Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
73. CASE CONCERNINGMILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTMTIES IN AND
AGAINST NICARAGUA (NI[CARAGUA V.UNITEDSTAT:ES OFAMERICA) (DECLA-
RATION OFINTERVENTIOIN)
Orderof4October1984
InitsOrder the Courtdecided,byninevotesagainstsiOn the secondpoint,Judge Schwebelvagainst.
nottoholdahearingonthedeclarationof intervention sub-
mitted by El Salvadorin the caseconcerninl:Militaryand
ParamilitaryActivitiesin andagainst Nicaragua (Nicaragua
v.UnitedStatesofAmerica).
InthesameOrder,the Courtalsodecided,by 14votestoTheoperativeprovisionsofthe Ordersfollows:
one, todefer furtherconsiderationof the questionof t"TheCourt,
admissibilityof the interveEl Salvador untila later "(i) Byninevotestosix,
stageofthe proceedings. "Decidesnot tohold a hearingon the Declarationof
InterventionofthepublicofElSalvador,
"IN FAVOUR:President Elias; Wce-PresidentSette-
Camara;JudgesLachs, Morozov, Nagendra Singh,
Ma. El-Khani,hwye, Bedjaoui.
On thefirstpoint,JudgesRuda,Mosler,Ago, Schwebel,"AGAINST:JudgesRuda, Mosler,Ago, Schwebel,Sir
SirRoberJennings,deLacharribrevoted against. RobertJennings,& Lacharribre.
Continued on next page "(ii) Byfourteenvotesto one, vador,did notascertain theirviewson the two subsequent
communications fromEl Salvador, in particular on the
"Decides thatthe Declmtion of Inte~ventionof the admissibilityof El Salvador's interventiat the jurisclic-
RepublicofElSalvadorisinadmissibleinsofarasitrelates tional stage.
tothe presentphase ofthepmeedingsinstitutedbyNica-
ragua againsttheUnitedStatesofAmerica. IfNicaragua's observationsad beeninterpreted,asJudge
"IN FAVOUR: President Elias; Vice-P~~esidenStette- Odabelievedtheyshould,asobjectingtoElSalvador's inter-
Carnara; Judges Lachs, Morozov, N~igentlraSingh, clearly applied.Hevoted againsta hearing onlybecausehis
Ruda, Mosler,Oda, Ago, El-Khani, !SirR.obertJen- interpretationofthe Court'sview wasthatNicaraguahad not
nings,deLachani&re,hfbaye,Bedjaoui. objected.
"AGAINSTJ:udgeSchwebe:l.**
Judges NagendraSingh,OdaandBedjaouiappendedsep JudgeOdaalsoregrettedthat8 Octoberhadalreadybeen
arate opinionsto the Order;JudgesRuda,NIosle~:, go, Sir fixedfor the commencementof the oral hearingsbetween
RobertJenningsandde Lachjfrribappendedajointseparate NicaraguaandtheUnitedStates,evenbefore theCourtmet
opinionandJudge Schwebeliippendedadissentingopinion. todealwith ElSalvador's Declaratioon 4October.Infact,
El Salvador'srequest foran oral hearing andthe admissi-
bility of its interventionat the present jurisdictionalstage
SUMMAR OFOPINION APPENDED TO were bothdealt with on 4 October, after only one day's
THE ORDER OFTHE COURT deliberations.
Had it not beenfor the above,El Salvador's Declaration
Separateopinionby .ludgeNagendraSingh might wellhavebeenthefirstcaseofinterventionunderArti-
cle63of theStatuteto beconsideredbythe Courtatajuris-
Inhisseparateopinion JutlgeNagendraSingh pointedout dictionalphaseofacase.
that sinceElSalvador'sDeclarationtoIntervenetthisstage
oftheproceedingsreally pointetomeritsofthecaseandifa SeparateopinionbyJudgeBedjaoui
hearing was granted now there would inevitablybeargu- Judge Bedjaouiindicated thaitnhisopinion onecouldnot
mentsonmeritsofthecasewhichwouldleadtotwohearings beinfavourofdismissing the requestorinterventionandat
on merits-the firstnow and the secondif and when the thesametimeinfavourofholdingahearinginordertoexam-
Court dealswiththe merits~dthecase. Thiswould becon- inesucha request. Sincethe Courthadreached the conclu-
fusing and undesirableas 'wellas untenable. TheCourt, sion thatElSalvador's requesftorinterventiion waisnadmis-
therefore,hasputthingsin heir properorderand sequence sible,.theholdingof a hearingno longer logicallyhadan
andnotedthe intentionofElSalvadortointerveneatthenext object.
phaseof thecaseif andwhenthe Courtconsidersthemerits
ofthedispute.El Salvadorhas therefornot hadarawdeal, Dissenting opinionbyJudgeSchwebel
asit were, becausetheCourthas keptalivetherightofinter-
ventionwhichcouldbeexaminedatthesubrsequt:np thaseof Judge Schwebeldissented from thCeourt's Orderontwo
thecase.The@was nopointingivingahding at:thepresent grounds.Hemaintainedthatthe decisionof theCourtnotto
phase whenthe Court had by 14:l come to theconclusion holdahearingonthedeclarationofElSalvadorwasadepar-
thatthe interventionofEl Sidvadorwasinachis!rible.Inthe turefromthe due processof law whichthe Courthas tradi-
circumstancesEl Salvadorwillbe heardat the propertime, tionallyobserved.He concludedthat,whilethe matterwas
taking intoconsideration theeasoningand arguments that not altogether clear,El Salvadorwas entitled to intervene,
had beensubmittedtotheC~mrtbyEl Salvadorimsupportof and that, once the Courthad declinedto tear El Salvador,
their intervention. anydoubtsshouldhave beenresolvedinfavourofthe admis-
sibilityofitsdeclarationofintervention.
JointseparateopinionbyJudges Ruda,Mosler, Judge SchwebeilnterpretedElSalvador's declaratiasa
Ago.SirRobertJenningsandde Lac:han.it?re requesttointerveneon theconstructionofarticlesoftheStat-
uteoftheCourt,theUnitedNationsCharterandthreeinter-
JudgesRuda, Mosler,Ago, Sir RobertJemings and de Americantreaties,aswellasofdeclarationssubmittedtothe
Lacharrihreappendeda joint separate opinionto theeffect Court underitsStatuteacceptingitscompulsoryjurisdiction.
Declarationof Interventio~is inadmissiblleat the present Inhis view, Nicaragua,whilepurportingnotto objectto El
stageoftheproceedings,theyareoftheopinionthatitwould Salvatlor's intervention, had raised objections which
have beenmorein accordaricewithjudicial1proprietyif the requireda hearing underthemandatoryprovisionof Article
Courthadgrantedahearing totheStateseelcingtointervene. 84 (2)oftheCourt'sRules,whichprovider;that,ifan objec-
tion, "the Courtshallhear theStateseekingtointervene andven-
thepartiesbefore deciding".He maintainedthat El Salva-
SeparateOpinionbyJudge C)& dor'sdeclarationwasadmissible,first,becauseintervention.
Judge Oda considered thatEl Salvador'sDfxlmtion of underArticle63 of the Court'sStatutemay take place aa
Interventionof 15August1984was vagueanddidnotappear jurisdictionalstage,and,second,because itmayrelatetothe
to satisfy the requirementsof Article82 (b) and (c) of theonstruction of conventions which include the United
RulesofCourtfor aninterventionatthepresentstage,butit NationsCharterand theCourt's Statuteaswellasthe inter-
waslatersupplementedbyitscommunications d 10and 17 Americantreatieswhich ElSalvadorhad cited. If declara-
Septemberwhich might meetthe termsofArticle82.Tohis tions adheringto the Court'scompulsory jurisdictionwere
regret,theCourt,whichonlyhadbeforeittheviewsofNica- notto betreatedasconventions,thentheCourt should have
raguaandtheUnitedStateson thefirstsubfnissionofElSal- barredonlythataspectofElSalvador'sintervention.
Summary of the Order of 4 October 1984