DECLARATION OF JUDGE ODA
1. 1should like to add a few lines of explanation in regard to my vote
in favour of the Court's Order constituting the Chamber to deal with
El Salvador's Application for revision.
2. Article 100, paragraph 1,of the Rules of Court provides as follows:
"If the judgment to be revised or to be interpreted was given by
the Court, the request for its revision or interpretation shall be dealt
with by the Court. If the judgment was given by a Chamber, the
request for its revision or interpretation shall be dealt with by that
Chamber."
The meaning of the expression "that Chamber" is not entirely clear. It
certainly cannot mean that the Chamber charged with dealing with a
request for the revision of a judgment should have precisely the same
composition as that which rendered the judgment. Under the terms of
Article 61, paragraph 5,of the Statute, a request for revision may be
made up to ten years from the date of the judgment concerned. Clearly,
in many cases it will be materially impossible to reconstitute a Chamber
in its original composition after so great a lapse of time. To require that
the Chamber to be formed to deal with a request for revision should have
the same composition as the original Chamber might thus in practice
render an application for revision before a Chamber impossible. That
cannot have been the Court's intention in adopting paragraph 1 of
Article 100 of the Rules.
The fact remains, however, that it is in general the judges having ren-
dered a judgment who are naturally in the best position to deal with a
request for the revision of that judgment. It follows that the composition
of a Chamber charged with dealing with a request for revision should be
as similar as the circumstances permit to that of the Chamber which ren-
dered the judgment in question. This in my view is one way in which the
term "that Chamber" in Article 100might reasonably be interpreted.
3. In the present case, El Salvador recognizes in paragraph 167 of its
Application that it is for the Court to constitute the Chamber charged
with hearing it, in accordance with Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Stat-
ute, and Articles 17 and 18 of the Rules of Court. However, in para-
graph 166 of the Application, El Salvador also quotes Article 100 of the
Rules of Court, adding: "This application falls within that category,
since the Judgment of 11 September 1992 was given by a Chamber." El
Salvador requests the Court "[tlo proceed to form the Chamber that will
hear the application for revision of the Judgment" and expressly asks itto "[bear] in mind the terms that El Salvador and Honduras agreed upon
in the Special Agreement of 24 May 1986" (Application for Revision of
the Judgment of 11September 1992,para. 170 (LI)).These terms read as
follows :
"In application of Article 34 of the General Treaty of Peace,
signed on 30 October 1980, the Parties submit the issues mentioned
in Article 2 of the present Special Agreement to a chamber of the
International Court of Justice, composed of three members, with the
consent of the P~zrtit'.~, ho will express this in a joint firrn to the
President of the Court, this agreement being e.\.srntialfor thefornzu-
tion oj tlzeclzan7ber,which will be constituted in accordance with the
procedures established in the Statute of the Court and in the present
Special Agreement." (Special Agreement of 24 May 1986, Art. 1,
para. 1; emphasis added.)
Since 1am the only Member of the Court still sitting to have been a
member of the Chamber which rendered the Judgment of 11 Septem-
ber 1992 in the Land, I.slandand Muritirne Frontier Di.\putc. (El Salvu-
dorlHondt~ra.~:Nicarligua intervening) case, 1ought in principle, in view
of al1 of the foregoing, to be a member of the Chamber that the Court
has just constituted to rule on the request for revision of that Judgment
submitted by El Salvador.
4. 1note that, under the terms of Article 17, paragraph 4, of the Rules
of Court:
"Members of a Chamber formed under this Article who have been
replaced, in accordance with Article 13 of the Statute following the
expiration of their terms of office, shall continue to sit in al1phases
of the case, whatever the stage it has then reached."
Examination of El Salvador's request for revision could potentially
continue over a relatively lengthy period, extending well beyond the end
of my third full term at the Court.
While 1deeply appreciate the continuing confidence shown in me both
by El Salvador (in its Application for revision) and by Honduras, it
would be neither reasonable nor advisable in view of my health for me to
remain in office for an indefinite period after 5 February 2003, the date
on which my current term is due to expire. The time will have come after
27 full years in office at the Court for me honourably to take my leave at
that date.
5. Finally. 1would like to repeat a comment 1have often made in the
past. including most recently in my declaration appended to the Order by
the Court in the case concerning the Frotztier Dispute (BeninlNiger)
made on the same day as the present Order. An nd hoc Chamber formed
under Article 26 of the Statute is essentially an arbitral tribunal. In order
for such a Chamber to be constituted, there must be an agreement by the
parties, before the Court decides on the constitution, not only as to thenumber of judges forming the Chamber but also as to their names.
Furthermore, the parties must jointly express that agreement when the
President, actingpursuant to Article 17of the Rules of Court, ascertains
their views regarding the composition of the Chamber.
(Signed) Shigeru ODA.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE ODA
1. 1should like to add a few lines of explanation in regard to my vote
in favour of the Court's Order constituting the Chamber to deal with
El Salvador's Application for revision.
2. Article 100, paragraph 1,of the Rules of Court provides as follows:
"If the judgment to be revised or to be interpreted was given by
the Court, the request for its revision or interpretation shall be dealt
with by the Court. If the judgment was given by a Chamber, the
request for its revision or interpretation shall be dealt with by that
Chamber."
The meaning of the expression "that Chamber" is not entirely clear. It
certainly cannot mean that the Chamber charged with dealing with a
request for the revision of a judgment should have precisely the same
composition as that which rendered the judgment. Under the terms of
Article 61, paragraph 5,of the Statute, a request for revision may be
made up to ten years from the date of the judgment concerned. Clearly,
in many cases it will be materially impossible to reconstitute a Chamber
in its original composition after so great a lapse of time. To require that
the Chamber to be formed to deal with a request for revision should have
the same composition as the original Chamber might thus in practice
render an application for revision before a Chamber impossible. That
cannot have been the Court's intention in adopting paragraph 1 of
Article 100 of the Rules.
The fact remains, however, that it is in general the judges having ren-
dered a judgment who are naturally in the best position to deal with a
request for the revision of that judgment. It follows that the composition
of a Chamber charged with dealing with a request for revision should be
as similar as the circumstances permit to that of the Chamber which ren-
dered the judgment in question. This in my view is one way in which the
term "that Chamber" in Article 100might reasonably be interpreted.
3. In the present case, El Salvador recognizes in paragraph 167 of its
Application that it is for the Court to constitute the Chamber charged
with hearing it, in accordance with Article 26, paragraph 2, of the Stat-
ute, and Articles 17 and 18 of the Rules of Court. However, in para-
graph 166 of the Application, El Salvador also quotes Article 100 of the
Rules of Court, adding: "This application falls within that category,
since the Judgment of 11 September 1992 was given by a Chamber." El
Salvador requests the Court "[tlo proceed to form the Chamber that will
hear the application for revision of the Judgment" and expressly asks it 1. Je souhaite expliquer brièvement mon vote en faveur de I'ordon-
nance de la Cour portant constitution de la chambre appelée a connaître
de la demande en revision d'El Salvador.
2. Le paragraphe 1de I'article 100du Règlement de la Cour dispose ce
qui suit:
((Si I'arrêtà interpréter oa reviser a été rendupar la Cour, celle-
ci connaît de la demande en interprétation ou en revision. Si l'arrêt a
été rendupar une chambre, celle-ci connaît de la demande en inter-
prétation ou en revision. »
Le sens de la secoindeoccurrence du mot «celle-ci» n'est pas tout a fait
clair. Il ne peut certainement vouloir dire que la chambre chargée de
connaître d'une dem~andeen revision d'un arrêt doit être composéeexac-
tement de la mêmemanière que celle qui a rendu I'arrêt. Aux termesdu
paragraphe 5 de I'article 61 du Statut, une demande en revision peut être
forméejusqu'à dix ans après la date du prononcé de I'arrêt.De toute évi-
dence, après une si longue période, il est bien souvent impossible de
reconstituer une chambre selon sa composition initiale. Ainsi, dans la
pratique, si l'on exigeait que la chambre appelée a connaître d'une
demande en revisiori ait la mêmecomposition que la chambre d'origine,
la présentation de semblables demandes pourrait devenir impossible.
Telle ne pouvait êtrel'intention de la Cour lorsqu'elle a adopté le para-
graphe 1 de l'article 100 de son Règlement.
11n'en reste cependant pas moins que, de rnaniéregénérale,ce sont les
juges ayant rendu un arrêt qui sont naturellement les mieux placéspour
connaîtred'une demande en revision de celui-ci. Par voie de conséquence.
la composition de 1iichambre appelée 21connaître d'une telle demande
devrait êtreaussi proche que les circonstances le permettent de celle de la
chambre ayant rendu I'arrêten question. Voila, a mon sens, une inter-
prétation raisonnable du mot «celle-ci» employé dans I'article 100.
3. Dans l'affaire qui nous occupe. El Salvador reconnaît, au para-
graphe 167de sa requête,qu'il revientà la Cour de constituer la chambre qui
sera appeléeà en corinaître. conformément au paragraphe 2 de l'article 26
du Statut et aux articles 17et 18du Règlement de la Cour. Toutefois, au
paragraphe 166de sa requête,El Salvador cite également I'article 100du
Règlement de la Cour, et ajoute: «La présente demande relève de cette
catégorie, puisque l'arrêtdu 11 septembre 1992 a été rendu par une
chambre.)) El Salvador prie la Cour «de constituer une chambre appelée
à connaître de la deinande en revision de I'arrê» et lui demande expres-to "[bear] in mind the terms that El Salvador and Honduras agreed upon
in the Special Agreement of 24 May 1986" (Application for Revision of
the Judgment of 11September 1992,para. 170 (LI)).These terms read as
follows :
"In application of Article 34 of the General Treaty of Peace,
signed on 30 October 1980, the Parties submit the issues mentioned
in Article 2 of the present Special Agreement to a chamber of the
International Court of Justice, composed of three members, with the
consent of the P~zrtit'.~, ho will express this in a joint firrn to the
President of the Court, this agreement being e.\.srntialfor thefornzu-
tion oj tlzeclzan7ber,which will be constituted in accordance with the
procedures established in the Statute of the Court and in the present
Special Agreement." (Special Agreement of 24 May 1986, Art. 1,
para. 1; emphasis added.)
Since 1am the only Member of the Court still sitting to have been a
member of the Chamber which rendered the Judgment of 11 Septem-
ber 1992 in the Land, I.slandand Muritirne Frontier Di.\putc. (El Salvu-
dorlHondt~ra.~:Nicarligua intervening) case, 1ought in principle, in view
of al1 of the foregoing, to be a member of the Chamber that the Court
has just constituted to rule on the request for revision of that Judgment
submitted by El Salvador.
4. 1note that, under the terms of Article 17, paragraph 4, of the Rules
of Court:
"Members of a Chamber formed under this Article who have been
replaced, in accordance with Article 13 of the Statute following the
expiration of their terms of office, shall continue to sit in al1phases
of the case, whatever the stage it has then reached."
Examination of El Salvador's request for revision could potentially
continue over a relatively lengthy period, extending well beyond the end
of my third full term at the Court.
While 1deeply appreciate the continuing confidence shown in me both
by El Salvador (in its Application for revision) and by Honduras, it
would be neither reasonable nor advisable in view of my health for me to
remain in office for an indefinite period after 5 February 2003, the date
on which my current term is due to expire. The time will have come after
27 full years in office at the Court for me honourably to take my leave at
that date.
5. Finally. 1would like to repeat a comment 1have often made in the
past. including most recently in my declaration appended to the Order by
the Court in the case concerning the Frotztier Dispute (BeninlNiger)
made on the same day as the present Order. An nd hoc Chamber formed
under Article 26 of the Statute is essentially an arbitral tribunal. In order
for such a Chamber to be constituted, there must be an agreement by the
parties, before the Court decides on the constitution, not only as to the DEMANDE EN REVISION (DÉCL. ODA) 622
séinentde ten[ir] compte des termes arrêtésd'un commun accord par El
Salvador et le Honduras dans le compromis du 24 mai 1986))(requêteen
revision de I'arrêtdu 11septembre 1992,par. 170,al. a)). Ces termes sont
les suivants:
«En application du traitégénéralde paix signéle 30octobre 1980,
les Parties souniettent les questions mentionnées à l'articl2 du pré-
sent compromis à une chambre de la Cour internationale de Justice,
composée de trois membres. avec le consentenlent des Parti~s, les-
quelles l'exprimeront conjointement au président de la Cour, cet
accord étantes.sentielpour la,fbrmution tle lu chanlhre, qui sera cons-
tituée conformkment aux procédures établies dans le Statut de la
Cour et dans le présent compromis. » (Compromis du 24 mai 1986,
art. 1,par. 1; 1t:sitaliques sont de moi.)
Etant aujourd'hui le seul membre de la Cour à avoir siégéà la
Chambre qui a rendu l'arrêtdu 11 septembre 1992 en l'affaire du Dif;fL:-
rend fiontalier terrestre, insulaire et rnuritirne (El Sa1i~udorlHonlAltru.s;
Nicaragua (interve~unt), je devrais en principe, au vu de tout ce qui
précède,faire partie de la Chambre que vient de constituer la Cour pour
statuer sur la requêteen revision de cet arrêtdont elle a été saisiepar
El Salvador.
4. Je note que selon les dispositions du paragraphe 4 de I'article 17du
Règlement de la Cour:
«Les membres d'une chambre constituée en application du pré-
sent article qui ont été remplacécsonformément à l'article 13du Sta-
tut à la suite de l'expiration de leur période de fonctions continuent
à siégerdans toutes les phases de l'affaire, à quelque stade qu'elle en
soit lors de ce remplacement. »
Or, l'examen de la demande en revision d'El Salvador pourrait s'étendre
sur une période assez longue, bien au-delà de l'expiration de mon troi-
sièmemandat complet à la Cour.
Si j'apprécie profiondément la confiance que continuent de placer en
moi El Salvador (dans sa requêteen revision) et le Honduras, ilne serait
ni raisonnable ni souhaitable, compte tenu de mon état de santé, que je
demeure en fonctions pour une période indéfinieail-delàdu 5 février2003,
date à laquelle doit prendre fin mon mandat actuel. Après vingt-sept
années complètes de service au sein de la Cour, le temps sera venu pour
moi de quitter honorablement mon poste à cette date.
5. Enfin, qu'il me soit permis de réitérer uneobservation que j'ai sou-
vent faite par le passé, et tout récemment encore dans ma déclaration
jointe à l'ordonnance rendue par la Cour en l'affaire du Dijjérendjron-
tulier (BkninlNiger) le mêmejour que la présente ordonnance. Une
chambre a61hoc forméeen vertu de l'article 26 du Statut est essentielle-
ment un tribunal d'arbitrage. Pour qu'une telle chambre soit constituée,
un accord doit intervenir entre les parties, avant que la Cour ne se pro-number of judges forming the Chamber but also as to their names.
Furthermore, the parties must jointly express that agreement when the
President, actingpursuant to Article 17of the Rules of Court, ascertains
their views regarding the composition of the Chamber.
(Signed) Shigeru ODA. DEMANDE EN REVISION (DÉCL. ODA) 623
nonce a cet égard,rion seulement sur le nombre des juges qui compose-
ront la chambre, mais également sur leurs noms. En outre, les parties
doivent conjointement exprimer cet accord lorsque le président, agissant
en application de l'article 17du Règlement de la Cour, s'informe de leurs
vues au sujet de la composition de la chambre.
(Signé) Shigeru ODA.
Declaration of Judge Oda