Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCERNINGSOVEREIGNT OYVERCER.TAIN FRONTIERLAND
Judgment of 20 June 1959
The case concerning sovereigntyover certain Frontier nationof the frontierreachedthetemtory of thecommunes
LandwassubmittedtotheCourtbyBelgiuimand theNether- ofBaarle-Nassau andBaerle-Duc,andsaysthattheBound-
landsundera SpecialAgreement concludetlbetweenthetwo aryCommissioners decided thatthe Communal Minuteof
Governmentson 7 March 1957. 1841,"notingtheplotscomposingthe communesofBaerle-
By this Special Agreement,the Court was requestedto Ducand Baarle-Nassau, is transcribdordforwordinthe
determinewhether sovereigntyover theplots shownin the present Article".
surveyandknownfrom 1836to 1843asNos. 91and92,Sec- In that part ofe descriptiveminuteof 1843,however,
tion A,Zondereygen,belongstotheKingdsom ofBelgiumor whichrepeatsthetextoftheCommunalMinuteof 1841,the
tothe Kingdomofthe Netherlands.Bytenvotesto four,the followingappears:
Court found that sovereigntyover theseplots belongedto "Plots numbers 78to 90 inclusivebelongto the com-
Belgium. muneofBaarle-Nassau.
SirHerschLauterpachtappendetd otheJudgmentaDecla- "Plots numbers91and92belongtoBaerle-Duc.
rationexplainingthereasonswhyhehad votedinfavourofa "Plots numbers93 to 111inclusivebelongto Baarle-
decisiondeterminingthat the sovereigntyloverthe disputed Nassau ."
plots belongedto the Netherlands.Judge Spiropoulosalso Further,the specialmap annexedto the BoundaryCon-
appendedto the Judgment a Declaration explaining that, ventionshowsthedisputedplotsasbelongingtoBelgium.
facedwithachoicebetweentwo hypo these:l^eadingtooppo-
site results,he considered that preferencett begiven The Belgian Government reliesupon the terms of the
tothehypothesiswhichseemedtohimto bcthelessspecula- CommunalMinuteastheyappearinthe DescriptiveMinute,
tive, thatis tosay,inhis view, thehypothesisofthe Nether-or thepurposeof showing that plots Nos.91 and92 have
lands.JudgesArmand-Ug6nandMorenoQuintana,availing beenrecognizedasbelongingtothecommuneofBaerle-Duc
themselvesofthe rightconferreduponthen1byArticle57of andthatsovereigntyovertheseplots belongstoBelgium.
the Statute,appendedto the Judgmentstatementsof their The NetherlandsGovernment, for its part, maintainsthat
DissentingOpinions. theConventionof 1843did nomorethanrecognizetheexist-
enceofthe statusqrrowithoutdeterminingitandthatthissta-
tusquomustbe determinedinaccordancewiththeCommu-
nalMinuteunderwhichsovereigntyover the disputedplots
was recognizedasvestedintheNetherlands.
Alternatively,ttie Netherlands Government maintains
InitsJudgment, theCourtfindsthatinthe:areanorthofthe that, evenif the B'oundaryConventionpurportedto deter-
Belgian townof 'hrnhout there area nurnberof enclaves minethe sovereignty,the provisionrelatito the disputed
formed by the Belgian communeof Bae:rle-Ducand the plotswas vitiatedby mistake.It contendsthat a merecom-
Netherlandscommune ofBaarle-Nassau.Tlneterritoryofthe parison betweenthe termsoftheCommunalMinuteandthe
formerismadeup ofa seriesofplotsoflandmanyof which DescriptiveMinuteestablishesthis.
areenclosedinthecommuneofBaarle-Nassau. Varioup sor- Asafurtheralternative,theNetherlandsGovernmentsub-
tions of the communeof Baerle-Duc arenot only isolated mits that, shouldl:be held that the BoundaryConvention
fromthemainterritoryofBelgiumbutalsoonefromanother. determinedthesovereigntyin respectof the disputed plots
Followingonattemptstoestablishtheboundariesbetween andis not vitiatedbymistake, actsof sovereigntyexercised
the two communesand the frontierbetweenthe two coun- byitsince 1843oveatheseplotshavedisplacedthelegaltitle
tries, a Minute known as the "Communal Minute" was flowing fromthe Conventionand have establishedsover-
drawnup by the authoritiesof the twoornmunesbetween eigntyintheNetherlands.
1836and 1841.A copyof this Minutewasproducedbythe In its Judgment,the Court dealssuccessively withthese
Netherlands. Underthe heading "SectionA, called Zon- thre~contentions.
dereygen" ,itstates:
"Plots numbers78 to 111inclusivebelongto the com- Inordertoanswerthefirstquestion:DidtheConventionof
muneof Baarle-Nassau." 1843itselfdeterminesovereigntyovertheplotordiditcon-
Further,following the separatofthe Netherlands from fineitselfto a referenceto thestatus quo?,the Court exam-
Belgiumin 1839,aMixedBoundaryCommissiow nassetup inesthework ofthe BoundaryCommission asrecordedinthe
todeterminethelimitsofthepossessionsof:thetwoStates.A Minutes.Fromthisexamination,itappearsthat, from4 Sep-
BoundaryTreaty,concluded betweenthem. in1842,which tember 1841,thework ofdelimitationproceededonthebasis
enteredintoforcein 1843,statedinArticle 14that ofthemaintenanceofthe status quoandthat, atthemeeting
on4 April1843,the MixedBoundary Commission adopted
the villagesof Baarle-Nassau(Netherlands)and Baerle- thetextof anarticle:whichprovided,intheterms appearing
Duc (Belgium) and with regard to the ways crossing in the Descriptive Minute, for thetranscription wordfor
them." mission attributed tliedispdlotstoBelgium.edCom-
Thework ofthe Mixed BoundaryCommiission resultedin The Court isof opinionthat theauthorityof the Mixed
the textof the Boundary Conventiondated8 August1843, Boundary Commisr;ionto demarcate thetwo communes is
which wasratified on 3October 1843. The descriptive beyondquestion. This follows from Article6 of the Treaty
minuteof the frontierannexedto this Conventionstatesin betweentheNetherlands and Belgium concludedinLondon
Article90theprocedurethatwasfollowedwhenthedetermi- on 19April1839,whichprovides: "The saidlimitsshallbe:markedoutinconformitywith tion,it wasclearlyshown,andina mannerwhichcouldnot
thoseArticles,by Belgianand Dutch Commissioners of escapenotice, thatthe plots belongedto Belgium. Further,
Demarcationwho shall meetassoonaspossible .. .", theCommissionwas notamerecopyist;itsdutywastoascer-
andthis isconfirmedbythe preambleto theBoundaryCon- tain whatthestatusquowas. At its 225th meetingit attrib-
ventionof 1843. decisionfounditsexpressioninthe BoundaryConvention.his
Anyinterpretation undewhichthe Boundary Convention
isregardedasleavinginsuspt:nseandabandoningfora sub- Intheview oftheCourt, apartfrom a mere comparisoof
sequent appreciationof thetatusquo the determinationof the textofthe Descriptive Minwiththe copyoftheCom-
the rightofoneStateortheoilhertothedisputedplotswould munalMinute producedby the Netherlands, allattemptsto
be incompatiblewiththeconlmonintentionof thePartiesas establishandto explaintheallegedmistakeare based upon
thusindicated. hypotheseswhicharenotplausibleand whicharenotaccom-
On the firstcontention,the:Courtconcludhat the Con- paniedby adequate proof.The Court saysthatit is satisfied
vention diddetermineas between the twoStates, towhich that nocaseofmistakehasbeenmadeoutandthat the valid-
Statethe various plotsineachcommune belongedandthat, ity andbindingforceoftheprovisionsof theConventionof
underitsterms,thedisputedplotsweredetenninetitobelong 1843inrespectofthe disputed plots anotaffected on that
toBelgium. account.
Onthe secondcontentiont~otheeffect thattheConvention Thefinal contentionof the Netherlands is thaacts of
isvitiatedbymistake,theCourtsaysinitsJudgmentthatthis sovereignty exercisedby the Netherlandssince 1843 have
contentioninaybestatedasfollows:TheDescriptiveMinute establislhedsovereigntyover the plotsin the Netherlands.
of 1843specifiedthat theo~nmunaM l inuteof 1841noting ThequestionfortheCourtis therefore whether Belgium has
the plots composing the communes of Baerle-Duc and lost its sovereigntyby non-assertionof its rights and by
Baarle-Nassau shouldbe transcribed"word for word" in acquiescencein acts of sovereignty allegedto have been
Article90 of the Descri~tiv: inute. Acom~arisonof the exercisedbvthe Netherlandsatdifferenttimes since1843.
copyif thecommunal ~inute producedbytgeNetherlands The CoU nifferent acts by Belgium
wasnot a"wordforword" transcriptionoftheformer,inas-re which show that Belgium has abandoned its
muchasthe Descriptive Minute attributesplotsNos.91and sovereignfy-the publication of military staff maps, the
92 toBelgium,whereasthis4:opyoftheCommunalMinute inclusionof the plots inthe surveyrecords,the entry in the
attributesthemtoBaarle-Nassau. oftheSurvey atBanle-I,uc in 1896and
1904of transfer deeds.On theother hand, theNetherlands
TheCourtconsidersthata merecomparisonofthesetwo reliesupontheentryintheRecordsofBaarle-Nassauofsev-
documentsdoesnotestablish theexistenceof a mistake.TO eral landtransfersrelatingto the plots, andtheentry in the
succeedonthisbasis,the Netherlandsmustestablishthat the CommunalRegisterof thatcommuneof births,deathsand
intentionof the MixedBoun,clarCommissitwwzs that the mhages. ~t was in JU~Y 1914 that an official Belgian
ventionof 1843shouldSetOutthe text of the (~0IIlm~nal enquiry led the Directrfthe SurveyatAntwerpto inform
MinutecontainedintheCOPY l?roducedbytheNetherlands- theBelgianMinisterforFinancethathethoughtitnecessary
forthennattertobesubmittedtotheBelgianMinisterforFor-
TheCourtrecallsthefactthatthedutyoftheMixedCom- eignAffairs.TheFirstWorld War thenintervened.InAugust
missionwasessentiallytodeterminethestatusquo. 1921,the Belgian MinisteatTheHaguedrewthe attention
From the examinationof the documentsproducedcon- of theNetherlandsGovernmentto thefactthat thetwodis-
cerningthe workof he ~i~,~~~d~~~d~~~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ i ~ d~inveydocumentsofbothStates.Itwasin 1922thattheNether-ur-
fromthe co~espondencerehsing thereto, the court draws landsauthoritiesforthefirsttimeclaimedthat:theCommunal
theconclusionthatthetwocclpiesof theConnmunaM l inute Minute of 1S41had been inaccuratelyreproducedin the
heldbythe Netherlands and.BelgiumComm.issions wereat Descriptive Minute of 1843 and that plots 91 and 92
variance on the attributoft'he disputed plotsto the two belongedtotheNetherlands.TheNetherlandsrelies,inaddi-
communes.~tconsidersthattilehypothesesadvancedbythe tionto thein~~l'p~ratiof theplotsintheNetherlandsSUr-
Netherlands,to explain hov4the copy of ,theCommunal Vey,theentryinitsregistersoflandtransferdeedsandregis-
thesametermsasthoseusedintheDescriptiveMinute,fail trationsof births, deaths and IIXWiagin the Communal
toestablish the existeofa]mistake. Registerof Baarle-Nassau, onthe fact that it has collected
Netherlands landtaxonthe two plots without aresistance
TheNetherlands havingcontendedthatit need notestab- or proteson thepartofBelgium.Relianceisalsoplacedby
lish the originof the mistake, since a simple comparisontheNetherlandsupon cemin pmaedings takenby the
between the two documents revealssufficie~~that amis- muneof Baerle-Ducbefore aBredatribunal in185 andon
takewasmade,the thatthe mat:tis capa- variousotheractswhichareclaimedto the exer-
mustascertainthe intentiofthePartiesfromtheprovisions cise of Netherlands overthe plots any
ofatreatyinthe lightofallthecircumstancesI.tfindsthat,inoppositionon thepartofBelgium,
April1843both Commissionr;had beeinnpossessionofcop- The Courtfinds that theactsrelieduponare largelyof a
ies of the CommunalMinull:since 1841.The difference routineimdadministrativecharacterandartheconsequence
betweenthesecopiesin regartitothe attributionofplotsNos.oftheinclusionbytheNetherlandsofthedisputedplotsinits
91and92wasknowntothetwoCommissionz;and mus htave survey, contrary to the BoundaryConvention. They are
beena subjectof discussion between themI.n the detailed insufficientto displaceBelgian sovereigntyestablishedby
maps drawnupto constitute partof theBoundary Conven- thatCor~vention.
51 The Court notes furtherthat, in anunratified Convention in 1892or at any timethereafter until the dispute arose
between the twoStatesgoingbackto 1892,Belgiumagreed between the two Statesin 1922,repudiatetheBelgianasser-
tocedetotheNetherlandsthetwo disputed plots.Thisunra- tionofsovereignty.TheCourtfindsthat Belgian sovereignty
tifiedConventiondidnot,ofcourse,createanylegalrightsor establishedin 1843over the disputed plotshas not been
obligations,but its terms showthat, at that time,Belgium extinguished.
wasassertingits sovereigntyoverthetwoplotsandthatthe
Netherlandsknewit wassodoing. TheNetherlands didnot, Forthese reasons,the Court reaches thconclusiongiven
above.
Summary of the Judgment of 20 June 1959