COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
CERTAINES ACTIVITÉS MENÉES PAR LE NICARAGUA
DANS LA RÉGION FRONTALIÈRE
(COSTA RICA c. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION D’UNE ROUTE AU COSTA RICA
LE LONG DU FLEUVE SAN JUAN
(NICARAGUA c. COSTA RICA)
DEMANDES TENDANT À LA MODIFICATION DE L’ORDONNANCE
EN INDICATION DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES DU 8 MARS 2011
ORDONNANCE DU 16 JUILLET 2013
2013
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA
IN THE BORDER AREA
(COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN COSTA RICA
ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
(NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA)
REQUESTS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF 8 MARCH 2011
INDICATING PROVISIONAL MEASURES
ORDER OF 16 JULY 2013
8 CIJ1048.indb 1 13/06/14 12:44 Mode officiel de citation :
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région fron▯talière
(Costa Rica c. Nicaragua); Construction d’une route au Costa Rica
le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica),
ordonnance du 16 juillet 2013, mesures conservatoires,
C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 230
Official citation :
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica),
Order of 16 July 2013, Provisional Measures,
I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 230
N de vente:
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number 1048
ISBN 978-92-1-071163-0
8 CIJ1048.indb 2 13/06/14 12:44 16 JUILLET 2013
ORDONNANCE
CERTAINES ACTIVITÉS MENÉES PAR LE NICARAGUA
DANS LA RÉGION FRONTALIÈRE
(COSTA RICA c. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION D’UNE ROUTE AU COSTA RICA
LE LONG DU FLEUVE SAN JUAN
(NICARAGUA c. COSTA RICA)
DEMANDES TENDANT À LA MODIFICATION DE L’ORDONNANCE
EN INDICATION DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES DU 8 MARS 2011
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA
IN THE BORDER AREA
(COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN COSTA RICA
ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
(NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA)
REQUESTS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF 8 MARCH 2011
INDICATING PROVISIONAL MEASURES
16 JULY 2013
ORDER
8 CIJ1048.indb 3 13/06/14 12:44 230
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2013
2013
16 July
16 July 2013 General List
Nos. 150 and 152
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA
IN THE BORDER AREA
(COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN COSTA RICA
ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
(NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA)
REQUESTS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF 8 MARCH 2011
INDICATING PROVISIONAL MEASURES
ORDER
Present: President Tomka ; Vice‑President Sepúlveda-AmorJudges
Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado
Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwoofd, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja,
Sebutinde, Bhandari ; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Dugard ;
Registrar Couvreur.
The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,
After deliberation,
Having regard to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Article 76
of the Rules of Court,
4
8 CIJ1048.indb 5 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 231
Makes the following Order :
Whereas :
1. By an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on 18 Novem -
ber 2010, the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica (hereinafter
“Costa Rica”) instituted proceedings against the Government of thfe
Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter “Nicaragua”) for “the incufrsion into,
occupation of and use by Nicaragua’s army of Costa Rican territory”f, as
well as for “serious damage inflicted to its protected rainforests fand wet -
lands”, “damage intended [by Nicaragua] to the Colorado River” fand
“the dredging and canalization activities being carried out by Nicarafgua
on the San Juan River” (case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by
Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), hereinafter “the
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case”).
2. On 18 November 2010, having filed its Application, Costa Rica also
submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures, under
Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73 to 75 of the Rules
of Court.
3. By an Order of 8 March 2011 made in that case (hereinafter “the
Order of 8 March 2011”), the Court indicated the following provisional
measures to both Parties :
“(1) Each Party shall refrain from sending to, or maintaining in the
disputed territory, including thecaño, any personnel, whether civilian,
police or security ;
(2) Notwithstanding point (1) above, Costa Rica may dispatch
civilian personnel charged with the protection of the environment to
the disputed territory, including the caño, but only in so far as it is
necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the part of
the wetland where that territory is situated ; Costa Rica shall consult
with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention in regard to these
actions, give Nicaragua prior notice of them and use its best endeav -
ours to find common solutions with Nicaragua in this respect ;
(3) Each Party shall refrain from any action which might aggravate
or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to
resolve ;
(4) Each Party shall inform the Court as to its compliance with the
above provisional measures.” (Certain Activities Carried Out by Nic ‑
aragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), pp. 27-28,
para. 86.)
4. By an Order of 5 April 2011, the Court fixed 5 December 2011 and
6 August 2012 as the respective time-limits for the filing in the case of a
Memorial by Costa Rica and a Counter-Memorial by Nicaragua. The
Memorial and the Counter-Memorial were filed within the time-limits
thus prescribed.
5
8 CIJ1048.indb 7 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 232
5. By an Application filed with the Registry of the Court on 22 Decem-
ber 2011, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica for “viola-
tions of Nicaraguan sovereignty and major environmental damages on its
territory”, resulting from the extensive road construction works beinfg
carried out by Costa Rica in most of the border area between the two
countries along the San Juan River, the opening-up of the Costa Rican
bank of the said river to agriculture and the “uncontrolled industriafl
development taking place in the river basin” (case concerning the Con ‑
struction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v.
Costa Rica), hereinafter “the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case”).
6. By an Order of 23 January 2012, the Court fixed 19 December 2012
and 19 December 2013 as the respective time-limits for the filing of
a Memorial by Nicaragua and a Counter-Memorial by Costa Rica in
this latter case. The Memorial was filed within the time-limit thus pre -
scribed.
7. At the time of the filing of the said Memorial, Nicaragua requested thfe
Court,inter alia, to “examine proprio motu whether the circumstances of the
case require[d] the indication of provisional measures”. By letters dfated
11 March 2013, the Registrar informed the Parties that the Court was of the
view that the circumstances of the case, as they presented themselves to it at
that time, were not such as to require the exercise of its power under Afrti-
cle 75 of the Rules of Court to indicate provisional measures proprio motu.
8. By two separate Orders dated 17 April 2013, the Court joined the
proceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica
cases.
9. On 23 May 2013, Costa Rica filed with the Registry a request for
the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 (see paragraph 3 above).
That request makes reference to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and
Article 76 of the Rules of Court.
The Registrar immediately communicated a copy of the said request
to the Government of Nicaragua.
10. By letters dated 24 May 2013, the Registrar informed the Parties
that the time-limit for the filing of any written observations that Nicara -
gua might wish to present on Costa Rica’s request had been fixed asf
14 June 2013.
11. In its written observations, filed within the time-limit thus pre -
scribed, Nicaragua asked the Court to reject Costa Rica’s request, whfile
in its turn requesting the Court to modify or adapt the Order of
8 March 2011 on the basis of Article 76 of the Rules of Court.
A copy of Nicaragua’s written observations and request was immedi -
ately transmitted to Costa Rica, which was informed that the time-limit
for the filing of any written observations that it might wish to presefnt on
the said request had been fixed as 20 June 2013.
Costa Rica filed such written observations within the time-limit thus
prescribed.
*
6
8 CIJ1048.indb 9 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 233
12. At the end of its request for the modification of the Order of
8 March 2011, Costa Rica seeks the following measures :
“Pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Court, Costa Rica respect -
fully requests the Court as a matter of urgency to modify its Order
on provisional measures of 8 March 2011 so as to prevent the presence
of any person in the Area [indicated by the Court in the said Order]
other than persons whose presence is authorized by paragraph 86 (2)
of the Order, thereby preventing irreparable harm to individuals and
further irreparable harm to the Area, pending its determination of
this case on the merits. In particular, Costa Rica respectfully requestsf
the Court as a matter of urgency to modify its Order by including in
it the following provisional measures :
(1) the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Nicaraguan
persons from the Area indicated by the Court in its Order on
provisional measures of 8 March 2011 ;
(2) that both Parties take all necessary measures to prevent any per -
son (other than persons whose presence is authorized by para -
graph 86 (2) of the Order) coming from their respective territory
from accessing the area indicated by the Court in its Order on
provisional measures of 8 March 2011 ; and
(3) that each Party shall inform the Court as to its compliance with
the above provisional measures within two weeks of the issue of
the modified Order.
Costa Rica reserves the right to amend this request and the meas -
ures sought.”
13. At the end of its written observations on Costa Rica’s request for
the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, Nicaragua “asks the
Court to declare that the [said] request . . . does not fulfil the require -
ments for the modification [Costa Rica] has requested”.
*
14. At the end of its written observations and request for the modifica -
tion of the Order of 8 March 2011 (see paragraph 11 above), Nicaragua
contends that, although Costa Rica’s request is unsustainable, there fhas
been a change in the factual and legal situations, namely the constructifon
of the road and the joinder of the cases. As a result, on the basis of Afrti -
cle 76 of the Rules of Court, Nicaragua requests that the Court modify its
Order in the following ways :
“— The second measure ordered by the Court should be modified
to read as follows :
7
8 CIJ1048.indb 11 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 234
Notwithstanding point (1) above, both Parties may dispatch
civilian personnel charged with the protection of the environment
to the disputed territory, including the caño, but only in so far as it
is necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the part
of the wetland where that territory is situated ; both Parties shall
consult in regard to these actions and use their best endeavours to
find common solutions with the other Party in this respect ;
— The third measure ordered by the Court should be modified to
read as follows, to make clear that the Order is applicable to
the case as now joined.
Each Party shall refrain from any action, which might aggravate
or extend the dispute before the Court in either of the joined cases
or make it more difficult to resolve, and will take those actions
necessary for avoiding such aggravation or extension of the dispute
before the Court.”
15. At the end of its written observations on Nicaragua’s request,
Costa Rica “requests the Court to reject the two requests by Nicaragufa
for the modification of the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011”.
*
* *
16. In order to rule on the respective requests of Costa Rica and Nica -
ragua for the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, the Court must
determine whether the conditions set forth in Article 76, paragraph 1, of
the Rules of Court have been fulfilled. That paragraph reads as followfs:
“At the request of a party the Court may, at any time before the
final judgment in the case, revoke or modify any decision concerning
provisional measures if, in its opinion, some change in the situation
justifies such revocation or modification.”
17. The Court must therefore first ascertain whether, taking account of
the facts now brought to its attention by each of the Parties, there is frea-
son to conclude that the situation which warranted the indication of cerf-
tain provisional measures in March 2011 has changed since that time. If
that is so, then it will have to consider whether such a change justififes a
modification by the Court, as sought by the Parties or otherwise, of tfhe
measures previously indicated.
* * *
18. The Court will therefore begin by determining whether there has
been a change in the situation which warranted the measures indicated inf
its Order of 8 March 2011.
*
8
8 CIJ1048.indb 13 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 235
19. Costa Rica contends that its request for the modification of that
Order is prompted, in the first place, by Nicaragua’s sending to thfe dis -
puted area, as defined by the Court in the said Order, and maintainingf
thereon large numbers of persons, and, secondly, by the activities underf -
taken by those persons affecting that territory and its ecology. In pafrticu-
lar, it objects to the “continuous presence of these individuals . . . sponsored
by Nicaragua”, claiming that Nicaragua is operating an educational prfo -
gramme by which young Nicaraguan nationals are sent to the disputed
area. Costa Rica alleges that these individuals have the support of the
Nicaraguan Government and challenges Nicaragua’s contention that theyf
are members of a private movement who are present in the said area for
the purpose of carrying out activities to protect the environment. In Cofsta
Rica’s view, these actions, which have been taking place since the Cofurt
decided to indicate provisional measures, create a new situation necessiftat -
ing the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, in the form of further
provisional measures, in particular so as to prevent the presence of anyf
individual in the disputed territory other than those authorized to entefr it
under the terms of paragraph 86, point 2, of the said decision.
20. In its written observations, Nicaragua asserts that there has been
no change in the situation that could be invoked by Costa Rica so as to f
obtain the modification of the Order of the Court in the way that it
requests. It takes the view that paragraph 78 of that decision “demon -
strates that the Court considered the issue of private individuals enterfing
and undertaking activities in the disputed area” and decided to requifre
the Parties to monitor the area and co-operate to prevent “criminal”
activity. It also states that the young people referred to by Costa Rica are
only carrying out environmental sustainability programmes and that theirf
activities are thus in no way harmful to the environment. Nicaragua
therefore believes that Costa Rica’s complaints do not derive from anfy
change in the situation which formed the basis of the Order of
8 March 2011. Consequently, it asks the Court to declare that Costa
Rica’s request for modification of the Order does not fulfil the fnecessary
requirements.
*
21. In its request for the modification or adaptation of the Order of
8 March 2011, Nicaragua asserts that the only pertinent changes that
have taken place since that decision, within the meaning of Article 76 of
the Rules of Court, are Costa Rica’s construction of a 160-km long road
along the right bank of the San Juan River and the joinder of the pro -
ceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica
cases. It considers that the works along the San Juan River are having af
harmful effect on the fragile fluvial ecosystem, including the disputed area
near the mouth of the river. It further maintains that, following the jofin -
der of the proceedings, certain measures indicated in the Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua case should be extended to the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case.
9
8 CIJ1048.indb 15 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 236
Nicaragua concludes that these are the changes which justify modifying
the Order of the Court in the way that it is seeking.
22. In its written observations, Costa Rica responds that no part of the
road in question is in the disputed area and that the joinder of the prof -
ceedings in the two above-mentioned cases “does not mean that there is
now one proceeding which should be the subject of joint orders”. Moref -
over, it recalls that Nicaragua requested the Court to indicate provisiofnal
measures proprio motu in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case, but that the
Court was of the view that the circumstances of the case, as they pre -
sented themselves to it at that time, were not such as to require the exfer -
cise of its power under Article 75 of the Rules of Court. Consequently,
Costa Rica asks the Court to reject Nicaragua’s request for the modififca -
tion of the Order of 8 March 2011.
*
23. The Court will first examine the request of Costa Rica. It observes
that its Order of 8 March 2011 deals with the sending to, or maintaining
in the disputed territory, including the caño, “of any personnel [of the Par -
ties], whether civilian, police or security” (Certain Activities Carried Out
by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 25, para. 77,
and p. 27, para. 86, point 1, of the operative clause (emphasis added)). At
no time during the proceedings on the request for the indication of pro-
visional measures submitted by Costa Rica did it complain of the pres -
ence, in the said territory, of individuals or groups of individuals, mufch
less that of “large numbers” of private persons. Nor did the Courtf spe -
cifically address in its decision the question of private persons entefring the
disputed territory. It confined itself to referring, in paragraph 78 of that
decision, to the question of criminal activity in the disputed territoryf,
because, during the oral proceedings, Nicaragua had drawn attention
to the fact that it had until then been carrying out patrols in that terri -
tory, and argued that to prevent it from continuing with such action
“would amount to creating a zone of impunity for drug dealers and othfer
criminals”.
24. As indicated above (see paragraph 19), in its request for modifica -
tion of that Order, Costa Rica now complains of the “continuous pres-
ence” in the disputed territory, since the rendering of the Order of f
8 March 2011, of organized groups of Nicaraguan nationals. Nicaragua,
although maintaining that those concerned “[are] neither part of the fGov -
ernment of Nicaragua nor acting under the Government’s direction or
control”, acknowledges the presence in the said territory of members f
of the Guardabarranco Environmental Movement, an entity which it
describes as a private movement whose main objective is to implement
environmental conservation programmes and projects.
10
8 CIJ1048.indb 17 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 237
25. In light of the evidence communicated to it, the Court therefore
regards it as having been established that, since the rendering of its Ofrder
of 8 March 2011, organized groups of persons, whose presence was not
contemplated when it made its decision to indicate provisional measures,
are regularly staying in the disputed territory. It considers that this ffact
does indeed constitute, in the present case, a change in the situation
within the meaning of Article 76 of the Rules of Court, upon which Costa
Rica may be entitled to rely in support of its request for the modification
of the said Order.
*
26. The Court will now examine the request of Nicaragua. As regards
its first argument, concerning the construction of a road (see paragrfaph 21
above), the Court recalls that, in the Application instituting proceedifngs
which it filed in the Registry on 21 December 2011, Nicaragua indicated
that “[t]he most immediate threat to the [San Juan] river and its envfiron -
ment is posed by Costa Rica’s construction of a road running parallelf and
in extremely close proximity to the southern bank of the river, and extefnd -
ing for a distance of at least 120 kilometres”. When it filed its Memorial
in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case, on 19 December 2012, Nicaragua
also asked the Court to “examine proprio motu whether the circumstances
of the case require[d] the indication of provisional measures”, basing ifts
argument once again on the construction of the road. However, the Court f
was of the view that this was not the case (see paragraph 7 above).
27. The Court consequently finds that Nicaragua’s request for the
Order of 8 March 2011 to be modified or adapted does not have any
bearing on the situation addressed in that Order. It cannot, as such, bef
based on any “change in the situation” that gave rise to the indicfation of
provisional measures in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case.
28. With regard to Nicaragua’s second argument, the Court considers
that the joinder of proceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nica ‑
ragua v. Costa Rica cases has also not brought about such a change. That
joinder is a procedural step which does not have the effect of renderifng
applicable ipso facto, to the facts underlying the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica
case, the measures prescribed with respect to a specific and separate fsitu -
ation in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case. Moreover, even if the situation
invoked in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case were to justify the indication
of provisional measures, the appropriate method of securing that is not f
the modification of the Order made in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case.
29. The Court therefore considers that Nicaragua may not rely upon a
change in the situation within the meaning of Article 76 of the Rules of
Court in order to found its request for the modification of the Order of
8 March 2011.
* *
11
8 CIJ1048.indb 19 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 238
30. The Court must now examine whether the change in the situation
upon which Costa Rica may rely is such as to justify the modification of
that Order. That would only be the case if the new situation were, in itfs
turn, to require the indication of provisional measures, i.e., if the gefneral
conditions laid down in Article 41 of the Statute of the Court were also to
be met in this instance. The Court recalls in this respect that it may ofnly
indicate provisional measures if irreparable prejudice may be caused to f
rights which are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings (see, ffor
example, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro)), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993,
I.C.J. Reports 1993, p. 19, para. 34). However, this power will be exer -
cised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and immi -
nent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute
before the Court has given its final decision (see, for example, Questions
relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal),
Provisional Measures, Order of 28 May 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
pp. 152-153, para. 62).
31. In considering the request for modification of the Order of
8 March 2011, the Court will take account both of the circumstances that
existed when it issued that Order and of the changes which have taken
place in the situation that was considered at that time.
*
32. Costa Rica argues that its request for the modification of the
Order of 8 March 2011 is aimed at preventing irreparable prejudice from
being caused to “its right to sovereignty, to territorial integrity, fand to
non-interference with its lands and its environmentally-protected areas”.
It states that such prejudice could result from the presence in the dispfuted
territory of any person other than those authorized to enter it under thfe
terms of paragraph 86, point 2, of the Order. Costa Rica claims that the
Nicaraguan nationals present in the area have carried out works in an
attempt to keep the artificial caño open, planted trees in an uncontrolled
manner, raised cattle, and erected wire fences to the north of, and run -
ning alongside, the caño. Costa Rica also complains that these Nicara -
guan nationals harass and verbally abuse the Costa Rican personnel
charged with the protection of the environment, and states that “of pfar -
ticular concern to [it] is the real and present risk of incidents liablef to
cause irremediable harm in the form of bodily injury or death”.
33. Costa Rica further considers that its request “is of real urgency”f.
It points out in this respect that the presence of large numbers of Nicara -
guan nationals in the disputed territory, in breach of its sovereign rigfhts
and of the Order of 8 March 2011, and the fact that those concerned “are
carrying out activities in the area that cause harm to the territory of fCosta
Rica”, pose a serious threat to its internationally protected wetlandfs and
12
8 CIJ1048.indb 21 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 239
forests. It concludes that, without a modification of the Court’s Order of
8 March 2011, there is a real risk that action prejudicial to its rights will
occur before the Court has had the opportunity to render its final decfi -
sion on the questions for determination set out in the Application.
34. In its written observations, Nicaragua recalls that Costa Rica has
made three visits to the disputed territory. It maintains that Costa Ricfa
has not demonstrated, after these three visits, that there is any “sefrious
threat” to the disputed territory, nor any “‘incidents liable to cause irre -
mediable harm in [the] form of bodily injury or death’”. Nicaraguaf fur -
ther notes that, at the date of its written observations, “neither [the]
Ramsar [Secretariat] nor Costa Rica has issued any report regarding the f
threat of irreparable prejudice” to the disputed area. Nicaragua concludes
that Costa Rica has neither demonstrated that any risk of irreparable
prejudice exists, nor shown the slightest evidence of “urgency”.
*
35. In the light of the evidence before it, the Court considers that, as
matters stand, it has not been demonstrated sufficiently that there is a risk
of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by Costa Rica. The facts fput
forward by Costa Rica, whether the presence of Nicaraguan nationals or
the activities which they are carrying out in the disputed territory, dof not
appear, in the present circumstances as they are known to the Court, to f
be such as to cause irreparable harm to “right[s] to sovereignty, to fterrito -
rial integrity, and to non-interference with [Costa Rica’s] lands”. Nor
does the evidence included in the case file establish the existence off a
proven risk of irreparable damage to the environment.
Moreover, even assuming that a real risk of irreparable prejudice had
been demonstrated, the Court does not see, in the facts as they have beefn
reported to it, the evidence of urgency that would justify the indicatiofn of
further provisional measures. As it has recalled above (see paragraph 30),
the alleged risk must not only be “real”, but also “imminent”f. However,
most of the evidence put forward by Costa Rica relates to events which
occurred some time ago. Thus, Costa Rica’s complaint that Nicaraguan f
nationals obstructed a visit by Costa Rican environmental personnel to
the disputed area concerns a visit which took place in April 2011. By con -
trast, reports of the most recent visits, on 30 January 2012 and
7 March 2013, contain no suggestion of any disruption. Concerning the
30 January 2012 visit, Costa Rica limits itself to stating that its personnel
encountered some 25 Nicaraguans in the disputed territory. With regard
to the 7 March 2013 visit, it merely mentions the presence of “a group of
approximately 15 Nicaraguan nationals in the area”.
13
8 CIJ1048.indb 23 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 240
36. Consequently, the Court considers that, despite the change that
has occurred in the situation, the conditions have not been fulfilled ffor it
to modify the measures that it indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011.
37. Nevertheless, the presence of organized groups of Nicaraguan
nationals in the disputed area carries the risk of incidents which mightf
aggravate the present dispute. That situation is exacerbated by the limited
size of the area and the numbers of Nicaraguan nationals who are regu -
larly present there. The Court wishes to express its concerns in this refgard.
38. The Court thus considers it necessary to reaffirm the measures that
it indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011, in particular the requirement
that the Parties “shall refrain from any action which might aggravatef or
extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve”
(Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa
Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011,
I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 27, para. 86, point 3, of the operative clause).
It notes that the actions thus referred to may consist of either acts orf
omissions. It reminds the Parties once again that these measures have
binding effect (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judg ‑
ment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 506, para. 109) and therefore create interna -
tional legal obligations which each Party is required to comply with (sfee,
for example, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 258,
para. 263, and (Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border
Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of
8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), pp. 26-27, para. 84).
39. The Court finally underlines that the present Order is without pre-
judice as to any finding on the merits concerning the Parties’ compliance
with its Order of 8 March 2011.
* * *
40. For these reasons,
The Court,
(1) By fifteen votes to two,
Finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to the
Court, are not such as to require the exercise of its power to modify thfe
measures indicated in the Order of 8 March 2011 ;
in favour :President Tomka ;Vice‑President Sepúlveda-Amor ;Judges Owada,
Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Yusuf, G reenwood, Xue, Donog-
hue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Guillaume ;
against : Judge Cançado Trindade; Judge ad hoc Dugard ;
14
8 CIJ1048.indb 25 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 241
(2) Unanimously,
Reaffirms the provisional measures indicated in its Order of 8 March
2011, in particular the requirement that the Parties “shall refrain ffrom
any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court f
or make it more difficult to resolve”.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this sixteenth day of July, two thousand
and thirteen, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archivfes
of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Repub -
lic of Costa Rica and the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua,
respectively.
(Signed) Peter Tomka,
President.
(Signed) Philippe Couvreur,
Registrar.
Judge Cançado Trindade appends a dissenting opinion to the Order
of the Court ; Judge ad hoc Dugard appends a dissenting opinion to the
Order of the Court.
(Initialled) P.T.
(Initialled) Ph.C.
15
8 CIJ1048.indb 27 13/06/14 12:44
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
CERTAINES ACTIVITÉS MENÉES PAR LE NICARAGUA
DANS LA RÉGION FRONTALIÈRE
(COSTA RICA c. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION D’UNE ROUTE AU COSTA RICA
LE LONG DU FLEUVE SAN JUAN
(NICARAGUA c. COSTA RICA)
DEMANDES TENDANT À LA MODIFICATION DE L’ORDONNANCE
EN INDICATION DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES DU 8 MARS 2011
ORDONNANCE DU 16 JUILLET 2013
2013
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA
IN THE BORDER AREA
(COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN COSTA RICA
ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
(NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA)
REQUESTS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF 8 MARCH 2011
INDICATING PROVISIONAL MEASURES
ORDER OF 16 JULY 2013
8 CIJ1048.indb 1 13/06/14 12:44 Mode officiel de citation :
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région fron▯talière
(Costa Rica c. Nicaragua); Construction d’une route au Costa Rica
le long du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica),
ordonnance du 16 juillet 2013, mesures conservatoires,
C.I.J. Recueil 2013, p. 230
Official citation :
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area
(Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica
along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica),
Order of 16 July 2013, Provisional Measures,
I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 230
N de vente:
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number 1048
ISBN 978-92-1-071163-0
8 CIJ1048.indb 2 13/06/14 12:44 16 JUILLET 2013
ORDONNANCE
CERTAINES ACTIVITÉS MENÉES PAR LE NICARAGUA
DANS LA RÉGION FRONTALIÈRE
(COSTA RICA c. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION D’UNE ROUTE AU COSTA RICA
LE LONG DU FLEUVE SAN JUAN
(NICARAGUA c. COSTA RICA)
DEMANDES TENDANT À LA MODIFICATION DE L’ORDONNANCE
EN INDICATION DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES DU 8 MARS 2011
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA
IN THE BORDER AREA
(COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN COSTA RICA
ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
(NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA)
REQUESTS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF 8 MARCH 2011
INDICATING PROVISIONAL MEASURES
16 JULY 2013
ORDER
8 CIJ1048.indb 3 13/06/14 12:44 230
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
ANNÉE 2013
2013
16 juillet
Rôle général 16 juillet 2013
nos150 et 152
CERTAINES ACTIVITÉS MENÉES PAR LE NICARAGUA
DANS LA RÉGION FRONTALIÈRE
(COSTA RICA c. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION D’UNE ROUTE AU COSTA RICA
LE LONG DU FLEUVE SAN JUAN
(NICARAGUA c. COSTA RICA)
DEMANDES TENDANT À LA MODIFICATION DE L’ORDONNANCE
EN INDICATION DE MESURES CONSERVATOIRES DU 8 MARS 2011
ORDONNANCE
Présents : M. Tomka, président ; M. Sepúlveda-Amor, vice‑président ;
MM. Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov,
CançadoTrindade,Yusuf,Greenwood, M meXue,Donoghue,
M. Gaja, MmeSebutinde, M. Bhandari,juges ;MM. Guillaume,
Dugard, juges ad hoc; M. Couvreur, greffier.
La Cour internationale de Justice,
Ainsi composée,
Après délibéré en chambre du conseil,
Vu l’article 41 de son Statut et l’article 76 de son Règlement,
4
8 CIJ1048.indb 4 13/06/14 12:44 230
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2013
2013
16 July
16 July 2013 General List
Nos. 150 and 152
CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA
IN THE BORDER AREA
(COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA)
CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD IN COSTA RICA
ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
(NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA)
REQUESTS FOR THE MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF 8 MARCH 2011
INDICATING PROVISIONAL MEASURES
ORDER
Present: President Tomka ; Vice‑President Sepúlveda-AmorJudges
Owada, Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado
Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwoofd, Xue, Donoghue, Gaja,
Sebutinde, Bhandari ; Judges ad hoc Guillaume, Dugard ;
Registrar Couvreur.
The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,
After deliberation,
Having regard to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Article 76
of the Rules of Court,
4
8 CIJ1048.indb 5 13/06/14 12:44 231 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
Rend l’ordonnance suivante :
Considérant que :
1. Par requête déposée au Greffe de la Cour le 18 novembre 2010, le
Gouvernement de la République du Costa Rica (ci-après le «Costa Rica»)
a introduit une instance contre le Gouvernement de la République du Nfica -
ragua (ci-après le «Nicaragua») à raison de «l’incursion en territoire costa-
ricien de l’armée nicaraguayenne, [de] l’occupation et [de] l’futilisation d’une
partie de celui-ci», ainsi que de « graves dommages causés à ses forêts plu -
viales et zones humides protégées », de « dommages [que le Nicaragua]
entend causer au [fleuve] Colorado» et «des activités de dragage et de creu -
sement d’un canal qu’il mène … dans le fleuve San Juan» (affaire relative à
Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région front ▯ alière (Costa
Rica c. Nicaragua), ci-après l’«affaire Costa Rica c. Nicaragua »).
2. Le 18 novembre 2010, après avoir déposé sa requête, le Costa Rica
a également présenté une demande en indication de mesures consefrva -
toires en application de l’article 41 du Statut de la Cour et des articles 73
à 75 de son Règlement.
3. Par ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 rendue dans cette affaire (ci-après
l’«ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 »), la Cour a indiqué les mesures conserva -
toires suivantes à l’intention des deux Parties :
«1) Chaque Partie s’abstiendra d’envoyer ou de maintenir sur le
territoire litigieux, y compris le caño, des agents, qu’ils soient civils,
de police ou de sécurité ;
2) Nonobstant le point 1 ci-dessus, le Costa Rica pourra envoyer
sur le territoire litigieux, y compris le caño, des agents civils chargés
de la protection de l’environnement dans la stricte mesure où un tel
envoi serait nécessaire pour éviter qu’un préjudice irrépfarable ne soit
causé à la partie de la zone humide où ce territoire est situé ; le Costa
Rica devra consulter le Secrétariat de la convention de Ramsar au
sujet de ces activités, informer préalablement le Nicaragua de celfles-ci
et faire de son mieux pour rechercher avec ce dernier des solutions
communes à cet égard ;
3) Chaque Partie s’abstiendra de tout acte qui risquerait d’aggra -
ver ou d’étendre le différend dont la Cour est saisie ou d’fen rendre la
solution plus difficile ;
4) Chaque Partie informera la Cour de la manière dont elle assure
l’exécution des mesures conservatoires ci-dessus indiquées. » (Cer ‑
taines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontal▯ière
(Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du
8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 27-28, par. 86.)
4. Par ordonnance du 5 avril 2011, la Cour a fixé au 5 décembre 2011
et au 6 août 2012, respectivement, les dates d’expiration des délais pour le
dépôt, en l’affaire, d’un mémoire du Costa Rica et d’un contre-mémoire
du Nicaragua. Le mémoire et le contre-mémoire ont été déposés dans les
délais ainsi fixés.
5
8 CIJ1048.indb 6 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 231
Makes the following Order :
Whereas :
1. By an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on 18 Novem -
ber 2010, the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica (hereinafter
“Costa Rica”) instituted proceedings against the Government of thfe
Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter “Nicaragua”) for “the incufrsion into,
occupation of and use by Nicaragua’s army of Costa Rican territory”f, as
well as for “serious damage inflicted to its protected rainforests fand wet -
lands”, “damage intended [by Nicaragua] to the Colorado River” fand
“the dredging and canalization activities being carried out by Nicarafgua
on the San Juan River” (case concerning Certain Activities Carried Out by
Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), hereinafter “the
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case”).
2. On 18 November 2010, having filed its Application, Costa Rica also
submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures, under
Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 73 to 75 of the Rules
of Court.
3. By an Order of 8 March 2011 made in that case (hereinafter “the
Order of 8 March 2011”), the Court indicated the following provisional
measures to both Parties :
“(1) Each Party shall refrain from sending to, or maintaining in the
disputed territory, including thecaño, any personnel, whether civilian,
police or security ;
(2) Notwithstanding point (1) above, Costa Rica may dispatch
civilian personnel charged with the protection of the environment to
the disputed territory, including the caño, but only in so far as it is
necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the part of
the wetland where that territory is situated ; Costa Rica shall consult
with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention in regard to these
actions, give Nicaragua prior notice of them and use its best endeav -
ours to find common solutions with Nicaragua in this respect ;
(3) Each Party shall refrain from any action which might aggravate
or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to
resolve ;
(4) Each Party shall inform the Court as to its compliance with the
above provisional measures.” (Certain Activities Carried Out by Nic ‑
aragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), pp. 27-28,
para. 86.)
4. By an Order of 5 April 2011, the Court fixed 5 December 2011 and
6 August 2012 as the respective time-limits for the filing in the case of a
Memorial by Costa Rica and a Counter-Memorial by Nicaragua. The
Memorial and the Counter-Memorial were filed within the time-limits
thus prescribed.
5
8 CIJ1048.indb 7 13/06/14 12:44 232 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
5. Par requête déposée au Greffe de la Cour le 22 décembre 2011, le
Nicaragua a introduit une instance contre le Costa Rica à raison
d’«atteintes à [s]a souveraineté … et [de] dommages importants à l’envi -
ronnement sur son territoire », résultant de la réalisation par le Costa
Rica sur la majeure partie de la frontière entre les deux pays, le lofng du
fleuve San Juan, de vastes travaux de construction d’une route, ainsi que
de l’ouverture de la rive costa-ricienne dudit fleuve à l’agriculture et du
«développement industriel incontrôlé qui a lieu dans le bassin [fde ce cours
d’eau]» (affaire relative à la Construction d’une route au Costa Rica le long
du fleuve San Juan (Nicaragua c. Costa Rica), ci-après l’« affaire Nicara‑
gua c. Costa Rica »).
6. Par ordonnance du 23 janvier 2012, la Cour a fixé au 19 décembre 2012
et au 19 décembre 2013, respectivement, les dates d’expiration des délais
pour le dépôt d’un mémoire du Nicaragua et d’un contre-mémoire du
Costa Rica dans cette dernière affaire. Le mémoire a été dféposé dans le
délai ainsi fixé.
7. Lors du dépôt dudit mémoire, le Nicaragua a notamment prié lfa
Cour d’«examiner d’office si les circonstances de l’affaire exige[aie]nft l’in-
dication de mesures conservatoires ». Par lettres en date du 11 mars 2013,
le greffier a fait savoir aux Parties que la Cour considérait que lefs circons-
tances de cette affaire, telles qu’elles se présentaient alors àf elle, n’étaient
pas de nature à exiger l’exercice de son pouvoir d’indiquer d’foffice des
mesures conservatoires en vertu de l’article 75 du Règlement.
8. Par deux ordonnances distinctes datées du 17 avril 2013, la Cour a
joint les instances dans les affaires Costa Rica c. Nicaragua et Nicaragua
c. Costa Rica.
9. Le 23 mai 2013, le Costa Rica a déposé au Greffe une demande ten -
dant à la modification de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 (voir paragraphe 3
ci-dessus). Cette demande fait référence à l’article 41 du Statut de la Cour
et à l’article 76 de son Règlement.
Le greffier a immédiatement communiqué copie de ladite demande auf
Gouvernement du Nicaragua.
10. Par courriers en date du 24 mai 2013, le greffier a fait connaître aux
Parties que la date d’expiration du délai pour le dépôt des fobservations
écrites que le Nicaragua pourrait souhaiter présenter sur la demanfde du
Costa Rica avait été fixée au 14 juin 2013.
11. Dans le cadre de ses observations écrites, déposées dans le déflai
ainsi prescrit, le Nicaragua a prié la Cour de rejeter la demande du fCosta
Rica tout en l’invitant, à son tour, à modifier ou adapter l’fordonnance du
8 mars 2011 sur le fondement de l’article 76 du Règlement de la Cour.
Copie des observations écrites et de la demande du Nicaragua a imméf-
diatement été transmise au Costa Rica, qui a été informé fque la date d’ex -
piration du délai pour le dépôt des observations écrites qu’fil pourrait
souhaiter présenter sur ladite demande avait été fixée au f20 juin 2013.
Le Costa Rica a déposé de telles observations écrites dans le délai ainsi
prescrit.
*
6
8 CIJ1048.indb 8 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 232
5. By an Application filed with the Registry of the Court on 22 Decem-
ber 2011, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica for “viola-
tions of Nicaraguan sovereignty and major environmental damages on its
territory”, resulting from the extensive road construction works beinfg
carried out by Costa Rica in most of the border area between the two
countries along the San Juan River, the opening-up of the Costa Rican
bank of the said river to agriculture and the “uncontrolled industriafl
development taking place in the river basin” (case concerning the Con ‑
struction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v.
Costa Rica), hereinafter “the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case”).
6. By an Order of 23 January 2012, the Court fixed 19 December 2012
and 19 December 2013 as the respective time-limits for the filing of
a Memorial by Nicaragua and a Counter-Memorial by Costa Rica in
this latter case. The Memorial was filed within the time-limit thus pre -
scribed.
7. At the time of the filing of the said Memorial, Nicaragua requested thfe
Court,inter alia, to “examine proprio motu whether the circumstances of the
case require[d] the indication of provisional measures”. By letters dfated
11 March 2013, the Registrar informed the Parties that the Court was of the
view that the circumstances of the case, as they presented themselves to it at
that time, were not such as to require the exercise of its power under Afrti-
cle 75 of the Rules of Court to indicate provisional measures proprio motu.
8. By two separate Orders dated 17 April 2013, the Court joined the
proceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica
cases.
9. On 23 May 2013, Costa Rica filed with the Registry a request for
the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 (see paragraph 3 above).
That request makes reference to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and
Article 76 of the Rules of Court.
The Registrar immediately communicated a copy of the said request
to the Government of Nicaragua.
10. By letters dated 24 May 2013, the Registrar informed the Parties
that the time-limit for the filing of any written observations that Nicara -
gua might wish to present on Costa Rica’s request had been fixed asf
14 June 2013.
11. In its written observations, filed within the time-limit thus pre -
scribed, Nicaragua asked the Court to reject Costa Rica’s request, whfile
in its turn requesting the Court to modify or adapt the Order of
8 March 2011 on the basis of Article 76 of the Rules of Court.
A copy of Nicaragua’s written observations and request was immedi -
ately transmitted to Costa Rica, which was informed that the time-limit
for the filing of any written observations that it might wish to presefnt on
the said request had been fixed as 20 June 2013.
Costa Rica filed such written observations within the time-limit thus
prescribed.
*
6
8 CIJ1048.indb 9 13/06/14 12:44 233 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
12. Au terme de sa demande tendant à la modification de l’ordonnancef
du 8 mars 2011, le Costa Rica sollicite les mesures suivantes :
«Au titre de l’article 76 du Règlement, le Costa Rica prie respec -
tueusement la Cour, dans l’attente de la décision qu’elle rendrfa sur le
fond de l’affaire, de modifier d’urgence son ordonnance en indfication
de mesures conservatoires du 8 mars 2011 afin d’empêcher la pré -
sence dans la Zone [définie par la Cour dans ladite ordonnance] de f
toute autre personne que celles autorisées à s’y rendre en vertfu du
point 2 du paragraphe 86 de l’ordonnance et, ainsi, d’éviter qu’un
préjudice irréparable ne soit causé à des personnes ou ne continue de
l’être à la Zone. En particulier, le Costa Rica prie respectueusement
la Cour de modifier d’urgence son ordonnance en y insérant les
mesures conservatoires suivantes :
1) tous les ressortissants nicaraguayens doivent se retirer de manière
immédiate et inconditionnelle de la zone définie par la Cour danfs
son ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires du
8 mars 2011 ;
2) les deux Parties doivent prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires
pour empêcher toutes personnes (autres que celles dont la présencfe
est autorisée en vertu du point 2 du paragraphe 86 de l’ordon -
nance) de pénétrer depuis leur territoire dans la zone définfie par
la Cour dans son ordonnance en indication de mesures conserva -
toires du 8 mars 2011 ; et
3) chaque Partie informera la Cour, dans les deux semaines suivant le
prononcé de l’ordonnance modifiée, de la manière dont ellef assure
la mise en œuvre des mesures conservatoires ci-dessus indiquées.
Le Costa Rica se réserve le droit de modifier la présente demande
et les mesures sollicitées. »
13. Au terme de ses observations écrites sur la demande du Costa Rica
tendant à la modification de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, le Nicaragua
«prie la Cour de dire et juger que [ladite] demande ne satisfait pas aux
exigences requises pour procéder à pareille modification ».
*
14. Au terme de ses observations écrites et de sa demande tendant à la
modification de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 (voir paragraphe 11 ci-
dessus), le Nicaragua soutient que, bien que la demande présentéef par le
Costa Rica soit indéfendable, un changement est intervenu dans les situa -
tions factuelle et juridique, en raison de la construction de la route eft de
la jonction des deux affaires. Il prie en conséquence la Cour, sur fle fonde -
ment de l’article 76 du Règlement, d’apporter à son ordonnance les modi-
fications suivantes :
«— la deuxième mesure indiquée par la Cour devrait se lire comme
suit :
7
8 CIJ1048.indb 10 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 233
12. At the end of its request for the modification of the Order of
8 March 2011, Costa Rica seeks the following measures :
“Pursuant to Article 76 of the Rules of Court, Costa Rica respect -
fully requests the Court as a matter of urgency to modify its Order
on provisional measures of 8 March 2011 so as to prevent the presence
of any person in the Area [indicated by the Court in the said Order]
other than persons whose presence is authorized by paragraph 86 (2)
of the Order, thereby preventing irreparable harm to individuals and
further irreparable harm to the Area, pending its determination of
this case on the merits. In particular, Costa Rica respectfully requestsf
the Court as a matter of urgency to modify its Order by including in
it the following provisional measures :
(1) the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Nicaraguan
persons from the Area indicated by the Court in its Order on
provisional measures of 8 March 2011 ;
(2) that both Parties take all necessary measures to prevent any per -
son (other than persons whose presence is authorized by para -
graph 86 (2) of the Order) coming from their respective territory
from accessing the area indicated by the Court in its Order on
provisional measures of 8 March 2011 ; and
(3) that each Party shall inform the Court as to its compliance with
the above provisional measures within two weeks of the issue of
the modified Order.
Costa Rica reserves the right to amend this request and the meas -
ures sought.”
13. At the end of its written observations on Costa Rica’s request for
the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, Nicaragua “asks the
Court to declare that the [said] request . . . does not fulfil the require -
ments for the modification [Costa Rica] has requested”.
*
14. At the end of its written observations and request for the modifica -
tion of the Order of 8 March 2011 (see paragraph 11 above), Nicaragua
contends that, although Costa Rica’s request is unsustainable, there fhas
been a change in the factual and legal situations, namely the constructifon
of the road and the joinder of the cases. As a result, on the basis of Afrti -
cle 76 of the Rules of Court, Nicaragua requests that the Court modify its
Order in the following ways :
“— The second measure ordered by the Court should be modified
to read as follows :
7
8 CIJ1048.indb 11 13/06/14 12:44 234 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
Nonobstant le point 1 ci-dessus, les deux Parties pourront envoyer
sur le territoire litigieux, y compris le caño, des agents civils chargés
de la protection de l’environnement dans la stricte mesure où un tfel
envoi serait nécessaire pour éviter qu’un préjudice irrépfarable ne soit
causé à la partie de la zone humide où ce territoire est situé;fles deux
Parties devront se consulter au sujet de ces activités, et faire de lfeur
mieux pour rechercher ensemble des solutions communes à cet égar;d
— la troisième mesure indiquée par la Cour devrait, afin d’indif -
quer clairement que l’ordonnance est applicable à l’affaire telle
que composée des deux instances jointes, se lire comme suit :
Chaque Partie s’abstiendra de tout acte qui risquerait d’aggraver f
ou d’étendre le différend dont la Cour est saisie dans l’ufne ou
l’autre des instances jointes ou d’en rendre la solution plus diffifcile,
et prendra les mesures nécessaires pour éviter pareille aggravatiofn
ou pareille extension. »
15. Au terme de ses observations écrites sur la demande du Nicaragua, le
Costa Rica «prie la Cour de rejeter les deux demandes du Nicaragua ten -
dant à la modification de l’ordonnance rendue par la Cour le 8mars 2011».
*
* *
16. Afin de se prononcer sur les demandes respectives du Costa Rica et
du Nicaragua tendant à la modification de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011,
la Cour doit déterminer si les conditions énoncées au paragraphe1 de l’ar -
ticle 76 de son Règlement sont remplies. Ce paragraphe se lit comme suit :
«A la demande d’une partie, la Cour peut, à tout moment avant
l’arrêt définitif en l’affaire, rapporter ou modifier toute décision concer
nant des mesures conservatoires si un changement dans la situation lui
paraît justifier que cette décision soit rapportée ou modififée».
17. La Cour doit donc, dans un premier temps, rechercher si, compte
tenu des faits aujourd’hui portés à sa connaissance par chacunef des Par -
ties, il y a lieu de conclure que la situation qui a motivé l’indifcation de
certaines mesures conservatoires en mars 2011 a depuis lors changé. S’il
en est ainsi, elle devra, dans un second temps, s’interroger sur le pfoint de
savoir si un tel changement justifie qu’elle modifie, dans le senfs préconisé
par les Parties ou autrement, les mesures antérieurement indiquéesf.
* * *
18. La Cour commencera donc par déterminer si un changement s’est
produit dans la situation qui a motivé les mesures indiquées dans fson
ordonnance du 8 mars 2011.
*
8
8 CIJ1048.indb 12 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 234
Notwithstanding point (1) above, both Parties may dispatch
civilian personnel charged with the protection of the environment
to the disputed territory, including the caño, but only in so far as it
is necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the part
of the wetland where that territory is situated ; both Parties shall
consult in regard to these actions and use their best endeavours to
find common solutions with the other Party in this respect ;
— The third measure ordered by the Court should be modified to
read as follows, to make clear that the Order is applicable to
the case as now joined.
Each Party shall refrain from any action, which might aggravate
or extend the dispute before the Court in either of the joined cases
or make it more difficult to resolve, and will take those actions
necessary for avoiding such aggravation or extension of the dispute
before the Court.”
15. At the end of its written observations on Nicaragua’s request,
Costa Rica “requests the Court to reject the two requests by Nicaragufa
for the modification of the Court’s Order of 8 March 2011”.
*
* *
16. In order to rule on the respective requests of Costa Rica and Nica -
ragua for the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, the Court must
determine whether the conditions set forth in Article 76, paragraph 1, of
the Rules of Court have been fulfilled. That paragraph reads as followfs:
“At the request of a party the Court may, at any time before the
final judgment in the case, revoke or modify any decision concerning
provisional measures if, in its opinion, some change in the situation
justifies such revocation or modification.”
17. The Court must therefore first ascertain whether, taking account of
the facts now brought to its attention by each of the Parties, there is frea-
son to conclude that the situation which warranted the indication of cerf-
tain provisional measures in March 2011 has changed since that time. If
that is so, then it will have to consider whether such a change justififes a
modification by the Court, as sought by the Parties or otherwise, of tfhe
measures previously indicated.
* * *
18. The Court will therefore begin by determining whether there has
been a change in the situation which warranted the measures indicated inf
its Order of 8 March 2011.
*
8
8 CIJ1048.indb 13 13/06/14 12:44 235 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
19. Le Costa Rica soutient que sa demande tendant à la modification de
cette ordonnance fait suite, en premier lieu, à l’envoi et au mainftien, par le
Nicaragua, d’un grand nombre de personnes dans le territoire litigieufx, tel que
défini par la Cour dans ladite ordonnance, et, en second lieu, aux factivités
entreprises par celles-ci au détriment dudit territoire et de ses écosystèmes. Il
tire en particulier grief de l«résence continue [et] encouragée par le Nicara -
gua» de ces personnes, alléguant que celui-ci a mis en place un programme de
formation consistant à envoyer de jeunes Nicaraguayens dans le territfoire
litigieux. Le Costa Rica allègue que ces personnes bénéficienft du soutien du
Gouvernement nicaraguayen, et conteste l’argument de ce dernier selonf lequel
il s’agirait de membres d’un mouvement privé séjournant dans ledit territoire
afin d’y mener des activités destinées à protéger l’fenvironnement. De l’avis du
Costa Rica, ces faits, qui se produisent depuis que la Cour a décidé d’findiquer
des mesures conservatoires, créent une situation nouvelle rendant néfcessaire
la modification de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, sous la forme de mesures
conservatoires additionnelles, afin, notamment, d’empêcher la prfésence dans
le territoire litigieux de toute personne autre que celles autoriséesf à s’y rendre
en vertu du point 2 du paragraphe 86 de ladite décision.
20. Dans ses observations écrites, le Nicaragua affirme pour sa part qu’fil
n’y a eu, dans la situation, aucun changement dont le Costa Rica pourfrait
exciper pour obtenir que l’ordonnance de la Cour soit modifiée cfomme il le
demande. Il considère que le paragraphe 78 de cette décision « démontre
que la Cour s’est penchée sur la question de l’entrée de perfsonnes privées
dans la zone litigieuse afin d’y exercer des activités » et qu’elle en a conclu
qu’il incombait aux Parties de surveiller ladite zone et de coopérfer afin d’y
prévenir des activités « criminelles». Il affirme par ailleurs que les jeunes
gens visés par le Costa Rica participent seulement à des programmefs de
développement durable et que leurs activités ne portent ainsi nullfement pré -
judice à l’environnement. Le Nicaragua estime, partant, que les griefs du
Costa Rica ne découlent d’aucun changement dans la situation ayant
motivé l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011. Il prie en conséquence la Cour de dire
que la demande du Costa Rica tendant à la modification de ladite ordon -
nance ne satisfait pas aux exigences requises à cette fin.
*
21. Dans sa demande tendant à ce que l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011
soit modifiée ou adaptée, le Nicaragua avance quant à lui quef les seuls
changements survenus depuis le prononcé de cette décision qui soiefnt per -
tinents, au sens de l’article 76 du Règlement, sont la construction, par le
Costa Rica, d’une route de 160 km le long de la rive droite du fleuve
San Juan et la jonction des instances dans les affaires Costa Rica c. Nica ‑
ragua et Nicaragua c. Costa Rica. Il estime en effet que les conséquences
néfastes des travaux menés le long de la rive du San Juan pour l’fécosys -
tème fragile du fleuve s’étendent au territoire litigieux, siftué à l’embou -
chure du cours d’eau. Il soutient en outre que, du fait de la jonctiofn des
instances, certaines mesures indiquées dans l’affaire Costa Rica c. Nicara ‑
9
8 CIJ1048.indb 14 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 235
19. Costa Rica contends that its request for the modification of that
Order is prompted, in the first place, by Nicaragua’s sending to thfe dis -
puted area, as defined by the Court in the said Order, and maintainingf
thereon large numbers of persons, and, secondly, by the activities underf -
taken by those persons affecting that territory and its ecology. In pafrticu-
lar, it objects to the “continuous presence of these individuals . . . sponsored
by Nicaragua”, claiming that Nicaragua is operating an educational prfo -
gramme by which young Nicaraguan nationals are sent to the disputed
area. Costa Rica alleges that these individuals have the support of the
Nicaraguan Government and challenges Nicaragua’s contention that theyf
are members of a private movement who are present in the said area for
the purpose of carrying out activities to protect the environment. In Cofsta
Rica’s view, these actions, which have been taking place since the Cofurt
decided to indicate provisional measures, create a new situation necessiftat -
ing the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, in the form of further
provisional measures, in particular so as to prevent the presence of anyf
individual in the disputed territory other than those authorized to entefr it
under the terms of paragraph 86, point 2, of the said decision.
20. In its written observations, Nicaragua asserts that there has been
no change in the situation that could be invoked by Costa Rica so as to f
obtain the modification of the Order of the Court in the way that it
requests. It takes the view that paragraph 78 of that decision “demon -
strates that the Court considered the issue of private individuals enterfing
and undertaking activities in the disputed area” and decided to requifre
the Parties to monitor the area and co-operate to prevent “criminal”
activity. It also states that the young people referred to by Costa Rica are
only carrying out environmental sustainability programmes and that theirf
activities are thus in no way harmful to the environment. Nicaragua
therefore believes that Costa Rica’s complaints do not derive from anfy
change in the situation which formed the basis of the Order of
8 March 2011. Consequently, it asks the Court to declare that Costa
Rica’s request for modification of the Order does not fulfil the fnecessary
requirements.
*
21. In its request for the modification or adaptation of the Order of
8 March 2011, Nicaragua asserts that the only pertinent changes that
have taken place since that decision, within the meaning of Article 76 of
the Rules of Court, are Costa Rica’s construction of a 160-km long road
along the right bank of the San Juan River and the joinder of the pro -
ceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nicaragua v. Costa Rica
cases. It considers that the works along the San Juan River are having af
harmful effect on the fragile fluvial ecosystem, including the disputed area
near the mouth of the river. It further maintains that, following the jofin -
der of the proceedings, certain measures indicated in the Costa Rica v.
Nicaragua case should be extended to the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case.
9
8 CIJ1048.indb 15 13/06/14 12:44 236 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
gua devraient être étendues à l’affaire Nicaragua c. Costa Rica. Le Nica -
ragua en déduit que ce sont ces changements qui justifient que l’fordonnance
de la Cour soit modifiée, et ce, de la manière qu’il précofnise.
22. Dans ses observations écrites, le Costa Rica répond qu’aucune pfartie
de la route en question n’est située dans le territoire litigieux fet que la jonc
tion des instances dans les deux affaires susmentionnées « ne signifie pas
qu’il existe désormais une seule procédure qui devrait faire l’fobjet d’ordon -
nances conjointes». Il rappelle en outre que le Nicaragua a sollicité l’indi -
cation d’office, par la Cour, de mesures conservatoires en l’afffaire Nicaragua
c. Costa Rica, mais que celle-ci a considéré que les circonstances de l’affaire,
telles qu’elles se présentaient alors à elle, n’étaient pfas de nature à exiger
l’exercice du pouvoir qu’elle tient de l’article 75 de son Règlement. Le Costa
Rica prie en conséquence la Cour de rejeter la demande du Nicaragua tfen -
dant à la modification de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011.
*
23. La Cour examinera tout d’abord la demande du Costa Rica. Elle
observe que son ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 porte sur la question de l’en -
voi ou du maintien, sur le territoire litigieux, y compris le caño, « [d’]agents
[des Parties], qu’ils soient civils, de police ou de sécurité» (Certaines activi‑
tés menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (Cost ▯ a Rica c. Nica ‑
ragua), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil
2011 (I), p. 25, par. 77, et p. 27, par. 86, point 1 du dispositif (italiques
ajoutés)). A aucun moment, durant la procédure sur la demande enf indica -
tion de mesures conservatoires présentée par le Costa Rica, celui-ci ne s’est
plaint de la présence, dans ledit territoire, de particuliers ou groufpes de
particuliers, et encore moins de celle d’un « grand nombre» de personnes
privées. Dans sa décision, la Cour ne s’est pas davantage penchfée, d’une
manière spécifique, sur la question de l’entrée de personnfes privées dans le
territoire litigieux. Elle s’est limitée à évoquer, au paragfraphe 78 de cette
décision, la question des activités criminelles sur le territoire flitigieux parce
que, au cours de la procédure orale, le Nicaragua avait appelé sonf attention
sur le fait qu’il avait jusqu’alors effectué des patrouilles dans ce territoire et
avait soutenu que l’empêcher de poursuivre son action «reviendrait à créer
une zone d’impunité pour les narcotrafiquants et autres malfaitefur» s.
24. Comme indiqué ci-dessus (voir paragraphe 19), dans sa demande de
modification de cette ordonnance, le Costa Rica tire cette fois grief fde la
«présence continue» dans le territoire litigieux, depuis le prononcé de l’or -
donnance du 8 mars 2011, de groupes organisés de ressortissants nicara -
guayens. Le Nicaragua, bien que soutenant que les intéressés «ne relève[nt]
pas des autorités nicaraguayennes et n’agi[ssen]t pas sous la direfction ou le
contrôle du Gouvernement nicaraguayen», reconnaît que des membres du
Mouvement Guardabarranco de défense de l’environnement — entité qu’il
présente comme un mouvement privé dont le principal objectif est lfa mise
en œuvre de programmes et de projets en rapport avec la préservatifon de
l’environnement — séjournent dans ledit territoire.
10
8 CIJ1048.indb 16 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 236
Nicaragua concludes that these are the changes which justify modifying
the Order of the Court in the way that it is seeking.
22. In its written observations, Costa Rica responds that no part of the
road in question is in the disputed area and that the joinder of the prof -
ceedings in the two above-mentioned cases “does not mean that there is
now one proceeding which should be the subject of joint orders”. Moref -
over, it recalls that Nicaragua requested the Court to indicate provisiofnal
measures proprio motu in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case, but that the
Court was of the view that the circumstances of the case, as they pre -
sented themselves to it at that time, were not such as to require the exfer -
cise of its power under Article 75 of the Rules of Court. Consequently,
Costa Rica asks the Court to reject Nicaragua’s request for the modififca -
tion of the Order of 8 March 2011.
*
23. The Court will first examine the request of Costa Rica. It observes
that its Order of 8 March 2011 deals with the sending to, or maintaining
in the disputed territory, including the caño, “of any personnel [of the Par -
ties], whether civilian, police or security” (Certain Activities Carried Out
by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional
Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 25, para. 77,
and p. 27, para. 86, point 1, of the operative clause (emphasis added)). At
no time during the proceedings on the request for the indication of pro-
visional measures submitted by Costa Rica did it complain of the pres -
ence, in the said territory, of individuals or groups of individuals, mufch
less that of “large numbers” of private persons. Nor did the Courtf spe -
cifically address in its decision the question of private persons entefring the
disputed territory. It confined itself to referring, in paragraph 78 of that
decision, to the question of criminal activity in the disputed territoryf,
because, during the oral proceedings, Nicaragua had drawn attention
to the fact that it had until then been carrying out patrols in that terri -
tory, and argued that to prevent it from continuing with such action
“would amount to creating a zone of impunity for drug dealers and othfer
criminals”.
24. As indicated above (see paragraph 19), in its request for modifica -
tion of that Order, Costa Rica now complains of the “continuous pres-
ence” in the disputed territory, since the rendering of the Order of f
8 March 2011, of organized groups of Nicaraguan nationals. Nicaragua,
although maintaining that those concerned “[are] neither part of the fGov -
ernment of Nicaragua nor acting under the Government’s direction or
control”, acknowledges the presence in the said territory of members f
of the Guardabarranco Environmental Movement, an entity which it
describes as a private movement whose main objective is to implement
environmental conservation programmes and projects.
10
8 CIJ1048.indb 17 13/06/14 12:44 237 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
25. A la lumière des éléments qui lui ont été communiqués,f la Cour
estime donc établi que, depuis le prononcé de son ordonnance du
8 mars 2011, des groupes organisés de personnes, dont la présence n’éftait
pas envisagée au moment de prendre sa décision d’indiquer des mfesures
conservatoires, séjournent régulièrement dans le territoire litfigieux. Elle
considère que ce fait constitue bien, en l’espèce, un changemenft de situa -
tion au sens de l’article 76 du Règlement, que le Costa Rica pourrait être
fondé à invoquer au soutien de sa demande tendant à la modification de
ladite ordonnance.
*
26. La Cour examinera à présent la demande du Nicaragua. S’agissantf
de son premier argument, relatif à la construction d’une route (vfoir para -
graphe 21 ci-dessus), elle rappelle que, dans la requête introductive d’ins -
tance qu’il a déposée au Greffe le 21 décembre 2011, le Nicaragua indiquait
que «[l]a menace la plus immédiate pour le San Juan et son environnement
résult[ait] de la construction par le Costa Rica d’une route qui sfuit un tracé
parallèle à la rive méridionale du fleuve et passe extrêmement près de
celle-ci, sur une distance d’au moins 120 kilomètres». Lorsqu’il a déposé
son mémoire en l’affaire Nicaragua c. Costa Rica, le 19 décembre 2012, le
Nicaragua a par ailleurs prié la Cour d’« examiner d’office si les circons -
tances de l’affaire exige[aie]nt l’indication de mesures conservfatoires »,
arguant une nouvelle fois de la construction de la route. La Cour a toutfe -
fois estimé que tel n’était pas le cas (voir paragraphe 7 ci-dessus).
27. La Cour constate en conséquence que la demande du Nicaragua
tendant à ce que l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 soit modifiée ou adaptée
est sans rapport avec la situation considérée dans cette ordonnance. Elle
ne peut, de ce fait, être fondée sur aucun « changement dans la situation »
qui a donné lieu à l’indication des mesures conservatoires dans l’affaire
Costa Rica c. Nicaragua.
28. En ce qui concerne le second argument du Nicaragua, la Cour consi -
dère que la jonction des instances dans les affaires Costa Rica c. Nicaragua
et Nicaragua c. Costa Rica n’a pas davantage entraîné un tel changement.
Cette jonction est une mesure procédurale qui ne saurait avoir pour efffet de
rendre ipso facto applicables, aux faits sous-tendant l’affaire Nicaragua
c. Costa Rica, les mesures prescrites au vu d’une situation spécifique et disf-
tincte, en l’affaire Costa Rica c. Nicaragua. Aussi, même si la situation inv-o
quée dans l’affaire Nicaragua c. Costa Rica justifiait l’indication de mesures
conservatoires, la voie appropriée pour ce faire ne saurait être lfa modifica -
tion de l’ordonnance rendue dans l’affaire Costa Rica c. Nicaragua.
29. La Cour estime dès lors que le Nicaragua ne peut se prévaloir d’un
changement de situation au sens de l’article 76 du Règlement pour fonder
sa demande de modification de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011.
* *
11
8 CIJ1048.indb 18 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 237
25. In light of the evidence communicated to it, the Court therefore
regards it as having been established that, since the rendering of its Ofrder
of 8 March 2011, organized groups of persons, whose presence was not
contemplated when it made its decision to indicate provisional measures,
are regularly staying in the disputed territory. It considers that this ffact
does indeed constitute, in the present case, a change in the situation
within the meaning of Article 76 of the Rules of Court, upon which Costa
Rica may be entitled to rely in support of its request for the modification
of the said Order.
*
26. The Court will now examine the request of Nicaragua. As regards
its first argument, concerning the construction of a road (see paragrfaph 21
above), the Court recalls that, in the Application instituting proceedifngs
which it filed in the Registry on 21 December 2011, Nicaragua indicated
that “[t]he most immediate threat to the [San Juan] river and its envfiron -
ment is posed by Costa Rica’s construction of a road running parallelf and
in extremely close proximity to the southern bank of the river, and extefnd -
ing for a distance of at least 120 kilometres”. When it filed its Memorial
in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case, on 19 December 2012, Nicaragua
also asked the Court to “examine proprio motu whether the circumstances
of the case require[d] the indication of provisional measures”, basing ifts
argument once again on the construction of the road. However, the Court f
was of the view that this was not the case (see paragraph 7 above).
27. The Court consequently finds that Nicaragua’s request for the
Order of 8 March 2011 to be modified or adapted does not have any
bearing on the situation addressed in that Order. It cannot, as such, bef
based on any “change in the situation” that gave rise to the indicfation of
provisional measures in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case.
28. With regard to Nicaragua’s second argument, the Court considers
that the joinder of proceedings in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua and Nica ‑
ragua v. Costa Rica cases has also not brought about such a change. That
joinder is a procedural step which does not have the effect of renderifng
applicable ipso facto, to the facts underlying the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica
case, the measures prescribed with respect to a specific and separate fsitu -
ation in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case. Moreover, even if the situation
invoked in the Nicaragua v. Costa Rica case were to justify the indication
of provisional measures, the appropriate method of securing that is not f
the modification of the Order made in the Costa Rica v. Nicaragua case.
29. The Court therefore considers that Nicaragua may not rely upon a
change in the situation within the meaning of Article 76 of the Rules of
Court in order to found its request for the modification of the Order of
8 March 2011.
* *
11
8 CIJ1048.indb 19 13/06/14 12:44 238 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
30. La Cour doit à présent rechercher si le changement de situation
dont peut se prévaloir le Costa Rica est de nature telle qu’il jusftifie la
modification de cette ordonnance. Tel ne serait le cas que si la situation
nouvelle requérait à son tour que des mesures conservatoires soienft indi -
quées, c’est-à-dire s’il était satisfait, en l’espèce également, aux confditions
générales énoncées à l’article 41 du Statut de la Cour. La Cour rappelle à
cet égard qu’elle ne peut indiquer des mesures conservatoires que flors -
qu’un préjudice irréparable risque d’être causé aux drfoits en litige dans
une procédure judiciaire (voir, par exemple, Application de la convention
pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Bosn▯ieH ‑ erzégovine
c. Yougoslavie (Serbie et Monténégro)), mesures conservatoires, or▯don ‑
nance du 8 avril 1993, C.I.J. Recueil 1993, p. 19, par. 34). Ce pouvoir ne
sera toutefois exercé que s’il y a urgence, c’est-à-dire s’il existe un risque
réel et imminent qu’un préjudice irréparable soit causé afux droits en litige
avant que la Cour n’ait rendu sa décision définitive (voir, fpar exemple,
Questions concernant l’obligation de poursuivre ou d’extrader (Belgique
c. Sénégal), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 28 mai 2009,
C.I.J. Recueil 2009, p. 152-153, par. 62).
31. Dans le cadre de son examen de la demande tendant à la modifica -
tion de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, la Cour tiendra compte à la fois des
circonstances qui existaient lorsqu’elle a rendu cette ordonnance et fdes
changements qui sont intervenus dans la situation alors considéréef.
*
32. Le Costa Rica soutient que sa demande tendant à la modification
de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 vise à empêcher qu’un préjudice irrépa -
rable ne soit causé à « ses droits à la souveraineté, à l’intégrité territoriafle
et à la non-ingérence dans les territoires costa-riciens et dans ses zones
dont l’environnement est protégé ». Il affirme qu’un tel préjudice pourrait
résulter de la présence dans le territoire litigieux de toute autrfe personne
que celles autorisées à s’y rendre en vertu du point 2 du paragraphe 86 de
l’ordonnance. Le Costa Rica allègue que les ressortissants nicaragfuayens
présents dans la zone ont réalisé des travaux pour tenter de mafintenir le
caño artificiel ouvert, planté des arbres de façon anarchique, fait fpaître du
bétail et dressé des clôtures de barbelés au nord du caño et le long de
celui-ci. Le Costa Rica se plaint par ailleurs de ce que ces ressortissants
nicaraguayens harcèlent et insultent les agents costa-riciens chargés de la
protection de l’environnement et se dit « particulièrement préoccupé par
le risque réel et actuel d’incidents susceptibles d’entraînefr une atteinte
irrémédiable à l’intégrité physique de personnes ou àf leur vie ».
33. Le Costa Rica considère en outre que sa demande « revêt un réel
caractère d’urgence ». Il souligne à ce titre que la présence de nombreux
ressortissants nicaraguayens dans le territoire litigieux, en violation de ses
droits souverains et de l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, et le fait que les
intéressés «y mènent des activités dommageables pour le territoire costa-
ricien» font peser une grave menace sur ses zones humides et forêts jouifs -
12
8 CIJ1048.indb 20 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 238
30. The Court must now examine whether the change in the situation
upon which Costa Rica may rely is such as to justify the modification of
that Order. That would only be the case if the new situation were, in itfs
turn, to require the indication of provisional measures, i.e., if the gefneral
conditions laid down in Article 41 of the Statute of the Court were also to
be met in this instance. The Court recalls in this respect that it may ofnly
indicate provisional measures if irreparable prejudice may be caused to f
rights which are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings (see, ffor
example, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia
(Serbia and Montenegro)), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993,
I.C.J. Reports 1993, p. 19, para. 34). However, this power will be exer -
cised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and immi -
nent risk that irreparable prejudice may be caused to the rights in dispute
before the Court has given its final decision (see, for example, Questions
relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal),
Provisional Measures, Order of 28 May 2009, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
pp. 152-153, para. 62).
31. In considering the request for modification of the Order of
8 March 2011, the Court will take account both of the circumstances that
existed when it issued that Order and of the changes which have taken
place in the situation that was considered at that time.
*
32. Costa Rica argues that its request for the modification of the
Order of 8 March 2011 is aimed at preventing irreparable prejudice from
being caused to “its right to sovereignty, to territorial integrity, fand to
non-interference with its lands and its environmentally-protected areas”.
It states that such prejudice could result from the presence in the dispfuted
territory of any person other than those authorized to enter it under thfe
terms of paragraph 86, point 2, of the Order. Costa Rica claims that the
Nicaraguan nationals present in the area have carried out works in an
attempt to keep the artificial caño open, planted trees in an uncontrolled
manner, raised cattle, and erected wire fences to the north of, and run -
ning alongside, the caño. Costa Rica also complains that these Nicara -
guan nationals harass and verbally abuse the Costa Rican personnel
charged with the protection of the environment, and states that “of pfar -
ticular concern to [it] is the real and present risk of incidents liablef to
cause irremediable harm in the form of bodily injury or death”.
33. Costa Rica further considers that its request “is of real urgency”f.
It points out in this respect that the presence of large numbers of Nicara -
guan nationals in the disputed territory, in breach of its sovereign rigfhts
and of the Order of 8 March 2011, and the fact that those concerned “are
carrying out activities in the area that cause harm to the territory of fCosta
Rica”, pose a serious threat to its internationally protected wetlandfs and
12
8 CIJ1048.indb 21 13/06/14 12:44 239 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
sant d’une protection internationale. Il conclut que, dans l’hypotfhèse où
l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 ne serait pas modifiée, le risque serait réel
que soient commis des actes préjudiciables à ses droits avant que fla Cour
ait eu l’occasion de rendre sa décision définitive sur les questions qu’il lui
a été demandé de trancher dans la requête.
34. Dans ses observations écrites, le Nicaragua rappelle que le Costa
Rica a conduit trois visites dans le territoire litigieux. Il soutient qfue le
Costa Rica n’a pas démontré, à l’issue de ces trois visites, l’existence de
quelque «grave menace» sur le territoire litigieux ni « d’incidents suscep -
tibles d’entraîner une atteinte irrémédiable à l’intégrité physique des per -
sonnes ou à leur vie ». Le Nicaragua note en outre que, à la date de ses
observations écrites, « ni [le Secrétariat de la convention de] Ramsar ni
le Costa Rica n’ont publié le moindre rapport confirmant le risque qu’fun
préjudice irréparable soit causé » au territoire litigieux. Le Nicaragua en
conclut que le Costa Rica n’a ni démontré l’existence d’un préjudice irrépa -
rable, ni présenté le moindre élément attestant un «caractère d’urgence».
*
35. Au vu du dossier, la Cour estime qu’en l’état il n’est pas pfrouvé à
suffisance qu’un risque de préjudice irréparable pèserait sfur les droits allé -
gués par le Costa Rica. Les faits avancés par ce dernier, que ce soit la
présence de ressortissants nicaraguayens ou les activités qu’ilfs mènent sur
le territoire litigieux, n’apparaissent pas, dans les circonstances afctuelles,
telles qu’elles sont connues de la Cour, de nature à porter une atfteinte
irréparable aux « droits à la souveraineté, à l’intégrité territoriale eft à la
non-ingérence dans les territoires costa-riciens ». Par ailleurs, les éléments
versés au dossier n’établissent pas davantage l’existence d’fun risque avéré
de dommage irréparable à l’environnement.
En outre, même à supposer qu’un risque réel de préjudice firréparable eût
été démontré, la Cour n’aperçoit pas, dans les faits tfels qu’ils lui ont été
rapportés, l’élément d’urgence qui justifierait l’indication d’autres mesures
conservatoires. Comme elle l’a rappelé ci-dessus (voir paragraphe 30), le
risque allégué doit être non seulement «réel» mais aussi «imminent». Or, la
plupart des éléments de preuve présentés par le Costa Rica ofnt trait à des
événements qui se sont produits il y a un certain temps déjàf. Ainsi, les griefs
du Costa Rica selon lesquels des ressortissants nicaraguayens auraient
entravé une visite d’agents costa-riciens chargés de la protection de l’envi -
ronnement dans le territoire litigieux concernent une visite qui remontef au
mois d’avril 2011. En revanche, il ne ressort nullement des informations
relatives aux visites les plus récentes de tels agents, effectuéfes le 30 jan -
vier 2012 et le 7 mars 2013, que celles-ci aient été entravées, d’une façon ou
d’une autre. Concernant la visite du 30 janvier 2012, le Costa Rica se borne
à indiquer que ses agents ont rencontré quelque 25 ressortissants fnicara -
guayens dans le territoire litigieux. S’agissant de celle du 7 mars 2013, il se
contente d’évoquer la présence d’« un groupe d’environ 15 ressortissants
nicaraguayens dans ce territoire».
13
8 CIJ1048.indb 22 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 239
forests. It concludes that, without a modification of the Court’s Order of
8 March 2011, there is a real risk that action prejudicial to its rights will
occur before the Court has had the opportunity to render its final decfi -
sion on the questions for determination set out in the Application.
34. In its written observations, Nicaragua recalls that Costa Rica has
made three visits to the disputed territory. It maintains that Costa Ricfa
has not demonstrated, after these three visits, that there is any “sefrious
threat” to the disputed territory, nor any “‘incidents liable to cause irre -
mediable harm in [the] form of bodily injury or death’”. Nicaraguaf fur -
ther notes that, at the date of its written observations, “neither [the]
Ramsar [Secretariat] nor Costa Rica has issued any report regarding the f
threat of irreparable prejudice” to the disputed area. Nicaragua concludes
that Costa Rica has neither demonstrated that any risk of irreparable
prejudice exists, nor shown the slightest evidence of “urgency”.
*
35. In the light of the evidence before it, the Court considers that, as
matters stand, it has not been demonstrated sufficiently that there is a risk
of irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by Costa Rica. The facts fput
forward by Costa Rica, whether the presence of Nicaraguan nationals or
the activities which they are carrying out in the disputed territory, dof not
appear, in the present circumstances as they are known to the Court, to f
be such as to cause irreparable harm to “right[s] to sovereignty, to fterrito -
rial integrity, and to non-interference with [Costa Rica’s] lands”. Nor
does the evidence included in the case file establish the existence off a
proven risk of irreparable damage to the environment.
Moreover, even assuming that a real risk of irreparable prejudice had
been demonstrated, the Court does not see, in the facts as they have beefn
reported to it, the evidence of urgency that would justify the indicatiofn of
further provisional measures. As it has recalled above (see paragraph 30),
the alleged risk must not only be “real”, but also “imminent”f. However,
most of the evidence put forward by Costa Rica relates to events which
occurred some time ago. Thus, Costa Rica’s complaint that Nicaraguan f
nationals obstructed a visit by Costa Rican environmental personnel to
the disputed area concerns a visit which took place in April 2011. By con -
trast, reports of the most recent visits, on 30 January 2012 and
7 March 2013, contain no suggestion of any disruption. Concerning the
30 January 2012 visit, Costa Rica limits itself to stating that its personnel
encountered some 25 Nicaraguans in the disputed territory. With regard
to the 7 March 2013 visit, it merely mentions the presence of “a group of
approximately 15 Nicaraguan nationals in the area”.
13
8 CIJ1048.indb 23 13/06/14 12:44 240 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
36. En conséquence, la Cour considère que, nonobstant le changement
intervenu dans la situation, les conditions ne sont pas réunies pour fqu’elle
modifie les mesures qu’elle a indiquées dans son ordonnance du 8f mars 2011.
37. Toutefois, la présence de groupes organisés de ressortissants nicaf -
raguayens dans le territoire litigieux comporte un risque d’incidents sus -
ceptibles d’aggraver le présent différend. Cette situation esft exacerbée par
l’exiguïté du territoire concerné et le nombre de ressortissfants nicara -
guayens qui y séjournent régulièrement. La Cour tient à exprfimer sa pré-
occupation à cet égard.
38. La Cour estime en conséquence nécessaire de réaffirmer les mesfures
qu’elle a indiquées dans son ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 et notamment
celle enjoignant aux Parties de « s’abst[enir] de tout acte qui risquerait
d’aggraver ou d’étendre le différend dont [elle] est saisife ou d’en rendre la
solution plus difficile» (Certaines activités menées par le Nicaragua dans la
région frontalière (Costa Rica c. Nicaragua), mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 8 mars 2011, C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 27, par. 86, point 3
du dispositif). Elle note que les actes qui sont ici visés peuvent cfonsister
aussi bien en des actions qu’en des omissions. Elle rappelle une foisf encore
aux Parties que ces mesures ont un caractère obligatoire (LaGrand (Alle ‑
magne c. Etats‑Unis d’Amérique), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2001, p. 506,
par. 109) et créent donc des obligations juridiques internationales que
chacune des Parties est tenue de respecter (voir, par exemple, Activités
armées sur le territoire du Congo (République démocratique du ▯Congo
c. Ouganda), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2005, p. 258, par. 263, et Certaines acti ‑
vités menées par le Nicaragua dans la région frontalière (C▯osta Rica
c. Nicaragua), mesures conservatoires, ordonnance du 8 mars 2011,
C.I.J. Recueil 2011 (I), p. 26-27, par. 84).
39. La Cour souligne enfin que la présente ordonnance est sans préjuf -
dice des conclusions qu’elle pourrait formuler au fond concernant le fres -
pect par les Parties de son ordonnance du 8 mars 2011.
* * *
40. Par ces motifs,
La Cour,
1) Par quinze voix contre deux,
Dit que les circonstances, telles qu’elles se présentent actuellementf à
elle, ne sont pas de nature à exiger l’exercice de son pouvoir de fmodifier
les mesures indiquées dans l’ordonnance du 8 mars 2011 ;
pour : M. Tomka,président ; M.Sepúlveda-Amor,vice‑président ; MM.Owames
Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Yusuf, G reenwood, M Xue,
Donoghue, M. Gaja, M me Sebutinde, M. Bhandari, juges ; M. Guillaume,
juge adhoc ;
contre : M. Cançado Trindade, juge ; M.Dugard, juge adhoc ;
14
8 CIJ1048.indb 24 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 240
36. Consequently, the Court considers that, despite the change that
has occurred in the situation, the conditions have not been fulfilled ffor it
to modify the measures that it indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011.
37. Nevertheless, the presence of organized groups of Nicaraguan
nationals in the disputed area carries the risk of incidents which mightf
aggravate the present dispute. That situation is exacerbated by the limited
size of the area and the numbers of Nicaraguan nationals who are regu -
larly present there. The Court wishes to express its concerns in this refgard.
38. The Court thus considers it necessary to reaffirm the measures that
it indicated in its Order of 8 March 2011, in particular the requirement
that the Parties “shall refrain from any action which might aggravatef or
extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve”
(Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa
Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011,
I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 27, para. 86, point 3, of the operative clause).
It notes that the actions thus referred to may consist of either acts orf
omissions. It reminds the Parties once again that these measures have
binding effect (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judg ‑
ment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 506, para. 109) and therefore create interna -
tional legal obligations which each Party is required to comply with (sfee,
for example, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 258,
para. 263, and (Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border
Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of
8 March 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), pp. 26-27, para. 84).
39. The Court finally underlines that the present Order is without pre-
judice as to any finding on the merits concerning the Parties’ compliance
with its Order of 8 March 2011.
* * *
40. For these reasons,
The Court,
(1) By fifteen votes to two,
Finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves to the
Court, are not such as to require the exercise of its power to modify thfe
measures indicated in the Order of 8 March 2011 ;
in favour :President Tomka ;Vice‑President Sepúlveda-Amor ;Judges Owada,
Abraham, Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Yusuf, G reenwood, Xue, Donog-
hue, Gaja, Sebutinde, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Guillaume ;
against : Judge Cançado Trindade; Judge ad hoc Dugard ;
14
8 CIJ1048.indb 25 13/06/14 12:44 241 certaines activités ; construction d’une route (ordonnance 16 VII 13)
2) A l’unanimité,
Réaffirme les mesures conservatoires indiquées dans son ordonnance
du 8 mars 2011, en particulier celle enjoignant aux Parties de « s’abst[enir]
de tout acte qui risquerait d’aggraver ou d’étendre le difféfrend dont [elle]
est saisie ou d’en rendre la solution plus difficile ».
Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au Palais de
la Paix, à La Haye, le seize juillet deux mille treize, en trois exemplaires,
dont l’un restera déposé aux archives de la Cour et les autres fseront trans
mis respectivement au Gouvernement de la République du Costa Rica et
au Gouvernement de la République du Nicaragua.
Le président,
(Signé) Peter Tomka.
Le greffier,
(Signé) Philippe Couvreur.
M. le juge Cançado Trindade joint à l’ordonnance l’exposé de son
opinion dissidente ; M. le juge ad hoc Dugard joint à l’ordonnance l’ex -
posé de son opinion dissidente.
(Paraphé) P.T.
(Paraphé) Ph.C.
15
8 CIJ1048.indb 26 13/06/14 12:44 certain activities; construction of a roafd (order 16 VII 13) 241
(2) Unanimously,
Reaffirms the provisional measures indicated in its Order of 8 March
2011, in particular the requirement that the Parties “shall refrain ffrom
any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court f
or make it more difficult to resolve”.
Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this sixteenth day of July, two thousand
and thirteen, in three copies, one of which will be placed in the archivfes
of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Repub -
lic of Costa Rica and the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua,
respectively.
(Signed) Peter Tomka,
President.
(Signed) Philippe Couvreur,
Registrar.
Judge Cançado Trindade appends a dissenting opinion to the Order
of the Court ; Judge ad hoc Dugard appends a dissenting opinion to the
Order of the Court.
(Initialled) P.T.
(Initialled) Ph.C.
15
8 CIJ1048.indb 27 13/06/14 12:44
Requests for the modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 indicating provisional measures
Order of 16 July 2013