Declaration of Judge Xue

Document Number
150-20110308-ORD-01-05-EN
Parent Document Number
150-20110308-ORD-01-00-EN
Document File
Bilingual Document File

52

DECLARATION OF JUDGE XUE

I regret that I could not find myself in full agreement with the majoritfy
of the Court on the second provisional measure rendered by the Court in f
its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures sub -
mitted by Costa Rica and would like to clarify my position on the vote.

At the outset, I wish to state that in reaching its decision the Court hfas
taken full account of the situation as presented by the Parties and givefn
careful consideration to each and every submission requested by them. I
entirely agree with the general thrust and reasoning of the Court in thef
indication of the Order. My reservation to the second provisional mea -
sure primarily rests on one point, which I consider of substantial imporf -

tance.
The second operative paragraph is based largely on the reasoning
stated in paragraph 80 of the Order, in which Costa Rica’s obligations
under the Ramsar Convention are invoked. Although the Ramsar Con -
vention is about environmental protection, it is an international treatyf

governed by the law of treaties. Unless otherwise provided in the treatyf,
the territorial application of a treaty is bound with territorial sovereignty
of each contracting State. The fact that the disputed area is situated ifn the
“Humedal Caribe Noreste” wetland and the same wetland is designatefd
under the responsibility of Costa Rica for protection under the Ramsar
Convention has direct bearing on the merits of the present case. The cur -

rent wording of paragraph 80 and the indication of the second provi -
sional measure are liable to be construed as a prejudgment on the merits
of the case.
In accordance with Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and its case
law, the interim procedure for provisional measures must not prejudge

any question relating to the merits of the case before the Court, and mufst
leave intact the rights of the Parties in that respect (see, for examplfe, Fac‑
tory at Chorzów, Order of 21 November 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 12,
p. 10 ;Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nica‑
ragua v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of

10 May 1984, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 182, para. 31; Frontier Dispute
(Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Provisional Measures, Order of 10 Janu‑
ary 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 11, para. 29).
The present case essentially relates to territorial dispute over the arefa in
question. To allow one Party to dispatch to the disputed area personnel,f
even civilian and for environmental purpose, would very likely lead to

undesired interpretation of the Order prejudging on the merits of the

5053 certain activities (dfecl. xue)

case and, more seriously, it may incline to aggravate the situation on the
ground.

With the good intention to prevent irreparable prejudice to the wetland f
for the protection of the ecological environment, the Court could have, f
pending the final decision on the merits, in my view, indicated the mea -

sure to both Parties with the assistance of the Secretariat of the Ramsafr
Convention, which is fully in line with the object and purpose of the Cofn -
vention and at the same time devoid of any possibility of involving the
merits of the case.
My vote is only meant to draw the attention of both Parties that the
second operative paragraph should in no way be construed as affecting f

the substance of the case, but a measure designed to encourage the Par -
ties, pending the decision of the Court on the case, to engage in consulta -
tion and co-operation as required by the Ramsar Convention, if and
when actions have to be taken in the disputed area in order to prevent
irreparable harm to the environment. For both countries that have placedf

their full confidence and trust in the jurisdiction of the Court for peafceful
settlement of international disputes, I hope that this vote will eventuaflly
be proven an unnecessary precaution.

(Signed) Xue Hanqin.

51

Bilingual Content

52

DECLARATION OF JUDGE XUE

I regret that I could not find myself in full agreement with the majoritfy
of the Court on the second provisional measure rendered by the Court in f
its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures sub -
mitted by Costa Rica and would like to clarify my position on the vote.

At the outset, I wish to state that in reaching its decision the Court hfas
taken full account of the situation as presented by the Parties and givefn
careful consideration to each and every submission requested by them. I
entirely agree with the general thrust and reasoning of the Court in thef
indication of the Order. My reservation to the second provisional mea -
sure primarily rests on one point, which I consider of substantial imporf -

tance.
The second operative paragraph is based largely on the reasoning
stated in paragraph 80 of the Order, in which Costa Rica’s obligations
under the Ramsar Convention are invoked. Although the Ramsar Con -
vention is about environmental protection, it is an international treatyf

governed by the law of treaties. Unless otherwise provided in the treatyf,
the territorial application of a treaty is bound with territorial sovereignty
of each contracting State. The fact that the disputed area is situated ifn the
“Humedal Caribe Noreste” wetland and the same wetland is designatefd
under the responsibility of Costa Rica for protection under the Ramsar
Convention has direct bearing on the merits of the present case. The cur -

rent wording of paragraph 80 and the indication of the second provi -
sional measure are liable to be construed as a prejudgment on the merits
of the case.
In accordance with Article 41 of the Statute of the Court and its case
law, the interim procedure for provisional measures must not prejudge

any question relating to the merits of the case before the Court, and mufst
leave intact the rights of the Parties in that respect (see, for examplfe, Fac‑
tory at Chorzów, Order of 21 November 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 12,
p. 10 ;Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nica‑
ragua v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of

10 May 1984, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 182, para. 31; Frontier Dispute
(Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Provisional Measures, Order of 10 Janu‑
ary 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 11, para. 29).
The present case essentially relates to territorial dispute over the arefa in
question. To allow one Party to dispatch to the disputed area personnel,f
even civilian and for environmental purpose, would very likely lead to

undesired interpretation of the Order prejudging on the merits of the

50 52

DÉCLARATION DE M meLA JUGE XUE

[Traduction]

C’est avec regret que je ne puis me ranger pleinement aux côtésf de la
majorité de la Cour concernant la deuxième mesure conservatoire infdi -
quée par celle-ci dans l’ordonnance qu’elle a rendue sur la demande en

indication de mesures conservatoires présentée par le Costa Rica, et j’ai-
merais clarifier ma position sur ce vote.
Je tiens d’emblée à préciser que, à mon sens, pour prendrfe sa décision,
la Cour a parfaitement tenu compte de la situation telle qu’elle a été
présentée par les Parties, examinant attentivement chacune de leurfs

demandes. Je souscris totalement à l’orientation générale qui a été la
sienne ainsi qu’au raisonnement qu’elle a suivi pour adopter cettef ordon-
nance. Ma réserve quant à la deuxième mesure conservatoire tienft essen-
tiellement à un point, capital à mon sens.
Le point 2 du dispositif se fonde en grande partie sur le raisonnement
exposé au paragraphe 80 de l’ordonnance, qui invoque les obligatiofns du

Costa Rica au titre de la convention de Ramsar. Bien que celle-ci concerne
la protection de l’environnement, elle n’en est pas moins une convfention
internationale régie par le droit des traités. A moins que le traifté n’en dis-
pose autrement, son application territoriale est liée à la souverafineté terr-i
toriale de chaque Etat contractant. Le fait que le territoire litigieux fsoit

situé dans la zone humide « Humedal Caribe Noreste » et que la conven -
tion de Ramsar place la protection de cette zone sous la responsabilitéf du
Costa Rica a une incidence directe sur le fond de la présente affaire. Lef
libellé actuel du paragraphe 80 et l’indication de la deuxième mesure
conservatoire risquent d’être interprétés comme préjugeanft le fond de

l’affaire.
Conformément à l’article 41 du Statut et à la jurisprudence de la Cour,
la procédure incidente relative à l’indication de mesures consefrvatoires ne
doit préjuger d’aucune question touchant le fond de l’affairef dont la Cour
est saisie et doit laisser intacts les droits des parties à cet égfard (voir, par

exemple, osine de Chorzów, ordonnance du 21 novembre 1927, C.P.J.I.
série A n 12, p.10 ; Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et
contre celui‑ci (Nicaragua c. Etats‑Unis d’Amérique), mesures co▯nserva ‑
toires, ordonnance du 10 mai 1984, C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 182, par. 31 ;
Différend frontalier (Burkina Faso/République du Mali), mesure▯s conserva‑

toires, ordonnance du 10 janvier 1986, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 11, par. 29).
La présente affaire concerne essentiellement un différend terrfitorial
portant sur la zone concernée par la demande en indication de mesuresf
conservatoires. Permettre à l’une des Parties d’envoyer dans laf zone liti -
gieuse du personnel, même civil et même à des fins de protectiofn de l’en -

5053 certain activities (dfecl. xue)

case and, more seriously, it may incline to aggravate the situation on the
ground.

With the good intention to prevent irreparable prejudice to the wetland f
for the protection of the ecological environment, the Court could have, f
pending the final decision on the merits, in my view, indicated the mea -

sure to both Parties with the assistance of the Secretariat of the Ramsafr
Convention, which is fully in line with the object and purpose of the Cofn -
vention and at the same time devoid of any possibility of involving the
merits of the case.
My vote is only meant to draw the attention of both Parties that the
second operative paragraph should in no way be construed as affecting f

the substance of the case, but a measure designed to encourage the Par -
ties, pending the decision of the Court on the case, to engage in consulta -
tion and co-operation as required by the Ramsar Convention, if and
when actions have to be taken in the disputed area in order to prevent
irreparable harm to the environment. For both countries that have placedf

their full confidence and trust in the jurisdiction of the Court for peafceful
settlement of international disputes, I hope that this vote will eventuaflly
be proven an unnecessary precaution.

(Signed) Xue Hanqin.

51 certaines activités f(décl. xue) 53

vironnement, a toutes les chances de conduire à interpréter malencfontreu -
sement l’ordonnance comme préjugeant le fond de l’affaire et, ce qui est
plus grave encore, d’envenimer la situation sur le terrain.
A mon sens, la Cour aurait pu traduire la bonne intention qui était lfa
sienne d’empêcher, dans un but de protection de l’environnementf, qu’un
préjudice irréparable ne soit causé à la zone humide en presfcrivant, dans

l’attente de son arrêt définitif sur le fond, la mesure en question aux deux
Parties, avec l’aide du Secrétariat de la convention de Ramsar, cef qui
aurait été parfaitement conforme à l’objet et au but de la cfonvention sans
pourtant avoir d’incidence sur le fond de l’affaire.
Mon vote a pour seul objectif d’attirer l’attention des deux Partifes sur
le fait que le point 2 du dispositif ne devrait en aucun cas être intferprété

comme ayant une incidence sur le fond de l’affaire, mais devrait l’être
comme prescrivant une mesure visant à les encourager, en attendant qufe
la Cour se prononce sur le fond, à se consulter et à coopérer, fcomme
l’exige la convention de Ramsar, si des mesures concernant la zone lifti -
gieuse doivent être prises pour éviter que des dommages irréparfables ne

soient causés à l’environnement. Pour les deux pays qui ont plafcé toute
leur confiance dans la compétence de la Cour en matière de règlfement
pacifique des différends internationaux, j’espère que mon votfe se révélera
finalement avoir été une précaution inutile.

(Signé) Xue Hanqin.

51

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Declaration of Judge Xue

Links