2012,
which did not then precipitate a provisional measures request from Nicaragua, and also by how
many of the propositions in the new reports are entirely general.
32. For example, Professor McCaffrey relied on page 7 of Dr. Kondolf’s report of
30 October, where he says that: “Increased delivery of coarse sediment to rivers [plural] can result
55
in significant changes to river processes, causing aggradation of the river channel . . .” Well, no
doubt. But that is not evidence that there is a risk of this aggradation so far as concerns increased
sediment from the road into the San Juan, and indeed the evidence which is specific to this case
shows that there is no risk of this at all, let alone any risk of irreparable prejudice as a result.
33. Similarly, at page 7 of Dr. Kondolf’s report of 30 October, it is said that: “The delivery
56
of massive volumes of sediment to rivers has resulted in significant ecological damage.” Again,
maybe, yes. But again, that tells one nothing about whether the specific alleged volumes of
sediment in this case have created a risk of irreparable prejudice so far as concerns the particular
river at issue, the San Juan River.
34. A further exampl e is given at paragraph 79 of Professor Thorne’s report. This is at the
bottom of page 33. He explains as follows:
“On page 8 (paragraph 3) Dr. Kondolf alludes to the finding reported by Reid
and Dunne (2003) that ‘ road-related sediment can dominate th e sediment budget in
many rivers’. As a general proposition and in the abstract, I agree with this statement.
But Reid and Dunne were not referring to the Río San Juan. In Attachment CR-1 [and
that is a reference to the Institute of Electricity report], ICE have constructed a
sediment budget specific to this River: the Río San Juan. The result is depicted in
Figure 11 (reproduced from Attachment CR -1), which illustrates that the contribution
of road-related sediment is tiny in the context of this River . Road- related sediment
54
Professor Colin Thorne, Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov. 2013, Attachment CR-7, tab 17 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders,
para. 83.
55CR 2013/28, p. 32, para. 26 (McCaffrey).
56
G. Mathias Kondolf, Continued Impacts from Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica, to the Rio San Juan,
Nicaragua, 30 Oct. 2013, Ann. 2 to letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 1 Nov. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-223, p. 7. - 32 -
may dominate the sediment budget in many rivers, but the Río San Juan is not one of
them.” 57
35. There are two instances where Dr. Kondolf relies on specific sampling data, and I wish to
look briefly at these.
36. The first is at page 11 of his 30 October Report, where he relies on three samples of
water taken from the r iver which are said to show high sediment content resulting from run- off
from the road after a brief intense downpour. Costa Rica’s experts have looked at — not three, but
rather — 2,409 samples from the r iver and its Costa Rican tributaries. And, as Professor Thorne
observes at paragraph 81, “the concentrations in the plume of muddy- water are not high in the
context of SSC’s routinely observed in runoff draining to the Río San Juan, or even in the River
itself”58. And he then goes on to explain how, in any event, such concentrations will be quickly
dissipated.
37. The second instance is at page 13 of Dr. Kondolf’s Report, where he states that a
colleague collect ed periphyton samples — I understand that these are some samples of certain
algae and bacteria and detritus — and those were collected from the river: four from the sites on
the Costa Rican bank said to be impacted by sediment run-off from the road; and five from what is
59
described as “relatively undisturbed landscapes” on the Nicaraguan bank . It appears that the
result of this analysis showed that there was a higher periphyton biomass in the samples collected
from the Costa Rican side, providing what Dr . Kondolf then describes as “one indication of the
60
negative ecological effects of sediment eroded from Rte 1856 upon the Rio San Juan” . It is not
said by Dr. Kondolf to constitute evidence of risk of irreparable harm and, further, as
Professor Thorne points out at paragraph 82 of his report, there is no explanation in Dr. Kondolf’s
Report as to whether the samples used from either side of the river were actually comparable.
38. By contrast, so far as concerns real and imminent risks of irreparable preju dice to the
environment, what one would expect to be seeing , in particular in light of Professor McCaffrey’s
57
ProfessorColin Thorne, Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica, 4 Nov. 2013, Attachment CR-7, tab 17 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders,
para. 79.
58Ibid., para. 81.
59G. Mathias Kondolf, Continued Impacts from Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica, to the Rio San Juan,
Nicaragua, 30 Oct. 2013, Ann. 2 to Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 1Nov. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-223, p. 13.
60
Ibid., p. 13, para. 2. - 33 -
reference to 46 endangered species in the broader region , is evidence of how identified individual
species are being adversely affected, and why t here is a risk of irreparable prejudice. But there is
precisely none of thatevidence before you.
39. Nicaragua’s legal team did place great weight on a plastic culvert, which appears around
a dozen times in the transcript, and was singled out for speci al video treatment. Perhaps in the
second round, it will be explained how this culvert, as to which there is no evidence of how it
found its way into a small side-stream, establishes a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice.
We are rather baffled.
40. I wish finally to touch on two miscellaneous points before handing over to Mr. Ugalde to
look at the issues on urgency, no doubt after the morning break.
41. First, my friend Professor Pellet drew your attention yesterday to two decisions of the
Central American Court of Justice: a preliminary decision in January 2012, and a further decision
of June 2012. He said that the CACJ had ordered Costa Rica to suspend further works on the road,
62
and that it had held Costa Rica in contempt of its order by failing to suspend the works .
42. But the simple point is that Costa Rica is not a party to the Statute of the Central
American Court of Justice 63. For this reason, Costa Rica did not participate in those proceedings ;
for this reason, Costa Rica is not bound by any orders of the CACJ and, likewise, no weight can be
accorded to such orders by this Court. I should add that t he Counter-Memorial will address in
rather more detail this surprising attempt by the CACJ to impose its jurisdiction on Costa Rica .
43. Secondly, a new case was enthusiastically embraced by Mr. Reichler yesterday — to the
effect that it is the completion of works, as announced by Costa Rica’s Minister of Public Works
and Transportation in March of this year, that establishes the requisite risk of irreparable prejudice
and urgency 64. The document relied on is now at tab 23 of your f olders: we put it there in full
because Mr. Reichler had only put in some very limited extracts. Now Mr. Ugalde will look at this
from the perspective of urgency, shortly,but the question I have to ask is where is the evidence that
61
CR 2013/28, p. 34, para. 30 (McCaffrey).
62Ibid., p. 65, para. 51 (Pellet).
63
See Extract from CACJ website, “The challenge is having Panama and Costa Rica join”, available at
portal.ccj.org.ni/ccj2/Publicar/tabid/88/EntryId/3/-El-reto-es-que-Panama-y-Costa-Rica-se-integren.atab 24 of
Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
64
CR 2013/28, p. 38, para. 7 (Reichler). - 34 -
any of the works in the Action Plan may cause irreparable prejudice? For example — if I may ask
you just to turn to pages 10- 14 of this report — you can see there a referenceto two phases of
mitigation works. So is it these mitigation works, and the details then set out in the pages that
follow, that are causing Nicaragua such concern? It is all quite unclear; but what is clear is that
there is no evidence before you which identifies how the remedial and other work specified in this
document give rise to a risk of irreparable prejudice — as opposed in fact to addressing the erosion
and construction issues that had previously been the focus of all Nicaragua’s criticism.
C. Conclusion
44. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes my remarks. I thank you for your
kind attention, and I ask that the floor be given to Mr. Ugalde, perhaps after the morning break.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr. Wordsworth. I think everybody is going to
benefit from a 15-minute coffee break. The sitting is suspended. Afterwards I will give the floor to
Mr. Ugalde. Thank you.
The Court adjourned from 11.25 a.m. to 11.40 a.m.
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The hearing is resumed and, Mr. Ugalde, I give you
the floor.
Mr. UGALDE:
N ICARAGUA S R EQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF URGENCY
1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court: it is an honour to appear before the
Court on behalf of Costa Rica this morning. I will address the absence of the second of the
essential conditions for the indication of provisional measures, that of urgency. I shall be brief.
2. This Court has consistently held that a party seeking provisional measures must show that
“there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice may - 35 -
65
be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court has given its final decision” . There must be a
risk, in the sense that if measures are not indicated, a rig ht pendente lite will be irreparably
prejudiced.
3. Nicaragua’s Request does not and cannot meet the established requirement of urgency.
This is for three reasons: first, Nicaragua’s Request is not based on any new facts or events;
secondly, Nicaragua’s Request has been made twice before and rejected and nothing has
happened since to create an imminent risk of irreparable prejudice; and thirdly, there is indeed no
imminent risk of irreparable prejudice. I will deal with each of these issues in turn.
4. Before I do so, and in order to give some perspective, I take the liberty of showing some
footage of the actual conditions of the river and I am showing some two minutes of footage
the entire 17-minute video has been filed with the Registry . Photographs and video footage filed
by Costa Rica show the condition of the river less than a week ago. As the images now on your
screen demonstrate, the r iver is running its normal course. No road or any part of any road has
fallen into the river or is about to. The course of the river has not changed in any way. It is the
same river, running its ordinary course, even though we are at the height of the rainy season, as
66
Nicaragua stated in its Request . And, as I will now show, there is no situation of imminent risk
which would justify the indication of provisional measures in this case.
A. Nicaragua’s Request is not based on any new facts or events
5. Turning to the first of the reasons why Nicaragua’s Request must fail for lack of urgency,
it is appar ent that Nicaragua’s Request is not based on the discovery of any new facts, or the
imminent occurrence of any new events. In this respect, Nicaragua’s Request is unlike any other
case in which the Court has indicated provisional measures. Every other pr ovisional measures
request has been preceded by the occurrence of some event, or some new fact. This is clear from a
short survey of some of the Court’s decisions.
65Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I, p. 21, para. 64; see also Application of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v.Russian Federation), Provisional
Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 392, para. 129; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment
of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerni ng the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand),
Provisional Measures, Order of 18 July 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (II) , p. 548, para. 47.
66
Letter from Nicaragua to the Court, 11 Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-196, p. 3. - 36 -
(a) For example, i n 2000, in Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, fighting between
Ugandan and other foreign troops was resumed, and this precipitated the request for provisional
measures by the Congo 67. The Court held that “ persons, assets and resources present on the
territory of the Congo, particularly in the area of conflict, remain e xtremely vulnerable” and
that there was “present urgency in the situation” 6.
(b) In 2011, in the Certain Activities case, Costa Rica’s request was preceded by the occupation of
its territory by Nicaraguan military forces, and the carrying out of works thereon, including the
69
creation of an artificial caño . The Court indicated provisional measures, referring to the “real
and present risk of incidents liable to cause irremediable harm” 7.
(c) In 2011, in Interpretation of the Judgment in Preah Vihear , Cambodia’s request was preceded
by serious armed incidents between it and Thailand in the border area, causing fatalities and
71
injuries . The Court referred to the instability of the situation in the relevant area and the
72
potential that it could deteriorate, and it held that the requirement of urgency was met .
6. All requests, including the Request made by Costa Rica in September this year, follow the
same pattern that is to say, some new event has occurred or at the very least some new fact has
been discovered, which is said to have given rise to an imminent risk of irreparable prejudice of the
rights at issue in the case.
7. In contrast, Nicaragua’s Request in this case was not preceded by the discovery of any
new fact, or the occurrence of any new relevant event.
8. Of course, Nicaragua’s Request was in one sense preceded by an event: the fili ng of
Costa Rica’s Request for n ew provisional measures in the Certain Activities case. In response to
Costa Rica’s Request, and apparently on the basis of some li tigation strategy, Nicaragua hastily
6Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Provisional
Measures, Order of 1 July 2000, I.C.J. Reports 2000, p. 114, para. 9.
6Ibid., p. 128, para. 43.
6Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Cos ta Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I) , pp. 10-11, paras. 13-19.
70
Ibid., p. 24, para. 75.
7Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand), Provisional Measures, Order of 18 July 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (II) ,
p. 539, para. 8.
7Ibid., p. 551, paras. 55-56. - 37 -
submitted an incomplete Request on Friday 11 October literally on the eve of the hearing for the
73
provisional measures requested by Costa Rica in the Certain Activities case . It submitted no
evidence with that Request, it did not identify with any specificity the rights which its Request was
74
intended to protect. It did not submit a report of the May 2013 site visit to which it referred ; nor,
I note, did Nicaragua then submit the report of Dr. Kondolf dated 12 October, which it provided to
Costa Rica only last Friday 75. That Nicaragua’s Request was indeed made for some procedural
end, and that it was not motivated by any situation of urgency, is strongly suggested by the fact that
Nicaragua asked the Court to hear both Requests simultaneously 7.
9. Mr. President, Members of the Court, it hardly need be said that the filing by Costa Rica
of a Request for new provisional measures in the Certain Activities case does not give rise to a
situation of urgency such as would j ustify the indication of provisional measures in this, the Road
case. Yet the filing of Costa Rica’s Request is the only thing which “happened” before Nicaragua
elected to file its Request. Nicaragua’s Agent confirmed this fact. He said yesterday:
“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 file our own
petition for77rovisional measures with the intention that they be pleaded during those
hearings.”
10. This statement by the Agent of Nicaragua is remarkable, because it also suggests t hat the
true reason for their Request was not because of urgency, or because of the rainy season, or
because of any event that might be said to risk irreparable prejudice to Nicaragua’s rights. The
only reason Nicaragua filed this Request was that the Court was going to hold the hearings on
Monday 14 October, on Costa Rica’s Request in the Certain Activities case. That is what the
Agent said.
73
Letter from Nicaragua to the Court, 11 Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-196.
74Referred to in Letter from Nicaragua to the Court, 11 Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-196, pp. 2, 3.
75G. Mathias Kondolf, Confirmation of Urgent Measures to Mitigate Erosion and Sediment Delivery of Rte 1856,
Costa Rica, into the Río San Juan, Nicaragua , 12 Oct. 2013, Ann. 1 to Nicaragua’s letter to the Court of 1 Nov. 2013,
Ref. HOL-EMB-223.
76
Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 11 Oct.2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-196, p. 3.
77
CR 2013/28, p. 12, para. 4 (Argüello). - 38 -
11. Notwithstanding this, you heard yesterday from Nicaragua a completely new reason
which apparently motivated i ts Request. Nicaragua explained that it actually filed its Request
because of an event which it never mentioned in its Request.
12. Relying upon a timetable set out in a powerpoint presentation prepared by the Costa
Rican Ministry of Public Works and Tra nsportation 78, Nicaragua now claims that it brought this
Request because Costa Rica “recently announced” that it would be recommencing construction on
the road, in order to complete the construction between October and December 2014 79. The
presentation that Nicaragua relied upon is one which is accessed through a link given i n an official
Costa Rican press release. Nicaragua submitted the press release to the Court last Thursday
80
31 October, as Annex 2 . Nicaragua did not mention the press release as the so urce for the link to
the Ministry of Public Works presentation, and it is clear why: the press release is dated
14 March 2013. The presentation of the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Works and Transportation
was made on the same day as the press release, that is, nearly eight months ago.
13. Indeed, the date of the “recent announcement” was not the only thing Nicaragua omitted
to mention to you yesterday. In fact, Nicaragua has already complained to the Court on two
occasions about this very announcement . When it submitted its Request for the modification of
your 2011 Order, in June this year, Nicaragua stated that: “Costa Rica has announced the
recommencement of the construction of Road 1856.” 81 And when Nicaragua did so, it reminded
the Court that it had already complained about this announcement, when it wrote to the Court on
28 February this year. On that date, Nicaragua reported to the Court that “the Government of Costa
Rica has announced that the work on Road 1856 is about to be restarted, as has been confirmed by
the Minister of Public Works” 8. It attached to its letter three annexes showing that the work was
78Costa Rican Minister of Public Works and Transportation, CONAVI, National Route 1856 Action Plan for
Completion, 2013, submitted as An. 1 to Nicaragua’s letter to ICJ, 4 Nov. 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-225, and reproduced in
Costa Rica’s judges’ folders, tab 23.
79CR 2013/28, p. 38, para. 7 (Reichler).
80
Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 31 Oct. 2013, Ref. HOL -EMB-220, Ann. 2, “Government Strong on
Comprehensive Development of the Boundary Strip Guarantees Conc lusion of Route 1856”, 14 Mar. 2013, p. 2.
81
Request by Nicaragua that the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011 in the c ase concerning Certain Activities carried
out in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) be modified or adapted to the Situation Created by the Joinder of the
case concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) ,
14 June 2013, para. 45, tab 28 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
82Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 28 Feb.2013, Ref. 28022013-01, p. 2, tab 29 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders. - 39 -
about to be recommenced: those annexes are reports dated 25 and 31 January, and
3 February 2013 . They pre-date Nicaragua’s Request for p rovisional measures by nearly nine
months. Nicaragua’s letter is at tab 29 of your folders.
14. So, the so-called “recent announcement” which motivated Nicaragua’s Request of three
weeks ago, and which Nicaragua contends “most underscores the urgency an d immediacy of
Nicaragua’s request” 8, was based on information which has been known to Nicaragua since
85
January this year. That alleged motivation was not mentioned by Nicaragua in its Request . We
only knew about it until Monday this week 86. And the reas on it was never mentioned of
course is because it was not the reason why Nicaragua made this Request. This is an attempt by
Nicaragua, at the eleventh hour, to re-characterize its litigation strategy, and it does not stand up to
scrutiny. Professor Kohen will return to this shortly.
B. Nicaragua’s Request is a repetition of the two requests it already made,
both of which failed
15. This leads me to the second reason why Nicaragua does not meet the standard of urgency
required by this Court. Nicaragua’s Request is a repetition of the two requests it already made,
both of which were rejected by the Court.
16. The Court will recall that since it filed its Application in December 2011, nearly two
years ago, Nicaragua has been half-heartedly claiming that there is a situation of urgency relating to
the Border Road. Its Application referred to the imminent danger this road posed 87. It reserved the
88
right to bring a provisional measures request, in view of the urgency of the situation . Nicaragua
then informed the Court that it would not be in a position to file its Memorial until a year after its
83Anns. 1-3 to the letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 28 Feb2013, Ref. 28022013-01, tab 29 of Costa Rica’s
judges’ folders.
84CR 2013/28, p. 38, para. 7 (Reichler).
85
Letter from Nicaragua to the ICJ, 11 Oct.2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-196.
86
See Costa Rican Minister of Public Works and Transportation, CONAVI, National Route 1856 Action Plan for
Completion, 2013, submitted as Ann. 1 to Nicaragua’s letter to the ICJ, 4 Nov. 2013, Ref. HOL -EMB-225, and
reproduced in Costa Rica’s judges’ folders, tab 23.
87Nicaragua’s Application in Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa
Rica), 22 Dec. 2011, paras. 1 and 36.
88Ibid., para. 55. - 40 -
89
Application . When Nicaragua submitted its Memorial on 19 December 2012, it asked the Court
90
to grant provisional measures proprio motu, in view of urgency . This was a year after
Nicaragua’s Application. The Court declined to do so 91.
17. In May this year, Costa Rica made a Request for the m odification of the 2011 Order in
92
the Certain Activities case, based on new events in the disputed territory . Apparently, in
response, Nicaragua made its own request for modification, referring again to the measures that it
93
had asked for in its Memorial, and the same measures it is asking for today . At that time,
Nicaragua stated that “Costa Rica has announced the recommencement of the construction of
Road 1856” 94, and it invoked this fact as a new factual situation justifying modification of your
95 96
2011 Order . Again, the Court declined to indicate the measures requested by Nicaragua .
18. In dealing with “urgency”, Mr. Reichler said that:
“since filing its Application Nicaragua has exhausted every other avenue available to
it, before a variety of international organizations and forums . . . Nicaragua had hoped
that these efforts would avoid the need to impose on the Court the burden of these
97
hearings. But they have all been unsuccessful . . .”
Well, no one has ever suggested that there is some obligation on States to exhaust other available
remedies before approaching this Court under Article 41 of the Statute, and there is of course
nothing in Article 41 to that effect. States that have good grounds for seeking provisional measures
89
See Court’s Order of 23 January 2012 in Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River
(Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), p. 2.
90
Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan Rive r (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), 19 Dec. 2012, MN,
pp. 252-253, para. 4.
91
See letter from the ICJ to Costa Rica, 11 Mar.2013, Ref. 142641.
92
Costa Rica, Request 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 (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua),
21 May 2013.
93
Request by Nicaragua that the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011 in the case concerning Certain Activities carried
out in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) be modified or adapted to the situation created by the Joinder of the
case concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) ,
14 June 2013; tab 28 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
94
Request by Nicaragua that the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011 in the case concerning Certain Activities carried
out in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) be modified or adapted to the situation created by the Joinder of the
case concerning the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica) ,
14 June 2013, para 45, tab 28 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
9Ibid., paras. 49-51, tab 28 of Costa Rica’s judges’ folders.
9Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Requests for the
Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 Indicating Provisional Measures , Order of 16 July 2013, paras. 26-29.
97
CR 2013/28, p. 38, para. 5 (Reichler). - 41 -
pursue these as they consider necessary to protect their rights at issue in a given dispute, and not by
reference to a non-existent obligation of exhaustion or some perceived convenience of the Court.
19. Now, Nicaragua requests substantially the same measures it has already asked for. On
both occasions its requests have been rejected. And since then, what has happened? What has
given rise to urgency in the sense of imminent risk of irreparable prejudice to Nicaragua’s rights?
Certainly not the announcement that Costa Rica intends to recommence construction of the road,
which was known to Nicaragua well in advance of its last attempt to obtain provisional measures,
by way of modification of the Court’s existing Order. In any event, Nicaragua has not submitted a
single piece of evidence to explain how the resumption of construction works on the road gives rise
to any risk of irreparable prejudice. The reality is that the Request was precipitated not by any new
fact or event, but by Costa Rica’s wholly unrelated Request in the Certain Activities case. It
follows that Nicaragua’s request must fail for lack of urgency.
C. Nicaragua has failed to show the requisite risk of irreparable prejudice
20. Mr. President, this brings me to the third reason why Nicaragua’s Request does not meet
the standard of urgency. Simply said, Nicaragua cannot show that there is any risk of irreparable
98
prejudice to its rights, let alone “a real and imminent risk” .
21. Mr. Wordsworth has explained to you that Nicaragua has failed to show the requisite risk
of imminent prejudice to its rights, and I will not traverse that ground in detail. The position can be
stated in short order.
(a) There is no real and imminent risk of prejudice to Nicaragua’s rights in respect of the
environment, because the contribution of sediment to the r iver from the r oad is not only
insignificant, it is imperceptible as the technical and expert studies submitted by Costa Rica
demonstrate.
(b) There is no real and imminent risk of prejudice to Nicaragua’s rights in respect of navigation
because, on a worst -case analysis, the evidence shows that the maximum contribution of
road-related sediment to the bed of the r iver could be, at most, twice the width of a grain of
9Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in theBorder Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011(I), p. 21, para. 64; see also Application of the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgiv Russian Federation), Provisional
Measures, Order of 15 October 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 392, para. 129. - 42 -
sand. This does not put at peril Nicaragua’s rights of navigation on the r iver, and much less its
disappearance, as Nicaragua would have you believe.
(c) Third, Nicaragua asserted in its Request that there was a risk of prejudice to its rights in respect
of the health and wellbeing of the population living along the margins of the San Juan River,
but it has not provided any evidence of any such risk, and because of the abs ence of any such
evidence, it appears to have abandoned it.
22. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, Nicaragua has shown no urgency.
The river will not be destroyed as a result of Costa Rica improving its road. The river will not be
destroyed by Costa Rica allowing its police and border inhabitants with a meaningful way of
communication. Nicaragua’s constant repetition of its requests, with increasing insistence, does
not somehow attribute urgency to those requests, such as would justify the indication of provisional
measures under Article 41.
23. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind attention. Mr. President,
I ask that you call on Professor Marcelo Kohen to conclude Costa Rica’s first round argument
today.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr. Ugalde . Je passe la parole au professeur Kohen. Vous
avez la parole, Monsieur.
M. KOHEN :
UNE DEMANDE OPPORTUNISTE ET TOTALEMENT INJUSTIFIÉE
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs de la Cour, la demande en indicati on de
mesures conservatoires déposée par le Nicaragua dans la soirée du 11 octobre 2013 restera gravée
dans les annales de la pratique juridictionnelle internationale à plus d’un titre. Premièrement, parce
qu’elle a sans doute été la demande du genre la plus annoncée, tout en étant celle qui a le plus tardé
à accoucher. Cela en dit long déjà sur le caractère soi -disant «urgent» de cette demande.
Deuxièmement, parce qu’il s’agit de la même demande répétée sous des formes différentes, les
tentatives préalables ayant essuyé autant d’échecs. Troisièmement , parce que, malgré la longue
période de réflexion que le Nicaragua s’est donnée pour se décider à demander formellement et - 43 -
normalement des mesures conservatoires, l’écrit nicaraguayen ne remplit pas, loin s’en faut, les
conditions minimales fixées par le Statut et par le Règlement de la Cour. Quatrièmement , parce
que la P artie nicaraguayenne est venue devant vous un vendredi soir vous priant d’entendre sa
demande à partir du jour ouvrable suivant. Nous conviendrons tous et toutes que la situation n’était
pas la même que celle, par exemple, de l’Allemagne dans l’affaire LaGrand.
2. Ces quatre traits qui caractérisent la demande du Nicaragua montrent plutôt la façon dont
un Etat ne devrait pas agir devant v ous en matière de mesures conservatoires. Quatre
caractéristiques qui cachent à peine les véritables motifs qui sous- tendent la démarche de la P artie
demanderesse, et sur lesquels je reviendrai dans un instant.
3. Mon exposé sera divisé en quatre parties. La première partie montrera en quoi la demande
nicaraguayenne est abusive. La deuxième aura trait aux droits revendiqués par le Nicaragua qu’il
cherche prétendument à préserver. La troisième partie démontrera qu’aucune des trois mesures
demandées n’est justifiée, et la quatrième partie, enfin, exposera de quelle manière les droits du
Costa Rica pendente lite risqueraient d’être gravement atteints si ces mesures venaient à être
indiquées.
A. La demande nicaraguayenne du 11 octobre est abusive
4. Je commence donc par expliquer le caractère abusif de la demande nicaraguayenne.
Quatre raisons fondamentales justifient cette affirmation. Primo , parce qu’il s’agit de la quatrième
ou cinquième fois que le Nicaragua demande ces mesures, sous des formes différentes. Secundo,
parce qu’aucun fait nouveau entraînant une aggravation de la situation existante au début de
l’affaire ne viendrait justifier cette demande. Tertio , parce que, de l’aveu même du Nicaragua, sa
demande en indication de mesures conservatoir es a été déposée uniquement parce que le
Costa Rica a à son tour demandé l’indication de nouvelles mesures. Quarto, parce que la demande
déposée le 11 octobre ne remplit même pas formellement le minimum exigé par l’article 41 du
Statut et les articles 73 et 76 du Règlement de la Cour.
5. En effet, cette demande n’indique nullement quels sont les droits que le Nicaragua
souhaiterait protéger en attendant la décision sur le fond. Elle n’indique pas non plus quelles
seraient les conséquences éventuelles de son rejet. Elle contient une explication plus que succincte - 44 -
et je suis extrêmement généreux avec cette qualification des motifs avancés et fait
remarquable pour une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires relative à des prétendus
dommages environnementaux elle n’a été accompagnée d’aucune je dis bien, aucune
preuve à l’appui. La demande même de tenir, dans ces conditions, les audiences immédiatement et
conjointement avec celles fixées par votre Cour pour la demande costa- ricienne en mesures
conservatoires atteste du manque total de sérieux de la démarche du Nicaragua. Je cite la demande
o
nicaraguayenne [projection n 1] :
«The measures indicated below are known and will not take Costa Rica by
surprise. Nicaragua has been pointing out the need for information sharing and
remedial measures from the moment the road began, and it has requested them in one
way or an99her in both cases that have been joined and are presently before the
Court.»
[Fin de la projection n 1.]
6. Monsieur l e président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, il s’agit en effet, dans cette
affaire, de la quatrième ou cinquième fois que le Nicaragua demande d’une manière ou d’une autre
les mesures que nous examinons aujourd’hui. Première et deuxième fois : dans la r equête
introductive d’instance, aux paragraphes 54 et 55 et dans une lettre au greffier déposée en même
temps que la requête. Le demandeur y prie en effet la Cour d’ordonner au Costa Rica de
communiquer au Nicaragua l’évaluation de l’impact sur l’environnement des travaux de
construction routière 100. Troisième fois : la demande assez insolite formulée par le demandeur à la
101
Cour pour que ce soit la Cour proprio motu qui ordonne les mesures conservatoires en question .
Quatrième fois : la demande nicaraguayenne du 14 juin 2013 visant à élargir les mesures
conservatoires indiquées par votre Cour dans l’affaire Costa Rica c. Nicaragua en vue de les
102
appliquer dans l’affaire Nicaragua c. Costa Rica . Cinquième fois : la demande en indication de
mesures conservatoires du 11 octobre qui constitue une répétition de la demande précédente. La
99Demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, 11 octobre 2013, p. 4.
100
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan, requête int roductive d’instance enregistrée
au Greffe de la Cour le 22 décembre 2011, p. 33, par. 53- 54 ; lettre de l’agent de la République du Nicaragua au greffier
de la Cour internationale de Justice, ibid., p. 123.
101
Letter from Nicaragua to the Court requesting the indication provisional measures proprio motu,
19 décembre 2012, réf. 02-19-12-2002.
102 Letter from Nicaragua to the Court, attaching Nicaragua’s request for modification of the provisional
measures indicated by the Court in Certain Activities , 14 juin 2013, réf. HOL-EMB-111. - 45 -
seule différence est que les mesures demandées il y a quatre mois sont maintenant explicitement
mentionnées, alors que dans la demande précédente, elles constituaient l’explicat ion de ce que le
Nicaragua entendait inclure dans son texte proposé afin de modifier les mesures indiquées par la
Cour 10.
7. Pour justifier la tenue de ces audiences et la manière plutôt chaotique d’agir en matière de
mesures conservatoires, nos adversaires ont excipé hier d’un argument pour le moins étonnant. On
pourrait le qualifier celui de «l’épuisement des voies de recours internationaux». Ils ont amèrement
rappelé que le Nicaragua s’ est adressé à plusieurs organisations internationales , puis à la Cour
104
elle-même, lesquelles n’ont pas donné suite aux demandes nicaraguayennes . Et voilà pourquoi
ils sont à présent venus devant vous, c’est -à-dire après avoir épuisé toutes les autres voies.
Curieuse manière de justifier une demande en mesures conservato ires ! Le Nicaragua n ’a pas
voulu tirer la conséquence logique qui s ’ensuivait de cette absence de réaction des organisations
internationales concernées et de votre propre Cour. Et pourtant cette conséquence saute néanmoins
aux yeux. C’est peut-être que le Nicaragua a d’autres visées avec sa demande, visées qui n’ont rien
à voir avec ce que prévoit l’article 41 de votre Statut.
8. Monsieur le président, cette manière de procéder du demandeur défie ouvertement
l’article 75, paragraphe 3, du Règlement qui précise que «[l]e rejet d’une demande en indication de
mesures conservatoires n ’empêche pas la partie qui l ’avait introduite de présenter en la même
affaire une nouvelle demande fondée sur des faits nouveaux ». Or, Monsieur le président,
Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, les mesures conservatoires demandées p ar le Nicaragua ne sont
ni nouvelles ce sont encore et toujours les mêmes ni fondées sur des faits nouveaux. Le
Nicaragua insiste depuis le début de cette instance sur l’existence d’ une obligation de notification
que le Costa Rica conteste, et impute à ce dernier les mêmes faits qu’auparavant.
9. Le seul élément de la demande du 11 octobre au soir qui pourrait éventuellement
s’apparenter à un «fait nouveau» est la référence faite à «l’avènement du plus fort de la saison des
pluies». Mais cela ne constitue pas du tout un « fait nouveau», Monsieur le président. Le
Nicaragua n ’ignorait pas en décembre 2012 ou en juin 2013 que la saison des pluies allait
103Nicaraguan Request of Modification of Provisional Measures of 14 June 2013, par. 51 et 52.
104CR 2013/28, p. 12, par. 4 (Argüello) ; p. 38, par. 5 (Reichler). - 46 -
recommencer. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, nous sommes à la troisième saison des pluies
depuis que les travaux de construction ont commencé. Même la requête nicaraguayenne du
22 décembre 2011 a été déposée en pleine saison des pluies ! A moins que nous ignorions que la
saison des pluies 2013- 2014 est annonciatrice d’un nouveau déluge universel, il n’y a rien de
nouveau à signaler à l’arrivée de la saison des pluies qui puisse justifier la demande
nicaraguayenne. Le ton dramatique employé par nos contradicteurs hier peut avoir sans doute été
inspiré par la fresque de Michel-Ange, mais même s’il pleut sur le San Juan ou à La Haye pas ce
matin ! nous ne sommes pas encore devant un tel événement catastrophique imminent qui
justifierait d’indiquer des mesures conservatoires.
10. L’équipe nicaraguayenne s’est probablement aperçue de la faiblesse intrinsèque de la
demande et est alors partie à la recherche d ’autres «faits nouveaux ». Qu ’a-t-elle trouvé ?
Apparemment, deux choses. La première, il y a une semaine à peine. Des morceaux d ’un tuyau de
drainage qu’ elle a soi -disant «repêchés» dans les eaux du San Juan. La deuxième, celle- ci
découverte hier seulement, le fait que la reprise des travaux de construction serait enfin le fait
nouveau qui pourrait justifier la demande au point de vue de l’ article 75, paragraphe 3, du
Règlement.
11. Nous avons déjà expliqué ce matin que ni l ’une ni l ’autre de ces faits allégués ne
justifieraient l ’indication de mesures conservatoires, ni même l ’opportunité de les demander .
J’ajoute simplement deux petits commentaires. Le rapport qui accompagne les photographies des
débris que le Nicaragua vous a montrées mille fois hier précise quelque chose de très intéressant .
Je cite [projection n o 2] : «The San Juan River MARENA Delegation implements monthly
waterway patrolling on the San Juan River with the participation of MARENA forest rangers and
105
technical specialists accompanied by the Army of Nicaragua.» Très bien, Monsieur le président.
Deux ans de travaux de construction se sont écoulés, des patrouilles fl uviales de ce genre se
déroulent tous les mois, et tout ce que l ’on a trouvé, c’est un morceau d’un tuyau de drainage qui,
d’après les photographies et la vidéo f ournies par le Nicaragua, serai t plutôt extrait du territoire
105Letter to the Registrar of the Court from His Excellency Carlos Argüello Gómez, Agent of the Republic of
Nicaragua, 31 October 2013, Ref. HOL-EMB-220, annexe 1, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources
(MARENA) San Juan River Territorial Delegation, «Technical Waterway Patrol on the San Juan River on
27 October 2013», English translation, p. 1. - 47 -
costa-ricien ? Est-ce que cela justifie de quelque manière que ce soit de demander des mesures
o
conservatoires ? [Fin de la projection n 2.]
12. Quant à la reprise des travaux, si c’était la véritable cause pour demander des mesures
conservatoires, pourquoi le Nicaragua ne l’a pas ma nifesté dans sa demande ? Pourquoi le
Nicaragua n’a pas demandé des mesures conservatoires les fois précédentes que les travaux ont été
suspendus ?
13. Cette attitude abusive du Nicaragua peut être contrée de plusieurs manières. L’une
d’entre elle consisterait à constater qu’il s’agit d’une demande déjà formulée et qu’il n’existe pas
de faits nouveaux qui la justifient. Une autre reviendrait à considérer que l’une ou plusieurs des
conditions exigées pour l’indication de mesures conservatoires ne sont pas remplies. Le Costa Rica
a confiance en votre sagesse, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, pour trouver le moyen le plus
approprié compte tenu des circonstances de l’espèce.
B. Les éventuels droits que le Nicaragua cherche prétendument à préserver
14. Monsieur le président , étant donné que la demande en indication de mesures
conservatoires ne dit mot sur les prétendus droits du Nicaragua qui exigeraient des mesures
urgentes pour parer à un risque de dommage irréparable, les conseils nicaraguayens ont essay é de
corriger quelque peu le tir hier. Il s’agirait alors du droit à la souveraineté et à l’intégrité
territoriales, du droit de ne pas subir un dommage transfrontière significatif et du droit de recevoir
106
une évaluation de l’impact sur l’environnement des travaux .
15. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriales du Nicaragua
ne sont nullement en cause ici . Nul ne conteste la souveraineté nicaraguayenne des eaux et du lit
du fleuve San Juan. Nul n ’entreprend aucune activité sur le territoire du Nicaragua . A supposer
même que les allégations du demandeur fussent fondées (quod non) , il pourrait s’agir tout au plus
d’une violation de l’obligation de ne pas causer des dommages transfrontières significatifs, mais en
aucun cas de violations à la souveraineté ou à l’intégrité territoriale du Nicaragua.
e
16. M Reichler s’est insurgé hier contre l ’utilisation du terme «invasion» pour qualifier
l’action et les menaces nicaraguayennes qui motivèrent le décret d ’urgence en vertu d uquel la
106CR 2013/28, p. 25, par. 8 (McCaffrey) ; p. 47, par. 31 (Reichler). - 48 -
107
route 1856 a été construite . Il a même parlé de surréalisme . Mais son camarade
Stephen McCaffrey n ’a pas hésité à utiliser ce même terme d ’«invasion» pour se référer aux
prétendues conséquences sur le territoire nicaraguayen de la construc tion de la route 1856. Il a
aussi parlé de l ’«occupation» et de l ’«assaut» que subirait le territoire nicaraguayen du fait de
108
l’action de son voisin . Comme vous le savez, Monsieur le président, l’armée nicaraguayenne est
toujours en territoire costa -ricien, devenu litigieux par la revendication postérieure à son
occupation par le Nicaragua. Le président nicaraguayen revendique toujours Guanacaste, malgré
l’existence d’un traité de limites en vigueur depuis plus d ’un siècle et demi. Tout cela ne relève
pas du surréalisme. Alors que , d’après le conseil nicaraguayen, le Costa Rica aurait envahi le
Nicaragua par sédimentation !
17. Quant au prétendu droit du Nicaragua d’ être notifié de l ’évaluation de l ’impact sur
l’environnement, le Costa Rica conteste que da ns les circonstances particulières de l ’espèce cette
obligation s’impose à lui. Il suffirait de dire maintenant que mêmes les instruments internationaux
qui imposent cette obligation prévoient également que des exceptions sont possibles. Je citerai
comme exemple l’article 19 de la c onvention sur le droit relatif aux utilisations des cours d ’eau
109
internationaux à des fins autres que la navigation . J ’ajouterai que le Nicaragua est le
responsable de la situation et a par ailleurs empêché et frustré toute co nsultation éventuelle.
L’agent costa-ricien a rappelé ce matin que la note du m inistre des affaires étrangères du
Costa Rica à son homologue nicaraguayen du 29 novembre 2011, faite dans un esprit de
coopération, reçut comme réaction la saisine de votre C our moins d’un mois plus tard. Quoi qu’il
en soit, Monsieur le président, la question de savoir s’il existe une obligation de notification dans le
contexte actuel relève du fond et il est regrettable que le Nicaragua l ’introduise par voie de
procédure inci dente. Le Costa Rica s ’expliquera au moment approprié, c’est -à-dire dans son
contre-mémoire le moisprochain.
18. Enfin, quant au droit de ne pas subir des dommages transfrontière s significatifs, mes
collègues vous ont déjà montré ce matin que le Nicarag ua n’a pas apporté la preuve d ’un véritable
107CR 2013/28,p. 48, par. 33 (Reichler).
108
Ibid., p. 24, par. 1 ; p. 28, par. 15 (McCaffrey).
109Convention sur le droit relatif aux utilisations des cours d’eau internationaux à des fins autres que la
navigation, adoptée par l’Assemblée générale des NationsUnies le 21 mai 1997, non encore en vigueur. - 49 -
risque de préjudice irréparable et donc encore moins de la nécessité urgente de prendre des mesures
pour l’éviter.
C. Aucune des mesures demandées n’est justifiée
19. Monsieur le président, je vais à présent e xaminer les trois mesures demandées par le
Nicaragua pour démontrer qu’aucune d’entre elles n’est justifiée.
20. La première mesure demandée consiste à imposer au Costa Rica de fournir l’évaluation
de l’impact sur l’environnement des travaux de construct ion routière et des rapports et évaluations
concernant les mesures pour atténuer les prétendus dommages significatifs qui pourraient être
causés au fleuve 11.
21. Le Nicaragua persiste et signe, pour la cinquième fois sur cette question. Toutes les fois
précédentes, votre Cour n’a pas donné suite à ces demandes. Les raisons de ce refus sont
compréhensibles.
22. Outre le fait évident que la production d’un moyen de preuve ne saurait en soi éviter un
préjudice irréparable dont le risque de toute évidence n’existe pas par ailleurs , une telle
mesure préjugerait gravement du fond de l’affaire. En effet, cette question ne peut être résolue
qu’au stade du fond 111. A supposer même qu’ il y ait une violation de l ’obligation de fournir une
évaluation d’impact sur l’environnement (quod non), la réaction ne serait pas l ’indication d’une
mesure conservatoire, mais une décision sur le fond avec les conséquences que vous estimerez
éventuellement appropriées. Ce que la Cour permanente a dit dans l’affaire de l’Usine de Chorzów
par rapport au Gouvernement allemand s’applique ici au Gouvernement nicaraguayen : «la
demande du Gouvernement allemand ne peut être considérée comme visant l’indication des
mesures conservatoires, mais comme tendant à obtenir un jugement provisi onnel adjugeant une
partie des conclusions de la susdite requête» 11.
110
Demande en indication de mesures conservatoires présentée par le Nicaragua, 11octobre 2013, p. 4.
111 Demande en interprétation de l’arrêt du 15 juin 1962 en l’affaire du Temple de Préah Vihéar
(Cambodge c. Thaïlande) (Cambodge c. Thaïlande), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 18 juillet 2011,
C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (II) , p. 546, par. 41 ; Questions concernant l’obl igation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique
c. Sénégal), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 28 mai 2009, C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 155, par. 74.
112 Usine de Chorzów, ordonnance du 21 novembre 1927, C.P.J.I. série A n 12, p. 10 (texte anglais :
«Considering that the request of the German Government cannot be regarded as relating to the indication of measures of
interim protection, but as designed to obtain an interim judgment in favour of a part of the claim formulated in the
Application above mentioned.») - 50 -
23. Qui plus est, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, dans la mesure où le Costa Rica a déjà
présenté une preuve technique assez abondante plus substantielle, plus sérieuse et plus crédib le
que celle de la Partie demanderesse , qui montre aussi bien l’absence de préjudice significatif au
fleuve San Juan, que les mesures prises pour éviter tout préjudice. Le mois prochain, le Costa Rica
déposera son contre-mémoire où cette évaluation scientifique sera étoffée. C’est tout dire sur, non
seulement le caractère infondé de cette demande comme mesure conservatoire, mais aussi sur son
inutilité pratique.
24. La seconde mesure conservatoire demandée par le Nicaragua requiert que votre Cour
impose immédiatement au Costa Rica des mesures dites «d’urgence» … tellement urgentes qu’elles
ont déjà été formulées dans le mémoire, au chapitre 6 «Remedies», paragraphe 6.8, il y a deux ans.
Exactement les mêmes. Il s’agit des «quatre tâches» mentionnées p ar le rapport Kondolf joint au
mémoire, en version réduite. Elles font aussi partie du petitum nicaraguayen dans le mémoire,
113
comme point 4 .
25. On aurait pu s’attendre à ce que les deux nouveaux rapports Kondolf déposés vendredi
dernier contiennent de n ouveaux éléments qui expliquent comment durant ces deux années la
situation s’est aggravée au point de rendre le risque plus réel. Bien évidemment, il n’en est rien.
La preuve scientifique fournie par le Costa Rica démontre que l’impact de la construction de la
114
route en territoire costa-ricien est négligeable .
26. En sus du fait qu’aucune nécessité urgente de prendre ces mesures pour éviter un
préjudice irréparable n’a été démontrée, le Costa Rica a déjà pris un certain nombre de dispositions
afin d’éviter tout impact dommageable sur le San Juan, dispositions qui vont même au -delà de ce
que le Nicaragua demande. [Projection n o3.] Vous avez à l’écran et à l’onglet n 31 de vos
dossiers un tableau comparatif montrant, d’une part, la deuxième mesure cons ervatoire demandée
par le Nicaragua et, d’autre part, l’action concrète que le Costa Rica a déjà accomplie et continue
d’accomplir. Si quelque chose a changé dans la situation factuelle depuis l’introduction de
113Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua cCosta Rica), mémoire du
Nicaragua, 19 décembre 2012, Submissions, p. 252.
114
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaraguaer. Costa Rica), demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires, documentation présentée par le Costa Rica le 1 novembre 2013, annexes,
annexe CR-1, Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE), «Report on Hydrology and Sediments for the Costa Rican River
Basins draining to the SanJuan River», août 2013, p.32-34. - 51 -
l’instance en 2011, ce n’est précisément pas l’aggravation de la situation, mais, bien au contraire,
l’amélioration qualitative et quantitative des mesures prises par le Costa Rica pour éviter tout
préjudice. La deuxième mesure demandée devient non seulement injustifiée mais aussi sans aucun
objet. [Fin de la projection n o3.]
27. La troisième mesure demandée par le Nicaragua est sans doute la plus osée et la plus
outrancière et, de ce fait, doit être rejetée sans ambages. Il s’agit ni plus ni moins d’empêcher le
Costa Rica d’améliorer son système de communication routière sur son territoire par le seul fait que
le Nicaragua a introduit une instance en 2011 et qu’il en fait une nouvelle fois la demande de
suspension des travaux en 2013. Cette demande impliquerait aussi d’adjuger provisoirement au
Nicaragua d’ores et déjà ce qu’elle demande au fond, au point a) du paragraphe 51 de sa requête et
au point 2 i) de ses conclusions dans son mémoire.
e 115
28. M Reichler a affirmé que cette suspension ne porterait aucun préjudice au Costa Rica .
Cela est de toute évidence faux. Si on laisse de côté le fait que la capacité souveraine de décision
du Costa Rica sur son réseau routier en serait sérieusement ébranlée, cela aurait des conséquences
économiques très graves pour un projet qui se trouve en pleine exé cution. Le même conseil
nicaraguayen vous a dit que le statu quo ante n’est pas possible 116, contrairement à ce que le
117
Nicaragua lui-même vous demande dans sa requête et dans son mémoire . Mais la Partie adverse
que souhaite-t-elle ? Disons-le une fois pour toutes : garder la route n o 1856 dans un état inachevé.
Voilà ce que vous demande le Nicaragua. Est -ce cela même la meilleure manière de préserver
l’écologie du fleuve San Juan ? Il saute aux yeux que le véritable objectif du Nicaragua est
d’empêcher que le Costa Rica possède une route dans sa région frontalière.
29. Hier la Partie adverse a, à plusieurs reprises, fait référence à l’affaire des Usines de pâte
à papier. Elle a oublié un élément important que votre Cour a mentionné aussi bien lors de son
ordonnance du 8 juillet 2006 que dans son arrêt sur le fond. Les situations sont bien entendu
différentes. Le statut du fleuve Uruguay a trait à l’utilisation d’un cours d’eau partagé et
115CR 2013/28, p. 47-48, par. 32 ; p. 49, par. 37 (Reichler).
116
Ibid., p. 45, par. 27.
117
Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica), requête
introductive d’instance enregistrée au Greffe de la Cour le 22 décembre 2011, p. 30, par. 50 ; MN, p. 241-242, par. 6.31,
p. 251, Submission 2 ii). - 52 -
établit un mécanisme très développé de coopération bilatérale. Contrairement à l’affaire
argentino-uruguayenne, il n’est pas question ici d’une quelconque utilisation du fleuve par le
Costa Rica. Même dans l’affaire des Usines de pâte à papier , tout comme préalablement dans
l’affaire du Passage par le Grand- Belt, l a Cour est arrivée à la conclusion selon laquelle,
pendente lite, il n’existait aucune obligation de suspendre les travaux objets de contestation entre
les Parties, la partie qui les entreprend le faisant à ses propres risques et périls quant aux
conséquences sur le fond 118. La même solution s’impose ici à plus forte raison où il n’est pas
question d’une activité sur une ressource naturelle partagée mais de la construction d’une route en
territoire costa- ricien. Il y va des droits du Costa Rica, que le Nica ragua feint d’ignorer
complétement dans cette affaire et dans cet incident. J’en viens à présent à eux.
D. Les droits du Costa Rica subiraient un grave préjudice si les mesures
demandées étaientindiquées
30. Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, si les mesu res conservatoires demandées sont
ordonnées, un grave préjudice sera porté aux droits du Costa Rica. Le Costa Rica possède le droit
souverain d’élargir son infrastructure routière sur son territoire. Seul le Costa Rica peut décider,
sans aucune ingérence externe, quelle est la meilleure manière de poursuivre le développement
durable de toutes et chacune des régions du pays, d’assurer leur intégration effective au reste du
territoire, d’asseoir la sécurité du pays, de rendre effective la communication des communautés
éloignées dans la région frontalière et de pourvoir à leur protection ainsi qu’à la fourniture des
services publics à leur égard. Le Nicaragua, qui a tout fait pour empêcher que ces services puissent
être rendus par le biais de la navigation sur le fleuve San Juan, contrairement aux droits reconnus
au Costa Rica par le traité de limites de 1858 et la s entence Cleveland de 1888, ne peut pas à
présent et également empêcher que le Costa Rica assure la communication et la sécurité des
différentes communautés riveraines à partir du propre territoire costa-ricien.
31. Certes, le Costa Rica reconnaît, respecte et je suis autorisé à le dire est
formellement et solennellement engagé à continuer de respecter l’obligation de ne pas causer un
118Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve Uruguay (ArgentinUruguay), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance
du 13 juillet 2006, C.I.J. Recueil 2006, p. 133, par. 78. Passage par le Grand -Belt (Finlande c. Danemark), mesures
conservatoires, ordonnance du 29 juillet 1991, C.I.J. Recueil 1991, p. 19, par. 31. Usines de pâte à papier sur le fleuve
Uruguay (Argentine c. Uruguay), arrêt, C .I.J. Recueil 2010 (I), p. 69, par. 154, déclaration du juge Sibid.,ov,
p. 132, par. 3. - 53 -
préjudice transfrontalier significatif. Il appartient toutefois au Costa Rica, et à lui seul, de décider
quelles sont les mesures nécessaires à adopter sur son territoire en vue d’empêcher que des actions,
toujours sur son territoire, ne causent un préjudice signi ficatif au territoire voisin. Pour cette seule
raison, les mesures demandées même dans le cas où les conditions requises pour leur indication
étaient remplies, ce qui est loin, très loin, d’être le cas ici, devraient être rejetées. Le Costa Rica a,
de sa propre initiative, pris les mesures de remédiation nécessaires pour éviter tout préjudice au
fleuve San Juan. Le Nicaragua, qui n’a pas démontré l’existence d’un risque de préjudice
irréparable et a fortiori la nécessité urgente des mesures pour l’éviter, ne peut pas décider de ce qui
doit être fait en territoire costa-ricien.
E. Conclusion
32. Monsieur le président, nous avons inutilement assisté hier à des plaidoiries sur le fond
avant la lettre . En arrivant à ma conclusion, j e résume tout d’abord l a situation ainsi : il s’agit
d’une demande répétitive et abusive sans la moindre preuve d ’existence de faits nouveaux ou
d’aggravation de la situation existante au moment de la requête ; pas de preuve d’ un quelconque
risque de préjudice irréparable au fleuve San Juan ; pas de preuve que des droits nicaraguayens à la
souveraineté territoriale, à la navigation, à la santé de la population, à la flore et la faune du
Nicaragua ou autres, seraient affectés et requerraient une action urgente .
33. Comme vous l’avez constaté tout au long de cette matinée, Mesdames et Messieurs les
juges, la réalité est bien différente du tableau dressé par la Partie adverse. Le Costa Rica n ’a aucun
intérêt à nuire au fleuve San Juan. D’une part, parce que le Costa Rica souhaite pouvoir exercer
son droit perpétuel de libre navigation établi par le traité de limites de 1858. D’autre part, parce
que nuire aux eaux du San Juan, c’est nuire aux eaux du fleuve costa-ricien le plus important dans
la région frontalière avec le Nicaragu a, le fleuve Colorado, qui reçoit presque 90 % des eaux qui
coulent dans le San Juan. C’est dire l’artificialité de cette affaire et à plus forte raison l ’artificialité
de cette demande biscornueen mesures conservatoires.
34. Je voudrais également formuler un commentaire important sur la tactique de la P artie
adverse. Le Nicaragua a requis des demandes reconventionnelles et la jonction des instances dans
le but de retarder votre décision sur la question de la souveraineté et de l’ occupation d’Isla Portillos - 54 -
dans l’affaire relative à Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière .
Maintenant et avec la même volonté dilatoire, le Nicaragua décide de demander des mesures
conservatoires totalement injustifiées.
Hier même, Monsieur le président, et malgré votre annonce de la convocation prochaine à une
119
audience pour la lecture de votre ordonnance sur les mesures demandées par le Costa Rica , mon
collègue Alain Pellet vous a invité d’une manière à peine voilée à «vous prononcer par une
ordonnance commune sur les deux demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires» 12. Comme
vous le voyez, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, il ne s’agit pas d’une simple spéculation de la
Partie costa-ricienne. Les véritables objectifs poursuivis par la Partie adverse ne se cachent plus.
35. Par ailleurs, il existerait d’ autres conséquences, ou «dommages collatéraux», si je puis
dire, si la demande nicaraguayenne venait à prospérer. Le standard élevé établi par la Cour pour
indiquer des mesures conservat oires se verrait diminué, ce précédent ouvr ant aussi la voie à la
possibilité de demander plusieurs fois l es mêmes mesures conservatoires par le simple fait d’en
modifier la description ou d’invoquer des faits nouveaux artificiels ou de demander une fois
propio motu et une autre fois normalement. La démarche nicaraguayenne vise non seulement à
porter atteinte aux droits costa -riciens, mais elle nuit également à la bonne administration de la
justice.
36. Contrairement aux efforts nicaraguayens, le Costa Rica souhaite vivement que ces deux
instances jointes soient finalisées le plus vite possible. Ce sera la meilleure manière d’asseoir les
droits en cause. S’il est vrai que le Nicaragua se souciait sincèrement du sort du fleuve San Juan, il
aurait dû prôner la plus grande célérité procédurale. Il en a malheureusement été autrement.
37. Pour toutes les raisons que nous avons mises en avant au cours de cette audience, le
Costa Rica considère que la demande nicaraguayenne d ’indication en mesures conservatoi res doit
être rejetée. Ainsi s ’achève, Monsieur le président , Mesdames et Messieurs les juges , le premier
tour des plaidoiries du Costa Rica. Au nom de toute la délégation, je vous remercie de la
bienveillante attention que vous nous avez portée ce matin.
119CR 2013/28, p. 11 (Tomka).
120Ibid., p. 51, par. 3 (Pellet). - 55 -
Le PRESIDENT : Merci, Monsieur le professeur. Ceci met fin au premier tour des
plaidoiries du Costa Rica. La Cour se réunira demain à 10 heures pour entendre le Nicaragua en
son second tour de plaidoiries. L’audience est levée.
L’audience est levée à 12 h 45.
___________
Public sitting held on Wednesday 6 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)