Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASECglNeElRPJXN BGORDER ANDTRANSBORIIER ARMED ACTIONS
(NICARAGUA V.HORIDW) (JURISDICTION MD ADMISSIBILITY)
Judgmeno tf20 December 1988
Inthisjudgment,deliveredinthecasemincerningBorderactf Bogotato entertainthe Applicatiby theed
andTransbordeAnnedActions(Nicaraguav. Honduras), Cmvemmentof the Republicof Nicaraguaon 28 July
the Court found.unanimously,thhat1jurisdictionto 1986;
entertain theAp~licabionfild- by ~icam$unani-, "(2) Unanimously,
mously,that that Applicatasdmissible. "Findsthat the ApplicofNicaraguaisadmissible."
.
isasfollows:etextoftheoperativeclause~otfheJudgmeThe Court was composeds follows:PresidentRuda;
Vice-PresidentMbaye; JdgLachs,Elias, Oda, Ago,
“T#ECOURT, Schwebel, Sirbert Jennings, Bedjaoui, Ni,Evensen,
"(1) Unanimously, Tarassov,GuillaumeandShahabuddeen.
"FindsthatithasjurisdictionunderArticleXXXI ofthee NagendmSingh, who died unexpectedlyon 11
Continued onnext pageDecember 1988had participatedfully in the:case up to the jurisdictionmade bytheParties under Article36ofthe Stat-
dateofhisdeath. Uteof the Court. Nicaraguaclaims tobe entitled to found
jwhile Hondurasassertsthat that Declaratiohasbeenmodi-
:c . , fiedbya subsequentDeclaration,madeon212May1986and
* * " depositedwiththeSecretary-Generalof the UnitedNations
priortothe filingofthe ApplicationbyNicaragua.
SchwebelandShahabuddeen appendedationsepm:ateopinionsto BogotB,thatPactis governing,theCourtfirstexaminesthetof
theJudgment. questioilwhetherit hasjurisdiction underArticleXXXIof
thePact.
In these opinions the Judges concerned stated and
explained the position they adopted in regard to certain B. ThePactofBogotd
points dealtwithintheJudgment. (paras.28-47)
:r Honduras maintainsin its Memorial thatthe Pact "does
* * not provideanybasisfor thejurisdictionof the .. .Court"
andputs forward twoseriesof argumentsin supportof that
Proceedingsand Submissiono sfthe Parties statement.
(paras. 1-15) (i) ArticleXXXIofthePactofBogotd
The Courtbeginsby recal~itulating the variousstagesin (paras. 29-41)
the proceedings,recalling that the presenc:aseconcernsa ~i~~i~ts,interpretationof~ ~ ~XlX~XIof.thehct isthat,
dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras regarding the for a Sf:ateparty to the Pact whichhas made a declaration
allegedactivitiesof armedbands,saidto beoperatingfrom underArticle36,paragraph2,oftheStatute,the extentofthe
Honduras,on the borderbenveenHondurasandNicaragua jurisdictionof the CourtunderArticleXXXIof the Pactis
andin~icaraguanterritory.bitthesuggestionof Honduras, determinedby that declaration, and by any reservations
agreedtoby~icaragua,thepresentphaseof1:he~rmeedings appendedto it. It also maintains thatany modificationor
is devoted,inaccordance withan Ordermaib by theCourt ofsuch a declarationwhichisvalidunderhicle
on22October 1986,solelyto1 theissuesofthejurisdictionof 36, paragraph2, of the statut es equallyeffectiveunder
theCourtandtheadmissibilityoftheApplics~tion. ArticleXXXIofthePact.Hondurashas,however,giventwo
successive interpretationsof ArticleXXXZ,claiming ini-
BurdenofProof tiallythattoaffordjurisdictionitmustbesupplementedbya
(para.16) declarationof acceptanceof compulsoryjurisdiction and
subsequentlythatitcanbesosupplementedbutneed notbe.
I. TheQuestionof theJurisdictionof the #Courtto Enter- Thecourt considersthat the fimtinterpretationadvanced
faintheDispute byHonduras- thatArticleXXXI mustbesupplementedbya
(paras. 17-48) declaration-is incompatiblewith the actual terms of the
Article.As regardsthe secondHonduraninterpretation,the
A. Thetwotitles ofjuristi'ictreliedon: Courtnotesthe two readingsof ArticleXXXIproposedby
(paras.17-27) the ParRies:as a treaty provisionconferringjurisdictionin
Nicaraguarefers, as the basis of thejuriisdict:iof the accordancewithArticle36,paragraph1,oftheStatuteoras
Court,to a collectivedeclarationof acceptanceof compulsory juris-
provisions oArticle ofthe PdCtOfE)ogotsland dictionunder paragraph 2of thatArticle.Even onthe latter
totheDeclarationsmadebytheRepublic ofNicaragua and interpretation,however, thedeclaration,havingbeenincor-
the of Hondurasres~ctivel~l, the accordmcc with thedctof Boprovidedfor in the Pact itself.
jurisdiction of the Court as providedfor in hide 36.
paragraphs 1and2, respectivelyoftheStatute'" Howev,sr,Micle XXXInowhereenvisagesthat the
ArticleXXXIofthe PactofElogot6providesasfollows: taking entered into by the parties to the Pact might be
amendedby meansof a unilateral declaration made subse-
"In conformitywith Article 36, paragraph2, of the quently underthe Statute,and the reference to Article 36,
StatuteoftheInternationalCourtofJustice:,theHighCon- paragraph2, oftheStatuteisinsufficientinitselftohavethat
trastingPartiesdeclarethat theyrecognizjs,in relationto effect.
com~ulsoryi~sofacto, withouthe necesisityof mYSPe- as The factthat thePactdefineswithprecision theobligations
cid agreement SO longasthepresentTreatyisinforce,in of the parties lendsparticularsignificanceto theabsenceof
alldisputesofajuridicalnaturethatariseanon&Jthemcon- my intlicationof that kind. The commitlnentin Article
cerning: =XI appliesrationemateriaetothedisputesenumeratedin
thattext; it relatesrationepersonaeto the AmericanStates
"(a) theinterpretationofa treaty; partiesto the Pact;it remainsvalidrationetemporisfor as
"(b) any questionofinternationallaw; States.Moreover,someprovisionsoftheTreaty(Arts.V,VIthose
"(c) the existenceof any fact which,.if established, andVfi)restrictthescope of the parties,commitment.The
wouldconstitutethebreac:hofaninternati~ona olbligation; in ArticleXXXI can onlybe limitedby means
"(4 thenatureorextentofthereparationto be made ofreservationstothePact itself,underArticleLVthereof. It
forthe breachofan internritionl bligation." is an autonomouscommitment,independentof anyother
The otherbasisof-jurisdictionreliedon I>yNicaraguais whichthepartiesmayhave undertakenormayundertakeby
constitutedbythedeclaratiollsof acceptanceofcompulsory depositingwiththeUnitedNationsSecretary-Generala dec-
193 larationofacceptanceofcompulsoryjuriisdictiunderArti- the commitment,at firstsight firm and unconditional,set
cle36, paragraphs2and4, oftheStatute:. forthinArticle'XXXIwould,infact, beemptied ofall con-
Further confirmationof the Court's reading of Article tentif,foranyreason,thedisputewerenotsubjectedtoprior
XXXI is to be found in the travauxprdparatoiresof the conciliation. Sucha solutionwould beclearly contraryto
Bogod Conference. The textwhichwasto becomeArticle lboththeobjectandthe purposeofthe Pact.Inshort,Articles
MXI wasdiscussedatthemeetingoftheCommittee111 of XXXIand XXXJIprovidefor two distinctwaysby which
theConferenceheldon 27April 1948.It.wasthere accepted accessmaybe hadto theCourt. Thefirstrelatesto casesin
that,intheirrelationswiththeotherpartiestothePact,States whichtheCourtcanbeseiseddirectlyandthesecondtothose
which wishedtomaintainreservationsincludedinadeclara- in whichthe oarties initiallv resortto conciliation.In the
tionofacceptanceofcompulsoryjurisdictionwouldhave to presentcase, ~icara~uahasurelieduponArticleXX~, not
reformulatethem as reservationsto the Pact.That solution ArticleXMII. -.
wasnotcontestedintheplenarysession.,andArticle XXXT
wasadoptedbytheConferencewithoutanyamendmentson C. Finding
.the point. That interpretation,moreover,correspondsto the (para.48:)
practiceofthepartiesto thePactsince948.Theyhavenot, ArticleXXXIof thePactof Bogot6thus confersjurisdic-
at any time, linkedtogether Article=XI and the declara- tion uponthe Courtto entertain the dispute submittto it.
tionsof acceptanceof compulsoryjurisdictionmadeunder For that reason, the Courtdonotneedtoconsiderwhether
Article36, paragraphs2and4, oftheStatute. it might havejurisdiction by virtue of the declarationsof
Underthesecircumstances,theCourthas toconcludethat acceptanceof compulsory jurisdictionby Nicaragua and
thecommitmentinArticle XXXI of the]Pactis independent Honduras referred tabove.
-of such declarationsof acceptanceofcctmpuhoryjurisdic-
tionasmayhavebeenmadeunderArticle36,paragraph2,of
the Statute. TheHonduran argumentas to the effectof the 11. The Question of the Admissibility of Nicaragua's
reservationtoits 1986Declarationonitscommitmentunder Application
ArticleXXXI ofthePactthereforecannol:beaccepted. (paras.49-95)
Four objections have been raised by Honduras to the
(ii) ArticleXXXZo Zfthekct ofBogorb admissibilityof the NicaraguanApplication,two of which
(paras.42-47) are generalinnature andtheremaining two presentedonthe
Thesecondobjectionof Honduras tojurisdictionis based basisofthePact&Bogota.
on ArticleXXXn of the Pact of Bogoti*which reads as Thejrst groundofidmissibility (paras.51-54) putfor-
follows: wardis that theA.pplication"is a politically inspired,artifi-
"When the conciliation procedurepreviously estab- cialrequestwhich.theCourtshouldnotentertainconsistently
lished in the presentTreatyorby agreementofthe parties withitsjudicial character".As regardsthe allegedpolitical
doesnot leadto a solution,and the saidpartieshavenot inspirationoftheproceedingsthe Courtobserves that itcan-
agreed upon an arbitralprocedure, either of them shall not concern itseKwith the politicalmotivationwhichmay
be entitledto haverecourseto the International Courtof lead a State at a particulartime, or in particularcircum-
Justicein the mannerprescribedin Article40 of theStat- stances, to choose judicial settlement. As to Honduras's
utethereof. TheCourt shallhavecompulsoryjurisdiction viewthattheoverallresultofNicaragua's actiois"an artifi-
in accordancewith Article 36,paragri%ph1, of the said cialandarbitrarydividingupofthe generalconflictexisting
Statute." inCentralAmerica", theCourtrecallsthat,while there isno
It is the contentionof Hondurasthat ,Wicle XXXI and doubtthat the issuesofwhichtheCourthasbeenseisedmay
XXXIImustbe read together.Thefirstis saidto definethe be regardedasPm of a widerregionalproblem,"no provi-
extentoftheCourt'sjurisdictionandthesecondtodetermine sion of the Statuteor Rules contemplatesthat the Court
theconditionsunderwhichtheCourtmayI=seised.Accord- shoulddeclineto takecognizanceof oneaspectof a dispute
ingtoHonduras itfollowsthattheCourtcouldonlybeseised merely because that dispute has other aspcts, however
underArticleXXXIif, in accordancewithArticleXXXII, important", as the Court observedin the case concerning
there had been a prior recourseto concifiationand lack ofUnited StatesDiplomaticand ConsularStaff In Teheran
agreement to arbitrate, which is not the situation in the(1.C.J.Reports 1980,P. 19,Para.36).
presentCase.Nicaraguaontheotherhandcontendsthathi- The secondgroundof i~dmi~sibility(paras. 55-56) put
cleXXXI and ArticleXXXn are two a~tO~O~ou~ srovi- forwardby Hondurasis that "the Applicationis vague and
sions,eachof whichconfersjurisdictionuponthe Courtin the allegationscontainedin it are not properlyparticular-
thecasesforwhichitprovides. ized". The Courtfindsin this respectthat the Nicaraguan
Honduras's interpretatioof ArticlX;r[XI Iuns counter Applicationinthe :presentasemeetstherequirementsofthe
to the termsof that Article. ArticleXXXlI makes no refer-Statuteand RulesofCourt,that anApplicationindicate"the
ence to ArticlXXXI, underthat textthe parties have,in subjectof the dispute", specify"the precisenatureof the
generalterms,anentitlementtohaverecoursetotheCourtin claim", and insupportthereofgivenomore than"a succinct
caseswhere therehas beenan unsuccessfulconciliation.It statementof the facts and groundson which the claim is
is, moreover,quiteclearfromthePactthat,thepurposeofthe based.
Amrican States indraftingit wasto reinforcetheirmutual
~0mlXlihnentwSithregardtojudicialWdelllent.Thisis SO Accordinglynoneoftheseobjectionsofageneralnatureto
conhed by thetravauxprdparatoiresof'theBogotaCon- missibility can beaccepted.
feretIce:the ~ ~ b - ~ ~ ~~hich had preparedthe dtaft Thethirdgroundofinadmissibility(paras.59-76) putfor-
theposition"thatthe procedureforthepeace- ~ald by Hondurasis based upon Article II of the Pact of
ful settlementof conflictsbetween the AmericStateshad Bog0* which reads:
tobejudicialprocedure beforetheInternatic~ClourtofJus- "The Highcontractingparties&cognizetheobligation
tice". Honduras'sinterpretationwouldhowever implythat to settle internationalcontroveiiies by regional pacific
. ,
194 procedures beforerefemng themto the'sec~dtyCouncil themselvesandbetween thoseStatesand thosebelongingto
ofthe United Nations. .-. withinthecontextof mediationtowhich theyweresubordi-
"Consequently,in the evf:ntthat a controversyhses nate.At this time, the ContadoraProcesswas primarilya
betweentwo ormoresignatoiy Stateswhich,intheopin- mediation, in which third States, on their own initiative,
ionoftheparties[intheFrencfhtext''&l'avi;sdel'unedes endeavouredto bringtogether the viewpointsof the States
theusualdiplomaticchannels, thepartiesbindthemselves concernedby makingspecific~ro~sals to them. ThatPro-
to usetheproceduresestablishedinthepresentTreaty,in cess~thereforwhichIIondurashadaccepted* wasasa result
the mannerand underthe conditionsprovidedfor in the ofthe presenceandactionofthirdStates,markedlydifferent
followingarticles, or, altern~ativelys,uch specialproce-from a "direct negotiationthrough the usual diplomatic
duresas, in theiropinion,willpermitthemto arriveat a channels". It thusdid notfallwithinthe relevantprovisions
solution." of Article1of the Pactof Bogota. Furthermore,no other
The submissionofHonduras ontheapplicationofArticle negotiationwhich would meetthe conditionslaid down in
I1is asfollows: thattextwascontemplatedon28July 1986,thedateoffiling
of the Nicaraguan Application. Consequently Honduras
Parties, the dispute cannotI= senled by direct negotia- couldnot plausiblymantain at that date that the dispute
tions,andthusNicaraguafailsto satisfyan essentialpre- bemeen itselfand~ i ~ ~ ~ ~as~d,efinedin the ~i~~~~
conditionto theuse of the procedureestablishedby the Application,was at that time capableof being settled by
PactofBogotA,whichincludereferenceofdisputestothe directnegotiationthroughtheusualdiplomaticchannels.
InternationalCourtofJustice:." nK Court considemthat theprovisionsof
The contention of Honduras is that the preconditionto cleIofthePactofBogotareliedonbyHondurasdonotcon-
recourse to the procedures.establishedby the Pact is not stituaebw totheadmissibilityof~ i ~ ~ ~ ~A~pvlication.
merelythatbothpartiesshouldholdtheopiniollth~thedis- Thefoldflhgroundof idissibilit~ (P-. 77-94) Put
pute could notbesettledbynegotiation,butthattheyshould fornardbyHonduras isthat:
have "manifested"that opinion. "Having accepted the Contadora process asa 'special
The Coun notes a discre~mc~ four procedure' withithemeaningof Article IIofthePactof
(English,French, Pntuguese and Spanish)of Article11of Bogofb,Nicaraguaispmluded bothbyArticle IV ofthe
the Pact,thereferenceintheFrenchtextbeingtotheopinion Pactandby elementaryconsiderationof gmd faith
of oneof the parties. TheCourtproceedson thehypothesis any other procedurefor pacific
that thestricter interpretationshould be used, i.e., that ituntilsuch time as thecontadon process bas been con-
wouldbe necessaryto considerwhetherthe "opli~ion"of cluded;andthattimehasnotarrived.,,
both Partieswasthatit wasnotpossibleto settlethedispute Article IV of the Pact of Bogofb, upon which IIonduras
bynegotiation.ForthispurposetheCourtdoer;notconsider relies,readsasfollows:
thatit isboundby themereassertionof the onePartyorthe "Once any pacific procedurehas been initiated,
other that its opinionis toa particular effect:t, inthe whetherbyagreementbetweenthepartiesorinfulfillment
exerciseofitsjudicialfunction,'fretomakeitsowndeter- ofthepresentTreatyorapreviouspact,nootherprocedure
minationof thatquestion onthebasisof sucht:videnceasis maybe commenceduntilthatprocedure is concluded."
availabletoit. It is commonground betweenthe Parties thatthepresent
The critical date for determining the admissibiyf an proceedingsbeforethe Court area "pacific pmdure" as
applicationis the date on which it is filed(cf. SouthWest conte~tiplatbythe PactofBogota,andthatthereforeifany
Africa, PreliminaryObjections, Z.C.J R.eports 1962, p. other "pacific procedure" undetrhe Pact has beeninitiated
344),and inthiscaseisthus 28July 1986. and notconcluded, the proceedingwereinstitutedcontrary
T~ascertainhe opinion of fiemes, thecour tsbound toArticleIV andmustthereforebe foundinadmissible. The
to analysethe sequence ofeventsin theirdiplomatticrela- between the Partieis whether Contadom
tjons; it first findsthat in 1981 and 1982the hzies had' processisorisnotaprocedurecontemplated IV.
engagedin bilateralexchangesat variouslevels including It is clearthat the questionwhetheror n~tthe Contadora
that of the Headsof States.1)roadlyspeaking,Nicaragua process can be regardedas a "special procedure"or a
sought a bilateralnderstandingwhile Hondlurasincreas- "pacific procedure" withitnhemeailingofArticlIIandIV
inglyemphasizedthe regionatllimensionoftht:prol>leand ofthekt wouldnothavetobedeterminedif sucha Pm-
heldout fora multilateralapproach,eventual1producinga dm hadtoberegardedas"concluded"by28.July1988,the
planofinternationalizatiwhichledtoabortiveNicaraguan dateof filingoftheNicmguan Application.
counter-proposals. The Courtthen examinesthe develop- ForthepurposesofArticleIVofthePact,noformalactis
mentof what hasbecomeknownastheContad,ora process;it necessary beforeapacific procedure can saidtobe "con-
notes that a draft of a "ContadoraAct for Peace and Co- cluded". The procedurein questiondoes not haveto have
operationinCentralAmerica"waspresentedbytheConta- failed definitively beforea new procedure can becom-
doraGrouptotheCentral AmelricanStateson 12-13Septem- menced.It issufficientif, atdateonwhicha newproce-
acceptedthedraft,butnegotiationscontinued,rtobreakdown dure is commenced,the initial procedurehas come to a
inJune 1986. prospectofitsbeingcontinuedorresumed.there appeartso be no
TheCourt has toascertainthe natureofthe]?rocedurfol- Inorderto decidethis issueinthe presentcase, the Court
lowed,andascertainwhetherthenegotiationsinthe context resumesitssurveyoftheContadoraprocess.Itconsidersthat
ofthe Contadoraprocescsould'bebetgardeasdirect:negotia- fromthissurveyitisclearthattheContadoraprocesw s asata
ingofArticleI1ofthePact. Whiletherewereextensivecon-n- standstillat the dateon which Nicaragua fiitsApplica-
sultations and negotiationstetween 1983 and 1986, in tary1987oftheMas Planandtheadoptionbythe fiveCen-ebru-
different forms,both among the CentralAnierici States tra AlmericanStates ofthe EsquipulasI1Accord,which in
195August 1987setintraintheprocedurefrequentlyreferredto casethe Partiesretaintheirfreedomofaction,andfullpossi-
asContadora-Esquipulas 11. bilitiesoffidingsolutions.
Thequestionthereforeariseswhetherthislatterprocedure
shouldberegardedashaving ensured the continuationofthe Separate OpinionofJudgeOda
Contadora process withoutinterruption,or whetheron 28 JudgeOdahasvsoted infavouroftheCourt'sJudgmentbut
July 1986 that process shoulde regardedas having "con- withsomereluctance.He suggeststhat, in viewof thecon-
cluded" for thepurposesofArticleIVofthePactofBogotb, textofthePactofBogotfi,analternativeinterpretationt,o the
anda processof a differentnatureas havinggot underway effectthat ArticlesXXXIandXXXIIareessentiallyintem-
thereafter.This question isof crucial importance, sinceonlated and that the conciliationprocedure providedfor in
thelatter hypothesis,whatevermayhavebeenthenatureof Article XXXII isa prerequisiteto judicial recourse, may
the initialContadora processwithregardto ArticleV, that also be tenable. I'he difficultyin confidentlyinterpreting
Articlewould nothaveconstituteda bar to the commence- the kt flowsfrointhe ambiguous termsin which it was
mentofaprocedure before the Couro tnthatdate. drafted.
After notingthe views expressedby the Parties asto the
continuityof the Contadoraprocess, whichhowever could Judge Oda, in the light of the background to the 1948
notbe seen asaconcordanceofviews astothe interpretation BogotfiConferenceandofthe travauxpr¶toiress,hows
of the term"concluded", theCourtfinds that the Contadora that the AmericanStateswhich participatedin the.Bogotb
process, asitoperatedinthefirstphase,isdifferentfrom the Conferencehad no demonstrable intentionof making the
Contadora-EsquipulasI1 process initiated in the second theCourt in accordancewithArticle36, paragraph1,ofthe
phase.Thetwodifferwithregardbothto theirobjectand to Sta.tute,orwouldcompriseacollectivedeclaratiofaccept-
their nature. The Contadora procesinitiadlyconstituteda ance of compulsoryjurisdiction under paragraph2 of that
mediationinwhichtheContadora Group and SupportGroup Article.
playeda decisivepart. In theContadora-EsquipulasI1pro-
cess, on the other hand, the Contadora Groupof States In conclusion, Judge Oda emphasizes the paramount
playeda fundamentallydifferentrole. Thefivecountriesof importance of the intention of the Parties to accept the
CentralAmerica setupanindependent mechanism ofmulti- Court's jurisdictior~,which is invariably requiredfor it to
lateralnegotiation,inwhichthe roleofthe ContadoraGroup entertaina case, andexpresseshis doubtas to whetherthe
wasconfinedtothetasks laiddown intheE:squipulasI1Dec- Court hasgiven thisparticularpoint all the wetuetoit.
laration, and has effectively shrunk stillfurther subse-
quently.Moreover,itshouldnotbe overlookedthattherewas Separate OpinionofJudgeSchwebel
the gapofseveralmonthsbetween the end a4the initialCon- Judge Schwebelstates thathis most substantial reserva-
tadora process and the beginning of the Contadora- tionsabouttheJudgmentflowfrom theCourt'streatmentof
EsquipulasI1process;and itwasduringthisgapthatNicara- theproblemofthe '"serial" naturofapplicationsbroughtby
gua fileditsApplicationtothe Court. Nicaraguainthree inter-relatedcases,thatagainsttheUnited
The Courtconcludesthattheproceduresemployedin the Statesin 1984and tihoseagainstHondurasandCostaRicain
Contadoraprocessupto28July 1986,the &.teoffilingofthe 1986.
NicaraguanApplication,hadbeen "conclu~led",withinthe In 1984,Nicaragua maintainedthatit made"no claimof
meaningofArticleIV ofthePactofBogotfi,atthatdate.That illegalconductbyar~StateotherthantheUnitedStates"and
beingso,thesubmissionsofHondurasbasedonArticleIVof that it sought"no reli.. .from anyother State". Never-
thePact mustberejected,andit isunnecessiuyfor the Court theless,in 1984,it madegrave accusationsnot onlyagainst
to determinewhetherthe Contadoraprocesswasa "special the UnitedStates,but against Honduras, Costa Ricaand El
procedure" ora "pacific procedure"forthepurposeofArti- Salvador.For itspart,theUnitedStates,whichclaimedtobe
clesI1andIV ofthePactand whetherthatpl-ocedure hadthe actingincollective self-defenceof thosethreeStates,main-
sameobjectasthatnowinprogress beforetheCourt. tainedthatthey wereindispensablepartiesin whoseabsence
TheCourthasalsoto dealwiththecontention,madeinthe theCourt shouldnol:proceed.
fourth submissionof Honduras onthe adrriissibilityof the TheCourthadrejectedthatcontention, andalsorejected,
Application, thatNicaraguais precludedalso "by elemen- inconsistentlywith the Statute and Rules of Court, the
tary considerationsof good faith" fromcommencingany requestforinterventionofEl Salvador.HondurasandCosta
other procedurefor pacificsettlementuntilsuchtimeas the Rica showed nodispositionto interveneandcouldnothave
Contadora processhas beenconcluded.In thisrespect,the beenencouragedto tlosobytheCourt'streatmentofElSal-
CourtconsidersthattheeventsofJuneIJuly3.986constituted vador. Nevertheless, Nicaragua,which made suchserious
a "conclusion" of theinitialprocedurebothforpurposesof charges againstthem, could have required Honduras and
ArticleIVofthePact andinrelationtoanyotherobligationto CostaRicatobedefendantsin Court sincein 1984theyboth
exhaustthat procedurewhichmight haveexistedindepen- adheredunreservedlytotheCourt's compulsoryjurisdiction.
dentlyofthePact. Itdidnot.
InconclusiontheCourtnotes,byreferenceinparticularto
theterms ofthe Preambleto successivedraftsof theonta- PromptlyafterJudgmentcame down against theUnited
dora Act,that theCorltadoraGroupdidnotclaimanyexclu- Stateson27June 1986,Nicaragua discovered afterall, con-
siverolefortheprocess itsetintrain. trary to its 1984 pleadings, thatit did have legal claims
againstHondurasandCosta Rica.If thecurrent caseshould
SUMMARY OF THE DECLARATI ONNDOPINIONS reachthe stageof the: erits,itistobeexpectedthatNioara-
APPENDED TOTHE JUDGMEN O FTHE COURT guawill invokeagainstHonduras, asit alreadyhas, thefac-
tual and legalindin,gsof the Court'sJudgmentof 27 June
DeclarationofJudgeLQchs 1986.
In response, theCourt, while rejecting the consequent
J~::!gLachsinhisdeclarationemphasizestheimportance objectionsofHonduras,rightlyemphasized that,
of pii:ceduraldecisions,and points outthat:in the present "In anyevent,it:isforthePartiestoestablishthefactsin the presentcasetakingaccountof the usuadrules of evi- be the moreprejudicialbecausecertainof those findingsdo
dence,withoutit beingpossible torelyoncansiderations not correspondto the facts. And to apply certain of the
ofresjudicatainanothercasenotinvolving:the same Par- Court's canclusionsof lawinthat casetothiscase wouldbe
ties(seeArt.59oftheStatute)." nolessprejudicialbecausecertainofthosecorlclusionsarein
It follows thatif, at the stage of the meritPartyto the error.
instantcase shouldendeavour torely on findingsof factof
theJudgmentof 27June 1986,theCourt willnotacceptsuch Separate Opinioo nfJudgeShahabuddeen
reliance.WhilethisisnomorethanwhatArticle 59requires,
it is important thattheCourtsizysit andstillmoreimportant Judge Shahabuddeenconsiders thatthe Judgmentof the
thatitgives effecttowhatitsays. Court (withwhichheagrees)couldbe strengthenedonthree
points relating tojurisdictandontworelating to admissi-
In Judge Schwebel's viewi,tis importantforanextraordi- bility.t:alsothinksthat theseaspectsadmitofmorespecific
nary reason. Toapplycertain of the findingsof fat of the treatmentandofsomeaccountbeingtakenoftheregionallit-
Court'sJudgmentof 27 June 1.986tothecum:nt CELW would eraturecitedbybothsides.
Summary of the Judgment of 20 December 1988